You can check the skull rating of a system in the Navigation screen. I don't think there is anything that explicitly says "easy" or "hard" but you can find systems with higher or lower ratings compared to others.
-
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.
Two things:
1. Please, please, please give us random starts. As it is, I fire the named mechwarriors and hire random ones. Part of the joy of games like these is creating your own squad and procedurally generating their history through what happens to them.
2. Consider not having naturally mounting difficulty in career mode. Gauging which planets and missions are doable with the available mechs should be part of the challenge of trying to get a high score. What are you willing to risk to get to the five-star content quicker--and so drive your score higher?
1. Please, please, please give us random starts. As it is, I fire the named mechwarriors and hire random ones. Part of the joy of games like these is creating your own squad and procedurally generating their history through what happens to them.
2. Consider not having naturally mounting difficulty in career mode. Gauging which planets and missions are doable with the available mechs should be part of the challenge of trying to get a high score. What are you willing to risk to get to the five-star content quicker--and so drive your score higher?
^
Correct. I understand HBS choosing a system where the contracts becomes harder as you progress but like the Elder Scroll games where you are never too weak or powerful (bandits with demon weapons anyone?), it feels too much like being wrapped in wool.
Please have a toggle in career mode where the map starts off the way it should be. Let people choose to take on a five skull with starting lance or stomp through a 0.5 skull with 4 KGCs. The only way a planet's rating should change is through player agency and direct action, not background 'balance' stuff.
Correct. I understand HBS choosing a system where the contracts becomes harder as you progress but like the Elder Scroll games where you are never too weak or powerful (bandits with demon weapons anyone?), it feels too much like being wrapped in wool.
Please have a toggle in career mode where the map starts off the way it should be. Let people choose to take on a five skull with starting lance or stomp through a 0.5 skull with 4 KGCs. The only way a planet's rating should change is through player agency and direct action, not background 'balance' stuff.
I agree with this 100%. As it stands, the sandbox is completely pointless, unimaginative, and repetitive. Your actions have no real effect on the universe and you just end up repeating the same missions over and over. Becoming allied with major powers or becoming enemies with them has no effect on game-play besides store discounts and extra cash. I would like to see enemy factions go after you in random missions or the ability to call up allied support from time to time. The whole map just feels lifeless and it doesn't seem like anything important is going on unless you the player are directly involved.
Remember the first mission with Majesty Metals where you're betrayed and basically get screwed got out of a payday? There needs to be more things like this in the game to spice it up.
This game also needs more sandbox goals for the player to work towards. The Argo upgrades are largely pointless and a waste of money. Instead of tedious upgrades that boost morale +1, let players have options with real tactical trade offs. You could either upgrade the Argo to support artillery or give players access to aerospace assets. Maybe the Leopard could be reconfigured to land an additional mech or make room for two tanks. You could have a choice between drones for better battlefield intel or allow players to drop mines for better map control. I'd also like the ability to setup bases and lances in different systems so you don't have to constantly race around the map to get things done. Things like this would add tons of depth to the game.
Last edited:
That Majesty Metal mission was the high point of BT mission design for me personally and it was a real shame everything afterwards are so cut and dry.
Yes, that is why this DLC feels a little weak to me. I don't care about the extra mechs (unless it's a Warhammer) or the new biome and we already had the contract mod that simulated flash point. The new contract was pretty bad from the first dev stream - basically forcing you to become a sitting duck for two rounds (the AI reinforcements has modding possibilities though). The next expansion into the 4th really need to give player greater agency if sandbox is the final goal.
To be frank, the best thing about this DLC is the new coding system that will allow modders to introduce our own mission branches. I'll probably be spending more time in the files making my own flash points instead of playing the career mode.
Yes, that is why this DLC feels a little weak to me. I don't care about the extra mechs (unless it's a Warhammer) or the new biome and we already had the contract mod that simulated flash point. The new contract was pretty bad from the first dev stream - basically forcing you to become a sitting duck for two rounds (the AI reinforcements has modding possibilities though). The next expansion into the 4th really need to give player greater agency if sandbox is the final goal.
To be frank, the best thing about this DLC is the new coding system that will allow modders to introduce our own mission branches. I'll probably be spending more time in the files making my own flash points instead of playing the career mode.
That is not at all what I suggested (see below). My suggestion of systems changing hands is contingent of other dynamic forces being active in the world. You made up some nonsense and called it silly.
Not really. There are many good sandbox games lets players "aim" for an objective of their choice. Become a ruler or the power behind the throne, control the world through conquest, or trade or diplomacy or culture, fight battles and win wars for yourself or a faction of your choice, become a business magnate or command the largest mercenary force, build a garden city or a dense megalopolis, and so on. Both the player, and other dynamic NPC elements can contribute to / against it, and affect the sandbox world in the process - e.g. X series, Total War, Sims, Mount and Blade, Kerbal Space Program, Pirates!, the entire management sim genre to name a few. Heck, even the new Assassins Creed Odyssey has a more meaningful and dynamic sandbox.
This career mode will be aimless and pointless because the gameworld is static and unchangeable. There is nothing to aim for, no one to contend with. But yes, like you say, adding more mission variety, and more ways to interact with the world will be a good start. They can first make it enjoyable at least, and meaningful later.
Greetings MechWarriors.
Let us please try and aim our discussions at the topics and points being discussed, not at others.
Thank you
Timaeus
Let us please try and aim our discussions at the topics and points being discussed, not at others.
Thank you
Timaeus
God I don't even know what to say about Flashpoint. HBS has had 6 months to work on this game and it all seems to boil down to 3 new mechs, 1 new map, the ability to chain missions together, and 1 new type of mission that looks really weak. When they said you'd need fast mechs to meet the new objective, I really thought the maps were going to get enlarged and you would have to race at least 3 mechs in different directions across tons of enemies in order to get to certain spots within a set amount of time. From the 1st livestream it seems all they've done is keep the small maps, put the objectives like 10ft. apart from each other, and require that you sit on them for two turns. It is incredibly disappointing.
I'm hoping the Flashpoint mini-campaigns are well designed and offer interesting decisions to choose from. However, I'm really getting the feeling that its all going to boil down to 10-15 types of scenarios where you're just repeating the same missions with the same set of choices back to back. The special rewards for completing them are apparently nothing more then weapons/equipment that is already in the game.
Why has combined arms not been introduced yet? What happened to artillery, infantry, aerospace assets, minefields, and battlefield emplacements?
Are Kickstarter goals like encounters with famous mercenary units and individuals going to be included?
What is the status with ECM and the Raven?
What happened to the unseen mechs like the Marauder?
When is the AI going to be reworked? (Make it optional so the people who struggle with the base game can still enjoy it, but really it needs to be upgraded for the vets)
The list goes on and on...I just don't get it. This game has so much potential and I just see it being squandered. And apparently this dlc is going to cost anywhere from $20-25 US dollars? I hope the expansion is top notch and HBS is holding back for some grand reveal, but I'm getting the distinct impression its going to be pretty mediocre. Compare this with the new expansion that Battle Brothers (another TBS game from a small indy developer) is receiving soon and its like night and day.
Last edited:
Ah, good to see another ready to put money towards Overhype's criminally under-realized Battle Brothers. Both BB and BT have DLC coming out this year. Both just happens to be turn based merc sim. At first, I'd have thrown money at both on day 1 but having compared the two dev diaries over the past weeks and watching the first live stream, I think I'll wait for a review/sale/nexus for Flash Point - there just isn't enough in FP to peak my interest @ nearly AUD$25 unless the 2nd live stream has some hidden gems.
You know, for the price of BT + Flash Point, you can get WH2 + Pirate Vampire DLC...
You know, for the price of BT + Flash Point, you can get WH2 + Pirate Vampire DLC...
- Combined arms is a fulfilled promise as is, and never promised players would be able to control the assets. Infantry was looked at way back in the prototyping stage, and determined they wouldn't be able to make them "fun" without more resources/time. It's been mentioned that if they can figure out how to make infantry fun they'll look at them again. Artillery/airstrikes that were player controlled were looked at (but not promised from what I remember), and did not make it due to time/resource constraints during production.
- Legendary MechWarriors and encounters are still a "need to be delivered post-launch" item [link] when spoken of last.
- The status of the Raven is that it is still being worked on.
- HBS is most likely not going to comment on any Unseen 'mechs due to American legal system reasons.
When HBS has more news they will talk about these topics when they have more information (if any). A decent amount of stuff that gets asked about is in the "in success" pool that HBS wants to evenually do, and needs time to work on it, but there's not really a reason to talk about the topics until they have more information available to give.
The games you mentioned were totally different games to BT. Yes, I want BT to eventually be like M&B too but the original BT kickstarter was for a tactical turn based game with a campaign. As much as I'm disappointed in the scope of Flash Point, what you are proposing is hugely ambitious for a mere DLC.
For what you are proposing to work, HBS need top level faction AIs to each have goals, ways to achieve it, assign resource generation to each faction so you don't just get random battles happening on the boarder with random mech, somehow include the players in all this, balance the reward for player sense of achievement and reality of 4 guy/gals changing the course of an interstellar war. In the end, you'll end up just doing the same missions as in vanilla and the only difference is you get to see the color of the map (I think you can do that in Rogue Tech already). So after all that extra work and there's very little difference to how players play the game.
In order for BT to be a true sandbox, we'll have to wait for a proper expansion.
Battletech is a fully realised board game with the pedigree of its lore behind it. HBS battletech like its boardgame brother is focused on the battles. As much as the strategic layer is fun your still a small merc company doing work for the big boys. By any reach the effect your company is going to have on the established factions is going to be small, even niche. I like the metagame as is and i dont expect it to change much. An expansion or a sequeal ushering in new world states to coincide with major events in the battletech universe. Succession wars, clan invasion et all. And this suits me, i cant fault the gameplay, defo not in singleplayer having sunk almost a thousand hours in it.
You guys should read the novel of=n kindle as they are going for next to nothing. They kinda set the mood.
Greetings Mechwarriors,
Please consider: Expressing one's criticism or opinion in a respectful manner is appreciated as it helps inform the entities of community interests as they make decisions going forward, even when the respectfully phrased criticism or opinion reflects an unhappy feeling. However, it's not the same behavior as consistently posting the same negativity repeatedly in the same thread or especially across threads. Thats what would lead to such being either spamming, or trolling, or both depending.
Also: Community members are welcome and encouraged to express respectfully phrased criticism and negative opinions, but not to make it personal or wage a campaign in doing so.
Sometimes the how of a message is the problem, not the why of it. In this case there are community members that I would encourage to please consider the how of communication in posts moving forward.
There's quite a difference between constructive criticism, and fanning community damaging toxicity, and it all begins with how we choose to communicate.
FYI, Jumping threads does not avoid Forum staff requests in previous analogous threads or topics and is addressed in the site rules.
If your perspective on such an issue has been heard and documented. Please take a break on it for now, as excessive hammering on it by some has crossed over into opinion spamming as expressed above.
Some posts may have experienced Jump Drive malfunctions to the Far country to be used as nesting materials by the locals.
Thank you.
Please consider: Expressing one's criticism or opinion in a respectful manner is appreciated as it helps inform the entities of community interests as they make decisions going forward, even when the respectfully phrased criticism or opinion reflects an unhappy feeling. However, it's not the same behavior as consistently posting the same negativity repeatedly in the same thread or especially across threads. Thats what would lead to such being either spamming, or trolling, or both depending.
Also: Community members are welcome and encouraged to express respectfully phrased criticism and negative opinions, but not to make it personal or wage a campaign in doing so.
Sometimes the how of a message is the problem, not the why of it. In this case there are community members that I would encourage to please consider the how of communication in posts moving forward.
There's quite a difference between constructive criticism, and fanning community damaging toxicity, and it all begins with how we choose to communicate.
FYI, Jumping threads does not avoid Forum staff requests in previous analogous threads or topics and is addressed in the site rules.
If your perspective on such an issue has been heard and documented. Please take a break on it for now, as excessive hammering on it by some has crossed over into opinion spamming as expressed above.
Some posts may have experienced Jump Drive malfunctions to the Far country to be used as nesting materials by the locals.
Thank you.
I'm not sure why people keep acting as though Flashpoints are just multiple deployments. It was clear from the announcement that there were going to be story elements added and with the new reveal video on Twitch it's clear that those story elements are a lot more reactive than the story elements from vanilla. Add in it's a new way to add tags and we've just seen a giant boost to the event system and the procedural-ish story which is going to be the game's focus going forward.
Basically, stepping back a little bit, Flashpoints are, mechanically, the single most obviously important element to add to the game going forward. I'm honestly wracking my brain to imagine a single thing they could have added within a 6 month timeframe (aside from Career Mode, which we're getting for free at the same time anyway) that would have anywhere near the same impact.
I'm going to reserve judgement on the new mission type. One thing we know for sure is that HBS have done what they've always done, and prototyped the systems involved to a fairly large degree behind the scenes, so they know the missions as they've been set out are at least fun in those contexts. Whether that translates into general play is, clearly, going to need to wait, but these kids have earned the right to a fair hearing.
As for tactical worries, my first question is whether or not you can tag-team units into the zones: one mech moves in to allow the other to leave. If so, the only thing the new mode does is demand a more mobile play and force you to use particular terrain while also making end-zone runs with faster mechs a bit more profitable. None of these things are inherently bad.
Basically, stepping back a little bit, Flashpoints are, mechanically, the single most obviously important element to add to the game going forward. I'm honestly wracking my brain to imagine a single thing they could have added within a 6 month timeframe (aside from Career Mode, which we're getting for free at the same time anyway) that would have anywhere near the same impact.
I'm going to reserve judgement on the new mission type. One thing we know for sure is that HBS have done what they've always done, and prototyped the systems involved to a fairly large degree behind the scenes, so they know the missions as they've been set out are at least fun in those contexts. Whether that translates into general play is, clearly, going to need to wait, but these kids have earned the right to a fair hearing.
As for tactical worries, my first question is whether or not you can tag-team units into the zones: one mech moves in to allow the other to leave. If so, the only thing the new mode does is demand a more mobile play and force you to use particular terrain while also making end-zone runs with faster mechs a bit more profitable. None of these things are inherently bad.
Yes, I (and others) thought we saw movement through the zones exactly like that.
Brilliant, so it's only a stationary mission type if you choose to play it that way. Maybe some people will choose to do just that, but I think in play it's going to work a lot more like those cat and mouse nail-biters that I occasionally get when the OpFor surprises me with heavy reinforcements.
Sounds pretty damn exciting to me.
The main thing I would love in career mode is a randomised starting lance. Kiva i will do anything you want for this
There's a mod for that. You can even set how many of each weight class you start with.
Starting with 4-5 light mechs and no mediums is a substantial difficulty boost vs. the usual Vindi, Shawk, BJ start.