Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

KickStarter BattleTech Pre-Release Thread

Thane Solus

Arcane
Joined
Apr 29, 2012
Messages
1,687
Location
X-COM Base
I think every TB tactical game should buy this technology from these guys and incorporate it into their games:


Buy the technology? That is a basic thing to do, and there are ways to maybe do it better.

"technology" lol. Next time try "I think turn based games with movement system like XCOM NU, should have this features as well. And XCOM NU actually had this, on suppression."
 

ArchAngel

Arcane
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
21,182
I think every TB tactical game should buy this technology from these guys and incorporate it into their games:


Buy the technology? That is a basic thing to do, and there are ways to maybe do it better.

"technology" lol. Next time try "I think turn based games with movement system like XCOM NU, should have this features as well. And XCOM NU actually had this, on suppression."

I think you don't understand what you are watching here. Also when I say buy technology means they buy their code and their help in implementing it into their own game. It is probably faster than coming up with it from scratch.
 
Joined
Jan 28, 2015
Messages
891
Location
Canuckistan
My team has the sexiest and deadliest waifus you can recruit.
I think you don't understand what you are watching here. Also when I say buy technology means they buy their code and their help in implementing it into their own game. It is probably faster than coming up with it from scratch.

I don't think you understand how absurd that sounds. Just "buying" a chunk of code an implementing it has almost no benefit over implementing your own version of whatever you want to do, unless you're dealing with some base engine stuff you should have sorted out at the earliest possible stage. What these guys are showing is just how they do presentation of a completely different type of turn based combat. You can't just flip between resolving unit orders one at a time to simultaneous resolution at the drop of a hat without having to completely redo most of your game. Basically you seem to want them to want what amounts to a grueling months long delay causing change for a few pretty effects, unless you just really love simultaneous resolution for tactical games in which case it's too late for this one.
 

ArchAngel

Arcane
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
21,182
I think you don't understand what you are watching here. Also when I say buy technology means they buy their code and their help in implementing it into their own game. It is probably faster than coming up with it from scratch.

I don't think you understand how absurd that sounds. Just "buying" a chunk of code an implementing it has almost no benefit over implementing your own version of whatever you want to do, unless you're dealing with some base engine stuff you should have sorted out at the earliest possible stage. What these guys are showing is just how they do presentation of a completely different type of turn based combat. You can't just flip between resolving unit orders one at a time to simultaneous resolution at the drop of a hat without having to completely redo most of your game. Basically you seem to want them to want what amounts to a grueling months long delay causing change for a few pretty effects, unless you just really love simultaneous resolution for tactical games in which case it's too late for this one.
Ok, true. BAttletech is using a different resolutions system. But this could be adjusted to work with that. Anyways, I dont' expect them to have this, but it would be nice for future TB tactics games.
 
Joined
Jun 20, 2014
Messages
906
Location
Malaysia
Shadorwun: Hong Kong
It's a purely graphical effect and would not be that complicated to implement.

If your gameplay is pretty simple and only based on gunplay, it would be. Complications in graphical results will occur when enemies attack other targets that is attacking others or using AoEs which make everything look ridiculous.
 

Taka-Haradin puolipeikko

Filthy Kalinite
Patron
Joined
Apr 24, 2015
Messages
20,543
Codex 2016 - The Age of Grimoire Make the Codex Great Again! Grab the Codex by the pussy Bubbles In Memoria
https://community.battletechgame.com/forums/threads/3745
Hey Everyone,

The topic for the September Q&A will be: Behind the scenes - ask questions about how the sausage is made (at least, how it's made here at HBS). As always we will be taking the first half of the hour to answer questions taken from this thread.

The Q&A will be hosted on Hyper RPG , our partnered twitch channel at Noon Pacific Standard Time

edit.
Torso twists will be sort of included.
https://community.battletechgame.com/forums/threads/3826/comments/67587
Well I was reading a couple of Ask the Dev posts Weapon firing arcs and Firing on multiple targets and I was thinking about how they would be coded into the game and logically how it would work.
To me, not having to worry about firing arcs for weapons in the arms and torso makes the game easier and then when you fire at multiple targets, I think that it will give a penalty for each additional target because your mech could be torso twisting to bring each target into the firing arc.
So for example you may have three enemies in range of your weapons and they are all damaged, so you believe that one more hit on each will be enough to kill them. So the first one has no penalty but the second might have a -15% to hit penalty and the third might be -35% to hit.
This is because the mech has to torso twist, even if just a little, to target the enemy so the extra targets are not locked up by your targeting system as well as the primary target. So you get the penalty to hit.
Is this how you picture the firing on multiple targets working in game?
Yeah, this is pretty much it. All targets you wish to shoot at must be within your firing arc, hence why your facing remains important during movement. You'll torso twist to face each target in turn, incurring some TBD cumulative hit penalty for each to represent the fact that you're having to do quick snap shots rather than being able to focus your aiming on a single opponent.
 
Last edited:

Abu Antar

Turn-based Poster
Patron
Joined
Jan 19, 2014
Messages
14,150
Enjoy the Revolution! Another revolution around the sun that is. Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Pathfinder: Wrath I'm very into cock and ball torture I helped put crap in Monomyth
Probably old:
Underwhelming news everyone - the list of confirmed mechs in the game has been shortened yesterday to 27 from the initial 38 mechs. Remember that this is still a longer list than the previously released Battletech adaptations. This is the currently confirmed list:

Light
Commando
Firestarter
Jenner
Locust
Panther
Spider
UrbanMech

Medium
Centurion
Cicada
Enforcer
Griffin
Hunchback
Kintaro
Shadow Hawk
Trebuchet
Vindicator

Heavy
Catapult
Dragon
JagerMech
Marauder
Orion
Warhammer

Assault
Atlas
BattleMaster
Highlander
King Crab
Victor

Apparently the melee animations are taking up development time and workpower. The ones left out of original reveal last year are:
Raven, Blackjack, Wolverine, Quickdraw, Thunderbolt, Cataphact, Grasshopper, Awesome, Zeus, Stalker and Banshee

Please take under consideration the meaning of the words "as of today" and "CURRENTLY confirmed" before engaging Targeting Interlock Circuit Alpha due to your favourite 'Mech not CURRENTLY, as of today, being on that list.
 

Destroid

Arcane
Joined
May 9, 2007
Messages
16,628
Location
Australia
Crescent Hawks revenge has 48 mechs (plus a few extra for the clanners not on this poster) so I dunno why they are claiming 27 is more than previous Battletech videogames.

chi.jpg
 
Self-Ejected

Bubbles

I'm forever blowing
Joined
Aug 7, 2013
Messages
7,817
Guys, we’ve had a failure of communication and it turns out that our original post wasted a lot of people’s time.

I thought that the ‘Mech list we published was identical to the list on our Kickstarter - the same list Mike confirmed during our livestreamed Q&A in August. So, when folks started talking about “losing” ‘Mechs from the list, I got confused. (Note to self: Don’t read forums at the gym or during meetings.) My comments about our pipeline and how many ‘Mechs we could get through it were intended to be about *additional* ‘Mechs beyond our original list.

Somewhere along the way, the list posted to this thread got truncated. Here’s the current, complete ‘Mech list for the game:

LIGHT

  • Locust
  • Commando
  • Spider
  • Firestarter
  • Jenner
  • Panther
  • Urbanmech
  • Raven
MEDIUM

  • Cicada
  • Blackjack
  • Vindicator
  • Centurion
  • Enforcer
  • Hunchback
  • Trebuchet
  • Griffin
  • Kintaro
  • Shadowhawk
  • Wolverine
HEAVY

  • Dragon
  • Quickdraw
  • Catapult
  • JagerMech
  • Thunderbolt
  • Grasshopper
  • Orion
  • Marauder
  • Warhammer
  • Cataphract
ASSAULT

  • Awesome
  • Victor
  • Zeus
  • BattleMaster
  • Stalker
  • Highlander
  • Banshee
  • King Crab
  • Atlas
Sorry for the confusion!

Mitch
 
Weasel
Joined
Dec 14, 2012
Messages
1,865,669
Haven't followed events on that forum for a while (too many annoying passive aggressive Watch-style posters and, more importantly, no button parade), but I wonder if that's backtracking after testing the reaction. Mitch was always very switched on about what he was posting and the information he gave out, a mysteriously truncated list of something as important as the mech lineup seems very unlikely. Anyway, guess the animators will be taking shorter lunchbreaks now.
 
Weasel
Joined
Dec 14, 2012
Messages
1,865,669
Interesting going through that thread, even a few hours before that "failure of communication" clarification both Tyler Carpenter (project lead) and Mitch were talking about how they would love to do all 38 mechs but the harsh realities of budgets etc meant it was impossible:

oe5kPBo.jpg


Then, after a gap of 6 hrs, Mitch "clarifies" things and all the staff suddenly realised the list was in error all along, as if the list of mechs in the game is something they haven't discussed much, something only the nerds on the forum know by heart:

qsr4LBK.jpg


Makes one wonder about the conversations during those 6 hrs :shittydog:. Got back to the original list in the end though, and I guess now they know what the reaction will be like if they cut the list to that extent in the future.
 
Weasel
Joined
Dec 14, 2012
Messages
1,865,669
Thought I'd do a final check on the drama, but everyone over there seems to be ecstatic... that the original list is now still the list. And the thread took a detour as it was revealed Tyler Carpenter worked on Shadows of Mordor:


Ah0fScB.jpg


So I'd better leave it there rather than derailing this thread too.
 

agris

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Apr 16, 2004
Messages
6,925
Interesting going through that thread, even a few hours before that "failure of communication" clarification both Tyler Carpenter (project lead) and Mitch were talking about how they would love to do all 38 mechs but the harsh realities of budgets etc meant it was impossible:

[...]

Got back to the original list in the end though, and I guess now they know what the reaction will be like if they cut the list to that extent in the future.
What I don't want to happen is a WL2 or PoE style 'include it because we promised' / checklist design process where it has no noticeable gameplay difference or is bloated beyond reason to the detriment of gameplay. Some people might want skins, but if they offer 38 Mechs, I want 38 different choices that impact gameplay. Look at what we got with the role of attributes in PoE at release or WL2's divvying of skills.

I'd like for whatever number of mechs we have to present real tactical or gameplay differences, not just skins and not just paint-by-numbers.
 
Weasel
Joined
Dec 14, 2012
Messages
1,865,669
Interesting going through that thread, even a few hours before that "failure of communication" clarification both Tyler Carpenter (project lead) and Mitch were talking about how they would love to do all 38 mechs but the harsh realities of budgets etc meant it was impossible:

[...]

Got back to the original list in the end though, and I guess now they know what the reaction will be like if they cut the list to that extent in the future.
What I don't want to happen is a WL2 or PoE style 'include it because we promised' / checklist design process where it has no noticeable gameplay difference or is bloated beyond reason to the detriment of gameplay. Some people might want skins, but if they offer 38 Mechs, I want 38 different choices that impact gameplay. Look at what we got with the role of attributes in PoE at release or WL2's divvying of skills.

I'd like for whatever number of mechs we have to present real tactical or gameplay differences, not just skins and not just paint-by-numbers.

Sure, and I think most people who were bitching in that thread are expecting there to be gameplay differences, with cosmetic reskins limited to stuff like the "Backer Atlas" paintjob. Of course it remains to be seen how this pans out in practice.

The Raven for example, was one of the "missing" mechs from the first list, and in theory plays very differently, but this depends on how ECM is implemented in the game (details on this seem to have varied over time so I'm not sure on current status). The Awesome was another iconic mech not on the first list - but if one can easily swap out weapons and systems then one could just put that loadout on an Atlas. The stated goal was to have some customisation, but to make each mech feel distinctive and make extensive modifications difficult/expensive. But it remains to be seen how customisation will work in the final games so this is still in the balance. There were plenty of flamewars on their forums as there are established camps both for and against full customisation, both sides quoting precedents in "canon" (which is all over the place) and prior games. I wonder if they'll stick with a variant on hardpoints by the time the game is finalised.
 

ArchAngel

Arcane
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
21,182
Yea 38 MECHS mean shit if it is going to be mostly a cosmetic change with little changed numbers here and there.
 
Weasel
Joined
Dec 14, 2012
Messages
1,865,669
Wanted to check on the current thinking in terms of customisation and ECM so had a look through their forums again, someone has done a very thorough summary of everything the devs have said on the forums or Q&As here:
https://community.battletechgame.com/forums/threads/3762

TL;DR: Don't seem to have final details on those areas yet, perhaps the October Q&A will shed further light.

Hardpoints. And size restrictions, but those are easy. Mostly hardpoints. So that you need to put missiles in your Catapult C1's arms. Other variants of the chassis, where they exist, are distinct chassis from the default. So if you find a K2, it's a different chassis than the C1, and they're not interchangeable.

In the single-player campaign, you will need to spend time, money, and have MechTechs and a MechBay available in order to customize a 'Mech.

(to retain 'Mech flavor): avoidance of degenerate gameplay. 10xMG is degenerate, but so is the typical alpha-striking laser boat. I don't necessarily want to enforce the flavor at the expense of personal creativity and strategy, but I want to keep it within a reasonable 'feels-like-BT-lore' space.

Q: "Will parts have modifiers based on where they were found? (Poor Quality, Good Quality, etc? Could be described as weapon/location quirks?)"

A: Parts will have different manufacturers, at the very least.

The exact nature of 'Mech customization is still being worked on, so unfortunately there are no details to share just yet. I can say, however, that we are using the MWO weapon models, so while nothing's final I wouldn't expect weapon hardpoints to stray too far from what's available there.

We're not using MWO's hardpoint system. What HBS_TopazOne said was that you shouldn't expect us to stray too far from what's available with it. E.G. you won't be able to make a Marauder with 5 PPCs on one arm, simply because we don't have the assets to do that. We still haven't decided how to implement the mech customization system beyond "What assets do we have from MWO, and how does that limit us in terms of actual mech geometry?" My personal opinion on engines is that you shouldn't be able to swap engines.

"I hope you at least include all the era-appropriate variants so we have lots to play with."

That's definitely part of the plan.
***
The Beagle Active Probe and Guardian ECM systems are incredibly powerful, and also incredibly binary. If those are what you consider electronic warfare equipment, then the chances of any player getting their hands on them are pretty small, yeah. I'm not even sure if I feel like including them in the game at all.

If, however, your notion of electronics warfare includes equipment to extend your detection range for blips, or spoof what weight class your mech is until people have LOS, et cetera... Then yes, that's gear that exists. Without getting too much into it, it's gear that specializes a given mech toward a given style of play.
 
Weasel
Joined
Dec 14, 2012
Messages
1,865,669
Hint for the pvp crew, ie don't expect too many frills at launch. One can see that Mitch is a weatherbeaten veteran of the industry, all through the kickstarter and afterwards he's been pretty blunt on what the scope of the game is and not getting carried away with promises. During the KS when they met all the stretch goals people were asking for more goals and he just poured cold water on the idea, saying they'd rather deliver the game in a reasonable timeframe. Whatever one's views on the level of ambition of this project, or HBS in general, I can think of a few KS campaigns which could have done with a bit of advice from someone who knows what it takes to actually get a game out the door.


o6zdXxW.jpg
 

almondblight

Arcane
Joined
Aug 10, 2004
Messages
2,622
I just hope they don't end up doing what they've done with the last few games - rushing the initial project, having people get turned off because it's mediocre, then release an update that makes the game great after everyone's stopped paying attention. If they need more time/money they're better off going the early access route.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom