78 replies to this topic

[Rebas Kradd]

Dimento Graven, on 02 December 2015 - 04:24 PM, said:

Oh yeah, this thing. Man I'd forgotten all about it.

If no one has mentioned it, I think the amount of time per match should be expanded to something closer to an hour. Part of what drives bad tactics is the extremely limited time you have in a match. After having burned 15 minutes in the match and you're staring down the barrel of the last 15 minutes tactics tend to go towards what's expedient rather than what's best.

Something like this setup will bring a lot more options and in some cases require a minimum of 5 or more minutes to setup, bring 'mechs to the battle (the slower heavies and assaults, specifically, especially for IS, and the Clan Direwolf).

I see where you're going with that reasoning, but it would also be a big economy nerf (going from 45 minutes to an hour is a 25% nerf, for example) and might discourage CW play even more given the length of time it takes.

A lot of the CW matches I've played, I'd say, haven't necessarily been catapulted into stupidity by the ticking clock. Maybe a few have.

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 04 December 2015 - 09:57 AM.

[Arctourus]

bump....will read through this in the morning.

[Greyhart]

Having done a bit more CW this weekend, my time is really limited, I think there is a fundamental problem with CW in the present form (actually it is the fundamental problem with all game modes).

The problem is 12 mechs focusing on one will always drop a mech quickly. So any game becomes about bringing most mechs to bare on a single mech as quickly as possible.

As a win is always possible by killing the other team (and it nets most profit) the death balling becomes mandatory and the win is determined by who has focused best.

Now on CW one team is tasked with sitting at an objective and the other has to attack. The Defending team never comes out to meet the attackers because there is no reason too.

The attackers always go in in one group because they can't focus fire if they split.

A game mode has to positively make it a guaranteed loose if you death ball to change how the game is played and to make it more interesting,

[Arctourus]

To be completely honest, the only thing that worries me about the main argument as presented by the OP is the mobile field base. Personally, I like the idea, but I don't know how it will play out in the real world. We've all experienced one of the random (and thankfully rare) poorly thought out challenges implemented by PGI, think of the one where you had to make a kill and survive to gain points, where people turned into total morons in their quest to win. Players wouldn't attack, players ran away, players hid behind other players...it was horrible. What I fear with field bases is that a handful of players will, without doubt, want to sit on or in those things the entire game. They won't move more than a few meters away....they will run back in every time they get a scratch or fire off an ac round or missile volley. I can see that as being problematic.

However, it could be a strength too if the game mode was set up with that in mind. If I understand your main presentation correctly, the LZs are just a bit of added depth in the middle of what would remain an either "destroy the base or kill all of the enemy to win" scenario. To this end, a mobile field base creating what is essentially an “attacker’s base” wouldn't necessarily be bad thing. Say the invading team captures the necessary landing zone and receives their repair/rearm point. Say said team then begins to camp that point a little more than they should. This gives the defending team an opportunity to strike out at their attackers, possibly catching them in the open (remember that these points will be exposed so that lights will have a harder time reclaiming). This can offer depth too in that the defending team, which is now on the attack, will still need to leave defenders behind lest a fast lance sneak into the base through another spot and take out the defending structures. This would also add to the value of the sensor net you suggested.

Another option would be controlling all landing zones would give the attackers an NPC artillery barrage. There would be a few ways to handle it. Think of something similar to our consumable barrage…maybe something lasting twice as long. Then implement it in one of two ways. Either controlling all LZs makes the NPC once every set period of time (say a minute, or two, etc) launch an artillery strike on it’s own, so that it’s completely out of player hands. It can be set to launch in a random manner over a set number of locations, or can intelligently target pockets of nearby mechs. The other option would be to give the team leader the ability to choose a spot in the game map (again, based on a cooldown of 1, 2 minutes etc). This would help discourage a defending team from camping.

This is exciting to consider….it would go a long way towards helping spice the game up. I’ve never played a game as long and as exclusively as this. I’ve actually avoided even trying other games for nearly three years, just to keep from being enticed away from MWO. I’d love to see it mature past what has essentially been the same experience for all that time. I rarely even try CW based on the extreme wait time it normally involves.

Sorry, my fonts went all crazy on me. Came out tiny.....

Edited by Arctourus, 07 December 2015 - 06:56 AM.

[Kissamies]

Yeah, I don't like some of the details, but the base premise of advancing spawns on multiple lanes is a good one. Mobile field base sounds too cartoony to me, if it makes sense to criticize something like that in a big stompy robot game, but I think some ammo trucks could be okay. Might change peoples' builds in interesting ways if they have a chance to rearm and they also would make nice big explosions when the defenders manage to penetrate the lines and attack them.

Also, perhaps the defenders could also use spawn points futher along the line, provided the attackers haven't overrun them. PGI has made everyone arrive in a dropship, after all.

[Rebas Kradd]

Greyhart, on 07 December 2015 - 04:54 AM, said:

Having done a bit more CW this weekend, my time is really limited, I think there is a fundamental problem with CW in the present form (actually it is the fundamental problem with all game modes).

The problem is 12 mechs focusing on one will always drop a mech quickly. So any game becomes about bringing most mechs to bare on a single mech as quickly as possible.

As a win is always possible by killing the other team (and it nets most profit) the death balling becomes mandatory and the win is determined by who has focused best.

Now on CW one team is tasked with sitting at an objective and the other has to attack. The Defending team never comes out to meet the attackers because there is no reason too.

The attackers always go in in one group because they can't focus fire if they split.

A game mode has to positively make it a guaranteed loose if you death ball to change how the game is played and to make it more interesting,

This is exactly what this gamemode proposal is intended to do.

Arctourus, on 07 December 2015 - 06:56 AM, said:

To be completely honest, the only thing that worries me about the main argument as presented by the OP is the mobile field base. Personally, I like the idea, but I don't know how it will play out in the real world. We've all experienced one of the random (and thankfully rare) poorly thought out challenges implemented by PGI, think of the one where you had to make a kill and survive to gain points, where people turned into total morons in their quest to win. Players wouldn't attack, players ran away, players hid behind other players...it was horrible. What I fear with field bases is that a handful of players will, without doubt, want to sit on or in those things the entire game. They won't move more than a few meters away....they will run back in every time they get a scratch or fire off an ac round or missile volley. I can see that as being problematic.

However, it could be a strength too if the game mode was set up with that in mind. If I understand your main presentation correctly, the LZs are just a bit of added depth in the middle of what would remain an either "destroy the base or kill all of the enemy to win" scenario. To this end, a mobile field base creating what is essentially an “attacker’s base” wouldn't necessarily be bad thing. Say the invading team captures the necessary landing zone and receives their repair/rearm point. Say said team then begins to camp that point a little more than they should. This gives the defending team an opportunity to strike out at their attackers, possibly catching them in the open (remember that these points will be exposed so that lights will have a harder time reclaiming). This can offer depth too in that the defending team, which is now on the attack, will still need to leave defenders behind lest a fast lance sneak into the base through another spot and take out the defending structures. This would also add to the value of the sensor net you suggested.

Another option would be controlling all landing zones would give the attackers an NPC artillery barrage. There would be a few ways to handle it. Think of something similar to our consumable barrage…maybe something lasting twice as long. Then implement it in one of two ways. Either controlling all LZs makes the NPC once every set period of time (say a minute, or two, etc) launch an artillery strike on it’s own, so that it’s completely out of player hands. It can be set to launch in a random manner over a set number of locations, or can intelligently target pockets of nearby mechs. The other option would be to give the team leader the ability to choose a spot in the game map (again, based on a cooldown of 1, 2 minutes etc). This would help discourage a defending team from camping.

You raise a good point about the MFB's being vulnerable to exploit. You would definitely want to limit the amount of repair and rearm they could perform. It's also worth asking whether the MFB's should be mobile and their location player-controllable a la MW3 (as I was considering) or just left them stationary at the forward LZ's. I personally think moving them around would help them avoid being too vulnerable to defending counters, but that's just me.

The MFBs could be left out entirely, IMO, and the gamemode would still work with arty/air as incentives. I was just trying to add a "new thing" to the game. I don't know how excited people would be by "ohh, great, more arty" for an incentive.

Everything else you mentioned was spot on.

[L Y N X]

I like it in General... you are correct that a lot of the details stil need to be ironed out and haggled, however you are correct on the CW MAPs... Even though they are large, they have artifical chokepoints that really limit the size and usefulness of the maps.

As side-example, Having a dragstrip as a large plot of land, not very useful unless you are a drag racer or own an airplane.

Furthermore, Capture points in all modes CW and others should imho require at least one asset in the cap area to maintain control and capture of the cap point. If the asset leave the box, the cap point should revert to uncontrolled or neutral state. If assets of both sides are in the cap point perimeter then the control is contested and should near immediately revert to neutral. A lone scout should be able to cap a neutral uncontested cap point in 2-3 seconds, but the cap point should revert to neutral in same 2-3 seconds if contested or it leaves.

This one change to captures would force a redistribution of mechs on the field in all modes but for Assault and Skirmish.

Edited by 7ynx, 07 December 2015 - 01:01 PM.

[Threat Doc]

It's an oddity these days when I read an entire thread before posting to it, but this one is amazingly well-done by all. Rebas, you put together one hell of a good presentation, and I really liked it; however, I would like to see something like what you've proposed, here, mixed with what I've proposed for Conquest in PUG play, which can be seen, here. I love the idea of capturing points in order to advance your group closer to the largest objective, but I think it should be more interesting than just capture A, capture B, capture C, and then capture the opposing base.

One more thing I've seen in this thread is a call to remove the time limit to matches, and I agree with that, but I have a counter-proposal to it... dealing with drop momentum.

I've always felt -as with the war between Elo and Battle Value, the latter of which I support whole-heartedly, and thoroughly believe PGI have not gone far enough with this latest so-called 're-balance'- that the time-limit was opposite of what should have been -also as with MechWarrior's making the money rather than the units, who would then pay the MechWarrior's. With my idea, in the linked thread, above -concerning procedural drops for random objectives, each of those objectives gains points for capture, over time, or for capturing and then holding them against enemy incursion for a while before gaining the points- points are gained a-la resource gathering fashion from Conquest, over time.

The capture of each of the objectives, each of which may be captured and re-captured throughout the life of the game, and the demise of opposing 'Mechs, provides momentum -expressed as accumulated points- for the acting unit; however, as time marches on in the game, and with no time limit, or a fairly large time-limit -perhaps determined by the opposing commanders in a pre-game negotiation-, as a team begins to linger, not sure what to do next, or busy finding and/or getting to the next objective, preparing an ambush for the opposition, hunting and removing scouts from the field, etc., they begin to lose points over time, say one point every 5 to 15 seconds.

To defend my idea of losing points, think of how Conquest works, at present... each Cap Point an opponent holds slows down your ability to gain points in capture with, finally, four Cap Points in enemy hands stopping your clock from ticking forward altogether. In my idea, here, BOTH teams are constantly losing a point at a particular interval, anywhere between four and twelve points per minute; the point of this is to lend expediency to gaining points in the most strategic and tactical ways possible, to encourage intelligent maneuvering and firing, and to give enough time for treacherous commanders to set plans to ambush and destroy the enemy team. The first team to achieve so many points -determined by how many objectives, and which types, are dropped on the map, as well as with points for 'Mech kills added-, wins, even if that game takes hours to play.

This gives the tacticians what they want toward the beginning of the game, gives twitchers what they want more toward the end of the game, or ensures they are twitching somewhere else by the time the game is halfway over or so, makes EVERYONE sweat in anticipation of the next rise, or the time requirement (or other requirements) to capture a resource, and allows us to have the games we really want to play at the same time without, hopefully, a major re-design of everything.

I agree the CW maps provide too many bottlenecks, and that, coupled with the time limit, encourage stupidity in play, which is why I continue to play with PUGs, as of now, and I think the maps could be re-done or, as was suggested, shifted to PUG play and new maps built for CW, but I think the premises and ideas that are flourishing in this thread, in mine, and in Greyhart's thread, are all worthy of extreme merit, and I believe PGI has to listen.

Now, who's going to contact our Community Manager and have her take a look at this thread?

[Christof Romulus]

As I said in your previous thread about this - I would be more than willing to give it a try.

But also as I said before - The entire idea would be ruined by the defender deathball. For example, what if instead of deathballing down a lane and losing the game, instead the defending team deathballs only halfway down a lane - letting the attackers get and keep the spawn, to ensure they drop directly to their deaths?

I just think that mechanically, there are factors that would seem to still encourage a 12v4 fight.

[SirNotlag]

Christof Romulus, on 08 December 2015 - 04:01 PM, said:

As I said in your previous thread about this - I would be more than willing to give it a try.

But also as I said before - The entire idea would be ruined by the defender deathball. For example, what if instead of deathballing down a lane and losing the game, instead the defending team deathballs only halfway down a lane - letting the attackers get and keep the spawn, to ensure they drop directly to their deaths?

I just think that mechanically, there are factors that would seem to still encourage a 12v4 fight.

Agreed the only way I can think of that would avoid that would be to allow the ability to select spawns. That could also allow defender spawns to be set around the map which could be destroyed by the attackers, allowing the fights to be more dynamic over the map instead of just gathering and attacking the walls of the base.

[Stealth Fox]

Mechs Cores going super critical and exploding after it is down could stop deathballs, so could better placed artillery and Air Strikes by the defenders. choke points happen in real life so I am not sure where to place them and where not. Maybe not choke points but various ridges and lines that can be defended instead using natural cover and such.

Make a cool down or a "only so many repairs per mech" thing for the repair bases to stop people from filling up every time they get yellow somewhere or miss a shot with AC rounds.

I would not even have a timer start what so ever till a number of mechs are down or the like to not make movement and play forced and timed, But that is just me.

[Rebas Kradd]

Kay Wolf, on 07 December 2015 - 02:49 PM, said:

It's an oddity these days when I read an entire thread before posting to it, but this one is amazingly well-done by all. Rebas, you put together one hell of a good presentation, and I really liked it; however, I would like to see something like what you've proposed, here, mixed with what I've proposed for Conquest in PUG play, which can be seen, here. I love the idea of capturing points in order to advance your group closer to the largest objective, but I think it should be more interesting than just capture A, capture B, capture C, and then capture the opposing base.

It's an interesting idea. While it would probably be a larger project, I'd think that this gamemode proposal could potentially serve as a jumping-off point for your suggestion. We definitely need a greater variety of objectives in the mix.

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 08 December 2015 - 09:20 PM.

[Rebas Kradd]

Christof Romulus, on 08 December 2015 - 04:01 PM, said:

As I said in your previous thread about this - I would be more than willing to give it a try.

But also as I said before - The entire idea would be ruined by the defender deathball. For example, what if instead of deathballing down a lane and losing the game, instead the defending team deathballs only halfway down a lane - letting the attackers get and keep the spawn, to ensure they drop directly to their deaths?

I just think that mechanically, there are factors that would seem to still encourage a 12v4 fight.

As Sirnotlag mentioned, we could give lances the ability to choose their spawn lane, with 30 second cooldown timers between each, or something.

My hope is that the map will be large enough even to discourage a "half-deathball" like you suggested. Even if a defending 12-man camps a forwardmost spawn, the other two lanes are far enough and obstructed enough that they can blitz the unguarded base and destroy it without interference, or flank and tear into the backs of the campers without being seen easily. We're talking enough territory that flanking movements can be concealed unless the opponent is seriously spotting.

Does that answer your concern? I am definitely all about rooting out every edge case we can. Let me know if you're still thinking something different.

Seph MacLeod, on 08 December 2015 - 09:04 PM, said:

Mechs Cores going super critical and exploding after it is down could stop deathballs, so could better placed artillery and Air Strikes by the defenders. choke points happen in real life so I am not sure where to place them and where not. Maybe not choke points but various ridges and lines that can be defended instead using natural cover and such.

Make a cool down or a "only so many repairs per mech" thing for the repair bases to stop people from filling up every time they get yellow somewhere or miss a shot with AC rounds.

Yes to the suggestion on the repair bases. But you'd have a number of lore-purists protesting the Stackpoling of mechs, though personally I'd love the idea. Maybe confine it to heavies and assaults?

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 08 December 2015 - 09:19 PM.

[Stealth Fox]

Rebas Kradd, on 08 December 2015 - 09:19 PM, said:

As Sirnotlag mentioned, we could give lances the ability to choose their spawn lane, with 30 second cooldown timers between each, or something.

My hope is that the map will be large enough even to discourage a "half-deathball" like you suggested. Even if a defending 12-man camps a forwardmost spawn, the other two lanes are far enough and obstructed enough that they can blitz the unguarded base and destroy it without interference, or flank and tear into the backs of the campers without being seen easily. We're talking enough territory that flanking movements can be concealed unless the opponent is seriously spotting.

Does that answer your concern? I am definitely all about rooting out every edge case we can. Let me know if you're still thinking something different.



Yes to the suggestion on the repair bases. But you'd have a number of lore-purists protesting the Stackpoling of mechs, though personally I'd love the idea. Maybe confine it to heavies and assaults?

Look, I'm a lore *****! and I am proud of it. but come the hell on, do they honestly expect me to believe that they lost the technology to make a cannon that shoots futher than 400m and barely scratches the surface of armor? That weighs one fricken ton or even half of it? The A-10 has a 30 mm Cannon that cuts tanks in half from MILES AWAY.

I love BattleTech and my devotion to it and MechWarrior is the only reason I am even still here on the Forums, But to be Brutally honest, some of the "lore" of Battletech is just fricken ********. I'm not saying it needs to do some Fallout 3-4 nuke mushroom. But let's face it Chernoble blew the hell up. A violent explosion is more than reasonable.

Edit: ARE THEY SERIOUS? We can't use w-h-o-r-e or s-t-u-p-i-d? ..WTF mate?

Edited by Seph MacLeod, 08 December 2015 - 09:46 PM.

[GI Journalist]

Even if not fully implemented, there are some exceptional ideas in this video proposal, such as creating objectives in the middle of the map that will aid the attackers if the defenders fail to protect them and creating a sensor net that can alert the defenders if the attackers don't take it out.

The creation of valuable, potentially game-changing mid-map objectives, would gives the players a reason to fight over a much larger patch of terrain. Objectives that activate turrets, artillery, air strikes and UAV sensors could all be implemented with existing game assets.

I'd like to see MWO try something like this with their next map or map revision.

[Rebas Kradd]

And now that we've seen PGI is implementing Long Toms, maybe we can use those for attacker incentives as well!

[50 50]

In the end, it's like a combined Assault + Conquest game mode.
Ignore those objectives at your own peril.
Ideally, I would love to see this mode as the second stage of the invasions.
This keeps the orbital cannons as a very important objective.
They have to be destroyed before the attacking faction can then land and take the base.
Could break it up over the 3 servers as well so it boils down to a best of three.

While a rush or death ball down one lane should net that team the objectives on that side, it does leave the objectives in lanes 2 and 3 exposed so it may sort itself out.
One thought to give some emphasis to scouting is to have some of these objectives hidden from each side.
For example:
The attacking team has their initial landing zone/s which effectively become their bases. (Be great to see Union or Overlords land for this).
The attacking team also has 3 forward positions that they will want to get control over for strategic reasons so they can see these on their battlegrid, mini maps and compass.
But they cannot see the defender's forward positions or base/s.
Likewise for the Defenders who cannot see the attackers forward objectives or where the dropships have landed.
If the maps allow for some level of randomness for the bases and forward objectives, then on any one instance of a map scouting straight away has a mission and adds strategic value.
If we also consider the information sharing and sensor ranges that were up on the test server recently, it starts to build a very interesting picture in terms of how scouts would need to operate.

Using the objectives as spawn points could mean that if your team controls at least one, then more mechs can be brought in at that location. The match is not 'won' until one team controls all the points therefore denying their opponent to land any mechs.
The only problem that will arise out of this is one side camping the lone remaining spawn point so there needs to be some other conditions or another purpose to these locations.
There are a few possibilities here, such as players knowing that there is only one LZ left and electing not to drop.
The LZ times out.
Battle ends.
Keeping in line with Rebas's suggestion though, the primary objective could be a point that cannot be captured.
For the defenders this is their base/capital.
For the attackers, it would be great to see a Union or Overlord dropship used.
If the LZs also had an armament such as an Arrow 4 missile battery, controlling the location could mean it fires missiles periodically at the base/dropship if that location has been scouted and identified.
.... Perhaps they also need to be tagged....
Once the base/dropship has taken enough damage it is destroyed.
The other team wins.
Battle ends.

The bases/dropships should have impressive firepower to the effect that opposing mechs cannot camp the spawn point.
This focuses the battles around the LZs but will also create siege scenarios when one team is in control.
With three lanes to move through, there should be the possibility for a team under siege to break out and recapture one of the points.

This does make it an ongoing battle but I think that is something we are missing.
If players were able to join in on the battle a lance at a time as the space became available with the destruction of your mech meaning you return to the queue.
The attack phase timer could act as the end mark.
An ongoing battle does lead to a question of attrition and therefore repairs. I believe the drop deck could be used a bit differently in this regard but lets leave that for now.

I would like to link one of my posts to this one as I feel this style of epic battle would really benefit from it.
That is:
http://mwomercs.com/...nd-perspective/
Having a commander with the functionality to manage the information, provide feedback, guidance and assistance to players as they drop into battle would add another dimension to how it all fits together.
If that information could also be relayed back to the queue, it gives players the ability to plan and organise themselves before the drop as well.

[Rebas Kradd]

Is it classless to bump this?

[AWOL 01]

Rebas Kradd, on 15 June 2016 - 09:10 AM, said:

Is it classless to bump this?

Not at all! This is a fantastic idea and more people need to see it.

A few ideas:
1) Have the defenders spawn inside of hangars towards the back of the base. Each lance would have their own hangar, and if destroyed, those players lose their mechs, so it's critical to defend these (See MW4 intro). Could be partially defended by turrets. Maybe dropships could be destoyed too, making it take longer to deploy the attackers?

2) Have the attackers spawn the first wave from an Overlord with a small outpost, and have the other LZs be outposts with some walls and turret(s) that is defensible but not too fortified. After these are captured, have artillery/MFB/repair truck deploy from the Overlord and move to one of the LZs.

3) To keep people from abusing the MFB, limit it to one refit per mech, or have a time limit between repairs. If you try to go back within that time limit some gruff guy says, "Hey, weren't you already here? Get back in the fight!" #immersion

4) Have other voice-overs for when a lance is taking too long to capture the LZs, when an LZ is being attacked, when incentives are deployed... Make the players feel like they're accomplishing something and guide them into the best strategy, rather than forcing them to play the game a certain way. *cough* choke points *cough*

[AngrySpartan]

Rebas Kradd, on 15 June 2016 - 09:10 AM, said:

Is it classless to bump this?

I personally glad that you bumped this topic.
First saw your video after stream with Kanajashi and I agree on many things with you. Indeed MWO needs more diversity, deathballing is just killing it. This mode might shake things up a little, but probably won’t happen soon (ever) - it’s too much work.
Yet my 2 cents:
As far as I get, the idea is to discourage deathballing by controlling territory and spawn points. Yet, slow mechs are not that scary in MWO, it’s not enough to provide just LZs to attack the base. MFB is interesting, yet very controversial thing.

What I suggest is to emphasize territory control even more, making domination on the map a sound strategy to win. Controlling territory should directly contribute in achieving the goals of the drop: destroying the base/base defenses for attackers or killing enemy mechs for defenders.
- for each LZ capture Attackers receive Artillery piece at LZ, shooting base defenses first, than the base
- for each LZ capture Defenders fortify this LZ with turrets, those will strip some armor/components and prevent lights/meds from recapping it easily.
- base should be heavily fortified with turrets, generators, towers, etc.

Indirectly attacking the base opens different strategies and makes territory control valuable, which in turn addresses deathballing.

More details under the spoiler:

Spoiler

1. At least six Capture zones (though 9 might work as well). Each Capture zone gives:

-For attackers: LZ and offensive asset

-For defenders: defensive asset

Asset is an easily destructible object placed at the cap zone or nearby, preferably some time must be required for asset to become active (e.g. dropship should land it)

2. Each asset has several levels (3 optimally), unlocked by spending additional time at the cap point. E.g. 30 sec for LvL1, 1m for LvL2, etc. Max level of the asset is limited by its location – closest to the enemy base has higher levels. Once unlocked, asset will be activated (delivered) and will operate until destroyed. Central (mid) line has Capture zones levels lowered by 1 to encourage control over the flanks, (because center will be battle zone anyway). The LZ scheme will look like this:

Spoiler

3. Assets could be anything, as long as they help the team to reach its goals, simple approach will be:

Offensive assets:

LvL1: Artillery shooting base defenses: turrets, sensor towers, etc. If defenses were destroyed, it will start shooting the base.

LVL2: Second artillery piece (though I love the idea of TAG guided Arrow IV launcher, would be awesome!)

LvL3: …

Defensive assets:

LvL1: three to X turrets, powered by destructible generator.

LvL2: more turrets, ECM/UAV “towers”, generator cover, etc.

LvL3: …

Turrets will prevent easy capping by lights/meds. Therefore, attackers should either bring some more firepower or lose some armor/components first.

4. Obviously, Capture zones can be contested with current Conquest rules. Moreover, if the first (closest to spawn) asset on the lane is contested, you cannot progress with capping the second one. This promotes harassing enemy supply lines and use of dedicated light-hunters to prevent it.
5. Base fortification should be reinforced to make territory control meaningful. The idea is to make front-line base assault successful only using overwhelming force (by skill or by tonnage) or by controlling territory.
6. In ideal scenario Capture zones would have been invisible on the minimap (unless you have BAP and you are in range of it) and would have been placed in a slightly different location each time the asset was destroyed (like the beacons in scout mode)

Edited by AngrySpartan, 16 June 2016 - 06:51 AM.