108 replies to this topic

[oldradagast]

GalaxyBluestar, on 07 March 2014 - 07:26 PM, said:

turrets were supposed to mean if you went for base you had to earn it via combined arms co-ordination and sneaking past unit defenses. an ecm mech and 2 other mediums/ 3 lights should be able to waste 6 turrets easily... currenty pgi don't allow this because turrets are simply way too strong.

every previous MW game had turrets destoyed with about 15-20 damage applied ie: 2 shots of ac20 at most unless it's a calliope turret which would need a third shot. that's 60pts of damage at most. Pgi turrets are 150 HP! no wonder light mechs won't go near them, hell assaults take a while to waste a turret. that's the problem. make cacoon mode 50% resist and HP down to 60 and you'll have cappers back but under control which is the objective for adding turrets.
get that devs?

Yep.

The turrets are almost extra team members. They are tough, can't be sniped effectively at range, and have enhanced abilities - perfect aim, better-than-player LRM's with infinite ammo, perfect sensors, etc. That is far too good for a system that is just supposed to stop quick caps. They reward turtle-style play, punish maneuvers, and are clearly using different rules from everyone else (infinite LRM spam through ECM, magical damage reduction armor, perfect sensors, etc.)

Edited by oldradagast, 10 March 2014 - 01:56 PM.

[SweetJackal]

Considering that each turret has armor comparable to the CT of an Atlas as well as an invulnerability state that doesn't drop until you are within range, yeah.

Begs the question, if these turrets are so much better than Battle Mechs then why aren't these Turrets just mounted to treads?

[Kjudoon]

Ngamok, on 10 March 2014 - 09:11 AM, said:

So it's called turret camping. Everyone always said, well, you should guard your base so those lights won't come try and cap you. So people are now hiding in with the turrets thus, forced guarding the base. Isn't this what people whose answer was always, guard your base?

"Hiding" is such an incorrect term. "Taking up fortified positions" for when the enemy comes is accurate. You should check to see if real militaries do this stupid cowardly tactic and whether it works. Does a tank not use cover when other tanks are around? Does not artillery stay behind hills?

Yeah, well, smart mechwarriors do the same, let the lights probe, maybe get a kill on the enemy scouts and force the other team to charge or lose 1-0. I've no problem with this realistic style of combat.

If you want to play barbarian 'mech smash' skirmish is always available, and will give you even the ability to QQ for months over that lousy last guy who shut down and hid for 5 minutes and wouldn't let you shoot him in the face because you were smart and stayed together or refused to feed your ego.

Edited by Kjudoon, 10 March 2014 - 03:23 PM.

[XxXAbsolutZeroXxX]

I for one like turrets as they're implemented.

I've seen lights run past them and cap without sustaining much damage. The way they're arranged doesn't always offer full coverage of the area surrounding the base. A light that approaches from the right direction may be able to cap without too much trouble. It may only a matter of people experimenting and identifying where the weak areas of coverage are on each map which contributes to game depth and the need for planning and strategy.

Focused fire brings turrets down quickly. Teams that coordinate and focus fire on turrets on an individual basis should have no trouble with them. There are tactics that can be used to eliminate turrets successfully without too much trouble.

Its more difficult to cap with turrets, but in the evolution of things, people will likely coordinate better and develop methods to cope with the changing scenarios. Much preferable to alternatives.

[Haji1096]

Tonight I had a map on Alpine where there was a RVN-3L with 2xER LL left on the other team. He went back to his turrets at the high base ( which is what I would have done). And just waited for us to come get him. The 5 remaining mechs on my team were cored, so we just sat back until the timer ran out. He would have easily killed us while trying to kill the turrets. We would have easily killed him out in the open. So in the end, nothing happened because both teams played smart.

Exciting!

[Evil Ed]

I Zeratul I, on 10 March 2014 - 06:48 PM, said:

Focused fire brings turrets down quickly. Teams that coordinate and focus fire on turrets on an individual basis should have no trouble with them. There are tactics that can be used to eliminate turrets successfully without too much trouble.

Its more difficult to cap with turrets, but in the evolution of things, people will likely coordinate better and develop methods to cope with the changing scenarios. Much preferable to alternatives.

I hear this over and over again: A team that focus fire can take down the turrets. No one disagree, but some people just repeat this simple fact. A team that focus fire can take down the turrets. But you never ever state that one team - equal to the other - can in a realistic way take down an equal strong team + 6 turrets.
You have seen a couple of matches where the superior team is up 5-6 kills late in the game, and now goes for a "cap" because the know they will win anyway, kills the turrets and cap it out and by that came to the conclusion that turrets are "working". But that is just skirmish with an alternative way to win when one team is superior - nothing else.

The "methods" are already developed: Get an early kill if the enemy is stupid enough to go to close, rtb and wait them out. The turrets have provided the teams with one "hill" or "fortress" each, why go down in the valley and get killed if you don't have to?

The flavour that assault had, "Take the risk to send a few to cap?", "Do we have scouts on both flanks?", "How many do you see, is it all?", "Where are they?", "Damn it, they all went tunnel!", "They are heavy, step on cap to force them to separete", is now gone. It's just skrimish with alternative, often boring, end.

Edited by Evil Ed, 10 March 2014 - 11:48 PM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Khobai, on 09 March 2014 - 03:17 PM, said:

40hp is too low. i personally think 90-100hp would be about right.

It's just another sign how powerful pinpoint and how important alpha strike damage is, I think. That Quad PPC mech can deal that damage in less than a second, the moment he's in range and the turret is "vulnerable". If the damage was more spread out...

90-100 hp still seems a lot... Maybe 60-70 would be okay. Just enough that any attacker will need at least a second weapon cycle to kill it. If there are multiple turrets, that's still gonna hurt.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 11 March 2014 - 12:25 AM.

[fandre]

After some more matches: Maybe it is better to redo the turret placement and the turret weapon selection. Example: On Caustic Valley the LRM rain for one team has a very large range. You cant brawl near the center without continous LRM bombardment (correct me, if I am wrong about this). My team won anyway but it was annoying because we didn't attack their base.

Edited by fandre, 11 March 2014 - 02:08 AM.

[Evil Ed]

fandre, on 11 March 2014 - 02:07 AM, said:

After some more matches: Maybe it is better to redo the turret placement and the turret weapon selection. Example: On Caustic Valley the LRM rain for one team has a very large range. You cant brawl near the center without continous LRM bombardment (correct me, if I am wrong about this). My team won anyway but it was annoying because we didn't attack their base.

That is how they work. Someone in your team was close enough to trigger LRM-turrets and if that player is in cover the turrets will rain another target within 1000 meters. This target do not need to be in LOS of the turret - just targeted by any player (or UAV?).

Edited by Evil Ed, 11 March 2014 - 02:15 AM.

[PhoenixFire55]

Had a game yesterday on Alpine assault where it was down to beat-up short range Highlander on our team vs a famer-disconnect on the other team. Our guy couldn't kill the discon because he was under turrets protection. Thats one way to win the game for your team I guess ... rather sad.

[Khobai]

Quote

90-100 hp still seems a lot... Maybe 60-70 would be okay. Just enough that any attacker will need at least a second weapon cycle to kill it. If there are multiple turrets, that's still gonna hurt.

It is a lot. But I would prefer to incrementally balance turrets. Since thats the best way to find the correct amount of HP for them. So just keep nerfing their hp down by 25-50 till it feels right.

If PGI incrementally balanced weapons wed have better weapon balance too. Instead of the mess of weapon balance we have now thats resulted from PGI's kneejerk balancing.

Edited by Khobai, 11 March 2014 - 05:17 AM.

[Sephlock]

Odins Fist, on 09 March 2014 - 12:47 PM, said:

If I could stand in a square and claim Victory I would be standing in Red Square right now claiming Victory, and giving that POS Vlad Putin the finger. ROFLMAO, but that isn't how it works.

You can, in fact, do that.

However, once the police arrive, a new game starts...

Good luck!

Edited by Sephlock, 11 March 2014 - 09:56 AM.

[Shlkt]

IMO only one change is needed to make the turrets do their job properly: reduce damage reduction for cocooned turrets.

A determined force of attackers ought to be able to focus down static defenses from long range with minimal risk, assuming no opposing forces intervene. The turrets will still have done their job which is to slow down the enemy.

Right now they have 99% damage reduction when closed. That equates to 15,000 HP which is ridiculous. If there are NO DEFENDERS then an attacking force should be able to crush the turrets in a reasonable length of time. 50% damage reduction, or 300 HP closed, is much more reasonable (and might still be too high).

[Bront]

I'm liking turrets less and less. Had a match where we were up with 4 mechs to 1, and the 1 retreated (on CN) back to their base. The turrets proceded to take 3 of the 4 mechs out, and we only won because the guy who retreated came out far enough that a legged BJ with 30ish% left was able to hit it's open/red CT.

There are too many turrets, they're too effective, and the rewards for killing them aren't high enough (Particularly because you don't get an assist, only a kill, for 50 cb and 50 xp. LRM turrets are particularly bad as they can shoot though ECM and are a terror for lights.

[topgun505]

Don't like getting ninja capped? Don't take 12 assault mechs and run into the middle of the map. Take, you know, a balanced force like the game was meant to be played. Imagine that.

But now all the people who just want to blob and not worry about such things have had their prayers answered (despite already having Skirmish mode).

As was mentioned the turrets have more armor than the CT of an Atlas. It just isn't worth it for a light to get even remotely close to the opposing base. Especially since they are not impacted by ECM. Skirmish mode 2.0 it is.

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.

[Bhelogan]

I think the turrets as is would be OK on the larger maps IF
1) Larger reward for destroying them
2) Larger reward for cap win
On the smaller maps, there just to close to where all the brawling happens. It makes playing lights on those maps a nightmare.

[Ngamok]

Bront, on 11 March 2014 - 07:27 AM, said:

I'm liking turrets less and less. Had a match where we were up with 4 mechs to 1, and the 1 retreated (on CN) back to their base. The turrets proceded to take 3 of the 4 mechs out, and we only won because the guy who retreated came out far enough that a legged BJ with 30ish% left was able to hit it's open/red CT.

There are too many turrets, they're too effective, and the rewards for killing them aren't high enough (Particularly because you don't get an assist, only a kill, for 50 cb and 50 xp. LRM turrets are particularly bad as they can shoot though ECM and are a terror for lights.

If they would have waited the last guy out, you would have won.

[Deathlike]

The thing about capping a base with these turrets is that a failed assault on the base, despite not having any causalities, tends to favor the defender. Triggering the LRM turret is asking for an extended smack on the face if that's not immediately destroyed.

There's very little reason to assaulting a base unless quick turret killing commences.

Also, these turrets indirectly favor AssaultWarrior, as it will take lights quite a bit of time to destroy the turrets... giving you more than ample time to respond to the threat.

[Dawnstealer]

Really, it comes down to this: Battlemechs, lore-wise, are supposed to be the undisputed kings of the battlefield. Turrets should be annoying deterrents, the kind of things that could destroy a legged, damaged Spider limping its way slowly towards a base, but these things pack as much firepower as a medium mech and are more accurate than most pilots.

As others have pointed out, with turrets like this, why do we have mechs? Mechs are deadly because they're things that tanks (in the game) aren't: more heavily armored, more able to dissipate heat, quicker, more maneuverable, more responsive, able to mount more weapons. And now here comes a turret that never misses that can spam LRMs or a laser-AC20. HIGHLY accurately.

Down the weapons to a single ML, change the refire rate of the LRM5s, make them subject to heat shut down. In the case of the LRM turrets, if you HAVE to keep them, give them an ammo limit. I have two tons of AMS ammo in my little Firestarter and I burned through it all in about a minute of looping too close to a base on Alpine while brawling.

Now I just stay far, far away from the bases, but on small maps like River City, it's pointless to even leave the base area unless your team is rolling over the enemy or you weigh over 70 tons.

[Bront]

Ngamok, on 11 March 2014 - 08:27 AM, said:

If they would have waited the last guy out, you would have won.

We still won, but we didn't want to wait him out for 9 minutes.