Why don't the starship turrets at spawn locations attack anymore?

[gsummers]

I remember that if one side pushed all the way to the other side's spawn points at the starships, that the guns on the ship would one-shot opposing fighters. It was a way of at least providing a small safe space for each team. But lately they have not been attacking enemy fighters. Did BW turn them off? Or do they only work under some circumstances?

[Greezt]

They only do that in DOM, and they still do. They haven't done it TDM for ages to prevent a team from taking the lead and then camping at spawn.

[catsi]

yea that's pretty much it. An old tactic used to be a gunship heavy team would get a couple kills then fall back to the cap ships range bubble. once inside that bubble theyd use the 15k range on the rail guns to rack up kills and anyone that managed to avoid the railguns would get killed by the cap ships.

 

It became so bad they had to turn the guns off to force people to actually dogfight.

[especlipse]

Gunships bubbled by capital ship turrets... That sounds horrible. Bad enough with gunships bubbled by bombers!

[RatPoison]

Except the games where this actually occurred were rare... very rare, so much so that despite playing a lot during that time period I never experienced such a match on JC nor caught wind of it happening from other pilots there or in these forums.

 

The reality of it - what actually was occurring on a more regular basis was that one team over powered the other and pushed/trapped them at their spawn. And then... because of cap ships... the dominating team (non gunships) died and complained about how unfair it was. So the "fix", and I use that term lightly, was to add in two more spawn points and randomized spawning (till a point was manually selected) and turn off the turrets.

 

The real issue and cause of this issue was never tackled - one team grossly dominating the other. And thus with the "fix" the dominating team continued to do so unabated with the added bonus of there being no safe place to spawn for the opposition in the worst of these matches.

 

Although this too is rare, there are actually screenshots, and accounts of spawn camping with various setups at all three spawn points in TDM post the turrets being turned off where by contrast there weren't nearly as many or any accounts of the other issue. This isn't much of a thing anymore because the community simply doesn't handle it well (at least on JC). One good spawn camping match of TDM kills the que, basically.

[Greezt]

Although this too is rare, there are actually screenshots, and accounts of spawn camping with various setups at all three spawn points in TDM post the turrets being turned off where by contrast there weren't nearly as many or any accounts of the other issue. This isn't much of a thing anymore because the community simply doesn't handle it well (at least on JC). One good spawn camping match of TDM kills the que, basically.

 

Not my experience, although I won't argue the point. I don't see that many matches which are actually a spawncamp anymore. Lopsided stomps, sure. Matches where you spawn out to die, not really.

 

In any case, turrets killing players in a gamemode whose sole point is to win via kills is inarguably dumb. It does open the possibility of exploits and it relies on the goodwill of players to avoid using it for easy wins (or ridiculous stalemates).

 

I actually think matchmaker is fine. The playerpool is small, and that compromises balance - especially when players take the easy way out and jump to the stronger side. I'd suggest cross-faction as a partial fix, but then premades would still create imbalance. A premade vs. premade queue would be awesome, but there aren't enough players for that...

 

I don't see a fix other than increasing the playerpool, and that's a conundrum. In order to increase it you need to develop GSF, and in order for the devs to develop GSF they need to see a large playerpool.

[RatPoison]

Not my experience, although I won't argue the point. I don't see that many matches which are actually a spawncamp anymore. Lopsided stomps, sure. Matches where you spawn out to die, not really.

 

To be clear, this style of spawn camping was rare... very rare and only really occurred with any intent by coordinated groups shortly after turrets were turned off, "fixed". It's long since passed and isn't much of a thing beyond some inevitable grudge/revenge killing - I'm looking at you Keenz.

 

In any case, turrets killing players in a gamemode whose sole point is to win via kills is inarguably dumb. It does open the possibility of exploits and it relies on the goodwill of players to avoid using it for easy wins (or ridiculous stalemates).

 

I don't necessarily disagree with the sentiment but I do disagree with the fix as implemented because it creates the (albeit now rare) inability to spawn safely into the match before being engaged. I've had the grand pleasure of spawning into minefields or to be shot from behind at spawn. But it's a mute point... the community threw out a whole lot of different ideas on how to make a fix that accomplished the ability to safely spawn and reduce the ability to spawn camp - GSF just never warranted that level of attention from the developers.

 

I actually think matchmaker is fine. The playerpool is small, and that compromises balance - especially when players take the easy way out and jump to the stronger side. I'd suggest cross-faction as a partial fix, but then premades would still create imbalance. A premade vs. premade queue would be awesome, but there aren't enough players for that...

 

I don't see a fix other than increasing the playerpool, and that's a conundrum. In order to increase it you need to develop GSF, and in order for the devs to develop GSF they need to see a large playerpool.

 

Of course... that's an issue that none of us will fix at this point. So it is what it is, and fortunately or unfortunately the small player base has more or less rendered the aforementioned behavior a mute point. Were GSF ever revitalized though - I'd contend that this issue would have to be reviewed and tweaked.

[Drakkolich]

Even if using the turrets to win a game by turtling was a much rarer occurrence then spawn camping an inferior team. I'd argue that it's still much worse to let that stand.

 

When we were playing on Bastion the only games it happened in were very tight games, competitive games. Premade vs Premade type stuff. However what was happening is one team would Run out with a few Gunships snag 1-2 to kills very quickly and instantly run back to their Capship and win the game. This because the high level Deathmatch strategy.

 

So while I understand that in many games an inferior team being spawn camped hates the fact they don't have anywhere to run too, simply adding a new spawn and removing the turrets was definitely the right call at the time.

 

Since then however had they had more resources for development I think an invulnerability zone that you spawned in but could never run back too might have been a good idea. This way you could spawn and only reenter the game when you thought it was safe, much like the turrets option did. However players that were still alive could never retreat to this area.

 

 

Don't get me wrong even with that approach it's still abusable, but no more then not spawning currently is in game.

[RatPoison]

At the time, I had suggested a fix of turrets activating based on the score and lead. Basically the idea was that if the losing team was losing by some variable or greater - the turrets for their ships would be active. So as an example, if the variable is 10, then if the score were 10-20 or worse, the losing team's turrets would be active. Once the gap becomes less than the variable, the turrets would shut off.

 

I liked this idea for obvious reasons that it eliminated your concerns Drako while also providing a push back off the spawn in those games that get out of control while also making the turrets a non-factor in actually getting a win.

 

Unfortunately, the more common complaint on turrets I saw and read of wasn't the "get a few kills and hide" strategy, but rather the "omg - they're going to lose anyway so stop hiding behind the turrets". I saw far more complaints by the winning team over turrets because the turrets slowed their pace and/or the team getting crushed was reluctant to move out far or at all from cap ships. The complaint was hilarious in its own right because the win would come regardless - but understandable because time is precious and waiting for a match to end by timeout would suck. So at the time of the grand turret debate - I threw out the idea of a mercy rule once the gap in the score had exceeded some point.

 

Anyway, can't make everybody happy - but I have a strong opinion that the current "fix" sucks and that the only reason it isn't an issue is due to the failings and small population of players. PVP typically and should provide the ability to safely spawn to which the current "fix" doesn't do. Some games (like the ground game in this one) provide a locked off spawn location (with a one-shot kill on intruders), others provide a short term invulnerability; I wouldn't mind if our ships spawned invisible and became visible after a short duration or after the first shot, and/or opposition mines dropped within distance X of a cap ship were destroyed - to spit ball choices that would be better than this "fix".

 

Mute point all around regardless, since the odds of anything changing are worse than the odds of Hillary and Trump dropping out of the election.

[Greezt]

At the time, I had suggested a fix of turrets activating based on the score and lead. Basically the idea was that if the losing team was losing by some variable or greater - the turrets for their ships would be active. So as an example, if the variable is 10, then if the score were 10-20 or worse, the losing team's turrets would be active. Once the gap becomes less than the variable, the turrets would shut off.

 

This wouldn't work either. You'd simply see matches artificially lengthened and and scoreboards much closer than they should be - players would hide near their capships, and if the other team would be close to a 10 points lead they wouldn't even be able to pursue it, since that'd mean they'd be one-shottted.

 

Anyway, can't make everybody happy - but I have a strong opinion that the current "fix" sucks and that the only reason it isn't an issue is due to the failings and small population of players. PVP typically and should provide the ability to safely spawn to which the current "fix" doesn't do. Some games (like the ground game in this one) provide a locked off spawn location (with a one-shot kill on intruders), others provide a short term invulnerability; I wouldn't mind if our ships spawned invisible and became visible after a short duration or after the first shot, and/or opposition mines dropped within distance X of a cap ship were destroyed - to spit ball choices that would be better than this "fix".

 

The ground PvP solution is far from perfect, I'd even go as far as saying the GSF one is better. I've been in Voidstars where one team will farm the other all the way to the spawn and then AoE it, effectively preventing them from leaving. Of course, Deserter Detection™ forces the outmatched team to exit spawn, and you get a bunch of lemmings jumping out to die. I'd argue that in GSF you at least can select the preferred spawn point...

 

Mute point all around regardless, since the odds of anything changing are worse than the odds of Hillary and Trump dropping out of the election.

 

No argument here.

 

On a slightly related note, I had games where when my team was obviously superior. I've flown a non-meta ship (a strike or Sledgehammer) and still they would suicide from spawn. Matchmaker might fix this better than anything else, and put an end to this.

[RatPoison]

This wouldn't work either. You'd simply see matches artificially lengthened and and scoreboards much closer than they should be - players would hide near their capships, and if the other team would be close to a 10 points lead they wouldn't even be able to pursue it, since that'd mean they'd be one-shottted.

We're not likely to agree. I found the disabling of the turrets to be a short circuited and short sighted "fix" that gave newbies little recourse when it was first implemented. And unfortunately the theories over what could happen did, albeit in grossly lopsided matches only.

 

I like finding the compromise, and rationalized a gap variable would bring it while not changing the outcome of a match. Other than offending the occasional scout pilot and messing up the k/d of stat farmers, what was there to lose other than some additional time? Also, 10 was just an example, the variable could be much larger... say "25" instead - a difference in 25 in TDM is substantial and a good indicator that one team is getting pummeled. How about larger 30?... even more so, and would likely mean the turrets aren't active except for those TDMs where the score ends 50 - 1. Heck the turrets themselves could even be tweaked to have less accuracy (they can be evaded already) and do less damage (although they don't one shot most ship builds with full hulls and shields).

 

I guess what I'm saying... is that the devs took a very lazy way out and did not actually didn't solve any issue other than eliminating the complaints of pilots that couldn't perform abject slaughter from start to finish, and eliminating the (super?) rare scenario of a team hiding behind cap ships to protect their lead. The folks that suffered from the "fix" were those new pilots that got frustrated and quit altogether. I've gotten to witness that frustration on occasion.

[msummersea]

We're not likely to agree. I found the disabling of the turrets to be a short circuited and short sighted "fix" that gave newbies little recourse when it was first implemented. And unfortunately the theories over what could happen did, albeit in grossly lopsided matches only.

 

I like finding the compromise, and rationalized a gap variable would bring it while not changing the outcome of a match. Other than offending the occasional scout pilot and messing up the k/d of stat farmers, what was there to lose other than some additional time? Also, 10 was just an example, the variable could be much larger... say "25" instead - a difference in 25 in TDM is substantial and a good indicator that one team is getting pummeled. How about larger 30?... even more so, and would likely mean the turrets aren't active except for those TDMs where the score ends 50 - 1. Heck the turrets themselves could even be tweaked to have less accuracy (they can be evaded already) and do less damage (although they don't one shot most ship builds with full hulls and shields).

 

I guess what I'm saying... is that the devs took a very lazy way out and did not actually didn't solve any issue other than eliminating the complaints of pilots that couldn't perform abject slaughter from start to finish, and eliminating the (super?) rare scenario of a team hiding behind cap ships to protect their lead. The folks that suffered from the "fix" were those new pilots that got frustrated and quit altogether. I've gotten to witness that frustration on occasion.

 

I'm on board with this. Saying games would be artificially lengthened is a bad thing is not a good argument. It basically says curb stomping is ok. Well for the long run health of the game, I'm not sure curb stomping is the best outcome. How many newcomers will think, "well, I kept getting killed the moment I spawned and there was nowhere to go and nothing to do, but hey, at least the game wasn't made longer by allowing me to live longer, so that's great"? So yes, artificially lengthen the game all we can.