Indirect Artillery Vehicle

[Staticelf]

Hey guys I want to post up an idea for an indirect artillery vehicle and get some (constructive!) criticism on it...

It would be Sundy sized, have to deploy to fire (like AMS)and work closely with squad infiltrators who use a "Binocular Tool" to spot targets for them.

Im sure it wouldnt be to impossible to make an infiltrator "Tool" that was Binoculars like and helped with spotting. It would give the infil xp for Artillery kills if they were killed while being spotted with the tool.

Spotting a target (sundy,max, infantry, etc) with them could let the artillery tank see where their rounds were hitting on the mini map by showing little blasts (kind of like the pings of the infiltrator recon sensor). Also the enemy that was spotted by the infil would show up on the map too so you could adjust fire onto them.

So in action it would go like this...infiltrator on the hilltop sees the enemy sundy they are spawning and attacking from. He cant take it out with his weaponry so he whips out his binos and spots it so that his squad/platoon's artillery can see the enemy sundy on their mini map and starts shooting. Because the infil is still spotting the sundy they can see that their first shots hit just north of it so they adjust fire and start hitting it until it explodes gloriously...giving them xp and the infil who spotted it xp.

And discuss...

[Sledgecrushr]

Im not a big fan of indirect fire vehicles. I dont think our poor spawn areas can take anymore high explosive farming. So my vote is a big NO.

[ringring]

Hey guys I want to post up an idea for an indirect artillery vehicle and get some (constructive!) criticism on it...

It would be Sundy sized, have to deploy to fire (like AMS)and work closely with squad infiltrators who use a "Binocular Tool" to spot targets for them.

Im sure it wouldnt be to impossible to make an infiltrator "Tool" that was Binoculars like and helped with spotting. It would give the infil xp for Artillery kills if they were killed while being spotted with the tool.

Spotting a target (sundy,max, infantry, etc) with them could let the artillery tank see where their rounds were hitting on the mini map by showing little blasts (kind of like the pings of the infiltrator recon sensor). Also the enemy that was spotted by the infil would show up on the map too so you could adjust fire onto them.

So in action it would go like this...infiltrator on the hilltop sees the enemy sundy they are spawning and attacking from. He cant take it out with his weaponry so he whips out his binos and spots it so that his squad/platoon's artillery can see the enemy sundy on their mini map and starts shooting. Because the infil is still spotting the sundy they can see that their first shots hit just north of it so they adjust fire and start hitting it until it explodes gloriously...giving them xp and the infil who spotted it xp.

And discuss...

There was a weapon almost exactly like this in PS1 called the flail. It could be fired without a 'spotter' but obviously this was pretty inaccurate.

The trouble was that a lot of people hated it (although I didn't mind it personally). People felt that as far as they were concerned it was simply a random death, ie they'd be running across the CY and bang, spawn tubes.

The other thing is that in this game as opposed to PS1 bases are much more open and well directed barrages would hurt more.

However, I'd like to see an indirect weapon if possible and hit recognition tech permitting.

ps many times I saw awesome barrages in ps1....

[ShadoViper]

Im not a big fan of indirect fire vehicles. I dont think our poor spawn areas can take anymore high explosive farming. So my vote is a big NO.

I agree with this at the moment. There needs to be a base design change before I'd consider artillery.

[SgtMAD]

we have seen what happens with Flails and it never really added anything to the game and was used to camp doors frequently,and we had a spotter's tool so you could camp the v-pad from the next base over.

[Staticelf]

Do you guys not rock the flak armor? (Whole new bundle of issues with that. Lol)

[Figment]

You mean this?

http://planetside.station.sony.com/images/manual/Flail_deployed.jpg
http://www.planetside-universe.com/media/album/kdaaz4bzxe/flail_081803.jpg
http://www.planetside-universe.com/media/album/a3ndh5fp2/flail_deployed.jpg

And then actually being forced to use this instead of letting the spam flow?

http://www.planetside-universe.com/media/album/a3ndh5fp2/laze_pointer.jpg


People would just use it to spam choke points like spawnrooms endlessly, just like they use the prowler deployed mode now. :/

[Baneblade]

There is no role for artillery to fill in PS2.

[Shogun]

it may start being forced to use a spotter, but the bf3 crowd will complain until it is changed into just another spammer. so please NO!

[Bags]

ps2 needs this but amplified, I agree:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oieiRE5QtEs

[Shogun]

ps2 needs this but amplified, I agree:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oieiRE5QtEs

exactly. but this video clearly needs another soundtrack...this is appropriate:
Spam - YouTube

[Whiteagle]

There was a weapon almost exactly like this in PS1 called the flail. It could be fired without a 'spotter' but obviously this was pretty inaccurate.

The trouble was that a lot of people hated it (although I didn't mind it personally). People felt that as far as they were concerned it was simply a random death, ie they'd be running across the CY and bang, spawn tubes.

The other thing is that in this game as opposed to PS1 bases are much more open and well directed barrages would hurt more.

However, I'd like to see an indirect weapon if possible and hit recognition tech permitting.

ps many times I saw awesome barrages in ps1....
Indeed, I was just discussing Artillery in a thread on the Sony Forums, and my thoughts on the matter was that it would either have paper armor or use an open Cockpit like the Flash so that the Operator could be sniped.

[moosepoop]

artillery cannon is in the game files.

[Canaris]

I'm with the anti-arty camp on this one, like OS from the original I wasn't a fan of artillery, I just found it didn't require any kind of jeopardy to play as/use. They'd sit back and shell across the map pretty indiscriminately at times but what I guess I disliked the most and it must be a biased reason but you wanted it is you couldn't do a damn thing to stop it and the render distance in PS2 being what it is, I can see it replacing the lib & lolpodders from my nightmares ;)

Not to mention the openness of PS2 bases and facilities, at least in PS1 there were windows and doors.
Though the Flail could still kill you through 10 foot of steel and concrete due to poor coding.

[ringring]

I would quite like to see it.

I never used the flail myself (well not quite never but very rarely, does anyone remember that time for Halloween the flail fires translucent skulls?)

I disagree that it didn't add anything to the game. Artillery is part of warfare and indirect fire too from at least 1914. Having it adds to the impression that you're in a battle that is larger than your immediate area - ie a war.

But, I also agree that it would be more difficult if not impossible to incorporate it into this iteration of Planetside with the outpost and base designs that we have.

[Chaff]

Flail Redux ? Tough call. It's a spam (primarily) weapon. I used it. Not very often. Once or twice a month. Always felt a little cheap & dirty. Usually, if I knew we were going to lose a long contested fight - that would essentially guarantee the other side an eventual Cont Lock ...... I would pull a Flail .... so I could spam their CY after they had full CY control and were in the process of mopping up the last dozen of my empire mates deep inside the lower base. That's pretty gay. When I was in POOR LOSER MODE ..... that's 75% of the time I remember pulling a Flail. If you tried to use it corretly - to break the CY defense of a base your empire was attacking .... it usually only took but a handfull of shots before you were a TKing asshat. The LR-artillary idea is sound. The actual gameplay isn't. Well, it wasn't in PS1. Too many negatives outweigh the limited benefits. Also, there are too many PROFESSIONAL GREIFERS (in PS2)...... let's NOT give them such a great TK tool.

[Figment]

Granted flails wouldn't have been as bad in PS1 had there been a requirement for spotters as then you could hunt down the infils.


But Ps2 has completely different design. The spawnroom was protected in PS1, it is not in PS2, the amount of terrain to camp is much smaller in PS2 due to the modular building design and that's causing sufficient problems as is.

[Timealude]

Granted flails wouldn't have been as bad in PS1 had there been a requirement for spotters as then you could hunt down the infils.


But Ps2 has completely different design. The spawnroom was protected in PS1, it is not in PS2, the amount of terrain to camp is much smaller in PS2 due to the modular building design and that's causing sufficient problems as is.

OS could help with the artillery spam even if the spawns are some what unprotected. I think that if they do add this in a separate vehicle rather then the rumored attachment for the MBT, It needs to have a long timer for it as to avoid it becoming like the prowler siege currently.

[Whiteagle]

OS could help with the artillery spam even if the spawns are some what unprotected. I think that if they do add this in a separate vehicle rather then the rumored attachment for the MBT, It needs to have a long timer for it as to avoid it becoming like the prowler siege currently.
That and either Paper Armor or an exposed Operation...

[JeffBeefjaw]

What is this "flail" you talk of?

[ringring]

Granted flails wouldn't have been as bad in PS1 had there been a requirement for spotters as then you could hunt down the infils.


But Ps2 has completely different design. The spawnroom was protected in PS1, it is not in PS2, the amount of terrain to camp is much smaller in PS2 due to the modular building design and that's causing sufficient problems as is.

There were anti-flail people. Given your playstyle these were often cloakers.

Phantasm->hack flail -> get kill ->deconstruct flail

[Shogun]

There were anti-flail people. Given your playstyle these were often cloakers.

Phantasm->hack flail -> get kill ->deconstruct flail

would be impossible in ps2 due to no vehicle hacking.
but it has been said, we don´t need even more spawnspamming, and that is what a flail would be used for in ps2 99.9% of the time.

[Ghoest9]

Indirect fire can only hurt PS2 - potentially it could hurt it badly.

It has nothing to do with balance and everything to do with making the targets resentful and unhappy.

[Staticelf]

So would you anti-artillery agree that indirect artillery used properly would get people to move out ove their bases and take the fights into the open because staying in the base would mean explosive death?

If so that is exactly why Im proposing it! The best battles I have seen take place BETWEEN bases in the enviroment not in the bases where instead of massive combat you get a bunch of 1v1 mini battles. So if it would force us out of bases then it is doing exactly what it is supposed to. And yes it should have no armor and/or easy to kill gunner. So that you have to protect them from the angry enemy coming out to find you.

[Staticelf]

Im sorry I didnt play PS1 but I think comparimg the two is getting old and is a little pointless. From what I have seen PS1 was definitely not ps2 on crappy graphics mode it was its own fps game and shouldnt drag down this one just because something didnt work in a vid game 10 yrs ago...computer science has come a ways since Halo 1 was the king fps

[ringring]

would be impossible in ps2 due to no vehicle hacking.
but it has been said, we don´t need even more spawnspamming, and that is what a flail would be used for in ps2 99.9% of the time.

I don't know if we could get any spawn spamming than we already do. If a flail tried it there would be a lot of dead friendlies.

Remember we are going to get artillery namely the new OS.

Personally I don't think a new flail with spotters would work, battle fronts are too mobile - but maybe the rush lanes will change this.

[Canaris]

Im sorry I didnt play PS1 but I think comparimg the two is getting old and is a little pointless. From what I have seen PS1 was definitely not ps2 on crappy graphics mode it was its own fps game and shouldnt drag down this one just because something didnt work in a vid game 10 yrs ago...computer science has come a ways since Halo 1 was the king fps

Yes let's just throw away all the lessons we learned from over a decade of MMOFPS gaming just because the graphics are in your opinion cruddy :rolleyes:

You'll understand why I dismiss your opinion out of hand on this matter.

[Phantomdestiny]

what about we wait for the rush lanes as Higby calls the new lattice hybrid before we do anything . Artillery can be useful or could just brake the game however we are getting orbital strikes so how about we wait and check for those .

[Shogun]

yep. orbital strikes can break the game enough. no need for a secondary gamebreaker of the same type ;)

and @ staticelf: you are right, ps1 is not ps2 on crappy graphics mode. ps1 was a lot deeper than ps2 is. but from 10 years of experience we know what parts of ps1 did work and what didn´t work. artillery didn´t work. there were a lot of great things in ps1 that ps2 is missing, artillery is not one of them.

[Staticelf]

Canaris...thank you for dismissing my opinion...which begs the question why are you posting here then as this post IS my opinion on a new vehicle idea.

[Staticelf]

For those not familiar with constructive criticism it goes like this...
"Your idea stinks...but maybe if you did X it would be more viable"

If its a bad idea in your opinion how could it be modified to be a better idea...not just dismissed.

[Canaris]

Canaris...thank you for dismissing my opinion...which begs the question why are you posting here then as this post IS my opinion on a new vehicle idea.

you have the wrong of it, I'm not dismissing the idea of artillery out of hand, that I'll discuss and debate, what I dismiss is your opinion of just throwing out over a decades worth of gaming experience and lessons just because you consider it old. that I won't even entertain.

[Sledgecrushr]

Ok so we can have indirect artillery pieces ingame. So keeping in mind the teamwork element of this cannon here are some gameplay ideas.
1- cannon itself must be hooked up to the back of a sunderer to be transported
2- once the cannon is unhooked from the sunderer it can be moved into a firing position
3- after the cannon is in its firing position the cannon round can be loaded
4- before firing your cannon you have to mathematically figure a firing resolution using standard artillery calculations

[ringring]

The instance where I think artillery would be useful is in breaking up large armour zergs.

e.g. TR/NC/VS zerg is capturing an outpost. The outpost is overrun defenders are stuck inside the spawns and outside is a mass of infantry and armour.

Artillery from an nearby base targets the 'zerg' and degrades their armour by removing mbt's before they move out to the next outpost.

It requires artillery with similar 'powerz' to the flail, it must require spotters (something whereby if a spotter isn't coupled with the artillery piece it's accuracy is appalling) and it's requires players to play tactically.

[Staticelf]

Much better guys...i like where you are going sledge. An artillery piece that can link with the sundy then "deploy" to fire. Needs to be short enough ranged so that you can't shoot it from most of the bases and hit another base.

What about this...its a sunderer utility (or the slot where AMS is?) so when sunderer "deploys" the gun spawns behind it (like how an engi deploys a turret)

[Baneblade]

It doesn't matter what the pros of artillery will be because the cons of it will drown them utterly.

[Staticelf]

Im sure their could be a crew element. A loader must be near (loads like hacking a terminal) and the firer controls the aim. (Prob need a basic North-South/East-West click system to aim cant be too complicated)

[Whiteagle]

Much better guys...i like where you are going sledge. An artillery piece that can link with the sundy then "deploy" to fire. Needs to be short enough ranged so that you can shoot it from most of the bases and hit another base.

What about this...its a sunderer utility (or the slot where AMS is?) so when sunderer "deploys" the gun spawns behind it (like how an engi deploys a turret)
Had an idea like that back in Beta... (http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=47822)

Im sure their could be a crew element. A loader must be near (loads like hacking a terminal) and the firer controls the aim. (Prob need a basic North-South/East-West click system to aim cant be too complicated)
Hmmm... Perhaps the Gunner has to make use of a Map Screen with a circle or cone that indicates the general area where his shot will land?

[Staticelf]

Again baneblade...if there are cons then there are ways to mitigate them.
I know I know "solve problem make brain hurt...say problem much easier!"

[Staticelf]

For those who are worrying about artillery spamming spawn rooms...let me play Statics advocate here...(and solve your Con for you)
How about defensive artillery "turrets" then...inside amp stations or techplants. A battery of three or four of them that can shell the surrounding area (but cant quite reach any spawn rooms in that base or surrounding bases) and they would be hackable/destroyable of course!

[Ruffdog]

I think its a moot point mate because as soon as you open with a spam cannon like that, you'll have a bajillion pissed off air boys following the fire back and coming to you for an XP piñata.

[Whiteagle]

I think its a moot point mate because as soon as you open with a spam cannon like that, you'll have a bajillion pissed off air boys following the fire back and coming to you for an XP piñata.
But then wouldn't it require Anti-Air support?

Which would then require Anti-Tank Support?

Which would then require Anti-Infantry Support?

[Staticelf]

But then wouldn't it require Anti-Air support?

Which would then require Anti-Tank Support?

Which would then require Anti-Infantry Support?

Uh oh! Sounds like we are getting dangerously close to something that encourages combined arms combat.

Ruffdog that is EXACTLY what I want them to do.

I am 1000% for encouraging combat that isnt "guys standing outside of spawnroom trying to kill guys standing inside of spawn room."

Getting planetside away from "myshotgun vs yourshotgun as we meet around a corner in a base (winner repeats until dead)" is the whole point of this new weaponry.

[Phantomdestiny]

But then wouldn't it require Anti-Air support?

Which would then require Anti-Tank Support?

Which would then require Anti-Infantry Support?

= profit meta-game (take a drink)

[Baneblade]

Again baneblade...if there are cons then there are ways to mitigate them.
I know I know "solve problem make brain hurt...say problem much easier!"

You must be new around here or you would know that when an idea isn't totally a bad one, I do try to make it work. Artillery is a very good idea if you want to ruin the game. And besides that, PS2 maps aren't big enough for artillery. I mean, MBTs can already shell targets 1000 m away... and so can Libs. So what niche is the Artillery going to fill that isn't already taken?

[moosepoop]

But then wouldn't it require Anti-Air support?

Which would then require Anti-Tank Support?

Which would then require Anti-Infantry Support?

OH NO! team work!

[Whiteagle]

You must be new around here or you would know that when an idea isn't totally a bad one, I do try to make it work. Artillery is a very good idea if you want to ruin the game. And besides that, PS2 maps aren't big enough for artillery. I mean, MBTs can already shell targets 1000 m away... and so can Libs. So what niche is the Artillery going to fill that isn't already taken?
Easy, shelling things 2000 meters way!:D
Heyuk yuk yuk!

[Staticelf]

You must be new around here or you would know that when an idea isn't totally a bad one, I do try to make it work. Artillery is a very good idea if you want to ruin the game. And besides that, PS2 maps aren't big enough for artillery. I mean, MBTs can already shell targets 1000 m away... and so can Libs. So what niche is the Artillery going to fill that isn't already taken?

Ummmmmmmmm. It might fill the......wait for it......indirect artillery niche. Unless a new patch has made MBTs able to shoot arcing shots over elevated terrain my answer is Indirect Artillery....who says artillery has to shoot all the way across the map!? Per most of my posts above I think the range should be very short (as in it you cant shoot from most bases and hit other bases) but very strong blasts.

By the way "Artillery is a very good Idea if you want to ruin the game" is in no way, shape, or form constructive criticism.....please refer to my post....which you quoted...again. Then post how we could fix the problems you love coming up with...

[Shogun]

the only artillery that would not end up in a spawnspamming fest would look like this:

a big turret at the middle of a base (like that giant prop gun in the techplant).
being able to shoot only outside the perimeter of the base, and only not far enough to hit a spawnroom of another base.

it would need a spotter who might use a laserpointer on a target, which projects a firing direction directly at the gunners hud. maybe a reticule/waypoint like thing. aiming at this indicator would shoot at the position the laser was pointed at last.

using the pointer again would update the direction indicator for the gunner.
if squadmates use pointers, multiple directionindicators could be produced, marked with the squadmatenumbers.

that or something along those lines might work as artillery, but i still think the space between bases isn´t big enough to make this useful. at least not on indar. might be an idea for the icecont, where there is a lot of open space. and might be a fun job to use the laserpointer from a rumbling seat.

but really, this artillery must at all costs be unable to shoot at any spawnroom.
maybe the gun is programmed to protect buildings and can only be fired when no building is in the projectiles blast radius.
and i doubt, that the devs will design such a complicated limited weapon.
and as much fun it could be to be the one who uses this cannon, artillery will never add any fun to the recieving end. it´s another instadeath from nowhere, and ps2 really has enough of that already.

[BlaxicanX]

I would love to have a stationary artillery device in the middle of a base that can lob explosives out at attackers.

Slow firing rate, inaccurate as hell, somewhat better with painted targets.

It could work similar to the mortar in BF3, with a top-down view that can only see targets that are being sighted.

Would give LA's something interesting to do, if the super-mortar was powerful enough to threaten sunderers.

[Staticelf]

Ok so lets consolidate this idea...

-A battery of artillery cannon turrets located within the interior of the bases. (not on the walls)
-They can't fire far enough to reach other bases and cant land shells inside their own base
-With good spotting and adjustments they could deal with that annoying sunderer parked on/behind the mountain ridge overlooking the base you are defending.
-Damage is about the same as main battle tank round (so flak armor inf. could survive it unless it was an unlucky direct hit)
-They can be hacked/destroyed just like other turrets.
-Spotters (probably infiltrators) with a spotting tool can make marked targets show up on firing map that artillery gunner is viewing to shoot the gun.
-Second person can load the gun between shots with an "E" button action similar to hacking terminals/overloading Generators. Otherwise gunner has to load gun and then fire from the artillery map screen. (so slower fire rate with just one man)

Anyone see any problems with these? If so please at least try to give a suggestion on how to fix the problem you see.

[Shogun]

it should only be able to fire when there is an active spotter because this should only be used by players who like teamplay. it should not carter to lazyspammers in any way. and since there is only a very limited number of those turrets (i would say make it a special for one basetype that could use some help with defence), you don´t want to find this weapon occupied by a lonewulf, so disencouraging them with this limit gives a better chance for teamplayers to use this thing.

maybe you need to cert it in the leader section?

[Baneblade]

Then post how we could fix the problems you love coming up with...

I don't want to fix the problems. I don't want artillery. It has no place in either PlanetSide, and forcing it on the players doesn't change that.

[Staticelf]

It could be team oriented by making it so that spotters can only spot for squad/platoon mates. So without a spotter the gunner is firing blind. He cant see any enemy on his map. He only can see where his rounds land on the map. (So he might get lucky every once in a while.) also with no loader firing eould be tedious because he would have to get out to load it then get in and fire blind. Not a lone wolf weapon.

[Staticelf]

I don't want to fix the problems. I don't want artillery. It has no place in either PlanetSide, and forcing it on the players doesn't change that.

We have noted your dislike. "Baneblade say: Food good! Artillery bad!" Got it.

If you dont want to fix the problems here there are many other posts in the forum full of other ideas for you to "not want in Planetside"...may I suggest the one on base changes, or maybe the new fighter bomber idea post that looked promising.

My completely theoretical idea on a public forum is in no way being forced upon you hero.

And fortunately for us all what you "dont want" in our game is just as weightless as any of my ideas...

[Baneblade]

I think it is cute you think talking down to me is somehow not making you look like a retard. Keep it up, you will sink yourself for me.

[Figment]

For those not familiar with constructive criticism it goes like this...
"Your idea stinks...but maybe if you did X it would be more viable"

If its a bad idea in your opinion how could it be modified to be a better idea...not just dismissed.

Bases would have to be changed before artillery can be implemented. Till then there's no point discussing artillery.

[Staticelf]

Bases would have to be changed before artillery can be implemented. Till then there's no point discussing artillery.

Ok what changes? Please expand.
That is the point of all these forum discussions....theoretical artillery can easily lead to theoretical base changes to make the artillery work. (so it is on topic)

Post up some of the changes that need to be made to make the bases artillery compatible please.

(And to baneblade I wasnt talking down to you I was trying to nicely tell you to go post somewhere else as your posts are not furthering the conversation...so until you have something to add that is beneficial....good day to you, sir.)

[Whiteagle]

Bases would have to be changed before artillery can be implemented. Till then there's no point discussing artillery.
But perhaps Artillery would FORCE them to change the Bases so they have better Air cover?

[Baneblade]

But they won't paint themselves into that type of corner. That large a change in base designs will set the Roadmap back six months, easily.

[Staticelf]

But they won't paint themselves into that type of corner. That large a change in base designs will set the Roadmap back six months, easily.

Ok so you have successfully s#!t on his point....but your suggestion to fix it IS................

I belive in you Bane blade....

[Ghoest9]

So would you anti-artillery agree that indirect artillery used properly would get people to move out ove their bases and take the fights into the open because staying in the base would mean explosive death?

If so that is exactly why Im proposing it! The best battles I have seen take place BETWEEN bases in the enviroment not in the bases where instead of massive combat you get a bunch of 1v1 mini battles. So if it would force us out of bases then it is doing exactly what it is supposed to. And yes it should have no armor and/or easy to kill gunner. So that you have to protect them from the angry enemy coming out to find you.


No.

I would probably just start playing PS2 less.

I could go back to WOT if i wanted to put up[ with artillery.

[Figment]

Ok what changes? Please expand.
That is the point of all these forum discussions....theoretical artillery can easily lead to theoretical base changes to make the artillery work. (so it is on topic)

Post up some of the changes that need to be made to make the bases artillery compatible please.

(And to baneblade I wasnt talking down to you I was trying to nicely tell you to go post somewhere else as your posts are not furthering the conversation...so until you have something to add that is beneficial....good day to you, sir.)

Fair enough. Let's first see what would be needed.

- No choke points artillery can spam to completely tie down defenders.
- Plentiful shelter against indirect fire.
- No influence from artillery on control console status OR any approach to the control console.
- No influence from artillery on SCU generator status
- Plenty exits that the same artillery battery cannot hit (exits in different directions and in dispersed locations).
- No vehicle pads in the open.
- Artillery should only hit courtyard objects, but courtyards must remain possible to cross intermittently when under artillery barrage (already sufficient camp and crossfire threat)

This does not correspond with modular building design. Basically it requires bunker like structures that are intraconnected, extensive and a lot of other forms of overhead shelter and splash protection.

Any objectives have to go underground or inside buildings.


Some other points about artillery:
- Very slow rate of fire and reload
- Artillery should not be able to fire without a spotter
- Significant inaccuracy
- Low health



But here is another annoying thing about artillery: If they get too much range, they will sit next to warpgate shields - or even inside - becoming invulnerable. That's a huge problem since they allow firing out of shields right now.

I hope you also realise that these things would not come into the game one at a time, outfit events could completely ruin other people's game for the evening.

[Staticelf]

I think all your points about artillery are acceptable. Weak armor, fire blind without spotter, and slow to fire. All check

And I think by putting them as stationary turrets inside bases and making it so they cant shoot inside their own base or reach any other bases you wont need any overhead protection from them in the base. (of course more trench systems and overhead cover would be appreciated in moderation!) :)

I am all for more defensible base configurations...right now our base defenses pretty much consist of "Pray they are dumb enough to wait for the vehicle shields to come down instead of just driving their sundy in the two shieldless giant gaps in the wall?)

So my base issues are...
First ALL shields should block enemy soldiers AND vehicles from getting through...period! That is what light assault and infiltrators are for...just climb the towers to get in...(yes you can do it, don't believe me youtube it or find me on Connery and I will show you.)

Second if you have four entry gates....Put shields on all four NOT JUST TWO!? WTF (again shields should stop both infantry and vehicles....instead of infantry just waltzing through the gate to go let their tanks in!?)

But my main effort is to draw combat out of bases and into the open...so that it feels more like combined arms massive conflict...instead of tanks outside blasting doors and walkways while shotguns run inside blasting anything that moves....which leads us to my favorite (sarcasm) "guys outside spawn room shooting at guys inside the spawn room while guys inside the spawn room shoot at guys outside the spawn room"....ok timer ran down! See you when we pin you in the next spawn room!

So in the above configuration no indirect artillery shell would ever land inside a base...only outside of it.

[Baneblade]

So, you want to take combat away from bases, while adding more not only one, but two more reasons to fight inside a base?

[Timealude]

Well from I have see from videos and such, the level design team said they have taken in to account with things like artillery...which is im sure another reason why we are getting changes to the bases on Indar as well. IMO......Im starting to believe the tiny outpost that are so susceptible to indirect fire because they arent actually meant to sustain fights and they are purely a way to warn the empire of an approaching force. I dont think we should also rule artillery out just because our current bases arent designed for them, they can always go back and change the base layout to give us more cover from things like bombers or tank spam.

[Sledgecrushr]

Yeah I just cant see artillery being much fun for the majority of players in this game. Any kind of death that you literally have zero chance at even seeing who is shooting at you just seems not very cool to me. Its bad enough with liberators and rocketpods and tanks. Now throw in all the other HE insta death we have and we have enough of that stuff already. At least with an OS you do get a chance to get out of the way.

[Dougnifico]

I support indirect fire artillery with a couple stipulations.

1. Weak armor with no major defensive systems.
2. Very inaccurate/unusable without a spotter and requires adjusting with one.
3. Shells must have a visible trail and a sound indicator that they are coming down. The sound would be louder the closer you are to the impact area.
4. Long deploy time.
5. Automatic radar signature while firing.

[Staticelf]

HE is not insatdeath with flak armor on....it does almost no damage with it maxed! Its the only inf defense that has a noticable effect when equipped so why are you guys not using it? If you dont believe me try it...I didn't believe either till I did

[HiroshiChugi]

But then wouldn't it require Anti-Air support?

Which would then require Anti-Tank Support?

Which would then require Anti-Infantry Support?

Uh oh! Sounds like we are getting dangerously close to something that encourages combined arms combat.

Ruffdog that is EXACTLY what I want them to do.

I am 1000% for encouraging combat that isnt "guys standing outside of spawnroom trying to kill guys standing inside of spawn room."

Getting planetside away from "myshotgun vs yourshotgun as we meet around a corner in a base (winner repeats until dead)" is the whole point of this new weaponry.

THANK YOU! Why hasn't anyody seen this before when this idea was first brought up?!? I remember the original Planetside 2 battles where the battles were FIRST outside of the bases and hen BROUGHT INTO the base as the opposing force(s) pushed the defenders into the walls of the base. I remember that and miss it soooooo much...

[Shogun]

THANK YOU! Why hasn't anyody seen this before when this idea was first brought up?!? I remember the original Planetside 2 battles where the battles were FIRST outside of the bases and hen BROUGHT INTO the base as the opposing force(s) pushed the defenders into the walls of the base. I remember that and miss it soooooo much...

i miss this, too. but this is not achieved by implementing artillery. this can only be achieved by redesign of the bases and/or the capture mechanics.

in planetside 1 all battles followed this path more or less:

big vehicle attack on a base, trying to get into the courtyard.
when courtyard is secured and enemies are contained in the base, try to push inside.
when inside, go either for controlcenter, spawn or generator to win and eventually end the fight.

in ps2 you go for the spawn first, leaving out all the other steps.
artillery will not change that.

[HiroshiChugi]

i miss this, too. but this is not achieved by implementing artillery. this can only be achieved by redesign of the bases and/or the capture mechanics.

in planetside 1 all battles followed this path more or less:

big vehicle attack on a base, trying to get into the courtyard.
when courtyard is secured and enemies are contained in the base, try to push inside.
when inside, go either for controlcenter, spawn or generator to win and eventually end the fight.

in ps2 you go for the spawn first, leaving out all the other steps.
artillery will not change that.

I know you keep bringing up Planetside 1 for references, but let's face it, the new players just don't care. I do, for one, but others don't. I do however, see a viable issue with the courtyard. Where is the capture point? Is it whoever has the most forces for a certain amount of time? Is it a tug-o-war kind of thing? How is it implemented?

[Shogun]

i don´t care if new players like ps1 reference or not. you brought up the desire to bring back battleflow like it was in ps1. you just didn´t name it!

what capturepoint in a courtyard? courtyards were taken by containing the enemy in the basebuilding and storming the courtyard with friendly units. there is no mechanic needed there, people knew when a courtyard was lost or won without a stupid colored light telling the status. the only capturepoint was deeply buried in the basebuilding.

spawns were also deep within basebuildings and you had to go in there to take them down. enemies could still spawn there and try to resecure until all 3 tubes were destroyed.

this brought the battleflow like it was in ps1. it was like that in ps2 for a short time because beta players were mostly ps1 players who were used to this flow and tried to play ps2 like they played ps1. but this is now impossible.

[Figment]

Things like flak armour are a weak excuse to excuse OP AoE weapons.

[Shogun]

Things like flak armour are a weak excuse to excuse OP AoE weapons.

especially when new free-players can´t use it! and upgrading this would mean no new weapon for weeks.

[Selerox]

I support indirect fire artillery with a couple stipulations.

1. Weak armor with no major defensive systems.
2. Very inaccurate/unusable without a spotter and requires adjusting with one.
3. Shells must have a visible trail and a sound indicator that they are coming down. The sound would be louder the closer you are to the impact area.
4. Long deploy time.
5. Automatic radar signature while firing.

I'd also add:

6. Each piece must be team operated.
7. Each person in the team has to do their part in turn before the piece can fire.
8. Each operation must take a certain amount of time and must be interruptible (like overloading a generator). If a step is interrupted, it only affects that step, not the whole process.
9. Add a skill tree to allow for certing into a "Gunnery" skill to allow for these operations to be faster.

Something like:

Spotter > Gunner (aim) > Loader 1 > Loader 2 > Gunner (fire)

Artillery should be something that requires a team effort and a logistical consideration to use.

It must not by a vehicle that can be operated by a lone gunner (even with the addition of a spotter).

[wasdie]

No matter how robust the idea is indirect artillery will always end up as a tool to spawn camp. That's really all there is to say about it.

Artillery is great in real life because you can kill your enemy from a safe distance away, but it's just not fun in a video game. It has novel uses in games like Battlefield 2 and Red Orchestra, but those are much more controlled environments.

There are only ever 2 ways indirect artillery can end up in a game like this. Either it's nerfed to oblivion to try to prevent it from being a cheap and over powered tactic that it ends up so useless nobody uses it or it is just blatantly OP and not fun to fight against.

This is a game first and foremost. While it's easy to think of ideas in the context of yourself and your teammates using it to wipe out your enemies, you have to think of both sides of the weapon. Sure it's fun to use but is it fun to fight against? Indirect artillery is never fun to fight against.

Even with all of the suggestions in this thread it would only be useful in a tiny subset of situations and then it would be no fun to fight against. Going off of some suggestions in this thread the only time I would see it being useful where it wouldn't be destroyed in seconds by the enemy is when you're clearly overwhelming an enemy and you have stationary targets (spawn buildings, deployed sunderers) to shoot at further camping in your enemy.

[Whiteagle]

It always boggles my mind that people don't know what "Suppressive Fire" is used for...

[wasdie]

It always boggles my mind that people don't know what "Suppressive Fire" is used for...

Suppressive fire doesn't translate well into a fun gameplay mechanic. I've not played a game where artillery has added to the experience and not just is a major annoyance that is only used to rack up free kills.

It's just something that sounds much better in theory and on the forums than it works well in game.

[Figment]

For once I agree with Wasdie.


Artillery in world of tanks is by a large group of players the most hated thing ever. Why? Because they have no idea if they are targeted, if they can find cover and even if they think they're in cover, they can regularly still get splashed to death, while not being able to return fire or do much more about it until they get in close range (at which point they can pulverise arti that aren't ready to or good at TD).

It creates an annoyance if you feel powerless and in a game like WoT at least artillery is somewhat limited in numbers. Not every match though, which are the most hated matches and then there's only 5, each firing every 30 seconds. IN PS2, the amount of shelling that would be possible is mindnumbing.

[Whiteagle]

Artillery in world of tanks is by a large group of players the most hated thing ever. Why? Because they have no idea if they are targeted, if they can find cover and even if they think they're in cover, they can regularly still get splashed to death, while not being able to return fire or do much more about it until they get in close range (at which point they can pulverise arti that aren't ready to or good at TD).

It creates an annoyance if you feel powerless and in a game like WoT at least artillery is somewhat limited in numbers. Not every match though, which are the most hated matches and then there's only 5, each firing every 30 seconds. IN PS2, the amount of shelling that would be possible is mindnumbing.
Ah, but you don't have AIRCRAFT in World of Tanks...

[Kerrec]

No one is going to like seeing a killbox showing a killer that is 1 or 2 bases away. Period.

It's an interesting idea, but it would make for poor gameplay. There are no limits to how many guns/vehicles are spawned/used in PS2. Spammed, these indirect artillery guns would just bring us back to December when a large majority of base fights and ground vehicles were rendered pointless because of Liberator spam.

Besides, in what way would an indirect artillery be better than a Phoenix?

Want my constructive criticism assuming you insist this kind of system is needed? Ok, here goes:

-Artillery guns must be spawned at fixed locations, aka: bonuses for owning certain bases. Spawning one puts the spawnee into a MAX suit that doesn't have any weapons or sprint. Just defenses and a targetting laser. The MAX operator must travel within range of the target and must have LOS to aim the laser at the target/location. One arm lazes vehicles for big focused damage against said vehicle. The other arm lazes an area to do MINOR damage to soft targets over a respectable area. The laser is very visible, and must be maintained on target while the artillery round is in flight.

-The artillery must be manned. The "gunner" must adjust elevation and direction in order to get the projectile to land within 100m of a lazed target with a reticule similar to grenade launchers. The gunner can view the map to see where the round lands, to be able to "walk" the rounds on target during the learning process. Rounds that don't land within 100m of the lazed target, do not explode. Don't want friendly fire now!

-Successful kills or assists grant the lion's share of the XP to the MAX suit, and 5-10xp per kill to the "gunner".

-If the MAX suit is killed, the artillery begins a self destruct countdown. 30 seconds or so for the MAX suit to be revived before it goes BOOM. If it does go boom, further XP is awarded, similar to a generator/scu. An infiltrator can "hack" the artillery gun to slow down the self destruct countdown, but it resumes normal countdown speeds as soon as the hacking stops.

- The Artillery gun can be hacked by enemy infiltrators, killing the MAX operator if successful.

[HiroshiChugi]

No one is going to like seeing a killbox showing a killer that is 1 or 2 bases away. Period.

It's an interesting idea, but it would make for poor gameplay. There are no limits to how many guns/vehicles are spawned/used in PS2. Spammed, these indirect artillery guns would just bring us back to December when a large majority of base fights and ground vehicles were rendered pointless because of Liberator spam.

Besides, in what way would an indirect artillery be better than a Phoenix?

Want my constructive criticism assuming you insist this kind of system is needed? Ok, here goes:

-Artillery guns must be spawned at fixed locations, aka: bonuses for owning certain bases. Spawning one puts the spawnee into a MAX suit that doesn't have any weapons or sprint. Just defenses and a targetting laser. The MAX operator must travel within range of the target and must have LOS to aim the laser at the target/location. One arm lazes vehicles for big focused damage against said vehicle. The other arm lazes an area to do MINOR damage to soft targets over a respectable area. The laser is very visible, and must be maintained on target while the artillery round is in flight.

-The artillery must be manned. The "gunner" must adjust elevation and direction in order to get the projectile to land within 100m of a lazed target with a reticule similar to grenade launchers. The gunner can view the map to see where the round lands, to be able to "walk" the rounds on target during the learning process. Rounds that don't land within 100m of the lazed target, do not explode. Don't want friendly fire now!

-Successful kills or assists grant the lion's share of the XP to the MAX suit, and 5-10xp per kill to the "gunner".

-If the MAX suit is killed, the artillery begins a self destruct countdown. 30 seconds or so for the MAX suit to be revived before it goes BOOM. If it does go boom, further XP is awarded, similar to a generator/scu. An infiltrator can "hack" the artillery gun to slow down the self destruct countdown, but it resumes normal countdown speeds as soon as the hacking stops.

- The Artillery gun can be hacked by enemy infiltrators, killing the MAX operator if successful.

This actually make tons of sense. However, will the MAX have regular ol' MAX armour or a slight buff since it has no weapons, abilities, or sprint?

[Staticelf]

For once I agree with Wasdie.


Artillery in world of tanks is by a large group of players the most hated thing ever. Why? Because they have no idea if they are targeted, if they can find cover and even if they think they're in cover, they can regularly still get splashed to death, while not being able to return fire or do much more about it until they get in close range (at which point they can pulverise arti that aren't ready to or good at TD).

It creates an annoyance if you feel powerless and in a game like WoT at least artillery is somewhat limited in numbers. Not every match though, which are the most hated matches and then there's only 5, each firing every 30 seconds. IN PS2, the amount of shelling that would be possible is mindnumbing.


So we shouldn't do it because it would be an annoyance to armor setting still?
How do you think infantry survive while snipers are on every hill just waiting for that headshot? They keep moving!
Im sorry your tank might no longer be able to camp blast the tower because if he sits still he will get indirect fire. Welcome to combined arms combat!

[Qwan]

Well I dont know about adding a artillary piece to this game. What would be the range, I mean most of these post are not far apart so before the zerg leaves one base you could simply start spaming the next one. It just isnt practical, the bases are to close together, and like most posters have said there is enough spam on the spawn boxes. In PS1 they were underground and protected. Now your in the open and there are alot of friendlys around, so a bad direct hit could lock you up quick.

[Staticelf]

If you read the posts before you post you will see that in its current form the artillery I am proposing would probably be a turret battery inside large bases that can target the open land around the base but not be able to land rounds in surrounding bases (or its own base). So short range but as strong as a tank round.

Also I like the idea that as soon as they shoot they show up on enemy radar so you know they are active.

[ringring]

I think artillery that would only fire on the battles between bases would not be viable because the movement is so fluid. All battles are in or adjacent to bases anyway.

So on this basis artillery could go in, but I think only because it wouldn't or couldn't be used with any effect.

The only way artillery (in my opinion) could be effective if it was able to fire from one outpost/base to another. But in that case because of base designs it would be too effective.


ps Sometimes I think I must be that one in a million player. All the things that PS vets say 'everybody hated' such as caves, third-person, flails or bfr's I either positively loved (caves) or didn't particularly mind (the rest). :p

[Canaris]

No matter how robust the idea is indirect artillery will always end up as a tool to spawn camp. That's really all there is to say about it.

Artillery is great in real life because you can kill your enemy from a safe distance away, but it's just not fun in a video game. It has novel uses in games like Battlefield 2 and Red Orchestra, but those are much more controlled environments.

There are only ever 2 ways indirect artillery can end up in a game like this. Either it's nerfed to oblivion to try to prevent it from being a cheap and over powered tactic that it ends up so useless nobody uses it or it is just blatantly OP and not fun to fight against.

This is a game first and foremost. While it's easy to think of ideas in the context of yourself and your teammates using it to wipe out your enemies, you have to think of both sides of the weapon. Sure it's fun to use but is it fun to fight against? Indirect artillery is never fun to fight against.

Even with all of the suggestions in this thread it would only be useful in a tiny subset of situations and then it would be no fun to fight against. Going off of some suggestions in this thread the only time I would see it being useful where it wouldn't be destroyed in seconds by the enemy is when you're clearly overwhelming an enemy and you have stationary targets (spawn buildings, deployed sunderers) to shoot at further camping in your enemy.

not just spawn camp but point camping aswell, I'm also sure those devious so & so's would figure where to hit a building and put the splash damage into the buildings with points inside.

[Staticelf]

So to consolidate (so you dont have to go back and read 6 pages) and before you post that this is a bad idea based on the title without knowing the evolution of this idea....

- We are no longer considering a vehicle...rather an artillery turret battery (3 guns) emplaced inside larger bases (techplants/amp stations)

- Their range would be limited to the open area outside the base's walls. BUT short of landing in other bases.

- Without a spotter they are firing blind.

- With a spotter (infiltrator with spotting tool) they can see enemy inf/vehicle being spotted on the "targeting map"

- Cannon fires slowly requiring an "E" button interaction to load (like hacking) but a second person can load while gun operator stays in targeting map screen to increase speed a little.

- Cannon damage is same as tank round

- Cannons being fired show up on enemy minimaps so they know that they are active.

Ok now after reading that continue your constructive criticism...

[Kerrec]

This actually make tons of sense. However, will the MAX have regular ol' MAX armour or a slight buff since it has no weapons, abilities, or sprint?

I was thinking it up as I wrote it, simply to accomodate the OP who wants constructive criticism. I'm sure there are many details that would need to be sorted out.

As for my tastes, I'd make the MAX a sitting duck. Team has to defend it, or lose it. A glass cannon.

[Timealude]

I think artillery that would only fire on the battles between bases would not be viable because the movement is so fluid. All battles are in or adjacent to bases anyway.

So on this basis artillery could go in, but I think only because it wouldn't or couldn't be used with any effect.

The only way artillery (in my opinion) could be effective if it was able to fire from one outpost/base to another. But in that case because of base designs it would be too effective.


ps Sometimes I think I must be that one in a million player. All the things that PS vets say 'everybody hated' such as caves, third-person, flails or bfr's I either positively loved (caves) or didn't particularly mind (the rest). :p

Ya I didnt mind third person or Flails because they were effective at what they did. I will agree with the others day BFRs when they were first introduced were horrible. They were extremely overpowered in everyway. The only reason I didnt like the caves were because of how exposed the ziplines were.

I think we just need to give it a try first on the test server, if it doesnt work and proves to be too powerful they can always remove it.

[HiroshiChugi]

\I think we just need to give it a try first on the test server, if it doesnt work and proves to be too powerful they can always remove it.

THANK YOU! Finally someone said this other than myself!

[Chaff]

I'd also add:

6. Each piece must be team operated.
7. Each person in the team has to do their part in turn before the piece can fire.
8. Each operation must take a certain amount of time and must be interruptible (like overloading a generator). If a step is interrupted, it only affects that step, not the whole process.
9. Add a skill tree to allow for certing into a "Gunnery" skill to allow for these operations to be faster.

Something like:

Spotter > Gunner (aim) > Loader 1 > Loader 2 > Gunner (fire)

Artillery should be something that requires a team effort and a logistical consideration to use.

It must not by a vehicle that can be operated by a lone gunner (even with the addition of a spotter).


:huh:
I'm feeling wobbly. ALL THIS TROUBLE, and yet earlier, I could swear OP said he was agreeable to watering down the artillery until it was roughly comparable to a MBT. If this is accurate summation, it seems a waste of manpower vs the simplicity of a MBT.

Teamwork is GREAT, but this many guys for what one person can do with a MBT ? I don't see it being used much - if at all.

Now, I realize, true indirect artillery could land (lob) shells into pockets a MBT may not be able to get to or shoot into ......

Then later, I heard .... keep the indirect fire artillery piece on the buff side, but update bases to mitigate the possible spammage/damage, ...... why build it if we're going to automatically build a counter to it ? :huh::huh:

Actually, if this tended to limit its use more towards the open battlefield vs spamming bases, that's more favorable (IMHO).

Maybe Mobile Mortar Battery or Missle Pod (on a Lightning ?) piece is a way to get this guy his indirect artillery ? Tie this Lightning Mortar Battery to a "spotter" with a laze pointer (of sorts) ...... Artillery Lightning (requires Lockdown Mode ?) would be sitting duck to Air - unless ample AA support ..... then the Teamwork angle kicks in ..... which is great.

Perhaps up to 3 Laze Pointers could be pulled from each Lightning mounted Mortar/artillery Battery. Laze pointers would send a very visible beam while "painting" it's target for the Lightning Pilots Mortar Battery. Each Laze pointer has a 5 minute cool down. If all three laze pointers got taken out at the same time, the Mortar Battery would have no targeting assistance to help it know where to aim, or what to lock on to ..... actually, make it require at least 20 seconds of constant target painting from a Laze before the Artillery Battery can acquire a target. Without Laze-assisted target lockon, it can not be fired.

.

[Ghoest9]

Anything that makes the game less fun for the majority of players is a bad thing.

The devs know this.

Let this stupid thread die.

[Chaff]

Ghoest9, you only want artillery if it's mounted to a BFR. C'mon. Admit it.

[Canaris]

I think we just need to give it a try first on the test server, if it doesnt work and proves to be too powerful they can always remove it.

doubt it, if a design team spent the time required to model and code an artillery piece, do you honestly think it would make it all the way to test server just for someone to go, "nah" not a hope they'd either release it or nerf it and still release it.

[Staticelf]

Isnt that the point of the "test" server canaris? See if its viable and works in game? A lot of stuff looks good on paper (or in forums?) but when you place it into the battle it might not work at all...or work to well!

Otherwise it becomes the "we made it so now we are putting it here till we get time to put it in live..deal with it" server

And exhibit A: Max Flamethrowers being pulled out of test for more work would say it is a "test" server

[ringring]

Isnt that the point of the test server canaris? See if its viable and works in game? A lot of stuff looks good on paper (or in forums?) but when you place it into the battle it might not work at all...or work to well!
No. The test server is the last place changes go before live.

By the time changes are on the test server the devs have to have a pretty good idea that whatever it is is going to work, or near enough. But I doubt there's any scope for pure speculation, if it goes onto test it will go into the game in some form (before being nerfed).

[Figment]

So we shouldn't do it because it would be an annoyance to armor setting still?

Read it again.

It's a source of frustration.

Players do not want to play games that give them frustration.


See Flails in PS1, they were so omnipresent and powerful, there was a significant drop in population of around 10%, that recuperated after they were significantly nerfed, the newness wore off and players pretty much decided for themselves to not use it because it caused frustration, felt cheap since you were getting kills on things you didn't even see (and often was used to spam a single sight, so no skill was required and it was pretty boring to use to due to that).

See BFRs in PS1, they caused a drop of 80% due to having an even greater impact.




What I'm saying is, the need in game for it is pretty low, it likely doesn't contribute to the game in any siginficant positive way, probably quite the contrary, will very, very, very likely cause significant amounts of frustration to players that - make no mistake - to some degree will remove themselves from the game in protest and is probably pretty boring to use.

All of that makes for very little reason to implement it.



Imagine that someone set up an AMS after a drive of many minutes. Next thing he knows, it's being shelled by mortar fire and you can't really stop it. Those players will give up if that happens too often and frustrates their already hard task of staying alive.

In general, many FPS players have a hatred for area of effect weapons, particularly if this is indirect fire and even more if it can be spammed regularly. You may recall Thumper plasma spam. This came strongly out of the PS1->PS Next survey and the devs stated they wanted to avoid indirect fire as much as possible.



So can you imagine I just don't see the benefit of it? You think it sounds cool or nifty etc, but that doesn't mean it is actually good for the game or will be a feature loved by all players. There have been tons of people that have suggested things like huge epic size flying outfit cruiser to rain vehicles and infantry and death from above. One even suggested it "had to have enough hitpoints to sustain hours of continuous fire"... And he saw no problem with that and thought we were just nay-sayers for the sake of nay-saying.

In the end, some ideas just won't work in this game context. That goes especially for powerful stuff.