Free Allegiance Forums

Would it be possible to add turrets to bases in R5? Could be researched and built. I imagine this would require a code change. This would certainly add a new dimension to base camping.

This topic pops up every now and then
Short answer is that it makes most camping strategies completely worthless

turrets can't be attacked
turrets on a base wouldn't run out of ammo
turrets can fire in any direction without being obscured by their parent

any attempt to camp with small craft instantly fails due to range issues
tts also get hit

only caps and bbrs can really camp against turrets

Then just make them expensive to research and build. They can be countered with great tac tech or LRM's. But that's not the point I'm after. Is it possible and or feasible to implement?










(yay!!!! 50 posts!! I can vote now!!)

Possible to implement? Yes, it is. Would probably take around 80 hours of development time, plus testing. I don't think the feature is likely to be used, and it would require changes to a lot of code.

The devteam has other things to do at the moment, but if you want to code it up you are welcome.

i suppose one way to balance it would be to build them the same way you do as you build towers (from f5), then when the con launches, you tell it to build on a base (like you tell them to build on an aleph)
the con then flies over to the base, but instead of putting its self a certain distance from the base like it would an aleph, it builds its self so its model would intersect the bases model, but it can still be shot etc, so you can shoot the turrets off the base with fighters, killing them doesn't harm the base, but if the base gets killed then they die too.

they could be normal towers [just auto placed so they are in contact with the base], or they could be player controlled, which would need tome way to board them...

which would be the usual way of boarding things, but to join a turret you could either
right click the base and have a "board turret" option in the context menu

or

let the list be expandable, with little buttons to expand a base's list of turrets or hide it [just like the windows explorer folder tree thing]

actually, whether they are player controlled or auto turrets could be a core option [more powerful player controlled turrets + weaker auto turrets, though that's up to the core dev]

but either way, its up to someone interested to code it, so *shrugs*

but allowing a tower to auto build (done by the same method you get them to auto build on an aleph) so it intersects a base's model might not be such a big code change as normal turrets, as all you have to do is allow the turret and the base to not collide with each other in the collision detection (like a con doesn't collide with a rock when it builds on it), and tell it what to do if someone tells it to build on a base [very similar to the already written building on an aleph code, just with it building in a different position (ok, you need to take into account the base's CVH model, though you could just get it to build on vertices or in the middle of faces or middle of edges of polygons or all of the abode, so you already have pre-defined build positions, just need a method of choosing which)]

How to SB?.. unless the turrets going to have their own base in the way

ShadowMoses wrote:QUOTE (ShadowMoses @ Dec 31 2007, 02:23 PM) How to SB?.. unless the turrets going to have their own base in the way

that's up to the core dev.

my implementation is basically the same as building towers next to the base (actually slightly less effective probably)

so i ask you, how do you sb a base with towers built next to it?

madpeople wrote:QUOTE (madpeople @ Jan 1 2008, 10:24 AM) so i ask you, how do you sb a base with towers built next to it?

Get a SF to do a suicide mission on the towers, then bomb.

TB

Well we could make the turrets killable, mountable and with a limited turning dont?

I hate when people try to argue against new features by bringing up balance issues. This is the same as the sector overload business..

I say, add the functionality (if you feel so inclined youngmoose, or can get someone to add it), make it optional and let the core designers worry about balancing it (or if they eve want to make use of the new features!).