I like the turrets as they are. In my opinion they are not OP, since you seldom get into good position to shoot and hit.
That sounds like punishment. Let us know how it goes!
this game had (still have) potential, but I am not playing it until devs fix this unbalanced, not fun at all, system, and more important the AI
I think 1500-2000 hours is enough for now
3 Likes
Mate, I have lost count of the amount of times etermes has beaten this game.
How he has the time astounds me - as I only have spare time to complete a campaign in about six months real time.
But if you look at @etermesâ You Tube posts, he has completed every single ending multiple times, and he has done it single-classing, without enhancements and using every single one of the restrictions he lists - and as he says, he still finds the game ludicrously unbalanced in favour of the player.
If you know how to exploit the meta, this game is very seriously broken. But it doesnât have to be. Itâs not that difficult to fix if the devs have the will. Weâre simply no longer sure that they have.
3 Likes
@Michaellgnotus and @etermes
I congrat you both for your patient and suggestions.
I hope you continue pressing the devs and show them this topics.
It is important to core players have a challange and not be necessary do massive restritions to enjoy play the game.
But also remember that the game (all games!) need to be balanced and playable by all levels and ability of players.
1 Like
Of course, for that exist the easy (story) level and veteran. Hero and Legend should be a real challange and not like it is now that expert players must do severe restrictions to have fun and a fair game.
2 Likes
In my opinion, rebalancing turrets would involve more than just changing the stats on the turrets themselves, but also changing the turret-related Technician class abilities as well. The turrets alone are not the only overpowered thing, the Deploy Turret, Manual Control and Remote Deployment Technician class abilities are also overpowered in their current form. The combination of the turrets and turret-related Technician abilities combined together as a whole, are what really make the whole thing overpowered.
To rebalance the turrets, firstly the Scorcher AT laser turret really does need its damage potential toned down so that it is only slightly higher than that of the other turrets, but worse against well-armoured enemies when compared with the other turrets. To unlock access to Phoenix Scorcher AT laser turrets, a total of 8 NJ/Syn/Phoenix techs adding up to 3800 research time points, is required. To unlock access to NJ Rattlesnake AT piercing turrets, a total of 6 NJ techs adding up to 3850 research time points, is required. The New Jericho Rattlesnake AT piercing turrets actually require MORE research time to unlock than the Phoenix Scorcher AT laser turrets, but the Scorcher AT laser turrets with their current statline are all-round much better than the Rattlesnake piercing turrets. If the piercing and laser turrets were rebalanced relative to each other, then the piercing turrets could act as the more effective option against well-armoured enemies, while the laser turrets could act as the more effective option against lightly-armoured, unarmoured or armour-shredded enemies.
To rebalance the Technician Deploy Turret, Manual Control and Remote Deployment abilities, their Action Point cost should be increased. Because of the currently low 1 Action Point cost of each of these abilities, they can be spammed to deploy or fire turrets 4 times or more each turn per Technician. If the Action Point cost of using these abilities were increased to at least 2 Action Points per instance of use, that would outright halve how many times turrets can be deployed or fired each turn using the technicianâs abilities. Though even with a 2 AP change, turret spam could still be possible and it may be necessary to curtail turret spamming in other ways.
The ammo capacity of the turrets should be greatly reduced as well, they currently have so much ammo that gets restored for free after each mission, that itâs extremely rare to ever have to reload turrets. We should need to have to reload turrets every now and then.
Given the defensive role that turrets are supposed to have, I think it would make sense if they had an option to set them on overwatch instead of just choosing normal attacks. If turret spamming can be reined in, overwatch would be an appropriate, balanced and useful capability for turrets to have. Iâve listed a lot of things about turrets that I think need nerfing, but adding overwatch to turrets would be a good buff for them to have.
5 Likes
Actually this is the case, not much though, but against 30 armor and above the Rattlesnake is more efficient than the Scorcher (320 vs 300 damage) with a bit more accuracy on the Scorcher side (25 vs 29 ER, should be generally tweaked IMO, lower acc for Scorcher or higher for Rattlesnake, I prefer the first one).
I think it is basically OK this way, when the Scorcher wouldnât be in most cases earlier accessible than the Rattlesnake. Just make it a later tech after these advanced technician weapons, this would also fit the IMO too strong Gorgon and Destiny.
Then a general rebalance of all turrets as described above, especially lower ammo and lower potential damage for the Scorcher without making it too weak compared to the Rattlesnake.
OR a slightly different approach especially for the Scorcher to rebalance turrets and technician at all:
-
Watcher
- Damage 35-40, shred 3, burst 8, ER 22, ammo 32-40 (4-5 bursts)
- max potential damage of 280-320 with shredding
- all purpose solution to shred high armor and kill many weak minor foes
-
Rattlesnake
- Damage 35-40, piercing 30, burst 8, ER 24, ammo 32-40 (4-5 bursts)
- max potential damage of 280-320 with piercing
- heavy damage dealer against armored enemies and can also kill minor foes
-
Scorcher (very different, very accurate and piercing but lower damage at all)
- Damage 15-25, piercing 50, burst 10, ER 35-45, ammo 40-50 (4-5 bursts)
- max potential damage only 150-250, but high piercing and accuracy
- limb disabling sniper turret, more side grade than upgrade, no killer solution
-
Generally OW for all turrets, RF is already given
-
Technician
- Deploy turrets reduced to one usage/turret per turn, 2/1AP could then stay as it is, spamming turrets is almost impossible
- Remote control reducing to one usage per turret per turn, so he can still RC 2 or more but only different turrets/vehicles and turret spam is almost impossible with the above change
3 Likes
Itâs right that the Rattlesnake should be the best turret choice against well-armoured enemies, so that it has a clear role and purpose when compared to the other turrets. It should be kept similar to how it is now.
The Scorcher should be the turret thatâs flat-out the worst against armoured enemies when compared with the Watcher and Rattlesnake, but be the best choice against unarmoured enemies. It should have the lowest damage per shot when compared to the other turrets, and no piercing stat (piercing is Rattlesnakeâs niche), but still have the highest burst stat and highest accuracy/effective range stat out of all the turrets. The Scorcher should have the highest (by a slight amount) damage potential against unarmoured enemies relative to the other turrets, but no more overpowered 600 damage per burst.
Sure, players can use armour-shredding weapons to remove all of an enemyâs armour on one body part and choose the Scorcher instead of the Rattlesnake as the better type of turret to use in that instance. On the face of it, using armour-shredding weapons beforehand can make the Rattlesnake seem redundant to use against armoured enemies in comparison to the Scorcher. But it ends up being impractical to shred every single enemyâs armour before firing Scorcher turrets at them. Whereas the Rattlesnake can do without needing preparatory armour-shredding on enemies beforehand, making it effective on its own against Sirens, Chirons and evolved Arthrons/Tritons without needing support from other weapons.
The Watcher should function as the basic early-game low-tier-tech turret that gets outclassed by either of the other two more advanced turrets later in the game, but remain the cheapest turret to manufacture and supply ammo for. If player resources get low, or players want to deploy a larger number of turrets, that can come in handy.
This gives the different turrets clear roles/niches and advantages/disadvantages relative to each other in the context of Phoenix Pointâs more sidegrade style tech system. I think it also better reflects the real life characteristics and advantages/disadvantages of Laser and armour-piercing ammo firing Gauss weapons when compared to each other.
2 Likes
Laser can easily melt through almost any material, but deal comparable low damage because it mainly can only burn something without any kinetic energy.
So from the theoretical reality side Iâm more on the opposite, Laser should pierce high armor but deal low damage.
But this should not the base to balance anything, just a hint how it also could be 
I like your suggestion, it would be a clear role for any turret. 
3 Likes
Real life purpose-built high-energy laser weapons being designed to take out artillery shells, rockets, guided missiles and UAVâs tend to struggle with just burning through casings. Lasers would really struggle against proper armour plating.
Compare lasers to plain old kinetic energy weapons outright punching through things if the projectile has enough mass and enough velocity.
Phoenix Point has pulse laser weapons powered by compact nuclear fusion power cells. With enough energy a pulse laser can cause a plasma explosion in the material that it hits, but the effects are generally a lot more modest than what âplasma explosionâ would suggest. Though if we really wanted to get pernickety about it, laser weapons would be causing fire damage against organic enemies instead of putting neat holes in them.
I think Iâm just being pedantic and arguing for the sake of arguing at this point. I should go to sleep now 
.
2 Likes
Wouldnât edging toward realism have them be very accurate (tripod), but with a single burst/turn? The NJ mingun has many barrels, whereas turrets only have 1. Multiple barrels are needed as too high a rate of fire results in overheating, so the 1 fire/turn makes sense. They should have superior accuracy to an AR. Per the animations at least, they are the only tripod mounted weapon in the game.
The Armadillo gun should receive the enhanced accuracy while retaining many firings/turn as per the illustration is has many barrels. This gun is pretty weak currently. The target needs to be near adjacent to do appreciable damage. Mounting a gun on a 10000 lb vehicle vs firing it from the hip should be obviously different.
An Arthron firing a 50 cal only supported by 1 arm? That should be wildly inaccurate!
Really, what we all want is the turret from the extended version of Aliens. Set it up, turn it on, and watch the carnage on tv as it mows everything within the kill zone down. Sure itâs either out of bullets, or almost out, but they donât know that.
1 Like
I really like the idea of âAliensâ turrets, just set them up an let them go on their own AI, any movement on their covered arc gets fired on until it runs out of ammo. Tactical cover for your troops to contain the enemy. No remote control but canât be reloaded in the field.
Yeah, the Technician automated turrets in Phoenix Point do look like they were inspired by the ones in Aliens, those were cool. But for gameplay balance reasons, we canât let turrets do all the work of fighting the Pandorans, hence this thread.
Since you mentioned it, the Armadilloâs Hailstorm GT vehicle turret could use a change to itâs statline. It looks like a slightly upscaled version of the Deceptor MG, but despite being on a stabilised vehicle turret mount, the Hailstorm GT only has an Effective Range of 13. Whereas the Deceptor MG, being handheld with a chainsaw grip that would still cause it to shake about from recoil, actually has an Effective Range of 14. The Deceptor MG is somehow a slightly more accurate weapon than the Hailstorm GT, which doesnât seem to make sense at all.
If I could change the Hailstorm GT, Iâd give it a bit more firepower than it has right now, but Iâd definitely give it a lot more accuracy than it has right now. An Effective Range stat of somewhere within 25 to 30 would make more sense for a Gauss Heavy Machine Gun mounted to a stabilised vehicle turret and aimed via vehicle-AI fire control targeting systems. I wonder if the Hailstorm GT could also justify having a firepower increase over handheld-Gauss weapons by being hooked into the Armadilloâs own hybrid electrical power supply? Having lots of electrical power to work with is kinda important for Gauss weapons.
Or would the Technicianâs Manual Control ability end up making a rebalanced, buffed up Armadillo turret too powerful? I guess the previously mentioned nerf ideas for the Manual Control ability should still be enough to rein in vehicle turrets too if needed.
1 Like
The Deceptorâs ER got buffed in the past (iirc it was <10), the Hailstorm not, so I assume it was forgotten or simply not necessary. In my experience the Hailstorm is good as it is because of its higher shred (5 vs 2 of the Deceptor) but could maybe get a better ER just because it would be logical. The lower burst of 8 vs 12 is IMO pretty balanced by 2 AP vs 3 AP and a better base damage of 40 vs 35.
Technicians Remote Control is IMO the main problem with all this and when it could be limited to 1 use per device (turret or vehicle weapon) then I think it would be mostly OK.
2 Likes
Yes, I think so too. The âcool downâ makes sense isnât just a game balance tool, it represents how guns actually work. A water cooled 30 cal can sustain roughly double (if memory serves rightâŚ) the rate of fire of an air cooled version.
The ammo is limited, and most missions only allow for a single vehicle, so the potential for PP to abuse them is low. Plenty of things can be abused. Suppose one had a sniper with quick aim, and 7 assaults with onslaught. That SR could be fired 9 times in a single turn, and this is without rapid clearance. Still, having a limit of 3(?) bursts/turn would make sense to ensure no excessive abuse.
It was a few patches ago, but I recall fighting with NJ where they had 4 Armadillos in the battle. I would like it better if we could bring multiple vehicles on a mission. Loading up a Tiamat with 2 vehicles, a tech, and perhaps a sniper sounds fun, and perfectly appropriate.
Isnât QA a 3 WP skill? That would mean 27 WP. Not very likely.
There would be some recovery from kills, but yeah that is part of the point that the OP things that really need to stack up to make happen probably arenât worth the time.
The turrets dont take up 3 fucking soldier slots.