DUST Search - [Requests] The issues about (stationary) turrets.

Talos Alomar wrote:

Ryme Intrinseca wrote:

Reno Pechieu wrote:

Ryme Intrinseca wrote:

Turret AI is OP. I'm particularly thinking of large rails. Honestly, what is the point of putting AI in game that can OHK any infantry from across the map? At least with tower forging, cheap as it is, someone feels the benefit. Getting OHKed by an AI turret is the game griefing the player, plain and simple.

My suggestion would simply be to make AI rails not target infantry under any circumstances (or LAV drivers - they still hit vehicles themselves of course).

That would just be silly, presuming that Dust 514 goal is realism.
Also, while I been taken out from time to time, I mostly found AI to be easily outwitted, either by sidestepping or hiding behind cover until the ADHD-subroutine in the AI kicks in.

Obviously Dust's goal is not realism. If it was ARs would be taking down targets at 200m.

Why is AR range shorter? Because that makes for more enjoyable engagements and fewer cheap deaths. And there you have the reasons why large rail AI needs to be nerfed.

But that begs the question - What is realistic?

This is a sci-fi shooter. Obviously it's not grounded in modern day realities. The AR itself just isn't what we generally think of an AR being. It's a short ranged plasma rifle.

There is a term that some of you may know, it has it's start in theater but also has it's use in any other form of entertainment.

Suspension of disbelief is something that all audiences, or in this case gamers, use to let themselves truly get immersed into whatever they are trying to enjoy. Whether it be a getting scared in a horror flick even though you are safe, or getting lost in the story of a play even though you're just watching a bunch of people in makeup talking to each other on a stage.

When you spawn in you are in effect suspending your disbelief. and anything that breaks you out of that moment of having lost yourself in the world of the game, i.e. HOW THE **** DID THAT TURRET GET ME?, is bad.

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Reno Pechieu Algintal Core Gallente Federation 15	Posted - 2013.11.10 01:56:00 - [1] - Quote Seriously; who made these, the Suicide Bunnies? They are large stationary objects with low Hit-Points, they possess no self-repair, their weapons are possible militia grade, their on board targeting AI is slow and taking manual control leaves the user vulnerable. And these are supposed to be defensive structures? Then how come it has less HP than the installations it protects? Also, they have the oddest placements at times, short range ones on open fields making them easy pickings for anything with some range, and many of them are boxed in, looking straight into wall sides most of the times. And whatGÇÖs with them not being able to attack targets directly above them? That is exactly the very advantage these turrets should have over their mobile counterparts on HAV. Did the designer of these somehow forget that every side in they might target have spaceships and likely also have aircrafts? That seems like it should be pretty high on things these non-mobile defence structures should be able to target on their own. Oh, and before I forget. I tried looking this up, but havenGÇÖt found any information on this. But if the turret operation skill doesnGÇÖt also increase the stationary turrets damage output, it should (and better information should be provided) Anyway, getting to the major issue: The stationary turrets need to have an overhaul, they are too squishy I would say that they should receive a huge HP boost and regeneration as well, taking these out should not be trivial. Since this will make it much more challenging to outright destroy them for sides that need them out of the way, hereGÇÖs a thought on that: Players should be able to initiate a shutdown sequence on turrets they control. This is a much longer process then the standard hacking, but once complete takes the turret off-line. Meaning, even if the other side does hack it, they still need to reactivate it (which should take longer to make it worth the effort) Although, with this change it seems reasonable to make them susceptible to precision strike With this change, it both makes turrets the defensive installation theyGÇÖre meant to be, but also gives people who do not have a tank team or proto-weapons a means to neutralise them. Flux grenades should cause momentary shutdowns, giving a strike force a window of attack Also, I always felt that the user should enter the turret, like HAVGÇÖs. But if the turrets is hacked, the user inside is terminated (loses a clone) TLDR: Turrets need more HP, whit option to shut them down.
Talos Vagheitan 159	Posted - 2013.11.10 02:33:00 - [2] - Quote Right now I think the turrets are highly underrated in terms of strategic value. An operator spec'ed into turret operation, combined with a repairman with a Rep Tool designed for vehicles, would be a pretty deadly combo. Especially for limiting enemy vehicles. Who cares what some sniper has to say
Torq Torqelson Subdreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 0	Posted - 2013.11.10 03:51:00 - [3] - Quote Right now, I find the turrets to have the highest strategic value just as the game is starting. You can usually jump into one just as the match starts and slam on vehicles being delivered to the other team EVEN BEFORE THEY HIT THE GROUND. I've destroyed countless dropships and LAVs before their drivers even get a chance to get into them. Tanks are usually a bit more of a challenge, but it's doable. Taking out two or three opposing dropships at the start of the match is a great way to turn the balance into your favor early on.
Ferindar Isuuaya Tactical Caldari State 74	Posted - 2013.11.10 06:39:00 - [4] - Quote Not to mention that blaster turrets can randomly headshot LAV drivers. S'why usually people wipe them out at the start of a match, that and the major WP bonuses.
Reno Pechieu Algintal Core Gallente Federation 15	Posted - 2013.11.10 13:41:00 - [5] - Quote Torq Torqelson wrote: Right now, I find the turrets to have the highest strategic value just as the game is starting. You can usually jump into one just as the match starts and slam on vehicles being delivered to the other team EVEN BEFORE THEY HIT THE GROUND. I've destroyed countless dropships and LAVs before their drivers even get a chance to get into them. Tanks are usually a bit more of a challenge, but it's doable. Taking out two or three opposing dropships at the start of the match is a great way to turn the balance into your favor early on. True, which is what I also do. Although, I must admit it's kind of weird that hostile turrets often are place with Line of sight to each other across the map. Turrets I feel, should be denial of area and should require people on foot to capture or neutralise them so vehicles can safely move in. Ferindar wrote: Not to mention that blaster turrets can randomly headshot LAV drivers. S'why usually people wipe them out at the start of a match, that and the major WP bonuses. Yes, this is what I mean about them being trivial. Most of the time it's someone who captures one turret and destroys the others with it, or someone with a forge, mass driver, plasma or swarm launcher that wipes them out. Heck, it usually takes three attacks from my militia swarm launcher to wreck them, that's hardly a challenge. The two secrets to be a good sadist: 1) Don't tell them everything you planned.
Ryme Intrinseca Seraphim Auxiliaries 194	Posted - 2013.11.10 14:30:00 - [6] - Quote Turret AI is OP. I'm particularly thinking of large rails. Honestly, what is the point of putting AI in game that can OHK any infantry from across the map? At least with tower forging, cheap as it is, someone feels the benefit. Getting OHKed by an AI turret is the game griefing the player, plain and simple. My suggestion would simply be to make AI rails not target infantry under any circumstances (or LAV drivers - they still hit vehicles themselves of course).
Reno Pechieu Algintal Core Gallente Federation 15	Posted - 2013.11.10 14:40:00 - [7] - Quote Ryme Intrinseca wrote: Turret AI is OP. I'm particularly thinking of large rails. Honestly, what is the point of putting AI in game that can OHK any infantry from across the map? At least with tower forging, cheap as it is, someone feels the benefit. Getting OHKed by an AI turret is the game griefing the player, plain and simple. My suggestion would simply be to make AI rails not target infantry under any circumstances (or LAV drivers - they still hit vehicles themselves of course). That would just be silly, presuming that Dust 514 goal is realism. Also, while I been taken out from time to time, I mostly found AI to be easily outwitted, either by sidestepping or hiding behind cover until the ADHD-subroutine in the AI kicks in. The two secrets to be a good sadist: 1) Don't tell them everything you planned.
Ryme Intrinseca Seraphim Auxiliaries 194	Posted - 2013.11.10 15:22:00 - [8] - Quote Reno Pechieu wrote: Ryme Intrinseca wrote: Turret AI is OP. I'm particularly thinking of large rails. Honestly, what is the point of putting AI in game that can OHK any infantry from across the map? At least with tower forging, cheap as it is, someone feels the benefit. Getting OHKed by an AI turret is the game griefing the player, plain and simple. My suggestion would simply be to make AI rails not target infantry under any circumstances (or LAV drivers - they still hit vehicles themselves of course). That would just be silly, presuming that Dust 514 goal is realism. Also, while I been taken out from time to time, I mostly found AI to be easily outwitted, either by sidestepping or hiding behind cover until the ADHD-subroutine in the AI kicks in. Obviously Dust's goal is not realism. If it was ARs would be taking down targets at 200m. Why is AR range shorter? Because that makes for more enjoyable engagements and fewer cheap deaths. And there you have the reasons why large rail AI needs to be nerfed.
Reno Pechieu Algintal Core Gallente Federation 16	Posted - 2013.11.10 15:48:00 - [9] - Quote Ryme Intrinseca wrote: Reno Pechieu wrote: Ryme Intrinseca wrote: Turret AI is OP. I'm particularly thinking of large rails. Honestly, what is the point of putting AI in game that can OHK any infantry from across the map? At least with tower forging, cheap as it is, someone feels the benefit. Getting OHKed by an AI turret is the game griefing the player, plain and simple. My suggestion would simply be to make AI rails not target infantry under any circumstances (or LAV drivers - they still hit vehicles themselves of course). That would just be silly, presuming that Dust 514 goal is realism. Also, while I been taken out from time to time, I mostly found AI to be easily outwitted, either by sidestepping or hiding behind cover until the ADHD-subroutine in the AI kicks in. Obviously Dust's goal is not realism. If it was ARs would be taking down targets at 200m. Why is AR range shorter? Because that makes for more enjoyable engagements and fewer cheap deaths. And there you have the reasons why large rail AI needs to be nerfed. Actually, the effective range on the M16 assault rifle is, 550 meters (point target) or 800 meters (area target) And I myself have no problems with that, but I yield in this regard as I see how that would demand much bigger maps and alter the current gameplay too much. But I still stand that the AI on the turrets are easy, you should have no problems avoiding it shots most of the time unless otherwise occupied or unlucky. Again, they are defensive installations. Taking one on your own should be a risk (yet I ATM solo them with ease in militia gear) The two secrets to be a good sadist: 1) Don't tell them everything you planned.
Talos Alomar Subdreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 1736	Posted - 2013.11.10 15:53:00 - [10] - Quote Ryme Intrinseca wrote: Reno Pechieu wrote: Ryme Intrinseca wrote: Turret AI is OP. I'm particularly thinking of large rails. Honestly, what is the point of putting AI in game that can OHK any infantry from across the map? At least with tower forging, cheap as it is, someone feels the benefit. Getting OHKed by an AI turret is the game griefing the player, plain and simple. My suggestion would simply be to make AI rails not target infantry under any circumstances (or LAV drivers - they still hit vehicles themselves of course). That would just be silly, presuming that Dust 514 goal is realism. Also, while I been taken out from time to time, I mostly found AI to be easily outwitted, either by sidestepping or hiding behind cover until the ADHD-subroutine in the AI kicks in. Obviously Dust's goal is not realism. If it was ARs would be taking down targets at 200m. Why is AR range shorter? Because that makes for more enjoyable engagements and fewer cheap deaths. And there you have the reasons why large rail AI needs to be nerfed. But that begs the question - What is realistic? This is a sci-fi shooter. Obviously it's not grounded in modern day realities. The AR itself just isn't what we generally think of an AR being. It's a short ranged plasma rifle. There is a term that some of you may know, it has it's start in theater but also has it's use in any other form of entertainment. Suspension of disbelief is something that all audiences, or in this case gamers, use to let themselves truly get immersed into whatever they are trying to enjoy. Whether it be a getting scared in a horror flick even though you are safe, or getting lost in the story of a play even though you're just watching a bunch of people in makeup talking to each other on a stage. When you spawn in you are in effect suspending your disbelief. and anything that breaks you out of that moment of having lost yourself in the world of the game, i.e. HOW THE **** DID THAT TURRET GET ME?, is bad.

Reno Pechieu Algintal Core Gallente Federation 16	Posted - 2013.11.10 16:06:00 - [11] - Quote Talos Alomar wrote: Ryme Intrinseca wrote: Reno Pechieu wrote: Ryme Intrinseca wrote: Turret AI is OP. I'm particularly thinking of large rails. Honestly, what is the point of putting AI in game that can OHK any infantry from across the map? At least with tower forging, cheap as it is, someone feels the benefit. Getting OHKed by an AI turret is the game griefing the player, plain and simple. My suggestion would simply be to make AI rails not target infantry under any circumstances (or LAV drivers - they still hit vehicles themselves of course). That would just be silly, presuming that Dust 514 goal is realism. Also, while I been taken out from time to time, I mostly found AI to be easily outwitted, either by sidestepping or hiding behind cover until the ADHD-subroutine in the AI kicks in. Obviously Dust's goal is not realism. If it was ARs would be taking down targets at 200m. Why is AR range shorter? Because that makes for more enjoyable engagements and fewer cheap deaths. And there you have the reasons why large rail AI needs to be nerfed. But that begs the question - What is realistic? This is a sci-fi shooter. Obviously it's not grounded in modern day realities. The AR itself just isn't what we generally think of an AR being. It's a short ranged plasma rifle. There is a term that some of you may know, it has it's start in theater but also has it's use in any other form of entertainment. Suspension of disbelief is something that all audiences, or in this case gamers, use to let themselves truly get immersed into whatever they are trying to enjoy. Whether it be a getting scared in a horror flick even though you are safe, or getting lost in the story of a play even though you're just watching a bunch of people in makeup talking to each other on a stage. When you spawn in you are in effect suspending your disbelief. and anything that breaks you out of that moment of having lost yourself in the world of the game, i.e. HOW THE ** DID THAT TURRET GET ME?, is bad. That I can agree on, it is after all the future, with protection that might render current firearms ineffective. And thus, new weapons, perhaps with less range have emerged. But I must say, I never thought "HOW THE ** DID THAT TURRET GET ME?". It's mostly 'DOH!', 'Notlob!' or 'I Zigged when I should've Zagged' The two secrets to be a good sadist: 1) Don't tell them everything you planned.
Ryme Intrinseca Seraphim Auxiliaries 194	Posted - 2013.11.10 16:28:00 - [12] - Quote Reno Pechieu wrote: Ryme Intrinseca wrote: Reno Pechieu wrote: Ryme Intrinseca wrote: Turret AI is OP. I'm particularly thinking of large rails. Honestly, what is the point of putting AI in game that can OHK any infantry from across the map? At least with tower forging, cheap as it is, someone feels the benefit. Getting OHKed by an AI turret is the game griefing the player, plain and simple. My suggestion would simply be to make AI rails not target infantry under any circumstances (or LAV drivers - they still hit vehicles themselves of course). That would just be silly, presuming that Dust 514 goal is realism. Also, while I been taken out from time to time, I mostly found AI to be easily outwitted, either by sidestepping or hiding behind cover until the ADHD-subroutine in the AI kicks in. Obviously Dust's goal is not realism. If it was ARs would be taking down targets at 200m. Why is AR range shorter? Because that makes for more enjoyable engagements and fewer cheap deaths. And there you have the reasons why large rail AI needs to be nerfed. Actually, the effective range on the M16 assault rifle is, 550 meters (point target) or 800 meters (area target) And I myself have no problems with that, but I yield in this regard as I see how that would demand much bigger maps and alter the current gameplay too much. But I still stand that the AI on the turrets are easy, you should have no problems avoiding it shots most of the time unless otherwise occupied or unlucky. Again, they are defensive installations. Taking one on your own should be a risk (yet I ATM solo them with ease in militia gear) But what benefit is there to it getting you when you're otherwise occupied or unlucky? In what way does getting OHKed by an AI hundreds of metres away make things more enjoyable for you?
Reno Pechieu Algintal Core Gallente Federation 16	Posted - 2013.11.10 16:38:00 - [13] - Quote Ryme Intrinseca wrote: But what benefit is there to it getting you when you're otherwise occupied or unlucky? In what way does getting OHKed by an AI hundreds of metres away make things more enjoyable for you? I always try to have a pretty decent battle awareness, especially with something that powerful. ItGÇÖs a defensive structure made to be mostly an area denial for vehicles, but it makes sense that it also attacks hostile foot troops. ItGÇÖs not enjoyable for me either, but I suspect you find it more frustrating. I have more of GÇÿegg on my faceGÇÖ experience, half-hardily laughing at myself for not paying attention to that giant cannon in the first place. But this might all boil down to how we perceive them, I find them easy targets that go down way to fast and would like them to take more of a beating and perhaps put up a better fight. The two secrets to be a good sadist: 1) Don't tell them everything you planned.
Talos Vagheitan 162	Posted - 2013.11.10 16:45:00 - [14] - Quote I always hated the scramble to destroy all the neutral turrets right off the bat. I feel that destroying a neutral turret should offer zero WP, only reward destruction of enemy controlled turrets. Who cares what some sniper has to say
Reno Pechieu Algintal Core Gallente Federation 16	Posted - 2013.11.10 16:58:00 - [15] - Quote Talos Vagheitan wrote: I always hated the scramble to destroy all the neutral turrets right off the bat. I feel that destroying a neutral turret should offer zero WP, only reward destruction of enemy controlled turrets. Agree, even though I been guilty of doing it myself plenty of times (In WP, it makes sense) As I mentioned at the first post, if people want to take them out, a lot more effort should be put into outright destroy them and there should be a option to cause them to shut down (and then require a lengthy reboot time should anyone want them online again). The two secrets to be a good sadist: 1) Don't tell them everything you planned.
Talos Alomar Subdreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 1736	Posted - 2013.11.10 17:51:00 - [16] - Quote Reno Pechieu wrote: Talos Vagheitan wrote: I always hated the scramble to destroy all the neutral turrets right off the bat. I feel that destroying a neutral turret should offer zero WP, only reward destruction of enemy controlled turrets. Agree, even though I been guilty of doing it myself plenty of times (In WP, it makes sense) As I mentioned at the first post, if people want to take them out, a lot more effort should be put into outright destroy them and there should be a option to cause them to shut down (and then require a lengthy reboot time should anyone want them online again). The people I know always wanted to destroy the turrets as that they are dangerous and unpredictable for vehicles. If a red hacks a rail turret and walks away it's kinda like giving vehicles a certain chance of rolling a critical fail and dying because the game decided that they felt like targeting you.
Reno Pechieu Algintal Core Gallente Federation 18	Posted - 2013.11.10 23:46:00 - [17] - Quote Talos Alomar wrote: Reno Pechieu wrote: Talos Vagheitan wrote: I always hated the scramble to destroy all the neutral turrets right off the bat. I feel that destroying a neutral turret should offer zero WP, only reward destruction of enemy controlled turrets. Agree, even though I been guilty of doing it myself plenty of times (In WP, it makes sense) As I mentioned at the first post, if people want to take them out, a lot more effort should be put into outright destroy them and there should be a option to cause them to shut down (and then require a lengthy reboot time should anyone want them online again). The people I know always wanted to destroy the turrets as that they are dangerous and unpredictable for vehicles. If a red hacks a rail turret and walks away it's kinda like giving vehicles a certain chance of rolling a critical fail and dying because the game decided that they felt like targeting you. Well it makes sense at the moment to destroy them; they are easy to kill, give a nice WP and denies the enemy any chance on getting their hands on them. The fact that they are a treat to some tanks is a good thing, since it makes it possible for does on foot to secure one and push HAVs back. This is also one of the reasons why I feel the user should enter the turret, making it difficult to just rush and kill the user to remove the threat for vehicles. The two secrets to be a good sadist: 1) Don't tell them everything you planned.
Reno Pechieu Algintal Core Gallente Federation 21	Posted - 2013.11.13 23:08:00 - [18] - Quote Should point out as to avoid confusion; itGÇÖs mostly the survivability of the turret installations and the one using them that should be improved. The weapons, while sometimes lacking punch against some of the higher tier vehicles, serves as a good area of denial, especially if backed up with AV-weapon wielding foot soldiers. Also, some better placement of them. As to prevent people entering turrets to blast the others, quickly leading to boring back and forth blasting between two opposing turrets. The two secrets to be a good sadist: 1) Don't tell them everything you planned.
Meeko Fent Xer Cloud Consortium 1520	Posted - 2013.11.13 23:17:00 - [19] - Quote Turrets UP? Tell that to the guy who got headshoted at 164 meters in a moving dropship by a missile installation. For the State! For Caldari FW join Caldari Hierarchy
Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui Kinsho Swords Caldari State 74	Posted - 2013.11.13 23:19:00 - [20] - Quote I can NEVER understand why MY team mates destroy turrets that are around ( beginning when starting ) THEIR MCC and the home spawn area's as well . I always think that it would be better for them , if they were to destroy the enemy's turrets . I just think that they make things too easy for the enemy using these methods . " Doubts are like flies and should be crushed !!!!!! " I hope that I am THE FLY SWATTER of those in my presence .

Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui Kinsho Swords Caldari State 75	Posted - 2013.11.13 23:23:00 - [21] - Quote Reno Pechieu wrote: Should point out as to avoid confusion; itGÇÖs mostly the survivability of the turret installations and the one using them that should be improved. The weapons, while sometimes lacking punch against some of the higher tier vehicles, serves as a good area of denial, especially if backed up with AV-weapon wielding foot soldiers. Also, some better placement of them. As to prevent people entering turrets to blast the others, quickly leading to boring back and forth blasting between two opposing turrets. Sometimes turrets are placed in BAD positions as well . They serve NO purpose for offensive and defensive purposes . Those are the ones that need to be placed in better positioning . " Doubts are like flies and should be crushed !!!!!! " I hope that I am THE FLY SWATTER of those in my presence .
Reno Pechieu Algintal Core Gallente Federation 24	Posted - 2013.11.15 02:34:00 - [22] - Quote Meeko Fent wrote: Turrets UP? Tell that to the guy who got headshoted at 164 meters in a moving dropship by a missile installation. Hitting a dropship with a missile installation? I usually avoid those because it more or less firing buckshot at the sky, if does decent damage if it hits, but I found it too unreliable to use it against any pilot who uses some evasive maneuvers. Also, itGÇÖs not about the damage, the damage is fine (for the most part). It the survivability of the turret and the user that the issue. Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui wrote: I can NEVER understand why MY team mates destroy turrets that are around ( beginning when starting ) THEIR MCC and the home spawn area's as well . I always think that it would be better for them , if they were to destroy the enemy's turrets . I just think that they make things too easy for the enemy using these methods . Agreed, but most people fail to see the value of keeping them, or view them as more hassle to keep around because the enemy might get it and use it on them (especially tank crew make a note of destroying every turret they can early). Which is a shame, since thereGÇÖs lots of game possibility for people fighting over who controls the turret in order to easier control the surrounding area. Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui wrote: Sometimes turrets are placed in BAD positions as well . They serve NO purpose for offensive and defensive purposes . Those are the ones that need to be placed in better positioning . True, true. Some more consideration from the map-designers where the turrets are places would not go amiss. The two secrets to be a good sadist: 1) Don't tell them everything you planned.
Patrick57 GunFall Mobilization Covert Intervention 1462	Posted - 2013.11.15 02:44:00 - [23] - Quote I've found AI turrets to be extremely accurate; a little too accurate for being AI and all.... ö/\ö :D
Reno Pechieu Algintal Core Gallente Federation 36	Posted - 2013.11.27 13:38:00 - [24] - Quote Patrick57 wrote: I've found AI turrets to be extremely accurate; a little too accurate for being AI and all.... Are you sure it was AI then? I found the AI to be dumb as dirt, often AI-controlled turret installations will be firing at enemy controlled Null-cannons non-stop, heck, sometimes they continue even after your team captures it. Also, compared to other games, AI-controlled turrets in dust are slow and inaccurate. The two secrets to be a good sadist: 1) Don't tell them everything you planned.
Patrick57 Fatal Absolution 1772	Posted - 2013.11.27 18:22:00 - [25] - Quote Reno Pechieu wrote: Patrick57 wrote: I've found AI turrets to be extremely accurate; a little too accurate for being AI and all.... Are you sure it was AI then? I found the AI to be dumb as dirt, often AI-controlled turret installations will be firing at enemy controlled Null-cannons non-stop, heck, sometimes they continue even after your team captures it. Also, compared to other games, AI-controlled turrets in dust are slow and inaccurate. Yes, I've seen them do that, but there are times when they aim at me unprovoked, and I end up getting blown up because it's a Railgun. Most of the people in turrets are usually camping in the redline.... When I'm depressed, I cut myself......A BIG SLICE OF CHOCOLATE CAKE!
Slag Emberforge Immortal Retribution 163	Posted - 2013.11.27 19:55:00 - [26] - Quote You can't destroy turrets directly next to MMC dude, they are automatically allied at match start. I destroy every installation that I can, because a rail takes between 6-10 to hack and can 1/2hit a LAV. I blow up turrets, and it allows me to cruise around and hunt for enemy vehicles or hack CRUs/objectives when they are not properly defended, vehicle up and cruise on. Blaster turrets can absolutely kill you and your lav, but its the rails and missiles that are too dangerous not to destroy. Honestly leaving them up is a liability, just waiting for someone to roll in, take over, and then all of your teams vehicles are easily denied from reaching the places they need to go to provide support.
Alena Ventrallis Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 170	Posted - 2013.11.27 21:28:00 - [27] - Quote I'm for harder to kill turrets, being protected while manning them, and better placement. On the condition the AI never targets drop ships or infantry with railguns.
Reno Pechieu Algintal Core Gallente Federation 39	Posted - 2013.11.30 02:45:00 - [28] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: I'm for harder to kill turrets, being protected while manning them, and better placement. On the condition the AI never targets drop ships or infantry with railguns. Why? It seems suspiciously like youGÇÖre trying to make it avoid targeting something you are fond of using. ItGÇÖs a defensive system, why wouldnGÇÖt it target those things? But, it could have a scan value, if something doesnGÇÖt show up on it scans it doesnGÇÖt target it. So profile reducing modules get more useful. The two secrets to be a good sadist: 1) Don't tell them everything you planned.
Reno Pechieu Algintal Core Gallente Federation 44	Posted - 2013.12.12 02:06:00 - [29] - Quote Some feedback on turret placement on the 1.7: It seems there has been some changes, either that or turrets not spawn random (which I havenGÇÖt noticed before in public skirmish matches). Either way, they still horrific, often placing long-range turrets in useless positions or short-range installations in vulnerable positions. The two secrets to be a good sadist: 1) Don't tell them everything you planned.


Pages: [1] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page