Turret retraction into their tower

Stardouser · 2012-05-21, 08:40 AM

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 · 2012-05-21, 08:56 AM

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 · 2012-05-21, 08:56 AM

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

Mechzz · 2012-05-21, 08:59 AM

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 · 2012-05-21, 09:00 AM

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 · 2012-05-21, 09:04 AM

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 · 2012-05-21, 09:07 AM

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · 2012-05-21, 09:09 AM

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 · 2012-05-21, 09:10 AM

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 · 2012-05-21, 09:15 AM

Originally Posted by Knocky

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 · 2012-05-21, 09:23 AM

Originally Posted by Kipper

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 · 2012-05-21, 09:24 AM

Originally Posted by Sabrak

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 · 2012-05-21, 09:28 AM

Originally Posted by Mechzz

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 · 2012-05-21, 09:37 AM

Originally Posted by Sabrak

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 · 2012-05-21, 09:55 AM

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.

View Poll Results: What do you think of turrets retracting?
Like the idea, retract when both unused and destroyed	8	15.69%
Like the idea but retract only when unused	10	19.61%
Don’t like it	28	54.90%
Other/Would like with changes	5	9.80%
Voters: 51. You may not vote on this poll