I have been waiting on the next installment of German translations. And Bad Syntax is busy with other things and cannot work on Alpha Strike cards for the 3063.
But there is my proposed Upgrades: 3063.
We always wanted those HPPCs and so on. And we always knew, despite the cries of 'MUNCHKIN! OVER-OPTIMIZED!', there were machines that were not all they could be. Much of this was due to a priority chain that was supposed to prevent min-maxing... the focus was on price and the minimum technology required to get what we wanted from a given design. So the machines were cheap, but yeah, a lot of them could be better. And let's face it.
We originally present a machine of payload 'X' that costs 'Y' C-bills and is worth 'Z' Battle Value. Then, later, we present an upgraded version that can carry '2X', costs nearly '3Y' but whose Battle Value is only '1.2Z'. Do you build your battleforce based on C-Bill cost? Or do you use BV2? Would you rather pay '2Z' to transport your troops, or '1.2Z'?
That's what *I* thought. Thus, Upgrades: 3063.
Better costs money. How good do you want to be?
Getting the Ball Rolling...
So I keep busy by going through reviews of the fan-TRO I found on 4Chan. I could only find a short review of vehicles - apparently a fellow with the screen name of Munnin did a more thorough review, but I cannot seem to find it.
Acting on the writer's comments, I have come up with a list of machines that can be improved. Mind you, this is just the start - I have the rest of the Vee review to go through, and it doesn't even touch on 'Mechs or Aerospace. I am already looking at the amount of machines that need 'upgrade' and am taken aback.
It appears that the Upgrade is going to be something huge, at least in the number of machines inside. This does not even take into account the new machines I wished to include - such as a variant on the Grand Dragon. It looks like I am going to have to keep the writeups brief, maybe 350 words at most.
I had planned on new art for at least 50% for these Upgrade entries. We'll have to see; after the dust settles, I will check the budget and see what we can afford.
Meanwhile, we have to start walking before we can run!
Proposed Vehicle Upgrades
I have also put out an appeal on 4Chan to submit reviews of the 3063 contents. However, that place is more transitory than I expected. I may have to address individuals rather than what appears to be a very nebulous group to get the results I need.
That's all for now. Thanks for stopping by.
Regards,
Steve
6 comments:
Good to see you back int he saddle and posting again. Look forward to seeing the updates.
Thank you!
Yeah [shrugs with embarrassment] I got some feedback on the 'proposed changes'.
Having used infantry only a few times, I did not realize most players were unwilling to commit more than one platoon/squad to a single vehicle, no matter how sturdy.
Not sure if this is because previous APCs have been tinfoil with an engine or if it's just prudent military planning. At one point, two nine-ton bays looked good!
Anyway, things have changed. Those proposed changes are just sketches. Thank God.
Yup, 4Chan's BattleTech thread is a real grab-bag, and can change completely from day to day. I don't usually see them as huffy as the ones you ran into, but people usually don't bother to be gracious there, either.
Most people in those threads are just there to shoot the breeze, so asking them to find & download & review your whole book is a tall order. You would probably get more responses if you posted screenshots of a couple-three designs for review each day.
The funny thing is, I wasn't asking them to do that. I assumed Munnin had already reviewed the whole thing (he had) and that others had had two years to form opinions one way or another.
The only response I got was criticism about putting fusion engines in everything. It was 'unrealistic' from their point of view. I guess fluff describing something as a militia vehicle meant it had to be steam-powered or something. Why bother to publish something like that? Who would use it?
I should have just said 'thank you' and moved on, but thought I should maybe explain why I thought such a thing was likely.
Next thing you know, the guy is insulting me and the TRO - or trying to. John says he was 'trolling', deliberately being an ass or somesuch.
Oh well. I learned not to go there for honest reveiws. Most of the folks there come off as James Bixbys. Even that would have been useful, but they went to full-insult mode pretty quick.
What they see as friendly chiding can come off as trolling if you're not used to it. There's also a couple anonymouses there who feel territorial about things they see as Catalyst's "turf." It might've been them. Might've been Bixby! No way of knowing.
I think you're right that explaining things was a bad move. There are patient and well-informed people there -- one of them called your guy out on his "3060 is full of ICE" claim -- but they tend to bail out when a belligerent or trollish conversation takes over the thread. So the more you talked to that one guy the less likely it was that the level-headed folks would respond to you.
Munin (I think it was Munin) was exceptional in that he used to try to review every single homebrew design he saw. A lot of people there don't even know the official books too well, let alone fan books, and I think you assumed too much of them. After all, two years to "form opinions" is also two years to forget.
Now, all of that said, I don't think the original criticism was completely useless. Most of the militia designs make sense the way they are, of course, but the Dragonfly VTOL and the Diatryma might warrant small tweaks to their fluff. I'll try to suggest something in the next few days.
I look forward to updating their fluff - that would be to the purpose.
Not sure what sort of upgrade they'd be capable of, but I will have to dig in - the only review I have, has maybe a line or two of comment.
The Dragonfly was noted for good performance as a C3 spotter, though it was recommended for ECM. However, I checked and find that the fluff noted that Dragonflys were usually sent out in groups of four, with one unit working an ECM suite. So I am not sure the reviewer really read beyond the initial stats, at least in some cases.
Post a Comment