"Punishes Camping"

The_Chieftain:   Heaven forbid that in a team battle, that a group of inferior players working together with various assets should be able to defeat the best individual player.  Of course, while two or three of the enemy team are dealing with that one good player, that should, in theory, leave a superior number of that good player's team-mates unmolested to do whatever else needs doing, thus helping provide a win.   I have observed, over the four-plus years that I've been playing that the ability to 'encourage' and 'punish' camping can exist at the same time, and seems to come down to the difference between how one perceives a problem, and how a problem actually is. (You should see the "Sherman was a death-trap" arguments, with the position of veterans, and objective numbers not matching). There is no denying that artillery finds stationary targets far the easiest to hit, and will usually aim at them in preference. Predictable targets rank second, and only in matters of desperation, urgency, or a lack of other targets, will they select a moving one. Of course, the player on the receiving end will only notice the times that he was hit. Selective bias. Further, folks who are cowering behind large obstacles in the hope of not providing targets for artillery are effectively taking themselves out of the fight, thus contributing to their eventual defeat. (Also, providing fewer targets to choose from when one courageous guy goes forward). And, of course, folks who cower from too long are under threat from the rare artillery player who understands that their vehicle has tracks, and can move around a bit to get a shot, so the camping only delays the inevitable.   On the other hand, the fear of artillery has encouraged camping, with a players' individual belief that they, personally, are safer should they do so. This is natural enough. It is against normal instinct, for example, to charge into an ambush instead of taking cover, or to stay in a tank when the tank is the target of an air attack. That doesn't mean that instinct is correct, only what people are inclined to do. Thus we have an interesting fight between how a game is intended to be designed, and how the players actually play the game. After all, most players, outside of clans, are not particularly well drilled or trained. Neither, sadly, do they always care about the team as opposed to themselves. Thus the game designers have a problem: The game survives both on the conscious perception of how much fun it is, as well as the subconscious perception of people enjoying a good balanced game without their necessarily knowing it. It can be argued that the way artillery is implemented right now works well, from the perspective of interesting games, at the same time as being hated by a large number of folks. (In other words, people don't necessarily know what's good for them). This doesn't mean that the system cannot be changed. Perhaps there are ways of better attaining both goals, and this is likely what the devs are looking at with their proposed re-work.   Certainly it is.. unlikely that artillery, as it generally exists, is going to be removed. I wouldn't be surprised to see some tweaks, such as maybe playing with alpha, ROF or splash. Until then, however, the reality is that the more stationary you are, the more likely it is you will be hit, and the more mobile and unpredictable you are, the less likely it is you will be hit. No guarantees, but probability.