Another take on turrets

Kinda decided to make this a separate thread from the other turret suggestion - cause this will be a wall of text:

Turrets the way they are now don't really work entirely too well, I think that many can kinda agree to that. Farming them in huge numbers makes them overpowered (level 3), and farming them is pretty easy, but that's almost also the only way of making them really useful most of the time as well - at least vs vehicles. Map geography is also a problem in a few maps, where level 3 turrets are very limited in some places simply cause there's no open space for them to utilize their range fully but once you have level 3's you are stuck with them.

The MG turrets are IMO also sissy turrets. I can understand the reasoning as to why you can take the pounding of a level 3 MG for several seconds whilst any other bullet-based weapon can kill you in a fraction of that time, but this is IMO just a wrong approach and partially part of the problem. Same goes for the ML turrets. A heavy tank can withstand several level 3 turrets for ages - this is also kinda wrong, but at the same time, obviously understandable, but once again, in my opinion a wrong approach to solve it.

Turrets are supposed to be an effective support, but not be an invulnerable wall.

My suggestion - 1 type of turret only - and you can choose which level to build, assuming you've researched level 2/3. Cost for these turrets should be higher than they are now, level 3's costing the most of course. All turret levels hit their target instantly when firing. So no outrunning missiles nonsense. Cannon-based turrets only.

Anyway, here they are:

Level 1: low damage - (at least versus vehicles - should tear through infantry due to the high rate of fire), short range, high rate of fire, fast lock on time (near instant), high hp and high armor (add a resist vs seismic nades/regular nades on top for level 1's). Cost: 150-300

Mostly useless against groups of vehicles (does damage, but armor absorbs most of it), but highly effective against infantry if they get within range due to the high rate of fire (6-8 shots a second(1 infantry shouldn't last more than 4 or so seconds at most)), and more or less instant lock on time to a target. Can take a pounding before going down, so best approach is to sab it or use vehicles or go with an entire squad. Nadespamming from a wall still works of course, but if you're solo, this will take some time.

Level 2: medium damage, medium range, medium rate of fire, medium lock-on time (1 second'ish) medium hp, medium armor. Cost 250-400

The jack of all trades. More effective against vehicles (armor absorbs some), but has a reduced rate of fire (1-2 shot a second or so). Still does decent amount of damage against infantry and is still highly lethal against a solo infantry since the shots does more damage and has a longer range, but the rate of fire and slight lock on time delay makes it more manageable for a group of infantry units to deal with. I guess this is a situation where the infantry charge/armor boost squad powers could be really useful if trying to approach a couple of these turrets for some nadespamming (if no one's a gren).

Level 3: high damage, long range, low rate of fire, slower lock-on time (2 seconds or so - not more otherwise it could allow for way too easy "around the corner shooting" for tanks) low hp, low armor. Cost: 350-500

Highly effective against vehicles (armor absorbs very little of the damage), even the most armored ones, however the low rate of fire (1 shot every 4-5 seconds) and the lock on time makes it very vulnerable against numerous infantry units, despite being able to pick one infantry off every 1-2 shots (2 shots if infantry has health upgrade). Only alternative way to take the turret out is the good old snipe from afar or arty it down.

This would of course require vehicles (or rather the armor) to take into account the level of the turret that fires against them. Level 1 turrets should deal minor damage to vehicles and a couple of them should of course still be able to take care of, say an APC if given enough time.

Target priorities should also be set in order for the turrets to work as intended. Level 1 turrets target infantry first, so if an infantry gets within range whilst a level 1 turret is shooting a vehicle, then the turret should switch targets.

Level 2 could be the way it is now - finish off a target and move to the next. Prioritizes neither.

Level 3's does the opposite of level 1's.

Lock on times are just that - the time it takes for a turret to lock on a target before it can fire. In the case of a target dying whilst being in the process of being locked down by a turret, the turret will then of course start locking on from scratch on a new target.

There is an additional function that I'd like to see for level 2's and 3's, as an "extra feature" and I dunno if it's possible or even viable or not and how this feature would play out. The ability to detect targets behind walls (maybe with the help of the engineer camera + a research), and if the target is behind an enemy wall and if no free (non-covered) targets are present the turret will try and shoot the wall down to get to the target behind. Only for level 2's and 3's though. This would make ninja engineers work for their money, and maybe soften that somewhat stupid "1 engineer taking down everything" problem. This would of course require the turrets to distinguish between hidden and non-hidden targets as well as between enemy walls(or buildings for that matter) and your own walls and buildings.
Level 1 turrets will have the high health/armor so taking one of those out will still take time. Thus this ability is a big no for level 1 turrets.

I don't really know if this kind of turret system would work in reality, but at least it would give commanders/engineers the option of choosing which turret to place where, and making every level equally viable. The high cost will prevent extreme farming, yet create the necessity to build a level 1 and a level 2/3 to complement each other (when you get to level 2/3 that is).

Level 1's will be useful throughout the whole game, including the beginning, when infantry mostly roam about, but because getting vehicles out fast is still possible early game, a couple of light tanks with low-tech armaments should have no major problems with a couple of level 1's - with a bit of care.

Level 2's would be ideal for stuff like refinery defense - of course, still vulnerable to scout attacks or any attacks that come from beyond it's range, but it'd still be a WAY more useful defense than the current turrets.

Level 3's would be pretty much used for base defense or other high priority areas where you want to keep enemy vehicles at bay. Leaving them on their own without any backup though would be idiotic nevertheless cause an infantry squad could with a bit of teamwork do short work with them. Solo, fast vehicles trying to drive by a couple of level 3's would be turned to scrap pretty quickly and if a larger, more heavily armored force was to try and pass 2-3 level 3's instead of taking them out from afar, then that heavy tank better not hope that all 3 turrets lock on to him.

As mentioned before, Infantry get a bigger role late game, cause they will be the most ideal to take out the structurally weaker level 3 turrets, and since spamming them will be rather hard due to the cost (and stupid, unless you are controlling the whole map or something), you won't have to worry about facing 5-6 in a cluster anytime soon. Hiding behind walls will be harder as well cause now engineers will have to focus on keeping these walls up, or have vehicles distracting the turrets for a few seconds or something.

Basically, what this suggestion attempts to do:

1: Have 3 turret levels that are equally useful throughout the whole game and actually be dangerous against whatever they are optimized to fight against

2: End turret spam by having turrets cost more. Since these turrets will be more effective, the price will be justified. They WILL do their job unless the enemy takes the necessary (and usually time consuming) steps to overcome them. Of course, given enough time it would be possible for the commander to spam turrets in one area. Then again, it'd be debatable whether 10 or so turrets in one focused area for, oh, I dunno, 4-5k res or so would be worth it.

3: Give infantry an importance throughout the whole game (hopefully including the scout + stun nades). Hopefully also give the underdog squadpowers of the rifleman a bigger use - typical example would be: there's a level 3 turret ahead and no friendly vehicles who can temporarily draw it's fire nor any grenadiers. It's a bit too far off to nade and no one in your squad happens to have any health upgrades, so one shot from that turret will pop a member instantly. You do have an engineer though, but with no revive either - so what you do - activate armor boost, rush ahead, take one shot but survive, have the engie put up a wall, heal, maybe rince and repeat to get even closer. Engie keeps the wall up whilst everyone else pops the turret.

That's just one possible scenario outcome. Course, I guess in the end it'll still depend on the people that play.

4: Making life even harder for ninjas other than scouts.

Comments, opinions, flames are all welcome. Well, maybe not flames...

 

Its a nice idea I would only make it so that even a level 3 needs to hit infantry
2 times to kill it. No insta kills with a turret that is maybee hidden behind trees.

 

Well, the 1 or 2 hits is a balance issue mostly I guess. If 1 hit kill is to much then 2 hits could perhaps work, but the rate of fire + lock on time + vehicles within range should be seriously considered as well. Whole idea is that infantry with the HP upgrade and/or the armor boost squad power can take 2 hits.

Carelessness should not be rewarded either after all.

Besides, level 3's will be a mid game issue at the very earliest and by then you will hopefully have some vehicles driving around, who could perhaps take one shot on purpose and then pull back so that the infantry have time to advance.

Meh...fixed a bunch of grammar errors as well.

 

I don't agree that turrets don't work well, they work fine.

 

Turrets work well, especially lvl3s. They work great against infantry right now, and they worked better against tanks before the armor buff. What about engineer turrets? Do you want to also give them this "1hit" turret for free?

Why is it silly we can outrun rockets? Slow tanks can't do it. It rewards good driving. Maybe it's because of the improved handling, but it seems easier to dodge rockets now.

There is nothing overpowered about a single engineer taking out everything. I can understand a lone refinery being over looked, but if theres only 1 engineer grenading your barracks, you deserve to lose because the engineer is especially vulnerable when its throwing grenades.

The scenario you thought of is totally unlikely to happen. Who often do you have a rifleman as squadleader? His squad abilities suck. How often in a public server are you going to have teamwork so great that they don't run out of their walls like retards totally ignoring what the squadleader says about a 1 hit turret?

Turrets work great right now, especially with real people to support then and a rebalance against the armor buff.

 

Gotta love when people don't read properly. That's all I've got to say

 

HEMG turrets, anyone?

 

I think turrets could use a little buff, MG turrets are relatively decent. They could use a very slight buff IMO, but overall are pretty scary with their range and the speed at which they tear through infantry.

ML turrets do need a buff though, DEFINITELY. They don't scare me at all anymore lol, I drive drive right up on them and blow them to shit with a cannon and rocket combo.

Your idea is creative, but I think it's over powered.

 

Turrets are for temporary repelling of enemies. They aren't supposed to replace real defenders. turrets prevent unlimited access to your base if placed properly, and can repel even heavy tanks if ignored.

Yes, ML does need to have it's damage scaled to armor.

Turrets work best in groups, usually of 2 MG's and 3 ML's. A group of 3 ML's can make any tank driver think twice in previous versions while 2 MG's protect them from infantry for a while. If they are spread out to the farthest extents of the lvl 3 MG turrets, so that the MG's can barely overlap the opposite end ML's, they protect eachother pretty damn well from a rush.

at any rate, 1 turret should not be equal to 1 infantry. 5 turrets should be equal to 1 infantry. otherwise, they are just retarded and makes them turtlole shell weapons.

 

Metal, I think two or three turrets should = 1 inf. Unless they're lower level. A level 3 turret should be as effective as only one or two infantry, really. You had to spend time and resources to get them. I don't think they should be the be all and end all, but the ML's definitely need a buff up.

 

Well, I think differently. Turrets should be expensive so you don't farm then but on the other hand be very effective to reflect the cost.

The range issue is also a problem - that's why the level 1's in my suggestion should be tough, but have a short range, and be anti-infantry based mainly instead of today's cheap, long range level 3 farmfests. Yes, the level 3's I propose will also be able to shoot infantry and that from a long range (slightly longer than the current level 3's), and that will be a 1 shot kill if you have no armor-boost or health upgrade, but considering the turret costs, rate of fire, the target prioritizing, lock-on times, and low health/armor, infantries will have a relatively easy time approaching these if played correctly. This makes them very useful lategame. And if level 3's are backed up by level 1's, it'll be a matter of staying outside the level 1's range and try and pick out the level 3 turret. This will most likely add some extra effort - which is what the turrets are supposed to do. If turrets are backed up by additional armor/infantry then it will be a major effort which will require lots of resources. Doesn't mean that it will be an infinite defense cause since the turrets are so expensive, replacing them all the time won't be too viable - not if 2 level 3's come with a total price of anything between 800-1k res.

As for why merging the two turret types into one - that was done to create an additional weakness against their power.

As I said before, this is not an idea which would make commanders place turrets in a spot and then forget about it. They will still need backing up by players if an area is to be fully defended at all times. Each level has it's significant drawbacks which can be exploited, but this will take some TIME to do so. Solo engineers could still ninja level 1 turrets if they're careful, but then they will have to spend a couple of minutes doing so - that will have fulfilled the role of the turret.

Honestly, on most maps, when do people start to see turrets as a serious threat? If you see a lone turret out there defending whatever - is it considered a threat or just an extra rank point that'll soon be earned?

Oh yeah, and as for engineers and building turrets. I thought about it cause obviously, having engineers building turrets would be out of the question. Only thing I could come up with would be that the commander could award any engineer the rights to build turrets. The res cost would still be the same, but it'd allow a team to build the turrets in those spots where the commander cannot place them.

As for those CTF-based maps (which are plagued with other issues anyway) - only allowing the level 1's to be built would be enough. Or disable turrets altogether (preferred solution to be honest)

Blah!

 

How is a small number of effective turrets any different from a large number of ineffective turrets? It doesn't make it any more or less annyoing to go up against, but it does mean a lot of pointless modelling.

 

Actually, the difference is bigger than you might think.

Just to draw a very rough comparison as to why numbers actually matter.

You are a spaceship pilot that is facing 10 enemy ships, each ship has 10hp and does 10 damage when they fire on you. They fire every second. You can destroy one ship a second. How much damage will you take?

Versus

You are a spaceship pilot that is facing 1 enemy ship, which has 100 hp and does 100 hp damage when it fires on you. It fires every second. You can destroy this ship in 10 seconds. How much damage will you take?

And what on earth does modelling have to do with ANYTHING? This is the frigging suggestions forum. If modelling was such a huuuuge issue for every suggestion made then it would be a frigging miracle if this mod got past 0.4 beta before the year 2015.

 

The distinction would be more accurate to say the difference between five and fifteen, as to make it more powerful than that would be to allow far too much firepower to be concentrated into one place, even that would be pushing it. And taking that into account still does not make any sense, logically being able to make small amounts of progress more often is better than huge landslides of it at random intervals. This is a game of many players and each one needs to feel like he's doing something.

And the point of the suggestions forum is to suggest useful things, if this is not useful then it does not justify the amount of work required to do it, and it is not a good suggestion.

 

you mean 2 seconds?

 

This is similar to a suggestion I made where the levels have more specialized purposes (while the level 2 is still moderate).

http://forums.empiresmod.com/showthread.php?t=7682