[skipjack]

yes

[Jonboy]

You have to define the role of turret - what is it for? If its purpose is conflux-defense then the best you will get the equivalent of 1 size 2 gun-slots or 2 size 1 gun-slots. Or do you expect a turret to allow you to mine in pulsar? I realize that GG mined in more flux heavy areas than me, but Istvan was happy with 1 size 1 slot.

For fighting a player, that kind of firepower is never going to be much of a deterrent. It would slow them down a bit - is that what you are after? But they're never going to STOP someone, if they're smart enough to stay on the other side of your craft. Would it slow them down MORE than more defenses or shaking off missiles?

[TexMurphy]

I agree with JB that giving players a false sence of security is one of the worst things one can do. That is what tag system is. Im Civ tagged and I assume that Im safe from PvP. No your not.

I do also agree that turrets if under powerfull will give a false sence of security. "I dont need to ask for an escort because Ive got my turrets that will protect me". Sorry they wount, if you get attacked you will most likely die, you should have brought escorts to be safer.

Seriously escort is the biggest safety booster for a hauler/miner.

Im very much for the idea to strip the guns totally of hauler/miner. Make it so they cant equip any combat guns at all, just non combat guns on non combat ships.

Give the players a ability to create missions, escort missions. If a player doesnt take it by the time you launch a NPC takes it.

This will encourage player cooperation and will provide an alterantive when players arnt interested to help out. As far as player safety that would do at least as much as turrets. But ohh it would cost.. hell yeah safety should cost because higher risk higher reward. Lower risk lower reward.

But then again if you guys really want the guns moved from front position into a turret then I wount mind that much. Though I dont think its a effort to increase the security of non combat ships, just a better way to implement the guns of a non combat ship.

Also interesting will be to see how they can be exploited. For example put two ships with turrets near a gate or near a docking tube.

Tex.

[GrimGriz]

Yeah, Istvan also balked at the idea of a turret on a tow. He referred to it as something of a turret on a semi if I recall correctly. A turret on a semi would be weird IRL, but pretty expected in the world of Mad Max, and I think the Jumpgate universe is much closer to the latter.

I have the hope that you'll still be able to roll your ship while manning the turret to prevent the "haha I'm underneath your ship" nonsense.

As far as what kind of firepower they should have, I hope that's something that gets worked out in beta. For an example of what I'd personally like to see -

I'd put 3 size 2 guns on the Khamsin and sol HM turret. Since the Oct one has the size 5 shield and flashfires that never end, I'd make their front guns mine only and give them 2 size 3 guns.

The tows I'd kit out pretty much like the HM, because they turn slower and are slower if I remember right, so they need bigger guns than you'd expect.

Freighters are tougher, but I lean towards just putting their front guns into a turret on the top, and maybe giving them lesser shielding but more armor.

Transports I'd just increase the shielding/armor and give them engines with some more thrust.

Light miners I'd slap on a couple of extra missile slots, size 3 shields, and engines with significantly greater thrust, probably some more FF slots as well.

Fast transports I'd leave about the same, except they need a cargo increase, and engines to push it.

[GrimGriz]

Originally Posted by TexMurphy

Also interesting will be to see how they can be exploited. For example put two ships with turrets near a gate or near a docking tube.

Tex.

I really look forward to the added depth these could provide to PvP. Fighters luring the people chasing them into the turret range of the nearby freighter, while meanwhile another group of fighters attempts to intercept the bombers that are coming from the next sector over...

Personally I don't think cap ships have much of a place in Jumpgate, but mining and hauling vessels designed to exist in a galaxy at war could add a significant approximation of that type of space battle.

Im very much for the idea to strip the guns totally of hauler/miner. Make it so they cant equip any combat guns at all, just non combat guns on non combat ships.

I can't imagine there'd be very many people stupid enough to fly ships like that. Ofcourse, that goes along with the impression that pvpers never really wanted non-pvpers in the game.

[TexMurphy]

Originally Posted by GrimGriz

I can't imagine there'd be very many people stupid enough to fly ships like that. Ofcourse, that goes along with the impression that pvpers never really wanted non-pvpers in the game.

Grim please dont qoute me out of context. JUST removing the guns is NOT something I want. I want to remove the guns AND....

[qoute]Give the players a ability to create missions, escort missions. If a player doesnt take it by the time you launch a NPC takes it.

This will encourage player cooperation and will provide an alterantive when players arnt interested to help out. As far as player safety that would do at least as much as turrets. But ohh it would cost.. hell yeah safety should cost because higher risk higher reward. Lower risk lower reward.[/qoute]

Infact I DO want non combatants in the game and I want to take the escort missions they post. Id very much like to use my combat skills to make money protecting non combatants.

Tex

[GrimGriz]

Originally Posted by TexMurphy

Infact I DO want non combatants in the game and I want to take the escort missions they post. Id very much like to use my combat skills to make money protecting non combatants.

Don't worry, I hear the AI will be paying for you to escort them. That's all you'll get to do though, as I can't imagine any real player in their right mind would enjoy putting themselves at the mercy of the skill of the nearest counterstrike kid.

I mean..isn't this game supposed to be fun for haulers and miners too? Why would anyone enjoy sitting there being attacked while watching another fighter feebly try to blow up the guy attacking him?

You just posted that inanity to get me riled up didn't you? Ya had me going for a minute there

[WileE]

Originally Posted by GrimGriz

Why would anyone enjoy sitting there being attacked while watching another fighter feebly try to blow up the guy attacking him?

Wait a minute. In the other thread, you said you only wanted enough protection to help you hang in there while the calvary rides in from a few sectors away. So, if you have turrets to do that, it is cool, but if you have an escort, that is insane????

An observation...if you put turrets like you advocate in an early post (3 size 2 guns), you have roughly as much firepower as a medium fighter, plus more missile capacity, and insane amount more armor and shielding. You are not building a miner or hauler...you are building a gunship. The very thing most people are concerned about happening would happen....non-combat ships will become uber.

It seems to me GG, that while your end is agreeable (better defendability/survivability), you refuse to consider any option other than the one you want (turrets). Suggestions have been thrown out from increased AI, better shielding/armor, weapon changes, moderate turrets, dramatically increased payouts for improved escorts, and many many other. You have spend countless posts shooting down every idea other than "uber turrets" as not doing enough. I have a question for you:

Let's say you get your uber turrets...what happens when 2 fighters attack and down you? Will you begin again with non-combat ships needing 6 size 2 turrets for better defense?!? Can you see how just turrets will not solve the problem either. Bottom line, if someone wants to down your ship, you are going down. I don't care who you are, everyone is killable. You say you want more time for help to arrive, but you only want it your way.

Me...I am calling shenanigans on this.

[Jump]

Turrets? Why not the "Death Blossom"?

[GrimGriz]

Originally Posted by WileE

Wait a minute. In the other thread, you said you only wanted enough protection to help you hang in there while the calvary rides in from a few sectors away. So, if you have turrets to do that, it is cool, but if you have an escort, that is insane????

First, I don't recall saying "only" anything. My stance, in general, is:
ALL miners and haulers should have a chance of surviving an encounter with a single hostile fighter by being able to:
Run OR fight back OR survive long enough for help to arrive. Any combination thereof is also valid. In the case of a freighter for example, the current ridiculous shield and armor is usually enough, save in the case of the ammo dragon.

The response in particular that you are misinterpreting is directed at Tex murphy's plan to remove all guns from haulers and miners. I PERSONALLY, can't imagine anyone enjoying sitting there helplessly while their fate is decided by another player. If I'm the one being escorted, I would hop in my turret, or turret my ship, or fire my missiles. If I didn't have the slightest hand in my own fate, I wouldn't be flying the ship. Removing all guns from miners and haulers in Jumpgate's "space is dangerous" galaxy is so crazy I have to believe he was trying to get me riled up.

It seems to me GG, that while your end is agreeable (better defendability/survivability), you refuse to consider any option other than the one you want (turrets). Suggestions have been thrown out from increased AI, better shielding/armor, weapon changes, moderate turrets, dramatically increased payouts for improved escorts, and many many other. You have spend countless posts shooting down every idea other than "uber turrets" as not doing enough.

I consider all options, and I don't suggest turrets for smaller/faster more capable vessels.
I oppose AI because for me Jumpgate was always about the people, and people can always learn how to beat AI.
Better shielding and armor may very well be included in the solution, but it doesn't offer the flexibility I would like to see.
Escorts aren't enough, sorry. That's just my opinion though. Escort and a turret...sounds like fun to me

Uber/Moderate turrets. That's all dependent on your goals. If you want to keep miners and haulers separate from the pvp player base, continue to make them weak. If you want just pilots, and not pvp and non-pvp pilots, put them on par. I prefer the latter. I'd like for 2 HMs with turrets to be as safe as 1 HM with a turret and a fighter. These fat ships should be usable in combat. I think that would add more than it would take away. Of course, they need to be balanced, but we DO have bombers.

It may be slightly more challenging, but I don't think it'll be much different than the balance between an LF and a HF. One is hard to kill, one is dangerous to get close to. You can always tweak the rotation rate of the turret (for example).

Let's say you get your uber turrets...what happens when 2 fighters attack and down you? Will you begin again with non-combat ships needing 6 size 2 turrets for better defense?!? Can you see how just turrets will not solve the problem either. Bottom line, if someone wants to down your ship, you are going down. I don't care who you are, everyone is killable. You say you want more time for help to arrive, but you only want it your way.

I'm not asking for invincibility. Just like 1 phoon should die to 2 tensies in most cases, 1 HM should die to 2 fighters. Shouldn't have to sit there helpless while it happens though.

You know, what I really want WileE is for fighter pilots and other ship pilots to be equals, and because the fighter pilot community is the way it is, they will always consider themselves superior until the other ships can fight back.

Disagree all you want, it's just my opinion. Take the time to notice how many old-timer haulers and miners are posting all the exciting possibilities for the economy here. Then count the people you've seen mentioned in bounty messages posting about how important it is for them to be superior and able to bully *cough* I mean "protect" the haulers and miners this go round.

Anyway, if I gave you the impression that I wanted fighters to remain superior to miners and haulers, I apologize.

[WileE]

Originally Posted by GrimGriz

You know, what I really want WileE is for fighter pilots and other ship pilots to be equals, and because the fighter pilot community is the way it is, they will always consider themselves superior until the other ships can fight back.

I hate to say it, but I don't see this happening. While most pilots respect each other, and don't grief for the sake of griefing, there are many among us...most of them civ's, who lose their lunch if anything happens to them they do not like. When that happens, the hands of the fighters are tied, as they have no out. This HAS to be a two-way street. Part of this debate must be that haulers and miners, as economic warriors, are targets in certain circumstances. Haulers and miners WILL be shot down, regardless of what steps are taken (other than a civ-chip).

The more we debate this, the more evident it is that the only way out is going to be either civ invulnerability, which will bring peace until the first civ strips a station, or a complete re-evaluation of every ship.

To be honest, I do not think this will ever get resolved such that it is a win for everyone. Haulers and miners will ALWAYS be a target. No matter how many guns, how much speed, and whatever else, they will always be a target. Pretty much all hauling is done as a civ, and when war is declared, most people see economic warfare as legal...until you shoot them.

We don't disagree that haulers and miners need protection, we just disagree how.

In the end...as long as there are civs, there will be civ rips. There will be endless debate on fact that HG pilots should have to respect civ's playstyle, and that "space is dangerous.