Should aircraft be able to see infantry on radar?

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

I see no reason they shouldn't see infantry on radar, so long as it follows the same rules as every other unit. Aircraft are combat vehicles. Part of their job is to kill stuff on the ground. Infantry are also on the ground.

If you're worried about aircav killing infantry, ask for infantry to be able to fight back effectively. Infantry AA, EMP nades that are proximity fused vs aircav, and small arms that do respectable damage to them within a certain distance if they decide to hover.

No, aircraft simply should not be empowered to see infantry. You either have aircraft raping infantry, or infantry all choosing AA and raping aircraft. There is no winner when doing it that way.

[Blackwolf]

Originally Posted by Noivad

I voted NO - I would like more realism.

Aircraft in PS1 and Aircraft in BS2 are like apples and oranges, similar as fruit, but different in taste. PS2 Aircraft have ablities that the PS 1 Aircraft did not have. They are more realistic in flight.

There is going to be a night and a day time. At night I could see Aircraft using infrared equipment as a side grade to detect infantry on the ground and show up on their radar.

In day time it should be strickly Visual Acquisition - or LOS info given by a Infantry FO (Forward Observer) via a Intel net to the aircraft or a lazer targeting system that points at the area the infantry are operational. This makes Infantry and Air work together just as in real life.

Once the area is given by the FO - its up to the piliot to take out the infantry. Give the aircraft a weapon thats good enough to kill a small area. Napalm comes to mind. And the smell sucks.

The Infantrys job is to stay hidden, and not be LOS to aircraft. Thats realism. Don't make the game so fast that people stop using cover and concealment, and then aircraft can't pawn them with out skill.

which brings up -don't make flora - Trees scrubs, weeds ect, that can be turned off by a viedo option. Landscaping should be equal for everyone for realism.

And Higby please consider this. What a lot of people love about PS1, not all of them, was the teamwork and working together. Bring back Air defense to take out the aircraft, but don't put it on a tank that has a main gun designed to take out tanks. The Skyguard was often seen moving with the tanks and other ground vehicles you had in ps1.

It would be cool to see the whispering death quad 50s, the Duster twin 40s bofors, the Vulcan tracers at night, the Adats missles type systems working alongside the Infantry as well as the Cav troops (Tanks). Throw in some stingers and you have realism.

But put an AD weapon on a tank designed to kill tanks. lol no room for ammo lol. It will never happen.

If your going to have airforce type units, then you need to have a Air Defense type units to support the Infantry and cav units.

Realism and team work thats the key.

And for those of you who have not seen team work before then watch this vid.

http://dangerousoperationsgroup.com/aboutps.html

See, this kinda stuff is awesome.

Too bad you are opening yourself up for the fantasy argument.

And people in general will always be pro-skill over teamwork. Skill requires less actual work after all.

[JHendy]

deleted myself.

[Erendil]

Originally Posted by Malorn

Implants are buffs now so its entirely possible for them to have an implant that makes one immune to vehicle&structure-based detection. It could also have limitations like PS1 where you are only immune if you are stationary or walking/crouch-walking.

I wonder if we can have advanced implants which have pre-requisites. For example if we have 4 implant slots, perhaps we can spend 1 slot on "basic radar immunity" which only works if you are stationary or walking. Then you have a second implant slot which requires that implant and allows immunity even while running. So we can be fully immune if we want but it costs us 2 implant slots. That could be a significant benefit for a significant cost.

It doesn't even need to be the same implant, it could simply be an sort of stacking-buff where one stack gets you walk/stationary immunity while two stacks gets you complete immunity. When one implant wears off (they are timer-based) you simply go down to one stack.

Same could be true for xp boosts and that sort of thing. Spend one implant slot for a moderate xp boost. Spend two for twice the effect. It's purely additive but the tradeoff is that you aren't using that implant slot for some other benefits (like radar immunity).

Hrm, I should probably put this in the idea vault

Yeah the Sensor Shield mechanic in PS1 worked quite well for lettign you be hidden from detection systems.

And I like the idea of implant stacking. Like you said they could be simple amplitude increases that do things like boost the range of darklight/Audio Amp, increase Melee boosted damage, etc.

They could even modify qualitative aspects of a currently-installed base-level implant, like a Sensor Shield dome implant that extended your existing SS out in a 5 foot radius, so you and 5 of your buddies could all benefit if you huddled together.

[JHendy]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

BUT - squad leaders should be able to place STATIC air support request markers.

Absolutely superb idea. Infantry should only be engaged by aircraft when squad leaders start calling for close air support. They shouldn't be farmable fodder, nor should they be easily spottable from above, when a pilot is cruising along at 300+ mph. Beef the main cannons up a shed load, chuck some hefty splash damage in there, but make it VERY difficult for a pilot to bring the full power of his aircraft to bear without targets being allocated by infantry on the ground.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by JHendy

Absolutely superb idea. Infantry should only be engaged by aircraft when squad leaders start calling for close air support. They shouldn't be farmable fodder, nor should they be easily spottable from above, when a pilot is cruising along at 300+ mph. Beef the main cannons up a shed load, chuck some hefty splash damage in there, but make it VERY difficult for a pilot to bring the full power of his aircraft to bear without targets being allocated by infantry on the ground.

Can you imagine the immersive teamwork that would bring?

And here's something else: Basically, an air support marker could be a static 3D marker that aircraft see(and squad leaders, not sure if all infantry should be able to see it) and it could even give, say, the number of enemy infantry within a 40m radius of it, perhaps even the number of friendly infantry, and it would last up to 90 seconds or until placed elsewhere by that squad leader(the number of infantry data visible by pilots would update every 10 seconds). That's not an omniscient spot, but it DOES give friendly aircraft need-to-know info.

Note: For this idea, ONLY friendly aircraft should see the data on enemy infantry numbers, not the squad leader or other infantry, and it can only be placed outdoors, for obvious reasons.

[ArmedZealot]

There really isn't any good reason to not allow aircraft to see infantry on radar.

If infantry can see enemies on radar then my aircraft, with much more sophisticated sensor equipment and communications, should also.

Infantry farming is a reality that should remain intact. It's realistic in both PS1 and war. Don't travel alone by foot without some sort of AA, grab an ATV instead to duck and weave, hop in an AA lightning. Or you could use teamwork to take it out.

PS2 seems to have a larger number of lock on weapon systems to plague aircraft, this should do enough to limit the farmers.

Taking away an aircraft's ability to see infantry on radar just seems very gimicky to me unless some sort of jamming mechanic were to be implemented. Might as well take away a tanks ability to see infantry, since we all know vanguards will be farming as much as they can as well.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by ArmedZealot

There really isn't any good reason to not allow aircraft to see infantry on radar.

If infantry can see enemies on radar then my aircraft, with much more sophisticated sensor equipment and communications, should also.

Infantry farming is a reality that should remain intact. It's realistic in both PS1 and war. Don't travel alone by foot without some sort of AA, grab an ATV instead and duck a weave, hop in a lightning.

PS2 seems to have a larger number of lock on weapon systems to plague aircraft, this should do enough to limit the farmers.

There shouldn't be automatic line of sight radar for infantry either. If not manually spotted, a player should not be seen on the minimap.

Infantry farming is not realistic in war because aircraft fly too fast and high to see infantry without exposing themselves to small arms fire and tanks if they slow down, and infantry cannot carry 500 pounds of gear such that they can carry AA weapons on top of everything else.

Fun gameplay>Balance>realism, that's the pecking order, and no-skill infantry farming is neither fun nor balance. Neither is the inability to fight other vehicles because every infantry is a walking arsenal.

[ArmedZealot]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

There shouldn't be automatic line of sight radar for infantry either. If not manually spotted, a player should not be seen on the minimap.

Infantry farming is not realistic in war because aircraft fly too fast and high to see infantry without exposing themselves to small arms fire and tanks if they slow down, and infantry cannot carry 500 pounds of gear such that they can carry AA weapons on top of everything else.

Fun gameplay>Balance>realism, that's the pecking order, and no-skill infantry farming is neither fun nor balance. Neither is the inability to fight other vehicles because every infantry is a walking arsenal.

Perhaps on this point I agree with you. But this seems like an answer to a different question then what is being asked.

That'd be true if aircraft in PS behaved more like fighters than attack helo's.The hover mechanic is what changes things. However if an aircraft is farming it means its slowing down and exposing itself to small arms and AA.

I don't see why this is such a problem on this forum, which spouts that teamwork is the goal of PS, yet this meets resistance on this subject. Travel with groups or in a transport. If you want to walk places solo then your going to have to protect yourself. Or just spawn at your destination.

PS2 has the skyguard equivalent on the lightning, except it can be used solo now too. Infantry have more options for dealing with aircraft as well. Although we don't know what classes can carry the new lock on weapons, it could be safely assumed that at least they will be a much more common then what was seen in PS1. We will have to see what the new gameplay is like in beta before we can choose to argue for fundamentally changing how radar works in the game for aircraft and infantry.

[Metalsheep]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

Infantry farming is not realistic in war because aircraft fly too fast and high to see infantry without exposing themselves to small arms fire and tanks if they slow down, and infantry cannot carry 500 pounds of gear such that they can carry AA weapons on top of everything else.

I think this aircraft would like to have a word with you.



In reality this thing "Farms" infantry quite effectively, and takes quite a lot of Small Arms fire. And can detect them on the ground. In planetside, aircraft are a hybrid of Helicopter and Plane.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by Metalsheep

I think this aircraft would like to have a word with you.



In reality this thing "Farms" infantry quite effectively, and takes quite a lot of Small Arms fire. And can detect them on the ground. In planetside, aircraft are a hybrid of Helicopter and Plane.

Let's have helicopters then. Planetside's aircraft aren't helicopters, they are able to both hover to rape, and then zip off to escape like jets. As you well point out. Helicopter/jet hybrids aren't realistic.

But Realism is never a good reason to do something, or indeed, not to do something. If we're going to do one thing for realism then why only that one thing? As I say, look to fun gameplay first, then balance, and only then, if fun and balance are satisfied, should something get put in just because it's realistic.

If an argument can only succeed in showing that something is realistic, that should have no bearing on whether it's worthy of being put in the game, unless and until it can be shown that it's fun and balanced. Note that fun for the pilot and not fun for everyone else doesn't count. Of course, aircraft should be able to maul infantry, in no way do I suggest that they shouldn't. But they should not be given the situational awareness necessary to do that for zero effort and risk.

I would rather that they give aircraft infra-red as a customization than allow them to see automatic radar data. And understand that I say "customization" very reluctantly, because I believe that if a vehicle should have a tool like that it should ALWAYS have it. Smoke, coaxial machine gun, infrared view, if these things are going to exist they should always be there. Other more advanced things should be the customizations.

[Metalsheep]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

Let's have helicopters then. Planetside's aircraft aren't helicopters, they are able to both hover to rape, and then zip off to escape like jets. As you well point out. Helicopter/jet hybrids aren't realistic.

But Realism is never a good reason to do something, or indeed, not to do something. If we're going to do one thing for realism then why only that one thing? As I say, look to fun gameplay first, then balance, and only then, if fun and balance are satisfied, should something get put in just because it's realistic.

If an argument can only succeed in showing that something is realistic, that should have no bearing on whether it's worthy of being put in the game, unless and until it can be shown that it's fun and balanced. Note that fun for the pilot and not fun for everyone else doesn't count. Of course, aircraft should be able to maul infantry, in no way do I suggest that they shouldn't. But they should not be given the situational awareness necessary to do that for zero effort and risk.

I would rather that they give aircraft infra-red as a customization than allow them to see automatic radar data. And understand that I say "customization" very reluctantly, because I believe that if a vehicle should have a tool like that it should ALWAYS have it. Smoke, coaxial machine gun, infrared view, if these things are going to exist they should always be there. Other more advanced things should be the customizations.

Again, would like to have a word...



I forget the name of that aircraft, but it can Hover just like a Planetside aircraft, see how its jet is pointed downwards? It can then zip off.

But, you are right that Realism doesnt mean it should be in the game. But it was never the aircav in particular that could spot infantry. It was how the Radar system worked in its entirety in Planetside 1. It worked the same regardless if you were in a vehicle or on foot. Infantry could only be seen on radar if you could physically see them in front of you, or if they recently fired their weapon/hacked a door/ ect ect. If your squadmates could see them, then you also could see them. It was like a spotting mechanic that you didnt have to press a button for every 5 seconds to point out enemies.

There was also the Interlink, Watch Towers and Motion trackers to factor into the equation. The mossy was special with a added on Overflight system, it onyl worked at 25%ish throttle and only in a small radius below the aircraft. (I dont know who said it works all the time, it doesnt still. You get a little icon in the bottom corner of your screen when Overflight is active.) Which could be a customization option to the standard fighters that they have to sacrifice for.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by Metalsheep

Again, would like to have a word...

I forget the name of that aircraft, but it can Hover just like a Planetside aircraft, see how its jet is pointed downwards? It can then zip off.

But, you are right that Realism doesnt mean it should be in the game. But it was never the aircav in particular that could spot infantry. It was how the Radar system worked in its entirety in Planetside 1. It worked the same regardless if you were in a vehicle or on foot. Infantry could only be seen on radar if you could physically see them in front of you, or if they recently fired their weapon/hacked a door/ ect ect. If your squadmates could see them, then you also could see them. It was like a spotting mechanic that you didnt have to press a button for every 5 seconds to point out enemies.

There was also the Interlink, Watch Towers and Motion trackers to factor into the equation. The mossy was special with a added on Overflight system, it onyl worked at 25%ish throttle and only in a small radius below the aircraft. (I dont know who said it works all the time, it doesnt still. You get a little icon in the bottom corner of your screen when Overflight is active.) Which could be a customization option to the standard fighters that they have to sacrifice for.

Try hovering in an F35 in BF3, it takes you a few seconds to zip away if you start taking fire. That's not the case in PS.

Autospotting shouldn't exist and if they put it in anyway, its results should be denied to aircraft.

I'm not even sure we should have spotting in its current form (meaning the way shooters in general do it) at all. We should really have static spots only - you spot someone, and if you are a squad member it places a temporary static marker to your squad only, if you are a squad leader, it places markers visible to their squad and to other squad leaders only, who can then issue move to orders to their own squad if they want to. Spots that follow the enemy in any fashion are really inappropriate, but gamers no longer want to use their eyes. Of course, the only reason I'm saying that now is because we're talking about how the game should be. For the most part I've only fought against games further degrading into 3D spotting, 2D spotting is something we've had for years now. Deathmatch games are where the autospotting belongs, in an objective based game, if you play the objectives the enemy will come.

Just in case anyone who is reading doesn't know what static means, it means you the enemy, and wherever they are at the moment you spotted them, the marker stays on the point and does not follow them.

[Metalsheep]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

Try hovering in an F35 in BF3, it takes you a few seconds to zip away if you start taking fire. That's not the case in PS.

Autospotting shouldn't exist and if they put it in anyway, its results should be denied to aircraft.

I'm not even sure we should have spotting in its current form at all. We should really have static spots only - you spot someone, and if you are a squad member it places a temporary static marker to your squad only, if you are a squad leader, it places markers visible to their squad and to other squad leaders only, who can then issue move to orders to their own squad if they want to. Spots that follow the enemy in any fashion are really inappropriate, but gamers no longer want to use their eyes.

Well a Radar system like Planetside 1s is amazing for Situational Awareness. Now they they took away 3rd Person mode, its almost all we have left aside from direct communication with teammates. And lets face it, its a Joke to think that the Zerg or random squads will communicate tightly. I shouldnt be forced to join an outfit to play enjoyably. The general information provided by Planetsides radar was excellent. It only tracked the enemy so long as he was in visual range of yourself, or squadmates. (It tracked vehicles at all times except the Phantasm, Harasser and Wraith) This could be countered by crouch walking, or with Sensor Shield or Cloaking (If there was no Interlink) I personally think Motion Trackers (halo-like) radar systems should be standard in FPS games. They might encourage a little camping, but i think their advantages far outweigh their disadvantages for enjoyable game play. And by using Planetsides original system, you cant really camp with it because you wont see the enemy coming on Radar unless you or a squadmate already see him.

I don't really see how this would be much different from Area Spotting anyways. You light up that area, and aircraft comes and hovers in it, (Or whichever vehicle suits your fancy) kills all the infantry, and flies away. It would have the same result as knowing the vague locations provided by the Radar.

Encouraging good communication and teamwork is a great goal, but i shouldn't have to be in a tight knit outfit to play the game effectively. Sometimes people just wanna roll in a random squad and play the game.

Sometimes i think the community takes the "teamwork, roar" thing a little too far.

EDIT: And yes, in Planetside you could just zip away thanks to the Afterburner. Which i think was a crock, especially on the Reaver. The mossy could be shot down if it hovered and tried to run, the Reaver gets away every single time because of its massive armor and Afterburners. You shouldn't be able to after burn right from a hovering position.

[Stardouser]

I wasn't even thinking of teamwork. It's not always possible to get the message across even in voice chat. And I think the less spotting there is, the more important it becomes to anticipate the enemy's movements, which is always an improvement in gameplay.

Now...you say "It only tracked the enemy so long as he was in visual range of yourself, or squadmates." As it happens, I am OK even with 3D spotting so long as it is Squad Only. But...are you sure PS1 radar was squad only? Was there some kind of radar inside of bases? Because I never played PS1 back in the golden days but I did play a few hours a few weeks ago to get a feel for things, and I saw radar spots all over the place, but I was never in a squad.

But again, I'm OK with just about anything as long as it's squad only. That provides a very very nice balance and compromise I think.