Will Battletech be PVP or PVC?
- Thread starter Herald of Omega
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
The game has several game modes;
Campaign. Thats the single player story campaign, with endless random contract missions that can be taken in addition to, or instead of, the story.
Single player Skirmish. Player lance vs AI lance.
Multiplayer Skirmish. Player Lance vs Player lance.
Campaign. Thats the single player story campaign, with endless random contract missions that can be taken in addition to, or instead of, the story.
Single player Skirmish. Player lance vs AI lance.
Multiplayer Skirmish. Player Lance vs Player lance.
They've also suggested that some campaign missions may have allied computer-controlled units joining your lance, provided by your employer for that specific mission. So P+CVC for that fringe case.
So much of HBS's BATTLETECH can be captured at a glance with this HBS Kickstarter graphic:
It should be pointed out that Stage 3's "Legendary 'Mechs and MechWarriors" has been delayed until some time after Launch. As well as HBS opting to go with the Friend-based PvP that so many of us enjoyed during the Backer Beta.
Just so newcomers understand what this means: the beta just had a lobby of games with info like which map the battle would be on, the maximum cost of a lance you could bring, what the turn timer would be (if any), etc. It supported public games or password-protected games with friends. They may have iterated on this since then, but that's the minimum we know they've developed.
Originally they planned a big tournament-style PVP experience with matchmaking and rating based on the lore of the Solaris VII Grand Tournament, but they scaled back their plans to just a "friendly" casual PVP lobby. They may do more competitive tournament-style play in a future expansion if the game does well. That's part of why you hear people say "In success!" around here a lot, because if the game is successful and sells well there are lots of features that are possible.
The community is trying to pick up the slack in this regard, with efforts to organize third party tournaments, and a discord server to help with coordinating matches for those who would rather not just face whoever joins your public game.
I would also add that until recently BATTLETECH was going to shoot for an e-sport level of competitive balance. The official word is: That focus was dropped in favor of 'fun', and the impact RNG has on outcome. However, I hold out hope that with enough telemetry they may once again consider a competitive PvP arena.
I kind of hope they don't.
Every game that releases doesn't need to be an e-sport and a lot of the fun and enjoyment seems, or feels, like it gets sucked out of the game to be sacrificed on the later of "esport" and "competitive gaming" when games try and do it.
I think this game can enjoy a lot of "in success" just by being fun and enjoyable.
I want success. People need to buy more Battletech.
I second the motion
I have to ask, why wouldn't you want a keen focus on balance, and shift from RNG to strategy? The biggest risk/challenge is balancing meta builds, but to me that is a plus for both MP and solo play.
From my point of view, the "Random" element of Battletech has been one of the underlying fundamentals from TT days and throughout every iteration of Battletech games (not Mechwarrior). The random chance that an AC 20 shot to the head kills an undamaged assault mech, or a single hit from an LRM barrage damaging a fast movers leg, or a random crit on the MG ammo etc etc etc.
These things combined always gave Battletech the feel of "Best laid plans" type situation, where it doesn't matter how good/big you are, a lucky shot from a lowly grunt could end it all. The ultimate equaliser.
Look at the MW games. They were shooters. Oh sure you had elements of heat and stuff that affected it, but ultimately it was just a FPS where how quickly you could move the mouse/twitch is more important than the actual abilities of the dude shooting.
Which is a very different type of game to Battletech, which is about the tactics of how you use the units rather than how quickly you can spam the fire button before overheating.
For a multiplayer, table top game, that random element works well. The unlikely outcomes add to the enjoyment.
However, a computer game with a substantial single player campaign works a bit differently. Random occurrences which can catastrophically ruin the team, such as a through armor crit to the ammo, aren't nearly as much fun then.
Some RNG makes the game more interesting. Too much RNG makes the game unpredictable and frustrating. I think HBS has done a good job hitting the sweet spot in between the two ends. There is still enough RNG that you can have surprises (like a Jagermech body slamming through the cockpit of my Awesome), but it is focused so that player strategy is still very important.
Because "Balance" is always subjective. What you might consider balanced, I might not. I also think, just from what we've played and seen, that HBS has done a pretty decent job on balancing. So I'm not entirely sure what more can be done.
As for RNG, I don't have a problem with it and don't consider it distracting from the strategies of the game. For me, the RNG adds that little bit of uncertainty to things so that what might be a sure thing, isn't necessarily always so.
That also dovetails into "meta builds". To me there's no risk or challenge to a "meta build". If it wasn't for RNG, then there's a good chance, not a guarantee mind you but a good chance, that regardless of strategy that meta lance WILL beat you.
I disagree. Well partially.
I can see where the RNG in a live TT session can add enjoyment because you're there with all your buds and heckling and/or laughing at a good or bad roll is part of the fun.
Where I disagree is that the computer game works differently. We've seen this excuse as to why certain things are done both here in HBS game as well as the FPS Mechwarrior games. And I think it's just a cop-out so that certain things can be shouted down and excluded (IE: Random hit locations in Mechwarrior). As for the "team", there is no "team" in Battletech. There's you're lance and the oppositions lance. There's also no TACs and even if there was, the changes HBS made to ammo explosions wouldn't make those type of results nearly as scary as it would in a table top game. As for "catastrophically ruining" the team/game, well, one man's ruin in another man's salvation.
Exactly. I 100% agree
My fear is if the esport unicorn is chased, that delicate balance will be shifted and that's not something I want to chance.
@Gauntlet
Lance is indeed what I meant by "team." It is just a less familiar term for most non-Battletech players.
I am well aware that there are no TACs and that ammo explosions aren't an auto kill in HBS's Battletech. I am very glad for that change. I was comparing this game to table top.
One man's ruin is the other's salvation... except when the other is the computer and the ruin leads to a frustrated player leaving the game forever.
Sorry if my posts are a little unclear. I am tired and going to bed now.
Lance is indeed what I meant by "team." It is just a less familiar term for most non-Battletech players.
I am well aware that there are no TACs and that ammo explosions aren't an auto kill in HBS's Battletech. I am very glad for that change. I was comparing this game to table top.
One man's ruin is the other's salvation... except when the other is the computer and the ruin leads to a frustrated player leaving the game forever.
Sorry if my posts are a little unclear. I am tired and going to bed now.
@Jade_rock
No it's all good. And yes, I guess I can understand the frustration behind losing to the computer. At least when it happens vs a human it seems to be a little more palatable. Do you really think someone losing to the computer would cause them to leave the game forever?
No it's all good. And yes, I guess I can understand the frustration behind losing to the computer. At least when it happens vs a human it seems to be a little more palatable. Do you really think someone losing to the computer would cause them to leave the game forever?
I feel like an important characteristic of war is that it isn't really a cut-and-dried contest of skills between contestants operating with perfect information. It's super random, and the fog of war is real: even incredibly skilled, well-trained people operating the best equipment in the world can make errors that seem insanely baffling to the outside world.
Tabletop Battletech is a wargame and HBS Battletech, while not always doing identical things or doing them in identical ways, is also fundamentally a wargame, and lots of wargames try to make this randomness, and learning how to manage it, a core part of gameplay. They're a test of the player's ability to seize the opportunities that are presented to them and mitigate the mishaps.
I find that sort of thing really interesting, but it doesn't seem like it's compatible with esports, which often try to minimize or eliminate randomness entirely so they can be the purest possible test of reflexes, mental bandwidth, and APM. Wargame randomness might be a really unwelcome surprise in that space. Imagine a high-profile streamer having a screaming tantrum meltdown because his Atlas got headshotted. While hilarious, that sort of thing could make Battletech look like a bad game to random audience members, or create pressure on the devs to "fix" things about the game that aren't broken.
I don't think any of this is necessarily insoluble but I super don't blame HBS for kind of punting on the question for now. It's not like they've shut the door forever on competition and ELO and all of that stuff and I think letting BT out into the real world, and seeing how real people, rather than superfans, play it will be a huge help and source of useful data should they decide to add that stuff in.
Tabletop Battletech is a wargame and HBS Battletech, while not always doing identical things or doing them in identical ways, is also fundamentally a wargame, and lots of wargames try to make this randomness, and learning how to manage it, a core part of gameplay. They're a test of the player's ability to seize the opportunities that are presented to them and mitigate the mishaps.
I find that sort of thing really interesting, but it doesn't seem like it's compatible with esports, which often try to minimize or eliminate randomness entirely so they can be the purest possible test of reflexes, mental bandwidth, and APM. Wargame randomness might be a really unwelcome surprise in that space. Imagine a high-profile streamer having a screaming tantrum meltdown because his Atlas got headshotted. While hilarious, that sort of thing could make Battletech look like a bad game to random audience members, or create pressure on the devs to "fix" things about the game that aren't broken.
I don't think any of this is necessarily insoluble but I super don't blame HBS for kind of punting on the question for now. It's not like they've shut the door forever on competition and ELO and all of that stuff and I think letting BT out into the real world, and seeing how real people, rather than superfans, play it will be a huge help and source of useful data should they decide to add that stuff in.
@Gauntlet
Circumstances can dictate many things. Getting creamed by the computer in the tutorial because of dice rolls, for example, is not going to give the new player enough reason to try again. Failing a story mission catastrophically from dice rolls, which indirectly causes a failure of the campaign because you get set so far back and hit the time limit, is likely another 'despair' state that may drive the less-inclined player to another game.
A similar situation, where RNG played a significant deal into the outcome of a multiplayer match, was Company of Heroes 2; where a tank that gets away limping with 2 health and a main gun destroyed was extremely frustrating for a player that had perfectly baited an enemy tank into a trap. Larger example was the random blizzards on the Russian maps; they eventually were taken out of the ranked modes because enough players were frustrated by entire battle plans getting thrown out of the window from a blizzard blinding everyone. Also for cherry on top: shot down planes landing on your troops, killing vehicles or entire infantry squads. Or your artillery truck out back. Which is very, very frustrating, needless to say.
Circumstances can dictate many things. Getting creamed by the computer in the tutorial because of dice rolls, for example, is not going to give the new player enough reason to try again. Failing a story mission catastrophically from dice rolls, which indirectly causes a failure of the campaign because you get set so far back and hit the time limit, is likely another 'despair' state that may drive the less-inclined player to another game.
A similar situation, where RNG played a significant deal into the outcome of a multiplayer match, was Company of Heroes 2; where a tank that gets away limping with 2 health and a main gun destroyed was extremely frustrating for a player that had perfectly baited an enemy tank into a trap. Larger example was the random blizzards on the Russian maps; they eventually were taken out of the ranked modes because enough players were frustrated by entire battle plans getting thrown out of the window from a blizzard blinding everyone. Also for cherry on top: shot down planes landing on your troops, killing vehicles or entire infantry squads. Or your artillery truck out back. Which is very, very frustrating, needless to say.
I went ahead and recreated my HBS forum thread on moving our BATTLETECH Multiplayer Community Forward, here as a Paradox Blog. #SomethingNEW! : )