45 replies to this topic

[Stridercal]

Variant1, on 06 May 2018 - 01:45 PM, said:

well thats lame, i was really hopin for that ragnarok
does that mean quads/tripods arent canon either?

Quads are cannon since TRO 3025 at least. Tripods are Dark Age era.

Go to Sarna and look for yourself. Google: "Sarna + Scorpion/Tarantula/Fire Scorpion/Goliath/White Flame/etc." The Tripods are mainly focused on the super-heavy platforms, led by the Ares and Poseidon tripods.

[Brain Cancer]

Luminis, on 06 May 2018 - 07:36 AM, said:

Clans being in the game also means Clan enemies, so I'd say that cancels out, anyway.

The notable increase in raw firepower versus defensive capacity would make Clan opponents a very, VERY ugly thing and vice versa. Ever Adders generate enough missiles to shove someone to unsteady in short order, never mind the dual ERPPC types. With double heat sinks to cool themselves.

[Xetelian]

WrathOfDeadguy, on 06 May 2018 - 12:15 PM, said:

I disagree about vertical progression. I think it's more a case of so few games ever having done anything else well- just handing the player increasingly more powerful equipment is easier, and it's the expected norm. I'm struggling to think of even one example off the top of my head of a game that hasn't gone down that road to one degree or another. However, a strong core gameplay loop, tight level design, and a well-written story would go miles towards making a reverse progression concept viable. I think the key would be a sense of investment with the early-game equipment... which really shouldn't be all that difficult in a setting like Battletech, where 'Mechs are passed down from generation to generation, and could easily be written up as characters unto themselves.

Which is another crack in HBS' otherwise-strong game... you get a 'Mech with a backstory to start off with, but it's eventually rendered nonviable by the influx of heavier and heavier opponents. It would have been way, way cooler if you had the option to stick it out in your rickety old BJ-1 without it becoming a death sentence later on. It's hard to become invested with and attached to a machine that the game treats as disposable.

But... what if, instead, the 'Mech were to be an integral part of your character? It would be, for most Mechwarriors. Becoming Disposessed by losing one's 'Mech was the single greatest shame a Mechwarrior could face. Most would rather die in the cockpit than eject and live out the rest of their days without their machine. So, build off of that. You start with Your 'Mech. It may be a more-or-less stock varaint, but it is Yours. You know that it is the only 'Mech you're ever likely to own, and that you're fantastically lucky to even have it in the first place, because your great-great-so-and-so nearly bought it after taking an AC20 to the CT around a century ago, and it took decades to put the beast back together because of the heavy engine damage- but here it is, and it is Yours.

You would do anything to keep Your 'Mech operational. You'll be damned before you'll see Your 'Mech consigned to a salvage yard because it's too beat up to repair anymore. If it falls, it'll be in battle, with you or one of your descendants proudly sitting at the controls. Every hit you take makes your future battles more difficult, and you might be forced to take desperate measures if you suffer heavy damage, using inferior salvage to replace lost equipment... but with grit, determination, and skill, you and Your 'Mech will leave as proud a legacy as you've inherited.

Am I really the only person who wants to play that game? Really, really badly?

Maybe a game without a sense of progression is a bad idea? With all the focus testing and critical receptions and audience receptions to go off of, a game without 'vertical progression' can easily be stale and not worth investing in.


Besides you, who wants to field a lance of assault mechs, and lose them, then field some heavies, and lose them and then field some mediums, and lose them, then field some lights, and lose them, and then field some elementals and lose the armor and finally finish the game with fisticuffs?

Games that don't feature vertical progression of the player character? Fighting games like Street Fighter. Platformers like Super Meat Boy.It's possible to do with a Stealth game but not very likely. Survival Horror games like Amnesia Dark Descent. Very niche games is all I could think of. I think there are some tactical strategy games like Breach and Clear that don't progress the characters but it has been a long time since I played that game. Some puzzle games. Some beat'em ups. Some Shumps.


I just don't think downward progression of things would be very popular. Even God of War now has leveling in it and its being hailed as amazing.

A lot of gaming is a power fantasy and losing power isn't something most people fantasize about.

Edited by Xetelian, 06 May 2018 - 11:15 PM.

[WrathOfDeadguy]

Xetelian, on 06 May 2018 - 10:56 PM, said:

Maybe a game without a sense of progression is a bad idea? With all the focus testing and critical receptions and audience receptions to go off of, a game without 'vertical progression' can easily be stale and not worth investing in.

A worse idea is simply rehashing the same exact formula in every single game ever until the medium is worn out and boring. Something which has not been tried at least has the virtue of having the potential to bring something new to the world of gaming- the same old thing may be financially successful, but it will do nothing to advance the setting or the medium.

Xetelian, on 06 May 2018 - 10:56 PM, said:

Besides you, who wants to field a lance of assault mechs, and lose them, then field some heavies, and lose them and then field some mediums, and lose them, then field some lights, and lose them, and then field some elementals and lose the armor and finally finish the game with fisticuffs?

Who said anything about starting with assault 'Mechs? I said that resource scarcity would be a good substitute for tonnage creep in regulating endgame difficulty, not that players should be forced into lighter 'Mechs rather than advancing to heavies and assaults (which should be rare as hell in any PC game based on BT). Having the enemy escalate into heavier and heavier 'Mechs to maintain difficulty when the player has assaults is silly, and it has always been silly in every game that has used that tired old trick. Using a different mechanic would bring something new and different to the genre, and it has the potential to result in a masterpiece. Linear progression never will. It's already been done to death.

Xetelian, on 06 May 2018 - 10:56 PM, said:

Games that don't feature vertical progression of the player character? Fighting games like Street Fighter. Platformers like Super Meat Boy.It's possible to do with a Stealth game but not very likely. Survival Horror games like Amnesia Dark Descent. Very niche games is all I could think of. I think there are some tactical strategy games like Breach and Clear that don't progress the characters but it has been a long time since I played that game. Some puzzle games. Some beat'em ups. Some Shumps.

...and that's a reason why nobody else should try to break the mold? I repeat: doing the same old thing will not result in a truly memorable experience. It'll just be the next forgettable installment in a long-running series. Change the formula, change the genre. It's a risky move, but worth the payoff every time it works. Look at Half-Life (an entire game as one continuous experience with no loading screens or custcenes), or Homeworld (first fully 3D strategy game), or- hey, look!- Mechwarrior (first notable sim with 'Mechs, defining the whole Mechsim genre).

Xetelian, on 06 May 2018 - 10:56 PM, said:

I just don't think downward progression of things would be very popular. Even God of War now has leveling in it and its being hailed as amazing.

Not to be crass, but God of War would have had to trip over its own gonads and faceplant into a combine harvester to get bad reviews at this point. It's a staple series, like Halo, CoD, Assassin's Creed, or Super bloody Mario. I can't speak to the game's content, but total failure for a game with that kind of backing just isn't a thing. I'm sure it's great, but... is that really the best example? Kratos has literally slain gods. Plural. As in, more than one of them. An entire pantheon at this point, if I'm not mistaken. He started the first game out as a plain old mortal human with a grudge. Linear progression is kinda taken for granted with that character arc.

Xetelian, on 06 May 2018 - 10:56 PM, said:

A lot of gaming is a power fantasy and losing power isn't something most people fantasize about.

Another common gamer fantasy is playing the plucky underdog, fighting against long odds against seemingly-invulnerable foes, and succeeding anyway. Being skilled enough to overcome hardship plays into power fantasies just as strongly as a BFG 9000.

All I'm saying is that BT fans deserve to see what happens when a talented dev team does something really original with the raw material provided by the lore- instead of revisiting eras which we've seen time and time again, and rehashing gameplay mechanics which we've become so accustomed to that we could almost breathe them. Whether that takes the form of an RPG, or a squad-level turn-based strategy game, or a Mechsim, the next PC game to draw on BT lore should be something new and different rather than tired and old.

Edited by WrathOfDeadguy, 07 May 2018 - 12:55 AM.

[HammerMaster]

WrathOfDeadguy, on 06 May 2018 - 12:15 PM, said:

I disagree about vertical progression. I think it's more a case of so few games ever having done anything else well- just handing the player increasingly more powerful equipment is easier, and it's the expected norm. I'm struggling to think of even one example off the top of my head of a game that hasn't gone down that road to one degree or another. However, a strong core gameplay loop, tight level design, and a well-written story would go miles towards making a reverse progression concept viable. I think the key would be a sense of investment with the early-game equipment... which really shouldn't be all that difficult in a setting like Battletech, where 'Mechs are passed down from generation to generation, and could easily be written up as characters unto themselves.

Which is another crack in HBS' otherwise-strong game... you get a 'Mech with a backstory to start off with, but it's eventually rendered nonviable by the influx of heavier and heavier opponents. It would have been way, way cooler if you had the option to stick it out in your rickety old BJ-1 without it becoming a death sentence later on. It's hard to become invested with and attached to a machine that the game treats as disposable.

But... what if, instead, the 'Mech were to be an integral part of your character? It would be, for most Mechwarriors. Becoming Disposessed by losing one's 'Mech was the single greatest shame a Mechwarrior could face. Most would rather die in the cockpit than eject and live out the rest of their days without their machine. So, build off of that. You start with Your 'Mech. It may be a more-or-less stock varaint, but it is Yours. You know that it is the only 'Mech you're ever likely to own, and that you're fantastically lucky to even have it in the first place, because your great-great-so-and-so nearly bought it after taking an AC20 to the CT around a century ago, and it took decades to put the beast back together because of the heavy engine damage- but here it is, and it is Yours.

You would do anything to keep Your 'Mech operational. You'll be damned before you'll see Your 'Mech consigned to a salvage yard because it's too beat up to repair anymore. If it falls, it'll be in battle, with you or one of your descendants proudly sitting at the controls. Every hit you take makes your future battles more difficult, and you might be forced to take desperate measures if you suffer heavy damage, using inferior salvage to replace lost equipment... but with grit, determination, and skill, you and Your 'Mech will leave as proud a legacy as you've inherited.

Am I really the only person who wants to play that game? Really, really badly?

This makes too much sense. While it is lore to the nth degree what you just described. This community would consider it trolling yourself.

[NimoStar]

Quote

Edit : And oh, this 'reverse progression' is also the reason why Jihad and Dark Age are so hated. Suddenly all good characters are dead? Mechs are rare again? Factories destroyed? Losing techs?

You have never tried it in a videogame is why you think it "sucks" but I would surely like a lumberjack industrialmech with a saw be piloted against a quadruped mining induistrialmech with a drill and squaring it off liek that for the last resources of a planet :V

* * *
Anyways, even if you want progression, it can be done in a single 'mech.

Buy it as practically scrap. Repair it slowly. Do missions in vehicles, industrials, quads. Your 'mech only becomes operational after a few missions, and even then not fully. You feel however the power of this crippled mech with single heatsinks, commercial grade armor, just mgs and small lasers as weapons, internal combustion engine, and dragging a leg. Even then it is the best thing you have ever driven and scores of times better than your old vehicles (in fact, this could be showed by you easily destroying the ones you used to pilot). Getting a single SRM-2 would be a big deal. Over the missions you get more weaponry and better equipment; at the endgame your big boon is having the 'mech fully operational, and even customized, to face your final foes.

Edited by NimoStar, 07 May 2018 - 11:05 PM.