[Suggestion] Empire Specific Artillery?

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by TankHunterCobra, Mar 28, 2017.

  1. TankHunterCobra

    Okay, I recently had an idea for a new vehicle class, an opportunity to give more Faction Specific Vehicles to the game (what we should have gotten for the flash).

    ESA, or Empire Specific Artillery: A light armored vehicle that focuses on SUPPORTING comrades from long range, it isn't made to hit everything but supress the area if needed. The vehicle would feature a light chassis with a large calibre weapon depending on the faction, It would have 2 seats, a driver & a gunner, however both seats can only be accessed by 1 player. It would be used to park itself on a spot right outside the combat, and give cover fire without having to just rush in with a Vanguard/Lightning. The driver seat is standard, the passenger/gunner seat has a 1st person view of a large map on the screen with a reticle that shows where to aim, while 3rd person view is a large view of outside the vehicle with large marker on where to aim.

    NC Crusader: A 6x6 truck like chassis with a large Howitzer on the back, you might argue that wheels belong on the TR, but it would be slow because of the armor & weaponry (several wheeled artillery IRL are effected the same way) and it fits the NCs insurgent like theme.

    Weapons:
    Thundercrack M2: The default weapon, it is a large low velocity HE weapon. Designed to damage or kill a lot of things in a large radius.
    Viking M8: The second weapon to unlock, a higher velocity with a smaller blast radius, but reloads faster.
    Maelstrom M5: A rocket Artillery box instead of a cannon, it can fire 6 rounds in 1 semi auto solvo, the faster you fire them at once the more it spreads, but the splash damage can vary per round.

    Ability: Lockdown - 4 pod things lock the vehicle to the ground, the accuracy & recoil is greatly reduced, but the vehicle can't move and it takes 5 seconds to deploy. Similar to how a Sunderer deploys.

    TR Badger: A light tracked chassis that has a large pod on the top.

    Weapons:
    Katherine M36: A large rectangular pod with 12 unguided rockets, they have a large spread to cover a large area of effect, each rocket has a small blast radius though.
    Scorpion M40: A large Howitzer that fires a burst of 3 shells when fired, each shell has a low velocity & a decent blast radius.
    Falken M32: A dual barrel Howitzer with a high velocity and a smaller blast radius, fires like a Prowler, but the faster you choose to fire, the more innacurate it is and gives more recoil.

    Ability: Hydraulics - the tracks and wheels are able to shift positions using hydraulic suspensions, so the angle of fire can be of better use on tougher terrain.

    VS Scarab: A large bulky hovering thing with a large plasma launcher at the rear with only 20 degrees worth of traverse on each side. It has low armor & poor driving speed (when compared to the Magrider).

    Weapons:
    XL-9 Seraph: default weapon for the vehicle, fires a large plasma round with poor velocity, but very long range & great accuracy, splash damage is decent but not too great.
    XL-11 Shaman: A low range weapon that fires PPA style projectiles, when the hit surface, create several little explosion effects around the hit area. Each round does little damage itself but the effects increase the area of effect.
    XL-6 Slasher: A small pod that launches 3 medium sized projectiles at once, the fire is auto, but the RoF is slow while the amount of rounds is small, each round does a decent amount of damage with good blast radius.

    Ability: Cloak - the vehicle conceals itself for a few seconds, allowing it to quickly evade heavy fire, but it doesn't last too long.


    That's just my idea for a new vehicle class that could work for all factions. Please take this constructively. This is not going to be in the game 100% if at all, it's only a SUGGESTION.
    • Up x 3
  2. LaughingDead

    Inb4 "It's bad because I dislike more vehicle options even if they sound like a cool idea".

    I like the idea of a vehicle creating a nope zone in an area (since for some reason tanks aren't allowed to do that) but awaiting the next update is practically waiting for the next vehicle nerf. Superficial buffs to vehicle gameplay and content by adding bunkers that vehicles capture, infantry use and actual vehicle physics is some kick in the balls for vehicle players. I don't want to be pulled away from my role just so I can use a dinky bunker, I want to have more roles besides just kill other vehicles.
  3. TR5L4Y3R

    just another addition to the saltwave people cause with tanks and libs from range ... now people can spawncamp savely behind walls ... ...
    i rather would see artillery vehicles as anti PBC base siegeweapons cabaple of busting walls .. so squads can attack hives a wee bit easier .. should be expensive in nanites
    ... so that or anti PBC base BFR´s ...
    imagine bfr´s only to be producable in dedicated constructable bfr terminals
  4. TankHunterCobra

    The role of these vehicles would mainly be anti structure & infantry, if you've seen actual artillery they have massive explosions. It wouldn't be very effective against vehicles & aircraft, but good only against stationary targets with no cover. If something is always on the move it should be hard to hit.
    • Up x 1
  5. Demigan

    A big "no" to mapclicking artillery.

    The artillery that I want would be closer to the Glaive. You deploy it, buy a designator at the artillery itself, walk to your target, designate it, the artillery aims automaticaly and opens fire. Although I would prefer to use a laser-designator instead of the dart-gun the Glaive uses.
    The target has a chance to know he's being fired upon by artillery, there's a much smaller chance people will farm kills from the safety of their artillery since they have to be physically nearby the target and have a direct LOS to use the designator, you are using a single artillery at a time rather than all of them because you buy a designator, you can remove render-range issues by using the render-range of the player who uses the artillery, you can remove the artillery threat by killing the person with the designator and it's less spammable because the designator needs to be bought again at the artillery in question.
    You can also uses guided munitions, allowing the player wielding the designator to guide long-range missiles to their destination if the target tries to evade.

    This pushes artillery truly into a support role, rather than a farm role you would instantly get with map-clicking. It would also allow for small-scale artillery like mortars to be used by infantry for shorter ranged support firepower.

    Your comment instantly negates everyone's ability to say "in b4 tanks are always nerfed".
    Seriously, the developers make an attempt at improving vehicles and you still complain about it. How sad is that? This is exactly what's wrong with the PS2 community: Nothing is ever good enough. Even if they actively give you exactly what you've been asking for in all these years, even if they actively improve vehicle's roles and capabilities, you still can't say anything good about it.
    Go dig a deep hole and be deeply ashamed.
    • Up x 2
  6. BrbImAFK

    Agreed with Demigan (for a change! :p ).

    The last thing we need is more ****ters sitting miles away just spamming HE, potentially from the NEXT HEX! This is not a real war, it's a game. Balance and fun trump realism! That sort of thing isn't fun. It's annoying for the recipients, and boring for the user (a lot like current G2A!).

    We had this in PS1 (the Flail, for those that remember it) and pretty much everybody hated it. This should never happen!
    • Up x 1
  7. LaughingDead


    An "attempt", after all this time. Sure, I don't have anything good to say, shocking, so far they've nerfed every part of a vehicle under the sun and neglect to fix some major bugs regarding them, nothing is ever good enough though? Really? I would've been glad if they fixed hydraulic vehicles, double spawning bugs, collision with the ground, flipping, death spots etc. However even if they did fix all of the bugs, all in one 4 minute hotfix, that still wouldn't mean they added vehicle content after stripping a ****ton of it away, removing thermals and nerfing guns into oblivion and taking years before looking at them again. By adding content I mean different weapons, items that opened up different playstyles, interactions with guns or abilities, buuuuuuuttttt no. So far the only content added was....actually just nothing. Is moving a topgun from one aircraft (lib tailgun and valk noseturret) to the galaxy adding content? If I suddenly gave the medic all the carbines that the engies and lights had, would that really change how medic played at all? I'm glad they're looking at vehicles, I really am, however this https://forums.daybreakgames.com/ps...ghtning-traction-feedback-3-17-update.245174/ is the result of about a month of work, that's guesstimating from the Dev letter that we got oh so long ago. I did think about the time to alter the 3 bases they made changes to, but seriously, if one guy testing a lightning in VR managed to find a bug going up a hill (sick flip btw) then how the hell did it make it to pts when they specifically said that they improved the lightning, how did they miss that? Going up a hill or bumpy road flips and throws you, do they not test it even a little before sending it to pts? Its the equivalent of a kid asking their mom to check to see if their room is done after picking up one toy even if everything in the box is spilled on every corner of the room. At this point I think it is an attempt, but a sore one.

    Lastly I'm saying it's a superficial improvement because all it does is give something ground vehicles to actually ******* do, on the lighter side ground vehicles are just unimpressive, heavier, not in the meta at all. Bunkers just entrench infantry more, it doesn't make vehicles any more fun, it just makes them a sitting open target while they keep the cap from flipping from the one infiltrator sitting on it so the entire bunker doesn't flip to the defenders. I don't have to mention all the ways that ground vehicles are still being completely obliterated by libs, ESFs with AV, turrets on bases, C4 valks, C4 Gals, C4 via jump pad, tank mines (granted in this case that far fewer would actually fall for them, mines on point etc), rocklet and rocket launchers that will always be near the bunkers points, AV mana turrets, not to mention just other tanks in general plinking at defenders from 500 meters because they almost always know where they're gonna be. It is a grungy, thankless role that ground vehicles will get **** on for doing, even if you DO cap the bunker point, what do you do then? Wait til infantry to get their **** together and cap the base? This is not vehicles supporting infantry, this is first part of taking the damn base, you don't get this objective, you don't get that objective, yes vehicle players want MORE to do with the fight, but it being forced like this and on a near meaningless cap that defending will be a deathtrap for them is not doing more with the fight, it is sitting in one place for a period of time required so that you can step out of your tank at cap the base as infantry.

    I think I will dig that hole though, toss PS2 in it if this patch does not shape up.
  8. TankHunterCobra

    Okay, I will say it again, this is a SUPPORT class. I didn't intend up it to be a ESF on the ground. The designation thing I fully disagree with, as it will just be tedious, annoying, confusing & just unnecessary. The map click is not what I'm going for, the 1st person view shows a small holographic map with a very limited view, and has a marker where it THINKS it will hit. The disadvantages of this class would be very low ammo, a long reload time between shots & would have virtually NO defenses against aircraft and tanks. As well as all the weaponry needing a big learning curve due to the need to lead your targets with a low velocity round, and as said it isn't at all intended to shoot noving targets. Mind the fact they are defenseless close range.

    Not everything that Daybreak adds in the game makes it a farming simulator. Stop zerging & putting Sundees in stupid spots and you'd prevent yourself from being farmed.
  9. Demigan

    Not an "attempt", but an attempt. They are looking into vehicles, and especially where it counts: Adding new roles for them to perform, creating more reasons for vehicles to exist and for longer.

    Vehicles have always been way too easy to use for the firepower they give against infantry. The only things nerfed was it's effectiveness against infantry because infantry were even worse off. The developers had only three options at their disposal in this case: Nerf vehicles, buff infantry or a mix of the two. The developers chose nerf vehicles. Not the best solution I think, but better than leaving it as it was.
    So it doesn't matter if the vehicles have been nerfed. As I keep saying, the only thing that matters is "how can we improve the current game, or is it good enough as it is". Even then, infantry AV is woefully underpowered when you take into account the skill required for the users vs the skill the vehicle users need to retaliate or stay safe, with only a few niche combat scenario's where infantry have the high ground and long-range weapons like Lancers where vehicles are at a disadvantage.

    The solution: Finally start upgrading things. Upgrading vehicle handling and vehicle roles. Then move on from there and start upgrading lethality between infantry and tanks again. Ofcourse, starting with upgrades only means you go on about how you feel vehicles have been nerfed all the time, because why would you let some positive changes get in the way of a good amount of moaning eh?

    If you needed Thermals as vehicle user, you never deserved the kills anyway. And vehicle guns remain OHK death machines that require virtually no skill to eliminate infantry just because you accessed a terminal.

    And you have a right to complain because they didn't add something you wanted?
    You know I'm on board for adding new weapons and functionality, but this is just looking for excuses to complain.

    The test environment of developers and the actual live game is often different, just like the VR room and the actual game already have some differences.Hell, just using a different framerate can give you an advantage over other players when climbing stuff. People have also complained about bridges being able to flip you, which I never experienced even when I tried it out, which could again point to it being a clientside problem rather than a serverside or world development problem. This can happen for any number of reasons, which is why it's so good to use a PTS and let a bunch of random PC's and setups go at it.

    So basically you are complaining when vehicles get what they deserve (a better role to play in the game), and act like it's a giant bad thing that it's happening? (with the big chance of being called out for being a hypocrite here).

    "hey here's an idea, I'll just name things that have the ability to kill my vehicle, and act like this is a huge bad thing!"

    This is like infantry complaining that there's multiple different weapons to kill infantry. "Oh look, there's like 15 different Carbines a single infantryguy can wield!". Yes, but he can wield only one at a time, and what the hell does it matter if a weapon does what it's designed for? Hell, weapons like the rocketlauncher don't even really do the job they are build for and are used as anti-infantry weapons more often than anti-vehicle weapons. Other weapons you name are used so little, if an entire server has just about a single organized squad that occasionally uses a C4 Valk or Gal, that's already much.

    Sad, sad, sad. "Oh dear god there's LMG's that can kill infantry, and Carbines, Shotguns, AR's, snipers, scout rifles, Rocketprimaries, Kobalts, Furies, ESAI top guns, MBT primaries, ESF noseguns, Rocketpods, C4, Mines, AI MAX weapons (and some AV MAX weapons), anything can pancake you by driving over you..." the list goes on.

    This is like saying that Infantry don't capture the base because they can't place a Sunderer, which is the most important part in capturing a base most of the time.
    It just gets sadder and sadder. "Oh noes, vehicles now have a role to play, let's just ***** and moan about that role by saying the role isn't actually a role".

    "Waaaah, they are upgrading the things I want but I want mohohoore" *sniffles*
    • Up x 3
  10. TankHunterCobra

    I didn't read much of either of your comments simply because of lack of time, but please don't argue here.
  11. FateJH

    It's inevitable, I'm afraid.
  12. TankHunterCobra

    It's sad that every time a good idea is put on there's always replies that say "hurr durr more ways to farm" and not much else.
  13. Demigan

    It's sad that when the replies are true, the OP then hides behind "everyone says this".

    Your idea makes it super easy to shoot massive AOE shots outside of your LOS into infantryblobs, with far less risks than any other vehicle.

    Also, did you notice my reaction? All I'm against is the way you let the weapons be fired, not the weapons itself.
    • Up x 1
  14. TankHunterCobra

    yes I saw it, but it seems way to complicated and "reaslistic" for it to work. The fact that so many things should counter it should be enough, if an artillery piece is "farming" a huge group, that group should start looking for, and destroyed the artillery, instead of respawning and/or going back to the place they are being farmed in. Farming would only happen if you just ignored it and kept there. "far less risks"... yes, because I totally pointed out it can't enter combat short range and almost everything can still kill it.
    • Up x 1
  15. Demigan

    It works for the Glaive currently, only the setup I proposed would require far less work than the overly long time to setup the Glaive.

    "So many things should counter it"? That's your defense? So let's say we add in a new tank that fires TV-guided Redeemer shots (the Redeemer is a tactical nuke from the Unreal universe that basically blows up anything in it's radius). Massively OP ofcourse, except "everyone should be trying to counter it!" so it's balanced!
    An artillery would be too easily set up in places where their victims, and that's what they are, victims, wouldn't be able to counter them because they would have to wade through a ton of infantry and tanks to even get a whiff of the artillery. Also consider that the attackers are guaranteed to have vehicle superiority while the defenders don't have enough vehicles because they lost the vehicle battle and the attackers had the opportunity to move their Sunderers up to the enemy base, these artillery pieces would be able to safely farm infantry.
  16. TankHunterCobra

    by "victims" you mean a failed TR zerg?
  17. TankHunterCobra

    If that scenario is what I think it is, while tanks and sunderers are rushing, they will most likely get the kills before the artillery see, and kill them. They wouldn't be farmers unless the opposition was going full ****** and hopelessly wasting units by rushing like crazy with no thought.

    Your TV-guided rocket argument was pointless, the point is that it can't directly fight tanks or aircraft from close distance, so if a MBT sees it, it is screwed unless it has cover. Mind you I also pointed out that they would only have a small ammunition size so they couldn't set up camp somewhere for 10 minutes (without a repair sundee ofc). The point of artillery itself is to be right outside the action supporting allied push, that's basically what Artillery is designed to do.

    As for the Glaive, I haven't played PS1 at all, but still, I don't see a designation system and what not to be useful, realistic yes, but not beneficial for gameplay, hell, not even ArmA does that, at least not that complex. And considering this games place in time, using old gulf war methods of artillery isn't logical. I like to keep things simple because god lord this game is already unfriendly to new players with all the bull**** you need to learn.
  18. LaughingDead


    It's almost like 20% was actually responding, other was just being dumb. There are obvious differences between infantry and vehicles, but oh man, can vehicles always kill infantry inside a building, from 500 meters away because clearly all vehicles are OP ever and always make better certs than anything ever dur.

    So I'll respond to crap that actually seemed reasonable.

    No, my point was after a month, vehicle physics got worse on their PTS, no other changes to actual values were given, you'd think that vehicle handling would be separate from vehicle numbers and mechanics, SO WHY NOT INCLUDE BOTH YOU MIGHT ASK? (But you didn't) I doubt they have any sort of idea of doing what you think they're doing. Or never going to do. Look, a lot of vehicle players and even a lot of infantry players I played with frequently simply lefts because this was just getting too stupid. Nerfing thermals was never going to hurt good vehicle players, but this screwed anyone who actually wanted to learn by starting with infantry. BUT EVEN WHEN 98% OF ALL INFANTRY DEATHS AREN'T VEHICLES, they're still op because they seem like gods or something, the basis of nerfing because of that simple feeling of "my gun doesn't damage it, must be OP" is completely stupid.

    Plus it's pretty obvious that the devs nerf based on the highest level instead of balancing for the lowest, look at goodgood, got bulldogs nerfed because he and anti literally killed thousands of players with a bulldog because he could aim. Yet even if the next highest amount of kills for the bulldog wasn't anywhere near antis, nerf the gal by adding a rocket launcher that destroys the supposedly tanky troop transport and make it a good all around rocket launcher too, not only that, but nerf the bulldogs and screw anyone trying to aurax the gal, BECAUSE VEHICLES ARE SO OP? Ironically a lot of anti-vehicle players (the ones that actually play vehicles) don't really regard goodgood as good (lol) but able to tank most of what vehicles could throw at him, but devs wanted a piss easy way for infantry to kill it so masamune. Totes fair.
    But hey, don't take my word for it, take some instances of one player doing just that and killing a lot of things with the masa

    You mean to tell me that the last bits of content over several months was NSX weapons that did nothing but give leetist infantry something to jack off and throw away isn't worth complaining over when we still have stupid bugs that ruin the experience? Damn, I must be scraping the bottom of the barrel here.

    You can drive a ******* lightning at 60 FPS just to see if it flips or not. Not just make changes push to PTS which is what it looked like in the video. Yes they should've pushed it to PTS, but in this state of being obviously flawed what's the point? It's like stating look at the changes when it's obvious at what the players are going to say, that's stupid and a waste of effort and time.

    Better role is a matter of opinion. They are getting a point to cap, that's not much of a role. Any infantry (except maxes, GASP) can sit on a control point and say they did something, vehicles can cap a point as well and say they did something, "hey I just killed this sunderer from the attacking team, I did something!" "Oh yea? I flipped this point by standing on it!". Again, it's something to do, this doesn't mean it's better, I don't say it's better because 95% (or more) the point for infantry is in a closed defendable location inside a base that vehicles generally don't have access to, you either get pushed out by maxes (which actually I've found just generally stupid to use, infantry heavy seems far easier) or by other infantry. In an open field setting, vehicles get pushed out by whatever damages vehicles, on these control points there is no cover for tanks or sundis, if something wants you dead, you are more often than not going to be dead if you stay in that one spot, but you need that one spot to cap the base.

    And yes, I think this is a bad thing. This is just a tacked on forced interaction that's more painful to vehicles than it is actually inclusive to the fight. It's like your mom inviting that one weird kid to your birthday party because why not and he ends up licking all the frosting off of your cake, this is awkward, painfully annoying and just forced mechanic. Imagine if you just had an anti-vehicle team with a bunch of rocket launchers from 400 meters away in a cloaked sundi, 5 people is all you need to coordinate strikes that kill tanks efficiently. Infantry can get to the point, lose nothing even if they die because infantry are free, losing a tank is 9 minutes of having to build resources to get a tank, instantly losing it should not happen as easily as getting decked by a lib or an esf or any of the ez methods I mentioned before (except tank mines, but that's ez free kills isn't it?), vehicles being more involved with the fight previously was killing infantry, keeping lanes down, dev's nerfed that into the ground so vehicles kill other vehicles, now that the attacking team does not need a sundi and can simply use the bunker, what next?
    But eh, what do you care? Ya got what ya want, infantry being more lethal to vehicles right? Well now vehicles won't even be needed! That's pretty damn effective in a business standpoint. Why eliminate your competition when they have nothing to compete with?
    • Up x 1
  19. TheZetifate1745

    If your gonna add artillery magrider gun should be removed of bullet drop and the artilleries should be able to two shot prowler no matter what and 3 shot vanguard. And they should do 4x dmg to player made bases and turrets just what i think.
  20. TankHunterCobra

    This guy RIGHT HERE gets it, what's funny is I tried to say the same thing when I played BF4.

    No, Infantry should not survive a cluster of explosions, 20mm fire, and HE tank shells, I don't care what type of "armor" these futuristic soldiers have, they shouldn't survive a whole solvo of rockets while basically saying f*** you and killing you in seconds, thats why casuals & console peasants ruined Battlefield, and it's started to ruin planetside. A tank is a tank, a human is a human, the tank should win regardless
    • Up x 1