Radar(beyond visual range for aircraft) - Page 2

Stardouser · 2012-04-13, 05:20 PM

Originally Posted by Atheosim

So you're saying that even without the target having chaff, it will still take 3 people their entire supply of missiles to neutralize a single person?

No, that was for a Galaxy. However, I would want a single fighter to be able to kill a 3 person bomber aircraft. Of course, in many cases, the chaff is going to cause the missiles to run out and he'll be forced to either fly away for more ammo, or get closer for guns.

Naturally, chaff won't be unlimited, so you can't just fly around laughing and dumping it everywhere.

Destroyeron · 2012-04-13, 05:21 PM

I think for detection it would be ok, but for actual engagement it'd be a bit too much. Could be a cert so you'd at least have an early warning system.

JHendy · 2012-04-13, 05:37 PM

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.

Alduron · 2012-04-13, 05:44 PM

I'll throw my two cents in here, too.

I like the extended radar idea. It's a mechanism that we have today, and it's something that the military spends massive amounts of money in order to evade. It's a huge issue in real combat that has sprouted loads of "stealth" technologies in real life and it would be odd to not have a form of radar to contend with in game.

This is a game, though, so it would have to be balanced. Each and every vehicle would need to be capable of thwarting off long rang missile attacks in some way. Chaffs, evasion, etc.

I really like the idea of having a no-radar flight level. It would either encourage pilots to fly together for protection, or fly low in order to avoid detection - and I think that's a win all around.

Aircraft have a limited radar range compared to their ground counterparts. I think that the longer ranges should belong to a deployable, or captureable radar station (tower) that you can fight for control of. There should probably be a mechanic to allow a single radar tower per area if they were deployable.

I'd suggest something like:
(numbers made up)

No radar acquisition through objects
Aircraft not fitted for Anti-Air get standard sight line radar area
Aircraft fitted with Anti-Air get radar fire 500m beyond sight radar
Deployable towers have a range of 1.5km diameter and cannot have another tower in their radar radius
Deployable towers can be captured/destroyed
Deployable towers pass radar data to all Aircraft in radar radius fitted with Anti-air
Aircraft fitted with Anti-Air can fire upon any aircraft within towers range so long as both aircraft are within the same tower's radar reach
No radar acquisition on anything under 75m height

Basically, if you have a tower and anti-air (which you should probably coordinate) you're a big player in that air-space. It makes the radar station a priority, and lets you fire beyond sight, and makes it so you can hide from radar.

Blackwolf · 2012-04-13, 06:50 PM

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 · 2012-04-13, 07:11 PM

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 · 2012-04-13, 07:24 PM

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.

Sledgecrushr · 2012-04-13, 07:25 PM

I would be for ground based radar that is beyond visual range. This might help to prepare for an attack.

Stardouser · 2012-04-13, 07:37 PM

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.

Kipper · 2012-04-13, 07:53 PM

How far do you take it? If you incorporate BVR (beyond visual range) then that's not very casual player friendly, because they'll just keep getting the shizzle kicked out of them by hardcore players that they will never see.

If you're incorporating chaff (vs Radar guided) AND flares (vs IR/Heat seeking) then you need two types of missile, and they'd have to have some differences in order to have a point, and again, casual players or inexperienced players would not get a chance to know which warning beep was for which missile before they were a smoking hole in the floor.

I'm thinking at some point in the future, stealth/ECM technology completely counteracts radar and guidance technology and thats why everyone had to go back to old fashioned close-in dogfighting with guns.

Saying all that though, I do like the idea of ground based radar stations as mini objectives. That would be cool. They could be networked up so that they provide coverage to the owners, the more connected stations you have, the more complete the coverage - for vehicles only - making them prime targets before a major assault, to mask incoming troops.

Stardouser · 2012-04-13, 07:56 PM

Originally Posted by Kipper

1. How far do you take it? If you incorporate BVR (beyond visual range) then that's not very casual player friendly, because they'll just keep getting the shizzle kicked out of them by hardcore players that they will never see.

1. If you're incorporating chaff (vs Radar guided) AND flares (vs IR/Heat seeking) then you need two types of missile, and they'd have to have some differences in order to have a point, and again, casual players or inexperienced players would not get a chance to know which warning beep was for which missile before they were a smoking hole in the floor.

2. I'm thinking at some point in the future, stealth/ECM technology completely counteracts radar and guidance technology and thats why everyone had to go back to old fashioned close-in dogfighting with guns.

Saying all that though, I do like the idea of ground based radar stations as mini objectives. That would be cool. They could be networked up so that they provide coverage to the owners, the more connected stations you have, the more complete the coverage - for vehicles only - making them prime targets before a major assault, to mask incoming troops.

1. I really don't agree with that...and actually, radar is a double edged sword. When you use it(and you MUST use it in order to fire radar missiles) you are broadcasting your position to all other aircraft. When you fire missiles at enemies, it's not going to be a deus ex machina where you get lots of hits. And also, it's not going to be a 1 on 1 situation either unless there is literally only 1 aircraft on each empire.

Also, I cannot believe that casual players cannot tell the difference in tones. And if they can't, then the HUD can say "RADAR MISSILE INCOMING". That's one casualization I don't mind, it's not like being able to tell the difference is tones is a relevant skill that anyone cares about.
2. This sounds like a thematic argument, and that's not consistent with any far-future sci-fi IP that I know of. Star Trek, Star Wars, Babylon 5, all of it, stealth didn't obsolete sensors.

Kipper · 2012-04-13, 08:20 PM

The problem with radar is as you say; you need to establish and maintain a lock in order to guide your missile home. Even today, anti-radar missiles (both air to ground and ground to air) exist with the purpose of destroying the source of radar emissions. Theoretically, you could get hammered by a tank or infantry soldier who was working anti-air just for switching your radar on.

Anyone who grew up on flight sims or happens to know their subject will know that the alternative - IR missiles - are only effective when fired from behind (so it can lock on to the heat from the engines) and away from bigger heat sources (like the sun) and that they are very easily confused by flares.

I'm not saying its not possible to put both types missiles in and balance them, but there's an education for those not in the know about how to make best use of each type of weapon. I'm fine with it personally, but the fear I would have is at what point does it become too technical and "simmy" and put people off who just want to log on and shoot some stuff?

You could get around the "arrgh! which button" problem by having countermeasures bound to a single key which launches chaff AND flare, or automatically decides which is appropriate.

As for the future argument - the only decider there would be actually seeing the future. Planetside is dealing with perfectly balanced/equal forces in number, training and technology for the purposes of making a fun game - whereas reality deals with massive imbalances for the purposes of winning conflicts.

I wonder what would happen if there did happen to be a conflict between two perfectly equal sides using the best of today's technology?