Gameplay: Artillery!

[NichyC]

I know there have been threads about this before, but I want to make a good official post on whether or not people think the game needs a specific artillery vehicle and if so, what would it be like?

Personally, I think that the Vanu should get the Flail back from the original (all though make it cooler) and then the Terran and New Conglomerate could get more normal-style artillery pieces (I have no ideas on names so post them if you have an idea). My idea is that you can drive it around like a tank, and then deploy it to use the main gun. When you deploy it, you can swivel the gun any direction you want (like a tank) and adjust the power behind the shot. Then, on your minimap, it will give you a general idea of where the shells will hit so you know if you're aiming correctly.

I also think that if they have it, they should have a secondary gunner who gets a machine gun or something like that.

What do you think? Do you have any ideas on names, styles or looks? Or do you even think that artillery pieces would or would not complement the game? Tell us!

[Boomhowser]

At this moment in time I think nope the game has no need for artillery.
Lets get through beta first then see how the game pans out after release once a few months have passed re-evaluate the game and then decide how it would impact the state of the game.

[NichyC]

Fair enough! Though I still think it would be an interesting implement at some point in the game.

[atheistunicycle]

There was nothing more boring in PS1 than firing the flail.

[Lumberchuk]

Originally Posted by atheistunicycle

There was nothing more boring in PS1 than firing the flail.

And almost nothing more frustrating then being killed by a lucky flail shot.

[Novice bot]

If artillery is implemented, it definitely needs some possibility of co-ordination from team mates. Perhaps "light" classes could have an button that marks an enemy location on the minimap in real time (for artillery use, if "spotting" isnt a feature in the game), and artillery would have a separate crosshair at the actual minimap for more accurate firing. This way for example Light assaults and infiltrators would have yet another role in the field to play, to assign targets for the artillery to take aim at. As the projectile wouldn't be 100% vertical, the coordinators would need to think whom they mark on the map, otherwise the artillery fires would be wasted (unless it magically smacks on enemy aircraft on its way towards a wall).

[Dubious]

any artillery should only be able to fire if someone have marked a target, just like they would do in real life
Current shot and pray with flails are ridicolous, 80% of the time you hit friendlies..

[Xenostalker]

Originally Posted by Dubious

any artillery should only be able to fire if someone have marked a target, just like they would do in real life
Current shot and pray with flails are ridicolous, 80% of the time you hit friendlies..

I agree with this 100%. You basically should not be able to fire unless a squad member marks a target. Griefers get permanent ban for abusing and TKing.

But... I see no need for artillery (although it would be extremely unrealistic because it's a futuristic war - artillery would be an ideal tactic, problably moreso than modern warfare).

[NichyC]

Originally Posted by Novice bot

If artillery is implemented, it definitely needs some possibility of co-ordination from team mates. Perhaps "light" classes could have an button that marks an enemy location on the minimap in real time (for artillery use, if "spotting" isnt a feature in the game), and artillery would have a separate crosshair at the actual minimap for more accurate firing. This way for example Light assaults and infiltrators would have yet another role in the field to play, to assign targets for the artillery to take aim at. As the projectile wouldn't be 100% vertical, the coordinators would need to think whom they mark on the map, otherwise the artillery fires would be wasted (unless it magically smacks on enemy aircraft on its way towards a wall).

Interesting, I think that the Light Assault would be a good spotting class. Good point!

[Accuser]

No!
Boring to fire, frustrating to be killed by, worse to be TK'd by.
I'd rather have PS1's BFRs than any form of artillery...

[Novice bot]

Originally Posted by Accuser

No!
Boring to fire, frustrating to be killed by, worse to be TK'd by.
I'd rather have PS1's BFRs than any form of artillery...

Of course its frustrating to be killed by, same applies to a bomber, a sniper, a drop pod. Death isn't supposed to be enjoyable. Artillery would make both the defenders and the offense think twice how they position themselves. For example, the attacker couldn't just place a galaxy behind some obstacle that perhaps prevents direct fire from base. One assault guy would get to distance enough to mark it for artillery fire, and the artillery would blow it to bits.

Artillery, no matter how frustrating it actually is, brings more intense and strategic combat. That's pretty much the reason I advocate it. Nothing was more interesting than Fusion mortar fire in Tribes.

[Ratstomper]

Originally Posted by Novice bot

Artillery, no matter how frustrating it actually is, brings more intense and strategic combat. That's pretty much the reason I advocate it.

I completely agree. Planetside was, and should be again, a futuristic war simulator. Not a continent-wide, small arms, dueling deathmatch.

Yes to artillery that must be spotted for and requires coordination and team effort.

[Accuser]

Originally Posted by Novice bot

Of course its frustrating to be killed by, same applies to a bomber, a sniper, a drop pod. Death isn't supposed to be enjoyable. Artillery would make both the defenders and the offense think twice how they position themselves.

Except when you're killed by a sniper or a bomber, you can think of things you can improve:
"Oh, I didn't check that hilltop and the sniper headshotted me." or "I didn't look up and didn't hear the bomber engine, so I didn't run to cover in time."

When artillery kills you you think "I walked outside and instantly died because of artillery spam... I guess I just have to play inside from here out." It's a very different kind of frustrating, because it denies you the opportunity to fight back, particularly against a larger force.

To put it in a practical gameplay perspective:
Defenders shouldn't have to abandon exterior defenses due to indirect fire. On the same note, they shouldn't be forced to leave that base and spawn in another in order to counter that indirect fire. "Strategic" though it may be, it ruins defensive games... particularly the most epic fights with 3v1 or worse odds.

[Ratstomper]

Originally Posted by Accuser

Except when you're killed by a sniper or a bomber, you can think of things you can improve:
"Oh, I didn't check that hilltop and the sniper headshotted me." or "I didn't look up and didn't hear the bomber engine, so I didn't run to cover in time."

When artillery kills you you think "I walked outside and instantly died because of artillery spam... I guess I just have to play inside from here out." It's a very different kind of frustrating, because it denies you the opportunity to fight back, particularly against a larger force.

To put it in a practical gameplay perspective:
Defenders shouldn't have to abandon exterior defenses due to indirect fire. On the same note, they shouldn't be forced to leave that base and spawn in another in order to counter that indirect fire. "Strategic" though it may be, it ruins defensive games... particularly the most epic fights with 3v1 or worse odds.

That's why logistics and warfront strategies come into effect. When your base is getting shelled, you mount an offensive from elsewhere to take out that artillery. It makes the war more robust and ties the continent together, instead of just being isolated basefight after isolated basefight. Having a squad of enemies covering one door causes the exact same scenario you mention.

Besides that, if you watch the videos, there are PLENTY of different spawn points. Camping with artillery can't be effective in PS2 like it was in PS1.

[Harasus]

Could be fun, I kinda doubt they will implement it in the end, they said something about being active in the battle in one of the commentaries.

"We removed artillery [?] because it is a very passive weapon, and you are not involved in the killing.", something like that. All other weapons require a lot of personal interaction, but as artillery someone will point out where you should fire and you press fire.

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