Mortar

[Purple]

i think it would add to the game if there was something like a mortar to bombard bases and fields during tank battles. i was thinking that it could be short ranged so people couldn't bombard a target from across the map. the shells it fires shouldn't be able to one hit people but should be a nuisance. the accuracy should be bad so people cant target doors. this could be something an engineer could set up. this would be a fun aspect to add to the game and would be useful to uproot defenders that are well dug in over time.

[NewSith]

Do a search for "Indirect Fire". Also get ready to get loads of flame, because it's probably the most hated topic.

[Purple]

im talking about something you could set up close to a base so defenders would be able to shoot at the person from a wall.

[NewSith]

Originally Posted by Purple

im talking about something you could set up close to a base so defenders would be able to shoot at the person from a wall.

Yes, I totaly understand what you mean, but a mortar is also an indirect fire weapon. Means you can sit behind a giant rock with a teammate guarding you and spam the shit out of the enemy with almost no real counter for it except for another mortar.

[Purple]

Originally Posted by NewSith

Yes, I totaly understand what you mean, but a mortar is also an indirect fire weapon. Means you can sit behind a giant rock with a teammate guarding you and spam the shit out of the enemy with almost no real counter for it except for another mortar.

true but in planetside 1 the NC AV almost had the same effect. people sat behind trees and rocks and lobbed guided rockets over walls. this would be less accurate.

[NewSith]

Originally Posted by Purple

true but in planetside 1 the NC AV almost had the same effect. people sat behind trees and rocks and lobbed guided rockets over walls. this would be less accurate.

And the pheonix was the most useless, yet the most annoying of all three AVs. FUcanons are something I would like the game to have not.

Main argument - balancing problems. Unlimited ammo (the ammo will be unlimited with just a galaxy not so far from the place you're sitting at) and easy accessability make the thing OP as hell. BF3 only has 32 people max on one side so you can't really do a massive mortar camping without sacrificing team's point capture ability, but still 2 mortars is enough to make people whine. PlanetSide 1 had at least 70 people on one team in a similar fight. PS2 will have hundereds.

But yet again, there will most likely be some artillery afterall, if not at launch, then post-launch and mortar would no longer be a necessary addition.

[Purple]

i still think that this would be a fun addition to the game. not everyone is going to like it but its a part of war. i dont like snipers but i can accept them as part of the game. it would also add the element of having to have someone go and kill the mortar outside of the base which seems like some light assault guys would have fun doing. i understand your concerns but i dont this this would be OP, after all anyone standing near an AMS has unlimited ammo.

[PrISM]

Mini-flail? No thanks.

[Purple]

Originally Posted by PrISM

Mini-flail? No thanks.

it wouldent b e a vehical. it would be used by softies.

[Warborn]

Originally Posted by Purple

not everyone is going to like it but its a part of war.

The good news is that Planetside 2 isn't a war simulator.

[Stardouser]

It's not a war sim, but too many people in shooters want duel simulators where anything other than literally outshooting the enemy face to face is sterilized from the game. They don't want to have go look for the mortar, they don't want infantry dying to vehicles, they don't want vehicles stolen from their bases, they want as many fights as possible to be face to face fights where the best aim wins, sterilizing the game of other factors.

[Zulthus]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

It's not a war sim, but too many people in shooters want duel simulators where anything other than literally outshooting the enemy face to face is sterilized from the game. They don't want to have go look for the mortar, they don't want infantry dying to vehicles, they don't want vehicles stolen from their bases, they want as many fights as possible to be face to face fights where the best aim wins, sterilizing the game of other factors.

You've played BF3 much more than I have, so you should know how annoying and useless the mortar was, ESPECIALLY with unlimited ammo.

I just don't see how this could be a good idea in the slightest.

[Zekeen]

Ya know, it'd be nice to have mortar if you added in restrictions that made it fair-

Very very inaccurate

Slow reload

Damage can be tight and heavy or broad and light

No impact recognition, though the flaw would be murdering teammates, but could just restrict it to veterans, aka, a higher cert.


It wouldn't be too terrible really. Could work quite nicely if done right.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by Zulthus

You've played BF3 much more than I have, so you should know how annoying and useless the mortar was, ESPECIALLY with unlimited ammo.

I just don't see how this could be a good idea in the slightest.

It's far from useless, although if we had true large maps it would be a lot more strategically useful. As far as annoying, my point is that anything is annoying. Being killed is always annoying, the problem here is that some people want to completely sterilize the game of anything that can kill them without them seeing it and having a chance to stop it by outshooting the other guy. But if that's the attitude people are going to have, we are never going to evolve beyond CoD and what BF3 now does. We may as well get rid of jets, tanks and helicopters and pat DICE on the back for their 16 player maximum Close Quarters expansion.

With all that said, I do not agree with unlimited ammo. I am ferociously opposed.

I would propose this for mortars:
1. Increase the damage(they are not 1 hit kill to infantry even if you hit them on the head)
2. Remove unlimited ammo
3. Make it so that support can't have both mortar and ammo bag
4. Make it so that it REQUIRES a SPOTTER with a SPOTTING TOOL for effective fire.

These changes would mean that you need 3 people to run a mortar effectively: one to fire, one to reload, one to spot.

But DICE wants the threshold lowered so that things are uber easy. This is why we can't have nice things.

[Purple]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

It's far from useless, although if we had true large maps it would be a lot more strategically useful. As far as annoying, my point is that anything is annoying. Being killed is always annoying, the problem here is that some people want to completely sterilize the game of anything that can kill them without them seeing it and having a chance to stop it by outshooting the other guy. But if that's the attitude people are going to have, we are never going to evolve beyond CoD and what BF3 now does. We may as well get rid of jets, tanks and helicopters and pat DICE on the back for their 16 player maximum Close Quarters expansion.

With all that said, I do not agree with unlimited ammo. I am ferociously opposed.

I would propose this for mortars:
1. Increase the damage(they are not 1 hit kill to infantry even if you hit them on the head)
2. Remove unlimited ammo
3. Make it so that support can't have both mortar and ammo bag
4. Make it so that it REQUIRES a SPOTTER with a SPOTTING TOOL for effective fire.

These changes would mean that you need 3 people to run a mortar effectively: one to fire, one to reload, one to spot.

But DICE wants the threshold lowered so that things are uber easy. This is why we can't have nice things.

i never said anything about unlimited ammo. all i said is that anyone standing near something that resupplies had ez access to ammo. but i can see how a mortar would be OP with a quick reload like that compaired to a gaus gun so how about this. the only way to get mortar ammo is at a base or outpost. like in PS1 the only place to get a max was a base or tower.