A future Turret system

[arkanon]

You mean other than the fact that that wasn't a suggestion?

On what planet is someone saying the following not a suggestion?

They could make 100% of the dmg come from the turret.

Its right there for all to see. How can you honestly try and squirm out of it? Its RIGHT THERE, for anyone to read.

A suggestion is an idea or plan put forward for consideration. This person very clearly put forward an idea for consideration. Honestly, just dont bother, you made a mistake, and its really not a big deal. Just admit it and move on.

[glowpipe]

So again, when it suits you, class overlap is used in defense of "your" (lol) idea, but used as the main reason other concepts are unacceptable.

- - - Updated - - -





Any comments?

Why would you need one ? Its already explain in that quote.
He is talking about a pet or a turret AI. Im talking about a character using a turret as its weapon. As i have tried to explain to you several times. It wouldn't make a ounce of difference if you push rapid fire on your hunter and arrows leaves your bow or you press Turret barrage and bullets leave the turret. and then i was briefly talking about very simple mechanics to counter some of your arguements. like leaving the turret and hide behind a pillar etc. very very basic, bar-room napkin, class concepts.

anyways, this has been snowballing out of control. My original comments where about having to micromanage a turret and i said that you wouldn't have to micromanage it if the turret was your rotation "the main course", and not a "side dish" alongside your rotation

[gaymer77]

I'm aware of that, and I distinctly remember the Treant not moving, especially since they could cast entangled roots to prevent the target from moving.

And you are distinctly remembering INCORRECTLY as they could and would move with the target and the wrath/entangling roots version only was implemented when druids got 4 specs. Until then, they were melee and cast taunt frequently. IN fact, I'll clarify to you, when they were implemented in BC they were melee only summons. In WotLK they were still melee only summons. In Cata they were melee only summons. In MOP when druids got the 4 specs is when they changed to being feral getting bash while losing entangling roots (melee treants still), guardian getting taunts while losing entangling roots (melee treants still), balance getting wrath as an auto attack and retaining the entangling roots spell, and resto getting a single treant that only cast healing touch with no attack spells at all.

Nah, they're still turrets because they will come to a stop and become stationary again.

Like a warlock's and hunter's ranged pets move and then become stationary again once they move into place? How again is that NOT like a warlock or hunter's pet??

We're not talking about totems. We're talking about robotic turrets.

To quote Shakespeare "A rose by any other name still smells as sweet" meaning no matter what you call it, its still the same thing.

If that helps wrap your mind around it, sure.

It doesn't help me wrap my mind around it. It is literally the same thing as what you describe....

Except a Tinker utilizing a robotic turret is nothing like a Shaman dropping multiple types of totems.

So the old fire totems (magma, searing, and searing) didn't do damage to stuff like what you suggest these turrets do? Interesting to know....

Well for starters they're devices that are constantly destroyed and leave scrap and parts behind that can be used to build more turrets and devices. There's more, but yeah it's not the same thing.

So they AREN'T things that you drop and have to resummon like you did totems for shaman? Again interesting....

I suggest you read your post again. You perfectly explained why the Shaman totem system was tedious.

You know, you're right. That's why I even said "and that still made the class tedious". Not sure how more clearly I could have said the fact that the totem dropping system was tedious even when a shaman was able to hit 1 button and drop 4 totems all at once (similar to your suggestion that these turrets would be a 1 button drop thing). What you're suggesting is bringing back a tedious system of play that players absolutely HATED and renaming it into "turrets" instead of "totems". Whether you want to call them "totems" or "turrets" is pointless because they work in the same way regardless of which word is used to describe or label them.....

[Ielenia]

Their auto attacks are melee. Rock it turret, Xplodium, Grav-O-bomb, Deth Lazor, and Cluster Rockets are all ranged.

Fun fact; Mages, Warlocks, and Priests also have melee auto attacks as well unless they equip wands.

False equivalence. You're talking WoW. Mages, warlocks and priests were ranged units in WC3.

[cocomen2]

Why would you need one ? Its already explain in that quote.
He is talking about a pet or a turret AI. Im talking about a character using a turret as its weapon. As i have tried to explain to you several times. It wouldn't make a ounce of difference if you push rapid fire on your hunter and arrows leaves your bow or you press Turret barrage and bullets leave the turret.

you mean like this?


Explain to us how class weapon "turret" works, its just bow with different model? or you throw it on ground before attacks? .... or its 24/7 sits on top of mech?

[arkanon]

you mean like this?


Explain to us how class weapon "turret" works, its just bow with different model? or you throw it on ground before attacks? .... or its 24/7 sits on top of mech?

Hint: The definition of what they want changes endlessly based on the concern or criticism thy are replying to. They contradict themselves constantly, because this really is a terrible idea.

[TheRevenantHero]

I'm aware of that, and I distinctly remember the Treant not moving, especially since they could cast entangled roots to prevent the target from moving.



Nah, they're still turrets because they will come to a stop and become stationary again.



We're not talking about totems. We're talking about robotic turrets.



If that helps wrap your mind around it, sure.



Except a Tinker utilizing a robotic turret is nothing like a Shaman dropping multiple types of totems.



Well for starters they're devices that are constantly destroyed and leave scrap and parts behind that can be used to build more turrets and devices. There's more, but yeah it's not the same thing.



I suggest you read your post again. You perfectly explained why the Shaman totem system was tedious.

- - - Updated - - -



Ability overlap =/= Class overlap.

Like I said, it's amusing you can't tell the difference.




You mean other than the fact that that wasn't a suggestion?

You claim that your turret concept doesn't involve micromanaging.....then you mention in this post a mechanic that would make the turrets 100% micromanaging. Having to pick up scrap and rebuild the turret is an exceptionally terrible idea because it's pretty much the same as when you used to have to feed your hunter pets. People HATED that mechanic and there is absolutely no reason to believe they wouldn't hate another system like that.

[gaymer77]

False equivalence. You're talking WoW. Mages, warlocks and priests were ranged units in WC3.

Sadly he is correct but only in the sense that a ranged weapon (wand, bows, guns, crossbows) only use ranged auto attacks since their "melee" weapon is a ranged weapon. You can equip a wand in your main hand and transmog it into a different type of weapon (ie using Legion artifacts to change it to a dagger or staff or mace) and when you go to "attack" or "shoot" it won't let you. So I guess @Teriz is half correct in saying they have have melee auto attacks unless they equip wands. I guess he doesn't realize that all of the casters (including druids and shaman) reset their melee attack upon start of casting anything which is why casters aren't up in melee range with a boss targeted for "auto attack" to bring more dps to the table. The same thing is true about hunter and their auto shot being reset when they start casting something...

- - - Updated - - -

Hint: The definition of what they want changes endlessly based on the concern or criticism thy are replying to. They contradict themselves constantly, because this really is a terrible idea.

I loved how he compared it to shaman totems without saying they were like shaman totems (but his description was 100% a shaman totem) then proclaimed they are not shaman totems. I loved how he described them like hunter's pets and warlock's pets yet proclaimed them not like either pet. Then I loved how he said they would be a drop once and not worry about them again then later mentions how they only last for so long, get destroyed, and drop scraps that are used to rebuilt it.

[jellmoo]

1. I personally think the more combat versions of upgrades should be active. However, you shouldn't have too many. Maybe around 3-4 tops. Also the "upgrades" should last a decent amount of time, like 12-18 seconds.

I think part of the issue is that it's next to impossible to really get a feel for such an ability in a vacuum. I think what would help is an example of a rotation, even if it's in the abstract. It feels like micro managing DoTs a bit, which I think is fine in theory, but we would need to have a better understanding of how everything works together in the whole rotation.

For example, would this be a viable rotation in your mind?

1. Drop Turrets
2. Builder
3. Builder
4. Builder
5. Buff Totems
6. Builder
7. Builder
8. Builder
9. Spender
10. Drop Totems

etc... assuming no cooldowns and the like.

3. A possible upgrade ability could be for your turrets to follow you or a target for x amount of seconds, or the turret could be mobile at all times as a passive upgrade.

Strangely, I think both aspects have issues. The first as an active ability is another global and another thing to keep track of, which could get tiresome. The second makes the turrets pretty much just a ranged pet with a mechanical skin...

4. PvP is always a hard thing to balance.

It absolutely is, but I think there's a difference between difficult balance because of numbers and difficult balance because of mechanics. I worry about introducing something new that affects the second. For example, when DKs were introduced and Death Grip turned PVP upside down. It recovered, obviously, but a huge change to the status quo does need to be carefully evaluated.

5. Possibly. I do think one possibility is to have the Tinker equivalent to the Hand of Guldan that spawns totems when you use it. Like a special type of bomb that explodes and unleashes 3 turrets afterwards.

Out of curiosity, assuming that the Tinker is a 3 spec class (let's say ranged dps, tank and healer), how many specs would you see having access to turrets?

[Teriz]

On what planet is someone saying the following not a suggestion?

It was a hypothetical based on a question you asked.

- - - Updated - - -

And you are distinctly remembering INCORRECTLY as they could and would move with the target and the wrath/entangling roots version only was implemented when druids got 4 specs. Until then, they were melee and cast taunt frequently. IN fact, I'll clarify to you, when they were implemented in BC they were melee only summons. In WotLK they were still melee only summons. In Cata they were melee only summons. In MOP when druids got the 4 specs is when they changed to being feral getting bash while losing entangling roots (melee treants still), guardian getting taunts while losing entangling roots (melee treants still), balance getting wrath as an auto attack and retaining the entangling roots spell, and resto getting a single treant that only cast healing touch with no attack spells at all.

Do you have any objective evidence to support your claim? I mained a Druid in MoP and distinctly remember those Treants standing in place shooting at targets.

Like a warlock's and hunter's ranged pets move and then become stationary again once they move into place? How again is that NOT like a warlock or hunter's pet??

Because a turret isn't a consistent pet that follows you around. They have a set duration and then they expire and have to be resummoned. In the case of the HotS system, when those devices expire they leave scrap which is used as a resource and a cooldown reduction. Further, the turret as shown in HotS are upgradable over the course of battle offering a wide variety of utility, something not really seen in Hunter or Warlock pets.

Beyond that the technology theme can offer concepts like merging two devices together, device transformation, and devices connecting to technology on the Tinker's body. One example would be the Turret connecting to the Tinker and transforming into a temporary cannon.

So the old fire totems (magma, searing, and searing) didn't do damage to stuff like what you suggest these turrets do? Interesting to know....

You couldn't summon Mama, Nova, and Searing at the same time. You CAN summon multiple turrets at once.

So they AREN'T things that you drop and have to resummon like you did totems for shaman? Again interesting....

Again, that entirely depends on implementation. As I mentioned earlier, there's a talent in HotS where you can passively summon three turrets from a bomb you deploy. Nothing stops Blizzard from implementing turret deployment in that fashion if they feel that the old "stop and drop" style is too restrictive for modern WoW.

[Triceron]

I feel like the best solution of it all is simply having Turrets be delegated as talents. Supplementary, optional talents.

Treat it exactly as we have Force of Nature, and not a mandatory part of the rotation.

I would probably figure as a cooldown ability, similar to Force of Nature.

If you want the Turret style of gameplay, you can opt into it. If you don't want to deal with micromanagement/position issues, or simply want to maintain consistent DPS, then you can pick some other talent. Even if the turret underperforms in certain areas, it wouldn't have ripple-down effects throughout the entire spec.

[gaymer77]

1. Drop Turrets
2. Builder
3. Builder
4. Builder
5. Buff Totems
6. Builder
7. Builder
8. Builder
9. Spender
10. Drop Totems

Dude how many times does @Teriz have to tell us that its not totems but turrets no matter how much his description of a "turret" is either a totem or warlock/hunter pet regardless of his proclaiming that its not a totem or pet??? Sheash man stop with the totem words....

sorry couldn't resist lol

[Teriz]

False equivalence. You're talking WoW. Mages, warlocks and priests were ranged units in WC3.

I know I was talking WoW. My point was that you could have a character that has melee auto attacks yet entirely ranged abilities, and that would be a ranged spec.

- - - Updated - - -

You claim that your turret concept doesn't involve micromanaging.....then you mention in this post a mechanic that would make the turrets 100% micromanaging. Having to pick up scrap and rebuild the turret is an exceptionally terrible idea because it's pretty much the same as when you used to have to feed your hunter pets. People HATED that mechanic and there is absolutely no reason to believe they wouldn't hate another system like that.

How would picking up scrap and having it replenish your resources and reduce your cooldowns be the equivalent of feeding a pet?

[Ielenia]

Sadly he is correct but only in the sense that a ranged weapon (wand, bows, guns, crossbows) only use ranged auto attacks since their "melee" weapon is a ranged weapon.

The thing is, though, is that Teriz' arguments the tinker class being a ranged class by pointing at the fact Gazlowe in HotS and the Goblin Tinker in WC3 have ranged abilities:

The WC3 and HotS heroes it's based on, since all of their abilities were ranged.

To which @Triceron replied by reminding Teriz of the fact that his two examples have melee attacks. And then Teriz responded with examples not from HotS or WC3, but from World of Warcraft:

Fun fact; Mages, Warlocks, and Priests also have melee auto attacks as well unless they equip wands.

Which is why it's a false equivalence. He's using examples from a separate game. Going by HotS and WC3, the tinker class would be melee, not ranged. Because, judging by how the conversion from WC3->WoW happened, units with ranged auto-attacks became ranged classes, and units with melee auto-attacks became melee classes.

I mean, look at the demon hunter: Mana burn is a ranged ability. Metamorphosis gives the DH a ranged auto-attack. But the WoW class still became a melee class. The paladin: all its targeted abilities are ranged, despite its auto-attack being melee. But the WoW class is melee

In WC3, the units that became ranged classes in WoW (mage, priest, warlock, for example) are all units with ranged attacks. No melee attacks. The exception of this was the Hunter class, considering the Beastmaster WC3 unit had melee attacks, but that was "sort of" represented by having a few melee talents in the Survival tree.

- - - Updated - - -

I know I was talking WoW. My point was that you could have a character that has melee auto attacks yet entirely ranged abilities, and that would be a ranged spec.

And that makes your point entirely pointless because the argument was about how their auto-attack (in WC3) being what determines if a class is ranged or melee. So saying "mages can be melee if they equip a staff" is meaningless at best, red herring at worst.

[gaymer77]

Do you have any objective evidence to support your claim? I mained a Druid in MoP and distinctly remember those Treants standing in place shooting at targets.

Evidence? They literally were 100% melee until MOP (you know when YOU started playing) and in MOP they were melee treants if you were feral or guardian (but neither had entangling roots and only guardian ones had a taunt now) or only cast healing touch if you were a resto druid or were ranged but mobile casting roots/wrath if you were balance. Literally ANY druid could have Force of Nature in MOP but prior to that only a balance druid could. Your ignorance of the game prior to you playing does not mean that what you say about them is correct.

They have a set duration and then they expire and have to be resummoned

So like the old damage dealing shaman fire totems used to be unlike your claim they are NOT like a totem??

You couldn't summon Mama, Nova, and Searing at the same time. You CAN summon multiple turrets at once.

Um you've said that you can only drop one at a time multiple times in this thread. Should I go through all 8 pages of this thread and quote you ever time you've mentioned the 1 totem...I mean turret?

Again, that entirely depends on implementation. As I mentioned earlier, there's a talent in HotS where you can passively summon three turrets from a bomb you deploy. Nothing stops Blizzard from implementing turret deployment in that fashion if they feel that the old "stop and drop" style is too restrictive for modern WoW.

So like warlock's imps yet they're not pets.............?

[Teriz]

I think part of the issue is that it's next to impossible to really get a feel for such an ability in a vacuum. I think what would help is an example of a rotation, even if it's in the abstract. It feels like micro managing DoTs a bit, which I think is fine in theory, but we would need to have a better understanding of how everything works together in the whole rotation.

For example, would this be a viable rotation in your mind?

1. Drop Turrets
2. Builder
3. Builder
4. Builder
5. Buff Totems
6. Builder
7. Builder
8. Builder
9. Spender
10. Drop Totems

etc... assuming no cooldowns and the like.

Sounds fine.

Strangely, I think both aspects have issues. The first as an active ability is another global and another thing to keep track of, which could get tiresome. The second makes the turrets pretty much just a ranged pet with a mechanical skin...

Except the turrets aren't permanent and have a set duration. I think such an ability being passive would be better. I also think you should be able to have the option of dropping one turret at a time and also have a cooldown allowing you to drop three at once.

It absolutely is, but I think there's a difference between difficult balance because of numbers and difficult balance because of mechanics. I worry about introducing something new that affects the second. For example, when DKs were introduced and Death Grip turned PVP upside down. It recovered, obviously, but a huge change to the status quo does need to be carefully evaluated.

Yeah but I really don't think PvP balance is a viable discussion to have since PvP is never balanced and there are constant cases where a new ability "turns PvP upside down". It's a rather pointless exercise because people will say that ANY novel ability will destroy PvP. Remember when Demon Hunters having spectral sight would destroy PvP?

Out of curiosity, assuming that the Tinker is a 3 spec class (let's say ranged dps, tank and healer), how many specs would you see having access to turrets?

All three with the DPS having the most robust system for it. I do feel that turrets could also be useful in tanking and healing specs as well.

[ohwell]

No. they sucked because players want to focus on their character and not a side mini-game for DPS. Same reason hunters don't need to feed their pets anymore.

Yeah ok. That sounds like the same nonsense lie people said about the Oculus dungeon.

[gaymer77]

How would picking up scrap and having it replenish your resources and reduce your cooldowns be the equivalent of feeding a pet?

So this tinker would have to stop attacking, pick up resources (even if it was instantly picked up while still having to stop what they were doing), and then waste a GCD or possibly even a cast time to drop another totem...I mean turret down or would all of these things be automated which would completely make the whole "dropping a turret" be pointless and nothing unique when everything is automated? Or if it is not automated, how is that not like a shaman dropping a totem back in the day when it expired?

[Teriz]

And that makes your point entirely pointless because the argument was about how their auto-attack (in WC3) being what determines if a class is ranged or melee. So saying "mages can be melee if they equip a staff" is meaningless at best, red herring at worst.

Which is also a meaningless barometer since Shaman had zero melee units yet still wound up with a melee spec in WoW. Beastmaster was a melee unit in WC3 yet the spec he's based on: Beast mastery is a ranged spec.

[gaymer77]

Yeah ok. That sounds like the same nonsense lie people said about the Oculus dungeon.

I am thoroughly confused on how you compare a dungeon that's design was horrible because the last boss fight involved what is essentially the first mounted mechanics fight to a system of feeding pets (or dropping totems) as a class design where the said pet did 70% damage if not fully happy and could literally run away permanently if it got upset enough?