39 replies to this topic

[Livewyr]

Ok, over the course of discussions in the past (regarding balance, ECM, base capture, etc..)

I've had it in mind to combine them into what I think they really are; Aspects of an abused and neglected "Role Warfare." (PGI had me last year at "Role Warfare" and "Information Warfare")

(I learned from a wild success with the Assault Racket thread that short & simple work best for OPs, and extrapolate further as needed.)

First, as a baseline, let's establish roles. (This is according to me, feel free to disagree if you like, I'd love to talk about it.

Roles:
Scout: Information manipulation (finding enemy positions and generalizing enemy movement)
Harassment: Engaging the enemy in a meaningful way, where they can't engage you back.
Objectives: (Within current modes: Manipulating bases- Capping them, or threatening capture)
Scout Support: Being close enough to your scout to provide rapid support if needed.
Linebacker: Providing rapid mobile defense where needed dynamically.
Light defense: Engaging and killing/driving off light mechs (and meds) in harassment role.
Vanguard: Being forward of a movement. (Having armor to survive ambush, speed to escape it.)
Support: Supporting units, directly or indirectly. (Where missiles come in...and AMS?)
Flank Guard: Moving to the flanks to provide a defense until Assaults can engage.
Attack: (Obvious, attacking.)
Defend: Defending a position or Guarding a position. (Usually involves a sort of camping.)

Distribution of Roles to weight classes:
Light: Scout, Harassment, Objectives.
Medium: Scout Support, Harassment, Objectives, Linebacker, Support, Light defense.
Heavy: Vanguard, Flank Guard, Attack, Guard/Defend, Support, Light defense.
Assault: Attack, Guard/Defend.


Ok, now that we have that, I'd like to point out why Role Warfare is minimal right now.

Scouting: Current BAP can't do what your eyes can do on large maps right now. I can see mechs at roughly 1600 meters, my BAP/Sensor combo can see them at roughly 1150. Scouting isn't rewarded. (Spotting for the purpose combat is, not scouting.)
Harassment: Seems good to go right now, just needs an attitude shift.
Objectives: Not rewarded (much), not respected, undervalued. Currently far too easy to exploit. (Using objectives to manipulate the battle rather than win seems to be a choice by the pilot himself, as capping is very very easy...and hard as hell to defend against.)
Scout support: Good right now, just needs to be recognized.
Linebacker: Seems equipped to handle the role, just never has the information. (or it's someone else's problem)
Light defense: Well equipped- players even far too eager.
Vanguard: Done, but only because Heavies can outrun Assaults to the "battlefield." Not actually done as a vanguard.
Flank Guard: Equipped, but it's always someone else's responsibility.
Support: lolwut? Missiles are a joke. What the hell is an AMS?
Attack: All over that, very well supported, rewarded, and blindly carried out without thought.
Defend: Well supported; but someone's else's responsibility.


PGI KIlled/maimed:
Support: ECM killed missiles and AMS.
Scouting: The only two things aiding info warfare are speed and eyes. BAP comes up short, ECM prevents crippled BAP anyways.
Linebacker: Mangled scouting is strangling Linebacker
Maimed Objectives making them too easy.

Player attitude killed/maimed:
Light defense: is really only Attacking in a different direction.
Killing Objectives (bad attitude towards anyone capping.)
Vanguard: What is that?
Flank Support: Someone else's responsibility.
Defend: Someone else's responsibility.

Own special category:
PPC Sniper Boats- what would you classify them as? (I think: they don't even belong in MW:O leave CoD to CoD..lower the heat threshold and boost heatsinks.)

TL:DR: We have pretty much two main roles right now. Scouting initially for the purpose of Attacking.

Now for the purposes of cutting this off before it gets far too long:

What roles do you think there out to be?
What do you propose we do about making them happen?

[MrZakalwe]

Really wish I had time to reply to this as actually making roles other than 'engage and destroy a target with direct fire weaponry at medium to long range' into a thing that works would be awesome.

[Syllogy]

Any one pilot might be fulfilling multiple roles or changing roles at any given time.

It's natural to want to define them, but people will usually change their role based on the immediate situation.

Generally there are 4 basic over-arching roles: Scout, Striker, Brawler, & Support.

Any number of tweaks or differences could be argued, but those 4 remain the staple variety.

• Scouts report enemy locations and move quickly across the battlefield.
  
• Strikers sit on the edge of the fight and hit hard with precise, direct fire.
  
• Brawlers get in close to soak up damage and push the enemy around.
  
• Supporters usually use indirect fire, and sit further back from the fight in order to respond to other threats more quickly, or capture bases as needed.

For example, my Hunchback 4P runs 90kph, and packs a 45 point Alpha.

He's not the best scout out there, but he can move. He isn't the hardest hitter, but he can definitely peel the armor away. He's not particularly good at taking damage, but if he needs to step into the situation he can. Also, because of all of these other traits, he makes a good supporter, because he can respond quickly.

Edited by Syllogy, 17 May 2013 - 07:44 AM.

[Keifomofutu]

I agree with most of your points in general but again trying to blame the playerbase is a pointless exercise. They don't do what they do to spite you or to deliberately play the game wrong because they are bad people.

You can train a player to play a different way but players plural are a leaderless mass. They are influenced by the game mechanics and reward system to do what they do.

Current mass of pinpoint damage hordes have simply realized that you get more kills and cbills from dumping all your damage to a single point as quickly as possible with as many guns as possible as far away as possible. No point hating the player you have to change the game to encourage them to play a different way.

It is simply more rewarding.
Flank support is not necessary if you simply keep your main force together. In fact the very practice of separating from the main force to try to hold off a larger force usually gets you killed.
Player attitude didn't turn against capping on its own. PGI removed all rewards from it so don't bother blaming players.

Basically I agree that I would like to see more valid roles in the game. They won't form on their own and you won't be able to create them by telling the playerbase that they are playing the game wrong.
They are playing the game the way many many drops taught them to play.
If you are really serious about role warfare then you need to focus on what PGI can do to change game mechanics or incentivise certain behavior.

For example how would you better incentivise the medium class to be better at harassing? Trying to get a quick flank shot can be very dangerous if you are only 6-12km/h faster than that heavy who is going to come after you.

How would you enable scouts to aid in the support role better? Is putting 4 tons of Narc even worth it for a light mech who would naturally lose weaponry or speed trying to carry it?

Here is the big one. How would you change the game so that clumping everyone into a mass of the biggest mechs possible and driving forward didn't basically always win against a team that was more spread out?

Edited by Keifomofutu, 17 May 2013 - 09:04 AM.

[Khanublikhan]

Objectives (and therefore roles) need to be built into map design. For example:-

Imagine Alpine sectioned off into walled territories (small firebases or territories). These walls can be jump-jetted over or destroyed. These walls also house gate-houses. Whoever 'captures' the gatehouses first can control access (Open to all / Opens to Friendlies / Closed to All).

A light mech quickly capturing one or more gatehouses can close / command avenues of approach, set its Identify Friend or Foe (IFF) status to the benefit of the rest of the team.

A medium mech meanwhile approaches the automated turret defences and captures them. They are now allied... but lacking power.

A heavy mech approaches the firebase reactor building and captures it. All the turrets become active. Power also trickles through to...

...the seismic sensor tower. The Assault mech captures this tower allowing out in the field seismic mine data to be transmitted to all in his lance.

...the light mech is off in the field, laying seismic mines.

This is what I want to see in Mechwarrior Online when I think of role warfare.

-----

In addition: Mech's / pilots can then pursue combat roles, as the OP has suggested.

Edited by Khanublikhan, 17 May 2013 - 08:05 AM.

[Novakaine]

The only ya gonna archive any of this is with missions.
Battletech lore is filled with em.
Or hell just make some up.
Hopefully CW will solve this.
Right now it just Big Stompy Robots with a 15 minute time limit.

[Trauglodyte]

"You label me, I label you. I dub thee unforgiven."

Trying to assign roles is a fool's errand (not saying that you're a fool). People will play how they want and you can't force it. The concept of roles was a good idea by PGI way back in the beginning. But if they don't reward people for participating in the activities of those roles, nobody will actually do it. And if it isn't easy (scouting is hard due to a lack of in-game voice), people will do it even less.

[MustrumRidcully]

Keifomofutu is correct. All the talk about what roles should exist or could exist and what mechs might fulfill them, how to operate in these roles, only can have actual meaning in gameplay if the game mechanics encourage adopting these roles.

If it's hard to find the fighting force, and something would depend on finding it in time, scouting is important. If the fighting force positions and objectives are known, their general composition is a mystery, you have less need for scouting. Just wait wherever they need to go anyway.

If there are multiple objectives (say, capping or killing everyone on the field), players will gravitate to the most lucrative and/or fun one (and boy, can you make the game disappointing if you have the lucrate and the fun objectives be separate. Hello R&R and AFK Farmers and Trial Suicides ruining the fun of everyone wanting to see big stompy robots fighting. But at least you can make things interesting with multiple objectives - forcing the enemy to split to maintain its objectives can be a sweet deal, which is why I personally do not hate capping, just cap-only matches).

I am not even sure it's possible to make all the roles the OP suggests important in our current "semi-death match style" type matches with symmetric game modes.

Maybe this is something one could try at least to make scouting more important.

1) Assault
Let's say there are actually 4 potential objectives to be captured. for each side. But only two are active in every given match, each side having different ones. Now oyu need to figure out - which objectives is the enemy interested in? How do I stop him from capturing them?
The design hallenge is putting the capture timer at a spot that a feint can work, but light mech swarms don't make it just a cap-race.

2) Assymetric Objectives: Attack vs Defend
1 Team has 3 objectives to defend, and the other team has 2 objectives it needs to capture or destroy.
EIther the attackers or the defenders might not know which the objectives are, forcing the respective side to figure out the right objective and determine the enemies strategy.
(The number of potential defensible objectsives and attackeable objectives might need tweaking, and might also depend on who knows the objectives that are to be captured)

I think these variations could only work on Tourmaline or Alpine, on the smaller mechs, there is just not enough space to "hide" the objectives and the possible routes.

[Hellen Wheels]

Do any of the 8v8 groups play ad hoc missions? Like "Snow White" and the seven dwarfs? Escort the Mech that Can't Shoot? Red Rover Red Rover (ok, that one needs a longer time limit to do one on ones)? King of the Volcano?

Or is it so hard to set up matches with agreed upon conditions for victory (no matter what the "report" may say.)

Or is it that there are so few in the 8 man queue?

Nobody running any league for 8 mans where ad hoc stuff can be reported? Or even an individual ladder with reporting based on the honor system? Have those halcyon days of community run fun just disappeared?

[Lupus Aurelius]

Livewyr, on 17 May 2013 - 06:38 AM, said:

...
Own special category:
PPC Sniper Boats- what would you classify them as? (I think: they don't even belong in MW:O leave CoD to CoD..lower the heat threshold and boost heatsinks.)

Support, obviously, heat precludes brawling. I prefer the term "Suppression" actually, to Support. Making the enemy have to take cover or remain in cover, while your Attack group moves in, and also going for targets of opportunity once the Attack group has engaged.

[Wispsy]

There is only one role!

Mechwarrior!

Each chassis has its own little niche
Hunchbacks should be removed.

[Keifomofutu]

Wispsy, on 17 May 2013 - 10:43 AM, said:

There is only one role!

Mechwarrior!

Each chassis has its own little niche
Hunchbacks should be removed.

WIIIISPYYY!! /star trek

[hammerreborn]

Livewyr, on 17 May 2013 - 06:38 AM, said:

Objectives: Not rewarded (much), not respected, undervalued. Currently far too easy to exploit. (Using objectives to manipulate the battle rather than win seems to be a choice by the pilot himself, as capping is very very easy...and hard as hell to defend against.)

You lost me there. It's child's play to defend your base. Especially when 3/4 of the mechs on your team have guns that shoot 1600m. When it was a brawlers world this was a much more valid argument as assaults/heavies were required to get within 270m of their base, not merely turn around and fire.

Edited by hammerreborn, 17 May 2013 - 10:50 AM.

[Keifomofutu]

hammerreborn, on 17 May 2013 - 10:50 AM, said:

You lost me there. It's child's play to defend your base. Especially when 3/4 of the mechs on your team have guns that shoot 1600m. When it was a brawlers world this was a much more valid argument as assaults/heavies were required to get within 270m of their base, not merely turn around and fire.

Two words Oil Thingy. A brawler is a better option to "defend" the base because its better at a range of 50 meters. Don't make this thread about base caps. You're the one who complains about the number of THOSE we've got going on.

[hammerreborn]

Keifomofutu, on 17 May 2013 - 10:55 AM, said:

Two words Oil Thingy. A brawler is a better option to "defend" the base because its better at a range of 50 meters. Don't make this thread about base caps. You're the one who complains about the number of THOSE we've got going on.

Which you can shoot through most of, especially the leg juts, where the light is likely to be hiding.

And this is a thread about role warfare. Objectives were clearly stated to be a role.

Edited by hammerreborn, 17 May 2013 - 12:03 PM.

[Livewyr]

Ok, simply don't have time to multiquote and address every single post- but I can respond to the major ideas.

Role Labeling: Just because a role is labeled doesn't mean it's the only role you can perform. (Attaching it to a particular weight class is simply assigning the best weight class for that role in personal opinion, with, I think, sound logic.) I know my Centy is primarily a striker/flanker.. but I have no compunction about running to the enemy base if they give me an opportunity, or running back to my own base (or team mate in distress.)

You however, won't see me charging up to the Atlas to take it on 1v1 in a brawl.

-------------
Community Play-styles:
I've said it many times, in multiple threads, I will say it again: "I have no problem with people playing the way they want, I have a big problem with people dictating to other people how they need to play. (simply because)"
Calling a player who is capping various names is unacceptable, just as it is for them to call you something for playing your mech the way you are.

(I do not endorse fast [full]capping, I personally find it distasteful, but I won't insult the person doing it either. It isn't unstoppable by any stretch.)

Building objectives and giving incentive's to perform various tasks would be a good thing; but it isn't a requirement to authorize a player to capture a base.

------
And Yes, it is hard to defend your base.. in order to stop the capture progress, you have to stand on the base as well, you can't shoot someone hiding behind or practically in the base structure.

(It would help if they made it so the base was recoverable.. and be pretty cool as well to have the base have actual health that you have to damage.. like destroying something on the structure.. that you have to be near to even hit... rough idea, but something like that)

[RG Notch]

I wish people who claim they want discussion wouldn't build their bias into their OP and then act shocked when people don't discuss the substance because the bias makes the OP not about what they claim they want to discuss but really about the bias. Why it's ok to stereo type those who don't agree with you as simpletons, but when someone who doesn't agree makes equally absurd stereo types they are some how in the wrong.
If you really want to have a reasoned discussion, don't start a troll topic and expect reasonableness.

[Livewyr]

RG Notch, on 17 May 2013 - 12:11 PM, said:

I wish people who claim they want discussion wouldn't build their bias into their OP and then act shocked when people don't discuss the substance because the bias makes the OP not about what they claim they want to discuss but really about the bias. Why it's ok to stereo type those who don't agree with you as simpletons, but when someone who doesn't agree makes equally absurd stereo types they are some how in the wrong.
If you really want to have a reasoned discussion, don't start a troll topic and expect reasonableness.

Well.. thank you for being literate. /sarcasm.

Copy pasted from OP.
"First, as a baseline, let's establish roles. (This is according to me, feel free to disagree if you like, I'd love to talk about it."


Go fail to add anything to different thread.
You're dismissed.

[hammerreborn]

Livewyr, on 17 May 2013 - 12:15 PM, said:

Well.. thank you for being literate. /sarcasm.

Copy pasted from OP.
"First, as a baseline, let's establish roles. (This is according to me, feel free to disagree if you like, I'd love to talk about it."


Go fail to add anything to different thread.
You're dismissed.

You understood what he said? Seriously, I've read it like 5 times and I can't make heads or tails of it other than OP bad

[General Taskeen]

Too bad the stock Awesome can't vanguard