[TexMurphy]

Grim

Why is it a joke to you that I sudgest that people COOPERATE in a mmpog?

Seriously this isnt a single player game. Cooperation should lead to both parties earning more money then they would if they where alone. If a miner cooperates with a fighter then the fighter earns more money and the miner can mine in more dangerous places and also earn more money.

When people are cooperating over the role bounderies then they are respecting each other much more compared to when they live segregated and have no interaction between each other.

I dont know for how many years Ive been saying that the worst thing in game design of mmpogs is segregation of play styles. In a game world that is shared by individuals these have to be integrated through game design or there will always be conflicts where the groups are pointing fingers at each other.

Tex

[TexMurphy]

The turrets that are discussed here are we talkin about AI turrets or PC manned turrets?

If turrets where to be implemented then AI turrets that only attack last agressor can have pretty big guns on them. The only way they would fire is if the miner/tow/frighter got shot at. Ofcourse this would leave seeding as a exploit but remove all agressive combat usage from them.

Tex

[GrimGriz]

Originally Posted by Jonboy

I'm not sure i understand what you are saying. Are you saying that if there were no tags (no civilian/military separation), then haulers/miners would need better defense? ....since no tags is the only way you see that PvEers would be dependent on PvPers.

I'm saying as long as there is the semblance of safety of civilian tags, haulers and miners will think they are fairly safe because they are civilians. I'm saying the main reason escorting didn't work in Jumpgate Classic is because civilians were USUALLY safe. So, if you take away that safety, escorting becomes much more necessary, less boring, and expected. HOWEVER, I don't think it would be a good idea to do that or that they would do it, with the nonpvp ships being as completely defenseless as they are now. So, the line of thinking is I have is that if they redesign hauling and mining ships to exist in a galaxy at war, a lot of other things become possible, and players become just players, not non-pvpers and pvpers.

However, even if they don't remove the tag system, I think they need to redesign the ships. From an RP standpoint the ships are poorly designed, and the result is a division in the community. When a civ gets ripped and gets upset about it the PvP community has consistently responded with "get an escort or find another game" At minimum, I'd like that response to change to "learn to use your turret and mine/haul with a friend that can use his." Plus, all the other added benefits I've mentioned elsewhere in the thread, such as making pvp more dynamic. Turrets won't eliminate the need for escorts/friends as you may be faced with more than 1 attacker, but there's really no reason for any PLAYER to be so defenseless in a galaxy at WAR.

I still don't think you've defined a clear purpose for the turret. They just look like something you want. Are they meant for flux-defense or player-defense or offense? Or don't you care - you just want turrets?

All of the above, though with AI miners I suspect I'll probably mainly fly a fighter with my pvp wingmates.

How do you envision turrets being implemented? Do you see them as way to get your front-facing guns to face a different way than the ship is facing... so you're whole interface would move from front-view to turret-view? So an oct heavy miner (vulture) would then be able to face (and fly) one direction, and have 2 flails/shards on a turret pointing a different direction, all behind a warden shield? (we can ignore the RP aspect of the large physical gun mounts on the HMs)

Or do you expect to get a separate, additional gun, so that your front-facing guns can keep mining while you get into your turret and take pot shots at flux? Thus allowing (say) different sized turret slots, size 1 on light miners, size 2 on heavy miners, and larger on any hypothetical capitol ships...

More the latter, though I'd expect the haulers traditional guns be removed entirely and the miners front guns replaced with slots that would ONLY mount mining lasers. Regarding the turret and the warden shield...that'd be a balance issues that would need to be addressed in beta, the ships would need to be redesigned or tweaked in a lot of different respects for a major change such as this.

edit*
JB, I think only the big HM, Tow, Freighter type ships should get turrets, LMs and transports and stuff aren't slow enough (or shouldn't be) to need them.

[GrimGriz]

Originally Posted by TexMurphy

Grim

Why is it a joke to you that I sudgest that people COOPERATE in a mmpog?

Look at it like this Tex:
If you're in a fighter and I'm in a fighter, and 2 octs come into greater locks, do I have to have NO GUNS for us to cooperate? No.

Giving miners and haulers turrets (or other means to run, fight back, or survive) opens up a lot of new options for cooperation. For one, 2-3 miners/haulers can work together to protect each other instead of mining alone. You don't have to make miners/haulers helpless to get the cooperation you seek. Regarding PvPers making money by protecting non-pvpers hows this:

(offtopic section)
Military pilot Bob takes new mission type "Open Patrol" and selects a region of space (in this case, solrain space, his home faction). After Bob launches the server checks for miners and haulers or enemy factions within a sector or 2 and gives him that sector as a waypoint. When he flies through the beacon of that sector it scans again for nearby people that might need protection or for enemies that might need dealt with, and updates his patrol. After a minimum of 4 sectors, Bob can go dock at a station to complete the mission, or he can continue to do additional sectors for a bonus x credits and x experience for up to 47 additional sectors.

(back ontopic)
I would like the turrets to be both AI and manned personally. I'd like the AI turrets to work a little like pets, i.e. you target something and press the attack key. Ofcourse, when in AI-mode the turrets should use a slower rate of fire than when manned, and have moderately limited accuracy. Then ofcourse, you can always adjust your velocity and pop in your turret yourself.

regarding offensive capability:
I'd like to have that option, at least in beta. I think it'd add a lot to pvp and bombers would be a cool addition. Those ships aren't all that much fun to fly, especially in combat with everyone zipping around in fighters, and they certainly couldn't/shouldn't be able to chase even a slow fighter down.

[TexMurphy]

Ok Im totally lost now.

At one hand you are saying "non combatant ships need protection" and at the other you say...

[qoute]regarding offensive capability:
I'd like to have that option, at least in beta. I think it'd add a lot to pvp and bombers would be a cool addition. Those ships aren't all that much fun to fly, especially in combat with everyone zipping around in fighters, and they certainly couldn't/shouldn't be able to chase even a slow fighter down.[/qoute]

Dont you think putting non combatants into combat ships, which is what you say you wana make of the heavy MINER and FREIGHTer, is gonna make them even more of a target?

"You dont like me shooting at you, well then shoot me down with your combat miner".

I think that more then anything would be painting a target on the back of the non combatants.

Tex

[GrimGriz]

Originally Posted by TexMurphy

Ok Im totally lost now.

At one hand you are saying "non combatant ships need protection" and at the other you say...

[qoute]regarding offensive capability:
I'd like to have that option, at least in beta. I think it'd add a lot to pvp and bombers would be a cool addition. Those ships aren't all that much fun to fly, especially in combat with everyone zipping around in fighters, and they certainly couldn't/shouldn't be able to chase even a slow fighter down.[/qoute]

Dont you think putting non combatants into combat ships, which is what you say you wana make of the heavy MINER and FREIGHTer, is gonna make them even more of a target?

"You dont like me shooting at you, well then shoot me down with your combat miner".

I think that more then anything would be painting a target on the back of the non combatants.

Tex

Use the quote button, it puts the tags in for you

I'm sorry if you somehow got the wrong impression. Miners and haulers need to be able to exist in a dangerous universe. They need to be able to run/survive until help arrives/fight back. With freighters and heavy miners, you're not likely to be able to run, so that means survive until help arrives or fight back. I prefer a combination of both, with more emphasis on the latter. If you just put big shields and armor on them, it doesn't do anything to discourage me from attacking them. If they have medium shields and armor and a turret to shoot me with, if I'm not skilled enough to do it, I won't attack.

Personally, I think they should be able to be combatants if the situation arises. If that change is made, you can remove the tag system (or not). If they are incapable of defending themselves, you need artificial things such as the tag system or safezones.

I think that more then anything would be painting a target on the back of the non combatants.

If you're capable of defending yourself it's not too bad to have a target on your back. Having a target on their back would require them to work more closely with combat personnel.

[WileE]

Originally Posted by GrimGriz

Personally, I think they should be able to be combatants if the situation arises. If that change is made, you can remove the tag system (or not). If they are incapable of defending themselves, you need artificial things such as the tag system or safezones.

Your argument is giving me a headache.

Do you really think that putting a reasonable turret on a ship will be adequate defense? Given the general (and reasonable) assumption that non-combat pilots are not going to do well at combat, you will have to give them uber turrets, which will put every griefer into your new gunships, making it easier for your non-combat pilots you die. I cannot believe that you cannot see that happening.

I was thinking about this on my way home today. I really see only one option that gives the non-combat pilots guns without screwing things up royally. We need to modify the mission system to allow for escorts. I know we have hashed this many times before (and I know it isn't a turret), but hear me out.

As it stands right now, for a best profit run, or a load of ore, you may make up to a few million credits. For one pilot, this isn't bad. If you have to split it over the hauler and even one escort, your 3 million payout is now 1.5 million. Not bad, but not much. The escort gets no XP, no PR, no anything...just a tip. What about something like this:

The hauler has the ability, when taking a mining or hauling mission, to request escorts. On factional chat, a call goes out for X escorts. Escorts F4 hauler and agree, hauler enters them into the mission screen. Then the escorts have to accept mission (this may require pilots to be able to have more than just one mission at a time). Once the escorts accept the mission, they have x minutes to get within 2 sectors of their hauler. In essence, they are tethered to their hauler for the duration of the mission. Break the tether, fail the mission. This would allow your escorts to be able to jump into the surrounding sectors and flux/flip beacons/whatever, while the miner/hauler mines/hauls. This would also ensure that the hauler would always have help nearby. Part of this would be a tweaking of the haulers/miners ships to enhance the survivability of them to work with the new system.

The other part of this idea is that aggregate payouts would have to increase, as more money is being spread around. As a for instance: Every mining/hauling mission will have a max # of escorts. The total number of financial shares available for the mission are escort_max + 2. In other words, if the hauler/miner utilizes the maximum number of escorts, each escort gets 1 share, and the hauler/miner gets 2 shares. If the hauler uses less than the maximum, the hauler/miner gets the additional shares as well (he/she would be free to share if they like through /give or trade). Each mission participant would get +6PR for a completed mission. Each participant would get -6PR for a failure. I think the escorts should pick up either temporary military tags, or an "Escort" tag that would function like a military tag (since they are declaring themselves combatants). The reason we may need a new tag is with the way the military tag is built with the mission requirements.

I realize this system is not perfect. No system will be (not even turrets). I think this is a starting point however. It would create a legitimate RP/job for escorts, while giving them a little leeway to do things rather than just sit on the wing of their hauler/miner for hours (help to relieve the bordom factor). By making it a mission, with a PR payout, it legitimizes the job within the faction as well.

Now...part of this goes with another logic of mine regarding how RP works. I think PR should carry ALOT more weight than it currently does. I think missions should have variable PR payout based on their importance to the faction (maybe even pay PR for multiple factions depending on the case). I also think that RP should degrade over time faster than it does, and to a minimum of 0. This would help to encourage factionalism, which is something I think Jumpgate has been missing. Everyone working for something.

Just a thought.

[GrimGriz]

Originally Posted by WileE

Your argument is giving me a headache.

Do you really think that putting a reasonable turret on a ship will be adequate defense? Given the general (and reasonable) assumption that non-combat pilots are not going to do well at combat, you will have to give them uber turrets, which will put every griefer into your new gunships, making it easier for your non-combat pilots you die. I cannot believe that you cannot see that happening.

For your escort idea, I'd love to discuss that in a thread about escorts and escorting. In response to the relevant part of your post:

Yes, I think that putting a reasonable turret on a ship will be adequate defense. Your assumption that they would or should try to compensate for lack of skill by overpowering the guns is foolish. I pray they aren't foolish enough to do that, or what you think might happen.

Put reasonable turrets on. We'll test them and make sure they are reasonable during beta. Aiming a turret takes a lot less skill than actually flying a fighter (that's why clyde uses a dragon in my opinion). If they don't have the skill for that, they'll figure it out soon enough and start paying for escorts, or using the other solutions the defenseless miners and haulers of Jumpgate Classic tried to use. When those solutions are put to the test, at least they'll be able to TRY to help with their inadequate turret skill.

[Cpt_Blood]

My impression of a mining ship is one that is small and manoeuvrable to be able to get at all the roids in a field so I can't see how it would be able to support a turret at least not one that would give any potential attacker anything to worry about.

A typical miner will be working in relative safe areas, i.e. regulated space with lots of traffic, because there is no reward to go into dangerous areas except for some rare elements. Then he and a few mates would mount an expedition maybe a couple of mining ships with a few fighters for defence, and maybe a tow or equivalent if a method of transferring cargo in-space was implemented to carry the ore back.

That is the sort of thing I want to see in this game. I can't see how turrets would make any difference one way or another.

[daslog]

I was thinking about this Griz, and your idea has a flaw:

If a miner can take down a fighter in 1v1 combat while being stationary, why would anyone fly a fighter?