Opinion Poll: Artillery

ok, so what would everyone rather have? Orbital Strike or an Artillery piece?... and who says the Arty needs to be long range? Why can't it a mobile Mortar plat form that fires large rounds in a short distance over walls, and ontop on things...

Yes, the game needs artillery. However, we need a resource system first, or else it will just be spammed like everything else.

Are you people just upset that MBTs don't have enough of an arc? Because we have artillery, essentially. Anyone who thinks gal bulldogs and lockdown prowlers and liberators aren't enough is clearly insane.

As Higby said, the game doesn't need any more things that can kill me in a way I can't react to.

NopE!!! Cause 70 people spamming this on a point they want to protect is GG.

i would much rather have artillery which could be suppressed and destroyed than an OS that i can't do anything about

Im going to go against the grain of the generally ignorant populace of forumside and say that arty is absolutely needed. No mainstream game, in the last 3-5 years has implemented arty in a correct fashion, to those tho have little experience have a VERY bad taste in their mouth. those of us that played games during the "golden age" of gaming (when gameplay was more important than graphics and character goodies) know just how fun arty can be, both for the user, as well as the victim.

In this game, the single largest contributor to boring (IMO) gameplay is the massive amounts of players, congested into tight areas where EVERYTHING is simply spammed. There are numerous ways to counter this frustrating, and monotonous gameplay, and artillery is one of them. Artillery could easy be implemented in such a way that it was difficult to use, easy to counter (not for the whiny little infantry), and effective against large groups, without being spammable. In all of the arty threads I have been involved in, the end result is ALWAYS the same: the fears about arty are soley based on the fear of HORRIBLE design, and NOT the theory of an indirect fire weapon.

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=212041295

Im all for Long Range Artillary. But it has to be expensive, with a large(ish) cooldown and repurchase timer, a decently long Time-To-Target, deviation from pointed target based on distance, and a **** load of stopping power with the ability to see it coming.

And what about having such a valuable piece to be unlocked by levels? say only level 40+ can unlock the arty vehicle? Also what about instead of mobile Arty, certain bases had the Arty stationed there that could only fire a few territory's over... and required some sort of Laser guided system that had to be unlocked with Certs with the cost of Infantry points and is not reuseable like C4. Make it a universal item for all classes, but really expensive in infantry points

We have it bad enough with tanks hitting bases and shelling spawns to where defenders can't walk out of it with full health or worse, and bulldog galaxies that never seem to go down doing the same from above. To have this in game would absolutely demolish infantry combat and ground vehicles as your base will be lost the moment it comes under combined bombardment from air, armor, and artillery. This is the same reason why orbital strikes would be a bad idea, as people would just point it at the spawn doors and blast away.

More problems than it would solve.

Cholera?

Yes, we do need artillery. No it doesn't have to take the form of a howitzer cannon... what it needs to be, is something that acts as infantry displacement/area denial.

I'd say implementation would be simple, just a matter of putting it together as such that it is easy to disable, spotted on the map, and something that provides ample warning. I'd say artillery probably shouldn't even really be -Deadly- as much as it be something that would dissuade or move people. You could do this by by means of gas attacks or microwave emitters, or something like that.

As to Why: Because area denial is something we desperately need. People can move where ever, whenever... there are no means of making an area something that people want to avoid, and because of that you have no way of really limiting the approach of your enemy. This is another one of those things that could help with the dispersal of zergs (Set up area denial, and watch them scatter like cockroaches as they scuttle around it in a disorganized fashion).

***Being Detectable*** I like the idea of that, perhaps have an option for a sunderer to equip "Counter Battery Radar"... so when players are in an area with it, and arty is being launched, it posts on the screen of the players so they could perhaps find ample cover?

Yup. Lets turn this into a more plausible war game rather than glorified CS.

Specifically five of these things spamming endlessly into the middle of something like The Octagon... However, I think it might be worth the experiment on the test server.

No,

It has no role in this game, you would have to have a Shield unit to counter it. Give sundies a shield utility that when certed up extends the range if the shield.

YES!

we need some form of indirect-fire artillery. a game of this large scale needs it and it only makes sense given the large continents, big fights and zerging. even battlefield with its comparatively "tiny" maps has indirect-fire artillery (multiple rocket launcher artillery as well as man-portable mortars)

i'd suggest three artillery components to be added to the game:
1) portable NS Mortar for Engineer class (can be deployed quickly, moderate splash/damage)
2) NS Howitzer module for Sunderer (good splash/damage, Sunderer can't use AMS or transport troops though)
3) Empire-specific Heavy Howitzer vehicles (like the american M109 Paladin) where VS = high range, NC = high damage, TR = high firerate

that said, longrange artillery could be the best counter to tank zergs.

I can see this as the ultimate griefing tool. In the past, I thought it would be awesome to have a weapon that could shell entrenched enemy... and then I thought about it.

Best we can have is the Dalton.

Polls are not permitted per the SOE Forum Guidelines.