Retcon Reset (Volume 1): Back Up HOW Much?

[Sharpnel]

The "reboot" would just be to make a whole new batch of 'mechs that cater to the tastes of the 2010s crowd.

then you end up with a game like CAV (Great minis, but game was poorly supported)where your main weapons are PPCs and Gauss rifles (Rotary and plain) with missile (DFM/IFM) thrown in as an afterthought. Not much room for tactical ingenuity, IMO, more like charge and attack and see what is left standing.

[PsihoKekec]

I think CG should have retconed the events of Dark Age to make it easier for them to plan the future. Whatever is consitent with their future plan stays, the rest is out.

[mitchberthelson]

I voted for "all the way back." I believe the game's status as the "alternate future of the 80's" is kind of a niche thing at best and doesn't bode well for bringing in the new blood necessary to survive.

Also, the inconsistencies in the world were a lot more forgivable in the "beer and pretzels" era that BT has long ago left behind:

For its time, it was indeed simple. It's now an extremely complex, top-heavy beast (in terms of both setting and system) with one of the largest bodies of printed game matter in existence and multiple hardcover flower pressers full of rules for every situation....yet' it's built on decades-old inconsistencies, "fly by night" decisions, unworkable premises fixed with bailing wire and duct tape, and hastily hand-drawn maps all inherited from a company that no longer exists.

FASA was making it up as they went along because that's what you did back then. Catalyst (God bless them) and modern fans take things a lot more seriously and have more to work with. Due to the evolution of the technology and methodologies involved in creating and maintaining IP and the increasing sophistication of fans (as well as BT's evolution from a side project to a major property), that has changed. RPG's have always been a market with demanding fans, but now they have greater access to information and better tools, resulting in increased scrutiny, tightened cycles of fan reaction, and a greater focus on the two key words of everything that caters to the geek segment these days: "internal consistency."

I have confidence that it's possible to make something that keeps many important elements of the original while also being relevant to today's audiences and many of the assumptions that extend from much of modern history and technology post-Cold War. With some thought, more finely worked excuses can be developed for the rest, a la the "toxic ECM environment" that was added in the last decade as an explanation for simplistic weapons performance. Get a bunch of guys like Cray in a room together long enough and an elegant balance could be achieved.

I'm excited to see where any potential reset goes...and I've been in since 1990. This old dog doesn't mind new tricks. :)

[General308]

Hello,

As stated before, the extent of the retcon is discussed in Volume 2. They are separated for this reason:

Even a minor retcon has increasing ramifications for the various published works, potentially compounding over time. If the change is something like economics, for instance, every instance where population figures, manufacturing output, and the like will need to be examined for as many products as fall into the period in question and beyond it. If the change is made to game rules, it likewise impacts various years of sourcebook material if it's applied to a classic weapon like the medium laser versus a much latter developed weapon like the medium VSP laser.

A major retcon will actually have the same impact. For example, if the retcon is "WarShips are extinct", but the era selected is Clan Invasion and forward, we only lose the newer Inner Sphere ships and (depending on how the retcon is applies) the Clan navies...while the Star league is still that golden age when everyone fought in space and BattleMech armies were bored.

Hopefully, that clarifies.

Thank you,

- Herbert Beas
  BattleTech
  Catalyst Game Labs

Heck take away warships and the Jags may still exist. Because you don't have thr Turtle Bay glassing

[Maingunnery]

Heck take away warships and the Jags may still exist. Because you don't have thr Turtle Bay glassing

Well Herb could then just change the warships into combat dropships, then the Jags can still Turtle Bay all they like.

[TS_Hawk]

For as long as I have been playing this game and has much as I would like to see BTU get rid of the Dark Ages and Jihad (The WoBs have way too much fire power) I think we need to go back from 2012 and sooner.  There have been advances in technology that could help out the earlier stuff before the upheaval of the Star League and Kerensky's exodus

[PsihoKekec]

If we go all the way back to today in order to account for historical events and technological advances then we will have to retcon this part continuity every few years. Keep it the future of 80's and bring back the 80's hair in the product art.

[FedComGirl]

I think the tech levels need fixing but I don't think TPTB need to redo everything to account for today's technological advances. For one, there's nukes. With all the nukes being thrown around everyone's going to be forced to go back to using older technologies and rediscovering advancements. Or at the very least they'll go back to using what's easier to manufacture. Which is canon.

2 The area's technology. Not every place now uses the most advanced equipment much less can build it. In some places older is either cheaper, easier to use and to maintain. That's going to keep manufactures building them or/and dealers buying and selling used. That's only going to increase when you consider the size of Battletech's universe compared to just our planet. It's also canon.

[GRUD]

I voted "Early Clan Invasion", because while I like the 'Tech, I can do without the "Clans" themselves.   :P


Frankly, I'm amused we're being asked our Opinion like it might actually matter to those in charge.  ::)  Whenever people complain about the Jumping LE Minis on the IWM Board, we're told that we're "Not Representative of the BT Community", so therefore our opinions and complaints about/against the Jumping minis means nothing.   But then Polls on This Board lead us to believe our opinion DOES matter?  ???  I fail to see the difference between the two.

[Lorcan Nagle]

It's about proportions.  In the last Battlechat, Herb has said that CGL estimate roughly 10,000 BT players worldwide.  and he's also said that in some of his polls, enough people vote to get a representational slice of players, but often times the polls are useless due to the low number of voters. At the moment, this poll's voters represent about 0.4% of BT players, for example.

The second thing to bear in mind is how many people are actually talking. To look at the board here, you might think that IWM's jumping 'mechs aren't popular - but how many people are actually saying they don't like them?  10, 20?  IWM have their sales numbers to go on, which we don't see.  If they sell 1,000 LE jumping 'mechs in a year, does it matter that a dozen or so people complain online?

[Centurion]

Also, folks on a company's forum are self-selecting, and therefore usually not the most useful metric to use for the fanbase as a whole.

[GRUD]

It's about proportions.  In the last Battlechat, Herb has said that CGL estimate roughly 10,000 BT players worldwide.  and he's also said that in some of his polls, enough people vote to get a representational slice of players, but often times the polls are useless due to the low number of voters. At the moment, this poll's voters represent about 0.4% of BT players, for example.

The second thing to bear in mind is how many people are actually talking. To look at the board here, you might think that IWM's jumping 'mechs aren't popular - but how many people are actually saying they don't like them?  10, 20?  IWM have their sales numbers to go on, which we don't see.  If they sell 1,000 LE jumping 'mechs in a year, does it matter that a dozen or so people complain online?

First, I Apologize to Herb for getting things Off Topic.  Second, my point about the LE minis is that most of the comments here are Strongly AGAINST Jumping minis, with the rest being those that don't care, or that like them.  I know of at least 2 BT Fan Sites where most of the comments are against the Jumpers also.  Granted, some of them are members at this board as well as the other 2, so there will be some "Votes" that are from the same person.  My MAIN point is, to be told on one board that, basically, our opinion doesn't matter, then to be told on THIS board that it does, simply makes no sense.


And I'm done with this, so Enjoy.  On with the Poll!

[Lorcan Nagle]

Remember that it's two different people, from two different companies saying these things .  Just because IWM interact with people here doesn't mean their opinions are binding on Herb or anyone at CGL.

[GRUD]

Remember that it's two different people, from two different companies saying these things .  Just because IWM interact with people here doesn't mean their opinions are binding on Herb or anyone at CGL.

I know I Said I was done, but...   


It's NOT someone from IWM saying our opinions don't matter, it's Mods and Admins from this site that are "Supposed" to "Represent" CGL that say we don't matter.  But then, They're Always Right, and We're Always Wrong.  ::)

[nckestrel]

I know I Said I was done, but...   


It's NOT someone from IWM saying our opinions don't matter, it's Mods and Admins from this site that are "Supposed" to "Represent" CGL that say we don't matter.  But then, They're Always Right, and We're Always Wrong.  ::)

No, they're saying they can't only consider 100 fans and ignore the other 9,900.    Saying you're not 100 times more important than others fans is not saying that you don't matter.  Flip that around, should CGL tell the other 9,900 that _they_ don't matter, GRUD said no more jumping minis?
it's not like you have to buy the limited edition minis.  It's not like IWM didn't also release a bunch of special edition minis this year (Omega, XTRO lance pack, Hauberk 28mm?)  If you don't like jumping minis, just don't buy them.

[TS_Hawk]

If we go all the way back to today in order to account for historical events and technological advances then we will have to retcon this part continuity every few years. Keep it the future of 80's and bring back the 80's hair in the product art.

dude I still have my long hair from the 80's unlike some of the guys i know my age :P  As for the tech advances its taking them 25 years to ask this so why not? 

[IronSphinx]

Herb, as long as you retcon the Clans out of existence, you can go as far back as you need to.  O0

[DaveMac]

Don't really see the point of retconning back to any given point in time because once you start in on any period you may well find you have to do the lot for consistancy

I imagine that would annoy a lot of players including me to no real purpose

[Orion]

I voted for redoing everything after 3048, because the clans were just the start of the long downhill fall in my mind.  And now that it is too late to change my vote, I realize that what I really should have chosen was redo back to 2012.  Just as the Jihad and Dark Age will never occur in any Battletech universe I use, any retcon can just as easily be ignored by those that don't like it.  Doesn't do much good, it seems.

So, what I've long wanted was to stop the forward progress in history.  Instead of a constantly moving timeline, release new settings.  Base some off modern tech advances.  In another every single mech has jump jets, or every one is a LAM.  Have a universe with 50 different warring star nations, and another where there's just one, but they're about to go to war with aliens from an unknown dimension.  Have fun with the idea, and publish them as PDF-only documents of about 24 pages or so history, and then whatever rules changes are necessary to run in them.  Give us about as much info as we got in the 4ed basic boxed set.

[Meow Liao]

For this part of the poll of doom, I picked 2012 and before.  On a pure timeline choice separate from poll 2, I think it must be all or nothing, and I pick all.  If you have a retcon to fix something, it needs to be fixed from the beginning. 

Meow Liao

[Minerva]

Companies have retcons for two reasons:

First is that there is argument for costs involved in using intellectual property. This is common with literary/comic book characters (see Neil Gaiman). Then stuff where ownership is in question is simply written out of existence.

Second is that sales have been a disappointment and property cannot be be dumped off for one reason or another. Then changes are used to blow some life to game/setting to make it more appealing to potential audience in hope of achieving better sales.

Thus I put the reset to 3025 (i.e. situation of the house books before 4th Succession War). My reasoning is that I truly enjoyed that setting. It was also a time when board game's balance worked best (this is something that I often see mentioned in general miniatures gaming boards as setting where game rules and balance are best). However, I fail to see that anything polled actually matters. CGL's core creative people happens to be the same people as with Fanpro and FASA so what we have seen is what we will see.

[Diablo48]

Companies have retcons for two reasons:

First is that there is argument for costs involved in using intellectual property. This is common with literary/comic book characters (see Neil Gaiman). Then stuff where ownership is in question is simply written out of existence.

Second is that sales have been a disappointment and property cannot be be dumped off for one reason or another. Then changes are used to blow some life to game/setting to make it more appealing to potential audience in hope of achieving better sales.

Thus I put the reset to 3025 (i.e. situation of the house books before 4th Succession War). My reasoning is that I truly enjoyed that setting. It was also a time when board game's balance worked best (this is something that I often see mentioned in general miniatures gaming boards as setting where game rules and balance are best). However, I fail to see that anything polled actually matters. CGL's core creative people happens to be the same people as with Fanpro and FASA so what we have seen is what we will see.

What about correcting problems in older work?  One of the biggest problems BattleTech has is that it is saddled with silly scale problems and infeasible economics which would need a retcon to correct.  This has sort of half-worked and been half-changed over the years by attributing things to in-character errors, but a major retcon would be needed to get the population and economy numbers to make any kind of sense.  Given that CGL is attempting to create rules to allow play at larger and larger scopes, this is almost certain to cause problems for players trying to play extremely large entities like entire states or mercenary companies that become nations unto themselves because they will need rules to manage their economy and have their games make sense.

[Jerrard]

I would go back as far as the 1. Succession war as this is basically were FASANOMICS started. After that the force levels shrunk down a lot. They were probably not sufficient during the Star League but afterwards they were too low.

[greywolf79]

I am ok with 3025 era, succession wars era stuff, and I am ok with the clan invasion time. The FedCom civil war is iffy, the jihad I understand and can deal with, but the dark ages was just a bad idea in my opinion. I never liked the idea of the dark ages... But what TPTB decide I abide by for the most part. I do however feel that if it is not done well it will alienate all the older players and thus slow if not kill the game. I have played the game since it was battledroids, I am teaching my kids to play. I do not want a different game - I do not want rule changes, but to redo fluff in a positive way would help the game. I would have to hear more details however to decide on whether it is something I would like. I do think that it would be good to clean house - fill in blanks, re-write stuff with the designs that we now have that were supposed to be around, that type of thing.

[bytedruid]

Our campaign is currently at 3012.  So I guess the short sighted answer would be anything after 3025 doesn't affect me much.  On the other hand many players started in the 3050 era, so it probably  wouldn't be a good idea to rile them up too much either.  IMHO the closer you get to 3090, the less people your gonna agitate.  BattleTech doesn't have the player base of some game systems, so running off repeat purchasers is not something to take lightly.

Overall I'm for retcon'ing rules (and please start with Ground units attacking Air Units), but don't change the fluff in any areas near and dear to long time fans.

[Blacksheep]

I couldn't vote because my answer would be along the lines of: "I dunno, how far back do you need to go to repair what you decide needs fixing?" ???

[Wrangler]

I'd rather have line-items type of Retcon, like fixing certain "Era" verse, how far back should we go.

[Mohammed As`Zaman Bey]

If we go back to 2012 and earlier will it be okay to discuss real world politics?  ::)

[HABeas2]

Hello,

No.

Thank you,

- Herbert Beas
  BattleTech
  Catalyst Game Labs

[HABeas2]

Hello,

I couldn't vote because my answer would be along the lines of: "I dunno, how far back do you need to go to repair what you decide needs fixing?" ???

Sounds to me like that falls under "All the way back", then. That's the "blank check" of this particular poll, after all.


Thank you,

- Herbert Beas
  BattleTech
  Catalyst Game Labs