|
Sky Shadowing posted:E: You know what's one thing I love? A few people on the official forums are bitching about things that make it 'different from BattleTech'. And I think HBS doesn't care. I've seen too many games get taken over by the turbospergs. Like Elite: Dangerous. "Wahh, I don't like this thing because it's not realistic in this spaceship game." gently caress 'em. HBS, make the best game you can, and gently caress the whiners. I unironically hope the game is extensible enough to support a 'tabletop mode mod' or whatever for those who like that sort of thing! I have a feeling it will be hard to mod out the initiative systems and the skill systems, interested to see what's possible on release. Hopefully with weapon variants in the game there will be ways to jury rig stuff like variable recycle times. Fingers crossed.
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2017 03:22
|
|
that it's not 'mah daddy's BattleTech' or something can download mods that tweak numbers to make it 'real BattleTech' and the rest of us can not care.
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 07:23 |
|
|
Phrosphor posted:I think something to bare in mind is someone has already tried to do a faithful tabletop rules battletech game and it was received really badly. It took a very long time to play even a small skirmish and it just wasn't fun. Mechwarrior: Tactics had a Lot of other problems but at it's core the tabletop rules just weren't enjoyable on a pc. It would be nice if the game had enough modding support to allow those who wanted to implement something closer to the tabletop to do so. I'm just talking about stuff like turning off the weapon changes they implemented and having more basic rules. If you don't like that sort of thing or thing it won't work that's great because the game was designed for you. I'm just saying it would be cool, for those who do want to try it, if the game was flexible enough to allow those kinds of mods.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2017 03:27
|
|
|
Gwaihir posted:The skills are totally adjustable, and initiative has some things that look like they can be tweaked, but it probably can't be simply removed. Hmm, I wonder if the mechs could be assigned to go on the same initiative phase then. quote:Also, right now, stuff is quite close to the TT values, just scaled up for better flexibility with granular adjustments. All weapon damage and armor/structure is 5x what it's base TT stuff is: AC20s do 100 damage, not 20. PPCs do 50 damage, not 10. An Atlas CT has 155 internal structure, not 31. That's pretty slick, it's a quasi VRT. By increasing the values 5x, and increasing some more or less, it accomplishes the same thing as allowing weapons to fire multiple times per round. That's a really cool solution and implementation. quote:The major difference that IS there right now, is heat, which is completely changed.  Yeah I'd like to see whether things like AC specific recoil can be changed, whether sensors etc can be disabled, and whether skills can be reverted to a base to hit / movement based system. Anyway I think this will all become clear at release and going forward, it's cool that at the very least there should be tons of campaign and event mods and I'm looking forward to that.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2017 03:42
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:I really don't think the XCOM comparisons are of much use. THey're two fundamentally different games. The only similarities are that they are tactical strategy games with a campaign overlay. XCOM is based around a cover system that, if used well, allows you to kill poo poo while taking minimal damage in return. BT (both board game and this game) is much more about positioning and movement. Without as strong a cover mechanic as XCOM you are far, far more reliant on position to ensure you deal more damage than you take. Direction is also irrelevant in XCOM - getting shot in the back is essentially the same as getting shot from the front and the main reason to flank is to nullify cover bonuses - while the difference between front and rear in BT is profound. Classes are also more strongly differentiated in BT as well as more granular. A sniper is different from a heavy gunner in XCOM, but not to quite the extent that a heavy assault like an Atlas is different than a light like a locust. At the same time within those broad classes there is more differentiation - a locust and an urban mech are technically in the same weight class but play vastly different rolls. Well as an additional point, let me list all the ways I feel Battletech - the video game imitates Xcom - the game. Battletech's combat system is Xcom 2 with Mechs, and has the flavor of Battletech mechanics wherever an equivalent could be provided. Move and shoot system? Ah, btech has Sprint, even though it was a maxtech optional rule that just about nobody used - it's ok. The hit percentages are xcom style. The positioning and aim cones are xcom style and torso turning has been abstracted. The paperdolls have no damage indicators or visiable armor display. Why? Because Xcom soldiers don't have damage values, they just have hitpoints - there is no locational damage in Xcom. So, when using Xcom for "inspiration" that part didn't get included - since Xcom doesn't have it. The scale is wrong, because the designers were using Xcom as a reference point, which is soldiers and not robots. 4 mech start point. Why? Because that's what you get in Xcom to start. Why balance by weight and have flexible squad sizes? Deterministic Soldier Skills - guess what, people loved these in Xcom! AI roles named after Xcom soldier classes - a mech has to decide who is the sniper. I know this may seem, dumb but actually Sniper is not really a battletech concept. So having someone with Sniper like functionality - lights give you LOS, just like someone would do for a sniper in Xcom. And the LOS mechanics work off the same concept. The list goes on and on. Shadowrun was "Xcom, but in CYBER SPACE", and this is "Xcom, but with ROBOTS" It's ok but I feel pretty ripped off for the $60 that I backed a fairly low risk project. I am glad others are happy, but I sure didn't want "HBS makes another Xcom clone, hope this one sells 5 million guys, this will be the one" Ham Sandwiches fucked around with this message at 17:11 on Jun 5, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2017 17:09
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:By that logic any turn based tactical game with multiple movement modes is XCOM. And by that logic any clone of any other game was simply inspired by it. There's shades and degrees, and the Btech combat system is far too close to Xcom's combat system for my taste. I was ok with 0-40% xcom, this feels like 60-80% xcom, that's more Xcom that I wanted in my mulligatawny.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2017 17:12
|
|
|
Oh yeah, really dumb headshot rate because someone wants you to go 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2017 17:14
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Also 4 mech lances has been an integral part of BT since the 80s. The option was there to make the campaign start with less, ala crescent hawk's inception or the mech commander games. I believe they started with 4 since that's what Xcom starts with. quote: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. Yes but the number of 10 point 1 in 12 weapons was very low, I have a feeling when the damage values got increased something got screwed up with head hits and frequency / lethality. The intended purpose seems to be to force you to lose pilots, even when playing conservatively. If that's the case then it's being put in for purposes.Incidentally, the multiple initiative system was not in Xcom and I want to give HBS credit for making something worse. Now a slow boring turn in btech has 5 subturns, so really 1 turn = 5, it's really amazing they found a way to slow down the overall flow of the rounds but that one is absolutely their own innovation.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2017 17:22
|
|
|
Psion posted:Well Zaodai I think we answered your question, but it's not the answer we wanted! Lol you guys pulled this same stuff like a year ago when I posted, at some point it's gonna be hard to keep being  outraged that 1 dude on the internet doesn't like the design they went with. And maybe it can be a civil thing without huge meltdowns or brown sea posts or source your quotes or allllll the usual stuff  I spent my $60, I played the beta, I wasn't impressed, and I made 1 post about it for my poor dead btech game.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
Psion posted:This is exactly how it went down the last time they tried it a couple months back in the previous thread. Make outrageous claims and when called out, ignore the actual reasons people posted and try to deflect with "you're all mad because I disagree, lol" and pretend that they were the one being reasonable all along. I think this time is the first upgrade to outright lying (see, e.g., paperdoll quote) though. A shameful shitposter, to be sure. Er the last time I was posting was a year ago when we bought into the beta, and the response was that the beta wasn't out. So I took off for a year, and here I am, having played the beta. Are you confused about the paperdoll? The paperdoll that I'm referring to is in combat, when it shows your mechs in the bottom left and an enemy mech that you are targeting with fire, armor is a bar and not as a value on each section of the mech.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2017 17:38
|
|
|
I'd like to point out that Psion just said that I was outright lying for my comment that this: Friendly armor loadout in combat:  And this - enemy armor loadout when targeting:  Does not show me the actual amount of the remaining armor in combat, which means I can't eyeball whether the weapon I'm firing has a chance to breach that location if it hits. Ham Sandwiches fucked around with this message at 18:01 on Jun 5, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
Zaodai posted:You wouldn't logically have that perfect, real-time information in combat anyway to let you know if your weapons will definitely penetrate or not. Er he said my claim was an outright lie? I was describing the way it works in the game. You can disagree with what I posted, but my observation was absolutely true, and you guys called me a liar for making a true observation.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
BadOptics posted:If you hover over a specific part of the paperdoll it will show you that specific section's armor. I want to see it on the paperdoll at a glance, without having to select a specific section's armor. if I want to see "where can a PPC actually breach" I don't want to have to select each section to find a vulnerable one, I want to be able to tell which mechs will have a hole opened by having me shoot chunkier weapons.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:Perhaps we misunderstood you you or didnt look that close because of all of the other "observations" you posted about how the game is XCOM2 with robots? Thats one thing - what about the rest? Perhaps this sort of "DEFEND YOUR CLAIMS IN COURT WITH A TRIAL OF GOONS" is loving dumb dude. I'm one dude with an opinion on the latest computer game based on an old rear end board game. This game feels far too much like xcom2 with robots, from the scale, to the pilot skills, to the way that it seems to be chasing a yer gonna lose pilots approach, to the particiular implementations of the spotting / los systems.And the reason I brought this up a while back was that Shadowrun was Xcom with runners, and that was underwhelming too. It just seems like the same crew of guys given the same constraints are gonna make similarish products. Yelling at me isn't going to make the AI stop being dumb or get rid of the jank or magically make the game better. You guys successfully chased out the last guy that didn't like the game (there was one dude, lmao, then there was none) and I get it, it's not ok to post negative stuff in the Battletech thread (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2017 18:08
|
|
|
Or maybe once a year I can fire off 3-4 posts on the SA forums that capture my opinions and then go back to posting about other stuff until the next major thing. Like that's it guys, I've played the beta and you've weathered the storm, the naysayers are done, and all that's left is to enjoy the eventual game in a few months.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2017 18:12
|
|
|
Ein Sexmonster posted:I like how the prediction of 'he'll come back and talk about how he's actually the reasonable one' came true. Yeah the guy that just wanted to say his piece about a game along with everyone else, and then did so. Shocking stuff dude, had to have been Nostradamus to predict imo.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2017 18:14
|
|
|
JacksLibido posted:I mean, he's not WRONG that the game has a lot in common with xcom, they ARE the same basic game type, turn based strategy, after all. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2017 18:29
|
|
|
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?? 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2017 20:55
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2017 21:32
|
|
|
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?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2017 21:35
|
|
|
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 |
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2017 21:35
|
|
|
Eldragon posted:How much battletech Table Top (or Megamek) have you played? Mechs never really "operated on their own". Yeah when I said "operated on their own" I was thinking of lights and fast mechs (fast mediums, fast heavies) having a combat purpose that wasn't scouting, and being able to use movement to manage the BTH numbers people get on them.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2017 21:41
|
|
|
Skoll posted:My mistake. Age of Empires, Supreme Commander, Dawn of War series, Total War, Medieval, Halo Wars, Command and Conquer, the original Warcraft game, they were all few and far between. Have new versions of those all come out since the 2012 xcom remake that feature a move and shoot system?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2017 21:42
|
|
|
Cowcaster posted:maybe the issue here isn't so much that harebrained schemes is ripping of XCOM as they're ripping off this thing called "good game design" They did not manage to rip it off successfully for Shadowrun and the combat is a very weak part of that game, which is why it seemed like a risk for Battletech as well.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2017 21:43
|
|
|
Internet Explorer posted:FYI, no one is making fun of you for comparing XCOM and BattleTech. People are making fun of you for using stupid examples of what BattleTech "copied" from XCOM. I hope this clears up your confusion. You don't have to agree with me, I'm calling out the elements that I am not a fan of, based on my chance to play the Beta version of this videogame for the first time.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2017 21:43
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:Numerous people have address this - in the original Battletech and in each iteration since, a squad of 4, known as a "Lance" is the standard unit size. Lances are usually comprised of a variety of different sized mechs that can perform different roles in combat. It is normal military procedure to have a variety of soldiers in a unit in the military in real life - this is not something isolated specifically to XCOM. This is why people are giving you grief - you are repeating over and over again that HBS using a squad of 4 is taken directly from XCOM when, to the rest of us, it is clearly not. Battletech videogames seem to settle on 4v4 as the standard combat method. I don't know how or why they do this. Sure it's been the norm, and yet there's a lot of really interesting matchups in Battletech that result when you allow idk 1 v 8 with some flexibility. A mercenary company type game is the best place to explore this. In such a design - a design about a merc company where you can in fact allow flexible team sizes and balance by weight, why would you not do this? You do this because you make the squad size 4, without thinking about it. But what's the other reason the squad size would be 4? Because you need roles and specializations, it's what Xcom has. Your pilots level up, which means they need to be different, and now you can combo specialized pilots and specialized mechs. Except now your lights can't actually fight very well because they'd be overpowered as scouts and too good for the weight. So you have mech / pilot combos that are more situational and based around their skills and their chassis. That's cool but that's much more on the Xcom side of the needle than the Battletech side of the needle. What do I mean by Battletech side of the needle? Maybe I take 8 30 ton lights into a 240 ton mission or maybe I take two assaults and a slow medium. That works in the board game because of scaling, moving, and positioning. Adding the initiative system on top of that means it turns into a much more deterministic "Did I put the light where it needs to go to provide sensor coverage, are my damage dealers in a position to shoot" and that's more xcom than Battletech. quote:You confuse me again - what do you mean by "combined pilot / skill / initiative system"? Many, MANY games use piloting skills and initiative systems. What specifically about what is happening in Battletech makes it feel so XCOM-y? In the board game, a mech moving quickly has a very high BTH against it. A mech heating up gets more and more BTH penalties to hit things, in a gradual way. And by managing the positioning and long term odds, I can create unfavorable matchups that let me win against mechs that are superior. So, in Battletech, the board game, two 30 ton mechs are a serious challenge for a 60 tonner. In Battletech, the HBS 2017 videogame, two 30 ton mechs are two lights that probably wouldn't be in the same lance if you could afford otherwise / were later in the campaign. So we're right back to the whole "mobility doesn't matter" which means you care about firepower and armor, favoring heavies. In addition the ranges are shorter, further favoring heavies and reducing positioning. There's less to do per turn since you don't "have" to move if you want to keep your BTH up. Lots and lots of stuff like that. So my feeling is that the mechs form a "team" like in Xcom with the soldiers having different roles, and that's captured by Mech Weight instead of Soldier Type. It ends up functionally replicating that by making Lights cover scout like functionality and specialist gimmicks, then meds - assaults fill in the more traditional grenadier / sniper / ranger depending on loadout. And that feels quite different to me from "a lance is a group of 4 mechs but they function individually as a combat unit if separated"
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2017 21:58
|
|
|
Cowcaster posted:ah yes noted xcom like shadowrun returns/dragonfall/hong kong, where a magician can stand on leylines to summon magic creatures while a squadmate hacks into an alternate map and does combat in cyberspace to affect objects in the real world You feel that the combat system in Shadowrun Returns is markedly different from Xcom's system because they named things differently and introduced enough elements that it wasn't a 1:1 clone? I need more than that I guess.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2017 22:03
|
|
|
Cowcaster posted:ah you believe that a car is not a sled simply because they took the wheels off and attached horses and it goes through snow tell me more of your quaint Believfs I don't know man, if we can't agree "Shadowrun's combat system is very very similar to Xcom 2012" then I don't think we're going to find a lot of common ground, because to me it is similar and I didn't care for it while I played through the Shadowrun campaigns. I really don't mean to be glib, just putting in some magic and whatever is enough for it not to be similar enough? The cyberspace was an afterthought in the first two games and acted as a sort of timer with you holding off dudes while your hacker did stuff. Was that enough to push it into "Not xcom" territory? Was it the fact that the classes were slightly different? To me the decision making and flow was similar enough that it felt like an Xcom mod / reskin.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2017 22:10
|
|
|
Zaodai posted:You can play the Returns campaign in the Dragonfall updated engine, which would be substantially less crap, I'd wager. That's the way I played it and it rocks. Hell just the ability to save during maps in the campaign is wonderful
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
Ein Sexmonster posted:I can't believe the final crux of "this is like XCOM" was that "light mechs aren't tanky enough while moving". Fast mechs, not just lights, there are some mediums that have huge rear end engines and that makes em interesting, and heavies that are real slow. And my point was that just like in Xcom this pushes into unit differentiation by "role on team" which I don't think is where Battletech shines.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
Yeah so if we imagine hard roles and soft roles, in Xcom I'd say the soldiers have hard roles - your rocket guy is the only guy that can rocket, the sniper is the only guy that can shoot out of los, so if you want that functionality you bring that guy. In btech TT it's a bit softer and more functional. You have damage dealer mechs but they are available in various weight and speed configurations. Same for snipers and fast scouts and so on. By reducing the speed and range I think you push into very little functional differentiation (through variants, mech weight, combat style) and through more hard role archetypes (this class of mechs has this equipment which combos with these soldier skills so that's how you'll build your lance) So I feel that Btech VG has defined roles for the mechs instead of the softer roles that I prefer, that's all.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2017 22:19
|
|
|
Ein Sexmonster posted:I just strongly disagree. Mechs in tabletop totally have strong roles, if they have a specialized loadout, and the same is true of this game. A trebuchet is very much focused on one thing, while a battlemaster can perform well at a variety of range brackets. Yeah and it's cool if we disagree. So an example from Xcom for me is that Assault class with lightning reflexes. I just don't like that only one soldier has a functionally different mechanic and that is so narrowly defined - if I need someone to run up to a pack that is going to fire at them, I really want to make it the assault. For me that kind of decision making is dull. Sniper goes in the sniper spot, assault runs up to get los, grenadier / heavy stands back. I get that people dig it, but it's not my thing - that style of defining roles. I find the Battletech TT style of "how much armor / how much heat / how much speed / what does it need to do" system of assigning roles to be more interesting. A lot of the balancing constraints in the design just seem to assume 4 mechs each with distinct roles (much like you'd need one of each base Xcom class to cover core functionality) which rubs me the wrong way personally.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2017 22:32
|
|
|
Gwaihir posted:There's no hard and fast roles in this game that did not already exist in tabletop. There's no special equipment that means only certain mechs can do certain things. As it exists now the pilots we're playing with have single skills while the full game will have provisions for 4+. Just like the TT game you can build generalists or specialists, although, just like the TT game again, if you try and build all generalists you're probably going to get smoked by someone that puts together a more specialized force of complimentary brawlers + fire support + scout. On their own, no, but with the addition of the pilot skills + initiative system banking, sensor system and reduced weapon ranges as well as less movement, I'd say it's heading towards that direction. It's fine if you don't feel that way.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2017 22:35
|
|
|
Gwaihir posted:Weapon ranges in this game are literally the same as they are in TT (A Medium Laser's max range is 270 meters!) . The weapon ranges is referring to the way that weapon brackets have been changed and in general medium range combat seems to involve a lot more hits and a lot more damage than a typical TT match. I haven't played enough with Melee but that feels quite different too. Along with the shorter maps and LOS system it makes sense, but I prefer a more open feel to the combat. Again, just a style preference. So for the deterministic stuff - Not a fan of Brace, not a fan of Evasive Pilot, not a fan of the 50% evasion modifier, etc. Inspire also seems dicey to me but hey I guess I'll see how it feels over the course of a campaign. I don't know how you don't put the guy with Bulwark in your slowest mech, or the one that likes to stand still. I don't know why you don't put Evasive Pilot on your assault, er, mech that needs to scout and draw fire. Sensor lock is a big deal. That kind of stuff just feels like obvious choices that reduce your decision making without adding much to the combat.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2017 22:46
|
|
|
Ein Sexmonster posted:You do realize that pilots only having one skill is a factor of the beta, and not representative of either skirmish or the campaign? There's a lot more depth to that system than we can really see at the moment. I hope it ends up being fun to play and I hope the campaign is as flexible as people feel it will be. Legit. I'd like a fun Battletech videogame, it's been a while since Mech Commander.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:This actually explains a lot. If your idea of battletech is MechCommander yeah, this isn't going to be mech commander. Mech Commander was profoundly different from the TT in order to translate it to being a RTS. I've had a lot of fun with MechCommander, but it's mostly because I really love the universe and have an embarrassing amount of nostalgia for it. I was referencing the last sort of working Battletech strategy game release, that's about it. I was not a fan of the liberties they took with Btech rules and it still managed to provide a fun experience. So if I was willing to meet that game halfway, I'm also willing to meet Battletech 2017 with Xcom flavor halfway as well. I think it's quite the stretch to go "aha you don't like REAL battletech, and that's why this far more authentic game doesn't resonate with you." Like I'm being castigated for pointing out the differences this game has from the base TT rules, it seems very odd to conclude that I don't like those same TT rules. I found Mech Commander a fun game despite all the changes like removing heat because too hard etc, hoping Battletech from HBS also ends up a fun game despite my differences of opinion with the combat mechanics.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2017 00:00
|
|
|
Cowcaster posted:i get the feeling the xp ui is indicative of whoever posted the picture making it 10 years ago and posting it anytime someone started a discussion about getting a fully funded battletech computer game ever since Not much to post, speculating about the unreleased game is apparently highly illegal, so I'm just waiting for the game to come out so I can play it. Also I'll try to spare the thread my thoughts on the game in general given that few people seemed to be enjoying the discussion last time
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2017 00:43
|
|
|
Get This: D:OS2 is the opposite of Xcom 2 because it doesn't have any dumb poo poo like turn timers and just lets you play. Like I know the gag is "comparing stuff to Xcom 2" but D:OS is the polar opposite of Xcom 2 design ideas, a combat system that lets you play instead of limiting your choices with deterministic poo poo, it's a Good Game
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2017 23:31
|
|
|
Skoll posted:You could do what I did and just turn the turn timer off before you play. The game was designed from the ground up to be modded so you can play how you want. It's a long discussion and I was just clarifying for folks that whatever jokes they may be going for relating to past Xcom comparisons, D:OS2 is a great game with awesome, open tactical combat and wonderful flexibility, anyone that likes tactical combat should check it out and see if it interests them, imo
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2017 23:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 07:23 |
|
|
Voyager I posted:It sounds pretty cool, but from looking at the steam page the visual design is oversaturated color vomit and it's recommended by Ham Sandwiches, heir to the throne of Oswald Owenstein. the scoop is "it has the tactical combat elements I enjoy, which is the opposite of the game it's being compared to" since it was being compared to Xcom 2 at the time Like, it's literally the opposite - it's an open game and a toolbox full of stuff you can do to have fun and break it and enjoy it, not one of these super tight modern designs that let you do what the designer wanted and that's it Section Z is being pretty realistic about it, just a question of if that's your style
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2017 03:18
|
|