I have thought the same, interesting to hear other peoples thoughts. Would make tanks less "run around and two-shot all the installations first" and actually have to worry a little about them.

I have thought the same, interesting to hear other peoples thoughts. Would make tanks less "run around and two-shot all the installations first" and actually have to worry a little about them.

wait wait wait wait hold up.




It takes me four shots :(

Turrets514. =ƒÿâ

no man why you run with railgun? you better choose XT-201 DAT TURRET

Hello there, while I may have no credibility as a game designer or expert player*, I was thinking of an interesting change to the battlefield that would make the game more intense and dynamic without the need to change much.

Seeing that there is NEVER going to be deploy-able installations, that a dramatic buff to the hit points of weapon installations would make a lot of sense. Right now, the only thing they are good for are Pilots and AVers to farm early warpoints at the beginning of a battle. They make seemingly no difference in battle and aren't really a threat to anybody with mild common sense. But, if they were buffed to a reasonable level (I'd say to about the EHP of supply depot) that people would take them far more seriously.

Imagine if pilots had to start strategically maneuvering around not only other tanks and forge gunners, but also powerful installations. Their teammates would now need to start carefully infiltrating the area and hack the installation for their team pilots to safely access the region. This would give scouts more EWAR focused missions to have (minmatar), add additional ways to setup fortified strongholds, and give some of the newer players and those without proper AV an actual chance to stand toe to toe with skilled pilots.

I haven't spent extensive time as pilot, so if any of you think this would be unreasonable, please speak up. Some of the current installation placements may make this idea problematic but I think so much could be added to the current meta with this change, and in a positive way. Thanks for your time and I'd like to know what you all have to say on the matter.

Im talking structures with built in defence systems that are shielded heavily so you need to hack the defence mainframe to allow armour elements to be able to come in range,

As an ADS pilot I would like to see something like this. My only concern is the redline turrets: quite often I/others in profession are driven to do runs into the redline to kill people on missile turrets (spamming the air with infinite range) or railguns nestled just far enough inside to be a major nuisance.

I'm all for turret relevance, but I just need to point Rattati at the redline, because it can be an issue.

As an ADS pilot I would like to see something like this. My only concern is the redline turrets: quite often I/others in profession are driven to do runs into the redline to kill people on missile turrets (spamming the air with infinite range) or railguns nestled just far enough inside to be a major nuisance.

I'm all for turret relevance, but I just need to point Rattati at the redline, because it can be an issue.

Don't think turrets have infinite range, will double check and make sure the turrets aren't over powered as a result.

I also see a second benefit of strong redline turrets, to make escaping a vehicle spawn camp at the redline.

I have thought the same, interesting to hear other peoples thoughts. Would make tanks less "run around and two-shot all the installations first" and actually have to worry a little about them.

Missilistic turrets have infinite range.

I have thought the same, interesting to hear other peoples thoughts. Would make tanks less "run around and two-shot all the installations first" and actually have to worry a little about them.

I have thought the same, interesting to hear other peoples thoughts. Would make tanks less "run around and two-shot all the installations first" and actually have to worry a little about them.

like you dint nerf tanks enough.....do you even play the game or do u stare at charts all day?

Extend the redline for air units,

I have thought the same, interesting to hear other peoples thoughts.

Hello there, while I may have no credibility as a game designer or expert player*, I was thinking of an interesting change to the battlefield that would make the game more intense and dynamic without the need to change much.

Seeing that there is never going to be deploy-able installations, that a dramatic buff to the hit points of weapon installations would make a lot of sense. Right now, the only thing they are good for are Pilots and AVers to farm early warpoints at the beginning of a battle. They make seemingly no difference in battle and aren't really a threat to anybody with mild common sense. But, if they were buffed to a reasonable level (I'd say to about the EHP of supply depot) that people would take them far more seriously.

Imagine if pilots had to start strategically maneuvering around not only other tanks and forge gunners, but also powerful installations. Their teammates would now need to start carefully infiltrating the area and hack the installation for their team pilots to safely access the region. This would give scouts more EWAR focused missions to have (minmatar), add additional ways to setup fortified strongholds, and give some of the newer players and those without proper AV an actual chance to stand toe to toe with skilled pilots.

I haven't spent extensive time as pilot, so if any of you think this would be unreasonable, please speak up. Some of the current installation placements may make this idea problematic but I think so much could be added to the current meta with this change, and in a positive way. Thanks for your time and I'd like to know what you all have to say on the matter.

I like the idea but it seems a bit biased for tanks. If installations had similar eHP to supply depots then it would take an unreasonable amount of time for a dropshop to kill one (I am talking the potential for minutes here). In a tank it wouldn't be so bad, just find a nice piece of cover to roll forth from and back to until it's dead and eventually it will die. In a dropship however rail and missile installations both buck the dropship upon impact (making aiming more difficult on top of how hard it is already) plus dropships rarely have terrain to hide behind so they must hover in the safe spot above it (which screams to any AV within 500m "please come and shoot me while I am sitting still in the sky and am a easy target").
Oh an missile installations have unlimited range and, as a dropship pilot, the only thing I hate more is kamikaze dropships. Unlimited range + near constant volleys + high impact shots + taking minutes to kill = OP vs dropship pilots multiple levels.

Good because ADS is intolerable on the battleifeld. Once you hit an incubus with one shot, they activate the afterburner and is out of there with their double or triple armor reppers. Same could be said about pythons. Swarms can't touch..neither can tank rails since the distance nerf. All ADS pilots do is go high and drop behind the tank....and if they have a gunner, good luck.

1. Installations should receive a significant buff in ehp, but not in the order of magnitude of a supply depot or CRU. Right now I wouldn't mind if the ehp of installations was doubled.
2. If you want to see people try to repair installations while they are under attack, consider granting them passive resists to all relevant damage types. This way a Logi with a rep-tool has a better chance of standing up to the DPS of a railgun turret. Just make sure an installation doesn't turn invulnerable when maintained by a single player.
Fyi: The highest repair rate on an installation achievable is 151 hp/s (core focused rep tool repairs 121 hp/s on installations, +25% Minmatar Logi bonus).
A single IAFG sits at ~450 dps including reloads (1500 hp * 4 / (3*4s*0.75 + 4s) )
3. In a dream world I think installations should respawn a while after they have been destroyed. Just to keep installations as a factor during the whole match.
4. Finally, please make sure that WP for neutral turrets is removed. It's overdue.

I have thought the same, interesting to hear other peoples thoughts. Would make tanks less "run around and two-shot all the installations first" and actually have to worry a little about them.

I think you'll find it takes a railgun tank 4 shots to destroy an installation, whereas an installation still deals original "UNNERFED" damage to tanks. If a tank is in a battle, a railgun installation will definitely turn the tide.

The missile installation can successfully deter ADS and hot drop pilots all day.
The blaster is a good suppression turret and can annihilate infantry and LAVs as well as dropships in the right hands.

Buffing the HP of installations would result in more people camping in them, even people repping them.

This would make the game slower paced, more frustrating and "campy"

Don't think turrets have infinite range, will double check and make sure the turrets aren't over powered as a result.

I also see a second benefit of strong redline turrets, to make escaping a vehicle spawn camp at the redline.

I think you'll find it takes a railgun tank 4 shots to destroy an installation, whereas an installation still deals original "UNNERFED" damage to tanks. If a tank is in a battle, a railgun installation will definitely turn the tide.

The missile installation can successfully deter ADS and hot drop pilots all day.
The blaster is a good suppression turret and can annihilate infantry and LAVs as well as dropships in the right hands.

Buffing the HP of installations would result in more people camping in them, even people repping them.

This would make the game slower paced, more frustrating and "campy"

The missile installations are essentially the old large missiles- very long range, but it doesn't really matter because the damage is laughable.

Aside from the fact that ADSs are far from untouchable anymore, could you stick to the point at hand: we're talking about Turret Installations.

The only reason I brought up ADSs earlier is because of redline Missile Turrets having infinite range. Dropships are concerned about Turrets at the moment, just like HAVs, but only slightly. A buff to the toughness of Installations would serve to make them harder to destroy (obviously) but that would have the knock on effect of making their presence felt a ot more by those vehicle pilots.



(And as far as ADSs go, you can quite comfortably kill them now. Easy? No. Impossible? Far from it. If a pilot is afterburning away immediately after a single AV hit, they are going to be contributing very little to the outcome of the match. All ADS pilots from 1.6 knows this, though it's not nearly as bad as then.)

One...I wasn't responding to your statement about ADS. Second...I don't think you play the game much if you think you can "quite comfortably" kill a decent ADS pilot.

I have thought the same, interesting to hear other peoples thoughts. Would make tanks less "run around and two-shot all the installations first" and actually have to worry a little about them.

I have Swarm Launchers up to L3 and am a committed Incubus and Python pilot. From both sides I see AV killing ADS. I have killed ADSs single handedly after the Bravo update, though against a good pilot it is not as simple as, "Lock, Fire, Derp, Fire, Derp, Fire, Reload."

As I mentioned though, an ADS pilot who is 'burning away for half the match because of AV is not going to be contributing a whole lot. Not to mention the AVer is going to be getting war points from the damage they deal.

With regards to the installations, ADSs have to come down fairly low, even with gunners, which means that if more than one turret can see them, there's a strong likelihood of the ADS being hurt severely enough to retreat, and if any AVer is paying attention there is a not insignificant chance of them getting downed.

ADSs are hard to kill if the pilot is aware of their surroundings. AV can kill them, and a little coordination goes a long way to achieving that.

So, do you have anything to say about the installations at all, or are you just here to complain?

Problem of installations always consist in how quickly they can switch side and became extremely dangerous.
Yes, they are dangerous that's why everyone is destroying them at the beginning of match. It has nothing to do with they EHP, they are silent-killers - if you will let blueberry to hack them, he will not defend them from enemy hack, when they are red and you retreat next to them with 25-35%HP left you are dead.

I have thought the same, interesting to hear other peoples thoughts. Would make tanks less "run around and two-shot all the installations first" and actually have to worry a little about them.

This is a good idea but id like to see railgun turret AI toned down first. If rail turrets are there for the whole game youll have a lot of infantry getting one shotted by AI that they havent even seen, which is the opposite of fun. Unmanned rail turrets should never shoot at infantry unless fired on with AV weapons IMO

Don't think turrets have infinite range, will double check and make sure the turrets aren't over powered as a result.

I also see a second benefit of strong redline turrets, to make escaping a vehicle spawn camp at the redline.

I have thought the same, interesting to hear other peoples thoughts. Would make tanks less "run around and two-shot all the installations first" and actually have to worry a little about them.

I've been saying this for a year.
(This is the first time I haven't seen Spkr's pitiful attempts at logic included.)
With the absolute Range now nerfed on Railgun and Missile Installations, why the hell not?

More drops in OMS (at least 100%). Please.

Installations are 3 shots from my FG and yield 100 WP. A Supply Depot takes my entire ammo cache, yet only yields 50 WP. CRU Destruction should be 100 WP (minimally) because of its high HP and importance on the field.

you know i never though there was a functional brain inside ccp until i saw you. yes i think this is a great idea..one i have been for for a long time. although i would also like to note

that rail gun installations have more range than rail tanks also they're ai is incredibly strong if your going to buff the ehp to make it take some serious time to kill them you should make they're offensive abilities more similar to the tanks.

i think blaster installation ai could be buffed they are pretty weak..i would like to see infantry not running right at the red blaster installation without it even trying to kill em

This is a good idea but id like to see railgun turret AI toned down first. If rail turrets are there for the whole game youll have a lot of infantry getting one shotted by AI that they havent even seen, which is the opposite of fun. Unmanned rail turrets should never shoot at infantry unless fired on with AV weapons IMO

Don't think turrets have infinite range, will double check and make sure the turrets aren't over powered as a result.

I also see a second benefit of strong redline turrets, to make escaping a vehicle spawn camp at the redline.

I have thought the same, interesting to hear other peoples thoughts. Would make tanks less "run around and two-shot all the installations first" and actually have to worry a little about them.

I think the reason that Supply Depots and CRUs have lower wp rewards is to discourage their destruction... just a thought.

.
.
OP POST
.
.

If installations are buffed, they should have to reload like a normal turret, have the same number of shots per mag/clip every reload as a normal turret, and can retain infinite ammo capacity.

Hmm... I wonder if installations could act as ammo caches, but only when the turret type matches the ones in use of the vehicle.
This would increase their significance substantially... it would make you think twice before destroying them.

I wouldn't be opposed to players being able to buy installations. This would let CCP make new ones, both bigger and smaller. CRU's are really expensive, Large Blaster installations are expensive, Supply Depots less expensive, etc.

I have thought the same, interesting to hear other peoples thoughts. Would make tanks less "run around and two-shot all the installations first" and actually have to worry a little about them.

Don't think turrets have infinite range, will double check and make sure the turrets aren't over powered as a result.

I also see a second benefit of strong redline turrets, to make escaping a vehicle spawn camp at the redline.

What about a EHP buff along with the removal of auto-targeting AI?
Not sure if it is a good idea or not, but it would reduce the hack and run mentality, and perhaps get more people spending points in turret operations?

Good point. I think this was raised before 1.7, but nothing ever came of it, because CCP Messia- I mean Rattati hadn't come along. The first part I definitely agree with and I mostly do for the second: but what about Projectie and Laser weapons? There are no Installations that use that damage profile - use the nearest? So Laser at Blaster, Projectile at Rail?

Large Missile installations, missile projectile has a range of 2,000m which is longer than the longest map. When just the AI missile turret locks on you, they will stay locked on you the entire game and spam missiles half way across a map and not stop. So not infinite range but no difference.

Wow.. this is an idea I actually like. I hate to admit it, but I'm one of those players who destroys installations early on for WP. They're free points, but they could be much more.

Buff their HP and position them in more strategic places on the map. There are too many installations that seem to function as nothing more than decoration.

I have thought the same, interesting to hear other peoples thoughts. Would make tanks less "run around and two-shot all the installations first" and actually have to worry a little about them.

If installations are buffed, they should have to reload like a normal turret, have the same number of shots per mag/clip every reload as a normal turret, and can retain infinite ammo capacity.

Hmm... I wonder if installations could act as ammo caches, but only when the turret type matches the ones in use of the vehicle.
This would increase their significance substantially... it would make you think twice before destroying them.

Problem of installations always consist in how quickly they can switch side and became extremely dangerous.
Yes, they are dangerous that's why everyone is destroying them at the beginning of match. It has nothing to do with they EHP, they are silent-killers - if you will let blueberry to hack them, he will not defend them from enemy hack, when they are red and you retreat next to them with 25-35%HP left you are dead.

Hello there, while I may have no credibility as a game designer or expert player*, I was thinking of an interesting change to the battlefield that would make the game more intense and dynamic without the need to change much.

Seeing that there is never going to be deploy-able installations, that a dramatic buff to the hit points of weapon installations would make a lot of sense. Right now, the only thing they are good for are Pilots and AVers to farm early warpoints at the beginning of a battle. They make seemingly no difference in battle and aren't really a threat to anybody with mild common sense. But, if they were buffed to a reasonable level (I'd say to about the EHP of supply depot) that people would take them far more seriously.

Imagine if pilots had to start strategically maneuvering around not only other tanks and forge gunners, but also powerful installations. Their teammates would now need to start carefully infiltrating the area and hack the installation for their team pilots to safely access the region. This would give scouts more EWAR focused missions to have (minmatar), add additional ways to setup fortified strongholds, and give some of the newer players and those without proper AV an actual chance to stand toe to toe with skilled pilots.

I haven't spent extensive time as pilot, so if any of you think this would be unreasonable, please speak up. Some of the current installation placements may make this idea problematic but I think so much could be added to the current meta with this change, and in a positive way. Thanks for your time and I'd like to know what you all have to say on the matter.

Excuse me sir, but have you ever been shot right out of an Lav by a Large blaster installation? Other than those instances I can see why a installation buff should happen, but those things can really clutch and get me whenever I'm in a Lav... They never hit me on foot, they don't pay attention to other tanks or stuff, but wow they screw me in a Lav

I agree with this one. Sure the wp are nice but it takes as much as 10 seconds and as little as what 5? to hack these so they can flip flop a LOT and be a real problem for tanks. There really aren't enough players on a map in most cases to have players guarding the turrets so as a part time tanker i normally destroy every turret i see so that it doesn't get flipped and blow up my tank.
I would be perfectly happy if they were just pulled off the maps in all honesty. Better though would be if they were in more strategic positions such as clustering the CRU Supply depot and say 2 turrets so there would be a good reason to defend the area.

i also like to note that if your going to buff the hell out of installation ehp your should give wp rewards for dmg just like with vehicles

Don't think turrets have infinite range, will double check and make sure the turrets aren't over powered as a result.

I also see a second benefit of strong redline turrets, to make escaping a vehicle spawn camp at the redline.

I thought about that when first proposing the idea, but even I know that system would be abused to hell and back if that were the case, especially if neutral installations still gave WPs. A straight up increase to WPs for total destruction would be much more preferable (but only if the HP is dramatically increased, to avoid heavier farming).

Maybe if the AI were reduced back to the way they were early Uprising and missile range wasn't infinite (for all intents and purposes) then a perfect balance would be struck. But I truly think that need to be closer to Supply Depot levels of ehp to actually make a difference here. Other wise it will only be a minor inconvenience than a game changer (like supply depots and CRUs can often be)

I thought about that when first proposing the idea, but even I know that system would be abused to hell and back if that were the case, especially if neutral installations still gave WPs. A straight up increase to WPs for total destruction would be much more preferable (but only if the HP is dramatically increased, to avoid heavier farming).

Maybe if the AI were reduced back to the way they were early Uprising and missile range wasn't infinite (for all intents and purposes) then a perfect balance would be struck. But I truly think that need to be closer to Supply Depot levels of ehp to actually make a difference here. Other wise it will only be a minor inconvenience than a game changer (like supply depots and CRUs can often be)

they can already hit very hard vs vehicles when they are supported, it's not easy to blow one up when theres other AV near it

in a dream game mode we would push domination points to a final complex where super turret exist

No one uses them because they get destroyed as soon as you do, if a scout doesn't put one in your head. Make them worth defending and people might defend them.

it takes us 2 cycles of XT-1 turret +10% already to blow one up one more do you want,

I propose that we remove option to hack them, and bound them to team that holds null-cannon in they closest proximity - if someone will start the process of hacking null-cannon, defense system of installations is disable temporarily, as soon as hack is finish all installations is switching to defend that n-c. It will annihilate problem of unexpected silent-killers, and at the same point will make job of gunner more safe(because no one will come to hack it).

One more thing, there shouldn't be neutral installation at beginning of match. They should appear after n-c is hacked.

But I think a high EHP buff, almost brain-dead AI, a nerf to missile range, and an increase to WP for destroying as well as assist points for damage would be a solid balance to start with. I really, REALLY hope they don't get removed. The last thing this game needs is to become LESS dynamic.

Damage: sure, let's fix that. That's just numbers, hardly something that requires a rewrite of the Internet.

Missiles: Yes, they can deter them, but they still have restricted elevation. The only issue is, as I mentioned earlier, the infinite range. Once that gets dealt with, Missile turrets will be dangerous to the incautious DS pilot, but will be able to be dealt with still.

Blasters: With the dispersion changes, it's primarily AV, which is fine for the most part. It's still dangeorus to infatntry though.

Camping them? They're still vulnerable to Scouts running up and Knifing/Shotgunning them in the back, hacking them and switching its allegiance. On a turret, you're hal blind. If your squad is supporting you, then it's a lot less about the turret and more about OP Teamwork!!

As far as slower paced is concerned, I'm all for it:
Dropships gain relevance, by being used to actually transport people, something lacking in our currently small and very fast paxed battles.
Tanks have a purposes by distracting and/or destroying installations to push paths for their infantry, then taking on the role of a mobile turret to support them further. In other words, it gives HAVs a purpose, something they are lacking right now.
People would need to be more cautious with moving about in the open: this is an FPS trying to relate a high-tech warzone, it should be dangerous out there!

As for frustration: why would a turret be any more frustrating than a fuill proto squad stomping your face in? At least if you grab an installation, you'll be able to hammer THEM!

Really, I don't accept your complaints.

Damage: Rewrite of the internet? didn't write an essay last time i checked, simply mentioned it.

Missiles: Often a struggling dropship will shrug off swarms just to be killed by a missile from a turret used by some noob in the redline 500m away. Not pretty when each one costs 500,000 isk. Imagine if the game had inbuilt remotes on your spawn, how would you feel?

Blasters: DO you even play the game?! blasters are still largely effective anti infantry weapons.

Camping: Shotgunners? Scouts? Last time i checked shotgunners don't tend to run 100m into the redline for a laugh and back out.

Slower pace: Dropships used for infantry transport? HOW ABSURD! do you even play in squads? Oh and show us where on your clone the bad proto touched you.

Do we really need free installations that are able to kill 500,000 dropships and 350000 tanks with ease?
Already a tank or dropship on low hp can be killed by any turret. Have you ever hovered a dropship where it can be shot by a blaster turret? It melts

Since these installations are free they should serve as they do...

Turrets not doomsday devices

I can already climb into a turret and easily kill tanks and people alike. All the turrets hve their roles and are in a good place

I have thought the same, interesting to hear other peoples thoughts. Would make tanks less "run around and two-shot all the installations first" and actually have to worry a little about them.

The way i see it is like this...

1.You buff the HP of turrets to the point similar to a Supply depot. This is so that they start to become fairly relevant.
2. Then give them the militia grade or basic grade Vehicle weapons with everything from range and damage that comes with it. This should stop them from having too much range and put them on a similar par to tanks.
3. I would suggest having different type Turrets for different functions tailoring positions accordingly. Keep Rail and Blaster Turrets the same (but with more HP), then have missile turrets slightly weaker but with increased angle of attack so that they can actively engage dropships. I like the idea of Assault dropships not being able to solo Missile Turrets but having to carry a team to storm it, dropping in then hacking or demolishing. Blaster and Rail Turrets would then have limited effect against dropships.
4. Increase Remote explosive efficiency against turrets to counter increased HP.
5. Apply Vehicle damage WP system for Turrets making them inline with tanks.
6. Get rid of all Red Line Turrets.

As an ADS pilot I would like to see something like this. My only concern is the redline turrets: quite often I/others in profession are driven to do runs into the redline to kill people on missile turrets (spamming the air with infinite range) or railguns nestled just far enough inside to be a major nuisance.

I'm all for turret relevance, but I just need to point Rattati at the redline, because it can be an issue.

My tank has been hit by a Missile Turret from the enemy redline on the bridge map on Skirmish (Bridge Objective being A) before :(

I have thought the same, interesting to hear other peoples thoughts. Would make tanks less "run around and two-shot all the installations first" and actually have to worry a little about them.

Actually, I differ on this slightly. I feel that just as there are 80 GJ Blasters and 20 GJ blasters and such sizes of turrets, there should also be "Small Installations."

In HALO, they would have strategically placed Plasma Cannons at random points of the map. Maybe something similar would be nice. While destroyable, they have a decent amount of eHP. If anything, destroying small installations should net an insta kill if a person is manning the small installation.

However, just as with Large installations, users can still be shot off.

As for turret placement, I think large open maps (I really do not know any of the map names) but perhaps Peaks, Overlook points of some sort, Cities (especially on building balconies, where I can see there being a use of some sort).

I see more uses for a forge gun now, countering these turrets would be difficult for anything less than a sniper/rail rifle/forge gun.

What do you think?

Make them give less war points. If you have ever been sniped randomly by a rail turret, you understand why they need to die anyway

once we retrain to hotdrop troops and kill the operator/RE the turret they will be back here demanding some kind of force field while manning turret

it takes 9 XT-1 small missles to destroy turret, if it only takes 16 after an EHP buff i could get behind that but another buff to make the turret shoot straight up/90 degree, plus an EHP buff is what bothers me most. this would effectively render dropship useless vs turret and force pilots into a tanking role when we already struggle to eliminate turrets each map. the biggest issue the CCP is not acknowledging is %30 of turrets are located in redline- those are the turrets we struggle to destroy because we have to fight the redline juvenile redline at the same time as we fight the turret. if the turrets get buffed then they should remove half of them and remove them from the redline.

As a novice blueberry in a Militia suit I often find that falling back and using a turret is one way that I can...... briefly..... be of genuine use to the team. I've posted about this before and although I'm not sure of it's viability with the fixes that can be made at the moment I was wondering if it would be worth buffing the turrets in a way that would encourage them to be manned during the battle.

To this end I thought it might be worth giving them active modules as standard so that if there is somebody operating them they have access to a decent dmg module, repair module and hardener module meaning they can keep the turret in the fight longer and do more damage.

I don't know how the AI works but presumably it wouldn't have access to the modules and therefore a manned turret would have the potential to be more dangerous and useful than an AI one and to repair itself after an engagement. HAVs and, especially, Dropships and LAVs can easily out manoeuvre a turret and would need to use this advantage more.

I'd also remove WP from un hacked neutral turrets, by all means destroy them for the threat that they potentially pose but until they are an actual threat no WP...... or substantially reduced say +5 like equipment.

As I said this is coming from the POV of a relative newb with little experience of using vehicles themselves so I only have a one sided view of balance at the moment but that's my two cents worth.

once we retrain to hotdrop troops and kill the operator/RE the turret they will be back here demanding some kind of force field while manning turret

it takes 9 XT-1 small missles to destroy turret, if it only takes 16 after an EHP buff i could get behind that but another buff to make the turret shoot straight up/90 degree, plus an EHP buff is what bothers me most. this would effectively render dropship useless vs turret and force pilots into a tanking role when we already struggle to eliminate turrets each map. the biggest issue the CCP is not acknowledging is %30 of turrets are located in redline- those are the turrets we struggle to destroy because we have to fight the redline juvenile redline at the same time as we fight the turret. if the turrets get buffed then they should remove half of them and remove them from the redline.

As an ADS pilot I would like to see something like this. My only concern is the redline turrets: quite often I/others in profession are driven to do runs into the redline to kill people on missile turrets (spamming the air with infinite range) or railguns nestled just far enough inside to be a major nuisance.

I'm all for turret relevance, but I just need to point Rattati at the redline, because it can be an issue.

I agree that a assault dropship should eventually be able to take out a missile turret on its own but it would have to spend a bit of time doing it. If it was not maned then the turret would defend itself in the normal way they do now, causing the ADS pilot to move and therefore make it more challenging. It would therefore be more efficient to hotdrop a small squad in. Either that or coordinate attacks so that scouts take out all AA (missile) turrets before going in with ADS to transport, harass, take out other turrets, which wont be able to shoot up, and generally do your thing.

This as you say would not be possible without either (preferably both) getting rid of all turrets in the red line or changing turret weapons to the same stats as basic vehicle weapons.

However i completely disagree with the ideology that by using those ridiculous XT-1 missiles, you should be able to take out and have free rain at destroying all targets from tanks, infantry and turrets with only having to worry about the occasional group of AVers.

Turret angle is fine, it does not need to be increased, otherwise they won't have a weakness with a strong AI and power. The only safe place for a dropship to be is way up in the sky, where we are completely useless when turrets can lock onto you from every direction.

Nice replies, and nice debate from everybody.
When I'm not operating a Dropship (main concern transporting mercs safely to a spot covered by red-hacked turret installations), I am, err, umm,... hacking and manning installations to, um, use AGAINST HAVs and Dropships.

I want to think (THINK) that my position gives me insight on both points of view.
I also want to believe that, no matter what role you play as, if the adjustment CCP makes to the current Installations opens up an opportunity for you to VALUE that installation more---AND at the same time poses a new risk or difficulty to acheiving a goal related to that installation... then it's an adjustment in the RIGHT DIRECTION (even if it will make you curse more and throw your PS-controller across the room more than prevous matches).

So, grabbing randomly from some of the stuff you've posted here,
if the Railgun installation can eviscerate an incoming DS with just a few hits, but barely has time to make those hits if a skilled DS operator like Baggins can quickly approach beyond the rail-installation's gun ELEVATION-limit... THAT's GOOD. The elevation of the rail-gun installation should NOT be changed to allow 90-degrees vertical aiming because that would make it less difficult for turret-gunner to acheive his goal. On paper, it will look as though the installation-player has been given a harder job than the DS-player... but IN THE ENCOUNTER, both opponents actually have a target they are drooling to reach, a VALUED device they think they can reach it with, and each player has ONE immediate obstacle has to become good enough to overcome in order to succeed (DS driver must develop skill to jag/weave his way up to a lethal installation---the installation-operator must practice getting perfect lead on a DS in the short period before his gun-elevation limit is reached).

If a lone merc walking out into an open gap between two buildings after just spawning from a CRU, suddenly gets sniped by a hacked missile installation sitting on the hill---that's GOOD. On paper, it feels unfair because no one is getting WP for it, and it's taking hurtful advantage of your momentary carelessnes. But in the encounter, it makes the same sense as the enemy RE or the red-sniper you didn't know about: they are limited, but annoyingly effective, means of denying your travel across the map.

When the DS driven by Baggins reaches the enemy's redzone and (with the help of a skilled door gunner named Aungm) wants to convert red dots into red ooze,...but the area is littered with three or four installations---but one is a railgun installation that can't elevate high enough and has shield/armour thin enough to destroy with 9 XT-1s---but the other two are Blaster installations whose shield/armour is too tough for the DS to waste time on---but they can only be lethal to Baggins if he drifts into into the airspace where both installations can overlap their fire... as frustrating an experience as this is to have at a redline... IT'S GOOD. Redlining the opposing team should be an acheivable goal, and a player ought to be able to get a vehicle over there and loiter---but it should not be something he can acheive on a whim. So they DON'T need to reduce the number/placement of installations stationed at the redline (it's supposed to be the staging area for the team, so it rightly should feel like the most combat-secured piece of the map). Tebow's view is right that the installations shouldn't be so invincible that the vehicle HAS to shoo away constantly. My own wish is that installations not be so wimpy that they are rubbed out faster than dropsuit Newberrys.

See the flip-flopping set up in this? It's not one of those "balance" creations. It's "imbalance", doled out sequentially to both opponents, so both have to eat an unfair handicap during the encounter. And it would work.

The vehicle-driver needs to be able to loiter and redline enemy DOTS (that's the victory), but since it IS the enemy's redline, there should be a hard obstacle she has to to grind-down or tactic-through before she can own the enemy's terrain.

The Gun-Installations should be the game pieces players VALUE and WANT TO USE to create that obstacle for the enemy.
And that "use" isn't about stats on paper---like most of Dust 514, it's really about influencing what behavior and actions we players perform when in the match.

Yes, Litany... you're identifying a tricky thing with Dust 514. We console players are "WICKED", we rapidly detect patterns or glitches in the sessions of a game title, grin to ourselves, and EXPLOIT IT faster than a duck can poop! (Someday, I'd like to find out if PC players are as good at finding 'exploits' in their games as consolers are in ours...could be interesting data).

I THINK (could be wrong) that CCP would want small-turrets (vehicle-mounts) and large-turrets (not to be confused with what we call installations) to always be two slightly overlappng species.
In the small-turret species, there really isn't a drastic champion in range or EHP, because the type of moving platform we choose to fit them on substantially effects how lethal each one ends up. (I think when most players say the XT-1 missile is the "best" turret, they're really just responding to the fact that it's the only turret type that will forgive you for mounting it on the back of a drunk-bucking bronco bull, and will still get reasonable kills for you while you're sloshing around. LOL) .

In the large-turret species, there tends to be an argument that the RAIL is the best turret to mount on your HAV as soon as you can afford it. (The large-blaster and large-missile heads MAY be something most vehicle players resort to because they don't have the ISK/SP to fit the good Rails yet, or because sometimes you just want a "disposable" turret on your HAV).

I suggest treating the "installation" as a distinct THIRD species. Since it's something that (for now?) is not bought or fitted in the game by PLAYERS, like the HAV/Lav/DS turrets, it has a right to be given its own distinct stats that don't need to overlap or relate much to say the HAV's stats.

To deter stand-off sniping, keep the range of any Installation type substantially LONGER than the its HAV (large-turret) version. This would give it an advantage over the HAV turret weapon. (The HAV turret weapon already has an advantage over the Installation by being MOBILE on the map).
Hence, the BLASTER installation would have a noticeably longer reach (range) than the Blaster-turret an HAV driver could buy.
The MISSILE installation would have a longer reach than the HAV's Missile-turret, and the RAILGUN installation longer reach than the HAV's large-Railgun turret.
This way the HAV will always have to risk itself in order to "snipe" most installations.


(This would reinforce MY personal feeling about choosing to use installations and vehicles in a fight: if you want to stay way in the back-edge of the map and sniper at folks with the biggest non-handheld weapon you can find, you ought to be allowed enough reach to kill the enemy 3-fifths across the map, but only harass/frighten/suppress an enemy at 4-fifths distance, and NEVER be able to touch reds at the other end of the football field. If you want to DESTROY someone that far away and stay out of retaliatory reach, only a true sniper rifle should give you that privelege---the rest of us should be foreced to step in closer and risk getting killed in return, if we want to be a merc).

Nice replies, and nice debate from everybody.
When I'm not operating a Dropship (main concern transporting mercs safely to a spot covered by red-hacked turret installations), I am, err, umm,... hacking and manning installations to, um, use AGAINST HAVs and Dropships.

I want to think (THINK) that my position gives me insight on both points of view.
I also want to believe that, no matter what role you play as, if the adjustment CCP makes to the current Installations opens up an opportunity for you to VALUE that installation more---AND at the same time poses a new risk or difficulty to acheiving a goal related to that installation... then it's an adjustment in the RIGHT DIRECTION (even if it will make you curse more and throw your PS-controller across the room more than prevous matches).

So, grabbing randomly from some of the stuff you've posted here,
if the Railgun installation can eviscerate an incoming DS with just a few hits, but barely has time to make those hits if a skilled DS operator like Baggins can quickly approach beyond the rail-installation's gun ELEVATION-limit... THAT's GOOD. The elevation of the rail-gun installation should NOT be changed to allow 90-degrees vertical aiming because that would make it less difficult for turret-gunner to acheive his goal. On paper, it will look as though the installation-player has been given a harder job than the DS-player... but IN THE ENCOUNTER, both opponents actually have a target they are drooling to reach, a VALUED device they think they can reach it with, and each player has ONE immediate obstacle has to become good enough to overcome in order to succeed (DS driver must develop skill to jag/weave his way up to a lethal installation---the installation-operator must practice getting perfect lead on a DS in the short period before his gun-elevation limit is reached).

If a lone merc walking out into an open gap between two buildings after just spawning from a CRU, suddenly gets sniped by a hacked missile installation sitting on the hill---that's GOOD. On paper, it feels unfair because no one is getting WP for it, and it's taking hurtful advantage of your momentary carelessnes. But in the encounter, it makes the same sense as the enemy RE or the red-sniper you didn't know about: they are limited, but annoyingly effective, means of denying your travel across the map.

When the DS driven by Baggins reaches the enemy's redzone and (with the help of a skilled door gunner named Aungm) wants to convert red dots into red ooze,...but the area is littered with three or four installations---but one is a railgun installation that can't elevate high enough and has shield/armour thin enough to destroy with 9 XT-1s---but the other two are Blaster installations whose shield/armour is too tough for the DS to waste time on---but they can only be lethal to Baggins if he drifts into into the airspace where both installations can overlap their fire... as frustrating an experience as this is to have at a redline... IT'S GOOD. Redlining the opposing team should be an acheivable goal, and a player ought to be able to get a vehicle over there and loiter---but it should not be something he can acheive on a whim. So they DON'T need to reduce the number/placement of installations stationed at the redline (it's supposed to be the staging area for the team, so it rightly should feel like the most combat-secured piece of the map). Tebow's view is right that the installations shouldn't be so invincible that the vehicle HAS to shoo away constantly. My own wish is that installations not be so wimpy that they are rubbed out faster than dropsuit Newberrys.

See the flip-flopping set up in this? It's not one of those "balance" creations. It's "imbalance", doled out sequentially to both opponents, so both have to eat an unfair handicap during the encounter. And it would work.

The vehicle-driver needs to be able to loiter and redline enemy DOTS (that's the victory), but since it IS the enemy's redline, there should be a hard obstacle she has to to grind-down or tactic-through before she can own the enemy's terrain.

The Gun-Installations should be the game pieces players VALUE and WANT TO USE to create that obstacle for the enemy.
And that "use" isn't about stats on paper---like most of Dust 514, it's really about influencing what behavior and actions we players perform when in the match.