Dont think the HA should be able to fly. - Page 8

brinkdadrink · 2012-06-17, 11:05 AM

Main reasons I dont mind:

- You can not bail from an aircraft like in PS1 - you will continue at same speed and will die.
- The ejector seat you can add might limit to only light armour

- to get out you have to land which takes time and makes you a target so its unlikely you are going to do it in the middle of combat.

- Planes now cost resources and a timer so they will not be wildly wasted like they were in PS1

The only time HA matters when flying is when they get out and because of the reasons listed I do not think it will affect game play all that much.

brinkdadrink · 2012-06-17, 11:11 AM

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.

What we saw was special for E3 where they loaded them up with resources. Even with that over the 3 days they ran out of resources so I do not think that resources are that easy to get.

Beta will tell us truly but I think resources will have a huge effect on vehicles and the amount of them. So in your case I would rather spend less resources on galaxy's and bring MAX suits with me than try and take time to pull 60 reavers all of which have to land on a tiny platform because you cant just bail from them any more. It would be a nightmare to just land them all at the tower.

Baron · 2012-06-17, 11:15 AM

My .02 on why I think HA should not be able to pilot aircraft.

On Certifications:
Since in PS2 you will eventually be able to get every single certification, I do not think this is a very strong argument on why HA flying is not an issue. Those who dedicate themselves for kill-whoring will just cert the bailing mechanic as soon as possible.

On Resources:
Since we don't really know how resources are balanced this is mostly speculation. However at some point during the invasion, your resources will cross a threshold that makes using personal aircraft as a taxi not an issue.

Invasion time = 0 (resource limited, not ideal for ES plane taxis ...however that doesn't mean that individuals can't be a dick and just do it anyway for their personal K: D )

Invasion time = 0+x (resource rich, vehicles and side grades barely make a dent in your continental pool so bail away)

On ES Jet Options:
If you are just using your aircraft to after-burn to a location and then bail, I don't see the argument of losing your flares as very strong either. You won't be in the air long enough to using defensive air tactics.

Like many vets, I'm very familiar with the Agile+HA bailing tactics. Using air cav as personal taxis did two things in my mind:

1) reduced the value of large transportation vehicles. Why get a galaxy that is a large and slow target when everyone in your squad can just pull a mossie and bail?

2) annoying as all hell when you win a dog fight just to have the enemy bail and then lock-on with their ES AV weapon as they are falling.

super pretendo · 2012-06-17, 11:19 AM

There should be disadvantages to it

Traak · 2012-06-17, 11:20 AM

I think pilots should have a pistol, and that's it. It can be a heavy pistol. If they want more weapons, they can put them on their plane.

Having pilots heavily armed reminds me of being able to pop out of your MAX armor as a cloaker with a sniper rifle and run off if it gets too low on HP.

Hmr85 · 2012-06-17, 11:21 AM

I'll have to go back and watch the videos. But I don't recall the resource system working (gathering resources) from my understanding each pc was set with a set amount of resources for the day and that was it. Like I said I'll have to go watch the video.

In regards to the ejection seat, if they limit it to LA / agile armor then yes I would be fine with HA piloting aircraft. As you pretty much just took away their ability to hot drop on objectives.

As far as the galaxy's yes, if we where standing near a facility that allowed me to pull them the yes It would be more efficent. I am fully aware of that. I'm BS'ing scenarios here that could happen. It could be a squad or a platoon it doesn't matter to me. My point was it shouldn't be allowed. Beta will clairfy how effective it is or if it should even be allowed. Only game time will clear this up.

Xyntech · 2012-06-17, 11:27 AM

It seems like people are more concerned about bailing than HA being able to pilot.

Mind you, I'm coming from a perspective that thought bailing rapid responders were a good and valid part of the game. At the same time, I thought that there wasn't enough done in the first game to make Galaxies be a superior alternative for non rapid responders (at least after the BR cap started going up), so I certainly want to see efforts made to make sure that the Galaxy stays the first choice for most drops. It has to be a better choice for the average player than either pulling a fighter, or squad spawning.

I think they have already proven that they are heading in a direction to make Galaxy drops a viable first choice, so I'm not too worried. If Galaxies need to be made even more appealing, I'm confident that they will make the necessary changes.

But if this is purely a debate about HA being able to fly or not, not about the merits and downsides of bailing, then this is purely a discussion about how well balanced HA is versus other pilot capable classes. In the first game, the answer would be that Rexo was terribly imbalanced against Agile (post buffs/nerfs). In PS2, all classes will be balanced against each other, having their own strengths and weaknesses.

In the MAXes case, it trades off being able to drive anything or hack anything for having crazy firepower and armor. Beyond this, the other classes should all be fine as pilots.

Xyntech · 2012-06-17, 11:59 AM

Originally Posted by DjEclipse

If a HA can bail and second-life kill you like PS1, that would suck. But I didn't see any of that happening in E3 footage. If it starts to happen in Beta, then oy vey! I think there will be lots of squealing on forums.

In the TB footage and E3 footage, not only did we see HA AV lockon weapons being used mostly like the Striker was in PS1 (to scare aircraft away, not outright destroy them uness the pilot was stupid), but we also saw Smedly use a Reavers rocket spam to take out Total Biscuit while TB actively tried to shoot him down.

I totally agree that if the HA AV gun gets buffed and starts being the defacto "bail for a second chance at the kill" class, there will probably be bitching, but consider the following:

The HA will have to cert in bailing, which means no flares. They are pretty much asking to get shot down.

Meanwhile, the LA can cert in flares, which not only may help them win the initial fight, but will also help keep them safe from the bailing noob.

So essentially, HA will probably get most of it's piloting use from noobs, who will either quickly learn that it's not that useful, or will keep being noobs and not do much harm in the process.

Also, bailing isn't as big a blow to the integrity of a dogfight as it was in PS1. In PS1, you got no kill credit if the pilot bailed, but in PS2, you get a vehicle kill credit no matter whether the pilot is in the craft at the time or not, as well as getting experience from destroying the vehicle. I don't think we've seen for sure one way or another, but for all we know, a pilot may get extra experience for going back and killing a bailed pilot versus killing the pilot while they are still in the aircraft.

Aircraft seem to be able to die a lot more suddenly now as well, so unless you bail while still having like a third of your health left, your odds of getting out before being destroyed probably won't be so good.

Arcticus · 2012-06-17, 12:06 PM

Does anyone else find the concept of 20 airplanes with 20 HA bailing out underwhelming? Would they not be spread out by either distance or time?

If they all bail at once, they won't be clustered. From what I saw in the E3 footage, they certain won't all make it to the same rooftop.

Seems that, if they want to land on the same rooftop, they're bailing out 2 or 3 at a time over said building. Guess I should check the videos for the maneuverability of those ejection seats.

BorisBlade · 2012-06-17, 12:37 PM

Honestly its not as big of a deal as with ps1 because sadly in ps2 you die near instantly from anything. Whether its a bb gun or a mini chain gun, you die in less than a second. So whether you die in 0.5 or 0.6 seconds because you have a guy with HA or not on you is really meaningless. Same with the armor, HA still dies in less than a second. Sadly thats the downside of fast TTK, very little actual or even near zero meaningful differences between weapons/armor/shields etc.

As cool as specializing and what not would be, they will only do things that give the appearance of it. Actual specialization isnt gonna happen in their quest to appeal to a wide audience for a quick buck and the short attention span crowd.

For the record, I wish it were limited to agile. With an option for a pilot suit that was armored like a cloaker with only a pistol but compesated with special benefits for pilots. Ability to bail, or enhanced armor/radar/speed or whatever.

Trafalgar · 2012-06-17, 01:08 PM

Originally Posted by GreatMazinkaise

Aim Down Sights or Iron Sights (though many of them are not in fact proper iron sights). The cumbersome mechanism present in nearly all modern shooters that blocks your view, slows you down to a crawl, and simultaneously makes all shooting beyond point blank range effectively "spray and pray".

"Nearly all" must not include Halo 3, Halo Reach, etc, as they do not use ADS (though you can scope in on the few weapons that have a scope, which effectively just zooms in so you can shoot things farther away). Of course, you're playing enhanced supersoldiers (in the case of spartans) in power armor which provides further augmentation and visual cues showing where you are aiming, so your character probably doesn't NEED to use sights to aim at your enemies accurately, and Sangheili also have advanced armor which likely shows them where they are aiming and such.

Originally Posted by SgtExo

I think that by paying for a sub they said you would collect resources faster.

Paying for a sub to get more resources would be pay to win, if you ask me.

GreatMazinkaise · 2012-06-17, 01:13 PM

Originally Posted by Trafalgar

"Nearly all" must not include Halo 3, Halo Reach, etc, as they do not use ADS (though you can scope in on the few weapons that have a scope, which effectively just zooms in so you can shoot things farther away). Of course, you're playing enhanced supersoldiers (in the case of spartans) in power armor which provides further augmentation and visual cues showing where you are aiming, so your character probably doesn't NEED to use sights to aim at your enemies accurately, and Sangheili also have advanced armor which likely shows them where they are aiming and such.

That would be pay to win, if you ask me.

Halo would be a much better influence on the game than the "all ADS, all the time" that shows up in the generic modern shooter franchises.

SergeantNubins · 2012-06-17, 01:25 PM

Originally Posted by Trafalgar

"Nearly all" must not include Halo 3, Halo Reach, etc, as they do not use ADS (though you can scope in on the few weapons that have a scope, which effectively just zooms in so you can shoot things farther away). Of course, you're playing enhanced supersoldiers (in the case of spartans) in power armor which provides further augmentation and visual cues showing where you are aiming, so your character probably doesn't NEED to use sights to aim at your enemies accurately, and Sangheili also have advanced armor which likely shows them where they are aiming and such.

Paying for a sub to get more resources would be pay to win, if you ask me.

I personally havent read anything aobut paying to collect resources faster. They have said you can pay to get xp faster (like in tribes ascend) and i think they have hinted that you might be able to buy resources outright, but not to collect them quicker. But as I said, ive not seen them say this anywhere.

This is the nature of f2p - buying resources is not paying to win, its paying to give you access to the tools you want to use when you want to use them, rather than waiting to earn them manually. Its perfectly reasoanble here. Someone has to pay for this game, so there has to be something worthwhile buying that will appeak to a significant number of the playerbase, you can't seriously expect to have people who pay get nothing worthwhile in return, even if it is just the ability to ensure you dont run out of resources.

GreatMazinkaise · 2012-06-17, 01:32 PM

Originally Posted by SergeantNubins

I personally havent read anything aobut paying to collect resources faster. They have said you can pay to get xp faster (like in tribes ascend) and i think they have hinted that you might be able to buy resources outright, but not to collect them quicker. But as I said, ive not seen them say this anywhere.

This is the nature of f2p - buying resources is not paying to win, its paying to give you access to the tools you want to use when you want to use them, rather than waiting to earn them manually. Its perfectly reasoanble here. Someone has to pay for this game, so there has to be something worthwhile buying that will appeak to a significant number of the playerbase, you can't seriously expect to have people who pay get nothing worthwhile in return, even if it is just the ability to ensure you dont run out of resources.

Resource denial is the only strategic metagame in town... if you can buy boosters that mitigate resource denial then you have nothing left to work with.

TheInferno · 2012-06-17, 01:33 PM

Originally Posted by SergeantNubins

I ersonalyl havent read anything aobut paying to collect resources faster. They have said you can pay to get xp faster (like in tribes ascend) and i think they have hinted that you might be able to buy resources outright, but not to collect them quicker. But as I said, ive not seen them say this anywhere.

This is the nature of f2p - buying resources is not paying to win, its paying to give you access to the tools you want to use when you want to use them, rather than waiting to earn them manually. Its perfectly reasoanble here. Someone has to pay for this game, so there has to be something worthwhile buying that will appeak to a significant number of the playerbase, you can't seriously expect to have people who pay get nothing worthwhile in return, even if it is just the ability to ensure you dont run out of resources.

Thing is, by selling resources directly (like Auraxium) they have the problem where people can trade Auraxium for the other resources, which they then use to buy grenades/implants. What's the difference between that and simply selling those grenades and implants directly, which they said they didn't want to do?

As long as the resource booster is quite mild, I don't think I would mind too much. No directly buying resources though. XP Boosters are fine, though.

EDIT: Mazikaise brings up the other point, one of the big parts of this territory control system is that it's what gets you resources. As long as the resource boosters are a small percentage thing over a period of time, I think it will work, though they'll have to be careful.

Honestly, seeing how much boosters affect the gameplay is probably one of their big beta questions.