Indirect Artillery Vehicle - Page 2

Chaff · 2013-05-04, 12:25 PM

Flail Redux ? Tough call. It's a spam (primarily) weapon. I used it. Not very often. Once or twice a month. Always felt a little cheap & dirty. Usually, if I knew we were going to lose a long contested fight - that would essentially guarantee the other side an eventual Cont Lock ...... I would pull a Flail .... so I could spam their CY after they had full CY control and were in the process of mopping up the last dozen of my empire mates deep inside the lower base. That's pretty gay. When I was in POOR LOSER MODE ..... that's 75% of the time I remember pulling a Flail. If you tried to use it corretly - to break the CY defense of a base your empire was attacking .... it usually only took but a handfull of shots before you were a TKing asshat. The LR-artillary idea is sound. The actual gameplay isn't. Well, it wasn't in PS1. Too many negatives outweigh the limited benefits. Also, there are too many PROFESSIONAL GREIFERS (in PS2)...... let's NOT give them such a great TK tool.

Figment · 2013-05-04, 12:33 PM

Granted flails wouldn't have been as bad in PS1 had there been a requirement for spotters as then you could hunt down the infils.

But Ps2 has completely different design. The spawnroom was protected in PS1, it is not in PS2, the amount of terrain to camp is much smaller in PS2 due to the modular building design and that's causing sufficient problems as is.

Timealude · 2013-05-04, 03:23 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

Granted flails wouldn't have been as bad in PS1 had there been a requirement for spotters as then you could hunt down the infils.

But Ps2 has completely different design. The spawnroom was protected in PS1, it is not in PS2, the amount of terrain to camp is much smaller in PS2 due to the modular building design and that's causing sufficient problems as is.

OS could help with the artillery spam even if the spawns are some what unprotected. I think that if they do add this in a separate vehicle rather then the rumored attachment for the MBT, It needs to have a long timer for it as to avoid it becoming like the prowler siege currently.

Whiteagle · 2013-05-04, 04:49 PM

Originally Posted by Timealude

OS could help with the artillery spam even if the spawns are some what unprotected. I think that if they do add this in a separate vehicle rather then the rumored attachment for the MBT, It needs to have a long timer for it as to avoid it becoming like the prowler siege currently.

That and either Paper Armor or an exposed Operation...

JeffBeefjaw · 2013-05-04, 08:46 PM

What is this "flail" you talk of?

ringring · 2013-05-05, 04:39 AM

Originally Posted by Figment

Granted flails wouldn't have been as bad in PS1 had there been a requirement for spotters as then you could hunt down the infils.

But Ps2 has completely different design. The spawnroom was protected in PS1, it is not in PS2, the amount of terrain to camp is much smaller in PS2 due to the modular building design and that's causing sufficient problems as is.

There were anti-flail people. Given your playstyle these were often cloakers.

Phantasm->hack flail -> get kill ->deconstruct flail

Shogun · 2013-05-05, 07:07 AM

Originally Posted by ringring

There were anti-flail people. Given your playstyle these were often cloakers.

Phantasm->hack flail -> get kill ->deconstruct flail

would be impossible in ps2 due to no vehicle hacking.
but it has been said, we don´t need even more spawnspamming, and that is what a flail would be used for in ps2 99.9% of the time.

Ghoest9 · 2013-05-05, 08:35 AM

Indirect fire can only hurt PS2 - potentially it could hurt it badly.

It has nothing to do with balance and everything to do with making the targets resentful and unhappy.

Staticelf · 2013-05-05, 08:41 AM

So would you anti-artillery agree that indirect artillery used properly would get people to move out ove their bases and take the fights into the open because staying in the base would mean explosive death?

If so that is exactly why Im proposing it! The best battles I have seen take place BETWEEN bases in the enviroment not in the bases where instead of massive combat you get a bunch of 1v1 mini battles. So if it would force us out of bases then it is doing exactly what it is supposed to. And yes it should have no armor and/or easy to kill gunner. So that you have to protect them from the angry enemy coming out to find you.

Staticelf · 2013-05-05, 08:43 AM

Im sorry I didnt play PS1 but I think comparimg the two is getting old and is a little pointless. From what I have seen PS1 was definitely not ps2 on crappy graphics mode it was its own fps game and shouldnt drag down this one just because something didnt work in a vid game 10 yrs ago...computer science has come a ways since Halo 1 was the king fps

ringring · 2013-05-05, 09:37 AM

Originally Posted by Shogun

would be impossible in ps2 due to no vehicle hacking.
but it has been said, we don´t need even more spawnspamming, and that is what a flail would be used for in ps2 99.9% of the time.

I don't know if we could get any spawn spamming than we already do. If a flail tried it there would be a lot of dead friendlies.

Remember we are going to get artillery namely the new OS.

Personally I don't think a new flail with spotters would work, battle fronts are too mobile - but maybe the rush lanes will change this.

Canaris · 2013-05-05, 10:12 AM

Originally Posted by Staticelf

Im sorry I didnt play PS1 but I think comparimg the two is getting old and is a little pointless. From what I have seen PS1 was definitely not ps2 on crappy graphics mode it was its own fps game and shouldnt drag down this one just because something didnt work in a vid game 10 yrs ago...computer science has come a ways since Halo 1 was the king fps

Yes let's just throw away all the lessons we learned from over a decade of MMOFPS gaming just because the graphics are in your opinion cruddy

You'll understand why I dismiss your opinion out of hand on this matter.

Phantomdestiny · 2013-05-05, 10:34 AM

what about we wait for the rush lanes as Higby calls the new lattice hybrid before we do anything . Artillery can be useful or could just brake the game however we are getting orbital strikes so how about we wait and check for those .

Shogun · 2013-05-05, 10:51 AM

yep. orbital strikes can break the game enough. no need for a secondary gamebreaker of the same type

and @ staticelf: you are right, ps1 is not ps2 on crappy graphics mode. ps1 was a lot deeper than ps2 is. but from 10 years of experience we know what parts of ps1 did work and what didn´t work. artillery didn´t work. there were a lot of great things in ps1 that ps2 is missing, artillery is not one of them.

Staticelf · 2013-05-05, 11:03 AM

Canaris...thank you for dismissing my opinion...which begs the question why are you posting here then as this post IS my opinion on a new vehicle idea.