Should aircraft be able to see infantry on radar?

[Metalsheep]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

I wasn't even thinking of teamwork. It's not always possible to get the message across even in voice chat.

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.

Radar provided by Spotting directly via Squadmates WAS platoon wide i believe. But not empire wide.

Yes, bases had Radar that would detect enemies firing weapons, using tools and hacking consoles. If you had Interlink Benefits, it would track them at ALL times within the bases Sphere of Influence. (Watch towers did this too, but only within the watch towers own SOI)

There were also engineer deployables called Motion Trackers, if you were Running within their detection radius (About 20 meters per Tracker), they would make a horrible screeching sound and show enemies on radar. This could be beaten by Crouch Walking, moving slowly, or using Sensor Shield.

Radar provided by Engineering and the Base itself was Empire wide, as long as you were within the Bases SOI or if the motion trackers were within your Radars range.

Sensor Shield beat every kind of Detection, but Sensor Shield failed if you fired a weapon or hacked a door with low level hacking skills or took damage. Engineers who were Also Hackers could place Sensor Disruptors which also thwarted all forms of Radar detection, even Reviel Enemies with a Command Device. Also, Aegis Shield deployables from Assault Engineers shielded you from sight and radar.

I do believe Mosquito Overflight was Squad only... but i dont fly a mossy very often. The mosquito only detects in a small radius below the aircraft if the mossy is nearly at hovering speed.

Once you moved behind cover and out of detection radius/sight, you would be tracked for maybe 3 or so seconds, and then you would dissapear off of Radar.

[Infektion]

Standard equipped, definitely not, but a scout modulated aircraft. YES. What did Higby choose?

[The Kush]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

No. Aircraft are not infantry sniping/raping platforms. If they want to kill infantry they should have to dip down low and risk their necks.

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

This.

[Warborn]

Maybe a galaxy could be outfitted with a radar-providing module. But by default, hell no. If reavers want to farm infantry they need to contend with a big, bulky cockpit and find infantry amidst the terrain.

I also like the idea of being able to designate targets via a laser marker.

[CutterJohn]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

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.

Yes. Balance is impossible.

[Erendil]

Wow, the amount of Air Cav hate and misinformation in this thread is just astounding. No ground units at all appearing on radar for aircraft, no minmap autospotting of infantry, no AB available for an aircraft that's hovering, aircraft can't engage infantry unless called in by friendly troops, etc, etc.

Seriously people, stop trying to pidgeonhole aircraft into some ultra-limited or ultra-realistic role that you think they should be forced into. Aircraft decked out for an air-to-ground role are perfectly in their right to farm infantry if they so choose. Likewise, infantry armed with AA/AV should be able to shoot aircraft out of the sky if they so choose. PS2 is an open-ended, sandbox-style, combined arms game. As such you damn well should see units of all different types attacking whatever enemy forces they so choose in whatever manner they choose so long as they have a mind to lay some hurt on said forces.

And you can try to slap on all of the arbitrary, nonsensical, prejudicial limitations you want onto aircraft, but even if all of the above-mentioned ridiculous ideas get implemented it will not stop pilots such as Sky or myself one bit from farming infantry over and over and over again if that is what we choose to do. Looking at the GDC footage, picking out infantry in our LOS from the landscape is going to be just as much of a cakewalk in PS2 as it was in PS1, without the aid of minimap spotting, Mossie Overflight Sensors, waypoints, etc. And even with the cockpit enabled.

So, please, just stop it with the stupid arbitrary limitations on aircraft. You're not going to accomplish anything but get the Devs thinking about implementing such ineffective and prejudicial rules, which no doubt will get them thinking about tossing around similar equally stupid rules into other areas of PS2 that might actually do some real harm to the game.

That's not to say the everything in this thread has been a total waste of grey matter. Calling in empire-wide Air strikes via a waypoint marker system only visible to aircraft is brilliant. That I think is an excellent idea so long as it's not a prerequisite that must be met before aircraft can attack infantry at all. It could even be integrated into the Mission system so it could be selected by any pilots in the area. That way all pilots in the air would know if other pilots are already enroute to the target since they presumably would have accepted the mission.


Lastly, at the risk of going slightly off topic... The Mossie Overflight Sensor picks up all enemy forces in a ~30m radius so long as they're moving, attacking, or otherwise making noise and are not hidden by Sensor Shield, Sensor Disruptors, or an enemy RADAR virus. It can detect enemies through walls, multiple floors, etc, so no amount of cover alone will save them from being detected. And it makes these forces visible on the minimap for everybody in your empire that hasn't just been jammed/emp'd.

And yes, it's active all of the time, regardless of what speed the Mossie is flying. Don't believe me? Here's a screenshot for you, taken in-game by me about an hour ago while flying at top speed and taking a sharp left turn during a full AB burn:



If you look in the lower-right corner you will see the "Mossie Overflight Sensor Active" icon displayed in all its glory. That icon has stayed on for me for at least the last 6 years, each and every time I get into a Mossie, regardless of what speed I'm flying at or what crazy maneuvers I might attempt. It may take a split second for it to actually pick up enemy units on the minimap, but it never turns off.

[Stardouser]

If it's not going to stop you super skilled air whores from raping, then you why are you desperate to retain all the tools that will make it casualized-easy? Where there's smoke, there's fire, and your attempts to feign indifference by saying you'll rape anyway are not doing a very good job of masking the smoke you're making by fighting so hard against balancing measures.

Automatic radar and overpowered spotting has no place in a game, doubly so for aircraft. Aircraft need to have absolutely devastating weapons but they can't have that if they are in receipt of omniscient infantry position data. The more omniscient, no skill free info a platform receives, the weaker its weapons need to be. It shouldn't be 100% in both. Aircraft should have the powerful weapons but they should be required to rely on either their eyes, or constant, purposeful teamwork, not omniscient autospotting/autoradar.

However, who said "no ground units at all"? Vehicles can appear on the radar. This is about infantry.

And, the 3D waypoint marker for airsupport is NOT in ANY way a "prerequisite" for air attacks. It is a replacement for omniscient, no skill, no teamwork, infantry positional data. You can always attack infantry by slowing down and looking for them. Otherwise, if you don't want to look for them with your own eyes, you either need someone in your own squad spotting for you, or you need to respond to these 3D air support requests.

And as to that, I would not say that these 3D air support requests are "missions". Since the enemy tends to die, at least for outdoor battles, their relevance dimishes after a minute or two since the enemy will either be dead or moved unless they are campers. I would hate to see people spend 2 minutes respawning for aircraft, flying all the way to marker and then finding the intel was old. Therefore, 3D air support markers should probably expire after about 90 seconds. Or maybe the squad leaders can put a custom timer on them.

But hey, if you want to receive autoradar spotting knowing that it will force SOE to put in lock-on AA weapons for infantry, it's your enjoyment of the game you're risking. I don't fly much but frankly I don't want to see a stinger under every rock when I do.

[jollytraveller]

I voted yes.

Many people seem to be basing their "no" decision on realism. If realism is the arguement then when I do finally spot you am I able to get my computer-guided chain cannon to dis-integrate you and any tree you're hiding behind at the push of a button?

Or drop a laser-guided bunker buster to obliterate you, and your squad and the building you were hiding behind?

Throw the pilots a bone here. Only n00bs get air cav farmed on a regular basis and n00bs get farmed by everything, not just air cav.

[Hooah]

No, that's why armed forces use JTAC or FAC.

[jollytraveller]

Originally Posted by Hooah

No, that's why armed forces use JTAC or FAC.

Yeah, cause in real life ground troops simply own aircraft. Really.

[WorldOfForms]

Aircraft started out overpowered in PS1, and despite a few nerfs along the way, actually managed to gain a net power increase over the life of the game. Despite a glut of options for AA introduced, nothing truly effective was ever implemented. The best AA was other aircraft.

The most effective single unit in PS1, by a large margin, was either the Reaver or Mosquito (it's a tossup depending on circumstance of targets - either infantry or armor).

Aircraft also had the largest learning curve, so the best players flocked to them (who could blame them?). It's the best way to have an overpowered item if you have to have one: powerful, fun to use for a skilled player, and the power increases with player skill.

What the devs of PS1 never understood was that aircraft, by their vary nature, are inherently overpowered compared to anything on the ground. The speed, combined with 3D movement and the ability to bypass all terrain makes aircraft always the superior choice.

Aircraft need limitations so that people who don't fly can still compete. That doesn't mean I would want the fun to be taken away from skilled players who love to fly, either, though.

Skilled players don't need radar, and they should find it fun to use visual cues to hunt for infantry. Remember, it's supposed to be a skilled overpowered vehicle.

[Erendil]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

If it's not going to stop you super skilled air whores from raping, then you why are you desperate to retain all the tools that will make it casualized-easy? Where there's smoke, there's fire, and your attempts to feign indifference by saying you'll rape anyway are not doing a very good job of masking the smoke you're making by fighting so hard against balancing measures.

Star, you misunderstand me. I don't wish to perpetuate any imbalance that may exist between aircraft and infantry. I probably hate it as much as you do.

However, I also want to prevent the inclusion of arbitrary rules that put nonsensical limitations on aircraft, that won't stop what people are trying to prevent, and that are implemented without even knowing the first thing about how the aircraft vs infantry dynamic will play out. For all we know infantry AV weapons in PS2 will already be strong enough for softies to be able to defend themselves against enemy air.

And I hope for the game's sake that they are. I want infantry to be able to defend themselves. I want them to have access to Stinger-level AV weapons (well, not OSOK, but you get the idea). I want the Striker, Phoenix, Fission, Lancer, and whatever other AA/AV weapons are out there to be powerful enough that a lazy or unobservant ES fighter will get their ass kicked by a softie or two with a keen eye and a fast trigger finger.

Why? Because PS2 is a contest of skills, and the game is a helluva lot more fun when both sides of an encounter have a good chance of coming out on top if they're properly equipped. Not when one side has their hands tied and the other side is too weak to be a threat to the enemy.

However, if it ends up that there is a disparity, and if infantry are in danger of being air farmed as easily as they were in PS1, then IMO the answer is not to slap limitations on aircraft. A much better solution would be to empower infantry so that they can stand on their own. People are always so quick to instinctively swing the nerf bat at whatever equipment or situation they see as OP'd or unfair.

But they don't realize that by doing so they are limiting player choice. And the more they do this, the more choice is taken out of players' hands and into the hands of the game system itself. This leads to less variety in gameplay, more repetition, and ultimately more stagnation. PS1 fell prey to the unfortunate side effects of this causality on many occasions.

If there is a bully on the playground, you don't remove him from the swingset so there is one less child to play with. You teach and empower the scrawny kids to stand up for themselves. If aircraft are too effective at farming infantry you don't nerf air. Instead you give infantry the tools to fight back.

Originally Posted by Stardouser

Automatic radar and overpowered spotting has no place in a game, doubly so for aircraft. Aircraft need to have absolutely devastating weapons but they can't have that if they are in receipt of omniscient infantry position data. The more omniscient, no skill free info a platform receives, the weaker its weapons need to be. It shouldn't be 100% in both. Aircraft should have the powerful weapons but they should be required to rely on either their eyes, or constant, purposeful teamwork, not omniscient autospotting/autoradar.

Intra-platoon automatic 2D spotting on the minimap is IMO a vital component of teamwork that helps compensate for the fact that we aren't soldiers living side-by-side every day, and training together for hours on end on a daily basis. The goes doubly for those people who aren't in an organized outfit, don't use any form of voice comm, and/or are just casual players that just want to come in and fight but also want to feel like their part of an organized military.

Removing this ability from PS2 would be disastrous for the game since it would break an important connection players have amongst each other, and since casual players would be repeatedly anally-raped by those outfits who are organized.

More importantly, both aircraft and infantry should have weapons powerful enough to destroy the other. In in doing so, IMO no illogical minimap restrictions need be placed on aircraft.

Originally Posted by Stardouser

However, who said "no ground units at all"? Vehicles can appear on the radar. This is about infantry.

I re-read this thread but couldn't find who said it. So either I misread somebody's post, it's been edited out by the poster, or I read it in a different thread. Sorry, I retract my objection to this apparently fictional suggestion..

Originally Posted by Stardouser

And, the 3D waypoint marker for airsupport is NOT in ANY way a "prerequisite" for air attacks. It is a replacement for omniscient, no skill, no teamwork, infantry positional data. You can always attack infantry by slowing down and looking for them. Otherwise, if you don't want to look for them with your own eyes, you either need someone in your own squad spotting for you, or you need to respond to these 3D air support requests.

And as to that, I would not say that these 3D air support requests are "missions". Since the enemy tends to die, at least for outdoor battles, their relevance dimishes after a minute or two since the enemy will either be dead or moved unless they are campers. I would hate to see people spend 2 minutes respawning for aircraft, flying all the way to marker and then finding the intel was old. Therefore, 3D air support markers should probably expire after about 90 seconds. Or maybe the squad leaders can put a custom timer on them.

I agree it shouldn't be a prereq. However, JHendy seemed to think it should when he said, "Infantry should only be engaged by aircraft when squad leaders start calling for close air support....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. " Hence my statement against it.

The mission system could be used if, for example, creating the mission sent out some sort of notification to any friendly aircraft in the same or adjacent territories who had something like "Notify me of air-related missions" enabled. some sort of spotting/waypoint system would work fine too tho.

Originally Posted by Stardouser

But hey, if you want to receive autoradar spotting knowing that it will force SOE to put in lock-on AA weapons for infantry, it's your enjoyment of the game you're risking. I don't fly much but frankly I don't want to see a stinger under every rock when I do.

Well SOE already has lockon weapons in-game, and I'm okay with that (well, tbh I'd rather they were all flak-based since they can be just as effective but actually require some skill to use, but that's a topic for a different thread ). And as a Scythe pilot I will find the game more enjoyable if infantry are actually a threat to me than if neither one of us were to each other. For me, variety on the battlefield, player choice, freedom, and initiative, and combined arms warfare all make the game way more fun for me. Illogical arbitrary nerfs that don't even fix the issue they're trying to resolve, don't.

And FWIW, just because I can farm infantry while in aircraft doesn't mean that I do. I usually don't farm infantry unless there are no other viable targets around. Quite frankly I find it quite boring in PS1 since softies don't have the tools to defend themselves. Instead, I generally attack targets in this order:

1. ANTs coming in to fill a base
2. anything nearby on the verge of killing friendly forces
3. Loadstars and AMSes
4. Enemy AA
5. BFRs, MBTs, Lightnings, and Buggies
6. Infantry farmers (snipers, mossie droppers, etc)
7. other vehicles
8. other infantry

[Baneblade]

There shouldn't even be a minimap.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by Erendil

The mission system could be used if, for example, creating the mission sent out some sort of notification to any friendly aircraft in the same or adjacent territories who had something like "Notify me of air-related missions" enabled. some sort of spotting/waypoint system would work fine too tho.

Well, as I say, the actual 3D markers say "please bomb these enemies here", that intel will get old fast, so they should either expire, or even better, expire in about 5 minutes, but tell the pilot how old they are, so they can respond to a newer one first. Don't forget, I know I said this in a different thread, but I was hoping there would be two markers like that: One that basically says "need air to ground here" and one that says "we are taking air to ground fire, please suppress enemy air here".

Now...as far as a mission system, in order to help coordinate, I was thinking that there could be missions to "provide air support to squads A through G at X location". There could be bonus experience points gained for killing any enemies that have either killed members of these squads, or that are within a certain distance(ie threatening) of these squads. Basically, missions should serve as a two way notification: One, notifying a different platform(ie, infantry is a platform, armor and air are others) that you need them to support you throughout an assault, and in turn, if a squad or individuals who are going to play that role accept your mission, so long as they are listed on it you know they are with you. Why bother placing air support markers if no one has agreed to support you throughout your assault? Basically, squad leaders can look at the mission tab and see that they have X number of air support pilots committed to helping them out. It's far too complicated for me to actually propose anything concrete, of course.

The biggest question is who should have this authority over missions? Individual squad leaders, or higher?

[ArmedZealot]

Erendil explains my position on this matter quite well. And I'm not even a pilot.

I applaud your way with words and admire you for your insights on game direction.