|
Just make sure that the right merc company operates out of Butte Hold.
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 10:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 16:44 |
|
|
wiegieman posted:Just make sure that the right merc company operates out of Butte Hold. So many naming possibilites: Butte's Holders Hole's Butte Raiders (Would have to name your PC Cpt. Hole) Butte Urbanmech Tactical Training School - BUTT School etc
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
Butte’s Buccaneers Raiders of Butte Hold Have a reinforced lance operating off of Butte’s Hold, name them the Goat Six
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 19:49
|
|
|
What, no Butte Hold Surfers?
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 19:54
|
|
|
Amechwarrior posted:So many naming possibilites: This is the only option.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 20:00
|
|
|
Massive wish fulfillment here but I'd love it if Harebrained brought Michael Mancuso back as the mission briefing voice actor, but I'm pretty sure that dude is dead.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 00:07
|
|
|
BattleTech posted:Massive wish fulfillment here but I'd love it if Harebrained brought Michael Mancuso back as the mission briefing voice actor, but I'm pretty sure that dude is dead. I googled that name and the first to come up with a convicted mobster.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 00:12
|
|
|
Skoll posted:I googled that name and the first to come up with a convicted mobster. Hence why I said he was probably dead. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0541575/?ref_=ttfc_fc_wr6
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 00:15
|
|
|
I want the mobster now though. Who better to help run a business built on negotiating a hit? Late backer stretch goal anyone?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 00:18
|
|
|
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Butzfleth i was forced to crop the map so it didn't include Butzfleth. I'm still kind of angry about this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 07:38
|
|
|
Buttflesh expansion pack when?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 08:00
|
|
|
Butzfleth is only a step on the way to Butte Hold.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 09:15
|
|
|
Apparently the multiplayer beta is now live for everyone without having to enter the 'secret' code into steam. No new patch reported. EDIT: By everyone I mean everyone who backed the kickstarter to the multiplayer beta level! Phrosphor fucked around with this message at 01:44 on Nov 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 01:28
|
|
|
Also the beta is going to be gone at the end of year, so get your mech destruction fix now before you have to wait for release of the game.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 12:36
|
|
|
It sure is a pain in the rear end to connect to a game. When I'm hosting, people are connecting and disconnecting constantly. I assume this is just connectivity issues since it's usually the same person doing it a few times. I have not yet been able to join a hosted game. rocketrobot fucked around with this message at 03:56 on Nov 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2017 03:52
|
|
|
DatonKallandor posted:Also the beta is going to be gone at the end of year, so get your mech destruction fix now before you have to wait for release of the game. im good tbqh
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
Im so impatient, I want my stompy robot game.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 01:08
|
|
|
Viva Miriya posted:im good tbqh Same. Skirmish got old about 10 hours in. I’m ready for the campaign.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 17:10
|
|
|
Yeh, I only really care about the campaign too. Some well-scripted, hand-crafted battles, fun story, let me muck about with some mechs for 25-30 hours and I'll be happy to move on to the next game.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 23:54
|
|
|
BadAstronaut posted:Yeh, I only really care about the campaign too. Some well-scripted, hand-crafted battles, fun story, let me muck about with some mechs for 25-30 hours and I'll be happy to move on to the next game. I'm right there with you as far as only caring about SP goes, but I'm going to get WAY more than 25-30 out of it. God only knows how many times I've replayed MechCommander and MC2.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 00:46
|
|
|
I mean I could theoretically enjoy multiplayer but something tells me it's going to devolve into lovely custom optimized gimmick matches like mechcommander did around in the middle of it's multiplayer life.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 00:54
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:I'm right there with you as far as only caring about SP goes, but I'm going to get WAY more than 25-30 out of it. God only knows how many times I've replayed MechCommander and MC2. Plus thats why I was so hype to see the stretch goal for the procedural mission generation that lets you run your campaign open-endedly. Sure, it can only make so many missions before you've seen them all I guess, but that's still a bunch of replay value. Especially for people like me too lazy and stubborn to fully optimize everything.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 00:57
|
|
|
Rhymenoserous posted:I mean I could theoretically enjoy multiplayer but something tells me it's going to devolve into lovely custom optimized gimmick matches like mechcommander did around in the middle of it's multiplayer life. There's a 'Stock Mechs Only' option you can toggle for PVP and there's a ton of crusty, old TT grognards on the official forums who have already declared this is the only way they'll ever play. So you should be covered.  Plus, Mech customization is going to be pretty restrictive, and we still don't know how it's going to affect Mechs in terms of PVP Cbill values.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 01:29
|
|
|
Q_res posted:There's a 'Stock Mechs Only' option you can toggle for PVP and there's a ton of crusty, old TT grognards on the official forums who have already declared this is the only way they'll ever play. So you should be covered. I'm not a grognard, but super optimized builds really turns the game into bullshit unfun gimmicks. Like in MC it would be LRM+JJ builds that would just wall hop any time anything got LOS, and the entire match would be nothing but LRMS flying over walls, jumpjetting over walls. It was pretty terrible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 01:33
|
|
|
Rhymenoserous posted:I'm not a grognard, but super optimized builds really turns the game into bullshit unfun gimmicks. I wasn't saying you were one, just letting you know that Stock Only is an option and a somewhat popular one. If being a bit of a wiseass while saying it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 01:37
|
|
|
Oh I'll be *happy* to move on if I only get 25-30 hours of good fun out of it. More is better - currently on 94 hours of XCOM 2 after having played the original, the first batch of DLC and now a War of the Chosen run. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 01:40
|
|
|
Q_res posted:I wasn't saying you were one, just letting you know that Stock Only is an option and a somewhat popular one. If being a bit of a wiseass while saying it. Oh nah, I wasn't accusing you of anything, just using your post as a springboard to expand my point. BadAstronaut posted:Oh I'll be *happy* to move on if I only get 25-30 hours of good fun out of it. More is better - currently on 94 hours of XCOM 2 after having played the original, the first batch of DLC and now a War of the Chosen run. I really want to love WoTC but once you kill the last chosen the "Victory Lap" becomes real because the chosen weapons are insanely good.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 06:51
|
|
|
Rhymenoserous posted:Oh nah, I wasn't accusing you of anything, just using your post as a springboard to expand my point. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OrLLiPJ26I
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 12:13
|
|
|
Stream is up: https://m.twitch.tv/paradoxinteractive Same mission that we have already seen, just a different person playing it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 17:34
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:Stream is up: https://m.twitch.tv/paradoxinteractive "King Crab is the coolest" - they know what's up. vvvYeah the gameplay was pretty painful. Now imagine if they hadn't given them the pity Kintaro and it was a Commando instead. DatonKallandor fucked around with this message at 15:50 on Dec 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 15:18
|
|
|
DatonKallandor posted:"King Crab is the coolest" - they know what's up. Its too bad the stream was painful to watch. I will never understand why they have people that dont understand a game's theme (in this case, tactical combat) playing the game, because they play it in an embarrassing fashion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 15:21
|
|
|
That's the most frustrating thing about that stream. It kind of made everybody look bad.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
I was hoping that stream would be a more regular thing too, but then the holidays are getting in the way as well. If anyone hasn't seen it, the Battletech Twitter has been posting closer looks at the mechs. We get to see the high detail models up close and some paint schemes we haven't seen yet. Notable things are the LCT having the proper MG mounts instead of AMS and the COM-2D is actually a 1B w/ 2x arm lasers and a SRM2 in the CT. They also gave us the first official look at the Zeus with a Zeus vs. Victor match up. In these images, for some reason the HBK is less stable in the data chart than the Light Mechs, maybe just an error but who knows. There are hooks in the beta files for stability tuning either by chassis or weight class. I can't remember exactly where I saw them, but maybe those will get activated for launch. Expanding these thumbnails doesn't get you the full size image, open image in new tab for full res.      Isildur also posted some interesting screens dealing with the repair stuff, but she's removed it from her twitter as far as I can tell.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2017 09:49
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:I was waiting for this. Maybe, just maybe. Being in huge robots makes people figure they don't need to treat every unit like it's an X-com rookie. Most tactical combat games leave you as a comparatively small squishy son of a bitch. Here you are a big stompy robot instead of a cheap rookie who can barely afford a knife and helmet in ye olde Battle Brothers. Regardless of any backround lore about how awesome mechs are. "Excuse me, according to the lore my great grandfathers Ancestral commando would allow me to conquer a periphery colony single handed!" At the end of the day big robots feel more indestructible than some dude in platemail or power armor, no matter what the mechanics or lore tell you. At least, this would probably be the most optimistic take on the situation. Section Z fucked around with this message at 19:48 on Dec 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2017 19:38
|
|
|
So, is the 4 mech thing a hard limit?
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2017 04:26
|
|
|
The Chad Jihad posted:So, is the 4 mech thing a hard limit?
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2017 04:31
|
|
|
Yep, I've even tried adding a 5th mech in to an AI roster or swapping a mech for a vehicle in skirmish mode. The parts dealing with how many mechs you or the AI/Opponent get in a match is not visible to us as far as I know. The devs also mentioned it being a hard limit a few times as well. Maybe in a future game, "in success..." and all that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2017 05:21
|
|
|
I think the golden goose for me is getting up to Batallion size in later games (my hope is that we'll be able to play the same company throughout the ages, either implicitly playing as them or HBS not explicitly making us not the same company, so to speak). But I can't quite figure out a good way in my head to make it so that battles aren't a massive tedious mess with more than 4 Mechs on the field at once. I suppose I could see them pulling a trick in the hopeful Clan sequel that has your mercenary outfit deciding to 'bump up' to Stars instead of Lances. One idea I've been bouncing around in my head is that you're signing long-term contracts in later games, so you have to choose which Company to send on a mission. Once there it's a bit of a 'campaign' style system with your Lances engaging enemy forces individually at times as you push the battle line forward, culminating in a bigger battle where you command your entire Company. So you sign a contract with the Lyrans to take Butte Hold. Butte Hold is a cold world and ammunition will be in short supply, so perfect for a Company of your Battalion that's mostly outfitted with energy weapons. In contrast, a different contract to take a desert world would have, say, the Fed Suns saying 'don't worry about ammunition, we'll supply', so you just send a Company outfitted with mostly ballistic weapons. Having different forces for different operations. Alternatively, the only 'good way' I can see to not make combat super tedious is to have you appointing commanders of Lances, which intrigues me because suddenly your not just trying to figure out who's the best MechWarrior for that mech, you're trying to figure out who's best for the Lance. A good MechWarrior might not make a good commander. But maybe your super-skilled MechWarrior will get pissed they get passed over for promotion and leave the Company, so maybe even though they're not a great officer candidate you can't afford to lose them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2017 13:06
|
|
|
Sky Shadowing posted:
This is just a fundamental problem with the franchise going back to early tabletop. Once you got more than 8 mechs total on the field in a TT game it got so slow as to be un-fun. A lot of house rules were based around streamlining the core game so that you could do company sized engagements in less than a week, and frankly those had limited success in my experience. Ultimately the group I played with just suck with the PC's being in the 4 man "command lance" and having any other engagements involving a larger unit they were part of happen off screen. This had the added benefit of letting the GM gently caress with them for dramatic purposes. Mech Commander side stepped this issue by essentially going full RTS which is really how you would need to do it, but obviously (and thankfully imo) that's not the game that's being made here. I love TT battletech and I've wanted a decent computer version of it with modern graphics and a modern engine and a good single player campaign for basically forever, going back to when "modern" was a 386. It's just not a system that works great with huge scale battles, though. They stuck close-ish to TT for this so I"m more than willing to accept the limitations that imposes along with the good stuff.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2017 14:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 16:44 |
|
|
Even when bringing up MechCommander (Which is what I was about to do!), after you grew past your first 4 much and filled out to a full roster of 12 (I think that was the max drop), you end up moving from microing 4 Mechs to microing 4 control groups of 3 Mechs each. At least I did. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, and I do think you gain some fun as a player with more units under your direct command- It lets you specialize more, and being able to unleash 5 LRM Mechs at once while also barreling in with some AC20 bruisers is really satisfying. But it's a different game that only really works in real time. With the current game I wouldn't really want more than 6 units under my command at once. Or at least not for a whole mission. Having a segment where I get 4 demolishers for local backup, or anything that's not really my unit that I have to intensely worry about babying would work totally fine- Classic XCOM/TT battle tech takes forever when you want to and need to plan that perfect move for every one of your units, but when you can afford to just sling them around, it goes really quickly. Especially when it's the computer doing the bookkeeping!
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2017 14:28
|
|