Another Artillery Thread

[NoDachi]

3 people having to reload?

Terrible idea.

[OutlawDr]

Originally Posted by NoDachi

3 people having to reload?

Terrible idea.

Yep, making artillery a pain in the ass and unenjoyable is not the solution. Making it more 'realistic' doesn't address the standing gameplay issues that people have with artillery. The problem is that its indirect combat with a low skill ceiling that has the potential to deny large groups of players in an area from engaging in actual skilled gameplay. We need to address that first.

[Buggsy]

Originally Posted by OutlawDr

Yep, making artillery a pain in the ass and unenjoyable is not the solution. Making it more 'realistic' doesn't address the standing gameplay issues that people have with artillery. The problem is that its indirect combat with a low skill ceiling that has the potential to deny large groups of players in an area from engaging in actual skilled gameplay. We need to address that first.

The only low-skill stuff I see is running around and just shooting.

Originally Posted by Gonzo

I get that you guys are trying to avoid the problems of the flail, but this is just overkill.

If you implemented artillery where 3 players do nothing but sit there and hold E for 10 seconds, every 30 seconds or so, NO ONE WILL USE IT. You might as well leave it out of the game.

And people suggest SPGs because a towed arty would be ridiculous. "Oh just let me cert into the tow hitch for the Sunderer so we can move this howitzer we spawned" Fun stuff.

I agree that it should take more than one person, and targeting should be limited with out support of some kind or expensive sidegrades.(ex. high-lvl cert into cam-guided shells, sacrificing damage and ammo capacity)

But leave Arty as an SPG, and don't have more than one damn reloader.

You don't have to use it if you don't have the patience.

The SPG Flail was overpowered...because it was self propelled.

[lastus]

It'd be cool to have a way to spec a MAX unit into a arty role. Maybe have it be able to go into a fixed position and have a mortar mounted onto its back. It would be able to load automatically but would be vulnerable to enemy fire when in a fixed position. Don't know if they had anything like that in ps1 but it'd be a more usable artillery system for people who want to get into the combat.

[Phisionary]

Originally Posted by Buggsy

The only low-skill stuff I see is running around and just shooting.

You can program the AI to do that, then. I'll program the AI that does the more skilled job, "E" holding.

There is no need for crew anywhere in the firing process. That's why I think that there should be no crew at all for artillery. The only necessary player is the one doing line-of-sight targeting.

I'm not sure the point of having non-self-propelled artillery. It doesn't make any sense in the context of the game, either. It would just make it unfriendly to use, and logistically idiotic. Making gameplay a PITA isn't a way to balance, IMO.

[Buggsy]

Originally Posted by Phisionary

You can program the AI to do that, then. I'll program the AI that does the more skilled job, "E" holding.

There is no need for crew anywhere in the firing process. That's why I think that there should be no crew at all for artillery. The only necessary player is the one doing line-of-sight targeting.

I'm not sure the point of having non-self-propelled artillery. It doesn't make any sense in the context of the game, either. It would just make it unfriendly to use, and logistically idiotic. Making gameplay a PITA isn't a way to balance, IMO.

Don't use the word "logistics" in a game where players magically teleport into existence.

If the artillery is mobile and easily soloable than it will be nerfed into uselessness or not even exist at all.

[Phisionary]

Originally Posted by Buggsy

Don't use the word "logistics" in a game where players magically teleport into existence.

If the artillery is mobile and easily soloable than it will be nerfed into uselessness or not even exist at all.

If it takes five human players (magically teleported or not) to do what an electric motor could probably do--even in real life, today--it's still a problem of logistics.

If artillery is slightly mobile (deploy-to-fire), almost-uselessly soloable (who would defend it?), requires LOS targeting, and needs to be actively defended to be of substantial use... I think it can be both balanced and fun to play.

[Plissket]

Originally Posted by OutlawDr

Yep, making artillery a pain in the ass and unenjoyable is not the solution. Making it more 'realistic' doesn't address the standing gameplay issues that people have with artillery. The problem is that its indirect combat with a low skill ceiling that has the potential to deny large groups of players in an area from engaging in actual skilled gameplay. We need to address that first.

I totally agree with this one.

I'd love the idea of artillery being in the game from a realism point of view, but I would hate the idea of people just running around and then exploding because someone 4km away fired a shell randomly at an area. (In PS1 they were generally used to fire at a vehicle terminal over and over and over.....exciting stuff ).

There is nothing players can do against that, so until that bit is fixed I think the idea is dead from a gameplay perspective.

On the same note as artillery PS1's orbital strike is also sucky for the same reasons. With that there is no warning, no Star wars 1 style graphics of the bad guy's spaceship lining up its shot to an area, no increasing drama of the mega weapon about to be used, just a column of light and blat your gone.