It makes strategic sense to base turtle in a close game as soon as you get ahead in kills.
But I also see teams that are behind in kills heading back to their base in the hopes that the other team will charge to their deaths. I suppose that also makes strategic sense if defeat is otherwise assured, though I've never seen it work.
Additionally, no one tries to cap bases anymore. Maybe that was the goal? The only reason people complained about base caps was that the rewards weren't as good as the salvage bonus from destroying enemy mechs. That sounds like a problem with a much simpler solution.
1
Assault Mode Turrets Incentivize Inaction (Base Turtling)
Started by Felio, Mar 24 2014 08:26 PM
1 reply to this topic
#2
Posted 24 March 2014 - 08:46 PM
Defense was nearly always a better option before too.
What i think they hoped to do was bring the fight to the centre more because defending a base that was not being attacked was boring for PUGs which is fair enough.
However making the bases harder to cap did not really change things the way they wanted it to ... it just made the cap that much harder and gave help to the team who fell back to base for some added firepower.
What they should have done is made the fight in the centre affect the outcome of the base - i posted a suggestion before here:
http://mwomercs.com/forums/topic/148131-assault-mode-changes-keep-the-spirit-of-the-mode-but-improve/
As usual any slightly different idea gets mostly ignored.
This does solve the issue though of making a game that is about attack and defence while giving all roles something to do.
Simply put you need to control the midfield to be able to cap, and if the enemy turles in thier base they lose the base (that might have been an add on in a later comment but makes sense)
2 bases
3 central cap points
1 cap point allows you to capture
2 cap points allows you to capture much faster
3 cap points the enemy base starts being capped without needing to be on it to stop turtling
Now you have to make meaningful choices on where to go and what to do in Assault.
i can only wish ... i like the idea of turrets but i wonder if PGI understands how people abuse mechanics or how the flow of a game is massivly effected by the changes they put in.
What i think they hoped to do was bring the fight to the centre more because defending a base that was not being attacked was boring for PUGs which is fair enough.
However making the bases harder to cap did not really change things the way they wanted it to ... it just made the cap that much harder and gave help to the team who fell back to base for some added firepower.
What they should have done is made the fight in the centre affect the outcome of the base - i posted a suggestion before here:
http://mwomercs.com/forums/topic/148131-assault-mode-changes-keep-the-spirit-of-the-mode-but-improve/
As usual any slightly different idea gets mostly ignored.
This does solve the issue though of making a game that is about attack and defence while giving all roles something to do.
Simply put you need to control the midfield to be able to cap, and if the enemy turles in thier base they lose the base (that might have been an add on in a later comment but makes sense)
2 bases
3 central cap points
1 cap point allows you to capture
2 cap points allows you to capture much faster
3 cap points the enemy base starts being capped without needing to be on it to stop turtling
Now you have to make meaningful choices on where to go and what to do in Assault.
i can only wish ... i like the idea of turrets but i wonder if PGI understands how people abuse mechanics or how the flow of a game is massivly effected by the changes they put in.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
