Focused Feedback: Team Badges

[mistagoat]

Speaking for myself:

If

Badge = Incentive

Then

Incentive = 0

[Wavicle]

Making each badge unique to each TF would make it into a lot more badges anyway, such as "Moonfire's Mirror Image" and "Lord Recluse's Variety Act".

[strix_]

On 2/13/2024 at 9:57 AM, Wavicle said:

Making each badge unique to each TF would make it into a lot more badges anyway, such as "Moonfire's Mirror Image" and "Lord Recluse's Variety Act".

I actually love the idea of adding Same/Diverse AT badges to each TF a lot! It could really incentivise the all-same-AT runs that already seem popular with players, and incentivise more experienced players to teach newer players the functions/tricks of the AT. I know I'd definitely be interested in running TFs I haven't experienced already if someone was recruiting for an all-Brute run, for example, and being able to ask those players for advice on how they've slotted enhancements after seeing how their builds perform could be really helpful in planning out my own character builds. More casual and social content in the game is always a net good, for me.

Also: the dev team could give them all funny names. That alone usually makes a badge worth getting imho

[SaxyGuitar]

On 2/16/2024 at 6:18 AM, strix_ said:

Also: the dev team could give them all funny names. That alone usually makes a badge worth getting imho

 

This is true, funny or sick badge names do make me more likely to get it.

[Booper]

Note to self: "My mom made me wear this" badge

[nExipnos]

Personally not a fan of this change. The goal appears to be an attempt to make AT's important, even though the game pushes strongly in the opposite direction. Add to that it feels like there was a vocal minority clamoring for the removal of the Aether reward and we come to this current iteration, which I find to be a half-baked solution to a problem that doesn't even really exist. My teams tend to be pretty diverse, even without trying most times. I let people play whatever they feel like playing and find most people end up diversifying on their own terms without the need to push it.

 

That being said, I also haven't really found it difficult to find teams to do pretty much all content in the game. So I'm still not clear on the point of this whole thing overall, let alone the removal of a reward outside of a badge. A badge that doesn't really offer much to me and doesn't result in an Accolade or any other reward. Seems like wasted time/development.

 

I guess a different way to phrase this is, Why are we trying to shove everyone back into a cookie cutter mold of AT's when the game and the devs originally broadened this archaic view in order to allow for more flexibility? 

[Cobalt Arachne]

1 hour ago, nExipnos said:

Why are we trying to shove everyone back into a cookie cutter mold of AT's when the game and the devs originally broadened this archaic view in order to allow for more flexibility? 

We're not, and many are looking at this the wrong way.

Also worth noting, as it's something many people are getting wrong in this discussion:

• Your chosen playstyle is not the same thing as your AT's primary role on a team.

Because the game allows players to run anti-meta builds, like a Defender who's specced into a taunt and fights only in melee, but that is choosing a playstyle.
That does not make it that Defender's role on the team to tank enemy aggro.
 

---

If I invite a Tanker to my team completely blind without looking at their powersets at all, what should I expect them to be contributing to my team?
My answer would be that the expectation is that they are going to be the ones first into enemy groups and tanking their aggro alpha.

If the Tanker instead sits at the back of the team using only ranged attacks and never taunting, they're choosing a playstyle that does not suit their Archetype, which is allowed, but it does not mean their Tanker is fulfilling the role of Ranged Damage.

In-fact, by doing so they're contributing very little to their team, so even if it's technically allowed within the game, it's not behavior we are going to reward.
It would be more productive if that Tanker who loves playing Ranged Damage instead was on a Blaster, as they'll contribute far more to that role while retaining the same playstyle.

The distinction will hopefully lead players to play the ATs that are the strongest choices for the playstyle they enjoy, while also acknowledging the role they are expected to fulfill when on teams. This is the knowledge we're hoping to impart to new players with these more defined roles.

The character creator even refers to this selection as 'Playstyle':

[nExipnos]

1 hour ago, Cobalt Arachne said:

We're not, and many are looking at this the wrong way.

Also worth noting, as it's something many people are getting wrong in this discussion:

• Your chosen playstyle is not the same thing as your role on a team.

Because the game does allow you to play anti-meta, with a Defender who's specced into a taunt and fights only in melee, but that is choosing a playstyle.
That does not make it your Defender's role on the team to tank enemy aggro.

If I invite a Tanker to my team completely blind without looking at their powersets at all, what should I expect them to be contributing to my team?
My answer would be that the expectation is that they are going to be the ones first into enemy groups and tanking their aggro alpha.

If the Tanker instead sits at the back of the team using only ranged attacks and never taunting, they're choosing a playstyle that does not suit their Archetype, which is allowed, but it does not mean their Tank is fulfilling the role of Ranged Damage.

In-fact, by doing so they're contributing very little to their team, so even if it's technically allowed within the game, it's not behavior we are going to promote.

 

With all due respect, objectively, perhaps we're not the ones looking at this the "wrong way"?

 

The game was pushed in the direction of "playstyle" and rightfully so. It made the game so much better without relying on the "Holy Trinity". It was so that people didn't have to worry too much about which AT was actually on the team. If the goal is to move back to that box, then that is the issue with this change. It does that only half-heartedly by removing the reward.

 

I think ultimately, this has no clear purpose and seems to be something shoe-horned in. With the Aether reward it at least held substance. Now it just comes off as a failed attempt at a band aid. Still not clear one why the attempt to put everyone back into that box is happening, even with your scenario above, you are now directly forcing a particular playstyle. Seems to go against the grain of the game.

 

That is my feedback for this.

 

Edit: I just saw your addition to your post. That provides a bit more clarity on the decision. I can't say it changes my mind much, but it at least adds more context to the decision.

Edited February 18 by nExipnos

[Cobalt Arachne]

3 minutes ago, nExipnos said:

you are now directly forcing a particular playstyle.

If suggesting to a new player that a Blaster is a better pick than a Defender on teams for somebody who wants to be play Ranged Damage (which is an objective fact) is "forcing a particular plastyle" then there's not much room for discussion.

That's not us changing the game, that's just literally how the game works.

 

It's a rather odd take on the goal of trying to better passively educate players that certain ATs are better choices for specific team roles.

 

[nExipnos]

1 minute ago, Cobalt Arachne said:

If suggesting to a new player that a Blaster is a better pick than a Defender on teams for somebody who wants to be play Ranged Damage (which is an objective fact) is "forcing a particular plastyle" then there's not much room for discussion.

That's not us changing the game, that's just literally how the game works.

 

It's a rather odd take on the goal of trying to better passively educate players that certain ATs are better choices for specific team roles.

 

 

I appreciate wanting to educate players. I would never argue that's a bad thing. This just doesn't seem to do that or at the very least, doesn't seem to do that effectively. Throw in that it no longer really has any value (of course this is debatable because...well...badges) to veteran players, I hope you can at least see my point. The playstyle the game asks you about lists multiple AT's under multiple types and using this for your example while ignoring the exact same classifications or categories already in the game, you're literally adding to the confusion.

[Wavicle]

52 minutes ago, nExipnos said:

you're literally adding to the confusion.

this is the part I agree with.

 

 But I think the solution is to make the Character Creation playstyle tab include what is in the team badges bonus. Not be restricted to it, but not directly contradict it either.

[Coyotedancer]

I'm just wondering when my Widow is going to get her Control powers... I mean, if the idea is to tell potential teammates that hers is a Control AT and you want to reward me somehow for playing her that way... shouldn't she have some stout Control-focused powers? Rather than being a really stabby ninja-thing with a nifty smoke bomb? 

 

(Yeah, I'm being a little bit of a snarktopus here... But having the VEAT Widow listed as a Control AT really does highlight the problem with the current pigeonholes. It's just awkward and not a real reflection of the way the game plays.)   

[strix_]

16 hours ago, nExipnos said:

 

I appreciate wanting to educate players. I would never argue that's a bad thing. This just doesn't seem to do that or at the very least, doesn't seem to do that effectively. Throw in that it no longer really has any value (of course this is debatable because...well...badges) to veteran players, I hope you can at least see my point. The playstyle the game asks you about lists multiple AT's under multiple types and using this for your example while ignoring the exact same classifications or categories already in the game, you're literally adding to the confusion.

This! The Playstyle/Role expectations argument ultimately falls apart under scrutiny, because multiple ATs fall under multiple playstyles within that menu and unlike other MMOs, player choice and build variety is encouraged and fostered by the power-buy mechanics and enhancement abilities which encourages experimentation, not rigid adherence to a meta. Players tend to pick powers that "fit" their idea of their character, not vice versa. This degree of variance in what ATs "should" do is quite literally baked into the game at its foundational level, and compounded on with all the supplemental power pools and their value for player self-expression.

 

To pick the Brute, because it's in the Melee Damage AT menu along with the other Melee Damage ATs, because you want to play a Melee Damage character for solo content and casual teams while you're levelling, and the Brute advertises itself within that playstyle menu not as a Tank AT, but as a Damage AT with strong damage output and survivability, and to then spec powers and enhancements into single-target damage and health regen because you want to play the AT as a survivable Melee Damage dealer but not take Taunt because you don't really expect to ever have to seriously Tank high-level content? Sure, that can be called an off-meta pick, but it's clearly and repeatedly signalled to the player as a viable and worthwhile playstyle in every single visual and mechanical signpost that's presented to the player through the process of building their character. It's not helping nudge a player into understanding their role to then put that player into a big box saying "you will always be a Tank, to us, even though you very clearly picked this AT because it was in Melee Damage and have been allowed to build your character in an entirely different direction because of that", it's adding additional layers of confusion due to unclear signposting between the visible playstyle distinctions and the obfuscated role distinctions, especially when the EATs are apparently allowed to qualify for multiple roles in a team while other ATs don't. (There's obviously reasons for this, but these distinctions would likely be lost on the hypothetical new player who needs nudging in the "correct" direction to play their role.)

 

Couple into that unintended-but-fun playstyles that run counter to the "intended" role of a class (obviously, a Dodge Tank Scrapper would take much longer to get going during levelling than a Brute Tank and probably requires a substantial investment in enhancements to make it viable, but both can ultimately fulfil the same team role for the bulk of casual content that comprises the game). and the game just rejects easy role categorisation at times, which is fine, and I would argue comprises a huge part of what makes the game unique and vibrant to play compared to more restrictive MMOs on the market.

 

Ultimately, I'm fine with these badges (& suggested earlier to make ones for each TF, because that'd be fun!), but there could be a lot less confusion and backlash to the AT groupings if they were just "playstyle diversity." and reflected the menus that have been visible in the game this entire time, rather than this new arbitrary and hidden distinction of the "role," which is only made even more confusing to new players because the roles have the exact same names as the playstyles, only apparently different ATs count for one but not the other.

Edited February 19 by strix_

[Wavicle]

It WOULD be good to include an explanation of punchvoke in the brute description in character creation, so that new players understand that when you play as a brute on a team you really don’t have any choice but to tank because all of your attacks have taunt on them.

[strix_]

9 hours ago, Wavicle said:

It WOULD be good to include an explanation of punchvoke in the brute description in character creation, so that new players understand that when you play as a brute on a team you really don’t have any choice but to tank because all of your attacks have taunt on them.

 

Oh yeah, the fact that a lot of the in-game feedback that pushes Brute into adopting a tanking role is hiding in "You Taunt [X] with your Fury!" messages buried in the oft-ignored Combat Tab deep in a chaotic chat scroll and their vestigial Fury bar that never quite fills up entirely is definitely something that needs refinement and better signalling to the player, especially when all the language around Fury in the inherent powers section itself doen't highlight that it's a power for drawing and keeping agro (in the way that Gauntlet does explicitly tell Tankers that it's a Taunt power), it just describes that you deal increased damage for giving/taking hits. But that's absolutely a convo for a different feedback thread, lol

Edited February 19 by strix_

[Blackbird71]

14 hours ago, strix_ said:

...there could be a lot less confusion and backlash to the AT groupings if they were just "playstyle diversity." and reflected the menus that have been visible in the game this entire time, rather than this new arbitrary and hidden distinction of the "role," which is only made even more confusing to new players because the roles have the exact same names as the playstyles, only apparently different ATs count for one but not the other.

 

100% this.  These badges (and the original bonus that led to them) would be a lot less controversial and confusing if they just followed the existing playstyle categorizations.  Instead, they present new players with information directly contradicting the information they were presented with on character creation, and which in several cases is just wrong or incomplete (e.g. Control Widows).

[Cyclone Jack]

On 2/18/2024 at 11:00 AM, Cobalt Arachne said:

If I invite a Tanker to my team completely blind without looking at their powersets at all, what should I expect them to be contributing to my team?
My answer would be that the expectation is that they are going to be the ones first into enemy groups and tanking their aggro alpha.

If the Tanker instead sits at the back of the team using only ranged attacks and never taunting, they're choosing a playstyle that does not suit their Archetype, which is allowed, but it does not mean their Tanker is fulfilling the role of Ranged Damage.

In-fact, by doing so they're contributing very little to their team, so even if it's technically allowed within the game, it's not behavior we are going to reward.
It would be more productive if that Tanker who loves playing Ranged Damage instead was on a Blaster, as they'll contribute far more to that role while retaining the same playstyle.

The distinction will hopefully lead players to play the ATs that are the strongest choices for the playstyle they enjoy, while also acknowledging the role they are expected to fulfill when on teams. This is the knowledge we're hoping to impart to new players with these more defined roles.

 

The problem is this doesn't work for all ATs.  A Corruptor has support numbers that are only mildly lower than a Defender, and in some cases are equal or actually higher, and on a team of classic Villains, it fills the Support Role.  Then you add in Mastermind's where you give it the "Primary Role" of Support, which is *significantly* weaker than the Corruptor.  How does that even make sense?  Then you have Brute as Tank, but your standard off-the-shelf Brute is going to have issues taking the alpha strike on a large team.  Sure, they can pick up the aggro like a Tank, but they don't take alpha strikes like a Tank (because they're basically a Scrapper with a little more HP); that's what the Mastermind was designed for.

 

The entire concept of "One Role Per AT" is fundamentally broken, especially because CoV ATs were *not* designed around that philosophy.  If that weren't the case, then this wouldn't be such a divisive issue as seen across multiple threads throughout the entire beta process.  That alone should be enough of a red flag to rethink or postpone this feature.

[Indystruck]

They're just badges, it's fine. People'll are gonna get one of them accidentally go, "huh, neat," and then keep on moving.