Making Air Power more practical in PS

[Peacemaker]

Well I was talking to Lartnev in IRC and this whole idea was formed in my mind in a few minutes. I dub it one of the best ideas I have ever come up with.

Ok so .... one new vehicle will be added and one new base type.

The vehicle would be the Inteceptor class aircraft. It does not have the ability to hover and flys at around 150 - 175 kts with no AB. It carries 2 - 4 Air to Air Missles. These missles have difficulty hitting a fast moving or turning target (I.E. A mossy or a reaver that is on the move and evading). They are designed to take down Liberators, galaxies, and lodestars. It also is armed with a 25mm cannon like the liberators tail gun that is mounted center line. They have to be spawned at an Air Control Center and can only be rearmed and repaired there since they can only land there.

The base is obviously an Air Control Center. It is biult into the side of a hill and is mostly underground. It has a few scattered flack style turrets and a tower like structure over the main door with 4 Phalnax turrets. The hangar is underground and is opened out into the side of the hill (think of the rebel base from starwars) and the tower is the only visible part of the base from above. To get inside the base you have to first take the tower CC which opens the door into the base. Now its a normal attack. The inside of the base should be relativly easy to take... not many internal defensive measures. Its all about the tower upstairs. The base has 2 Air Terminals for spawning reavers mossys or libs (you need no techplant for these) and 2 Air Launch Pads for Intys.

To land an inty you simply fly it into the hangar and hit g. You can now rearm and repair... you can also do the new addition of refueling your aircraft here. This is the big change to the way aircraft would work in PS. If you have ever opened the trunk of your aircraft you know there is alot of dead space between the edge of the trunk and the ammo. In that dead space goes fuel cells. Every type of aircraft use fuel cells at a diffrent rate. If you run out of gas you crash... plane and simple. There are two ways to get more gas... return to the air control center and refuel at the rearm/ repair pads there (these work without a gal center) or you can go to a linked base from an ACC and refuel there if you have a hover type aircraft. YOU CANNOT REFUEL AT TOWERS. You can carry fuel in your backpack too.

Just some extra info: ACC's are at the edges of a continent, they are normaly a 2nd base that could be caped. There are two per small continent (solsar) and 3 per big one (Cyssor).

[Baneblade]

I don't think any kind of minimum speed vehicle will work in PS. The game was clearly designed to stay away from that theme.

[JetRaiden]

I want a more complex flight engine, but one thats also rewarding. the reaver feels like a horvering crate.

[Rbstr]

hmm, i like as far as the base/new plane goes, but fuel worries me a bit, how much fly tie do you get out of a full load, 2 min is not very much, and 10 min is probalby to little to impact, as if you run out of fuel after 5 min you can spawn a new one right away. And there is a very good chance you'd get shot down by then

[Baneblade]

The problem with fuel is that it makes no sense to only do it on one vehicle.

I think all vehicles should have to operate on energy cells, but for me it would be all or none.

Also the PS world isn't big enough for anything faster than a Mosquito.

[Peacemaker]

Yes just getting a new reaver is the only problem I see with this. I would say after 5 minutes and bump the timer up to 10. That way you cant JUST get a new one. You have to refuel once. The timers in the game need adjustment... alot of it.

[Baneblade]

I also think that before any more shit is stuffed into PS, vehicles as they are need a big overhaul.

Reavers should be finished instead of remaining the spammachine it is currently. Transports also need to be rethought since there is almost no reason to use them.

Imagine if there was an LLU that could only be moved on a Galaxy.

[Rbstr]

I also think that before any more shit is stuffed into PS, vehicles as they are need a big overhaul.

Reavers should be finished instead of remaining the spammachine it is currently. Transports also need to be rethought since there is almost no reason to use them.

Imagine if there was an LLU that could only be moved on a Galaxy.

i agree reavers need less slash a faster rocket more AV and far less AI

[Eldanesh]

Only problem I can recall in a dev comment about vehicles that fast is you will get a warping effect while flying. For those of you that fly, imagine the powerslide, only 100x worse. :(

Still, sounds good in theory, and would be kinda cool to have a superiority aircraft like that.

[Peacemaker]

Mossys regularly fly at 300kph .... having something that does 150 and is the size of a lib wouldnt be much of a problem.

[TheN00b]

Peacemaker, a Mosquito's top normal speed is 125, and afterburner only adds ~100, in addition to the fact that it has to recharge. So how you go 300, I have no clue.

[Peacemaker]

Go ahead and look... it tops out at 300

[Rbstr]

reaver caps at 250ish skeeter at 300ish

[TheN00b]

Go ahead and look... it tops out at 300

Wurd... I guess I dropped my subscription a month ago, but I could have sworn it only went up to 250 or so... :doh:

[Eldanesh]

Still, powersliding occurs with a not- afterburning reaver, and I could see with something going faster than a skeedo while dogfighting, that powerslide/ actual warping might become a more common occurance just as it did with a fast moving surgile.

[Firefly]

Um no. Reavers are 105kph cruising and 281kph on afterburn. Mosquitos top out at 287kph on afterburner with a max cruising speed of 119kph. It *MAY* actually be 288kph, I can't see clearly because the speedometer flickers between something and 287. I know this is the number because I went to Public Test when I was building the BWC's vehicle webpages and I did tests on all vehicles (also to get screenshots). As an aside, ever notice that 115kph seems to be really fast, when in reality it's like 80 miles an hour? That isn't even approach/landing speed for 747s or something.

What aircraft need these days are CHAFF pods, and not as a lame-ass additional weapons pod. Make it built-in to all vehicle bodies, activated as a 'special feature' the way an infil suit cloaks or a MAX does its thing. Chaff would thus negate lock-ons for all empires, giving aircraft a fighting chance except maybe against a Skyguard (and it would force the Devs to stop giving TR a bunch of shitty flak weapons, which are retarded when everyone else has lock-on capabilities). As a counter to rendering AA-MAX obsolete, give the chaff "ammo" a limit - like five or ten containers, with a long reload time (damn long, not like "hummm okay reloading, reloading, okay GO!") and limit the time that it's effective... this should prevent "chaff spam" that allows a pilot to linger in a zone and cause more mayhem. Chaff is designed to be a defensive countermeasure, not an aid to spam. I can see Reaver pilots using it as a means to allow them more spam-time. Give it enough effectiveness time so that it can get the hell out of the area.

Chaff would also mean that aircraft such as Lodestars, Galaxies, and Liberators have to be pursued and shot down by other aircraft when no Skyguards are present, almost exclusively, in order to be taken out.

[EarlyDawn]

I would say that chaff should be loaded like ammo in the trunk. If you want the protection, you'll need to leave ammo and/or System Enhancements (As Per Hayoo's Idea) behind.

A tradeoff.

[Batousai]

well if your going add Chaffs and flare type countermeasures then you need to buff the Missle locks to MAXs and stikers and what not. As it stands missle locks are hard to come by when your in a MAX suit.

[Peacemaker]

Yea... if you dont have a mouse....

[Sentrosi]

well if your going add Chaffs and flare type countermeasures then you need to buff the Missle locks to MAXs and stikers and what not. As it stands missle locks are hard to come by when your in a MAX suit.
The only true statement in that message is....yeah, I can't find it either.

[WritheNC]

How about nobody touches Air Cav? :)

It's not as bad as everyone makes it sound.

[Lonehunter]

The aircraft idea isn't bad, but make it faster. The idea of Air to Air missiles has always been a nice dream.

[DropShipEdward]

Love the idea of those bases! :D

Air to air does sound fun, but how about some rockets that actually hurt tanks and other vechs instead of making them only useful against hurt or parked units, my only other complaint about the reaver is it needs to have its guns moved to under its nose, everything else is fine.

The only people who complain about the spam are those on the reciveing end, spam is used by the noobs and pros alike, if the guns are moved, you might not see much spam cause you`ll want to save your rockets for armor, and its just part of the game.

When you get better with a reaver its not that hard to use the guns on infanty, even those striker monkeys, and when you can land your bullets, it eats infantry for breakfast, lunch and dinner. :groovy:

[Boomer]

Imagine good air physics, where the reaver pods would be mounted on the wings of the craft like a present day jet, and you could shoot them so that they exploded, causing the reaver to go down in smoke and flames. And the smoke an flames would actually be there, and it would actually leave a trail, and the falling sequence would be you going out of control depending on where you were hit. For example, If you were hit from the tail, then your tail would blow off and you would plunge into an uncontrollable spin, where as if you were hit in the main chassis, you would eventually glide towards the ground, becoming less and less in control as you descend.

I would love for that to be true, but it aint. Air physics suck. Actually, All of the planetside physics suck.

Enjoy my 2c

[Peacemaker]

What do you guys think about the fuel idea? Even if it was for all vehicles? Please give 2 cents on that. I think its the best idea out of the post.

[WritheNC]

Fuel idea doesn't work because it's extraneous. Lets say a plane can fly 2 hours before it has to refuel?

What does it run on? The same thing everything else does on Auraxis. Nanites.

So you fly back into a warpgate and absorb some nanites. Considering that only during the most intense continent fights do you actually go over 2 hours without going into a warpgate makes this idea not very easily or usefully implementable.

[Rbstr]

hte solution fore reaver spam, is to A make the 20mm line up like the BFR's arms do so it shoots to a point at any distance, and then nerf the hell out of the rockets AI damage, and then buff the rocket speed, and its AV damage, to the point were 2x16 rocket clips can kill a tank, then let the reaver carry 3 boxes plus clip in the vech in it's base config.

AS a result:
rockets aren't wasted on troops anymore as they don't want to waste ammo and don't do much AV damage, but they are usefull for killing ground vechicles.

[Baneblade]

The Reaver rockets already do shit dmg to AI. The problem isn't their AI dmg it's the fact they are the better AI weapon, I would much rather have a Reaver version of a Deci or empire AV.

[Peacemaker]

Reaver with strikers.... hfs.... that would own. Dual strikers on a reaver....

BTW... the fuel thing... yea 2 hours is WAAAY too long. I am talking about 5 minutes of fuel stock. THis severly limits the ability of a reaver to fly around and wtfown what it sees. Tanks would be more... scout types would be the most.

[WritheNC]

No.

The reaver is not the end all be all killing machine everyone thinks it is. It is just a part of a Rock/Paper/Scissors package deal.

If you want to make reavers refuel every 5 minutes, then rexo infantry needs to stop every 200m from running with 80 pounds of gear on.

[Firefly]

If you want to make reavers refuel every 5 minutes, then rexo infantry needs to stop every 200m from running with 80 pounds of gear on.
Usage of afterburners should deplete fuel like gunning the motor on a '57 Chevy. For all you prepubescent little boys and girls that don't know what that means, those were the days before fuel injectors, when you could literally watch the fuel needle drop as you drove.

As far as rexo running 200 meters. I can strap on an 80-lb rucksack and run for longer than 200 meters. In fact, in the Army I used to run 20 kilometers (we were supposed to forced-march it). When I say run, I mean run at a steady pace. Not sprint or haul-ass. It occasionally turned into the Airborne Shuffle when I was conserving energy, but 200 meters with 80lbs of shit for a seasoned soldier is like asking me to take ten steps to the front and stop and rest, then take ten more.

[Baneblade]

Yeah, we can't forget that all the characters are seasoned and trained soldiers.

I think a fuel capacity should last as long as it takes to cross the largest continent from the furthest points. That would be the vehicle's capacitor.

I don't really like the idea of power units, as much as I like the idea of using the gas pumps (repair/rearm terms and pads).

[Rbstr]

Also the armored suits are exo suits meaneng they have strength enhancing servos motors in them

[Baneblade]

True, makes you wonder why you can't jammer them hehe.

[Warborn]

True, makes you wonder why you can't jammer them hehe.

Probably for the same reason that jamming a vehicle only disables the weapons and nothing else.

[Peacemaker]

The point of limiting the ability of a vehicle to be the uberleet destruction machine is so that you cant JUST rely on vehicles... you need infantry to push into a base too. Also it would make defending that much easyer... imagine you are stuck inside and a vanguard is outside shelling the door.... then he runs out of gas.... now you are free to escape and kick his arse.

[Firefly]

imagine you are stuck inside and a vanguard is outside shelling the door.... then he runs out of gas.... now you are free to escape and kick his arse.
Except that in current military technology, we have armored units that can fire their weapons with the engines off. The Abrams tank does not need to be "on" and "in gear" to use its weapons systems. Previous armored systems did need to have the engine running; however that was a survivability issue and the R&D wonks in the US military system figured a way around this.

My point? Planetside is over a millenium into the future. I'd imagine we have superior technology by "now". Tanks should be able to fight even though they are out of gas.

[Lartnev]

Whilst I agree that tanks would still be able to fire with their engines off, facts are of little importance when it comes to Planetside :(

[Warborn]

I think the biggest question to overcome in regards to vehicles having fuel isn't about whether it's realistic or not, but instead, whether it will be a good addition to the game, or just a nuissance for vehicle drivers. It would take a lot of care to ensure that vehicles refueling wasn't so common that it made driving a vehicle especially tedious, but at the same time not so infrequent that you're barely aware the feature exists.

I think the idea has potential and could help add some more depth to the game, but at the same time I worry that having to drive off to refuel might be more hassle than it's worth. Fuel trucks or something similar would absolutely need to be added were fuel to be made a part of the game, both to alleviate the burden of driving back to a base to refuel, and to give defenders more key targets to aim for when trying to force the attackers back.

[Baneblade]

Another thing to consider is how fuel consumption would be counted. Would it be whenever a driver is in the vehicle, or just when it is in motion.

[Warborn]

Another thing to consider is how fuel consumption would be counted. Would it be whenever a driver is in the vehicle, or just when it is in motion.

Every reason for it to be "when in motion". Having things vary like that allows more to develop out of that feature than if it were a constant, universal drain. Indeed, fuel consumption could develop into the gameplay in terms of tactics fairly well. If certain light, fast vehicles get some more torque I could definitely see them actually being good at harassment, depleting the fuel of other vehicles and damaging their battlefield endurance fuel wise rather than health wise (though they'd be doing a bit of damage too of course).

[WritheNC]

I think Fuel would totally cut the subscription numbers.

For everyone that dreams of having a nice fight with fuel and logistics, there are 10 that aren't gonna pay 13/month to drive an ANT around and fill up tanks.

Yeah, we can't forget that all the characters are seasoned and trained soldiers.

Well, we are in game, aren't we? :) So I guess infantry won't have to stop every 200m.

[DropShipEdward]

exactly, there are barely any people who run ANTs nowadays, and CR`s have to practly scream for an ANT when there arent any outfits operating, and even fewer if you need em to fight in the field

me personaly, i`m one of the few people that actually /t a CR5 that i have an ANT already en route when they notice a base needs juice and asks about for one, god only knows what would happen if fuel made its way in :scared:

but it would be kinda cool for the logistics nut inside some of us :groovy:

[Lartnev]

There's a difference between ANT runs and refuelling. Refuelling is pretty much the same as re-arming/repairing which people do anyway. However ANT runs can be a long haul from a base, to a warpgate, fill it up, drive back (often in dangerous territory) and then deploy at the base and hope someone hasn't beaten you to it.

If fuel was an optional add-on to give added bonuses I think people might begin to like the idea even more.

[Hayoo]

There's a difference between ANT runs and refuelling. Refuelling is pretty much the same as re-arming/repairing which people do anyway. However ANT runs can be a long haul from a base, to a warpgate, fill it up, drive back (often in dangerous territory) and then deploy at the base and hope someone hasn't beaten you to it.

If fuel was an optional add-on to give added bonuses I think people might begin to like the idea even more.

I couldn't agree more, Lartnev. Those are concepts I would propose as well.

[Baneblade]

Maybe fuel should be for something less obvious. Like Lartnev said, for added bonuses. Maybe have a Fuel Supercapacitor that can either be routed to the Afterburners on aircraft (and maybe a turbo on land vehicles), maybe the vehicle shield being redesigned to be more like the NC MAX shield and have the FS charge that too.

The basic operations wouldn't change or be limited, but overall battlefield survivability would be impacted.

[MrVicchio]

One of my great earlyjoys in playing PS was flying my reaver, I spent most of my time Air-to-air...

then they added all that anti-air crap from the ground...

And it boggles the mind that the three empires have various guided weapns to use against air targets but the simple act of sticking a guided missle for air-to-air use only is too complex... Boggles the mind.

Dumb Fire rockets and LOS chain guns constituting air power in the future... come on, gimmie a break.

[Baneblade]

My sentiments exactly. I think a two seat Reaver sort of made to do what an AH-64 Apache does is a good idea.

Course the two seat could be the empire versions. The CP Reaver could just have the center mounted 20mms and dumbfire 'Super Decis'.

This is sorta how I imagine it:

CP Reaver:
2x 20mm guns, and Devastator Missile System, basically a time locking missile that is as slow as a Deci, fires at about the Vanguard's 150mm rate , but does maybe twice the dmg that a Deci does. Each ammo box could hold maybe 3 of the Devs, and only 3 are loaded at a time. The lock prevents it from being used as an AI weapon and the slow speed makes it harder to use against AA targets like Skeeters.

TR Reaver:
This machine would be most similar to the current Reaver, the 20mms would be doubled to have quadlinked chainguns that actually will fire twice as fast and not just be for show. The Gunner would control a missile system that is similar to what Reaver's have now with one major difference. It would be laser guided with a nose mounted system, the missiles can only launch when the gunner has a target though else they are dumbfire.

NC Reaver:
This beast would sport a single 25mm gun for the pilot instead of the dual 20s. The gunner would control a Phoenix like missile system that is guided and packs the punch of a Deci. One shot at a time though and the range is maybe only about 450m.

VS Reaver:
This one would be the least like the current Reaver, the pilot would have a lighter version of the Magrider's main railgun, but it would have a faster RoF and no splash. The gunner would control a hardly accurate neutron cannon that acts similar to the Radiator in that it goes directly into the health of the target crew bypassing armor, but not sheilds.

This is just an idea blog really, obviously some tuning would be needed.

[Warborn]

If fuel was an optional add-on to give added bonuses I think people might begin to like the idea even more.

I think this is the only hope fuel has for being a good addition to the game. If it were something that would enhance you when you have it, and not cripple you when you don't, people would refuel because they want the bonuses, not because they have to if they want to keep driving/flying.

[MrVicchio]

I've complained about the simplistic air power since this game was in Beta.

[Baneblade]

The simplistic nature of ground power is annoying too. It's like driving a go cart in my Enforcer.

I want gears, hell even engine choices.