Weapon modding...

[Bugnr01]

Spoiler: some blablabla

I am very neutral towards this game, i like to play it from time to time but dont do very long sessions (70 hours total)

First of, my personal opinon is that the weapon balance if of in places. Other may differ from that opinion or what is balanced for me. Battletech is the first game in the universe for me and i could not care less how it is handelt (stats, mechanics) in the tabletop game.

I am not a 'modder' as i dont creat modds, but i do like to eddit the gamefiles to enrich my playing experience or if something just frustrates me.

So even after release, befor starting the campaigne, i moded the weapon files to change to balance a bit and to streamline it (ironing out some oddbals aso.)

• You have to edit every weapon on its own no global PPCs -1 ton! Why aren't the + weapons handled in the files as they are shown in game. Take damage of stock and add 5dmg for your ac-10+ (+5dmg), instead i have to change the heat creation for all weapon modification seperate. And this would not add much to starting the game if the + stats have to be created at game start.
  
• not all weapons are in the same folder, where for example are im supposed to find the LB -X weapons (i cant find them)
  
• Predefind mech armor. its the same problem as for the weapons, everything is softcoded but not dynamic. Why not defining the weapons and armor distribution (instead of actuall armor) to the mechs and distribute the armor via script at game start. ATM a change in weapon ton does make the base mechs underweight or broken (or you have to modd all base mech loadouts).
• Information gathering is bad (atleast for me). I am used to dedicatet wikis (paradox) for each game. Now if i want to know something about the game ists outdated, for mechwarrior or the tabletob game (search weapons and try to find the LB -X stats for this game)
• workshop is missing. Ok, thats very subjective and exchanging mods is possible without it but so are my points 1-3, but it would be a qol imrpovment.

Ok seriously, where are the LB X jsons?

 

[dezuman]

Jsons for DLC stuff can be found at this dev github:
https://github.com/caardappel-hbs/bt-dlc-designdata?files=1

You'll have to jump trough some hoops to actually use them though, I haven't bothered yet.

 

[MasterBLB]

You have to edit every weapon on its own no global PPCs -1 ton! Why aren't the + weapons handled in the files as they are shown in game. Take damage of stock and add 5dmg for your ac-10+ (+5dmg), instead i have to change the heat creation for all weapon modification seperate. And this would not add much to starting the game if the + stats have to be created at game start.

Well, if I'll be in mood one day I'll put into reality my idea of Weapon Editor.

 

[ronhatch]

I'm always baffled by people that claim the balance is wrong before they've even tried the game as published. You do you, I guess. Still.

As far as ease of use for changing values, they coded it in the way that was most convenient for them. Modding was not supported back when those decisions were made, and programming time is much more costly than data entry time.

 

[KMiSSioN]

From programmer this demads looks like: hey! devs why hadn't you made button to make me happy? you all lazy and unproffesional!
All you are talking about need too much code with very little income - make just one person little easier to mess files they are not supposed to handle.

 

[Bugnr01]

I'm always baffled by people that claim the balance is wrong before they've even tried the game as published. You do you, I guess. Still.

Yes i do. And for me its just that the numbers dont add up on paper the way i like them (not so much overall balance).

Take the stock ACs, there is a dent for the AC 10 in damage. I just dont like that. I want them to be more based on some sort of function. Therefore i reduced AC 5 and AC 20 dmg and AC 10 and AC 20 tng. ( took the AC2 and 20 as borders, ajusted the tng to 6, 8, 10 and 12 and the dmg to get a line from the stock AC2 to the stock AC 20)

SRMs are fine but why is the LRM 5 king of LRMs or why should two LRM 15 be better than one LRM 10 and one LRM 20. So i brought the LRMs in line to.

I am playing around a little with the energy ones because the L- Laser fits not to the M one (my opinoion). I reduce the L tng and increase the heat generation. Used for L (4/21 and 3/24) overall dps are the same as the stock one has.

Same for the PPC, but nothing final there.

The new LB X have again a dent for the LB 10-X and the LB X-2 just dont seem to fit in (too powerfull). I understand that it has to compete with an LRM and be better to negate the missing indirect fire but 20% more dmg for the same tng but only 40% of the heat (nets into 50% more dps/tng) seems to much for me.

 

[Bugnr01]

From programmer this demads looks like: hey! devs why hadn't you made button to make me happy?

Yes true. Its my right as a customer to tell the developer when im unhappy with some aspects of their product (and theirs to ignore it). As its my right to tell them what i like.

you all lazy and unproffesional!

I never sayed that and have not meant it either.

All you are talking about need too much code with very little income - make just one person little easier to mess files they are not supposed to handle.

I am supposed to mess with these files, otherwise they would not be there and hardcoded instead.
And i go further because i want them to give me the rest of the files (from the Dlc i bought) too, to tinker with them.

 

[KMiSSioN]

Yes true. Its my right as a costumer to tell the developer when im unhappy with some aspects of their product. As its my right to tell them what i like

Two thoughts:
1. Developers should satisfy major of their target audience - not you exactly. Demanding other is just unreasonable. If you are not game's target - it is your own problem, not devs.
2. [mod edit: flamebait] you can as a moder create some usefull and change situation.

I never sayed that and have not meant it either.

i'm not talking about what you had said or meant. I'm talking about how it looks like. That is what i had thought if would read this about something i had created.

I am supposed to mess with these files, otherwise they would not be there and hardcoded instead

i'm sure you are not. Have you read EULA? It is certainly forbids using software ways publisher not supposed to. Changing core game's files are not supposed.

 

[JamieWolf]

I am supposed to mess with these files, otherwise they would not be there and hardcoded instead.
And i go further because i want them to give me the rest of the files (from the Dlc i bought) too, to tinker with them.

Or more likely the files exist instead of being hard-coded so that non programmers on the development team could adjust them instead of bugging a programmer to. The DLC files have to be locked into the assetbundle otherwise people could use them without the dlc. There are posts here on how to access these files on GitHub so that mods can modify them.

 

[Jade_Rook]

Greetings MechWarriors!

Please remember to always post respectfully, avoiding insults and derogatory comments.

Thank you!

 

[stjobe]

As far as ease of use for changing values, they coded it in the way that was most convenient for them. Modding was not supported back when those decisions were made, and programming time is much more costly than data entry time.

HBS has previous experience with official mod support; for Shadowrun Returns they built mod support right into the game. It was very, very expensive (it has been described as "essentially making the same game twice") and it locked them out from making changes they wanted to the game engine (due to having to do the change twice - once for the game proper, and once more for the mod tools).

So for BATTLETECH they right off the bat said they didn't officially support modding for time and resource reasons, but instead they went out of their way to make the game as easy to mod as possible by putting just about every configuration and definition in json-files.

A bonus quick tip for those interested in finding out what's in those files: If you download Visual Studio Code (it's free), you can open the whole data folder (e.g. SteamLibrary\steamapps\common\BATTLETECH\BattleTech_Data\StreamingAssets\data) and search it. Makes it really easy to find things.

Or more likely the files exist instead of being hard-coded so that non programmers on the development team could adjust them instead of bugging a programmer to.

That it happened to make the non-programmers at HBS lives easier was icing on the cake; the files are there to make the game easy to mod, if we want to. Want to alter a 'Mech loadout? Edit some json files. Want to change the starting 'Mechs? One json file to edit. Want to change how the AI behaves? Lots and lots of json editing, but it's perfectly doable. Want to make your own flashpoint? Well, that's really complicated, but it still boils down to editing and creating json files.

The only exception is DLC content, as you say, which needs to be exclusive to those who paid for it.

 

[ronhatch]

So for BATTLETECH they right off the bat said they didn't officially support modding for time and resource reasons, but instead they went out of their way to make the game as easy to mod as possible by putting just about every configuration and definition in json-files.

A bonus quick tip for those interested in finding out what's in those files: If you download Visual Studio Code (it's free), you can open the whole data folder (e.g. SteamLibrary\steamapps\common\BATTLETECH\BattleTech_Data\StreamingAssets\data) and search it. Makes it really easy to find things.

That it happened to make the non-programmers at HBS lives easier was icing on the cake; the files are there to make the game easy to mod, if we want to. Want to alter a 'Mech loadout? Edit some json files. Want to change the starting 'Mechs? One json file to edit. Want to change how the AI behaves? Lots and lots of json editing, but it's perfectly doable. Want to make your own flashpoint? Well, that's really complicated, but it still boils down to editing and creating json files.

Personally, I think it's exactly the other way around... the settings were put in JSON files to make it easy for the non-programmers at HBS to make changes, and the fact that it made modders' lives easier was icing on the cake. If they were considering modders first at all, where would it stop before reaching the "making the same game twice" point?

"Focus equals quality", after all. I can't really picture Mitch ever arguing for prioritizing modding over making the best game they can make. And when you're on a tight schedule, any time taken away from your primary goals is going to hurt the end product.

 

[SentosKarum]

I do not see how the DLC exclusivity aspect can't be achieved by adding the JSON to the where basegame JSON live but the texture and animation stuff being locked.

Besides, and I repeat myself, if there is a publisher that knows that leaving your DLC mod accessable isn't a sales death sentence it's Paradox.

 

[ronhatch]

I do not see how the DLC exclusivity aspect can't be achieved by adding the JSON to the where basegame JSON live but the texture and animation stuff being locked.

Besides, and I repeat myself, if there is a publisher that knows that leaving your DLC mod accessable isn't a sales death sentence it's Paradox.

Yeah, I don't see how that makes any difference either. On the other hand, neither of us knows what protection they may have put in place for this, other than the fact that the overall game is not copy protected.

If they felt it was necessary, I'm willing to accept that.