Game changes seen on Twitch stream

[stjobe]

I fully agree that balancing such a mechanic is very tough (especially when people are gonna try and abuse it;-)). I just don't think they have to make it a 'goal' until they get some statistics in from us. When they release the game they are going to get such massive data in from Pilot kills in PvE/PvP that they can decide to tweak the %'s. I'd rather they get the game out and patch it up the following weeks than meticulously trying to maximize everything just to patch it a few days later when the real data trickles in. That is one of the reasons why companies release their game under BETA conditions so the game is tested on player abuse + lesser issues with patching.

Look, this game is gonna get patched either way to include stuff that fell out (we all understand that), but I am amazed that HBS isn't getting insurance on player complaints by going BETA + getting some serious data from the massive fan-base (I doubt any company can hire 20.000+ testers) that they can work with before they do a 'full' launch.

My guess is that they don't want story spoilers; having the main story autopsied in great detail before release would probably hurt sales more than any testing would have helped - not because the story isn't expected to be good, but because "I already know what will happen" takes away something from those that purchase on or after release.

As for testing, HBS have had both internal and external testers playing through the game for a while now - Kiva even mentions that the latest ramp-up in MechWarrior injury rate is done because testers were playing through the game without (m)any MechWarrior fatalities.

They also extensively use simulation - unless I misremember Kiva has previously said she ran "hundreds" of AI-on-AI battles per day to get statistics on everything from hit rates to pilot injuries - only to tweak some numbers and run it again to see what effect that had. This has been going on for some months now.

They have a set rate of MechWarrior injury/fatality in mind that they think makes the game interesting enough, with the right mix of risk and reward; the game will release with the best balance HBS can muster in all areas, including this one. Whether that is good enough for everyone is of course debatable, but please remember that their livelihood depends on this - they have very good motivation to release the best game they can.

 

[Exemplar Voss]

I fully agree that balancing such a mechanic is very tough (especially when people are gonna try and abuse it;-)). I just don't think they have to make it a 'goal' until they get some statistics in from us. When they release the game they are going to get such massive data in from Pilot kills in PvE/PvP that they can decide to tweak the %'s. I'd rather they get the game out and patch it up the following weeks than meticulously trying to maximize everything just to patch it a few days later when the real data trickles in. That is one of the reasons why companies release their game under BETA conditions so the game is tested on player abuse + lesser issues with patching.

Look, this game is gonna get patched either way to include stuff that fell out (we all understand that), but I am amazed that HBS isn't getting insurance on player complaints by going BETA + getting some serious data from the massive fan-base (I doubt any company can hire 20.000+ testers) that they can work with before they do a 'full' launch.

It can be tweaked later, but you still have to have a solid starting point. And it really helps if there's rationale and statistics behind it. That is what she's doing.

20,000+ testers is an outright terrible idea for a game of this size. You do that for stress tests, not beta testing. If you have that many people, even ignoring the ones that won't bother to report, you still have collate and interpret that information, assuming it's helpful. That's a huge task in its own right, let alone determining what feedback should actually affect the game.

Huge beta tests can be really crippling for a small studio that can easily get swamped by the deluge of information, let alone the problems of taking 1001 'I don't like X' statements and turning them into feedback that would actually help the game in some fashion.

 

[Timaeus]

?! this does not sound like the battletech rules, if am not wrong only muni explosion in a side torso can damage a pilot, why the hack are they changing core game mechanics?

This is not table top. This a turn-based tactical game that is intended to capture the spirit of table top while updating rules if needed. Similar to how HBS did for the Shadowrun games they made. For example, the initiative system has been overhauled and was talked about very early on in development, and MechWarriors now have four skills (piloting, gunnery, guts, tactics) instead of just two. Also the heat system has been changed to have a threshold where internal damage is taken instead of the TT heatscale.

Spoiler: Quote from Kickstarter

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/webeharebrained/battletech
Our goal is to craft a combat system for BATTLETECH that’s the perfect blend of tactical depth, speed of play, and meaningful unit customization. As we did with our Shadowrun games, we intend to capture the *spirit* of the original tabletop rules, while designing the best PC game we can. That said, Shadowrun and BattleTech are very different games! For one thing, Shadowrunners like to hide behind cover, while ‘Mechs… squash cover. Expect turn-based combat in BattleTech to feel very different than a more cover-based combat system like Shadowrun’s

Prototyping turn order post.
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/webeharebrained/battletech/posts/1541543

 

[Timaeus]

While everyone is worried about mechwarriors spending time recovering I'm thinking how expensive and how long will it take to fix the 'mech in which the pilot got hurt.
If a side torso gets blown out, it's not like you can just throw a new pilot in there and go for another sortie.

I believe it was stated that, if necessary, one can field a 'mech that is missing parts. So go forth with your Griffin missing its right side if you want.

 

[Varsi]

I believe it was stated that, if necessary, one can field a 'mech that is missing parts. So go forth with your Griffin missing its right side if you want.

I'm sure that would end well for the new pilot

 

[Exemplar Voss]

I'm sure that would end well for the new pilot

Well, crippling the legs with repeated DFAs won't injure the new pilot... too much.

 

[Fragilehardass]

My guess is that they don't want story spoilers; having the main story autopsied in great detail before release would probably hurt sales more than any testing would have helped - not because the story isn't expected to be good, but because "I already know what will happen" takes away something from those that purchase on or after release.

As for testing, HBS have had both internal and external testers playing through the game for a while now - Kiva even mentions that the latest ramp-up in MechWarrior injury rate is done because testers were playing through the game without (m)any MechWarrior fatalities.

They also extensively use simulation - unless I misremember Kiva has previously said she ran "hundreds" of AI-on-AI battles per day to get statistics on everything from hit rates to pilot injuries - only to tweak some numbers and run it again to see what effect that had. This has been going on for some months now.

They have a set rate of MechWarrior injury/fatality in mind that they think makes the game interesting enough, with the right mix of risk and reward; the game will release with the best balance HBS can muster in all areas, including this one. Whether that is good enough for everyone is of course debatable, but please remember that their livelihood depends on this - they have very good motivation to release the best game they can.

The "hundreds" of AI on AI battles per day has no meaning for me. Just check out the last video commentary on AI behavior for example. It pales in comparison to player tactics (or those they copy+paste from someone's 'superior set-up' - I give it 2 weeks before you find the optimal end level set-up on the internet), I think everybody reading this automatically thinks of a few strategic games they've played proving that AI vs. Human does not compare. (I'm full aware that you can post chess matches or that Chinese game where PC's beat players, but that doesn't happen in strategy games). Don't get me wrong, I would love the AI deciding to hunt down a single enemy mech and can switch mid-game to alternative tactic, or circles a target to defend a weaker side but it doesn't...yet.

They should add a difficulty option so they don't have to decide a set rate of injury/fatality. The streamer just before was playing at a +500% difficulty rate and kinda failed^^. You can let people decide how to balance their own games and fatalities by using a difficulty slider on their own single-player campaign, who cares? If you want to have a difficult setting and someone else prefers easy... then everybody's happy, you can lose 50 pilots and the other one 3, it has no impact upon one another. And when everybody = happy, then you've released the best game you can.

 

[stjobe]

The "hundreds" of AI on AI battles per day has no meaning for me. Just check out the last video commentary on AI behavior for example.

We haven't even seen the final AI yet and still some people are quick to declare it insufficient. *shrug* Good thing there will be multi-player on release.

Also, running volume-tests by no means preclude using other kinds of tests, e.g. human testers. I trust that HBS at least knows the difference between what kind of results you can expect from each kind of test, and use them to their best ability.

They should add a difficulty option so they don't have to decide a set rate of injury/fatality.

Difficulty options are out since way back; the way you adjust difficulty is by taking higher- or lower-rated contracts, which mean you can adjust on the fly to what happens with your 'Mechs and MechWarriors.

 

[Fragilehardass]

It can be tweaked later, but you still have to have a solid starting point. And it really helps if there's rationale and statistics behind it. That is what she's doing.

20,000+ testers is an outright terrible idea for a game of this size. You do that for stress tests, not beta testing. If you have that many people, even ignoring the ones that won't bother to report, you still have collate and interpret that information, assuming it's helpful. That's a huge task in its own right, let alone determining what feedback should actually affect the game.

Huge beta tests can be really crippling for a small studio that can easily get swamped by the deluge of information, let alone the problems of taking 1001 'I don't like X' statements and turning them into feedback that would actually help the game in some fashion.

1st: I never said beta TESTING, I said Beta. Beta = the new launch. So I am not talking about Beta testing with 20k people, I talk about 20k playing the game accepting the fact that nothing is set in stone yet.
2nd: I never said anything about turning in a report and giving people the option of writing additional things on it. Just pull up the data you want or are focusing on. I fully agree with you about the 1001 statements, just don't do it. But what you will be able to adress are operating System problems, crashes, glitches that you can solve based upon 10.000's of games per day/week. AND you have the safety of still operating under BETA protection.

 

[Timaeus]

1st: I never said beta TESTING, I said Beta. Beta = the new launch. So I am not talking about Beta testing with 20k people, I talk about 20k playing the game accepting the fact that nothing is set in stone yet.
2nd: I never said anything about turning in a report and giving people the option of writing additional things on it. Just pull up the data you want or are focusing on. I fully agree with you about the 1001 statements, just don't do it. But what you will be able to adress are operating System problems, crashes, glitches that you can solve based upon 10.000's of games per day/week. AND you have the safety of still operating under BETA protection.

Beta testing is not the new launch for this game. That is not how HBS works. The beta was tightly focused and already happened. It will be a full release.

 

[Fragilehardass]

Difficulty options are out since way back; the way you adjust difficulty is by taking higher- or lower-rated contracts, which mean you can adjust on the fly to what happens with your 'Mechs and MechWarriors.

Yep, something I like very much + it looks amazing with the skulls
But it could very easily be complementary, why choose if you could have both? For example: you can set you game at 100% and just play through the campaign with higher and lower rated contracts. Next time you can challenge yourself further with setting game difficulty at 150% and play through the campaign again with the same rated contracts system. And when your little boy or daughter wants to play you can set their campaign setting to 50%... I only see benefits in it.

 

[Fragilehardass]

Beta testing is not the new launch for this game. That is not how HBS works. The beta was tightly focused and already happened. It will be a full release.

Hey Timaeus
It is indeed not the launch for this game. This is indeed not how HBS works, that is what I was commenting on (that I think it's a missed opportunity - but that is my personal view upon it). Have a look at Battleground Player Unknown... how long have they been in Beta? Best sold game that just basically did their launch in Beta (+won multiple awards in BETA) and just kept it there until they drew a second map (3-5 months I think?). But I feel I'm pulling away from the thread so I'll react to comments but won't drag it out any longer.

 

[stjobe]

1st: I never said beta TESTING, I said Beta. Beta = the new launch. So I am not talking about Beta testing with 20k people, I talk about 20k playing the game accepting the fact that nothing is set in stone yet.

This is not how HBS does things. We had a very focused skirmish combat beta for half a year that about 20k people did play. Now release is almost upon us and it is a tad bit late to start another beta.

Yep, something I like very much + it looks amazing with the skulls
But it could very easily be complementary, why choose if you could have both? For example: you can set you game at 100% and just play through the campaign with higher and lower rated contracts. Next time you can challenge yourself further with setting game difficulty at 150% and play through the campaign again with the same rated contracts system. And when your little boy or daughter wants to play you can set their campaign setting to 50%... I only see benefits in it.

To quote Mitch: "Each option is a feature in disguise."
To further quote Mitch: "No."

It is way too late to even suggest these things at this point; release is just a month away. Besides, this very topic has been beaten to death already - before beta, during beta, after beta. You're just going to have to come to terms with the fact that HBS have decided against global difficulty sliders.

 

[Jack Ryan]

?! this does not sound like the battletech rules, if am not wrong only muni explosion in a side torso can damage a pilot, why the hack are they changing core game mechanics?

Like I said earlier, munitions explosions used to nuke 3025 mechs and their pilots. Without that lethality this is just a reflection of the overall damage and threat. Though I do think that killing the meat will happen all too often due to head hits. On the latter part, we can tweak that.

 

[Exemplar Voss]

1st: I never said beta TESTING, I said Beta. Beta = the new launch. So I am not talking about Beta testing with 20k people, I talk about 20k playing the game accepting the fact that nothing is set in stone yet.
2nd: I never said anything about turning in a report and giving people the option of writing additional things on it. Just pull up the data you want or are focusing on. I fully agree with you about the 1001 statements, just don't do it. But what you will be able to adress are operating System problems, crashes, glitches that you can solve based upon 10.000's of games per day/week. AND you have the safety of still operating under BETA protection.

Absolutely not. Selling an unfinished, defective product under false pretenses to turn players into testers is scummy behavior. I don't care how much of an industry norm it has become.

And, frankly there is no 'beta protection' involved in this approach. The mass audience impression treats the beta version done this way as the final version, and sales of the launch version often end up weak as a result. It doesn't matter to lucky ones like PUBG, whose audience settles for a defective product, but for most developers it doesn't turn out nearly so well.

 

[GenTask]

Well, this game isn't a direct port of the TT game like MegaMek tries to be. You really need to play it a while before you get good at it because the initiative system will seem very weird at first.

I logged a lot of hours in the Beta though. Pilot injuries are my number one gripe for this game which I was and am still very opinionated about, because for me, the way it is handled is hot garbage and extremely annoying with every single knockdown and head hit being a pilot injury where the skills do not seem to affect mitigation as they should by roll. Dealing with damaged/destroyed Mechs are enough of a resource sink in my opinion.

Well, can you imagine how many people would be screaming bloody murder if they had respected battletech lore and allowed one, single, ammo hit of any kind to pretty much blow any mech in this era apart? Most ammo lighting off (especially MG ammo) would do enough damage to possibly even Stackpole a mech in 3025.

Rarely happens to me in BT or MegaMek. I never risk leaving ammo in a stripped armor location - I almost always 'Dump Ammunition' in those instances to be better safe than sorry, which should be added as a feature to this game. That's the risk of ammo in BT, but it is not like you have to leave it there if your vehicles are about to lose their armor. You either take the risk and leave it there for one more shot and hope it doesn't get hit, or play cautious by dumping it. If they had never had a dump ammo rule for BT I would probably be more upset.

 

[stjobe]

I logged a lot of hours in the Beta though. Pilot injuries are my number one gripe for this game which I was and am still very opinionated about, because for me, the way it is handled is hot garbage and extremely annoying with every single knockdown and head hit being a pilot injury where the skills do not seem to affect mitigation as they should by roll. Dealing with damaged/destroyed Mechs are enough of a resource sink in my opinion.

In the release game, high Guts will make a difference, I believe. Possibly some skills as well; I don't think any of this was enabled for beta.

Also, as I posted above, pilot injuries are the only way to make sure you need to have more than four MechWarriors, so they are kind of needed if we are to manage both metal and meat.

 

[GenTask]

In the release game, high Guts will make a difference, I believe. Possibly some skills as well; I don't think any of this was enabled for beta.

Also, as I posted above, pilot injuries are the only way to make sure you need to have more than four MechWarriors, so they are kind of needed if we are to manage both metal and meat.

I hope that's the actual case, because how it was in Beta man - holy hell did it annoy me.

 

[Kereminde]

. . . the more I keep seeing about reactions to this game, the more I'm glad I'm increasingly likely not going to be playing it.

 

[Timaeus]

Greetings MechWarriors
A reminder to please discontinue going further off-topic in this thread. The topic is about game changes seen in the twitch stream.
Yes, I'm aware that I participated in some of the off-topic comment. This is not to stifle commentary and criticisms on those off-topics subjects, just to reorient the discussion back to what it is originally meant to be about (game changes seen in the twitch stream).
Thank you
Timaeus