KickStarter BattleTech Pre-Release Thread

[Lhynn]

The only reason this is still on my radar is because JA2 is not an rpg.

 

[Quigs]

I was talking in terms of canon hype, not rules presented (since ruleswise Atlas doesn't have any distinction from other 100 tonners in melee, despite its flavour text).

In terms of rules, the No-Dachi isn't the best melee if custom mechs are used. IIRC, the mathematically best Triple-Strength Myomer weight class is 55 tons so speed, armor and base melee damage are at optimum ratio.

Well... Yeah. Custom mechs are always going to be better, save some very rare 'perfect' mechs like the Turkina B, Thunderhawk, for later tech, and Awesome for earlier. If I'm brawling and have an option though, I'm taking my 2K0. (With the Black Knight pulse upgrade and Fafnir not being far behind.)

That said, I'm a little disappointed in the setting. While the feudal era is definitely the most fun and evocative for literary work, the tech makes for some slow, plodding fights technically.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

Yea, when it comes to BTech my own tip for people is to "use low-end tech rules, stick to stock models", due to how custom mechs completely break the game with little effort (I don't think it takes genius to realize how PERFECT Medium Laser is), and how IMO most equipment after 3050 doesn't justify the added rules complexity (and let's not even get into Protomechs and shit) even if I love the concept of Triple Strength Myomer so much due to being a fan of melee approach. More often than not I just use the basic original boxed set if I play the game.

 

[Kem0sabe]

Have they talked about combined arms engagements? The use of air support, artillery and infantry us pretty important in the battletech universe, including the novels (gray death Legion series) that deal directly with a small rag tag mercenary unit

 

[Zorba the Hutt]

Have they talked about combined arms engagements? The use of air support, artillery and infantry us pretty important in the battletech universe, including the novels (gray death Legion series) that deal directly with a small rag tag mercenary unit

This site is pretty useful as it records their answers, otherwise buried in thousands of KS comments, also a copy of the FAQ:
http://battletech.bin.sh/

As for combined arms, still not final (for player control, but confirmed for enemies I think):

You’ll definitely own and manage more than 4 ‘Mechs as your Mercenary outfit grows - you’ll just be deploying once Lance at a time for typical missions. There will almost certainly be opportunities over the course of the game to command larger forces due to specific mission parameters. For example, allied forces may join your Lance during a mission to complete a shared objective.

As far as non-’Mech units, we’re exploring ways for the player to use support units in the Stage 3 Expanded Mercenary Campaign (for example, by calling in AeroTech strikes). However, we want to keep the command emphasis on your ‘Mechs and ‘MechWarriors - we view other units (such as AeroTech, artillery, and possibly tanks) as supporting units - not as primary units that you would manage and customize to the same level as your ‘Mechs.
...
We’d love to have infantry in addition to the vehicular forces that have already been unlocked - but until we've prototyped it and proven it's fun in the game, we don't want to commit to it.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

Personally I'd assume the enemy AI will have tanks and whatnot as mook units.

 

[Quigs]

most equipment after 3050 doesn't justify the added rules complexity (and let's not even get into Protomechs and shit)

Ha! I go the other way. Bring it all on. Aerofighters on map (I've yet to use the goofy aero bubble though. I want to.), Arty strikes, infantry, etc.

Alpha strike makes it far easier to include all the combined arms bits, but it's kinda... meh. Battleforce 2 is still the way to go IMHO.

 

[agris]

Reading their answers, they pretty much don't have a clue on how to design the actual game, everything seems to be 'we will see, we will try, we will experiment, not sure, maybe'

HBS should have been much better prepared during pre-production of the KS release, especially when the goal is to make a pc strategy game based off a tabletop mech strategy game, with a rabid and minutiae focused fan base, maybe they would have gotten more money, or at least less scepticism...

I think they're incredibly well prepared, to the point of not wanting to promise things that they don't have engineering and design proof-of-concepts to support. I get that you want definitive replies, but when your funding dictates your scope that means a sliding scale. Clearly they have the most blocked out for the stage 1 skirmish, and the rest of the goals are deemed achievable by engineering.

AKA, you're complaining like a normal gamer who has no clue how shit is made. So I guess good job at being mediocre?

 

[Kem0sabe]

I think they're incredibly well prepared, to the point of not wanting to promise things that they don't have engineering and design proof-of-concepts to support. I get that you want definitive replies, but when your funding dictates your scope that means a sliding scale. Clearly they have the most blocked out for the stage 1 skirmish, and the rest of the goals are deemed achievable by engineering.

AKA, you're complaining like a normal gamer who has no clue how shit is made. So I guess good job at being mediocre?

Fuck off with your inside knowledge of game development, project management and utter non-mediocrity...

 

[Excidium II]

They're just doing what is sane to do with this weird campaign they have where the game's scope can change wildly depending on how much funding they get.

 

[Kem0sabe]

I'm not referring to the scope of the game per say, more about their responses to a lot of questions about gameplay mechanics like to torso twisting for example.

They should have had more of the base rules set down already

 

[Excidium II]

Yes but wouldn't the scope of the game affect systems decisions? They just don't want to commit to anything and have people whine about it later if they need to approach it differently

I'd just temper expectations about systems right away since they're not exactly known for making complex games.

 

[Tripicus]

I hope all threads related to this generation will be moved from the rpg forum, dunno how many times the devs need to say it's not an rpg before Infinitron takes the hint.

We need some sort of symmetry with Nobunaga's Ambition in JRPG.

 

[Infinitron]

Stage 3 by tomorrow.

khavi Highlights from the AMA?

 

[khavi]

On it, been compiling...he answered a royal fuckton of questions. This list is what is new information or greatly expanded from what we have heard before. Want everything? Sort through it yourself.

These are in rough categories.

First up - why is this not an RPG, how do you categorize it? I R NOT KNOW ACRONYMS. This falls under relevant to recent discussions.

Concerned about massive dialogue dumps re: SR:HK that are not exactly conducive to replayability

Q: how do you intend to add variety to each playing experience to make each passthrough a unique experience? Will my choice dialogue determine my missions and payment, or will a majority of the variable content come from your pilot skills and mech selection?

So the BATTLETECH campaign will be a very different beast than Shadowrun. I've brought up XCOM:EU a few times now, but it's not a bad comparison point to how the overall campaign might feel. With some more personal focus on story and character interactions.

I think overall in BATTLETECH the emphasis will be much less on branching, scripted story in the RPG sense, instead on letting you run a Mercenary company and manage your Mercenary career. It's not a sim, but it's more sim-like in that regard. So don't think in terms of dialogue choices affecting outcomes, rather your game-level actions. Which factions do you take contracts from and did you complete your House Liason's secret side-objective while on mission, or stick to the contract? Am I egalitarian in the missions I take, or am I choosing to focus on one area of space or to try to take missions that seem more "altruistic"? The emphasis here is on creating a much broader experience. It won't be a cRPG like Shadowrunm so instead of deep-diving on a lot of very intricate conversational content and choices, we'll be focusing more on game systems and lots of cool options for you to pursue as a Mercenary commander.

Can you tell us how much focus is being put on story? With factions being included as stretch goals, is the story locked down?
Do you think there is a unique challenge to create empathy and personal investment into a story about robots (even with pilots)?

We're still fleshing out our story plans for the Extended Merc Campaign but yes, it is absolutely always a challenge to create REAL empathy and investment in the stories we tell. And it's one of the challenges I'm most passionate about here. It took a lot of iteration to really start to hit that mark in Dragonfall and Hong Kong. Even though BATTLETECH will be a very different form of storytelling (it's not an RPG) I'm sure the iteration required to resonate will be the same here. Everyone on our writing team is really, deeply committed to getting it right and connecting with the player.

I think one thing we've been really consistent about internally is that this is a story about flawed human characters doing flawed human things - it's not a story about robots at all, though they are very important tools.

I'm a little surprised to hear it isn't an RPG.

I think the defining aspect of an RPG for a video game is stat-based combat versus twitch-based combat. Battletech has its roots in the tabletop RPG and I thought this new game was meant to reflect that with turn-based, stat-based combat.

I also assumed the campaign would allow opportunities to upgrade and improve your mechs, etc. which is also an aspect of RPG gameplay.

In what ways is Battletech not an RPG?

There's plenty more information about this on our Kickstarter page, but in a nutshell, Shadowrun is an RPG with tactical combat elements, while BattleTech is a tactical combat game with RPG elements. As far as stats and customization, we've absolutely got that. (I'd consider that part of a lot of tactical combat games, too.)

Khavi_V is accurate to say that you're the commander here instead of a guy on the field, though we're looking at you still likely being an active MechWarrior as well as the leader of your Merc outfit.

The biggest difference is that an RPG like Shadowrun is heavily structured around conversation trees, and face-to-face character interactions where important decisions can happen. You're always moving through the world individually or with a team.

BattleTech isn't about big long conversation trees, although you can still talk to people. It's about taking contracts for missions, figuring out the logistics for those missions, hiring and managing your MechWarriors and their skills between missions, customizing your Mechs (salvage etc too) and managing your reputation as a Mercenary. You aren't running around the world consistently as an individual like in a traditional RPG - you're either commanding 'Mechs on a mission or managing things via "room screens" in your DropShip base. Instead of story unfolding via heavy exposition in character conversations and world exploration, it will unfold via short conversations, mission briefings, and the larger choices you make within the game system such as what factions to work for.

Hope that helps!

Of special note is that they are considering having your persona be an active mechwarrior on the field, something that was previously said to be no.

I'll put each section into a post as I've got shit to do now.

 

[Morkar Left]

I'm a little surprised to hear it isn't an RPG.

I think the defining aspect of an RPG for a video game is stat-based combat versus twitch-based combat. Battletech has its roots in the tabletop RPG and I thought this new game was meant to reflect that with turn-based, stat-based combat.

I also assumed the campaign would allow opportunities to upgrade and improve your mechs, etc. which is also an aspect of RPG gameplay.

Battletech has its roots in tabletop wargaming, not RPG. LAter on there was an tabletop rpg as well but it came always second to the tabletop game.

I don't consider outfitting mechs - or changing/upgrading equipment - as a defining act for RPG gameplay. Such a thing is way too common for a lot of genres. And even when it comes to raising stats instead of equipment; even civ 4 had that.

 

[khavi]

Battletech has its roots in tabletop wargaming, not RPG. LAter on there was an tabletop rpg as well but it came always second to the tabletop game.

I don't consider outfitting mechs - or changing/upgrading equipment - as a defining act for RPG gameplay. Such a thing is way too common for a lot of genres. And even when it comes to raising stats instead of equipment; even civ 4 had that.

Yeh, that was the guy that thought anything not twitch was an RPG.

 

[khavi]

Next up from the Mike McCain AMA - Questions focusing on the tactical combat portion of the equation. To my dismay, I actually read people saying that Shadowrun combat was difficult.

Q: Will we be able to use scout mechs to target for indirect LRM volleys?

As with everything, we have to prove in prototyping that it's actually fun for our game before it makes the cut, but - yes this specifically is something we've been excited about and would like to include as an ability!

Q: Will you be sticking with hexes or will the game be squares like shadowrun or xcom?

We're prototyping free-movement, we think that's ideal level of control to provide. (Grids are the least accurate model and unfair to diagonals, Hexes are much better but still limited, free movement paths -and code to properly handle them- can offer the best experience we think.) It will likely still be somewhat "snappy" so that it doesn't totally overwhelm you with options. We also intend to have freeform, rolling terrain, not just fixed elevation levels.

Q: Is there any chance of increasing the size of engagements in the future, from single lance to perhaps company-size? I think it would be a ton of fun and open up a lot more potential tactics and strategies at that level.

I think a lot of it comes down to our goals in making a squad-tactics game, not a larger-scale wargame. 4-6 is really a sweet spot for this style of combat where you're intricately managing a small squad of units. (Our Shadowrun games, XCOM:EU, Jagged Alliance, Fallout Tactics, even Bioware stuff despite the different game type there.) Our emphasis is on detailed unit control over sheer numbers.

That said, there will certainly be opportunities to command larger forces on specific missions where that's a part of the mission. For example you might deploy to a planet and then be joined for a while by some additional allied units you can command.

Q: I don't want to ask specifics because I know its so early in the process. So please feel free to generalize and reference what you hope to do, goals and so on. So, regarding the new Battletech game, how complex are you guys shooting for in regards to tactical and strategic play? Starter Box? Tactical Handbook? Maximum Tech? Total Warfare? Or to describe it another way maybe; Checkers or Chess? Stratego or Risk?

Well! We have a lot of hopes and dreams but as far as complexity, we want layers. It's BattleTech - it's gotta be a deep, tactical, heavily customizable experience. But there's also a design elegance we strive for, where depth doesn't have to equate to sheer complexity for complexity's sakem or missions that take hours. So layers - relatively easy to understand, difficult to master. (Kinda like Chess, I suppose!) And being able to present high-level information cleanly and also allowing the player to drill-down much deeper when desired into specific systems. But not designing a game such that you HAVE to be on top of every stat and every customization choice every step of the way in order to succeed. I'd like most missions to be completable in 30-60 minutes, so that you have a nice gameplay loop bouncing between battlefield play and in-between-mission management of your unit. I'm probably referencing XCOM:EU too much at this point, but that game has a fantastic core play loop where you always have something else you want to do and you never feel like you're in a deep slog.

Q: Also, will the already-completed 'combined arms' stretch goal include Aircraft and/or AeroSpace fighters, or is that limited to ground-based vehicles?

Pretty sure we'll have aircraft too, most likely in a "launch airstrike next turn" way than an "order this aircraft around every turn" way.

Some good, some bad in those answers, as with much of the AMA.

 

[khavi]

From the Mike McCain AMA: UI/Engine/Art questions

Q; Were the hand-painted backdrops difficult to work with in SR:R? Will you be using a similar technique with BT maps, or can I hope for procedurally-generated semi-random maps?

1. Yeah, the hand-painted 2.5d isometric approach definitely had its pros and cons. It wasn't suited too badly for the kind of grid-based, urban, squad combat that game featured, but it also wasn't always the easiest limitation to work with. Visually though, it was a great way for us to realize the mood and details of the world in a way that we simply wouldn't have had the budget for in 3D!

For BATTLETECH, we knew from the get-go that that approach wouldn't scale well. For starters, 'Mech combat is all about destruction! And large-scale damage and destruction is really difficult and time-consuming to pull-off in 2D isometric. Secondly, for the much more naturalistic environments of a game like BATTLETECH, a tile-based approach is much more limiting visually. Lastly, and I know this bothered some people in Shadowrun, the additional freedom of control that full 3D offers (rotating the camera) can definitely be really nice in gameplay.

Q: As somebody with an art and design background, can you elaborate about yours and HBS's design philosophy with regards to user interface? Previous entries in the computer gaming space for this license and setting have leveraged diagetic interface elements hard to great immersive effect; is that something you're keen to carry forward, and if so, how are you looking at achieving it?

The biggest thing I can say about our UI/UX approach is that we're always trying to improve it. Diagetic can be a more challenging mark for a turn-based command game like this, since you don't have the cockpit itself to use as an in-world UI canvas. But it's not out of the question. Satellite Reign did a cool thing where ostensibly your elevated camera view was a camera drone of some sort, it had some occasional interference and a bit of drift wobble and everything. Anyway, I'd love to explore it but we'll see what works best in development!

Q: To what degree will UI, especially in terms of mech customization UI - not looking for a comment on any particularly poorly designed mechlabs in any particular online mech games, but customization is important aspect of battletech, and being able to manage the mechlab properly will likely be fairly important, especially in the campaign mode - be a focus for the development of this game?

As far as UI goes, yes it will be critical in a game as complex as BATTLETECH that we apply enough development focus and iteration time to UI in particular to clearly and elegantly expose those customization systems. How exactly it works - not sure yet. I think of UI in terms of layers, making sure that big picture information bubbles effectively to the surface and that drill-down views are available for less-common or less-important details. I want to be able to offer effective 'Mech loadout presets while also allowing the user to further customize specific components.

I haven't done my 'Mech lab research in the older games yet, so I won't speak to those games until I have! In my memory, the biggest success is a bit intangible, it's giving me that feeling of ownership and ability to experiment. But it's been a while, so I don't really remember the specifics.

Campaign/Lore Questions

Q: How much of the campaign is planned out so far?

Have you determined how much of an impact the Great Houses will influence it other than offering various contracts/missions? Following that, will our decisions on each contract/mission change the campaign further on?

Right now we're iterating on a high-level story outline for the campaign. The main campaign is set in the Periphery, but we want interactions with the Great Houses to be an important part of the Mercenary experience. Expect to be able to build reputation with any of the Houses based on the contracts you take and how you complete them, and to have that reputation impact subsequent relationships with the Houses and other factions too.

Q: If the high-level story outline will be Periphery based, is it likely we'll see a couple of Periphery states included in the scheming and conflict? Or will the Periphery be more background, with focus solely on the Great Houses?

The focus will be on a story we're crafting within the Periphery and about Periphery factions. That said, the Great Houses may be tangentially involved in those events and of course will also be important clients for your Mercenary outfit during your career. (Assuming Extended Mercenary Campaign here, which it looks like we'll be reaching pretty soon on KS, which is awesome!)

Q: Will the Inner Sphere politics follow the same storyline as the novels, or will our interaction within the campaigns dictate different outcomes for the houses as time progresses?

Expanding on that, will the game clock actually change the years of the game setting, so 3025 goes into 3026 etc? How does this affect the open-ended campaign that could potentially move into 3050 and 3055, where new tech is supposed to be introduced? Or is the technology stuck at 3025 no matter what the game clock says?

Good questions! I don't think we'll have decisions for the player that would significantlyalter the course of events for the Houses in their game - after all, you're just one Merc - but we'll see.

We intend to measure time in terms of the length of your career rather than calendar years. So time will definitely be a gameplay factor in the campaign - for example waiting for a MechWarrior's injuries to heal, or taking a contract before it expires - and our story will also advance over time - but the BattleTech world at-large will not evolve past the 3025-era during this game.

Q: Are there any plans to bring ComStar in as a faction? I know at this point in the timeline the Com Guards were pretty under the radar, but they were a force to be reckoned with all their own.

Our core storyline will be largely separate, but ComStar is always mysterious and always present in some way or another. Even if you don't always know it.

Q: Will the campaign be one continuous story or broken into multiple different ones?

There will be a single overarching story campaign, but also a lot of separate smaller story arcs and one-off missions you can engage in over the course of your career as a Mercenary. We don't want the story to feel like it's keeping you on rails at all. Still exploring how it works, but we'd like you to feel a good bit of agency over how and when you engage with the story events.

Q: One of the things that a lot of fans love most about Battletech is the depth of the setting's lore. As more content is unlocked, how much of that lore will we get to explore in the game?

That's one of my favorite things as well. It's too early to quantify, but I'll say directionally I'd like to include as much lore as we can cram into the game in an elegant way. Definitely want item/'Mech descriptions, planet description text and things like that, too.

Q: Since we're coming up on beating the expanded merc campaign, can you give us any hints on the stretch goals will be in this section?

Well it rhymes with... Chop... uhh... ChopSlip.

Q: How much time will the game cover? Or is that something that has yet to be determined?

Also, will there be a possibility of recovering a Star League Memory Core, a la the Gray Death Legion @ Freeport?

We'll be measuring time in terms of your career, and the events of the main story, but we won't be advancing along the BattleTech canon timeline significantly - trying to account for eventually hitting the 4th succession war for example and make the whole game react to that event would get pretty hairy to develop for.

Not necessarily a Memory Core, but we love the idea of being able to find Star League relics and LosTech in the game.

Q: Assuming the Expanded mercenaries campaign is funded along with its subgoal, how long of a single player experience are you guys expecting? It'd also be really neat if some pilots could only be recruited after very obscure conditions were met to make campaigns truly an individual experience. Is any of this something that we can expect to see?

We don't have a good sense of length per se yet, but we want the campaign to be open ended so that your career can continue even after the events of the main story arc are resolved. We're big fans of MW2 Mercs.

And as far as certain pilots that may be more unique or difficult to recruit, I think you might like one of our upcoming Stage 3+ funding goals... : )

Missions & Maps plus Logistics

Q: In my experience most games with 'generated' mssions (as I believe will be found in the open ended campaign) tend to feel like your doing the same handful of missions on different landscapes over and over again, so my question is what's planned to insure that the open ended camgain avoids this scenario?

I really liked how XCOM:EU was able to keep their missions feeling pretty fresh just by the sheer variety of maps in the game and the randomized starting locations and force compositions, so we'll be looking to that as one source of inspiration there. We also plan to design environments themselves as three separate components - map, scenario, and "mood" (time-of-day, weather conditions, etc) - so that even if you have played a particular map before it could be very different the next time around under different mood conditions and with a different gameplay scenario attached. Not to mention facing a different type of enemy force with probably a different Lance of your own.

Q: Will there be city maps?

Really want to have cities as well as naturalistic terrain, yeah!

Q: Any plans for an end of battle replay/photo mode? It would be cool to be able watch the entire sequence and move the camera around the battlefield.

Not sure about that, but at a minimum we'll have a post-action mission report.

Q: How much of a role will transportation logistics play?

We're still determining exactly where the line is between fun and frustrating, but we want transport logistics to play a role for sure.

Okay….taking a break, and then the final sections are mechs/mechwarriors and future of the games development. As I said, he responded to fracking everything, and much of it was good new (or bad new - but less of that) info.

 

[Bubbles]

Meanwhile the Codex fundraiser is less than $900 away from funding

 

[Zorba the Hutt]

Someone posted some encouraging early prototype footage in the KS comments:

 

[Luka-boy]

1850K Goal reached! Expanded mercenary campaign is go!
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/webeharebrained/battletech/posts/1385929

• The single-player story campaign is now open-ended - charter JumpShip transport for your mercenary outfit to travel to various hot-zones across the Periphery and Inner Sphere, and continue your career even after the game's main story arc is resolved.
• You’ll be able to choose your contracts and alliances, with both the 5 Great Houses and other sub-factions within the Inner Sphere.
• A procedural contract-generation system will ensure that you always have fresh contracts available, wherever your Mercenary career may take you.
• The missions you choose to accept and the objectives competed in those missions will determine your reputation as a mercenary, affecting the contracts and contract terms you may be offered in the future.

• $2,000,000 - Customizable Home Base: As part of the ongoing campaign, you'll acquire a home base (likely in the form of a derelict DropShip) for your mercenary outfit to call home. At this funding level we'll also allow you to adjust its appearance, repair and upgrade its functionality, and grow and evolve your base as your outfit grows and evolves.
• $2,150,000 - Legendary 'Mech & MechWarriors: In addition to the game's standard 'Mechs and customizable, procedurally-generated MechWarriors, we'll include rare legendary 'Mechs to find, and rare hero MechWarriors to hire - including some famous characters from BattleTech history. Such legends may not stick around for long, but will be well worth hiring if you can afford them.

 

[khavi]

Last two sections from the Mike McCain AMA--

Mechs and the mechen and womechen that drive them-

Q: Will you be able to create and test mechs from scratch like the tabletop version?

Yep! The game will include a full Skirmish mode, so you'll be able to experiment freely in the 'Mech lab for Skirmish play. (Within the constraints of our 'Mech customization system.)

Q: Could you please expand on this? What kind of constraints do you think will be notable?

We're still exploring designs for this system - we want to allow for a wide range of customization, but still preserve some of the core identity of each 'Mech so that the choice of a chassis has real gameplay implications.

Q: Will ammunition be tracked in actual numbers or will it be abstracted away as in Shadowrun Returns, or similar to the tabletop Battletech?

Too early to say exactly how it will work! We'd like it to be a resource, though, not an unlimited supply.

Q: Location based damage is a huge part of battletech, can we expect to see the traditional battlemech armor locations and component damage, or will it be done in a different fashion?

We'll have location-based damage!

Q: Do you prefer the walking tank aesthetic or the more Macross/Robotech style of the early novels (Shoulder Rolls and Hand Chops in the early GDL novels)

Hmm, for me it's all about selling the scale of the 'Mechs in both their designs and the way that they move. These are giant machines not humans, there is a weight and power behind everything they do. I guess I'd lean towards the former but I feel like there's important parts of the experience in both areas.

We definitely want to highlight the agility of light 'Mechs on the battlefield and differentiate them from their heavier counterparts! As far as movement specifics, we still need to do some prototyping to determine what will read best from our elevated camera angle, and best highlight the scale of the 'Mechs. I'd say it's a spectrum, and Assault 'Mechs should feel generally stiffer and more lumbering than Light 'Mechs.

Q: Will heat factor in the pc game at the same level as the table-top game? And are you going to include or exclude head-shot critical hits or Gauss rifle head shots?

Heat management will play an important role in gameplay. And yeah, no Gauss rifles yet! (Or rather, no Gauss rifles anymore, and the IS hasn't rediscovered them yet.)

Q: So, you'll be using PGIs game models. My question is... Are you going to modify them for your own game beyond their vanilla state? For example, textures to suit your own art style, your own animations, maybe other slight visual changes?

We'll definitely be applying our own texture and material approach for our 'Mechs, and that may include some other adjustments along the way. We've yet to really dive in to the animations but at a minimum there are some new movement sets we'll want to support (melee, for starters!)

Q: Will we be able to choose paint schemes for our mechs? Sadly, dress-up for giant robots is one of may favorite features

I also love that feature, so yes we want some cosmetic customization to be a thing!

Q: By using the PGI models are you limiting yourself to only those mechs that already exist in MWO?

There's a few of our own we'd like to add but we're still evaluating that.

Q: How much detail will we be able to see on the mechs in your game? Will we be able to zoom in really far and see as much detail as we can in MWO?

Not sure yet! If I had to guess, we probably won't have quite the individual 'Mech fidelity of MWO, but we'd like to be able to bring the camera in fairly close when needed for some XCOM:EU-like cinematic presentation moments. How much of that we can pull off is to-be-determined still!

Q: Is there any chance that there would be any "out of mech" fights in the upcoming game? pilots with fully realized statblocks?

MechWarriors will have their own skill progression for sure but all combat will be taking place on the battlefield between 'Mechs (and other combined arms.)

Q: Will we be able to salvage mechs and create our own "Frankenstein" versions out of whatever we find on the battlefield ?

Salvage definitely yes - we've talked a little bit more about that here:https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/webeharebrained/battletech/posts/1377931

As far as Frankenstein-ing, we definitely want this to be a game where you'll have to cobble some 'Mechs back together with parts from a variety of sources. But not to the level of, say, here's an Atlas arm I think I'll bolt to my Hunchback.

Development Schtufff

Q: As a Backer I would really like to know what steps are you taking, personally, to prevent scope creep on Battletech?

You're welcome! Scope creep is a concern on every game project, I'd say probably everywhere without fail (Though I'll admit that a counter-example could exist). But anyway, I think for me it's less about "preventing scope creep" and much more about "creating focus". I'm a big fan of refining and filtering and iterating and really trying to find the "core" of an idea - there's an elegance to design and art and storytelling that I'm always after. With a strong, small set of core ideas, I find it makes it a lot easier to let go of other things that feel arbitrary or don't support those core pillars. We've gotten better at scoping on each of our past projects so we'll be taking those lessons to BATTLETECH as well.

Q: Why is multiplayer the last goal? I really really hope we reach that

I really really hope so too! It just came down to budgeting and development focus. We want to make sure we're set to do single-player right before biting off multiplayer.

Q: Will you expect to update the game (Battletech) regularly with new content? How mod friendly do you think the game well be?

We'd like for BATTLETECH to have a long development life here at HBS, especially if PVP is funded in the Kickstarter. As far as modding goes, it's hard to say yet! We won't be doing anything to active prevent modding, but I'm not sure how accessible some of the Unity parts of the game will be.

Q: How soon (or later) after the Battletech Kickstarter finish do you expect to have the skirmish game beta ready to go? Can you give us a little information about your planned development schedule?

We're pretty early in prototyping, so it'll be quite a while before we're ready to Beta. As a total guess - about a year from now.

Q: If you have time for a followup, how often do you think you guys will be doing updates after the kickstarter ends? Similar to the Shadowrun development cycles?

We definitely want to keep you guys in the loop. It will slow down as we get into the thick of development but we won't go months at a time with no updates. We'll also be sure to keep everyone up to date with any important happenings. So yeah, I would say generally similar to Shadowrun!

EDIT: So I lied, that's actually all the interesting stuff from the AMA. Rest is about cats, or shit, or catshit.

 

[Rhapsody'n Blue]

Soooo, silly question:

Even right now, a day or so after the Stage 3 announcement, the Kickstarter has raised less than $1,850,000 (it is now very close, but at $1,848,726 as of this posting).

How is Stage 3 funded despite being below the line? Is this a common occurrence in Kickstarter-land, or were they just being generous? When I got the email notice (I'm a backer), it was at $1,800,000 and some change, so Stage 3 seems to have been "funded" $500,000 early.

All of this is fine by me -- I backed when the SP campaign was confirmed, but really didn't think the game would amount to much unless Stage 3 was hit. Now that it is, it can't come soon enough. No complaints -- I just want to understand the process better (provided their is a rational explanation I'm missing).

 

[Morality Games]

Soooo, silly question:

Even right now, a day or so after the Stage 3 announcement, the Kickstarter has raised less than $1,850,000 (it is now very close, but at $1,848,726 as of this posting).

How is Stage 3 funded despite being below the line? Is this a common occurrence in Kickstarter-land, or were they just being generous? When I got the email notice (I'm a backer), it was at $1,800,000 and some change, so Stage 3 seems to have been "funded" $500,000 early.

All of this is fine by me -- I backed when the SP campaign was confirmed, but really didn't think the game would amount to much unless Stage 3 was hit. Now that it is, it can't come soon enough. No complaints -- I just want to understand the process better (provided their is a rational explanation I'm missing).

PayPal?