The case for automated turrets - Page 3

Ghoest9 · 2013-03-23, 04:41 PM

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 · 2013-03-23, 05:57 PM

Originally Posted by Rothnang

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 · 2013-03-23, 06:35 PM

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 · 2013-03-23, 09:41 PM

Originally Posted by Ghoest9

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 · 2013-03-24, 01:23 AM

.
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 · 2013-03-24, 02:01 PM

Originally Posted by Rothnang

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

Originally Posted by Rothnang

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

Originally Posted by Rothnang

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 · 2013-03-24, 02:14 PM

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

Ghoest9 · 2013-03-24, 02:32 PM

Originally Posted by Rothnang

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 · 2013-03-24, 03:31 PM

You are a design god sir. Brilliant.

Baneblade · 2013-03-24, 03:38 PM

Originally Posted by Ghoest9

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 · 2013-03-24, 04:17 PM

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 · 2013-03-24, 04:32 PM

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 · 2013-03-24, 05:04 PM

Originally Posted by Chaff

.
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 · 2013-03-24, 05:25 PM

Originally Posted by snafus

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 · 2013-03-24, 08:44 PM

^
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).
.