Turrets on bases

[Kltplzyxm]

To add, and then you have to get the core devs to include base turrets. I mean look at Omicron... who knows when it will be integrated to play, much less get fixes for popular cores ATM.

[Youngmoose]

QUOTE (Avalanche @ Jan 2 2008, 05:45 PM) Considering that we are not paid to work on Allegiance I somehow find this attitude a little... Unsettling. /huh.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":huh:" border="0" alt="huh.gif" />

I am not under the impression that the development team owes this community anything. I'm sorry if that was conveyed in any way shape or form. Dog you and your team do a great job. Thanks. My only goal was to explore new paths of gameplay that the community might desire. But Mr. Kltplzyxm did put it nicely for me. There are other options available for base defense. I was just looking for something to fight the base camp not something to be used as a whoring tool or fight off a bomber run.

[Weylin]

With somthing like this a nearly invincible hvy int camp on your final base might not mean instant lose.

Well, even if it wasnt your last base, you would have to walk from a neighboring sector.

Currently, Hvy int camp = 99% dead/captured base. It really only takes 6 or so ints on a base to do it effectivly.

A base turret might discourage them to sit so close and have to move around, or keep there distance.



If with that said its still a balance problem, what about dedicated defence bases with no launch/tp, just a light base with a few turret positions.

[Kltplzyxm]

Nah, Decamping just takes teamwork. Get with the program.

[Sushi]

Isn't this what Guardians are for?

Properly balanced, it seems to me that Guardians should take care of the "turret the base" concept nicely.

Are they balanced right now? Nah, I don't think so. Make them slower, give them AC instead of SC, up the sig, thin the hull a bit, give them almost no scan range, and make them available to all factions... then we might have something. They should make it slightly easier to defend a base at close range, but should also be very difficult to deploy & recover (by being ridiculously slow).

An unfortunate truth is that any turrets or turret-like solution is going to make it very, very hard to HTT by stealth.

[Weylin]

Come on, if they can only use AC, then you might as well D with bomber wich costs $500 less..

$1000 for somthing that cant even stand up to the firepower of a fig?

[Sushi]

QUOTE (Weylin @ Jan 23 2008, 04:17 PM) Come on, if they can only use AC, then you might as well D with bomber which costs $500 less..

$1000 for somthing that cant even stand up to the firepower of a fig?

Then make them cheaper, or tougher, or whatever. /smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" />

My point was basically the same as Mr. K's: the ability to do "base turrets" is in the engine. The real problem is figuring out how to create them in cores so that they are both useful and balanced.

[Virex]

havn't we got a bunch of damage types to spare? If you're afraid of HTT's becoming useless, give the turrets a damage type that does as much to a HTT as a piece of paper. Or just give them Gat 1 as a weapon, since by that time if the defending team's still using gat 1 to defend they're already screwed. You could still break base camps, because turrets are pieces of the base and thus unkillable. You just wouldn't be fast enough to stop a HTT.

[madpeople]

QUOTE (Virex @ Apr 8 2008, 01:31 PM) havn't we got a bunch of damage types to spare?

not in DN, i don't know about other cores, but i doubt there would be many left un-used.

hopefully when the new core format comes out we will have many more /smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" />

[badpazzword]

A zombie thread! TURN UNDEAD!