218 replies to this topic

[TheRulesLawyer]

I have to say the one thing that I'm a little disappointed in is that all the vision mode stuff is in the attack/defense tree. Vision modes can be an extremely potent thing. I hope you allow other class access via a module or something. It has the potential to be a game breaker from other games I've seen.

Edited by TheRulesLawyer, 03 February 2012 - 12:05 PM.

[GaussDragon]

Halfinax, on 03 February 2012 - 11:16 AM, said:

On top of the excitement of others, and the general opinion that some of the initial skills for scout and assualt/defense seem backwards (I understand this is all subject to change and is just an example), I can't help but wonder what "Variants" are? Is that variants like we see in the TROs? If so awesome, and what does that mean for weapon customization?

I second this question. From reading this update, I assume 1 of 2 things

• By 'variant' you mean a pre-determined weapons loadout, and hence, no mechbay customization (or very limited)
  
• By 'variant' you mean the weapon slot loadout?

[whiskey tango foxtrot]

Boo Ya.........bring it........cant wait to see the Mech bay.

[Mechteric]

TheRulesLawyer, on 03 February 2012 - 11:54 AM, said:

I have to say the one thing that I'm a little disappoint in is that all the vision mode stuff is in the attack/defense tree. Vision modes can be an extremely potent thing. I hope you allow other class access via a module or something. It has the potential to be a game breaker from other games I've seen.

I think you'll be able to still get those vision modes even if you plan on going commander role, it just means you'll need to spend some points on that other tree to get there. I doubt they'll be restricting roles entirely within their own trees.


Also was very excited to see mention of Charging and DFA... this would be the first mechwarrior that actually includes it as a reasonable means of doing damage! Me likey!

Edited by CapperDeluxe, 03 February 2012 - 12:03 PM.

[Chuckie]

InnerSphereNews, on 03 February 2012 - 11:00 AM, said:

This is the basic layout of the tree for any of the ’Mechs or variants that we launch with (or when we initially introduce the base model and chassis of any brand new ’Mech). Players need to spend XP to unlock all of the upgrades on each tier in order to be able to access the next tier... <snip> In order to access Elite I, the player needs to not only unlock all upgrades on tiers 1-4 of this model, but they have to do the same for every initial variant. After they access and spend XP to unlock Elite I, tier 5 is then accessible for all initial variants. Elite II is accessed in a manner similar to Elite I. The player must have unlocked tier 8 on each of the initial variants.

Love when a thread just zips by your edit you are making after you realized you may have been off.. and need to rephrase your question.

OK.. so I think i initially interperated the whole Variant thing wrong.. I think I have it now..

If you start to pilot "A" variant of a mech and then you start to pilot "B" variant you have to relearn that Variants tree..

That is if your piloting and own both A and B Variant BEFORE you unlock "Elite I"

Once you get and unlock "Elite I" then you have the tree under Elite I for all future variants you pilot..(along with the two you may currently have in your hanger), be it a C or D or some other variant..?

That said, with this talk of "Variants" that leads me to believe (and apparently a few others) that you are saying NO to a MechLab per se.. (At least from launch).. BUT Canon Variants will be in the picture.. so on average 3-6 versions of Mech depending on time frame, etc..

Could a Dev either acknowledge or deny said "guess"...

BTW as previously mentioned we as a community will take dead silence as confirmation

So if you answer or if you don't answer; we will have our answer..

Edited by Chuckie, 03 February 2012 - 12:06 PM.

[Paul Inouye]

Chuckie, on 03 February 2012 - 12:04 PM, said:

Could a Dev either acknowledge or deny said "guess"...

BTW as previously mentioned we as a community will take dead silence as confirmation

So if you answer or if you don't answer; we will have our answer..

Maybe.

[Chuckie]

Paul Inouye, on 03 February 2012 - 12:07 PM, said:

Maybe.

D@mn you found a hole in my logic and ran through it like an Atlas pilot heading to the Mech Hanger after a stop at a Taco Bell..

Edited by Chuckie, 03 February 2012 - 12:10 PM.

[Kenyon Burguess]

very nice

[armitage]

InnerSphereNews, on 03 February 2012 - 11:00 AM, said:

All of this is subject to change, but we wanted you all to see what we have currently. Percentages may shift, abilities will be added or removed, however this is the layout we are currently working with.

This should have been put in bold lettering at the beginning of the article to prevent people from having a meltdown over something that isnt set in stone.

But as for the concept. **** yeah!!!

[Garth Erlam]

armitage, on 03 February 2012 - 12:24 PM, said:

This should have been put in bold lettering at the beginning of the article to prevent people from having a meltdown over something that isnt set in stone.

But as for the concept. **** yeah!!!

You mean like the text in the first line?

"Everything listed here is more of a guideline to demonstrate the concepts. The final list of efficiencies and modules are still being examined."

[Naughtyboy]

very intresting indeed...but so many choices...hmm reminds me i need a beer...but so many choices...

[Solis Obscuri]

Glad to see DFA has made it in-game!

Now let's see... I count 19 Scout skills, 15 Assault/Defense skills, and 12 Command skills. Hmmm... I'll be curious to get an idea of the progression rate in piloting skills.

Also, it isn't clear on the tech tree - do we have to fill up each tier to move to the next successive tier? And do I have to improve torso twist rate to access other skills in tier one? Or are they all available?

And, the more I look, the Scout tree has some very appealing features - even in an assault lance, I could find plenty of usefulness in zoom vision, radar range increases, and improved damage/critical info on an enemy target, but I have to admit, improving function of an AMS doesn't strike me as something I'd want to spend a lot of points on. (Heck, few enough 'mechs even mount an AMS!) I hope we don't restrict access to any one tree by choosing another, because I would get a lot of mileage from being a generalist than focusing solely in any one of these!

[Okie135]

Just one issue.

Isn't Naval Bombardment banned under the Ares Conventions?

Maybe the pilot can choose between Long Tom, Sniper, and Arrow IV's for artillery strikes?

[Strum Wealh]

MaddMaxx, on 03 February 2012 - 11:41 AM, said:

Hayden, on 03 February 2012 - 11:24 AM, said:

The only thing (as I sit here on my lunch break) that I don't like are "predator drone" (it must be ancient! And seems very similar to air strike) and the "naval bombardment"... since wet navies are pretty much non-existent, and there hasn't been a non-comstar warship in the inner sphere in decades or centuries.

Otherwise, everything seems very exciting!

Found this and not sure if it computes though. From the Terra Times:

Quote

"The return of WarShips to the battlefields of the Succession Wars has prompted a re-evaluation of military priorities across the Inner Sphere, most particularly within the Federated Suns, which is currently the only nation facing hostile warships in battlespace. However, the question of how long the Federated Suns Navy (FSN) will retain this unhappy distinction is questionable"

Didn't the Succession Wars run into the mid to latter years of the 30th century.

First Succession War: 2786-2821
Second Succession War: 2830-2864
Third Succession War: 2866-3025
Fourth Succession War: 3028-3030

-----

Also, from Sarna:

Quote

The first designated WarShips in the sense of jump-capable combat vessels were deployed by the Terran Alliance. At the height of the Star League, fleets of thousands of these behemoths roamed the stars, enforcing the League's will. The Succession Wars and subsequent decline into Lostech left no WarShips operative in the Inner Sphere. The last WarShips in the Inner Sphere were believed destroyed during the Second Succession War, all others having fallen prey to combat losses, attrition and maintenance shortfalls save for a number of non-salvageable derelicts and a small hidden fleet secretly maintained by ComStar. Up until the beginning of the Clan Invasion in 3049 they were thought to be essentially extinct.

Also:

Quote

Capital Missiles were developed by the First Star League to defend against AeroSpace Fighters and other small craft. The capital-scale direct fire weapons used on Star League WarShips were inefficient at intercepting smaller targets, only occasionally scoring a hit. Unrestricted by the small size mandated by 'Mech and AeroSpace Fighters, engineers and scientists made huge strides in missile targeting and effectiveness. These missiles were very effective at destroying small craft. After the fall of the Star League and the loss of WarShips, capital missile production ceased. Production restarted during the Clan Invasion alongside the production of new WarShips.

So, if WarShips don't exist in the IS (outside of ComStar) until after the Clan invasion (looking at the Sarna page implies that the first post-invasion non-ComStar IS WarShips were put into service in 3057), where is the "naval bombardment" coming from?

[nano]

Whoa!

[Treffies]

Let me get this straight: Confirmed Artillery, Confirmed psudo-melee, AND a possible hint at mech variants existing (instead of going through the balance headache of the mechlab)? Best Friday Ever.

[DarkTreader]

IIRC, wet fleets were still used on the worlds that had enough water to support them. Mention was made in a number of books about using/not using naval forces.

And there were a couple of missions in MW4:Mercs that required you to curbstomp some destroyers on... erm... some backwater planet or another. Maybe Halloran V?

[Ian MacLeary]

Prosperity Park, on 03 February 2012 - 11:19 AM, said:

I don't recall you mentioning how Role Skill Points are earned...

Actually, it's in there. Each tier of 'mech Efficiencies you complete on a particular variant earns you one Player (Pilot?) Point, which you can spend on whichever tree you want. That means even for a 'mech which only has one 'variant' (which would be very uncommon, I'm thinking), you'd still be able to earn 8 (or 10, if the 'Elite' tiers count) points to spend.

TheRulesLawyer, on 03 February 2012 - 11:54 AM, said:

I have to say the one thing that I'm a little disappointed in is that all the vision mode stuff is in the attack/defense tree. Vision modes can be an extremely potent thing. I hope you allow other class access via a module or something. It has the potential to be a game breaker from other games I've seen.

You're not locked into spending Player Points in any one tree. Earn them leveling up a scout 'mech and spend them on Attk/Def vision modes if you want. I suspect they will be more useful for attackers and defenders than for scouts, though.

Solis Obscuri, on 03 February 2012 - 12:41 PM, said:

Glad to see DFA has made it in-game!

Yay DFA! I remember this one time, at 'mech camp, when I DFA'd an opponent with my one-legged Wasp... good times.

Quote

Now let's see... I count 19 Scout skills, 15 Assault/Defense skills, and 12 Command skills. Hmmm... I'll be curious to get an idea of the progression rate in piloting skills.

Yeah, I think we're all interested in that, but we'll just have to wait for Beta.

Quote

Also, it isn't clear on the tech tree - do we have to fill up each tier to move to the next successive tier? And do I have to improve torso twist rate to access other skills in tier one? Or are they all available?

And, the more I look, the Scout tree has some very appealing features - even in an assault lance, I could find plenty of usefulness in zoom vision, radar range increases, and improved damage/critical info on an enemy target, but I have to admit, improving function of an AMS doesn't strike me as something I'd want to spend a lot of points on. (Heck, few enough 'mechs even mount an AMS!) I hope we don't restrict access to any one tree by choosing another, because I would get a lot of mileage from being a generalist than focusing solely in any one of these!

I'd suspect we're not forced to fill up a tier to access the next, but my initial reading of the Dev Blog doesn't make that clear. If we are, it's probably not that onerous to do so.

Generalists will definitely have a wider range of abilities to choose from, but they're going to have to pick and choose from them due to limited module slots. I doubt you'll be able to fit every module possible in any 'mech, even late-period Omnis.

[Hayden]

DarkTreader, on 03 February 2012 - 01:19 PM, said:

IIRC, wet fleets were still used on the worlds that had enough water to support them. Mention was made in a number of books about using/not using naval forces.

And there were a couple of missions in MW4:Mercs that required you to curbstomp some destroyers on... erm... some backwater planet or another. Maybe Halloran V?

Yeah, but all the ships I'm familiar with in canon are more like "brown water" craft. The furthest-hitting weapon is an LRM. Maybe it's a clan reference? The invasion isn't far off.

[Strum Wealh]

Clark, on 03 February 2012 - 01:13 PM, said:

Isn't Naval Bombardment banned under the Ares Conventions?

Quote

The Ares Conventions were a treaty signed in New Olympia on the planet Ares during the Age of War, aiming to reduce the loss of civilian life by establishing a code of conduct during warfare. Compliance was almost universal and reduced both the human and economic costs of war, unfortunately also enshrining it as a means of solving even the slightest disputes.

The Conventions were upheld until rescission during the military buildup leading to the Reunification War and formally renouncement at the beginning of the First Succession War. Despite no longer part of a binding treaty, the Ares Convention continue to be seen as the guide for civilized warfare.

-----


Article II -- Orbital Bombardment
The use of orbital assets to bombard stationary targets (as defined in Appendix B, Section 4) on a planetary surface with the single exception of a valid military objective whose destruction the attacker deems necessary to ensure the survival of his own troops, is prohibited. In no case may any orbital attack take place in or near any heavily populated area, and any orbital attack is subject to ex post facto review by a duly appointed council from the signatory states.

Technically, limited orbital bombardments were allowed under the Ares Conventions.
However, the Ares Conventions were renounced (and thus rendered non-binding) at the beginning of the First Succession War (2786), where the targeting and destruction of infrastructure and facilities that probably wouldn't have really constituted "valid military objectives whose destruction the attacker deems necessary to ensure the survival of his own troops" is part of why the IS is so technologically limited...