Couple thoughts on MAX's and Air Vehicles...

[MetalCage]

I'm a big fan of Avatar....I like the look of the vehicles and would like to see something similar to this for a flying vehicles. I'd like to see a more agile bomber for taking out tanks and such like the A-10 of the future.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dqhqRhB8KI&feature=related


The max units they have are cool too as I think they should be quite larger than a foot soldier. In PS1 they aren't much taller than a foot soldier.



Just my 2 cents worth.

[Bruttal]

I'm a big fan of Avatar....I like the look of the vehicles and would like to see something similar to this for a flying vehicles. I'd like to see a more agile bomber for taking out tanks and such like the A-10 of the future.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dqhqRhB8KI&feature=related


The max units they have are cool too as I think they should be quite larger than a foot soldier. In PS1 they aren't much taller than a foot soldier.



Just my 2 cents worth.


I think the maxes we have are fine for what they do, they can still enter bases and move around in there. as far as an agil bomber?. yeah i was acttuly thinking that some kinda reaver/libaratior thing with a infer red lazer (can only be seen with some type of darklight) could be used by clokers to "Paint" a target would be vary cool. even if its near the end of the spec tree.

[Headrattle]

I'd like to see a more agile bomber for taking out tanks and such like the A-10 of the future.
You don't think that the Reaver fills that role?

[FastAndFree]

You don't think that the Reaver fills that role?

Or the Vulture

[Headrattle]

Trust me, as a Tank Driver, Reavers are more a threat then vultures. But it may be because there are so few.

[MetalCage]

While I think the Reaver is good it has dumb fire missles....and for certain we have better technology than that today.....Some type of Reaver / Lib hybrid..... I like the nose gun on the Lib as it does more dmg than the Reaver guns but needs to be like a rotary chaingun similar to that of the A-10 now......something you can outfit with cluster bombs for anti personel but outfit with hellfire lockon missles.....

Or even similar to the F-15 where its multirole....you have a bomber who can lock on targets and bomb them but still have the agility of a fighter.....

Just tossing ideas out there.....oh and maybe flares or some type of countermeasures for the AA might be nice for the aircraft.

[Masahiko]

While I think the Reaver is good it has dumb fire missles....and for certain we have better technology than that today.....Some type of Reaver / Lib hybrid..... I like the nose gun on the Lib as it does more dmg than the Reaver guns but needs to be like a rotary chaingun similar to that of the A-10 now......something you can outfit with cluster bombs for anti personel but outfit with hellfire lockon missles.....

Just tossing ideas out there.....oh and maybe flares or some type of countermeasures for the AA might be nice for the aircraft.

Could try laser guided missile with marked targets from ground forces. Though im not sure the tech involved for that to work in a game.

[Raymac]

I like the look of the Avatar vehicles too, and I can't help but think of Planetside when I do. As a pretty dedicated Reaver pilot though, I'd say the Reaver already does a good job of the close air support / tankbuster role. Even with the dumb-fire rockets, the tanks are slow enough to where you can get pretty accurate with them.

I like your customization ideas, so I hope I'll be able to do something like that with my Reaver in PS2. I just don't think we need a whole new vehicle.

[millo]

The similarities between the Vulture and an A-10 ended as soon as you stepped in one. You spent more time reloading the bloody chaingun than firing it, it was only good for finishing off damaged vehicles. The bombs had a tiny AoE and fell so slowly that it was very hard hitting even slow moving targets while flying at minimum bombing altitude. The only useful thing it had was the afterburners.

As much as i love the A-10 (it's by far my favorite US plane), i think that something more geared toward teamplay would benefit the game more... For example, if 2 seated reavers are still in, a variant focused on tank hunting, or maybe a liberator variant specializing in focused surgical strikes, just anything requiring 2+ people to work in a team instead of a flying solo pwnmachine.

Regarding MAX size, i think they're just fine in PS, remember those thing need to go inside buildings :D

[MetalCage]

Millo thats why I was thinking more along the lines of the F-15 with a bomber dropping laser guided bombs. When I think of a 2 seated Reaver I think Flight of the Intruder....and the A-6. Now a good version of that would be the EA-6B.

The EA-6B Prowler is included in every aircraft carrier deployment. The EA-6B's primary mission is to protect fleet surface units and other aircraft by jamming hostile radars and communications.

That would be something maybe they could make a variant of.

[Peacemaker]

Id love to see an A-10 like platform in the game, hell Id rather see the reaver have a Single big gun, and have the rounds be something like the A-10 (a small explosion). Maybe 2 - 4 Dumb bombs too, or a few AGM-65 like missiles.

[Rbstr]

I've always wanted the reaver (or a new craft, with the reaver made more attack-chopper-y) to be more of a dive-bomber/strafer/strike fighter than the hover-and-spam-missiles-thing that it is.

Basically that amounts to much more damaging missiles/bombs, but far fewer of them in the magazine. Perhaps only two or four.

You know, scenes from war movies. The fighter screams over head and the bombs land.

[Treerat]

Could try laser guided missile with marked targets from ground forces. Though im not sure the tech involved for that to work in a game.

While I'm sure this will send the anti-BFR crowd into another foaming-at-the-mouth rage (as something that isn't Reavers or Mosquitos piloted by HA-toting clowns circle-jerking), why not take an idea from Battletech? In particular, a weapon called the NARC that was basically a missile that instead of damaging it's target attached a homing beacon that would guide missiles equipped to receive it's signals to itself (and thus the battlemech or vehicle it was attached too). Instead of being vehicle-mounted, the launcher could be made into it's own weapon, as a type of ammo available for AV or grenade/ rocket launchers, or as hand-thrown "sticky grenade" or hand-placed device (for the sneaky cloaker).

[kaffis]

I've always wanted the reaver (or a new craft, with the reaver made more attack-chopper-y) to be more of a dive-bomber/strafer/strike fighter than the hover-and-spam-missiles-thing that it is.

Basically that amounts to much more damaging missiles/bombs, but far fewer of them in the magazine. Perhaps only two or four.

You know, scenes from war movies. The fighter screams over head and the bombs land.
I think you'll be getting the first part of your wish, at least. Realistic flight model implies no more hovering. That will necessitate strafing or dive bombing-like tactics for Reavers.

[opticalshadow]

yeah they said hovering wasnt going to be a possiblity as flight will follow amore realistic method.

max sizes were fine, they dont need to be changed.

as for a the anti vehicle laser pointer, i actualy dont want it on a plane, without hover it would be incredibly annoying to use, instead id liek to see it on a sea borne craft. like an offshore destroy/cruiser, that in adition to providing anti air for the sea, had a long range missle that was great against armor but needed a painted target. this would give infil a new role since vehicle jacking is out.

[CutterJohn]

yeah they said hovering wasnt going to be a possiblity as flight will follow amore realistic method.

I do not see wheels, meaning they have to be vtol. Hell you can explicitly see the downward thrusters on the models.

Now, they could go with an unstable hover, but this is a game. Gotta be able to take your hands off the controls now and again.

[Aractain]

Hopefully AA systems will be skill based meaning hovering = quick death for the VTOL aircraft.

[Talek Krell]

a weapon called the NARC

Flails are already disliked due to their ability to camp doors and instantly kill infantry from across the map. I don't think making their shots home in on moving vehicles will help.

[Hamma]

Where did they say there was no hovering at all? I don't remember hearing that mentioned I'm not sure we know for sure.

[Talek Krell]

As far as I can tell people are making the assumption because the devs have said they're using a "realistic" flight system. Considering that there are a variety of perfectly real VTOL aircraft using a variety of methods, I don't think the assumption has any merit.

[Haro]

I think the reaver could fill this roll perfectly, if better designed. Reflecting back on PS, while I love the reaver, there was nothing really interesting about it. Dumb-fire rockets and chainguns? Kinda boring. Now that they seem to be making it two person, I think we can see some interesting directions taken with it. Not saying that we can't have dumb-fire missiles, but definitely have turreted chainguns and maybe laser guided missiles.

On another note, I'd like more variety of bombers. I'd like a larger bomber, that has some additional kick with carpetbombing. For a liberator type, I'd rather see a faster, low-flying fighter bomber. Has a bit more damage and resilience compared to the reaver, but harder to use. Basically like the A-10 and the reaver like an Apache.

I'd like to keep maxes at the smaller, more powered-armor level, but I'm always open to large mechs, as long as they are far better balanced than BFRs.

[Malorn]

Just because they are making flight physics more realistic doesn't mean there isn't VTOL. Just look at BF2142. The VTOL aircraft in 2142 were a lot harder to fly than PS and they they fit nicely. I hope the PS aircraft are more like that. I had fun flying the transport ships in that game; they handled quite differently from the gunships and played a lot more like how I hoped a galaxy would be. I thought they should have had lighter air transports for that reason in PS2.


Also, I believe the Vulture was intended to be like an A-10 in Planetside. It didn't really achieve that role very well, but they clearly designed it that way. It has no cluster bombs and was a faster more manueverable Liberator intended to go after mobile vehicles (i.e. tank buster). The nosegun was also designed for that it had a burst of high damage vehiciel-oriented rounds but had a long reload time. It was a precision bomber designed to kill vehicles as opposed to the general-purpose strategic bomber that was the Lib.

I expect the vulture will make a return as an upgrade option for Liberators. I hope this time around it fits better as a tank buster. I think it should probably drop a streak of bombs and be a bit faster so tanks can't easily avoid it.

I also hope Libs are 2-seaters as opposed to 3-seaters. Just allow the bombadier to switch into tail-gun mode. It was never worth the manpower to fill the tailgun spot and always better to have the gailtunner fly a reaver, mosq, or wasp instead to escort.

[Sirisian]

I also hope Libs are 2-seaters as opposed to 3-seaters. Just allow the bombadier to switch into tail-gun mode. It was never worth the manpower to fill the tailgun spot and always better to have the gailtunner fly a reaver, mosq, or wasp instead to escort.
I'm hoping it's a single seater. I found myself more often using the nose gun to shoot vehicles. It would then be a Reaver with bombs instead of rockets which sounds perfect. I prefer bombing more than launching rockets and hated basically assisting in all my kills. I think when they decided not to make the Reaver a two person jet they discovered the same thing. Definitely makes more sense having the pilot fire the rockets/bombs.

[CutterJohn]

I also hope Libs are 2-seaters as opposed to 3-seaters. Just allow the bombadier to switch into tail-gun mode. It was never worth the manpower to fill the tailgun spot and always better to have the gailtunner fly a reaver, mosq, or wasp instead to escort.

Plus it was just damned boring to be stuck in the bomber spot with nothing to bomb.

[Malorn]

I'm hoping it's a single seater. I found myself more often using the nose gun to shoot vehicles. It would then be a Reaver with bombs instead of rockets which sounds perfect. I prefer bombing more than launching rockets and hated basically assisting in all my kills. I think when they decided not to make the Reaver a two person jet they discovered the same thing. Definitely makes more sense having the pilot fire the rockets/bombs.

It should definitely not be a single seater. Single seaters should be avoided in Planetside with a few exceptions.

Planetside has a 1+1=3 teamwork model where two players in a vehicle coordinating should be significantly more powerful than two single-seaters. This was obvious with the tanks vs lightnings, ATVs vs buggies, etc. Aircraft were generally the exception, but the Liberator was not. For having a 2-3 man aircraft you got a lot of firepower (far more than a reaver) which made the Liberator what it was. If it were a one-seater it would have to be far more fragile and have far less firepower. Were it to be so it would actually overlap with the reaver in role. That's lame. A bomber should be something that makes people go "oh shit, gtfo inc!" It should be able to take out any vehicle in a single pass assuming most/all of the bombs hit their mark. This was true of the Lib in PS1 and there really isn't much to change with it. The concept and implementation was pretty darn good. Just needs a few tweaks.

[Raymac]

Just a reminder, Reavers melt to AA faster than you can say Jackie Robinson, so don't start comparing them with tanks. It really doesn't take much AA to totally deny a large area to aircraft. Also it takes a full salvo of rockets, without missing, to take out 1 infantry now. The rocket spam is nowhere near as powerful against infantry as it was.

#Justsayin

[CutterJohn]

Just a reminder, Reavers melt to AA faster than you can say Jackie Robinson, so don't start comparing them with tanks. It really doesn't take much AA to totally deny a large area to aircraft. Also it takes a full salvo of rockets, without missing, to take out 1 infantry now. The rocket spam is nowhere near as powerful against infantry as it was.

#Justsayin

As a self confessed AA whore, I would actually like AA to be a bit less dominating. AA should be all about direct fire machine guns or flak pouring a lot of lead into the sky, with the accompanied loss of effectiveness as range increases. AA doesn't need to be a 400m overpowered area denial weapon.

Using weapons like these would also give AA vehicles lesser secondary roles as direct fire ground AV/AI, so you're not so bored/useless if there is no air.

Non AA ground vehicles and infantry should also share a greater burden of their AA defense. Didn't care for how 2 units were the only real land based options vs air. Turreted machine guns should be pretty effective against air that hangs around. AA should be great to have, but not guaranteed death if you have none.

TL;DR

Less overwhelming AA.
No/minimal tracking AA, so damage falls naturally with range.
Greater reliance on various ground vehicles with turreted machine guns for self defense, as well as infantry AA, and small arms.

I love playing AA, but I can see how it was far too frighteningly effective at driving all the air away from the battle. Air deserves a chance to dart in and out with a decent chance to live.