47 replies to this topic

[ChapeL]

PvP wasn't something I was looking forward to concerning this game. I was hoping (and am very happy) that funding reached the open ended campaign and it did. It's all bonus from here on...

[stjobe]

I find it interesting that there are so many posters vehemently against PvP (in this and other threads), especially as we're on the forums of a PvP-only game, discussing another implementation of what was originally a multi-player PvP board game.

[Elizander]

The role of this new game is to primarily fill in a gap in the MW/BTech product line for those that want story and lore. I don't think people are against PvP but the product is 99.9% for a lot of fans mostly a story-based single-player campaign.

I am not against it having PvP but I think they could have prepared a few more details on how PvP will go, how it is envisioned to be fun and maybe how it can possibly appeal to players who only want a single-player campaign.

The role of this new game is to primarily fill in a gap in the MW/BTech product line for those that want story and lore. I don't think people are against PvP but the product is 99.9% for a lot of fans mostly a story-based single-player campaign.

I am not against it having PvP but I think they could have prepared a few more details on how PvP will go, how it is envisioned to be fun and maybe how it can possibly appeal to players who only want a single-player campaign.

[Trystan Thorne]

Rhent, on 31 October 2015 - 11:59 AM, said:

Yup, Kickstarting a game is a great recipe for failure. Look at $tar Citi$en and the claims of nepotism and incompetence that has been leveled at them and they have gotten a ton of kickstarter funds and are floundering. Plus lets not forget the prior iteration of Battlech that IGP ran up and screwed everyone over.

There are some KS failures for sure, but at the same time we got some really great games only made possible because of KS.
As people mentioned the HBS Shadowrun games. Then there is Divinity: Original Sin, Pillars of Eternity, Banner Saga, Shovel Knight, Mercenary Kings, Wasteland 2, and many more.
I know people disliking KS and buying some of these games, not knowing that they all really got funded via KS.

stjobe, on 01 November 2015 - 12:27 AM, said:

I find it interesting that there are so many posters vehemently against PvP (in this and other threads), especially as we're on the forums of a PvP-only game, discussing another implementation of what was originally a multi-player PvP board game.

I think it's because of the balance issue we see in MWO that people are afraid of PvP.
They are afraid that the balancing HBS will need to look after for PvP will have a negative impact on the SP campaign (it happened before in other games).
Especially if they balance the game in a way that doesn't fit with the Battletech Lore. As for me, I hope that HBS will concentrate mainly on the SP campaign and not bother too much about the perfect balance.


And on topic. Yes, they will reach the 2.5 million. The last 48 hours usually have a finace boost.

[stjobe]

Trystan Thorne, on 01 November 2015 - 03:10 AM, said:

I think it's because of the balance issue we see in MWO that people are afraid of PvP.

There's a world of difference between the only-in-it-for-the-money PGI and HBS.

Trystan Thorne, on 01 November 2015 - 03:10 AM, said:

They are afraid that the balancing HBS will need to look after for PvP will have a negative impact on the SP campaign (it happened before in other games).

Why would HBS have to do any extra PvP balance at all? BT is a PvP game.

Trystan Thorne, on 01 November 2015 - 03:10 AM, said:

Especially if they balance the game in a way that doesn't fit with the Battletech Lore.

With Jordan Weissman at the helm, I don't think anyone need to worry overly much about their game not fitting BT lore.

Trystan Thorne, on 01 November 2015 - 03:10 AM, said:

As for me, I hope that HBS will concentrate mainly on the SP campaign and not bother too much about the perfect balance.

They've said that multiplayer PvP will be in the form of Solaris VII casual and ranked arena play, which pretty much means they don't have to do any additional balance for it - and if they do, it won't affect the single-player campaign one way or the other.

I think what intrigues me the most is people asking to not have PvP in a game derived from a PvP board game - even going so far as to withdraw their pledges if it comes down to the wire. That's just spiteful, seeing as having PvP will likely extend both the player base and the longevity of the game tremendously.

[Juodas Varnas]

I don't care for PvP, i just want to have all my favorite mechs in the game!
(Which currently doesn't seem to be happening! I know, Quads are "too hard to animate" or whatever excuse they want to use, but come on, give me a Vulcan at least!)

[DerMaulwurf]

As I said in the other thread: Looking how much funding we need and comparing on how much funding other kickstarters have pulled in in their last 48 hours, PvP is a pretty safe bet. There is a caveat in the massive mobilization for the first days, which likely sapped some money that would habe flown later in other cases. But all in all I expect PvP to be funded.

It's also a reasonably safe bet that HBS will deliver what they promise, as they've done that in the past. And on top of that I'm going to get those blueprints. We're also only a few points away from getting a proper novel. Hopefully that works out, too.

[Trystan Thorne]

stjobe, on 01 November 2015 - 03:45 AM, said:

Why would HBS have to do any extra PvP balance at all? BT is a PvP game.

Yes, BT is a PvP game, yet not the most balanced one.
It was so easy to geht a cheezy Lance if wanted.
Today's Problem is that players can be quite vocal (up to an unhealthy degree).
If HBS stays true to the lore (and I hope they will), then a lot people will complain about the PvP.
If they try to accommodate them, they might change balance slightly which might have an impact on SP.
StarCraft was a great example there. Later Blizzard gave the SP campaignsva different unit stats than they had in MP, as started to have an influx on the campaigns.

Also, all Shadowrun games were not really close to the Pen&Paper rules either even with Jordan.
I expect HBS to take certain liberties.

I would gave rather seen CoOp at first with a more developed PvP later.

[Juodas Varnas]

Trystan Thorne, on 01 November 2015 - 06:16 AM, said:

Also, all Shadowrun games were not really close to the Pen&Paper rules either even with Jordan.
I expect HBS to take certain liberties.

This is the thing i'm scared the most of.

All i want is a decent 3D video game representation of the Table Top game.
I'm sure most of us want that.

[stjobe]

Trystan Thorne, on 01 November 2015 - 06:16 AM, said:

Yes, BT is a PvP game, yet not the most balanced one.

In 3025 it's pretty well balanced.

Trystan Thorne, on 01 November 2015 - 06:16 AM, said:

It was so easy to geht a cheezy Lance if wanted.

Less so with stock 'mechs and Field Repair Rules (as opposed to BattleMech Construction Rules). Do not expect MWO-style complete rebuilds between drops in HBS' game.

Trystan Thorne, on 01 November 2015 - 06:16 AM, said:

If HBS stays true to the lore (and I hope they will), then a lot people will complain about the PvP.

Why?

Trystan Thorne, on 01 November 2015 - 06:16 AM, said:

If they try to accommodate them, they might change balance slightly which might have an impact on SP.

Again, why would it? PvP is slated to be Solaris VII and has nothing to do with the PvE campaign.

Trystan Thorne, on 01 November 2015 - 06:16 AM, said:

Also, all Shadowrun games were not really close to the Pen&Paper rules either even with Jordan.
I expect HBS to take certain liberties.

Yes, they've stated as much. If the choice is between lore/TT rules and a fun game, fun game wins. But they always start from lore/TT rules - and as opposed to PGI, these guys actually know both the lore and the rules.

Trystan Thorne, on 01 November 2015 - 06:16 AM, said:

I would gave rather seen CoOp at first with a more developed PvP later.

There's a good chance co-op will happen at the same time as PvP.

Edit:

Juodas Varnas, on 01 November 2015 - 06:27 AM, said:

This is the thing i'm scared the most of.

As I said above, they've already said they may take liberties with TT rules in favour of a fun game - much as they did with their Shadowrun games.

Much as their Shadowrun games, I expect this game to capture the feel of the universe splendidly.

Juodas Varnas, on 01 November 2015 - 06:27 AM, said:

All i want is a decent 3D video game representation of the Table Top game.

It's a fairly safe bet that's what you'll get; not a perfectly literal, 1:1 implementation but a (more than) decent 3D representation of the TT game.

Juodas Varnas, on 01 November 2015 - 06:27 AM, said:

I'm sure most of us want that.

I want what they seem to be set to deliver: A digital representation of the gameplay found in the Mercenary's Handbook.

Edited by stjobe, 01 November 2015 - 06:45 AM.

[Voras]

Juodas Varnas, on 01 November 2015 - 06:27 AM, said:

This is the thing i'm scared the most of.

All i want is a decent 3D video game representation of the Table Top game.
I'm sure most of us want that.

This is, however, something, HBS stated from the start, that they will not translate the TT rules 1:1 into the game. And I really think, that would not work out well, if you want a nice and smooth running PC game. I am very confident, that the game will feel like BT without being just a nice looking TT simulator.

[Haakon Magnusson]

Rhent, on 31 October 2015 - 11:59 AM, said:

Yup, Kickstarting a game is a great recipe for failure. Look at $tar Citi$en and the claims of nepotism and incompetence that has been leveled at them and they have gotten a ton of kickstarter funds and are floundering. Plus lets not forget the prior iteration of Battlech that IGP ran up and screwed everyone over.

Like a woman hurt... all men are pigs based on that one sob.
I really enjoyed their shadownrun (Which reminds, need to buy Hong Kong now that they have it on sale for this weekened, shame they didn't include it as a digital addon) and have NO doubts at all that they can deliver a good game, with or without pvp.

I would much appreciate pvp, as it would give even more longevity but I know I will enjoy their openended campaing even it it doesn't happen.
I just wonder at people who think pvp might ruin the game, the whole damn battletech began as pvp on TT

[Ultimax]

stjobe, on 01 November 2015 - 03:45 AM, said:

I think what intrigues me the most is people asking to not have PvP in a game derived from a PvP board game - even going so far as to withdraw their pledges if it comes down to the wire. That's just spiteful, seeing as having PvP will likely extend both the player base and the longevity of the game tremendously.

I think some players tend to prefer easy gameplay with overpowered toys, they don't like to see overpowered toys nerfed for the sake of balance - they don't believe in balance.

The other facet is probably ego aspect, some players just aren't thick skinned enough for PvP - they take things personally.

Edited by Ultimatum X, 01 November 2015 - 08:12 AM.

[Trystan Thorne]

stjobe, on 01 November 2015 - 06:38 AM, said:

In 3025 it's pretty well balanced.

Not really. Not even with Stock Mechs.

stjobe, on 01 November 2015 - 06:38 AM, said:

Again, why would it? PvP is slated to be Solaris VII and has nothing to do with the PvE campaign.

If you change the way certain weapons/mechs work, purely from the perspective for PvP balance reasons, then it might.
As I said in my previous post. Balance changes Blizzard made in Starcraft MP had quite an impact on the SP campaign, so Blizzard ended up giving their units different stats between SP and MP.

stjobe, on 01 November 2015 - 06:38 AM, said:

... as opposed to PGI, these guys actually know both the lore and the rules.

I think PGI knows the lore and the rules also well. PGI's shortcomings are of a different kind. But I really don't want to derail the thread here.


As for HBS & BT. I supported all the Shadowrun games from them and enjoyed them imensly. I'm very confident that they will make a great BT game. I'm not bothered if they achieve PvP or not. I can just understand why some people are (I think).

[jss78]

Juodas Varnas, on 01 November 2015 - 03:48 AM, said:

I don't care for PvP, i just want to have all my favorite mechs in the game!
(Which currently doesn't seem to be happening! I know, Quads are "too hard to animate" or whatever excuse they want to use, but come on, give me a Vulcan at least!)

I notice a theme to your posts, so here's a thought. You could take a friend, pick two identical mechs, and run together front-to-back, pretending that you're a quad?

Here's an illustration:

Spoiler

Note that quad-AMS. That thing's a goddamned beast.

[Juodas Varnas]

jss78, on 01 November 2015 - 11:03 AM, said:

I notice a theme to your posts, so here's a thought. You could take a friend, pick two identical mechs, and run together front-to-back, pretending that you're a quad?

I don't have friends.

[Haakon Magnusson]

Trystan Thorne, on 01 November 2015 - 06:16 AM, said:

Yes, BT is a PvP game, yet not the most balanced one.
It was so easy to geht a cheezy Lance if wanted.
Today's Problem is that players can be quite vocal (up to an unhealthy degree).
If HBS stays true to the lore (and I hope they will), then a lot people will complain about the PvP.
If they try to accommodate them, they might change balance slightly which might have an impact on SP.
...
Also, all Shadowrun games were not really close to the Pen&Paper rules either even with Jordan.
I expect HBS to take certain liberties.

Call me crazy but I want them to balance the game appropiately even if it didn't have any pvp.

I think they will definately be taking quite a bit of liberties to bring out an enjoyable btech experience, I'd bet they have quite a few pet peevees carried over from their first try at TT rules which they want to fix and this is their chance to leave that legacy (I'd expect otherse to pick that up from their demeneor as well)

We do not need a graphical megamek, there is megamek if you want to stick to TT rules to a tee.
But a turn based implementation of btech which propably streamlines the experience so that story and the mechs are the driving factor as opposed to rule micromanagement.

[TyphonCh]

TLBFestus, on 31 October 2015 - 10:31 AM, said:

For myself, I'm not a sponsor

[Speedy Plysitkos]

2325 + 60 from PP.... 46 hrs remaining. It will pass 2.5.

[Trystan Thorne]

Haakon Magnusson, on 01 November 2015 - 11:33 AM, said:

Call me crazy but I want them to balance the game appropiately even if it didn't have any pvp.

I think they will definately be taking quite a bit of liberties to bring out an enjoyable btech experience, I'd bet they have quite a few pet peevees carried over from their first try at TT rules which they want to fix and this is their chance to leave that legacy (I'd expect otherse to pick that up from their demeneor as well)

We do not need a graphical megamek, there is megamek if you want to stick to TT rules to a tee.
But a turn based implementation of btech which propably streamlines the experience so that story and the mechs are the driving factor as opposed to rule micromanagement.

Nothing crazy about that! I want the exact same thing. All I'm saying is that balancing SP and MP (or PvE and PvP) is not the same thing.
And I think people that don't want PvP are simply worried that the PvP balancing might ruin the PvE experience.

And it's perfectly fine with me if they take some liberties. I definitely expet some more customisation than according to 3025 lore (people love to custimze mechs). As long as their liberties aren't as drastic as some of the Stuff PGI is doing (ghost heat for example) I'm happy.

But right now it's too early to think about anything like that anyway. I'm just glad there will be BT game with a proper SP campaign set in 3025. Makes my oldschool BT heart really happy.

Edit:
And we're really looking good to get that PvP goal. Already over 70K funded today!

Edited by Trystan Thorne, 01 November 2015 - 02:12 PM.