Call me crazy but a blog seem like a bad idea. It's important this this type of thing be visible, and nobody will stumble upon a blog while skimming the forum, they'd have to know it exists and seek it out.
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.
I've been creamed in tutorial missions before. Both in TBS games like this as well as FPS games but I didn't quit. I just tried again. Again, if a new player is going to quite the game, just because he failed a mission, or got beat by the computer, I don't think that player was going to stick with the game anyway.
I can see where the campaign failure is coming from as that happens A LOT in XCOM 2. But I think that's more due to the fact that they use a turn time and if the counter hits zero, it's game over.
In HBS' game, the only "fail/lose" condition is bankruptcy. And we don't know how hard that is but I do know that they've worked really hard to make sure that that doesn't happen very often. They've worked so hard, in fact, to prevent or limit that situation that some of us think the that "spirit" of the game has, or could be, lessened due to those concessions.
In a nutshell, losing sucks. Missing that 95% shot sucks. And maybe losing to the computer is worse than losing to a human opponent but I don't feel that it sucks bad enough to remove what some consider a fundamental part of the "feel" (of course this is subjective) of game.
Okay, I've never played Company of Heroes but it sounds like it might be a FPS, if I'm wrong then I apologize but I think what I'm about to say is relevant regardless of genre.
It sounds like people are upset that they can't 100% control the outcome of a battle down to the last minute. They want to play a "wargame" but don't want any of the "random" factors that play a part in an actual war. I mean, I know that's now what's actually happening but that tank that's limping away with 2 health got "lucky". Whether conditions? No on can plan for that. And while it would suck to watch a blizzard roll in and pretty much render all your plans moot, isn't there a way to incorporate the blizzard, or other weather patterns into a new battle plan?
I got nothing on the downed planes. That just plain bites.
Company of Heroes is a Strategy game, it is available on steam as we are here for a strategy game it may even be interesting to you
This is not about control but arbitrariness. And it is kind of based in Human nature, if there is not logical pattern to observe of why someone beat you in something people believe that things did not went fairly, basically that someone cheated.
Different from TT you do not see the dice rolls and the whole dice rolling through RNG shenanigans are a bit arcane to most players and it will always result in a lot of people feeling they have arbitrarily lost to something.
This feeling is increased due to the fact that scripted computer controlled enemies could always be coded in a way that skews the random chances in their favor (in fact thats what they do a lot, and often have to do due to it lacking the creativity of humans)
Also it is not even close to omit the "random" factors of war. You can still fully miss a firestarter on an Aplhastrike from an Atlas. You can still spread your damage in a away that you are plinking away solely on the enemy armor while the enemy has crits and crits when firing back. You do not know (well that depends on how complex the AI is) which of your units is targeted by the AI, you do not know (inherently) all Positions of the Enemy indirectly firing Mechs.
The Argument that there is not Randomness or people are trying to control everything is simply not true, even a game like the Banner Saga that is mostly deterministic has a very interesting and strategic aspect.
I also Wonder why people would suggest that Balance is subjective, it is definitely not. However true balance in Assymetrical gamedesign is something that cant be really achieved as it definitely is dependend on soft skills and specific forms of utility of external factors and incredibly complex mathematically to boot.
re: Company of Heroes. I'll take a look always looking for new R/TBS. /salue
I can kind of see your point on the whole arbitrariness. In fact, I think I've encountered that a few times. But, and we're kind of straying away from the point here I think. If you wanted to include something that has an A + B = C formula, then every time some does A + B they will get C. Regardless of what else is done. Or am I completely missing the point here?
As for the quote part, how? How can you do that without RNG being a thing? Especially in a TBS* where you're not in direct control of the unit in question?
But it is. You (and this is just an example, I really don't think you think this) might think that "balance" is allowing a Locust to stand toe-to-toe with an Atlas and have a 50/50 shot at winning where as I would think that that would be a laughable pairing and if the Locust was allowed to win because of "balance" then balance was screwed.
*Just now realized that that acronym is also that of a TV station here . . . .
If TACs and full ammo explosions were included I have no doubt we would lose players and get negative reviews because of them. A big part of it is player understandability. It is one thing to lose an Atlas to an AC/20 headshot. It is something entirely different to lose that Atlas to an LRM 5 outside of contact range getting a TAC to the ammo. One can be predicted and managed. The other can not. Effects that can't be predicted or controlled take away from the value of a good strategy.
Further, in a campaign style game like this, any low probability/ high impact mechanic favors the computer. If I head cap an enemy mech early in a mission, great. The mission will be easier and I might get some good salvage out of it.
If one of my mechs gets head capped at the start of the mission, I probably need to abort. Further, the mech will need a lot of repairs and I probably just lost a pilot that I could have been training for months of game time.
The computer doesn't care about those after combat effects, so the impact of critical hits (head shots or TACs) isn't the same for both sides.
Further, in a campaign style game like this, any low probability/ high impact mechanic favors the computer. If I head cap an enemy mech early in a mission, great. The mission will be easier and I might get some good salvage out of it.
If one of my mechs gets head capped at the start of the mission, I probably need to abort. Further, the mech will need a lot of repairs and I probably just lost a pilot that I could have been training for months of game time.
The computer doesn't care about those after combat effects, so the impact of critical hits (head shots or TACs) isn't the same for both sides.
The issue is that it is not a clearcut A + B = C formula even IF you do not have any RNG. Strategy involves thinking ahead with missing information and still winning, otherwise i would call it Puzzle (not that there is anything wrong with that). So basically it revolves around this Principle, even if we went fully deterministic: A + B = C but only if X + Y = Z but you do not have control over the variable X, Y or Z.
Or to make a less abstract example: You can assume that if you play chess the same every time you play it you will get the same results, unless your opponent does something else.
That is the reason why RNG is factually not the only way to represent the unknown variables in war, even though it can be used for that.
Ah i believe you misunderstood my quote here. The first answer is what i wrote above, not all unknown variables are due to random factors but a lot of the examples i mentioned in the quote like: "An Atlas missing a firestarter completely with an alpha strike" was me trying to say that in fact Battletech has RNG involved and i do not think its detrimental. What i meant is that just because some effects (like headcapping) has been toned down does not mean that there are no Random Factors.
And while im one of the rare specimen who would like absolutely no randomness in games, i can appreciate that a lot of games go down that route to add even more variables and another layer of things going awry and i do understand that people like it. It is always a matter of "how much" rather than "Its bad", i hope that is clearer now.
For me there is simply a limit of frustration i do not like, i am a Warhammer 40k player and there it can be sometimes irksome, but with friends around the table it is a rather fun excercise, something a computer simply can not emulate.
The worst offender by far is still, and i will never be tired of mentioning it, Bloodbowl (The digital one, i guess in a TT situation i may think differently). As a avid fan of Warhammer it is something i should like but at the same time i had a game where 8 of my chaos players died against some tackling highelfs. It is the worst example of RNG i know.
Yeah i can see why you would think that with this example. Balance does not have to be symmetrical, balance is achieved if a designed mechanic is as viable in its designated role without hampering the viability of other mechanics.
in your example Balance achieved can be that a locust can stay toe-to-toe with an Atlas or it can mean that a Locust get completely annihilated by an Atlas. Imbalance happens when a Locust that should be able to stay toe to toe with an Atlas looses most of the time or if it should stand no chance and it can be used to easily dispatch an Atlas. The problem is not that an issue is not observable but mostly that an issue can not be changed without changing different aspects as well.
In such a situation you would have to analyse if it is the Atlas that under performs or the Locust over performs as an example but at the same time changing the Atlas to make it stronger could make the shadowhawks intended balance of beating an Atlas not viable anymore.
And it is that dynamic that makes these things basically unsolvable, not the fact that they are subjective. Additionally, and i speak with absolute experience here there is no way that there isnt at least one person who uses the thing you (practically impossible) just perfectly balanced and use it in a way you never thought about that completely destroys any original intend.
It does not matter in the end actually, so i would like to stop the debate about subjectivity or objectivity of balance here if possible. Not only do i feel we are kind of derrailing but the most important fact is that regardless perfect Balance is practically unachievable anyways (The debate is if it is achievable theoretically) and i feel that further elaboration would not be fruitful on this topic.
I disagree. There's no fundamental difference at work. Note: the MechCommander games also had a substantial amount of RNG in them. You could, hypothetically, lose half your pilots in the first mission, for example. Same as with both old and new X-Com. Randomness creates scenarios which cannot be perfectly planned or optimized for, as does limited tactical and strategic information.
A good wargame, whether it's a strategic/logistic sort of deal or a squad-based tactical deal, will continually lob situations at the player which force them to make the best decisions they can in suboptimal conditions. Try modding nuCOM so that there's no fog of war on the Battlescape, every weapon is a guaranteed hit that does a single set amount of damage, and every Geoscape event happens at the exact same time and place in every campaign. Voila, the game is now boring.
A lot of people talk about balance and with a game like this, a turn based strategy game, the only balance we get is that you and your opponent are using the same weapons and have access to the same mechs to play with.
Everything else is a combination of skill, tactics and luck. Just like real combat.
Everything else is a combination of skill, tactics and luck. Just like real combat.
It's an RTS that uses squads rather than individual units for infantry (exception being snipers).
The issue at hand is basically the fact that the units, for the most part, don't plan on the blizzard being there because most units are not short range units that can use the blizzard to close range. The other little thing about the blizzard is that to actually attack anybody with infantry during a blizzard, you have to place the campfires to keep your units warm ahead of time (because freezing to death was actually implemented for blizzards in the game). The problem here being that the campfires required resources to set up, and they were obviously flimsy enough that the enemy can just kill the campfires before any blizzard starts to make it a nightmare to attack.
Back to the point though, it is basically that, and what @Jade_Rook points out in terms of understanding why their plan failed, and figuring out ways to get around it next time. There's no way you can really get around RNG that has no real countermeasure, like fallen planes, or tanks suffering critical hits instead of dying (which, in Company of Heroes, instead of instantly dying, there was a chance of the last shot killing the engine or the main gun instead the rest of the tank), or blizzards. You'll notice even in XCOM, how grenades are 'broken' because they guarantee damage, instead of the 95% misses, and the damage range of the weapons.
Hello
I do not agree that Battletech should not achieve high goals.
Instead, he should head to the PvP multiplayer Solaris league and then to e-sports.
The HBS has to focus on balancing the game after the game and, above all, trying to get the promised PvP Solaris.
I think HBS are so great and they work well that RNG will not make them a problem in balancing the game to go play PvP mod of Solaris 7 game.
The HBS has to go beyond high goals to attract as many people as possible.
Do I need an explanation of what's going on in the game?
1: Base skirmish game: -what does this mode mean? and what is going to play in it.
2:Single-Player Story Campaign: -What will be the campaign, how many missions will there be?
3:Expanded mercenary campaign: -This mode will be on the ship argo and we will go into space on the mission. How many will it be about? 50 missions?
4: PvP multiplayer: -For me the most important mode for me to make the game uncomfortable until I play both campaigns.
To have everything to play?
What does PvP multiplayer offer us? Only combat friendly games against man?
And the last thing I would like to know is how much the pre-order of the game has already been sold.
there is the chance to look at the graph of how the game has a success.
Thanks for the anwers.
Thanks you.
I do not agree that Battletech should not achieve high goals.
Instead, he should head to the PvP multiplayer Solaris league and then to e-sports.
The HBS has to focus on balancing the game after the game and, above all, trying to get the promised PvP Solaris.
I think HBS are so great and they work well that RNG will not make them a problem in balancing the game to go play PvP mod of Solaris 7 game.
The HBS has to go beyond high goals to attract as many people as possible.
Do I need an explanation of what's going on in the game?
1: Base skirmish game: -what does this mode mean? and what is going to play in it.
2:Single-Player Story Campaign: -What will be the campaign, how many missions will there be?
3:Expanded mercenary campaign: -This mode will be on the ship argo and we will go into space on the mission. How many will it be about? 50 missions?
4: PvP multiplayer: -For me the most important mode for me to make the game uncomfortable until I play both campaigns.
To have everything to play?
What does PvP multiplayer offer us? Only combat friendly games against man?
And the last thing I would like to know is how much the pre-order of the game has already been sold.
there is the chance to look at the graph of how the game has a success.
Thanks for the anwers.
Thanks you.
So point 4 is not met and promised HBS and players have subscribed to the mod !!!
after the release of the game I expect the promised and paid mod in the game to arrive! Time...time......time......but perhaps soon.
Point 4 is paid and will be there. https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/webeharebrained/battletech/description
-The neutral planet of Solaris VII is home to the Inner Sphere’s most famous gladiatorial 'Mech combat arenas. Here players can challenge each other to casual PvP battles or enter our
matchmaking system to be matched against an appropriately experienced opponent.
Each Great House maintains an embassy and a namesake arena on Solaris VII and each has very different gameplay features - from the Roman-inspired Steiner Coliseum to the frozen glaciers of Davion’s Boreal Reach (or one of Davion’s many other holographic environs).
Tournaments and Leagues will reward the victor with various prizes and Leaderboard fame.
Many people will be waiting for this point.!!!
Hi FLOYD_CZ, well I will try to help with some answers.
1: The base skirmish mode is you taking up to 4 mechs onto a map against the computer AI's mechs in a battle to the death. This is a practice/experiment type play mode as there is no continuation between skirmish battles.
2: The campaignis you doing various missions for lady Arano to try and get her kingdom back. We have no information on how many missions are in the campaign.
3: The expanded mercenary campaign, is not actually a campaign. It is just random missions that you can do while doing the campaign. There is no limit to the number of random missions you can do before, during or after the campaign.
4: PvP mode is only the skirmish mode from the Beta where you play against another player with the same type of limitations of the skirmish against the AI. 4 mechs max for each side on various maps and no effect on the campaign.
1: The base skirmish mode is you taking up to 4 mechs onto a map against the computer AI's mechs in a battle to the death. This is a practice/experiment type play mode as there is no continuation between skirmish battles.
2: The campaignis you doing various missions for lady Arano to try and get her kingdom back. We have no information on how many missions are in the campaign.
3: The expanded mercenary campaign, is not actually a campaign. It is just random missions that you can do while doing the campaign. There is no limit to the number of random missions you can do before, during or after the campaign.
4: PvP mode is only the skirmish mode from the Beta where you play against another player with the same type of limitations of the skirmish against the AI. 4 mechs max for each side on various maps and no effect on the campaign.
Looking at the history of this development studio: when they did a Kickstarter campaign for Shadowrun, they reached the funding goal for a second city. The second city didn't make it for the initial release, but it turned into a whole second game they developed in the new city. Kickstarter backers were not let down, they got the second game for free because it was a goal of the original funding campaign. No promises, but assuming BattleTech sells well, it's very reasonable to expect a followup expansion or standalone campaign for the Solaris VII PvP tournaments, and Kickstarter backers would most likely get that for free based on past precedents.
FLOYD_CZ, the mercenary campaign means that the game never actually ends even after you finish the storyline (you can also ignore the main storyline and watch Lady Arano fail, after which her opposing faction in the civil war becomes a potential employer for you in her place). The mercenary campaign lets you pick your choice of missions from any employer across all the star systems in this area of the periphery: a few great houses, some minor houses, even pirates, corporations, and ComStar appear to be possible employers, all with their own reputation to earn. At least some factions have uncommon or rare quality enhanced items (such as a PPC that does bonus damage) that you can perhaps buy from only that one particular faction and may be restricted by reputation. So there will be a lot to do aside from the main campaign missions, and there's no limit to the number of missions you can do.
@FLOYD_CZ, much has been written in response to the BATTLETECH Update that cancelled or delayed elements of BATTLETECH's Kickstarter: Update #47 - State of the Game Update
Similar to you, I was greatly disappointed and effectively communicated that disappointment to HBS.
In the most recent Dev Q&A, HBS emphasized the high value it places on hearing from its Backers. The more gamers that join us in support of the cancelled elements of BATTLETECH Competitive Multiplayer (Player Ranking System, League Play, "Prize" Tournaments, Leaderboards, etc) the better we make our case as HBS and BATTLETECH move forward.
I've also started a Paradox Blog in support of moving our BATTLETECH Competitive Multiplayer Community Forward: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...ompetitive-multiplayer-community-forward.332/
Similar to you, I was greatly disappointed and effectively communicated that disappointment to HBS.
In the most recent Dev Q&A, HBS emphasized the high value it places on hearing from its Backers. The more gamers that join us in support of the cancelled elements of BATTLETECH Competitive Multiplayer (Player Ranking System, League Play, "Prize" Tournaments, Leaderboards, etc) the better we make our case as HBS and BATTLETECH move forward.
I've also started a Paradox Blog in support of moving our BATTLETECH Competitive Multiplayer Community Forward: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...ompetitive-multiplayer-community-forward.332/
@Lord of Riva, @Wanderer2142, @Jade_Rook
Thanks for the explanations guys. It was much appreciated.
I do think I have a bit better understanding now.
Thanks for the explanations guys. It was much appreciated.
I do think I have a bit better understanding now.
On the strategic layer that is true yes, but even then XCOM 2 gives players a lot of tools to mitigate that, such that the only time you'll ever really lose in the strategy layer is if 1) you're a new player unaccustomed to the game's beat, 2) you become complacent, which is more the player's fault then, 3) you're playing at the highest difficulty, or 4) you hit a bug, which is rare on the strategy layer. Hell, by the time the War of the Chosen expansion comes around, you're given so many more tools to use that losing in the strategy layer seems kinda unthinkable. I'm not a player in same league as people like Beaglerush who beat the highest difficulties under the most punishing conditions, but I've only ever hit a campaign failure twice in the game at Commander difficulty, and most of those were back when I was still getting to grips with how the game plays.
Despite the RNG present in XCOM 2, it offers a lot of tools that players can use to mitigate that though proper planning and tactics, and that is what a good wargame should have. Basically, such games test your ability to plan two to three steps ahead, so even if RNG makes your shots miss or kills a soldier, you still have backups to fall upon.
@LGear
I misspoke. I should have clarified that I didn't mean the campaign was over but that that mission was a failure.
Needless to say, I really hate the turn timers.
I misspoke. I should have clarified that I didn't mean the campaign was over but that that mission was a failure.
Needless to say, I really hate the turn timers.
The *mission* is over yes.... but the game isn't, and XCOM 2 is explicitly set up that losing a mission is a setback, rather than leading to a campaign failure (unless your prior strategic planning is quite subpar).
And the WotC expansion gives even more options at mitigating mission turn timers, such as an option to double the turn timers such that they become a non-issue in missions.