|
Stravag posted:The base game has friendly fire I thought the base game had stray shots but not friendly fire?
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2019 04:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 05:51 |
|
|
Stravag posted:The base game has friendly fire Only if you have the DLC, maybe? I’m pretty sure it never happened during my playthrough of the base game (1.6).
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2019 04:37
|
|
|
The developers explicitly stated that they didn't add friendly fire, when they implemented stray shots. You can't accidentally hit your own mechs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2019 04:49
|
|
|
I have had playthru's where the game forgot to mark the drop-zone and Sumire flattened Dekker. Funniest extraction ever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2019 04:58
|
|
|
Oh i guess its a adv dif settings thing then. I knew you could adjust it to allies/enemies/all/none just figured that it was a yes/ no that got expanded. Oh well
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2019 06:05
|
|
|
NoNotTheMindProbe posted:At the PDXcon event they said that all the new mech chassis get inherent modules that make them more useful in specific roles. The Assassin gets a module that makes it ignore a certain number of evasion pips when targeting. If they're going the chassis quirk route, I hope they extend that to the existing mechs in the game. It'd be nice to have a reason to use a Dragon or Zeus.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2019 21:48
|
|
|
Bubbacub posted:If they're going the chassis quirk route, I hope they extend that to the existing mechs in the game. It'd be nice to have a reason to use a Dragon or Zeus. Do they have good quirks?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2019 01:36
|
|
|
Quirks are a new mechanic getting introduced with the next expansion for the new mechs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2019 01:42
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:Quirks are a new mechanic getting introduced with the next expansion for the new mechs. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2019 02:05
|
|
|
Bubbacub posted:If they're going the chassis quirk route, I hope they extend that to the existing mechs in the game. It'd be nice to have a reason to use a Dragon or Zeus. They already said they won't.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2019 03:06
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:They already said they won't. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2019 03:07
|
|
|
I'm hoping that was more along the lines of it would be too much work to get into this release and balanced
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2019 03:14
|
|
|
No, it's because they don't want to deal with remaking stock mech fits and potentially breaking player save files with now-invalid builds.
Conspiratiorist fucked around with this message at 03:34 on Nov 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2019 03:31
|
|
|
Sounds like no obstacles to having modded quirks for everything then. Except for modders insisting on making everything overpowered and being chronically unable to "balance" something by giving it meaningful drawbacks, that is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2019 03:36
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:Quirks are a new mechanic getting introduced with the next expansion for the new mechs. Maybe the Catapult K2 and Awesome will get quirks that make PPCs useful! (They won't.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2019 04:02
|
|
|
I can't wait for the assassin to be accidentally good
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2019 05:10
|
|
|
Assassin with a Coil-L, hitting for 160 damage that ignores 3 Evasion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2019 05:17
|
|
|
Custom Assassins are going to be absolute monsters in the very early game and in low tonnage multiplayer ( like anyone plays multi)
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2019 05:19
|
|
|
i played this at launch and it was pretty good but maybe lacking a little content-wise. are the DLCs good? what are the best ones? Any important mods come out?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2019 06:01
|
|
|
Flashpoint is great for career mode, Urban Warfare is fine. I'm a fna of 3025 Extended if you want stuff that fits the Era and still works by HBS Battletech rules.. Roguetech is giant overhaul that changes everything and adds content from all across the time line and hwo knows where else.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2019 06:14
|
|
|
Impermanent posted:i played this at launch and it was pretty good but maybe lacking a little content-wise. are the DLCs good? what are the best ones? Any important mods come out? In the base game campaign mode is the real game and career mode is just a side thing that only has random missions. The Flashpoint DLC makes career mode the real game by adding a *shitload* of multi part branching missions to it that are more varied and challenging than most of the campaign missions. Urban Warfare isn't as big/essential but adds more maps and mission types and some other stuff that's worth having.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2019 12:49
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:No, it's because they don't want to deal with remaking stock mech fits and potentially breaking player save files with now-invalid builds. Isn't that the point of quirks in the first place? That you have mechs with bonuses that are completely unimpacted by actual loadout? e.g. you get +1 to hit with ballistics, and if you don't equip a ballistic weapon, you're just a normal mech? Seems like I'll be best served not only waiting until after release, but also waiting until the modders make something good with the changes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2019 22:00
|
|
|
The way they're implementing quirks is with exclusive components ala Hatchet and Battle Computer. As they're destructible elements that take up critical slots in a specific section of the mech, and in some cases also tonnage, attaching them to existing fits would invariably render some invalid.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2019 22:26
|
|
|
That's not actually an issue because they can just leave existing saves unaffected and only have quirks for new games. Not wanting to redo stock mech loadouts is fair-ish, but it's not that much work and some of those mechs are so bad they can just make the quirks baked into the chassis rather than unique components and they'd still be okay at best (Cicada looking at you). Because really a quirks system that only affects a fraction of mechs is worse than not having a quirks system at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 02:36
|
|
|
I don't give a poo poo about my old saves, and the quirks should just boost the lovely mechs up to the level of good ones so it's not like the balance is way out of whack. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 03:37
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:The way they're implementing quirks is with exclusive components ala Hatchet and Battle Computer. if this is the case then I guess all non-Urbie light mechs will get a big target painted on them. Urbies will get an angelic halo for being perfect and pure.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 03:54
|
|
|
You say that like it's news.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 04:26
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/BATTLETECH_Game/status/1192184884615434240?s=20
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 22:02
|
|
|
Am I the only one who thinks that chassis quirks are a really bad idea? Unlike the construction system, which is constant across all mechs, chassis quirks are "what feels right" for a given mech, which often isn't balanced. I mean, the hatchet, EW equipment, and battle computer of the Hatchetman, Raven and Cyclops are all insanely OP and are balanced only by the fact that they are stuck on lackluster mechs. The marauder will not be a lackluster mech (it will basically be an Orion with different/no missile hardpoints) and it has this quirk that ... amplifies damage? I can think of a bunch of different ways to distinguish mech chassis that would be consistent across different mechs. EDIT: COIL lasers also seem like a really terrible idea for making light mechs useful in the endgame when the answer is, and always has been, to increase the number of mechs you can drop, while setting a drop tonnage that isn't equivalent to max number of mechs * 100. E.g. keep the (defacto) 400 ton drop limit, and allow players to bring 6 mechs. Organ Fiend fucked around with this message at 22:21 on Nov 6, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 22:18
|
|
|
Chassis aren't balanced, either, so quirks theoretically open a design space where hardpoints and engine:weight ratio aren't the ultimate considerations. On a 400 ton / 6 mech limit i'd bring 4 mediums and 2 assaults. Why waste slots on mechs that don't deal at least 200 damage?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 22:32
|
|
|
Organ Fiend posted:Am I the only one who thinks that chassis quirks are a really bad idea? Ask yourself what makes the Thunderbolt and Catapult such a decent mechs and the Dragon such a lovely one. It isn't the five ton weight difference. Some designs are just inherently poo poo. They make sense in the lore but from a gameplay perspective they are turds. Quirks can help counter balance that. edit: and for what it's worth, some designs sucking is OK. Every game needs a power curve, and some mechs being kind of garbage is part of that in BT. edit2: that isn't to say that quirks can't have problems. Like every design tool they can be done well or poorly. It remains to be seen how these will change things. I'd also argue that they need to go through and add some for the older mechs that just suck (hello, Dragon). I don't think we have any mechs yet that are 100% full on critical hit slots, so it would be as simple as creating fixed 0 ton, 1 crit slot equipment that goes wherever they have room.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 22:36
|
|
|
For a relatively brief and amazing time, the  MechWarrior game let dragons tackle other mechs at an advantage. You were undergunned but could still run down lighter mechs, bowl over other large mechs, or mutually take a fall in a top-speed crash into an Atlas or Awesome.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 22:48
|
|
|
Organ Fiend posted:the answer is, and always has been, to increase the number of mechs you can drop, while setting a drop tonnage that isn't equivalent to max number of mechs * 100. E.g. keep the (defacto) 400 ton drop limit, and allow players to bring 6 mechs. This would be a far, far harder thing to balance within the existing game system than quirks or COIL. I agree, but this design decision to only have 4 mechs influenced everything in the game and I don't think it could be changed without radically changing the game.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 23:15
|
|
|
Lockback posted:This would be a far, far harder thing to balance within the existing game system than quirks or COIL. I agree, but this design decision to only have 4 mechs influenced everything in the game and I don't think it could be changed without radically changing the game. Even if you left it at 4 mechs the answer to how to balance this game has always been tonnage limitations for drops. It's how every other BT/MW game has approached this and it's worked every time. Or, if you don't want to restrict players that much and want some reason why they can't bring their biggest poo poo, make each ton of drop weight cost a certain number of C-Bills. Call it fuel for the ship or whatever other poo poo you want to. Want to bring 400 tons of assault mechs to a half skull mission that pays 150k? OK, but you're going to lose money on the contract. Have a pimped as gently caress 130 ton lance of 3 lights and a medium and think you can swing that 3 skull with it? High risk, but if you pull it off high reward because you spent gently caress all on drop fees.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 23:23
|
|
|
Doesn't solve the 'problem' battletech has that one 100 ton mech is always more than twice as good as 2 50 ton mechs. The problem is that the mechbay exists, which means that every chassis inevitably becomes a collection of the exact same best set of weapons for the hardpoints it has, with the mechs able to fit more of those weapons being better than the ones that can't. The real options to 'fix' the game involve taking away some of the freedom that players have come to expect - 'fix' mechs to one of four loadouts because customisation is not a thing in 3025. Or fix the number of heatsinks and jumpjets a mech has to there's some customisation but within boundaries. Don't allow mechbay customisation at all, but allow indirect customisation by introducing a much deeper pilot skill tree that lets pilots who invest in particular mechs 'activate' quirks (the quirks are always there, it's just a veteran can take advantage of them when a rookie can't).
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 23:46
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Doesn't solve the 'problem' battletech has that one 100 ton mech is always more than twice as good as 2 50 ton mechs. Yeah, customization was only ever a computer game thing at least pre-omnimechs. I don't think that bell's getting un-rung, however. Plus, there's also the issue that if you're stuck with stock loadouts some mechs are just completely untenable. Think basically everything that has an AC5 taking up a good chunk of its tonnage (hello again, Dragon, how are you?). There are some deep-seated issues with the core game design, but frankly I don't think it's a system that's really ever going to be balanced where a 30 ton mech is the equivalent of a 100 ton mech. Personally I think it's best to recognize those limitations and find ways around them. In a TT campaign you can take a page from the actual real-world reasons why a M1 Abrams isn't categorically better in every case than an armored car or even a Jeep. Stuff like transportation (can stick a jeep in a cargo plane and throw it out the back on a parachute, not so much with an Abrams), local infrastructure (jeeps don't need a reinforced bridge to cross a river), and even maintenance and upkeep (a jeep needs a lot less gas than an Abrams), coupled with what kind of threats your facing. All things equal a jeep with a MG on it is better to have in a sudden fight with infantry than an Abrams that's gassing up 100 miles to the rear of where you are. In TT you can work that stuff in, a bit. I think there could be ways to do it in a game, but it would require a different approach and probably not work with procedurally generated stuff. It would help a lot if there was off-board artillery or infantry, two areas that light mechs were kind of designed to work in.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 00:02
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Doesn't solve the 'problem' battletech has that one 100 ton mech is always more than twice as good as 2 50 ton mechs. That actually sounds really good, as long as the loadouts don't suck. Like, take the stock Shadowhawk for example; AC/5, MLas, SRM-2 and LRM-5. This is bad, but with the slightest bit of rejiggering (Remove LRMs and ammo, pack 2x SRM-4) it becomes a very serviceable brawler with a decent long-range punch in the shoulder gun, and a "sweet spot" where the minimum range of the AC/5 overlaps with the maximum range of the SRMs and MLas. Mechlab lets you do this, yeah, but it also lets you remove the shouldergun and that's bad.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 00:07
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Chassis aren't balanced, either, so quirks theoretically open a design space where hardpoints and engine:weight ratio aren't the ultimate considerations. I agree entirely that the chassis aren't balanced, and that opening the design space in ways that go beyond CBT are the way to go. All I'm saying is that it should be something with consistent rules rather than a "this mech can do this" thing. For example giving the marauder a "weapons do more damage" quirk is bad. But adding a "advanced targeting computer", that does the same thing, that costs X tons, Y slots and fits in Z section(s), that shows up in the MAD stock config, and that can be salvaged and mounted on any mech would be great. For another example, fixing the over-engined assaults by giving them some kind of special quirks (like "only the CP-Z carries the battle computer) is a bad idea, but either breaking the timeline and adding advanced tech early (XL/light engines) or adding some non CBT construction rule, like giving all mechs free heatsinks equal to engine mass over X (this is in addition to engine heatsinks, per CBT rules) would be fine.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 00:45
|
|
|
Organ Fiend posted:...adding a "advanced targeting computer", that does the same thing, that costs X tons, Y slots and fits in Z section(s), that shows up in the MAD stock config, and that can be salvaged and mounted on any mech would be great. This is actually dumb and bad because it doesn’t fix anything and arguably makes things worse. Instead it changes a hypothetical “don’t use the Marauder, it sucks” to “salvage a Marauder, rip out the targeting computer and put that in your Orion, then sell the Marauder”. It might actually be worse than not doing quirks at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 00:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 05:51 |
|
|
Either you let players pick an optimal loadout, in which case mechs instantly sort themselves into whether or not they are good for optimal loadouts, or you make everything really good at something but sub-optimal in other ways. I'm very much a fan of the latter, because at least then the game designer can put some interesting choices in the player's path.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 00:55
|
|