20517 replies to this topic

[Odanan]

TheArisen, on 11 December 2018 - 10:41 AM, said:

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

Nice art!!!

[Shadowomega1]

So my point stands about newer not always being better and D&D 4 was a good example when compared to D&D 3 and 3.5.

Will note I started on D&D 2 or 2.5 about a year before D&D 3 was released (was announced), never did finish that campaign as high school classes and 1 of the party members quit playing. My time on 3.5 was from Neverwinter Nights 2 and its expansions (though never actually finished those as well.)

[Sereglach]

Shadowomega1, on 11 December 2018 - 04:13 PM, said:

So my point stands about newer not always being better and D&D 4 was a good example when compared to D&D 3 and 3.5.

Will note I started on D&D 2 or 2.5 about a year before D&D 3 was released (was announced), never did finish that campaign as high school classes and 1 of the party members quit playing. My time on 3.5 was from Neverwinter Nights 2 and its expansions (though never actually finished those as well.)

Newer isn't always better, when it's executed poorly (D&D 4th edition). However, the other side of the discussion is that the grognards of Battletech are refusing to even consider the obvious fact that the TT side of the game suffers from extreme rules bloat and atrociously slow gameplay . . . which is killing its own IP on the physical tabletop side of play.

On one hand, Alpha Strike started to address the problem by introducing a form of "quick play" Battletech that flowed well, allows a literal battalion of mechs to duke it out in less time then it takes a pair of lances to fight in CBT (Classic Battletech TT), and had quick and easy to grasp rules, all while still maintaining reasonable depth and Battletech feel. It was openly attacked and trashed by the grognards on CGL's own Battletech forums; and they did nothing to stop it aside from trying to placate anyone who supported Alpha Strike with relatively hollow platitudes when the grognards went unpunished (speaking from personal experience).

On the other hand, HBS Battletech fundamentally fixed a few flaws of CBT (like initiative and combat flow), and the grognards even attacked HBS for doing it. The vitriol on their own forums from Battletech grognards was absurd and uncalled for. I don't think it was until the recent HBS panel on developing Battletech from the TT system (Gamescom, I think) that it even started to quell their outrage. However, HBS has shown that improvements to the rule system and excessive bloat can do wonders to improve the game. It's not perfect, but it's leagues better than the sluggish pace of CBT or even MegaMek. Due to the improvements, HBS Battletech is thriving, bringing old players back to the franchise, and bringing in a whole new generation of strategic game players.

The grognards of Battletech are stopping that from happening on the TT side of things. Overall that's just depressing for the IP, because they're going to eventually strangle the physical side of Battletech to death.

[Shadowomega1]

Sereglach, on 11 December 2018 - 06:02 PM, said:

*snip*

Thanks for expanding out what I tried to keep down to one line. As for BT TT rules my only personal experience was the wizkids table top (played till just after the Jade Falcon boosters), and the rules bloated and pieces got stupid op. IE Artillery with 3 tokens that did 2 clicks worth of damage each, with Armor piercing, could be stacked, and pretty much no drift. IE2 a Helio that could move 4 inch forward, shoot, move 4 inch back and still have 1 inch of movement left over, also had high defence + evasion which boosted it by another 2, leaving the helio virtually untouchable by even the best AA units in the game. Oh and no overwatch mode just to counter that bull.


*Edit add hit submit to early.

As for normal BT TT rules that pretty much comes from watching the Battletech tabletop simulator game over on apgamingreal's channel with Sidalpha. Their ruleset is Total warfare and A Time of War combined.

Edited by Shadowomega1, 11 December 2018 - 06:36 PM.

[Sereglach]

Shadowomega1, on 11 December 2018 - 06:32 PM, said:

Thanks for expanding out what I tried to keep down to one line. As for BT TT rules my only personal experience was the wizkids table top (played till just after the Jade Falcon boosters), and the rules bloated and pieces got stupid op. IE Artillery with 3 tokens that did 2 clicks worth of damage each, with Armor piercing, could be stacked, and pretty much no drift. IE2 a Helio that could move 4 inch forward, shoot, move 4 inch back and still have 1 inch of movement left over, also had high defence + evasion which boosted it by another 2, leaving the helio virtually untouchable by even the best AA units in the game. Oh and no overwatch mode just to counter that bull.


*Edit add hit submit to early.

As for normal BT TT rules that pretty much comes from watching the Battletech tabletop simulator game over on apgamingreal's channel with Sidalpha. Their ruleset is Total warfare and A Time of War combined.

You're welcome, I guess? We'll have to chalk it up to a misunderstanding. I thought you were actually defending the grognards, for a minute, with the "newer isn't always better line."

The WizKids "clickytech" (nickname a lot of older Battletech players use) attempted to make a newer "quick play" edition of the game, but really they just made an entirely separate game with mostly unrecognizable units that didn't go over very well. I dodged that bullet (my CBT group died before that time), but heard they were falling into the same rules-bloat ditch, to try to accommodate CBT grognards, before the game ultimately failed.

As for your TT experience, watching people play the tabletop simulator . . . I introduce you to one way people attempt (and ultimately fail) to combat CBT rules bloat . . . the dice box of doom:

This thing might handle the rolls for only one mech in just its shooting phase, but that doesn't cover referencing tables, special weapon rules, modifier calculations, terrain effects, etc. . . . let alone the movement phase that came beforehand or the melee attacks and heat/damage phases that happens afterwards. You're giving up the enjoyment of actually rolling the dice and having the suspense/thrill of the game just to try to bureaucratically handle the myriad of rules and rolls as fast as possible. This is what the TT grognards don't want to let go. This is just an example of what's killing the TT side of the game.

Edited by Sereglach, 11 December 2018 - 07:11 PM.

[Shadowomega1]

Sereglach, on 11 December 2018 - 07:11 PM, said:

*snip*

Yea that was brought up in one of the episodes 30 or 45 minutes of intro chatter and they all hated that idea and said the same thing about not actually handling the dice. Though it would seem like a good idea for warhammer 40k where you are rolling for 5+ shots for each unit on the table and you have loads of units on the table.

As for the example maybe I should have used windows Operating systems 3.1, 95, 98, me, xp, vista, 7, 8, 10 as newer isn't always better.

Also this is the first time hearing the term grognards, but I kind of figured it ment old nerds holding on to old ways.

Edited by Shadowomega1, 11 December 2018 - 08:08 PM.

[Sereglach]

Shadowomega1, on 11 December 2018 - 08:08 PM, said:

Yea that was brought up in one of the episodes 30 or 45 minutes of intro chatter and they all hated that idea and said the same thing about not actually handling the dice. Though it would seem like a good idea for warhammer 40k where you are rolling for 5+ shots for each unit on the table and you have loads of units on the table.

As for the example maybe I should have used windows Operating systems 3.1, 95, 98, me, xp, vista, 7, 8, 10 as newer isn't always better.

Also this is the first time hearing the term grognards, but I kind of figured it ment old nerds holding on to old ways.

Oh yeah, for a game like Warhammer -where the majority of the enjoyment comes from the strategy, moving of units, and the tactical play- having a few separated dice just for some burst-fire unit can be handy. That's very situational, but convenient. However, it's the fact that CBT NEEDS those to maintain some semblance of game flow is absurd (and it still plays REALLY slow, even with one of that size).

Grognard is a bit more than just some old nerd holding on to old ways. Yes, like I said, they've min-maxed, munchkin'd, abused, and "mastered" their obsessions . . . but it goes deeper. Some of these examples sound extreme, but I've had actual encounters that have gone almost exactly like these:

It's the fact that they'll blatantly refuse to acknowledge something is better, even if the evidence is before them ...
(Why would you want unified range brackets in Battletech! That's absurd and stupid! No one in their right mind would ever want to simplify that! It doesn't have anything to do with a targeting computer getting a lock on one target at a fixed range. It's because weapons are designed to fire at different ranges, and the targeting computers need to compensate for all of this at once, so you just MUST use a different calculation for each weapon on the mech!)

It's the fact that they'll attempt to destroy games of other editions just to try to keep their edition relevant ...
(SEE! True Battletech actually has rules for that, if this GM were decent he'd play True CBT, but instead we're all stuck at the table playing this crap knockoff game!).

It's the fact that they'll attempt to forcibly coerce players of other editions (or even entirely other games) to play their game their way ...
(We play CBT and only CBT around here, and ONLY with advanced rules! If you won't play that, then I promise you that you won't have a game anywhere in this area ever again! You should just smash those 40k units with a hammer, because they're worth nothing!).

That's the kind of things that make a grognard. It takes some truly toxic people to earn that title; and sadly CGL's "base" for the Battletech IP is just chock full of them.

[Odanan]

Sereglach, on 11 December 2018 - 08:52 PM, said:

Why would you want unified range brackets in Battletech!

Oh god, Battltech would be so much better with fixed range modifiers!

It is UNFORGIVABLE how this was never changed in more than 30 years.

These are the 2010's! People don't have 6 hours to play a simple match of Battetech, anymore. If the system doesn't modernize, it will die.

[Karl Streiger]

Odanan, on 12 December 2018 - 02:19 AM, said:

Oh god, Battltech would be so much better with fixed range modifiers!

It is UNFORGIVABLE how this was never changed in more than 30 years.

These are the 2010's! People don't have 6 hours to play a simple match of Battetech, anymore. If the system doesn't modernize, it will die.

no it would not be better it would only be different - AlphaStrike or BattleForce Range Brackets suck, its a fact.

its one of the key factors in BT, control the range.

OK I could imagine that you drop the dice rolling with damage matrix cards and fixed range brackets.
Say PB (2),Short(7),Medium(15),Long(24) and Extreme(open) range.

Then you have a table with the enemy defense mods and your attack mods - and you consider the range and apply the damage that is there.....

for example:
Your Phoenix Hawk uses a Large Laser and a Medium Laser both at range of 6

this is short range.
- attack mod: run - average pilot so - row is 6
- def mod: target moved 4, is in light wood and partial cover so column is 3

your phoenix hawk deal 2 point of damage for the Large and 1 point for the Medium (or you roll for both and need a 11+)
but this also works for the ranges from 3-7 always the same damage, where as range brackets as they are give you better chances to hit the target when you control the range.

The only advantage of the matrix solution is that you always deal linear damage. So its not so much important to have luck while rolling dice.

If you are interested i could give a link to the matrix damage tables (just started and think how to merge those tables)

[Sereglach]

Karl Streiger, on 12 December 2018 - 06:22 AM, said:

*snip*

Actually, I think unified range brackets would do wonders to help the game. Alpha Strike actually does show how it'll work well; and there's one optional rule that -if it was a standard feature of any given mech- would retain the classic feel no problem: Targeting configurations.

In targeting configurations, mechs are set up to have different base modifiers for various range brackets. The "stock" is 0 Short, +2 Medium, and +4 long. However, a "Long Range" setup has something like (don't have my books right in front of me) +2 Short, +3 Medium, and +2 long while a "Short Range" setup has something like -2 Short, +3 Medium, and +6 Long. They do better in their specialization, but worse elsewhere.

Even if Battletech weren't to completely unify their range brackets, they need to do something so that you're not making anywhere from 2-8 different target modifier calculations per shooting phase for any given mech. It's absurd. Regardless, while options are out there, the grognards of the CBT base utterly refuse to even explore them.

[Karl Streiger]

Sereglach, on 12 December 2018 - 09:11 AM, said:

Even if Battletech weren't to completely unify their range brackets, they need to do something so that you're not making anywhere from 2-8 different target modifier calculations per shooting phase for any given mech. It's absurd. Regardless, while options are out there, the grognards of the CBT base utterly refuse to even explore them.

Amen to that, have played a round with such old veterans last saturday, while it was pure joy they didn't want to play with more advanced rules like 20+ damage pilot-rolls, modified by weight class (a Assault is build to soak up damage its stupid see him go prone after he got some light hits.... or floating criticals.... boy snake eye and critcal hits on CT are a great way to speed up the game though.

The above mentioned matrix, would allow to have individuel weapon charts for individual mechs, without increasing the overhead of the game.
I think its possible to have a fluent game by reducing the movement types to 3 (for both offense and defense) - cover can be handled different and don't need to hit modification (partial cover, wood - soak up damage)
... well to little time but I might prepare something


Need to write a program to do the math and formating... however without real balancing:
https://docs.google....454&single=true

Ok main issue is that you will not be able to bring down any target with AC 5 shots at longer ranges... a ton of AC5 ammunition might deal 20 times 1 point of damage. Its less a game of chances and propabilitys but risk and reward are obvious (maybe those damage values should be turned into attack values that needed to be rolled.... need to think more about it.... but better in a different forum or topic, correct?

Edited by Karl Streiger, 13 December 2018 - 01:09 AM.

[Sereglach]

Karl Streiger, on 12 December 2018 - 11:48 PM, said:

*snip*

For in depth conversation on the topic, yeah, probably more suited for somewhere else. However just as a side note (not like we've had too much to talk about recently . . . the last page or two has been about grognards and CGL's horrible PR moves and/or conduct recently), I don't think it's a big issue.

I'll just say that there's a lot of things that can be done. HBS Battletech and CGL's own Alpha Strike both show solid steps in the right direction. Battletech could be an amazing TT game and the potential is most certainly there. Sadly, the needed change and updating wont come as long as the IP is strangled and stifled by their grognard base . . . the "stewards" of the IP, as they'll declare themselves.

[FLG 01]

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

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.

The Sun Spider is definitely an extremely well designed Mech, especially when it comes to looks. I was somewhat indifferent to the Roughneck but I can respect it for what it is, even if I think this unit would have worked better in a FCCW or even Jihad-setting.
I can also see why PGI wanted them. Calling them vanity project is not necessarily a derogatory term as I do believe Alex and PGI had their fair share in the small BT/MW renaissance of the recent years, thus deserving their fair share of praise.

However I would be hesitant to attribute the failure of Roughneck and Sun Spider to those TT grognards. This fanbase is just too divided itself, and MWO's own fanbase is apparently quite different, despite obvious overlaps.
I mean, let's not pretend nostalgia for previous MW-games, especially MW:4, was not a thing around here. PGI originals are facing an uphill battle because they cannot rely on any nostalgia. From a pure gameplay perspective, this is unfair of course. But it is, what it is.

[Odanan]

New mech in a few days? What the heck could PGI bring now that is really exciting?

For the Clans, I can only think of the Fire Moth.
Other (not as much impressive) options: Hellhound (MW4's design, solving the issue for once) and Rifleman IIC. We jus got a Clan assault, so Stone Rhino could wait some more time.

Fort IS, there are the remaining Macross Unseens, specially the Wasp and Crusader. I would not be unhappy with the Longbow, though. And I still want to see the Argus someday in MWO.

4 mechs for IS and 4 mechs for the Clans. And that's it for me.

[Valdarion Silarius]

Odanan, on 29 December 2018 - 05:20 AM, said:

New mech in a few days? What the heck could PGI bring now that is really exciting?

Other (not as much impressive) options: Hellhound (MW4's design, solving the issue for once) and Rifleman IIC.

Rifleman IIC not as impressive? Odanan, I thought you were better than this.

Edited by Arnold The Governator, 29 December 2018 - 06:33 AM.

[Odanan]

Arnold The Governator, on 29 December 2018 - 06:33 AM, said:

Rifleman IIC not as impressive? Odanan, I thought you were better than this.

LOL!

Not as impressive as a Fire Moth release would be.

BTW, nice Clanner picture you found.

[Valdarion Silarius]

Odanan, on 29 December 2018 - 08:14 AM, said:

LOL!

Not as impressive as a Fire Moth release would be.

BTW, nice Clanner picture you found.

That man is the peak of clan genetic DNA splicing human evolution. Many Inner Sphere free birth toads are in denial and cannot contemplate peak perfection when they see it. With a head and a brain that massive he is probably planning how many ways he can fail another invas....

Going back on the Firemoth, it's one of those mechs that should have been released along with the Rifleman IIC to complete the entire MW2 line up. Unfortunately, without an unreal engine upgrade it's one of those mechs that PGI will have to make speed sacrifices to get in game. I personally won't care if it got a speed nerf, but I'm sure others will and it'll be hard to justify running it when we have the Piranha in game. The Firemoth D variant would probably be the one I would look forward to the most.

[Sereglach]

Bishop Steiner, on 30 December 2018 - 09:12 PM, said:

Naw... all we need.....

Is more Cowbell..... er... URBANMECH!
SO SAY WE (me?) ALL!!!!!

Actually, I really wouldn't mind the UM-R80. The prospect of making a pocket Awesome, with a pair of Snub PPCs and ECM, could be a lot of fun.

Also if we were to get the tech required in MWO . . . I'd love the R93 . . . a plasma rifle and 12 tons of Hardened Armor (50% damage reduction . . . basically double armor effectiveness). Just imagine that with the Urbie Quriks! It'd have the equivalent of 100 points of frontal CT armor if you run 30 points on the front plus the 20pt quirk (not to mention the skill tree). I doubt the IS would retain those kinds of quirks if we got that level of tech, but there's always the possibility; and just the thought of that kind of Urbie is hilariously entertaining.

[Bishop Steiner]

Sereglach, on 30 December 2018 - 11:38 PM, said:

Actually, I really wouldn't mind the UM-R80. The prospect of making a pocket Awesome, with a pair of Snub PPCs and ECM, could be a lot of fun.

Also if we were to get the tech required in MWO . . . I'd love the R93 . . . a plasma rifle and 12 tons of Hardened Armor (50% damage reduction . . . basically double armor effectiveness). Just imagine that with the Urbie Quriks! It'd have the equivalent of 100 points of frontal CT armor if you run 30 points on the front plus the 20pt quirk (not to mention the skill tree). I doubt the IS would retain those kinds of quirks if we got that level of tech, but there's always the possibility; and just the thought of that kind of Urbie is hilariously entertaining.

oh man I want hardened armor... and I-JJS and Partial Wings. The 100X in the post uses all that with a SN-PPC.... the hardened armor means it's stuck to 23 Kph top land speed..... but instead it uses the I-JJs and Partial wing to scoot all over the place.

[Sereglach]

Bishop Steiner, on 31 December 2018 - 09:36 AM, said:

oh man I want hardened armor... and I-JJS and Partial Wings. The 100X in the post uses all that with a SN-PPC.... the hardened armor means it's stuck to 23 Kph top land speed..... but instead it uses the I-JJs and Partial wing to scoot all over the place.

Amen to the hardened armor. We need some actual defensive options in MWO.

Improved JJ would be easy for PGI to implement. If all else fails they just double the number of standard JJ on the variant. After all, iJJ are simply double the tonnage and crits. Of course they need to fix jump jets, first, but that's another matter entirely.

The partial wing, on the other hand . . . that might get messy. However, now all I can imagine is an Urbie with a Spoiler bolt-on.