Overall game design from YOUR perspective

[Arson_Fire]

heh heh, you have to be careful with the idea of deployable turrets and walls or it will end up like Empires mod.

[XP105]

Ok, so on top of them being heavy, have it so it takes time to set up, so they are just standing there having to wait for the turret/wall to be built

[Arson_Fire]

That wouldn't stop turret farming, it would just make it more boring.
I think the key is to make them powerful but rather expensive and easy to destroy.

The main lesson I learned from playing Empires is that focus on defensive gameplay is not very fun. This includes constructing elaborate bases with walls, towers, many buildings, etc. It sounds great in theory but when you actually play it is slow and time consuming. It just becomes about slowly wearing down your opponent in a war of attrition. Some use of static defences is necessary but I feel the focus of the game should be on attacking rather than holding ground.

I do like WhiskeyGhosts idea of upgrading bases with slots for sensors/weapons, etc.

[finnbryant]

im in agreement with arson, any defense should be players actively defending, not spending ages building walls/turrets.
I think turrets should follow the same rules as those in alleg (ie limited number, cost money) if they are implemented at all.

[Virex]

QUOTE (Arson_Fire @ Feb 15 2009, 01:20 AM) heh heh, you have to be careful with the idea of deployable turrets and walls or it will end up like Empires mod.

Seems like something that would be solved by dropping a few artillery shells

Anyway, I agree that massing turrets and walls isn't something we should encourage. So here's how I think we ought to deal with turrets:

Turrets come in 2 classes: Stationary and portable.

Stationary turrets are normal structures with one major difference: they have a gun, which can only be controlled manualy. So someone actualy has to get in there and shoot with it. That way the amount of turrets is effectively capped at the amount of players on your team, though you'll certanly want less people then that turreting. This kind of turret is comparable to a lgth base in allegiance. It can be destroyed by normal anti-tank weapons, but it's quite sturdy. Last but not least, they feature a hangar for light vehicles (bikes, quads et cetera), so anyone manning the turret can quickly get out and leave if needed. I am not sure if they should have transfer capacities, since not having them would enable the opponent to steal the turret and use it against you.
Stationary turrets can have any weapon availible, including perhaps some that can't be carried by vehicles. Small internal production systems provide all the ammo needed

Portable turrets are small turrets that can be carried by engineer. To prevent reprogramming and friendly fire, the turret itself does not select target. The engineer has to do this by indicating the target to shoot at, using a small beacon launcher that can be attached to the nan he normaly carries. Once a target has been selected, the turret will fire at it untill it's destroyed, the beacon is removed or a new beacon is placed. A single engineer can only controll a single turret at any given time, but a deployed turret can be picked up again to be redeployed somewhere else. Portable turrets are susceptibel to any weapon capable of damaging light vehicles, but they do have a bonus since they have a small profile. Portable turrets can have any weapon availible to light vehicles, including mortars, making them excelent early game artillery. They have a limited amount of ammo and need to be reloaded regulary.

[finnbryant]

on portable turrets, why not the same way as allegs pods? they target whoever you have targeted (obviously it would be changed so they change to a new target if you do).

but other than that, good plan.

[fuzzylunkin1]

Why not have a limited amount of expensive, powerful, portable turrets (like towers)?

EDIT:
After more thought, the limitation of being human-controlled and limited ammo may work just fine.

[Virex]

QUOTE (Finn Bryant @ Feb 16 2009, 05:15 PM) on portable turrets, why not the same way as allegs pods? they target whoever you have targeted (obviously it would be changed so they change to a new target if you do).

I thought about that, but then I realised that an engineer usualy carries a nan. And if you're carrying a nan, you don't want to have to target opponents all the time. Just shooting a beacon at an opponent makes it easier to keep your turrets occupied, while still enabling you to find your original target back for some naning love.

[finnbryant]

sorry, I should have been more clear, I actually meant "target" in the same way we do in alleg so that their data comes up on the hud etc. and like alleg, you can target a friend and an enemy at the same time, that way the need for added functionality on the nan is avoided.

basically, im trying to avoid doing more work, cos im lazy

[WhiskeyGhost]

Idea: Why not make deployable turrets with limited lifespans (5 minutes?), reasonably low health, reasonably low range, and of course cost some money.

If the whole "Slot" system i've suggested earlier comes into play, that could be used for more permanent heavy turrets, which could just be split into classes (Anti-Infantry, Anti-Mechanized Suit, Anti-Tank, Anti-Stealth, depending on how that all comes out with types), and then it's a matter of balancing them out to where having one of each type isn't useful, but also takes up slots for other things which may be more beneficial.

Say the enemy has gone a tech route focusing on Tanks. You could build that forward outpost with 4 of it's limited slots with AT turrets to help make it more fortified against Tank based attacks, but if the enemy switches out tactics and attacks with Infantry, even with them being weak compared to their Tanks, it would result in better success. You could even mesh out how the turrets fare against certain types, such as Anti-Tank turrets are good against tanks, ok against stealth, poor against MS, and negligible against Infantry, and do the same with the other types.