Radar(beyond visual range for aircraft)

[Pollo Jack]

I imagine being blown up by a target you can't see to be about as fun as hovering in one spot moving your mouse back and fourth and pressing mouse one.

These aircraft hover and don't you forget it.

Camping a spawn pad will be infinitely easier. At least setting up a burster had the drawback of possible return fire.

Sure, they can do the same but hovering back and fourth next to a mountain against a target you can't see is dumber than the adad snipers in 2Fort.

I am happy to see this idea has had as much negative reception as the wasp did in Planet Side during its announcement.

Finally, yes careful low flying does break missle locks. I often flew my lib low enough to set off mines. It can be fun in specific cases, but long range lock ons was certainly not enjoyable. Keep the lock ons low range and low damage.

[Destroyeron]

Originally Posted by Pollo Jack

I imagine being blown up by a target you can't see to be about as fun as hovering in one spot moving your mouse back and fourth and pressing mouse one.

Is mouse one your first missile and mouse two your second?

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by Kipper

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?

Actually, you bring up interesting points. IR missiles are generally smaller and shorter ranged, so perhaps a fighter could carry more of those for that reason. But the drawback is, you have to get to rear aspect to use them. Although technically I believe the latest few generations of IR missiles are able to fire all-aspect; so if IR missiles in game could only fire from the rear, it would be a balance decision, not realism. But I'm fine with that, because balance>realism.

Now, anti-radar missiles do exist, but they are generally used for jets to fire them at SAM installations or mobile SAMs. That is not to say they couldn't be adapted to fire at jets to track them by their radar. But would we want there to be that many different ones to choose from? Personally I would say skip the anti-radar missiles, it's enough that enemy jets will get the radar ping warning, and since your missiles are air to air only, there's no reason really to worry about giving infantry anti-radar missiles.


I really, really do not agree with the "argh which button argument". It just can't be that hard to learn which button to push after a couple of hours. Hell, do what BF3 does, I believe it actually pops up saying push X for flares. So it can say push Z for Chaff. As I say, recognizing missile tone differences isn't a critical skill, so let there be a casualization for that part.

Also, just one other point - you say "maintain the lock to guide the missile", but I was assuming these missiles would be fire and forget(air to air missiles, that is). But, depending on playtesting, if holding your lock makes it more balanced, that's OK too.

Honestly, I'm really not expecting radar missiles to be a major killing action, BUT they will force strategic play.

Originally Posted by Pollo Jack

Camping a spawn pad will be infinitely easier. At least setting up a burster had the drawback of possible return fire.

You mean camping aircraft spawn points from BVR with missiles? Someone was saying "anything under 75 meters in height can't be locked onto". I doubt any air spawns will be that high, but if they were, that would be an awesome looking base. Besides, proximity to the spawn pad could easily be made no-lock territory.

Originally Posted by Pollo Jack

Sure, they can do the same but hovering back and fourth next to a mountain against a target you can't see is dumber than the adad snipers in 2Fort.

Also, this is not accurate. Under my vision, of course you can't visually see them, but if they are pinging you with radar, even if you are a bomber without your own active radar, you would see them on your HUD. So you definitely could see them.

[lolroflroflcake]

While part of me likes this idea the other part says that it would probably quickly devolve the air game into a spam-your-missiles-and-flee-fest it would also allow people to camp in their aircraft over bases shooting off missiles at anyone who got close and that's no fun for anyone. Perhaps if they didn't outright kill targets but only weakened for when you close to dog fighting range.

That said I would like at least some sort of lock on weapon, whether Radar or IR, this time to add range to engagements, something medium range so you have to commit to the fight before using them but still have some space between you and your target. With the speed of the Mossey lock on missiles for hit-and-run and interceptions would make a great empire specific addon for the TR.

Having extended Radar range is a good idea though I like that. It makes the lives of all pilots from private pilots to pilots flying commercial airliners, and of course military, much easier so I see no reason why we shouldn't have this convenience available in game. Its not like having an easier time finding people because your empire fought for a few hours to take over a Radar station is bad for gameplay.

[MilitantBob]

I like the idea of having radar that extends beyond los (for vehicles only), but not thrilled at all about having weapons that could engage from that range.

And, of course there would have to be side grades that could shorten the range your craft could be detected.

Customization, there is never too much.

[Pollo Jack]

Originally Posted by Destroyeron

Is mouse one your first missile and mouse two your second?

Since this isn't a console game the missile will be whatever you bound it to.

Originally Posted by Stardouser

You mean camping aircraft spawn points from BVR with missiles? Someone was saying "anything under 75 meters in height can't be locked onto". I doubt any air spawns will be that high, but if they were, that would be an awesome looking base. Besides, proximity to the spawn pad could easily be made no-lock territory.

Look at the Biolab in the first GDC video. It is well above 75 meters. A no lock on zone would indirectly buff TR along with making it a camp zone for friendlies to fire out of.

Originally Posted by Stardouser

Also, this is not accurate. Under my vision, of course you can't visually see them, but if they are pinging you with radar, even if you are a bomber without your own active radar, you would see them on your HUD. So you definitely could see them.

Yeah, I would still say you aren't seeing them. Far too removed from actually doing anything to have a light pop up saying peek-a-boo some one sees you.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by Pollo Jack

Since this isn't a console game the missile will be whatever you bound it to.



1. Look at the Biolab in the first GDC video. It is well above 75 meters. A no lock on zone would indirectly buff TR along with making it a camp zone for friendlies to fire out of.



2. Yeah, I would still say you aren't seeing them. Far too removed from actually doing anything to have a light pop up saying peek-a-boo some one sees you.

1. Then being on the pad itself can be a no lock area. Although, I'm really not seeing a problem with it even if you can be locked on the pad. Your team should be running its own combat air patrols, and also, are we forgetting that bases are likely to have their own stationary AA? Also, if there is a no lock below a certain height, it's fine if aircraft flying that low can look up and lock those above. If you're that low, you're probably hovering, or at least flying slow, and therefore, gun-bait. And for tanks, too.
2. It's enough.

[WaryWizard]

I like the idea of a radar, but not long range missiles. With 3d cockpits in mind, I think it would be cool to have a circular radar with some dots showing where friendly and enemy aircraft are located. That way even if you lose sight of the enemy aircraft your dog-fighting, you can still tell roughly where he is. Also things like building mountains and other obstructions should block radar from seeing what is beyond them. Whether this radar shows aircraft beyond the render distance is up to balance to decide.

[Kipper]

Going back to missile types briefly, I'd expect an IR missile to be rear aspect in the game if only to differentiate it from a radar one. Everything has to have a strength and a weakness to be balanced, so the strength here is that you can get a lock without giving away your own position to radar. The weakness is that you have to manoeuvre behind your target.

A "fire and forget" radar guided missile would have to have a radar source, and if it isn't coming from the aircraft that launched it, it should be from the missile. To me, that suggests these missiles either have to be bigger (you can carry less) and less manoeuvrable in flight in order to accommodate the technology (and more expensive) or a much lower yield because warhead space is taken up by guidance systems.

A radar guided missile that requires you to hold a lock is disadvantaged by the fact that you have to broadcast your position AND keep your enemy in radar range (would that be 360 degree or more partial coverage?) but the missile itself wold be smaller, cheaper, faster and harder hitting. Anything fired from a longer range should also be easier to evade, because you have more time to do something about it.

All of these different missiles could be a bitch to balance... I like the idea of customisation and specialisation even between different AA roles (likewise AG could have load outs for dumb rockets and differently guided missiles) but would it put casual players off if there was too steep a learning curve?

One solution would be to start with a a base cert that gave you one type of load out, and the others are bought later - meaning that by choosing different customisations, you're implying that you understand them. Actually, if all of the missiles could be balanced between each other on the main factors then you could really go to town on side grades. The bigger get your missile, the less manoeuvrable and easier to evade it is and the less you can carry. The smaller missiles are faster and harder to avoid and you can carry more. Missiles are made bigger by adding range, on-board guidance, and warhead yield, and smaller by removing these things.

One final thing to point out is that just pushing countermeasures shouldn't be enough to confuse a missile, you have to take evasive manoeuvres too.

[Eclipse]

(Just a note, i spent 2 hours typing out a long constructive reply to this thread only to lose it to a browser crash, so this one isn't going to be as good.)

i personally think ground based radars being included in PS2 is a good idea. The potential for additional strategic options and teamwork is quite substantial. By providing early warning and locational data to their owners, they make entering any radar covered area a very risky endeavor. Of course there is a big difference between a radar that only detects aircraft and one which is designed to sense ground troop movements (vehicle only or not) but the principles of dealing with them are similar. In order for an attacking force to ease their conquest of a region, the radar installment must be dealt with as a priority target, whether that means sending in covert ops or simply overwhelming it with massed firepower.

As to their exact functions and limitations, i think Alduron got it pretty close, though the exact numbers and details will of course have to be tested and balanced. Give players a way to use their own skill to overcome the obstacles placed in their path and they'll generally be happy. At least i would be.

On to the subject of air-to-air combat and the missiles/radar involved there... it's a complicated subject that's really sort of on the fence for me. On the one hand i like the idea of adding guided missiles to dogfights. At short range, they could be a fun addition that requires you to use more thought and skill than just circle-strafing into the best position for your guns. On the other hand, fire-and-forget missiles from BVR just smack of cheap laziness. Especially if you consider the fact that there's going to be -far- more than just a couple of aircraft flying around. If you thought that getting a missile warning tone and having to dodge an incoming projectile when you can't see who's attacking you was bad, imagine flying into a hex, even with an escort, and being confronted by twenty or thirty incoming missiles, just because they had their radar telling them you were coming and there's nothing you can do about it except avoid the area or zerg it and ignore the loss of life. For a reference of the kind of cheapness i'm talking about, try looking up "gate camping" for a game called Ace Online (or space cowboys/flysis/air rivals/phi doi). Long range missile spam (and it WILL be spammed) is just not fun.

Of course, there's always the possibility it -could- be balanced. For example, lower both the speed, damage and tracking ability of long range missiles. Make it so that even with mass spam, a skilled pilot -can- survive. Make it difficult, sure, but make it -possible-. I wouldn't mind people spewing endless rocket-propelled-death in my direction if i could survive because i was -good- at my job. Dying because i suck at flying is ok, dying because it's -genuinely unbalanced- is not.

Kipper brings up a very good point that i hadn't thought of - what if you could customize the missiles themselves? It would certainly be an interesting mechanic, and the tradeoffs between warhead, tracking etc would definitely help to balance them. The biggest problem with it though is the same as that with customizing your characters - it has been stated by the dev team that they want different roles, classes and vehicle configurations to be visually distinctive, so you know what you're up against. Aside from possibly an informative HUD in your aircraft cockpit telling you what's about to smash through your windshield, i don't see how you're going to be able to accurately predict and react to all the different kinds of weapon that will be produced. And without being able to predict and react, you can't fully utilize the skill-over-loadout concept that is the core of PS2's combat.

[Stardouser]

You guys have given me a thought...are air vehicles in PS2 going to be shielded?

If so, what if you had to choose between missiles that can damage aircraft hulls, but can't penetrate shields, and missiles that can take down the shields, but can't damage the hull? Call them ion-warhead missiles or whatever.

And frankly, I'm interested in weapons that only create holes in shields for other purposes as well.

[Goku]

I don't think they are. There maybe a shield benefit similar to temporarily having one like the previous amp shield benefit in PS1.

[Red Beard]

Originally Posted by Alduron

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.

Higby are you getting this? This is a free gameplay brainstorming session right here!

[Red Beard]

Even if you hate the idea of radar missiles and the like; deployable or sandbox-style radar towers giving a regional benefit to your faction sounds pretty darn cool!

[Whalenator]

Guys, it's okay to dream.
But keep in mind the average forward base with air capabilities will be no more than 3km from the frontlines.

Going about 100 m/s, which is less than the cruise speed of some of the new aircraft, it would take thirty seconds to arrive at the frontlines. In fact, on the 8km x 8km map mentioned it would take one minute and thirty seconds to go from corner to corner.

The air game will be quick and punctual. Organization, long-range missiles, radar... Will not be present. Based on what we've seen expect pulse cannons and semi-guided short-range rockets.