130 replies to this topic

[ragingmunkyz]

Zeh, on 12 March 2013 - 09:19 AM, said:

Great, so do I. And you can do that now. Get together with like-minded people. Form a team. Assign roles, make basic strategic plans for each possible map and side. Carry them out when you get that map. TADA!

We shouldn't be forced to do that to get the most out of the game, a good game would make it possible even for pugs to assign roles and formulate a strategy. It's far from impossible, it works in a number of other games that allow you to select classes/builds/loadouts before a match when you see the map. In games like tribes or lol, I've seen pugs that were capable of some impressive teamwork, and those pugs were some of the most fun matches I've ever had.

Zeh, on 12 March 2013 - 09:19 AM, said:

What I DON'T want, is to play on River City with 8+ brawling catapults in the game...[rant about River City]

This discussion isn't about the merits or flaw of one particular map, nor should it only take into consideration the current iteration of the game. More maps will be added in time, and as the number of maps grow, this feature will become far more necessary. The same thing goes for CW, where there should be much more on the line than just winning or losing one random match, and this feature would help us develop a better coordinated effort.

Why should the game be tailored to the lowest common denominator? PGI wants this game to be a competitive e-sport, and the only way you achieve that is by tailoring the game to the highest level of play. Ergo, you shouldn't omit a potentially useful feature to intelligent, good players just because some people won't take full advantage of the possibilities it offers. This feature would only help pre-mades, as they could further balance their team for a map, and it would help decent pugs have a chance against pre-mades because they have an opportunity to develop some level of cohesive strategy.

Zeh, on 12 March 2013 - 09:19 AM, said:

Variety is the spice of life. There is no tactical or strategic gain IMO from being able to select map. If you want tactics and strategy, plan and use them. You'll need a lot, because the variables of war are many, and they are hard to predict. Also, bring a mech that's not a **** 1/8 of the time.

Well first of all, the suggestion wasn't map selection, its mech selection after seeing a randomly assigned map. Also, I agree, variety is the spice of life! That's exactly why I don't want to be stuck with the same "safe" builds for my mechs every single time because they have to be ready for any map. I would get far more variety if I had several specialized builds on a number of mechs. You're right, there are many variables in war, and I'd like to have the best possible mech for each one of those variables. That way, when I encounter a different situation, I have the optimal tool for the given job.

Edited by ragingmunkyz, 12 March 2013 - 10:13 AM.

[jay35]

Zeh, on 12 March 2013 - 09:59 AM, said:

The only useful knowledge I've really gotten from your posts so far is that you're a disconnect ranger. Or you at least suggest it's an acceptable way to deal with not getting what you want every round.

Not sure how you concluded either of those things from what I wrote. Just because I'm willing to acknowledge that it's happening and discuss why and how to resolve it does not mean i encourage it or find it acceptable. I hate it when people disconnect and leave the teams imbalanced, but currently, it is the only recourse for people forced into something they are not interested in playing. That is primarily due to bad game design and a problem that needs to be addressed by not putting people in that situation in the first place.

Edited by jay35, 12 March 2013 - 10:07 AM.

[Zeh]

Moonsavage, on 12 March 2013 - 10:02 AM, said:

This would be a Cheesefest...
Ppl would have mechs set up with the optimal build for each map, and it would make Trial mechs even more difficult to play.

This a million times.

Also gotta disagree with jay35 on ELO not working (big surprise). I have an overall win rate of around 73%, it's fallen to an average of 71% or so since ELO came out (Suggesting my ELO should still be rising), and 9/10 matches I have are great. No bad players on either team, usually sound tactics and a good fight. The level of play I've seen since ELO went in has DRASTICALLY improved. Including the PUGs I play with and against. (I also PUG about 1/4 of my matches)

[Zeh]

ragingmunkyz, on 12 March 2013 - 10:04 AM, said:

Well first of all, the suggestion wasn't map selection, its mech selection after seeing a randomly assigned map.

Potato potato. I love that written out.

[Rebas Kradd]

Zeh, on 12 March 2013 - 08:31 AM, said:

To comment on the latest direction this thread has taken... how exactly do you track troop movements and positions on a hostile planet? No satellites, they would be removed/shot down. Fly-by with a jumpship/dropship? Or just go in with limited data, as best as you can get, and deal with the situation on the ground when you get there? Probably going to be the latter.

Not only do I disagree with the popular doom-and-gloom prediction of mech choice promoting boating, but you're obviously not familiar with actual warfare.

1. Real armies don't restrict themselves to one jack-of-all-trades-but-master-of-none weapon platform, because that's what you end up with, and they're not very good. They prepare for varying conditions in advance, by building a few primary specializations that will be able to cover every expected role and circumstance. That doesn't mean you don't have multi-role platforms, but (for example) the F-15, F-16, and A-10 are not optimally designed to fulfill all of each other's purposes. Therefore, the Air Force uses all of them in mutual support.

Now obviously I'm arguing philosophy rather than video game design, but if we're going to go into game design, then consider that your proposal reeks of punishing everyone for the mistakes of a few. It also infringes on game experience. Maybe people want to play in a certain mech, or just enjoy certain kinds of loadouts. It also fails to take into account that specializing 'Mechs for heat concerns is a perfectly valid consideration.


2. Most people who are arguing "no mech choices" for the sake of strategy, have a completely unrealistic prediction on what would happen. Their vision is that maps will become dominated by boated groups, and perhaps some will. But I don't buy the corollary that it will skew the whole game. I've seen splatcat 8-mans defeated in River City. I've seen sniper groups given a run for their money on Alpine. This is accomplished by...guess what? STRATEGY and specialization on the part of the other team. Bring a couple of Ravens to scout and draw fire. Use a single D-DC to provide ECM cover. Bring along a sniper build or two to answer that fire. Press towards the objective and so force opponents to play on your terms.

The key isn't multi-role 'Mechs. It's multi-role 8-mans. Ironically, the problem you fear already exists (boating), yet I've seen it defeated by the very thing you fear it will discourage - skill and strategy.

What you're asking for is the equivalent of asking for the nerfing of Ravens because nobody knows how to deal with them. It also carries a snobbish tone that turns a lot of people off to your ideas. I actually believe that allowing 'Mech choices would not only promote, but FORCE strategy to exist. If you're playing on a team that can't handle boating, then your fear is already in existence, and I would look at the team you're playing with before asking the devs for nerfs.

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 12 March 2013 - 10:19 AM.

[ragingmunkyz]

Zeh, on 12 March 2013 - 10:11 AM, said:

Potato potato. I love that written out.

I suppose that's the best and only answer you can muster after I thoroughly disassembled your argument.

Edited by ragingmunkyz, 12 March 2013 - 10:15 AM.

[Zeh]

Rebas Kradd, on 12 March 2013 - 10:13 AM, said:

Not only do I disagree with the popular doom-and-gloom prediction of mech choice promoting boating, but you're obviously not familiar with actual warfare.

1. Real armies don't restrict themselves to one jack-of-all-trades-but-master-of-none weapon platform, because that's what you end up with, and they're not very good. They prepare for varying conditions in advance, by building a few primary specializations that will be able to cover every expected role and circumstance. That doesn't mean you don't have multi-role platforms, but (for example) the F-15, F-16, and A-10 are not optimally designed to fulfill all of each other's purposes. Therefore, the Air Force uses all of them in mutual support.

Now obviously I'm arguing philosophy rather than video game design, but if we're going to go into game design, then consider that your proposal reeks of punishing everyone for the mistakes of a few. It also infringes on game experience. Maybe people want to play in a certain mech, or just enjoy certain kinds of loadouts. It also fails to take into account that specializing 'Mechs for heat concerns is a perfectly valid consideration.


2. Most people who are arguing "no mech choices" for the sake of strategy, have a completely unrealistic prediction on what would happen. Their vision is that maps will become dominated by boated groups, and perhaps some will. But I don't buy the corollary that it will skew the whole game. I've seen splatcat 8-mans defeated in River City. I've seen sniper groups given a run for their money on Alpine. This is accomplished by...guess what? STRATEGY and specialization on the part of the other team. Bring a couple of Ravens to scout and draw fire. Use a single D-DC to provide ECM cover. Bring along a sniper build or two to answer that fire. Press towards the objective and so force opponents to play on your terms.

The key isn't multi-role 'Mechs. It's multi-role 8-mans. Ironically, the problem you fear already exists (boating), yet I've seen it defeated by the very thing you fear it will discourage - skill and strategy. What you're asking for is the equivalent of asking for the nerfing of Ravens because nobody knows how to deal with them. It also carries a snobbish tone that turns a lot of people off to your ideas.

Well put. Sorry about the snobbish tone, it usually only comes out when arguing with people like jay35, whose opinions I find absurd.

You make valid points, but I contend that the boating you refer to will get SUBSTANTIALLY worse. In that more than half the mechs on River or Frozen city will be Catapults, particularly the lower you go in ELO. I actually don't have a problem with any mech in the game right now, from splatcats to PPC stalkers. However, I don't want the same match over and over and over, and I feel that is exactly what would happen from people being able to match mechs to maps.


And then there's the canonical reasons I dislike the idea. Listed previously. Mechs can't change weapons quickly or easily, certainly not on the way to the drop, which is where AT BEST, you'd learn the actual battlefield conditions.

ragingmunkyz, on 12 March 2013 - 10:15 AM, said:

I suppose that's the best and only answer you can muster after I thoroughly disassembled your argument.

Lol. Yea.... Nope.

Edited by Zeh, 12 March 2013 - 10:19 AM.

[Captain Stiffy]

Mongoose Trueborn, on 12 March 2013 - 06:43 AM, said:

How about you pick the map and then it picks a mech at random?

So you want people to have one mech per free account? Bad idea.

[Rebas Kradd]

Zeh, on 12 March 2013 - 10:18 AM, said:

You make valid points, but I contend that the boating you refer to will get SUBSTANTIALLY worse. In that more than half the mechs on River or Frozen city will be Catapults, particularly the lower you go in ELO. I actually don't have a problem with any mech in the game right now, from splatcats to PPC stalkers. However, I don't want the same match over and over and over, and I feel that is exactly what would happen from people being able to match mechs to maps.

I really just don't believe it will be as bad as you think. In fact, I believe it will FORCE the very thing we both want - teamwork and strategy. There's already no other way to handle those splatcat groups.

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 12 March 2013 - 10:22 AM.

[Zeh]

Rebas Kradd, on 12 March 2013 - 10:21 AM, said:

I really just don't believe it will be as bad as you think. In fact, I believe it will FORCE the very thing you want - teamwork and strategy. There's already no other way to handle those splatcat groups.

Strategy and tactics are only ever FORCED by one thing - a desire and will to win.

Making the matches more simplistic in nature (Always prepare to counter uber-brawlers on River City.. make no mistake, that WILL be every group's main concern) will not help add strategy to the game IMO.

A wider array of tactics discovered for fighting uber-brawlers? Sure.. but I don't think that's where the focus should be.

Edited by Zeh, 12 March 2013 - 10:24 AM.

[PhantomPisser]

After the first 10 responses complaining about how people would totes use builds specific to environment and that all those would be the same (hint, they're not), I stopped reading 'cause everyone's missing the point.

There should be resource constraint which dictates what you can bring. I should NOT have 20 'mechs and such a huge collection of weapons that I can fit whatever I want however I want at a moment's notice. New equipment should be more expensive. Ammo and repairs should be cheapish for commodity stuff. Reselling should net you WAY more cash (then there'd be a point in reselling, and I wouldn't have 5ppcs ready to go at all times).

There should be weight limits on the drop ships. There should be higher and lower max payouts on missions and LIGHT intel (that is, hot/cold, size of engagement area (once we get more maps so that those two things don't immediately tell you which map) with an occasional reroute to something different than expected (enemy not where expected, whatever reason).

Once all these other limiting things are in (and people keep acting like at least we'll have an economy at some point) it'll be relatively safe to tell people a couple details about where they're dropping. Until then, the current situation is far better (as much as I hate it).

[ragingmunkyz]

Zeh, on 12 March 2013 - 10:18 AM, said:

Lol. Yea.... Nope.

Given that you couldn't provide an argument with any merit, it's the only logical conclusion. All you've done is provide wild speculation about what you think would happen if this system was implemented, with no substantive facts to back your assumptions up. Others, like myself, have outright told you that the game shouldn't be tailored to the lowest common denominator (boaters), it should provide options for those of us that would like the opportunity to form much better pug teams. This is what successful games do, I used the example of tribes and LOL because they are both f2p mmos (like mwo) and they both allow for teams to select the best loadout for their map and strategy. I've never seen a team in either of those games composed entirely of the same class.

Zeh, on 12 March 2013 - 10:23 AM, said:

Strategy and tactics are only ever FORCED by one thing - a desire and will to win.

Making the matches more simplistic in nature (Always prepare to counter uber-brawlers on River City.. make no mistake, that WILL be every group's main concern) will not help add strategy to the game IMO.

A wider array of tactics discovered for fighting uber-brawlers? Sure.. but I don't think that's where the focus should be.

This wouldn't make the matches more simplistic in nature, it would make the significantly more complex. As stated previously, it's doubtful that teams would be composed of nothing but one type of mech. Additionally, both teams would have equal opportunity to strategize and you would thus have to prepare for much more coordinated maneuvers and well-balanced teams. The desire to win part will come with CW, when the matches will have more meaning, and we will all be forced to use more strategy or fail. This isn't a feature just for the current game, it's one that would add greatly to what the game will eventually become.

[Zeh]

PhantomPisser, on 12 March 2013 - 10:30 AM, said:

After the first 10 responses complaining about how people would totes use builds specific to environment and that all those would be the same (hint, they're not), I stopped reading 'cause everyone's missing the point.

There should be resource constraint which dictates what you can bring. I should NOT have 20 'mechs and such a huge collection of weapons that I can fit whatever I want however I want at a moment's notice. New equipment should be more expensive. Ammo and repairs should be cheapish for commodity stuff. Reselling should net you WAY more cash (then there'd be a point in reselling, and I wouldn't have 5ppcs ready to go at all times).

There should be weight limits on the drop ships. There should be higher and lower max payouts on missions and LIGHT intel (that is, hot/cold, size of engagement area (once we get more maps so that those two things don't immediately tell you which map) with an occasional reroute to something different than expected (enemy not where expected, whatever reason).

Once all these other limiting things are in (and people keep acting like at least we'll have an economy at some point) it'll be relatively safe to tell people a couple details about where they're dropping. Until then, the current situation is far better (as much as I hate it).

Now here's an alternate opinion I can get behind. While I may disagree that "size of engagement area" is really something that should be determined, this kind of balancing/pre-planning I could totally support.

Good to see another idea added to the conversation than my "No random is great!" and the other "Let us cheese better" (Paraphrased) arguments.

[Timuroslav]

jay35, on 12 March 2013 - 09:31 AM, said:

Tactical/strategic gameplay begins with knowing the map you'll be dropping into before selecting your loadout and camo/colors (or, at a minimum, somehow being able to pre-set which chassis, loadouts and camo/colors you want to use with each specific map, so whichever map comes up, you're piloting a chassis appropriate to the environment, map size, and color scheme, based on the pre-set you selected to be used for that map). PGI can go about it either way, as either way solves the problem. i.e., if they insist on keeping the map selection random, they can provide users a way to preselect which mech builds and camo to use for each map in the game (think Dropship mode writ large), or they can ditch the random map selection and simply tell the player what the next map will be so they can manually select an appropriate mech.

I want to say you're right and wrong at the same time; here's why

[reason for Against Map choice] Yes militaries do get to Generally choose combat situations, a lot of time's its the defenders response and they do not get to choose the combat location or the rules of engagement. Ever play Shogun Total War 2?
You Almost NEVER get to pick the location for your infantry to brawl the enemy, or even get to pick the enemy's units or location. Part of Combat is overcoming odds that are against you with smart play. IE:
"Oh Crap I'm on desert in a Bright Jungle Green Commando 1B, I better stick with the Assaults to deter light harassment, because my scouting is not going to be super effective."

My other quam with this is that most Mechwarrior pilot's lives are extremely short. One phrase I can't pin goes on to describe the life of a Mechwarrior as Fast, Brutal, and Gloriously Short. They were not rich and they often didn't have more than 1 or two mechs. Kerensky originally only ran a Orion and made it work in all situations. (the Nonlore argument) You are encouraging pay to win for people who don't have a huge supply of mechbays or mechs. It also stagnates your loadout because you're more likely to ignore your team if you feel comfortable on said map, after choosing your mech.

The Mechwarrior B.T. is Adapt or DIE in a cruel fast Universe.

Not being able to choose the fight locations creates More strategy because it forces a more balanced mech and encourages team communication. People who are intimidated are more likely to work with their team.

A giant map is intimidating and prevents teams from scattering in their preset map builds because " I got this and I generally know I'm going to break 235 damage on this map with this build" <- That is the definition of boring Knowing the outcome ahead of the game

Ever play Mechwarrior 4? Didn't think so 95% of what you see if Assault mechs because the maps people choose are all close quarters. Not to mention you get to see what your opponents are choosing and the map you're on. That will hurt gameplay in only choosing certain mechs for certain maps.

Edited by Timuroslav, 12 March 2013 - 10:35 AM.

[Rebas Kradd]

Zeh, on 12 March 2013 - 10:23 AM, said:

Strategy and tactics are only ever FORCED by one thing - a desire and will to win.

Making the matches more simplistic in nature (Always prepare to counter uber-brawlers on River City.. make no mistake, that WILL be every group's main concern) will not help add strategy to the game IMO.

A wider array of tactics discovered for fighting uber-brawlers? Sure.. but I don't think that's where the focus should be.

Why on earth not? When a loadout proves itself ideal to a situation, its creator doesn't exactly go "Oh that's too perfect, let's abandon it so the war will be balanced." They leap on their advantage and press it until they win or until the opponent adapts. You want to force strategy through a game mechanic that spoils some people's experience; I want to force strategy through a game mechanic that will only spoil things for either lazy, uncoordinated groups or the splatcat 8-mans we're frustrated with. Honestly, I like my idea better!

You said earlier that 'Mechs should be a flexible combat unit, but that only goes so far. The IS obviously didn't design the Atlas with Alpine in mind. A 'Mech should not be limited to one situation, but neither is it expected to handle all of them. That's a "God 'Mech" and it's unrealistic. My fear is that balanced 'Mechs will actually eliminate strategy and turn everything into an evenly matched slugfest where the winner comes down to chance far too often.

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 12 March 2013 - 10:37 AM.

[Treckin]

Im really glad that I could foster such a robust discussion on the issue. If we keep at it, perhaps we can get some green on the topic.

It is certainly true that boating is happening now, so using the threat of increased boating is a non-unique argument at best.

Also, the point is allow your teammates to see your mech selection before the game starts a la League of Legends. That way, if I see 2 LRM boaters and a streak cat on my team, I can CHOOSE to use a tagging raven with ECM rather then just taking my own boat blindly.

[Zeh]

ragingmunkyz, on 12 March 2013 - 10:32 AM, said:

Given that you couldn't provide an argument with any merit, it's the only logical conclusion. All you've done is provide wild speculation about what you think would happen if this system was implemented, with no substantive facts to back your assumptions up. Others, like myself, have outright told you that the game shouldn't be tailored to the lowest common denominator (boaters), it should provide options for those of us that would like the opportunity to form much better pug teams. This is what successful games do, I used the example of tribes and LOL because they are both f2p mmos (like mwo) and they both allow for teams to select the best loadout for their map and strategy. I've never seen a team in either of those games composed entirely of the same class.


This wouldn't make the matches more simplistic in nature, it would make the significantly more complex. As stated previously, it's doubtful that teams would be composed of nothing but one type of mech. Additionally, both teams would have equal opportunity to strategize and you would thus have to prepare for much more coordinated maneuvers and well-balanced teams. The desire to win part will come with CW, when the matches will have more meaning, and we will all be forced to use more strategy or fail. This isn't a feature just for the current game, it's one that would add greatly to what the game will eventually become.

I agree, that players at my level and above wouldn't see such crazy cheesiness for the most part because I find the good players in this game to enjoy the balance of Battletech and Mechwarrior and generally avoid or feel guilty using something overly optimized. However, new players at 1300 ELO and below would fall victim to hordes and hordes of below-average players obsessed with raising their w/l rate or ELO through the use of the most effective, annoying machine possible. Particularly if they can craft it per-map. I think this will drive away new players more than any other effect it would have on the game.

I'm not afraid for the game I play (Thank God for ELO). I worry about the state of the game in general, and for middling/new players in particular.

[Rebas Kradd]

Treckin, on 12 March 2013 - 10:36 AM, said:

Also, the point is allow your teammates to see your mech selection before the game starts a la League of Legends. That way, if I see 2 LRM boaters and a streak cat on my team, I can CHOOSE to use a tagging raven with ECM rather then just taking my own boat blindly.

You can use TeamSpeak for that, though. I want 'Mech choosing so that I don't end up taking my PPC build onto Caustic or my brawler onto Toumaline.

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 12 March 2013 - 10:40 AM.

[Sayyid]

How about you use balanced builds instead of powergamer builds.

[jay35]

Zeh, on 12 March 2013 - 10:23 AM, said:

Strategy and tactics are only ever FORCED by one thing - a desire and will to win.

Making the matches more simplistic in nature (Always prepare to counter uber-brawlers on River City.. make no mistake, that WILL be every group's main concern) will not help add strategy to the game IMO.

A wider array of tactics discovered for fighting uber-brawlers? Sure.. but I don't think that's where the focus should be.

The challenging thing is you're both right, to a degree.

The over-riding factor for me is what Rebas spelled out better than I was able to: Punishing everyone for the sins of a few. Forcing everyone to not be able to do have the options available to them that most other FPS games allow them, mostly out of a fear that a few will take advantage of it in a way that might be negative. But that concern is only present when not thinking it through all the way.

Those of us who've been around MechWarrior long enough have lived through boating and we know that while it will spike initially, there are counters to every boat, and there are ways for any team (that's actually working together as a team and not loner individuals) to counter and overcome any other team's loadouts. There is no one superior mech (although some might argue the 3L at the moment, lol), and there's also the balancing factor that everyone has access to everything which levels the playing field.

Here's how things generally progressed in MW4: Mercs multiplayer, for example:

• A particular build (boat, cheese, whatever you want to call it) would be discovered.
  
• It would quickly flare up into what seemed to be a problem.
  
• This caused counters to be researched and tested.
  
• Counters would be found, and the seemingly overpowered build would be overcome and lose its over-popularity.

And Rebas is right: boating already exists. And so do counters. The only limiting factor is the ability of the players to coordinate and work as a team to overcome challenges. That is what determines the outcome of the battle. That is teamplay. That is fun.

What we seem to have here is a fear not only of the potential for more boating to happen initially if players could choose mechs for each map, but also of considering the rest of the story. Actually discovering counters and creating strategy and tactics to overcome them. But that's part of a deeper game, rather than one that is simplified to the point where everyone just takes one of a handful of "safe" builds and never has to think further than that, which is shallow gameplay.