So I read the PC gamer article

Synapses · 2012-02-27, 08:20 PM

It was pretty impressive aside from a few things that made my heart sink... that being that scope "glare" is in... One specific faction will have a advantage over the one facing the sun. IE scope glares, possibly blinding sun for pilots ext.

The other being that release is looking like sometime in 2013. These things were CLEARLY stated in the article. However, at the same time they also said "This years most blah blah shooter" so it leaves me a little confused as to what we have going on.

Personally I pray for my chance at beta before I begin school in April (helicopter piloting ftw!) as I will be so busy flying and studying. Buuuttt I know thats not going to happen as Higby stated in the article "There is still so much to be done" when talking about content and internal tests prior to beta.

Lonehunter · 2012-02-27, 08:54 PM

Just wanted to point out the 2013 comment was purely the interviewer's opinion, and I hope he's wrong

Glare wasn't really mentioned with scopes. I mean if your sighting your gun and looking at the sun yeah that's a glare, but I really hope there's no sparkle on a sniper's scope a mile away like BF3

BigBossMonkey · 2012-02-27, 09:58 PM

They have stated several times that the environment will be playing a role in PS2, weather will mean stuff, and there is a reason there is a Day/Night cycle.

It adds tactical advantages and what not.

This isn't BF3 where the sun is always at the same angle, it moves. You have an entire battlefield to move around in, you can make the enemy fight with your back to the sun.

As for the 2013 bit, that was the guys opinion. Alpha started in early December, so I would hazard a guess that Beta is ~1-3 months out.

Beta will likely last 5-6 months depending on how things go in it. That would make it a 2013 launch.

Zulthus · 2012-02-27, 10:21 PM

Bah, scope glare? Really? Pleeeeease leave that horrid implementation in BF3. I know there has to be a better way to combat camping snipers but that is most definitely NOT the way to do it!!

Synapses · 2012-02-27, 10:36 PM

So... They didnt declare SCOPE glares, but they declared that having your back to the sun does give an advantage against those in to the sun, maybe not scope glares, but there would be some kind of glares. *shrug*

Maybe I misread the 2013 thing. I thought it was a comment from someone on the team, ill re-read it all tomorrow.

WiteBeam · 2012-02-27, 11:40 PM

I doubt the games beta will be over 10 months long. And even if it is, most of us should be happy playing the beta till the launch anyways.

WiteBeam · 2012-02-27, 11:43 PM

Originally Posted by IDukeNukeml

If SOE adds stupid fucking realistic idealistic options that suggest real world physics, lighting and projectile drop because of physics on Earth and then in turn adds 40 tank rounds to kill someone, I will be again disappointed in SOE.

Make it real or don't make it real... stop trying to find a medium, there isn't one.

Lol

So true.

Synapses · 2012-02-27, 11:45 PM

Originally Posted by IDukeNukeml

Perhaps you are thinking about this galaxy and not another? Scope glares can happen in eastern asia from the west and from the south east in africa.

The point of the matter is, if the sun is far enough away, it's light given to the planet plus the technology of the faction could easily explain away the scope glare.

If SOE adds stupid fucking realistic idealistic options that suggest real world physics, lighting and projectile drop because of physics on Earth and then in turn adds 40 tank rounds to kill someone, I will be again disappointed in SOE.

Make it real or don't make it real... stop trying to find a medium, there isn't one.

I fully agree with you on this. Its one thing that pissed me off about PS1. Why is my reaver dying after 1.5 seconds of fire (no full vehicle shields, for that add .5 to make 2 seconds) from any form of AA, yet I put 2 rocket clips in to something and its still alive and has probably killed me by now.

Infact the very thought of flying planetside 1 makes me angry, and im a pilot IRL... They should have used basic helicopter mechanics instead of there system that they did, and rockets from reavers should have messed shit up.

Please SOE, make the vehicles balanced... If air is going to be able to kill me in 2 seconds, then I better be able to kill a tank in 2 seconds, fair is fair.

Zulthus · 2012-02-28, 12:03 AM

Originally Posted by Synapses

I fully agree with you on this. Its one thing that pissed me off about PS1. Why is my reaver dying after 1.5 seconds of fire (no full vehicle shields, for that add .5 to make 2 seconds) from any form of AA, yet I put 2 rocket clips in to something and its still alive and has probably killed me by now.

Infact the very thought of flying planetside 1 makes me angry, and im a pilot IRL... They should have used basic helicopter mechanics instead of there system that they did, and rockets from reavers should have messed shit up.

Please SOE, make the vehicles balanced... If air is going to be able to kill me in 2 seconds, then I better be able to kill a tank in 2 seconds, fair is fair.

Well, the reaver was actually fine and balanced. Until that stealth buff... but regardless. Tanks move slower and are easier to hit, thus they have more armor to last longer. Reavers were able to last as long as they did (20+ minutes if you're decent) because they were fast attack fighters, meaning they could swoop in and out quickly emptying a salvo of rockets. If they could just take out a tank in one salvo and still get out unscathed, how is that balanced at all? I think they balanced the vehicles very well. Buggies like the Skyguard were easily taken out with one salvo if you got the drop on them. That is balanced because they are very quick for a ground vehicle and are meant to combat aircraft. They shouldn't let their guard down like that.

cellinaire · 2012-02-28, 12:08 AM

Originally Posted by IDukeNukeml

Perhaps you are thinking about this galaxy and not another? Scope glares can happen in eastern asia from the west and from the south east in africa.

The point of the matter is, if the sun is far enough away, it's light given to the planet plus the technology of the faction could easily explain away the scope glare.

If SOE adds stupid fucking realistic idealistic options that suggest real world physics, lighting and projectile drop because of physics on Earth and then in turn adds 40 tank rounds to kill someone, I will be again disappointed in SOE.

Make it real or don't make it real... stop trying to find a medium, there isn't one.

Talking about common sense. Neat

Synapses · 2012-02-28, 12:59 AM

Originally Posted by Zulthus

Well, the reaver was actually fine and balanced. Until that stealth buff... but regardless. Tanks move slower and are easier to hit, thus they have more armor to last longer. Reavers were able to last as long as they did (20+ minutes if you\'re decent) because they were fast attack fighters, meaning they could swoop in and out quickly emptying a salvo of rockets. If they could just take out a tank in one salvo and still get out unscathed, how is that balanced at all? I think they balanced the vehicles very well. Buggies like the Skyguard were easily taken out with one salvo if you got the drop on them. That is balanced because they are very quick for a ground vehicle and are meant to combat aircraft. They shouldn\'t let their guard down like that.

I totally get your points, but I have played on and off since release... and I STILL cant manage to fly a reaver well... and I am an effing pilot IRL... I die in seconds and this whole \"Just hide behind trees ext\" crap I keep hearing is BS because that almost NEVER works. I am not saying I should be able to kill a tank in one salvo... Im saying that if I cant do it, they shouldnt be able to do it. Skyguards or other AA should have a time before there lock completes and they can fire, and the second they start locking me I should be notified... like any other REAL military aircraft. It gives me time to bug out if I dont like what I am seeing/hearing.

This surviving 20 minutes comment you make is invalid, because I PROMISE you those reavers have had to swoop out of there like a bat out of hell to run away and repair. Im sorry but I want to enjoy playing an aircraft, not swoop in get one salvo off on something if im REALLY lucky, and swoop back out. I want to have some combat sustainability and survivability. Its super super frustrating the way it is in planetside. I spent my first time in a skyguard to laughing at myself for even thinking air was fun... I was getting 5 kills a minute in a good battle in a skyguard. Tell me thats BALANCED. All I had to do was put a tiny bit of lead on my targets and air dropped like flies in to a zap net. All I could think was \"No wonder I dont want to fly anymore, I feel terrible for these guys\" I dont really care what you say, because after 7 years I can SEE its unbalanced. Airpower should be the HARDEST to touch of all assets if we want to get in to realistic style combat. How often do you hear about an F-16/22 or A-10 getting shot down. Hardly ever. Never once seen it in all my years in the United States Air Force, and even now as a Helicopter pilot IRL... I can tell you that it just dosent feel right.

Why am I so upset? Becuase Airpower is my passion and in PS1 its not right. I want to see it RIGHT in PS2.

Whalenator · 2012-02-28, 01:01 AM

Syn. I love you.
But you\'re breaking my balls here.

Can\'t you see there are 4+ separate topics about the PCGamer thread? hnng.

Synapses · 2012-02-28, 01:04 AM

Originally Posted by Whalenator

Syn. I love you.
But you\\'re breaking my balls here.

Can\\'t you see there are 4+ separate topics about the PCGamer thread? hnng.

This has been up since much earlier today. =P And it has quiet a few replies now. So I would say its a valid post?

Synapses · 2012-02-28, 01:04 AM

Odd... double post.

Bravix · 2012-02-28, 01:48 AM

Syn, I\'m also a pilot, and let me tell you this much. If they made aircraft realistic, they\'d be extremely overpowered. An F-22 would decimate just about anything in planetside.

Example being Halo. I\'ve always wondered, \"Okay, so Earth is under attack by some slow ass Banshees, and all the enemy has for AA is a turret emplacement....so whyyyy are we losing so bad? Bring in the mother fu$#ING jets!!\"

Reavers are extremely strong and well armored. They SHOULD die to skyguards, skyguard is anti-air. If you want to talk balance, explain to me why it takes so many mag rail shots to take down a reaver. That thing soaks up almost as much damage as a lightning.

The reason you don\'t see results is because you suck at flying Reavers. Not trying to be insulting, I\'m in the same boat. They just aren\'t realistic. If you wanna kick ass at flying, play Arma II.