Proposed ESF nerf: Why? Will it improve revenue?

[phungus]

Reading the discussions here and on the main forum I'm continually struck with the same question. Why is ESF maneuverability getting nerfed?


I have only seen players who don't fly ESFs or who fly them poorly support the changes. As far as I can tell the idea is to limit ESF maneuverability to become more inline with traditional FW models that exist in every game with fighter aircraft. This seems nonsensical; PS2 doesn't have a physics engine to properly simulate a FW model anyway, and FW models have been played with for decades and are stale in comparison to what's there in PS2.

So why, what's the design goal here? The only thing I see this doing is making it more difficult to dodge in hoverduels, and I don't see how or why that would be a good thing - it only compresses the skill cap.


Is the intent behind this change simply to lower the skill ceiling? Why is that a good thing? How will this make things more engaging for the player?


I guess I just don't get it, I see no benefits. Everyone who plays ESFs enough to be effected by this are just going to be nerfed (which never feels good), they all pay money (most are members), and it's only going to help poor players (who don't pay nearly as much as dedicated ESF players) who mass in the air making it easier to gank ESFs with numbers instead of skill. If this change has the effect I assume it will, especially since it coincides with Star Citizen's hanger release, then all it will do is negatively effect players who actually spend money and encourage them to spend it elsewhere (Star Citizen).


Am I missing something here? Is there any reason to nerf Vthrust in ESFs other then to lower the skill ceiling and negatively impact the experience of dedicated players who actually spend decent $$$ on the game? If we looked at the posters who support nerfing ESF maneuverability vs those who oppose what does the revenue look like that comes from those voices? I've probably spend the least of those who fly ESFs yet I've still dropped over $100 (I think it's around $120, with another $50 planned for the ESF update that I will not be spending now with the proposed changes) and every other ESF player who's posted here is a straight up member - those who want the ESF nerfed run the gambit with most being non paying scrooges. I really don't get it, it's like the devs want to slap the hand that feeds them while coddling the casual that refuses to drop a dime. I could be wrong here though, maybe the scores of casual players who repeatedly demand ESF nerfs and a FW model will suddenly open their pockets the moment the hard core players have their favorite toys nerfed, but I don't see why this would happen.


Also why do people think a FW flight model would work with PS2 in the first place? With the lack of necessary physics effects (like a flight envelope, and proper energy management) a FW model will be a gutted poor man's simulation more simplified then even BF3. With rendering mechanics granting invisible god mode to players dynamically at ranges beyond 100m it would be outright impossible to acquire and engage targets with such a model. All I see FW model doing is reducing complexity and limiting player actions to create a more restricted and less engaging playing experience. I don't see a single benefit to FW models (or nerfing VTOL ability to be more FW like) and a full FW model would simply not work with the current engine at all...

So what's the deal here? What purpose does the proposed nerf serve, and how do the bean counters reckon it will increase revenue? I only see this change making the gameplay less engaging, and I don't see how it will increase revenue especially since those of us who likely would drop cash for the ESF update are significantly less likely to do so now that we know we are getting hit with a huge nerf to our favorite thing in the game.


What am I missing here? From a gameply experience or in terms of revenue please enlighten with arguments as to how this will benefit either.

[DarkBalths]

Everyone in the entire world hates the ESF fuckers who float over a base and rocketpod the living hell out of infantry. Instead of having "helicopters" that float overhead and annihilate infantry, they're trying to lean more towards strafing runs, and coordinated airstrikes. PS2 is SUPPOSED to be a teamwork game, so I'm assuming the end goal is something like this:
Let's say we've got a 12 man squad. 3 players are dedicated ESF pilots. The rest are infantry moving into a base. "Oh no, there's a bunch of enemy infantry at the base we're pushing into!" Lead puts squad waypoint at the target infantry and tells the three flyboys to come in, dump some rockets into the waypoint, and fly on out.

See how that's more team oriented, and more interesting than some guy lone wolfing in his mosquito lolpodding infantry as they exit the spawn room?

I think [and hope] that's what they're going for.

[maradine]

It's possible the skill ceiling is too high for where they want the majority of their revenue-bearing players. Skill ceiling isn't a judgmental scalar where every time you crank it up it's better, and every time you crank it down it's worse.

There are things they could hypothetically add to the flight model that would make anyone without a lot of keyboard real-estate, an analog six-axis control rig, head virtualization, and an 18-year-old reflex profile utterly melt. Would it be better? Only for the people who can effectively fight above that line. They like the perceived superiority it gives them because they're on the fun side of the line. They think that anyone below that line shouldn't be able to ever take them in a fight.

The rest of the pack gets frustrated. Why does this stupid game require you to control all your thrust vectors at once with different buttons? Why do only "skillshot" engine hits cause damage? Why is this so hard?

So, to answer your question: if the skill ceiling goes down, maybe more pilots get an opportunity to feel like they're badass and dump money into the air game. So they tune the line in order to find a balance between accessible and virtuoso. Or maybe not. Who knows - they certainly haven't communicated the vision, so your guess is as good as mine.

Oh, and:


I have only seen players who don't fly ESFs or who fly them poorly support the changes

Consider yourself empirically corrected.

[phungus]

Everyone in the entire world hates the ESF fuckers who float over a base and rocketpod the living hell out of infantry. Instead of having "helicopters" that float overhead and annihilate infantry, they're trying to lean more towards strafing runs, and coordinated airstrikes. PS2 is SUPPOSED to be a teamwork game, so I'm assuming the end goal is something like this:
Let's say we've got a 12 man squad. 3 players are dedicated ESF pilots. The rest are infantry moving into a base. "Oh no, there's a bunch of enemy infantry at the base we're pushing into!" Lead puts squad waypoint at the target infantry and tells the three flyboys to come in, dump some rockets into the waypoint, and fly on out.

See how that's more team oriented, and more interesting than some guy lone wolfing in his mosquito lolpodding infantry as they exit the spawn room?

I think [and hope] that's what they're going for.

I see the argument but it wol't play out that way. The changes to hover allowed me to still gun down ground targets fine with hover chasis on my sythe - the only noteable effect of the Vthrust nerf is reduction in dodge speed and will only matter in hoverduels (and more significantly in single ace vs 2/3 competent ESFs, the ace's ability to dodge will decrease significantly, meaning the average ESFs land more shots making it more difficult to engage 2/3 v 1 as an ace). maradine points out why this could benificial in the post above, but make no mistake this change will not help "ground pounders" or encourage "teamwork" in any way I can see.

[ChipMHazard]

What I don't get is why you thought this change needed a new thread (Not writing this in my capacity as a mod, but a forum member)? Why do you think that only those who either don't fly or are just not very good at it support this change? Why did you think that it was a good idea to use "Those of us who fly are paying customers, the filthy plebs on the ground aren't!" as an argument? I'm obviously paraphrasing here because what you wrote came of as being rather elitist.
Why do you think that most of those who fly in PS2 are members? Do you have proof of this? Why do you think that it matters how much a certain part of a playerbase actually spends on the game? Should balancing actually be affected by this? Why do you think that the devs even consider this to be an important overall goal when making balancing changes?

Did you just refer to those who have yet to spend any money on the game as scrooges?!? I would strongly advice against going down that train of thought.

*Ahem* Safe to state that I completely dismiss the premises of your argument. Personally I would rather have the flight model be that of VTOL being used just for that and the flying being more traditional. If for no other reason than I think the ESFs are too versatile and that makes it rather hard to implement new aerial vehicles later on that could fill other roles... Like close ground support. But that's another story for another time.
I don't see any reason as to why a more traditional flight model wouldn't work in PS2. I'm sure that if they wanted to they could make it work.
I also don't think that is what they are trying to implement here by means of this change.I think that SOE believes this maneuver to have become so important that those who cannot perform it almost always lose. Or perhaps they never intended for the ESF to be used in such a manner. Who knows. I have no idea and as such you could be right. I personally doubt it.
I would have liked for the devs to have explained why they are going to make this change, unless they already have and I've just missed it. We will certainly be getting a better idea of "Why?" when we see/hear more about the upcoming ESF changes.

Edit: Also, why do you think this has anything to do with Star Citizen?

[phungus]

Why do you think this has anything to do with Star Citizen?
Because everything about life is driven by competition, specifically competition for resources. Star Citizen and PS2 will be in direct competition for $$$ from the same customer base, especially those who fly ESFs.

What I don't get is why you thought this change needed a new thread
It might not. But Snafu's thread is cluttered with other ideas and begins with the premise that ESF pilots should revolt/quit because of the changes. I really just want to hear good arguments as to why a Fixed Wing model (or more FW like model) would improve gameplay or increase revenue. I had not heard a single argument that made logical sense yet. You have the power to merge this thread with Snafu's, you haven't yet so I assume you have reason not to.

Why did you think that it was a good idea to use "Those of us who fly are paying customers, the filthy plebs on the ground aren't!" as an argument? Because everyone who beats me consistently in the air is a paying member, and everyone who is good in the air I have contacted and flown with is either a member or has paid a significant ammount of money (over $100), and I send messages to and try to fly with alot of ESF players on Connery. Put it this way, if we could see the data over the PS2 main forums from those supporting the maneuverability nerf to those against it I would be very confident that the ESF players who are against the idea not only pay more on average (by at least a factor of 3), but also as a whole have spent at least 3 times the cash - I would confidently bet up to $1000 on it, would you be willing to take that bet if it were possible?

Personally I would rather have the flight model be that of VTOL being used just for that and the flying being more traditional.
So you think ground targets should be completely immune to ESFs? With how the dynamic invisible god mode fields players generate work, FW craft would have no ability to engage infantry targets since those targets would literally never render.

I think the ESFs are too versatile and that makes it rather hard to implement new aerial vehicles later on that could fill other roles... Like close ground support.
I've spent over 500 hours in an ESF, yet my SPH and Kills per hour is still higher in a MAX (that I have spent less then a 10th the time with). My zero resource heavy assault has a SPH and KPH gain of nearly 90% my ESFs. What you think does not fit the data, ESFs do not even outperform Infantry at all skill levels, and even the dedicated ESF pilots can't outperform their MAXes. Daddy, one of the most notorious primarily ESF players even outperforms his ESF with Light Assault, by a significant margin.

ESFs are not too versatile, or even combat effective. What they are is fun, and I don't see the point in trying to ruin that by going to a traditional and very restricting flight model.

[ChipMHazard]

Because everything about life is driven by competition, specifically competition for resources. Star Citizen and PS2 will be in direct competition for $$$ from the same customer base, especially those who fly ESFs.

Only as so far that all games compete with each other. I don't agree that Star Citizen and Planetside 2 are in direct competition with each other beyond that. Even if both of them feature flying.

It might not. But Snafu's thread is cluttered with other ideas and begins with the premise that ESF pilots should revolt/quit because of the changes. I really just want to hear good arguments as to why a Fixed Wing model (or more FW like model) would improve gameplay or increase revenue. I had not heard a single argument that made logical sense yet. You have the power to merge this thread with Snafu's, you haven't yet so I assume you have reason not to.

Because some people would prefer a more traditional way of flying? Seems like a perfectly valid reason to me whether or not you agree with it. Would it improve gameplay? No idea, it would be different and might help to alleviate certain issues that some players have brought up; examples being hover combat and rocketpodders. If the devs are seeing fewer and fewer players, nor at least not as many as they had hoped for, flying around in ESFs against other ESFs then that might also be a reason. I still don't see why an increase in sales is supposed to be the driving factor here and as such I don't see the relevance of whether or not this will increase or hurt the sales of weapons and cosmetics, which are the only things you can buy for an ESF. I would think that said items would be bought either way, except if they completely mocked it up.
You're right I could simply merge them but the threads are different enough that I don't personally think it's needed. Still don't see the reason for making a new thread about it though, although I can see your reasoning behind it.

Because everyone who beats me consistently in the air is a paying member, and everyone who is good in the air I have contacted and flown with is either a member or has paid a significant ammount of money (over $100), and I send messages to and try to fly with alot of ESF players on Connery. Put it this way, if we could see the data over the PS2 main forums from those supporting the maneuverability nerf to those against it I would be very confident that the ESF players who are against the idea not only pay more on average (by at least a factor of 3), but also as a whole have spent at least 3 times the cash - I would confidently bet up to $1000 on it, would you be willing to take that bet if it were possible?

Unless you've met a large enough sample size of the entire playerbase which prefers to fly ESFs then I wouldn't try waging anything. Yes I would wager that the majority of those that pilot ESFs aren't big spenders and/or have even spent anything on the game. Generally speaking only relatively few, percentage wise, actually purchase anything in a F2P game. That's how the market has worked so far, but I could of course be wrong and things could have changed.
I also wouldn't mind putting money down on there being no more of your so called paying customers whom are against the changes than there are those whom are for it, or at least indifferent towards it. Unless you're willing to find every single person who spends a large part of their time flying ESFs I would advice against trying to use it as an argument. Because unless you can provide proof to back up your claim then it might turn into a silly fallacy.
Also I still don't see what paying has to do with balancing. Those who spend money on the game have no more say on balancing issues than those whom do not. If you truly believe in that elitist attitude then I will simply ignore that argument completely as being an actual fallacy.
Also I obviously wouldn't wager with someone over the internet, even if I believed I was right. Only a complete tosser would ever do that, for the internet is dark and full of terrors.

So you think ground targets should be completely immune to ESFs? With how the dynamic invisible god mode fields players generate work, FW craft would have no ability to engage infantry targets since those targets would literally never render.

Did I write immune? No, I didn't. Would I prefer it if ESFs were focused on an air superiority role instead of the hybrid build we have now? Yes, yes I would. That would make it easier to balance for that specific role and would allow for SOE to make a new ground support aircraft. In other words I do not personally think that the ESFs should be focused so much on attacking ground targets, they should be mostly about taking out other aircraft.
But if pilots were still able to hit infantry targets then so be it, at least it wouldn't be as easy as it is now. Heck, they could even make completely different loadouts for the ESF that would allow it to perform specific roles.

I've spent over 500 hours in an ESF, yet my SPH and Kills per hour is still higher in a MAX (that I have spent less then a 10th the time with). My zero resource heavy assault has a SPH and KPH gain of nearly 90% my ESFs. What you think does not fit the data, ESFs do not even outperform Infantry at all skill levels, and even the dedicated ESF pilots can't outperform their MAXes. Daddy, one of the most notorious primarily ESF players even outperforms his ESF with Light Assault, by a significant margin.

How was that relevant to what I wrote? I wrote versatile, not the most deadly nor the most cost effective.

ESFs are not too versatile, or even combat effective. What they are is fun, and I don't see the point in trying to ruin that by going to a traditional and very restricting flight model.

Well I think they are too versatile and also very effective at what players use them for. Are they fun? I guess, although I find the dog fighting to be a bit dull and silly really. But that's just my opinion on the matter... Which is funny when you think of it because.... Oddly enough different people find different things to be fun. And even more strange is that none of them are wrong or right, funny that. What you see as being devoid of fun and restrictive, other people see as being fun and just as restrictive as what we have now.. Which is to say not restrictive at all.
But if this change and the upcoming changes do end up having an adverse effect on the ESF gameplay then I won't hesitate to agree with you. For now I simply don't see the problem being as big as some people think, at least not being worse than some players having to play in a different way.

[Eggy]

? ESFs are the only vehicle in the entire game that gives 2 weapon systems to 1 person. This makes them very versatile.
They are also able to 1V1 most of there ground based counters and in >90% of the time come out on top, so again very versatile.

MBTs were fun and yet there max speed, hill climbing and traction was nerfed so they became more balanced and could be countered.

Harrasers were fun but there composite armour was nerfed so they became more balanced and can now be countered even easier.

Libs were fun, but Dalton, Zepher and "the other one" all got nerfed/altered so they became more balanced.

You see the ESFs as this totaly honourable red baron style dog fighting elite cadre of total uber awesomness.

What the guy next to you sees is a vulture with 2 weapon systems thats able to fly around and pretty much with impunity pick off target with no resistance while hovering staticly in the air.

This "in air turret" was one of the first things mentioned in the pre-tech videos as something the devs wanted to avoid.
As someone else has allready highlighted above, this "change" will force the ESF that wishes to engage a ground target to do straffing runs instead of flying in, Stoping movement completely and unloading.

I also have paid mucho dollars since day 1. I own the AA gun for the prowler, the striker, the skyguard, the anihaltor, the grounder and the dual burster and I still get killed daily by an esf thats able to stop on a dime and unload all its clips from all its weapons in less time than it takes me to lock on or get hit reg.

As someone has posted above ESFs should have had the Air to Air role primarily and had to severly gimp themselves to be Air To Ground. Just like MBTs and Harrasers have to do when facing armour, air and infantry.

[AThreatToYou]

I won't put any doubt into saying that most ESF Aces are paying customers. Big paying customers, and they tarry far into the rage-zone when literally anything negative is done to ESF. Yet, what that high skill ceiling in an ESF does is it makes a single game unit be dominant over many other game units and even its equivalent set.

I see this change coming directly from it being more difficult to chase down an ESF as an interceptor than it is just to spam flak at it. The PS2 devs wanted us to use ESF to fight other ESF. That did not pan out well, and I will agree whole-heartedly that hovering ESF are pretty well protected against interception, largely because the interception relies on having superior speed and maneuverability. When the battle comes to a hover-fight, the helicopter hover-dueller will then have superior speed and acceleration due to the hover chassis and vertical thrust mechanics that assists in its area of expertise, which is killing ground targets. So now the interceptor is statistically inferior to the hover-spammer with an easy-to-bait strategy with no obvious counter.

Case the point, nerf. I don't like this nerf. I think ESF should be able to straight-up hover right on a point like in PS1, because hovering ESF are so damn easy to shoot down from the ground. In any case, for ESF v ESF, I emphatically support this nerf. It's needed. I just wish we had another option. Like, reducing active ESF vthrust but increasing passive ESF hover capability. Actually I'm pretty sure that will fix everything.

[maradine]

I see this change coming directly from it being more difficult to chase down an ESF as an interceptor than it is just to spam flak at it. The PS2 devs wanted us to use ESF to fight other ESF. That did not pan out well, and I will agree whole-heartedly that hovering ESF are pretty well protected against interception, largely because the interception relies on having superior speed and maneuverability. When the battle comes to a hover-fight, the helicopter hover-dueller will then have superior speed and acceleration due to the hover chassis and vertical thrust mechanics that assists in its area of expertise, which is killing ground targets. So now the interceptor is statistically inferior to the hover-spammer with an easy-to-bait strategy with no obvious counter.


Very astute - hadn't even considered that. Although, again, who knows what they have in mind.

[NewSith]

If it was up to me I would've removed the hovering as a whole and make all ESFs CTOL. But that's too hard to do properly in a game with thousands of players, because balancing, mechanics and whine.

[snafus]

It seems Rak from NUC was able to snag a convo with higby and kovmo on some of the matters relating to the possible vertical thrust nerf.

I was able to talk to Higby and Kevmo more about the reverse maneuver nerf. I showed Kevmo examples of maneuvers that rely on afterburners in VTOL that aren't reverse maneuvers(yeah there is more to it than just the reverse maneuver) and we talked about ways to make the air game more interesting without neutering the reverse maneuver. He seemed well aware that this nerf will actually make the air game less interesting and it seemed very unlikely that it will go live like this. The most popular idea discussed of course was tying the maneuver to AB tanks and I think that's the way they'll end up going with it. I also made the suggestion of giving the pilot direct control over thruster position. Kevmo liked that idea but stated that it would require a lot of work to implement something like that. Higby mentioned that when things are more finalized, he wants to gather the top pilots and try things out on test.

Though I still very much so disagree with them tampering with a great system. At least we have some feed back on the purpose and situation of the changes.

Now on some of the arguments being laid out here I can only speak for the pilots I interact with. I regularly fly with the top pilots on Connery and we gossip to each other worse then 15 year old girls. And we all are very much so financially and emotionally committed to this game. Hell I have spent over 300$ so far and that may be low balling it. And I know from word of mouth alone that the other guys have put quite a few bucks in them selves.

Now this doesn't make me more important then a non paying players. I simply love the shit out of this game and wanted to support them as much as I could. But their recent direction they seemed to have taken very much so is a slap to the face of all the dedicated pilots I fly with or against.

From my experience ESF are probably the most sensitive to any forms of changes or abnormalities that take place in game "lag". Flying an ESF as a top tier pilot demands that you have full understanding of your aircraft and be faster or at least equal to your opponents reaction time and skill. That is why we are always so prissy about even the smallest changes to our aircraft. Have you ever wondered why after every major patch a bunch of ESF pilots cry about sloppy controls? It's because most patches reset and lower our vehicle sensitivity without actually showing you it was done.

Now SOE has told us we are not taking a 10%, or even 30% reduction to vertical thrust, but 75% reduction. If we cry when it is a slight difference to our perceived standard then how do you think we will react to that? We are freaking out because the very aspect that so many of us have paid hundreds of dollars for and played for even more is about to be butchered for the sake of making it casual friendly.

Now I am no business major and have no experience with what it takes to run a game company. But how could it be smart to alienate potentially a large portion of your pilots for a chance to grab newer players? From what I have seen there won't be a resurgent of new bodies until the console version hits the shelves. But anyway I am just another bitter air *** who hopes that SOE will keep the only challenging aspect intact in this game. The challenge that air combat gives is the sole reason I continue to play this game. If they reduce that to a hooked on phonics level, me and many other pilots will simply move on to star citizen or other promising flight games.

[maradine]

The short answer is, "if getting 100 pilots partially invested is worth more than losing 10 who are". I really don't know. I had a few years in the F2P industry, and it was just as much long-tail as it was whale maintenance. Whether $300 qualifies as a whale here is an interesting side question.

I've already dumped far more money into Star Citizen than I have into PS2 (I've been with Roberts for almost 25 years - I'm a bit of a sucker). That doesn't mean I don't want them to find the right balance here. I want flight to be rewarding, but I don't want one aspect of it to be the only one that really matters. It sounds like the right people are aware of the issue - here's hoping this summit produces something everyone will like.

[Wahooo]

This "in air turret" was one of the first things mentioned in the pre-tech videos as something the devs wanted to avoid.


Really this. Though it isn't saying that this is a good thing now as it so completely changes the way people fly. It was a major "this was something we did NOT want from PS1" and that was "dog fighting" was just turreting. It had seemed the devs wanted to go with somewhat more traditional fixed wing type of flying but that isn't what we got. Had the original design of the ESFs been this way it would be fine, but to change it now?
It doesn't affect me as I am one of the worst pilots in the game, BUT changes like this need major discussion and justification from the Devs because it does completely change a whole play style.

[Carver]

Or perhaps they never intended for the ESF to be used in such a manner.

I suspect that this is the case. If you were supposed to be able to fly backwards there would be a "Fly Backwards" key.

[pixelshader]

If you can't use the mechanic behind 'the reverse manoeuvre' in your sleep it'd be essentially impossible to truly understand why this change is moronic, to be blunt. Because you can not have thoroughly experienced what ps2 air combat has to give. The esf air game is a gem that apparently soe still doesn't realise they have after what, nearly a year?

The dogfighting in this game transcends traditional simulators with their ancient gameplay of 'being able to get a firing solution that isn't a headon equals victory'. Instead you fight by pitching your own combination of simultaneous aiming and avoiding being aimed at against that of the enemy. In a fair fight at least. You still have your common gameplay of things like choosing good engagements, surprising people, etc.

Don't get me wrong, I have a history of playing traditional air combat sims and I personally understand, from experience, that they have a virtually limitless complexity which arises from the simple problem of shooting down the enemy in the 'planes go forward through air' situation. All I'm saying is that anyone who has extensive experience with the dogfighting in ps2 understands that this game's dogfighting has its own version of infinite skillcap air combat gameplay, a version that isn't seen anywhere else and is probably some kind of fluke genius. It's thoroughly refreshing.

When I read the changes on the pts I was literally shocked at the sheer lack of knowledge they represented. I thought maybe going from 8 to 2 in a unit I had no understanding of might not actually be a big change, but I tried it out and it most definitely is. It's a crippling nerf to the thing primarily responsible for elevating ps2's air above some combination of 'heliturrets' and 'babies first flight model', for the hovering and forward flight modes of esf respectively. It's not even possible for it to have a positive effect, at least while you still believe in good games. The nerf could be fine if it were light, but it is the opposite.

I take strength in the knowledge that such a stupid change probably can't make it to live intact. I hope.

[exohkay]

I don't see it going live. It'll fucking cripple the airgame.

Has it ever once been raised as a problem? No!

I think air is very difficult to begin flying, especially when you're a new player, but that's common among any game. BF3 was fucking notoriously difficult and boring if you're a new player. Utter shit.

[ChipMHazard]

It seems Rak from NUC was able to snag a convo with higby and kovmo on some of the matters relating to the possible vertical thrust nerf.

Though I still very much so disagree with them tampering with a great system. At least we have some feed back on the purpose and situation of the changes.

SOE really should know by now that you have to make such changes clear to the community and not require said community to find out "why?" themselves. But yes, at least we know have some feedback concerning the changes... If not actually an explanation as to why.

Just to be clear on my stance on this subject. I don't object to people not wanting nor liking this change. Only some of the arguments presented. This change alone might certainly weaken the current flight mechanics and as such probably won't be a good change on its own. As always I want SOE to pick something and stick with it instead of trying to incorporate too many conflicting features into one mechanic, if that makes any sense. (The Prowler is an example of this way of thinking)

I would still prefer it if they made the ESF more about fighting aircraft and less about attacking ground targets, this can of course be done by other means. I'm also not a fan of how dog fighting works in PS2, as I've stated before, although I have nothing against this kind of manuvering since I've always enjoyed it in space sims like Independence War. But I just don't like how it's been done in PS2. Many others do and that's completely fine.

Now SOE is going to have to make choice as to whether or not they want to keep the current flight model as is or make serious changes that might alienate their current flying playerbase. At least they've understood that it would be a good idea to have a discussion with said playerbase.

[PredatorFour]

Funny people are really moaning about this like its some game breaker. Soe already nerfed ESF's for me when they introduced the new nose gun changes making it far easier to kill other ESF's in flight. That change was definately not needed, i'd of taken this reverse change over that anyday.

Why ??? Cos then people might have to fly smart and 'hide' in the air using scenery as cover, rather than fly along in view of everyone only to hit the brakes and fly away in the opposite direction when fired upon cos your 'leet'.

If most people actually understood how to take down reverse flyers (which can be fairly easy) then there wouldn't be as much outcry as there is now and it is definitely not game breaking limiting it's ability as alot of diehard pilots testify.

[SolLeks]

I would still prefer it if they made the ESF more about fighting aircraft and less about attacking ground targets, this can of course be done by other means.

I would like to note that the current proposed change will do nothing in this regard. It only hurts Air vs Air fighting and will have little or no effect on air vs ground.

[Chefkoch]

First off i dont fly at all.

My fix for all this would be to implent a 2nd Aircraft for all factions where that moves like the current one but cant use rocketpods.

[Boildown]

The dogfighting in this game transcends traditional simulators with their ancient gameplay of 'being able to get a firing solution that isn't a headon equals victory'. Instead you fight by pitching your own combination of simultaneous aiming and avoiding being aimed at against that of the enemy. In a fair fight at least. You still have your common gameplay of things like choosing good engagements, surprising people, etc.

Don't get me wrong, I have a history of playing traditional air combat sims and I personally understand, from experience, that they have a virtually limitless complexity which arises from the simple problem of shooting down the enemy in the 'planes go forward through air' situation. All I'm saying is that anyone who has extensive experience with the dogfighting in ps2 understands that this game's dogfighting has its own version of infinite skillcap air combat gameplay, a version that isn't seen anywhere else and is probably some kind of fluke genius. It's thoroughly refreshing.

As someone else that has played a high fidelity flight model air combat sim (Aces High), this is the only argument against this change that speaks to me. Given that the PS2 devs are completely incompetent at making a flight model with any degree of resemblance to real physics (air resistance takes six semesters of calculus for an aeronautical engineer to learn how to calculate, E states would be a couple semesters easier at least, but they have neither), and also given that they've stumbled upon something at least different than what every other low-fidelity flight model game has, I can see the argument of not removing it.

Its kind of like the feign death pull in classic Everquest. Not intended, eventually they decided to leave it in and it became a core gameplay mechanic.

Unlike feign pulling, I'm not in favor of leaving this one in. I still say hover-fights are an abomination and lead to unsolvable balance problems between air and ground. And that's what it comes down to. No one really cares about what goes on in the skies until it affects the ground. ESFs should be clearing the way for friendly gals and libs, not doing the killing of ground targets themselves unless completely ignored by the enemy.

Right now surface to air weapons are ridiculously overpowered, and they have to be, because of lolpods. Just get rid of lolpods and they can leave everything as is after a lockon and skyguard nerf, and everyone will be happy. They don't really need to mess with the hover modes if they just do this. But failing that, they need to make the hover mode change.

[SolLeks]

As someone else that has played a high fidelity flight model air combat sim (Aces High), this is the only argument against this change that speaks to me. Given that the PS2 devs are completely incompetent at making a flight model with any degree of resemblance to real physics (air resistance takes six semesters of calculus for an aeronautical engineer to learn how to calculate, E states would be a couple semesters easier at least, but they have neither), and also given that they've stumbled upon something at least different than what every other low-fidelity flight model game has, I can see the argument of not removing it.

Its kind of like the feign death pull in classic Everquest. Not intended, eventually they decided to leave it in and it became a core gameplay mechanic.


Yea, basicly.


Unlike feign pulling, I'm not in favor of leaving this one in. I still say hover-fights are an abomination and lead to unsolvable balance problems between air and ground. And that's what it comes down to. No one really cares about what goes on in the skies until it affects the ground. ESFs should be clearing the way for friendly gals and libs, not doing the killing of ground targets themselves unless completely ignored by the enemy.


Ok, hold on right here. Hover fights have NOTHING, I repet NOTHING AT ALL to do with air to ground. NOTHING, NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING.

How do I put this... NOTHING!

They are not getting rid of the ability to hover. They are not getting rid of the ability to 'chopper around' by hovering and holding space.

They ARE getting rid of the ability to use your after burners to push your aircraft around.

Again, NOTHING TO DO WITH AIR TO GROUND!


Right now surface to air weapons are ridiculously overpowered, and they have to be, because of lolpods. Just get rid of lolpods and they can leave everything as is after a lockon and skyguard nerf, and everyone will be happy. They don't really need to mess with the hover modes if they just do this. But failing that, they need to make the hover mode change.

Really? after all the rocket pod nerfs to the point where it now takes an entire magazine of rockets to the rear section of a tank is OP? You have no idea.

[Timealude]

Really? after all the rocket pod nerfs to the point where it now takes an entire magazine of rockets to the rear section of a tank is OP? You have no idea.

i think its more or less people using the rotaries to kill people now rather then the rocket pods.

[maradine]

I think rotaries are definitely better for AI work than the rockets these days. Speaking from the Vanu perspective, the PPA is better still for groups, but it's worthless in a dogfight and giving up the utility to defend yourself when you get bounced is a really hard sell. I'd have to check the stats to know the last time I pulled a Scythe that didn't have a Hailstorm sticking off the front.

[KesTro]

I would like to note that the current proposed change will do nothing in this regard. It only hurts Air vs Air fighting and will have little or no effect on air vs ground.

I actually see it helping air vs air fighting. Will it hurt an individual pilot? Yes. But when an air wing meets an air wing I think the air game will be a lot more fun.

We already know from past experiences that you can't balance anything for a 1v1 scenario or you end up with things like the original Annihilator.

I think rotaries are definitely better for AI work than the rockets these days. Speaking from the Vanu perspective, the PPA is better still for groups, but it's worthless in a dogfight and giving up the utility to defend yourself when you get bounced is a really hard sell. I'd have to check the stats to know the last time I pulled a Scythe that didn't have a Hailstorm sticking off the front.

Maybe I'm just a 'bade' but this has becoming increasingly hard to do with the Reaver's nosegun, pretty inaccurate.

No womprats for me today. :|

[SolLeks]

I actually see it helping air vs air fighting. Will it hurt an individual pilot? Yes. But when an air wing meets an air wing I think the air game will be a lot more fun.

We already know from past experiences that you can't balance anything for a 1v1 scenario or you end up with things like the original Annihilator.


True you can not balance somthing for a 1v1 scenario, but I don't think this will change much in air wing vs air wing fights any way. Once you get above a handful of aircraft in the sky, you no longer can rely on reverse flight as you will likely fly into a friendly or enemy aircraft. You can still use some of the quick turns, but not all the fancy stuff. in 10+ vs 10+ battles, it is already mostly how people want, forward flight with a hint of RM on the outskirts.

Really, what this change boils down to is this.

You can no longer turn and face your enemy in a fight.

that is all.

[maradine]

You can no longer turn and face your enemy in a fight.

that is all.

Personally, I find it far more entertaining to scrape them off in the canyons - especially when they're not stealthed and you can see the exact moment they make the wrong turn around the butte.

That requires canyons or southwest Indar treelines, though. :)

Also, doesn't the RM still work, just not grant you as much extension laterally as it did before? You're still facing the inbound baddie. I haven't checked out PTS yet on an NC alt, so I'm just guessing.


Maybe I'm just a 'bade' but this has becoming increasingly hard to do with the Reaver's nosegun, pretty inaccurate.

No womprats for me today. :|

Which gun, out of curiosity?

[KesTro]

Which gun, out of curiosity?

Vortek Rotary.

[SolLeks]

Personally, I find it far more entertaining to scrape them off in the canyons - especially when they're not stealthed and you can see the exact moment they make the wrong turn around the butte.

That requires canyons or southwest Indar treelines, though. :)

Also, doesn't the RM still work, just not grant you as much extension laterally as it did before? You're still facing the inbound baddie. I haven't checked out PTS yet on an NC alt, so I'm just guessing.


The RM does not still work, hitting the after burners after doing the flip portion of it makes you move slower than holding space.

I guess it 'works' in the sense you can still turn and face your opponent, if you like being a non moving, hovering duck.

[snafus]

The RM does not still work, hitting the after burners after doing the flip portion of it makes you move slower than holding space.

I guess it 'works' in the sense you can still turn and face your opponent, if you like being a non moving, hovering duck.

Yep, if the pilot behind you is half way competent you will either be dead or near flames by the time you pull the 180.

[SolLeks]

Yep, if the pilot behind you is half way competent you will either be dead or near flames by the time you pull the 180.

Hell, this is already true ^_^

[Galron]

Flying as ESF is really all my play style is based around anymore. I'll get my free certs, pull an ESF and log after its popped. I don't support any Nerf to the one thing I still like to do in this game.

[Memeotis]

I think SOE have come to the realization that the ESFs are not conducive to combined arms gameplay. Theoretically it can do anything you would want from an aircraft, but due to this exact fact, pilots choose not to. Being a successful pilot is not the same as successful team player. Working with ground troops, and even other aircraft limits you as an ESF pilot.

The core problem the ESFs have is that they are not conditioned by many other things. Hopefully this is the beginning of SOE changing it such that it makes more sense for ESFs to attack other ESFs. I think the ESF should be seen as an air to air fighter, whose primary focus is other air targets.

Unfortunately, this means removing mechanics from the ESF that dogfighters love. And that's really the true problem. On one end you have unique A2A combat, and on the other you have imbalanced air to ground relationships.

However, since the majority of ESF pilots avoid A2A, the situation is hardly optimal. Ideally (for the ESF-enthusiasts) the mechanics stay the same, while incentives keep ESF pilots from attacking ground. But you can't change that. Attacking ground targets is simply too easy.

So here is what I propose. A scenario where everybody wins. Make a new type of Battle island designed for ESF combat. These ESFs will remain as the are now (able to do reverse maneuver, etc). At the same time, nerf the continental ESFs. Turn them into ordinary fighters that fly in straight lines and only attack ground targets with strafing runs.

With this solution you not only keep the ESFs that people, who dogfight, love, you also balance the continental combat, you also force continental ESF pilots to cooperate with and depend on other players. On top of that, you make the fights bigger for conventional ESFs. 24v24 perhaps? And finally, you also make room for more types of aircraft for the continents. Slow, but maneuverable apache-esque gunships, and small 6-man transport hovercrafts. Why? Because now that the ESF A2G threat has been lowered, you can safely nerf AA and there won't be any super-strong ESFs around, who would kill these types of aircraft with ease.

[snafus]

I think SOE have come to the realization that the ESFs are not conducive to combined arms gameplay. Theoretically it can do anything you would want from an aircraft, but due to this exact fact, pilots choose not to. Being a successful pilot is not the same as successful team player. Working with ground troops, and even other aircraft limits you as an ESF pilot.

The core problem the ESFs have is that they are not conditioned by many other things. Hopefully this is the beginning of SOE changing it such that it makes more sense for ESFs to attack other ESFs. I think the ESF should be seen as an air to air fighter, whose primary focus is other air targets.

Unfortunately, this means removing mechanics from the ESF that dogfighters love. And that's really the true problem. On one end you have unique A2A combat, and on the other you have imbalanced air to ground relationships.

However, since the majority of ESF pilots avoid A2A, the situation is hardly optimal. Ideally (for the ESF-enthusiasts) the mechanics stay the same, while incentives keep ESF pilots from attacking ground. But you can't change that. Attacking ground targets is simply too easy.

So here is what I propose. A scenario where everybody wins. Make a new type of Battle island designed for ESF combat. These ESFs will remain as the are now (able to do reverse maneuver, etc). At the same time, nerf the continental ESFs. Turn them into ordinary fighters that fly in straight lines and only attack ground targets with strafing runs.

With this solution you not only keep the ESFs that people, who dogfight, love, you also balance the continental combat, you also force continental ESF pilots to cooperate with and depend on other players. On top of that, you make the fights bigger for conventional ESFs. 24v24 perhaps? And finally, you also make room for more types of aircraft for the continents. Slow, but maneuverable apache-esque gunships, and small 6-man transport hovercrafts. Why? Because now that the ESF A2G threat has been lowered, you can safely nerf AA and there won't be any super-strong ESFs around, who would kill these types of aircraft with ease.

First off ESF are absolutely conductive to a combined arms. I cannot say how many times our air wing has won the fight for our ground forces. You can't just lump all pilots into the same category. Though working with ground forces may be much more dangerous then simply doing A2A runs, to say it doesn't happen is false. But I agree also that there are players that like to simply farm in ESF, but the same can be said for any class or vehicle so that really isn't a good point.

And I'd really like to know how A2G ESF are imbalanced? From the stats we are under performing across the board in comparison to ground vehicles and infantry. And the multitudes of AA have always kept ground forces in the best position for power, as long as ground use them. Air being OP hasn't been true since launch and SOE has kept a close eye on that.

Over all the balance between air and ground right now is actually pretty good, minus Libs still being under powered. Taking away aspects of the game and putting them on battle islands seems silly and wasteful. I play this game to have fun and support my team. I really don't want to be forced to fight on one continent to fly the way I enjoy.

The big factor here is there are no imbalances between air or ground. This whole debacle is not an intended A2G nerf but rather an attempt at making ESF more approachable for newer or bad players. Though I think you have some fun ideas of adding more vehicles, but nerfing current flight mechanics due to some perceived imbalance is disturbing to me.

[Sledgecrushr]

I totally agree that it wouldnt work well either to maintain two types of flight mechanics to me that seems confusing. And also i dont think a straight up nerf of vertical thrusters is the way to go I would much rather enhance the existing gameplay by making it more dynamic and a bit more difficult. What soe needs to do is introduce some more elements to the flight game. You should really accelerate when you turn the nose down and acceleration should bleed off slowly unless you work to lose velocity. Come on SOE make flying BETTER!!!

[SolLeks]

I think SOE have come to the realization that the ESFs are not conducive to combined arms gameplay. Theoretically it can do anything you would want from an aircraft, but due to this exact fact, pilots choose not to. Being a successful pilot is not the same as successful team player. Working with ground troops, and even other aircraft limits you as an ESF pilot.

The core problem the ESFs have is that they are not conditioned by many other things. Hopefully this is the beginning of SOE changing it such that it makes more sense for ESFs to attack other ESFs. I think the ESF should be seen as an air to air fighter, whose primary focus is other air targets.

Unfortunately, this means removing mechanics from the ESF that dogfighters love. And that's really the true problem. On one end you have unique A2A combat, and on the other you have imbalanced air to ground relationships.

However, since the majority of ESF pilots avoid A2A, the situation is hardly optimal. Ideally (for the ESF-enthusiasts) the mechanics stay the same, while incentives keep ESF pilots from attacking ground. But you can't change that. Attacking ground targets is simply too easy.

So here is what I propose. A scenario where everybody wins. Make a new type of Battle island designed for ESF combat. These ESFs will remain as the are now (able to do reverse maneuver, etc). At the same time, nerf the continental ESFs. Turn them into ordinary fighters that fly in straight lines and only attack ground targets with strafing runs.

With this solution you not only keep the ESFs that people, who dogfight, love, you also balance the continental combat, you also force continental ESF pilots to cooperate with and depend on other players. On top of that, you make the fights bigger for conventional ESFs. 24v24 perhaps? And finally, you also make room for more types of aircraft for the continents. Slow, but maneuverable apache-esque gunships, and small 6-man transport hovercrafts. Why? Because now that the ESF A2G threat has been lowered, you can safely nerf AA and there won't be any super-strong ESFs around, who would kill these types of aircraft with ease.

Dude, I fly in support of my ground troops 90% of the time. Hell, sometimes I lead the squad in my ESF wile they are all on the ground (landing for beacon duty is a pain though)

When I am in the air, my platoon knows that unless there are a large number of aircraft that overwhelm me, or an ace flies in that I have trouble with, they are safe from almost all air targets, all the wile I fly ahead and scout bases and I spot / attack sundies and other tanks / infantry with my A2A specced ESF.

Also, there is no reason not to let ESF attack the ground. The ground is where the game is won or lost. If you can't have your own factions ESF clear the skys, or have AA up, then your failing in the combined arms section of this game!

ESF have to be able to attack ground targets if they are to matter at all in this game. Libs are not that prevalent due to all the lockons and AA as well as ESF hunting them down, though when I fly in support of libs, the ESF are no worry, but they still get tuns of ground fire that keeps them running often. It sounds like you just don't want anything in the air to be able to effect the ground game, thus you do not want a combined arms game.

[Memeotis]

First off ESF are absolutely conductive to a combined arms. I cannot say how many times our air wing has won the fight for our ground forces. You can't just lump all pilots into the same category. Though working with ground forces may be much more dangerous then simply doing A2A runs, to say it doesn't happen is false. But I agree also that there are players that like to simply farm in ESF, but the same can be said for any class or vehicle so that really isn't a good point.

And I'd really like to know how A2G ESF are imbalanced? From the stats we are under performing across the board in comparison to ground vehicles and infantry. And the multitudes of AA have always kept ground forces in the best position for power, as long as ground use them. Air being OP hasn't been true since launch and SOE has kept a close eye on that.

Over all the balance between air and ground right now is actually pretty good, minus Libs still being under powered. Taking away aspects of the game and putting them on battle islands seems silly and wasteful. I play this game to have fun and support my team. I really don't want to be forced to fight on one continent to fly the way I enjoy.

The big factor here is there are no imbalances between air or ground. This whole debacle is not an intended A2G nerf but rather an attempt at making ESF more approachable for newer or bad players. Though I think you have some fun ideas of adding more vehicles, but nerfing current flight mechanics due to some perceived imbalance is disturbing to me.

Yes. I agree, the ESF has a huge potential to work closely with the troops on the ground. Flying around in close proximity to a tank column, calling out incoming targets and swooping down to assist with some focused fire. The thing is, they don't. Some might, but the vast majority of them don't, because it works against the in-built incentive-structure created by the versatility of the ESFs mechanics.

Assume you fly around with an ESF with rocket pods. This setup makes you a threat to just about anything. The only time you are kept away from ground troops is when they have a concentrated amount of AA. If you were any other type of vehicle or infantry, you would have to deal with this issue; you would have to find way to overcome it. As an ESF, you simply fly to another place, because you have the speed for that. People on the ground have to sacrifice something in order to keep you at bay (bursters, skyguard, lock-on). You don't. Your speed and maneuverability makes you capable of killing ground targets regardless of what it is, it might just take you a little longer.

This is a terrible relationship. Compare this to a apache-esque gunship. Slow, good maneuverability, but you can't just run away and look for other easy pickings. If you want to be successful you are forced to engage in some degree of teamwork.

Imagine cruising around and you see a small squad without any AA. As an ESF, you might have to retreat occasionally, but you know you can widdle them down, one at a time. Why? Because you can boost away if you are at low health, and, more crucially, you can hover in the air at awkward angles. If an apache gun ship wanted to fire his rockets straight beneath himself, he would force himself into a dive. He would lose height, and even if the ground targets don't have any AA, you are now low enough for them to more easily hit you with dumb-fire rockets and whatnot.

And as for how lucrative this tactic can be. The players you see who have insane SPM and KD/r are all ESF pilots. Just look at the top of the leaderboards.

The thing dedicated ESF pilots want is great dogfights, and PS2 can provide that. Just not to the extent they want. So what exactly is wrong with the battle island setup I proposed? It would be easy to justify. Simply say the the current ESFs are too expensive an investment to have flying around on the continents. However, for the very important, small scale battles, the factions are willing to spend the extra amount to use their top-of-the-line aircraft.

The dogfighters are never going to get the really great battles they deserve in the current format, and at the same time, having the current ESFs on the big continents, is imbalancing the gameplay.

[SolLeks]

Most people don't seem to work in a team at all in this game, I don't understand your point.

Also FYI, our aircraft fly slower than an apache gunship does.

And last edit, the change that the devs wanted to make would stop NOTHING AT ALL, NOTHING, NOTHING and again NOTHING that you just posted that you want changed.

[pixelshader]

1. The main focus of esf pilots (and since several patches ago, the most lucrative thing to do in an esf) is always killing other esf. If you don't kill them they will kill you. The only time you aren't intently focused on killing other esf is when there aren't any around, which means you're probably farming a spawn somewhere away from any real battle. The nerf on pts does nothing to change any of this.

2. ESF have enough hover power to run circles around ground targets without even touching the afterburner, the nerf again does nothing to change this. The devs intentions are to lower the number of rocket pod using esf by doing things like making afterburner tanks very attractive and introducing a bunch of new secondaries that all suck at killing infantry. I personally have the rotary show up as between 50-65% of all my kills even when farming infantry hard, but I can still attest to the fact that if I don't equip rocket pods I am a massively weaker threat to infantry. If three or four guys just decide to shoot me with small arms I probably won't have the raw easy-to-aim firepower to beat them face to face, unless they all stand still next to each other or something.

It is true that rocket pod esf are massively overpowered when flown over small scale infantry fights, but nothing short of gutting completely their flight system will change this. Again the devs are working to fix it by directly making rocket pods less attractive.

3. In big fights esf a2g already sucks so hard as to be a non factor. When there is 80 guys on the ground the density of random anti air things is automatically too high to fly for 90% of pilots. Organised air strikes can make it through on sheer numbers which is great I guess. In any case the tactic for flying a2g over big battles has been hit and run for months and months already now. Fast passes starting in cover, striking, then retreating back into cover. The closest thing to hovering being throttling down a little while striking to squeeze out a quarter second more firing time.

tl;dr for the 100th time the reverse nerf on pts doesn't do anything to a2g

[Wahooo]

The devs intentions are to lower the number of rocket pod using esf by doing things like making afterburner tanks very attractive and introducing a bunch of new secondaries

tl;dr for the 100th time the reverse nerf on pts doesn't do anything to a2g

I think this was the thing.

It isn't so much a desire to nerf ESF V. Ground, I think that balance is as close to being found as we've ever been.

The issue is I don't think the devs ever intended a set load out to be "The Standard". Right now with the ESFs there is very little deviation from Hover Frame and Rocket Pods. There is a bit less consensus on the nose gun, but the fact is they would LIKE by design for people to make choices on their load out and have a give and take between one or the other. Right now, the other choices for ESF builds are inferior.

How do you change that? A thought was nerfing V-thrust but is it a good trade off? Is there being a "standard" for ESF load out actually a bad thing?

[SolLeks]

I think this was the thing.

It isn't so much a desire to nerf ESF V. Ground, I think that balance is as close to being found as we've ever been.

The issue is I don't think the devs ever intended a set load out to be "The Standard". Right now with the ESFs there is very little deviation from Hover Frame and Rocket Pods. There is a bit less consensus on the nose gun, but the fact is they would LIKE by design for people to make choices on their load out and have a give and take between one or the other. Right now, the other choices for ESF builds are inferior.

How do you change that? A thought was nerfing V-thrust but is it a good trade off? Is there being a "standard" for ESF load out actually a bad thing?

I don't think the standard is really rocketpods anymore.

I see quite a few pilots running A2AM, and quite a few running rockets, then you have noobs and vets running AB tanks.

Hover + rockets being the norm has long passed since the last few RP nerfs.

[pixelshader]

they would LIKE by design for people to make choices on their load out and have a give and take between one or the other. Right now, the other choices for ESF builds are inferior.

How do you change that? A thought was nerfing V-thrust but is it a good trade off? Is there being a "standard" for ESF load out actually a bad thing?

On live you can use whatever frame you want and it doesn't really matter because you can easily compensate for weak normal vthrust with powerful afterburner vthrust when you need it. The hover frame has no effect on the strength of the reverse, only the racer frame boosts it on live.

On pts you obviously don't have a powerful afterburner vthrust anymore so you're forced into using hover frame to have acceptable mobility. On top of that they've changed something and the hover frame's boost now counts while afterburner vthrusting, so in effect it now boosts the reverse where it doesn't do that on live. Racer also no longer boosts the reverse.

In short the change is a huge step back for frame diversity, for whatever that is worth. I myself believe that despite any devs best effort one or two loadouts will always be found superior.

[Obstruction]

this is once again completely derailed but i'd like to point out that you guys are basically complaining that rock beats scissors here.

if ground has enough population in an area and even a percentage of units use the myriad AA tools available, air space can be denied. that's when they get to be rock.

if they don't use their AA or there's like 5 of them shooting carbines at a Lib, that's when they get to be scissors.

if a group of infantry line up on a ridge and kill an armor column with rockets and turrets, no one cries foul because that is "fair play" if you are a ground player.

if a group of tanks flanks and kills a sunderer and group of infantry, no one says it's unfair either.

if multiple AA MAX units and heavies with lock-ons clown-car out of a sundy in the middle of the road and gank a hungry air unit before they can get away, that is especially fair. in fact i'm sure among those clowns in question it is relished with righteous indignation.

but if airborne units win through superior positioning and tactics (preparing an exit before the run, delivering ordinance quickly and accurately, disengaging before being shot down) then come the groundlings chanting nerf.

i've said before and i'll say again, i am not that great on the ground. i don't enjoy it, i don't often play there, i've developed my characters to never need to spend much time there, and because of this lack of practice i am just not that practiced. so i'm average on my good days.

but i still don't begrudge ground for being what it is, and playing to its strengths, when i am flying and i happen to end up being the scissors.

that's the difference here.

but again this is wildly derailed from the topic at hand, which is really about dumbing down a fighting system that is unique in gaming.

at least, i guess if this nerf goes through it will be the first indirect buff to Libs since who-knows-when.

[phungus]

In my hover sythe, I didn't notice that much of a difference reversing.

The main effect on my hover sythe was reduced dodge speed in hovermode. What are the other impacts on the ESF of this change?

[Memeotis]

Dude, I fly in support of my ground troops 90% of the time. Hell, sometimes I lead the squad in my ESF wile they are all on the ground (landing for beacon duty is a pain though)

When I am in the air, my platoon knows that unless there are a large number of aircraft that overwhelm me, or an ace flies in that I have trouble with, they are safe from almost all air targets, all the wile I fly ahead and scout bases and I spot / attack sundies and other tanks / infantry with my A2A specced ESF.

Also, there is no reason not to let ESF attack the ground. The ground is where the game is won or lost. If you can't have your own factions ESF clear the skys, or have AA up, then your failing in the combined arms section of this game!

ESF have to be able to attack ground targets if they are to matter at all in this game. Libs are not that prevalent due to all the lockons and AA as well as ESF hunting them down, though when I fly in support of libs, the ESF are no worry, but they still get tuns of ground fire that keeps them running often. It sounds like you just don't want anything in the air to be able to effect the ground game, thus you do not want a combined arms game.

Like I said, the ESF has a huge potential for working together with ground troops. It's got the functionality of both a jet and a helicopter. And if you're putting it to good use, great. Unfortunately, the average player will most likely use the ESF for lone-wolf A2G game-play.

It's not that you can't use teamwork when you use an ESF, the problem is that there are not many factors conditioning ESF pilots to automatically behave like teamplayes. As an infantry, or a tank driver, even if you are playing by yourself, you have to actively participate in some level of teamwork with friendlies in order to be successful. The battlefield conditions you. You can't just bounce around from area to area like the ESFs can. Well, you can, but it would make you extremely inefficient and your score would be extremely low.

Ground troops don't get to view the battlefield like some sort of XP buffet, where you can just pick and choose, while also earning a lot of points.

And no. You are completely missing the point, I do want A2G. Very much so, I just want to see A2G done in a way, where the A2G aircrafts are limited in ways that force them to cooperate with ground-troops to a greater extent.

Most people don't seem to work in a team at all in this game, I don't understand your point.

Also FYI, our aircraft fly slower than an apache gunship does.

And last edit, the change that the devs wanted to make would stop NOTHING AT ALL, NOTHING, NOTHING and again NOTHING that you just posted that you want changed.

How is this relevant? I'm using an example. An apache is slower than an F-35, use that speed ratio to figure out how fast a helicopter in PS2 ought to be.

[Kerrec]

Disclaimer: I'm not a flyboy. I'm just here to play devil's advocate. I also didn't read the entirety of this thread, so if I'm repeating something, I apologize. That said, here's my input:

When I first read about V-Thrust being nerfed, I did the same WTF as most flyboys. I mean, I agree that the reverse maneuver is one of the things that makes PS2 different, and I approve of this. So I walked away from the announcement a bit baffled.

Now more time has gone by. And I've thought, why don't I fly anymore? I mean, I did cert up my Mosquito back in the LOLpod hayday to do A2A combat, but I gave it up pretty quick. Why is that?

Well maybe it was a question of perception. I mean, I upgraded to Dogfighter 3 airfraime, got A2A missiles and upgraded to a Rotary. Badass A2A, or so I thought. Then the reverse maneuver came out and it turns out if you want to be good at dogfighting, you need to use Hover 3 and be good at swapping between First Person and Third Person. That kind of killed it for me...

Having admitted that much, I started to wonder how many ACE pilots (whatever that distinction means in terms of stats) run Hover 3? The stats that SOE have that we don't, what are they saying? Are all the successful ( Kills, SPM, life expectancy, etc...) pilots all using the same loadout? If that was the case, then I would be changing the flying mechanics too, reverse maneuver be damned.

So maybe that is what is driving these changes.... one killer configuration that makes all others non-competitive. Food for thought.

[snafus]

Disclaimer: I'm not a flyboy. I'm just here to play devil's advocate. I also didn't read the entirety of this thread, so if I'm repeating something, I apologize. That said, here's my input:

When I first read about V-Thrust being nerfed, I did the same WTF as most flyboys. I mean, I agree that the reverse maneuver is one of the things that makes PS2 different, and I approve of this. So I walked away from the announcement a bit baffled.

Now more time has gone by. And I've thought, why don't I fly anymore? I mean, I did cert up my Mosquito back in the LOLpod hayday to do A2A combat, but I gave it up pretty quick. Why is that?

Well maybe it was a question of perception. I mean, I upgraded to Dogfighter 3 airfraime, got A2A missiles and upgraded to a Rotary. Badass A2A, or so I thought. Then the reverse maneuver came out and it turns out if you want to be good at dogfighting, you need to use Hover 3 and be good at swapping between First Person and Third Person. That kind of killed it for me...

Having admitted that much, I started to wonder how many ACE pilots (whatever that distinction means in terms of stats) run Hover 3? The stats that SOE have that we don't, what are they saying? Are all the successful ( Kills, SPM, life expectancy, etc...) pilots all using the same loadout? If that was the case, then I would be changing the flying mechanics too, reverse maneuver be damned.

So maybe that is what is driving these changes.... one killer configuration that makes all others non-competitive. Food for thought.

Well on the preferred load out hover is not the standard for all top tier pilots. I know Datablue and myself like to rotate out on Racer and hover ourselves. And the last time I spoke with him on the matter he felt he preferred racer over hover altogether. The myth that Hover is the ace choice of fittings is simply not true, as it does give advantages in aspects of a dogfight, it is far from being the only choice.

[phungus]

Well on the preferred load out hover is not the standard for all top tier pilots. I know Datablue and myself like to rotate out on Racer and hover ourselves. And the last time I spoke with him on the matter he felt he preferred racer over hover altogether. The myth that Hover is the ace choice of fittings is simply not true, as it does give advantages in aspects of a dogfight, it is far from being the only choice.

Datablue is probably the best pilot on Connery. To put his level in perspective I find I win almost all 1v1s, even 2v1s, though there are named pilots who I trade with often (I consider these other aces). Then there are a few people who just routinely own me, one of these players is Metalfig. When I flew with Metalfig he told me that Datablue owns him as bad as he owns me... Datablue doesn't need hover because hover's main advantage is increased dodge speed - but he doesn't need to up his evasive abilities since he just beats everyone anyway, for him racer would be superior as it allows him to cover more ground and find more targets, for people who trade with other aces regularly and fly solo alot hover will help them win more of those engagements against high skilled pilots. Basically what hover does is let you strafe faster.

[snafus]

Datablue is probably the best pilot on Connery. To put his level in perspective I find I win almost all 1v1s, even 2v1s, though there are named pilots who I trade with often (I consider these other aces). Then there are a few people who just routinely own me, one of these players is Metalfig. When I flew with Metalfig he told me that Datablue owns him as bad as he owns me... Datablue doesn't need hover because hover's main advantage is increased dodge speed - but he doesn't need to up his evasive abilities since he just beats everyone anyway, for him racer would be superior as it allows him to cover more ground and find more targets, for people who trade with other aces regularly and fly solo alot hover will help them win more of those engagements against high skilled pilots. Basically what hover does is let you strafe faster.

Hover is great for dog fights don't get me wrong. But Racer is also amazing for dogfights, you just have to do things a little differently. Instead of purely relying on vertical thrust you try and always keep moving forward your opponent. By stay tight on them they can effectively shake you with the RM. That was the way I flew for months and it worked great. Me using hover is a fairly new setup for me as Racer was always my favorite.

[SolLeks]

I personally prefer dogfighting frame as it helps with my accuracy.

[pixelshader]

Like I said before, on live hover frame is solid. You don't have to have it because the reverse is strong enough to give good mobility on its own. It doesn't affect the strength of the reverse (only racer boosts the reverse on live). It's a good choice on live but not a requirement.

On the pts, hover frame is absolutely mandatory. You can't use the reverse for mobility anymore, you need the normal vthrust power. In addition it now boosts the reverse for some reason, and racer no longer does, just making hover frame even more dominant.

The changes obviously aren't motivated by wanting to create choice in airframes.


Some numbers to better show you what I mean, measuring vthrust power by the top speed achieved moving straight up. On both live and the pts a scythe's normal vthrust is 90, or 125 with hover 3. But, on live your afterburning vthrust ('the reverse') is 280, or 300 with racer 3. This dwarfs the normal vthrust and can effectively be used to compensate for lack of a hover frame. On pts your afterburning vthrust is 125. Or 150 with hover 3.

Pretty funny to note that a reaver with hover 3 has normal vthrust of 145, which is only 5 short of the new nerfed afterburner vthrust speed of the other factions. So the reverse on pts is so weak it only gives as much boost as the reaver's faction perk. Or inversely you could say the reaver's perk is now so strong it is like permanent afterburner.

[maradine]

I'm a huge fan of DF3, but it more or less precludes a Scythe RM under many circumstances. I still run it though - makes tree dancing much easier.