10 replies to this topic

[Neolisk]

What if you could optionally have a construction module in your arm, so that you could build turrets? Limit that to 4 fixed spots on your base and 2 spots in every resource capture point. Choose from 1 SRM6 turret, 1 large laser or 1 LRM10, ammo is limited for SRM and LRM. No turret parts to be taken out first or ammo explosion, just a solid hit box, so it's either totally destroyed, or still firing at you.

Such turrets would help achieve kill assists for whoever constructed them, and prevent base from being captured by some very light mech with small weapons.

Construction module should have its ammo, which you can use to build, repair and rearm your turrets (or your team mates' turrets). Its ammo is not affected by ammo explosion - since it's not an ammo, strictly speaking.

Every assault or conquest starts with no turrets. Let it take a minute to build one. <-- this could be balanced later.

If you capture a resource, you capture all turrets belonging to that point, that were not destroyed, and they behave like you built them, i.e. gain kill assists etc. So staying under fire of enemy turrets is a perfectly okay tactics, if you plan to capture the point quickly, and not have to rebuild them.

Now what if you had two construction modules? You would build/repair/rearm twice as fast.

Does it sound interesting to you? Please vote accordingly, and provide your comments below.

[Skunk Wolf]

Honestly I'd rather have static LRM 5 and AC 2 bunkers start blazing away around a capzone's cap area than resource points.

Once you cap everything, the battlefield becomes a very unhappy place faster and faster.

Hell, if they were just Long Tom batteries that would chuck some pain automatically it would be cool. Or they activate minefields that only BAP can detect.

So

Centre: Minefield

Mid: turrets

Base: arty.

Construction modules would be a little strange, better to be able to call in a convoy of tanks to that area.

Better than those wierd drill things.

[DeadlyNerd]

and what would you build them from? magic fairy dust?

[Neolisk]

DeadlyNerd, on 20 March 2013 - 12:53 PM, said:

and what would you build them from? magic fairy dust?

Have you ever heard about 3D printing?

[Neolisk]

5 people voted No so far, and I haven't yet seen any explanation to why this would be a bad idea. Anyone wants to elaborate?

[Kanajashi]

I would be ok with turrets around bases and such in the game, especially when we get drop ship mode and more large maps, but as for mechs being able to deploy them, not so much.

[FrostCollar]

Neolisk, on 20 March 2013 - 01:09 PM, said:

5 people voted No so far, and I haven't yet seen any explanation to why this would be a bad idea. Anyone wants to elaborate?

I voted no. Here's why I think it would be a bad idea.

• Every time a turret is deployed, safe movement options become more and more limited
  
• Encourages lazy gameplay. Why try to guard all your bases when you can leave static defenses behind?
  
• Seems ridiculous from a practical level. Why does this walking death machine have a construction crane on the back? Shouldn't placing turrets be the job of support vehicles?
  
• Every kill taken by a turret is one that would annoy the person who would have gotten it otherwise.
  
• This module would be disproportionately powerful compared to other modules in game currently.
  
• Impacts lighter mechs most. If a light snuck past your front line to capture a point, he's doing his job. Why should we reward him with turrets left just for him?

I'm not against turrets, but I do think they need a new gamemode to accommodate them and I don't think they should be constructed by battlemechs.

[Sulf]

The concept of turrets being added at some point has been talked about. As for mechs actually building them, I'm uncertain. However I'm totally sure that you should not be able to repair them. They don't have that for mechs and they shouldn't for this.
If they did implement this I'd imagine it'd be like the coolant mechanic and be one-shot.

Right now though defenses are not the point. It's 8 vs 8 and destroying npcs has not entered into that, and probably shouldn't.
When they start moving toward adding infantry, tanks and aerospace fighters then it's time to talk about turrets.

[Neolisk]

@FrostCollar: First of all, thanks for your opinion - much appreciated. I like that we are getting constructive now. Let me explain my view on your objections.

FrostCollar, on 20 March 2013 - 01:16 PM, said:

Every time a turret is deployed, safe movement options become more and more limited

Which is precisely one of the purposes I suggested them. It encourages the teams to move, rather than ambush. The team who moves around the battlefield, wins. So it should prevent those matches when both team occupy sweet spots and are exchanging lonely shots with each other. Up the point when one team gets bored, rushes in, and loses. Or even worse, one team creates an ambush, the other one eventually is trapped in it, and loses.

FrostCollar, on 20 March 2013 - 01:16 PM, said:

Encourages lazy gameplay. Why try to guard all your bases when you can leave static defenses behind?

You need to spend time to set your turrets. At this point you don't move, and the other team has advantage - see my point above. For example, they can capture resources and they have more mechs to do it.

FrostCollar, on 20 March 2013 - 01:16 PM, said:

Seems ridiculous from a practical level. Why does this walking death machine have a construction crane on the back? Shouldn't placing turrets be the job of support vehicles?

First, we don't have any support vehicles. Second, even if we had them, how do you tell it what to construct and when? Put a player inside? I don't think anybody will trade a chance to pilot a mech for some lame support vehicle.

FrostCollar, on 20 March 2013 - 01:16 PM, said:

Every kill taken by a turret is one that would annoy the person who would have gotten it otherwise.

Every kill taken by a turret is accounted to whomever built that turret, or captured the point, where these were attached. In case of a joint capture, ownership could be given to a major contributor.

FrostCollar, on 20 March 2013 - 01:16 PM, said:

This module would be disproportionately powerful compared to other modules in game currently.

It could be balanced accordingly. For example, it weighs a lot, can only be put into an arm, so it's easy to tear apart with a nice shot. You need to stay still while constructing etc.

FrostCollar, on 20 March 2013 - 01:16 PM, said:

Impacts lighter mechs most. If a light snuck past your front line to capture a point, he's doing his job. Why should we reward him with turrets left just for him?

True. However, why do you even call something a base if it cannot defend itself (at all)? It should not be easy to capture one. I mean if you willing to spend time to build defenses, why not?

[FrostCollar]

I'm quite glad you're willing to debate this suggestion!

Neolisk, on 20 March 2013 - 04:46 PM, said:

Which is precisely one of the purposes I suggested them. It encourages the teams to move, rather than ambush. The team who moves around the battlefield, wins. So it should prevent those matches when both team occupy sweet spots and are exchanging lonely shots with each other. Up the point when one team gets bored, rushes in, and loses. Or even worse, one team creates an ambush, the other one eventually is trapped in it, and loses.

I agree - those sorts of games (I've always called them "trench warfare games") shouldn't be common. However, I don't think turrets will properly prevent this. Currently the team that charges first has to face the combined firepower of all the defending mechs. However, if turrets in the way you describe them were implemented and the battle went on for a while, the attacking side would face the entire enemy team and their turrets. Since static defenses are inherently a defensive weapon, I see this as encouraging teams to entrench even further.

Neolisk, on 20 March 2013 - 04:46 PM, said:

You need to spend time to set your turrets. At this point you don't move, and the other team has advantage - see my point above. For example, they can capture resources and they have more mechs to do it.

Hm, I hadn't realized this, and I don't think it works well for gameplay. All balance issues aside, I don't like the idea of having a mech sit around for a long period. It incentivizes defensive strategies more, and that's not good.

Neolisk, on 20 March 2013 - 04:46 PM, said:

First, we don't have any support vehicles. Second, even if we had them, how do you tell it what to construct and when? Put a player inside? I don't think anybody will trade a chance to pilot a mech for some lame support vehicle.

The devs have reiterated in multiple occassions that non-mechs will never be controlled by players. They have neither confirmed nor denied the possibility of bringing in NPC controlled vehicles. However, my point wasn't that "we need support vehicles." Rather, I meant that this isn't a job battlemechs should be doing at all, support vehicles or not.

Neolisk, on 20 March 2013 - 04:46 PM, said:

Every kill taken by a turret is accounted to whomever built that turret, or captured the point, where these were attached. In case of a joint capture, ownership could be given to a major contributor.

This gets around the "kill steal" problem, yes. In general though, I still don't like having non-player actors on the battlefield that may or may not be present based on whether people have built them.

Neolisk, on 20 March 2013 - 04:46 PM, said:

It could be balanced accordingly. For example, it weighs a lot, can only be put into an arm, so it's easy to tear apart with a nice shot. You need to stay still while constructing etc.

What you're basically describing is a system that makes a mech like TF2's engineer - a unit that's poor at fighting by itself but can build stationary AI turret allies. However, I'm not sure if this can ever be properly balanced. Every turret added adds another player to your team, in a sense.

Neolisk, on 20 March 2013 - 04:46 PM, said:

True. However, why do you even call something a base if it cannot defend itself (at all)? It should not be easy to capture one. I mean if you willing to spend time to build defenses, why not?

Well, these aren't really bases, per say. They're really glorified oil derricks. What they're doing on the battlefield none of us can be sure, but we're told their of great importance.

Again, the concept of giving mechs the ability to change the battlefield in their favor is a good one. By all means, let's add deployable remote sensors, missile-deployed landmines, or remotely detonated explosives. However, actually building large defenses seems somewhat impractical to do in the space of a few minutes. If turrets are added, I would like to see them as preexisting on the maps they are located on.

Ultimately, this idea means that you would have two things happen.

• Some mechs would spend a lot of their time constructing things instead of scouting/fighting/etc.
  
• Given enough time one team could significantly increase their strength over the other.

No matter how this was balanced, I see this as shifting the entire game towards turrets and I see that as shifting the game to a less mobile style of gameplay in general. I don't see that as being worth it. We're only fighting for a few minutes. I don't see the need to add a whole new "digging in" mechanic.

[Neolisk]

FrostCollar, on 20 March 2013 - 05:30 PM, said:

What you're basically describing is a system that makes a mech like TF2's engineer - a unit that's poor at fighting by itself but can build stationary AI turret allies.

Exactly. But I agree that this would encourage defensive strategies more than attacking. Even though you are sort of encouraged to attack, because the more you wait, the worse it may become. However, on the other hand, the turrets are not moving so you may just keep sitting there doing nothing. So here is another poll to address trench wars and similar.