Dont think the HA should be able to fly. - Page 7

SergeantNubins · 2012-06-17, 07:18 AM

Originally Posted by Khrakhan

The best pilots have no intention of bailing, so engineer is more likely to be the class of choice. And they wont even pick the ejection seat and will still be using the flares instead. When damaged and able, they will land and repair....if unable to safely land and are about to be shot down, they will try ot get as low to the ground as possible and bail, hoping to survive the fall.

Yea, which seems good to me. They probably wont survive the fall, judging from the e3 stuff, most people died as, unlike in ps1, without the ejector seat, when you leave your aircraft, the physics still apply. When people jumped out mid air, they carried on moving at 200 mph and slammed into something and squished.

But there is still no balance issue or problem with allowing different armour types to fly. A dedicated pilot may go engy and forego an ejector seat and accept that when they get shot down, its curtains for them - although they will have better than average survivabiity due to using flares isntead of ejector seat etc. Someone may decided to use a fighter as an insertion method for rexo.. if they want to burn their resources that way, then so be it. Others wil use light assault for the compromise of not being able to repair their fighter if they get damaged, but having the extra chance to surive of a jetpack. If you do get shot down in the midde of nowhere, you will probably regret having spent the points on the ejector seat anyway

thegreekboy · 2012-06-17, 08:28 AM

Originally Posted by Zulthus

That really doesn't make sense... why? There should be a dedicated pilot class for aircraft, or at least Light Assault IMO. Especially if the aircraft has a bailing mechanism, it'll be a worse scenario than in PS1. I'd prefer agiles with jackhammers bailing compared to Rexo's with much larger guns. Even in ground vehicles, the driver shouldn't be able to use anything bigger than LA unless it's an open top vehicle.

Is it just another way to make the BF crowd feel at home?

*ehrm*

I know I'm relatively new here, but what exactly is wrong with the "BF Crowd"

FuzzyandBlue · 2012-06-17, 09:39 AM

Its seems like a lot of people here think that the HA is going to be way over powered. From the E3 footage a HA goes down pretty quickly when in a firefight. It looked like they could take 1-2 more shots than a LA, 3-4 if they used their over shield. Beyond that the rockets are not a one hit kill to aircraft. Also a boosting aircraft can outrun the rocket.

The only time I see a HA bailing out of his aircraft and destroying the guy that shot him down is if the guy that shot him down comes back to get the kill and eats a rocket to the face. In which case I have no problem with that.

TheInferno · 2012-06-17, 09:50 AM

Originally Posted by SKYeXile

i would be hoping repair pads are back in.

I don't know if they're out, I thought the pads at the air towers would work as repair pads. No reason we can't have both and the Engineer can just set down anywhere and repair.

Originally Posted by thegreekboy

*ehrm*

I know I'm relatively new here, but what exactly is wrong with the "BF Crowd"

Some of the vets blame every change that makes the game more like Battlefield or that makes the game more "accessible" as catering to the inferior people known as "Battlefield players", who never had the glorious life-changing experience of playing Planetside, and who obviously do not know anything about what Planetside 2 should be like. Not all the vets, not even most, but some.

It's basically the forums version of "Them Irish are stealing our jobs!" or what have you. I can't blame them for it, though, as much as I dislike it. Considering they stuck around this long, they have a huge attachment to Planetside (which from what I saw of it was a game I wish I had played myself) and the way some people come in and say "We should throw in win conditions and make it Call of Battlefield Online" (not many, mind you, but some people do go really ridiculous in saying how it should be exactly like other AAA shooters). It's just it has a bad tendency to overflow onto anyone who says things they honestly think would improve Planetside 2 that people think "dumbs down" the game.

Originally Posted by StumpyTheOzzie

No.

Ah, well. I'll get used to it, I guess. At least I can look forward to the day we're all Planetside 2 players, eh?

Otleaz · 2012-06-17, 09:51 AM

Originally Posted by thegreekboy

I know I'm relatively new here, but what exactly is wrong with the "BF Crowd"

BF players are the same as MW players around here. Really, the only ones who think they are different are BF and MW players. They are both REALLY casual games with gimmicky gameplay and mechanics.

Hmr85 · 2012-06-17, 10:32 AM

I completely disagree with HA being able to pilot aircraft. I thought the whole point this go around was to cut down on the mossie drop bs we saw in ps1 and now we want to give them Rexo?? I can't wait to see a whole platoon of HA Rexo's bail out onto a tower or onto a objective. It's going to be redicoulosly op. Trust me when I say people will spec into the eject mechanism for the reaver,mossy or scythe just to do this. Way to op of a ability to have HA as pilots imo. They need to keep it to agile.

You need to ask yourself what's the point in even having the galaxy as a troop transport if you are going to allow this..

johnflenaly · 2012-06-17, 10:43 AM

I'd much rather see some sort of Pilot/driver class. Like LA with carbines minus the jetpack and ammo. These would be required for all Driver/Pilot/Gunner slots with exception of the ATV, and the guns on transports: Sunderer or Galaxy. Also no friggin way on self repair. Let them use repair pads or actually team work and meet up with an engineer out in the boonies.

Heaven · 2012-06-17, 10:46 AM

The way I see it is most players will be light assault when using aircraft anyways, as they have the option to use their jet packs to soften thier landing when bailing.

And if a HA assault player is flying aircraft and bails they are pretty much dead meat anyways when they get damage from hitting the ground.

SergeantNubins · 2012-06-17, 10:46 AM

Originally Posted by Hmr85

I completely disagree with HA being able to pilot aircraft. I thought the whole point this go around was to cut down on the mossie drop bs we saw in ps1 and now we want to give them Rexo?? I can't wait to see a whole platoon of HA Rexo's bail out onto a tower or onto a objective. It's going to be redicoulosly op. Trust me when I say people will spec into the eject mechanism for the reaver,mossy or scythe just to do this. Way to op of a ability to have HA as pilots imo. They need to keep it to agile.

You need to ask yourself what's the point in even having the galaxy as a troop transport if you are going to allow this..

Did you watch any of the E3 streams? The cost of wasting a reaver/mossy/scythe is what will stop that happening all the time. It wont stop it happening alltogether, but it will stop it being a regular normal thing to do. A lot of the time people had run outof resources when playing that E3 stream and were having to spend time as grunts or max's in order to restore their resource balance, and the commentators even said they were amazed because the devs had loaded up each account with a ton of resources. light assault and engineers seemed a lot more pupular on the ground and the rexo av weapons seemed pretty poop so you are worried over nothing at the moment. PS2 is not the same game as PS1, the mechanics and mentality of play is completely different.

Hmr85 · 2012-06-17, 10:56 AM

Your missing the point. I'm not worried about it happening all the time or the cost of resources. It will happen in clutch situations. HA should not ever be able to fly aircraft. Will see how many of you continue to like HA being pilots when I drop 2 platoons worth of HA ontop of your tower or objective.

Xyntech · 2012-06-17, 11:29 AM

Originally Posted by Hmr85

Your missing the point. I'm not worried about it happening all the time or the cost of resources. It will happen in clutch situations. HA should not ever be able to fly aircraft. Will see how many of you continue to like HA being pilots when I drop 2 platoons worth of HA ontop of your tower or objective.

I personally never had a problem with Agiles dropping with a HA gun. The only issue I had with HA guns were that they were such a default gun in most situations due to most important battles being very close quarters in the first Planetside.

The only issue I ever had was the self sustainability of a lone player in Planetside. Even with BR20, but especially after BR40, any player could be running around with all of the major support roles. I appreciate the idea of classes dividing up some of these valuable support roles so that you need a few specialized people if you want to fill every role.

The only really good reason to prevent Rexo from piloting in PS1 was that Rexo was a pure upgrade from Agile in almost every way. More ammo, more guns, more armor... slightly less speed (not a problem after the surgile nerf/rexo buff).

In PS2, there are clear advantages and disadvantages to playing as LA or HA, just in ordinary infantry fighting. So there isn't any need to buff up Agile (lighter armors like LA in PS2) just to make it have some value compared to Rexo (HA).

So why not have HA be able to fly? Bailing has been mitigated through other means, so Galaxies should still prove valuable. Due to class tradeoffs, HA won't be at a clear advantage over LA in a bailing situation.

I think that it's pretty clear that balance is not a concern in this matter anymore in PS2, so what is the concern?

This is not PS1 and we are not dealing with PS1 problems.

Hmr85 · 2012-06-17, 11:36 AM

Originally Posted by Xyntech

I personally never had a problem with Agiles dropping with a HA gun. The only issue I had with HA guns were that they were such a default gun in most situations due to most important battles being very close quarters in the first Planetside.

The only issue I ever had was the self sustainability of a lone player in Planetside. Even with BR20, but especially after BR40, any player could be running around with all of the major support roles. I appreciate the idea of classes dividing up some of these valuable support roles so that you need a few specialized people if you want to fill every role.

The only really good reason to prevent Rexo from piloting in PS1 was that Rexo was a pure upgrade from Agile in almost every way. More ammo, more guns, more armor... slightly less speed (not a problem after the surgile nerf/rexo buff).

In PS2, there are clear advantages and disadvantages to playing as LA or HA, just in ordinary infantry fighting. So there isn't any need to buff up Agile (lighter armors like LA in PS2) just to make it have some value compared to Rexo (HA).

So why not have HA be able to fly? Bailing has been mitigated through other means, so Galaxies should still prove valuable. Due to class tradeoffs, HA won't be at a clear advantage over LA in a bailing situation.

I think that it's pretty clear that balance is not a concern in this matter anymore in PS2, so what is the concern?

This is not PS1 and we are not dealing with PS1 problems.

True, but at the moment this is going to be one of those things will have to wait in see in beta. Maybe I was being a tad close minded. But until we know the rate at which will get resources and such or the actual durability of the HA class. All I can really do is make assumptions atm.

SergeantNubins · 2012-06-17, 11:50 AM

Originally Posted by Hmr85

Your missing the point. I'm not worried about it happening all the time or the cost of resources. It will happen in clutch situations. HA should not ever be able to fly aircraft. Will see how many of you continue to like HA being pilots when I drop 2 platoons worth of HA ontop of your tower or objective.

So you are going to ask 60 people to buy and then throw away their aircraft, just so you can drop rexos? If you're trying to get as much firepower on tehg round as possible in a sigle location, wouldnt you be better off taking 6 galaxy's and dropping 48 rexos and 12 maxes instead? Esecially as they wont all have to cert aircraft with ejection seats in order to arrive at that destination in a non dead/half dead manner.

Hmr85 · 2012-06-17, 12:00 PM

If time was of the essence and the close facility only allowed me to pull Reavers. Then yes, I would ask them to pull them. Because not all of us are worried about resources that from what I have seen don't appear to be that hard to get back. Will have to wait till beta to test this one out.

SergeantNubins · 2012-06-17, 12:04 PM

Originally Posted by Hmr85

If time was of the essence and the close facility only allowed me to pull Reavers. Then yes, I would ask them to pull them. Because not all of us are worried about resources that from what I have seen don't appear to be that hard to get back. Will have to wait till beta to test this one out.

Yea and thats fine, but its not going to be as effective as using the galaxy's. And I suspect it will take much much longer to pull 60 reavers than 6 galaxies. The point is that what you are suggesting isnt OP, because there appear to be better ways of doing it.