The Artillery Debate - Page 3

Grognard · 2012-01-31, 10:57 PM

Originally Posted by VioletZero

The reason I would even bother with artillery is specifically to avoid return fire.

Then, in my opinion, you just made their argument for them, and I switch camps.

Warborn · 2012-01-31, 10:57 PM

Originally Posted by Tool

I think one point he's making is fair; in that some players do enjoy that form of gameplay. Some perspective here is worthwhile, not everyone like to or can participate in twitch gameplay.

No, it isn't a fair point at all. Just because someone enjoys that kind of gameplay doesn't mean it's something the game should necessarily support. They specifically said they are trying to move the game away from "indirect" forms of combat. If liberators having bombardiers was too passive for the Planetside 2 developers, what are the odds sitting in an immobile vehicle kilometers away from the fighting, clicking at a random cloud in the sky is going to pass muster?

VioletZero · 2012-01-31, 11:01 PM

Originally Posted by Grognard

Then, in my opinion, you just made their argument for them, and I switch camps.

Is this the real issue here? That you can't fire back at them?

They have so many counters though. Like how they're deadly allergic to aircraft or how they can't handle direct combat.

Grognard · 2012-01-31, 11:06 PM

Originally Posted by VioletZero

Is this the real issue here? That you can't fire back at them?

They have so many counters though. Like how they're deadly allergic to aircraft or how they can't handle direct combat.

I think so, because unless an excellent model of counterbattery fire is introduced, no one will accept a platform which can not be readily countered by a GAMER... Most of these folks are not soldiers stuck following orders and spending months in an MOS school to learn how to be patient, and proffessional. So we pretty much have the see=kill=fun paradigm...

Lonehunter · 2012-01-31, 11:07 PM

The only way I see us getting along with artillery is if it's impossible for just 1 person to use it. Imagine if the Flail could only fire when his spotter lazed the target, and that waypoint shows up so you know exactly what arc to use. That's teamwork, and that we can actually use. Not only can you counter the artillery with vehicles, you can take out the scout.

VioletZero · 2012-01-31, 11:08 PM

Why do we have commanders if no one will follow orders?

SKYeXile · 2012-01-31, 11:08 PM

Originally Posted by Tool

I think one point he's making is fair; in that some players do enjoy that form of gameplay. Some perspective here is worthwhile, not everyone like to or can participate in twitch gameplay.

Some enjoy being medics doing little other than healing and rezzing. Others participate in engineer work, laying ce, repairing equipment and vehicles or infantry. Point being artillery is potentially another form of gameplay to attract these types of players.

i enjoy playing a stupidly overpowered robot that can fly and kill hordes of infantry at once. DOESN'T MEAN IT SHOULD BE INGAME!

VioletZero · 2012-01-31, 11:10 PM

Originally Posted by Lonehunter

The only way I see us getting along with artillery is if it's impossible for 1 person to use it. Imagine if the Flail could only fire when his spotter lazed the target, and that waypoint shows up so you know exactly what arc to use. That's teamwork, and that we can actually use.

I like this idea.

Although, you should be able to blind fire if you want. Just for suppression. But to hit targets directly, you need to have marked targets.

You shouldn't be able to see your targets on the map while aiming though.

Grognard · 2012-01-31, 11:16 PM

Originally Posted by Lonehunter

The only way I see us getting along with artillery is if it's impossible for just 1 person to use it. Imagine if the Flail could only fire when his spotter lazed the target, and that waypoint shows up so you know exactly what arc to use. That's teamwork, and that we can actually use.

Above, I gave some examples that might work as single soldier platforms...

My favorite branch of military arms is artillery... but in my mind, the "what I like" is trumped every time by "its not all about me"... so those examples were created with that in mind, and for specific, common scenarios that cropped up in PS1, and would have been useful, but not over powered. Such as... gridlocked bridge fights, and with a 1500 combatants, may exacerbate the necessity for breaking static battles with such tools of the trade...

Folks... Indirect fire smoke? Fascam? Let it sink in for a bit...

Tool · 2012-01-31, 11:23 PM

Originally Posted by SKYeXile

i enjoy playing a stupidly overpowered robot that can fly and kill hordes of infantry at once. DOESN'T MEAN IT SHOULD BE INGAME!

zoom

CutterJohn · 2012-01-31, 11:35 PM

+1 for no artillery.

The gameplay of the person operating it is just no fun at all. Point at waypoint, click, wait for kill spam. There is no skill involved in it. I realize some people won't mind playing like this, but there are other roles they can fulfill with similar amounts of skill that are not so annoying to the receiving end.

The only actual fun, or at least interactive, way I could imagine implementing Artillery is to make the round controllable, i.e. the gunner provides terminal guidance like a phoenix missile operator. Though with a LOT more inertia.

Doesn't change the fact that the people on the receiving end are getting shelled with no real recourse. I'm a big fan of the concept of if you want to hurt someone you should be vulnerable to return fire from them, which is a big reason why i disliked the phoenix and the flail. Grenades are more acceptable, since you can very quickly get into range of the person throwing it.

Edit: Oh, and I'd probably be ok with it if AA units could shoot down the incoming shells. That at least would allow the defenders to counter the arty, even if they couldn't destroy it outright.

VioletZero · 2012-01-31, 11:38 PM

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

I realize some people won't mind playing like this, but there are other roles they can fulfill with similar amounts of skill that are not so annoying to the receiving end.

Is there another role that requires pen and paper work to use right?

If so, let me know what it is.

CutterJohn · 2012-01-31, 11:59 PM

Originally Posted by VioletZero

Is there another role that requires pen and paper work to use right?

If so, let me know what it is.

You're fooling yourself if you think there wouldn't be a website with a PS2 artillery calculator within a month of release.

Shade Millith · 2012-02-01, 12:10 AM

Originally Posted by Grognard

I think so, because unless an excellent model of counterbattery fire is introduced, no one will accept a platform which can not be readily countered by a GAMER... Most of these folks are not soldiers stuck following orders and spending months in an MOS school to learn how to be patient, and proffessional. So we pretty much have the see=kill=fun paradigm...

So the thought process of "Get plane, follow trail to pot of free XP" is too much?

That's your argument?

The gameplay of the person operating it is just no fun at all. Point at waypoint, click, wait for kill spam.

Have already been over this, and is best surmised as "Stop generalizing". Just because you can't see it, doesn't mean that it's not there.

Some people enjoy working as a team. One role in a team is fire-support. Just because anything past running around in near melee range might be beyond you, doesn't mean others might not enjoy it.

The problem with the flail is it was too heavily armored, too long ranged, and fired too quickly.

1/4 everything, with a massive reload timer after 3-5 shots, and it's fine.

Grognard · 2012-02-01, 12:17 AM

Originally Posted by Shade Millith

So the thought process of "Get plane, follow trail to pot of free XP" is too much?

That's your argument?

When the "trail" goes through a wall of AA, and CAP, you bet. 1500+ paradigm here, not 15...