Some random thoughts on air combat in PS2 - Page 11

MrMorton · 2012-06-11, 02:16 PM

Originally Posted by LegioX

We shall see. I'm still campaigning for a look back view. Would not be hard to implement i would think. Sucks being forced to look straight ahead when someone is behind you.

as long as it doesn't put you in third person view, I'd be all for it,
(I just don't like 3p view in aircraft, I like to be in the cockpit)

the other option, and one I would really like, would be to move the camera farther forward into the cockpit, allowing for a larger angle,

currently it appears you can only view the front 180 to 200 degrees, i would like the view to extend to around 270 degrees, as it allows for decent SA while still allowing pilots to sneak up on unwary opponents.

LegioX · 2012-06-11, 02:19 PM

Originally Posted by MrMorton

as long as it doesn't put you in third person view, I'd be all for it,
(I just don't like 3p view in aircraft, I like to be in the cockpit)

the other option, and one I would really like, would be to move the camera farther forward into the cockpit, allowing for a larger angle,

currently it appears you can only view the front 180 to 200 degrees, i would like the view to extend to around 270 degrees, as it allows for decent SA while still allowing pilots to sneak up on unwary opponents.

If i had my way i would take out 3rd person view completely. I do not want a complete 6 view. I just want something where i can look back either to the left or right and have the ability to see what is behind me (not directly that is the blind spot).

MrMorton · 2012-06-11, 02:20 PM

Originally Posted by LegioX

If i had my way i would take out 3rd person view completely. I do not want a complete 6 view. I just want something where i can look back either to the left or right and have the ability to see what is behind me (not directly that is the blind spot).

yea, we should start a petition I WANT TO SEE!!!

Kurtz · 2012-06-11, 02:31 PM

Originally Posted by LegioX

I really wish WW2OL had the dev support and following that PS 1/2 has. No offense to this game, looks awsome and can't wait to play it. But ww2ol had something no game had. A massive online war, with real world physics and damage. You just don't see that anymore in today's games. This is massive online air war right here. Physics and all included.
You have escorts and bombers like it should be.

Intercepting these RDP (research and development) raids were something you have to see to believe. Was truly awsome.
WWII Online Love From Above - YouTube

^ 2nd best game ever.

I was playing WW2online in 2002 and some buddies tipped me onto Planetside. I couldn't wait for it to come out.

I remember thinking, this is just the beginning. In 10 years all games will be massive persistent worlds to be conquered by large groups of online players.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.

If it wasn't for SOE, the genre would have died by now.

On Topic:
Dogfighting in PS1 vs WW2online.

WW2 online had flight physics, and PS1 didn't . The closest thing to PS1 dogfighting in WW2online was two Hawk75s getting into a turn based fight (or corkscrew battle). Many dogfights in PS1 were just an upward corkscrew until you hit ceiling and then you just circle strafed each other. There was e+afterburner technique that allowed players to get above their opponent, but it was a completely different experience in the two games.

PS2 seems to have physics, but the ceiling is still pretty low , but when I was watching the Live feed from E3 I got the feeling that each empire was going to have its own way of fighting.

The Scythe reminds me of the J-10 from BF2. Which means it could be extremely difficult to take on in a dogfight and would best benefit from the corkscrew type dog fight.

The Mossie looks like the best candidate for a the boom and zoom technique being the most Energy like (Think BF109F in WW2Online).

I have no idea how the reaver is going to fit into this yet, having not seen enough of them in action.

ParisTeta · 2012-06-11, 02:32 PM

Yeah third person is bad, it`s artifical cheap SA (radar for example isn´t as a looking behind feauture). I sign that!

Reaver`s Armor has advantage vs. the other empire? Bad idea, except you are an DB7 in World War 2 Online, armored as heavy as a matilda or char.

Reavers advantage is damage and armor sure, but performance wise, it is between Scyth und Mossie, and the more i think of it, it seems to be perfectly placed. Turn and Burn vs. Mossie , Hit n Run vs Scyth.

240 Speed for Mossi is the same i see, also 180(182) for Scyth, just reaver is all over the place (certs maybe?) but 210 would fit well. Funny for the Liberator i got 150 and 220 Speed also (afterburner even faster). But 240/210/180 is close enough for theoretical discussion.

When there is Beta we should check each other if we are in it, and try to find things out together.

meiam · 2012-06-11, 03:22 PM

I still think a lot of people are just thinking about it wrong, you don't win by gaining air superiority, you win by capturing ground base which air superiority help you in that regard. So maybe one plane is better than the other in dogfighting, but then the answer is simple, don't dogfight, just avoid the other aircraft and take out any A2G specialized plane and retreat when you,re low on health, maybe you'll never win air superiority, but as long as you're not letting the opponent rain death on ground troops you're doing you're job.

As far as specific of weapon goes, I hope you can go either gun focus or missile focus and anything in between, personally I never been one for WW2 era fighting and I've always liked the missile + MG combo, shoot one missile, while the plane is dealing with it, shoot the other one in a way that he's forced to eat one and while he's trying to figure out what to do shoot him with the MG. I think doing 2 good run of this (meaning 1 missile + 1 good salvo of MG) should bring an opponent down.

I doubt we'll ever see any complex physic module, I doubt gravity is even really gonna matter, I don't think you'll even lose speed by trying to ascend at like 45°C. Seems too complex for a F2P FPS with some amount of air combat.

Also looking at you're 6 is fine with me, but I think great pilot should be able to understand everything there is to know about the battlefield from there instrument, so wish we could see the opponent altitude relative to ours from the mini map.

ArmedZealot · 2012-06-11, 03:27 PM

Originally Posted by meiam

I still think a lot of people are just thinking about it wrong, you don't win by gaining air superiority, you win by capturing ground base which air superiority help you in that regard. So maybe one plane is better than the other in dogfighting, but then the answer is simple, don't dogfight, just avoid the other aircraft and take out any A2G specialized plane and retreat when you,re low on health, maybe you'll never win air superiority, but as long as you're not letting the opponent rain death on ground troops you're doing you're job.

I don't think it's that easy. Without air superiority troops and tanks moving on the ground become bait. You to have other planes in the air to make sure the enemy is wasting there resources taking those down rather than fielding more and more AG aircraft.

Balance really doesn't change anything here. Even if one aircraft is less powerful then the rest people will still be willing to fly it. Just need an extra one in the air to make up for it's capabilites.

2 fighters > 1 fighter in all cases here.

Sledgecrushr · 2012-06-11, 03:37 PM

Originally Posted by meiam

I still think a lot of people are just thinking about it wrong, you don't win by gaining air superiority, you win by capturing ground base which air superiority help you in that regard. So maybe one plane is better than the other in dogfighting, but then the answer is simple, don't dogfight, just avoid the other aircraft and take out any A2G specialized plane and retreat when you,re low on health, maybe you'll never win air superiority, but as long as you're not letting the opponent rain death on ground troops you're doing you're job.

As far as specific of weapon goes, I hope you can go either gun focus or missile focus and anything in between, personally I never been one for WW2 era fighting and I've always liked the missile + MG combo, shoot one missile, while the plane is dealing with it, shoot the other one in a way that he's forced to eat one and while he's trying to figure out what to do shoot him with the MG. I think doing 2 good run of this (meaning 1 missile + 1 good salvo of MG) should bring an opponent down.

I doubt we'll ever see any complex physic module, I doubt gravity is even really gonna matter, I don't think you'll even lose speed by trying to ascend at like 45°C. Seems too complex for a F2P FPS with some amount of air combat.

Also looking at you're 6 is fine with me, but I think great pilot should be able to understand everything there is to know about the battlefield from there instrument, so wish we could see the opponent altitude relative to ours from the mini map.

What a huge bummer quote. Im really hoping and praying that the devs see fit to making PS2 air wars quite an amazing part of the game.

meiam · 2012-06-11, 04:40 PM

I think the only way would be to have destructible environment and/or having AWAC in the air that reveal the position of all enemy on the board.

Outside of that, maybe flying base, but that sound pretty far fetch.

Fafnir · 2012-06-11, 04:46 PM

Air superiority will ensure that enemies will have hard time getting through open fields. I guess it's hard to get to a base and capture it when you're bombarded by 10 Liberators from beyond the reach of ground AA. Aircrafts will be very important, there is no doubt.

LegioX · 2012-06-11, 04:47 PM

I want to set up a "look behind" petition view for Aircraft in this game, but having trouble posting youtube videos to strengthen my argument. Argh.

MrMorton · 2012-06-11, 05:06 PM

Originally Posted by meiam

I still think a lot of people are just thinking about it wrong, you don't win by gaining air superiority, you win by capturing ground base which air superiority help you in that regard. So maybe one plane is better than the other in dogfighting, but then the answer is simple, don't dogfight, just avoid the other aircraft and take out any A2G specialized plane and retreat when you,re low on health, maybe you'll never win air superiority, but as long as you're not letting the opponent rain death on ground troops you're doing you're job.

As far as specific of weapon goes, I hope you can go either gun focus or missile focus and anything in between, personally I never been one for WW2 era fighting and I've always liked the missile + MG combo, shoot one missile, while the plane is dealing with it, shoot the other one in a way that he's forced to eat one and while he's trying to figure out what to do shoot him with the MG. I think doing 2 good run of this (meaning 1 missile + 1 good salvo of MG) should bring an opponent down.

I doubt we'll ever see any complex physic module, I doubt gravity is even really gonna matter, I don't think you'll even lose speed by trying to ascend at like 45°C. Seems too complex for a F2P FPS with some amount of air combat.

Also looking at you're 6 is fine with me, but I think great pilot should be able to understand everything there is to know about the battlefield from there instrument, so wish we could see the opponent altitude relative to ours from the mini map.

Personally air superiority is a big deal when trying to defend/cap a base, with the easy example being that if you have air superiority, you can deny enemy galaxy drops and your faction can safely drop

I honestly don't understand, if you are saying we should use air radar instead of looking around and basically be able to fly blind, that is dead wrong. There will be counters to avoid radar detection for one, and the radar does a poor job of showing the exact position of your opponent in relation to yourself. The addition of a 3d radar would be cool, but you definitely should not rely on instruments.

meiam · 2012-06-11, 05:40 PM

Originally Posted by MrMorton

Personally air superiority is a big deal when trying to defend/cap a base, with the easy example being that if you have air superiority, you can deny enemy galaxy drops and your faction can safely drop

I honestly don't understand, if you are saying we should use air radar instead of looking around and basically be able to fly blind, that is dead wrong. There will be counters to avoid radar detection for one, and the radar does a poor job of showing the exact position of your opponent in relation to yourself. The addition of a 3d radar would be cool, but you definitely should not rely on instruments.

My point is obtaining air superiority is unnecessary all you need is to stop you're opponent from having it, so you don't need to dogfight, you just need to survive. It's more efficient to attack opponent Air to ground aircraft and galaxy than to fight against the opponent fighter. Some people will try to dogfight, but balancing shouldn't be done around that, because it make as much sense as balancing you're usual FPS around people who wanna play using only basic melee attack.

Flying by looking directly at your target is, imo, a relic of WW2 ear fighting where radar didn't exist, you can only look at one place at the same time, so if you take time to look at your 6, it's time where you're not looking in front/left or right/above/below you, while with a good radar you can see everything on the battlefield at the same time as looking in front of you at you're target. In a game were potentially 100s of aircraft fly in the same, very small, area (above the contested base) that's essential. You don't really need a 3D map, just color code every target depending on altitude, orange:same level as you, lower than you: going toward blue, higher than you:going toward light yellow, or something like that. Plus once you,re figthing at night, you won't have a choice but to rely on radar

MrMorton · 2012-06-11, 06:18 PM

Originally Posted by meiam

My point is obtaining air superiority is unnecessary all you need is to stop you're opponent from having it, so you don't need to dogfight, you just need to survive. It's more efficient to attack opponent Air to ground aircraft and galaxy than to fight against the opponent fighter. Some people will try to dogfight, but balancing shouldn't be done around that, because it make as much sense as balancing you're usual FPS around people who wanna play using only basic melee attack.

Flying by looking directly at your target is, imo, a relic of WW2 ear fighting where radar didn't exist, you can only look at one place at the same time, so if you take time to look at your 6, it's time where you're not looking in front/left or right/above/below you, while with a good radar you can see everything on the battlefield at the same time as looking in front of you at you're target. In a game were potentially 100s of aircraft fly in the same, very small, area (above the contested base) that's essential. You don't really need a 3D map, just color code every target depending on altitude, orange:same level as you, lower than you: going toward blue, higher than you:going toward light yellow, or something like that. Plus once you,re figthing at night, you won't have a choice but to rely on radar

it depends, if players decide they want to have air superiority, they will fight for it, however "useless" it may actually be.

also with the current ttk (even on the reaver) if you try to fly straight through a bunch of enemies to try to kill, say a galaxy, you will get destroyed.

have you played any flight sims? Usually the radar's role is reserved for long ranger range detection of forces, which are then verified by actually seeing the force, not pinpointing the position in a dogfight.

as far as "being able to see only one target", you can see 90 degrees at a time, so you could potentially see every single aircraft flying as you approach.

A radar with "100's of aircraft" will be a solid mass of writhing blips (the longer range, the worse) and actually following specific enemies on the radar will be almost impossible.

The worst thing about the radar is it does not show where your enemy actually is, it shows a 2d approximation of where they are. For instance, if someone is to the right of me at a 45 degree angle above me and 500 meters out, if I glance at the sillouette I judge the distance to be fairly far away, but above me. However on my radar, that distance is represented as 250 yards, and no matter how much color coding you use, when glancing at the radar you will have the impression that that aircraft is closer to you than it actually is.

and there is also the problem of getting tunnel vision looking at your radar, and not paying attention to what is NOT on your radar (cloaked aircraft, AA, BASES) because you either get air radar or ground radar, not both.

**Malorn** · 2012-06-11, 06:51 PM

If you think air superiority doesn't matter you weren't paying attention to the E3 video. While the fighters were more interested in dogfighting than shooting ground targets, the Liberators were tearing it up. You win the air war, you have free reign with Liberators, which were basically flying howitzers.

It gives you 3 advantages:

1) Gives your ground forces air support via Liberators and A2G fighters

2) Allows your ground forces to focus more on AV and AI configurations.

3) Forces the enemy ground forces to focus more on AA configurations, making them even more vulnerable to your ground forces.

Not having air superiority is bad.

I've been hypothesizing that a good balance of a 10-man air squad would be 4 air-to-air fighters, 2 liberators, and 2 air-to-ground fighters. It's all set up as 2-man wingmen too, so every aircraft has a partner to coordinate with, including the libs.

The A2G fighters can operate as dogfighting if need be with machineguns but their primary role is as wild weasels going after ground-based AA like lightnings & AA max. The go after the stuff the Liberators might have a hard time killing and rely on speed and surprise. I figure with 2 of them they could rocket just about any ground target that isn't a Deployed Galaxy. The Weasels are sort of like floaters, taking out AA threats which appear or assisting the A2A fighters when necessary.

The A2A fighters keep the skies clear for the Liberators and weasels, but also look for enemy Libs, weasels, and galaxies.

The libs provide the actual ground support and draw out the ground-based AA for the weasels to pummel with quick strikes.

That formula could be tweaked, like removing a lib in favor of 2 more A2A if the situation demands, or scaling down the numbers for smaller squads, but I think you get the idea.

Also, if you have air superiority it means your own tanks can afford to use different configurations, such as doubling down on AV weaponry on tanks for blowing up other tanks, or adding mortars for better infantry suppression. If they don't have to worry about air threats then they can focus better on ground attacks and keeping ground-based AA from bothering their air cover.

And the reverse is also true - if you don't have air superiority you need to invest in more AA, such as pulling more lightnings with skyguard turrets or tanks with AA secondary guns. That weakens your ground forces and makes them more vulnerable to the enemy who has the luxury of doubling down on AV weapons and smoking your tanks.