So I read the PC gamer article

[Synapses]

It was pretty impressive aside from a few things that made my heart sink... that being that scope "glare" is in... One specific faction will have a advantage over the one facing the sun. IE scope glares, possibly blinding sun for pilots ext.

The other being that release is looking like sometime in 2013. These things were CLEARLY stated in the article. However, at the same time they also said "This years most blah blah shooter" so it leaves me a little confused as to what we have going on.

Personally I pray for my chance at beta before I begin school in April (helicopter piloting ftw!) as I will be so busy flying and studying. Buuuttt I know thats not going to happen as Higby stated in the article "There is still so much to be done" when talking about content and internal tests prior to beta.

[Lonehunter]

Just wanted to point out the 2013 comment was purely the interviewer's opinion, and I hope he's wrong

Glare wasn't really mentioned with scopes. I mean if your sighting your gun and looking at the sun yeah that's a glare, but I really hope there's no sparkle on a sniper's scope a mile away like BF3

[BigBossMonkey]

They have stated several times that the environment will be playing a role in PS2, weather will mean stuff, and there is a reason there is a Day/Night cycle.

It adds tactical advantages and what not.

This isn't BF3 where the sun is always at the same angle, it moves. You have an entire battlefield to move around in, you can make the enemy fight with your back to the sun.


As for the 2013 bit, that was the guys opinion. Alpha started in early December, so I would hazard a guess that Beta is ~1-3 months out.

Beta will likely last 5-6 months depending on how things go in it. That would make it a 2013 launch.

[Zulthus]

Bah, scope glare? Really? Pleeeeease leave that horrid implementation in BF3. I know there has to be a better way to combat camping snipers but that is most definitely NOT the way to do it!!

[Synapses]

So... They didnt declare SCOPE glares, but they declared that having your back to the sun does give an advantage against those in to the sun, maybe not scope glares, but there would be some kind of glares. *shrug*

Maybe I misread the 2013 thing. I thought it was a comment from someone on the team, ill re-read it all tomorrow.

[WiteBeam]

I doubt the games beta will be over 10 months long. And even if it is, most of us should be happy playing the beta till the launch anyways.

[WiteBeam]

If SOE adds stupid fucking realistic idealistic options that suggest real world physics, lighting and projectile drop because of physics on Earth and then in turn adds 40 tank rounds to kill someone, I will be again disappointed in SOE.

Make it real or don't make it real... stop trying to find a medium, there isn't one.

Lol

So true.

[Synapses]

Perhaps you are thinking about this galaxy and not another? Scope glares can happen in eastern asia from the west and from the south east in africa.

The point of the matter is, if the sun is far enough away, it's light given to the planet plus the technology of the faction could easily explain away the scope glare.

If SOE adds stupid fucking realistic idealistic options that suggest real world physics, lighting and projectile drop because of physics on Earth and then in turn adds 40 tank rounds to kill someone, I will be again disappointed in SOE.

Make it real or don't make it real... stop trying to find a medium, there isn't one.

I fully agree with you on this. Its one thing that pissed me off about PS1. Why is my reaver dying after 1.5 seconds of fire (no full vehicle shields, for that add .5 to make 2 seconds) from any form of AA, yet I put 2 rocket clips in to something and its still alive and has probably killed me by now.

Infact the very thought of flying planetside 1 makes me angry, and im a pilot IRL... They should have used basic helicopter mechanics instead of there system that they did, and rockets from reavers should have messed shit up.


Please SOE, make the vehicles balanced... If air is going to be able to kill me in 2 seconds, then I better be able to kill a tank in 2 seconds, fair is fair.

[Zulthus]

I fully agree with you on this. Its one thing that pissed me off about PS1. Why is my reaver dying after 1.5 seconds of fire (no full vehicle shields, for that add .5 to make 2 seconds) from any form of AA, yet I put 2 rocket clips in to something and its still alive and has probably killed me by now.

Infact the very thought of flying planetside 1 makes me angry, and im a pilot IRL... They should have used basic helicopter mechanics instead of there system that they did, and rockets from reavers should have messed shit up.


Please SOE, make the vehicles balanced... If air is going to be able to kill me in 2 seconds, then I better be able to kill a tank in 2 seconds, fair is fair.

Well, the reaver was actually fine and balanced. Until that stealth buff... but regardless. Tanks move slower and are easier to hit, thus they have more armor to last longer. Reavers were able to last as long as they did (20+ minutes if you're decent) because they were fast attack fighters, meaning they could swoop in and out quickly emptying a salvo of rockets. If they could just take out a tank in one salvo and still get out unscathed, how is that balanced at all? I think they balanced the vehicles very well. Buggies like the Skyguard were easily taken out with one salvo if you got the drop on them. That is balanced because they are very quick for a ground vehicle and are meant to combat aircraft. They shouldn't let their guard down like that.

[cellinaire]

Perhaps you are thinking about this galaxy and not another? Scope glares can happen in eastern asia from the west and from the south east in africa.

The point of the matter is, if the sun is far enough away, it's light given to the planet plus the technology of the faction could easily explain away the scope glare.

If SOE adds stupid fucking realistic idealistic options that suggest real world physics, lighting and projectile drop because of physics on Earth and then in turn adds 40 tank rounds to kill someone, I will be again disappointed in SOE.

Make it real or don't make it real... stop trying to find a medium, there isn't one.

Talking about common sense. Neat :cool:

[Synapses]

Well, the reaver was actually fine and balanced. Until that stealth buff... but regardless. Tanks move slower and are easier to hit, thus they have more armor to last longer. Reavers were able to last as long as they did (20+ minutes if you\'re decent) because they were fast attack fighters, meaning they could swoop in and out quickly emptying a salvo of rockets. If they could just take out a tank in one salvo and still get out unscathed, how is that balanced at all? I think they balanced the vehicles very well. Buggies like the Skyguard were easily taken out with one salvo if you got the drop on them. That is balanced because they are very quick for a ground vehicle and are meant to combat aircraft. They shouldn\'t let their guard down like that.

I totally get your points, but I have played on and off since release... and I STILL cant manage to fly a reaver well... and I am an effing pilot IRL... I die in seconds and this whole \"Just hide behind trees ext\" crap I keep hearing is BS because that almost NEVER works. I am not saying I should be able to kill a tank in one salvo... Im saying that if I cant do it, they shouldnt be able to do it. Skyguards or other AA should have a time before there lock completes and they can fire, and the second they start locking me I should be notified... like any other REAL military aircraft. It gives me time to bug out if I dont like what I am seeing/hearing.

This surviving 20 minutes comment you make is invalid, because I PROMISE you those reavers have had to swoop out of there like a bat out of hell to run away and repair. Im sorry but I want to enjoy playing an aircraft, not swoop in get one salvo off on something if im REALLY lucky, and swoop back out. I want to have some combat sustainability and survivability. Its super super frustrating the way it is in planetside. I spent my first time in a skyguard to laughing at myself for even thinking air was fun... I was getting 5 kills a minute in a good battle in a skyguard. Tell me thats BALANCED. All I had to do was put a tiny bit of lead on my targets and air dropped like flies in to a zap net. All I could think was \"No wonder I dont want to fly anymore, I feel terrible for these guys\" I dont really care what you say, because after 7 years I can SEE its unbalanced. Airpower should be the HARDEST to touch of all assets if we want to get in to realistic style combat. How often do you hear about an F-16/22 or A-10 getting shot down. Hardly ever. Never once seen it in all my years in the United States Air Force, and even now as a Helicopter pilot IRL... I can tell you that it just dosent feel right.

Why am I so upset? Becuase Airpower is my passion and in PS1 its not right. I want to see it RIGHT in PS2.

[Whalenator]

Syn. I love you.
But you\'re breaking my balls here.

Can\'t you see there are 4+ separate topics about the PCGamer thread? hnng.

[Synapses]

Syn. I love you.
But you\\'re breaking my balls here.

Can\\'t you see there are 4+ separate topics about the PCGamer thread? hnng.

This has been up since much earlier today. =P And it has quiet a few replies now. So I would say its a valid post?

[Synapses]

Odd... double post.

[Bravix]

Syn, I\'m also a pilot, and let me tell you this much. If they made aircraft realistic, they\'d be extremely overpowered. An F-22 would decimate just about anything in planetside.

Example being Halo. I\'ve always wondered, \"Okay, so Earth is under attack by some slow ass Banshees, and all the enemy has for AA is a turret emplacement....so whyyyy are we losing so bad? Bring in the mother fu$#ING jets!!\"

Reavers are extremely strong and well armored. They SHOULD die to skyguards, skyguard is anti-air. If you want to talk balance, explain to me why it takes so many mag rail shots to take down a reaver. That thing soaks up almost as much damage as a lightning.

The reason you don\'t see results is because you suck at flying Reavers. Not trying to be insulting, I\'m in the same boat. They just aren\'t realistic. If you wanna kick ass at flying, play Arma II.

[Synapses]

Syn, I\\\'m also a pilot, and let me tell you this much. If they made aircraft realistic, they\\\'d be extremely overpowered. An F-22 would decimate just about anything in planetside.

Example being Halo. I\\\'ve always wondered, \"Okay, so Earth is under attack by some slow ass Banshees, and all the enemy has for AA is a turret emplacement....so whyyyy are we losing so bad? Bring in the mother fu$#ING jets!!\"

Reavers are extremely strong and well armored. They SHOULD die to skyguards, skyguard is anti-air. If you want to talk balance, explain to me why it takes so many mag rail shots to take down a reaver. That thing soaks up almost as much damage as a lightning.

The reason you don\\\'t see results is because you suck at flying Reavers. Not trying to be insulting, I\\\'m in the same boat. They just aren\\\'t realistic. If you wanna kick ass at flying, play Arma II.

You make valid points. Well done. And I do play chopper games to get my fight on, I just wish we had a bit more firepower in the reaver, or counter measures to be able to ditch out at least if we don\\\'t like how the fight is going.

My complaint isnt so much against skyguards, its against lock on style AA that I cant seem to escape even if i\\\'m hiding behind something solid at times.

It just pisses me off when i\\\'m clearly behind a wall and im still getting hit from missiles that I should have \\"dodged\\" and then it leads to my death. Either way its not really balanced that reaver\\\'s/mossy\\\'s die after 1.5 seconds of damage compared to it taking me almost a full minute to get a kill on something that\\\'s full life. I shouldn\\\'t have to go repair every 10 seconds of combat... Its frustrating. I just hope to see some added survivability in. Aircav needs to have a bit more power this time around.

I love playing planetside, but not as air... and yet air power is my passion. Shouldn\\\'t I be able to play my favorite aspect of the game without wanting to kick my computer over in frustration every time I try my hand at it?

[Bags]

I wouldn\'t trust someone who got to play the game for an hour on when the game will come out.

[TerminatorUK]

Reading between the lines, a 2013 \'release\' date might potentially mean a long beta?

Long shot I know but they did stress how important a beta is to an MMO.

[Coreldan]

It\'s not even uncommon to not like something in a game that is a true passion to you in real life.

I for example have a friend who has done several tours as a sniper to afganistan, but he would never consider playing a sniper in any game :D

Games have balance to consider, which is why they cant probably make aircrafts \"as fun\" as you find them in real life. That said, the problem with PS1 in mind seems to be you, not Reavers in general.

[Chaff]

I don't think PS1 or PS2 was or ever will be very favorable to air.

My impression is most PS players are into ground-based weapons. Be it an infiltrator knifing someone in the back...all the way up to a tank gunner causing mayhem on any number of ground-based targets.

Hardcore Air Pilots need to go to Flight-driven games.

I like the concept that AA essentially creates a flight ceiling - err, floor. AA should be able to effectively keep/force aircraft to stay at or above a decently high ceiling over ground battles. The more active AA (on a base, or vehicle / softie-based) that is concentrated in an area - the less air activity the typical ground unit will see or have to worry about.

Then, when a really BIG ground battle develops - high altitude bombing starts to become more enticing.....this in turn, would give REAVER, SCYTHE, or MOSSIE pilots someting to go after.....then.....you essentially could see the same mix of air vehicles duking it out (up high) as there is ground-based varieties of encounters. PS2 needs to build things so dog fighting becomes a major component for pilots.

To have ONE real-life F-22 pilot roar down over a PS2 battlefield and kill 500+ softies on one run.....would ONLY be fun for said pilot.

It's an MMO. To attract and keep the "MASSIVE" numbers required to be a $UCCE$$FUL MMO ..... SOE needs players. I see SOE building the gameplay in PS2 to give what the majority of their community wants ......FPS action (primarily ground-based).

Having said that - I definitely think they could do a LOT to add gameplay for pilots. GALS & LIBS in formations to help protect against fighters ...... fighter escorts......figher-vs-fighter dogfights. The Airboys should have PLENTY of action. 80% of theit fighting should be up well off the ground.

When pops are lower, or AA defenses are well worn by ground assaults ..... then air can venture down lower with better survivability.

[Rbstr]

AA should do a bit of both: Keep aircraft in the high skies or of range of AA but that also keeps the ground units out of range of the aircraft.
As well as encourage ground striking aircraft to stay lower altitudes and use terrain for protection from anti-air devices.

A strike-chopper which must bob and weave around while avoiding AA and hitting targets is an inherently more interesting activity than flying over at thousands of feet dropping a bomb at a dot on your map.

[BorisBlade]

The better games out there are designed around gameplay, not realism. Realism doesnt work in a game. Real life has to worry about budgets, and real world travel time, logistics, fuel, fuel costs, and the lists go on and on. If real life were a game we would drop prob 80% of the vehicles we use in the military if not much more because cost wouldnt be a problem nor would logistics etc, we would use a much much smaller array of weapons and vehicles. A game must instead make all vehicles viable since cost and logistics is irrelevant.

Aircraft like the reaver were already more powerful than anything else in ps1 comparatively. It took vehicles which required two people to take out the solo aircraft. And reavers could easily rack up the kills better than most all other vehicles even those that required many more times the manpower. So saying they were weak just shows that you dont know what you are talking about and most likely were just a bad pilot. Because if anything, they needed toned down rather than beefed up if you want to get picky on actual balance.

[Synapses]

This is completely and utterly off topic, but as for your rotary wing school, the idea is to not become overwhelemd. Yes, it's a bitch to figure out. YES, it's a complete pain in the ass to learn the switches and knobs, but you have to realize you don't have to know all of them the very first day. That was my problem and I nearly flunked out.

I'm going to recommend.. *wait for it!! Wait for it!!* A video game.

This is a sim that is 99.99999% accurate to rotarty flight, it's controls and it's over bearing need for complete and utter focus..

DCS: Blackshark. You will learn to fly a RUSSIAN attack helicopter and it will give you SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much insight on every helicopter's ignition system. The reason I found it so helpful is because of it's language. You had to understand fully the word on the switch AND the actual switches' function, so it made you understand it very very well.

Learn THIS.
DCS - Black Shark Startup - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Q_XNf4elAI)

Ive been playing around with a lot of different flight sims and what not. Take on Helicopters, Microsoft Flight X, ect. I have a pretty good idea of how its going to work. I just hope its not as crazily stupidly hard to land as it was in Take on Helicopters, same with getting a good hover going.

That video is pretty intense. I cant imagine what it would be like to fly a chopper with all those nobs. I know the R22 (the one we learn on) is fairly simple in that sense. But when I start getting my turbine hours I know it'll step things up a notch on that level.