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
AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort



May I suggest a link to the Discord server in the OP? If the Discord Server admin is alright with that, I guess?

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort



Zaodai posted:

In theory, since it's on steam they can just revoke it that way, though nothing really stops you from just leaving your steam in offline mode for the duration I guess.
Unless the game requires you to sign in, you can just copy the game's whole directory and run the executable directly from that directory, regardless of your steam status.

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort



Maybe they should have waited another month?

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort



Q_res posted:

Right now it's tentatively set for "late summer/early fall"
At this rate I dont see it coming out this year. There have already been a number of setbacks and delays. A "beta" that is only actually a skirmish part of the game, with few other tools, on June 1, is a bad sign for time. I'm not trying to be a naysayer, but you've gotta be realistic.

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort



BenRGamer posted:

...did they ever say the beta would be anything different? Other than having multiplayer, that is.
No and I never said that they said otherwise...(see my response to Qres to continue this thought)


Q_res posted:

Skirmish only was always the plan for the Backer Beta, all the way back to 2015 during the initial Kickstarter campaign. So treating it like some sort of bad sign is really weird. I mean, I doubt they'll actually hit "late summer/early fall" but I think it's pretty pessimistic to think they can't get this game out within the next 6 months.
I'm just saying that:
The final product is going to have a multiplayer skirmish, single player skirmish, single player linear campaign, single player non-linear contract taking campaign.

The beta for the skirmish is out on June 1, which is a delayed date. This delayed beta release for a small portion of what the final product will include...had features stripped at the last minute

Therefore I would not get my hopes up for a release in the next 6 months.



Disclaimer before the pitchforks come out: I'm not an authority on the subject and could be VERY wrong. I may just have bad opinions.

AAAAA! Real Muenster fucked around with this message at 20:44 on May 28, 2017

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort



DatonKallandor posted:

The features it had stripped are exclusive the part of the game that isn't the focus though. The primary part of Battletech - the campaign and combat are both still in the beta. What got cut was multiplayer - that doesn't impact the campaign.
The Beta is Skirmish only - no campaign. We have no idea of the status of the campaign (I don't think?).

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort



I'm the one who was posting about it on this page and I'm not panicking, just posting my opinion on a gay dying comedy forum and people seem to be reacting really strongly and/or misinterpreting what I am saying

Me calmly stating my opinion that I don't expect the game this year /= "Oh gently caress oh gently caress oh gently caress everything is ruined and the sky is falling".

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort



Q_res posted:

Literally nobody freaked out at you, all I said was that it seemed (overly) pessimistic. I think you're being a touch sensitive about a reasonable, calmly stated disagreement.

Alchenar posted:

This is a lot of panicking over 'they aren't confident they can get the networking good to go right now'.


You're not wrong, Q_res, I may be over-reacting but I know these forums well enough that I felt a disclaimer was necessary. I feel like my response to your post explained my stance and wasnt overly reactionary. I'm going to drop it because it doesnt add anything to conversation at this point.

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort



blackmongoose posted:

If I recall correctly, Battletech armor is basically a magical material with multiple properties that are well outside the realm of physics, but most people accept it as a setting conceit because it's the only thing that makes giant robots workable. The magic armor is a significant contributor to the low density of Mechs, especially if you assume the internal structure is made of similarly low density magic stuff.
Couldnt it just be that the armor on Battlemechs is great but takes up a lot of space, which is why mechs are so light yet so large?

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort



Psion posted:

See, in the IS, they use the new Kerensky Ton, which doesn't mean 2000lb/1000kg (depending on if you mean short ton/metric ton) so therefore...

Really, just come up with whatever handwave you want to come up with. They're all equally valid. Myomer is magic muscle fiber and can be whatever the setting demands - I don't know if any of the line developers have gone into answering how mech armor and mass works, but I hope the answer is "very well, thank you"

trying to rationalize it just doesn't get you anywhere in the end, because once you figure out a workable made-up reason to explain mech weights, you get into ammunition weight and then it's all downhill from there very fast. I think I did the math on Arrow IVs and gauss rifles once and regretted the mistake, trust me.
No but you see it has to make sense because...

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort



JacksLibido posted:

It's actually stupid easy to throw a track on a tank.
However easy it is, it is lostech.

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort



Drone posted:

Looks like they gave out some copies a bit early to streamers so they can put up videos immediately: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hpz-oX3gKys
God I dont have an hour to watch this, I hope people post like a...5-10 clip of gameplay or something. Every stream always starts with 5-10 minutes of talking and stops and starts all the time.

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort



Psion posted:

I intend on posting 15 second gifs so whenever I get my hands on it, rest assured I won't waste your time with two hours of crap and no need to like, comment, and subscribe!

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort



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.
But the grogs that want that and only that don't care, they want it anyway.

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort



I imagine the Multishot skill will be great on something like an Awesome when you have to kill a bunch of vehicles in the campaign.

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort



Perestroika posted:

You could combine that with a soft anti-savescum mechanic as well. Throwing out a random idea: Say a pilot gets injured/"killed" in the field, you'll get shown the general severity of their condition (e.g. light, medium, severe, critical), but without a final mechanical effect yet. Then you get to decide what kind of treatment to give them, with a trade-off between effectiveness and time taken. So you could throw them right back into the field, but that would have high odds of resulting in a fairly gnarly (semi-)permanent injury or even outright death. Or you could stick them into the medbay for an extended period (perhaps with a money cost for whatever super high-end care is available in the BTech universe), which would give you much better odds at a relatively less severe penalty or even a full recovery, but would keep the pilot out of action for several missions. The key here would be that the roll for whatever happens is fixed at the time you decide on your treatment option, but you only get to actually see the result once the treatment finishes. Most people wouldn't go back like 4+ missions just because their guy did bite it in the end.
This just means that they would savescum immediately so they would not have to deal with that mechanic.

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort



Zaodai posted:

And some of it may not even be monetary value vs current value. How much are your friends worth? Are you going to face down that assault lance to buy time for the guys who employed you for the last 4 missions to escape, or are you going to leave them to die, or even switch sides because it's an easy pay day? Of course then your rep will be poo poo because you bailed, but hey, you're not dead.
"Think of it this way, kid: you get to keep all the money"

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort



Ham Sandwiches posted:

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.
It wasnt a year ago and the problem everyone has with your posts is that you are full of poo poo and are going "THIS GAME IS XCOM 2 WITH MECHS!!!!1" and will not have any part in a discussion about it - you are not willing to justify your opinions beyond "Xcom did it that way so obviously Harebrained did it EXACTLY THE SAME!".

You are also willfully ignoring facts (such as a 4 mech lance being a standard thing in the game since its tabletop inception in the 80s). Instead, to you, its "XCOM DID IT THIS WAY SO OBVIOUSLY THEY TOOK THE IDEA FROM XCOM!!".

People are calling you out because you have bad, wrong opinions and are sticking to them and continuing to post about them, all whilst ignoring facts and good points people are making about how Battletech is not, in fact, a clone of XCOM with robits.

edit: You are entitled to your opinion and you are welcome to post about it as much as you want, but other people are going to have opinions about your (bad) opinions and are going to call you out. No one is forcing you to post.

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort



Ham Sandwiches posted:

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.
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?


Ham Sandwiches posted:

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.
You know, this isnt a bad thing to want. The game is in beta and the devs are asking for feedback via the beta client of the game - have you provided the devs this feedback?

If the game was a finished product I could see you being this mad about it but its a beta, dude. They have developers posting in this thread as well as taking feedback directly. They also have their own forums, have you posted there?

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort



Ham Sandwiches posted:

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
We're not "yelling" at you, you're yelling at us, lmao. WHY WONT YOU GUYS LISTEN!! DONT YOU SEE! When you go on a posting marathon and are as wrong as you are people are going to call you out. NO ONE else sees what you are seeing w/r/t the game being XCOM with robits and have posted reasons why, yet you are sticking to your crusade and you cannot come up with better explanations or justifications unless we repeatedly call you out. Then you posted something specific and lo and behold, people didnt reply with vitriol but useful info!

Please see:

AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:

The game is in beta and the devs are asking for feedback via the beta client of the game - have you provided the devs this feedback?

If the game was a finished product I could see you being this mad about it but its a beta, dude. They have developers posting in this thread as well as taking feedback directly. They also have their own forums, have you posted there?

and

Zaodai posted:

We call you a liar for claiming that mechanics are wholesale lifted from XCOM2, down to aiming being the same when it's not aside from you clicking a target with your mouse.

Also, isn't the burden of proof on you? You're the one spewing bullshit at us. Alternatively, go play a game you like, or if you actually want to change things you perceive as being wrong, submit those surveys that come up after EVERY GAME of the beta, allowing you to send your feedback directly to the devs.

There are many more productive options if you genuinely aren't a troll and are just somehow that misguided.

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort



Ham Sandwiches posted:

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.

AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:

You are entitled to your opinion and you are welcome to post about it as much as you want, but other people are going to have opinions about your (bad) opinions and are going to call you out. No one is forcing you to post.

Zaodai posted:

More directly, we accept that you have Bad, Wrong Opinions.

But you need to accept that your Bad, Wrong Opinions are not the same as factual information.

I dont even need to type new posts because someone already has a good reply

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort



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.

I wouldn't go as far as to say that this game is just xcom with mechs though, xcom already has mechs and it plays differently... and I honestly think xcomc has more depth to it in the battle phase right now with how their cover system works.
I agree. There are parallels and comparisons can be made. People made those comparisons (in this thread) and tried to explain to HAM SANDWICHES that there is more to it and he wouldnt have it and continued to throw a fit. His posting followed the classic "being an indignant stubborn ignorant babby" posting arc.

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.

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??
This just keeps getting better. DIG A DEEPER HOLE.

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort



Ham Sandwiches posted:

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.
I know I am one of the people that have been giving you poo poo, but I appreciate that you are actually trying to explain. I am going to try to reply directly to specific things to highlight to you why people like me are giving you poo poo.

Ham Sandwiches posted:

The 4 person squad size is an example
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.

Ham Sandwiches posted:

in btech board rules I think mechs are more autonomous and effective independently
This doesnt make any sense to me - maybe you played the boardgame differently. In my opinion, this is a bad assumption and I think your opinion here is an outlier.

Ham Sandwiches posted:

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
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?

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.
This looks like it is based on your previous assertion that mechs operate independently, when they do not in the boardgame, game canon, or any of the mechwarrior games. Any game about any military units is about keeping your units together and fighting as a cohesive force. "Positioning" is not a gameplay feature that XCOM invented - this is one of the reasons people are calling you out.

Ham Sandwiches posted:

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.
Its contentions because you refuse to listen to any of the reason that so many people are trying to post. You arent making sense and then going on and on about how the game is too much like XCOM when no one else thinks that, and when people ask you about it you arent giving much detail or the details dont add up.

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort



Q_res posted:

The biggest problem with bumping the PPC to 60 damage (something I've suggested, too) is that it becomes a headcapper (one shot kill on a headshot against a fully armored Mech). Combine that with its very high hit %s and long range...
I'm surprised that the amount of damage a head can take hasnt been adjusted, considering some of the other adjustments that HBS have made.

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort



I dont understand why Assaults have so much worse sensor range. Or spotting range - arent most of them taller and more stable platforms?

AAAAA! Real Muenster fucked around with this message at 18:34 on Jun 6, 2017

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort



I hope they add more mech collapsing animations - if the head is gone/pilot dead I dont foresee mechs swaying before they collapse.

Also,

Alchenar posted:

An actual DFA combat animation would be nice.
Agreed, though I do acknowledge that making that animation is probably incredibly hard.


Also, mechashiva is not a crime!

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort



Paingod556 posted:

If you ever figure out how to edit 'Mech portraits as well, got just the thing

Atlas Shrug will never be irrelevant
Oh my god thank you, these are priceless.

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort



Gwaihir posted:



But what about indecent mech-sposure???








I cant find the screencap I had of 10 Kerensky Alts all on top of one another We did it the weekend that they had the trial Cataphract that has JJs and had 8v8 Kerensky alts.

AAAAA! Real Muenster fucked around with this message at 15:46 on Jun 7, 2017

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort



Pattonesque posted:

That makes sense. I also wonder if AI behavior will change in an actual campaign mission.

Like, OK, if I'm the AI and I'm programmed to act like an actual OpFor, and I've lost half my mechs and the enemy still has a pristine assault and heavy on the battlefield, I might decide that retreating in good order is way preferable to spiting the player by DFAing a Locust. Of course that could change depending on if I'm set up to act like, say, the Death Commandos.

It kind of reminds me of a game of Medieval II: Total War that I played where Egypt kept on sending whole armies to be slaughtered to a man at the gates of one of my cities. They kept doing that even as the Mongols showed up and started devouring their empire. I kind of realized that the AI was set up to try to make me lose as opposed to acting semi-rationally and quit after that.
I am really hoping for this too. Some grogs will probably cry that it makes it too easy or something, but since it will be a campaign I would hope that if they do an orderly withdrawal, they can show up again later or make a mission at a later date play out differently. Or it affects my payout "Well you won the objective but you didnt kill the defenders and now they escaped to reinforce another location".

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort



Nalin posted:

This is all I have:

http://imgur.com/a/6ohOf

My videos of the event are gone, and the video that used to be on YouTube was deleted.
That is better than I have left. That is the stuff of legend!

Willfrey posted:

Aaah the memories. After the cataphract tower fell I was trapped in the sky somehow
werent there a bunch of people stuck in the sky? Overall it was just fantastic.

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort



Nope, never.

I read most of the first post and at least it wasn't filled with typos and rage - it was mostly well worded. It just wasn't thought out - he is criticizing a game that:
1) Is in beta
2) Has a survey after each match
2) Has a forum for feedback

Some of the criticism is sorta valid, other bits might actually be a bug?

So... get hosed, dudebro. Post your feedback in a constructive manner rather than being super critical about it.

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort



DatonKallandor posted:

Can't do it cause Smalls use different hardpoints from Mediums. Gotta wait for the Firestarter for real melee shenanigans.
You would hope that you could replace any normal hardpoint (Ballistic, Missile, Energy) with a small Support Weapon...

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort



Q_res posted:

Why would that possibly work like that? Kind of defeats the purpose of having hardpoints?
I just want a Punchback and fitting a smaller gun into a hardpoint sounds logical on a really simple level to me.

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort



Zaodai posted:

Oh lord they left the Argo parked in the Detroit system. I guess that confirms we find it as salvage. Sitting on blocks, in space.


Rygar201 posted:

Hmm? A spaceship for your Command Center? Sounds like some other successful tactics game...

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort



Who the what now?

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort



ZenVulgarity posted:

So this game seems cool and good

Mwo has made me thing battletech is trash and bad

Unbreak me
MWO is made by PGI, who are wholly and completely trash. They do not even have in-house programmers.

Battletech is made by HBS (Harebrained Schemes), who are wholly awesome and good. HBS is run by the man who invented the tabletop game Battletech in the 80s. They have in-house programmers. They acquired the mech assets (the only good part of MWO; the cool mech art and models) from PGI and are otherwise not affiliated.

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort



Alchenar posted:

Not even going to attempt to claim that MWO has done anything positive for the franchise.
It hasnt and he knows it.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort



Cyrano4747 posted:

Meanwhile I"ve played two MC2 campaigns to completion because it put me in the mood\.
MC2 as in Mech Commander 2?

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