Revisiting Artillery, because its in.

Grognard · 2012-05-30, 03:51 PM

Here are the reference links:

Interview with Matt (timeframe 32:15-35:30):
http://www.planetside-universe.com/s...59&postcount=1

Supplementary reference by Matt (BC 2 Arty):
Battlefield Bad Company Beta Artillery Gameplay - YouTube

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

Most importantly to me, it will be there... and I will not feel like there is a big hole in the "art of war" where artillery should be

(...that is a big fat shit-eating grin, BTW). I have played many board games where there was "off-board" artillery, and I always loved that mechanic, and was hoping they would find a way to apply it in PS2, and here it is. "Big guns" in the distance, brought to bear... very happy.

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

Bags · 2012-05-30, 03:53 PM

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

Grognard · 2012-05-30, 03:55 PM

Originally Posted by Bags

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

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

Bags · 2012-05-30, 03:57 PM

Originally Posted by Grognard

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

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

Originally Posted by Stardouser

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

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

It is simply not a fun mechanic.

Grognard · 2012-05-30, 04:01 PM

Originally Posted by Bags

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

I was not aware of the implementation, until now.

NCLynx · 2012-05-30, 04:00 PM

Originally Posted by Grognard

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

There's still a huge difference.

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

Stardouser · 2012-05-30, 03:56 PM

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

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

Timealude · 2012-05-30, 04:30 PM

Originally Posted by Stardouser

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

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

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

SgtMAD · 2012-05-30, 04:44 PM

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

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

I would much rather have an OS than flails in PS2

KTNApollo · 2012-05-30, 04:46 PM

Originally Posted by HtSgtMAD

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

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

I would much rather have an OS than flails in PS2

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

Gonefshn · 2012-05-30, 04:51 PM

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

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

RoninAfro · 2012-05-30, 04:53 PM

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

Atheosim · 2012-05-30, 04:55 PM

Originally Posted by RoninAfro

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

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

RoninAfro · 2012-05-30, 05:07 PM

Originally Posted by Atheosim

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

I wouldn't put it past me to have greatly misunderstood the resource system.

Would we still chalk up cross-faction griefers to just something we have to deal with, though? I'm trying to make it work in my head without it being underpowered or easily exploitable.

**Malorn** · 2012-05-30, 04:01 PM

I like how Matt described it. Its reasonable.

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

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

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