Atlas AS7-K
Banned
Aside from being done with its endless appetite for cash my biggest issue with MWO was they seemed to balance the game via sledgehammer, always extremes leading to a clearly superior meta that EVERYONE used. boring.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Battletech |KS| Turn-based tactical mech combat, Harebrained Schemes, Summer 2017
- Thread starter Lime
- Start date
Aside from being done with its endless appetite for cash my biggest issue with MWO was they seemed to balance the game via sledgehammer, always extremes leading to a clearly superior meta that EVERYONE used. boring.
The weight of the mechs in MWO are nice. I really like that. There is a difference between them as there should be. When I'm walking around the training area to try them out things are fine. It's when a match starts that I start to question things like the map design, number of players in the match and that starts to make controlling the mech an issue. Then again perhaps it that I'm using the keyboard and mouse or I just need to "get good". Not used to having the legs be able to turn one way and the torso another. Don't get caught when they're not together or you're as good as dead. It's not a horrible experience at all though but perhaps just takes a lot to get used to. I would rather lock the torso in place if I could even if that put me at a disadvantage. It would make controlling the mech a lot easier as someone new. Unless there is a way of doing that and I'm not seeing it.
Poodlestrike
Banned
Force feedback joystick helps a lot with that.
Torso/legs locks would be a MASSIVE handicap, you just need to be used to how MWO works. Just imagine that you're a tank and that the torso is the turret, if you will. With KB/M you're using WASD for typical tank controls. WS for throttle, and AD for the turning. Just always consider it completely independant from the turret, so that when you move the turret around with the mouse, you always keep your legs/tank position into account. It's just about keeping situation awareness of two separate 'positions', which is just a matter of practice.
Battletech earned $1,255,693 in its first 3 days.
I like to use these pics by 8 X 11 Printer Paper to demonstrate the different spreads during a campaign:
We have multiple types of campaign here. We have front-loaded ones like Bard's Tale IV and Yooka-Laylee, campaigns with the more traditional Kickstarter behaviour like Mighty No.9* and Kingdom Come, and balanced ones like Project Eternity and Bloodstained.
Assuming a worst case scenario, it'd be similar to Bard's Tale IV. That means the $1,255,693 would be 66% of the total funding and in the end it'd reach $1,902,565.
More simulations:
60%: $2,092,821
55%: $2,283,078 (Close to Torment levels)
50%: $2,511,386 (Shenmue III)
45%: $2,790,428
40%: $3,139,232
35%: $3,587,694 (Project Eternity)
*Mighty No.9 technically had more funding in its first 3 days than in the chart above, mostly because it was launched in a Japan, so the timezone difference made the first 3 days more like 3.5.
It says 30% above, but in reality it was 36% at least.
The numbers above mean Battletech's first 3 days cannot be more than 50% of total funding, otherwise it won't reach its last stretch goal. However, it is very important to keep in mind that this is depends on the behaviour during the campaign. A smaller percentage in the first 3 days does not mean more money.
Case in point: Torment had 53% in its first 3 days and Eternity had 35%. Torment ended up making more money, but in the end it was pretty close ($4 million x $4.2 million).
This data is only useful if you have a type of campaign in mind, and it's worth keeping the actual money in mind as well.
Another very important aspect of this campaign is that it's the first big project of its genre to hit Kickstarter. This means the audience is different. The context and the expectations of fans can be compared to CRPG fans in some ways, but it's not the same thing.
Many important aspects are unique or very different, however:
This is the key here:
Thanks to user Lime for asking HBS about new tiers:
It's a valid concern, of course. How much time can they spend brainstorming new rewards and stuff instead of working on the game's pre-production? Does the extra funding compensate the man-hours spent on it? Honestly, I think it does, and I'm not suggesting I know more about schedules and game development than they do, it's just that the things they could add don't require a lot of brainstorming at all.
The lack of tiers is not the only problem, by the way. Both the $125 and $275 (and all of the $1000+ as well) include only physical goods as extra rewards. This means that if you want to upgrade your $50 pledge, you have to more than double your money up to $125 plus shipping. It's even worse if you're an international customer, in which case the taxes and international shipping could make it extremely expensive, and for a lot of people, simply not worth it.
For instance: HBS are well known for the Shadowrun series already. Why not include a "HBS tier" where you get copies of the Shadowrun games? It's not the same genre or IP, but they're pretty good games, and it's inherently optional anyway.
Maybe a cross-promotion reward as well? Eternity and Torment had tiers with copies of WL2, for example.
BattleTech has the original tabletop games and more than a hundred books out there. I don't know what's the relationship/deal with Catalyst, but that's something that would benefit both. Books as digital rewards and lots of physical rewards to add as well.
Golem Arcana is another game by HBS that could be add as both physical and digital rewards/add-ons.
Also, at least one digital tier with more copies of the game is very easy to add and a no-brainer, if you ask me.
In regard to stretch goals, can't say much because they haven't been revealed yet, but I think the lack of mod tools is a mistake. It did wonders to Shadowrun games and it's a great addition to any game. It adds longevity, word of mouth, and allows fans to keep creating new content for the game. It's even more important here IMO, assuming it reaches the PVP MP goal.
I like to use these pics by 8 X 11 Printer Paper to demonstrate the different spreads during a campaign:
We have multiple types of campaign here. We have front-loaded ones like Bard's Tale IV and Yooka-Laylee, campaigns with the more traditional Kickstarter behaviour like Mighty No.9* and Kingdom Come, and balanced ones like Project Eternity and Bloodstained.
Assuming a worst case scenario, it'd be similar to Bard's Tale IV. That means the $1,255,693 would be 66% of the total funding and in the end it'd reach $1,902,565.
More simulations:
60%: $2,092,821
55%: $2,283,078 (Close to Torment levels)
50%: $2,511,386 (Shenmue III)
45%: $2,790,428
40%: $3,139,232
35%: $3,587,694 (Project Eternity)
*Mighty No.9 technically had more funding in its first 3 days than in the chart above, mostly because it was launched in a Japan, so the timezone difference made the first 3 days more like 3.5.
It says 30% above, but in reality it was 36% at least.
The numbers above mean Battletech's first 3 days cannot be more than 50% of total funding, otherwise it won't reach its last stretch goal. However, it is very important to keep in mind that this is depends on the behaviour during the campaign. A smaller percentage in the first 3 days does not mean more money.
Case in point: Torment had 53% in its first 3 days and Eternity had 35%. Torment ended up making more money, but in the end it was pretty close ($4 million x $4.2 million).
This data is only useful if you have a type of campaign in mind, and it's worth keeping the actual money in mind as well.
Another very important aspect of this campaign is that it's the first big project of its genre to hit Kickstarter. This means the audience is different. The context and the expectations of fans can be compared to CRPG fans in some ways, but it's not the same thing.
Many important aspects are unique or very different, however:
- Unlike Eternity and TToN, which are brand new projects that pay homage to beloved ones, BattleTech is a 30yo franchise that appeals to the wargaming audience.
- The game will be turn-based. The only other big turn-based KS games are Wasteland 2 and TToN, but backers didn't know Torment was going to be turn-based, and some (myself included) even resent it for it.
- Awareness is a very important factor, and this KS was announced well in advance by HBS.
This is the key here:
- This highlights a problem with the lack of tiers in the campaign. Torment had 27% of its funding in ranges that Battletech does not cover at all.
- BattleTech has a higher percentage of $125-275 backers, but Torment made $322k in the $350-750. It's a considerable amount of money.
- BT also has a higher % of $1000+ backers, but I'd say that's because it's early in the campaign and the big donors pledged earlier. The percentage will only go down, specially considering these rewards are limited in the first place.
- Torment had fewer $1-50 backers. If BT had the same ratio, it'd be at $1,356,401 rather than the $1,253,669 (without shipping) it had when I gathered the data. Now the opposite: if Torment had BT's ratio, it would've earned $3,649,813 instead of $3,949,042. That's an 8.1% increase by making the $1-50 backers upgrade their pledges, but they need more options in order to do that. It makes a big difference in the end.
- BattleTech average pledge per backer is currently $65. It was $74 in the first day. This reinforces the scenario that the big donors got wind of the campaign very early and pledged right away.
- $65 is still very high. Torment's average was $56, for example. HBS has to give backers more options in order to keep it that high, and having digital tiers in the $100+ range is a must, but I'll get there in a bit.
Thanks to user Lime for asking HBS about new tiers:
It's a valid concern, of course. How much time can they spend brainstorming new rewards and stuff instead of working on the game's pre-production? Does the extra funding compensate the man-hours spent on it? Honestly, I think it does, and I'm not suggesting I know more about schedules and game development than they do, it's just that the things they could add don't require a lot of brainstorming at all.
The lack of tiers is not the only problem, by the way. Both the $125 and $275 (and all of the $1000+ as well) include only physical goods as extra rewards. This means that if you want to upgrade your $50 pledge, you have to more than double your money up to $125 plus shipping. It's even worse if you're an international customer, in which case the taxes and international shipping could make it extremely expensive, and for a lot of people, simply not worth it.
For instance: HBS are well known for the Shadowrun series already. Why not include a "HBS tier" where you get copies of the Shadowrun games? It's not the same genre or IP, but they're pretty good games, and it's inherently optional anyway.
Maybe a cross-promotion reward as well? Eternity and Torment had tiers with copies of WL2, for example.
BattleTech has the original tabletop games and more than a hundred books out there. I don't know what's the relationship/deal with Catalyst, but that's something that would benefit both. Books as digital rewards and lots of physical rewards to add as well.
Golem Arcana is another game by HBS that could be add as both physical and digital rewards/add-ons.
Also, at least one digital tier with more copies of the game is very easy to add and a no-brainer, if you ask me.
In regard to stretch goals, can't say much because they haven't been revealed yet, but I think the lack of mod tools is a mistake. It did wonders to Shadowrun games and it's a great addition to any game. It adds longevity, word of mouth, and allows fans to keep creating new content for the game. It's even more important here IMO, assuming it reaches the PVP MP goal.
I think the unspoken concern here is that they're probably going to do additional mechs/houses as DLC and don't want the community beating them to the punch.
Agent_Carnage
Member
I am content with it reaching 1.8 Million. I could care less about PVP.
8 X 11 Printer Paper
Member
Random seeing the chart/graphs I made, I actually made a new one a few days back with 16 games and it's ordered by % amount was from the first 3 days.
I think that might be the reason as well, but they could still lock some types of mod in MP mode.
Sorry for not giving credit, I couldn't find the person who created it, it was posted in the D:OS2 thread.
Nice job, by the way. I'll update the post.
While I also don't care about pvp, I'm sure there will be stretch goals inbetween
Creating mod tools is usually a significant amount of work. But the other tier ideas you listed seem like no-brainers. "Crash Course in Battletech" with the five greatest novels and a board game or something.
More_Badass
Member
30 days to go and it's almost to 1.4 million. I'd say 2 million is pretty much assured. Right now it's been making around 40-50k a day. Even it dropped to only 20-30k for the next 30 days, that would be around another 750k.
I'd say 2.5 million is pretty much assured. The last push is gonna be huge.
Only if ppl care about pvp
More_Badass
Member
No it won't. There'll likely be small goals to add more features to the expanded SP campaign, between $1.85 and 2.5 mil
StrangeTaco
Member
Harebrained isn't exactly known for their multiplayer experiences so I can see why they'd make that the final stretch goal. While I personally would be stoked to get PvP in a Battletech game I'd prefer an extensive single player over a competitive community that may not last that long.
THAT, would be badass.
Edit: Though it would probably take a lot more work than just adding a limited PvP component like they're planning. Entire campaign would have to be redesigned and rebalanced.
I wonder, perhaps they should offer co-op mode rather than PVP?
Having a friend running a lance next to yours might be fun.
Personally I'm keen to see expanded quest design more than anything else. For example you completed mission A but failed mission B, therefore you get mission C instead of D. Or more like The Witcher 3 quest design where repercussions of completing certain quest can be subtly be seen much later in the game.
That sure would be nice. In too many games failure means having to load a checkpoint or restarting.
I do wonder if devs would at times to like making failures actual options but the difficulty of dealing with branching quests/events probably makes that option problematic. And there's another thing to consider: Players. Players rarely accept failure, retreat or anything like that, meaning branching options from failure may be pointless if no one ever plays them.
Oh, people do.
Atlas AS7-K
Banned
Played Battletech today.
Today I was in an 80t Salamander. Decently Armored and packing 3 LRM-20s. Was having a pretty good game, Scoured the armor off of an Orion heavy 'Mech and crippled his engine in 2 turns of withering missile fire. Only to have a lancemate of his in a Gunslinger roll up right torso hits for both of his gauss rifles in the next turn. The two points of damage that got past armor enough to trigger a critical hit, striking an ammo bin. The resulting explosion ended my game prematurely as my cellular ammunition storage equipment blew most of the force out the back armor, but couldn't protect my bulky XtraLight engine from being destroyed with the rest of the right torso. At least my team won and she's salvageable.
Can't wait for HB's take on this game.
Today I was in an 80t Salamander. Decently Armored and packing 3 LRM-20s. Was having a pretty good game, Scoured the armor off of an Orion heavy 'Mech and crippled his engine in 2 turns of withering missile fire. Only to have a lancemate of his in a Gunslinger roll up right torso hits for both of his gauss rifles in the next turn. The two points of damage that got past armor enough to trigger a critical hit, striking an ammo bin. The resulting explosion ended my game prematurely as my cellular ammunition storage equipment blew most of the force out the back armor, but couldn't protect my bulky XtraLight engine from being destroyed with the rest of the right torso. At least my team won and she's salvageable.
Can't wait for HB's take on this game.
Banderdash
Member
Dug out my Battletech novels last night.
I'm four shy of the complete set (unless you want to include the dark age stuff)... crying shame they're not in print anymore... maybe we'll get a reprint/rerun.
I'm four shy of the complete set (unless you want to include the dark age stuff)... crying shame they're not in print anymore... maybe we'll get a reprint/rerun.
Atlas AS7-K
Banned
Good stuff, Certain backer levels are getting novels as I understand it.
Since there are new novels coming, i reckon getting reprints of the older novels at some point is not impossible.
Of course, Catalyst has a lot of stuff going on right now, so i reckon we'll have to wait quite a bit still.
Instead of failure states, which you are correct in assuming strategy fans would probably rather restart the mission, make optional pressure senstive objectives that open new missions maybe or a choice that causes a mission in the same area to be set up differently. Fire Emblem does these on ocassion.
Banderdash
Member
Ebooks... just doesn't feel the same as a proper paperback.
Poodlestrike
Banned
Heh, it kinda is. No multi to slow down development, but every ounce of the juicy mercenary campaign.
TangoAlphaLima
Member
I own a complete set of the novels. A handful of years ago I decided to finish off my collection after I found the rarest book, The Sword and the Dagger, for 50 cents at a library book sale (it went for about $30 online at the time, now I see the cheapest on Amazon is $78).
Poodlestrike
Banned
That does sound pretty good. Hope it's not quite as linear as "trade X for Y," like, we can leverage stuff like how important/difficult we know the mission to be for extra goodies.
That'd require some kinda intel system, though.
Why not rerelease the old book on Kindle at least? The things are already written, you're not making any money if people can't buy them, and you wouldn't have the upfront costs of a physical printing.
I don't care about PVP either but let's remember that BT's roots are in tabletop multiplayer. I bet there's a lot of BT fans out there who would kill for a competent digital version.
Speak for yourself, I'll take 3 mill with all the subgoals in PVP, personally. Sounds like good fun.
Mass_Pincup
Banned
Fuck it, backed !
If it's at least as good as Returns It'll be well worth it.
If it's at least as good as Returns It'll be well worth it.
There could be some kind of rights and legal issues (Battletech does have a fair share of those in its history). Or it could be that Catalyst has no manpower for that, they ain't that big company.
At the moment, they're doing Interstellar Operations (a core rulebook for Battletech), various smaller technical readouts, new e-pub series that focuses on smaller things in BTU, new art of the classic 'mechs (the unseen), Alpha Strike Combat Manuals and Alpha Strike Box Set, new novels and the next timeline/story advancing book IlClan.
I wouldn't expect anything regarding the old novels until the new novels start getting released, at earliest.
They had a digital release of some of the old books (Jade Phoenix trilogy, Blood of Kerensky, etc.) two years ago, but they stopped selling those. I think it's a license issue.
Sorry for posting again, but I was digging further into the Q&A on the Kickstarter comments page, the lack of physical rewards is not only hindered by manhours, but also licensing issues. Maybe printed versions of these things will become reality. I'd love a hardcover art book. We still have 29 days left. 
>>>Any chance of add-ons to get printed versions of the art book and novellas?
Sorry, I thought I’d answered that. We’ve talked about add-ons but there are licensing issues in the way. We’re working to fix that, so please stay tuned and stay frosty.