Author Topic: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion  (Read 35593 times)

ActionButler

  • Global Moderator
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5846
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #210 on: 18 February 2019, 21:47:14 »
Battletech has survived 35 years with little modification to the core of the game - lots of add-ons, but the core remains intact. How many other games can say that? Risk, Axis & Allies, a couple of the historical games?

There is a lot of truth in this. BattleTech has survived the test of time using the exact same rules that it has had for ages and that is pretty darned good.  The game does a very good job of catering to a certain subset of gamers who like very crunchy, very slow, very crunchy rules. However...

“I’ve been playing since high school and graduated in a year starting with 7, 8, or 9” probably isn’t the sensibility required to sell to the prime demos that buy the bulk of hobby stuff.

The quaintness of the rules won’t pay the bills forever, especially in short order after the old timers retire from buying BT stuff

There is also a lot of truth here. How much of Battletech’s survival is due to the fact that it appeals to a very niche group of gamers who will not be around to rebuy the same rules forever and ever? CGL made it very clear that they didn’t care if all of the new box sets were bought up by old timers, and that makes sense because if the product flies off the shelves, that shows demand. But if all that demand comes from the same people, the game won’t survive once that same group stops buying stuff.

More to the point, is that all we want to see out of BattleTech? Is just surviving good enough?  Especially if the cost of holding on to a set of 30 year old rules is that we eliminate the possibility that the game might flourish if it were to adopt faster, less crunchy rules?
Experimental Technical Readout: The School
http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=56420.0

Scotty

  • Alpha Strike Guru by appointment to the FWLM
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13702
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #211 on: 18 February 2019, 22:49:06 »
It's fine to be crunchy it just needs less grit gumming up the gears.  I keep coming back to the cluster hits table, critical hit tables (because there are multiple), and the pointless detail of the hit location chart because they're very obvious extra layers that don't do anything but make resolving attacks take longer.

Mods, forgive me if I'm getting too close to Fan Rules territory.

It's been mentioned previously that moving on from the cluster hits table can be accomplished by making currently cluster weapons a fixed amount of damage to one location and another fixed amount to adjacent locations.  Ultras are one place that this becomes cumbersome but I don't think it's a particularly unheard of option to have them roll to hit twice (especially if the second shot is at a penalty to prevent an Ultra AC from being just two ACs taped together).  For everything else assigning damage adjacent works fine.

The various levels of critical hits tables and endless rolling to determine which slot you hit (seriously, it can go for a long damn time if crits have already started piling up) can be replaced with a fixed table by location; you could even replace the huge pile of mostly empty space where the current critical location table is with that.  A single roll and a single result, whether that's a destroyed weapon, an ammunition explosion, an engine or gyro hit, a limb blown off, whathaveyou. 

Critical hits are one of those places where there can be a ludicrous number of dice rolled in order to accomplish absolutely nothing when a hand actuator gets blown off.  I mean, what are the actual results when a critical hit check happens?  Most of the time, nothing.  Sometimes you lose something utterly meaningless.  Rarely, you lose something important like a weapon.  Equally rarely, you might take some MP damage or reduced effectiveness out of an arm.  Very rarely you have something truly catastrophic happen that kills the 'Mech.  What we as players trick ourselves into thinking is that anything significant happens on any given crit check, but in reality the vast majority of times a crit check happens the result is nothing.

Cut out the middle-man.  Structure damage to an arm?  Roll 2d6.  On a 2-6, nothing happens.  On a 7-8, an actuator is damaged; +1 to things in that arm.  On a 9, an important actuator got hit, +2 to things in that arm.  On a 10, say that a weapon got hit, destroy one at random.  If that weapon has ammo, make another check to see if it explodes (9+ maybe?  Spitballing here).  If there is no weapon but there is ammo, pick a ton at random to explode.  If there is no weapon or ammo, upgrade to an 11: arm disabled, can't do anything with it but it can still take damage.  On a 12, the limb is just plain gone.

And just like that, we've reduced a process that used to take potentially a dozen rolls (everyone on this board has experienced what happens on a 'Mech with seven slots occupied in an arm, you're lying if you say you haven't) and now it takes exactly one in the vast majority of results, and a whopping two at maximum.  The detail lost is negligible: the sum total of things that you used to be able to have but can no longer achieve are individually striking poorly placed heatsinks and electronics equipment.  That's it.  Truly a staggering loss.

Location tables are more complex and are absolutely infringing on fan rules in the wrong board, but it's entirely possible to similarly streamline the process without losing the detail that makes BattleTech BattleTech.
Catalyst Demo Agent #679

Kansas City players, or people who are just passing through the area, come join us at the Geekery just off Shawnee Mission Parkway for BattleTech!  Current days are Tuesdays in the afternoon and evening.  I can't make every single week, but odds are pretty good that somebody will be there.

AlphaMirage

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3654
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #212 on: 18 February 2019, 22:53:20 »
I like the vehicle style crit hit for Mechs.  It's tough to work through a dozen internal SRMs end game even if you are fast

Greatclub

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 3061
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #213 on: 18 February 2019, 23:12:43 »
(everyone on this board has experienced what happens on a 'Mech with seven slots occupied in an arm, you're lying if you say you haven't)

Haven't in a while, actually; that's what D8 are for. Also the D12, D10, D4 and a defaced quarter.

Codifying that and re-numbering crit slots on the sheet? I'm up for that.
« Last Edit: 18 February 2019, 23:17:26 by Greatclub »

Scotty

  • Alpha Strike Guru by appointment to the FWLM
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13702
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #214 on: 18 February 2019, 23:13:39 »
Haven't in a while, actually; that's what D8 are for.

If your answer to problematic rules is "don't follow them, make up your own" thank you for making my point for me.
Catalyst Demo Agent #679

Kansas City players, or people who are just passing through the area, come join us at the Geekery just off Shawnee Mission Parkway for BattleTech!  Current days are Tuesdays in the afternoon and evening.  I can't make every single week, but odds are pretty good that somebody will be there.

Greatclub

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 3061
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #215 on: 18 February 2019, 23:17:02 »
If your answer to problematic rules is "don't follow them, make up your own" thank you for making my point for me.

I'm using the rule, just using a hack to speed up the rules execution. There is a significant difference.

edit - It's equivalent to using a box-o-doom instead of making homebrew to get rid of critseeking.
« Last Edit: 18 February 2019, 23:36:27 by Greatclub »

Scotty

  • Alpha Strike Guru by appointment to the FWLM
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13702
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #216 on: 18 February 2019, 23:21:54 »
I'm using the rule, just using a hack to speed up the rules execution. There is a significant difference.

You'll have to point out to me the part of the rulebook that describes D8s and how to use them, because if you're not using a D6 you're not actually using the rule.

Which is entirely besides the point you're still making for me that if you have to use a hack the rules are clearly deficient.
Catalyst Demo Agent #679

Kansas City players, or people who are just passing through the area, come join us at the Geekery just off Shawnee Mission Parkway for BattleTech!  Current days are Tuesdays in the afternoon and evening.  I can't make every single week, but odds are pretty good that somebody will be there.

Sartris

  • Codex Conditor
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 19854
  • Cap’n-Generalissimost
    • Master Unit List
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #217 on: 18 February 2019, 23:27:51 »
that's not even the primary issue with rolling for crits. you could start with the fact that neonknight made a cheat sheet table for crit effects to common components that's a half page - and it's constructed not insignificantly from footnotes.

You bought the box set and are ready to expand your bt experience. Now what? | Modern Sourcebook Index | FASA Sourcebook Index | Print on Demand Index
Equipment Reference Cards | DIY Pilot Cards | PaperTech Mech and Vehicle Counters

Quote
Interviewer: Since you’ve stopped making art, how do you spend your time?
Paul Chan Breathers: Oh, I’m a breather. I’m a respirateur. Isn’t that enough?

AdmiralObvious

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 223
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #218 on: 18 February 2019, 23:29:34 »
The current system is roll a D6 to get the "half" of the Mech that's hit, and another D6 for what actually gets hit. The only real reason I see that being a thing is because you have to be able to hit slot 1 somehow. I don't see why using a single die is any worse than the current system, you've got fairer odds with it.

I think the only reason the rule is the way it is, is because it's easier to use a D6, since they're the most common die out there.

It's a matter of time versus practicality of production and a way for players to just add in whatever they have on hand, instead of "you need a D(insert # that isn't 6 here) to play". You're sacrificing time for practicality.

Edit: It's also worth mentioning that there are 6 parts to any Mech (except for tripods) and using a D6 keeps it simple.

Greatclub

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 3061
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #219 on: 18 February 2019, 23:29:40 »
You'll have to point out to me the part of the rulebook that describes D8s and how to use them, because if you're not using a D6 you're not actually using the rule.

...I'm unsure if you're serious or deliberately straw-manning.

it's not in the book, and you need a set of D&D dice to do it. if there are 11 or 12 items in a location, use a D12. If there are 9 or 10, use a D10. 7 or 8, use a D8. I'm sure you can see the rest of the progression.

Quote
Which is entirely besides the point you're still making for me that if you have to use a hack the rules are clearly deficient.

It works out as the same odds, but you need the poly dice. Since those would add another $5-10 to a box set, it would probably be best to just tack it as an optional procedure in the BMM.
« Last Edit: 19 February 2019, 01:42:58 by Greatclub »

Scotty

  • Alpha Strike Guru by appointment to the FWLM
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13702
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #220 on: 18 February 2019, 23:34:52 »
...I'm unsure if you're serious or deliberately straw-manning.

I'm completely serious, because even though you don't seem to care much, the fact that

it's not in the book

is really significant.  And equally significant, that it won't be in the book, because

and you need a you need a set of D&D dice to do it.

is not something that's ever going to get published in a BattleTech book (and for good reason, not needing a set of polyhedrals is one of the best decisions FASA and CGL ever made and stuck with).

You're not explaining some wild new way to streamline the game, but you're doing an excellent job whether you think it's silly or not of explaining why a new player is more likely to skip off of BattleTech like a stone on water than most other contemporary games.

EDIT: put a bit more directly: if you don't understand how this is a problem, you're part of it.
Catalyst Demo Agent #679

Kansas City players, or people who are just passing through the area, come join us at the Geekery just off Shawnee Mission Parkway for BattleTech!  Current days are Tuesdays in the afternoon and evening.  I can't make every single week, but odds are pretty good that somebody will be there.

Crimson Dawn

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 696
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #221 on: 18 February 2019, 23:40:18 »
I think the point being made is that if you are actively avoiding following the rule directly as written by using a "hack" because you find the original to be too slow then that kind of implies that the rule is not ideal.  If it was why would you feel like you want/need to use a hack?

Scotty

  • Alpha Strike Guru by appointment to the FWLM
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13702
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #222 on: 18 February 2019, 23:44:37 »
I think the point being made is that if you are actively avoiding following the rule directly as written by using a "hack" because you find the original to be too slow then that kind of implies that the rule is not ideal.  If it was why would you feel like you want/need to use a hack?

Bingo.  Cluster hits (and the "box of death") are exactly the same way.  If you need a hack for it, the rule must not be very good in the first place.
Catalyst Demo Agent #679

Kansas City players, or people who are just passing through the area, come join us at the Geekery just off Shawnee Mission Parkway for BattleTech!  Current days are Tuesdays in the afternoon and evening.  I can't make every single week, but odds are pretty good that somebody will be there.

Greatclub

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 3061
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #223 on: 18 February 2019, 23:47:31 »
Bingo.  Cluster hits (and the "box of death") are exactly the same way.  If you need a hack for it, the rule must not be very good in the first place.

It's an excellent rule for the scale we're simulating. It's just not very fast.

I think you need to stop playing battletech and take another look at battleforce or alpha-strike. They might be up your ally.

Scotty

  • Alpha Strike Guru by appointment to the FWLM
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13702
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #224 on: 18 February 2019, 23:56:44 »
It's an excellent rule for the scale we're simulating. It's just not very fast.

I think you need to stop playing battletech and take another look at battleforce or alpha-strike. They might be up your ally.

It's not normally considered proper etiquette to toot one's own horn, but take a gander at my custom title sometime. ;)  The big Alpha Strike games at conventions are my babies.

You may also notice that everything I've mentioned so far has preserved the level of detail in outcomes (well, ~95% or so) because the level of abstraction involved is so wholly not the point of what I'm trying to illustrate.  It's that BattleTech puts too much of the actual resolution of decisions on the player, which slows down the game and reduces the amount of time the player gets to actually, y'know, play the game.

Rolling dice on a chart, no matter how much fun you might find it, is not actually playing the game.  It's learning what the move you just made (or, potentially, made 10 or 15 minutes ago) actually did.

"It's just not very fast" is... uh, well.

If there was anything in this thread that counts as "exactly the problem", that's hitting the nail on the head right there.
Catalyst Demo Agent #679

Kansas City players, or people who are just passing through the area, come join us at the Geekery just off Shawnee Mission Parkway for BattleTech!  Current days are Tuesdays in the afternoon and evening.  I can't make every single week, but odds are pretty good that somebody will be there.

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11045
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #225 on: 18 February 2019, 23:58:21 »
It's an excellent rule for the scale we're simulating. It's just not very fast.
Rules that are consistently changed or avoided are showing signs they are not very good rules.
Declaring fire as a separate phase has reasons for existing, but many (if not most) players sidestep to outright ignore it.
Large numbers of small clusters are something that make opposing players groan from the soul-sucking time-wasting it is.  Yes it has reason to exist.  And yes, it is INCREDIBLY tedious. Tedium is not excellent by any stretch.
Quote
I think you need to stop playing battletech and take another look at battleforce or alpha-strike. They might be up your ally.
I was going to reply to this, but Scotty already got it..
Alpha Strike Introduction resources
Left of Center blog - Tukayyid Expanded Random Unit Tables, Nashira Campaign for A Game of Armored Combat, TP 3039 Vega Supplemental Record Sheets

Sartris

  • Codex Conditor
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 19854
  • Cap’n-Generalissimost
    • Master Unit List
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #226 on: 19 February 2019, 00:08:25 »
"it's not a problem for me so it's not a problem" is perhaps the worst possible rubric by which to measure whether something is actually a problem

You bought the box set and are ready to expand your bt experience. Now what? | Modern Sourcebook Index | FASA Sourcebook Index | Print on Demand Index
Equipment Reference Cards | DIY Pilot Cards | PaperTech Mech and Vehicle Counters

Quote
Interviewer: Since you’ve stopped making art, how do you spend your time?
Paul Chan Breathers: Oh, I’m a breather. I’m a respirateur. Isn’t that enough?

Greatclub

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 3061
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #227 on: 19 February 2019, 00:55:58 »
I know it’s a problem, I just don’t see a way to fix it. I actively dread battletech 2.0 as more likely to kill the game than having the current grindy system. Keeping CBT in print while they tried for the brass ring with alpha-strike was probably the best way CGL could have handled the attempt.

Edit - I could be wrong, I tend towards pessimism.

I tried alpha-strike a few times. It got better after the companion modifications came out, but my overall impression was resentment that it kept battletech from being played at the local mini-con for so long. Despite that, I think that the current boxes should have contained AS quickstart rules.
« Last Edit: 19 February 2019, 01:55:53 by Greatclub »

Charlie Tango

  • Moderator Emeritus
  • Global Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6499
  • I'm feeling a little sketchy...
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #228 on: 19 February 2019, 04:49:47 »

Cut out the middle-man.  Structure damage to an arm?  Roll 2d6.  On a 2-6, nothing happens.  On a 7-8, an actuator is damaged; +1 to things in that arm.  On a 9, an important actuator got hit, +2 to things in that arm.  On a 10, say that a weapon got hit, destroy one at random.  If that weapon has ammo, make another check to see if it explodes (9+ maybe?  Spitballing here).  If there is no weapon but there is ammo, pick a ton at random to explode.  If there is no weapon or ammo, upgrade to an 11: arm disabled, can't do anything with it but it can still take damage.  On a 12, the limb is just plain gone.

And just like that, we've reduced a process that used to take potentially a dozen rolls (everyone on this board has experienced what happens on a 'Mech with seven slots occupied in an arm, you're lying if you say you haven't) and now it takes exactly one in the vast majority of results, and a whopping two at maximum.  The detail lost is negligible: the sum total of things that you used to be able to have but can no longer achieve are individually striking poorly placed heatsinks and electronics equipment.  That's it.  Truly a staggering loss.

Location tables are more complex and are absolutely infringing on fan rules in the wrong board, but it's entirely possible to similarly streamline the process without losing the detail that makes BattleTech BattleTech.

Were the units homogeneous in how they are structured,  this would work. They aren't  Much as you may deride them,  those other components (like heat sinks) are critical.

And you say things like "determine which weapon randomly.  How would you determine that randomly?  Oh yeah, with a die roll.   SMH.

You want to speed it up (and I do not understand the obsession with speed... )?  Don't reroll the "top or bottom" die on a location with two charts.
« Last Edit: 19 February 2019, 08:26:16 by Charlie Tango »
"This is a war universe. War all the time. That is its nature.
There may be other universes based on all sorts of other principles, but ours seems to be based on war and games."
  
-- William S. Burroughs

Easy

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 591
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #229 on: 19 February 2019, 07:59:30 »
Somewhere out there is the idea, or the dream, of a Total War compatible phone/handheld app with a list of optional rule boxes to check, a built in initiative and turn tracker and a clean interface that takes just a minute to tell you what all and where those four Artemis SRM6s hit, and what damage they did.

I've seen some prototypes used on Twitch. Some players stopping the game for gee-wiz observations, some getting tangled with off-camera production crew, but occasionally a complex lookup and roll getting resolved surprisingly quickly.

It could be, though, that since you would have code rules from official products in, there are IP licencing issues to negotiate.

(And, yes, I'm sure this has been tried. Try again.)

I'd be more willing to pay for an app that does that, than tries to reproduce a unit record sheet, or cleverly tries to make a unit-sheet-with-macros kind if thing, or tries to stuff a game board or 'mech database into it. Not looking for MegaMek on a phone, but an 'expert' app that folds-in a lot of the dice and table lookup work.
« Last Edit: 19 February 2019, 09:11:29 by Easy »

ActionButler

  • Global Moderator
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5846
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #230 on: 19 February 2019, 09:14:20 »
I think the point being made is that if you are actively avoiding following the rule directly as written by using a "hack" because you find the original to be too slow then that kind of implies that the rule is not ideal.  If it was why would you feel like you want/need to use a hack?

Exactly, 100% this.

The Box of Death, the cheat sheets, using entire extra sets of color-coded movement dice to remember how fast things moved, and all of those other things that we have come up with to make the game move faster are all really great ideas that very successfully address the issues that that they are meant to, but the fact that we need them at all is proof positive that the rules do not adequately address the speed of play or the sheer volume of stuff that people need to keep track of.  Modern games use static to-hit numbers with minimal modifiers, or they come with actual tokens to address movement/activation/whatever.  They don't ask players to run to their FLGS to buy a Plano container and a bunch of extra dice just to keep track of in-game mechanics.  For goodness sake, as much as I love Iron Wind Metals and the great work that they do, we still have to buy hex bases for our miniatures.  What other game doesn't package the miniatures and the bases together?  What is the logic of that?

I love Battletech.  I love the universe, I love the mechs, I love the factions (but not the Lyrans), I love the visceral impact of a battery of LRM 20s falling onto an unsuspecting enemy.  I wouldn't have signed up for this site if I didn't and I certainly wouldn't have agreed to be a mod if I didn't.  But at the end of the day, when all the dust has settled, if this system is so great and is so complete that it doesn't need any quality of life modifications, why don't any other games emulate it?  Why didn't another crunchy,  slow-burn, bubble-filling game pop up on the market during the decline of FASA?  Why do all of the big sellers - the 40Ks, the Warmahordes, the X-Wings, the Flames of War - why do none of those games have systems that ask players to roll as often, to keep track of as many modifiers, to buy as many play aids, or to do as much accounting as Battletech does?  Off the top of my head, the closest systems to Battletech's health bar armor that I can think of are the damage tracks for Warmahordes and for Armor Grid: Mech Attack. Both games play much faster and ask much less of their players.  Heroes of Normandy and Command And Colors both take the game off of the tabletop and put it onto hexmaps and neither asks you too keep track of as many modifiers or as roll as frequently as Battletech does. 

Someone pointed out, quite accurately, a few posts up, that none of us knows what the masses really want from a game or how well CGL does with Battletech.  That's 100% correct and something that everyone in this thread needs to keep in mind.  But... looking at the games that get the most shelf space, that have the most frequent product rollouts, that have the most active tables, we can make a pretty darned good educated guess at what people want to play and Battletech is not it.  If CGL can make a profit from selling Battletech's same 35 year old rules, that's great.  It fills a niche and it make a bunch of people very happy.  If it can't make a profit, though, or is only being purchased by the people who are already on board and we're only getting the same, rehashed rules again and again and again because CGL is worried about alienating the same handful of people who won't be around forever (which is to say... us), this game's life and success will be intrinsically tied to a very finite fanbase.  And that is my biggest concern, that by holding on to the same rules forever and ever, we are consigning the game to die off whenever we do.  We should have seen a flood of new members here recently.  CGL just rolled out the first new intro products in ages.  New minis, new maps, new price points.  An entire box specifically designed to draw in new players.  At a cursory glance, considering how difficult it is to find either of the new boxes in-stock anywhere, it seems like those products sold pretty darned well, which is wonderful.  But the number of new signups who are actively posting here are worryingly few. 
Experimental Technical Readout: The School
http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=56420.0

MadCapellan

  • Furibunda Scriptorem
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 12215
  • In the name of Xin Sheng, I will punish you!
    • Check out the anime I've seen & reviewed!
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #231 on: 19 February 2019, 09:51:13 »
But at the end of the day, when all the dust has settled, if this system is so great and is so complete that it doesn't need any quality of life modifications, why don't any other games emulate it? 

Because most modern game companies are either miniatures companies (i.e., invested in selling the kind of mass spectacle, rapid casualty games I discussed above) or are board game companies producing luxury eurogame boxes. The reason is simple - visual impressions drive customer purchases, & game companies that manufacture visually appealing components in house can consistently produce a product that is both desireable & profitable.

Unlike Games Workshop, or Fantasy Flight, or Privateer, or Battlefront Miniatures, Catalyst Game Labs is not a miniatures manufacturer - it is a print publisher. Catalyst does not currently have the means to produce minis in the volume, quality, or price-point those companies do. Our boxed sets contain minis, but these are manufactured by a third-party supplier under contract. A rules set, no matter how optimal, cannot secure mass market dominance over games with greater visual appeal. There's more to the game business than the game, & Catalyst is a small company with fewer resources than many of the competitors that have been cited.

Fear Factory

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4070
  • Designing the Enemy
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #232 on: 19 February 2019, 09:53:06 »
ActionButler... very well said.
The conflict is pure - The truth devised - The future secured - The enemy designed
Maj. Isaac "Litany" Van Houten, Lone Wolves, The Former 66th "Litany Against Fear" Company

Sartris

  • Codex Conditor
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 19854
  • Cap’n-Generalissimost
    • Master Unit List
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #233 on: 19 February 2019, 10:10:35 »
(And, yes, I'm sure this has been tried. Try again.)

Microsoft: Are you still unwilling to pay X?
CGL: We will give you Y
Microsoft: That's cute. 

You bought the box set and are ready to expand your bt experience. Now what? | Modern Sourcebook Index | FASA Sourcebook Index | Print on Demand Index
Equipment Reference Cards | DIY Pilot Cards | PaperTech Mech and Vehicle Counters

Quote
Interviewer: Since you’ve stopped making art, how do you spend your time?
Paul Chan Breathers: Oh, I’m a breather. I’m a respirateur. Isn’t that enough?

NeonKnight

  • Freelance Writer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 6353
  • Cause Them My Initials!
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #234 on: 19 February 2019, 10:24:10 »
Somewhere out there is the idea, or the dream, of a Total War compatible phone/handheld app with a list of optional rule boxes to check, a built in initiative and turn tracker and a clean interface that takes just a minute to tell you what all and where those four Artemis SRM6s hit, and what damage they did.

I've seen some prototypes used on Twitch. Some players stopping the game for gee-wiz observations, some getting tangled with off-camera production crew, but occasionally a complex lookup and roll getting resolved surprisingly quickly.

It could be, though, that since you would have code rules from official products in, there are IP licencing issues to negotiate.

(And, yes, I'm sure this has been tried. Try again.)

I'd be more willing to pay for an app that does that, than tries to reproduce a unit record sheet, or cleverly tries to make a unit-sheet-with-macros kind if thing, or tries to stuff a game board or 'mech database into it. Not looking for MegaMek on a phone, but an 'expert' app that folds-in a lot of the dice and table lookup work.

But that App IS out there...I've been using it for years.
AGENT #575, Vancouver Canada

ActionButler

  • Global Moderator
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5846
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #235 on: 19 February 2019, 10:42:15 »
Because most modern game companies are either miniatures companies (i.e., invested in selling the kind of mass spectacle, rapid casualty games I discussed above) or are board game companies producing luxury eurogame boxes. The reason is simple - visual impressions drive customer purchases, & game companies that manufacture visually appealing components in house can consistently produce a product that is both desireable & profitable.

Unlike Games Workshop, or Fantasy Flight, or Privateer, or Battlefront Miniatures, Catalyst Game Labs is not a miniatures manufacturer - it is a print publisher. Catalyst does not currently have the means to produce minis in the volume, quality, or price-point those companies do. Our boxed sets contain minis, but these are manufactured by a third-party supplier under contract. A rules set, no matter how optimal, cannot secure mass market dominance over games with greater visual appeal. There's more to the game business than the game, & Catalyst is a small company with fewer resources than many of the competitors that have been cited.

And those are all very good and true and honest points that I agree with completely, but not a single one of them addresses the fact that, apart from counting how far you can move and then rolling some dice to see if you hit something, almost none of the core rules and concepts of Battletech are shared by any of the major games on the market today.  They don't tell you that, "oh, the rules aren't so bad if you bring a bunch of extra homebrew stuff along with you to make the sheer volume of dice rolling less onerous".  They don't say, "well yeah, we have different tables for hits and crits and cluster weapons and heat and every gun has complete different range profiles and there are so many movement and terrain modifiers that even elite pilots are lucky to score a hit and there are eleven different flavors of medium laser that are only slightly different from one another but you'll memorize them all after a while so its okay". 

Would it really stop being Classic Battletech if we just tried to make it more accessible to new players?   If we unified the tech base and removed all of the weapons that we don't need? Or if, instead of rolling XYZ times on the cluster table, an LBX autocannon rolls once for hit location for X amount of damage and automatically does Y damage to all adjacent locations?
Experimental Technical Readout: The School
http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=56420.0

dgorsman

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1984
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #236 on: 19 February 2019, 10:52:58 »
... after wading through all this, it looks like going to poker night and complaining about the time "wasted" shuffling and dealing when the point is fun.  Yes, I did say fun.  Trying to survive a swarm of missiles from an SRM carrier,  or a double load of buckshot from a WoB King Crab?  Count me in.  And it's more than a little insulting to suggest that I'm being held hostage, or should hate it but just don't realize it.

More tongue in cheek, given a choice between 45 minutes of fun, and a full afternoon, well I'm choosing the latter.   :thumbsup:
Think about it.  It's what we do.
- The Society

Thunder LRMs: the gift that keeps on giving.  They're the glitter of the BattleTech universe.

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11045
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #237 on: 19 February 2019, 10:53:46 »
ActionButler, I don’t think those would hurt. I also don’t think they would change BattleTechs position in the market to any noticeable degree. Nobody should be thinking BattleRech will lead the market because by tweaking the rules to make them slightly less complicated/tedious. They can be done for their own sake, making the game better for those that do play.
Alpha Strike Introduction resources
Left of Center blog - Tukayyid Expanded Random Unit Tables, Nashira Campaign for A Game of Armored Combat, TP 3039 Vega Supplemental Record Sheets

MadCapellan

  • Furibunda Scriptorem
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 12215
  • In the name of Xin Sheng, I will punish you!
    • Check out the anime I've seen & reviewed!
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #238 on: 19 February 2019, 10:58:19 »
...but not a single one of them addresses the fact that, ....., almost none of the core rules and concepts of Battletech are shared by any of the major games on the market today. 

That's because they aren't the same kind of game. They are marketing a completely different product with a very different business model, & earn their profits from very different avenues. GW isn"t earning record profits from codex sales - they are a miniatures company.

That's not to say I am opposed to improving the rules of Battletech to make them clearer, easier, or faster to resolve - I believe those are admirable objectives. I simply believe that the kind of game Battletech is - a pseudo-narrative skirmish game with RPG elements - is its core appeal, & is the reason why so many folks here such as yourself are still interested in "fixing" TW rather than playing Alpha Strike, & yet so many proposals to "fix" Battletech damage that appeal in mimicking games like Alpha Strike or other quick-play miniatures games. If the "fix" doesn't preserve the sense of being the vicarious master of a gargantuan mechanical avatar of unstoppable death, I simply can't support it!

Easy

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 591
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #239 on: 19 February 2019, 11:01:36 »
cleanup
« Last Edit: 29 May 2019, 18:34:32 by Easy »