39 replies to this topic

[PocketYoda]

Add turrets with dual mrm 40s on them.

[Variant1]

N0ni, on 14 February 2018 - 09:03 PM, said:

"My team lost because of base rushers" *thread*

"My team is scared to scratch paint so they hide behind turrets" *thread*

"My team won't play the objective and instead wins by skirmish" *thread*

"This mode sucks because they removed turrets partly due to multiple complaint threads" *thread*

"I lost to a base cap again, we need turrets back" *thread*

"I lost to a base cap WITH turrets, lights are OP" *thread*

"This mode isn't done the way i want it to work therefore we need to fix it" *thread*

Drinks are on me bois, put it on my tab.

This isnt one of those thread i assure you. Im talking about extra content being removed, turrets made the bases feel like bases they gave cbill and exp and form my experience where fun to destroy or get destroyed by. Do you want extra content to your game modes or not? did turrets not change up how assault was played?

Samial, on 15 February 2018 - 04:19 AM, said:

Add turrets with dual mrm 40s on them.

different turrets would be a nice addition, maybe caliopes when they can add them.

[Magnus Santini]

Turrets are unbalancing as to weight class. If they had proportional firepower based on the weight of the target, we would see less assault pilots asking for more of this. It doesn't have to be twin-20s, it can be 4 never miss CT medium lasers on an assault, and one small laser on a light. Lead the way.

[Variant1]

Magnus Santini, on 15 February 2018 - 06:49 AM, said:

Turrets are unbalancing as to weight class. If they had proportional firepower based on the weight of the target, we would see less assault pilots asking for more of this. It doesn't have to be twin-20s, it can be 4 never miss CT medium lasers on an assault, and one small laser on a light. Lead the way.

i agree with loadout options however i dont think 3 med lasers are a problem for a light. Lights could still take them down with minimal dmg if they attacked right and had minimum exposure

[Mystere]

Variant1, on 14 February 2018 - 07:17 PM, said:

believe it or not people lost to cap when there were turrets too

Ah, but the tears were more delicious when there were none. <maniacal >

Variant1, on 14 February 2018 - 07:17 PM, said:

Even without turrets people defended the base when it was being capped but that was still a valid point since capping doesnt give as much earning as destroying mechs.

The obvious solution was to increase rewards for winning on a cap. But instead, those same rewards were significantly reduced because -- again -- people cried to Momma PGI after losing to a cap.

Variant1, on 14 February 2018 - 07:17 PM, said:

The campfests happened rarely and only sometimes when the winning team didnt want to risk attacking the enemy base during close matches. Old caustic and river were much more intersting with them back then, today should be a problem due to map size increase. Im pretty sure the turrets couldnt light up targets on the map.

It certainly was not as rare if I was around.

This is how I set up those so-called "campfests" when the rest of the team was willing:

• kill 1-2 enemies
  
• retreat to base
  
• taunt the enemy into "fighting or losing"
  
• have a blast if the hopefully disadvantaged^(*) enemy obliged

Variant1, on 14 February 2018 - 07:17 PM, said:

Turrets are more content, mechwarrior benefits with pve content like turrets tanks infantry and aircraft it wouldnt be as great of an experience playing without them. MWO seriosuly needs more pve content to mix things up a bit, and the turrets in assault made the bases feel like bases

More content will always be appreciated. However, within the context of this topic, the turrets were added for a different reason and some people want it back for those same reasons.

Note that I am not opposed to a better Assault game mode. Heck, I actually would rather it be made into an asymmetrical mode with the classical 2:1 or 3:1 force ratios.


(*) The plan failed when the remaining enemies were simply much better.

Edited by Mystere, 15 February 2018 - 07:53 AM.

[blood4blood]

Pretty sure the PvE assets are being added in MW5, not so much in MWO. Just sayin'

As for turrets, hypothetically...ER large + LRM/TAG turrets placed up on high positions, SRM/small pulse/MG turrets right next to base, MRM/med laser turrets or AC 5/10 turrets in random locations would definitely change game dynamics. So would adding MFB's and letting hurt mechs run back for repair & rearm. So would adding NPC vehicles that actually fight. Lots of things *could* be done to make MWO more of a PvPvE game rather than a straight PvP game. Those would all be more content. More does not always equal better, though, and given the track record so far, I'd much rather see PGI put effort into the social aspects of the game.

[NRP]

I'm all for PGI changing Assault into an assymetric affair with attackers and defenders. Not sure if the current maps would need to be redesigned to make it fair though.

Right now, the only thing you assault is the other team.

[Variant1]

Mystere, on 15 February 2018 - 07:47 AM, said:

Ah, but the tears were more delicious when there were none.

thats concerning.....

Mystere, on 15 February 2018 - 07:47 AM, said:

The obvious solution was to increase rewards for winning on a cap. But instead, those same rewards were significantly reduced because -- again -- people cried to Momma PGI after losing to a cap.

well thats unfortunant that cap reward was not increased.

blood4blood, on 15 February 2018 - 08:15 AM, said:

Pretty sure the PvE assets are being added in MW5, not so much in MWO. Just sayin'

As for turrets, hypothetically...ER large + LRM/TAG turrets placed up on high positions, SRM/small pulse/MG turrets right next to base, MRM/med laser turrets or AC 5/10 turrets in random locations would definitely change game dynamics. So would adding MFB's and letting hurt mechs run back for repair & rearm. So would adding NPC vehicles that actually fight. Lots of things *could* be done to make MWO more of a PvPvE game rather than a straight PvP game. Those would all be more content. More does not always equal better, though, and given the track record so far, I'd much rather see PGI put effort into the social aspects of the game.

they could port over npcs from mw5 to mwo. Also what kind of social aspects need improvement?

[N0ni]

Variant1, on 15 February 2018 - 06:17 AM, said:

Im talking about extra content being removed, turrets made the bases feel like bases they gave cbill and exp and form my experience where fun to destroy or get destroyed by. Do you want extra content to your game modes or not?

First off, turrets aren't content. They're reused assets that were just placed around the bases. Second, they didn't make the bases feel like bases imo, just a time waster if you wanted to cap and not get pelted (not that i would ever cap anyway unless it's the sure fire path to victory after a skirmish).

Variant1, on 15 February 2018 - 06:17 AM, said:

did turrets not change up how assault was played?

And lastly, yes they did change how assault was played. Solo pugs were so damn afraid of getting spotted by turrets or pelted by them that map usage was cut short, forcing a brawl or timidity hiding behind turrets for the most part. In short, it was not fun at all. You think pugs are scared now, watch them treat the turrets we had before like another mech. I'd rather not go back to those days.

[Gas Guzzler]

Variant1, on 14 February 2018 - 02:56 PM, said:

bring them back right NOW

and im not talking about those weak rear torso incursion turrets. Im talking about og assault turrets the ones that can take a beating and help a team pull through. AND bring back those lrm turrets too that can go through ecm. This is extra content taken out, this is a pve element that makes the game more fun.

i should have started chekin forums the day they were anouncing their removal i would be smakin down fools with facts.

make assault great again, bring back those turrets (and lrm turrets)

**** no. Those turrets were dumb.

[Throe]

Magnus Santini, on 15 February 2018 - 06:49 AM, said:

Turrets are unbalancing as to weight class. If they had proportional firepower based on the weight of the target, we would see less assault pilots asking for more of this. It doesn't have to be twin-20s, it can be 4 never miss CT medium lasers on an assault, and one small laser on a light. Lead the way.

This is a bit on the absurd side of balance goals. While I can appreciate your concern, Light actually have always had an advantage against turrets, for at least two reasons: 1) turrets often aim for the legs on Light 'Mechs, and the legs are one of the easiest parts to shield against a target with weapons already so low to the ground, and 2) Lights are able to get the turret to "misfire" more easily, by popping into and out of view more quickly than any Heavy or Assault could ever hope to.

Further, #2 applies for the turret's open/close animation as well, during which it cannot fire. During the turret's "open" animation, they're vulnerable to full damage, but they can't return fire on you yet. It's already far more difficult for slower 'Mechs to take advantage of this without taking any damage, while again, Lights can do it easily.

[LordNothing]

assault with turrets is called incursion.

[Brain Cancer]

Imagine if you had to keep Assault bases powered, like Incursion.

Even fuel cell fights would add some spice, along with turrets. Heck, you could even pick which turret to juice up. Powered down turrets simply go into inactive turtle mode and cannot fire.

[Khobai]

Quote

assault with turrets is called incursion.

except incursion isnt an asymmetrical gamemode

which was the whole suggestion... to give only one team a base not both teams.

Quote

Imagine if you had to keep Assault bases powered, like Incursion.

the turrets should just be attached to generators like in mech commander

destroying the generator should power down the attached turrets.

thats how turrets should work in siege gamemode too, when you take out the generators the turrets attached to those generators should power down.

Edited by Khobai, 15 February 2018 - 01:16 PM.

[N0ni]

Brain Cancer, on 15 February 2018 - 01:02 PM, said:

Imagine if you had to keep Assault bases powered, like Incursion.

What would be the reason to keep them powered up? Assault bases don't do anything unlike Incursion. If it's to power up turrets, i can guarantee hardly anyone will do it and it'll still be skirmish.

[Brain Cancer]

There can be, however. Perhaps a powered-up base will, if it doesn't get captured, actually wear down the opposing team's capture bar if IT isn't powered at the time, and defends itself with it's turret grid to boot. Direct capture would be more effective, but it means a team that can protect their base and keep it powered up while denying the opponent will shift things towards an objective win faster, though odds are it'd be a combined effort of keeping your base powered and denying power/direct capturing theirs.

[Magnus Santini]

Variant1, on 15 February 2018 - 06:53 AM, said:

i agree with loadout options however i dont think 3 med lasers are a problem for a light. Lights could still take them down with minimal dmg if they attacked right and had minimum exposure

Not if you are boating small pulses. In which case I go back and wait for the team to take them out.

Throe, on 15 February 2018 - 12:59 PM, said:

This is a bit on the absurd side of balance goals. While I can appreciate your concern, Light actually have always had an advantage against turrets, for at least two reasons: 1) turrets often aim for the legs on Light 'Mechs, and the legs are one of the easiest parts to shield against a target with weapons already so low to the ground, and 2) Lights are able to get the turret to "misfire" more easily, by popping into and out of view more quickly than any Heavy or Assault could ever hope to.

Further, #2 applies for the turret's open/close animation as well, during which it cannot fire. During the turret's "open" animation, they're vulnerable to full damage, but they can't return fire on you yet. It's already far more difficult for slower 'Mechs to take advantage of this without taking any damage, while again, Lights can do it easily.

You can win the battle with them but you could be around 90% afterwards. Worse if you do not know their exact location in advance to plan your attack. Bigger mechs look over at the turrets and eradicate them, not caring if they are a little yellow.

[Mystere]

Throe, on 15 February 2018 - 12:59 PM, said:

This is a bit on the absurd side of balance goals. While I can appreciate your concern, Light actually have always had an advantage against turrets, for at least two reasons: 1) turrets often aim for the legs on Light 'Mechs, and the legs are one of the easiest parts to shield against a target with weapons already so low to the ground, and 2) Lights are able to get the turret to "misfire" more easily, by popping into and out of view more quickly than any Heavy or Assault could ever hope to.

Further, #2 applies for the turret's open/close animation as well, during which it cannot fire. During the turret's "open" animation, they're vulnerable to full damage, but they can't return fire on you yet. It's already far more difficult for slower 'Mechs to take advantage of this without taking any damage, while again, Lights can do it easily.

I think you're conflating PGI's flawed turret implementation with a well-designed one.

[Grus]

http://www.sarna.net...Calliope_Turret

^^this? Maybe like 2 or 3 not the entire base.

[GrimRiver]

I miss the turrets, except LRM turrets. Those things were frigging annoying.

I say buff incur base turrets health a bit and give them an SRM6 and MPL versions.

Or give us a superheavy version of incur turrets powered by a cell like some people suggested.