86 replies to this topic

[Mercules]

stjobe, on 08 May 2013 - 09:54 AM, said:

That's the problem in a nutshell; there's no incentive to use lights for scouting since scout rewards are available to all.

If one looks at Dev Blog 4, this wasn't what was intended; these things were for the Scout role only:

* Radar Range Increase – Increases radar range by 2% up to 5 times
* Ghost Signature – Increases length of time before a signal fades by 2% up to 3 times
* Vision Mode 1 - Zoom Vision – Allows the pilot to zoom 7x
* HUD Detail 1 – Enemy Damage Level – LOD detail in terms of damage
* HUD Detail 2 – Enemy Component State – Overall component criticality
* Null Signature System – Allows the pilot to appear shut down for 5 seconds
* Multi-Targeting – Allows the pilot to target multiple enemies up to 4 at a time.
* IDF Accuracy – Narrows the AOE of IDF fire.
* Critical Shot Indicator – Shares with nearby friendly BattleMechs the critical components of an enemy BattleMech

Most of those things are now available to everyone, and some of them have been lost along the way.

In my opinion, the PGI devs need to go back and re-read Dev Blog 4 and start implementing it.

Until that happens (I'm not holding my breath), or the game starts rewarding other things equally as well as damage, kills, and assists, lights need something to tide them over.

This would be the reason I invested in this game. While I enjoy it I was -=REALLY=- looking forward to Role Warfare and being able to advance my pilot in a particular role. Give me a few different pilot slots and I would develop them each with different focuses. I would probably work on the Scout role first but it simply doesn't exist. *sigh*

[Mercules]

Prezimonto, on 08 May 2013 - 11:15 AM, said:

@ Icefang: I agree that the jenner still is a great mech in the current rewards system. Jenners and Ravens are made to skirmish, which is well rewarded. Commando's and Spiders are not.

Ravens (at least not the 3L) are NOT made to skirmish. By a fluke of developers making TAG take up an Energy hardpoint and NARC a Missile hardpoint the RVN-3L gained a third more weapons than it should have had. It's load out should have been, 2 Energy and 1 Missle(6) Hardpoint. Destroying it's Right Torso should leave it weaponless. They need split TAG and NARC from the weapon hardpoints. The Commando should have as many if not more weapons than a RVN-3L.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Prezimonto, on 08 May 2013 - 11:11 AM, said:

LOTS O STUFF THAT IS TOO MUCH TO READ AT WORK

Dude...3-4 paragraphs is my limit for most posts. lol

Ok basically what I'm saying is...scouting sucks, it's stupid, the fixes you talk about are fine. But I'd rather skip that, and create a REAL scouting role, and then fix the bonuses around that.

Not try and add bonuses for the current games scouting/spotting which is just terrible.

I'd rather not waste time adding to an existing broke-*** mechanic.

I also feel like the capture mechanics are messed up as well. And I'd once again rather not put any more energy towards trying to add incentives to do them.

I'd rather either remove them or make them more dynamic.

[Prezimonto]

So essentially: too lazy to read, will comment with same opinion again anyway, despite the fact that some of the things to be read address concerns.

That's useful.

[stjobe]

Mercules, on 08 May 2013 - 11:24 AM, said:

Ravens (at least not the 3L) are NOT made to skirmish.

If we were to stick with the lore, only the RVN-3L is a Scout, all the other RVN variants, all the COM variants, all the JR7 variants, and all the SDR variants are Strikers (quoted from another thread where some bonehead said all lights were, and should be, just scouts):

stjobe, on 08 May 2013 - 09:39 AM, said:

Scouting? You mean like the PPC-toting Panther?
"The Panther operates as a direct fire support 'Mech for other light units."

Or the Gauss Rifle-mounting Hollander?
"The Hollander was introduced in 3054 specifically to carry a Gauss Rifle into combat and act as a sniper."

No, you must clearly be talking about some of the 'mechs that are in MWO, like the Commando?
"the Commando's profile was radically changed with the introduction of the sophisticated COM-2D variant in 2486, that exchanged the laser weaponry with short range missiles and turned the machine into a striker. With four tons the armor is too light to allow a stand-up fight with heavier enemies, but it excels at hit-and-run tactics and as a scout hunter."

No? The Jenner then, surely it's a scout?
"The Jenner's primarily laser armament and phenomenal speed helped to make the the 'Mech extremely well suited as a guerilla fighter."

What IS this? Raven. That's a Scout, right? Well, the 3L is. Not so much the 2X or 4X:
"RVN-2X - Many of the Ravens captured by the Federated Suns in the Fourth Succession War were refitted to the 2X standard. It replaces the EW equipment with a Large Laser and adds an additional two and a half tons of armor."
"RVN-4X - A Capellan variant of the original prototype, the -4X was an attempt to turn the chassis into a pure combat unit."

But the Spider, that HAS to be a Scout, right? Wrong:
"The Spider was originally designed by Newhart Industries as a 'Mech to be used by SLDF commando forces [...] Spiders are generally used as fast strike forces to hit an enemy's rear with lightning speed."


So there you have it. One variant of one chassis - the RVN-3L - is a Scout. The others are not. Perhaps you should try playing one just for "scouting, spotting, distraction and such" and see how fun it is and how much CB/XP it gets you.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Prezimonto, on 08 May 2013 - 11:28 AM, said:

So essentially: too lazy to read, will comment with same opinion again anyway, despite the fact that some of the things to be read address concerns.

That's useful.

Nope I read it. It just had to be a fast read because like I said, I'm at work and don't have 10 years to type out/read huge posts.

I can't decide whether you agree with me or not though.

There are two options here really. And you kind of skirt between them.

One is taking the existing game mechanics, and adding a bunch of rewards to I guess try and influence how we play the game.

The other is to work on creating newer and more dynamic game mechanics, and adding rewards to those.

I think option 1 is a waste of time.

I think option 2 is where you should put your energy.

But like I said I can't decide what you want.

Prezimonto, on 08 May 2013 - 11:11 AM, said:

Right now NONE of that has a significant reward compared to killing the enemy.
I can think of a game mode I'd call "Raid": It's similar to Assault in many ways.
Team A:
Objective A: Destroy the refinery. Scaling rewards with damage done(DPS better than alpha, favors light/medium mechs)
Objective B: Defend the dropship: (favors heavy/assault mechs)
Objective C: Make it to extraction point(dropship) in 15 minutes or less. Scaling rewards with number of mechs alive.(mobility favors light/medium mechs)
Objective D: Kill enemy mechs Only activates if you lose objective B.

Team one has the following objectives, which only open up
Objective A: defend the refinery (favors heavy/assault mechs) until reinforcements arrive (15 minutes)
Objective B: destroy the enemy dropship/extraction point (favors fast/strikers/dps builds)
Objective C: Survive: Scaling rewards with number of mechs alive.
Objective C: kill all enemy mechs: Only activates after achieving objective B.

This type of game play would reward tactical decision making, preserve the essential goal of "assault", and give a much more mech-warrior feel to the game.

This stuff would require adding destroyable bases. Which I'm fine with. But like I said, that is part of changing the actual game.

Not just adding new rewards.

I don't see how any of it favors light/medium mechs. Because in the end, everything is static currently. We know exactly where the bases will be. So if you choose to defend with assaults, what are lights going to do exactly?

I don't know you just didn't seem to think this whole thing through.

[Mercules]

stjobe, on 08 May 2013 - 11:33 AM, said:

If we were to stick with the lore, only the RVN-3L is a Scout, all the other RVN variants, all the COM variants, all the JR7 variants, and all the SDR variants are Strikers (quoted from another thread where some bonehead said all lights were, and should be, just scouts):

Please note my qualifier on there. The 2X came about because the EW package the RVN-1X carried was delicate. When they recovered Ravens from the battlefield they usually had that system destroyed. Since the tech was hardly more than a Prototype and the FedCom and most other factions didn't have anything similar the chassis was retrofitted with more weapons and turned into a 2X. Basically it was a matter of them not having the "Scout" gear needed and so trying to make something of it. Thus why I qualified it. The original concept of a Raven was a Scout Electronic Warfare mech.

[B15hop]

I might not mind some bonuses for scouts, but they need to fix the hit boxes with lights..
Some serious ridiculousness going on in regards to hit detection on most lights.

[Mercules]

B15hop, on 08 May 2013 - 11:56 AM, said:

I might not mind some bonuses for scouts, but they need to fix the hit boxes with lights..
Some serious ridiculousness going on in regards to hit detection on most lights.

Have you played in the last few weeks? While a good light pilot can make then dance enough to avoid PPC shots lights have become incredibly easy to hit.

[Prezimonto]

Fair enough. I'll start another suggestion about objective based game play. That doesn't change the point that the current game play does not reward tactical decisions other than those directly related to what will earn me the most damage/kills. There are not meaningful rewards beyond killing enemy mechs. Adding in rewards for other functions of good game play can only help get players doing those actions more regularly.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Prezimonto, on 08 May 2013 - 12:14 PM, said:

Fair enough. I'll start another suggestion about objective based game play. That doesn't change the point that the current game play does not reward tactical decisions other than those directly related to what will earn me the most damage/kills. There are not meaningful rewards beyond killing enemy mechs. Adding in rewards for other functions of good game play can only help get players doing those actions more regularly.

No debate dude, the current "gameplay" as it were, sucks.

I just don't know that you can fix that with the 2 current game modes. And the non-static maps.

I'm not trying to be an *** towards you. I just didn't understand what you were trying to accomplish.

[Prezimonto]

I appreciate the discussion! I want this kind of discussion to happen. What we have now, as you say, sucks.

on another note: other suggestion is up!
http://mwomercs.com/...51#entry2333751

Edited by Prezimonto, 08 May 2013 - 01:39 PM.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Prezimonto, on 08 May 2013 - 12:24 PM, said:

I appreciate the discussion! I want this kind of discussion to happen. What we have now, as you say, sucks.

on another note: other suggestion is up!

Word son.

[Mercules]

Yeah, there is definitely more than one approach to making Lights more desirable and the "Scouting Role" as well. Remember, Mediums and Heavies are sometimes "Scouts". I think both need to be addressed. There need to be rewards for being more heavily focussed on "scouting" as well as a reason to do so in the first place.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Mercules, on 08 May 2013 - 12:55 PM, said:

as well as a reason to do so in the first place.

This is the major part to me. Lets figure that out. Then we can reward it.

[Shumabot]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 08 May 2013 - 12:58 PM, said:

This is the major part to me. Lets figure that out. Then we can reward it.

I have yet to find a game where scouting, as a role, is materially useful and fun. World of Tanks comes kinda close but the lessons there aren't really applicable to MWO. There is a point at which the communities probably going to have to realize that scouting has no realistically implementable purpose in MWO without a massive reworking of the games maps and relative scale. What people should be demanding is game modes that make good use of speed without harming everyone elses enjoyment. The cap-spider may be useful in a purely win/loss sense but it makes for awful rage filled games.

[Oppresor]

"Recon all the way!" I totally agree with your concept and have put the case for a dedicated Recon light up to the forums before. I currently use an almost totally defensive (AMS & BAP) Spider 5K for the role; it's great. The most important thing to do as a Recon is to try not to be tempted to engage units that will take you out before you can perform your primary recon role.

Since the introduction of the artillery Strike, my Spider now goes into action with one of these. It's an ideal unit for the FOO role; fast, able to fly and with AMS able to repel some incoming missile fire.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Shumabot, on 08 May 2013 - 01:03 PM, said:

I have yet to find a game where scouting, as a role, is materially useful and fun. World of Tanks comes kinda close but the lessons there aren't really applicable to MWO. There is a point at which the communities probably going to have to realize that scouting has no realistically implementable purpose in MWO without a massive reworking of the games maps and relative scale. What people should be demanding is game modes that make good use of speed without harming everyone elses enjoyment. The cap-spider may be useful in a purely win/loss sense but it makes for awful rage filled games.

Just for the sake of discussion.

Lets say PGI creates 4 dynamic spawn points for each side (so 8 total), and creates destroyable bases (that actually take some time to kill, not just standing on it idling).

And lets take a map the size of alpine.

You don't think that would create instances where scouting/recon/fast mechs become valuable?

[Shumabot]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 08 May 2013 - 01:12 PM, said:

Just for the sake of discussion.

Lets say PGI creates 4 dynamic spawn points for each side (so 8 total), and creates destroyable bases (that actually take some time to kill, not just standing on it idling).

And lets take a map the size of alpine.

You don't think that would create instances where scouting/recon/fast mechs become valuable?

Value is a scaling proposition, ONE fast mech could still do the duty just as well (leaving 7-11 assaults to act on that info). Keep in mind, on Alpine all you have to do is walk to the top of the mountain in the middle and you've scouted the entire map (just one more stupid thing about alpine) but lets assume Alpine is a fluke of horrid decisions. If all you want is information about a particular part of the map you can just send one mech of almost any type to it, it doesn't have to be a "fast mover". The only realistic threat to an AC40 jager in a "scouting role" is getting harassed down by lights, but at that point it's already done its job and once both teams deathballs confirm eachothers location the heavier one wins. Scouting needs a use beyond first contact since anything can do that. Destructable bases are neat, but pretty much identical to cap bases we have now. It's just "be in X area for X amount of time", and even in that you're actually punishing light scouts and rewarding more heavy weapons.

[Prezimonto]

Check out the other suggestion on objective based gameplay:
http://mwomercs.com/...51#entry2333751


The beauty of that kind of gameplay is that you can be rewarded for damage done without completely destroying the objective. If you reward people for hit and run gameplay by providing secondary goals like: extract within time frame and bonuses for survival, the game play will become significantly more tactical than if you just reward people for kills and damage.

It could easily give a strong reason to want striker roles (quick/but moderate damage mechs for offense) and brawlers/support mechs to back them up and defense bases (heavy/assault classic roles), along with the scout role, as you'll have to find the other teams strikers but put up an effective defense.

Edited by Prezimonto, 08 May 2013 - 01:43 PM.