Register Register

Author Topic: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?  (Read 37372 times)

RL Nice

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 7
Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« on: 04 March 2013, 21:11:06 »
I've seen a lot of criticism directed towards MechWarrior: Dark Age on other forums. Not so much this board, but then again, it's probably because it's a board dedicated to the game and coming here just to trash it is what's known as trolling.

Anyways, I'm rather curious as to what BattleTech fans didn't like about Dark Age back in 2003. I'm referring specifically to the game's story and background, since I'm sure the actual game itself had balance issues and stuff like that. Is it because of the jump in time frame with no explanation or lead up to the Inner Sphere's current state resulting in the setting becoming almost unrecognizable? And what do you all think of it now, when the original game's timeline has almost (already?) caught up to the Dark Age?
I have an affinity for large glutus maximi and I am unable to make false statements.

Atlas3060

  • Plodding along...
  • Global Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8488
  • WHAP Wielder
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #1 on: 05 March 2013, 00:49:13 »
It was a different time back then.
FASA was gone, the "Classic" line was hung up on the FedCom Civil War, and Endgame looked to be the last novel of the Classic line.
So when the new game was coming out people get anxious, hopeful, fearful, and other assorted emotions.

The fact that 80% of the HPGs shut down and we had no explanation so far, no novels, no sourcebooks factored into this at least for me.
Having the main focus on just the Republic, leaving the Houses unexplained during this time, also was a factor. There are some people who are just...dedicated to Houses and Clans to a scary degree.  :-\

The website's rosy outlook on the Republic, once again at least to me, smelled of a propoganda movement and I really wanted to see the other side to this faction. It was at Surrender Your Dreams when I finally saw how far the RoTS was willing to go.

It was a combination of many things: lack of immediate sourcebook information, a timejump to this new era and no extensive explanation at the time of release, and overall the game itself really was a big impact to some folks. This was a new game, new way of playing, and no way to port over our armies into it.

I guess some could look at it from a Star Trek ToS fan to first Season Next Generation. "Who are these people?" "Where are my favorite heroes and villans?" "What is this new ship?" "A group that we thought were evil now are friends?!" "Who are these new other races?" etc.

It was a lot of change at, to some, a very short time.

Now as things have caught up to the era some are excited, some aren't, and some just won't budge from their personal favorite eras.
We still have people who hate the Clans, hate the Blakists, even hate how Amaris took power for the short time he did.
This game has a passionate fan base and this era will serve it hopefully just as well as the other eras.
Kerensky: Ahh! After 300 years I'm free! It's time to conquer Terra!

Blake: Toyama-5, Kerensky's escaped. Recruit 5 House Teens with attitudes.

GO GO COMSTAR RANGERS! *Guitar Riff*
--Intercepted transmissions from children's programming on Terra 3057

worktroll

  • Ombudsman
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 20705
  • 504th "Gateway" Division
    • There are Monsters in my Sky!
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #2 on: 05 March 2013, 02:00:16 »
The collectible blind booster format also wasn't what many existing BT mini fanciers liked either. Basically, you could say it was a "new Coke" reaction, except MW:DA was far, far more successful (for a shorter period) than BattleTech has ever been. Millions of minis (literally) were produced - at least 10, and possibly more like 50 times as many minis as has ever been made for BT.
* No, FASA wasn't big on errata - ColBosch
* The Housebook series is from the 80's and is the foundation of Btech, the 80's heart wrapped in heavy metal that beats to this day - Sigma
* To sum it up: FASAnomics: By Cthulhu, for Cthulhu - Moonsword
* Because Battletech is a conspiracy by Habsburg & Bourbon pretenders - MadCapellan
* The Hellbringer is cool, either way. It's not cool because it's bad, it's cool because it's bad with balls - Nightsky
* It was a glorious time for people who felt that we didn't have enough Marauder variants - HABeas2, re "Empires Aflame"

Labyr

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 117
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #3 on: 05 March 2013, 09:50:14 »
A lot of people just hated how (some) of the mechs looked. Things like the Atlas having big spikes and exposed ammunition linkages irked them. Some people disliked it because it was different. Some who dug deeper really hated what the Jihad did to the universe and thought that the RotS was too mary sue. Some players didn't know about CBT continuing on with FanPro so they resented WizKids replacing the classic universe with what they considered a cheap reboot. Mind you not all Battletech veterans felt negatively about MWDA, but there was a vocal population who did. Very vocal in some cases.

Long story short MWDA had a different aesthetic than Battletech that made it unfamiliar and unwelcoming to some veterans.

wantec

  • Freelance Writer
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2877
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #4 on: 05 March 2013, 10:46:29 »
Lack of information & change.

That's basically what it all comes down to. There were a lot of changes in the universe between the end of the FedCom Civil War and the Republic. Herb has said a few times that the Jihad in some form had been a part of their future plans before WizKids took over, but because those future plans aren't published, the general public didn't know this and it looked like a huge change in the universe. One company FanPro was shutting down (or had shut down, I can't remember) and a new one was taking over the universe. There were new people in charge of the new company, although folks like Herb and Randall were some part of the new company. The game mechanics and the overall feel of the first few sets was much different than the games of BattleTech that most folks remembered, loved, and still played. There were new looks to some of the units, which a lot of folks didn't like (just look at the unseen issues).

And the universe was initially focused solely on the Republic. This created the avenue for a lot more bits of misinformation that seemed like more big changes to the casual observer. At the time of the HPG blackout, many members of the Republic Armed Forces break off to form their own militias, looking to seize resources and planets wherever they can, and increase their forces. These militias had allegiances to larger powers in the Inner Sphere (or a large company in the case of one faction) and were given unique names to tie themselves to these factions. Some casual observers took this as a change in those factions, that WizKids was giving up on the rest of the IS and only focusing on the Republic and these new mini-factions. The rise of these militias led to a temporary, a temporary use of industrial mechs forced into service as combat units by the militia forces and the RAF. It makes sense to those who stop and analyze it closely. At a time when there few factories and few mechs in service with the RAF, an industrial mech, even an unaltered one, can provide some benefits in combat. If nothing else, it provides one more unit for the enemy to consider & target. As time passed, and the focus shifted out from just the Republic, factories came online, mothballed units came out of storage, and the industrial units were slowly pulled from service. One more thing was the drawn down in military forces, which many thought would never happen. The Jihad devastated planets and economies across the IS as well as the military forces of those powers. When you stop to consider things, it is easy to see that the focus for most powers would be to repairing their economies and their planets, consolidating their battered military forces.
BEN ROME YOU MAGNIFICENT BASTARD, I READ YOUR BOOK!


Frabby

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3382
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #5 on: 05 March 2013, 11:29:21 »
MW:DA was far, far more successful (for a shorter period) than BattleTech has ever been. Millions of minis (literally) were produced - at least 10, and possibly more like 50 times as many minis as has ever been made for BT.
Sigh. To think that the huge marketing effort that has to be behind this could have gone into classic BattleTech instead...
But somewhere between the unseen situation and Roc shutting down the novel line, classic BattleTech as-is apparently wasn't promising enough to the financiers. No, we'll just take someting completely different and tack on the "BattleTech" logo to promote it and buy out the BT fanbase. I never understood that line of thinking.
Author of the BattleCorps stories Feather vs. Mountain, Rise and Shine, Proprietary, Trial of Faith & scenario Twins
Sarna.net BattleTechWiki Admin

Atlas3060

  • Plodding along...
  • Global Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8488
  • WHAP Wielder
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #6 on: 05 March 2013, 11:44:49 »
*Shrugs*
Ease of entry into a game is a selling point.
I remember some of the online videos praising the click dial as a way to play without "mountains of sourcebooks" which would promote fast and fun play.
I don't think that video was directed to Dark Age specifically, but rather WizKid's all around system for their products.
Kerensky: Ahh! After 300 years I'm free! It's time to conquer Terra!

Blake: Toyama-5, Kerensky's escaped. Recruit 5 House Teens with attitudes.

GO GO COMSTAR RANGERS! *Guitar Riff*
--Intercepted transmissions from children's programming on Terra 3057

wellspring

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1502
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #7 on: 05 March 2013, 12:05:31 »
I saw the point of a re-boot, but I didn't think it was handled very well.

I have to confess that I'm not a fan of the game mechanics as written, but I was horrified that they were jumping on the clicky-game bandwagon. It just didn't feel like it was worth playing. They figured out the problem, but it just wasn't the right solution.

They essentially wiped away the entire background so they could start over, but in doing so it felt artificial and childish. I mean that in several senses, especially in the sense that it felt like their target customer base was much younger than I. The HPG blackout seemed like one more annoying and arbitrary fiat.

Finally, as much as you say that fan loyalties to individual factions are irrational-- and they are-- that's kind of the point of having them. A good game developer wants to encourage this as much as possible, to get players invested in the game and its setting. So wipe all that away, and your customers are going to be offended and probably stop playing.

So it's a combination of things: the fact of the change itself, what they changed into, and how they handled the change process.

BTW, I didn't get angry, scoop up all my toys, and then stomp home. Honestly, if that had happened it would have been better for BT than what I did do-- at least I was still passionate about the setting in some form. Instead, I dabbled in 40k for a while, played a lot of FMA (a better BT than BT), and got back into roleplaying. I'd mostly forgotten about BT by then.

So what brought me back? I'd heard good things about CGL's handling of the property, mostly. On TMP they mentioned the Battleforce scale minis, which fit my dirtside collection better than standard BT minis. I got curious. I have to give a shout-out to Sarna on this. I hadn't bought a new BT supplement in over a decade, and having a free resource to pick apart to figure out if I wanted to get back into the game at all really made a difference.

Sigma

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2399
  • N-scale Fanatic
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #8 on: 06 March 2013, 00:00:03 »
And the grognard prophets in the year of 2002 said, "Ye, when this Dark Age has passed and the Unseen returned to us shall Battletech enter a new golden age." And in the year of 2009 this came true, just not how people had expected. It's been an uphill ride ever since.

But really, it was the fact that a booster cost more than a metal mech of your choice and you never knew what you were getting for that price. The stats were bound to the minis instead of the sheet. So even if you had a Madcat, because it was Angus Drumstick instead of Seka Ward, you couldn't use it for her stats in your Rusty Puppy army.

I wonder how many people remember how pricey Btech unseens got in that time too? I remember the highlight being that I thought $90 was a good deal for a Marauder in 2004 and Stinger LAM's went for around $55. Eesh.

Dark times, but DA makes a great corpse to pick over for N-scale gaming I tell you what! Nothing better than watching people clear out armies they spent thousands on and getting them for less than 10% of what they paid originally. You get to see what you're getting as well, and almost all the units have modern stats for use in current era btech. And if you do feel like grabbing some boosters, you can get them for about 20% retail nowadays.

Truly a glorious time we live in.

Oh, and a lot of that DA CG art was terrible. Not that it was a halcyon time for TRO art but man that stuff was beyond terrible.

As to the fluff, because of a lot of the people forget what it's like, remember this. Endgame was on bookstore shelves at the same time as Ghost War. Do you know what it's like to be wandering through BAM and the universe you've been following since you were 7 that just had it's last major war end with the hope for a new prosperity and continued Star League for all and then get slammed by Ghost War?

2nd Star League? Hah! That didn't even last a month after Endgame. By the way, a bunch of homeworld clans have moved into the Sphere for some reason and a couple combined with existing states. Oh, and the Terran Hegemony was reborn even though we're not going to explain it. They're also super awesome and all we're going to talk about. Something to do with Stone and those crazy techwizards. Mechs are really rare again, and most of your favorite designs are extinct. Those that are not, resemble nothing to their namesakes. Only CGL taking 6 full years to cover the Jihad actually worked things into something recognizable and create a decent bridge between the two timelines.


cavingjan

  • Sang-Wei MUL
  • Battletech Volunteer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4349
  • grumpy ESOB
    • warrenborn
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #9 on: 06 March 2013, 11:13:23 »
Sigh. To think that the huge marketing effort that has to be behind this could have gone into classic BattleTech instead...
But somewhere between the unseen situation and Roc shutting down the novel line, classic BattleTech as-is apparently wasn't promising enough to the financiers. No, we'll just take someting completely different and tack on the "BattleTech" logo to promote it and buy out the BT fanbase. I never understood that line of thinking.
Not all that much marketing went into it. Mage Knight followed by HeroClix got the bulk of the marketing. MW was riding the coat tails of those two games. Most of the marketing seemed to be tied to the conventions (which WK goes to) and the weekly tournament series which was very effective for a collectible game but not so for a non collectible game.

wellspring

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1502
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #10 on: 06 March 2013, 13:21:58 »
And the grognard prophets in the year of 2002 said, "Ye, when this Dark Age has passed and the Unseen returned to us shall Battletech enter a new golden age." And in the year of 2009 this came true, just not how people had expected. It's been an uphill ride ever since.

(...)

Only CGL taking 6 full years to cover the Jihad actually worked things into something recognizable and create a decent bridge between the two timelines.

Some of the creators of BattleTech's greatest triumphs and worst gaffes come from their oft-tortured efforts to preserve continuity. Wars of Reaving is an incredible supplement just on its own merits-- how much moreso when you realize the constraints GhostBear was working under.

darkminstrel

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 104
  • Head Executor at Shaitan's Fist, Local 38
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #11 on: 06 March 2013, 17:26:54 »
I think part of the need, yes need, for clicky'mech was that actual RPGers were getting old, dieing off, and not being replaced by a new generation. Gaming was going PC/console and away from the table. Clicky'mech filled a niche for fast gaming without the need to drop major bucks and time into reading. It gave the kids their miniature giant robot fetish fulfillment, yet introduced them to the BT world.

For my part I can say I got into it because I had a serious full time job and no time for the extended time commitment that the metal minis required. Then kids came into it and the clix game is serving to get them into gaming. But there were mistakes made. BT was in flux, people were annoyed that WK brought the clix out.

The Hawk

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 473
  • Have talons, will travel.
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #12 on: 11 March 2013, 02:16:54 »
Another factor -- for some reason, not fully explained at the time, BattleMechs had become exceedingly rare, making combined arms a much bigger deal.  This was a key component of the early novels, where famously some planets were said to have two or three 'Mechs defending them in total.  In the Clix game itself, common wisdom in the early days was that 'Mechs were useless, and competitive armies would be comprised only of infantry and vehicles -- no 'Mechs.  For many BattleTech players who were into it for the big, stompy robots, they were left cold.

Unfortunately, like a lot of things with MWDA, it appeared that by the time these issues were identified and rectified, a lot of potential players had gotten fed up and moved on to other things.

Stingray

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 290
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #13 on: 11 March 2013, 10:50:07 »
At first it looked like that MWDA was going to replaced Battletech for good, and that rubbed people the wrong way, then you have the story changed, and then the Mechs.... No mech from the original expansion looked like their counterpart from Battletech... many had these spikes, or weird piston things, or other various things on them that looked silly. This was to many BT fans another punch in the face.

Along with what was mentioned above I think MWDA/AoD also caught flak because of some actions taken by WizKids themselves and how they handled the game. For instance it seemed like every set had that one or two overpowered units that was obviously broken, but wouldn't get fixed until 4 months after the expansion released. Also they were very rare even if they were not the unique from the set, and many times they were rarer than the unique from the game. Along with some funky rules (that made charging the best attack ever so Mech battles were often who could charge the other first) it seemed a little broken at times. Granted they would fix the rules, but it did make the game seem like it was constantly changing.


However the game was fun and MUCH more accessible than Battletech (mainly because you can play a game in a hour), and was good for simple fun.
« Last Edit: 11 March 2013, 11:14:59 by Stingray »

wellspring

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1502
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #14 on: 11 March 2013, 11:09:40 »
At first it looked like that MWDA was going to replaced Battletech for good, and that rubbed people the wrong way, then you have the story changed, and then the Mechs.... No mech from the original expansion looked like their counterpart from Battletech... many had these spikes, or weird piston things, or other various things on them that looked silly. This was to many BT fans another punch in the face.

Anytime a game world changes hands, the fans take it with some trepidation. The game developers almost always say "trust us", and sometimes it works out and sometimes it doesn't. But the worst time to ask someone to trust you is when you first meet, so to speak. I know several writers for some very well known RPGs, and they often gripe in private about petulant and whining fans. And it's hard to blame them, considering that the fans rake them over the coals whenever a new book comes out. On the other hand, I've see franchises badly damaged by mismanagement and bad creative decisions. There's a long list of RPG settings where a failed reboot caused long-term damage to the game's viability.

In the BT space, if Ben Rome said, "trust me" with a major setting change, I'd trust him. If joe shmo the fresh-out-of-starbucks artiste asked me to trust him, that level of trust would be significantly lower, even with Herb watching him. If BT was acquired by Comcast and the new creative team announced some exciting new changes, they wouldn't get an ounce of trust. Trust comes from a track record, and most of the wild changes to a setting come when a new team takes over (or old team, new management).

To me, CGLWiz Kids's wacky new setting was some guy in creative had gotten into the steampunk subculture and decided to make the game about that instead. That's not exactly what happened, but on this end (being a fan) it's hard to get the whole story when developers are close-mouthed and sometimes misleading about where they're going.

update: Fixed typo, with apologies.
« Last Edit: 12 March 2013, 10:58:04 by wellspring »

The Hawk

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 473
  • Have talons, will travel.
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #15 on: 11 March 2013, 23:24:47 »
To me, CGL's wacky new setting was some guy in creative had gotten into the steampunk subculture and decided to make the game about that instead. That's not exactly what happened, but on this end (being a fan) it's hard to get the whole story when developers are close-mouthed and sometimes misleading about where they're going.

ITYM WizKids, not CGL.

YingJanshi

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4315
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #16 on: 11 March 2013, 23:45:12 »
For me it was mostly the randomness of the boosters. I have a very strong dislike to games that use this to sell (so CCG, Hero Clix). Also the art was just...horrible. Still don't like it but I can live with it.
I didn't mind the clix bases, I really liked how they worked in the Crimson Skies game.

One thing to remember is that WizKids (and the Clix bases) was created by Jordan Weisman.

Initiate of the Order of Valhalla

...oh gods, I just tried to imagine herding mimetic cats.
The Lyrans aren't losers.  They're...winning impaired.

worktroll

  • Ombudsman
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 20705
  • 504th "Gateway" Division
    • There are Monsters in my Sky!
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #17 on: 12 March 2013, 00:40:49 »
Who also created BattleTech, Crimson Skies, IIRC the Rogue Legion games, and did a lot of Traveller supplements in the Freedonian Air and Space Administration era. The man gets around!
* No, FASA wasn't big on errata - ColBosch
* The Housebook series is from the 80's and is the foundation of Btech, the 80's heart wrapped in heavy metal that beats to this day - Sigma
* To sum it up: FASAnomics: By Cthulhu, for Cthulhu - Moonsword
* Because Battletech is a conspiracy by Habsburg & Bourbon pretenders - MadCapellan
* The Hellbringer is cool, either way. It's not cool because it's bad, it's cool because it's bad with balls - Nightsky
* It was a glorious time for people who felt that we didn't have enough Marauder variants - HABeas2, re "Empires Aflame"

wellspring

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1502
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #18 on: 12 March 2013, 10:58:54 »
ITYM WizKids, not CGL.

You're right. Thanks, fixed it.

Col.Hengist

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9189
  • Konrad ' Hengist " Littman Highlander 732b
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #19 on: 12 March 2013, 13:01:20 »
Personally, it just wasn't battletech as I knew it. I'm not all that bright and pretty conservative so i like things that i know. I tried the game. It was ok. I just had a problem with the whole collectable thing. The first 20 boxes i bought had nothing but industrial mechs and vees and infantry that i wasn't used to. Then i got a spider that didn't look like a spider. Things were just too different for me and the minis were odd and i couldn't bend things straight without breaking it...
Lyran Commonwealth,6th Donegal Guards-Nightstar
Marian Hegemony, II Legio-Cataphract
Clan Hell's Horses, Gamma Galaxy-Summoner
Clan Grinch goat- gamma goat.

mike19k

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1461
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #20 on: 12 March 2013, 16:19:31 »
I thought that it was OK, but to me it was not the "real" battletech more an a watered down game with the basic flavor or battletech. The issue bigest issue I had with it besides the collectible was that you could not play faction pure and have a army that could win at least not at the start and I did not play for long due to that. Factions are important to the background and the way it was being played just did not have it as far as I saw.

Orion

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 589
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #21 on: 14 March 2013, 16:22:50 »
I dislike the ClickTech games mechanism - too simplistic for me.  I have yet to see a ClickTech mech that I thought looked good at all, although I admit I stopped looking well before seeing even half of them.  I intensely disliked the increase in miniature size, preferring the old, old smaller scale from the late 1980s.  Having to buy something without knowing exactly what I was getting beforehand is a deal-breaker for me.  I hated collectible games, and refused to have anything to do with them.

With all this going against it, there is no surprise I didn't like WizKids and the direction they took.  And when I found out how they planned to change the universe, I gave up on them in disgust.  A completely new setting would have been okay.  A reboot to 3025 with some of FASAnomics fixed and a more cohesive setting would have been acceptable.  Instead, the setting had large changes made to it, very few of which I expected, and even fewer of which I liked.  It's not that the changes were badly done, they just went so far in a direction I didn't like that it isn't my Battletech any more.  Any change will be loved by some, and hated by others, and I unfortunately was not part of their target audience.  To my view, they didn't fix anything that was broken, but did break a lot of stuff that was working fine.  It's not that they went from Star Trek: TOS to Star Trek: NG, it's that they started doing Babylon 5 while claiming it was Star Trek, just better. 

The company came across at times as if they disliked or hated classic Battletech, wanted a completely different setting, but had to keep the old one around in order to keep the trademark going, or to score a purchase from the old fans.  We want your money, but we don't want anything to do with your game sort of feel.  Some of them still come off that way, unfortunately.
Game mechanics are a way of resolving questions in play, not explanations of the world itself.

Due to changes in work internet usage rules, and being too tired at night, I can't check the forums often. PM me if you want to ensure a response.

Boldrick

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 48
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #22 on: 17 March 2013, 18:48:23 »
I'll give an opposite vote.
I like Dark Age, AoD clicky tech thingy, its simple and effective. While some might have different opinion, it did
represent story line quite well, there was a power creep, but if you play pre AoD mech with pilots and gear cards,
you do get mostly equal mechs to new ones and some broken combos. Optimizing a army does take more time then
in classic battletech, because you use wider range of units. I might not field much of ICE mech any more, but with pilots/gear
upgrades you get a lot of fun swarm armies that can beat living crap out of most front line design.
Im a mechcomander/warrior,Dark Age, AoD and classic battletech player, and still enjoy all of them, when time gives
me a chance.
Plastic creck still hits, opening a boosters is a bliss, getting rare still puts a smile, just like double six does...

Rimoran

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 13
  • Battletech Player and MechWarrior Player
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #23 on: 28 March 2013, 17:27:03 »
My overwhelming impression was that the primary source of dislike was simply Collectible Vs. Custom.  Battletech had a long tradition of providing a very customizable experience -- building your own individual mech designs, etc.  Whereas MW:DA was the blind collectible purchase model.

I remember being a RPG'er back in 1994 looking with distain (UTTER DISTAIN) at this new crop of gamers playing this "Magic The Gathering" thing at conventions.  And thinking, surely this scourge will play itself out in a year.  (*ahem* A year later I got my own cards... *sheepish*)


Dragon Cat

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 6088
  • Not Dead Until I Say So
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #24 on: 28 March 2013, 19:05:03 »
The collectible blind booster format also wasn't what many existing BT mini fanciers liked either. Basically, you could say it was a "new Coke" reaction, except MW:DA was far, far more successful (for a shorter period) than BattleTech has ever been. Millions of minis (literally) were produced - at least 10, and possibly more like 50 times as many minis as has ever been made for BT.

Largely agree although I didn't like getting random things in each box I did like the ease on which to get them.  I picked up dozens of booster packs - wasn't even a massive fan of game but I've used the minis for dozens of stuff - pre painted and built easy to use.

One thing my local shop said - MWDA was easy to get the "classic" stuff is a lot harder.

For me its largely what everyone said I didn't massively like the time jump past a massive war that shaped the future into tiny armies without much explanation.  MWDA website did go through lots of things but it's format felt a bit "wooden" not the rich universe I was used to with BattleTech.

If the "classic" line had stopped and MWDA had been the only format I'd have likely drifted away completely from BT purely because the fiction side had dried up - the DA novels were a nice touch and easy to get hold of but even they slowed and eventually stopped.  For me the fiction and the universe sells it always has probably always will.

Bergie

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 529
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #25 on: 10 April 2013, 14:09:23 »
I personally loved the game, though not all aspects of the game.

It was easy to pick up, I personally like MOST of the mini's (not all by any means), and it made battletech fun to play for me again.

That being said, there were some simply BROKEN mechanics, such as "Tank Drop" that broke the game for many people.
Returns from the Dead to be a Taurian and Shark/Fox Fanboy

GhostCat

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 816
  • If A, then B, The Evil Genius Argument
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #26 on: 10 April 2013, 14:56:42 »
I personally loved the game, though not all aspects of the game.

It was easy to pick up, I personally like MOST of the mini's (not all by any means), and it made battletech fun to play for me again.

That being said, there were some simply BROKEN mechanics, such as "Tank Drop" that broke the game for many people.

I remember lots of complaints about tank drop, but it was easy enough to defeat.  Base the transport's loading arc so the passenger(s) can't escape, then salvage or destroy the vehicle.  The passengers are then eliminated if they can not touch the transport when they exit.

Worse than that was the Base-Break Attack, which was eventually cured by the Friendly Fire and Called Shot rules.  Nothing gives pain to a 300 point mech like a 13 point infantry on a hoverbike basing it and making whole formations safe from ranged attacks while they set up brutally close to the Big Mech.

I still love the Game and the Spirit Cat Black Hawk that made "Alpha Strike!" such an easy thing to Fear.

GC
"Spirit Cats are just pirates basically." --- Quote from Herb


Maelwys

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4496
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #27 on: 11 April 2013, 04:45:05 »
I think part of the problem (for BT players) was that there were just a lots of little things that someone would eventually dislike.

If you didn't mind the time jump, you hated the fact that the early stories were focused on the Republic and the mini-factions instead of the Houses you were used to.

If you didn't mind the Republic then you hated the fact that you couldn't just buy the faction that you wanted to play.

If you didn't mind the random boosters, then you disliked that you couldn't customize something as part of the game. If you didn't mind the lack of customization, then you disliked the fact that`Mechs you were used to suddenly looked completely different.

If you didn't mind the `Mechs you were used to looking different then you had an issue with the early novels.

It wasn't really one big thing. I think it was just lots of little things that were all different for everyone.

MOrab46019

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 388
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #28 on: 11 April 2013, 05:24:58 »
I just could not warm up to it. A buddy of mine got into DA. Showed me minis. They looked ok. Im a fan of the unseen and TROs art. Just did not feel right to me. Merc units I love. when it looked like being a merc unit in DA was not going to be in the game just turned me off. When I heard that classic was coming out I was happy and supported  that line. I still do. Glad this game did not end up like others dead.

StCptMara

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 6010
  • Looking for new Adder skin boots
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #29 on: 11 April 2013, 05:36:09 »
I played MW:DA/AoD. I liked the game, more or less.

But, I can understand where people could end up disliking it. Alot of those reasons got addressed in the updates
from DA to AoD, mind you.

First, 'mechs were no longer the kings of the battlefield. An all Infantry army would take down an all or mostly 'mech
army most of the time. In fact, you could take a 'mech out of the fight with an infantry unit with Reactive armour most of the
time. This was because those ballistic weapons that did not have a minimum range either had low damage values, or nothing
that could get through the armour, and 'mechs could not do close combat attacks without a melee weapon in the original
rules.

Second, was the fluff that we were getting. I mean, we had the Stackpole short story about the kid trying to mount a weapon
on his agro mech, and then it being revealed that in his farms silo was a Victor, and it being made to sound like actual BattleMechs
were rare, and had to be hidden away. Then you got the initial round of INN stories, all talking about the golden age of peace,
how the Inner Sphere did not practice war anymore because of Devlin Stone's Republic making all the Houses beat their swords
into plowshares.   Sure, we know now that was just propaganda, but at the time, this was what was forming people's information
about the setting.

Third, 'Mechs just didn't seem like 'mechs. They couldn't do close combat unless they had special equipment, they couldn't move
and fire, they couldn't protect themselves from infantry.
"Victory or Debt!"- The Battlecry of Mercenaries everywhere

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

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

GhostCat

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 816
  • If A, then B, The Evil Genius Argument
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #30 on: 11 April 2013, 13:38:15 »
Quote from: StCptMara
... and 'mechs could not do close combat attacks without a melee weapon in the original
rules.

I'd like to direct you to page 20 of the original Dark Age Rule Book. 

Quote from: Close combat damage
. When a ’Mech makes a close combat attack, it usually must use its primary damage value. If, however, the ’Mech’s secondary damage value has the (melee) range type, its controller may choose to use the secondary damage value instead. This decision must be announced prior to rolling the attack dice. On some units, the (melee) range type might be associated with the primary damage value; these units may use only their primary damage values to resolve close combat attacks.

From Day One, Primary Damage value has always been the default melee attack.  The Melee range type was a game mechanic that allowed possible use of special abilities like "Rapid Strike" or "Heavy Punch", but all mechs were able to close combat without using ranged attack weapons.

What might have confused many players is this:

Quote from: RANGE TYPES
There are three range types: ballistic (*), energy (*), and melee (*). A unit’s range type appears next to its damage value and can affect how that unit’s attacks are resolved and how its damage is scored against different targets. Infantry and vehicles each have only one range type. ’Mechs may have up to two different range types, and ’Mechs are the only units with the melee range type.

Even Infantry could melee with close combat attacks, they just weren't allowed the special abilities, and 'Mechs had two weapon slots printed on the dial.

Quote
Third, 'Mechs just didn't seem like 'mechs. They couldn't do close combat unless they had special equipment, they couldn't move and fire, they couldn't protect themselves from infantry.

Assault Orders to "Move and Shoot" was built into the second rule set "Age of Destruction".  As for protecting themselves from infantry, that's an issue that developes in any game with a "Point Value System" that promises to 'balance the game'.  Build an army with half your points in One Big Monster that can only fight one thing at a time, and it will always lose to the hoard of Ankle Biters that can attack it many times (sooner or later, one of them gets lucky, and the rest swarm in for the kill).

GC
"Spirit Cats are just pirates basically." --- Quote from Herb


StCptMara

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 6010
  • Looking for new Adder skin boots
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #31 on: 12 April 2013, 00:49:34 »
Interesting...GhostCat, I will say my areas Battlemaster actually ruled until AoD came out that 'mechs could not do
close combat unless they had the melee damage type.

Also, I did not count things that were put in under AoD rules because the initial taste of the game that set people's opinions
was not AoD but was DA.
"Victory or Debt!"- The Battlecry of Mercenaries everywhere

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

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

GhostCat

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 816
  • If A, then B, The Evil Genius Argument
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #32 on: 12 April 2013, 17:45:27 »
You'd be surprized at what players and Battlemasters got wrong simply by misreading the Rules or counting on someone else to do that for them.

The Wizkids forums were very active with new questions about poorly written rules or other misunderstandings about new units and their abilities.

GC
"Spirit Cats are just pirates basically." --- Quote from Herb


darkminstrel

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 104
  • Head Executor at Shaitan's Fist, Local 38
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #33 on: 12 April 2013, 20:12:23 »
You'd be surprized at what players and Battlemasters got wrong simply by misreading the Rules or counting on someone else to do that for them.

The Wizkids forums were very active with new questions about poorly written rules or other misunderstandings about new units and their abilities.

GC

Now that you've said this, GC, I've been able to remember the one thing that I didn't like about the game; inconsistency of rules. AoD did close a ton of loop-holes, but in the DA times there were some situations that were head scratchers.

I was very active in the tourney circuit in my area...untill two very poor interpretations of the rules by two different BMs soured me on the entire game. I even sold off my minis because I was upset enough at the situation. When AoD came out I took a chance and started up again, and was blown away at how the balance was better with the rules revision. I think that fix was way too late to save the game and keep it strong.

Greywind

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 788
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #34 on: 13 April 2013, 04:09:58 »
It was a nightmare from the Envoy's side of it, too, for the longest time.

Ryumyo

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 453
  • Out site seeing...
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #35 on: 13 April 2013, 05:33:23 »
Seems like a funny opinion  " disliking " the MWDA clix. I had a rather fun time playing  the system. The Vanguard expansion is as far as I got.
 But I guess to each their own.

StCptMara

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 6010
  • Looking for new Adder skin boots
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #36 on: 13 April 2013, 21:44:23 »
Seems like a funny opinion  " disliking " the MWDA clix. I had a rather fun time playing  the system. The Vanguard expansion is as far as I got.
 But I guess to each their own.

You have to remember: it is not that people in general disliked the game, it is that a lot of old time BattleTech players did not like
it, and, as such, since they did not like the game, their dislike of the game transferred to the setting.  Or maybe it was they did not
like the setting as portrayed by WizKids, and, as such, their dislike transferred to the game.

Frankly, the only thing I never liked about the DA/AoD game was that 'mechs were nothing more then bait.(Seriously: in the games
I won, I either did not use 'mechs, or I used 'mechs as a huge distraction, and won with my infantry and vehicles)
"Victory or Debt!"- The Battlecry of Mercenaries everywhere

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

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

GhostCat

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 816
  • If A, then B, The Evil Genius Argument
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #37 on: 13 April 2013, 22:40:22 »
Frankly, the only thing I never liked about the DA/AoD game was that 'mechs were nothing more then bait.(Seriously: in the games
I won, I either did not use 'mechs, or I used 'mechs as a huge distraction, and won with my infantry and vehicles)

I liked the Game from start to finish, though it was sometimes annoying to try to make sense of a rule before it had been properly play tested.

Lots of players had different tactics for their armies.  Charge Monkeys and Walls of Flesh were pretty common along with 'Bait and Switch' teams.  Sure, I used infantry to win, but it was part of the whole force. 

My best 'tent pole' army was 300 points with a SCat Blackhawk armed with "Alpha Strike" and a 9AV, and supported by 9 CBAs equipped with Flamers.  'Base-and-Break' maneuvers allowed me to touch the target with an infantry unit, and then move the rest of the army to set up a Ranged Attack Formation with the mech as the 'Big Gun' and a few infantry to help modify the Attack Value.

The basing infantry unit would break away from the target, and the formation would hit with an incredibly easy attack value.  The Target (usually a Big Mech) would take massive damage and Heat from the Energy attack, then get based (as the final action with three orders per turn) by a formation of (jumping, flaming battle armor) infantry that could capture an overheated assault mech that would almost certainly shut down even if it succeeded in Pushing to Run as far away as it could get.

The Hasbani Atlas could only count on one Highlander hoverbike for support, and often treated it as 'filler', Jonah Levin's Atlas (Dark Age) made not needing 'filler' seem like an improvement, but it still had to fight a jumping mech and a swarm of infantry without help using only one order per turn.  You can see the disadvantage it has already.

Base-Break might seem like a simple game mechanic, and it is, but many players did not learn something even more basic.  Anticipate what your opponent is going to do next, and have a plan to deal with the possibilities.  It takes a few turns to feed basing infantry to a Target, move the formations into range, and then rest pushed units before the attack can succeed.

GC
"Spirit Cats are just pirates basically." --- Quote from Herb


Ryumyo

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 453
  • Out site seeing...
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #38 on: 14 April 2013, 03:15:08 »
Well then, let it be known that I am one of those old-school Battletech players. I initially balked at the Dark Age system based on what the base set sculpts looked like, but with the release of the Fire For Effect expansion ( and the really sweet looking Mad Cat ) I threw lots of support ( cash and time ) behind it. Hey it's Battletech, right? Besides I really wanted the dossiers as there wasn't a TRO for this series until now.

The Mighty ACHOO

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5260
  • HI! I CAN SEE YOU!
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #39 on: 13 May 2013, 19:45:19 »
I never played the game, but knew a lot of people that did. I did not hate the game, I just had to make a choice. Spend my limited funds on BattleTech mini's of Clicky Tech boosters. I choose the mini's.
It's OK to disagree with me......I can't force you to be right.

If you are waiting for me to go out of my mind you will have to wait. The exits are not clearly marked.

455_PWR

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 14
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #40 on: 05 June 2013, 04:46:32 »
I played BT for many years, as well as playing the mechwarrior 2 and mechwarrior 2 mercs games when I was younger.  That was what I grew up with and was used to.  I got into MWDA/AOD just because my brother did, but hated the mechs.  Everything was way different asthetically from the whole BT universe I was ued to.  I do have to say that wizkids started making the mech closer to BT style in the AOD era, which was a plus.

To answer the question, I think the bigget complaint is the same reason the 04-06 Pontiac GTO's flopped. The world wanted retro-ish styling and Pontiac made it look like a cavalier (I still like them, I'm a huge pontiac guy).  The gto simply wasn't a gto, and wizkids construction mechs just weren't mechs...

If wizkids had made the mechs look mopre like BT mechs, I think the game would have been much bigger.  Still a fun game though and it's always fun to mod the minis! 

Daemion

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4056
  • The Future of BattleTech
    • Never Tales and Other Daydreams
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #41 on: 07 June 2013, 16:02:53 »
Wow. I had no gripes with story or background at the time, and still don't even now.

I only had gripes with the game and its presentation on many levels.

Millions of minis (literally) were produced - at least 10, and possibly more like 50 times as many minis as has ever been made for BT.

So, there really should be no reason of parts shortage.  >:D
« Last Edit: 07 June 2013, 16:07:42 by Daemion »
It's your world. You can do anything you want in it. - Bob Ross

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

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

Daemion

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4056
  • The Future of BattleTech
    • Never Tales and Other Daydreams
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #42 on: 07 June 2013, 17:10:15 »
Since others expounded on the game, I will add a little facet that ties both to game and fiction:


One of the things that I both liked and disliked at the time was that a lot of the early mechs, mostly the one-ofs, like the Atlas, Jupiter, etc. (Y'know, the uniques), were all named characters.

I liked this because I saw a character in a ride and it gave me ideas for if I were to run a campaign in this setting, even back then. I was looking to the Dossiers to find stats to see if they were stock designs or if there was something different.

What was really neat was that after a couple sets, they started actually coming up with custom configs for the unique characters. They had personalities (...that seemed to run to the dark moody side, with lots of black this, dark eyes and hair that. Don't believe me? Read up!) and a rank and a doctrine. They could be used as allies or enemies for a more custom force.

I had been planning from the very beginning to run some DA era games in BT.

But, I gave the game its fair shake, and this one thing I liked was also a big drawback. I couldn't inject a 'character of my own' into any of the more appealing rides. I either decided it had to be one of the nameless 'green-shirt' designs, or my guy was simply off the battlefield, running things from his ride.

Secondly, each unit had a rank, but that unit belonged to a specific faction. This, too, finally became an issue as they started adding more factions to the table. They were running out of room to add something of equal value for everyone, and had to cut back on certain factions, almost to the point of complete exclusion.

So, not only could I not get a ride that fit a personalized character to lead or fight in my army, I couldn't get the stats I wanted either, even of the limited selection, without flying enemy colors.

It was then that I learned that I'm more of a story-driven player, more likely a real role-player, than I am a war-gamer. I couldn't connect with the forces I was wielding, regardless of whether I liked a faction or not. I couldn't inject myself into a piece, using one in a true player-character capacity.

That wasn't what drove me away from the game completely. That came down to bad rules and game mechanics which kinda forced a trend in army design.

I couldn't play my desired style, especially with one or more BattleMechs and expect to win often, even by merely outplaying a person or getting insanely lucky. I couldn't expect to win at the tournies, and even when I knew I was just playing for the comeraderie, the constant losing to refined winning armies of the month still had a slowly growing venomous effect on my attitude.

It didn't help that it wasn't really at all like its name-sake in execution in any regard, only minor trappings in nomenclature. (Until BT, I only played family and standard card games with regular abandon. I cut my teeth on true game with BattleTech and it is my first true gaming love, and will never be usurped, though I do dabble in others. This thing that that was using familiar names and the same story and history was not even close.)


I find it sadly amusing that one of my friends likes the classic BattleTech, and he got started in MechWarrior Dark Age. He stuck with it almost all the way to the end, but his vehemence over the game structure and the shoddy patchwork WizKids did to fix balance had turned him from an avid player to one of its most venomous critics. I even bring it up, I get no positive response.

He, however, does not think that CGL needed to go the way they did with Total Warfare, either, beyond new equipment. So, when I play at his table, it's mostly B:MR and AT:2. With the stats for the new Dark Age units.



Now, an interesting tangent I'll leave you with: People talk about the propaganda of the Republic. I find this kinda funny, especially if you look at the general faction selection from the start. There were no republic units beyond a special mail-order or some special prizes. And, those were Knights and a Paladin. Interesting that you could only really collect the pirate factions with any regularity, especially if the Republic were supposed to be the good guys. I know some of my friends flocked to the banner and bought the propaganda whole-heartedly, as soon as republic units came out. But, not everyone. Was the connection with the other factions as your place to go supposed to be intentional?
It's your world. You can do anything you want in it. - Bob Ross

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

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

Mohammed As`Zaman Bey

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1741
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #43 on: 07 June 2013, 23:37:36 »
  I attended a local convention because it anounced that a BT demo was scheduled. It was DA and nobody was interested in playing. Nobody. The rep there said they brought cases of DA stuff that won't sell.

  I found the DA universe disappointing -The same, tired, old factions were there but with new packaging aimed at 12 year olds.

  As a campaigner, it looked like BT sold out to WH40K-style rules and play. Unit customization has always been a key element in campaigns, DA lacked that.
  BT has evolved to more of a wargame while DA appeared to be a step in the opposite direction of tactical wargaming.
  Most of the other flaws have been pointed out, such as the random units, the designs and the rules.

  I have never hated a game but DA was too much like WH40K and I had absolutely no interest in playing it.

  One of the guys in my gaming club has literally thousands of BT metal minis... I have a large collection of leads as well, including original LAMs still in blisters...who needs DA when you already have every BT publication, inlcuding copies of BattleTechnology Magazine?

  In short, what made DA attractive to 12-year-olds are what I found undesirable in a game.

Captain of C-21

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 487
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #44 on: 07 June 2013, 23:58:00 »
Now, an interesting tangent I'll leave you with: People talk about the propaganda of the Republic. I find this kinda funny, especially if you look at the general faction selection from the start. There were no republic units beyond a special mail-order or some special prizes. And, those were Knights and a Paladin. Interesting that you could only really collect the pirate factions with any regularity, especially if the Republic were supposed to be the good guys. I know some of my friends flocked to the banner and bought the propaganda whole-heartedly, as soon as republic units came out. But, not everyone. Was the connection with the other factions as your place to go supposed to be intentional?

The Highlanders were supposed to be the stand-in for Republic forces.  I remember hearing the initial idea was to just have Paladin and Knight pieces represent the Republic while the Highlanders filled in all the other gaps.  By the Death from Above expansion though the Republic was just made a regular expansion.  Storywise this was explained away by saying that the Republic's military was completely caught off-guard, but whereas other space-nations didn't have any internal or external trouble going on and could set themselves back on track, the Republic immediately festered with pirate and splinter factions, and thus just started slowly dying after Grey Monday.

I can agree with your points on army composition and lack of cool non-unique mechs as sore points.  By the last few expansions, Wizkids was making non-uniques of every unique piece (Mad Cat mkIV, Marauder IIC, even the Atlas III), but I was always sad I couldn't snag a Jupiter or Hellstar for my faction.  Heck, I wish the Battleforces would've gotten to Clan Nova Cat, 2 Shadow Cats, 2 Wendigos, and 2... Jupiters maybe?  Already had Nova Cats and Avalanches represented as non-uniques.

Proud Warrior of the Clan Protectorate.

Looking to play clix Mechwarrior in the Northeast Ohio area?  Come join our playing group!

Quote from: Worktroll
Face it - MW:DA had, for its run, massively greater commercial success than BattleTech's ever had. Over two million click-base minis - want to guess where the number of BT minis comes in? I'd guess on the order of a few percent of that. While BT has survived for 30 years, we've never had the same number of players at any point. The pity was that unlike BT, MW:DA ended up being run by businessmen, not game fanatics.

455_PWR

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 14
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #45 on: 08 June 2013, 07:09:49 »
You sir are correct, unit customization is key.  You needed to pull a blind uber rare to do awesome in the tourneys (I pulled a wolf's dragoons cygnus at a tourney and did very well :) ... The fact that the bet mechs and uniques mechs were rares/very rares made those who could pend more or with blind luck better.

In wizkids defense, they started to fix this towards the end as they made better/named mechs more available to all factions.  They also tried to make the game more customizable with pilots and gear.  Finally, I'm glad the factions started to return to CBT factions (steel wolves... blah, yay clan wolf!)

All in all it was a good game and I still have a whole bin of the minis, but it (mechs and gameplay) were too simplified to compare to good ol CBT.

I'm a bit biased though as I love the modeling aspect of CBT as well (CBT is what got me into 40k).

PGaither84

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 12
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #46 on: 11 June 2015, 17:14:26 »
Sorry to necro such an old thread, but there is a reason:

I was huge into Battletech and the Mechwarrior franchise for years. however, after the Mechwarrior 4: Mercenaries computer game expansion and the Annihilation Wizkids expansion, the game seemed to die out where I live and I was also getting into the card game magic the Gathering. i was recently reminded of Battletech and after doing a google search, i found this site and this thread talking about Dark Age and felt compelled to register and reply.

==============

so, my opinion about Dark Age was that Wizkids did a poor job of introducing their game and transitioning players into it. I felt that the Dark Age story line and flavor wasn't so bad, but the timing couldn't have been worse if they tried. For example, Dark Age should have been an expansion... an advancement of the story line rather than the launch set.

You see, Wizards of the Coast and their Magic: the gathering card game understands what it takes to make a successful collectable game. One key component is a competitive tournament scene, which I never saw in my local area of Northern California, or in California at all for that matter, and "formats." you see, in Magic: the Gathering, there is what we call "standard" and "eternal". Every two sets comprise "standard" and older sets rotate into the eternal formats. Look it up for more details. It is fascinating and well thought out to keep people interested and buying. Anyway, when Dark Age came out, veteran players were opening boosters and asking "Where are the mechs? What is this industrial mech doing here? Why should I care? Why does my Atlas have spikes?" and so forth. Had the game already established itself mechanically, and the story of the republic thematically, then an expansion and the start of the Dark Age would have been a much easier transition for players. Instead, it was too harsh of a transition. So, right from the get go, Dark Age alienated fans, and I don't think it ever truly recovered.

=====================

As a gamer and a fan of the fiction and war games, i really liked the concepts behind this clix based game. I loved that infantry and vehicles became a meaningful part of a universe that was once dominated by battlemechs. On the original WizKids forums, I had my own House rules that inspired a sub forum of their own for a "Galactic Conquest" campaign you could play with your friends. Rules about how to earn credits, buy things on the open market and black market, the risks of buying things on the black market, the cost to repair units, so on and so forth. It gave real depth to this skirmish based game that people seemed to enjoy and gave great feedback on. I really miss that, but life goes on.

=====================

As someone who has pretty much fully transitioned over to Magic the gathering (playing where the players are), I have to say that another core problem with all miniatures gaming comes down to physical play space, properly protecting, storing, and transporting your armies. It doesn't matter what game it is, miniatures take up a lot of space and are impractical. don't get me wrong,i love them, but they are impractical. compare them to collectable card games where you just need a deck of around 60-100 cards sleeved up in a small box, and a play mat you can roll up. If you have cards to trade, they take up a simple binder like we are all used to using as kids in school. If you want to play miniatures, you have terrain pieces, a large table space, and your bulky miniatures. At least where  lived, the convenience of cards alone won the battle for what people wanted to spend their time and money on. they had fun when we played with my collection of mechwarrior figures, but not enough to get them to buy product.

NOTE: I would like to edit this post and add some more later, but I have to go to work now. :)
« Last Edit: 11 June 2015, 17:16:09 by PGaither84 »

worktroll

  • Ombudsman
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 20705
  • 504th "Gateway" Division
    • There are Monsters in my Sky!
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #47 on: 11 June 2015, 18:32:09 »
so, my opinion about Dark Age was that Wizkids did a poor job of introducing their game and transitioning players into it. I felt that the Dark Age story line and flavor wasn't so bad, but the timing couldn't have been worse if they tried. For example, Dark Age should have been an expansion... an advancement of the story line rather than the launch set.

One of the things easily missed in this discussion, was that WizKids did not actually intend MW:DA to take over the BT playing audience. It was a very deliberate attempt to combine mecha and the Clix mechanic, and launch this to a whole new audience.

Why? Face it. The BT player base is small and niche. It's been wild-ass guessed that there are around 10,000 BT "fans" worldwide. This number is made up of people who
- play the game(s) - board, alpha strike, aerospace, BattleTroops, BattleForce, etc etc etc
- collect & paint minis
- play the RPG
- nostalgically collect books
- came in from the PC games & stuck around
- etc etc.

The number of that 10,000 who actually buy stuff is some fraction - 10%, 25%, 50%, whatever. That's the BT purchaser pool.

WizKids - and Loren Wiseman, who was one of the parents of the game - wanted to access an entirely new, much larger audience. They had to, to make the game profitable & sustainable. So they made a number of decisions to target a new audience. Love these decisions or hate them, they included:

- pre-painted miniatures
- faster-playing, simpler game system
- a new period in history so people wouldnt' feel daunted by the 30 years of BT history - a common comment by new BT fans.
- collectable miniature game with random boosters.

Did their decisions work? Clearly, and for several years, yes. Put it this way. Another wild-ass guess, there are probably about 100,000 BT metal minis out there in total, globally. From Ral Partha, IWM, RPE, etc. At the time WK published their "Technologies of Destruction" coffee-table book, WK had produced over seven million DA figures. That's two orders of magnitude more, and they weren't finished.

Ultimately WK got bought up by Topps, and ultimately DA died as a production game. It now is another niche game, with probably an equal number of fans, but a lot more plastic minis out there (just check my bitz drawers! ;) ).

***

The assumption that WK botched a transition for BT fans into their game is unfortunately inaccurate. WK as a company was enormously supportive of Randall and first FanPro, and then CGL. I know, I was on some of the inside for that. WK gave concessions and more or less creative freedom, and did a lot to help BT stay alive. If that deosn't indicate they weren't trying to absorb the BT base, I don't know what will.

Alas, there seems to have been an expectation 15 years ago that "MW:DA is the new BT!" It was never meant to be. It was a new form of expressing the fictional universe we all love. it was never meant to replace our game of armoured, stompy giant robot combat.

Cheers,

W.

« Last Edit: 11 June 2015, 20:45:05 by worktroll »
* No, FASA wasn't big on errata - ColBosch
* The Housebook series is from the 80's and is the foundation of Btech, the 80's heart wrapped in heavy metal that beats to this day - Sigma
* To sum it up: FASAnomics: By Cthulhu, for Cthulhu - Moonsword
* Because Battletech is a conspiracy by Habsburg & Bourbon pretenders - MadCapellan
* The Hellbringer is cool, either way. It's not cool because it's bad, it's cool because it's bad with balls - Nightsky
* It was a glorious time for people who felt that we didn't have enough Marauder variants - HABeas2, re "Empires Aflame"

YingJanshi

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4315
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #48 on: 11 June 2015, 20:39:36 »
Alas, there seems to have been an expectation 15 years ago that "MW:DA is the new BT!" It was never meant to be. It was a new form of expressing the fictional universe we all love. it was never meant to replace our game of armoured, stompy giant robot combat.

The main trouble is, that wasn't communicated well enough. Yes, FanPro continued the "Classic" stuff. But for quite a period in the early days of MW:DA that didn't really get around. Had three game stores in my area at the time and all three were saying MW:DA was all there was. Honestly, I don't know whether that was just because they didn't bother to check info, or whether WK/FanPro didn't announce it (eventually they did). And even back in the day, the way Weisman talked, it sounded like this was going to be it.

In hind sight, WK could and probably should have handled the whole thing better. The rollout, advertising the fact that FanPro was still continuing CBT from the beginning. Perhaps giving a greater overview of the universe from the very beginning instead of focusing so much on the Republic (didn't even need to include any units for the houses, just give more info on them so older players wouldn't have felt left out).

I think, in the end, what burned so many of the CBT players is that it felt like WK was going after new players so hard that it didn't feel like WK cared about them at all.  Which is a shame, because it's actually a pretty fun game (random boosters notwithstanding). And in the end it did bring a lot more players into the fold, so it does deserve it's place in the history of the franchise.

Initiate of the Order of Valhalla

...oh gods, I just tried to imagine herding mimetic cats.
The Lyrans aren't losers.  They're...winning impaired.

worktroll

  • Ombudsman
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 20705
  • 504th "Gateway" Division
    • There are Monsters in my Sky!
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #49 on: 11 June 2015, 20:48:02 »
Was it WizKid's job to advertise FanPro? I don't believe so.

FASA is probably the larger culprit. They announced they'd closed. Many people saw that. When FanPro licenced the IP from WizKids, it was FanPro's responsibility to market/advertise.

WizKids was out to make WizKids successful. That they took the time to encourage and assist Fanpro is a matter of record. Not many other companies would have been as helpful in a similar situation. But ultimately, WK was not responsible for the success, or otherwise, of BattleTech the game.
* No, FASA wasn't big on errata - ColBosch
* The Housebook series is from the 80's and is the foundation of Btech, the 80's heart wrapped in heavy metal that beats to this day - Sigma
* To sum it up: FASAnomics: By Cthulhu, for Cthulhu - Moonsword
* Because Battletech is a conspiracy by Habsburg & Bourbon pretenders - MadCapellan
* The Hellbringer is cool, either way. It's not cool because it's bad, it's cool because it's bad with balls - Nightsky
* It was a glorious time for people who felt that we didn't have enough Marauder variants - HABeas2, re "Empires Aflame"

YingJanshi

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4315
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #50 on: 11 June 2015, 22:54:07 »
Was it WizKid's job to advertise FanPro? I don't believe so.

FASA is probably the larger culprit. They announced they'd closed. Many people saw that. When FanPro licenced the IP from WizKids, it was FanPro's responsibility to market/advertise.

WizKids was out to make WizKids successful. That they took the time to encourage and assist Fanpro is a matter of record. Not many other companies would have been as helpful in a similar situation. But ultimately, WK was not responsible for the success, or otherwise, of BattleTech the game.

Perhaps advertise was the wrong word. I merely meant that Wizkids should have said "Look, the classic is still there". I don't honestly see much competition between them, they were marketed to different types of players. At the very least it would have reassured the CBT crowd. Anyway, they didn't and a lot of CBT folks gave up before FanPro got up to steam. If they had said from the beginning: "We have this great new way to play BattleTech (oh, and yeah, FanPro here is still releasing stuff for CBT)", I think it would have been an easier transition for people. That's all I was trying to say... 

Initiate of the Order of Valhalla

...oh gods, I just tried to imagine herding mimetic cats.
The Lyrans aren't losers.  They're...winning impaired.

worktroll

  • Ombudsman
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 20705
  • 504th "Gateway" Division
    • There are Monsters in my Sky!
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #51 on: 11 June 2015, 23:59:00 »
Ah, but FanPro didn't even exist at that point in time. Randall was recovering from the shock of FASA's closure, and trying to put together the alliance with FanPro Germany that made FanPro LLC (US) even possible.

FASA basically just said "Whoops, we're out." WK had their own business to start. Could it have been planned better? Indubitably. If FASA hadn't been quite so pre-emptory. That's what damaged BattleTech the game and lead to the perception of it's death - FASA killing it.
* No, FASA wasn't big on errata - ColBosch
* The Housebook series is from the 80's and is the foundation of Btech, the 80's heart wrapped in heavy metal that beats to this day - Sigma
* To sum it up: FASAnomics: By Cthulhu, for Cthulhu - Moonsword
* Because Battletech is a conspiracy by Habsburg & Bourbon pretenders - MadCapellan
* The Hellbringer is cool, either way. It's not cool because it's bad, it's cool because it's bad with balls - Nightsky
* It was a glorious time for people who felt that we didn't have enough Marauder variants - HABeas2, re "Empires Aflame"

Atlas3060

  • Plodding along...
  • Global Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8488
  • WHAP Wielder
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #52 on: 12 June 2015, 00:06:14 »
Quite honestly if WizKids didn't come into play with their plastic minis I doubt Battletech would have survived like it did.
Love or hate the Dark Age click game, it was the floating piece of furniture we floated on until FanPro and Catalyst rescue boats came to collect the survivors of the FASA. (They said she would never sink, stop me if you heard this before)

Now we're back, we are strong, and even though WizKids doesn't produce any Dark Age stuff anymore they did make money on it.
So to them it was a successful line, even if they aren't continuing it right now.
« Last Edit: 12 June 2015, 00:09:06 by Atlas3060 »
Kerensky: Ahh! After 300 years I'm free! It's time to conquer Terra!

Blake: Toyama-5, Kerensky's escaped. Recruit 5 House Teens with attitudes.

GO GO COMSTAR RANGERS! *Guitar Riff*
--Intercepted transmissions from children's programming on Terra 3057

PGaither84

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 12
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #53 on: 12 June 2015, 00:10:52 »
Thank you for that great replies.

=============

On the topic of clicky mechs, I had never played mage knight or hero clix at the time. I thought the idea of click mechs was pretty neat. A quick and simple way to keep battles moving without having to deal with stat sheets and piles of books, and then being able to reset games in a hurry by simply clicking them back to their starting spot.

One of the problems I have always had with the game was the constant use of a ruler, picking up and putting down pieces, and so forth. I personally think it would have been much better to stick with Hexagonal play mats. I don't know how practical that would have been, but I am a gamer first, and a battle tech fan second. The core game play was obstructive, imprecise, and overall clunky. From my time playing the Star Wars miniatures game when it was still alive, which used one inch squares, I can say that counting squares or counting hexes is so much faster, easier, less argumentative and more tactical than what the clix games ever had. Debating what is and isn't in range, covering the center dot that you couldn't even see, maneuvering and adjusting the placement of bases as to not touch difficult terrain... it was all a big mess in my experience. I don't know if hexagonal play would have been a better solution, but it just never felt right to me or people I played with. Oh well.

=================

I am putting this in a separate section, but it is still related to game play. Something else that put me off was implantation of ranged combat. The range of weapons compared to movement speed was a joke. At the time, 14 inches was the maximum shooting distance, but a mech with 7 speed (not even the maximum speed, which I think was 10) could start outside the range of an LRM launcher and then charge and end in base contact without reprisal. There is a difference between tactical movement and being able to run across open ground like that. On the original WK forums (are there archives of that somewhere I could look up?) I remember writing about a suggested rules change where you could double your maximum range but at a reduction of your attack value.

Games had a consistent pastern of starting well out of range, maneuvering around, maybe firing opening shot and then ending up in base contact with everyone, punching it out until the game ended.

=================

Don't get me wrong or think I am just bashing the game. Personally, I loved buying the pieces and trying to get games going, but I found that I spent as much time on the forums and formulating house rules for game play and campaign settings than i ever did playing the vanilla game.

I have no artistic skills and painting my own miniatures was something I never wanted to do. I was happy to be able to buy professionally painted miniatures that I could just pick up and play with. I had lots of fun 3 player battles with my two good friends. Alliances were made, backs were stabbed, and memories are still shared. That is what any game is really all about.

=================

As I have said before a few times, the core game was pretty unimpressive and a bit of a disappointment, but I spent a lot of time creating house rules (many of which became real game rules later on, weather they read my threads on the old message boards or not I'll never know) and adjusting the game to make it much more enjoyable for myself and my friends who just wanted a fast passed tactical miniatures game. We wanted armies to clash and things to blow up.... and they did repeatably.
« Last Edit: 12 June 2015, 00:13:12 by PGaither84 »

worktroll

  • Ombudsman
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 20705
  • 504th "Gateway" Division
    • There are Monsters in my Sky!
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #54 on: 12 June 2015, 00:31:04 »
One completely real problem many BTers had with the game was, that it didn't play the way we were used to BT playing. That's more an artifact of all the Clix games. One of my sons got really into Mage Knight, and I could never find a good "rythm" - I kept on moving first, and getting shot at as a result.

An "I move all my stuff &/or shoot, then you move/shoot all your stuff" game is different. I like "I move, you move, we all shoot together!" ;)

Players not used to BT's uncommon turn sequencing wouldn't have had that problem, but I did.

W.
* No, FASA wasn't big on errata - ColBosch
* The Housebook series is from the 80's and is the foundation of Btech, the 80's heart wrapped in heavy metal that beats to this day - Sigma
* To sum it up: FASAnomics: By Cthulhu, for Cthulhu - Moonsword
* Because Battletech is a conspiracy by Habsburg & Bourbon pretenders - MadCapellan
* The Hellbringer is cool, either way. It's not cool because it's bad, it's cool because it's bad with balls - Nightsky
* It was a glorious time for people who felt that we didn't have enough Marauder variants - HABeas2, re "Empires Aflame"

StCptMara

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 6010
  • Looking for new Adder skin boots
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #55 on: 14 June 2015, 04:23:12 »
I remember one time on the old WK forums, I mentioned that you could enlarge a BattleTech mapboard to 2.5 times the scale,
and it would be perfect to use the MechWarrior miniatures to play BattleTech. To me, this seemed a great thing, as, at the
time, my group was actually using a big map-board to play. It made BattleTech much easier for people to see, and had a lot
of plusses, plus used readily available miniatures, so made it easier for people new into BattleTech, and actually encouraged
in my group people buying and trading boosters from WizKids to get units in their faction colour schemes. Their reaction was....to erase the post. They didn't even give a warning or reason, it just vanished.

WizKids eventually did this for their Solaris game, but..if they had done this from the beginning? If they had either made
or allowed to be made, large scale map-boards? I think they would have had a better time economically. If something
can be used for more than one thing, it is getting both player bases(see: RoboTech Tactics and how many people are
getting the minis for that so they can get the Unseen). And, I think if they had done more than the record sheet book
RIGHT THEN, they could have pulled in large numbers of new players. I mean, I recruited players for BattleTech by
using that big map, and telling them "So..this is MechWarrior, you already know this..however, here is BattleTech,
which is far more detailed."

My over all feeling s that the problem was that MW was, essentially, treated poorly by WizKids. It was very much
like they could not figure out what to do with it. They did not keep a focused design team, and it was plagued with
issues like the Non-Unique Rokurokubi that never made it to people who ordered them,  and their poorly handled
"set retirement" sequence that got done in such a way as for people to see it as a cash grab, not a "We are trying
to find a way to make the tournament circuit fair for new players" move.
"Victory or Debt!"- The Battlecry of Mercenaries everywhere

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

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

Von Ether

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 906
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #56 on: 14 June 2015, 11:44:15 »
Just my two cents, I think a lot could have been forgiven if the plastics had been closer to the goofy non-"scale" of CBT metal figs, which is all levels of irony.

If the scale had been more of a match, CBT players would have adapted to the economics of collecting/second market to use the figs in CBT. And then some of them might of played to either find new recruits or simply troll in person. At the time, they would have been a drop in bucket revenue-wise, in the end, though, CBT endured.

I also think that few CBT players were fooled when WK claimed that the new scale was to standardize the figs with a market of terrain that was more expensive and never really used by the company in marketing or tourneys. Most had figured out that the decision was based on manufacturing/art needs and some felt that spoke volumes on it's own.

Another bit of irony is that even though I come off as a huge CBT fan from that time, but I was quite the opposite. Local CBT fan snobbery made me feel that the boys had pretty much reaped what they had sown.

"New players, regardless of age, need to know two things about a wargame. How to blow stuff up and what faction is painted in his favorite color. All the rest can come later when they are hooked." -- A.G.
"But the problem is that it seems to have been made by someone who equates complication with complexity, and that just ain't so." -- iamfanboy

jacobite2

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 17
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #57 on: 18 June 2015, 16:00:23 »
I'm not permitted to talk about clickytech  but I did say at the time the rules would work for star trek and 7 or 8 years later they did put out a star trek clicky game the rules work great the minis are not so good not up to dark age standers more in line with heroclix

False Son

  • Battletech Volunteer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6443
  • Kot Blini
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #58 on: 18 June 2015, 16:26:22 »
While trying to be as objective as possible, MWDA faced several challenges that derivative franchises face.  It calls upon a previous association, but also has to forge a unique identity.  MWDA was borrowing on the premises of classic BT, even using a few characters and so on, but had to establish itself as something different while not going too far into the territory of unique identity.  The execution was not the best at keeping the loyalty of classic BT players.  But, from a commercial perspective, if the choices made to establish MWDA as a standout IP brought in more new players than BT players it eliminated those choices were the right ones to make.  I don't blame anyone for being offended at the notion that a for profit company would choose potential new customers over old loyal customers.  Likewise, I don't fault the reasoning behind the creation of MWDA or the narrative/philosophical reasoning behind the setting or time jump.  The execution failed to hit the mark with the group that is active on this board.  Contextually, that is what matters.
TOYNBEE IDEA
IN MOViE `2001
RESURRECT DEAD
ON PLANET JUPITER


Destroy what destroys you

jackpot4

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 624
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #59 on: 18 June 2015, 18:56:19 »
One completely real problem many BTers had with the game was, that it didn't play the way we were used to BT playing. That's more an artifact of all the Clix games. One of my sons got really into Mage Knight, and I could never find a good "rythm" - I kept on moving first, and getting shot at as a result.

An "I move all my stuff &/or shoot, then you move/shoot all your stuff" game is different. I like "I move, you move, we all shoot together!" ;)

Players not used to BT's uncommon turn sequencing wouldn't have had that problem, but I did.

W.

I loathe the gentleman's warfare concept.  Battletech's concept is applicable in the real world.  One has to like and be able to play along such strict rules in order to be competitive.  I cannot even grasp the concept of standing there and hoping the enemy misses me.
Truth is treason in an empire of lies.

Be the Light in the darkness.

Bloodknight

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 16
    • www.mekwars.org
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #60 on: 06 July 2015, 17:55:16 »
Quote
It's been wild-ass guessed that there are around 10,000 BT "fans" worldwide.

Is that the "current day" number? Because back in late 90s BT was, at least in my country Germany, a huge thing. It was the game everybody played, and 40K only overtook it in its 3rd edition. We had several thousand players in clubs, doing organized play, chapter fights and such. I drove through the republic quite a lot. I would have expected BT's fanbase in the US to be bigger by an order of magnitude, not to forget the rest of the world. 100K minis seems to be lowballing it, too. 10 minis per guy? 3000 minis a year? I must be 30 people. :D
Yes, the blisters vanished from the shops a while ago, but still. It used to be quite the seller. I'm actually astonished to hear that they made so much MWDA stuff and that it sold well. I only noticed MWDA in the bargain bins very quickly at the time. The only game that I remember that went from full price to 70% off quicker was AT-43 when Rackham went prepainted before they went bust.

But if 10K players is roughly what's going on today, I think I have to be super happy. I'm with the Mekwars people, and apparently we've been able to keep 10% of the fans playing the game - not at the same time, but that seems to be our player pool. And yes, we do advertise the books when people have questions. We want Catalyst to get our money, even if us old grognards are stuck in our timelines. I'm only interested in 3025, for example, but once in a while I'll buy something else so people whose work I value get a little something.

Anyway: I did not get into MWDA because I really hated the blind booster mechanism. At the time I did not even mind the time jump much. We were playing in the clan period anyway, so one step deeper into the madness was ok. But the awful clicktech and not being able to buy what I want put me off badly. For the same reason I never got into CCGs. I don't like the way they play and the terrible "pay to win" that's behind it all. I also missed the elegance of hexbased games. There's never an argument over "you're 1/8" short" "no, I'm not" as in other tabletop games (which I enjoy, but for other reasons). Hexes don't lie. BT's turn order is still, 30 years later, great, one of the best in the industry, IMO. The IGOUGO We Shoot system is brilliant. Particularly in 3025, that's what makes the game great, it puts more of the games decisions into the hands of the player instead of the dice; good movement is really important there. Classic IGOUGO with sequential damage means you're dead after a bad turn usually.  I can see why people don't like FASAnomics, but as a 3025 player, I don't feel that much. There aren't so many clusters around (I hate massive clusters in the later timelines because they invite Headplink spamming and thus put too much emphasis on list building and getting lucky), and those are the biggest time wasters. I can usually play a 4 on 4 in an hour, and that's ok with me, even without the computer doing the dice rolling and dumpling filling. Less than that and I wouldn't feel as if I had gotten a game, if you know what I mean.

Well, MWDA didn't have any of the things I liked, and a lot that I didn't like, I guess. Never spent a penny on it. And yes, I thought CBT was dead at the time and went to play WH40K and WHFB (the latter is just now going through an MWDA-like reboot, including a terrible information policy and a ruleset with no balancing mechanics). Only in 2010 did I discover that CBT was still alive. I get why Fanpro couldn't keep up with the advertising, the German branch was like a dozen people and they were always very short on money. It's still a shame, though. And I agree with the people who say that both games could have sold more if they had been marketed paralelly. As it was, it looked like MWDA existed mostly to piss BT fans off. Bad fan communication indeed. And stuff like that can make or break games. If you shoo away your veteran players, it's difficult to recruit new ones. Not only because a flourishing community draws newbies (nothing promotes a game better than it being easy to get a game, no matter where you are), but also because the veterans will be bitter. They will try to get the new players to play a different system. They will badmouth your new stuff.
And yeah, gamers can be harsh customers, often tight-fisted and petulant and hard on the devs. I wish the guys at Catalyst the best, so far they've been handling it all really well. Thank you, Catalyst (and also the Forum staff here. I don't read here very often, but I'm thankful for the time you guys put in to make this an enjoyable place on the web).

 
WWW.MEKWARS.ORG
- MegamekNet 3025 Campaign Admin -

Staunch defender of the Capellan Confederation

worktroll

  • Ombudsman
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 20705
  • 504th "Gateway" Division
    • There are Monsters in my Sky!
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #61 on: 06 July 2015, 18:37:14 »
Yes, that's a post-2010 estimate. In the wake of releases in the MW computer games and suchlike, there would have been big spikes. I have no numbers to relate the number of MWO or MWT players to the old PC games, but my gut feel is not as many; we've had useful spikes in new membership on this forum following their releases.

Plus Germany seems to have been a stronghold of BT, due to an active local licencee, organised fan activity, and possibly smaller distances with easier transport options. The Essen Spiel shows the sort of energy existing in that region, albeit for a range of boardgames past the Monopoly level.

And welcome back, Bloodknight!

W.
* No, FASA wasn't big on errata - ColBosch
* The Housebook series is from the 80's and is the foundation of Btech, the 80's heart wrapped in heavy metal that beats to this day - Sigma
* To sum it up: FASAnomics: By Cthulhu, for Cthulhu - Moonsword
* Because Battletech is a conspiracy by Habsburg & Bourbon pretenders - MadCapellan
* The Hellbringer is cool, either way. It's not cool because it's bad, it's cool because it's bad with balls - Nightsky
* It was a glorious time for people who felt that we didn't have enough Marauder variants - HABeas2, re "Empires Aflame"

Bloodknight

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 16
    • www.mekwars.org
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #62 on: 07 July 2015, 03:54:39 »
That makes a lot of sense. Particularly the influence of the Mechwarrior series (when I started playing BT, the Crescent Hawks' Revenge was the newest BT computer game *lol*). MWO bled over a little into the Mekwars scene, but not as much as we hoped.

As to MWDA again, I follow a couple other tabletop forums and I noticed that a lot of people who build BT armies repaint the old models and use them to play tabletop games with them, the inches variant. That looks actually quite nice.

And thanks for the welcome :).
WWW.MEKWARS.ORG
- MegamekNet 3025 Campaign Admin -

Staunch defender of the Capellan Confederation

False Son

  • Battletech Volunteer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6443
  • Kot Blini
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #63 on: 07 July 2015, 12:32:26 »
I loathe the gentleman's warfare concept.  Battletech's concept is applicable in the real world.  One has to like and be able to play along such strict rules in order to be competitive.  I cannot even grasp the concept of standing there and hoping the enemy misses me.

Don't get too ahead of yourself.  Battletech supposes that both forces have the time to line up shots at roughly the same time.  It doesn't take into account initiative to the point of pulling the trigger first means the enemy doesn't get to shoot back.  The shooting phase all resolving at once is itself a gentleman's agreement.

TOYNBEE IDEA
IN MOViE `2001
RESURRECT DEAD
ON PLANET JUPITER


Destroy what destroys you

jackpot4

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 624
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #64 on: 07 July 2015, 17:58:07 »
Don't get too ahead of yourself.  Battletech supposes that both forces have the time to line up shots at roughly the same time.  It doesn't take into account initiative to the point of pulling the trigger first means the enemy doesn't get to shoot back.  The shooting phase all resolving at once is itself a gentleman's agreement.

It isn't even close to the same as the American Revolution, 40k or warmachine which is all gentleman's warfare.

As soon as the weapons reload/recharge everyone fires in Battletech.  It isn't I stand there let your atlas shoot me, then I shoot back.  We both shoot each other as our weapons are ready.  Each turn is nonstop weapons fire. 

When your gauss slug tears my arm off my PPC in that arm is already in the air coming at you etc. Etc.

Two different concepts from my point of view
« Last Edit: 07 July 2015, 18:00:08 by jackpot4 »
Truth is treason in an empire of lies.

Be the Light in the darkness.

GhostCat

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 816
  • If A, then B, The Evil Genius Argument
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #65 on: 08 July 2015, 09:03:36 »
It isn't even close to the same as the American Revolution, 40k or warmachine which is all gentleman's warfare.

I think it's a lot closer to the conventional war of the 18th century than you think.  Ranges are short, weapons not very accurate, and collateral damage was minimal.  Even though empires expand across many worlds with large populations, ecology's (plural, not possessive, see spell check) are still fragile on most of them, and resources still need skilled people to assemble them.  These huge war machines able to inflict massive damage, were generally designed to fight each other, not local farmers and factory workers.  Of course, there were still incidents like Kentares IV and Mallory's World that prove Destruction is easier than Domination.

False Son's reference was about the Game Mechanic.  Everybody gets a final shot from his dying swan, even if it's not very effective.  Pretty neat concept, even after thirty years of playing many other games. 

GC
"Spirit Cats are just pirates basically." --- Quote from Herb


PGaither84

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 12
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #66 on: 22 July 2015, 03:31:54 »
Instead of starting a new thread, I was wondering what any of you might think of the following house rule ideas I have had:

1) Adopting you choice of the "I go-You go-We attack" system talked about here, or what I am now accustomed to, which is the Star Wars Miniatures combat system which is the same as Dungeons and Dragons. for those unaware, you have a choice of moving and then attacking, attacking and then moving, or moving twice. This is similar to the "Assault order" rules for Mechs in the Age of Destruction rule book. In fact, it is more powerful. I personally feel it is game changing in a positive way.

2)Extended range combat.
Here is a house rule my friends I and  used going back to 2002 when the game came out. The laughably short printed range values just ruined the flavor of combat for us. As I talked about in my previous reply, when 14 inches is the maximum range for LRMs, something just doesn't feel right. Our solution was to allow you to make an attack of up to double the printed range of the unit. however, this would grant an additional +2 the the target's defense value. All other restrictions applied, such as indirect fire, cover, and so forth. The flavor here is that the maximum printed range value was instead the effective accurate range value with the weapon. We agreed that we didn't want players shooting at each other from their command zones across the table, but when the average range for units is roughly 10 inches (less than one foot), there is a problem.
Source: http://www.warrenborn.com/Values_by_Faction.html

Mindwiper

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 84
    • German Clan Wolf
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #67 on: 19 April 2016, 11:36:06 »
Sry, for gravedigging... :D

Quick question: Who developed the MWDA timeline?

Was it already laid out by Randall back in the days, before Wizkids took over?

Or was it a new brainchild to come with the new gaming system in 2002-2003 and with it a Jordon Weissman hickup??

We have a small discussion at facebook and a guy says it was all Randalls or Herbs fault...Which i think is ridiculous. I only remember it this way that Herb took the pieces Wizkids/Topps left and formed our Battletech Dark Age, which I really like. Sadly I can't find the original interviews or comments.


worktroll

  • Ombudsman
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 20705
  • 504th "Gateway" Division
    • There are Monsters in my Sky!
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #68 on: 19 April 2016, 12:58:08 »
Short form, and this is personal recollection from an outsider, not Word of God, but Jordan Weisman (yes, the one behind the HBS game) was the source of the timejump aspect, but based his leap from the (then-)FanPro canon. Randall, Herb and other CGL employees were involved in fleshing out the details of the path from there, but as contractors/freelancers/etc working for WK

Mixed bag.

WK gave FanPro enormous latitude to develop the BT timeline in the gap, provided "no direct contradictions". So (for example) there was no way to extensively nuke Terra in the BT Jihad timeline, given it survived largely intact in the WK timeline. But other than that, WK were very good - eg. Herb, IIRC, added in the return of the LCS Invincible, because nothing in the WK timeline stated anything about it one way or another.

The one thing one can assign clearly to Jordan Weisman was the need to provide a jump-start, and the effort to make the MW game playable without having to have absorbed 20+ years of BT history. And the clix mechanism, which he'd invented, anyway. Long-term BT fans were not the target audience - there's only a few to several thousand of us, as far as anyone can guess. This did put some noses out of joint in the fanbase. But given the enormously larger reach, and commercial success, of the MW game over it's lifetime - did you realise they produced more than seven million minis for MW? - the decision was sound, financially, for him.

IMHO, YMMV, etc.

W.
* No, FASA wasn't big on errata - ColBosch
* The Housebook series is from the 80's and is the foundation of Btech, the 80's heart wrapped in heavy metal that beats to this day - Sigma
* To sum it up: FASAnomics: By Cthulhu, for Cthulhu - Moonsword
* Because Battletech is a conspiracy by Habsburg & Bourbon pretenders - MadCapellan
* The Hellbringer is cool, either way. It's not cool because it's bad, it's cool because it's bad with balls - Nightsky
* It was a glorious time for people who felt that we didn't have enough Marauder variants - HABeas2, re "Empires Aflame"

cavingjan

  • Sang-Wei MUL
  • Battletech Volunteer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4349
  • grumpy ESOB
    • warrenborn
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #69 on: 19 April 2016, 13:09:36 »
Hellbie summed it up nicely.

Mindwiper

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 84
    • German Clan Wolf
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #70 on: 19 April 2016, 13:17:12 »
thx guys! :)

wantec

  • Freelance Writer
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2877
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #71 on: 20 April 2016, 13:03:53 »
Hellbie summed it up nicely.
Me thinks you have the wrong blue battlemaster. But Worktroll's summary is a good one.
BEN ROME YOU MAGNIFICENT BASTARD, I READ YOUR BOOK!


Atlas3060

  • Plodding along...
  • Global Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8488
  • WHAP Wielder
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #72 on: 20 April 2016, 15:22:18 »
Me thinks you have the wrong blue battlemaster. But Worktroll's summary is a good one.
Oh you know the blue ones look alike.  ;D
Kerensky: Ahh! After 300 years I'm free! It's time to conquer Terra!

Blake: Toyama-5, Kerensky's escaped. Recruit 5 House Teens with attitudes.

GO GO COMSTAR RANGERS! *Guitar Riff*
--Intercepted transmissions from children's programming on Terra 3057

cavingjan

  • Sang-Wei MUL
  • Battletech Volunteer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4349
  • grumpy ESOB
    • warrenborn
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #73 on: 20 April 2016, 16:16:00 »
They are the same person. We've never seen them in the same room together. Their posting habits are completely opposite each other. They are just good and hiding the evidence like using an Australian proxy to make it look like one lives down there.

worktroll

  • Ombudsman
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 20705
  • 504th "Gateway" Division
    • There are Monsters in my Sky!
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #74 on: 20 April 2016, 18:34:33 »
That's .... a new one, I admit. Fortunately Brian and I are not commensurate; he's known to engage in physical activity, unlike myself, and also appears in Washington DC/Virginia gameshops.

There is, however, a disturbing possibility that if I and Welshman ever shook hands, there would be a titanic explosion ....
* No, FASA wasn't big on errata - ColBosch
* The Housebook series is from the 80's and is the foundation of Btech, the 80's heart wrapped in heavy metal that beats to this day - Sigma
* To sum it up: FASAnomics: By Cthulhu, for Cthulhu - Moonsword
* Because Battletech is a conspiracy by Habsburg & Bourbon pretenders - MadCapellan
* The Hellbringer is cool, either way. It's not cool because it's bad, it's cool because it's bad with balls - Nightsky
* It was a glorious time for people who felt that we didn't have enough Marauder variants - HABeas2, re "Empires Aflame"

JadeHellbringer

  • Твоя мать была хомяком ...
  • Administrator
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 19451
  • TurquoiseKitFox!
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #75 on: 21 April 2016, 09:03:18 »
Plus everyone knows my alter-ego is actually Brian Posehn.
"There's a difference between the soldier and his fight,
But the warrior knows the true meaning of his life."
+Larry and his Flask, 'Blood Drunk'+

"You know, basically war is just, like, a bunch of people playing pranks on each other, but at the end they all die."

+Crow T. Robot+

Stoobert

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 63
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #76 on: 22 April 2016, 17:38:30 »
I played MW: Dark Age from the beginning, was an Envoy, then a playtester for MW: Age of Destruction, then I quit.

To answer the OP, "Why disliked?" I think it can be summarized as:

1. Blind boosters artificially inflate the value of certain rarer units, making the game cheap to enter, but unnecessarily expensive if you want a chance at winning (or simply not losing every game). 

2. The rules were wildly different from BT, and in some cases simply unbelievable.  Example: Mechs could initiate an unopposed 'charge' at ranges several inches longer than any direct weapon system could fire

3. As is the case with collectible games, the rules and "meta" change rapidly with each new release, making it more complicated and expensive to keep playing

I stuck with it in hopes some rules would be changed, but many did not, and when they introduced more nonsense in the form of Pilot and Upgrades in AoD I simply had had enough. 

The 'organized play' system and giveaways were actually cool, which got people playing the game faster and more often than without such a system.  Playing a mech game in 45min is also cool.  But then discouraged by the above 3 points players began to fall away.
« Last Edit: 22 April 2016, 21:30:44 by Stoobert »

SpaceCowboy1701

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 278
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #77 on: 02 May 2016, 11:36:16 »
I wonder sometimes if the game would have lasted longer if it had actually started with the AoD rules, or at least the customizable 'mechs, with no significant V 2.0? I feel like the cards allowed the game enough flexibility to keep it going and changing without just power-creeping (not saying that it didn't power-creep, just that it didn't have to). I guess the related question is whether it would have lasted longer keeping the old format and doing something else to shake it up ... ? Locally, we probably had some of our largest play groups post-AoD, but they fell off somewhere after Domination, if I remember correctly ... but then our area is weird ...

Hptm. Streiger

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 734
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #78 on: 02 June 2016, 05:54:04 »
I just had the idea to bring BT to my son - I fear the overcomplex calculation of BT might be a problem. MWDA seems to be ok.
I like the fast pace combat - its much faster as Alpha Strike (because in my eyes Alpha Strike kept the "calculation" and dropped the "cool" Micromanagement)

Perfect for a boy of 4 year  ;D - hey of course I'm joking he didn't understand the game - but he rolls the dice (never roll dice against a child - you are loosing.....triple or double six all the time) - and he counts the eyes and he is even able to do some minor calculation. And in our first game he destroyed me.

Anyhow, I think MWDA was disliked mostly because WizKids tried to create something completely new factions. Swordsworn, Dragon Fury bubble gum, neon colored factions.

The second might be the micro management. Lucky I have the TRO3145/3150 now, but without it i would have a hard time to imagine the game. So this Sekhemet, just energy weapons? But it is supposed to have missiles and AP gauss either...

Otherwise its a great and simple combination of combined arms - with lots of options to "create" house rules.


GordonBlackhammer

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #79 on: 16 January 2017, 21:29:42 »
I've seen a lot of criticism directed towards MechWarrior: Dark Age on other forums. Not so much this board, but then again, it's probably because it's a board dedicated to the game and coming here just to trash it is what's known as trolling.

Anyways, I'm rather curious as to what BattleTech fans didn't like about Dark Age back in 2003. I'm referring specifically to the game's story and background, since I'm sure the actual game itself had balance issues and stuff like that. Is it because of the jump in time frame with no explanation or lead up to the Inner Sphere's current state resulting in the setting becoming almost unrecognizable? And what do you all think of it now, when the original game's timeline has almost (already?) caught up to the Dark Age?

I'm probably a rarity, but I enjoyed the clix game a lot.  I could get almost half a dozen 300 point clix battles in in the same time it took to run one company vs. company battle in Battletech and there wasn't as much fiddly minutia to deal with either.  Plus, the clix game made it a lot easier to field combined arms units and use them effectively (though I admit that infantry seemed almost ridiculously overpowered early on).  It was a different kind of enjoyment than I had playing Battletech, but it was still enjoyable.  Plus it was easier to teach and easier to get people involved in as a quick pick-up game compared to some of the long drawn out game sessions of Battletech. 

I paid very little attention to the backstory for the most part other than knowing what the factions were representing and the overview of how we had gotten to the point where we were in the story.  The clan invasion of 3050 storyline was not something I enjoyed much in Battletech.  I had a lot more fun with the 3025 era, though I did run a game during Star League's War of Reunification and a few alternate timeline versions too.  3039 was the last Battletech era I enjoyed because of the return of the Star League mechs and the development of the Grey Death datacore.  So perhaps my mindset towards the MWDA timeline and its more balanced opposing factions was going to be more appealing than the incredibly mismatched IS vs. Clan battles of the early Clan era. 

I get few, if any, chances to play either game anymore, and I know of very few Battletech players in my area and none who seem to want to play anymore.  So the clix make it possible for me to run a quick battle when I have an hour to spare, even if it a solo battle.  It's not much, but it is better than nothing at all.

pensiveswetness

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1039
  • Delete this account, please?
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #80 on: 16 January 2017, 23:51:44 »
Ahh, memory lane (with all the dents, pot holes and beer cans littering the roads with it)... I remember being the first one on DropShipCommand.com(Now defunct) to coin the derisive term "Dorkage" for what most of us called 'ClickyTech'. It really summed up my feelings for the game, even though I did support it briefly. I guess it didn't help that, at the time [2003], I moved from Norfolk, Va (which had a reasonably strong gamer community fed from both Military, Military Contractor and College Student pools) to Oxnard, Ca (which did not). There was only ONE comic book & gaming store in the Ventura area & they rarely played MW:DA. Asking about BT was likened to expressions about BT's demise. There was one time I played a pick-up BT at someone's house. The end result was that my mini's gathered dust in my cases for the remainder of my time in California and were in storage until after I retired from the Navy.

Everyone else has given very good reasons why they disliked the game. It literally took reading current content (Era report/Field Manual 3145 as well as the current TRO's) to get me to appreciate the setting better but to me, the games will always be separate & unequal.

jackson123

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 429
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #81 on: 19 January 2017, 11:39:09 »
I believe it was disliked because they tried moving away from mech vs mech and more to combined arms combat.
I dont think a lot of the fan base was ready for that type of move.

Wrangler

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 16983
  • Dang it!
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #82 on: 19 January 2017, 17:08:39 »
Essentially the combo everything.  The shock of the end of FASA WAS a thing.  Then rise of WizKids and their purchase of Franchise.  Now if it weren't for them, our current game company who keeps the torch alive for original branch of entire franchise would not be here.  They saved and "unfortunately" re-branded it Classic Battletech.

As its been mentioned above as years (Gaud this thread so old  :o) sudden changes that new company were bring into the franchise. Combined Arms, Goofy art work that littertly changed how old designs were going to look like, seeding new fans with possibly bad info, feeling of the dumbing down of the franchise from how MWDA was rolled out, not mentioned other things including pure protectism.  I myself had initially had bubbling hate for it, because i was seeing franchise being altered in way that could mess with new fans and potentially ruin the game as whole for the sake of quick sell for WizKids part.

In end WizKids didn't survive, fortunately the staff managed to save entire franchise.  However the damage was done, many the things introduced into the game in MWDA years had to be added to canon because it WAS canon due to way it was declared so many years ago.

NOW: Things are better, Dark Age was managed in manner that made sense and the material made it rough to handle was merged and made less of a problem.   

Hopefully, in the coming year (pray to the Battletech gods) new era begin. 
"Men, fetch the Urbanmechs.  We have an interrogation to attend to." - jklantern
"How do you defeat a Dragau? Shoot the damn thing. Lots." - Jellico 
"No, it's a "Most Awesome Blues Brothers scene Reenactment EVER" waiting to happen." VotW Destrier - Weirdo  
"It's 200 LY to Sian, we got a full load of shells, a half a platoon of Grenadiers, it's exploding outside, and we're wearing flak jackets." VoTW Destrier - Misterpants

roosterboy

  • Site Maintenance
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5496
  • trapped in a world I never made
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #83 on: 19 January 2017, 17:17:10 »
I remember being the first one on DropShipCommand.com(Now defunct) to coin the derisive term "Dorkage" for what most of us called 'ClickyTech'.

Watch out, Oscar Wilde!

worktroll

  • Ombudsman
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 20705
  • 504th "Gateway" Division
    • There are Monsters in my Sky!
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #84 on: 19 January 2017, 17:20:15 »
Just want to remind people that the ones creating the "the dumbing down of the franchise" had names like Randall Bills, Herb Beas, Ben Rome, etc.

The hacks :)

I get it. Some people didn't like MW:DA. That doesn't mean it was a bad thing for everyone. I don't like W40K, but that doesn't mean it's a bad game - a heck of a lot more people passionately love that game than love ours.

Accept we're niche dwellers. Embrace our niche, let go the need to hate others for not being our niche.

And - as Wrangler points out - we wouldn't be here if WK hadn't actively done a heck of a lot to allow our game to live on. I was inside the curtain on some of that - literally, it was "As long as you don't directly contradict anything, do what you want", and for way under commercial licencing rates.

W.
* No, FASA wasn't big on errata - ColBosch
* The Housebook series is from the 80's and is the foundation of Btech, the 80's heart wrapped in heavy metal that beats to this day - Sigma
* To sum it up: FASAnomics: By Cthulhu, for Cthulhu - Moonsword
* Because Battletech is a conspiracy by Habsburg & Bourbon pretenders - MadCapellan
* The Hellbringer is cool, either way. It's not cool because it's bad, it's cool because it's bad with balls - Nightsky
* It was a glorious time for people who felt that we didn't have enough Marauder variants - HABeas2, re "Empires Aflame"

cavingjan

  • Sang-Wei MUL
  • Battletech Volunteer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4349
  • grumpy ESOB
    • warrenborn
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #85 on: 19 January 2017, 19:56:51 »
WT: don't forget the ring leader: Jordan Weisman

worktroll

  • Ombudsman
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 20705
  • 504th "Gateway" Division
    • There are Monsters in my Sky!
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #86 on: 19 January 2017, 20:38:02 »
To be honest, I don't think Jordan had any involvement in the writing. Full credit to him for a) wanting to popularise the BT IP via the game mechanism he developed, and b) being incredibly supportive of FanPro and then IMR/CGL.

An unkind person might point out how each time he actually succeeds in getting something new off the ground & successful, he loses interest & moves off to do something new, and the old project grinds down. But I should be as successful as he is ... face it, he's the only person I can think of who's made money off the BT IP, and done so more than once.
* No, FASA wasn't big on errata - ColBosch
* The Housebook series is from the 80's and is the foundation of Btech, the 80's heart wrapped in heavy metal that beats to this day - Sigma
* To sum it up: FASAnomics: By Cthulhu, for Cthulhu - Moonsword
* Because Battletech is a conspiracy by Habsburg & Bourbon pretenders - MadCapellan
* The Hellbringer is cool, either way. It's not cool because it's bad, it's cool because it's bad with balls - Nightsky
* It was a glorious time for people who felt that we didn't have enough Marauder variants - HABeas2, re "Empires Aflame"

Adun42

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #87 on: 02 February 2017, 02:26:08 »
I'm bringing this up again as I'm coming back to bt.
I couldn't get into bt, and mind you, I played adv squad leader and was a big avalon hill fan.
But all the paper work of bt....

Mwda comes out without the need of an advanced degree in battletech! Awesome!!

But the best armies, you know, didn't have any...you know...actual mechs...in them.

Kinda like an aircraft carrier being rendered ineffective by a motor boat.

The economics got me, why would you field this multi million c-note tool of war to have someone on a moterbike hold it still for artillery.

Worse yet you could take that expensive warmachine and walk..walk..not fire...not run..across the board and have it blow up.

I dont even want a car that I have to pull over every couple of blocks and let cool before I continue on my way to work, much less the ultimate machine of war..
And I'm looking at you swordsworn.

I could outrun a laser...huh?
Right, my effective laser range for is 6"
My movement is 8"
Wait, let's talk about high intensity beams of light...or not...it just didn't feel...right
So the entire game system didn't seem right, and yes the spike bits on the Atlas... I've had wire cutters in hand...ready to "fix".

But now I've found alpha strike and seems to convert well to "n" scale, those minis are back on the gaming table.
Yay bt!

 


JDbigmoney

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 9
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #88 on: 09 March 2017, 23:47:56 »
You could sum up three web pages of sepporit comments like this......

MWDA was a reboot that never should have happened.

CBT is a game that REQUIRES an attention span......I mean that exactly how you read it

The world does not work that way anymore, in fact, an attention span is the last thing any seller of anything wants you to have

Even wonder why the newest Star Trek series of movies is another rehash ( don't ignore the fact that in order for the stories to flow they litterally have to check in with "another demension" for answers ) and you have two glarring examples of why attention spans are bad for buisness

CBT or as I prefer to call it....Battletech, is a game built around the concept of a fantastically massive story line that was created in the time when computers were just a step above type writers. It took an investment of time to just understand what you were looking at.

Then it happened

F.A.S.A. died

And just like everything else ever.....rather than let it die and we mourn over it's grave while remembering the good times, someone decided to make a zombie and try to resurect a corpse.

It's never the same as the original and the shammans who shake the rattles just want you to forget that fact but still shovel over money in the hopes that you might get back what you lost.

And in the case of Battletech....they did it twice

worktroll

  • Ombudsman
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 20705
  • 504th "Gateway" Division
    • There are Monsters in my Sky!
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #89 on: 10 March 2017, 01:10:06 »
Mate ... give it up. MW:DA wasn't meant to be BattleTech. And it had wildly more players, over the period it was supported, than BT ever had.

Didn't appeal to you? No problems. Cool. You're allowed to have your preferences.

But crapping on those people who did enjoy it - not necessary. Let it go ....
* No, FASA wasn't big on errata - ColBosch
* The Housebook series is from the 80's and is the foundation of Btech, the 80's heart wrapped in heavy metal that beats to this day - Sigma
* To sum it up: FASAnomics: By Cthulhu, for Cthulhu - Moonsword
* Because Battletech is a conspiracy by Habsburg & Bourbon pretenders - MadCapellan
* The Hellbringer is cool, either way. It's not cool because it's bad, it's cool because it's bad with balls - Nightsky
* It was a glorious time for people who felt that we didn't have enough Marauder variants - HABeas2, re "Empires Aflame"

JDbigmoney

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 9
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #90 on: 12 March 2017, 23:42:37 »
Dude

It is suppost to be battletech....hence using the name

And it was garbage.....want proof? Try and find a game.

YingJanshi

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4315
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #91 on: 13 March 2017, 12:00:28 »
Dude

It is suppost to be battletech....hence using the name

And it was garbage.....want proof? Try and find a game.

Try finding a game of BattleTech....  ::) 8)
(Or even better, try to find a game store that actually stocks BattleTech...)

Initiate of the Order of Valhalla

...oh gods, I just tried to imagine herding mimetic cats.
The Lyrans aren't losers.  They're...winning impaired.

Easy

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 591
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #92 on: 13 March 2017, 12:51:39 »
cleanup
« Last Edit: 29 May 2019, 14:02:45 by Easy »

cavingjan

  • Sang-Wei MUL
  • Battletech Volunteer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4349
  • grumpy ESOB
    • warrenborn
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #93 on: 13 March 2017, 16:23:32 »
(It was looted by it creator so I'm not sure how much it could be called looted.)

Talen5000

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 465
    • Handbook: Smoke Jaguar
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #94 on: 22 March 2017, 20:24:16 »
For me...DA had problems because it got rid of the established factions, didn't provide enough answers on tje nackgrou d quickly enough and had the RNG aspect.

The game itself was decent and the models great; it was a pity they weren't to the same scale as minis but you can't have everything. But the background with its lack of established factions and some silliness in the story...including the IMO awful Fortress Republic deus ex machina...turned me off the DA.

I also dislike the idea of destroying factions. These are entities players become invested in and which have a history. I don't like seeing the Comguards wiped out, I want the missing Nova Cat ships to turn up in the Protectorate and reform the Nova Cats and I didn't like the idea of the Free Worlds League being gone.

So....there was nothing truly major about why I didn't like DA. It was a decent game with much to recommend it. But it also had enough small irritations that it put me off.

And it wasn't BattleTech. So...in addition to the problems with the universe and background, it also wasn't the same game.


 
« Last Edit: 26 March 2017, 23:09:44 by Talen5000 »
"So let me get this straight. You want to fly on a magic carpet to see the King of the Potato People and plead with him for your freedom, and you're telling me you're completely sane?" -- Uncle Arnie

Wrangler

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 16983
  • Dang it!
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #95 on: 23 March 2017, 08:21:31 »
Functionally is was decent game for fast fighting.  I believe at heart one of the problems was handling of fixing rules or mechanics during its run and ultimately need for more profits at heart of it.  They had to come up more units to add to the game.  Admittively for me i like the mystery in the box thing, it added more buying the game trying get what you wanted.   

However, as normal Battletech player, alot of liberties were taken with what older units look liked.  That completely didn't meet the aesthetics regular Battletech.  Example the Panther.  It went from sleek and attractive Light Mech to something rather blocky and certainly not very good looking at all.  By CHANGING that unit's appearance, due to way CGL and franchise works  our good looking machine HAD to become that outright ugly thing of the future.   Before method/mechanics were inplace, alot of Clan OmniMech units part of the initial introduction of the game were rendered into normal BattleMechs (this is before fluff was made to explain why they weren't Omnis)  because the game mechanics didn't handle them.  I had HUGE problem with MWDA for that, which in-turn made this CANON fact.  Thus why initially it appeared suddenly there were NO more (visually in the DA Novels) no OmniMechs to speak of or dared mentioned in fluff.  Why confuse new person with concept they can't touch?  Also, the first batches of releases of units that included that Dossier (some that didn't) for the mechs, had bad tendency on very very new design to undergun those units Battletech stats wise verses MWDA.  On the Dial despite being undergunned in Total Warfare, the unit firepower was reasonable if facing likewise similar unit that may have been better armed.   Look at the Storm Raider or the Cuirass of examples of these.

IF that stuff hadn't messed up Dark Age related stuff, i won't have had as many issues with the game.  It was effect and handling of it by WizKids that i had the initial issues with it.  I got over some my problems with it, collected and played the game off and on until it's demise.




EDIT: Sorry, if my initial post was messed up. My normal computer isn't with me and this crap box i'm using interface is really lousy so it posted before i was done typing.
« Last Edit: 23 March 2017, 08:34:25 by Wrangler »
"Men, fetch the Urbanmechs.  We have an interrogation to attend to." - jklantern
"How do you defeat a Dragau? Shoot the damn thing. Lots." - Jellico 
"No, it's a "Most Awesome Blues Brothers scene Reenactment EVER" waiting to happen." VotW Destrier - Weirdo  
"It's 200 LY to Sian, we got a full load of shells, a half a platoon of Grenadiers, it's exploding outside, and we're wearing flak jackets." VoTW Destrier - Misterpants

Giovanni Blasini

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3925
  • And I think it's gonna be a long, long time...
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #96 on: 23 March 2017, 12:04:02 »
Dude

It is suppost to be battletech....hence using the name

And it was garbage.....want proof? Try and find a game.

Technically, it didn't use the name "Battletech". It used the name "MechWarrior".  And, much like the video games aren't often the most literal adaptation of the Battletech tabletop game rules, MWDA took liberties.

Personally, the game itself, in its first incarnation, was a bit odd in terms of rules, but that wasn't entirely surprising for a new game out of the gates.  I think what did it in for me mainly was the change in aesthetics for some of my favorite units, but even more than that the nature of being a collectible miniatures game.  There was nothing quite like the feeling of buying a booster pack (I had about $200 into the game when it debuted), opening it, thinking, "c'mon, Panther..." and getting another ForestryMech (non-mod) instead.  I wanted to be able to build my own army my way, which was a pain in the neck with a CMG, requiring more effort than, in the end, I was willing to put forth on a game that had a number of other areas where I found it questionable.
« Last Edit: 23 March 2017, 12:18:00 by Giovanni Blasini »
"“Eternity is a long time, especially towards the end.” -- Stephen Hawking

Death by Lasers

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 297
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #97 on: 26 March 2017, 20:53:35 »
  Am I the only one that didn't have a problem with MWDA?  I bought a booster pack, thought it was kind of neat but never got into it.  I never begrudged its existence though.  Truth be told I was mostly happy they were still making Battletech novels.  I thought the first MWDA books were meh, but the later ones were actually very good.  Admittedly, I was also fine with Mechassault even though I've never played it and enjoyed the Battletech cartoon :P

  I'm even *gasp* ok with the Republic.  Yes, the Republic was written for the Dark Age as a noble faction of knights and paladins but once the Dark Age clixgame had its successful run and Battletech began to inevitably absorb it into canon I knew it would get a more three dimensional treatment and the sourcebooks did not disappoint.  I've pretty much been waiting since a Bonfire of Worlds to see what happens to it.  So far its been a decade but I'm hopeful the next decade we will see a conclusion/continuation Republic story arch.
“I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend.”

J.R.R Tolikien, The Two Towers

worktroll

  • Ombudsman
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 20705
  • 504th "Gateway" Division
    • There are Monsters in my Sky!
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #98 on: 26 March 2017, 21:21:54 »
No, you're not the only one. Far from it.
* No, FASA wasn't big on errata - ColBosch
* The Housebook series is from the 80's and is the foundation of Btech, the 80's heart wrapped in heavy metal that beats to this day - Sigma
* To sum it up: FASAnomics: By Cthulhu, for Cthulhu - Moonsword
* Because Battletech is a conspiracy by Habsburg & Bourbon pretenders - MadCapellan
* The Hellbringer is cool, either way. It's not cool because it's bad, it's cool because it's bad with balls - Nightsky
* It was a glorious time for people who felt that we didn't have enough Marauder variants - HABeas2, re "Empires Aflame"

JDbigmoney

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 9
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #99 on: 13 April 2017, 21:23:49 »
Don't give me this "technically not Battletech" crap

Mechwarrior was and is still a registered trade mark....you know....what evidently murdered FASA in the first place.

It is/was a do-over in attemp to make a re-envisioned game without having to find a market

Imagine a terrible knock off of 40k and calling it Space Orks

Same shit, different pile

YingJanshi

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4315
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #100 on: 13 April 2017, 22:13:27 »
Don't give me this "technically not Battletech" crap

Mechwarrior was and is still a registered trade mark....you know....what evidently murdered FASA in the first place.

It is/was a do-over in attemp to make a re-envisioned game without having to find a market

Imagine a terrible knock off of 40k and calling it Space Orks

Same shit, different pile

Um...Just to be pedantic here, FASA closed shop before Jordan Weisman (you know, the guy that created BattleTech in the first place) started WizKids.

Also, however I feel about how MW:DA was run and played, it's undeniable that we would not be buying brand new BattleTech products right now if it MW:DA hadn't kept the franchise going. In fact they gave FanPro the licence to finish up the few products that FASA had left and then after a year or so to create brand new product (at least, that's how I understand the deal to have been). And FanPro was the direct predecessor to Catalyst.

Also, Weisman had invented the "Clix" mechanic...why shouldn't he use it as another avenue to keep his universe alive? (He did the same thing with his Crimson Skies universe as well, to better effect I think though.)

At the end of the day, who has more right than the creator of a game/universe/intellectual property reimagine/redo it? We can argue till we're blue in the face about the merits of the game (personally I still think it was very badly handled in some ways); but I do believe in giving credit where credit is due: and WizKids/MW:DA saved BattleTech.

Initiate of the Order of Valhalla

...oh gods, I just tried to imagine herding mimetic cats.
The Lyrans aren't losers.  They're...winning impaired.

E. Icaza

  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1412
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #101 on: 18 April 2017, 09:10:43 »
As an avid fan of HeroClix, I was excited about the prospect of "Mechwarrior Clix".  I bought a starter box and a crapload of boosters.  What killed my enthusiasm was the massive number of IndustrialMechs you got in the first wave or two of boosters.  Also, the factions seemed very much watered down or completely contrary to the ones that I have come to love (or love to loathe) and the backstory wasn't presented very well IMO.  I read the novels up to "Scorpion Jar" (which was actually very good), but by that point my interest had waned.  Most of the novels leading up to "Scorpion Jar" were pretty terrible and one novel wasn't enough to salvage my interest in the game.

I still have all of the minis though and will break them out from time to time to use in Alpha Strike and the like.  CGL has done more to get me interested in the DA/AoD time period than all of the materials from the Clix game combined.  While I still have some problems with certain aspects of it, I find it entertaining and engaging at least.
The Clans: the Star League the Inner Sphere deserves, not the one it needs.

trboturtle

  • Freelance Writer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3248
  • Now what?
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #102 on: 18 April 2017, 18:27:19 »
As an avid fan of HeroClix, I was excited about the prospect of "Mechwarrior Clix".  I bought a starter box and a crapload of boosters.  What killed my enthusiasm was the massive number of IndustrialMechs you got in the first wave or two of boosters.  Also, the factions seemed very much watered down or completely contrary to the ones that I have come to love (or love to loathe) and the backstory wasn't presented very well IMO.  I read the novels up to "Scorpion Jar" (which was actually very good), but by that point my interest had waned.  Most of the novels leading up to "Scorpion Jar" were pretty terrible and one novel wasn't enough to salvage my interest in the game.

Ironically enough, the novels get generally better after The Scorpion Jar.....

Craig
Author of the BattleCorps Stories -- "The Lance Killer," "Hikagemono," "Negotiation," "Snipe Hunt," "Groundpounder," "The Clawing," "Salvage," "The Promise," "Reap What You Sow," "Color of Authority," "Family Ties," "The Blood of Man," "End of Message," "Heroes' Bridge," "Kurodenkou," "Thirteen," "My Father's Sword," "Evacuation," "Warrior's Song," "Operation Red Lion," "A Matter of Honor," "State of Grace," "Operation Blue Tiger," "A Warrior's Fear," "Shadow Angels," "Murphy's Method," and the Legacy Anthology story, "End of the Road." (Nominated for the International Association of Media Tie-In Writers 2019 Scribe awards for Best Short Story.)

My Blogs!
Battletech:  http://thebattletechstate.blogspot.com/
Other writings: http://trboturtleswritings.blogspot.com/

Talen5000

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 465
    • Handbook: Smoke Jaguar
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #103 on: 18 April 2017, 19:10:25 »
MWDA was a reboot that never should have happened.

There's nothing wrong with a reboot if done right....and it easn't exactly a reboot.

Next time there is a time jump, however, I think it needs to be a good bit longer than 60 or 70 years. 6 or 7 hundred, allowing time for major changes, people to die off, technology and setting to change and so on would be better.

One of the big reasons for such a reset would be to remove a big barrier to entry so new players can join up without feeling overwhelmed by the games history.

Of course, in a game like CBT, the downside would be that the existing playerbase would want the existing timeline to move forward and eventually you'd have the dreaded "kill off the factions" moment.

Maybe the cold virus could mutate and wipe out a huge portion of humanity. We could call it the Snow Plague and have the nations go back to building hovertanks.

MWDA as a game in its own right....worked.
It was relatively fast and simple, it had nice minis, it looked good, played well and essentially saved the franchise. It had flaws...but it worked.

But....the existing BT crowd was not its target audience. And it showed. There were new factions, poorly explained. The game emphasised combined arms....not the King of the Battlefield.

Which is good because more varied units makes the game more interesting. But some didn't like it. But if I were to be honest....the King of the Battlefield probably should be the tank. Even in 3150.

There were a lot of niggling minor points that irritated many BT fans. Some more than others. There wasn't any one smoking gun as to why many BT players didn't like MWDA...

But it can be boiled down to.....it was simply a different game with different factions and different gameplay.
« Last Edit: 18 April 2017, 19:12:55 by Talen5000 »
"So let me get this straight. You want to fly on a magic carpet to see the King of the Potato People and plead with him for your freedom, and you're telling me you're completely sane?" -- Uncle Arnie

E. Icaza

  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1412
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #104 on: 18 April 2017, 22:36:43 »
Ironically enough, the novels get generally better after The Scorpion Jar.....

Craig

Oh, I know.  The problem was that I got pretty much disillusioned with the setting and stopped reading them.  I'll try to find the later novels and read them someday, but it isn't high on my list of priorities.  A big factor is I pretty much hated all of the "iconic" characters, with the exception of Tucker Harwell.
The Clans: the Star League the Inner Sphere deserves, not the one it needs.

Wrangler

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 16983
  • Dang it!
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #105 on: 20 April 2017, 10:14:32 »
All the later novels were superior to most the earlier novels. They found their nitch and were written by folks whom wete more intuned with both games and how they work so they make senses to readers whom play.
"Men, fetch the Urbanmechs.  We have an interrogation to attend to." - jklantern
"How do you defeat a Dragau? Shoot the damn thing. Lots." - Jellico 
"No, it's a "Most Awesome Blues Brothers scene Reenactment EVER" waiting to happen." VotW Destrier - Weirdo  
"It's 200 LY to Sian, we got a full load of shells, a half a platoon of Grenadiers, it's exploding outside, and we're wearing flak jackets." VoTW Destrier - Misterpants

Death by Lasers

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 297
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #106 on: 21 April 2017, 17:29:51 »
  That's the thing about the Dark Age timeline is that it wasn't made for old Battletech fans but to gain new fans for its Clix-Based system.  It seems pretty standard that old franchises tend to separate themselves from the established canon to build a new fanbase.  Star Trek did this with TNG, Voyager, and Enterprise and Mechwarrior: Dark Age did this as well.  As far as I can tell it did this in two ways, by isolating itself from the old factions (like Voyager) by centering its stories in the Republic and by jumping the timeline forward (like TNG).

  Truth be told it probably would have made more sense to get rid of the old factions in the time jump but I think this would have been too traumatic for the Battletech player base.  Making the Republic the setting of the universe and allowing the rest of the factions to exist outside of the main setting was an elegant solution.  I have a feeling the Republic was meant to be primary scope of the universe as it was in the very first novels but it wasn't very long before it shifted away from the Republic to the old factions we know and love.

  As to Battletech's future I'm not sure if a time jump is the best plan.  It depends on if the goal is to try and bring in new people or appease on old fan base.  A large time jump could streamline the setting and cut into the huge log of technology that exists now (seriously how many kinds of laser are there at this point?) and bring things to a point where huge amounts of prior knowledge aren't necessary to understand what is going on.  The problem is you then alienate the older fanbase because now their massive collection of miniatures and dusty rulebooks are effectively obsolete in the brave new world of Teltatae Phaser Firing Grav Tanks™ and 10,000 ton Wolverine Light Sword Wielding MegaMeks™.  I don't have a dog in this fight either way but I imagine its a tricky position to be in when deciding what to do with a well established franchise like Battletech.
“I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend.”

J.R.R Tolikien, The Two Towers

cavingjan

  • Sang-Wei MUL
  • Battletech Volunteer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4349
  • grumpy ESOB
    • warrenborn
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #107 on: 21 April 2017, 18:34:42 »
The Republic was supposed to die after two years.

Empyrus

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4842
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #108 on: 21 April 2017, 18:48:20 »
The Republic was supposed to die after two years.
What?
IS standard and pulse lasers: red; IS ER and X-pulses: blue; Re-engineered lasers: orange; Clan ER, pulse, and ER pulse lasers: green; Clan heavy lasers: yellow; PPCs: skyblue; PPCs w/capacitor: purplish-blue.

Death by Lasers

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 297
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #109 on: 21 April 2017, 18:57:35 »
The Republic was supposed to die after two years.

  I had no idea :o.  Considering it's fifteen years later and the Republic is still alive (for now) I wonder what changed. 

P.S. Was it also the plan to shift the story from the Republic splinter groups (Dragon's Fury, Storm-Hammerers, Highlanders, Spirit Cats, Steel Wolves, Swordsworn) to the Successor States and Clans? 
« Last Edit: 21 April 2017, 19:13:23 by Death by Lasers »
“I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend.”

J.R.R Tolikien, The Two Towers

cavingjan

  • Sang-Wei MUL
  • Battletech Volunteer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4349
  • grumpy ESOB
    • warrenborn
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #110 on: 21 April 2017, 19:44:30 »
They became popular. They were not intended to get any game pieces except a few LEs in the first few sets. No regular game pieces were originally intended for them. Obviously they changed plans and slowed the destruction.

Empyrus

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4842
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #111 on: 21 April 2017, 19:50:06 »
So, basically the idea was kind of let the players to experience the dissolution of the "Star League", perhaps? How curious.
IS standard and pulse lasers: red; IS ER and X-pulses: blue; Re-engineered lasers: orange; Clan ER, pulse, and ER pulse lasers: green; Clan heavy lasers: yellow; PPCs: skyblue; PPCs w/capacitor: purplish-blue.

Nanhold

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 16
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #112 on: 17 June 2017, 20:33:45 »
I personally loved the game, though not all aspects of the game.

It was easy to pick up, I personally like MOST of the mini's (not all by any means), and it made battletech fun to play for me again.

That being said, there were some simply BROKEN mechanics, such as "Tank Drop" that broke the game for many people.
Yeah, the "Tank Drop" went a bit too far for my suspension of disbelief as well, even though it at least seemed to be somewhat realistic when done with heavy transport VTOLs. But a light wheeled transport vehicle being able to pull a 100 ton tracked tank as if it was a mobile home? That just ain't how it's supposed to be!

Marc C

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 72
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #113 on: 09 August 2018, 09:06:20 »
For someone who had no clue what BattleTech AND had never bought a miniature wargame before, was it was a great entry point. Sure the game had issues but you could start playing in 15 minutes. No glue no paint. We had tournaments going in stores. It was great fun for a good two years.

We solved the random booster problem by doing group buys of booster crates, then opening each booster individually and splitting by faction. One faction per customer.
________________________________________________________________________________
RPG played : B/X • AD&D1e, AD&D2e, D&D3e, D&D5E • Star Frontiers • Star Wars WEG • D20 Modern • Star Wars Saga • Numenara • Ashen Stars • Coriolis the Third Horizon • Modern AGE
________________________________________________________________________________
WARGAMES played : Starfire • Cars Wars • Ogre/GEV • MechWarrior Dark Ages • 40K • Infinity • SAGA Dark Ages • Freebooters Fate • Pulp City • Dropzone Commander • Gates of Antares • BSG Space Battles

koalabirb

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 119
  • aka Borrado
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #114 on: 10 August 2018, 01:21:04 »
We solved the random booster problem by doing group buys of booster crates, then opening each booster individually and splitting by faction. One faction per customer.

I kind of think this was the idea. My assumption as a kid was that they were trying to build the same kind of community that you find in MtG.
"The master has failed more times than the beginner has even tried."

There is the right way, the wrong way, and the Lyran way. Which is to say:  The wrong way using Assault 'Mechs.

wolfcannon

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 730
    • wolfcannon's photobucket album
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #115 on: 12 April 2019, 11:01:51 »
my problem with the Fedcom civil war, Jihad and Dark Ages was the general lack of design quality of the new units being produced, and seemingly lack of maintaining current looks of many of the favorite 'Mechs such as the Panther, Firestarter etc.   And the general idea that after hundreds of years of warfare that even the vaunted SL couldnt change, all the sudden everyone drinks kool-aid and voila everyone is turning swords into plowshares Clans and Great Houses, was something i couldn't understand and felt was a concept being pushed over what all the great fans of this game was expecting.
Daniels Avenger                Clan Coyote
General Jennifer Daniels    Galaxy Commander Jim Skyes
                                        Omicron Galaxy
Clan Wolf in Exile
328th Assault Cluster(the Lion Hearted)
Star Captain James Sword

Wrangler

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 16983
  • Dang it!
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #116 on: 12 April 2019, 13:37:36 »
my problem with the Fedcom civil war, Jihad and Dark Ages was the general lack of design quality of the new units being produced, and seemingly lack of maintaining current looks of many of the favorite 'Mechs such as the Panther, Firestarter etc.   And the general idea that after hundreds of years of warfare that even the vaunted SL couldnt change, all the sudden everyone drinks kool-aid and voila everyone is turning swords into plowshares Clans and Great Houses, was something i couldn't understand and felt was a concept being pushed over what all the great fans of this game was expecting.
The looks were changed, since people in Wizkids wanted in my opinion to change it up. Effectively uglified classic mechs, canon wise were stuck with them.  Some came out ok, most did not.  Thankfully were out those woods.
"Men, fetch the Urbanmechs.  We have an interrogation to attend to." - jklantern
"How do you defeat a Dragau? Shoot the damn thing. Lots." - Jellico 
"No, it's a "Most Awesome Blues Brothers scene Reenactment EVER" waiting to happen." VotW Destrier - Weirdo  
"It's 200 LY to Sian, we got a full load of shells, a half a platoon of Grenadiers, it's exploding outside, and we're wearing flak jackets." VoTW Destrier - Misterpants

Orin J.

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2664
  • I am to feared! Aw, come on guys...
Re: Why is Dark Age/Age of Destruction disliked?
« Reply #117 on: 26 April 2019, 22:15:44 »
i'm literally always surprised reading this thread. locally, i saw no problems with the game, but the community......eegh. i always assumed that the thievery and scammers were game-wide and it was bad blood that made most people dislike it, excluding those people that were just against the game system (unfair) and the blind-box practices (fair).
The Grey Death Legion? Dead? Gotcha, wake me when it's back.....
--------------------------
Every once in a while things make sense.


Don't let these moments alarm you. They pass.

 

Register