Indirect Artillery Vehicle

[Selerox]

Originally Posted by Dougnifico

I support indirect fire artillery with a couple stipulations.

1. Weak armor with no major defensive systems.
2. Very inaccurate/unusable without a spotter and requires adjusting with one.
3. Shells must have a visible trail and a sound indicator that they are coming down. The sound would be louder the closer you are to the impact area.
4. Long deploy time.
5. Automatic radar signature while firing.

I'd also add:

6. Each piece must be team operated.
7. Each person in the team has to do their part in turn before the piece can fire.
8. Each operation must take a certain amount of time and must be interruptible (like overloading a generator). If a step is interrupted, it only affects that step, not the whole process.
9. Add a skill tree to allow for certing into a "Gunnery" skill to allow for these operations to be faster.

Something like:

Spotter > Gunner (aim) > Loader 1 > Loader 2 > Gunner (fire)

Artillery should be something that requires a team effort and a logistical consideration to use.

It must not by a vehicle that can be operated by a lone gunner (even with the addition of a spotter).

[wasdie]

No matter how robust the idea is indirect artillery will always end up as a tool to spawn camp. That's really all there is to say about it.

Artillery is great in real life because you can kill your enemy from a safe distance away, but it's just not fun in a video game. It has novel uses in games like Battlefield 2 and Red Orchestra, but those are much more controlled environments.

There are only ever 2 ways indirect artillery can end up in a game like this. Either it's nerfed to oblivion to try to prevent it from being a cheap and over powered tactic that it ends up so useless nobody uses it or it is just blatantly OP and not fun to fight against.

This is a game first and foremost. While it's easy to think of ideas in the context of yourself and your teammates using it to wipe out your enemies, you have to think of both sides of the weapon. Sure it's fun to use but is it fun to fight against? Indirect artillery is never fun to fight against.

Even with all of the suggestions in this thread it would only be useful in a tiny subset of situations and then it would be no fun to fight against. Going off of some suggestions in this thread the only time I would see it being useful where it wouldn't be destroyed in seconds by the enemy is when you're clearly overwhelming an enemy and you have stationary targets (spawn buildings, deployed sunderers) to shoot at further camping in your enemy.

[Whiteagle]

It always boggles my mind that people don't know what "Suppressive Fire" is used for...

[wasdie]

Originally Posted by Whiteagle

It always boggles my mind that people don't know what "Suppressive Fire" is used for...

Suppressive fire doesn't translate well into a fun gameplay mechanic. I've not played a game where artillery has added to the experience and not just is a major annoyance that is only used to rack up free kills.

It's just something that sounds much better in theory and on the forums than it works well in game.

[Figment]

For once I agree with Wasdie.


Artillery in world of tanks is by a large group of players the most hated thing ever. Why? Because they have no idea if they are targeted, if they can find cover and even if they think they're in cover, they can regularly still get splashed to death, while not being able to return fire or do much more about it until they get in close range (at which point they can pulverise arti that aren't ready to or good at TD).

It creates an annoyance if you feel powerless and in a game like WoT at least artillery is somewhat limited in numbers. Not every match though, which are the most hated matches and then there's only 5, each firing every 30 seconds. IN PS2, the amount of shelling that would be possible is mindnumbing.

[Whiteagle]

Originally Posted by Figment

Artillery in world of tanks is by a large group of players the most hated thing ever. Why? Because they have no idea if they are targeted, if they can find cover and even if they think they're in cover, they can regularly still get splashed to death, while not being able to return fire or do much more about it until they get in close range (at which point they can pulverise arti that aren't ready to or good at TD).

It creates an annoyance if you feel powerless and in a game like WoT at least artillery is somewhat limited in numbers. Not every match though, which are the most hated matches and then there's only 5, each firing every 30 seconds. IN PS2, the amount of shelling that would be possible is mindnumbing.

Ah, but you don't have AIRCRAFT in World of Tanks...

[Kerrec]

No one is going to like seeing a killbox showing a killer that is 1 or 2 bases away. Period.

It's an interesting idea, but it would make for poor gameplay. There are no limits to how many guns/vehicles are spawned/used in PS2. Spammed, these indirect artillery guns would just bring us back to December when a large majority of base fights and ground vehicles were rendered pointless because of Liberator spam.

Besides, in what way would an indirect artillery be better than a Phoenix?

Want my constructive criticism assuming you insist this kind of system is needed? Ok, here goes:

-Artillery guns must be spawned at fixed locations, aka: bonuses for owning certain bases. Spawning one puts the spawnee into a MAX suit that doesn't have any weapons or sprint. Just defenses and a targetting laser. The MAX operator must travel within range of the target and must have LOS to aim the laser at the target/location. One arm lazes vehicles for big focused damage against said vehicle. The other arm lazes an area to do MINOR damage to soft targets over a respectable area. The laser is very visible, and must be maintained on target while the artillery round is in flight.

-The artillery must be manned. The "gunner" must adjust elevation and direction in order to get the projectile to land within 100m of a lazed target with a reticule similar to grenade launchers. The gunner can view the map to see where the round lands, to be able to "walk" the rounds on target during the learning process. Rounds that don't land within 100m of the lazed target, do not explode. Don't want friendly fire now!

-Successful kills or assists grant the lion's share of the XP to the MAX suit, and 5-10xp per kill to the "gunner".

-If the MAX suit is killed, the artillery begins a self destruct countdown. 30 seconds or so for the MAX suit to be revived before it goes BOOM. If it does go boom, further XP is awarded, similar to a generator/scu. An infiltrator can "hack" the artillery gun to slow down the self destruct countdown, but it resumes normal countdown speeds as soon as the hacking stops.

- The Artillery gun can be hacked by enemy infiltrators, killing the MAX operator if successful.

[HiroshiChugi]

Originally Posted by Kerrec

No one is going to like seeing a killbox showing a killer that is 1 or 2 bases away. Period.

It's an interesting idea, but it would make for poor gameplay. There are no limits to how many guns/vehicles are spawned/used in PS2. Spammed, these indirect artillery guns would just bring us back to December when a large majority of base fights and ground vehicles were rendered pointless because of Liberator spam.

Besides, in what way would an indirect artillery be better than a Phoenix?

Want my constructive criticism assuming you insist this kind of system is needed? Ok, here goes:

-Artillery guns must be spawned at fixed locations, aka: bonuses for owning certain bases. Spawning one puts the spawnee into a MAX suit that doesn't have any weapons or sprint. Just defenses and a targetting laser. The MAX operator must travel within range of the target and must have LOS to aim the laser at the target/location. One arm lazes vehicles for big focused damage against said vehicle. The other arm lazes an area to do MINOR damage to soft targets over a respectable area. The laser is very visible, and must be maintained on target while the artillery round is in flight.

-The artillery must be manned. The "gunner" must adjust elevation and direction in order to get the projectile to land within 100m of a lazed target with a reticule similar to grenade launchers. The gunner can view the map to see where the round lands, to be able to "walk" the rounds on target during the learning process. Rounds that don't land within 100m of the lazed target, do not explode. Don't want friendly fire now!

-Successful kills or assists grant the lion's share of the XP to the MAX suit, and 5-10xp per kill to the "gunner".

-If the MAX suit is killed, the artillery begins a self destruct countdown. 30 seconds or so for the MAX suit to be revived before it goes BOOM. If it does go boom, further XP is awarded, similar to a generator/scu. An infiltrator can "hack" the artillery gun to slow down the self destruct countdown, but it resumes normal countdown speeds as soon as the hacking stops.

- The Artillery gun can be hacked by enemy infiltrators, killing the MAX operator if successful.

This actually make tons of sense. However, will the MAX have regular ol' MAX armour or a slight buff since it has no weapons, abilities, or sprint?

[Staticelf]

Originally Posted by Figment

For once I agree with Wasdie.


Artillery in world of tanks is by a large group of players the most hated thing ever. Why? Because they have no idea if they are targeted, if they can find cover and even if they think they're in cover, they can regularly still get splashed to death, while not being able to return fire or do much more about it until they get in close range (at which point they can pulverise arti that aren't ready to or good at TD).

It creates an annoyance if you feel powerless and in a game like WoT at least artillery is somewhat limited in numbers. Not every match though, which are the most hated matches and then there's only 5, each firing every 30 seconds. IN PS2, the amount of shelling that would be possible is mindnumbing.

So we shouldn't do it because it would be an annoyance to armor setting still?
How do you think infantry survive while snipers are on every hill just waiting for that headshot? They keep moving!
Im sorry your tank might no longer be able to camp blast the tower because if he sits still he will get indirect fire. Welcome to combined arms combat!

[Qwan]

Well I dont know about adding a artillary piece to this game. What would be the range, I mean most of these post are not far apart so before the zerg leaves one base you could simply start spaming the next one. It just isnt practical, the bases are to close together, and like most posters have said there is enough spam on the spawn boxes. In PS1 they were underground and protected. Now your in the open and there are alot of friendlys around, so a bad direct hit could lock you up quick.

[Staticelf]

If you read the posts before you post you will see that in its current form the artillery I am proposing would probably be a turret battery inside large bases that can target the open land around the base but not be able to land rounds in surrounding bases (or its own base). So short range but as strong as a tank round.

Also I like the idea that as soon as they shoot they show up on enemy radar so you know they are active.

[ringring]

I think artillery that would only fire on the battles between bases would not be viable because the movement is so fluid. All battles are in or adjacent to bases anyway.

So on this basis artillery could go in, but I think only because it wouldn't or couldn't be used with any effect.

The only way artillery (in my opinion) could be effective if it was able to fire from one outpost/base to another. But in that case because of base designs it would be too effective.


ps Sometimes I think I must be that one in a million player. All the things that PS vets say 'everybody hated' such as caves, third-person, flails or bfr's I either positively loved (caves) or didn't particularly mind (the rest).

[Canaris]

Originally Posted by wasdie

No matter how robust the idea is indirect artillery will always end up as a tool to spawn camp. That's really all there is to say about it.

Artillery is great in real life because you can kill your enemy from a safe distance away, but it's just not fun in a video game. It has novel uses in games like Battlefield 2 and Red Orchestra, but those are much more controlled environments.

There are only ever 2 ways indirect artillery can end up in a game like this. Either it's nerfed to oblivion to try to prevent it from being a cheap and over powered tactic that it ends up so useless nobody uses it or it is just blatantly OP and not fun to fight against.

This is a game first and foremost. While it's easy to think of ideas in the context of yourself and your teammates using it to wipe out your enemies, you have to think of both sides of the weapon. Sure it's fun to use but is it fun to fight against? Indirect artillery is never fun to fight against.

Even with all of the suggestions in this thread it would only be useful in a tiny subset of situations and then it would be no fun to fight against. Going off of some suggestions in this thread the only time I would see it being useful where it wouldn't be destroyed in seconds by the enemy is when you're clearly overwhelming an enemy and you have stationary targets (spawn buildings, deployed sunderers) to shoot at further camping in your enemy.

not just spawn camp but point camping aswell, I'm also sure those devious so & so's would figure where to hit a building and put the splash damage into the buildings with points inside.

[Staticelf]

So to consolidate (so you dont have to go back and read 6 pages) and before you post that this is a bad idea based on the title without knowing the evolution of this idea....

- We are no longer considering a vehicle...rather an artillery turret battery (3 guns) emplaced inside larger bases (techplants/amp stations)

- Their range would be limited to the open area outside the base's walls. BUT short of landing in other bases.

- Without a spotter they are firing blind.

- With a spotter (infiltrator with spotting tool) they can see enemy inf/vehicle being spotted on the "targeting map"

- Cannon fires slowly requiring an "E" button interaction to load (like hacking) but a second person can load while gun operator stays in targeting map screen to increase speed a little.

- Cannon damage is same as tank round

- Cannons being fired show up on enemy minimaps so they know that they are active.

Ok now after reading that continue your constructive criticism...

[Kerrec]

Originally Posted by HiroshiChugi

This actually make tons of sense. However, will the MAX have regular ol' MAX armour or a slight buff since it has no weapons, abilities, or sprint?

I was thinking it up as I wrote it, simply to accomodate the OP who wants constructive criticism. I'm sure there are many details that would need to be sorted out.

As for my tastes, I'd make the MAX a sitting duck. Team has to defend it, or lose it. A glass cannon.