43 replies to this topic

[Threat Doc]

Rock Paper Shotgun Article About BattleTech

This, in particular...

Quote

Weisman added, “There is the relationship between tactical micromanagement of units on the battlefield and the meta-management of a military force altogether. So the way we’re doing that is: you’ve got a military outfit that you’re managing, from salaries, to what gets repaired and what doesn’t, and the skill growth of all the MechWarriors under your command as long as you keep them alive.”



That split focus between battlefield combat and a longer campaign also brings the astonishingly detailed fictional military history of the BattleTech universe into play. Mitch Getelman, co-founder of Harebrained and the producer on the original MechCommander tactical game, pointed out that BattleTech was always more than just a wargame about mechs.


“The other thing, beyond the tabletop and the rules is the IP and the strength of the setting. Jordan’s always been really great at honing in on the core fantasy fulfillment of a world and an experience, and I think that’s one of the big reasons why BattleTech and MechWarrior has persisted in such a big way.”

Please... PAY... ATTENTION!!!

Edited by Kay Wolf, 02 November 2015 - 07:17 PM.

[Zordicron]

yeah but see, PGI is just gonna leave that stuff to HBS.

MWO is for CoD/Halo with mechs! Enjoy those 50 point laser alpha strikes! Just like in the source material!!

[Vellron2005]

The man who wrote that article hit everything that's wrong with MWO on the head, without ever mentioning MWO..

I sincerely hope they bring everything mentioned there to Battletech..

MWO could learn loads from them..

And to be honest, I can totally see MWO becoming a Battletech plug-in for multiplayer

Please PGI, don't let that happen.. instead, make Battletech the competition, and give us equally fun PVE campaigns we can enjoy..

I hope HBS shares its resources and ideas with PGI..

They could learn so much from eachother..

[Mudhutwarrior]

One thing I have learned is no mater what I will never invest in a gaming kickstarter. I have in tangible items under development and not been dissapointed but after witnessing this game and Star Citezen I see what a crapshoot it is.

That it's Hairbrained is a plus but the fact they are working with PGI just stopped me dead in its tracks from putting anything down.

[Karl Streiger]

funny thing is

Quote

“We really want to see players in that mercenary role going through that mental calculus looking at what the cost of victory is versus the cost of defeat. Figuring out that maybe I need to withdraw from this battle because even if I win it I’m going to lose a fortune, so I’ll take the hit to my reputation for withdrawing from the battlefield,” Weisman said. “When every shot you’re taking has a longer-term ramification than just this mission, that’s really going to change how you approach the mission overall.”

this is something that would be great in MWO - but its hard to achieve

we did test it - but because of the pace of MWO its hard for a player to retreat -not that there is a option to retreat in the game mode.
There is not even the option for a retreat in the lobby (where we want to test scenario game play)

[MeiSooHaityu]

Mudhutwarrior, on 03 November 2015 - 02:34 AM, said:

One thing I have learned is no mater what I will never invest in a gaming kickstarter. I have in tangible items under development and not been dissapointed but after witnessing this game and Star Citezen I see what a crapshoot it is.

That it's Hairbrained is a plus but the fact they are working with PGI just stopped me dead in its tracks from putting anything down.

The Battletech Kickstarter was my first Kickstarter and probably my last. It's because I don't really like Kickstarters, but I do like things Battletech .

As for PGI's contribution, it's nothing more than art assets. I don't think that is a big deal. PGI has proven more than anything that they can design mechs.

[Raggedyman]

Mudhutwarrior, on 03 November 2015 - 02:34 AM, said:

One thing I have learned is no mater what I will never invest in a gaming kickstarter. I have in tangible items under development and not been dissapointed but after witnessing this game and Star Citezen I see what a crapshoot it is.

That it's Hairbrained is a plus but the fact they are working with PGI just stopped me dead in its tracks from putting anything down.

I feel your trepidation, however Hairbrained had sufficent history of delivering on their promises for me to throw coin at them.

Kay Wolf, on 02 November 2015 - 07:14 PM, said:

Rock Paper Shotgun Article About BattleTech

This, in particular...


Please... PAY... ATTENTION!!!

I so hope that the new game will give PGI the kick in the pants to get a more "meaningful" experience in. Even something as simple as making CW a 'locked in' and curated game mode so that there is balance and you can't just switch to the winning faction would be great. Drops are fun, but I want them to mean something more than a grind to pick up a couple more Cbills.

Edited by Raggedyman, 03 November 2015 - 04:47 AM.

[Greyhart]

That is what I want from a MechWarrior game. the consideration of the cost of the battle and if the win is worth it.

However I can only see that coming about in CW, but they would have to do a radical redesign. I've been mulling the problems and they are significant in a multiplayer game.

If they were to wall off CW from the PuG/group queue so none of the resources crossed over they could make the cost benefit system work.

However the real problem lies in the multiplayer nature. Who gets to allocate troops and move the mechs between planets? Sure the loyalists but who has the final say?

Assuming you could get past that then you could allocate a tax revenue to each planet and some could manufacture mechs and others weapons. Those are then allocated to the faction to garrison or allocate to an attack or sell on the open market for more funds.

They could then contract with merc to provide garrison for other planets or provide pilots and mechs on an attack. If the mercs show up an perform the contract they get paid, if not then they don't.

Lone wolves (who are not likely to have mechs of their own) can pilot the mechs provided by the loyalists for a fee.

introduce salvage parts and repair and rearm costs.

Then you have the loyalists deciding grand galactic strategy and hiring mercs to fill the gaps.

Merc groups are looking at the cost benefit of a contract i.e. provide X ton of mechs and X pilots to defend Y planet between these hours. Can they do It? are their mechs on the otherside of the galaxy? would the fee cover the repair and rearm bill?

Lone wolves would be able to jump in and out but would get limited rewards. If they're good they might be able to afford a mech of their own and gain a name so that factions make direct offers to them for their services.

But it all falls down if 2 loyalist groups of the same faction can't agree on matters. group thinks it needs all the mechs for an assault and the other thinks it needs them for defence? who makes the decision?

[1Grimbane]

Eldagore, on 02 November 2015 - 08:01 PM, said:

yeah but see, PGI is just gonna leave that stuff to HBS.

MWO is for CoD/Halo with mechs! Enjoy those 50 point laser alpha strikes! Just like in the source material!!

excuse me sir my laser vom alpha's are 80plus dmg thank you very much

[Johnny Z]

Greyhart, on 03 November 2015 - 06:22 AM, said:

That is what I want from a MechWarrior game. the consideration of the cost of the battle and if the win is worth it.

However I can only see that coming about in CW, but they would have to do a radical redesign. I've been mulling the problems and they are significant in a multiplayer game.

If they were to wall off CW from the PuG/group queue so none of the resources crossed over they could make the cost benefit system work.

However the real problem lies in the multiplayer nature. Who gets to allocate troops and move the mechs between planets? Sure the loyalists but who has the final say?

Assuming you could get past that then you could allocate a tax revenue to each planet and some could manufacture mechs and others weapons. Those are then allocated to the faction to garrison or allocate to an attack or sell on the open market for more funds.

They could then contract with merc to provide garrison for other planets or provide pilots and mechs on an attack. If the mercs show up an perform the contract they get paid, if not then they don't.

Lone wolves (who are not likely to have mechs of their own) can pilot the mechs provided by the loyalists for a fee.

introduce salvage parts and repair and rearm costs.

Then you have the loyalists deciding grand galactic strategy and hiring mercs to fill the gaps.

Merc groups are looking at the cost benefit of a contract i.e. provide X ton of mechs and X pilots to defend Y planet between these hours. Can they do It? are their mechs on the otherside of the galaxy? would the fee cover the repair and rearm bill?

Lone wolves would be able to jump in and out but would get limited rewards. If they're good they might be able to afford a mech of their own and gain a name so that factions make direct offers to them for their services.

But it all falls down if 2 loyalist groups of the same faction can't agree on matters. group thinks it needs all the mechs for an assault and the other thinks it needs them for defence? who makes the decision?

I am 100% sure repair and rearm were taken out so that they could be re added later properly. Same goes for knock downs.

This is just common sense because rescource management has always been part of battletech to one degree or another and is a great gameplay element for any game.

[AdamBaines]

Kay Wolf, on 02 November 2015 - 07:14 PM, said:

Rock Paper Shotgun Article About BattleTech

This, in particular...


Please... PAY... ATTENTION!!!

I Dont disagree with what your talking about Kay, but tell me how you want to bring that to the game? And then how you get that logistically done? Its very easy to talk about those things, but to make it happen in a practical way in MWO in a way that wont alienate your player base in 1 way or the other, its really tough. Again, not disagreeing with you that this would bring some cool depth to the game, but I just dont know how you get it done practically.

Im not being sarcastic. Id really like to know what your thoughts on this are: The ideas and then how to actually get it done. Thanks.

[Jetfire]

Mudhutwarrior, on 03 November 2015 - 02:34 AM, said:

One thing I have learned is no mater what I will never invest in a gaming kickstarter. I have in tangible items under development and not been dissapointed but after witnessing this game and Star Citezen I see what a crapshoot it is.

That it's Hairbrained is a plus but the fact they are working with PGI just stopped me dead in its tracks from putting anything down.

MWO was never a crowdfunded game. Leave it out of the discussion.

I have backed tons of KS's in various gaming genres and have been largely pleased. If you go in with a realistic expectation you can have a lot of fun with KS. If you just want cheap pre-orders with 100% guaranteed on time delivery of your every dream... yeah, just wait for release. Some of us want things that the big dev's will never offer us.

[Appogee]

I had exactly the same reaction when I first read that article.

In fact, today I almost documented all the ways that lore is missing from - but could be added to - MWO to make it a more immersive experience.

But I felt the investment of time would be futile. PGI haven't ever made much of an effort to leverage the lore. That's why the 'planet information' tabs in CW remain mostly empty. They seem uninterested in anything beyond the next Mech Pack.

Edited by Appogee, 03 November 2015 - 09:27 AM.

[Hotthedd]

Johnny Z, on 03 November 2015 - 08:38 AM, said:

I am 100% sure repair and rearm were taken out so that they could be re added later properly. Same goes for knock downs.

This is just common sense because rescource management has always been part of battletech to one degree or another and is a great gameplay element for any game.

I wish you were right, but I keep reminding myself of "minimal viable product".

[Rampancy]

Hotthedd, on 03 November 2015 - 09:17 AM, said:

I wish you were right, but I keep reminding myself of "minimal viable product".

"Minimum viable product" means that the game is in a state where it's functional enough to start selling it.

It's a business benchmark, not a design philosophy. It literally just means "We achieved something and get to make money now!"

Excuse me for interrupting the circle-jerk, my mistake

[Summon3r]

RampancyTW, on 03 November 2015 - 09:23 AM, said:

"Minimum viable product" means that the game is in a state where it's functional enough to start selling it.

It's a business benchmark, not a design philosophy. It literally just means "We achieved something and get to make money now!"

Excuse me for interrupting the circle-jerk, my mistake

and now we dont have to really do anything else what so ever, except make mechs to sell okthxbye .... and then drastically alter every one of them after you paid us your monies..... no big deal right?

and by the way some guy is working on reducing ECM range and rebalancing the core of the game (sounds like beta stuff) and should only take months and months

[Appogee]

Jetfire, on 03 November 2015 - 09:10 AM, said:

MWO was never a crowdfunded game.

True. It was a Dupe Funded game

j/k

Edited by Appogee, 03 November 2015 - 09:34 AM.

[Rampancy]

Summon3r, on 03 November 2015 - 09:27 AM, said:

and now we dont have to really do anything else what so ever, except make mechs to sell okthxbye .... and then drastically alter every one of them after you paid us your monies..... no big deal right?

and by the way some guy is working on reducing ECM range and rebalancing the core of the game (sounds like beta stuff) and should only take months and months

Except they've done wayyyy more than that. Maybe not in the fashion and timeline that the playerbase desires, but there is no sane, rational way to claim that PGI hasn't been working on improving the game and gameplay experience.

And you're kinda dumb if you don't expect mechs and weapons to get balanced as needed, paid for or not.

[Summon3r]

RampancyTW, on 03 November 2015 - 09:30 AM, said:

Except they've done wayyyy more than that. Maybe not in the fashion and timeline that the playerbase desires, but there is no sane, rational way to claim that PGI hasn't been working on improving the game and gameplay experience.

And you're kinda dumb if you don't expect mechs and weapons to get balanced as needed, paid for or not.

agreed and there have been many many many suggested routes PGI could go or try made by many many people that dont include drastically altering a mech (im fine with small tweaks to OP stuff) but all goes 100% ignored and turned over to a certain person or persons that seems to have proved incompetence over and over again

[Hotthedd]

RampancyTW, on 03 November 2015 - 09:23 AM, said:

"Minimum viable product" means that the game is in a state where it's functional enough to start selling it.

It's a business benchmark, not a design philosophy. It literally just means "We achieved something and get to make money now!"

Excuse me for interrupting the circle-jerk, my mistake

Except for in THIS game, minimal viable product IS the design philosophy. Why else are the core problems left unaddressed? Why do we still have placeholders 3 years later?