Camouflage vs. Aircraft

[Rothnang]

Basically the idea is that ground units have an ability that allows them to camouflage themselves from aircraft, and not be visible at all to any aircraft going overhead.

The way this would work for infantry would simply be this: If you crouch and don't move you become invisible to aircraft. (You'd hear a little ninja woosh sound and see an icon on your screen with a liberator that has a questionmark over the cockpit and crouched soldier underneath) This concealment is broken if you fire a weapon, try to lock on a missile, take any damage, or you are spotted by an enemy.

For ground vehicles it would work similarly, but more slowly, whenever you don't move you would see a little bar that builds up, and 5 seconds later your vehicle becomes invisible to enemy air units, again concealment breaks if you fire a weapon, use a lockon, get damaged, or you become spotted.


What this idea does is even out the way the game does initiative. Basically with the current implementation the aircraft is always the unit that initiates the fight, and gets to decide whether or not it wants to stay in the fight. The only time ground units have any means of disengaging from a battle with an aircraft is if there is some kind of roof for them to run under.

Of course this isn't entirely realistic, you probably wouldn't be able to hide from a helicopter that's 100 meters up from you with a FLIR camera, but then again, the scale of the air war in Planetside is already heavily condensed for the sake of fitting it all in the same game. Real life aircraft don't go 200km an hour, they go 1000km an hour, and they don't have a flight ceiling of 1km, but of 10km, so I don't see too big a problem with assuming that you can hide from a Planetside aircraft at highly condensed ranges either.

Concealment from aerial surveillance and attacks was really mastered by the Germans in WW2 and is still something all military forces teach to their troops today, since it is a very effective strategy in war.


I think this would be a positive addition to the game because it would allow us to reframe the whole air vs. ground battle in a more meaningful way. If both air and ground units have a ways of avoiding combat with one another, or ambush the other unit we don't have to base it all on weapons that are singularly designed to give aircraft an operational time limit and need absurd amounts of range to have any chance of landing a killing blow. We can get combat ranges to a point where rendering isn't a constant problem, and diffuse battlefields more by allowing units to operate outside of the protective anti-air bubble much more confidently, while at the same time shrinking the bubble a bit so that aircraft can operate more meaningfully in bigger engagements.

It would also significantly enhance the idea of combined arms if the best way for aircraft to bring down, for example, a deployed Sunderer (almost guaranteed to be concealed) is if someone on the ground has to spot it first. At the same time, concentrating your AA units right on top of the Sunderer is a dead giveaway to where it is to any air units in the area.

There is a whole plethora of enhancements that become possible once you eliminate the one sided initiative that air units currently have. If both sides in a fight have some say over whether or not the fight takes place or continues you simply end up with something that's much more fun for everyone involved.

[Assist]

or just nerf air damage and lower burster damage, same solution less work!

[Rothnang]

Not at all the same solution. Lowering damage all around would massively skew the advantage toward aircraft, since aircraft have a mechanic (extreme speed) that allows them to leave a battle and thereby increases their chance for survival the longer the enemy takes to kill them , but ground units don't have a mechanic like that. That means with all around lower damage the advantage aircraft get from their speed becomes much bigger, while ground units have no significantly increased chance of survival, since they can't get away no matter how long it takes for the aircraft to actually kill them.

[Assist]

Not at all the same solution. Lowering damage all around would massively skew the advantage toward aircraft, since aircraft have a mechanic (extreme speed) that allows them to leave a battle and thereby increases their chance for survival the longer the enemy takes to kill them , but ground units don't have a mechanic like that. That means with all around lower damage the advantage aircraft get from their speed becomes much bigger, while ground units have no significantly increased chance of survival, since they can't get away no matter how long it takes for the aircraft to actually kill them.

Idea is the ground units then have time to react and get more AA for when it comes back, which is exactly what your suggestion is trying to accomplish. What's the difference between the two?

[Ghoest9]

Rothnag is right.

If you lower the damage of both air and ground it will end up favoring air because they have better mobility which will allow them to consistently withdraw when they are losing.

[Rothnang]

Idea is the ground units then have time to react and get more AA for when it comes back, which is exactly what your suggestion is trying to accomplish. What's the difference between the two?

My idea creates a situation where ground units that pay attention to what's going on overhead can avoid getting taken out by air without any AA, and also gives them chance to shake off aircraft if they can find a way to break line of sight and then quickly hide.

It aims at creating better conditions for competitive play rather than just setting up every single fight as a damage race.

The current state of balance for ground vs air is simply:

Air decides when and where to fight.
Air has the option to disengage from a fight.
Ground can only survive by inflicting damage faster than air can kill them.
Ground can only kill air by inflicting damage faster than the air can run.
Ground controls the amount of damage it can inflict mostly through the number of AA units.

It's an incredibly flawed system because the entire battle ultimately hinges on nothing else but how many guys with AA weapons you have. It creates a situation where air can go from utterly OP to utterly useless depending only on how big the enemy force is, which is poison to a game where fights can range in scale from a hand full of people to a hundreds on hundreds three-way battle.
Any change in damage only walks the threshold for when air becomes crap and when it becomes OP up and down the spectrum, but doesn't ever get you out of the scale issue.

What my system does is shake things up by giving ground units a way to initiate and disengage as well, and as a result eliminates the need for insane range AA weapons that can be massed up easily in a single spot to cover an entire battlefield.

[Sledgecrushr]

Its kind of the same deal as raising the flight ceiling and giving air a place of their own. I dont want to have to sneak everywhere so air doesnt swoop down and kill me.

[Rothnang]

Its kind of the same deal as raising the flight ceiling and giving air a place of their own. I dont want to have to sneak everywhere so air doesnt swoop down and kill me.

That wouldn't solve anything. The reason why being a Pilot in big battles is so shitty is because the effective range for air to ground attacks is about 200 meters tops since the belly gun nerfs, but effective range for anti air missiles is 500 and the effective range for flak is 900. Being able to go up to 2000 doesn't change the fact that there is a huge area where every damn enemy with AA weapons on the battlefield gets to wail on you before you are anywhere close enough to start firing back effectively, and the same distance again if you want to get away before you die.

Even in places where the flight ceiling is high enough from ground level to get you out of flak range, trying to go up to get away is pretty much the most suicidal thing you can do right now, since you move slower while going upward, and the further up you go the less likely you are to find any terrain features that will give you cover.

[Ohaunlaim]

This is....

GOOD

STUFF


I would love to see this on the test server.

[OCNSethy]

You've been busy this week Rothnang :)

Personally, I like the idea of giving infantry the option to 'go dark' against air. We do it now as infiltrators, so its not without precedence.

[Rothnang]

Yea, an infiltrator gave me the idea, but we still killed the poor sod because his cloak didn't hold up forever.

[OCNSethy]

Yea, an infiltrator gave me the idea, but we still killed the poor sod because his cloak didn't hold up forever.

Yes, I know THAT feeling, lol

[Obstruction]

abusable. AA is already bad enough without teams of them cloaking.

as someone who obviously flies a lib too you should realize it isn't exactly disengaging because you're losing. it isn't strictly losing.

you disengage because your aircraft can't be raised by a medic and the infantry on the ground can. they also have respawn timers at 15 seconds and your aircraft may be as much as ten to fifteen minutes.

basically the infantry already has the advantage unless they are the type of retards that get farmed riding ATVs across open terrain or trying to shoot dumbfire rockets from the spawn room.

they have the tools to dominate airspace with dedicated units. they demonstrate this in large scale battles already.

sorry to burst your bubble, but if you are stupid enough to be out alone with no support and no AA then an aircraft mounted anti armor weapon should be devastating.

this goes for rocketpods also. it isn't that hard to deter ESFs from an area unless you are really stupid.

[OCNSethy]

Or your trying a squad sized Spec Op / stealth attack. Not everything in this game is going to be the Charge of the Light Brigade with a cast of thousands.

[Rothnang]

abusable. AA is already bad enough without teams of them cloaking.

as someone who obviously flies a lib too you should realize it isn't exactly disengaging because you're losing. it isn't strictly losing.

you disengage because your aircraft can't be raised by a medic and the infantry on the ground can. they also have respawn timers at 15 seconds and your aircraft may be as much as ten to fifteen minutes.


I know, and I don't think it's very fair right now that it's relatively easy for infantry to defeat vehicles given how little they have to lose vs. how much the pilots have to lose.

However, just because infantry respawns or gets revives doesn't mean they are having fun getting bombed into the ground. You will never convince people that dying is their way out of a fight, because nobody likes getting farmed for certs, and that's exactly what role that puts infantry in.


basically the infantry already has the advantage unless they are the type of retards that get farmed riding ATVs across open terrain or trying to shoot dumbfire rockets from the spawn room.

they have the tools to dominate airspace with dedicated units. they demonstrate this in large scale battles already.

Yup, Infantry has a huge advantage right now, which is why I'm trying to get a new approach to ground vs. air balance implemented that is more even.

You pretty much have no chance to get it your way as a Pilot or Tanker right now. You're in the minority. Majority opinion in this game states:

- Vehicles are too easy to replace / too common.
- Vehicles that kill a large number of infantry are overpowered.
- Vehicles that can't be easily killed by infantry are overpowered.

You can't convince people otherwise with numbers or statistics. The argument that infantry is acctually responsible for the vast majority of infantry kills, or that you can spawn literally hundreds of infantry units in the time it takes for a single vehicle cooldown has no bearing on peoples perception of this matter.

What it comes down to is that getting bombed is not a fun part of the gameplay to them because it's not something they have any agency in.

Ultimately this leaves us with one giant truth to consider:

The majority of people in this game play infantry almost exclusively.
We have a system where it's not possible to keep everyone happy.
That means it's going to tip to what keeps the most people happy.

If you're a pilot or a tanker it's simply in your best interest to advocate for systems that can even the playing field and allow everyone to have more fun. A really big aspect of that is to decrease, or eliminate the whole sense of "getting farmed" from the game.

I fly Liberators and I fucking hate it that I can't do anything to shake off an ESF that's clearly winning the fight. I fully realize that that's exactly how people on the ground feel about my Liberator when I'm killing them.

To me the first step to real balance that everyone can enjoy is to get rid of those situations that just piss people off.

Once we get to a point where ground units aren't entirely dependent on uber AA that can clear the skies to avoid getting farmed we can start having a reasonable discussion about whether or not a gun with 900 meters range that can smack aircraft that can't even see it out of the sky is maybe a bit unreasonable, or if a big chunk of resource cost for a unit that can be killed by a hand full of freebie units makes much sense.

That's a really really hard sell to make right now though, because the vast majority of people will frame the discussion as "Overpowered problems need overpowered solutions".

I for one don't want to be overpowered. I don't enjoy being overpowered, and I don't enjoy being trapped in this absurd arms race of buffs and nerfs that I have no chance of winning because I don't represent the biggest chunk of the community. I want a system where I can fly and fight and have fun without ruining other peoples fun, so that the devs don't constantly have to preserve their enjoyment by shitting on mine.

sorry to burst your bubble, but if you are stupid enough to be out alone with no support and no AA then an aircraft mounted anti armor weapon should be devastating.

this goes for rocketpods also. it isn't that hard to deter ESFs from an area unless you are really stupid.

That's exactly the same attitude as "Well, Aircraft should just avoid areas with AA in it." So if Aircraft who don't avoid AA are idiots, and Infantry who operate without heavy AA cover are idiots, Are Aircraft as well as AA units just in the game to kill idiots?

I personally think no unit should purely exist to kill idiots, they should all be part of a battle even if only used in the smartest way.

[Obstruction]

arms race of buffs and nerfs

delicious irony here. i mean that is pretty much the definition of arms race. in a war game, no less.

the guy with the funny mustache in the downfall vids will be FUCKING PISSED when he finds out how bad his air force just got nerfed by the invention of radar.

"Well, Aircraft should just avoid areas with AA in it."

i'm not exactly disagreeing with your basic sentiment. you know this already because of other threads and that we enjoy the same things. but this is a mixed unit tactical game where you aren't really "supposed" to solo the content with any particular unit type without taking risk.

it does suck that libs have to go it alone and pick their battles because they can be of help to ground units and ESFs that pretty much don't give a shit about them in return. but the solution isn't to make infantry (already a problem to libs) more of a problem to libs.

the solution is to create incentives for the behavior changes you want to see.

people aren't going to act the way you want them to unless it pays off for them to do it.

it's really that easy.

if you let infantry go invisible to aircraft then they are going to use that to make it even worse.

and basically yes if you fly into heavy flak and you stay in it and die you're a retard.

when that happens you report to platoon or outfit that there's heavy flak and we need to go in with tanks, or else we need to make fast passes with libs to draw fire while an ESF wing flies in low and pods the shit out of them.

mixed unit tactics. not solo whoring. i don't like the way liberator is boxed in right now but it seems workable as it is without ruining it further.

like i said in the other thread i think just putting the shredder on the ass would go a long way to deter ESF from farming libs. then if you mounted a walker on the dorsal position like the galaxy, well maybe that's making it a little too OP but ESF would have to roll like a pack of wolves taking down a moose, you know? they'd do it but a couple of them will pay.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-45FZhFwv2c

i'd like to add also that most of the time when it comes to no-fly zones, the infantry platoons often don't roll with dedicated AA because they get bored. it's like being the medic in the burster nest. you have to be there because there will be fatalities but it doesn't pay off. you get no cert gain.

it's like there needs to be an escort system where people/units can get some points just for being on standby.

one of the major problems in the game's incentive structure is that you can't realistically ask people to sit around on useless jobs and be ready just in case. which is what a real military does ALL THE TIME. because it works.

sit around bored as shit ready to do a job we hope you won't need to do. then do it for five minutes and be completely devastating to the enemy.

the same problem exists for ESFs. they don't go A2A because A2G pays off. and they don't fly escort to libs because they have to stick with the lib and don't get kills when the bogeys bug out to rep.

but the answer isn't to make it so that groups of fucking striker heavies cloak themselves in your exit vector so that by the time you find the flak nest you try to escape and run right into their kill zone.

[DaPope]

You have already hit on a bunch of reasons why the air is getting nerfed and now you are suggesting nerfing it again. Infantry will NEVER be happy against air/armor. If you remove them then you end up with infantry not being happy because HA/Max are too OP. It ends up being the classic "if you killed me, you are OP".

I think Obstruction brought up a good point about making an "Escort" option. Personally I really enjoy flying cover and supporting Liberators. This is great fun when working with an outfit but often doesn't translate in public play. Many times I'll form up with a random Lib to provide A2A cover and the next then I know the Lib is running straight into a swarm of bursters at 50m off the ground. If there was an "Request Escort" option that ANY pilot could press I think it would be a great way to get air to team up and provide support. I think in most cases if the Lib pilot pressed "request escort" that a friendly Scythe would accept and stay around them. Heck put in a mechanic so when there is a "escort" the XP is shared between them. Say any kills with in 300M the XP is shared between pilot/2nd gunner/3rd gunner/escort.

Now instead of looking at nerfing the air (again) you have introduced a mechanic that supports teamwork, gives a reason for an ESF to support a lib, and helps produce a better overall air experience.

*Escort option could also apply to Galaxies

[Rothnang]

I think you misunderstand the ultimate goal of this. I don't want to just give Infantry a huge boost against aircraft without expecting that some of the ridiculous aspects of infantry based AA get reevaluated as well. My main motivation in giving infantry better counterplay to air is so that as a pilot I have a chance to ever see a game where I can actually participate in large battles meaningfully and not just be a goddamn XP pinata.

I don't want to be able to just come in and utterly demolish anyone who isn't covered by AA units that kill me before I can do any damage because I don't want a game where every player worth killing is always covered by AA units that kill me before I can do any damage.

This may seem like a big nerf to air, but it's not. It's intended as a new paradigm that allows air to be buffed and made fun again. As long as we allow ground units no legitimate ways of avoiding engagements with air units we will never be able to see balance that doesn't revolve around denying air units all access to their targets.

[ThatGoatGuy]

I don't think that this is necessary, or even viable because soe will forevermore continue to nerf the shit outta air, and feed steroids to burster/turret/anything else that damages aircraft. Coming from a person who is in the air, 1 I don't see how this would help anything, 2, everyone in their right mind runs at least IR/NV on their rocket pods, so this "invisibility to aircraft would make purchasing those things less useful.

[DaPope]

Rothnang,

Infantry can hide under trees, bridges, platforms, tunnels, inside of buildings. The bases are constantly being redesigned and improved to give them more cover from air. I'm completely fine with that and think it's good for them.

You talk about stealth for infantry, that is already in place as well. They don't render unless an aircraft is within 300m. However we render to them so if they look to the sky they can move and try to hide. IR/NV/Thermal has already been nerfed as well again increasing the ability for infantry to hide from air.

There are outfits/squads that will set up dedicated AA nests at random locations, in mountains, near warp gates, towers, bases, etc... If they are smart with your suggestion they will all hold their fire until an aircraft gets in range then unleash everything upon it. The aircraft will have no warning and be immedately destroyed. You talk about it being "no fun" for infantry that is getting pounded by air. How much "fun" is it sitting at a terminal for 5-15 minutes to be able to get back in the fight?

I understand you want to stop infantry from complaining but where do you draw the line? What happens when people complain that 5 seconds is too long? Why should infantry register at all to air? Add to that all the additional lock-ons/dumbfire options availible to infantry. If they don't show up at all air will be constantly knocked out of the sky by enemies they can't even see.

[SolLeks]

I don't want to have to face more enemies with AA that I can not see, there is already so much AA that you can not fly in a med size fight. I don't like the camo idea (FYI I am a A2A pilot, Vortex+ABpods all day) from an air perspective or a ground perspective (I have more kills with my NS11A than my reaver, and thats just one of my medic guns).

Air should be feared, same with tanks. I am not sure how the current situation should be fixed but Air needs to have a place in large battles. IMO if we just swap the rolls of the burster-pull-anywhere-and-gets-rezed max with the skygaurd (It can be killed, and killed for good) then we will have a much better balanced air vs ground. If we have to nerf rocket pods into the ground then so be it, I don't care at this point. (In that regard, What I think needs to happen is either A, Fix how the tank rear damage works and give it a real hitbox or B, Remove tank rear damage all together.)

And for the people who say "oh, air can just go elsewhere" then how do you support the ground troops in your outfit? Currently, If there is 2 AA flack units up in an area, I have to stay clear of that area as an AIR to AIR pilot that only points its vortex at the ground when there is nothing in the sky, and even then I tend to just do holding patterns over the point watching for aircraft. I am not 100% sure what will fix the situation however, I don't like the invisible air cammo idea as you can already hide behind trees and inside buildings as well as other things like rocks.

[Rothnang]

You talk about stealth for infantry, that is already in place as well. They don't render unless an aircraft is within 300m. However we render to them so if they look to the sky they can move and try to hide. IR/NV/Thermal has already been nerfed as well again increasing the ability for infantry to hide from air.

There are no air to ground weapons anymore that have significantly better effective range than about 200 meters because they become too accurate if you fire from any further up, and AA weapons have ranges of 500-800 meters.

It's incredibly unbalanced in favor of ground units right now, but I don't see any good way of fixing that.


There are outfits/squads that will set up dedicated AA nests at random locations, in mountains, near warp gates, towers, bases, etc... If they are smart with your suggestion they will all hold their fire until an aircraft gets in range then unleash everything upon it. The aircraft will have no warning and be immedately destroyed. You talk about it being "no fun" for infantry that is getting pounded by air. How much "fun" is it sitting at a terminal for 5-15 minutes to be able to get back in the fight?

That already happens anyways, but by giving ground units that don't have AA capability better survival options against air we can dial back the insane power of AA guns a bit and make it less devastating. Ideally AA should have relatively short range so that it's not effective at all if you just mass it all in one place, but needs to be spread out.

I understand you want to stop infantry from complaining but where do you draw the line? What happens when people complain that 5 seconds is too long? Why should infantry register at all to air? Add to that all the additional lock-ons/dumbfire options availible to infantry. If they don't show up at all air will be constantly knocked out of the sky by enemies they can't even see.

I don't want to stop infantry from complaining, I just think that there is a legitimate frustration with the fact that if you don't have AA you are pretty much helpless against air units. You can't possibly put enough roofs and trees in the game to give a real way to never be exposed.

The dependence on AA that that creates is what ultimately drives how overpowered it has become, and there is no way to dial that back.


The current system is just a spectrum of who's getting screwed over that's been walked back and forth from one side to the other ever since Beta without ever really making anyone happy.

[Obstruction]

if you don't have AA you are pretty much helpless against air units.

let me expand the abbreviation here to maybe point out your unintentional irony.

"if you don't have ANTI AIRCRAFT you are pretty much helpless AGAINST AIR UNITS."

and then let me point out that everything on the ground is a fucking anti aircraft weapon except the goddamned knife.

[Rothnang]

What I'm getting at is that the only defensive strategy against aircraft is to damage them so much that they leave or die. You can't survive an encounter with them by escaping, and that has lead to a state of balance where dealing damage to aircraft is so paramount to ground troops that AA guns have gotten completely out of control.

The reality is, when AA guns did half as much damage as they do right now people were still organizing AA squads to instant kill air. Sure, it was harder back then, but the need to do it was there all the same, and that need will always be there in the current state of the game.

[Assist]

What I'm getting at is that the only defensive strategy against aircraft is to damage them so much that they leave or die. You can't survive an encounter with them by escaping, and that has lead to a state of balance where dealing damage to aircraft is so paramount to ground troops that AA guns have gotten completely out of control.

The reality is, when AA guns did half as much damage as they do right now people were still organizing AA squads to instant kill air. Sure, it was harder back then, but the need to do it was there all the same, and that need will always be there in the current state of the game.

The problem is the amount of damage air units can do in such a short amount of time. AA was buffed and buffed to counter that damage, and now you have the current air situation.
Once again, nerf air damage, nerf AA damage, everyone is happy. Air will be able to stay longer in large fights, ground will be able to live beyond the split second they see the air. Teamwork will be needed to take out the air, but it'll be a viable option since players will have the time to react to the onslaught.


To be perfectly honest, the truth is Liberators and ESF's are fine as they are. The balance sucks, but it works. Liberator teams are still raking in far higher score/minute than any other duo option in the game, ESF's are quick to die but extremely effective at taking out armor columns or even infantry due to their speed and maneuverability. As for ESF's 'farming' Liberators... My only suggestion is to get a better gunner. Liberator teams on TR/Waterson I play against seem to have no issues taking out 2 ESF's on them.

[Rothnang]

Once again, nerf air damage, nerf AA damage, everyone is happy. Air will be able to stay longer in large fights, ground will be able to live beyond the split second they see the air. Teamwork will be needed to take out the air, but it'll be a viable option since players will have the time to react to the onslaught.

Sorry, but that's just naive. Like I said, people were organizing instant-kill AA squads even when it took 12 bursters working together, decreasing the damage won't do anything to make people less frustrated about getting hunted by air, and it won't do anything to make air less frustrated with impenetrable domes of AA fire.

[EVILPIG]

During development I suggested that aircraft not be able to see enemy doritos.

[Rothnang]

During development I suggested that aircraft not be able to see enemy doritos.

That's pretty much the case ever since you need to be within proximity of the person doing the spotting to get the dorito. If you're in an aircraft you only see what your own crew spots, since you're never close enough to ground troops to get the spot.

[DaPope]

As for ESF's 'farming' Liberators... My only suggestion is to get a better gunner. Liberator teams on TR/Waterson I play against seem to have no issues taking out 2 ESF's on them.

The Liberator is the only vehicle that actually requires a team to be effective. If you aren't talking, haven't put time, certs, and practice into your Lib yeah you are a nice big target and ESFs will flock to you. However as Assist said, there are some VERY good Lib teams out there. It's to the point now where in our training we practice hit-and-run attacks in teams because one-on-one those Lib crews will win. At the very least a quality Liberator crew can survive long enough to make it back to a friendly base for support. There are even now Liberator crews that are PURE Anti Air and actively hunt down and kill ESFs. If you fly long enough you'll be able to spot the difference very quickly and know if they are an easy kill or if you had better keep your distance.

There are some dedicated air outfits on Waterson that are very good (some say hacking) but reguardless you have to respect those aircraft.

[KesTro]

So you're trying to tell me a guy with a rocket launcher should have more of an advantage over my ESF which I paid resources for than he already does?

No thanks I'll pass.

[Illtempered]

...or just take cover >:|

[Rothnang]

The air vs. ground discussion still lacks any real point because ground has no real counterplay to air other than killing it, and that just leaves us with a situation where no numbers tweak will ever make it fair. We're at a point where ground units can put up such strong defenses that it's completely unfair to air because they can't participate in the fight anymore, and at the same time every time you don't have defenses like that you just get mulched by air units.

Who gets a satisfying fight out of that? Nobody really, it's just both sides trying to create a situation where they can farm the other. That's not good gameplay, that's just a circle of grief.

[Falcon_br]

My outfit had 3 dedicated mosquito pilots.
Since 3 months ago I don't see any of them flying a mosquito!
They tell me it is of no use.

I just invested 2000 certs in a mosquito to see if they are right and they are.

When you are in a mosquito it is like 80% of your time probing enemy territory for AA, if it is clear you can go harass some infantry, maybe a tank.

In the first months of the game I remember my outfit forming mosquito squads, it was really cool to fly in formation and break it of deal with the threats, now we are lacking so many air pilots, that if we fly in pairs, I am happy. It was nice in the beginning of the game when we sended one mosquito flying fast to attract the AA fire and the others killed them all, now, those same AA, can kill 3-4 Mosquitos easily.

[Rothnang]

Yea, AA is absolutely no fun to play against at this point, but neither was playing against Aircraft when AA was much, much weaker.

[Goliith]

I find myself agreeing to a large extent, though I believe that perhaps the mechanic should be a little different, rather than just staying still while crouched, it would be a keybind to press to 'dig in' or some such, nothing crazy, like a 1-2 second reload animation type thing.

I also believe that anything carrying Dedicated AA (Secondary Flaks/Walkers on Tanks, Strikers, Annihilators, G2A Lock ons, Burster Max, etc.) Should not be able to 'camo' or should perhaps take much longer to 'dig in'

I'm also of the opinion that should infantry be able to hide, AA range should at least be halved, since the ability to ambush Aircraft becomes much more possible (That is, if AA is able to camo, if not...well Bursters still need less range)

I am not a pilot. I fly, but not dedicatedly. I gun a liberator for my buddy who loves to fly(and is quite good at it). I believe Rothnang is completely right that currently is a Damage race, which is not very enjoyable for anyone, and that nerfing A2G and AA Damage does nothing but shift the imbalance elsewhere.

[Edit]: NVG/IRNV Should be able to 'see through' the camo, considering you have to be <150m to reliably see anything with them anyway.

[Stardouser]

Aircraft are too able to interact with infantry because they hover so easily. The better design would have been to have high speed ESFs with bombs, not hover focus with rockets as primary air to ground. That way there would be much less need to use deus ex machina design mechanics such as 'crouch and mysteriously become invisible'.

[Rothnang]

Aircraft are too able to interact with infantry because they hover so easily. The better design would have been to have high speed ESFs with bombs, not hover focus with rockets as primary air to ground. That way there would be much less need to use deus ex machina design mechanics such as 'crouch and mysteriously become invisible'.

The problem here is that the speed and maneuverability of aircraft is heavily condensed in the game to make them able to fit into the same battlespace as infantry and tanks. In real life aircraft don't move at 150-300 km/h, they move at 600-2000+ km/h. Helicopters are the slowest aircraft in real life, they cap out at around 350 km/h because the retreating blade loses lift if the helicopter moves any faster than that. The flight ceiling for an aircraft in real life also isn't 1km, but somewhere in the realm of 10-20km, with many military aircraft being able to pop up to almost twice that. On the other hand, a banking turn for even the sleekest of military jets is extremely wide at such high speeds because the pilots tend to enjoy having blood in their brain.

In PS2 that's not really reasonable of course, if the stats were anywhere similar to those of a real life aircraft you could cross the entire map in 20 seconds with afterburners on, and then you'd probably die overshooting the map edge by several hundred meters with no chance to even turn around in 10 seconds.

Just like many other things in PS2 the relative speed and flight ceiling of aircraft has been scaled to fit the size of the game. In that regard, I don't find it unreasonable that the ability of aircraft to find infantry and vehicles is also scaled a bit, since finding your target is the biggest challenge to any aerial attack in real life.

[Stardouser]

I'm betting we could easily sustain an additional 100-150 kph cruise speed on ESFs without ruining anything yet still have this effect. Yes the continents are small but not that small. And of course, this would not be an isolated change, everything necessary to fit it would be made - laser guided bombs that infantry can direct so that the jets don't have to get down to 100 meters to look for all their targets, and other changes.

Hopefully years from now when we have seamless intercontinental travel/flight this would be top priority.

[Rothnang]

It's not just the size of the continent that limits how fast something can travel in the game, but also the nature of the way the games client/server relationship works. When you're in an aircraft you will already notice that while going at even just around 150km/h your gunners will start to desynch and get this weird stutter in their view because the position of the aircraft isn't updated to their client with a high enough frequency to look smooth.
The faster things start to go the more your client has to correct their position when it gets a new update from the server. There is essentially a kind of "maximum speed" to objects that can change their vector in the game before they start jerking and warping visibly.
In fact, there is even a speed limit inherent in the game loop somewhere, if things start going fast enough to blow right through a collision object in between loops the collision detection can easily bug out and things start going through walls.

[Stardouser]

It's not just the size of the continent that limits how fast something can travel in the game, but also the nature of the way the games client/server relationship works. When you're in an aircraft you will already notice that while going at even just around 150km/h your gunners will start to desynch and get this weird stutter in their view because the position of the aircraft isn't updated to their client with a high enough frequency to look smooth.
The faster things start to go the more your client has to correct their position when it gets a new update from the server. There is essentially a kind of "maximum speed" to objects that can change their vector in the game because of that.

And is this a PS2(or high player count) specific technical limitation or no game ever can do any better?

[Helwyr]

Basically the idea is that ground units have an ability that allows them to camouflage themselves from aircraft, and not be visible at all to any aircraft going overhead.


1) Remove Infantry from vehicle based radar.

2) Trees, lots of trees! .. and other overhead cover.

3) Across the board counter to IR/Thermal (suit mod for Infantry/MAX, benefit of high level Stealth option on vehicles (rather than just a reduced lock on timer).

[Rothnang]

Pretty much all multiplayer games do this in some way or another, there is really no getting around it. I can't say if the limitations in PS2 are more extreme than in other games, because that's some really core technical stuff.

Maybe you could up the speed of aircraft another 50% or so, but that still begs the question why you'd want to. The game is already full of weapons specifically designed to kill aircraft that are hovering in order to reduce the ability to hover in a combat zone - the problem there is that once again the thing that defines an aircrafts operation is not the terrain or anything like that, but purely what kind of resistance the enemy is putting up.

[Stardouser]

Pretty much all multiplayer games do this in some way or another, there is really no getting around it. I can't say if the limitations in PS2 are more extreme than in other games, because that's some really core technical stuff.

Maybe you could up the speed of aircraft another 50% or so, but that still begs the question why you'd want to. The game is already full of weapons specifically designed to kill aircraft that are hovering in order to reduce the ability to hover in a combat zone - the problem there is that once again the thing that defines an aircrafts operation is not the terrain or anything like that, but purely what kind of resistance the enemy is putting up.

You yourself have pointed out that bursters are too powerful, and they are(and since I recently got some SC I am pretty amazed at Skyguards too). If aircraft were designed to fly faster and be less able to hover, then they would interact less with vehicles and more only with vehicles via laser guided bombs, and, they would still have rockets, but with hovering harder to do, they won't be able to slowly go down to 100 meters off the ground and snipe them (Infantry out the in open between bases would stick out, but they'd be safe in and around bases and facilities). This would allow AA to be reduced in power.

It would be a start towards making this a war where vehicles dominate the open areas but infantry are needed to capture bases. Not to get off topic but it's related, my ultimate vision would be 20km X 20km continents with triple the space between bases we have now, where you would actually need to move troops as convoys for protection. That's maybe a think for PS3(or, uh. PS2 Version GU 40 in 2016 anyway) but it's something to think about.

In this utopian vision, aircraft not being able to hover and pick off infantry wouldn't make them less busy or useful. Interdicting sunderers on their way to a siege would MEAN something. Right now the distances are so short there's a good chance they will get there before they can be sighted and destroyed from the air. Once they do get there, people can start, well, spawning bursters. And right now, hey, even if you do kill a sunderer or two on the way, no big deal, right? The next guy in your squad can try it and it's still a very short drive - no problem at all!

Bases, in such big continents, could be designed bigger, and have more interior areas where only infantry could reach, to counteract the current problem of 20 tanks pulling up outside your outpost while 1 guy caps. Bear in mind that there would be other facets to include to what I am talking about, I am kind of only putting out specific changes in isolation. I'd make a huge post explaining it all but the technical inability to do large continents makes it irrelevant for the next 2 or 3 years.

There's also the instant gratification problem where people want to be back in the fight in 5 seconds and want to reach the target in less than 45 seconds, we need to be cured of that before people will accept large continents with triple the travel distances to the next target.

[Rothnang]

I like the mobility of aircraft as it is. I would make the speed difference between the different aircraft types smaller because maneuverability is a huge advantage as it is in a dogfight without also needing an ironclad guarantee that your opponent can never get away, but overall it's not too bad.

Stopping aircraft from hovering just deprives them of any capacity to interact with the terrain, and that makes the overall experience of flying much worse. They have already made the range of aircraft much smaller, but unfortunately failed to follow suit with AA options.