Tailspin from damage

[super pretendo]

A lot of times when aircrafts are damage , it effects their ability to be flown effectively rather than just exploding. Skilled pilots irl can often mitigate tailspins. Just generic explosions at 0 hp seems worse than this. Would anyone else like to see aircraft being able to to be shot in engines or certain parts and become hard to control of damaged this way enough? Is there any plans for this, because I heard vehicles having many different hitboxes to damage is in

[Ratstomper]

I'm not sure how I feel about this idea. It sounds neat in concept, but you have to remember that people playing PS2 aren't going to be pilots. If taking a random shot to an engine means you're ineffective for the rest of a fight, I'm not sure I can get behind that.

I would actually prefer to see planes drop form the sky at 0hp instead of just exploding mid air, though. When your plane hits 0 HP, it just plummets and explodes on impact. Make it so the attacker still gets the kill, but make it seem a little more realistic and fun to watch. :D

[Sephirex]

You should email John Smedley about this.

Ha ha! I love this guy.

[Toppopia]

My i direct your attention to this thread? Its about Crash Landing, would is related to this.

http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=41108

But this would be cool, instead if just exploding aircraft, i would rather lose control and try to beable to land or safely eject, instead of instantly exploding, like in Battlefield 3, i will always try to land my jet to repair, because i am not giving it up to some random person who will most likely suck with it.

[AvacadoEight]

A little like ( Dont hate me ) when Battlefield 3 Jets are below 25 or 15% they start spiraling and becoming extremely hard to control? Yeah, I'd like that.

I think it'd add a certain aspect of realism to flying. But it won't turn it into a flight simulator. Me do likes.

I wants. Naow.

[Zulthus]

My i direct your attention to this thread? Its about Crash Landing, would is related to this.

http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=41108

But this would be cool, instead if just exploding aircraft, i would rather lose control and try to beable to land or safely eject, instead of instantly exploding, like in Battlefield 3, i will always try to land my jet to repair, because i am not giving it up to some random person who will most likely suck with it.

Well, no, once the attacker gets you to 0 HP then you shouldn't be able to land or eject, all systems should lock up and you die by a violent, fiery crash. 0 HP means he got the kill. It's just more dramatic.

[Khrakhan]

Definitley. Maybe not so much with using hitboxes and if your engine gets hit you'r screwed, but once it reaches a certain threshold of health then it starts smoking and you have to struggle to land or bail.

Also definitely support the idea of just plummeting once you reach 0% health, but if you get hit one more time then you just blow up. Also, when you are plummeting from 0% syndrom, you atleast have some control as to where you fall so you can attempt a last second kamikazi

[Landtank]

I was thinking this exact same thing watching the E3 stream. The mosquito tail wings are huge and look like they would be easily shot off.

I like the idea of below 10-25% health an aircraft becomes hard to control, that would be cool.

[Ratstomper]

Well, no, once the attacker gets you to 0 HP then you shouldn't be able to land or eject, all systems should lock up and you die by a violent, fiery crash. 0 HP means he got the kill. It's just more dramatic.

I agree. In PS1 they had it so if your aircraft was badly damage, your bailing mechanism would fail. That way people couldn't just weasel out of a death by bailing. In PS2, if youre at 0 hp, you should just plummet and die with no real ability to control or escape the situation.

The delayed death is purely for the benefit of everyone watching. :D

I was thinking this exact same thing watching the E3 stream. The mosquito tail wings are huge and look like they would be easily shot off.

I like the idea of below 10-25% health an aircraft becomes hard to control, that would be cool.

I'm game for this, so long as it isn't determined by hitboxes. I can already see myself taking a random shot in a wing while moving into battle then grumbling the whole way back to get it repaired just so I can do something in the fight. It would also make air battles a bit more decisive.

[Russ]

I like the idea of losing some sort of control at very low vehicle health. Though i think it should be pretty low like at around 10%.

[Toppopia]

Well, no, once the attacker gets you to 0 HP then you shouldn't be able to land or eject, all systems should lock up and you die by a violent, fiery crash. 0 HP means he got the kill. It's just more dramatic.

I wouldn't mind that, as long as if we crash land, we don't instantly die for hitting the ground, it will be up to the enemy aircraft to think, "Hmm, he is spinning wildly out of control on fire, i might leave him be, i got enough XP for disabling his vehicle and hurting him, and i am being shot at by 50 other people." or "Hmm, he is flying wildly out of control and on fire, i shall follow him and keep shooting till i see him completely explode into a million pieces."

It should be a way for skilled pilots to sometimes survive, and because this is why i keep following jets in Battlefield 3, so i make sure i get the kill, but then they bail out and i get nothing, but if i am on the receiving end, i make sure to do as many erratic manoeuvres as possible then land far outside of the map to repair then fly again.

Edit: By surviving the crash land, we should have to land basically perfectly, not just at any old speed, since if our aircraft have proper physics, then it wouldn't be too hard to have what speed we crash corresponds to how our chances of survival are.

[Zulthus]

I wouldn't mind that, as long as if we crash land, we don't instantly die for hitting the ground, it will be up to the enemy aircraft to think, "Hmm, he is spinning wildly out of control on fire, i might leave him be, i got enough XP for disabling his vehicle and hurting him, and i am being shot at by 50 other people." or "Hmm, he is flying wildly out of control and on fire, i shall follow him and keep shooting till i see him completely explode into a million pieces."

It should be a way for skilled pilots to sometimes survive, and because this is why i keep following jets in Battlefield 3, so i make sure i get the kill, but then they bail out and i get nothing, but if i am on the receiving end, i make sure to do as many erratic manoeuvres as possible then land far outside of the map to repair then fly again.

The thing is, there is no vehicle disabling. I'm talking about replacing exploding in midair when reaching 0 HP to spinning out of control to your death when reaching 0 HP. There shouldn't be any way out of it, regardless of if you're 'skilled' or not. You hit 0 HP, you die. That's that. This entire idea is entirely for the joy of the people watching and yourself inside the dark cockpit. Once you lose control you cannot bail or possibly survive in any way. Remember, I'm talking about being reduced to 0% HP, not being disabled at anything higher because as it has been said, there isn't any disabling.

[bkx]

Maybe when you reach 0 HP, instead of instantly blowing up there is a chance that your aircraft becomes a flying rock.

You lose all power, you can't eject. Your aircraft bursts into flame, alarms are going off in the cockpit, and there is nothing you can do but watch as you plummet into the ground. :D

And of course, you don't want to be standing where it hits.

[lolroflroflcake]

No thank you, not unless your gonna make infantry men get critically wounded so can only shuffle around slowly looking for help when they reach a similar level of health.

[Zulthus]

No thank you, not unless your gonna make infantry men get critically wounded so can only shuffle around slowly looking for help when they reach a similar level of health.

Yeah I agree that getting problems in the air while you're still alive isn't such a great idea, but wouldn't you prefer helplessly spiraling into the ground compared to instantly exploding in the air when you die?

[lolroflroflcake]

Yeah I agree that getting problems in the air while you're still alive isn't such a great idea, but wouldn't you prefer helplessly spiraling into the ground compared to instantly exploding in the air when you die?

Im not a fan of games rubbing my own failure in my face. I'd much rather be killed when the plane reaches zero health, what the game does with the wreckage after that doesn't really matter to me. ><

[Ratstomper]

Edit: By surviving the crash land, we should have to land basically perfectly, not just at any old speed, since if our aircraft have proper physics, then it wouldn't be too hard to have what speed we crash corresponds to how our chances of survival are.

We can't make it where someone puts in the work to kill someone else and then have them still possibly not die. If someone takes your plane to 0 HP, you should be dead. The skill as a pilot should come in before you get to 0 hp....

[Toppopia]

We can't make it where someone puts in the work to kill someone else and then have them still possibly not die. If someone takes your plane to 0 HP, you should be dead. The skill as a pilot should come in before you get to 0 hp....

I have to change my argument to say, when you get disabled you can crash land, i actually now after reading more carefully, think that 0% health should be dead. But i still think that if we are above 0% we, should beable to be disabled and crash land, unless the person keeps pounding at us. Then we will be dead. And it would be cool, seeing out cockpit flash red with alarms and such.

[Zulthus]

I have to change my argument to say, when you get disabled you can crash land, i actually now after reading more carefully, think that 0% health should be dead. But i still think that if we are above 0% we, should beable to be disabled and crash land, unless the person keeps pounding at us. Then we will be dead. And it would be cool, seeing out cockpit flash red with alarms and such.

http://karlmac.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/The-Office-gifs-the-office-14948948-240-196.gif

Vehicle disabling was the dumbest thing to ever reach FPS games.

[JointReef]

PS1 had this sort of system but only with BFR's take out your Medium Assault and armour piercing rounds, you could take out the BFR's shields or reduce it effectiveness in combat.. I still do it to this day as there is no better feeling as making Biffer run in fear of my mighty gauss rifle.

[Toppopia]

http://karlmac.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/The-Office-gifs-the-office-14948948-240-196.gif

Vehicle disabling was the dumbest thing to ever reach FPS games.

Thats because it has never been implemented properly.

[Gonefshn]

With all the anti-air thats going to be in this game I don't think pilots need anything making their lives any more difficult.

[Otleaz]

http://karlmac.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/The-Office-gifs-the-office-14948948-240-196.gif

Vehicle disabling was the dumbest thing to ever reach FPS games.

What exactly is the problem here?


On one hand you have a vehicle with 100 health that blows up once it hits 0.
On the other hand you have a vehicle with 110 health that loses control once it hits 10 and blows up once it hits 0.

They are exactly the same thing, except one is MUCH cooler and adds things like crash landing to the game.

[AvacadoEight]

It dosn't even have to be spiraling. They can just become harder to control due to the damage done to the Aircraft.

Reduced thrust, or maneuverability.

But It dosn't have to be that way.

( PS. Im a Reaver pilot and im fine with it, dunno why the other pilots are whining, an Aircraft is a very, very powerful tool, something that, when in the right hands, can turn the tide of battle. )

[lolroflroflcake]

Thats because it has never been implemented properly.

How is killing, a vehicle 10 to 15% earlier then it should good game design. You may as well just nerf the health of the vehicle directly and skip the ridiculous and annoying "feature".

[Synapse]

Not every post super pretendo makes is a bad post.

This one for example is awesome.

[Toppopia]

How is killing, a vehicle 10 to 15% earlier then it should good game design. You may as well just nerf the health of the vehicle directly and skip the ridiculous and annoying "feature".

But its not killing it, its just making it harder to control, but one thing i didn't like Battlefields way is that you keep losing health when on fire. Even if its just, harder to control. And if you don't want the feature why would you nerf the vehicle? It would be cool to give aircraft hitboxes so that if you got shot in the engine too much, it would only function at 50% efficiency or if shot in the wing, make handling a bit worse.

[Wayside]

A lot of times when aircrafts are damage , it effects their ability to be flown effectively rather than just exploding. Skilled pilots irl can often mitigate tailspins. Just generic explosions at 0 hp seems worse than this. Would anyone else like to see aircraft being able to to be shot in engines or certain parts and become hard to control of damaged this way enough? Is there any plans for this, because I heard vehicles having many different hitboxes to damage is in

I'd like to see them dial the flight model closer to realistic across the board from what I saw in the E3 footage. Adding a more dynamic damage model would be nice as well (would LOVE to see a mosquito or reaver lose an engine and spiral its way into a cliff wall from the now unbalanced thrust imparted by its remaining engine :D ) - but I'm fully expecting to see that kind of thing develop over the course of the beta.

[Zulthus]

But its not killing it, its just making it harder to control, but one thing i didn't like Battlefields way is that you keep losing health when on fire. Even if its just, harder to control. And if you don't want the feature why would you nerf the vehicle? It would be cool to give aircraft hitboxes so that if you got shot in the engine too much, it would only function at 50% efficiency or if shot in the wing, make handling a bit worse.

And if we shot a soldier in the legs, they couldn't walk anymore, if we shot a Prowler on it's barrel, it can't shoot anymore...

[Ratstomper]

But its not killing it, its just making it harder to control, but one thing i didn't like Battlefields way is that you keep losing health when on fire. Even if its just, harder to control. And if you don't want the feature why would you nerf the vehicle? It would be cool to give aircraft hitboxes so that if you got shot in the engine too much, it would only function at 50% efficiency or if shot in the wing, make handling a bit worse.

I have to say yes to falling like a rock when your HP reaches 0, Maybe (test it) having you lose control at 10% vehicle health and NO to hitboxes, just because it relies a bit too much on chance to make for fun gameplay.

I kinda like the idea of losing control at low health because it makes air battles more decisive.

[Toppopia]

I'd like to see them dial the flight model closer to realistic across the board from what I saw in the E3 footage. Adding a more dynamic damage model would be nice as well (would LOVE to see a mosquito or reaver lose an engine and spiral its way into a cliff wall from the now unbalanced thrust imparted by its remaining engine :D ) - but I'm fully expecting to see that kind of thing develop over the course of the beta.

It would be cool to have hitboxes, and such, and it wouldn't be random as someone above just said, it would allow for strategic targeting of certain parts of the aircraft and such.

[Toppopia]

And if we shot a soldier in the legs, they couldn't walk anymore, if we shot a Prowler on it's barrel, it can't shoot anymore...

That would add realism, but thats going too far, for infantry. Someone mentioned in the idea thread about tanks getting locational damage, and it can still shoot and such, just maybe slower or something.

[Zulthus]

That would add realism, but thats going too far, for infantry. Someone mentioned in the idea thread about tanks getting locational damage, and it can still shoot and such, just maybe slower or something.

Why is it going to far? I mean, it's the same exact thing. You want locational damage effects, why stop at aircraft? It makes gameplay more... challenging.

[Toppopia]

Why is it going to far? I mean, it's the same exact thing. You want locational damage effects, why stop at aircraft? It makes gameplay more... challenging.

I wouldn't mind too much, would be rather funny just to wound people and watch them roll on the ground in pain and wait for friends to come help, then bang, another person rolling on the ground in pain. i wouldn't mind for tanks having locational damage, and i have wanted in games that if you get shot in the arm, its harder to aim, shot in leg, slower movement, so i actually wouldn't mind.

[Xaine]

You should email John Smedley about this.

Be less of a cunt.

I like the idea, but it seems a bit too much like 'Fluff' and not really needed.

Nice idea none the less. :)

[Wayside]

Given some of the things Higby and company have said about the overall pacing they're aiming for with PS2, and the footage we've seen thus far, I feel like this kind of feature begins to cross the line as they envision it between quick-paced arcadeish play-style and slower, tactical simulation style play.

If Call of Duty is at one end of the "realism" or "pacing" spectrum, and Arma is at the other, they certainly seem to be leaning more towards CoD with their design choices. And that may be fine. It may be that this generation of gamers favor that kind of game-play and as such its the smart business decision for SOE.

Take the class system for example. You're no longer free to spec your character out with the freedom you had in PS1. Now you have to confine yourself to a class. Granted, you get some choices within that class, but it is unmistakably more restrictive and streamlined when compared to PS1. That seems to be a step towards CoD style pacing.

And the removal of tactical elements like inventory for players and vehicles, which allowed (and in a sense forced) players to make decisions about what they'd bring with them into a fight in terms of logistics and supplies for themselves and their squad mates. That kind of feature prolongs a player's life span. Slows the pacing down. By comparison PS2 feels more like "Pick your class and GOGOGO OMG YOU DIED RESPAWN AND GOGOGOGOGOGO!!!". Again, a decision that supports a faster paced, less cerebral game.

Bit of a rant, but back to the topic I suspect the design mentality behind PS2 is going to make this kind of feature less likely to be implemented than it might have been if they were more focused on the simulation end of the spectrum. Still, its a great suggestion and everything I've seen of the PS2 dev team indicates they're fully capable of pulling it off. :)

Because I know someone is going to have a comprehension failure, I'm not saying PS2 is a CoD clone. Just establishing a means of comparing the pacing and levels of realism seen among the various modern shooters.

[Otleaz]

How is killing, a vehicle 10 to 15% earlier then it should good game design. You may as well just nerf the health of the vehicle directly and skip the ridiculous and annoying "feature".
Are you really whining about numbers?

In case you were wondering, the TTK for an air vehicle is not set in stone. Every vehicle in the game isn't all the sudden going to be gimped just because they crash at 15% health. Can you guess why? The HP can be raised by 15% at the press of a button

Gasp!

I like the idea, but it seems a bit too much like 'Fluff' and not really needed.

Nice idea none the less. :)

A lot of ideas are fluff and not really needed. For the game to be fun, immersive and unpredictable you need things like this though. The change to the world and how the player feels should be what you look at.

How would you feel seeing a galaxy full of troops slowly fall to the earth, exploding and killing all who weren't able to get away?
Now how would you feel seeing a galaxy explode in the air into a cloud of debris, killing all inside?

The impact is huge on all who witness it and immerses them in the battlefield. It makes you feel like you are a soldier fighting your own small little battle while a war is going on around you.

[thegreekboy]

to add to this, can SOE please make it so that you don't smoke unless you are at 25% or below health? I would hate getting hit twice and have to fly around trailing smoke for 15 minutes.

[thegreekboy]

Why is it going to far? I mean, it's the same exact thing. You want locational damage effects, why stop at aircraft? It makes gameplay more... challenging.

Well its cool and all.....until YOU fall victim of it. Then you're just completely helpless and pissed off.

[Toppopia]

If anyone has played Combat Flight Simulator games, then the fun part is getting damaged and having to fight to keep control of your aircraft, that made it more fun in my opinion. Slowly drifting towards the ground with your fuel leaking away rapidly and trying to extend your landing and find it got damaged so it only extends 60% of the way down, so you have to do a proper crash landing, come in to fast, and you exploded, come in to slow, and you dropped faster causing explosion, it was an art to crash successfully.

[Wayside]

Well its cool and all.....until YOU fall victim of it. Then you're just completely helpless and pissed off.

Running out of ammunition is cool and all.....until YOU fall victim to it. Then you're just completely helpless and pissed off.

Being able to kill players is cool and all.....until YOU fall victim to it. Then you're just completely helpless and pissed off.

Fall damage is cool and all.....until YOU fall victim to it. Then you're just completely helpless and pissed off.

Just sayin :p

Not everything in a game has to be roses and kittens. Its the risks and dangers that make gameplay interesting. The more varied the risks and dangers, the more interesting the gameplay.

[AzK]

No thanks, it's one of those "reality" things that doesn't translate in ANY fun when applied to the game. It would just be needlessly frustrating.

If they make it like in ps1 (at the beginning cause then they removed it), where sometimes instead of exploding your aircraft on like 1% hp would simply lose control and go down no matter what and you had to eject, then FINE. But making it like on bf3 where every time at 20-30% they become nearly impossible to control and on top of that they just explode after a bit if not repaired, would just be frustrating.

[Wayside]

No thanks, it's one of those "reality" things that doesn't translate in ANY fun when applied to the game. It would just be needlessly frustrating.

If they make it like in ps1 (at the beginning cause then they removed it), where sometimes instead of exploding your aircraft on like 1% hp would simply lose control and go down no matter what and you had to eject, then FINE. But making it like on bf3 where every time at 20-30% they become nearly impossible to control and on top of that they just explode after a bit if not repaired, would just be frustrating.

I think most people would agree. Its fun if there's a chance of something going wrong. Less fun if its so completely predictable that you effectively lose 20-30% of the effective HP of an aircraft due to the guaranteed crash and burn.

[Toppopia]

Running out of ammunition is cool and all.....until YOU fall victim to it. Then you're just completely helpless and pissed off.

i have a solution to that very circumstance.
http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=41911

And I wouldn't want the damage mechanic copied directly from BF3, i would rather it be refined and made better, because it was annoying at times. The idea was good, how it was implemented, not so much.

[Otleaz]

With ejector seats you would see a reason to finish off your target. Other than that, you just need to find a good balance between "might as well finish him off" and "screw it hes dead already"

[Luieburger]

Perhaps rather than going into a tailspin from damage, one of the rare death animations for flying vehicles (1 in 1000 chance or something) should be to tailspin until crashing on the ground, and of course doing damage to whatever it lands on.

Fun no?

[Wayside]

Perhaps rather than going into a tailspin from damage, one of the rare death animations for flying vehicles (1 in 1000 chance or something) should be to tailspin until crashing on the ground, and of course doing damage to whatever it lands on.

Fun no?

I'm in favor of any number of "if you get this low" damage states that effectively force the pilot to focus on landing as safely as they can. You get down to 10% or 5% hp (which would be a rare place to end up, not something you can just make happen given the random nature of tons of people firing at aircraft with so many different types of weapons) and the game makes it very clear that you're just about dead.

Tail spin, engines going out, windshields bursting with glass going everywhere and crazy loud ass wind noises and blurred vision for the pilot, whatever. Would be much more interesting then endless repeats of "now you're alive, now you're dead". This also seems more fair, for lack of a better word, considering just how many lives are wrapped up in something like a Galaxy. Giving the pilot that clear and unmistakable indicator that they really, really need to put that aircraft on the deck right now gives their passengers that added chance of survival.

[super pretendo]

Perhaps rather than going into a tailspin from damage, one of the rare death animations for flying vehicles (1 in 1000 chance or something) should be to tailspin until crashing on the ground, and of course doing damage to whatever it lands on.

Fun no?

This isn't the point of the suggestion; my point is that there SHOULD be effects of damage that are between being perfectly functional and being dead, so skilled pilots should be able to mitigate out-of-control aircraft situations caused by damage, and skilled players could try to prevent aircraft from function with precise hits. Breaking up the visual monotony is just icing on the cake.

To balance this, we could only let controls malfunction at under 40%; if an aircraft is under 40%, it is vulnerable to control-debilitating hits, but if it is above 40%, it is invulnerable to this.

[Khrakhan]

40% is still way too high for an aircraft to start losing control. Would just make players avoid piloting because they know that just a couple hits and theyre basically screwed, what a waste of almost 50% of a vehicle/resources

[xnorb]

Realistic damage model.

BF3's disable mechanic is the most stupid thing ever.

One of your engines is destroyed ? You're in trouble, you only got 50%
engine power - you should get a repair.

One of your wings is missing ? Uhoh - better use the emergency eject.

Tracks of your tank were destroyed by a mine/C4/rocket/tank shell ?
Sorry, no more movement for you sir !

The tires of your jeep are full of holes from bullets ?
Well, you can still drive, but don't expect it to go fast and have nice manueverability.


THAT's how it should be like.
If you disable at a certain percentage ... pff ... no ... bad mechanism.

Either 0% -> blow up
or a somewhat realistic damage model.
Everything else simply sucks.

[MrKWalmsley]

Love the idea of losing a lot of control when health gets to a certain percentage. I'm imagining people clearing the area as the aircraft tries to land on a pad to get repairs, and jerks forward and is smashed up against the side of a tower. Love it :D

[Neksar]

The aircrafts in Planetside are VTOL, so I can support a system where vehicles lose maneuverability at properly low HP. I love the feeling of salvaging a chopper by landing and fixing the thing, despite having reduced control over its flight.

I don't know that a system like that should be thrown in verbatim, because it implies a similar damage system should exist for tanks, and I'm somewhat against that. I could certainly support locational damage for aircraft, though. They already have it for tanks, if I'm not mistaken (weaker rear armor).

Do remember, though, that there's little in the way of targetting aircraft aside from "turn the sky around it into a fiery hell," since most ways of dealing with aicraft are fire-and-forget missiles or flak.

[Otleaz]

Either 0% -> blow up
or a somewhat realistic damage model.
Everything else simply sucks.

Why not have both?

At 0% your craft is disabled and starts diving. At -5% you blow up. I think people are getting too caught up in the numbers. You aren't somehow going to die faster just because you dive at a certain percentage instead of blowing up.

It even gives you a chance to use that ejector seat or try and aim at some enemy troops to take some out with you on your way out.

[Boogere]

The reason why SOE doesn't want locational damage on vehicles and aircraft in particular, is because it will make air battles more decisive. Once the air battle is decided then who ever won it will decide the ground battle through their control of the skies. The sooner it's decided the sooner that what ever tactics or strategy used by the ground troops becomes irrelevant, because now pilots have a shooting gallery consisting of what amounts to sitting ducks, but if the fight in the air takes a long time to sort it self out then this gives either side on the ground time to win the fight using tactics and strategy and the reason why the fight on the ground will end the fight in the air? Because the contested base will switch hands and now one side has little to no reason to keep fighting for a base that's already lost.