Revisiting Artillery, because its in.

[Turdicus]

Originally Posted by Nick

At least OS had a good warning and had a meaningful cooldown. Just because it costs resources doesn't mean anything. Eventually people will have resources banked, man.

Ehhhhh, the OS Higby talked about cost both resources AND have a meaningful cooldown, and nowhere has it been said that there wont be a warning for it. People could potentially bank resources but if the system is done right then it would make sense that this would come at the cost of a lot of sacrifices in terms of equipment and capability. One dude can only use an OS once every once in a while, and it costs mulah that most people spend on the playstyles they enjoy most.

With the game operating on the scale it will be I think OS will be a very common sight, but since things are on a larger scale then I don't see a problem with that. It's going to be way harder to lock defenders indoors since the battlefield involves many more entrances and exits in a base than before. The old problems with OS seem to have been solved in my book.

[CutterJohn]

The only people with an OS/Arty strike/whatever should be the squad/platoon leader.

Squad leader forms a squad. Based on mission performance, kills, and time, he gains requisition points from members of his squad(i.e. more squad members, more points). He can then spend those requisition points on command functions, things like sensor scan, supply drop, and ofc, OS.

Bam. The supply of OSs will forever be balanced, regardless of how many people have it certed, how many players there are, regardless of anything, since the supply is limited by design.



PS: Arty vehicles that require a spotter are still a horrid idea. It is the least compelling gameplay mechanic ever devised, and is completely devoid of both skill and strategy. Upon taking the role, you successfully become an interface device for another person, aiming and shooting where and when he tells you. You add absolutely nothing to the dynamic.

[Semisel]

Newbie idea time! Yay!


First, as my operating principles in laying out the following ideas, I am equating OSs with artillery / indirect fire, assuming that the resource-return ratio on OS for increasing size is close to linear, assuming that they need to be properly laser-designated with direct line-of-sight, and assuming that they have some sort of inbound time to give warning to anyone within their target area so that anyone within that area can have a shot at surviving if they respond quickly.

Now, I'm approaching this almost from a lore stance as a means of properly regulating the frequency and availability of OSs. OSs fire from Orbital Platforms (OrbP), by canon. I don't know if they are supposed to be in geosynchronous orbit or not, but I will address two scenarios, in one of which OrbPs have geosynchronous orbit and in one of which they do not. My general idea is this: if there are X OrbPs in orbit for each faction, and if they fire at a maximum rate of Y strikes / unit of time, then each platform should have at least a continental firing lockout until after it has reloaded/recharged. Thus, I propose at least a continental lockout on OSs, with some testable variable for the number of OrbPs / continent, and with some testable variable for the duration of the firing lockout. This would be the working model for OrbPs in geosynchronous orbit (G-model). If OrbPs are not in geosynchronous orbit (A-model), then I propose that OrbPs be given a travel time between continents, as well as a global firing lockout per OrbP, allowing for the variables mentioned above in addition to a travel time variable.

The most immediate criticism for either model is that OSs could be wasted by players who do not have solid judgment for the best time to use them and the optimal placement of them, thus locking out the use of OSs on at least the entire continent for whichever faction. I recognize this fully, and I think CutterJohn's idea of only allowing platoon leaders (not squad leaders, in this case) would be the best way to mitigate that vulnerability. Granted, both models also suffer a vulnerability to faction espionage, against which I haven't been able to devise a counter.

The G-model is significantly more forgiving than the A-model, as the A-model has the additional downside of intercontinental travel time, if a primed OrbP is not already above the continent. Aside from tweaking any already-present variables, nothing comes to mind as a way to temper the harsh restrictions of the A-model. All other downsides to both models are the downsides already addressed in regards to the current implementation of / plan for OSs as it was presented by Higby.


My main reasoning behind this line of thinking amounts to two ideas in tandem: first, that the lore and the game mechanic can and should sync in such a way that is believable, and second, that the outlined models allow for OSs to be viable in scalpel brute-force applications, while preventing their abuse in moment-to-moment and generalized engagements.


(Sorry for the hugely long-winded post. )

[Quantum Spices]

I have no idea if this has been mentioned before, but there should be 3-6 captureable bases that instead of collecting resources, has artillery. Whomever owns the base owns artillery capabilities for an area.

[IMMentat]

If Higby's talk of "choose your method of overkill" holds true then it could make the new OS template a fine thing indeed.

I have always liked the idea of tailoring an ability to your needs and really hope the options are as flexible as possible.

Put a few generic OS types in (nuke? laser? area barage? Laser guided bomb?) for most players plus a recipie book for more advanced users.

Suggested recipie options.
Width of area affected? (you want a tank squad discouraged or a dead sniper?)
Damage/Yield/type of warehad(s)? (you after the troops the tanks or EVERYTHING?)
Rectangle, cone, line or circle "footprint"? (control is good)
Duration of barrage? (oneshot or a bombardment)
Transition barrage from one spot to another? (will they move? do you want them to?)
Direction and angle of attack? (top down satalite strike or side on cruise missile?)
Number of warheads? (Now to make it pretty!)

Select the options, agree to the price then use as you see fit (within whatever ruleset calling one in requires you to adhere to).


Sort of a buffet of doom. The limit is how deep your pocket is rather than how large your intestines.

[Mechzz]

Originally Posted by IMMentat

...

Sort of a buffet of doom. The limit is how deep your pocket is rather than how large your intestines.

Hmm. If these things are purchaseable in the store there will be a shitstorm?

[kadrin]

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

PS: Arty vehicles that require a spotter are still a horrid idea. It is the least compelling gameplay mechanic ever devised, and is completely devoid of both skill and strategy. Upon taking the role, you successfully become an interface device for another person, aiming and shooting where and when he tells you. You add absolutely nothing to the dynamic.

Because relying on someone else to be effective is a bad idea with such a powerful weapon. Better that you just point and click on a map and get pin point accurate fire.

It does take some amount of skill/strategy/tactics/thought whatever you feel like calling it. Pair up a couple of noobs and a couple of vets and see who gets better results.

Just because you personally do not enjoy spotting or firing the artillery does not mean others do not find this enjoyable and rewarding for the teamwork/coordination required.

[SpcFarlen]

I actual like the idea a semi movable (ill explain in a bit) and destroyable artillery assets. Adds some new tactics upto the block. But on the side of it being a vehicle, i want it to move slowly. It shouldnt really be an asset that is use for every situation. Small skirmish for an outpost? No. Large base capture, yes. So by limiting its movement it kind of creates a niche for it.

Though im really not opposed to there just being a pay X resource to get an orbital strike. From what i heard of the interview was that it costs resources, is on a cooldown and has a limited AoE being much smaller than in PS. So by no means did i feel as if that meant spamable or OP. Granted none of us are sure, its just theorycrafting.

However i feel that having as this external, dual cost system is much easier to balance. Add/lower cost, add/lower cooldown, decrease/increase damage, decrease/increase range. It is just sliding those variables over. I understand the concern with not being able to counter, maybe have a limit like you need 2 nearby outposts to use... Only limit it to certain ranks in Squad Leader or Commander certs...

Just my thoughts on it. In content either way. Partially because i just havent gotten my hands on it.

[CutterJohn]

Originally Posted by kadrin

rewarding for the teamwork/coordination required.

Once again. It requires neither teamwork nor coordination. The gunner does exactly what the spotter tells him to do, and nothing more.

[kadrin]

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

Once again. It requires neither teamwork nor coordination. The gunner does exactly what the spotter tells him to do, and nothing more.

Right because the spotter can call in artillery strikes without someone being in the gun firing, and the gunner can fire at targets that he has no clue where they are because no one is telling him where the enemy is.

You know how real life machine gun crews work right? Assist gunner tells the machine gunner how to adjust his shots because he cannot easily see where they are landing. According to you, that is also not teamwork or coordination, after all he's just doing what his assistant is telling him.

A lot of coordination and teamwork often fall under someone telling someone else what to do. If they didn't there would be no teamwork at all, everyone would be doing their own thing. Why have squads in the game? All they're going to do is follow their squad leaders orders.

Oversimplifying is easy.

[Immigrant]

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

The only people with an OS/Arty strike/whatever should be the squad/platoon leader.

Squad leader forms a squad. Based on mission performance, kills, and time, he gains requisition points from members of his squad(i.e. more squad members, more points). He can then spend those requisition points on command functions, things like sensor scan, supply drop, and ofc, OS.

Bam. The supply of OSs will forever be balanced, regardless of how many people have it certed, how many players there are, regardless of anything, since the supply is limited by design.



PS: Arty vehicles that require a spotter are still a horrid idea. It is the least compelling gameplay mechanic ever devised, and is completely devoid of both skill and strategy. Upon taking the role, you successfully become an interface device for another person, aiming and shooting where and when he tells you. You add absolutely nothing to the dynamic.

Actually I don't see how that balances the situation at all. First do squad have formal leaders at all (since most people will use auto-squading)? If by leaders you actually mean people investing in commander certs that not the same by far since you could have 10 leaders per squad in theory that way. Anyway even with formal squad leaders you'd still have peeps stocking their requisition points (they could rotate that function to stock up points very easy) and then using them massively (spamming) before major attacks.

Arty vehicle requiring a spotter aren't a horrid idea at all. Arty vehicles don't requiring a spotter are far worse as well as point-an-click arty/orbital strikes that required absolutely no skill at all.

Also you wouldn't need the exact mechanic shown in video that ww2 games use - I haven't played those game but being interface for other is bad I agree. Easy solution would be that arty spotters (engy or inf or other class which is most appropriate) actually deploy cameras in right direction overlooking the desired target. Once camera is deployed arty man can gain control of it (if within adequate range; he could perhaps have some degree of left-right rotation somewhere from 60-180 degrees depending on the certs maybe, and possibly also some zoom) and than fire away from the distance. So "spotter" or let's better call it deployer of camera would have to find a good location from which target is visible and point it in right direction yet so it is concealed from enemy soldiers who could disable/destroy it. Guy manning the artillery could switch between currently idle cameras within his range also if there aren't any he could call for someone to deploy one and that would then show as a mission for soldiers in the area. Spotter/deployers would then get xp from kills the arty guy makes. It think this system is fairly simple, effective and spam-proof.