|
Psion posted:You're right that there's no reason it can't be done, but there's a reason you don't see it: players overwhelmingly reloaded saves to stay on the winning track. WC1 had 13 systems, each with 3-4 missions, and a winning track player saw 5. It was one of their first lessons Origin learned -- even WC2 cut back on the branching drastically and the rest followed suit.
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 20:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 00:40 |
|
|
Norton the First posted:We're way out in the weeds, but is this something that Asimov goes into after the original trilogy? I thought the Second Foundation was in the galactic capital and the First was out in the rear end-end of nowhere, and that as the Empire collapsed the First Foundation was as much in the dark about what was going on in the galactic center as anyone else. It doesn't seem sensible that the Second Foundation could be manipulating things way out in the periphery in the ComStar-like era where even nuclear reactors were only maintained by a "priesthood." That's the point. The Second Foundation are not manipulating the Periphery; they're manipulating the First Foundation. That's why Second Foundation (the book) is about trying to find them and eliminate them - the First Foundation see themselves as empire builders and don't want to be controlled, especially not by a Second Foundation who would simply turn up and become the new ruling class. By the end of 2F they think they've succeeded, and it's another 200 years before Golan Trevise points out how incredibly complacent it is to assume the Second Foundation fixed all the damage to the Plan before being conveniently removed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 20:42
|
|
|
Ardlen posted:Star Fox had 3 routes based on how you were doing and you'd only see some of the systems on each run. But the game was short enough that there was no save and you'd want to replay it to see the other options anyway. Maybe they could do something similar where the better you do, the harder the missions get? I'd rather do gooder = make things easier, myself. I remember reading a PC Gamer preview for a fighter sim in the 90s where they (vastly over-) promised that the campaign would be dynamic. If you succeeded in the optional objective to blow up a fuel depot, that would affect what forces you'd meet in the next mission. I think that sort of thing could be scripted into a game like BattleTech without it becoming a development quagmire, and it would encourage a player to be audacious when they otherwise don't have to be. It's fun to be audacious in games when there's some reward for it. Jedit posted:That's the point. The Second Foundation are not manipulating the Periphery; they're manipulating the First Foundation. I don't understand how they could manipulate the First Foundation in an era when absolutely no news was getting to (...checks Wikipedia) Terminus from (...checks Wikipedia) Trantor. Presumably it took them a substantial amount of time (and breeding?) just to get the whole psychic thing working right, or there wouldn't even need to be a First Foundation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 21:09
|
|
|
Mechwarrior 5: Not as exciting as talking about a 70 year old Asimov novel
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 21:12
|
|
|
Norton the First posted:I'd rather do gooder = make things easier, myself. Conversely, this makes the game a death spiral for bad players, as each failed attempt makes the rest harder.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 21:12
|
|
|
Orcs and Ostriches posted:Conversely, this makes the game a death spiral for bad players, as each failed attempt makes the rest harder. Ultimately, it's a video game, and you have to do something to pass a level. The level of dynamism where you can just accept defeat and all of a sudden your whole invasion has failed and you're desperately guarding the last DropShip off the planet... OK, that would own, actually, but a game like that would be once in a generation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 21:20
|
|
|
And Tyler Too! posted:PGI is an astoundingly incompetent developer. I hope they sell the Mechwarrior rights to a company who knows what they hell they're doing. Good news, they don't own the rights to Mechwarrior. They license it from Microsoft.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 21:30
|
|
|
Q_res posted:Good news, they don't own the rights to Mechwarrior. They license it from Microsoft. Didn't MS license it to them for another decade?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 21:52
|
|
|
Last I checked it was up for renewal after this year and Russ hasn't been willing to talk about it in the recent MW5 Q&As.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 22:01
|
|
|
Got a hunchback 4p thinking about setting up a laser death rave group.   
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 22:09
|
|
|
Lawman 0 posted:Got a hunchback 4p thinking about setting up a laser death rave group. Don't sleep on the support hardpoints for small lasers too! 
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 22:13
|
|
|
Q_res posted:Good news, they don't own the rights to Mechwarrior. They license it from Microsoft. Okay then they need to stop so a good studio can take the reigns.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 22:16
|
|
|
And Tyler Too! posted:Okay then they need to stop so a good studio can take the reigns. Microsoft owns Obsidian now...
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 22:17
|
|
|
Here's a radical idea - let smaller mechs double up and triple up in their hexes in the late game. So at some point you stop brining a locust and you starting bringing a squad of locusts instead. Or you know, accept that bigger better mechs will always obsolete smaller worse mechs as long as speed is both a) not tied to weight (and therefore firepower) and b) not a useful thing to have.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 03:24
|
|
|
Mmm haha here comes a grasshopper too 
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 03:39
|
|
|
Norton the First posted:I remember reading a PC Gamer preview for a fighter sim in the 90s where they (vastly over-) promised that the campaign would be dynamic. If you succeeded in the optional objective to blow up a fuel depot, that would affect what forces you'd meet in the next mission. I think that sort of thing could be scripted into a game like BattleTech without it becoming a development quagmire, and it would encourage a player to be audacious when they otherwise don't have to be. It's fun to be audacious in games when there's some reward for it. I'm following a Tiberian Sun LP and that game definitely had this kind of thing. Where you'd start, difficulties you'd face, reinforcements you'd get, things like that changed up. It would mesh well if the side missions are failable or on a timer or something, or impossible to perfectly run. Wreck things up then extract, and the more damage you do the more you pull the enemy forces away for the next mission!
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 03:59
|
|
|
Are the Foundation books actually good reads or just interesting concepts?DatonKallandor posted:Here's a radical idea - let smaller mechs double up and triple up in their hexes in the late game. So at some point you stop brining a locust and you starting bringing a squad of locusts instead. I actually think we're in a good spot where in regular campaigns you bulk up as you play and then Flashpoints put in arbitrary limits for fun so you use your super-decked-out lights; I had a super Centurion I kept around just for them (it beat the BSC 1 on 1!). RBA Starblade fucked around with this message at 04:23 on Oct 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 04:21
|
|
|
e: whoops
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 04:23
|
|
|
DatonKallandor posted:Here's a radical idea - let smaller mechs double up and triple up in their hexes in the late game. So at some point you stop brining a locust and you starting bringing a squad of locusts instead.. Add to that the idea of dropping in a certain tonnage, organised into multiple lances as needed. You could bring an Atlas... or a load of Urbies, just R2D2ing around the place. Or R2AC20, depending on how you're feeling.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 05:29
|
|
|
And Tyler Too! posted:PGI is an astoundingly incompetent developer. I hope they sell the Mechwarrior rights to a company who knows what they hell they're doing. doesn't exist, because mechwarrior-tier battletech plays like a whacky tank game out of necessity to make it actually playable and controllable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 05:54
|
|
|
IshmaelZarkov posted:Add to that the idea of dropping in a certain tonnage, organised into multiple lances as needed. You could bring an Atlas... or a load of Urbies, just R2D2ing around the place. Or R2AC20, depending on how you're feeling.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 05:54
|
|
|
IshmaelZarkov posted:Add to that the idea of dropping in a certain tonnage, organised into multiple lances as needed. You could bring an Atlas... or a load of Urbies, just R2D2ing around the place. Or R2AC20, depending on how you're feeling. This is the way to do it. I have no idea why they didn’t do this, as it’s worked for every other iteration of MW or BT games. The merc thing to do would be to make the “tonnage limit” a per ton drop cost. Think you can do that four star with only lights? If you’re right you’ll make bank with the low drop cost. Want to run that half star with 400 tons of king crab? Ok, but you’ll end up spending more to land them than you make.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 06:03
|
|
|
I'd actually prefer a system where the game responds to how you complete objectives in a 'there isn't a wrong choice' fashion - complete a mission with lights and the AI responds to that, maybe by bringing more bug hunters, or do it with grinding out every enemy on the map with assaults and it responds another way - you gave it time to bring in an assault lance of its own. Whatever. the problem is that means mission design has to be flexible enough to let you do it a variety of ways which would require retooling like, basically everything. so it's an unlikely level of complexity but it'd be cool
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 06:42
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:Are the Foundation books actually good reads or just interesting concepts? I've read the "original trilogy"* twice, and to my recollection the first book holds up just fine, the second and third really hang a lot on you not having the plot spoiled. It's a bit hokey but I'd say it's worth at least starting; if you don't like it then just drop it. *the three books are actually collections of short stories that were originally published in the late 40s and 50s. The sequel books were all written in like the 80s; I remember reading the fourth book and being thoroughly unimpressed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 06:43
|
|
|
Norton the First posted:Ultimately, it's a video game, and you have to do something to pass a level. The level of dynamism where you can just accept defeat and all of a sudden your whole invasion has failed and you're desperately guarding the last DropShip off the planet... OK, that would own, actually, but a game like that would be once in a generation. If I remember right the old Wing Commander games had branching paths where too many failed missions would result in the campaign going down the "bad path".
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 07:06
|
|
|
Wow, a campaign mission just gives you a free highlander + a bunch of assault salvage. Was not expecting that. I can see now that the campaign is the easy mode introduction to the game and career mode must be the main mode because this is just silly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 13:13
|
|
|
CompeAnansi posted:Wow, a campaign mission just gives you a free highlander + a bunch of assault salvage. Was not expecting that. I can see now that the campaign is the easy mode introduction to the game and career mode must be the main mode because this is just silly. It's not any ordinary Highlander, it's a SLDF-era Highlander! 
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 13:18
|
|
|
And Tyler Too! posted:It's not any ordinary Highlander, it's a SLDF-era Highlander! It's completely disgusting lmao
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 13:22
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:If your alpha strike [heat generated - heat dissipated] is less than 12, your mech is likely too cold. If it's higher than 21, it's likely too hot. I was re-reading your great post on build rules. They all made sense to be but this one. I absolutely hate having to spend a turn doing nothing but jumping + guarding to vent heat, so I've been building my mechs at least heat neutral and mostly with a bit of a heat deficit (if possible) to compensate for the heat from jumping. Can you tell me why being heat neutral is a bad thing? It sounds like more damage over time compared to running hot if you add it up across 10-15 rounds since you never have a down round. EDIT: Min-maxing games like this is how I have fun with them. So, that's the perspective I'm usually coming from when asking about mechanics or builds. CompeAnansi fucked around with this message at 14:15 on Oct 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 13:38
|
|
|
It's in some ways a question of if you want to play the game in the most efficient manner possible or (possibly) in a different manner that you enjoy more. The 'Core an enemy each turn with precision shots to the CT' gameplay style doesn't appeal to everyone. Some people enjoy playing the less efficient but for them more enjoyable punchbot style of game more.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 13:41
|
|
|
If you have more guns you can always turn off a couple to run heat neutral and still be able to get a big alpha when you need it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 13:53
|
|
|
If the mech isn't melting there aren't enough lasers
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 14:14
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:If the mech isn't melting there aren't enough lasers
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 14:18
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:If the mech isn't melting there aren't enough lasers I'm pretty early in a Career and right now my lance has three firestarters in it, one of which has six medium lasers  It only fires every three turns but it's so, so satisfying
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 14:30
|
|
|
Doc Walrus posted:I'm pretty early in a Career and right now my lance has three firestarters in it, one of which has six medium lasers I loving love the firestarter
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 14:33
|
|
|
Lawman 0 posted:I loving love the firestarter It's the best fast moving light mech for sure.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 14:45
|
|
|
CompeAnansi posted:Can you tell me why being heat neutral is a bad thing? It sounds like more damage over time compared to running hot if you add it up across 10-15 rounds since you never have a down round. I build my mechs to overload their heat while getting into punching range, after which they cool down while punching. So being heat neutral would waste a couple of rounds of firepower.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 14:49
|
|
|
Emong posted:If you have more guns you can always turn off a couple to run heat neutral and still be able to get a big alpha when you need it. Ok, this does make some sense. So the basic idea is have heat neutral set of weapons with a couple free tons, then throw on a couple MLs or an SRM that you can optionally fire if it's worth the heat debt?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 16:39
|
|
|
CompeAnansi posted:Ok, this does make some sense. So the basic idea is have heat neutral set of weapons with a couple free tons, then throw on a couple MLs or an SRM that you can optionally fire if it's worth the heat debt? More or less yes. You should think about the role your mech is going to play, which will effect heat considerations. For LRM boats or fire support mechs, you'll be firing pretty much every turn, so these mechs should run the coolest. Not heat neutral, but cool enough to fire for 5+ turns (i.e. the time it takes to eliminate a lance) without any big problems. They can cool down when moving between objectives or when finishing off critical targets (i.e. don't need to fire all 80 LRMs at a guy with 5 structure in the CT). For laser knife backstabbers/flankers (think HBK-Ps and GHRs), these guys should run really hot, and ideally should have a pilot with coolant flush and at least tactics 6 (tac 9 ultimately). The purpose of these guys is to get into the rear arc or vulnerable side arc and kill the mech in a single precision strike. Because they carry alot of heat sinks anyway, they'll cool down alot in only one turn of downtime. A variant of these type of mechs is the melee mech. The configuration is mostly the same, although the melee mech might run with fewer lasers/hs in favor of +damage arm mods, and the melee mech plays differently. Instead of going for quick kills (although with the laser boat config, it can), its focusing more on constant damage, where one or two turns it alphas, the next turn it punches/cools down. Both of these kind of mechs, but especially the melee mechs, benefit from having alot of support hardpoints in addition to energy hardpoints. Line mechs, are basically what you described. Not as hot as laser knifes/melee, but not as cool as FS. These are guys with laser/AC/SRM combinations that have big alphas and can keep firing for several turns before overheating. At this point, you spend a few turns firing only your cooler weapons (ACs/SRMs) you you melee instead. These mechs are general purpose fighters and usually have Vanguard (bulwark/master tactician) pilots.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 17:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 00:40 |
|
|
So Heavy Metal's not out for 3 more weeks? For some reason I thought it was early November
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 18:37
|
|
