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

Goldeh · 2012-07-09, 09:08 PM

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 · 2012-07-09, 09:12 PM

Originally Posted by Goldeh

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, but others have brought up solution. A big thing is players here have mentioned they don't like extremely indirect weapons.

Originally Posted by Goldeh

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.

Originally Posted by Goldeh

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 · 2012-07-09, 09:13 PM

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · 2012-07-09, 09:15 PM

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.

Accuser · 2012-07-09, 09:54 PM

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Stardouser · 2012-07-09, 09:59 PM

Originally Posted by Accuser

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.

MrBloodworth · 2012-07-10, 01:47 PM

Originally Posted by 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.

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

Stardouser · 2012-07-09, 09:16 PM

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.

Papagiorgio · 2012-07-10, 01:00 PM

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 · 2012-07-10, 01:11 PM

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Knightwyvern · 2012-07-09, 09:17 PM

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 · 2012-07-09, 09:17 PM

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

Knightwyvern · 2012-07-09, 09:29 PM

Originally Posted by infected

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.

Runlikethewind · 2012-07-09, 09:49 PM

Originally Posted by Knightwyvern

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

And this one too.

vVRedOctoberVv · 2012-07-09, 09:19 PM

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.