BattleTech - The Board Game of Armored Combat
BattleTech Game Systems => General BattleTech Discussion => Topic started by: martian on 08 March 2012, 13:54:52
-
First concrete description of gameplay:
http://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/gdc-2012-looking-at-mechwarriors-big-free-to-play-return-in-2012/ (http://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/gdc-2012-looking-at-mechwarriors-big-free-to-play-return-in-2012/)
-
Short version (for those who don't want to click the link):
MechWarrior tactics is a prettier version of MegaMek, "free to play" but with microtransactions to buy parts to customize your mechs
MechWarrior Online still doesn't have enough information about it to figure out if it is at all different from just firing up an old copy of MW4. (Kobold's suspicion: it will also involve microtransactions to get parts to customize, or to repair faster)
-
I just had an epiphany regarding the new information we've heard from GDC.
This isn't a play on the Battletech board game,
It's a play on Mechwarrior: Age of Destruction.
-
Mechwarrior Tactics looks awesome, I may enjoy it more if its done right and not to nickel and dime me out of a porsche like most F2P games.
Can't wait for both, not only the games, but hopefully bring a lot of people into the game itself (more products, woot!)
-
Mechwarrior Tactics looks awesome, I may enjoy it more if its done right and not to nickel and dime me out of a porsche like most F2P games.
That is pretty much the definition of "done right" from the point of view of the developer.
-
That is pretty much the definition of "done right" from the point of view of the developer.
The difference in done right and done wrong is the experience of the players, both those that are paying and those that are not.
If both are happy, then it is done right.
-
...so a MegaMek where you issue the orders, and then it plays the turn cinematically?
This is a dream I've had for many years, come true.
I wonder of you'll be able to replay a complete game this way?
-
I really hope it becomes available for the PC or android.
-
...so a MegaMek where you issue the orders, and then it plays the turn cinematically?
This is a dream I've had for many years, come true.
I wonder of you'll be able to replay a complete game this way?
According to Joystiq: "At the end of a match, players are able to watch the whole match as one movie, and share it on their favorite social media platforms, like Friendster, YouTube and Facebook." O0
-
I wonder what a real-time conga-line looks like ;)
Paul
-
According to Joystiq: "At the end of a match, players are able to watch the whole match as one movie, and share it on their favorite social media platforms, like Friendster, YouTube and Facebook." O0
SQUEEE!!! :D
I wonder what a real-time conga-line looks like ;)
Challenge accepted. 8)
-
Holy crap-stick! I have wanted something like this for ages. Way back when I first started playing the table top game I used to joke how cool it would be to plug all the info into a program and get to watch a game play out in real time. Winning!
-Gunz
-
I really hope it becomes available for the PC or android.
Mechwarrior Tactical Command is for iPhone
This is something different (or maybe a different version) based on "... the latter is a turn-based strategy game playable in your browser using the Unity plug-in." from that article.
-
Web browsers? I know I'm not terribly familiar with how well games on those have come along these days, but the amount of rendering needed for those screenshots looks like something you might see on A Certain Blizzard-developed Science Fiction Computer Game....
-
Yup I'm sold on this now. As for paying for content... I'll save my coin for when I can get stuff with grey kitty cats on it.
-
Visually it is really pretty, and the cinema feature is incredibly inspired...
But I am reserving judgment.
I'll happily spend dough to play, buy mechs, repairs, etc etc etc, but I am waiting on info as to whether the game mechanics faithfully follow the game rules, or not.
If not, I probably won't give it much more than a passing fancy.
-
Hopefully MW Tactics will be mod-able so someone can make a Megamek crossover using same graphics/rendering while being true to the tabletop rules.
-
According to Joystiq: "At the end of a match, players are able to watch the whole match as one movie, and share it on their favorite social media platforms, like Friendster, YouTube and Facebook." O0
Addresses my gaming group: Gentlemen and Zugs, we may have found a way to keep our games going past the normal Sunday games.
Addressing the companies responsible for this: Now I can dedicate every moment of free time I have to Battletech. Thank you.
-
Any chance of superheavies in the future? ^VVVVVVV^
-
I really hope that they stick as close as possible to the BT rules.
However, I seriously doubt they won't abstract a lot of things, change the rules to make them easier to code, and dumb down the system for people who don't play BT. So I seriously doubt this will be a good replacement for megamek or the board game. I do hope to be wrong, but I think this will be more "Final Fantasy" with mechs than megamek with better graphics.
Writing a 3D graphics interface for megamek isn't exactly impossible, quite a few of us have done a 3D hex/mech based interfaces in the past. Megamek would need an API though, basically a way to send it all the turn code, and query everything possible in order to have a true interface. I would love to see that, and know its possible, but I neither know java well enough or the megamek code base to actually code that. Actually, since it does have a server/client communication system much of the updates are all essentially completely, there really just needs to be an API layer to the interface to allow external applications to control a megamek game.
-
Why would they need to dumb things down? Most of the players wont care to know detail besides 'The Faster you go, the harder you are to hit' and 'Green means a higher chance to hit then Yellow', so it's not like they need to change numbers around.
I'm more interested in if they're going 'I move, You move, on a unit per unit basis' as we've traditionally done, or whether we're going with full double blind, preplotted movement like in the optional rules.
-
There is actually a semi-working 3d interface for megamek included in current MM, but none of the current devs really know Java3D, so it's been unupdated for quite a while. There's also the problem of creating and texturing the models.
-
My priority is: does it have big stompy robots? Does it adhere to the story well enough? Does it reward good tactics?
Beyond that, I can forgive many deviations.
And heck, how many *don't* play with some house rules in their own games?
Paul
-
As I've said before the mechs in this game look terrible and some don't even remotely look like they do in the tech readouts which is a huge let down for me. If you don't know what I'm talking about look at their version of the hunchback. Now is this gonna be playable on the PC or what?
-
Now is this gonna be playable on the PC or what?
It's browser-based, using a plug-in.
-
Why would they need to dumb things down? Most of the players wont care to know detail besides 'The Faster you go, the harder you are to hit' and 'Green means a higher chance to hit then Yellow', so it's not like they need to change numbers around.
I'm more interested in if they're going 'I move, You move, on a unit per unit basis' as we've traditionally done, or whether we're going with full double blind, preplotted movement like in the optional rules.
With asychronous play, I gotta think they're going to go with moving all of your units in one turn, otherwise, games could drag on forever.
I would hope that the developers just have the primary goal of delivering a fulfilling and and fun video game experience, and I know for me, a straight BTech translation is not that. I want an additional way to enjoy the universe of BattleTech, not a replacement for the game I already have. Also, the latest Front Mission did nothing for my turn-based video game robot addiction, so I'm jonesing bad :D
-
Any chance of superheavies in the future? ^VVVVVVV^
Doubtful for the timeline is 3025 super heavies don't come out until at least 60 years down the road I think?
Addresses my gaming group: Gentlemen and Zugs, we may have found a way to keep our games going past the normal Sunday games.
Addressing the companies responsible for this: Now I can dedicate every moment of free time I have to Battletech. Thank you.
I have been doing that since I discovered megamek last year... im such a nerd!
-
With asychronous play, I gotta think they're going to go with moving all of your units in one turn, otherwise, games could drag on forever.
I would hope that the developers just have the primary goal of delivering a fulfilling and and fun video game experience, and I know for me, a straight BTech translation is not that. I want an additional way to enjoy the universe of BattleTech, not a replacement for the game I already have. Also, the latest Front Mission did nothing for my turn-based video game robot addiction, so I'm jonesing bad :D
Yeah, I'm not saying that MW Tactics should be a direct copy of the table top game. I just think it would be nice if they made it mod friendly so that dedicated people from the BT community with the right skills could make that for those of us in the fanbase who would want it (which I would imagine is pretty much everyone). Making a streamlined game will be better for drawing new people in though.
-
Why would they need to dumb things down? Most of the players wont care to know detail besides 'The Faster you go, the harder you are to hit' and 'Green means a higher chance to hit then Yellow', so it's not like they need to change numbers around.
They'll dumb it down to widen the potential audience, its the hip thing to do these days in computer games. I'm betting this will be far more like heroes of might and magic and far less like megamek with animated turns.
But I'll still play it :)
-
Yeah, I'm not saying that MW Tactics should be a direct copy of the table top game. I just think it would be nice if they made it mod friendly so that dedicated people from the BT community with the right skills could make that for those of us in the fanbase who would want it (which I would imagine is pretty much everyone). Making a streamlined game will be better for drawing new people in though.
As long as all the rules are handled in the background, I don't see why a direct copy of the game wouldn't appeal to the casual gamer. The most complex part is really knowing that a Large Laser does 8 damage, and X unit has 16 points of armor / 8 points structure in a location.
-
To be honest with you guys, aside from being pretty, I'm not sure what MWT will bring to the table that MM cannot. Furthermore, it sounds like there is a lot that MWT won't be able to do as well as MM.
-
Good thing it's not trying to be MMek. Good thing that's not some kind of critical failure on its part that will dramatically reduce its ability to do well as a game. Good thing we don't even know for sure to what extent it tries to copy the rules of a board/mini game.
It seems a lot of people are faulting it without having seen it in action, and without realizing that they're faulting it for quite unreasonable reasons.
Paul
-
I'm thinking I'm going to like this despite the seemingly alternate universe.
-
It uses the Unity plug-in:
http://unity3d.com/webplayer/
Available for both MacOS and Windows, works with Internet Explorer, Firefox, Chrome, Safari, Opera, and Camino.
I hope they'll also develop an iPad version that allows you to play against PC players.
As far as the F2P aspect, it can be done right (League of Legends, etc.) or it can be done wrong (currently in a closed beta with one of the but under NDA so can't name names), I really hope its done right!
As for MM, great community effort, but I don't see it as a user friendly experience, this Tactics seems like a much better user experience...
-
It uses the Unity plug-in:
http://unity3d.com/webplayer/
Oh sheesh, browser based?!?!?!?!
It'll suck :(
I was hoping to at least get access to the low poly models :(
-
How does it being browser based mean its gonna suck?
-
Because no one's happy unless we all really hate something we know nothing of except some screenshots.
Paul
-
Because no one's happy unless we all really hate something we know nothing of except some screenshots.
Paul
Sounds pretty accurate O0
-
According to Joystiq: "At the end of a match, players are able to watch the whole match as one movie, and share it on their favorite social media platforms, like Friendster, YouTube and Facebook." O0
Neat feature, but oy-yoi-yoi... I can think of many game I've played that I would not want played back to me in real time. :)
Should be a good after action teaching tool.
-
First concrete description of gameplay:
http://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/gdc-2012-looking-at-mechwarriors-big-free-to-play-return-in-2012/ (http://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/gdc-2012-looking-at-mechwarriors-big-free-to-play-return-in-2012/)
Wow! On read through of the article, I think that I like Mechwarrior Tactics (MW:T) more than Mechwarrior Online at first blush. MW:O strikes me as World of Tanks with Mechs. Don't get me wrong. WoT is fun, but for a dude firmly in the grip of middle age, twitch reflexes aren't my speciality anymore.
Now, on the otherhand....
MW:T definitely seems to be a board game simulation. It will stand on the shoulders of MegaMek for sure. I love it. Not only will it be fun, but with enhanced graphics and realtime playback, MW:T will be an excellent teaching tool for the boardgame.
People are going to be able to plan moves, quickly see the results in something approximating 3D graphics, and immediate receive feedback nly on game mechanics, and, more importantly, tactics. Speaking for myself, I sometimes have a hard time absorbing tactical lessons due to the length of time it takes to resolve a turn and prepare for the next turn. By the time the next turn (much less the next game) rolls around, I am thinking about micro tactics within the turn, not how to make the whole encounter sing.
I am psyched!
Next Up? Holographic table representation of BT a la SW: episode 4.
-
Greatly looking forward to this, though I hope there's some nod to mobile / tablet users. Big market not to try to breach, even though I'll be playing this on a laptop or desktop myself.
The art... isn't that encouraging for me. I wish it was more faithful to the stuff we like, I had a hard time visually identifying those 'Mechs on their splash page when it was announced.
It's hexed-based, it's turn based, and it'll be simplified. But the core, apparently, will still be BT. They'll use Red/Yellow/Green to show newbies if it's a good idea or not to shoot something at that range with your heat. But I doubt they'll dumb down the core mechanics of hexes, heat, and 'Mech action.
Now, to totally ignore this title until just before its release so that I won't become jaded by all the marketing stuff that's sure to come.
Also, I would LOOOVE for a community of commentators to arise from those replays. We gotta get Hellbie playing this too. But I'd love for in-depth tactical analyses. It's something that's hard to do on the tabletop, and slightly difficult to visualize in MegaMek.
-
Because no one's happy unless we all really hate something we know nothing of except some screenshots.
When you have played as many games as I have, for as long as I have, with a development background, and experience with unity, even a single in-game screenshot with interface is enough to determine a *lot* about a game. It could still have a good though, but that won't keep people playing it for months. If they integrate this somehow with a persistent universe it could still have real potential, but if the megemak developers decided to just add a 3D interface to their own system it'd be much better.
Recording a series of turns isn't exactly hard by any means. 3D at that scale is fairly easy in most ways, though weapon effects can be tough. To me the hardest thing about this would be simply making the models/animations and artwork. If we had, say 20 or so low poly animated battletech models I can assure you that we'd already have a 3D version of megamek.
Another thing to think about. Look at the Dawn of War games. They were *awesome*. DOW2 I actually still play online occasionally (last stand mode is to die for!). Its a pretty simple engine, with great animations and models, and overall the game is pretty fun. Not quite moddable enough IMO, but great nonetheless. Now, compare that to the tabletop game. Right, pretty much nothing is the same. Its a great game, but it is *not* a copy of the tabletop game, just in the same universe.
Crossing my fingers to be wrong, but the best this can be IMO is mediocre, but since it is browser based *and* free the audience should be considerable, which is a great thing no matter the quality of the game.
-
It doesn't require Java.
It also doesn't seem to require an installation since it runs inside a browser.
That is two good points that mean this might just be playable.
I will be looking at this very closely. :)
-
There's one thing MegaMek doesn't have and MW:T does. It's that replay feature.
If you finish the game, you will see what of your decisions were good or weren't.
In MegaMek, you are left with log file. You can print the map of terrain, but without units. So you actually can't see the disposition of you 'Mechs during the battle.
-
I will definitely keep an eye on this.....looks pretty cool.
Though i do agree that the 'Mechs look kinda odd
-
MechWarrior Tactics forums are online:
http://www.mwtactics.com/forums/ (http://www.mwtactics.com/forums/)
-
Just registered for that forum. Thanks for the info.
-
From what I've read, you must actually register for the second time. Your first registration, in which you registered your MechCommander name (two months ago), has nothing common with registration on MW Tactics forums.
-
That is correct. I tried to log on with my previous name, but that didn't work, so I registered a second time.
-
Is there a known reason the Tactics team went so far afield with the visual appearances? I had no idea what a couple of 'Mechs were until I looked at the name.
-
New video:
http://www.viddler.com/v/b7ff648d (http://www.viddler.com/v/b7ff648d)
Time 07:00 - 10:00
-
Some of the effects were neat, and I like the general feel. Still could use some better "I've been hit" animations to really immerse you in the battle.
The repeated comments about collectability were a little worrisome, but I realize very little that is free in the computer world is also great. Hopefully they'll have skins for sale that let you use traditional appearances for your 'Mechs.
-
I'm probably not gonna bother with their forums but try to find out why they tried to fix something that wasn't broken regarding how thee mechs look.
-
I'm probably not gonna bother with their forums but try to find out why they tried to fix something that wasn't broken regarding how thee mechs look.
MW Tactics hasn't said anything that I've heard of, but MW Online has mentioned that some of the 'mechs can't animate they way they were done.
It's not like they're the first. MW Tactics, MW Online, Mechwarrior: Dark Age, Mechwarrior 4 are all their own "style". So MW Tactics is showing a 2987 model Atlas rather than a 3012. I can live with it as long as they look cool.
-
I can live with it as long as they look cool.
I'll go one easier - if the game play is top notch I'll accept less-than-original artwork.
-
New video:
http://www.viddler.com/v/b7ff648d (http://www.viddler.com/v/b7ff648d)
Thanks for that.
The game looks absolutely horrible though. I'll give it a try, but "collectible" is the #1 way to ruin a game, #2 is "free to play", and #3 is "browser based". The only thing in this that even remotely looks "ok" are the pretty customizable models, but they are barely a step above "meh".
Hopefully Mechwarrior online will be a lot better (I'm still thinking it'll be nearly exactly like World of Tanks, but with a better engine.... thats ok if they don't dumb it down too much). However, perhaps this game will get some youngsters into the IP, and we need all the support we can get.
Give me 1 graphics programmer (for the very simple engine), 1 modeler (need mechs, duuh), and 3 months of salary and I could make something far far better, as could many of you that are technology oriented.
-
I am looking forward to this one. I think my only complaint is it is only lance on lance
-
Considering how much of a chore MM can seem for my non-BT playing, this is something that will be a big plus in my gaming circle.
-
Give me 1 graphics programmer (for the very simple engine), 1 modeler (need mechs, duuh), and 3 months of salary and I could make something far far better, as could many of you that are technology oriented.
How do you know it will only take three months, and who's going to care about paying you if you come up with something not enough people like? Where are you going to find the money if you ever wanted to update the game with more content and/or updated/fixed rules or animations?
-
It looks good, and the 3D MM thing definitely appeals, but the whole CCG booster pack thing is leaving me cold :/
-
How do you know it will only take three months, and who's going to care about paying you if you come up with something not enough people like? Where are you going to find the money if you ever wanted to update the game with more content and/or updated/fixed rules or animations?
Because in 3 months is 12 weeks, a modeler should easily be able to make some 1000 or so poly mech models in 3 a week, with some animations. The same animations could be used on multiple models. Textures are pretty simple too, and can be bought for cheap. The engine itself isn't very hard either, not like we are making the next COD or Far Cry. I can get a 3D engine going with my crappy skills within a day or two, somebody who knows what they are doing should easily be able to get it done in under 3 months with some generic weapon effects. I've already wrote a DX interface.
And after those 3 months I would have something far better. If everybody liked it and wanted more content, at that point people could pay for DLC, but I'd rather just have the engine tweaked as much as possible and open source it all, that way it can live forever in mods.
Getting 10,000 sales at $15 a pop would easily pay for this endeavor, but I'm not motivated to do it, and don't have the cash to put down on it (even though as a disabled vet I could probably get a small business loan to do it pretty easily). I want to do my strategic game first, when its all done and complete, I'll look at adding a simple low poly real time game engine (much more like mechcommander 2 than mechwarrior or this tactics crap).
-
Your impression seems to have no overlap with how games are generated in the real world.
And since you're not motivated to work on it anyway, it seems both moot and denigrating of the people who are, actually, doing work and investing money.
Paul
-
Thanks for that.
The game looks absolutely horrible though. I'll give it a try, but "collectible" is the #1 way to ruin a game.
There are far 'better' ways to ruin a game. Like continually saying what you are going to do and not actually doing it. That would be my #1. #2 would be over-promising. #3 would be forgetting you're making a game.
#2 is "free to play",
Sorry, Guild Wars is one of my favorite games ever. And if Lord of the Rings Online had been free to play from the start, I might still be playing it. (Having my existing character stuck in a zone I don't own killed my wanting to try it when it switched). The amount of time I spent on MUDs/MUSHs/MUSEs, Invasion 3042, MegaMek, etc playing Battletech while never paying a monthly fee were also great times.
There's nothing about a monthly subscription fee that makes a game better. There are things about having it hosted online that make a game better. And something has to pay for that hosting. Paying a large up front payment is one way. Paying a monthly subscription fee is one way. And paying smaller payments when I feel like it (I have money and want to pay the people making the great game, or they come out with something specific I'd like to add) is a great way.
The market completely disagrees with your assement as well.
and #3 is "browser based". The only thing in this that even remotely looks "ok" are the pretty customizable models, but they are barely a step above "meh".
The map looks awesome, the effects and models I like. The models will actually change to reflect their loadouts. The gameplay movement and speed of play looks awesome.
I think most of the above comments are your biases, not based on the actual game at all.
Hopefully Mechwarrior online will be a lot better (I'm still thinking it'll be nearly exactly like World of Tanks, but with a better engine.... thats ok if they don't dumb it down too much). However, perhaps this game will get some youngsters into the IP, and we need all the support we can get.
I will play the game, and I'm no youngster. Nor am I stupid.
Give me 1 graphics programmer (for the very simple engine), 1 modeler (need mechs, duuh), and 3 months of salary and I could make something far far better, as could many of you that are technology oriented.
I can't answer this without making it a personal attack. Let's just say "pics or it didn't happen."
-
Let's remember to keep it calm in here, please. [copper]
-
Getting 10,000 sales at $15 a pop would easily pay for this endeavor, but I'm not motivated to do it, and don't have the cash to put down on it...
Kickstart it. Wasteland 2 has shown there are plenty of people interested in funding potentially excellent projects, a number of people even kicked in $10k *each*. But you said you're not motivated, so it's probably better to just drop it.
Including the "I can do better than this." comments.
-
Including the "I can do better than this." comments.
Yeah. Having the energy to get the job done is a core 'skill'. Not having it means that you can't "do better than this". Suggesting otherwise is Monday-morning quarterbacking.
Paul
-
Problem with F2P games is they try to nickel and dime you, and to get a normal game play experience you typically have to pay *more* per month than if it was a subscription. Sure, you can play the game and never spend a game, but you are often playing against people who *do* spend the money. Thus, you end up loosing to those with more money than you, and its horribly unbalanced. World of Tanks is a great F2P game, but if you can afford "premium ammo", you automatically have a much better lead over your opponents. Some people like F2P, but IMO its just corporations trying to squeeze more money out of you, just like DLC. 15 years ago if a game sold well they'd continue to support it for a while, now they often just make it, release it, and leave it.
Browser based means there are serious limits on things like textures and models. All that stuff has to be downloaded over your internet connection, and you can't play it without internet. There is no way to mod the game, or do any tweaks yourself. The unity engine is more of a framework for scripting things to make a game, and will have its own limitations and overhead. But, a browser based game *does* open the door for people with older hardware to play it, which is the #1 reason to do a browser game. Thus they are targeting this for the lowest common denominator to have more players.
A collectible game on the computer? So you start with maybe 4 designs, and you gotta pay a few bucks for each one after that. You gotta pay for new equipment, pay for new armor, etc, etc, etc... again, people with more money have an automatic advantage, and IMO the amount of money you have shouldn't automatically give you an advantage in play over some kid who saved up for 3 months to just get his first upgrade.
I have experience with software development, with online games, with game architecture, game design, directx, various 3D game engines, etc, etc. So it isn't that I'm biased on this game, I just really think it'll be pretty crappy. Heck the entire way it plays is completely different than BT. Its a you-go-I-go method, like warhammer. I didn't see any vehicles or infantry either. And only 1 lance??? Well, that is probably falling back to the architectural limits of the browser engine.
As for doing an official BT product, kickstart or otherwise, I don't own the IP. And tho I have a lot of experience in the industry, I have no idea who to talk to at MSFT to get a license (I've sent numerous emails with no success). That is where my motivation falls off, the whole legality thing. Plus, I am working on my own BT project that has been my goal for a really long time, and that is far closer to master of orion than megamek.
The key thing about either of these games IMO, is aside from the few thousand of us fans around the country that will surely play it, we are the minority of players on both. Hopefully these 2 games will open the doors to the BTU to people who aren't familiar with it, and perhaps get some more people buying books and miniatures. Even if its really bad there will be *some* people who play it, and even a couple hundred new BT board game players in the US is a noticeable bump.
I'm very open minded to both MWO and MWT, and will try both, but I find it amazing how many people are so adamant about defending both games without playing them, especially when so many negative features are coming out about both of them. Sorry, but F2P, Browser Based, and collectible are all "negative features" for players, and all 3 "positive features" for the companies that make them.
-
I'm very open minded to both MWO and MWT, and will try both, but I find it amazing how many people are so adamant about defending both games without playing them,
I find it amazing how many people are so adamant about attacking both games without playing them.
Paul
-
I find it amazing how many people are so adamant about attacking both games without playing them.
When you have play as many games as I do, understand the underlying architecture, and see the poor quality of all the other F2P/Browser games on the market, well, it is pretty easy to say a game will suck before it even comes out based on a few screenshots and gameplay movies. It isn't about graphics or pretty pictures, its about the fine details and polish one who knows what they are looking at can see in such imagery.
Well since MWT is a browser game pretty much everybody can play it, and since so many are all sooooo sure it'll be great, if it is, I'll never post another thing about any MW type computer game, ever. Better yet, I'm so sure this game will NOT be great, that if it is, I'll donate the stack of BT miniatures in my closet to any charity ya'll can find that would want them. MWO could end up being pretty decent, but tactics won't.
-
Well since MWT is a browser game pretty much everybody can play it, and since so many are all sooooo sure it'll be great, if it is, I'll never post another thing about any MW type computer game, ever. Better yet, I'm so sure this game will NOT be great, that if it is, I'll donate the stack of BT miniatures in my closet to any charity ya'll can find that would want them.
I don't think either's necessary or desirable. I'll drop you a PM with some suggestions though.
Paul
-
I'm so sure this game will NOT be great, that if it is
Please define this, because I want to see you donate.
-
When you have play as many games as I do, understand the underlying architecture, and see the poor quality of all the other F2P/Browser games on the market, well, it is pretty easy to say a game will suck before it even comes out based on a few screenshots and gameplay movies. It isn't about graphics or pretty pictures, its about the fine details and polish one who knows what they are looking at can see in such imagery.
I'm looking at the same movies and screenshots, and love the way it looks and plays.
Honestly, I have no problem with you not liking the art. It's subjective.
What I do have a problem with is the "I could do better." You asked for us to evaluate your work versus theirs, and the comparison isn't even close in my opinion. Give me Mechwarrior Tactics.
-
When you have play as many games as I do, understand the underlying architecture, and see the poor quality of all the other F2P/Browser games on the market, well, it is pretty easy to say a game will suck before it even comes out based on a few screenshots and gameplay movies. It isn't about graphics or pretty pictures, its about the fine details and polish one who knows what they are looking at can see in such imagery.
Well since MWT is a browser game pretty much everybody can play it, and since so many are all sooooo sure it'll be great, if it is, I'll never post another thing about any MW type computer game, ever. Better yet, I'm so sure this game will NOT be great, that if it is, I'll donate the stack of BT miniatures in my closet to any charity ya'll can find that would want them. MWO could end up being pretty decent, but tactics won't.
You know the only way anybody on here will know if the games will be decent is when we can start playing them. I am sure that there will be some parts on both games that nobody will like or will be rough around the edges and other parts will be exciting. I am looking forward to playing both games and to see how they turn out. Primarily tactics is the one for me.
I just don't get why some people are completely against the games just because of how the mechs look, and I know that Catalyst has links to the sites for both games but are they allowing the companies to use the current renditions of the models?
-
browser based games have two main hurdles to overcome, and pay4premium has one.
a browser game needs to have very good coding or it'll rapidly devolve into a mess over time, and it needs to handle shutting down hackers (unavoidable in these things) very quickly or they'll find most of their player base heading to the egress in short order. the hardest part is going to be managing the right balance of premium content added to make money against free content added to keep potential players interested in joining (and presumably making purchases if they enjoy themselves.
with that said, i can't find any real track record for the developers involved*, so MW:T looks like it'll be a bit of a trial by fire for the group as a whole.
Please define this, because I want to see you donate.
.........can i declare myself a charity? ^-^
*there's plenty of claims of them working on successful titles, but not who and in what capacity. they may as well say they've got the accounting dream team and hired some guys off of zynga that were fired due to not having the skill they put on their resume for programming.
-
Get back on topic, please. [copper]
-
Well, there's always Kickstarter for fund raising.
To be honest though, my expectations are being lowered instead of raised with every little tidbit released. I'm still hopeful, so I'll just have to play the game for a few weeks to make up my mind.
Man, this has me hankering for some MegaMek, but I don't have the time to play these days.
-
Get back on topic, please. [copper]
I like making big stompy robots shoot each other in whatever medium I can.
-
I still want to play the game 4 mechs or not and free....I am sick of paying for games :D
-
Man, this has me hankering for some MegaMek, but I don't have the time to play these days.
Well, I would think MW:Tactics would be great for you because they have that "asynchronous" gameplay. What I think that means for anybody who doesn't know you can log out and then log back in and your game is still there, although hopefully by then the other player has logged in and put in his moves/decisions and the game can progress. It might be similar to "play by email" that some older turn based games had.
-
I'm looking at the same movies and screenshots, and love the way it looks and plays.
Honestly, I have no problem with you not liking the art. It's subjective.
What I do have a problem with is the "I could do better." You asked for us to evaluate your work versus theirs, and the comparison isn't even close in my opinion. Give me Mechwarrior Tactics.
I wanted to say earlier that I'm looking forward to the game. It looks like it's very close to the table top- and from being on the MWO forums, there are already many threads from fans of the video game series in the 'Battletech universe' thread asking about the table top, asking what they need to play, help with the rules, and announcing arrival of their newly purchased boxed sets.
That's for the 'first person' 'simulator' game. If people enjoy Tactics, we could see many more new players joining the table top as well, especially regarding its similiarity. For that reason alone, I applaud it.
I also remember years ago wishing for a proper video game of the tabletop. I think MegaMek is fantastic- but it's not well known outside the table top community. Having a visually more attractive version, in 3D, and a company's financial backing and advertising... I'm really looking forward to Tactics.
I'm not too familiar with 'F2P' games, but I was reluctant to try World of Warcraft for a long time because I disagreed with the 'subscription' fee idea. I got a lot of enjoyment out of it, however, and certainly more value for my dollar than a $60 game I'd rent for a week (~$10-15) and- I wasn't keen for 'DLC' with all the mini and separate purchases. On the other hand, most 'expansions' these days run about $15 a pop and- depending on the game- give similar amount of content to what a $40 boxed expansion gave 10 years ago.
Prices for goods change. Regardless of payment model, the content and enjoyment should be weighed- I'm going to give both games a fair shake, and likely make purchases. Whether it's 'nickle and diming' or 'required' extras to remain competitive or merely cosmetic I'm going to compare the costs to a game I'd pick up off the shelf. I suspect that $60 for one game will go a long way with both of these games.
-
I'm fine with the plan they have for Mechwarrior Tactics. From what I have seen it looks to be an Introductory Rulebook done in 3D.
True, you have to buy "STAC's" booster packs to get more mech chassis and components to build a mech out of, but they have to make money after all. I would probably do something similar if I ran their company.
I know people are saying that MegaMek is a superior game, but I have to disagree. I've always found the game to be very clunky to work with, and I cannot get any of my friends to even try it. I also do think that a 3D game is going to be a much better game than a 2D one. I've even started helping another forum poster with a little project of his own to make a 3D game.
-
I'm intrigued enough by this to give it a try once it goes live.
-
Some new details available:
http://www.pixelhunt.com.au/2012/04/featured/preview-mechwarrior-tactics-developer-roundtable/ (http://www.pixelhunt.com.au/2012/04/featured/preview-mechwarrior-tactics-developer-roundtable/)
http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/mechwarrior-tactics/1223668p1.html (http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/mechwarrior-tactics/1223668p1.html)
http://www.gamesradar.com/mechwarrior-tactics-we-talk-booster-packs-customization-and-heat-management-devs/ (http://www.gamesradar.com/mechwarrior-tactics-we-talk-booster-packs-customization-and-heat-management-devs/)
http://wire.vg/1NOB (http://wire.vg/1NOB)
-
True, you have to buy "STAC's" booster packs to get more mech chassis and components to build a mech out of, but they have to make money after all. I would probably do something similar if I ran their company.
From what I've read, you won't have to buy the stacks if you don't want to. You'll earn them just by playing. It's just that people who do pay will get their extra toys faster.
-
I posted a reply in Gamesradar, but I wanted to bring it up here as well. Is anyone else troubled by the asynchronous combat turns?
Do the other articles have more in-depth info on just what the difference is between Asynchronous and "Hot-Seat"?
-
You and your opponent will plan your turns out at the same time. Once both of you have submitted your turns, the turn is "run" by the server, and results are available as a 3D "movie" of that turn's action.
Main difference between this and normal TT rules would be that you plot your moves for every mech all at once, blind of what your opponent is doing.
-
Thought so. Dang.
I would have preferred something synchronous, hopefully that's what hot-seat is. Still, I'd love to play with a friend over the interwebs on my android phone, throughout the day. I get an update and I can move my 'Mech. If you put torso-twisting in the movement phase, you can shoot your weapons at the same time afterwards.
-
Finally some game play footage without someone talking over it. Not much, but more than I've seen previously.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=K3tuV20ogl0
Anyone else getting the feeling they've squished weapons' ranges a bit?
-
really just a lance? now i am a little disappointed I wanted to bring in a full company :D
-
Finally some game play footage without someone talking over it. Not much, but more than I've seen previously.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=K3tuV20ogl0
Anyone else getting the feeling they've squished weapons' ranges a bit?
If you stop that trailer at 0:10~0:12, you can see the opponent's planned moves- blue hexes with facing in front of his 'mechs. There's red lines drawn from the orange 'mechs to the blue ones- which I assume are the fire declarations of the weapons phase. (0:10 actually has the attack window, with the 2 medium lasers and the AC20 listed of 'boomer' listed)
It's kind of odd that they would faithfully recreate everything about the TT game and speed up movement- are you sure you're not describing the 'hot seat' feature?
-
Also, it'd be much, much cooler if the weapons fired while they were moving instead of waiting for them to stop then firing. Cause, well, they don't actually stop moving: they only move that far in those ten seconds. Otherwise, I'm just skipping the animations.
Hope there's a readout of damage/hits a la MM.
-
It's kind of odd that they would faithfully recreate everything about the TT game and speed up movement- ...
Eh, not really. Remember that you're going to be playing against strangers, many of who might be on the opposite side of the world from you. If you went with the traditional 'I move a unit, you move a unit' movement, a single turn would last weeks. And this way they dont have to worry about initiative either.
What worries me is this talk about 'rare' equipment and collected sets from the same manufacturer giving you bonuses.
-
Eh, not really. Remember that you're going to be playing against strangers, many of who might be on the opposite side of the world from you. If you went with the traditional 'I move a unit, you move a unit' movement, a single turn would last weeks. And this way they dont have to worry about initiative either.
What worries me is this talk about 'rare' equipment and collected sets from the same manufacturer giving you bonuses.
Rare equipment I was not thrilled about, but could live with. A specific engine type I might want to have, but each engines has it's advantages and drawbacks. (tonnage versus speed, etc). The collected sets giving a bonus, that was disappointing. An advantage in combat that's only drawback is play more and/or spend more. That was the thing that I thought they were going to avoid.
I'd still play, it's only one part of the game, but it's the only one so far I really wish they would change.
-
I think asynchronous is going to be way better for this type of game. Unless you're going to completely finish a game in 15-20 min, it's better than losing because you get pulled away by some sort of distraction. And as long as both you and your opponent are online at the same time, the game is only going to be a little slower. Another bonus - as on of the articles points out - is that you can have multiple games going with an asynchronous approach.
-
I fail to see what the asynch issue is. That's how BattleTech turns are plotted right now. I move, you move. I move, you move. The biggest difference I see is that it's lance movement rather than individual movement. As truegrit points out, this approach does have its advantages. Same with fire declaration. Really the only thing that happens at the same time is the effects of damage.
-
Asynchronous means we both move at the same time, but are completely blind to what the other one's doing.
Initiative's gone, and maneuvering is trickier since we don't know where the other'll end up. Granted, it sucked that a die roll determined whether or not you could move last, but it allowed us to capitalize positioning. Especially for lance on lance fights.
Hot-seat seems to be where it's at. Asynch is best suited for company and higher battles.
-
If you say so. I haven't gotten my beta invite yet, it sounds like you did.
Unless you're just making asumptions.
-
Thought so. Dang.
I would have preferred something synchronous, hopefully that's what hot-seat is. Still, I'd love to play with a friend over the interwebs on my android phone, throughout the day. I get an update and I can move my 'Mech. If you put torso-twisting in the movement phase, you can shoot your weapons at the same time afterwards.
Pretty sure the devs said the game won't support tablets/phones out of the gate; while the game uses the Unity engine, it's starting out with the browser-only version. Unity Apps would come next.
I'm certain it will end up on tablets, not sure if phones will have the pixels for it.
-
Gotta make sure the divide between the players buying boosters with in-game currency and the players with real money isn't too large. Then we're golden.
-
I hope the points-system mitigates some of that worry Youngblood. So if you try to pay to win, you're still going to fight people who are just as leveled up as you are.
-
i think people are waaaaaaay ahead of themselves when they declare that that game is "MegaMek with modern graphics"... it isn't. not even close.
and it breaks my heart :-\
-
New pictures of 'Mechs:
http://www.mwtactics.com/forums/index.php?/topic/232-mech-bios-and-unity-engine-shots/ (http://www.mwtactics.com/forums/index.php?/topic/232-mech-bios-and-unity-engine-shots/)
Checking stats of those 'Mechs, it seems that they are true to their tabletop originals.
I like the Jenner side view, there's something dinosaur-like in it.
-
i think people are waaaaaaay ahead of themselves when they declare that that game is "MegaMek with modern graphics"... it isn't. not even close.
and it breaks my heart :-\
Fine, it's Words with friends with guns on a Battletech setting.
I'm still cool with that.
-
well I like what I see there.
-
Fine, it's Words with friends with guns on a Battletech setting.
I'm still cool with that.
I agree; I have MegaMek and the board game. What I want out of this is fast/convenient (relatively), fun gameplay that lets me bash robots in the BattleTech universe.
-
I agree; I have MegaMek and the board game. What I want out of this is fast/convenient (relatively), fun gameplay that lets me bash robots in the BattleTech universe.
That's how it starts: first with the oohs and ahhs (convenient and fast play) then there's the running and screaming (realising they are addicted to a rich universe with various ways to get your fix).
-
Fine, it's Words with friends with guns on a Battletech setting.
I'm still cool with that.
you mean there's going to be people that just draw a big circle with the words "Stand here" and point all their 'mechs at it hoping i'll give them a cheap win? because i have no problem with people trying that on me.
-
New pictures of 'Mechs:
http://www.mwtactics.com/forums/index.php?/topic/232-mech-bios-and-unity-engine-shots/ (http://www.mwtactics.com/forums/index.php?/topic/232-mech-bios-and-unity-engine-shots/)
Checking stats of those 'Mechs, it seems that they are true to their tabletop originals.
I like the Jenner side view, there's something dinosaur-like in it.
Whew I do like that Jenner! Faithful to the original design but more...I dunno plausible I guess. That cockpit is sweet.
-
That's how it starts: first with the oohs and ahhs (convenient and fast play) then there's the running and screaming (realising they are addicted to a rich universe with various ways to get your fix).
Realizing? Me and my wallet are resigned to it O0
-
New pictures of 'Mechs:
http://www.mwtactics.com/forums/index.php?/topic/232-mech-bios-and-unity-engine-shots/ (http://www.mwtactics.com/forums/index.php?/topic/232-mech-bios-and-unity-engine-shots/)
Checking stats of those 'Mechs, it seems that they are true to their tabletop originals.
I like the Jenner side view, there's something dinosaur-like in it.
...yikes
-
...yikes
While the designs are a bit of a departure from the original artwork, someone does state in the thread that the reason the designs were redone is so that they can be easily modeled to reflect your modifications to them.
As I understand it, if you swap out the AC20 off the Hunchback for LRMs, it will reflect that with the disappearance of the shoulder mounted autocannon and instead have visible LRM launchers on it.
Sort of the Omnimech concept...except it's for computer graphics.
-
The Spider is gorgeous.
-
http://www.pcworld.com/article/260068/mechwarrior_tactics_is_looking_good.html (http://www.pcworld.com/article/260068/mechwarrior_tactics_is_looking_good.html)
Check the page for more details about this upcoming game.
I like the third picture and the accompanying text most.
So there will be different weapons and equipment manufacturers, and each weapon from different manufacturer will have different characteristics - Wow!
Aberdovey Medium laser will be more accurate while Starflash Medium laser will run hotter while Argra 3L Medium laser will be more rugged while Martell Medium laser will be cheaper to repair because it is so common ...
More images of game interface too!
-
NICE. I don't think equipment has been this detailed in a table-top experience before!
-
That's pretty awesome. It would be ridiculously impressive if they based all the quirks on TRO fluff. Note: It's NOT going to make me enjoy this less if they did not, but still…that'd be insane.
-
Definitely interested. The different advantages to the weapons will make for a lot of fun, esp if there's any sort of campaign play.
-
Definitely interested. The different advantages to the weapons will make for a lot of fun, esp if there's any sort of campaign play.
As much as I know there will be no campaign, be it single-player or multiple-player mode. But there will be AI-controlled adversary for training. And the maximum size of unit will be one lance, so you will be stuck with fout 'Mechs on the battlefield anyway.
-
i think people are waaaaaaay ahead of themselves when they declare that that game is "MegaMek with modern graphics"... it isn't. not even close.
and it breaks my heart :-\
if Its NOT "Megamek with 3d Graphics" I will be incredibly dissapointed with it, and I will promptly ignore it and go back to megamek.
-
I just read the article and it says you declare attacks before movement. WHAT SORCERY IS THIS!?
-
if Its NOT "Megamek with 3d Graphics" I will be incredibly dissapointed with it, and I will promptly ignore it and go back to megamek.
Why do I feel like you just laid out a self-fulfilling prophecy for us?
-
I just read the article and it says you declare attacks before movement. WHAT SORCERY IS THIS!?
Yeah, that made me blink too.
I assume it's more intuitive, or helps with the flow. The video so far has shown them firing as the 'mechs are moving around the map. Having someone put the movement in first and then firing might cause issues where a 'mech is firing into a mountain as it walks around it and finally gets line of sight at the very end of the turn.
Switching to firing then moving wouldn't have that because he didn't have LOS first?
I dunno.
I got nothing...
-
if Its NOT "Megamek with 3d Graphics" I will be incredibly dissapointed with it, and I will promptly ignore it and go back to megamek.
Unfortunately it won't be. I think it'll be a nice diversion for quick, one off games but I don't see it occupying me the way battletech/megamek does. Most of the depth to it (so far) sounds like it will come from wanting to earn more equipment through random chance (you're essentially buying 'collectible boxes' and hoping to find good stuff in there - either with in game credits or actual cash). But from what they've said so far you won't have persistent pilots, you're limited to a lance, you're limited to what you pull out of the STACs for 'Mechs and equipment and many other things that will be sorely lacking compared to MM (also, some what simplified game rules based on their interviews I've read).
It *does* sound like they plan to add some more depth to it eventually and may even expand beyond a single lance. They were also asking people about events / battles they'd like to see represented during the 3025 time frame, so who knows how they would work that in without adding some sort of campaign or at least AI, so that could be interesting if anything comes of it.
I'm looking forward to it, despite finding a few things disappointing, and I think it will be an interesting twist and will be cool to see the battles so well animated but I won't go in expecting it to be exactly tabletop battletech on the computer / megamek in 3D.
Yeah, that made me blink too.
I assume it's more intuitive, or helps with the flow. The video so far has shown them firing as the 'mechs are moving around the map. Having someone put the movement in first and then firing might cause issues where a 'mech is firing into a mountain as it walks around it and finally gets line of sight at the very end of the turn.
Switching to firing then moving wouldn't have that because he didn't have LOS first?
I dunno.
I got nothing...
It has to do with timing, all movement/firing occurs at once. So you don't move, wait for your opponent to move, move, repeat. It's a twist on the game to keep things more fluid and require less waiting on the other side. Since I believe the plan is to have both players input all of their attacks / movement and then once both sides have hit 'complete', the round completes at once. Curious to see how they'll deal with things like a Spider running out of firing arc / range or 'collisions'. I'll also be sad if this removes the possibility for physical attacks, this is the first game that could have implemented it without it seeming clunky.
-
It's NOT Megamek. It's also NOT battletech. It's a turn based tactical game set in the battletech universe.
I just read the article and it says you declare attacks before movement. WHAT SORCERY IS THIS!?
Don't panic, it actually makes sense.
In MWT, you don't roll for initiative and then take turns. Both players plot all their moves and attacks at the same time and then when you're done the game shows you what all happened. A targets movement modifiers are based on their movement LAST turn and their terrain modifiers are based on where they are at the start of THIS turn. They have to do it this way because if they used modifiers from the current turn you'd have no idea what those modifiers were because you don't know what your opponent is doing until you're both finished.
Another interesting note, the game decides what order weapons fire is resolved in. They've promised that it will always resolve in the most effective way. Probably means big hitters like autocannons before cluster weapons. They also said that the order of the visuals will be randomized so you don't get boring scenes of everyone firing their autocannons then everyone firing their lasers followed by everyone firing their missiles.
-
No melee combat. I forget why they said they're not doing it at the start, but I think they said they want to later. I know a lot of people have asked for it.
Here's some random stuff I've found in their forums and other articles.
""A laser isn't just a laser," Williams said. "A laser is going to be created by a certain manufacturer, and so if you have a number of components from the same manufacturer, you can actually have bonuses. So we're driving players to actually look for and collect components that work well together." I'm not sure item set bonuses will be worth the inventory bloat that comes from having Coke and Pepsi-flavored autocannons, but I'm even more doubtful that this will square with their intent to make skill paramount in deciding victory.
I think the PCworld article hinted on this. I personally like the idea of not every medium laser being the same thing.
There's another wrinkle: when you commit a lance to combat, those units are no longer available for other games until their game is resolved. So if you like playing lots of games simultaneously -- and with the pace of Tactics' turn-based asynchronous combat, you probably will -- you won't be able to have one super-lance that you can use in every one. In this way, it pays to have a lot of Mechs and equipment in your virtual Mech bay
　
While the team is laser-focused on making a competitive 1v1 wargame, Williams and Cleroux definitely want it to be about more than deathmatch. "We want players to be able to engage in missions and matches that are about more than just blowing each other up," Cleroux said. "We want players to have to make critical decisions and have choices about, 'How am I going to go about planning my lance construction to best achieve a different type of objective?""
All the hit locations are randomized, but are weighted, in order of most to least likely to be hit: Center Torso, Left/Right Torso, Left/Right Arm, Left/Right Leg, Head.
Pilots do not gain experience. Each Pilot will have their own set of skills, but those cannot be modified. There is no perma-death for any card that you have collected through STACs.
STACs are bought with scrap or C-bills. Scrap you earn. C-bills you buy.
Bronze STAC: 8 "cards"
Silver STAC: 8 cards. One is a guaranteed "foil"
Gold STAC: 8 cards. One guaranteed to be rare
Platinum STAC: 8 uncommon or better cards and 1 bonus rare.
-
It's NOT Megamek. It's also NOT battletech. It's a turn based tactical game set in the battletech universe.
I've mentioned that I know they won't be the same - I just want to say that I've found it very odd since realizing that, specifically due to the fact that Battletech already *is* a turn based tactical game set in the Battletech universe. :D Remaking the wheel.
-
Battletech is a turn base game for use with people in front of you and active. You can expect your opponent to respond to your moves fairly quickly.
Tactics is one where you might be facing someone who can only get a bunch of orders in one time per day. You cant keep the exact same rules set.
Not so much remaking the wheel as realising the wheels for a truck have different needs then one for a NASCAR racer.
-
that doesn't hold though. it sounds like changes are being made that have NOTHING to do with the ability to play asynchronously.
It sounds an awful lot like something that I am not going to touch. I'm tired of every videogame representation of battletech trying to reinvent battletech. I can't believe that the only digital representation of battletech that stays faithful to the rules is Megamek. You would think that atleast ONCE we could get an official game, that actually stuck to the rules. is mechwarrior 2 the closest we're ever going to get to that?
-
?
Seems to me MW Tactics is a hell of a lot closer to the rules than MW2. So far the biggest change seems to be the simultaneous movement/firing. Which does make things smoother for online play. It means you submit all your turn's orders, then wait for the opponent to do the same, then you see the resolution, and you input orders/data for the next turn. It's a good solution.
I'll also note one of the biggest time saving addition to MMek recently is the simultaneous weapons fire phase. LOVE that.
Paul
-
No, I'm looking at stuff like
""A laser isn't just a laser," Williams said. "A laser is going to be created by a certain manufacturer, and so if you have a number of components from the same manufacturer, you can actually have bonuses.
wat. I have serious problems with cases where equipment diverges from LONG ESTABLISHED STATS ABOUT THE EQUIPMENT
No melee combat
Not that any games have bothered to include this outside of a few of the mechwarrior games taking collision damage, but it seems remiss to leave it out
declare attacks before movement
Look, okay, I get simultaneous fire rounds, I even like it on megamek, but I'd rather we kept the turns the way they are in the official rules
the game decides what order weapons fire is resolved in.
Shouldnt that be up to me, as the player? what gives?
and then, on top of that, people saying that its not the same rules as battletech. People whom I presume have done more research into the topic than I have, since "visiting this thread" is about as far as that goes for me.
if it DOES stick closer than indicated, to the rules for the game we're already familiar with, I'll be happy. if it makes up a whole new game and ignores all the material we already have, then screw it. I'm not spending a dime on it.
-
... You would think that atleast ONCE we could get an official game, that actually stuck to the rules. ...
We have that already. You can get it here: bg.battletech.com And yes I know you meant on the computer, but we don't know that on the computer. We've already got on our tables.
And yeah, they are kind of remaking the wheel, but it's for good reason. They're not just aiming for CBT players. They're looking for all kinds of people so they're going to come up with ways to appeal to a wider audience. They're also taking advantage of the medium. With a computer handling all the details they can do a lot more.
-
Well, that's entirely up to you. I guess I'm not as stuck on a singular way of enjoying a BT game. I came in to the universe through MW2, have played all the various MW games since, (and 1-2 prior) and I think all of them have contributed to a way to experience BT. I'm not saying I think you're wrong, I just find myself completely disagreeing.
Paul
-
We have that already. You can get it here: bg.battletech.com And yes I know you meant on the computer, but we don't know that on the computer. We've already got on our tables.
And yeah, they are kind of remaking the wheel, but it's for good reason. They're not just aiming for CBT players. They're looking for all kinds of people so they're going to come up with ways to appeal to a wider audience. They're also taking advantage of the medium. With a computer handling all the details they can do a lot more.
No, we have that on the tabletop. and we have Megamek thanks to a group of very dedicated fans, who've done a wonderful job.
But near as I can tell, there's never been a videogame whose goals included "True faithfulness to established materials"
Why do I care so much? Because I want my battletech games to feel like battletech. I want what happens in my mechsim game to feel like it could have happened on the boardgame. I want my turn based strategy game to work like the turn based strategy game that I already know. I want the things that I'm already familiar with to MEAN something. I don't think its unreasonable to want my CPLT-C1 Catapult to behave the same whether its in Mechwarrior Tactics, or on the gaming table.
I could understand wanting to diverge, if someone had already presented a completely faithful adaptation. But so far, not even megamek, which has done a marvelous job trying, has hit that mark completely. Every one of the commercially produced games has diverged from the established rules. Mech2 did so the least, far as I can tell. and I keep hearing the old line about reaching a broader audience. Mechassault's heretical diversions? Broader audience. MW Dark Age? Broader Audience. the changes to the system in Mech4? Game Balance. and where are we now? Microsoft completely lost interest in battletech games and we've been without a mechsim game for the better part of a decade. MWDA flopped. Maybe its time somebody making auxillary products gave a damn about the existing, loyal, fanbase, and gave the existing materials more consideration.
I mean, what's wrong with those existing stats and rules we've already got? they obviously aren't THAT bad, or why would we all be here?
-
wat. I have serious problems with cases where equipment diverges from LONG ESTABLISHED STATS ABOUT THE EQUIPMENT
Doesn't the fluff often mention some companies making more accurate, longer range, lower power consumptions, etc versions of things? In that case, MWT is going to be far more accurate to the fluff than the table top game is.
Look, okay, I get simultaneous fire rounds, I even like it on megamek, but I'd rather we kept the turns the way they are in the official rules
Which won't work because movement is handled at the same time as well.
Shouldnt that be up to me, as the player? what gives?
I think they said it was a balancing thing between casual players that are new to the CBT world and those who have played the game for the last 25 years. But really though, does it mater that much?
and then, on top of that, people saying that its not the same rules as battletech. People whom I presume have done more research into the topic than I have, since "visiting this thread" is about as far as that goes for me.
It's not the same rules, but they are based on/inspired by the same rules. Still have hexes, range brackets, heat, hit locations, movement mods, etc... It's not CBT, but it is the same flavor.
if it DOES stick closer than indicated, to the rules for the game we're already familiar with, I'll be happy. if it makes up a whole new game and ignores all the material we already have, then screw it. I'm not spending a dime on it.
No one is. It's free! [rockon]
-
Doesn't the fluff often mention some companies making more accurate, longer range, lower power consumptions, etc versions of things? In that case, MWT is going to be far more accurate to the fluff than the table top game is.
Other than the optional quirks, and their mentions in the EARLY materials, no, I can't think of any instances of this. I welcome citations on more recent products indicating that a weapon ought to outperform other versions of that weapon though.
But really though, does it mater that much?
As pertains to battletech and battletech related materials, I cannot think of anything that matters more to me.
No one is. It's free!
No, its Free to Play, but with the implication that they're expecting to make money on this, they'll most certainly be designing it so that you'll be limited and frustrated if you don't pay SOMETHING for it.
and I'm willing to pay. I bought a Mechwarrior Online founders package. I've bought atleast the base version of every other mechwarrior game. And I'd pay even more, for what I'm ranting and raving about here.
But I know I'm not going to get it. All of my vehemence and passion here are going to mean jack squat. They're never going to make anything even close to the game I want. But just once, I'd like to see it happen. I'd like to see our loyalty rewarded. I'd like to see the developers of a commercial battletech game put the core fanbase first. Because those "Wider Audiences" are going to be fickle friends to the game. We may win over some converts, sure. After all, a lot of us, myself included joined because of MW2. But look at the CCG. Look at the microsoft games. look at MW Dark Age. Where are they now?
What's left, what keeps trudging on no matter how much fire you keep slinging at it? Who sticks with it when the great unwashed masses flock to the next flavor of the day?
The core fans, thats who. What keeps on going like a 3025 awesome? The core game.
-
It's also possible that catalyst doesn't want someone to make a 100% complete adaptation. A video game can get someone into the CBT world and lead them into playing CBT which in turn leads to money for Catalyst. If a video game already captures the table top game perfectly, then why bother playing the table top game?
Yeah, megamek already 100% captures CBT, but it doesn't exactly have a mass market appeal that makes it a threat.
I remember reading an article years ago about the first Dawn of War game. During a meeting with the guys at Games-workshop the lead guy from Relic went over all the stuff they were doing to keep their RTS lined up with WH40k's turn based game play. Half way into the pitch they stopped him. The GW guy then explained the 40k universe to him and said, "That's the universe we put our game in. Don't base your game on our game. Base your game on our universe." The Dawn of War games ended up better for it.
-
But near as I can tell, there's never been a videogame whose goals included "True faithfulness to established materials"
The perception exists in the industry that a game that typically can last 4-10 hours to complete isn't competitive, be it a videogame or a board game.
Sales in either industry supports that assumption.
Logic then demands that you look at that potential quality as a problem you'll want to mitigate in some way.
Combining a few phases together, etc, are all efforts to mitigate such. You'll find many players doing various things to the way phases work in BT to achieve the same thing on tabletop.
I see great wisdom in those actions. It cuts the amount of back n forth between players, who may not even be on the same continent, in half. That will greatly improve its chance to be a successful game that people will try and keep playing.
Put another way, the thing I HATE with a furious passion is the Done button in MMek. For numerous phases, those should be on a timer, just to eliminate the HOURS of time lost waiting for players to click it every damn phase. It is by far the biggest reason that repels people from playing large MMek games with multiple players.
MWT has *killed* that problem pre-emptively. That's smart.
Why do I care so much? Because I want my battletech games to feel like battletech.
I guess the parameters needed for something to "feel like BattleTech" differ from person to person. MechCommander feels like BT to me. Do did MW4. I gather from your desire to have an exact replica of the board game, neither of those games felt like BT to you.
I want what happens in my mechsim game to feel like it could have happened on the boardgame.
I guess you don't like the BT novels neither? Stuff happens in those that can't ever happen in the board game.
I don't think its unreasonable to want my CPLT-C1 Catapult to behave the same whether its in Mechwarrior Tactics, or on the gaming table.
I think a lot of that depends on how you define the behavior of a CPLT-C1, or any other 'Mech. In MWT, it can jump around/over terrain, it can fire LRMs, or MLs. To me, they've then captured the essence of the design. The bits I care about. It's dangerous at range, it's dangerous up close, and it's surprisingly resilient and nimble.
It also was in MW2:Mercs.
I could understand wanting to diverge, if someone had already presented a completely faithful adaptation. But so far, not even megamek, which has done a marvelous job trying, has hit that mark completely. Every one of the commercially produced games has diverged from the established rules. Mech2 did so the least, far as I can tell.
Apart from it being a FPS, not a turn-based game? With dramatically different weapon dynamics? Where it's quite easy to dissect your opponent, compared to how hard it is in the board game? Where the JJs worked completely different?
Maybe you're not referring the MechWarrior 2, the game by Activision, that had its storyline set in the Refusal War?
Maybe its time somebody making auxillary products gave a damn about the existing, loyal, fanbase, and gave the existing materials more consideration.
As a part of that existing, loyal fanbase, I'll thank you for not speaking on my behalf. Your views don't match mine. Seems to me MWT is giving the existing materials plenty of consideration, and I'm actually very intrigued by what they'll do with weapons. There's no way we can pull that off with the board game without hundreds of pages of supplemental rules and tables. I think it's a clever way to reward people with salvage/extra purchases.
Paul
-
I have serious problems with cases where equipment diverges from LONG ESTABLISHED STATS ABOUT THE EQUIPMENT
How is this different than people at their own tables making up modifiers for weapon brands?
This is an element that adds to the game. It almost gives an RPG element to the game, hooking those players to this Universe.
Why do I care so much? Because I want my battletech games to feel like battletech. I want what happens in my mechsim game to feel like it could have happened on the boardgame. I want my turn based strategy game to work like the turn based strategy game that I already know. I want the things that I'm already familiar with to MEAN something. I don't think its unreasonable to want my CPLT-C1 Catapult to behave the same whether its in Mechwarrior Tactics, or on the gaming table.
Just like I want my movie characters to be exactly like my book characters!
I want this one guy to act just like this chapter and not have his own spin to it.
Forget the idea that it might improve upon the original works or even bring people into the title that originally snubbed or passed it over!
This argument is old as time because every adaptation of something will be different to the original.
MW:Tactics is giving us a chance to see a commercially viable turn based game of Battletech I haven't seen since Battleforce for the Amiga.
Megamek, even though nice (but with its own flaws), is a fan based project. Built for and by those fans, but ultimately it isn't user friendly to those uninitiated.
Reaching out to broaden the audience isn't a bad thing. It brings in more people to continue the life cycle of a product.
Yes there will be stumbles along the way. However even in those failures there will be fans that branch out to the other parts of the title.
I played MW2 and barely even knew there was a board game. Because of that video game I was able to branch out into the Tabletop, TV series, CCG, novels, minis, and the RPG. The teen me back then wouldn't have even thought about all this because he just thought the Mad Cat looked cool.
But look at the CCG. Look at the microsoft games. look at MW Dark Age. Where are they now?
The games may have died but the fans are at my gaming table on Sundays. Those titles did their job.
I mean, what's wrong with those existing stats and rules we've already got? they obviously aren't THAT bad, or why would we all be here?
Why assume we are still able to enjoy this game today just because the existing stats obviously aren't that bad?
Renegade Legion had a great Universe, where's that? Dead.
VOR and other gems had great rules and stats: Dead or limbo.
Part of the reason Battletech has lasted for so long is due to the expansion into these other medias.
Will they keep absolutely true to the Table top? Probably not.
Will they provide enough money for the holding company to think they should keep it, securing us enjoyment for another few years? Darn right they will.
You have concerns, anyone who loves a game will, but unless you and I are privy to what's going on behind that Beta curtain all we are doing is worrying over shadows right now.
-
Hm. I hadn't thought about them being expressly forbidden from making a faithful representation. I've never heard any such sentiment out of the powers that be, though.
Still, is it SO VERY WRONG, to expect a PPC to do 10 damage, and make 10 heat, and have the range brackets its always had? and to expect a medium laser to be 3 heat, 5 damage, and its traditional ranges?
And as for why sit down at the table, if there's a videogame that captures it all? the videogame is never going to include EVERY mech, or cover EVERY era, which the tabletop can do. And even if they did, so what? Those who prefer it electronically can do that, those who want minis can play that way, heck, you could even blend the two, playing on some sort of computer display surface.
I would also think that just because games workshop did it that way, wouldn't have much bearing on how Catalyst does it. I mean, Games Workshop is hardly an example we want anyone following, nor is it something we have any indication that TPTB think anything like them.
I guess the parameters needed for something to "feel like BattleTech" differ from person to person. MechCommander feels like BT to me. Do did MW4. I gather from your desire to have an exact replica of the board game, neither of those games felt like BT to you.
No, MechCommander and Mechwarrior 4 didn't feel anything like what I was expecting. Mechcommander wasn't TOO far off, close enough for me to play through most of it. but mechwarrior 4 felt like microsoft made up their own mech game, and slapped a bunch of battletech themes ontop of it. I could pound six or eight gauss rifle or cER PPC shots into somebody's torso, damage that ought to have eviscerated them in the boardgame, only to feel underwhelmed as my weapons fire utterly failed to perform as expected.
I guess you don't like the BT novels neither? Stuff happens in those that can't ever happen in the board game.
Some of them I like, some of them I don't. Some of that stuff that can't ever happen? like mech cartwheels in one of the early DA books? Yeah, thats bull. But by in large, they feel like the same setting. I've rarely seen anything in the novels that didn't feel like it could have happened with a flexible enough GM.
I think a lot of that depends on how you define the behavior of a CPLT-C1, or any other 'Mech. In MWT, it can jump around/over terrain, it can fire LRMs, or MLs. To me, they've then captured the essence of the design. The bits I care about. It's dangerous at range, it's dangerous up close, and it's surprisingly resilient and nimble.
It also was in MW2:Mercs.
Indeed it was in mechwarrior 2 mercenaries. it was my ride for the vast majority of that game. But its not about "this mech has missiles and lasers" its about "This mech ought to be able to take on this other mech, because those missiles are going to do between x and y amounts of damage, and I can count on the lasers for z." and when suddenly, they're doing half that damage, or not reaching as far, or the mech can't fire the same amount of weapons in a turn because of "balance" or because "someone felt like changing it" i get frustrated, and it no longer feels the same. If you take a mustang, and put the engine from a civic in it, its not going to be the same car anymore, even if the outside looks the same.
As a part of that existing, loyal fanbase, I'll thank you for not speaking on my behalf. Your views don't match mine.
Well, I can't tell you how to feel, but if you don't feel misused and ignored by the way other adaptations of the game have treated us, then you're a far more forgiving person than I am.
-
Just like I want my movie characters to be exactly like my book characters!
I want this one guy to act just like this chapter and not have his own spin to it.
Forget the idea that it might improve upon the original works or even bring people into the title that originally snubbed or passed it over!
I hate that in book to movie adapations with a white hot fury. I am that guy who's upset that they left out the scouring of the shire. I am that guy who's upset at some of the random changes made in the otherwise excellent adaptation that is Game of Thrones, I am that guy who movie producers hate. But I hate it, because so very often, they deviate from, or leave out, that thing that made the work appeal to me in the first place. I wouldn't be upset if I didn't feel that it takes something away from the work.
and I'm not saying that EVERY adapation of it has to be faithful. but point to one, just one adapation other than megamek, thats reliably faithful to the mechanics. MWT looked like it could be That One. and I'm going to be very dissapointed if its just another reinvention of the wheel.
-
Some of them I like, some of them I don't. Some of that stuff that can't ever happen? like mech cartwheels in one of the early DA books? Yeah, thats bull. But by in large, they feel like the same setting. I've rarely seen anything in the novels that didn't feel like it could have happened with a flexible enough GM.
Justin Allard tucked and rolled his Mech in the Warrior Trilogy.
Ardan did something similar in Sword and the Dagger.
Even the Chaos Irregulars stories in Battlecorp established that with enough modifications a Mech would do some gymnastics.
A Falcon on Nosiel did a slight tumble, yeah you'll be banging the dents out but it can be done.
I'm probably forgetting a few other examples. So the Mech that did the cartwheel just had a flexible GM who said "Make the roll" and it was a critical success. *shrug*
-
Hm. I hadn't thought about them being expressly forbidden from making a faithful representation. I've never heard any such sentiment out of the powers that be, though.
Well, remember that all games have to go through the IP owner of electronic BattleTech. That's Microsoft. When they hand out a license, they can make demands. So can companies that sublicense stuff. Neither Topps nor CGL is involved in that process, and they can't forbid much even if they'd want to.
Still, is it SO VERY WRONG, to expect a PPC to do 10 damage, and make 10 heat, and have the range brackets its always had? and to expect a medium laser to be 3 heat, 5 damage, and its traditional ranges?
No. Is it wrong if those same interactions are achieved using other mechanisms? I don't think so.
I would also think that just because games workshop did it that way, wouldn't have much bearing on how Catalyst does it. I mean, Games Workshop is hardly an example we want anyone following, nor is it something we have any indication that TPTB think anything like them.
Unless you like money. Because both GW and Dawn of War are financially successful to a degree well in excess of CGL.
And again, CGL doesn't get to make any demands when it comes to any of the electronic games. They could elect to completely ignore us.
I could pound six or eight gauss rifle or cER PPC shots into somebody's torso, damage that ought to have eviscerated them in the boardgame, only to feel underwhelmed as my weapons fire utterly failed to perform as expected.
Wha? No. You can't.
But I'm following the gist of your point: those 2 games didn't feel like BT to you. Which is fine.
like mech cartwheels in one of the early DA books? Yeah, thats bull.
Not with AES it isn't. Which I added to the Pack Hunter specifically as a nod to that reference. So, neener. =p
That said, yeah, I prefer my Mechs clunky and cumbersome for the most part.
But by in large, they feel like the same setting. I've rarely seen anything in the novels that didn't feel like it could have happened with a flexible enough GM.
But it means a PPC won't do 10 damage and 10 heat!
You can't be super restrictive and then make arbitrary exceptions. Or rather, if you do, you have to be honest about those arbitrary elements. If MW2 felt like BT to you, you're tolerant enough to like other games that aren't a 1:1 representation of the board game. Because MW2 definitely was *NOT* a loyal representation of the board game.
Mind you, that doesn't mean you can't still dislike MWT. But you've proven you can enjoy games even if they're not the board game.
Well, I can't tell you how to feel, but if you don't feel misused and ignored by the way other adaptations of the game have treated us, then you're a far more forgiving person than I am.
With regards to what makes a game qualify as a BattleTech game, yes, I seem to be.
I don't begrudge you your opinion, mind you. Nor am I trying to convince you otherwise.
I just disagree with it, and don't feel you should portray your opinion as representing all long-time BT fans. I'm sure there's people who'll agree with you, but it's not like it'd be right for me to claim that everyone who plays BT today will absolutely love MWT.
Paul
-
and I'm not saying that EVERY adapation of it has to be faithful. but point to one, just one adapation other than megamek, thats reliably faithful to the mechanics. MWT looked like it could be That One. and I'm going to be very dissapointed if its just another reinvention of the wheel.
Why do I have to point to another adaptation other than Megamek.
If anything MM proves my earlier point: Fan based, commercially not so viable, Interface that isn't newbie friendly at times, but it is a fricking fun game.
Even with all those points it still doesn't do everything by the book because even the book has flaws which require a GM to say "Okay we'll do this for now..."
Now if Battletech started as a video game this would have made transitions and remakes a heck of a lot better. It would be quantified, organized, and the rules would probably have less loop holes. Take that and make it a board game then allow the fleshling humans their imagination at the tables.
However what we got was a game where the main selling point was spending a day with friends over beer and pretzels. The rules had holes in them because someone at the table is adult enough (hopefully) to cut through the arguing with a decision. Along the decades we've done pretty well in organizing these rules, but we still have some flaws in them.
Your dream would have been more attainable had this come out a video game first then a board game.
Edit:
I'm going to echo a part of Paul's last statement.
My main hope for this game is to bring in new blood and people who still think Battletech died with FASA.
We aren't gasping for air anymore, if anything we've risen like a zombie.
Just try to kill us now. Go on world, but we've infected more. >:D
With games like these I can refer to an Atlas or Mad Cat and see some glimmer in a person's eye as they remember the video game instead of a dead look because they have no clue what I'm talking about.
-
But it means a PPC won't do 10 damage and 10 heat!
You can't be super restrictive and then make arbitrary exceptions. Or rather, if you do, you have to be honest about those arbitrary elements. If MW2 felt like BT to you, you're tolerant enough to like other games that aren't a 1:1 representation of the board game. Because MW2 definitely was *NOT* a loyal representation of the board game.
Mind you, that doesn't mean you can't still dislike MWT. But you've proven you can enjoy games even if they're not the board game.
Mechwarrior 2 was close enough in the areas that matters the most to me. Find me a single part, one weapon or piece of equipment that weighs different, has a different damage level, or range, than its boardgame counterpart. near as I can tell, you won't be able to. a clan ER PPC, in MW2 is the right tonnage, damage, and heat level. So's a clan medium pulse laser. and a streak srm rack. if you can point to a single piece of gear in MW2 that doesnt match its BT stats, I'll surrender the argument.
the biggest divergence I can think of, in MW2 is the way you can skate and strafe on jumpjets.
Wha? No. You can't.
Sure as hell did. Not all into the right torso segment, but all of them body hits. and my foe still kept coming. and it was damn near impossible to build canon configs in that game with its hardpoints.
Unless you like money. Because both GW and Dawn of War are financially successful to a degree well in excess of CGL.
Money isn't everything. I'd much rather have a good game that wasn't just a means to make money, like we have with battletech, than the way things are with Games Workshop. You can tell me with a straight face that their methods and tactics aren't straight up abusive and designed to squeeze their fans for money?
With regards to what makes a game qualify as a BattleTech game, yes, I seem to be.
I don't begrudge you your opinion, mind you. Nor am I trying to convince you otherwise.
I just disagree with it, and don't feel you should portray your opinion as representing all long-time BT fans. I'm sure there's people who'll agree with you, but it's not like it'd be right for me to claim that everyone who plays BT today will absolutely love MWT.
Just once though, I'd like to see a game made with the existing players in mind. One that caters to them. One without silly shoulder spikes on atlases, and mechs that look nothing like the mech their model name and number claim them to be. One where the canon construction rules still apply, and a PPC weighs, heats and damages exactly what it does in the boardgame. But we'll never get it. Not when people are willing to accept whatever random changes they make in the name of making things easier for new players, or for the sake of balance, or variety.
---
Why do I have to point to another adaptation other than Megamek.
If anything MM proves my earlier point: Fan based, commercially not so viable, Interface that isn't newbie friendly at times, but it is a fricking fun game.
Even with all those points it still doesn't do everything by the book because even the book has flaws which require a GM to say "Okay we'll do this for now..."
well you don't HAVE to. I can't force you to do anything. my point was more that you CAN'T, because no one's done it. no one's even tried. You can't say that a game that adheres to the stats and general format of the existing game won't bring in new blood, because nobody has done it. Ever. you don't HAVE to deviate from the rules to bring new players in. Just package them better.
Megamek's few flaws are mostly in terms of interface. their interpretations of the rules are a very good attempt, but there are snags like the lack of a GM Mode, and things like the tendancy for players to ADD out and not hit done. WHICH IS ALL THE MORE REASON, That I'd like to see an official, commercially produced product, that does the same thing with a better user interface.
Edit: I accidentally a word.
-
Mechwarrior 2 was close enough in the areas that matters the most to me.
Well said. That's my point.
Find me a single part, one weapon or piece of equipment that weighs different, has a different damage level, or range, than its boardgame counterpart.
All of them had different damage, heat and recharge ratings. All of them had different ranges, if just because range worked peculiar in the game. LRMs worked exceptionally different, as did PPCs. Just makes a field of slow moving balls, that acts as a mobile minefield. And what about splash damage?
Heck, ammo explosions worked differently as well, as did crit damage. Frankly, NOTHING worked the same way it does in the board game, it just seemed that way superficially.
All Mechs had peculiar hit boxes, which certainly was exploited to great effect in the online campaigns I played in back in the day.
the biggest divergence I can think of, in MW2 is the way you can skate and strafe on jumpjets.
A pretty big problem, I'm sure you'll agree? To be competitive online, many developed the skill of JJ-hovering forward, firing LRMs over the shoulder of their enemy, where they'd arc and strike the rear armor. Then JJ backward still mid-air to avoid the same problem. Certain mechs were especially vulnerable to this because of how their hit boxes were laid out.
But honestly, if you only care about tons and crits, looks like MWT has you covered FAR better than MW2 ever did.
Sure as hell did. Not all into the right torso segment, but all of them body hits. and my foe still kept coming. and it was damn near impossible to build canon configs in that game with its hardpoints.
Definitely no disagreement on the hardpoints. I rather liked that element, meant a missile mech actually had to bring a lot of missiles. MW2, everyone basically makes the exact same energy boat, all the time. Just SPL emitters with some LRM racks.
On damage: you're definitely remembering that wrong, or something odd happened. Yes, damage worked differently, not denying that even slightly, but 6 GR hits that all strike the CT cannot be survived by any Mech in MW4 that I'm aware of.
Money isn't everything. I'd much rather have a good game that wasn't just a means to make money, like we have with battletech, than the way things are with Games Workshop. You can tell me with a straight face that their methods and tactics aren't straight up abusive and designed to squeeze their fans for money?
Money IS everything. Without money, CGL has to end making BT. Money is the point. CGL doesn't work for free. In order for BT to grow, CGL has to be increasingly more successful in making money. Or it will FAIL.
That doesn't mean they have to become such utter ruthless bastards as GW, but it also means they have to keep an eye on the bottom line. Numerous products covetted by the old guard are financially unsuccessful, so they have to die. House Handbooks: failed. Scenario packs: failed. There's other examples.
You can't close your eyes to that reality. CGL isn't a charity, despite the ENORMOUS sacrifices made by the people running it or BT over the decades.
But we'll never get it. Not when people are willing to accept whatever random changes they make in the name of making things easier for new players, or for the sake of balance, or variety.
Not while sensible businesses have cause to want to make changes to cast a wider net, catch a bigger audience, etc.
Can mistakes be made that way? Absolutely.
Are they doing something wrong by trying? Absolutely not. And it's unreasonable to think otherwise. The status quo is deadly for all businesses, all the time. The nature of business demands you keep seeking change.
WHICH IS ALL THE MORE REASON, That I'd like to see an official, commercially produced product, that does the same thing with a better user interface.
Do you really believe a company wouldn't have gotten a proper license from Microsoft and then sought to acquire MMek if they thought it had any economic potential?
What does that mean? That EVERY company on the planet for the last 25 years is idiotic? Going as far back as MW1 or Virtual World? You know how tight the latter guys are/were with BT, right? You know the Timberwolf and most Clan Mechs, heck, the OmniMech as a concept exists because of the pod game, right?
So, you really believe that everyone just doesn't see that something like MMek could be profitable? Everybody's stupid?
Some of them, surely. But logic dictates that a couple of them have brains. It's the law of averages. Probably those who make money. And those few with brains do not consider it a worthwhile investment.
They're almost certainly right. BattleTech is a UNIVERSE. It's not a RULES SYSTEM. Not every rules system translates to a computer game. Not every computer game translates to a board game.
Paul
-
well you don't HAVE to. I can't force you to do anything. my point was more that you CAN'T, because no one's done it. no one's even tried. You can't say that a game that adheres to the stats and general format of the existing game won't bring in new blood, because nobody has done it. Ever. you don't HAVE to deviate from the rules to bring new players in. Just package them better.
Megamek's few flaws are mostly in terms of interface. their interpretations of the rules are a very good attempt, but there are snags like the lack of a GM Mode, and things like the tendancy for players to ADD out and not hit done. WHICH IS ALL THE MORE REASON, That I'd like to see an official, commercially produced product, that does the same thing with a better user interface.
How it handled piloting rolls for some events were wrong when I used them for examples out in my table games.
That might have changed in a build or two.
As to the earlier part of the quote I'll agree to some part of it. Megamek doesn't bring in new blood successfully so yes you're right* that we haven't had a game that was faithful to the board game to a darn near exact adaptation be a newbie friendly product yet. Repackaging Megamek won't work because it isn't newbie friendly. In order to do that we'd need to alter the game which then invalidates one of the main points of Megamek: keep to the table top as best possible.
Even if we did manage to have a game like it with a better interface you still run into the legal possibility of some guy finding it and saying "Hey that's my code".
After the settlements (Kerensky knows we don't need that legacy again!) the game would have a taint to it.
So yeah, whatever, Megamek was such a fricking good version of Online Battletech the money makers are afraid of potential lawsuit. That's my reasoning behind this.
It could be wrong, but it makes just as much sense as anything else in this thread.
*(for the moment, we don't know exactly all of MW:T right now)
This was an interesting line of discussion. Wake me up when they start passing beta keys to us not lucky enough for a GenCon road trip.
-
For what it's worth, I played MW2, 3, and 4 all before I ever had exposure to a CBT rule book. 2 and 3 confused the hell out of me. Anything I did to customize a mech was all trial and error. Eventually I never did anything beyond replacing IS gear with clan as I got it. By the time I got to 4 I was more familiar with how CBT worked, but I still preferred it over 2 and 3. I liked how even if someone fully customized a mech, you still had a general idea of what you were up against. You weren't going to see a laser boat long bow. Sure it's possible in CBT, but honestly that's one of the things I don't like about CBT's construction rules.
This was an interesting line of discussion. Wake me up when they start passing beta keys to us not lucky enough for a GenCon road trip.
If you had signed up for their original forums, you're already in. If not, then signing up for them now MIGHT get you in.
Currently it's still in friends and family.
-
If you had signed up for their original forums, you're already in. If not, then signing up for them now MIGHT get you in.
Currently it's still in friends and family.
Sweet, that means all I need to do is wait for them to finish that pesky "friends and family" ;)
-
All of them had different damage, heat and recharge ratings. All of them had different ranges, if just because range worked peculiar in the game. LRMs worked exceptionally different, as did PPCs. Just makes a field of slow moving balls, that acts as a mobile minefield. And what about splash damage?
Heck, ammo explosions worked differently as well, as did crit damage. Frankly, NOTHING worked the same way it does in the board game, it just seemed that way superficially.
All Mechs had peculiar hit boxes, which certainly was exploited to great effect in the online campaigns I played in back in the day.
I just pulled an old PC off the stack and hooked it up to check.
The listed damage, heat and range values appear to match what I expect. I concede though, because while a cER PPC should be shooting 23 hexes, the mw2 stat is 24. So I give. It wasn't perfectly accurate. it was still a damn sight better than anything we've seen since the win9x era. the hitboxes were weird, but the weapons were statted the right way. splash damage you could turn off.
I give up though. if I'm the only one who wants a battletech game to be battletech accurate, I'm never gonna see that happen.
-
My take on it is this. The more diverse media that the BattleTech Universe has a foothold in, the bigger the fanbase is. When you have a brand licensed out like this, the hope is that there will be cross-pollination and a fan of BattleTech in medium A might be be interested enough to check out BattleTech in medium B.
But I expect the game to transform and adapt to the medium to be successful. The Princess Bride the movie is not the same as the novel, and it's the better for it. I don't really consider MegaMek to be a video game. I consider it a digital simulation of sitting down and actually playing the tabletop game with someone; a really, really slick successor to PBEM (which I'm super thankful for, I might add).
The point of branching out is to increase the number of people supporting the BattleTech IP/license. If you make a literal representation of the tabletop game, then you've decided to target the people who enjoy a tabletop game, which kinda defeats the purpose of making an adaptation in the first place. If, instead, you want to grab folks who enjoy these tactics games (FF Tactics, Front Mission, Advance Wars), you're going to have to make some design choices that make it a different beast from the tabletop.
Now, maybe those new gamers will NEVER get into the tabletop game. Which is fine. Maybe they'll buy the fiction, or even a TRO because it has pretty 'Mechs in it. Or a different video game franchise like MechWarrior Online. My point is if you keep trying to appeal to the same people, only the same people will ever buy your stuff, and the brand will stagnate.
Everyone has their own opinion of course, but mine is that I would be disappointed if it were a literal translation of BattleTech because I would view it as a failed opportunity.
-
If you had signed up for their original forums, you're already in. If not, then signing up for them now MIGHT get you in.
Currently it's still in friends and family.
Just as an aside, you DO sign an NDA if that happens. Closed betas are like that, so if you happen to get a key be ready for a gag order.
-
New batch of pictures released:
http://mwtactics.com/media/view/MWT_Aug_Screenshots_Arsenal (http://mwtactics.com/media/view/MWT_Aug_Screenshots_Arsenal)
Obviously, weapons with blue background (such as that SperryBrowning MG) will come as default while weapons with purple and yellow background are intended as expansion equipment (Voelkers MG, SureFire MiniGun).
-
New batch of pictures released:
http://mwtactics.com/media/view/MWT_Aug_Screenshots_Arsenal (http://mwtactics.com/media/view/MWT_Aug_Screenshots_Arsenal)
Obviously, weapons with blue background (such as that SperryBrowning MG) will come as default while weapons with purple and yellow background are intended as expansion equipment (Voelkers MG, SureFire MiniGun).
Should be interesting - I'm hoping the beta is starting after Gencon since they're giving out beta-keys there and I'm guessing that they aren't going to give out keys and tell people to wait several weeks/months (or that's what I am telling myself anyhow.) I also saw a dev post on the MW:Tactics forums saying that everyone signed up would still be receiving beta keys.
-
The main advantage of a professional program over MegaMek would be an interface designed for newcomers to the game, or at least targetted at non-programmers. MegaMek can be quite picky about all of those settings and details, or you deploy the two opposing companies of 'Mechs and find them crammed onto a single mapsheet, or that half of the opposing 'Mechs are unexpectedly yours, etc.
-
The advantage in interface design, like military commands, is the command and control structure. MM is open source, with a great many contributors of varying capability and available time. The project leads do a good job of keeping the various parts generally in line with each other but there is still that free-flowing design element. Compare that to a conventional business model with design patterns, dedicated interface designers, project goals, strict guidelines on what what the UI should/should not look like. The end result will be much more highly polished and refined, but could lack a number of finer details that open-source programmers would "adopt" as their own contributions. Each method of development has its advantages and drawbacks.
-
More info on Stacs.
http://penny-arcade.com/report/editorial-article/between-the-stacs-how-mechwarrior-tactics-will-monetize-free-to-play-mech-c
-
BETA keys released!
http://mwtactics.com/forums/index.php?/topic/478-mechwarrior-tactics-beta-key-news/ (http://mwtactics.com/forums/index.php?/topic/478-mechwarrior-tactics-beta-key-news/)
So check your e-mails. [drool]