Artillery, Tactical Targets & Field of View

[CutterJohn]

Originally Posted by Whalenator

Multiple pieces would be able to be towed by one utility truck/sunderer/whatever.

Regardless of the merits of any of your ideas, I guarantee towing would be the least likely aspect to be implemented. It serves no useful gameplay purpose and would be technically non trivial to implement.

...And slowing down gameplay is inherently bad how? I don't need 200ccs of Adrenaline to be "having fun." As long as I'm contributing to the team, I'm happy. Working towards a greater goal.

Just because people are willing to tolerate something for an advantage does not mean its good gameplay. It just means people can tolerate it.

If there was a button in sanctuary that gave your team a 10% buff each time it was pressed, would you volunteer for button pushing duty?

Gameplay does not need to be intense, but it does need to be at least somewhat engaging. Mindlessly pointing a gun at a mark someone else determines and firing when told to fire is not engaging gameplay. Nor is it teamwork, because no work or skill is involved. You become a human robot, blindly obeying the orders of someone else with zero input of your own.

Keeping on the move, defending your artillery position and being ready to retreat at any second. There's the constant threat of loose enemy air and a plethora of other threats too.

Every single other weapon must put itself directly in harms way to shoot. Its pretty fundamental balance. Most games that incorporate such things put some pretty severe constraints on them. Limited effectiveness, limited availability, etc. The only constraint that could be put on them in a game like PS2, which has no availability constraints, is functionality, i.e. not allowing someone to shoot without a target. Which is incredibly boring.

[Whalenator]

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

Just because people are willing to tolerate something for an advantage does not mean its good gameplay. It just means people can tolerate it.

Then the people who want to use artillery will use it, and the people who don't believe it's engaging gameplay will not use it. People used the flail, albeit it was a bit overpowered. But you could see, if you paid attention, which directions the rounds were coming from and act accordingly. As stated earlier, there would be provisions put in place to prevent basespamming.

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

Nor is it teamwork, because no work or skill is involved.

[dsi]

Apparently CutterJohn doesn't understand how aircraft work, or even fast strike teams in buggies or something like that...

[JHendy]

Originally Posted by Warborn

Eveything you think is lacking due to there being no artillery is very likely covered in ****** by liberators and perhaps other aircraft. I really do not see any point in having artillery when you can pound land targets in an actual enjoyable way which encourages a lot more teamwork than one person sitting on a hill shooting clouds all day with his artillery piece.

How does hovering above the ground in a Lib, spewing cannon fire at everything you see encourage 'a lot more teamwork' as you put it, than operating a three-man battery?

You fail to realise that no one is suggesting that the flail should make a return, and that you can't condemn something as being completely unenjoyable just because it doesn't appeal to you on a personal level.

The implementation of artillery as it has been discussed on this forum seems like a great idea, worlds away from the flail, actually requiring high levels of coordination and communication in order to be able to be effective.

I say mull it over SOE.

Originally Posted by Warborn

Nobody with an intact brain would prefer sitting in place spamming the LMB key to blow up targets too far away to see over flying over those same targets and at shooting them with some big fuck-off cannon.

Nobody with an intact brain would find it so impossibly difficult to process the concept of individual preference.

[JHendy]

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

functionality, i.e. not allowing someone to shoot without a target. Which is incredibly boring.

For you, and other sufferers of ADD.

If you don't like it, don't use it.

[StumpyTheOzzie]

How about different levels and types of orbital strike?

AI OS small / medium / large

AV OS small / medium / large

All costing more or less resources?

[Sirisian]

Originally Posted by JHendy

For you, and other sufferers of ADD.

If you don't like it, don't use it.

As others discussed in the older threads it's a good idea to make it enjoyable for everyone. Selectively adding things to the game that are unnecessarily boring in design is a flawed approach. Luckily artillery can be added in an objectively positive way that doesn't bring back skill-less gameplay like the flail. That is incorporating lazing of targets with an automatic fire system to keep players in the action and the fight while focusing on small AOE AV damage.

[CutterJohn]

Originally Posted by Whalenator

Then the people who want to use artillery will use it, and the people who don't believe it's engaging gameplay will not use it. People used the flail, albeit it was a bit overpowered. But you could see, if you paid attention, which directions the rounds were coming from and act accordingly. As stated earlier, there would be provisions put in place to prevent basespamming.

Not wanting to use your particular idea of how how artillery should be implemented is only half of my objection. I could easily suggest several other styles that would be palatable, or even enjoyable.

My other objection is the indirect fire portion of it, where the arty operators can shoot, but can also be invulnerable to return fire for several minutes until their location is sussed out, and even then could have built up a strong enough firebase that cracking it is not necessarily easy.

I don't care if you want gameplay I feel is boring. Thats fine. I don't want you shooting me from a position where I cannot shoot back.

[Warborn]

Originally Posted by JHendy

How does hovering above the ground in a Lib, spewing cannon fire at everything you see encourage 'a lot more teamwork' as you put it, than operating a three-man battery?

Pilot, tailgunner, belly-gunner, plus relying on your team mates to ensure enemy fighters don't shoot you down. You're amidst the action. You're a direct participant in the combat. Your ability to kill from the air is contingent on something more than one person parking a vehicle somewhere, some asshole pointing a laser at a target, or whatever other contrived bullshit folks have been dreaming up in an effort to directly compete with the entire purpose of the liberator.

Nobody with an intact brain would find it so impossibly difficult to process the concept of individual preference.

Personal preference does not in anyway necessitate the developers supporting bad gameplay.

[JHendy]

Originally Posted by Warborn

Personal preference does not in anyway necessitate the developers supporting bad gameplay.

Thinking that artillery promotes bad gameplay is yet another example of you not being able to see past your own opinion. What is it that stops you from understanding that?

Also, I can't really see how artillery is any more a contrived form of gameplay than aerial bombardment in a Lib.

If the developers implemented artillery with a good set of very viable counter measures, such as counter-battery, the whole 'It can kill me but I can't kill it' argument goes out the window, Cutterjohn.

In this regard, I'm picturing a system similar to BF3's support class mortars, where players using the mortar are alerted to the position of an enemy firing their's via a minimap that only they can see. This would make for a very interesting meta-game that requires all artillery teams to sniff out and neutralise the threat of counter-battery before they can begin firing on other ground assets. So no sitting on a hilltop all day hammering your left mouse button in this instance, as mobility is key to survival.

[CutterJohn]

Originally Posted by JHendy

Thinking that artillery promotes bad gameplay is yet another example of you not being able to see past your own opinion. What is it that stops you from understanding that?

Sweet. I lived my FV bfr from back when their shields didn't shut off when jumping. Since personal opinions have absolute authority, you cannot say its bad.

Woo! I'm getting my BFRs back!

[JHendy]

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

Sweet. I lived my FV bfr from back when their shields didn't shut off when jumping. Since personal opinions have absolute authority, you cannot say its bad.

Woo! I'm getting my BFRs back!

I'm not suggesting that they implement anything that cannot be countered, though.

I don't think you read anything else I said, good sir!

[Baron]

Personally,

I enjoyed the Flail and it did have effectiveness when used in combination with a laze-pointer and other squad mates.

Example:

Cyssor (surprise ), most of population down to one base and one tower and we were attacking force. My buddy, Mustardseed, was cloaking and pointing targets (mainly platforming BFRs) which my Flail would quickly dispatch (surprisingly efficient BFR killer btw).

Anyways, we got lots of requests to help clear the top sections of the tower to "clear the LZ" for hot droping GALS, or help clear sections of base wall, etc...

It was loads of fun, hearing the description of the scene via Vent from Mustard and hearing the sounds of battle... I wasn't bored at all.

[Boomzor]

I could imagine big sodding pieces of hardware (like in the time lapse) scattered around the maps working as strategical charge-up stations for some orbital strike like ability.

The more of the stations you control to more powerful OS you'll get. Of course, they'd require some finger-tip sensitive balancing in regards to exactly how powerful a blast, recharge time between blasts, who would have access to the fire button at all, and resources consumed from each blast. Could be a fun strategic command asset.

Regular mobile long range artillery gets a no from me.

[CutterJohn]

Originally Posted by JHendy

I'm not suggesting that they implement anything that cannot be countered, though.

I don't think you read anything else I said, good sir!

I did not, I admit.

I'm not actually against mortars too much, since obviously infantry can get a hold of them to return fire. Long range arty I dislike for specifically that reason.. its something that an entire class of units cannot directly counter. Not much of a fan of that. Infantry have AV, and AA, and can shoot back at whats shooting them. They couldn't respond to long range Arty, which could be especially bad in situations where vehicles are in short supply. I especially like mortars as a counter to snipers.

Just needs a better control mechanism than requiring someone laze a target that the operator then shoots at.