Battalion Engineers getting Turrets

[TheCyan]

Name: Doom's Unit ENGO SFC Cyan

(Approval by CMD Brimestone & BCMD Doom)

RP Rank: SFC

Suggestion:

My suggestion is as follows. Battalion Engineers (not any Support Troopers) do not have a turret in their loadout. This is a problem for numerous reasons:

1) For every event scenario where a turret can be used, a staff member would need to take time out of the event in order to give each engineer a turret spawner, and this problem happens again if the engineer is killed. Base Ops Engineers do not suffer from this because they have a turret spawner as part of their loadouts. Additionally, there are staff members that simply don't want to go through the hassle of giving battalion engineers a turret spawner, and provide no reason (this is not a callout to any specific staff member.

2) It is harder to do any training with turret placements or tactics, because turret spawners are not readily available for use by battalion engineers. Trainings like fortification training, shield placements with turrets, and anti-air are all that much harder for battalion engineers, because of the time needed to get a staff to spawn in a turret.

3) Because of the need for an admin to spawn a turret, this leads to people who should NOT have access to turrets asking for admins/staff to spawn in turrets for troopers. This creates an environment with TOO MANY turrets being spawned in for troopers that do not need it and should not be getting access. Thus, equipping specifically battalion engineers (like Doom's Unit Engineer) with turrets would create LESS confusion among who gets a turret (If it's not in the loadout, it's not available for that trooper) and overall LESS turrets available for abuse by troopers with no access to turrets.

4) Part of being a good engineer is not only being effective in RP, but also effectiveness on the battlefield. By not having access to turrets, engineers are LESS appealing as a branch and overall LESS effective. Adding turrets to battalion engineer loadouts (exactly like how Base Ops Engineers have) would INCREASE not only the appeal of being an engineer, but also their viability in combat and as a branch.

My suggestion: All battalion engineers (not other support roles) should have access to Turret Spawners in their loadout.

Lore: A Doom's Unit member places and operates a turret in S6E1 of Clone Wars.

 

Implementation: In the next update, adding turret spawners into battalion engineer loadouts (just like how Base Ops has). There should DEFINETLY be a limit, no more than 2-3 turrets active in the server at once (due to lag and spawning reasons)

Edited January 25, 2020 by Dexter
Clarification

[Dennis]

+1 it has to be spawned in now and giving it helps and provides a diverse way for ENGs to RP 

[Finn]

+1 Engineers are allowed to have them, idk why they weren't added to the loadouts before now.

[Castarius]

+1 As ENGL I may be biased here, but I believe this will add to Engineers being utilized more often during events such as deployments when we need to hold down and defend locations, or provide fire support without fear of dying and losing the turret.

Also helps Staff and GMs since we wouldn't have to constantly bug them to spawn one in for us.

[Jinks]

+1 I also believe ENGs should have a turret spawner in our loadouts, it will save the admins trouble from us constantly bugging them.

[Boone1109]

+1 it help ENG be part of the main fight instead of in the back of the fight having to ask to get it spawned in the whole event.

[Daytona211]

what turrets are you talking about here?

[Rose]

+1 less GM tickets

 

 

[Hero]

4 hours ago, Daytona211 said:

what turrets are you talking about here?

The spawnable ones that BO has now.

high rate of fire does around 50 dmg, hit e to control them, that one

[TheCyan]

4 hours ago, Daytona211 said:

what turrets are you talking about here?

Specifically, this suggestion is in regards to the E-Webb Turret, the most commonly used turrets on the server, as well as the same exactly one in the Base Ops Enginner loadout.

[Foxey]

-1
As Chambers mentions here in response to a bug report, the deploy-able turret is a perk for Base Operations Engineers specifically. I do not believe this should change. It's an incredibly overpowered tool that we don't need to see dozens of deployed at once by numerous battalion engineers during events.

 

[Robb]

-1 Personally, I feel as if the turret is too overpowered for dozens to be spawned by so many battalions.

[Chambers]

The turret is extremely over powered and also counts as an entity have more that 2 or 3 turrets is usually a bad idea 

[TheCyan]

57 minutes ago, Robby/Ri said:

-1 Personally, I feel as if the turret is too overpowered for dozens to be spawned by so many battalions.

 

1 hour ago, Foxey said:

-1
As Chambers mentions here in response to a bug report, the deploy-able turret is a perk for Base Operations Engineers specifically. I do not believe this should change. It's an incredibly overpowered tool that we don't need to see dozens of deployed at once by numerous battalion engineers during events.

 

To address this problem, there will more than likely be a cap to the amount of turrets that. an be deployed at once. Also, there are currently only 2 battalion engineers at the time of writing, 212th and DU. Thus, the “turret” spam can’t exist if there’s a cap, and with only 2 battalions with an engineer branch. 

 

Additionally, rules can change over time, and I think the rule of only Base Ops having turrets is frankly an unfair rule, as battalion engineers are arguably more present on and off the battlefield.

 

Also, I find that a GM/GH setting a rule that “this ship shouldn’t be destroyed” is a weak and restricting thought process. Just like D&D, events should be shaped by the clones, the troopers. There have been amazing instances of this in recent memory. If there is really some significance of a ship not needing to be destroyed, a prop could be used in place of an actual vehicle.

Edited January 21, 2020 by Dexter

[TheCyan]

26 minutes ago, Carter said:

The turret is extremely over powered and also counts as an entity have more that 2 or 3 turrets is usually a bad idea 

A turret is an amazing and beautiful and wonderful tool, expertly made and well thought out, to that I agree. Of course, there should be restrictions to the number of turrets active at one time. Due to the niche ness of engineers as a whole, there wouldn’t be “excessive spamming” of turrets, and there should DEFINETLY be a cap to the number of turrets to be placed at one time, I think 2 or 3. Anything above will cause too much lag.

[Eclipse]

-1

For the sole reason of the cause it could have with engineer branches and such.
People are going to join them to get a funky turret and not do other stuff for RP, and it is likely that the desire of a turret would lead people into becoming a Engineer and could kill other regiments due to an influx of people attempting to get a turret so they can make big frigate go boom boom. It is best if we leave it to base ops as in most regiments an engineer could be a PFC who is a minge and shoot up Debrief with a big gun. 

No from me dawg

[Jagger]

This will probably get denied regardless of the positive feedback due to the fact this will probably turn into a disaster. Trust me, I want this, but let's look at the facts: 

1. It will get abused regardless if we put a cap or not

2. Turrets are entities that when put into a loadout, may cause lag/errors (similar to knives)

3. In the case of people abusing them, as staff it's a hassle to enforce and remove the turret with a removed tool because you can't delete the whole thing. You have to delete part by part (3-4 parts) or spawn yourself a turret spawner to delete it.

4. People will most likely forget to pick up their turrets, leaving it around to cause more lag and possibly collide with other objects that will cause issues.

5. Turrets are death lasers that will probably get more friendlies killed in events than NPCs. Don't believe me? Give 3-5 people a turret in CY with pods down to main gate. Check logs to see how many people were butchered. 

6. Since most people care about gameplay over RP, it would attract the wrong people who only want to use the turret to their benefit by mowing shit down.

7. This will create issue for GMs if there are consistently multiple turrets down destroying their frigates / NPCs before they can spawn more or it happens so fast it ruins their event.

 

I could go on, but you get the point by now.

[Foxey]

3 hours ago, Jagger said:

7. This will create issue for GMs if there are consistently multiple turrets down destroying their frigates / NPCs before they can spawn more or it happens so fast it ruins their event.

6 hours ago, Dexter said:

Also, I find that a GM/GH setting a rule that “this ship shouldn’t be destroyed” is a weak and restricting thought process. Just like D&D, events should be shaped by the clones, the troopers. There have been amazing instances of this in recent memory. If there is really some significance of a ship not needing to be destroyed, a prop could be used in place of an actual vehicle.

To add on to Jagger's #7 specifically, 2-3 turrets will completely shred through a Munificent before there is any time for the GM to even properly deploy the frigate. If the operator of the turret is actually adhering to some level of "fire and then pause, then fire again" then the GM will have just about enough time to get the frigate into place.

I am all for players being able to dictate the direction of events- but a few small deployable turrets can completely destroy any chances of an assault on the base. This isn't really players shaping the course of the event. This is overpowered weapons getting the job done far too fast for most players to have a chance to enjoy anything (which is already something we see with flamethrowers and some other permweapons) 

 The Game Master's responsibility is granting items to players who need them for the course of the event. If the Game Master says no, then it's no. If he says yes, then congratulations, you get a turret. The time taken to do this is something that Game Masters & Helpers are trained to prepare for. It wasn't a problem for me when I was among the general ranks of the Game Master program, and I haven't heard anyone complaining recently that people are simply asking for turrets far too much. 

On 1/19/2020 at 10:25 PM, Dexter said:

For every event scenario where a turret can be used, a staff member would need to take time out of the event in order to give each engineer a turret spawner, and this problem happens again if the engineer is killed. Base Ops Engineers do not suffer from this because they have a turret spawner as part of their loadouts. Additionally, there are staff members that simply don't want to go through the hassle of giving battalion engineers a turret spawner, and provide no reason (this is not a callout to any specific staff member.

I just wished to express a few more thoughts building upon my -1.

[Gadget]

-1

 

As previously mentioned, they are OP they can cause lag and could also nullify the need for boarding as 10 ENGs could just blast it out the sky in like 30 seconds.

Become base ops ENG if you want one.

[ISNIFFPROPANE]

+1 Looks dope

People just ask for staff to spawn in turrets anyways so I don’t see a difference other than convenience 

[Dennis]

12 hours ago, Jagger said:

This will create issue for GMs if there are consistently multiple turrets down destroying their frigates / NPCs before they can spawn more or it happens so fast it ruins their event.

Now listen I’m just a lonely GM and former HA and GMO, now some people say i was / am a good GM however I believe this adds a new level to weeding out the bad GMs to making sure they have thought out their events and have the correct help in their events. I feel that with people who actually care as ENGLs and ENGOs could use this well even if we limit it. Along with the fact that GMs can shoot rockets etc at it and then remove it and bam it’s destroyed. To me it provides a new level of Immersion. 
 

while the rules in place are followed by the Dooms unit ENGs can’t speak for 212th. I feel the current rules along with a small revamp would work well. Along with if you wanted a “priority” of BO then regular clones. Also if “requires dev” possibly add a over heating feature like planes/tanks have. 

[TheCyan]

5 hours ago, Gadget said:

-1

 

As previously mentioned, they are OP they can cause lag and could also nullify the need for boarding as 10 ENGs could just blast it out the sky in like 30 seconds.

Become base ops ENG if you want one.

We understand that they cause lag, and of course shouldn’t be spammed, which is why if this is implemented there should be a cap as to how many can be on the field at once. 

 

You also have to realize not every ship needs to be boarded, just like every ship doesn’t need to be shot down. Boarding is just another weapon in the arsenal of clones, just like a turret is. Obviously if a ship has a VIP or specified to have valuable intel, engineers/BO shouldn’t shoot down that ship, and 21st can board. Shooting down this ship would not only be FailRP, as well as a violation of the Brotherhood Code and straight up a crime against the Republic. On the other hand, if a muni is just a muni, it would be quicker and easier for air support or turrets to be able to shoot the ship down.

 

 

[Egg]

14 hours ago, Jagger said:

This will probably get denied regardless of the positive feedback due to the fact this will probably turn into a disaster. Trust me, I want this, but let's look at the facts: 

1. It will get abused regardless if we put a cap or not

2. Turrets are entities that when put into a loadout, may cause lag/errors (similar to knives)

3. In the case of people abusing them, as staff it's a hassle to enforce and remove the turret with a removed tool because you can't delete the whole thing. You have to delete part by part (3-4 parts) or spawn yourself a turret spawner to delete it.

4. People will most likely forget to pick up their turrets, leaving it around to cause more lag and possibly collide with other objects that will cause issues.

5. Turrets are death lasers that will probably get more friendlies killed in events than NPCs. Don't believe me? Give 3-5 people a turret in CY with pods down to main gate. Check logs to see how many people were butchered. 

6. Since most people care about gameplay over RP, it would attract the wrong people who only want to use the turret to their benefit by mowing shit down.

7. This will create issue for GMs if there are consistently multiple turrets down destroying their frigates / NPCs before they can spawn more or it happens so fast it ruins their event.

 

I could go on, but you get the point by now.

Could not have put it better.

-1

[Marvel]

Why are turrets even allowed to be used on frigates?

-1 others made very reasonable arguments against putting this into their loadouts. Tickets will do.

[Jagger]

2 hours ago, Dennis said:

Now listen I’m just a lonely GM and former HA and GMO, now some people say i was / am a good GM however I believe this adds a new level to weeding out the bad GMs to making sure they have thought out their events and have the correct help in their events. I feel that with people who actually care as ENGLs and ENGOs could use this well even if we limit it. Along with the fact that GMs can shoot rockets etc at it and then remove it and bam it’s destroyed. To me it provides a new level of Immersion. 
 

while the rules in place are followed by the Dooms unit ENGs can’t speak for 212th. I feel the current rules along with a small revamp would work well. Along with if you wanted a “priority” of BO then regular clones. Also if “requires dev” possibly add a over heating feature like planes/tanks have. 

Oh I know we can definitely set up rules/regulations to help deal with it. I mentioned it in my post that I actually do want turrets, though I feel like High staff has a lot of negatives/counters/cons which is why I played devil's advocate. Since I don't believe realistically it can happen and I wanted to provide some explanation for that since high staff can't always communicate best.

As a GM, I'm usually prepared for most situations and can very easily adapt to whatever the players do -- hell I turned a map restart into a defcon 1 event even though it wasn't planned!

Edited January 21, 2020 by Jagger
words

[Alec]

As much as I would love getting turrets as an engineer, this would be way too OP and most likely would lag the server a lot

 

-1

[Craigary]

-1

Reasons outlined above.

[Elijah]

-1 like Chambers said they are to overpowered

[Rohan]

-1

[NootNoot]

-1

[SmallJeff]

-1 reason already stated and they would be abused too much

[Clutch]

-1 server lag is already bad 

[TahuNova613]

-1 HIGH STAFF KEEPS SAYING NO TO STUFF ABOUT TURRETS THEY ARE ABSOLUTE CANCER

[Synyster]

It would definitely spice up engineer classes, as they’re already pretty lacking (always have been), but unfortunately this just ain’t it, chief. 
 

agreeing with points above, but also thinking about it from a logical point of view. These shouldn’t be used on Frigates in the first place. They’re designed for engaging infantry and light vehicles, not giant ass frigates. just because Gmod lets them make frigates go boom doesn’t mean they’re supposed to RP-wise, that’s why they banned use of blasters against frigates forever ago. 
 

Regarding the point where it would be less work for staff, it’s barely any different since you already need to get GM permission to use them in the first place. 
 

sorry my guy, but -1

Edited January 24, 2020 by Synyster

[Spaghetti]

-1 me reasons are that ENG is made for people who want to expand their RP as well as the reasons stated above

[Stockings]

-1 Many replies helped me form my decision.  Unfortunately, I believe that people will forget them, knock them over, and they will simply cause far more lag than necessary.  Engineers would also most likely not be given this type of weaponry in my opinion.  The turret reminds me of the E-WEB or the EWHB-12 which would be assembled by a two man crew of heavy gunners instead of engineers.

[Blake]

-1 reasons stated above

[Dragon]

Denied

Negative community feedback