It's unfair of the developers to take away physical Artillery

[Goldeh]

I know they're many threads addressing the topic but I believe that it's lazy of the developer that they can't find a way to incorperate a physical presence on the battlefield for Artillery. If one were argue that it's lame to get killed by something that you couldn't see then one could also argue the same for the sniper. It's boggling that when it comes to FPS games at least, no developer can be creative when it comes to Artillery, the last FPS I remember that I played with physical-mobile-vehicle artillery was Battlefield 1942. They either make it into an ability (Orbital Stike) or not include it at all and it's never truly stated as to why they make this decison.

In addition is that an Orbital Strike, isn't counterable (at least from what we/I know). You have to let it happen. At least with Artillery, after the first shell goes off, if there's someone paying attention then they could go there and get the Artillery before it does real damage. Also, the argument that "artillery kills more allies than enemies" is bogus, it only happens because artillery doesn't know where he's firing at. Also, You could argue the same for the indiscriminate Orbital Strike if a person was playing blindfolded.

Now I never played Planetside 1, but I was hoping that Planetside 2 would do Artillery justice considering the massive scale of it all..I just think it's unfair for the developer to not add in a physical presence of Artillery without giving it a serious looking at but instead replace it with an quickie ability and calling that artillery when it's not. It's not fair and needs to be re-looked at by the developers in my opinion.

[Sirisian]

I know they're many threads addressing the topic
We have many threads that offer balanced solutions toward this issue. I always liked my suggestion (http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=37108), but others have brought up solution. A big thing is players here have mentioned they don't like extremely indirect weapons.

If one were argue that it's lame to get killed by something that you couldn't see then one could also argue the same for the sniper.
Sniping requires line of sight. However, many have argued for no one-hit kills in PS2, so that argument falls flat.


In addition is that an Orbital Strike, isn't counterable (at least from what we/I know). You have to let it happen.
Agreed. We've had multiple threads now about treating artillery and other projectiles as physical objects which can be targeted and shot down. The concept of ES weapons makes such things difficult or less balanceable.

Chances are whatever implementation you're thinking of has already been suggested though. If you search the forums you'll see multiple threads on the subject that are massive.

[Reefpirate]

I know they're many threads addressing the topic but I believe that it's lazy of the developer that they can't find a way to incorperate a physical presence on the battlefield for Artillery. If one were argue that it's lame to get killed by something that you couldn't see then one could also argue the same for the sniper. It's boggling that when it comes to FPS games at least, no developer can be creative when it comes to Artillery, the last FPS I remember that I played with physical-mobile-vehicle artillery was Battlefield 1942. They either make it into an ability (Orbital Stike) or not include it at all and it's never truly stated as to why they make this decison.

In addition is that an Orbital Strike, isn't counterable (at least from what we/I know). You have to let it happen. At least with Artillery, after the first shell goes off, if there's someone paying attention then they could go there and get the Artillery before it does real damage. Also, the argument that "artillery kills more allies than enemies" is bogus, it only happens because artillery doesn't know where he's firing at. Also, You could argue the same for the indiscriminate Orbital Strike if a person was playing blindfolded.

Now I never played Planetside 1, but I was hoping that Planetside 2 would do Artillery justice considering the massive scale of it all..I just think it's unfair for the developer to not add in a physical presence of Artillery without giving it a serious looking at but instead replace it with an quickie ability and calling that artillery when it's not. It's not fair and needs to be re-looked at by the developers in my opinion.

I think artillery would be cool if they could figure it out some day. They've considered it, they'll implement it in a form with OS being artillery-like, and there's no way it's getting in the game between now and beta/release.

Is it unfair? I don't know what unfair means by your standards... But I don't mind waiting until a while after release for it.

[Turdicus]

Ehhhhh unfair is a hugely horrible word to use here. They took it out because in PS1 artillery was a pain the arse and more annoying than fun. Aside from that they want to reduce indirect play as much as possible. OS isn't a replacement, it was a separate entity in PS1 and it is a separate entity here (imo).

Anyway it might be added in later, the game has a 5 year cycle and they already put liberator bombs back in when they werent an original plan. And the argument against them was the same as the one against arty.

[Stardouser]

Planetside is a game where you would like to have high hopes for strategic aspects. Artillery is a strategic asset, and you respond strategically. Not having things like artillery is a blow to strategy, minor though it may be.

The only problem with Flails in PS1 was the huge blast radius and unlimited range. I agree that those were unfair. But apart from that, the complaints are really just people who expect to be able to return fire instantly, a duel simulator, in other words. Artillery range should be limited, maybe 750-1000 meters, that means all you have to do is go look for it.

With all that said, I like the idea of fixed location firebases that have artillery built into them. The enemy always knows where they are, and can suppress them or capture them for their own use.

[Knightwyvern]

I'd really like artillery to eventually make it into PS2, they are just too fundamental in modern (and not-so-modern) warfare to pass up IMO. I'd even probably prefer actual player-driven artillery pieces over OS style point and clicks. Having a teammate in an artillery piece a km away, with your infil at the front laying down a laze target for the artillery.. seems like it would support teamwork and coordination much more than a one person OS does.

Plus as others have stated, you can just blow them up.

[infected]

quick fix: pick NC, get a vanguard, bombard shit from afar.

[vVRedOctoberVv]

I liked flails in PS1. They were my favorite targets, cause they couldn't really fight back. People not wanting artillery because "they don't like indirect fire" or "things they can't fight back against" are stupid. That moronic argument has existed since the first person picked up and threw the first rock at some guy that was carrying a stick. Artillery can be fought back against, with even a small amount of effort. Of course, if the enemy decides to camp their artillery and shell from a distance, that's a perfectly legitimate tactic... In fact, one that has been used for over 2,000 years.

[NoDachi]

How can you take away something from PS2 that wasn't even there to begin with?

[Knightwyvern]

quick fix: pick NC, get a vanguard, bombard shit from afar.

I intend to ;) Though there's an idea; instead of a whole new vehicle for artillery, just add an arty turret onto the MBT for each faction. Require it to be "locked down" to fire because of high recoil or some such fluff. Also require a teammate to laze or toss smoke on targets to have any kind of real accuracy, or use it as an areal denial tool. Voila.

[Littleman]

If tanks can aim their barrels high enough, or if they get a turret that turns them into artillery platforms, all that would really need be added is a method for one to spot/mark a location for bombardment and the artillery driver would need only follow the guide to hit that location. Probably some form of fruity colored smoke grenade, so the bad guys know $#!% is coming their way.

Mind you this piece of equipment could work for visually marking locations for bombers and strike craft as well, a bit of a tactical beacon or waypoint if you will. Need a crossing cleared? Call in a gunship or a ES fighter pilot to do a strafing run real quick.

[Sifer2]

If they didn't have stats I don't imagine people would have a problem with it. But now that they felt the need to include stats for everything, and K/D ratio it would just become a huge kill whoring weapon.

Personally I think mobile artillery might be out. But I could see them having static Artillery emplacements you could capture, and activate for your faction.

[Fenrys]

If it's ever added, I hope every shell costs significantly more resources than a grenade. It should be economically inadvisable to just target a vpad or tower door, then tape your mouse button down and go eat a sandwich.

[Runlikethewind]

If they implement artillery then they should also implement counter battery radar. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-battery_radar

[Xyntech]

I wouldn't mind a well thought out and well balanced artillery system, but... It's "unfair" that they aren't including it? Fuck off.

It's "unfair" that VS MAXes don't have jump jets in PS2, however it would also be unfair if they did. It would probably be unfair even if all 3 empires MAXes did, unless they had some serious downsides (only able to use a single gun, PS1 VS/NC MAX style? Would be apropos).

To say they are "taking away" artillery in PS2 is to imply a direct connection between PS1 and PS2, and the only artillery we had in PS1 was the shitty Flail. I am so glad that the devs aren't bringing back that spamming piece of shit. As I said, I'd love to see them add in a good artillery system into PS2, but it would have to be so fundamentally different from the Flail that it really wouldn't truly be bringing anything "back."

So I support them adding a new feature never before seen in a Planetside game: Well done Artillery!

But it can wait until after launch. If they find the time to get it done before then, great, but I think they have better things to work on for now.

[Runlikethewind]

I intend to ;) Though there's an idea; instead of a whole new vehicle for artillery, just add an arty turret onto the MBT for each faction. Require it to be "locked down" to fire because of high recoil or some such fluff. Also require a teammate to laze or toss smoke on targets to have any kind of real accuracy, or use it as an areal denial tool. Voila.

I like this idea.

If it's ever added, I hope every shell costs significantly more resources than a grenade. It should be economically inadvisable to just target a vpad or tower door, then tape your mouse button down and go eat a sandwich.

And this one too.

[Accuser]

Ehhhhh unfair is a hugely horrible word to use here. They took it out because in PS1 artillery was a pain the arse and more annoying than fun.

Indeed. Artillery would add nothing but frustration to PS2. Aircraft serve the same purpose, but can be destroyed while they are attacking by a variety of things (AA lightning, base turrets, HA rockets, engi turrets(?)) whereas arty can be protected from harm while attacking. Just not good gameplay.

[mintyc]

if they put artillery in PS2 i want it to take an age to deploy and have next to no armour. that way air cav would totaly demolish it and would need properly defening with AA and have no chance of escaping chargring tanks.

by way of comparison a flail would have the aromur of a vanguard and the deployment speed of a western gunsliner at high noon.

[Stardouser]

Indeed. Artillery would add nothing but frustration to PS2. Aircraft serve the same purpose, but can be destroyed while they are attacking by a variety of things (AA lightning, base turrets, HA rockets, engi turrets(?)) whereas arty can be protected from harm while attacking. Just not good gameplay.

Not true, they add strategic play to the game by providing fire support in a way that aircraft don't. Of course, it might frustrate those who want a duel sim instead of a strategic experience...

While it's true that in PS1 the unlimited range allowed Flails to fire from near a base shield, that is easily corrected. As for teammates protecting artillery from harm by setting up a fighter or tank screen, that's just teamwork.

[WNxThentar]

blah blah blah...

Now I never played Planetside 1, but I was hoping that Planetside 2 would do Artillery justice considering the massive scale of it all..I just think it's unfair for the developer to not add in a physical presence of Artillery without giving it a serious looking at but instead replace it with an quickie ability and calling that artillery when it's not. It's not fair and needs to be re-looked at by the developers in my opinion.

I love this..."I've never played Planetside 1, BUT..."

Perhaps you should see how the game plays out first. SOE and PS1 vets have had 9 years of seeing what worked right in MMOFPS. Perhaps you should give them some credit if something isn't put in or is under review.

PS1 had artillery as advanced tech. It didn't do much good unless you had someone actively spotting for you. Honestly I don't think it needs to be put in at the beginning and definitely needs to be balanced. Otherwise it is a cheap way for kills. I'd say it should have an extremely high resource cost ... per shot. Honestly if you can fire over and over rounds that kill a half a dozen or more players at a time without very much risk to yourself then there needs to be some big costs associated with it.

Something like it costs a bucket load of resources to spawn, takes a fair amount of time to deploy and take down and some other thing so that people aren't effectively free from reprisals.

PS1 the Fail can be used without much risk because you can park it near warp bubbles and before you get destroyed you can un-deploy and move into cover.

I'd want to see PS2 have its artillery be almost paper thin requiring it to have a nice amount of support to be even viable

[super pretendo]

Everything can be balanced. I trust that creative devs can implement artillery in a fun, balanced an unique way. Why not make it very difficult to aim, with wind etc affecting it, require a player closer on the battlefield to "lock" the spot it is to hit, make it have a very long reload time...

[Accuser]

Artillery is a terrible idea.
Either it will bring nothing to the game that tank fire doesn't already do, or it will have the advantage over too many types of classes. Aircraft can attack targets behind enemy lines, but they're vulnerable to 2 different infantry classes, MAX units, base turrets, and any tank spec'd for AA. They're powerful, but you get killed, respawn with AA and you fight back.

Artillery would be vulnerable only to aircraft and other artillery. That's not strategy, that's imbalance. You die to artillery and... hope your team can push out to kill the artillery? Add to that the probability of friendly fire and you've got yourself a terrible idea for a strategic unit. It was ridiculous and annoying in PS1 and would be in PS2.

[Stardouser]

Artillery would be vulnerable only to aircraft and other artillery.

Tanks and infantry can kill them too. I agree that if the range is unlimited, it's hard, that's why it's already been covered - limit the range.

Blanket dismissal of something because the way PS1 did something was annoying is only going to eliminate legitimate things.

[Forsaken One]

I'd rather have something like the flail then magic beams/shells/etc from the sky.

[PhoenixDog]

Let's get people used to the game first before introducing insta-WTF-how-did-I-just-die-to-nothing-oh-wait-it's-a-fucking-artillery-shell-this-is-bullshit-no-skill-whats-so-ever-noob-omg things.

[SKYeXile]

If one were argue that it's lame to get killed by something that you couldn't see then one could also argue the same for the sniper.

We are arguing the same for the sniper. It in essence why stealth was removed from the sniper in TF2, since you're not enguaded with your enemy, dying to somebody in a situation when you could do nothing to avoid your death creates uncaptivating gameplay and players feel like they were cheated.

Let's get people used to the game first before introducing insta-WTF-how-did-I-just-die-to-nothing-oh-wait-it's-a-fucking-artillery-shell-this-is-bullshit-no-skill-whats-so-ever-noob-omg things.

^ essentially what im referring to, dying to shit like that wont keep players around.

[Trafalgar]

Artillery is a terrible idea.
Either it will bring nothing to the game that tank fire doesn't already do, or it will have the advantage over too many types of classes. [...]

Artillery would be vulnerable only to aircraft and other artillery. That's not strategy, that's imbalance. You die to artillery and... hope your team can push out to kill the artillery? Add to that the probability of friendly fire and you've got yourself a terrible idea for a strategic unit. It was ridiculous and annoying in PS1 and would be in PS2.

It's called flanking, preferably with some form of cavalry - In this case tanks or the like. Artillery's not a tank, it's not built to shoot at point-blank range, and it's vulnerable to anything that can approach it from the sides or back rapidly (or stealthily) (assuming it isn't a howitzer mounted in a tank body which is immune to certain weapons for some reason).

(But I agree that being killed by it wouldn't be particularly fun as you can't tell where it's coming from - but neither would be being killed by an orbital strike ordered by some guy tapping on his ipad who you can't even touch)

[Forsaken One]

Let's get people used to the game first before introducing insta-WTF-how-did-I-just-die-to-nothing-oh-wait-it's-a-fucking-artillery-shell-this-is-bullshit-no-skill-whats-so-ever-noob-omg things.

Honestly think about it. Would you rather be hit by a flail where you can then respawn and kick the flail and its user in the nuts or be auto pwned by a magic beam/group of shells that came from a magic invisible rainbow that farted in the sky?

[Trafalgar]

I find your insane troll logic oddly compelling.

I jest.

Perhaps you could explain why you would be able to locate a flail (I am unfamiliar with that, and am quite sure you don't mean the medieval weapon) any better than a howitzer or the like. E.G. Why wouldn't it be just as far away and non-visible?

[Goldeh]

We are arguing the same for the sniper. It in essence why stealth was removed from the sniper in TF2, since you're not enguaded with your enemy, dying to somebody in a situation when you could do nothing to avoid your death creates uncaptivating gameplay and players feel like they were cheated.



^ essentially what im referring to, dying to shit like that wont keep players around.

Ya but couldn't you say that for the OS then? I mean if you don't see it coming and you're in the middle of it..?

I'm not saying bring back Flail in PS1 to PS2, I've read up upon it and read other people's opinions and watched the few youtubes of it out there. I just want a physical presence of Artillery.

You could make it so artillery only fires 1 shot before reload and give it a 7 second reload or somthing. Make it fire a max of 6 shots before out of ammo completely etc. make it move slow, paper armor, deploy before firing, fixed turret--no rotate, slow vehicle turn rate speed, max of 1km fire etc.

They're are ways. It's just unfair that the final word was no without any real discussion and I know they've discussed it because they refer the OS as artillery.

[Envenom]

I for one don't want to step out of a base and have 2000+ nubs 16km away barraging the shit out of me = not fun.

[Turdicus]

or be auto pwned by a magic beam/group of shells that come from a magic invisible rainbow that farted in the sky?

...I'd pay for that option actually...

[PhoenixDog]

Honestly think about it. Would you rather be hit by a flail where you can then respawn and kick the flail and its user in the nuts or be auto pwned by a magic beam/group of shells that come from a magic invisible rainbow that farted in the sky?

Sniper = One man, as the weakest "class" defensively in the game killing me. Gives his position away to my empire once he kills me. Needs to see me to kill me, thus be close to my empire to counter.

Orbital Strike = Large one-time bombardment on an area. Used likely by a high ranking player. Also likely acquired in the cert trees thus making them limited in other aspects of the game in order to use it. May cost a large amount of resources or a long re-use timer to use again. Has to make it count or is wasted.

Artillery = Heavily armoured unit that didn't even need line of sight to kill me. Thus could be kilometres away. Likely protected by other armoured units, or behind a defensive line. Potentially hidden in a base making it difficult to engage. Will take many empire deaths to locate the path in which the shell took to determine the location of the artillery. Requires large manpower to take down due to high potential of defence.

[Forsaken One]

I find your insane troll logic oddly compelling.

I jest.

Perhaps you could explain why you would be able to locate a flail (I am unfamiliar with that, and am quite sure you don't mean the medieval weapon) any better than a howitzer or the like. E.G. Why wouldn't it be just as far away and non-visible?

I'm guessing you mean me? Flail is PS1 artillery truck thing. its a vehicle you get in, place and fire artillery shell from like a howitzer.

http://wiki.planetsidesyndicate.com/index.php?title=Flail Its shells also have a pretty long "bullet trail" so if you see a shell in the air you can pretty easily guess very close to where it is.

[PhoenixDog]

I'm guessing you mean me? Flail is PS1 artillery truck thing. its a vehicle you get in, place and fire artillery shell from like a howitzer.

http://wiki.planetsidesyndicate.com/index.php?title=Flail Its shells also have a pretty long "bullet trail" so if you see a shell in the air you can pretty easily guess very close to where it is.

And never be able to get to it and destroy it as it's almost always inside an enemy base surrounded by the entire zerg. Only way to kill it is normallt with an Orbital Strike.

Oh yeah, you don't want those in the game....

[Goldeh]

In one game that I forget what the name of it was, it was an RTS though. It had it so that the shells themselves appeared on the minimap allowing players to zero in on the artillery location rather quickly.

If they had like something like that in for Artillery, would that make artillery better? And perhaps weak-1-shot from-anything armor?

[PhoenixDog]

If they had like something like that in for Artillery, would that make artillery better? And perhaps weak-1-shot from-anything armor?

Once again...It's not about knowing where the artillery is that is the issue. It's the fact that it is entrenched. Surrounded by friendly armour and population. Yeah, it'll take teamwork to kill it, sure...But while you and 50 friends formulate a plot to invade the enemy base surrounded by tanks and aircraft...20 artillery are ruining 20 differently locations, and pissing off hundreds of people with insta-kill lobbing.

[jpmc]

I personally like the idea of indirect fire-support because it brings a whole new aspect of game play (groups working together in Arty, AA, inf) but I do see downsides, Why not have a custom module for armor to be able to shoot the shells down in flight? Have modules for gunships to have a long range missile like ability that only locks onto arty? The pros outweigh the cons imo.

[Goldeh]

Once again...It's not about knowing where the artillery is that is the issue. It's the fact that it is entrenched. Surrounded by friendly armour and population. Yeah, it'll take teamwork to kill it, sure...But while you and 50 friends formulate a plot to invade the enemy base surrounded by tanks and aircraft...20 artillery are ruining 20 differently locations, and pissing off hundreds of people with insta-kill lobbing.

But your side could do that as well and counter artillery, among other things.

[Buggsy]

If they didn't have stats I don't imagine people would have a problem with it. But now that they felt the need to include stats for everything, and K/D ratio it would just become a huge kill whoring weapon.

Personally I think mobile artillery might be out. But I could see them having static Artillery emplacements you could capture, and activate for your faction.

Static anything placed by the developers is junk.

Let players build them where the players want to build them. Stop controlling players.

[Superbus]

Artillery could be done in this game, if it was coded in a somewhat realistic manner to how it works on a real battlefield.

For one any artillery piece would have to be multi crewed, that way it isn't just used to get a easy massive kill count solo. So for a mobile platform you would need driver, gunner and loader to be effective, for a mortar you would need someone to deploy and aim, and a loader. This makes it a team effort and not easily spammed. You would also need some sort of observer/spotter relaying that information to guns.

Artillery should also have a fairly long setup time, and a fairly quick tear down time. Reason being the muzzle flashes would be visible at long distance, especially at night, which would make them extremely visible to aircraft, so ideally you would get maybe one two rounds off tops before you are spotted. The other reason for a fairly quick take down would be engineers would have a utility item such as a radar which would tack incoming rounds and pinpoint the artillery location, so your team could easily counter-fire that artillery battery with your own. This would make it extremely difficult to sit in one location and lob artillery into an enemy base, you would always have to be shooting and moving.

Resource cost should also be expensive. The vehicle should be expensive and hold a small number of rounds that have to be purchased with resources as well. The rounds would very in price I.E. smoke being the cheapest, H.E. being expensive.

I would much rather have a system like this rather than one person nuke a base every few hours. A system like this involves intensive team-play, gives a commander something to command, I.E. where to setup where to shoot etc. Last but not least it is high risk play, you spend a lot of resources as well as time setting something like this up, with the chance to lose it all in seconds, but can potentially get a big pay off as well.

Oh and if SOE does decide on artillery please no crappy looking flail that thing looked awful!!! Never liked the alien stuff in PS1.

[OutlawDr]

If they implement artillery then they should also implement counter battery radar. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-battery_radar

No that would be unfair to physical Artillery.:nono:

[SKYeXile]

Ya but couldn't you say that for the OS then? I mean if you don't see it coming and you're in the middle of it..?


the only time you die to an OS is because A: you're a retard or B you just spawned and had no possible chance of moving out of the way. with the charge up time its pretty easy to dodge and compared to artillery that can be spammed, orbital strikes cant be by an individual.

What would be the purpose of artillery though? or would its only purpose be to attempt to simulate a real battle?

[kadrin]

There are many many ways to balance out artillery: rate of fire, health, resource cost, range, damage, damage radius, etc.

It would seem people who are against artillery lack the capacity to think of how to counter it, and greatly exaggerate it's "invincibility", while underestimating the amount of teamwork required to be effective at anything other than close range door camping.

"Oh it's near a warpgate and will just go inside if we come after it". Sure, if you go at it guns blazing like a moron. Take that extra 10 seconds and come up on its flank. All MBTs, the Reaver, Liberator, BFRs, and Galaxy Gunship can kill a Flail well before it undeploys, and I'm sure a few other vehicles can too.

"But it's surrounded by enemies who are protecting it". Great! For every person they have defending it, that's one less who's actively out there fighting your empire. And it still doesn't protect them from OS's or even Flails of your own! Yes, that's correct, USE A FLAIL TO KILL A FLAIL. In reality it's called counter-battery fire, and it's made REAL easy in PS1 because of nice long clearly visible and audible trail of shots streaming out from the Flail, no math or radars required. Instead it requires one person (preferably a cloaker) to burn in on a Mossie, find it and laze it for any friendly Flails.

Now, as much as I like artillery, I think I'd rather see shorter ranged mortars in PS2, maybe limited to around 600 meters max and somewhere between 50-100 meters minimum. Excuse the very poor quality of this video.

mortars in WWII Online - YouTube

WWII Online does mortars very well, on the bottom he's adjusting the range he wants (it's blurry unfortunately) and literally pointing in the direction he wants it to go. Much better than say, Battlefield 3s point and click on mini-map, pinpoint accurate crap. Add in a little random deviation (representing wind and such), give it smoke rounds too, and you have a great indirect fire support weapon which will mostly require line of sight unless you have someone giving you ranges and directions.

[Buggsy]

So they're keeping the OS, which is lame, and they're removing the indirect artillery which actually requires planning and cooperation.

[Electrofreak]

As long as artillery cannot be fired blind (requires target designation before it can be fired) I have no issue with it. It was the Flail drivers that just parked themselves in a courtyard and fired with impunity that we all hated.

[Accuser]

I'll agree that OS is lame, but artillery is worse.
Let me put it this way: Everything else in the game can be countered by one person using a wide variety of options. Enemy tank? You can: roll a tank, use C4, use an aircraft, use HA rockets, use an engi turret, use base defenses. Enemy aircraft? You can: use an aircraft, roll a tank, use HA rockets, use an engi turret, use base defenses. Enemy sniper? You can: roll a tank, use an aircraft, snipe him, infil-ninja-gank him, LA jump behind him.

Enemy arty set up at their vehicle spawn / rally point? You can: try to set up your own arty while they're hitting you? Fly an aircraft into their well manned rally point?

It gives a massive, unfair advantage to attackers exactly when defenders should have the advantage. "Balance" it all you like, it's still a terrible concept that will be more annoying for more people than it is fun.

[Goldeh]

the only time you die to an OS is because A: you're a retard or B you just spawned and had no possible chance of moving out of the way. with the charge up time its pretty easy to dodge and compared to artillery that can be spammed, orbital strikes cant be by an individual.

What would be the purpose of artillery though? or would its only purpose be to attempt to simulate a real battle?

Ya but, from what I read CR5's can spam OSs' it'll just be one per person. Also, watching a youtube vid here.

PlanetSide Parade Orbital Strikes - YouTube

Now, unless the Orbital strike will be a once per empire per cooldown thing, I think it issss, maybe not sure... PS2 might look like that after a long while with everyone maxed out and all.

And concerning your question on the purpose of artillery... I took this from the wiki.

Counterbattery fire: delivered for the purpose of destroying or neutralizing the enemy's fire support system.

Counterpreparation fire: intensive prearranged fire delivered when the imminence of the enemy attack is discovered.

Covering fire: used to protect troops when they are within range of enemy small arms.

Defensive fire: delivered by supporting units to assist and protect a unit engaged in a defensive action.

Final Protective Fire: an immediately available prearranged barrier of fire designed to impede enemy movement across defensive lines or areas.

Harassing fire: a random number of shells are fired at random intervals, without any pattern to it that the enemy can predict. This process is designed to hinder enemy forces' movement, and, by the constantly imposed stress, threat of losses and inability of enemy forces to relax or sleep, lowers their morale.

Interdiction fire: placed on an area or point to prevent the enemy from using the area or point.

Preparation fire: delivered before an attack to weaken the enemy position.

Deep supporting fire: directed at objectives not in the immediate vicinity of own force, for neutralizing or destroying enemy reserves and weapons, and interfering with enemy command, supply, communications and observation; or

Close supporting fire: placed on enemy troops, weapons or positions which, because of their proximity present the most immediate and serious threat to the supported unit.

Neutralization fire: delivered to render a target temporarily ineffective or unusable;

Suppression fire: that degrades the performance of a target below the level needed to fulfill its mission. Suppression is usually only effective for the duration of the fire.


Looks like a lot of purposes to me. What purpose does Orbital Strike have?

Also, it's not really an argument to say "you must be dumb if you died to X" kind of lame.

[kadrin]

.Enemy arty set up at their vehicle spawn / rally point? You can: try to set up your own arty while they're hitting you? Fly an aircraft into their well manned rally point?

This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say people lack the capacity to think of how to counter. Why would they be hitting you when you're setting up your own artillery? The only reason I can think of is that you're setting up your artillery in the place that's currently under attack, in which case:

WHAT ARE YOU DOING?

You have a huge map and many places to go and set up, why would you choose the one spot on it that's currently being plastered by the enemy?


It gives a massive, unfair advantage to attackers exactly when defenders should have the advantage. "Balance" it all you like, it's still a terrible concept that will be more annoying for more people than it is fun.

It gives a massive unfair advantage to the attackers when the defenders continue to do nothing but pour out of the base that's currently under attack instead of taking the initiative and doing something like pulling armour/aircraft from a nearby base and counter-attacking.


Edit: Why can't I thank/favorite/like/support Goldehs post. Seriously, someone give this man a cookie.

[Saifoda]

This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say people lack the capacity to think of how to counter. Why would they be hitting you when you're setting up your own artillery? The only reason I can think of is that you're setting up your artillery in the place that's currently under attack, in which case:

WHAT ARE YOU DOING?

You have a huge map and many places to go and set up, why would you choose the one spot on it that's currently being plastered by the enemy?

...

^ THAT!



The whole "you can't counter arty" argument is completely asinine. That's like saying you can't counter a lib -- hells yeah you can! It's called AA flak and/or a mossie/reaver/wasp (scythe for ps2 of course).

There are plenty of ways to avoid this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=Vy3rNEpwsLw


Another few things for arty: You can have a dedicated arty vehicle that is large with weak armor, very slow, and requires, say, 2-3 players to operate it (reloading, firing, aiming, etc...). There's an instant balance feature right there -- that's 2-3 prowlers/vans/mags that aren't on the frontlines; that's 2-3 snipers that aren't pinning down your squads. Furthermore, these don't have to be kill tanks that just spam rain all day long. Give these big boys a rof of like .5/sec (1 shot every 2 seconds) and that's if all of your crew members are working in tandem well. Furthermore, limit the range -- for this big gun example, give it a 2-3k max range (or less) along with a min range of, say, 250-500m -- anything inside of that range it won't be able to target and can easily be killed by. Weak armor; I can't stress this enough. Artillery is NOT armored. These are not tanks, they are gigantic guns designed to put indirect fires; they are area target weapons. Speaking of area targets, the further out the shot is fired, the less accurate (cone of fire) the shots will be. You can put, say, 6 shots in 12 seconds out, but if it's at full range each shot could land anywhere in a 50m radius.

Something like this: FiveTribe in Yakima 2008 #1 - YouTube

^ Again, remember that even though that's quite a bit of fire down range, each cannon requires a crew of 2-3 and fires very slowly. That's 6-9 mbt's, snipers, or maxes that aren't on the frontlines.




Now I like the idea of the lightning having a sort of mortar turret. This would be more rapid fire than the big arty described above, with weaker shells and decreased range. Like the arty above it will have a max/min range, the further out the shots the less accurate the fires, and it has to deploy (kinda like the TR MAXes in ps1) to fire it's cannon. Obviously being a lightning it's got some better armor, and will be able to travel faster, but it cannot use the gun when not deployed. For examples of this, check out this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Qln3hVoe8qA#!

[TAA]

I truly do miss the artillery from BF1942, but they werent suitable for most other games.

Here is what I would view as a good implementation of artillery:

Mobile vehicles that cant fire on the move. They would need to stop and spend 5-10 seconds deploying support anchors into the ground before being able to fire. It would take a similar amount of time to become mobile again.
Very weak armor.
Crewed by one player.
Able to fire only in a 45 degree arc in the direction they are facing.
Distance limited to about 2 hexes.
Firing an artillery piece immediately identifies your location on enemy mini maps.
When a driver is ready to fire they press a button to transmit fire request to their team. All friendly infiltrators with a target designator within 2 hexes of that artillery piece get a message that artillery is waiting for a target.
Infiltrators can designate a target. Once designated the operator of the artillery piece can fire at that target. Hitting the target precisely should involves some skill by the firer. Eg. Maybe needs to account for a wind direction flag in their targeting display.
If a shell lands directly on target both the infiltrator and the artilleryman get kill credits. If there are an FF casualties then both get the grief.

[CutterJohn]

I would support artillery, but only one wherein the gunner of the artillery got to pick his own targets. PS1s system of the operator being a useless body whose only purpose was to aim where someone else told him to aim then pull the trigger is horrible gameplay.

[Sabot]

Artillery has always had the most complex lines of communication in any branch of the military to function as intended... HQ, artillery commanders, attacking/defending infantry, spotters and a collaborating officer (I don't know what they're called in english for real)... they all have to communicate to make the most of the artillery.

By just making a artillery gun a 2 or ever 3-manned vehicle, give it low speed and low armor with no other defenses apart from the crew, and make spotters necessary for somewhat accurate fire, you limit the amount of artillery guns active in the game, as they will require teamwork to opperate , dedicated people only to defend them, as well as dedicated people for spotting. No lone wolf would be effective in one.... only dedicated outfits with a squad of 5-7+ people would be I think. If Rambo decides to get one, then spam v-n-g untill some random guy hops in, they could easily be sniped by aircav... not to mention it's probably a prime target for an OS if there's more than one bunched up, with it's defenders.

I've been playing PS1 now for a week or so, and the TR like to sport flails... and I don't think they've been OP at all. A direct hit on infantry and they die.. a direact hit on a tank it hurts but it doesn't kill unless you have low armor to begin with. Give the artillery 2 different ammo types... one that does huge dmg within a very small area, and one that does low dmg in a big area... shrapnel so to speak. That way moving targets will be relatively safe, but deployed Gals will have to be defended very hard if they're being target by artillery... they could for instance have a sort of shiled that protects it from incoming fire for a short while if specced that way... it'd give them time to try and counter the artillery, find the spotter or move the gal. Basically just come up with ways that gives players the ability to counter them... after that it's the players fault if they whine that artillery is OP but they do nothing themsleves to get rid of them. If you run into a tank while holding pistol and die, you don't scream that the tank is OP cause you died from it... same thing, it's just a lot more complex.

I would support artillery, but only one wherein the gunner of the artillery got to pick his own targets. PS1s system of the operator being a useless body whose only purpose was to aim where someone else told him to aim then pull the trigger is horrible gameplay.

I thought about this and I would have to agree tbh... while using spotter would be a more tactical approach, it does take some of the fun out of it. Perhaps give the gunner a sort of map display... like the PS1 OS targeting? Not that the shells would hit exactly where you put the marker... but in an area around there. Size of area TBD....

[super pretendo]

What's with people shrieking "I JUST DON'T WANT TO DIE TO ARTILLERY! NO NO NO!" We can discuss implementations that's aren't broken. Stop trying to terminate productive thought.

[Superbus]

I would support artillery, but only one wherein the gunner of the artillery got to pick his own targets. PS1s system of the operator being a useless body whose only purpose was to aim where someone else told him to aim then pull the trigger is horrible gameplay.

It was only horrible, because the laser got no credit for the kills. If the gunner gets to pick his own targets it would lead to small teams or solo players using it to rack up kills, and it would be everywhere. I could support this idea if the map had a grid system where by the gunner would have to be given coordinates of enemies via a player in the thick of it, but most people can't even operate a GPS properly, let alone give out accurate coordinates on a map, so I don't think that method would catch on quick either. It inst that fun for the F.O. who is dodging bullets trying to read his map, or the gunner sitting there waiting to get coordinates.

It should also be added that the ammo for these be severely limited, so it requires constant supply on the battle field.

[The Kush]

God no. Please no artillery. This is a fail thread

[Redshift]

It's not fun for most people, hence it isn't there

[super pretendo]

God no. Please no artillery. This is a fail thread

Impressive argument, very valid points.

[Otleaz]

It is undeniable that it is not fun to die to something you had no way of avoiding. I wouldn't mind seeing artillery as long as it was solely for destroying vehicles or emplacements.

I would like to see orbital strikes follow the same rule, taking roughly 20 seconds to charge up.

[super pretendo]

It is undeniable that it is not fun to die to something you had no way of avoiding. I wouldn't mind seeing artillery as long as it was solely for destroying vehicles or emplacements.


You mean like being shot by a sniper? Or by a vehicle no AV?

You could say "take cover" but being inside should defend against artillery as well

[kadrin]

It is undeniable that it is not fun to die to something you had no way of avoiding.

And yet here we are with OHK sniper rifles, while we argue for a balanced not OHK artillery.

[Otleaz]

And yet here we are with OHK sniper rifles, while we argue for a balanced not OHK artillery.
I would be fine without sniper rifles, actually.


But really, Sniper rifles require line of sight. If you get killed by one, you only have yourself to blame. The same could be said about vehicles killing you.

[Forsaken One]

I just had a brainstorm. How about instead of a commander who has his certs filled out calling down OSs they call for a dropped flail like vehicle?

It could have a 24 hour-to-week long C/D, will have to be maned, will have to have a laser guy mark the target to be flailed AND will have to be protected.

This will give many positive things.
#1 it will have a destroyable physical form.
#2 The commander can not call down a OS that is wtfwhereisthismagicbeamofdeathcomingfrom but calls down the ability and potential to have a artillery that has to be maned.
#3 the artillery will have a lot more teamwork needed and the potential for its use again will depend on a lot of teamwork factors.

#4 late game if everyone wants to drop "potentials" It will still be better then one man death ray from no where spam.

[kadrin]

I would be fine without sniper rifles, actually.


But really, Sniper rifles require line of sight. If you get killed by one, you only have yourself to blame. The same could be said about vehicles killing you.

Which is why artillery, or rather any indirect fire weapon (as I'd rather have a shorter ranged mortar), should require a spotter, who is quite vulnerable while directing fire.

Giving just one person the ability to fire indirectly anywhere they please accurately is just nonsense.

[Stardouser]

Which is why artillery, or rather any indirect fire weapon (as I'd rather have a shorter ranged mortar), should require a spotter, who is quite vulnerable while directing fire.

Giving just one person the ability to fire indirectly anywhere they please accurately is just nonsense.

They should require a spotter, but NOT because the people who want this to be a duel simulator where you can return fire with moving should be catered to. And the spotter should only need to have line of sight, I know what you're try to say with this "quite vulnerable" thing, you are probably going to say he should have to be less than 50 meters away, just no. Not a duel simulator.

If you turn this into a game where you can always duel the enemy by instantly returning fire without even moving to find them or get a better firing position, it defeats the purpose of the scale and size of the game. Might as well have tiny maps for 16 players.

It is undeniable that it is not fun to die to something you had no way of avoiding. I wouldn't mind seeing artillery as long as it was solely for destroying vehicles or emplacements.

I would like to see orbital strikes follow the same rule, taking roughly 20 seconds to charge up.

Making artillery only hurt vehicles would be ridiculous. And there is not "no way of avoiding" them. If you are at a base defending, stay inside cover. If you're in the open, stay on the move. Granted the artillery cannot have a 30 meter blast radius, because that is one of the things that is causing the blind hate and desire to overnerf.

[kadrin]

They should require a spotter, but NOT because the people who want this to be a duel simulator where you can return fire with moving should be catered to. And the spotter should only need to have line of sight, I know what you're try to say with this "quite vulnerable" thing, you are probably going to say he should have to be less than 50 meters away, just no. Not a duel simulator.

If you turn this into a game where you can always duel the enemy by instantly returning fire without even moving to find them or get a better firing position, it defeats the purpose of the scale and size of the game. Might as well have tiny maps for 16 players.

Well, quite vulnerable is really subjective, I meant more along the lines that, the spotter would require a direct line of sight, therefore making them vulnerable because they obviously could be seen (and therefore shot) as well.

I wouldn't put any sort of range limitation on the spotter, if they can see it and get the ranges, they can call in arty all day, or as long as the enemy lets them.

I'm also against the stupid duel simulator style of everyone must be able to directly fight everyone else at all times.

[GhettoPrince]

If Artillery was like a faction specific version of an orbital strike, than I think a lot of people would be ok with it, but planetside 1 artillery is no fun, it's just a cheap way to shut down a vehicle terminal. There are a lot of "ohshit" moments in planetside, snipers, mines, boomers, a bombing run, a tank assault, reaver swarm ect. (honestly, the list just goes on), but letting people get flail kills by sitting in a base 2 kilometers away from the action is pretty stupid.

It sounds like we have mortars now anyway, so that play style is still there, it's just not totally retarded this time around.

[IceJudge]

For the most part I'd be fine with little to no arty in planetside 2. I wasn't a big fan of the gameplay behind the flail and when I did play back in 2004 orbital strikes were within reason when they did happen, I actually wouldn't mind something like orbital strikes but I'm not even sure if the CR system is going to make a return for PS2.

[Anubisstargate]

I say bring back the lodstar and have artillery only movable via that. Its fixed on the grouind otherwise but movable in a sense that it can go across the battlefield. Blow up the lodstar, blow up the artillery, extra kudos points as well xD

[Karrade]

No one argument stands up to saying something should not be in the game. - If it will be fun.

No long range - make them medium
No one hit kills - No one hit kills.
No indirect fire - No indirect fire.
Little teamwork - make them team based.

Not difficult to think about, no reason raised here why medium range arty can't be in the game, if it'll be fun.

AOE spam was the concern, so don't give them great AOE or not fast firing anyway.

Alternatives:

Cruise missile, slow moving, little splash damage, so people can't camp with vehicles too long.
Gas Bombs - slow damage over time if you are exposed.
Smoke/flash bombs - tactical weapons.
Weapons that work specifically that bring down base shields, or emp weapons, nanite weapons to hit vehicle/player shields/armor.

Personally indirect fire is no problem, if someone is spotting for them, make it require a spotter, else it won't fire. This is a good teamwork way around doing it, it also makes the spotter a target, and the arty for that matter.

[GhettoPrince]

No one argument stands up to saying something should not be in the game. - If it will be fun.

No long range - make them medium
No one hit kills - No one hit kills.
No indirect fire - No indirect fire.
Little teamwork - make them team based.

Not difficult to think about, no reason raised here why medium range arty can't be in the game, if it'll be fun.

AOE spam was the concern, so don't give them great AOE or not fast firing anyway.


We already have tanks and we are probably gonna get mortars, why do you need the flail back?

[Noxey]

Don't mind either way, Personally found the idea of flails in PS1 mind numbing so I have never certed or used them.

They do take some co-ordination to use effectively so im happy to have them in the game provided the AOE and damage level is within reason.

[kadrin]

We already have tanks and we are probably gonna get mortars, why do you need the flail back?

Unfortunately, I think this is the reason why people jump on the "WE HATE ARTILLERY" bandwagon. They automatically associate any mention of the word artillery with the Flail and think "No, I don't want to get killed by that again because it actually requires me to think of how to counter it instead of continuing my mindless meatgrinder in doorway/stairwell".

No one has given a good argument for not including some sort of BALANCED indirect fire support weapon (artillery/mortar), other than "I don't like it", "It's not fun to me", "I don't like dying to something I can't shoot back at" (which is particularly amusing when they support OS's or OHK sniper rifles).

I would really like to see something really similar to the WWII Online mortars implemented. Give some sort of range finder to the infiltrator class, let them communicate the ranges to whoever has the mortar, mortar adjusts the range manually (clicks through presets at something like 10m increments from 100m-400m), turns to face the direction he wants to fire and just let it go from there.

Balance it's rate of fire, ammunition supply, damage and damage radius, give it smokes rounds too. It's even easy enough to use solo if you're good at guessing ranges and don't mind sitting out there with a direct line of sight to watch where your rounds drop and adjust.

[Karrade]

We already have tanks and we are probably gonna get mortars, why do you need the flail back?

Where did I ask for the PS1 flail, did you read the post? I was tk'd often enough in PS1 by the flail to not mind never seeing it again. Direct or painted fire should help with this. I also however enjoyed protecting the arty and supporting it as a break to the constant front line.

[wasdie]

I know they're many threads addressing the topic but I believe that it's lazy of the developer that they can't find a way to

I'm going to stop you right there. Your entire post and opinion is completely invalid the second you start calling developers "lazy".

It proves you know nothing about game development, business, or game design.

[Mune]

I read the OP but don't have time to read the many pages of replies. So, if this has already been mentioned, my apologies.

I'd say the issue gameplay-wise with artillery (in a fundamental way, as in it can't really be balanced without removing artillery) is not that the victim has no LOS of the source, since that's a common enough occurrence that is part of all FPS games (snipers, getting flanked, etc). Rather, it's that the artillery doesn't have any LOS of their victims, since they just lob their explosives at a high arc and watch for kill notifications. This makes for a much less emotionally rewarding experience than gunning down an enemy, where more tension and danger is involved thus improving the joy of victory.

It's delving a bit into psychology, which is always a gray area with lots of room for interpretation, but I can see why a dev looking to attract players might opt out of having artillery in their game. In a game where conflict between real players is the main feature, someone has to win and someone has to lose each conflict (as in, one will kill the other). Dying in an FPS isn't the fun part, and lets be honest, when we die too much we get frustrated and look for reasons (logical or not) as to why we are dying more (other than a lack of skill). On the flipside, the little victories in games of conflict are what keep us having fun, and killing an enemy is the most directly rewarding experience that FPS's have to offer and what makes it such a popular genre. Fictitious gameworld or not, the adrenaline of defeating an enemy who was equally devoted to trying to defeat you is what makes FPS's fun.

Simple logic I'll state for the sake of thoroughness, but the joy of victory needs to outweigh the frustration of defeat in order to make for a popular game. The idea of artillery doesn't fit into this concept quite as nicely as the other aspects of FPS games (namely, shooting the enemy). I would argue that killing an enemy you didn't see via artillery doesn't provide enough enjoyment to overcome the frustration of being killed by said artillery. Sure, artillery kills are rewarding and it takes some planning to accomplish, but on a fundamental level, it is not as exciting as a gun battle. I bet if we were to measure the adrenaline levels of someone using artillery versus someone in a gun battle, the difference would be statistically relevant.

TLDR, if I were one of the devs, I'd bet more people would avoid the game due to the inclusion of artillery than would avoid it due to the lack of. It would be a risky bet, but I'd probably be correct, and I'd have more players/money because of it.

[Accuser]

I read the OP but don't have time to read the many pages of replies. So, if this has already been mentioned, my apologies.

I'd say the issue gameplay-wise with artillery (in a fundamental way, as in it can't really be balanced without removing artillery) is not that the victim has no LOS of the source, since that's a common enough occurrence that is part of all FPS games (snipers, getting flanked, etc). Rather, it's that the artillery doesn't have any LOS of their victims, since they just lob their explosives at a high arc and watch for kill notifications. This makes for a much less emotionally rewarding experience than gunning down an enemy, where more tension and danger is involved thus improving the joy of victory.

It's delving a bit into psychology, which is always a gray area with lots of room for interpretation, but I can see why a dev looking to attract players might opt out of having artillery in their game. In a game where conflict between real players is the main feature, someone has to win and someone has to lose each conflict (as in, one will kill the other). Dying in an FPS isn't the fun part, and lets be honest, when we die too much we get frustrated and look for reasons (logical or not) as to why we are dying more (other than a lack of skill). On the flipside, the little victories in games of conflict are what keep us having fun, and killing an enemy is the most directly rewarding experience that FPS's have to offer and what makes it such a popular genre. Fictitious gameworld or not, the adrenaline of defeating an enemy who was equally devoted to trying to defeat you is what makes FPS's fun.

Simple logic I'll state for the sake of thoroughness, but the joy of victory needs to outweigh the frustration of defeat in order to make for a popular game. The idea of artillery doesn't fit into this concept quite as nicely as the other aspects of FPS games (namely, shooting the enemy). I would argue that killing an enemy you didn't see via artillery doesn't provide enough enjoyment to overcome the frustration of being killed by said artillery. Sure, artillery kills are rewarding and it takes some planning to accomplish, but on a fundamental level, it is not as exciting as a gun battle. I bet if we were to measure the adrenaline levels of someone using artillery versus someone in a gun battle, the difference would be statistically relevant.

TLDR, if I were one of the devs, I'd bet more people would avoid the game due to the inclusion of artillery than would avoid it due to the lack of. It would be a risky bet, but I'd probably be correct, and I'd have more players/money because of it.

I've never quoted that much text before, but it's everything I was thinking about artillery and didn't have the words for. The pleasure of killing with artillery is insignificant compared to the annoyance of dying to artillery.

[TAA]

TLDR, if I were one of the devs, I'd bet more people would avoid the game due to the inclusion of artillery than would avoid it due to the lack of. It would be a risky bet, but I'd probably be correct, and I'd have more players/money because of it.

Very well thought out explanation. I agree with it completely, and it actually has made me understand how to explain why I love artillery.

I am more of a strategic player than a tactical player. I derive much more enjoyment from contributing to the victory of my team than on winning individual engagements. Sure I absolutely love rampaging through an enemy team and getting massive killstreaks, and there are moments in gaming I still remember many years later that involved me absolutely dominating the enemy team almost single handedly. However for me those moments are not the objective, they are an incidental bonus from trying to accomplish a victory for my team. Winning an FPS round is the top priority in everything I do, determining what class I play at the time, what weapons I choose for each spawn, where I go on the map, etc.

The only game I really enjoyed playing artillery in was BF1942 (I never tried WW2O etc). There was a lot of skill in choosing good positions to avoid enemy aircraft while putting down fire in important areas that would maximize the effectiveness of your team. Being good at artillery meant that you needed a global view of the battlefield, and it required constant communication and coordination with your team mates. It was a different sort of enjoyment to be had from the game.

Spamming one area blindly is the lowest form or artillery warfare, and a recipe for disaster in a game that has FF enabled.

You are right when you say it is an easy thing to cut out of a game. It is indeed frustrating for players on the receiving end of artillery, and if the game makes it easy to use artillery then it receives no respect from either the victims or from your team mates. It needs to be hard to master, which runs counter to making the game accessible.

[fishirboy]

If we were to have artillery witch i would like it should be like this:

World of Tanks BETA Artillery Bison Gameplay [HD] - YouTube

except no enemies should show up on the map or allies to it should just be a grid and people ether mark that grid on were to shoot or something like that

[Karrade]

*snip*

Simple logic I'll state for the sake of thoroughness, but the joy of victory needs to outweigh the frustration of defeat in order to make for a popular game. The idea of artillery doesn't fit into this concept quite as nicely as the other aspects of FPS games (namely, shooting the enemy). I would argue that killing an enemy you didn't see via artillery doesn't provide enough enjoyment to overcome the frustration of being killed by said artillery. Sure, artillery kills are rewarding and it takes some planning to accomplish, but on a fundamental level, it is not as exciting as a gun battle. I bet if we were to measure the adrenaline levels of someone using artillery versus someone in a gun battle, the difference would be statistically relevant.

TLDR, if I were one of the devs, I'd bet more people would avoid the game due to the inclusion of artillery than would avoid it due to the lack of. It would be a risky bet, but I'd probably be correct, and I'd have more players/money because of it.


In PS1 you quickly got over dying, you died a lot in PS1.

I don't see PS2 being any different.

So for the large part I don't really agree with your reasoning, if you are in the kill zones where the artillery is firing, then you are dying a lot anyway. - This from a person who was often pushing bases, CY's you name it :)

What I did get out of artilleries was defending something mobile, this made the game interesting as the situations would change depending on what was happening more often.

Plus also some people like flying, some people like shooting arty, some people like driving tanks, you get the idea. What is fun for you, might not be as fun for them.

[BlueSkies]

Honestly... just no. Flails in PS1 were kind of amusing when they first came out.. but now they are just downright annoying as hell. This is partly due to the fact that if you aren't bound to another base and the flails are lighting up your vpad and the rest of your CY, you would have to go back to sanc to get a reaver or something to go kill it with. Flaming annoying.

[Papagiorgio]

The way DICE balanced artillery (i.e. Mortars) in BF3 was interesting - making the location of the artillery which is currently firing on you plainly obvious on your radar, so you know where to go to kill it on the next spawn, seems balanced to me. With good teamwork the arty drivers could also employ some AA maxes/skyguards etc. to defend their artillery foothold.

[Stardouser]

The way DICE balanced artillery (i.e. Mortars) in BF3 was interesting - making the location of the artillery which is currently firing on you plainly obvious on your radar, so you know where to go to kill it on the next spawn, seems balanced to me. With good teamwork the arty drivers could also employ some AA maxes/skyguards etc. to defend their artillery foothold.

They also put in Audio spotting, which allows mortar users to know exactly where all the enemies are, and gave the mortars a zero teamwork ability to fire using the minimap. This minimap firing system lets you hit a target AND area dead on with zero teamwork, no adjusting your trajectory.

And the BF3 Armored Kill expansion is going to have full sized artillery, and based on what we know, it will be the same zero teamwork system, just more powerful.

Definitely not the right way to do it.

[SixShooter]

I know they're many threads addressing the topic but I believe that it's lazy of the developer that they can't find a way to incorperate a physical presence on the battlefield for Artillery. If one were argue that it's lame to get killed by something that you couldn't see then one could also argue the same for the sniper. It's boggling that when it comes to FPS games at least, no developer can be creative when it comes to Artillery, the last FPS I remember that I played with physical-mobile-vehicle artillery was Battlefield 1942. They either make it into an ability (Orbital Stike) or not include it at all and it's never truly stated as to why they make this decison.

In addition is that an Orbital Strike, isn't counterable (at least from what we/I know). You have to let it happen. At least with Artillery, after the first shell goes off, if there's someone paying attention then they could go there and get the Artillery before it does real damage. Also, the argument that "artillery kills more allies than enemies" is bogus, it only happens because artillery doesn't know where he's firing at. Also, You could argue the same for the indiscriminate Orbital Strike if a person was playing blindfolded.

Now I never played Planetside 1, but I was hoping that Planetside 2 would do Artillery justice considering the massive scale of it all..I just think it's unfair for the developer to not add in a physical presence of Artillery without giving it a serious looking at but instead replace it with an quickie ability and calling that artillery when it's not. It's not fair and needs to be re-looked at by the developers in my opinion.

To refer to the developers as lazy is just arrogant.
To ackowledge that you do know that there are many other threads adressing the exact same thing is just dense.
To say that it's unfair is childish.

[Firefly]

I can see why people might be averse to having artillery in-game. The game mechanics surrounding Flails are stupid. Parking next to a source of infinite ammo and then wedging a quarter in your fire button so you can go make a sammich is dumb. On the flip side, a Flail was basically a sitting duck as soon as that first round went downrange - any Reaver or Liberator pilot worth a damn should be on them like stink on shit.

I ran a few Flail firebase operations in Planetside, putting a dozen Flails on the battlefield (with appropriate combat support and skywatch for protection). When used properly, it can be a dangerous weapon. Of course this is online gaming, where few things are "properly" implemented. Developers are cursed - we have to constantly play catch-up to players. Players will ALWAYS find a way to "abuse" something and use it in ways for which it was not originally intended to be used (ps, dude calling devs lazy can eat a dick, I don't go to McDonalds and tell you how to do your job kthxbai).

So make artillery useful, but make it difficult to use. Blind-fire should only be effective in the hands of a skilled (or lucky player). In fact, make it a requirement - you have to have a spotter or it just won't work. Put a finite capacity on the weapon system. No mini-map. No direct-fire capability, period. Hell, make it system-side, kinda like they did in the original Battlefield 2. I'm all for that. I'm just pro-artillery, period.

[Ruwyn]

1) Flail artillery are easy to avoid. Nothing like a little situational awareness of looking up to see this giant glowing effect arcing in. Let alone its distinct sound.

2) Camping vehicle terms, CY, doors, etc. are only possible through extreme trial and error or it was Laser Sighted. Hmm....look for those cloakers maybe?
Also, if you and your side allow a flail to continuously fire without going after it and thus eventually lose your vehicles in the area....wow. They should be target number one. They used to be when organized groups played. Just like the OP BFRs were targeted by organized TEAMS and dropped easily making them not OP.

3) Dying to something doesn't make it not fun. If you run out into the trees and continually die to cloakers does that mean they shouldn't be in the game? Or does it mean you should change tactics? Collectively allowing something to happen should not mean it isn't fun and should be removed. Like gen drops, tube nukes, ntu drains....they are all things that are allowed to happen by poor defenders. Sucks, it seems, they won't be making it back either.

[MrBloodworth]

Ehhhhh unfair is a hugely horrible word to use here. They took it out because in PS1 artillery was a pain the arse and more annoying than fun.

Only because they removed the requirement of a spotter to fire.

[Bags]

This is one of the great things about PS2. No skilless artillery.

Sorry flailers. You'll have to find another skilless way to farm kills.

[MrBloodworth]

This is one of the great things about PS2. No skilless artillery.

Sorry flailers. You'll have to find another skilless way to farm kills.

YEAH!

Like, one man tanks, NC maxes + spawn tubes!, Jackhammers!

[vVRedOctoberVv]

There is no more legitimate a reason to take them out than there is to leave it in. Period.

Some people might not like them. Yeah, well, read around the forums on virtually any game. I guarantee, there is somebody bitching about any given thing, SOMEWHERE. Other people, like me, do like them. For that matter, ignoring artillery is just retarded. It's been a part of warfare for over 2,000 years, and in fact, the later in history you go, and the closer to modern times you go, the MORE prevalent it is. It's stupid to pretend it doesn't exist.

***************************
THE BEST WAY TO INTEGRATE ARTILLERY INTO THIS GAME
WITHOUT RESORTING TO STUPID GIMMICKS AND KEEPING IT
"FAIR" FOR THE PLAYER BASE
***************************

Field artillery would not have a "map view" where they can point and click their way to kills. The should have a HUD range finder, assuming you are on level ground and firing at a target at an equal elevation, elevating your barrel to a certain point results in the round traveling an approximate distance.
No auto-aim or assists. If someone lases a target, you'll have a reticule indicating range and location, but you will still have to compensate for any difference in elevation between your firing location and the target.
This will encourage people to be "artillerists" just like there are dedicated "tankers" and "infantry", people who cultivate a certain style of combat, people who are specialists in "their field". It will also encourage specialised "forward observers", people who can intelligently communicate with artillery assets and "walk" their fire onto the target.

If the artillery is kicking your ass, either they're doing it right or you're doing it wrong. Period. If the artillery is TKing, or ineffective, then they're doing it wrong or you're doing it right.

Making the rounds slow moving and highly visible pretty much takes care of "knowing where they're at" without having them magically appear on a radar screen. Just like with the Flail, you KNEW when they were around, and by just glancing that direction, you could estimate approximately where they were. If you are unable to mount a successful counter attack, then they probably planned well. Conversely, if you ARE, then they did NOT plan well.

People keep saying Flail have unlimited range... If this is true, then I agree this is somewhat "unfair" for a game. They should have BoV range capability, but not absurdly so, not "sitting in THEIR base way over here shooting at YOUR base way over here". I understand a complaint about THAT. No, they should have to be present in the immediate vicinity of the battlefield, just behind friendly lines. I don't know what ranges exactly to present, since I don't know the scale of PS2 and average distance between bases, but a "rough estimate" could easily be made by someone who does.


Saying something is is cheap or that is unfair or some such isn't fun boils down to one of a couple things:

#1 Preference. Just because YOU don't like it, doesn't make it "not good"

#2 Butt hurt. Just because YOU can't counter it, doesn't mean somebody else can't. I hate air and snipers because everytime I go out, a Reaver gets me. Or everytime I pop my head up, somebody blows it off, and I usually never even see it coming. But I don't bitch about it, because I know it's a legitimate thing to have there.

If one faction was running around with PWNsticks and magic powers that the other two didn't have, yes, I could understand complaints about that. But when you're complaining about things that boil down to basic principles of warfare... Now you're just being stupid and whiney.

[Saifoda]

There is no more legitimate a reason to take them out than there is to leave it in. Period.

Some people might not like them. Yeah, well, read around the forums on virtually any game. I guarantee, there is somebody bitching about any given thing, SOMEWHERE. Other people, like me, do like them. For that matter, ignoring artillery is just retarded. It's been a part of warfare for over 2,000 years, and in fact, the later in history you go, and the closer to modern times you go, the MORE prevalent it is. It's stupid to pretend it doesn't exist.

***************************
THE BEST WAY TO INTEGRATE ARTILLERY INTO THIS GAME
WITHOUT RESORTING TO STUPID GIMMICKS AND KEEPING IT
"FAIR" FOR THE PLAYER BASE
***************************

Field artillery would not have a "map view" where they can point and click their way to kills. The should have a HUD range finder, assuming you are on level ground and firing at a target at an equal elevation, elevating your barrel to a certain point results in the round traveling an approximate distance.
No auto-aim or assists. If someone lases a target, you'll have a reticule indicating range and location, but you will still have to compensate for any difference in elevation between your firing location and the target.
This will encourage people to be "artillerists" just like there are dedicated "tankers" and "infantry", people who cultivate a certain style of combat, people who are specialists in "their field". It will also encourage specialised "forward observers", people who can intelligently communicate with artillery assets and "walk" their fire onto the target.

If the artillery is kicking your ass, either they're doing it right or you're doing it wrong. Period. If the artillery is TKing, or ineffective, then they're doing it wrong or you're doing it right.

Making the rounds slow moving and highly visible pretty much takes care of "knowing where they're at" without having them magically appear on a radar screen. Just like with the Flail, you KNEW when they were around, and by just glancing that direction, you could estimate approximately where they were. If you are unable to mount a successful counter attack, then they probably planned well. Conversely, if you ARE, then they did NOT plan well.

People keep saying Flail have unlimited range... If this is true, then I agree this is somewhat "unfair" for a game. They should have BoV range capability, but not absurdly so, not "sitting in THEIR base way over here shooting at YOUR base way over here". I understand a complaint about THAT. No, they should have to be present in the immediate vicinity of the battlefield, just behind friendly lines. I don't know what ranges exactly to present, since I don't know the scale of PS2 and average distance between bases, but a "rough estimate" could easily be made by someone who does.


Saying something is is cheap or that is unfair or some such isn't fun boils down to one of a couple things:

#1 Preference. Just because YOU don't like it, doesn't make it "not good"

#2 Butt hurt. Just because YOU can't counter it, doesn't mean somebody else can't. I hate air and snipers because everytime I go out, a Reaver gets me. Or everytime I pop my head up, somebody blows it off, and I usually never even see it coming. But I don't bitch about it, because I know it's a legitimate thing to have there.

If one faction was running around with PWNsticks and magic powers that the other two didn't have, yes, I could understand complaints about that. But when you're complaining about things that boil down to basic principles of warfare... Now you're just being stupid and whiney.

^ THAT.

Marry me?

[OutlawDr]

If I had to choose, I'd rather not have artillery in the game.

Tanks bombarding the base from a distance like in yesterdays stream is good enough for me.

[vVRedOctoberVv]

If I had to choose, I'd rather not have artillery in the game.

Tanks bombarding the base from a distance like in yesterdays stream is good enough for me.

That WAS pretty cool :) Although they were stupidly close... Noobs ;P

[TheGodCanine]

Just curious but what about Missile Defenders?

Like a laser defense that was made to destroy all incoming missile approaching the area.(Radius of how far it covers is another discussion)

Meaning it is an Anti Artillery or long ranged missile support tool.

[vVRedOctoberVv]

A comment in another thread made me think. An addendum to what I said earlier.

Artillery pieces should be minimum 2 man vehicles. They should also only have a very small amount of ammo, 10-15 rounds, internally. Any long term artillery bombardment would DEMAND dedicated supply trucks bringing them ammunition.

If a faction/outfit is wants to set up 5 or 6 artillery pieces to bombard an enemy facility from BoV, they should be able to. But they'll have to delegate 20 people to driving, gunning, and *supplying* these same artillery pieces.

Self-balancing artillery, basically. Only a dedicated and highly organised group of people could field artillery for more than five minutes at a time. No gimmicky "resource cost" or "artificial" limitations required. Just make it a pain in the ass, manpower intensive strategy.

-edit

@GodCanine

I would personally oppose large amounts of any kind of "automated" weapon system. Sentry turrets are fine, but most everything should require player input. If somebody has to man this thing, and manually shoot the incoming rounds down, that's fine. I think it would probably be simpler and more effective to just go kill them, though... Who the hell wants to sit around playing MMO 'roid blaster? In essence, you know what I mean :)

[Bocheezu]

The problem with the Flail has nothing to do with ease-of-use or spammable kills or any of that crap. It is not difficult to locate a flail and deal with it if you can get the proper vehicles to counter it. The problem is when you have an uncovered vpad; the first thing they zero in on is the vpad so that you are unable to create any vehicles whatsoever. Then you're just sitting there dying with no way to counter it aside from OS.

This happened yesterday in PS1 on Isundar; NC flails camped on the hill outside the base, TR can see the shots incoming all the way from the hill, flying right onto the vpad, and with 1283718027389012 guys repairing the vpad you might get one stupid reaver out before the next shot comes in and blows the vpad up again.

As long as there's enclosed vpads, then it's not that big a deal.

[Ruwyn]

The problem with the Flail has nothing to do with ease-of-use or spammable kills or any of that crap. It is not difficult to locate a flail and deal with it if you can get the proper vehicles to counter it. The problem is when you have an uncovered vpad; the first thing they zero in on is the vpad so that you are unable to create any vehicles whatsoever. Then you're just sitting there dying with no way to counter it aside from OS.

This happened yesterday in PS1 on Isundar; NC flails camped on the hill outside the base, TR can see the shots incoming all the way from the hill, flying right onto the vpad, and with 1283718027389012 guys repairing the vpad you might get one stupid reaver out before the next shot comes in and blows the vpad up again.

As long as there's enclosed vpads, then it's not that big a deal.


I was there for that fight and people just stood around looking at each other. The platoon I was in had cloakers out relaying things back and buggies were sent out to wreck shit. When we finally had AMS support(which was severely light for so many people; ALL DAY), we pushed out and I spawned and ran AROUND the hill to take one out with AV. They retreated to Marduk as we advanced.

The problem is the lack of people willing to do anything that requires thought. Bind at the tech so you can pull whatever, whenever? um...what's that? instead people just stand around with their thumbs up their asses. Like laying CE.... NC had 4 tanks inside west gate before anyone decided to lay it down....this was after an hour of them pushing to that point....herpaderp

[vVRedOctoberVv]

I was there for that fight and people just stood around looking at each other. The platoon I was in had cloakers out relaying things back and buggies were sent out to wreck shit. When we finally had AMS support(which was severely light for so many people; ALL DAY), we pushed out and I spawned and ran AROUND the hill to take one out with AV. They retreated to Marduk as we advanced.

The problem is the lack of people willing to do anything that requires thought. Bind at the tech so you can pull whatever, whenever? um...what's that? instead people just stand around with their thumbs up their asses. Like laying CE.... NC had 4 tanks inside west gate before anyone decided to lay it down....this was after an hour of them pushing to that point....herpaderp


This is a good example of the base problem that causes most issues in games, government, work, etc....


You can't fix stupid. You can't regulate it away. Basically, that is one of the biggest things that "balance" tries to tackle... and it's the one thing that absolutely nothing can fix. It's frustrating, cause in a large way, it renders virtually all argument about everything moot, cause it inevitably comes back to this one principal :)

[Goldeh]

Artillery has always had the most complex lines of communication in any branch of the military to function as intended... HQ, artillery commanders, attacking/defending infantry, spotters and a collaborating officer (I don't know what they're called in english for real)... they all have to communicate to make the most of the artillery.

By just making a artillery gun a 2 or ever 3-manned vehicle, give it low speed and low armor with no other defenses apart from the crew, and make spotters necessary for somewhat accurate fire, you limit the amount of artillery guns active in the game, as they will require teamwork to opperate , dedicated people only to defend them, as well as dedicated people for spotting. No lone wolf would be effective in one.... only dedicated outfits with a squad of 5-7+ people would be I think.

This. People forget that Artillery requires good teamwork. Isn't that what people have been screaming about for this game since day one?

No one argument stands up to saying something should not be in the game. - If it will be fun.

No long range - make them medium
No one hit kills - No one hit kills.
No indirect fire - No indirect fire.
Little teamwork - make them team based.

Not difficult to think about, no reason raised here why medium range arty can't be in the game, if it'll be fun.

AOE spam was the concern, so don't give them great AOE or not fast firing anyway.

Alternatives:

Cruise missile, slow moving, little splash damage, so people can't camp with vehicles too long.
Gas Bombs - slow damage over time if you are exposed.
Smoke/flash bombs - tactical weapons.
Weapons that work specifically that bring down base shields, or emp weapons, nanite weapons to hit vehicle/player shields/armor.

Personally indirect fire is no problem, if someone is spotting for them, make it require a spotter, else it won't fire. This is a good teamwork way around doing it, it also makes the spotter a target, and the arty for that matter.

In relation to BF3 Morter, it wasn't a one hit kill either. I'd vote for a no one hit kill for arty.


As long as there's enclosed vpads, then it's not that big a deal.

there will be, if you watch some of the TB streams, you'll notice some of the vehicle pads are within the buildings themselves.

[Brusi]

Using the word "unfair" and the words:
Now I never played Planetside 1...

pretty terrible.

Sure, orbital strikes need to be rare and balanced... and i personally love arty... but still wtf

[Goldeh]

(ps, dude calling devs lazy can eat a dick, I don't go to McDonalds and tell you how to do your job kthxbai).



I guess the word lazy was overboard. I love Planetside 2, looks like blast and does things way differently don't get me wrong. I'll play it until my fingers fall off arty or not. Reason why I called the decison lazy was because it felt like it was one of those quick decisions that get made without some talking back and forth, I was surprised when they annouced that "OS is the new arty" because looking at the scale of Planetside 2 you'd think it would be the perfect enviroment for artillery.

I would like some form of physical artillery in, not now if it's impossible but I don't want the final word to be 'no to arty' basically.

[Aberdash]

Playing CoD back in the day ingrained in me a deep hatred for artillery. Artillery getting spammed on spawn points is not fun and would likely happen if added in ps2.

[Tarconus]

Well that new video the infiltrator calls in an arty strike so....

[sylphaen]

Well that new video the infiltrator calls in an arty strike so....

So it does not mean anything. It was a magrider shooting covered by brilliant roleplay.

Ghetto arty !
:D

[vVRedOctoberVv]

Playing CoD back in the day ingrained in me a deep hatred for artillery. Artillery getting spammed on spawn points is not fun and would likely happen if added in ps2.

The helicopters were worse :) Oh god... The helicopters... (MW)

[TAA]

The helicopters were worse :) Oh god... The helicopters... (MW)

On public HC servers those helis were absolutely devastating. Thing was that if every member of the team emptied a single clip of whatever weapon they were holding into it then the problem would go away immediately. Of course on public servers that rarely ever happened...

[Verruna]

Just curious but what about Missile Defenders?

Like a laser defense that was made to destroy all incoming missile approaching the area.(Radius of how far it covers is another discussion)

Meaning it is an Anti Artillery or long ranged missile support tool.

This would be a cool feature for a sunderer (or w/e), artillery and missle area prevention in caravans heading to the next facility. It also allows for alot of neat tactical teamwork options from both sides. Spotter for artillery if added is a MUST as well, no solo killwhore shit. This kind of mechanic very much encourages friendly armor to protect a Sundy, and stick together and it also creates a serious counter to artillery spam. The artillery guys need friends to strike at those Sundies, and to spot locations for them.. so they can do terrible terrible damage.

[Goldeh]

Well that new video the infiltrator calls in an arty strike so....

Video?

Link?

[Tarconus]

Video?

Link?

PlanetSide Command Center -- Episode 1 - YouTube

[vVRedOctoberVv]

Yeah, it's not actual artillery. It's a tank off screen (thus the shot traveling in a straight line low along the ground).

[Tarconus]

Yeah, it's not actual artillery. It's a tank off screen (thus the shot traveling in a straight line low along the ground).

why call it artillery then?

[SixShooter]

why call it artillery then?

Ya, that was very much shots from the main gun of a magrider. Probably just said artillery to sound cool.

[kadrin]

Honestly... just no. Flails in PS1 were kind of amusing when they first came out.. but now they are just downright annoying as hell. This is partly due to the fact that if you aren't bound to another base and the flails are lighting up your vpad and the rest of your CY, you would have to go back to sanc to get a reaver or something to go kill it with. Flaming annoying.

This is one of the great things about PS2. No skilless artillery.

Sorry flailers. You'll have to find another skilless way to farm kills.

Playing CoD back in the day ingrained in me a deep hatred for artillery. Artillery getting spammed on spawn points is not fun and would likely happen if added in ps2.

The continued closed mindedness of this forum is amusing. Despite good arguments for BALANCED artillery, people blindly compare it to other games where it is overpowered, or bring up their preference of playstyle and state it as fact for the majority.

[vVRedOctoberVv]

just said artillery to sound cool.

This :)

[Atheosim]

The continued closed mindedness of this forum is amusing. Despite good arguments for BALANCED artillery, people blindly compare it to other games where it is overpowered, or bring up their preference of playstyle and state it as fact for the majority.

I can't imagine life without this kind of shit, planetside forums or not.

[Accuser]

The continued closed mindedness of this forum is amusing. Despite good arguments for BALANCED artillery, people blindly compare it to other games where it is overpowered, or bring up their preference of playstyle and state it as fact for the majority.

There are plenty of "good arguments for BALANCED BFRs", but we don't want those either. Arty just feels too RTS, especially with the faster pace of PS2.

[kadrin]

There are plenty of "good arguments for BALANCED BFRs", but we don't want those either. Arty just feels too RTS, especially with the faster pace of PS2.

I'm sure there are, but they don't serve the same purpose as artillery, so there isn't really a comparison.

And you're saying it feels too RTS... real time strategy I assume. So you're saying that it feels too much like it actually takes strategy, or thought, to use and not something you can just blindly meatgrinder forward with?

[vVRedOctoberVv]

There are plenty of "good arguments for BALANCED BFRs", but we don't want those either. Arty just feels too RTS, especially with the faster pace of PS2.

Biggest problem against BFRs is that they're just dorky :) I didn't play when they first came out and were supposedly so OP. I just think they're silly :) As for the artillery, as long as they aren't using a map interface to do their thing, they're no more "RTS" than any other strategic aspect of this large persistent world with resources and bases... The whole premise of the game is a blend of FPS/RTS