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

[kadrin]

Originally Posted by Otleaz

It is undeniable that it is not fun to die to something you had no way of avoiding.

And yet here we are with OHK sniper rifles, while we argue for a balanced not OHK artillery.

[Otleaz]

Originally Posted by kadrin

And yet here we are with OHK sniper rifles, while we argue for a balanced not OHK artillery.

I would be fine without sniper rifles, actually.


But really, Sniper rifles require line of sight. If you get killed by one, you only have yourself to blame. The same could be said about vehicles killing you.

[Forsaken One]

I just had a brainstorm. How about instead of a commander who has his certs filled out calling down OSs they call for a dropped flail like vehicle?

It could have a 24 hour-to-week long C/D, will have to be maned, will have to have a laser guy mark the target to be flailed AND will have to be protected.

This will give many positive things.
#1 it will have a destroyable physical form.
#2 The commander can not call down a OS that is wtfwhereisthismagicbeamofdeathcomingfrom but calls down the ability and potential to have a artillery that has to be maned.
#3 the artillery will have a lot more teamwork needed and the potential for its use again will depend on a lot of teamwork factors.

#4 late game if everyone wants to drop "potentials" It will still be better then one man death ray from no where spam.

[kadrin]

Originally Posted by Otleaz

I would be fine without sniper rifles, actually.


But really, Sniper rifles require line of sight. If you get killed by one, you only have yourself to blame. The same could be said about vehicles killing you.

Which is why artillery, or rather any indirect fire weapon (as I'd rather have a shorter ranged mortar), should require a spotter, who is quite vulnerable while directing fire.

Giving just one person the ability to fire indirectly anywhere they please accurately is just nonsense.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by kadrin

Which is why artillery, or rather any indirect fire weapon (as I'd rather have a shorter ranged mortar), should require a spotter, who is quite vulnerable while directing fire.

Giving just one person the ability to fire indirectly anywhere they please accurately is just nonsense.

They should require a spotter, but NOT because the people who want this to be a duel simulator where you can return fire with moving should be catered to. And the spotter should only need to have line of sight, I know what you're try to say with this "quite vulnerable" thing, you are probably going to say he should have to be less than 50 meters away, just no. Not a duel simulator.

If you turn this into a game where you can always duel the enemy by instantly returning fire without even moving to find them or get a better firing position, it defeats the purpose of the scale and size of the game. Might as well have tiny maps for 16 players.

Originally Posted by Otleaz

It is undeniable that it is not fun to die to something you had no way of avoiding. I wouldn't mind seeing artillery as long as it was solely for destroying vehicles or emplacements.

I would like to see orbital strikes follow the same rule, taking roughly 20 seconds to charge up.

Making artillery only hurt vehicles would be ridiculous. And there is not "no way of avoiding" them. If you are at a base defending, stay inside cover. If you're in the open, stay on the move. Granted the artillery cannot have a 30 meter blast radius, because that is one of the things that is causing the blind hate and desire to overnerf.

[kadrin]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

They should require a spotter, but NOT because the people who want this to be a duel simulator where you can return fire with moving should be catered to. And the spotter should only need to have line of sight, I know what you're try to say with this "quite vulnerable" thing, you are probably going to say he should have to be less than 50 meters away, just no. Not a duel simulator.

If you turn this into a game where you can always duel the enemy by instantly returning fire without even moving to find them or get a better firing position, it defeats the purpose of the scale and size of the game. Might as well have tiny maps for 16 players.

Well, quite vulnerable is really subjective, I meant more along the lines that, the spotter would require a direct line of sight, therefore making them vulnerable because they obviously could be seen (and therefore shot) as well.

I wouldn't put any sort of range limitation on the spotter, if they can see it and get the ranges, they can call in arty all day, or as long as the enemy lets them.

I'm also against the stupid duel simulator style of everyone must be able to directly fight everyone else at all times.

[GhettoPrince]

If Artillery was like a faction specific version of an orbital strike, than I think a lot of people would be ok with it, but planetside 1 artillery is no fun, it's just a cheap way to shut down a vehicle terminal. There are a lot of "ohshit" moments in planetside, snipers, mines, boomers, a bombing run, a tank assault, reaver swarm ect. (honestly, the list just goes on), but letting people get flail kills by sitting in a base 2 kilometers away from the action is pretty stupid.

It sounds like we have mortars now anyway, so that play style is still there, it's just not totally retarded this time around.

[IceJudge]

For the most part I'd be fine with little to no arty in planetside 2. I wasn't a big fan of the gameplay behind the flail and when I did play back in 2004 orbital strikes were within reason when they did happen, I actually wouldn't mind something like orbital strikes but I'm not even sure if the CR system is going to make a return for PS2.

[Anubisstargate]

I say bring back the lodstar and have artillery only movable via that. Its fixed on the grouind otherwise but movable in a sense that it can go across the battlefield. Blow up the lodstar, blow up the artillery, extra kudos points as well xD

[Karrade]

No one argument stands up to saying something should not be in the game. - If it will be fun.

No long range - make them medium
No one hit kills - No one hit kills.
No indirect fire - No indirect fire.
Little teamwork - make them team based.

Not difficult to think about, no reason raised here why medium range arty can't be in the game, if it'll be fun.

AOE spam was the concern, so don't give them great AOE or not fast firing anyway.

Alternatives:

Cruise missile, slow moving, little splash damage, so people can't camp with vehicles too long.
Gas Bombs - slow damage over time if you are exposed.
Smoke/flash bombs - tactical weapons.
Weapons that work specifically that bring down base shields, or emp weapons, nanite weapons to hit vehicle/player shields/armor.

Personally indirect fire is no problem, if someone is spotting for them, make it require a spotter, else it won't fire. This is a good teamwork way around doing it, it also makes the spotter a target, and the arty for that matter.

[GhettoPrince]

Originally Posted by Karrade

No one argument stands up to saying something should not be in the game. - If it will be fun.

No long range - make them medium
No one hit kills - No one hit kills.
No indirect fire - No indirect fire.
Little teamwork - make them team based.

Not difficult to think about, no reason raised here why medium range arty can't be in the game, if it'll be fun.

AOE spam was the concern, so don't give them great AOE or not fast firing anyway.

We already have tanks and we are probably gonna get mortars, why do you need the flail back?

[Noxey]

Don't mind either way, Personally found the idea of flails in PS1 mind numbing so I have never certed or used them.

They do take some co-ordination to use effectively so im happy to have them in the game provided the AOE and damage level is within reason.

[kadrin]

Originally Posted by GhettoPrince

We already have tanks and we are probably gonna get mortars, why do you need the flail back?

Unfortunately, I think this is the reason why people jump on the "WE HATE ARTILLERY" bandwagon. They automatically associate any mention of the word artillery with the Flail and think "No, I don't want to get killed by that again because it actually requires me to think of how to counter it instead of continuing my mindless meatgrinder in doorway/stairwell".

No one has given a good argument for not including some sort of BALANCED indirect fire support weapon (artillery/mortar), other than "I don't like it", "It's not fun to me", "I don't like dying to something I can't shoot back at" (which is particularly amusing when they support OS's or OHK sniper rifles).

I would really like to see something really similar to the WWII Online mortars implemented. Give some sort of range finder to the infiltrator class, let them communicate the ranges to whoever has the mortar, mortar adjusts the range manually (clicks through presets at something like 10m increments from 100m-400m), turns to face the direction he wants to fire and just let it go from there.

Balance it's rate of fire, ammunition supply, damage and damage radius, give it smokes rounds too. It's even easy enough to use solo if you're good at guessing ranges and don't mind sitting out there with a direct line of sight to watch where your rounds drop and adjust.

[Karrade]

Originally Posted by GhettoPrince

We already have tanks and we are probably gonna get mortars, why do you need the flail back?

Where did I ask for the PS1 flail, did you read the post? I was tk'd often enough in PS1 by the flail to not mind never seeing it again. Direct or painted fire should help with this. I also however enjoyed protecting the arty and supporting it as a break to the constant front line.

[wasdie]

Originally Posted by Goldeh

I know they're many threads addressing the topic but I believe that it's lazy of the developer that they can't find a way to

I'm going to stop you right there. Your entire post and opinion is completely invalid the second you start calling developers "lazy".

It proves you know nothing about game development, business, or game design.