As an "engineer" class...

[TankHunter678]

That sounds like a more substantial thing than an enemy that just eats player-deployed turrets, and does not require those deployed turrets to exist

A better example would be something like an enemy that needs to be hit in two spots at once (say a weak point on the face and one on the back), but I don't know that something like that is a particularly GOOD mechanic, and would probably just be annoying and gimmicky to deal with. Also it's still doable with multiple players, so a turret isn't really needed unless we're imposing solo content on people now

A reason why the tunneling worm type of enemy could be implemented is that it is a rare enemy type in games, they can be used to create dynamic events, and they also act as a natural counter to turret based builds that would require player intervention so that a turret player cannot make an AFK build.

It does not necessarily need to be an enemy where you have to hit it in weakspots, it could be given a couple types of attacks with different recovery/startup times. One where it pops up from below the target, another where it pops up next to the target and tries to dive/chomp on it. So long as there is a period of vulnerability where the player can attack it.

Also, since its attracted to stationary targets turrets (or THMPRs for really big worms) could technically be used as bait to lure it out before it gets to a base and starts wrecking things.

 

[Beemann]

A reason why the tunneling worm type of enemy could be implemented is that it is a rare enemy type in games, they can be used to create dynamic events, and they also act as a natural counter to turret based builds that would require player intervention so that a turret player cannot make an AFK build.

This is a solution to an issue that only exists because of turrets though. Do you see why that's not necessarily an additive measure? You're creating a problem and then suggesting that hard counters to it will improve the game overall. You can still have that enemy type without the turrets

It does not necessarily need to be an enemy where you have to hit it in weakspots, it could be given a couple types of attacks with different recovery/startup times. One where it pops up from below the target, another where it pops up next to the target and tries to dive/chomp on it. So long as there is a period of vulnerability where the player can attack it.

My point is that such a thing does not actually leverage the power of turrets in any way

Also, since its attracted to stationary targets turrets (or THMPRs for really big worms) could technically be used as bait to lure it out before it gets to a base and starts wrecking things.

This dynamic still works without player-deployed turrets. Maybe they eat small vehicles, deployable forcefields, etc

 

[Pandagnome]

The sandworm enjoys turrets particularly it gets fatter because turrets are big energy meals.
If no turrets it might take longer to get fatter!

 

[HighCaliber]

You're appealing to a population of unknown size in the hopes that the game will be an Overwatch...

That wasn't my argument at all. I'm saying that in the case of two popular games, we can see a percentage of people/time spent playing as turret classes. There are probably some amount of folks just using the certain classes they don't like because they are good at certain roles but I'd argue that most people like the classes they play most of the time.

The point is that you have to actually present some sort of logical argument rather than insisting that I haven't. That's kind of how discussions/debates work

Sure, but you may or may not personally agree that my argument was sound while someone else will. Who is right?
Plus "logic" has it's limits when it comes to preferences. Sometimes the same mechanic that pulls one guy in can be the same thing that pushes another guy away. If someone doesn't like a mechanic what do you tell them? "but it is a logical design". They won't care. They may still just not play the game. Like even if you can prove that turrets make things easier, you'd still have to prove that there isn't an audience for something being easier. I personally think games where you can spam room clearing AOE are designed poorly, doesn't stop tons of other dudes from playing the crap out of them.

You mentioned people liking it, then failed to address people who dont, or the number of people who do vs dont

I addressed both. Different people like different things. No game is for everyone.
That actually is the answer.
When you make a game it's for a certain crowd, and not for another crowd. When you make a racing game you don't worry about how many people don't like racing, you just try to sort out how many do. If there is enough you make a profit. If you sell 5 million copies, make a huge profit, it doesn't matter if 25 million people were turned away by it.

It's not actually necessary to have glaringly obvious strengths and weaknesses, it's simply a design decision to force teamwork rather than have it happen organically

I don't know what you mean by "organic" or "forced". It's a game, everything in it was made by someone to be a certain way. It didn't just grow like that or something.
If you're saying that shotguns, sniper rifles, and grenade launchers shouldn't have very obvious distinct differences in both feel and function from each other I have to disagree.

The "skill curve" of turrets is a minor learning curve that has to do with not picking out dumb spots for your turrets. You're not accounting for travel time, ammo usage, movement/evasion, tracking, etc. It's just positioning, and that's trivially easy to learn.
And there's virtually no difficulty in placing something to have it do work for you. The only skillset at all involved is a minor bit of positioning, and you can teach that with a series of images. Nobody has to step in game to know the sorts of places you should and should not be

I'm not trying to say that turrets, the thing itself, are high skill. I am saying that a whole loadout, involving turrets, could still be pretty skill intensive overall. I'm also saying that other things can be super low skill too. So much of this comes down to implementation. What's the turrets turn radius? how long does it stay up? Does it only fire on marked targets? How many hits can it take? Does it need repair? Those things determine how much it does for the player compared to how much work it takes to maintain. Same thing with AOE or CC. How it's implemented can make a big difference between high skill or easy town.

What an interesting way to say there isn't one

it's me saying there probably isn't one from your perspective, my perspective is different. I don't have a problem accepting that different folks see things a different way. Do you?

At some point you just have to accept that someone see's something different than you and let it be. That's what I'm doing with that.

 

[RangoRyder]

For those of you who despise noobs and lower skilled players, Beeman in particular, maybe this type of game isn't for you. Go find a PvP game where only hardcore gamers can survive and bask in their elitist attitudes.

Firefall was the first PC based game that I had played since Command and Conquer - Generals. A friend got me into it and there was a HUGE learning curve for me. Going back to a mouse and keyboard after years of only playing Xbox was tough. Understanding all of the aspects of MMO was intimidating and overwhelming at times. Leveling, perks, upgrading, mods, crafting, in-game economy... It can be a lot to take in! I was used to building bases and planning attacks, not jump-jetting around a battefield blasting aliens. Thankfully, I was welcomed into a good army that was all about encouraging new players rather than looking down their noses at us. These guys understood the bigger picture... if you want to grow your game and have it last a long time, you have to be able to draw in new people away from from other games and appeal to different skillsets.

If it had not been for Bastion and all of those glorious turrets, I likely would have gotten frustrated and not given the game enough of a chance. Instead, I was able to contribute as a really bad novice and as I got better, I started trying other frames and got to appreciate the game in different ways. I quickly learned that despite all of those turrets, I was limited in a lot of situations. Warfront was one of them. I LOVED the intensity and action of that instance. I also learned quickly enough that a defensive style of play was pretty limited in a situation that is so fluid and constantly moving ahead. So as I got better, I yearned for a more involved playstyle and came to appreciate how fun an assault or dread class could be. However, I never would have gotten to that point if I hadn't been able to use turrets to draw aggro and compensate for my terrible aim and mobility as I learned the game.

Why does Ember only have to be a "shooter" completely focused on skill and reflexes and constant team play? The beauty of Firefall was that players could focus on different aspects of the game and not have to invest their time in ALL aspects of it. There were those who wanted to collect resources and craft and work the economy more than anything else. Some just wanted to raid. If someone just wanted to kill half an hour, there were options to go do some solo content. Once in a while, it's nice to not have to talk to anyone and still be able progress in a game you love.

Was Bastion OP with 7 multi-turrets and 3 heavy turrets? Only if I was thumping. And by the sounds of the new THMPR, having all of those turrets would be useless once it starts walking back to base. That's great way to mitigate the effectiveness of a purely stationary defensive frame! On the other hand, it was during hours of mindless and effortless thumping that hilarious conversations were had, new friendships were formed, strategies were learned/shared, and the like. Naysayers of deployables need to relax and stop being such purists about certain aspects of the game. Let it be accessible for lower skilled and casual players.

 

[Beemann]

That wasn't my argument at all. I'm saying that in the case of two popular games, we can see a percentage of people/time spent playing as turret classes.

You're arguing too broadly from a sample size of two games. Again, I can name several where turrets ruined gameplay. The existence of people who like turrets doesn't really mean all that much with regards to the value of turrets without more solid numbers.

Who is right?

The point is to attempt to convince, not to make blatant assertions and then shirk the responsibility of providing evidence. The latter is a remarkably poor faith and unproductive attitude to have. There is literally no point in continuing to discuss anything with you if your only tactic is to attempt to insist I haven't made a point while making no solid ones yourself. Why even bother posting at that point?

If someone doesn't like a mechanic what do you tell them? "but it is a logical design". They won't care. They may still just not play the game.

Well designed mechanics speak for themselves. While there are some moments in which mechanics are misunderstood (generally by people who are new, or who haven't played the game) and rarer occasions where testing and datamining reveal unforseen mechanics, a logical and intuitive system should be understood (to the extent that it needs to be) by the end user. It is not logical to have easier weapon A and harder weapon B have the same output, and such a thing can and almost certainly will, generate complaints, as a brief example.

you'd still have to prove that there isn't an audience for something being easier.

Can't prove a negative. Onus is on you to prove there is a suitable number of people who won't play a game without turrets

I addressed both. Different people like different things. No game is for everyone.
That actually is the answer.
When you make a racing game you don't worry about how many people don't like racing, you just try to sort out how many do.

You're conflating two different things (a mechanic and a genre) while also not making an actual argument for or against the inclusion of the mechanic you're trying to defend

I don't know what you mean by "organic" or "forced".

I'm surprised I have to explain this, but there are ways of designing a system such that synergies grow and develop over time (sometimes in interesting or unusual ways) and systems in which there is a clear and simple "right" answer. In CPMCTF, nobody is necessarily a flag capper or defender, and it's up to each team to decide who should be in what role, and what they should do in each given scenario. In TF2's CTF there are characters built for particular roles, and while they can play outside of that, there is a definitive "right" and "wrong" way to play them that is quite narrow

If you're saying that shotguns, sniper rifles, and grenade launchers shouldn't have very obvious distinct differences in both feel and function from each other I have to disagree.

I'm saying in a game where people can have more than one of those, and several abilities, they should be able to do multiple jobs

a whole loadout, involving turrets, could still be pretty skill intensive overall.

This would be in spite of turrets. As well, the more effective turrets are, the less effective the rest of the loadout must be by comparison, and the less direct output the player will be directly responsible for

What's the turrets turn radius? how long does it stay up? Does it only fire on marked targets? How many hits can it take? Does it need repair?

Those still retain the problems I mentioned prior that you still have not addressed. It is a positioning issue, which is something any player with a gun that doesn't instagib every enemy in the area has to deal with

Same thing with AOE or CC. [\quote]
AOE and CC require severe mishandling to hit the same issues that turrets get with their most common implementation

For those of you who despise noobs and lower skilled players

On the contrary, I think turrets ultimately harm new players. Who is harmed when they are outdone by automated damage? Who is harmed in a PvP scenario where everyone must learn weapon properties except for one subset of loadouts? Who is harmed when they have to change over to another class or risk being suboptimal (and thus excluded from many groups that do high end content) and will have poorer fundamentals than someone who played a different class from the start.

Interestingly enough, people new to shooters (myself included) had to learn in Arena Shooters, CS, Day of Defeat and many other games that did not have automated damage options prior to the inclusion of such a mechanic. Bizarrely, we managed to learn in such a hostile and "elitist environment (though it probably helps that neither of those things are actually true)

If you'd like, I can show you exactly what I mean. I've been coaching players in a FOSS AFPS called Xonotic, trying to help them improve in duel and DM. Feel free to PM me about it

if you want to grow your game and have it last a long time, you have to be able to draw in new people away from from other games and appeal to different skillsets.

Turrets are not a different skillset. You are not micromanaging units, manoeuvring for territory or managing a full economy. You are setting up a single turret and (in most cases) left or right clicking on it when it gets damaged. You are not looking into the vast wealth of skillsets and knowledge present in the best shooters. I know a number of people who played turret classes exclusively, and they all ended up having trouble switching over. They had bad habits and poorer fundamentals than their peers. The turret-focused players that didn't had prior shooter experience, and did not exclusively lean on automated damage.

If it had not been for Bastion and all of those glorious turrets, I likely would have gotten frustrated and not given the game enough of a chance.

I think you overestimate the initial learning curve. If you aren't working from bad habits, good ones are quite easy to pick up. I've known quite a number of people with little to no shooter experience that picked up games much more demanding than Firefall, and despite still having a lot to learn, they took to it quite quickly. Heck, I've even brought in people who have played a handful of games total

Why does Ember only have to be a "shooter" completely focused on skill and reflexes and constant team play? The beauty of Firefall was that players could focus on different aspects of the game and not have to invest their time in ALL aspects of it.

Teamwork isn't always necessary in a skill-based environment, it just depends on the content you're doing. Further, people who did PvE content did NOT have the choice to entirely avoid certain aspects of the game while experiencing all the content. You still needed to craft even if you had no interest in doing so, and getting those materials in a short period of time required doing specific types of content

That's great way to mitigate the effectiveness of a purely stationary defensive frame!

Or it's a great way to negate the effectiveness of a loadout dependent on stationary defenses, while having mechanics that run counter tot he game's design

On the other hand, it was during hours of mindless and effortless thumping that hilarious conversations were had, new friendships were formed, strategies were learned/shared, and the like. Naysayers of deployables need to relax and stop being such purists about certain aspects of the game. Let it be accessible for lower skilled and casual players.

Accessibility and social interaction can happen without negating aspects of the game for certain players. I know you think that's not true, but the concept has proven itself time and time again for over 20 years now

Had to cut down on quoted sections for the char limit. I am responding to the whole thing, I'm just highlighting which section I'm specifically responding to with a short blurb

 

[HighCaliber]

The point is to attempt to convince,

I'm not here to "attempt to convince." I'm here to share thoughts and ideas. A lot of conversations are going to end with neither party changing their opinion. I'm fine with that.

not to make blatant assertions and then shirk the responsibility of providing evidence.

You want me to offer you statements that count as evidence by your personal standards/viewpoint, to back up my "Blatant assertions" that you often misunderstand, misinterpret, misrepresent or straight up disregard.

There is literally no point in continuing to discuss anything with you if your only tactic is to attempt to insist I haven't made a point while making no solid ones yourself.

I never insisted you haven't made a point, I said your point was no better than mine. I am beyond tired of having to restate things because you take them wrong.

We do agree on one thing. There is no point in continuing this discussion.

 

[Torgue_Joey]

I'm starting to think...... (in my normal voice lol)

Tsihu are an (unknown) enemy to recommend.
Transformed, they are bloody hell, tearing your frame like woods.

Tanks rolling around, planes bombing areas.

War machine.... Weapons of mass destruction......

For what are those puny turrets again?

The only turrets i can currently think as viable, are those big ass dual/quad turret for heavy defence reinforcement one can call down (manned and automated)

 

[Beemann]

I'm not here to "attempt to convince." I'm here to share thoughts and ideas. A lot of conversations are going to end with neither party changing their opinion. I'm fine with that.

There are more people to convince than the other party

You want me to offer you statements that count as evidence by your personal standards/viewpoint, to back up my "Blatant assertions" that you often misunderstand, misinterpret, misrepresent or straight up disregard.

I want you to provide a generally accepted standard of evidence or logical backing to what you say, rather than use an unknown number of other people's opinions, and examples you won't actually list. It's almost like you entered into a debate and are now insisting that you don't want to debate.

I never insisted you haven't made a point, I said your point was no better than mine. I am beyond tired of having to restate things because you take them wrong.

Given that I've provided arguments that you have failed to address re: turrets, and you have yet to address my criticism of your own statements, I would say that you're incorrect. A properly backed idea is respectable, even if I don't agree with it. A series of non-arguments, however, is not

We do agree on one thing. There is no point in continuing this discussion.

Certainly not when you are unwilling to list examples when your argument is that some games do it right, and unwilling to provide numbers when your argument is that the game will bring in a significant group of players, or when you refuse to actually address what I've said beyond "well I don't like poorly balanced AoE either" after I've already addressed that multiple times

@Torgue_Joey
If they're putting work into Omniframes and their loadouts, and aren't just throwing money away, there will most definitely be infantry-based roles in combat.

 

[HighCaliber]

when your argument is...

as if you can even keep that straight. Whatever dude.

Essentially my argument that doing it "right" is mostly subjective. That neither "good design" by someones point of view nor attempts to gather data from market research can overcome the basic reality that we won't really know what will make a player happy. It all falls short. I know how limited my opinion is, do you know how limited yours is?Rhetorical question. lol

 

[Rocketeer593]

Since players will be in large durable open cockpit mechs and protected by shields, why not make engi's into healers? Turrets are nice and all whether automated or manually controlled, but if engi's also were responsible for rapid shield recharging and mech field repairs that would force them to be more active than just long enough to drop turrets. Drop a turret and a dispenser near each other and start launching capsuled nanites at friends, foes and deployables.

 

[Pandagnome]

Turrets can distract enemies i dreamt that a turret was hidden between rocks, between legs between some wreckage even between cactus it would play the peek a boo game i see you
as it shoots and moves back in to rest then pops out of the rocks and another shot and so forth.

Aoe turrets could be just like that since it has higher damage in a single fire but it needs cover or protection due to its construction and sacrificing shielding

High rof turrets have lower damage but have a good capacity ammo/power great for concentrated fire until it needs to recharge goes back recharges and can eject out and continue unless its destroyed

Turret marker when it hits an enemy it marks the target for the team to focus fire on it
this turret can slow the target by a percentage against very fast moving types its the lowest damage dealing turret

Cloud turret these turrets hover at a stationary point in the air masked by its holographic technology
they can work well around bases with communication relays to adjust the cone of vision. It however can work poorly
if the comm links is disrupted/damaged or even destroyed

 

[Squid Boss]

What if there... were no turrets?!?!

But!

Instead...

We... become the turrets!

Transform and lock lockdown the Omniframe and become the Heavy Turret of old...

 

[Rocketeer593]

What if there... were no turrets?!?!

But!

Instead...

We... become the turrets!

Transform and lock lockdown the Omniframe and become the Heavy Turret of old...

I think you mean the anti-personel turret HKM from accord engi. Also could be a mobile gatling tank like Bastion's ult but with the minigun from his sentry mode. Slow and small, but very durable and destructive to anything bigger than a microwave oven.

 

[Daynen]

I think we need deployables that do other things besides shoot. Perhaps a shock field network that links up existing "turrets" to form a line of electricity to deter bugs? How about deployable platforms? Perhaps deployable scout drones that give vision and recon data in a distant or obscured area until destroyed? Why did we never get the little deployable robots we saw in the first Firefall trailer? they could run around salvaging loot for us or prospecting to identify mineral traces or something.

There are lots of ways to implement automated deployables without just limiting ourselves to "turrets." I honestly think turrets should be a LESS popular way of getting things done, simply because they're very binary and a very weighty thing to balance around. Also, there are those of us who are just plain sick and tired of seeing them come out in dozens.

 

[Rocketeer593]

From a player standpoint, those "turret buddies" from the firefall trailer would have been awesome. From a dev standpoint, it would have been hell to get their AI right.

 

[203]

From a player standpoint, those "turret buddies" from the firefall trailer would have been awesome. From a dev standpoint, it would have been hell to get their AI right.

reading a few statements here and there, the complete lag compensation technology in FF's background made AI a royal nightmare.

 

[Crynidemth]

From a player standpoint, those "turret buddies" from the firefall trailer would have been awesome. From a dev standpoint, it would have been hell to get their AI right.

Not entirely, Global Agenda did it well with their Robotic's drones. It was FF's tech that made it difficult.

 

[zdoofop]

I think you mean the anti-personel turret HKM from accord engi. Also could be a mobile gatling tank like Bastion's ult but with the minigun from his sentry mode. Slow and small, but very durable and destructive to anything bigger than a microwave oven.

Actually I think he meant Turret Mode. And yeah, I miss that. Can we get it in 360 degrees this time?

 

[Rocketeer593]

Actually I think he meant Turret Mode. And yeah, I miss that. Can we get it in 360 degrees this time?

Aye, 360 degrees plz