Refitting cost

[MeiSooHaityu]

One thing to keep in mind is that BattleTech can have depth, but it also needs to balance a line that also allows it to stay approachable to new players.


This extra level of detail is ok with many of us because we have spent 100s of hours playing BattleTech and we know this game pretty well and are comfortable with it's mechanics. To new players, this level of detail may seem too complicated or overwhelming.

As we get more familiar with the game, and grow more hungrier for those details, we at least have the benefit of installing mods to achieve that. With new playerd though, the game only has one chance to make a first impression, and if there is too many layers of complexity, it may turn people off.

As an example, RogueTech (and mods similar) can be great fun, but would you introduce a new player to BattleTech with RogueTech? I think it would be too much. Instead, you would most likely let them play the standard game, and then down the road say...now try this mod.

I think this is just something to keep in mind. Sometimes we get so familiar with the game, that adding details seems natural. Sometimes it's hard to remember what it was like when we were first playing the game (especially if we were new to BattleTech). We need to keep in mind that the game needs to be approachable to those players too (even if the game is passed the point in its lifecycle when it will see the most of it's new players).

 

[Jolly Joker]

Might well with an extension of the personell; dedicated mech techs would add to the cost factor since you'd have to pay and hire them, and with a simple rating system you'd have KIND OF an RNG effect (probability influenced by tech ratings...

 

[Corraidhin]

A mention of “actuators” came up again recently... now where did I see it from HBS...


EDIT: I looked and couldn’t find it. As I recall “actuators” were mentioned in conjunction with HEAVY METAL. It might have been in relation to the COIL and how actuators drive the build up of a COIL’s Damage and Heat.

I still think this needs to be explained away as atechnical reason rather than movement generating the energy. Physics is posting an 'Offended' social media rant somewhere about this.

Explaining it away as bleeding power from the drive train to save on additional converters, massive cabling etc makes far more sense to me.

 

[BunglingLummox]

I still think this needs to be explained away as atechnical reason rather than movement generating the energy. Physics is posting an 'Offended' social media rant somewhere about this.

It makes about as much sense as the rest of the BattleTech fluff, which means it makes exactly the right amount of sense. Piezoelectricity is real. That immediately makes COILs more realistic than the 'mechs they're attached to, which really ought to sink under their own weight (and that's before we even start thinking about the square cube law and how it clearly doesn't apply here).

 

[Gauntlet]

A mention of “actuators” came up again recently... now where did I see it from HBS...


EDIT: I looked and couldn’t find it. As I recall “actuators” were mentioned in conjunction with HEAVY METAL. It might have been in relation to the COIL and how actuators drive the build up of a COIL’s Damage and Heat.

I'm thinking it's more in line with your edit than any real delving into the internal of the mech. As mentioned later in the thread, it's more of an explanation about how the COILs work.

One thing to keep in mind is that BattleTech can have depth, but it also needs to balance a line that also allows it to stay approachable to new players.


This extra level of detail is ok with many of us because we have spent 100s of hours playing BattleTech and we know this game pretty well and are comfortable with it's mechanics. To new players, this level of detail may seem too complicated or overwhelming.

As we get more familiar with the game, and grow more hungrier for those details, we at least have the benefit of installing mods to achieve that. With new playerd though, the game only has one chance to make a first impression, and if there is too many layers of complexity, it may turn people off.

As an example, RogueTech (and mods similar) can be great fun, but would you introduce a new player to BattleTech with RogueTech? I think it would be too much. Instead, you would most likely let them play the standard game, and then down the road say...now try this mod.

I think this is just something to keep in mind. Sometimes we get so familiar with the game, that adding details seems natural. Sometimes it's hard to remember what it was like when we were first playing the game (especially if we were new to BattleTech). We need to keep in mind that the game needs to be approachable to those players too (even if the game is passed the point in its lifecycle when it will see the most of it's new players).

But that's the problem. If we continue to remove stuff to "make it more accessible to new players" then the game, possibly, gains new players but leave (some of) the older players feeling as if something's missing.

Sure we're happy to play and enjoy the game but there's that "something's off" feeling . . . which occasionally starts poking at us.

I admit that's a fine line to cross. Adding complexity to the game risks the new players understanding and could drive them away. But I feel this is being a huge disservice to the new players. That's assuming they won't be able to comprehend the systems being put in place. Which, if you explain them, there shouldn't be an issue.

It's why we don't have piloting rolls. HBS thought it wouldn't make sense to the new player if they take damage when they fall one time but not the other. I don't understand this line of thinking. If it's explained in the tutorial, then the players should be able to understand what's happening. This line of reasoning is why we don't have a lot of things in the game.

"Don't overwhelm the noob" seems to be the mantra. And again, I think it's a disservice to the noob. They're being treated, potentially, as not being able to understand a game mechanic once explained to them. This has been a trend in the gaming industry for a while now and it doesn't seem to be stopping. (I blame mobile games for this).

Now, I can understand that trying to explain, or convey, everything that's happening in a game like Battletech is a tall order. Especially making it look good as well as trying to avoid information overload. Thing is, i think there's a way to do that. Take piloting rolls for example. As long as you explain them in the tutorial, and have a help/faq screen that the player can return to if needed, you don't need to explain what happens every time a mech falls down.

As for Roguetech, I think what you're talking about can be referred to Basic and Advanced rules. Which, and I know the Devs are going to shoot me for this, can be dealt with with switches. If the game is initially designed with the Advanced rules in mind, then they can be paired down to just the basics and when the new player is ready, they can flip the switch. Older players, with more understanding of how the game works, can flip the switch out of the gate and everyone is happy. (With the exception of the poor Devs who had to develop and code this mess. Love you guys!)

Anyway . . . that's my take on things.

 

[ntw]

^ completely agree

design for complexity but hide it behind default simpler settings.

sadly having to produce for "lowest common denominator" is a common problem

 

[Jamey]

But that's the problem. If we continue to remove stuff to "make it more accessible to new players" then the game, possibly, gains new players but leave (some of) the older players feeling as if something's missing.

I’m sorry the kids are on your lawn again.

More seriously, new players are more important to the success of BATTLETECH. The number of us crusty grognards is not enough to make a video game profitable. We need new blood to keep the franchise alive.

It’s much better (for both players and HBS) for HBS to aim the game at newer players while providing difficulty options and mod capability to allow the small percentage who want a super hardcore game to customize it that way.

Also, I think that many of the changes made by HBS were not to make the game more friendly to new players, but to make it more friendly. When you’re at the gaming table rolling a PSR to avoid falling, it feels very different than having the RNG in a game decide that you just fell. That difference explains many of HBS’s changes.

 

[BunglingLummox]

More seriously, new players are more important to the success of BATTLETECH. The number of us crusty grognards is not enough to make a video game profitable. We need new blood to keep the franchise alive.

Hello, non-grognard here (HBS BattleTech was my introduction to the setting). I am very much addicted to my complexity, to the point of digging around in the game files to edit things to my liking (at one point I was straight up modifying campaign OpFors to make them more interesting). I really don't think this game's core demographic needs that many gameplay concessions, regarding accessibility. This isn't some generic shooter full of chest high walls, after all. We're nerds.

"Don't overwhelm the noob" seems to be the mantra. And again, I think it's a disservice to the noob. They're being treated, potentially, as not being able to understand a game mechanic once explained to them. This has been a trend in the gaming industry for a while now and it doesn't seem to be stopping. (I blame mobile games for this).

Rather, I think the problem is in how to explain the systems in a way that doesn't feel like it gets in the way. There are a lot of things going on that frankly only make sense to me because I took an interest and immersed myself in them. Learning by playing already involves a lot of pop-ups, which can feel like an obstacle and turn people off. I can see why it's been made that way - some things just aren't easy to explain any other way - but there's a constant struggle between adding cool features and finding good ways to explain them. If you come up with a new feature, but you need to return to the days of paper instruction manuals to make sure people understand it, you need to ask yourself again how much your feature really adds.

Taking the piloting rolls you mention as an example, it's not just that people wouldn't get it if you told them. It's that telling them would be an explicit action that would more or less require an interruption in the action, at least in the beginning, to make sure everyone reads it and understands. And what do you get for that? Honestly, not much. I've watched some of the old Death From Above videos. I get how funny it can be when the dice suddenly decide that your colossal warbringer just faceplanted into the asphalt. But in HBS BattleTech it stops being funny, because you're playing alone. And at that point all you've added to the game is RNG and frustration. Is that worth breaking up the action for, just to explain it? Personally, I don't think so.

 

[Prussian Havoc]

BATTLETECH was not launched with Difficulty Settings.

BATTLETECH Difficulty Settings came later in a Free Update.

BATTLETECH Difficulty Settings allow for Player Progression deeper into a more authentically-BattleTech experience. “Progression” is an important concept for both newcomers to the BattleTech franchise and original BattleTech gamers. While newcomers start at one end of the BATTLETECH Progression Continuum, Difficulty Settings permit more experienced gamers to start further along the same continuum.

So what have BATTLETECH Difficulty Settings addressed.

Because of BATTLETECH’s Difficulty Settings, Weapons don’t spontaneously appear once three Mech pieces are assembled. I admit, it bothered me when I had four priority Salvages and I salvaged the PPC off my very first Panther along with its three Mech Pieces, then lo and behold a second PPC spontaneously appeared in the salvaged Panther. When HBS added the “Unequipped Mechs” Difficulty Setting, to me, BATTLETECH became much more of a BattleTech experience.

Because of BATTLETECH’s Difficulty Settings Mechs and MechWarriors are no longer Immortal. Again, BATTLETECH became much more of a BattleTech experience for me once “Mech Destruction” and “Lethality” became BATTLETECH Difficulty Settings.



IMO there are other aspects of BATTLETECH that lend themselves to the concept of BATTLETECH Progression - “Advanced Evasion,” “Advanced Maintenance,” “ Advanced MechWarrior Skill Trees” to name a few.

I hope HBS continues adding to and refining BATTLETECH’s Difficulty Settings.


A good question is just how Official Mod Support with compliment existing BATTLETECH Difficulty Settings. In an ideal world, BATTLETECH -Mod-Support Mods will prove secure, stable, interesting and fun.

The perception of successful Mod Support could breathe all manner of Progression, Replayability and Longevity into the BATTLETECH Experience. I can’t wait to see how all this begins to play out starting on the 21st. : )

 

[Gauntlet]

I’m sorry the kids are on your lawn again.

More seriously, new players are more important to the success of BATTLETECH. The number of us crusty grognards is not enough to make a video game profitable. We need new blood to keep the franchise alive.

It’s much better (for both players and HBS) for HBS to aim the game at newer players while providing difficulty options and mod capability to allow the small percentage who want a super hardcore game to customize it that way.

Also, I think that many of the changes made by HBS were not to make the game more friendly to new players, but to make it more friendly. When you’re at the gaming table rolling a PSR to avoid falling, it feels very different than having the RNG in a game decide that you just fell. That difference explains many of HBS’s changes.

Has nothing to do with the kids on my lawn.

So new players are more important huh? Hmm, wonder where the new players were when the Kickstarter launched . . . probably on my lawn again. And the franchise has lived for over 30 years. So not sure what complexity has to do with things . . .

Why is wanting certain things considered "hardcore difficulty"? Why is wanting piloting rolls, detailed critical hits, negatives and positives where new weapons and equipment are concerned considered "hardcore"? Is this new generation of gamers to fragile to handle complex concepts in their games?

And no, the changes HBS made to the game were made to fit in to their 30-40 minute game time and to avoid "traumatizing the new generation of gamers with too much information and complex systems" (my words, not theirs. And yes, I'm being sarcastic). I will give you that something like a PSR roll around a table of friends is a bit different than having that same roll being done behind the scenes by the game.

Still, it's a moot point. We have what we have and short of modding the system we'd like to see in the game, we're not going to get them.

Now, that's not going to stop me from buying Season Pass 2 if there is one or Battletech 2 but I would like to hope that 2 will see a bit more "meat" when it comes to the mechs and their systems.

 

[Gauntlet]

Rather, I think the problem is in how to explain the systems in a way that doesn't feel like it gets in the way. There are a lot of things going on that frankly only make sense to me because I took an interest and immersed myself in them. Learning by playing already involves a lot of pop-ups, which can feel like an obstacle and turn people off. I can see why it's been made that way - some things just aren't easy to explain any other way - but there's a constant struggle between adding cool features and finding good ways to explain them. If you come up with a new feature, but you need to return to the days of paper instruction manuals to make sure people understand it, you need to ask yourself again how much your feature really adds.

Exactly. And that's part of why HBS decided against it. They couldn't find a clean, efficient way of conveying that type of information.

My thought on it, and I don't know how well it would work, is why do you have to tell them *every* time? Using the PSR as an example, tell them once. Give them a pop-up once and be done with it. Or something like the little pop-ups that show pilot injuries. Now, I'm sure they tried this as they did say they prototyped a lot of different things but I don't understand why a couple second pop-up that says "pilot injury" is good enough, and accepted enough, but the same thing "pilot roll failed/succeeded" was just way too complicated or not informative enough.

Taking the piloting rolls you mention as an example, it's not just that people wouldn't get it if you told them. It's that telling them would be an explicit action that would more or less require an interruption in the action, at least in the beginning, to make sure everyone reads it and understands. And what do you get for that? Honestly, not much. I've watched some of the old Death From Above videos. I get how funny it can be when the dice suddenly decide that your colossal warbringer just faceplanted into the asphalt. But in HBS BattleTech it stops being funny, because you're playing alone. And at that point all you've added to the game is RNG and frustration. Is that worth breaking up the action for, just to explain it? Personally, I don't think so.

Again, the current informational pop-ups (not sure what they're called) don't seem to interrupt the action to inform the user of what's happening, so why couldn't they be used to convey other types of information during the action?

Your RNG frustration could also be levied against the actually damage results as well though. Getting the head/cockpit of your pristine mech removed in turn 1, round 1 of combat is a lot more fun around a table then it is in a video game. Yet it happens. And no one has a problem with it. In fact, in HBS Battletech, due to the change up in the way the turns play out, that same asset removal is more detrimental, and thus could be considered "unfun" in the game then it would be around a table.

 

[stjobe]

more realistic than the 'mechs they're attached to, which really ought to sink under their own weight (and that's before we even start thinking about the square cube law and how it clearly doesn't apply here).

The square cube law does apply. Just run the numbers and you'll see:

Let's take a 180 cm, 80 kg human and scale it up to 'Mech size.
At 12 meters, it would weigh about 24 tons (scale factor 12/1.8 = 6.67, 6.67^3 = 296.7, 296.7 x 80 = 23,736 kg).
At 14 meters, it would weigh about 38 tons (scale factor 14/1.8 = 7.78, 7.78^3 = 470.9, 470.9 x 80 kg = 37,672 kg).
At 16 meters, it would weigh about 56 tons (scale factor 16/1.8 = 8.89, 8.89^3 = 702.5, 702.5 x 80 kg = 56,240 kg).
At 18 meters, it would weigh about 80 tons (scale factor 18/1.8 = 10.0, 10^3 = 1,000, 1,000 x 80 kg = 80,000 kg).

A 16 meter 'Mech at 100 tons would be equal to our 180 cm human weighing 142 kg (100,000 / 702.5).

So 'Mechs are roughly equal to humans in density, perhaps a bit denser - which seems incredibly light for a machine made for war. Future tech and materials, no doubt.

As for "sinking under their own weight", that all depends on the area of the feet. The largest animals to ever walk the earth was the sauropods, the largest species weighing in at over 100 tons by some estimates. The largest sauropod footprint ever found was 1.7 meters in length, and about half that wide. From looking at 'Mech feet for over 30 years (yeah, I know, get a job right?), I'd say most 'Mech have larger feet than that - most seem to be more than 2 meters long by 1 meter wide (about 20 sq.ft), which would make them roughly on par with the sauropods for ground pressure (even when taking bipedal vs quad into account).

 

[Prussian Havoc]

PSR’s have been abstracted into HBS’s BattleMech Stability System.

And to me BATTLETECH Stability is a clear sign of HBS’s genius for game development.

Stability make Missiles better, more interesting and more fun.

Stability makes Autocannons better, more interesting and more fun.

Stability makes DFA’s better, more interesting and more fun.

Stability makes Melee better, more interesting and more fun.

BATTLETECH Stability takes BattleTech to a whole new level, a level never possible on my tabletop back in the Winter of 1985/86.



So yes, PSR’s and resulting MechWarrior Injuries are still in the game. They have just evolved, and become at once more granular and more pervasive. :bow:

 

[MeiSooHaityu]

The square cube law does apply. Just run the numbers and you'll see:

Let's take a 180 cm, 80 kg human and scale it up to 'Mech size.
At 12 meters, it would weigh about 24 tons (scale factor 12/1.8 = 6.67, 6.67^3 = 296.7, 296.7 x 80 = 23,736 kg).
At 14 meters, it would weigh about 38 tons (scale factor 14/1.8 = 7.78, 7.78^3 = 470.9, 470.9 x 80 kg = 37,672 kg).
At 16 meters, it would weigh about 56 tons (scale factor 16/1.8 = 8.89, 8.89^3 = 702.5, 702.5 x 80 kg = 56,240 kg).
At 18 meters, it would weigh about 80 tons (scale factor 18/1.8 = 10.0, 10^3 = 1,000, 1,000 x 80 kg = 80,000 kg).

A 16 meter 'Mech at 100 tons would be equal to our 180 cm human weighing 142 kg (100,000 / 702.5).

So 'Mechs are roughly equal to humans in density, perhaps a bit denser - which seems incredibly light for a machine made for war. Future tech and materials, no doubt.

As for "sinking under their own weight", that all depends on the area of the feet. The largest animals to ever walk the earth was the sauropods, the largest species weighing in at over 100 tons by some estimates. The largest sauropod footprint ever found was 1.7 meters in length, and about half that wide. From looking at 'Mech feet for over 30 years (yeah, I know, get a job right?), I'd say most 'Mech have larger feet than that - most seem to be more than 2 meters long by 1 meter wide (about 20 sq.ft), which would make them roughly on par with the sauropods for ground pressure (even when taking bipedal vs quad into account).

How does that one statement go? A person in high heels exerts more pressure on the ground than an elephant?... Something like that.

Mechs are heavy, but the bottom of their feet have a huge amount of surface area. They probably do an excellent job of spreading out the force they exert on the ground.

Going back to that previous example. Elephants can walk on soft ground with no issues. A woman in heels on soft ground, well lets just say it doesn't work to well.

 

[Jamey]

So new players are more important huh? Hmm, wonder where the new players were when the Kickstarter launched . . . probably on my lawn again. And the franchise has lived for over 30 years. So not sure what complexity has to do with things . . .

Bringing new people into the Battletech franchise by making the game accessible to them is far more important than pleasing crusty old grognards, both for HBS’s financial success and for us continuing to see more Battletech (as those two are tightly coupled).

I hope that mods can deliver a more TT like experience for those who want it, but HBS is completely right to move their video game away from TT mechanics.

Why is wanting certain things considered "hardcore difficulty"? Why is wanting piloting rolls, detailed critical hits, negatives and positives where new weapons and equipment are concerned considered "hardcore"? Is this new generation of gamers to fragile to handle complex concepts in their games?

Overly complex games are called “niche” for a reason. The market space for them is small but dedicated.

 

[Jade_Rook]

I wouldn't mind some more actuator, engine, and gyro crits to be included. I don't think that would overly complicate the game, but it would slow it down. The game is already criticized for being slow. Additional crits to degrade mech performance would just slow it down further.

PSRs are one thing that I am glad the devs did not include. They are a substantial penalty (auto pilot injury and initiative penalty) that occurs at random and the player has little control over when they occur. That isn't going to be fun for most people. In tabletop, the penalty was different and the mechanics of physically rolling the dice make the interaction different.

 

[Packrat]

It's not a binary decision between "detail everything" or "abstract away everything". There's a sliding scale. Personally, I think HBS's game leans a little far to the abstraction side. Just a little more detail, like a couple more heat tiers and letting you crit out engines/gyros (not necessarily identical to TT) would do a lot to increase the depth of the game without bogging things down.

As for refitting, aside from maybe making non-stock fittings cost somewhat more to reflect the "it wasn't designed to do this" aspect, I'm largely fine with the mechanics, though I'd have liked to see the crit slots be the same as in TT.

 

[ntw]

<snip>...
design for complexity but hide it behind default simpler settings.
</snip>

is it bad form to quote yourself?

 

[BunglingLummox]

snip.

I have two comments to make on your rather lengthy analysis.
1) I wasn't comparing the density of a mech to a single reference. I was referring to how they compare to each other. Size and alleged mass have what I can only call a tenuous connection, and that's before you start to look at the masses of specific components.
2) The last time I checked, sauropods didn't land on wet mud or sand from great heights.

 

[Gauntlet]

From looking at 'Mech feet for over 30 years (yeah, I know, get a job right?),

You do have a job. You're our "got to guy" for all things mech related.

Which I thank you for. /salute

Edit: Oh and for the record, I was using the PSR as an example.