As an "engineer" class...

[Daynen]

There is one feature of FF turrets I forgot to mention, which in retrospect is probably what made them so overpowered to begin with: hitscan. Turret fire was auto-tracking, auto-hit ballistics, meaning there was actually zero chance of dodging fire due to instant projectile travel time. This just happens to be virtually standard on almost every kind of deployable turret I can think of in modern games. Were we to dispense with this and give them actual projectiles, they may not be so oppressively binary.

Ble003 has some interesting ideas for "turrets" that I'd like to see explored. Rather than just being extra bullet hoses, they have new and variable functions that can be controlled by the player and/or answered by opponents; I like where that line of thinking is going. Also that block-and-circle omniframe mockup is priceless; I love it.

 

[TankHunter678]

There is one feature of FF turrets I forgot to mention, which in retrospect is probably what made them so overpowered to begin with: hitscan. Turret fire was auto-tracking, auto-hit ballistics, meaning there was actually zero chance of dodging fire due to instant projectile travel time.

The main exception being the Rocket Turret. The Rocket it fired periodically had a projectile with travel time that could miss mobs/players that were not running in a straight line at it.

But since most mobs came in large packs during a thump... well missing the lead aranha just means you hit the ones following behind it anyways.

 

[Rocket]

Add my voice to those who say there is nothing wrong with turrets. In the 0.6/0.7 beta days, the purpose of multi turrets was to draw agro. To distract attention from the thumper and the player. You still had to kill em yourself, which a combination of a standard grenade launcher and a Tesla rifle were exceedingly good at.

The multi turrets became much more powerful later on, but that's a problem with the implementation, rather than the concept. The concept was sound.

Having them be stuck to walls isn't a problem either, if they are weak and exist to draw agro. It's only bad when they can do decent damage. Like the engineers turret had. Which is why that one couldn't be stuck on walls. But once again, we eventually got to place too many of them and they got to powerful. So same deal. Concept good, implementation bad.

Personally, I don't think it's going to matter much anyway. I'm expecting gameplay that's more focused on vehicles and manned turrets, with less enemy that are bigger, tougher and harder to kill. The kind of AI that needs a player in a frame/vehicle to draw their agro, rather than a puny unmanned turret. We'll know in time.

 

[DoomMeister]

Add my voice to those who say there is nothing wrong with turrets. In the 0.6/0.7 beta days, the purpose of multi turrets was to draw agro. To distract attention from the thumper and the player. You still had to kill em yourself, which a combination of a standard grenade launcher and a Tesla rifle were exceedingly good at.

The multi turrets became much more powerful later on, but that's a problem with the implementation, rather than the concept. The concept was sound.

Having them be stuck to walls isn't a problem either, if they are weak and exist to draw agro. It's only bad when they can do decent damage. Like the engineers turret had. Which is why that one couldn't be stuck on walls. But once again, we eventually got to place too many of them and they got to powerful. So same deal. Concept good, implementation bad.

I'm with Rocket on this one, sure you could have a lot of turrets but lets say you lower the HP of the turrets, and suppress the fire rate or behavior... limited range of movement, perhaps... Then you CAN have lots of deployables, but they definitely aren't going to do the whole job for you.

 

[Beemann]

The issue comes in when you compare them to other options. Automated turrets exist as flat output. You won't miss with a turret, and you won't improve aim with a turret. The most you can do is improve positioning, which doesn't allow for a whole lot of skill development

This leads to a scenario where either your turrets are trash so that other options that DO require aim and skill development are useful, or there's no reason to not use them because they're as good as, or better than, any other option.

The only way to even sort of counter this is to make them situationally useful, like engineer in 6v6 tf2. However you just get smaller versions of the same issue depending on the play area

 

[TankHunter678]

The issue comes in when you compare them to other options. Automated turrets exist as flat output. You won't miss with a turret, and you won't improve aim with a turret. The most you can do is improve positioning, which doesn't allow for a whole lot of skill development

This leads to a scenario where either your turrets are trash so that other options that DO require aim and skill development are useful, or there's no reason to not use them because they're as good as, or better than, any other option.

The only way to even sort of counter this is to make them situationally useful, like engineer in 6v6 tf2. However you just get smaller versions of the same issue depending on the play area

It does however provide a style of player for people who do not have high twitch skills needed for the more active high stakes playstyles. It also provides a playstyle for those who want something to "wind down" on. It allows one to bring in their not so shooter friends to play the game with them.

Not everyone is great at shooters, or can be great at shooters, but it gives them something to work with rather then be left out because they cannot keep up with those faster then them. They would simply think their way through the problem, learn the capabilities of their equipment, and use tactics and positioning to help their team rather then be excluded.

That being said, mob design can make it so the turret user needs to help their turrets by eliminating key targets. Also you can use a type of turret that needs the player to operate it, thus they can work on their aim skills with that turret type, while having support from other turret types.


Its a bit like playing Artillery in World of Tanks. It is just a different skill set that gets developed.

 

[Metal Bin]

I'd like Turrets with every frame. All frames would get one. You'd lose something to get two. You'd need to go all in to get three. Stronger static drops weaker throw turrets etc.

I'm happy for all frames to be a bit engineer and a bit twitch shooter. Would encourage team Thumping.

 

[Beemann]

It does however provide a style of player for people who do not have high twitch skills needed for the more active high stakes playstyles. It also provides a playstyle for those who want something to "wind down" on. It allows one to bring in their not so shooter friends to play the game with them.

It doesn't take top notch shooting skills to hit a close-mid range explosive shot. It doesn't take much to hit some shots from a high RoF weapon or some pellets from a shotgun, and you learn better aim habits than you would from having a bot aim for you

Not everyone is great at shooters, or can be great at shooters, but it gives them something to work with rather then be left out because they cannot keep up with those faster then them. They would simply think their way through the problem, learn the capabilities of their equipment, and use tactics and positioning to help their team rather then be excluded.

Tactical thinking is part of all weapon usage, and the primary skillset for shooters is, and should be, shooting. That is to say, if you don't want to shoot things, a shooter is probably not the game you should be playing. Similarly, if you dont like managing skillbars, your solution is to play a game without them, rather than request an M16 and headshots in World of Warcraft.

That being said, mob design can make it so the turret user needs to help their turrets by eliminating key targets.

Or they can learn how to eliminate those targets themselves

Also you can use a type of turret that needs the player to operate it, thus they can work on their aim skills with that turret type, while having support from other turret types.

I specifically targeted "Automated turrets". Manually controlled turrets are their own thing

Its a bit like playing Artillery in World of Tanks. It is just a different skill set that gets developed.

If you're referring to manually aimed turrets, sure. If we're referring to automated turrets, then no. It's simply fewer skillsets than a different set, and those skillsets don't need to be as developed since there's less immediate risk

 

[TankHunter678]

It doesn't take top notch shooting skills to hit a close-mid range explosive shot. It doesn't take much to hit some shots from a high RoF weapon or some pellets from a shotgun, and you learn better aim habits than you would from having a bot aim for you

And I remember when me and my friends had another friend join us who... could not do the very things you mentioned. So we got them playing the Engineer class because it better fit their skill set. They had never played a shooter in their life, in fact the only game they had played at that point was World of Warcraft.

They wound up not playing very long due to motion sickness.

Tactical thinking is part of all weapon usage, and the primary skillset for shooters is, and should be, shooting. That is to say, if you don't want to shoot things, a shooter is probably not the game you should be playing. Similarly, if you dont like managing skillbars, your solution is to play a game without them, rather than request an M16 and headshots in World of Warcraft.

Tactical thinking in a shooter goes beyond simple weapon usage. If it was just simple weapon usage wars would be a lot different on every level.

It is not a bad thing to have alternatives to shoot the thing yourself.

Or they can learn how to eliminate those targets themselves

Uh... of course they would because the idea would be that the mob's design are a threat mainly to the turrets so the player needs to deal with them so the turrets can effectively do their job for the player. Its called "mutual support".

I specifically targeted "Automated turrets". Manually controlled turrets are their own thing

Regardless the player is going to develop some skills.

If you're referring to manually aimed turrets, sure. If we're referring to automated turrets, then no. It's simply fewer skillsets than a different set, and those skillsets don't need to be as developed since there's less immediate risk

Manual and aimed turrets.

In World of Tanks the biggest skills Artillery develop is map awareness, target prioritization, and preemptive action. This is due to how Artillery can affect the battle in any location from almost any location acting as a force multiplier and restricting the methods the enemy can use to defend themselves.

Something Engineers using lots of turrets would be doing, because the very existence of the turrets allows them to help in multiple places at once, as well as eliminate avenues of attack from being a major concern.

Other tanks in World of Tanks focus more on twitch skills, angling, and situational adaption due to how the fights play out.

 

[Ars Nova]

I mained Bastion in FireFall, but I used Multi-Turrets, Deployable Shield, Supply Station, and Anti-Personnel Turret.
The way I intended to play with that setup was as support/tank, where I could set up the turrets to draw aggro, the shields to protect them (and me) from ranged attacks. I would then kill the mobs using the mine launcher (because Arcing Bolts ).
Now, the main reason I used the Mine Launcher was because otherwise the deployables died really fast.

What I would like for Ember in regards to an Engineer frame, is basically Bastion, with AP turret, or a similar setup. However, no 'lose hp over time' mechanic, and no deploy timer. Instead, to move a turret, the user HAS to pack up the turret. No cooldowns, unless the turret gets destroyed, in which case it needs to be taken back to the base for reconstruction.
In fact, that should apply to ALL engineer deployables - meaning for an Engineer to be useful in battle, they need to keep their turrets alive, and place them so that they survive, not just set-and-forget to draw aggro. That would also be a way to add a microtransaction - spend "red-bean equivalent" to purchase field reconstruction units.
The other method that could be used for field repairs, is that Engineers could carry replacement turrets and deployables, but they require rare resources to create, and are "single-use", as in once destroyed, they can't be repaired.

AKA, make deployables an integral part of the Engineers ability to be useful, and then give an incentive to force them to keep the turrets alive. Using either placement strategy, or babysitting. (Well, actually, both.)

Oh, yeah, and an enemy with projectiles/melee weapons that create EM fields capable of disrupting/destroying deployables, ergo, engineers gotta keep on their toes.

 

[Torgue_Joey]

Turret? WHAT TURRET?
WHY NOT JUST CALL DOWN A TANK? IT'S JUST LIKE A MANNED TURRET.
AND IT'S ->MOBILE<-
*BOOM*
IT'S HAS ->CANNON<-
*BOOM*
AND ->EXPLOSIOOOON<-
*DOUBLE BOOM*

WHAT? YOU DON'T WANNA F*CKING DRIVE? PUSSYYYYYY!
LET SOMEONE ELS RIDE THAT BADASS. AND VOILA, YOU GOT AN F*CKING "AU-TO-MA-TED" MOBILE TURRET!
WOOOOOOOH
LOOK AT THAT SH*T! WHERE RABBITS CAN'T GO *BOOM* THEY GO *CRUNCH*

YES, YOU HEARD THAT RIGHT. TANKS ARE THE NEW PUSSY TURRET

 

[Torgue_Joey]

Add my voice to those who say there is nothing wrong with turrets. In the 0.6/0.7 beta days, the purpose of multi turrets was to draw agro. To distract attention from the thumper and the player. You still had to kill em yourself, which a combination of a standard grenade launcher and a Tesla rifle were exceedingly good at.

The multi turrets became much more powerful later on, but that's a problem with the implementation, rather than the concept. The concept was sound.

Having them be stuck to walls isn't a problem either, if they are weak and exist to draw agro. It's only bad when they can do decent damage. Like the engineers turret had. Which is why that one couldn't be stuck on walls. But once again, we eventually got to place too many of them and they got to powerful. So same deal. Concept good, implementation bad.

Personally, I don't think it's going to matter much anyway. I'm expecting gameplay that's more focused on vehicles and manned turrets, with less enemy that are bigger, tougher and harder to kill. The kind of AI that needs a player in a frame/vehicle to draw their agro, rather than a puny unmanned turret. We'll know in time.

Similar like in guild wars 2, turrets lives until destroyed, packed or manually self destruction.

Since there'll be no classes, such will ability/skill. You can deploy turrets as long you have the ability equipped, whether being a tank, sniper or recon.

 

[Rocket]

The issue comes in when you compare them to other options. Automated turrets exist as flat output. You won't miss with a turret, and you won't improve aim with a turret. The most you can do is improve positioning, which doesn't allow for a whole lot of skill development

Be careful what you dismiss as not skill. The first definition from dictionary.com

the ability, coming from one's knowledge, practice, aptitude, etc., to do something well

There's far more to skill than just muscle memory and being unable to sit still. Good positioning of multi turrets was critical. It was as much a skill in Firefall as any other. Unless of course you lacked the skill to do the bigger thumpers, in which case your positioning likely didn't help. But that wasn't the turrets fault.

From memory, I think I stopped playing Firefall once I could solo S3 thumpers absolutely anywhere with my Recluse. Bastions and turrets actually became second rate for doing them. That wasn't the turrets fault either.

 

[Beemann]

And I remember when me and my friends had another friend join us who... could not do the very things you mentioned. So we got them playing the Engineer class because it better fit their skill set. They had never played a shooter in their life, in fact the only game they had played at that point was World of Warcraft.

And if Firefall had no turrets, what would have changed? They would still play the game, and they would still quit due to motion sickness (speaking of which, did you make sure they were widening their FOV enough? I know a few people who get motion sickness specifically when dealing with low default values. Basically anything in the range of 75-90 will make them feel queasy)
I've dragged people who have played maybe a handful of games total into Quake 3 CPM, and despite the depth of that game they managed to pick things up relatively quickly. They weren't going to beat me, but they could hop around maps and hit bots, which is what the requirements were in Firefall and what they'll be in Ember

Tactical thinking in a shooter goes beyond simple weapon usage. If it was just simple weapon usage wars would be a lot different on every level.

Turrets are weapons. I was saying that tactics are part of the use of all weapons. You're mixing up the hierarchy of categories here. Tactical weapon usage is not all tactics, but it is a subset of tactics that includes turret usage

It is not a bad thing to have alternatives to shoot the thing yourself.

It is when that's the core concept of the genre. It would be like having a strategy game in which the game tells you the optimal decisions to make

Uh... of course they would because the idea would be that the mob's design are a threat mainly to the turrets so the player needs to deal with them so the turrets can effectively do their job for the player. Its called "mutual support".

Mutual support should come from coordination with teammates, not from AI doing the lifting

Regardless the player is going to develop some skills.

They're going to be developing the main skillset at a slower rate

Manual and aimed turrets.

Those are the same thing, and are not what I very explicitly referred to

In World of Tanks the biggest skills Artillery develop is map awareness, target prioritization, and preemptive action. This is due to how Artillery can affect the battle in any location from almost any location acting as a force multiplier and restricting the methods the enemy can use to defend themselves.

But an aimed thing is not what I was referring to. This is unrelated to the points I was making

Something Engineers using lots of turrets would be doing, because the very existence of the turrets allows them to help in multiple places at once, as well as eliminate avenues of attack from being a major concern.

Except they aren't actually doing all of those things themselves. The AI-controlled turrets automatically prioritize targets, automatically act, and automatically have a static level of map awareness. Every other role has to do all of that themselves

That would also be a way to add a microtransaction - spend "red-bean equivalent" to purchase field reconstruction units.

I would absolutely not support a product that decided to add gameplay advantages for cash so blatantly. Doubly so for a product that already has a retail price

Be careful what you dismiss as not skill. The first definition from dictionary.com

Be careful when you read other's posts. I didn't say 0 skill was involved, but that many skillsets that other roles have are not present if you can lean on a turret, and that the level of skill required is lowered as a result

There's far more to skill than just muscle memory and being unable to sit still. Good positioning of multi turrets was critical. It was as much a skill in Firefall as any other. Unless of course you lacked the skill to do the bigger thumpers, in which case your positioning likely didn't help. But that wasn't the turrets fault.

Good positioning is necessary to be good in any FPS. Somehow it only seems to be turret advocates that forget this so readily.
Shot placement, health and resource management are also useful skills, as is managing your movement and the positions of your enemies. Unfortunately, when you have an AI controlled deployable that automatically takes care of one or more of those things for you, it tends to lower the skill ceiling

From memory, I think I stopped playing Firefall once I could solo S3 thumpers absolutely anywhere with my Recluse. Bastions and turrets actually became second rate for doing them. That wasn't the turrets fault either.

Class balance issues will always exist, but turrets exacerbate the issue by being static guaranteed output. You've picked a particular section of Firefall's history in which they were outdone by one other thing, but forget both the other things they outdid, and the other portions of Firefall's history in your attempt to make that point.

 

[Ars Nova]

First off, turrets don't HAVE to be guaranteed output. They were like that in Firefall, because that's how they were designed. If they were made to fire projectiles, like a player weapon, then they could be blocked/dodged, or just plain miss. Second of all, they don't necessarily have 'map awareness', they can have a field and range of vision, and can then fire at targets that are within range.
Lastly, if we had some kind of constraints system, i.e. 'cpu' and 'power' among others, then having turrets to use could conceivably reduce the amount of damage done by the player's primary weapon / limit the player to weapons with a lower 'damage rating'.
Yes, this is supposed to be a 'first-person shooter', but from what I can make out, that just means it is a first person game with lots of shooting, not that shooting is the only thing you do in the game. If that WERE the case, then we wouldn't be getting a crafting system, especially not one where 'everything must be crafted by the player'. We'd just shoot things, earn money, buy better guns. Also, it's a 'War Game', meaning tactics - not just being able to shoot accurately and at the right targets - are going to be an integral part of the game. I would be willing to bet that we are going to need people to specialise in roles, and work together, as DPS, tanks, recon, engineer, and medics, or similar roles. Not just everyone be an all rounder by being able to shoot stuff accurately.

 

[Beemann]

First off, turrets don't HAVE to be guaranteed output. They were like that in Firefall, because that's how they were designed. If they were made to fire projectiles, like a player weapon, then they could be blocked/dodged, or just plain miss.

This just scales the output, it doesn't make it less binary. Worse still, such a change could make turrets, and turret focused loadouts, entirely useless against certain enemy types, meaning you lost at loadout select

To use a PvP oriented example, Hawken had a homing missile secondary known as the Hellfire. You would lock on to an enemy and then the rockets would shoot out from where you aimed and curve to hit them. This actually scaled better than turrets because you could adjust the curve and angle of approach by aiming elsewhere. However, many iterations of the hellfire were completely useless beyond low-tier pub matches, because the predictable timing on shots made them trivial to dodge if you knew when they had fired and from where, which was generally quite easy to determine given the massive models Hawken used. The secondary would decimate low end games with very little effort involved, but failed to even hit some of the mid-tier players and would pretty much never hit anyone experienced. It did not scale well, and so Rocketeer and Bruiser players were entirely patch dependent regarding their output. If they got a buff, their max output would increase. If they got a nerf, it would decrease.
Contrast this to the classes that used aim, in which output would be quite high, barring balance issues (of which there were many in Hawken) if the player was skilled, and low if they were not.

The catch here is that if two low end players fight, they won't be dealing directly with high end output. If two high end players fight, they cannot count on a low percentage of shots hit. When you automate aim, you lose this entirely

Second of all, they don't necessarily have 'map awareness', they can have a field and range of vision, and can then fire at targets that are within range.

That's already better map awareness than some players have. The ability to compensate for movement in a given area, and the ability to use an opponent's positioning to your advantage are part of that awareness. The two things turrets don't have are repositioning and target prioritization (generally speaking. I'm sure some madman will decide to create a turret in a game that follows flowchart target prioritization at some point)

Lastly, if we had some kind of constraints system, i.e. 'cpu' and 'power' among others, then having turrets to use could conceivably reduce the amount of damage done by the player's primary weapon / limit the player to weapons with a lower 'damage rating'.

Why would I want a turret focused player to be necessarily more player focused if my argument has been that automated output is bad design for a shooter?

Yes, this is supposed to be a 'first-person shooter', but from what I can make out, that just means it is a first person game with lots of shooting, not that shooting is the only thing you do in the game.

False dichotomy. Shooting is the primary skillset of a shooter, not the sole mechanic or just something that shows up a lot. Players that can lean on the output of turrets, or the aggro drawing effects of turrets, are by design focusing less on the core skillset of a shooter (shooting and not being hit, generally by the shots of enemies)

If that WERE the case, then we wouldn't be getting a crafting system, especially not one where 'everything must be crafted by the player'. We'd just shoot things, earn money, buy better guns.

A crafting system doesn't replace shooting. It doesn't replace repositioning or dodging. It doesn't replace ammo management. It replaced earning money and buying guns, which aren't core aspects of a shooter. It's not called a first person money-earning gun-buyer after all

Also, it's a 'War Game', meaning tactics - not just being able to shoot accurately and at the right targets - are going to be an integral part of the game.

And if you don't recognize that tactics exist without automated damage being involved, I'd suggest you play more shooters

And I mean that sincerely, not as a dig. I can show you some examples personally if you'd like, or just link a few videos of QL finals w/ player commentary

I would be willing to bet that we are going to need people to specialise in roles, and work together, as DPS, tanks, recon, engineer, and medics, or similar roles. Not just everyone be an all rounder by being able to shoot stuff accurately.

All of those roles can be made to utilize the core set of skills for a shooter. Turrets can also be made to do so, by making them an aimed asset rather than one that automatically aims and fires.

 

[Ars Nova]

1) PvP is not currently involved. Development is focused on PvE, and PvP *might* turn up at a later point.
2) Automated "turrets" exist in real-life combat situations, making them an acceptable inclusion in a war game.
3) Just because turrets could have better map awareness than some players - which is a pretty shaky conclusion, considering i was saying they have a field of vision - like, say, they can aim in a STATIC 120 degree cone, and have perhaps a 30 degree field of vision, which means they have to move and scan for targets. Or if you want to be simple, let them have a 120 degree cone of both vision and aiming.
4) Constraining the player to lower output weapons if they use turrets stops turret using players having a greater combined damage output.
5) It is my understanding that Ember is to be first and foremost a war game, and is labeled a shooter only because that is the main form of combat. (Please note - i said MAIN, not ONLY).
6) I never said we can't have the ability to paint targets for the turrets - in fact, I hope that is an ability they DO include. But neither should it be the only way they are used.

Also, turrets allow you to spread the damage over a greater horizontal area simultaneously, without resorting to massive AoE attacks, that probably have just as massive cooldowns to not be OP. As in, greater area control, for defending a point. Kind of how Bastion was intended, before The9 decided to turn FF into WoW with guns and make every class a run-and-gun kind of thing.

 

[Beemann]

1) PvP is not currently involved. Development is focused on PvE, and PvP *might* turn up at a later point.

Equal output still matters. If I can do the same thing as you, but easier, what's your job? Where do you fit in to a squad?

2) Automated "turrets" exist in real-life combat situations, making them an acceptable inclusion in a war game.

That's not actually an argument for the inclusion of anything in a game. A thing existing is not a basis for it being in a game. A thing making sense within the confines of a game does
You can move more than one group of units in a real war, but in chess you move one piece at a time. Complaining that you cant move all of your cavalry at once because you can do it in reality will simply get you laughed at

3) Just because turrets could have better map awareness than some players - which is a pretty shaky conclusion, considering i was saying they have a field of vision - like, say, they can aim in a STATIC 120 degree cone, and have perhaps a 30 degree field of vision, which means they have to move and scan for targets. Or if you want to be simple, let them have a 120 degree cone of both vision and aiming.

That doesn't really make a difference, given that they're still automatically aiming within that cone

4) Constraining the player to lower output weapons if they use turrets stops turret using players having a greater combined damage output.

It doesn't
Say you+turret = 100 damage @ 50 damage each
My rifle also does 100 damage
However, if I miss I do nothing
If you miss, you do 50 damage
At low end, you do a better job. At high end, you do the same job. I gain nothing from learning a more difficult weapon, and may as well have picked a turret and had an easier time of it

If we compensate for that by making you do 80 damage total @ 40 damage each, at high end my rifle is a flat-out better choice. At low end, I wasnt needed, but now that we've hit end-game, your whole loadout is suboptimal. Time to have worse output because of your choice, or relearn a more difficult class. This isnt really a solution either as it turns turrets into a newbie trap

5) It is my understanding that Ember is to be first and foremost a war game, and is labeled a shooter only because that is the main form of combat. (Please note - i said MAIN, not ONLY).

The collection of buzzwords used to try to artificially differentiate the game don't really matter. But you can try to make me care about them if you'd like

6) I never said we can't have the ability to paint targets for the turrets - in fact, I hope that is an ability they DO include. But neither should it be the only way they are used.

Painting targets for an automated turret does not make the turret an aimed asset, so I'm not wholly sure what you're responding to

Also, turrets allow you to spread the damage over a greater horizontal area simultaneously, without resorting to massive AoE attacks, that probably have just as massive cooldowns to not be OP. As in, greater area control, for defending a point. Kind of how Bastion was intended, before The9 decided to turn FF into WoW with guns and make every class a run-and-gun kind of thing.

You don't have to have massive AOE, you just have to have better weapon usage and map awareness, or design your enemies a little better. There's really no reason for you to have damage over a wider area if you're not actually doing it yourself. Placing a turret, for the record, isn't doing it yourself, as that's a really small amount of input for a large amount of output

Have a video of Rapha explaining some of his thoughts from a QLive ESL Final

Also feel free to check out this 34 minute overview of Quake duel theory by DDK

 

[Ars Nova]

If everyone does the same things regardless of their loadout, then why have variety? The purpose of the engineer class is NOT to do the same damage output as assault frames. They provide support, using turrets to spread aggro, shields to block projectiles, and provide ammo and healing. So where is the problem with engineers doing less dps?
And don't say for an instant that if someone in a squad has a hard time killing things as fast as everyone else that they have no purpose. I'm gonna tell you now that there will be things that you just cannot do with a squad comprised entirely of dps builds.
And comparing war to chess... they are so fundamentally different that it's not even an accurate comparison. Things existing in real war situations are exactly what you look to put in a game that simulates a war.
And saying that 'buzzwords' differentiating the game - as in telling the player what it's about - don't matter, is like saying 'I don't care what the creator says the game is about, it has to have what I want in it, and not have stuff I don't want.'

 

[Beemann]

If everyone does the same things regardless of their loadout, then why have variety?

I never said everyone does the same things, but people ought to be able to pull their weight. Things should be successful based on both your strategic and tactical thinking, as well as execution. A loadout focused around ammo deployment and AOE has that. A loadout focused in sniping and healing does that. A loadout focused in turrets does not

The purpose of the engineer class is NOT to do the same damage output as assault frames. They provide support, using turrets to spread aggro, shields to block projectiles, and provide ammo and healing. So where is the problem with engineers doing less dps?

You've just named multiple different roles. Assuming you're not doing any of those roles better than another class, you're placing yourself in the position of being suboptimal for everything. Why not take someone who can deal serious damage, someone who can heal, and someone who specializes in resupplying and preventing damage?

And don't say for an instant that if someone in a squad has a hard time killing things as fast as everyone else that they have no purpose. I'm gonna tell you now that there will be things that you just cannot do with a squad comprised entirely of dps builds.

The problem is that you're looking at this from an RPG perspective. The idea of blunt threat and aggro, the idea of tanks, the idea of clear cut roles as opposed to toolkits, are all things that don't mesh well with a shooter if you want the shooting aspect to be challenging. Everyone should be dodging and shooting, but the way in which you support your team and damage enemies should differ from player to player. We should not have a system whereby the dodging requirement is removed because a single button is pressed. That is brain-dead simple

Again, check out the videos I linked. Those are a brief little look at the sort of thought that can go into a well developed FPS. I think Ember should stray from FireFall's half-assedness and embrace it's shooter genes

And comparing war to chess... they are so fundamentally different that it's not even an accurate comparison.

Yes, just like a video game and any modern military

Things existing in real war situations are exactly what you look to put in a game that simulates a war.

Ember is not a sim

And saying that 'buzzwords' differentiating the game - as in telling the player what it's about - don't matter, is like saying 'I don't care what the creator says the game is about, it has to have what I want in it, and not have stuff I don't want.'

No, I'm pointing out that there's a difference between marketing terminology and genre/category. What do you think Ember will be compared to? (Answer: other shooters and other MMOs)