3 Partial 'Mech Salvage still = an instantly repaired 'Mech with free stock loadout

[Mojo Amok]

I said my little piece on this in the early pages of this thread, but it's interesting to see Kiva's views (posted in the chat on the Beaglerush stream):

I've got the impression from various dev comments that there were many things in the game that had to be toned down as they proved too punishing for new players, even the starting lance was going to be lighter at one time. And we all know the franchise needs new players, and preferably not deter them with too steep a learning curve. But while I'm not a fan of this particular mechanic I'm sure we'll soon have options to adjust it - not only from modders but also possibly from HBS, at least going by Tyler and Kiva's wishlist that they've hinted at. We just need the game to be successful first

Hurt us, @HBS_Kiva !!! Hurt us until the pain is part of our very being!!! Hurt us, please!!!

*is an entirely appropriate comment*

 

[Wanderer2142]

We are out of sync by like 2 minutes to get this all in one post.

I can agree it needs to be accessible, but too accessible alienates your core audience. If you alienate the core audience the new blood won't sustain you. A few difficulty options could have gone a long way to appealing to both crowds. The fear here is the lack options and taking most of the teeth out of the merc concept will turn off the core and hurt the game in the long run.

It just means that we're both paying attention to the thread because we apparently have nothing more important to do.

What you touch upon is basically the issue of having the 3025 crowd and the Clan era+ crowd in the context; the Clan era, with basically a smaller emphasis on heat management because of the introduction of DHS, is a very different gameplay experience than the ragtag 3025 one. I don't have hard numbers here, but I suspect that the Clan era+ crowd is a significantly larger following than the strictly 3025 one, mostly by virtue of the Clan era+ crowd having all the PC games that are based on the Clan era+ timeframe.

I don't lean one way or another, though I must admit that my experience is more or less from the PC games. The point though, is that from a business standpoint, breaking even by having an easier game, and then spending less money to add difficulty options (because you already have the infrastructure in place) would probably be a less risky path than hoping the smaller set will fork enough money over to cover all the infrastructure expenses (namely, the fact that the game, at least back on the Kickstarter, started at $25, and not a higher $40 or $50 that we typically see on the store).

 

[Lunatic Pathos]

I said my little piece on this in the early pages of this thread, but it's interesting to see Kiva's views (posted in the chat on the Beaglerush stream):

I've got the impression from various dev comments that there were many things in the game that had to be toned down as they proved too punishing for new players, even the starting lance was going to be lighter at one time. And we all know the franchise needs new players, and preferably not deter them with too steep a learning curve. But while I'm not a fan of this particular mechanic I'm sure we'll soon have options to adjust it - not only from modders but also possibly from HBS, at least going by Tyler and Kiva's wishlist that they've hinted at. We just need the game to be successful first

Agreed. I was trying to make this point earlier. The devs got their heads right, they just have to compromise their vision sometimes in the name of accessibility. I don't blame them for that. They want to sell copies.

I do really want to see a 'Dev's Cut' hardcore mode patched in later. Willing to pay for it as DLC if it's modestly priced.

 

[Lunatic Pathos]

A note of clarification, not in the interests of who is 'right' but in the interest of understanding one another.

Many people who want a hardcore, ironman, hard mode in a campaign, economic sim, etc, don't want it because we think we are smarter or better than others. Rather we want it to be hard enough, when playing iron man style, that we will almost certainly lose a few times. We want some of our merc companies to go under. Partly because of verisimilitude, but partly because victory that is a foregone conclusion is not rewarding for us. Making the game "winnable for everyone" also means that players who do have a bit more experience or put more thought into it (out of desire to do so, not necessarily capability) have basically zero chance of failure. For our playstyle, that makes winning meaningless. We want to know we could have failed, typically by having experienced it and learned something from the experience.

For some of us, this is because we grew up playing games that never offered any guarantee you could ever beat them. Our formative games said, "figure it out or give up." That made it all the more rewarding when we did figure it out. That's why we like games like Dark Souls, etc, though even Dark Souls you probably will beat if you stick with it and try different things. No such guarantee for many of the classics.

 

[Hasler]

It just means that we're both paying attention to the thread because we apparently have nothing more important to do.

What you touch upon is basically the issue of having the 3025 crowd and the Clan era+ crowd in the context; the Clan era, with basically a smaller emphasis on heat management because of the introduction of DHS, is a very different gameplay experience than the ragtag 3025 one. I don't have hard numbers here, but I suspect that the Clan era+ crowd is a significantly larger following than the strictly 3025 one, mostly by virtue of the Clan era+ crowd having all the PC games that are based on the Clan era+ timeframe.

I don't lean one way or another, though I must admit that my experience is more or less from the PC games. The point though, is that from a business standpoint, breaking even by having an easier game, and then spending less money to add difficulty options (because you already have the infrastructure in place) would probably be a less risky path than hoping the smaller set will fork enough money over to cover all the infrastructure expenses (namely, the fact that the game, at least back on the Kickstarter, started at $25, and not a higher $40 or $50 that we typically see on the store).

True enough Sunday and the game isn't out for another day and half.

From Kiva's posts above that sounds like exactly what has happened. These threads are good though because it does show there is a base of players wanting the origional vision.

 

[Wanderer2142]

True enough Sunday and the game isn't out for another day and half.

From Kiva's posts above that sounds like exactly what has happened. These threads are good though because it does show there is a base of players wanting the origional vision.

Believe me, there were plenty of people back on the old boards wanting a more or less TT port.

Just have to see how the development shakes out, because the business decision after release is either widening the seed set (by adding co-op, pvp options), or going further in depth (by adding additional difficulty options, additional campaigns). Mostly because HBS isn't a large enough studio to have teams to do both simultaneously (and given that they're looking for a network engineer, my inclination is that they're probably going to do the former first).

Who knows, if they sell a million copies in the first week that might change their calculus for hiring. Or it might just go back to paying loans or otherwise getting the company back in the black, after Necropolis didn't pan out quite like they would have liked. I'd hope for the former, with regards to finding ways of getting into the company.

 

[Pointyearedgit]

I said my little piece on this in the early pages of this thread, but it's interesting to see Kiva's views (posted in the chat on the Beaglerush stream):

I've got the impression from various dev comments that there were many things in the game that had to be toned down as they proved too punishing for new players, even the starting lance was going to be lighter at one time. And we all know the franchise needs new players, and preferably not deter them with too steep a learning curve. But while I'm not a fan of this particular mechanic I'm sure we'll soon have options to adjust it - not only from modders but also possibly from HBS, at least going by Tyler and Kiva's wishlist that they've hinted at. We just need the game to be successful first

That’s great to hear. Personally, I don’t mind the game being accessible to new players and really like how stellaris just renamed difficulty so it doesn’t make new players feel like they are terrible. Mods aren’t the only answer, but their popularity can still be useful for devs to take the temperature of the active community.

I want to see a second wave like system, possibly soft-gated by a complete game (ie accessible to new players, but only if you hunt it down). The game should be like “Hey, great job finishing the campaign, but now that you’re much better, why don’t we turn up the heat?”

 

[Gamesguy]

The problem with difficulty toggles is that anything that gets added needs to be tested. The balance needs to be checked, any bugs need to get stomped, and all of that takes time (which takes money). I wouldn't be surprised if they work on additional difficulty options, but even in the base game there are already a few difficulty options that we can use, even without modding. First, take more difficult missions. If you are stomping 2 skull missions, go take a few 3 skull missions. Second, focus on gaining reputation instead of salvage and c-bills. Building faction reputation is likely to have long term benefits, but won't help with paying the bills and keeping mechs repaired right then.

Why does it need to be balanced? The harder difficulty settings on plenty of games are not balanced, they are designed to be very difficult period.

We're not talking about complicated changes here, but rather changing a few basic values like salvage drop rate, money modifiers, enemy mech armor, etc.

 

[FlavourBeans]

Of course those games are more impactful, and can be lore hand-waved away as the mostest definigest battle of this conflict ewah, because noone wants to play "unimportant skirmish on backwater craphole 4313637487J". In this setting, it makes sense for these engagements, and by extension, their tools, to be rare.
A computer game is 20+ hours of play, concentrated over a lot shorter period. There, it does not make sense to have everything be decisive, and thus it does not make narrative sense for your tools to all be rare. Different media drive different narratives.

This is something I was turning over in my head last night. Much of a setting is often designed around the idea of how exceptional you want the player to feel they are, versus the content they actually get to play and the mechanics that drive the game. It's not easy, and if you want to create a game where players balance heroics with being a rough-and-tumble mercenary company, or balance rare-as-heck mechs with a map where there's always more mechs to fight and factions aren't vanishing because they ran out of mechs or aren't from the sector because it becomes no longer worth the losses, then there's going to have to be a little give and pull here and there.

To pull in another example, a genre that often has a lot of trouble with this are MMO-RPGs, which struggle to balance that chosen-one mindset most RPGs give their players with the fact that you're one of several million chosen ones. Sure, you get to feel cool for having vanquished some great evil, but that's quickly eroded by the fact that you and your guild vanquish that great evil every couple weeks, as do a few dozen other guilds on just your server alone.

 

[FlavourBeans]

how stellaris just renamed difficulty so it doesn’t make new players feel like they are terrible.

It was more than just a rename, though. They entirely revamped how difficulty works and what the AI gets and doesn't get to be harder or easier to deal with. It would've needed a rename anyways, since the end result was more options total, plus the scaling option.

 

[Squigles]

And why is it, exactly, that you can't answer the rather important question of why this mechanic matters so much to you? It's economically inconsequential & a significant QoL benefit... so, what are the drawbacks? How does getting a handful of HS, JJ, MLAS & PPCs matter at all when these things are a dime a dozen?

Since you decided to directly call me out.....

Might I remind you that we were sold on hard point inflation being necessary because of the difficulty in having replacement gear on hand, that we'd just need to bolt on what we had?

Taking into consideration the foregoing, I find it absolutely incredulous that you're arguing this "feature" isn't a problem. It's not a big deal that the economy we were promised is being broken to shit when John de Lancie shows up to poof us up a whole new mechs worth of magic equipment...because the economic balance is already so gloriously screwed that you're already swimming in piles of surplus equipment...so what's the big deal over entire mechs worth of free stuff heaped onto the pile?

I mean...I don't know that I really need to provide a detailed analysis as to why I have an issue with that.

It's terrible from a lore standpoint, it's terrible from an immersion standpoint, it's terrible from a player agency standpoint (it offers you, the player, zero meaningful choice in the process), it's terrible from an economic balance standpoint.

 

[Rubidium]

Not going to step into the difficulty-level minefield, but I will point out one reason that they might have chosen to make mechs come fully equipped:

It preserves the lore-identity of the chassis. As it currently stands, mechs in-game are effectively a set of hardpoints with a certain max-tonnage and fixed speed (and a predefined model/animation, but that's just cosmetic). But of course, in lore, mechs are more than that; different mechs have different meanings to different players. However, to players with less Battletech experience, the idea of "a Hunchback is this" or "an Atlas is that" is somewhat arbitrary. By making the newly repaired mechs come with the stock loadout, this does two things: (1) encourages you to at least start with the "stock" loadout to the mech, before you rip it apart and make a custom monstrosity of your own design, and (2) gives the new player a more intuitive starting point. After all, the mech lab is a lot of options for a player to play with, especially if they are less familiar with the system, and aren't sure what works vs. what just looks good on paper. Starting from the stock version gives you a more reasonable starting point to begin your customizations; you can see how the stock version performs, and then make tweaks to adjust to your preferred playstyle.

Ultimately, that's what I think was meant by "too difficult for new players"; not "it's too hard to keep my mech equipped; I'll need to get free weaponry," but "with this many choices I'm not sure how I should start; it's good to have a premade starting point." Which is a very different conversation, and one that this thread seems to be overlooking.

 

[Squigles]

Not going to step into the difficulty-level minefield, but I will point out one reason that they might have chosen to make mechs come fully equipped:

It preserves the lore-identity of the chassis. As it currently stands, mechs in-game are effectively a set of hardpoints with a certain max-tonnage and fixed speed (and a predefined model/animation, but that's just cosmetic). But of course, in lore, mechs are more than that; different mechs have different meanings to different players. However, to players with less Battletech experience, the idea of "a Hunchback is this" or "an Atlas is that" is somewhat arbitrary. By making the newly repaired mechs come with the stock loadout, this does two things: (1) encourages you to at least start with the "stock" loadout to the mech, before you rip it apart and make a custom monstrosity of your own design, and (2) gives the new player a more intuitive starting point. After all, the mech lab is a lot of options for a player to play with, especially if they are less familiar with the system, and aren't sure what works vs. what just looks good on paper. Starting from the stock version gives you a more reasonable starting point to begin your customizations; you can see how the stock version performs, and then make tweaks to adjust to your preferred playstyle.

Ultimately, that's what I think was meant by "too difficult for new players"; not "it's too hard to keep my mech equipped; I'll need to get free weaponry," but "with this many choices I'm not sure how I should start; it's good to have a premade starting point." Which is a very different conversation, and one that this thread seems to be overlooking.

Doing a stock load out could have been accomplished with a simple prompt. We already have an event system, I feel it could have likely been tied right into that. "Looks like we've got enough salvage to reassemble a Centurion sir. The original weapon mountings are all still there. I could refit the mech with a factory original load out in no time at all if you'd like. Otherwise I'll leave the chassis unequipped so you can *blah blah blah*".

Hit the one button, you get an empty mech, hit the other button, you get the equipment pulled from your storage, and an equipped mech put in your bay. This also introduces player agency. You can have a stock mech in no time with the gear, OR you can have a custom mech in slightly less time, since you don't have to waste time literally ripping out the stock fittings.

 

[FlavourBeans]

Not going to step into the difficulty-level minefield, but I will point out one reason that they might have chosen to make mechs come fully equipped:

It preserves the lore-identity of the chassis. As it currently stands, mechs in-game are effectively a set of hardpoints with a certain max-tonnage and fixed speed (and a predefined model/animation, but that's just cosmetic). But of course, in lore, mechs are more than that; different mechs have different meanings to different players. However, to players with less Battletech experience, the idea of "a Hunchback is this" or "an Atlas is that" is somewhat arbitrary. By making the newly repaired mechs come with the stock loadout, this does two things: (1) encourages you to at least start with the "stock" loadout to the mech, before you rip it apart and make a custom monstrosity of your own design, and (2) gives the new player a more intuitive starting point. After all, the mech lab is a lot of options for a player to play with, especially if they are less familiar with the system, and aren't sure what works vs. what just looks good on paper. Starting from the stock version gives you a more reasonable starting point to begin your customizations; you can see how the stock version performs, and then make tweaks to adjust to your preferred playstyle.

Ultimately, that's what I think was meant by "too difficult for new players"; not "it's too hard to keep my mech equipped; I'll need to get free weaponry," but "with this many choices I'm not sure how I should start; it's good to have a premade starting point." Which is a very different conversation, and one that this thread seems to be overlooking.

This was another thing I was churning over in my head when I finally stepped away from the conversation. If you're playing a game where you're hand-tied based on what you have sitting around in your inventory, most players will never see a stock-build mech if it comes empty. Like you said, each mech just becomes a few numbers and some slots to fill, rather than having a personality (for you to utterly ruin if you so choose ). If you already know front to back what all the mechs look like as stock, then that doesn't matter much, but it'll help a ton of people new to the franchise get a feel for what's going on and why most people talk about specific mechs in specific roles that might run contrary to whatever they otherwise would've slapped on it when they put it together.

I mean, I've dabbled in the PC games on and off throughout my life, but aside from a few popular mechs, and the ones where the name makes it obvious (gosh, I wonder what a Firestarter does?!), if you asked me what my favorite mech in MWO is, I'd just reply "the little dude with the PPC that I can be an absolute pest with".

 

[Flying Dice]

I don't see why it couldn't just pull as much as possible from your storage for the stock load and give a warning if parts were missing (and if so, which). That solves the problem of neophytes going "but how do I into mechlab" without giving you oodles of free stuff. It's not like you won't be sitting on piles of basic equipment anyways.

 

[CuCulainn]

This has to be a lingering bug with what the latest streamers and reviewers are looking at, and a hugely economy-breaking one at that. Please, Devs, say this is fixed in the final version?

A brief list of absurdities that result from this:

1: If you utterly obliterate 3 Atlases. including CT destruction, and salvage the 3 "Partial 'Mech Salvage", you instantly get a shiny new Atlas with no assembly, repairs, or stored weaponry required.

2: If you face a single solitary panther and you kill its pilot, you can salvage its PPC along with all three "Partial 'Mech Salvage" to get a fully stocked Panther including its PPC, so you get 2 PPCs from a fight that only had one to begin with.

3: Consider this prior screenshot of what was for sale in a store...

By all the gods, why would you ever buy a fully-assembled chassis when the three "Partial 'Mech Salvage" give you the same thing for less than a third of the price, instantly assembled and kitted out?

I've poked a several streams and it seems the equipment mounted on the mechs assembled thusly comes from inventory on two occasions mech had only partial loadouts as the weapons were not avaiable. i'vw no issues with how it works now. and if it plays out too easy I imagine the DEVs can tihten it up in a patch

 

[Havamal]

Greetings Mechwarriors,

Please, civility and respect even in critique or disagreement.
Please post topically and not at others.

Thank you.

 

[FlavourBeans]

I've poked a several streams and it seems the equipment mounted on the mechs assembled thusly comes from inventory on two occasions mech had only partial loadouts as the weapons were not avaiable. i'vw no issues with how it works now. and if it plays out too easy I imagine the DEVs can tihten it up in a patch

I mean, if that's really how it works, then here's me and, I presume, many others in this room right now:

Though, if I were you, I'd be grabbing links and timestamps, because people are going to demand to see it.

 

[Bodha]

Police officers see criminals all the time, fire fighters see fires all the time.

And I work in an OR. Guess what, I see people having surgery all Spring and Summer because of what we call lawn mower season.

If based upon the prevalance of finger and toe surgeries we do people thought lawn mowers were particularly dangerous it would not surprise me. Reality is we are the trauma hospital for a region with several hundred thousand people so Im not surpirised we do a few dozen surgeries related to lawn mowers each year. That said those warnings on mowers are no joke.

 

[kvetcha]

I've poked a several streams and it seems the equipment mounted on the mechs assembled thusly comes from inventory on two occasions mech had only partial loadouts as the weapons were not avaiable. i'vw no issues with how it works now. and if it plays out too easy I imagine the DEVs can tihten it up in a patch