12 replies to this topic

[Hindenhoot]

At the moment the fortifications in Incursion have no real value aside from being obstacles and the game mode generally just plays out as a more elaborate version of assault (ie skirmish with the ability to steal the match or distract/split the other team by capping).

Why not make it make it attack/defend instead of head-to-head, give both teams the ability to use radar, jamming, etc with the power beacons the same as present (attackers might have mobile versions of the equipment) - but set it up as one team must destroy the base, the other needs to wipe out the attackers or run out the clock. It would give the defenders the option to make more use of the fortifications, and if they choose to camp their base the attackers have free reign with radar, jamming, etc.

Thoughts?

I'm not crazy excited about Incursion, but I feel like it has potential. Just trying to throw some ideas around.

Edited by Dahoota, 19 April 2017 - 06:19 AM.

[Khobai]

id rather just see limited respawns added to incursion

one of the towers should respawn a dead mech every 2 minutes when you feed it a power pellet

that way the power pellets are actually worth going after

[Mystere]

Why the frack does every game mode have to be fracking symmetrical? I really thought "Escort" was going to put a stop to that nonsense.

Oh! This is where I put in my obligatory:

**** ESports!

I want a god-damned PVP-focused "A BattleTech Game" worthy of the monicker, damn it!

[Wildstreak]

One base with Defenders and Attackers is better.

Both teams do not need towers.

They could consider capturing things instead of destroying and previous BT computer games did.

One base, Attackers capture the radar tower and now have to power it.

Though honestly I think the whole Power Cells thing is a waste, just use destroyable generators as Siege and previous games do and did.

[Agent1190]

Mystere, on 19 April 2017 - 07:41 AM, said:

Why the frack does every game mode have to be fracking symmetrical? I really thought "Escort" was going to put a stop to that nonsense.

Agreed.

I thought Incursion was supposed to be asymmetrical. I played it ONE time and all we had to do was NASCAR to their base, kill a couple lights (who I assume were trying to power things up) and destroy everything. The other team had the same idea and took our base down to 20%, but I guess we were faster because we won.

It's a poor man's version of Siege: base rush for the win!

[Hindenhoot]

Agent1190, on 19 April 2017 - 08:07 AM, said:

Agreed.

I thought Incursion was supposed to be asymmetrical. I played it ONE time and all we had to do was NASCAR to their base, kill a couple lights (who I assume were trying to power things up) and destroy everything. The other team had the same idea and took our base down to 20%, but I guess we were faster because we won.

It's a poor man's version of Siege: base rush for the win!

Hell, the name itself suggests it should be asymmetrical.

My first couple of rounds of Incursion went exactly how you just described - both were on HPG and as the Charlie lance deploys on opposite sides, both teams just followed their assaults down their respective right sides of the map, never really coming into contact. First team to destroy the other base won.

[SQW]

One attack, one defend. Defender has turrets, radar and ecm tower. Attacker has Dropship tower. Battery takes longer to pickup 3sec is too short) but lasts 30sec longer.

It's really something that can be patched in like a day or so but because of e-sport, symmetry is gospel.

[ShadowFire]

PGI should have just built one base in the middle and let one side attack and the other defend. Base should have both defense turrets (with mix of all weapons, AC guns, Med and ErLarge lasers, LRMissiles and PPCs) and towers should be powered by generators, all destroy-able. Attackers should have choice of 360 degrees of attack vector and if PGI ever gets tracks into the game, maybe add C4I Command, Jamming and Radar tracked vehicles into the mix, maybe with a couple of heavy point defense tanks for close defense. Mechs running around hauling "power cubes" reeks like a foolish kid's arcade game...

[CFC Conky]

ShadowFire, on 19 April 2017 - 04:27 PM, said:

PGI should have just built one base in the middle and let one side attack and the other defend. Base should have both defense turrets (with mix of all weapons, AC guns, Med and ErLarge lasers, LRMissiles and PPCs) and towers should be powered by generators, all destroy-able. Attackers should have choice of 360 degrees of attack vector and if PGI ever gets tracks into the game, maybe add C4I Command, Jamming and Radar tracked vehicles into the mix, maybe with a couple of heavy point defense tanks for close defense. Mechs running around hauling "power cubes" reeks like a foolish kid's arcade game...

Hello all,

My first post here. I'm sure this scenario would work out with 12 mechs per side since the defender has the advantage. I've read here and there that an attacker needs a 3:1 numerical advantage when going after a defended position, so the present 12v12 structure would not be workable in the long run, at least imo.

Good hunting,
CFC Conky

[RAM]

No - that would/should be a different game mode.


RAM
ELH

[BumbleBee]

Take a look at the Mission Play mode in MechWarrior 4. The defender had a base and turrets, the other could attack from almost anywhere.

Often a few Assault Mechs would stay near the objective buildings to discourage any rushes or Mechs breaking through the lines, while the rest would set up a defensive position near the most common attack point, but ready to reposition as soon as needed, with a scout or two watching for the attacking force. Letting the fight happen too close to the objectives is suicide, so you have to be mobile.

You would see feints and decoys, the occasional rush, sniping objectives (rare good vantage points, and easily flushed out) and standoffs. Because there were few if any bottlenecks, tactics would change often. There was much less repetition.

While the defender had the turrets, having to spread to cover multiple attack vectors on fixed points actually gave the attacker a slight advantage in most cases, but it was pretty damn even

Edited by BumbleBee, 19 April 2017 - 08:08 PM.

[Vellron2005]

I originally voiced a desire to have incursion mode be asymmetric, like a QP version of siedge..

but alas.. PGI..

[Khobai]

they should just add a new gamemode called dropship defense

just have a giant union dropship in the middle of the map that one team has to defend until it refuels. the dropship itself would be attackable but it would also have four destructible turrets attached to it (one in each 90 degree quarter) that would have some pretty scary defensive weapons.

and then have two refueling depots some distance away from the dropship, destroying the fuel pumps would slow the rate the dropship refuels at. By requiring the defenders to defend multiple locations it will help take away the traditional defender advantage. And the gamemode should be setup so its pretty hard for the defenders to win if both fuel pumps get taken out.

easy gamemode to add, doesnt require a lot of new assets... just a destroyable union dropship, some destroyable turrets for it, and a destroyable fuel pump for the fuel depots.



as for incursion, it can be fixed, it just requires making the towers actually worth activating and powerful enough that they help your team win the skirmish. right now theyre all basically useless except the radar tower in the first 2 minutes of the game.

Edited by Khobai, 20 April 2017 - 01:23 AM.