It's unfair of the developers to take away physical Artillery - Page 2

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.

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.

mintyc · 2012-07-09, 09:58 PM

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

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

Stardouser · 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.

WNxThentar · 2012-07-09, 10:09 PM

Originally Posted by Goldeh

blah blah blah...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

super pretendo · 2012-07-09, 10:11 PM

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

Accuser · 2012-07-09, 10:23 PM

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

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

Stardouser · 2012-07-09, 10:27 PM

Originally Posted by Accuser

Artillery would be vulnerable only to aircraft and other artillery.

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

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

Forsaken One · 2012-07-09, 10:27 PM

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

PhoenixDog · 2012-07-09, 10:28 PM

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

SKYeXile · 2012-07-09, 10:29 PM

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.

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

Originally Posted by PhoenixDog

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

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

Trafalgar · 2012-07-09, 10:40 PM

Originally Posted by Accuser

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

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

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

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

Forsaken One · 2012-07-09, 10:40 PM

Originally Posted by PhoenixDog

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

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

Trafalgar · 2012-07-09, 10:45 PM

I find your insane troll logic oddly compelling.

I jest.

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

Goldeh · 2012-07-09, 10:49 PM

Originally Posted by SKYeXile

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

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

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

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

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

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