Interesting article on current state of mechs and roles.
http://themittani.co...ssons-lunchback
TL:DR or former eve hate towards even the name "mittani". We seemingly have forgotten to emphasize roles in this game. Everyone goes for RAW dps now rather than playing a part on a team or fulfilling the original intent of said mech.
The author brings uses an example mech (Jenner) I and many others have said is a problem. Whats the point of other mechs; when a Jenner can do it all better? Furthermore it seems as if they want to allow any boat to float ECM (While not a solid confirmation a few weeks back they stated something to this effect.) Which really makes you wonder... WTF is the point of a Raven or the like?
I agree with his solution. Have certain mechs receive greater bonuses to certain aspects. (Some already do by the ability to fit larger engines) Why not do this for say torso twist, turn radius or slight differentiation to say armor?
As we can see already everyone is relegating themselves to specific weapons loadouts. (Thoughts to dual gauss phracts already being spoken of.) Or 6 on 6 gaussupult matches (I've been in a few) This is just an example of the gravitation for the most WTFPWNMOBILE. Rather than say people wanting to play different roles.
Also we need to get back to emphasize roles! We're on a team! Play your position! I feel as if gameplay will stagnate if everyone wants to be a brawler and highest dps etc.
4
Lessons Of The Lunchback Article.
Started by BlackSquirrel, Nov 19 2012 11:12 AM
11 replies to this topic
#2
-
-
- 2,547 posts
Member
- LocationLloydminster
Posted 19 November 2012 - 11:20 AM
Kinda agree. Cats might stop being the go-to do-it-all heavy if they were stuck with their stock armor for example. Might even see them in support roles.
Although it might be needlessly cruel to force the jagermech to stick to his near jenner-like levels of stock armor
Although it might be needlessly cruel to force the jagermech to stick to his near jenner-like levels of stock armor
#3
Posted 19 November 2012 - 11:28 AM
I agree and have posted as much that there should be a role selector in the mechbay for each mech.
Scout
Harrasser
Brawler
Fire Support (Indirect/Direct)
or whatever
This way group leads can see what they have, and this is something that should be listed in the startup screen a long with the mech chassis and variant.
Scout
Harrasser
Brawler
Fire Support (Indirect/Direct)
or whatever
This way group leads can see what they have, and this is something that should be listed in the startup screen a long with the mech chassis and variant.
#4
-
-
- 1,214 posts
Member
Posted 19 November 2012 - 11:32 AM
I agree with the article. Specialization is going to be necessary, hopefully the devs have a plan. I'm very curious to see how they're going to revamp things in the coming months!
#5
-
-
- Bad Company
- 116 posts
Member
- LocationUSA, North Carolina
Posted 19 November 2012 - 11:38 AM
A good read.. He makes very good points.
PGI should take a few pointers from him.
PGI should take a few pointers from him.
#6
-
-
- Bad Company
- 3,403 posts
Member
Posted 19 November 2012 - 11:42 AM
Odd I feel that PGI has done an excellent job balancing mechs and encouraging unit diversity. Of course wmost issues cannot be fixed instantly, but these thing do get sorted out eventually. If the Jenner is the hands down best light mech, why is that? Do other mechs need a boost (best option), or does the Jenner need a nerf (worse option).
The suggestion that armor should be capped the same way as engines is an interesting one, but I think you will find it cripples a handful of mechs (Cicada, Jaegermech), without imacting the rest (11t of armor on my gaussapult won't slow it down)
The suggestion that armor should be capped the same way as engines is an interesting one, but I think you will find it cripples a handful of mechs (Cicada, Jaegermech), without imacting the rest (11t of armor on my gaussapult won't slow it down)
Edited by Agent 0 Fortune, 19 November 2012 - 11:42 AM.
#7
-
-
- 15 posts
Member
Posted 19 November 2012 - 11:47 AM
Spot on.
Not sure what's being done to address any of it though.
Not sure what's being done to address any of it though.
#8
-
-
- Bad Company
- 3,119 posts
Member
- LocationBetween Now and Oblivion
Posted 19 November 2012 - 11:53 AM
I definitely like the article and it's core points.
lets see some mechanically encouraged/enforced roles or it simply will be a race to the DPS. Instituting mechanics that require and/or reward battlefield roles will also go a long way to shifting the perspective of "how you play the game", it becomes hard to justify blindly chasing K/D rating when it is clear that combined arms (Scout/Support/brawler/Striker) are all important and will exponentially increase your odds if you work to each roles strength.
lets see some mechanically encouraged/enforced roles or it simply will be a race to the DPS. Instituting mechanics that require and/or reward battlefield roles will also go a long way to shifting the perspective of "how you play the game", it becomes hard to justify blindly chasing K/D rating when it is clear that combined arms (Scout/Support/brawler/Striker) are all important and will exponentially increase your odds if you work to each roles strength.
#9
Posted 19 November 2012 - 11:55 AM
In my post : How To Reduce The Grind And Create A Great New User Experience I recommend tuning XP based on roles as well as selecting the roll that your buildout is set to perform.
#10
-
-
- Shredder
- 103 posts
Member
Posted 19 November 2012 - 11:57 AM
Very good read and I agree with him about specializing the mechs into roles, but the TT guys would wet themselves me thinks 
Eve ...10 years later is just now redoing allll the roles for allll those shiny ships and is going to take another year before it's complete.
Even if PGI decided to implement 'roles', the spreadsheet warriors would optimize builds for those roles....which kinda defeats the purpose of the original intent....
Eve ...10 years later is just now redoing allll the roles for allll those shiny ships and is going to take another year before it's complete.
Even if PGI decided to implement 'roles', the spreadsheet warriors would optimize builds for those roles....which kinda defeats the purpose of the original intent....
#11
-
-
- 673 posts
Member
Posted 19 November 2012 - 11:58 AM
If you play on an organized team, you're probably already doing this, becuase it DOES work. In PUG matches, you can't know of the Pug you're with is a decent pilot or a herp-derp moron, so in Pug matches, people tend more towards "jack of all trades" builds. It doesn;t help that right now, LRM's are less effective than they will be.
Having said that, I'd love to see 'Mechs have some specific advantages. I'd love to see different brands of equipment vary slightly (for example, one brand of AC20 has a higher projectile velocity, but produces more heat compared ot a competitor).
The game needs to shift away from the genric feel it has right now.
Having said that, I'd love to see 'Mechs have some specific advantages. I'd love to see different brands of equipment vary slightly (for example, one brand of AC20 has a higher projectile velocity, but produces more heat compared ot a competitor).
The game needs to shift away from the genric feel it has right now.
#12
-
-
- 137 posts
Member
Posted 19 November 2012 - 12:30 PM
Excellent article, pointing out many of the issues with the current game.
I've posted some things like this in pieces before, but I'll re-state here. These are meta-points that the article reminded me of. If PGI wants this game to succeed as a free to play MMO:
1) They need to drop/alter adherence to canon (TT) rules and settings. They Just Don't Work for a computer based game, and if they actually managed to implement them in a balanced computer game, it still wouldn't have the table top "feel". They should be trying for a Mechwarrior 3-4 feel instead, or something new. The people playing MWO right now are not for the most part Table Top BT players. They're people who played Mechwarrior 1-4m as kids.
2) They need to use the monies from the founders' program to ramp up development. Output from their dev team is (to put it mildly) minimal. It may be that they're working on things behind the scenes that they can't show off yet, but they no longer have an excuse to not hire programmers and artists and get rolling fast. Whether you call the current state of the game alpha, closed beta, open beta, or something else, it's barely got enough features to be a game at this point. Compare this to the Hawken team's output.. they went from zero to a game rivalling MWO in complexity and appearance in just a few months.
As a corollary to this, do they only have one person modelling? I'm not even a pro artist, but I could model and skin more than one mech in two weeks of full time work.
3) They need to communicate with their fans and existing player base much, much, better. Even using an email list server would help them communicate... and that's 40 year old software technology.
4) The changes needed aren't small, and aren't incremental. The game just isn't there yet. If PGI tries to keep the existing player base happy while doing the major work needed to build up the game, they'll be spending half their time dealing with that instead of developing. Forget about biweekly new features, re-engineer the game behind the scenes and do another beta in 2013.
5) Put everything on the table to fix the game. Re-do the design. Write a new set of BT rules. Consider switching game engines. Consider different business models. Even consider letting the community help develop, submitting artwork and map ideas, or even code. If the devs limit themselves to tweaks and fixes to the existing game, then it'll be a long, slow road to a mediocre finish, and most of the players won't hang on for the ride.
6) PGI needs to realize that the existing player base is most of the people currently interested in playing. They did well in the closed beta, it wasn't limited in numbers like Hawken, and that shows in the founders' program revenue. Going to open beta they didn't get a flood of people, as has been noted in other posts. That's mostly because all the people who want to play a beta quality Mechwarrior game *are already playing it*. If PGI was looking for a flood of new players who will pay for MC and help support development, they need to re-think.
7) Re-think pricing for their payments model. Right now it's far too extreme ($$). Look at the apps on Apple's app store. Most of them are priced from $0.99 - $10 US. Costs at that level I can impulse buy. Costs where they are from PGI right now I can't really justify even for how much I play... and I have easily several hundred $$ a week in disposable income.
Free to play is nice, but I'd happily pay $45 for a license for the client then a small (<$10) subscription fee monthly if I could get a reasonably bug free game with all the features promised long term by MWO. Community warfare, a dozen maps, many mechs, ranking ladders, tournaments, chat rooms, and most importantly the meta-game.
I'm sure there will be dozens of people disagreeing with many of my more extreme views here, but if nothing else, I've made you think
Erik
I've posted some things like this in pieces before, but I'll re-state here. These are meta-points that the article reminded me of. If PGI wants this game to succeed as a free to play MMO:
1) They need to drop/alter adherence to canon (TT) rules and settings. They Just Don't Work for a computer based game, and if they actually managed to implement them in a balanced computer game, it still wouldn't have the table top "feel". They should be trying for a Mechwarrior 3-4 feel instead, or something new. The people playing MWO right now are not for the most part Table Top BT players. They're people who played Mechwarrior 1-4m as kids.
2) They need to use the monies from the founders' program to ramp up development. Output from their dev team is (to put it mildly) minimal. It may be that they're working on things behind the scenes that they can't show off yet, but they no longer have an excuse to not hire programmers and artists and get rolling fast. Whether you call the current state of the game alpha, closed beta, open beta, or something else, it's barely got enough features to be a game at this point. Compare this to the Hawken team's output.. they went from zero to a game rivalling MWO in complexity and appearance in just a few months.
As a corollary to this, do they only have one person modelling? I'm not even a pro artist, but I could model and skin more than one mech in two weeks of full time work.
3) They need to communicate with their fans and existing player base much, much, better. Even using an email list server would help them communicate... and that's 40 year old software technology.
4) The changes needed aren't small, and aren't incremental. The game just isn't there yet. If PGI tries to keep the existing player base happy while doing the major work needed to build up the game, they'll be spending half their time dealing with that instead of developing. Forget about biweekly new features, re-engineer the game behind the scenes and do another beta in 2013.
5) Put everything on the table to fix the game. Re-do the design. Write a new set of BT rules. Consider switching game engines. Consider different business models. Even consider letting the community help develop, submitting artwork and map ideas, or even code. If the devs limit themselves to tweaks and fixes to the existing game, then it'll be a long, slow road to a mediocre finish, and most of the players won't hang on for the ride.
6) PGI needs to realize that the existing player base is most of the people currently interested in playing. They did well in the closed beta, it wasn't limited in numbers like Hawken, and that shows in the founders' program revenue. Going to open beta they didn't get a flood of people, as has been noted in other posts. That's mostly because all the people who want to play a beta quality Mechwarrior game *are already playing it*. If PGI was looking for a flood of new players who will pay for MC and help support development, they need to re-think.
7) Re-think pricing for their payments model. Right now it's far too extreme ($$). Look at the apps on Apple's app store. Most of them are priced from $0.99 - $10 US. Costs at that level I can impulse buy. Costs where they are from PGI right now I can't really justify even for how much I play... and I have easily several hundred $$ a week in disposable income.
Free to play is nice, but I'd happily pay $45 for a license for the client then a small (<$10) subscription fee monthly if I could get a reasonably bug free game with all the features promised long term by MWO. Community warfare, a dozen maps, many mechs, ranking ladders, tournaments, chat rooms, and most importantly the meta-game.
I'm sure there will be dozens of people disagreeing with many of my more extreme views here, but if nothing else, I've made you think
Erik
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
