We need to talk about CV turrets

Discussion in 'Suggestions' started by RadElert_007, Sep 4, 2017.

  1. Gawain

    Gawain Commander

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2017
    Messages:
    177
    Likes Received:
    99
    No CVs are already exploitable. Just because BAs need a balance item does not mean CVs should also get a piece of candy because the other kid got attention. CVs should get their guns back and that is all. BAs need extra range and Superior armaments because CVs have maneuverability and player assisted range bonus. For balance to work the range and power on these BA only cannons needs to be effective enough to eliminate player isolation of turrets by range and caked on layers of armor. These units could have 3x damage vs blocks and weapons and still may be under balanced for the exploit.
     
    #81
    Mortlath likes this.
  2. geostar1024

    geostar1024 Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2016
    Messages:
    1,409
    Likes Received:
    1,743
    If the CV spinal-mount cannon had similar range to the existing CV weapons (say 1000 m), then I don't see what the problem would be; as long as the BA anti-CV cannon had substantially longer range than any CV weapon (say 1500 m), and good enough tracking that a run-of-the-mill large CV couldn't dodge it, why not let CVs have a bit of fun too?
     
    #82
  3. MidasGunhazard

    MidasGunhazard Commander

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2017
    Messages:
    117
    Likes Received:
    113
    Hyperbole aside, CVs still have the advantage of mounting way more of any given turret than their counterparts. The lack of space combat seems more a problem with the lack of space content, rather than any kind of problem with the CV's 'role'. There SHOULD be lots to do in space, and the CV should be the king of that. There SHOULD be lots of space bases and NPC CVs roaming around to take on ship-to-ship. Insisting that the CVs should be better at atmospheric combat sounds like trying to treat a symtom instead of treating the disease.

    All that said, however, I've said that CVs should get access to dedicated ground-assault turrets to facilitate high altitude/low orbit bombardment.
     
    #83
    Mortlath likes this.
  4. Gawain

    Gawain Commander

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2017
    Messages:
    177
    Likes Received:
    99
    I agree with the more to do in space. That is a fundamental need that has yet to be resolved. One or two tugs or freighters and the very rare combat CV is way under par. NPCs establishing beach head BAs with support CVs, and expanding construction by NPCs to dominate an area would be another effective application that should be down the road.

    However I am dead against the fire from safety. Logistically the BA is extremely under par. Added range, better articulation of turrets, and BA only guns would balance the field as far as BA/CVs go. CVs can already side mount turrets and bombard. There is no justification to allow orbital bomb bombardment when BAs can not effectively track or damage high altitude targets. This is not WW2 where a German big head could do 15m of damage in an industrial / residential area of 1000 to 7000 archers with a 50m drift in high winds. Our CVs are impressively accurate vs small isolated facilities (aka the BA). BAs that can only dedicate a fraction of their defenses against because they have to be divided to protect on all 3 axis.

    So if you say CVs should be able to do High Altitude Bombardments, I will raise you to say BAs should be able to target orbiting vessel and take them out with one direct hit.
     
    #84
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2017
  5. geostar1024

    geostar1024 Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2016
    Messages:
    1,409
    Likes Received:
    1,743
    Extremely large planetary defense cannons can be found in multiple sci-fi universes, so I don't see why not. Right now both orbital bombardment and orbit-ranged planetary cannons are both a bit absurd considering the current size of planets, but they would make a lot of sense once we have larger spherical planets. Also, if/when shield systems are introduced, BAs will gain another defensive edge, particularly if new power options like solar or geothermal (neither of which have a consumable) are also introduced.
     
    #85
  6. MidasGunhazard

    MidasGunhazard Commander

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2017
    Messages:
    117
    Likes Received:
    113
    They would have to be incredibly expensive to justify taking out a CV with a single hit, otherwise that would not be even remotely balanced. If you can eliminate X hours of the time it took to mine and build a CV, the turret doing the work would have to be at least comparable and/or easily circumvented, otherwise that's just trying to solve incomplete game design with flat out bad game design.

    I don't get people's arguments about parity across BA/SV/CV/HV, though. It's like people want to argue that they should all be equal in every area and that doesn't make sense from either a sensible standpoint, nor a gameplay standpoint. Static bases are easier to build than CVs, require fewer devices and less power, and are currently the only way to install a repair bay that can repair CVs. There's plenty of strategic value to having a BA.
     
    #86
  7. Gawain

    Gawain Commander

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2017
    Messages:
    177
    Likes Received:
    99
    Which was my point. The concept is as broken as CVs doing orbital bombardments on BAs. As you put it Balance is the key and CVs firing on a target from safety is not balance. BAs are not just a repair bays for CVs, they also do not have to be equal accost the board, but the BAs should not be a the sheep to the CV wolf.

    The bread and butter of it is that BAs need to be practical in PVP areas. The counter by the Devs was to make CVs disarm all but two guns while in atmo to prevent exploitation of BAs. This did not help space stations, however, the bottom line is that BAs need to be defend-able against CVs so that CVs can have their weapons back. This applies to POIs as well.

    Short of favoring either BAs or CVs by giving one super weapons or allowing another to do orbital bombardments, something practical has to give. The practical solutions is to make BAs effective vs CVs. HVs and SVs are every bit as effective against BAs as they have always been. Added range on turrets will not change that. It will however help to resolve the CV exploit of Player assisted range. As the status quo for CVs is caked on layers of Combat steal, giving BAs high damage target CVs only guns is a plausible balance concept.
     
    #87
  8. Nogitsune

    Nogitsune Commander

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2017
    Messages:
    175
    Likes Received:
    137
    Making an unmanned BA equal to manned CV isn't balanced either. That means BA is 'operational' 24/7 while CV is not. CV needs to be parked somewhere while not in use, just like the BA is. If you want to make unmanned BA equal to manned CV, then two things would need to happen: first, a manned BA should be equal in every way to unmanned BA, and second, a parked/unmanned CV should be under 24/7 "offline protection", because this would mean that CVs are only meant to be in combat when manned. CV is at least equally costly as BA, so there's no reason why unmanned CV should be easier pickings, if BA is not.
     
    #88
  9. Arrclyde

    Arrclyde Captain

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2015
    Messages:
    625
    Likes Received:
    453
    But i do't see the need for an unmanned CV be as strong as an unmanned BA. Simply because an unmanned CV is basically a base. The key is: you can move in a CV to an unmanned BA, but you can NOT bring a base to an unmanned CV. And manned CVs aren't always forced to fight, at least not in one place. They can move you know. So for the sake of balance a BA should be stronger that an equally sized/outfitted CV. Simply because a CV has TWO advantages over a BA: first, in can move in all directions, two it has fixed mounted weapons, so the pilot can strafefire while turrets (when they all work on planets) fire automatically. That only leads to the conclusion that a BA needs to be significantly stronger than a CV, meaning a lot more durable Armor and a little more allowed turret placement. After all a base it there to stay where it is build, a CV can reach every planet in space.

    edit: I am against a orbital bombardment weapon for CV. While it is cool to use, it is a nightmare to balance. Simply because of the persistence nature of the game. It is just a cheap way to fight without risking anything. And yes, it is still cheap even on shot cost 1,000,000 Zarcosium and Erestum. Those are just resources, but fighting when nobody can fight back ist just cheap as it can get.
     
    #89
  10. Nogitsune

    Nogitsune Commander

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2017
    Messages:
    175
    Likes Received:
    137
    First I don't understand your point about strafing. Strafing makes firing fixed weapons difficult from distance, while movement doesn't really affect turrets - so turrets are better while strafing. Was that your point?

    CV cannot move while unmanned. Where you parked it, that's where it stays. It can't pick and choose it's fights when unmanned, so any advantage it may have from mobility, the unmanned CV doesn't have them. Also with multiple CVs, they are pretty much stranded where you built them - since you can only take one with you, and to return and take one out, you have to leave another one behind (unless you take the effort of dismantling a CV.. which you can do to a base too).

    While it's true that you can't normally bring a BA to CV (unless you abuse factory), and essentially when CV and BA are fighting, the CV will always be manned - it doesn't guarantee that the BA is not manned (technically with the offline protection devices, a BA would be unassailable most of the time when there's no one able to man it). If BA is given enough advantage that it can defend against CV unmanned, it may mean that when manned the CV doesn't have the snowball's chance in hell. Also, being able to fight only when manned is a disadvantage in itself - while BA can't exactly exploit it, another CV or SV can. Does that mean a CV, while not manned, should have some kind of buff that would put it to equal grounds on anyone who decided to attack it at the time? Surely it should still be able to mop the floor with any SV (since they are much cheaper), and be on equal grounds with any comparable CV - since it's equally expensive, can't move, can't avoid the fight, and can't even hide underground... and anyone could easily outrange it manually?

    CVs are safe from BA while not manned - that's true. BA are also safe from other BA while not manned.. they just aren't safe from CVs at those times. But neither are other CVs.

    I just don't think it's so clear cut, that "because bases can't move, they should kick anyone's ass, manned or not". I do agree though, that they do need some way to counter the 'death from above'. But it needs to be some way that doesn't give them an auto-win, and I think manned structure should have an equal advantage against unmanned - regardless of if it's BA, CV, SV or HV. It doesn't mean it's an advantage that should decide everything... just that there must be a reward for someone to operate a construct.

    I'm not strictly against making unmanned BA a full on danger either - but then I think they should always operate on full auto.. no way to control their turrets, designate targets etc. And possibly that would also mean that vehicles should either despawn with their owner (in case of faction, when there's no one from the faction in the playfield), or otherwise have automatic offline protection as part of their nature - since this would basically mean that BA are 'part of the static world', able to operate independently, while vehicles are more like 'tools', their usefulness bound to whomever is operating them.
     
    #90
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2017
  11. MidasGunhazard

    MidasGunhazard Commander

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2017
    Messages:
    117
    Likes Received:
    113
    If the issue is just a CV outranging a base, then a defensive gun would only need to match that range, not one-shot a CV. BA artillery guns already can cleave whole chunks out of a CV on a single hit.

    As for PVP, the balance is so absurd that I don't really care to make comparisons. There are fundamental mechanical changes that need to happen in the pvp environment several iterations before PVP balance can really be addressed.
     
    #91
  12. Gawain

    Gawain Commander

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2017
    Messages:
    177
    Likes Received:
    99
    1) Starfing: yes it adds a level of difficulty but the targeting calc can not predict player alterations in course and most ammunition travels extremely slow. A novice could dodge bullets at medium range in this game.

    2) CVs have the ability to be parked next to a BA. As pointed out by @Arrclyde while BAs don't have that option. If you have more than one CV you can set one to home and transport another only to respawn your character back at the one you left behind to move multiple. A manned BA can not move within range of an unmanned CV so I am not really understanding the concern of manned BAs. At most your CVs should only ever be targeted by other vessels and they can be under the protection of a throw away BA.

    3) Manned turrets. BA or other wise. Player assisted range is only viable against stationary targets. The targeting calc is more effective against moving targets than player possessed turrets. There is no targeting assistance bubbles. If you fire directly on a target it more likely that the targets will have moved out of the path of the ammunition before it arrives. Player may attempt to lead the target but without constant training this is guess work.

    4) We are not saying they should kick everything butt., however currently everything kicks their butt. The Devs tried to establish a dynamic of superiority based on the type of vessels which is not a bad method.

    a) Currently with most of the weapons nurfed on CVs Ground BAs are superior,
    b) In space CVs have more advantages than an SV and HVs cant be used,
    c) SVs have a tactical advantage over Ground BAs in that Strafing is not hard and the ammunition is so slow that targeting calc are not viable vs a SV,
    d) HVs offer players limited strafing abilities, auto lock ons, and player assisted range. They are death by the sides with more creative positioning.

    This establishes the best tool for the job dynamic. I dont know if this was intention or not but it makes SVs and HVs more viable. You dont hear much chatter on why a SV are not as strong as a CV, and very few question the point of having them.

    5) The point is to make unmanned BA equal or more of a challenge to take out with a CV than it is to do with an SV or HV. This is difficult considering the bulk of PVP CVs are buried thrusters, caked on Combat metal, and moving. Added BA range takes away the ability of player assisted range, however a BA gun that only targets CVs would be an effective way to combat PVP built CVs. Balance would be needed, and please note that the suggestion of one hit kill was a joke to counter the concept of justifiable orbital bombardment.

    6) The roll of BAs can be debated many ways. Much like CVs they can be built to accommodate an assortment of utilitarian needs. Empyrion allows the disabling of Offline protection, so forcing that on servers is not a solution. There are times and places where BAs need to be targetable to minimize griefing. Additionaly having all BAs protected 90% of the time does not promote player PVP in PVP zones. If you have ever seen a BA inside a resource spawn than you should understand.

    Regardless BA need to be challenging to over take. Strafing SVs & Tactically positioned HVs do that. CVs can substituted as a mobile BA but they should be the underdog in this stance considering the effects of player assisted targeting on stationary placements.

    To Reiterate, the suggestion of a one hit kill was a joke to explain how the mentality of justifying orbital bomb bombardment was just as absurd.
     
    #92
  13. geostar1024

    geostar1024 Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2016
    Messages:
    1,409
    Likes Received:
    1,743
    Actually, a decent example from sci-fi to analyze would be the Battle of Hoth. Here we have a fleet of CVs approaching a planet that has a heavily-shielded BA dug into its surface. The shield makes orbital bombardment fairly useless, and the BA has a very large anti-CV ion cannon that completely disables a CV in orbit in just a couple of shots. To proceed, the CVs dispatch specialized landing CVs to the surface, loaded with a bunch of heavy assault HVs. The BA, which only has some small static turrets for ground defense, deploys infantry and light, highly maneuverable HVs to counter the invasion force. Ultimately, the invading heavy HVs get close enough to bombard the BA's shield generator, and after the shield comes down, the CVs in orbit dispatch additional landing CVs with infantry to fully take over the BA.

    This suggests that BAs really need both anti-CV weapons and substantial shield systems, to protect themselves from CVs that would otherwise just pound them into the ground from range.
     
    #93
    Mortlath and Gawain like this.
  14. MidasGunhazard

    MidasGunhazard Commander

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2017
    Messages:
    117
    Likes Received:
    113
    Once the game is done, this sort of battle should even be entirely possible via a custom-made attacker vs defender scenario.
     
    #94
    Mortlath and geostar1024 like this.
  15. Gawain

    Gawain Commander

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2017
    Messages:
    177
    Likes Received:
    99
    And that is exactly how BA captures should take place. But we are not there yet. The bread and butter of right now is that CVs dont have their weapons, BAs are unprotected from CV in space, and some balancing point has to be reached.

    Con
    Player assisted range.
    BA are stationary allowing for turret isolation.
    Turrets are limited on articulation preventing upward fire.
    PVP CV Builds include flying combat steel bricks that standard artillery would not be able to shoot throw before being destroyed.


    These factors are what prevent balance.
     
    #95
  16. geostar1024

    geostar1024 Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2016
    Messages:
    1,409
    Likes Received:
    1,743
    I wonder if the turret articulation issue can be solved without new models for the turrets. . . .

    Anyway, in lieu of additional mechanics, it seems like the easiest fix for the moment would be to simply increase the range of some of the BA turrets (artillery and flak, probably).
     
    #96
  17. MidasGunhazard

    MidasGunhazard Commander

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2017
    Messages:
    117
    Likes Received:
    113
    There is design space for dedicated anti-air and anti-warship BA weapons that can fire straight up, but perhaps can't fire horizontally as well. Role-dedicated to combating SVs, drones, and CVs.

    Currently, as far as I've seen, however, BA turrets DO out-range CV turrets. The cannon turrets in atmosphere for BAs vs CVs on something like Akua are 397m vs 447m respectively, and turrets like the artillery turret have even greater range still, exceeding 500m.
     
    #97
  18. Gawain

    Gawain Commander

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2017
    Messages:
    177
    Likes Received:
    99
    True but lets be honest Bombardment will only ever be done with the greatest ranged weapons. And any range has to exceed the player assist exploit. Additionally a buffer has to be considered to account for gun placements to avoid turret isolation. Comparing minis and artillery is apples to oranges. A BA mini is unlikely to ever play a vital part in repelling a hostile CV.

    A friend an I are doing tests. There seems to be some inconstancy with firing angles but it appears that ammunition range may be a flat range across several types of turrets. If this turns out to be true, it would indicated that the mini could fire as far as the artillery with player assist. Ammunition needs to have a fall out range respective to its targeting range.
     
    #98
  19. MidasGunhazard

    MidasGunhazard Commander

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2017
    Messages:
    117
    Likes Received:
    113
    Currently there are no great ranged weapons to bombard with on a CV. If we're talking about fictional weapons, then there's no reason why BAs would not have long-range defense guns if CVs got long-range bombardment guns.

    Also, you keep mentioning this player-control 'exploit'. It makes total sense for a manually-controlled turret to have advantages over an AI one, or no one would ever manually use them. It doesn't make any sense to assume an unmanned base should be able to fend off a manned CV. There's no balance to that scenario whatsoever.

    Players have to worry about actually hitting their targets at a distance. BAs are at a disadvantage here? Of course they are, static targets are ALWAYS at that kind of disadvantage in any game, in real life, everywhere. That's why in real strategy, you don't bank on static defenses to do anything more than slow people down. Even fortifications aren't worth much if they aren't manned because an attacker is always going to find a way around it eventually. You could have all the turrets in the world with unlimited range, and there will still be an approach that negates their strength which a static target won't be able to adapt to, unless it has actual people inside who can counterattack. And if we're going to talk about people vs people, then there's no reason to even assume it would be just a BA vs CV. There's no reason there wouldn't be HVs and SVs involved as well.

    I'm not sure what scenario concerns you, but it sounds something like a player with a CV attacking another player's unmanned BA, in which case, yes, the BA should lose every single time.
     
    #99
  20. Gawain

    Gawain Commander

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2017
    Messages:
    177
    Likes Received:
    99
    You are getting away from the fundamental aspects of a game. This is not real life and players can not be on to protect their BAs 24/7. As pointed out in orbital bombardment vs super ion cannon example, both favor the build-able item and neither are balanced. If you favor CVs then you are going to want CVs to have superior power, regardless that is not balance.

    In real life, fortified assets are never unmanned otherwise they are not assets. That is not logistical in a game environment to avoid finding measures to account for that. POI have expendable infantry player bases do not, and manning a turret is only beneficial if the target is not moving. A manned BA turret does not receive the advantage of the targeting calc. There is no bubble leading your target predicting the intersection of the vessel and your ammunition. So the advantage of possessing a turret is totally one sided. No balance there.

    Beside if a BA is occupied the player would more likely utilize a vessel rather than a single BA turret. Considering this BAs will always fight as if they were unmanned. If my base is under attack I will grab a CV and turn it into a CV on CV battle.


    BAs should not be the bane of CVs but they should be able to repel a few CV waves while unmanned. It should be a process not simply shooting a fish in a barrel. Their is no stopping a dedicated player in taking over any asset. The advantage of the manned ship is that the pilot can retreat, repair, and return endlessly, but the BA only receives attention when a player is both on and aware of an attack.

    As it is common place for players or even whole factions to be absent for large portions of the day, it is not merit-able to assume these targets should be easy simply because they are unmanned. There currently is no counter to the real life requirements such as work or family. Offline protection was intended for that purpose but as we have seen, even that can be abuse into a form of griefing.

    Balance would be that unmanned BAs have effective defense vs player controlled CVs, and a player or even a small group of players would have to work harder to take over a BA, because that is simply logistical for any MMORPG.

    CV capturing of a BA should be possible, but it should be at a difficulty that considers the overwhelming advantages of player persistence and that BAs will always be defending itself unmanned.
     
    #100
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2017
    Chikara88 likes this.

Share This Page