|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:Unless the game requires you to sign in, you can just copy the game's whole directory and run the executable directly from that directory, regardless of your steam status. It's gonna call home after every game for you to drop feedback so I suppose there will be servers.
|
#
¿
May 26, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 19:21 |
|
|
This is a lot of panicking over 'they aren't confident they can get the networking good to go right now'. That's engine work, the campaign is 2nd layer stuff, work-schedule wise they shouldn't be too interdependent. There's no reason to believe more than a few months of delay based on unexpected engine work.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
Psion posted:it's okay to just not reply to a post you don't think is directed at you, y'know. I read your post and did not assume Alechnar's applied to it. You do not have to defend yourself on all points. Take that 0.02 for what it's worth,but I think this post I quoted did more harm than just letting it go. Yeah I was just generally commenting on how the thread had turned into people trying to out-bid each other on how long they thought the game would slip.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2017 10:36
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/JennRavenna/status/868621377732976641/photo/1 How tall are these mechs? e: ps. not meaning to be 'that guy', think the picture looks awesome.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2017 19:41
|
|
|
If you know in the mechbay how much heat you'll gain and dissipate every turn then there's no reason to hide that on the tactical screen. 'If the player could have this info by getting a pad of paper and a pen etc etc'.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2017 16:20
|
|
|
PoptartsNinja posted:It's not Ghost Heat and it's not an inconsistency, it's just not showing you what it's actually doing. Oh that's smart and good. I did a test game and I'm still adjusting from not really understanding TT Battletech to not really understanding HBS Battletech.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
Also piling in on the 'game should not tell me my hit chance is 100% when actually it is 50%' bandwagon.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2017 13:13
|
|
|
DatonKallandor posted:It's in the manual. Some of the pilot attribute values also don't do everything they're supposed to, like piloting making it harder to unbalance you. Ok so I think the beta might benefit from the main menu having a big text box with 'this works, this doesn't, in this version we'd like feedback on x'. Theorycrafting on stability is pointless if one of the main balance mechanics isn't in place yet. I presume pilot injuries will degrade skill in battle as an attrition mechanic. FAKE edit: heh, 'balance mechanic
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2017 06:50
|
|
|
All this 'I'm not losing enough mechs' chat actually raises an important point for the campaign: what amount of attrition does everyone think the player should be experiencing on the average mission? Because I'm coming from an XCOM perspective where the metric is 'if the player does everything right, a bad roll might lose you a guy but really you should expect to clown the AI by making the right choices'. Obviously Battletech is a game based around managing damage attrition rather than avoiding damage entirely, but isn't the ideal outcome of a game well played one where all your mechs have taken some damage but are still standing?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2017 12:35
|
|
|
So XCOM and Battletech are at diametric opposite ends of 'how does a turn based tactical game work'. I raised the comparison because XCOM has a fairly well developed sense of how much 'risk' the player is subjected to every battle. You might suffer no injuries at all in a fight, or you might lose two people to insanely unlucky crits. But it all averages out so that a good player can reasonably expect to progress through the campaign and not hit a fail-state. That's relevant because Battletech needs to find that same balance, which is harder because it's based around the player suffering a certain amount of damage across all their mechs each battle and yet still coming out ahead.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2017 17:07
|
|
|
It's as if Firaxis, having a pile of cash, the finest minds in the turn-based strategy world, and several years to think about it, came up with a game that set gold standards in how you present information to the player and make interesting choices. Here's the obvious counter-argument to why Battletech is not XCOM - the turn phase system is completely novel and makes the entire flow of the game fundamentally conceptually different to what XCOM is about.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2017 21:25
|
|
|
Raged posted:Atlas with evasive is just comical. It's insane how much damage that walking mountain can dodge. Yeah I think this might be one of those 'pairing an assault with a pilot with skills intended to keep a light mech alive leads to unintended consequences' things.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2017 08:42
|
|
|
Kanos posted:It seems to me that an easy way to solve the "too many headcappers" problem and "are my pilots going to die like flies" problem is to substantially increase the relative armor of the head. Head hits would still be debilitating due to incurred pilot damage and taking multiple would still kill you, but it would reduce the incidence of an Urbanmech blowing your head off from the fog. Battletech heresy but - remove heads as a distinct location. All other armour values need to be adjusted for balance reasons, but just have head hits be a controllable outcome of certain kinds of CT crits with the result being a pilot injury/unconsciousness/death depending on how bad it is.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2017 16:13
|
|
|
Psion posted:https://gfycat.com/AbandonedFilthyAtlanticbluetang An actual DFA combat animation would be nice.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2017 22:04
|
|
|
It seems to me that 'unsteady' should be less of a 'warning - you can be knocked over!' state and more of a debuff in itself that reduces accuracy and has the additional risk of terrible critical falling over.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2017 12:17
|
|
|
sebmojo posted:A good Vice article. On point: quote:"The 90s were certainly the peak days of the franchise," creator Jordan Weisman admitted, when we spoke at ParadoxCon in Stockholm last month. Then he paused and said, with a poo poo-eating, used-car salesman smile, "Until starting later this year!" Then he cringed, shrugged, and said with a sheepish smile, "Sorry, but I think I have to say that, right?" Not even going to attempt to claim that MWO has done anything positive for the franchise.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2017 15:35
|
|
|
It's not just a good visual design, it also has the virtue of being consistent. Something that Battletech was sorely lacking given the I think there was a missed opportunity to rework the Clan mech to stop being extremely similar variations of two blocky designs but I can see how they were a bit too iconic at that point.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
Zaodai posted:I doubt it. A lot of the design goal was explicitly "you won't just run assaults!", so them being moneysink garbage heaps fits with that. They lose initiative, they don't get evasion bonuses, they're monstrously slow and take up a ton of (limited) funds you could just put into getting better mediums. I mean, from a lore standpoint, especially in this time period, it makes sense. Doubly so when you only have one lance to field. Especially in PVP where there's no objective to defend or anything, so there's nothing to be like "Well they HAVE to come through this Atlas if they want to get to the Monsanto Corporation HQ!". I expect they'll make a lot more sense when there are mission types that actually involve assaulting things. e: which is your point except I'm tired and misread your last sentence
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2017 07:38
|
|
|
DatonKallandor posted:The multiplayer is basically "your first missions with this mech" because you are paying full price for all of them. The Assault isn't as cost efficient when all you are looking at is it's initial purchase price, but maybe they're a lot better when you consider than once you've got that assault mech you can keep using it for much less. Plus I'm pretty sure when the fights aren't fair, having an Assault is going to be more valuable. Moving last should be less of an issue when you are storming a base lined with turrets than when you are dancing in a meeting engagement against a faster heavy force.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2017 15:03
|
|
|
Hot take: I don't like 'fury'. Not the concept, just the name. This isn't Space Marine, my mechwarriors are not having a moment of superhuman effort powered by rage. 'Inspire' was fine.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2017 23:11
|
|
|
Only after HBS promised no more Q&A sessions do I realise I have an actual question: is the persistent merc campaign system try to scale infinitely in difficulty, or will it let the player break free of resource constraints and start victory lapping until you stop being silly and start a new game?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2017 15:22
|
|
|
isildur posted:
"Have you encountered the mercenary gang hanging out in the bar at the edge of town? I tell you, those goons are up to something awful!"
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2017 13:11
|
|
|
Want an Atlas pilot with the callsign "Ghost Dad"
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2017 14:19
|
|
|
Gwaihir posted: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. I think there's a regiment-scale game to be made where the control unit is the lance; you give orders to the lance and then it moves about and the mechs engage enemies based on their makeup and pilots. e: \/\/ that's not a weakness. The game works at the scale it's supposed to work at (well... for a given value of 'works'), and doesn't when you move it out of that scale. That's true of all games. Alchenar fucked around with this message at 14:50 on Dec 27, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2017 14:46
|
|
|
I think the ironic thing is that if you built a game around a scaled up concept as I posted above, you could build in a lot of the conceits of Battletech (mechs constantly moving, lack of focused firing, suboptimal builds, etc etc) to be something the player has to manage and mitigate as an overarching commander rather than micromanage out of existence.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2017 14:56
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
The obvious solution is to have a main menu option when you click 'new game' so that in addition to difficulty setting and ironman mode you have a checkbox 'no plot' that just turns off the story entirely and starts the game on a static map where nothing will ever change. Not a ridiculous mid-game 'turn off content' trap button.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2018 09:39
|
|
|
Sky Shadowing posted:Last I heard the plan was still for your commander to be able to select from a few different backgrounds, wasn't it? Sort of like Mass Effect and Shepard where you don't play his background but it does change some dialogue and (I recall HBS saying) give you a special mission? This seems to be the most relevant HBS update: https://community.battletechgame.com/forums/threads/4920 They don't explicitly reference the PC, but my furious entrail reading of "The bios and descriptions below could all be considered MILD SPOILERS - they occur after the inciting events of the game's Prologue chapter", implies that at the start of the prologue your character is not a mercenary involved in the restoration and at the end of the prologue they are a mercenary involved in the restoration. Whether or not the prologue involves 'becoming a mercenary' is unknown, but 'inciting events' is something I'm taking as meaning that the player character is a written entity of themselves who will interact with the cast of the story, rather than a faceless avatar of the player. ps. All guesswork and I'm not massively invested either way.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2018 14:52
|
|
|
Oh hey, says it right there. Backstories was a funding goal. I still suspect that moving from not having the Argo and not being involved in the restoration to the reverse probably involves giving your character some meaty hooks to care.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2018 20:23
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Goddamn you are making me really regret not backing up my beta. This is genuinely a ballsy but genius move by HBS - so many early access games land with a damp squid because their 'release' is just a different numbered patch on the game you've been playing for month. I only messed about a little bit with the beta but not having it is absolutely wearing on me.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2018 11:51
|
|
|
I wrote what I wrote and I stand by it. 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2018 16:55
|
|
|
The problem battletech has thematically is that there are two directions you can 'fluff' rare high tier equipment (either it's incredibly old lost knowledge or incredibly new cutting edge knowledge). Battletech tries to have it both ways, which is why *the mere knowledge the clans exist* limits the amount you can care about 3025 people running around after SLDF lostech. You know it's all going to be outclassed soon anyway, even if not literally in the game, so part of the immersion is lost. The way to fix clans is to go back to the concept of the Inner Sphere being a wholly feudal decentralised realm with basically non existent but for the grace of Comstar comms and logistics. Then have the clans appear with SLDF level tech and nothing better, but with the advantage of having the military C2 and logistics to fight a galactic campaign as an army. Basically reverse the military culture of the IS and Clans and suddenly it works a lot better.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2018 21:22
|
|
|
Yeah, if the game score system says BUT THOU MUST then why is the player even there? I maintain the way to fix them is to have a mini-reboot whereby the Inner Sphere remain as their original concept of feudal MechWarrior knights with no logistics or centralised command and control or notion of combined arms, and have the Clans return as the SLDF-but-200-years-more-advanced, without the numbers to take on the IS but with the ability to concentrate force and use tactical acumen the IS has lost. e: \/\/ yeah I know, but one can dream Alchenar fucked around with this message at 21:01 on Jan 27, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2018 20:28
|
|
|
HBS don't do expansions. What they'll do is 'Game 2' which they'll be tempted to crack out in 12 months now that the technology is built. It's an open question whether they'll stick to their style of games of a certain size or scope, or whether they'll take the fact that they've got a working pseudo-random mission generator and with some Paradox guidance go down the route of a bigger game that remains live with regular content expansions the way Pdx does.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2018 14:14
|
|
|
Yes I'm well aware of the difference between Paradox Interactive and PDX and I made that distinction in my post, it should not need to be pointed out that PDX's game development plans are directed by the business plan that Paradox Interactive comes up with, which even then is a bit of a stretch of the truth because these are people who work closely together in the same office. HBS will have had conversations with Paradox Interactive about their future publishing relationship (If they want one!) and Paradox Interactive's advice will have been based off their own development experience and probably off their partnership with Obsidian. HBS could continue to make games of the size they've been making, but the undertone of everything they've ever hinted about their future plans is that they want to keep doing More and Bigger and the PDX development model segways nicely into that. That's if they can get the Battletech license to make that sort of game from Microsoft. Which is a massive IF and is probably the killer.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2018 22:12
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:Thank you for posting this. Didnt they declare that there would be no date announcement at the Q&A and to not bother asking any questions about it? Also while that's probably true, obviously you don't announce in advance when you will be making an announcement a month in advance of release, if you get my meaning.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2018 14:30
|
|
|
Arty and airstrikes were rubbish in MC1 and 2. And in a turn based game they'll either be 'incoming damage you can do nothing about, gently caress you' or 'I guess everyone moves out of this circle before the next turn'.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2018 23:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 19:21 |
|
|
My instinct is that deployable aoe abilities that force a 'move from here or take damage' work really well in cover based games like XCOM where they force a real dilemma, but don't really make any sense in a game like battletech where the concept is 'knights jousting' and the default is that movement is life and standing still is mostly a bad idea.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2018 00:26
|
|