Posted 08 February 2013 - 09:04 AM
Wall of Text Warning (but then, Roles and Perks for everything in the game isn't a discussion for the light of mind)!
I think the issue of perks and roles have to be considered in light of the motivation behind the system.
Why have perks and roles? Well, in the positive, it serves to set a given mech apart from others of it's kind and give a reason for the mech to exist. In classic BT, this was served by the various models generated by both players and the game company, in which each model of battlemech had distinctive purposes in a neutral battlefield. Some models did not function as well as others, but on the whole battlemechs of a given tonnage range performed up to the standards of that range.
In the negative, however, the perks and roles are methods of retribution and petty close-mindedness that place restrictions on battlemechs based upon bais and an inability of the players to see a given battlemech beyond what their own preferences and/or expectations are. 'Mechs are shuffled into a certain role because people either don't want them to be fighting in a particular role or are blindly hateful of the mech and its abilities.
So, let's look at MWO in light of this.
First off, MWO is not a neutral battlefield. Such a concept would require all weapons to function equally well apart from additional modifications to their performance, within their engagement profile. MWO is not such, as devs have altered the battlefield artificially to hinder some weapons (LRMs, SSRMs) while enhancing others (Ballistics, ECM), resulting in a conflict environment where taking a battlemech in an 'intended role' can lead to it being unable to fullfil its role.
Then there is the limited number of battlemech models to work with. Battletech started off with about a dozen models in its most basic form, and about 40-50 models at the minimum expected level of play. This gave a viable range of abilities to allow for a given battlemech to be found for a given role within a certain class of battlemech, and a good range of models and variants to provide a baseline for what a given class of battlemech could be expected to function as. MWO, by contrast, has only 13 models of battlemechs to cover the full range of possible roles, far too few to provide the needed range of abilities within each class. Indeed, the Heavy and Assault classes have only 3 models each to cover what are supposed to be the battleline units in the game. This leaves both a lack of combat roles fillable in each class and a much-needed lineup of comparable mech models within each class to provide an accurate assessment of how each model should compare with those in its class.
Under the above conditions, it is very hard to impement a system of perks and roles in an impartial way that would avoid the negative aspects of such a change. To illustrate, let's look at a Catapult (the main reason for these threads, let's be honest here):
The Catapult chassis: The mech is designed with average armor for a heavy battlemech (160 points standard notation), and average speed (64kph), allowing the mech to keep up with other heavy battlemechs and withstand a moderate number of weapon hits. The mech lacks hands or lower arms, which prevents it from performing raiding missions (no way to carry off cargo), combat engineering, or effective melee combat. However, this lack also allows the mech to mount weapons systems in place of arms that may translate directly to the rear of the battlemech, providing full firing arc coverage for these weapons on any point of the compass. This places this mech firmly in the role of fire support unit, as it has neither the armor needed for high-intensity fighting, nor the speed and raiding capability expected of a strike unit.
The CPLT-C1: The 'standard' Catapult, this mech is built for indirect fire support with good in-close backup weapons in case of being attacked while performing this mission. The jumpjects also allow this mech to adapt to variable terrain. The ammunition supply is only enough for short engagements, however.
The CPLT-A1: This version of the Catapult sacrifices all self-defense in-close weaponry to increase the ammunition load of its LRM launchers while retaining jump jet ability. Dedicating itself completely to indirect fire support and mission endurance, this mech is purpose-built to stay out of direct combat.
The CPLT-C4: This model also sacrifices close-in weapons for increasing its indirect fire capabilties by increasing the number of missiles it can launch while also retaining jump jet ability. Only mounting a pair of small lasers for anti-infantry work, this mech is similarly vunerable to being attacked and must depend on other mechs to defend it.
The CPLT-K2: This model is the only direct-fire model configuration of Catapult, mounting two PPCs in place of the LRMs of other Catapults. With two medium lasers for close-in fighting and a pair of machine guns for anti-infantry work, this mech sacrifices its jump jets for the heat sinks needed to power the main weapons. This makes the K2 the Catapult most similar to other heavy battlemechs in performance, though lacking the armor expected of a front-line fighter...which puts this mech still in the support mech catagory.
So, based on the above, what would we expect would be the perks and roles of the Catapult models:
CPLT-C1: Full 360 degree firing arcs on arm weapons, Indirect Fire capability, Multi-Range Targeting, Terrain Handling. Role: Average Indirect Fire Support
CPLT-A1: Full 360 degree firing arcs on arm weapons, Indirect Fire capability, Long Range Targeting, Terrain Handling. Role: Long-Duration Indirect Fire Support
CPLT-C4: Full 360 degree firing arcs on arm weapons, Indirect Fire capability, Long Range Targeting, Terrain Handling. Role: High-Impact Indirect Fire Support
CPLT-K2: Full 360 degree firing arcs on arm weapons, Multi Range Targetting. Role: Direct Fire Support.
At first glance, this list may seem a good idea to implement. However, when you actually put it into MWO, the following happens:
CPLT-C1: ECM prevents the battlemech from performing Indirect Fire, removing the primary reason this mech exists. The secondary Medium Lasers provide some combat ability, but not on the order of a Cataphract or Dragon. In addition, the combat engine does not support 360 degree firing arcs, but does allow for increased torso rotation. End result: A mech which is no better than a Jenner with a leg missing.
CPLT-A1: ECM prevents the battlemech from performing Indirect Fire, removing -all- reason for this mech to exist. End result: a mech that is in all effective ways unarmed and carrying around ammunition to be blown up.
CPLT-C4: ECM prevents the battlemech from performing Indirect Fire, removing ninety-five percent of this mech's ability to fight. The Small Lasers do negligible damage, but the mech lacks any speed to reach a range they can be effectively used. End result: a mech that is all but unarmed and carrying around ammunition to be blown up.
CPLT-K2: ECM prevents the battlemech from spotting targets at long range, forcing the unit into mid-to-close range fighting. PPCs lack the damage capabilties to be effective support weapons. Game engine prevents full 360 degree firing arc on arm weapons, but does allow for increased torso rotation. End result: The mech is mostly unchanged, but its abilty to fight lags behind other Heavy battlemechs in the game, lacking the speed of the Dragon or the weaponry and armor of the Cataphract.
As the above illustrates, the Catapult is largely unable to function both in its primary intended role and as a worthwhile battlemech in the environment of MWO in its established configurations. In addition, with only two other Heavy mech chassis, there is a lack of viable alternatives for a Catapult pilot to turn to in order to mitigate this problem. The only option is one built into MWO and the original game.
The customization system is the solution to both the artificial handicapping of a battlemech by combat environment bais and the limited number of chassis in MWO by allowing a mech to be modified into another battlemech type. By allowing for this, both the original game and MWO incorporate a feature that allows for multiple diversity in battlemechs without needing to delay the game for decades while they model, test, and release every model and type of battlemech in the original game. This permits a mech to be modified to changing conditions of the game which were never part of the original, and also the existing models to stand in for other models not included in the game.
However, this unavoidably rams right into those who believe a given battlemech 'shouldn't be able to do that'. Such players look at customized battlemechs through the lens of either the original, hundreds-of-mech-models-strong game or their own unimaginative views on what a given battlemech 'should' look like. At the same time, there are those who see a battlemech they believe should not be an effective weapon on the battlefield being one, and wish to knock it down simply because it threatens their own chosen 'mech's superiority.
Thus we come to the problem with 'Roles' and 'Perks'. The given roles in the game, as illustrated by the Catapult above but applicable to others in the game, are not presented in a balanced and reasoned way in MWO, and attempting to assign a role to a given mech when the game does not support that role will only lead to a crippled game, not an enhancement. At the same time, assigning perks on the basis of personal bais and a desire to hamper battlemechs for spite leads to simple resentment and abandonment of the playerbase's acceptance that they are being given a level playfield to compete.
A good example is the current crusades against the Catapults mounting AC/20s and SRMs. These are based on nothing more than players who believe the Catapult should not be allowed to have such weapons, ignoring the fact that the players themselves are responsible for the changes to MWO that have made what 'should be' on these mechs non-viable. Assuming you eliminate both of these possibilities, where does that leave the 'mech? Does it honestly match up to the Cataphract if it is limited to two SRMs, or just Machine Guns? Be honest now.
Thus, we come to the issue of customization, which is the real point of the supposed 'role' and 'perk' discussion. With the customization system, players already have the ability to configure their battlemechs for the roles that mech's chassis permits, and with full understanding of the changing environment forced onto them by the Devs. There is, therefore, no need to assign roles to battlemech chassis that even the Devs won't honor, and doing so has no tangible benefit to the game. Perks, likewise, are things that must be balanced against each other to prevent personal bais from installing abilities that are too profound, but at the same time, there is no real way to determine which battlemech should have which perk without a set of guidelines. Therefore, before stating what perks should go with what chassis, a system has so be established for what qualifies a battlemech for which perk. I haven't seen that yet, and the above wall of text should illustrate just how much has to be considered in doing so.
Lastly, I am personally quite disgusted with those who continue to disguise their personal crusades against individual battlemechs as anything but that, so I hope this discussion topic is not one of those.
3
Beo Vulf, on 07 February 2013 - 06:12 PM, said:
