Galaxy gunships and drop pods as well as other side grades. - Page 6

Mechzz · 2012-05-13, 05:36 AM

Originally Posted by Toppopia

I'm gonna guess that what people mean by inflight repair could be using a glue gun as a passenger while flying, like in BF3, or they are talking about what you said, i agree that flying to a tower doesn't sound too bad, but someone pulling out a glue gun and repairing while flying making you almost invincible? Don't have that, that made me hate BF3 a bit, especially when they gave you xp for doing it... soo horrible...

That was my thought - they were thinking about repping with a gun inside a flying plane. If that was done, it would be horrible. However, if the Devs stay true to the original mechanic we will be fine.

I don't recall seeing if planes and tanks get regenerating shields on top of vehicle health, but even if they do I wouldn't have a huge issue with that.

Bags · 2012-05-13, 05:45 AM

Originally Posted by Toppopia

I'm gonna guess that what people mean by inflight repair could be using a glue gun as a passenger while flying, like in BF3, or they are talking about what you said, i agree that flying to a tower doesn't sound too bad, but someone pulling out a glue gun and repairing while flying making you almost invincible? Don't have that, that made me hate BF3 a bit, especially when they gave you xp for doing it... soo horrible...

The guy you originally quoted was joking.

Figment · 2012-05-13, 05:51 AM

Originally Posted by Mechzz

Guys, calm down. In-flight repair was part of PS1 and was definitely not OP. It could only be done at specialist air towers of which there were only a few on the continent. You could repair and rearm at the same time without getting out of your plane, but it probably took you out of the battle for as long as landing and repping using a glue gun.

A similar mechanic being retained presents no issues.

Actually it did and does. Many a times you would be close to beating an aircraft like a Mosquito or Reaver and would have paid a heavy price in hitpoints doing so and then it'd just sprint of to the other side of a wall (with much more ease than a vehicle could get to a repair silo) and within 5 seconds it'd be back, fully armed, repaired and would beat the utter crap out of you.

That was very disheartening to see all your hard work be reduced to nothing JUST because they could get to a repair pad and sustain themselves while you could not.

This was true for both infantry and ground vehicles, who always suffer ALL the disadvantages:

Predominantly multi-crew vehicles (2-3 people) unless REALLY WEAK (opposite is true for aircraft in PS)
Terrain issues with:
- Angles of guns
- Impassable (water/steep hill)
- Speed reductions (water/hill)
Lacking supply access
Lower speed and agility
Less and less advantageous access points at buildings
Less situational awareness,
Lower rate of fire and TTK
No acceleration boosts
Have to get out of their vehicle to repair in 95% of the situations
Easier to hit profile
More predictable routes through choke points
Vehicle timers actually mattered
Good chance of hitting with splash damage
More expensive to get in terms of cert points.

Aircav compared to ground vehicles was the most pampered type of unit in PS1 used mostly by people who thought it was their personal skill and not the unit that allowed them to win over others and it was very frustrating for the rest of the playerbase to be regarded as their fodder and snacks.

Tbh, this just got worse with the free acquisition of unit types in PS2 and the modifications as in PS2 a PS1 Mosuito layout may change to a PS1 Reaver or Wasp layout in seconds if they get to customize their weapons at the same time as they resupply.

To me, air should be penalized to compensate for all the advantages they get. Not get even stronger units or more solo power. They'll dominate everything, again. That was one of the main complaints in early PlanetSide: Mosquito and Reaver farming. It drove away dedicated FPS infantry players and ground vehicle combat has suffered from BFRs and Galaxy Gunships way WAY more than aircav users.

I'm not surprised that the aircav users don't fret about more Air-to-Ground units: The more distracted AA is fighting huge aircav targets, the less problems they will face farming. The more air-to-ground there is, the less AA stands a chance of maintaining itself. OF COURSE they don't mind a huge exp piñata they can deal with and that also takes 3/4s of their problems facing ground units away. THEY don't look at things from a ground up perspective: those are all "unskilled fodder to rape and farm"...

ringring · 2012-05-13, 05:57 AM

This thread is so full of Chicken Little.

Things you don't know about the GG: The damage output, the armour, the speed, the manourverability, the cost (sp, Doh!).

Things you don't know about the Lib: The damage output, the armour, the speed, the manourverability, the cost (Doh again!).

Things you don't know about AA turrets: Placement freedom/restriction, damage output, range, cost

Things you don't know about A2A: Speed, manouverability (that word again), damage output, range from which damage can be dished out, cost.

(where 'cost' is in terms of xp required to cert it, cool down time and resource usage).

Synical · 2012-05-13, 06:04 AM

Originally Posted by ringring

This thread is so full of Chicken Little.

Things you don't know about the GG: The damage output, the armour, the speed, the manourverability, the cost (sp, Doh!).

Things you don't know about the Lib: The damage output, the armour, the speed, the manourverability, the cost (Doh again!).

Things you don't know about AA turrets: Placement freedom/restriction, damage output, range, cost

Things you don't know about A2A: Speed, manouverability (that word again), damage output, range from which damage can be dished out, cost.

(where 'cost' is in terms of xp required to cert it, cool down time and resource usage).

So, basically everything, as I have been trying to point out for pages...

I think duomaxwl said it best:

Originally Posted by duomaxwl

You guys really need to stop flipping out over everything.
Just chill and wait for Beta like the rest of the sane people.

Mechzz · 2012-05-13, 06:04 AM

Originally Posted by Figment

... and within 5 seconds it'd be back, fully armed, repaired and would beat the utter crap out of you...

A lot of what you say is correct, but this is an over-statement. It was at least 6 seconds

The real issue with aircav, imo, was not too-easy repairing, but the lack of an effective counter. The mossie/reaver got away because VS AA didn't pack enough of a punch. VS AA Max could lock on, but a full clip didn't kill a fecking hovering reaver, let alone a moving one and we had no other AA weapon iirc. There are more and varied AA units in the new game, so I'm happy to wait for beta and see how it balances out.

Sabot · 2012-05-13, 06:28 AM

Originally Posted by Mechzz

A lot of what you say is correct, but this is an over-statement. It was at least 6 seconds

The real issue with aircav, imo, was not too-easy repairing, but the lack of an effective counter. The mossie/reaver got away because VS AA didn't pack enough of a punch. VS AA Max could lock on, but a full clip didn't kill a fecking hovering reaver, let alone a moving one and we had no other AA weapon iirc. There are more and varied AA units in the new game, so I'm happy to wait for beta and see how it balances out.

You had a better chance taking out a hovering reaver with a Lancer than with MAX AA. And no.. no other options besides AA BFR and the obvious Skyguard/friendly Reavers etc. However, even though out AA were horribly underpower (yes, it was), our AT were incredibly powerful... no lock-on, meaning enemy tanks never saw the barage of Lancer shots coming at them, and it did good dmg and were insanely accurate. Half a clip and an enemy MAX were down.. and it took like 5 seconds
Point is.. maybe the lancer needs a little slower rate of fire, and our AA need a buff somewhere.. dmg perhaps.

As for aircav repairing and re-arming... I have no problem with it. You have to remember that aircav gets focused down before anything else, they are very vulnareble and everyone can see them... the only time they were "OP", were when an outfit ran aircan ops with like 10 of them, all hitting the same target. But then again, an outfit running AA ops in MAXes/Skyguards or, in the case of PS2, AA fighters, could/can counter it, so it's not really OP at all, is it? A lone ES fighter needs that "easy" access to repairs and re-arm. Or they're fairly useless, if coutered.

Synical · 2012-05-13, 06:50 AM

Also, TotalBiscuit mentioned that right now some of the air vehicles are flimsy, he only mentioned the Mosquito and Reaver specifically so we don't know if it also extends to the Liberator and Galaxy, but at least it is some indication of what kind of armor the air vehicles have.

Sabot · 2012-05-13, 07:39 AM

Flimsy.. great word for describing something. We have no idea what he actually means by it, other than that he doesn't feel comfortable with it. But seeing Higby pilot the reaver in the alpha game play vid, it looks prefectly fine to me. Point is, to me his opinion on it being "flimsy", I care about as much as I care about the washing up right now... not much at all. It's too much of an individual opinion to take to heart, imo.

Kipper · 2012-05-13, 07:50 AM

Originally Posted by Synical

Also, TotalBiscuit mentioned that right now some of the air vehicles are flimsy, he only mentioned the Mosquito and Reaver specifically so we don't know if it also extends to the Liberator and Galaxy, but at least it is some indication of what kind of armor the air vehicles have.

Pretty much this.

Air units in real life are powerful, that's why military forces like them. They are fast, accurate, carry powerful weapons, and can get out of trouble quickly, unless trouble is lock-on AA or other aircraft.

IMO, their flimsiness is the trade-off, they shouldn't be so paper-thin that a few assault rifle rounds can take them down (unless with modular damage + luck) - but one good hit with air-bursting flak, unguided RPG or AA weapon should put paid to them, or at least force them to withdraw.

Another weakness is that they can't operate indefinitely with a limited weapon load - they should have to withdraw to re-arm after only a couple of runs against targets.

Finally, it would probably be a good idea if you couldn't repair and re-arm in field, or at least if you can - it should be very slow, or require an engineer to deploy something to set up a FOB. In reality, while a driver might be able to hop out of a tank or truck and patch up a bit of battle damage, aircraft generally have to be repaired at some sort of base with specialist equipment.

Thinking about it, having a Sunderer module that took some time to deploy, but allowed you to re-arm and repair aircraft in field would be pretty cool, and help to keep a dynamic, target rich environment.

ringring · 2012-05-13, 07:55 AM

Originally Posted by Sabot

Flimsy.. great word for describing something. We have no idea what he actually means by it, other than that he doesn't feel comfortable with it. But seeing Higby pilot the reaver in the alpha game play vid, it looks prefectly fine to me. Point is, to me his opinion on it being "flimsy", I care about as much as I care about the washing up right now... not much at all. It's too much of an individual opinion to take to heart, imo.

Well, flimsy means paper thin. I think the thing you can draw from that it that the balancing of those hasn't been completed as yet. But then I suppose interm of completeness the balancing of everything is not 'complete' and when it is or close close to, beta!

Stardouser · 2012-05-13, 08:22 AM

Powerful multicrew platforms with good armor are absolutely fine, but no unlimited ammo, no repairing from within, and no repair towers every 5 feet that repair you to full in 5 seconds.

Exactly how far on average did you have to fly to get to a repair tower in an offensive battle? (fighting at an enemy controlled base)

Pyreal · 2012-05-13, 11:00 AM

Low health has always been the trade off for high damage. Glass cannon.

xSlideShow · 2012-05-13, 11:31 AM

...So, now we get 2 gunships?

Figment · 2012-05-13, 11:54 AM

Originally Posted by Stardouser

Exactly how far on average did you have to fly to get to a repair tower in an offensive battle? (fighting at an enemy controlled base)

When at an enemy base with Oshur repair benefit, 20-50 meters into the base. If they were used to fight infantry at a tower, it was approximately 10 seconds away tops.

Air Towers (with constant repair) were basically at most 40 seconds away, but of course control of the tower mattered. Of course it only took 40 seconds to capture it if it wasn't yours and no defenders were present. Even if you were on the other side of a large continent, the nearest friendly air tower would be a few minutes away at most, meaning most would just cap a nearby air tower out of the way of the main fight instead before going into an area and then hit and run from there.

In the caverns, the green crystals repaired vehicles, those were 10 seconds away from basically anywhere in the cave, for aircraft that is.

For ground vehicles, a repair point typically took several minutes to reach, so most brought their own repair kit (had to get out to use it though).