Jump to content

Battletech Kickstarter


716 replies to this topic

#121 martian

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 8,574 posts

Posted 28 September 2015 - 02:41 AM

View PostVellron2005, on 28 September 2015 - 02:31 AM, said:


More likely, one of these two developers will absorb the other's project.. and continue milking it untill it too, runs its course..

I anticipate that PGI will in the end, absorb Hairbrained or vice versa, and MWO will slowly faze out as players move on to a more "fluffy" videogame..

Personally, I don't think so.

HBS produced about 3-4 Shadowrun RPGs and similar games. MWO has specialized itself in FPS games such as MWO or Duke Nukem. Both companies and their games cater to different groups of players.

It seems to me that HBS is okay with its niche and I don't know why it should swallow PGI with its MWO, if doing, what they can do best, brings them money. On the other hand, a few months ago PGI had opportunity to buy what remained from MechWarrior Tactics practically for free, but PGI wasn't interested.

#122 Inflatable Fish

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Rage
  • Rage
  • 563 posts

Posted 28 September 2015 - 02:43 AM

View PostVellron2005, on 28 September 2015 - 02:31 AM, said:


More likely, one of these two developers will absorb the other's project.. and continue milking it untill it too, runs its course..

I anticipate that PGI will in the end, absorb Hairbrained or vice versa, and MWO will slowly faze out as players move on to a more "fluffy" videogame..


I don't even want to think which hole you pulled that out of.

#123 KuroNyra

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 2,990 posts
  • LocationIdiot's Crater.

Posted 28 September 2015 - 03:29 AM

View PostInflatable Fish, on 28 September 2015 - 02:43 AM, said:


I don't even want to think which hole you pulled that out of.

Ho you know.
The ideas are like the buttholes.

Everybody got one.

#124 Threat Doc

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Bowman
  • The Bowman
  • 3,715 posts
  • LocationO'Shaughnnessy MMW Base, Devon Continent, Rochester, FedCom

Posted 28 September 2015 - 05:32 AM

View PostENS Puskin, on 27 September 2015 - 04:14 PM, said:

What is turn-based BattleTech game?
In 1982, FASA Corporation released a turn-based tactical combat simulation board game for the tabletop. Turn-based means that each player decides how they want to move each one of the BattleMechs they have on their 'team' and then, once movement is complete, each player decides which weapon's on each 'Mech they're going to fire. Once weapon's fire is complete, physical attacks, such as punching, kicking, charging and crashing into another 'Mech, or Death From Above (DFA) where one 'Mech jumps on top of another one, are completed. Throughout these processes, a series of dice rolls, to determine whether or not 'Mechs hit one another or, if some extreme maneuver has been tried, dice rolls for whether a pilot successfully completes that maneuver, are made, damage from hits are recorded, etc. At the end of the combat round, any other rolls that need to be made are made, and then the new turn is started, where players perform that process all over again.

View PostDerMaulwurf, on 28 September 2015 - 12:30 AM, said:

Not too thrilled about the involvement of CGL though. Advising and licensing art is fine, but after the whole Loren Coleman fiasco they should be kept at arms length regarding any business venture.
I know Loren Coleman personally... what happened with this? Do you have a link to an article or forum posting so I can read about this, please?

View PostVellron2005, on 28 September 2015 - 02:31 AM, said:

More likely, one of these two developers will absorb the other's project.. and continue milking it untill it too, runs its course..

I anticipate that PGI will in the end, absorb Hairbrained or vice versa, and MWO will slowly faze out as players move on to a more "fluffy" videogame.
What in the world are you talking about? I know you and I have agreed on quite a few things in the recent past, but these statements you're making here are strange. You're either trying to gauge people's interest and steadfastness for the game, or you're TRYING to come out with worst-case scenario's; which one?

My belief is this is the way Piranha Games will be able to pick up all of the things missing from this game, will have time and proximity to learn from the Master's of the game and be able to help implement a stronger game system that will not only allow them to retain all of the individuals that have come and gone, to get them to return, but those who are coming soon from Steam, and they will share players between the top-down BattleTech and the FPS/RTS that is MechWarrior Online, as well as technology -such as Alex Iglesias' 'Mech-worx-, but also to get back the veterans who paid for MWO to begin with, and have paid through the nose for all of the previous BattleTech tabletop, MechWarrior and MechCommander games since 1982, and give them at least a much-closer version of the overall BattleTech universe game, in a fun way -as they have done with their combat simulator-, than any of us have ever had, before.

#125 Serpentbane

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 485 posts
  • LocationVanvikan, Norway

Posted 28 September 2015 - 05:43 AM

I'd rather see a Mech Commander 3 game, but this could be cool as well.

Actually, I want a MC game paired with MW, where I issue commands to players in MWO :P

#126 martian

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 8,574 posts

Posted 28 September 2015 - 05:55 AM

View PostKay Wolf, on 28 September 2015 - 05:32 AM, said:

I know Loren Coleman personally... what happened with this? Do you have a link to an article or forum posting so I can read about this, please?

CGL had a small problem with some change money ... to the tune of $850,000.

#127 Grayson Sortek

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 371 posts

Posted 28 September 2015 - 06:00 AM

View PostKay Wolf, on 28 September 2015 - 05:32 AM, said:


I know Loren Coleman personally... what happened with this? Do you have a link to an article or forum posting so I can read about this, please?



I would like to know about this as well.

As for you knowing Coleman personally... Can you please ask him to throw PGI a bone or two on making a campaign experience that we can all be proud of? Apparently they don't have any writers on staff to come up with any ideas.

#128 Nightshade24

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 3,972 posts
  • LocationSolaris VII

Posted 28 September 2015 - 06:11 AM

View PostXotor, on 26 September 2015 - 08:12 AM, said:


I'm more a tanker than a mech driver but if I understand the game lore. Arn't tanks meant to be crap in this universe? I know in another mech game the mechs where more mobile weapons platforms while tanks and other amoured forces still had the edge in raw staying power and firepower.

Still it could be interesting to add tanks to this game but I really doubt it will everhappen.


No, it's just cheaper for what it does, less versatile, and in some cases slower and/or limited if you remove half tracks/ wheeled vehicles from the equation.
However it has advantages such as low profile, easy to mass produce, and can take advantages of roads better as well as climb steeper inclines as well as have virtually all weapons on a 360 turret and/or on multiple turrets then a limited torso on a mech.

for eg look tthe tank the "Demolisher", 80 ton tank with twin AC 20, which is very impressive. Now I know there is the kingcrab but keep in mind that mech is VERY rare, you can see a million demolishers per 1 king crab you saw. Compare this to a more 'cheaper/ modern' 100 tonner like say the annihilator it nearly has the same firepower BUT it is much faster (54 kph instead of 32.4kph)

I should add there is a variant of the demolisher called "heavy tank" that not only has twin AC 20's but an improved engine (uses a fusion instead of an I.C.E. engine) that adds a small laser, a flamer, and an SRM 6. Which I should say now has crawled nearly to the same level as the king crab in firepower BUT is faster. which is a good trade of no?

The thing is this is just an 80 tonner.
It also has the demolisher II with a LBX 20 (I assume slugs instead of shot gun shells), MG, and a UAC 20.. this is 60 damage hit for a game where (in BT and not MW: O) even a 100 ton mech will only have 50 armour in the CT-ish...

There is also the Arrow IV artillery vehicle... has 2 of them (picture basically infinite range as far as MW: O is concerned and 20 damage per missile so total of 40 + 10 damage splash if I remember correctly) and 2 medium lasers... Catapult C1 is jelly...

the clan Demolisher got 2 LBX 20's, 6 machine guns, and 2 medium pulse lasers...

a variant with twin gauss... is on par in firepower with most twin gauss mechs in MW: O and in BT

and last but not least a version with MRM 30's.. 3 of them... that would be 90 damage hits at medium range unguided missiles without the use of backup weapons

This tank as well as others are very scary. Very very scary. They have the ability to 1 shot kill your mech and the thing is it is more common to have a tank over 100 tons then a mech... mechs often do not go 100+ tons

Note: demolisher II exists

you got things like the Paladin Defense System which is 130 tons with 2 long tom artillery pieces (30 tons each, 30 crit slots each, no mech can use it, very long range, very low velocity and is like a motar weapon, 30 / 20 / 10 damage...), and a few lasers and machine guns..>

You got things like the Gulltrooper with twin gauss and long tom artillery at 190 tons with nearly x2 the armour of an atlas while same speed of an urbie

Burke with 4 AC 20's and 2 LRM 5's at 140 tons... etc...

Also the hover tanks are quite fast, nimble, and can go on water so that's a plus a mech can't do- float.


I am not sure how much vehicles will be in the BT game but it does adorn the BT name, It better have aerospace fighters, dropships, and tanks... as well as infantry. They are crucial to BT and are crucial for some factions like liao as well as weapons like flamer, machine guns, etc. which are much more effective there then here. for eg setting forests on fire, killing infantry in masses, etc...



It is true tanks can be a push over but that is because they do not often cost much money and thus can be spammed out instead. Destroyer for eg is only 2 million c-bills, nearly the same as a locust.

#129 Threat Doc

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Bowman
  • The Bowman
  • 3,715 posts
  • LocationO'Shaughnnessy MMW Base, Devon Continent, Rochester, FedCom

Posted 28 September 2015 - 07:32 AM

View PostGrayson Sortek, on 28 September 2015 - 06:00 AM, said:

I would like to know about this as well.

As for you knowing Coleman personally... Can you please ask him to throw PGI a bone or two on making a campaign experience that we can all be proud of? Apparently they don't have any writers on staff to come up with any ideas.
I have actually spoken with him, at some great length, several hours spoken over several months, in his game store called Wishes, here in Everett, Washington, and the only contract that has exist, or to his mind would ever be likely, is that where Randall Bills was constructing the daily Inner Sphere News we were receiving, when PGI were trying to be altruistic. He's told me there are new novels coming for all era's, but particularly 3025, there are new sourcebooks coming, such as the very eagerly anticipated Mercenary's Field Manual, which I've been waiting on for a couple of months, now, drooling at my computer desk.

Now, with the new announcement, and with the game being based in 3025, there may be a mass collaboration coming on between HBS, CGL, and PGI to the point where we players may get the massive universe, the politics, the feudal system, the contracts, the strategic and tactical planning for missions, and the management system we all want for these games. My hope is the new Mercenaries sourcebook will be a source of inspiration for all three games, tabletop, BattleTech computer game, and MWO.

I have to get my house replenished, now, or I'll miss the first podcast in an hour-and-a-half.

#130 Fester Blatz1980

    Member

  • PipPip
  • 36 posts

Posted 28 September 2015 - 07:44 AM

View PostKay Wolf, on 28 September 2015 - 05:32 AM, said:

I know Loren Coleman personally... what happened with this? Do you have a link to an article or forum posting so I can read about this, please?


Guess he means this: http://geek-related....iant-criminals/

#131 DerMaulwurf

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 599 posts
  • LocationPotato Tier

Posted 28 September 2015 - 08:27 AM

View PostKay Wolf, on 28 September 2015 - 05:32 AM, said:

I know Loren Coleman personally... what happened with this? Do you have a link to an article or forum posting so I can read about this, please?


There was a "co-mingling of funds between the personal and business". And CGL was missing a lot of money.

BTW I'm not so much angry at Coleman, but at Randall Bills who decided to burn the freelancers (traditionally the weakest party in the business) and the makers of Cthulutech and Eclipse Phase. Because that meant passing the buck to people who had no hand in causing the problems.

#132 Trystan Thorne

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Urban Commando
  • Urban Commando
  • 299 posts

Posted 28 September 2015 - 09:04 AM

Super excited for this! I'm a happy backer of all three HBS Shadowrun games and really keen to see what the lads can do with Battletech.

I'm also quite happy that they will use MWO art (the best thing about MWO really).

As for what this means for MWO. Not much in my eyes. If PGI handles MWO well this might actually lead to more players for MWO (depending on the success of the HBS game and if it will attract new crowds).
The horrible grind and constant inbalance/matchmaking would need to be fixed for starters.

I doubt that many players will leave MWO over the HBS game. They are simply too different from each other and many will simply play both.

As for a big co-operation beside sharing the art. I can't see that happen either.

#133 Robin Wolf

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 337 posts
  • LocationItaly

Posted 28 September 2015 - 09:11 AM

BATTLETECH. Enough said :wub:

#134 Henchman 24

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Determined
  • The Determined
  • 529 posts
  • LocationRhode Island

Posted 28 September 2015 - 09:57 AM

View Postmartian, on 26 September 2015 - 02:14 AM, said:

HBS has 100% Kickstarter record: 3 games offered, 3 games funded, 3 games delivered as promised. I would say that this is a good track record.


Agreed, some folks would rather just hang the scarlet letter on it than do the diligent work to make an informed decision.(all 5 minutes of Googling that is...pfft)

That said, it's not like Weisman hasn't screwed up games in the past, and turn based games command a very small population vs. gamers in total so I'm not sure how this will all turn out. Probably not much more profitable than the Shadowrun games IMHO.

At least the technology will be even, so they aren't introducing inherent fail with the clans.

#135 Princeps Ibram Cain

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 50 posts

Posted 28 September 2015 - 10:06 AM

Sounds like a very promising "symbiosis" between games.

#136 martian

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 8,574 posts

Posted 28 September 2015 - 10:45 AM

Jordan Weissman says: "It's going to be a single-purchase premium game, no F2P!"

That's pretty good, I would say.

#137 Threat Doc

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Bowman
  • The Bowman
  • 3,715 posts
  • LocationO'Shaughnnessy MMW Base, Devon Continent, Rochester, FedCom

Posted 28 September 2015 - 10:59 AM

View PostFester Blatz1980, on 28 September 2015 - 07:44 AM, said:

Come to think of it, I had heard there was a problem, but I've never heard any details before now. Thank you for sharing that.

As for those who are saying they're not likely to collaborate beyond the 'Mechs... I'm going to say it's a pretty major step just to do that... and the first step is always the toughest... so, never say never, and I will hope there is more.

#138 stjobe

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 9,498 posts
  • LocationOn your six, chipping away at your rear armour.

Posted 28 September 2015 - 11:08 AM

Biggest chat cheers from the livestream:
"You can't have a proper BattleTech game without Death From Above" - Jordan Weissman

You hear that, Russ? Paul? You're being called out ;)

#139 NocturnalBeast

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • Shredder
  • 3,685 posts
  • LocationDusting off my Mechs.

Posted 28 September 2015 - 02:48 PM

I wonder if this game will have VTOLs, VTOLs were insanely OP in TT?

#140 Axeface

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • Shredder
  • 655 posts

Posted 28 September 2015 - 03:18 PM

There was something today that I missed right? Is there somewhere I can listen/watch it? Or has anyone jotted down some bulletpoints of what was said?





3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users