Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[MechWarrior/BATTLETECH] THREAD DESIGNATED FOR DISASSEMBLY, SEE NEW THREAD

19091939596100

Posts

  • ButtcleftButtcleft Registered User regular
    Nips wrote: »
    Trajan45 wrote: »
    Battletech is going to be all innersphere right? no clans?

    It's the 3025 Succession War era. So no clans, none of the "advanced" tech.

    Ehhhhhh, maybe. We don't know the progression of the campaign, and it's entirely feasible (given what we saw in the Backer Beta game files) that some Star League era equipment could show up.

    Find a Castle Brian/Brian Cache and revel in your superiority.

    Until a couple bad criticals ruins everything forever..

    that's it, I'm shutting this entire forum down, everyone thank buttcleft
    H3KnucklesBigity
  • SiliconStewSiliconStew Registered User regular
    Nips wrote: »
    Trajan45 wrote: »
    Battletech is going to be all innersphere right? no clans?

    It's the 3025 Succession War era. So no clans, none of the "advanced" tech.

    Ehhhhhh, maybe. We don't know the progression of the campaign, and it's entirely feasible (given what we saw in the Backer Beta game files) that some Star League era equipment could show up.

    I suppose you could argue the +/++ equipment is already the "StarLeague quality" stuff compared to the common 3025 equipment. But if there is any actual LosTech stuff, it better be rare.

    Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
  • FiendishrabbitFiendishrabbit Registered User regular
    I'm so starved for Mechwarrior gameplay that I'm even willing to watch a Hack like CohhCarnage muddle his way through the missions without taking mech loadouts (or their effective ranges) or mech specialties into regard.

    "The western world sips from a poisonous cocktail: Polarisation, populism, protectionism and post-truth"
    -Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
  • ButtcleftButtcleft Registered User regular
    Nips wrote: »
    Trajan45 wrote: »
    Battletech is going to be all innersphere right? no clans?

    It's the 3025 Succession War era. So no clans, none of the "advanced" tech.

    Ehhhhhh, maybe. We don't know the progression of the campaign, and it's entirely feasible (given what we saw in the Backer Beta game files) that some Star League era equipment could show up.

    I suppose you could argue the +/++ equipment is already the "StarLeague quality" stuff compared to the common 3025 equipment. But if there is any actual LosTech stuff, it better be rare.

    a 100% original and complete Mackie.

    that's it, I'm shutting this entire forum down, everyone thank buttcleft
    NipsElldrenstopgap
  • NotoriusBENNotoriusBEN Registered User regular
    Here's Sidalpha's little vid on the Harmony Gold / Battletech lawsuit that might be a bit easier to digest.

    Basically HG didn't have their ducks in a row before they filed their lawsuit because they assumed they owned everything (they don't)
    Harebrained Schemes is countering by filing a couple summaries of judgement based on lack of standing to file copyright infringement (Because the stuff they are fighting over was given to Big West by Tokunoku (sp?)


    a4irovn5uqjp.png
    Steam - NotoriusBEN | Uplay - notoriusben | Xbox,Windows Live - ThatBEN
  • JacobkoshJacobkosh Gamble a stamp. I can show you how to be a real man!Moderator mod
    I'm so starved for Mechwarrior gameplay that I'm even willing to watch a Hack like CohhCarnage muddle his way through the missions without taking mech loadouts (or their effective ranges) or mech specialties into regard.

    I like watching him. He's an entertaining dude who isn't some screaming Twitch teenager and he's learning the game as he goes. I don't get this weird attitude that BT people are copping where they're getting mad that someone isn't born knowing how to play this incredibly complicated game. A lot of Battletech is weird and kind of unintuitive to people who aren't steeped in it! And the game's tutorial is very thin and it could probably use a lot more tooltips (mousing over the initiative bar doesn't explain the initiative system, for instance, which is a glaring omission).

    TynnanA Dabble Of TheloniusElldrenH3KnucklesUndead MonkeyklemmingTulabelleKonphujun
  • IoloIolo iolo Registered User regular
    edited April 2018
    So for folks who watched CohhCarnage or who have been theorizing BT loadouts, does max front armor for most everyone make sense? That certainly seems sensible when you've got to foot the bills for internal structure and components that get blowned up. I mean, if you had a Catapault just hanging back and lobbing LRMs, maybe something else. But everyone who'll be within shooting range?

    EDIT: Sorry, meant maxing out front armor, over any default values. Not talking about stripping down the backs. Less weapons, heat sinks, etc. for more front armor.

    Iolo on
  • TynnanTynnan seldom correct, never unsure Registered User regular
    It's hard to say, since the AI on the press preview version might be different from release. But on stream, the AI was definitely willing to prioritize attacking rear armor when that was an option in a brawl. It also tended to pursue the most-damaged mech in Cohh's lance to try and land structural shots at the expense of its own survival, even if that mech was hanging back a bit.

  • ToxTox I kill threads Punch DimensionRegistered User regular
    Iolo wrote: »
    So for folks who wathced CohhCarnage or who have been theorizing BT loadouts, does max front armor for most everyone make sense? That certainly seems sensible when you've got to foot the bills for internal structure and components that get blowned up. I mean, if you had a Catapault just hanging back and lobbing LRMs, maybe something else. But everyone who'll be within shooting range?

    Just from watching @Nips I can tell you that having no back armor is a bad idea. To have the best tactical position as often as possible, you're going to try to give up your side some times, and inevitably there will be a 'mech that manages to eek themselves just into your rear arc and no back armor means you're gonna have a bad time.

    Now, I don't know what that level is, whether it's MWO levels or 25% rear or what, but it's definitely something you want to be cognizant off. Having much higher armor values also allows you to be much more granular in the process as well.

    Wishlists! General | Gaming | Comics | Twitter! | Dilige, et quod vis fac
    Gnome-InterruptusElvenshaeNipsH3Knuckles
  • ButtcleftButtcleft Registered User regular
    yeah absolutely do not base armor values off MWO, its an arcade first person shooter where every pull of the trigger is literally a expert marksman called shot.

    in battletech almost all weapons fire is randomly distributed across a chunk of the mech.

    that's it, I'm shutting this entire forum down, everyone thank buttcleft
    ElvenshaeGeneral_ArmchairElldrenH3Knuckles
  • FiendishrabbitFiendishrabbit Registered User regular
    edited April 2018
    Iolo wrote: »
    So for folks who watched CohhCarnage or who have been theorizing BT loadouts, does max front armor for most everyone make sense? That certainly seems sensible when you've got to foot the bills for internal structure and components that get blowned up. I mean, if you had a Catapault just hanging back and lobbing LRMs, maybe something else. But everyone who'll be within shooting range?

    EDIT: Sorry, meant maxing out front armor, over any default values. Not talking about stripping down the backs. Less weapons, heat sinks, etc. for more front armor.

    But more armor means less firepower, and less firepower means longer fights which means more damage taken, which means more armor damage to repair AND more structural damage to repair. On top of that, there is only so much punching a mech can take before the pilot ends up being too banged up.

    Generally brawlers (Ex: Cataphract) and Juggernauts (ex:Atlas) feature the most armor (and the most back armor) as their role is to go in and slug it out at short range. The slower and bigger juggernauts usually have some long range capability as well (the Atlas LRM20), but it pales before their short range capabilities (In the case of the Atlas, an AC20, which can one-shot anything smaller than a heavy and do terrible damage to enemy assault mechs).

    Long range support generally has less armor (LRM boats least of all), and it's generally more front loaded since it's harder to get in behind them in their intended role.

    P.S: Always max cockpit armor regardless of role.
    P.P.S: As a light mech, SIL. Never stop moving, Speed Is Life.

    Fiendishrabbit on
    "The western world sips from a poisonous cocktail: Polarisation, populism, protectionism and post-truth"
    -Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
    ElvenshaeH3Knuckles
  • InquisitorInquisitor Registered User regular
    I'm not sure how exactly it's going to work in the computer game, but in general speed is life for all mechs, it's just extra pronounced for light mechs. For most mechs you can at least break even on your movement, or skew the odds in your favor, and it's pretty much always worth doing. It's one of the things that makes Battletech so good. Stationary gunlines are boring, movement makes things dynamic.

    With this being a campaign game I can see maxing cockpit armor, but, for one off games I'll totally shave points off of the head armor, maybe one or two, to make something fit. Or, on a light enough mech you might as well slim the head armor down a bunch because getting hit just about anywhere is going to take you out of commission, head or not.

  • AxenAxen My avatar is Excalibur. Yes, the sword.Registered User regular
    I think I gotta side with Rogal Dorn on defense.




    Hrgghh! This wait for stompy-bots is unbearable!

    Elldren
  • IoloIolo iolo Registered User regular
    Right, but armor damage is free to repair. It may be worth a modest reduction in firepower, which one hopes can be overcome by outsmarting the AI and focus-firing the enemy out of the fight, to minimize internal damage in battles.

    I'm just talking about the single-player campaign here, mind.

  • InquisitorInquisitor Registered User regular
    Armor is free to repair? I wasn’t expecting that but that’s nice of them.

  • ToxTox I kill threads Punch DimensionRegistered User regular
    Inquisitor wrote: »
    Armor is free to repair? I wasn’t expecting that but that’s nice of them.

    yup, and maybe ammo is free to replace? I think?

    Wishlists! General | Gaming | Comics | Twitter! | Dilige, et quod vis fac
  • JacobkoshJacobkosh Gamble a stamp. I can show you how to be a real man!Moderator mod
    edited April 2018
    Ammo comes in bins, which are not free to replace, but the shots don't get used up; it's just that the bins can be destroyed in combat.

    So like, you aren't tracking individual bullets, because holy shit boring, but if you stick both your AC/20 bins in your hunchback and they get blown up, then you don't have AC/20 ammo anymore.

    Jacobkosh on
    TynnanElldrenMoridin889ElvenshaeBigity
  • InquisitorInquisitor Registered User regular
    Jacobkosh wrote: »
    Ammo comes in bins, which are not free to replace, but the shots don't get used up; it's just that the bins can be destroyed in combat.

    So like, you aren't tracking individual bullets, because holy shit boring, but if you stick both your AC/20 bins in your hunchback and they get blown up, then you don't have AC/20 ammo anymore.

    Pfffft what is this amateur hour? I want to match the correct caliber of ac20 ammo on a per manufacturer basis.

    AxenNipsHahnsoo1
  • AxenAxen My avatar is Excalibur. Yes, the sword.Registered User regular
    Inquisitor wrote: »
    Jacobkosh wrote: »
    Ammo comes in bins, which are not free to replace, but the shots don't get used up; it's just that the bins can be destroyed in combat.

    So like, you aren't tracking individual bullets, because holy shit boring, but if you stick both your AC/20 bins in your hunchback and they get blown up, then you don't have AC/20 ammo anymore.

    Pfffft what is this amateur hour? I want to match the correct caliber of ac20 ammo on a per manufacturer basis.

    Right?

    I guarantee the supply officer and accountant are not going to appreciate this lackadaisical approach to inventory management. Heads will roll I say!

    NipsElvenshae
  • NipsNips Luxuriating in existential crisis.Registered User regular
    edited April 2018
    Re: Max Armor vs. Reduced Firepower

    Since BATTLETECH uses the hit location system from tabletop, it is never disadvantageous to have maximum armor. If you strip, say 20% of max armor from a 'Mech, you're generally only saving a ton or two unless we're talking about Assaults. And that reduction in armor means that a large-bore hit is much more likely to punch through and start working your internals.

    The only time it is safe to lower the armor on a section, in my opinion, is one of the following:
    1. Dead-Siding a 'Mech's build. And then, only from the Arm; the Torso is more likely to get hit (both through to-hit tables, and after you lose the arm) and should be maximally armored.
    2. Removing a handful of tons from the legs of an Assault. Leg armor is overabundant on Assaults due to the construction rules, and only a little more likely to get hit than an arm.

    Therefore: Always max armor your torsos and head. Usually max armor your arms and legs.

    This has been a message from your friendly paper-pusher, who wishes to see all of your 'Mechs return from the fucking field of battle.

    Nips on
    JXUBxMxP0QndjQUEnTwTxOkfKmx8kWNvuc-FUtbSz_23_DAhGKe7W9spFKLXAtkpTBqM8Dt6kQrv-rS69Hi3FheL3fays2xTeVUvWR7g5UyLHnFA0frGk1BC12GYdOSRn9lbaJB-uH0htiLPJMrc9cSRsIgk5Dx7jg9K8rJVfG43lkeAWxTgcolNscW9KO2UZjKT8GMbYAFgFvu2TaMoLH8LBA5p2pm6VNYRsQK3QGjCsze1TOv2yIbCazmDwCHmjiQxNDf6LHP35msyiXo3CxuWs9Y8DQvJjvj10kWaspRNlWHKjS5w9Y0KLuIkhQKOxgaDziG290v4zBmTi-i7OfDz-foqIqKzC9wTbn9i_uU87GRitmrNAJdzRRsaTW5VQu_XX_5gCN8XCoNyu5RWWVGTsjJuyezz1_NpFa903Uj2TnFqnL1wJ-RZiFAAd2Bdut-G1pdQtdQihsq2dx_BjtmtGC3KZRyylO1t2c12dhfb0rStq4v8pg46ciOcdtT_1qm85IgUmGd7AmgLxCFPb0xnxWZvr26G-oXSqrQdjKA1zNIInSowiHcbUO2O8S5LRJVR6vQiEg0fbGXw4vqJYEn917tnzHMh8r0xom8BLKMvoFDelk6wbEeNq8w8Eyu2ouGjEMIvvJcb2az2AKQ1uE_7gdatfKG2QdvfdSBRSc35MQ=w498-h80-no
    ToxInquisitorGnome-InterruptusElldrenOrogogusTynnannonoffensiveBonepartH3KnucklesMoridin889IoloHyphyKezzyElvenshae
  • ElldrenElldren Is a woman dammit I'm a good person yes it's trueRegistered User regular
    H3Knuckles wrote: »
    Activision made Mechwarrior, Mechwarrior 3050, MW2, & 2-Mercenaries (actually a full game merely built on the same engine as 2, not an expansion), right up until FASA clawed back the license for their own start-up videogame studio FASA Studios. We know it wasn't a decision on Activision's part because they immediately turned around and picked up the Heavy Gear license to try and keep the money rolling.

    FASA Studios made MW3 & 4 with Microsoft as the publisher, as well as Mechcommander, & Mechassault 1 & 2. Like I said, they had a big flop with the Shadowrun game released during Xbox 360's launch, and Microsoft was closing down a lot of subsidiaries and ending second-party relationships (remember Lionhead or Bizarre Creations?) around that time in order to focus on the Halo-sized successes, so FASA Studios got axed.

    PGI made MWO, and now they are making MW5. They seem to be doing alright business-wise despite these being pretty much their sole properties.

    So, basically, the underpinning points of what you're saying are bogus?

    Edit to add: I'll agree there probably hasn't been a ton of interest from larger companies in the Battletech/Mechwarrior properties since Microsoft, but I think that has more to do with the niche-ness of the genre than industry opinions on the property itself, as it's been the most enduringly successful IP in the field. Earth/Starsiege became Tribes, Heavy Gear was a disappointment, Command & Conquer has never revisited the time period of 3. You get one-offs like Iron Brigade, Brigador, or Scythe from time to time, but unless we count Titanfall (debateable when there's only two main series games, some mobile spin-offs, & the first was considerably more successful than any other entry), there's no other "big" lasting franchise to have emerged outside Japan that I'm aware of. The closest I can think of is the steampunk-fantasy miniatures wargame Warmachine and that's such a dramatic style and setting shift that I would argue that it doesn't really count as the same genre.

    I mean, everything about Heavy Gear (tabletop, PC, and TV show) kinda disproves your point about the disposability of the Battletech IP because it tried to do what you're suggesting, and was never as big a success.

    It’s also a truism that big publishers would much rather own the IP than license it, and there’s no way anyone else is going to leverage the Battletech IP away from a giant like Microsoft. And Microsoft is clearly disinterested in developing the IP in-house, something which has less to do with the inherent qualities of the property and a lot to do with the actual people doing in-house dev at MS.

    I remember one of the heads of business development at Paradox talking about their interest in HBS and it was very clear that they were developing a relationship despite them using the Battletech IP rather than because of it because from Paradox’s perspective they’d rather own the IP themselves.

    fuck gendered marketing
    H3KnucklesBasilElvenshae
  • MortiousMortious The Nightmare Begins Move to New ZealandRegistered User regular
    Nips wrote: »
    Re: Max Armor vs. Reduced Firepower

    Since BATTLETECH uses the hit location system from tabletop, it is never disadvantageous to have maximum armor. If you strip, say 20% of max armor from a 'Mech, you're generally only saving a ton or two unless we're talking about Assaults. And that reduction in armor means that a large-bore hit is much more likely to punch through and start working your internals.

    The only time it is safe to lower the armor on a section, in my opinion, is one of the following:
    1. Dead-Siding a 'Mech's build. And then, only from the Arm; the Torso is more likely to get hit (both through to-hit tables, and after you lose the arm) and should be maximally armored.
    2. Removing a handful of tons from the legs of an Assault. Leg armor is overabundant on Assaults due to the construction rules, and only a little more likely to get hit than an arm.

    Therefore: Always max armor your torsos and head. Usually max armor your arms and legs.

    This has been a message from your friendly paper-pusher, who wishes to see all of your 'Mechs return from the fucking field of battle.

    No one ever shoots the legs. Strip those things to the bone.

    Move to New Zealand
    It’s not a very important country most of the time
    http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
  • ElldrenElldren Is a woman dammit I'm a good person yes it's trueRegistered User regular
    Mortious wrote: »
    Nips wrote: »
    Re: Max Armor vs. Reduced Firepower

    Since BATTLETECH uses the hit location system from tabletop, it is never disadvantageous to have maximum armor. If you strip, say 20% of max armor from a 'Mech, you're generally only saving a ton or two unless we're talking about Assaults. And that reduction in armor means that a large-bore hit is much more likely to punch through and start working your internals.

    The only time it is safe to lower the armor on a section, in my opinion, is one of the following:
    1. Dead-Siding a 'Mech's build. And then, only from the Arm; the Torso is more likely to get hit (both through to-hit tables, and after you lose the arm) and should be maximally armored.
    2. Removing a handful of tons from the legs of an Assault. Leg armor is overabundant on Assaults due to the construction rules, and only a little more likely to get hit than an arm.

    Therefore: Always max armor your torsos and head. Usually max armor your arms and legs.

    This has been a message from your friendly paper-pusher, who wishes to see all of your 'Mechs return from the fucking field of battle.

    No one ever shoots the legs. Strip those things to the bone.

    In MWO sure

    In Battletech? Hahahaha those things will be taking shots all day long

    fuck gendered marketing
    InquisitorBetsuniBasilIoloNobodyautono-wally, erotibot300Gnome-InterruptusNipsElvenshaeIanator
  • InquisitorInquisitor Registered User regular
    Elldren wrote: »
    Mortious wrote: »
    Nips wrote: »
    Re: Max Armor vs. Reduced Firepower

    Since BATTLETECH uses the hit location system from tabletop, it is never disadvantageous to have maximum armor. If you strip, say 20% of max armor from a 'Mech, you're generally only saving a ton or two unless we're talking about Assaults. And that reduction in armor means that a large-bore hit is much more likely to punch through and start working your internals.

    The only time it is safe to lower the armor on a section, in my opinion, is one of the following:
    1. Dead-Siding a 'Mech's build. And then, only from the Arm; the Torso is more likely to get hit (both through to-hit tables, and after you lose the arm) and should be maximally armored.
    2. Removing a handful of tons from the legs of an Assault. Leg armor is overabundant on Assaults due to the construction rules, and only a little more likely to get hit than an arm.

    Therefore: Always max armor your torsos and head. Usually max armor your arms and legs.

    This has been a message from your friendly paper-pusher, who wishes to see all of your 'Mechs return from the fucking field of battle.

    No one ever shoots the legs. Strip those things to the bone.

    In MWO sure

    In Battletech? Hahahaha those things will be taking shots all day long

    Case in point my vindicator lost both of its legs in my game today. The rest of the mech? Pristine outside of a few paint scratches. AC20 to one leg, lasers and a kick to the other. Oof.

    BasilElldren
  • H3KnucklesH3Knuckles Jack of all interests... ...master of noneRegistered User regular
    edited April 2018
    Orogogus wrote: »
    H3Knuckles wrote: »
    I guess I don't really understand what point you're trying to make? Of course companies don't need the rights to Battletech to make stuff, but your first two posts were talking about it as though it were practically a liability when it's been the most consistently produced and licensed western real robot property.

    I'm skeptical that there are companies wanting to make a BattleTech/Mechwarrior game but held back by licensing problems. I'm given to understand that Weisman has the license, and I think he'd be all for growing the brand. But I feel it's a problematic property that puts a lot of limitations on the in-game technology and storylines, and think it's more likely that most companies wanting to make a giant robot game would just invent something new to have a a free hand with the design. Like if you wanted to make a spaceship game, would you really want the Wing Commander license even if it was available for some reason? I don't feel there's any brand in that genre except Star Wars where the recognition bonus would outweigh the restrictions (EDIT: Oh yeah, probably Star Trek, too).

    Well, okay, then I agree with your main two points (that it hasn't been held back by licensing difficulties, and that there isn't a lot of industry interest these days), but disagree on the causes.

    I'm not really sure what Ninja Snarl was on about in the post that started this all; by the time FASA closed down, they'd already developed more than enough brand recognition with original designs like the Atlas and Timber Wolf that not having the unseen wasn't really going to hurt the chances of licensed adaptations. And the claim that it hasn't been used much is kind of bonkers. Activision made MW1 in 89, ported it to SNES by 93, then had a game a year until they lost the rights after Mercenaries ('96). But then Mechcommander came out in '98, MW3 came out in '99, and by 2000 it was the Microsoft era. Microsoft certainly wasn't shy about making games with the IP (5 games & 1 stand-alone expac published in a 7 year span), until other factors led to them shutting down FASA Studios (2007), after which point they pretty quickly (same year) licensed it to Weisman's Smith & Tinker (Weisman had been Creative Director at Microsoft Games for several years previously, so this was likely a bit of a sweetheart deal). S&T partnered with PGI, but were unable to secure a publishing deal to move forward with an MW5 (given S&T only made one other game, Nanovor, which didn't exactly set the world on fire I imagine this was mostly about lack of confidence in S&T and the then-relatively unknown PGI), and then PGI took it off their hands and started work on MWO (2011). So really the only time where it could be said to have languished from lack of support was from when FASA Studios shutdown (remember, they'd begun development on a new Mechassault or Mechwarrior after finishing the Shadowrun game that led to their closing) to when PGI began to make MWO (~4 years). And that's not even getting into things like the two Westwood Battletech games bookending MW1's DOS release, nor Kesmai's Multiplayer Battletech series which ran from '93-2001, or anything to do with Virtual World. It's been an actively supported property by a succession of different companies over the decades, often a couple simultaneously. In a 30 year time period there's been 18 games if we count the two standalone expansions. Licensing has not been an issue for Battletech-based videogames.

    As for why not many companies have been interested in trying to pick it up in recent years, like I said before, a lot of it is simply the niche that Battletech falls into being something that doesn't really get all that much attention in western gaming in general. And as to your second point, that companies would rather develop their own brand to have less restrictions; it's funny you should mention Star Wars as an exception because that's literally how Mass Effect got it's start. I distinctly remember a video interview with one of the Bioware bigshots prior to the launch of ME1 about how they wanted to step away from doing more licensed work at the time, but wanted to do another space-adventure RPG like KOTOR, one that was an original property they could own free and clear and develop however they pleased. That most videogame companies would rather try to develop their own brands doesn't really reflect on Battletech, that's kind of just the nature of the business. I mean, you're kinda veering towards saying it yourself towards the end of that paragraph. I would disagree with it being any more problematic than any other long-running, highly fleshed-out IP's given its generally successful track record and the fact that it keeps getting picked up again, unlike other series that got abandoned once the original developers/publishers no longer got to call the shots.

    H3Knuckles on
    If you're curious about my icon; it's an update of the early Lego Castle theme's "Black Falcons" faction.
    camo_sig2-400.png
  • nonoffensivenonoffensive Registered User regular
    edited April 2018
    Nips wrote: »
    Re: Max Armor vs. Reduced Firepower

    Since BATTLETECH uses the hit location system from tabletop, it is never disadvantageous to have maximum armor. If you strip, say 20% of max armor from a 'Mech, you're generally only saving a ton or two unless we're talking about Assaults. And that reduction in armor means that a large-bore hit is much more likely to punch through and start working your internals.

    The only time it is safe to lower the armor on a section, in my opinion, is one of the following:
    1. Dead-Siding a 'Mech's build. And then, only from the Arm; the Torso is more likely to get hit (both through to-hit tables, and after you lose the arm) and should be maximally armored.
    2. Removing a handful of tons from the legs of an Assault. Leg armor is overabundant on Assaults due to the construction rules, and only a little more likely to get hit than an arm.

    Therefore: Always max armor your torsos and head. Usually max armor your arms and legs.

    This has been a message from your friendly paper-pusher, who wishes to see all of your 'Mechs return from the fucking field of battle.

    Re: Battletech the game, don't forget, your pilot TAKES WOUNDS from a side torso loss! The Guts system appears way more punishing in the new videos. With 3 hp your pilot will die from a knockdown and losing both torsos before your mech is even out of commission.

    I'm pretty sure your first upgrade for any mech in the campaign should be maxing out armor totals. Not only will it save you money on mechs, you won't be replacing pilots like crazy. Losing a medium laser, ton of ammo or a heat sink would be a no brainer.

    nonoffensive on
    BasilNipsElvenshae
  • InquisitorInquisitor Registered User regular
    Wait your pilots only have 3HP?

    Man, I need to find like a 'the differences between tabletop and the videogame' guide or I am going to keep being blindsided by my own assumptions.

  • TynnanTynnan seldom correct, never unsure Registered User regular
    Inquisitor wrote: »
    Wait your pilots only have 3HP?

    Man, I need to find like a 'the differences between tabletop and the videogame' guide or I am going to keep being blindsided by my own assumptions.

    Some have more, depending on which skills you invest.

  • nonoffensivenonoffensive Registered User regular
    edited April 2018
    Inquisitor wrote: »
    Wait your pilots only have 3HP?

    Man, I need to find like a 'the differences between tabletop and the videogame' guide or I am going to keep being blindsided by my own assumptions.

    You get more with higher Guts. Only about half the pilots in skirmish appear to get 4 HP. You may be able to get 5, or even resist some wounds based on stats. I have been avoiding most preview material.

    nonoffensive on
    H3Knuckles
  • manwiththemachinegunmanwiththemachinegun METAL GEAR?! Registered User regular
    Ok guys, explain the deep lore of Mechwarrior in twenty words or less.

  • H3KnucklesH3Knuckles Jack of all interests... ...master of noneRegistered User regular
    edited April 2018
    @manwiththemachinegun Mankind's 31st millennium is an interstellar civilization in a technological dark age, consumed by feudal warfare using manned giant robots.

    H3Knuckles on
    If you're curious about my icon; it's an update of the early Lego Castle theme's "Black Falcons" faction.
    camo_sig2-400.png
    manwiththemachinegunBasilNipsElvenshaestopgapIanatorBigityElldren
  • nonoffensivenonoffensive Registered User regular
    edited April 2018
    Ok guys, explain the deep lore of Mechwarrior in twenty words or less.

    Imagine political clusterfuck Medieval Europe, but the knights ride around in 100 ton armored robots with lasers, in space.

    nonoffensive on
    manwiththemachinegunBasilMoridin889Gnome-InterruptusNipsElvenshaeTiglissIanatorComahawk
  • SiliconStewSiliconStew Registered User regular
    edited April 2018
    Ok guys, explain the deep lore of Mechwarrior in twenty words or less.

    Stomp stomp pew pew pew stomp stomp pew stomp pew pew pew stomp pew stomp stomp pew pew pew boom.

    SiliconStew on
    Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
    nonoffensiveTynnanmanwiththemachinegunBasilMoridin889IoloNipsHyphyKezzyBetsuniElvenshaeTiglissIanatorBigityHahnsoo1
  • ErlkönigErlkönig Registered User regular
    Ok guys, explain the deep lore of Mechwarrior in twenty words or less.

    Stomp stomp pew pew pew stomp stomp pew stomp pew pew pew stomp pew stomp stomp pew pew pew boom.

    Not enough dakka

    | Origin/R*SC/Steam: Ein7919 | Battle.net: Erlkonig#1448 | XBL: Lexicanum |
    BasilNipsBetsuniElvenshae
  • FiendishrabbitFiendishrabbit Registered User regular
    Erlkönig wrote: »
    Ok guys, explain the deep lore of Mechwarrior in twenty words or less.

    Stomp stomp pew pew pew stomp stomp pew stomp pew pew pew stomp pew stomp stomp pew pew pew boom.

    Not enough dakka

    There is never enough dakka. Not in 40k, not in Macross, not in Battletech. Compared to 40k Battletech is definitely not a dakka-centric setting. I mean, the biggest gun in Battletech (Long Tom I guess?) would barely qualify as a Superheavy tank armament, and the biggest ships can't even match a Frigate in size.

    "The western world sips from a poisonous cocktail: Polarisation, populism, protectionism and post-truth"
    -Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
  • JacobkoshJacobkosh Gamble a stamp. I can show you how to be a real man!Moderator mod
    Ok guys, explain the deep lore of Mechwarrior in twenty words or less.

    It's Game of Thrones with giant robots.

    FiendishrabbitElvenshaeKonphujunHahnsoo1
  • JacobkoshJacobkosh Gamble a stamp. I can show you how to be a real man!Moderator mod
    Inquisitor wrote: »
    Wait your pilots only have 3HP?

    Man, I need to find like a 'the differences between tabletop and the videogame' guide or I am going to keep being blindsided by my own assumptions.

    Mostly it's invisible stuff. To-hit rolls and location rolls are calculated differently. Missiles roll for hits and damage individually instead of in tranches of five. Some weapon ranges and damage/heat values have been tweaked (generally with the idea of bringing in the statistical extremes closer to the middle), and since the game uses different numeric scales than the tabletop, there would be no way to know this sort of thing unless you sat there actually mathing it out, or literally counting pixels on the landscape to figure out that the AC/5 is going ten meters further or something.

    The most visible actual change is the initiative system. It has five phases, counting down from 5 to 1. Lights go on phase 4, mediums on phase 3, and so forth. Some characters will have skills letting them act one phase sooner than normal (so the rarely-used phase 5 is for pilots with that ability in light mechs). Mechs can reserve their initiative to act in a later phase, so lights can do stuff like reserve till phase 1, dart out from cover, attack, and then immediately go again at the top of the next round to dart back into cover before anyone can retaliate.

    Pilots have four skills - Gunnery, Pilots, Tactics, and Guts - which confer different passive bonuses - gunnery and piloting are obvious; guts increases survivability as well as brawny stuff like reducing recoil penalties from AC shots, and tactics covers indirect fireand doing tricks with the initiative system. Each skill also grants two special active abilities (one at rank 4 in a skill, the other at rank 8). Pilots only have three skill slots, though, so even a veteran pilot with max ranks in all abilities will only ever have three active powers (the first three they qualified for), leading to a lot of different possible specializations.

    Heat doesn't degrade performance; instead, when it's over a certain point (like 75%, but varies depending on pilot skills) it deals direct damage to internal structure.

    Mechs have a stability meter, whose length is affected by the pilot's Guts score. Different weapon attacks suffered by the mech fill the meter to different degrees (AC20 or melee fills it a lot, lasers not at all). When it's halfway filled, the mech can no longer benefit from certain kinds of defense and movement bonuses. When it's full, the mech falls over.

    Falling over or being shut down from heat are what let enemy pilots make called shots to specific areas. A called shot doesn't guarantee a hit to that area, but weights the shot distribution.

    Mechs have three main kinds of defense: evasion, cover, and guarded stance.

    Evasion is usually granted by moving quickly, or using jump jets. It gives your mech a number (1-5) of little evasion chevrons depending on how much they moved. Each chevron imposes a stacking penalty on incoming fire. A Locust at full sprint is almost impossible to hit. However, each salvo fired at the mech strips away an evasion chevron, so that Locust is vulnerable if several enemies focus it down. Being hit in melee also immediately removes all chevrons.

    Cover gives a flat damage reduction, usually something like 25%.

    Guarded stance is an state a Mech can attain by taking the Brace action in lieu of attacking, or is granted by certain powers or in certain circumstances. It reduces damage and stability damage from incoming fire by 50%, but only on the front and sides. Bracing also completely drains the Stability bar, so the mech is in less danger of being knocked down.

    In the Mechlab, Mechs use a hardpoint system similar to but different from MWO. Along with ballistic, missile, and laser weapon types, there's a fourth hardpoint type, called "support weapons," which covers machine guns, flamers, and small lasers. Support weapons fire automatically when you make a melee attack.

    Weapons have different manufacturers with different bonuses (it's always a straight bonus, though, rather than some kind of tradeoff). Some weapons are of exceptional quality and are denoted as + or ++ weapons (so like an LRM20++). These pluses can mean different things based on the manufacturer but they're always significant bonuses.

    H3KnucklesBasilIoloToxGnome-InterruptusMirkelInquisitorElldrenTynnanHyphyKezzyBetsuniElvenshaeMortiousTrajan45stopgapIanatorBigityCroakerBC
  • BasilBasil Registered User regular
    I love it when you talk nerdy.

    9KmX8eN.jpg
    ElldrenElvenshaeMortiousIanatorH3KnucklesBigity
  • IoloIolo iolo Registered User regular
    Mmmhmm, preach it brother!

    (Also @Nips maybe scoop that up for the OP. :) )

    BasilElvenshaeTrajan45IanatorH3Knuckles
  • NipsNips Luxuriating in existential crisis.Registered User regular
    Iolo wrote: »
    Mmmhmm, preach it brother!

    (Also @Nips maybe scoop that up for the OP. :) )

    I'm still debating in my head if BT will need a thread of its own, come launch day. Otherwise yes.

    JXUBxMxP0QndjQUEnTwTxOkfKmx8kWNvuc-FUtbSz_23_DAhGKe7W9spFKLXAtkpTBqM8Dt6kQrv-rS69Hi3FheL3fays2xTeVUvWR7g5UyLHnFA0frGk1BC12GYdOSRn9lbaJB-uH0htiLPJMrc9cSRsIgk5Dx7jg9K8rJVfG43lkeAWxTgcolNscW9KO2UZjKT8GMbYAFgFvu2TaMoLH8LBA5p2pm6VNYRsQK3QGjCsze1TOv2yIbCazmDwCHmjiQxNDf6LHP35msyiXo3CxuWs9Y8DQvJjvj10kWaspRNlWHKjS5w9Y0KLuIkhQKOxgaDziG290v4zBmTi-i7OfDz-foqIqKzC9wTbn9i_uU87GRitmrNAJdzRRsaTW5VQu_XX_5gCN8XCoNyu5RWWVGTsjJuyezz1_NpFa903Uj2TnFqnL1wJ-RZiFAAd2Bdut-G1pdQtdQihsq2dx_BjtmtGC3KZRyylO1t2c12dhfb0rStq4v8pg46ciOcdtT_1qm85IgUmGd7AmgLxCFPb0xnxWZvr26G-oXSqrQdjKA1zNIInSowiHcbUO2O8S5LRJVR6vQiEg0fbGXw4vqJYEn917tnzHMh8r0xom8BLKMvoFDelk6wbEeNq8w8Eyu2ouGjEMIvvJcb2az2AKQ1uE_7gdatfKG2QdvfdSBRSc35MQ=w498-h80-no
This discussion has been closed.