Some random thoughts on air combat in PS2

[MrMorton]

So, from watching the beta footage, I am starting to see the roles the aircraft are designed for, specifically regarding the fighters. Drawing comparisons from tactics used in more conventional flight sims, I would like to just theorycraft on the best use of these aircraft.

The Mosquito is shaping up to be the energy fighter of the game. Energy fighters are usually very survivable as they can run from most every fight. They should be used by starting far from the lines and at max altitude, and diving down on your target using wide sweeping maneuvers to attack your opponent and then immediately extend out of range.

In groups, the mosquito should rush down en masse, grouping and target firing and almost instantly killing multiple targets, then extending away before the opponent can retaliate. Then proceeding to rinse and repeat.

The scythe is the complete opposite, and is a little bit trickier to use against the mosquito, as tr will always have the speed advantage. The scythe is the turn'n'burner of ps2, being able to easily outmaneuver every other aircraft in the game. against anything but the mosquito, the scythe will just be able to chase down and outmaneuver them, however fighting an energy fighter requires special tactics (<3 whitera).

The best option should be to turn to face the approaching enemy (hopefully the scythes have seen them in advance) while not moving very much and using the vs's superior accuracy at range to whittle down the approaching mosquitos (targeting one ship at a time to take it down as fast as possible). Then just as the mosquito's get into their effective range, accelerate towards them and slightly at an angle, minimizing the firing time TR has on the VS. If the mosquitos make the mistake of breaking formation to dogfight, it should be easy to take them down.

The key to this match up is surprise, as an unprepared group of vs fighters will not be able to effectively counter the first sweep.


Now on to the reaver....sigh....As far as I can tell the reaver will be at a disadvantage to the other two races, not to say that it is underpowered, but in a 1v1 dogfight vs two pilots that are of equal skill, imo the reaver will always lose. This is because no matter how durable your aircraft is, once your opponent gets behind you, if you cannot shake him off he WILL eventually kill you (unless you have butt rockets or something).

that being said the reaver's best bet is to fly low and slow, making good use of its durability to soak up ground fire while taking out aggressors from the ground (antiground weapons will be a necessity). This will force the more fragile aircraft lower as well if they want to fight you, exposing them to NC ground fire. When fighting, the reaver will need to use vtol to get a good shot off on the other aircraft.

Against the scythe stay in vtol and attempt to stay with it and out dps the more fragile and weaker firing scythe.

Against the mosquito you should turn around before the mosquito passes you, and punch afterburner right as he overshooting in order to stay with him for as long as possible and get as many shots as possible into him. Hopefully the reaver will be able to turn with the mosquito so that if the mosquito panics and breaks, you should be able to keep up.

overall the reaver seems like it will be the hardest to survive in, but also have the best ability dominate air vs ground.

the vanu will be the dogfighter, but for balance purposes will probably be fairly fragile.

and the mosquito will be the hit and run fighter, rushing into a battle, and extending to the fringes to shake off chasers.


just some theorycrafting and general tactical concepts, what are your opinions?

[Lonehunter]

I've been thinking the exact same thing as some of those points.

As a TR pilot I can't stop thinking about being the fastest aircraft in the sky, and how to take on the Scythe. In TB's live stream I saw a lot of Skeeters going too fast and passing the target or getting too close to fire rockets. But the Scythe is so damn maneuverable, no matter how fast I am I think if I get too close they can just "turn'n burn" to get behind me, but again I can out run them.

In the end the Scythe will be the ultimate in hovering, it can turn on a dime while going to top speed in just under 2 seconds.

The Reaver I'm just not worried about

[Algo]

I did not notice a lot of speed change when diving/climbing in the fighters, and the planes are hardcapped in speed, you could dive from a mile up and still do the same speed you do when you fly level, its hard to guess from videos though.

[maradine]

Very good points, but two wrenches for your otherwise delicious gears:


Energy fighting only really applies where there is a significant time delta to achieving or regaining energy, be it velocity or altitude. PS2 seems to afford instant acceleration to v-max and no pitch-related gains or losses.
As there is no flight envelope, furballs can reductio ad absurdum - the dreaded turret fight. In this case, the Reaver actually appears to have the advantage.


Put another way, I want you to be right, but I think you may be wrong. :)

[maradine]

Not that it will make a lot of difference if they keep TTK's this low though.

Strewth.

[AvacadoEight]

Thing is, since the NC do the most damage, its presumable that when an NC pilot gets a lock on, or can shoot you, you're done. Or at least, I think.

[Algo]

NC do it head-on.

[lolroflroflcake]

I want you to be right, oh boy do I ever. This is how air to air combat should be in Planetside turreting shouldn't be a viable tactic, it just makes everything less fun.

[RandomNPC]

Thing is, since the NC do the most damage, its presumable that when an NC pilot gets a lock on, or can shoot you, you're done. Or at least, I think.

True, but because of their lack of mobility, getting the jump on your target is going to be important. Neither the scythe or mosquito will have too much trouble getting behind you and staying on your ass (particularly the scythe), and with options for chaff, you better not be relying on lock ons too much.

Honestly they're just better at different things if you ask me. Scythe is pure aerial superiority, mosquito is a balanced little thing, and the reaver more air to ground focused. But really we need to consider the side/upgrades, I'm sure the reaver won't seem so helpless with a few certs.

[AvacadoEight]

True, but because of their lack of mobility, getting the jump on your target is going to be important. Neither the scythe or mosquito will have too much trouble getting behind you and staying on your ass (particularly the scythe), and with options for chaff, you better not be relying on lock ons too much.

Honestly they're just better at different things if you ask me. Scythe is pure aerial superiority, mosquito is a balanced little thing, and the reaver more air to ground focused. But really we need to consider the side/upgrades, I'm sure the reaver won't seem so helpless with a few certs.

True. It is arguable that with certs and side grades you can make your Reaver almost as fast or maneuverable as say, a Mosq or a Scythe. You may sacrifice some firepower, but hey. If I can keep up, its worth it.

[Burnzblood]

Air combat looks pretty solid IMO

[Vexus]

I am excited about testing it all in beta. Granted, everything is new and setups aren't optimal, so gameplay is likely poor quality for most pilots. But just judging from the alpha videos and e3 streams it seems like the differences aren't as pronounced as one might expect.

The slowest fighter, the Reaver, seems to have a burst of up to around 300. The fastest fighter, the Mosquito, seems to top out just over 400. Given what we've seen in beta, there seems to be quite a lot of time to get an extra shot or two in before the Mosquito's extra speed can meaningfully disengage. So, I don't see speed as a huge advantage.

Durability is easily calculated, but I can't really tell just from watching the videos, so the Reaver's strength remains a wait-and-see for me.

What does seem to be a very significant advantage is the Scythe maneuverability in a dogfight. While not really a surprise, this looks to be the premier air-to-air vehicle. I've heard it was nerfed twice already ... so it sounds like it is proving a challenge to balance. I'm hopeful that we get a lot of good beta-testing for air-to-air from good pilots to hammer out a solid balance.

The devs have said that you can re-equip your aircraft to somewhat change its role, so hopefully our beta testing will help them find the right levels for everything without pigeon-holing each empire into a single playstyle.

[Blue]

I think this fits in perfectly with the faction play styles.... having a mossy and scythe dogging it out with a reaver hidden behind a cliff waiting for the lock on. Yes 1v1 nc has the disadvantage, but isn't that the same as the jackhammer vs. mcg? Jh everyone complained was op at close range, but at med to long range could be beaten with a flashlight....

The show area for E3 i don't think is indicative of how battles and dogfights in particular will end up playing out...although we still should not forget cu-sti-mi-za-tions or whatever lol....there will be VS players who want some extra power in place for having nc-esque mobility, and nc players who will sacrifice some firepower for more maneuverability

[MrMorton]

btw the mosquito needs to approach at high altitude to avoid detection and AA fire, from the videos I also think there is no energy gain from diving.

Very good points, but two wrenches for your otherwise delicious gears:


Energy fighting only really applies where there is a significant time delta to achieving or regaining energy, be it velocity or altitude. PS2 seems to afford instant acceleration to v-max and no pitch-related gains or losses.
As there is no flight envelope, furballs can reductio ad absurdum - the dreaded turret fight. In this case, the Reaver actually appears to have the advantage.


Put another way, I want you to be right, but I think you may be wrong. :)


very good points, but the lack of a complex flight model is a double edged sword, as the speed cap means that the TR will ALWAYS have an energy advantage over the other two factions, and should still be able to exploit that even in situations where the other aircraft can quickly get up to speed (i am discounting missiles and assuming countermeasures will deal with them for the most part and that guns will be the weapon of choice for air to air)

the turreting should be prevented almost entirely by the mosquito (gotta give TR some credit), as say, a reaver just chilling will be a very easy target for a mosquito at longer range as they will not have to lead at all and will be able to hopefully pass by before the NC can do much damage. conversely the NC will do best flying around at very low altitudes bring the mosquitos in AA range and popping into hover mode to force overshoots.

in VS vs NC, the fast acceleration of the vanu combined with its longer range than the other factions means it will be able to "kite" any turreting nc pilots, getting on their tail, forcing NC to hover in order to turn fast enough, then ac
celerating away and taking potshots on the slowed NC craft.

to counter, the NC will likely be relying on exceptional aim to bring down the scythe in the few seconds it is vulnerable each pass.

so yes, the reaver will end up turreting a lot, but I don't think the other factions will find hover that appealing.


I've been thinking the exact same thing as some of those points.

As a TR pilot I can't stop thinking about being the fastest aircraft in the sky, and how to take on the Scythe. In TB's live stream I saw a lot of Skeeters going too fast and passing the target or getting too close to fire rockets. But the Scythe is so damn maneuverable, no matter how fast I am I think if I get too close they can just "turn'n burn" to get behind me, but again I can out run them.

In the end the Scythe will be the ultimate in hovering, it can turn on a dime while going to top speed in just under 2 seconds.

The Reaver I'm just not worried about


Well, in 1v1 the scythe is going to be the dog fighter par excellence, and is going to be difficult to take down. However, scale that fight up into a 2v2, or a 10v10, and suddenly the mosquito has a huge advantage.

Why is this? well, consider that in order to evade a single mosquito's attack, the scythe must face the mosquito, stop maneuvering (besides swaying back and forth to throw off TR's aim), and save AB until right when the mosquito gets in range. That means that if a second mosquito approaches from a different angle, it has basically a free shot on the scythe AND will be able to get an extra long firing time when the scythe is forced to accelerate. Even if there are two scythes and each engages the respective mosquito, the mosquito's just switch targets and the end result is the same.

This scales all the way up, but the larger the forces get, the more insanely difficult timing all of these attacks gets for TR, while VS really requires more in the way of skilled pilots to be able to best evade multiple aircraft while focus firing on a separate one (for practical purposes the vs squad would attack the first aircraft attacking the squad leader).

So it turns into a balance of who can communicate best, and recognize when they are being targeted, react appropriately, and maintaining your formation at all times to maximize survivability.




tl;dr

mosquitos and scythes are gonna be scared of turreting.


in TvV 1v1 favors scythes but 2v2 and up favors mosquitos with good communication.



btw I fly VS, but I am trying to be unbiased ;)

[WaryWizard]

The NC may not be the best AA fighter, but I'm sure the reaver will be the bane of many Tanks.

The scythe is quite maneuverable, so I can see a very experienced scythe pilot taking on multiple enemies and winning.

the Mosquito is fast so it can run away when they get into a real fight.:lol:

[Virulence]

I'd favor a squadron of Reavers in a large furball - you'll probably be able to make use of your heavier weaponry since you shouldn't have trouble picking a target, and being able to take more punishment means your wingmen have a better opportunity to shoot the guy shooting you; in those situations, it's always better to shoot the guy shooting your wingman than it is to shoot the guy that's trying to shoot you.

[Pepsi]

Best strategy for a pair of Reavers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qsdIB3mMYc
<3 Thach Weave

[Bobby Shaftoe]

the Mosquito, seems to top out just over 400.
Seen it pushing 465 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptGe-UplC34&feature=player_detailpage#t=33s

[MrMorton]

Best strategy for a pair of Reavers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qsdIB3mMYc
<3 Thach Weave

while the thatch weave works great in real life flying tactics, it simply won't be that practical in ps2

the reason for this is that if I am in a scythe, it is perfectly possible for me to attack one reaver, the maneuver completely out of the flight path of the second reaver, and the drop back down on the first with no trouble.

the thatch weave is also not very good against energy fighters, as the mosquito can simply time his attacks when the two reavers are unable to cover each other and then extend away.

maneuvers like that are intended for a match up between two turn'n'burners, which simply is not going to happen in ps2 (unless you got two slow, maneuverability certed mosquitos vs two speed modded reavers :P)

[Pepsi]

while the thatch weave works great in real life flying tactics, it simply won't be that practical in ps2

the reason for this is that if I am in a scythe, it is perfectly possible for me to attack one reaver, the maneuver completely out of the flight path of the second reaver, and the drop back down on the first with no trouble.

the thatch weave is also not very good against energy fighters, as the mosquito can simply time his attacks when the two reavers are unable to cover each other and then extend away.

maneuvers like that are intended for a match up between two turn'n'burners, which simply is not going to happen in ps2 (unless you got two slow, maneuverability certed mosquitos vs two speed modded reavers :P)Hmm, I suppose that strategy hasn't been tested against UFO's.:lol:

But wasn't the Thach Weave developed not only to combat the Zero's superior maneuverability, but its speed as well? I thought it seemed like a good strategy against the faster Mosquito, perhaps something just doesn't translate well into video game world.

[MrMorton]

Hmm, I suppose that strategy hasn't been tested against UFO's.:lol:

But wasn't the Thach Weave developed not only to combat the Zero's superior maneuverability, but its speed as well? I thought it seemed like a good strategy against the faster Mosquito, perhaps something just doesn't translate well into video game world.

halfway true, the zero was faster in level flight but in real life that maneuver is performed in a shallow dive, because the Cats were better in a dive than the zero, so the maneuver was more to deter the zero from pursuing (unless the pilot was not thinking) and allow them to escape (as the cat was absolutely terrible against the zero in a fight).

in ps2 the mosquito will ALWAYS be faster than the other faction's aircraft.


if you are looking for some NC tactics with 2v1's, here is what I would suggest.

you see the mosquito coming, and contrary to what you would normally do, you turn to run away from it ( TR's will :jawdrop: and he will chase you). make a long shallow loop, simply tanking the damage, around as your wingman positions himself to intercept your flightpath. The wingman goes into hover mode as you fly past him and he gets easy shots onto the TR, if the high damage of NC is what its touted to be, you will be able to take out the mosquito.

[Pepsi]

make a long shallow loop, simply tanking the damage, around as your wingman positions himself to intercept your flightpath. The wingman goes into hover mode as you fly past him and he gets easy shots onto the TR, if the high damage of NC is what its touted to be, you will be able to take out the mosquito.I'm always a fan of these elaborate dogfighting techniques, but I guess PS2's arcadey-ness crushes that. Because altitude barely matters flying behind your wingman at a higher altitude isn't effective. I do feel for the Reavers, and even your idea involves putting a Reaver in a dangerous position.

The only defense I see the Reavers having is to fly in numbers, like what you mentioned with the Mosquitos. If a Mosquito or Scythe gets on a Reaver's tail, a Reaver wingman should be able to shoot that enemy down before they destroy the Reaver (just applying your idea en masse). So I guess, when in doubt, zerg 'em.

[Satexios]

Most people look at their sides and the ground, so they won't notice my little skeeter coming in from above and taking them out.

I am sure the same tactics will apply as they worked in WWII Online with the German planes, they couldn't turn as much as the allied ones so strafe down and take them out.

Can't wait for beta to test it :)

[MrMorton]

I'm always a fan of these elaborate dogfighting techniques, but I guess PS2's arcadey-ness crushes that. Because altitude barely matters flying behind your wingman at a higher altitude isn't effective. I do feel for the Reavers, and even your idea involves putting a Reaver in a dangerous position.

The only defense I see the Reavers having is to fly in numbers, like what you mentioned with the Mosquitos. If a Mosquito or Scythe gets on a Reaver's tail, a Reaver wingman should be able to shoot that enemy down before they destroy the Reaver (just applying your idea en masse). So I guess, when in doubt, zerg 'em.

yea the flight model, as far as I can tell, is extremely basic and isn't really conductive of more advanced maneuvers. Not to say that is bad necessarily, as the sci-fi feel fits with weird flight characteristics (as opposed to a game like bf3 which should have a decent flight model but doesn't)

On more idea with reavers is if you just cert for high armour and damage(I am more of a fan of expounding on your strengths than trying to make up for your weaknesses), you simply may be able to largely ignore the other aircraft and fly en masse to your objectives. Dogfights in planetside2 won't be fought without a purpose, and the reaver may be able to destroy that galaxy squadron, take out those approaching tanks, or attack enemy ground troops even if the NC does not have air superiority.

So the reaver might be better suited for attacking roles, while a bread and butter dogfighter like the scythe will have the most effective escort and defensive role.

[Hmr85]

Most ppl hung out around the ceiling is PS1 to neutralize the ability to dive in from above on them and to get the hell away from the AA which will be overwhelming when you have 1000 players below fighting it out.. I would'nt be suprised to see it again. It in a way forces you to fight them straight up yet still gives me the ability to see what hell is going on below. I also agree reaver pilots will need to roam with a buddy.

[ParisTeta]

The Rocket Speed Problem. Rockets are already pretty slow, a Mossi would have no problem to get away from a missle shoot from a reaver or scyth, also the mossie has less problem getting near enough to reliable shoot one while the rest well have to invent something liek afterburn bursts or suprise attacks.

In a large scale air battle, the mossie would proably be the best bet on the winner, fast, can get in the shots, get out, making it "durable" not in damage soaked but Time to Life and making alot of small Time in Combat.

Since the primary goal of these air unit is foremost air superiority, the Mossi is the best for that kind of Job. Reaver and Scyth maybe more like dive bombers to support ground attacks instead, while Scyth more hit n run and the reaver can soak some more punishment, maybe unloading to clips instead of one (furhter reinforce the damage aspect). Still these both are at disadvantge, can tactic compensate for this?


The Idea behind the Thach Wave may be valid, aka if you wanna shot my buddy i`m able to get a shoot on you, but Mossie will have there tricks of trade too, lag rolls etc. to keep there speed (they don`t lose any) and staying behind someone and also evading some of the targets buddy.

Solo defensive maneuvering will proably be bread and butter tactics for any scyth.

Reaver, like scyth just less agile.

I fear an air combat which is pretty stagnant, no one can really do anything, is that a good thing?

Or will Scyth/Reaver/Libs mow down ground units while TR Mossies try to hit n run on all those Air units feeling ineffective (WWIIO Feeling).

And lastly, it`s alpha, skills on the battlefield are usually diverse (problem in WWIIO AIr combat, it usally isn`t anymore, mostly very good player), number inbalance i just fear for the scyth that the strength will be reduced, not compensated and will become a charataristic which really dosn`t help much, a fate alot of Vanu Stuff suffers.

Someone should say to the Dev "The First Rule of design Vanu Stuff is, it should be usable and has it Strength in its PRIMARY FUNCTION and include everything which gives it its advantage (hello Magrider without turret..) THAN add fun stuff like strafing more agility or whatever.

Fix Idea: Make all three Air Vehicle mostly the same stats except, you can use he special ability to Improve your Speed (mossi) Agility (scyth) and punch/armor (Reaver). For a short time. Make it advancable with certs to get closer to other or enhance your primary special ability.

[Hmr85]

Fear the AA because no game will be able simulate the shear amout of it going up that you see in this game when you have almost the entire pop of a continent in one area. Aircraft will be resorted to doing hit and runs on the outskirts and protecting supply lines. The middle of the battle will pretty much be a no mans land. This is also where I figure the reaver will shine.

[Duddy]

Some interesting considerations, for sure, but I think it a little early to be calling the Reaver the weakest.

If anything has ever been proven to be true about gaming communities is that they will be able to utilise tools available to them despite what might be apparent or intent.

In short, this is quite speculative and the reality could be entirely different.

[Landtank]

The Reaver I'm just not worried about

Can't wait to absolutely annihilate you over the skies of Auraxis in my Reaver ;)

Don't underestimate the Reaver, if you ever make even a single mistake and the Reaver pilot is outfitted for air to air combat, then you are dead.

The Scythe and Mosquito lack the durability to take more than a few hits, even from the machine gun of the Reaver.

I also love the Reaver's obvious ability to dominate the other two in terms air to ground conflicts.

[MrMorton]

The Rocket Speed Problem. Rockets are already pretty slow, a Mossi would have no problem to get away from a missle shoot from a reaver or scyth, also the mossie has less problem getting near enough to reliable shoot one while the rest well have to invent something liek afterburn bursts or suprise attacks.

In a large scale air battle, the mossie would proably be the best bet on the winner, fast, can get in the shots, get out, making it "durable" not in damage soaked but Time to Life and making alot of small Time in Combat.

Since the primary goal of these air unit is foremost air superiority, the Mossi is the best for that kind of Job. Reaver and Scyth maybe more like dive bombers to support ground attacks instead, while Scyth more hit n run and the reaver can soak some more punishment, maybe unloading to clips instead of one (furhter reinforce the damage aspect). Still these both are at disadvantge, can tactic compensate for this?


The Idea behind the Thach Wave may be valid, aka if you wanna shot my buddy i`m able to get a shoot on you, but Mossie will have there tricks of trade too, lag rolls etc. to keep there speed (they don`t lose any) and staying behind someone and also evading some of the targets buddy.

Solo defensive maneuvering will proably be bread and butter tactics for any scyth.

Reaver, like scyth just less agile.

I fear an air combat which is pretty stagnant, no one can really do anything, is that a good thing?

Or will Scyth/Reaver/Libs mow down ground units while TR Mossies try to hit n run on all those Air units feeling ineffective (WWIIO Feeling).

And lastly, it`s alpha, skills on the battlefield are usually diverse (problem in WWIIO AIr combat, it usally isn`t anymore, mostly very good player), number inbalance i just fear for the scyth that the strength will be reduced, not compensated and will become a charataristic which really dosn`t help much, a fate alot of Vanu Stuff suffers.

Someone should say to the Dev "The First Rule of design Vanu Stuff is, it should be usable and has it Strength in its PRIMARY FUNCTION and include everything which gives it its advantage (hello Magrider without turret..) THAN add fun stuff like strafing more agility or whatever.

Fix Idea: Make all three Air Vehicle mostly the same stats except, you can use he special ability to Improve your Speed (mossi) Agility (scyth) and punch/armor (Reaver). For a short time. Make it advancable with certs to get closer to other or enhance your primary special ability.

I would disagree that the mosquito will have commanding air superiority,

while it is true that the tr will have the longest lifespan in their aircraft, however because of the way they have to fly to survive, the actual time attacking the targets is decreased dramatically (in conventional flight sims, energy fighters spend 70% of their time maneuvering and only 20% of the time firing on the opponent)

the dynamic between the dogfighting aircraft (scythe) and the energy fighter (mossie) is fairly interesting, as the added mobility of the scythe will allow a skilled pilot to avoid the fire of the mossie while trading shots with it.

for instance, a skilled pilot in a scythe will be able to take on multiple opponents at once and possibly win (think fokker triplane from ww1), but conversely a less skilled pilot will get destroyed in a 2v1 or 2v2+ because of the easy flight tactics that really only rely on coordination between the tr pilots.

The air combat will not become static because the aircraft are VERY fragile (with the possible exception of the reaver) and your only defense without a lot of armor is evading fire.

personally I think the vs weapons have the highest skill cap, but the potential to be the best in the game once mastered.

ie:

no spread on vs firearms, meaning if you can control recoil you will destroy people a 15+ meters.

scythe is far more maneuverable than the other aircraft, and piloted well will survive a very long time

same with the magrider (on an open battlefield)

[Tatwi]

Scythe has the advantage in turreting because of its horizontal maneuverability - strafe speed. The reason for this is that yaw is now on A & D, no longer controlled with Mouse_X. Not that it will make a lot of difference if they keep TTK's this low though.

I've been wondering if this horizontal movement ability would allow us to do a Zurabatic Cartwheel. This (http://www.britishpathe.com/video/highlights-of-farnborough-1951) is the only video of I could find (it's from 1951). Move to 2:20.

Alternately, imaging rolling out while losing forward momentum such that you are doing a tumbling roll to the side. Continue this move and you'd do an entire circle. This would be nifty for getting on to someone's tail who is behind you: Tumble/roll out while dropping airspeed and altitude, level out, boost back on to their tale. I can't wait to try that. :)

[LegioX]

As i discussed in another thread, we need better "look behind" views. This stopping the cockpit view at 90 degrees is uncalled for. Let us look atleast behind us some to see what is on our butts.

[meiam]

tbh I doubt we"ll see any dogfigthing, it simply make no sense, there's 3 reason to board an aircraft in PS2:

1) take out enemy galaxy. In this case dogfighting is pointless has it's much faster to just go straight for the galaxy, blow it up and die afterward. The time spent trying to deal with escort is enough for galaxy to get to it's destination. If the scale of map was much much larger, then you could have advanced escort, but the map is just too small compared to the aircraft speed.

2) Taking out infantry, at the end of the day you win by taking over facility. Aircraft can help in different way. They can attack incoming convoy/reinforcement, which again if there even protected by aircraft, it'll be better to just ignore escort and concentrate on the troops. They can spot galaxy that re spawn troops and take them out. They can just act as gunship and go around killing infantry/vehicule. Since you have to specialize you're aircraft, you'll know you're going to lose in AA when you're outfitted for AG, so you'll just focus on not getting killed, NC can just absorb more and run away, VS can outmaneuver, TR can outrun.

3) Protecting ground force, like I said this is probably going to be the least efficient way to play, someone mentioned the prevalence of AA gun, especially flak, so large number of ground troops will be death for any aircraft (especially with friendly fire) and the distance out in the open is just too small. The only way I could see it make sense would be to patrol for incoming aircraft to reinforce contested area, in which case TR will rule there.

[LegioX]

tbh I doubt we"ll see any dogfigthing, it simply make no sense, there's 3 reason to board an aircraft in PS2:

1) take out enemy galaxy. In this case dogfighting is pointless has it's much faster to just go straight for the galaxy, blow it up and die afterward. The time spent trying to deal with escort is enough for galaxy to get to it's destination. If the scale of map was much much larger, then you could have advanced escort, but the map is just too small compared to the aircraft speed.

2) Taking out infantry, at the end of the day you win by taking over facility. Aircraft can help in different way. They can attack incoming convoy/reinforcement, which again if there even protected by aircraft, it'll be better to just ignore escort and concentrate on the troops. They can spot galaxy that re spawn troops and take them out. They can just act as gunship and go around killing infantry/vehicule. Since you have to specialize you're aircraft, you'll know you're going to lose in AA when you're outfitted for AG, so you'll just focus on not getting killed, NC can just absorb more and run away, VS can outmaneuver, TR can outrun.

3) Protecting ground force, like I said this is probably going to be the least efficient way to play, someone mentioned the prevalence of AA gun, especially flak, so large number of ground troops will be death for any aircraft (especially with friendly fire) and the distance out in the open is just too small. The only way I could see it make sense would be to patrol for incoming aircraft to reinforce contested area, in which case TR will rule there.

1) How are the galaxy's going to survive when they keep getting shot down by other air? Oh yeah, thats right. Air support.

2)/3) How do you take out other AC chewing up your ground forces? Yep thats right other AC. So points 1-3 are irrelevant.

[meiam]

1) How are the galaxy's going to survive when they keep getting shot down by other air? Oh yeah, thats right. Air support.

2)/3) How do you take out other AC chewing up your ground forces? Yep thats right other AC. So points 1-3 are irrelevant.


Like I said, the distance vs aircraft speed make most escort pointless (this could change in beta with number tweak and if galaxy are insanely resistant), but you either have advance escort, in which case the time it take them to find the treat and converge on it is enough for the threat to reach the galaxy or you have close escort, in which case the threat is already on the galaxy.

I didn't say nobody would protect ground force with aircraft, I said they wouldn't do any dogfighting, they would just concentrate on not getting shoot down while still taking out ground force, and then just retreat when low on health. Maybe you could see some dogfighting when AC protect air to ground outfitted AC.

[LegioX]

In my experience with other games, people who intend to "mow the lawn" all game trying to get easy ground kills are the easiest people to shoot down, while your in a air-to-air AC type of role.

If you have good escorts for a galaxy there will be no way in hell they can get to the main "flying targets" without suffering massive losses. You set up close escort support around the galaxy's then you provide BARCAP ahead of the main group. Force the enemy AC to get low, while the main force fly's overhead.

[Vexus]

Seen it pushing 465 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptGe-UplC34&feature=player_detailpage#t=33s

Good catch. Thanks.

[MrMorton]

I've been wondering if this horizontal movement ability would allow us to do a Zurabatic Cartwheel. This (http://www.britishpathe.com/video/highlights-of-farnborough-1951) is the only video of I could find (it's from 1951). Move to 2:20.

Alternately, imaging rolling out while losing forward momentum such that you are doing a tumbling roll to the side. Continue this move and you'd do an entire circle. This would be nifty for getting on to someone's tail who is behind you: Tumble/roll out while dropping airspeed and altitude, level out, boost back on to their tale. I can't wait to try that. :)

the issue with a move like that in a game is that it requires a fairly complex flight model to simulate how an aircraft stalls, sorry to crush your hopes of doing those types of maneuvers, but the flight model probably will not allow for it


Like I said, the distance vs aircraft speed make most escort pointless (this could change in beta with number tweak and if galaxy are insanely resistant), but you either have advance escort, in which case the time it take them to find the treat and converge on it is enough for the threat to reach the galaxy or you have close escort, in which case the threat is already on the galaxy.

I didn't say nobody would protect ground force with aircraft, I said they wouldn't do any dogfighting, they would just concentrate on not getting shoot down while still taking out ground force, and then just retreat when low on health. Maybe you could see some dogfighting when AC protect air to ground outfitted AC.

you forget that there is a resource cost to deploying these aircraft, so you won't be able to just pump out aircraft every time you get taken out. If your scythe squadron can destroy that reaver squad 2 or 3 times, that reaver squad is GONE for the next hour or so, giving you complete air superiority over NC, because with dogfighting you will actually be able to kill the opponent, and have it really take them out of the fight.

Of course that relies on a good balance between resource cost and survivability.

now of course as I said, the reaver in particular should be able to possibly just ignore the furball around them and focus on the objective.

[ParisTeta]

I do understand the reasoning behind the 20/70% Rule (what are the other 10 % though?), but energy build up in WWII Sims (guess WWI too) is alot harder then it will be in Planetside, and i have always a few vs few or many vs many in my head and not 1 vs 1. That`s why i guesstimate that there is a risk of stagnant aircombat, with neither side doing something.

It`s all well in Infantry vs Air, like Infantry can stop the attack, but not the aircraft, while aircraft can take some hits from Infantry, but not ignore them.

The question i ask is that ok for air vs air, or do we need a tighter balance?

When something needs more skill, to be more effective or even being equal effective, is a bad design for a game. Good design, easy to learn, hard to master, but right now vanu seems to be hard to learn, very hard to master, super strength in very very narrow field.

Though i understand your opinion, and while i disagree, i still find it valid to discuss.

One last question, who would barrelrolling Mossie vs Scyth look like, especially there is no energy lost. Mossi barrels rolles to not overshoot and loos speed while Scyth barrels rolls to force overshoot and getting gun solution.

My guess, Mossie afterburns away, but i`m not 100% sure.

To other poster, intercept speed, air escort, and Galaxy thoughness will be quite an interessting topic. First, there won`t be so many galaxies spawns, so there is a clear area to cover, giving alot of intercept time if someone cares for that. Making them deprart, runing there drop is also quite an advantage, the "kill" is not the only victory. (Local) Air Suppority is a very good defense against Interception, so we`ll se how that works in Beta.

And it`s not only Galaxies vs Fighters, there are also Liberators, who are quite devastating.

[ArcIyte]

I was hoping we would have actual dogfighting. I don't think we will since aircraft seem to behave like PS1's "flying camera".

[Sabot]

Achieving air superiority I think is going to be very important. Just ignoring enmy air cav doesn't sound like a very sound tactic tbh. But hey... free kills for me if you indeed do. It's going to be a lot easier to shake incoming missiles and fire from AA weapons than shaking a fighter that's on your ass....

[TurelSun]

Like I said, the distance vs aircraft speed make most escort pointless (this could change in beta with number tweak and if galaxy are insanely resistant), but you either have advance escort, in which case the time it take them to find the treat and converge on it is enough for the threat to reach the galaxy or you have close escort, in which case the threat is already on the galaxy.

I didn't say nobody would protect ground force with aircraft, I said they wouldn't do any dogfighting, they would just concentrate on not getting shoot down while still taking out ground force, and then just retreat when low on health. Maybe you could see some dogfighting when AC protect air to ground outfitted AC.

You will find people dogfighting just because that is what they want to do.

Right, you could make the argument that their time would be better spent strafing ground targets or whatever, but thats kind of like telling snipers that their efforts would be better spent in a different role. People are going to fit air-to-air and dogfight because they find that appealing, not just because its is useful(or not useful as you are saying). The experience points and other players flying aircraft will fuel this area just like any other part of the game.

You're right, in a strictly objective play, it may end up being more effective to simply go for your target. However, I would point out that taking out those objectives as soon as they become apparent will mean having pilots in the sky already to intercept them. If that is a Galaxy, or flight of Liberators, that means the quickest way to counter them will be to have air-to-air fitted aircraft who are already flying, intercept them. When there aren't Liberators or Galaxies to be shot down, those people will be attempting to shoot each other down.

[MrMorton]

I do understand the reasoning behind the 20/70% Rule (what are the other 10 % though?), but energy build up in WWII Sims (guess WWI too) is alot harder then it will be in Planetside, and i have always a few vs few or many vs many in my head and not 1 vs 1. That`s why i guesstimate that there is a risk of stagnant aircombat, with neither side doing something.

It`s all well in Infantry vs Air, like Infantry can stop the attack, but not the aircraft, while aircraft can take some hits from Infantry, but not ignore them.

The question i ask is that ok for air vs air, or do we need a tighter balance?

When something needs more skill, to be more effective or even being equal effective, is a bad design for a game. Good design, easy to learn, hard to master, but right now vanu seems to be hard to learn, very hard to master, super strength in very very narrow field.

Though i understand your opinion, and while i disagree, i still find it valid to discuss.

One last question, who would barrelrolling Mossie vs Scyth look like, especially there is no energy lost. Mossi barrels rolles to not overshoot and loos speed while Scyth barrels rolls to force overshoot and getting gun solution.

My guess, Mossie afterburns away, but i`m not 100% sure.

To other poster, intercept speed, air escort, and Galaxy thoughness will be quite an interessting topic. First, there won`t be so many galaxies spawns, so there is a clear area to cover, giving alot of intercept time if someone cares for that. Making them deprart, runing there drop is also quite an advantage, the "kill" is not the only victory. (Local) Air Suppority is a very good defense against Interception, so we`ll se how that works in Beta.

And it`s not only Galaxies vs Fighters, there are also Liberators, who are quite devastating.

haha little typo there, 30% :D

the thing is from what I have heard the speed cap means the the mosquito is always going to be faster than the other aircraft.

So rather than being good at gaining and maintaining energy, the mossie will ALWAYS have an E advantage over the other aircraft, no matter the situation (unless you have no afterburners and your opponent does). I would be inclined to exploit that advantage as a tr, especially since the reaver is far more capable as a turreting craft.

as for air vs infantry, I feel that role (with the exception to the reaver) will be largley left to the liberator just because the ttk for the NC and VS fighters is very low.

as far as the skill thing goes, it is just a different type of skill, and one I think fits nicely with the faction's other playstyles.

TR will need very good timing and coordination skills between multiple squadrons, and within the squadron, where as the VS will put more stress on individual pilot skills. Good teamwork IS a skill, and a very hard one to master.

as for barrel rolls, like you said you lose no energy when doing them, so doing a barrel role with some yaw will have no effect other than throwing off the opponent's aim unless you decelerate at the same time, where as vs will probably just jinx from side to side and instantly slow down.

the meta between the galaxies/libs vs the fighters will be interesting as the fighters are what gains air superiority, but the galaxies/libs are the benefits you gain by having it.

[Pillar of Armor]

Dogfights are gonna happen. It happened in PS1, (though they were awkward) it will happen again.

[LegioX]

Wish they would put a FPS/Flight sim hybrid in this game. That would be epic...oh well.

[meiam]

Two things I just thought of that would greatly influence air combat

1) Are there going to be clouds below flight ceiling? Clouds at 800-1000 meters don't make any sense but aircraft restricted to 1000 meter ceiling don't make any either

2) Are we going to be able to outfit galaxy to act as AWACS? Being able to provide radar to all friendly aircraft, maybe even ground troops and detect tanks and maybe even infantry. Also could either jam enemy aircraft or create radar decoy. That would radicly change the value of air superiority from the current underwhelming model to something really important.

[Red Beard]

Two things I just thought of that would greatly influence air combat

1) Are there going to be clouds below flight ceiling? Clouds at 800-1000 meters don't make any sense but aircraft restricted to 1000 meter ceiling don't make any either

2) Are we going to be able to outfit galaxy to act as AWACS? Being able to provide radar to all friendly aircraft, maybe even ground troops and detect tanks and maybe even infantry. Also could either jam enemy aircraft or create radar decoy. That would radicly change the value of air superiority from the current underwhelming model to something really important.

The goal is to have clouds below FS after ship...Higby wants to do them right, and dedicate a lot of effort to that end it sounds like...They talked about hiding in them and what not.

Edit:

If clouds will be able to conceal aircraft, I would think radar specialization would end up being a necessity (and probably be released in the same patch as the clouds).

[Landtank]

Two things I just thought of that would greatly influence air combat

1) Are there going to be clouds below flight ceiling? Clouds at 800-1000 meters don't make any sense but aircraft restricted to 1000 meter ceiling don't make any either

2) Are we going to be able to outfit galaxy to act as AWACS? Being able to provide radar to all friendly aircraft, maybe even ground troops and detect tanks and maybe even infantry. Also could either jam enemy aircraft or create radar decoy. That would radicly change the value of air superiority from the current underwhelming model to something really important.

I believe such electronic warfare has been mentioned but not confirmed, especially not for the galaxy. I started an idea thread on the subject as I'm highly interested in being "Ghost Eye" from Ace Combat 6 :D

[MrMorton]

Two things I just thought of that would greatly influence air combat

1) Are there going to be clouds below flight ceiling? Clouds at 800-1000 meters don't make any sense but aircraft restricted to 1000 meter ceiling don't make any either

2) Are we going to be able to outfit galaxy to act as AWACS? Being able to provide radar to all friendly aircraft, maybe even ground troops and detect tanks and maybe even infantry. Also could either jam enemy aircraft or create radar decoy. That would radicly change the value of air superiority from the current underwhelming model to something really important.

AWACS would be incredibly cool,

I do remember them talking about equipping some sort of "radar" that works on ground armor units and, not sure if it was intended for fighters or galaxies though.

I think the ability to do mass galaxy drops and use liberators makes air superiority very important and not "underwhelming"

[ParisTeta]

In the alpha so far there are discription for an Air Radar, a Ground Radar and something to negate Radar, also ejection seats, one of the first TB Videos. If they are functional or placeholders? Who knows.

Clouds, as long it`s not a simple layer of clouds everywhere i really hated them in WWIIO/BGE, made boom n zoom always a hassle and all the allies flew right above tree level strafing.


I always imagined for empire goals, when you reach them, as winning condition, to get something like weather control.

[Vanu Techpriest]

I wouldn't really call the ability to glass a base with bombs and rockets "underwhelming".

Is there any word on what the max altitude will be? I'm wondering if mass high altitude bombing runs will be possible (think mass bombers in WW2 over Germany). From the livestream it seemed like all the aircraft were flying pretty low to the ground.

[LegioX]

I really wish WW2OL had the dev support and following that PS 1/2 has. No offense to this game, looks awsome and can't wait to play it. But ww2ol had something no game had. A massive online war, with real world physics and damage. You just don't see that anymore in today's games. This is massive online air war right here. Physics and all included.
You have escorts and bombers like it should be.

Intercepting these RDP (research and development) raids were something you have to see to believe. Was truly awsome.
WWII Online Love From Above - YouTube

[Sledgecrushr]

The devs have been very proud of there Physics engine, we can only hope that they can add some of these real world Physics to aircraft. A complex model is really necessary to make air wars ps2 absolutely amazing.

[meiam]

1000 meter is flight ceiling, so high altitude bombing is impractical because of how dangerous it'll be, combined with the fact that there's no destructible environment, so if you're behind a wall and a bomb blew up right next to you, but on the other side of the wall, you're unscratched.

As for why I call air superiority underwhelming is because I feel like you'll need to sacrifice so much resource to lock down an area and stop any incoming aircraft from doing damage that you'll end up gimping you're ground troop too much, combined with the prevalence of AA (flak) and how squishy the aircraft are, it just feel like it's too much resource for nothing.

[LegioX]

Thats what made those RDP raids in WW2OL awsome. Every player knew how destructive raids were to overall production out come on either side. So when these big raids were up, all fly boys on the other side would intercept these raids. What resulted were massive air-to-air fights high above the battlefield like it should be.

[ParisTeta]

Air Combat physic don`t need to be to tough, it should prevent mid air turreting. allow freedom of movement and maybe accelrate/deaccelrate while flying up/down/left/right to a certain degree, simple energy managment.

Freedom of Movement, we have that, compared to PS1.
Turreting seem unadvisble due low Hitpoints, but still, standing in midair as effective tactic would be a bad design decision in my opinion.

Simple energy system, losing when flying up (climbing to fast) or gaining speed while flying down, or losing speed for to much turning (even is max speed is limited to afterburn speed or something) could enhance air combat.

[LegioX]

Talk about opening the floodgates to a market that is very big. You make a competent air physics system, dedicated fly boys would flock in droves.

[Sledgecrushr]

Air Combat physic don`t need to be to tough, it should prevent mid air turreting. allow freedom of movement and maybe accelrate/deaccelrate while flying up/down/left/right to a certain degree, simple energy managment.

Freedom of Movement, we have that, compared to PS1.
Turreting seem unadvisble due low Hitpoints, but still, standing in midair as effective tactic would be a bad design decision in my opinion.

Simple energy system, losing when flying up (climbing to fast) or gaining speed while flying down, or losing speed for to much turning (even is max speed is limited to afterburn speed or something) could enhance air combat.

This has my full support.

[Landtank]

As for why I call air superiority underwhelming is because I feel like you'll need to sacrifice so much resource to lock down an area and stop any incoming aircraft from doing damage



Hah, tell that to the Germans in WW2!

I see what your saying and agree to a degree, but the amount of damage a liberator or GalGunship can dish out is more than enough to wipe out an entire front line. Without air superiority these gunships are unable to focus on the ground enemy.

At least that's my take, so sacrificing some resources in order to annihilate more of the enemies resources seems worth it, and being in that Gunship is anything but underwhelming :P

[TeaReks]

Turreting wasn't even a great strategy in PS1 unless who you were fighting was clueless or had no weapon to touch you.

Honestly until we actually get to fly around non of us can really judge what will happen.

Also balance will happen in beta. If one craft dominates the other you can expect it to get balanced. In the end it will come down to pilot skill. I think one vs ones will be very rare given the capacity of the servers and speed of aircraft.

[LegioX]

I understand in todays day and age people want FPS's and thats where majority of people play (inf of some sort). Just wish air can get a face lift. Like someone posted before, have some type of energy retention and depletion during combat. If i don't add enough power in a climb, i stall out and become a nice juicy target for someone.

[meiam]

Yeah but whenever an aircraft want to deal damage to ground troops, it's forced to go in a position where the ground troops themselves can attack the aircraft, so you can have 10 guy in aircraft protecting the ground troops (which cost resource for the aircraft) or have them on the ground with AA gun (which cost 0 resource, allow them to re spawn much closer and deal close too as much damage)

Someone did mentioned that people would probably dogfight and what not anyway just because they want to and that's a very good point, but I feel like advance tactics are going to be impossible because of how small the fighting area is going to be, so if you go in full dogfighting mode, you'll quickly leave the contested area and might even cross into enemy territory.

[LegioX]

Turreting wasn't even a great strategy in PS1 unless who you were fighting was clueless or had no weapon to touch you.

Honestly until we actually get to fly around non of us can really judge what will happen.

Also balance will happen in beta. If one craft dominates the other you can expect it to get balanced. In the end it will come down to pilot skill. I think one vs ones will be very rare given the capacity of the servers and speed of aircraft.

I hope they don't nerf hammer any AC that is consider overpowered. Like in RL, some airplanes excel in areas where others don't. That is the nature of the game.

[LegioX]

Yeah but whenever an aircraft want to deal damage to ground troops, it's forced to go in a position where the ground troops themselves can attack the aircraft, so you can have 10 guy in aircraft protecting the ground troops (which cost resource for the aircraft) or have them on the ground with AA gun (which cost 0 resource, allow them to re spawn much closer and deal close too as much damage)

Someone did mentioned that people would probably dogfight and what not anyway just because they want to and that's a very good point, but I feel like advance tactics are going to be impossible because of how small the fighting area is going to be, so if you go in full dogfighting mode, you'll quickly leave the contested area and might even cross into enemy territory.

Then they need to up the ceiling past 1000m. Bring the air war up. Trust me...the higher the ceiling, players will use that to their advantage. Alt/Speed is life.

[meiam]

I hope they don't nerf hammer any AC that is consider overpowered. Like in RL, some airplanes excel in areas where others don't. That is the nature of the game.

Yeah I really hope they don't make all plane super similar in the name of balance, just boring, I like to learn my aircraft and use it's advantage in different way depending on what I'm facing.

One thing, the aircraft aren't plane, there helicopter, I'm pretty sure you can't even stall.

[Landtank]

Yeah but whenever an aircraft want to deal damage to ground troops, it's forced to go in a position where the ground troops themselves can attack the aircraft, so you can have 10 guy in aircraft protecting the ground troops (which cost resource for the aircraft) or have them on the ground with AA gun (which cost 0 resource, allow them to re spawn much closer and deal close too as much damage)

http://freethoughtblogs.com/rockbeyondbelief/files/2012/02/Dwight-Schrute-False.jpg
There is nothing that says you have to be hovering 100 feet above the battlefield in a liberator or galaxy, with a 75-100mm cannon you can sit at max altitude all day bombing the hell out of an enemy front line or base. I doubt flak or missles will be able to reach the top altitudes and do significant damage.

For the ES Aircraft, then the game changes, they have to do bombing runs and strafing runs etc, but their speed allows this and if they are smart they can avoid anti air fire for a decent amount of time.

[LegioX]

Maybe we can push for them to up the gameplay alt to 2000m? Might be a simple fix? Wouldnt know

[meiam]

I thought I heard in one of the video that they wanted to make sure aircraft where always in range of infantry AA, I might be wrong on that. Also it seems like the 1000 m is based off an arbitrary ocean level, so most of the time it sounds like you'll only be able to be like 700 m above the ground floor.

I really hope they'll open it up, heck you could have different ceiling for different aircraft, that would open up a whole realm of awesome.

[TurelSun]

I thought I heard in one of the video that they wanted to make sure aircraft where always in range of infantry AA, I might be wrong on that. Also it seems like the 1000 m is based off an arbitrary ocean level, so most of the time it sounds like you'll only be able to be like 700 m above the ground floor.

I really hope they'll open it up, heck you could have different ceiling for different aircraft, that would open up a whole realm of awesome.

I recall from one of the E3 streams one of the devs mentioning at someone getting hit from apparently no where that a liberator could be sitting far out of range doing that.

[LegioX]

I also heard about them saying AC can use the blinding sun at their backs to kill other enemy AC. I don't know if that means by diving down on them or what.

[Sabot]

I also heard about them saying AC can use the blinding sun at their backs to kill other enemy AC. I don't know if that means by diving down on them or what.

Sun in back for one guy = sun in eyes for other guy. Guy with sun in eyes = dead guy most of the time.

[Pillar of Armor]

In PS1 I piloted a lib quite a lot and typically the only thing that could knock me out of the air was an air-to-air fighter (reaver/hornet). Until AA BFRs came in it was very rare to be killed by ground-to-air AA as a lib pilot.

With my lib crew we would lay down 20+ units in a single run. That's not nothing in terms of resource cost especially when you can do a few good runs in a night and the kills included loaded sundies and tanks. Sometimes that would give us a foothold on a tower or bridge and that changed the battle. That is a huge incentive to take out a lib and the only way I could stay in the sky was with a good wingman. Right there is a big reason to have air-to-air combat and that is how it often happened in PS1.

[Fafnir]

I thought I heard in one of the video that they wanted to make sure aircraft where always in range of infantry AA, I might be wrong on that. Also it seems like the 1000 m is based off an arbitrary ocean level, so most of the time it sounds like you'll only be able to be like 700 m above the ground floor.

I really hope they'll open it up, heck you could have different ceiling for different aircraft, that would open up a whole realm of awesome.

You are getting wrong ideas by comparing this 1000m to real life. In PS2 it seems very high to me and I'm sure, that above max altitute it will be nearly impossible to bring down an aircraft with ground-to-air weapons. Rockets won't be able to lock on that far, bullets and flak projectiles will have travel time. We don't know how this 1000m feels until we test it.

Ground troops aren't that hard to deal with for aircrafts in other games, so I don't see how this is going to change in PS2. Higher number of players targeting you doesn't matter, if you are leading rockets from very high altitude, beyond their reach. It also doesn't matter, if you fly low and fast to maximize element of suprise. Terrain in PS2 is actually very hilly, so I think second tactic will be more effective.

[LegioX]

Why do ground troops need to bring down AC at high alt? If you fly high that should be a advantage for you, b/c your out of AA range. You want that plane dead? Call in air support. Ground troops shouldn't have a counter to all air in every way shape or form.

[Pillar of Armor]

Why do ground troops need to bring down AC at high alt? If you fly high that should be a advantage for you, b/c your out of AA range. You want that plane dead? Call in air support. Ground troops shouldn't have a counter to all air in every way shape or form.

I agree, ground AA should be for low fliers. In PS1 altitude was often the only way you could get over a base and it created an incentive for air-to-air combat.

[ParisTeta]

Infantry AA must only chase you away, not kill you. The E3 Videos a great example, the rocket chased away most attacker, some risked getting a hit for a shot and THEN run, but couldn`t stand there all the time dishing out damage.

I think that fine as it is, AA MAXes and Skyguard are for the killing (and other Air units).


And pleas start think in squad and platoon levels and not 1vs1 or lonewolfs.

[MrMorton]

just saying, the 1v1 thing was just as a basic level for describing tactics, as they can be scaled up fairly effectively even if the result of the tactic is different.


I also second the idea of basic energy retention, and depletion.

at its most basic implementation, the max speed of the aircraft would be increased/decreased by a function of it's angle relative to sea level.

so

if x=angle of depression, k= some constant that would balance the function (could be faction specific), s= the normal top speed of the aircraft and y= the max speed,then

s+kx=y

...its that simple

that is pretty much what I used for speed retention when I was attempting to make a flight game in udk a while ago.

also a flight ceiling of 2000 meters would be fantastic, just having that +1000 area for the large scale dogfights, galaxy drops would be amazing.

[Sledgecrushr]

I also think a flight ceiling of 1000 meters is too low. Flight ceiling should be pushed up to about 3000 meters.
Edit* This would allow for aa to be layered, for instance lightning skyguard effective to 3k meters, max aa 2k meters and infantry aa good to 1k meters.

[Resolve]

I also think a flight ceiling of 1000 meters is too low. Flight ceiling should be pushed up to about 3000 meters.
Edit* This would allow for aa to be layered, for instance lightning skyguard effective to 3k meters, max aa 2k meters and infantry aa good to 1k meters.

I would sacrifice 3000 babies to have a 3k flight ceiling.

[McBane]

Hopefully the flight model is sophisticated enough to allow for some decent dog fights.

[TheInferno]

Agreed, McBane. I'm not much of a pilot (I don't understand half the terms) but I always liked a game called Freespace 2. Probably has nothing to do with how flight will be in this game but I always liked flying in a sci-fi style game, so... ah well.

I am also now imagining gigantic glowing red, blue, and purple gods throwing lightning bolts at each other.

[Unforgiven]

im really looking forward to having great air combat, but unfortunately that also takes great pilots, i myself dont think there will be enough skilled pilots to have great air combat.

(by skilled pilots i mean players who actually learned how to dogfight in real life)

im sure we have loads of great GAMER pilots out here, but i think it might take more than that, at least, to meet my (very high) expectations

[McBane]

im really looking forward to having great air combat, but unfortunately that also takes great pilots, i myself dont think there will be enough skilled pilots to have great air combat.

(by skilled pilots i mean players who actually learned how to dogfight in real life)

im sure we have loads of great GAMER pilots out here, but i think it might take more than that, at least, to meet my (very high) expectations

Ok, I cannot offer real-life pilot experience. But I am playing various (military) flight sims for years. So I would love to have a pseudo flight model where classical dog fight manoeuvres would work.

[Resolve]

im really looking forward to having great air combat, but unfortunately that also takes great pilots, i myself dont think there will be enough skilled pilots to have great air combat.

(by skilled pilots i mean players who actually learned how to dogfight in real life)

im sure we have loads of great GAMER pilots out here, but i think it might take more than that, at least, to meet my (very high) expectations

I can guarantee you that we will see some amazing dogfights. With the ability to do loops now, and how the physics are it seems like there is a decent skill ceiling to it.

[Landtank]

Yeah FreeSpace 2 was a fantastic game, and the flight model was absolutely perfect, I really wish PlanetSide followed the same model.

[meiam]

im really looking forward to having great air combat, but unfortunately that also takes great pilots, i myself dont think there will be enough skilled pilots to have great air combat.

(by skilled pilots i mean players who actually learned how to dogfight in real life)

im sure we have loads of great GAMER pilots out here, but i think it might take more than that, at least, to meet my (very high) expectations

I'm pretty sure real life pilot would be at a disadvantage compared to good gamer pilot. First the physics engine and the plane are nowhere near real life.

Also real life pilot learn to dogfight keeping in mind there body, in other word they always do stuff to come back alive and they can't do stuff that would knock them out because of too much G. If you go in a fight knowingly you'll die but it won't matter you'll be able to do some interesting things, like the stuff I talked about to ignore escort plane and just focus on important target, sure they'll get you after, but who care you just cost them so much more.

[Unforgiven]

im talking about serious flight maneuvers, for example, my wingman and i get on a T intercept, bandit turns into us, so what do you do? (bank towards him) while the inevitable turning fight ensues, where is your wingman? he should have gone vertical when the lead aircraft banked right, now lead and bandit are in a turning fight below him, all wing needs to do is nose in and fire on the bad guy, now changing lead's turning fight into wing's energy fight kill.

basic manuver that everyone who claims to be a pilot should know.

the list goes on and on, im not about to reveal my gameplan, but im LFO to teach dogfighting in.

[MrMorton]

im really looking forward to having great air combat, but unfortunately that also takes great pilots, i myself dont think there will be enough skilled pilots to have great air combat.

(by skilled pilots i mean players who actually learned how to dogfight in real life)

im sure we have loads of great GAMER pilots out here, but i think it might take more than that, at least, to meet my (very high) expectations

not quite sure what you are talking about,

the experience actually flying and playing a game (even one with a very advanced flight model) are completely different, there is no user feedback in a videogame for one, and the input is going to be completely different.

On top of that, only 1 or 2 games have ever even approached a fully realistic flight model, the one I can think of is rise of flight, which is a world war one sim,

ps2's FM is leagues away from realism, a pilot in rl would have no advantage flying in ps2 (or the majority of flight games), probably having good twitch aiming skills would be far more important

[qbert2]

I'd like to see a soft flight ceiling explained by lore and upheld with game mechanics.

What I'd like is if you go above the flight ceiling you have a certain amount of time to get back below it until an orbital platform shoots you out of the air. Lore wise you can explain this by saying that anything below a certain altitude is hard to target and therefore cannot be shot down.

This would allow for dog fighting to still occur at the flight ceiling and not have it feel like a brick wall while also allowing people to decide if they want to risk getting blown up by the orbital platform in order to kill / evade their target.

[LegioX]

Really wish a Dev would enlighten us on their visions for air-to-air combat in this game will be. I for one would love the flight ceiling to be increase. That could be a basic start. Just tired of all games forcing pilots close to the ground in other to funnel all the masses into one giant furball mixed in with ground troops.

[Wayside]

So, from watching the beta footage, I am starting to see the roles the aircraft are designed for, specifically regarding the fighters. Drawing comparisons from tactics used in more conventional flight sims, I would like to just theorycraft on the best use of these aircraft.

The Mosquito is shaping up to be the energy fighter of the game. Energy fighters are usually very survivable as they can run from most every fight. They should be used by starting far from the lines and at max altitude, and diving down on your target using wide sweeping maneuvers to attack your opponent and then immediately extend out of range.

In groups, the mosquito should rush down en masse, grouping and target firing and almost instantly killing multiple targets, then extending away before the opponent can retaliate. Then proceeding to rinse and repeat.

The scythe is the complete opposite, and is a little bit trickier to use against the mosquito, as tr will always have the speed advantage. The scythe is the turn'n'burner of ps2, being able to easily outmaneuver every other aircraft in the game. against anything but the mosquito, the scythe will just be able to chase down and outmaneuver them, however fighting an energy fighter requires special tactics (<3 whitera).

The best option should be to turn to face the approaching enemy (hopefully the scythes have seen them in advance) while not moving very much and using the vs's superior accuracy at range to whittle down the approaching mosquitos (targeting one ship at a time to take it down as fast as possible). Then just as the mosquito's get into their effective range, accelerate towards them and slightly at an angle, minimizing the firing time TR has on the VS. If the mosquitos make the mistake of breaking formation to dogfight, it should be easy to take them down.

The key to this match up is surprise, as an unprepared group of vs fighters will not be able to effectively counter the first sweep.


Now on to the reaver....sigh....As far as I can tell the reaver will be at a disadvantage to the other two races, not to say that it is underpowered, but in a 1v1 dogfight vs two pilots that are of equal skill, imo the reaver will always lose. This is because no matter how durable your aircraft is, once your opponent gets behind you, if you cannot shake him off he WILL eventually kill you (unless you have butt rockets or something).

that being said the reaver's best bet is to fly low and slow, making good use of its durability to soak up ground fire while taking out aggressors from the ground (antiground weapons will be a necessity). This will force the more fragile aircraft lower as well if they want to fight you, exposing them to NC ground fire. When fighting, the reaver will need to use vtol to get a good shot off on the other aircraft.

Against the scythe stay in vtol and attempt to stay with it and out dps the more fragile and weaker firing scythe.

Against the mosquito you should turn around before the mosquito passes you, and punch afterburner right as he overshooting in order to stay with him for as long as possible and get as many shots as possible into him. Hopefully the reaver will be able to turn with the mosquito so that if the mosquito panics and breaks, you should be able to keep up.

overall the reaver seems like it will be the hardest to survive in, but also have the best ability dominate air vs ground.

the vanu will be the dogfighter, but for balance purposes will probably be fairly fragile.

and the mosquito will be the hit and run fighter, rushing into a battle, and extending to the fringes to shake off chasers.


just some theorycrafting and general tactical concepts, what are your opinions?

I think thats a fantastic analysis of what we saw in the E3 videos. On the Reaver, I too was generally underwhelmed with what I perceived to be no real advantage over either of the other empire aircraft in the dogfight. It's survivability or "toughness" didn't seem notably superior to the other two.

They could balance the Reaver out by improving its toughness and giving it a measurable advantage in the Air to Ground game, but I'm not sure what good that would do in the long run if it is forced into a defensive posture every time one of the other empire aircraft shows up.

Really looking forward to how this looks in BETA as the die-hard pilots step into their aircraft and crank out some data thats a bit more useful than the chaos and random nature of what we saw at E3.

[McBane]

One more request: please integrate decent support for pro flight joysticks/setups. I.e., full support of analogue throttles and pedals.

[Xyntech]

I'd like to see a soft flight ceiling explained by lore and upheld with game mechanics.

What I'd like is if you go above the flight ceiling you have a certain amount of time to get back below it until an orbital platform shoots you out of the air. Lore wise you can explain this by saying that anything below a certain altitude is hard to target and therefore cannot be shot down.

This would allow for dog fighting to still occur at the flight ceiling and not have it feel like a brick wall while also allowing people to decide if they want to risk getting blown up by the orbital platform in order to kill / evade their target.

No need for all of that. Just have the atmosphere get thin above a few thousand meters up. Aircraft start losing thrust and stalling out the higher they go.

Continents are smaller than real world continents. More like small Islands. I don't have a problem with having the atmosphere end lower than on a real world as well.

[Wayside]

I'd like to see a soft flight ceiling explained by lore and upheld with game mechanics.

What I'd like is if you go above the flight ceiling you have a certain amount of time to get back below it until an orbital platform shoots you out of the air. Lore wise you can explain this by saying that anything below a certain altitude is hard to target and therefore cannot be shot down.

This would allow for dog fighting to still occur at the flight ceiling and not have it feel like a brick wall while also allowing people to decide if they want to risk getting blown up by the orbital platform in order to kill / evade their target.

Some thoughts on problems that creep up as you raise the ceiling further and further:

On performance: The higher you get, the more of the continent you see at once. Every PC is going to hit a point where it's getting bogged down by the amount of "stuff" being shown on screen from that eagle-eye perspective. You can counter that by bringing in a "fog of war" effect, scaling back terrain and structure poly counts at certain ranges, and causing player models and vehicles to simply not be visible at a certain point, but eventually you're looking down at mostly fog and emptiness. Not a great game-play experience.

On balance: Depending on the restrictions placed on projectiles in the game, allowing aircraft too much vertical freedom could make them nearly invincible. Just stand off at 20,000 feet, where almost no one can see you, and lob rounds from your Liberator in the general direction of your target of choice. Again, you can balance by tuning how far projectiles can travel or by making ground to air weapons travel very, very quickly to catch those aircraft at the top of the sky, but it seems simpler to just limit the ceiling.

That said, I would like to see the ceiling higher than what we've seen thus far. But not at the cost of the overall game-play experience. My 2c :P

[qbert2]

I'm not really advocating increasing the ceiling though I wouldn't mind it slightly higher. I just would like to see the invisible wall removed when you reach it.

It would be nice as an AA pilot to toy with a gal pilot up at the flight ceiling by moving in and out of the 'danger zone' to avoid the tailgunner. The gal pilot would be less inclined to increase altitude due to the much lower maneuverability.

[Haro]

Positioning is going to be key for the reaver. Get in a good run and hammer the opponent before they have a chance to react. In case the attack doesn't finish the enemy, plan it so you can make a quick getaway to friendly lines, where you can hopefully get more AA cover.

Reavers, as well as having slightly stronger weapons, could have improved accuracy and range. It's well within reason for NC's philosophy, and can really even out the odds. If NC can get surprise and draw first bead, they should be able to finish or severely damage foes. If they get jumped, they need to hope their armor holds out or that help arrives.

I think it'd also be interesting if performance debuffs came along with damage, maybe localized damage as well. A tank gets hit on the treads (or hover thingies) it slows down and can't turn as well, aircraft get shot up, they lose speed or agility.

[Ratstomper]

Reavers, as well as having slightly stronger weapons, could have improved accuracy and range. It's well within reason for NC's philosophy, and can really even out the odds. If NC can get surprise and draw first bead, they should be able to finish or severely damage foes. If they get jumped, they need to hope their armor holds out or that help arrives.


This is why I think "packs" of reavers will be very, very powerful. Perfect for air superiority. Their toughness and superior firepower makes them synergize well with other reavers. Whatever shortcomings reavers have with speed and maneuverability can be overcome by having another reaver one or two-shot the mosquito whose trying to kill you before your buddy kills him. Additionally, surprise barrages from reaver packs would be devastating to the slower liberators and galaxies.

That said, hopefully they'll still have some dogfight in them. Air-to-air combat was one of the more fun parts of PS1 for me and it would be a shame if reavers just couldn't hold up.

[LegioX]

Getting shot down before I have a chance to react sounds about as attractive as stir-frying my own puke and eating it.

Tell that to all the pilots who died to Boom and Zoom tactics during ww2. Top leading ace during ww2 Eric Hartman perfered to kill his oppenents up close and personnal without them every knowing where he was.

[LegioX]

So what does that have to do with Planetside?

Moral of the story, just because you don't like dieing without having a chance to fight, doesnt mean they should downgrade the damage sustained during an attack without you noticing it.

You either didnt check your 6 from time to time, or you have a bad case of tunnel vision and only look at whats infront of you. Not our problem. Learn better SA (Situational Awarness).

[Rendar]

Im sure things will get evened out in Beta.

But from the E3 footage only thing that has me a little worried is the sturdiness of the liberator.

There was a few times in the footage we saw a health liberator get taken all the way to red and flaming from 1 pass buy an enemy aircraft.

For a large, slower gunship that is supposed to be doing close ground support, seems kinda weak to get taken out in 1 pass from enemy Air.

[Ratstomper]

Yeah it was fun, so let's ruin it by letting Reavers 2-shots Mosquito's.

Bear in mind, 2 shots means aquiring a lock (which alerts the enemy pilot), firing the rocket, loading another rocket, aquiring another lock and firing again. Assuming both of those hit, then that mosquito should be destroyed, yes.

[LegioX]

I'm hoping i can put about 6 laser guns on my scythe. I don't want any missiles. Rather have all air-to-air gun options for quick dispatching of enemy air. Something that would make a big punch like 6 50.cals they placed on the p-47.

[LegioX]

Yeah and how much would that alert matter when you're dealing with 3+ Reavers that all decide to focus on you? It wouldn't at all. If you have countermeasures, there will probably be a cooldown. If you can dodge one missile, the next 2 will still instagib you.

That's what I don't want. I want higher TTK's where dumbfire rockets and homing missiles are used situationally, not as primary damage dealers.

You can forget about interesting dogfighting when you're going to die in 2 rockets that can't be avoided, it's just going to make it impossible.

Maybe you should bring a wingman with you instead of lone wolfing. That would solve 90% of your problems right there.

Besides they did say you can outfit your AC soley for air-to-air combat. I would think that would suggest flares and such to help out with increasing the time it take for enemy AC to lock onto you.

[Haro]

Need I remind everyone that this is planetside: Death is always an option. There are always moments where you get caught with your pants down. A flash vs a liberator, infiltrator vs max, galaxy vs a half-dozen interceptors.

I'm not saying it needs to be a two-hit kill. I think a guns kill should be rewarded fairly quickly, but ttk is still completely up in the air (no pun intended.) Poor choice of words on my part. But at the moment, concerns about a mosquito constantly outrunning a reaver, or a scythe constantly staying on a reaver's tail are far more realistic than reavers shooting everything out of the sky before they have a chance to react..

Reaver's can't just be better at air-to-ground than everyone else. No fighter will ever beat a liberator with that, but if the NC can't bring valid competition to aerial combat, none of that will really matter. Longer range and a little more firepower gives them just a little bit of an edge if they see the enemy first.

[Ratstomper]

It wouldn't solve anything. The point the guy was making was that "Reavers synergize well in groups because of armor and damage". I have no clue how he reached that conclusion and frankly it seems he just threw it out randomly because he thought it sounded interesting, but I find that kind of gameplay utterly lame.

In PS1 you always had a chance to fight back. I got tag-teamed on a daily basis but I never felt completely without chance. The TTK's were high, but unfortunately the flight mechanics were dumb. The latter seems greatly improved in PS2, but the best isn't going to come out when you don't give pilots survivability and tools to turn the tables (getting back on top after someone gains the initiative on you).

Of course if it's 40vs1 you should lose, but nobody's arguing that.

Wait, you don't know how I came to the conclusion because you find that style of play lame? I fail to see how that makes any sense, but I'll clarify for you....

A pack of reavers will be better than a pack of mosquitos because a mosquito only has a speed advantage over a reaver. This allows the mosquito to, theoretically, stay a step ahead of a a reaver and keep him from getting any hits on it. This is negated by having another reaver or two nearby to knock the mosquito off the first reaver. Since reavers have superior damage and toughness and the speed of the mosquito is no longer a factor, a pack of reavers could, theoretically, wipe out a pack of mosquitos. Same with Scythes. Now in a 1v1 dogfight, a reaver will probably come out on bottom. That's just the way things are.

Anytime you're outnumbered, you're probably going to die. You shouldn't be surprised or infuriated by the fact. Noone will be able to fight 3v1.

[Zar]

Need I remind everyone that this is planetside: Death is always an option. There are always moments where you get caught with your pants down. A flash vs a liberator, infiltrator vs max, galaxy vs a half-dozen interceptors.

I'm not saying it needs to be a two-hit kill. I think a guns kill should be rewarded fairly quickly, but ttk is still completely up in the air (no pun intended.) Poor choice of words on my part. But at the moment, concerns about a mosquito constantly outrunning a reaver, or a scythe constantly staying on a reaver's tail are far more realistic than reavers shooting everything out of the sky before they have a chance to react..

Reaver's can't just be better at air-to-ground than everyone else. No fighter will ever beat a liberator with that, but if the NC can't bring valid competition to aerial combat, none of that will really matter. Longer range and a little more firepower gives them just a little bit of an edge if they see the enemy first.
so do you want weaker weapons then what you have now for more speed tbh that's what i loved about ps1 air combat was completely fair for the simple fact we all had the same aircraft >.< why i went air cause ground battles after the 1st six months went side ways XD also i was a reaver pilot so ill miss that since I am TR >.<

[Sabot]

Wait, you don't know how I came to the conclusion because you find that style of play lame? I fail to see how that makes any sense, but I'll clarify for you....

A pack of reavers will be better than a pack of mosquitos because a mosquito only has a speed advantage over a reaver. This allows the mosquito to, theoretically, stay a step ahead of a a reaver and keep him from getting any hits on it. This is negated by having another reaver or two nearby to knock the mosquito off the first reaver. Since reavers have superior damage and toughness and the speed of the mosquito is no longer a factor, a pack of reavers could, theoretically, wipe out a pack of mosquitos. Same with Scythes. Now in a 1v1 dogfight, a reaver will probably come out on bottom. That's just the way things are.

Anytime you're outnumbered, you're probably going to die. You shouldn't be surprised or infuriated by the fact. Noone will be able to fight 3v1.

I'm sorry but... no.

In the air maneuverabilty will always win if the pilot knows what he's doing.. If that first Reaver can't get a shot off because the Mossy/Scythe pilot is too good at maneuvering, how will any of the other Reavers do it? The more agile fighters are the ones that have the potential to win against greater numbers in dog fights. The Reavers chioce of tactic against enemy fighters should probably be something like.. aquire targets from far away where they aren't aware of them yet, preferably above them... get a lock, fire then fly back behind your own lines where you're protected.

[Zar]

By the way, this only further shows how important it is to increase TTK's from what we saw in the E3 demo. With very low TTK's and this kind of balancing/differentiating, it wouldn't even matter how good the TR pilots are going to be. If you always lose in large fights due to game mechanics, what's the point? this is what i was worried about as well faction based weps tank's and air are..... well >.> i don't care if we look diffrent but in all honesty it should be even up xD let the players skill and crazy flying get the kill or be killed >.<

[Ratstomper]

I'm sorry but... no.

In the air maneuverabilty will always win if the pilot knows what he's doing.. If that first Reaver can't get a shot off because the Mossy/Scythe pilot is too good at maneuvering, how will any of the other Reavers do it? The more agile fighters are the ones that have the potential to win against greater numbers in dog fights. The Reavers chioce of tactic against enemy fighters should probably be something like.. aquire targets for far away where they aren't aware of them yet, preferably above them... get a lock, fire then fly back behind your own lines where you're protected.

It's a stupid balancing principle, because the aircraft are faction-specific. If one Reaver can't beat one Mosquito because it's less maneuverable, but 10 Reavers will beat 10 Mosquito's because they compensate with armor and stronger weapons (I still don't see the logic - as if a TR pilot suddenly wouldn't be able to maneuver anymore when there are more enemies around), then TR will always be the underdog in fights that matter (where more than 2 people are around).


You guys are failing to take into account how dogfighting mechanics work. An aircraft will only be able to focus on a single target at a time. When that plane is strafing and trying to get locks on another plane, it leaves it's backside open to any other enemies in the area. That window of opportunity when the mosquito or scythe is trying to down a comparatively slow, but tough reaver, negates the fact that a mosquito is faster or a scythe is more maneuverable because it's going in a predictable trajectory; it has to in order to fight effectively. A pack of reavers will ALWAYS have attackable targets in this case. considering that reavers are naturally more tough and have better firepower, then theoretically, a pack of reavers has an upper hand against a pack of mosquitos or scythes.


this is what i was worried about as well faction based weps tank's and air are..... well >.> i don't care if we look diffrent but in all honesty it should be even up xD let the players skill and crazy flying get the kill or be killed >.<

Honestly, I wouldn't mind this being the case, because I LOVE 1v1 dogfights. My hope is that the difference between the empire specific aircraft isn't quite as much as they say it is.

[Sabot]

You guys are failing to take into account how dogfighting mechanics work. An aircraft will only be able to focus on a single target at a time. When that plane is strafing and trying to get locks on another plane, it leaves it's backside open to any other enemies in the area. That window of opportunity when the mosquito or scythe is trying to down a comparatively slow, but tough reaver, negates the fact that a mosquito is faster or a scythe is more maneuverable because it's going in a predictable trajectory; it has to in order to fight effectively. A pack of reavers will ALWAYS have attackable targets in this case. considering that reavers are naturally more tough and have better firepower, then theoretically, a pack of reavers has an upper hand against a pack of mosquitos or scythes..

No you're wrong... Lets say all pilots involved are great at flying. Lets say that we have 3vs3... doesn't matter who engages, the more agile fighter will evade, a buddy will take over behind the attacking Reaver. And we can go around all day but fact remains that the more agile fighter will always end up the one in a position to attack... so, purely theoretical, the Reaver will always lose if it tries to engage in dog fights of this nature.

Obviously it's goinng to take some amazing coordination between pilots to pull these things off.. and that goes for all involved. And I'm not saying that's how it's going to go down in every battle.

[Ratstomper]

So what you're saying is that they should balance dogfighting around the lowest common denominator of pilots (people who are too foolish to disengage or switch targets)?

Good idea bro.

It's all speculation at this point, but what I'm saying is that people shouldn't make snap judgement about what is "overpowered" or "underpowered" or mistake one of these for something that is "specialized" or holds an advantage in certain scenarios.

If you think everything is going to work the same way in all situations and you're unwilling to think of better ways to do things, you're gonna have a bad time.


No you're wrong... Lets say all pilots involved are great at flying. Lets say that we have 3vs3... doesn't matter who engages, the more agile fighter will evade, a buddy will take over behind the attacking Reaver. And we can go around all day but fact remains that the more agile fighter will always end up the one in a position to attack... so, purely theoretical, the Reaver will always lose if it tries to engage in dog fights of this nature.

I have to respectfully disagree. I don't believe the mosquito or scythe is agile enough to outpace reaver rockets or strafing when they're going for kills on tough opponents. You're staking a lot on the idea that mosquitos can completely outrun anything someone can throw at it, but it's not the reaver it's chasing that it has to worry about, it's his buddies behind him that are lining up rockets and guns that are more powerful than the mosquito's. If you're trading punches, the guy who is tougher and hits harder is going to win.

Now if it's 1v1, it may very well be a different story.

[Malorn]

I have three thoughts on Aircraft from what I've seen.

1) I expect Mosquitoes to be the fastest in both top speed and normal turning (with verticial speed and strafing speed the realm of the Scythe). If it's top speed only that's quite lame.

2) The Scythe appears to be a flying camera (exactly what they said they didn't want). Looks like this thing has some incredible advantage in dogfighting when the other aircraft are always overshooting it an unable to match it in turns. Seems like the i-win button for dogfights.

3) I dislike how light assault will be the universal pilot class so they can avoid having to equip a bail mechanism and can use that vehicle slot for other utility and still have a safe bail thanks to the jetpack. One way to possibly fix this is to make exiting an aircraft empty the player's jetpack resource (so it starts at 0 and builds up, but doesn't give them enough time to really jetpack away before they crater).

That's about it for my aircraft comments.

[Ratstomper]

No, it's not "all speculation" (a lot is, but these grey puddings inside our skulls allow us to predict things etc.). I am absolutely certain that if Reavers can 1- or 2-shot Mosquito's, it will not make the game more fun OR balanced. That's how this discussion started, with you promoting that idea as a balancing mechanism.

It's a reward for bad Reaver pilots and zergfits and punishment for good Mosquito pilots.

It's entirely possible to differentiate through damage output, maneuverability and speed, while keeping it more or less balanced, but not if you take it to the extreme you proposed. Reaver vs. Mosquito in Planetside 1 was actually balanced like that, before they screwed up the controls and totally out of the blue buffed Reaver armor even though none of the good pilots had asked for it. Reaver was stronger, did slightly more damage, but was also slower and less maneuverable. Mosquito could stay behind a Reaver if engaged at the right time. It was possible to take them out without taking any damage at all (if they were idiots). Winning 1v3's was possible too, until they invented the Wasp, which gave otherwise terrible pilots a device to do ridiculous damage with.

This was possible because the effective TTK's were sufficiently high. With 1- or 2-shot kills, it won't be. A Mosquito will simply die too fast for their maneuverability to be of any significance. I am not OK with that because I really like flying in games. I want to fly, so I don't want to die in 2 shots, and I definitely don't want to see empire differentiation lead to ridiculously unbalanced scenario's.

Some empries are going to be better in certain scenarios than in others, friend. There's no getting around that. Mosquitos will probably make great skirmish fighters, but if you give them the ability to outrun anything that can be thrown at them, THAT is overpowered. It would essentially be an invulnerable aircraft. I'm not saying a reaver is going to blow a mosquito out of the sky in every situation without warning. I'm just saying in this one situation, reavers should theoretically have the upper hand. The only way you're going to have a totally balanced fight in every situation is if you make everything common pool and don't have any differences between the factions.

And it IS speculation, as none of us actually have any hands on experience with the planes to know exactly how big of performance discrepancies they have.


I enjoyed reading the optimism about the reaver from this Ratstomper NC. But the reaver stock is not a dogfighter, it can be turned into one with cert upgrades over time though. So there's that.

I don't really think the reaver is a dogfighter either (much to my chagrin), which is why they should operate best in packs. A reaver probably won't be able to take down a mosquito or scythe 1v1. I'm glad you enjoyed the theory. :p

[SKYeXile]

lol people are bagging out Elcyco for apparently bad situational awareness and inability to adapt, have you guys even played Planetside? Perhaps you guys should go learn to fly in PS1 before you graduate into PS2 and flying with physics rather than wasting your time with theoryside.

[LegioX]

No, it's not "all speculation" (a lot is, but these grey puddings inside our skulls allow us to predict things etc.). I am absolutely certain that if Reavers can 1- or 2-shot Mosquito's, it will not make the game more fun OR balanced. That's how this discussion started, with you promoting that idea as a balancing mechanism.

It's a reward for bad Reaver pilots and zergfits and punishment for good Mosquito pilots.

It's entirely possible to differentiate through damage output, maneuverability and speed, while keeping it more or less balanced, but not if you take it to the extreme you proposed. Reaver vs. Mosquito in Planetside 1 was actually balanced like that, before they screwed up the controls and totally out of the blue buffed Reaver armor even though none of the good pilots had asked for it. Reaver was stronger, did slightly more damage, but was also slower and less maneuverable. Mosquito could stay behind a Reaver if engaged at the right time. It was possible to take them out without taking any damage at all (if they were idiots). Winning 1v3's was possible too, until they invented the Wasp, which gave otherwise terrible pilots a device to do ridiculous damage with.

This was possible because the effective TTK's were sufficiently high. With 1- or 2-shot kills, it won't be. A Mosquito will simply die too fast for their maneuverability to be of any significance. I am not OK with that because I really like flying in games. I want to fly, so I don't want to die in 2 shots, and I definitely don't want to see empire differentiation lead to ridiculously unbalanced scenario's.

You think dieing to 2 shots is bad? Try flying in a flight sim and having your wing blown off in 1 pass by a enemy AC diving down on you.

[Ratstomper]

lol people are bagging out Elcyco for apparently bad situational awareness and inability to adapt, have you guys even played Planetside? Perhaps you guys should go learn to fly in PS1 before you graduate into PS2 and flying with physics rather than wasting your time with theoryside.

Whats wrong with theoryside? It challenges the brain.

I'll have you know I did plenty of flying in PS1...What's your point?

[LegioX]

lol people are bagging out Elcyco for apparently bad situational awareness and inability to adapt, have you guys even played Planetside? Perhaps you guys should go learn to fly in PS1 before you graduate into PS2 and flying with physics rather than wasting your time with theoryside.

So your saying PS has physic flying?, b/c your confusing. Either way, you die and complain about dieing when you have no chance of hitting back. Yes that is bad situational awareness. You cannot sugar coat that.

[LegioX]

I agree, and don't have a problem with that. The point is that 1- or 2-shotting aircraft would likely make it so that you can't compensate for any inherent imbalances with your own ability. That's why I said "balanced around lowest common denominator". You shouldn't make it so powerful that even complete failures can be superstars with it (like groups of Wasps in PS1).

I'm not sure where you're coming from, but I really hate games where you die fast. Duels in Freelancer could last minutes. I thought that was really cool because it rewarded focus over time more than anything, and simply made them much more fun. A tennis match wouldn't be fun either if all you had to do to win was strike a single ace. Some matches would be over with the ball being hit only once, and I think that's boring.

Lets just put shields on all AC, and when i receive some damage ill call in R2-D2 to come fix it. Seriously, if you cannot get an AC off your 6 you deserve to die. Nature of the beasts. Don't lower the TTK just so you can have fun soaking up damage like a sponge.

[Sabot]

lol people are bagging out Elcyco for apparently bad situational awareness and inability to adapt, have you guys even played Planetside? Perhaps you guys should go learn to fly in PS1 before you graduate into PS2 and flying with physics rather than wasting your time with theoryside.

Come on, son... don't be like that ;)

[Ratstomper]

I agree, and don't have a problem with that. The point is that 1- or 2-shotting aircraft would likely make it so that you can't compensate for any inherent imbalances with your own ability. That's why I said "balanced around lowest common denominator". You shouldn't make it so powerful that even complete failures can be superstars with it (like groups of Wasps in PS1).

I'm not sure where you're coming from, but I really hate games where you die fast. Duels in Freelancer could last minutes. I thought that was really cool because it rewarded focus over time more than anything, and simply made them much more fun. A tennis match wouldn't be fun either if all you had to do to win was strike a single ace. Some matches would be over with the ball being hit only once, and I think that's boring.

That's entirely speculation as well. I don't know if it will actually be a 2-shot. When I say 2-shot, I mean 2 air-to-air locking rockets. If a rocket takes 5 or 6 second to lock and you get the warning immediately, you may well be on the move before the first rocket gets to you. Part of it will be about awareness and the other part will be about being a team player.

Again, I don't know how accurate any of this is.

[SKYeXile]

So your saying PS has physic flying?, b/c your confusing. Either way, you die and complain about dieing when you have no chance of hitting back. Yes that is bad situational awareness. You cannot sugar coat that.

Yea bro, PS1 had physics, how else was one able to powerslide?

[LegioX]

Actually you can. When you die fast, situational awareness matters LESS. It has to be active for a shorter period.

You seem to think that higher TTK's make it less important. Situational awareness is about more than seeing the other guy first.

No.....Situational Awareness works more in the "who can see who first" scenario. When bullets start flying passed your window, your SA has already gone out the "window." It's all about knowing, 1) where you are 2) what alt are you at, 3) where is your enemy etc...etc...

[Ratstomper]

Then why did you even bring it up initially?

Because I'm bored and wanna play the game and it's fun to speculate. Did you think we we're talking working numbers here?

[LegioX]

You are seriously bringing up a facepalm gif? Explain how im wrong. Tell me yoda.

[Malorn]

Something else to consider - one of the implants we saw in the Day 3 video was one that lowered the cert acquisition timer of various vehicles. The one I saw showed Scythe and Liberator down to 5 minutes. It is safe to assume the same exists for TR and NC. If the implant takes it to 5 minutes then one can assume the base is higher than that. Not sure if acquisition timer reductions via certs will shave more off that 5 minutes or if 5 minutes is the minimum. They might have stronger versions of the implant that take it to 4 or 3, maybe less.

Anyway, point is that in the demo we saw people get shot down then immediately go pick up another bird. In the real game, there will be an acquisition timer, and if the TTKs remain very fast like we saw it's not going to be all that fun to be a dedicated pilot if you spend 4 out of every 5 minutes waiting at a terminal. Good pilots can stay alive and make that timer be a non-factor but not if they get instagibbed.


Something I always liked about Planetside was how the dogfighting was with machineguns, WWII-style. That is until they introduced the Wasp. I don't mind the idea of A2A missiles, but they should be used to compliment the machineguns and not be substitutes and they should definitely not be instagibs.

Watch the mosquito at 41:50 in this video. He dies a few times but you can see some good dogfight engagements.
Planetside 2 E3 Stream - Day 3 - (feat. Totalbiscuit and Margaret Krohn) - YouTube

Notice how he uses machineguns and missiles together to take down the reavers. It looks like 2 missiles + some small amount of machinegun fire is enough to destroy a reaver.

I like the idea of missiles + machineguns where the missiles are added dps boosts but not your primary means of destroying aircraft. They help. They're an advantage but shouldn't be a crutch.

If reavers are stronger and have the ability to completely neglect machineguns in favor of a couple insta-gib missiles...well that's pretty shitty.

I also like the sound of the mosquito's machinegun. Sounds like the Raider 15mm from PS1.

Also another TR empire benefit is damage throughput. I would expect a mosquito who can keep some reasonable time on target would be able to put out more dps than a reaver. Perhaps the Mosquito guns have a wind-up with increased ROF? That would reward a pilot that could keep the target in his sights with higher dps, but failure to do it properly would just burn ammo unnecessarily. Could make for interesting tactics.

[Ratstomper]

Then stop trying to undermine my posts by implying that speculation is pointless. I don't need to be reminded of what I was doing 12 seconds ago, my memory isn't that hazy.

...Are you smoking the reefer, son? It's ok, you can tell us.

I never said speculation was pointless, I'm just saying that the values may be off slightly. It doesn't make the discussion invalid, just probably slightly different than how things will really play out in game.

[LegioX]

Something else to consider - one of the implants we saw in the Day 3 video was one that lowered the cert acquisition timer of various vehicles. The one I saw showed Scythe and Liberator down to 5 minutes. It is safe to assume the same exists for TR and NC. If the implant takes it to 5 minutes then one can assume the base is higher than that. Not sure if acquisition timer reductions via certs will shave more off that 5 minutes or if 5 minutes is the minimum. They might have stronger versions of the implant that take it to 4 or 3, maybe less.

Anyway, point is that in the demo we saw people get shot down then immediately go pick up another bird. In the real game, there will be an acquisition timer, and if the TTKs remain very fast like we saw it's not going to be all that fun to be a dedicated pilot if you spend 4 out of every 5 minutes waiting at a terminal. Good pilots can stay alive and make that timer be a non-factor but not if they get instagibbed.


Something I always liked about Planetside was how the dogfighting was with machineguns, WWII-style. That is until they introduced the Wasp. I don't mind the idea of A2A missiles, but they should be used to compliment the machineguns and not be substitutes and they should definitely not be instagibs.

Watch the mosquito at 41:50 in this video. He dies a few times but you can see some good dogfight engagements.
Planetside 2 E3 Stream - Day 3 - (feat. Totalbiscuit and Margaret Krohn) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xcmHYuUbn0&t=41m50s)

Notice how he uses machineguns and missiles together to take down the reavers. It looks like 2 missiles + some small amount of machinegun fire is enough to destroy a reaver.

I like the idea of missiles + machineguns where the missiles are added dps boosts but not your primary means of destroying aircraft. They help. They're an advantage but shouldn't be a crutch.

If reavers are stronger and have the ability to completely neglect machineguns in favor of a couple insta-gib missiles...well that's pretty shitty.

I also like the sound of the mosquito's machinegun. Sounds like the Raider 15mm from PS1.

Also another TR empire benefit is damage throughput. I would expect a mosquito who can keep some reasonable time on target would be able to put out more dps than a reaver. Perhaps the Mosquito guns have a wind-up with increased ROF? That would reward a pilot that could keep the target in his sights with higher dps, but failure to do it properly would just burn ammo unnecessarily. Could make for interesting tactics.

Without putting missiles on a plane, wonder how many true guns you can place on each wing.

[Sabot]

Never put A2A missiles on your fighter... bring them down with the cannon and save that slot for A2G rockets or something.

[Ratstomper]

...

Also another TR empire benefit is damage throughput. I would expect a mosquito who can keep some reasonable time on target would be able to put out more dps than a reaver. Perhaps the Mosquito guns have a wind-up with increased ROF? That would reward a pilot that could keep the target in his sights with higher dps, but failure to do it properly would just burn ammo unnecessarily. Could make for interesting tactics.

It'll be interesting to see how things play out. I didn't see a whole lot of reaver action in the streams, unfortunately. I have a feeling that the aircraft may be pretty similar with only very minor differences in speed and damage output.

also, does Margaret Krohn make anyone else rethink joining VS? :lol:

[SKYeXile]

You are seriously bringing up a facepalm gif? Explain how im wrong. Tell me yoda.

Situational awareness is generally regarded as the ability to maintain a constant, clear mental picture of relevant information and the tactical situation including friendly and threat situations as well as terrain. It certainly does not go out the window when you enter a situation...unless your talking about...pre-situational awareness? oh wait no that doesn't exist, its just situational awareness. hence, the face palm.

[LegioX]

If I'm shooting a guy and I see something else, something more opportune or important, and decide to switch targets, then situational awareness has caused the fight to change, meaning it doesn't simply "stop" the moment you have your eyes set on an aircraft. How can this not be completely obvious?

Now you can come back with some high-school attempt to quantify the intensity or some other goofy shit, but fact of the matter is that higher TTKs do not make it unimportant at all.

Yes and you switching targets in the middle of being already committed to one target shows your SA is lacking. Next thing you know, that one AC that you were about to kill, just turned around and killed you, while you were so pre-occupied with your new juicy target.
But you don't think about things like that do you? You just fly around and dont think...hey is this new target worth it? Or should i kill this guy first and re-assest my situation. Instead you fly around not thinking about the outcome of your actions. So, long story short. Your shortcomings on thinking things through before you act, should not justify you have a higher TTK b/c you want to live longer.

[Ratstomper]

You don't have to remind me of what I'm doing. I'm fine with speculation. If I wasn't, I probably wouldn't be doing it unless someone forced me to.

Enough of that though, you know my stance. I like longer fights and hate 1- or 2-shot A2A missile-lock kills.

Fair enough.

[Malorn]

It'll be interesting to see how things play out. I didn't see a whole lot of reaver action in the streams, unfortunately. I have a feeling that the aircraft may be pretty similar with only very minor differences in speed and damage output.
The differences did not look minor to me.

Speeds excluding afterburner that I saw
Max speed of Scythe was 180
Max speed of Reaver was 210-ish
Max speed of Mosquito was 240-ish

Mosquito was roughly 33% faster than the Scythe, with the Reaver right in between. The Scythe also seemed noticably more maneuverable with the Mosquito easily and frequently overshooting the Scythe in dogfights. Not exactly how that will play out with experienced pilots when one aircraft has a noticeable speed advantage but the other has a noticable maneuverability advantage. Cyco, any thoughts?


also, does Margaret Krohn make anyone else rethink joining VS? :lol:

No, not at all.

[ParisTeta]

Getting the same number as malorn, except for Reaver, no good footage.

Reaver is not soooo doomed as everyone thinks:

Reaver vs Scyth, Reaver runs away cause it`s faster.

Reaver vs Mossie? Slower Speed, smaller turning cycle, mossie runs away or reduces speed.

Mossi vs Scyth? Scyth tries to get gun solution with agility, Mossi runs away.

Yes Scyth and Mossie have some more polarizing advantages, but the setup up in vehicle type vs vehicle typ stay pretty similiar.

To increasing TTK, i don`t want to dogfight for 3 minutes because we both can take alot of damage, that stupid gameplay and for people who don`t care. 1- Shot is the othert extreme, but when i get a good first hit, or my enemy, it should be a major advantage, and not a small gain in a longer fight.

Air2Air should be fast and viceral or else we can ahve gunship vs gunship battle or something and we don`t need fighter like crafts then.

[Sledgecrushr]

I agree that dogfights should be fast and visceral, lots of twisting and turning and the victor should be based on skill and forcing your target to make a tactical error.
What i dont want to see is turreting become a viable tactic.

[MrMorton]

Reaver is going to be the A-10 Warthog of the skies. It will fly low for infantry AA protection and in return the Reaver will rape what ever stands in way of NC Army.

^this, without the rape

It wouldn't solve anything. The point the guy was making was that "Reavers synergize well in groups because of armor and damage". I have no clue how he reached that conclusion and frankly it seems he just threw it out randomly because he thought it sounded interesting, but I find that kind of gameplay utterly lame.



In PS1 you always had a chance to fight back. I got tag-teamed on a daily basis but I never felt completely without chance. The TTK's were high, but unfortunately the flight mechanics were dumb. The latter seems greatly improved in PS2, but the best isn't going to come out when you don't give pilots survivability and tools to turn the tables (getting back on top after someone gains the initiative on you).

Of course if it's 40vs1 you should lose, but nobody's arguing that.

I think he just means with the high damage of the reaper and the high armor, a group can just tank a sweep and focus fire to quickly pick off a few mossies

Wait, you don't know how I came to the conclusion because you find that style of play lame? I fail to see how that makes any sense, but I'll clarify for you....

A pack of reavers will be better than a pack of mosquitos because a mosquito only has a speed advantage over a reaver. This allows the mosquito to, theoretically, stay a step ahead of a a reaver and keep him from getting any hits on it. This is negated by having another reaver or two nearby to knock the mosquito off the first reaver. Since reavers have superior damage and toughness and the speed of the mosquito is no longer a factor, a pack of reavers could, theoretically, wipe out a pack of mosquitos. Same with Scythes. Now in a 1v1 dogfight, a reaver will probably come out on bottom. That's just the way things are.

Anytime you're outnumbered, you're probably going to die. You shouldn't be surprised or infuriated by the fact. Noone will be able to fight 3v1.

That will simply not happen, as a good mossie pilot will NEVER turn with another craft, rather they should use their speed to extend.


Something else to consider - one of the implants we saw in the Day 3 video was one that lowered the cert acquisition timer of various vehicles. The one I saw showed Scythe and Liberator down to 5 minutes. It is safe to assume the same exists for TR and NC. If the implant takes it to 5 minutes then one can assume the base is higher than that. Not sure if acquisition timer reductions via certs will shave more off that 5 minutes or if 5 minutes is the minimum. They might have stronger versions of the implant that take it to 4 or 3, maybe less.

Anyway, point is that in the demo we saw people get shot down then immediately go pick up another bird. In the real game, there will be an acquisition timer, and if the TTKs remain very fast like we saw it's not going to be all that fun to be a dedicated pilot if you spend 4 out of every 5 minutes waiting at a terminal. Good pilots can stay alive and make that timer be a non-factor but not if they get instagibbed.


Something I always liked about Planetside was how the dogfighting was with machineguns, WWII-style. That is until they introduced the Wasp. I don't mind the idea of A2A missiles, but they should be used to compliment the machineguns and not be substitutes and they should definitely not be instagibs.

Watch the mosquito at 41:50 in this video. He dies a few times but you can see some good dogfight engagements.
Planetside 2 E3 Stream - Day 3 - (feat. Totalbiscuit and Margaret Krohn) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xcmHYuUbn0&t=41m50s)

Notice how he uses machineguns and missiles together to take down the reavers. It looks like 2 missiles + some small amount of machinegun fire is enough to destroy a reaver.

I like the idea of missiles + machineguns where the missiles are added dps boosts but not your primary means of destroying aircraft. They help. They're an advantage but shouldn't be a crutch.

If reavers are stronger and have the ability to completely neglect machineguns in favor of a couple insta-gib missiles...well that's pretty shitty.

I also like the sound of the mosquito's machinegun. Sounds like the Raider 15mm from PS1.

Also another TR empire benefit is damage throughput. I would expect a mosquito who can keep some reasonable time on target would be able to put out more dps than a reaver. Perhaps the Mosquito guns have a wind-up with increased ROF? That would reward a pilot that could keep the target in his sights with higher dps, but failure to do it properly would just burn ammo unnecessarily. Could make for interesting tactics.

as far as piloting goes, I sort of envy the TR pilots who will likely (if piloted correctly) seldom ever die, however, I really am not worried about missiles, because in every game I have played players have found ways to avoid missile locks, it will be very easy in the scythe, but it may be trickier in the other two aircraft.

I do know there will be a cert to increase missile lock time, a mossie pilot could use that to get out of range before the missile can even be fired.

again not really sure about the reaver, its kind of the odd one out in all of this A2A theorycrafting.

The differences did not look minor to me.

Speeds excluding afterburner that I saw
Max speed of Scythe was 180
Max speed of Reaver was 210-ish
Max speed of Mosquito was 240-ish

Mosquito was roughly 33% faster than the Scythe, with the Reaver right in between. The Scythe also seemed noticably more maneuverable with the Mosquito easily and frequently overshooting the Scythe in dogfights. Not exactly how that will play out with experienced pilots when one aircraft has a noticeable speed advantage but the other has a noticable maneuverability advantage. Cyco, any thoughts?




No, not at all.

that is fantastic news.

so, the reaver will be able to boom and zoom the scythe, and the scythe will react the way it reacts to the mossie.

however, for balancing purposes the reaver NEEDS to have a better turning rate than the mossie, so that it can use the scythes' tactics against mossies.

[Revanmug]

The differences did not look minor to me.

Speeds excluding afterburner that I saw
Max speed of Scythe was 180
Max speed of Reaver was 210-ish
Max speed of Mosquito was 240-ish



Planetside 2 - Dual Commentary Livestream with Matt Higby and TotalBiscuit - YouTube

I don't know if you only took the speed from the e3 stream but on this video, the reaver' speed seems to shift between 210 and 240 (without burner).

(easier to see at 56:30)

Hope that help a bit

[MrMorton]

Planetside 2 - Dual Commentary Livestream with Matt Higby and TotalBiscuit - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onvySU5NkFo&t=56m36s)

I don't know if you only took the speed from the e3 stream but on this video, the reaver' speed seems to shift between 210 and 240 (without burner).

(easier to see at 56:30)

Hope that help a bit

ok not sure if anyone else is seeing what I am seeing, but I am very excited,

there seems to be some sort of speed retention/loss mechanic in the flight model :eek:

watch when he first takes off at 51:30

he is flying level as he approaches the nexus, and assuming he is flying at full speed, after using AB he bleeds speed down to 196.

however he is not using ab and proceeds to dive down circling the nexus, and reaches a speed of 240

Now I really want confirmation of whether the flight model supports energy loss/gain.

[MrMorton]

Looked to me like he was gaining speed above 220 when he was ascending, and lost it when he started descending. It could just be exponential speed loss after having afterburned so hard.

way to crush my hopes and dreams haha :(

yea I really wish they'd tell us more about air combat....


and ps2 people wanna chime in ;)?

[Revanmug]

What exactly do you mean by energy loss anyway?

Gravity maybe? I thought he meant if going up would decrease speed and diving increase speed. Then again, could have misunderstand him

[Ratstomper]

No, not at all.

Something about good piercings... well, nevermind.

[Algo]

What exactly do you mean by energy loss anyway?

Potential energy

High and fast = high energy
Low and slow = low energy

Turn too hard too much, lose energy, get shot etc.

[MrMorton]

this^

[Malorn]

The reason I put the "-ish" at the end of the Reaver & Mosquito numbers is because it was difficult to get a read on their top speed because it didn't seem to behave consistently.

Between the pilots constantly using little afterburner bursts and ascending/descending it was hard to get a bead on both the reaver and mosquito. The reaver seemed to hover around 210, while the Mosquito seemed to hover at 240, but both had significant variance. I believe gravity does matter for these aircraft, and they pick up speed when descending and lose it when ascending.

On the other hand, the Scythe did behave consistently. It accelerated quickly and reached 180 on the dot and stayed there. It also had different afterburner mechanics. Instead of rapidly accelerating and then tapering off like PS1 afterburners the Scythe instead immediately reaches maximum afterburner speed and then the moment the afterburner was let off it immediately went back to 180. So it was very abrupt. I believe that also means that the afterburner for the scythe will be used more tactically and has less value for rapid transit or for catching up to a reaver/mosquito since the reaver/mosquito appear to get more bang for their buck with the afterburner, but accelerate slower.

Based on this evidence and how they have told us that the Scythe flies differently and makes me think that the sythe doesn't play by the same rules as the Mosquito and Reaver. I think it ignores gravity and traditional flight mechanics. It seems to not behave the same with with inertia either (the afterburner is a good example). It will make for interesting dogfights. The scythe won't have speed but would be difficult to shake since it can simply cut corners faster. On the the other side of the coin the reaver and mosquito could use gravity and inertia to their advantage while the scythe cannot. For example, a reaver/mosquito pilot could dive for more speed/dinstance, and then climb and use natural gravity to slow them back down for a split-S or to make a tighter turn than the sythe pilot might expect. Both sides will learn these tricks so it'll be very interesting.

Seems the Scythe pilots have it easiest though, as they only need to learn to fight traditional aircraft, while the Reaver/Mosquito pilots need to learn how to do traditional dogfighting and scythe dogfighting.

[MrMorton]

The reason I put the "-ish" at the end of the Reaver & Mosquito numbers is because it was difficult to get a read on their top speed because it didn't seem to behave consistently.

Between the pilots constantly using little afterburner bursts and ascending/descending it was hard to get a bead on both the reaver and mosquito. The reaver seemed to hover around 210, while the Mosquito seemed to hover at 240, but both had significant variance. I believe gravity does matter for these aircraft, and they pick up speed when descending and lose it when ascending.

On the other hand, the Scythe did behave consistently. It accelerated quickly and reached 180 on the dot and stayed there. It also had different afterburner mechanics. Instead of rapidly accelerating and then tapering off like PS1 afterburners the Scythe instead immediately reaches maximum afterburner speed and then the moment the afterburner was let off it immediately went back to 180. So it was very abrupt. I believe that also means that the afterburner for the scythe will be used more tactically and has less value for rapid transit or for catching up to a reaver/mosquito since the reaver/mosquito appear to get more bang for their buck with the afterburner, but accelerate slower.

Based on this evidence and how they have told us that the Scythe flies differently and makes me think that the sythe doesn't play by the same rules as the Mosquito and Reaver. I think it ignores gravity and traditional flight mechanics. It seems to not behave the same with with inertia either (the afterburner is a good example). It will make for interesting dogfights. The scythe won't have speed but would be difficult to shake since it can simply cut corners faster. On the the other side of the coin the reaver and mosquito could use gravity and inertia to their advantage while the scythe cannot. For example, a reaver/mosquito pilot could dive for more speed/dinstance, and then climb and use natural gravity to slow them back down for a split-S or to make a tighter turn than the sythe pilot might expect. Both sides will learn these tricks so it'll be very interesting.

Seems the Scythe pilots have it easiest though, as they only need to learn to fight traditional aircraft, while the Reaver/Mosquito pilots need to learn how to do traditional dogfighting and scythe dogfighting.

what I am hoping is that ascending/descending does affect speed, previously I was under the impression it did not.

I would agree in part, the reaver probably has the hardest time, as a pilot has to constantly switch between turn fighting and booming/zooming,

the scythe is going to be harder to survive in over the mossie as everything can catch it

mossie is the easiest/most survivable imo because it can escape from any bad situation, and booming/zooming is the same whether the enemy is hovering or flying as long as you don't try to follow them.

[LegioX]

I just don't believe boom and zoom will work as suppose to be in this game.

1. The ceiling is to low

2. You have no proper implementation of kinetic energy when a plane is diving down on a target.

[MrMorton]

I just don't believe boom and zoom will work as suppose to be in this game.

1. The ceiling is to low

2. You have no proper implementation of kinetic energy when a plane is diving down on a target.

like I mentioned before, what we have seen in the flight model shows that the mosquito is ALWAYS faster than the other two aircraft, this means regardless of altitude or energy implementation, a mosquito can fly straight at another aircraft, strafe it, and then pop ab to extend away, rinse and repeat.

[LegioX]

But thats not booming and zooming. Thats a head on

[MrMorton]

But thats not booming and zooming. Thats a head on

when I said straight at, I meant with no altitude difference

the mosquito could always break off if the other aircraft saw the incoming mosquito and turned to face it.

[LegioX]

We shall see. I'm still campaigning for a look back view. Would not be hard to implement i would think. Sucks being forced to look straight ahead when someone is behind you.

[MrMorton]

We shall see. I'm still campaigning for a look back view. Would not be hard to implement i would think. Sucks being forced to look straight ahead when someone is behind you.

as long as it doesn't put you in third person view, I'd be all for it,
(I just don't like 3p view in aircraft, I like to be in the cockpit)

the other option, and one I would really like, would be to move the camera farther forward into the cockpit, allowing for a larger angle,

currently it appears you can only view the front 180 to 200 degrees, i would like the view to extend to around 270 degrees, as it allows for decent SA while still allowing pilots to sneak up on unwary opponents.

[LegioX]

as long as it doesn't put you in third person view, I'd be all for it,
(I just don't like 3p view in aircraft, I like to be in the cockpit)

the other option, and one I would really like, would be to move the camera farther forward into the cockpit, allowing for a larger angle,

currently it appears you can only view the front 180 to 200 degrees, i would like the view to extend to around 270 degrees, as it allows for decent SA while still allowing pilots to sneak up on unwary opponents.

If i had my way i would take out 3rd person view completely. I do not want a complete 6 view. I just want something where i can look back either to the left or right and have the ability to see what is behind me (not directly that is the blind spot).

[MrMorton]

If i had my way i would take out 3rd person view completely. I do not want a complete 6 view. I just want something where i can look back either to the left or right and have the ability to see what is behind me (not directly that is the blind spot).

yea, we should start a petition I WANT TO SEE!!! :D

[Kurtz]

I really wish WW2OL had the dev support and following that PS 1/2 has. No offense to this game, looks awsome and can't wait to play it. But ww2ol had something no game had. A massive online war, with real world physics and damage. You just don't see that anymore in today's games. This is massive online air war right here. Physics and all included.
You have escorts and bombers like it should be.

Intercepting these RDP (research and development) raids were something you have to see to believe. Was truly awsome.
WWII Online Love From Above - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=op3Q3nDNqAY&feature=related)

^ 2nd best game ever.

I was playing WW2online in 2002 and some buddies tipped me onto Planetside. I couldn't wait for it to come out.

I remember thinking, this is just the beginning. In 10 years all games will be massive persistent worlds to be conquered by large groups of online players.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.

If it wasn't for SOE, the genre would have died by now.


On Topic:
Dogfighting in PS1 vs WW2online.

WW2 online had flight physics, and PS1 didn't . The closest thing to PS1 dogfighting in WW2online was two Hawk75s getting into a turn based fight (or corkscrew battle). Many dogfights in PS1 were just an upward corkscrew until you hit ceiling and then you just circle strafed each other. There was e+afterburner technique that allowed players to get above their opponent, but it was a completely different experience in the two games.

PS2 seems to have physics, but the ceiling is still pretty low , but when I was watching the Live feed from E3 I got the feeling that each empire was going to have its own way of fighting.

The Scythe reminds me of the J-10 from BF2. Which means it could be extremely difficult to take on in a dogfight and would best benefit from the corkscrew type dog fight.

The Mossie looks like the best candidate for a the boom and zoom technique being the most Energy like (Think BF109F in WW2Online).

I have no idea how the reaver is going to fit into this yet, having not seen enough of them in action.

[ParisTeta]

Yeah third person is bad, it`s artifical cheap SA (radar for example isn´t as a looking behind feauture). I sign that!

Reaver`s Armor has advantage vs. the other empire? Bad idea, except you are an DB7 in World War 2 Online, armored as heavy as a matilda or char.

Reavers advantage is damage and armor sure, but performance wise, it is between Scyth und Mossie, and the more i think of it, it seems to be perfectly placed. Turn and Burn vs. Mossie , Hit n Run vs Scyth.

240 Speed for Mossi is the same i see, also 180(182) for Scyth, just reaver is all over the place (certs maybe?) but 210 would fit well. Funny for the Liberator i got 150 and 220 Speed also (afterburner even faster). But 240/210/180 is close enough for theoretical discussion.

When there is Beta we should check each other if we are in it, and try to find things out together.

[meiam]

I still think a lot of people are just thinking about it wrong, you don't win by gaining air superiority, you win by capturing ground base which air superiority help you in that regard. So maybe one plane is better than the other in dogfighting, but then the answer is simple, don't dogfight, just avoid the other aircraft and take out any A2G specialized plane and retreat when you,re low on health, maybe you'll never win air superiority, but as long as you're not letting the opponent rain death on ground troops you're doing you're job.

As far as specific of weapon goes, I hope you can go either gun focus or missile focus and anything in between, personally I never been one for WW2 era fighting and I've always liked the missile + MG combo, shoot one missile, while the plane is dealing with it, shoot the other one in a way that he's forced to eat one and while he's trying to figure out what to do shoot him with the MG. I think doing 2 good run of this (meaning 1 missile + 1 good salvo of MG) should bring an opponent down.

I doubt we'll ever see any complex physic module, I doubt gravity is even really gonna matter, I don't think you'll even lose speed by trying to ascend at like 45°C. Seems too complex for a F2P FPS with some amount of air combat.

Also looking at you're 6 is fine with me, but I think great pilot should be able to understand everything there is to know about the battlefield from there instrument, so wish we could see the opponent altitude relative to ours from the mini map.

[ArmedZealot]

I still think a lot of people are just thinking about it wrong, you don't win by gaining air superiority, you win by capturing ground base which air superiority help you in that regard. So maybe one plane is better than the other in dogfighting, but then the answer is simple, don't dogfight, just avoid the other aircraft and take out any A2G specialized plane and retreat when you,re low on health, maybe you'll never win air superiority, but as long as you're not letting the opponent rain death on ground troops you're doing you're job.


I don't think it's that easy. Without air superiority troops and tanks moving on the ground become bait. You to have other planes in the air to make sure the enemy is wasting there resources taking those down rather than fielding more and more AG aircraft.

Balance really doesn't change anything here. Even if one aircraft is less powerful then the rest people will still be willing to fly it. Just need an extra one in the air to make up for it's capabilites.

2 fighters > 1 fighter in all cases here.

[Sledgecrushr]

I still think a lot of people are just thinking about it wrong, you don't win by gaining air superiority, you win by capturing ground base which air superiority help you in that regard. So maybe one plane is better than the other in dogfighting, but then the answer is simple, don't dogfight, just avoid the other aircraft and take out any A2G specialized plane and retreat when you,re low on health, maybe you'll never win air superiority, but as long as you're not letting the opponent rain death on ground troops you're doing you're job.

As far as specific of weapon goes, I hope you can go either gun focus or missile focus and anything in between, personally I never been one for WW2 era fighting and I've always liked the missile + MG combo, shoot one missile, while the plane is dealing with it, shoot the other one in a way that he's forced to eat one and while he's trying to figure out what to do shoot him with the MG. I think doing 2 good run of this (meaning 1 missile + 1 good salvo of MG) should bring an opponent down.

I doubt we'll ever see any complex physic module, I doubt gravity is even really gonna matter, I don't think you'll even lose speed by trying to ascend at like 45°C. Seems too complex for a F2P FPS with some amount of air combat.

Also looking at you're 6 is fine with me, but I think great pilot should be able to understand everything there is to know about the battlefield from there instrument, so wish we could see the opponent altitude relative to ours from the mini map.

What a huge bummer quote. Im really hoping and praying that the devs see fit to making PS2 air wars quite an amazing part of the game.

[meiam]

I think the only way would be to have destructible environment and/or having AWAC in the air that reveal the position of all enemy on the board.

Outside of that, maybe flying base, but that sound pretty far fetch.

[Fafnir]

Air superiority will ensure that enemies will have hard time getting through open fields. I guess it's hard to get to a base and capture it when you're bombarded by 10 Liberators from beyond the reach of ground AA. Aircrafts will be very important, there is no doubt.

[LegioX]

I want to set up a "look behind" petition view for Aircraft in this game, but having trouble posting youtube videos to strengthen my argument. Argh.

[MrMorton]

I still think a lot of people are just thinking about it wrong, you don't win by gaining air superiority, you win by capturing ground base which air superiority help you in that regard. So maybe one plane is better than the other in dogfighting, but then the answer is simple, don't dogfight, just avoid the other aircraft and take out any A2G specialized plane and retreat when you,re low on health, maybe you'll never win air superiority, but as long as you're not letting the opponent rain death on ground troops you're doing you're job.

As far as specific of weapon goes, I hope you can go either gun focus or missile focus and anything in between, personally I never been one for WW2 era fighting and I've always liked the missile + MG combo, shoot one missile, while the plane is dealing with it, shoot the other one in a way that he's forced to eat one and while he's trying to figure out what to do shoot him with the MG. I think doing 2 good run of this (meaning 1 missile + 1 good salvo of MG) should bring an opponent down.

I doubt we'll ever see any complex physic module, I doubt gravity is even really gonna matter, I don't think you'll even lose speed by trying to ascend at like 45°C. Seems too complex for a F2P FPS with some amount of air combat.

Also looking at you're 6 is fine with me, but I think great pilot should be able to understand everything there is to know about the battlefield from there instrument, so wish we could see the opponent altitude relative to ours from the mini map.

Personally air superiority is a big deal when trying to defend/cap a base, with the easy example being that if you have air superiority, you can deny enemy galaxy drops and your faction can safely drop

I honestly don't understand, if you are saying we should use air radar instead of looking around and basically be able to fly blind, that is dead wrong. There will be counters to avoid radar detection for one, and the radar does a poor job of showing the exact position of your opponent in relation to yourself. The addition of a 3d radar would be cool, but you definitely should not rely on instruments.

[meiam]

Personally air superiority is a big deal when trying to defend/cap a base, with the easy example being that if you have air superiority, you can deny enemy galaxy drops and your faction can safely drop

I honestly don't understand, if you are saying we should use air radar instead of looking around and basically be able to fly blind, that is dead wrong. There will be counters to avoid radar detection for one, and the radar does a poor job of showing the exact position of your opponent in relation to yourself. The addition of a 3d radar would be cool, but you definitely should not rely on instruments.

My point is obtaining air superiority is unnecessary all you need is to stop you're opponent from having it, so you don't need to dogfight, you just need to survive. It's more efficient to attack opponent Air to ground aircraft and galaxy than to fight against the opponent fighter. Some people will try to dogfight, but balancing shouldn't be done around that, because it make as much sense as balancing you're usual FPS around people who wanna play using only basic melee attack.

Flying by looking directly at your target is, imo, a relic of WW2 ear fighting where radar didn't exist, you can only look at one place at the same time, so if you take time to look at your 6, it's time where you're not looking in front/left or right/above/below you, while with a good radar you can see everything on the battlefield at the same time as looking in front of you at you're target. In a game were potentially 100s of aircraft fly in the same, very small, area (above the contested base) that's essential. You don't really need a 3D map, just color code every target depending on altitude, orange:same level as you, lower than you: going toward blue, higher than you:going toward light yellow, or something like that. Plus once you,re figthing at night, you won't have a choice but to rely on radar

[MrMorton]

My point is obtaining air superiority is unnecessary all you need is to stop you're opponent from having it, so you don't need to dogfight, you just need to survive. It's more efficient to attack opponent Air to ground aircraft and galaxy than to fight against the opponent fighter. Some people will try to dogfight, but balancing shouldn't be done around that, because it make as much sense as balancing you're usual FPS around people who wanna play using only basic melee attack.

Flying by looking directly at your target is, imo, a relic of WW2 ear fighting where radar didn't exist, you can only look at one place at the same time, so if you take time to look at your 6, it's time where you're not looking in front/left or right/above/below you, while with a good radar you can see everything on the battlefield at the same time as looking in front of you at you're target. In a game were potentially 100s of aircraft fly in the same, very small, area (above the contested base) that's essential. You don't really need a 3D map, just color code every target depending on altitude, orange:same level as you, lower than you: going toward blue, higher than you:going toward light yellow, or something like that. Plus once you,re figthing at night, you won't have a choice but to rely on radar

it depends, if players decide they want to have air superiority, they will fight for it, however "useless" it may actually be.

also with the current ttk (even on the reaver) if you try to fly straight through a bunch of enemies to try to kill, say a galaxy, you will get destroyed.


have you played any flight sims? Usually the radar's role is reserved for long ranger range detection of forces, which are then verified by actually seeing the force, not pinpointing the position in a dogfight.

as far as "being able to see only one target", you can see 90 degrees at a time, so you could potentially see every single aircraft flying as you approach.

A radar with "100's of aircraft" will be a solid mass of writhing blips (the longer range, the worse) and actually following specific enemies on the radar will be almost impossible.

The worst thing about the radar is it does not show where your enemy actually is, it shows a 2d approximation of where they are. For instance, if someone is to the right of me at a 45 degree angle above me and 500 meters out, if I glance at the sillouette I judge the distance to be fairly far away, but above me. However on my radar, that distance is represented as 250 yards, and no matter how much color coding you use, when glancing at the radar you will have the impression that that aircraft is closer to you than it actually is.

and there is also the problem of getting tunnel vision looking at your radar, and not paying attention to what is NOT on your radar (cloaked aircraft, AA, BASES) because you either get air radar or ground radar, not both.

[Malorn]

If you think air superiority doesn't matter you weren't paying attention to the E3 video. While the fighters were more interested in dogfighting than shooting ground targets, the Liberators were tearing it up. You win the air war, you have free reign with Liberators, which were basically flying howitzers.

It gives you 3 advantages:

1) Gives your ground forces air support via Liberators and A2G fighters

2) Allows your ground forces to focus more on AV and AI configurations.

3) Forces the enemy ground forces to focus more on AA configurations, making them even more vulnerable to your ground forces.


Not having air superiority is bad.

I've been hypothesizing that a good balance of a 10-man air squad would be 4 air-to-air fighters, 2 liberators, and 2 air-to-ground fighters. It's all set up as 2-man wingmen too, so every aircraft has a partner to coordinate with, including the libs.

The A2G fighters can operate as dogfighting if need be with machineguns but their primary role is as wild weasels going after ground-based AA like lightnings & AA max. The go after the stuff the Liberators might have a hard time killing and rely on speed and surprise. I figure with 2 of them they could rocket just about any ground target that isn't a Deployed Galaxy. The Weasels are sort of like floaters, taking out AA threats which appear or assisting the A2A fighters when necessary.

The A2A fighters keep the skies clear for the Liberators and weasels, but also look for enemy Libs, weasels, and galaxies.

The libs provide the actual ground support and draw out the ground-based AA for the weasels to pummel with quick strikes.

That formula could be tweaked, like removing a lib in favor of 2 more A2A if the situation demands, or scaling down the numbers for smaller squads, but I think you get the idea.

Also, if you have air superiority it means your own tanks can afford to use different configurations, such as doubling down on AV weaponry on tanks for blowing up other tanks, or adding mortars for better infantry suppression. If they don't have to worry about air threats then they can focus better on ground attacks and keeping ground-based AA from bothering their air cover.

And the reverse is also true - if you don't have air superiority you need to invest in more AA, such as pulling more lightnings with skyguard turrets or tanks with AA secondary guns. That weakens your ground forces and makes them more vulnerable to the enemy who has the luxury of doubling down on AV weapons and smoking your tanks.

[meiam]

Well to counter you're example of 8 aircraft (I'm assuming the 10 was just a typo) I would have 3 fighter 5 liberator, the 3 fighter would swarm the liberator, destroy those ASAP, you're squad has 2 option:

Use those 4 fighter to protect liberator, all come down to pilot skill, but at the end of day equally skill the 2 lib would go down along with the 3 fighter(if some fighter survive, they just concentrate 100% on surviving just to take some aggro away from lib). You're left with 5 liberator on one side vs. 6 fighter, the liberator go down one by one, but by the time there all dead, the ground troops have captured/defended the facility and the battle is already done, you're left with 6 fighter that have to run away.

Or focus also on liberator, but because there's more it takes more time (plus the 3 fighter are free to take out the other fighter), even if at the end you still have air superiority, the damage to ground troops was far more severe on the side with less liberator. That's the cornerstone of my argument air superiority means nothing at the end of the day because aircraft can't cap base and once troops are inside base, aircraft can't do much anyway.

To go back on radar point, if at any point, the information is overwhelming for the radar, it's also going to be overwhelming for the eye, if there's 100 aircraft flying, you're not going to be able to watch all of them, so you'll get shoot down from a blind spot anyway. Also when I meant "good pilot will rely on radar" I meant good pilot will learn to interpret radar info correctly and use it to get the advantage on people relying primarily on visual

But again all of this could very easily change in beta with number tweak, this is just mu guts feeling from the E3 footage

[Malorn]

I didn't say 10 aircraft, I said 10-man squad, and Liberators require at least 2, thus 8 aircraft. And were I a commander in your example, I would move the entire squad to A2A until dominance was achieved, including moving lib gunners to tailgun (AA config of course). The Liberators aren't the important part of the equation - Air superiority is. The Libs are there for capitalizing on the air superiority once achieved and to draw fire. If you go right for them and not the fighters you have already failed. The only time you'd want to go for the lib is if perhaps it had a bomb payload and was making a beeline for a critical galaxy and stopping the bomber was more important than owning the skies.

The composition I proposed was just theorycrafting a template for how a balanced air support squad might look like, as part of a division for a larger outfit. Obviously it gets tweaked depending on situation and you're rarely, if ever, going to come across an even matchup manpower or otherwise.

I could have just as easily put that 10-man squad into 10 air-to-air for specialized air domination and rely on others to bring the libs, that's an option too, and there will be outfits that specialize in only air-to-air combat who bring that benefit to their empire. But such a force won't be as effective at supporting ground forces. Situation would change composition but it was a general rule of thumb that I think would work out well. Might be better with only 1 lib and 2 more fighters but whatever, it can be tweaked.

It's like coming up with a good tank composition that mixes ES tanks & lightnings & sunderer of various configs to create a strong and versatile ground force.

Or like coming up with infantry squad compositions. What's the right balance of MAX, engis, medics, heavies, infils, and LA's? You won't have a perfect situation but general rule of thumb is what's important. You want to balance it out to maximize the strength and versatility of the squad.


Anyway, point is that air superiority is important and affects the ground game, not just the air game.

[Sledgecrushr]

If these bases tend to change hands fairly quickly then air dominance wouldnt really have any time to develop like Meiam is theorizing. If base takeovers happen to take several hours when they are hotly contested like the ps1 vets would like (and I as well) then air superiority might be achieved at different times by all of the empires in question.

[meiam]

If these bases tend to change hands fairly quickly then air dominance wouldnt really have any time to develop like Meiam is theorizing. If base takeovers happen to take several hours when they are hotly contested like the ps1 vets would like (and I as well) then air superiority might be achieved at different times by all of the empires in question.

Pretty much what I mean, I think that faster combat pace is going to translate into faster base capture which mean blitz tactics are going to be more important. Now I would love it if base capture took very long and air superiority did matter, but nothing I saw make me think it'll go this way.

[Malorn]

Captures are intended to last about 15 minutes assuming roughly even surrounding territory.

You need to take E3 demo footage with a grain of salt. The game was changed to make for a good demo, including reduced vehicle timers, reduced capture points, reduced capture time, and likely tons of other stuff.

Adjacent territory wasn't a factor - it will be. Resources weren't a factor - it will be (I hope). Vehicle timer wasn't a factor - it will be. Spawn point distance wasn't a factor - it will be. The list goes on.

[ParisTeta]

What is hard to understand, that Air Superority is a force mulitplicator?
I won the Air, so at best single units get through which get torn by other single units. Tanks roam free to the base. Enemy tanks never reach it because someone bombed them on the way `cause no enemy air is protecting them, if they have ground support, they reduce there ground strength.

Demoralize the enemy pilot, let them pile up on ground defend a base, then let just a few Libs bomb them to stoneage.

And Radar is planned, look at the Loverrator Video, there is radar for air and ground and anti radar, also ejection seats.

And what is that argument like " when you look behind you have could looked infront instead" against back view? Seriously wtf? Check your six, your side, regualry, you know, like driving a car, or do you look straight all the time, hey i love my mirrors, SA is everything! even driving a car.

Can we get back to discuss how Air Combat happends, with what we know? What Options in which scenario faction x vs y probaly has? You know, it is not important how to effectivly spend 10 people or 30 people, because there will be alot more squads and platoon around who just take chances you can give them with Air superority.

[LegioX]

What is hard to understand, that Air Superority is a force mulitplicator?
I won the Air, so at best single units get through which get torn by other single units. Tanks roam free to the base. Enemy tanks never reach it because someone bombed them on the way `cause no enemy air is protecting them, if they have ground support, they reduce there ground strength.

Demoralize the enemy pilot, let them pile up on ground defend a base, then let just a few Libs bomb them to stoneage.

And Radar is planned, look at the Loverrator Video, there is radar for air and ground and anti radar, also ejection seats.

And what is that argument like " when you look behind you have could looked infront instead" against back view? Seriously wtf? Check your six, your side, regualry, you know, like driving a car, or do you look straight all the time, hey i love my mirrors, SA is everything! even driving a car.

Can we get back to discuss how Air Combat happends, with what we know? What Options in which scenario faction x vs y probaly has? You know, it is not important how to effectivly spend 10 people or 30 people, because there will be alot more squads and platoon around who just take chances you can give them with Air superority.

Just give me a check 6 view. That is all i want. How can you justify having an air game without having the ability to look behind you and being forced to always look to your front or 90 degrees left or right. DOES NOT MAKE SENSE.

[ParisTeta]

Just give me a check 6 view. That is all i want. How can you justify having an air game without having the ability to look behind you and being forced to always look to your front or 90 degrees left or right. DOES NOT MAKE SENSE.

Excatly, but someone argued against it, that time lost looking back is better spend looking forward... where is Picards Facepalm when you need it.

[Landtank]

I'm curious as to how effective and Anti-Air Galaxy can be set up to be, or if it will be effective at all.

[ParisTeta]

We do know from an Interview, that Gal Pal can Cert for more speed or more armor my guess is, you can equip flares too. That will proably be the most AA Gal you can have, so i would say, can chase of single aircrafts but no group.

[MrMorton]

What is hard to understand, that Air Superority is a force mulitplicator?
I won the Air, so at best single units get through which get torn by other single units. Tanks roam free to the base. Enemy tanks never reach it because someone bombed them on the way `cause no enemy air is protecting them, if they have ground support, they reduce there ground strength.

Demoralize the enemy pilot, let them pile up on ground defend a base, then let just a few Libs bomb them to stoneage.

And Radar is planned, look at the Loverrator Video, there is radar for air and ground and anti radar, also ejection seats.

And what is that argument like " when you look behind you have could looked infront instead" against back view? Seriously wtf? Check your six, your side, regualry, you know, like driving a car, or do you look straight all the time, hey i love my mirrors, SA is everything! even driving a car.

Can we get back to discuss how Air Combat happends, with what we know? What Options in which scenario faction x vs y probaly has? You know, it is not important how to effectivly spend 10 people or 30 people, because there will be alot more squads and platoon around who just take chances you can give them with Air superority.

^this

I especially like the idea of once you can knock your opponent out of the sky, you can switch to ag radar and light up all of the groundforces (assuming you can land and refit aircraft)

[ParisTeta]

Actually good question can you refit vehicle or do you need to spawn a new one.

[Synapse]

Actually good question can you refit vehicle or do you need to spawn a new one.

Very good question...and can it be done in other places than vehicle pads?

[ParisTeta]

I don`t want to make a new thread for it, but i got the thinking bug again. Has anyone noticed something which prevents prolonged upside/down flying? Or pushing the nose to fast down?

Both a very unnatural habits, because of certain limitation in real life and would feel very unnatural in PS2 too. Spotting on the ground would be alot better when upside down, and evading against the instinct, pressing nose down would the best way, especially Scythe will profit from it.

I just can`t imagine seeing a flight of Aircraft upside down the most of the time.

I know in WW2O, 109´s uses there engine which works under negative g to evade sometimes with a dive forward, why older Allies models couldn`t and stutter.
Probaly with modern technick both wouldn`t be a problem, but would not feel good in my opinion, and it count what effective, this is what player will do.

What are your thoughts on that?


P.S.: Another WWIIO anecdote, once, flying upside down was faster then regular flight, doing some mistake in the Flightmodel, so there was a time, they were all flying upside down.

[Reizod]

Ok, I cannot offer real-life pilot experience. But I am playing various (military) flight sims for years. So I would love to have a pseudo flight model where classical dog fight manoeuvres would work.

Ditto^^^

Same here... 10+ years of flight sim exp

Though, I would bet that with the sci-fi nature of PS2, a longtime Sim pilot and hardcore gamer would have an edge over a real life non-gaming pilot new to this game. By the way, I'm also a real life student pilot.

[Talek Krell]

I don`t want to make a new thread for it, but i got the thinking bug again. Has anyone noticed something which prevents prolonged upside/down flying? Or pushing the nose to fast down?Well, there was a...certain incident involving a Gal in one of the TotalBiscuit videos that suggests that the Galaxy, at least, doesn't generate enough lift while upside down. I can't say for sure though. Especially with the Scythe.

[Reizod]

Could anyone tell from the vids if "small arms fire" has any affect to the aircraft?

Also, what does my fellow pilots think of the idea in using C4 to take out a Galaxy mid air?

[LegioX]

Good to see this thread resurface back to front page. Seriously need to keep on the developers about having a pretty good air game. I just don't want this game to become an arcade type flight model. Have some sort of realistic behavior when it comes to stalls, dives, turns, etc etc.. I just dont want to see planes doing endless loops and turns without losing alot of energy and becoming low and slow.

[maradine]

I don`t want to make a new thread for it, but i got the thinking bug again. Has anyone noticed something which prevents prolonged upside/down flying? Or pushing the nose to fast down?

I don't think fuel feed and negative gees are much of an issue in the future where everything runs on space dust and alien chips. What would be interesting is whether they've differentiated between craft which achieve level flight aerodynamically and those that do so by cutting in vertical thrust. The answer, of course, is "probably not", but it would make for interesting differences in the flight models of the craft vis-à-vis inverted flight.

[MrMorton]

I don`t want to make a new thread for it, but i got the thinking bug again. Has anyone noticed something which prevents prolonged upside/down flying? Or pushing the nose to fast down?

Both a very unnatural habits, because of certain limitation in real life and would feel very unnatural in PS2 too. Spotting on the ground would be alot better when upside down, and evading against the instinct, pressing nose down would the best way, especially Scythe will profit from it.

I just can`t imagine seeing a flight of Aircraft upside down the most of the time.

I know in WW2O, 109´s uses there engine which works under negative g to evade sometimes with a dive forward, why older Allies models couldn`t and stutter.
Probaly with modern technick both wouldn`t be a problem, but would not feel good in my opinion, and it count what effective, this is what player will do.

What are your thoughts on that?


P.S.: Another WWIIO anecdote, once, flying upside down was faster then regular flight, doing some mistake in the Flightmodel, so there was a time, they were all flying upside down.

as for flying inverted, the fighters appeared to be able to fly inverted with no ill affects, however the lib/galaxies crashed when flipped over.

as for suddenly pulling downwards, surely that is a less unnatural maneuver than suddenly pulling upwards (you would be releasing load on the wings when suddenly diving), but seeing how the aircraft don't really have "wings" I would think that lift is not going to be factored into such a simplistic flight model.

[ParisTeta]

My idea is, to put a limit on, so the game feels more natural to us (for me the answer is yes). In my opinion, it is really an important point to discuss, because in the end gameflow is everything.