Technical Readouts: What Would You Like to See?

[Euphonium]

Content - Honestly, I don't think we need any more 'mechs - I've probably fielded only about 30% of the published mechs in 15 years of playing this game.
That aside, I'd like to see general service dates, (by faction if appropriate) and designations for varients

Writing - Major engagements where the design had a pivital role, and noteable pilots/crews/units. Procurement compromises & snafus. Design intentions vs what they actually got to build. Flavour rather than verbal description of the Stat-Block.

Stats - I love seeing the quirks.

Rules - Please, no rules in TROs. The whole reason I was so happy with re-write of the core rules for TW was it removed the need for lots of books to reference special-case rules

Art - I've been generally impressed by art in recent TROs, but I'd like to see fewer exposed ammo feeds and smaller barrel sizes.

Layout - Please give us plain white backgrounds for the fluff text.  Black-on-grey and Black-on-texture are so much harder to read.

[Joe]

Mini-Rant: I've stopped buying the XTRO's because the designs usually don't make sense.  Seems to me that most of the new TRO designs went like: "Hey designer, make a mech with one of 'these'."  "OK, I have a couple minutes, lets take some random stuff plus 'one of these', and *kablam*, new 'mech!"...  Which results in a 'mech which makes no sense from a cost perspective, and there is no fluff which explains why anyone in their right mind would actually buy and use it except maybe because it's the newest shiny and they have _way_ too much money and not enough oversight.  *tries to wipe foam from mouth*

Prime Example out of a real TRO:
Dasher II and Dasher II-2

-Joe

[HABeas2]

Hello,

There are two key differences between the XTRs (Experimental Technical Readouts) and the TROs (standard Technical Readouts). One is that the XTRs represent in-universe attempts to employ experimental weapons or design theories on prototypes and one-off units while the TROs represent production-grade units. The other is that XTRs are exclusively PDF-only products, while TROs are planned for print.

This public opinion survey is focused on the latter (TROs), so we would appreciate if all registered opinions focused on those products.

Thank you,

- Herbert Beas

[Gaiiten]

Content -
More warships and pocket warships! 
More battlearmors.
Furthermore, keep the combined-arms principle you did so well in the last TROs. The different infantry variants are among those I like the most.
Given all the various worlds and factions you could add far more faction-specific and specialized infantry units.

Writing - Major engagements where the design had a pivital role, and noteable pilots/crews/units. Procurement compromises & snafus. Design intentions vs what they actually got to build. Flavour rather than verbal description of the Stat-Block.

I agree and add include simply more flufftext (as to including scandals, corruption and so on). I am not interested in reading boring stats, rather reading about the quirks of the material used.

Stats -
Add quirks for each design, but add for these quirks appropiate flufftext, please.

Rules -
No rules.

Art -Each of the artists working for is excellent. A small bonus could be if you use a single artist only for a faction.

Layout - Please give us plain white backgrounds for the fluff text.  Black-on-grey and Black-on-texture are so much harder to read.

I agree.

[Dropkick]

I'd love to see QS/BF stats included in the TRO's. 

[Mastergunz]

I'd love to see QS/BF stats included in the TRO's. 

Yes, a thousand times yes!

-Gunz

[RGCavScout]

Content - I am liking what is out there.  I will echo some of the comments that less 'Mechs and more vehicles/battlearmor/areospace would be nice.

Writing - More notable pilots.  Perhaps a little more battle history or deployment information.

Stats - I like the current format, very clean and well organized.  Some folks seem to want battleforce and quickstrike stats as well. . .why not.

Rules - Not a fan of rule sets in TROs

Art - Happy with the trend here.  While there are some designs that I love, some that I hate, and others that I love to hate; the artwork has been consistenly good and getting better with each TRO.  My only complaint may be with some of the busier backgrounds; but that is really small potatoes.

Layout - Keep the 3085 style layout - it was nice, clean, and easy to read.  I think that perhaps the best way to get the battleforce and quickstrike stats in the TRO may be to have them in a separate section, as it may cause the main page for each unit to appear a bit cluttered.

Generally speaking I have really enjoyed the last few TROs (3075, 3085, and Prototypes) and look forward to more.

Of course that is just my opinion. . . .I could be wrong.

[Talz]

Content -
In general I would really like to see more jumpships, even LF variants that have been talked about before.  I know regular jumpships aren't the flashiest but it's just insane how many more warship designs we have than jumpships and yet warships are supposedly rarer.  In general I like seeing content that fills holes in unit types and gives us stats for things that have been mentioned but never gotten any stats and/or TRO writeup.


Writing -
I particularly enjoy the short stories about how the unit has been used in-universe, the pilot writeups, and the quirks that said unit might have.


Rules -
I'm not crazy about extra rules in TRO's, maybe new equipment like 2750/3050 while we wait a few months or so on an updated rulebook.


Art -
Fairly happy with the current Battletech art direction although it does bother me when there will be just a few sketches in each TRO that get lax on detail, like the 3075 Eyleuka & Hyena, 3085 Trajan or Prototypes Enyo, not that I dislike the art in questions, it just seems unfinished.  Not a fan of the over the top totem mechs or  things like the Gen1 Protomechs but appreciate the variety as long as such designs remain rare and unusual.


Layout -
I really prefer the same unit types be together, battlemechs, vees, fighets, etc with only possible exception being divisions by technology base.  It's definitely knowing which units are used by which factions but found the 3075 style faction sections to be a bit much.  IMO the perfect TRO has an overall layout like Prototypes but with a somewhat more traditional page layout as seen in 3085.

[Fallguy]

I'll keep it in brief Herb-sized (sound)bites...
 
Content - Seperate books for different unit types would be nice. (unimportant compared to cost factors of printing)
 
Writing - Nothing. It's always good!
 
Stats - Please don't include ANY optimal designs. It makes the rest of the canon designs look bad. (if they can get it perfect once, everything else is obsolete)
 
Rules - Don't belong in TROs. If a new unit needs new rules, rethink the idea or put it in the next RULEbook.
 
Art - For the love of Cat, PLEASE make missiles and launch tubes that are the size they should be! (2-4 inches in diameter, not the size of a 500 lb. air-to-ground missile) Along those lines, properly scaled weapons are a must. Units that actually look like they can move is nice too.
 
Layout - White. Paper. Background. 'Nuff said. (i.e. no grey backdrop, no fancy "display screen" borders, etc.) When all else fails, look at the original TRO 3025 and TRO 3026. If it dosn't look like that, you got it wrong.
 
YMMV as always.  8)

[Demos]

Content - All units and technologies in each book. Like TRO 3075 or TRO 3085. Please include also infantry. Not so many min-maxed designs, but more the bread-and-butter line units of each house.

Writing - Definetly no unit costs. The system is SOOO broken, that the mention of xx million c-bills is a wwaste of space. Also please no " the ammo is sufficient for nearly two minutes of fire." The game is an abstraction. If converted to e.g. battleforce, the ammo would last longer...

Stats - Okay

Rules - Normally no rules required. Otherwise, as we are wainting for several years for IO (which should cover LAM rules) - it would have been nice to see them included in TRO 3085.

Art - I liked TRO3055U, TRO3075 and TRO3085. Not the "comic style" of TRO3050U...

Layout - Black&White. Not the background of Prototypes.

[bytedruid]

Content - An update to 3057!  More focus spacecraft may bring in more general sci-fi fans.  It seems to me that ground units have already been covered in exhaustive detail.  After 3039 this is the most read readout in our gaming group.

Writing - Less focus in problems that were resolved during the development phase, but keep the notable units sections, these are alot of fun to read.

Stats - Cost, Cost and Cost.  With a price modifiers by era.

Rules - Quirks are always nice, I'm unaware of any quirks incorporated into the older warships and areospace craft.

Art - Most areospace craft don't look like they would actually fly, so a bit more realism would be nice.  Also jumpships and warships are never represented as the flying skyscrappers that they actually are in the rules.

Layout - I like the current layout.

[Auroch]

I miss the introductions that divided sections.  For example 3058 had vehicles and mechs separated with one page write ups on general changes before get into the new stuff.  They were also divided by inner sphere and clan sections and I wish that you could add an all periphery section.  More focus on support units to the mechs as well as more nation specific units.  For example the periphery could always use its own VTOL unit or units for each of the realms in the periphery.

Other then that cost in c bills would be nice.  Perfer the more realistic art work. 

[GOTHIK]

Rules - Normally no rules required. Otherwise, as we are wainting for several years for IO (which should cover LAM rules) - it would have been nice to see them included in TRO 3085.

THIS is a key example of why I believe it is completely appropriate to include rules under certain conditions.  In essence, if there are new/experimental weapons, equipment or design quirks that aren't already included in some other rulebook that was published prior to the publishing of the TRO in question, then the TRO should include those rules.

[TigerShark]

Content - I would prefer to see more factions covered in the book, even if small(er) factions only receive one or two designs each. It feels a bit incomplete if nations like the Marian Hegemony, Rim Worlds Republic and Taurian Concordat aren't covered in at least minor detail, given their impact on certain story lines (what did the Periphery Powers fight with in the Reunification Wars -- Seems like they don't make anything at all) This could even be satisfied with a larger "Variants" section or a single page description, like in TRO:3075's "Royal Designs" section.

It would also be nice to see designs represented in the Record Sheets at least getting a brief description in the Variants section. This gives players a miniscule amount of basic info without having to join a message board to ask questions.

Writing - I enjoy seeing the "Notable Pilots" section as it provides a real-world application for the design in a given scenario. Data for the beginning of production, appropriate factions and date the design fell out of usage is also helpful for MUL purposes.

Stats - Please include the critical locations data again, as was provided in earlier TROs. This included the location of fixed equipment and crit slots like Endo Steel and heat sinks. It makes it much easier to customize an accurate record sheet.

Rules - Rules are an excellent draw for Record Sheet books if the rules somehow pertain to the content therein. If a new or unique design is included in a TRO, construction data (such as in the original TRO:3060's ProtoMechs section) would be desirable.

Art - Matt Plog and David White. Lots of this. A whole TRO of this.

Layout - The layout of Total Warfare, Tech Manual and Tac Ops is quite irritating. The construction rules and fluff data should be included in a single paragraph with sub headings to separate the two. Having the data on different pages or tucked away in the bottom of the page leads to frustration. MaxTech had a great format I believe everyone was comfortable with.

[Kit deSummersville]

Stats - Please include the critical locations data again, as was provided in earlier TROs. This included the location of fixed equipment and crit slots like Endo Steel and heat sinks. It makes it much easier to customize an accurate record sheet.

Can you provide an example of a TRO that does such?

[Youngblood]

Can you provide an example of a TRO that does such?

I think he's talking about OmniMech configurations where everything is fixed including non-crittable equipment like Ferro.

[TigerShark]

Can you provide an example of a TRO that does such?

TRO:3058's OmniMech entries.

Example:

Code: [Select]

Location         Fixed           Spaces Remaining
Right Torso      3 Engine               3
                 3 Jump Jets
                 Double Heat Sink



[Youngblood]

TRO:3058's OmniMech entries.

Example:

Code: [Select]

Location         Fixed           Spaces Remaining
Right Torso      3 Engine               3
                 3 Jump Jets
                 Double Heat Sink



Why would there be any reason to sell Record Sheet packs if you could put together every single 'Mech yourself in designer software?

[DarkSpade]

Why would there be any reason to sell Record Sheet packs if you could put together every single 'Mech yourself in designer software?

Because the only software that still works can't do protos, super heavies, infantry, battle armor, or aerospace and can only kinda sorta do vehicles?   He also might be doing it by hand.

Good argument for putting TRO's and record sheets in the same book though.  O0

[Charlie Tango]

TRO:3058's OmniMech entries.

Example:

Code: [Select]

Location         Fixed           Spaces Remaining
Right Torso      3 Engine               3
                 3 Jump Jets
                 Double Heat Sink



Omnis have always been presented in this fashion and continue to be, but even from those you cannot make accurate Record Sheets.

[TigerShark]

Why would there be any reason to sell Record Sheet packs if you could put together every single 'Mech yourself in designer software?

Record Sheets are print-capable stats for table top gaming. If you play table top, they'll be useful with or without that data being divulged in the TRO. For those of us who can't readily find a table top game or play online, it's a lot easier to make a file out of those stats than buying a separate Record Sheets book we'll never use. Crit data won't add a single page to the TRO.

[TigerShark]

Omnis have always been presented in this fashion and continue to be, but even from those you cannot make accurate Record Sheets.

The OP asks for aspects you like about content and stuff you don't like. That was something I liked and would enjoy seeing more of. :) Even for non-Omnis, if possible.

[Charlie Tango]

Record Sheets are print-capable stats for table top gaming. If you play table top, they'll be useful with or without that data being divulged in the TRO. For those of us who can't readily find a table top game or play online, it's a lot easier to make a file out of those stats than buying a separate Record Sheets book we'll never use. Crit data won't add a single page to the TRO.

And since the point and design of the game is to be played as a tabletop game, why wouldn't the company gear their business model towards that end?

[TigerShark]

And since the point and design of the game is to be played as a tabletop game, why wouldn't the company gear their business model towards that end?

I'd say most BattleTech games aren't played on table top any longer. I'm sure someone will dispute that, but we have hard numbers stating that 40,000 - 60,000 games are played on MekWars servers alone each year. That's not counting MegaMek pickup games, online gaming like MWO or anything else.

Anyhow, that (crit data) was my suggestion.

[Kit deSummersville]

TRO:3058's OmniMech entries.

Example:

Code: [Select]

Location         Fixed           Spaces Remaining
Right Torso      3 Engine               3
                 3 Jump Jets
                 Double Heat Sink



That is how Omnis are currently and have always been done. I still don't know what you mean by:

Stats - Please include the critical locations data again, as was provided in earlier TROs. This included the location of fixed equipment and crit slots like Endo Steel and heat sinks. It makes it much easier to customize an accurate record sheet.

You're asking for something 'again' that never went away. Do you mean you just want it continued? Or do you want something new, that wasn't provided in earlier TROs?

[TigerShark]

That is how Omnis are currently and have always been done. I still don't know what you mean by:

You're asking for something 'again' that never went away. Do you mean you just want it continued? Or do you want something new, that wasn't provided in earlier TROs?

Continued. It's something I like about the current TROs I would enjoy seeing continue or possibly even branch out into the non-OmniMechs.

[Kit deSummersville]

Thanks

[Hellraiser]

I'd say most BattleTech games aren't played on table top any longer. 

I'm not sure its an accurate comparison to say this, but,  you could say that about Scrabble given all the cell phone apps I've seen,  and I'm sure that Milton Bradley/Parker Bros/Whoever, is still going to focus on selling the original game in a cardboard box.  Not to mention (and I could be wrong here) that I don't think I have ever heard of even one person saying they 1st heard about BT via playing Megamech.  So I can see the focus on live gaming.  That said I completely agree with your request, it is info I'd love to see in the TRO.  I'd always heard RS books sold badly & were not good money makers to begin with, though perhaps that has changed with all the PDF products now.

[Jesshou Kerensky]

Content – Clear and clean Sections for Ground(Elementals, Protos, Infantry, Armor),  Mechs and lots of them, Aerospace craft up to Warships. If you would like numbers something like Inner Sphere: 35-45 Clan: 30-40 Periphery: 20-30 Units or different items for the book, whatever would make a good $30-$35 Solid TRO.(My favorite is Clan Equipment) Also I’m looking forward to the post Jihad timeline now that we have a complete Jihad Era (Yay!)
Writing – Many TROs hold Strong in a lot of Fluff content which I favor, because if shows you the game universe. I have no real complaints.   
Stats – If there are Variants of the design, is there room to list the data like Omnimechs?( but with the location of the weapons and ammo and listed with the different model mech numbers.
Rules – not really a need of rules as maybe just with this new Hardware can we fit new Faction random deployment by equipment rating in the back? And can we have the BV list and Factions that field the model listed somehow.
Art – Some clearer Definition between Laser barrel lens and AutoCannon Open mouth Barrels or PPC Tubes. Many pics in the art in 3085 are great, the artist for the “MEB-9 Ebony” I would like to see do Periphery mechs and equipment and I like the feel of that art look for there.
Layout – I really don’t want to see TRO: 3075 layout repeated again. I believe the “Age of War” section should have been its own TRO, not crammed into 3075 in the middle of the Jihad. Please have the entire TRO dedicated to equipment/Mech/airspace of the time area covered.  The only thing I can think of that would be acceptable is Project Phoenix if applicable in said time period.


I hope this helps as Battletech has been with me a long time and I would love to see this game live forever!

[SCC]

If "Life is cheap. BattleMechs are expensive." is still going to be part of the universe I'd like a reason to be using expensive BattleMechs in scouting roles when I could use far cheaper Vehicles.

Going into the new meta-era (3250+) I'd like to see the scout/lite 'Mechs in TRO:3250 (or whatever we end up getting, basically the new 3025) being armed like one would expect such units to be, with long range weapons so they can conduct harassing operations