Turrets: A poll.

Alright, I would like to get a general consensus of the turret's power. Please vote in the poll above, vote honestly as well.

Votes will be a better voice than a reply debating it.

honestly, i play both sides, and as an SL it is wayyyy OP, and as an SGC it steals 1/2 my kills because of it's OP-ness. so.... i voted SGC: OP

I think OP isn't quite the right word, my major issue is its 360 degree field of view. I'd be happy if it was reduced to 90 degrees, with no other real changes.

Interesting question. I agree with AmonKhan on this one.

I play SGC and i may get a lot of kills from it, but about 7/8 of the time, it is destroyed in 10 seconds. You can stop it from coming down by destroying the transmitter, you can backstab it or send it flying away. Personally if it's anything, i think it should take longer to rez because you just plop it down, it dies, you hide for 10 seconds and plop it back down. I think it should be 20-30 seconds. but to me its not OP.

op is such a harsh word i would say all it needs is tweaking. the 360 is my main complaint would make strategic placement all the more important. though i believe if it is attacked say from behind *and not destroyed* it should be able to spin around and face that pov and be currently stuck in that pov till repositioned or something like that

offtopic like your sig reric

If were playing against a decent SL team it's Deffinatly balanced for reasons Reric stated. I can't tell you how many time Jaffa have blasted my turrets from afar or even Spawning. But even if you hve people that are Noobs to this game, they will complain till they figure out the mechanix of the game. I know Ashraks were my nemisis when I started and now I'm always keeping my eyes open for their Blu Shimmer. I think the turrets become a problem when you have six of them going for the SGC.

not exactly overpowered. i think the fov should be a lot less as others have said, and the hit ratio should definitely be less that 100%, something like 25-50%.

Overpowered to me means a vast variety of things. Hence why I said over powered in the first place as a blanket term.

So something like a turret that (from what I've read):
- Cannot do 360 spins.
- Precision gets better for the turret as the enemy gets closer to it?

I think that lowering the precision and damage but increasing the range would probably balance it out more.

Maybe even ashrak detection at close range if they walk right in front of it, just my 2 cents.

Add to the list a slower rate of target acquisition, and a limit on vertical FOV as well.

1 turret is usually nothing more than a nuisance if you have a competent Goa'uld with you; the OPness comes in when there are 3 scientists on a team attacking from 9 different directions because they have turrets in one spot, poison covering another, and a baretta to seal the deal. Gotta love exponents.

I might even go so far as to say that twin turrets are akin to the ashrak of the SGC, because as soon as you notice them you're insta-killed.

Originally Posted by Wrayven

I think that lowering the precision and damage but increasing the range would probably balance it out more.

Maybe even ashrak detection at close range if they walk right in front of it, just my 2 cents.

sorry, but you want to INCREASE range???? i guess you've never seen how far those bloody things can shoot... and as for "ashrak detection", that's what commando's are for, and you can see em when they move even without the scope. so no. that would be making them MORE powerful, which we don't need

Originally Posted by Daniel_Jackson_

honestly, i play both sides, and as an SL it is wayyyy OP, and as an SGC it steals 1/2 my kills because of it's OP-ness. so.... i voted SGC: OP

on either side, it just seems to be too much, 360 degrees is ridiculous imo, and 100% accuracy?? tell me one thing in reality that is THAT accurate, ive got nothin

i vote OP all the same, especially when there is more than 1 in the same area, irritating being insta killed like that, and more irritating when it steals your kills

on a side note, yes. it IS easy to kill, but only when it's not put in some really ***** up spot where you can hit it with out getting nailed by it

I think 20hp per shot is too much, especially if there are 3 of them, it equates to 60hp per fire, so you are dead in 2 seconds at full health. If there are more than 3 or you have lower than full health then you have no chance.

The difference between turret and ashrak is if you have a few turrets say 3 or 4, then ashraks become useless for that area because they can only kill one turret. Unless the turrets are spread apart, but that rarely happens.

My opinion is lower the damage to 10hp, and increase the time between deployments. That is all that is required in my opinion. I would also like to see 1 point awarded for its death, regardless of the match style.

I think 20 damage is ok as long as accuracy is decreased. It's supposed to be a 50 cal turret after all, they could have made it do 40 damage like the commando's Desert Eagle. (!)

well how do you decrease the accuracy. The faster the target moves the less chance of getting hit? well in that case an Ashrak would never get hit and a Jaffa would die in 2 seconds.

Accuracy decreased the further out you go, then you end up with the same problem as is current. An Ashrak would die as soon as it takes one out (if there is a group of them, as often is the case especially in Armana)

I think decreasing the damage to 10hp and leaving the accuracy the same is a better option, because then there is no confusion especially with some of the lag issues experienced. It would also require less work from a programming perspective.

Originally Posted by ShaneE

well how do you decrease the accuracy. The faster the target moves the less chance of getting hit? well in that case an Ashrak would never get hit and a Jaffa would die in 2 seconds.

Accuracy decreased the further out you go, then you end up with the same problem as is current. An Ashrak would die as soon as it takes one out (if there is a group of them, as often is the case especially in Armana)

I think decreasing the damage to 10hp and leaving the accuracy the same is a better option, because then there is no confusion especially with some of the lag issues experienced. It would also require less work from a programming perspective.

Stop worrying about programming. They aren't asking about that.(Not to mention that his is rather simple) Plus, changing the accuracy is the angle at which the bullets spread, which does need changed.

I appreciate your direct response Suitch, however I was simply stating a fact. I am not worried about programming.

I was saying lower accuracy, lower damage and increase range. And only ashrak detection if they walk in front of it a point blank range(ie. the walk right in front of it)

The range increase just because if they decrease accuracy for moving targets, or targets at long distance then it would be fair to increase the range at which targets can be hit.

So that a jaffa at long range can't just fire at a turret without consequences and an ashrak can't walk in front of a turret strategically placed without harm.

Please don't flame these ideas. I am just trying to provide alternatives to try and balance a game I love to play.

I think the turrets are good now.... if someone change the damage of Staff jaffa, the bug of ashraks (kill 1 touch on front) and the lag can change the damage of the turrets, if dont go to change nothing of SL side DONT change NOTHING of the Scientists


With the new ping its very difficult kill with the soldier included the scis, if change the turrets without solve the problems with ping or make changes on SL side I don´t play nothing more

A machine is always going to be more accurate than a human so lowering its accuracy is just a step in the wrong direction, but I'll agree some what withe the angle and say 180, 90 seems way to much.

I think the turret is fine, keeps the game balanced especially against the ashrak which are ridiculous.

Maybe a little bit longer cooldown between placements and a way for the Goa'uld to actually compete with a scientist. For example, the Goa'uld's kinetic wave disables the turret for a couple seconds and leave everything else the same. That way the turret is still quite powerful, but now every SL class at least has a chance to approach a sci with a turret.

I thing problem isn't in turrent, but people who playing sci. 4 sci stay next to his turrent and spaming with soldier.
look in 1on 1:
1. Goauld vs sci ~balanced,
2 Jaffa vs sci ~Jaffa most better
3. Ashrak vs sci ~ balanced

Problem with science: too many turrent, when I destroy turrent sci can build new very fast, turrent is very strong. Look on this:
3xsci vs 3 goauld~ all sci next to his turrents goauld havent lose on 100%
3xsci vs 3 xGoauld~i thing balanced, but in map stargate command in control room jaffa always lose
3xsci vs 3xashrak ~sci alweys win

3xsci vs gould and ashrak and jaffa, I thing SL win when they cooperative. But we dont cooperative, people play on frags, so sci win

The worest is in control center on sgc map. 3 sci and they win map on 100%

So my proposition:
Sci when building turrent must stay next to turrent 10sec. Poison must be stronger but working next to sci, 2,3 turrents on 1 live. turrents power this same.

Problem with turrents is to many sci and sl playing non team game

I voted for SGC/OP. Like most people have said just some simple changes would help, even something like adding an audible noise (like a whirring motor ) would help drastically.

I am a little weirded out by the phrasing of this poll. I probably play SL a hair more than I play SGC but I feel like if I voted SL my vote might not have meant much.

What's more, why bother to ask team choice? Much has been made over the hastle of having to exit a match and reenter it in order to change teams when things become unbalanced. Was the original intention that people would pick a team at the outset and stick with it no matter what?