New Merc Campaign Info from PDX Stream

[Rhodium]

Last we've seen base SRM damage was 8/missile so +25% actually. (That was a ++ component if I remember correctly, so highest version possible)

The damage boosted SRM was not a ++ it was just a +, and it was a Holly brand launcher to be exact. And yes SRMs are 8 damage base, so the Holly Launcher brings the SRMs back up to their pre-nerf damage total of 10. And for clarities sake a ++ weapon doesn't increase the size of the stat increase, it just gives you two separate bonuses instead of just one.

 

[CarpeMortis]

Now back to worrying that I'll go to remove a MG only to find I CAN'T PUT IT BACK because it was sitting in a ballistic slot not a support slot.

Rookie mistake guys.....total rookie mistake.

I'm not sure what you are talking about the LCT-1V in the PDX steam had both Ballistic and support points... that's how Kiva gave it a Flamer. It's true the ballistic points are effectively useless, but they are relatively harmless.

 

[Cyttorak001]

As an addendum, Bombadil's play through ended with a half-skull mission that only gave 400 xp per pilot. OTOH, it had a lot of vees.

 

[Dexion]

In addition to likely being a Hold Over from the MWO Hardpoint system, the extra Ballistics may be part of the future proofing that they have tried to build in.

If expansions are made, pushing the timeline foward, Light Autocannon, Rifles, and Mag Shots are all light enough to be equipped in greater numbers. It's easier to add them now (considering that they already have the art assets), then retro them later.

 

[Soldryn The Red]

I'm not sure what you are talking about the LCT-1V in the PDX steam had both Ballistic and support points... that's how Kiva gave it a Flamer. It's true the ballistic points are effectively useless, but they are relatively harmless.

It's embarassing to have useless hard points on that locust. It makes HBS look ameturish to not have just removed the ballistic slots entirely if they weren't converted to support slots. And no i do not accept the "you can put a single ac2 and 1t ammo in it if you strip everything including armor off" argument. It may be true, but its a stupid troll idea to begin with, AND EVEN THEN you STILL have a 2nd ballistic slot you CAN NEVER USE.

 

[KhazadDhum]

I thought Cohh's video was really good. It showed a number of things that weren't covered in the PDX video.

Oh I enjoyed his stream immensely myself. I'm just old school about some things, and although he was certainly trying to get a lot of the info down, he made some ....interesting.... mistakes, and ignored a lot of things that make Battletech what it is.
That's why I found myself yelling at my screen.
He is a streamer, first and foremost, so that would explain his presentation, and when he was trying to figure out the salvage ratio numbers, he was talking about some things, and ignored the screen he had up at one point explaining them, backed out of the screen, and then had to hunt through all the dialogue options to find out what he had right in front of him for a bit. He was doing his show, and for that he couldn't ignore the stream while he was reading some lengthy dialogue. Just made me yell at my screen a couple of times.
In his defense though, the miner mission did have the voice over explaining how he should go for the turret generator while the camera was focused on the beta platform, not the alpha, so he got confused (very understandable).
There were a few other things that he glossed over which made me cringe a little, but was to be expected from someone who knew little about the game, whereas I've played the beta, so I already knew some of the workings of the mechanics.
He seemed to be really excited about the game, and I'm reasonably sure he'll improve over time, and a couple of missions under his belt. I'm also sure he'll get the hang that different mechs have different roles in due course.

 

[Gorski123]

In addition to likely being a Hold Over from the MWO Hardpoint system, the extra Ballistics may be part of the future proofing that they have tried to build in.

If expansions are made, pushing the timeline foward, Light Autocannon, Rifles, and Mag Shots are all light enough to be equipped in greater numbers. It's easier to add them now (considering that they already have the art assets), then retro them later.

In future games, we might get XL engines or even engine swapping for more spare tonnage.

 

[Tnarien]

In future games, we might get XL engines or even engine swapping for more spare tonnage.

You don't design a system around equipment that by definition is not available in your game.

 

[Exemplar Voss]

You don't design a system around equipment that by definition is not available in your game.

'Designed around' is not particularly accurate.
But future proofing the game engine for sequels you absolutely do want to make in the future is just common sense. You don't want to rebuild the basics for the sequel- look how much trouble creative assembly has had with getting the final total warhammer 1 faction working in total warhammer 2. (Short version: they used a different database system in the second game and the wacky special snowflake code they used for Norsca just didn't function at all, so they ended up rebuilding the entire faction from scratch)

Look, the ballistic slots are just artifacts of the PGI designs that HBS didn't waste time and money to rip out. Given everything involved, that seems sensible.

Looking at it the other way, how much complaining would it generate if HBS spent $75k (or whatever) and a week taking them out for no real benefit when there was productive work to do?

 

[Tnarien]

Look, the ballistic slots are just artifacts of the PGI designs that HBS didn't waste time and money to rip out. Given everything involved, that seems sensible.

Looking at it the other way, how much complaining would it generate if HBS spent $75k (or whatever) and a week taking them out for no real benefit when there was productive work to do?

There are two fundamental flaws in your reasoning:

HBS started with 1:1 stock hardpoint configurations on their mechs. They've added these extra hardpoints in the configuration files, not had them handed pre-populated JSON files from PGI.

Secondly, you're hilariously overstating the amount of time necessary to remove a hardpoint from a mechdef file. It is quite literally:

1) Open file
2) Highlight hardpoint for deletion
3) Hit Backspace
4) Proofread syntax and save file
5) Move on to next file.

It's an afternoon of text editing.

'Designed around' is not particularly accurate.

It is entirely accurate when the argument being made is "they added these things only because something might happen two to three games in the future".

 

[Exemplar Voss]

That just means the argument is flawed, not that the game is actually designed around it. Your phrasing\reaction is hyperbole.

They added the support points, not the ballistic points. In addition to the text editing, they also need to check each change for visual glitches. Change a mechdef file and is all well and good, but competent programming involves making sure there aren't unintended consequences.

 

[Leith Maclaine]

You do realize that your complaint is about a build that isn't the final one yet and that it will probably be fixed before the game is released. They actively said the build for yesterday's streams was not the final build since you couldn't change the units name in it.

 

[Tnarien]

They added the support points, not the ballistic points. In addition to the text editing, they also need to check each change for visual glitches. Change a mechdef file and is all well and good, but competent programming involves making sure there aren't unintended consequences.

For the second time:

HBS:BT mechs began life as 1:1 translations of stock TT loadouts. That means a Locust DIDNT COME WITH A PAIR OF BALLISTIC HARDPOINTS. HBS manually added them themselves later. You can look into the Beta v1/v2 mechdef files if you don't believe me (mechs didn't even need hardpoint allocations, all they needed was equipment configurations).

You do realize that your complaint is about a build that isn't the final one yet and that it will probably be fixed before the game is released. They actively said the build for yesterday's streams was not the final build since you couldn't change the units name in it.

My "complaint" is about a systemic issue that has continued to snowball. Specifically the fact that mech chassis are accumulating hardpoints they shouldn't have, and in many cases make no sense whatsoever, faster than the US national debt is accruing. This is an issue that has been escalating, not fading out

Furthermore, the game is launching in three and a half weeks. The "oh I'm sure it's just a bug that'll be fixed" line doesn't hold water. Not any more. We're not in the throes of combat testing.

 

[Exemplar Voss]

By mwo definitions the locust does have ballistic hardpoints- for the machine guns. HBS turned MGs, flamers and small lasers into support weapons, which is a category mwo doesn't have. So yes, it had ballistic points to start with and HBS added support points.

Your complaint is less a systemic issue than a preference issue- you don't like the hard point system. That they're 'accumulating rapidly' is an absurd overstatement. The ones we've seen so far have very few extra , and most are one or two more of a type they already had or a legacy of the conversion to support points.

 

[Leith Maclaine]

My "complaint" is about a systemic issue that has continued to snowball. Specifically the fact that mech chassis are accumulating hardpoints they shouldn't have, and in many cases make no sense whatsoever, faster than the US national debt is accruing. This is an issue that has been escalating, not fading out

Furthermore, the game is launching in three and a half weeks. The "oh I'm sure it's just a bug that'll be fixed" line doesn't hold water. Not any more. We're not in the throes of combat testing.

Have to disagree with you. I have worked on several software projects where something that would be easy to fix wasn't addressed until the last minute (like night before launch last minute) because of high pressing issues to be resolved. This is something that the game plays with it in. Yes it annoys people, yes it makes people go what???? But it doesn't stop the game play or the mechanics so it is lower on the list than other issues that are being addressed.

 

[Jaidenhaze]

If i read this correct you are complaining that a mech has some hard points he cant use fully right now? Seriously? Just don't use them then. Yeah a Locust cant use 2B right now, doesn't change the fact that it can be used with Ballistic Weapons that do fit a Locust without sacrificing Armor. Mag Shots or even a Light AC/2 can be mounted there. Yes they are not in the game - but there can be a mod in the game within 24 hours of launch and its very easily to see future content that plays in that time frame.

And now talk about the hard points: its not just adding or deleting a line within a file. You still have to edit the model and all camos. The Mechs are based on MWO. MWO uses a modular hard point system. A Laser hard point is a square hole which is just covered with a piece of metal that isn't painted. Same with Ballistics. Editing 300? 400? camos to cover these ballistic holes with paint is just unnecessary work. If you are complaining about the 2 ballistic hard points, you'd complain about the missing paint on empty hard point covers that won't be used in the current iteration of the game.

 

[Cyttorak001]

You don't design a system around equipment that by definition is not available in your game.

But they are in the game: in the future. In Battletech (like communist countries), the future is certain. It's the past that's always changing.

 

[Tnarien]

By mwo definitions the locust does have ballistic hardpoints- for the machine guns. HBS turned MGs, flamers and small lasers into support weapons, which is a category mwo doesn't have. So yes, it had ballistic points to start with and HBS added support points.

You're equating MWO hardpoints to HBS:BT hardpoints. That is incorrect. Stop doing it.

The way the combat engine works, mechfiles don't need hardpoints. They need equipment allocation data. Hardpoint data operates within the sim and mechlab level. A level that was introduced and refined AFTER the combat module.

And for the third time, HBS started with 1:1 stock allocations, not MWOs inflated ones. I really don't know how much clearer I can make that.

Your complaint is less a systemic issue than a preference issue- you don't like the hard point system.

Once again, you are hilariously wrong. I actually quite like the hardpoint system. What I don't like is the absurd degree that hardpoint allocations are being inflated.

That they're 'accumulating rapidly' is an absurd overstatement.

Again, simply incorrect. Let's look at the most recent mechs shall we?

The Urbanmech has, based on a stock 1:1 interpretation the following hardpoints:

1 Ballistic,1 Support

It makes sense to add one or two additional hardpoints to it to give it some flexibility. But that's not what happened. Here's what happened:

4 Ballistic, 2 Energy, 2 Support

The King Crab:

2 Ballistic, 1 Missile, 1 Energy

Instead it gets

2 Ballistic, 4 Missile, 4 Energy, 4 Support

The Centurion:

1 Ballistic, 2 Energy, 1 Missile

Instead it gets

1 Ballistic, 2 Energy, 3 Missile, 2 Support

How about the Shadow Hawk?

1 Ballistic, 2 Missile, 1 Energy

What does it get?

3 Ballistic, 3 Missile, 1 Energy, 2 Support.


If HBS wants to give people this much flexibility for their mechs, then just scrap the damn hardpoint system entirely and let people customize freely.

 

[Tnarien]

But they are in the game: in the future. In Battletech (like communist countries), the future is certain. It's the past that's always changing.

Following that logic why isn't this game built with Partial Wing, MASC, cloaking system and melee weapon mechanics? They're all in the game in the future.

 

[Tnarien]

And now talk about the hard points: its not just adding or deleting a line within a file. You still have to edit the model and all camos. The Mechs are based on MWO. MWO uses a modular hard point system. A Laser hard point is a square hole which is just covered with a piece of metal that isn't painted. Same with Ballistics. Editing 300? 400? camos to cover these ballistic holes with paint is just unnecessary work. If you are complaining about the 2 ballistic hard points, you'd complain about the missing paint on empty hard point covers that won't be used in the current iteration of the game.

Fun fact: the hardpoint geometry work was already done before this hardpoint allocation circus started. You should see the things we modded in Beta v1/v2.