No Auto-Turrets - A paradox harming PvP?

[Garem]

I know anytime someone mentions that PvE should play a role in the game, everyone gets up in arms. I understand that; but it DID play a role in PS1. Turrets are PvE, they're part of the environment.

However, I want to make the case that this PvE aspect (turrets) actually promoted PvP. Here's how.

Turrets made people hesitant to sneak around in a base and try to capture it alone. It was dangerous, even when no players were scouting around their ghost town bases. Impossible? No, even a solo player could take a base if nobody was paying attention, but it made them think twice.

Now, in the lattice system, you always had a good idea where your opponent would attack. I like the grid system better, but here's the problem.

Without SOMETHING to slow down an enemy, the opportunity to attack anywhere without worrying about anything but other players means players must now fill in the role that auto-turrets once held.

Sentry duty.

Who wants to float around empty bases just to keep watch? Nobody. That's very, very boring.

With auto-turrets, attackers are slowed just enough to give defenders some time to respond without having to resort to sentry duty or excessive amounts of "scouting", which also isn't as entertaining as, you know, fighting a war. It also raises the first on-map "flash points" to alert players that fighting had occurred there, that enemies may be present to engage.

Maybe base shields will play that roll- then again, that's just another form of PvE. My point is just that SOME sort of speedbump is necessary to prevent players from following the path of least resistance to gain territory instead of duking it out the bloody old way. It doesn't have to be auto-turrets but surely there must be something. Personally, I like auto-turrets because it takes more tactics to get past them than to just blast away at some shield-bubble with big guns. But that's just my preference.

[DayOne]

Big turrets should be manned, no doubt about that. What would would be REALLY good to see is some form of security system. Motion sensing lasers that activate turrets on the ceiling or activate alarms. This wouldn't be a problem for a big invading force, the enemy already know you're here, and taking out the generator would disable the sensors.

However, this would be a huge problem for one person trying to hack a base and instead of completely blocking the ability to sneak in and solo hack it would present a challenge to that person without the need for other players.

[Wakken]

I love the auto turrets from PS1. Would actually make me consider playing as a engineer instead of a infil.

[Sirisian]

I know anytime someone mentions that PvE should play a role in the game, everyone gets up in arms.
I believe your comments are misdirected. Most people against PvE don't want elements in the game that players could be doing. Having a wall turret that shoots people, but could also be gunned by a player is fine since a player isn't always going to be there.

What most people don't want PvE to be (from reading all the threads on this forum) is humanoid bots that play the same role as regular players.

You have this interesting line in the sand though between stationary turrets like spitfires and mobile turrets that could potentially replace the role of a soldier. This line is different for people on this forum. Some people would say they only want to be killed by other players. Others are fine getting killed by a player deployed defense like a turret since they were still killed by a player. Then you have people that would be fine being killed by a base defense system which is not controlled by anyone and is literally just the player fighting an AI. Then further away from the line you have people that are open to being killed by a robotic defense like a moving robot in a base that patrols. Along the same lines you have a group of people that like creatures outside of base defenses acting as neutral threats. Then further you have people that don't mind humanoid bots killing them.

In summary people tend to fall into the following categories:

Only killed by other players (including suicide by running into a tree)
Okay with being killed by deployables (including turrets) placed by other players
Okay with being killed by static AI base wall turrets
Open to the idea of being killed by mobile base defense systems. (Robots patrolling)
Open to the idea of being killed by the environment in the form of hostile creatures
Open to the idea of being killed by AI humanoid bots that function the same as players


These groups are interesting since the cut-off point for many people is when they think it'll detract from the core PVP experience of the game which varies among people because of their perceived implementation. How one person reads an idea and thinks what it would be implemented as is totally different than another person. This leads to people not explaining their choices and simply saying "NO!" because in their mind there's only one implementation that exists. Presumably from a game they've played before and didn't like.

[Mastachief]

Not sure how they are going to play out with planetside2 turrets, if they are effective then they should require manning.

A armoured turret for me should be hardcore, in a base defence the turrets should be formidable. In planetside the turrets in standard form are weak and useless (you do more damage with your gauss) how ever once upgraded to AV or AA they are great and you seldom find them unmanned. Would be nice if they doubled their resistance mind you.

I still think the OP has some very valid points.

I would be strongly against auto systems that prevent the possibility of getting into an enemy base and preping it covertly before we hit it up.

[fod]

yeah i also dont understand why they took away the autoturrets from PS2 (if they have)
as a full time CE im gonna miss laying defences and motion sensors indoors
apparently everything has to be manned now? :(
i want cerberus turrets and spitfires back.!

edit: i was against PvE (in the form of NPC's people monster animals whatever) but im not against autoturrets

[DayOne]

yeah i also dont understand why they took away the autoturrets from PS2 (if they have)
as a full time CE im gonna miss laying defences and motion sensors indoors
apparently everything has to be manned now? :(

edit: i was against PvE (in the form of NPC's people monster animals whatever) but im not against autoturrets

The big base wall turrets I think will have to be manned but you still get the little deployable auto turrets.

[fod]

The big base wall turrets I think will have to be manned but you still get the little deployable auto turrets.

is this true? oh wow thats all i wanted
i just wanted my spitfires back :)

[Ragefighter]

Would be cool to have a small basic infantry turret that sensed hostile forces in your base and could deal low amounts of dps but if you do not deal with them they can eventually kill you. maybe give the ability to hack the turret system or disable it for a short time.

you know something to keep some guy who plays when most of the server is asleep from effortlessly taking every base in the Continent lol.

than, again I wont be able to comprehend the scale of this game until I try it for myself so maybe that wont be an issue.

[ThGlump]

With auto-turrets, attackers are slowed just enough to give defenders some time to respond without having to resort to sentry duty or excessive amounts of "scouting", which also isn't as entertaining as, you know, fighting a war. It also raises the first on-map "flash points" to alert players that fighting had occurred there, that enemies may be present to engage.

Turrets never really slowed anybody, and it was only bad luck if someone catch hotspots from destroying them (not like there was reason for it other than draining).
Time to response is in the system, as bases behind lines will take a lot longer to conquer. And fast response action is better than guard duty. And bases on empire borders? You always should take them as something that being atacked right now. And if they arent attacking there, thats a hole in their defense too and you should attack from that side.

So in summary, bases on the border will be constantly in battle so no need for guard duty, bases behind front lines will take long time to take so no need for guard duty too.
Problem solved. The less AI the better.

Have sensors that warn you when base is being attacked, not some auto turrets.

[Graywolves]

They have decent reasoning for removing any form of automated defenses.


But we had ghost hacks in PS1 as was. Without just something that's annoying when no players are around makes it too easy to walk in a base, disable everything, and put on a hack.

I think that there would need to be a notification if any of the shields went down on a base to make the meta-game more manageable. Forcing empire's to send a player to scout every location where there's no fighting is a chore that we don't need (if a player wanted to, he/she still could and figure out if something's happening even sooner, but that's not something that should be required.)

Like glump said.
Have sensors that warn you when base is being attacked, not some auto turrets.

[BigBossMonkey]

I'd rather see passive defensive mechanics, some ideas:

Motion sensors in key portions of the base (Areas leading up to generators, control rooms, spawn rooms.) But these motion sensors should be able to be bypassed passively by cloakers, or through an implant for noncloakers.

If these motion sensors go off, people with command skills could be notified on their maps that something is afoot.

If the commanders are paying attention to the battlefields, they will notify fast responders to go investigate. Also like PS1, things like spawn tubes being down, etc should all be readily visible through the map. Commanders should get added details for determining what is going on at a base.

Basically, automation should be kept to the lowest possible level if need be.

Bases shouldn't actively defend themselves.

The ONLY thing I can see having automation for would be IF they decide to add in newer versions of Spitfires, and only if they could be placed indoors. (Placing Spitfires on the ceiling would be awesomesauce.)

[Rbstr]

Limited forms of automated defence make sense.

While you want the infiltrators and smaller spec-ops group to be able to get in and you want the large assault to steam-roll the automated defences, you don't want a couple of jerks in a single tank to undo a base cap easily

[DayOne]

They have decent reasoning for removing any form of automated defenses.


But we had ghost hacks in PS1 as was. Without just something that's annoying when no players are around makes it too easy to walk in a base, disable everything, and put on a hack.

I think that there would need to be a notification if any of the shields went down on a base to make the meta-game more manageable. Forcing empire's to send a player to scout every location where there's no fighting is a chore that we don't need (if a player wanted to, he/she still could and figure out if something's happening even sooner, but that's not something that should be required.)

Like glump said.

If you implement a security system like I mentioned above then it would give this BUT allow for an undetected hack if the player is good enough or put enough time into being an infiltrator.

EDIT: I do realise this would lead to a sort stealth minigame but why not? A change of pace never hurt anyone and it's not like you have to do it. Perhaps even give the motion sensors put down by engineers to integrate with the base's auto defence systems making a little player input a way to know that the base is very well defended.

[Garem]

Great ideas so far, although all of them are some form of environment that causes the player a delay. This is inescapable, as you will either have those environment-speedbumps or you will have unhindered potential for hacking and a slow response time.

For behind-the-lines hacks, this is less of a problem. When the major battle is going on in the east, where we SHOULD want everyone to be, any clever boy who wanted to avoid the fight and score a cheap border hex could do so.

Look at that bolded phrase again. A reward for avoiding a fight seems rather peculiar, doesn't it? Should we promote PvP and condemn that kind of behavior?

Maybe not! There is certainly a reasonable argument to be made that the best strategy is one where you win a fight without firing a shot. So this whole ordeal boils down to a larger question: reward strategy or reward tactics?

If you choose strategy, have no environmental barriers, only the response of players.
If you choose the tactics, add environmental barriers to give players reasonable response time*.

*This is all assuming that border bases can be hacked and secured before enemies are even able to traverse the terrain and reclaim the base. We don't have the slightest idea how long a border-base will take, or an interior-base for that matter.

[Mastachief]

There should be no more restriction on troop movements than that currently in planetside.

Lot of the current "VETS" are still after 10 years simple people that only believe in going A-B-C-D and so on so there will always be a zerg and a front on front fight. Those of us that avoid the Main fight should be able to do you without unreasonable restrictions.

[Ragefighter]

Turrets never really slowed anybody, and it was only bad luck if someone catch hotspots from destroying them (not like there was reason for it other than draining).
Time to response is in the system, as bases behind lines will take a lot longer to conquer. And fast response action is better than guard duty. And bases on empire borders? You always should take them as something that being atacked right now. And if they arent attacking there, thats a hole in their defense too and you should attack from that side.

So in summary, bases on the border will be constantly in battle so no need for guard duty, bases behind front lines will take long time to take so no need for guard duty too.
Problem solved. The less AI the better.

Have sensors that warn you when base is being attacked, not some auto turrets.

forgot they said the bases behind the front line are harder to capture. and from what it looks like now, the map should alert people quickly enough to go and man a turret/defend the base.

I think engineers should be able to customize the base a little bit, not really sure how but that would be cool. Like make it limited a little so a bunch of engineers can't throw down like 100 manned base turrets but reasonable in that if you see like a fleet of air ships inc you can adjust to more of an AA defense. (player operated not auto). or were the turrets they posted pictures of from engineers?

/wants them to do an "engineer week"!:D

[ThGlump]

For behind-the-lines hacks, this is less of a problem. When the major battle is going on in the east, where we SHOULD want everyone to be, any clever boy who wanted to avoid the fight and score a cheap border hex could do so.

I wouldnt call it a avoiding a battle. There are outfits that specialize on those operations (both capturing distant base, and resecuring them). Its valid and its not avoiding battle. They will have their own battle even if its on smaller scale.

Hack a base before anyone even could get there should be impossible. 50:50 bases should take enough time so you can fly over whole continent atleast 2 times (if not they get feedback about it in beta as this is part of main gameplay).
Surrounded bases where timer will be significantly shorter, you need to defend (as its easy target and surely will be attacked immediately), or use it as base for conquering adjacent bases to increase defense timer.

There is really not much room to avoiding battle and gaining benefits from it, everything seem to be ingame already and all i could need is number tweaking if its broken. No need to create another hurdles in capturing bases other than player defenders.

[Erendil]

I wouldnt call it a avoiding a battle. There are outfits that specialize on those operations (both capturing distant base, and resecuring them). Its valid and its not avoiding battle. They will have their own battle even if its on smaller scale.

Hack a base before anyone even could get there should be impossible. 50:50 bases should take enough time so you can fly over whole continent atleast 2 times (if not they get feedback about it in beta as this is part of main gameplay).
Surrounded bases where timer will be significantly shorter, you need to defend (as its easy target and surely will be attacked immediately), or use it as base for conquering adjacent bases to increase defense timer.

There is really not much room to avoiding battle and gaining benefits from it, everything seem to be ingame already and all i could need is number tweaking if its broken. No need to create another hurdles in capturing bases other than player defenders.

Oftentimes the decision to perform ops away from the zerg was made as much to influence the main fight as it was to start something on your own. Hitting the enemy\'s flanks, backhacks to draw enemy troops away from the main fight, denying the enemy access to resources (gen holds, mod dunking, viruses, etc), and opening up new fronts for your empire to gravitate towards once the current fight wraps up have always been fundamental gameplay strategies in PS1 that took place away from the main fight but were still done to influence it in some way, and I\'m sure similar ops will continue to be of importance in PS2.


I\'m curious as to how the uncapturable footholds will affect this tho. In addition, the Mission system might drastically change how back-base ops and responses work. In the past they\'ve mentioned being able to setup a mission waypoint for some distant location and letting someone who accepts that mission spawn at that location. If they implement something like this, then the whole backhack/response dynamic could completely change from the way it was in PS1.

This in turn will drastically affect how important PVE-style automated defenses would be. If you can get troops to a remote location via the mission system, than having all but minimalist defenses may not even be necessary if sufficient early warning systems are available and in place.

EDIT: Typos.

[Traak]

Have sensors that warn you when base is being attacked, not some auto turrets.

Translation: you never play Combat Engineer, so make it so they can't have Spitfires.

[ringring]

What in hell are auto turrets, I've only played the game 8 years.

[Mastachief]

fly a reaver near an enemy base ;)

[Shogun]

i loved my spitfires!
so sad i´m not going to secure bases with them anymore.

i guess beta will show if it´s a problem but i can imagine that lonely backhackers might now be encouraged to do their thing all over the map because there is no danger as long as their is no enemy.

it was a useful tactic to put up defences on strategic points prior to leaving the base. just to prevent the leftover cloaker from causing too much havoc on his own

[kubacheski]

What in hell are auto turrets, I've only played the game 8 years.

Way back when base turrets would shoot at you, not extremely accurate, and IIRC you had to have certain bases captured for it to work. I.E. a lone base wouldn't just go on auto-defend, a certain percentage of the continent or certain bases had to be "owned" for the turrets to shoot your enemies. I may be completely wrong tho.

So the though is that auto-fire turrets can "assist" in defense, or grant some risk to back-hacks in PS2?

Not all bad ideas, but with the transition from lattice system to map control, it's not exactly clear how a back-hack will affect the front lines. I mean if back hack in PS1 and you took down a strategic link in the lattic, the "front-line" hack becomes a no-go. Now with the description of map control, it affects how fast a hack can be done, but does a back-hack really affect a "front-line" hack? I mean if you do a back-hack, you've got one hex on the map. Yea you get the resources from it and a good location to spawn from. How's that relate to the frontlines? Takes troops from the main fight? probably. But the very fact that it's a back-hack means that it's going to take longer. Why have the AI base turrets do anything. The game already has an implementation to make it riskier - it makes you wait longer for the hack to go through. You wanna sit in a hot zone for 2 minutes or 4 minutes?

So following the logic train, a front hack is started. Defenders decide to back-hack a base to draw off attackers. They get in and start back-hack. As it's going to go faster (i.e. not surrounded by enemy controlled hexes) the front hack is going to finish first (assuming its successful) and the troops can then quickly (or leisurely - we don't know the timing penalty yet) get to the back-hack site to defend/retake.

So do auto-fire base turrets make any sense?

And the intent is that there's going to be enough interest (being such a kick ass game and F2P on top of that) that there will be plenty of population to man turrets.

And for the record, yes I absolutely love back-hacking. Jump in Mossie, taking towers, set up a boomer or 2 and wait. Every little thing to upset the opposition is cool by me. I'm just saying autofire base turrets aren't going to change things much.

Now Remote Control Base Turrets are a different story, imagine an extremely specialized Advanced Hacker/Engineer that can jack into a console at a base and control the outlying tower's turret. biofeedback from turret into the controls so the engi gets damaged/fragged when turret blows up.:doh:

[ringring]

So are we talking Base Turrets or Spitfires or both? Why invent new nomenclature?

Base Turrets: ..... hardly worth it unless upgraded. AA is a beast.
Apart from that the only use is if you're in your base and you hear the wall turrents shooting you know there's a reaver of ams and you have a chance of a kill! :D They are tripwires, but the game wouldn't be harmed particularly if they were removed or only activiate once manned.

Spitfires: Something similar needs to be in the game. Often you will CE up a base that you think may be a target and then leave. The object being to watch the map for hotspots.
Again, from the other direction we'll often decide to attack a base, scout it out but leave if there are too many spits - we don't want to create hotspots.

So .... base turrents. It will be fine if they are only active if manned or deployed by an engineer type.

...... CE spitfires, an essential part of the armoury.

[DviddLeff]

As the article says they have taken out the big base shields and auto turrets to encourage players to do the defending.

Now looking at the bases they are bloody huge; you want a man defending each wall and you will need a platoon to even see when the enemy crosses the walls let alone mount a quick defence.

I do believe that some degree of shields and/or auto turrets will be needed to slow the enemy advance enough for an effective defence to take place, but we'll have to see how it is in beta with map sizes and population caps.

[Traak]

I wonder if the bases will be placed in tactically idiotic locations like many were in PS1?

Base of a hill? Right in a huge depression?

Far more interesting than just having them all on top of slippery, steep hills surrounded by gorse.

[sylphaen]

An auto-turrets mechanic could allow some "radar-jamming" module for vehicles or undetectable vehicles.

Plus they give an incentive for vehicles to stay away from the infantry fight/push happening in the base.

I'm not against auto-turrets as we saw in PS1. They were annoying but they served a purpose. And most of the time, they were destroyed unless manned.

[UnknownDT]

You won't be able to stop us from taking a base anyways..... :P


lol

[sylphaen]

You won't be able to stop us from taking a base anyways..... :P

Agreed. Auto-turrets never stopped a base assault.

[SUBARU]

Agreed. Auto-turrets never stopped a base assault.

Just the other day on PS1, By the way im the best combat eng. in PS1.I set up my ce stuff on an amp base. Vs do a Gal drop 8 troops and 2 max's.I killed them all and they never came back to that base.That is not the first time i have done that.It takes brains to set up a good defense with ce.I will miss my spitfire turrets.
Why do we still have mines in game ? Aren't they like spitfire turrets ? Your being killed by something that is not a player

[Rbstr]

By the way im the best combat eng. in PS1.

I love this. It's so casual "By the way I shit gold"

[Garem]

So are we talking Base Turrets or Spitfires or both? Why invent new nomenclature?

Deliberate. Because it got you and others talking about PvE without freaking out into This (http://www.planetside-universe.com/forums/showthread.php?t=39055). #winning

I was making a point- PvE has a place and always has. Minimal, sure, but some sort of environmental delay (base shield bubbles, auto-turrets of any kind, even NPCs would do the trick- whatever accomplishes this) would be best, forcing players to play the game together and essentially prevent any sort of "solo" gameplay.

If the environment creates a minimum threshold so that players must work together, this is achieved. Aside from something ridiculous (invisible walls, anyone?) I don't know any other way to do this. I'm open minded to suggestions, of course, and not all ideas are created equal- base turrets or bubble shields are better options than NPCs for a hundred reasons.

Why do we still have mines in game ? Aren't they like spitfire turrets ? Your being killed by something that is not a player

Another hole in the logic that anything not done deliberately by a player shouldn't be in the game. Granted, this is a shade of grey issue. However, I agree- these things do have their place and merit discussion.

[Exano]

Why not just do what Planetside 1 did? Nerf turrets auto-fire, can't auto-fire at certain aircraft/vehicles...and when a player gets in there, range is increased, speed increases, etc.


Or have it so the turret must be manned unless a combat engineer upgrades it. Then its akin to PS1 style dumb turrets. Spitfires, turrets, those are all good as long as its player defenses :) PvE is really more like bots and such..turrets are more..PvP..the turrets are better when armed, they have stupid AI (They can't hit you where a player very easily could), and they are upgraded by players (In planetside 1, at least)

[Sirisian]

I was discussing this with someone in IRC yesterday about how I prefer having a threat in the game at bases even when soldiers aren't there. It's important to keep an open mind, because as I found out the person I talked to actually didn't like that. They preferred that bases were essentially defenseless without soldiers guarding it. So you could walk into an enemy base and hack it since this promotes PVP of forcing people to always be on guard in bases.

I mentioned that the AI defense is only important when no one is around. That means population is almost zero at a base or tower if you are being attacked by the AI turrets. (This sidetracked into creatures being the same neutral defense outside of bases when no one is around, but that's a separate idea). Anyway the point was if the battle picks up at a base you started attack (by destroying the turrets that are attacking you) then it slows down the attack long enough for enemies to spawn in. I know "back hacking" was a valid tactic in PS1 by essentially destroying all of the enemy's respawn tubes and generators to quickly take bases one after another, there was something defeating in how easy it was to do at times. Bases (maybe not so much towers) should take a certain level of push. Being able to hack them with one person by just walking through the front door? I don't think that should be a valid tactic with 2K people on the map. It seems like it would result in a lot of boring camping of bases.

Maybe that's another issue entirely though that wall turrets and other things like spitfires can't help to stop. (In PS1 if a spitfire killed someone it would tell you on the map if something was going down at a base). Someone brought up just having sensors for this purpose in PS2. That is sensors would be early warning system to tell enemies to get there and map the turrets.

PvE is really more like bots and such..turrets are more..PvP..the turrets are better when armed, they have stupid AI (They can't hit you where a player very easily could), and they are upgraded by players (In planetside 1, at least)
Interesting. You move turrets into PvP even with AI. There's a reason I said this on the first page:

In summary people tend to fall into the following categories:

Only killed by other players (including suicide by running into a tree)
Okay with being killed by deployables (including turrets) placed by other players
Okay with being killed by static AI base wall turrets
Open to the idea of being killed by mobile base defense systems. (Robots patrolling)
Open to the idea of being killed by the environment in the form of hostile creatures
Open to the idea of being killed by AI humanoid bots that function the same as players


I'm curious though for people that don't want an auto-fire turret does that also mean if you shoot them they don't shoot back?

[Traak]

Ce only punishes the unaware, unprepared, or those in a big rush.

It was also a nice counter to all the many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many cheaters.

The same scum that could sprint at full Surge speed while jackhammering you through the walls in towers or whatever were rendered flopping, twitching corpses by well-laid CE on the same tower later. :D

[Ragotag]

From the past written and video interviews, I surmise that the Dev's are struggling with this as well. I recall mention in one video interview with the Dev's that deployable auto-turrets are out in place of deployable manned turrets. Even so, the Engineer still has a critical role for securing captured facilities and equipping them with defensive systems; but it will be up to the players to utilize those defensive system in defense of the facility.

The Dev's have stated their desire to replace automated combat tasks with players as well as to eliminate non-interactive, boring or mundane tasks that would otherwise take players away from possible combat action. Any way you look at it, forcing players to garrison all facilities in place of automated defense systems just to prevent one from being captured by a single opponent is about as boring an activity as one could imagine; no player wants to logon for three hours just to sit in a bunker or man a turret in a place where no combat action is occurring.

It will be very interesting to see what kind of balanced solution the Dev's come up with on this one.

[Fenrys]

Bases (maybe not so much towers) should take a certain level of push. Being able to hack them with one person by just walking through the front door? I don't think that should be a valid tactic with 2K people on the map. It seems like it would result in a lot of boring camping of bases.

I think boredom is the defense against that actually. If you don't control territory around a base, the hack takes longer to go through.

So one player can put a hack on a base behind the front lines, but they might not want to stick around for 30 minutes guarding it.

[Sirisian]

So one player can put a hack on a base behind the front lines, but they might not want to stick around for 30 minutes guarding it.
Which means they could jump in a round robin hacking all the bases forcing the enemy to take them back.

Also you'd be surprised. I've seen people in PS1 who would destroy a generator draining the base hoping people won't notice then hacking it and filling it up. (Guilty of doing that with an outfit before). Could take over an hour.

Still forces someone or a group to run over and kill the person camping the hack and re-hack then go back to the real fight.

An automatic turret would ideally force someone attempting to do it to kill a base turret or two before they had the chance to get inside without getting gunned down. Spitfires were good at that since someone bailing from a plane would get lit up by them while falling and die as they hit the ground if they didn't use an EMP blast.

However, once a real base assault starts you have tanks shooting down the turrets and and soldiers destroying all the CE around the base before they push into the courtyard so automatic turrets aren't even thought about for a player's perspective.

So automatic turrets basically just kill/delay stupid people most of the time. I like when you cloaked and had a choice to kill a player but 2 spitfires were around the person so shooting the person would make them lock on and kill you. Added a lot to the stealth concept that I think we won't see in PS2. That is a player tactically using turrets to protect themselves or others, like a sniper or an engineer protecting a hill where soldiers are using snipers/AV.

[Raka Maru]

is this true? oh wow thats all i wanted
i just wanted my spitfires back :)

Being engie a great deal of my time, I want spitfires back too, but I don't think we'll have them. :(

Deployable manned turrets are confirmed.

[Fenrys]

Still forces someone or a group to run over and kill the person camping the hack and re-hack then go back to the real fight.

And in my opinion that is a perfectly valid tactic.

Ideally, if you were the ghost hacker you would end up pulling more than 1 person away from the front lines.

I got my jollies from doing exactly that very late at night in PS1. It doesn't matter if I capture any bases, I'm happy knowing that there are 5 fast responders (some of the better players) chasing little old me all over the continent(s) instead of doing something more useful for their empire.