Radar(beyond visual range for aircraft)

[Stardouser]

What do you guys think of Radar, and beyond visual range engagements for aircraft, fighter aircraft anyway?

For example: Let's say the maximum render distance that you can see an enemy aircraft from your own aircraft is 750m. What if aircraft had radar that let them see aircraft up to 1.5km, along with radar guided missiles and chaff(radar reflective strips that you dump like flares) countermeasures?

Then, there could be an almost air superiority meta-game where fighter aircraft go on air superiority missions, escort missions, etc, and attack/ground support aircraft have to either travel with support fighters, send in air superiority missions first, or fly low to the ground(flying under 25m to the ground would make you invisible to radar) to avoid detection.

Another variant of this is that individual aircraft would not have their own radar, but instead, there could be radar stations spread throughout the continents, and when they are powered and owned, they will transmit radar data for a certain radius around their location to all friendly fighters within that same radius. This would provide radar stations as an excellent spec ops target.

Anyway, flamesuit on.

Edit: There's an argument that current continents are too small for this. That's why I bumped the range down to 1.5km. Anyway, I forgot to mention that Alduron was talking about this on IRC, so wanted to throw that out there too.

[Atheosim]

I think it sounds like it would be cool as hell for the pilots with radar but fucking unbearable for their victims. Imagine getting smacked out of the sky out of seemingly abso-fucking-lutely nowhere by a target that you can't see and that can't even see you...

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by Atheosim

I think it sounds like it would be cool as hell for the pilots with radar but fucking unbearable for their victims. Imagine getting smacked out of the sky out of seemingly abso-fucking-lutely nowhere by a target that you can't see and that can't even see you...

It wouldn't work quite like that. ALL aircraft, even bombers, would carry chaff, and be able to drop low to avoid being seen, or even break radar lock without using chaff by flying behind a mountain.

Also, there'd would be a missile incoming warning. The only difference is, fighters will be able to return fire, bombers only have two choices: Evade/hide, or try to get close enough to return fire with their cannon.

And as far as Galaxies, they too would have chaff, and I imagine they should be armored enough that it would take the full missile load of at least 3 fighters to kill one(that's assuming missiles only, and the fighters not getting close enough for guns).

[Skitrel]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

It wouldn't work quite like that. ALL aircraft, even bombers, would carry chaff, and be able to drop low to avoid being seen, or even break radar lock without using chaff by flying behind a mountain.

Also, there'd would be a missile incoming warning. The only difference is, fighters will be able to return fire, bombers only have two choices: Evade/hide, or try to get close enough to return fire with their cannon.

And as far as Galaxies, they too would have chaff, and I imagine they should be armored enough that it would take the full missile load of at least 3 fighters to kill one(that's assuming missiles only, and the fighters not getting close enough for guns).

Sunderers have 4 times the armour tanks have and seem to be balanced in that it'll take roughly 10 peoples worth of power at once to kill the 10 people within. Same balance mechanism that Battlefield uses in that it takes 2 people on the ground to take out 2 people in a heli or tank etc. Skill removed from the equation of course.

Value of target generally reflects upon how easy or hard said target should be to kill in the grand scheme of things.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by Skitrel

Sunderers have 4 times the armour tanks have and seem to be balanced in that it'll take roughly 10 peoples worth of power at once to kill the 10 people within. Same balance mechanism that Battlefield uses in that it takes 2 people on the ground to take out 2 people in a heli or tank etc. Skill removed from the equation of course.

Value of target generally reflects upon how easy or hard said target should be to kill in the grand scheme of things.

I was assuming of course that all the missiles hit. They won't, because of the chaff. In other words, if each fighter carried 6 missiles, I'm saying it will take 18 hits. Of course, the Galaxy might carry enough chaff to wave off another 18.

[NCLynx]

Could be cool for someone who decided to specialize their aircraft for 100% or close to 100% Air to Air combat.

Could be one of the drawbacks for choosing Air to Ground combat for people who went that route too.

[Talek Krell]

I'd prefer that aircraft have to see each other in order to engage. I think it would be more fun overall. That said radar itself is also something I'd like to see in some form. As far as I know we've still heard very little about how sensors will work.

[EVILPIG]

Being killed by things you cannot see and are very far away is highly unpopular in games. See: Flail.

In fact, modern air combat is all about who can detect and kill from the greatest distance, which is the exact opposite of what most players want. We want old school dogfights. Planetside 2 would be best if aircraft had no lock-on weaponry.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by EVILPIG

Being killed by things you cannot see and are very far away is highly unpopular in games. See: Flail.

The comparison to a flail though is quite superficial. Unless the flail gives you an incoming missile tone?

[EVILPIG]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

The comparison to a flail though is quite superficial. Unless the flail gives you an incoming missile tone?

An example none the less.

[Blackwolf]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

The comparison to a flail though is quite superficial. Unless the flail gives you an incoming missile tone?

I wouldn't call it a tone as much as a giant bolt of plasma roaring through the air and audible from half a click away..... Flail dodging was a skill just like boomer dodging was

I loved flails. I would be sad if some form of artillery wasn't included in the game

For those of you babies who whine about lock-ons and flails, you have no sense of tactics. Seriously, you gripe about such little things.

As for the extended radar idea, I doubt it would go into effect. And frankly I would be against it. Flails were pure chance or required target rich environments to be of any use. And really they required a spotter to lase targets to shoot at, and a good deal of math since the target crosshairs that you shot at didn't always line up with the target, you had to take into account relative altitudes and the like. Being able to engage targets effectively from beyond visual range would be very cheap. Particularly if there was a limit to the amount of chaff you could carry.

[Talek Krell]

Originally Posted by Blackwolf

For those of you babies who whine about lock-ons and flails, you have no sense of tactics. Seriously, you gripe about such little things.

I think the complaint is more about the gameplay than the "tactics". Being instagibbed by something sitting in the CY of a different base isn't especially fun. It's even less fun when you can't do anything about it because of the constant stream of doom bolts raining down on the V-term with perfect accuracy. >_>

Personally I just think it needs to be made a bit more...dynamic?

[Blackwolf]

Originally Posted by Talek Krell

I think the complaint is more about the gameplay than the "tactics". Being instagibbed by something sitting in the CY of a different base isn't especially fun. It's even less fun when you can't do anything about it because of the constant stream of doom bolts raining down on the V-term with perfect accuracy. >_>

Personally I just think it needs to be made a bit more...dynamic?

Seriously there are hundreds of ways of randomly being obliterated, why gripe because someone had a lock-on and you were warned well in advance before being hurt? Or cry because a giant ball of plasma came screaming out of the sky and you weren't paying attention enough to literally walk out of the way while it descended on you?

Recall to a bind point (preferably a tech base), and launch a vehicle from there. Nothing in the game was really fool proof, you could work around pretty much any dirty trick you need to if you use your head.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by Blackwolf

For those of you babies who whine about lock-ons and flails, you have no sense of tactics. Seriously, you gripe about such little things.

Originally Posted by Talek Krell

I think the complaint is more about the gameplay than the "tactics". Being instagibbed by something sitting in the CY of a different base isn't especially fun. It's even less fun when you can't do anything about it because of the constant stream of doom bolts raining down on the V-term with perfect accuracy. >_>

Personally I just think it needs to be made a bit more...dynamic?

I think lock-on and fire and forget for air to air is fine. Air to ground, no. Especially OK for air to air since there would be countermeasures, and missiles would not even be close to one hit kills, and flying nap-of-the-earth is a strategy.

[JHendy]

Originally Posted by EVILPIG

Being killed by things you cannot see and are very far away is highly unpopular in games. See: Flail.

In fact, modern air combat is all about who can detect and kill from the greatest distance, which is the exact opposite of what most players want. We want old school dogfights. Planetside 2 would be best if aircraft had no lock-on weaponry.

Couldn't agree more. Unguided missiles for ground targets, machine guns for other aircraft. Lock-on can fuck right off.