It's unfair of the developers to take away physical Artillery - Page 6

Mune · 2012-07-10, 10:07 AM

I read the OP but don't have time to read the many pages of replies. So, if this has already been mentioned, my apologies.

I'd say the issue gameplay-wise with artillery (in a fundamental way, as in it can't really be balanced without removing artillery) is not that the victim has no LOS of the source, since that's a common enough occurrence that is part of all FPS games (snipers, getting flanked, etc). Rather, it's that the artillery doesn't have any LOS of their victims, since they just lob their explosives at a high arc and watch for kill notifications. This makes for a much less emotionally rewarding experience than gunning down an enemy, where more tension and danger is involved thus improving the joy of victory.

It's delving a bit into psychology, which is always a gray area with lots of room for interpretation, but I can see why a dev looking to attract players might opt out of having artillery in their game. In a game where conflict between real players is the main feature, someone has to win and someone has to lose each conflict (as in, one will kill the other). Dying in an FPS isn't the fun part, and lets be honest, when we die too much we get frustrated and look for reasons (logical or not) as to why we are dying more (other than a lack of skill). On the flipside, the little victories in games of conflict are what keep us having fun, and killing an enemy is the most directly rewarding experience that FPS's have to offer and what makes it such a popular genre. Fictitious gameworld or not, the adrenaline of defeating an enemy who was equally devoted to trying to defeat you is what makes FPS's fun.

Simple logic I'll state for the sake of thoroughness, but the joy of victory needs to outweigh the frustration of defeat in order to make for a popular game. The idea of artillery doesn't fit into this concept quite as nicely as the other aspects of FPS games (namely, shooting the enemy). I would argue that killing an enemy you didn't see via artillery doesn't provide enough enjoyment to overcome the frustration of being killed by said artillery. Sure, artillery kills are rewarding and it takes some planning to accomplish, but on a fundamental level, it is not as exciting as a gun battle. I bet if we were to measure the adrenaline levels of someone using artillery versus someone in a gun battle, the difference would be statistically relevant.

TLDR, if I were one of the devs, I'd bet more people would avoid the game due to the inclusion of artillery than would avoid it due to the lack of. It would be a risky bet, but I'd probably be correct, and I'd have more players/money because of it.

Accuser · 2012-07-10, 10:42 AM

Originally Posted by Mune

I read the OP but don't have time to read the many pages of replies. So, if this has already been mentioned, my apologies.

I'd say the issue gameplay-wise with artillery (in a fundamental way, as in it can't really be balanced without removing artillery) is not that the victim has no LOS of the source, since that's a common enough occurrence that is part of all FPS games (snipers, getting flanked, etc). Rather, it's that the artillery doesn't have any LOS of their victims, since they just lob their explosives at a high arc and watch for kill notifications. This makes for a much less emotionally rewarding experience than gunning down an enemy, where more tension and danger is involved thus improving the joy of victory.

It's delving a bit into psychology, which is always a gray area with lots of room for interpretation, but I can see why a dev looking to attract players might opt out of having artillery in their game. In a game where conflict between real players is the main feature, someone has to win and someone has to lose each conflict (as in, one will kill the other). Dying in an FPS isn't the fun part, and lets be honest, when we die too much we get frustrated and look for reasons (logical or not) as to why we are dying more (other than a lack of skill). On the flipside, the little victories in games of conflict are what keep us having fun, and killing an enemy is the most directly rewarding experience that FPS's have to offer and what makes it such a popular genre. Fictitious gameworld or not, the adrenaline of defeating an enemy who was equally devoted to trying to defeat you is what makes FPS's fun.

Simple logic I'll state for the sake of thoroughness, but the joy of victory needs to outweigh the frustration of defeat in order to make for a popular game. The idea of artillery doesn't fit into this concept quite as nicely as the other aspects of FPS games (namely, shooting the enemy). I would argue that killing an enemy you didn't see via artillery doesn't provide enough enjoyment to overcome the frustration of being killed by said artillery. Sure, artillery kills are rewarding and it takes some planning to accomplish, but on a fundamental level, it is not as exciting as a gun battle. I bet if we were to measure the adrenaline levels of someone using artillery versus someone in a gun battle, the difference would be statistically relevant.

TLDR, if I were one of the devs, I'd bet more people would avoid the game due to the inclusion of artillery than would avoid it due to the lack of. It would be a risky bet, but I'd probably be correct, and I'd have more players/money because of it.

I've never quoted that much text before, but it's everything I was thinking about artillery and didn't have the words for. The pleasure of killing with artillery is insignificant compared to the annoyance of dying to artillery.

TAA · 2012-07-10, 10:44 AM

Originally Posted by Mune

TLDR, if I were one of the devs, I'd bet more people would avoid the game due to the inclusion of artillery than would avoid it due to the lack of. It would be a risky bet, but I'd probably be correct, and I'd have more players/money because of it.

Very well thought out explanation. I agree with it completely, and it actually has made me understand how to explain why I love artillery.

I am more of a strategic player than a tactical player. I derive much more enjoyment from contributing to the victory of my team than on winning individual engagements. Sure I absolutely love rampaging through an enemy team and getting massive killstreaks, and there are moments in gaming I still remember many years later that involved me absolutely dominating the enemy team almost single handedly. However for me those moments are not the objective, they are an incidental bonus from trying to accomplish a victory for my team. Winning an FPS round is the top priority in everything I do, determining what class I play at the time, what weapons I choose for each spawn, where I go on the map, etc.

The only game I really enjoyed playing artillery in was BF1942 (I never tried WW2O etc). There was a lot of skill in choosing good positions to avoid enemy aircraft while putting down fire in important areas that would maximize the effectiveness of your team. Being good at artillery meant that you needed a global view of the battlefield, and it required constant communication and coordination with your team mates. It was a different sort of enjoyment to be had from the game.

Spamming one area blindly is the lowest form or artillery warfare, and a recipe for disaster in a game that has FF enabled.

You are right when you say it is an easy thing to cut out of a game. It is indeed frustrating for players on the receiving end of artillery, and if the game makes it easy to use artillery then it receives no respect from either the victims or from your team mates. It needs to be hard to master, which runs counter to making the game accessible.

fishirboy · 2012-07-10, 10:46 AM

If we were to have artillery witch i would like it should be like this:

except no enemies should show up on the map or allies to it should just be a grid and people ether mark that grid on were to shoot or something like that

Karrade · 2012-07-10, 10:47 AM

Originally Posted by Mune

*snip*

Simple logic I'll state for the sake of thoroughness, but the joy of victory needs to outweigh the frustration of defeat in order to make for a popular game. The idea of artillery doesn't fit into this concept quite as nicely as the other aspects of FPS games (namely, shooting the enemy). I would argue that killing an enemy you didn't see via artillery doesn't provide enough enjoyment to overcome the frustration of being killed by said artillery. Sure, artillery kills are rewarding and it takes some planning to accomplish, but on a fundamental level, it is not as exciting as a gun battle. I bet if we were to measure the adrenaline levels of someone using artillery versus someone in a gun battle, the difference would be statistically relevant.

TLDR, if I were one of the devs, I'd bet more people would avoid the game due to the inclusion of artillery than would avoid it due to the lack of. It would be a risky bet, but I'd probably be correct, and I'd have more players/money because of it.

In PS1 you quickly got over dying, you died a lot in PS1.

I don't see PS2 being any different.

So for the large part I don't really agree with your reasoning, if you are in the kill zones where the artillery is firing, then you are dying a lot anyway. - This from a person who was often pushing bases, CY's you name it

What I did get out of artilleries was defending something mobile, this made the game interesting as the situations would change depending on what was happening more often.

Plus also some people like flying, some people like shooting arty, some people like driving tanks, you get the idea. What is fun for you, might not be as fun for them.

BlueSkies · 2012-07-10, 11:44 AM

Honestly... just no. Flails in PS1 were kind of amusing when they first came out.. but now they are just downright annoying as hell. This is partly due to the fact that if you aren't bound to another base and the flails are lighting up your vpad and the rest of your CY, you would have to go back to sanc to get a reaver or something to go kill it with. Flaming annoying.

Papagiorgio · 2012-07-10, 01:00 PM

The way DICE balanced artillery (i.e. Mortars) in BF3 was interesting - making the location of the artillery which is currently firing on you plainly obvious on your radar, so you know where to go to kill it on the next spawn, seems balanced to me. With good teamwork the arty drivers could also employ some AA maxes/skyguards etc. to defend their artillery foothold.

Stardouser · 2012-07-10, 01:11 PM

Originally Posted by Papagiorgio

The way DICE balanced artillery (i.e. Mortars) in BF3 was interesting - making the location of the artillery which is currently firing on you plainly obvious on your radar, so you know where to go to kill it on the next spawn, seems balanced to me. With good teamwork the arty drivers could also employ some AA maxes/skyguards etc. to defend their artillery foothold.

They also put in Audio spotting, which allows mortar users to know exactly where all the enemies are, and gave the mortars a zero teamwork ability to fire using the minimap. This minimap firing system lets you hit a target AND area dead on with zero teamwork, no adjusting your trajectory.

And the BF3 Armored Kill expansion is going to have full sized artillery, and based on what we know, it will be the same zero teamwork system, just more powerful.

Definitely not the right way to do it.

SixShooter · 2012-07-10, 01:13 PM

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 incorperate a physical presence on the battlefield for Artillery. 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. It's boggling that when it comes to FPS games at least, no developer can be creative when it comes to Artillery, the last FPS I remember that I played with physical-mobile-vehicle artillery was Battlefield 1942. They either make it into an ability (Orbital Stike) or not include it at all and it's never truly stated as to why they make this decison.

In addition is that an Orbital Strike, isn't counterable (at least from what we/I know). You have to let it happen. At least with Artillery, after the first shell goes off, if there's someone paying attention then they could go there and get the Artillery before it does real damage. Also, the argument that "artillery kills more allies than enemies" is bogus, it only happens because artillery doesn't know where he's firing at. Also, You could argue the same for the indiscriminate Orbital Strike if a person was playing blindfolded.

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.

To refer to the developers as lazy is just arrogant.
To ackowledge that you do know that there are many other threads adressing the exact same thing is just dense.
To say that it's unfair is childish.

Firefly · 2012-07-10, 01:20 PM

I can see why people might be averse to having artillery in-game. The game mechanics surrounding Flails are stupid. Parking next to a source of infinite ammo and then wedging a quarter in your fire button so you can go make a sammich is dumb. On the flip side, a Flail was basically a sitting duck as soon as that first round went downrange - any Reaver or Liberator pilot worth a damn should be on them like stink on shit.

I ran a few Flail firebase operations in Planetside, putting a dozen Flails on the battlefield (with appropriate combat support and skywatch for protection). When used properly, it can be a dangerous weapon. Of course this is online gaming, where few things are "properly" implemented. Developers are cursed - we have to constantly play catch-up to players. Players will ALWAYS find a way to "abuse" something and use it in ways for which it was not originally intended to be used (ps, dude calling devs lazy can eat a dick, I don't go to McDonalds and tell you how to do your job kthxbai).

So make artillery useful, but make it difficult to use. Blind-fire should only be effective in the hands of a skilled (or lucky player). In fact, make it a requirement - you have to have a spotter or it just won't work. Put a finite capacity on the weapon system. No mini-map. No direct-fire capability, period. Hell, make it system-side, kinda like they did in the original Battlefield 2. I'm all for that. I'm just pro-artillery, period.

Ruwyn · 2012-07-10, 01:32 PM

1) Flail artillery are easy to avoid. Nothing like a little situational awareness of looking up to see this giant glowing effect arcing in. Let alone its distinct sound.

2) Camping vehicle terms, CY, doors, etc. are only possible through extreme trial and error or it was Laser Sighted. Hmm....look for those cloakers maybe?
Also, if you and your side allow a flail to continuously fire without going after it and thus eventually lose your vehicles in the area....wow. They should be target number one. They used to be when organized groups played. Just like the OP BFRs were targeted by organized TEAMS and dropped easily making them not OP.

3) Dying to something doesn't make it not fun. If you run out into the trees and continually die to cloakers does that mean they shouldn't be in the game? Or does it mean you should change tactics? Collectively allowing something to happen should not mean it isn't fun and should be removed. Like gen drops, tube nukes, ntu drains....they are all things that are allowed to happen by poor defenders. Sucks, it seems, they won't be making it back either.

MrBloodworth · 2012-07-10, 01:47 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.

Only because they removed the requirement of a spotter to fire.

Bags · 2012-07-10, 01:51 PM

This is one of the great things about PS2. No skilless artillery.

Sorry flailers. You'll have to find another skilless way to farm kills.

MrBloodworth · 2012-07-10, 02:03 PM

Originally Posted by Bags

This is one of the great things about PS2. No skilless artillery.

Sorry flailers. You'll have to find another skilless way to farm kills.

YEAH!

Like, one man tanks, NC maxes + spawn tubes!, Jackhammers!

vVRedOctoberVv · 2012-07-10, 02:10 PM

There is no more legitimate a reason to take them out than there is to leave it in. Period.

Some people might not like them. Yeah, well, read around the forums on virtually any game. I guarantee, there is somebody bitching about any given thing, SOMEWHERE. Other people, like me, do like them. For that matter, ignoring artillery is just retarded. It's been a part of warfare for over 2,000 years, and in fact, the later in history you go, and the closer to modern times you go, the MORE prevalent it is. It's stupid to pretend it doesn't exist.

***************************
THE BEST WAY TO INTEGRATE ARTILLERY INTO THIS GAME
WITHOUT RESORTING TO STUPID GIMMICKS AND KEEPING IT
"FAIR" FOR THE PLAYER BASE
***************************

Field artillery would not have a "map view" where they can point and click their way to kills. The should have a HUD range finder, assuming you are on level ground and firing at a target at an equal elevation, elevating your barrel to a certain point results in the round traveling an approximate distance.
No auto-aim or assists. If someone lases a target, you'll have a reticule indicating range and location, but you will still have to compensate for any difference in elevation between your firing location and the target.
This will encourage people to be "artillerists" just like there are dedicated "tankers" and "infantry", people who cultivate a certain style of combat, people who are specialists in "their field". It will also encourage specialised "forward observers", people who can intelligently communicate with artillery assets and "walk" their fire onto the target.

If the artillery is kicking your ass, either they're doing it right or you're doing it wrong. Period. If the artillery is TKing, or ineffective, then they're doing it wrong or you're doing it right.

Making the rounds slow moving and highly visible pretty much takes care of "knowing where they're at" without having them magically appear on a radar screen. Just like with the Flail, you KNEW when they were around, and by just glancing that direction, you could estimate approximately where they were. If you are unable to mount a successful counter attack, then they probably planned well. Conversely, if you ARE, then they did NOT plan well.

People keep saying Flail have unlimited range... If this is true, then I agree this is somewhat "unfair" for a game. They should have BoV range capability, but not absurdly so, not "sitting in THEIR base way over here shooting at YOUR base way over here". I understand a complaint about THAT. No, they should have to be present in the immediate vicinity of the battlefield, just behind friendly lines. I don't know what ranges exactly to present, since I don't know the scale of PS2 and average distance between bases, but a "rough estimate" could easily be made by someone who does.

Saying something is is cheap or that is unfair or some such isn't fun boils down to one of a couple things:

#1 Preference. Just because YOU don't like it, doesn't make it "not good"

#2 Butt hurt. Just because YOU can't counter it, doesn't mean somebody else can't. I hate air and snipers because everytime I go out, a Reaver gets me. Or everytime I pop my head up, somebody blows it off, and I usually never even see it coming. But I don't bitch about it, because I know it's a legitimate thing to have there.

If one faction was running around with PWNsticks and magic powers that the other two didn't have, yes, I could understand complaints about that. But when you're complaining about things that boil down to basic principles of warfare... Now you're just being stupid and whiney.