34 replies to this topic

[Voridan Atreides]

This is a suggestion I read about in the General Discussion part of the forums and I wanted to bring it here.

Assault:

Each base would be defended by automated defenses such as Laser Cannons, LRM Launchers, and perhaps even ECM. These defenses can be controlled by the Command Console and maybe even by certain Modules.

Conquest:

Each capture point is protected by a small amount of defenses such as the ones stated above. I'm not sure if ECM should be available for the bases in this mode. Once the base defenses are destroyed capping can commence. Once the base is captured defenses slowly start to build back eventually until they are the way they were before.



Okay so this might seem a little rusty but I think this would add so much more depth and realism. What base does not have some sort of defenses? Tell me what you think.

[Adridos]

Voridan Atreides, on 28 February 2013 - 08:47 AM, said:

Okay so this might seem a little rusty but I think this would add so much more depth and realism. What base does not have some sort of defenses? Tell me what you think.

Nice idea, but now tell me which ***** would venture out of the base on assault after you filled it up with defensive weapons?

Noone (except pugs, ofc. ). It provides you too big of an advantage and no penalties to staying in there.

[Syllogy]

Already in the Concept Stage, along with Battlesuits, Tanks, Infantry, and Airborne Vehicles all piloted by NPCs.

Players will never pilot anything but Mechs, however.

[Voridan Atreides]

Adridos, on 28 February 2013 - 08:53 AM, said:

Nice idea, but now tell me which ***** would venture out of the base on assault after you filled it up with defensive weapons?

Noone (except pugs, ofc. ). It provides you too big of an advantage and no penalties to staying in there.

The defenses would not be super uber amazing but you do make a good point. I for one would make the cap rewards pretty big to encourage it? I don't know.

Syllogy, on 28 February 2013 - 08:56 AM, said:

Already in the Concept Stage, along with Battlesuits, Tanks, Infantry, and Airborne Vehicles all piloted by NPCs.

Players will never pilot anything but Mechs, however.

Okay thank you. I'm just suggesting way it could be implemented since I knew it was in the concept stage.

[Fut]

Adridos, on 28 February 2013 - 08:53 AM, said:

Nice idea, but now tell me which ***** would venture out of the base on assault after you filled it up with defensive weapons?

Noone (except pugs, ofc. ). It provides you too big of an advantage and no penalties to staying in there.

Maybe the fact that the OPFOR is capping all the other points.
So you can stay safe in your defended cap-point, but you'll probably end up losing the match.

[schlaepf81]

assault:
- pls not more ecm on the map!
- maybe some small lasers and a lockon function, so u know at least what mech/mechs are at your base? ah, but that doesnt help if its a small ecm carry....

conquest:
- also not more ecm
- only the homebase has some defens and it should not rebuild, maybe it should not be destructible but just stop shooting, if not owned by one side.
- why not rebuild: only 15min per match. u cannt rebuild something so fast.

[Voridan Atreides]

schlaepf81, on 28 February 2013 - 08:59 AM, said:

assault:
- pls not more ecm on the map!
- maybe some small lasers and a lockon function, so u know at least what mech/mechs are at your base? ah, but that doesnt help if its a small ecm carry....

conquest:
- also not more ecm
- only the homebase has some defens and it should not rebuild, maybe it should not be destructible but just stop shooting, if not owned by one side.
- why not rebuild: only 15min per match. u cannt rebuild something so fast.

As for your ECM comment it would help counter against ECM mechs and would only have a certain range.

[Stringburka]

I agree with this, but defenses should be kept small.

A few LRM-5's or 10's, a few medlasers and maybe an AC-5.

A group of lights or a medium or two should still have no issue conquering it.

[Voridan Atreides]

Stringburka, on 28 February 2013 - 09:06 AM, said:

I agree with this, but defenses should be kept small.

A few LRM-5's or 10's, a few medlasers and maybe an AC-5.

A group of lights or a medium or two should still have no issue conquering it.

I agree. The defenses should not be overwhelming.

[schlaepf81]

Voridan Atreides, on 28 February 2013 - 09:06 AM, said:

I agree. The defenses should not be overwhelming.

Like having a extra medium mech at base?

[Stringburka]

I'd say there should be about 15 tons of weapons +10 tons of heatsinks/ammo.

[Voridan Atreides]

I'm thinking Four Medium Lasers, One LRM10 with two tons of ammo, one AC/2 (or AC/5) with a two tons of ammo, and enough heat sinks to keep em pretty cool but still susceptible to overheating. Maybe even a Large Laser or a PPC?

Edited by Voridan Atreides, 28 February 2013 - 09:15 AM.

[schlaepf81]

maybe balanced for each map? on alpine peaks it takes some time to walk back to base...

and pls nothing with a optimal range of over 300m...i really dont want to see two bases shooting each other

Edited by schlaepf81, 28 February 2013 - 09:17 AM.

[Voridan Atreides]

schlaepf81, on 28 February 2013 - 09:16 AM, said:

maybe balanced for each map? on alpine peaks it takes some time to walk back to base...

That makes sense.

[Stringburka]

How many weapons can be had at base of course also depends on:
1. How accurate they are and
2. What direction they can shoot in.

The setup mentioned by Voridan above - LRM10 + 4ML + AC2/5 + Large Laser, sounds very much if they're decently well-hitting and have a 360 degree arc; it's a laser alpha of 29 plus a barrage of AC and missiles. It's about as much weaponry as a large medium or small heavy can carry.

However, if they're set up so that say the LRM has a 360 arc, the AC and Large Las has a 200 degree arc pointed towards the opposite cap (so you can maneuver around it) and the medium lasers are put so that at all times exactly two lasers can hit the same spot, then it's not nearly as dangerous as a fast 'mech can maneuver to the back.

EDIT: However, I do NOT think that base defenses should be made to replace actually guarding the base. I don't think, for example, that alpine peaks should have much more because it's large - the teams also have to use tactic so they don't HAVE to run back 2 km with no-one at the base.

Edited by Stringburka, 28 February 2013 - 09:28 AM.

[Adridos]

Fut, on 28 February 2013 - 08:59 AM, said:

Maybe the fact that the OPFOR is capping all the other points.
So you can stay safe in your defended cap-point, but you'll probably end up losing the match.

Ahem, I'm talking about assault, not conquest.

Even a small advantage is an advantage. And no money reward is going to make a good pilot fight in disadvantagous territory, because in the end, the win will net them more and chances of winning it with towers against them is much smaller... especially when it coems to competitive teams, which would remain in lock-down for the entire match.

[focuspark]

The entire point of base capture is to force the other team to show up and fight. If the based can defense it self, they won't bother showing up.

[Voridan Atreides]

focuspark, on 28 February 2013 - 09:57 AM, said:

The entire point of base capture is to force the other team to show up and fight. If the based can defense it self, they won't bother showing up.

Still it would be more realistic.

[Stringburka]

focuspark, on 28 February 2013 - 09:57 AM, said:

The entire point of base capture is to force the other team to show up and fight. If the based can defense it self, they won't bother showing up.

That's a good point. However, if the base defenses can be taken over through capping, they likely become even more interested in doing it.

Basically, a single raven can't cap anymore, but if two mediums or such do manage to cap, it'll be much harder for them. Kinda.

I'm not sure. Maybe it's better for a different game mode (I sure think that it would fit conquest perfectly, though of course with lesser defenses).

[focuspark]

Voridan Atreides, on 28 February 2013 - 10:40 AM, said:

Still it would be more realistic.

Are you actually citing realism in a game about giant stompy, fusion powered, 1950's-era-technology robots?