Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Cowcaster
Aug 7, 2002



with the release of Firaxis' XCOM in the year of our lord 2012, gamers experienced for the first time the concepts of "cover", "taking turns", and "hit percentages", ushering in a new era of video game entertainment

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Cyrano4747
Sep 25, 2006

Yes, I know I'm old, get off my fucking lawn so I can yell at these clouds.

XCOM was the only game to survive the franchise wars. Now all video games are XCOM.

JacksLibido
Jul 21, 2004

Ham Sandwiches posted:

Yeah my take is removing the cover system was a net negative, the initative system seems to slow down the rounds instead of improve them, and all sorts of information you'd need to make the decisions gets lost every step of the way. The to hit rolls don't really capture the odds to hit in a solid way, the movement is very different from btech and seems to remove some considerations. The weapon range and melee changes also seem odd.

Anyway I'm still looking forward to the mod potential and just the fact that there's an updated Battletech game is pretty cool. The maps seem super small which one of the last concerns I had but hopefully there's some decent sized ones for Multiplayer and we can get a few fun goon skirmishes at some point.

I definitely think the game could use a cover system of some sort, even if it's just being more obvious about altitude differences that are already in the game. Being able to move my atlas up to a boulder to protect my legs, or to crouch it down in a valley at the end of a firing turn to reduce/eliminate direct fire weapons could be neat, it could also make the game even more xcom-y. Maybe a way to torso twist at the end of the mechs turn so you can spread damage around like in FPS Mechwarriors.

To-hit has been covered, and I'm totally fine with the movement system, it makes sense. Maps may be small, but the current LOS system forces you into short range fights anyways so map size is superfluous. I think they should increase view ranges a lot so we can start getting more delineation between weapons other than "everything in range" and "too close for guns, switching to melee". I've yet to lose a match, and I've yet to have a match that didn't have melee

JacksLibido fucked around with this message at 19:58 on Jun 5, 2017

Internet Explorer
Jun 1, 2005





They need to make it so you can't do a 180 when jump jetting. Jumping behind someone and shooting their back armor is fine, but it shouldn't be as easy as it is now.

Great Beer
Jul 5, 2004

Cyrano4747 posted:

XCOM was the only game to survive the franchise wars. Now all video games are XCOM.

Maybe if they'd taken cover they'd have lived. :colbert:

JacksLibido
Jul 21, 2004

Internet Explorer posted:

They need to make it so you can't do a 180 when jump jetting. Jumping behind someone and shooting their back armor is fine, but it shouldn't be as easy as it is now.

You give up a LOT of firepower to get jump jets.

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort

Internet Explorer posted:

They need to make it so you can't do a 180 when jump jetting. Jumping behind someone and shooting their back armor is fine, but it shouldn't be as easy as it is now.
Thats the whole point of Jump Jetting; its been possible in tabletop and in all previous games, if I am not mistaken. Jump Jetting generates a fair bit of heat and makes it a lot harder for the pilot to shoot - there are some drawbacks.

Internet Explorer
Jun 1, 2005





It just seems to happen a lot. Like A LOT a lot. I do it to the AI constantly and if the AI has a few mechs with jump jets every turn is someone jump jetting behind someone to core them. It looks funny and is something you never see in the MechWarrior games. I've never played TT, so if you're saying it happens a lot there, then I guess that's another viewpoint, but to me it looks and feels very silly.

Cyrano4747
Sep 25, 2006

Yes, I know I'm old, get off my fucking lawn so I can yell at these clouds.

Internet Explorer posted:

They need to make it so you can't do a 180 when jump jetting. Jumping behind someone and shooting their back armor is fine, but it shouldn't be as easy as it is now.

It's a high risk / high reward tactic. If they have any friends near by you can EASILY end up with someone chewing the poo poo out of your own back armor. If you do it in a Jenner that you reserved to phase 1 and then GTFO in phase 5 you're in better shape, but that's just lights having a use. Do it in a heavy or an assault and you stand a very good chance of losing that mech on the next turn.

That said, I haven't looked at how jumping degrades your to hit chances. In TT it's a +3 modifier as the jumping mech which is right between the medium and long range modifiers. Assuming you're using a bone standard 3/4 pilot with basic 3025 equipment and not some clan bullshit with targeting computers etc that can be a pretty challenging shot depending on how far the enemy mech moved. If the target moved at all you're looking at +1-2 if it's a slow as gently caress assault, so already you're in the 6-ish range before adding gunnery skills. You're average-good seasoned pilot with a 3/4 is going to be (assuming something like a fat assault that only moved at a walk) 3+3+1 = 7 or better to hit. Not terrible, but on average you're only going to be hitting with about half your poo poo.

I haven't played with jumping then shooting enough to see what the percentages look like, so I don't know how that's reflected in the game. Either way the easiest lever to tweak this with is the to-hit penalty for jumping.

Zaodai
May 23, 2009

Death before dishonor?
Your terms are accepted.


Internet Explorer posted:

It just seems to happen a lot. Like A LOT a lot. I do it to the AI constantly and if the AI has a few mechs with jump jets every turn is someone jump jetting behind someone to core them. It looks funny and is something you never see in the MechWarrior games. I've never played TT, so if you're saying it happens a lot there, then I guess that's another viewpoint, but to me it looks and feels very silly.

It used to happen all the time in MW3 and 4.

It also comes out that if you're jumping behind someone to backshoot them, your back is now probably to their friends.

Cyrano4747
Sep 25, 2006

Yes, I know I'm old, get off my fucking lawn so I can yell at these clouds.

Internet Explorer posted:

It just seems to happen a lot. Like A LOT a lot. I do it to the AI constantly and if the AI has a few mechs with jump jets every turn is someone jump jetting behind someone to core them. It looks funny and is something you never see in the MechWarrior games. I've never played TT, so if you're saying it happens a lot there, then I guess that's another viewpoint, but to me it looks and feels very silly.

It was pretty common in TT if you locally outnumbered an opponent. Worse than the attacks in the same turn that you jumped behind him was dealing with having someone in your rear arc in the next turn, when all those jumping negatives wouldn't apply. SO in my above example, do you keep your atlas pointed at the warhammer in front of you and ignore the jenner behind you, or do you try to do something clever so they're both in your side arc or something. It was a big part of how the maneuver in TT flowed.

Of course the real answer was to move your fatty that they're trying to get back shots on in the short term and move someone else in to get that light off your rear end.

Gwaihir
Dec 8, 2009
Hair Elf
I don't actually think jumping hurts your hit rate offhand, but it definitely makes you harder to hit.

There's also a lot of variables that one could play with in the combat settings file, re: adjusting feel and pilot skills:
"UsePilotingToAvoidFalling" : false,
"UseGutsToAvoidFallInjury" : false,

Bolding mine for potential big benefits to piloting skills past shooting

"UnsteadyCountersGuarded" : false,
"MeleeCountersGuarded" : true,
"SolidDamageCountersGuarded" : false,
"SensorLockCountersGuarded" : false,
"UnsteadyCountersEvasive" : true,
"MeleeCountersEvasive" : false,
"SolidDamageCountersEvasive" : false,
"SensorLockCountersEvasive" : true,
"SensorLockCountersMovementBonuses" : true,
"SensorLockAlwaysSucceeds" : true,
"EvasiveDodgeChance" : 0.5,
"EntrenchedMultiplier" : 0.5

Internet Explorer
Jun 1, 2005





Zaodai posted:

It used to happen all the time in MW3 and 4.

It also comes out that if you're jumping behind someone to backshoot them, your back is now probably to their friends.

Odd, I didn't even think that was possible to pull of in MW 3 or 4. I certainly couldn't jump over someone and rotate 180 degrees. Never really saw it in MWO either, although there you just usually used jump jets to skate around as a light and help you turn quicker.

Cyrano4747 posted:

It was pretty common in TT if you locally outnumbered an opponent. Worse than the attacks in the same turn that you jumped behind him was dealing with having someone in your rear arc in the next turn, when all those jumping negatives wouldn't apply. SO in my above example, do you keep your atlas pointed at the warhammer in front of you and ignore the jenner behind you, or do you try to do something clever so they're both in your side arc or something. It was a big part of how the maneuver in TT flowed.

Of course the real answer was to move your fatty that they're trying to get back shots on in the short term and move someone else in to get that light off your rear end.

If you have a Victor with JJ facing off against a Victor with JJ and are at medium range (like 5-6 hexes?) it makes more sense to jump over the person and try to shoot their back. Then the target Victor, if it survives, jumps over you and tries to shoot your back. If there's a Jenner running around he's doing the same thing. I think what you're saying with a penalty to accuracy for the jumping pilot would make sense, but I am not sure if that is the case right now. And yes, in the beginning of the match you might end up with your rear armor facing an enemy, but at least with how my matches have been going on that front line disintegrates very quickly. I also like to fan out pretty far, so maybe that's just the style I have been playing.

It's not the end of the world, just seems kind of silly at times.

Zaodai
May 23, 2009

Death before dishonor?
Your terms are accepted.


Internet Explorer posted:

Odd, I didn't even think that was possible to pull of in MW 3 or 4. I certainly couldn't jump over someone and rotate 180 degrees. Never really saw it in MWO either, although there you just usually used jump jets to skate around as a light and help you turn quicker.


In 4 you used a lot of your torso twist for it, or taking off from an angle and pulsing your jets. You couldn't really spin like a top or anything, but it was pretty easy to get behind people with JJs. The bigger reason you never really saw it was that pop-tarting was a far better use for JJs if you were tryharding.

vorebane
Feb 2, 2009

"I like Ur and Kavodel and Enki being nice to people for some reason."

Wrong Voter amongst wrong voters

Cyrano4747 posted:

Also 4 mech lances has been an integral part of BT since the 80s.

edit:



So was this. TT you have a 1 in 12 chance of shooting a mech in the face every roll. Watching your assault get blow away by an AC20 to the dome is about as core BT as it gets.

It's 1 in 36 actually, the hit location is determined by 2 d6's, a 12 will headshot, so it's double sixes or not the face.

Omar_Comin
Aug 20, 2004
Dark Jedi Carebear
The more our XCOM obsessed friend posts about "Harebrained totally ripped off XCOM", the more I'm reminded of this:



Because as you all know, Penny Arcade totally ripped off Ctrl-Alt-Del.

Skoll
Jul 26, 2013

Oh You'll Love My Toxic Love
Grimey Drawer

Omar_Comin posted:

The more our XCOM obsessed friend posts about "Harebrained totally ripped off XCOM", the more I'm reminded of this:



Because as you all know, Penny Arcade totally ripped off Ctrl-Alt-Del.

Still the only good strip they ever did, imo.

Eldragon
Feb 22, 2003

Internet Explorer posted:

Odd, I didn't even think that was possible to pull of in MW 3 or 4. I certainly couldn't jump over someone and rotate 180 degrees. Never really saw it in MWO either, although there you just usually used jump jets to skate around as a light and help you turn quicker.

It was really common and fun in the early days of MWO. Then the grognards complained that their Atlas could be killed by a Spider pilot with a brain and PGI nerfed JJ tactics into the ground.

Ham Sandwiches
Jul 7, 2000

Hmm so aside from having quite similar mechanics which was apparent early on, just like HBS redid their previous franchise combat system in the style of Xcom, even pointing out that "they implemented many elements from this rather successful strategy game, which plenty of others have chosen to copy as well" is just ridiculous ;)

which is best illustrated by a Penny Arcade 40k strip?? :confused:

ChickenWing
Jul 22, 2010

:v:

Omar_Comin posted:

The more our XCOM obsessed friend posts about "Harebrained totally ripped off XCOM", the more I'm reminded of this:



Because as you all know, Penny Arcade totally ripped off Ctrl-Alt-Del.

I don't understand this loss edit



re: jump jetting behind people: I mean, the amount that I end up just *walking* behind people and blasting the bejeezus out of their rear armour is a little ridiculous. It feels like once you get in melee range in MP it's just gonna become reverse-leapfrog, where each mech takes turns walking behind the other one and alphaing

ditty bout my clitty
May 28, 2011

by FactsAreUseless
Fun Shoe

Internet Explorer posted:

4^3=64, XCOM 3 is going to be an N64 exclusive, you heard it first here folks

It would be awesome to find out how that would work

Omar_Comin
Aug 20, 2004
Dark Jedi Carebear

Ham Sandwiches posted:

which is best illustrated by a Penny Arcade 40k strip?? :confused:

"I don't see how a cartoon about a guy bitching about something that came out before something else is totally ripping off the thing that came after is relevant to my bitching about Battletech ripping off XCOM with 4 member units. And gameplay based on turns. And random results based upon player actions. And covfefe."

Raged
Jul 21, 2003

Oh god. People are responding to Ham Sandwich again. Quick tip. Don't.

He is either the worst troll ever or XCOM abandoned him as a child and broke his brain.

Zaodai
May 23, 2009

Death before dishonor?
Your terms are accepted.


Also, it's not even 40k, you heretic. :commissar:

Gwaihir
Dec 8, 2009
Hair Elf

Ham Sandwiches posted:

Hmm so aside from having quite similar mechanics which was apparent early on, just like HBS redid their previous franchise combat system in the style of Xcom, even pointing out that "they implemented many elements from this rather successful strategy game, which plenty of others have chosen to copy as well" is just ridiculous ;)

which is best illustrated by a Penny Arcade 40k strip?? :confused:

You are at completely terminal THAT'S THE JOKE level here dude.

People are making fun of you for complaining that battletech coppied XCOM because battletech came out years before fuckin XCOM did.

This game is completely centered around the classic tabletop version that's been around for ages, with the only real difference being the new pilot skills, some re-balancing of numbers that is 30 years overdue, and improvements that are not actually possible on TT, like actual tracing from your weapon mounts to enemy mechs to see if there is terrain (or friendlies!) blocking your line of fire.

You're going to continue to get mocked, but I guess you get off on it or something so keep going and feed the thread more entertaining laffs.

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort

Ham Sandwiches posted:

Hmm so aside from having quite similar mechanics which was apparent early on, just like HBS redid their previous franchise combat system in the style of Xcom, even pointing out that "they implemented many elements from this rather successful strategy game, which plenty of others have chosen to copy as well" is just ridiculous ;)

which is best illustrated by a Penny Arcade 40k strip?? :confused:
:five: This just keeps getting better. DIG A DEEPER HOLE.

Alchenar
Apr 9, 2008

It's as if Firaxis, having a pile of cash, the finest minds in the turn-based strategy world, and several years to think about it, came up with a game that set gold standards in how you present information to the player and make interesting choices.


Here's the obvious counter-argument to why Battletech is not XCOM - the turn phase system is completely novel and makes the entire flow of the game fundamentally conceptually different to what XCOM is about.

Cowcaster
Aug 7, 2002



noted XCOM 2012 ripoff, X-COM (1994)

Ham Sandwiches
Jul 7, 2000

Seems like we're talking about a lot of different stuff.

Battletech, the board game, came out before xcom the videogame, OG or remake.

Battletech, the HBS videogame with really reimagined combat mechanics that seem heavily inspired by the Firaxis Xcom / Xcom 2 games, is coming out in 2017.

Xcom the remake came out in 2012 and seems to have inspired a whole lot of tactical combat designs since.

HBS used a very Xcom 2012 esque combat system in their Shadowrun kickstarted games, even though Shadowrun originally used a rather different combat system. While opinions on this are mixed, I find it pretty rare that anyone raved about that combat system or felt that the fighting was the highlight of the game.

Battletech HBS 2017 edition has many elements from Xcom 2 that I'm not quite sure will translate well to btech. The 4 person squad size is an example - how much time do you guys want me to explain what I mean? I suspect not much, but then if you want to give me crap for not explaining... So yeah, in btech board rules I think mechs are more autonomous and effective independently. By combining the pilot / skill / initative system, I think you end up in a more Xcom like "defined roles" system where the mechs end up having some similarity to the way that Xcom 2 attempted to differentiate soldiers.

Like check out the beta skirmish gameplay - it's about keeping your guys together and positioning, which is a lot more like Xcom than necessarily Btech. Not a bad thing, but I didn't particularly like Xcom2's positioning system, so seeing that version make it into Btech is a bummer for me. If you like that design then it's great for you.

So what I'm saying is basically the shift from "mechs operate on their own" to "there's an intricate skill and initative system and ranges have been redone and spotting has been redone to combo off that" is that the decision making seems to replicate the decisions you'd make in Xcom more than in Btech.

I'm really not sure how my personal opinion on the flavors of the combat franchises that went into it and how they map to my preferences is so contentious, but it really appears to be.

Skoll
Jul 26, 2013

Oh You'll Love My Toxic Love
Grimey Drawer
The real issue is all these games are ripping off Final Fantasy for NES.

Sarmhan
Nov 1, 2011

Skoll posted:

The real issue is all these games are ripping off Final Fantasy for NES.
WOTC should sue because the action system is completely stolen from D&D.

Ham Sandwiches
Jul 7, 2000

Skoll posted:

The real issue is all these games are ripping off Final Fantasy for NES.

So tactical strategy games are pretty few and far between, is it not reasonable to compare them with each other and perhaps say "Yeah this feels like too much of a copy of this other franchise " for me, or is that a level of analysis we as regular scrubs dare not engage in?

Sarmhan
Nov 1, 2011

Ham Sandwiches posted:


Like check out the beta skirmish gameplay - it's about keeping your guys together and positioning, which is a lot more like Xcom than necessarily Btech.
Were you playing the same battletech? Because group positioning is entirely what tabletop battletech is about. Every decision you make in tabletop is about concentrating firepower effectively at the correct ranges for your mechs, while avoiding exposing your own.

Ham Sandwiches
Jul 7, 2000

Ein Sexmonster posted:

Were you playing the same battletech? Because group positioning is entirely what tabletop battletech is about. Every decision you make in tabletop is about concentrating firepower effectively at the correct ranges for your mechs, while avoiding exposing your own.

Ok, let me explain further.

I'm not saying that Btech does not emphasize positioning. The more mechs you add to a fight in Battletech, the more positioning matters.

Xcom 2 has Ranger, Grenadier, Sharpshooter, and Specialist. You generally want one of each to start to cover the various roles and so that you can get the necessary skills for each.

The way the 4 mechs 'feels' in Btech the board game is an attempt to replicate the Xcom style role specialization of the soldiers, and not the more natural Battletech positioning when more mechs enter the field.

That's the part that I don't dig.

Ham Sandwiches fucked around with this message at 21:39 on Jun 5, 2017

Eldragon
Feb 22, 2003

Ham Sandwiches posted:

Seems like we're talking about a lot of different stuff.

Battletech, the board game, came out before xcom the videogame, OG or remake.

Battletech, the HBS videogame with really reimagined combat mechanics that seem heavily inspired by the Firaxis Xcom / Xcom 2 games, is coming out in 2017.

Xcom the remake came out in 2012 and seems to have inspired a whole lot of tactical combat designs since.

HBS used a very Xcom 2012 esque combat system in their Shadowrun kickstarted games, even though Shadowrun originally used a rather different combat system. While opinions on this are mixed, I find it pretty rare that anyone raved about that combat system or felt that the fighting was the highlight of the game.

Battletech HBS 2017 edition has many elements from Xcom 2 that I'm not quite sure will translate well to btech. The 4 person squad size is an example - how much time do you guys want me to explain what I mean? I suspect not much, but then if you want to give me crap for not explaining... So yeah, in btech board rules I think mechs are more autonomous and effective independently. By combining the pilot / skill / initative system, I think you end up in a more Xcom like "defined roles" system where the mechs end up having some similarity to the way that Xcom 2 attempted to differentiate soldiers.

Like check out the beta skirmish gameplay - it's about keeping your guys together and positioning, which is a lot more like Xcom than necessarily Btech. Not a bad thing, but I didn't particularly like Xcom2's positioning system, so seeing that version make it into Btech is a bummer for me. If you like that design then it's great for you.

So what I'm saying is basically the shift from "mechs operate on their own" to "there's an intricate skill and initative system and ranges have been redone and spotting has been redone to combo off that" is that the decision making seems to replicate the decisions you'd make in Xcom more than in Btech.

I'm really not sure how my personal opinion on the flavors of the combat franchises that went into it and how they map to my preferences is so contentious, but it really appears to be.

How much battletech Table Top (or Megamek) have you played? Mechs never really "operated on their own". Experienced players have mechs support each other as a cohesive squad.

Its true that HBS made some changes to the TT rules (Most notably initiative and shoot/fire in the same phase) to make it a more streamlined and user friendly video game experience, all of the fundamentals of TT battletech are there.

Sarmhan
Nov 1, 2011

Ham Sandwiches posted:

You can play Battletech with less than 4 mechs per side, it's possible. Did you know that?
That doesn't change anything though? It's still a game where positioning is the primary strategic decision. Even in a 2v2.
You can also play battletech with more than 4 mechs. It's still about positioning.

Zaodai
May 23, 2009

Death before dishonor?
Your terms are accepted.


Tactical positioning and having your units support each other: Exclusive to XCOM, do not steal.

sebmojo
Oct 23, 2010


Legit Cyberpunk









Ham Sandwiches posted:

You can play Battletech with less than 4 mechs per side, it's possible. Did you know that?

you can't in a locked 4v4 skirmish beta afaik

Slab Squatthrust
Jun 3, 2008

This is mutiny!

Ham Sandwiches posted:

Ok, let me explain further.

I'm not saying that Btech does not emphasize positioning. The more mechs you add to a fight in Battletech, the more positioning matters.

Xcom 2 has Ranger, Grenadier, Sharpshooter, and Specialist. You generally want one of each to start to cover the various roles and so that you can get the necessary skills for each.

The way the 4 mechs 'feels' in Btech the board game is an attempt to replicate the Xcom style role specialization of the soldiers, and not the more natural Battletech positioning when more mechs enter the field.

That's the part that I don't dig.

You can play XCOM with more than 4 soldiers, did you know that?

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Psycho Landlord
Oct 10, 2012

What are you gonna do, dance with me?

Ham Sandwiches posted:

Hmm so aside from having quite similar mechanics which was apparent early on, just like HBS redid their previous franchise combat system in the style of Xcom, even pointing out that "they implemented many elements from this rather successful strategy game, which plenty of others have chosen to copy as well" is just ridiculous ;)

which is best illustrated by a Penny Arcade 40k strip?? :confused:

Hey have you pointed out that the Book of Revelation obviously only has FOUR Horsemen in order to cash in on XCOM? Your crusade goes beyond the scope of a robit videogame made by the guy who designed the robits, friend. Enemies are everywhere. You must be vigilant.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply