Aircraft Hovering, will it require skill?

[wildcat140679]

When I first heard that piloting an aircraft in PS2 will require skill I was thrilled.
However, the PC Gamer November 2011 article/interview Matt Higby spoke about hovering with a mosquito.

This had me worried a little bit, that piloting might not be that much more difficult than I initially hopped it would be.

I don't mind that air vehicles have the option to hover, as long as it requires some skill in order to do so and not like with PS1, if you didn't steer and released the controls it will automatically fall back in to hover mode.

I've flown helicopter simulators and as a hobby I fly small scale remote control helicopters and it takes a good amount of skill (specially small scale models) to maintain a stable hover. The technology is there (even on small scales models) to turn on auto hover pilot, but were is the fun in that?

I really hope that air crafts in PS2 will decent constantly and through use of small controlled bursts and course corrections made by the player, a hover can be maintained, but one that requires player skill in order to do so.


What do you hope hovering will be like on air craft?

[Zulthus]

Hovering is for helicopters. Hope aircraft don't get the ability. It'd be great if aircraft had to take off and land like modern aircraft.

BUT; if they HAD to implement hovering for them, the driver should always be too concentrated keeping the aircraft off the ground to shoot anything at that time. Don't need mossies and reavers camping doorways anymore.

[CutterJohn]

I'm personally hoping for an auto hover mode so I can take my hands off the controls to do whatever it is I need to do without landing or crashing. This setting should make it pretty much like PS flying, nice and easy, but have an upper speed limit and locked weapons.

I say this because I doubt we'll have lots of room to maneuver so people bobbing all over the place in unstable hovers will be annoying, and I'd like to be able to take my hands off the controls without landing to chat, look at the map, etc.

[Zulthus]

I'm personally hoping for an auto hover mode so I can take my hands off the controls to do whatever it is I need to do without landing or crashing. This setting should make it pretty much like PS flying, nice and easy, but have an upper speed limit and locked weapons.

I say this because I doubt we'll have lots of room to maneuver so people bobbing all over the place in unstable hovers will be annoying, and I'd like to be able to take my hands off the controls without landing to chat, look at the map, etc.

Actually I agree with that idea... I'd say hovering would be O.K if weapons were locked and you had limited mobility.

[Talek Krell]

It'd be great if aircraft had to take off and land like modern aircraft.
You say that, but think about what that would entail. Runways would have to be fairly common, which means large amounts of base real-estate dedicated to empty space. And then there's the matter of actually taking off. Battlefield 2 had, what 16 people per team, and it was a constant festival of teamkilling to get the jets first followed immediately by crashing. PS2 is supposed to be hundreds of people per side. People would be running off the runway all over the place, and that's not to mention the ones who never learned to look before crossing the street. And god help you if you ever want to land the thing to repair or re-arm...

[Sirisian]

VTOL was fixed in this thread if the developers ever read it (http://www.planetside-universe.com/forums/showthread.php?t=36769).

I completely disagree with CutterJohn. You can fly in a straight line ideally if you want to type or just use the built in voice comms. Fly straight up or something is another choice. Unless you type very slowly it shouldn't be a problem. How many times have you been flying in PS1 and just pressed q to fly forward and typed something to your driver? Very simple to do. You don't need to add a game changing mechanic just to allow it.

You say that, but think about what that would entail. Runways would have to be fairly common, which means large amounts of base real-estate dedicated to empty space. And then there's the matter of actually taking off. Battlefield 2 had, what 16 people per team, and it was a constant festival of teamkilling to get the jets first followed immediately by crashing. PS2 is supposed to be hundreds of people per side. People would be running off the runway all over the place, and that's not to mention the ones who never learned to look before crossing the street. And god help you if you ever want to land the thing to repair or re-arm...
I agree it would be amazingly fun to have some aircraft take off on a runway. Totally different experience for most pilots and changes which planes you can pull during combat. Landing to re-arm a plane with limited ammunition would also be a nice way to limit the use of more powerful air weaponry.

[basti]

Flying in general will require much more skill than it used to be. Dont worry, the days of hover camping mossys are over. :>

[Higby]

They're more like VTOL aircraft than helicopters. When they're hovering they require a lot of specific control to keep them stable. It's not as easy as taking your hands off the controls and maintaining altitude. Pitching forward / back to aim, or rolling side to side to "strafe" all require purposeful and measured movement to maintain air control. Air vehicles that remain still too long are sitting ducks for ground ordinance as well, so hovering needs to be used sparingly and thoughtfully. Increasing your thrust (or in an emergency activating your afterburners) puts you in flight mode where you handle exactly like you would expect a jet to handle, fast, maneuverable, able to do barrel rolls, loops, etc. The mosquito is extremely agile in this mode, and depending on the weapon systems you equip it on is equally adroit as both an air-to-air interceptor, a air-to-ground gun platform or a fast and nimble scout which can still do limited strafing runs.

[Zulthus]

They're more like VTOL aircraft than helicopters. When they're hovering they require a lot of specific control to keep them stable. It's not as easy as taking your hands off the controls and maintaining altitude. Pitching forward / back to aim, or rolling side to side to "strafe" all require purposeful and measured movement to maintain air control. Air vehicles that remain still too long are sitting ducks for ground ordinance as well, so hovering needs to be used sparingly and thoughtfully. Increasing your thrust (or in an emergency activating your afterburners) puts you in flight mode where you handle exactly like you would expect a jet to handle, fast, maneuverable, able to do barrel rolls, loops, etc. The mosquito is extremely agile in this mode, and depending on the weapon systems you equip it on is equally adroit as both an air-to-air interceptor, a air-to-ground gun platform or a fast and nimble scout which can still do limited strafing runs.

This is good to hear, I'm glad it isn't as simple as using an aircraft as a stationary turret anymore.

[CutterJohn]

They're more like VTOL aircraft than helicopters. When they're hovering they require a lot of specific control to keep them stable. It's not as easy as taking your hands off the controls and maintaining altitude. Pitching forward / back to aim, or rolling side to side to "strafe" all require purposeful and measured movement to maintain air control. Air vehicles that remain still too long are sitting ducks for ground ordinance as well, so hovering needs to be used sparingly and thoughtfully. Increasing your thrust (or in an emergency activating your afterburners) puts you in flight mode where you handle exactly like you would expect a jet to handle, fast, maneuverable, able to do barrel rolls, loops, etc. The mosquito is extremely agile in this mode, and depending on the weapon systems you equip it on is equally adroit as both an air-to-air interceptor, a air-to-ground gun platform or a fast and nimble scout which can still do limited strafing runs.

Auto hover mode? Let it disable guns if it has too. Its still a game that will have various interfaces to navigate, or take your hands off to answer the phone, etc. Having to spend 30s landing to do these things or just crashing would be annoying.

[Goku]

They're more like VTOL aircraft than helicopters. When they're hovering they require a lot of specific control to keep them stable. It's not as easy as taking your hands off the controls and maintaining altitude. Pitching forward / back to aim, or rolling side to side to "strafe" all require purposeful and measured movement to maintain air control. Air vehicles that remain still too long are sitting ducks for ground ordinance as well, so hovering needs to be used sparingly and thoughtfully. Increasing your thrust (or in an emergency activating your afterburners) puts you in flight mode where you handle exactly like you would expect a jet to handle, fast, maneuverable, able to do barrel rolls, loops, etc. The mosquito is extremely agile in this mode, and depending on the weapon systems you equip it on is equally adroit as both an air-to-air interceptor, a air-to-ground gun platform or a fast and nimble scout which can still do limited strafing runs.

Sounds far better then the current system. Nice improvements. Keep up the good work.

@ John

Do not be going afk in your plane then. Cannot say I ever see people doing that in BC2.

[Tigersmith]

They're more like VTOL aircraft than helicopters. When they're hovering they require a lot of specific control to keep them stable. It's not as easy as taking your hands off the controls and maintaining altitude. Pitching forward / back to aim, or rolling side to side to "strafe" all require purposeful and measured movement to maintain air control. Air vehicles that remain still too long are sitting ducks for ground ordinance as well, so hovering needs to be used sparingly and thoughtfully. Increasing your thrust (or in an emergency activating your afterburners) puts you in flight mode where you handle exactly like you would expect a jet to handle, fast, maneuverable, able to do barrel rolls, loops, etc. The mosquito is extremely agile in this mode, and depending on the weapon systems you equip it on is equally adroit as both an air-to-air interceptor, a air-to-ground gun platform or a fast and nimble scout which can still do limited strafing runs.

LOVE THIS. thanks again for clearing it up with us :)

[Sirisian]

Its still a game that will have various interfaces to navigate, or take your hands off to answer the phone, etc. Having to spend 30s landing to do these things or just crashing would be annoying.
:lol: Go to the BF3 forum and say that. "The f-22 needs a hover mode. I find when I'm making phone calls during the game my plane crashes. It shouldn't do that."

[FIREk]

Good stuff. :) I was confident that this was the vision behind aircraft and it's nice to get a confirmation. It seems kind of like VTOL aircraft in Battlefield 2. Pretty insane to get into - definitely both hard to learn and hard to master.

Considering aircraft will likely be quite unwieldy when hovering, I'm more than OK with them being able to shoot guns and fire ze missiles. :)

[SgtMAD]

Higby,can you tell us if mossie dropping is still in the game in PS2?

[CutterJohn]

Do not be going afk in your plane then. Cannot say I ever see people doing that in BC2.

There is one air vehicle in maps in BC2 so you don't want someone hogging it while afk. There is generally no conversation since its a random gaggle of players, not a group of friends in an outfit. If there is conversation its with people on another chat system and you hold off until you lose the helo. In PS you can always be in an air vehicle if you wish. The maps are tiny, and you don't need to reference it to get your bearings. Theres no real waypoint management, mission management, etc, etc.

Its a relatively minor change that adds convenience and doesn't affect the combat capabilities of the aircraft at all.

[basti]

They're more like VTOL aircraft than helicopters. When they're hovering they require a lot of specific control to keep them stable. It's not as easy as taking your hands off the controls and maintaining altitude. Pitching forward / back to aim, or rolling side to side to "strafe" all require purposeful and measured movement to maintain air control. Air vehicles that remain still too long are sitting ducks for ground ordinance as well, so hovering needs to be used sparingly and thoughtfully. Increasing your thrust (or in an emergency activating your afterburners) puts you in flight mode where you handle exactly like you would expect a jet to handle, fast, maneuverable, able to do barrel rolls, loops, etc. The mosquito is extremely agile in this mode, and depending on the weapon systems you equip it on is equally adroit as both an air-to-air interceptor, a air-to-ground gun platform or a fast and nimble scout which can still do limited strafing runs.

Sounds hovering is quite hard these days. Good stuff, very good stuff. cant wait to fly. :)

[Talek Krell]

I like the sound of what's being done with the air vehicles. My approval for the Hair God.

A series of things.
I think you're overblowing the issue. There's the built in voice chat, which will probably have a vehicle channel, and if hovering is too unstable to chat you could just switch to the flight mode. And if you need to take a phone call or something mid game and can't spare any attention for the mouse, just land the thing. You're not going to be accomplishing anything anyway, so might as well.

[Crator]

Better yet, hook your damn home phone up to your PC so you can take the call from your mic on your head already :)

[CutterJohn]

I like the sound of what's being done with the air vehicles. My approval for the Hair God.


I think you're overblowing the issue. There's the built in voice chat, which will probably have a vehicle channel, and if hovering is too unstable to chat you could just switch to the flight mode. And if you need to take a phone call or something mid game and can't spare any attention for the mouse, just land the thing. You're not going to be accomplishing anything anyway, so might as well.

Sure, but its also not a big game changing mechanic, so I don't really see why people are against a simple ease of use change. Lets you hover and not shoot. Doesn't seem like that big of deal, and imo would a nice feature. Not highly important. Just nice.

[Peacemaker]

They're more like VTOL aircraft than helicopters. When they're hovering they require a lot of specific control to keep them stable. It's not as easy as taking your hands off the controls and maintaining altitude. Pitching forward / back to aim, or rolling side to side to "strafe" all require purposeful and measured movement to maintain air control. Air vehicles that remain still too long are sitting ducks for ground ordinance as well, so hovering needs to be used sparingly and thoughtfully. Increasing your thrust (or in an emergency activating your afterburners) puts you in flight mode where you handle exactly like you would expect a jet to handle, fast, maneuverable, able to do barrel rolls, loops, etc. The mosquito is extremely agile in this mode, and depending on the weapon systems you equip it on is equally adroit as both an air-to-air interceptor, a air-to-ground gun platform or a fast and nimble scout which can still do limited strafing runs.


ooooooh my god this is going to be sooooooo sweet! I CANT WAIT!

[DviddLeff]

I want AV weapons to destroy aircraft at a massive bonus; I manage to hit one with a tank shell and the thing should die quick, not just fly off.

[Redshift]

I've flown helicopter simulators and as a hobby I fly small scale remote control helicopters and it takes a good amount of skill (specially small scale models) to maintain a stable hover. The technology is there (even on small scales models) to turn on auto hover pilot, but were is the fun in that?

I'd guess it'd be more like a harrier jump jet, should be a lot harder than a chopper

[CrystalViolet]

+1 on the hands off/weapons cold auto hover mode. Would be really useful when staging coordinated raids where lots of typing/waiting might be necessary.

[Talek Krell]

Fly in circles! Why do you have to be hovering? You're asking them to program/test/bugfix an additional feature that accomplishes something that you can already do by just setting the throttle to max and tipping the mouse to the left a bit.

[Senyu]

I thought PS1 had a good system for hovering. But if PS2 is gona make it more difficult I hope we can see some amazing results from the skilled pilots doing things others can't.


Welcome to Advance Hover Dynamics

[Crator]

PS1 had an easy system for hovering.

[Traak]

I want AV weapons to destroy aircraft at a massive bonus; I manage to hit one with a tank shell and the thing should die quick, not just fly off.

And this:

I want AV weapons to destroy aircraft at a massive bonus; I manage to hit one with a tank shell and the thing should die quick, not just fly off.

Yes, I know the quotes look similar, but it was so salient it bore repeating.

And "die quick" might read "blow to smoking bits, raining deadly flaming debris on those beneath".

[Traak]

I thought PS1 had a good system for hovering. But if PS2 is gona make it more difficult I hope we can see some amazing results from the skilled pilots doing things others can't.


Welcome to Advance Hover Dynamics

Just realistic physics would make this a piece of cake.

[Erendil]

Sure, but its also not a big game changing mechanic, so I don't really see why people are against a simple ease of use change. Lets you hover and not shoot. Doesn't seem like that big of deal, and imo would a nice feature. Not highly important. Just nice.

I guess it really depends on how fast and easy it'd be to switch back and forth between modes. If switching hover mode on/off was instant and a single key press was all the differentiated the two modes, then people could still use it to camp doorways. You could just fly up and engaging hover mode until the door opens, then quickly disengage it, fire off a volley, then re-engage. That wouldn't be any better than the hover campers in PS1.

Now, if the Hover mode forced your nose to level (like hitting the PS1 flight ceiling does now), took a second or so to activate/deactivate, and turned off your weapons, I'd be fine with it. Then it could also be used to assist with take-offs and landings since it'll auto-level the plane for you.

[wildcat140679]

Thanks Matt for adding more details to aircraft and hovering.

I'm really looking forward on experiencing what you briefly described,

[DDSHADE]

I think hovering with PS2 Aircraft is fine, though I miss the look of the rotating engines, they seem to be missing in PS2.

However, I think that to stop people from hoverspamming from a mossie or reaver (or scythe in PS2) That SHIELDS on the aircraft should be focused on the ability to cover, making aircraft more vulnerable whilst hovering.

I am curious as to see where a lot of different features of PS1 make it into the sequel and as to how they tackle new problems that may arise from differing from the first game too much.

I guess we shall see in beta! (I hope they have mag-mowers again lol)

[Warborn]

Higby,can you tell us if mossie dropping is still in the game in PS2?

They said fighters can get access to a bailing "upgrade", but heavy assault weapons are restricted to the heavy assault class, which can't pilot vehicles. So the question will be, do you really want to drop onto a tower as a medic or engineer and go toe-to-toe with guys in heavy armor and jackhammers while you're sporting agile armor and a cycler or whatever?

[MGP]

If the hovering will be a complicated maneuver in PS2, they should add some defensive mechanisms against homing AA weapons, because in PS the only way to avoid homing AA was to afterburn to nearest tower or wall or mountain and hover behind to drop the lockdown. If you can't do it in PS2, aircrafts will be a cannon fodder for AA.

[Neksar]

I always get irritated when gamers start throwing around the notion of 'skill.' To me it always translates to "Let's make this needlessly bothersome to do so that the people that have the patience to stomach it can stroke their e-peen." I like the way helicopters work in Battlefield 3, but PS2 aircraft aren't exactly choppers. I mean, I hated getting door camped as much as the next guy, but the reason that worked was because you didn't have enough AA going to shred those damnable mossies. I won't mind if it's a little bit tougher to maneuver aircraft that are hovering, but making it pointlessly difficult for the sake of balance is just going to end up limiting aircraft to strafing runs and absolutely pointless antics that show up in Battlefield 3 - where aircraft (particularly jets) are only good for taking out other aircraft.

[Warborn]

I won't mind if it's a little bit tougher to maneuver aircraft that are hovering, but making it pointlessly difficult for the sake of balance is just going to end up limiting aircraft to strafing runs and absolutely pointless antics that show up in Battlefield 3 - where aircraft (particularly jets) are only good for taking out other aircraft.

What's the problem with any of this? Why should one-man fighters be particularly good against ground targets at all? I've never understood the desire for every vehicle to be good against everything else. I think it would be just fine if fighters were only good against other aircraft. Make them modestly able to attack ground targets, but leave that primarily up to liberators. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. A one-man, flying vehicle being dominant against all targets like in PS1 was pretty stupid.

[MGP]

I always get irritated when gamers start throwing around the notion of 'skill.' To me it always translates to "Let's make this needlessly bothersome to do so that the people that have the patience to stomach it can stroke their e-peen." I like the way helicopters work in Battlefield 3, but PS2 aircraft aren't exactly choppers. I mean, I hated getting door camped as much as the next guy, but the reason that works was because you didn't have enough AA going to shred those damnable mossies. I won't mind if it's a little bit tougher to maneuver aircraft that are hovering, but making it pointlessly difficult for the sake of balance is just going to end up limiting aircraft to strafing runs and absolutely pointless antics that show up in Battlefield 3 - where aircraft (particularly jets) are only good for taking out other aircraft.

^ This.

[MGP]

What's the problem with any of this? Why should one-man fighters be particularly good against ground targets at all? I've never understood the desire for every vehicle to be good against everything else. I think it would be just fine if fighters were only good against other aircraft. Make them modestly able to attack ground targets, but leave that primarily up to liberators. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. A one-man, flying vehicle being dominant against all targets like in PS1 was pretty stupid.

Why aircraft should be good against ground vehicles? Ever heard of gunships? US A-10 and Russian Su-25 are both very effective against armored vehicles. I'm not even gonna mention attack helicopters whose sole existence is to hunt down tanks and other ground targets. That's the life. You just want aircraft to be only good against other aircraft? What's the point of having them at all then?

As for domination...
Were you playing PS1 at all? Aircrafts never were anywhere near "dominant force". A single AA max could make a life miserable to dozens of pilots.

[Warborn]

Why aircraft should be good against ground vehicles? Ever heard of gunships? US A-10 and Russian Su-25 are both very effective against armored vehicles.

That's fine, and that's presumably why liberators exist, yes? To kill stuff on the ground from up in the sky? If fighters are particularly good against ground targets, that just marginalizes liberators even further.

Were you playing PS1 at all? Aircrafts never were anywhere near "dominant force". A single AA max could make a life miserable to dozens of pilots.

No shit, because if you didn't have one of the handful of things that was good against AA you were fucked. AA had the potential to ruin aircav and aircav had the potential to ruin anything that wasn't AA. It was a match made in hell and it sucked for everyone involved. I don't want to see that repeated. But if they make one-man air vehicles yet again flying murder-wagons that destroy infantry and armor alike, they'll yet again have to give infantry bullshit AA to defend themselves with and we're right back where we started.

Alternatively, if fighters aren't very good against ground targets (or only good against vehicles) then they can leave the bulk of the air-to-ground killing to liberators, make liberators contingent on effective fighter escorts, and ultimately leave the fighters as the primary way to kill aircraft in the game. Then fighters can spend the majority of their effort dogfighting rather than dodging homing missiles coming out everyone's ass the minute they show up anyplace.

[MGP]

That's fine, and that's presumably why liberators exist, yes? To kill stuff on the ground from up in the sky? If fighters are particularly good against ground targets, that just marginalizes liberators even further.



No shit, because if you didn't have one of the handful of things that was good against AA you were fucked. AA had the potential to ruin aircav and aircav had the potential to ruin anything that wasn't AA. It was a match made in hell and it sucked for everyone involved. I don't want to see that repeated. But if they make one-man air vehicles yet again flying murder-wagons that destroy infantry and armor alike, they'll yet again have to give infantry bullshit AA to defend themselves with and we're right back where we started.

Alternatively, if fighters aren't very good against ground targets (or only good against vehicles) then they can leave the bulk of the air-to-ground killing to liberators, make liberators contingent on effective fighter escorts, and ultimately leave the fighters as the primary way to kill aircraft in the game. Then fighters can spend the majority of their effort dogfighting rather than dodging homing missiles coming out everyone's ass the minute they show up anyplace.

So, in conclusion, you want air-to-ground weapons removed from aircraft.
Okay, then i want AA weapons removed from the game. AA is too effective against aircraft. Not fair.

[ThirdCross]

So, in conclusion, you want air-to-ground weapons removed from aircraft.
Okay, then i want AA weapons removed from the game. AA is too effective against aircraft. Not fair.

Did you not read about the part liberators? He's fine with liberators, I'm fine with liberators, EVERYONE'S fine with liberators.

What we don't want is every aircraft being able to destroy EVERYTHING that's not AA.

[Sabrak]

What we don't want is every aircraft being able to destroy EVERYTHING that's not AA.

...?

"Customization" anyone?

Aircrafts could be fitted for AA, AI or even just recon, too, uh.

[Shogun]

matt i hope you don´t forget to record a video when beta starts and the first hordes of players run to the airterms just to pop out aircrafts and crash them 15 seconds later ;-)

i guess the airterm will look like a vulcano or a popcorn pan at first ;-) spitting out dead lumps in all directions ;-)
and if that´s the case i want a video of this !

[Coreldan]

I think BF3 had the hovering fairly well with the helis. It actually required active work from the pilot to keep it steady

[DayOne]

So how are the VS aircraft going to work? The Magrider's movement is significantly different from the other MBTs so are we going to see such significant differences in the way the VS aircraft fly and hover?

[FastAndFree]

So how are the VS aircraft going to work? The Magrider's movement is significantly different from the other MBTs so are we going to see such significant differences in the way the VS aircraft fly and hover?

It has been stated that the Scythe will "move in ways more conventional aircraft cannot"

What this means is anyone's guess.

[lolroflroflcake]

I'm willing to bet that the scythe moves in the same directions as the other planes, it can just make the changes in direction much faster.

[Boomzor]

It has been stated that the Scythe will "move in ways more conventional aircraft cannot"

What this means is anyone's guess.

I always interpreted that in a more newtonian way, such as facing 180 degrees of the direction momentum is carrying you (ie fly north but face and shoot south).
Numbers arbitrary for clarification.

[lolroflroflcake]

Exactly I'm thinking it'll look something like the raiders or vipers from Battlestar when its moving.

[Warborn]

...?

"Customization" anyone?

Aircrafts could be fitted for AA, AI or even just recon, too, uh.

That's fine, and I even said I'm fine with them having mediocre air-to-ground capability. What I don't think is absolutely necessary is for fighters to be really dangerous against ground targets like they were in PS1. It's when you have these one-man vehicles that are basically everywhere, all the time, AND really powerful against ground targets that you create a need for anti-aircraft weapons which are basically everywhere, all the time, and really powerful. This time I hope we can avoid that.

[DayOne]

That's fine, and I even said I'm fine with them having mediocre air-to-ground capability. What I don't think is absolutely necessary is for fighters to be really dangerous against ground targets like they were in PS1. It's when you have these one-man vehicles that are basically everywhere, all the time, AND really powerful against ground targets that you create a need for anti-aircraft weapons which are basically everywhere, all the time, and really powerful. This time I hope we can avoid that.

I think aircraft should have the the ability to be powerful air-to-ground units IF, and only if, the pilot is good.

What I mean is dumb fire rockets that are good against tanks and a fixed minigun that is effective against infantry. If a pilot going at ~120Mph can hit a tank on the ground or the driver is driving in open terrain without AA then the pilot deserves to do a lot of damage.

[Warborn]

Planetside speed is measured in kmph.

All making fighters good against ground targets will do is make them yet again the dominant vehicle in the game and marginalize the liberator even more. Why bother getting two or three people to crew a liberator when everyone can just grab a fighter and have three people shooting rockets and stuff at land targets instead of just one or two?

It's interesting how single-person aircraft, which already have the benefit of being single-person and the most mobile vehicles in the game, also apparently need to be good against everything as well. Yet another reason PS1 players ought to have nothing to do with the beta, I say.

[DayOne]

Good point. I guess so long as they aren't totally useless against ground stuff I'll be okay with it. I just don't want to see a aircraft needing to do 10 passes with rockets to kill one guy.

If I hit a guy in the face with a rocket or two, even if he's in HA, he should die.

[TerminatorUK]

Hopefully it'll be something akin to fkying an attack helicopter in BF3 - high learning curve, difficult to remain stable under pressure, hit 'n runs tactics but ultimately rewarding once you get the hang of it.

[Whalenator]

Increasing your thrust (or in an emergency activating your afterburners) puts you in flight mode where you handle exactly like you would expect a jet to handle, fast, maneuverable, able to do barrel rolls, loops, etc.

http://static.fjcdn.com/gifs/Robofap_fcd5f1_699850.gif

MORE DIMENSIONS OF FREEDOM

BF3 - high learning curve, difficult to remain stable under pressure, hit 'n runs tactics but ultimately rewarding once you get the hang of it.

I laughed.

Yet another reason PS1 players ought to have nothing to do with the beta, I say.

http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj203/Whalen207/drderedrd.png

ಠ_ಠ

-

[jakaul]

Planetside speed is measured in kmph.

All making fighters good against ground targets will do is make them yet again the dominant vehicle in the game and marginalize the liberator even more. Why bother getting two or three people to crew a liberator when everyone can just grab a fighter and have three people shooting rockets and stuff at land targets instead of just one or two?

It's interesting how single-person aircraft, which already have the benefit of being single-person and the most mobile vehicles in the game, also apparently need to be good against everything as well. Yet another reason PS1 players ought to have nothing to do with the beta, I say.

You see, this is the kind of statement that's really quite annoying and disturbing in how ignorant it is. It assumes that we, the PS1 players, were the ones responsible for shitty design decisions because we used platforms at what they were effective at. You might as well go ahead and take tanks out because people in PS1 used them to farm doorways.

The reality is they failed on a design level to create aircraft that had distinct strengths and weaknesses. For example, the Reaver was a killing machine on any enemy. If they had made it VERY strong against ground vehicles and incredibly weak against troops, things would have been better. If they had made the Mossie incredibly strong at air to air and weak against ground/troops, things would have been better. But no, their solutions were to increase the amount of AA and introduce systems that didn't help, like the Wasp.

That was NOT a player problem. That was entirely a design problem. If you fit aircraft into their appropriate roles, these things work out.

[Cosmical]

You see, this is the kind of statement that's really quite annoying and disturbing in how ignorant it is. It assumes that we, the PS1 players, were the ones responsible for shitty design decisions because we used platforms at what they were effective at.

I think he meant more that certain peoples preconceptions of what the game should be when compared to PS1 are effecting unbias healthy decision making.

But generally youve got sound theories on balancing and unit versus unit conflict types. But lets not forget, they want you to be able to play this game how you want, if i wanted i should be able to spend 9 hours in a jet. And theoretically, you should be able to dump months of time into leveling just your flying skills. If you told me that i enjoyed being a pilot, but im going to spend the rest of my game life fighting and only being effective against other aircraft, with my reward for clearing the skys being i get to watch everyone else have fun on the ground taking objectives. I would shit.

Your right about the lib, but consider the Lib the final word in air to ground domination. It clears the battlefield. Whereas other air vehicles from the sound of it will have to be happy with fly by kills and hit and runs. Limited weapon loadouts and more advanced direct client data feedback will add up to more balanced weapon types. Dont worry me old mucka. xx

[jakaul]

I think he meant more that certain peoples preconceptions of what the game should be when compared to PS1 are effecting unbias healthy decision making.

But generally youve got sound theories on balancing and unit versus unit conflict types. But lets not forget, they want you to be able to play this game how you want, if i wanted i should be able to spend 9 hours in a jet. And theoretically, you should be able to dump months of time into leveling just your flying skills. If you told me that i enjoyed being a pilot, but im going to spend the rest of my game life fighting and only being effective against other aircraft, with my reward for clearing the skys being i get to watch everyone else have fun on the ground taking objectives. I would shit.

Your right about the lib, but consider the Lib the final word in air to ground domination. It clears the battlefield. Whereas other air vehicles from the sound of it will have to be happy with fly by kills and hit and runs. Limited weapon loadouts and more advanced direct client data feedback will add up to more balanced weapon types. Dont worry me old mucka. xx

I don't have a problem with encouraging all points of view to be voiced and considered. I DO have a problem trying to lump an entire group and implying that every member of that group should have no voice because he doesn't agree with a perceived point of view. I'm a PS1 player for 8+ years, should I have no voice because he assumes my opinion on aircraft?

To your other point, I don't think we disagree. If you want to be a pilot and nothing else, I'd love that the game lets you pick a role (A2A, A2G), but it should not let you effectively do all roles. Otherwise, why create separate platforms to begin with?