108 replies to this topic

[Evil Ed]

Morning Science, with some interesting matches:

24. AP. Skirmish
25. RCN. Intial skirmish around citadel. At 9-9 a short base camp from both sides, then the one in best shape pushed in and lost. Defenders called "Hide behind turrets" in chat. Turrets scored one kill late game and did significant damage to the attackers who had won if no turrets (two of the defenders was cherry-CT, other one down to a few ML).
26. FC. Hard push from one side, they moved in on enemy pushing them back to turrets. Very close match and finally there was 11-11 with one atlas left with 1 LL and one disarmed Raven (2ERLL arm blown off). Atlas couldn't fight the turrets, Raven ran away. Ended full time and tie, but very close that the turrets killed the Atlas. Atlas hit by LRM from turrets positioned at satellite dish when he was exact on the cross B3/C4 making him cherry red.
27. RCN. Skirmish-like, initial fight around citadel and around the drop ship, superior team then moved in on park and wiped out the enemy. Turrets shot while passing by.
28. AP. Cap attempt through F9/F10 - failed. Attackers primed by turrets easy killed by defenders firing/dropping down from H10. Attackers all had cored legs - made it easy for me to leg them when sniping from H10 and then let the turrets and the rest of my team finish them off.
29. FC. Skirmish
30. TT. Skirmish

Observations:
- Two matches with turrets determining the match, both in favour of the team that would have lost without turrets. One that totally changed because the weak team camped and the strong team not happy with tie, the other one tie because the stronger side denied the possibility to win by cap.
- 30 matches, still no successful cap.
- I win a lot (last 7 matches are victories), and at least maintaining my ELO - probably increasing.

Edited by Evil Ed, 08 March 2014 - 12:46 AM.

[aniviron]

I actually like the turrets. There are obviously things that need to change; the way notifications pop up, the icons.

There are also things that should probably change, like the obvious aimbotting and the way they target the weakest area, as well as the complete immunity from damage from any long distance.

But the biggest thing is that the turrets all have LRMs. This doesn't matter much on some maps like Alpine, which is too big for the base to ever matter anyway, or River City where cover from LRMs is plentiful. On maps like Caustic and Canyon though, which are both small and lacking cover, the LRMs are absolutely devastating. The side which spawns in the chemical plant on Caustic has turrets that can hit players all the way in the caldera of the map, which is crazy. Smaller maps need to either have less turrets overall, or have the launchers changed to SSRMs (though that opens up a whole other can of worms, since it would essentially completely invalidate light play near enemy bases).

Overall though, I like what I have seen, and I think it's going to get better as players get more used to using their base defenses. It makes me feel like I'm actually attacking or defending an emplacement, actually getting something done; to all the people saying that this makes Assault just Skirmish; remember that it used to be about 90% winrate by destruction of all mechs anyway, so it's not as though base cap wins were ever that common. At least now I'm starting to see good games where a smart team can lose a few mechs and fall back to lure impatient teams into a situation that turns the game around.

[Evil Ed]

aniviron, on 08 March 2014 - 01:46 AM, said:

At least now I'm starting to see good games where a smart team can lose a few mechs and fall back to lure impatient teams into a situation that turns the game around.

Just a quick note about this. Losing a few mechs and fall back will be fail the moment matches really matter. The only reason it works now is that the matches is pretty much pointless - we play to shoot mechs and if the mechs we want to shoot hides behind turrets players still jumps in to get a kill (and have fun). I don't see this as "smart", it's just exploiting a broken game mechanic.
This will change with community warfare when matches starts to have a meaning - it has already happened in community driven competitions who are now moving away from assault as it's pretty much unplayable. There will be no problem for a team to secure a win by waiting for 15 minutes if the reward is good enough. If you chose to fall back while being behind on kills you give the enemy opportunity to pull back behind their turrets rendering you in a horrible situation forced to fight both outnumbered and against turrets.

In 30 matches so far I have only seen one (match #25) where hiding behind turrets was a success.

Edited by Evil Ed, 08 March 2014 - 03:11 AM.

[aniviron]

Evil Ed, on 08 March 2014 - 02:04 AM, said:

Just a quick note about this. Losing a few mechs and fall back will be fail the moment matches really matter. The only reason it works now is that the matches is pretty much pointless - we play to shoot mechs and if the mechs we want to shoot hides behind turrets players still jumps in to get a kill (and have fun). I don't see this as "smart", it's just exploiting a broken game mechanic.
This will change with community warfare when matches starts to have a meaning - it has already happened in community driven competitions who are now moving away from assault as it's pretty much unplayable. There will be no problem for a team to secure a win by waiting for 15 minutes of the reward is good enough. If you chose to fall back while being behind on kills you give the enemy opportunity to pull back behind their turrets rendering you in a horrible situation forced to fight both outnumbered and against turrets.

In 30 matches so far I have only seen one (match #25) where hiding behind turrets was a success.

Yes, this has occurred to me as well; I've been gaming competitively for quite some time, and in fact when it's down to 4v2 I am usually the one telling my three teammates not to suicide on the turrets, as they often will otherwise. I'm perfectly fine with not wading in and alt-tabbing to read the forums or just enjoying my music for a win; and if this attitude becomes widespread, then yes, retreating to the turrets won't work. The exceptions are the teams that snipe from the turrets on maps where that actually works; caustic is a great example of a map where the turrets give you good cover from a position that still lets you control at least a third of the map. Of course this still won't work if you're down by 5 kills, but if it's 1-3, you can easily turn a losing game around.

[Chemie]

aniviron, on 08 March 2014 - 01:46 AM, said:

On maps like Caustic and Canyon though, which are both small and lacking cover, the LRMs are absolutely devastating. The side which spawns in the chemical plant on Caustic has turrets that can hit players all the way in the caldera of the map, which is crazy. Smaller maps need to either have less turrets overall, or have the launchers changed to SSRMs (though that opens up a whole other can of worms, since it would essentially completely invalidate light play near enemy bases).

This. I got caustic 3 times last night and as a light just being on the side of the caldera, I have base LRMs hitting me. Now what about the opponents? Nope. Asymmetric map meaning they have LRM support but other team's base does not have the range. So why would the team on the chemical plant side push beyond the caldera when they have free LRM support? And how do you scout the caldera when LRMs hit you even though you are no where near the base?

Want to flank? Oh their base turrets hit you with laser and LRM. But if they want to flank, no problem, they can stand on your side of caldera and not get hit by anything. Asymmetric map design and base placement has made drop locations way off balance.


It kills scouting on small/medium maps and is just another skirmish. If that is what they want, fine but why have two queues?

Edited by Chemie, 08 March 2014 - 04:51 AM.

[Chemie]

Interesting quote from Russ:
"much to my surprise about 9-10% of assault games end in cap prior to turrets and after. Feedback to forums pls"

OK, so 90% of assault games are skirmish. Why 2 modes?

and the 10% that end in cap I can explain:
1.. a light goes and hides
2. All players killed and the disconnect with no mech (ie opponent team is all dead but game still going; this forces cap

He tweeted he saw a game where the last light retreated and won from the turrets but that just shows the opposing team was stupid not that the game mode works.

Of the 10%, how many are caps with more than 1 opponent left? I suspect very low.

Edited by Chemie, 08 March 2014 - 05:02 AM.

[AlexEss]

I am inclined to agree that turrets need a tweak on especially smaller maps. Can´t say i have experienced the lolwut-sniper turrets my self but then again i tend to stay away from bases in general.

Edited by AlexEss, 08 March 2014 - 05:47 AM.

[Evil Ed]

Next batch:

31. TD. Skirmish
32. FC. Skirmish-like. Few turrets trigged when the brawl moved back and forth.
33. AP. Early attack on J5 base. All but two turrets killed. Attacking lights had to retreat, badly damaged and leaving one mech behind killed by turrets. Early attackers lost the match.
34. CS. Skirmish-like. Winning team had to encounter turrets while cleaning up two afk.
35. AP. Skirmish
36. CV. Skrimish-like. Tendency to camp C3 (turret cover). Single mech pushed D5->C4 and trigged turrets before dying to the combined firepower of mechs and turrets.

Observations:
- Caustic Valley, very one-sided with turrets covering C3.
- Attacking the turrets early in the game is equal to loss.

Edited by Evil Ed, 08 March 2014 - 06:21 AM.

[Amsro]

Assault Mode was never Assault mode to begin with, it was 2 base conquest.

Assault mode to me should be Attack/Defend. One base, one defending team, one set of turrets.

Right now you have 2 Base Conquest with Turrets. If both teams avoid the caps due to turrets then you end up with Middle of Map Skirmish.

Kinda of funny that Assault mode hasn't and still isn't Assaulting.

Edited by Amsro, 08 March 2014 - 06:37 AM.

[Foxfire]

I've ended a couple of games on caps but it is rare and usually when mobbed.

There are two issues I have with turrets:

1) When they get to the point that they are determining matches, and not just slowing down caps, they are too powerful.

2) They cover too large of an area.. which, as pointed out, isn't an issue on the larger maps.. but when you get on the smaller maps, that is an issue.

Now, I am also sad that turrets invalidate the base cap feint. It was a good and valid strategy to tap an enemy base for a few seconds to pull back some of the enemy's offensive force.

[Thumper3]

Tw1stedMonkey, on 07 March 2014 - 06:16 PM, said:

Still totally worth it to stop the ninja capping.

Ninja capping only works if the enemy team leaves their base completely undefended and has blind scouts who are watching youtube instead of playing.

The match starts with everyone KNOWING they have a base that is (was) defenseless and vulnerable that they needed to defend. If they choose to ignore that and lose then that is their issue. Heck, that issue became even more moot once we got super powered arty and airstrikes. How can you not defeat a ninja base cap if you are playing intelligently and aware of your base? The enemy has to stand in a tiny square to win, a square you can pummel with arty strikes while pouring cannon and laser fire into them as you close to get on the square and finish them off.

I understand people didn't like the mode, but that doesn't mean it's not tactically sound and enjoyable. If we had more modes it would not be as big an issue since people could play what they want. When we had 3 modes it was better, those that didn't want to worry about tactics with a base could just run around and shoot mechs without regard in Skirmish. But now we have only two modes really with 2 skirmish modes that differ only slightly and the old standby Conquest.

Amsro, on 08 March 2014 - 06:36 AM, said:

Assault mode to me should be Attack/Defend. One base, one defending team, one set of turrets.

Agree that this should be an option, WOT does this and it is quite a fun mix.

Although, as I note above, two base mode is still a viable tactical situation that....outside of PUGs, is perfectly playable and fun.


Turrets were made to sound like they would be low powered and maybe 1 or 2 from the announcements, they would basically stop the one light pilot with cap accel from being able to sneak around and cap it out. Still, a viable strategy, seemed like a solution to a problem that didn't exist with proper battlefield awareness. But fine, I was interested to see it.

Then they drop 6 turrets with major weaponry and deadeye aim in and make it so that if an entirely fresh team walks in they will be smoking and limping by the time they get there.

???

[Khobai]

I like turrets too. But we have to remember that capping the base is supposed to be an alternate win condition in base assault. But if turrets are too strong that they shut down that win condition, then they obviously need to change. The purpose of turrets is to slow down the cap, not prevent it entirely, so turrets should be a nuisance rather than a deterrent. They just need less hitpoints or a generator of some kind so you dont have to destroy 900hp worth of turrets.

[Corvus Antaka]

The game is losing a lot of tension and quality with these turrets in assault mode.

I miss the tnesion of racing back to base to defend.

I'm seeing a lot of long drawn out games, everyone cowering/hiding due to turrets.

too many turrets and too many hitpoints on the turrets, plus they never miss, no sound effects, no LRM hitting mech effects.

On alpine the turrets work. on Rivercity, they've ruined the map. the size of map has a huge impact, smaller maps need small laser turrets with short range that don't cover their entire half of the map.

River city in general seems much worse than before with spawn changes, etc.

[Khobai]

Quote

River city in general seems much worse than before with spawn changes, etc.

Agreed but im convinced thats because of the current base locations rather than the inclusion of turrets. The bases are on opposite sides of the water, with no cover to hide behind in the water, so it just turns into a snipefest.

[Tw1stedMonkey]

Thumper3, on 08 March 2014 - 08:21 AM, said:

Ninja capping only works if the enemy team leaves their base completely undefended and has blind scouts who are watching youtube instead of playing.

The match starts with everyone KNOWING they have a base that is (was) defenseless and vulnerable that they needed to defend. If they choose to ignore that and lose then that is their issue. Heck, that issue became even more moot once we got super powered arty and airstrikes. How can you not defeat a ninja base cap if you are playing intelligently and aware of your base? The enemy has to stand in a tiny square to win, a square you can pummel with arty strikes while pouring cannon and laser fire into them as you close to get on the square and finish them off.

I understand people didn't like the mode, but that doesn't mean it's not tactically sound and enjoyable. If we had more modes it would not be as big an issue since people could play what they want. When we had 3 modes it was better, those that didn't want to worry about tactics with a base could just run around and shoot mechs without regard in Skirmish. But now we have only two modes really with 2 skirmish modes that differ only slightly and the old standby Conquest.



Agree that this should be an option, WOT does this and it is quite a fun mix.

Although, as I note above, two base mode is still a viable tactical situation that....outside of PUGs, is perfectly playable and fun.


Turrets were made to sound like they would be low powered and maybe 1 or 2 from the announcements, they would basically stop the one light pilot with cap accel from being able to sneak around and cap it out. Still, a viable strategy, seemed like a solution to a problem that didn't exist with proper battlefield awareness. But fine, I was interested to see it.

Then they drop 6 turrets with major weaponry and deadeye aim in and make it so that if an entirely fresh team walks in they will be smoking and limping by the time they get there.

???

A. not every match GIVES your team lights so have you ever dropped on alpine in assault with no lights and the enemy had 2-4? yeah, THAT's a fun and interesting match! Also even if they give you lights half the time they go run out into the middle of the map alone and get picked off before doing anything. only half of them will even return to base when told to do so.
B. not every uses, or should be forced to buy a consumable in order to have proper base defense. That is a stupid idea on PGI's behalf.

On the subject of turrets, I would put the directly next to the base cap point (like within 50-150m of the center) and reposition them so they cannot provide covering fire too far outside of the base area. The health could be dropped a bit but no more than like 30%. I personally love the turrets though, it only makes sense that there would be SOME sort of stationary defenses if the loss of the base would mean defeat. If you leave mechs to guard the base, it is boring for them and also makes your attack force weaker so if the other team attacked all-out they would have a numbers advantage right out of the gate and likely win that skirmish and eventually the battle.

Also while i pretty much play heavies and assaults almost exclusively (a dragon being one of those, though i do like taking my laserback hunchy out for a spin every now and then) I have never even once felt threatened by turrets unless I had red internals somewhere. Half the time they try to shoot at my legs through cover and end up not shooting me at all by the time i kill them. The lrm ones can get a little annoying but it's usually not to hard to dodge them with cover.

Khobai, on 08 March 2014 - 09:36 AM, said:

Agreed but im convinced thats because of the current base locations rather than the inclusion of turrets. The bases are on opposite sides of the water, with no cover to hide behind in the water, so it just turns into a snipefest.

Holy hell I absolutely hate what river city assault has turned into. A blatant pop tarting snipe-fest that makes alpine look like an brawler-friendly map by comparison. Dropping there in my 2 LPL 6 MG jager basically means my team is down a mech unless they mount a charge (which is once in a blue moon if i am lucky.)

Edited by Tw1stedMonkey, 08 March 2014 - 10:16 AM.

[IceCase88]

If it has not been asked, or stated,.... I want to know how/why the turrets can still target ECM mechs. Even at distance they can do it. If the turrets can target the ECM mech wouldn't that mean that the whole team should be able to target the ECM mech?

[Nik Van Rhijn]

mwhighlander, on 07 March 2014 - 07:28 PM, said:

I like the Turrets b/c it stops the obnoxious 1 or 2 lights stealth capping

Now I actively put on a Cap Accel on my CTF-3D and actually make a serious attempt at capping.

So lights shouldn't cap, thats the job of heavies?

[Kjudoon]

Khobai, on 07 March 2014 - 04:53 PM, said:

turrets basically turn assault into skirmish.

the intended purpose of turrets was to delay capping. instead they discourage capping so much the game just becomes skirmish.

at the very least they need to lower turret hitpoints. if not add some kindve power generator that powers all the turrets.

Turrets have ended the ability for a single mech, wounded or not, to be able to capture base, essentially making this a de-facto skirmish mode and basecapmore of a coup de grace if there are more than a lance of heavies available to kill the remaining turrents and 1-2 lone damaged mechs who're now better off hiding somewhere. I think turrets have been started out a little too tough or too many. Something. I don't know what the goal is in PGI's mind, but if it is to create a second skirmish style of play... ummm... I'm sticking to conquest only from now on. I want lone mech basecap victories at an end game, not 11-11 ties because both mechs are beat up and can't cap because the turrets are tougher than they are.

Nik Van Rhijn, on 08 March 2014 - 10:16 AM, said:

So lights shouldn't cap, thats the job of heavies?

More like the job of fresh heavies or lightly damaged assaults.

Edited by Kjudoon, 08 March 2014 - 10:25 AM.

[Nehkrosis]

If they massively increased the reward for capping bases, like 100% c-bill bonus for the victory, people would try it more.
plus it would be getting us ready for CW-style mechanics.

[Evil Ed]

37. FC. Enemy pushed all the way up to radio tower triggering some turrets. Defenders rotated back from water and curb stumped 12-0.
38. CN. Initial skirmish with some turret harassment from flanks. Last survivor pulled back to base and died. Two attackers legged by turrets and almost killed.
39. HPG. Skirmish.
40. CV. Lights pushed D5->C4->C3 triggering turrets and getting cored legs in the process. The activated turrets also fired missiles at targets in D5-area.
41. FC. Skrimish
42. CV. Skirmish-like. Last survivor ran back to base in F4 and died.
43. AP, Skirmish. A player actually tried to get us defend base, but it ended with a fight around I7-J8.
44. FC. Skrimish. A few turrets killed for fun while going for the last one who was AFK.
45. RCN.Skirmish-like. Hard not to activate a few turrets as the map is so small. The more aggressive team lost.
46. CN. Skirmish-like. Turned into a complete joke when a few of our mechs triggered the turrets and they started to rain our mechs in C4 on the numbers.
47. CN. Skirmish-like. Last survivor tried to hide behind behind turrets, as usual it failed.
48. TT. Skirmish
49. TD. Skirmish
50. CV. Skirmish, but the turrets served as area denial. We pushed E3->D4 and hit the enemy death ball in D5. Before turrets the enemy would have rotated to C4, but now the turrets denied them this and served as an anvil when we smashed the enemy. Extremely one-sided map.

Observations:
- 50 matches so far, no successful cap. Only a handful cap attempts, which all failed and rendered in a lost match.
- Assault has lost it's flavour, it's now skirmish with area denial + a possible quite boring ending when one survivor falls back to turrets delaying the inevitable outcome.
- A few "whoops, we pushed to far"-moments when driving the enemy to close to turrets. This favours long-range meta.

Not sure it there is any point keep going with this experiment, but it would be fun to see a successful cap pre-turret style...

Edited by Evil Ed, 08 March 2014 - 02:32 PM.