Turret retraction into their tower

[Stardouser]

I thought of this in a recent thread, and someone said it had been mentioned previously as well.

What if the big fixed turrets at bases retracted into their tower when either destroyed, or when not used?

This has several effects that I consider advantageous to the game:
1.Engineers can repair them from inside the tower when they are down, in safety. I am more interested in them being safe from aircraft and tanks that are camping outside and shelling the rooftop than snipers, so, sorry to snipers that wouldn't be able to snipe repair crew, but this isn't really about you. However, repair crew will still be using jump pads to travel between towers, so all is not lost for you snipers.
2. Players on the rooftop won't be able to play peek-a-boo by jumping in and out of the turret. They also won't be able set up a sniping camp on the rooftop and instantly jump into the turret to go after aircraft, it will take a couple of seconds to go down to the next floor and get in and have the hydraulics lift it out onto the rooftop.
3. At the same time, this will prevent casual destruction of unused turrets by aircraft and tanks camping outside. And since it can't be casually destroyed by tanks or aircraft from the outside, it provides another good infantry objective, ie, sneaking into, or assaulting the tower and rocketing/C4ing the turrets, should an empire decide that it's necessary to proactively destroy them.

Thoughts?

[Kipper]

I totally see where you're coming from, but its a no from me.

Engineers should have to face some risk to get their reward for putting a turret back into action - no doubt they will earn XP for this action since it's a measurable support action, so they need to earn that.

Aircraft and tanks should be able to take out turrets, used or not - that's one of their primary roles, not just to fire at stuff that's firing back at them, but to strike first and destroy stuff that will be used against their team. Using air strikes to take out turrets in order to support an infantry advance is good combined-arms teamwork and tactics.

That said, I do like the idea of turrets taking a couple of seconds to power up to prevent the 'peek-a-boo' thing. If you're going to man a turret, commit to it. Don't expect to be able to have an assault rifle one second, and a turret the next.

[Knocky]

Last I heard was that turrets do not even exist until an Engineer builds it at it's hard point.

[Mechzz]

Yeah, this came up when the lack of viable AA was being discussed. It's relevant since someone with the same total lack of defensive thinking has once again placed base turrets in a position where they will die in the opening seconds of a base assault.

While the retracting turrets might look cool and what-not, a more practical alternative might be to simply place some turrets on the covered walkway behind the roofed walkover we saw in TB's vid. That way someone trying to repair them would at least have some cover.

I mean, even the old sailing ship navies were smart enough to put their cannons behind a gunport!

[Stardouser]

Well, engineers WILL be suffering risk. In fact, the reduction to their risk is actually not that much, it will only protect them from tanks and aircraft bombing the roof. Snipers won't really lose much and here is why:

There are no walls between the towers that the engineers can use for cover, so they will either have to run between the towers(risk) or use the jump pads(risk). Even if the turrets were on the roof, most snipers won't be able to shoot the engineers anyway since they will be crouched behind the turret. Now, I know that the base shown in the Alpha videos has cliffs around it which would allow snipers to snipe down onto the roof, but I have a feeling that this is just one base and that not all bases will located where there are cliffs around them. At most bases this will not be true, and snipers will not be able to see an engineer that's crouching on top of the roof.

[Kipper]

Everyone is running around and jumping and exposed to that same risk. Fixing something and continually earning points for it generally requires being still. If you can hide in a little hole and do that then its risk-free points.

Smart engineers will set up cover and personal shields etc before they set to work on a turret repair, to mitigate their risk, but to remove it completely.. nah.

[Stardouser]

Everyone is running around and jumping and exposed to that same risk. Fixing something and continually earning points for it generally requires being still. If you can hide in a little hole and do that then its risk-free points.

Smart engineers will set up cover and personal shields etc before they set to work on a turret repair, to mitigate their risk, but to remove it completely.. nah.

There is another aspect to this. If the turrets are exposed, they will constantly be destroyed and engineers will constantly be repairing them even if no one uses them. Having them retract when not used will actually probably decrease the amount of free points available to engineers.

And again, risk is not being removed completely. As I say, I assume most bases will not have cliffs around them allowing tanks and snipers to fire down on the towers, and unless tanks have good splash damage, they won't be able to kill the engineer while he's repairing anyway, so that particular risk isn't being removed, it simply doesn't exist in the first place except for the base in the Alpha.

[Mechzz]

The issue isn't getting risk-free XP (shooting unmanned turrets would qualify sooner for that in my book). It's about turrets being of no practical significance in the game. Because they die in the opening seconds of an assault, never to be fired again. Better no turrets than a pretty bauble on the battlements that you can't use in a battle.

[PeteHMB]

I WOULD like to see the turrets themselves having more cover, at least from the ground. Buffing their weapons is one thing but they got taken out of commission way too quickly to really be a viable defensive platform in PS1. 2 shots from a Vanguard took out any turret IIRC, and the only time they were accurate was when they were automated and taking potshots at my vehicles. So...yeah. I wouldn't mind seeing an armor buff or more cover put into place around the current turrets.

[Mechzz]

Last I heard was that turrets do not even exist until an Engineer builds it at it's hard point.

Better watch TB's video Knocky, he hops in and out of AV and AA turrets having achieved exactly the level of death and destruction PS1 turrets used to manage - zero :)

[Sabrak]

Aircraft and tanks should be able to take out turrets, used or not - that's one of their primary roles, not just to fire at stuff that's firing back at them, but to strike first and destroy stuff that will be used against their team. Using air strikes to take out turrets in order to support an infantry advance is good combined-arms teamwork and tactics.

That said, I do like the idea of turrets taking a couple of seconds to power up to prevent the 'peek-a-boo' thing. If you're going to man a turret, commit to it. Don't expect to be able to have an assault rifle one second, and a turret the next.


That's exactly my thoughts.

So it's a no for me too, but they should add some power up time to turrets.

Without the entering animations, they're already too much of a "omg i'm gonna die, let's protect myself in there" stuff.
If it can also shoot right after you jumped in, that's making things a bit too easy for defenders.

[Mechzz]

If it can also shoot right after you jumped in, that's making things a bit too easy for defenders.

Is the point of having defences not to "make things easy" for the defenders?

[Sabrak]

Is the point of having defences not to "make things easy" for the defenders?

Did I say "make things easy", or "make things too easy"?

[Mechzz]

Did I say "make things easy", or "make things too easy"?

You said "make things too easy".

But that doesn't take away the point that turrets in PS1 were of little to no practical use during a base fight. And while we didn't see TB being attacked in one, my hopes for improvement in PS2 are not high given that they seem to have been positioned purely to give target practice to Reavers and Mossies.

[Kipper]

How about turrets that when not in use, enclose themselves in armour plating? They would be more difficult to take out, but not impossible - and the retraction of the armour provides the power-up/power-down time eliminating peek-a-boo.

Engineers would still have to be up top to fix them too.

I would say that the XP reward for destroying an unmanned turret should be somewhere in the 0%-20% range of destroying one that's manned. It wouldn't be about XP farming, it would be about stopping the turret farming you/your team.

[Sabrak]

You said "make things too easy".

But that doesn't take away the point that turrets in PS1 were of little to no practical use during a base fight. And while we didn't see TB being attacked in one, my hopes for improvement in PS2 are not high given that they seem to have been positioned purely to give target practice to Reavers and Mossies.

Well, we don't know how resistant turrets will be, or if they can be placed anywhere, or even if they can be protected by deployed defenses like covers or MANA turrets.

Turrets could be much tougher than what they used to be, but we don't know that yet.

What we know though is that any defender who will be taken as a target on the walls will be able to instantly get in a turret and shoot if he's close to one.
So, so far, that's making things too easy for those defenders, yes, as turrets are too much of an instant life saver.


Anyway, turrets are the first line of defense in a base.
And just like any first line of defense, they're the first to be attacked and taken down.
I don't see how you can have turrets on walls and expect them to last long anyway, that doesn't fit in a siege scenario.

[Mechzz]

....
What we know though is that any defender who will be taken as a target on the walls will be able to instantly get in a turret and shoot if he's close to one. ....

So, so far, that's making things too easy for those defenders, yes, as turrets are too much of an instant life saver.

Isn't that what turrets are for? To provide a means for defenders to reduce the number of attackers? And if the defender is smart enough to hop into a turret to increase his survival chances then kudos to the defender I say :) (not that it makes much difference as the turret is soon dead itself anyway).

...
Anyway, turrets are the first line of defense in a base.
And just like any first line of defense, they're the first to be attacked and taken down.
I don't see how you can have turrets on walls and expect them to last long anyway, that doesn't fit in a siege scenario.

The turret placement is "silly" - they are exposed to an unreasonable extent, rendering them of no use whenever the enemy turns up, which is the opposite of a sensible design.

As I mentioned earlier, even putting them behind the wall on the roofed walkway that we saw in the vid would be an improvement.

[Hypevosa]

What if turrets could switch between offensive and defensive mode at a moment's notice so that they could defend themselves?

I agree with others, turrets shouldn't be something that's just instantly destroyed at the start of combat. What's the point of them? Why would anyone attach them to bases if they were so easily dispatched?

I like the idea of them having an almost impervious armor plating that they encase themselves in until being used - but, to extend that idea, why not give the turret user the ability to deploy that plating when they want so they can defend from an incoming tank barrage or air strike? Obviously no shooting during this time period, but it would allow turrets to actually last and serve a purpose during a battle in the hands of a skilled operator, rather than just be destroyed the instant it's manned.

[Mechzz]

What if turrets could switch between offensive and defensive mode at a moment's notice so that they could defend themselves?

I agree with others, turrets shouldn't be something that's just instantly destroyed at the start of combat. What's the point of them? Why would anyone attach them to bases if they were so easily dispatched?

I like the idea of them having an almost impervious armor plating that they encase themselves in until being used - but, to extend that idea, why not give the turret user the ability to deploy that plating when they want so they can defend from an incoming tank barrage or air strike? Obviously no shooting during this time period, but it would allow turrets to actually last and serve a purpose during a battle in the hands of a skilled operator, rather than just be destroyed the instant it's manned.

+1

like this. It's skill-related and increases the usefulness of what should be a major asset to a base during an assault.

[Kipper]

...or, a straight up energy shield which is at 100% when out of use (unless there's no generator/power) but when the turret is manned, he can increment it from 0% through 100% directly set against firepower/speed?

So you could be in 70% defensive mode and still shoot 30% as fast/hard when up against it, or go for it in 10% defensive mode with 90% shooting power, etc..

That would introduce some skill into it.

[Mechzz]

...or, a straight up energy shield which is at 100% when out of use (unless there's no generator/power) but when the turret is manned, he can increment it from 0% through 100% directly set against firepower/speed?

So you could be in 70% defensive mode and still shoot 30% as fast/hard when up against it, or go for it in 10% defensive mode with 90% shooting power, etc..

That would introduce some skill into it.

+1
This too. See, we do have some creative folks in the community :)

OK Devs, you choose: Flippable shield or User-Variable Shield/Firepower tradeoff setting!

But please, something that makes turrets just a little bit useable in a real fight! I really feel seeing those turrets pounding away will add a lot to a battle.

[IMMentat]

Voted no.
I'm not convinced by the current open to all directions turrets but I would rather a low sandbag wall around them than pull them inside the defensive building when unmanned.

The base shown had AA turrets on the roof and AV turrets in the middle, thats a lot of firepower but unless they go overkill on the armour (or add in some form of passive/active shielding) then its exposed and stationary, making it easily focussed and an easy kill.

I like the idea of a shield but would prefer a pinpoint/facing barrier similar to the MANA Turret (http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=41353) than anything more complex.

[Hypevosa]

...or, a straight up energy shield which is at 100% when out of use (unless there's no generator/power) but when the turret is manned, he can increment it from 0% through 100% directly set against firepower/speed?

So you could be in 70% defensive mode and still shoot 30% as fast/hard when up against it, or go for it in 10% defensive mode with 90% shooting power, etc..

That would introduce some skill into it.

It seems it would be a little cumbersome to change it though. Perhaps if it was relegated to the scroll wheel it could work...

Perhaps this could be a variation on the turrets. Metal shielding belonging to NC and Energy shield belonging to vanu?

But then what is the TR's version....

Perhaps the TR have a series of metal shields that drop as soon as you start firing but build up automatically over the period of a second or two when you aren't?

[IMMentat]

http://i48.tinypic.com/2vltle0.jpg
This is a defensive weapon. I hope we will se a few similar such items in PS2.

[Stardouser]

http://i48.tinypic.com/2vltle0.jpg
This is a defensive weapon. I hope we will se a few similar such items in PS2.

And would the engineer be able to repair from within that bunker? If so, it's almost like what I'm suggesting but without the retraction part.

If not, what would be the point?

[Mechzz]

It seems it would be a little cumbersome to change it though. Perhaps if it was relegated to the scroll wheel it could work...


It could be done off the "cruise control" buttons used for vehicle speed. So press 2 for 20% offence, 80% defence etc.

And you could make upgrades to offence/defence available in the engy cert tree.

I hope we're gonna see some truly awesome bases near to footholds, and having upgraded turrets could be part of that.

[Mechzz]

http://i48.tinypic.com/2vltle0.jpg
This is a defensive weapon. I hope we will se a few similar such items in PS2.

It looks awesome and scary. I hope we see many such items in PS2.

Plus: Fat lot of good they did the Germans (Atlantic Wall) and French (Maginot Line). Stronger turrets do not make bases untakeable, they increase the range of tactics needed to take them.

It's not about making turrets impregnable, it's about raising them above useless. With proper balancing they would be a fun addition to gameplay when battling for a major base.

[Stardouser]

One of the most exhilarating things in PS1 was to try and repair a base turret under heavy fire. I can recall times of doing it under sniper, tank and air fire. You learn quickly how to position yourself to avoid as much as you can and then when you succeed and someone jumps in and tears up what was shooting at you. Yeah that was fun stuff. Don't take that aspect of the game away in PS2.

That's not an admirable aspect of the game imo. Games require suspension of disbelief just as much as movies do, and the idea that base builders wouldn't build retractable turrets if it were possible boggles the mind.

It's also going to discourage people from doing the repairs.

[Mechzz]

One of the most exhilarating things in PS1 was to try and repair a base turret under heavy fire. I can recall times of doing it under sniper, tank and air fire. You learn quickly how to position yourself to avoid as much as you can and then when you succeed and someone jumps in and tears up what was shooting at you. Yeah that was fun stuff. Don't take that aspect of the game away in PS2.

I agree it was exhilirating. Up to the point you realised the thing you were repairing was about as much use as a spud gun against a King Tiger. Once that sunk in, repairing a dead turret during a base fight was low on the priority list for most engineers :)

[Stardouser]

Nah man you'd be surprised. There a few brave souls out there who are willing to take one for the team. Really challenging and rewarding at the same time. Coordinate with your team mates to cover you the best they can and in the end when it all comes together we rejoice and feel some satisfaction at the end result. And get XP too!

I just wonder how you provide meaningful cover in a battle with a hundred or more enemies encircling your base, and every single tank in visual range is able to hit your tower, even those that are clear across on the other side of the base?

If turrets are made useful at all, they will be raped, and the more you try to repair them the more they will be raped. (imo)

[IMMentat]

IMO its less about the fixing and more about the stopping the damned turrets from being the first to die and last to be put back up.

Anyone with an AV loedout in PS1 was better off using that AV than wasting time zapping a turret with a gluegun only to watch a single vehicle blow it (and you) up mid-repair.

If not a form of sand-bag the turrets a barrier/shielding when in active use to counter the "big fat obvious gun shooting from an elevated position" factor.

The Maginot Line, was circumvented before it was ready (and built in the wrong place) then taken to pieces by railway cannon at extreme range. Not a great example for a game with no artillery, no terrain/building damage and no permanent territory lines. (I consider the hexes a line of distinction rather than a fortified defensive perimiter)
The Atlantic Wall was both a pipe dream and a massive acchievemnent both, it killed a lot of soldiers and specialist units before being broken up with combined arms.

These base turrets are defending distinct locations with overlapping fields of fire and heavy firepower. they deserve a chance to shine before being overwhelmed/outmanoevered.

[Mechzz]

I just wonder how you provide meaningful cover in a battle with a hundred or more enemies encircling your base, and every single tank in visual range is able to hit your tower, even those that are clear across on the other side of the base?

If turrets are made useful at all, they will be raped, and the more you try to repair them the more they will be raped. (imo)

It was a surprising amount of fun to try and repair a turret while there were still defenders on the wall around you to draw fire, it was quite intense. But the reward was so poor (i.e. turrets lack firepower and endurance) that it wasn't worth the risk.

I think the fixed or variable shield ideas would lift a dead turret back into the "hmm, maybe worth trying to repair that" thought zone for any self-respecting engineer.

[Stardouser]

Well the turrets in PS2 appear to be more elevated than in the original so they should be more vulnerable to sniper and air than ground. If the enemy is so focused on denying you the turret use and they are that level of importance then the resulting battle by your team should focus on that as well. Just don't know how important they are to a base battle yet. May be pivotal. We'll see how it goes.

Another thing about PS2 is ranged healing and even healing nades. Get a pocket healer up there with you and a few friends and you should be ok. Let's see how it plays out. Should be interesting. Like I said, if you haven't done it before you don't know what you are missing. :cool:

It depends on how much splash damage tanks have with their main cannon. Even though the tower roof might be too elevated to see the engineer on it, good splash on the turret itself will kill the engineer. I happen to think tanks should have good splash on their main gun, too, so instead of breaking tanks other things like this should change.

[Mechzz]

It depends on how much splash damage tanks have with their main cannon. Even though the tower roof might be too elevated to see the engineer on it, good splash on the turret itself will kill the engineer. I happen to think tanks should have good splash on their main gun, too, so instead of breaking tanks other things like this should change.

Hmm. my feeling was that the AA turrets at the top of the tower would be out of the firing angle of any reasonably close direct-fire ground hogging vehicle, so there would be no splash.

The AV turrets were lower and would be fair game for ground-based fire.

[IMMentat]

In PS1 the explosion of the turret (or even an engineer spitfire turret) could kill anyone around it.
Probably not the case in PS2 but worth remembering.

Regarding tank cannon, I HATED the splash damage trooper instakills off vanguard tanks.
If the driver kits his tank out for AI then fair enough he should have a chance, but big guns should make a big hole OR a big explosion, not both. Taking down a heavily armoured turret should not coincide with splash damage killing the guy trying to fix it.

[Stardouser]

Hmm. my feeling was that the AA turrets at the top of the tower would be out of the firing angle of any reasonably close direct-fire ground hogging vehicle, so there would be no splash.

The AV turrets were lower and would be fair game for ground-based fire.

Well, it depends on the landscape. I know the base in the alpha has cliffs all around it that are higher than the base, but I'm assuming that is NOT going to be carbon copied throughout Auraxis...with that said, however, since the draw distance is pretty high(perhaps even very high?), as long as you can find one high spot somewhere around the base(a small hill, etc) you may well be able to hit turrets even 500m over to the other side of the base in a way that will splash the engineer.

[Stardouser]

Another terrible thread with terrible suggestions. If you let engineers sit inside and allow them to repair the turret continuously, there will always be some guy that actually does it. Never mind how boring it would be, some people find pleasure in the most boring activities imaginable.

Turrets need to be destructible for extremely obvious reasons, especially if they have auto-attack. Repairing them should not be without risk. It's probably safe to assume that repairing a turret won't take 45 minutes as it did in PS1, so if you let people sit inside, in complete safety, there will be absolutely no point in destroying them and you might as well make them immune to every kind of damage.

It seems you have misunderstood this greatly. If the turret is retracted, you can only repair it until it is repaired. If someone is actually using the turret, you would have to go up onto the roof in order to repair it "continuously", you would not be able to reach it from inside while it's in use.

And I can't imagine why you're bringing up auto-attack. If turrets are automatic, why would they retract? But turrets should not, in fact, be automatic.

And this does not make turrets indestructible in any way, that's another common misinterpretation in this thread. It simply means you need to send in guys with C4 if you want to blow them up while they aren't being used.

And safety is nowhere near complete. Enemy infantry can still come in and kill you while you are doing it and you can't see them coming, and engineers still need to travel between towers once they are done repairing a turret and are ready to move on to the next one.

[Kipper]

Another way to change things up a bit would be to allow bases to have many, many turret 'hardpoints' but only enough power to sustain a set number of turrets.

Thus, you couldn't rely on knowing exactly where the enemy has placed which type of turret without scouting the base first - you can't just airstrike and know exactly where you're going to aim for... "I'll fly in this way because I know there's always AA on the southwest corner of the wall" wouldn't work. Because if there's one there at all, it might be an AG, while you attack that, the AA next door shoots you to bits.

Also, upgrading power generator = more turrets = resource sink.

Turrets should take as long to repair as they are tough - if they're made of glass, they should be up and running again as soon as an engi looks at it, if they're uber-protected, they should take some time to repair. Likewise, toughness needs to be carefully balanced against usefulness. They should probably be a couple of times tougher than an MBT with an equally powerful gun though (the AV version), so that it takes two or three MBTs = 1 AV turret (but MBTs can move, turrets are fixed)

[Neurotoxin]

Personally I'd prefer if turrets fire at proper targets (Infantry for AI, Vehicles and MAX for AV, Air for AA) when they are being actively targeted by players of the team who own that part of the base / tower.

Part of what made turrets such an interesting tool in PS1 was that they were always visible, always destructible, and they are dangerous even when unmanned.

[Figment]

Unmanned turrets won't be firing this time around, so you should not provide exp incentives to kill them IMO. That'd just lead to more repairs left undone after a capture.

[Mechzz]

I think T-Ray or someone (pretty sure it was him) said that turret AI is a go.

Man, this (game development) takes too long! My recollection is still Higby saying "No AI - anywhere"

[Kipper]

My recollection is no AI turrets too....

[IceyCold]

I believe they were referring to the Spitfire being removed, though I am not certain if that was all they meant.

[Xyntech]

I believe they were referring to the Spitfire being removed, though I am not certain if that was all they meant.

They said it pretty broadly at the time. However they were also talking about the possibility of ai controlled alien invasions during events as a possible addition to the game during the 5 year plan, so I don't think they have ever been totally against adding some form of ai. It just wasn't in their plans back then.

Still obviously out for spitfires, but maybe not for base turrets.

[Marinealver]

Only for Destroyed.

Hate not being able to tell if a turret was up or down when looking at it.

[Skepsiis]

Can always put turrets on rails so they have a little bit of movement to evade attacks or maybe use some cover around them like other towers or whatever.

Or some heavy armor plating or energy shielding on their rear and sides so that the main threat comes from a limited cone towards where they are actually shooting at to increase their survivability in combat. You could make this visually obvious with some kind of exagerated shell that clearly shows where they are aiming.

Remote repair drones for engineers to use from a safer position? But at the sidegraded cost of being slower.

Left click to fire and right click to activate a shield. Perhaps give it a small capacitator that recharges quickly but allows maybe 5 of seconds protection if the right mouse button is held so that it can be managed with skill to only have it active specifically at the time of impact of say, a missle or tank shell. I remember some really cool moments in bf2142 putting up the vehicle shield just in time when you saw a rocket coming your way and you get the 'BWARM' sound and see your shield flare up and disapate the energy

And i also think it has been mentioned by soe that turrets no longer fire automatically, but i think it would be cool if one of the classes (engineer i guess?) could use some equipment that designates targets that the turrets fire on, maybe a laser pointer, or tracking dart/grenade, or even an active UAV or sat uplink that you operate from inside the base (maybe better as a coms tower towards the outskirts so that enemy infils can get to them and they arent too snug), also spotting targets for friendlies and being awarded with kill assists.

Some kind of system to coordinate turrets could be cool too. Like a networked targetting system throughout the base turret huds for spotting, or a target being shot at by another turret glows red and you can help firing on it for a damage bonus (or simply a tool to aid with hitting vehicle from multiple sides to stop them just taking damage on the stronger front armor)

[DayOne]

I like the rails idea. Not how Skepsiis suggested but instead of the whole turret retracting into the tower it just moves back a bit.

I did notice the turrets sit quite far forward in TB's video. If they retracted that extra distance then it would be easier for repairs, but not take away the risk, and it would stop snipers popping in and out of them!