Perfect intel makes mission difficulties too predictable!

[SQW]

What would this do, though? You'd deploy the heaviest lance you can so you have the best chance to brawl through the mission, and you'd withdraw whenever you want.

Well I did say early to mid game because late game assault glut is a complicated issue stemming from limited lance space and restrictive mission parameters.

What's stopping players from always picking their heaviest mechs? Not if the objective is always to kill the opfor. But, if the mission is designed in such way that favors mobility and discourage combat (extremely heavy opfor and 0 salvage opportunity for example) then players can choose to either avoid combat to play the objective or try to kill everything anyway but for no extra gain.

If there are enough such missions, especially with hidden changes, then the players might favor a more balanced lance as opposed to a kill team setup.

@Prussian Havoc I don't see a retreating AI as being impossible. The panic mod already showed us how AI can be weighted to abandon combat when all hope seems lost. Instead of pulling the ejection lever and giving us all the loot, a code to tell it to sprint for the nearest map edge doesn't seem to be impossible. It can even work both ways so your merc, given certain trait, will stay till the bitter end or ignore your command and escape themselves.

 

[Nakkivene]

Still, early game you deploy what you can, basically, and in midgame you tend to deploy the most firepower you have available. Why would you deploy less firepower just with less intel, when the chances are either that you don't need it or that you do?

If you had better missions you'd really need better intel too with which you could decide what to deploy. Otherwise you'll go "Oh! Not fast enough / can't punch through that!" and withdraw.

If this game is ever expanded in such a direction I'd like a whole mission planning stage and longer, more intricate missions. Say, strategic scouting could be a thing, do a recon with lights before you deploy the kill team. Then having even no intel at all would change your approach to a mission.

I'm not sure if the devs want this to be a strategic mech operations simulator rather than fast, fun mech battles game, tho.

 

[MeiSooHaityu]

Even with how the skull rating is now, I still see decent variance in mission difficulty. There have been a few that I was decently overwhelmed when I thought I could handle the skull rating that I picked, and then others that I thought would be a greater challenge, but turned out to be easier.

I think the skull rating does an adequate job of giving the player an idea of what they might expect, however things still seem to vary enough that it can throw a player for a loop.

...If this game is ever expanded in such a direction I'd like a whole mission planning stage and longer, more intricate missions. Say, strategic scouting could be a thing, do a recon with lights before you deploy the kill team. Then having even no intel at all would change your approach to a mission.

I'm not sure if the devs want this to be a strategic mech operations simulator rather than fast, fun mech battles game, tho.

I would like an overview map of the mission area with our drop point, objective, and extraction highlighted. I understand that the placement and composition of the forces in play wouldn't be called out in detail, however a nice overview of the battlefield would be nice.

 

[Edmon]

This game has plenty of difficulty if you want it, early on.

Simply start taking your starting lance into 2, 2.5 skull missions and you'll get all the tension and difficulty you are looking for.

I disagree that missions shouldn't learnable and/or predictable. How can anyone be "good" at the game if it's totally random and your not allowed to learn it?

It's from learning what you can get away with, then pushing that limit harder, that you get quicker and better starts in Career mode than other players.

Now, the end game is pretty stale I will admit, once your rocking up in 4 assaults, there isn't much you can just shoot your way out of with ease.

But if you are playing 8 parts / slow progression... that is a good 30-40 hours away.

If you are starting to become a vet of this game, I highly recommend you restart your career and start pushing yourself harder, earlier and seeing just what you can get away with...

That's where I find my fun .

 

[Leraje_]

I would like an overview map of the mission area with our drop point, objective, and extraction highlighted. I understand that the placement and composition of the forces in play wouldn't be called out in detail, however a nice overview of the battlefield would be nice.

You mean a proper briefing? But poor Darius gets confused looking at a map
In all seriousness though, a proper brief before the mission would be nice to have indeed.

 

[Amechwarrior]

@Prussian Havoc I don't see a retreating AI as being impossible. The panic mod already showed us how AI can be weighted to abandon combat when all hope seems lost. Instead of pulling the ejection lever and giving us all the loot, a code to tell it to sprint for the nearest map edge doesn't seem to be impossible. It can even work both ways so your merc, given certain trait, will stay till the bitter end or ignore your command and escape themselves.

It's possible, as we already have retreating AI in Assassination missions. However, what this would need is a lot time simgame balance testing to tune either or both of these systems combined with encounter difficulty and salvage progression. I think individually, adding panic ejecting or AI retreating would both affect the salvage mechanics in opposite ways, but adding both of them in at once might just come close enough to cancel it out and tune contract salvage from there. One gives you more salvage by leaving a clean chassis, the other takes it off the tables by safely removing themselves.

Adding both of these would need many, many hours of testing and refinement and I don't know if HBS has the time/money/manpower to do that in addition to whatever new mechanics come with the next two expansions. You'd have to work out things like Lances with one larger tank and 3 tiny units/smaller vehicles and what to do when they player insta-gibs the big one right out the gate. Does the now obviously outnumbered and out gunned lights all flee? Then this might make the game too easy by just focusing on the bigger targets knowing the small ones will break for it. What if instead we focus on touching each lighter unit, causing enough damage to make them individually break for a round or two, leaving the bigger Lancemates alone and now outnumbered? There's all kinds of situations they'd have to consider in combat and then again in the salvage screen. Do base defenders not retreat or how about story missions vs regular ones? But if they get it close enough to "balanced" it would add a lot to the feeling of this being a "living universe" instead of a game like how Flashpoints and events add that extra layer of flavor to the mix.

A slight meta Lance change would be more incentive to bring a "Cavalry" type 'Mech to chase down broken units and keep them in LoS for the kill. On the other hand, the larger units we are always hunting for are usually slower than the lighter 'Mechs we have so this may end up not mattering in the end.

 

[Landsknecht]

I would like an overview map of the mission area with our drop point, objective, and extraction highlighted. I understand that the placement and composition of the forces in play wouldn't be called out in detail, however a nice overview of the battlefield would be nice.

This, this, a thousand times this.

For something like an assassinate mission, I can understand not having an objective marker. You've got to find the target to shank them - fair enough.

But for convoy escort, I should be able to know where I'm escorting them to, so that I don't lose turns reorienting while the escorts zoom blithely ahead into enemy LRM fire. (It's because of this nonsense behavior that I basically never took escort missions in my first playthrough.) And even for assassinate missions, I should know where the extraction zone is beforehand, so that I can maneuver in an informed way and TRY to avoid having the reinforcements between me and the evac point.

 

[SQW]

Still, early game you deploy what you can, basically, and in midgame you tend to deploy the most firepower you have available. Why would you deploy less firepower just with less intel, when the chances are either that you don't need it or that you do?

If you had better missions you'd really need better intel too with which you could decide what to deploy. Otherwise you'll go "Oh! Not fast enough / can't punch through that!" and withdraw.

If this game is ever expanded in such a direction I'd like a whole mission planning stage and longer, more intricate missions. Say, strategic scouting could be a thing, do a recon with lights before you deploy the kill team. Then having even no intel at all would change your approach to a mission.

I'm not sure if the devs want this to be a strategic mech operations simulator rather than fast, fun mech battles game, tho.

Those are two parts to the mission problem. Perfect intel makes for less tension - that's why games have fog of war and the old x-com gave AI longer visual range than yours - while always having to choose the biggest mechs stems from lack of mission variety.

Having less intel or sudden contract changes wouldn't make players use less assaults but create more tension and excitement from going into the unknown - something sorely lacking in BT because everything is laid out for you. Also, I'm not saying to do that to all missions - just a few pop ups like FPs.

@Amechwarrior

I don't feel balancing is a big issue here. With 3-parts, players can amass a huge collection of mechs very quickly. I'm 200 days in in hard career mod with 5 parts and I already have 6 lights and 6 mediums and a whisker away from 2 heavies. People in sandbox (campaign or story is different of course) spend an unhealthy amount of hours in them so whatever balance there is with loot will soon be swept away from the sheer hours anyway. Just throw in the players in and let them adapt I say - the fun and realism from watching pirates behave realistically outweight the balance that is never there once you get your first assault lance up and running.

I think HBS was trying to be TOO careful. I say we need more mission variety, larger variance, more unexpected twists, more difficulty spikes and more everything; if there are too much to balance, it's usually too messy to find an exploit too and thus achieve it's own balance like Total Annihilation vs Starcraft. Sandbox is suppose to be about the experience, the ups and downs, not careful loot hoarding like an MMORPG.

 

[Lambert Simnel]

This, this, a thousand times this.

For something like an assassinate mission, I can understand not having an objective marker. You've got to find the target to shank them - fair enough.

But for convoy escort, I should be able to know where I'm escorting them to, so that I don't lose turns reorienting while the escorts zoom blithely ahead into enemy LRM fire. (It's because of this nonsense behavior that I basically never took escort missions in my first playthrough.) And even for assassinate missions, I should know where the extraction zone is beforehand, so that I can maneuver in an informed way and TRY to avoid having the reinforcements between me and the evac point.

For convoy escort you an find the convoy's pick up zone by holding down ALT and running your mouse over the map until you see the little red "don't stand here" icons. Making it so someone who knows that trick can find the convoy's path is even more pointless than hiding the info completely. If your going to make the convoy's path deducible, then you should make it explicit.

 

[Confector Tyrannis]

The sense of being "ripped off" by missions that are too easy or "cheated" by missions that are too hard are things game developers try to avoid. The latter especially makes people rage quit because "why bother if the AI is just going to cheat with all these uber opfors".

This is the number one thing that makes me call it a night when playing. Don't remember who did it, but the meme showing the salvage slider to the left (least salvage) means most mechs, and all the way to the right means most vehicles, and maybe a spider on your mission.

I think vehicles just need to be placed in their own category (more so than they already are) with specific breakdown on the intel.

"Hey commander, we have evidence of a couple tracked vehicles, and lots n lots of mech footprints all over" (meaning more mechs than tanks, we might wanna go salvage on this one boss) vs "Hey commander, we've only actually verified the footprints of a spider and locust in the area, everything else seems to be a lot of tracked and wheeled vehicles, we may wanna just grab the cash on this one"

Additionally, in ironman mode, I think once you've dropped on a contract, THAT should be the save point, the opfor is SAVED and can't be modified if you've already dropped on the contract.

Why?

Cuz spending an hour trying to depilot a couple of Catapault K2's only to have the game crash when you're taking out the last one, so when you reload (18 times mind you) trying to get those 2 k2's to appear back on screen....

Apparently the game figured out what I was trying to do and ended up tossing me a Black Knight so i took it as a consolation prize.

Still salty about it tho.

 

[BobaFatt]

This is the number one thing that makes me call it a night when playing. Don't remember who did it, but the meme showing the salvage slider to the left (least salvage) means most mechs, and all the way to the right means most vehicles, and maybe a spider on your mission.

I think vehicles just need to be placed in their own category (more so than they already are) with specific breakdown on the intel.

"Hey commander, we have evidence of a couple tracked vehicles, and lots n lots of mech footprints all over" (meaning more mechs than tanks, we might wanna go salvage on this one boss) vs "Hey commander, we've only actually verified the footprints of a spider and locust in the area, everything else seems to be a lot of tracked and wheeled vehicles, we may wanna just grab the cash on this one"

Additionally, in ironman mode, I think once you've dropped on a contract, THAT should be the save point, the opfor is SAVED and can't be modified if you've already dropped on the contract.

Why?

Cuz spending an hour trying to depilot a couple of Catapault K2's only to have the game crash when you're taking out the last one, so when you reload (18 times mind you) trying to get those 2 k2's to appear back on screen....

Apparently the game figured out what I was trying to do and ended up tossing me a Black Knight so i took it as a consolation prize.

Still salty about it tho.

I do not mean to sound rude, but asking for the game to explicitly tell you when to take money and when to take salvage is just a terrible idea.

I just don’t understand why people want all of the uncertainty taken out of the game, it’s the whole point , it’s what makes the game exciting.

Sure I’m annoyed too when I take salvage and nothings there or when I take money and don’t have enough priority pick to get all 3 parts of that rare mech I just headcapped. But that is part of the fun, and it makes that moment when everything comes together so much sweeter.

 

[Confector Tyrannis]

I do not mean to sound rude, but asking for the game to explicitly tell you when to take money and when to take salvage is just a terrible idea.

I just don’t understand why people want all of the uncertainty taken out of the game, it’s the whole point , it’s what makes the game exciting.

Sure I’m annoyed too when I take salvage and nothings there or when I take money and don’t have enough priority pick to get all 3 parts of that rare mech I just headcapped. But that is part of the fun, and it makes that moment when everything comes together so much sweeter.

I'm not asking nor advocating for a complete 100% accurate intelligence breakdown. Something a lil better than "go here, boom boom, maybe gets stuff" would be nice however.

The point (frustration) people are expressing is how the Slider FEELS like it's working against you, every time you touch it. A game mechanic that is vital to every mission choice that makes you loathe even looking at it, is a failure of a mechanic. The player should think their choices are actually having an effect.

Right now the salvage slider should be renamed to "How badly do you wish to shortchange yourself?" If it clearly stated that, no one would touch it.

THAT is what we're talking about.

 

[SQW]

But the uncertainty is why you have contract negotiation at all. Players wanting their every choice to conform to their idea of fairness inevitably leads to them wanting the best outcome for themselves.

Why should the game offer the best mechs opfor when you picked max salvage rights? What's wrong with the game sticking it to the player with a bunch of LCTs because he/she got greedy? A sandbox strategy game should embrace RNG where the players are expect to adapt to the unexpected as much as being rewarded for careful planning.

This is the whole point of my thread - apart from RNG with hit percentages, BT itself is a very 'safe' game.

 

[Confector Tyrannis]

But it should not inversely punish the player either. All we're asking for is a lil more TRUTH behind it vs "this slider is immaterial and actually hurts me more than helps me"

try not taking it to the extreme limit, that's precisely what started the conversation, how the EXTREMES are too much, too varied, and too unpredictable.

At this point I feel like my commander would just start telling potential clients "sorry, you have bupkiss here for info, i'm not risking my life, my warrior's lives, and our assets, on lies and misinformation. Feel free to come back when you actually want to be forthcoming. Until then, we'll be talking with your competitor"

 

[SQW]

But the slider doesn't have anything to do the difficulty/skull, just the reward and you get to pick how it gets distributed. If you feel you keep getting 'robbed' by your decisions during negotiations, then leave it 50/50 and pretend the slider isn't there.

I'm sorry but I can't understand your distrust of the reward slider. Do you want the employer to provide you with a list of possible mech/vee on the mission, their weight class and condition so you can make the best informed choice on choosing c-bills or salvage?

 

[mjbroekman]

The slider setting has nothing to do with the OpFor composition. On the other hand, as many people have noted, the maximum Cbill / Salvage payout numbers should give people a good idea of the OpFor. 300k & 4/18 salvage? Might be more vehicles than mechs. 600k & 4/18 salvage? Probably more mechs. 4/18 salvage on a 2 skull mission? Probably NOT really a 2 skull mission.

 

[ntw]

<snip>... 4/18 salvage on a 2 skull mission? Probably NOT really a 2 skull mission.

"yeah, we'll be fine with our scout lance - intel from the employer says it's only a 2 skull mission"

 

[Critter667]

One thing I've noticed about mission Intel...

Darious doesn't always know the opposing force or what will happen in a mission. He even sometimes calls out reinforcements only after you've been hit. Ok I get that, for of war, no perfect Intel etc...

But the moment the last enemy is gone, he gains perfect knowledge and can have the leapord pick you up without being at the rendezvous. I get why this is done from a game play standpoint, who wants to waste time running across an empty map. From an immersion and logic standpoint though... It makes no sense at all. It really does not.

How can he miss a lance of heavies close enough to hit me, yet know when those 4 are gone, it's safe. Again I know why from a game play perspective but there has to be a better way.

 

[mjbroekman]

But the moment the last enemy is gone, he gains perfect knowledge and can have the leapord pick you up without being at the rendezvous. I get why this is done from a game play standpoint, who wants to waste time running across an empty map. From an immersion and logic standpoint though... It makes no sense at all. It really does not.

How can he miss a lance of heavies close enough to hit me, yet know when those 4 are gone, it's safe. Again I know why from a game play perspective but there has to be a better way.

If they aren't on your sensors, it's hard to call them out. Depending on the size of a planet, orbital times can vary as well, meaning the Leopard's sensors may not have "eyes on" the enemy lance for a good chunk of time and if the Leopard is in a geostationary orbit, they may not have the resolution to see the opfor mechs directly...while weapons fire may produce certain signatures that the sensors do detect.

As for the "okay, the opfor is gone we can pick you up"... that is most definitely a shortcut to keep the player from having to trudge across a map with nothing to do because "just keep walking" is not fun or engaging.

 

[BobaFatt]

I'm not asking nor advocating for a complete 100% accurate intelligence breakdown. Something a lil better than "go here, boom boom, maybe gets stuff" would be nice however.

The point (frustration) people are expressing is how the Slider FEELS like it's working against you, every time you touch it. A game mechanic that is vital to every mission choice that makes you loathe even looking at it, is a failure of a mechanic. The player should think their choices are actually having an effect.

Right now the salvage slider should be renamed to "How badly do you wish to shortchange yourself?" If it clearly stated that, no one would touch it.

THAT is what we're talking about.

I don’t agree at all. Salvage is supposed to be a gamble, if a commander wants a ‘sure thing’ on the mission they should take all cbills. If they’re taking salvage they are gambling on possibly getting something more valuable than the money -or- possibly not.

I think the frustration you are feeling is confirmation bias, like when a 90% to hit shot misses and you think “what the hell!?” And if you get a few in a row it can feel like “the game is cheating”. Even though it’s just a series of bad RNG results clustered together.

Yesterday I had a pilot in a panther miss with her PPC 5 turns in a row, with to hit chances never lower than 60% and as high as 85%. The game wasn’t actively trying to screw me, it’s just several bad RNG results that were unfortunately clustered together. These do even out over the long haul, but it’s human nature to focus on the negative which is why the times we feel ‘screwed’ by the RNG stick out in our minds, while the times when everything goes right tend not to. But by no means should the devs alter the game in any way to insulate against bad RNG, that would just kill the fun completely.