213 replies to this topic

[Trauglodyte]

Khanublikhan, on 16 May 2013 - 08:47 AM, said:

The problem with the current build of the game, in my humble opinion, is this:

The developers have not asked and answered the following questions:-

• The role(s) of a light battlemech are [.......]. The game mechanic(s) of [.......] support these role(s).
  
• The role(s) of a medium battlemech are [.......]. The game mechanic(s) of [.......] support these role(s).
  
• The role(s) of a heavy battlemech are [.......]. The game mechanic(s) of [.......] support these role(s).
  
• The role(s) of an assault battlemech are [.......]. The game mechanic(s) of [.......] support these role(s).

There needs to be a mission statement for each weight class of battlemech. There is a need, perhaps, to put distance between each weight. There need to be game mechanisms (mission rewards by weight class) that support these roles. Hardpoints and Heat are a beginning - but what else could there be? (Salvage, Repair Costs, Drop Costs, Time to Deploy, Drop Frequency Limits -- all modified by Tech Crew proficiencies.

I would argue that the role of each mech/variant is already inferred by its stock design. The problem stems from the fact that design intent doesn't necessarily translate to fun in a real time semi-skill based game. On top of that, the design intent goes right out the window due to the ability to change the design on a whim and even more so with the addition of hard points compared to the stock builds or when a part of the game (infantry) aren't represented in game.

So, that brings us to your proposed suggestions for role benefits. I like some of them while others can't/won't exist with the addition of hardened targets, etc. I agree that there needs to be more in game to be rewarded for other than standing on a base, looking at a target that happens to have missiles fired at it, doing damage, or saving someone from getting killed/capping your base.

[Wispsy]

Deathlike, on 11 May 2013 - 07:54 PM, said:

I don't mind scouting when I'm in a Cent-D. I mind when the "supposed scouts" (aka, most light mechs) don't do that.

My light mech is not a scout. It was never supposed to be a scout and whilst I could run around the map checking every little hiding place just in case the enemy decides to pull some incredible unforeseen tactical trick on us (hard to do in small fairly open maps with jumping mechs), my team will just get rolled and it will be 1v8 without any distractions to help me out...

Just saying

[Khanublikhan]

Trauglodyte, on 16 May 2013 - 10:54 AM, said:

I would argue that the role of each mech/variant is already inferred by its stock design. The problem stems from the fact that design intent doesn't necessarily translate to fun in a real time semi-skill based game. On top of that, the design intent goes right out the window due to the ability to change the design on a whim and even more so with the addition of hard points compared to the stock builds or when a part of the game (infantry) aren't represented in game.

So, that brings us to your proposed suggestions for role benefits. I like some of them while others can't/won't exist with the addition of hardened targets, etc. I agree that there needs to be more in game to be rewarded for other than standing on a base, looking at a target that happens to have missiles fired at it, doing damage, or saving someone from getting killed/capping your base.

Inferred, indeed. Beyond the inferrence I sincerely hope there is a design document someplace that outrightly states the intention. Inferrence leaves room for goals to become lost, waters muddied, targets missed.

By having explicit weight class goals (private or made public to the playerbase) the game creators can then go on to construct XP and C-Bill award systems that clearly reward their design. If the paradigm shifts; if more scope is wanted, extra award systems can be included.

What should not happen, in my opinion, is a generic method of rewards - like we have now - which over-rewards some weights and under-rewards others - and / or is bland in its design.

[Trauglodyte]

Wispsy, on 16 May 2013 - 10:55 AM, said:

My light mech is not a scout. It was never supposed to be a scout and whilst I could run around the map checking every little hiding place just in case the enemy decides to pull some incredible unforeseen tactical trick on us (hard to do in small fairly open maps with jumping mechs), my team will just get rolled and it will be 1v8 without any distractions to help me out...

Just saying

That is because you're hax in your Jenner, Whispy. I've seen it first hand!

Khanublikhan, on 16 May 2013 - 11:04 AM, said:

Inferred, indeed. Beyond the inferrence I sincerely hope there is a design document someplace that outrightly states the intention. Inferrence leaves room for goals to become lost, waters muddied, targets missed.

By having explicit weight class goals (private or made public to the playerbase) the game creators can then go on to construct XP and C-Bill award systems that clearly reward their design. If the paradigm shifts; if more scope is wanted, extra award systems can be included.

What should not happen, in my opinion, is a generic method of rewards - like we have now - which over-rewards some weights and under-rewards others - and / or is bland in its design.

Agreed!

[Reptilizer]

Khanublikhan, on 16 May 2013 - 11:04 AM, said:

Inferred, indeed. Beyond the inferrence I sincerely hope there is a design document someplace that outrightly states the intention. Inferrence leaves room for goals to become lost, waters muddied, targets missed.

By having explicit weight class goals (private or made public to the playerbase) the game creators can then go on to construct XP and C-Bill award systems that clearly reward their design. If the paradigm shifts; if more scope is wanted, extra award systems can be included.

This man has it right and obviuosly deserves a push for his idea!

[Kmieciu]

With the lagshield fixed and SRMs nerfed I find no reason to brawl in a medium mech.

[everwake]

agree with the OP 100%

I used to be a medium pilot, haven't played in a while due to all bugs, I come back and I now I only get killed by AC20, Gauss or ERPPC, it´s not that the game has changed, everyone just realized that standing at a distance sniping or jumping up and down wins the game.

I used to get 300-600 point per game in my medium, now I get shot to pieces by random gauss before I even make it into battle, and my team is not helping, they are busy sniping back...

the only thing about mediums that work now is matchmaking, there is always a slot open for medium, takes just a second to join a game, vs 10-15s when I am in a heavy chassies.....that says something.

me? I just gave up, now run a K2 with dual ERPPC and play the same style as everyone else, still get 300-600 points per game, just takes a lot less skill than before

[Deathlike]

Wispsy, on 16 May 2013 - 10:55 AM, said:

My light mech is not a scout. It was never supposed to be a scout and whilst I could run around the map checking every little hiding place just in case the enemy decides to pull some incredible unforeseen tactical trick on us (hard to do in small fairly open maps with jumping mechs), my team will just get rolled and it will be 1v8 without any distractions to help me out...

Just saying

Jennaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh!

Noone will stop you if you refuse to scout.. but if the enemy doesn't go the usual route, it can lead to somewhat less predictable outcomes.

[Wispsy]

Deathlike, on 17 May 2013 - 09:58 AM, said:

Jennaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh!

Noone will stop you if you refuse to scout.. but if the enemy doesn't go the usual route, it can lead to somewhat less predictable outcomes.

If you go the usual route then you will know they are not there and will be taking longer then you...Also even Assaults can set up in a defensive spot allowing them to watch the possible other route whilst still getting clear line of fire on the enemy (if they are not brawlers, but that would be similar to if the lights are not scouts I guess). No need to just say "no, it is a lights job to find the enemy I as an Assault must focus only on damaging the first thing that I can target" (more a general comment then really directed at you right now)

[Inflatable Fish]

One more thing I've noticed, namely the Conquest game mode.

With the prevalence of heavy and assault mechs in the current environment, conquest becomes a game of "whoever has a light with half a brain wins." Light mechs are so rare and precious these days (at least in PUG games, I'm sure organised groups have it a bit better) that when one of the teams actually has one, they're p. much set because most of the time, there will be a big boiling pot of hurt around the central node and the light will go uninterrupted and cap the others. I've been in over a dozen games where one of the teams had two or three assault mechs standing after the brawl yet they still lost because noone was fast enough to go recap the lost beacons.

Conclusion - instead of a tactically demanding and intense game mode, conquest becomes a flip-a-coin game with one group hogging kills and assists in the middle and another grabbing the win thanks to having a light in their ranks.

Sidenote: Match maker isn't helping in this respect: I've seen a fair few games where one of the teams had two or three lights/cicadas and the other had none.

Edited by Inflatable Fish, 19 May 2013 - 02:29 PM.

[FupDup]

Khanublikhan, on 16 May 2013 - 08:47 AM, said:

The problem with the current build of the game, in my humble opinion, is this:

The developers have not asked and answered the following questions:-

• The role(s) of a light battlemech are [.......]. The game mechanic(s) of [.......] support these role(s).
  
• The role(s) of a medium battlemech are [.......]. The game mechanic(s) of [.......] support these role(s).
  
• The role(s) of a heavy battlemech are [.......]. The game mechanic(s) of [.......] support these role(s).
  
• The role(s) of an assault battlemech are [.......]. The game mechanic(s) of [.......] support these role(s).

There needs to be a mission statement for each weight class of battlemech. There is a need, perhaps, to put distance between each weight. There need to be game mechanisms (mission rewards by weight class) that support these roles. Hardpoints and Heat are a beginning - but what else could there be? (Salvage, Repair Costs, Drop Costs, Time to Deploy, Drop Frequency Limits -- all modified by Tech Crew proficiencies.

That's a great overall idea, but I personally think that role should be based on a per-chassis/variant basis instead of per-class. For instance, a Cicada naturally shouldn't have the same role as something like a Centurion or Hunchback, a Dragon shouldn't have the same role as a Cataphract, etc.

Edited by FupDup, 19 May 2013 - 04:51 PM.

[Khanublikhan]

FupDup, on 19 May 2013 - 04:51 PM, said:

That's a great overall idea, but I personally think that role should be based on a per-chassis/variant basis instead of per-class. For instance, a Cicada naturally shouldn't have the same role as something like a Centurion or Hunchback, a Dragon shouldn't have the same role as a Cataphract, etc.

Oh, definitely.

What I am suggesting is:-

• First and foremost make sure each mech weight class has a distinct role and game mechanisms that support it.
  
• Secondly, individual mech's and variants will have their own major and minor variances.

Have both.