AA, dogfights and farming - Page 2

Warborn · 2012-02-15, 02:17 AM

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.

Brusi · 2012-02-15, 02:20 AM

Originally Posted by texico

One of the problems I found with PS1 was the triangle of AA, Airchav and ground infantry.

Air-Chav, or Chav-Air?

http://forum.holidaywatchdog.com/Gen...ead-11045.html

CutterJohn · 2012-02-15, 07:16 AM

Originally Posted by Warborn

The point is that not everything needs to be good against everything else. Should everything on be an equally viable target for everything else? Is it a bad thing if some vehicles aren't good at killing infantry? I don't see it as a bad thing if MBTs aren't good at killing infantry at all, but are good against ground vehicles. Or if infantry aren't good against aircraft, but are good against other infantry or vehicles if they can get close to them.

So not only should all aircraft not be good at killing infantry, but tanks shouldn't be either. So the only thing you want to be any good at killing infantry are.. Lightnings and other infantry?

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.

It's about synergy. Combined arms. Relying on team mates to fill the gaps. That's the point of them axing the supersoldiers of the original game and making classes with distinct roles. That mentality should extend to vehicles, too. If you want to kill infantry, X vehicle(s) are good at that. If you want to kill aircraft, Y vehicle(s) are good at that.

Thats why you are limited in what weapons you can carry. If you want to kill vehicles, X vehicle WEAPONS are good at that. If you want to kill aircraft, Y vehicle WEAPONS are good at that.

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.

Death2All · 2012-02-15, 07:35 AM

Originally Posted by Azren

Flight physics are going to be very different, no way to tell how it will turn out.

I'll have to agree with this point. The mechanics for flying will be much more different than how they were in PS1.

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.

Coreldan · 2012-02-15, 08:08 AM

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.

Originally Posted by Warborn

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.

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.

Redshift · 2012-02-15, 08:12 AM

make the chaffs have a minimum height to deploy (or be effective). Low level farming chavs will be far more vulnerable.

beekergunship · 2012-02-15, 09:57 AM

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.

ringring · 2012-02-15, 10:05 AM

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.

magnatron · 2012-02-15, 10:33 AM

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.

Revanant · 2012-02-15, 10:54 AM

Originally Posted by texico

O
Imo PlanetSide 1 didn't do a good enough job of preserving dogfights between airchav, and I hope PS2 can improve on that without jeopardizing ground battles due to farming.

+

= Airchav

Warborn · 2012-02-15, 03:44 PM

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

So not only should all aircraft not be good at killing infantry, but tanks shouldn't be either. So the only thing you want to be any good at killing infantry are.. Lightnings and other infantry?

No, and I don't much care to get into this tangent as it is unrelated to what this thread is about. My point was that the issue of making infantry and fighters equally able to kill one another is predicated on the idea that infantry should be a viable target for fighters, and vice versa. I'm saying that's not necessarily the case. Not everything in the game needs to be a viable target for everything else. I believe the game would benefit from air-to-ground rockets for fighters being designed around killing tanks, and anti-vehicle weapons infantry get be short range, inaccurate, and not at all designed to destroy air vehicles in flight.

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.

Thats why you are limited in what weapons you can carry. If you want to kill vehicles, X vehicle WEAPONS are good at that. If you want to kill aircraft, Y vehicle WEAPONS are good at that.

Not at all, and this is something we already know to be the case. Will tanks be well-suited to killing aircraft? Will liberators be well-suited to killing fighters? Not every vehicle necessarily needs to have a load-out which makes it a foil to something else in the game. I think assuming that fighters need to be lethal to both infantry and tanks is an assumption that doesn't need to be made. Not every vehicle should be expected to have a weapon that can attack any target with significant lethality.

Originally Posted by magnatron

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.

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.

Chaff · 2012-02-15, 04:30 PM

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)

wasdie · 2012-02-15, 04:32 PM

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.

Warborn · 2012-02-15, 04:37 PM

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.

CutterJohn · 2012-02-15, 09:29 PM

Originally Posted by Warborn

Not at all, and this is something we already know to be the case. Will tanks be well-suited to killing aircraft?

They get AA turrets. I concede the possibility that the 'AA' turret will be more of a dual purpose turret designed for use against aircraft and vehicles, leaving the tank still focused on ground vehicle combat but adding some modest measure of protection vs air.

Will liberators be well-suited to killing fighters?

Won't be much point to the rear turret if it can't protect you from fighters.

Not every vehicle necessarily needs to have a load-out which makes it a foil to something else in the game. I think assuming that fighters need to be lethal to both infantry and tanks is an assumption that doesn't need to be made. Not every vehicle should be expected to have a weapon that can attack any target with significant lethality.

No, not ever vehicle needs to be capable of every role. But you're trying to rid entire groups of units from having any effective weapons vs other entire groups of units. No AA for any infantry class, no AI for any air vehicle. I've seen no good reason for that restriction, no case for how it would actually improve gameplay beyond 'not wanting to get farmed', which is specious reasoning at best.