The case for automated turrets

[Rothnang]

I think the turrets in bases should be automated, and attack enemies even if they aren't currently crewed.

How they should work:

They prioritize targets acording to what they are best against to what they are worst against first, and distance to target second. So an anti tank turret will always prioritize ground vehicles if there are any, an anti air turret will always prioritize air vehicles if there are any and so on. It will always shoot at the closest target.

Target priority:
Anti tank: Ground vehicles > Infantry > Aircraft
Anti Infantry: Infantry > Aircraft > Ground Vehicles
Anti Air: Aircraft > Infantry > Ground Vehicles

When the turret is unmanned it isn't very smart. It will always follow this pattern, no matter if that means its getting its ass kicked. (For example, a flash riding around in circles dodging its shots while an MBT is wrecking the turret, the turret will continue to fire on the Flash as long as its closer)

The turret will also have no predictive AI, it will fire exactly where its target is at the time, meaning that it will have a very hard time hitting moving targets that are not coming straight at the turret.

An AI controlled turret fires in a pattern that doesn't let the turret overheat, so it has a steady output of damage, firing in short bursts, but it doesn't ever overheat its weapon to spike its damage output momentarily.

A hacked turret can be piloted by an enemy player, but it does not become AI controlled by the opposing faction.

Turrets will never target cloaked units.

A player in a turret should make the turret more threatening by giving it predictive targeting and intelligence.

Why I think this would improve the game:

Basically defensive perimeters around bases are pretty meaningless right now because they don't serve as a real force multiplier. Your average amp station has somewhere around 20-30 turrets in it, so there really is no way to effectively man all of them. That many players would be much better off simply roaming in the base, protecting the generators. If the defense perimeter was automated there would be a real incentive to actually defend the turrets and keep them up and running. Especially an extensive grid of anti air turrets would provide significant protection to a base until it is destroyed by making it impossible for aircraft to hover overhead. (but they can still fly over due to the automatic targeting being dumb)

Turret farming is currently really lucrative. Just yesterday I made 100 certs in just around 55 minutes by getting into a Liberator by myself on Amerish and wrecking every single enemy turret I could find, and then repairing all of my own factions turrets because none of them were alive due to other people having the same idea. Didn't actually fight a single person doing that. If those turrets would shoot back it wouldn't be anywhere near as easy to take them down.

It would give people time to organize a defense of a base, since taking out the turret grid would take some time. A group of a few people could easily destroy the turret grid by dismantling it carefully, having some units draw the fire while others take out the turrets, or some skillful maneuvering. However, destroying the whole thing and opening a base up for attack would take some time, the turrets are still deadly, and going in reckless would get you killed pretty quickly. Especially stuff like running a single ESF into a base, then blowing up the SCU won't be all that easy if there are a few turrets to defend.

This would also make taking an empty base more entertaining. Yea, shooting at robotic turrets isn't as fun as shooting at players, but it's more fun than shooting at nothing. And as per the point of "Turret farming is lucrative" you'll be shooting all the turrets anyways while the base flips if you are a frugal XP farmer, so why not let them shoot back for a bit of entertainment.

[Baneblade]

yess

[Timealude]

go ahead, just make it so hacked turrets can attack enemies in their own base.

[MaxDamage]

I disagree with AV/AA/AI turrets attacking targets outside of their designated role.

I would like them to be as close to Planetside 1's implementation as possible, meaning, slow firing, and not a serious threat to anything but air and shtuff.

Also anti infantry turrets being automated sounds horrific.

I would prefer engineer deployable weaker turrets from PS1.

[Gatekeeper]

Sounds good to me, although I'd disagree a bit with the details.

Give the turrets some (limited) predictive fire ability so they can hit slow-moving targets, but make them only attack the target they're designed for - i.e. AA only attacks air, AV only attacks vehicles, AI only attacks infantry.

And like PS1, make the turrets fire slower than they would when manned, not just avoiding overheating but actively firing at about half to two-thirds of their optimal rate. The aim would be for them to do steady damage to enemies nearby, but give plenty of time for enemies to kill them or retreat, rather than them being deadly.

Edit: also this ability should really be a base benefit of some kind.

[Rothnang]

If the turrets only attack their designated target they would have to redesign every base to have anti infantry turrets in the outer picket, or the entire automation is just pointless if you can simply walk up with infantry and take out all the turrets without any of them shooting back.

[Figment]

This sounds like an idea that would work out horrendously.


PS1 base turrets were all purpose machine guns and would mostly tickle. It would also only activate against larger vehicles (it did not engage buggies, mosquitos and ATVs). And when it did so, the rate of fire was incredibly slow. The only times they'd attack smaller units (again with low rof), would be when that smaller unit would engage that turret.

Simply activating turrets against any unit by default would be an utterly stupid idea, since the AV turrets can instakill infantry and have quite a lot of splash, the AI turrets don't harm anything but infantry, but they do so incredibly well.


If we had similar turrets to PS1, it'd be a lot easier to implement. But these are simply too powerful to just engage any unit.

[Gatekeeper]

If the turrets only attack their designated target they would have to redesign every base to have anti infantry turrets in the outer picket, or the entire automation is just pointless if you can simply walk up with infantry and take out all the turrets without any of them shooting back.

As Figment points out, AV turrets are too strong vs infantry to have them auto-firing at them. However, if the turrets only auto-attack their primary targets, but return fire against anything that damages them - that would work out ok IMO.

Might still need some tweaking in terms of targeting AI, rate of fire, and maybe even reduced damage/splash when auto-firing/returning fire - but I think it's workable, and could make for some pretty fun battles.

[Ghoest9]

Im not sure we need this at all.

But auto turrets should NEVER target infantry.




I think a much better plan would be that turrets return fire - and nothing else.

[psijaka]

Like the idea of auto firing turrets, but they MUST only attack their specific target; AV much too strong against infantry otherwise; and they should have a slower fire rate than when manned.

Can't see this being high priority right now though; something for the future, perhaps.

[Carbon Copied]

I think the resource cost on processing all that info on a potential 20-30 turrets for just one amp station let alone other outposts etc. would cause problems map wide.

Maybe a certification for Infiltrators to "upload a drone program" to 1 or 2 turrets at any one time (cert line has 2 stages) with each base being limited per hex cluster (scaling to how many turrets are available in that cluster) of max droned turrets (so all turrets cannot be activated at once by a platoon of infiltrators).
When droned the turret stays in this EvP mode for x amount of time and cannot be crewed (there will be plenty of other turrets to use or repair without the infiltrators interfering with the PvP crewed turrets), this stops the troll infiltrator hopping in and resetting the drone and putting his own drone upload on; it also will mean the infiltrator has to choose his upload time carefully and which turret he's activating where.

Automated turrets are a good idea but I think they should somehow involve or require a degree of player interaction as if they're going to fire at a target anyway theres no huge incentive for me care any more or less than I did before. Also the most obvious bonus is it gives a new defensive role for infiltrators as a class in their own right.

(EvP = Environment v Person)

[Rothnang]

The turrets aren't exactly going to last long without repairs and dehacking, so I don't really see them as not requiring player interaction. It's just not reasonable to need a gunner for every single turret.

If the turrets don't shoot infantry the whole idea is pointless. Yes, turrets kill infantry quickly, but since Infantry doesn't have to actually care when it takes losses thanks to Sundy magic I'm having a hard time seeing that as a problem.

If you want to play Rambo ask the devs for an infantry class that costs 300 resources and can't be revived.

[Ghoest9]

The turrets aren't exactly going to last long without repairs and dehacking, so I don't really see them as not requiring player interaction. It's just not reasonable to need a gunner for every single turret.

If the turrets don't shoot infantry the whole idea is pointless. Yes, turrets kill infantry quickly, but since Infantry doesn't have to actually care when it takes losses thanks to Sundy magic I'm having a hard time seeing that as a problem.

If you want to play Rambo ask the devs for an infantry class that costs 300 resources and can't be revived.


You arent really defending your position - your just saying - I dont care if it pwns infantry.


And basically you are making the case for why the devs will never do what you want.

[snafus]

This is a horrible idea. Any kind of A.I. has an unfair advantage of always knowing you are there. Though they can manipulate it to make it a fair fight more or less the very idea that the player isn't responsible for base defense bothers me greatly. And with the new hex system coming in we will have better siege battles and hopefully less ghost hacks by the unscrupulous types.

[Chaff]

.
Like-it-or-not, a Base-of-the-Future (with "futuristic" turrets) should have some AI .... AND should be programmed to terminate any "enemy" target with extreme prejudice.
......NOT being able to strolll right up to a giant base & get free donuts & pancakes as you walk in is nothing to rail against.
.

[snafus]

.
Like-it-or-not, a Base-of-the-Future (with "futuristic" turrets) should have some AI .... AND should be programmed to terminate any "enemy" target with extreme prejudice.
......NOT being able to strolll right up to a giant base & get free donuts & pancakes as you walk in is nothing to rail against.
.

If we wanted to use it's the future argument then the entire game would be one gigantic failure. Yes the game is based in the future but we have to remember it is a game and the players make the game not some clunky A.I. The real issue is the current hex system and hopefully they will have that redone sooner rather then later.

[Rothnang]

I just see no convincing counter argument. "I don't like this idea because turrets are strong against infantry" just doesn't really cut it for me, because for one, infantry is free, and secondly, infantry can go a lot of places that the turrets can't reach. I don't really see a good argument for why a wall turret shouldn't fire on infantry in front of the wall, when infantry can take the turret out by coming at it from inside the wall. You might actually need a Flash, Sunderer or Galaxy to get inside the wall. Gee wiz, that sure is unfair, having to use transport units for something.

The only decent argument against automated turrets I've seen so far is what amount of server power that would take up. I don't really think it's going to be that huge of a deal, since a lot of MMOs manage just fine doing line of sight calculations for tons and tons of badies, but who knows, maybe there is something to this.

[Ghoest9]

I just see no convincing counter argument. "I don't like this idea because turrets are strong against infantry" just doesn't really cut it for me, because for one, infantry is free.


But that does matter to most players - so you cant have what you want.

And the "free" thing is a joke - most players care more k/d than they care about resource costs.
Really - how often are you unable to use a vehicle because you are out of resources? Unless you are spawning them for some sort of suicidal base defense you should not be resources limited often.

[Cmelt]

I think this is a great idea and one I have been pushing for myself. Obviously the details would need to be tested and fleshed out but in no circumstance should an amp station, tech plant, or bio lab be able to be ghost capped. I think these turret mechanics would be perfect. I am all for anything to buff defense of bases as right now it feels like the only thing that matters as an attacker is numbers. I don't think PS2 should be a reskinned PS1 but from what people have told me about PS1 is that with a good group of say 24 players you could defend against an uncoordinated group of 124. Bases are just way to easy to capture with a zerg right now. I think turrets themselves need buffs and this could be implemented with it.

[Figment]

Rothnang, you shouldn't underestimate the annoyance effect on players where most infantry cannot even fight back. You also should realise that having units that fly under the radar adds more value to those. Otherwise you just encourage everyone using more armour. You would force all infantry into HA to pop in and out to kill those turrets.

Returning fire is one thing, continuously auto-firing should at most count for larger units and/or those that engage the turrets. This gives smaller units extra value.

[Rothnang]

And tanks and aircraft aren't going to be annoyed? I'm not exactly sure what your point is.

Maybe Anti air turrets could ignore infantry, since those can typically turn 360° so infantry has no blindspots to exploit, but for all other turrets there is always a n arc they can't rotate to for infantry to move around in.

[Bags]

"infantry is free, make base turrets destroy them!"

yeah no lol i don;'t care if it's "free" it's not fun to die to aoe turrets of death

[BlaxicanX]

Infantry isn't "free" anyway. Even with Sunderers, it costs "time", which is the most important and precious resource players have. Between the mandatory kill-card, which is like 5 seconds, and the mandatory 5 seconds respawn count-down, you're looking at least 10 second respawns per death. When you die 30 seconds after respawning (which is a very common occurance when you're storming a choke-point or a defended base), that continual respawn gets annoying and tedious quickly; that's not even counting the time you spend huffing it to the actual firefight if your sundy is parked outside the walls of a base and the fight's moved on to deeper within the base. So no, dying and respawning is not "free". Sundy or no sundy.

As far as the topic is concerned, I don't know. I could see mechanized turrets working, but the AI would have to grossly inefficient compared to a human gunner in order them to be balanced. If turrets would be automated, at the very least the anti-infantry turrets should be inaccurate as hell, but efficient at regulating its heat-output and burst firing, allowing it to fill a kind of suppressive role, rather than a "mow down everyone who enters its firing arc" role.

[Ghoest9]

And tanks and aircraft aren't going to be annoyed? I'm not exactly sure what your point is.

Maybe Anti air turrets could ignore infantry, since those can typically turn 360° so infantry has no blindspots to exploit, but for all other turrets there is always a n arc they can't rotate to for infantry to move around in.


You are basically making an argument to improve the strategic level of the game and add balance - at the expense of overall player enjoyment.

You fail at making video games.

[Figment]

Rothnang, how many infantry units have access to AV and defenses against turrets? I already spend more than 40% of my time in HA while I prefer ops gameplay.

You would force more of that. You can't treat all units the same way and as fodder. That happens too much already.

[Ghoest9]

on a side note

This idea is so bad that figment and I are agreeing.

[Rothnang]

You are basically making an argument to improve the strategic level of the game and add balance - at the expense of overall player enjoyment.

For most people enjoyment of a game comes from overcoming challenges through their skills. I think you couldn't be further of the mark when you simply claim to be on the side of "overall player enjoyment".

What's so enjoyable about walking into an empty base that poses absolutely no threat? For that matter, what's so enjoyable about sitting in a base that may or may not be attacked to make sure that it's SCU, Shields and Turrets actually still exist by the time it does come under real attack? What's so fun about a defensive perimeter that has no value to the defender because it's too big to properly man without outnumbering the attacker?

Have you really considered the enjoyment of all players? I don't think so.

[Sturmhardt]

I like the idea.

.sent via phone.

[Rothnang]

Well, there we have it, if Sturmhardt agrees with me I think it cancels out Ghost and Figment agreeing. :lol:

[Baneblade]

I still think the MANA turret should be auto engaging when not manned.

[Ghoest9]

Maybe this will explain why this is bad game design.

Players are unhappy when they are killed.
Players are happy when they kill the someone else.

If you start letting static AI kill players its bad business.
And this is a magnitude worse than content driven AI.

[BlaxicanX]

What's so enjoyable about walking into an empty base that poses absolutely no threat? Automated turrets wouldn't fix this problem at all.

For that matter, what's so enjoyable about sitting in a base that may or may not be attacked to make sure that it's SCU, Shields and Turrets actually still exist by the time it does come under real attack?

Automated turrets wouldn't fix this at all.

What's so fun about a defensive perimeter that has no value to the defender because it's too big to properly man without outnumbering the attacker?

Automated turrets wouldn't fix this at all.

Automated turrets don't cover nearly enough of the perimeter to prevent ghost capping. The only time they would be useful is during a full-fledged assault, since you have waves of enemies advancing and it has targets to shoot at. So if your argument is that automated turrets would fix ghost capping, well, this is simply a poor argument.

That said, if you're going to complain about other people presenting arguments, you should at least keep yours consistent. Two pages ago you were arguing that the strength of the turrets is irrelevant because sunderers allow you to respawn quickly. Well, if there is an enemy sunderer deployed nearby, you're not looking at ghost-capping. You're looking at a standard base assault. Stay consistent.

[Silent Thunder]

In addition, we shouldn't be looking at eliminating ghost capping. Ghost capping is rather like the congestion and fever you get during the flu. Its just a symptom of the problem, which is that there is no incentive to defend. Now while I do beleive the new Lattice/Hex will relieve some of this, the fact still stands that doing things to stop ghost capping itself, will not improve the game, but will rather cause those people who normally would break off and try to find smaller fights, to instead form up with the rest of the zerg, further compounding the issue.

[Rothnang]

Players are unhappy when they are killed.
Players are happy when they kill the someone else.


I think your view is oversimplistic. Merely not getting killed isn't what people want, surviving is only fun if there was a chance to die. Making the battlefield a little more hazardous around enemy bases doesn't make it less fun for people who enjoy the challenge, who get their satisfaction out of overcoming obstacles.

By your interpretation of what players enjoy they should all be hackers, because to you challenge seems to play no role in how much satisfaction you get, only killing and dying.

An engaging game is defined by presenting a challenge, and allowing the player to meet that challenge through skill. Adding more challenge to the game doesn't make it less fun as long as that challenge can be overcome through skill.

[Chaff]

.
Wow. It's a GAME ? Sure, there are giant lapses in logic. Still, that doesn't mean ignore all of them Capt Obvious.

Sorry fellas, but OP is right on this subject. If you don't see the reasons your eyes are closed & you're damn myopic. +To agree with OP you simply need an open mind & common sense.

Some of you sound like elitist babies. It's lame to be able to bubble bath your way into a giant base with monster turrets. They should be active, and should make it tougher for small numbers to get close to big bases - at least with vehicles. ("tougher", not impossible, and certaily not the cakewalk that it is now.
.

[Ghoest9]

I think your view is oversimplistic. Merely not getting killed isn't what people want, surviving is only fun if there was a chance to die. Making the battlefield a little more hazardous around enemy bases doesn't make it less fun for people who enjoy the challenge, who get their satisfaction out of overcoming obstacles.

By your interpretation of what players enjoy they should all be hackers, because to you challenge seems to play no role in how much satisfaction you get, only killing and dying.

An engaging game is defined by presenting a challenge, and allowing the player to meet that challenge through skill. Adding more challenge to the game doesn't make it less fun as long as that challenge can be overcome through skill.

You made 2 logic errors.

1 Merely not getting killed isn't what people want, surviving is only fun if there was a chance to die.


Saying players are having fun when they dont die is not equivalent to what I said.
I said dying makes players unhappy.
And I said killing enemies makes them happy.

2
By your interpretation of what players enjoy they should all be hackers, because to you challenge seems to play no role in how much satisfaction you get, only killing and dying.


Wanting to hack has no relation to enjoying killing enemies players and not enjoying dying.
Most people who simply want competition(the opposite of hacking) are happy to kill enemies and unhappy when they die.

I pretended to assume you made logic errors - you may well have been making bad faith arguments - but theres no way to tell them apart.

[Rothnang]

Ok, sure, we'll file your objections under the downsides to this as "Getting shot makes me sad".

[Ghoest9]

Ok, sure, we'll file your objections under the downsides to this as "Getting shot makes me sad".

It makes most players sad(or angry or vengeful or something.) So why spend your customer capital making people unhappy with out getting the pay off of making another customer happy.

Happy veruse unhappy players in the ultimate argument.

How to make a successful competitive game.

1 no bugs(or fix them quickly at least.)
2 even playing field between sides/teams/factions.
3 dont let people cheat
4 make the players happy

Every other choice is basically in the service of one of those 4. There are trade offs between making different players happy - but you have to focus on the largest part of your core customer base.

[Rothnang]

You are a design god sir. Brilliant.

[Baneblade]

It makes most players sad(or angry or vengeful or something.) So why spend your customer capital making people unhappy with out getting the pay off of making another customer happy.

Well, I hate to counter this fine argument, but isn't that what SOE has been doing since launch?

[Palerion]

Personally I think it would be detrimental to the experience. As a few of you have mentioned, players would not like to see that they have been killed by AI. And I would be really pissed if I was about to kill a guy and a turret stole my kill, so nobody receives an experience reward..

[Kail]

I think the only automated defenses that would actually work in practice would be non-lethal kinds, like AA turrets that cause shake and bucking that makes aiming a PITA, or AI turrets that cause concussion-grenade like effects.

But personally I don't think it would actually change anything in the long run besides to make HA even more required than it already is.

What I would be curious to try would be along the lines of making turrets take like 75% reduced damage EXCEPT against AP rounds.

[BlaxicanX]

.
They should be active, and should make it tougher for small numbers to get close to big bases
.

They wouldn't, which is what's been said a couple times already.

If you're going to start insulting people because of their posts, you should probably at least read their posts first.

[Sirisian]

This is a horrible idea. Any kind of A.I. has an unfair advantage of always knowing you are there.
The turrets in PS1 didn't attack you unless you were close or fired on them. If you tried to sit behind a rock and fire a rocket launcher they would pinpoint and try to kill you after you hit them then forget about you after a few minutes. Worked very well as you couldn't farm the turrets trivially like now.

I just wish it wasn't so easy to farm them with AV mana turrets and vehicles.

[Chaff]

^
Sirisian gets it. It worked well in PS1, and improved game mechanics enough to be worth implementing them.

("who" did I insult ? I mentioned no one by name. Someone (unnamed) seems insecure.) Repack your manpon sonny.

I never stopped to think about a turret stealing my XP. Now, I've been given that insight to think on........ Don't care. The amount of XP I might lose is not as important as my base being a bit less of a cakewalk for the enemy. ..... maybe whoever's at a base (defending ?) gets equal percentage of any AI turret kills. I don't see AI turrets as farming enemy kills. I see them as a countemeasure that prevents too easy of a cap, & delays most caps for no more than a few minutes. Attackers will likely have to "stand off" from a decent distance and take out the 3 or 4 turrets closest to their point of entry. AI Base turrets were a good idea that was well-balanced (in PS1).
.

[Figment]

Well, there we have it, if Sturmhardt agrees with me I think it cancels out Ghost and Figment agreeing. :lol:

Actually we don't really agree on this on every level. And you're not listening to reason.



I've been very clear about what about this is bad: having any type of turret target any type of unit. I've been very clear about why the PS1 version worked and why the PS2 versions under the rules you stated in the OP would differ from this to the extend it would be detrimental to gameplay experience.


And I haven't ever seen a turret in this game stand in between me and getting into the base. Manned or otherwise. All you'd be doing is forcing more AP/AV ammo. I've also made it clear that it's unfair to unit types that can't do AP/AV damage to get targeted by AI units. Futhermore, I'm under the impression that people die enough as is and with this low TTK having turrets firing at will doesn't make for improved gameplay.




Now, if you're going to say they would only auto-target large units within a certain radius and return fire when engaged, we could consider talks. But AI or AV wall turrets firing aren't quite the same as a field of Spitfire turrets and you shouldn't treat these kind of implementations as lightly as you did.

[Rothnang]

I think it would be reasonable to give turrets a very short target range for infantry unless it attacks them first. The point of having automated turrets obviously isn't peeople getting sniped by cannons while merely just scouting the area around a base.

I'm not talking implementation anyways, that's the devs job and they will make sure its not awfully done. My main concern is that turret grids in their current state are too extensive to ever be fully manned, and turrets really have no serious survivability.

[Figment]

My main concern is that turret grids in their current state are too extensive to ever be fully manned,

It is unlikely the entire defense ring has to be constantly manned too. But that doesn't mean they have to engage every threat. The PS1 turrets functioned primarily as an alert and barely killed any but the most damaged and careless of units due to their low damage output. The PS2 turrets don't have a low damage output, if a tank drives past an AV turret in its current condition, it would get two-shot (completely incomparable to the PS1 situation in terms of damage).

One of my concerns here is overkill. Another concern is that since you can actually hijack turrets, they become easy exp leeches for infils and the defender will actually be forced to kill them. This is what happened a lot during the viral days in PS1, since not that many players had the anti-viral certification.


The appeal to man them is worse though and ties in a lot with what's written in response to the quote below. The appeal to repair them even more atrocious due to lack of cover while doing so (turret repairing engineers are primary sniper and High Explosives bait after all).

and turrets really have no serious survivability.

Turret survivability is low indeed. They are static targets and have significant rotation, suppression and depression angle issues (and often face further angle and view obstructions by buildings, rocks and trees). Combine that with low health due to everything having to be low TTK (and within the limit of a single non-certed AV carrying player) and it's not very surprising they die quickly.

[Maarvy]

.
Like-it-or-not, a Base-of-the-Future (with "futuristic" turrets) should have some AI .... AND should be programmed to terminate any "enemy" target with extreme prejudice.
......NOT being able to strolll right up to a giant base & get free donuts & pancakes as you walk in is nothing to rail against.
.

If there was some deffensive exp then people would man the fucking manual turrets we have now . Undeffended bases are a symptom of a piss poor meta game and they should remain that way ( undefended ) until its fixed .

This auto turret shit is a bad idea imo .

What a futuristic turret should logicaly do and what they should do in regards to fun gameplay are 2 different things all together . Adding auto turrets is basicly sticking a bandaid over the glaring gunshot wound of a problem that bases remain undeffended once taken 90% of the time .

[Maarvy]

I think it would be reasonable to give turrets a very short target range for infantry unless it attacks them first. The point of having automated turrets obviously isn't peeople getting sniped by cannons while merely just scouting the area around a base.

I'm not talking implementation anyways, that's the devs job and they will make sure its not awfully done. My main concern is that turret grids in their current state are too extensive to ever be fully manned, and turrets really have no serious survivability.

the devs will make sure its not awfully done ...

GG

That made me laugh , +1 comedy gold star

[Rothnang]

It is unlikely the entire defense ring has to be constantly manned too. But that doesn't mean they have to engage every threat.

The problem with something like having a big wall be your defensive perimeter in Planetside 2 is that due to low rendering range and extremely mobile units it takes more people to defend than to attack. Let's say 1 LA wants to go over the wall, he just runs to the wall and jumps over. The only way he can be stopped is if someone waits on top of the wall. If the base has 5, 6 different walls it now takes 5 or 6 people to even have a chance to make the wall count, because they can't possibly know where the LA will come from, won't be informed when he comes from any side they aren't covering, and wouldn't be able to respond fast enough to stop him if they aren't already there either.

There is simply no way to make a huge defensive perimeter like that work in any meaningful way without automation, and it also needs to at some point shoot at infantry.


The whole idea with the turret grid shouldn't be that the turrets actually kill the attackers, they just force them to fight back, delaying them for a while so that the defenders can muster a response to the intrusion.

If AV turrets massacring infantry is such a huge problem maybe their splash can be reduced as well, though I think that was already done once, and they really aren't that great against infantry anymore.