Where is the earth shattering kaboom?!?!?

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by L1ttlebear, Nov 7, 2013.

  1. TheBloodEagle

    You have no idea how exactly it would even be used aside from VanuLabs showing a glimpse. I'm sure once people start using what the OP is talking about, if implemented, people like you would whine anyway since you're already patronizing Orbital Strikes.
  2. chakx

    This game badly needs a Illidium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator.
  3. ABATTLEDONKEY

    Please, assumptions are dangerous.

    I've started a few threads on ps2's need for arty. I've given exapmles of arty that I think should be in game. I LOVE artillery, from the dealing end, to the receiving end. So no, I woudlnt.

    I don't complain about much, and that which I do complain about all have a common demoninator: simplification. Ill complain about lock-ons, or universal weapons, but ill NEVER complain about something just because its powerful. Especially if it takes a crew to operate. No, I only complain when devs introduce a weapon that is effective, as well as easy to use. That's why I like the OP's idea. Full effectivness, incredibly horrible user friendly qualities. I don't care how many times I get nuked by it, I would still love it.

    OS is by nature a form of what I call "magic atry". Its not player controlled. Its more of an ability from an RPG that you would see for area denial. There is no method of implimentation that could make the OS player controlled. Something like static, or mobile artillery vehicles would accomplish a similar task of the OS, but unlike magic arty, their effectivness would be determined by the skill of the user AS WE'LL as the skill of his enemy, and NOT simple by the code.
  4. ABATTLEDONKEY

    Per the "DCX" you are correct. My apologies. OP should have stated it as "BF1942 mod desert combat DCX". Le google has let me down :(

    Per the rest of it, eat a snickers. Seriously. Are you in the age group the OP is talking about? Lol. I know the Op from playing with him. He's a joker, and while there's a hint of truth to ever joke, its largely tounge in cheek. He's a bit brash. IMO we CA lovers have good reason to have conpempt towards the younger generation of gamers. Less invoved, more entitled, and WAY to easy to manipulate, the younger generation has allowed caming companies to create forumlas for development which provides us, the gamers, with 1/10 the content, at larger prices, and they are so spoiled that they demand symetrical games because they have no appreciation of the mental aspect of gaming, and only wish to see fast paced, high reward action. My opinions of course, and how the youngins I feel that I HAVE to lay down this disclaimer: generalizations are not indications of PERSONAL characteristics.
  5. BoomBoom4You

    orbital strike will be cool once they get around to it...

    but i think a super-weapon that can only be used very sparingly and with lots of teamwork would be really cool.
  6. Jackyl

    My idea for artillery is below. Keep in mind all ranges in brackets [ ] are just off the top of my head for example without checking how they actually work out spatially in-game.

    -
    -
    -

    The vehicle would be a modular trailer towed behind the sunderer. This would only be available at the warpgate or possibly tech plant and would cost all 750 armored resources.

    Range and Physical Description- The modular system would be available in anti-armor (EMP Overload Round) or anti-personnel (Large Radius Low Mass Shrapnel Round or LRLMSR). Either would have a minimum range of [100m] and a maximum range of [1500m - 2500m]. It would use the model from the tech plant NS artillery http://conceptartworld.com/wp-conte..._Weapon_Concept_Art_by_Roel-Jovellano_01a.jpg and the barrel would change based on the type (AP or AI) being distinct enough to identify at range

    Damage - The kill radius of the anti-armor would be somewhere in the area of [10m] one shot destroy for all but armored sunderers. All non-max infantry would be concussed and de-shielded by the blast but otherwise unharmed, maxes would be killed. The anti-infantry version would have a descending kill radius of [10m] with damage dropping to 0 at [20m]. Armor would receive concussion inside [10m] but no damage, Maxes would receive concussion and no damage [11m-20m] and concussion with light damage inside the [10m].

    Cert Cost - The sunderer driver would have to spend the certs for the add-on. Something silly high like 2500 or more each. Equipping it would lock out all the other sunderer slots: no AMS, GSD, Armor, Mineguard, or performance chassis equip-able. Weapons for the sunderer would still be available for point defense of the rig.

    Deployment and Firing - The sunderer would tow the trailer to the desired location, and deploy. Deploying would drop the trailer and start the animation for deployment. The weapon would take about 30 seconds to deploy and another 30 to prepare the chamber for the first firing. Once deployed it would be locked in place, would institute a large [50m] no deploy zone for other artillery and be unable to be un-deployed. Firing would only require 1 player but reload time would be 90 seconds reduced by 30 seconds per extra crewman active on the weapon up to 3. It would take a full crew 30 seconds to reload the chamber. The gunners interface would change to the map upon entering the gunners position with an area inside the minimum and max ranges highlighted. Firing would be clicking on the map, the cursor would be a representation of the weapons kill radius. The gunner would receive no map spotting and would be unable to see waypoints inside the gunner seat, grid-lines would be available but the map would lack all topography.

    Guidance - A couple of squad leader certs for laser targeting would be available for relatively low cert cost around 500 starting and up to 2000 for full speed. This would allow a squad leader to laser target an area for precise fire once every 1 minute at full cert. It would mini-map mark the user, take 3-5 seconds to lock the target, and would require an artillery gunner in the squad for operation. Squad leader swapping would require a resupply to acquire the laser targeting device. Pseudo blind fire would be available by a second extremely cheap cert that basically just transfers ownership of the projectile to the squad leader for hit detection (basically under the hood stuff for the client side hit detection). Communication with the squad leader in the AO would be required to relay enemy positions by grid location and fire semi-accurately.

    Miscellaneous items - The first firing would place the battery on the map of where it would stay for 1 minute or until destroyed. It would have an armor rating similar to an un-armored lighting tank and would require angular line of sight to the target. All 3 possible crew members avatars would be in the open and susceptible to fire. All experience for kills would be shared equally among squad members with the target designator and the gunner receiving a small bonus around 10%.
    -
    -
    -





    I think I have that pretty fleshed out it wouldn't require more than two people to put rounds on target but with a full squad it would really shine. I would really like to see some field artillery in the game so I have given it some thought. If I missed something balance wise other than ranges let me know I may try to float it as a full on suggestion.
  7. ABATTLEDONKEY


    really like the premise of the idea (extremely powerful, extremely expensive, and extremely limited), but your firing/aiming method is, IMO, horrendous. Point and click aiming? really? Im sorry but ou have to have the system be MORE than just clicking on a map. Thats BF3 mortar style right there.

    I would be in favor of your system is the following changes were made.
    -decrease load time. 90 seconds is WAYYYYYYY to long. decrease it to about 20-30
    -Require a spotter to spot a particular portion of the map. Give a gunner an aiming system that is very inaccurate (the gun is accurate, but not the aiming system), and allow the gunner to pin point his aim using instinctual aiming. Basically copy this:

    -allow sundy weapons to stay available for defense
    -force spotter to maintain spot or gunner will loose his sight.


    Theres a dozen ways to implement arty into this game. Making is spammable is a bad idea. making it cheap and available to all personal is a bad idea. you got rid of both of those problems, but making it an easy operation to pull off is equally bad. Teamwork should not help you with artillery, it should be a requirement just to use it.
  8. L1ttlebear

    Thats a REALLY good idea jackyl but i agree with ABATTLEDONKEY as well. If you make a system like that, it needs to require teamwork just to operate and would need an aiming system that is not point and click. We all know where the choke points are so making point and click would be to easy. I like the idea of arty being able to concuss infantry and tankers alike without directly damaging them. That would give an arty system an additional function :)

    To bad that higgles already said "i dont think that arty has a place in this game"

    This game is a time passer until someone brave enough comes out with a TRUE CA game on this scale. Sony started out with the right idea, massive battles, naval warfare, unique and challenging weapons. then they looked at COD and BF4 as competitors (which they are not) and decided to try to bring the game down to thier level :(
    • Up x 1
  9. ABATTLEDONKEY

    bump for good measure
  10. tproter

    I give you chaps all the credit in the world for continuing to fight the good fight with SOE.

    In the end though, you must know deep in your hearts that it's all for naught.
  11. ABATTLEDONKEY


    :( capt depresso strikes again.

    yea, we all know that the SOE dev team has neither the juevos, nort the desire to make this game on par with its true potential. The infantry crowd would NEVER allow a device that could kill them from afar despite all the limitations one could put on that system. Its interesting, though, to ping these kinds of ideas off of other like-minded individuals and see what everyone thinks :)
  12. tproter

    I'd much prefer the moniker "Captain Realistic" myself.

    I'm all for honest, frank discussion to make a game like PS2 the best that it can possibly be. I myself use BF4 to illustrate where PS2 could become a better all around game.

    The problem is when gamers are so fixated on what they'd like to see happen, that they end up mistaking "wishful thinking" for "it'll be that way soon".
  13. DeadliestMoon

    No.
  14. Jovisfulmen

    You need to realise arrogance is not necessary, because being a little older does not make your I.Q higher. Biologically it is even the opposite, so...
  15. ABATTLEDONKEY



    Ha ha. Capt Real it is.

    Noone here (that i know of) legitimately believes that SOE actually listens to us in this regard. We all know they listen to the Green god, and tweak things here and there to satisfy the easy base. I, personally, went through the BF3 debacle after being a hard core BF fan since 1942's release. I am under no illusion on how gaming companies work

    out of curiosity, what do you mean when you say that BF4 is your index in how PS2 could be a better game?
  16. ABATTLEDONKEY

    Hes joking around. OP needs to learn that sarcasm is often times misunderstood on forums


    Nope but it makes you a heck of alot wiser, and OFTEN times, MUCH MUCH more intelligent. Young people dont run the world, and theres a VERY good reason for it.


    ??? please explain, with sources, how you biologically start to degrade at 20 yrs old. Your spine isnt even fully grown until around 25 or so.
    • Up x 1
  17. tproter

    I just find BF4 to offer a much more fun gaming experience than PS2. The graphics, sounds, and gameplay just offer a gamer a much more visceral experience. Just my opinion and not offered as fact.

    I will say that PS2 has so much more potential going for it. Regrettably, it's a potential that has been squandered. If only SOE had done things differently.
  18. ABATTLEDONKEY



    Isnt BF4 still in BETA?

    I agree that its all opinions Capr Real. I HATED BF3 and think BF4 looks like the same garbage lol. to each his own!
  19. Meliorist

    Weapons of mass destruction and doomsday devices would only work if it required a vast amount of resources across a large number of players. Something only practical when a large group of players pool their resources into it.
    Come to think of it, I'd be all for it if it were implemented like that. It'd require some form of interface for players to contribute their resources and who gets ownership of the weapon, and it'd require good balancing, but it could work. Mass destruction would certainly spicen things up if nothing else. :)

    Off the top of my head some ideas for this could be a new incarnation of the bfr, being really freaking big, for 6000 mechanized resources. An orbital bombardement for 6000 Aerospace resources. A tactical nuke for 4000 mechanized + 4000 aerospace resources. Just throwing some thoughts and numbers out there, there's plenty of possabilities.

    I can only begin to imagine the grief points for mass teamkilling when dropping a nuke near a friendly zerg who won't stay clear though. :p
  20. tproter

    I hated BF3 myself. But I find DICE fixed just about everything I hated about BF3 in BF4, which is why I pretty much compare PS2 to BF4 now.