2
Pjwned, on 26 July 2014 - 05:09 PM, said:
Okay, well I want the challenge to also fall on the team to consider their own base and not just storm off and completely ignore it, and turrets make that not happen.
Fine, maybe next time try saying that instead of making up a bunch of false points and saying that's what I want despite me telling you otherwise multiple times, and I don't agree that I'm lacking foresight when my idea is solidly based on how it was before it changed.
No, it boils down to "turrets do not belong in a game mode where you still need to consider your own base objective," and if you want a fortified base then it should be your sole objective to defend it in another game mode. For the record I don't want gauss charge to be removed either, which I have said elsewhere multiple times, but that's not very relevant here.
I want Assault mode to return to what it was because it was FINE the way it was and if you want to change it to something else then it should come in another game mode, not changing an existing mode to be worse because you don't want to put any effort into trying to defend against a possible base cap or because the only strategy should be marching up to the same spot every time in a deathball even though that's what Skirmish is for.
That may have been true at 1 point when it was still 8v8 but there's no way that 2 lights with cap accel would finish off the base in less than a minute now, and again (after saying it at least a dozen times) the "easy button" is only there when people ignore their base.
They hide 2 feet away from spawn because of turrets also being there, and I'm talking about proper base cap scenarios not happening in both solo and group play, the last actual base cap I can recall in months (after turrets were put in) of playing was on Tourmaline when half the team split off and died so the other half just walked up to the enemy base unopposed and we won, that wasn't even a proper base cap scenario either and of course the enemy team whined & moaned about it ruthlessly.
Sounds like you should've spread out, and saying that an entire lance took out your base while you were unaware isn't saying much, that would've happened regardless of (EDIT)
The defenses are the entire team that spawns right next to the base, if you ignore it then you lose it.
I have done that, I got tired of it not working because of turrets.
Okay. From what I've got from your responses so far is that you think turrets are providing too much of an advantage to defense that people don't worry about capping the base. While I'm saying that it's an illusion, and turrets don't provide any real solid defense.
The lance that capped us? They rushed towards base, and by the time we got to the pug zapper they started capping, and THEN they started hitting our turrets. Our fastest lights went back to base, however, and they got on base to try and slow them down. Too bad by the time the jenners that were going 150Kph got to our base the cap was already at 99% done. There was no room for counter play in this case because they just ran past the turrets, and blasted them all within seconds of getting on the base cap.
I at least kill the turrets before I start capping. Give the team some chance of responding. If they ignore me, I'm capping within seconds, and you know how the rest goes.
It's not that I don't understand where you're coming from. You want the teams to have more tactical deployment, with defenders and attackers, and I would like that as well, however, the problem is that in PuG play that can't work since deathball is the only tactic that can be used.
In coordinated play, that could possibly be done.
My ideal set up for me would be after they implement a good in-game VOIP feature (or just integrate TS3 somehow) and both teams have full comms. Once that step is done, and we get much larger maps, we can then have engagements where the front line is far enough from the base to justify having proper static defenses around, and having a seperate team that tries to approach and capture the base would be a viable tactic. Since they would be afforded the time to assault the base, and start capping, while still feeling like they contributed something to the fight, and in that set up, both teams would have to consider base defense from the start.
Right now most people think they can rush back to base fast enough to stop any cap attempt, that illusion, fueled by the thought that turrets are a deterrent. Turrets are only a deterrent for those that haven't faced them down, and the more people realize they are week, the more people will attempt assaulting the base.
I see it as just a missing piece of the puzzle finally being added to the game, and part of how base assault should be conducted.
I will say this, though: Turret placement needs to be reconsidered. For maps like River city, the old base placement needs to be re-implemented. One base on each opposite corner, instead of next to each other.
Also, the spacing between them seems haphazard instead of reliant on any tactical know-how. Half the turrets there don't have over-lapping lanes of fire, and above all else, too far away from one another and the base, to establish a proper perimeter.
While on maps like Alpine, the turrets are just placed in the wrong places (at least 4 of them on the mountain base, and three on the lower base.)
If they re-work that, the bases would be better implemented, and the turrets can be modified properly. In some places they are completely ineffective.
Right now, they have a decent punch, no health, and bad placement.
If they get proper placement, and become an effective defense, maybe they can get some proper tweaking. As it stands right now, buffing and nerfing them doesn't have a proper impact, and removing them just reduces a lot of the immersion, and the context of the battle.
