First BATTLETECH Expansion, FLASHPOINT Coming This November!

  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
My money is that they were holding their cards to their chest until they knew whether they were being bought by Paradox or not.

My money is that they were holding their cards to their chest until they knew whether they'd have any money to play cards with. And they don't say much now because once they start talking they often let things slip that they might not intend to. (Like the reveal to this expansion was pretty much done at P-Dox-Con already, but only really confirmed now)
 
My money is that they were holding their cards to their chest until they knew whether they were being bought by Paradox or not.

I'll put my chips on "they didn't want to announce something and be unable to do it, again" like with the Unseen, the Raven, the host of things which had to find the cutting room floor off the Kickstarter bits. . .
 
While the Hatchetman is significant as the first mech developed in-house, the part of the announcement that stands out the most to me is that the short stories are "branching". Although I enjoyed the Arano Restoration campaign, that was primarily because the missions were all interesting challenges... when a storyline railroads you into a single path, personally it doesn't matter much to me how well-written it is. I'd rather read a book if I'm not going to have any agency.

The currently released engine simply doesn't have any mechanism for branching stories. Once that feature is added in (by November, apparently) I would imagine that the modding community will start using it in some VERY interesting ways.
 
While the Hatchetman is significant as the first mech developed in-house, the part of the announcement that stands out the most to me is that the short stories are "branching". Although I enjoyed the Arano Restoration campaign, that was primarily because the missions were all interesting challenges... when a storyline railroads you into a single path, personally it doesn't matter much to me how well-written it is. I'd rather read a book if I'm not going to have any agency.

The currently released engine simply doesn't have any mechanism for branching stories. Once that feature is added in (by November, apparently) I would imagine that the modding community will start using it in some VERY interesting ways.
I hope you are right, I really, really do. :bow:

But it might be that the "branching" turns out to be a binary "Accept the Mission" or "Don't Accept the Mission."

If "agency" wasn't a part of the 2-plus years in development BATTLETECH...
 
I hope you are right, I really, really do. :bow:

But it might be that the "branching" turns out to be a binary "Accept the Mission" or "Don't Accept the Mission."

If "agency" wasn't a part of the 2-plus years in development BATTLETECH...

flashpoint1.PNG


flashpoint.PNG
 
I hope you are right, I really, really do. :bow:

Well, those were part of the announcement, so I'm pretty sure by definition he's right.

On the other hand, I'm pretty sure the branches are more of a pass/fail path with default "fail if the player doesn't get involved" processes so the flashpoints don't just wait for you to take them on. And spots where failing a mission ends the flashpoint. Alternatively, there could be "Objective A: Destroy the refinery" and "Objective B: Recover the target." where the first one achieved is the one which determines the next part of the flashpoint.

I'm pretty sure because that's how I'd design my first run at doing something like this - very carefully. (Also reminded of X-Wing: Imperial Pursuit and its branching mission structure.)
 
Well, those were part of the announcement, so I'm pretty sure by definition he's right.

On the other hand, I'm pretty sure the branches are more of a pass/fail path with default "fail if the player doesn't get involved" processes so the flashpoints don't just wait for you to take them on. And spots where failing a mission ends the flashpoint. Alternatively, there could be "Objective A: Destroy the refinery" and "Objective B: Recover the target." where the first one achieved is the one which determines the next part of the flashpoint.

I'm pretty sure because that's how I'd design my first run at doing something like this - very carefully. (Also reminded of X-Wing: Imperial Pursuit and its branching mission structure.)
I am admittedly a bit gun shy here.

Branches and what appear to be Sequels.

There is a lot of potential here. The language used in the advert is enticing. And I agree with you...

...I'm pretty sure because that's how I'd design my first run at doing something like...

...in the meantime I'll celebrate the new Mechs, especially the Hatchetman. I'll revel in anticipation of a new Biome and maps. There is enough right there to having me buying the expansion just as soon as I possibly can. : )

But please forgive me if I wait on more information when it comes to just how much... how did @ronhatch put it? ...just how much "Agency" is imbued in FLASHPOINT's Chained Missions.

Perhaps as we approach the November releasing into the Wild, there'll be another round of partial/early release to Game Streamers like @CohhCarnage and @SideStrafe. If so, and just like prior to Launch, I'd be catching just as much coverage as I could, and that should answer all my questions. :bow:
 
I am admittedly a bit gun shy here.

Branches and what appear to be Sequels.

There is a lot of potential here. The language used in the advert is enticing.

That's what advertising is for, and what Mitch does, generate hype. (With the sheer force of a magnificent beard and a smile!) Unfortunately the idea of "player agency" is not so much a presentation of meaningful choices but the carefully balanced and crafted illusion the player has a choice in how things go. Computer games lack the ability to run off the rails as easily as DFA or another tabletop experience would :) I'd put money on flashpoints being unable to really grasp complex changes to things, or having many (as in "one, two, many") different choices on how to proceed, based on the limitations of how complex they'd be. The more complex, the fewer which can be completed and tested in time; the less complex, the more which can be completed and tested in favor of variety over depth (or complexity).

In regards to HBS' BattleTech (and, of course, the tabletop by extension) I tend to favor a mix where variety is more important than depth or complexity. Mostly because I swear that holovid star has too many clones running around I've liberated 'Mechs from under.

I'm not trying to shut you down, of course, or tell you you're wrong.
 
...I'm not trying to shut you down, of course, or tell you you're wrong.
(*No. We'll save that for my daughters. : ) You know... some days, I think I must be breaking the Human Race's record for being wrong in a single day. Not just in sheer quantity of the number of Wrongs, but in the depth of their individual wrongness too. : ) LOL)

And back on topic. :bow:

I share your high value of Variety as opposed to Depth or Complexity.

Chained Missions, if I am reading the above screen captures correctly will still be comprised of Procedurally Generated Missions (ProcGEN.) So it not so much what will be found in the Missions that changes, but instead their will be Big, Stomoy LIFE breathed into the connective tissues between the taking of the FLASHPOINT Contract, that first ProcGEN Mission and any subsequent ProcGEN Missions. And then perhaps most importantly, the "Settling Up of Accounts" once the FLASHPOINT is resolved and the Main Reward is earned.

I can see that being the case.

And of course the Devil will be in those "connective tissues" between ProcGEN Missions.


Hey, maybe we'll get lucky and sometime in October there will be some video of Mitch, Jordan and Mike (reprising their play-testing roles from the Super-Pre-Pre-Pre-Alpha) in one of those upcoming Live-streams from HBS HQ in Kirkland Washington, that Mitch mentioned not all that long ago... now THAT would be enlightening and likely to answer many of my question. : )
 
I'd put money on flashpoints being unable to really grasp complex changes to things, or having many (as in "one, two, many") different choices on how to proceed, based on the limitations of how complex they'd be. The more complex, the fewer which can be completed and tested in time; the less complex, the more which can be completed and tested in favor of variety over depth (or complexity).
It's worth noting that if a flashpoint gives the player even one single choice between two paths to take, then it's still progress as compared to the Arano storyline.
 
It's worth noting that if a flashpoint gives the player even one single choice between two paths to take, then it's still progress as compared to the Arano storyline.

And still better than MechWarrior 2's campaigns, I suppose. :)
 
Kickstarter supporter of the game, and have never regretted it. Love this game, and perfectly willing to send another 15 - 20 dollars out to HBS for the expansion to see them rewarded for their hard work!
 
I'm optimistic about short campaigns and branching paths, especially because it opens so much space for modders to work. I also love new mechs, of course. I'll buy the expansion.

That said, I really, passionately HATE the plan to implement drop weight limits. It's an immersion busting, artificial constraint designed to do something that should have been done via mission design. If you want me to use mediums and lights then give me missions where mediums and lights are tactically the best option. Use impending enemy reinforcements, enemy artillery, fast targets, tons of LRM carriers with fast spotters, and so forth, and if I want to take 4 assault mechs to a mission where speed is key then let me do it my way and fail.

Please, developers, if you must implement drop weight limits then use the mechanic vey, very sparingly, or let players toggle it off if they choose to. It's bad game design, and I want nothing to do with it.
 
If you have played Mech Commander, you had in every Mission weight limits. That was grat, so you had to watch for your mechs and your pilots.

In that case it‘s fully ok to implement them in Battletech. I like it, because you have to use your head and play with tactic. Like in the 2,5 Skull Missions to make money, where you have your modified Startermechs (Lucust, Spider, Black Jack, vindicator and the other middle one).
 
Hmm.. thinking about it, I'd probably prefer a stated speed demand - "your mechs have to be this fast to join this mission" (the presumtion being that if they ain't fast enough the opponent can just disengage or something) - that'd also serve as kind of a weight restriction, while at the same time putting some value to otherwise comparatively useless heavies/assaults (who otherwise use up too much weapon tonnage on engine)

(If going with minimum speeds, one could also add further granularisation - the employer in this mission wants one mech with speed 6+ and also two (other) mechs that can jump 4+ - if you got a fourth mech it's your own choice [Atlas])