BE WARNED, THIS TOPIC IS FILLED WITH INCREDIBLE DETAIL NOT FOR THOSE WHO PREFER TL:DR.
I am a very detailed guy for reasons I will not get into but have found during testing, the more detailed feedback one gives, the better results one gets from those the feedback is given to.
I still have to note some things about Turrets but here is what I have so far.
1 - Different Turrets need different labels, possibly icons. When targeting one, it is now simply labeled Defense Turret no matter the weapon, the label should allow a player to tell the difference between them (LRM Turret, Medium Laser Turret, etc.).
The above labels will also help provide further feedback for the next 2 items.
2 - There should be a different amount of turrets depending on the size of the map. It makes sense to have fewer turrets on smaller maps and turret locations might be spaced out more on bigger maps. (See note from Smurfy's site below.)
3 - I also would like to see the turret labels so I could tell how many of each type are available. This could help furture feedback where players can suggest turret type and placement per map.
4 - Turrets using ammo weapons should have a limit on ammunition it can fire to 1 ton ammo except MG could go with half ton, currently this seems infinite. Energy weapons need battery power to limit their shots to be fair, at least a power generator. I would suggest using the smaller weapons of any of the 3 types, we do not need Mechs getting pounded by LRM15/20s, PPCs/LLs or AC10/20 while fighting at bases AND against opposing forces. Any ammo using turrets should have only 1 ton of ammo giving the following list of choices:
LRM5 w/1 ton ammo = 36 shots, low health
LRM10 w/1 ton ammo = 18 shots, slightly higher health
MG w/1 ton ammo = 1000 shots, worst health
AC/2 w/1 ton ammo = 75 shots, low health
AC/5 w/1 ton ammo = 30 shots, slightly higher health
Small Laser using battery power = 55 shots, low health
Medium Laser using battery power = 24 shots, slightly higher health
SRM2 w/1 ton ammo = 50 shots, low health
SRM4 w/1 ton ammo = 25 shots, slightly higher health
The lasers use battery power to make it fair against other weapons and I averaged shot number between ACs and LRMs, else they need a small power generator that is vulnerable to destruction similar to those found in MechCommander games. The generator would not be used for non-Energy weapons, such weapons can be fired with small power units that would be contained with the turret, these turrets could also represent man-operated ones.
5 - I note in another topic someone said open turrets should be more vulnerable and I agree. Something like the closed door issue on certain Mechs such as the Centurion and Catapult, a closed turret reduces the damage done to it by a small percentage amount.
6 - I have yet to see the bug issue of turrets firing through terrain or at shut down Mechs but have seen turrets fire at Mechs behind terrain. Odd since a player cannot target a Mech behind terrain.
NOTE FROM READING SMURFY'S DATA ON ASSAULT MAPS STARTING HERE.
I note the following amount of turrets per map from Smurfy's site.
7 turrets per base - River City, River City Night
6 turrets per base - Alpine Peaks, Canyon Network, Caustic Valley, Crimson Strait, Frozen City, Frozen City Night, HPG Manifold, Terra Therma, Tourmaline Desert
5 turrets per base - Forest Colony, Forest Colony Snow
These seem off from what I would expect. Both River Cities are smaller maps yet they have the most turrets while similar size maps like both Forest Colonies have 2 less. Big Maps like Alpine and Tourmaline have average # of turrets packed closer together than I would expect. I would like to give feedback on how to change this but I need to see an EXACT list of maps ranked biggest to smallest or reverse, smallest to biggest. With this map list, players can give suggestions on how many turrets and best locations plus types.
Small maps like River City do not need so many turrets, just the RIGHT turrets in the right spots can be as effective. On larger maps, they should have the most turrets but spaced out (Alpine) due to open terrain providing little cover or situated in the right locations (Tourmaline) for the best cover.
1
The Turret Feedback Thread (Extremely Detailed)
Started by Wildstreak, Mar 08 2014 07:43 PM
12 replies to this topic
#2
-
-
- Civil Servant
- 5,154 posts
Member
Posted 08 March 2014 - 08:06 PM
A couple of examples of more thorough feedback.
Compare the Assault maps for Alpine and River City on Smurfy's site.
Alpine
With 6 turrets per base and where they are located, each base has a 'back door' where it is possible to make a run into the base for capping. This is dependent on what weapon types are in which turret, information I do not have. But the J5 base has an open area coming from J3/4 and the G11 base can be capped from G12/13.
Now following an old bit of advice, "Put yourself in the other guys shoes," in this case being the base commander, also noting how turrets were used in MechCommander and previous MechWarrior games finally adding in some of my RL military experience, I would have located turrets differently. Not in a manner to make capping impossible but to provide better coverage while also allowing for caps to be possible given that this is a game and the potential for capping must be allowed. I would have put the turrets more in a ring and spread out more. Given the map size, I would have made this a 7 turret per base map.
J5 base, knowing the terrain, I would have 1 turret around I4 and another at K6, these would be long range (LRM or AC type) due to more open terrain north and south and on high positions for maximum coverage. Possibly a third long range on height in I6. J4 near K4, H5/I5 border, J6 and finally L4 are short range to cover certain corridors of approach. These locations allow better coverage and also space out turrets so they do not overwhelm attackers. J5, currently home to 2 turrets, now has none making it less likely anyone who gets in will be targeted by turrets making caps possible without much if any harm.
G11 base, heights at I10 and I11 are PRIME locations for long range turrest to cover the corridor. Add a third long range in F10 or G9 but not the very high point in G9, that is too high to be effective. Short range turrets, 4 like the other base, go in H10/11 border to cover anyone getting through the corridor, F10 at low ground for that corridor to the west, G10 on a building top for anyone sneaking through H9 and dropping in, the building top allows better coverage, finally the 4th near the lower left corner of F12 to cover a backdoor run.
River City, both
First rule:
Long Range turrets go on building roofs to allow maximum coverage, such turrets at ground level are near useless.
Short Ranage turrets go at street level for 'dirty urban fighting ambushes' that happen in city fights.
Second rule, I note bases were moved south where before they were centered on the sides. Not sure if this is a good idea as sometimes players may not be inclined to go the north route. Further, D4 has a lot of tall buildings making base capping necessary through choke points and giving more dirty fighting while D2 has low buildings that Jumping Mechs can get over for more ways to assault the base.
I would situate bases in similar terrain for a fair balance, that makes location pairings either C2+D4 (both have high buildings creating choke points) or D2+C4 (low buildings for jumping Mechs to get over). B2+B4 are both high locations and when a base was located in B4 before turrets, it was too easy to base camp so these high spots are out. B3+E3 are interesting but E3 is open to assault on all sides while B3 has the southern choke point or side ambushes making it easier to defend.
Right now with 7 turrets per base on a small map and in ring formation, this makes River City Assault (both) impossible. Cut turrets down to 4-5, no more is needed. Compared to Alpine base locations, anyplace RC bases are put is less likely to have back doors that need coverage.
If bases stay where they are, you just need a quarter circle covered around the base by 4 turrets. If moved back to map centers on sides, half circles will do with 5 turrets.
Given the 'dirty street fighting' one expects in urban areas, use only 1 Long Range turret and 3 Short Range, if a 5th turret is needed, add a second Long Range one.
Say bases stay where they are. I will start with the D2 base.
One Short Range in the upper left of D2 to cover an intersection there for ambushes with maximum coverage.
One Short Range near the water edge in D2/E2.
One Short Range near the middle or just above that in an interesection.
The Long Range one would go near the base preferably on height for coverage from all sides.
D4 base, I should note this gets the benefit of very tall buildings that the D2 base does not have, this makes for even dirtier fighting. Might need reolocation near C4 or the C4/D4 border where it is more open to be fair.
Given current location, one Short Range in street along D4/D5 border.
One Short Range in lower center or left area of D4.
One Short Range in the upper left of D4.
Finally, the Long Range right on high in D4, yes that makes killing it harder but allows best coverage (one reason why this base would be tougher to assault).
These are two examples of the type of feedback needed to improve turret use in Assault games based on previous games I played, experience and my beliefs from seeing other posts on turrets. River City should have nowhere near more turrets than Alpine due to map size and base locations with far less chances of back door entries.
I can do similar write ups for other maps but it will take time and I REALLY would like:
- a list of maps based on size.
- to know how many of what turrets types are available and currently used.
Compare the Assault maps for Alpine and River City on Smurfy's site.
Alpine
With 6 turrets per base and where they are located, each base has a 'back door' where it is possible to make a run into the base for capping. This is dependent on what weapon types are in which turret, information I do not have. But the J5 base has an open area coming from J3/4 and the G11 base can be capped from G12/13.
Now following an old bit of advice, "Put yourself in the other guys shoes," in this case being the base commander, also noting how turrets were used in MechCommander and previous MechWarrior games finally adding in some of my RL military experience, I would have located turrets differently. Not in a manner to make capping impossible but to provide better coverage while also allowing for caps to be possible given that this is a game and the potential for capping must be allowed. I would have put the turrets more in a ring and spread out more. Given the map size, I would have made this a 7 turret per base map.
J5 base, knowing the terrain, I would have 1 turret around I4 and another at K6, these would be long range (LRM or AC type) due to more open terrain north and south and on high positions for maximum coverage. Possibly a third long range on height in I6. J4 near K4, H5/I5 border, J6 and finally L4 are short range to cover certain corridors of approach. These locations allow better coverage and also space out turrets so they do not overwhelm attackers. J5, currently home to 2 turrets, now has none making it less likely anyone who gets in will be targeted by turrets making caps possible without much if any harm.
G11 base, heights at I10 and I11 are PRIME locations for long range turrest to cover the corridor. Add a third long range in F10 or G9 but not the very high point in G9, that is too high to be effective. Short range turrets, 4 like the other base, go in H10/11 border to cover anyone getting through the corridor, F10 at low ground for that corridor to the west, G10 on a building top for anyone sneaking through H9 and dropping in, the building top allows better coverage, finally the 4th near the lower left corner of F12 to cover a backdoor run.
River City, both
First rule:
Long Range turrets go on building roofs to allow maximum coverage, such turrets at ground level are near useless.
Short Ranage turrets go at street level for 'dirty urban fighting ambushes' that happen in city fights.
Second rule, I note bases were moved south where before they were centered on the sides. Not sure if this is a good idea as sometimes players may not be inclined to go the north route. Further, D4 has a lot of tall buildings making base capping necessary through choke points and giving more dirty fighting while D2 has low buildings that Jumping Mechs can get over for more ways to assault the base.
I would situate bases in similar terrain for a fair balance, that makes location pairings either C2+D4 (both have high buildings creating choke points) or D2+C4 (low buildings for jumping Mechs to get over). B2+B4 are both high locations and when a base was located in B4 before turrets, it was too easy to base camp so these high spots are out. B3+E3 are interesting but E3 is open to assault on all sides while B3 has the southern choke point or side ambushes making it easier to defend.
Right now with 7 turrets per base on a small map and in ring formation, this makes River City Assault (both) impossible. Cut turrets down to 4-5, no more is needed. Compared to Alpine base locations, anyplace RC bases are put is less likely to have back doors that need coverage.
If bases stay where they are, you just need a quarter circle covered around the base by 4 turrets. If moved back to map centers on sides, half circles will do with 5 turrets.
Given the 'dirty street fighting' one expects in urban areas, use only 1 Long Range turret and 3 Short Range, if a 5th turret is needed, add a second Long Range one.
Say bases stay where they are. I will start with the D2 base.
One Short Range in the upper left of D2 to cover an intersection there for ambushes with maximum coverage.
One Short Range near the water edge in D2/E2.
One Short Range near the middle or just above that in an interesection.
The Long Range one would go near the base preferably on height for coverage from all sides.
D4 base, I should note this gets the benefit of very tall buildings that the D2 base does not have, this makes for even dirtier fighting. Might need reolocation near C4 or the C4/D4 border where it is more open to be fair.
Given current location, one Short Range in street along D4/D5 border.
One Short Range in lower center or left area of D4.
One Short Range in the upper left of D4.
Finally, the Long Range right on high in D4, yes that makes killing it harder but allows best coverage (one reason why this base would be tougher to assault).
These are two examples of the type of feedback needed to improve turret use in Assault games based on previous games I played, experience and my beliefs from seeing other posts on turrets. River City should have nowhere near more turrets than Alpine due to map size and base locations with far less chances of back door entries.
I can do similar write ups for other maps but it will take time and I REALLY would like:
- a list of maps based on size.
- to know how many of what turrets types are available and currently used.
#3
-
-
- Civil Servant
- 5,154 posts
Member
Posted 10 March 2014 - 02:19 PM
Earlier today I had an exchange with a Medium Laser turret.
I presume it has only 1 ML.
I had 3 MLs.
We exchanged shot for shot.
It kept hitting me CT.
I have max 56 there, started with yellow damage so let's say 40.
It brought me to yellow internals before I quit.
1 ML dealing 40 points is 8 shots.
I hit 8 times (red crosshair) so that is 120 damage.
THE DARN THING WAS NOT KILLED.
And now we have more information.
Picture 5-7 turrets that can take 120 damage each.
WTF?????
I presume it has only 1 ML.
I had 3 MLs.
We exchanged shot for shot.
It kept hitting me CT.
I have max 56 there, started with yellow damage so let's say 40.
It brought me to yellow internals before I quit.
1 ML dealing 40 points is 8 shots.
I hit 8 times (red crosshair) so that is 120 damage.
THE DARN THING WAS NOT KILLED.
And now we have more information.
Picture 5-7 turrets that can take 120 damage each.
WTF?????
#4
-
-
- Mercenary Rank 1
- 496 posts
Member
Posted 10 March 2014 - 02:29 PM
Good points, OP. Hope PGI reads it.
#5
-
-
- Philanthropist
- 1,781 posts
Member
- LocationMaple Ditch
Posted 10 March 2014 - 02:41 PM
Merchant, on 08 March 2014 - 07:43 PM, said:
2 - There should be a different amount of turrets depending on the size of the map. It makes sense to have fewer turrets on smaller maps and turret locations might be spaced out more on bigger maps. (See note from Smurfy's site below.)
5 - I note in another topic someone said open turrets should be more vulnerable and I agree. Something like the closed door issue on certain Mechs such as the Centurion and Catapult, a closed turret reduces the damage done to it by a small percentage amount.
5 - I note in another topic someone said open turrets should be more vulnerable and I agree. Something like the closed door issue on certain Mechs such as the Centurion and Catapult, a closed turret reduces the damage done to it by a small percentage amount.
I completely agree with and endorse these 2 points. Maybe completely DEFENSIVE turrets replacing some of the offensive turrets would be an alternative... AMS/LAMS turret..?
The barn doors are absolutely horrible. If I want to snipe a turret from a mile away i should be penalized with a 99% damage reduction... Just make them target you when you shoot at them and the enemy team will SEE you are shooting it instead of getting the annoying "Base is under attack" warning.
#6
-
-
- The Hammer
- 3,711 posts
Liao Mercenary
Posted 10 March 2014 - 06:21 PM
Merchant, on 10 March 2014 - 02:19 PM, said:
Earlier today I had an exchange with a Medium Laser turret.
I presume it has only 1 ML.
I had 3 MLs.
We exchanged shot for shot.
It kept hitting me CT.
I have max 56 there, started with yellow damage so let's say 40.
It brought me to yellow internals before I quit.
1 ML dealing 40 points is 8 shots.
I hit 8 times (red crosshair) so that is 120 damage.
THE DARN THING WAS NOT KILLED.
And now we have more information.
Picture 5-7 turrets that can take 120 damage each.
WTF?????
I presume it has only 1 ML.
I had 3 MLs.
We exchanged shot for shot.
It kept hitting me CT.
I have max 56 there, started with yellow damage so let's say 40.
It brought me to yellow internals before I quit.
1 ML dealing 40 points is 8 shots.
I hit 8 times (red crosshair) so that is 120 damage.
THE DARN THING WAS NOT KILLED.
And now we have more information.
Picture 5-7 turrets that can take 120 damage each.
WTF?????
Hmmmm.... Not that I am a fan turrets..
If you planning taking down turrets you have to make use of cover where possible.
#7
-
-
- 159 posts
Member
Posted 10 March 2014 - 09:40 PM
Generally I agree with your post, but I disagree on one area. I think that there should be infinite ammo on turrets. That isn't to say that they should not have some form of disadvantage. I just think that something that is part of a base would have nearly infinite ammo. Imagine a network of re-arming systems below the surface. For the duration of the match, I don't see the turrets running out of ammo. Perhaps have the turret fire slower than a standard weapon, due to the reload system. The turrets will eventually have a generator that can be destroyed, so they will have a major weakness.
I do think that their perfect aim needs to be weakened, though such a system would typically be very accurate. I say that because the turrets are not moving, and they are supposed to be computer controlled. I wouldn't be against nerfing in this area so that it doesn't hit the same area to much. I also am all for changing out some of the turrets. I particularly think that several of the LRM turrets should be changed to SRM turrets. The base defenses should discourage people from trying to break in without a fight.
I do think that their perfect aim needs to be weakened, though such a system would typically be very accurate. I say that because the turrets are not moving, and they are supposed to be computer controlled. I wouldn't be against nerfing in this area so that it doesn't hit the same area to much. I also am all for changing out some of the turrets. I particularly think that several of the LRM turrets should be changed to SRM turrets. The base defenses should discourage people from trying to break in without a fight.
#8
-
-
- 398 posts
Member
Posted 11 March 2014 - 06:07 AM
Just bombard the turrets with LRMs. Wheres the problem?
No to ammo and energy limits on turrets. It's not even sensible if you apply some realism. 1 fat fusion reactor in teh ground and several thousand rounds of rockets? no problem to me. It is not game breaking to have unlimeted ammo.
Let the turrent pop up a damage chart and then let me see what type they are.
No to ammo and energy limits on turrets. It's not even sensible if you apply some realism. 1 fat fusion reactor in teh ground and several thousand rounds of rockets? no problem to me. It is not game breaking to have unlimeted ammo.
Let the turrent pop up a damage chart and then let me see what type they are.
#9
-
-
- Legendary Founder
- 9,274 posts
Member
- LocationHiding in the periphery, from Bounty Hunters
Posted 11 March 2014 - 10:36 AM
Great work, good read, I agree with most of what you say and other than what I'll put down bellow, any variance is just nit picking.
The disagreement is that while you making sensible changes to turrets in river, I think that they should be removed.
Aggressive teams are penalised on the small maps river and forrest, and caustic is so open the turrets are all ways setting off your missile warning so you have no clue if you about to be slammed by a lurmboat which could be causing real damage to you.
large maps they are very useful in stopping the cap race, but on the three mentioned they simply kill play the winner is the team who just sits and waits on small maps, and only the people to dumb to realise or to bored to care challenge the sensible route.
The disagreement is that while you making sensible changes to turrets in river, I think that they should be removed.
Aggressive teams are penalised on the small maps river and forrest, and caustic is so open the turrets are all ways setting off your missile warning so you have no clue if you about to be slammed by a lurmboat which could be causing real damage to you.
large maps they are very useful in stopping the cap race, but on the three mentioned they simply kill play the winner is the team who just sits and waits on small maps, and only the people to dumb to realise or to bored to care challenge the sensible route.
#10
-
-
- Philanthropist
- 36 posts
Member
- LocationSC USA
Posted 11 March 2014 - 12:49 PM
Turrets are great, don't Nerf them. They do their job. It has changed the game, most of the complaints are growing pains. The tactics will change, with necessity. Adapt or Die.
#11
-
-
- Bad Company
- 3,655 posts
Member
- LocationNowhere
Posted 11 March 2014 - 02:03 PM
Nice points, the main thing I'd like is adjusting the number of turrets on the maps (and labels as suggested would be helpful too).
And then I'd consider tweaking the firing radius of the turrets so that they could individually have a vulnerabilty, but are covered by other turrets through overlapping fields of fire before reducing their health or limiting their ammo/shots.
And then I'd consider tweaking the firing radius of the turrets so that they could individually have a vulnerabilty, but are covered by other turrets through overlapping fields of fire before reducing their health or limiting their ammo/shots.
#12
-
-
- Civil Servant
- 5,154 posts
Member
Posted 11 March 2014 - 04:15 PM
In addition to turret numbers, I believe (having done the math from another player's chat on it) turret health is a big issue. Reason in 4th Reply below.
That could work though I do not know what a LAMS turret is. A NARC turret would be hysterical.
Part of the time I did. Even when I peeked out to shoot it, it managed to fire back. I did it to see what happened in detail, at least I was in a spot where only the one turret could hit me, then I got fed up and left to help kill the last guy.
I have actually thought they should also have a sensor building that detects enemies for them to shoot at similar to towers used in MechCommander.
Not every Mech carries long range weapons. We know turrets are partly to discourage easy base caps by Lights but that should be discourage, not prevent. Most Lights typically carry short range weapons, add in the turret health and how close they are that 1 Light trying to run a cap either for drawing enemies to their base or win by cap, that Light will take a pounding. Heck, any lone Mech will take a pounding for reasons below.
Fusion reactors in the ground? That might work for a permanent base but Assault bases seem more the temporary, mobile type and those do not have the time to put a reactor underground. When I was in the service, I was involved in setting up temp base locations, there is just no time for that kind of activity and the expense is too high to justify for anything other than a seriously permanent base.
Also note how close these turrets are to each other, 5-7 is the total amount of weapons most Mechs can carry so a full turret group is like having a 13th Mech on your team. Add in their dead aim that hits quite often unlike some players, that is one deadly team member playing for defense.
In a match I mentioned turret health, someone said they have 180 each. That is 900, 1080 or 1260 damage that must be done to defeat the defenses. Want to blow off every part of an Atlas? Add up armor and internals, 768 total damage is needed (616 total armor + 152 internals). It is pretty deadly when a full 5-7 turret group can take more total damage than destroying every last piece of a 100 ton Mech along with the near perfect aim, total weapons equal to most Mechs and unlimited shots.
After doing the above math, I could see shrinking them down roughly as I mentioned. River is overdone with 7 turrets on it, Forest is a touch over at 5. Each can get by with only 4, maybe even 3, same for Caustic. I started working on maps showing locations I would have picked though I admit the total turret health issue is a big problem in my view. At current health, even 4 turrets rivals obliterating a 100 ton Mech, 720 for 4 turrets vs 768. Total turret health should not be as much or more than destroying a 100 ton Mech.
Turrets make Assault into Skirmish with smart players avoiding certain areas of the map so Assault players are FORCED to play Skirmish in a smaller area. On the smaller maps, SERIOUSLY a problem. Skirmish was created for people who did not want Assault. In this case, Adapt or Die does not apply, the 2 match types should have different play, not the same.
Somewhere recently, a player started a topic where he tried playing a LOT of Assault only matches over the weekend. A large percentage were resulting in Skirmish type play. Skirmish was created for that playstyle, turrets should NOT change Assault into Skirmish.
Cest7, on 10 March 2014 - 02:41 PM, said:
I completely agree with and endorse these 2 points. Maybe completely DEFENSIVE turrets replacing some of the offensive turrets would be an alternative... AMS/LAMS turret..?
That could work though I do not know what a LAMS turret is. A NARC turret would be hysterical.
ShinVector, on 10 March 2014 - 06:21 PM, said:
Hmmmm.... Not that I am a fan turrets..
If you planning taking down turrets you have to make use of cover where possible.
If you planning taking down turrets you have to make use of cover where possible.
Part of the time I did. Even when I peeked out to shoot it, it managed to fire back. I did it to see what happened in detail, at least I was in a spot where only the one turret could hit me, then I got fed up and left to help kill the last guy.
FelixBlucher, on 10 March 2014 - 09:40 PM, said:
The turrets will eventually have a generator that can be destroyed, so they will have a major weakness.
I have actually thought they should also have a sensor building that detects enemies for them to shoot at similar to towers used in MechCommander.
Monkeystador, on 11 March 2014 - 06:07 AM, said:
Just bombard the turrets with LRMs. Wheres the problem?
No to ammo and energy limits on turrets. It's not even sensible if you apply some realism. 1 fat fusion reactor in teh ground and several thousand rounds of rockets? no problem to me. It is not game breaking to have unlimeted ammo.
Let the turrent pop up a damage chart and then let me see what type they are.
No to ammo and energy limits on turrets. It's not even sensible if you apply some realism. 1 fat fusion reactor in teh ground and several thousand rounds of rockets? no problem to me. It is not game breaking to have unlimeted ammo.
Let the turrent pop up a damage chart and then let me see what type they are.
Not every Mech carries long range weapons. We know turrets are partly to discourage easy base caps by Lights but that should be discourage, not prevent. Most Lights typically carry short range weapons, add in the turret health and how close they are that 1 Light trying to run a cap either for drawing enemies to their base or win by cap, that Light will take a pounding. Heck, any lone Mech will take a pounding for reasons below.
Fusion reactors in the ground? That might work for a permanent base but Assault bases seem more the temporary, mobile type and those do not have the time to put a reactor underground. When I was in the service, I was involved in setting up temp base locations, there is just no time for that kind of activity and the expense is too high to justify for anything other than a seriously permanent base.
Also note how close these turrets are to each other, 5-7 is the total amount of weapons most Mechs can carry so a full turret group is like having a 13th Mech on your team. Add in their dead aim that hits quite often unlike some players, that is one deadly team member playing for defense.
In a match I mentioned turret health, someone said they have 180 each. That is 900, 1080 or 1260 damage that must be done to defeat the defenses. Want to blow off every part of an Atlas? Add up armor and internals, 768 total damage is needed (616 total armor + 152 internals). It is pretty deadly when a full 5-7 turret group can take more total damage than destroying every last piece of a 100 ton Mech along with the near perfect aim, total weapons equal to most Mechs and unlimited shots.
Cathy, on 11 March 2014 - 10:36 AM, said:
The disagreement is that while you making sensible changes to turrets in river, I think that they should be removed.
Aggressive teams are penalised on the small maps river and forrest, and caustic is so open the turrets are all ways setting off your missile warning so you have no clue if you about to be slammed by a lurmboat which could be causing real damage to you.
large maps they are very useful in stopping the cap race, but on the three mentioned they simply kill play the winner is the team who just sits and waits on small maps, and only the people to dumb to realise or to bored to care challenge the sensible route.
Aggressive teams are penalised on the small maps river and forrest, and caustic is so open the turrets are all ways setting off your missile warning so you have no clue if you about to be slammed by a lurmboat which could be causing real damage to you.
large maps they are very useful in stopping the cap race, but on the three mentioned they simply kill play the winner is the team who just sits and waits on small maps, and only the people to dumb to realise or to bored to care challenge the sensible route.
After doing the above math, I could see shrinking them down roughly as I mentioned. River is overdone with 7 turrets on it, Forest is a touch over at 5. Each can get by with only 4, maybe even 3, same for Caustic. I started working on maps showing locations I would have picked though I admit the total turret health issue is a big problem in my view. At current health, even 4 turrets rivals obliterating a 100 ton Mech, 720 for 4 turrets vs 768. Total turret health should not be as much or more than destroying a 100 ton Mech.
Reefwalker, on 11 March 2014 - 12:49 PM, said:
Turrets are great, don't Nerf them. They do their job. It has changed the game, most of the complaints are growing pains. The tactics will change, with necessity. Adapt or Die.
Turrets make Assault into Skirmish with smart players avoiding certain areas of the map so Assault players are FORCED to play Skirmish in a smaller area. On the smaller maps, SERIOUSLY a problem. Skirmish was created for people who did not want Assault. In this case, Adapt or Die does not apply, the 2 match types should have different play, not the same.
Somewhere recently, a player started a topic where he tried playing a LOT of Assault only matches over the weekend. A large percentage were resulting in Skirmish type play. Skirmish was created for that playstyle, turrets should NOT change Assault into Skirmish.
#13
-
-
- Philanthropist
- 1,781 posts
Member
- LocationMaple Ditch
Posted 12 March 2014 - 02:14 PM
Merchant, on 11 March 2014 - 04:15 PM, said:
That could work though I do not know what a LAMS turret is. A NARC turret would be hysterical.
Laser anti-missile
4 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 4 guests, 0 anonymous users
