Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register | PSU Social |
PSU: Hamma was here.
Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register | PSU Social |
2012-02-15, 02:17 AM | [Ignore Me] #16 | ||
They specifically mentioned flares during on of the Q&A sessions where they discussed vehicle customization. Not quite clear whether it'll be for evading any homing stuff fired from the ground or if it's expressly for avoiding heat-seeking missiles from enemy fighters.
|
|||
|
2012-02-15, 02:20 AM | [Ignore Me] #17 | |||
Air-Chav, or Chav-Air? http://forum.holidaywatchdog.com/Gen...ead-11045.html |
||||
|
2012-02-15, 07:16 AM | [Ignore Me] #18 | ||||
Colonel
|
Should we just ditch the concept of vehicles completely so we can have infantry battles without interruptions? Not all vehicles need to be identical at every role. However, not being identical does not mean there must be a superior and inferior. Sniper rifles and HA are both anti infantry weapons, but they have much different roles, both with their strengths and weaknesses.
I see no reason why aircraft shouldn't be good at taking on infantry, nor infantry taking on aircraft, so long as they bring the right kit. Combined arms does not mean rock paper scissors. The infantry units and vehicle chassis have quite a bit of variation. You can pick whichever suits your playstyle and objectives the best. Last edited by CutterJohn; 2012-02-15 at 07:17 AM. |
||||
|
2012-02-15, 07:35 AM | [Ignore Me] #19 | |||
Major
|
You won't be ever to hover around and become a floating death machine...At least a stock aircraft. I remember hearing you could unlock hovering deeper down the skill tree for aircraft. But I guess we'll see. Either way, with the changed mechanics and increased TTKs in general with the game, I don't think too many aircraft will get away with Mossie/Reaver farming like they did in PS1 so long as there's sufficient AA. |
|||
|
2012-02-15, 08:08 AM | [Ignore Me] #20 | ||
Colonel
|
As for the hovering, VTOL is still there for most likely every aircraft. Hovering was mainly a byproduct of the same VTOL.
I think I talked about this with CutterJohn on IRC and we thought about some "energy" bar kinda thing, which would be consumed by basically using the VTOL-engines. This way you could also hover around, but only for a short while before the energy/whatever runs out. Cos the fact is, they cant take away VTOL without breaking the game and they can't remove hovering completely as long as VTOL is in place. The only time I remember them talking about flares, it has been about illumination flares, not the "IR Flare" kind of thing BF3 for example has. That said, I'd be fairly sure the IR flare kinda things will make it into PS2 as well, but I'm fairly sure what we know about any flares at this point were referring to the ones that light up the battlefield during the night.
__________________
Last edited by Coreldan; 2012-02-15 at 08:10 AM. |
||
|
2012-02-15, 09:57 AM | [Ignore Me] #22 | ||
Private
|
Even as a dedicated air cav dude, I really don't like just sitting and spamming doors. I'd rather be shooting something in the open instead of playing peek-a-boo. One way to hamstring the pilots enough is to give a transition period between hover and normal flight. Therefore, you can hover only in situations that are normally safe (repairs, awaiting orders, landing). If you had to egress out of missile range you most likely won't make it in time as the hover mode is transferring to cruise mode.
__________________
|
||
|
2012-02-15, 10:05 AM | [Ignore Me] #23 | ||
Contributor General
|
I may be unusual but there is nothing in PS that really annoys me, apart from someone placing an ams at the backdoor.
I quite like the solution to the problem put given by the originator, ie raising the flight ceiling abovew the level where AA is effective. As for the problem with Libs, well they are gunships now and if they can hit from way-up-there then good for them. The counter for defenders is simply a defending aircraft. I don't think there is a need to get complicated about this. The DEVS have said that flight mechanics are going to be more realistic this time. However, one of the good things about PS1 was how easy it was to fly an aircraft and it was less easy to become good at dogfighting, which I never did. So I hope the DEVS will strike a happy medium of making aircraft accessible and more realistic. |
||
|
2012-02-15, 10:33 AM | [Ignore Me] #24 | ||
Private
|
you know i never liked how they handled hovering in ps1. i fully feel hovering should be there but id like to see it work kinda how it does IRL.
basically aircraft that can hover (vtol jets/helicopters) can not stay in the exact same spot hovering. it basically cause's the air to begin to circulate around the aircraft forcing the aircraft to apply more and more power to maintain the hover. eventually the air will get moving at the top speed the aircraft's engines are capable of overcoming and the aircraft will fall from the sky and crash. the solution to this is to consonantly keep the aircraft moving a small amount so your using air that isn't moving. hehe im no programer so i really have no idea if or how one could implement this in a game, but it seems like a really easy way to stop door camping with aircraft and not screw the VTOL function. and it might stop those VTOL dogfights as i wasn't a fan of those myself but i may be alone on that one lol. |
||
|
2012-02-15, 03:44 PM | [Ignore Me] #26 | ||||
To maybe make an analogy, fighters should be like jets from BF3 and infantry anti-air should peak at using an RPG to fire madly into the sky. Fighters should move too fast to realistically target small infantry most of the time, and should be too fast and non-threatening to warrant having AV ammo wasted attempting to hit shoot them down.
Making hovering kind of shaky is one possibility, but I don't think it would go far enough. Fighters should under no circumstances be able to camp doorways. That is not the kind of gameplay they should be facilitating. It sucked in every way in PS1, and this game would be worse-off having it make a return. Strafing: yes. Hover-whoring: no. Last edited by Warborn; 2012-02-15 at 03:50 PM. |
|||||
|
2012-02-15, 04:30 PM | [Ignore Me] #27 | ||
Raising the flight ceiling seems like a good idea that would facilitate more dog fighting.
************************************************** ************** REAVERS were annoying/lame when camping doors - usually a tower fight/siege. LIGHTNINGS were also effective spamming tower doors. The only times a LIGHTNING or REAVER could camp tower doors was when the attackers had some sort of numbers advantage. The fact that a REAVER or LIGHTNING could be used in LAME gameplay does not mean either vehicle should be nerfed of that ability. It's the PILOT of the vehicle that needs to be nerfed. We had regular bullets and AP bullets in PS1. There should be "camping" bullets in PS2. BTW - I was GUILTY of lobbing my share of Lightning shells into towers. When I chose to do it - I was bored. I was LAME for doing it. It is what it is. Guys who choose to camp in a way that is LAME & mindless...could get shot with "camp" bullets....turning any vehicle they pilot for the next 24 hours HOT PINK ...... so everyone who saw them would want to shoot them down. ALL EMPIRES could freely shoot ANY PINK VEHICLE to get XP and Kill points. (I know this ain't feasible - but it illustrates my point) Last edited by Chaff; 2012-02-15 at 04:38 PM. |
|||
|
2012-02-15, 04:32 PM | [Ignore Me] #28 | ||
Second Lieutenant
|
I think the fact that we'll be fighting over the entire land, and not just for bases, will naturally solve that.
Now air cover will be more important than ever and there won't be chokepoints where all of the AA can just sit. |
||
|
2012-02-15, 04:37 PM | [Ignore Me] #29 | ||
Lightnings were junk at camping doors. Easy to hit with jammer grenades and easy to hit with decimators. And of course lame gameplay should be designed out of the game as best as possible. That's what designing the game is all about. The tools players have at their disposal should be all about contributing toward fun and challenging gameplay for err'body.
Last edited by Warborn; 2012-02-15 at 04:39 PM. |
|||
|
2012-02-15, 09:29 PM | [Ignore Me] #30 | |||||
Colonel
|
|
|||||
|
|
Bookmarks |
|
|