News: ESF Update Plans via Kevmo - Page 4

WSNeo · 2013-07-02, 01:35 PM

I really don't get the reasoning behind nerfing FAF missiles. Yes they have a low cap to use but they have always been difficult to hit with, ESPECIALLY versus a good ESF pilot that know how to stay out of your lock-on view and quickly get behind you.

If anything the flares cooldowns should be shortened overall, and new options for countermeasures should be considered and making flares actually work like flares (Missiles actually tracking and following the flares), and change the name of the current flares to ECM (Electronic Countermeasures) as that's literally how they are working now.

So in short:

"Flares" should be renamed to ECM (Electronic Countermeasures) the primary role of this would be to provide wide area denial of lock ons for a set period of time and work to break missiles guided through this new "maintained lock" mechanic.
This would allow actual Flares to be introduced as an alternative. This could have a considerably lower cooldown or be able to be used in rapid succession (two or three flares in a burst) before going on cooldown. The main role that this would have would be to fend off multiple missile locks in a short period of time.

That being said I actually enjoy FAF missiles. I don't have any gripes against them other than possibly their life duration, which I honestly hardly have a problem with as I tend to outrun them from time to time whenever my flares are on CD (I guess that my playstyle is getting an unneeded buff).

I also feel that the maintained locks are going to make it a nightmare fighting top pilots as I can rarely get out of their sights currently. I use the Racer 2 or 3 frame and it feels next to pointless trying to dogfight them rather than do hit and run strikes with FAF missiles on each pass.

maradine · 2013-07-02, 02:07 PM

Originally Posted by SolLeks

Also, who needs joystick support when you just need to hold pitch up and tap S ever so often, right?

Analog proportional control is a wonderful thing.

typhaon · 2013-07-02, 02:19 PM

Originally Posted by Cosmical

How about we have fighters that handle like fighters.

If you have a flying system that requires you to look at peoples glitchy tutorials on youtube just to compete, by binding a bunch of keys that arnt there as a preset, you have a silly system.

Added to that the fact that dogfights are won the fastest person to slam on their breaks and turn around. Did anyone expect them to work like this?

I mean we have flying turrets, theyre called liberators. A jet should stall if it slows beyond a certain speed, to encourage fast paced chases and high g maneuvers. And hit and run tactics on the battlefield. Not swiveling stationary targets.

I'd really like to see this sentiment picked up and run with by the community... I hate the way ESFs fly - it's corny!

Notice whenever a dogfight is shown in an SOE promo video... they don't show THAT. It would draw lols - so instead you see what looks like traditional style air combat... which isn't what really happens.

I remember hearing these "skill" arguments when ADAD and bunnyhoppying were in a worse state. I don't hear a lot of complaining now that they have been muzzled.

It seems to me all the flight characteristics are already in the game. It isn't a matter of ripping out the code and starting over, it's just a matter of tweaking values. Make it so they can't stop on a dime as fast... rotate as quickly while hovering... and can't accelerate from a dead stop, as fast.

Cosmical · 2013-07-02, 02:44 PM

Originally Posted by typhaon

I'd really like to see this sentiment picked up and run with by the community... I hate the way ESFs fly - it's corny!

Notice whenever a dogfight is shown in an SOE promo video... they don't show THAT. It would draw lols - so instead you see what looks like traditional style air combat... which isn't what really happens.

I mean i understand that there isn't enough guaranteed ground area for a jet type vehicle to land. But the VTOL jet in battlefield 3 does a pretty good job of feeling like a jet with hover ability, but the hover is generally quite crippling, and would never be used in a dogfight with another plane.

Its just used for landing, and the very rare situation your fighting 1 guy with just a rifle and can afford to be cocky.

maradine · 2013-07-02, 03:10 PM

If there was a "let's improve the air model without scaring away the hovertank enthusiasts" session, I'd be on a flight to San Diego tomorrow.

Cosmical · 2013-07-02, 03:29 PM

Originally Posted by maradine

If there was a "let's improve the air model without scaring away the hovertank enthusiasts" session, I'd be on a flight to San Diego tomorrow.

I think the way they could make air combat more interesting is by making your after burners been integral. i.e. turning them on allows you to ridiculous maneuvers, high g turns whatever. But also, slamming on your air brakes costs afterburner fuel, as does pulsing your upwards thrust.

Therefore air combat would not only be about risky fun flying, but it would also be about maintaining or correctly using your afterburner fuel supply (maintaining within normal flying speeds douesnt drain anything). And if you try too much, you will find yourself trying to hover with no supply, and will drop like a brick.

Also this would encourage people who are amazing pilots to take the afterburner fuel increase slot, allowing them to out fly people.

Redshift · 2013-07-02, 03:48 PM

Hmm a lot of these changes seem to detrimental to air combat, surely fun air combat comes from using guns and dog fighting, instant close range missiles, faf missles and spray and prey machine guns with the same ttk as the rotary surely just lowers the skill to pathetic?

PredatorFour · 2013-07-02, 06:18 PM

Originally Posted by Redshift

Hmm a lot of these changes seem to detrimental to air combat, surely fun air combat comes from using guns and dog fighting, instant close range missiles, faf missles and spray and prey machine guns with the same ttk as the rotary surely just lowers the skill to pathetic?

Yes it does. That was what i was trying to say earlier when i said the skill level would be lowered so 'not so good' pilots can kill 'good' ones easier.

bpostal · 2013-07-02, 06:39 PM

As a mainly infantry player, I wasn't really paying attention to this thread...my mistake. If there's a chance we can see something akin to Lodestar's in the game then I'm going to get excited. I can't fly and I don't really drive so the potential addition of a support role like this is amazing.
Also, imagine the XP that can roll off of that thing!

OctavianAXFive · 2013-07-02, 06:48 PM

The farther this thread goes, the more it seems to be that the folks here at PSU aren't really interested in adding new guns and the like to ESFs.

The focus seems mostly to be on countermeasures and the mechanics of flight.

I quite like the flight mechanics though I have to admit they aren't intuitive. I realize that while realism isn't always a good goal, it has some great benefits.

People coming from other games with aerial combat are going to be at a loss in PS2. I know I was super frustrated in the beta with ESFs. I understand basic dogfighting principals, but those basics don't apply to PS2. I had to relearn the hard way how to fly backwards and shoot, something that is a bit mind bending to new pilots and not at all intuitive when the average person thinks about a dogfight.

This is good and bad. It's good because ESF fights definitely have a unique flavor. It's bad because it's not intuitive.

I think the ESF flight mechanic should be something on the list of things SoE should examine and reevaluate over the long term. Their versatility is a boon for now but as the game ages and the developers want to add new vehicles or freshen-up some of the mechanics, having an aircraft that does it all can really get in the way.

It's for that reason that I really want to see them divide out the ESF's role in the combined arms effort.

maradine · 2013-07-02, 07:46 PM

Originally Posted by OctavianAXFive

The farther this thread goes, the more it seems to be that the folks here at PSU aren't really interested in adding new guns and the like to ESFs.

Quite interested. Everything listed sounds exciting. It just won't scratch what some consider to be an underlying itch.

Lonehunter · 2013-07-02, 09:39 PM

The guns are a huge deal to me, I hope there's a station cash sale before they come out so I can buy them all.

They keep adding infantry weapons and have even added, and expanded choices of ground vehicle weapons. Air vechs haven't got anything yet, it's about time.

Artalion · 2013-07-03, 01:19 AM

The key to reducing the ace pilot problem is giving newbies a means of taking them at significantly longer ranges. It is very telling that most of the ace pilots prefer using close range cannons to longer range AA missiles.

It's not really that difficult to figure out why either. Using AA missiles to lock on will tell your opponent that you are out there, which makes it difficult to sneak up on him. AA missiles take a long time to lock on, more than enough time for a pilot to begin taking evasive maneuvers. Finally, if you do manage to get a lock, he can break the lock easily by deploying flares.

When newbies are trying to take out an enemy pilot, they use AA missiles, but the enemy pilot knows how to get out of this. The enemy then maneuvers his plane into a close quarter dog fight, gets behind the newbie and blasts them with his cannon.

So, it naturally follows that the devs would tweak missiles so that they could be fired from further away and take less time to lock on, right?

Nope. Instead, they give us missiles that require us to keep the target in sight, not just for the lock on, but for the entire duration of the flight. Also, the moment you lock on and fire, you announce your presence, not just to the target, but to every hostile in the vicinity, thanks to the auto-spot mechanic.

At that range, it would be better just to use the cannons. There is no warning to the enemy until you decide to fire, and when you do fire, you won't activate a magic "I'm here! Shoot me!" option. We don't have this kind of thing for infantry or tanks, and it is for the same reason that we shouldn't put it on air targets: it punishes stealth.

At the end of the day, the Ace pilots would still be beasts at the close range game and have the advantage of being able to see their targets more clearly. The addition of close range lock on missiles will not work, because Ace pilots don't use them, nor do they need them to take out their targets. Other pilots do.

*******************

Something that really needs a balance pass is the flare launcher. Pilots love that it can break missile locks, but they hate the recharge time. Missile people hate them because they can break the lock and fly out of range before they can reacquire.

I have a way of making both players happy. Here is how I would change it:

1. Make flare launchers be ammo based. Each ESF has a certain number of flares. They can be fired at any time, but if you run out, then you will have to resupply them at the nearest ammo center.

2. Flares are no longer 100% effective, how much less effective is negotiable. For the sake of argument, let's say it is 50% effective. This means that if two missiles are chasing you, a flare might fool one of them.

Both of these combined would remove a key frustration to both pilots and missile folks. The pilots would be able to use their flares as frequently as they were locked, without having to wait for that ability to recharge. The downside is that they run the risk of running out at an inconvenient time or using one and still getting hit.

The missile folks would be happy because their targets wouldn't be guaranteed escape, and even if they did, the missile folks would know that it would have cost them a couple of flares. Furthermore, there would be the hope that they would run across a fighter which had run out of flares.

There is also a financial advantage to making the second change. Currently, missile players (read: SAM's) are not very good at killing aircraft because flares give fighters de facto missile invulnerability. If you need AA defense, you pull a MAX, which has a free burster.

But limit that effectiveness and SAM's become a lot more viable, particularly since MAX's now cost significantly more infantry resources. If you want a SAM, you're going to need certs or station cash, and people will pony up the latter if they think the weapon will give them an edge over MAX flak.

I wrote this from the perspective of someone who bought a Hawk, only to find that it was effectively useless in an environment where every pilot equips flares. But it also applies to players that use lock on missiles on their ESF.

The updated flare launcher would also be good for pilots. Rather than just hitting a flare and running for cover, you could a couple flares, which is more dramatic (and realistic, if that sort of thing matters to you.) It also isn't vulnerable to cool down times (reloading is another matter, but a clip would still give you some flexibility.)

Until this mechanic is updated, missile weapons, any kind of missile weapons, will be at a disadvantage when compared to their projectile counterparts (flak, cannons, etc).

PredatorFour · 2013-07-03, 07:04 AM

Originally Posted by Artalion

2. Flares are no longer 100% effective, how much less effective is negotiable. For the sake of argument, let's say it is 50% effective. This means that if two missiles are chasing you, a flare might fool one of them.

Some interesting ideas but i would argue that this is already ingame with the striker as it stands. Also adding in this change would make going anywhere near a TR striker nest suicide for sure.

I think the flare mechanic is good as it is, altho with more lock ons coming in they could possibly reduce the flare ready timer.

What i would like to see is more variety with my scythe weapons. I would like my turbo laser to have a choice of anti-tank depleted uranium rounds or standard infantry rounds/aircraft. I'd like my pods to be either anti tank or infantry. All they would have to do is change the colour of the ammo to red or something when it comes out so you can see which ammo an ESF has.

Rbstr · 2013-07-03, 10:19 AM

Originally Posted by Artalion

I wrote this from the perspective of someone who bought a Hawk, only to find that it was effectively useless in an environment where every pilot equips flares. But it also applies to players that use lock on missiles on their ESF.

The thing is you need flares or there are missiles all over you, especially against TR. It's all locks all the time.

And missiles hurt. It's not just a little tap on the wrist.