[ EPU Foyer ] [ Lab and Grill ] [ Bonus Theater!! ] [ Rhetorical Questions ] [ CSRANTronix ] [ GNDN ] [ Subterranean Vault ] [ Discussion Forum ] [ Gun of the Week ]

Eyrie Productions, Unlimited

Subject: "And Still More BattleTech"     Previous Topic | Next Topic
Printer-friendly copy    
Conferences Games Topic #134
Reading Topic #134
Gryphonadmin
Charter Member
19567 posts
May-20-18, 05:50 PM (EDT)
Click to EMail Gryphon Click to send private message to Gryphon Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
"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

  Subject     Author     Message Date     ID  
  RE: And Still More BattleTech zwol May-21-18 1
     RE: And Still More BattleTech Nova Floresca May-21-18 2
         RE: And Still More BattleTech Mephronmoderator May-21-18 3
             RE: And Still More BattleTech Gryphonadmin May-21-18 5
     RE: And Still More BattleTech Gryphonadmin May-21-18 4
         RE: And Still More BattleTech Mercutio May-21-18 6
             RE: And Still More BattleTech Nova Floresca May-21-18 7
                 RE: And Still More BattleTech Mercutio May-21-18 8
     RE: And Still More BattleTech MoonEyes May-22-18 11
  RE: And Still More BattleTech Nathan May-21-18 9
     RE: And Still More BattleTech Mercutio May-22-18 10
         RE: And Still More BattleTech Nathan May-22-18 12
  good grief Gryphonadmin May-26-18 13
     RE: good grief McFortner May-26-18 14
     RE: good grief Bad Moon May-27-18 15
         RE: good grief trboturtle2 May-27-18 16
             RE: good grief Star Ranger4 May-29-18 17
                 RE: good grief trboturtle2 May-29-18 18
  RE: And Still More BattleTech Gryphonadmin Jun-03-18 19
     RE: And Still More BattleTech Mercutio Jun-03-18 20
         RE: And Still More BattleTech Gryphonadmin Jun-03-18 21
             RE: And Still More BattleTech trboturtle2 Jun-03-18 22
                 RE: And Still More BattleTech Bad Moon Jun-04-18 24
             RE: And Still More BattleTech Mercutio Jun-04-18 23
                 RE: And Still More BattleTech Gryphonadmin Jun-05-18 25
                     RE: And Still More BattleTech Matrix Dragon Jun-05-18 26
                         RE: And Still More BattleTech Star Ranger4 Jun-11-18 27
  RE: And Still More BattleTech MoonEyes Jun-24-18 28
     RE: And Still More BattleTech Gryphonadmin Jun-24-18 29
         RE: And Still More BattleTech Verbena Jun-24-18 30
             RE: And Still More BattleTech Gryphonadmin Jun-24-18 31
                 RE: And Still More BattleTech Verbena Jun-24-18 32
         RE: And Still More BattleTech Matrix Dragon Jun-25-18 33
             RE: And Still More BattleTech trboturtle2 Jun-26-18 34
                 RE: And Still More BattleTech Gryphonadmin Jun-26-18 35
                     RE: And Still More BattleTech Matrix Dragon Jun-29-18 38
  Balance Changes Incoming Mercutio Jun-28-18 36
     RE: Balance Changes Incoming Pasha Jun-28-18 37

Conferences | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic
zwol
Member since Feb-24-12
224 posts
May-21-18, 12:09 PM (EDT)
Click to EMail zwol Click to send private message to zwol Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
1. "RE: And Still More BattleTech"
In response to message #0
 
   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. Last night I was paging through online reviews trying to figure out what the real hardware requirements are, and I didn't have any luck, because that kind of information is swamped by how many people are upset over the game not using exactly the same mechanics as either the older BattleTech/MechWarrior games, or the tabletop BattleTech. I mean there's someone who describes the game as "not BattleTech" because autocannons are much more powerful than they were in tabletop.

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? What.


  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)
Click to EMail Nova%20Floresca Click to send private message to Nova%20Floresca Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
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
Mephronmoderator
Charter Member
1783 posts
May-21-18, 02:04 PM (EDT)
Click to EMail Mephron Click to send private message to Mephron Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list Click to send message via AOL IM  
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
Gryphonadmin
Charter Member
19567 posts
May-21-18, 02:19 PM (EDT)
Click to EMail Gryphon Click to send private message to Gryphon Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
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
Gryphonadmin
Charter Member
19567 posts
May-21-18, 02:12 PM (EDT)
Click to EMail Gryphon Click to send private message to Gryphon Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
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)
Click to EMail Mercutio Click to send private message to Mercutio Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
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
Nova Floresca
Member since Sep-13-13
352 posts
May-21-18, 05:25 PM (EDT)
Click to EMail Nova%20Floresca Click to send private message to Nova%20Floresca Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
7. "RE: And Still More BattleTech"
In response to message #6
 
   >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.

I think it might be due to stability damage- try whaling on a vehicle with a Grasshopper or Discoback and see how much it soaks up, but ACs and PPCs make the vehicles into fireworks. Whatever it is, I feel it must be coded to just look at the "tooltip" stability damage, because missiles don't seem to get a noticeable bump. Granted, when firing missiles, it's usually "enough to statistically guarantee a kill, plus another 20 or so".

"This is probably a stupid question, but . . ."


  Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
Mercutio
Member since May-26-13
936 posts
May-21-18, 05:49 PM (EDT)
Click to EMail Mercutio Click to send private message to Mercutio Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
8. "RE: And Still More BattleTech"
In response to message #7
 
   >I think it might be due to stability damage- try whaling on a vehicle
>with a Grasshopper or Discoback and see how much it soaks up, but ACs
>and PPCs make the vehicles into fireworks.

Yeah, that's an angle I hadn't considered, especially since PPCs also seem to have that blowthrough quality and I believe they're the only energy weapon that does stab damage.

-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)
Click to EMail MoonEyes Click to send private message to MoonEyes Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
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)
Click to EMail Nathan Click to send private message to Nathan Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
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)
Click to EMail Mercutio Click to send private message to Mercutio Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
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
Nathan
Charter Member
1335 posts
May-22-18, 05:15 PM (EDT)
Click to EMail Nathan Click to send private message to Nathan Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
12. "RE: And Still More BattleTech"
In response to message #10
 
   >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.

Yeah, the relative decrease in the effectiveness of each hit basically comes out in the wash, or even gets a bit overcorrected for by that.

-----
Iä! Iä! Moe fthagn!


  Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
Gryphonadmin
Charter Member
19567 posts
May-26-18, 02:01 PM (EDT)
Click to EMail Gryphon Click to send private message to Gryphon Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
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
McFortner
Charter Member
479 posts
May-26-18, 04:06 PM (EDT)
Click to EMail McFortner Click to send private message to McFortner Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list Click to send message via ICQ  
14. "RE: good grief"
In response to message #13
 
   >pessimized

Oh, I like that term. I can now see myself using it a lot.

Michael C. Fortner
"Maxim 37: There is no such thing as "overkill".
There is only "open fire" and "I need to reload".


  Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
Bad Moon
Member since Dec-17-02
308 posts
May-27-18, 00:01 AM (EDT)
Click to EMail Bad%20Moon Click to send private message to Bad%20Moon Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list Click to send message via AOL IM  
15. "RE: good grief"
In response to message #13
 
   Apparently if you delete old save files it will improve performance.

------
Oh God, it was me. I was the grognard all along.


  Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
trboturtle2
Member since Jul-4-09
156 posts
May-27-18, 00:39 AM (EDT)
Click to EMail trboturtle2 Click to send private message to trboturtle2 Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list Click to send message via AOL IM  
16. "RE: good grief"
In response to message #15
 
   >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....

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
Star Ranger4
Charter Member
2240 posts
May-29-18, 11:45 AM (EDT)
Click to EMail Star%20Ranger4 Click to send private message to Star%20Ranger4 Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list Click to send message via AOL IM  
17. "RE: good grief"
In response to message #16
 
   >>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


Of COURSE you wernt expecting it!
No One expects the FANNISH INQUISITION!
RCW# 86


  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)
Click to EMail trboturtle2 Click to send private message to trboturtle2 Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list Click to send message via AOL IM  
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
Gryphonadmin
Charter Member
19567 posts
Jun-03-18, 00:52 AM (EDT)
Click to EMail Gryphon Click to send private message to Gryphon Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
19. "RE: And Still More BattleTech"
In response to message #0
 
   - "Don't let the dude escape"
- Said dude spawns within sprinting distance of his evac point
- And gets to move before us when we make enemy contact

I, uh... don't see any way of winning this one.

--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-03-18, 09:23 PM (EDT)
Click to EMail Mercutio Click to send private message to Mercutio Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
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
Gryphonadmin
Charter Member
19567 posts
Jun-03-18, 09:44 PM (EDT)
Click to EMail Gryphon Click to send private message to Gryphon Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
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
trboturtle2
Member since Jul-4-09
156 posts
Jun-03-18, 11:31 PM (EDT)
Click to EMail trboturtle2 Click to send private message to trboturtle2 Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list Click to send message via AOL IM  
22. "RE: And Still More BattleTech"
In response to message #21
 
   Remember, the game involves multiple-tone walking tanks......so "realistic" is a relative term......

Craig
(Still, it's a fun place to go around in, can't wait to see what they do next.....)

-----------------------------
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
Bad Moon
Member since Dec-17-02
308 posts
Jun-04-18, 11:33 PM (EDT)
Click to EMail Bad%20Moon Click to send private message to Bad%20Moon Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list Click to send message via AOL IM  
24. "RE: And Still More BattleTech"
In response to message #22
 
   Battletech grogs crying about verisimilitude in their stompy robot games is the funniest thing.

------
Oh God, it was me. I was the grognard all along.


  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)
Click to EMail Mercutio Click to send private message to Mercutio Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
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
Gryphonadmin
Charter Member
19567 posts
Jun-05-18, 00:02 AM (EDT)
Click to EMail Gryphon Click to send private message to Gryphon Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
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
Matrix Dragon
Charter Member
1749 posts
Jun-05-18, 02:46 AM (EDT)
Click to EMail Matrix%20Dragon Click to send private message to Matrix%20Dragon Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
26. "RE: And Still More BattleTech"
In response to message #25
 
   >Well, I hear what you're saying, but, counterpoint: The annoying part
>about those guys is that they're rampaging assholes.

Yeah, they know that's not a deliberate design choice, but it's a chance for them to wave their e-penis in peoples faces, and they're the kind of asses that live for such opportunities!

Matrix Dragon, J. Random Nutter


  Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
Star Ranger4
Charter Member
2240 posts
Jun-11-18, 12:16 PM (EDT)
Click to EMail Star%20Ranger4 Click to send private message to Star%20Ranger4 Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list Click to send message via AOL IM  
27. "RE: And Still More BattleTech"
In response to message #26
 
   >>Well, I hear what you're saying, but, counterpoint: The annoying part
>>about those guys is that they're rampaging assholes.
>
>Yeah, they know that's not a deliberate design choice, but it's a
>chance for them to wave their e-penis in peoples faces, and they're
>the kind of asses that live for such opportunities!
>
Ie the kind that wine bitch and cheese about "That Accomplishment should have Been called 'I'll bite your kneecaps' not 'We'll call it a draw'"?

Though I admit I was kind of disappointed that it was the latter, not the former.


Of COURSE you wernt expecting it!
No One expects the FANNISH INQUISITION!
RCW# 86


  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)
Click to EMail MoonEyes Click to send private message to MoonEyes Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
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
Gryphonadmin
Charter Member
19567 posts
Jun-24-18, 01:53 PM (EDT)
Click to EMail Gryphon Click to send private message to Gryphon Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
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
Verbena
Charter Member
803 posts
Jun-24-18, 02:18 PM (EDT)
Click to EMail Verbena Click to send private message to Verbena Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
30. "RE: And Still More BattleTech"
In response to message #29
 
   Yeah, I'm still very early in the game, but I've had that kind of hit happen to me. :/

------
Fearless creatures, we all learn to fight the Reaper
Can't defeat Her, so instead I'll have to be Her


  Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
Gryphonadmin
Charter Member
19567 posts
Jun-24-18, 02:32 PM (EDT)
Click to EMail Gryphon Click to send private message to Gryphon Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
31. "RE: And Still More BattleTech"
In response to message #30
 
   >Yeah, I'm still very early in the game, but I've had that kind of hit
>happen to me. :/

It's much more satisfying when it happens to the enemy; only the individual player can decide whether the possibility is worth the trade.

--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
Verbena
Charter Member
803 posts
Jun-24-18, 09:02 PM (EDT)
Click to EMail Verbena Click to send private message to Verbena Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
32. "RE: And Still More BattleTech"
In response to message #31
 
   Let's just say I am an unapologetic save scummer. And the mere fact that there is not always an autosave before every battle drives me insane.

------
Fearless creatures, we all learn to fight the Reaper
Can't defeat Her, so instead I'll have to be Her


  Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
Matrix Dragon
Charter Member
1749 posts
Jun-25-18, 07:34 AM (EDT)
Click to EMail Matrix%20Dragon Click to send private message to Matrix%20Dragon Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
33. "RE: And Still More BattleTech"
In response to message #29
 
   >"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


  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)
Click to EMail trboturtle2 Click to send private message to trboturtle2 Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list Click to send message via AOL IM  
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
Gryphonadmin
Charter Member
19567 posts
Jun-26-18, 07:24 PM (EDT)
Click to EMail Gryphon Click to send private message to Gryphon Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
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
Matrix Dragon
Charter Member
1749 posts
Jun-29-18, 07:49 AM (EDT)
Click to EMail Matrix%20Dragon Click to send private message to Matrix%20Dragon Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
38. "RE: And Still More BattleTech"
In response to message #35
 
   >"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.

PPCs are how you make your own hot springs!

Matrix Dragon, J. Random Nutter


  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)
Click to EMail Mercutio Click to send private message to Mercutio Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
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
Pasha
Charter Member
988 posts
Jun-28-18, 06:57 PM (EDT)
Click to EMail Pasha Click to send private message to Pasha Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list Click to send message via ICQ  
37. "RE: Balance Changes Incoming"
In response to message #36
 
   >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!

I'm so happy they included an ironman mode, and the smoke optimization sounds great.


--
-Pasha
"Don't change the subject"
"Too slow, already did."


  Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Conferences | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic

[ YUM ] [ BIG ] [ ??!? ] [ RANT ] [ GNDN ] [ STORE ] [ FORUM ] GOTW ] [ VAULT ]

version 3.3 © 2001
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited
Benjamin D. Hutchins
E P U (Colour)