djlaptop Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 I understand the need to prevent airstrikes over your own team's beacon. After all, an airstrike is primarily a defensive maneuver (of course it can be used offensively in creative ways, but most often it's used against a large group of progressing units). When the mammy rush decides to roll in and they simultaneously place a beacon in your base, it would be nice to be able to airstrike the incoming vehicles. It's incredibly frustrating that you can't airstrike the mass of tanks guarding a beacon. What would you guys think about allowing airstrikes over enemy beacons? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaiser739 Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 As we discussed ingame yesterday, I think "defensive" airstrikes should be allowed, i.e. you should be able to place an airstrike near an enemy beacon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Profane Pagan Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 On the one hand, airstrikes create a big deal of haze, also greatly damages the defenders while they are struggling to defuse the beacon. So I can understand those whom dislike this air support. On the other hand, it gives a tactical value, and I can understand the caller's point of view. I think the sollution could be this: create a high risk scenario! If you call an airstrike on your beacon, you may harm your nuke or ion beacon device. What do you think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mystic~ Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 On the one hand, airstrikes create a big deal of haze, also greatly damages the defenders while they are struggling to defuse the beacon. So I can understand those whom dislike this air support. On the other hand, it gives a tactical value, and I can understand the caller's point of view. I think the sollution could be this: create a high risk scenario! If you call an airstrike on your beacon, you may harm your nuke or ion beacon device. What do you think? None of this makes any sense. They're calling for the ability to airstrike an enemy teams beacon placed on your teams buildings. You can't Airstrike your own teams beacon because it was decided that it is over-powered and is already disallowed in the game-play mechanics by a prior patch. Whilst you can mistakenly kill yourself from your own airstrike, you do not cause friendly-fire to your own team mates which means it could provide the ideal cover to a team attempting to diffuse a beacon whilst destroying some of the enemy teams tanks. I agree with them, I think it should be allowed (if it isn't already - I haven't personally tried) - think GDI tanks rolling in to the end of the Airstrip on Islands or Nod tanks rolling in to the side of the GDI barracks on Canyon. There are times like these you need heavy weapons to make an impact against an organised attack. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Profane Pagan Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 Sure, but let it be a real airstrike then. Activate friendly-fire. However we are talking about an already decided feature. So what is the point after the devs considered this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djlaptop Posted February 2, 2016 Author Share Posted February 2, 2016 Sure, but let it be a real airstrike then. Activate friendly-fire. However we are talking about an already decided feature. So what is the point after the devs considered this? I still think Friendly Fire should be a server configurable feature, but that's a different topic. The point of talking about it is to provide the devs with additional community input. They're quite receptive to feedback and might change a feature if it makes sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terekhov Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 +1, seems reasonable. Likely scenarios: a) The offense is overwhemling and it's targeting tanks etc (likely pre-bought airstrike) b) The offense is normal, so the airstrike has to be bought, then carried to beacon area and used. There might be some stalemate games where this makes things harder to resolve, but we could at least try and see. Esp. when the offensive team has tanks and defense doesn't, this makes the offense work harder than just roaming in and sitting on the beacon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 I don't think this would be a good thing to implement, at the very least until we implement future features which would kinda balance this out (i.e: respawn/refill timers). We don't want more stalemates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terekhov Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 What events would lead to this causing stalemates? Are they likely to happen often? (and why?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 Buffing defense -> Harder to kill enemy base -> Stalemates. One way to make this less of a defense buff would be to make you able to airstrike friendly beacons again, but that was proven to be a horrible idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terekhov Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Buffing defense -> Harder to kill enemy base -> Stalemates.One way to make this less of a defense buff would be to make you able to airstrike friendly beacons again, but that was proven to be a horrible idea. Generalize anything enough and it sounds like the only way. Let's actually look at the possible scenarios and reason our way through them: a) The offense is overwhelming *** Someone likely pre-bought an airstrike in preparation. The defense will get a chance, but has to find the beacon through the bombardment. They also have to contend with the beacon timer (20s) and any smart offense who were already safe, or drove outside when they saw the bombardment start. *** So, defense has a chance, but offense also has a chance. Stalemate chances are not substantially increased. b) The offense is balanced compared to defense. *** It's unlikely anyone pre-bought an airstrike, but possible. If they pre-bought, it's very likely the defense will win the engagement and disarm the beacon. If not, the defense probably doesn't have enough time to use the airstrike before the beacon goes off. *** Stalemate chances could be increased, but likely no more than they normally would between teams which are both prepared. c) The offense is weak compared to defense. *** It's almost certain no one bought a beacon. The defense probably doesn't even need the airstrike's help in this case, so the airstrike doesn't significantly affect the chances of a stalemate. --- So, there's a chance of it affecting even games if you have a smart/prepared/patient player who pre-buys an airstrike, but otherwise this change doesn't substantially increase stalemate chances. Having gone through the possibilities, I really don't see a reason why enabling airstrikes on enemy beacons would be more of a negative than a positive. Do you think any of those scenarios are inaccurate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RypeL Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 But it would mean you cant camp your vehicle on top of a beacon that easily anymore. If the defenders place an airstrike you have to move out of the way and you cant even drive in to crush the defenders disarming. If you have like a medtank that cant really kill inf fast at close range this should make a huge difference and should result in much less successful beacons cause you cant defend them anymore with a single or like two vehicles, no ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terekhov Posted February 6, 2016 Share Posted February 6, 2016 Well, it would mean that for the last 10-20 seconds (depending on how fast they reacted => found beacon => called airstrike) your tank would have to move closer to the outside of the airstrike. Even then, you can headshot with the med cannon easily if they stand still (or be a flame tank and kill them from the outside of the airstrike.) If your aim is bad, you can always do a hero rush and run over 2-3 techies and/or sit on top during the most critical part of the beacon timer. Usually good players already follow the outside -> rush-during-critical-moment pattern because you take less damage that way. If the hotties/techies don't stand still, keep away from your tank, and still manage to get it, that's impressive. Repping a beacon in the middle of an airstrike *while* keeping moving so tanks don't kill you is pretty hard. I could be wrong on this, but in 95% of scenarios it seems like a handy, reasonable option for the defense to have, and thus an overall improvement to the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Idiotas Posted February 6, 2016 Share Posted February 6, 2016 I'm with terekhov. It might seen as a negative thing to do, but it will be really handy. I've played games were my base was a total chaos. Enemy tanks and beacons everywhere. In the end, it takes a few minutes and the base is destroyed. Can't call airstrike because of the beacons. A lot of people ragequit after a game like that and kind of makes the server empty. Another scenerio (on islands) were the GDI Baracks is the last building and Nod spams tanks and nukes. GDI engineers/hotwires gets killed over and over again by tanks and can't disarm the nukes. They have no chance to win or even defend theirselves (unless they could buy an airstrike). There are a lot more scenerios where it could be handy. Could use the airstrikes again on enemy beacons (and even friendly ones) but when the beacon is at the specific time (let say 20 seconds) then it's "too dangerous" to call airstrikes on them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.