Liberator tail gun & missiles.

[Eyeklops]

Should the tail gunner be able to shoot down an incoming an missile? If yes, should this require an up/sidegrade? Discuss.

[indirect]

Yes, but with difficulty. Should require precise aim, tailgunner should not get a reticule over the missile or anything.

[super pretendo]

depends on rate of fire of the gun, but it should take more than one hit from the gunner. If it's a very fast gun, maybe several hits

[zomg]

Could be an interesting mechanic, but it could also render the vehicle immune to missiles with a good gunner.

[Sirisian]

We had a thread about this already (http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=39333). I think there's another one also, but I forgot what it was called. Basically the concept of missiles and other projectiles having health opens up for some fun skilled gameplay. (People mentioned shooting grenades in another thread :lol: )

[lMABl]

(People mentioned shooting grenades in another thread :lol: )
That would be alot of fun, shooting one mans genade off his belt and take out an entire squad. But it looks like that wont be possible anyways. http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=42396&highlight=visible+equipment :(

[ConsPark]

Echoing zomg, I think this'd be best with an upgrade or sidegrade, maybe a turret specifically designed for this that is effective in that role, but nothing else.

[Khellendros]

Man, I hope the servers will be able to keep up with all this. Imagine a fierce battles and dozens, or even scores, of missiles flying every which way...

[Xaine]

Good idea, i like it.

[Bravix]

No.

I can see flak or other AOE explosions taking down a missle...but the odds of a bullet hitting a missile?

If you make it realistic (where the bullet ACTUALLY HAS TO HIT THE MISSILE) then sure. Don't make the hitbox on the missile larger then the missile.

This is pointless anyway, as it won't be implemented. Too much for the server.

[maradine]

I'd actually be OK with this, with no specialty cert or mods of any kind. If you can get your defensive fire to intersect the geometry of an incoming projectile, by all means, you've earned your 5 seconds of respite. Vaya con dios.

[The Degenatron]

Seems logical to me. No mods needed. Just it shouldn't be easy.

[Zekeen]

No.

I can see flak or other AOE explosions taking down a missle...but the odds of a bullet hitting a missile?

If you make it realistic (where the bullet ACTUALLY HAS TO HIT THE MISSILE) then sure. Don't make the hitbox on the missile larger then the missile.

This is pointless anyway, as it won't be implemented. Too much for the server.

How can that be too much for the server? The missile already counts as a physical entity that collides with an aircraft to explode. All you gotta do is make bullet contact signal explosion. It may already be in. It's actually easier for the server is bullet contact explodes it rather than not hurting it or passing through it (you gotta set up special code for it to view the projectiles as a sort of "ghost). Otherwise you're just letting it do as it does.

[Sirisian]

Before anyone starts going off wild assumptions about the performance cost of such a thing I'll mention, as I did in the previous thread, that they're using PhysX. It has methods for handling continuous collision detection between simple primitives like a bullet (sphere) colliding with a missile (an oriented bounding box). I wouldn't recommend anyone to argue against this idea solely based on a fear about the performance cost.

Also we haven't seen a lot of the guns nor their upper fire rates. It's possible we could see a tank's secondary AI cannon with the fire rate to shooting down a missile from an incoming fighter.

Also regarding balance a lot of it would probably come down to how much armor to give a missile or other object.

[Sabot]

I'm not against it, but I do think a certain type of tailgun should be needed.... specificly one with an incredibly high ROF. It just seems very.... "over the top", to able to shot down missiles fired from hand held launchers with normal sights and a high caliber machinegun (I am guessing the tailgun will be something high caliber, if anyone have seen the actual kinds of guns they have there, please inform).

For instance... If you pick the tailgun with the very high ROF, you'll have the ability to effectively shoot down missiles if you can spot them, but you'll be little more than an annoyance to enemy air cav (test in beta :P). But if you go with the high caliber variant, your chances of shooting down missiles is.. well, say it's possible... but you've got to be one lucky bugger to actually destroy it. But you'll of course pick of enemy air cav with relative ease with it.

Or you could possibly make it a more advanced sight with the ability to identify incoming missiles in real time for you, making it hella easy to to get some shots off at it, but none the less fantasticly hard to actually hit them.

That is if you want any kind of mechanic for it, or just want the missiles to have a hitbox and hp/armor, and then it's up to the gunner to take them out before they hit... I think that's boring though, but that's just me.

[Sulaco]

No.

I can see flak or other AOE explosions taking down a missle...but the odds of a bullet hitting a missile?

If you make it realistic (where the bullet ACTUALLY HAS TO HIT THE MISSILE) then sure. Don't make the hitbox on the missile larger then the missile.

This is pointless anyway, as it won't be implemented. Too much for the server.

Depends on the type of tailgun, if its like this then I don't see any reason it couldn't work, though giving the tail gunner of a small bomber a gun like that would be pretty funny. No need for bombs when you could just rip a vehicle to shreds :D

[Mastachief]

Yes but only with side grades and ninja skills, do not want so stupid slowmo cam. Alternatively spec it fitted with a tail mounted anti missile, missile.

[WNxThentar]

Should the tail gunner be able to shoot down an incoming an missile? If yes, should this require an up/sidegrade? Discuss.

Not necessarily for the following reason

Not all empires (VS) might use a physical AV missile making this imbalanced across empires
Missiles could easily support a nose cone that resists bullets.
There are mechanisms to counteract missiles already. This would lessen the appeal of such options.

[RSphil]

If you fit a Vulcan rotary cannon On the back yes :) lots of rounds means you'll hit the rocket. Just like ship defences these days. You'd need to be a good shot aswell

[ChipMHazard]

I'd actually be OK with this, with no specialty cert or mods of any kind. If you can get your defensive fire to intersect the geometry of an incoming projectile, by all means, you've earned your 5 seconds of respite. Vaya con dios.

Hehe aye. I don't really see any problems with it, except perhaps for some technical issues, as the missile will surely be bringing it's mates along.

[Sledgecrushr]

I would just love for a libbys tailgunner to be focused on shooting down missiles. Better than the tailgunner shooting at my reaver. Specially since flares are so effective against missiles.

[Hmr85]

I'm fine with tail gunners possibly shooting down missles. As sledgecrushr above stated, better that than them shooting at my reaver.

There's going to be so many missles in the air they won't be able to tell from which direction they are coming from any ways.

[Sledgecrushr]

Depends on the type of tailgun, if its like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn_dH19R-q4&feature=fvwrel) then I don't see any reason it couldn't work, though giving the tail gunner of a small bomber a gun like that would be pretty funny. No need for bombs when you could just rip a vehicle to shreds :D

I just love the aegis anti missile system, though I believe it is mostly used to knock down cruise missiles like the exocet. Dont think we will have anything quite like this in game.

[mintyc]

i am all for this idea, it gives the libarator at lest some small mesure of defence against missiles without being OP.

if the more agile aircraft are haveing problems dodging missiles then a lib sure as heck wont.

[kaffis]

I don't mind it, however, if we make it so that's possible, the hitbox should probably be *smaller* than the missile (under the logic that not all hit locations on the missile will disable the missile), and that at least SOME hits will detonate the missile where it flies, risking splash damage to the aircraft or allied aircraft in the process.

[Rago]

Yeah like a Redeemer a HUGE Rocket one Shot Cooldown 6 Minutes :P

I Like Stuff that goes Boom ! The Problem is most Players will feel "No Skill" ^_^But im Fine with Stuff like That, it brings up the Fun.

Wait im honest with it !

[Alanim]

I really like this idea, and it even works good in halo where it happens VERY rarely but does make for some "wtf" moments like 2 rockets colliding in mid air, throwing a grenade and having it blow up in your face because a bullet hit it, etc.

If it really isn't going to be much of a performance strain(I highly doubt it will be) then I'm all for it.

[Bravix]

Before anyone starts going off wild assumptions about the performance cost of such a thing I'll mention, as I did in the previous thread, that they're using PhysX. It has methods for handling continuous collision detection between simple primitives like a bullet (sphere) colliding with a missile (an oriented bounding box). I wouldn't recommend anyone to argue against this idea solely based on a fear about the performance cost.

Also we haven't seen a lot of the guns nor their upper fire rates. It's possible we could see a tank's secondary AI cannon with the fire rate to shooting down a missile from an incoming fighter.

Also regarding balance a lot of it would probably come down to how much armor to give a missile or other object.

That is EXACTLY where the performance issue comes in.

Making it a collision type deal wouldn't cause much problems. But giving it armor/hp is where the performance drain would come from. However, if you had the bullet act as a sort of solid object so that when the missile hits it the missile explodes, I don't see that causing much issue. It'd be just like the missile hitting its intended target.

[Sirisian]

Making it a collision type deal wouldn't cause much problems. But giving it armor/hp is where the performance drain would come from.
:lol: And this is why I said people should not discuss things from this perspective. Unless you have a programming background (which a few people in the forum have) it's easy to make assumptions like this that aren't true.

[ParisTeta]

Shooting down missle is to simple for the complex of getting them up in the air, you need to lock on (enemy is warned) long travel time to target (enemy can evade/chaff/Flare). Maybe different for fighters, but just shootable missles would be unfair for a fighter getting a lock, and then just boom missle gone.

But maybe, if you have a weaker overall gun, you can have a second shoot option, for extra chaff/flare which only has a chance to draw the missle, such thing could work or would draw the attention for a short time, so you can evade easier, but then it returns to you as long as you are in front of the missle.

Would a Flakburster work as Tailguner weapon? It would have alot more narrow firing arc, but EA (enemy air) can`t just sit behind and shoot and need to attack more from the side, also formation flying would be alot more valuble.

[Geist]

I think any bullet should be able to shoot down a missile. But with travel time, the speed of the missile, and how the missile should take more than one bullet to down, it should be incredibly hard.

Now, I do think there should be a weapons upgrade(like a vulcan rotary cannon), that puts out enough lead to make it a bit easier to shoot down a missile. :)

[TheRagingGerbil]

Isn't that what flares are for?

[Ratstomper]

I like the idea, but I'm not sure it should require sidegrades or not.

Could be an interesting mechanic, but it could also render the vehicle immune to missiles with a good gunner.

I think that's the point. A skilled gunner will be a good thing to have in that case. It rewards skill.

[Ruffdog]

Voted yes/sidegrade. Have it so the tail gunner can secondary fire a chaff dispenser at the sacrifice of something else? Crap rate of fire / angle of fire on his primary tailgun?

[Sirisian]

Isn't that what flares are for?
Flares are mostly for guided rockets. I bet we'll see a lot of players using all sorts of weapons against Liberators including firing anti-ground rockets or simply not locking on and spamming rockets into the plane.

Also if this idea takes off I'm expecting almost all projectiles to collide. The concept of shooting down a slow flying rockets following a friendly plane or something would be epic. Actually recreating this clip where a shit shoots down a rocket is really what I'm after (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vekVCGapI-4#t=2m36s). I really like those once in a blue moon kind of events where you're like "did that just happen?" :cool:

I don't think anyone is insinuating that this will be extremely common.

[dyslecix]

Stupid idea. It would just make liberators way overpowered.

[Eyeklops]

Stupid idea. It would just make liberators way overpowered.
Thanks for the constructive input, now please see yourself to the door. Ohh wait, somebody already did that for you.

[Professor Frink]

I think it's a good idea. Tail gunners need more love.

[super pretendo]

Stupid idea. It would just make liberators way overpowered.

How so? Missile-lock on is an inherently overpowered mechanic

[ODonnell]

There is no reason a missle shouldn't be shot down by machine gun fire. It is done rather easily irl with the use of computers. With a manned gunner with no computer aid it should still be possible, but difficult/near impossible just as irl.

[Eyeklops]

I figure once Auraxis is fully populated, even with flares, a Liberator will get WTFpwned by dozens of lock-on missles everytime they fly over a base.

If they restrict the gun angles like they did in PS1 that will eliminate the possibility of the tailgunner becoming some 360deg uber missile shield, as they can only shoot down missiles that are "on the tail." This will encourage the pilots to keep moving.

I feel the ability to shoot down missiles will make the tailgunner spot much more exciting & interesting.

[kaffis]

I figure once Auraxis is fully populated, even with flares, a Liberator will get WTFpwned by dozens of lock-on missles everytime they fly over a base.

If they restrict the gun angles like they did in PS1 that will eliminate the possibility of the tailgunner becoming some 360deg uber missile shield, as they can only shoot down missiles that are "on the tail." This will encourage the pilots to keep moving.
Definitely this.

[Sledgecrushr]

I figure once Auraxis is fully populated, even with flares, a Liberator will get WTFpwned by dozens of lock-on missles everytime they fly over a base.

If they restrict the gun angles like they did in PS1 that will eliminate the possibility of the tailgunner becoming some 360deg uber missile shield, as they can only shoot down missiles that are "on the tail." This will encourage the pilots to keep moving.

I feel the ability to shoot down missiles will make the tailgunner spot much more exciting & interesting.

I think a liberator flying over hostile territory will get perforated. So you go in with air superiority fighters and a few ground attack fighters, supress the a2a and g2a defenses then your lib can just have its way with them.

[Eyeklops]

I think a liberator flying over hostile territory will get perforated. So you go in with air superiority fighters and a few ground attack fighters, supress the a2a and g2a defenses then your lib can just have its way with them.

I will agree that this is one tactic, but IMHO having an expanded role the the tailgunner is still needed. In PS1 it was hard to find a tailgunner because it was boring most of the time. Aside from the occasional Aircav what would stupidly slot into the tail firing cone, there wasn't much too shoot at. Yes, lots of missiles got shot at you, and the only thing the tailgunner could do was watch them hit. Hell, give some points for shooting down missles and players will make a meta game out of it.

[Blues]

Liberators aren't meant to be precision/AA airships. They are meant to be carpet bombers/zoning airships and a missile does not qualify for that role. I think they should be accessible, but at the cost of other offensive capabilities.