55 replies to this topic

[Sybreed]

Roadbeer, on 03 December 2013 - 09:28 AM, said:

It's an incentive, not a requirement. I have absolutely no problem using the mechs you described and many others in the role I build them for, and quite effectively. If I want to get a cookie for doing what I was going to do with my mech anyway, then I buy the module, or not... whichever.

All this is doing is giving a carrot to those who have an issue wrapping their CoD brains around the concept of role warfare, first by taxing them for their lack of creativity, then giving them a bonus for being a good sheep.

My main concern is that PGI will stop working on role warfare at that point. We need more than just a carrot on a stick.

[Roadbeer]

I agree completely. I think over time you and I have been in agreement on wanting a lot more out of RW/IW. But you also have to look at it as, even if they improve NARC, TAG, etc. your average player still won't use it because it doesn't fall into a DPS metric (hence the CoD reference)

But if you put in the Role Modules where they get perks for using the items beyond the 'bonuses', they might look towards using them.

For guys like you and I, who want to use them anyway, we'll get a little extra gravy on our stuffing (Still in holiday mode)

[Bagheera]

Quote

We have just completed the first draft of upcoming new modules and pilot talents that will allow us to further refine the roles that the various BattleMechs partake in. We are also looking at chassis/role specific module slots being added to BattleMechs so that they do not occupy general module slots which can be considered as generic modules.

The idea has some potential.

Quote

As an example, players who equip a specialized Scouting module may receive higher XP/CB gains when performing scouting actions and players who equip a specialized Brawler module may receive higher XP/CB gains when performing support actions etc. Our plan is to start ramping up generation of these new modules and talents as soon as possible.

But please do more than just make them economic boosters for detected behavior.

[Sybreed]

Roadbeer, on 03 December 2013 - 09:47 AM, said:

I agree completely. I think over time you and I have been in agreement on wanting a lot more out of RW/IW. But you also have to look at it as, even if they improve NARC, TAG, etc. your average player still won't use it because it doesn't fall into a DPS metric (hence the CoD reference)

But if you put in the Role Modules where they get perks for using the items beyond the 'bonuses', they might look towards using them.

For guys like you and I, who want to use them anyway, we'll get a little extra gravy on our stuffing (Still in holiday mode)

Can't disagree with that!

[Riptor]

You guys are talking as if PGI is able to implement anything more intricate then flat out number manipulation, you know.. actual gameplay ideas?

[Sybreed]

Riptor, on 03 December 2013 - 02:32 PM, said:

You guys are talking as if PGI is able to implement anything more intricate then flat out number manipulation, you know.. actual gameplay ideas?

pffff, how dare you, you're not even in the new Killer Instinct!

[Bhael Fire]

As mentioned by a few others, I think it's a bad idea to incentivize roles with modules that require XP and c-bills to use. Players should be playing roles and getting rewarded for their chosen role right from their first match.

I'd rather see the match rewards completely overhauled and perhaps an actual "role" selection mechanic that players can choose before a match. Their rewards would be based on what role they selected and how closely they performed to their chosen role.

I just would hate to see another confusing and convoluted mechanic added to the game.

[Kanatta Jing]

Well they could be cheaper then "general" Modules. Or the first Scout Tier 1 Module could be like 50k and the Scout Tier 3 module can be 4 or 6 million. That way it rewards Scouts for investing time in getting good at Scouting.

[Hellcat420]

lol this idea is /fail. it has nothing to do with role warfare. its income augmentation.

[627]

Alistair Winter, on 03 December 2013 - 12:48 AM, said:

Unless they change the fundamental roles and interaction between said roles, this changes nothing. It's like the TAG bonus. It was supposed to give some incentive to light mechs tagging for their team. In reality, it just meant that every LRM boat would bring their own TAG and light mechs were still useless.

I still think that it was wrong to extend the tag range to 750m. Keep it at 450m like before and only suicidal LRM boats would fit one.

[Alistair Winter]

627, on 04 December 2013 - 12:04 AM, said:

I still think that it was wrong to extend the tag range to 750m. Keep it at 450m like before and only suicidal LRM boats would fit one.

That would be nice. And instant missile lock would be nice, because if your spotter loses target lock for an instant the shot is usually wasted. Which is why I almost never rely on spotters. Which is part of the reason we don't have role warfare.

Buff spotters with TAG and you get something close to role warfare.

[Texas Merc]

Heads up they aren't going to listen to you no matter how much $$$ you put up...

[Karl Streiger]

So instead of real roles - an act like - carrot with C-Bills and/or XP bonus.

At best - when mounting Scout Module - reducing the gain for dealing damage?

The most funny part about is, (hardly anybody would understand) is that I know a poster that have made a similiar suggestion (a week before this Update)
That means this poster and PGI seems to think in the same way?

[Kanatta Jing]

PGI does in theory take ideas off of the forums. Alternatively we have enough forum posters that we can reliably present ideas that PGI will implement before they tell us they will implement them.

Anyway, Will paying scouts to scout make them scout? I think that it will.

But I have to wonder what the other roles (besides scout and brawler) will be.

[Pwnocchio]

Kanatta Jing, on 02 December 2013 - 10:36 PM, said:

So today we have news that PGI is planning a new line of modules that work on one specific Mechs.

Like a Scout and a Brawling module. When equipped the module pays out rewards for performing the role it is named after.

I really hope these modules actually help people fill these roles rather than simply rewarding them for filling said roles.

For example, it would be cool of scout module mechs were the only ones that could actually relay targeting intel from mechs they are spotting to the rest of their team.

That would make scouts essential, and scout pilots that could stay alive essential.

If these modules are just 'here have more XP for doing these things' then they aren't going to impact the way the game plays.

[Roadbeer]

Pwnocchio, on 04 December 2013 - 10:09 AM, said:

I really hope these modules actually help people fill these roles rather than simply rewarding them for filling said roles.

For example, it would be cool of scout module mechs were the only ones that could actually relay targeting intel from mechs they are spotting to the rest of their team.

That would make scouts essential, and scout pilots that could stay alive essential.

If these modules are just 'here have more XP for doing these things' then they aren't going to impact the way the game plays.

I agree, it's definitely that could be HUGELY expanded on.
Once it's created, adding on to supplement the "Generic Modules", where say the scouting module would provide a buff to stack with TIG and improve the effects of TAG/NARC or something. Brawling module adds bonuses to Cool Shot and Cap Assist.

I see a lot of potential with these.

[Whatzituyah]

I don't like this idea at all I don't want to be persuaded to do what my role is. I just like blowing things up and running around an atlas as a light mech and sometimes I succeed killing him "with help" so no I don't want to get more c-bills just for scouting as a light.

[Blurry]

that is just to keep you playing and spending money. They really have no intention of doing anything.
UI 2.0 is so important because of the store interface that is why they are working so hard on it. Also why nothing else is being done. After it is finished expect to hear about the next batch/package of mechs for release.

Right more $$. CW and all other things will continue on "soon" language until the revenue stream drops to a low then and only then will development start. So expect launch in 2015/6 when game pop is low and people stop believing what they say and stop spending $.

Heard it here first.

It would be nice for roles but frankly above is what I actually believe. String em along long enough to milk em.

Edited by Blurry, 04 December 2013 - 01:18 PM.

[Kanatta Jing]

Whatzituyah, on 04 December 2013 - 11:29 AM, said:

I don't like this idea at all I don't want to be persuaded to do what my role is. I just like blowing things up and running around an atlas as a light mech and sometimes I succeed killing him "with help" so no I don't want to get more c-bills just for scouting as a light.

Here is the thing. From Sarna

Spider - Spiders are generally used as fast strike forces to hit an enemy's rear with lightning speed.

Jenner - the Jenner was meant to be a fast guerrilla fighter which would go on to form the foundation for highly mobile lances.

Raven - the -4X was an attempt to turn the chassis into a pure combat unit.

According to lore many light mechs aren't primarily scouts but rather ankle biters. Many recon focused chassis include more confrontational variants.

While your mech may have a Scout module available to it that doesn't mean a Skirmish or Ambusher module won't also be available to it or a similar design.

I would certainly love it if my Locust 3M came with a highly improbable Light Hunter module that just pumped out the equivalent of a Savior Kill when ever a light mech I happen to be shooting at is destroyed for some unrelated reason.

On the other hand there is no mech more likely to be jammed into the recon only hole as the Locust.

[Whatzituyah]

I don't like Team Fortress 2 with my Mechwarrior same I am.