28 replies to this topic

[Polymorphyne]

So, we have the command role, the assault/defense role, and the scout role.
The scout role covers light scout mechs like the raven
assault/defense covers all your laser/autocannon/srm mechs and etc...
But what about Catapults? Archers? Yeomen? Rifleman? Jagermech? Vindicator? Hollander?
You know, all of those gauss/ppc sniper mechs and LRM boats.
Sure, the assault/defense tree has some stuff for them, but it also contains stuff like charge and death from above damage reduction, which is useless for fire support mechs.
The scout tree has superior spotting and lock on for them sure.... but its more for the little light mechs.

So I think a Fire Support Role should be added- give it bonuses to missile lock on time, missile reload rates, zooming, gauss/ppc accuracy, that kinda thing.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

I agree, it is a classic MW role yet has no place as you pointed out in the skill tree. They are also the ideal mech for the company commander.

[Semyon Drakon]

I think you will find that to hit bonuses will translate just as well to indirect fire as they will to direct fire. I don't have the skill trees in front of me but having a warrior delivering Arrow IV missiles with the bonuses that apply to his medium lasers will surely add points to the acciracy and damage of the weapons regardless,

coupled with your scouts abilities and your commanders ability to call accurate indirect fire I think you'll find it all adds up nicely.

Semyon.

[Polymorphyne]

Okay, forgive the messyness, but there is my thoughts on the skill trees and what they have to offer to a fire support pilot.
Red is stuff that the fire support in no way wants, green is stuff he needs and blue is stuff that would help him, but should be provided to him by his teammates rather than him doing for himself.
Note that the airstrikes/etc while at first thought are fire supporty, are likely only call-able by the lance commander and requires being close to the frontline to call in.

[Felix Dante]

Anything that focuses on fire support is a plus with me...

But we don't want it to be over-powered either.

[Knoxville]

I love support mechs as I think they are usually kind of a fun challenge, but I'm not too worried about the roles until we see the modules available as the modules slapped into your support mech will probably let you specialize much more in things like fire support. Otherwise, support probably fits okay within attack/defense as it's about weakening the opponents while they assault or defend positions. By the time we get Clan mechs the lines become much more blurred as the support mechs can brawl around a bit (vulture/mad dog, stormcrow, etc). I wouldn't be opposed to specializing a support role to go along with recon, attack/defense, and command though.

[Polymorphyne]

The problem with the "offense" tree is it is merged with defensive tree and is full of defensive or close attack stuff. It doesn't actually have anything that helps you shoot at people.

[Karl Streiger]

Most people think that Fire support has to be long range combat. While most classical "fire support" units have long range weapons - the Archer, Catapult or Rifleman the interesting word is SUPPORT.
Derwish or Crusader are better support units because they are able to bolster your lance at every range. A salvo of SRMs are great to assist a Hunchback killing a Enforcer, while the same mech is able to help a Vindicator to fight a Warhammer.

I think that the Archer is a line unit with excellent long range capabilitys and with its though armor and 4 med lasers don't have to hide behind lance mates

[metro]

wait for the next Q&A

And ask the DEVS.

[Doolie]

I'd love to see an indirect fire support role in MWO. I hope they implement some form of it. It would be a shame to have to have line of sight to use LRMs.

-D

[wwiiogre]

perhaps some of the skills for fire support are going to be in the pilot skill tree as opposed to the role tree

chris

[Polymorphyne]

The pilot skill tree is the role tree.
There are two trees- mech efficiencies, and the pilot tree. The mech efficiency stuff is specific to the mechs performance and unlockable variants, the pilot tree is role focused.

[Dlardrageth]

It might actually serve the purpose to just split up the "attack/defense" tree into two. Don't even have to rename the second one "fire support". Might be workable to have the "attack" or "assault" tree being focused on the classical heavy sluggers and the "defence" one on the second line/fire support Mechs. I think that could do just dandy.

[TimberJon]

It sounds more like you see that "long range" gun platforms are missing. 'Mechs like the yeoman are essentially turrets and require some defensive support. But in this game where you might not be dropping with too many units, it doesnt make sense tactically even to position your long range guy on the highest point or spot with a majority view of an area. We might not be breaking up our units, or fanning them out that far, since a scout role mech can quickly get around and gather info.

I recall the devs saying things like "we have a chance to fix all those past errors: namely the wide open expanses of featureless terrain"
So they are trying to eliminate missile boats, gauss boats (ahh 6 gauss on Annihilator I miss you), and circle strafing.

I understood right away why the skill trees seemed to focus mainly on close-combat values and their affects on efficiency improvement.

In looking at the trees again.. I wonder if multi-targeting is for locking onto multiple body parts of a 'Mech. It doesn't make sense to lock onto multiple enemies because their signatures fade after they get out of LOS. So about the only time the scout will be in proximity to multiple enemy mechs is when they are getting together for a party and you and your team are invited. At that point the scouts ability to relay any info becomes worthless as guns are already blazing. Why would a scout need the ability to target multiple 'Mechs in a LOSD enforced urban gameplay.... Maybe vehicles? they pop with a shot or two so I don't see the point in that either.

Was there an explanation for those skills somewhere that I missed?

[Bryan Ekman]

We've already made a signiicant update to the Roles. After carefully reviewing our classes we've decidced to rename Commander and move command functions into a different aspect of the game. This will allow any role to be a leader, and make room for a support role.

I'll be posting a blog later in March to update the changes.

[Halfinax]

I don't think anyone skill tree is necessarily going to fit every players concept of the role anyway I'm sure most of us will end up using an amalgam of the skill sets to make the role work in the way we've each conceived it working. Hell I think DFA is fantastic for a fire support 'Mech like the Catapult. When all else fails catapult my 'Mech at the enemy.

Another nice little hint from Bryan.

[Hartsblade]

Bryan Ekman, on 02 March 2012 - 07:04 AM, said:

We've already made a signiicant update to the Roles. After carefully reviewing our classes we've decidced to rename Commander and move command functions into a different aspect of the game. This will allow any role to be a leader, and make room for a support role.

I'll be posting a blog later in March to update the changes.

Awesome, can't wait to see wait changes have been made.

[TimberJon]

Bryan Ekman, on 02 March 2012 - 07:04 AM, said:

We've already made a signiicant update to the Roles. After carefully reviewing our classes we've decidced to rename Commander and move command functions into a different aspect of the game. This will allow any role to be a leader, and make room for a support role.

I'll be posting a blog later in March to update the changes.

Thank you Bryan for the tip. We are standing by.

[TheRulesLawyer]

Glad to hear they aren't calling it commander anymore. Good bye discussions about "You should obey me since I'm the *commander*"

[Victor Morson]

You don't think better vision, AMS and crit recieving is pro-Fire Support?

Honestly I think it's the brawlers that really got the short end.