20517 replies to this topic

[Sereglach]

CycKath, on 08 December 2018 - 08:10 PM, said:

It will be the same as the Cresent Hawks games vs Spotlight Cresent Hawks, it won't be a perfect match for what happened in the game but it will be close, and its part of the reason why the book focuses on what happens after the game too.

What you're talking about, though, was when everything was still owned under one roof. It's not like that anymore.

To add clarity to why this is unsettling for the IP and off-putting for Battletech fans:

In a best case scenario, they're attempting to do some legalese double-speak and say it's not canon (with a big nudge-nudge-wink-wink), while at the same time telling the fanbase that it is canon and to treat it as such. In a worst case scenario this is outright lying to the fans, on stage, at the "big" convention for the Battletech IP; and then releasing a "correction" at a later date, in a subdued fashion, and hoping that the fan base blindly buys the "related" products. Sadly, regardless of the case, in the end it will mean that CGL products will contain nothing directly connected to the video games; and that'll leave the fanbase angry and unhappy about the CGL products.

In addition, before anyone says, "Well, the HBS stuff is just ideas." Remember that they went to a part of the Inner Sphere with no lore, no governments, no factions, and no specific characters written for it. That means that everything created was created BY HBS and FOR HBS . . . all for the video game side of the IP. According to CGL's "corrective" statement, that means that they can't actually touch it. That would mean that the Aurigan Reach "lore book" isn't going to be connected to the game in any way, for people who were hoping for that; and even the naming might be only loosely related. Therefore, IF CGL secured some kind of license to make the connection a reality, then that'd mean they'd already have a means of establishing license connections to unify lore, mechs, etc. between Microsoft and Topps (the two respective owners of the electronic and physical sides of the game, who the sub-licensees would need to go through) and they're just employing selective unification for the sake of alienating a section of Battletech fans. That doesn't make the situation or image of CGL any better in that case, either.

[CycKath]

Nothing has really changed though, the games have their own canon and TT (whether FASA, Fanpro or CGL) has the own canon, its just the separation got larger with FASA dying and license being split up. But even with that they do try to ensure commonality.

The MW4 Thanatos is not the TT Thanatos, but its close. The Aurigan Reach of the game and upcoming book will not be a perfect match, but it will be close.

[Sereglach]

CycKath, on 08 December 2018 - 08:37 PM, said:

Nothing has really changed though, the games have their own canon and TT (whether FASA, Fanpro or CGL) has the own canon, its just the separation got larger with FASA dying and license being split up. But even with that they do try to ensure commonality.

They ensured commonality because they were all under one roof at the time. Reread CGL's "correction" post. They're saying that they cannot, under any circumstances, use original material written for the electronic games in their tabletop games.

In the days of Crescent Hawks they could make things reach a commonality because everything was under one roof. MW4 was originally co-developed between FASA and Microsoft, before everything fell apart for FASA, so things were smoothed out to at least ensure that there was commonality met in mechs, lore, etc. That doesn't exist anymore, at all. The ownership of the IP has a hard-line split between electronic and physical mediums between Microsoft and Topps, respectively.

Therefore, what I'm saying in the prior post still very much applies, and CGLs statements and actions at MechCon -and afterwards- doesn't put them in a good light, no matter how you look at it. It's going to come back and haunt them, especially if PGI's MW5 is a big hit and/or the Aurigan Reach book doesn't live up to HBS's Battletech.

[FLG 01]

Sereglach, on 08 December 2018 - 08:52 PM, said:

They're saying that they cannot, under any circumstances, use original material written for the electronic games in their tabletop games.

They only said they cannot use the "PGI designs". That very speficially refers to Roughneck, Sunspider, and Corsair (probably the PGI variants, too); it makes no mention of other video game content.

I do agree it is a bit strange that CGL excludes a Roughneck but eagerly includes House Arano. Not knowing legal details, I don't want to speculate about this aspect of product management. I also don't know what happened at MechCon exactly; perhaps they had CGL's official blessing, or perhaps someone was just overzealous after having used a common office printer and a RS template (that's really easy to do) without CGL suing them.

If I were to speculate, I'd say the "different objectives and customer bases"-part of the explanation is important. Adrian said that CGL and PGI are two different companies with different licences, objectives, and customer bases.
The Corsair is a hot mess in terms of lore, and while it makes at least some sense for PGI's plans, I can see why CGL has little interest in it. The Aurigan Reach is also a retcon but it still makes more sense for CGL and the needs of their player base.

Just to make one thing clear: I am not against PGI originals per se. However, I do believe the Corsair pushed the concept too far. If they had made it the bigger, less well known brother of the Brigand (perhaps an ultimately failed small series, forgotten during the fires of the Jihad), things might have gone a lot smoother. But no... it had to be a SW-era unit to be used in MW:5, and they had to fill it with LosTech so that it sells better in MWO. Just too much.

[Sereglach]

FLG 01, on 10 December 2018 - 09:37 AM, said:

*snip*

To me, the big offense here is the double speak and/or outright lying of CGL at MechCon and afterwards. After all, regardless of origin, you don't have your officially licensed and sponsored demo teams using PGI assets -with a PGI based model- call it all official and allow it to be used at the table . . . only to turn around after the event, say it's not official in any way, and say it's not "canon". They were touting that thing as canon from the second it announced, and touting all of the joint-effort lore being created between CGL -on the physical side- and PGI (for MW5) and HBS -on the digital side- as canon the entire time they were at the event.

Right now, regardless of retcon effects or anything else lore related, CGL has just walked themselves into a hot mess of completely unnecessary BS for the sake of drumming up hype for their own products. That's just entirely uncalled for, poor form in treatment of -and dishonesty towards- the customer base, and bad business practice.

Like I said before, I hate the Corsair . . . it's looks . . . lore . . . everything (although at least its complexity shows why the art team skipped a November mech announcement). However, you don't market something one way during the big joint-company announcement only to mumble under your breath, after the event, that everything you said on stage -and at your demo team tables during the event- was a big fat lie.

[Odanan]

Don't you guys consider the hypotheses that PGI doesn't want their (new) mechs canonized? That way they can explore these designs in any way they want (miniatures, t-shirts...).

[Grus]

Stone Rhino
Commando IIC

both of these would be excellent additions after the WHIIC. Im still nit sold on that 80 tonner though.

[Sereglach]

Odanan, on 10 December 2018 - 04:14 PM, said:

Don't you guys consider the hypotheses that PGI doesn't want their (new) mechs canonized? That way they can explore these designs in any way they want (miniatures, t-shirts...).

Yep, they already explored it, and found out that everything physical must go through Topps. The only way they get away with any physical merchandise is if its association is with MechCon FIRST and Battletech SECOND; and only in limited quantities as con-exclusives. Otherwise they can't do it. That's why they specifically make their physical merchandise for and about MechCon.

Its the same reason why MegaMek, SSW, and the MUL are all completely free. CGL cannot, under any circumstances, make any electronic media (standalone software) for the Battletech IP, and sell it. The rights to do that is all owned by Microsoft. They get away with e-books because they're primary association is with a physical medium of being books and not as a form of actual standalone digital software (aka, an e-book is just a digital document that can be consumed in many forms, including being printed on demand . . . it's not an actual software program/application/"app").

Edited by Sereglach, 10 December 2018 - 04:32 PM.

[FLG 01]

Odanan, on 10 December 2018 - 04:14 PM, said:

Don't you guys consider the hypotheses that PGI doesn't want their (new) mechs canonized? That way they can explore these designs in any way they want (miniatures, t-shirts...).

Actually, no, not at all. They are simply not popular enough. Russ admitted the Roughneck was a commercial failure; I doubt the Sun Spider did any better, and it is not like the Corsair was met with universal praise. The TT BT and HBS BT people care even less.

Let's face it, they are PGI's vanity project, and everybody knows it. That was fine for one IS and one Clan design, probably even deserved. But it was never more than that.

[TheArisen]

FLG 01, on 10 December 2018 - 05:17 PM, said:

Actually, no, not at all. They are simply not popular enough. Russ admitted the Roughneck was a commercial failure; I doubt the Sun Spider did any better, and it is not like the Corsair was met with universal praise. The TT BT and HBS BT people care even less.

Let's face it, they are PGI's vanity project, and everybody knows it. That was fine for one IS and one Clan design, probably even deserved. But it was never more than that.

This makes me sad because the Roughneck is a seriously good mech.

[Bishop Steiner]

TheArisen, on 10 December 2018 - 07:13 PM, said:

This makes me sad because the Roughneck is a seriously good mech.

TBH, the Roughneck and Sun Spider are among the best looking designs in MWO. And I love my 2x UAC10/2x SRM4 Spidey. Sadly Btech has one of the most butthurt fanbases of any game, so no shocked they failed, despite looking and playign prety awesome. Btech Grognards will eventually succeed in smothering and killing TT btech.

Odanan, on 10 December 2018 - 04:14 PM, said:

Don't you guys consider the hypotheses that PGI doesn't want their (new) mechs canonized? That way they can explore these designs in any way they want (miniatures, t-shirts...).

They can' explore them however they want. Their license is solely digital.

[Sereglach]

Bishop Steiner, on 10 December 2018 - 09:54 PM, said:

Sadly Btech has one of the most butthurt fanbases of any game, so no shocked they failed, despite looking and playign prety awesome. Btech Grognards will eventually succeed in smothering and killing TT btech.

Can't agree with this more. There hasn't been a new edition in nearly 30 years and when they came out with Alpha Strike to compete with Warmachine, Hordes, 40k, etc. the grognards literally ran people from the CGL Battletech forums for talking about it anywhere but the Alpha Strike section (and there were a few people grognards who ventured in there just to badmouth the attempted new system). Not to mention, any talk of trying to update the game results in all out attacks against you. That's why I don't participate there anymore, even after a few PM conversations with some of the CGL guys who tried to smooth things over.

Also, it reminds me of the interview with Jordan, when he said that (paraphrasing), "Battletech was considered a casual and lightweight game when it came out," then laughed. It was true, at the time, because it was just intro-tech rules. Now the bloat is so bad the only way to actually play the "standard" rules -in a timely manner- is with MegaMek or via a video game; and yet the grognards refuse to give any ground. It's no wonder that HBS Battletech has been as successful as it has . . . it feels like what Battletech could be if it was streamlined into a new system.

I hope at least HBS success continues; and maybe if we're lucky MW5 will be successful as well. The IP could at least thrive somewhere.

[Jay Leon Hart]

Sereglach, on 10 December 2018 - 10:46 PM, said:

Also, it reminds me of the interview with Jordan, when he said that (paraphrasing), "Battletech was considered a casual and lightweight game when it came out," then laughed. It was true, at the time, because it was just intro-tech rules. Now the bloat is so bad the only way to actually play the "standard" rules -in a timely manner- is with MegaMek or via a video game; and yet the grognards refuse to give any ground. It's no wonder that HBS Battletech has been as successful as it has . . . it feels like what Battletech could be if it was streamlined into a new system.

This is something I'll never understand about TT games - people complaining about new edition rules.

Those old rulebooks still exist and your models didn't vanish, so just play the edition you and your friends want and allow some new players to fall in love with the hobby.

[TheArisen]

Jay Leon Hart, on 11 December 2018 - 01:07 AM, said:

This is something I'll never understand about TT games - people complaining about new edition rules.

Those old rulebooks still exist and your models didn't vanish, so just play the edition you and your friends want and allow some new players to fall in love with the hobby.

I guess for whatever reason people think that new rules invalidate the older rulebooks.

[Shadowomega1]

Or people can't not find the older rulebooks to use, while some only want to use the newest ruleset, not knowing how an older ruleset ran. D&D 3/3.5 vs D&D 4 anyone?

[Odanan]

Shadowomega1, on 11 December 2018 - 07:44 AM, said:

Or people can't not find the older rulebooks to use, while some only want to use the newest ruleset, not knowing how an older ruleset ran. D&D 3/3.5 vs D&D 4 anyone?

Except D&D 4 wasn't much of an improvement. D&D 5 (Next), though...

[Shadowomega1]

Odanan, on 11 December 2018 - 08:04 AM, said:

Except D&D 4 wasn't much of an improvement. D&D 5 (Next), though...

D&D 4 was where the totally fubared the Magic System right?

[Sereglach]

Jay Leon Hart, on 11 December 2018 - 01:07 AM, said:

This is something I'll never understand about TT games - people complaining about new edition rules.

Those old rulebooks still exist and your models didn't vanish, so just play the edition you and your friends want and allow some new players to fall in love with the hobby.

TheArisen, on 11 December 2018 - 01:24 AM, said:

I guess for whatever reason people think that new rules invalidate the older rulebooks.

The reality is the old editions don't vanish; and as people transition to new rules the old books tend to become easy to find, at least until they start to reach the "collectible" stage of their life. Sadly, any grognards I've known -ESPECIALLY when it comes to Battletech- don't want the rules to change because they've memorized, min-maxed, munchkin'd, etc. the current edition to such an extent that they see themselves a master of it. Therefore, if the rules change then they're suddenly not "masters" any more. They'll refuse to see the long-term gain of any improvements vs. the short term hurdle of learning new rules.

I've been primarily a GM, running D&D and other tabletop games, for over 25 years now, and I've run games all the way back to AD&D. With all of the grognards I've seen in any edition of a game or even any game system, the reasoning is always the same. They want it their way because that's what they know and they refuse to have it change. They even go so far as to demand that everyone acknowledge that their edition is the ultimate version for whatever game it is; and try to force-feed that to any other players they run into.

With grognards compromising the "base" of CGL customers for Battletech, Bishop hits it on the head . . . they're the most butthurt player base out there and one of the most toxic communities because of it. They're killing their own game because they refuse to allow it to grow and evolve from game-making lessons learned.

Odanan, on 11 December 2018 - 08:04 AM, said:

Except D&D 4 wasn't much of an improvement. D&D 5 (Next), though...

D&D 4th was so bad most players I knew considered the "real" D&D 4th edition to be Pathfinder. That's also how I played until 5th came out . . . as well as most active players in my area. Even the primary game shop I went to sold D&D 4th in a corner shelf, but had Pathfinder and 3.5 trade-ins right next to each other and prominently displayed towards the front of the store. The compatibility between the two systems was also prominently touted by the store owner.

However, 5th did wonders for streamlining the technical side of the game; and it caused almost a complete shift from Pathfinder/3.5 virtually overnight. I love running it. 5th is such a good system; and I'd encourage anyone interested in that kind of TT gaming to look into it.

Shadowomega1, on 11 December 2018 - 08:25 AM, said:

D&D 4 was where the totally fubared the Magic System right?

D&D 4th was where they totally FUBAR'd everything . . . yeah . . . everything. The core books even have some more traditionally common races (like Gnomes) listed as monsters and some exotic races (like Tieflings) listed as core races. It was so terrible, across the board, that it wasn't even considered being grognards to stick with 3.5 or transition to Pathfinder. WOTC legitimately botched 4th edition, which is why it was so short lived before 5th came out . . . even the company saw the writing on the wall and sought to fix it asap.

[TheArisen]

Who wants to come see the gun show?
https://mwomercs.com...support-thread/

[Odanan]

Shadowomega1, on 11 December 2018 - 08:25 AM, said:

D&D 4 was where the totally fubared the Magic System right?

D&D 4 was practically a video game. They managed to balance the classes (D&D 3.5 had some serious problems) and made the combat more tactical, but the roleplay was lost in the process.