Author Topic: So, turret balance  (Read 27423 times)

Offline Vyndicu

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 319
Re: So, turret balance
« Reply #30 on: April 23, 2013, 07:26:42 pm »
I'm in favor of k cost reductions because mk i turrets do their job very well already for the most part. the changes to the bonuses for flaks and lightnings would help as well.


[thinking outside of the box]

what if turrets can move, but cannot traverse wormholes.

Kind of like fort already can now? Why do I need to move sniper turrets at all? Well for some it might make sense; other not so much.

Offline Marmu23

  • Newbie Mark III
  • *
  • Posts: 37
Re: So, turret balance
« Reply #31 on: April 23, 2013, 07:27:14 pm »
 I would be super pleased if all starships except raids lost their radar dampening. Also as another data point, I unlock mk2 turrets in every game, but only mk3 in games with exos since otherwise they cost too much K that could be used on more fun things. I find their stats just fine, they are just boring.

 Another thing that would be very nice is if all beam weapons got radar dampening immunity. Presently, the beams always go for their whole length if unimpeded, which means if there is a single fighter behind a pile of radar dampened stuff the beams will shoot the fighter, and will also hit the dampened stuff in the way, which means they very frequently hit radar dampened stuff anyway. This is one of the reasons why heavy beams are so good vs exos, they can kill large amounts of radar dampened ships in the AI blobs by shooting at the ships that are behind them. Their beams also melt cloaked ships they hit. And they are the only turret that can reliably destroy hunter killers. And they hit instantly at high range, so most enemy ships will never fire vs heavy beams while missile turrets will also kill most ships, but missiles are so slow the enemies will often have time to shoot 1-2 salvos on my stuff.

 This is now officially a post about how awesome heavy beams are. It is also an endorsement of the imminent arrival of beam drones. Yes.

Offline keith.lamothe

  • Arcen Games Staff
  • Arcen Staff
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,505
Re: So, turret balance
« Reply #32 on: April 23, 2013, 07:37:01 pm »
beam drones
So very wrong.

Mental images of walking down the carrier deck; here are the tiny needler drones; here are the tiny laser drones; etc... and here's the 1 fat oversized beam drone that takes up the entire fighter bay.
Have ideas or bug reports for one of our games? Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports. Thanks for helping to make our games better!

Offline chemical_art

  • Core Member Mark IV
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,952
  • Fabulous
Re: So, turret balance
« Reply #33 on: April 23, 2013, 09:37:12 pm »
I'm in favor of k cost reductions because mk i turrets do their job very well already for the most part. the changes to the bonuses for flaks and lightnings would help as well.


[thinking outside of the box]

what if turrets can move, but cannot traverse wormholes.

Kind of like fort already can now? Why do I need to move sniper turrets at all? Well for some it might make sense; other not so much.

You wouldn't have to move sniper turrets, but only because it is infinite range and radar immune.

However, many of the complaints arise from turrets complete lack of mobility, regarding radar dampening, range, etc. The way to tackle them most directly is to have the turrets move, even if slightly slower the even plasma sieges.

It's partly why missile turrets are so loved. They are loved because they cover the most ground, so spend so much time shooting. And why flaks receive complaints that live up to their name.

If the shorter ranged turrets could move, radar dampening is less of an issue, and if they move slow, raiders and the like can easily bypass them anyway. Moving will allow turrets will, at least on the tactical level, let them do as fleetships do and give the max dps for most situations.

It would take some fiddling, because you'd have to tell the turrets where to "stand-by", and said order would probably be lost if destroyed...yeah, that does sound complicated.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2013, 09:40:39 pm by chemical_art »
Life is short. Have fun.

Offline RCIX

  • Core Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,808
  • Avatar credit goes to Spookypatrol on League forum
Re: So, turret balance
« Reply #34 on: April 23, 2013, 10:36:20 pm »
beam drones
So very wrong.

Mental images of walking down the carrier deck; here are the tiny needler drones; here are the tiny laser drones; etc... and here's the 1 fat oversized beam drone that takes up the entire fighter bay.
And its still more effective than all the others put together =p
Avid League player and apparently back from the dead!

If we weren't going for your money, you wouldn't have gotten as much value for it!

Oh, wait... *causation loop detonates*

Offline Winge

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 601
Re: So, turret balance
« Reply #35 on: April 23, 2013, 10:38:50 pm »
It would take some fiddling, because you'd have to tell the turrets where to "stand-by", and said order would probably be lost if destroyed...yeah, that does sound complicated.

Don't we already have something like that with Attack-Move and FRD?  If I understand you correctly, that might be the 'behavior' you are looking for.


beam drones
So very wrong.

Mental images of walking down the carrier deck; here are the tiny needler drones; here are the tiny laser drones; etc... and here's the 1 fat oversized beam drone that takes up the entire fighter bay.

Just imagine when it fires.  Especially the Mk IV...designed by a mad scientist for sure.  :D
« Last Edit: April 23, 2013, 10:42:35 pm by Winge »
My other bonus ship is a TARDIS.

Offline Radiant Phoenix

  • Sr. Member Mark II
  • ****
  • Posts: 362
Re: So, turret balance
« Reply #36 on: April 23, 2013, 10:40:03 pm »
Half serious idea: Give humans guardians instead of turrets, and either make them supply-dependent, or just don't let them cross wormholes into hostile territory.

Offline Cinth

  • Core Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,527
  • Resident Zombie
Re: So, turret balance
« Reply #37 on: April 23, 2013, 10:44:30 pm »
Half serious idea: Give humans guardians instead of turrets, and either make them supply-dependent, or just don't let them cross wormholes into hostile territory.

Congratz.. you just killed my game  >:(
Quote from: keith.lamothe
Opened your save. My computer wept. Switched to the ST planet and ship icons filled my screen, so I zoomed out. Game told me that it _was_ totally zoomed out. You could seriously walk from one end of the inner grav well to the other without getting your feet cold.

Offline Radiant Phoenix

  • Sr. Member Mark II
  • ****
  • Posts: 362
Re: So, turret balance
« Reply #38 on: April 23, 2013, 10:48:55 pm »
Congratz.. you just killed my game  >:(
Actually, the reason I even suggested letting them function anywhere in supply was because I was thinking of you.

(Systems adjacent to yours have supply, as you should know, because turrets already require supply)

Offline chemical_art

  • Core Member Mark IV
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,952
  • Fabulous
Re: So, turret balance
« Reply #39 on: April 23, 2013, 10:49:52 pm »
Half serious idea: Give humans guardians instead of turrets, and either make them supply-dependent, or just don't let them cross wormholes into hostile territory.

"licks lips"

wait, is that wrong.

No, I am salivating over the idea.
Life is short. Have fun.

Offline Radiant Phoenix

  • Sr. Member Mark II
  • ****
  • Posts: 362
Re: So, turret balance
« Reply #40 on: April 23, 2013, 10:58:06 pm »
"licks lips"

wait, is that wrong.

No, I am salivating over the idea.
I fell in love with the idea as soon as it was born.

I thought, "I don't really like dealing with placing turrets."

"Other people don't like turrets because they're immobile."

"Doesn't the AI have a thing?"

"Oh yeah, guardians!"

"How do I differentiate this from starships?"

"Don't let them go on offense!"

Offline Cinth

  • Core Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,527
  • Resident Zombie
Re: So, turret balance
« Reply #41 on: April 23, 2013, 10:58:57 pm »
Congratz.. you just killed my game  >:(
Actually, the reason I even suggested letting them function anywhere in supply was because I was thinking of you.

(Systems adjacent to yours have supply, as you should know, because turrets already require supply)

Cross into hostile territory part would kill it for me.

And how to address beachheads.
Quote from: keith.lamothe
Opened your save. My computer wept. Switched to the ST planet and ship icons filled my screen, so I zoomed out. Game told me that it _was_ totally zoomed out. You could seriously walk from one end of the inner grav well to the other without getting your feet cold.

Offline Radiant Phoenix

  • Sr. Member Mark II
  • ****
  • Posts: 362
Re: So, turret balance
« Reply #42 on: April 23, 2013, 11:01:25 pm »
I was suggesting one restriction or the other, not both.

Also, I suppose one could try option 2b: let players build them in hostile territory, but don't let them move them in from other systems.

Offline chemical_art

  • Core Member Mark IV
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,952
  • Fabulous
Re: So, turret balance
« Reply #43 on: April 23, 2013, 11:09:49 pm »
Congratz.. you just killed my game  >:(
Actually, the reason I even suggested letting them function anywhere in supply was because I was thinking of you.

(Systems adjacent to yours have supply, as you should know, because turrets already require supply)

Cross into hostile territory part would kill it for me.

And how to address beachheads.

Considering nothing is stopping you from building them if you have supply in enemy territory, and that beacheads aren't used anyway (seriously, when was the last time they were used) I don't think they aren't major obstacles.
Life is short. Have fun.

Offline Faulty Logic

  • Hero Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,194
  • Bane of the AI
Re: So, turret balance
« Reply #44 on: April 23, 2013, 11:16:24 pm »
I could see condensing the turrets into guardians, with the same dps, but in-system mobility. Controlling them would be annoying, though. And it would be really hard to preserve save compatibility across versions.
If warheads can't solve it, use more warheads.