|
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited
Gryphon
Charter Member
19567 posts |
May-20-18, 05:50 PM (EDT) |
|
"And Still More BattleTech"
|
LAST EDITED ON May-20-18 AT 05:51 PM (EDT) Do you suppose Director Espinosa already had his little public proclamation fanfare sound cued up and ready to go, or did it occurr to him at the last instant that he would need one? So that the first time you hear it during the tutorial mission, he's actually sitting in his revolutionary nerve center with his old Casiotone on his knee, improvising it on the spot?I'm guessing he thought of it beforehand, because he seems like the kind of right-wing dictator who would already have thought all of that stuff through, but it's a fun image. It's the kind of thing I would forget about until the last minute, which is one of the many reasons why I would make a lousy right-wing dictator. --G. -><- Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor-in-Chief, & Forum Mod Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/ zgryphon at that email service Google has Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam. |
|
Alert | IP |
Printer-friendly page | Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
|
|
|
Nova Floresca
Member since Sep-13-13
352 posts |
May-21-18, 12:42 PM (EDT) |
|
2. "RE: And Still More BattleTech"
In response to message #1
|
>I haven't shelled out for this yet because I am not sure whether my >gaming PC is still sufficiently l33t for it to work. If it helps any, I'm running a Radeon R9 380 and 16gb of RAM, and the game runs fine, outside of the occasional hiccup caused by poor optimization. HBS are doing a good job cleaning things up on their end for performance. > I mean there's someone who describes the game as "not BattleTech" >because autocannons are much more powerful than they were in tabletop. IMO, this is a good break from the tabletop rules, as the AC/2 and AC/5 were basically a way to waste tonnage and reduce a Mech's performance. "This is probably a stupid question, but . . ." |
|
Alert | IP |
Printer-friendly page | Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
|
|
|
|
Mephron
Charter Member
1783 posts |
May-21-18, 02:04 PM (EDT) |
|
3. "RE: And Still More BattleTech"
In response to message #2
|
>IMO, this is a good break from the tabletop rules, as the AC/2 >and AC/5 were basically a way to waste tonnage and reduce a Mech's >performance. I dunno, you could do some crazy things with an AC/2. We had gotten a Behemoth frame that was just barely functional, and put armor on it, and then got a good deal on ten AC/2s. Sure, you laugh, but that sucker helped us hugely when we needed to stop a scouting party from getting much info back on us. They didn't expect us to be able to really hit them at that distance, and the three Locusts got demolished. It's all in how you use your weapons. -- Geoff Depew - Darth Mephron Haberdasher to Androids, Dark Lord of Sith Tech Support. "And Remember! Google is your Friend!!" |
|
Alert | IP |
Printer-friendly page | Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
|
|
|
|
Gryphon
Charter Member
19567 posts |
May-21-18, 02:19 PM (EDT) |
|
5. "RE: And Still More BattleTech"
In response to message #3
|
>Sure, you laugh, but that sucker helped us hugely when we needed to >stop a scouting party from getting much info back on us. They didn't >expect us to be able to really hit them at that distance, and the >three Locusts got demolished. > >It's all in how you use your weapons. Yeah, those turrets in the new PC game that have four of them wouldn't have been a total joke in the old days, either. I think the reason I still think of AC/2s as largely worthless is because no stock implementation in the old game I can think of ever had more than two, and four points of damage at super-long range wasn't very much. Then again, death of a thousand cuts and so forth, maybe my crew and I just weren't patient enough to use them properly. :) --G. -><- Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor-in-Chief, & Forum Mod Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/ zgryphon at that email service Google has Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam. |
|
Alert | IP |
Printer-friendly page | Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
|
|
|
|
Gryphon
Charter Member
19567 posts |
May-21-18, 02:12 PM (EDT) |
|
4. "RE: And Still More BattleTech"
In response to message #1
|
LAST EDITED ON May-21-18 AT 02:13 PM (EDT) >people are >upset over the game not using exactly the same mechanics as either the >older BattleTech/MechWarrior games, or the tabletop BattleTech. Mm, I remember that being a topic of some discussion during the backer beta (and I wasn't hugely active in that, so it was probably a bigger deal than I thought at the time). I suggested that they consider adding a "use classic rules" mode toggle, but I freely accept that it would probably have been too much of a hassle to please too few people. > I mean there's someone who describes the game as "not BattleTech" >because autocannons are much more powerful than they were in tabletop. I can't prove it, but ACs do seem to have some peculiar mechanics. For instance, so far it feels like they affect 'Mechs and fortifications about like they did in the tabletop game, but are much more effective on vehicles and turrets. The starting Blackjack pretty routinely pops tanks with a couple of rounds from its AC/2s, which are... well, basically worthless in any stock implementation to be found in the original game, and still don't seem to do a whole hell of a lot to opposing 'Mechs. Maybe they have a higher crit chance or something, and I'm actually ammo-racking those tanks, World of Tanks stylee? Not sure. I could even just be imagining it, confirmation bias being what it is. I definitely feel like I've noticed it, though. >I admit I never played any of the older games, but really? The exact >weapon characteristics are what makes it BattleTech for someone, and >not, like, the setting or the broad-strokes take on combat mecha? Some people don't care about the lore in any game; to them it's all about the system. I hesitate to call this a less valid approach than any other, but it does seem to me to be the one that has the highest probability of disappointment. --G. -><- Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor-in-Chief, & Forum Mod Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/ zgryphon at that email service Google has Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam. |
|
Alert | IP |
Printer-friendly page | Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
|
|
|
|
Mercutio
Member since May-26-13
936 posts |
May-21-18, 02:46 PM (EDT) |
|
6. "RE: And Still More BattleTech"
In response to message #4
|
LAST EDITED ON May-21-18 AT 02:46 PM (EDT) >>people are >>upset over the game not using exactly the same mechanics as either the >>older BattleTech/MechWarrior games, or the tabletop BattleTech. > >Mm, I remember that being a topic of some discussion during the backer >beta (and I wasn't hugely active in that, so it was probably a bigger >deal than I thought at the time). I suggested that they consider >adding a "use classic rules" mode toggle, but I freely accept that it >would probably have been too much of a hassle to please too few >people. Especially since MegaMek is, like, right over there. Sure, it wouldn't be as pretty, but if you just want to play the tabletop game while a computer does the math for you, it's amazing. I would even argue its multiplayer is superior in scope of options and usability than BTs is. And yeah, for BT, adding a toggle for classic rules would indeed have meant a lot of hassle. I mean, it would require building in a whole separate mechanical system almost from scratch; you'd have to change cover back to "makes it harder to hit you" from "makes you take less damage," you'd have to add back in all the complexities and and fiddly bits of melee combat, which in turn pours back over to the mech designer because whether a mech has hands and actuators becomes a really big deal, you'd need the rules for lighting shit on fire (lighting woods on fire was a great move for those assholes who liked to park their mechs in heavy woods and shoot out of them at you) and on and on. > I could even just be imagining it, confirmation bias being what it is. I > definitely feel like I've noticed it, though. It's not just you. The ACs are doing SOMETHING to vehicles and turrets they aren't doing to mechs. Some sort of weird-ass through-armor crit or something. Not just the little ones, either; later in the game you start encountering some of the more absurd vehicles, and an AC/10 or AC/20 can really fuck them over in a way that energy weapons have a lot of trouble replicating. -Merc Keep Rat |
|
Alert | IP |
Printer-friendly page | Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
|
|
|
|
MoonEyes
Member since Jun-29-03
830 posts |
May-22-18, 04:55 PM (EDT) |
|
11. "RE: And Still More BattleTech"
In response to message #1
|
As you don't actually say if you've found it since, I thought I'd throw it up here. Minimum: CPU: Intel Pentium Core i3 3210 3.20GHz or AMD FX 4300 3.8GHz CPU SPEED: Info RAM: 8 GB OS: Windows 7 or Higher VIDEO CARD: NVIDIA GeForce 660 GTX or AMD Radeon HD 7850 SOUND CARD: DirectX 9 sound device FREE DISK SPACE: 15 GB Recommended:
CPU: Intel Pentium Core i5 3450 3.10GHz or AMD FX 6300 3.5GHz CPU SPEED: Info RAM: 16 GB OS: Windows 7 or Higher VIDEO CARD: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 or AMD Radeon HD 7900 Series SOUND CARD: DirectX 9 sound device FREE DISK SPACE: 15 GB
According to "Can I Run It", which also says that I can manage the minimum, but that if I want recommended, I need to upgrade the graphics card. Which is really interesting since I run games with a hell of a lot more presumed strain on that part with high levels of graphics and no issue.
...! Stoke Mandeville, Esq & The Victorian Ballsmiths "Nobody Want Verdigris-Covered Balls!"
|
|
Alert | IP |
Printer-friendly page | Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
|
|
|
Nathan
Charter Member
1335 posts |
May-21-18, 11:41 PM (EDT) |
|
9. "RE: And Still More BattleTech"
In response to message #0
|
>Do you suppose Director Espinosa already had his little public >proclamation fanfare sound cued up and ready to go, or did it occurr >to him at the last instant that he would need one? So that the first >time you hear it during the tutorial mission, he's actually sitting in >his revolutionary nerve center with his old Casiotone on his knee, >improvising it on the spot? Like James May, he has a music degree. Re: Autocannons, my envelope math suggests that on average, HBS damage is at about a 5:1 ratio with tabletop. Missiles run about twenty percent lower, and autocannons scale from par (the AC20 does 100 points) to two-and-a-half-times. Energy weapons seem to be bang-on across the board. Effectively, the game has AC5s, AC9s, AC12s, and AC20s. I'm OK with this, though I wish the heat scales weren't so punishing for, well, everything. ----- Iä! Iä! Moe fthagn! |
|
Alert | IP |
Printer-friendly page | Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
|
|
|
Mercutio
Member since May-26-13
936 posts |
May-22-18, 12:56 PM (EDT) |
|
10. "RE: And Still More BattleTech"
In response to message #9
|
>Re: Autocannons, my envelope math suggests that on average, HBS damage >is at about a 5:1 ratio with tabletop. Missiles run about twenty >percent lower, With the missiles, their relationship to the tabletop game is harder to figure out because of the way the to-hit mechanics were changed. Tabletop, you could actually whiff with an entire salvo. Just... all twenty missiles fly off course, slam into a hillside or something. And even if you made the to-hit roll, you then had to roll to see how MANY of the missiles in the salvo hit. BT makes missiles massively more consistent and therefor, in my opinion, more powerful. Every single individual missile gets its own separate to-hit roll. This means you'll rarely hit with the whole salvo, but you'll rarely miss with the whole one either, and on the bigger missile launchers it means taking even a 40% shot might be worth your time, because with twenty missiles that still means roughly eight are gonna hit. -Merc Keep Rat |
|
Alert | IP |
Printer-friendly page | Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
|
|
|
Gryphon
Charter Member
19567 posts |
May-26-18, 02:01 PM (EDT) |
|
13. "good grief"
In response to message #0
|
Given that it takes like half an hour just to load the load-saved-game screen, let alone actually load a saved game, I'm starting to suspect the game is specifically pessimized* to discourage save scumming. Also, I think it knows you're doing it and punishes you for it. I did it last night, in a fit of conscience, after completing a mission in which a guy I had literally just hired the minute before taking the job (one of the Kickstarter backers' characters) was killed... and while I was able to save him after four attempts, in every respect other than his death, it was a significantly worse outcome. But I did it anyway, and I kept it, all because of the dang MechWarrior flavor text. So rejoice, Rook. You'll never know it, but you have had the marvelous good fortune to sign on with a commander who will exert his secret, godlike power over space and time to obsessively re-fight the damn Battle of Teutoburg Forest over and over again, and accept the loss of his very own 'Mech's beloved and irreplaceable SRM6+++, to make sure your two adorable children (Hugh and Julie) are not orphaned on his watch. ... There is probably a more efficient way to play this game. :) --G. * what? That must logically be the opposite of optimized, right? -><- Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor-in-Chief, & Forum Mod Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/ zgryphon at that email service Google has Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam. |
|
Alert | IP |
Printer-friendly page | Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
trboturtle2
Member since Jul-4-09
156 posts |
May-29-18, 01:36 PM (EDT) |
|
18. "RE: good grief"
In response to message #17
|
>>>Apparently if you delete old save files it will improve performance. >>> >>>------ >>>Oh God, it was me. I was the grognard all along. >> >>That's true, the more saved files you have in the game, the slower the >>game gets.... > >I'd argue its more system memory, since disk files shouldn't be >affecting that. Then again, My knowledge might be out of date? > >What I do know is I saw a MASSIVE increase in performance after buying >a new system instead of trying to run it on my only a year old laptop; >the laptop having a I5 family cpu and 8 Gigs. The new one is an >i7-7700 w 16 They BT developers use Unity as the base program, and apparently, Unity doesn't have an in-built save system, so the developers have to put in their own save system, and that seems to be the problem..... Craig ----------------------------- Writer for BattleCorps.com and Battletech/Co-author of Outcast Ops: African Firestorm, Outcast Ops: Red Ice, Outcast Ops: Watchlist, and the soon to be released Outcast Ops: Shadow Government. All around semi-nice guy! Really!! |
|
Alert | IP |
Printer-friendly page | Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
|
|
|
|
Mercutio
Member since May-26-13
936 posts |
Jun-03-18, 09:23 PM (EDT) |
|
20. "RE: And Still More BattleTech"
In response to message #19
|
LAST EDITED ON Jun-03-18 AT 09:23 PM (EDT) This is one of the more common and more justified complaints about the procedurally generated non-campaign "this is how you makes your money" missions; it is entirely possible, and far too common, for the game to generate either unwinnable or overly brutal ones.The situation you describe isn't as enraging as some of the escort missions in which it is possible for an entire enemy reinforcement lance to spawn where a brisk walk puts them in their optimum weapons range of your protectee and they get to go first. This doesn't happen often enough for me to say "this is a bad game." But it happens often enough for me to say "mistakes were made, you dinks." -Merc Keep Rat |
|
Alert | IP |
Printer-friendly page | Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
|
|
|
|
Gryphon
Charter Member
19567 posts |
Jun-03-18, 09:44 PM (EDT) |
|
21. "RE: And Still More BattleTech"
In response to message #20
|
>This is one of the more common and more justified complaints about the >procedurally generated non-campaign "this is how you makes your money" >missions; it is entirely possible, and far too common, for the game to >generate either unwinnable or overly brutal ones.Yeah, and of course the leeter-than-thou contingent on the official boards is like "Oh, stop whining and get good, you scrubs. I like that a skull-and-a-half mission will occasionally be a million times harder than the two-and-a-half I did right before it with no warning whatsoever. It's realistic," as though "realistic" warfare were somehow what anyone showed up for. --G. -><- Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor-in-Chief, & Forum Mod Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/ zgryphon at that email service Google has Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam. |
|
Alert | IP |
Printer-friendly page | Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mercutio
Member since May-26-13
936 posts |
Jun-04-18, 02:52 AM (EDT) |
|
23. "RE: And Still More BattleTech"
In response to message #21
|
>>This is one of the more common and more justified complaints about the >>procedurally generated non-campaign "this is how you makes your money" >>missions; it is entirely possible, and far too common, for the game to >>generate either unwinnable or overly brutal ones. > >Yeah, and of course the leeter-than-thou contingent on the official >boards is like "Oh, stop whining and get good, you scrubs. I >like that a skull-and-a-half mission will occasionally be a >million times harder than the two-and-a-half I did right before it >with no warning whatsoever. It's realistic," as though >"realistic" warfare were somehow what anyone showed up for. The annoying part about those guys is that they don't seem to realize there's a difference between "the game is designed this way" and "the game is absolutely not designed this way and this emergent structure is actually detrimental to the way it is designed." HBS could have designed the game to be "there's a certain amount of swing in the missions; they will sometimes be a full skull off in either directions to reflect bad intel. The life of a mercenary is an uncertain one, plan accordingly." They could have designed it to be "very occasionally you'll drop into a mission that's just flat out unwinnable given your loadout and the terrain. Use your abort button." If the game were designed that way, you could take all of that into account, as a player, and it could fun and cool and interesting! But the thing is... it isn't designed that way. They could have but they didn't. These are, very clearly, bugs. The skull ratings are supposed to be accurate. Missions are generally speaking supposed to be winnable if you drop in with a lance that is badass enough to meet that skull rating. You're not supposed to fight your way through an escort mission and then have an enemy lance appear literally out of thin air and auto-lose it for you. These things are both not supposed to happen and are massively unfun when they do! -Merc Keep Rat |
|
Alert | IP |
Printer-friendly page | Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
|
|
|
|
Gryphon
Charter Member
19567 posts |
Jun-05-18, 00:02 AM (EDT) |
|
25. "RE: And Still More BattleTech"
In response to message #23
|
>>Yeah, and of course the leeter-than-thou contingent on the official >>boards is like "Oh, stop whining and get good, you scrubs. I >>like that a skull-and-a-half mission will occasionally be a >>million times harder than the two-and-a-half I did right before it >>with no warning whatsoever. It's realistic," as though >>"realistic" warfare were somehow what anyone showed up for. > >The annoying part about those guys is that they don't seem to realize >there's a difference between "the game is designed this way" and "the >game is absolutely not designed this way and this emergent >structure is actually detrimental to the way it is designed."Well, I hear what you're saying, but, counterpoint: The annoying part about those guys is that they're rampaging assholes. --G. -><- Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor-in-Chief, & Forum Mod Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/ zgryphon at that email service Google has Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam. |
|
Alert | IP |
Printer-friendly page | Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
|
|
|
|
|
MoonEyes
Member since Jun-29-03
830 posts |
Jun-24-18, 10:13 AM (EDT) |
|
28. "RE: And Still More BattleTech"
In response to message #0
|
Well, Dekker made it through the first mission, and made quite a few later on, something that made me happy, as he had a STACK of "modifiers", much more so than any of the other starting MechWarriors. But, yesterday, it finally became too much for him. He got absolutely HAMMERED, and his mech shot completely to scrap. So, RIP Dekker(and no, I can't load a save-game, unfortunately). ...! Stoke Mandeville, Esq & The Victorian Ballsmiths "Nobody Want Verdigris-Covered Balls!" |
|
Alert | IP |
Printer-friendly page | Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
|
|
|
Gryphon
Charter Member
19567 posts |
Jun-24-18, 01:53 PM (EDT) |
|
29. "RE: And Still More BattleTech"
In response to message #28
|
RL DESTROYED KNOCKDOWN: MECHWARRIOR INJURED LRM AMMO DESTROYED LRM AMMO EXPLOSION! AMMO EXPLOSION: MECHWARRIOR INJURED RT DESTROYED SIDE TORSO DESTROYED: MECHWARRIOR INJURED MG AMMO DESTROYED MG AMMO EXPLOSION! AMMO EXPLOSION: MECHWARRIOR INJURED CT DESTROYED PILOT INCAPACITATED!"And stay down!" ... Yeah, uh, no worries, Glitch. I'm pretty sure he's going to. --G. -><- Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor-in-Chief, & Forum Mod Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/ zgryphon at that email service Google has Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam. |
|
Alert | IP |
Printer-friendly page | Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
trboturtle2
Member since Jul-4-09
156 posts |
Jun-26-18, 07:21 PM (EDT) |
|
34. "RE: And Still More BattleTech"
In response to message #33
|
>>"And stay down!" >> >>... Yeah, uh, no worries, Glitch. I'm pretty sure he's going to. > >She enjoys her job. A lot. > >Matrix Dragon, J. Random Nutter She's a Psycho, but she's our psycho... Craig (Who awaits the release of the BT TT products coming out this year.....)
----------------------------- Writer for BattleCorps.com and Battletech/Co-author of Outcast Ops: African Firestorm, Outcast Ops: Red Ice, Outcast Ops: Watchlist, and the soon to be released Outcast Ops: Shadow Government. All around semi-nice guy! Really!! |
|
Alert | IP |
Printer-friendly page | Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
|
|
|
|
Gryphon
Charter Member
19567 posts |
Jun-26-18, 07:24 PM (EDT) |
|
35. "RE: And Still More BattleTech"
In response to message #34
|
LAST EDITED ON Jun-26-18 AT 07:27 PM (EDT) >>>"And stay down!" >>> >>>... Yeah, uh, no worries, Glitch. I'm pretty sure he's going to. >> >>She enjoys her job. A lot. > >She's a Psycho, but she's our psycho... "Let's get this over with so we can go swimming!" I had the system get slightly confused* and play that line when we were dropping on an ice planet once, which was extra-funny. I choose to believe that snow-hating Medusa ("shoulda brought a coat...") gave his comm panel a really skeptical look at that moment. --G. * you might say it was a... no, I can't do it -><- Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor-in-Chief, & Forum Mod Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/ zgryphon at that email service Google has Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam. |
|
Alert | IP |
Printer-friendly page | Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
|
|
|
Mercutio
Member since May-26-13
936 posts |
Jun-28-18, 05:04 PM (EDT) |
|
36. "Balance Changes Incoming"
In response to message #0
|
So Patch 1.1 is out in Beta, and there's a whole bunch of QOL, bug fixes, and balance changes available. You can check out the notes here for yourselves! Of particular note, but in no particular order:
- The procedurally generated missions are getting tweaked in difficulty and availability. You should no longer get instant-lose spawns on escort missions, for example.
- All mechs heavier than a light are receiving substantial buffs both to their inherent stability and to their stability recovery. This change is controversial; stability-damage builds were probably way too good (I have had enormous success in multiplayer with them) but this might be an over-correction, nerfing them into total uselessness.
- A whole bunch of weapons got a whole lot of buffs. In fact, the only weapon nerfs were to flamers (heat builds could be nasty) and to the ML, which got a 20% heat increase. Every single other weapon they touched got a buff. The hugest winner here is undoubtedly the Large Laser; it's heat cost was nearly HALVED, dropping from 30 all the way down to 18. The LL is likely to see a big, big resurgence.
- As a big fan of missile boats, I'm not sure about the small buff the LRM-15 got; it's already the most weight-efficient LRM. (Two LRM-15s are always better than either a LRM-20 and a LRM-10 or three LRM-10s.) And not touching the LRM-20 at all extremely disfavors it compared to the smaller ones.
I'm quite happy they're going to continue tweaking and updating. -Merc Keep Rat |
|
Alert | IP |
Printer-friendly page | Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
|
|
|
|
version 3.3 © 2001
Eyrie Productions,
Unlimited
Benjamin
D. Hutchins
E P U (Colour)
|