Disposable Heroes

[Baron]

It's just past lunch and I don't feel like working right now so I'll just put a thought out there for people to flame...

In PS2, I hope vehicles are not so disposable. I'm sure you all understand what I mean without having to explain, everyone can easily pull a mossie, fly to target and bail over target endlessly.

Perhaps with the deep skill tree system, empire resources and some sort of timer as in PS1, you won't have so much of this. So the guys flying/driving transports and having more support type vehicles can really become more involved.

Moving from: "It would be nice to have vehicle/role XXX right now"

to: "Man we really NEED vehicle/role XXX right now"


fire away

[Raymac]

Yeah, the timers are way too short. The only time I ever see the timer for my Reaver is if I fly directly to some AA and die right away. And even then I'd only have to wait about 50 seconds. A 5 min timer is way too short for something like a Reaver.

[CutterJohn]

Playing with vehicles is just another way to play. Punishing it by increased spawn timers is silly. Why is infantry to be considered the base, correct, gameplay style? Why not a 10 minute respawn for rexo and 5 minutes for agile?

If someone wants to spend 24/7 in a reaver they should be able to. There are other methods of penalizing people who bail out of aircraft if that is needed.

[Raymac]

I don't think the spawn timers are silly at all. There should be a penalty for dying and the spawn timers work well. Not a harsh penalty at all, but just something. I remember the days of Everquest when you lost XP for dying, now THAT was a crappy penalty.

Perhaps vehicle timers can be more like regular spawn timers and increase the more frequently you die?

[CutterJohn]

I would be fine with increasing vehicle spawn timers based on frequency of losses. Having incentive to live longer is always good. :)

[Sovereign]

Nice title here thought this was going to allude to a made trailer with the song "disposable heroes", alas it wasn't so... :( :D

Could be gravely mistaken on this but what the hell, I'm going to go out on a limb and cast the benediction that they'll not have vehicles just rolling out of bases like they did in the last game as long as the base was powered of course.

Instead vehicles will need resources to produce and will take some considerable time to produce some more so then others... Thus they will be more valued and the vehicles that take the longest to produce will by default be the ones that are most durable.

[NewSith]

Instead vehicles will need resources to produce and will take some considerable time to produce some more so then others... Thus they will be more valued and the vehicles that take the longest to produce will by default be the ones that are most durable.

Valued vehicles tend to use infantry as a (meat)shield while it should be the other way around.

[Raymac]

^ Reminds me of that line in Braveheart. "Arrows cost money, but the dead cost nothing. Send the Irish" ;)

[Bruttal]

Thought it was gonna require resources that you helped capture and come out of your pool of resources and make you value you vehicle more each time you get one.

[CutterJohn]

Thought it was gonna require resources that you helped capture and come out of your pool of resources and make you value you vehicle more each time you get one.

They said upgrades cost money, but nothing about vehicles, so its still up in the air whether they will be free or not.

[Logit]

I would be fine with increasing vehicle spawn timers based on frequency of losses. Having incentive to live longer is always good. :)

Unless the incentive for living longer means nobody runs in the damn door and everyone stands outside like girls.

[CutterJohn]

PS1 already had that in the form of infantry respawn timers.

[Atuday]

Unless the incentive for living longer means nobody runs in the damn door and everyone stands outside like girls.

Heh yeah but people tended to do that any way even if there was no timer. However it seemed to me that if two smart like minded (and crazy) people rushed in then the rest would then follow them.

[Raymac]

Heh yeah but people tended to do that any way even if there was no timer. However it seemed to me that if two smart like minded (and crazy) people rushed in then the rest would then follow them.

Yeah, anytime I see a big group of people just standing outside a door waiting for who knows what, I'll spam V-V-M a few times, then go running in. Yeah, I get cut down right away, but sometimes it works in getting people to follow me in and actually push inside.

[cashfoyogash]

Playing with vehicles is just another way to play. Punishing it by increased spawn timers is silly. Why is infantry to be considered the base, correct, gameplay style? Why not a 10 minute respawn for rexo and 5 minutes for agile?

If someone wants to spend 24/7 in a reaver they should be able to. There are other methods of penalizing people who bail out of aircraft if that is needed.

Because infantry is the tip of the spear. You cant hold and take ground without the grunts.

[CutterJohn]

Pretty sure they said there will be land you can take without having to get out of your vehicles. Its not all about bases anymore. Different environments on land will be suited to different unit compositions. Mountains for air and infantry. Forests for infantry. plains/flatlands for tanks/ground vehicles. sea for air and water units. hilly terrain where all three mix together to a degree.

[Kechiro]

Pretty sure they said there will be land you can take without having to get out of your vehicles. Its not all about bases anymore. Different environments on land will be suited to different unit compositions. Mountains for air and infantry. Forests for infantry. plains/flatlands for tanks/ground vehicles. sea for air and water units. hilly terrain where all three mix together to a degree.

They also mentioned terrain only passable on foot! Epicness. Platoons marching one after another onto the front lines will be a strange sight to say the least.

*polishes his Bolt Diver* Oh yes.. Quite the sight indeed.

[cashfoyogash]

They also mentioned terrain only passable on foot! Epicness. Platoons marching one after another onto the front lines will be a strange sight to say the least.

*polishes his Bolt Diver* Oh yes.. Quite the sight indeed.

where was this said?

[Timey]

Maybe the timer is tied to how much you have advanced in vehicle x's tree.

IE.

Air cav
 >reaver
  >spawn time
   >level 1
    >level 2
     >etc

[Hamma]

I totally agree vehicles should not be as disposable as they were. The thought of solo HA whores bailing out of aircraft to attack towers is silly. The game should promote teamwork far more this time around.

[Baneblade]

I would be fine with increasing vehicle spawn timers based on frequency of losses. Having incentive to live longer is always good. :)

Infantry have it, no reason vehicles shouldn't.

[CutterJohn]

I totally agree vehicles should not be as disposable as they were. The thought of solo HA whores bailing out of aircraft to attack towers is silly. The game should promote teamwork far more this time around.

Solo HA droppers were never very effective. Just annoying. And thats rather the wrong way to fix things. If the issue is HA bailures, fix the issue of HA bailing, don't nerf the vehicle for everyone, including those that don't HA bail. Nerf bailing, or nerf HA in aircav.

[Effective]

Hey, a thread for nerfing a fast response type play-style (maybe not specifically, but I'm getting that vibe).


No. nerfing the vehicle timer of all things is NOT the answer. If anything, make a type of aircraft DESIGNED for quick transport and is disposable. Hell it could be a weaponless mosquito. But nerfing a bailing because you die to agile users sounds like a personal issue.

If your problem is HA agiles, there isn't a real issue beyond them corner camping in 3rd person and potential agile warping (though the warping IS possible to handle) A sweeper has a faster TTK vs. Agile then the lasher or the mcg, so if you're in rexo, with a sweeper, dieing to HA agiles, you're probably doing something wrong (i.e. missing shots + charging a corner camping ledgewhoring agile with HA). If you remove 3rd person and fix the warping issues, a HA agile player loses his ONLY real advantage vs. a defending player of a tower. If you just DIE in a straight up fight against a HA agile (he charges and you lose), there's only 1 of 3 possibilities, you were distracted, you were bad, or he's cheating. That's it.

If your problem is the reaver, nerf the versatility of it. It's a vehicle that is too fast for it's intended role. Remove the afterburn, nerf the armor, make it fly like a helicopter (so faster strafing and vertical motion). Keep it's intended role of being the bane to ground targets, but nerf it's overall effectiveness against aircraft.

[Raymac]

There is a difference between rapid response, and using a mosq as essentially extra hit points, then bailing out of it with good armor and the best gun in the game, all while being able to still repair and heal yourself. Also, I really don't give a crap what the stats say, if you have HA and are losing to a sweeper, you are doing something wrong, not the other way around.

[Effective]

There is a difference between rapid response, and using a mosq as essentially extra hit points, then bailing out of it with good armor and the best gun in the game, all while being able to still repair and heal yourself. Also, I really don't give a crap what the stats say, if you have HA and are losing to a sweeper, you are doing something wrong, not the other way around.

So this is a complaint against agile HA users, not aircraft timers for you.
Like I said, transport aircraft meant for fast response, no weapons.

"Good armor" is not how I would describe agile. If you're in agile and you bail on a tower, you have no advantages vs. a rexo HA user.

It's not about stats, it's about who shoots first. The sweeper kills a agile in 3 shots, medkit or no medkit. It's pretty easy to do actually, even against a warping player. Strafe yourself, don't shoot unless he's physically in your crosshairs, don't rush him, maintain your defensive advantage. If you add in the "stats" you have the advantage of BETTER armor, the same weapon or similar, you should win.

The agile HA user should NEVER win against a rexo user unless that rexo user has a suppressor OR that rexo recklessly charges a corner camping player.

Remove third person, fix warping. Bam agile HA users aren't a problem unless

you are bad, in which case it's not a balance issue, it's a personal issue
have the wrong gear, in which case it's the same as above
they're cheating, in which case, it's a issue with the GM's needing to take care of him.

[exLupo]

So this is a complaint against agile HA users, not aircraft timers for you.
Like I said, transport aircraft meant for fast response, no weapons.

Mossies are used for more than fast response. Fast response is a harasser or atv. It gets you there quickly. Mossies also let the user bypass defenses while still maintaining a high level of offensive power on site. A lock-on type AA MAX can't drop a mossie before the pilot bails and flak is unreliable at best. You can use them to get past minefields and turrets, height based chokepoints, walls, you name it.

The defense bypass utility of the mosquito far eclipses any other scout vehicle as well as any heavy troop transport with the exception of the galaxy. And there are even times where using hot-drop mossies is more effective than the premier troop transport in game.

If you had to land a mosquito, it would be no slower of a response vehicle. You would still get to the fight with the same amount of power and speed you do today. You just wouldn't be able to skip past a good portion of the site's defenses when you get there.

Taking out bailing would remove absolutely none of the scout and fast response ability the mossie provides.

[Effective]

Mossies are used for more than fast response. Fast response is a harasser or atv. It gets you there quickly. Mossies also let the user bypass defenses while still maintaining a high level of offensive power on site. A lock-on type AA MAX can't drop a mossie before the pilot bails and flak is unreliable at best. You can use them to get past minefields and turrets, height based chokepoints, walls, you name it.

The defense bypass utility of the mosquito far eclipses any other scout vehicle as well as any heavy troop transport with the exception of the galaxy. And there are even times where using hot-drop mossies is more effective than the premier troop transport in game.

If you had to land a mosquito, it would be no slower of a response vehicle. You would still get to the fight with the same amount of power and speed you do today. You just wouldn't be able to skip past a good portion of the site's defenses when you get there.

Taking out bailing would remove absolutely none of the scout and fast response ability the mossie provides.

Do you actually read my posts, or do you just throw words at them to make yourself look pretty?

Well obviously a mossie can be used for more then fast response, that's why creating a gunless mossie would create a fast airvehicle meant for transport and removes the "high level of offensive power on site"

Fast response is DEF. not a harasser or ATV, can you imagine trying to "fast" respond to cery with a ATV?

A bailing mechanism is pointless if you die to AA before you leave the vehicle.

Galaxies and phantasms can also bypass chokepoints, minefields, turrets, and walls. Phantasm actually has a faster cruise speed then the mossie does, by about 20kph.

The only advantage the mossie has over those 2 aircraft, are the weapons they provide. Otherwise, no maxs, no rexos, limited amount of gear. If you're worried about them grabbing gear, a smart player would kill the lobby terminal (and dish terminals as applicable). Bam, those agiles ARE stuck in agile. If you die still, it's not because agile is imbalanced believe me.

Removing bailing is still not the answer to this supposed problem. A military aircraft without a bailing mechanism only exists in Russia. I don't usually like really heavy realism, but this is one of those things that screams "stupid resolution to a non-existent problem". It does take out fast response capability though. Smart outfits hacking and holding a base, hold THE OUTSIDE. Landing only works against stupid people who hold the inside of a base. Fast response will become impossible because all you have to do, is have aircraft of your own, and a couple AA maxs and then they can't do anything except go cert another vehicle.

Now, bailing does need to be changed. Something like "received damage in the last 4 seconds, can't bail" would be better then just outright removing bailing, OR "Less then 1/4 health, can't bail".

[Baneblade]

The 'fast response' argument is not going to hold water. Especially since most 'fast responders' are just killwhores defending their style with some make believe role.

I have no problem with fast response units, just with pilots doing the fast responding, esp in a basement cc. Fly a Phantasm and drop four Rexo grunts... that is a faster response and theoretically more effective.

[Effective]

The 'fast response' argument is not going to hold water. Especially since most 'fast responders' are just killwhores defending their style with some make believe role.

I have no problem with fast response units, just with pilots doing the fast responding, esp in a basement cc. Fly a Phantasm and drop four Rexo grunts... that is a faster response and theoretically more effective.

Most, but not all. 2 way street then, there isn't any reasonable argument against players dropping on a base in agile beyond "LOL I died to someone corner camping"

Remove the cloaker and tech requirement from the phantasm and there you go. It will become a more viable option so that recalling to sanc/whatever the hell replaces it if no tech is available, is not necessary.

[Bags]

The 'fast response' argument is not going to hold water. Especially since most 'fast responders' are just killwhores defending their style with some make believe role.

I have no problem with fast response units, just with pilots doing the fast responding, esp in a basement cc. Fly a Phantasm and drop four Rexo grunts... that is a faster response and theoretically more effective.

If it's more effective to use a phantasm why do you have a problem with someone doing it less effectively, IE flying in with a mossie? :doh:

Make believe role? Are you serious? Why insult the only people who do resecures so your zergfit can stay in the 3 way on Cyssor? The "kill whores" are usually the only people who respond to hacks. I don't think I've ever opened a base and had a zergfit show up and stop us, it's always the "kill whores".

[Kechiro]

where was this said?

It was a brief mention in one of the videos iirc. When they were talking about the vehicles and continents. Saying that there would be continents that favored flying, some that favored ground vehicles and some that favored infantry (which I may have taken a bit far in my post, though this what was said).

[exLupo]

Do you actually read my posts, or do you just throw words at them to make yourself look pretty?

Sorry, I didn't realize I was responding to you when I quoted Effective. You get so defensive when anyone intrudes on your pet projects, learn to take a breath and back down. Especially when nobody was talking to you.

However, in response to all those words you threw out to make yourself look pretty, I'll quote myself:

"Taking out bailing would remove absolutely none of the scout and fast response ability the mossie provides."

Nothing in your diatribe made that any less true.

[Bags]

Sorry, I didn't realize I was responding to you when I quoted Effective.

You didn't realize you were responding to Effective when you quoted Effective?

[exLupo]

You didn't realize you were responding to Effective when you quoted Effective?

Wow, I thought it was Malorn. Teach me to eat an enchilada, fight with a douche over outage reporting responsibility and trawl ze forums. Nice catch. :) Countdown to an Ad Hom response trying to use this mistake to discredit the otherwise unrelated discussion.

Still, regardless of who was posting, it was meritless and didn't respond to the apparent issue. If folks truly care about fast response and not defense bypass then they'll have no problem landing when they've arrived at their destination.

edit: "a couple AA maxs and then they can't do anything except go cert another vehicle. " AB speed covers terrain faster than a lock-on style MAX can lock and kill a mosquito before the pilot bails even when the MAX begins at full visual range. Injure? Sure. Kill? No. Only flak weapons can accomplish that and the reliability there comes down to number of shooters and quality of gunners. If all you care about is hitting AB and bailing, having an AA MAX around is not something to fear.

[Bags]

If we assume PS1 burster and PS1 mossie for this example, if the mossies have to land I'm sure I'd be able to kill 1 - 3 mossies before everyone landed and got away from their coffins.

Other AA maxes probably would only get 1, maybe 2 at most.

[Senyu]

Might hate this but what if there was a penalty for just ditching your vehicle? Least im assuming what this topics about.


If you spawn a mosqito and have not flown it for more than 3 minutes(can change amount of time) and it has not received damage from the enemy you will be penalized for it. This can be a much longer wait time before spawning another one or something else.

That might help deter those people that just spawn an aircraft only to bail out the moment they reach their destination. And if I understand it right it takes resources to spawn vehicles and these ppl would be wasting it. But now that I think about it if the pilot class is the only one allowed to fly aircraft then theres no reason for my above idea.

[exLupo]

If you spawn a mosqito and have not flown it for more than 3 minutes(can change amount of time) and it has not received damage from the enemy you will be penalized for it. This can be a much longer wait time before spawning another one or something else.

That'd just lead to people clipping geometry to damage themselves. I'm not a fan of increasing spawn times on vehicles by any means. Standard spawn times are used for battlefield flow balance. Increasing vehicle spawn times just punishes new players who need as many hours behind the stick as they can get.

I'm on a fence about locking out bails. I think it should -never- be in your best interest to jump out of a perfectly fine airplane when you're the pilot. However, i also don't think the captain should be forced to go down with his ship. Eject failures, sure, because I like randomness but not a universal "sorry Charlie".

Really, if dev doesn't want pilots making their rides into disposable ladders then they'll just make them choose a flight suit kit on spawn or at terms. Sure, you can bail. You and your pistol and no armor. However, until we know dev intent, it's hard to really make suggestions. Mossie hot dropping is a FOOS (http://www.realityrefracted.com/2011/03/first-order-optimal-strategies.html) that evolved simply because it could be done. Once they start talking, we'll know right quick whether or not they want it in PS2 and -then- we can start having meaningful discussions on flight mechanics and the best way to stop flying. :)

[Senyu]

[QUOTE=exLupo;584122]That'd just lead to people clipping geometry to damage themselves.QUOTE]

It only happens if an enemy damages you. It wont count if u run into trees or clip like you said.

[legendary]

Maybe the new physic engine could have wind that would make landing on a tower impractical for bailures, due to targeting control limitations outside the aircraft. You could spin the logic for a Galaxy drop as their cargo holds had more space to allow control dissent boots that would not fit in a cockpit :p.

[Senyu]

Maybe the new physic engine could have wind that would make landing on a tower impractical for bailures, due to targeting control limitations outside the aircraft. You could spin the logic for a Galaxy drop as their cargo holds had more space to allow control dissent boots that would not fit in a cockpit :p.

thats kinda cool. wonder if it would effect projectiles over long distance

[CutterJohn]

If all you care about is hitting AB and bailing, having an AA MAX around is not something to fear.

Why is that really an issue? AA defends against aircraft. The aircraft is gone. Now its an issue infantry need to deal with.

Bypass defenses? Are cloakers and gals the only things that get to do that? Fast response and bailwhores are fine. My only real beef with them is they got to do it in combat capable craft, and so could take on targets of opportunity on their way to the destination(or steer for a tower if about to die).

Make aircav pilots wear PJs or similar. Give em a heavy lift mossie upgrade to purchase, that has no guns but can fit a rexo or whatever it is.

[Baneblade]

If it's more effective to use a phantasm why do you have a problem with someone doing it less effectively, IE flying in with a mossie? :doh:

Because it takes out teamwork and generally promotes the one man army concept.

Make believe role?

It never existed before someone needed to justify surgile hot dropping.

Why insult the only people who do resecures so your zergfit can stay in the 3 way on Cyssor?

If I've insulted them, let them grow some balls. I'm not in a zergfit in any case.

The "kill whores" are usually the only people who respond to hacks.

It is usually a bunch of free kills. If there is anyone there at all.

I don't think I've ever opened a base and had a zergfit show up and stop us, it's always the "kill whores".

I personally don't give a damn about your experience.

[Bags]

Because it takes out teamwork and generally promotes the one man army concept.


So how is four people in a phantasm any more teamwork than four people in four mossies?

It isn't. Not to mention the phantasm takes less certs, is sneakier, and your passengers get rexo... I'm not really seeing the reason that mossie hot dropping needs a nerf.

I personally don't give a damn about your experience.

Okay, ignore contradictory evidence, fine by me.

[Baneblade]

So how is four people in a phantasm any more teamwork than four people in four mossies?

Oh wait it isn't. Not to mention the phantasm takes less certs, is sneakier, and your passengers get rexo... I'm not really seeing the reason that mossie hot dropping needs a nerf.

You can't see the forest for all the trees.

[Bags]

You can't see the forest for all the trees.

Well since you have no rebuttal, I win. Good day sir.

[MasterChief096]

1. Fast response is NOT a made up role. A good outfit that has everyone certed in mossie can mobilize and move out faster than a galaxy based outfit waiting for everyone to recall, pull gear/MAXes, and load up. The problem with this is that the mossies can fast respond to a base and pick off everything outside (provided there's no AA) before landing/bailing and getting out. If the mossie had no guns this wouldn't be an issue. The fast response mossie using outfit wouldn't be able to fly to a base/area and pick everything off before bailing. They'd have to figure something else out.

2. There are several disadvantages to having your outfit use mossie only rather than galaxy/phantasm. The primary being AA at the base you are fast responding too. Its interesting that the outfits that employ the fast response method (everyone has mossie) also know what it takes to defend against an outfit of similar nature. If you show up to a base that DT/TRx (amongst others) are holding you will almost always encounter AA MAXes, plus fighter craft active in the area. I know this well because when I decided to have my outfit go mossie required we thought we could just waltz into a base they were holding the same they did to us before, we were wrong.

Another disadvantage is everyone in your outfit is less combat effective until you can either beat the enemy back enough to where you can hack a terminal, or you can get an AMS out somewhere in the CY that the enemy is (hopefully) holding. Until then you are all agile. It doesn't matter if you have HA. You are at a disadvantage going against MAX suits, or Rexo users with MA or HA. If the enemy blows the terminals then bam, that just set back your plans for getting your outfit combat effective gear for awhile. IMHO, I'm not seeing anything wrong with fast response outfits in PlanetSide as they are. People failing to use the counter-measure (AA) deserve to lose to aircraft.

"Oh but bailing can still happen despite AA!!!" This is true, to an extent. However if you start hammering incoming mossies with 2+ AA MAXes its going to make those mossies AB and scatter and bail wherever they have to before dying, causing mass disorganization to the oncoming outfit. I can't tell you how many times we've had 2 AA MAXes out, maybe a skyguard, and maybe an AA BFR and we threw off the plans of 5+ incoming mossies/reavers.

Also, if you're actually holding the CY, with infantry/vehicles and not just a couple MAX units, those that bailed are going to get picked off by the MAXes/infantry you have out and about. If you have 1-2 guys at each entrance of the base, and you force that outfit to mass bail, they're still likely to get picked off by the entrance defenders unless your outfit is terribad and can't farm down a hallway with a lasher/MCG or for NC our amazing gauss rifle.

I think the problem being created here is from outfits that go and drop the tubes at a base and then hack the base and turtle in the hallways CC. While this is effective indoor tactics, the fact that you completely ignore the CY makes it so you have a 90% fail rate. It doesn't matter what the enemy comes in at that point, mossies or galaxy, or fucking ground transports. You ignored the CY, allowed them to quickly set up an AMS to get gear, and gave them a lot of time to begin pushing inside the base.

3. So what's better? Mossie based fast response or galaxy based? The truth is that neither is better, that a combination of the two would work the best. Both styles of outfits will get raped if they just try to fly to a base where the CY is being held. But at least a galaxy can take a shit load of AA fire before dumping off its inhabitants, which contain two maxes and shit ton of infantry. Not to mention it gets all of them there in one piece, and working together. Oh and everyone in it has the combat gear they want to use for inside the base, without the need to hack a terminal first.

4. So what's the problem with bailing? The only real problem I see is someone farming with a mossies gun, getting like 2-3 infantry kills, and then saying "Shit I'm half damaged" and then they bail on to a tower with a chance to get 2-3 more kills before going down. Once again, a problem easily fixed by removing the mossies gun.

I've advocated numerous times for a scout/response craft that was basically a mossie with no gun, to give it its intended role... being a scout/response craft.

5. Mossie style outfit promotes more one man army and less teamwork? That is one of the dumbest things I've heard by far. Not only does a mossie outfit have to mobilize everyone in a mossie and move out in a group, they have to then figure out how to breach CY defenses, get everyone in gear, possibly get base tubes/gen up, and push the CC with indoor tactics. If 10 guys showed up in a mossie to a base with the CY being held, all of which were in different outfits, those 10 guys would die rather fast, regardless of bail or not.

If mossie fast response bailing was really such an imbalanced role, then everyone would do it. Why is it then that only the "killwhore" outfits, AKA those outfits who are coordinated, are actually able to pull it off? I've seen numerous zergfits attempt the mossie deal, and most of the time I watched 15+ mossies get completely annihilated by a coordinated ground group with AA.

There's a lot more to it than:

1. pull mossie, fly to target
2. afterburn over desired entrance
3. ????
4. profit!

Until you try to coordinate an outfit to use all mosquitos and resecure/take bases doing so, don't speak on the issue because you'll never understand that it takes just as much if not more teamwork than loading everyone into a galaxy and flying to a target.

[Effective]

"Taking out bailing would remove absolutely none of the scout and fast response ability the mossie provides."

Nothing in your diatribe made that any less true.

Actually it did, I stated specifically why having to "land" for fast response works only against terrible outfits.

Keeping bailing in the game hurts ABSOLUTELY nothing, it never has.


edit: "a couple AA maxs and then they can't do anything except go cert another vehicle. "

You missed a good part of the quote, let me fix that for you

"Fast response will become impossible because all you have to do, is have aircraft of your own, and a couple AA maxs and then they can't do anything except go cert another vehicle."

Notice the key part you're missing of what you quoted. A competent outfit has NOTHING to fear against mossies hotdroppers. You hold the outside with aircraft, some AA (aa maxs, skyguard, etc). Put 2 people on every entrance, 1 person on CC with a AI max with DL, 1 cloaker in spawns, 1 person running around laying CE continually, 2 people floating between entrances to take care of any surgers or shore up any breaks in the defense. If one entrances completely fails you collapse to where you need to in order to keep the CC defended.

Bam this just made mossie hotdropping extremely unreliable, unless you drop with 20 people all at the same time. If you try to stay and fight you'll die to air and AA. If you try to bail, you may get killed on the way down while bailing if the enemy has a mossie. If not, you'll hit mines and die. If you EMP you still have 2 rexo opponents who have a huge advantage over you in terms of defense, boomers, choice of weapons for the area they're fighting in. You may want to consider having your outfit stop using tactics that were never really that effective

As for the rest of your post concerning ABing past AA maxs...

Sure, a aircraft has nothing to fear from an AA max while afterburning, that's kinda the point. What point would afterburn serve, if not to get away from AA. If your complaint is that this makes aircraft OP, then complain about aircraft having powerful weapons, not against bailing.

[Duddy]

Keeping bailing in the game hurts ABSOLUTELY nothing, it never has.

Well sorry Effective, but that just isn't true.

If you go by PS1, it hurts AA balance because you have pilots jumping out of their aircraft and then using Decimators on the AA that tried to kill them.

Maxes can't hop out of the armour to avoid dieing to AV now can they?

[Effective]

Well sorry Effective, but that just isn't true.

If you go by PS1, it hurts AA balance because you have pilots jumping out of their aircraft and then using Decimators on the AA that tried to kill them.

Maxes can't hop out of the armour to avoid dieing to AV now can they?

Sounds like you need a skyguard! I'm kidding before you shake your head.

That depends on the circumstances and the location. If the max is smart, he can just run away, the only max that has a serious chance of dieing to a bailer is going to be the burster since his special ability doesn't increase his chances of escape. And if it really comes down to it, the AA max still has a faster ttk then that decimator.

If they nerfed AA maxs TTK to be slower, then they still can start autorunning. The chance that a 3rd deci is going to actually hit a full speed autorunning max at a distance (while not impossible) is going to be fairly slim.

Bailing out of a powerful aircraft is the issue, not the bailing itself.

[Duddy]

Sounds like you need a skyguard! I'm kidding before you shake your head.

That depends on the circumstances and the location. If the max is smart, he can just run away, the only max that has a serious chance of dieing to a bailer is going to be the burster since his special ability doesn't increase his chances of escape. And if it really comes down to it, the AA max still has a faster ttk then that decimator.

If they nerfed AA maxs TTK to be slower, then they still can start autorunning. The chance that a 3rd deci is going to actually hit a full speed autorunning max at a distance (while not impossible) is going to be fairly slim.

Bailing out of a powerful aircraft is the issue, not the bailing itself.

Well what you just said is wrong, IMO.

The fact that the pilot can lose his aircraft but then still kill the thing that was there to counter what he was doing is wrong.

AA Maxes having to run away from pilots that they shot down (or would have shot down) is wrong.

The fact the pilot gets the chance to take out the AA Max after losing his aircraft is wrong.

I have little problem with pilots being able to bail from their aircraft should it be in the game, I have an issue with said pilot then being able to immediately switch "role" after his previous "role" was just destroyed.

[QuakCow]

Well...why don't we just limit the armament a pilot can carry? I mean, thats why we're designing PDWs now is because full size weapons take up a lot of space in a cockpit...

And I never really considered anything except the harasser as disposable, and even then I'd do my best to keep it alive. I understand what you mean as a lot of people just threw their vehicles out there without regard.

[Duddy]

Well...why don't we just limit the armament a pilot can carry? I mean, thats why we're designing PDWs now is because full size weapons take up a lot of space in a cockpit...

And I never really considered anything except the harasser as disposable, and even then I'd do my best to keep it alive. I understand what you mean as a lot of people just threw their vehicles out there without regard.

I imagine that this is a likely outcome, I'd expect a "pilot" (could be for ground not just air) role might be created and they would balance what they can use around the fact that they would be driving something.

They did say that the creation of "roles" was a decision made out of improving balance.

[Avirau]

I don't know that longer timers on vehicles is the right answer, but I do agree that some changes need to be made. I like the idea of having the timers increase/decrease based on frequency of player death (or rather, the destruction of the vehicle) similar to how infantry spawn timers work in PS1.

[Effective]

The fact that the pilot can lose his aircraft but then still kill the thing that was there to counter what he was doing is wrong.

AA Maxes having to run away from pilots that they shot down (or would have shot down) is wrong.

The fact the pilot gets the chance to take out the AA Max after losing his aircraft is wrong.

I have little problem with pilots being able to bail from their aircraft should it be in the game, I have an issue with said pilot then being able to immediately switch "role" after his previous "role" was just destroyed.

I'll solve the problem now

bailing does need to be changed. Something like "received damage in the last 'x' seconds, can't bail" would be better then just outright removing bailing, OR "Less then 1/4 health, can't bail".

[Talek Krell]

I'd like it if bailing was something you could only do as the passenger of an air transport. This callous disregard people seem to have for their vehicles leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Expecting people to land doesn't seem like that much to ask.

[Baron]

I'd like it if bailing was something you could only do as the passenger of an air transport. This callous disregard people seem to have for their vehicles leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Expecting people to land doesn't seem like that much to ask.

That is a good suggestion/idea; also you could have the option for the pilot to bail/eject as a very specialized cert/skill that only the most dedicated air cav pilots would even have a chance to get (so the bailing HA guys or occasional mossie transport guys would have to land and get out).

[Duddy]

I'll solve the problem now

Does it really solve the problem? I don't think you've thought that through.

Solution 1 means that should you then be taking any pitiful amount of damage, say like from some CE, then you wouldn't be able to bail at all. That would be a hindrance when trying to bail over somewhere like a tower or base (when thinking of it in PS1 scenarios).

Solution 2 means that, even if you survived your encounter unless you can repair (which may not always be available) you would be stuck in what is essentially a flying coffin.

Both your solutions allow bailing to remain whilst solving the situation I proposed. They both however introduce their own problems which I imagine would be really annoying for anyone using aircraft as their main role.

This again is why I prefer the limited load out for pilots. It prevents the issue I previously described, but would still allow pilots to bail freely without causing more issues for others. Others being the key word.

[DashRev]

Solution 1 means that should you then be taking any pitiful amount of damage, say like from some CE, then you wouldn't be able to bail at all. That would be a hindrance when trying to bail over somewhere like a tower or base (when thinking of it in PS1 scenarios).

He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that was his intention in offering that as a solution. You can still fast-respond to an area, but it severely limits a player's ability to just hot drop on a hotly contested building to score a few easy kills with little to no expectation of actually contributing to its capture.

Solution 2 means that, even if you survived your encounter unless you can repair (which may not always be available) you would be stuck in what is essentially a flying coffin.

Again, even if vehicle repairs are for some reason difficult to find, you can still actually land your vehicle and get out if it.

[CutterJohn]

I'd like it if bailing was something you could only do as the passenger of an air transport. This callous disregard people seem to have for their vehicles leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Expecting people to land doesn't seem like that much to ask.

Worrying about a callous disregard for vehicles in a game where people have a callous disregard for their own lives seems a bit crazy.


Bailing is a valid style of gameplay. If people want to bail on a tower and maybe get a kill or two before dying, great. Its no different than the other completely self serving styles of gameplay in the game.

I agree that going from combat vehicle to hotdropping stormtrooper is annoying. And is the only thing that needs nerfed. Aircav wears a flight suit, except the individual transport mossie variant, which has no weapons. There, everything is solved.

[Talek Krell]

Worrying about a callous disregard for vehicles in a game where people have a callous disregard for their own lives seems a bit crazy.

That also worries me.

[CutterJohn]

Not me. PS was never a hardcore tactical sim. It was rather at the opposite end of the scale. Its a game where lives and vehicles are intended to be meaningless.

[Effective]

Does it really solve the problem? I don't think you've thought that through.

DashRev pretty much has it right.

I'm not 100% against limited loads though, I just prefer my solutions.

[Baneblade]

Well since you have no rebuttal, I win. Good day sir.

It was a rebuttal...


Anyway, perhaps the whole disposable vehicle thing won't be so rampant in PS2 when it costs quantifiable resources to obtain them.

[CutterJohn]

If it costs to obtain them. All thats been said is upgrades cost money. Unless I missed something, of course, but I very much hope thats not the case.

[Talek Krell]

They seem to have waffled a bit on it. Like that bit about capturing a resource because the vanu need it for their tanks and such. I can't imagine how it would work from an empire pool though, unless it was such a small cost as to be negligeable.

[Bags]

Make it so you can't bail within five seconds of taking damage and all is fixed.

[Baneblade]

I still say you shouldn't be able to bail until the vehicle is damaged enough the bailing mechanism has a chance to fail entirely.

I can understand ejecting from a burning Reaver.