Author Topic: Technical Readouts: What Would You Like to See?  (Read 33815 times)

HABeas2

  • Grand Vizier
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 6202
Technical Readouts: What Would You Like to See?
« on: 15 October 2012, 14:18:30 »
Hello,

So here we are again, looking for input from the fans. If you are the type of fan who thinks these polls and queries never get read by me or taken into any form of consideration, we are not interested in your opinion. The rest of you, as always, are welcome to join in. (Yes, that's snark. I apologize if you were offended, but if I actually offended you, it probably means you're precisely the sort whose input will not be helpful, so feel free to carry on without providing any.)

This time the topic is not a poll, but a general question: If you could improve any aspect of the Technical Readouts CGL publishes in print format (not the PDF-exclusives), what would it be, and how?

For the sake of organization and legibility, I would request that all responses be kept as brief as possible. Multi-page dissertations are tiring to read through, especially when they get ranty. Time is money, and I can get in trouble for spending too much time reading and not enough time doing. Plus, I--like most of my fellow humans--have a strict "I don't have to take this kind of abuse" policy, where I mentally switch off when faced with long, winding, complaining messages. Think of the look in my eyes going glassy as a four-year-old being read Chauser. That's what happens when anyone goes on for more than seven paragraphs in an e-mail or forum post.

For further organizational help, aspects of the book can cover the following:

Content - What you like to see (or don't like to see) in the book in general (specially such things as what type of units and technologies the book covers--or even how many to cover at a clip. Just remember, though: More content = more cost to the consumer).

Writing - What you like to see (or don't like seeing) in the fluff text.

Stats - What you like to see (or don't like seeing) in the units' statistical data.

Rules - What you like to see (or don't like seeing) in terms of extra/expanded game rules.

Art - What you like to see (or don't like seeing) in terms of art.

Layout - What you like to see (or don't like to see) in terms of the physical arrangement of the book and its contents.

So, help us get a handle on what we can do to improve the Technical Readouts, and feel free to post your thoughts here.

I'll keep this one open until 17 November 2012. That's about a month. In the meantime, be civil!

Thank you,

- Herbert Beas
  BattleTech
  Catalyst Game Labs

Thank you

twycross

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 185
  • Death from above! DEATH FROM ABOVE!
Re: Technical Readouts: What Would You Like to See?
« Reply #1 on: 15 October 2012, 14:37:43 »
In terms of TROs I'd enjoy seeing more Advanced or Experimental Tech get mounted, but that's just me.
Badgers? We don't need no stinkin' badgers! Now Wombat, on the other hand, would be just the ticket right about now...and guns lots and lots of guns...and nukes, lots of them, too.

Horsemen

  • Guest
Re: Technical Readouts: What Would You Like to See?
« Reply #2 on: 15 October 2012, 14:41:08 »
Content
I like the TRO's as they are.  About the only thing I've ever wished for when developing events or working on various campaigns is an actual Date in General Service.  You can usually work it out to a rough guess based on the fluff and most of the TRO years however having an actual date at least for me would be handy.

gooseman

  • CDT Miniatures XO
  • Global Moderator
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3482
Re: Technical Readouts: What Would You Like to See?
« Reply #3 on: 15 October 2012, 14:50:54 »
Content - I am pleased with seeing advanced and experimental technologies trickling into the core TRO's

Writing - I like the notable pilots fluff myself.

Stats - Quickstrike stats, please!

Rules - Minimal to none: I'd prefer the rules staying in rules books as much as possible.

Art - More David White!
Daoshen Liao: Wrong! Xavier! What is best in life?
Xavier McCarron: To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.

Wrangler

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 24880
  • Dang it!
    • Battletech Fanon Wiki
Re: Technical Readouts: What Would You Like to See?
« Reply #4 on: 15 October 2012, 14:51:40 »
Content - I would also like to see actual Date in General Service as well. Also, I would like to see re-visitation of Battle History like in original TRO:3025 and notable pilots.  History gave the 'Mech more background and character.  Deployment which factions would be using it and how scarcest the mech is.   Perhaps a page or two dedicated to variants/refits of existing/surviving units still in service at the time. I would gladly pay more money to see all these things added to it.

Writing - Writing quality has always been good since CGL taken over, I have no complaints.

Rules - I'd like see the continuation of the Quirks, with possibly more added.  Again I like how it gives the unit more character and uniqueness to let stand apart from other hundred of publish units.

Art - I would like see least section of Mechs, vehicles, extra done by same arts. Example: David White would draw all the Light Mechs, Brett would do Medium mechs for this faction. etc

Layout - I'd Like TRO look you guys came up with for 3085 over Prototypes.
« Last Edit: 15 October 2012, 15:14:30 by Wrangler »
"Men, fetch the Urbanmechs.  We have an interrogation to attend to." - jklantern
"How do you defeat a Dragau? Shoot the damn thing. Lots." - Jellico 
"No, it's a "Most Awesome Blues Brothers scene Reenactment EVER" waiting to happen." VotW Destrier - Weirdo  
"It's 200 LY to Sian, we got a full load of shells, a half a platoon of Grenadiers, it's exploding outside, and we're wearing flak jackets." VoTW Destrier - Misterpants
-Editor on Battletech Fanon Wiki

False Son

  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6461
  • Kot Blini
Re: Technical Readouts: What Would You Like to See?
« Reply #5 on: 15 October 2012, 14:58:11 »
Content - What you like to see (or don't like to see) in the book in general (specially such things as what type of units and technologies the book covers--or even how many to cover at a clip. Just remember, though: More content = more cost to the consumer).

I wouldn't mind if aero and naval were moved into seperate TROs for space considerations.  If the newest Lyran _sturm takes up space which could potentially add another ground unit to the game, i'll take the ground unit.

Quote
Writing - What you like to see (or don't like seeing) in the fluff text.

Dig it when real world(ish) logistics are taken into consideration beyond "it doesn't need to reload lasers".  Commitee mechs, mechs based on stockpiles of existing equipment, those sorts of things.  I also like the occasional quirky mech snuck in there, because RL militaries have and do build units for very specific roles, even if those roles are much cooler on paper.

Quote
Art - What you like to see (or don't like seeing) in terms of art.

I actually really like the newer 3d art.  Also, the conventional infantry illustrations in TRO3085+sup really inject a human face (no pun) into a game of mechs and tanks.  Nicely handled in most cases.  Not a huge fan of TROs like 3058 where the majority of the artwork seems uniform.
TOYNBEE IDEA
IN MOViE `2001
RESURRECT DEAD
ON PLANET JUPITER


Destroy what destroys you

boilerman

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 952
  • Spinning wrenches since 1968.
Re: Technical Readouts: What Would You Like to See?
« Reply #6 on: 15 October 2012, 15:01:52 »
In terms of the fluff I really liked the section on notable MechWarriors/crew.  I always thought that section was fun.

For stats, I'd like to see the cost included.

When it comes to content, I liked the RPG equipment section in the original edition of TRO3026.  I remember either you, Herb, or it may have been Randall, say that the reason BA was not included in the original editions of TRO3055 and TRO3058 was because there wasn't a construction system for BA at the time to base a TRO on, or something to that effect.  Well we've got conversion formulas for RPG weapons now so maybe that might apply?

And I do like that you've included conventional infantry in TRO3085 and its supplement.  I'd like to see more.
Avatar by Wombat. Thanks Wombat!

Col.Hengist

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9189
  • Konrad ' Hengist " Littman Highlander 732b
Re: Technical Readouts: What Would You Like to See?
« Reply #7 on: 15 October 2012, 15:03:54 »
I wouldn't change rhe current way they are. I like the new dynamic covers, the very nice art inside, the going back to the original style like from the 3025.
Lyran Commonwealth,6th Donegal Guards-Nightstar
Marian Hegemony, II Legio-Cataphract
Clan Hell's Horses, Gamma Galaxy-Summoner
Clan Grinch goat- gamma goat.

GOTHIK

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 897
Re: Technical Readouts: What Would You Like to See?
« Reply #8 on: 15 October 2012, 15:07:26 »
Content - I'd like to see the in service date (as well as an extinction date if one applies), faction distribution and rarity of the unit, and cannonized design quirks.

Writing - Battle history.  Fluff in general.  Design Quirks.

stats - C-Bill cost and BV3.  BV modifier for including Design Quirks.

Rules - Supplemental rules installments would be great - this would lend well to Design Quirks, as well as other new things that may come up.  We've seen this in TROs and Record Sheets booklets already; but I'd like to see more of it.  It might help tide us over for Interstellar Operations.

GOTHIK

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 897
Re: Technical Readouts: What Would You Like to See?
« Reply #9 on: 15 October 2012, 15:10:25 »
I wouldn't mind if aero and naval were moved into seperate TROs for space considerations.
I'd like to second this - not so much for space considerations but more for organizational reasons.  I'd even extend this to say a seperate TRO for combat vehicles as well.

Weirdo

  • Painter of Borth the Magic Puma
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 40758
  • We can do it. We have to.
    • Christina Dickinson Writes
Re: Technical Readouts: What Would You Like to See?
« Reply #10 on: 15 October 2012, 15:16:56 »
Content - Aside from obviously asking for more WarShips(my current wish list is the alluded-to Aquila variants that were used by nascent Houses, Periphery powers, and pirates alike), I'm loving the current spate of experimental and/or primitive tech units. For the vast majority of this game's history, we'd had almost no examples of these extremes in the technological spectrum, and all of the ones we've been getting lately are a godsend. It'll be a very long time before I get tired of seeing these things. Same goes for support vehicles and 'mechs. And for Cat's sake, more 3085-style infantry, please!

Writing - I'm really not sure here...I love what we've been getting lately, so...keep up the good work? Oh, I know! More words like horsepoopery, please!

Stats - Uh....more Fluid Guns, please? Beyond that, I'd really like every piece of equipment in the game to have at least one unit that mounts it. That's probably going to happen anyway with all the experimental and unique things we've been getting, but I'm remembering the days of Maxtech and prior, when we'd have oodles of cool gear, but no canon units fielding it. This more or less removed that equipment from the game as far as canon-designs-only players were concerned.

Rules - Friendly fire rules? Pwease? O:-)

Art - More stuff by White or Iglesias. To me, those two are very clearly the gold standard for unit art right now.

Layout - I liked the layout of TRO: Prototypes, where everything was grouped by unit, and then within those groups were sorted by IS/Clan tech base.
My wife writes books
"Thanks to Megamek, I can finally play BattleTech the way it was meant to be played--pantsless!"   -Neko Bijin
"...finally, giant space panties don't seem so strange." - Whistler
"Damn you, Weirdo... Damn you for being right!" - Paul
"...I was this many years old when I found out that licking a touchscreen in excitement is a bad idea." - JadeHellbringer
"We are the tribal elders. Weirdo is the mushroom specialist." - Worktroll

tekteam26

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 252
Re: Technical Readouts: What Would You Like to See?
« Reply #11 on: 15 October 2012, 15:24:01 »
More large PWS and larger fighter carrier DropShips as well.
TeKTeam Technical Services: We make your Mechs (and other equipment) battleworthy and so much more.

"Son. We ain't overmatched if we hit the enemy and don't let them hit us...."

Frabby

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4242
Re: Technical Readouts: What Would You Like to See?
« Reply #12 on: 15 October 2012, 15:51:28 »
Content - Since you asked: Please stop the design spam. BattleMechs, battlearmor and aerospace fighter types have become a blurry haze, and that's before variants and Omni configs. At least restrict "new" designs to older and rarer types. Old is the new new.

Writing
Want: Notable pilots. Variants (careful not to overdo these though). Quirks. Fluff on manufacturing and proliferation.

Stats
Would like as regular entries: Introduction year, heat sink placement.
Don't like: Omni configs. Simply stating Pod space would suffice.

Rules - I've grown tired of new weapon rules. No new guns please! But I love quirks - with the understanding that they are optional, being ignored by default. Quirks add color to fluff, campaigns and roleplaying but are irritating in tournament play or pickup games.

Art - Please make sure art and stats (esp. gun barrels/crit placement) match.
For all I care, art can be re-used more often. If you're looking to cut costs, don't commission new art for existing designs.

Layout - Everything's peachy here
Sarna.net BattleTechWiki Admin
Author of the BattleCorps stories Feather vs. Mountain, Rise and Shine, Proprietary, Trial of Faith & scenario Twins

Cateran

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 5
Re: Technical Readouts: What Would You Like to See?
« Reply #13 on: 15 October 2012, 16:24:49 »
Mostly a ditto for what has been said already:

Content - I love the notable pilots/crew, and the battle history section makes things more "real". 

Writing - Same as above, plus the design quirks.

Stats - Placement of heat sinks would be nice to know, but we can probably just keep getting that from the Record Sheets. General service dates, C-Bill cost, basic deploment info (which Houses) would be nice. I like the infantry units.

Some designs are made just to fill an empty profile (weight class/movement combo) and it is obvious that they didn't have a "real" in-world purpose for being made.

Rules - I think we've hit a saturation point on new weapons. The "round to the nearest .5 ton" rule still bugs me.

Art - Make sure the art matches the design. Artwork for each variant would be really nice, but that would probably make the cost and page count explode.

Layout -  Seems to work pretty well so far.


Maybe a blur between a TRO and a RPG sourcebook, but I'd like to see a personal equipment catalog.  I honestly don't know if the demand would justify the effort, though.

mbear

  • Stood Far Back When The Gravitas Was Handed Out
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4497
    • Tower of Jade
Re: Technical Readouts: What Would You Like to See?
« Reply #14 on: 15 October 2012, 18:09:42 »
Layout: The TRO:Prototypes I found difficult to read because there wasn't enough contrast between the background image and the text. The pattern was (IMO) too busy.

Writing: I have no complaints. Keep up the good work.

Art: Again no complaints.

Stats: Year in General use would be nice, but I imagine that's included on the Master Units List.

Content: I'd like to see more "Old is the New New" style stuff. That was awesome. Maybe add some personal equipment or conventional infantry equipment to a TRO?


Be the Loremaster:

Battletech transport rules take a very feline approach to moving troops in a combat zone: If they fits, they ships.

You bought the box set and are ready to expand your BT experience. Now what? (Thanks Sartis!)

Atlas3060

  • ugh this guy again
  • Global Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9387
  • Just some rando
Re: Technical Readouts: What Would You Like to See?
« Reply #15 on: 15 October 2012, 18:39:45 »
Content - The content from TRO Prototypes and such I enjoyed quite a bit. New tech being shuffled into key faction specific forces are what I like.

Writing - The current writing is fine. No real distracting faction slant on write up, I'm told who has what, and notable pilots when applicable.

Stats - Current stats, some quirks if possible, and Quickstrike/Battleforce stats!

Rules - TRO Prototypes' tech advancement table is perfect for the big eras.
I want to see when some advanced bit of equipment becomes mainstream.

Art - I don't care too much for 3d art at times (unless we're going all 3d for a book), but certain designs like the Stinger IIC are great in 3d. I guess I don't like mixing of art like that.

Layout - Clan and Inner Sphere seperated, incorporate the Project Phoenix stuff into the respective faction. It doesn't need to be on its own anymore.
It's not about winning or losing, no it's all about how many chapters have you added to the rule books after your crazy antics.

Alex Keller

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2350
Re: Technical Readouts: What Would You Like to See?
« Reply #16 on: 15 October 2012, 19:38:11 »
Writing - I like the "Capabilities" and "Deployment" sections because they give the most flavor to a design.  I like knowing that a particular design is quite common in say, the Crucis Lancers or that a particular design has problems with the ejection system.

Stats - I don't like seeing Battleforce (TRO: 3060ish) stats. 

Rules - Quirks!   Oh please let quirks be part of every TRO!

Art - I personally do not like the "human" looking designs like the Brahma, Parash, Kuma... and a lot of the designs in TRO 3060 do not look good either.  I'd say I'm a fan of the blocky 80s aesthetic, although I do like the looks of the new Celestials and many of the designs in 3085 are good looking to me. 

Layout -  I like... Consistency.  I don't like TRO 3060 and 3067 because they don't match with the other TROs. 

Meow Liao

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 449
  • The PPC Kitty
Re: Technical Readouts: What Would You Like to See?
« Reply #17 on: 15 October 2012, 19:51:08 »
Once upon a time I was walking through Waldenbooks, and I found a new thing called TRO3025.  Beauty incarnate.  It was a TRO that got me hooked on the game.

Content:  TROs by type vs consolidated TRO - 3025/3026/3057 were great as by type since you were giving us a whole history of products.  You could fill the books without serving some spam.  These short jumps in years don't really allow for by type TROs.  How big of a jump to the next TRO can be a major factor in this decision.

Writing:  The battle histories have always been nice.  Since you people don't have enough to do, you could use this section to help tell the story of changes in the game universe leading up to the next TRO.  It shouldn't take too many months to figure out which vehicles would be available for which battles at a certain point in time.   >:D

Stats:  I agree with others that intro date and faction use would be nice.  For vehicles with house variants, if room would permit, a stat block for the variant instead of space in the fluff might be nice.  If you are going to have battleforce, quickstrike or whatever rules, those stats need to be in the TRO.  (If nothing else, maybe something like a two page table of stats at the end of the book.)

Rules:  Rules should live in rulebooks as much as possible, but it takes a lot of new rules to fill a rulebook.  A few pages of rules for new equipment added to the end of a TRO is fine.

Art:  Maybe we could quit exaggerating the size of weapons. 

Layout:  In partnership with content, variants of previous work don't need a two page spread.  It might just take half of a page to say what it is, who makes it, and here's the stat blob.  Depending on how many designs you work on, this could be the difference in question of TRO by type vs consolidated TRO.

Battletech is, and always has been, the TROs.  We aren't playing the fluff books.  TROs should be the flagship product of Battletech.  Take care of them and they'll take care of you.

Meow Liao


Have some plum wine with that PPC.

ianargent

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 188
Re: Technical Readouts: What Would You Like to See?
« Reply #18 on: 15 October 2012, 20:02:39 »
Content - More specialist/niche designs. The Scout, Trooper, Main Combatant, Linebreaker (light-assault) standard roles are well-represented. I'd like to see more focused/specialize/exotic-role designs. Designs deliberately unbalanced towards one corner of the Speed/Weapons/Armor triangle, like the Panther or the Charger.

Writing - Another vote for notable pilots/battles. Intro dates would be nice, I mean, I know we have the MUL, but I like to read the fluff.

Stats - I see no need to change

Rules - Rules in rule books, please. though the advancing tech level as demo'd in TR:3085 was OK

Art - Keep on trucking

I'll agree with Meow Liao - TRO's are your flagship, and follow up with, it's not the designs that sell these, anyone can design a mech. It's the fluff and the art that brings me back to BT every time. Literally in the most recent case, I happened to pick up TRO 3055 (first version) off my shelf and that led me to buying CAT35001-4 pretty much sight unseen. And that's IMHO one of the weakest TROs out there.
Yes, KF drive vessels, assuming they survive the atmospher[ic reentry] (they take 100 points of damage per hex per turn of velocity in the atmosphere), do tend to use an aggressive lithobraking method for landing.

HABeas2

  • Grand Vizier
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 6202
Re: Technical Readouts: What Would You Like to See?
« Reply #19 on: 15 October 2012, 20:03:25 »
Hello,

Congratulations on the first deleted post of the discussion [insert name here]! Try something less ranty next time, and don't say you weren't warned!

Thank you,

- Herbert Beas
  BattleTech
  Catalyst Game Labs

StCptMara

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6551
  • Looking for new Adder skin boots
Re: Technical Readouts: What Would You Like to See?
« Reply #20 on: 15 October 2012, 20:09:33 »
Content - More Protomechs and WiGEs. I really think every IS faction should have at least 2 total native(meaning that
Steiner, Kurita, and Davion only need 1 more), More Inner Sphere OmniMechs. More Clan 'Mechs (omni or "second-line") with
melee weapons. More Aerospace Fighters, both Standard and Omni, for both Clan and Inner Sphere. More OmniTanks for Inner Sphere and Clans.

Writing - I like the notable pilots. Also knowing consistently how open a unit is for sale to other Houses/Mercs would be nice.

Stats - Traditionally, TROs have not listed the armour type on units, forcing one to have to look into the fluff to figure out what type of armour it has. I would like to have that listed in the entry, since there is often a delay between the books release and the canon record sheets. I would also like to see notation where the criticals are located for internal structure, armour, and heat sinks outside the engine. I like that you have started putting in the Design Quirks, and hope that you continue to do so.

Rules - I liked the TRO:P entry on what is now tournament legal for tournaments fought in a set time period. I would like to see this more often.

Art -More David White and S. Huda, please. More sleek, predatory lines of Clan 'Mechs, more Samurai Aesthetic look to Combine 'Mechs.

Layout - While I like the classic layouts with vehicles, I understand that, as the universe has progressed, this has become something that would not make sense for the in-universe authors, as they no longer see 'mechs as the undisputed kings of the battlefield.  One thing that would be nice, and I think it would be done in layout, would be something like was done in 3075 for the Age of War section: a graphic in the upper left of the entry where you can tell at a glance what the originating House/Clan the design was from. Also, I miss the alphabetical listing of units that used to be in every TRO.

"Victory or Debt!"- The Battlecry of Mercenaries everywhere

"Greetings, Mechwarrior! You have been recruited by the Star League to defend the frontier against---Oops, wrong universe" - Unknown SLDF Recruiter

Reality and Battletech go hand in hand like a drug induced hallucination and engineering a fusion reactor ;-)

E. Icaza

  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1412
Re: Technical Readouts: What Would You Like to See?
« Reply #21 on: 15 October 2012, 20:42:02 »
I think the current TROs are great products.

I do want to see a continuation of the Notable Pilots and the rest of the "fluff".  I love the addition of the infantry section, although I think some of the PBIs are a tad unbalanced. 

If I had one complaint, it would be that I'm not interested in the trend towards "space variants", IndustrialMech stats and "underwater variants", but it certainly isn't enough to turn me off of buying them.
The Clans: the Star League the Inner Sphere deserves, not the one it needs.

Hellraiser

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13013
  • Cry Havoc and Unleash the Gods of Fiat.
Re: Technical Readouts: What Would You Like to See?
« Reply #22 on: 15 October 2012, 20:44:41 »
My thoughts..


Content:  More TRO's like 2750, 3067, 3075-85.
Give me a couple new (old) infantry, vees, mechs, fighters, large ships, for each faction & I'm good.  I don't need to be combarded w/ 55 new mechs at once.
Less New Units.  But more variants.
Seriously.  I love the "Royals" & "Old is New New" sections & don't need to wonder why there are 8 new mechs coming out of a factory but the classic Warhammer is going extinct.
  Feeling bombarded w/ all the "new" stuff instead of the classics.
That said, not EVERY mech needs a new RAC or Plasma or MML version, etc etc.


Writing:  Deployment History & full data variants sections.
    (I want to see the text description & be able to make it in HMPro w/o wondering where that last ton goes)


Stats:  Dates, Factions, Factories, C-Bills, & BV..........  Basically the MUL info
Otherwise the placement of structureal items (Endo, FF, HS) would be nice, just like you see in the design programs.


Rules:  Quick Strike Stats & Minimal Advanced/Experimental Equipment
             I'd preffer to keep "most" designs as TW/Tournament legal.  (But a trickle is ok)
One other thing, "new" rules belong in the TRO, not the RS
 (IIRC, The way the LAM rules were only in print RS not Print TRO or PDF RS was really annoying)


Art:  Just avoid the "lines" thing from 3057 or the "flexable ankles" & "exposed ammo belts" things that make little sense & we are good.


Layout:  I could go w/ a smaller picture a lot of the time w/o background details to fit in more stats room myself.
3041: General Lance Hawkins: The Equalizers
3053: Star Colonel Rexor Kerensky: The Silver Wolves

"I don't shoot Urbanmechs, I walk up, stomp on their foot, wait for the head to pop open & drop in a hand grenade (or Elemental)" - Joel47
Against mechs, infantry have two options: Run screaming from Godzilla, or giggle under your breath as the arrogant fools blunder into your trap. - Weirdo

HABeas2

  • Grand Vizier
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 6202
Re: Technical Readouts: What Would You Like to See?
« Reply #23 on: 15 October 2012, 21:00:01 »
Hello,

(I want to see the text description & be able to make it in HMPro w/o wondering where that last ton goes)

You DO realize that HeavyMetal is hopelessly obsolete now, right?

Thank you,

- Herbert Beas
  BattleTech
  Catalyst Game Labs

Hellraiser

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13013
  • Cry Havoc and Unleash the Gods of Fiat.
Re: Technical Readouts: What Would You Like to See?
« Reply #24 on: 15 October 2012, 21:27:48 »
You DO realize that HeavyMetal is hopelessly obsolete now, right?
/Insert random design program then.
But I still find it works fine for 95% of designs.
3041: General Lance Hawkins: The Equalizers
3053: Star Colonel Rexor Kerensky: The Silver Wolves

"I don't shoot Urbanmechs, I walk up, stomp on their foot, wait for the head to pop open & drop in a hand grenade (or Elemental)" - Joel47
Against mechs, infantry have two options: Run screaming from Godzilla, or giggle under your breath as the arrogant fools blunder into your trap. - Weirdo

Sigma

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2399
  • N-scale Fanatic
Re: Technical Readouts: What Would You Like to See?
« Reply #25 on: 15 October 2012, 21:54:55 »


Content -  Worldbuilding. I know TRO VA wasn't super popular though it is one of my favorite TRO's. In that line of thought, it would be nice to sneak a couple of civilian units (maybe 6 pages of content) into the back of any major TRO. A new industrial, a new engineering vehicle, a particularly famous model of personal hovercar, whatever.

Whatever I can squeeze in at $50 or less a TRO, significantly more if you guys ever make the jump to hardback or limited ed. hardback.

Writing - I want to know: who builds it; where it's built; at what volume (few to many); its major field variants if any; and here's the important one, what is its battle history? I weep every time I see "it has a gauss rifle for punching holes in things" that gets drawn out for a paragraph vs. saying "it was featured prominently in Operation Chapter 11 against C* on Quentin in 3196".

Notable Pilots are a must. They breath life into the designs.

Quirks are a must. I got so excited when you guys started to officially include them in TRO's.

Stats - Happy with the current stuff.

Rules - I like having the tourney rule eras included in the TRO's. Other rules I'd rather have in other sourcebooks. TRO's are catalogs not construction manuals.

Art - A great colorful cover, dynamically posed grayscale entries, no angles looking up from the bottom (don't need to repeat the horrorshow that is the Nightstar and the Bushwhacker). Here's a big one though. No pasted stock textures. The microsoft bubbles on stuff like the the Primitive Shad made me sick.

Layout - Lump together by type (mechs, ASF's) and weight (Light, Med, etc.). Use your availability symbols from the MUL to show who it's available to. Dump the "by faction" breakup.

Centurion

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 174
  • Victory is life!
    • Mythic Eras - Ubiquity Roleplaying
Re: Technical Readouts: What Would You Like to See?
« Reply #26 on: 16 October 2012, 02:03:12 »
I'll preface by saying that I've been quite pleased with CGL-era TROs. What would I like to see in new volumes?

Content: Firstly, I'd like to see more infantry entries. Also, while there has been more support vees of late (thanks!), I'd like a small section on civvie stuff, as well as non-vehicular material*. I know TRO:VA wasn't the best seller ever, but a small section could really add to the universe, for both the TW level of play as well as ATOW.

* I haven't gone through ATOW and ATOW-C equipment lists to give you specific examples at this time. Sorry!
« Last Edit: 16 October 2012, 02:27:35 by Centurion »
"Commandos? At this time of night?" - Col. Wilhelm Klink

FedComGirl

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4447
Re: Technical Readouts: What Would You Like to See?
« Reply #27 on: 16 October 2012, 02:09:04 »
Content I wouldn't mind seeing more specialists and more support units as well as old/primitive and prototype units. I'd love to see all the equipment items used at least once. Not necessarily all in one TRO but eventually.

I'd love to see more infantry.

Civilian stuff would be nice as targets. Unless it isn't possible/practical there should be some mention as how they are used by military/militia/government/merc/partisan units. Otherwise fluff really isn't needed. It's still nice though. ;)

If going for a really big book, a section in the back for main variants with smaller picture and stats for the units included. Although, if there were enough you could make a supplemental TRO of just them. Even if it were just a small picture, stats, and bare bones fluff, that'd be nicer than a RS. Like how the TRO part of the TRO/RS booklet was done for Solaris VII.

I'd rather not see items for the RPG included though unless Battletech stats are included. Otherwise its just nice art and fluff and isn't applicable. The same goes for other stats. Some units barely have enough room for their stats as it is. Adding in other stats would just confuse things.

Writing It's been mostly good so far. I do like when all the overview/capabilities/history/variants/pilots sections are filled in but I know that isn't possible for new units. Testing and test pilots could be used in place of some though.

Stats It'd be nice to have unit cost, intro date, and who by included. Having Fuel/Range listed for all units would be nice. I know a lot would be unlimited but it'd be nice to see the effects of extra fuel tanks and quirks change things on the stats for those that do use fuel. And it'd save time having to look it up.

I love quirks and hope to see more but if they mimic an actual physical item, please, please, please include a location and type. I can't use a quirk like "searchlight" if I don't know where it's pointing or how far it'll go. Also if a quirk effects a specific item/items please put an indicator by it/them on the stats. Otherwise I won't know which one you mean. Thanks :)

Please list all equipment items in the stats. If you need to add in another section for Other Equipment or just change Weapons and Ammo to Weapons and Equipment or something, please do. Notes: really isn't the place to list them and they get missed when looking at stats. Their being listed as notes also sometimes means locations and weight get left out.
 

Quote
Rules
In the TRO's?  }:) If new equipment, quirks or abilities, is included, and there aren't rules for them already in print, then please by all means include rules. If its just an item here or there put the rules on the stats page as a note. If its a lot of items put all their rules in their own section. It's rather frustrating not being able to use a unit because you don't know how to use it's equipment. Even now there are still items listed in TRO's that don't have rules.

Art I'd really like it if the art matched the stats. Pictures of variants would be nice too but they could be in the RS.

Layout It'd be nice if you went back to printing text on white instead of dark grey. It can be hard to read, especially when there's a back ground image or pattern there. The background pattern can be distracting from the art as well. It's alright for the edges but not where you're trying to read.


Daemion

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5796
  • The Future of BattleTech
    • Never Tales and Other Daydreams
Re: Technical Readouts: What Would You Like to See?
« Reply #28 on: 16 October 2012, 02:32:49 »
Writing - This is the biggest for me. While I like some of the fun stories of battle histories that some people try to work into the Performance section, I would like to see Battle History separate. While I like a good read the first time, I go back to a TRo to find out who has it, and how prevalent it might be to those who do. That's what I really want to know. This would be part of Deployment.

I'm also less concerned with financial and business history, and more interested in the role it was tapped for in the first place, and how it succeeds and/or fails in that role, why it might have been passed over or is now obsolete, etc.

The thing I'm looking for in a TRo entry is help in figuring out a Mech's place in the various militaries of the IS and Periphery, and how or if I should use it when designing a force for a scenerio. Will it be breaking canon to assume that the Black Warriors had access to Phoenix Mechs in 3065, and a fair variety, which they might have also gifted to some of the Mercs sent to help protect Circinus Worlds from the Marians, for example.

The less I have to guess on deployment and rarity, the better I feel about winging up forces from what I read. Even a vague scale would be helpful.

 
It's your world. You can do anything you want in it. - Bob Ross

Every thought and device conceived by Satan and man must be explored and found wanting. - Donald Grey Barnhouse on the purpose of history and time.

I helped make a game! ^_^  - Forge Of War: Tactics

Martius

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1849
Re: Technical Readouts: What Would You Like to See?
« Reply #29 on: 16 October 2012, 04:43:54 »
Content - A good mix of units. Infantry, Vees, 'Mechs, Aerospace Units, SuppVees, perhaps buildings.

Writing - Fluff provides fluff. Please stay away from passages that can be interpreted as rules. Or: see Rules.

Stats - Stats as given so far are great.

Rules - Unit Quirks, please. Please add any 'rules' that might result from the fluff to this quirks.

Art - Art is ok. Please keep it up.

Layout - I enjoyed both the classical layout and the TRO Prototypes one. So go ahead, try something new sometimes. Perhaps a layout fitting to the in universe publisher?

« Last Edit: 16 October 2012, 06:04:48 by Martius »