Comiseration with *that* guy. Anyone else unhappy with HBS BT?

[Elmoth]

The only real heavy danger is the SRM carrier I would say. And that is if you are not using terrain and defensive stances... The other 2 are not more dangerous than a low end medium.

[Daryk]

LRM Carriers need to die as quickly as possible if any of the enemy has line of sight on you.  The only exception is if you can kill the LOS providing targets faster...

[Elmoth]

Dunno. I never had much trouble with them, but then I always go for defensive buffs, movement and forests instead of going to aimed shots.

[Daryk]

They were easier to handle on my second playthrough (Lancers FTW), but still priority targets.

[Jim1701]

How would you return a digital purchase?

I would feel pretty bad if a game with several proposed expansions only had a 20% success rate to finish the core game. And I don't know of many playing online. I never have and I don't find the gameplay compelling enough to do so.

I admit this is just conjecture because we don't have the total numbers in front of us. And I doubt HBS will release them.

Actually, the campaign isn't the core game.  The core game is the skirmish mode.  The campaign was a stretch goal add on.

[Elmoth]

Really? I thought it was the other way around.  Is people playing the skirmish version?

[Jim1701]

Really? I thought it was the other way around.  Is people playing the skirmish version?

That is an excellent question.  I haven't tried it much myself mostly because of the apparent domination of missiles in the game.  I like playing with all the toys so having to rely heavily on missiles is not appealing to me.  I figure at some point I'll give it a go.  But yes, the single player campaign was funded at 1.1 million.

[Notsonoble]

I do find the hardpoint system a little off-putting, you can repair a mech that was ct cored and lost multiple limbs rebuild literally from just a cockpit, but you can't convert a shd-2h to a 2d? Wut?

[Colt Ward]

Prevents the horrors of MW3 . . .

While I would like to be able to take 2 pieces of a HBK-4G and a piece of -4P and make a Hunchback 4G (since it was the most parts) I can understand why . . . even though it is frustrating when we have 3 or 4 TBolts and you can only get 2 parts of one design max for the longest time.

[Notsonoble]

Prevents the horrors of MW3 . . .

While I would like to be able to take 2 pieces of a HBK-4G and a piece of -4P and make a Hunchback 4G (since it was the most parts) I can understand why . . . even though it is frustrating when we have 3 or 4 TBolts and you can only get 2 parts of one design max for the longest time.

See I liked MW3, except for the pirate's moon elementals, building as prillo called them "turbo monkeys" and "partical monkeys" was dull, but i liked the 1to1 port of designs.

[Caedis Animus]

3 or 4 TBolts and you can only get 2 parts of one design max for the longest time.

I think the TBolt has the most variants of any mech in the game, actually,  not counting Spoilermechs.

Have I mentioned that this game is making me absolutely hate Thunderbolts yet? Because of that very reason? Regardless, I think they should have done individual mech pieces and have you choose the HP setup on start using some metric or something. Hell, addition pieces that allow you to mount a ballistic on a Black Knight or something would have been great.

[beachhead1985]

I do find the hardpoint system a little off-putting, you can repair a mech that was ct cored and lost multiple limbs rebuild literally from just a cockpit, but you can't convert a shd-2h to a 2d? Wut?

THIS.

[monbvol]

They've added a difficulty setting so that if a mech is cored it is lost.  But I do understand why they do the hardpoint system.  If they didn't as much as they've boosted ACs they would be used even less than they are now.

[beachhead1985]

They've added a difficulty setting so that if a mech is cored it is lost.  But I do understand why they do the hardpoint system.  If they didn't as much as they've boosted ACs they would be used even less than they are now.

Willing to bet that was a holdover from MWO, which uses it as well, no?

[monbvol]

MWO does use a similar hard point system but so did MW4.

Still it strikes me as a deliberate effort to force people to use different mechs and to keep all energy load outs from being too dominant.

[Daryk]

In HBS's case, I think it's more to keep people from using an all LRM load out.  When all four of your 'mechs can fire when only exposing one (or none if you Sensor Lock), the bot really can't win.

[monbvol]

Except it doesn't take that many missile hard points to get really abusive with LRMs.

[Daryk]

Heh... I didn't say they succeeded in the effort... :)

The last time I played, I was up to using an Atlas (with an AC/20 and all the LRMs that would fit) for my "spotter" and had three Highlanders, two with almost all LRMs, and the other with a Gauss Rifle and all the LRMs that would fit besides.  The Atlas knocks them down (whatever they are), and the deluge of LRMs called to the CT kills 'em.

[monbvol]

*nod*

I do have to admit even with what they tried to do to re-balance the weapons to give each a purpose HBS's game still highlight's the biggest drawback to the ACs even in the days of the SHS, just how big and heavy they are and if it were not for the hard point system I'd gladly be reaching for alternatives in every case.

[MoleMan]

All lrms is a pretty boring way to play no?

[Daryk]

When compared to the time it took the missions to load, not at all.  The interesting tactical problem (to me) was trying to maneuver so the spotter could only be seen by the target.  There have been some terrain combinations where it just wasn't possible, and one in particular (it was a mountain ridge) was tough enough, I had to do that mission three or four times before I could beat it.

[Apocal]

*nod*

I do have to admit even with what they tried to do to re-balance the weapons to give each a purpose HBS's game still highlight's the biggest drawback to the ACs even in the days of the SHS, just how big and heavy they are and if it were not for the hard point system I'd gladly be reaching for alternatives in every case.

For me, it is more the specific game mechanics that makes me prefer MLas except the late game/end-game phase and that is because it is easier to generate a headcap with more weapons doing decent damage than one weapon doing instant headshot damage. The only reason I swap to autocannons near the end is that you can core-out everything except a 100 ton assault if you fit your own assaults with dual AC/20s, MLas and SRMs, and since you're facing so much opposition, you need to consistently drop two per turn to keep your head above water in terms of incoming damage. Even so, I always kept one HBK-4G (or a stripped-down Shadowhawk acting in lieu of) on my roster for hole-punching and called shot CT executions.

Check out the achievements. I don't know if what I see is the total amount or only if it is the info for what GOG has and not including other platforms such as Steam, but it is pretty shocking. Only 70.9% of people who bought the game even created a character to start the campaign. Even worse, only 19.9% finished the story line. That's a pretty stark drop off. Only 53% made it to the Argo. And then the next event at Weldry there is only a 47.5% rate.

So by less than half way through the story of the core game, less than half the people who bought the game decided to continue that far. And less than a third of the people who even bothered to start a campaign finished the game. Ouch.

All of this is completely normal for a Steam game. If anything, it is slightly better in some respects.

[Elmoth]

For me the turn off is the need to constantly do side quests. I would prefer to be able to do the basic story story straight away, but it seems that this is extremely complicated: you seem to need assaults and high end heavies for that.
And yes, i know that a guy did it with 4 firestarters. Guess I am as good as he is, but in any case it bores me a lot to need to do side quests after a certain point. I am at weldry's defense, and it is hard to challenge myself to keep going forward. Not moding the mechs (except adding better weapons or building official variations) is also a thing for me, so I guess I will not be able to finish it anyway.

[Apocal]

For me the turn off is the need to constantly do side quests. I would prefer to be able to do the story with basic mechs but that cannot be: you seems to need assaults and high end heavies for that.
And yes, i know that a guy did it with 4 firestarters. Guess I am as good as he is, but in any case it bores me a lot to need to do side quests after a certain point. I am at weldry's defense, and it is hard to challenge myself to keep going forward. Besudes, I only use basic mech designs or official variations, so I guess I will not be able to finish it anyway.

It isn't hard to beat the game using only heavies that are relatively (I personally up the armor to near-max) stock. In the second to last mission, I think you face a grand total of three assaults. It might be more, but if it is, they are the really bad ones which aren't a problem for heavies like the Orion.

[Nightlord01]

In HBS's case, I think it's more to keep people from using an all LRM load out.  When all four of your 'mechs can fire when only exposing one (or none if you Sensor Lock), the bot really can't win.

This. Or at least it was done to attempt to prevent boating. Anyone else remember MWO's Stalker LLas boat? BT is terrible for boating in their construction rules, so I can see why every game since MW3 has used a variant, derivative as they may be. The issue with hard points is that you end up with some designs that are just superior to others, by nature of the potential fit outs.

Of course, the real issue with the game is the overall ruleset they've derived. While it feels quite BT, the addition of stability, pilot quirks and evasion pips makes a rod for their backs. These generate the largest difference in overall feel, that being the game feels more like a game of hide and seek than a tactical battle.

[Colt Ward]

. . . the game feels more like a game of hide and seek than a tactical battle.

You know . . . that is the point of a tactical battle?  If you can be seen you can be shot at usually . . .

MW3 was fine IF you played and set up your mechs to mirror canon mechs or variants . . . its when you had a Shadow Cat that was nothing but Machine Guns and the ammo was all located in the arms (which by programming meant it was still available) that things got bad.  I played MW3 online a few times, but quickly stopped b/c I wanted to immerse in a BT game, no Min/Max tag.

[Apocal]

This. Or at least it was done to attempt to prevent boating. Anyone else remember MWO's Stalker LLas boat? BT is terrible for boating in their construction rules, so I can see why every game since MW3 has used a variant, derivative as they may be. The issue with hard points is that you end up with some designs that are just superior to others, by nature of the potential fit outs.

Well, you end up with flat superior "designs" even without hardpoints; the operative factors simply become ideal speed/engine rating against free tonnage. 

[Colt Ward]

Someone always does the number crunching for a competitive environment-  I remember the twinks from WoW vanilla that would go get the best stat stuff in the game to boost them at their level.  Pretty sure its no different in any PVP environment . . . problem happens for us when you get folks that want to be BT MW with canon or nearly canon machines (I dropped half a ton of MG ammo to give it some more armor) vs people who want to play with mechs with the best performance to win.

[monbvol]

HBS's game does make it more obvious though.

I've long argued that without Battle Value and an effectively unlimited number of alternative weapons just the weight and bulk(except for the AC-2 but only on the bulk part) even in the single heat sink era mean the ACs are found wanting.

Which the HBS game gives us(no Battle Value and an effectively unlimited supply of alternatives).

So if it were not for the hard point system even with the adjustments they've given standard ACs I probably wouldn't use them.

[Apocal]

HBS's game does make it more obvious though.

I've long argued that without Battle Value and an effectively unlimited number of alternative weapons just the weight and bulk(except for the AC-2 but only on the bulk part) even in the single heat sink era mean the ACs are found wanting.

Which the HBS game gives us(no Battle Value and an effectively unlimited supply of alternatives).

So if it were not for the hard point system even with the adjustments they've given standard ACs I probably wouldn't use them.

I'd still use AC/20s. Being able to put 100+ damage straight to a single location is pretty good, especial when you're looking to core-out assaults in a single-volley.