28 replies to this topic

[autogyro]

Glad to hear of the changes.

Will be interesting finding out what exactly "move command functions into a different aspect of the game" means exactly.

[Siilk]

One thing I want to bring up here is indirect fire. Some weapons in BT universe, like LRMs or Arrow IVs are capable of indirect fire, i.e. shooting at a specified location on a map, without having a direct LoS. As MWO would be very tactical game, I think it would be nice to have an indirect fire ability. I'm not sure how to execute indirect targeting gameplay-wise, so I encourage people here to came up with their ideas on that, but here's what ideas I have in mind. Player switches indirect fire mode on and either:

a ) chooses a bearing(by mech and/or torso orientation) and then distance(by torso elevation) with distance to estimated point of bombardment displayed near the reticule, while indirect fire is on. Effectively this would would work like a mortar targeting.

b ) brings up an area map and marks a point on it as a target for bombardment. After than, the marker would appear on the hud, indicating the selected location. Player is now able to lock missiles on it, exactly as he could do with visible enemy targets, but with one difference: he would not have to have a direct LoS to the marked area.

In all the cases above, missiles would follow a steep ballistic trajectory, to clear most of the obstacles between firing mech and target area. When fired like that, missiles are not normally homing onto enemy mechs(see below) and, in case of LRMs, they are spread to cover large area.

I was also thinking about indirect fire-related skill progression to be added. First level of this skill would enable the ability to use indirect fire. Second one would add the ability to switch between normal indirect fire mode and advanced one, which would tighten the spread of indirectly fired LRMs and switch Arrow IV's warheads into airburst mode, widening their AoE. Third level would allow player to achieve indirect lock on the enemy mechs that are detected by the means of C3, drones or radar sweep. Lock-on time would be increased(maybe up to 3-5 times) and missile accuracy and tracking abilities would be reduced in such conditions, compared to normal LoS lock-on.

[Siilk]

Aegis Kleais™, on 03 March 2012 - 08:07 AM, said:

For example, if you have LRMs and are in range of an enemy whom you don't have Line of Sight with, another teammate whom you have equipped a module that shares targeting data, can attain Line of Sight on the player, sending that lock to you and allowing you to just fire your weapons. They will track to the enemy via the lock attained via your teammate.

While that is good to hear, teammate-aided targeting is not the only thing I am thinking about. Most MW titles lack the ability to fire LRMs indirectly without enemy to lock on. Say, you know there is an mech behind an obstacle(maybe you saw missile trails coming from there or just lost the LoS to the mech you were attacking). You cannot lock on it but at least you can try to force him leave his cover by wrecking general area of where it is with LRMs. It is not game-breaking as accuracy would be terrible and LRMs would be spread across wide area but, at least, you can do some damage to the foe that is otherwise inaccessible. Indirect fire always was a part of tabletop BT but it never truly been a part of MW games, so I really hope MWO would be the first one to have this firing mode.

[Siilk]

Aegis Kleais™, on 03 March 2012 - 09:10 AM, said:

Ah, I got you. Hmm. I wonder if maybe you can bring up your map (zoomed in), and move your cursor on it, creating a tube in your HUD to help you visualize. Once you have set the location, it puts your LRMs in "indirect fire - Unassisted mode" and tracks the terrain to that area by going up and delivering itself down on that area.

Yep, that's exactly what I was thinking about. Indirect bombardment is a powerful area-denial tool so I really hope something like that would be implemented in MWO.

[Kenshar]

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.

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.

Soooo.... was anything else ever decided?

[Shadowscythe]

^^^^^^Second this^^^^^^

[GHQCommander]

Command would have been Fire Support anyway in my opinion. Commanders would have used long range weapons and hang back a lot.

It is nice to hear they are making changes and tweaking it. Big reminder to people who demand too much information before the game is even released that it is not finished. I'm so sick of reading threads about lack of information on a game that is still changing.

It's like publishing a holiday brochure on a destination that is still under construction, right?!

[Kenshar]

GHQCommander, on 20 June 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:

Big reminder to people who demand too much information before the game is even released that it is not finished. I'm so sick of reading threads about lack of information on a game that is still changing.

It's like publishing a holiday brochure on a destination that is still under construction, right?!

And we are sick of seeing you whine

So no more info on this quite yet then PGI?

[Coolant]

Kenshar, on 19 June 2012 - 12:09 PM, said:

Soooo.... was anything else ever decided?

Shadowscythe, on 19 June 2012 - 09:24 PM, said:

^^^^^^Second this^^^^^^

3rd, please