Poll Rules: You have 2 vote points, 1 for MG and 1 for ML turrets - you can change them at any time! Poll Description: For my concept look >HERE< ("Yes, as described" attaches to that) You are invited to comment it there or to describe your own here - i add them as alternatives in this topic with links to the respective posts! ;-) They will be marked as alternative 1 & 2 (obviously there doesn't exist any yet!) Off/about topic: (this thread is created because i can't change my suggestion to a poll - idk why... but anyway, this allows to organize with other concepts) Edit: HELL, can't even change the poll or at least add answers - good that i added alternatives
Id like more inaccurate MG turrets that do far more damage, and more damaging missile turrets that fly slower or track worse. Turrets need to be an area denial weapon where the closer you get to them the worse they are, instead of 0 to 100 like they are now making it so they have to be pretty much pea shooters at that range because they need to shoot further then nadespam can reach for gameplay reasons tl;dr more damage, worse accuracy so the area of denial is gradual.
ava, people can actually click links - but yea, forgot to link the poll aswell! (still don't know whats your problem with the Poll sentences...) @blizzerd: eighter you forgot to vote or are a troll and vote wrong to your post! well, you are all free to vote like you want - but it would be nice if you keep it serious to be representable
-.-# why?... (sorry, if theres a real problem with the sentence/concept of the choices JUST GODDAMN TELL ME!)
Code: Problem 1 - you do not state which change corresponds to which exact submission (which you could fix with posting and clearing out linked post) Problem 2 - you are giving 2 'alternatives' like there would be only TWO OPINIONS (so you should make it something like 'MG turret - described in post/your own idea' Problem 3 - last poll choice is subjective and makes seem your poll look stupid and not open for discussion Here you go, these are problems with your thread (as I see it). Now, please don't disregard my suggestion to your thread because you feel offended that I pointed out your 'mistakes', as you did before
i never feel offended by critics ava - i even don't feel offended if you try to offend me! i just don't like stupidity and ppl that can't attach/stand to theire own critics/points/stand/attitude! ;-) (my english isn't that good - i know that and try my best to enhance it - but who can't come towards/meet me, try to understand and point my issues out, is just useless to me!) A1: i already posted the link and described that the actual concept lays there - no doublework needed! also i state that there are no alternatives yet, but can be added and if they differ to my concept they will just marked and be set as the coresponding alternative! so i don't see a problem - maybe improve the actual sentences... Edit: better now? A2: well, who can't read the topic is at his own cause of this issue! - it's not that much text! (also "describe it below" is quite accurately giving the hint needed!) A3: true, subjective! - and?, its a clear "no" so what?! i didn't blame anyone for voting no but point the issue out!
