Revisiting Artillery, because its in.

[Grognard]

Here are the reference links:

Interview with Matt (timeframe 32:15-35:30):
http://www.planetside-universe.com/showpost.php?p=704159&postcount=1

Supplementary reference by Matt (BC 2 Arty):
Battlefield Bad Company Beta Artillery Gameplay - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAterrLeZqg)

Artillery by the name of Orbital Strike is artillery, and is even referenced by Matt as artillery, especially the TR variant. However, this artillery is not a vehicle, and I like this implementation. Why? Because PS1s constant barrage of spammy C5 splendor became rediculous... Apparently they have this in mind by limiting the use, not removing the use of artillery, though we are calling it an orbital strike. Which, in my opinion, is just a futuristic evolution of the artillery mechanic anyway, so it fits in perfectly.

Most importantly to me, it will be there... and I will not feel like there is a big hole in the "art of war" where artillery should be :D (...that is a big fat shit-eating grin, BTW). I have played many board games where there was "off-board" artillery, and I always loved that mechanic, and was hoping they would find a way to apply it in PS2, and here it is. "Big guns" in the distance, brought to bear... very happy.

We may not have a Flail (thank God), nor an MLRS, SPA, Fixed Gun, Field Gun, Death Star, whatever... but the "off-board" mechanic is very familiar to me, and I am happy to see an online game manifestation of it in PS2. Especially given the resource cost, timing variations, multiple patterns, and warhead yields... described by Matt, which is more than I could have asked for in an "OS" :D

:thumbsup:

[Bags]

I thought he said it was similar to artillery because it was indirect fire not because it's an artillery.

[Grognard]

I thought he said it was similar to artillery because it was indirect fire not because it's an artillery.

"A rose by any other name, would smell as sweet"...

[Stardouser]

Artillery needs to be from a physical source like a Flail that can be hunted down and killed. Not an off the map unlimited source like BC2 that has an extremely short cooldown.

Most people don't want Flail because they they cannot accept a strategic element to the game that requires a strategic response(sending units to kill the Flails), a lot of people want duel simulators in which you are able to immediately respond by firing back. Now, if that's what people want, that's fine to want a duel sim, but don't claim to embrace strategy if you seek to remove strategic assets.

[Bags]

"A rose by any other name, would smell as sweet"...

But we've known OS's were in for a while now.:doh:

Most people don't want Flail because they they cannot accept a strategic element to the game that requires a strategic response(sending units to kill the Flails), a lot of people want duel simulators in which you are able to immediately respond by firing back. Now, if that's what people want, that's fine to want a duel sim, but don't claim to embrace strategy if you seek to remove strategic assets.

I don't want it because I don't want people like Ubermenshen hiding next to a capital dome spamming artillery all day ruining fights and racking up kills. Not to mention flails in PS1 killed more teammates than enemies.

It is simply not a fun mechanic.

[NCLynx]

"A rose by any other name, would smell as sweet"...

There's still a huge difference.

When I hear artillery (especially in PS terms) I think of a flail sitting incredibly far away and just sitting somewhere firing into the sky. This would require you to be relatively close(r).

[Grognard]

But we've known OS's were in for a while now.:doh:


I was not aware of the implementation, until now. :doh:

[Malorn]

I like how Matt described it. Its reasonable.

They could also add artillery as capturable and also a destroyable structure, like one of many capture nodes for a facility. One capturable node could be an artillery battery that could be used to bombard targets on the other side of the continent using a map-based targeting system from inside a control room.

That gives strategic options to capture that artillery, destroy it, or hold the control room.

I think that could be done in addition to the orbital strike mechanics Higby is talking about. This sort of artillery would be something that is on a shorter cooldown and potentially a lot more devastating.

[Stardouser]

I like how Matt described it. Its reasonable.

They could also add artillery as capturable and also a destroyable structure, like one of many capture nodes for a facility. One capturable node could be an artillery battery that could be used to bombard targets on the other side of the continent using a map-based targeting system from inside a control room.

That gives strategic options to capture that artillery, destroy it, or hold the control room.

I think that could be done in addition to the orbital strike mechanics Higby is talking about. This sort of artillery would be something that is on a shorter cooldown and potentially a lot more devastating.

This. I was thinking that if people hate Flails because they can move, there could be several locations throughout a continent that are nominally in the middle of nowhere in which an empire can send a team of engineers and build artillery firebases. Since they would be constructed structures, they could be destroyed by bombardment, OR they could be captured intact by infantry. This would add depth to the engineer role, encourage combat away from main bases, and, since these locations would be fixed, you always know where they are if they are bombing you.

But we've known OS's were in for a while now.:doh:



I don't want it because I don't want people like Ubermenshen hiding next to a capital dome spamming artillery all day ruining fights and racking up kills. Not to mention flails in PS1 killed more teammates than enemies.

It is simply not a fun mechanic.

I have never supported that artillery would have a range long enough to sit next to a shield. It should be 1 KM range, no more, perhaps even less if that's what it takes. Pursuant to the idea I gave in response to Malorn above, those firebases would have limited range too, when the front line moves, you would have to build a new one in order to support your troops with artillery.

[Grognard]

I like how Matt described it. Its reasonable.

They could also add artillery as capturable and also a destroyable structure, like one of many capture nodes for a facility. One capturable node could be an artillery battery that could be used to bombard targets on the other side of the continent using a map-based targeting system from inside a control room.

That gives strategic options to capture that artillery, destroy it, or hold the control room.

I think that could be done in addition to the orbital strike mechanics Higby is talking about. This sort of artillery would be something that is on a shorter cooldown and potentially a lot more devastating.

100% agree.

Though, at least we have a variety of "off-board" artillery, and that is at least enough for me to salivate. I too, would like vehicle version, but most important to me is the presence of the combined arms effect, to which artillery is a part. Now, in this structured implementation (yield, pattern, timing, resources), it will at least be there :cool:

[Atheosim]

I like the idea of a base called Uplink Facility or something similar that increases the accuracy/damage of OSs when captured.

[sylphaen]

What about something deployed by a soldier and visible by enemies ?
e.g. from ET:RtcW:
1. throw a colored smoke grenade
2. wait 10 seconds
3. artillery shots land

[Timealude]

Artillery needs to be from a physical source like a Flail that can be hunted down and killed. Not an off the map unlimited source like BC2 that has an extremely short cooldown.

Most people don't want Flail because they they cannot accept a strategic element to the game that requires a strategic response(sending units to kill the Flails), a lot of people want duel simulators in which you are able to immediately respond by firing back. Now, if that's what people want, that's fine to want a duel sim, but don't claim to embrace strategy if you seek to remove strategic assets.

but higby just said in that video its going to have a long cool down and cost resources.

[Grognard]

Think about the implementation of our new friend the "OS"... These are all described by Matt.


1. Resource cost/timer:
This will kill the spam or make you a one trick pony for a short time, and make it something to use sparingly, with some forethought. Though, multiple coordinated "users" might be able to carpet, we'll see.

2. Timing variations:
Short timer is akin to the sychronized artillery bursts used to make a kill zone you can not escape, or take cover from. Long timer creates a detention area, where you keep out of, because you dont know where and when the next one is going to drop, for a duration, ie. heads down... suppression...

3. Multiple patterns:
Varied terrain, different angles of approach, large area, small area, enemy dispersal... Now we can adjust fire for that, and select patterns of impact.

4. Warhead yields:
High resource big yield for breaking a stalemate. Low yield, less resource for suppression, and thinning the herd. This is how I understand what he said, and it equates to "caliber".

5. Ammo:
Hell, he even metioned a "pool", like grenades. You purchase strikes, with resources, and call-in your artillery as needed.


This implementation smacks of remote-model artillery to me. We can call it an "OS" though, they do the same thing. Point is, artillery is in. This isnt just an EMP blast kill zone now...


Edit: Ammo reference.

[DOUBLEXBAUGH]

Artillery in the form of a flail is something that while makes perfect sense to use in real life, doesn't translate to fun in a game.

Artillery in the form of an OS is something I think most people are ok with. As long as there is enough restrictions so its like the OSes from 03, rare, not the OSes from 05+, every 10 seconds.

[SgtMAD]

I love seeing ppl that never played PS try to tell us all about flails.

ppl hated flails because they got abused, you would see ppl roll a flail up to a tower and start spamming the damn doors or you have an empire that didn't have the balls to fight you but they sure would set up a bunch of flails and just spam a CY until we went and killed them all,you would have to repeat this over and over again

I would much rather have an OS than flails in PS2

[KTNApollo]

I love seeing ppl that never played PS try to tell us all about flails.

ppl hated flails because they got abused, you would see ppl roll a flail up to a tower and start spamming the damn doors or you have an empire that didn't have the balls to fight you but they sure would set up a bunch of flails and just spam a CY until we went and killed them all,you would have to repeat this over and over again

I would much rather have an OS than flails in PS2

This. During my short stint with PlanetSide I saw two things with flails. #1 There were people sitting in bases, shooting over mountains, rarely hitting anything ever, and thus doing nothing. #2 So many flails you couldn't do anything but abandon the courtyard or respawn at a different base.

[Stardouser]

This. During my short stint with PlanetSide I saw two things with flails. #1 There were people sitting in bases, shooting over mountains, rarely hitting anything ever, and thus doing nothing. #2 So many flails you couldn't do anything but abandon the courtyard or respawn at a different base.

I address that every time I talk about artillery. Lower the range so that they can't sit in their own base. And even though you didn't mention it, I will go ahead and say that instead of a 30 meter splash radius it should really be more like 5m.

As for that many people playing them, that's more people they have not capturing your bases.

I know what you guys are saying of the problems, I just don't agree that they're problems after appropriate changes are made. Having experienced spam of very similar kind in other games, I'm relatively certain I will be just fine with it if, again, the appropriate changes are made. You in fact just hit upon the solution; spawn at a different base and go after them from there. If the range of the artillery was no more than 750m/1000m, it's not like you'd have to go far.

[Gonefshn]

This is going to be awesome! No flails because an artillery vehicle can pound an area over and over and over with no other purpose and no opposition.

OS will need some planning and you to get in close enough. Also, you can't just OS over and over it's something you can do once in awhile, not constantly spam somewhere causing players to get frustrated.

[RoninAfro]

First off, I want to say that I really like the idea of capturable/destructable artillery structures in a facility. However, I foresee some issues that would need to be addressed, primarily with the need for it to cost resources and have a long cooldown.
As much as I hate using the "OMG SPIES!!" argument, the problem with long-cooldown is the possibility of a spy from another faction camping it and wasting it. The resource cost is also problematic due to the fact that you don't only have to worry about spies but people who don't really know what they're doing either. I would probably get a little irked if we lost a push on a base due to not being able to spawn vehicles because some random dude wanted to play around with arty for no real reason.
I think that adding a personal resource pool in addition to the continent resource pool would help with the latter problem but I can't really think of a fix for the first. What do you guys think?

[Atheosim]

Well I imagine OSs will be very scalable, from a few shells to a massive barrage of shells. If you want do have the same type of destructive power as a PS1 CR5 OS, you'll probably need to dig into the majority of your resource pool.

[Atheosim]

First off, I want to say that I really like the idea of capturable/destructable artillery structures in a facility. However, I foresee some issues that would need to be addressed, primarily with the need for it to cost resources and have a long cooldown.
As much as I hate using the "OMG SPIES!!" argument, the problem with long-cooldown is the possibility of a spy from another faction camping it and wasting it. The resource cost is also problematic due to the fact that you don't only have to worry about spies but people who don't really know what they're doing either. I would probably get a little irked if we lost a push on a base due to not being able to spawn vehicles because some random dude wanted to play around with arty for no real reason.
I think that adding a personal resource pool in addition to the continent resource pool would help with the latter problem but I can't really think of a fix for the first. What do you guys think?

I might have missed something entirely, but don't you get a dividend of the income of your empire's holdings of the continent you are currently on? I don't think there's any type of resource aside from personal resource effectively.

[Nick]

Great, another crappy feature from a Battlefield game no one asked for.

/sigh

[Atheosim]

Great, another crappy feature from a Battlefield game no one asked for.

/sigh

HAHAHAHAHA WHAT!!?!?!?

[NCLynx]

Great, another crappy feature from a Battlefield game no one asked for.

/sigh

0/10, you're not even trying.

[Stardouser]

HAHAHAHAHA WHAT!!?!?!?

Well, orbital strike for CRs is from PS1, but if a lot of people get it, that's more like Battlefield Bad Company 2. In BC2 all recon can choose Mortar Strike which reloaded in like 30 or 45 seconds and was unlimited in ammo.

[RoninAfro]

I might have missed something entirely, but don't you get a dividend of the income of your empire's holdings of the continent you are currently on? I don't think there's any type of resource aside from personal resource effectively.

I wouldn't put it past me to have greatly misunderstood the resource system. :doh:
Would we still chalk up cross-faction griefers to just something we have to deal with, though? I'm trying to make it work in my head without it being underpowered or easily exploitable.

[Immigrant]

They could also add artillery as capturable and also a destroyable structure, like one of many capture nodes for a facility. One capturable node could be an artillery battery that could be used to bombard targets on the other side of the continent using a map-based targeting system from inside a control room.

This. I was thinking that if people hate Flails because they can move, there could be several locations throughout a continent that are nominally in the middle of nowhere in which an empire can send a team of engineers and build artillery firebases. Since they would be constructed structures, they could be destroyed by bombardment, OR they could be captured intact by infantry. This would add depth to the engineer role, encourage combat away from main bases, and, since these locations would be fixed, you always know where they are if they are bombing you.

I like these ideas however I would if artillery actually had to be manned to work, not on auto-aim. Easy kills would be worth the wait for arty guys once the infantry front-lines designate the targets. Also it would prevent arty spam since you'd be limited by numbers of artillery emplacements, guys manning them and actual effectiveness would be regulated by their skill to aim.

Adding an orbital strike feature into a game in which almost everything is or can be controlled by actual players just seems out-of-place to me. Yes to these kind of strikes in general, but I would like it even more if players could actually fire those strikes.

[Stardouser]

I like these ideas however I would if artillery actually had to be manned to work, not on auto-aim. Easy kills would be worth the wait for arty guys once the infantry front-lines designate the targets. Also it would prevent arty spam since you'd be limited by numbers of artillery emplacements, guys manning them and actual effectiveness would be regulated by their skill to aim.

Adding an orbital strike feature into a game in which almost everything is or can be controlled by actual players just seems out-of-place to me. Yes to these kind of strikes in general, but I would like it even more if players could actually fire those strikes.

Right, goes without saying that they should be manned.

Although, there is an intermediate possibility, whatever the artillery strike they have planned now, could ONLY be available if your empire builds and holds one of these firebases in a hex that's adjacent(or within 2 hexes, whatever). Of course, for that, they'd not longer be able to call it "orbital" strike, but at least it would no longer be an off map, unlimited resource.

[Graywolves]

This could be the bittervet in me but I really just want to use a CUD and call down whatever strike I want and then wait a while before doing it again.

[PeteHMB]

I like the way the SCUD launchers and artillery were in BF1942: Desert Combat mod. You either dead-reckoned your target from clear across the map, or did it the proper way and had a sniper spot for you. Once the sniper spotted for you, after firing your artillery it would cut to a shot of the sniper's view of your impact (if you were close) and he could either walk you in or let you walk yourself in. Readjusting took skill and at least a little precision, and the artillery vehicles themselves were too vulnerable and unwieldy to try and get close with. It took teamwork to use, teamwork to defend against any remotely coordinated attack from two or more people, and rewarded you appropriately when used correctly. Traverse/angle stops/slows prevented viable direct fire options, so you couldn't really camp right next to a building and shoot into it. I dunno, it just worked.

How to shoot Scud in Desert Combat - YouTube

[Rumblepit]

lmao people crack me up, hes talking about the different types of os's, thats all.vs will look like the old school os ,energy based, nc will have a different version, and so will tr. same scale,damage,and different graphics , thats all.

they will be no artillery vehicles, or giant manable artillery turrets. sorry.

i would stay the os and squad spawing are going to be in the very top of the cert tree. only dedicated leaders will be able to cert it and they will more then likely have to give up something huge for it.cold down will be 3 + hrs again maybe more. maybe days if you cant afford it lol.

[Immigrant]

I like the way the SCUD launchers and artillery were in BF1942: Desert Combat mod. You either dead-reckoned your target from clear across the map, or did it the proper way and had a sniper spot for you. Once the sniper spotted for you, after firing your artillery it would cut to a shot of the sniper's view of your impact (if you were close) and he could either walk you in or let you walk yourself in. Readjusting took skill and at least a little precision, and the artillery vehicles themselves were too vulnerable and unwieldy to try and get close with. It took teamwork to use, teamwork to defend against any remotely coordinated attack from two or more people, and rewarded you appropriately when used correctly. Traverse/angle stops/slows prevented viable direct fire options, so you couldn't really camp right next to a building and shoot into it. I dunno, it just worked.

I would like to see it done this ways, either with vehicles or via stationary artillery from nearby towers. It would be good if only infiltrator could cert the arty scouting ability since they usually have the best overview of the combat.

More footage BF1942 arty, this is really cool:

How to use artillery #2 (indirect fire), by OLI - YouTube

lmao people crack me up, hes talking about the different types of os's, thats all.vs will look like the old school os ,energy based, nc will have a different version, and so will tr. same scale,damage,and different graphics , thats all.

they will be no artillery vehicles, or giant manable artillery turrets. sorry.

i would stay the os and squad spawing are going to be in the very top of the cert tree. only dedicated leaders will be able to cert it and they will more then likely have to give up something huge for it.cold down will be 3 + hrs again maybe more. maybe days if you cant afford it lol.

We understood what Higs said but we are discussing other possibilities/alternatives. Orbitals are essential artillery strikes, except they are way lamer and noobish - you just point, call one in and voila! Instant arty strike... which is lame tbh.

No matter how high on the cert tree you put it, no matter how expensive it is and no matter how long cooldown is (if personal, if empire based it would be bad for already discussed set of reasons), organized outfit members would still eventually unlock it and then save up enough resources to unleash a series of orbital strikes before major attacks which the defender won't be able to prevent or counter in any way.... and that is baaaad. Arty vehicles and emplacements are both destroyable/preventable and way less open to spam abuse. Also precision and scatter of fire depends on the shooter not some random preset values.

[Grognard]

Arty vehicles and emplacements are both destroyable/preventable and way less open to spam abuse. Also precision and scatter of fire depends on the shooter not some random preset values.


Dont forget to mention the counter battery fire duels, which I think would be a "blast"... Artillery is to sniping, as counter-battery is to sniper-duels.

I like the vehicle arty version too, I just dont think its comming for a while, if ever. However, if it was to get in, then I think a counter battery fire model is 100% necessary to self-govern the potential abusers.

That said, with the OS Artillery that is in "for sure", I will be happy. I just really hope that you can call for a smoke barrage variant...

[kadrin]

I address that every time I talk about artillery. Lower the range so that they can't sit in their own base. And even though you didn't mention it, I will go ahead and say that instead of a 30 meter splash radius it should really be more like 5m.

As for that many people playing them, that's more people they have not capturing your bases.

I know what you guys are saying of the problems, I just don't agree that they're problems after appropriate changes are made. Having experienced spam of very similar kind in other games, I'm relatively certain I will be just fine with it if, again, the appropriate changes are made. You in fact just hit upon the solution; spawn at a different base and go after them from there. If the range of the artillery was no more than 750m/1000m, it's not like you'd have to go far.

I'm with Star on this, just scale down their range and their effect but make them manned pieces (I say mobile even).

Why on earth would anyone advocate instant off-board I-win buttons? That's all an OS is. Better to have someone crewing the artillery, and requiring someone else to be spotting his rounds, not only does it take 2 people out of the fight while they coordinate, but it takes time rather than 2 seconds of aiming the OS and receiving your free xp, then right back to shooting. Multiply that by however many people are going to have access to them, which will be a lot the longer the game is out.

[Rumblepit]

Everquest 2: Wings Over Norrath Trailer - YouTube


i want wings!!!!!!!!! lmao

[Xaine]

Never really got the issue with the Flail. It was boring to drive, but i never found it OP.

Get two Reavers and go destroy it. One distracts the AA, the other rapes it.

Tactics are hard? :P

[SKYeXile]

Never really got the issue with the Flail. It was boring to drive, but i never found it OP.

Get two Reavers and go destroy it. One distracts the AA, the other rapes it.

Tactics are hard? :P

Theoryside is the best side.

one reaver can distract the cerb field, the auto base turrets and the manned AA setup long enough for the reaver to get off..was it 2 or 3 rocket salvo's to kill one? i forget...if you managed that and get away to repair you can probably go back and kill one of the other 10 of them just before the first one you killed starts shooting again.

the only way to stop them was to burn the mods.

[Warborn]

What a pointless thing, conflating artillery with orbital strikes. When you say artillery people think flails or vehicles like them. That isn't what this is. This is glorified grenades or something. Items you spend money on that create a big blast someplace, one time. Who cares. It's not artillery.

Artillery is not a thing people actually find fun, and unnecessary given that liberators exist. That's why they aren't in the game, and talking about how cool it'd be to have a vehicle where you sit somewhere safe and click clouds all day isn't going to convince anyone with a brain otherwise.

Honestly, the kowtowing to the terrible ideas of the Planetside 1 developers is absolutely astounding to me. Planetside 1 already exists. We don't need the same garbage repeated.

[kadrin]

Artillery is not a thing people actually find fun, and unnecessary given that liberators exist. That's why they aren't in the game, and talking about how cool it'd be to have a vehicle where you sit somewhere safe and click clouds all day isn't going to convince anyone with a brain otherwise.

Please speak for yourself on this. I know a number of people who enjoy doing artillery, myself included.

[SKYeXile]

What a pointless thing, conflating artillery with orbital strikes. When you say artillery people think flails or vehicles like them. That isn't what this is. This is glorified grenades or something. Items you spend money on that create a big blast someplace, one time. Who cares. It's not artillery.

Artillery is not a thing people actually find fun, and unnecessary given that liberators exist. That's why they aren't in the game, and talking about how cool it'd be to have a vehicle where you sit somewhere safe and click clouds all day isn't going to convince anyone with a brain otherwise.

Honestly, the kowtowing to the terrible ideas of the Planetside 1 developers is absolutely astounding to me. Planetside 1 already exists. We don't need the same garbage repeated.

By click you mean click some tape down over your mouse button, go afk and comeback with 40 kills?

[Turdicus]

Higby has already made it clear that the OS will be used using resources, which then can't be spent on vehicles, special weapons, items, and who knows what else. I don't see a problem. It might be equated to off map artillery, and this is probably a good comparison, but it doesn't mean that actual artillery vehicles need to replace this feature. Artillery vehicles flail style can still be a possibility in the future, and as for the OS the restrictions of a resource cost and a cooldown timer seem to be enough to maintain a very balance-able feature of the game.

It's a sound concept that will be balanced in beta, and artillery vehicles are an entirely separate portion of the game.

[Mechzz]

...

4. Warhead yields:
High resource big yield for breaking a stalemate. Low yield, less resource for suppression, and thinning the herd. This is how I understand what he said, and it equates to "caliber".
...

yeah, those points are what I heard too. And number 4 is the one that worries me. Because something meant to break stalemates (how can you break a stalemate really anyway?) will be spammed after 5 minutes by the bored kiddies ("kiddies" includes many adults btw).

It had better be fecking expensive. Oh, and even if it is, it just contributes to "the rich get richer". Bummer.

[Mechzz]

Please speak for yourself on this. I know a number of people who enjoy doing artillery, myself included.

Kadrin, while it's good that you enjoy doing artillery, have a thought for a second about the players on the receiving end who have no direct way to fight back. And then think about them being on the receiving end of many players who enjoy doing artillery. Then think about them logging out and going to play another game.

Done badly, something like artillery can break this kind of persistent world. It's not like a map where you get spammed a couple of times during a 30minute round. It could be a continuous experience during gameplay, and while fun to play with, not fun to play against.

[Turdicus]

It had better be fecking expensive. Oh, and even if it is, it just contributes to "the rich get richer". Bummer.

Not necessarily, I mean do kills generate resources? Just xp I thought

[Mechzz]

Not necessarily, I mean do kills generate resources? Just xp I thought

I mean in the sense that if your empire is doing well then you have lots of resources, so you can spend more on OS, so your empire does better. and so on.

I actually liked the OS during my time in PS1 2004/5, so if they balance this right it could work for me, but I will watching closely in beta.

[kadrin]

Kadrin, while it's good that you enjoy doing artillery, have a thought for a second about the players on the receiving end who have no direct way to fight back. And then think about them being on the receiving end of many players who enjoy doing artillery. Then think about them logging out and going to play another game.

Done badly, something like artillery can break this kind of persistent world. It's not like a map where you get spammed a couple of times during a 30minute round. It could be a continuous experience during gameplay, and while fun to play with, not fun to play against.

You don't fight back directly versus indirect fire weapons, that's kind of the point.

All players potentially have a direct way to fight back versus artillery. In PS1, if you had an air vehicle certed, all you had to do was just spawn at a base that wasn't getting shelled, grab your air vehicle and hunt it down. The problem is people lack the mental facility to not spawn right into meatgrinders constantly. You cannot cater to these people, they will complain about anything that kills them, be it Air, Ground, Arty, MAXs, or even Heavy Assault weapons.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in PS2 it looks like we don't have to actually cert for vehicles, but we cert for specializations of them. With this being the case, anyone can simply grab an air vehicle and hunt down the offending artillery.

And this is just one person, there will surely be a number of other people, some of them dedicated to air vehicles, who can easily also hunt down artillery units.

I'm not saying artillery doesn't need balancing, the Flail in PS1 sure could use some restrictions like a longer timer for acquiring them, not being able to deploy within a certain range of warpgates and capitol shields. But then, unless the Flail was doing direct fire into a base, you needed a second person to aim for it, it's essentially a 2 person vehicle. If it was doing direct fire into a base, you have nothing to complain about, it's right there for you to shoot back at, stop feeding into the meatgrinder, take 2 seconds to think and go out a different entrance or better yet, spawn some place else.

What I don't understand is people arguing that they'd rather have an OS which anyone can call down at any time assuming they certed for it (and at some point the vast majority of people will have certed for it when enough time has passed). You're essentially arguing for no artillery spam and few OS's now and a crap ton of OS's a month or 2 down the line, something that is essentially an I-Win button with no counter, versus artillery which would need a spotter to be effective and is easily counterable by aircraft.

[Mechzz]

You don't fight back directly versus indirect fire weapons, that's kind of the point.

All players potentially have a direct way to fight back versus artillery. In PS1, if you had an air vehicle certed, all you had to do was just spawn at a base that wasn't getting shelled, grab your air vehicle and hunt it down. The problem is people lack the mental facility to not spawn right into meatgrinders constantly. You cannot cater to these people, they will complain about anything that kills them, be it Air, Ground, Arty, MAXs, or even Heavy Assault weapons.



The "artillery" that's being discussed here is the replacement orbital strike. It could be delivered by off-map artillery (analogous to how it worked in PS1). If so, there will be no countermeasure except to take cover. Such a weapon being spammed by potentially dozens of players could be a game breaker.

[kadrin]

The "artillery" that's being discussed here is the replacement orbital strike. It could be delivered by off-map artillery (analogous to how it worked in PS1). If so, there will be no countermeasure except to take cover. Such a weapon being spammed by potentially dozens of players could be a game breaker.

Which is what I'm arguing against. Off-map support is a terrible idea in a game where players are supposed to fill all the roles.

[Mechzz]

Which is what I'm arguing against. Off-map support is a terrible idea in a game where players are supposed to fill all the roles.

OK, but Higby has said there should be no indirect fire weapons, which has been interpreted on these forums as meaning that true artillery pieces like the Flail from PS1 will not be returning. There has been several threads on that topic.

So if you don't want off-map artillery and there will be no on-map artillery according to the devs, then it seems we are sorted :)

[kadrin]

OK, but Higby has said there should be no indirect fire weapons, which has been interpreted on these forums as meaning that true artillery pieces like the Flail from PS1 will not be returning. There has been several threads on that topic.

So if you don't want off-map artillery and there will be no on-map artillery according to the devs, then it seems we are sorted :)

Unfortunately OS's are a form of off-map artillery. Which is why I was arguing for on-map player used artillery instead of OS's.

[Mechzz]

Unfortunately OS's are a form of off-map artillery. Which is why I was arguing for on-map player used artillery instead of OS's.

I see what you're saying Kadrin, and the truth is we don't know exactly what is in the game or not. We can only express our preferences for now and hope it works out for us gameplay wise. SOE win if they make most of us happy enough to want to keep playing the game.

So I would prefer to have rare and "reasonably" powerful OS-type artillery and no on-map artillery. And you would prefer no OS but on-map artillery. Both are reasonable positions, so let's see how it goes, :huh:

[kadrin]

I see what you're saying Kadrin, and the truth is we don't know exactly what is in the game or not. We can only express our preferences for now and hope it works out for us gameplay wise. SOE win if they make most of us happy enough to want to keep playing the game.

So I would prefer to have rare and "reasonably" powerful OS-type artillery and no on-map artillery. And you would prefer no OS but on-map artillery. Both are reasonable positions, so let's see how it goes, :huh:

We can only wait and see, but from how it looks now, I see it only being a matter of time before it's just as spammed as OS's in PS1.

I'll be playing either way, despite any changes made I do not like.

[Nick]

Well, orbital strike for CRs is from PS1, but if a lot of people get it, that's more like Battlefield Bad Company 2. In BC2 all recon can choose Mortar Strike which reloaded in like 30 or 45 seconds and was unlimited in ammo.

This. Why does every single mechanic have to be a copy off the Battlefield series? Is it because Smedley is a huge fanboy and writes your paychecks? Or has SOE given up on actually having to think for themselves?

Might as well just remove Orbital Strikes at this point, I don't want to randomly get instagibbed like in BC2.

The proposed mechanic:

Mortar Strike - Battlefield: Bad Company 2 - YouTube

Source:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nl3UduQprZ4#t=32m34s

The funny part is Higby mentions they have to come up with "creative ways to prevent AOE spam." How bout not implement this terrible mechanic at all? You say you don't want indirect fire but then you rip a mechanic straight out of Battlefield: Bad Company 2 which can instagib players with basically no warning just because someone took out some stupid device and clicked it in your direction. At least OS had a good warning and had a meaningful cooldown. Just because it costs resources doesn't mean anything. Eventually people will have resources banked, man.

[Turdicus]

deleting this post because it was silly and misdirected

[Nick]

deleting this post because it was silly and misdirected

Yeah, think before you reply.

[Graywolves]

Not sure if this has been said yet but I also feel like a warning of some kind is also important with firepower of this magnitude.

In the original Planetside the OS would perform an animation in the targeted area for a few seconds before going off. As an infantryman you could potentially escape it most of the time if you reacted quick enough. Especially if you had a stairwell or something to run into.

I'm guessing artillery type ordnance could have an alarm warning but that would be harder to evade as it does not tell you where it is going to land.



Only be able to hit the deck and hope for the best while your surroundings are baraged by ordnance you had no power to avoid or predict would be troublesome. Even if only on occasion.

[Shade Millith]

I despise the concept of 'Automatic, off field' artillery. I'm sorry, but for this type of game, it's absurd. Shock horror that in a TEAM game, you have to have TEAM work!

There are plenty of ways of making an artillery piece that is NOT a flail, and will not cause the problems the flail caused. And I've given several ideas before on this forums.

The problem is this stupid "OMG ARTILLERY EQUALS FLAIL!!" mentality that people have stuck in their heads. And I don't care if you think that it's boring to man. There are people, myself included, that will use these vehicles to give long range fire support.

There is nothing, NOTHING, more boring and uninteresting than this unimaginative automatic 'Artillery' crap. It's arcade-like to the extreme, so either do it right, or not at all.

[Grognard]

What a pointless thing, conflating artillery with orbital strikes. When you say artillery people think flails or vehicles like them. That isn't what this is. This is glorified grenades or something. Items you spend money on that create a big blast someplace, one time. Who cares. It's not artillery.


That closed minded? "Conflating" on my part? Seriously? Well, ok then :) I refer you to this:

http://www.planetside-universe.com/showpost.php?p=704159&postcount=1
Timeframe: 11:15 - 11:40

Not everyone thinks simply in terms of flails, or even vehicles, in a game medium, and for good reason. I'd imagine Higby knows this game pretty well, and he "conflates" the two himself. So, it looks like I am in good company, since I am going by the developers own words, and explanation.

In fact... this version of artillery is more familiar to me for the reasons I mentioned, and for one that I didnt... When I was in the USMC, part of the armorers job was to be the company radioman, and on an exercise I would be right next to the CO calling in "strikes". I never saw any vehicles, but I saw the results... So, what people think when they hear "artillery" is based on their experience. So, this is the game manefestation of that RL call for fire mechanic.

In the context of this game, OSes are artillery. You may continue to take this up with the developers if you wish, but its pretty clear what he said.

[Grognard]

There are plenty of ways of making an artillery piece that is NOT a flail, and will not cause the problems the flail caused. And I've given several ideas before on this forums.

The problem is this stupid "OMG ARTILLERY EQUALS FLAIL!!" mentality that people have stuck in their heads. And I don't care if you think that it's boring to man. There are people, myself included, that will use these vehicles to give long range fire support.


Ive agreed with you for as long as youve said this, Ive just accepted that its not going to happen for a while, if at all. The new mechanics of the "OS" is very much like the artillery mechanics of many other experiences I have had in the past, games or otherwise. Big guns are very often much further to the rear than the map sizes we have in PS2, so it stands to reason that artillery strikes would be called-in via (OS) strikes.

So, just like Higby says, for all intents and purposes, as far as indirect fire goes, this is the same thing, and I agree. I for one am glad to have it, as long as it is balanced, and not out of control, which I admit is a possibility. Then again, thats what the beta is for...

[Turdicus]

At least OS had a good warning and had a meaningful cooldown. Just because it costs resources doesn't mean anything. Eventually people will have resources banked, man.

Ehhhhh, the OS Higby talked about cost both resources AND have a meaningful cooldown, and nowhere has it been said that there wont be a warning for it. People could potentially bank resources but if the system is done right then it would make sense that this would come at the cost of a lot of sacrifices in terms of equipment and capability. One dude can only use an OS once every once in a while, and it costs mulah that most people spend on the playstyles they enjoy most.

With the game operating on the scale it will be I think OS will be a very common sight, but since things are on a larger scale then I don't see a problem with that. It's going to be way harder to lock defenders indoors since the battlefield involves many more entrances and exits in a base than before. The old problems with OS seem to have been solved in my book.

[CutterJohn]

The only people with an OS/Arty strike/whatever should be the squad/platoon leader.

Squad leader forms a squad. Based on mission performance, kills, and time, he gains requisition points from members of his squad(i.e. more squad members, more points). He can then spend those requisition points on command functions, things like sensor scan, supply drop, and ofc, OS.

Bam. The supply of OSs will forever be balanced, regardless of how many people have it certed, how many players there are, regardless of anything, since the supply is limited by design.



PS: Arty vehicles that require a spotter are still a horrid idea. It is the least compelling gameplay mechanic ever devised, and is completely devoid of both skill and strategy. Upon taking the role, you successfully become an interface device for another person, aiming and shooting where and when he tells you. You add absolutely nothing to the dynamic.

[Semisel]

Newbie idea time! Yay!


First, as my operating principles in laying out the following ideas, I am equating OSs with artillery / indirect fire, assuming that the resource-return ratio on OS for increasing size is close to linear, assuming that they need to be properly laser-designated with direct line-of-sight, and assuming that they have some sort of inbound time to give warning to anyone within their target area so that anyone within that area can have a shot at surviving if they respond quickly.

Now, I'm approaching this almost from a lore stance as a means of properly regulating the frequency and availability of OSs. OSs fire from Orbital Platforms (OrbP), by canon. I don't know if they are supposed to be in geosynchronous orbit or not, but I will address two scenarios, in one of which OrbPs have geosynchronous orbit and in one of which they do not. My general idea is this: if there are X OrbPs in orbit for each faction, and if they fire at a maximum rate of Y strikes / unit of time, then each platform should have at least a continental firing lockout until after it has reloaded/recharged. Thus, I propose at least a continental lockout on OSs, with some testable variable for the number of OrbPs / continent, and with some testable variable for the duration of the firing lockout. This would be the working model for OrbPs in geosynchronous orbit (G-model). If OrbPs are not in geosynchronous orbit (A-model), then I propose that OrbPs be given a travel time between continents, as well as a global firing lockout per OrbP, allowing for the variables mentioned above in addition to a travel time variable.

The most immediate criticism for either model is that OSs could be wasted by players who do not have solid judgment for the best time to use them and the optimal placement of them, thus locking out the use of OSs on at least the entire continent for whichever faction. I recognize this fully, and I think CutterJohn's idea of only allowing platoon leaders (not squad leaders, in this case) would be the best way to mitigate that vulnerability. Granted, both models also suffer a vulnerability to faction espionage, against which I haven't been able to devise a counter.

The G-model is significantly more forgiving than the A-model, as the A-model has the additional downside of intercontinental travel time, if a primed OrbP is not already above the continent. Aside from tweaking any already-present variables, nothing comes to mind as a way to temper the harsh restrictions of the A-model. All other downsides to both models are the downsides already addressed in regards to the current implementation of / plan for OSs as it was presented by Higby.


My main reasoning behind this line of thinking amounts to two ideas in tandem: first, that the lore and the game mechanic can and should sync in such a way that is believable, and second, that the outlined models allow for OSs to be viable in scalpel brute-force applications, while preventing their abuse in moment-to-moment and generalized engagements.


(Sorry for the hugely long-winded post. :()

[Quantum Spices]

I have no idea if this has been mentioned before, but there should be 3-6 captureable bases that instead of collecting resources, has artillery. Whomever owns the base owns artillery capabilities for an area.

[IMMentat]

If Higby's talk of "choose your method of overkill" holds true then it could make the new OS template a fine thing indeed.

I have always liked the idea of tailoring an ability to your needs and really hope the options are as flexible as possible.

Put a few generic OS types in (nuke? laser? area barage? Laser guided bomb?) for most players plus a recipie book for more advanced users.

Suggested recipie options.
Width of area affected? (you want a tank squad discouraged or a dead sniper?)
Damage/Yield/type of warehad(s)? (you after the troops the tanks or EVERYTHING?)
Rectangle, cone, line or circle "footprint"? (control is good)
Duration of barrage? (oneshot or a bombardment)
Transition barrage from one spot to another? (will they move? do you want them to?)
Direction and angle of attack? (top down satalite strike or side on cruise missile?)
Number of warheads? (Now to make it pretty!)

Select the options, agree to the price then use as you see fit (within whatever ruleset calling one in requires you to adhere to).


Sort of a buffet of doom. The limit is how deep your pocket is rather than how large your intestines.

[Mechzz]

...

Sort of a buffet of doom. The limit is how deep your pocket is rather than how large your intestines.

Hmm. If these things are purchaseable in the store there will be a shitstorm?

[kadrin]

PS: Arty vehicles that require a spotter are still a horrid idea. It is the least compelling gameplay mechanic ever devised, and is completely devoid of both skill and strategy. Upon taking the role, you successfully become an interface device for another person, aiming and shooting where and when he tells you. You add absolutely nothing to the dynamic.

Because relying on someone else to be effective is a bad idea with such a powerful weapon. Better that you just point and click on a map and get pin point accurate fire.

It does take some amount of skill/strategy/tactics/thought whatever you feel like calling it. Pair up a couple of noobs and a couple of vets and see who gets better results.

Just because you personally do not enjoy spotting or firing the artillery does not mean others do not find this enjoyable and rewarding for the teamwork/coordination required.

[SpcFarlen]

I actual like the idea a semi movable (ill explain in a bit) and destroyable artillery assets. Adds some new tactics upto the block. But on the side of it being a vehicle, i want it to move slowly. It shouldnt really be an asset that is use for every situation. Small skirmish for an outpost? No. Large base capture, yes. So by limiting its movement it kind of creates a niche for it.

Though im really not opposed to there just being a pay X resource to get an orbital strike. From what i heard of the interview was that it costs resources, is on a cooldown and has a limited AoE being much smaller than in PS. So by no means did i feel as if that meant spamable or OP. Granted none of us are sure, its just theorycrafting.

However i feel that having as this external, dual cost system is much easier to balance. Add/lower cost, add/lower cooldown, decrease/increase damage, decrease/increase range. It is just sliding those variables over. I understand the concern with not being able to counter, maybe have a limit like you need 2 nearby outposts to use... Only limit it to certain ranks in Squad Leader or Commander certs...

Just my thoughts on it. In content either way. Partially because i just havent gotten my hands on it.

[CutterJohn]

rewarding for the teamwork/coordination required.


Once again. It requires neither teamwork nor coordination. The gunner does exactly what the spotter tells him to do, and nothing more.

[kadrin]

Once again. It requires neither teamwork nor coordination. The gunner does exactly what the spotter tells him to do, and nothing more.

Right because the spotter can call in artillery strikes without someone being in the gun firing, and the gunner can fire at targets that he has no clue where they are because no one is telling him where the enemy is.

You know how real life machine gun crews work right? Assist gunner tells the machine gunner how to adjust his shots because he cannot easily see where they are landing. According to you, that is also not teamwork or coordination, after all he's just doing what his assistant is telling him.

A lot of coordination and teamwork often fall under someone telling someone else what to do. If they didn't there would be no teamwork at all, everyone would be doing their own thing. Why have squads in the game? All they're going to do is follow their squad leaders orders.

Oversimplifying is easy.

[Immigrant]

The only people with an OS/Arty strike/whatever should be the squad/platoon leader.

Squad leader forms a squad. Based on mission performance, kills, and time, he gains requisition points from members of his squad(i.e. more squad members, more points). He can then spend those requisition points on command functions, things like sensor scan, supply drop, and ofc, OS.

Bam. The supply of OSs will forever be balanced, regardless of how many people have it certed, how many players there are, regardless of anything, since the supply is limited by design.



PS: Arty vehicles that require a spotter are still a horrid idea. It is the least compelling gameplay mechanic ever devised, and is completely devoid of both skill and strategy. Upon taking the role, you successfully become an interface device for another person, aiming and shooting where and when he tells you. You add absolutely nothing to the dynamic.

Actually I don't see how that balances the situation at all. First do squad have formal leaders at all (since most people will use auto-squading)? If by leaders you actually mean people investing in commander certs that not the same by far since you could have 10 leaders per squad in theory that way. Anyway even with formal squad leaders you'd still have peeps stocking their requisition points (they could rotate that function to stock up points very easy) and then using them massively (spamming) before major attacks.

Arty vehicle requiring a spotter aren't a horrid idea at all. Arty vehicles don't requiring a spotter are far worse as well as point-an-click arty/orbital strikes that required absolutely no skill at all.

Also you wouldn't need the exact mechanic shown in video that ww2 games use - I haven't played those game but being interface for other is bad I agree. Easy solution would be that arty spotters (engy or inf or other class which is most appropriate) actually deploy cameras in right direction overlooking the desired target. Once camera is deployed arty man can gain control of it (if within adequate range; he could perhaps have some degree of left-right rotation somewhere from 60-180 degrees depending on the certs maybe, and possibly also some zoom) and than fire away from the distance. So "spotter" or let's better call it deployer of camera would have to find a good location from which target is visible and point it in right direction yet so it is concealed from enemy soldiers who could disable/destroy it. Guy manning the artillery could switch between currently idle cameras within his range also if there aren't any he could call for someone to deploy one and that would then show as a mission for soldiers in the area. Spotter/deployers would then get xp from kills the arty guy makes. It think this system is fairly simple, effective and spam-proof.