idea- remote targetting

[orogogus]

Here is something I didn't see in the FAQs anywhere or in any weapon databases, so I thought I'd throw it out there for some general discussion. Since I haven't see much about it, I'm going to assume it's not on the plate for release, but maybe it's something that will get in later.

What I've always thought was cool would be to have the abilty to remotely designate targets for support artillery/air support. I think the idea of a scout suit with a laser/GPS designator calling in air support/missle strikes would be pretty dang cool. BF1942 had this sorta in the sniper unit, and I do see that the NC has a wire guided missle (not exactly what I'm talking about, but sorta in the same ball-park). It would add to the combined arms aspect of the game greatly IMO. Also, precision-guided munitions fits into the sci-fi feel of the game.

Anyway, thoughts?

[Incompetent]

although i think that sort of thing would be very cool to have in PS, the devs have repeatedly said no.

[WhiteSun]

IIRC, there will be no artillery in the game to prevent weapons spamming.

IIRC, commanders will be able to define hot zones for allies to rush to for combat. Pilots included.

For the most part, I think PS will generally be a "if they are shooting you, you can see them" sort of FPS.

[orogogus]

well, I agree that artillery wouldn't really be all that much fun (who'd want to man an artillery piece anyway?), but being a laser designator for a fighter (to help destroy heavy vehicles) would still be keen and not so much an indirect fire type of thing, but that doesn't mean it couldn't or wouldn't be used in that way (pop and fire). seems like a perfectly valid use for a scout suit IMO (not to mention adding to strategy)... maybe we can sway the devs. =p In your face FPS combat maybe the feel they are going for though, which is what it sounds like from some of the responses (which were really damn quick BTW!)

[Unregistered]

It would be great, but what you would see is that someone would find a way to abuse it, and set up spam points (park here, aim here, shoot, destroy) and it would ruin the game.

Just like what happened in T2 with all those gay spam scripts.

[�io]

Yeah laser targetting would be r0x0rz! :D

[Mold]

the best part about having laser targeting would be that people would actualy like to be the scout who targets because he would get equal points for the kill along with the artilery unit. Unlike bf1942 where ppl who spot for artillery get no credit.

[�io]

That and well scouts would have something to do other than just walking/driving/flying around. :)

[Unregistered]

:rofl: Mold's sig is killing me!!

[Vimp]

Wh|teSun -

I think PS will generally be a "if they are shooting you, you can see them" sort of FPS.

I notice you said generally but i thought I'd point out that in the interview/movie with Kevin McCann they showed somone flying and they past over a tank that was shooting and beause they were flying in roughly the same direction as the shot you could see that the shot landed byond the sight range of the actual tank that shot it. It looked very cool actually. You were able to see where the shot landed but only because the person was flying with the shot so you could see where it landed.

[Navaron]

"Mold's sig is killing me"

It really scares me, I try and scroll past b4 it loads.

[Hamma]

:brow:

[WhiteSun]

Originally posted by Vimp
I notice you said generally but i thought I'd point out that in the interview/movie with Kevin McCann they showed somone flying and they past over a tank that was shooting and beause they were flying in roughly the same direction as the shot you could see that the shot landed byond the sight range of the actual tank that shot it.

Gee, is that all one sentence?

That does bring in an element of indirect fire, however short-lived such a setup might be. Unless the scout is well hidden and the armor well defended, I'm afraid said tank would be harrassed (no pun intended) within short order.

[Vimp]

I'm not sure I understand what your saying. what makes it indirect fire? And that last sentence I really dunno what your saying at all. Not being insulting though, just curious what you mean.

[WhiteSun]

Originally posted by Vimp
I'm not sure I understand what your saying. what makes it indirect fire? And that last sentence I really dunno what your saying at all. Not being insulting though, just curious what you mean.

I think I said "an element of indirect fire." If the bullet/shell/whatever goes further than the character's LOS, then he will need a spotter or some sort of feedback to know the shot was successful. This is one part of indirect fire.

As to the second part of my post...

If one team is holding a position when ordinance suddenly comes flying in, one of the first things to do is identify the source. Once it is realized that the source is not LOS, then all defenders will know that there is a vehicle capable of indirect some distance away with a spotter within LOS to call in adjustments. A quick spawn of a light/fast vehicle will move the spotter and the original target can move at its leisure to intercept the tank.

Indirect fire only works if there are obstacles between the firer and defense and if there is a mechanism in place to relay information on weapons effect. PS does not seem very well set up to handle this sort of confrontation.