• 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.

Panpiper

Captain
28 Badges
May 21, 2006
412
40
www.quora.com
  • Knights of Honor
  • BATTLETECH: Heavy Metal
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Sign Up
  • BATTLETECH: Season pass
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • BATTLETECH: Flashpoint
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • BATTLETECH - Backer
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • BATTLETECH
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Stellaris
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
[Mod Note: When not appropriate for the Bickering thread, interesting conversation that is a diversion or off-topic for another thread might land here... to be continued... -Thanks, Havamal]


I don't think this is correct. The difficulty rating of the star system determines your OpFor, not what you're fielding. Theoretically, it should be possible to field a Steiner scout lance against 4 poorly-maintained tanks, if you're in the Detroit system.
Completely off topic, but just what does a "Steiner scout lance" look like?
 
Completely off topic, but just what does a "Steiner scout lance" look like?
Yep... That's about it right there.
d3473790242a9c13aae131e00e96d41757f671ac.jpg
 
i think part of the problem people are having is the idea that this is a game with GOALs. The game leaves it up to you what you want to do. Outside of the start story. The player can push their unit as hard as they want.. its their story. Also lets thing about this not as a game but a sim of real life. You are a merc trying to make a living? Are you going to push your unit to the breaking point all the damn time? if your answer is yes. Ya might not be right for this kinda game.

Also the players we have seen on stream have run into some hard missions at 2 skulls where they got their bums kicked or they where very lucky with shots to pull them out of something that might have killed them. As for the money being easy, that will depend really on your play style. Id be ok with the options to add costs to the game IE armor ammo and what not.. but not at start.. add it down the road along with hard mode.
Yeah pretty much, the unmodded game might apeal to some sandbox-type games fans i guess. Like Minecraft, or X series or maybe even some Paradox grand strategy players. The underlying systems the campaign has are extremely primitive compared to those games though, so probably not a whole lot of them. So i'd say its not the people who expected something more akin to MechCommander, XCOM and Battle Brothers that will be having "problems" after release, rather the game's initial popularity will suffer. Imo, the devs shot themseves in the foot when they decided not to include difficulty options.
 
So i'd say its not the people who expected something more akin to MechCommander, XCOM and Battle Brothers that will be having "problems" after release, rather the game's initial popularity will suffer. Imo, the devs shot themseves in the foot when they decided not to include difficulty options.

But Battle Brothers actually have goals that you can strive to acheive. There is a long term goal which is an accumulated prestige giving you various endings should you choose to retire. There are also mid term campaign goals that you can choose for your company (visit all the towns and villages, be recognizable enough so the nobles will notice you, destroy 5 undead locations etc.). Finally there are global timers and after +/- 100 days you have a crisis that you have to deal with (orc, invasion, war between nobles etc.). After one crisis is defeated you will have another in 50 days. So there are a lot more things to do in the sandbox. Battle Brother also has mild level scaling so... not all is perfect;)
 
But Battle Brothers actually have goals that you can strive to acheive. There is a long term goal which is an accumulated prestige giving you various endings should you choose to retire. There are also mid term campaign goals that you can choose for your company (visit all the towns and villages, be recognizable enough so the nobles will notice you, destroy 5 undead locations etc.). Finally there are global timers and after +/- 100 days you have a crisis that you have to deal with (orc, invasion, war between nobles etc.). After one crisis is defeated you will have another in 50 days. So there are a lot more things to do in the sandbox. Battle Brother also has mild level scaling so... not all is perfect;)
I'm including battle brothers in the list of "not so sandbox" here, because you still have to be strong enough to face the end game crisis after X days. And even before end-game crisis, getting into a situation from which you can't recover is not at all uncommon(even without ironman). In this game losing is only a theoretical possibility and there is no time pressure at all.

And they completely made up for it by making the game moddable, as long as it is moddable enough for modders to create the difficulty, true sim, some of us are looking for.
But how many players will know that there are supposedly a ton of great mods because the game is so easy to mod, and they are expected to use them if the difficulty is not to their liking? Certainly not all of them. Hence i'm saying that the initial popularity of the game will suffer(until everybody knows about the mods).
 
To a great extent, this is also a time issue, specifically something I'd call "respect for the player's time". While there are players out there who can and want to sink hundreds of hours into a game, to those that can't or won't, having all their progress effectively wiped out by a cascade failure is not going to make them replay and win, it's going to make them quit and play something else. Had I infinte time, I'd love to play with destructible mechs and by-the-skin-of-my-teeth finances.

As it stands, I don't have infinte time, and getting into a downward unrecoverable spiral 20 hours in would leave me with a sore taste and a bad experience.
 
To a great extent, this is also a time issue, specifically something I'd call "respect for the player's time". While there are players out there who can and want to sink hundreds of hours into a game, to those that can't or won't, having all their progress effectively wiped out by a cascade failure is not going to make them replay and win, it's going to make them quit and play something else. Had I infinte time, I'd love to play with destructible mechs and by-the-skin-of-my-teeth finances.

As it stands, I don't have infinte time, and getting into a downward unrecoverable spiral 20 hours in would leave me with a sore taste and a bad experience.

This is a very good point and is one of the main reasons why I am not hugely dissatisfied by what appears to be a fairly generous difficulty tuning. If given the choice between a game which is easy enough for most people to play to completion, or difficult enough for only dedicated fans and hardcore gamers to do the same, I'm always going to favour the former over the latter. If the game is successful then we're more likely to see more content and perhaps more difficult content, and accessibility is key to success.
 
Add to this the apparent easy moddability (is there some sort of mod guide somewhere? I'm definitely upping the CT-to-destruction ratio), I think this will turn out well. Just from a design standpoint, calibrating a game so you, the player, can make it more difficult, but it might break the game sounds a better goal than calibrating it to full grognards and breaking it on the easy slope.
 
To a great extent, this is also a time issue, specifically something I'd call "respect for the player's time". While there are players out there who can and want to sink hundreds of hours into a game, to those that can't or won't, having all their progress effectively wiped out by a cascade failure is not going to make them replay and win, it's going to make them quit and play something else. Had I infinte time, I'd love to play with destructible mechs and by-the-skin-of-my-teeth finances.

As it stands, I don't have infinte time, and getting into a downward unrecoverable spiral 20 hours in would leave me with a sore taste and a bad experience.

I don't have an infinate time either. But I play games for the challenge, otherwise they are boring. If I am interested in beer&pretzels experience I'd much rather play a boardgame or just hang out with my friends. To each his own.

I understand that the devs want to make more $$$$ by making this game accessible to a larger audience. But that leaves many of us writing long threads on the forums about how to make BT great again ;)
 
I don't have an infinate time either. But I play games for the challenge, otherwise they are boring. If I am interested in beer&pretzels experience I'd much rather play a boardgame or just hang out with my friends. To each his own.

I understand that the devs want to make more $$$$ by making this game accessible to a larger audience. But that leaves many of us writing long threads on the forums about how to make BT great again ;)

Oh, I play them for the challenge too. There is a wide, wide range from "casual mobile gamer scrub" to "no-life grognard" (just to insult both ends), and I place myself fairly in the upper 30% of that distribution, but I view games that make you retake levels, or get into a "walking dead" state several hours in (squad-wipe in XCOM on hardest difficulties) as not respecting my time, and that is a big no-no for me.
 
Considering they have removed basically all fail states outside of running out of cash and there isn't anymore agency driving player forward as story has infinite time now then that alone breaks economy. Player has infinite time to farm cash, mechs, weapons and pilots as Restoration will never fail, it can't fail. There is absolutely no need nor reason to take risks and push your company to its limits.

Just casual observation.

When did that change ? I thought that we could leave house Arano to fail! Nooooooo ... I do not want that arrogant Kamea to succeed. I want to make all the campaign missions and let her fail in the last one huehuehue :D

But that leaves many of us writing long threads on the forums about how to make BT great again ;)

You need hats for that! No hats, no greatness :p
 
Last edited:
Add to this the apparent easy moddability (is there some sort of mod guide somewhere? I'm definitely upping the CT-to-destruction ratio), I think this will turn out well. Just from a design standpoint, calibrating a game so you, the player, can make it more difficult, but it might break the game sounds a better goal than calibrating it to full grognards and breaking it on the easy slope.

I'm one of the admins of a big Battletech modding community. We are on Reddit at /r/BattletechGame and /r/BattletechMods (where you can find some mods right now, including one that we can't talk about on these forums), and we have a discord with both public and private modding channels, as well as a modding wiki. Come check us out.

When did that change ? I thought that we could leave house Arano to fail! Nooooooo ... I do not want that arrogant Kamea to succeed. I want to make all the campaign missions and let her fail in the last one huehuehue :D

You need hats for that! No hats, no greatness :p

I'm not sure when it changed, but I suspected it for a while, and only confirmed in during my visit to the Raygun Lounge event. I wrote up an after action report that you might find interesting.
 
I'm not sure when it changed, but I suspected it for a while, and only confirmed in during my visit to the Raygun Lounge event. I wrote up an after action report that you might find interesting.

I see ... I read the content of the link and to be honest that excuse about the BlackJack and the tutorial is pretty lame.

You could have a different ancestral mech, do the tutorial and the running awau mission in the tampered BlackJack belonging to house Arano and the people that save you could just take your ancestral mech out of the safe hangar you had it elsewhere on the planet, which is arguably much more reasonable and safer and realistic than believing that they just happened to pass by and pick up an ejected pilot and an almost destroyed mech.

That way they can keep the tutorial and first mission as it is, increase the immersion and realism AND make the initial choice count quite a lot, increasing replayability :)

a win, win, win, win situation.
 
You mentioned XCOM 2. I hated vanilla XCOM 2 because you never had the chance to mess around in it. The game forced you to always stay on task, trying harder and harder to ride the thin line between failure from losing all your people, and failure from not succeeding at harder missions. You seem to be placing it on a golden pedestal, when I would prefer to place it in the trash can. You are correct that Battletech does not have that - and I feel it is better for it. Did I beat XCOM 2 vanilla? Yes. And then moved on to a game I found fun, and never spent another penny on XCOM. I don't want players doing that to Battletech.

It is worth noting that there are many diehard turn based strategy fans that do not buy XCOM 2 just because of that lame mechanic, and I am one of those.

I tried playing it quite a lot in a free weekend that it was offered on steam and I quite frankly thought that the first XCOM is far better (with or without Long War), just because of the absense of impending doom on a timer.

If I want impending doom and a damoclean sword, I'd check my bank account, not a game :p