315 replies to this topic

[Wintersdark]

Juodas Varnas, on 01 August 2015 - 10:45 PM, said:

I'm COMPLETELY the opposite.

I don't want a real-time game. i WANT a Turn-based, FAITHFUL representation of TableTop Mechanics!

Yes! While I'm not concerned about faithful adherence to TT mechanics (it wasn't that great of a system that it couldn't be improved upon) I absolutely want - prefer - a turn based game. Being turn based allows the game to be smarter, more tactical. As a commander,not a Mechwarrior, I want victory or defeat to hinge on planning and strategy, on my ability to command my assets effectively not my ability to frantically micromanage units in a StarCraft fashion.

Clicky games are for children.

Johnny Z, on 01 August 2015 - 10:59 PM, said:

I wouldnt even consider argueing with this really. I respect TT and turn based games as well. There are a couple new turn based games out, X-COM, Shadow Run and a couple others. Fine.

The problem with your statement is that a turn based Mechwarrior game just failed recently. Dont get me wrong maybe it was badly done or under advertised or what ever. But the "its time for TT turn based port" doesnt really hold water. Maybe you could have said "Its time for a good turn based TT port."

Jaeger Gonzo, on 02 August 2015 - 01:10 AM, said:

For me it was like too much story even.
Its like modern interactive novel book I would say.

The turn based Mechwarrior game that failed recently failed because of IGP, and generally poor design. It was just battles.

A turn based game needs much deeper strategy, needs to follow a war, not just a battle.

You need logistics, a campaign, salvage, management of assets.

MWT's failure had as much to do with its being a turn based game as Duke Nukem 3D's failure was due to its being a FPS.

Jaeger Gonzo, on 02 August 2015 - 01:10 AM, said:

Its like modern interactive novel book I would say.

I sure hope so.

[Johnny Z]

Wintersdark, on 02 August 2015 - 02:32 AM, said:

Yes! While I'm not concerned about faithful adherence to TT mechanics (it wasn't that great of a system that it couldn't be improved upon) I absolutely want - prefer - a turn based game. Being turn based allows the game to be smarter, more tactical. As a commander,not a Mechwarrior, I want victory or defeat to hinge on planning and strategy, on my ability to command my assets effectively not my ability to frantically micromanage units in a StarCraft fashion.

Clicky games are for children.

The turn based Mechwarrior game that failed recently failed because of IGP, and generally poor design. It was just battles.

A turn based game needs much deeper strategy, needs to follow a war, not just a battle.

You need logistics, a campaign, salvage, management of assets.

MWT's failure had as much to do with its being a turn based game as Duke Nukem 3D's failure was due to its being a FPS.

I sure hope so.

Its true what would X-COM game play be like without the grand "fighting the aliens" all over the world back drop and story linking the battle. How would Shadow Run fair if it was just stand alone levels battles.

This plays into what Mechwarrior Online is missing and its totally unrelated to this topic but had to be mentioned.

Edited by Johnny Z, 02 August 2015 - 02:41 AM.

[Jack Gallows]

Mechwarrior: Tactics was an abomination and I'm happy it was aborted. It's not like the non turn based 'mech games haven't had their share of failures like the horrid Mechassaults. MW:O certainly is only a half baked 'mech game with it's fair share of faults that keep it from actually being better than the mediocre bar it's sitting at (and of course, this is personal opinion.)

There hasn't been a good faithful representation in a long time of the table top besides Megamek which, while fun and in depth, is buggy and clunky. There have been dozens of 'mech simulators (and this backward half hybird FPS called MW:O,) comparatively and while the Mechcommander games were great (I prefer one over two, though,) having an actual turned based game is refreshing. Not a night goes by that me and the guys don't go, "you know what would be awesome and would sell? If someone took Megamek and actually made decent graphics/anims/story to go with it."

Can't wait for a turn-based Battletech game like the original game I started playing 20 years ago and haven't gotten in a digital format after the Crescent Hawk games came out. The new Shadowrun is pretty awesome and I hope they apply it and a bit more to this new game, it will make it pretty fantastic.

New fiction coming from Catalyst Game Labs as well as from Harebrained Schemes is exciting, especially considering we'll get to play some of it as the campaign. I can understand some people being upset at there not being any Clans, but I'd assume they want to let those be an expansion later on down the road since it turned the table-top into an arms race instead of a tactical game with political intrigue. Besides, haven't had a classic Battletech game sans Clans in a while.

My brain is jumping out of my skull waiting on the kickstarter. If this is even half as good as the Shadowrun stuff they did I'll be throwing money at it. (/hopes to see some of the unseen back in it!)

[Hans Von Lohman]

I would be happy if they went to a turn based game more like BattleForce/Quick Strike rules from the Strategic Operations rule book.

What are those you ask? They are rules that greatly simplified the game (it did not have hit locations, and a mech had between 3 to 10 armor points, and 1 to 4 internal points). BattleForce was meant to simulate larger battles between whole regiments, but each mech still has it's own stats, but moves as a single playing piece with a unit of 4-5 mechs. There is also Quick Strike variation where each mech is running around as a single unit.

I just played a game of MegaMek last night to see what I was missing, and even that 4v4 game against the AI was quite long and complicated, although the interface problems of MegaMek has a lot to do with that. However, you want to make most games combat scenarios last only about 20 minutes or so, and a faithful 1-to-1 rendition of BattleTech won't do that.

I won't be upset or surprised if Hairbrained Schemes goes with a simplified game of BattleTech turn based combat.

If you want to see what BattleForce is sort of like, you can download a starter set of rules from this page.

http://bg.battletech.com/downloads/

Edited by Hans Von Lohman, 02 August 2015 - 11:07 AM.

[Cylian]

Just hope they don't use the 'updated' look of the MWO Mechs. Tiny PPCs ... <shudders>

Edited by Cylian, 02 August 2015 - 10:42 AM.

[Hans Von Lohman]

If they're using 3D models for the game characters taken from PGI (yes, they're using them, there was a deal), then I would expect that BattleTech by HBS will be fully 3D.

[spectralthundr]

Johnny Z, on 01 August 2015 - 10:26 PM, said:

I dont know about anyone else, but I am not even remotely interested if its turn based. If it is like Mech Commander or Fallout tactics(which Shadow Run should have been. A real downer because those games look good.) Then it will be alot more interesting.

There is room in the market for a Mech Commander game thats for sure. How popular it will be will depend on the quality of the game.

At this point I am completely ignoring that situation since its tough to take seriously even for a hobby.

I'd be down for either or really. The X-com reboot Take Two/2k Games did proved that turn based can be done well and still be fun with plenty of action. I agree though, another Mech Commander game could do well I think.

[Johnny Z]

The description of the reboot is more Story than we have seen in Mechwarrior online so far. It would be nice to see some of that for this game and more importantly in game. Yes I am so glad the Galaxy map is in and looking good even for beta, but now some other glaring faults have presented themselves.

[BigMooingCow]

Cool, will it have ghost heat?

I bailed on MWO long ago when it was obvious that the game had drifted from Battletech and wasn't coming back. I come back to the forums every six months or so to see if there was some miraculous turnaround so I could come back to the game (and perhaps finally spend my premium time from my founders package), but am always disappointed at the further drift towards some sort of bastardized rules that don't resemble Battletech.

If this game has proper Battletech rules, I'll play it no matter the genre. I've been starved for Battletech for ages, with only MegaMek to keep the universe going for me.

I'm glad I stopped by to see how MWO is doing. Here's to hoping we don't get another Battletech-in-Name-Only!

[Tincan Nightmare]

Man I hopes this game goes well, was a huge disappointment in what happened to MWT. Would be cool if they added an Aerotech expansion later for it. Loved the Crescent Hawk games, and never understood how someone never created a PC version of the MechWarrior RPG considering the depth of the universe and the various options it would allow. Here's to more and more BT on the PC!

[MechaBattler]

BigMooingCow, on 02 August 2015 - 03:28 PM, said:

Cool, will it have ghost heat?

I bailed on MWO long ago when it was obvious that the game had drifted from Battletech and wasn't coming back. I come back to the forums every six months or so to see if there was some miraculous turnaround so I could come back to the game (and perhaps finally spend my premium time from my founders package), but am always disappointed at the further drift towards some sort of bastardized rules that don't resemble Battletech.

If this game has proper Battletech rules, I'll play it no matter the genre. I've been starved for Battletech for ages, with only MegaMek to keep the universe going for me.

I'm glad I stopped by to see how MWO is doing. Here's to hoping we don't get another Battletech-in-Name-Only!

Well considering it's not a first person shooter with all that it entails. I'd say they probably won't have ghost heat for a turn based game.

[Jack Gallows]

Hans Von Lohman, on 02 August 2015 - 10:24 AM, said:

I would be happy if they went to a turn based game more like BattleForce/Quick Strike rules from the Strategic Operations rule book.

What are those you ask? They are rules that greatly simplified the game (it did not have hit locations, and a mech had between 3 to 10 armor points, and 1 to 4 internal points). BattleForce was meant to simulate larger battles between whole regiments, but each mech still has it's own stats, but moves as a single playing piece with a unit of 4-5 mechs. There is also Quick Strike variation where each mech is running around as a single unit.

I just played a game of MegaMek last night to see what I was missing, and even that 4v4 game against the AI was quite long and complicated, although the interface problems of MegaMek has a lot to do with that. However, you want to make most games combat scenarios last only about 20 minutes or so, and a faithful 1-to-1 rendition of BattleTech won't do that.

Not having hit locations/etc would be dumb, at least in my opinion. We know we're going to be running pretty much just a lance so simplifying the combat to me would be nonsensical.

Megamek is long due to it's interface (nothing against the people working hard on it,) and Java's limitations/etc. 20 minutes would be too short especially for something turned based, 45 minute to hour long combat drops would be pretty awesome I think especially if the missions are detailed and fun.

gh0s7m3rc, on 02 August 2015 - 10:50 AM, said:

It has been stated that they'll be alike for having consistency on the franchise, however, this game will probably going to be in Isometric view like Shadowrun, so details like weapons sizes might be different. Also, HBS will likely introduce its own interpretation of the stats/balance (no Ghost Heat?!! ), so we can't expect the mechs and weapons to be just like MWO.

I am very eager to see/read everything they announce on Kickstarter as soon as it starts and throughout until its deadline.

At first, MW:O didn't have the crazy weapon hardpoint alterations and I don't think Battletech will either seeing as you'll generally really only be seeing stock 'mechs and if you can modify, it won't be how MW:O shows off it's weapons (poor catapults.) Just because it's using the same concept art, done by Alex Iglecias who also does art for the tabletop game (and had been prior to MW:O,) doesn't mean it'll have anything else to do with it. I expect it to be 100% different except for the concept art/etc.

Hans Von Lohman, on 02 August 2015 - 02:08 PM, said:

If they're using 3D models for the game characters taken from PGI (yes, they're using them, there was a deal), then I would expect that BattleTech by HBS will be fully 3D.

Thing is, I doubt they're using cryengine to power their game and probably just taking the concept art and art style and making their own.

BigMooingCow, on 02 August 2015 - 03:28 PM, said:

Cool, will it have ghost heat?

I bailed on MWO long ago when it was obvious that the game had drifted from Battletech and wasn't coming back. I come back to the forums every six months or so to see if there was some miraculous turnaround so I could come back to the game (and perhaps finally spend my premium time from my founders package), but am always disappointed at the further drift towards some sort of bastardized rules that don't resemble Battletech.

If this game has proper Battletech rules, I'll play it no matter the genre. I've been starved for Battletech for ages, with only MegaMek to keep the universe going for me.

I'm glad I stopped by to see how MWO is doing. Here's to hoping we don't get another Battletech-in-Name-Only!

Ghost heat and a lot of the arbitrary rules that PGI has implemented is because they can't balance a shooter based on Mechwarrior. All these issues don't exist really in the table top due to format and timing. This new game, while maybe not 100% table top, will probably be the go to for computer game Battletech for the foreseeable future if it's done well and had modding/community support built into it like Shadowrun has.

[BigMooingCow]

MechaBattler, on 02 August 2015 - 04:10 PM, said:

Well considering it's not a first person shooter with all that it entails. I'd say they probably won't have ghost heat for a turn based game.

I sure hope not. I don't want to stir up a flame war or anything, but IMHO, MWO was much closer to canon rules when I paid for my founders package, and it only started to drift with a series of bad design decisions that the lead designer was unwilling to roll back. More an ego problem than a design problem. Again, IMHO, and I don't want to come here and crap on the community. MWO can be whatever its designers want it to be. It's just not what I want it to be. I'm really bummed about that, but I've accepted that I'll never have a real-time Battletech sim until MWO is gone.

I thought the whole universe was essentially "Unseen" with MWO in play, so I'm really psyched to see that might not be the case soon!

[BigMooingCow]

Jack Gallows, on 02 August 2015 - 04:16 PM, said:

Ghost heat and a lot of the arbitrary rules that PGI has implemented is because they can't balance a shooter based on Mechwarrior. All these issues don't exist really in the table top due to format and timing. This new game, while maybe not 100% table top, will probably be the go to for computer game Battletech for the foreseeable future if it's done well and had modding/community support built into it like Shadowrun has.

It's true a turn-based game wouldn't have to have non-canon mechanics, but that doesn't mean it won't. I'm not even a stickler for canon, it's just the crazy reimagining of Battletech we've seen in MWO that would turn me off.


A new engine that leads to a pile of new games in the vein of Crescent Hawk's Revenge would be magic!

[MechaBattler]

BigMooingCow, on 02 August 2015 - 04:20 PM, said:

I sure hope not. I don't want to stir up a flame war or anything, but IMHO, MWO was much closer to canon rules when I paid for my founders package, and it only started to drift with a series of bad design decisions that the lead designer was unwilling to roll back. More an ego problem than a design problem. Again, IMHO, and I don't want to come here and crap on the community. MWO can be whatever its designers want it to be. It's just not what I want it to be. I'm really bummed about that, but I've accepted that I'll never have a real-time Battletech sim until MWO is gone.

I thought the whole universe was essentially "Unseen" with MWO in play, so I'm really psyched to see that might not be the case soon!

Every fan has a vision about what the game should be. And then there's what actually is.

[Hans Von Lohman]

My guess for what the gameplay will be like will probably be a system that is more complicated than BattleForce, but not fully detailed as BattleTech.

If I were to design my own, faster playing version of Battletech I would probably have a system a lot like BattleForce, but add some hit locations. Not as many as Battletech, but a mech would have five hit locations. Those are a single legs, a front torso, a rear torso, left arm, and right arm for hit locations. The head would be part of the critical hits results table.

[Steinar Bergstol]

MechaBattler, on 02 August 2015 - 05:33 PM, said:

Every fan has a vision about what the game should be. And then there's what actually is.

Oh, indeed. I do not envy any Developer who has to deal with a core fanbase of a franchise as entrenched, old and stubborn as us Battletech fans, because let's face it. We've never really been able to agree on anything except that pretty much all translations from TT Battletech to simulator/FPS has never been "what we were hoping for". If you ask us what _exactly_ we were hoping for you're likely to get a million different answers from a hundred different People.

We're not easy to please is what I'm saying.

[LordKnightFandragon]

Mors Draco, on 29 July 2015 - 06:09 AM, said:

I signed up for this. If it's Battletech I'm there! Can't wait for the kickstarter

I support this

[Hans Von Lohman]

Jack Gallows, on 02 August 2015 - 04:16 PM, said:

Not having hit locations/etc would be dumb, at least in my opinion. We know we're going to be running pretty much just a lance so simplifying the combat to me would be nonsensical.

Megamek is long due to it's interface (nothing against the people working hard on it,) and Java's limitations/etc. 20 minutes would be too short especially for something turned based, 45 minute to hour long combat drops would be pretty awesome I think especially if the missions are detailed and fun.

Thing is, I doubt they're using cryengine to power their game and probably just taking the concept art and art style and making their own.

Ghost heat and a lot of the arbitrary rules that PGI has implemented is because they can't balance a shooter based on Mechwarrior. All these issues don't exist really in the table top due to format and timing. This new game, while maybe not 100% table top, will probably be the go to for computer game Battletech for the foreseeable future if it's done well and had modding/community support built into it like Shadowrun has.

We can hope it is closer to the BattleTech board game, and judging a book by it's cover (of sorts) the name of the new game is in fact BattleTech. Not mechwarrior, or mech commander, but BattleTech. It is turn based as well.

As for the 3D models and Cry Engine, I don't think you need to worry. Models are not made for an engine specifically. I do some 3D artwork on my own, and the 3D models are made using completely different programs like Maya and 3D studio Max. They have very little to do with what the video game engines themselves, other than perhaps needing to tweak the 3D models to fix some odd shading, edges that don't smooth out properly, lights that don't work, or even textures that won't load properly (once had a problem with one game and textures until I figured out that the game engine needed the textures to be perfectly square and based on multiples of 2, aka 256x256, or 1024x1024).

As for hit locations, again I think what they're planning is probably going to be simpler than BattleTech rules, but more complicated than BattleForce?

We shall see.

I just think a 1-to-1 direct copy of the Introductory Rule book for BattleTech is too much to hope for (aka Mega-Mek set to 3025 tech).

[Lily from animove]

Johnny Z, on 01 August 2015 - 10:59 PM, said:

I wouldnt even consider argueing with this really. I respect TT and turn based games as well. There are a couple new turn based games out, X-COM, Shadow Run and a couple others. Fine.

The problem with your statement is that a turn based Mechwarrior game just failed recently. Dont get me wrong maybe it was badly done or under advertised or what ever. But the "its time for TT turn based port" doesnt really hold water. Maybe you could have said "Its time for a good turn based TT port."

yeah, MW, tactics you mean? well I guess there were 0 advertising for it, because I heard of it after it was dead, lol.

Edited by Lily from animove, 03 August 2015 - 12:58 AM.