9 replies to this topic

[Pjwned]

No, I don't mean making the bases (in both Assault and Conquest) more heavily fortified with gates & more turrets or whatever, I simply mean they should cover more area. I think it should be able to fit at least a lance of mechs and still have some breathing room instead of being crammed on top of each other, so a rough estimate suggestion would be to make them about 3x as big; it would also be possible to make certain bases bigger in Conquest (Gamma & Sigma in particular, probably Theta too) while leaving others like Kappa and Epsilon the same, or at least not as big as the rest.

The primary motivation for this really is so that you can take (back) the objective without being a sitting duck to artillery/air strikes or other long range fire, but also so that attacking/defending a base in close quarters (especially when light mechs are involved) isn't such a chaotic circle-strafing mess. The bases are also just tiny in the first place, and if it wasn't as easy to discourage base capping by attacking from long range then that might promote more brawling and/or more skirmishes/base caps by light mechs, who really take a beating a lot of the time if they try to rush a base like Theta on River City or Theta on Alpine Peaks for example.

This could also mean more structures to hide behind on the base itself if they were expanded enough, perhaps some sort of cover on each corner as well as the usual structure in the middle (or, more radically, removing the middle structure) but that also might just result in making things even more of a mess, so perhaps not?

tl;dr: bigger perimeter for bases, possibly some other adjustments as a result, discuss.

Edited by Pjwned, 15 September 2014 - 07:10 AM.

[Dracol]

But I like em circle strafing chaotic messes......

[Elizander]

Ah, now I miss that feeling of walking into an enemy base in MW4.

[Kalimaster]

Working gates would be a nice feature. The turrets are fine, however I would like to see more types such as a duel or quad machine gun turret.

[Zyllos]

This is a very good suggestion regarding what needs to happen to the capture size. The area of capturing an objective needs to be much larger to allow for movement within the objective and to allow for more organic defending.

I would also like to see Conquest to have capturable turrets around the objectives. Just one or two around each objective that swaps sides once captured. But that may not be a suggestion that is liked by the community.

[Pjwned]

Zyllos, on 15 September 2014 - 08:03 AM, said:

I would also like to see Conquest to have capturable turrets around the objectives. Just one or two around each objective that swaps sides once captured. But that may not be a suggestion that is liked by the community.

I could see that being a thing on Gamma and Sigma, maybe, but I don't think turrets really belong in Conquest generally; I don't really like them much in Assault in the first place and it seems like they fit in even less in Conquest.

[Pjwned]

Kalimaster, on 15 September 2014 - 07:51 AM, said:

Working gates would be a nice feature. The turrets are fine, however I would like to see more types such as a duel or quad machine gun turret.

I guess depending on how much it changed then some sort of gate might work on Assault maybe, as long as it was still pretty easily taken out, but I'm not really a fan of having more obstructions on the bases when the team is supposed to be defending them to some degree.

[Andross Deverow]

I personally would rather see a real base with gates and walls with turrets and such. It would be awesome, the way Assault is now just plain sucks. I mean c'mon fighting over a little tracked thing? really?

They have the maps, just add some bases. Make the walls/doors operable and destructable like turrets are, give them an assload of HP and let teams try to breach them. Put ramps in the base so the walls can be defended. This shouldnt be that difficult of an addition to the existing game.

Regards,

Bob

[CDLord HHGD]

Bases, I'd like them to resemble more the FOB they are meant to represent. Fencing, tents, etc.

Turrets, I'd LOVE me some NARC and TAG turrets. Quad MG and AC2 as well.

I would like to see the direct fire turret (looking at YOU medium laser turret) have a mechanic for random targeting. Or even a mechanic for a dispossessed spectator pilot to take control.

And turrets on towers, like watch towers in the FOB.

[Pjwned]

Andross Deverow, on 17 September 2014 - 06:43 AM, said:

I personally would rather see a real base with gates and walls with turrets and such. It would be awesome, the way Assault is now just plain sucks. I mean c'mon fighting over a little tracked thing? really?

They have the maps, just add some bases. Make the walls/doors operable and destructable like turrets are, give them an assload of HP and let teams try to breach them. Put ramps in the base so the walls can be defended. This shouldnt be that difficult of an addition to the existing game.

Regards,

Bob

Having fortified bases is already sort of happening with the Invasion mode (for community warfare) as far as I can tell, and Assault doesn't need to be even more difficult to complete the objective. If you made each base too hard to breach in Assault then it would result in even less base capping since people would just play it like Skirmish even more than they do now.

I'm already not a fan of how little base capping happens in Assault ever since turrets were put in, and the lame turret camping at spawn on some maps like River City and Alpine Peaks just makes it worse. The goal with increasing the size of bases actually has more to do with making it easier (not harder) to make a difference when you go to cap a base in Assault because you won't be as much of a sitting duck, and if you make it impractical to try base capping (despite both teams' responsibility to defend their base) because of too much stuff to get through then there's not even a real point in trying to cap.