15 replies to this topic

[Ted Wayz]

They do not move us closer to roles. They just reinforce the max/min crowd and will further separate our community.

Some of my favorite gaming memories come from Warhammer Online teaching players in our alliance how to perform keep defenses. Each class and person had a role in the defense of the keep. Done properly I was part of a group that held of 4 times our number for four hours before I had to quit, exhausted but happy.

I fear I will never have this type of moment in MWO.

Weight class specific skills. Why not? Add in better role rewards and maybe, just maybe, we can fully utilize these big maps and not just congregate in the middle.

[TLBFestus]

Best I think you can hope for is that they eventually add new branches to the skill tree that differentiate between traditional roles in MW.

Truthfully though, it's a looong shot at best.

[Bud Crue]

A note from PGI:
Those waiting for "role warfare" in the MWO experience:
-ahem-
"ABANDON HOPE ALL YE WHO ENTER HERE"
Thank you for listening. This has been a public service announcement from PGI.

Seriously, there are 4, maybe 5 roles in this game:

Assault class shooter of mech;
Heavy class shooter of mechs;
Medium class shooter of mechs;
Light class shooter of mechs; and
Walking targets, AKA: 35 ton humanoid IS mechs and those standing back lrming.

This is true under the current system, this is true under the PTS. Yes, the PTS gives you 20 nodes to make your mech incrementally different from others (~70 nodes are going to be auto-used on nearly every mech in the game), but those tiny differences do not a "role" make.

You really want roles? Screw the PTS. Give us a random map generator so that scouting is a real thing...can't do that, then how about semi-random drop zones. Give us different reward trees so that certain play styles (i.e. roles) are encouraged. Make the squirks and quirks, be they as part of a "skill tree" or "base line values" focused on a role appropriate for the mech and not something where all mechs can be made into something they are not or worse made into just another version of every other mech (i.e. the skill tree as presented in the PTS). Then give us a skills tree that is based on the player not on the mech. Give me a personal reward path (leveling) so I can pretend I (me, the player) am actually achieving something and make that path about real, hard choices with significant pros and cons. (example you go the scout path you are going to fly in a light mech, but have serious negatives in an assault mech performance-wise; you go the snipper path you are going to get serious bonuese with long range weapons but maybe have significant negatives in armor/structure, whatever. Etc).

The point is that "roles" are not achieved by having the same maps, the same modes, the same mechs, all rewarded and scored the same way, and advanced along the same limited skill tree like we have now or like that which is presented in the PTS. You have to actually provide a game that has the potential for roles and then mechanisms for encouraging those roles. MWO has never provided either, and it doesn't look like they are about to start.

Edited by Bud Crue, 12 February 2017 - 12:36 PM.

[Gentleman Reaper]

Bud Crue, on 12 February 2017 - 12:36 PM, said:

A note from PGI:
Those waiting for "role warfare" in the MWO experience:
-ahem-
"ABANDON HOPE ALL YE WHO ENTER HERE"
Thank you for listening. This has been a public service announcement from PGI.

Seriously, there are 4, maybe 5 roles in this game:

Assault class shooter of mech;
Heavy class shooter of mechs;
Medium class shooter of mechs;
Light class shooter of mechs; and
Walking targets, AKA: 35 ton humanoid IS mechs and those standing back lrming.

This is true under the current system, this is true under the PTS. Yes, the PTS gives you 20 nodes to make your mech incrementally different from others (~70 nodes are going to be auto-used on nearly every mech in the game), but those tiny differences do not a "role" make.

You really want roles? Screw the PTS. Give us a random map generator so that scouting is a real thing...can't do that, then how about semi-random drop zones. Give us different reward trees so that certain play styles (i.e. roles) are encouraged. Make the squirks and quirks, be they as part of a "skill tree" or "base line values" focused on a role appropriate for the mech and not something where all mechs can be made into something they are not or worse made into just another version of every other mech (i.e. the skill tree as presented in the PTS). Then give us a skills tree that is based on the player not on the mech. Give me a personal reward path (leveling) so I can pretend I (me, the player) am actually achieving something and make that path about real, hard choices with significant pros and cons. (example you go the scout path you are going to fly in a light mech, but have serious negatives in an assault mech performance-wise; you go the snipper path you are going to get serious bonuese with long range weapons but maybe have significant negatives in armor/structure, whatever. Etc).

The point is that "roles" are not achieved by having the same maps, the same modes, the same mechs, all rewarded and scored the same way, and advanced along the same limited skill tree like we have now or like that which is presented in the PTS. You have to actually provide a game that has the potential for roles and then mechanisms for encouraging those roles. MWO has never provided either, and it doesn't look like they are about to start.

It confounds me how you only see a "shooter" role for all mechs, I can think of at least 4 defined roles:

Scout: mobile spotter.

Skirmisher: runs in, dumps damage, runs out.

Brawler: Tough mechs that specialize in close quarters

Fire support: Sustained and accurate damage dealer

The skill trees can be remade to these roles, with each one possessing skills that the others don't (armor for brawlers).

[Alan Davion]

Gentleman Reaper, on 12 February 2017 - 04:39 PM, said:

It confounds me how you only see a "shooter" role for all mechs, I can think of at least 4 defined roles:

Scout: mobile spotter.

Skirmisher: runs in, dumps damage, runs out.

Brawler: Tough mechs that specialize in close quarters

Fire support: Sustained and accurate damage dealer

The skill trees can be remade to these roles, with each one possessing skills that the others don't (armor for brawlers).

He sees shooter roles for all the mechs because that's literally the only thing in the game that gets any decent rewards. But at the same time, the core game mechanics themselves shoehorn the mechs into said roles.

For example, the majority of the maps are simply too damned small to allow lights to scout for friendly LRM artillery strikes, and flank around to smack down any enemy LRM artillery. Then when you have a map that's actually big enough to allow for it, like Alpine Peaks, the range of the LRMs themselves don't allow the LRM boats to hang back and prevent them from being damaged by front line mechs.

For there to be real rewards for scouting PGI would need to completely start over from scratch on their map design philosophy, and I think we all know that's far beyond the effort they're willing to put into this game, especially given this half-a$$ed skill tree setup that doesn't allow for any specialization, and according to Russ himself on his Twitter, is apparently aimed at making people buy multiple copies of the same mech variant.

When the company behind the game can't get even a simple skill system right, what chance do you think there would be of them actually fixing the rewards system and making maps that actually reward different roles other than "FIRE DA LAZOR!"... ?

Hint: The chances are zero. We'd all probably be better off if we all stopped playing and forced them to either say "Sorry, we screwed up", which is also equally unlikely, or force them to just shut it all down and pray to god HBS gets the sole BT/MW license.

Edited by Alan Davion, 12 February 2017 - 05:15 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

Gentleman Reaper, on 12 February 2017 - 04:39 PM, said:

It confounds me how you only see a "shooter" role for all mechs, I can think of at least 4 defined roles:

Scout: mobile spotter.

Skirmisher: runs in, dumps damage, runs out.

Brawler: Tough mechs that specialize in close quarters

Fire support: Sustained and accurate damage dealer

The skill trees can be remade to these roles, with each one possessing skills that the others don't (armor for brawlers).

Scout: that thing everybody can do because maps are small and everybody has eyes.

Skirmisher: shoot 'Mechs

Brawler: shoot 'Mechs

Fire support: shoot 'Mechs.

[50 50]

Given that the game is all about destroying the opponent, it's not really surprising that having a role to play in said destruction is difficult to differentiate. Even with objectives on the maps, particularly in quick play, it typically still boils down to mech destruction.

The only way to really change this with what we have on the PTS is to reduce the number of skill points we can have as it will force us to give up different enhancements. Having a few of the skills expanded on and even a few additional skills added will help diversify these options, but we will not see how effective that is without also seeing some changes to the game modes, more specifically Faction Play, where we have a chance for the battle to require mechs to be setup differently. Quick play doesn't allow enough time for roles to come into their own.

We may see further skills and options added with the tech jump as well.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Yeonne Greene, on 12 February 2017 - 05:44 PM, said:

Scout: that thing everybody can do because maps are small and everybody has eyes.

Skirmisher: shoot 'Mechs

Brawler: shoot 'Mechs

Fire support: shoot 'Mechs.

I mean I don't know what else you plan on getting in here given that this is a PvP game so focusing on something else seems rather dull. So long as this game allows for different viable ways about shooting mechs I'm ok, which is what the roles are really about like brawlers, snipers, etc.

[Bud Crue]

Gentleman Reaper, on 12 February 2017 - 04:39 PM, said:

It confounds me how you only see a "shooter" role for all mechs, I can think of at least 4 defined roles:

Scout: mobile spotter.

Skirmisher: runs in, dumps damage, runs out.

Brawler: Tough mechs that specialize in close quarters

Fire support: Sustained and accurate damage dealer

The skill trees can be remade to these roles, with each one possessing skills that the others don't (armor for brawlers).

Lemme know how many cbills and XP you get as a "mobile spotter". Good luck getting the cbills necessary to level mechs under the PTS.

Skirmisher...Yep that is one of the two roles I identified: Light class shooter of mechs and some medium mech shooter of mechs. One role two classes! Sweet.

Brawler:..tough mechs...like every mech in the PTS that wlll be running full defensive squirks and has at least some weapons that aren't minimum range limited. "nearly everybody" is not a role.

Fire support: Well under your definition that is called the meta (sustained and accurate damage dealer) and I covered that.

It actually sounds like you are on the same page as me.

[Y E O N N E]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 12 February 2017 - 06:28 PM, said:

I mean I don't know what else you plan on getting in here given that this is a PvP game so focusing on something else seems rather dull. So long as this game allows for different viable ways about shooting mechs I'm ok, which is what the roles are really about like brawlers, snipers, etc.

I'm just pointing out that the roles are still mostly "shoot 'Mechs," though I would argue that the various ways you can shoot 'Mechs are not terribly varied because bigger generally equals better and because the mechanics are overly simplistic. With delayed convergence, radar profiles, no goddamn seismic for everybody, there could be a little more to the game than "eyeball target, get in range to pull trigger, and pull said trigger."

[tokumboh]

Yeonne Greene, on 12 February 2017 - 09:21 PM, said:

I'm just pointing out that the roles are still mostly "shoot 'Mechs," though I would argue that the various ways you can shoot 'Mechs are not terribly varied because bigger generally equals better and because the mechanics are overly simplistic. With delayed convergence, radar profiles, no goddamn seismic for everybody, there could be a little more to the game than "eyeball target, get in range to pull trigger, and pull said trigger."

I hear the argument about the facts that this game rewards damage and kills above all others, and I agree the reward system does nothing to really promote anything but damage and kills. It is why if you are light mech you look to put the biggest weapons on in terms of damage on your mech and go find someone to kill. you do not scout the enemy. There is no need. Looking at MW-LL I think they have the whole battlefield thing correct the maps are huge and therefore needs people to scout and find the enemy you have to capture bases to repair you mech (I think the ability to withdraw and repair you mech is important and you need to take over bases and kill the opposition to win. It create a better dynamic a sort of cross between QP and FW which is really want we would need to win games.

If we had say a map twice as big as Polar highland with mech repair bases that need to be captured and therefore scouts need to do their job then you will find a different dynamic. At the moment I have played games where people have been so concerned at finding and killing the enemy that they left the Escort Mech on the otherside of the map to go squirrel hunting becuase that was going to get their C bill and XP scores up whereas if they stayed with the Escort mech we may have won collectively but no one would have had good match scores since there was only. I have also seen people avoid playing conquest even though it routinely get you more C bills and XP than other modes because it get in the way of kill and damage

Even in the world championships it was very rare to see a team try and win by caps and indeed most tried to win by killing the enemy.

Some people want more than just a first person shooter in Mechs unfortunately all we have is a FPS and to my mind not the greatest. I keep thinking I'll give MW-LL a go at some point but I suppose I have too mu;-)ch invested in MWO and I even bough the Javelin although I am crap at lights so II must be a glutton for punishment

;-)

[MechaBattler]

What exemplifies roles in MWO for people? Brawler? Poptart? Sniper?

[tokumboh]

MechaBattler, on 12 February 2017 - 11:54 PM, said:

What exemplifies roles in MWO for people? Brawler? Poptart? Sniper?

I watched a blackhawksc youtube video where he basically turned the CTF- loyality mech in to the laser vomit mech he said that the problem with doing brawling builds in public queue is that everyone uses the meta of ER-LL and PPC/Gauss and therefore people with brawling builds are pretty timid as there is no coordinate push especially in tier 5/4/3 queues.

That pretty much sums up what we have at the moment. I remember doing rampage in a CTF-0XP with AC20 + 4ML and 300 STD it was fun and more dynamic. lots more pushes better movement to contact, even on Polar Highland and now we have basically poke and scoot because the maps seem to generate that even when you would think there would be more variety

Somer of this is down to the community, we are smart enough to seek and find the metas but much of it is down to the game, the maps and the game modes.

In the end this is a game of Kills and Damage, Hell to find the rewards and what their definition and XP/C bill bonus is, is an adventure in searching this site which kind of tells you all you need to know

[Quicksilver Aberration]

tokumboh, on 12 February 2017 - 11:46 PM, said:

Even in the world championships it was very rare to see a team try and win by caps and indeed most tried to win by killing the enemy.

That's because without respawn the game SHOULD be won more often than not by killing the enemy.....that's the reason MW:LL got away with having objective based wins be a thing, because they had respawns.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 14 February 2017 - 01:50 PM.

[tokumboh]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 14 February 2017 - 01:49 PM, said:

That's because without respawn the game SHOULD be won more often than not by killing the enemy.....that's the reason MW:LL got away with having objective based wins be a thing, because they had respawns.

I accept that having respawns does help but faction Warfare has respawns so why is that such a disaster?
In my view it is a combination of map and modes which makes it crap throttle point to create killing zones no scouting mean that there is little in the way variation of play.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

tokumboh, on 14 February 2017 - 01:54 PM, said:

I accept that having respawns does help but faction Warfare has respawns so why is that such a disaster?

Because the maps and invasion game modes are absolutely horrendous....

Assault is also bad for similar reasons why CTF would be bad in this game.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 14 February 2017 - 02:04 PM.