MechWarrior Tactics, first extensional description

[Sid]

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...

[Jayof9s]

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.

[DarkSpade]

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.

[DarkSpade]

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.

[Jayof9s]

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.

[Istal_Devalis]

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. 

[SteveRestless]

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?

[Paul]

?

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

[SteveRestless]

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.

[DarkSpade]

... 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.

[Paul]

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

[SteveRestless]

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?

[DarkSpade]

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]

[SteveRestless]

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.

[DarkSpade]

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.

[Paul]

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

[Atlas3060]

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.

[SteveRestless]

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.

[SteveRestless]

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.

[Atlas3060]

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*

[Paul]

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

[Atlas3060]

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.

[SteveRestless]

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.

[Paul]

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

[Atlas3060]

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.

[DarkSpade]

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.

[Atlas3060]

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"  ;)

[SteveRestless]

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.

[truegrit]

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.

[ANS Kamas P81]

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.