AA targeting landed Aircraft?

[Neurotoxin]

Greetings PSU Community,

I would like to know how everyone feels about the subject of AA targeting an aircraft that has landed, or is even unoccupied.

For me, this was the most confounding aspect of AA weapons in PlanetSide (particularly flak) because it makes no sense that it would identify aircraft even if they are not airborne. It seemed like flak should explode in proximity of any vehicle regardless of its type, or otherwise that the it should only affect airborne targets that are actually in-flight.

I'd like to know how you all feel about this subject, and whether you'd like to see a change from how it was set up in the original PlanetSide.

[Red Beard]

Though ideologically I don't agree with it; that is none the less a very cool avatar! :nod:


Otherwise I think it's simply that way as a matter of balancing.

[Kipper]

A shell that's designed for 'air-burst' would need some kind of fuse to make it do that.

The possibilities that spring to mind are:

1. Timer fuse, so it bursts after nn seconds regardless of where its going.
2. Proximity fuse, so it would burst near anything (including the terrain).
3. Air pressure/altitude fuse, so it would burst at or above a certain height.

There would be problems with all of these in isolation, either too easy to hit too much stuff making it OP, or too hard to hit anything making it useless.

I'd go with a mix of two - probably altitude and proximity, so as to say that it will burst against aircraft, but only against aircraft flying above 50m (or whatever).

Of course, unlike reality that would be 50m above where you are, not above sea level, otherwise being infantry on a hillside would still be hazardous :)

[DayOne]

AA should be prox fuses (it's the future, who uses a timer?) and heat seekers. No locking on unless the vehicle is turned on!

Obviously it will be tweaked for gameplay purposes.

[Unforgiven]

lets not forget how about missiles too, how do they find a target? heat or radar right.... (how can it find a cold jet? or one on the ground)

[SKYeXile]

lets not forget how about missiles too, how do they find a target? heat or radar right.... (how can it find a cold jet? or one on the ground)

ITS THE FUTURE!!1

[Brusi]

I say Dumb-Fire unless it's above radar clutter or something... basically higher than 6M or 10M smart AA kicks in.

That means flying really low becomes a valid tactic.

Maybe different types of AA would have optimum killzone height?

[CutterJohn]

AA should be prox fuses (it's the future, who uses a timer?)

Anyone who uses a proximity fuse, since any detection circuitry would involve a computer, however small, and that computer would have a clock. At which point it becomes a small software addition.

[DayOne]

Anyone who uses a proximity fuse, since any detection circuitry would involve a computer, however small, and that computer would have a clock. At which point it becomes a small software addition.

But it wouldn't be used to actively set off the explosive. :groovy:

[Sledgecrushr]

I believe at some point in the future nothing will be able to fly over a battlefield without immediately being taken down.

[Timealude]

I believe at some point in the future nothing will be able to fly over a battlefield without immediately being taken down.

unless they have more advance flare systems or signal scramblers. :D

[CutterJohn]

I believe at some point in the future nothing will be able to fly over a battlefield without immediately being taken down.

Which will be compensated for by flying so damned many things over its impossible to take them all down, and anyone that opens fire on the air will be immediately targeted by dozens of craft. Drones are cheap and expendable.

Future warfare is going to be both awesome and scary.


But it wouldn't be used to actively set off the explosive. :groovy:

Could be. Just a programming change and a little math.

[Raka Maru]

My pet peeve, is that AA flak should be able to target anything in the air, including jet packers. If feet leave the ground, they should be vulnerable to standard AA damage.

Sooo, on the inverse, they land and standard AV damage should apply to aircraft, and back to AI damaged for jetters.

[headcrab13]

I believe at some point in the future nothing will be able to fly over a battlefield without immediately being taken down.

Yes. When beta starts.

[Sabot]

I suppose it's a balance issue. I'm a big fan of diversity, so I'd like to see something like.. one faction have proximity flak, which doesnt do nearly as much dmg as the AA missiles of another faction, but it has a higher rate of fire and maybe even can be used against LAVs.. i.e, not against something smaller than a lightning, but with reduced dmg (I assume a lightning have thicker armor than the fighters). And the vanu that prolly have some kind of dumb fire, very high velocity, very high rate of fire energy weapon for AA, that does even less dmg but can be fired at anything that moves.. or something.

[DayOne]

My pet peeve, is that AA flak should be able to target anything in the air, including jet packers. If feet leave the ground, they should be vulnerable to standard AA damage.

Sooo, on the inverse, they land and standard AV damage should apply to aircraft, and back to AI damaged for jetters.

I see were you're coming from but you made one mistake, you assume aircraft and vehicles are different.

The only difference between them are that aircraft can move in three dimensions and things like this annoy me in battlefield when heatseekers only lock onto one type of thing, either aircraft of vehicles.

The difference between the ordnance used to take them down is that, due to less armour, aircraft can be taken down with smaller, faster rockets. Tanks, on the other hand, have more armour and so require a lot more to be taken out.

AA should be able to take out vehicles, very slowly of course, and AV should be able to take out aircraft, but with great difficulty.

[Erendil]

It's only difficult to reconcile an AA weapon's ability to lock onto or detonate near aircraft only - whether or not they're occupied - if you try to explain it using mid-20th century technology instead of tech that is several centuries ahead of our own.

An easy explanation would be to look at all of the obvious wireless communication going on in PS1/2. Chat channels, Voice chat, 2d/3d spotting, objective markers, CE placement, etc all reveal that there is a TON of information that is constantly being slung all over the airwaves of Auraxis. I think it'd be easy to design weapons that can home in on the unique signals that constantly emanate from enemy aircraft - which would also explain why they don't lock on/detonate near friendly air.

It's also pretty clear that even unoccupied vehicles never completely power down. They're always awake enough to allow for different levels of vehicle ownership, so the vehicle can identify and only let certain individuals or groups of individuals enter. It's also ready to roll the instant you get in without having to push the ON button. :p So there's always a unique low-power energy signature present that could be detectable by AA weaponry.


But of course, for me gameplay generally trumps technobabble. :p As such, I'd prefer it if a target was designated as an "air target" and that it would keep that designation regardless of whether or not part of it is pounding dirt. From a gameplay and a balance perspective I'd generally prefer that lockon/prox capabilities be based on the type of target (i.e. - is it an air unit?), and not on its current state or position.

It used to bug me in PS1 for example that I could only lockon to FV BFRs in a Starfire when they were actually up in the air. The second they touched ground I'd lose the lock, regardless of how close I was to it or how clear my view to the target was. Stooooopid.

IMO, If AA can lock onto a target, then it always can, since it will always recognize the target as an air unit. If AA can't lockon, then it never can. :cool:

[Rabb]

But it wouldn't be used to actively set off the explosive. :groovy:

Current air burst systems use a timer set by the weapon as it fires to burst at a set range I see no reason why this tech would change much

[Kipper]

Purely for purposes of looking cool, I'd like to see WWII style air burst flak, it would certainly add something to the game trying to fly through it.

If Galaxies are big and slow; then this stuff needs to be a threat, but not spell instant death.

For the faster 'gunship' type vehicles, its more about putting up a screen to stop them operating than actually shooting many of them down. But a few lucky hits or someone flying too slowly or dithering should be good XP for the AA player...

It will be tricky - you have to have it so that AA can't farm air, and Air can't farm ground, good luck to the balance team on that one :)

[Xyntech]

That would be pretty awesome to see some realistic flak clouds. Hanging in the area sort of like giant radiator bubbles, fly through them with an aircraft and take damage.

[Traak]

I like the prox. fusing as it is now. Lock-on, too.

I like that the lock-on no longer locks on to ANY plane, but only enemy planes.

[Marinealver]

If Air is caught on the ground it is pretty much dead. Besides you don't find too many landed aircraft as there is really no point in keeping a vehicle instead of simply getting a new one.

[Purple]

If Air is caught on the ground it is pretty much dead. Besides you don't find too many landed aircraft as there is really no point in keeping a vehicle instead of simply getting a new one.

in planetside 2 people will keep anything as long as they can so that they dont lose the resources.