No Auto-Turrets - A paradox harming PvP?

[SUBARU]

Originally Posted by sylphaen

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]

Originally Posted by SUBARU

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

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

[Garem]

Originally Posted by ringring

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. #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.

Originally Posted by SUBARU

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.

Originally Posted by Exano

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:

Originally Posted by Sirisian

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by Sirisian

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]

Originally Posted by Fenrys

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]

Originally Posted by fod

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]

Originally Posted by Sirisian

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.