The Artillery Debate

[Tool]

It appears that artillery won't make it in a launch, at least in the sense of something similar to fails. The primere reason being that players tend not to enjoy being offed by it.

Somewhat understandable gripe; however in a game like Planetside, where logistics play a role, player controlled artillery can be a valuable asset for any fighting force. If implemented correctly that is.

Flails accomplished this role in a very basic sense. But they devolved into a spammable solo centric vehicle. Real artillery is coordinated and today, quite precise in a trained military.

I guess the important question is, given the new fast past direction Soe is taking, is there a future for artillery? Anything from man portable mortars to long range systems like the mlrs.

Depending on ballistics, could the main cannons on tanks be sufficient with a forward observer guiding shots? Would players even find it enjoyable compared to frontline combat?

[WaryWizard]

I find it unlikely that tanks could play the role of artillery unless their cannons can aim at a decently high angle. Slow firing artillery could be implemented, but would require some testing. It should be almost entirely skill based. Maybe make it tell you the angle of you barrel. That way people experienced users could instruct newberts the usage of the cannon, and what angles are optimal for what distances.

[Death2All]

If Artillery required multiple people all working together to operate: "Gunner, spotter, shell loader, etc.", made their availability very very very limited (I.E. capturing a specific territory or a base that gives you access to maybe 3 artillery cannons) and then made them only able to be accessed for a very short time...Maybe 3 artillery barrages every 15 minutes then I wouldn't' have a problem them.


But if they repeat the cluster fuck that was the Flail then I am completely against it. Indirect fire is absolutely no fun, giving or receiving. Staring at the sky shooting and a occasionally seeing a kill pop up in the kill spam is stupid. And stop saying that you "need realism for immersion". If you want to be immersed by war, go play a war simulation or better yet, sign up. I hope you get all your arms and legs blown up by an artillery shell.

[VioletZero]

I'm personally on the fence when it comes to artillery.

I am definitely in favor of things that make the game more fun to play. Artillery especially isn't fun to be killed by.

As World of Tanks players call it, they consider it to be an orbital satellite that can just zero in and kill anyone they damn well please.

The reason it is perceived this way is that it appeared to the player being given the ability to kill any one person without any skill or risk involved.

Of course, being an artillery player in that game, it is actually a considerable challenge to play right. But the main tank players don't see it like that. They want every battle to be a test of wits and skill between players directly facing each other. And I agree to a degree, it's definitely more fun on the ground facing someone when you feel it is evenly matched.

On the other hand, this is not Call of Duty. This is an MMOFPS where wide scale tact should prevail over individual skill. This is the reason why I argue in favor of ironsights. And in World of Tanks, the map wide tact could not be any more emphasized than by the artillery.

Individual player fun...emphasis on the MMO aspect...I can't decide. They're both incredibly important.

[HitbackTR]

Orbital Strike = Artillery

[VioletZero]

Indirect fire is absolutely no fun, giving or receiving. Staring at the sky shooting and a occasionally seeing a kill pop up in the kill spam is stupid.

I am in COMPLETE disagreement here.

To me, there is nothing more satisfying than perfectly calculating your shot, hearing the loud boom of your cannon and then a few seconds later, seeing that you got a kill.

It's absolutely lovely.

[Rbstr]

I think laser designation should be required making the effort at least a 2 person deal.
But 1 person could spot for a whole squad.
The guns have to be deployed and have deploy/deploy timers long enough that a single enemy plane would quite readily get a couple before they could drive anywhere.
Range more on the order of inside an SOI rather than "Lol range?" of a Flail. Much steeper arc that prevents shooting into doors.

Plus skills need to be allocated to it.

[Death2All]

Orbital Strike = Artillery

Yeah, but there is a huge timer (3 hour cooldown). Requires significant grinding in order to get the command rank necessary (About 510,000 CEP). And you have to be in extremely close proximity of the area you're OSing to pull it off.

[acosmo]

yeah, it would be awesome if the sundy could tug around an M777 equivalent.

[Rbstr]

Yeah, but there is a huge timer (3 hour cooldown). Requires significant grinding in order to get the command rank necessary (About 510,000 CEP). And you have to be in extremely close proximity of the area you're OSing to pull it off.

Except none of these mechanics are necessarily making a return for PS2. It's a new game, don't forget it.

[captainbaka]

Im not sure how gamebreaking it may or may not be, but i would love forming up into a really big artillery platoon and pounding a base thats been hard to take. but it would probably suck for people trying to keep said base.

[Warborn]

Just sitting around clicking a "shoot artillery round" button until you're out of ammo while people who aren't even close to your visual range die doesn't really sound like very engaging gameplay for either the person shooting or the person getting shot. This is the same argument they used against the liberator bombardier position, x10. Even if there are spotters and loaders and a barrel plunger guy like in Ye Olde Cannone days, it's still some guy just sitting there clicking a button like an idiot, probably playing windowed so he can watch Wondershowzen while he's doing it in order to actually be entertained.

So no, no to artillery. Even if they made each round wire-guided like the phoenix rockets it would be crappy gameplay for the guy using it and crappy gameplay for the guy getting randomly blown up by someone who he cannot even shoot back at.

Im not sure how gamebreaking it may or may not be, but i would love forming up into a really big artillery platoon and pounding a base thats been hard to take. but it would probably suck for people trying to keep said base.

That's what you'd pull a bunch of liberators/air-to-ground-configured fighters for. There are ways in the game to pound an enemy position. Only they will now require players to aim, and more importantly, pose a real risk while you're doing it unless you have air supremacy. Either way, it isn't like you won't be able to blow people to hell, it's just that you won't be able to do it from 2 km away.

[basti]

Im not sure how gamebreaking it may or may not be, but i would love forming up into a really big artillery platoon and pounding a base thats been hard to take. but it would probably suck for people trying to keep said base.

Not at all.

Artierlly only means that going outside is a bad idea.

While the bombs your base, prepabe the sections that are save from fire for defense. With the shields protecting the bases now, that seems to be a rather big area.

[super pretendo]

I think artillery is a huge deal, it increases the depth of tactical decisionmaking 100 times. Just make it difficult to aim and require a team of good players to estimate strikes and it can be balanced, just like IRL

[Tool]

Just sitting around clicking a "shoot artillery round" button until you're out of ammo while people who aren't even close to your visual range die doesn't really sound like very engaging gameplay for either the person shooting or the person getting shot. This is the same argument they used against the liberator bombardier position, x10. Even if there are spotters and loaders and a barrel plunger guy like in Ye Olde Cannone days, it's still some guy just sitting there clicking a button like an idiot, probably playing windowed so he can watch Wondershowzen while he's doing it in order to actually be entertained.

So no, no to artillery. Even if they made each round wire-guided like the phoenix rockets it would be crappy gameplay for the guy using it and crappy gameplay for the guy getting randomly blown up by someone who he cannot even shoot back at.

That's what you'd pull a bunch of liberators/air-to-ground-configured fighters for. There are ways in the game to pound an enemy position. Only they will now require players to aim, and more importantly, pose a real risk while you're doing it unless you have air supremacy. Either way, it isn't like you won't be able to blow people to hell, it's just that you won't be able to do it from 2 km away.

That's a very understandable assertion, moving to more directly involved and skill based gameplay direction. However there are those type of players that may enjoy those types of roles, indirect combat without being frontline support.

[Warborn]

That's a very understandable assertion, moving to more directly involved and skill based gameplay direction. However there are those type of players that may enjoy those types of roles, indirect combat without being frontline support.

I cannot imagine someone being more entertained by watching grass grow as they depress their left mouse button every few seconds than by being a gunner in a liberator, flying over targets, and shooting them to bits with a big cannon. There is already a sort of "indirect combat" role. Adding in artillery just adds boring gameplay with lame deaths for the people on the other side of it.

[Shade Millith]

Just sitting around clicking a "shoot artillery round" button until you're out of ammo while people who aren't even close to your visual range die doesn't really sound like very engaging gameplay for either the person shooting or the person getting shot.

The same can be said for anything that isn't "Direct-in-your-face Combat"

"Just sitting around clicking a "shoot sniper gun" button until you're out of ammo while people who are just inside your visual range die doesn't really sound like very engaging gameplay for either the person shooting or the person getting shot."

I sometimes acted as the 'On-Call' Artillery piece for squads. If they find a dug in tank or infantry/AMS, they can laser it and I'll put a volley or two into it.

As World of Tanks players call it, they consider it to be an orbital satellite that can just zero in and kill anyone they damn well please.

That's because they made it like that. They made it so that the artillery could get range/bearing/speed/spread instantly, and the projectiles hit their target in less than 2 seconds, thus allowing you to track and hit moving tanks with ease.

PS1 artillery however was an area bombardment, because the gunner never receives any information about what he's aiming at, and his shots might take 20 seconds to land. This is what artillery should be aiming to be. Just not how the flail worked as such.






Flails weren't implemented correctly. I get that. They were far too tough HP wise, and fired too quickly.

They should have had 1/4 the HP, about 1/4 to 1/2 the fire rate with about 2/3 the range, and 5-6 shots before a lengthy reload. Make it into an unarmored truck with a cannon on the backend, that requires a lasered area to fire.

Extra reload rate and having less HP removes the "Continuous Area Denial" (This was the actual problem with the Flails design, that it could sit there with constant fire at a doorway). This brings artillery usage towards a strategic strike to be used when requested by a squad. Have a small battery of Artillery hidden awaiting a fire order.

Less HP's also makes them piecemeal to air-to-ground attacks, and brings them closer to the fighting. See artillery, grab aircraft and get free XP.

[Warborn]

The same can be said for anything that isn't "Direct-in-your-face Combat"

"Just sitting around clicking a "shoot sniper gun" button until you're out of ammo while people who are just inside your visual range die doesn't really sound like very engaging gameplay for either the person shooting or the person getting shot."

I sometimes acted as the 'On-Call' Artillery piece for squads. If they find a dug in tank or infantry/AMS, they can laser it and I'll put a volley or two into it.

You're comparing sitting in an immobile vehicle firing at targets you can't even see to playing a sniper? C'mon, you're not even trying to be serious about this.

[Shade Millith]

You're comparing sitting in an immobile vehicle firing at targets you can't even see to playing a sniper? C'mon, you're not even trying to be serious about this.

Yes, I am. There are people who would say exactly that about playing as a sniper. There are people who would scoff and say "Man, that's boring as shit, why would you want to play like that? All you do is click on the enemy!"

There are plenty of times where I enjoyed just playing as artillery for a squad. They laser something entrenched in, and I throw some shots their way.

Hell, that was one of my roles when I played BF1942 and Desert Combat competitively, was as artillery.

[Warborn]

That line of discussion is so absurd it's not worth discussing any further. Anyone who makes that comparison is wrong. It's fine if someone does not enjoy playing a sniper, but that's entirely different.

[NCLynx]

Huge thread on Artillery already.

http://www.planetside-universe.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38570

Incase anyone wants to read what's already been posted on the subject...

[Firefly]

I'm in favour. Artillery is a force multiplier and a necessary part of modern combat. I am not in favour of Flails and I am only in favour of artillery that makes it worthwhile. Artillery should be lethal - if you get hit by artillery, or you're caught in its kill zone, and you are unprotected, you're dead.

Which, due to the imbalance I just presented, means it will need strict controls. Perhaps something like the way BF2 did it: not a tangible asset that players can pull at will.

[Tool]

That line of discussion is so absurd it's not worth discussing any further. Anyone who makes that comparison is wrong. It's fine if someone does not enjoy playing a sniper, but that's entirely different.

I think one point he's making is fair; in that some players do enjoy that form of gameplay. Some perspective here is worthwhile, not everyone like to or can participate in twitch gameplay.

Some enjoy being medics doing little other than healing and rezzing. Others participate in engineer work, laying ce, repairing equipment and vehicles or infantry. Point being artillery is potentially another form of gameplay to attract these types of players.

[Shade Millith]

That line of discussion is so absurd it's not worth discussing any further. Anyone who makes that comparison is wrong. It's fine if someone does not enjoy playing a sniper, but that's entirely different.

Different people enjoy different things. Just because YOU don't like it, doesn't mean others won't. That was the point of bring up sniping (Which is something else I enjoy from time to time).
Some think it's boring, so say "Why the hell is snpiing in the game, remove it from the game yada yada"
Which sounds like "Why the hell would anyone want artillery, leave it out yada yada"

And I'm sticking by what I said. Artillery should be in game, but this time round should be -

1/4 HP
1/4 ROF
5 shots before a very lengthy reload
1/2 to 2/3 the range
Require a laser to fire. (Still manually targeted, but the laser must be active to launch a shell)

- compared to the flail. Should turn it into a Strategic Strike weapon

[VioletZero]

I do think that artillery shouldn't just be something that people call down from some invisible force. It should be something that people drive and use that takes some skill to use.

It should be an engaging experience to use for people like me who appreciate the qualities of using one.

For the record, just because I cited World of Tanks as benefiting from artillery does not mean I agree with how they decided to implement it. I hated how it had a bird's eye view and you immediately saw your chances of hitting your opponent.

It should be calculated, difficult to use and requiring co-operation from your teammates.

But rewarding if used right.

[CuddlyChud]

I'm firmly against Artillery. Its too difficult to balance and make fun at the same time. Also, just because something takes skill does not mean it should more powerful than anything else. People hate the flail for a lot of reasons, but if you think about it, any artillery they put in the game is going to resemble the flail. In general I'm against any sort of super weapon.

[VioletZero]

I'm firmly against Artillery. Its too difficult to balance and make fun at the same time. Also, just because something takes skill does not mean it should more powerful than anything else. People hate the flail for a lot of reasons, but if you think about it, any artillery they put in the game is going to resemble the flail. In general I'm against any sort of super weapon.

Okay, I'll bite.

What was the problem with the Flail?

[Grognard]

This is what I would think might be good for the game, if balanced...

1. Commander tree artillery/MLRS-type strike, high in cert tree, long cool down.
2. Small caliber short range mortar deployable, can fire smoke, fascam, and light caliber HE.
3. AT gun, requires a limber vehicle, strong AV only, limited firing arc, requires entire gun to be swung left/right to change field of fire. Not true artillery, unless it can fire HE too, which I think might be ok given its severe mobility, and fire arc issues.

Notice something? Targets need to be in visual range for each of these platforms, that means return fire capability... no sitting in safe place lobbing shit across the map with fingers crossed...

Cmon folks... we all know these Tanks will in no way serve as artillery (indirect fire role), unless there is an SPA variant... Now, if we just do not want artillery-type stuff, then fine, thats cool with me too.

[Hmr85]

Huge thread on Artillery already.

http://www.planetside-universe.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38570

Incase anyone wants to read what's already been posted on the subject...

Gonna repost what NCLynx said here.

[VioletZero]

Notice something? Targets need to be in visual range for each of these platforms, that means return fire capability... no sitting in safe place lobbing shit across the map with fingers crossed...

The reason I would even bother with artillery is specifically to avoid return fire.

Why else would I do the necessary calculations to hit a target?

Take that away, no point.

But here's a good compromise: How about it requires someone ELSE to make visual contact with a special device to alert artillery to hit a target? Just to let them know someone is there.

Heres my suggestion: It wouldn't be a superweapon. It hits hard, but with a relatively low splash damage and it would be terrible against infantry.

Fair?

[Grognard]

The reason I would even bother with artillery is specifically to avoid return fire.

Then, in my opinion, you just made their argument for them, and I switch camps.

[Warborn]

I think one point he's making is fair; in that some players do enjoy that form of gameplay. Some perspective here is worthwhile, not everyone like to or can participate in twitch gameplay.

No, it isn't a fair point at all. Just because someone enjoys that kind of gameplay doesn't mean it's something the game should necessarily support. They specifically said they are trying to move the game away from "indirect" forms of combat. If liberators having bombardiers was too passive for the Planetside 2 developers, what are the odds sitting in an immobile vehicle kilometers away from the fighting, clicking at a random cloud in the sky is going to pass muster?

[VioletZero]

Then, in my opinion, you just made their argument for them, and I switch camps.

Is this the real issue here? That you can't fire back at them?

They have so many counters though. Like how they're deadly allergic to aircraft or how they can't handle direct combat.

[Grognard]

Is this the real issue here? That you can't fire back at them?

They have so many counters though. Like how they're deadly allergic to aircraft or how they can't handle direct combat.

I think so, because unless an excellent model of counterbattery fire is introduced, no one will accept a platform which can not be readily countered by a GAMER... Most of these folks are not soldiers stuck following orders and spending months in an MOS school to learn how to be patient, and proffessional. So we pretty much have the see=kill=fun paradigm...

[Lonehunter]

The only way I see us getting along with artillery is if it's impossible for just 1 person to use it. Imagine if the Flail could only fire when his spotter lazed the target, and that waypoint shows up so you know exactly what arc to use. That's teamwork, and that we can actually use. Not only can you counter the artillery with vehicles, you can take out the scout.

[VioletZero]

Why do we have commanders if no one will follow orders?

[SKYeXile]

I think one point he's making is fair; in that some players do enjoy that form of gameplay. Some perspective here is worthwhile, not everyone like to or can participate in twitch gameplay.

Some enjoy being medics doing little other than healing and rezzing. Others participate in engineer work, laying ce, repairing equipment and vehicles or infantry. Point being artillery is potentially another form of gameplay to attract these types of players.

i enjoy playing a stupidly overpowered robot that can fly and kill hordes of infantry at once. DOESN'T MEAN IT SHOULD BE INGAME!

[VioletZero]

The only way I see us getting along with artillery is if it's impossible for 1 person to use it. Imagine if the Flail could only fire when his spotter lazed the target, and that waypoint shows up so you know exactly what arc to use. That's teamwork, and that we can actually use.

I like this idea.

Although, you should be able to blind fire if you want. Just for suppression. But to hit targets directly, you need to have marked targets.

You shouldn't be able to see your targets on the map while aiming though.

[Grognard]

The only way I see us getting along with artillery is if it's impossible for just 1 person to use it. Imagine if the Flail could only fire when his spotter lazed the target, and that waypoint shows up so you know exactly what arc to use. That's teamwork, and that we can actually use.

Above, I gave some examples that might work as single soldier platforms...

My favorite branch of military arms is artillery... but in my mind, the "what I like" is trumped every time by "its not all about me"... so those examples were created with that in mind, and for specific, common scenarios that cropped up in PS1, and would have been useful, but not over powered. Such as... gridlocked bridge fights, and with a 1500 combatants, may exacerbate the necessity for breaking static battles with such tools of the trade...

Folks... Indirect fire smoke? Fascam? Let it sink in for a bit...

[Tool]

i enjoy playing a stupidly overpowered robot that can fly and kill hordes of infantry at once. DOESN'T MEAN IT SHOULD BE INGAME!

zoom

[CutterJohn]

+1 for no artillery.

The gameplay of the person operating it is just no fun at all. Point at waypoint, click, wait for kill spam. There is no skill involved in it. I realize some people won't mind playing like this, but there are other roles they can fulfill with similar amounts of skill that are not so annoying to the receiving end.

The only actual fun, or at least interactive, way I could imagine implementing Artillery is to make the round controllable, i.e. the gunner provides terminal guidance like a phoenix missile operator. Though with a LOT more inertia.

Doesn't change the fact that the people on the receiving end are getting shelled with no real recourse. I'm a big fan of the concept of if you want to hurt someone you should be vulnerable to return fire from them, which is a big reason why i disliked the phoenix and the flail. Grenades are more acceptable, since you can very quickly get into range of the person throwing it.


Edit: Oh, and I'd probably be ok with it if AA units could shoot down the incoming shells. That at least would allow the defenders to counter the arty, even if they couldn't destroy it outright.

[VioletZero]

I realize some people won't mind playing like this, but there are other roles they can fulfill with similar amounts of skill that are not so annoying to the receiving end.

Is there another role that requires pen and paper work to use right?

If so, let me know what it is.

[CutterJohn]

Is there another role that requires pen and paper work to use right?

If so, let me know what it is.

You're fooling yourself if you think there wouldn't be a website with a PS2 artillery calculator within a month of release.

[Shade Millith]

I think so, because unless an excellent model of counterbattery fire is introduced, no one will accept a platform which can not be readily countered by a GAMER... Most of these folks are not soldiers stuck following orders and spending months in an MOS school to learn how to be patient, and proffessional. So we pretty much have the see=kill=fun paradigm...

So the thought process of "Get plane, follow trail to pot of free XP" is too much?

That's your argument?

The gameplay of the person operating it is just no fun at all. Point at waypoint, click, wait for kill spam.

Have already been over this, and is best surmised as "Stop generalizing". Just because you can't see it, doesn't mean that it's not there.

Some people enjoy working as a team. One role in a team is fire-support. Just because anything past running around in near melee range might be beyond you, doesn't mean others might not enjoy it.



The problem with the flail is it was too heavily armored, too long ranged, and fired too quickly.

1/4 everything, with a massive reload timer after 3-5 shots, and it's fine.

[Grognard]

So the thought process of "Get plane, follow trail to pot of free XP" is too much?

That's your argument?

When the "trail" goes through a wall of AA, and CAP, you bet. 1500+ paradigm here, not 15...

[Shade Millith]

When the "trail" goes through a wall of AA, and CAP, you bet. 1500+ paradigm here, not 15...

Why would you try and fly through the main fight? Flanking, or coming in from behind, is an easy, and very effective maneuver.

This just seems like common sense.

[ratfusion]

I had fun racking up killspam with a flail.

I had fun sneaking around lazing targets for a flail.

I had fun hunting flails that were causing havoc to a friendly base.

Shame that won't be around, but Higby didn't sound very flexible on the subject.

[Warborn]

Shame that won't be around, but Higby didn't sound very flexible on the subject.

They've seemingly declared all-out-war on stupid crap from the first game.

[yonman]

I generally only received flail fire in the game and I have to admit that visually it was quite impressive and dramatic. I'll admit dying to it was less than exciting but artillery fire adds a level of suspense and urgency to almost any military scene, which is what we're going for here: cinematic suspense and action.

That said, those flail guns could have easily been an AI. i was always surprised that the Flail wasn't either a deployable that the deployee could laze for (and the flail would auto-aim and shoot) or that it wasn't some "off shore" battery like the OS - only less accurate, less powerful and used for sustained fire.

Having to actually gun the bloody thing? Now that's a new definition of watching paint dry.

So, I'm all for having long range artillery in the game but it must not be the focus of the game nor something players actually have to actively man to use.

[Warborn]

Liberators will fulfill every function a flail might otherwise and will be approximately thirteen million times more enjoyable to use to that end.

[Shade Millith]

Liberators will fulfill every function a flail might otherwise and will be approximately thirteen million times more enjoyable to use to that end.

Assault will fulfill every function a Sniper might otherwise and will be approximately thirteen million times more enjoyable to use to that end.

Different people enjoy different things.

[Grognard]

Why would you try and fly through the main fight? Flanking, or coming in from behind, is an easy, and very effective maneuver.

This just seems like common sense.

Furthermore... why wouldnt I cover my high value targets with local AA and CAP? Im not expecting the flanking, or behind approach? Easy to defend against also... CAP intercepts locally in any direction, AA is multidirectional... I always did this in PS1, I never hunted aircav, I always let them come to me, sitting with my Flail, or Loadstar friends...

So, no, I wouldnt, and I would know that they will defend the emplacement vigorously, from any angle... common sense.

[Warborn]

Different people enjoy different things.

I enjoy team killing constantly. Does that mean team killing is a playstyle that should be supported in the game? There are styles of play which are not in the best interest of the game and therefore should not be encouraged.

That maybe is a bit extreme. Bit extreme? Bit extreme. Instead, solo hotdropping with heavy assault from a reaver. How many people liked doing that in Planetside 1? Grab a reaver and a HA loadout, fly around, shoot some rockets, then drop on a tower and annihilate a bunch of guys with a jackhammer. I saw that happen a lot more than people using flails. Well, guess what, you can't do that anymore in Planetside 2. This is what I'm getting at. Just because some people liked it doesn't mean anything. It has to be more than that -- and flails ain't it. They have no gameplay niche and they don't promote good, exciting gameplay for players. So they get tossed in the dumpster, right next to Bambi.

[Shade Millith]

Furthermore... why wouldnt I cover my high value targets with local AA and CAP? Im not expecting the flanking, or behind approach? Easy to defend against also... CAP intercepts locally in any direction, AA is multidirectional... I always did this in PS1, I never hunted aircav, I always let them come to me, sitting with my Flail, or Loadstar friends...

So, no, I wouldnt, and I would know that they will defend the emplacement vigorously, from any angle... common sense.

And that's why I'm saying they need 1/4 the HPs that Flails did. Doesn't matter if there's AA if a Aircraft can put 3 rockets into it for a kill.

And if there's 5 odd AA units willing to sit outside of the fight to defend it, then it's taking 7 guys, (5 AA, 1 Artillery, 1 laser designator) to do this. At which point, just like stopping anything ELSE that involves multiple people, you'll need multiple people to stop the artillery. That's if you can't just dive in and kill the fragile thing.


I enjoy team killing constantly. Does that mean team killing is a playstyle that should be supported in the game? There are styles of play which are not in the best interest of the game and therefore should not be encouraged.

I know. Also should take out snipers. I mean sitting all the way out there, out of reach of most players. It's too difficult to grab a sniper rifle myself and pop them, or any other counters! Or those cloakers that are too hard to see?

This looking familiar?

[Shade Millith]

and flails ain't it. They have no gameplay niche and they don't promote good, exciting gameplay for players. So they get tossed in the dumpster, right next to Bambi.

I agree Flails aren't a good thing. That's a different thing from Artillery though.

Flair had a decent amount of armor on them, they could survive a few hits. Remove that so when one is found it's dead meat. About as armored as an ATV. It pops, you've got a 10 minute wait for a new one.

Flails had a fast ROF with a massive, massive range. This was a big problem, so change that so they shoot slow as hell with 1/2 the range. Then add a reload timer after a few shots (3-4 minutes).

Make them so they're a tactical strike weapon for a squad, something to call in when you need that tank that's hunkered down in a spot that you can't get at destroyed. Or a group of infantry that are entrenched. Something that's not a spamable weapon, but needs to be used carefully and with thought.

Make it USELESS to aim at a door. All that's going to do is get you killed. And it's useless at hitting moving things.

And before you say "But that's not fun to do". Yes, I will use a vehicle like that as Squad Fire-Support. I've done FAR FAR more boring things in games like EVE Online (You try spending 5 hours fueling towers once every week). If a squad wants the advantage of having Fire-Support, then someone needs to be willing to do it. There are plenty of people that are willing to do so.

[That one noob]

I'm in favour. Artillery is a force multiplier and a necessary part of modern combat. I am not in favour of Flails and I am only in favour of artillery that makes it worthwhile. Artillery should be lethal - if you get hit by artillery, or you're caught in its kill zone, and you are unprotected, you're dead.

Which, due to the imbalance I just presented, means it will need strict controls. Perhaps something like the way BF2 did it: not a tangible asset that players can pull at will.

Ah, there you are Firefly. It wouldn't be too much of a thread about the uses and implementations of field artillery without you here.

[CutterJohn]

There are plenty of people that are willing to do so.

That people are willing to do it does not mean its a good, fun, or necessary aspect of gameplay. It just means some people tolerate tedium better than others. There were plenty of people willing to sit back and guard a hack. There were plenty of people willing to sit on lodestar duty. There were plenty of people willing to go get ANTs for routine silo filling. This does not mean its fun, just that its necessary, and plenty of those people willing to do it won't exactly be thrilled with the idea.


If you want artillery, at least come up with a plan that doesn't involve a guy sitting in a vehicle waiting for his squad to give him a target so he can shoot at some reticle. If thats all the more involved it is, artillery may as well be an engineer deployable that just fires at a laze target automatically.

[Grognard]

And that's why I'm saying they need 1/4 the HPs that Flails did. Doesn't matter if there's AA if a Aircraft can put 3 rockets into it for a kill.

And if there's 5 odd AA units willing to sit outside of the fight to defend it, then it's taking 7 guys, (5 AA, 1 Artillery, 1 laser designator) to do this. At which point, just like stopping anything ELSE that involves multiple people, you'll need multiple people to stop the artillery. That's if you can't just dive in and kill the fragile thing.


Well... :) If you see it as such an easy prospect, you are welcome to it. These are my favorite kinds of pilots, I do not in any way want to discourage the effort, I play AA often.

[Shade Millith]

That people are willing to do it does not mean its a good, fun, or necessary aspect of gameplay. It just means some people tolerate tedium better than others. There were plenty of people willing to sit back and guard a hack. There were plenty of people willing to sit on lodestar duty. There were plenty of people willing to go get ANTs for routine silo filling. This does not mean its fun, just that its necessary, and plenty of those people willing to do it won't exactly be thrilled with the idea.

All things I've done, and was happy to do so. Youtube on a second screen and I'm set.


If you want artillery, at least come up with a plan that doesn't involve a guy sitting in a vehicle waiting for his squad to give him a target so he can shoot at some reticle. If thats all the more involved it is, artillery may as well be an engineer deployable that just fires at a laze target automatically.

The whole point of it, is that someone does need to go do it. If a squad wants the advantage to have on call Fire-Support, someone needs to go do it.

This is a game about teamwork. Let those who wish to USE teamwork, have the options. Let those who are willing to support their team by flying a loadstar into possition and sit there babysitting it do so. Let those willing to get those ANT's to refuel bases do so.

(Hell, ANT runs could be hilariously fun)

I think the biggest problem is that people are hearing "Artillery" and thinking Flail. The Flail was poorly designed. If it's properly designed as a squad based Fire-Support vehicle, it will be fine.

[Grognard]

I think the biggest problem is that people are hearing "Artillery" and thinking Flail. The Flail was poorly designed. If it's properly designed as a squad based Fire-Support vehicle, it will be fine.

Im actually pro-artillery, so this I can agree with 100%. Just as long as some lazy cannon-cocker cant sit parked behind the closest Sunderer, with one hand on a slippery red button, and the other thumbing through the pages of auraxis babes love big guns... while mindlessly lobbing shells to pad a kill count, safe and sound, enjoying all the AA and CAP (front, flank, and rear) meant for the Sunderer.

Ive said it quite a few times, if we are going to use true, remote, indirect fire weapon platforms, we need counter-battery fire. No one, and I mean no one, is going to convince me that Aircav will be reliably adequate enough to contain the threat of well placed, and protected, guns.

[Azren]

In the early days of PS we used the Sunderer as artillery, because it had huge amount of ammo and nice arching shells. I am expecting the same to happen in PS2. Flails won't be missed, they never were used startegically, only solo killwh*res enjoyed them.

On the other hand, I did like the look of 10+ incomming flail shots, maybe in PS2 we could have a commander ability that fires them from the main base? With a cooldown like OS of course.

[JHendy]

I cannot imagine someone being more entertained by watching grass grow as they depress their left mouse button every few seconds than by being a gunner in a liberator, flying over targets, and shooting them to bits with a big cannon. There is already a sort of "indirect combat" role. Adding in artillery just adds boring gameplay with lame deaths for the people on the other side of it.

Have you ever played 'Call of Duty'? It's right up your alley! Instant, in-your-face combat 100% of the time! Never gets boring either :rofl:

[acosmo]

Have you ever played 'Call of Duty'? It's right up your alley! Instant, in-your-face combat 100% of the time! Never gets boring either :rofl:

THANK YOU. Someone needed to give warborn a breather.

[JHendy]

That people are willing to do it does not mean its a good, fun, or necessary aspect of gameplay. It just means some people tolerate tedium better than others. There were plenty of people willing to sit back and guard a hack. There were plenty of people willing to sit on lodestar duty. There were plenty of people willing to go get ANTs for routine silo filling. This does not mean its fun, just that its necessary, and plenty of those people willing to do it won't exactly be thrilled with the idea.


If you want artillery, at least come up with a plan that doesn't involve a guy sitting in a vehicle waiting for his squad to give him a target so he can shoot at some reticle. If thats all the more involved it is, artillery may as well be an engineer deployable that just fires at a laze target automatically.

I'm sorry but you're simply not correct.

There are people who thoroughly enjoy playing supportive, indirect roles such as the ones you mentioned.

We're the same guys who dedicate ourselves to piloting the transport choppers in Battlefield 2, and yes, we do exist :)

[Gortha]

I am in COMPLETE disagreement here.

To me, there is nothing more satisfying than perfectly calculating your shot, hearing the loud boom of your cannon and then a few seconds later, seeing that you got a kill.

It's absolutely lovely.

Hehe, you ll like it as long as your lovely Kill Cam feature is in Game and your artillery victim jumps in his Reaver and vaporizes your artillery with its rockets in seconds...:lol:

@On Topic

Didn´t M. Higby say that the MBT become something like a siegemode,
when your outfit is specialized MBT-Outfit?

[Tool]

Hehe, you ll like it as long as your lovely Kill Cam feature is in Game and your artillery victim jumps in his Reaver and vaporizes your artillery with its rockets in seconds...:lol:

@On Topic

Didn´t M. Higby say that the MBT become something like a siegemode,
when your outfit is specialized MBT-Outfit?

Do you recall where you saw that bit from Higby? He may have meant something along the lines of enchrenching the tanks, boosting armor or firing range or something.

[DayOne]

Didn´t M. Higby say that the MBT become something like a siegemode,
when your outfit is specialized MBT-Outfit?

Yes, but it seems pointless for tanks to be artillery weapons, tank guys want action, artillery guys want strategy. Having to work your way up the MBT ladder just so you can play as a artillery guy seems a bit pointless.

[Bags]

Higby used it as an example of customization, and said siege mode was just an example and not in the game.

[Gortha]

Ohh okay. But it reminds me of the Starcraft II Tanks which have a Siege-Mode
and transform from pure tanks into Artillery.

Highby said in gernal they wanted to reduce the amount of different vehicles.
Giving MBTs the Option (via Cert or Outfit Specialisation) to transform into a Siegeweapon/Artillery would serve this approach.

Reg
Gortha

[VioletZero]

Hehe, you ll like it as long as your lovely Kill Cam feature is in Game and your artillery victim jumps in his Reaver and vaporizes your artillery with its rockets in seconds...:lol:

Actually, that's a fantastic balancing point.

That would keep me on my toes and force me to move around in between shots(Because if they're balanced right, there's no reason not to).

I would just hate it if the person I am targetting could kill me before I fire.(Unless he is artillery of course.)

[Effective]

Firmly against. Artillery is and always will be a terrible terrible idea. At least in the sense of how flails operated.

[Sledgecrushr]

Hey guys first time poster long time reader of these great forums. How do you all think about tow behind artillery pieces. You would have to hook it up to a buggy to move it. Would be immobile after it is set up and not tied to a vehicle. Anyways just a thought.

[Graywolves]

In a game of this scale it is important to provide many playstyles for different players. Have elements that can change battles up.

I don't care how big the world is or how different the terrain will be. People who do nothing but infantry combat will get bored of doing the same thing against the same enemies.

Artillery is another playstyle that players will enjoy when they want to try something different or as their primary goal. In turn this also provides those who focus on one thing with a different thing to do. When Artillery is placed on a battlefield effectively it is vital to either destroy it or defend it.

Providing a challenge for everyone involved.

[Bags]

Artillery is a terrible mechanic. It's not fun for the guy dishing it out (at least I seriously hope it isn't), and it's not fun for the receiving end.

Plus, the flail had to have one of the highest friendly-to-enemy kill ratios.

[ShazMyBot]

The reality is there's no place for long range artillery in a game like PS2. The Oribital Strike already fills that role. If there's a desire to shell a base from a distance, use an MBT or a Liberator.

[Jaxbrain]

Only suggestion would be to make them weaker so a single air vehicle could wipe one out casually. They must have zero mobility while deployed.

Those two things considered, I think they'd be totally RAD.

[Bags]

That doesn't make them any more fun to fight against.

Wait, who am I kidding, you don't fight against them. YOu die to them.

[Tool]

That doesn't make them any more fun to fight against.

Wait, who am I kidding, you don't fight against them. YOu die to them.

To be fair I could probably count on both hands the amount of times I've been killed by a flail.

Artillery does not have to be in the league that the flail was. Most weapon platforms can be used for indirect fire. Dedicated artillery systems can do it more accurately and effectively.

Also I just wanted to point out The amount of personal opinions attempting to speak for the masses on what is considered fun gameplay. Just stop it, that's elementary level shit.

[Graywolves]

To be fair I could probably count on both hands the amount of times I've been killed by a flail.

Artillery does not have to be in the league that the flail was. Most weapon platforms can be used for indirect fire. Dedicated artillery systems can do it more accurately and effectively.

Also I just wanted to point out The amount of personal opinions attempting to speak for the masses on what is considered fun gameplay. Just stop it, that's elementary level shit.

I've died from a flail 5 times.

Not getting hit by the big purple 5mph projectile wasn't hard if you knew it was in the area.

[Espion]

Flails were hands down the worst addition to PS1 after BFRs, almost on par imo. Nothing even remotely resembling them or artillery should ever come anywhere near PS2.

[mefy]

'artillery' has been a huge part of warfare for thousands of years and imo adds much more depth and complexity to the game. The flail is a poor example of how artillery should be implemented in a game.

Quake wars was on the right track with artillery interceptor turrets and such. I think PS2 would be much better with artillery, but it must be done right this time. Oh wells, looks like the devs are going for a pretty vanilla feeling at launch though, esp. since most vehicles won't make it into launch. PS2's first expansion - Artillery Combat! lawl.

[Shotokanguy]

I have a hard time believing there isn't a use for something similar to the Flail, and that there isn't a way to make it fun and fair.

Hell, I didn't really have a problem with the Flail anyway. I didn't die THAT often from it, and the whole "dying to something you can't fight back at" is going to happen anyway. The Flail wasn't the only thing that basically gave you no chance.

[mefy]

most, if not all the people who complain about flails killing them all the time are probably just the lazy grunts who refused to recall, grab an air vehicle or go jack their flail in a cloak suit or... ANYTHING.

Flails weren't hard to disrupt at all. The timers were borked, but once deployed they were basically sitting ducks. Artillery in PS2 needs much less armor, longer cooldown timers, min. 2 people to operate, and more logistics integrated with artillery so that it actually becomes teamwork oriented, not killwhore oriented.

[ringring]

There are some pretty unconvincing arguments as to why the flail shouldn't return.
1. It's boring so it shouldn't be in. Well some people find it interesting.
2. It's annoying when you get killed by one. Well, being sniped is annoying. Besides, this is 100% pvp, some level of frustration comes with the terrirory. Flails weren't that dangerous anyway, just pay attention to the map.

My opinion is that there should be some kind of indirect fire, artilliery type weapon but it should be team based, ie crew served and fairly high up in the armour skill tree.

[Espion]

My opinion is that there should be some kind of indirect fire, artilliery type weapon but it should be team based, ie crew served and fairly high up in the armour skill tree.

Require even more people to get kills without actually fighting? Yeah that'll improve the combat for sure!

[ringring]

Require even more people to get kills without actually fighting? Yeah that'll improve the combat for sure!
It's horses for courses.

I can't see me using it often, afterall in nearly 8 years I think I've only used the flail on 2 occasions, but not everyone wants to play the game in the same style as me or (it sounds like) you.

I think there'll be enough grunt/armour/aircav stuff going on to satisfy.
:cool:

[captainbaka]

Liberators will fulfill every function a flail might otherwise and will be approximately thirteen million times more enjoyable to use to that end.

Im not really for or against artillery,if it gets added later on I will play it if not im not going to cry about it. BUT you keep on saying that there or more fun ways to do things. You might get more fun out of flying a lib but there definetly would be people that feel exactly the opposite.

[ShowNoMercy]

I think i mentioned this several months ago. Take the flail model, make it fire a 5 round burst that has some spread. Additionally, require the flail to undeploy in order to reload. The objective is two fold, reduce the spamability by making it unable to hit the same spot, as well as making the spotter more effective. The battle front is always changing so a 5 rnd burst would allow for a greater area of effect, and in the same respect spamming would be replaced by strategy.

[SKYeXile]

This argument is getting pretty old, im gonna have to go AFK for an hour now with mouse 1 taped down, see you in 50 kills.

[Shade Millith]

Firmly against. Artillery is and always will be a terrible terrible idea. At least in the sense of how flails operated.

Plus, the flail had to have one of the highest friendly-to-enemy kill ratios.

Wait, who am I kidding, you don't fight against them. YOu die to them.

Flails were hands down the worst addition to PS1 after BFRs, almost on par imo.

This argument is getting pretty old, im gonna have to go AFK for an hour now with mouse 1 taped down, see you in 50 kills.

As I mentioned before. People are equating the word ARTILLERY, with FLAIL.

The FLAIL in it's implementation was poorly done. It was a spammable weapon that the majority of time was used to aim at a doorway, and continue firing. It was used to spam bases into submission.

A NEW ARTILLERY should be a unspammable (1 round every 30 seconds, 4 rounds before 3-4 minute reload), easy as hell to destroy (Think ATV armor with movement of a MBT when undeployed), and requires a laser designator to operate.

This will turn it into a weapon that has to be used carefully on strategic targets, and be completely USELESS at spamming a base into submission. And once it fires, it has to move or be destroyed by anything that finds it.

[Graywolves]

If you don't want artillery because you don't want to die, you shouldn't be playing a game where you're likely to die every 45 seconds.

[Warborn]

I agree Flails aren't a good thing. That's a different thing from Artillery though.

No, it isn't.

I hope the benefit Planetside 1 players get isn't automatic entry to the Planetside 2 beta because holy shit this thread.

[Shade Millith]

No, it isn't.

I hope the benefit Planetside 1 players get isn't automatic entry to the Planetside 2 beta because holy shit this thread.

Shock horror, other people might think differently than you.

Amazing, I know.

[Death2All]

OP should add a pole to this thread so we can really see what people think.

All I'm getting out this thread is back forth arguments about why Artillery is fun or not. Put it to a vote!

[Warborn]

Shock horror, other people might think differently than you.

Amazing, I know.

No, it's amazing the kinds of things people think are good ideas. I am beginning to understand how the PS2 devs found themselves getting a ton of negative feedback regarding stuff like iron sights.

[Shade Millith]

No, it's amazing the kinds of things people think are good ideas. I am beginning to understand how the PS2 devs found themselves getting a ton of negative feedback regarding stuff like iron sights.

Because artillery is a part of combined arms warfare?

Because there's a pretty easy way to turn it into a carefully used weapon, to be used only when needed by a squad? Rather than the base spamming thing we had in PS1?

Sounds like a good idea to me.

[Death2All]

Because artillery is a part of combined arms warfare?

Because there's a pretty easy way to turn it into a carefully used weapon, to be used only when needed by a squad? Rather than the base spamming thing we had in PS1?

Sounds like a good idea to me.

The counter argument to that is that people simply don't like being killed by indirect fire weapons.

Even if they balanced it out, made it take an insane amount of skill and it wasn't spammable at all, people still wouldn't enjoy dieing to it. People don't like to get killed by stuff they can't fight back against.

That's all this thread is. People don't want artillery because it's stale gameplay that's not fun for the majority of the people. The other people in the thread keep arguing the it's realistic or part of real warfare. Realism isn't any fun, otherwise we'd all be enlisted right now and not arguing like giant nerds on forums about a video game.

[Graywolves]

The counter argument to that is that people simply don't like being killed by indirect fire weapons.

Even if they balanced it out, made it take an insane amount of skill and it wasn't spammable at all, people still wouldn't enjoy dieing to it. People don't like to get killed by stuff they can't fight back against.

That's all this thread is. People don't want artillery because it's stale gameplay that's not fun for the majority of the people. The other people in the thread keep arguing the it's realistic or part of real warfare. Realism isn't any fun, otherwise we'd all be enlisted right now and not arguing like giant nerds on forums about a video game.

Because you have more fun getting run over by a vanguard.

[Shade Millith]

The counter argument to that is that people simply don't like being killed by indirect fire weapons.

People also don't like getting 1HKO'd by snipers either, or blasted by a tank when infantry, or mowed down by a vehicle.

Even if they balanced it out, made it take an insane amount of skill and it wasn't spammable at all, people still wouldn't enjoy dieing to it. People don't like to get killed by stuff they can't fight back against.

"Get Aircraft, follow the rainbow to a pot of free XP"

They're easy to fight back against (Really really easy in my idea of what they should be), if people could be bothered to do it.

The problem isn't that people can't fight back. They just simply refuse to do so out of laziness.

And honestly, they weren't that bad. I've died maybe 5-6 time to a flail in the 6-12 months I played PS1. I don't know how people kept lemming themselves into it.

That's all this thread is. People don't want artillery because it's stale gameplay that's not fun for the majority of the people. The other people in the thread keep arguing the it's realistic or part of real warfare. Realism isn't any fun, otherwise we'd all be enlisted right now and not arguing like giant nerds on forums about a video game.

If I wanted realism, I'd be asking for ICBM's with pinpoint accuracy. Or missiles that one hit kill on tanks.

A (very gimped) artillery unit isn't asking for realism.


There are people who don't want it, and people who do. I'm one that does want it, so I'm going to argue for it. Problem is, I don't think the two groups are going to come to an accord.

[Death2All]

Because you have more fun getting run over by a vanguard.

At least with the Vangaurd I have a chance to jammer it or shoot back against it. And if I got run over then I probably wasn't paying attention and it was my fault.

With Artillery I'll have no chance to fight back or dodge until it's too late and then I'm dead. It's just not compelling gameplay.

[acosmo]

mbt's in ps2 can already strike bases at distances where the idiots in this thread would not be able to fight back from. same with gunships.

this thread is moot

[Hmr85]

I posted this in the previous artillery thread. But I'll post it here again.

IMO, give the Infantry some sort of a mortar. You could put it way back in the skill tree so it takes some time to get to it. You could even specialize it for each faction. Such as VS shooting some sort of Energy based mortar or w/e.

Give it a bit of a punch when it hits. Not enough to kill you but just enough to knock you below 50% hp. Also give it a descent size AOE. With max damage in the middle to almost nothing on the outskirts.

Give it descent range. I should be able to sit up on top of a hill a few km away and shell the base. Limit the ammo to 20 rounds or something.

Now you have a form of Artillery and its not a vehicle and you can kill the player because he is with range of the battle. It will give snipers something to look for.

[acosmo]

I posted this in the previous artillery thread. But I'll post it here again.

IMO, give the Infantry some sort of a mortar. You could put it way back in the skill tree so it takes some time to get to it. You could even specialize it for each faction. Such as VS shooting some sort of Energy based mortar or w/e.

Give it a bit of a punch when it hits. Not enough to kill you but just enough to knock you below 50% hp. Also give it a descent size AOE. With max damage in the middle to almost nothing on the outskirts.

Give it descent range. I should be able to sit up on top of a hill a few km away and shell the base. Limit the ammo to 20 rounds or something.

Now you have a form of Artillery and its not a vehicle and you can kill the player because he is with range of the battle. It will give snipers something to look for.
an effect on target similar to MORTARS HIT US CONVOY IN AFGHANISTAN - YouTube is something i would approve of for player deployed mortars

[Graywolves]

At least with the Vangaurd I have a chance to jammer it or shoot back against it. And if I got run over then I probably wasn't paying attention and it was my fault.

With Artillery I'll have no chance to fight back or dodge until it's too late and then I'm dead. It's just not compelling gameplay.

Assuming you played PS1, you never noticed the giant 5mph shiny blue projectile?

It's very easy to avoid artillery.

[Biohazard]

WALL OF TEXT!

The flail was not fun/broken because:
1)You could blind fire/ bombard an area for long periods of time, denying the area to both friend and foe.
2)When a base was under siege, it was not fun to go outside and doge slow motion plasma shells.
3)For being an indirect combat vehicle, it had way too much armor.

There are ways to have a vehicle serve as artillery, without being a lone wolf area denial system. We know that the devs want vehicles to be customizable; imagine a tank destroyer variant of the MBT, having a big heavy gun with little to no splash, but high damage.

Now, squad A is defending a base from a vanu onslaught, this squad's Vanguards are modified to be a heavy TD and are crushing the incoming Magriders. Squad B is assaulting a TR base, the TR are heavily defended with tanks dug into position. The squad leader of squad B submits a fire mission over the MISSION SYSTEM and lases the target, squad A receives the mission and acquires a baring to the target. Squad A's Vanguards rotate to face the direction of the target and fire into the air. The shells are NOT slow moving high arcing balls of death; rather, they are still the TD shells and have a very FLAT trajectory. As they are flying over the TR base, they (the shells) lock-on to a laser form squad B and duck down, falling onto the target at a 90 degree angle Excalibur style and destroy the TR prowler. The fire mission is now over, if squad A keeps firing the shells will not lock onto anything and will harmlessly fly over the TR base. Now squad A return to killing off Magriders while they wait for another fire mission.

This system would:
1)Take advantage of the mission system to encourage teamwork
2)Disallow blind base raping
3)Allow for long range fire support from such squads who wish to do so without worrying about team killing.

Just a suggestion, there are ways to have artillery/fire support require a spotter without having to disarm them without a spotter.

Just for reference Excalibur = Ultimate Weapons- M109 Paladin/Excalibur - YouTube

TLDR: Rather than having a big slow arcing shell, have a fast shell with a flat trajectory that will lock onto a laser and arc down onto it. Without the laser, the shell will not hit anything that the gunner cannot see.

[Death2All]

Assuming you played PS1, you never noticed the giant 5mph shiny blue projectile?

It's very easy to avoid artillery.

Yes, it's easy to avoid. Certainly faster than 5MPH, but it's still easy to avoid. That said, the constant spamability, ease of use, infinite range and 1 hit kill potential it possessed made it a frustrating game mechanic.


Like I said, even if they balanced it out, slowed the shell travel speed significantly, made it require multiple people to use and limited how much it could be used it still would not be a fun mechanic for the majority of people.

[Tool]

Yes, it's easy to avoid. Certainly faster than 5MPH, but it's still easy to avoid. That said, the constant spamability, ease of use, infinite range and 1 hit kill potential it possessed made it a frustrating game mechanic.


Like I said, even if they balanced it out, slowed the shell travel speed significantly, made it require multiple people to use and limited how much it could be used it still would not be a fun mechanic for the majority of people.

Forgive me but statements like these are giving me a bout of confusion. I see many complaints that the direction ps2 appears to be taking is catering to the majority. Countless references to the cod and battlefield crowd.

Yet using "what the majority wants" is used as a defensive response against artillery. You see the conflict here I hope?

Different people enjoy different forms of gameplay. Your individual opinion does not represent the "majority" Im afAraid. Providing different forms of gameplay will generally attract more players. Something such as artillery will more than likely bring in the more tacticaly minded or the support types less keen on twitch gameplay.

Also a note on being killed by stupid things; it shouldn't even need to be said but the mossie easily took that title and in the hands of skilled pilots farmed more than flails could ever hope to match.

[Graywolves]

Forgive me but statements like these are giving me a bout of confusion. I see many complaints that the direction ps2 appears to be taking is catering to the majority. Countless references to the cod and battlefield crowd.

Yet using "what the majority wants" is used as a defensive response against artillery. You see the conflict here I hope?

Different people enjoy different forms of gameplay. Your individual opinion does not represent the "majority" Im afAraid. Providing different forms of gameplay will generally attract more players. Something such as artillery will more than likely bring in the more tacticaly minded or the support types less keen on twitch gameplay.

Also a note on being killed by stupid things; it shouldn't even need to be said but the mossie easily took that title and in the hands of skilled pilots farmed more than flails could ever hope to match.

This, mostly the different play styles.

I think a game of this scale should be having as many play styles as possible. When I hear things like "x was removed/should be removed because it isn't fun" bothers me because in PS1 there were people that DID find it enjoyable. If you get thousands of players together there's bound to be 1 guy that wants to do something useless like run around with helmet camera and pretend he's a reporter on frontlines...and that really sounds fun just being able to do what you want. It's not like it's a lobby small game where you get a few people doing nothing and it sucks.

The world is looking so much more massive than PS1 that artillery in PS2 would either have to be scaled up or more accurate and w.e the case was there is still so much more options to flank around and take it out.

[JHendy]

No, it's amazing the kinds of things people think are good ideas. I am beginning to understand how the PS2 devs found themselves getting a ton of negative feedback regarding stuff like iron sights.

This coming from someone who seems to be dead-set against anyone expressing any ideas that aren't related to a run + gun instant action.

You do not have the sole rights to decide what is or isn't a good idea. Thank god. Planetside 2 would be a horribly unambitious game if you did.

[CutterJohn]

A NEW ARTILLERY should be a unspammable (1 round every 30 seconds, 4 rounds before 3-4 minute reload), easy as hell to destroy (Think ATV armor with movement of a MBT when undeployed), and requires a laser designator to operate.

This will turn it into a weapon that has to be used carefully on strategic targets, and be completely USELESS at spamming a base into submission. And once it fires, it has to move or be destroyed by anything that finds it.

So its a vehicle where drivers role is to sit there waiting for someone else to aim it for them, whereupon they can pull the trigger. Nothing else. And they get to do this once every 30s, then have a several minute long reload process.

I think you might have just posited the least exciting and engaging playstyle ever.

[VioletZero]

So its a vehicle where drivers role is to sit there waiting for someone else to aim it for them, whereupon they can pull the trigger. Nothing else. And they get to do this once every 30s, then have a several minute long reload process.

I think you might have just posited the least exciting and engaging playstyle ever.

That's just your opinion. :rolleyes:

[Shade Millith]

So its a vehicle where drivers role is to sit there waiting for someone else to aim it for them, whereupon they can pull the trigger. Nothing else. And they get to do this once every 30s, then have a several minute long reload process.

I think you might have just posited the least exciting and engaging playstyle ever.

Have you ever heard of a game called EVE Online? Out in the lawless parts of the game, where the players control massive areas of space, and rule it with an iron fist.

These places need to be defended, lest another entity decides to take it by force. These fights can be MASSIVE. Thousands of people in a single 4+ hour battle for a single fraction of space.

Getting together that number of people can take hours. Form ups can last for 2-3 hours before the fight is even likely to start to get numbers. And those 800-1000 people will wait there for several hours doing nothing, for a fight that may never happen, just to make sure that the enemy doesn't take a single step into their territory.

Sometimes the enemy will show. 2 hour formup/wait followed by a 1-2+ hour fight.
Sometimes they don't show up. 2 hour formup/wait followed by going back home.
If something needs to be repaired. 2 hour formup/wait, followed by 2 hours of repairing something.

Those thousands are willing to do this to help their team.


Just because YOU wouldn't help your team in such a way, doesn't mean that others aren't willing to do so. I'm willing to do what is needed to help my team. I did so in PS1. I flew a loadstar into a halfway point as a mobile repair base, and baby sat it for hours. I drove ANT's to replenish bases.

I sat in a flail as squad fire-support (Never used the thing to spam bases with). I've done it before to give my mates that massive advantage of on-call firepower. And I'll do it again.

[CutterJohn]

Have you ever heard of a game called EVE Online?

Yep. Fun politics, horrible gameplay. Played for a few years.

Getting together that number of people can take hours. Form ups can last for 2-3 hours before the fight is even likely to start to get numbers. And those 800-1000 people will wait there for several hours doing nothing, for a fight that may never happen, just to make sure that the enemy doesn't take a single step into their territory.

Case in point.


Just because YOU wouldn't help your team in such a way, doesn't mean that others aren't willing to do so. I'm willing to do what is needed to help my team. I did so in PS1. I flew a loadstar into a halfway point as a mobile repair base, and baby sat it for hours. I drove ANT's to replenish bases.

I sat in a flail as squad fire-support (Never used the thing to spam bases with). I've done it before to give my mates that massive advantage of on-call firepower. And I'll do it again.

As have I. And I pulled Lode duty. And did ant runs. And guarded hacks. I did these things because they were necessary. I did not do these things because they were fun. The fact that people are willing to do the important but boring stuff does not justify including the boring stuff.

If you made a mechanic where someone had to sit in a cc and push a button every 30 seconds or the base would be lost, someone would voluntarily sit in the cc and push the button every 30 seconds. The fact that someone is willing to do this to help the team does not mean its good gameplay.

[Shade Millith]

If you made a mechanic where someone had to sit in a cc and push a button every 30 seconds or the base would be lost, someone would voluntarily sit in the cc and push the button every 30 seconds. The fact that someone is willing to do this to help the team does not mean its good gameplay.

Do you NEED to have someone on constant call for artillery support or you lose? No.
Thus your comparison doesn't work.

Point is in the EVE argument, is that these people are willing to do it. It's COMPLETELY optional for these people. If they don't like it, there's plenty more for them to do. But they will.

The problem with your argument is that YOU think that others won't enjoy doing it. There are those who will enjoy doing it. Therefor you are incorrect. If it's a COMPLETELY OPTIONAL thing, that people will enjoy doing, or at the least be willing to do for that advantage, then why not put it in?

[CutterJohn]

Do you NEED to have someone on constant call for artillery support or you lose? No.
Thus your comparison doesn't work.

It wasn't a comparison, it was an example of something that virtually every one can agree is horrible gameplay, that people would still do. But fine. Ignore the 'to lose the base' and replace it with 'push the button to give a 10% damage bonus. Now its not mandatory. People will still do it(and will scream when someone doesn't do it). People want advantages, and they'll suffer through a lot to get them. People are weird.

The problem with your argument is that YOU think that others won't enjoy doing it. There are those who will enjoy doing it. Therefor you are incorrect.

That there are people who would do it I have no doubt. Enjoy it? I find it incredibly difficult to believe anyone would seriously enjoy operating the vehicle you described. Your idea takes every single shred of interaction out of the process. The player exists to sit in the vehicle and very infrequently push a button when directed to by a teammate, with absolutely nothing else to do other than push that button.

Someone mentioned they would be happy to do it because they'd open up youtube on the other monitor. When the game is so boring it requires a distraction you have a serious issue.

If it's a COMPLETELY OPTIONAL thing, that people will enjoy doing, or at the least be willing to do for that advantage, then why not put it in?

If it exists at all in the game, people will feel pressured to perform the role if nobody is around to do it and it is at all effective. Sure, it could be rather ineffective like the flail, but then whats the point of even including it?

[Shade Millith]

If it exists at all in the game, people will feel pressured to perform the role if nobody is around to do it and it is at all effective. Sure, it could be rather ineffective like the flail, but then whats the point of even including it?

Because people will use it. Isn't that the whole point of putting it in game? And if you SERIOUSLY get pressured into doing something you don't want to do, in a bloody video game, then you need to grow a spine.

Why do you seem to care what others might want to do with their time? If you don't like to do it, then don't. Let those who do, do.

I for one, when feeling a bit lazy, but still want to be useful, will do it very happily. Put a Youtube video on or read a book and wait for the fire request.

And I'm not the only one.

[Princess Frosty]

They ought to require more work to operate, it shouldn't be a 1 man vehicle, ideally requring at least 2 men to operate, I think doing ammo runs is probably the best idea, where 1 person can keep firing constantly only if other people are doing constant ammo runs from a vehicle terminal or something like that.

They also need some kind of counter, maybe commanders can "spot" the artillery shell mid flight (like spotting an enemy in BF3) and then that marks the approximate hit location with a marker either on the mini map or in actually visible in the game world which every team player can see, so they know to avoid that area. That way alert commanders can warn their troops there's incoming fire and to take cover.

[CutterJohn]

Because people will use it. Isn't that the whole point of putting it in game? And if you SERIOUSLY get pressured into doing something you don't want to do, in a bloody video game, then you need to grow a spine.

Feeling pressured and letting yourself be pressured are two different things. If the mechanic is effective and important, yes, you can often find yourself doing it not because you want to, but because nobody else is bothering too. People didn't always want to fill the silos, guard the hack, sit in a lodestar, etc. They did it because it was necessary and important for the team.


Oh well. Here's hoping they stick with the plan. Its fortunate I like or don't care about most of the changes they are making. :D

[Sirisian]

Impressive. It's like you guys cloned the other artillery thread (http://www.planetside-universe.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37627) which had a poll. Someone already linked the flail thread (http://www.planetside-universe.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38570).

Also this concept of having someone at the artillery piece is pointless and boring gameplay. There was already a suggested solution for artillery a while back that no one had any problems with (http://www.planetside-universe.com/forums/showthread.php?p=586245) yet people keep rehashing broken ideas of bringing back the Flail point and click gameplay.

[Shade Millith]

Also this concept of having someone at the artillery piece is pointless and boring gameplay. There was already a suggested solution for artillery a while back that no one had any problems with (http://www.planetside-universe.com/forums/showthread.php?p=586245) yet people keep rehashing broken ideas of bringing back the Flail point and click gameplay.

Nope, don't like it. Only automated things should be base turrets and CE turrets (And those are little more than deterrents). Something as effective as artillery should require someone actually take the time and effort to damn well do it themselves.

Seriously, if your biggest argument against artillery is 'Oh it's boring' then why are you in here? If you think it's boring, then DON'T DO IT. Don't get in one, ignore the possibility of them existing!

It's like me coming in and saying "Aircraft are boring! They should be automated so we can spend more time fighting with infantry! Just have a laser designator that directs their missiles."
Then you telling me "Well if you think aircraft are boring, then don't use them"

[CutterJohn]

Seriously, if your biggest argument against artillery is 'Oh it's boring' then why are you in here? If you think it's boring, then DON'T DO IT. Don't get in one, ignore the possibility of them existing!

Heh. You misunderstand. I haven't been arguing against artillery. I've been arguing against your mind numbingly boring/tedious ideas about how it should be implemented.

Not that I don't have arguments against artillery, they are just entirely separate.

It's like me coming in and saying "Aircraft are boring! They should be automated so we can spend more time fighting with infantry! Just have a laser designator that directs their missiles."
Then you telling me "Well if you think aircraft are boring, then don't use them"


If that aircraft only operated while being parked, while you had to remain inside, immobile, with nothing else to occupy your time, and could only shoot once every 30s, and then only at a target someone else aimed at, yes, I would agree with you that it was a boring aircraft, and including it in the game would be a complete waste of time.

[LongBow]

Artilery as a role will not make it into live however I gurentee that no matter how impractical if there is bullet drop players will find a way to use the MBT's as artillery.

Is there any justification in adding artilery for the 1st percentile of players? No... plenty of other things take the same development time to implement and affect way more people!

Can artilery be ballanced? sure just make the shell slow and vulnrable to AA!

[stordito]

guys sorry to say but you can't balance everything.
In real war scenario there are always advantages and disadvantages between factions.
In games you don't want a faction to be too strong, so you balance their equipment.
but balancing everything to be 1-1 in a even fight is wrong on so many levels.
Small differences and unbalances are the key to make the game complex and diverse.
when weapons, training, terrain are different between the 2 fighting factions you have to introduce a strategy. wich could be either be counter attack (force) or adapt (clever solution)
Are they strong in close combact? bring them in open field.

Artillery is no different topic. artillery should be "unbalanced" just that small amout to make the game more complex,diverse, but still having drawbacks that offer the opponent a viable strategy to counter-attack or adapt.
balancing everything like being able to kill a sniper 300 meters away with a 9mm gun is plain stupid and spoil the game in the long run.

[Shade Millith]

Heh. You misunderstand. I haven't been arguing against artillery. I've been arguing against your mind numbingly boring/tedious ideas about how it should be implemented.

Boring and tedious to some, interesting tactical game play to others.

Again, you think it's boring, then don't do it. Those that want to, will.

Your common sense seems to be lacking here.

[Espion]

In real war scenario there are always advantages and disadvantages between factions.

I guess that's why we play video games. You know, because they're not real life...

[CutterJohn]

Boring and tedious to some, interesting tactical game play to others.

Again, you think it's boring, then don't do it. Those that want to, will.

Your common sense seems to be lacking here.

If there were going to be artillery(which thankfully there won't be), I would advocate it existing in a form I find engaging and interesting. Thats not a lack of common sense. Its plain old self interest. Like you are demonstrating by saying there should be artillery even though many don't want to be subjected to artillery strikes.

Why would I want them to include a playstyle that I find boring and monotonous?

[Shade Millith]

If there were going to be artillery(which thankfully there won't be), I would advocate it existing in a form I find engaging and interesting. Thats not a lack of common sense. Its plain old self interest. Like you are demonstrating by saying there should be artillery even though many don't want to be subjected to artillery strikes.

"I don't want to be subjected to tanks."
"I don't want to be subjected to aircraft."
"I don't want to be subjected to snipers."
"I don't want to be subjected to cloakers"

Someone already posted an interesting link, a thread just like this one with a poll on it. Posted here (http://www.planetside-universe.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37627), it seems to show 66 in favor of artillery, and 34 against.

And I don't mind if it's more interesting. But it still needs to be a manned operation. Not automatic.

Why would I want them to include a playstyle that I find boring and monotonous?

Again, you think it's boring, then don't do it. Those that want to, will.

[stordito]

I guess that's why we play video games. You know, because they're not real life...
you miss the point. duuh-

[CutterJohn]

Again, you think it's boring, then don't do it. Those that want to, will.

This would be valid statement, except for the fact that there is no choice to be made. Theres nothing I don't have to do, because there is no artillery.

Such being the case, we are not arguing about whether or not I should do something I find boring. We are arguing about how something should be implemented in the first place. Oh well. Enough of this. I remain thankful that if there is arty, it won't be for a while. :D

[Hmr85]

I posted this earlier in the thread gonna post it again.

IMO, give the Infantry some sort of a mortar. You could put it way back in the skill tree so it takes some time to get to it. You could even specialize it for each faction. Such as VS shooting some sort of Energy based mortar or w/e.

Give it a bit of a punch when it hits. Not enough to kill you but just enough to knock you below 50% hp. That number could be played with. Also give it a descent size AOE. With max damage in the middle to almost nothing on the outskirts.

Give it descent range. I should be able to sit up on top of a hill just a little ways away and shell the base. Limit the ammo to 20 rounds or something.

Now you have a form of Artillery and its not a vehicle that can sit back in another facility and fire ludicrous distances. Instead you can kill the player because he is within range of the battle. It will give snipers something extra to look for.

[Grognard]

If there were going to be artillery(which thankfully there won't be), I would advocate it existing in a form I find engaging and interesting. Thats not a lack of common sense. Its plain old self interest. Like you are demonstrating by saying there should be artillery even though many don't want to be subjected to artillery strikes.

Why would I want them to include a playstyle that I find boring and monotonous?

The thing that sucks for me, is that I tend to agree with a lot, not all, but a lot of what both of you are trying, and ussually succeeding, in saying. So... would any of these be a form of "artilleryesque" manifestations that you two could get behind, as a compromise, that would address concerns from both sides? If not thats fine, but I'd be curious as to why, if you have time.

I had thought that these would be good tactical artillery-type weapons, that would fit well into a lot of scenarios, and not be so remote as to be safe from counters;

1. Commander tree artillery/MLRS-type strike, high in cert tree, long cool down.
2. Small caliber short range mortar deployable, can fire smoke, fascam, and light caliber HE.
3. AT gun, requires a limber vehicle, strong AV only, limited firing arc, requires entire gun to be swung left/right to change field of fire. Not true artillery, unless it can fire HE too, which I think might be ok given its severe mobility, and fire arc issues.

Even if you dont like them, thanks anyway :D

[Sirisian]

Something as effective as artillery should require someone actually take the time and effort to damn well do it themselves.
I agree 100%. That's why in the post if you read it I described that people would setup the vehicle then manually mark targets with a laser device thus doing all the work.
Seriously, if your biggest argument against artillery is 'Oh it's boring' then why are you in here? If you think it's boring, then DON'T DO IT. Don't get in one, ignore the possibility of them existing!
The goal is to remove anything dull from the gameplay design so that it can be fun for everyone. You seem to be focused on making it a bearable chore for some. That is unacceptable. Forcing someone to sit next to an artillery piece for any reason other than defense adds nothing to the gameplay.

[VioletZero]

If that aircraft only operated while being parked, while you had to remain inside, immobile, with nothing else to occupy your time, and could only shoot once every 30s, and then only at a target someone else aimed at, yes, I would agree with you that it was a boring aircraft, and including it in the game would be a complete waste of time.

Like I said before, that's just your opinion.

Just because you don't find it engaging doesn't mean others won't.

I personally find the idea of figuring out the most tactically advantageous spot on the map and doing pen and paper work to figure out where to aim my gun to be a lot of fun.

[CutterJohn]

The thing that sucks for me, is that I tend to agree with a lot, not all, but a lot of what both of you are trying, and ussually succeeding, in saying. So... would any of these be a form of "artilleryesque" manifestations that you two could get behind, as a compromise, that would address concerns from both sides? If not thats fine, but I'd be curious as to why, if you have time.

I had thought that these would be good tactical artillery-type weapons, that would fit well into a lot of scenarios, and not be so remote as to be safe from counters;

1. Commander tree artillery/MLRS-type strike, high in cert tree, long cool down.
2. Small caliber short range mortar deployable, can fire smoke, fascam, and light caliber HE.
3. AT gun, requires a limber vehicle, strong AV only, limited firing arc, requires entire gun to be swung left/right to change field of fire. Not true artillery, unless it can fire HE too, which I think might be ok given its severe mobility, and fire arc issues.

Even if you dont like them, thanks anyway :D

1. would be fine. Never had an issue with occasional OSs, just the overabundance of them after a couple years. I'd personally make it an unlock in the tree, AND require you be leading a squad/platoon to use. People in your squad would have a cooldown applied, though shorter, if you used yours, so that you couldn't make someone else leader to spam a bunch of OSs.

2. This would be quite acceptable. Very close to the action. Vulnerable to vehicle pushes or a pissed off cloaker. Location its coming from pretty easily pinpointable.

3. Just sounds like a field turret.


For long range artillery, it would need to have.. something.. Maybe the shells are driven in like a phoenix, albeit with much more inertia. Or maybe a teammate launches a little drone that gives a grainy overhead view in monochrome(so you have difficulty telling friend from foe), and you get to watch your shots landing and have to correct it, walking them to the target. Key is making the gameplay more interactive and visceral than shooting at the sky.

On the receiving end, they need something they can do to immediately defend against it. For example, AA could be used to blow up the shots, or at least deflect them. Or in the example with the drone, they could pick the drone off and blind the arty dude.

But I'm still not a fan of the long range stuff. Mortars would be fine. Couple hundred meters max.

I personally find the idea of figuring out the most tactically advantageous spot on the map and doing pen and paper work to figure out where to aim my gun to be a lot of fun.

There would be no pen and paper work. They would, if they implemented arty, set it up so you aim it. They would not make a mechanic where you need to do math to work it, and even if they did, www.PS2Artillerycalculator.com would be up and running within a couple weeks, negating the purpose of it.

[Grognard]

1. would be fine. Never had an issue with occasional OSs, just the overabundance of them after a couple years. I'd personally make it an unlock in the tree, AND require you be leading a squad/platoon to use. People in your squad would have a cooldown applied, though shorter, if you used yours, so that you couldn't make someone else leader to spam a bunch of OSs.

2. This would be quite acceptable. Very close to the action. Vulnerable to vehicle pushes or a pissed off cloaker. Location its coming from pretty easily pinpointable.

3. Just sounds like a field turret.

For long range artillery, it would need to have.. something.. Maybe the shells are driven in like a phoenix, albeit with much more inertia. Or maybe a teammate launches a little drone that gives a grainy overhead view in monochrome(so you have difficulty telling friend from foe), and you get to watch your shots landing and have to correct it, walking them to the target. Key is making the gameplay more interactive and visceral than shooting at the sky.

On the receiving end, they need something they can do to immediately defend against it. For example, AA could be used to blow up the shots, or at least deflect them. Or in the example with the drone, they could pick the drone off and blind the arty dude.

But I'm still not a fan of the long range stuff. Mortars would be fine. Couple hundred meters max.

There would be no pen and paper work. They would, if they implemented arty, set it up so you aim it. They would not make a mechanic where you need to do math to work it, and even if they did, www.PS2Artillerycalculator.com would be up and running within a couple weeks, negating the purpose of it.

Thank you for the feedback, sounds like you have a precise handle on what I was trying to suggest. Though the ATGun "field turret" would actually be more of an ATGun Field Piece. The only reason I make that distinction is due to the way in which it is deployed, via limbered transport as a way to govern its mobility, since it can hit tanks hard, it must never become a Tank Sniper Gun...

As for true long range artillery, I really wish there was a way to do this in such a way as to be fun, even for those who do not use it... Im optimistically sceptical, and its because I keep doing exactly what Shade says... flashbacks to the... F(l)AIL... and I am honestly trying to train myself off of that... because objectively looking at my own thought process, I have to admit he is right about that, we all need to try to eliminate WTF! FLAIL! NoWAI! ( :lol: ) from our thinking. For those that have, you are good to go...

After release, I hope they take a really good look at what kind of artillery could have a place in PS2. Artillery can be damn cool, but it must be cool for everyone... I want those 1500+ battles FAR more than I want to see big guns, and that gloriously cool sound effect of the distant rumble of howitzers... I hope, whatever they do does not alienate a large portion of the playerbase, if in doubt, just dont, <cough>core combat<cough>... :cry:

[VioletZero]

There would be no pen and paper work. They would, if they implemented arty, set it up so you aim it. They would not make a mechanic where you need to do math to work it, and even if they did, www.PS2Artillerycalculator.com would be up and running within a couple weeks, negating the purpose of it.

So, what you're saying is that people would do is to copy down all the numbers, minimize the game, copy each number individually into a calculator and then get the result, maximize the game and then fire.

Sure, pen and paper work isn't very quick either but after using it frequently, you get the hang of doing it in your head and it helps you train to get better.

[Grognard]

So, what you're saying is that people would do is to copy down all the numbers, minimize the game, copy each number individually into a calculator and then get the result, maximize the game and then fire.

Sure, pen and paper work isn't very quick either but after using it frequently, you get the hang of doing it in your head and it helps you train to get better.

Might be easier with dual screens.

[Sirisian]

ITT, spreadsheeet eve player :lol:

[VioletZero]

ITT, spreadsheeet eve player :lol:

Nah, just a fan of the Long Tom. ;)

And even then I found that to be too easy.

[Shade Millith]

1. Commander tree artillery/MLRS-type strike, high in cert tree, long cool down.
2. Small caliber short range mortar deployable, can fire smoke, fascam, and light caliber HE.
3. AT gun, requires a limber vehicle, strong AV only, limited firing arc, requires entire gun to be swung left/right to change field of fire. Not true artillery, unless it can fire HE too, which I think might be ok given its severe mobility, and fire arc issues.

1. No. It's automatic. We should be moving away from things being done automatic. We have the player count to do just about any battlefield role.
I feel the same way about OS's. Shouldn't be in the game.

2. Yes. Infantry should be able to have a mortar.

3. If it has the range to hit quite some distance away, and can be given an aiming reticule from a laser designator, then yes.

its because I keep doing exactly what Shade says... flashbacks to the... F(l)AIL...

And this is what really sucks about this debate.

People see Artillery, and think "Base-spamming Door-camping Flail". It's pretty easy to fix it to a Fire-support vehicle.



Hell, it doesn't even have to be a vehicle, it could be something that gets dragged around by one like an actual howitzer. Something that can't even move.

It just can't be automated. Something this useful, NEEDS to have someone taking the time and effort to man it. Or it just becomes another bloody small OS, and big OS.

[Grognard]

1. No. It's automatic. We should be moving away from things being done automatic. We have the player count to do just about any battlefield role.
I feel the same way about OS's. Shouldn't be in the game.

2. Yes. Infantry should be able to have a mortar.

3. If it has the range to hit quite some distance away, and can be given an aiming reticule from a laser designator, then yes.

Fair enough.



And this is what really sucks about this debate.

People see Artillery, and think "Base-spamming Door-camping Flail". It's pretty easy to fix it to a Fire-support vehicle.

Hell, it doesn't even have to be a vehicle, it could be something that gets dragged around by one like an actual howitzer. Something that can't even move.

Well, its not me you have to convince, I like artillery.

...and as ussual, just to drive it home relentlessly, counter-battery fire must be implemented in tandem, so arty can govern itself in kind.

[Effective]

Realism is fun!

Not

[Sirisian]

Realism is fun!

Not
Was that a reply to someone? Can you use quotes or it's hard to pull out context. Are you saying you don't want to man the artillery piece? If so I 100% agree. That kind of realism can be left out. Especially stuff like violet said about entering numbers to fire.

Does anyone here have a problem with laser targeted artillery that fires in exact spots with a cooldown? (Ignoring damage numbers and such. Just focusing on the mechanic of aiming a laser and then clicking to target a location and having the round travel then hit a location as long as it isn't destroyed by AA? For instance in an SOI or around a galaxy if the top gunner shoots the round in the air)

[Shade Millith]

Does anyone here have a problem with laser targeted artillery that fires in exact spots with a cooldown?

Yes, I do.

For something as powerful as bringing in an artillery strike, there needs to be TEAMWORK involved. And it needs to be effort to bring it.

No more one man army. And one man bringing artillery where ever he pleases without any effort is a one man army.

[Grognard]

Just as an aside, we should probably often clarify our nomenclatures.

Guided Strikes... laser guided etc.
Smart Bombs... fire and forget bombs, gps tracking etc.
Artillery Barrages... spotter & map coords, check fire round, then FFA (fire for effect)

HE rounds... high explosive anti-infantry
HEAT rounds... high explosive anti-tank
AT... anti tank, sabot etc.

Howitzers... high trajectory field peice, limbered gun.
SPA... self propelled artillery, tank chassis, Paladin, Excalibur, etc.
Mortars... small caliber indirect fire weapon (not true artillery)

Those are just a few, there's more, of course. I just wonder if everyone is on the same page as far as whats going down range... might clarify some things.

[Sirisian]

For something as powerful as bringing in an artillery strike, there needs to be TEAMWORK involved. And it needs to be effort to bring it.
When you imagine artillery do you see it in the sense of multiple rounds at one time in a spread or a single round?

Also what kind of damage are you imagining when you say "powerful". Are you referencing the Flail's AOE damage or do you mean a directed small area of damage?

I think those kinds of variables are what separate things. When I picture artillery I'm often imagining a tactical usage. Like if I see a tank on a hill shooting I could pull out a laser as a cloaker and target the tank. If he has an AA gunner on the top they might see the round and shoot it as it streaks across the sky with a tail. If they don't see it then it would strike dealing a little over tank shell damage.

In the same way a player could target a sniper in a tree with the laser and it could do a number of things. One hit or do severe damage. This is assuming an AA max doesn't lock onto it and shoot it out of the air. With people moving around more it could be difficult landing a shot.

Then you have the idea of which classes should get a laser. Would infiltrators get one or is that too cheap? What about snipers? Could it be a mode on the sniper rifle? I could go on, but there's a lot of ways it could be implemented. (The squad usage scenario in my previous post is my most favorite).

[Tool]

Realism is fun!

Not

Side quips are hilarious!

I know why your saying it though and can almost hear Top calling me silly because I understand the mindset most of us shared. Skill should be important but there's more to the game that needs to be considered.

Just because something isn't that fun doesn't mean it has to be removed entirely. Thats too simplistic of a response, there are creative alternatives; many already shared in this topic.

I know how you feel, facing max after max indoors as infantry wasn't fun. Getting mossie farmed in most outdoor battles for infantry wasn't fun. Wasps were just stupid and were very skilless, not fun. Plasma was just lol.

I feel the same way, the difference is I recognize that as just my opinion and not let it get in the way of objective thought and coming up with solutions. A elitist mentality isn't helpful nor has a place in speculative discussion.

[SKYeXile]

Side quips are hilarious!

I know why your saying it though and can almost hear Top calling me silly because I understand the mindset most of us shared. Skill should be important but there's more to the game that needs to be considered.

Just because something isn't that fun doesn't mean it has to be removed entirely. Thats too simplistic of a response, there are creative alternatives; many already shared in this topic.

I know how you feel, facing max after max indoors as infantry wasn't fun. Getting mossie farmed in most outdoor battles for infantry wasn't fun. Wasps were just stupid and were very skilless, not fun. Plasma was just lol.

I feel the same way, the difference is I recognize that as just my opinion and not let it get in the way of objective thought and coming up with solutions. A elitist mentality isn't helpful nor has a place in speculative discussion.

The difference is between artillery and all those things you mentioned is you can fight back against a max crash, a wasp plasma or a skeeter, you're directly engaged with all of these enemy's, while it may not always be a fair fight if you have not equipped yourself properly you can take measures to counter those players. you're however not directly engaged with artillery, the only counter for them is a direct push on their location or other artillery and there is little you can do if a blob of death bothers to knock you on the head.

[Captain1nsaneo]

The difference is between artillery and all those things you mentioned is you can fight back against a max crash, a wasp plasma or a skeeter, you're directly engaged with all of these enemy's, while it may not always be a fair fight if you have not equipped yourself properly you can take measures to counter those players. you're however not directly engaged with artillery, the only counter for them is a direct push on their location or other artillery and there is little you can do if a blob of death bothers to knock you on the head.

So it takes team effort to kill a weapon that requires a team to use?

[SKYeXile]

So it takes team effort to kill a weapon that requires a team to use?

And you have missed the point entirely, grats.

[Sirisian]

The difference is between artillery and all those things you mentioned is you can fight back against a max crash, a wasp plasma or a skeeter, you're directly engaged with all of these enemy's, while it may not always be a fair fight if you have not equipped yourself properly you can take measures to counter those players. you're however not directly engaged with artillery, the only counter for them is a direct push on their location or other artillery and there is little you can do if a blob of death bothers to knock you on the head.
That's why I like AA for shooting down artillery shells and giving them a long tail. So you might not be equipped but you can try to shoot them or just move out of the way since ideally they aren't infantry killers.

[Tool]

The difference is between artillery and all those things you mentioned is you can fight back against a max crash, a wasp plasma or a skeeter, you're directly engaged with all of these enemy's, while it may not always be a fair fight if you have not equipped yourself properly you can take measures to counter those players. you're however not directly engaged with artillery, the only counter for them is a direct push on their location or other artillery and there is little you can do if a blob of death bothers to knock you on the head.

That's probably the best counter argument and I absolutely understand the issue. If the only tangible counter to artillery is counter artillery, then I agree that its not the best implementation.

Indirect fire is such an integral part of warfare. Smaller games can afford to ignore it but a combined arms mmo feels less complete without it. I like the notion of finding ways to keep forms of coordinated combat and it seems like such a shame to loose such a way.

[Shade Millith]

The difference is between artillery and all those things you mentioned is you can fight back against a max crash, a wasp plasma or a skeeter, you're directly engaged with all of these enemy's, while it may not always be a fair fight if you have not equipped yourself properly you can take measures to counter those players. you're however not directly engaged with artillery, the only counter for them is a direct push on their location or other artillery

MAX Crash - AV
Aircraft - Anti Air
Artillery - Aircraft (OR perhaps AA shooting down the shells)

You just seem to be steadfast in not bothering to use aircraft. At all. These things are LITERALLY FREE XP to aircraft and infiltrators and fast moving vehicles if the artillery vehicle is balanced properly. Stop being lazy.

and there is little you can do if a blob of death bothers to knock you on the head.

Don't sit still? Things sitting in one place for 30 seconds at a time are the only things going to be remotely at threat, unless you've set up an ambush spot and some poor sucker drives through it.

[SKYeXile]

MAX Crash - AV
Aircraft - Anti Air
Artillery - Aircraft (OR perhaps AA shooting down the shells)

You just seem to be steadfast in not bothering to use aircraft. At all. These things are LITERALLY FREE XP to aircraft and infiltrators and fast moving vehicles if the artillery vehicle is balanced properly. Stop being lazy.



Don't sit still? Things sitting in one place for 30 seconds at a time are the only things going to be remotely at threat, unless you've set up an ambush spot and some poor sucker drives through it.



and not sitting still does not solve the problem of been gibed by a ball of death that you can do nothing to avoid or counter.


Also...Did you even read my post or take into account that there is SKY at the start of my name or that I'm an officer of Future Crew?

[Sirisian]

Really what artillery would be amazing is to get people that are sitting on the top of walls and hunkered in. Bombs used to be the way to get them, but without that option artillery would offer the option to target such a person. That's one of the reasons I believe laser sighting should be preferred since it puts the person using it in harms way.

Ideally it's similar to the new NC laser guided rocket launcher in that you'll probably launch it in the sky then put your mouse on the enemy. The difference is you mark the location and wait a few seconds for a shell (and it's a vehicle).

[Espion]

You just seem to be steadfast in not bothering to use aircraft. At all. These things are LITERALLY FREE XP to aircraft and infiltrators and fast moving vehicles if the artillery vehicle is balanced properly. Stop being lazy.

I really, really hope you're one of the people here that never played PS1. Aircraft were fucking useless against base-to-base flails.

[Shade Millith]

and not sitting still does not solve the problem of been gibed by a ball of death that you can do nothing to avoid

Laser designator targets a tank.
Artillery gunner receives request, and fires.
Due to distance and shell speed, the shell lands 10-20 seconds after request, at area of request.
If the target moved at all, the target doesn't get hit.

How the hell can you even pretend that something that takes THAT long to hit, completely unguided, is 'unavoidable'

or counter

Stop making things up.

Aircraft, infiltrators. This isn't a super powered beast that kills everything without a chance of stopping it, geez.

Also...Did you even read my post or take into account that there is SKY at the start of my name or that I'm an officer of Future Crew?

If I'm guessing right, you like aircraft? Then hell, you should like it. You get free XP from easy as hell to kill, sticks out like a sore thumb, stationary vehicle that can't fight back.

I really, really hope you're one of the people here that never played PS1. Aircraft were fucking useless against base-to-base flails.

And I keep saying, Artillery =\= Flails. Get the idea of a Flail out of your mind.

Flails were poorly designed, with too much HP. You give them the armor of an ATV, and 2-3 rockets from air will make short work. Doesn't matter if it's near a repair pad if it has next to no armor. The ideal artillery would make base-to-base either useless or impossible.

That and I like the idea of them being unable to be deployed in a bases SOI, which would make your entire point moot.

[SKYeXile]

Laser designator targets a tank.
Artillery gunner receives request, and fires.
Due to distance and shell speed, the shell lands 10-20 seconds after request, at area of request.
If the target moved at all, the target doesn't get hit.

How the hell can you even pretend that something that takes THAT long to hit, completely unguided, is 'unavoidable'



Stop making things up.

Aircraft, infiltrators. This isn't a super powered beast that kills everything without a chance of stopping it, geez.



If I'm guessing right, you like aircraft? Then hell, you should like it. You get free XP from easy as hell to kill, sticks out like a sore thumb, stationary vehicle that can't fight back.



And I keep saying, Artillery == Flails. Get the idea of a Flail out of your mind.

Flails were poorly designed, with too much HP. You give them the armor of an ATV, and 2-3 rockets from air will make short work. Doesn't matter if it's near a repair pad if it has next to no armor. The ideal artillery would make base-to-base either useless or impossible.

That and I like the idea of them being unable to be deployed in a bases SOI, which would make your entire point moot.

All those made up changes still would not mean you're directly engaged with your enemy in combat, meaning its still broken in an FPS setting.

also aiming at a laser designated target isn't exactly riveting combat for the spotter or f(l)ailure.

good thing the devs are at least half switched on, need to slap them over stealth cloakers, but that's another thread.

[PrISM]

I remember how in Planetside you would see five AFK flails on a hill with their mouse button taped down and spamming a fight. I also remember how they'd never pay attention to what they were doing and wind up killing friendlies who are attempting to attack a base. Yes, I want that in PS2 please.

Besides if there's no artillery in PS2, what would ubermenchen do?

[Sirisian]

I remember how in Planetside you would see five AFK flails on a hill with their mouse button taped down and spamming a fight. I also remember how they'd never pay attention to what they were doing and wind up killing friendlies who are attempting to attack a base.
Yeah this is why the importance of a laser to mark targets was brought up a lot. It forces someone to visually see and mark the enemy so they can be sure they aren't hitting friendlies.

[Shade Millith]

I remember how in Planetside you would see five AFK flails on a hill with their mouse button taped down and spamming a fight. I also remember how they'd never pay attention to what they were doing and wind up killing friendlies who are attempting to attack a base. Yes, I want that in PS2 please.

Besides if there's no artillery in PS2, what would ubermenchen do?

Stop thinking about the bloody god-damn FLAIL.

The Flail was a POS that should not have been introduced. Why? Because they screwed up it's design!

A NEW ARTILLERY UNIT doesn't mean it's going to be a copy paste of the flail!

I hate the flail so much, because it's bad design has contaminated any discussion regarding artillery! EVERYONE keeps thinking "Oh, artillery? They must want the flail!" ARGH!

Just forget about the blasted flail, if for nothing more than my sanity!

[ubermenchen]

Planetside had most of a perfect fpsmmo right. Removing everything that everybody hated would leave nothing left. ( contrary to popular opinion the game wasnt all about HA )
My deaths to flails is rare since i used it enough to know how it worked ( try it and learn how to not get killed by it) The flail was very easy killed and your position for long use was key.
The legend of the taped down mouse is bullcrap and just a lemmings reasoning why he died five times in the same spot ( try a different approach)
The flail actually took some skill to use properly ( unlike running in and hoping for the best with your HA or spamming with SA)
finally the flail caused less grief then the thumper or being a locked down max ever did.

[DayOne]

What in the hell do people have against artillery? Does every form of tactical play scare your tiny mind?
If, you want "honourable" combat and to just charge in there face first then go play mount and blade! Oh wait, it has archers! Is that too indirect for you?
This isn't Call of f**king Duty
/rage

Planetside is a combined arms game that happens to be first person. Would it help if I called it a tactical shooter? Because PS1 certainly was. It isn't just mindless shooting like CoD, it requires team work and skill to do well, on a massive scale! Artillery (NOT flails) is a tool to be used in warfare. It provides suppression for friendlies on the ground and helps to soften up the enemy defences for the main assault. By not giving you a auto-target to point and shoot at it would require team work and skill to use.

[Neksar]

I liked the idea of Flails. Then I saw them used. No. Just... no.

What I really like is the idea of coordinated arms, if I'm using those words right. I want to mark an area, and I want another player to deliver ordinance. I'm fairly certain that's what everyone else seems to want as well. The Flail was a failed implementation of that. That role might now be accomplished by a high-altitude Liberator, if the pilot had the proper certs. In that respect, it would be quite similar to Call of Duty's AC-130, but would be greatly aided by target designation. It would also give defending aircraft something to do other than troll ground targets.

Now, the problem becomes, "How do we make it so it's fair?" One possible solution is to make the designation visible to the opposing team as well, after a short 'allies only' visibility period. If the rounds have an appreciable travel time, then death should be avoidable to an extent if a player is quick to spot the indicator. It would almost be similar to the chargeup period for an orbital strike -- many players could escape if they weren't at the epicenter and were observant. Well, in my experience, anyhow.


In short:

Here's what I (and presumably many others) want: Coordinated area suppression based on some sort of target designation mechanism.

Here's the problem: How do we balance it so that it's fun for the indirect attacker, the spotter, and the target?

Possible solution: Make it so that defenders are somehow made aware that they're about to be blown to smithereens, and make the indirect fire craft useful for something other than indirect fire.

I only read the first few pages of this thread, so sorry if someone else already suggested this.

[CutterJohn]

Artillery (NOT flails) is a tool to be used in warfare.

Why are you bringing reality into the argument when, judging by the restrictions you want on it, you most definitely are not a fan of an accurate portrayal of the capabilities of artillery?

Modern artillery can quite easily put a round mostly where it wants to with no need for outside assistance, can do so every 5-10 seconds, and can aim its turret down to shoot at ground targets.

Hell, the only thing that stopped players from doing that in PS1 with the flail was because they actively hid what should have been readily known information. A reading of the barrels angle, the targets elevation, and your elevation, and a very simple calculation would have made hitting what you wanted quite easy.

[Effective]

There is no way to balance a vehicle that is artillery. It will either be useless, taking players away from combat, and not causing enough damage. Or it will be broken and cause gameplay similar to the flail, people simply spamming for lame boring gameplay that contributed nothing to the overall scale of the game.

I wouldn't mind a artillery system that's similar to what was used in Battlefield 2. If anyone remembers that.

Basically the commander of one side or another, had access to various commander tools. One of them was artillery. Every few minutes or so he could select a position on the map to bombard it from the artillery pieces that were on the map (and could be destroyed).

How could it be implemented into PS2? There's more then likely a way (obviously some changes would need to be made since PS2 will be several times larger then BF2). One that would prevent artillery from being super common like when everyone started getting cr5. Artillery becomes a actual tactical tool as opposed to something use spam for kills. Something that doesn't have players ending up being wasted space on a cont in "artillery crews"

[DayOne]

Why are you bringing reality into the argument when, judging by the restrictions you want on it, you most definitely are not a fan of an accurate portrayal of the capabilities of artillery?.

Because of balance. Even an unrealistic and balanced artillery is one that can be used effectively to suppress an attack force or rat out targets from their hidey holes.

[CutterJohn]

Because of balance. Even an unrealistic and balanced artillery is one that can be used effectively to suppress an attack force or rat out targets from their hidey holes.

Yes, but you specifically mentioned that its a real weapon and as such deserves a place.

Fire control computers are a real weapon too. Why don't they deserve a place?

[JHendy]

What in the hell do people have against artillery? Does every form of tactical play scare your tiny mind?
If, you want "honourable" combat and to just charge in there face first then go play mount and blade! Oh wait, it has archers! Is that too indirect for you?
This isn't Call of f**king Duty
/rage

Planetside is a combined arms game that happens to be first person. Would it help if I called it a tactical shooter? Because PS1 certainly was. It isn't just mindless shooting like CoD, it requires team work and skill to do well, on a massive scale! Artillery (NOT flails) is a tool to be used in warfare. It provides suppression for friendlies on the ground and helps to soften up the enemy defences for the main assault. By not giving you a auto-target to point and shoot at it would require team work and skill to use.

QFT. :D

[Captain1nsaneo]

I'm not understanding this thing about the target of the artillery needing to have a good time too. The target of anything rarely has a good time. This topic really feels like a "stop liking what I don't like" debate. I like the flail as it is now, just wish it had longer range. The only thing that's really annoying about them is a single flail can stop vehicle production by constantly hitting the V term.

Sky, I get your argument just I think you're talking from the point of view of someone who is playing a very different game than I am.

[Grognard]

Yes, but you specifically mentioned that its a real weapon and as such deserves a place.

Fire control computers are a real weapon too. Why don't they deserve a place?

This is actually an interesting point, for me. It made me think about where I, personally, draw the line. I see artillery as a fun weapon that I can fire, and/or that I would have fun watching in use, by others... even if it was inbound from an enemy, with me as a target.

A fire control computer, to me being not a weapon, but rather a weapon enabler, would fire the weapon for me. See, I want my brain, eyes, and coordination to be the fire control computer, or I will lose interest. I do think that something could be called a fire control computer that does something interesting, but never takes the hands on away from the player, else, why am I even playing, I would then just be watching.

Interesting point, you made me think :)

[Grognard]

...snip...

I wouldn't mind a artillery system that's similar to what was used in Battlefield 2. If anyone remembers that.

Basically the commander of one side or another, had access to various commander tools. One of them was artillery. Every few minutes or so he could select a position on the map to bombard it from the artillery pieces that were on the map (and could be destroyed).

How could it be implemented into PS2? There's more then likely a way (obviously some changes would need to be made since PS2 will be several times larger then BF2). One that would prevent artillery from being super common like when everyone started getting cr5. Artillery becomes a actual tactical tool as opposed to something use spam for kills. Something that doesn't have players ending up being wasted space on a cont in "artillery crews"


I think I could get behind this idea, even mentioned it a few times myself. Some dont like it though, not interactive enough, I think is the resistance.

"Off-board" (wargamer term) artillery sounds good to me though... bases could be a source, and resources could be a governing force, depending on how that system works.

[Rumblepit]

you have a better chance of seeing elvis in a bfr in ps2.......it wont happen... you will never see artillery in ps2. why ????because of the scale of ps2. you have a flail behind emy lines with 600+ players in front of it, that flail will be there for 2 weeks spamming nostop. getting 10 20 kills at a time. this style of combat will not work in ps2. its funny i see alot of names in this thread that were complaining about osok snipers, but they are ok with armor shooting at you from 3 miles away killing many people at a time with one shot.

[Grognard]

you have a better chance of seeing elvis in a bfr in ps2.......it wont happen... you will never see artillery in ps2. why ????because of the scale of ps2. you have a flail behind emy lines with 600+ players in front of it, that flail will be there for 2 weeks spamming nostop. getting 10 20 kills at a time. this style of combat will not work in ps2. its funny i see alot of names in this thread that were complaining about osok snipers, but they are ok with armor shooting at you from 3 miles away killing many people at a time with one shot.

I think most of us hope you are right about the Flail, at least I do...

As for other encarnations of artillery, and artillery-like platforms, I think some might be pretty cool, its all in the implementation. For instance, a mortar that can fire low caliber HE (or even HEAT), fascam, smoke, or even something more controversial like a round that dampens cloaking fields for a short time... Mortars, at least, are definately something I would love to see. Or, the leader command tool that Captain1nsaneo just mentioned, which could easily be balanced by some method that scales back availability as use matures from increased access.

I think even most of the anti-artillery crowd could live with stuff like that. Its the remote indirect fire stuff, the stuff that reminds people of the flail, that seems to cause the gnashing of teeth...

[Tamas]

While a new guy her, I wouldn't mind Arty being in the same form as in World of Tanks. It hits for quite a bit, but you target with an area where your shell could land - it's not 100% accurate. So for example firing at someone from a long distance you might not land the shell close even if you had perfectly aligned the crosshair. Also they are slow to reload and have no defense if anything comes close - it has virtually no armor and is rather slow and bulky.

On second hand I hate mortars in BF3. The amount of people who used them at one point was ridiculous and if you were not in cover you'd die fast (on some maps), even the vehicles could not hold out against a person spamming a mortar. So in PS2, whats stopping an enemy team just bombarding the hell out of a base while staying back and guarding the arty?

[AshOck]

I wouldn't mind some sort of implementation of arty so long as its not too OP. Even though I've never used the flail before, from the perspective of a non flail user it was fine and added to the complexity of the battle. Generally they used to fire on the same spot repeatedly so it wasn't too hard to avoid getting killed by them. And if they were targeting something that was slowing down our advance, like the vterm, then it was fun to go and hunt them down.

[CutterJohn]

A fire control computer, to me being not a weapon, but rather a weapon enabler, would fire the weapon for me. See, I want my brain, eyes, and coordination to be the fire control computer, or I will lose interest. I do think that something could be called a fire control computer that does something interesting, but never takes the hands on away from the player, else, why am I even playing, I would then just be watching.

Interesting point, you made me think :)

The problem here is how do you use your brain, eyes, and coordination to fire artillery? You would have to be able to see your target to do that. If it is anything at all like the flail, well.. none of those apply.

As for the computer, this isn't magic. You don't even need the computer.. All they need is to display the angle of the tube, and both your height and the targets height, and presto. You can do the math yourself.

Technically, if actually doing the math, that would be brain work, but a calculator or spreadsheet would be developed in short order for it. To prevent this from occuring they actually have to hide information you should by rights have access too.

[Shade Millith]

I wouldn't mind a artillery system that's similar to what was used in Battlefield 2. If anyone remembers that."

I'd rather NO artillery than the massive, pathetic joke that artillery turned into after the original BF1942.

This is supposed to be a TEAMWORK game. We need less 'OS's' and more things that require multiple people to work.

you will never see artillery in ps2. why ????because of the scale of ps2. you have a flail behind emy lines with 600+ players in front of it, that flail will be there for 2 weeks spamming nostop. getting 10 20 kills at a time.

FOR THE FITH TIME ARTILLERY DOES NOT EQUAL A BLOODY FLAIL!

[Sirisian]

I like the flail as it is now, just wish it had longer range. The only thing that's really annoying about them is a single flail can stop vehicle production by constantly hitting the V term.
Forcing the artillery to be laser targeted and allowing AA to destroy incoming artillery goes a long way for balancing many of these complaints. It makes it much easier to counter door/vehicle term camping.


I wouldn't mind a artillery system that's similar to what was used in Battlefield 2. If anyone remembers that.
Way too indirect. Also orbital strikes are already in the game. Artillery needs to fulfill a different purpose. Something everyone, not just commanders can take part in. Making it a vehicle choice is one way to accomplish that.
but they are ok with armor shooting at you from 3 miles away killing many people at a time with one shot.
That's the importance of laser targeting and bringing the battle closer to the enemy. Also I've been advocating precision artillery for the reason that it's easy to dodge by infantry and more aligns its purpose toward taking out engineering deployables and vehicles (such as tanks, landed galaxies, etc). As mention though having AA target artillery is one of the biggest things that would stop infantry camping at key locations. Even a tank with AA would be able to target at least one artillery shell at a time to defend itself. These kind of gameplay ideas gives players choices and counters that the flail never had.

[Grognard]

The problem here is how do you use your brain, eyes, and coordination to fire artillery? You would have to be able to see your target to do that. If it is anything at all like the flail, well.. none of those apply.


Fair enough.

Well, for me, just me here... Ill go by each of those in order...

1. Brain:
I would think about the evolution of the battle and what the faction is trying to accomplish, and what is inhibiting that. Then I would consider ammo vs target mix (referencing the implementation I drew up earlier).

2. Eyes:
I would then survey the terrain and predict likely avenues of approach for those that would attempt to destroy my gun. I would also look for friendly AA, to see if I can piggyback. Then pick my emplacement venue.

3. Coordination:
I would have to coordinate with my spotter (if designed for teams) on necessary targets, targets of opportunity (counter-battery fire), and timing for relocation (shoot n scoot), so s/he is not painting when I am relocating. Also, coordinating with commanders who may need me to cover them with smoke, or prep bombards.

This is just the basics, but there is a lot to it. Now if it was a FLAIL............ I would get it from the Vehicle Term., park at the silo, point at a base, tape my mouse button down, go watch big bang theory, and come back and go wow, look at all the hate tells, wassupwitthat?

So, real (lol) artillery can be fun, for... me...

[SKYeXile]

I'm not understanding this thing about the target of the artillery needing to have a good time too. The target of anything rarely has a good time. This topic really feels like a "stop liking what I don't like" debate. I like the flail as it is now, just wish it had longer range. The only thing that's really annoying about them is a single flail can stop vehicle production by constantly hitting the V term.

Sky, I get your argument just I think you're talking from the point of view of someone who is playing a very different game than I am.

Yea ill be playing a game people stick around to play, not one where they quit after playing for 5 mins because their killcam shows them been killed by some guy 3km away touching himself.

[Graywolves]

Yea ill be playing a game people stick around to play, not one where they quit after playing for 5 mins because their killcam shows them been killed by some guy 3km away touching himself.

The world is huge, stop walking into the same spot that's being bombarded.

[SKYeXile]

The world is huge, stop walking into the same spot that's being bombarded.

Yea so is the population density, pun intended.

[Grognard]

Yea so is the population density, pun intended.

Haha :D

[Grognard]

The more I read this thread, the more it seems like Strategic thinkers are talking to Tactical thinkers... and vice versa.

Artillery, to me is a Strategic asset (yes, grand tactical too, keeping simple here), and with the amount of potential combatants in the game... we will have multiple platoons operating in what will amount to batallions vs batallions, this means brigade (regiments are just historical designations now where Im from) sized battles with any luck...

So, it is fair to think in strategic terms, that means artillery is a weapon that makes sense in this paradigm. A front that is stagnant with a lot of tactically employed platoons with go on forever until simple "mommy says dinners ready" attrition sways numbers one way or the other... unless tools to "break" the enemy are employed. Air strikes and artillery are the ussual go-to's, and we already have air strikes in the form of the liberator, perhaps others.

So, what I am saying in this effing wall of text, is that artillery is not unreasonable, and PS2 is going to be big enough for it to fit in. We all need to think out of the box, because PS1 is a tactical game at its core, but PS2 has strong strategic overtones given resources, geographic size, targeted number of players, etc.

I think artillery should be in the first addon, but not in launch.

[Graywolves]

The more I read this thread, the more it seems like Strategic thinkers are talking to Tactical thinkers... and vice versa.

......

So, what I am saying in this effing wall of text, is that artillery is not unreasonable, and PS2 is going to be big enough for it to fit in. We all need to think out of the box, because PS1 is a tactical game at its core, but PS2 has strong strategic overtones given resources, geographic size, targeted number of players, etc.

I think artillery should be in the first addon, but not in launch.

This.

-edit-
The main body wasn't ommitted because I felt it wasn't necessary. It was ommitted because I didn't read it. But I feel the rest gets the message across well.

[Sighpolice]

Artillery is cool to use because it's very little effort for big rewards, that's why most people dislike it.

If you had something like when you're empire has been successfully been defending a base for 20/30 mins straight you can call in a strike from a nearby tech plant (provided you have one) that hits the front door of the courtyard or something.. and that's an automatic firing because it's a reward from a mission, then it's kinda good because it gives the defenders a well deserved break and they can push out..

but player artillery is a no no, it's just too easy

[Sirisian]

Artillery is cool to use because it's very little effort for big rewards, that's why most people dislike it.
Again as mentioned this is a huge assumption about how artillery should be implemented. When you make these balance assumptions you corner yourself into one implementation. It's no wonder you'll come up with a solution people don't like.

This goes back to the tactical usage vs strategic usage. We already have orbital strikes for strategic things. I think we should focus artillery toward tactical usage. Strategic usage usually focuses on who can use it. Tactical usage is more balanced for multiple people to use it and is generally more accepted from these threads it would seem.

[Graywolves]

Every time someone says "AFK with mouse key taped down" I think of natural selection and the darwin award.


-edit-

Stop walking into that one spot.

[Captain1nsaneo]

The fire control computer and the need to fire based on just numbers is interesting. If the artillery had no reticle but just the elevation and angle numbers that could definitely increase the difficulty to use.

I disagree with the idea that AA can shoot down the rounds because the rounds as they are now are: slow; large; loud; and show up on radar. Also because the rounds can't give exp or else they'll be an easy way of farming. Do you make it so the rounds take up all the time of 1 AA unit or do you try to make it so the AA unit can also shoot at aircraft by making the rounds really easy to kill? I can also see how flack, lock-on, and fire and forget systems would be radically unbalanced against shells. Flack can deal with shells and aircraft, fire and forget can deal with both, but lock-on can't deal with multiple threats.

The reason I'm not a fan of osok sniper but am of artillery is that artillery shells give you a warning before they hit you and you have a chance to get out of their way. There is no chance to intentionally dodge sniper fire. Also artillery is harder to hack with, sniper rifles are normally the go to weapon for rate of fire hacks.

[Raka Maru]

Come on people... When I see all the arty, it gives me something specific to hunt down behind enemy lines. I am also in favor of good arty in PS2. Fact to face combat (aka meat grinder) gets tedious at times.

[Draz]

I think artillery would work really well in this game if it was only naval bombardments, once naval combat was implemented. It would give your faction a strong incentive to control the coast. I also doubt a large battleship with multiple guns could stay motionless in one spot for long without becoming a major target.