Concern about the gameplay

[Jamey]

. It would also significantly extend game time. It wouldn't double because mechs will die quicker, but it would be longer and would require larger maps. I'll try to dig up some official comments on this. I am pretty sure either Mitch or Jordan explained why they stuck with one lance at some point. I think it was in one of the Q&As.

I’d actually think that going to two lances would more than double match time, especially for inexperienced players. Human beings take longer to make decisions when more options are available.

I suspect that this is also one of the game design benefits of the initiative order system (it also has benefits such as giving and advantage to lighter mechs which are generally weaker). It makes each individual initiative segment have fewer decisions to make, and should thus be expected to streamline matches to help players get them done quicker.

 

[Prussian Havoc]

I’d actually think that going to two lances would more than double match time, especially for inexperienced players. Human beings take longer to make decisions when more options are available.

I suspect that this is also one of the game design benefits of the initiative order system (it also has benefits such as giving and advantage to lighter mechs which are generally weaker). It makes each individual initiative segment have fewer decisions to make, and should thus be expected to streamline matches to help players get them done quicker.

I tend to agree with you, but it really comes down to individual tendencies.

If both gamers prefer a Donnybrook of a Melee Fur-ball... it'll be relatively quick.
But if both gamers prefer Maneuver Warfare (looking at you @Busukaba : ) ) then an 8v8 could indeed take quite a while.

 

[Jade_Rook]

Good points. I was thinking of game duration in terms of # of turns, rather than time per turn.

Might also say something about my preferred strategies. #UrbieFTW

 

[Hawk.eye]

You guys do bring up a lot of interesting points. 2 hour games on a computer really isn't realistic. Heck on Halo Wars 2 on XboxOne the matches can go for at least an hour, I have had to quit many of those due to time restraints. I am excited for the game and finally being able to play in a modern iteration of the Battletech universe will be awesome.

I did see mention that the final game will not give command of more than one lance at a time? Is this confirmed? Is there a reason? MW4 Mercs gave us two lances for entire missions, all active at all times. So, I would think 17 years later the tech would be available to handle it.

I can see this as a problem in PvP.
In a single-player game and with the ability to save inside a battle?
Not so much.

What's the difference of saving between battles in, say, Stellaris, and saving outside of battles?
To me, there is none.
I play for as long as I can/want and then save to come back later.

Company vs. Company fight taking 3 hours?
So what?

Maybe (probably) I'm an outlier, but that's how I feel.

 

[Chaon]

But can you save in the middle of a battle?

That ability to save in a battle brings to mind save-scumming and reloading until you get the desired result.

I don’t think they want to encourage that behaviour.

 

[CmdrDunsail]

It's turn based. You can just leave it on your turn and come back hours later. And because they had originally planned an Iron Man mode (which might be added later), I get the impression mid-battle saves are in.

Ultimately if someone doesn't believe in save scumming, then don't do it. It's a personal choice. No need to force that choice on people who prefer to be able to save because they have to go to work, pick up the kids, the baby's screaming....or they're just tired. Whatever. Saving is saving. It's a single player game and we all know how circular this argument is already.

 

[Timaeus]

But can you save in the middle of a battle?

That ability to save in a battle brings to mind save-scumming and reloading until you get the desired result.

I don’t think they want to encourage that behaviour.

They don't want you feel like you need to reload, which is different.

 

[Gorski123]

I can see this as a problem in PvP.
In a single-player game and with the ability to save inside a battle?
Not so much.

What's the difference of saving between battles in, say, Stellaris, and saving outside of battles?
To me, there is none.
I play for as long as I can/want and then save to come back later.

Company vs. Company fight taking 3 hours?
So what?

Maybe (probably) I'm an outlier, but that's how I feel.

I remember playing Company sized battles 1v1v1 vs the AI on megamek. The early part of the fight was always very exciting. Cleaning up the last lance or so from each opponent was tedious. I would like to see HBS expand the size of the fight somehow, I just don't have a clear idea of what would be fun. Maybe moving lances around on a strategic layer before Lance v Lance fights.

 

[Amechwarrior]

I remember playing Company sized battles 1v1v1 vs the AI on megamek. The early part of the fight was always very exciting. Cleaning up the last lance or so from each opponent was tedious. I would like to see HBS expand the size of the fight somehow, I just don't have a clear idea of what would be fun. Maybe moving lances around on a strategic layer before Lance v Lance fights.

If there was some way of preventing a 12 unit death ball yet still having the 3 Lances close enough to maybe throw some IDF over to one Lance it might work. But then, we are just playing 3 normal matches at once. Its a really hard problem with no clear answers without cutting back on the level of control/detail over each 'Mech.

 

[HBS_Kiva]

They don't want you feel like you need to reload, which is different.

i'd prefer that you roll with bad consequences and try to recover, but i wouldn't ever stop you from loading a save game to try again. that's actually what made me quit playing Mordheim and i loved the gameplay of that game. one crash and my game was basically over.

we're trying very hard to make the game as non-hostile to you as possible. that serves my goal of getting you to not reload, because you trust me to provide interesting consequences instead of arbitrary ones. it also makes the game a lot easier to get into, because you don't have to worry that a single mistake will end your run. i want you to make mistakes, and accept those mistakes, and move on from them.

 

[HonorKnight]

I'm waiting to see the event system provide interesting and unique events that will only unlock after you've lost a battle, retreated from a battle, lost a pilot, etc. Just to further blunt the loss and incentivize playing it straight.

 

[KhazadDhum]

i'd prefer that you roll with bad consequences and try to recover, but i wouldn't ever stop you from loading a save game to try again. that's actually what made me quit playing Mordheim and i loved the gameplay of that game. one crash and my game was basically over.

we're trying very hard to make the game as non-hostile to you as possible. that serves my goal of getting you to not reload, because you trust me to provide interesting consequences instead of arbitrary ones. it also makes the game a lot easier to get into, because you don't have to worry that a single mistake will end your run. i want you to make mistakes, and accept those mistakes, and move on from them.

here's to hoping they have a fantastic tutorial so we won't make mistakes

 

[Chaon]

here's to hoping they have a fantastic tutorial so we won't make mistakes

Oh we will all make mistakes. It's part of life and playing games.

 

[KhazadDhum]

Speak for yourself, in fact, I thought I made a mistake once, but it turns out I was wrong about that.

 

[TripleStrengthMisnomer]

Speak for yourself, in fact, I thought I made a mistake once, but it turns out I was wrong about that.

Punctuation is a little weak...too many commas in the wrong areas of the sentence structure...