No Auto-Turrets - A paradox harming PvP?

Garem · 2012-02-27, 04:04 PM

I know anytime someone mentions that PvE should play a role in the game, everyone gets up in arms. I understand that; but it DID play a role in PS1. Turrets are PvE, they're part of the environment.

However, I want to make the case that this PvE aspect (turrets) actually promoted PvP. Here's how.

Turrets made people hesitant to sneak around in a base and try to capture it alone. It was dangerous, even when no players were scouting around their ghost town bases. Impossible? No, even a solo player could take a base if nobody was paying attention, but it made them think twice.

Now, in the lattice system, you always had a good idea where your opponent would attack. I like the grid system better, but here's the problem.

Without SOMETHING to slow down an enemy, the opportunity to attack anywhere without worrying about anything but other players means players must now fill in the role that auto-turrets once held.

Sentry duty.

Who wants to float around empty bases just to keep watch? Nobody. That's very, very boring.

With auto-turrets, attackers are slowed just enough to give defenders some time to respond without having to resort to sentry duty or excessive amounts of "scouting", which also isn't as entertaining as, you know, fighting a war. It also raises the first on-map "flash points" to alert players that fighting had occurred there, that enemies may be present to engage.

Maybe base shields will play that roll- then again, that's just another form of PvE. My point is just that SOME sort of speedbump is necessary to prevent players from following the path of least resistance to gain territory instead of duking it out the bloody old way. It doesn't have to be auto-turrets but surely there must be something. Personally, I like auto-turrets because it takes more tactics to get past them than to just blast away at some shield-bubble with big guns. But that's just my preference.

DayOne · 2012-02-27, 04:13 PM

Big turrets should be manned, no doubt about that. What would would be REALLY good to see is some form of security system. Motion sensing lasers that activate turrets on the ceiling or activate alarms. This wouldn't be a problem for a big invading force, the enemy already know you're here, and taking out the generator would disable the sensors.

However, this would be a huge problem for one person trying to hack a base and instead of completely blocking the ability to sneak in and solo hack it would present a challenge to that person without the need for other players.

Wakken · 2012-02-27, 04:17 PM

I love the auto turrets from PS1. Would actually make me consider playing as a engineer instead of a infil.

Sirisian · 2012-02-27, 04:24 PM

Originally Posted by Garem

I know anytime someone mentions that PvE should play a role in the game, everyone gets up in arms.

I believe your comments are misdirected. Most people against PvE don't want elements in the game that players could be doing. Having a wall turret that shoots people, but could also be gunned by a player is fine since a player isn't always going to be there.

What most people don't want PvE to be (from reading all the threads on this forum) is humanoid bots that play the same role as regular players.

You have this interesting line in the sand though between stationary turrets like spitfires and mobile turrets that could potentially replace the role of a soldier. This line is different for people on this forum. Some people would say they only want to be killed by other players. Others are fine getting killed by a player deployed defense like a turret since they were still killed by a player. Then you have people that would be fine being killed by a base defense system which is not controlled by anyone and is literally just the player fighting an AI. Then further away from the line you have people that are open to being killed by a robotic defense like a moving robot in a base that patrols. Along the same lines you have a group of people that like creatures outside of base defenses acting as neutral threats. Then further you have people that don't mind humanoid bots killing them.

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

These groups are interesting since the cut-off point for many people is when they think it'll detract from the core PVP experience of the game which varies among people because of their perceived implementation. How one person reads an idea and thinks what it would be implemented as is totally different than another person. This leads to people not explaining their choices and simply saying "NO!" because in their mind there's only one implementation that exists. Presumably from a game they've played before and didn't like.

Mastachief · 2012-02-27, 04:26 PM

Not sure how they are going to play out with planetside2 turrets, if they are effective then they should require manning.

A armoured turret for me should be hardcore, in a base defence the turrets should be formidable. In planetside the turrets in standard form are weak and useless (you do more damage with your gauss) how ever once upgraded to AV or AA they are great and you seldom find them unmanned. Would be nice if they doubled their resistance mind you.

I still think the OP has some very valid points.

I would be strongly against auto systems that prevent the possibility of getting into an enemy base and preping it covertly before we hit it up.

fod · 2012-02-27, 04:28 PM

yeah i also dont understand why they took away the autoturrets from PS2 (if they have)
as a full time CE im gonna miss laying defences and motion sensors indoors
apparently everything has to be manned now?

i want cerberus turrets and spitfires back.!

edit: i was against PvE (in the form of NPC's people monster animals whatever) but im not against autoturrets

DayOne · 2012-02-27, 04:30 PM

Originally Posted by fod

yeah i also dont understand why they took away the autoturrets from PS2 (if they have)
as a full time CE im gonna miss laying defences and motion sensors indoors
apparently everything has to be manned now?

edit: i was against PvE (in the form of NPC's people monster animals whatever) but im not against autoturrets

The big base wall turrets I think will have to be manned but you still get the little deployable auto turrets.

fod · 2012-02-27, 04:34 PM

Originally Posted by DayOne

The big base wall turrets I think will have to be manned but you still get the little deployable auto turrets.

is this true? oh wow thats all i wanted
i just wanted my spitfires back

Ragefighter · 2012-02-27, 04:37 PM

Would be cool to have a small basic infantry turret that sensed hostile forces in your base and could deal low amounts of dps but if you do not deal with them they can eventually kill you. maybe give the ability to hack the turret system or disable it for a short time.

you know something to keep some guy who plays when most of the server is asleep from effortlessly taking every base in the Continent lol.

than, again I wont be able to comprehend the scale of this game until I try it for myself so maybe that wont be an issue.

ThGlump · 2012-02-27, 04:42 PM

Originally Posted by Garem

With auto-turrets, attackers are slowed just enough to give defenders some time to respond without having to resort to sentry duty or excessive amounts of "scouting", which also isn't as entertaining as, you know, fighting a war. It also raises the first on-map "flash points" to alert players that fighting had occurred there, that enemies may be present to engage.

Turrets never really slowed anybody, and it was only bad luck if someone catch hotspots from destroying them (not like there was reason for it other than draining).
Time to response is in the system, as bases behind lines will take a lot longer to conquer. And fast response action is better than guard duty. And bases on empire borders? You always should take them as something that being atacked right now. And if they arent attacking there, thats a hole in their defense too and you should attack from that side.

So in summary, bases on the border will be constantly in battle so no need for guard duty, bases behind front lines will take long time to take so no need for guard duty too.
Problem solved. The less AI the better.

Have sensors that warn you when base is being attacked, not some auto turrets.

Graywolves · 2012-02-27, 04:44 PM

They have decent reasoning for removing any form of automated defenses.

But we had ghost hacks in PS1 as was. Without just something that's annoying when no players are around makes it too easy to walk in a base, disable everything, and put on a hack.

I think that there would need to be a notification if any of the shields went down on a base to make the meta-game more manageable. Forcing empire's to send a player to scout every location where there's no fighting is a chore that we don't need (if a player wanted to, he/she still could and figure out if something's happening even sooner, but that's not something that should be required.)

Like glump said.

Have sensors that warn you when base is being attacked, not some auto turrets.

BigBossMonkey · 2012-02-27, 04:54 PM

I'd rather see passive defensive mechanics, some ideas:

Motion sensors in key portions of the base (Areas leading up to generators, control rooms, spawn rooms.) But these motion sensors should be able to be bypassed passively by cloakers, or through an implant for noncloakers.

If these motion sensors go off, people with command skills could be notified on their maps that something is afoot.

If the commanders are paying attention to the battlefields, they will notify fast responders to go investigate. Also like PS1, things like spawn tubes being down, etc should all be readily visible through the map. Commanders should get added details for determining what is going on at a base.

Basically, automation should be kept to the lowest possible level if need be.

Bases shouldn't actively defend themselves.

The ONLY thing I can see having automation for would be IF they decide to add in newer versions of Spitfires, and only if they could be placed indoors. (Placing Spitfires on the ceiling would be awesomesauce.)

Rbstr · 2012-02-27, 04:55 PM

Limited forms of automated defence make sense.

While you want the infiltrators and smaller spec-ops group to be able to get in and you want the large assault to steam-roll the automated defences, you don't want a couple of jerks in a single tank to undo a base cap easily

DayOne · 2012-02-27, 04:55 PM

Originally Posted by Graywolves

They have decent reasoning for removing any form of automated defenses.

But we had ghost hacks in PS1 as was. Without just something that's annoying when no players are around makes it too easy to walk in a base, disable everything, and put on a hack.

I think that there would need to be a notification if any of the shields went down on a base to make the meta-game more manageable. Forcing empire's to send a player to scout every location where there's no fighting is a chore that we don't need (if a player wanted to, he/she still could and figure out if something's happening even sooner, but that's not something that should be required.)

Like glump said.

If you implement a security system like I mentioned above then it would give this BUT allow for an undetected hack if the player is good enough or put enough time into being an infiltrator.

EDIT: I do realise this would lead to a sort stealth minigame but why not? A change of pace never hurt anyone and it's not like you have to do it. Perhaps even give the motion sensors put down by engineers to integrate with the base's auto defence systems making a little player input a way to know that the base is very well defended.

Garem · 2012-02-27, 06:13 PM

Great ideas so far, although all of them are some form of environment that causes the player a delay. This is inescapable, as you will either have those environment-speedbumps or you will have unhindered potential for hacking and a slow response time.

For behind-the-lines hacks, this is less of a problem. When the major battle is going on in the east, where we SHOULD want everyone to be, any clever boy who wanted to avoid the fight and score a cheap border hex could do so.

Look at that bolded phrase again. A reward for avoiding a fight seems rather peculiar, doesn't it? Should we promote PvP and condemn that kind of behavior?

Maybe not! There is certainly a reasonable argument to be made that the best strategy is one where you win a fight without firing a shot. So this whole ordeal boils down to a larger question: reward strategy or reward tactics?

If you choose strategy, have no environmental barriers, only the response of players.
If you choose the tactics, add environmental barriers to give players reasonable response time*.

*This is all assuming that border bases can be hacked and secured before enemies are even able to traverse the terrain and reclaim the base. We don't have the slightest idea how long a border-base will take, or an interior-base for that matter.