I agree. I don't know how exactly all of it will turn out. Some of those things can be changed with modding. I was more pointing out difficulty options that exist in game and seem to have been overlooked in the forums (and it sounds like they have been overlooked in the streams too).
I disagree, they are "overlooked" because choosing to play harder missions is not a difficulty option, eventually you will be doing those 5 skull mission regardless.
I have really enjoyed what Supergiant Games has published, Bastion, Transistor, and Pyre. They don't have direct difficulty toggles. Instead at regular intervals the player has the option to add additional challenge multipliers. Things like enemies hitting hard, having more health, or your character being able to take fewer hits. The player gets the option to turn these on and off to suit their own desire for a challenge. Turning several on can make the game incredibly difficult, or the player can ignore them and the games are fairly easy. It is the player's choice how difficult to make the game and they can modify that difficulty in the middle of the game. I can see some echoes of that in what HBS has done here. This is a different genre of game than what Supergiant makes, but the idea seems similar.
You see I hate these kind of difficulty options, I don't want an enemy that hits harder than I do with the same weapons I have (to hell with AI bonuses as "difficulty" levels), I want one that hits smarter and in this day and age they could train a (limited) neural network up to act as a competent enemy in the combat map, doing so would take time though and time is money so I can understand why HBS didn’t do this for launch.
Also I don't just want smarter enemies I want harder simulation in terms of running a merc company, here some examples of what I would call awesome OPTIONAL features,
1. Different upkeep cost for different mechs (percentage of mech cost/value as upkeep).
2. Ammo to be used up during combat and a need to buy replacement ammo.
3. The ability for the player character to die and for that to cause a Game Over (bonus to in combat morale gen if PC on/in mission as a "Leading from the Front" bonus).
4. Mech salvage to be based on compartments (Right Arm, Left Leg, Center Torso) that survived combat.
5. Limited storage space in terms of tonnage (no more ship of holding).
6. Mech construction/assembly taking time and money (as much as a full repair).
7. Armor not being free or instant to replace.
Have these as a checklist at the start of the game where you can turn them on, hide it behind an “advanced” setup tab at the bottom of the screen if necessary.
Ultimately I accept that they need to have as many players as possible to be economically viable and therefore need to appeal to the majority of player most of whom will have no experience with the setting at all (how long since that last BT game?) but what annoys me is that here is no option to play on a harder more simulationist setting for those of us that want one.
You may not be using it in a bad way, but some people, judging from their tones, really are. And even if you're being harmless about it, it still comes off as negative when they're being the target of blame for perceived flaws in the game. Just for fun, I checked a few dictionaries, and "lowest common denominator", aside from its math definition, is described as being a disapproving thing, if not being labeled 'derogatory' outright, and is used to describe, basically, stupid people who have no taste and will buy anything.
I think most people would prefer the more honest terms you suggested. There's a difference between being less-skilled and less-experienced, so use whatever is more precise for what you hope to say. Or if you want to be more positive in how you frame things, spin it as however you want to say "people who haven't got the hang of it yet" or "people who are still learning".
Also, general side note: Remember that streamers are not always the best measure for people picking up a complex game. Streaming is a very distracting thing to do, even if you are ignoring chat, so it's not uncommon for streamers to miss warnings or tooltips or stat readouts here and there, and that issue of watching and not being able to be immediately helpful can add a level of frustration that might color your perceptions of how you're interpreting the situation.
PS: Nothing I'm saying here or in the last post is directed at anyone in particular. Most of you folks are delightful, or at least mean well.
PPS: I've never played Battletech in my life, the closest I've come is ooh'ing at the tables set up at Origins and GenCon, or playing a bit of MechWarrior. In many ways, I'm one of the LCD's people are concerned about. No, I'm not personally offended with reading it, but I do feel it'd be more constructive for all involved if we were a bit more clever with our choice of words.
I get where you're coming from but consider that anybody who likes a more Hardcore experience tend to get "shafted" a lot, its almost never done with the intent of hurting the hardcore players but because Game development is a job/business and turning a profit is the key to being a viable business which means making concessions to ensure the most people possible can enjoy the game.
This ultimately results in frustration as year after year, game after game you get told to bite the bullet and accept that your style of play is not good enough to have a game built for it, in the end you're the one that constantly has these "concession" affect your enjoyment of games, its breeds resentment but most can accept that it's not really the developers fault, they do need to eat after all but can't help but feel those [Mod Edit: Please avoid snarky nicknames for groups of players] are the cause of the problem.
I don't have a problem with casual games or casual gamers, I play them from time to time when I'm in a chill mood but the list of game available for casual play massively outweighs those for hardcore play and in the end is it really unreasonable to want there to be at least some games that have a hardcore route/setting every now and then?
The issue for most isn’t that the game is “easy/casual” but that it’s only easy/casual with no option for a hard mode.
My guess would be that those are predominantly TT players.
I'm not a TT player and I don't even like TT (Any TT) because TT is inherently MP in nature and I hate MP, but I want this sort of stuff to be simulated in game because I find it immensely more reasonable (does not kill my enjoyment) to be[Mod Edit: Language] over by a simulation mechanic then by a gameplay mechanic.
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 last part by Persenche is encouraging, here's to some sort of in success hard mode option.
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.
I personally hope that difficulty settings take precedence as they should do the cut features first and and by the Quotes Stefan posted it sounds like difficulty was cut so that should be first IMHO, then develop the MP stuff like MP on an open campaign map or the Solaris Gladiator (player's as Stable manager?).
.png){kind=avatar}
.png){kind=avatar}
