The Artillery Debate

Tool · 2012-01-31, 08:57 PM

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

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

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

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

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

WaryWizard · 2012-01-31, 09:07 PM

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

Death2All · 2012-01-31, 09:16 PM

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

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

VioletZero · 2012-01-31, 09:19 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HitbackTR · 2012-01-31, 09:22 PM

Orbital Strike = Artillery

VioletZero · 2012-01-31, 09:24 PM

Originally Posted by DeeTwoEh

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

I am in COMPLETE disagreement here.

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

It's absolutely lovely.

Rbstr · 2012-01-31, 09:25 PM

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

Plus skills need to be allocated to it.

Death2All · 2012-01-31, 09:26 PM

Originally Posted by HitbackTR

Orbital Strike = Artillery

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

acosmo · 2012-01-31, 09:55 PM

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

Rbstr · 2012-01-31, 10:07 PM

Originally Posted by DeeTwoEh

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

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

captainbaka · 2012-01-31, 10:07 PM

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

Warborn · 2012-01-31, 10:11 PM

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

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

Originally Posted by captainbaka

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

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

basti · 2012-01-31, 10:11 PM

Originally Posted by captainbaka

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

Not at all.

Artierlly only means that going outside is a bad idea.

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

super pretendo · 2012-01-31, 10:16 PM

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

Tool · 2012-01-31, 10:28 PM

Originally Posted by Warborn

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

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

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

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