Gameplay: Artillery! - Page 2

Novice bot · 2012-07-26, 10:45 AM

Originally Posted by Harasus

I could be cool with it being tested, but you can all see where the devs are coming from, right?

As a person who loves doing artillery, no, I do not see where they are going after. Its a playstyle. I can't actually see where I'm bombing, but I can estimate where I'm bombing. When I see that I score a kill, I know it hit the spot I thought it should, or at least I think I did.

AidanofVT · 2012-07-26, 12:03 PM

Everyone needs to remember that technically tanks are just mobile howitzers. However, I agree that the game should have some non-line-of-sight weapons.

I think that these should come in the form of artillery guns or tactical missile launchers on certain facilities. These should only be usable when the controlling faction has the right resources, which should be fairly difficult to acquire. This would make not only the facilities a point of contest, but also the resources to use them. A faction might fight to keep the facility, but if they lost it they would sure fight like hell to keep the enemy from using it. This also might make the land around the facility somewhat less desirable to enemies, since anything they do might be shelled.

Maybe it might be best if these weapons are only found inside a faction's home base. This would make the territory around it more difficult to capture, as well as making it easier to break out if they 'lose' the battle and are isolated to their base. This would give the gameplay around these home bases a little more flavor, and instill a sense that the area around your base really is your land, safe from enemy incursion. To the enemy might be seen as a challenge, a final boss fight that isn't found in the home bases.

I think that artillery would be yet another thing to benefit from destructible environments, which I have advocated from the beginning.

I think that maybe there should be a difference between artillery and Tactical missiles: artillery should be indiscriminate, while more powerful tactical missiles should be spotted by ground units.

Wouldn't it be interesting to have an aircraft weapon that drops a spotting beacon for indirect fire to rain down on?

Lanka · 2012-07-26, 03:38 PM

As I stated in one or two older threads; I'd love to have artillery vehicles in the game.

With limitations that they are required to setup before shooting and both setting up/dismantling take long enough to stop it from driving around shooting. When you choose your spot, you'll stay there until enemy dies or your artillery burns.

Also clearly visible tracers for the incoming fire so people will have general idea where to take cover - not to mention where send air units to hunt them down.

Also do like that it'd require fire command from squad - less spam and less team damage griefing.

Best being that all factions have their own style vehicles. Flail-a-like for VS, old fashioned artillery guns for NC and some fast firing rocket pods for TR.

Gonefshn · 2012-07-26, 05:01 PM

No need for artillery. It's so indirect.

Sirro · 2012-07-27, 01:48 AM

Personal mortar would be cool, but artillery's issues have been brought up already and wouldn't work well in a FF game. Flail never seemed to have much impact.

I don't know if it was just poor use by players or it was too soft to avoid its potential draw backs but I dont recall it ever winning a fight for a faction.

Harasus · 2012-07-27, 05:23 AM

Originally Posted by Novice bot

As a person who loves doing artillery, no, I do not see where they are going after. Its a playstyle. I can't actually see where I'm bombing, but I can estimate where I'm bombing. When I see that I score a kill, I know it hit the spot I thought it should, or at least I think I did.

I do not have anything against artillery, but the dev team wants to make this more of an action-oriented game. With artillery you do not actually do much action, you mostly guess where to shoot, and then you fire, wait for the cannon to reload (Likely to take awhile) and then fire again.

It is probably the most passive role you can ever think of.
It might be possible to make it good, with a lot of job (For example, making reloading a more complicated process through different sections, and aiming/spotting having a sophisticated system for co-operating), but will SOE bother?

Novice bot · 2012-07-27, 07:18 AM

Originally Posted by Harasus

I do not have anything against artillery, but the dev team wants to make this more of an action-oriented game. With artillery you do not actually do much action, you mostly guess where to shoot, and then you fire, wait for the cannon to reload (Likely to take awhile) and then fire again.

It is probably the most passive role you can ever think of.
It might be possible to make it good, with a lot of job (For example, making reloading a more complicated process through different sections, and aiming/spotting having a sophisticated system for co-operating), but will SOE bother?

I sincerely hope that "more action oriented" doesn't mean they've made it a deathmatch with capturable locations, and that terms such as "front lines" or "trench warfare" do not apply to the game. I seriously LOVE trench warfare.

Lanka · 2012-07-27, 05:02 PM

Well, they could make it high end Outfit unlock that requires deploy command from up in the command chain.

That way you'd only have few artys on the map per side, controlled by people who know what they're doing (or very least that they signed up for sitting out of fight lobbing high explosives at the general direction) and the artys would only get deployed for massive campaigns that require arty support for softening enemy defences etc.

Everyone I've spoken with about PS1 remembers the massive, semi-organized wars the best. So making arty only usable as tactical tool in the huge war campaign would hopefully reduce the numbers and griefing caused by them? I'm sure like-minded would join in arty-Outfit(s) if given choice..

Buggsy · 2012-07-29, 12:15 AM

Originally Posted by Lanka

Well, they could make it high end Outfit unlock that requires deploy command from up in the command chain.

That way you'd only have few artys on the map per side, controlled by people who know what they're doing (or very least that they signed up for sitting out of fight lobbing high explosives at the general direction) and the artys would only get deployed for massive campaigns that require arty support for softening enemy defences etc.

Everyone I've spoken with about PS1 remembers the massive, semi-organized wars the best. So making arty only usable as tactical tool in the huge war campaign would hopefully reduce the numbers and griefing caused by them? I'm sure like-minded would join in arty-Outfit(s) if given choice..

Way to disenfranchise everyone.

Originally Posted by Novice bot

I sincerely hope that "more action oriented" doesn't mean they've made it a deathmatch with capturable locations, and that terms such as "front lines" or "trench warfare" do not apply to the game. I seriously LOVE trench warfare.

Bridge battles were some of the best, so were static battles where each and every terrain advantage gained was a victory.

Ratstomper · 2012-07-29, 12:27 AM

Originally Posted by Sirro

Personal mortar would be cool, but artillery's issues have been brought up already and wouldn't work well in a FF game. Flail never seemed to have much impact.

I don't know if it was just poor use by players or it was too soft to avoid its potential draw backs but I dont recall it ever winning a fight for a faction.

There was a tech event a while back where the NC were attacking VS on ...ceryshen? I cant remember where it was, but the VS used artillery to devastating effect. 3 or 4 flails along with a good portion of the VS forces completely locked out the NC ground offensive across a bridge. It was actually pretty fantastic use of the flails.

There were plenty of times where someone would laze the vehicle pad and a flail it would kill 30 or so guys and shut down the vehicle bay, because a few people put in the time, effort and teamwork to do something tactical as opposed to just bash their foreheads into oncoming forces.

Buggsy · 2012-07-29, 12:30 AM

Originally Posted by Sirro

Personal mortar would be cool, but artillery's issues have been brought up already and wouldn't work well in a FF game.

Actually artillery only works in Friendly Fire games, otherwise it's just spammed everywhere.

Originally Posted by Ratstomper

There was a tech event a while back where the NC were attacking VS on ...ceryshen? I cant remember where it was, but the VS used artillery to devastating effect. 3 or 4 flails along with a good portion of the VS forces completely locked out the NC ground offensive across a bridge. It was actually pretty fantastic use of the flails.

There were plenty of times where someone would laze the vehicle pad and a flail it would kill 30 or so guys and shut down the vehicle bay, because a few people put in the time, effort and teamwork to do something tactical as opposed to just bash their foreheads into oncoming forces.

Wow, foresight and planning in a FPS game, who would have thunk.

Phisionary · 2012-07-29, 12:47 AM

How about a deployable auto-mortar? Not 'auto' as in it will shoot on it's own-- rather, I was thinking something like this: you spawn a small artillery vehicle, travel to a strategic location, check the firing range, and deploy it. Since by the very nature of artillery you can rarely even see what you are firing at, there is little need for a human on the trigger. Either the gunner could leave his artillery undefended (perhaps capable of self-cloak or something, when not actually firing) and go laser-target the mortar personally. Or, you could defend the artillery position, and give responsibility for targeting and firing to a squad member or something. The squaddie could use some on-screen display that shows shell trajectory, error estimates, maybe even choose from a number of deployed mortars. Maybe outfit-limited, or limited to deploys where the player is alive and within some range.

I think this would be a very workable approach to an artillery type weapon. An indirect fire weapon, with a few reasonable limitations, and a physical way to counter it. I think that could be an excellent addition to the game.

Also, maybe you could have a man transportable small mortar, with shorter range but similar mechanics. And if a deployable vehicle was used, AND the game engine can do remote cameras, maybe you could remotely reposition your mortar vehicle for a better trajectory, like steering through a little camera. As a cert. perhaps. That'd be sweet.

+Support; to test out (at some point) at the very least.

Kashis · 2012-07-29, 08:49 AM

Fuck Artillery.

Hey I know! Seriously. No more O.S. you can call in a Warp Gate Artillery strike as a command certification. Make it a global everyone share the Artillery strike. Make it cost resources.

Fucking Brilliant!

Rivenshield · 2012-07-29, 06:21 PM

Artillery is a righteous pain in the ass for everybody, all the way around. The player manning the piece gets to spam heavy fire at... nothing. At a spot on the map. The people on the receiving end have absolutely no way to fight back. Nothing, again.

Fighting nothing has no place in an FPS.

Phisionary · 2012-07-30, 10:41 AM

I don't understand how everyone rails against artillery, but think orbital strikes are fine....

Personally, I'd MUCH rather be able to go blow up whatever is killing me (i.e. an artillery emplacement), then get killed by some mystical orbital nonsense (OR globally available faux-artillery). That's pretty much just a magic spell for sci-fi games. Blech.