[T3] Shields on Items in T3
- Thread starter FalseMyrmidon
- Start date
Void|deadjawa
Veteran X
A lot of things (like turret shielding) should have been a good change from T1. The problem is that there were so many defensive buffs that they seemed retardedly overpowered. I would be for shielded stuff, but only if skiing is fast and HO is powerful.
Don't know where you got the shield generator thing from.
There was a t1 map that was similar to that called domino.
The general consensus seems to be that shields on items is a good thing but they need to be relatively weak and implemented correctly. So, it was also a good idea for T2 but Daveg's implementation sucked.
Am I right?
There was a t1 map that was similar to that called domino.
The general consensus seems to be that shields on items is a good thing but they need to be relatively weak and implemented correctly. So, it was also a good idea for T2 but Daveg's implementation sucked.
Am I right?
[57th]cneal
Veteran X
If this hasn't been mentioned before, A shield dome on the entire base including flag stand and vehicle station etc with an outside powered generator or better yet to add to realism, some sort of "objects" on the ends of the shields that some how stabiles them so that the only way to enter the shielded base would be to destroy them. This could be a feature on some maps but not all.
I don't see anything wrong with T2's implementation.
The real thing was it aggravated T2 base's already powerful defense.
But in classic, the offense is again strong, and the shielded items work just as they should.
So no, I'll disagree. Tribes 2 shields had it just right. It was everything else around it that was wrong.
The real thing was it aggravated T2 base's already powerful defense.
But in classic, the offense is again strong, and the shielded items work just as they should.
So no, I'll disagree. Tribes 2 shields had it just right. It was everything else around it that was wrong.
Some of T2's objects were too well protected.
The way I think would be ideal is to think T1 for a second. The DepTurret of T1 was unshielded and could be knocked out in 1 disk. This ment Turrets left outside were extremely vulnerable to disk sniping. Even when surprised by a Turret at close range, they were still easy to knock out with a snap-fired disk from the hip. They were easy to disable with the disker, the main weapon of a player.
The next point is that random spam easily knocked out turrets through mild splash damage, as was with all deployable objects, especially Ammo and Inventory Stations. "Death Spam" could easily clear out a room of deployables through a simple Kamakazi Attack. Turrets not with standing, this made it impractical to keep an Ammo Station near any useful objective, which would have been the only incentive for using the station. INV and AMM Stations simply vapourized in mild clouds of indirected spam barrages. So keeping one around proved futile at times when you considered the expense.
Sheilding the Deployables in T2 solved some of the operational hurdles. Before T2 came out, I imagined a simple refinement for Deployables. When it came to Turrets, it involved 1 of 2 things. By adjusting the "Disable" point of a Turret from 51% to 80% you'd create a subtle effect in favor of the Turret. It would still only take 2 disks to kill, but the turret would keep firing until destroyed by the Disker's second shot. This would buy the turret enough time to dispatch a target it caught "surprised" [as in cresting the top of a hill ect] before the Disker could reload and fire again. Aside from reinforcing the sapposed limitation of the Diskers slower ROF [over its couterparts, namely the Plasma Rifle], It keeps the Turrets in service longer allowing them to perform more relaibly at the task. Notice though, that while the diskers effect at close quarters with the turrets is degraded, other weapons are not. The Plasma Rifle would function all the same, as its RoF could easily destory the turret outright before the turret had time to fire enough shots to kill a target. This ment that turrets are still vulnerable to delibrate attacks against them and their protection from passive, indirect ones is improved for better longevity.
Still though, adjusting the turrets disable point does nothing for a small annoyance I have with "Deployables". That being Disk Sniping. In T1 it is simply too easy for any player to stand off at 250m's and offhandedly eliminate most, if not all of a teams deployed turrets without second thought. Light Armour carries 15 disks, plenty for the task in zooming in from 250m's and picking off all the deployables. There's no delibrate expense involved in doing it and it simply discourages the use of Deployables outdoors all together. Mind you, by adjusting the disable point of the Turret, you do force a player to physically destroy the turret outright and force him to consume the extra disk and that much more ammo.
Now, if you shield the deployables in addition to adjusting the disable point of turrets [and deployables in general], you dramatically increase the effect they have on the game. Let's advance to T2 for a moment. In T2 we sheilded the turrets and look what happened. They were indeed, more powerful, many argued too powerful and the reason for the term "Automated Defense" being coined to lament over T2's supah-D. To understand why we need to disect a T2 Spike Turret. A) The Turret has a Higher Disable Point, B) The Turret is Sheilded and C) The Armament is increased. Both A) and B) are good things to a certain degree, but C) is the icing on the cake. T1 turrets fire Blaster Bolts, this ment that one to one, the average player is better armed then the average Turret. Players have more Health and a more Powerful Weapon. Generally speaking, a player is more then a match for a single lowly turret caught alone without support from other players and other deployables. Generally speaking, it ment Turrets needed some sort of advantage to overcome a player, such as "Surprise" or the support of another turret to overwhelm a player. Considering a Turret is AI controlled and the skill of another player isn't involved [aside from crafty or unrelenting placement by a dedicated player] this isn't a problem, its good, unless a turret is so outmatched [as hinted at previously] that they lack any effective advantage.
In T2, Spike Turrets are armed with Plasma Bolts making them equally as powerful as a Players Typical Weapon. Not only does A) and B) ensure they now have more endurance to deal with players, but C) ensures that they have the firepower to equal the player. Case in point, in T2 a Spikes Turrets Auto-Aimed AI needs only 2 Plasma Bolts to kill a Light Armour, it takes a Light Armour 3 Plasma Bolts to destroy a Spike Turret. A player armed with a Disker doesn't stand a chance against a Spike Turret [which isn't all that bad, really]. With this, we combine the expected and "normal" expectations that Turrets will benifit from advantages such as "Surprise", "EnMass" and the "Defensive Support" of other players. All this considered, it shouldn't be a mystery for where the ill feelings spawn regrading overpowerful Defense. The Turret's Ability went 180 from T1 to T2. It should be said that this increase would be fine, if the players tools and ability to kill a Turret equally increased, but they didn't, many things ensure they didn't.
Now to its credit, there is some good that came from the Spike Turret Design. 1) They are more resistent to Disk Sniping [BTW, it should be noted that T2 Turrets are better concealed adding a level of stealth to protect them over T1 turrets], It takes a dedicated expenditure of ammo to cripple a deployed set of objects [placing a tactical strain on decisions involving ammo supply vrs effective requirement]. This is a good thing. B) The Turrets [and other deployables] are far more resistent to Death Spam, aka "Death Blossom", from indirected and passive fire. Another Good thing. Lastly, the unmentioned element of the turrets being physically smaller in size over T1's Blaster Turrets. The turrets are harder to see at a distance making them that much harder to disk snipe.
So, a better mouse trap of a turret for T:V would prolley meld both T1 and T2 turrets together. The afformentioned "ideal" blueprint might look somethign liek this;
**Note, the Disk Launcher is used a perportioned benchmark here to govern the recharge speed and strength of its sheild. A Weapon that fires faster then a disker, such as a Plasma Rifle would be all the more effective at disabling the turret sooner then firing the second disk. While the RoF delay in the Disker would allow sheilded objects to recover enough to survive destruction by a second disk, Higher RoF'd weapons would overwelm it all the easier/sooner [possibly in only "2" disks worth of damage instead].
What we end up with is a turret that's protected from disk sniping, mild spam and carelessness [ie surprised players]. However, the turret is still vulnerable to specific weapons [IE plasma rifles over diskers ect ect], Directed Attacks and yet still encourages a player to use some thought and creativity in managing a feild of turrets with certain tactics [IE how to utilize "surprise" and "enmass" to a turrets advantage].
Finally, while this post mostly discussed Turrets, these basic principals can be applied to things like Inventory Stations and other "large" deployables.
The way I think would be ideal is to think T1 for a second. The DepTurret of T1 was unshielded and could be knocked out in 1 disk. This ment Turrets left outside were extremely vulnerable to disk sniping. Even when surprised by a Turret at close range, they were still easy to knock out with a snap-fired disk from the hip. They were easy to disable with the disker, the main weapon of a player.
The next point is that random spam easily knocked out turrets through mild splash damage, as was with all deployable objects, especially Ammo and Inventory Stations. "Death Spam" could easily clear out a room of deployables through a simple Kamakazi Attack. Turrets not with standing, this made it impractical to keep an Ammo Station near any useful objective, which would have been the only incentive for using the station. INV and AMM Stations simply vapourized in mild clouds of indirected spam barrages. So keeping one around proved futile at times when you considered the expense.
Sheilding the Deployables in T2 solved some of the operational hurdles. Before T2 came out, I imagined a simple refinement for Deployables. When it came to Turrets, it involved 1 of 2 things. By adjusting the "Disable" point of a Turret from 51% to 80% you'd create a subtle effect in favor of the Turret. It would still only take 2 disks to kill, but the turret would keep firing until destroyed by the Disker's second shot. This would buy the turret enough time to dispatch a target it caught "surprised" [as in cresting the top of a hill ect] before the Disker could reload and fire again. Aside from reinforcing the sapposed limitation of the Diskers slower ROF [over its couterparts, namely the Plasma Rifle], It keeps the Turrets in service longer allowing them to perform more relaibly at the task. Notice though, that while the diskers effect at close quarters with the turrets is degraded, other weapons are not. The Plasma Rifle would function all the same, as its RoF could easily destory the turret outright before the turret had time to fire enough shots to kill a target. This ment that turrets are still vulnerable to delibrate attacks against them and their protection from passive, indirect ones is improved for better longevity.
Still though, adjusting the turrets disable point does nothing for a small annoyance I have with "Deployables". That being Disk Sniping. In T1 it is simply too easy for any player to stand off at 250m's and offhandedly eliminate most, if not all of a teams deployed turrets without second thought. Light Armour carries 15 disks, plenty for the task in zooming in from 250m's and picking off all the deployables. There's no delibrate expense involved in doing it and it simply discourages the use of Deployables outdoors all together. Mind you, by adjusting the disable point of the Turret, you do force a player to physically destroy the turret outright and force him to consume the extra disk and that much more ammo.
Now, if you shield the deployables in addition to adjusting the disable point of turrets [and deployables in general], you dramatically increase the effect they have on the game. Let's advance to T2 for a moment. In T2 we sheilded the turrets and look what happened. They were indeed, more powerful, many argued too powerful and the reason for the term "Automated Defense" being coined to lament over T2's supah-D. To understand why we need to disect a T2 Spike Turret. A) The Turret has a Higher Disable Point, B) The Turret is Sheilded and C) The Armament is increased. Both A) and B) are good things to a certain degree, but C) is the icing on the cake. T1 turrets fire Blaster Bolts, this ment that one to one, the average player is better armed then the average Turret. Players have more Health and a more Powerful Weapon. Generally speaking, a player is more then a match for a single lowly turret caught alone without support from other players and other deployables. Generally speaking, it ment Turrets needed some sort of advantage to overcome a player, such as "Surprise" or the support of another turret to overwhelm a player. Considering a Turret is AI controlled and the skill of another player isn't involved [aside from crafty or unrelenting placement by a dedicated player] this isn't a problem, its good, unless a turret is so outmatched [as hinted at previously] that they lack any effective advantage.
In T2, Spike Turrets are armed with Plasma Bolts making them equally as powerful as a Players Typical Weapon. Not only does A) and B) ensure they now have more endurance to deal with players, but C) ensures that they have the firepower to equal the player. Case in point, in T2 a Spikes Turrets Auto-Aimed AI needs only 2 Plasma Bolts to kill a Light Armour, it takes a Light Armour 3 Plasma Bolts to destroy a Spike Turret. A player armed with a Disker doesn't stand a chance against a Spike Turret [which isn't all that bad, really]. With this, we combine the expected and "normal" expectations that Turrets will benifit from advantages such as "Surprise", "EnMass" and the "Defensive Support" of other players. All this considered, it shouldn't be a mystery for where the ill feelings spawn regrading overpowerful Defense. The Turret's Ability went 180 from T1 to T2. It should be said that this increase would be fine, if the players tools and ability to kill a Turret equally increased, but they didn't, many things ensure they didn't.
Now to its credit, there is some good that came from the Spike Turret Design. 1) They are more resistent to Disk Sniping [BTW, it should be noted that T2 Turrets are better concealed adding a level of stealth to protect them over T1 turrets], It takes a dedicated expenditure of ammo to cripple a deployed set of objects [placing a tactical strain on decisions involving ammo supply vrs effective requirement]. This is a good thing. B) The Turrets [and other deployables] are far more resistent to Death Spam, aka "Death Blossom", from indirected and passive fire. Another Good thing. Lastly, the unmentioned element of the turrets being physically smaller in size over T1's Blaster Turrets. The turrets are harder to see at a distance making them that much harder to disk snipe.
So, a better mouse trap of a turret for T:V would prolley meld both T1 and T2 turrets together. The afformentioned "ideal" blueprint might look somethign liek this;
- The turret is armed with a T1-Styled Blaster
- The turret contains the same ratio for Health as a T1 Turret
- The turret's disable point is increased to remain functional after 1 disk hits worth of damage.
- The turret is sheilded and its strength and recharge rate are balanced to protect the turret from being disabled on the first disk strike, disabled on a second, and destroyed on a third. **
- Kept small in size.
**Note, the Disk Launcher is used a perportioned benchmark here to govern the recharge speed and strength of its sheild. A Weapon that fires faster then a disker, such as a Plasma Rifle would be all the more effective at disabling the turret sooner then firing the second disk. While the RoF delay in the Disker would allow sheilded objects to recover enough to survive destruction by a second disk, Higher RoF'd weapons would overwelm it all the easier/sooner [possibly in only "2" disks worth of damage instead].
What we end up with is a turret that's protected from disk sniping, mild spam and carelessness [ie surprised players]. However, the turret is still vulnerable to specific weapons [IE plasma rifles over diskers ect ect], Directed Attacks and yet still encourages a player to use some thought and creativity in managing a feild of turrets with certain tactics [IE how to utilize "surprise" and "enmass" to a turrets advantage].
Finally, while this post mostly discussed Turrets, these basic principals can be applied to things like Inventory Stations and other "large" deployables.
Last edited:
[57th]cneal
Veteran X
I think the size of the turrets need to be larger like they have in Unreal2 but also I was thinking, you could have limited ammo on the turrets so that after awhile they will sit there and maybe turn red or something.
I do think T2 turrets are a little too small, especially considering how the game engine reduces LOD on them to a point where they can be impossible to see, even when you're in firing range of the turret.
T1 turrets were too big, they stuck out as easy targets from distances far to long away.
T1 turrets were too big, they stuck out as easy targets from distances far to long away.