HAWKEN servers are up and our latest minor update is live!
Forgot Password_ SUPPORT REDEEM CODE

Jump to content


Remove Weapons from Battleships


  • Please log in to reply
139 replies to this topic

#101 tasnitoken

tasnitoken

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts

Posted November 27 2012 - 12:15 AM

View PostAsianJoyKiller, on November 23 2012 - 02:05 PM, said:

View Posttasnitoken, on November 23 2012 - 07:50 AM, said:

I disagree with the OP, the battleship turrets are no different from the base turrets other than their motion.
That's right.
You know, except for the part where you are completely wrong.
Last time I checked, base turrets were static and didn't fly over the battlefield shooting you as you try to fight other players while completing objectives.
That's what I said, THEY ARE IN MOTION. If you don't like the added challenge don't play siege. The point to siege is the strategy of not only using your team to hold the AA but timing your launch so that you can optimally use the distraction of a flying turret to push the other team back. If you just want to play hold the position from the other team then play missile or get a team to camp TDM.
I have had games in which the ship's guns took five kills from me and was ready to spit nails but that is no more frustrating than the games in which the other players use suicide to deny me the point, you deal.

#102 Beemann

Beemann

    Sentient Wall-of-Text

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,974 posts
  • LocationVancouver, BC

Posted November 27 2012 - 01:09 AM

It's funny that you're going on about tactics, strategy and challenge when Siege is one of the most easily exploited gamemodes
Posted Image

C-Class Swagger
Ballin' and Brawlin'
Cloakin' and Smokin'

#103 Ace4225

Ace4225

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 684 posts
  • LocationMission Control

Posted November 27 2012 - 08:29 AM

Have to agree with Beemann there... there's very little strategy currently in Siege. It pretty much favors one team or the other. I really like the idea that if there was more than one AA platform or some sort of secondary defense besides the main AA, it would offer the defending team more options and force the attackers to be smarter than simply camp on the AA platform.

On the other hand, that might cause Siege to become too similar to Missile Assault...

Even so, I think there should be more than one defense objective [like there's already two EU towers] so that the attackers don't get to camp in one spot.

Edited by Ace4225, November 27 2012 - 08:31 AM.

Posted Image
US East    -Brawler   -Berserker   -Scout   -Assault
---->[ =./\.= ]<----


#104 EMEUTIER

EMEUTIER

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 348 posts
  • LocationNSW, Australia

Posted November 27 2012 - 08:42 AM

I was too lazy to read ALL the replies in this topic so forgive me for just blurting out something I gotta say.

I was happy with the way the battleship turrets worked in beta 2, but now I keep expecting to see the giant battleship in the 'Honors' screen under 'Most Assists'.
Posted Image

#105 Ace4225

Ace4225

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 684 posts
  • LocationMission Control

Posted November 27 2012 - 08:49 AM

View PostEMEUTIER, on November 27 2012 - 08:42 AM, said:

I was happy with the way the battleship turrets worked in beta 2, but now I keep expecting to see the giant battleship in the 'Honors' screen under 'Most Assists'.

lol

If the battleship steals your kill, you don't get an assist, which is dumb. [I've lost quite a few kills to the thing now; I get someone down to 10% life, then the battleship finishes them off randomly and I don't get any credit for helping.]

Edited by Ace4225, November 27 2012 - 08:50 AM.

Posted Image
US East    -Brawler   -Berserker   -Scout   -Assault
---->[ =./\.= ]<----


#106 DarkPulse

DarkPulse

    Ghost Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,243 posts
  • LocationBuffalo, NY, USA

Posted November 27 2012 - 01:35 PM

View PostAsianJoyKiller, on November 26 2012 - 10:19 AM, said:

What wild exaggerations of your position have I made_ I can't find them.
On the other hand, I have seen you say things like, " 'It's automatic and it can kill me, so it's unfair' ", " 'Remove them, it's OP!' ", and "game-breaking."
"You're strawmanning and arguing ad hominem."

I'm arguing your points and why I disagree with them, while simultaneously putting out my own suggestions that would make the battleship fairer without entirely removing its ability to shoot. I'm not arguing just because it's you, and I'm not saying dumb things like "Why not remove the AA and just have it always be manually shot_" Thus, you're guilty of doing that which you say you're not; ergo, tu quoque.

View PostAsianJoyKiller, on November 26 2012 - 10:19 AM, said:

Scaling is somewhat acceptable, but far from ideal.
Also, asking for a decent explanation of why Siege is the only mode that gives an advantage to teams for completing normal objectives is completely within reason. Hardly illogical.
Because it's the only mode in which it makes sense_ In COD4 you can call a helicopter after you kill five dudes in a row, in any game mode... doesn't make sense either, and believe me, if you thought the battleship's offense was OP, the Helicopter would make you throw literal fits. You pretty much had to have a rocket launcher of some kind to take it out reasonably quickly, it would last for quite a long time, it'd make you dirt nap within a second or two, and if you were leading the match, it would always preferentially target you over anyone else. Oh, and it didn't go away even if you got killed, unlike a MG turret - you either blow it up or wait for it to leave, which takes about ninety seconds or so.

If this thing is doing 450 damage to a solo C-Class who keeps on moving, a 2/3 strength reduction for low player count would be about 150 damage, and for 1/3 strength, about 300. However, those numbers are likewise assuming that you are literally the only person getting shot, when in reality, most of the time it's being spread to your teammates as well, reducing direct damage numbers. The ship always only has two turrets and one rocket pod, IIRC - the only thing that keeps boosting are the number of engines, so if you really wanted to, as was also said, you could simply hang back, take out the MG turrets, and that will solve 95% of your problems (because the rockets really do only fire about as fast as from the Rocket Turret).

View PostAsianJoyKiller, on November 26 2012 - 10:19 AM, said:

Except my counter of ships being suicidal wasn't a counter to the your "defenseless battleship" point, and I in fact quoted what I was addressing so you would know what I was countering. You then went on to argue for alternatives, which I suppose is a sticking point because I don't think there needs to be alternatives. Why don't I think there needs to be alternatives_ Because there's an entire team of people who are available to defend it themselves. The battleship doesn't need to be able to defend itself because the onus of defending the battleship should fall on the team.
And the enemy team can't go everywhere. Again, what is stopping your team from just keeping in the spawn room and pecking at the ship_ Absolutely nothing, and if the enemy team goes there, turrets will eventually chew them up and kill them.

There is a reason I made very specific point of mentioning that.

Unless you'd rather have the spawn rooms have no protection at all - which I doubt - or make it so that the spawn rooms are covered and thus unable to see the ship, there needs to be some sort of capability for the ship to either defend itself, or for the defenders to be able to go after the team if they're shooting the ship. If we make the launching team defend the ship, but the attacking team fully able to shoot it from a safe place while protected by auto-turrets, it allows free attacks to the ship with your suggestion, since the turrets will damage and eventually destroy any enemy who gets close, meaning the only thing that would be able to safely and reliably defend against just popping it from the spawn room would be the ship itself.

For your suggestion to work, there needs to be further tweaks, and I'd feel that adding in those tweaks would be even worse; thus my suggestion of removing the ability for the enemy side to shoot down a launched battleship if your suggestion of removing battleship defenses is put into effect.

View PostAsianJoyKiller, on November 26 2012 - 10:19 AM, said:

My counter of kamikaze collisions not making sense was in regard to you arguing that, thematically, removing weapons from battleships didn't make any sense. That's silly, because the whole of Siege mode makes little sense from any logical standpoint, so removing weapons is no less logical than any other thematic concept in it.
Games aren't ever fully logical. Look at a time-honored game mode, Capture the Flag: You risk getting killed to... take a flag. And if the enemy kills you, you drop it, and usually they just touch it and it magically reappears in their base. If you do capture the flag, the flag... mysteriously reappears in the enemy base.

Let's not argue logic in games, shall we_ When it comes down to logic or fun, games almost always opt for fun, not for logic.

View PostAsianJoyKiller, on November 26 2012 - 10:19 AM, said:

And why do I accuse you of strawmanning_
If you want, I'll point out several cases where you never actually address questions I ask or points I make and then act like you've properly refuted them.
In fact, I'll even throw in all the examples where you completely ignore questions or arguments I made for free.
If you'd like to, feel free to. I'll gladly address them. The main point you wanted to make was on removal of battleship weapons, which I did clearly make an argument against, but if you really want to be nitpicky over it, be my guest. I'm assuming you mean things like "Why don't you get an advantage in DM/TDM/MA/etc." but I also think I answered that one.

View PostAsianJoyKiller, on November 26 2012 - 10:19 AM, said:

So this, "Stop playing A-Class all the time, that's half the answer. You sacrifice speed for armor and you know that." and this, "That said, I can't ever remember really being shot by the thing to 1/2-1/3rd health. And yes, that includes playing as an A-Class, so really, how the heck are you moving so that it instant-targets you_" aren't comments on me personally and rather my position_
I hardly think so.
While it's true that I said that, the basic point is that if you are playing an A-Class, of course you're going to take more damage as a percent - 450 on a 850 mech is a bit more than half, but 450 on a 500 HP A-Class is something like 90%. However, as I also said, this is highly dependent on the number of people playing. If it's 2v2, yes, the ship will rip you up unless you take out its turrets. If it's 6v6, the thing isn't really going to do much more than scratch you, since it has two turrets with which it will be shooting six people. Ergo, why I also suggested that it be scaled by the number of players - this way it doesn't nearly kill you in a 2v2, but will do, at most, about 150 damage - significant, but not game breaking, especially when you can, indeed, shoot the things off if you want to.

View PostAsianJoyKiller, on November 26 2012 - 10:19 AM, said:

Not to mention, "Because to be honest, this is almost like the turret argument you made which I also found ridiculous." hardly helps the idea that you're entirely neutral.
I found them ridiculous for the same reasons, which is that I don't feel they're nearly as OP as you make them out to be, although the turret did even less damage than the battleship does now, even before the nerf.

View PostAsianJoyKiller, on November 26 2012 - 10:19 AM, said:

In short, I am very careful to try and avoid logical fallacies and such debate tactics so they don't bite me in the ass.
You can accuse me of hypocrisy, but I doubt you can prove it conclusively.
Accusing others of hypocrisy when they are indeed meeting your point is, in and of itself, hypocrisy. I didn't answer your minor fluff questions because that wasn't the point (The topic is "Remove the turrets," not "Why don't you get ships in DM/TDM/MA"), but if you really want me to answer them, I'll do so if it means that much to you.
Reason as my minor ego, and opposite my desire to be a murderer.
A coagulated, gloomy thinking in the intelligence, as my major ego.
An antinomian theorem of behaviorism, in all of my thinkings.
It's what we call "The Inversion Impulse."

#107 AsianJoyKiller

AsianJoyKiller

    Lithium Cellophane Unicorn Salad

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8,011 posts
  • LocationWI

Posted November 27 2012 - 02:05 PM

View PostDarkPulse, on November 27 2012 - 01:35 PM, said:

View PostAsianJoyKiller, on November 26 2012 - 10:19 AM, said:

What wild exaggerations of your position have I made_ I can't find them.
On the other hand, I have seen you say things like, " 'It's automatic and it can kill me, so it's unfair' ", " 'Remove them, it's OP!' ", and "game-breaking."
"You're strawmanning and arguing ad hominem."

I'm arguing your points and why I disagree with them, while simultaneously putting out my own suggestions that would make the battleship fairer without entirely removing its ability to shoot. I'm not arguing just because it's you, and I'm not saying dumb things like "Why not remove the AA and just have it always be manually shot_" Thus, you're guilty of doing that which you say you're not; ergo, tu quoque.
I could go along and tear apart every problem in your post, but why bother when you start with this.

Right off the bat, you start with a strawman argument. You act as if you have refuted what I've said, but the problem is, you've never actually addressed the point I made. By your own definition strawmanning is ""To create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position."

You never point out where I've made any wild exaggerations, and you don't even try to counter the fact that I say you have made wild exaggerations. You just go on to make a similar yet unequivalent proposition and argue with that instead.

This is why I'm getting fed up trying to debate with you and why I'm completely baffled you can call me a hypocrite with a straight face.

By your own definition you start your debate with a logical fallacy and then call me a hypocrite.



Aside from all that, I'm done arguing for this.
Experiments with NotKjell have proven to me that Siege is broken in a manner so profound that only sweeping changes can redeem it for even a casual game mode.

[HWK]HUGHES, on July 03 2013 - 11:07 PM, said:

AJK is right

The Sinful Infil HEAT Cannon Hustler, Cloaking and Smoking, C-Class Swagger, Ballin' n' Brawlin'


#108 HellRik

HellRik

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 176 posts
  • LocationQuebec, Canada

Posted November 27 2012 - 02:27 PM

Asking for poeple to debate an unchallenging request by turning all their opinions into bullshit to troll more players into the debate.

Posted Image

Protip: Hug a wall as the battleship always ''ALWAYS'' come from one side of the map. No need to duck Under the ''only'' rooftop cover AA offers. As far as I know...BS turrets are no aimboters. Just dont stop moving they wont rip your lil'mech apart.

Edited by HellRik, November 27 2012 - 02:29 PM.

Posted Image


#109 PlagueDoctor

PlagueDoctor

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 59 posts

Posted November 27 2012 - 02:32 PM

Make it have one turret and only shoot the enemy closest to the AA. Gives the AA defenders a little more help, rewards the ship launchers, doesn't destroy people that have retreated to heal, and can be shot off easily if it becomes a problem.
Posted Image
Beeware the Bee-class, Buzzin' and Bashin'
(Fear the Swarm)

#110 Beemann

Beemann

    Sentient Wall-of-Text

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,974 posts
  • LocationVancouver, BC

Posted November 27 2012 - 02:32 PM

I like how when this game`s mechanics come into question, Darkpulse references the completely pants killstreak system
Clearly if something else did something worse, we can`t possibly fuzzy bunny it up
No need to optimize or fix bugs because Bethesda`s games are far worse on day 1, esp. if you have a PS3 :P
Posted Image

C-Class Swagger
Ballin' and Brawlin'
Cloakin' and Smokin'

#111 AsianJoyKiller

AsianJoyKiller

    Lithium Cellophane Unicorn Salad

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8,011 posts
  • LocationWI

Posted November 27 2012 - 02:36 PM

View PostHellRik, on November 27 2012 - 02:27 PM, said:

Asking for poeple to debate an unchallenging request by turning all their opinions into bullshit to troll more players into the debate.

Posted Image

Protip: Hug a wall as the battleship always ''ALWAYS'' come from one side of the map. No need to duck Under the ''only'' rooftop cover AA offers. As far as I know...BS turrets are no aimboters. Just dont stop moving they wont rip your lil'mech apart.
Being snarky and sarcastic only works if you write something that people can understand clearly.

Protip: Learn what an aimbot is before saying an aimbot isn't an aimbot.

[HWK]HUGHES, on July 03 2013 - 11:07 PM, said:

AJK is right

The Sinful Infil HEAT Cannon Hustler, Cloaking and Smoking, C-Class Swagger, Ballin' n' Brawlin'


#112 DarkPulse

DarkPulse

    Ghost Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,243 posts
  • LocationBuffalo, NY, USA

Posted November 27 2012 - 03:01 PM

View PostAsianJoyKiller, on November 27 2012 - 02:05 PM, said:

I could go along and tear apart every problem in your post, but why bother when you start with this.

Right off the bat, you start with a strawman argument. You act as if you have refuted what I've said, but the problem is, you've never actually addressed the point I made. By your own definition strawmanning is ""To create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position."

You never point out where I've made any wild exaggerations, and you don't even try to counter the fact that I say you have made wild exaggerations. You just go on to make a similar yet unequivalent proposition and argue with that instead.

This is why I'm getting fed up trying to debate with you and why I'm completely baffled you can call me a hypocrite with a straight face.

By your own definition you start your debate with a logical fallacy and then call me a hypocrite.
I feel I addressed your point, which was "Battleship turrets give an advantage and they need to go." The claims of strawmanning and arguing ad hominem began with you - not with me. Aside from telling you to get out of an A-Class - and we both know you play A-Class quite a bit, so you can't say it's not unfounded - I don't feel any of my arguments were strawmanning, and definitely none of them were arguing ad hominem. If anything, you began throwing them at me first, because when I gave an answer, you began throwing out things like "Why don't you get this advantage in another game mode_ Why don't you get more damage for a killstreak_" and so on. You began trying to steer the argument away from your original argument at that point, in order to try to justify your feelings about one single change.

I get it - you want them gone. But don't act like I didn't meet your points here; I have several times. Now, are we going to argue that point (which is, I presume, this thread's purpose), or are we going to have a meta-argument about arguing over whether we are arguing or not_

Keep in mind I'm not happy with Siege either. I want it back to three points, the old EU collection method was superior, and I think that most players of Siege are dissatisfied with the changes... but I also think most of them know they are temporary since the devs have said they will be changing it quite considerably. However, I do not feel, with the current mechanics, that removing the weapons from the battleship is viable, because of reasons I said (which you cheerfully ignored in the interest of pointing out that the rest of it was "pointless") and that, with the appropriate balancing, it will serve to give only about as much of an overall advantage as MG turrets and other items in the game. If mechanics change, obviously, my stance can change as well, but I don't view a situation where a team can hang back in their spawn room and down the ship a few times, with effectively little to no risk to themselves, any more favorably than you view a battleship that can kill you.

But if you're done arguing your original point, I suppose I'll just find other things to argue. After all, you made your reasons you were for it; I made my reasons for why I was against it. If you're done arguing your points, then by definition, I can't continue arguing either.

Edited by DarkPulse, November 27 2012 - 03:03 PM.

Reason as my minor ego, and opposite my desire to be a murderer.
A coagulated, gloomy thinking in the intelligence, as my major ego.
An antinomian theorem of behaviorism, in all of my thinkings.
It's what we call "The Inversion Impulse."

#113 HellRik

HellRik

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 176 posts
  • LocationQuebec, Canada

Posted November 27 2012 - 03:30 PM

View PostAsianJoyKiller, on November 27 2012 - 02:36 PM, said:

Protip: Learn what an aimbot is before saying an aimbot isn't an aimbot.

Wait what_

Then I must be hacking because I manage to dodge most of them by not staying in the same spot more then 1 second. If they where real ''aimbots'' ( word used because of lack of synonyms ), they would fracking hit you 100% times. They are bots obviously (controlled by AI), but if they where truely ''aiming''by calculating some projected HZ from target's speed they would hit you rather then firing at your actual position.

Also, they have a shorter range then your Mech. If you dont spray..and if...IF...your team focusfire on it...yeah its annoying. But feeling the immersion starts by activating turrets on a battleship on a fullscale attack on the enemy base. Meaning its not a transport ship. Have you seen a battleship not firing back at enemy_ Since you already told us somewhere in this forum that some other game that poeple where whining about pretty much everything and ruining the game...you pretty much doing the same thing by turning down everyone's opinion in a public thread.

I know I can compete with you with words, because yes English is my 3rd language. I am also pretty sure many don't post affraid it a waste of time. Mostly because you fracking need to present your arguments into wall of texts. And since you're always trying to make me look like a fool, I'll use something bigger: Maturity  and not feed your appetite.

I'll still give my opinions and views on the game so the debate can go on, but I'll always respect others ideas and reasons for disagreeing with me. Can you do it_ Can you listen to poeple_

Posted Image


#114 AsianJoyKiller

AsianJoyKiller

    Lithium Cellophane Unicorn Salad

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8,011 posts
  • LocationWI

Posted November 27 2012 - 04:36 PM

View PostHellRik, on November 27 2012 - 03:30 PM, said:

Then I must be hacking because I manage to dodge most of them by not staying in the same spot more then 1 second. If they where real ''aimbots'' ( word used because of lack of synonyms ), they would fracking hit you 100% times. They are bots obviously (controlled by AI), but if they where truely ''aiming''by calculating some projected HZ from target's speed they would hit you rather then firing at your actual position.
You can program an aimbot to have soft lock on, track slowly and all sorts of things. That doesn't mean they aren't aimbots. The essence of an aimbot is to be able to aim without human input. That is what turrets do. They aim by use of a rudimentary AI. And an aimbot doesn't have to hit 100% of its shots to be an aimbot. If the weapon that is being used by an aimbot is not 100% accurate, the aimbot could track perfectly and still not hit all the shots.

Quote

Also, they have a shorter range then your Mech. If you dont spray..and if...IF...your team focusfire on it...yeah its annoying. But feeling the immersion starts by activating turrets on a battleship on a fullscale attack on the enemy base. Meaning its not a transport ship. Have you seen a battleship not firing back at enemy_ Since you already told us somewhere in this forum that some other game that poeple where whining about pretty much everything and ruining the game...you pretty much doing the same thing by turning down everyone's opinion in a public thread.
I've already covered arguing theatrics over gameplay.
In the other thread, I referenced Firefall because a large part of the community whine about things unless they're as easy as the Seeker to use. I'm will never argue to dumb down a game so much just so the least skilled players can have a chance against the best. In this thread, I argue for equal footing for each team, and to remove things that take no skill to use. And I back it up with reason. I'm not just mindlessly whining. And I kept shooting down ideas because I have yet to be convinced by anyone that their reasons for letting one team have an advantage they really don't have to work for are reasonable.

Quote

I know I can compete with you with words, because yes English is my 3rd language. I am also pretty sure many don't post affraid it a waste of time. Mostly because you fracking need to present your arguments into wall of texts. And since you're always trying to make me look like a fool, I'll use something bigger: Maturity  and not feed your appetite.

I'll still give my opinions and views on the game so the debate can go on, but I'll always respect others ideas and reasons for disagreeing with me. Can you do it_ Can you listen to poeple_
I make huge walls of text because so often, when you get into complex arguments, it becomes impossible to address everything in a nice, succinct manner and explain your position well. If some people are intimidated by that, it's not my problem.

You seem to be under this impression I follow you around, just hating on everything you post.
That's wrong. I have no personal vendetta.
I visit threads I find interesting, and sometimes I find posts I find silly or off base. You just happen to be the author of some of those posts.

I will always respect a well written argument, that adheres to logic and reason and do it the honor of reading all of it. Hell, as long as you debate well, you can tell me that you hate my guts and think I should die in a pit of fire while being eaten by mutant, land-dwelling, fire-proof, piranhas  and I'll respect you for being candid too. But if you regularly resort to logical fallacies, and other bad argument strategies (though insults don't bother me so much), I'm going to keep prodding at those weak points and try to poke holes in what your saying.

Oh, and FYI, the whole "I'm more mature than you and I'm going to mention how much more mature than you I am" thing_
Guess what.
Not mature.

Edited by AsianJoyKiller, November 27 2012 - 04:37 PM.

[HWK]HUGHES, on July 03 2013 - 11:07 PM, said:

AJK is right

The Sinful Infil HEAT Cannon Hustler, Cloaking and Smoking, C-Class Swagger, Ballin' n' Brawlin'


#115 EMEUTIER

EMEUTIER

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 348 posts
  • LocationNSW, Australia

Posted November 27 2012 - 11:24 PM

I have stayed out of all of your arguments for some time now as to me it seems that you have a limited grasp of the English language yet pretend otherwise but I cant stand all this garbage about bloody 'aimbot's any longer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aimbot
I know this is just a wiki article but I don't feel it is necessary to copy multiple references of the same thing when you can use Google yourself.

The deploy-able turrets and the ship's turrets are NOT aimbots per-say. Yes they are a 'bot' programed to 'aim' but can in no way be seriously called an 'aimbot' as the term is used to reference a device that assists the PLAYER in aiming with no need for input.
Yes again I understand that at face value it seems to be the same thing but the turrets are not helping YOU aim but are aiming independently.

I hope those who are mature enough understand what I am saying and those that choose to not understand, well, that's your problem.
Posted Image

#116 Beemann

Beemann

    Sentient Wall-of-Text

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,974 posts
  • LocationVancouver, BC

Posted November 27 2012 - 11:32 PM

So how do turrets not assist the player exactly_
inb4 huge semantic argument because you decided to bring out a definition without thinking about the words involved in that definition
Posted Image

C-Class Swagger
Ballin' and Brawlin'
Cloakin' and Smokin'

#117 AsianJoyKiller

AsianJoyKiller

    Lithium Cellophane Unicorn Salad

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8,011 posts
  • LocationWI

Posted November 27 2012 - 11:45 PM

View PostEMEUTIER, on November 27 2012 - 11:24 PM, said:

I have stayed out of all of your arguments for some time now as to me it seems that you have a limited grasp of the English language yet pretend otherwise but I cant stand all this garbage about bloody 'aimbot's any longer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aimbot
I know this is just a wiki article but I don't feel it is necessary to copy multiple references of the same thing when you can use Google yourself.

The deploy-able turrets and the ship's turrets are NOT aimbots per-say. Yes they are a 'bot' programed to 'aim' but can in no way be seriously called an 'aimbot' as the term is used to reference a device that assists the PLAYER in aiming with no need for input.
Yes again I understand that at face value it seems to be the same thing but the turrets are not helping YOU aim but are aiming independently.

I hope those who are mature enough understand what I am saying and those that choose to not understand, well, that's your problem.
Aimbot:
  • Uses some method to flag a target as hostile
  • Can track and aim at the hostile target without human input
  • Can fire at a target without human input
Turret:
  • Uses some method to flag a target as hostile
  • Can track and aim at the hostile target without human input
  • Can fire at a target without human input

[HWK]HUGHES, on July 03 2013 - 11:07 PM, said:

AJK is right

The Sinful Infil HEAT Cannon Hustler, Cloaking and Smoking, C-Class Swagger, Ballin' n' Brawlin'


#118 String

String

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 28 posts

Posted November 27 2012 - 11:46 PM

The battleship guns are really annoying when I'm trying to get flank the AA. Especially when I took the time to not boost or fire so I wouldn't show up on the radar.

However it could be cool if this game had a commander element like bf2. The commander in this case would be able to direct the battleship to bombard a specific area, do an area scan to detect enemy units, drop a resupply pack that speeds up item recharge or something. Each action could cost additional eu.

Edited by String, November 27 2012 - 11:47 PM.


#119 Necro

Necro

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,262 posts

Posted November 27 2012 - 11:47 PM

Can we get a poll_ Not about to read this whole damn thread.

#120 Conquistador

Conquistador

    Holy Roman Emperor

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,176 posts
  • LocationAt the back of the North Wind

Posted November 27 2012 - 11:53 PM

I'd like to propose a compromise. This would involve keeping weapons on battleships, and actually add MORE weapons to battleships.

"But wait", you say. "Isn't that ignoring the problems with battleship weapons specified in this thread_"

No, because while I propose adding even more weapons to the point at which the battleship is bristling with them, they should:

A ) Ignore the players below entirely

B ) UNLESS fired upon

In a single stroke, this solution will nullify both the problem with active environmental threats and provide extremely potent deterrence to players shooting down battleships. When players do not engage the battleships, the battleships largely ignore them. The moment a player fires on a battleship, it enters targeting telemetry and will be terminated with extreme prejudice.

I'm recommending buffing battleship weapon damage and making turrets invincible. But I'm also recommending that turrets ignore players unless they fire on the battleship. By firing on the battleship in an attempt to shoot it down, the player marks himself as a target and the battleship programming is given free reign to defend itself with overwhelming force. This allows players to still shoot down the battleship but now provides greater strategic depth because in doing so, the player becomes "marked for death", as it were. This way, the ship only becomes an active environmental threat if the player attacks it, which you want it to do if the enemy team is try to shoot it down manually, providing even greater incentive for AA capture and punishing players heavily for trying to ignore the AA point.

Edited by Conquistador, November 27 2012 - 11:54 PM.

Posted Image




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users