Should aircraft be able to see infantry on radar?

[EVILPIG]

One of the first suggestions I made for Planetside 2 was removing the ability for aircraft to see infantry on radar. This was mostly due to the perception that infantry farming was problematic. It evolved into just plain making sense. It is easy enough to see anything running around from such a vantage point, having them on radar just makes infantry prey. To counter this, hand held AA weaponry is to be developed, but would it be necessary? We already know that cockpit graphics will be forced. If we remove the ability for aircraft to see infantry on radar, you can basically remove hand held AA weaponry.

[Stardouser]

No. Aircraft are not infantry sniping/raping platforms. If they want to kill infantry they should have to dip down low and risk their necks.

BUT - squad leaders should be able to place STATIC air support request markers.

[Metalsheep]

In Planetside you could only see Infantry on your radar because they were eaither
A: Infront of you, so technically your Line of Sight put them on your radar.
B: Your Squadmates see them, so they come up on Radar.
C: Interlink/Friendly Motion Tracker
Or
D: The mosquito had a special Overflight radar that detected enemies below it when you were at like... 25% throttle.

None of the other aircraft had the ability to see infantry on Radar innately. It was just how the Radar mechanic worked in general through Infantry, Land and Air vehicles.

I think if this stays it will remain fine. With the possibility of the Reaver/Mossie/Scythe getting Overflight as a customization/utility slot ability that they have to sacrifice something else to get.

I also agree on some kind of hand-held AA weapon. The Rocklet was sweet for mopping up weakened or farming aircav, but perhaps something like a Jammer for Air? So that infantry have an equal chance against Aircav and Armor. Maybe instead of Jammers having a 3 second detonation, it could have an Airburst as its secondary like Flak. (assuming Jammers still are in and work the same or similarly.)

[Stardouser]

Infantry and aircraft should really not be fighting each other unless the aircraft are getting very low. BF3 is extremely annoying for air pilots because there is a stinger under every rock. It should be enough that vehicles can be spec'd for AA.

[EVILPIG]

Oh snap. Higby voted, there goes the poll!! :eek:

[SKYeXile]

Oh snap. Higby voted, there goes the poll!! :eek:

Higby knows whats up.

[Stardouser]

Oh snap. Higby voted, there goes the poll!! :eek:

If he voted yes for this, I would wonder if we are doomed to 3D spotting and every other possible 4th wall breaking aid from the game.

Infantry shouldn't be seen by aircraft with such ease.

[Knocky]

No Higby....NO!!!!

/cry

[Sledgecrushr]

I voted no, if an airplane can spot you crossing the ground and relay that information to his ground troops that is good tactics. But to just automatically see ALL the ground troops in the range pf your radar is overpowered. Course it would be really good for those planes that are equipped to kill ground targets to always be able to go to troop concentrations even though they might be hiding.

[metziih]

No, I don't think aircraft ground radar should be able to detect infantry, unless infantry was using some sort of active radar. Like, pointing aircraft with anti-air missile-launcher while trying to get a "lock" on that said aircraft.

[atone]

standard equip= no

[Biohazard]

Maxes maybe, but not infantry. Unless they are locking onto said aircraft with a weapon (Would be a cool reason for players to use direct-fire AV over lock-on) or calling in an OS.

[Rbstr]

Yes, because this is yet another poll that's too binary.

[Red Beard]

Maxes maybe, but not infantry. Unless they are locking onto said aircraft with a weapon (Would be a cool reason for players to use direct-fire AV over lock-on) or calling in an OS.

Very good point; I would avoid Dumb-fire like the plague otherwise...Would make it more attractive.

[Alduron]

They should be able to see infantry on the radar only when target is spotted by a teammate. Largely for the role of close air support.

You're missing a lot of senses in games, and it's much easier to flag the enemy on the pilots map than it is to guide him there with long-winded instructions.

It's not an instant kill if an enemy is on the pilots minimap. It almost seems like some of the people above think that rockets and bullets magically one-shot people that are on the minimap. Still takes time/skill to maneuver into position and fire. It looks like aircraft will be doing more flying than in PS1, so I'd imagine pilots would have to plot their runs in order to not be shot out of the sky.

[Stardouser]

They should be able to see infantry on the radar only when target is spotted by a teammate. Largely for the role of close air support.

You're missing a lot of senses in games, and it's much easier to flag the enemy on the pilots map than it is to guide him there with long-winded instructions.

It's not an instant kill if an enemy is on the pilots minimap. It almost seems like some of the people above think that rockets and bullets magically one-shot people that are on the minimap. Still takes time/skill to maneuver into position and fire. It looks like aircraft will be doing more flying than in PS1, so I'd imagine pilots would have to plot their runs in order to not be shot out of the sky.

Actually, you have a point. Minimap sighting doesn't make an instant kill...a more important question is, IF there is 3D spotting in the game for infantry, should aircraft be able to see 3D spots of infantry, because that WILL make for more instant kills? Considering that there shouldn't be 3D spotting at all, that goes double for aircraft.

NOTE: In the event infantry 3D spotting is squad only(a reasonable compromise), then in that event, there should still be no ability for aircraft to see 3D spots. Squads should be able to place static 3D air support request markers, and that's all.

[Stew]

No air craft driver should have skills and eagle eyes to be true bad ass pilots the aircraft domination must be HARD as possible to achive it will also be more rewarding for the few who can acomplish that

[Atheosim]

Firstly, infantry farming has already been powerfully nerfed by making hovering in an aircraft extremely dangerous and difficult. Secondly, and as a result of this, it will be much more difficult to effectively engage infantry. Thirdly we don't even know how well aircav weaponry will function against infantry.

[Whalenator]

Guys, are we paying any attention here?
Planetside 2's population density will be at least twice that of a poplocked con in early Planetside (if not more).

If you find yourself as a handful of infantry facing an aircraft that's stupid enough to sit there and hover, the aircraft's going to get shot down by one of the 665 teammates near to you.

I think radar = yes, with platoon-wide data sharing.

[Crator]

I'm voting yes. With same restrictions that PS1 had in regards to radar mechanics.

[Malorn]

I think this poll is a bit misleading/uninformative because we don't clearly know how spotting and radar works in PS2 and it appears to be a poll in the context of PS1.

We know a radar upgrade for some vehicles exists as a utility slot (tradeoff would be flares or safe-bail or other similar thing), and in PS2 that may very well be an auto-spotting mechanism for anything under the radar's effects, and it might have the same restrictions that the mosquito had in PS1. Due to different flight mechanics and a cockpit blocking view of stuff directly below the aircraft it could quite easily be balanced.

So then the question is does anything at all show up on your radar that is hostile if it is not spotted?

Do radar-like mechanics auto-spot?

If the answer is yes to both of those then there's no need for aircraft minimap to be any different from any other minimap.

I don't think anything hostile should show up on any radar that is not ether spotted or within range of a vehicle with radar/auto-spot functionality. If someone has spotted the infantry, or the aircraft has a radar utility upgrade (like the old mosquito), then absolutely it should show up. Someone spotted it, the pilot should receive that information.

[Mezorin]

Any unit should see another unit's "spots" or what ever else, as that's sort of the point to having coordination in a game. Should planes have the ability to "motion sense"? If they sacrifice the missile slot for a radar scout suite, sure, why not? The guys who can see/spot ground troops will be food for the guys who specialize purely in air to air combat anyways. Remember what Higby said: every load out will mean sacrificing something.

We all know how much air cav dominated everything else in PS1, but that likely won't be the case this time around as anyone can just swap out a heavy assault load out, or slap an AA turret on their tank. If you are getting one sided aircav farmed it will not be because you had a lack of reliable things that could shoot planes, it will be because you didn't use them.

[Stardouser]

Any unit should see another unit's "spots" or what ever else, as that's sort of the point to having coordination in a game. Should planes have the ability to "motion sense"? If they sacrifice the missile slot for a radar scout suite, sure, why not? The guys who can see/spot ground troops will be food for the guys who specialize purely in air to air combat anyways. Remember what Higby said: every load out will mean sacrificing something.

We all know how much air cav dominated everything else in PS1, but that likely won't be the case this time around as anyone can just swap out a heavy assault load out, or slap an AA turret on their tank. If you are getting one sided aircav farmed it will not be because you had a lack of reliable things that could shoot planes, it will be because you didn't use them.

When 1 person can spot for 600, it's not coordination, it's zerging. It's an extreme force multiplier that allows a reward to be reaped that's far beyond any skill, planning, or situational awareness that was sown. And simple line of sight radar is even worse. That's not even spotting.

I don't understand the point of having a large scale game if things like this are going to undo it all, destroy stealth, etc.

[Crator]

When 1 person can spot for 600, it's not coordination, it's zerging. It's an extreme force multiplier that allows a reward to be reaped that's far beyond any skill, planning, or situational awareness that was sown. And simple line of sight radar is even worse. That's not even spotting.

I don't understand the point of having a large scale game if things like this are going to undo it all, destroy stealth, etc.

Ya, that was a bit OP the way he described it. But what about having a spot mechanic so the infantry can click on the target and the radar shows the target for a short time. It wouldn't track the target though. The spotter would have to re-target to change the loc of the spot on the radar.

The mosqituo ability was cool and I think should be kept. But what about giving a UAV ability too?

[Stardouser]

Ya, that was a bit OP the way he described it. But what about having a spot mechanic so the infantry can click on the target and the radar shows the target for a short time. It wouldn't track the target though. The spotter would have to re-target to change the loc of the spot on the radar.

I would prefer that squad leaders only be able to place 3D air support request markers. They do not spot and follow individual infantry, they are simply a notification for the aircraft to look for infantry in the area. I think that's much better and is actual teamwork.

[Crator]

I would prefer that squad leaders only be able to place 3D air support request markers. They do not spot and follow individual infantry, they are simply a notification for the aircraft to look for infantry in the area. I think that's much better and is actual teamwork.

Why can't there be both? I don't see how infantry having the ability to provide target spotting in this way is not teamwork oriented. And it's the data that the squad leader can use to figure out where to properly place air support markers. I see what you are saying though. You don't want everyone in the squad to know the intel because they won't make proper tactical decisions on what to do and will break away in pursuit of an objective that the squad hasn't set. Ok, well allow all troops to spot but give that intel only to the squad leader.

Sorry, went a little off topic... Was relevant though....

[Alduron]

Actually, you have a point. Minimap sighting doesn't make an instant kill...a more important question is, IF there is 3D spotting in the game for infantry, should aircraft be able to see 3D spots of infantry, because that WILL make for more instant kills? Considering that there shouldn't be 3D spotting at all, that goes double for aircraft.

NOTE: In the event infantry 3D spotting is squad only(a reasonable compromise), then in that event, there should still be no ability for aircraft to see 3D spots. Squads should be able to place static 3D air support request markers, and that's all.

I'm on the fence about spotting from the air. I don't mind vehicles that don't have weapons spotting (or using some kind of drone to spot) but a weapons platform should not be able to use spotting in order to track a target it chooses.

I'm largely in favor for a close air support request system. Maybe a flashing marker of some sort (IR) that can be thrown/launched from grenade tube. You'd toss/launch it around the target and the friendly aircraft in the area would see the marker and focus attacks around that area. It would be dependent on skill, aircraft can't mark, and you can still call in air support outside your squad (which is helpful if there is a squad/outfit specializing in air support).

[Stardouser]

Why can't there be both? I don't see how infantry having the ability to provide target spotting in this way is not teamwork oriented. And it's the data that the squad leader can use to figure out where to properly place air support markers. I see what you are saying though. You don't want everyone in the squad to know the intel because they won't make proper tactical decisions on what to do and will break away in pursuit of an objective that the squad hasn't set. Ok, well allow all troops to spot but give that intel only to the squad leader.

Sorry, went a little off topic... Was relevant though....

No, everyone in the squad is fine. I'm talking about the entire empire receiving the data.

But why would anyone 3D spot for their squadmates if simple line of sight spots everyone on the radar? For that reason I think we're doomed to 3D spotting, whereas the real answer is not to have automatic line of sight minimap spotting, and then give squads 3D spots.

[Baneblade]

Radar shouldn't see anything on the ground.

[Blackwolf]

Infantry make up very small targets to aircraft. I agree whole heartedly with Stardouser's idea. If SLs or leadership could place air support markers indicating areas of interest for infantry hunting gunships, that would be enough.

Infantry should really be invisible to radar for everything but infantry, and those ground vehicles loaded out with infantry detecting radar. They should pose a threat to vehicles because of their smaller size and near-impossible detectability unless they pop out and shoot the tank.

Personally, I think infantry spotting should only occur when you engage a target in combat. That is, no LOS spotting, you actually have to shoot (and hit), or be shot by the target for it to show up on radar for yourself and squad mates. The way hotspots show up in PS1 on the main map.

The target would only appear as a blip on radar and not be updated (position wise) unless you shoot it again, or it shoots you. While it's on radar it fades over the course of a few seconds (unless updated). Basically the blip is a radar hotspot.

[Hypevosa]

only MAXes

[Erendil]

I think this poll is a bit misleading/uninformative because we don't clearly know how spotting and radar works in PS2 and it appears to be a poll in the context of PS1.

We know a radar upgrade for some vehicles exists as a utility slot (tradeoff would be flares or safe-bail or other similar thing), and in PS2 that may very well be an auto-spotting mechanism for anything under the radar's effects, and it might have the same restrictions that the mosquito had in PS1. Due to different flight mechanics and a cockpit blocking view of stuff directly below the aircraft it could quite easily be balanced.

So then the question is does anything at all show up on your radar that is hostile if it is not spotted?

Do radar-like mechanics auto-spot?

If the answer is yes to both of those then there's no need for aircraft minimap to be any different from any other minimap.

I don't think anything hostile should show up on any radar that is not ether spotted or within range of a vehicle with radar/auto-spot functionality. If someone has spotted the infantry, or the aircraft has a radar utility upgrade (like the old mosquito), then absolutely it should show up. Someone spotted it, the pilot should receive that information.

Pretty much this.

Personally I'm fine w/ these mechanics from PS1:

Automatic 2D (minimap) spotting is shared by all members of your platoon; so if one member detects an enemy, the whole platoon sees it on the minimap so long as it's actively detected (so if it's still, quiet, and out of direct LOS it disappears from the minimap)
Short-range vehicle/deployable-based detection systems (e.g. - Mossie Overflight Detection, Motion Sensors) gives automatic 2D spotting for everyone in the Empire, and it should detect any infantry moving or otherwise making noise
Enemy units not seen or heard by members of your platoon don't show up on the minimap unless picked up by short-range vehicle/deployable detection systems
There should be some way to block and/or not be detected by short-range vehicle/deployed systems. Not sure about 2D spotting tho (except maybe for cloakers)


IMO what we normally refer to as "RADAR" really isn't radar. It's more an interconnected communication/navigation/Command&Control system like a glorified Land Warrior system used by the US Army. People show up on the minimap when they're actually seen or heard by platoon members' bare senses and not just by an electronic detection system. Plus waypoints, floorplans, friendly deployables, etc are all marked as well. As such, any information shown on one player's minimap should be shared by all platoon members regardless of whether or not they are in a vehicle.

That said, people here have also asked for long-range RADAR systems for aircraft to be included in the game, like from an AWACS system. Something like that would most likely work differently than typical 2D spotting, and such systems should not pick up enemy infantry (except maybe MAXes). In fact, IMO no methods of detection that have a range longer than the size of the minimap should be able to pick up infantry, including such things as Reveals (unless it's really short range in PS2), 3D spotting done by platoon members outside of your minimap range, etc.


Oh, and as a side note for you old skool (read: pre-BFR) PS1 vets out there: Sometime in mid-2004 (I think), the Mossie's overflight detection was made active at all times, regardless of how fast it was going. Just thought I'd point that out since a couple ppl in this thread were under the impression it still worked only at low speeds. And IMO, for gameplay purposes I would classify the PS1 Mossie's overflight detection as something other than radar as well due to its extremely short range. More like an enhance motion/sound detection system.

[Kipper]

Radar != Minimap. Minimap blobs are blobs in your line of sight or that have been spotted by friendlies (this is usally how it goes, at least).

Radar is a method of spotting troops (friendly AND enemy) that you can't see visually.

Airborne radar in smaller aircraft is more often restricted to, or focussed on a cone that projects out of the front of the aircraft to help spot and lock targets on the approach, and its down to eyeballs, wingmen, and other aids to spot things coming in behind. (Larger aircraft or specialised AWACS obviously have a much wider view, but they don't really engage directly).

I'd like to see some form of approach/frontal radar on the fighters to assist with lining up attacks - by the time you can see something, it may be too late to line up an attack with rockets (especially if you're using speed as a defence). You still wouldn't be able to relay that information back to anyone except perhaps other air units in your squad.

A more full field of view radar would be an interesting thing to add to the galaxy as a AWACS / eye-in-the-sky for all the benefits and strategy thats been discussed elsewhere.

Adding it to the smaller aircraft could be do-able too, but it would be at the cost of offensive armament - a bit like the spotter planes in WWI & WWII, often they were fighters because they had speed, and they had their guns replaced with cameras and in many cases, armour was removed to save weight to gain speed and/or range.

[Traak]

One of the first suggestions I made for Planetside 2 was removing the ability for aircraft to see infantry on radar. This was mostly due to the perception that infantry farming was problematic. It evolved into just plain making sense. It is easy enough to see anything running around from such a vantage point, having them on radar just makes infantry prey. To counter this, hand held AA weaponry is to be developed, but would it be necessary? We already know that cockpit graphics will be forced. If we remove the ability for aircraft to see infantry on radar, you can basically remove hand held AA weaponry.

Give infantry Stingers. OSOK for planes. AND remove them from plane radar.

Then, and I know this would be horrible for pilotophiles, but like in Afghanistan in the 1980s, the pilots might have to avoid ground forces more.

Which might lead to planes facing off against planes. Which I think is a great idea.

[SKYeXile]

Give infantry Stingers. OSOK for planes. AND remove them from plane radar.

Then, and I know this would be horrible for pilotophiles, but like in Afghanistan in the 1980s, the pilots might have to avoid ground forces more.

Which might lead to planes facing off against planes. Which I think is a great idea.
^ ran into open fields in agile holding nothing but a gauss rifle and a 9 boxes of gold ammo too many times.

[Baneblade]

^ ran into open fields in agile holding nothing but a gauss rifle and a 9 boxes of gold ammo too many times.

^is never out of a Mossie.

[PredatorFour]

I voted No. But i think down the cert tree you should be able to equip troop radar in exchange for using some decent weapons.

[Malorn]

There should be some way to block and/or not be detected by short-range vehicle/deployed systems. Not sure about 2D spotting tho (except maybe for cloakers)


Implants are buffs now so its entirely possible for them to have an implant that makes one immune to vehicle&structure-based detection. It could also have limitations like PS1 where you are only immune if you are stationary or walking/crouch-walking.

I wonder if we can have advanced implants which have pre-requisites. For example if we have 4 implant slots, perhaps we can spend 1 slot on "basic radar immunity" which only works if you are stationary or walking. Then you have a second implant slot which requires that implant and allows immunity even while running. So we can be fully immune if we want but it costs us 2 implant slots. That could be a significant benefit for a significant cost.

It doesn't even need to be the same implant, it could simply be an sort of stacking-buff where one stack gets you walk/stationary immunity while two stacks gets you complete immunity. When one implant wears off (they are timer-based) you simply go down to one stack.

Same could be true for xp boosts and that sort of thing. Spend one implant slot for a moderate xp boost. Spend two for twice the effect. It's purely additive but the tradeoff is that you aren't using that implant slot for some other benefits (like radar immunity).

Hrm, I should probably put this in the idea vault :)

[Canaris]

Short Answer: No with a maybe
Long Answer : Yes with a but

[FastAndFree]

It would probably be for the better if aircav had a harder time engaging (but not damaging) infantry

[Hmr85]

No, but, If a enemy has been spotted by friendly forces. I believe the hostile contacts should be available on radar for the birds in the sky to see.

I voted no, but I would be fine with them receiving some form of a radar down the line that allowed them to spot enemy forces below. They could limit it to vehicles if people are worried about infantry getting farmed.

[Pollo Jack]

I enjoyed the PS mechanic. I was one of the few that hovered giving radar support to friendlies.

I don't think it should show up for stationary targets.

If it pops up on someone elses minimap that doesn't see the target then it should pop up on yours too. Even if you don't engage the infantry, it is good to know that you shouldn't try escaping in that direction low to the ground. Being close to the ground is important for breaking AA.

[Bluecewe]

One of the irritating features which have become extremely popular in modern shooters is the ability to scan for enemy players. In Bad Company 2 it took very little skill and in many cases set a death sentence for whoever is unfortunate enough to be within that tactical radius.

I enjoy having appropriate 3D spotting in some shooters in order to replace the lack of military discipline, though constant radar scanning results in some players spending half of their time watching their minimap for dots which represents little tactical skill.

[Noivad]

I voted NO - I would like more realism.

Aircraft in PS1 and Aircraft in BS2 are like apples and oranges, similar as fruit, but different in taste. PS2 Aircraft have ablities that the PS 1 Aircraft did not have. They are more realistic in flight.

There is going to be a night and a day time. At night I could see Aircraft using infrared equipment as a side grade to detect infantry on the ground and show up on their radar.

In day time it should be strickly Visual Acquisition - or LOS info given by a Infantry FO (Forward Observer) via a Intel net to the aircraft or a lazer targeting system that points at the area the infantry are operational. This makes Infantry and Air work together just as in real life.

Once the area is given by the FO - its up to the piliot to take out the infantry. Give the aircraft a weapon thats good enough to kill a small area. Napalm comes to mind. And the smell sucks.

The Infantrys job is to stay hidden, and not be LOS to aircraft. Thats realism. Don't make the game so fast that people stop using cover and concealment, and then aircraft can't pawn them with out skill.

which brings up -don't make flora - Trees scrubs, weeds ect, that can be turned off by a viedo option. Landscaping should be equal for everyone for realism.

And Higby please consider this. What a lot of people love about PS1, not all of them, was the teamwork and working together. Bring back Air defense to take out the aircraft, but don't put it on a tank that has a main gun designed to take out tanks. The Skyguard was often seen moving with the tanks and other ground vehicles you had in ps1.

It would be cool to see the whispering death quad 50s, the Duster twin 40s bofors, the Vulcan tracers at night, the Adats missles type systems working alongside the Infantry as well as the Cav troops (Tanks). Throw in some stingers and you have realism.

But put an AD weapon on a tank designed to kill tanks. lol no room for ammo lol. It will never happen.

If your going to have airforce type units, then you need to have a Air Defense type units to support the Infantry and cav units.

Realism and team work thats the key. :evil:

And for those of you who have not seen team work before then watch this vid.

http://dangerousoperationsgroup.com/aboutps.html

[CutterJohn]

I see no reason they shouldn't see infantry on radar, so long as it follows the same rules as every other unit. Aircraft are combat vehicles. Part of their job is to kill stuff on the ground. Infantry are also on the ground.

If you're worried about aircav killing infantry, ask for infantry to be able to fight back effectively. Infantry AA, EMP nades that are proximity fused vs aircav, and small arms that do respectable damage to them within a certain distance if they decide to hover.

[Stardouser]

I see no reason they shouldn't see infantry on radar, so long as it follows the same rules as every other unit. Aircraft are combat vehicles. Part of their job is to kill stuff on the ground. Infantry are also on the ground.

If you're worried about aircav killing infantry, ask for infantry to be able to fight back effectively. Infantry AA, EMP nades that are proximity fused vs aircav, and small arms that do respectable damage to them within a certain distance if they decide to hover.

No, aircraft simply should not be empowered to see infantry. You either have aircraft raping infantry, or infantry all choosing AA and raping aircraft. There is no winner when doing it that way.

[Blackwolf]

I voted NO - I would like more realism.

Aircraft in PS1 and Aircraft in BS2 are like apples and oranges, similar as fruit, but different in taste. PS2 Aircraft have ablities that the PS 1 Aircraft did not have. They are more realistic in flight.

There is going to be a night and a day time. At night I could see Aircraft using infrared equipment as a side grade to detect infantry on the ground and show up on their radar.

In day time it should be strickly Visual Acquisition - or LOS info given by a Infantry FO (Forward Observer) via a Intel net to the aircraft or a lazer targeting system that points at the area the infantry are operational. This makes Infantry and Air work together just as in real life.

Once the area is given by the FO - its up to the piliot to take out the infantry. Give the aircraft a weapon thats good enough to kill a small area. Napalm comes to mind. And the smell sucks.

The Infantrys job is to stay hidden, and not be LOS to aircraft. Thats realism. Don't make the game so fast that people stop using cover and concealment, and then aircraft can't pawn them with out skill.

which brings up -don't make flora - Trees scrubs, weeds ect, that can be turned off by a viedo option. Landscaping should be equal for everyone for realism.

And Higby please consider this. What a lot of people love about PS1, not all of them, was the teamwork and working together. Bring back Air defense to take out the aircraft, but don't put it on a tank that has a main gun designed to take out tanks. The Skyguard was often seen moving with the tanks and other ground vehicles you had in ps1.

It would be cool to see the whispering death quad 50s, the Duster twin 40s bofors, the Vulcan tracers at night, the Adats missles type systems working alongside the Infantry as well as the Cav troops (Tanks). Throw in some stingers and you have realism.

But put an AD weapon on a tank designed to kill tanks. lol no room for ammo lol. It will never happen.

If your going to have airforce type units, then you need to have a Air Defense type units to support the Infantry and cav units.

Realism and team work thats the key. :evil:

And for those of you who have not seen team work before then watch this vid.

http://dangerousoperationsgroup.com/aboutps.html

See, this kinda stuff is awesome.

Too bad you are opening yourself up for the fantasy argument.

And people in general will always be pro-skill over teamwork. Skill requires less actual work after all.

[JHendy]

deleted myself.

[Erendil]

Implants are buffs now so its entirely possible for them to have an implant that makes one immune to vehicle&structure-based detection. It could also have limitations like PS1 where you are only immune if you are stationary or walking/crouch-walking.

I wonder if we can have advanced implants which have pre-requisites. For example if we have 4 implant slots, perhaps we can spend 1 slot on "basic radar immunity" which only works if you are stationary or walking. Then you have a second implant slot which requires that implant and allows immunity even while running. So we can be fully immune if we want but it costs us 2 implant slots. That could be a significant benefit for a significant cost.

It doesn't even need to be the same implant, it could simply be an sort of stacking-buff where one stack gets you walk/stationary immunity while two stacks gets you complete immunity. When one implant wears off (they are timer-based) you simply go down to one stack.

Same could be true for xp boosts and that sort of thing. Spend one implant slot for a moderate xp boost. Spend two for twice the effect. It's purely additive but the tradeoff is that you aren't using that implant slot for some other benefits (like radar immunity).

Hrm, I should probably put this in the idea vault :)

Yeah the Sensor Shield mechanic in PS1 worked quite well for lettign you be hidden from detection systems.

And I like the idea of implant stacking. Like you said they could be simple amplitude increases that do things like boost the range of darklight/Audio Amp, increase Melee boosted damage, etc.

They could even modify qualitative aspects of a currently-installed base-level implant, like a Sensor Shield dome implant that extended your existing SS out in a 5 foot radius, so you and 5 of your buddies could all benefit if you huddled together.

[JHendy]

BUT - squad leaders should be able to place STATIC air support request markers.

Absolutely superb idea. Infantry should only be engaged by aircraft when squad leaders start calling for close air support. They shouldn't be farmable fodder, nor should they be easily spottable from above, when a pilot is cruising along at 300+ mph. Beef the main cannons up a shed load, chuck some hefty splash damage in there, but make it VERY difficult for a pilot to bring the full power of his aircraft to bear without targets being allocated by infantry on the ground.

[Stardouser]

Absolutely superb idea. Infantry should only be engaged by aircraft when squad leaders start calling for close air support. They shouldn't be farmable fodder, nor should they be easily spottable from above, when a pilot is cruising along at 300+ mph. Beef the main cannons up a shed load, chuck some hefty splash damage in there, but make it VERY difficult for a pilot to bring the full power of his aircraft to bear without targets being allocated by infantry on the ground.

Can you imagine the immersive teamwork that would bring?

And here's something else: Basically, an air support marker could be a static 3D marker that aircraft see(and squad leaders, not sure if all infantry should be able to see it) and it could even give, say, the number of enemy infantry within a 40m radius of it, perhaps even the number of friendly infantry, and it would last up to 90 seconds or until placed elsewhere by that squad leader(the number of infantry data visible by pilots would update every 10 seconds). That's not an omniscient spot, but it DOES give friendly aircraft need-to-know info.

Note: For this idea, ONLY friendly aircraft should see the data on enemy infantry numbers, not the squad leader or other infantry, and it can only be placed outdoors, for obvious reasons.

[ArmedZealot]

There really isn't any good reason to not allow aircraft to see infantry on radar.

If infantry can see enemies on radar then my aircraft, with much more sophisticated sensor equipment and communications, should also.

Infantry farming is a reality that should remain intact. It's realistic in both PS1 and war. Don't travel alone by foot without some sort of AA, grab an ATV instead to duck and weave, hop in an AA lightning. Or you could use teamwork to take it out.

PS2 seems to have a larger number of lock on weapon systems to plague aircraft, this should do enough to limit the farmers.

Taking away an aircraft's ability to see infantry on radar just seems very gimicky to me unless some sort of jamming mechanic were to be implemented. Might as well take away a tanks ability to see infantry, since we all know vanguards will be farming as much as they can as well.

[Stardouser]

There really isn't any good reason to not allow aircraft to see infantry on radar.

If infantry can see enemies on radar then my aircraft, with much more sophisticated sensor equipment and communications, should also.

Infantry farming is a reality that should remain intact. It's realistic in both PS1 and war. Don't travel alone by foot without some sort of AA, grab an ATV instead and duck a weave, hop in a lightning.

PS2 seems to have a larger number of lock on weapon systems to plague aircraft, this should do enough to limit the farmers.

There shouldn't be automatic line of sight radar for infantry either. If not manually spotted, a player should not be seen on the minimap.

Infantry farming is not realistic in war because aircraft fly too fast and high to see infantry without exposing themselves to small arms fire and tanks if they slow down, and infantry cannot carry 500 pounds of gear such that they can carry AA weapons on top of everything else.

Fun gameplay>Balance>realism, that's the pecking order, and no-skill infantry farming is neither fun nor balance. Neither is the inability to fight other vehicles because every infantry is a walking arsenal.

[ArmedZealot]

There shouldn't be automatic line of sight radar for infantry either. If not manually spotted, a player should not be seen on the minimap.

Infantry farming is not realistic in war because aircraft fly too fast and high to see infantry without exposing themselves to small arms fire and tanks if they slow down, and infantry cannot carry 500 pounds of gear such that they can carry AA weapons on top of everything else.

Fun gameplay>Balance>realism, that's the pecking order, and no-skill infantry farming is neither fun nor balance. Neither is the inability to fight other vehicles because every infantry is a walking arsenal.

Perhaps on this point I agree with you. But this seems like an answer to a different question then what is being asked.

That'd be true if aircraft in PS behaved more like fighters than attack helo's.The hover mechanic is what changes things. However if an aircraft is farming it means its slowing down and exposing itself to small arms and AA.

I don't see why this is such a problem on this forum, which spouts that teamwork is the goal of PS, yet this meets resistance on this subject. Travel with groups or in a transport. If you want to walk places solo then your going to have to protect yourself. Or just spawn at your destination.

PS2 has the skyguard equivalent on the lightning, except it can be used solo now too. Infantry have more options for dealing with aircraft as well. Although we don't know what classes can carry the new lock on weapons, it could be safely assumed that at least they will be a much more common then what was seen in PS1. We will have to see what the new gameplay is like in beta before we can choose to argue for fundamentally changing how radar works in the game for aircraft and infantry.

[Metalsheep]

Infantry farming is not realistic in war because aircraft fly too fast and high to see infantry without exposing themselves to small arms fire and tanks if they slow down, and infantry cannot carry 500 pounds of gear such that they can carry AA weapons on top of everything else.

I think this aircraft would like to have a word with you.

http://www.boeing.com/rotorcraft/military/ah64d/images/AH-64D_DVD-1098-2_375x300.jpg

In reality this thing "Farms" infantry quite effectively, and takes quite a lot of Small Arms fire. And can detect them on the ground. In planetside, aircraft are a hybrid of Helicopter and Plane.

[Stardouser]

I think this aircraft would like to have a word with you.

http://www.boeing.com/rotorcraft/military/ah64d/images/AH-64D_DVD-1098-2_375x300.jpg

In reality this thing "Farms" infantry quite effectively, and takes quite a lot of Small Arms fire. And can detect them on the ground. In planetside, aircraft are a hybrid of Helicopter and Plane.

Let's have helicopters then. Planetside's aircraft aren't helicopters, they are able to both hover to rape, and then zip off to escape like jets. As you well point out. Helicopter/jet hybrids aren't realistic.

But Realism is never a good reason to do something, or indeed, not to do something. If we're going to do one thing for realism then why only that one thing? As I say, look to fun gameplay first, then balance, and only then, if fun and balance are satisfied, should something get put in just because it's realistic.

If an argument can only succeed in showing that something is realistic, that should have no bearing on whether it's worthy of being put in the game, unless and until it can be shown that it's fun and balanced. Note that fun for the pilot and not fun for everyone else doesn't count. Of course, aircraft should be able to maul infantry, in no way do I suggest that they shouldn't. But they should not be given the situational awareness necessary to do that for zero effort and risk.

I would rather that they give aircraft infra-red as a customization than allow them to see automatic radar data. And understand that I say "customization" very reluctantly, because I believe that if a vehicle should have a tool like that it should ALWAYS have it. Smoke, coaxial machine gun, infrared view, if these things are going to exist they should always be there. Other more advanced things should be the customizations.

[Metalsheep]

Let's have helicopters then. Planetside's aircraft aren't helicopters, they are able to both hover to rape, and then zip off to escape like jets. As you well point out. Helicopter/jet hybrids aren't realistic.

But Realism is never a good reason to do something, or indeed, not to do something. If we're going to do one thing for realism then why only that one thing? As I say, look to fun gameplay first, then balance, and only then, if fun and balance are satisfied, should something get put in just because it's realistic.

If an argument can only succeed in showing that something is realistic, that should have no bearing on whether it's worthy of being put in the game, unless and until it can be shown that it's fun and balanced. Note that fun for the pilot and not fun for everyone else doesn't count. Of course, aircraft should be able to maul infantry, in no way do I suggest that they shouldn't. But they should not be given the situational awareness necessary to do that for zero effort and risk.

I would rather that they give aircraft infra-red as a customization than allow them to see automatic radar data. And understand that I say "customization" very reluctantly, because I believe that if a vehicle should have a tool like that it should ALWAYS have it. Smoke, coaxial machine gun, infrared view, if these things are going to exist they should always be there. Other more advanced things should be the customizations.

Again, would like to have a word...

http://www.jeffhead.com/f35/f-35b-03.jpg

I forget the name of that aircraft, but it can Hover just like a Planetside aircraft, see how its jet is pointed downwards? It can then zip off.

But, you are right that Realism doesnt mean it should be in the game. But it was never the aircav in particular that could spot infantry. It was how the Radar system worked in its entirety in Planetside 1. It worked the same regardless if you were in a vehicle or on foot. Infantry could only be seen on radar if you could physically see them in front of you, or if they recently fired their weapon/hacked a door/ ect ect. If your squadmates could see them, then you also could see them. It was like a spotting mechanic that you didnt have to press a button for every 5 seconds to point out enemies.

There was also the Interlink, Watch Towers and Motion trackers to factor into the equation. The mossy was special with a added on Overflight system, it onyl worked at 25%ish throttle and only in a small radius below the aircraft. (I dont know who said it works all the time, it doesnt still. You get a little icon in the bottom corner of your screen when Overflight is active.) Which could be a customization option to the standard fighters that they have to sacrifice for.

[Stardouser]

Again, would like to have a word...

I forget the name of that aircraft, but it can Hover just like a Planetside aircraft, see how its jet is pointed downwards? It can then zip off.

But, you are right that Realism doesnt mean it should be in the game. But it was never the aircav in particular that could spot infantry. It was how the Radar system worked in its entirety in Planetside 1. It worked the same regardless if you were in a vehicle or on foot. Infantry could only be seen on radar if you could physically see them in front of you, or if they recently fired their weapon/hacked a door/ ect ect. If your squadmates could see them, then you also could see them. It was like a spotting mechanic that you didnt have to press a button for every 5 seconds to point out enemies.

There was also the Interlink, Watch Towers and Motion trackers to factor into the equation. The mossy was special with a added on Overflight system, it onyl worked at 25%ish throttle and only in a small radius below the aircraft. (I dont know who said it works all the time, it doesnt still. You get a little icon in the bottom corner of your screen when Overflight is active.) Which could be a customization option to the standard fighters that they have to sacrifice for.

Try hovering in an F35 in BF3, it takes you a few seconds to zip away if you start taking fire. That's not the case in PS.

Autospotting shouldn't exist and if they put it in anyway, its results should be denied to aircraft.

I'm not even sure we should have spotting in its current form (meaning the way shooters in general do it) at all. We should really have static spots only - you spot someone, and if you are a squad member it places a temporary static marker to your squad only, if you are a squad leader, it places markers visible to their squad and to other squad leaders only, who can then issue move to orders to their own squad if they want to. Spots that follow the enemy in any fashion are really inappropriate, but gamers no longer want to use their eyes. Of course, the only reason I'm saying that now is because we're talking about how the game should be. For the most part I've only fought against games further degrading into 3D spotting, 2D spotting is something we've had for years now. Deathmatch games are where the autospotting belongs, in an objective based game, if you play the objectives the enemy will come.

Just in case anyone who is reading doesn't know what static means, it means you the enemy, and wherever they are at the moment you spotted them, the marker stays on the point and does not follow them.

[Metalsheep]

Try hovering in an F35 in BF3, it takes you a few seconds to zip away if you start taking fire. That's not the case in PS.

Autospotting shouldn't exist and if they put it in anyway, its results should be denied to aircraft.

I'm not even sure we should have spotting in its current form at all. We should really have static spots only - you spot someone, and if you are a squad member it places a temporary static marker to your squad only, if you are a squad leader, it places markers visible to their squad and to other squad leaders only, who can then issue move to orders to their own squad if they want to. Spots that follow the enemy in any fashion are really inappropriate, but gamers no longer want to use their eyes.

Well a Radar system like Planetside 1s is amazing for Situational Awareness. Now they they took away 3rd Person mode, its almost all we have left aside from direct communication with teammates. And lets face it, its a Joke to think that the Zerg or random squads will communicate tightly. I shouldnt be forced to join an outfit to play enjoyably. The general information provided by Planetsides radar was excellent. It only tracked the enemy so long as he was in visual range of yourself, or squadmates. (It tracked vehicles at all times except the Phantasm, Harasser and Wraith) This could be countered by crouch walking, or with Sensor Shield or Cloaking (If there was no Interlink) I personally think Motion Trackers (halo-like) radar systems should be standard in FPS games. They might encourage a little camping, but i think their advantages far outweigh their disadvantages for enjoyable game play. And by using Planetsides original system, you cant really camp with it because you wont see the enemy coming on Radar unless you or a squadmate already see him.

I don't really see how this would be much different from Area Spotting anyways. You light up that area, and aircraft comes and hovers in it, (Or whichever vehicle suits your fancy) kills all the infantry, and flies away. It would have the same result as knowing the vague locations provided by the Radar.

Encouraging good communication and teamwork is a great goal, but i shouldn't have to be in a tight knit outfit to play the game effectively. Sometimes people just wanna roll in a random squad and play the game.

Sometimes i think the community takes the "teamwork, roar" thing a little too far.

EDIT: And yes, in Planetside you could just zip away thanks to the Afterburner. Which i think was a crock, especially on the Reaver. The mossy could be shot down if it hovered and tried to run, the Reaver gets away every single time because of its massive armor and Afterburners. You shouldn't be able to after burn right from a hovering position.

[Stardouser]

I wasn't even thinking of teamwork. It's not always possible to get the message across even in voice chat. And I think the less spotting there is, the more important it becomes to anticipate the enemy's movements, which is always an improvement in gameplay.

Now...you say "It only tracked the enemy so long as he was in visual range of yourself, or squadmates." As it happens, I am OK even with 3D spotting so long as it is Squad Only. But...are you sure PS1 radar was squad only? Was there some kind of radar inside of bases? Because I never played PS1 back in the golden days but I did play a few hours a few weeks ago to get a feel for things, and I saw radar spots all over the place, but I was never in a squad.

But again, I'm OK with just about anything as long as it's squad only. That provides a very very nice balance and compromise I think.

[Metalsheep]

I wasn't even thinking of teamwork. It's not always possible to get the message across even in voice chat.

Now...you say "It only tracked the enemy so long as he was in visual range of yourself, or squadmates." As it happens, I am OK even with 3D spotting so long as it is Squad Only. But...are you sure PS1 radar was squad only? Was there some kind of radar inside of bases? Because I never played PS1 back in the golden days but I did play a few hours a few weeks ago to get a feel for things, and I saw radar spots all over the place, but I was never in a squad.

But again, I'm OK with just about anything as long as it's squad only. That provides a very very nice balance and compromise I think.

Radar provided by Spotting directly via Squadmates WAS platoon wide i believe. But not empire wide.

Yes, bases had Radar that would detect enemies firing weapons, using tools and hacking consoles. If you had Interlink Benefits, it would track them at ALL times within the bases Sphere of Influence. (Watch towers did this too, but only within the watch towers own SOI)

There were also engineer deployables called Motion Trackers, if you were Running within their detection radius (About 20 meters per Tracker), they would make a horrible screeching sound and show enemies on radar. This could be beaten by Crouch Walking, moving slowly, or using Sensor Shield.

Radar provided by Engineering and the Base itself was Empire wide, as long as you were within the Bases SOI or if the motion trackers were within your Radars range.

Sensor Shield beat every kind of Detection, but Sensor Shield failed if you fired a weapon or hacked a door with low level hacking skills or took damage. Engineers who were Also Hackers could place Sensor Disruptors which also thwarted all forms of Radar detection, even Reviel Enemies with a Command Device. Also, Aegis Shield deployables from Assault Engineers shielded you from sight and radar.

I do believe Mosquito Overflight was Squad only... but i dont fly a mossy very often. The mosquito only detects in a small radius below the aircraft if the mossy is nearly at hovering speed.

Once you moved behind cover and out of detection radius/sight, you would be tracked for maybe 3 or so seconds, and then you would dissapear off of Radar.

[Infektion]

Standard equipped, definitely not, but a scout modulated aircraft. YES. What did Higby choose?

[The Kush]

No. Aircraft are not infantry sniping/raping platforms. If they want to kill infantry they should have to dip down low and risk their necks.

BUT - squad leaders should be able to place STATIC air support request markers.

This.

[Warborn]

Maybe a galaxy could be outfitted with a radar-providing module. But by default, hell no. If reavers want to farm infantry they need to contend with a big, bulky cockpit and find infantry amidst the terrain.

I also like the idea of being able to designate targets via a laser marker.

[CutterJohn]

No, aircraft simply should not be empowered to see infantry. You either have aircraft raping infantry, or infantry all choosing AA and raping aircraft. There is no winner when doing it that way.

Yes. Balance is impossible.

[Erendil]

Wow, the amount of Air Cav hate and misinformation in this thread is just astounding. No ground units at all appearing on radar for aircraft, no minmap autospotting of infantry, no AB available for an aircraft that's hovering, aircraft can't engage infantry unless called in by friendly troops, etc, etc.

Seriously people, stop trying to pidgeonhole aircraft into some ultra-limited or ultra-realistic role that you think they should be forced into. Aircraft decked out for an air-to-ground role are perfectly in their right to farm infantry if they so choose. Likewise, infantry armed with AA/AV should be able to shoot aircraft out of the sky if they so choose. PS2 is an open-ended, sandbox-style, combined arms game. As such you damn well should see units of all different types attacking whatever enemy forces they so choose in whatever manner they choose so long as they have a mind to lay some hurt on said forces.

And you can try to slap on all of the arbitrary, nonsensical, prejudicial limitations you want onto aircraft, but even if all of the above-mentioned ridiculous ideas get implemented it will not stop pilots such as Sky or myself one bit from farming infantry over and over and over again if that is what we choose to do. :D Looking at the GDC footage, picking out infantry in our LOS from the landscape is going to be just as much of a cakewalk in PS2 as it was in PS1, without the aid of minimap spotting, Mossie Overflight Sensors, waypoints, etc. And even with the cockpit enabled. :p

So, please, just stop it with the stupid arbitrary limitations on aircraft. You're not going to accomplish anything but get the Devs thinking about implementing such ineffective and prejudicial rules, which no doubt will get them thinking about tossing around similar equally stupid rules into other areas of PS2 that might actually do some real harm to the game. :p

That's not to say the everything in this thread has been a total waste of grey matter. :cool: Calling in empire-wide Air strikes via a waypoint marker system only visible to aircraft is brilliant. That I think is an excellent idea so long as it's not a prerequisite that must be met before aircraft can attack infantry at all. It could even be integrated into the Mission system so it could be selected by any pilots in the area. That way all pilots in the air would know if other pilots are already enroute to the target since they presumably would have accepted the mission.


Lastly, at the risk of going slightly off topic... The Mossie Overflight Sensor picks up all enemy forces in a ~30m radius so long as they're moving, attacking, or otherwise making noise and are not hidden by Sensor Shield, Sensor Disruptors, or an enemy RADAR virus. It can detect enemies through walls, multiple floors, etc, so no amount of cover alone will save them from being detected. And it makes these forces visible on the minimap for everybody in your empire that hasn't just been jammed/emp'd.

And yes, it's active all of the time, regardless of what speed the Mossie is flying. Don't believe me? Here's a screenshot for you, taken in-game by me about an hour ago while flying at top speed and taking a sharp left turn during a full AB burn:

http://i540.photobucket.com/albums/gg331/Erendil69/Planetside%202/PSScreenShot0362.jpg

If you look in the lower-right corner you will see the "Mossie Overflight Sensor Active" icon displayed in all its glory. That icon has stayed on for me for at least the last 6 years, each and every time I get into a Mossie, regardless of what speed I'm flying at or what crazy maneuvers I might attempt. It may take a split second for it to actually pick up enemy units on the minimap, but it never turns off. :cool:

[Stardouser]

If it's not going to stop you super skilled air whores from raping, then you why are you desperate to retain all the tools that will make it casualized-easy? Where there's smoke, there's fire, and your attempts to feign indifference by saying you'll rape anyway are not doing a very good job of masking the smoke you're making by fighting so hard against balancing measures.

Automatic radar and overpowered spotting has no place in a game, doubly so for aircraft. Aircraft need to have absolutely devastating weapons but they can't have that if they are in receipt of omniscient infantry position data. The more omniscient, no skill free info a platform receives, the weaker its weapons need to be. It shouldn't be 100% in both. Aircraft should have the powerful weapons but they should be required to rely on either their eyes, or constant, purposeful teamwork, not omniscient autospotting/autoradar.

However, who said "no ground units at all"? Vehicles can appear on the radar. This is about infantry.

And, the 3D waypoint marker for airsupport is NOT in ANY way a "prerequisite" for air attacks. It is a replacement for omniscient, no skill, no teamwork, infantry positional data. You can always attack infantry by slowing down and looking for them. Otherwise, if you don't want to look for them with your own eyes, you either need someone in your own squad spotting for you, or you need to respond to these 3D air support requests.

And as to that, I would not say that these 3D air support requests are "missions". Since the enemy tends to die, at least for outdoor battles, their relevance dimishes after a minute or two since the enemy will either be dead or moved unless they are campers. I would hate to see people spend 2 minutes respawning for aircraft, flying all the way to marker and then finding the intel was old. Therefore, 3D air support markers should probably expire after about 90 seconds. Or maybe the squad leaders can put a custom timer on them.

But hey, if you want to receive autoradar spotting knowing that it will force SOE to put in lock-on AA weapons for infantry, it's your enjoyment of the game you're risking. I don't fly much but frankly I don't want to see a stinger under every rock when I do.

[jollytraveller]

I voted yes.

Many people seem to be basing their "no" decision on realism. If realism is the arguement then when I do finally spot you am I able to get my computer-guided chain cannon to dis-integrate you and any tree you're hiding behind at the push of a button?

Or drop a laser-guided bunker buster to obliterate you, and your squad and the building you were hiding behind?

Throw the pilots a bone here. Only n00bs get air cav farmed on a regular basis and n00bs get farmed by everything, not just air cav.

[Hooah]

No, that's why armed forces use JTAC or FAC.

[jollytraveller]

No, that's why armed forces use JTAC or FAC.

Yeah, cause in real life ground troops simply own aircraft. Really.

[WorldOfForms]

Aircraft started out overpowered in PS1, and despite a few nerfs along the way, actually managed to gain a net power increase over the life of the game. Despite a glut of options for AA introduced, nothing truly effective was ever implemented. The best AA was other aircraft.

The most effective single unit in PS1, by a large margin, was either the Reaver or Mosquito (it's a tossup depending on circumstance of targets - either infantry or armor).

Aircraft also had the largest learning curve, so the best players flocked to them (who could blame them?). It's the best way to have an overpowered item if you have to have one: powerful, fun to use for a skilled player, and the power increases with player skill.

What the devs of PS1 never understood was that aircraft, by their vary nature, are inherently overpowered compared to anything on the ground. The speed, combined with 3D movement and the ability to bypass all terrain makes aircraft always the superior choice.

Aircraft need limitations so that people who don't fly can still compete. That doesn't mean I would want the fun to be taken away from skilled players who love to fly, either, though.

Skilled players don't need radar, and they should find it fun to use visual cues to hunt for infantry. Remember, it's supposed to be a skilled overpowered vehicle.

[Erendil]

If it's not going to stop you super skilled air whores from raping, then you why are you desperate to retain all the tools that will make it casualized-easy? Where there's smoke, there's fire, and your attempts to feign indifference by saying you'll rape anyway are not doing a very good job of masking the smoke you're making by fighting so hard against balancing measures.

Star, you misunderstand me. I don't wish to perpetuate any imbalance that may exist between aircraft and infantry. I probably hate it as much as you do.

However, I also want to prevent the inclusion of arbitrary rules that put nonsensical limitations on aircraft, that won't stop what people are trying to prevent, and that are implemented without even knowing the first thing about how the aircraft vs infantry dynamic will play out. For all we know infantry AV weapons in PS2 will already be strong enough for softies to be able to defend themselves against enemy air.

And I hope for the game's sake that they are. :) I want infantry to be able to defend themselves. I want them to have access to Stinger-level AV weapons (well, not OSOK, but you get the idea). I want the Striker, Phoenix, Fission, Lancer, and whatever other AA/AV weapons are out there to be powerful enough that a lazy or unobservant ES fighter will get their ass kicked by a softie or two with a keen eye and a fast trigger finger.

Why? Because PS2 is a contest of skills, and the game is a helluva lot more fun when both sides of an encounter have a good chance of coming out on top if they're properly equipped. :cool: Not when one side has their hands tied and the other side is too weak to be a threat to the enemy.

However, if it ends up that there is a disparity, and if infantry are in danger of being air farmed as easily as they were in PS1, then IMO the answer is not to slap limitations on aircraft. A much better solution would be to empower infantry so that they can stand on their own. People are always so quick to instinctively swing the nerf bat at whatever equipment or situation they see as OP'd or unfair.

But they don't realize that by doing so they are limiting player choice. And the more they do this, the more choice is taken out of players' hands and into the hands of the game system itself. This leads to less variety in gameplay, more repetition, and ultimately more stagnation. PS1 fell prey to the unfortunate side effects of this causality on many occasions.

If there is a bully on the playground, you don't remove him from the swingset so there is one less child to play with. You teach and empower the scrawny kids to stand up for themselves. If aircraft are too effective at farming infantry you don't nerf air. Instead you give infantry the tools to fight back. :D

Automatic radar and overpowered spotting has no place in a game, doubly so for aircraft. Aircraft need to have absolutely devastating weapons but they can't have that if they are in receipt of omniscient infantry position data. The more omniscient, no skill free info a platform receives, the weaker its weapons need to be. It shouldn't be 100% in both. Aircraft should have the powerful weapons but they should be required to rely on either their eyes, or constant, purposeful teamwork, not omniscient autospotting/autoradar.

Intra-platoon automatic 2D spotting on the minimap is IMO a vital component of teamwork that helps compensate for the fact that we aren't soldiers living side-by-side every day, and training together for hours on end on a daily basis. The goes doubly for those people who aren't in an organized outfit, don't use any form of voice comm, and/or are just casual players that just want to come in and fight but also want to feel like their part of an organized military.

Removing this ability from PS2 would be disastrous for the game since it would break an important connection players have amongst each other, and since casual players would be repeatedly anally-raped by those outfits who are organized.

More importantly, both aircraft and infantry should have weapons powerful enough to destroy the other. In in doing so, IMO no illogical minimap restrictions need be placed on aircraft.

However, who said "no ground units at all"? Vehicles can appear on the radar. This is about infantry.

I re-read this thread but couldn't find who said it. So either I misread somebody's post, it's been edited out by the poster, or I read it in a different thread. Sorry, I retract my objection to this apparently fictional suggestion.. :doh:

And, the 3D waypoint marker for airsupport is NOT in ANY way a "prerequisite" for air attacks. It is a replacement for omniscient, no skill, no teamwork, infantry positional data. You can always attack infantry by slowing down and looking for them. Otherwise, if you don't want to look for them with your own eyes, you either need someone in your own squad spotting for you, or you need to respond to these 3D air support requests.

And as to that, I would not say that these 3D air support requests are "missions". Since the enemy tends to die, at least for outdoor battles, their relevance dimishes after a minute or two since the enemy will either be dead or moved unless they are campers. I would hate to see people spend 2 minutes respawning for aircraft, flying all the way to marker and then finding the intel was old. Therefore, 3D air support markers should probably expire after about 90 seconds. Or maybe the squad leaders can put a custom timer on them.

I agree it shouldn't be a prereq. However, JHendy seemed to think it should when he said, "Infantry should only be engaged by aircraft when squad leaders start calling for close air support....make it VERY difficult for a pilot to bring the full power of his aircraft to bear without targets being allocated by infantry on the ground. " Hence my statement against it. :)

The mission system could be used if, for example, creating the mission sent out some sort of notification to any friendly aircraft in the same or adjacent territories who had something like "Notify me of air-related missions" enabled. some sort of spotting/waypoint system would work fine too tho.

But hey, if you want to receive autoradar spotting knowing that it will force SOE to put in lock-on AA weapons for infantry, it's your enjoyment of the game you're risking. I don't fly much but frankly I don't want to see a stinger under every rock when I do.

Well SOE already has lockon weapons in-game, and I'm okay with that (well, tbh I'd rather they were all flak-based since they can be just as effective but actually require some skill to use, but that's a topic for a different thread :p ). And as a Scythe pilot I will find the game more enjoyable if infantry are actually a threat to me than if neither one of us were to each other. For me, variety on the battlefield, player choice, freedom, and initiative, and combined arms warfare all make the game way more fun for me. Illogical arbitrary nerfs that don't even fix the issue they're trying to resolve, don't.

And FWIW, just because I can farm infantry while in aircraft doesn't mean that I do. I usually don't farm infantry unless there are no other viable targets around. Quite frankly I find it quite boring in PS1 since softies don't have the tools to defend themselves. Instead, I generally attack targets in this order:


ANTs coming in to fill a base
anything nearby on the verge of killing friendly forces
Loadstars and AMSes
Enemy AA
BFRs, MBTs, Lightnings, and Buggies
Infantry farmers (snipers, mossie droppers, etc)
other vehicles
other infantry

[Baneblade]

There shouldn't even be a minimap.

[Stardouser]

The mission system could be used if, for example, creating the mission sent out some sort of notification to any friendly aircraft in the same or adjacent territories who had something like "Notify me of air-related missions" enabled. some sort of spotting/waypoint system would work fine too tho.



Well, as I say, the actual 3D markers say "please bomb these enemies here", that intel will get old fast, so they should either expire, or even better, expire in about 5 minutes, but tell the pilot how old they are, so they can respond to a newer one first. Don't forget, I know I said this in a different thread, but I was hoping there would be two markers like that: One that basically says "need air to ground here" and one that says "we are taking air to ground fire, please suppress enemy air here".

Now...as far as a mission system, in order to help coordinate, I was thinking that there could be missions to "provide air support to squads A through G at X location". There could be bonus experience points gained for killing any enemies that have either killed members of these squads, or that are within a certain distance(ie threatening) of these squads. Basically, missions should serve as a two way notification: One, notifying a different platform(ie, infantry is a platform, armor and air are others) that you need them to support you throughout an assault, and in turn, if a squad or individuals who are going to play that role accept your mission, so long as they are listed on it you know they are with you. Why bother placing air support markers if no one has agreed to support you throughout your assault? Basically, squad leaders can look at the mission tab and see that they have X number of air support pilots committed to helping them out. It's far too complicated for me to actually propose anything concrete, of course.

The biggest question is who should have this authority over missions? Individual squad leaders, or higher?

[ArmedZealot]

Erendil explains my position on this matter quite well. And I'm not even a pilot.

I applaud your way with words and admire you for your insights on game direction.

[Mezorin]

Erendil explains my position on this matter quite well. And I'm not even a pilot.

I applaud your way with words and admire you for your insights on game direction.

Agreed, Erendil hits the nail on the head. Let's talk making infantry, MAXes, Lightnings, MBTs, Galaxies, Sunderers, and everything else just as awesome/fun to play as as air cav rather than trying to run air cav into the ground.

[Stardouser]

Yep, let's make every class able to do everything. The BF3 way.

[ArmedZealot]

Yep, let's make every class able to do everything. The BF3 way.

Oh come on douser you're better then that. You know he wasn't suggesting that.

[Yutty]

i'd be ok if this was one choice from the different upgrades to choose for. So if they got sensors they lack in something else.