|
The only real problem I see with that is that it doesn't actually speed up the gameplay any. You've just turned one mission into 3-4 missions except all on the same map. Controlling that many mechs in the current system would still be slow and plodding.
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2017 21:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 20:13 |
|
|
ditty bout my clitty posted:It's more an issue of me taking advantage of a feature if it's there. More videa gaems should do a bronzeman feature, where saves are limited and having to make due with what you got doesn't make the game weirdly unbalanced. Well, this game does have an optional Ironman Mode. So you can turn off save scumming.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2017 22:01
|
|
|
Q_res posted:Well, this game does have an optional Ironman Mode. So you can turn off save scumming. Good
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2017 22:06
|
|
|
Zaodai posted:The only real problem I see with that is that it doesn't actually speed up the gameplay any. You've just turned one mission into 3-4 missions except all on the same map. Controlling that many mechs in the current system would still be slow and plodding. A 3-4 part multi-stage battle consisting of several small encounters is still a much better scenario to play out than trying to run company-scale engagements with BT rules.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2017 22:51
|
|
|
Voyager I posted:A 3-4 part multi-stage battle consisting of several small encounters is still a much better scenario to play out than trying to run company-scale engagements with BT rules. I... guess? It's still a significantly worse solution than "design a system that isn't poo poo at company-scale engagements". There's not really a reason that a future hypothetical game being designed for company scale work (presumably as part of a larger scope of play, not just a tiny merc outfit in a backwater) would need to stick to the tabletop system.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2017 23:08
|
|
|
Zaodai posted:I... guess? It's still a significantly worse solution than "design a system that isn't poo poo at company-scale engagements". There's not really a reason that a future hypothetical game being designed for company scale work (presumably as part of a larger scope of play, not just a tiny merc outfit in a backwater) would need to stick to the tabletop system. Yeah it just raises the question, why?
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2017 23:11
|
|
|
Yo is this game ever coming out or what?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 00:45
|
|
|
I think they're still shooting for 1st Q 2018. Even if it does get pushed back again, I wouldn't expect it to be very far. What we've seen in previews and updates over the last few months shows a game that looks pretty close to release.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 01:05
|
|
|
Great Beer posted:Yo is this game ever coming out or what? You dont understand game development (yeah first half of next year is the goal)
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 02:49
|
|
|
Skippy McPants posted:I think they're still shooting for 1st Q 2018. Even if it does get pushed back again, I wouldn't expect it to be very far. What we've seen in previews and updates over the last few months shows a game that looks pretty close to release. I *vaguely* remember they were originally planning on March but realistically would be bumped back to mid April~May. I don't remember where I heard that so take it with a grain of salt.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 14:36
|
|
|
Well they're shutting down the beta soon-ish (if not already shut down, and maybe not even meaning the single player, just the multiplayer). If I were willing to bet I'd say March to give Paradox time to drum up their marketing machine. Add BattleTech to the weekly rotation of live shows they stream. Game does not feel far away.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 14:52
|
|
|
There has been an update to the Beta on Steam that deletes the .exe. Thus, alas, the beta is over, and gone. You could take measures to back it up, but if you did not do so, no more games until the full release.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 01:12
|
|
|
If you check the steam folder for the game after it has uninstalled itself you will find BTBackerEnd.txtBTBackerEnd.txt posted:Mechwarrior! Phrosphor fucked around with this message at 01:44 on Jan 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 01:36
|
|
|
New Thread Title: Harebrained Schemes' Battletech: In the Twilight Between Beta and Release
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 03:02
|
|
|
The discord recommend I post it here, as we were discussing the fact that you can only side with the designated "good guys" in the storyline, despite being mercenaries, despite the Directorate ostensibly being the kind of people who would want help on their side in a coup and definitely being the ones who would have jobs for desperate mercs willing to take any job for money. While you could make a case that maybe they won't trust you enough to hire you on as a direct combat unit (though I don't see why they wouldn't hire you on for offensive work, where there's no risk of betrayal), it seems somewhat insane that they wouldn't eventually hire you to just stop fighting them once you kick their asses a few times. So, since it is probably too much work and too late to actually offer the truly mercenary option of working for the "bad guys", you could have an event after you win a few missions against them (or do enough CBills in damage, or the campaign progresses far enough against them, or whatever flag you want to use) where the Directorate call you up and basically say "Look, we understand. This is business. We're businessmen too. We know you probably don't trust us enough to work for us, and we don't trust you to sit in one of our bases. But we can come to an agreement. We'll happily pay you <truckload of C-Bills> to just keep your nose out of it. Take whatever contracts you want on the side. Just don't work for <Good Guys> or take missions against us. We can talk about missions once this war is concluded." If you reject, nothing changes, campaign continues as normal. If you accept, and stick to the deal (don't take any missions against the Directorate), they'll offer you missions after the main storyline campaign completes and you get some bonus cash to stay out of the War while you go take unrelated missions and let the storyline play out. If you take the money and betray them, you take a big rep hit (for breach of contract), and maybe they send some of their big badasses to wreck your poo poo personally. Largely, this still ends up as a "side with the bad guys" option if the bad guys are going to win without your intervention anyway, but it gives you the illusion of choice and actual "money over morals" merc mentality rather than the traditional Battletech Good Guy Merc that's basically just a heroic house unit with the serial numbers filed off.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 03:24
|
|
|
Zaodai posted:If you take the money and betray them, you take a big rep hit (for breach of contract), and maybe they send some of their big badasses to wreck your poo poo personally. I like the consequences of being headhunted. If you can survive at all, you should get 100% of the salvage and have eliminated the problem for a while. Each headhunting team you defeat might only make you stronger, given you have the time to recover afterward.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 03:51
|
|
|
I doubt the Arano Restoration is completely the good guys, having played Dragonfall I have too much confidence in HBS for it to be black and white. But HBS has said if you don't want the Restoration to succeed you just don't do the story missions. I don't think you have a long term contract, you're just their first number on the speed dialer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 04:40
|
|
|
Sky Shadowing posted:I doubt the Arano Restoration is completely the good guys, having played Dragonfall I have too much confidence in HBS for it to be black and white. Well we discussed that in Discord too. But the illusion of choice there (because it doesn't actually require you to do anything for the good guys to lose except not help them) makes it feel more like you're part of an actual conflict. My original recommendation was that you just throw in some of the random mission generator missions in the name of the bad guy. If you truly don't have to do anything but not help their enemy for them to win, then can throw in plenty of easy stuff that doesn't actually take much dev time to just add the option of not being a standard white bread "heroic" merc company that is all too common in BT lore. Only being able to back one side in the conflict basically makes it far less interesting (to me) from a story perspective, because then why do I care? You're telling me in advance who I'm supposed to support and care about just because the story says they're the good guys, so why would I be invested in that? I (the player) don't have a say in it beyond choosing not to play.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 04:46
|
|
|
Fffffuck, now you're just making me want Brigador in a Battletech setting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 05:03
|
|
|
I just hope an inevitable sequel gives you a chance to side with perpetual underdog shitlords, House Liao.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 07:37
|
|
|
MilkmanLuke posted:I just hope an inevitable sequel gives you a chance to side with perpetual underdog shitlords, House Liao. I struggle to imagine a world where the first sequel focuses on anything other than the clan invasion, given how iconic they are for the video game side of BattleTech. Shadowrun got three games, so it's possible there'd be room for another sequel after that that focused more on a proper succession wars type situation, though they do currently seem averse to just having you play through canonical campaigns.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 09:48
|
|
|
Zaodai posted:Well we discussed that in Discord too. But the illusion of choice there (because it doesn't actually require you to do anything for the good guys to lose except not help them) makes it feel more like you're part of an actual conflict. My original recommendation was that you just throw in some of the random mission generator missions in the name of the bad guy. If you truly don't have to do anything but not help their enemy for them to win, then can throw in plenty of easy stuff that doesn't actually take much dev time to just add the option of not being a standard white bread "heroic" merc company that is all too common in BT lore. Only being able to back one side in the conflict basically makes it far less interesting (to me) from a story perspective, because then why do I care? You're telling me in advance who I'm supposed to support and care about just because the story says they're the good guys, so why would I be invested in that? I (the player) don't have a say in it beyond choosing not to play. I'm all but certain that they've actually said this sort of thing will happen anyway - if you ignore the Arano Restoration missions, the Directorate wins eventually and starts offering you random missions for them too, in the persistent campaign.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 12:48
|
|
|
I mean this isn't a pure mercenary game. It's a plot based game with main characters and a story that's being told and there happens to be a mercenary battle generation system constructed on top of that. You can't be pro-Directorate because there are presumably solid plot reasons for the player character to be involved with the Restoration. e: I mean really Zaodai's thing is being wrong about everything, but literally not being able to invest in a semi-structured narrative in a video game is one of the weirder things to be upset about.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 15:16
|
|
|
John Charity Spring posted:
Zaodai posted:Only being able to back one side in the conflict basically makes it far less interesting (to me) from a story perspective, because then why do I care? You're telling me in advance who I'm supposed to support and care about just because the story says they're the good guys, so why would I be invested in that? I (the player) don't have a say in it beyond choosing not to play.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 15:48
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:I mean this isn't a pure mercenary game. It's a plot based game with main characters and a story that's being told and there happens to be a mercenary battle generation system constructed on top of that. Entire post full of insults aside, you really can't understand why anybody might have a pet peeve about being railroaded into backing a specific side in a conflict? I haven't come out spitting hellfire and brimstone sermons about why this is wrong and absolutely must change or the game is trash. Yes, I get there is a story. However, the story is about mercenaries. I know mercenaries in Battletech are usually just more expendable house units with the serial numbers filed off, so you have your good guys and bad guys there too, with about the only "real" mercenaries that'll back any side being the Dragoons because they were gathering intel on people. But that's a lovely story device, especially out in the periphery where the Directorate could very easily offer you money to stop loving with their evil plans and just let them win. I'm sure I'm not the only one, I'm just the one willing to take shots from people like you for having a differing opinion. I made a suggestion that would take very little dev time and resources to offer people the choice to tell the Restoration to gently caress off directly, instead of the more passive aggressive "Well you can just not play the story! That's just like having a choice in the story!". How does it gently caress up your narrative if the bad guys come to you at some point and are like "We're not asking you to betray anyone. We're not asking you to fight in this war. We'll offer you this generous contract to just walk away from the fight."? You can always say no, and have the exact same semi-structured narrative you have now. But then in-universe, you also are offered a logical reason a mercenary might stop fighting in the main conflict in the area, which then leads to the Directorate victory. I'm fully willing to accept there could be flaws to it, or reasons it wouldn't work. I don't know what those reasons are, but I would hope "Well Zaodai suggested it" isn't the only one on your list.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 16:25
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:I mean this isn't a pure mercenary game. It's a plot based game with main characters and a story that's being told and there happens to be a mercenary battle generation system constructed on top of that. Yuuuuup. News flash: every "merc" themed game out there that isn't just a random battle generator has this same issue. Mechwarrior 1? Plot missions on top of random contracts. MW2: Mercs? Plot missions on top of random contracts. MW4? You get the idea. The whole mercenary angle is usually just a way for game devs to slip in upgrade-based progression in an easy way (earn MercBux, upgrade your unit!) that wouldn't otherwise make sense in a military setting with the added side benefit of getting the player to invest emotionally in the unit they're running in a way that they might not if they didn't flat out own it. The only 100% true merc simulators I can think of are basically open world sandboxes and if you want that in a BTech universe I guess wait for  to release MW5?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 16:28
|
|
|
Giant Robot Battle Brothers sounds good to me
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 16:30
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Yuuuuup. News flash: every "merc" themed game out there that isn't just a random battle generator has this same issue. Mechwarrior 1? Plot missions on top of random contracts. MW2: Mercs? Plot missions on top of random contracts. MW4? You get the idea. This game is literally going to have the open-ended mercenary campaign where it is generating missions you can take, and as posted above by other people, that will include missions from the Directorate once the story concludes. Doing it that way in the past is not really a good reason to continue doing it in the future, not as its own reason. Again, what would have even one or two events popping up where you actively tell the Restoration you've got a better offer and that they piss off actually take away from you compared to people being able to just not select the plot missions as it is? It's about the least intrusive, least resource using thing possible. Not an entire second campaign, not a whole extra section of the map being unlocked, not a bunch of extra mechs suddenly being added. A couple boxes coming up on the screen and a couple event flags in the background.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 16:41
|
|
|
Zaodai posted:This game is literally going to have the open-ended mercenary campaign where it is generating missions you can take, and as posted above by other people, that will include missions from the Directorate once the story concludes. Doing it that way in the past is not really a good reason to continue doing it in the future, not as its own reason. You just described exactly what I'm talking about. MW1 also let you keep taking random contracts after the main game ended. Story layered on top of sandbox is a really loving tried and true method of providing the fun bits that people like from pure sandbox games while giving a bit of structure to keep it moving. I mean, gently caress, dig down enough and that's the basic framework for poo poo like GTA as well. They have a story they want to tell, and it involves mercs working for a specific side in a civil war. I guess I get it if you're upset that this isn't your fantasy 100% open world do anything BT universe merc simulator, but that's not the game they're making and not the game they ever set out to make.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 17:00
|
|
|
Fallout 3's story annoyed the poo poo out of me for exactly the reason Zaodai is describing. Y'all need to chill the gently caress out before you get mad about somebody not liking one particular aspect of a game. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 17:08
|
|
|
This is why I loved the guerrilla warfare campaign of MW3 where salvage was important as your only means of getting equipment rather than a bonus payday and the limited scope already made sense in the narrative.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 17:19
|
|
|
Zaodai posted:This game is literally going to have the open-ended mercenary campaign where it is generating missions you can take, and as posted above by other people, that will include missions from the Directorate once the story concludes. Doing it that way in the past is not really a good reason to continue doing it in the future, not as its own reason. The reason to do it is they had a story they wanted to tell within the framework. The only way to turn this into a cyoa merc company game that still has a narrative beat is either invest a truckload of dev time into writing branching paths or leave you to the whims of a Tom Clancy story generator Frankensteined into a radiant engine style random mission generator.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 17:22
|
|
|
Given that everybody has taken to cropping out the part of my responses where I'm specifically not asking for a giant, multi-story branch campaign and instead am asking for a text box or two and a couple event flags to allow for some player agency, I'm just going to stop. Sorry to bust in on the strawman hugbox. Game is literally just X-COM, etc. etc. I am the Ham Sandwich, goo goo g'joob.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 17:28
|
|
|
Zaodai posted:Given that everybody has taken to cropping out the part of my responses where I'm specifically not asking for a giant, multi-story branch campaign and instead am asking for a text box or two and a couple event flags to allow for some player agency, I'm just going to stop. Tbh I think what you're saying is very reasonable and I get why you're saying you'd prefer it. I replied earlier while still a bit sleepy and missed some of what you were saying, I think.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 17:38
|
|
|
I'm siding with Zaodai here. I used to run my own MegaMek merc campaign just so I can side with who I want, go where I want, etc. Having the choice to take sides on a conflict is very important, especially if you're only in it for the  .
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 17:49
|
|
|
Zaodai posted:Again, what would have even one or two events popping up where you actively tell the Restoration you've got a better offer I think the main reason a developer would shy away from this is generally it's not good practice to let your audience accidentally jettison the entire campaign and all that entails. You and I both know somebody would be like "wtf no story 0/10" and there you go, Steam and Metacritic review hell. Or whatever. It's a real concern. being able to deliberately ignore the campaign - which as I understand it you can do now, no new events required - is effectively the same thing (skip straight to freeroaming merc company) without the risks of a player loving themselves over. After all if it's just a minor event flag like you say, people may not realize what they just did. It's something that I know you wouldn't get tripped up over, and maybe even most people here wouldn't. But a nonzero percentage of the buying audience would, and that's probably a risk not worth the mostly-intangible reward. e: anyway, I think a lot of this hinges on story detail. I'm prepared to wait and see what motivations they offer for the MC before having concerns. If nothing else, I'm sure someone could mod up the event system if it's as straightforward as it sounds so you can get this in the end. Psion fucked around with this message at 18:33 on Jan 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 18:29
|
|
|
I can completely understand them only having one path. And criticizing it now is a bit weird when we don't even know the story details. Maybe the Directorate has a valid reason to not hire mercs. Remember, this is basically a proxy war with the Taurian-supported Directorate versus the Canopian-supported Restoration. Maybe the Taurians have given the Directorate a bunch of mercs (that are really paid by Taurus) and in order to keep them from getting 'out of line' said 'these troops will be enough, you'd better not hire any more!' Hell, maybe the Taurians don't even want the Directorate to win, maybe they just want the Aurigans a bit trampled so that they can dominate them economically. Remember, in order for you to work for the Directorate they'd have to actually make you an offer. Without playing the game we can't say they don't have valid reasons to do so.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 18:29
|
|
|
Sky Shadowing posted:I can completely understand them only having one path. When you start single-handedly beating their coup, and are known mercenaries, that offers them pretty strong incentive to at least pay you for non-interference if they're not going to hire you outright. They would be stupid not to at least try to buy you out, even if they suspect you'll refuse. If your neighbor tells you he's hired a guy to throw a brick through your window every day (and it's somehow legal), you might ask the guy if he'd take a bit extra from you to just not throw bricks. If he's in it for the money and not because he hates you personally, he's probably happy to take extra money for less work.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 18:49
|
|
|
If I recall correctly the PC is an exiled noble with a specific reason to hate the Directorate (they're likely the reason you are exiled). That's also the story hook that makes you the person the Restoration go to for high-profile rear end kicking activity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 19:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 20:13 |
|
|
Alchenar posted:If I recall correctly the PC is an exiled noble with a specific reason to hate the Directorate (they're likely the reason you are exiled). That's also the story hook that makes you the person the Restoration go to for high-profile rear end kicking activity. Isn't that like half of the MW PCs? NOBLE OUT FOR REVENGE
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 19:03
|
|