27 replies to this topic

[Vermaxx]

Not alone, but so far there has been nothing of the highly advertised role warfare they've preached.

Many of us assumed some form of that would come with the XP system, but all the pilot/module trees are universal.

Many of us assumed some form of that would come with an actual COMMANDER position, and in fact one of the recent grognard flush threads quoted a dev post from some time ago where they talked about commanders multi-tasking to launch airstrikes and whatnot.

Now, however, we learn that "fire support" consumables will be universally available. This cannot in any way help a commander slot for role warfare.

Option One - everyone fires their own shart. Great, everyone is a MW3/BO2 character dropping airstrikes.

Option Two - only the "COMMANDER" can drop strikes...but he can drop them all. Even with a cooldown, this means the guy can just hide somewhere and watch his map feed and drop 8 strikes on the same person or persons until they're gone or everyone is dead.

Nothing in this puts a focus on being a "commander" in the sense of a dedicated role. One totally eliminates the need, one turns the commander into a guy who just burns out his team's strikes and then brawls for the rest of the match.

Given the way the game has gone, I think it is more likely everyone will use their own airstrike, because that would be much easier than an in-game option to enable or disable yours for use by whichever pug clicks "Take Command" first.

[wwiiogre]

Great post and oh so true.

Chris

[Sheraf]

LRM Stalker 5S, now with Artillery and airstrike!

[Adrian Steel]

Role warfare? That horse died some time ago. Still miss her.

[OuttaAmmo NoWai]

1. It's beta, nothing's fully implemented, calm down, etc.
2. This entire game is role warfare. Every weight class plays differently and shines in its special playstyle

[Zero Neutral]

Consumables could only add value to every role...

Sheraf, on 06 March 2013 - 07:26 PM, said:

LRM Stalker 5S, now with Artillery and airstrike!

Stalker 5H makes a better LRM boat because it has larger launchers.

AMS is overrated.

[Zerstorer Stallin]

There is no role warfare, and wont be till there is RR and tonage matching in all games.

[Zero Neutral]

Adrian Steel, on 06 March 2013 - 07:28 PM, said:

Role warfare? That horse died some time ago. Still miss her.

Your signature is entirely obnoxious, imo.

[Synaps3]

I was also very surprised to see the new implementation totally disregarding role warfare. That was the main reason I originally assumed the design hadn't been thoroughly vetted yet. It didn't fit with ANYTHING pgi has said in the past about how they wanted to design the game. They didn't want coolant pods, they didn't want all mechs doing the same things, they wanted a commander role, and they didn't want p2w. This didn't advance any of those goals. I kind of assumed it was the first design of a new intern or something.

[Sheraf]

Zero Neutral, on 06 March 2013 - 07:33 PM, said:

Consumables could only add value to every role...



Stalker 5H makes a better LRM boat because it has larger launchers.

AMS is overrated.

The 5S has a command module

[Shumabot]

I'm concerned that streaks eliminated role warfare months ago.

[Vermaxx]

OuttaAmmo NoWai, on 06 March 2013 - 07:31 PM, said:

1. It's beta, nothing's fully implemented, calm down, etc.
2. This entire game is role warfare. Every weight class plays differently and shines in its special playstyle

This isn't a thread you can end with "**** BETA." Everyone having access to "commander" themed battle resources doesn't encourage any role other than ramboism. Second, nothing in this game is role warfare. The game HAS differences in chassis weight and performance, but those aren't roles. Those are rides. Well, sure, they're a kind of role, but they're not the roles PGI has implied are coming, like deeply immersive jobs that a player can invest in to seriously help their team in some way other than switching mechs.

Zero Neutral, on 06 March 2013 - 07:33 PM, said:

Consumables could only add value to every role...

IF they had defined roles to pick from, but I still think they should have been locked to a command console and commander players.

Zerstorer Stallin, on 06 March 2013 - 07:34 PM, said:

There is no role warfare, and wont be till there is RR and tonage matching in all games.

This is my feeling. There may not even be role warfare until CW, when they can implement some kind of real shifting economy and real benefits/penalties to gaining and losing ground.

[Sheraf]

I think we will have the roles back. Light mechs now can die in the front line more than before, they will go back to their role. Assualt and heavy mechs will resume their role that was taken over by the light mechs before. i don't know about medium though.

[80sGlamRockSensation David Bowie]

HEY ALL YOU OF YOU! PAUL BE ON OUR SIDE! /caps

http://mwomercs.com/...76#entry2019276

Paul Inouye said:

What the?

Who used my account to post this?!?!?!

Incoming update.. this post is about to get fried.

[MischiefSC]

ECM already eliminated role warfare. LRM boats do their own TAG, spotting and scounting is largely useless if you're not all on voice chat. Lights leading charge and assaults playing a stealth role, mediums with no real ECM support unless they skip tactical deployment and just huddle around the ECM guy - unless you pug in which case you may just drop without it.

Yes, you can work around it. People work around gold ammo in WoT all the time - they accept that it's imbalanced and they either participate or they expect to lose more often.

If ECM was MC only there would be a riot. If LB10X was MC only would anyone care?

Somewhere in PGI someone decided that LRMs had to be artillery support and ECM team stealth shield and everything else had to be adjusted to suit. At this point they're moving towards nerfing down ECM mechs as a solution....

Really?

I deal with people in the context of conflict resolution for a living. I have for a long time. At times I've taught the subject. I know what someone defending a logical fallacy looks like. Trying to sustain a faulty position in a debate. This is what it looks like. Everything else has to be twisted to try and fit into the faulty argument. Just give them more time to work out the little flaws, it's fine you're just not understanding it.

ECM/missile balance is broken.

Please fix it. Please.

[Adrienne Vorton]

OuttaAmmo NoWai, on 06 March 2013 - 07:31 PM, said:

1. It's beta, nothing's fully implemented, calm down, etc.

problem is, they just are about to implement things that were anticipated and could bring the first interesting role specific skills into the game...target area designition for scouts and airstrike orders for commanders... but they bring them in a very cheap way, and that is very very very sad... so 2 (central) possible skills for the role specific skilltrees are gone, and i can see that similar things gonna happen to others as well...

Edited by Adrienne Vorton, 07 March 2013 - 12:08 AM.

[Corvus Antaka]

Im concerned about airstrikes in general. If we have the ability to shoot the planes down...I'm "less" concerned. If not, well, 8 mechs with airstrikes, 4 seconds apart, 10 damage, thats 80 damage...not negligible at all.

Its impossible to say without playing the game.

HOWEVER, it is a part of community warfare. I do think wisely implemented it has a role a mech battalion can call in support, and this is cool.

Needing a Command Console however seems viable to curb everyone taking 1 airstrike "just in case we start dying", a luck shot type thing.

given the warning time & smoke a significant benefit is to harrass teams that stick in a 90m 8 man humpfest, and as such I do like many merits and potential behind the idea.

It'll be fun to test, then we can let the bitching begin.

[Windies]

Call of Mechwarrior: Online. World of Call of Mechwarrior: Online.

Edited by Windies, 07 March 2013 - 12:53 AM.

[pesco]

You can find my very first question on one of the first Community Questions threads (if they still exist) was how they planned to make the Commander Role a worthwhile thing. Strangely enough, the question was not answered.

[Noobzorz]

Zero Neutral, on 06 March 2013 - 07:34 PM, said:

Your signature is entirely obnoxious, imo.

What a useful post that contributes so much.


Anyway, now that they've said consumables are in for sure (ugh, fine) and scrapped P2W (cool!) or we did for now, at least, we can get to the process of playtesting this stuff. You may well be correct, TC, but we'll have to play with it a bunch to figure out what works and what doesn't.