33 replies to this topic

[Paladin IIC]

I remember in the older games, Gallope turrets would line a base, in order to make the concept of base destruction more of a challenge. Why can't PGI add simple turrets to an already defenseless base, so entire groups of light mech can't just waltz in from a blind spot and cap our base in under 20 seconds?

Or instead of the base simply getting "Capped," why can't it be something that needs to be destroyed? I mean, if this is a futuristic warfare scenario, where mechs are common place, wouldn't it make more sense to have to destroy a fortified base that wouldn't be simply captured because an enemy stood next to it for too long?

What I'd really like to see are drop ships in place of these random drilling platforms we call bases. Throw Hrothgar dropships in with glistening amounts of lasers, and it'll make the cap game a lot more interesting, if not challenging.

[Khobai]

I think clown heads should pop up out of the ground with flamethrowers sticking out of their mouths.

[Oppresor]

We have been down this road a number of times, but here's my take on it. Instead of Turrets we go for a defensive perimeter Minefield around the Drilling Platform / Resource Collector. In Assault mode the mines are equipped with IFF and so don't cause a friendly fire incident. The perimeter extends to a 100m Radius of the site and mines are randomly placed in the field. Each mine has the destructive force of an AC5 round.

The idea is to deter fast, Light cappers; not to stop them altogether, just to make them think twice. They must consider if it's worth taking the damage in order to take the objective.

[Country Gravy]

Oppresor, on 05 August 2013 - 01:46 PM, said:

We have been down this road a number of times, but here's my take on it. Instead of Turrets we go for a defensive perimeter Minefield around the Drilling Platform / Resource Collector. In Assault mode the mines are equipped with IFF and so don't cause a friendly fire incident. The perimeter extends to a 100m Radius of the site and mines are randomly placed in the field. Each mine has the destructive force of an AC5 round.

The idea is to deter fast, Light cappers; not to stop them altogether, just to make them think twice. They must consider if it's worth taking the damage in order to take the objective.

or have jump jets

[AaronWolf]

Oppresor, on 05 August 2013 - 01:46 PM, said:

We have been down this road a number of times, but here's my take on it. Instead of Turrets we go for a defensive perimeter Minefield around the Drilling Platform / Resource Collector. In Assault mode the mines are equipped with IFF and so don't cause a friendly fire incident. The perimeter extends to a 100m Radius of the site and mines are randomly placed in the field. Each mine has the destructive force of an AC5 round.

The idea is to deter fast, Light cappers; not to stop them altogether, just to make them think twice. They must consider if it's worth taking the damage in order to take the objective.

Non-respawning Mines. Since in a bad spiff, where your the only light and the only way to win is through points-Sometimes you gotta just run around and cap as fast as possible. Especially if its 8-1.

[Oppresor]

Country Gravy, on 05 August 2013 - 01:49 PM, said:

or have jump jets

True, the mines would need to be proximity fused.

AaronWolf, on 05 August 2013 - 01:52 PM, said:

Non-respawning Mines. Since in a bad spiff, where your the only light and the only way to win is through points-Sometimes you gotta just run around and cap as fast as possible. Especially if its 8-1.

Absolutely, I hate the idea of Respawning anyway, it's far to Arcade for me.

[Sephlock]

I like this idea but it would cause some people's GPUs to implode.

(Look at what 12 v 12 did!)

[Sean von Steinike]

Inescapable sink holes, to make assault pilots think twice.

[9erRed]

Greetings all,

If there are "base defences" coming in any future update, they will need to be resource type or priority target scaled for that type of installation. The higher importance the installation the better the defences. As an example, a HPG station would have better protection that a normal factory.

Now in site protection, I am not always referring to weapons systems, some could simply have large walls with operating doors that allow "friendly" Mechs in and would need to be destroyed for an assaulting forces to gain entry. (here's where small JJ mech's may have a bonus allowing them to scale those walls, to "capture" said site? And we get more destructible elements.)

Keep in mine that in the Canon history and storyline almost all high priority targets were protected in some manner by static defences. Be it a factory or industrial resource it had something besides the local protection group of soldiers or Company hired defenders. Example of strategic targets like Power stations and landing sites would have medium and heavy stationary defences.

None of these systems proved over difficult for Mech equipped forces to eventually defeat if they used long ranged fire and weapons before closing on the shorter ranges systems. It may take some time and alert the defending forces but that would be the same as the "base cap" warnings that "Betty" gives us now. Planning your assault route and having the scouting force to identify where the different defensive systems are located would be a key element. And give the light pilots one of there prime roles to accomplish.
(read bonus xp or points and increasing there as of yet unseen additional pilot tree skills)

So as has been stated lets list some static type of installation defences that were common for this time period.

Starting small there's the "Sentinel"
(low priority targets and secondary defensive weapons)
Sentinel:
2 x Med lasers
Detection range 500mtrs
Armour 1500 points

Medium defence with better range the "Hellgiver"
(standard defence weapons system)
Hellgiver:
1 x ER L Laser
Detection range 800mtrs
Armour 1500 points

High defence and priority targets, the "Calliope"
(front line high defence only)
Calliope:
2 x Med lasers
2 x LRM 5
2 x SRM 6
2 x Mg
Detection range 500mtrs
Armour points 4500

These systems as well as structural obstacles would give the assaulting forces something to plan for when building there drop lances. It would not just be defending Mech's to think about, requiring company commanders to place some "planning" into what they want and how they will achieve there goal.

With 12 vs 12 now in place commanders have the 3 lances to use as dedicated special forces to complete specific tasks. Again this requires "strategy" and not run to the center of map or enemy and slug it out. (an all to often situation that happens over and over, ad nausium.)
Coordinating your forces is the largest problem that addresses our current game, having mixed elements using 2 to 3 different voice comms and on 8 different channels is not working. The Dev.'s have stated that there will be a "Command Orders Wheel" arriving soon, but voice will always win over map placed or displayed commands.

Back on topic, strategic target automated defences, yes. Will they work? Build and test them will be the only way to tell if that type of element would work in this game. Have you noticed the addition of towers on the Alpine map bases? (red base buildings) We may yet see something on these large maps for defences.

All for now,
9erRed

Edited by 9erRed, 08 August 2013 - 02:14 PM.

[verybad]

They should make 'em Modules, Only let them be planeted on your own base This way they get what they want (money) and we get what we want (some AI base defense). Just so long as they made them EFFECTIVE (not talking OP, just useful)

[Vox Scorpus]

I think the Assault style should be left alone for what it is and a team deathmatch style should be implemented quickly. Part of the strategy and tactics of an assault is the fact that you can cap the enemy base. Friend of mine had an idea where capping wasn't possible for 5 minutes, and that works without the mines, etc (although a dropship would look so frakking cool). I think most people who don't like capping would be happier in a team deathmatch style.

[Roadbuster]

Real bases for assault matches? Yes please.
Turrets, walls, gates and a sensor with a 750m radius.

[Psikez]

Roadbuster, on 08 August 2013 - 10:13 PM, said:

Real bases for assault matches? Yes please.
Turrets, walls, gates and a sensor with a 750m radius.

God yes.

[Wired]

Make it like MC where you can capture those and turn them on defenders plz.

[GingerBang]

Not turrets. Like i said before, dropships. Have downed/damaged dropships.

[Papar]

We still need capping to be a reliable way to win a match. Even 1 light should be able to cap albeit harder. What I propose is this.
4 double MG turrets at each corner of the base square and the base itself will have 4 SRM2 turrets (1 in each side so it will always be able to fire at its attacker), all of them destroyable. Capping will be possible with all these defences still active but will take longer and obviously you will be taking damage from the MGs and the SRMs. The defences shouldn't have a lot of HP (no more than 40 points of damage should be required to destroy each) and when taking damage, they would send a message to the whole team. if one light manages to destroy all the defences and cap without one of the 12 of the team to try to protect the base, then they deserve to be capped.
Note that this idea just came to my mind and I didn't try to think about possible flaws.

[Albireo]

While the concept of base defences, in any way, shape or form would make Assault Mode more interesting for those of us who try to sneak in a Base Cap (I know I do in my Spider usually) I've one issue I would bring up.

There could become an issue where a team would then bunker down and remain in or around their base, making the maps less about moving around the map and trying to have your team in a favourable position to meet the opposing side and more sitting around and waiting for them to come to you or the opposite, going for the base cap to be alpha struck by not only every mech there but their turrets defences also.

One way I could suggest this to be done could be a new mode of taking turns attacking a "true" base, with the mentioned walls, turrets, sensors with points towards speed of the successful assault, damage to critical buildings (E.g. HQ, Barracks), damage to systems (E.g. Have a turret control node, possibly capturable?). Just an idea, nowhere near fleshed out but thought I'd pop in my thoughts.

[9erRed]

Greetings all,

Reference having an "active" DropShip anywhere near a base would probably not be a good thing, gameplay wise. Not accounting for the weapons systems having a DropShip takeoff or land requires a clearance of over a Km for the massive drive engines, or risk destroying any Mech's nearby.
[Canon story line wise the thrust required would be similar to todays 5 or 6 Atlas or Titan rockets strapped together, lets see a normal airport survive that! And that is not even using the referenced Ion drive systems.]

Lets start by first identifying what a commonly used DropShip would be, the example I'll use is the largest used "Canon" chassis that all Great Houses and the Clan have many of. The Union DropShip.
After the Exodus the Clans did upgrade the Union class to the Union-C to hold 15 Mech's.

While this is a standard deployment element it carries many different defensive systems. All of which a Mech lance or even a Company sized unit would still not choose to attack. Some weapons may even be sub-capital sized systems and completely destroy a Mech with a single hit. (Read; 200 or more damage per hit.)

Lets list some standard weapons carried by these vessels.

Normal cargo Union Class:
12 mech's
2 Aero Fighters

Armament:
3 x PPCs
6 x AC/5s
6 x LRM-20s
12 x Medium Lasers
5 x Large Lasers

Or
Armament:
12 Large Laser
18 Medium Laser

These are just some of the arrays that the normal Union DropShip carries, and not anything you would want to assault. Even the Aerodyne designs (flight like standard air vehicles.) have superior defensive systems.
Example the Leopard [4 Mech's, 2 ASF) alone has:
2 x PPCs
3 x LRM-20s
7 x Medium Lasers
5 x Large Lasers
And would be like running into an Assault heavy lance with lots more armour.

As you can see this would be much more difficult that "Capturing" a base fortification and would normally require 2 or more Companies assaulting to damage the DropShip enough to allow capturing it. Which would probably render it non-usable and defeat the purpose of capturing it.

Here a few images to state the size of these vessels:









Now having just the Art asset in a map would be nice but a totally different beast if it were powered and in defensive mode.

Some other discussion about the 12 man Company not leaving the base area if it had it's own defensives. If the Company knows the base is relatively safe with it's own defence there would be no reason to stay, knowing that one or two lights would not prove difficult to defend against. And only a dedicated large assault on the base would be concern to "return to base".

The idea of standing on a spot determines who owns it is still not an idea I agree with, eliminating all opponents and owners of said "spot" would constitute gameplay "Ownership". (or just go play cap race "Conquest".) Running to a Base is not a function for light pilots when there are more important priorities for the Company Commander to assign them. Are we being flanked, where is the main enemy body, can the lights "persuade" the LRM Mech's to stop firing, what defenses does the base have, all prime duties for lights. And enough to keep them busy for the entire match or battle.

If your arguing "It's in the game so it's a viable tactic", remember it's still a Beta version and only set to 15min time limits. We are testing gameplay and terrain for future adjustments so to run to a cap and end a mission actually defeats the testing of stated items. When Community Warfare arrives base capping may go out the door as a function for lights so don't get used to it.

Again, just talking out loud,
Later,
9erRed

[Dirus Nigh]

We do not need bot turrets in the game.

Why do you not chose to stay back and protect your base? If base capping is such a problem, and you are not getting the fights you want, then place yourself were the enemy clearly shows up all the time. Then fight them.

Edited by Dirus Nigh, 11 August 2013 - 05:25 AM.

[Zerberus]

Dirus Nigh, on 11 August 2013 - 05:25 AM, said:

We do not need bot turrets in the game.

Why do you not chose to stay back and protect your base? If base capping is such a problem, and you are not getting the fights you want, then place yourself were the enemy clearly shows up all the time. Then fight them.

ESPECIALLY with the timers the way they are now @ turrets.

Seriously, if an Atlas can plod from G/H-7/8/9ish on alpine all the way to firing range of either base in the time it takes to cap, they truly have nobody else but themselves to blame that they got capped. nobody needs to stay back and def anymore, they just need to finally pull their thumb out of their *** when they hear "Base is being captured".

Edited by Zerberus, 11 August 2013 - 05:48 AM.