85 replies to this topic

[Felicitatem Parco]

Roadbeer, on 19 November 2013 - 09:27 AM, said:

I'm a fan of this whole idea.

As far as bigger weapons. Lets start small and work our way up (Like with Arty/Air).

Better to have them weak and room for improvement, than OP and wait 6 months to be fixed.

How about we mount a PPC-Array on each base and link 6 ERPPCs together? That way the base gets just 1 shot to defend itself, then the turrets detonate...

[Trauglodyte]

Davers, on 19 November 2013 - 09:22 AM, said:

You don't think every base in Conquest having one of these won't change the game any?

I don't know if it would be necessary when the whole point of Conquest is to flip/gain resources. I guess it really comes down to what the game designers feel is the point. Nobody plays Conquest like it should be played anyway. The whole point is to capture and control 3 nodes. But, nobody bothers protecting the resources so the game turns into a whack-a-mole. The only reason that I enjoy it is because I can cruise around in my Cicadas, Mando, and Locusts and not worry about getting prison sexed by some AC spamming jerk that happens to get in a lucky shot.

[Roadbeer]

Prosperity Park, on 19 November 2013 - 09:30 AM, said:

How about we mount a PPC-Array on each base and link 6 ERPPCs together? That way the base gets just 1 shot to defend itself, then the turrets detonate...

Terrible idea.

You do realize I was agreeing with you? Right?

[Nehkrosis]

Streak Turret!!!

Man i love this idea.
Well Done PGI!

[Tombstoner]

how about artillery and air support if no defending mechs are within 1000 meters during the first 5 minutes.

[Corralis]

Been calling for this for a long time. Although not my full idea as I was thinking of having walled bases with turret control points dotted around the map but still a step in the right direction. Not said this in a long time but WELL DONE PGI!!!!

[Davers]

Trauglodyte, on 19 November 2013 - 09:42 AM, said:

I don't know if it would be necessary when the whole point of Conquest is to flip/gain resources. I guess it really comes down to what the game designers feel is the point. Nobody plays Conquest like it should be played anyway. The whole point is to capture and control 3 nodes. But, nobody bothers protecting the resources so the game turns into a whack-a-mole. The only reason that I enjoy it is because I can cruise around in my Cicadas, Mando, and Locusts and not worry about getting prison sexed by some AC spamming jerk that happens to get in a lucky shot.

I agree, and we do seem to get more balanced team mixes on Conquest. But if you cap a point and get the turret it would cut down on an assault heavy team who wins the fight then gets out capped by one light.

In the end it all depends on how many turrets there are, where they are placed, how tough they are.

[Tom Sawyer]

I posted in another thread before spotting this one but Turrets are going to be VERY interesting.

Be even more interesting if resource points can have them.

[Karyudo ds]

Trauglodyte, on 19 November 2013 - 09:18 AM, said:

Ultimately, all of this could have been avoided if PGI had done two things:

• Put a mech weight factor on capping speed (an Atlas should be able to cap 5x faster than a Locust)
  
• Have the cap time be concrete slow at the beginning but gradually increase as the game goes faster

These would have been nice. Having to reduce an enemy team 50% or at least outnumber them would have been nice in Assault too...or just having the timer tick down faster based on the distance and number of enemy mechs left without the bases at all, so that if there are only a couple enemy lights to your ENTIRE TEAM on the opposite side of the map the game would be over in a few seconds. No hiding mechs, no losing games without a single shot fired.

Prosperity Park, on 19 November 2013 - 09:30 AM, said:

How about we mount a PPC-Array on each base and link 6 ERPPCs together? That way the base gets just 1 shot to defend itself, then the turrets detonate...

I think I want chain firing ERPPCs here, with Arrow IV.

[Felicitatem Parco]

Roadbeer, on 19 November 2013 - 09:44 AM, said:

Terrible idea.

You do realize I was agreeing with you? Right?

I was jesting... more like Stalkering...

[Silent]

I wonder how much it is going to cost since this is obviously going to be a consumable marketed towards that terrible player demographic that has a brain aneurysm every time someone caps a base.

Edited by Silent, 19 November 2013 - 11:09 AM.

[aniviron]

I'm not sure how I feel about this; it will really depend quite a lot on the implementation.

While there is a lot of "hooray" and "woohoo" in this thread, I'm worried that this will mean there is even less reason to run light mechs than there already is. With the light population comprising an anemic 10-15% of the playerbase in almost every count done in the last six months, anything that hurts lights just further drives a nail into the coffin of role warfare and mech diversity.

The idea does sound cool, and makes me think of interesting objective-based games where bases actually have to be assaulted, and if PGI eventually winds up pulling that off, that's great; but I have a feeling that this is going to wind up being pretty underwhelming compared to the image most people have in their minds. If this is a step towards really cool things in the future, then I'm for it. I just wonder if this is going to make lights even rarer in MWO.

Trauglodyte, on 19 November 2013 - 09:18 AM, said:

Ultimately, all of this could have been avoided if PGI had done two things:

• Put a mech weight factor on capping speed (an Atlas should be able to cap 5x faster than a Locust)
  
• Have the cap time be concrete slow at the beginning but gradually increase as the game goes faster

Suggestion 1 typifies a lot of what I think is wrong with this game; pilots assume that their mech is the heavies biggest baddest smashiest robot on the field, so why shouldn't they just be better at everything than everyone else? If you capped proportionally faster for your weight, I can't think of one single reason anyone would ever run anything under 60 tons. There aren't many reasons to do it now, but essentially the only important one at this time is because you can cap better in a lighter mech. Not only does this negate that advantage, it also means that atlases have to sit through just 1/5 of the boring "stand in a square" game that a locust would. The one single positive thing I can think of about this suggestion is that it means there would finally be a reason to run a Pretty Baby or AWS-9M; though I suspect we'd just see more Victors with XL engines instead.

[Jetfire]

Kanajashi, on 19 November 2013 - 09:12 AM, said:

This is a great idea. While it wont make your base comepletely uncappable, it at least gives an additional buffer between your base and that group of lights. While the turrets might be low on firepower with only 2x MG or 2x SL, they havent said anything about how many turrets will be at the points. If there are 5 or 6 turrets spread around it might take a while to open up the base for capping.

Personally I want to see a Calliope or two at each base

I agree, I would also love to see some AI vehicles patrol the base with MG's on jeeps and AC5's or so on tanks.

[FupDup]

Indirect nerf to Locusts--now they are less effective cappers, because auto-turrets with just 2 MGs and 2 SL can still totally tear a Locust a new one.

[Tombstoner]

Jetfire, on 19 November 2013 - 11:12 AM, said:

I agree, I would also love to see some AI vehicles patrol the base with MG's on jeeps and AC5's or so on tanks.

MC and CB deploy-able tanks would be interesting.

[Arcturious]

While the idea is great, the wording is a little horrible.

Perhaps change "Shield" to "Armour".

I'm imagining some force field bubble thing around them which doesn't fit BT at all.

Otherwise though I think they should start small and work their way up. The base defences I imagine will initially only power up when you are capping, and will be placed within range to attack cappers. Therefore, nothing more than SL and MG's will be needed.

Active defences on the other hand, yes they might need a range increase. I think for a proof of concept though the stated model should be sufficient. Much like Artillery strikes etc got ramped up over time. Start small and work your way to bigger variants once you know what actually works and what doesn't.

[Dawnstealer]

Honestly, I like it. It's one more thing to deal with and an enemy scout will have to take a few hits in order to cap the base. Either that, or they'll have to attack in numbers and that weakens the team. It'll add an element of strategy, and that's not a bad thing.

[Nathan Foxbane]

I can see it now. Six MG turret codenamed "Static Spider." That gaff never get's old.

[stjobe]

aniviron, on 19 November 2013 - 11:08 AM, said:

'm worried that this will mean there is even less reason to run light mechs than there already is. With the light population comprising an anemic 10-15% of the playerbase in almost every count done in the last six months, anything that hurts lights just further drives a nail into the coffin of role warfare and mech diversity.

This. This is my fear as well. Another reason to take a light to the field if not nullified at least severely curtailed. And it's not like we have lots of reasons as it is.

[Corvus Antaka]

Kanajashi, on 19 November 2013 - 09:12 AM, said:

This is a great idea. While it wont make your base comepletely uncappable, it at least gives an additional buffer between your base and that group of lights. While the turrets might be low on firepower with only 2x MG or 2x SL, they havent said anything about how many turrets will be at the points. If there are 5 or 6 turrets spread around it might take a while to open up the base for capping.

Personally I want to see a Calliope or two at each base

This