9 replies to this topic

[Deathlike]

This solution is more for Assault than it is for Conquest, however, this can apply to Conquest...

The idea is that a mech that is defending their base needs more space to operate in. If you fit enough mechs on a base (2 or 3 is enough), there is not much in way of "stopping the cap" unless you...

1) Stand in the base like a statue to stop the cap, making it insanely easy for your enemy to shoot you down.

2) Run a really messed up circle around the base, only to deal occasional damage (scattered or concentrated) to the base cappers, only to be somewhat ineffective because you will occasionally "step off" the base area, which is actually limited for the defenders.

My proposed solution is to increase the base "radius" for defending mechs by 25 to 33% (maybe more) so that mechs defending the base CAN actually move around to defend it. Although this benefits light mechs more, the occasional slower mech should be able to fit within the radius and operate, rather than be limited to "makeshift" boundaries that are different on every map.

The capping radius for the attacker should ALWAYS be lower than the one for the cap defender...

Edited by Deathlike, 27 April 2013 - 05:15 PM.

[Roadbeer]

With Assault, I'm 100% with you, but on Conquest, to give the cap sizes any meaningful increase, they would practically be on top of each other on the smaller maps.

I'm not with the variable size based off of attack/defense keep it static for both, IMO

Great idea otherwise.

[Armanhammer]

I'd like to see some static defenses as well. Infantry or power armor infantry (whatever they were called in the battle tech universe), enough to keep a single light a bit busy, and take some moderate damage, but two or more could clean up pretty easy. Also give the flamer and machine guns some use.

[Macheiron]

I'm with Roadbeer on this. It's a great idea, but not for conquest.

[Victor Morson]

I'd like an "outer radius" instead.

Inner Radius: What we have now, works like we have now.
Outer Radius: It won't start a cap, but it will pause it.

That way you'd have less silly "Everyone dogpile this 100m square" without damaging the spirit of the system.

[Deathlike]

Basically everyone is repeating what I'm saying technically.. which is good.

[Wintersdark]

100% in agreement. Larger outer radius to pause cap so defending larger mechs can move around while preventing capture. I've seen several cap wins while spectating by small, maneuverable mechs staying on the cap square while the defenders slip outside pursuing them because they are unable to turn fast enough.

I have to issue with cap wins in assault, but it should be easier to defend than it is.

Only in assault though.

[Lord of All]

2 Thumbs Up.

Add poll and lets push it forward.

Personally I think the size of the base for the defender should be the entire base while for the attacker should be a small are in the center.

[EvilCow]

Fighting between the structures of a contested base would make it soooo MWLL.

I like it.

Edited by EvilCow, 01 May 2013 - 12:33 PM.

[Oppresor]

armandhammer, on 27 April 2013 - 06:05 PM, said:

I'd like to see some static defenses as well. Infantry or power armor infantry (whatever they were called in the battle tech universe), enough to keep a single light a bit busy, and take some moderate damage, but two or more could clean up pretty easy. Also give the flamer and machine guns some use.

You mean the Elementals http://ppc.warhawken...badassjfele.jpg As far as I know, there are no plans to introduce these. I last saw them in MechWarrior 3.

Another option that has been discussed in some of the base development threads would be to have a few static turrets close in to the base which could support each other with interlocking arcs of fire. It would be important that they were low powered systems such as light Lasers or MG Arrays.