Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

BETA - BATTLETECH Update 1.1 Release Notes

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
BATTLETECH 5579 BATTLETECH Bug Reports 3831 BATTLETECH Suggestions 1569 BATTLETECH Mod-forum 704 BATTLETECH Universe 246 BATTLETECH Fan art, fiction & creations 164 News and Updates Archive 129 BATTLETECH Multi-player 106
Camicon Dachass said:
You should try playing the game for yourself before deciding that the new heat values are unbalanced.
Anyways, increasing the stability HP of heavier 'Mechs makes weapons that deal stability damage more important, meaning that PPCs, in combination with their reduced heat, are more necessary and viable in combat. Particularly if you want to fight at range.
Click to expand...

I don't think the issue is the stability changes themselves, I think they make sense - in a vacuum.

I think the issue will be trying to salvage Assault mechs at endgame, when you have to KD some Elite pilot 6x to incapacitate you are probably going to wreck the mech in the process as needing to do 2x the STA damage means you will also do 2x the regular damage.

The fix I'd like is simply making KDs not as necessary for getting 3 pieces of salvage, because as I said I actually agree that mechs shouldn't be flopping all over the place.
 
Voranth said:
I'm happy they only changed heat instead of doing what most balance attempts do and tweak too many things at once.
Click to expand...

Yep - increments are the way to go.

Anybody else ever used old-school mechanical scales, the ones you might see for weighing patients in a doctor's office or those really small precise ones in a science lab? You achieve balance by gradually nudging the weights closer to the apparent target, making a few small changes and then minuscule micro-corrections to get an exact result. You certainly don't do it by slapping the weights hard and repeatedly overshooting your goal.

And I think we've all seen examples of game developers that do exactly that, racing to throw in "features" and "improvements" to make the play environment better right now, only to get stuck with creating fixes to fix the problems they created when they tried to fix the old problems. (Magic: The Gathering, for one, has produced some really unfortunate sets when the design team couldn't reign in their fixing instincts.)

Captain Slide said:
Given that it takes time to collect feed back, figure out what needs doing, make the necessary changes, test the changes and then publish that, all whilst ensuring that nothing breaks when it goes live, then I think the people at HBS have done an exceptional job with what they have accomplished and the amount of stuff in this update.

...

I would also like to point out that one persons "balance" is another persons cheat/impossible mode. HBS has to balance around everyone not just hardcore TT lore nerds or power gamers.
Click to expand...

That point about feedback is certainly worth remembering, because here's something the modding community often tends to forget... it represents only a minority of players and their interests. What modders can't see - but HBS can - is data that represents the entire player base, including the majority who use mods only as curiosities, if at all.

RogueTech, for example, is showing 1.1k total downloads at Nexusmods, while Steam charts show that there are typically at least 4k BT players active at any time (concurrently - not total). As ambitious and impressive as RogueTech is, it's reasonable to assume that it's not regarded as a universal improvement, or that it speaks to the majority's interests.
 
Last edited:
Jade_Rook said:
The modding disclaimer uses that wording to be as clear as possible. If they aren't, then someone will post complaining about how the patch broke their game.



Back on topic, this thread is about the new patch, currently in beta. Any feedback from those willing to test it would be helpful.
Click to expand...

Beta Patch isn't available for manual installers, is it?
 
Hey HBS, if you are going to include a chat filer for MP Skirmish matches, please include a way to disable it.

Some of us like to swear at each other.

Thank you.
 
CapKingCrabapprove.jpg
 
Hail, all!

Just want to say I've been enjoying this Battletech game immensely.

One display error (at least, I think it's an error) I noticed in the beta build is with the maximum Stability damage: when dealing with missiles, it's reporting the value as though only one missile hits. For example, a stock Vindicator will indicate 22 maximum stability (20 for the PPC, 2 for the LRM-5), but it should be 30 (20, and 2x5 for the LRM-5.)

The ability to "rebuild" your pilot's appearance at will is an interesting touch; but I'm really digging the ability to customise generic (non-backer, non-ronin) warriors up to and including voice. It makes them worth hiring (for me, at least) because you get that much more of a personal touch out of the game.

I'd also like to see some more 'Mechs at various weights. For example, what we have at 55 and 65 are good - with seven variants at each of those weights, you're kept guessing when they pop up as "55T 'Mech" on your sensors. But when you see a 30-ton 'Mech on your sensors, you know it's a Spider every time. Not suggesting that opfors start deploying Urbies - we'd all be doomed! - but what about the Javelins? Similarly, we can spice up the 40-ton variety beyond just Cicadas by bringing in the Vulcan and Assassin. And at 90, there's also the Cyclops to throw in alongside the pair of Highlander variants.

There's an advantage to these in that the tech is suitable (they're all TRO 3025 'Mechs) and they've appeared in MWO.

Back to the battlefield! :)
 
Thanks for the great, rapid updates. I've only taken a quick run through a single-player mission, but the combat seemed snappier. I absolutely love the extra info available in the mech-bay which turns the abstract ratings into hard numbers. All the more optimization potential.

On that last point I think I found a bug. It looks like the alpha strike damage (+ stability damage) in the tooltip isn't properly multiplying missiles, but showing the damage of a single missile. It looked comically low on my all-missile-equipped Jaegermech.
 
MMA_Oblivion said:
My only big complaint is I still don't see the option to move mechs around in the mechbays... Not being able to organize my mechs makes my gamer OCD trigger X.X
May wait until we get tutorial skip and mechbay re-arranging for another play-through.
Click to expand...

I was about to type that, too. HBS, please let us do it!
 
The whole point of the Beta Build is to test the listed changes and balances. I don't personally see how that can properly be done if you turn around and remod the Beta before doing any testing.
 
What a big patch !
Thanks a lot. I'm a developper too and I know the amount of work it is.

I will create a new game this evening.
The balance has completly changed so we have to adapt again, it's interesting the the new game option allow us to customize a lot our experience.
Keep going and let the game better and better.

Be prepared to have some critics again but it's for improve the game, not spank the devs :)
 
Not at home until tonight, but can anybody confirm if the incorrect Griffin and Black Knights designations have been corrected? I know it is such a small thing but it bugged me something fierce.
 
Since there is nothing about that i assume self inflicted stability damage stays the same at 60 after DFA? That will make heavier mechs with strong legs DFA as a standard move without any risk of destabilisation and knockdown.
 
This made my day. I was waiting for a patch to start a new run and here it is. Ironman mode, here I come. :)

Btw. are we getting new achievements to hunt with all the new difficulty changes?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back