130 replies to this topic

[The Wee Baby Seamus]

Resist The Dawn, on 09 August 2012 - 09:21 AM, said:

Why is sticking to TT rules so Important to TT players?

Because they're awesome!

[Congzilla]

Paladin1, on 09 August 2012 - 10:55 AM, said:

You just hit the nail on the head as to why I'm here and not on the MWT boards. That bunch had a game which already incorporated the actual TT rules (MegaMek) and instead of just upgrading the graphics and running with that, they seem to have dumbed it down and ****** up the graphics while they were at it. Nope, I'll be giving my money to MWO.

Yeah they really had something that there was no possible way to screw up and went and invented ways to screw it up.

[Alex Wolfe]

SuomiWarder, on 09 August 2012 - 10:54 AM, said:

The simple fact is that the original TT rules defined the universe. They are what make BattleTech, well BattleTech and not Heavy Gear or Gundam or Americanized Giant Robot Combat. The expectations of how an Atlas vs a Hunchie vs a Jenner all interct was set in the TT rules.

Nope, the fluff is what makes BattleTech BattleTech. The same set of rules could be played with Gundam models, using Gundam names to the same effect.

You're basically implying that BT books are invalid because they don't follow the original TT rules. Think the author is rolling dice to decide the outcome of every shot? No, what makes it BT is the names, the tech, the immersion. Rules just make the tabletop game playable.

[Congzilla]

The Wee Baby Seamus, on 09 August 2012 - 10:57 AM, said:

Because they're awesome!

Any other parents automatically read the word "awesome" in DJ Lance's voice every time you see it?

[The Wee Baby Seamus]

Alex Wolfe, on 09 August 2012 - 10:58 AM, said:

Nope, the fluff is what makes BattleTech BattleTech. The same set of rules could be played with Gundam models, using Gundam names to the same effect.

You're basically implying that BT books are invalid because they don't follow the original TT rules. Think the author is rolling dice to decide the outcome of every shot? No, what makes it BT is the names, the tech, the immersion. Rules just make the tabletop game playable.

The book authors still kept very closely to what would be realistic on the BT TT battlefield.

[Alex Wolfe]

The Wee Baby Seamus, on 09 August 2012 - 11:00 AM, said:

The book authors still kept very closely to what would be realistic on the BT TT battlefield.

And so do the game makers for the most part. SRMs, PPC, autocannons behave like they're supposed to. Not all shots hit, depending on the target and pilot's skill and movement even without rolling dice. Atlas is heavier, sturdier and slower than a Commando.

In every game, both MechWarrior and MechCommander, I can take a look at the options, take a guess how they'll perform and it'll be pretty close, even without the hex grid. Just like adaptations should be, be it books, movies or different games.

Edited by Alex Wolfe, 09 August 2012 - 11:05 AM.

[Oddmund]

haven't seen anyone else say this but i also didn't read all the post to many of you TT player giving reasons to keep TT rules for a video game.
This game is played on a video screen not on your kitchen table. After saying that I also believe that keeping the game as close to the BT universe as possible is also important but the rules that keep TT fair and balanced will not work in a VIDEO game.

[Assiah]

Alex Wolfe, on 09 August 2012 - 10:58 AM, said:

Nope, the fluff is what makes BattleTech BattleTech. The same set of rules could be played with Gundam models, using Gundam names to the same effect.

You're basically implying that BT books are invalid because they don't follow the original TT rules. Think the author is rolling dice to decide the outcome of every shot? No, what makes it BT is the names, the tech, the immersion. Rules just make the tabletop game playable.

If I recall one of the authors did indeed roll dice to see how battles would play out, and I think occasionally he would take liberties with the results. I don't remember the book as it has been a long time since I have read it, but I do distinctly remembering he did that in the authors bio at the end.

[Paladin1]

Alex Wolfe, on 09 August 2012 - 10:58 AM, said:

Think the author is rolling dice to decide the outcome of every shot? No, what makes it BT is the names, the tech, the immersion. Rules just make the tabletop game playable.

You aren't aware of Canon events, are you? There's several events which have provided the writers the actual battle details for their books. Two I can think of off the top of my head are "Lawyers, Guns and Money" and the Ghost Bear / Nova Cat naval clash which saw the GB navy reduced to just three ships. Granted, they were all Leviathans, but the Nova Cats kicked the **** out of them all the same and it was all because of the results of a canon game played a few years back at GenCon.

[Atlas3060]

Assiah, on 09 August 2012 - 11:08 AM, said:

If I recall one of the authors did indeed roll dice to see how battles would play out, and I think occasionally he would take liberties with the results. I don't remember the book as it has been a long time since I have read it, but I do distinctly remembering he did that in the authors bio at the end.

Chances are it was Stackpole, Heaven knows his battles in the books read like some After Action report at a table.

[Alex Wolfe]

Paladin1, on 09 August 2012 - 11:09 AM, said:

You aren't aware of Canon events, are you? There's several events which have provided the writers the actual battle details for their books. Two I can think of off the top of my head are "Lawyers, Guns and Money" and the Ghost Bear / Nova Cat naval clash which saw the GB navy reduced to just three ships. Granted, they were all Leviathans, but the Nova Cats kicked the **** out of them all the same and it was all because of the results of a canon game played a few years back at GenCon.

So it's a rule, or just a promotional event?

Because if they do this all the time (like a game would be), then I'll eat my words, but if it's just a once-in-a-while-for-the-fans then it's way less of a commitment than "hey let's base our entire game on this, point-for-point".

Besides, what about my other point? That in, say, MechCommander (that being an RTS is closer to TT than MechWarriors being real-time sim shooters...), when you start the game with 2 Commandos and a Firestarter they perform about the same as you'd expect them to from their fluff/TT descriptions (mop up vehicles, tangle with lights, swarm a medium, scram before a Mad Cat or be annihilated), and it works just fine even without the TT rules? Proving time and again that it can be done?

What about games such as Dawn of War, that - with wholly different mechanics - do a splendid, critically acclaimed job of recreating WH40K universe? Doesn't it prove that as long as you treat source material with respect, rules and fluff can be separated?

Edited by Alex Wolfe, 09 August 2012 - 11:16 AM.

[Assiah]

dankith, on 09 August 2012 - 11:06 AM, said:

haven't seen anyone else say this but i also didn't read all the post to many of you TT player giving reasons to keep TT rules for a video game.
This game is played on a video screen not on your kitchen table. After saying that I also believe that keeping the game as close to the BT universe as possible is also important but the rules that keep TT fair and balanced will not work in a VIDEO game.

There have already been reasons given for that, I would suggest reading the thread so we don't have to repeat ourselves.

[Paladin1]

Assiah, on 09 August 2012 - 11:08 AM, said:

If I recall one of the authors did indeed roll dice to see how battles would play out, and I think occasionally he would take liberties with the results. I don't remember the book as it has been a long time since I have read it, but I do distinctly remembering he did that in the authors bio at the end.

That was Stackpole and he did that for some of the battles in the Warrior Trilogy and the Return of Kerensky Trilogy. He was also the author who destroyed Clan Smoke Jaguar because of a rabid fanboi who wouldn't shut up about how awesome CSJ was, but you get the point. The authors did play out a lot of their battles, but they also make the battle come out like they want it if necessary.

[The Wee Baby Seamus]

Alex Wolfe, on 09 August 2012 - 11:05 AM, said:

And so do the game makers for the most part. SRMs, PPC, autocannons behave like they're supposed to. Not all shots hit, depending on the target and pilot's skill and movement even without rolling dice. Atlas is heavier, sturdier and slower than a Commando.

In every game, both MechWarrior and MechCommander, I can take a look at the options, take a guess how they'll perform and it'll be pretty close, even without the hex grid. Just like adaptations should be, be it books, movies or different games.

Totally agreed. I think it's not difficult to please both the TT players and the non-TT players, when it comes to the MWO rules.

I think it's simply important to the TT lovers to seperate themselves from the general crowd, because they are emotionally attached to a high degree; most of us are well into or even beyond their 30s and have carried BT TT in our hearts for decades. It's one of those things where pride and emotional attachment drives many discussions for the pure sake of being recognized as "one from back when".

Conciously or unconciously this happens with many things we get attached to. If then an argument is perceived as an attack on your beloved childhood jewel, things just get blown out of proportion and you lose the essence of what you were really talking about.

What you said is very true and I will repeat myself here: It isn't hard to focus TT and non-TT players by establishing well working rules that keep with the spirit of the original TT game.

Everything else is just human ego...

[Paladin1]

Alex Wolfe, on 09 August 2012 - 11:11 AM, said:

So it's a rule, or just a promotional event?

Because if they do this all the time, then I'll eat my words, but if it's just a once-in-a-while-for-the-fans then it's way less of a commitment than "hey let's base our entire game on this, point-for-point".

It's not a hard and fast rule, but they do it on a regular basis. The Battle for Odessa (GenCon 2008) was the last one I was involved with, but I'm sure they continue to occur. Check out http://www.catalystdemos.com/ for details on where the latest canon event is going to take place.

[Atlas3060]

Congzilla, on 09 August 2012 - 10:42 AM, said:

MW: Tactics is going to get beat up hard for the simple reason that they are making the tabletop game and therefore have absolutly no reason to change anything at all. Pretty MegaMek is all it should be.

It's already getting beaten up and they haven't sent beta keys yet.
Those that want the table top will either stick with TT or Megamek (though I really should pin down MM and see if it follows exactly like the TT just to make a snide point to a few friends).
Those that want something like the TT but faster paced will probably get MW:Tactics and whatever Tactical Command will be.
Those that want pew pew shooting inside a big fun walking tank will have MWO and the Tesla pods if they are lucky to be near one.

For the fans that want to try and make their friends addicts show people a fun universe this just means more tools in the toolbox to use.

[Paladin1]

Atlas3060, MM really does play exactly like the regular TT game. They've implemented all the TW rules and several of the TO and SO rules as well. The only thing you can't do, that I know of, is call down Ortillery but I think that's slated to be included later.

[Atlas3060]

Yeah I played earlier builds of the program and even played the campaign servers before I joined up with a regular group.
It has been a few builds since, but I do remember a couple of things that made me nearly flip the table due to differences.

However I doubt they could just "make Megamek pretty" and that be the end of it. There's probably some rights or business factors we as the fans don't know about. I had a similar discussion with another person who just infuriated the heck out of me I simply left the "discussion". So I might not even put the energy in to actually run a comparison.

Point is even if they make a TT game with some RPG elements based on laser/missile/autocannon brands having other benefits or hinderances that will attract people who probably never even thought about playing in this Universe.

More tools for the toolbox, blood for the blood god, money for the franchise throne, etc.

[Stormwolf]

For me it's not so much the rules of the TT but rather the established lore of the franchise.

I loved MW2 and 3 for staying close, but I really dislike MW4 and Mechassault for watering it all down too much. The true strenght of Battletech lies in the story arcs that span multiple decades not because the mechs look cool.

It's a shame that too many people don't know the background of the universe eventhough they've been playing games based on it. Many of them view mechs purely as walking weapons platforms without any history behind them. Most complaints are ofcourse about level 1 designs because the stock designs can't possibly be any good, although none of them realize that the level 1 designs have upgrades in 3050.

Just look at the mechs in these previews if you've never seen a TRO:
http://bg.battletech...039_Preview.pdf
http://bg.battletech...50U_Preview.pdf
http://bg.battletech...58U_Preview.pdf

Bet you didn't know that the Awesome, Shadow Cat, Wolfhound, etc had more to them besides being for sale in the MW4 market.

Enough ranting, I think MWO would be a great vehicle for telling the storylines that go on within in the BT universe.

[Congzilla]

Paladin1, on 09 August 2012 - 11:20 AM, said:

Atlas3060, MM really does play exactly like the regular TT game. They've implemented all the TW rules and several of the TO and SO rules as well. The only thing you can't do, that I know of, is call down Ortillery but I think that's slated to be included later.

MekHQ was an awesome addition for campaigns. I do wish there was an option to use the warchest system instead though.