Jump to content
unown006

Should automated static defences be added to duel universe?

Should automated static defences be added to duel universe? a means to a log off deffense system  

82 members have voted

  1. 1. Should automated static defences be added to duel universe?

    • Yes they are needed to balance the game
      60
    • Yes but there more nice to have but not needed
      10
    • No this would make orgs op and citys unraidable
      5
    • No this wouldnt be good for the game in general
      7


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, CalenLoki said:

I've been talking about manning gun in CvC.

Obviously in AvA (boarding) you can at least move, take cover, switch weapons, use some other tools/abilities.

I know, but in order to operate a construct turret effectively you most likely need ingame skills - so you have to split your skilltime between all chars of your account - which is possible, but then your mainchar doesn't have the same amount of skills as the main of someone who only skilled that one toon. Overall, everyone has the same skills

 

8 minutes ago, CalenLoki said:

Mass effect is an lock & fire game? I haven't played it, but from videos looks a lot like TPS with manual aiming.

it's not simulated afaik and also uses formulas to determin hitchance and dmg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be totally happy with my main char knowing nothing about mining, while my alt focusing on it.

 

Especially if they introduce some mechanics to encourage specialisation (i.e. each char total skill level is proportional to sqrt of the time it's active). So char A would have 100 points in fighting (which takes 10000 units of time) while my alt has 50 in mining (2500 units of time). Instead of single char having 80 in fighting and 31 in mining (also 12500 in total).

But even without that I'd still use multiple characters for specialised tasks. Being in multiple places at once sounds like extreme advantage.

 

Mass effect wiki states that it just have target assist for those who cant aim accurately. Something like increasing target hit-box. If that's the system they gonna use for DU, then I'm more than happy.

But by "lock&fire" I'd rather imagine something like typical MMO (i.e. WoW) where you select target, then select skill/weapon to use against it. Now imagine playing WoW when you can't move (you're only gun operator, not a pilot), and have just one skill to use. Soooooo interesting. Or tower-defence game where you have just one turret, and can select which goblins to attack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, CalenLoki said:

I'd be totally happy with my main char knowing nothing about mining, while my alt focusing on it.

 

Especially if they introduce some mechanics to encourage specialisation (i.e. each char total skill level is proportional to sqrt of the time it's active). So char A would have 100 points in fighting (which takes 10000 units of time) while my alt has 50 in mining (2500 units of time). Instead of single char having 80 in fighting and 31 in mining (also 12500 in total).

But even without that I'd still use multiple characters for specialised tasks. Being in multiple places at once sounds like extreme advantage.

It all depends on if you want to "lose" skills on your main. I'll only focus on one char only on my main acc, but have a second acc for mining/industry/production so for every acc I don't need to split skills

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, CalenLoki said:

Sounds like P2W.

But if it's not that excessive (if player skill is way more than character skill), then I'd say let em earn monies.

you can't really play with both accs at the same time, plus you have other problems when using 2 accs. and we don't know yet if it's even allowed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CalenLoki said:

Being in multiple places at once sounds like extreme advantage.

For me it sure helps with many problems of "wasting time" while travelling. The thing about skills is that many people will want to skill up their main char as quickly as possible, but as this includes offline time I don't see much of a problem of allocating 22 hrs a day to my main and 2 hrs to my B or C doing mining in safety or trading or whatever when I am active with them.

I think this will make a huge difference to the staffing of a ship, but also the defense of bases. Calls for help will largely be for people to switch chars when it is a ship being attacked and a bit less so if it is a base which has longer to arrange defenses.

 

I do believe that autodefences should still have reasonable amounts of power, however, while taking into account relative efficiencies. For example, four small cargo ships in formation, each travelling with a pilot only, should not be auto-defended better together than one ship four times the size with a pilot and three defenders on board.

 

I imagine this will not be so tricky for base defences, but will still be difficult to get right so that proper battles occur with active people and not just great auto-defences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to update my statement made on page 1: A turret could be designed to have 2 states, manned or unmanned, and one state could draw more power than the other. Also, a construct that wants static auto defences needs a core targeting computer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Omfgreenhair said:

I'd like to update my statement made on page 1: A turret could be designed to have 2 states, manned or unmanned, and one state could draw more power than the other. Also, a construct that wants static auto defences needs a core targeting computer.

Id be ok with that kind of thing. Extra logistics and widgets required to make any automation happen.

 

As for multiple chars per account - im honestly not sure how I feel about that. I'll need to give it some thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've sort of said it before, but I think it should be somehow harder to attack someone's base when they are offline because I don't think cowardly attacks should be rewarded. On the other hand, the best strategy to defend a base should not be simply to go to sleep for a week ;)!

Yes, a timer activation may work, so that the defender can select the time of day when the defences fail - and thus a window when a battle must take place before the shields can be reactivated - that seems to be the plan.

If turrets can have two states, then obviously manned turrets should perform better than turrets on auto. Then again, turrets are offensive defensive as opposed to purely defensive. I think it would be possible to have something like having to drop the main shields to be able to fire the turrets. That way you could have autoshields which take a long time to drain (but not forever), but actually beating the enemy requires an active battle.

I imagine NQ will be doing a lot of thinking about this as it will be a major element of ermmm, let's call it 'player interaction'!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well i do agree about something about Auto defensive on a "STATIC" base. Not everyone online all the time also manning the gun too.

Also to give the attacker some hard fight until member of the defensive org online.

But what i here want to see is how will it be balance umu.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel sure that NQ will give us some type of Auto defensive on a "STATIC" base but those defense's will just be to slow down a attacker giving defenders a little more time to be notified and seek help! The auto defense's will not be as good as someone manning a turret or get bonuses in that system like your character might be able to learn .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like.... force field unit, that slows down attackers (no matter how strong) long enough to bring friends and have proper PvP battle.

I'd like auto-turrets for off-line traps, but with FFU and TU they aren't really necessary to prevent attacking offline bases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah it give them some hard fight but cant totally safe, it is the profit of big organization. 

But you can alliance with other small organization.

United we stand, divide we fall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Seraphia Regalia Aboleth said:

Do you have an organization?

Just a member of a small one "Diverse Unified Accord", like i have said, our Org also have same idea about alliance or some deal.

Alone and small you hardly to survive lmao, cruel but fact.

But we can stay in multi org, for now i just stay in one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/21/2018 at 3:30 AM, CalenLoki said:

There is already an solution (confirmed by NQ) for "how to get someone to mann the guns of your cargo ship without forcing them to sit for hour doing nothing when not needed".  It's called multiple characters per account. You simply leave your friends mining with their mining characters, while their fighting chars sleep on the ship while you pilot. When someone attacks, they simply switch chars and start manning the guns.

No AI needed.

 

That being said, IMO it should be possible to manually give commands to more than one gun per person. The game has planned only lock&fire combat mechanics, thus sitting at your single AA gun and from time to time selecting single opponent seems nothing like interesting combat. It's like being commander with only one subordinate (AI gunner) with only one possible order to give (fire at him). Being able to control multiple guns at least let you choose which one to use, which one shoots where, how to distribute power between modules, even driving your ship at the same time, ect.

Only limit should be players ability to manage all of this, and engineering skill to make it easier.

Would this not reqire multiple accounts?

 

On 3/10/2018 at 9:34 AM, ShioriStein said:

fair enough. Make me to consider your idea maybe good.

But why the feeling it will be used to abuse still inside me, make me to argue but i found not thing to say lmao.

They may be abused but because we are talking about static deffence auto turrents miners would likly set up a small outpost or a few turent towers to defend them costing time and rs to set up whitch would make them less spamable plus you have to power and supply them with ammo unless lasers become a thing in whitch case only power 

 

On 3/9/2018 at 8:33 AM, Sparktacus said:

Hence the idea of the type of automatable turrets being limited. Im literally talking about the small stuff that would be a threat to fighters, but does little more than tickle bigger stuff.

 

No-one wants to see huge ships with massive automated cannons.

Are you sure I would be all for a very costly ion cannon as shown in star wars battle of hoth able to disable ships in and out of atmosphere however the energy rs cost would be massive and only for citys or space stations most likely

 

On 3/9/2018 at 8:17 AM, Sparktacus said:

Just saw this, looks like we posted at the same time.

 

Safe is debatable. Safer, is more the point. A single person in a fighter can destroy an unarmed frieghter. An auto turret or 2 to shoot back with, gives the frieghter a fighting chance, or at least the opportunity to bloody the fighters nose a bit.

This thread is for static deffences as NQ has stated no movable auto turents on ships

 

On 3/9/2018 at 10:32 AM, unown006 said:

This Thread was mainly about Base deference auto turrets for city's and anti raiding

I guess it evolved

 

On 3/9/2018 at 8:33 AM, Sparktacus said:

Hence the idea of the type of automatable turrets being limited. Im literally talking about the small stuff that would be a threat to fighters, but does little more than tickle bigger stuff.

 

No-one wants to see huge ships with massive automated cannons.

I wouldnt say no one but I am aganst it

 

On 3/9/2018 at 8:15 AM, Sparktacus said:

The irritating thing is, ive just read up in the pre-alpha boards, and im no longer worried about it, but cant articulate why without breaching NDA.

 

I hate leaving conversations like that, sucks for everyone. I'll try and cycle back to this once the NDA lifts so I can wrap up

Love to see it when NDA drops

 

On 3/9/2018 at 8:14 AM, ShioriStein said:

I just wonder how auto turret will make you safe.

It give no good than being a thing for abuse

 

Not teribly as mentioned above they are viable for base deffence whitch defenders will need 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, unown006 said:

They may be abused but because we are talking about static deffence auto turrents miners would likly set up a small outpost or a few turent towers to defend them costing time and rs to set up whitch would make them less spamable plus you have to power and supply them with ammo unless lasers become a thing in whitch case only power 

Ah i totally agree about some automatic defense turret on static building, what i'm talking there is about CalenLoki idea about "some" auto turret on dynamic or we called it ship. He say that it should be limit not to be used in offensive but not so useless in defense against one or a few of weak pirate when the crew not assemble fast enough.

He give me all the proof so i consider that is a good idea, but just wonder how it can be balance enough but his idea is fair and i agree with it.

46 minutes ago, unown006 said:

Not teribly as mentioned above they are viable for base deffence whitch defenders will need 

:P i forgot it is about auto turret on a statica construct all the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, ShioriStein said:

Ah i totally agree about some automatic defense turret on static building, what i'm talking there is about CalenLoki idea about "some" auto turret on dynamic or we called it ship. He say that it should be limit not to be used in offensive but not so useless in defense against one or a few of weak pirate when the crew not assemble fast enough.

He give me all the proof so i consider that is a good idea, but just wonder how it can be balance enough but his idea is fair and i agree with it.

:P i forgot it is about auto turret on a statica construct all the time.

I am not really convinced on ship or dynamic constructs as they could be abused in ways static can not 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, unown006 said:

I am not really convinced on ship or dynamic constructs as they could be abused in ways static can not 

WEll you should read his reply, he got his point there, and i think it maybe good. But balance will be another problem lmao.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, ShioriStein said:

WEll you should read his reply, he got his point there, and i think it maybe good. But balance will be another problem lmao.

I have read it and I am still concerned balance wise unless they did somthing like ark did with its turrents set a hard turent limit for mobile constructs 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That say, still in debate. I just consider it good because reason for it is fair enough.

But balance ? Well we still have to see how combat work first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×