- MechWarrior Online's Renaissance Is All Thanks To The Developers Putting Players In Charge
- Your BattleTech News Roundup For May, 2021
- Your BattleTech News Roundup For April 2021
- Why You Should Actually Trust BattleTech’s Mysteriously Short-Ranged Autocannons
- Your BattleTech News Roundup For March, 2021
- Read more →
How to use this list
A word on what I've done here, and a request that other editors adhere to these guidelines:
- I have included each scenario as a separate section, with an appropriate section tag. This will allow other BTW articles to directly link to individual scenarios using a [[BattleCorps Scenarios#Scenario name]] link. I feel this is an important aspect, because some scenarios do contain nuggets of canonical information on the sidelines and may need to be referenced in other articles. This is also the reason why I decided against organizing the article content into a table.
- I have consciously suppressed the auto-generation of a Table of Contents through the __NOTOC__ "magic word". There is only a single layer of sections in this article (the individual scenarios) and a TOC would thus be pointless, besides messing up the formatting.
- The scenario naming it exactly as the BattleCorps site does. This is to make scenarios easier to find within the article, and to establish some sort of naming scheme. Similarly, the teaser text is copied straight from BattleCorps with no regards for spelling or formatting.
- The scenario description should begin with the planet (or system) and timestamp as given in the scenario. It should briefly outline the scenario and, where applicable, any important bits of fluff contained therein. At the end, please indicate the map size (breadth x height of mapsheets) and the tech level of the units used in the scenario: 1 for 3025 era tech, 2 for SL/Clan tech, 3 for Solaris/experimental tech.
Oh, and please leave this section at the very top of the discussion page. :) Frabby 10:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Scenario subsection names
The very idea of this summary article is to use/present the scenarios with the exact same name as they're presented on BattleCorps, and the exact same ad blurb. Including any typos, arbitrary spelling or grammar issues. Doneve has edited in a unified naming scheme (beginning all scenarios with the prefix "Scenario:" but I think this defeats the concept of a summary article. Looking for other opinions before I revert. Frabby 04:11, 17 December 2011 (PST)
Table Of Contents?
Originally, when I created this list, I used the same format as for other summary articles on minor BattleCorps publications and this included the _NOTOC_ order. Doneve recently changed this, and added a _FORCETOC_. At first I was opposed to the idea, but given the large number of individual scenarios, I'm inclined to agree that it might make sense to have. On the other hand, I still feel its usefulness is rather limited, and it makes for very poor article formatting/readability. Anyone else have an opinion? Frabby 04:11, 17 December 2011 (PST)
Question: Scenario Articles
Could each scenario have its own article? Should each scenario have its own article? ClanWolverine101 14:31, 27 June 2012 (PDT)
- I think that's a can of worms we don't want to open. I deliberately went for a summary article because that also allows us to limit the scope to BattleCorps scenarios, and it keeps in line with the format used for BattleCorps Ship Profiles, BattleCorps Stable Reports and BattleCorps Unit Digests.
- The reasons why I wanted to produce an article on individual scenarios are that 1) they are individually published/sold via BattleCorps, i.e. each is an individual BattleTech publication; and 2) at least some of them have interesting content, adding relevant details to the universe that isn't published anywhere else (my own submission, BattleCorps Scenarios#Scenario: Twins being a prime offender here).
- If you remade each entry here into its own article then you'd end up with a large number of articles that are very short, plus in that case I think you'd have to expand the scope to include each and every scenario published - including the myriad of scenarios in various sourcebooks. This is already a problem for short stories; with scenarios I think it would be outright nasty. Frabby 06:59, 28 June 2012 (PDT)
- I would like to reopen the question. Would it be a copyright-infringement with Catalyst if we would publish old scenarios from source books, with full description of the scenario in its own article, so that you can actually use it? Of course not for newer scenarios, but maybe for everything which is at least ten years old or so? I found myself wishing a scenario database, where you can find and filter pre-manufactured scenarios to your needs (number of units, maps used, special game conditions, part of mini-campaign and so on...) Of course this is not feasibly in a wiki, but maybe a first step :) Phasis (talk) 05:50, 22 August 2019 (EDT)
- In short, absolutely it would be copyright-infringement to republish them. On the wiki we are not allowed to copy text verbatum, with things like game stats and specific scenarios it is virtually impossible to "reword" them and still have them make sense. Personally I am of the line of thought that we should not have gameplay elements on the wiki at all and just focus on lore.--Dmon (talk) 05:56, 22 August 2019 (EDT)
- Yes, what Dmon said. We may have articles about the scenarios and their content, but we're not legally allowed to publish or otherwise present the actual scenarios. That would be a direct copyright infringement. Sorry.
- Also, regarding your scenario database: A great many scenarios are actually poorly balanced, or skewed through rule changes. Mendrugo, in his discussion thread of BattleTech fiction in general, covers a lot of official and apocryphal scenarios from various sources and in many many cases they are either very lopsided under current rules or poorly designed if either party cares to think outside the box, to the point where they're almost unplayable. This does explicitly not refer to the BattleCorps scenarios though, these seem to be BV2.0 balanced and without major gameplay issues (as far as I'm aware at least). Frabby (talk) 10:51, 22 August 2019 (EDT)