DUST Search - Remove WP for destroying yellow installation

Skihids wrote:

Unguarded/abandoned material is best destroyed rather than left to be captured by the enemy and used against your forces. It's an ancient doctrine of warfare.

Turrets qualify as abandoned material 99.9% of the time.

Hacking WPs should be removed from turrets because it incentivizes negative behavior. Hand them out for getting kills with the turret, but not for simply tagging it.

Infantry isn't affected by red turrets so they have no skin in the game. It is vehicle pilots who suffer when a previously blue turret turns red behind them. Good pilots clear away enemy turrets as they move into an area, but they can't do squat about abandoned blue turrets, they just sit there like automated mine fields waiting to go off.

How would infantry feel if CCP scattered AI turrets around the map? Would they just leave them in odd places to gank them if they turn red? Or would they destroy them if they weren't using them?

I feel there should be no yellow turrets. Let people buy and deploy them if they want one. The menu mechanism for deployment is already in game, as are the art assets and slot in the market so it shouldn't take more than six months to make the change.

And while we are at it, why the hell are there any neutral objects in the game at all? Why do the defenders wait for the referee's whistle to race the attackers for possession of their own property? It doesn't make a lick of sense.

Pages: 1 [2] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Nothing Certain Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 267	Posted - 2014.02.21 22:49:00 - [31] - Quote You will notice the only ones objecting are the tankers who get the WP. They should definitely remove the WP for destroying neutral turrets, you are destroying a potential team asset. I think they should go further and make them indestructible or at least as durable as CRU's and supply depots. They should be allowed to be disabled though. They should also remove AI so they are only useful when manned but strategic points when manned. Because, that's why.
Nothing Certain Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 267	Posted - 2014.02.21 22:58:00 - [32] - Quote Skihids wrote: Unguarded/abandoned material is best destroyed rather than left to be captured by the enemy and used against your forces. It's an ancient doctrine of warfare. Turrets qualify as abandoned material 99.9% of the time. Hacking WPs should be removed from turrets because it incentivizes negative behavior. Hand them out for getting kills with the turret, but not for simply tagging it. Infantry isn't affected by red turrets so they have no skin in the game. It is vehicle pilots who suffer when a previously blue turret turns red behind them. Good pilots clear away enemy turrets as they move into an area, but they can't do squat about abandoned blue turrets, they just sit there like automated mine fields waiting to go off. How would infantry feel if CCP scattered AI turrets around the map? Would they just leave them in odd places to gank them if they turn red? Or would they destroy them if they weren't using them? I feel there should be no yellow turrets. Let people buy and deploy them if they want one. The menu mechanism for deployment is already in game, as are the art assets and slot in the market so it shouldn't take more than six months to make the change. And while we are at it, why the hell are there any neutral objects in the game at all? Why do the defenders wait for the referee's whistle to race the attackers for possession of their own property? It doesn't make a lick of sense. I agree with some of what you say but think the answer lies in incentivizing the manning of turrets, not the hacking of them. There would be more use of turrets if they were not so easily destroyed, they also leave you vulnerable but that is ok. Are you not aware that many of the turrets are blasters and primarily AI? Infantry do face the same challenges as tanks with regards to turrets but we generally don't try to destroy them, the exception being grabbing a turret and milking WP by destroying other turrets, just like tankers. No one does it because they are a threat, even though they pose a threat to infantry, they do it for the WP. Because, that's why.
Awry Barux New Eden Blades Of The Azure Zero-Day 1011	Posted - 2014.02.21 23:04:00 - [33] - Quote Just take the turrets out until we can buy them, custom-fit them, and call them in using the OMS menu. As it is, they're simply an annoyance. Edit: actually, really, how hard would it be to make turrets a vehicle hull? 0 high slots, 2 low slots, one L turret slot. Have the RDV drop them off as usual.
The Black Jackal The Southern Legion 1041	Posted - 2014.02.25 02:06:00 - [34] - Quote Awry Barux wrote: Just take the turrets out until we can buy them, custom-fit them, and call them in using the OMS menu. As it is, they're simply an annoyance. Edit: actually, really, how hard would it be to make turrets a vehicle hull? 0 high slots, 2 low slots, one L turret slot. Have the RDV drop them off as usual. Though I'm not aware of exactly what CCP has done, I believe that the turrets are currently socketed. That is they will always remain in te same position, or drop in the same series of positions during OMS matches no matter what. Probably done to conserve memory and avoid collision failures. Even Vehicles have issues getting dropped off. Add to that that the vehicle call-in menu doesn't allow precision placement either, so you'd be effectively calling in a turrt at a random location somewhere in your vicinity. Now I don't know about most people, but if I'm paying for something to be dropped off, I'd want the ability to drop it anywhere and at whatever orientation I want within a metre or two. Once you go Black, you just never go back!
Aerius Corius FACTION WARFARE ARMY FACTION WARFARE ALLIANCE 8	Posted - 2014.02.25 02:18:00 - [35] - Quote Proposition: Turrets in Red Zone reward no sp - enemy or friend. The points tankers make are valid and until CCP looks at installations (there are lots of infantry who think they aren't good either for other reasons - notably a team should rely on vehicle support, not map support, to win) its not really fair to make neutrals not worth anything...because infantry do by and large take them for wp then move on since so many are poorly placed for infantry purposes. But you could change the ones under the MCC (and usually in the red zone or near it - to where they have no value since the enemy can't hack them (red zone) and its pointless for your team to destroy the assets. This could go one step further where the 'starting' installations on a map are this way only - so those usualy two or three guns, the supply depot, and one clone unit are now worthless for friendly kills. Food for thought. EDIT: Clarification below Infantry have a guaranteed fallback as do vehicles. Being deep in the field is risky - for anyone - so asset deprivation is a valid tactic. Near the "final stand" area of the MCC though, asset deprivation serves no purpose and should not be rewarded. Players don't get wp for taking these because they already belong to the team, tanks aren't concerned about them because they cannot be taken. That guy you killed with 0% shields? Yeah, I sniped him - go team. Oh, you didn't know...hmm. *CCP: Display Assists!!!
Asha Starwind VEXALATION CORPORATION Partners of Industrial Service and Salvage 381	Posted - 2014.02.25 02:23:00 - [36] - Quote Nope, nope, nope, too many times have I been sniped by unmanned installations to leave them alone, I'll destroy them before I'll capture one, can't destroy them when they're blue unless it's FW. Come back and make this suggestion again after you been sniped by an installation that was white/blue when you looked at it a few seconds earlier a few times. 32db Mad Bomber.
Talos Alomar Subdreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 2062	Posted - 2014.02.25 02:43:00 - [37] - Quote I hate turrets on principal. If you've ever been sniped by an unmanned turret you can see why. The auto turrets should be disabled, until then **** turrets. Kill em all. Most of them are in terrible positions, anyway. They're just there to maybe make a tanker roll a critical fail when it gets hacked by a red. Try to kill it all you want CCP, I still <3 my laser.
Mobius Wyvern Ahrendee Mercenaries EoN. 4645	Posted - 2014.02.25 04:05:00 - [38] - Quote Liquid Big Boss wrote: Harpyja wrote: This has been discussed already multiple times. A decent tanker will always destroy turret installations because they are liabilities. It can't suck any more than retreating after winning a tank battle with a bare minimum of your EHP left and being blown up by a rail installation that used to be blue. Also, I disagree with removing WP from neutral installations because destroying them absolutely ensures that the enemy won't get ahold of them, which should technically be considered as "playing the objective." haha what a joke, then let your team take it, it will help you destroy enemi tank, yellow installation don't even shoot. You all criing for WP don't get me wrong. Uh, no, that's not the only reason. You wanna take a bet on how many times some "helpful" blue dots have taken over railgun installations, only for a red dot to come along 5 minutes later, hack it, and then three-shot me out of the air? I could give a **** less about War Points. Whether I get anything from it or not, all turrets are going down because they pose too much of a potential threat. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Obodiah Garro Tech Guard RISE of LEGION 679	Posted - 2014.02.25 04:17:00 - [39] - Quote -1 Its only prudent to destroy the installations if you have any vehicle support on your side, so 99% of the time. WP should be paid out because its a much higher priority to destroy them than it is to let your own side capture them to use against the enemy. Even a blaster HAV at range will destroy an installation before it can be used to destroy it, therefore they are useless and not only should capturing them be dissuaded. the blueberries that indeed do cap them should be put down as well (FW). Am more in favour of removing turrets all together, until such a time installations gain a HP buff to depot/CRU level. Then maybe infantry will man them more often and make use of them.
Thrillhouse Van Houten DIOS EX. General Tso's Alliance 84	Posted - 2014.02.25 04:39:00 - [40] - Quote I agree with the idea that turrets should have somewhat lower DPS and much, much more life. I pretty much agree with the OP. If not zero WP then 25 or so. I remember doing the same exact thing on my rail tanker in 1.5. Sure it is as much or more about personal safety for the tanker, but that still doesn't mean you should rack up huge amounts of WP destroying 10 or 12 installations. WP equal Warbarge Strikes and OBs can mean a huge turning of the tide. A blue on the ground only gets 50 for taking out an enemy clone...why are unmanned neutral installations deemed strategically more important? Silly. ...and all you tankers that say red installations aren't something for infantry to fear have never won a 2 vs. 1 just to turn and walk 3 meters into an AI railgun blast to death... There are a lot of great points in this thread.

Glitch116 On The Brink CRONOS. 92	Posted - 2014.02.25 05:02:00 - [41] - Quote the thing i want to get across and that i don't think people get is you can remove WP from killing yellow turrets that is fine however that will not change anything or make yellow turrets useful they will still die no matter what hell i will take negative WPs if i have to nothing you can ever change about turrets is going to stop pilots from killing turrets I AM THE KING OF THE BLASTER!!! deal with it
Krom Ganesh Nos Nothi 1433	Posted - 2014.02.26 12:50:00 - [42] - Quote Skihids wrote: No, it doesn't explain yellow turrets in pub matches. The defending organization owns the turret, so it has programming access to it. Having programming access means they know and can give the IFF code to the mercenary organization they contract with. They wouldn't need to have their hires hack the equipment. To do so would require transferring IFF codes across large distances which can be tapped. I doubt anyone would think the risk of those codes being discovered would warrant the mercs getting a little extra firepower at the beginning of the attack.
maka rax Space Road Truckers. 19	Posted - 2014.02.26 13:28:00 - [43] - Quote Glitch116 wrote: the thing i want to get across and that i don't think people get is you can remove WP from killing yellow turrets that is fine however that will not change anything or make yellow turrets useful they will still die no matter what hell i will take negative WPs if i have to nothing you can ever change about turrets is going to stop pilots from killing turrets I disagree, I kill turrets now because they give the same amount of WP as taking an objective (+100). You can see the little scouts running their asses off for +50, but I can grab a tank and pop 3-5 of them before the match really kicks off and get +500 WP. I do understand the strategic nature of destroying them however, so it's sort of 50/50 (maybe 60/40 to WP) for me - as if I kill enough I've just about paid for my MLT tank. I say, just get rid of the damn things all together...make them player deployable.
Kilo Shells G.L.O.R.Y 33	Posted - 2014.02.26 17:02:00 - [44] - Quote +1 Points for target practice? I was in an ambush once in which my squad guarded blaster turret all game while the AI got the better part of the 50 kills. Are the arguments about reds hacking unguarded turrets has to be applied to both sides. This arguments hold no weight. Caldari Assault
Mahal Daj Mahal Tactical Enterprises 30	Posted - 2014.02.28 16:16:00 - [45] - Quote I agree with maka rax... make them deployable Boost your squad's points by 40%, learn to use the Squad Wheel! I provide training: 1M isk: 90 Minutes of Basic Command
The-Errorist 522	Posted - 2014.03.02 21:10:00 - [46] - Quote Destroying neutral installations should only award half of the WPs.
The-Errorist 522	Posted - 2014.03.02 21:10:00 - [47] - Quote Destroying neutral installations should only award half of the WPs.


Pages: 1 [2] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page