129 replies to this topic

[Hans Von Lohman]

Ed Steele, on 02 August 2015 - 06:13 PM, said:

I really hope that they don't cater to the low attention span ADD crowd and dumb things down.

They might. In fact, I expect it. That simple word in their description of the game they're going to make, a "modern turn based game" seems to imply that they have some new rules on how the game will play rather than use an existing game's rule book, in my opinion.

Jack Gallows, on 02 August 2015 - 06:59 PM, said:

Getting rid of the hit locations seems to be a strange request. It's pretty core to the Battletech experience in a turn based scenario and removing the locations or dumbing them down seems to be....silly to me? It wouldn't really speed up combat that much and you'd lose that tense feeling when you start losing armor on a specific area and are trying to decide if you're going to remain engaged or stick it out.

I actually would prefer they stay as well, although having played another game called Front Mission 4 I can see the benefit of simplifying the locations.

HBS could mush the legs together to be just 1 location, the front torso being combined to be just one location, and so is the rear torso as well, and "head" is not a location at all, but a "head hit" thing that happens on the critical hit special results table.

This puts it halfway between BattleTech, that has 11 hit locations, and BattleForce, that doesn't even have locations at all. I think having just 5 locations might work: front torso, rear torso, legs, right arm, and left arm, and don't bother with internals. Just have the chance of a critical hit go up as the armor of a location goes down.

I would keep the turn scheme from BattleTech as well. Initiative phase, movement phase where the loser of the Initiative has to go first so you can react to it, ranged combat phase, then melee combat, and an end phase where the heat and some other effects change things for the next round.

[NocturnalBeast]

angryjohnny, on 02 August 2015 - 07:08 PM, said:

Mechwarrior tactics 2.0?

Just the fact that Jordan Weisman mentions that the game will be an RPG and pilot focused, I doubt that anything will be similar to MWT other than the turn-based combat.

Hans Von Lohman, on 02 August 2015 - 08:20 PM, said:

They might. In fact, I expect it. That simple word in their description of the game they're going to make, a "modern turn based game" seems to imply that they have some new rules on how the game will play rather than use an existing game's rule book, in my opinion.

"Existing game" LOL, the game is called "BATTLETECH" and is being made by the creator of Battletech, so I surely hope that it is based on "BATTLETECH" rules. Why do people want a "Battletech" game and then hope that it is not based on "Battletech" rules? Come one now, when Battletech came out I was a pre-teen not even in Highschool and my friends and I were able to figure out the rules.

Edited by Ed Steele, 03 August 2015 - 10:56 AM.

[Lincoln Zhukov]

Ed Steele, on 02 August 2015 - 09:36 PM, said:

the game is called "BATTLETECH" and is being made by the creator of Battletech, so I surely hope that it is based on "BATTLETECH" rules.

I wouldn't be so sure, just because games called "Shadowrun" made by creator of "Shadowrun" are not based on "Shadowrun" rules directly. But nothing wrong here for me.

[Hans Von Lohman]

Ed Steele, on 02 August 2015 - 09:36 PM, said:

"Existing game" LOL, the game is called "BATTLETECH" and is being made by the creator of Battletech, so I surely hope that it is based on "BATTLETECH" rules. Why do people want a "Battletech" game and then hope that it is not based on "Battletech" rules? Come one now, when Battletech came out I was a ******* not even in Highschool and my friends and I were able to figure out the rules.

There are a lot of reasons.

1. I didn't specify which rules they're planning on using because there are now several ways to play the table top game other than the original rules, which can be called BattleTech or even Classic BattleTech.

There is Quick Strike (not to be confused with Quick Start) that is based on BattleForce, there is BattleForce itself, or even a couple of other ways like Quick Start training rules, which is BattleTech, but way, way simplified to let new players get a grip on the game.

2. They used the word "modern" in the description of the game they're making. Sounds like they're re-inventing the rules to me, and won't be "classic" BattleTech.

3. There is that nagging sense that nobody at Catalyst Games, who make the board game would be OK with a direct translation of their game to a video game setting. They would use the argument that it will hurt sales of the board game.

4. They made ShadowRun Returns, and that is NOT a direct translation of the combat system from the RPG books. It was simplified quite a bit in fact.

Edited by Hans Von Lohman, 03 August 2015 - 12:59 AM.

[Lily from animove]

Hans Von Lohman, on 03 August 2015 - 12:54 AM, said:

There are a lot of reasons.

1. I didn't specify which rules they're planning on using because there are now several ways to play the table top game other than the original rules, which can be called BattleTech or even Classic BattleTech.

There is Quick Strike (not to be confused with Quick Start) that is based on BattleForce, there is BattleForce itself, or even a couple of other ways like Quick Start training rules, which is BattleTech, but way, way simplified to let new players get a grip on the game.

2. They used the word "modern" in the description of the game they're making. Sounds like they're re-inventing the rules to me, and won't be "classic" BattleTech.

3. There is that nagging sense that nobody at Catalyst Games, who make the board game would be OK with a direct translation of their game to a video game setting. They would use the argument that it will hurt sales of the board game.

4. They made ShadowRun Returns, and that is NOT a direct translation of the combat system from the RPG books. It was simplified quite a bit in fact.

"modern" just souns like they adjusted some rules to make them either more simple or just change some imbalanced to be a bit more balanced. Just as Bloodbowl went with for their PC games. They are also not using the original BB rules, instead something that had some minor changes.

Edited by Lily from animove, 03 August 2015 - 05:19 AM.

[Jack Gallows]

Hans Von Lohman, on 03 August 2015 - 12:54 AM, said:

2. They used the word "modern" in the description of the game they're making. Sounds like they're re-inventing the rules to me, and won't be "classic" BattleTech.

I wouldn't say re-inventing more as molding to fit the PC playstyle a bit. I don't expect a 100% translation, but removing the hit locations or making globbing them together doesn't seem like something they'll do. There's no point it making single hit box for legs/etc as it really doesn't speed much up and will cause massive issues down the line when level 2 tech and Clans hit and they can leg you because their weapons are so damn strong or core you faster.

Hans Von Lohman, on 03 August 2015 - 12:54 AM, said:

3. There is that nagging sense that nobody at Catalyst Games, who make the board game would be OK with a direct translation of their game to a video game setting. They would use the argument that it will hurt sales of the board game.

Barring a horrible UI and art from MW:T, they were getting pretty close to most of the tabletop rules while cutting stuff like melee that would have bogged the game down (though I hope it's in this new game.) Very much doubt if it had been successful that it'd hurt the core game.

Hans Von Lohman, on 03 August 2015 - 12:54 AM, said:

4. They made ShadowRun Returns, and that is NOT a direct translation of the combat system from the RPG books. It was simplified quite a bit in fact.

It works pretty well, and again not saying it's going to be 100% translation, but I still disagree that simplifying the hit location is what they're going to do. I see things getting shed from other areas to help speed things up a bit, but this is also going to achieved in having a slick UI compared to stuff like Megamek.

[Kyone Akashi]

Yeah, I really don't expect a full adaption of the TT rules. It would be possible, but - let's face it, the market for that would be pretty niche.

No, personally, I'm happy when I get something that "feels Battletech", and this refers more to the world setting and the atmosphere, the "look and feel", rather than the precise mechanics of one specific incarnation, regardless of whether it was the game that started it all. We could look at HBS' Shadowrun games for an example. Or, in terms of Battletech, how the MechWarrior and MechCommander series did it.

I have to say that I, too, believe that hit locations should and will be part of this new Battletech game, simply because they are a rather integral part of how a 'mech can be "personified". Abstracting this detail would turn a complicated piece of heirloom machinery with a soul and a history into just yet another unit, like tank #417 in a game of Command & Conquer. And going by what the folks at harebrained have said so far, they really want to dive into the RPG aspects of both the 'mechs and the warriors that pilot them.

tl;dr: I'm pretty much expecting a turn-based MechCommander. And there'd be nothing wrong with this.

It still is a shame that MWT went the way it did, though. I had hopes that that game could be what some people are wishing for in regards to HBS' new project -- a modernised, AA-version of Megamek. The underlying framework was there .. if only they had made it more customisable instead of inserting those silly card game mechanics. Oh, and adopted MWO's art style, like Harebrained did (again, thanks to all parties that were involved in this collaboration).

Edited by Kyone Akashi, 03 August 2015 - 07:10 PM.

[NocturnalBeast]

It saddens me that any game that requires any degree of thought is considered "nice" these days. I am hoping that this game will.be a turn-based version of Crescent Hawks Revenge with a pvp mode.

[Kell Aset]

Can't wait to hear & see more about it, hope they will have melee combat in game, would be nice to see it also in MWO, finally.

[NocturnalBeast]

Marack Drock, on 04 August 2015 - 12:34 PM, said:

...... am I the only one that finds the developer's name and the name of this game combined to be truly ironic?

I predict this game will probably not make it past kickstarter. And if it does then it is going to go the path of MechWarrior Tactics.

I hope they prove you wrong, especially since Hairbrained Schemes has already released two games with one expansion nearly complete which were funded by Kickstarter.

[Kyone Akashi]

Shadowrun used to be dead as well.

Here's my prediction: the game will be funded within the first 24 hours of the kickstarter, and it's going to be about as popular as SRR, with a modding community that will keep churning out new campaigns for at least a year or so.

Usually I'd consider myself a pessimist, but ... I've missed out on the first SRR kickstarter and got proven wrong. Since then, I've seen nothing but good stuff from those devs.

Edited by Kyone Akashi, 04 August 2015 - 02:07 PM.

[NocturnalBeast]

Marack Drock, on 04 August 2015 - 01:31 PM, said:

The difference is they don't have the name BattleTech. BattleTech is known for three things: Licensing issues, lawsuits, and dying out for 5 years without a peep of development other than fan games.

Next is that after the MWTactics fiasco I doubt many people will be giving money away to another turn based BT game.

I hope I am wrong but.... BattleTech is not the greatest at making money, or maintaining a steady player base. Failure is common with this franchise.

Well there are allot more Battletech fans than there are Shadow Run fans, so we will see.

[Jack Gallows]

Marack Drock, on 04 August 2015 - 01:31 PM, said:

BattleTech is not the greatest at making money, or maintaining a steady player base. Failure is common with this franchise.

MW:O is a semi bomb, and MW:T was bad but that's the result of one company. Generally most if not all the other Btech/Mech games are highly favored (except those Mechassault abominations.) Seeing as MW:O had the most successful crowdfunding launch of it's time, before the behemoth that is Star Citizen hit the scene, I'm pretty sure Battletech is going to have ZERO issue generating funds especially due to the game not being developed by PGI or having had anything to do with IGP before they died out. Hell, people forked over 500 DOLLARS for GOLD 'MECHS. I know I've killed about 10 of them and there has to be more.

Battletech is going to generate ridiculous amounts of money. I'm poised to drop more money then I've spent on Star Citizen and I'm pretty certain there's a hell of a lot of Battletech fans that will do the same.

Kyone Akashi, on 04 August 2015 - 02:06 PM, said:

Shadowrun used to be dead as well.

Here's my prediction: the game will be funded within the first 24 hours of the kickstarter, and it's going to be about as popular as SRR, with a modding community that will keep churning out new campaigns for at least a year or so.

Usually I'd consider myself a pessimist, but ... I've missed out on the first SRR kickstarter and got proven wrong. Since then, I've seen nothing but good stuff from those devs.

I think this Kickstarter is going to be pretty wildly successful as a lot of people are burnt out on MW:O and upset MW:T was a bomb and are excited to see a company that did well with another FASA born game pick up the reins. If they have open modding like Shadowrun this game will never die, hell people still play Mechwarrior 4.

Edited by Jack Gallows, 04 August 2015 - 02:28 PM.

[Gremlich Johns]

Any game that has a relationship with PGI? I'm keeping my money tied up elsewhere, irrespective of Weisman.

FTP or buy once and DLC?

Edited by Gremlich Johns, 04 August 2015 - 03:50 PM.

[NocturnalBeast]

Gremlich Johns, on 04 August 2015 - 03:50 PM, said:

Any game that has a relationship with PGI? I'm keeping my money tied up elsewhere, irrespective of Weisman.

FTP or buy once and DLC?

The only relasionship is with the shared art assets, which you have to agree are the strongest assets that MWO has. I hope Battletech is buy to play (pay once and have access to all features / content), with purchasable expansions (containing a significant amount of new content).

Edited by Ed Steele, 04 August 2015 - 09:21 PM.

[Jack Gallows]

Gremlich Johns, on 04 August 2015 - 03:50 PM, said:

Any game that has a relationship with PGI? I'm keeping my money tied up elsewhere, irrespective of Weisman.

FTP or buy once and DLC?

No relation whatsoever except using their art design for 'mechs which is the only good thing about MW:O. They have ZERO control or decision making as HBS is a different company from PGI.

You buy the game and it'll have expansions later on.

[Rebas Kradd]

Gremlich Johns, on 04 August 2015 - 03:50 PM, said:

Any game that has a relationship with PGI? I'm keeping my money tied up elsewhere, irrespective of Weisman.

[Lincoln Zhukov]

Marack Drock, on 04 August 2015 - 12:34 PM, said:

I predict this game will probably not make it past kickstarter.

We'll know who to blame then

Gremlich Johns, on 04 August 2015 - 03:50 PM, said:

Any game that has a relationship with PGI? I'm keeping my money tied up elsewhere

Gremlich Johns, on 04 August 2015 - 03:50 PM, said:

FTP or buy once and DLC?

Well, according to description on site, it will be story-driven open-ended, what is pretty much like SR:R and SR:D model (b2p without any g-mn microtransactions). But still, we'd wait for KS campaign to be sure.

[Barantor]

I'll be watching this, it is more of what I want than what MWO provides.

[NocturnalBeast]

Barantor, on 05 August 2015 - 10:03 AM, said:

I'll be watching this, it is more of what I want than what MWO provides.

Different genres. MWO is a quasi-sim / FPS and Battletech will probably be a Tactical turn-based game with RPG elements.