KickStarter BattleTech Pre-Release Thread

[Spark Mandriller]

I assumed that meant that mechs that you own could only be damaged and not destroyed. If that's the case it might be okay. MechCommander didn't allow player mechs to be permanently destroyed either, and it worked out okay, since the penalty was that you'd almost always have some/all of your weapons get destroyed. Losing just one good quality Clan weapon like that sucked even if you did get to repair your mech. If they actually do a good job with the economy in this game like they say they're trying to then it'll be even worse, since having to spend loads repairing/reequipping your mech will be a huge pain.
Of course, that assumes they are going to do a good job with the economy. No guarantees that will happen.

 

[circ]

sheeep. Read that tweet. Then read it again. She doesn't want to destroy mechs because it might turn casual players off. Let me type out an analogy.

You're playing Super Mario Bros, you bump into a goomba. You think you've died but alas, you don't die in this game silly boi. Just keep collecting stuff. You're doing great.

 

[Cael]

'Mechs are designed to function with bits blown off. That is the core reason why they are better than vehicles in the BTech universe. Usually, 'mechs only get destroyed in an engine or ammo explosion. Otherwise, there is always something to salvage. It would be hilariously improbable to have 300+ years of continuous warfare without a significant percentage of wrecked 'mechs repairable.

The problem, of course, is how they are going to simulate engine explosions, because even 3 hits to the engine doesn't automatically cause one in the literature.

 

[Infinitron]

sheeep. Read that tweet. Then read it again. She doesn't want to destroy mechs because it might turn casual players off. Let me type out an analogy.

You're playing Super Mario Bros, you bump into a goomba. You think you've died but alas, you don't die in this game silly boi. Just keep collecting stuff. You're doing great.

That's...not really the correct analogy. It's more like you can't use Mario for a few levels and have to switch to Luigi.

 

[circ]

Yeah that's nice. Except she's essentially talking about casual hand-holding, because they got a booboo. What's the point of playing a game of this genre if there isn't fubar risk involved?

Nothing about the development of this has so far been anything but downgrades and ineptitude.

 

[Infinitron]

 

[Jimmious]

I would be perfectly happy if they include it as an optional checkbox "Allow permanent destruction of player mechs"

 

[Cael]

To the idiot boy with the wig: The pilot is in the Head. Shattering the CT isn't going to kill the pilot unless you also implement engine explosions and/or the optional CT cockpit, you oestrogen injecting junkie!

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

Well it depends, if I recall correctly when it comes to the ejection rules various iterations you generally had a fairly good chance of dying on just a CT kill even if you had automatic ejection active and much less if you had manual ejection, head kill just had no recourse of any sort. It's the whole thing where automatic ejection might trigger from ammo explosions that wouldn't otherwise be that bad of a deal in context to leaving very early.

But I digress since the various rules of wherever aren't really all that important to considering (functionally unrelated and separate) vidya gameplay...

I assumed that meant that mechs that you own could only be damaged and not destroyed. If that's the case it might be okay. MechCommander didn't allow player mechs to be permanently destroyed either, and it worked out okay, since the penalty was that you'd almost always have some/all of your weapons get destroyed. Losing just one good quality Clan weapon like that sucked even if you did get to repair your mech. If they actually do a good job with the economy in this game like they say they're trying to then it'll be even worse, since having to spend loads repairing/reequipping your mech will be a huge pain.
Of course, that assumes they are going to do a good job with the economy. No guarantees that will happen.

... Where indeed we get to this that even just sufficient damage to equipment can be more than enough impetus to just reload and redo (since I personally find ironmanning to simply be exercise in masochism), which is generally the whole big idea when it comes to presenting mission outcome. Destruction of the 'mech (and equipment) is really just part of a larger equation of "where do you draw the line to redo or try later" for a relative measure of success and failure. Even just not having a mech available for next deployment can be a relatively hefty loss, or just negative cash balance from the mission. That's really the context in which 'mech destruction needs to be considered in terms of gameplay.

(and in regards to comparing to MechCommander, odds are that the loss severity will still rank as Pilot>>>(Mech, if you could lose them permanently)/Mech Unavailable or Damaged for X missions>Rare Weapons>Weapons with cash balance as the wildcard factor)

 

[Werdna's Revenge]

Yeah fro 3025 era BT it's all about salvaging the valuable chassis even if an ammo explosion blew out half the CT and both legs. I don't mind it being a prohibitively costly endeavor to replace your pilot/weapons & pay for chassis repairs when you fuck up.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

I look at it more in regards to how it can express mission failure in relative terms, even if I'd regardless have autistic OCD to reload and do again until everything goes near-perfectly.

(In MechCommander for me this was probably more expressed in salvaging enemy mechs, albeit from what I can tell it was kind of a random chance process than tactical, what with feeling pangs of insanity if even considering finishing a mission with a mech of my own that only lost weapons; suffice to say my way of thinking isn't very compatible with ironman)

 

[Taka-Haradin puolipeikko]

Yeah fro 3025 era BT it's all about salvaging the valuable chassis even if an ammo explosion blew out half the CT and both legs. I don't mind it being a prohibitively costly endeavor to replace your pilot/weapons & pay for chassis repairs when you fuck up.

Perhaps losing a chassis would make sense when player has to retreat from a mission.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

Depends again on how things are handled I think, it wouldn't work outside of ironmanning (and personally I don't see value in forcing ironman), but it could definately work as a kind of threat for a mission that is itself a fighting withdrawal (something I think TB is exceptionally suited for).

 

[Cael]

Well it depends, if I recall correctly when it comes to the ejection rules various iterations you generally had a fairly good chance of dying on just a CT kill even if you had automatic ejection active and much less if you had manual ejection, head kill just had no recourse of any sort. It's the whole thing where automatic ejection might trigger from ammo explosions that wouldn't otherwise be that bad of a deal in context to leaving very early.

Not really. Ejection may do 1 damage to the pilot (out of 6 hp), so if the pilot was already damaged from falls, Head hits or (when CASE appeared) ammo/Gauss Rifle explosions, then yes, there was a chance of death. Other than that, only a direct hit to the cockpit or total destruction of the Head would kill a pilot. A CT blow out would not kill a pilot unless the engine detonated and even then, the autoejection rules applied.

 

[PorkBarrellGuy]

No Stackpoling please God no fucking Stackpoling, Stackpoling is a stupid fucking rule

 

[Cael]

No Stackpoling please God no fucking Stackpoling, Stackpoling is a stupid fucking rule

Stackpoling is possible in real life, not because the fusion engine goes up in a nuclear explosion, but because the plasma hits the relatively lower temperature 'mech body and explosive expansion happens.

 

[agris]

Someone plz enlighten me: what is CT?

 

[PorkBarrellGuy]

No Stackpoling please God no fucking Stackpoling, Stackpoling is a stupid fucking rule

Stackpoling is possible in real life, not because the fusion engine goes up in a nuclear explosion, but because the plasma hits the relatively lower temperature 'mech body and explosive expansion happens.

I know but it's really not fun (especially if melee's on the table). I think it is an anti-fun mechanic for the most part.

Someone plz enlighten me: what is CT?

Center Torso, where the mech's fusion engine resides. Also one of the body sections guaranteed to give a kill when cored out for that reason. If your CT goes, your mech is guaranteed dead.

 

[agris]

Someone plz enlighten me: what is CT?

Center Torso, where the mech's fusion engine resides. Also one of the body sections guaranteed to give a kill when cored out for that reason. If your CT goes, your mech is guaranteed dead.

Is there a mechanistic difference between a "Torso" shot and a "Center Torso" shot? Or are we adding adjectives to show how advanced our science fiction knowledge is?

 

[PorkBarrellGuy]

Someone plz enlighten me: what is CT?

Center Torso, where the mech's fusion engine resides. Also one of the body sections guaranteed to give a kill when cored out for that reason. If your CT goes, your mech is guaranteed dead.

Is there a mechanistic difference between a "Torso" shot and a "Center Torso" shot? Or are we adding adjectives to show how advanced our science fiction knowledge is?

Side Torso (Left or Right) are not guaranteed kills. Side torsi CAN house engine components in Inner Sphere XL-engine equipped mechs, and if you lose a Side Torso on an XL-equipped mech you are boned (it has to do with engine crits and the fact that you need three crits on the engine to go in order to cause a dead mech, and Inner Sphere XLs have 3 engine slots per side torso). Some mechs can "zombie" and lose every section except a leg, their head and their CT and keep on ticking (and sometimes even keep shooting - see the Centurion as an example).

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

Someone plz enlighten me: what is CT?

Center Torso, where the mech's fusion engine resides. Also one of the body sections guaranteed to give a kill when cored out for that reason. If your CT goes, your mech is guaranteed dead.

Is there a mechanistic difference between a "Torso" shot and a "Center Torso" shot? Or are we adding adjectives to show how advanced our science fiction knowledge is?

Side Torso (Left or Right) are not guaranteed kills. Side torsi CAN house engine components in Inner Sphere XL-engine equipped mechs, and if you lose a Side Torso on an XL-equipped mech you are boned (it has to do with engine crits and the fact that you need three crits on the engine to go in order to cause a dead mech, and Inner Sphere XLs have 3 engine slots per side torso). Some mechs can "zombie" and lose every section except a leg, their head and their CT and keep on ticking (and sometimes even keep shooting - see the Centurion as an example).

Just to make a little addendum, you forgot about Rear Torso, which is basically the same as CT except generally considerably more fragile in regards to armor (there's two types of "hit points" for Mechs in BTech, armor and internal). Also to elaborate a little on Damn's thing, best way for a layman to grasp it that critical hit effects can destroy 'mechs too, but primarily a 'mech is killed when its "hit points" in either Center/Rear Torso (these share internal), Head, or both Legs reach zero.

Also in case you wonder what Stackpoling, agris, Stackpoling refers to mechs blowing up in little mushroom clouds when destroyed (named after one of the BTech novelists, for reason you can probably guess).

 

[GarfunkeL]

Doesn't matter whether Mechs can be totally destroyed or not. I would reload if I lost a mech in MechCommander because losing Clan weapons or experienced pilots was a very bad thing and because there was no point in handicapping yourself by pushing ahead in a campaign after bad shit.

 

[Cael]

No Stackpoling please God no fucking Stackpoling, Stackpoling is a stupid fucking rule

Stackpoling is possible in real life, not because the fusion engine goes up in a nuclear explosion, but because the plasma hits the relatively lower temperature 'mech body and explosive expansion happens.

I know but it's really not fun (especially if melee's on the table). I think it is an anti-fun mechanic for the most part.

Stackpoling doesn't damage melee weapons nor affect the 'mechs next to the Stackpoling 'mech, despite what Stackpole says. It was never in the rules.

 

[Cael]

Someone plz enlighten me: what is CT?

Opps! Sorry, dude. Here is a list of abbreviations that us BTech fans/vets use for hit locations:

CT - Centre Torso
RT/LT - Right Torso/Left Torso
RA/LA - Right/Left Arm
RL/LL - Right/Left Leg

Each section/location has armour and internal structure. Think of internal structure as the location's hit points.
Crits can refer to one of two things: 1. Critical Slots - the amount of internal space required to mount a weapon, or 2. A hit to a critical slot.
For example, a Clan Gauss Rifle weighs 12 tons and takes up 6 critical slots. That means you need 6 empty internal spaces to mount the Gauss Rifle in a location (i.e., it takes up 6 critical slots), which rules out the Head, CT, RL and LL. Say you mount it in the Right Torso. In a fight, you lose all of the armour covering the Right Torso. Any subsequent hits MIGHT hit something vital in the arm (it is about a 50/50 chance per hit) depending on a roll. If it DOES hit something vital, the number of critical slots affected is rolled and what gets hit is randomly assigned to whatever is in that location. This is the critical hit. Now, if you only have the Gauss Rifle in the RT, then that is the thing that will get it (it doesn't matter how many times it is hit, a hit on any of the 6 slots will nuke the weapon). If you have other things there (up to the maximum of 12 slots for the RT), then there is a 50/50 chance per hit that the Gauss Rifle will be affected. This has given rise to what is called "crit padding" where you put in a lot of less vital stuff (usually heat sinks) into a location with a vital component in hopes that those things get hit first rather than the vital component.

There are a lot of abbreviations and technical terms built up over the 30+ years the game has been in existence, and yeah, sometimes us oldies forget those new to the game would get lost in it.

 

[PorkBarrellGuy]

Wonder if they'll have TACs. Not likely, given how they're handling it so far, but if they did it would be hilarious/bullshit.

EDIT: (Through-armor criticals, AKA how the dice let you know they fucking hate you)

EDIT 2: I'm pretty sure TACs were an "optional" rule but I could be wrong about that