from a pilot: your all going to die.... allot. [Archive]

proxykalevra

2012-05-23, 08:36 PM

when i get the chance i love flying in any game and most every toon i had even tank drivers usualy had aircav...

i have been watching the latest totalbuiscuit video and i have to inform all you non pilots out there... your all going to die.. allot

what i mean is that one of the features of aircraft is regenerating health...(for the flares slot) so a side from risking getting 1 shotted from lock on missles i literally can not see how a pack of mossies/reavers or libs with regenerating health could possibly get beaten by anything other than another pack of aa equipped mossies or libs... and even then its going to heavily be about individual aiming skill/ computer power and how many people are in your.... flock?

anyhow this almost going to have to be removed from the game if its to be anything but a flight sim where you cap bases (which sounds amazing to me) and i thought i would point it out to all the tank drivers/infantry who are going to be cut to ribbons by swarms of aircraft.

i'll see you guys on the battle field (i'll be the one doing strafing runs from the center of the swarm.)

Stardouser

2012-05-23, 08:39 PM

Hopefully we do not have "vehicle regen", that's a big problem in Battlefield.

Nanite repair kits are OK so long as :
1. You carry a limited supply(similar to flares)
2. They do a limited repair amount(say, 35% repairs, over a time period of a few seconds)
3. Short cooldown between uses

If this customization allows you to constantly regenerate, that's not going to be good.

Zulthus

2012-05-23, 08:40 PM

I dislike the idea of regenerating health on vehicles. You should have to go back to base to repair, sort of like the repair silos in PS1, IMO. If you damage a vehicle quite heavily it should be out of the fight for a while, not just sit behind a hill for a few seconds waiting for health to regenerate. I'd say vehicle drivers should be equipped with a nano-dispenser, if going back to base slows down the action too much.

That is, if that's even how it works at all. We'll see.

SKYeXile

2012-05-23, 08:40 PM

Ill see you in the battle! you wont see me, ill be the one shooting you down from behind, its my style.

captainkapautz

2012-05-23, 08:43 PM

http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i280/Bayzito/ALLOT.png

:p

Biohazard

2012-05-23, 08:43 PM

Go ahead, get your swarm of aircraft; I'll go get my swarm of cheap one-man flak tanks, flak equipped maxes, soldiers with lock-on missiles, MBT's with AA secondary guns, and stationary flak turrets :D

proxykalevra

2012-05-23, 08:50 PM

it might be one of those repair kits deals but i have the sneaking suspicion that it will be a very slow heath regen... the reason this is a problem is that if you survive an attack run your already regening your vehicle's hp while you fly to a repair/rearm pad but more importantly no matter how slow it is this is a swarm supporting mechanic.... all the mossies that got grazed a little by flak for instance with have their health topped off without having to take up time/space at a repair pad. meaning that while the regen is slower than molasses when 12 vehicles are all regening it adds up to be a lot of splash dmg that can be negated.

sky one of the "side" grades is a aircraft detection system... so everyone keeping an eye out will see you... (tb glances over the vehicle detection system) i think outfit nights might require 1 or 2 lt's to run that for spotting and everyone else will carry all combat enhancements.

edit:
an allot is what my auto correct spits out when i don't put a space between the a and l of "a lot".

silly sky this game has no rogues so rather than doing to from behind i think the aircraft are going to make strafing runs from crazy angles viciously and relentlessly until the offending barny/smurf/elmo is nothing but a smoldering husk.

Serpent

2012-05-23, 08:50 PM

The Kush

2012-05-23, 08:57 PM

http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i280/Bayzito/ALLOT.png

:p

On a real note I'm sure the amount will be limited that you can self repair

IMMentat

2012-05-23, 09:01 PM

I can't see the passive repairing being that fast, maybe 1-2% per second, the tooltip said it disables for a few seconds on being shot, so even the average dirty faced ground pounder with a pistol and a steady aim could mess with your day.

That leaves plenty of time for the real AA to clear the skies or frighten off the newly squishy aircraft. IMO better to have 60-90 seconds of peace (while some fool pilot hidees/runs away scared) than killing someones plane and seeing them 30 seconds later (respawn plus some traveltime) as another body trying to wedge open the base-door)

SixShooter

2012-05-23, 09:18 PM

Actually mate, I don't think it'll be as bad as that. If you look at the Night Ops footage, as TB gets in a Mag he shoots down the CEO with extreme ease. Even if he had been getting hit before, that Mag rider easily took it out, and that gun isn't even the most effective AA weapon in the game.

I think the balance is ok so far :)

This

I can't see the passive repairing being that fast, maybe 1-2% per second, the tooltip said it disables for a few seconds on being shot, so even the average dirty faced ground pounder with a pistol and a steady aim could mess with your day.

That leaves plenty of time for the real AA to clear the skies or frighten off the newly squishy aircraft. IMO better to have 60-90 seconds of peace (while some fool pilot hidees/runs away scared) than killing someones plane and seeing them 30 seconds later (respawn plus some traveltime) as another body trying to wedge open the base-door)

I totally agree. The more time that they spend running away to repair is less time that they are actually spending shooting at anyone.

QuantumMechanic

2012-05-23, 09:25 PM

When I saw this thread title I expected this to be from a professional pilot (lol).

I do have to say that I'm not for auto-self-healing of land or air vehicles. Even if it's a difficult cert to get.

I think it cheapens the value of engineers, which is one of the roles I enjoy playing most. And right now I don't see much reason to play an engineer... aside from deploying turrets and CE. Which is just a fraction of what an engineer in PS1 could do.

Baneblade

2012-05-23, 09:28 PM

My Liberator will be getting a lot of Mossie and Scythe kills.

fod

2012-05-23, 09:36 PM

i dont like the idea of regenerating health of any kind for any vehicles
even as a vehicle user i dont like it (i love my magrider)

hopefully its only a very small amount regenerated like 1 or 2% per second

captainkapautz

2012-05-23, 09:39 PM

I do have to say that I'm not for auto-self-healing of land or air vehicles. Even if it's a difficult cert to get.

I think it cheapens the value of engineers, which is one of the roles I enjoy playing most.

Why do you people keep saying that?

Same with the regenerating health in TBs Night Ops video apparently making medics redundant.

You don't know, in the case of vehicle repair nanites, how much and how fast it actually regens, so stop crying wolf before we actually have any clue how it actually works.

And right now I don't see much reason to play an engineer... aside from deploying turrets and CE. Which is just a fraction of what an engineer in PS1 could do.

What?

That's pretty much all you could do as an Engineer, repair and place ce.

Well that and shoot stuff obviously.

Stardouser

2012-05-23, 09:43 PM

Same with the regenerating health in TBs Night Ops video apparently making medics redundant.

There was infantry health regen shown in one of these videos?

SKYeXile

2012-05-23, 09:44 PM

There was infantry health regen shown in one of these videos?

prob, i guess watch the video again and see if his health regens after a fight.

im gonna go out on a limb and say though...if its in BF...its in PS2.

Baneblade

2012-05-23, 09:45 PM

Even if there was, it isn't necessarily overpowered.

In PS1 there was an implant that would regenerate health, useful for infiltrators or vehicle operators wanting something to mitigate the Radiator.

Stardouser

2012-05-23, 09:48 PM

prob, i guess watch the video again and see if his health regens after a fight.

im gonna go out on a limb and say though...if its in BF...its in PS2.

At this rate, we're going to have to transfer the anti-BF3 campaigns directly to here, with the exceptions of squads, voip and map size. Health regen, especially of vehicles, is one of the major issues with BF3. I personally don't crusade against infantry regen(though I don't support it either) but I am against vehicle regen.

What's going to be revealed next? Disabling?

captainkapautz

2012-05-23, 09:50 PM

Soothsayer

2012-05-23, 10:02 PM

Yes, Night Ops video, near the beginning.

Took ~25 seconds to start regenerating and took around 4-5 seconds to regen from ~65-70% to full.

Which imo sounds good, you'll still need a medic in a fight, but if you somehow manage to disengage and hide for atleast half a minute you'll be able to go on.

I'm not sure if this is what you're talking about but the only regen I saw was on the shield (as opposed to health).

As far as regen on vehicles goes, I think we're looking at a significantly different length of time on vehicle fights judging by the amount of damage the Totalbiscuit was able to do to that vanguard with an AA cannon and little or no help from the magrider's driver in that same video.

If the damage numbers stay the way they are, it will be more about mitigating damage took as opposed to repairing damage passively.

Stardouser

2012-05-23, 10:05 PM

Edit:

Hopefully, nothing like seeing a burning Gal go down in flames.

It seems an explanation of BF3's disabling is in order. In BF3 a vehicle gets disabled at about 50% and they then burn to zero. You have to repair all the way to 100% to stop it.

Disabling at 20% or so would be OK(and disable should end after you repair to 30%, you should not have to go to 100%), but disabling at 50%, combined with the burning, makes for very irritating vehicle play in BF3.

So there are two aspects- movement restriction and burning. Movement restriction is more an extreme irritation for ground vehicles, and burning is just as much. Movement is less of a problem for aircraft as they can still fly, but the burning is a major irritation.

Hopefully they do not copy verbatim BF3's garbage design decisions. No disabling is fine, or disabling that occurs under 25% and ends when repaired past 30% would be fine, but not the way BF3 does it.

The way BF3 does it, they have automatic vehicle regen when you are not disabled, and automatic health burning when you are. This combination causes tanks to quite often camp from a distance instead of helping on objectives, because when you camp from long range, you can back away every time you take a hit and let health regen take care of it.

Serpent

2012-05-23, 10:09 PM

BF3 for the PC must be much more hectic with the 64 player battles. Using tanks to have a 50% disable would be much too easy to disable even a tank in PS2. At least 3 people at all times would be watching for any kind of tank to shoot with a rocket, which should probably get 40% hp or so, probably a kill even.

captainkapautz

2012-05-23, 10:15 PM

I'm not sure if this is what you're talking about but the only regen I saw was on the shield (as opposed to health).

Wait 25 seconds after his shield regen to see his HP regen as well.

Edit:
@Stardouser: Yeah, I don't mean the derptastic disable in BF3, but a proper one like you said.

Serpent

2012-05-23, 10:20 PM

BF3's regen is relatively quick considering the Prone mechanic... I've survived many times by just going prone, waiting to get regen going, then popping up and shooting back.

The fact that there is no planned prone makes things much different though.

Rbstr

2012-05-23, 10:27 PM

Talek Krell

2012-05-23, 10:40 PM

I don't see a problem with having a module that regens vehicle health when it directly conflicts with what's likely a major survivability tool: the flare. Especially now that infantry have a stinger-like launcher.
Yeah, that simple fact will go a long way to making it less desirable. Regen doesn't help much if you don't survive the pass.

Xaine

2012-05-23, 10:52 PM

Calling things overpowered before BETA starts is silly.

SKYeXile

2012-05-23, 10:53 PM

People will always debate balance, nomatter how balanced something is, to them unless they're doing good in it, then its generally not balanced enough.

Stardouser

2012-05-23, 10:57 PM

Just curious...why are people so quick to get upset about not getting a kill for a pilot that bails, but they are satisfied with not getting a kill while a wounded aircraft flies away for a couple of minutes to regen health?

Of course, I grant that we are pretty early in the vehicle health regen discussions, so maybe no one has realized the connection yet.

kertvon

2012-05-23, 11:09 PM

While I am not a fan of vehicle regen, I certainly hope that air vehicles are harder to take down with AA if flown at high altitudes. If you can't take them down from the ground then send up some pilots to bring them down. If the devs maximize the ceiling cap to cater to air to air battles, high altitude will be an entirely different battlefield; even to the point of enabling air vehicles to fly above the clouds to conceal themselves from ground units while traversing the continents. Think of the layers of progression air ops would have to consider.

1. High altitude travel towards target objective.
2. Air cav/scouts fly ahead of support aircraft to overcome enemy air to air and gain air superiority.
3. Additional reinforcing support fighters escort in the gals and libs and provide cover.
4. Fend off the waves of reinforcing enemy aircraft.
5. etc. etc.

These tactics are limited when ground units have just as easy an ability to take down air vehicles(minus flak weapons which have always been high altitude capable).

Yes, I agree, people will die a lot to pilots, but it is certainly not exclusive to pilots only. Once aircraft come into the "common zone" below high altitude where they are more vulnerable, between flak, MAX's, and any Ground-to-air equipped vehicles, there will be plenty of pilots getting punished.

Crippling the skies by making Ground-to-air weaponry more efficient is counter productive to air tactics. It's not like defending factions can't defend the skies with aircraft based defenses. If, however, the advantage is solely in reference to regen, then obviously that should be addressed. I think repair pads, as someone mentioned earlier, are the most practical solution.

IMMentat

2012-05-23, 11:14 PM

Just curious...why are people so quick to get upset about not getting a kill for a pilot that bails, but they are satisfied with not getting a kill while a wounded aircraft flies away for a couple of minutes to regen health?

Basic logistics.
A pilot that bails on top of you essentially has a full new life to screw you over with (most games don't limit pilots to a flightsuit and a pistol, which makes them a double-threat).
A pilot that runs away is out of the fight until he bails or repairs, this usually takes longer than a respawn would.

TrenchcoatNinja

2012-05-23, 11:17 PM

I don't see a problem with having a module that regens vehicle health when it directly conflicts with what's likely a major survivability tool: the flare. Especially now that infantry have a stinger-like launcher.

Yeah already I feel the dilemma of what to pick, but like most other options available it's for whatever situation you plan on, of course.

Stardouser

2012-05-23, 11:18 PM

Basic logistics.
A pilot that bails on top of you essentially has a full new life to screw you over with (most games don't limit pilots to a flightsuit and a pistol, which makes them a double-threat). A pilot that runs away is out of the fight until he bails or repairs.

I think that's only true if you carry AA weapons that allow you to bail and then immediately open fire on the enemy pilot that forced you to bail.

And frankly, while I think we really need to limit pilots to flightsuit and pistol(maybe a repair tool), at a bare minimum they should be limited to light assault and assault rifle, they should definitely not be allowed to carry around heavy AA/AV as a pilot. BF3 montages where you bail out of your jet and shoot the enemy jet in the face with an RPG in mid-air need to stay in BF3.

Death2All

2012-05-23, 11:36 PM

SoNaR

2012-05-23, 11:42 PM

It seems an explanation of BF3's disabling is in order. In BF3 a vehicle gets disabled at about 50% and they then burn to zero. You have to repair all the way to 100% to stop it.

When was the last time you played? Patch 1.0? You get disabled at 34% now, its been this way for months....

Disabling at 20% or so would be OK(and disable should end after you repair to 30%, you should not have to go to 100%), but disabling at 50%, combined with the burning, makes for very irritating vehicle play in BF3.

I agree with you here, there was a system like this in all the Battlefield games before the Frostbite engine (Battlefield games after 2142 sucked, with the exception of Hero's) and it was a great way of handling disables.

Rbstr

2012-05-23, 11:47 PM

While I am not a fan of vehicle regen, I certainly hope that air vehicles are harder to take down with AA if flown at high altitudes.

Unless there's an incredibly high flight ceiling, it makes more sense, and would provide for more interesting/difficult piloting if it were better to be closer to the ground.
For instance, up in the sky, there aren't many line-of-site obstructions making it easy to target you.

This goes for my feelings in preferring the Lib as an attack gunship and Galaxy as something that acts more like a transport helicopter rather than a paratrooper transport.

CutterJohn

2012-05-23, 11:48 PM

Just curious...why are people so quick to get upset about not getting a kill for a pilot that bails, but they are satisfied with not getting a kill while a wounded aircraft flies away for a couple of minutes to regen health?

I played much AA. I didn't mind people getting away. Thats just part of playing the game. Didn't get him, better luck next time.

The bails, otoh, were one of two things.

1: "*%#*& you AA n00b, you're not getting kill exp!", where the pilot bails out to spite whoever was killing him, knowing they'll land somewhere they will be completely worthless.

2a: "Whatever, I'll just AB over to the tower and get a couple kills before I die", where the pilot gains a magical second life and virtual immunity to the AA that was just killing it.

2b: Where they AB over you and gain a magical second life and transform into a unit designed to kill you.

I'm fine with bailing as an insertion mechanic. Hotdroppers were a valid emergent playstyle players developed. But it should require a very lightly armed/weaponless variant of the fighters, imo, not something you instantly transition to out of a solid A2A or A2G aircraft when you get into trouble that you can't run away from.

I mean, imagine if that bailure drops on to an AA max with AV at the ready, and that AA max pilot bailed out with an AI weapon. It'd be ridiculous.

Rbstr

2012-05-23, 11:50 PM

Part of the bailing problem will likely be dealt with be providing exp on vehicle kill, not just player kill.

Stardouser

2012-05-23, 11:52 PM

When was the last time you played? Patch 1.0? You get disabled at 34% now, its been this way for months....

I agree with you here, there was a system like this in all the Battlefield games before the Frostbite engine (Battlefield games after 2142 sucked, with the exception of Hero's) and it was a great way of handling disables.

Uh, 3 weeks ago maybe.

The only thing is, even if they tinkered with the disable percentage, don't Javelins still disable in one hit even if they don't take you to 34%? Also, you still have to repair ALL the way to 100% to stop it, right?

SKYeXile

2012-05-23, 11:55 PM

I played much AA. I didn't mind people getting away. Thats just part of playing the game. Didn't get him, better luck next time.

The bails, otoh, were one of two things.

1: "*%#*& you AA n00b, you're not getting kill exp!", where the pilot bails out to spite whoever was killing him, knowing they'll land somewhere they will be completely worthless.

2a: "Whatever, I'll just AB over to the tower and get a couple kills before I die", where the pilot gains a magical second life and virtual immunity to the AA that was just killing it.

2b: Where they AB over you and gain a magical second life and transform into a unit designed to kill you.

I'm fine with bailing as an insertion mechanic. Hotdroppers were a valid emergent playstyle players developed. But it should require a very lightly armed/weaponless variant of the fighters, imo, not something you instantly transition to out of a solid A2A or A2G aircraft when you get into trouble that you can't run away from.

I mean, imagine if that bailure drops on to an AA max with AV at the ready, and that AA max pilot bailed out with an AI weapon. It'd be ridiculous.

we saw a resource cost on those aircraft, depending on that rate and how they're earned, less effective people or people that are using them only for transport could be raping themselves of resource gain, and they may run-out of resources to spawn a vehicle if they're not using the vehicle for killing. Imagine 30 people all wasting 30 resources bailing on a tower, killing 3 defenders and flipping the tower, how much resources between them do you think they will get? (im still under the impression resources willbe earned at a tick rate based off your xp earned per hour, in relation to others, its the only fair way)

Biscuit

2012-05-23, 11:59 PM

question:

on timeline 4:22 - 4:24 there was a added, radio like voice in the background while TB was talking.

was that ingame? a macro/emote per se?

Stardouser

2012-05-23, 11:59 PM

we saw a resource cost on those aircraft, depending on that rate and how they're earned, less effective people or people that are using them only for transport could be raping themselves of resource gain, and they may run-out of resources to spawn a vehicle if they're not using the vehicle for killing. Imagine 30 people all wasting 30 resources bailing on a tower, killing 3 defenders and flipping the tower, how much resources between them do you think they will get? (im still under the impression resources willbe earned at a tick rate based off your xp earned per hour, in relation to others, its the only fair way)

Oh, you just gave me a thought. Everyone gains resources, right? 3 questions:
1. Will there be a resource sharing system?
2. Will playing as infantry classes be significantly cheaper than using vehicles?
3. The tie in question is; if there's a resource sharing system, won't that mean that an outfit's infantry can share their resources to its pilots, allowing them to use wasteful tactics a lot longer, perhaps even indefinitely?

Note that I am not suggesting a sharing system, I'm just anticipating an issue. Maybe if Hamma was able to cover the Resource system during his visit, we'll know enough to decide if this is a worthless question or not.

CutterJohn

2012-05-23, 11:59 PM

Part of the bailing problem will likely be dealt with be providing exp on vehicle kill, not just player kill.

That and the requirement for ejection seats. Hopefully pilots don't have easy access to repair pads either, so being a jump troop isn't a given. Or, hopefully it'll be hard to land as a jump troop unless you're relatively low and slow.

SKYeXile

2012-05-24, 12:04 AM

Oh, you just gave me a thought. Everyone gains resources, right? 3 questions:
1. Will there be a resource sharing system?
2. Will playing as infantry classes be significantly cheaper than using vehicles?
3. The tie in question is; if there's a resource sharing system, won't that mean that an outfit's infantry can share their resources to its pilots, allowing them to use wasteful tactics a lot longer, perhaps even indefinitely?

Note that I am not suggesting a sharing system, I'm just anticipating an issue. Maybe if Hamma was able to cover the Resource system during his visit, we'll know enough to decide if this is a worthless question or not.

most F2P games dont allow the sharing of resources because of RMT, once you earn it it would expect it to be yours, outfits could perhaps earn or tax resources to redistribute or use them, maybe... this is pure speculation.

from what i understand with infantry you have to pay to change your equipment loadout or something and purchase new unlocks,(this is the same with vehciles, but it seems you have to pay to get the vehicle) but to go back to that saved loadout it costs you nothing, i would expect maxes to cost resources.

come to think of it, i do vaguely remember something about a base model vehicle with no upgrade been free, but one with better weapons on it would cost resources to pull.

SoNaR

2012-05-24, 12:11 AM

Uh, 3 weeks ago maybe.

The only thing is, even if they tinkered with the disable percentage, don't Javelins still disable in one hit even if they don't take you to 34%? Also, you still have to repair ALL the way to 100% to stop it, right?

Javelins are a whole other game, but in most cases its always been 34% to get a disable... ever since the first major patch.

In BF3 once you hit 34% the bleed starts and you have to repair to 100% in order for the bleed to stop, but in BF2/2142 you would get disabled at 10% and the bleed would then begin, but if you repaired to 11% the bleed would stop and you would cease being disabled.

Stardouser

2012-05-24, 12:19 AM

Javelins are a whole other game, but in most cases its always been 34% to get a disable... ever since the first major patch.

In BF3 once you hit 34% the bleed starts and you have to repair to 100% in order for the bleed to stop, but in BF2/2142 you would get disabled at 10% and the bleed would then begin, but if you repaired to 11% the bleed would stop and you would cease being disabled.

Right. The key difference in BF2 was, the burning started only at 10% and ended at 11%, but there was no actual disabling, your movement was not affected. The only problem really was that tanks could flee at full speed at 5% health, make it around a building and repair in 10 seconds and come back at full strength.

If they really wanted to prevent that, they should have kept the 10% disable and it ends at 11%, but simply add the movement reduction to it. What BF3 does is just plain overkill and makes vehicle play suck.

most F2P games dont allow the sharing of resources because of RMT, once you earn it it would expect it to be yours, outfits could perhaps earn or tax resources to redistribute or use them, maybe... this is pure speculation.

from what i understand with infantry you have to pay to change your equipment loadout or something and purchase new unlocks,(this is the same with vehciles, but it seems you have to pay to get the vehicle) but to go back to that saved loadout it costs you nothing, i would expect maxes to cost resources.

come to think of it, i do vaguely remember something about a base model vehicle with no upgrade been free, but one with better weapons on it would cost resources to pull.

Hm...I was under the impression that we cannot directly buy resources in the cash shop? If we can't, then that, at least, would not be an obstacle to sharing.

SKYeXile

2012-05-24, 12:23 AM

Right. The key difference in BF2 was, the burning started only at 10% and ended at 11%, but there was no actual disabling, your movement was not affected. The only problem really was that tanks could flee at full speed at 5% health, make it around a building and repair in 10 seconds and come back at full strength.

If they really wanted to prevent that, they should have kept the 10% disable and it ends at 11%, but simply add the movement reduction to it. What BF3 does is just plain overkill and makes vehicle play suck.

Hm...I was under the impression that we cannot directly buy resources in the cash shop? If we can't, then that, at least, would not be an obstacle to sharing.

err you cant buy resources, they have to be earned, you can however still buy things with station cash, like modules or attachments as an alternative to using resources, but the vehicle spawning and consumables is still done via resources.

Zulthus

2012-05-24, 12:26 AM

err you cant buy resources, they have to be earned, you can however still buy things with station cash, like modules or attachments as an alternative to using resources, but the vehicle spawning and consumables is still done via resources.

I also believe there are resources you can spend in the cash shop.

SKYeXile

2012-05-24, 12:30 AM

I also believe there are resources you can spend in the cash shop.

yea i think its that green resource that looks like the black ops/PS symbol. however the hell thats ernt, though they said some items like skins will only be available for purchase with SC, which is fair enough.

I was surprised when this resource wasn't on that screen we saw, i think its actually called auraxium anyway, which could not really be a resource but more like credits or money, perhaps earned by kills/XP, while resources are earned by land holding.

captainkapautz

2012-05-24, 12:42 AM

question:

on timeline 4:22 - 4:24 there was a added, radio like voice in the background while TB was talking.

was that ingame? a macro/emote per se?

Yeah, sounded like some kind of radiotransmission "We got them on their heels.".

IMMentat

2012-05-24, 01:03 AM

I was surprised when this resource wasn't on that screen we saw
We were looking at the vehicle terminal interface, why would it show currencies it (probably) does not require?

Most of the icons in the interface looked like placeholders, the guns themselves, once clicked, showed a 3D model and also modified the liberator hologram to show how they would look if used/selected. A well thought out interface.

I hope that cash-shop vid he took is allowed to be shown, i'm interested in the pricing and variety of sidegrades and customisations.
TB is not the most methodical person so it may just be a rapid click, click through the pages (those 2 secondary guns guns he didn't click on in the Lib interface are already irritating my curiosity).

SKYeXile

2012-05-24, 01:07 AM

We were looking at the vehicle terminal interface, why would it need to show currencies it does not require?

true, but in numerous interviews aurxium is said to be a resource required for spawning of tech equipment. you would think for the sake of convenience it would be shown on this screen.

IMMentat

2012-05-24, 01:56 AM

Maybe they not figured out the best method to generate/seed this super resource yet.
Could also be an alpha thing. We'll see eventually. :p

Mechzz

2012-05-24, 02:35 AM

true, but in numerous interviews aurxium is said to be a resource required for spawning of tech equipment. you would think for the sake of convenience it would be shown on this screen.

That's not my understanding. The Lib loadout screen showed Polymers, Catalysts and Alloys as required resources for spawning equipment. The 4th resource, Auraxium is the in-game "cash" and can be used in the cash shop to buy skins and sidegrades is what I've taken from Higby's interviews. So it made sense to me that it wasn't on the loadout screen.

SKYeXile

2012-05-24, 03:01 AM

That's not my understanding. The Lib loadout screen showed Polymers, Catalysts and Alloys as required resources for spawning equipment. The 4th resource, Auraxium is the in-game "cash" and can be used in the cash shop to buy skins and sidegrades is what I've taken from Higby's interviews. So it made sense to me that it wasn't on the loadout screen.

Well yea, that was the other possibility i suggested earlier.

FastAndFree

2012-05-24, 04:47 AM

Raymac

2012-05-24, 01:03 PM

Repairing on the field was never really an issue in PS1, and I don't see it being one in PS2. I also don't see this upgrade being a combat advantage, if you have time to wait for the self repair to kick in you have time to land.
It will probably only be used by people who do not fly in engineer gear

^This.

It took no time at all to find an air tower or base to repair. Hell, or even a safe quiet place to land and repair it yourself with the gluegun you always keep in your trunk.

Basically, it is easy to balance air with Anti-air units on the ground. A "Lock-On" alert will make pilots run away without a shot ever being fired at them.