I do not like flying ESF because of V-Thrust and Airbreak.

Once the name calling begins you know you have won the arguement.

As I said in WarmasterRaptors example, all the skill (post the awkwardness) is retained (which is in its usage, not in learning the awkwardness), yet the awkwardness wall is reduced massively.

This would be win:win, because awkwardness is not and never will be "skill", it is simply awkwardness.

As I have said someone that is simply trying to maintain the awkwardness can make no real arguement (and must instead rely on insults, I guess), but for everyone else that wants to improve Air accesiblity it simply makes sense to do so.

The irreconcilable difference that we're having is that what you consider an awkwardness wall we consider a skill ladder; so he is correct in stating that this debate is a waste of time since it seems obvious that we can't agree on what is defined as skill, and have come to a point where you're both just restating the same argument you've been making for the last 5 pages.

This is untrue; I would like to improve air accessibility but not at the expense of what I and many others consider a fun, interesting, and captivating element of Planetside's air combat because of it's high skill cap. It's fine that you don't like that element of the Airgame, but to accuse those who do of having ulterior motives or a lack of concern for new pilots.. This is not true; I do care about new pilots, and am willing to discuss ways of making it more accessible to new players; but I also care about maintaining and protecting elements of the air game which have keep me interested and involved in flying for the long term.

"Depth"


Depth looks at the game as a whole, not certain factors in isolation.
All the factors of a game go into determining the depth of it's infantry play because they are all a part of the matrix of tactical decision making and teamwork involved in infantry play.

You have a completely wrong idea of what tactical depth in a game is if you think that depth is only a measure of how long it takes you to master a particular skill like aiming your weapon to get a kill.
That can be related to depth because it impacts the options the player has access to, and the kinds of decisions they will make, but it is not itself a measure of the depth of decision making involved in achieving overall victory for your team.

An example of why the difficulty in mastering a particular skill is not a measure of overall depth:
If a game only gave you a single static target to shoot at, from a single stationary position, but it is extremely difficult to aim your weapon because the sight bounces all over the place in a complicated pattern; then we would say this game has a skill that takes a lot of practice to master to learn how to compensate for the aimsway pattern, but we would not say this game has any tactical depth because there's no real decision making involved. Every encounter involves the same decision being made in the same way. Fire at the fixed target from the same position and win. Difficulty in mastering the ability to aim your weapon is not a substitute for tactical depth, which is about decision making based on variables.

Tribes has more depth than quake. It does not necessarily have more depth than PS2.
Just because tribes takes longer to learn to kill something, because of the way the weapons work in combination of high evasive abilities, doesn't mean that it has more tactical depth when you take the game as a whole. There's a lot more you have to factor in to your decision making in PS2, a lot more variables. Tactical depth is not about what it takes for you to get a kill - It's about what it takes for your team to win. You aren't dueling in isolation.

No, they don't always matter. In a game like quake there are elements of tactical shooters that are completely absent. Suppressive fire, managing your movement and sight profile, camo, being aware of traps, etc.

There are other elements that are so marginally represented that they are utilized only in an extremely basic sense without being a significant part of your tactics - Things like the necessity of using cover and flanking, or working in unison with your team to coordinate (beyond just outnumbering your enemy so you have more damage per second than they do).

If you were to flowchart what the decision process for a gamer looks like while playing quake vs a tactical shooter, you'd see the decision making process for a quake scenerio is very simple and linear compared with the variety of factors and options necessary for success in a tactical shooter.

Quake:
There's a room.
Do you enter? Yes.
How fast and in what way? Doesn't matter, just charge in.
Scan for enemies. Target aquired.
Start to dodge and fire.
Close to optimum engagement distance based on your best weapon.
Dance with the target until one of you wins the fight because you had better aim.
Do they have more HP or better weapons? Are you outnumbered? Consider retreat.
Rinse and repeat until your score is highest.

A tactical shooter:
There's a room.
Do you enter? That depends.
How important is it? Do you need to move with maximum speed to get to the objective, or can you afford to take a more methodical approach that is safer for you?
Are there explosives or other traps? Scan for the possibility and move with caution, or disregard it for the sake of time.
Analyze the possibility of an enemy being there before you move in.
Analyze the possibility that the enemy may be unaware of you, or the possibility that they may be alert and defending.
Can you rush in and use your speed and surprise to your advantage, or will that just get you killed because they have the door covered?
If the enemy is there, what are the chances you can see them and fire before dying in a strait up exchange of bullets?
That depends on what you have and how good you are with it.
It factors in the size and type of the room, the kinds of things they might be able to use for cover, the possibility they are camouflaged, and the weapons they could possibly have. If they are in camo and cover a long ways away with an LMG or sniper rifle, and you have an assault rifle, then you make the decision that charging in is a bad idea.
Tactically this could be a no win situation for you, so you have to consider alternatives.
Smoke grenades?
Is the room small enough for flashbangs?
Can you go around to flank them?
Do you just avoid them and go another route?
What is the possibility you can avoid dying long enough to get to cover inside the room?
From that position can you lay down supressive fire to distract them for your teammates to get in, so they can then attack from another angle?
Consider that one of your teammates might sacrifice themselves by running across the enemy's field of vision to make them reveal themselves, because the larger team goal is at stake of getting past this room to the objective.
If you know where they are, can you get a rifle grenade or launcher into their position?
Do you have artillery you can call in?
Or are you able to work your way closer to them by leapfrogging from cover to cover, forcing them to retreat from their position or expose themselves to your teammate's line of fire?

I could keep going on, but that's just a small sample as a way of engaging your mind to understand what a tactical decision tree looks like.
It is possible to move fast and be aggressive in tactical shooters and succeed, it just requires more decision making skill and tactics to overcome the enemy because a bad decision will end your run quickly. It also requires a higher level of skill in things like aiming or knowledge about the game, because those things will allow you to succeed under a wider array of circumstances. If someone can't aim quickly and accurately then it limits what they can achieve tactically, forcing them to engage in ways that compensate for their lack of aim skill.

What you don't seem to understand is that tactics (decision making) comes out of limitations, and it's possible to make the game require less tactics when you remove certain limitations.
The reason tribes dueling has more tactics (decision making) involved in dueling than quake is because there are more limitations brought about by the need to manage your energy, timing your shots and timing your contact with the ground in ways that gave you the best chance of success while minimizing the enemy's chance of getting you.
The reason we have tactics in real life military is because we can't get from point A to point B with a simple and easy solution. The enemy has a whole host of advantages and strengths that we need to find ways of getting around, using a combination of different tools, tactics, and teamwork. Conversely, we have our own weaknesses that we need to guard from being exploited while we attempt to hit the enemy's weakness.

Reverse thrust is a perfect example of how you're removing so many limitations on the movement of aircraft that tactically engagements become very simple. There's also no significant difference between the airframes, tactically, with RM in the picture. You're giving players an easy way to get from point A to point B. They don't need to make complicated decisions, have deep knowledge, out-think their enemy or use advanced teamwork anymore.

Where you get confused is you think tribes had more depth because of the difficulty involved in mastering the skill of aiming and hitting your target. That is related, but not the whole story. The reason it had more depth than quake even after you mastered the skills involved is because the decision making tree you are engaged in is a lot more complicated, with greater consequences for good and bad decisions about how you choose to manage your energy during the fight. Managing your loadout and armor also brought more tactics into the fight, by giving you ways of gaining certain advantages in certain situations.
To that end, the only reason the difficulty of hitting your target increases the tactical depth is because it limits your options and forces you to create or wait for the best opportunities to hit your opponent - It's about managing strengths and weaknesses.

In PS2 air combat there are no real strengths to leverage, and no weaknesses to exploit, because there's no concept of energy management and no difficulty in pointing your guns wherever you want whenever you want. As a consequence, decision making is very simple, and the game is tactically more shallow than it otherwise could be. You haven't added to the tactical depth, you've cut out huge swaths of tactical possibilities by removing all movement limitations.

The ironic thing is that Tribes had more energy management involved in it's fights with a jetpack, and more limitations on mobility and weapon use, than PS2 aircraft do.

Going back to the example I gave of the simple target shooting game - Skill mastery is not the same as tactical depth.
Skill mastery doesn't make a game deep by itself.
Decision making makes a game deep.

That's true, but there's another half of this coin that you seem to be completely unaware of: Adding things to the game doesn't always result in more decision making, or more in depth decision making.
Sometimes adding things to to a game will remove decision making.
Sometimes taking things away will increase tactics by increasing decision making.

What would happen in Tribes if you "added" infinite jetpack energy? The game would be less tactical. Less decision making would be involved. The game would be more simple.
You can choose to look at it another way: You weren't really adding infinite jetpack energy, what you were doing was "subtracting" limited jetpack energy from the game.

In the same way, your desire to remove aiming and mobility limitations from PS2, and your desire to remove HP limitations, would all result in a more shallow gaming experience with more simplified decision making. You might see it as "adding" the ability to fire on the move perfectly and soak up bullets for a minute, but the net result is that you're subtracting from the decision making process involved in tactical success.

I always topped the charts in Unreal Tournament - But I've also been able to dominate in tactical games by changing up the way I play to be less about twitch and more about tactics.
I have always played and succeeded to a high level in a wide range of different FPS games like Unreal, Tribes, Battlefield, Rainbow Six, Team Fortress, WW2OL, and Natural Selection.

So I know what I'm talking about, having played them a wide array of FPS games to a high level of skill.

However, it doesn't sound to me like you've ever played realistic tactical games to the point where you were ever any good at it. I don't believe you have enough experience to really understand what you're missing out on in terms of tactical decision making. The fact that you seem to think tactical shooters and realistic flight sims are all about ambushing seems to betray a very simple view of what is tactically involved in achieving victory.

Moin

First of all, I'd like to see your character stats. I'm usually not that much of a stat-*****, but I'd like to have it confirmed that you have actually deeper knowledge of the airgame in PS2. Because you seem to be quite experienced with different games and especially simulations (might be some bias there) but you keep talking about the RM as if it was only one move.
Saying that the RM is just one move is like saying that forward flight is just one move. I mean, you move forward, it's only one move right? In PS2 we have the reverse maneuver, in a flight sim we have the "fly forward maneuver".
It isn't that easy. RM means the whole system of using your vertical thrust to move sideways and backwards. It requires a lot more awareness than your typical forward flight mode - especially in flight sims where fights usually happen high up in the air and there's not as much terrain to consider - because you can't look behind you and are very limited in your FoV to the sides. You don't wanna bounce against a tree, a mountain or a friendly ESF.

I'm not talking about "one move" in the sense of it only taking one movement of your mouse to execute it. I'm talking about "one move" in the sense of tactical decision making.

Decision making in PS2 dogfighting is very simple in comparison with a flight sim.
If the enemy passes by your field of vision, you do a reverse thrust maneuver to put them back in your sights.
If you lose sight of them again, you merely execute the maneuver again.
One simple decision required to put your guns on the target in PS2, which always works basically the same regardless of your energy state or your plane's specific cert attributes, replaces what would normally require a complex series of decisions in a flight sim that takes into account a host of variables about each plane involved in the engagement.

That's why there's no real system of advantage or disadvantage to leverage over your opponent. One decision lets you equalize any fight instantly. So this same decision is made every fight with no reason to do anything else.

Every battle will involve dancing around each other to see who can aim better. A skillful engagement? Yes. A tactical engagement involving indepth decision making? No. It's the airborne equivalent of a quake circle strafing duel.

Depth can absolutely be examined more closely than the zoomed-out question of "Is this game deep?" You're suggesting we can't zoom in to ask "Is infantry play deep in this game?"

You're wrong. We can ask that question, and asking that question provides interesting insights that we'd miss if we only looked at the big picture. We can zoom in to discuss the game depth of whatever level that the discussion warrants.

To clarify, it's not about that one skill. It's about all skills related to that thing (in this case the subset of skills related to infantry or aircraft, which is an reasonable subset of skills to isolate and examine.)

But I've been looking at the depth of an entire subset (ie "infantry combat depth") whereas in your example you're only looking at the depth of CoF randomness. You're zoomed in far enough to where there isn't tactical depth. But if you zoom slightly out, then obviously there's tactical depth still because unless you're removing all cover from the game then infantry play will involve and reward cover. Unless you're removing the possibility of sneaking up behind someone, there will still be tactical play in sneaking up behind someone to gain x milliseconds of firing time on them before they can turn around and begin firing on you.

It's not automatically wrong to zoom in that far if the goal is to improve just the way CoF/recoil is implemented, to make it deeper and more interesting. It's only wrong to zoom in that far and then worry about infantry tactical depth (most of which is found at the Infantry zoom level, not at the CoF/recoil zoom.)

Right, and I'm only saying that the infantry play of Tribes is deeper than PS2's infantry play. Same zoom level for both games. If we zoomed out then I'd agree that PS2 is deeper overall, but the fact that Tribes infantry play is deeper represents PS2 to be even deeper than it is. The overall depth still matters when selecting a game (you're not going to choose a game which offers slightly deeper infantry play, but which is much shallower overall because that's all it offers) but the depth of an individual subset is helpful for pointing out where a game can be improved.

Er, but Quake has very strong suppressive fire, movement and visibility-management elements.

The rest of your post essentially spirals downward from this original false assumption. Look, nobody's arguing that low-tier Quake players use a lot of tactics. They don't. They rush in blindly and fire at whatever moves. But that's low-tier play. High-tier play involves carefully calculated movements where everything is planned and thought out (regarding control over the map and its spawns, and regarding managing how exposed you are.) High-tier play involves frequent suppressive fire to cover retreats or to punish reckless enemy advances (poorly calculated movements.)

Lol What? You know from day one you had landing pads for hover craft which is not just ESF. You can even cert your ESF in to hover frame so that benefit of hovering is increased and all you have to say is that it is awkward, yet when I asked you to explain what this awkwardness means you don't.
Do you understand the difficulties in tracking fast moving target like forward flying ESF while you yourself are in hover mode or in a complete stop. Or if you reverse the situation and you are in forward flight tracking slow hovering ESF which at any moment can change direction. Controlling your aim and calculating trajectory of your bullets in these a2a situations is difficult to master but not awkward. You would know this if you had any experience and I have to assume you don't have any based on illogical arguments you bring to this discussion. Developers had this in mind from the beginning and this level of difficulty has nothing to do with reverse maneuver.

I played Jane's and DCS simulators so I do understand "conventional" models. But this is not conventional model instead it's a mix of forward flight with "helicopter" dynamics and these modes can be switched quickly which makes it unique. No other game has these kind of dynamics regardless if you find them unreal or difficult. It does fit PS2 MMO scale perfectly.
Regarding your helicopter comment and fixed nose gun, how difficult would it be for you in a heli to track down a fast mover at your 9 o'clock up high given that you have decent understanding of bullet velocity and rpm? NVM that both crafts can switch roles from forward flight back to hover.
I didn't like mouse roll when I started to fly, but now I wouldn't have it any other way.

Really. It's because of the reverse maneuver. You know this or do you just assume this? You see an enemy ESF can pass your field of vision in hover mode or in forward flight, what tactics do you assume I'm going to use then, given a number of possibilities like an ace pilot from a well know outfit? In fact tactics involved with air game not just A2A is beyond your understanding. Do you have any idea how "tactical" you have to be to take out one skyguard, or just to have a successful A2G run.
You all know the real boogeyman is the combination of hover and forward flight in one craft and the difficulty it imposes when it comes to aim and leading you target successfully. I have already explained to Goretzu and Auzor but somehow this notion and speculation that if removed or changed would make it accessible to everyone is a big mistake which none of you understand and that is sad.

Lol what, indeed.

SOE certainly designed ESFs to hover, they didn't (as they have said) design the RM as such though, it is simply an unintended concequence.

I would imagine if they had intended it, it would in fact currently work like WarmasterRaptors idea, which as mentioned removes the awkwardness wall of learning it (for new players) whilst retaining the post-wall skill of using it.

As I have said if someone is coming at this from the postion of retaining the awkwardness wall there is nothing that will convince them otherwise, but for everyone else improving accessiblity to Air is simply a no brainer.

The only reason to retain it (especially over something like the WarmasterRaptors idea) is some bizarre form of protectionism though, because without the awkwardness wall the "skill" of useage still remains............ only the front-loaded unaccessiblity that puts new players off is gone.

So unless someone simply wants to have a direct awkwardness advantage over new pilots (rather than use an experience/useage advantage) then it should go....... and if someone wants that, then frankly I feel thier opinion is just not worth anything to begin with as it is putting self over the game.




The idea of a seperate A2A fighter also has a vast number of positive going for it, with few negatives.

In the context of this thread, when we zoom in an look at what the awkwardness wall provides over a system that removes that wall yet retains usage.

Unsurprisingly we find it provides nothing at all, except system of protectism for those that really don't want it to be accessible to new players (the very opposite of skill respecting players, in fact).

Moin

The only "awkwardness" of the RM is the fact that the game doesn't tell you that you can use your afterburner in hovermode without going into forward flight mode. Once you've figured out that much it's quite easy to understand. I've been teaching new pilots the RM in VR in a matter of minutes. To actually use this technique to full effect in combat however takes hundreds of hours and I still haven't mastered it.
This game doesn't need to simplify flying any further, the basic concepts aren't that hard to grasp and in the end it comes down to practise. However, the game does desperatly need a flying tutorial that teaches new pilots the basics about flight controlls, leading targets with your nosegun, landing your ESF on the small rearmpads and transition between flight- and hovermode, including hovermode as a possible fightmode.

So I disagree with your constant ranting about "awkwardness". If you consider the physics (or lack of them if you will) and the way your vertical thrusters work, the RM makes perfect sense. You just aren't used to it, because it's something you didn't already encounter in other games.

That's the point though, remove the awkwardness wall (al la Raptors idea) and everything everyone "supposedly" cares about remains (skill in/of useage).

Except that apparently a lot of people DO want the awkwardness wall to remain.

As I've said those that have the postion of wanting to retain the awkwardness wall will never be convinced (because they want to keep it), but for everyone else, making accessiblity better (and keeping useage skill) is just a sensible idea.





For example what is your specific objection to removing the awkwardness of learning it, but retaining all the options of using it?

Moin

The thing is, the maneuver itself was never "awkward" for me. Forgive me for having trouble understanding how it can be "awkward" for other people. For me it's like saying the magriders sidestrafe is "awkward". For me it's a mechanic that's in the game and has to be practised. The only problem I see is that new pilots aren't told it's in the game, so they have to either discover it on their own or get the information outside the game. That's only a real problem for casual players I guess and I can't identify with those either.

What you want in essence is to make it easier to perform the maneuver. Not less "awkward". And I don't mind changes to the controlls. But you have to understand one thing when demanding putting "backwards flight" on one simple button: Currently it takes skill to get into hovermode and stay in it. Contrary to what Risen writes huge walls of text about, the RM isn't simply "perfom one move and you're good to go". You also have to stay in hovermode and altitude and angle does play a tactical role here. There are ways to force your opponent out of hovermode or at least force him to take his aim off you to maintain it. The transition of hover and forward flight is also a tactial decision that has to be timed and executed well.

If you give the pilot more controll over the thrusters, it should add more options to use them (like direct thruster controll), not just make it easier to perform. This would potentially bring huge changes to the airgame and would definitely screw balance over, both in A2A and A2G. It's more than just a few simple changes in keybindings.

ACMs on PS2 vs Real flying games.

PS2
1. RM

Real flying games
1. Hammerhead
2. Rolling Scissors
3. Hi Yo Yo's
4. Low Yo Yo's
5. Immelman
6. Split S
7. Lag Rolls
8. Flat Scissors

PS2 you have 1 ACM to use, while real flying games you have to use your head to pick which ACM works best in a certain situation. This all comes down to Energy retention while flying, and PS2 has none. I'm not asking for PS2 to be a "simulation." But hell give us something resembling flying. Change I like to see first.

PS2 needs weight and balance in the game. For example.

You want to be a A2G ESF with all those rockets under your wings? Well you can have it, but the trade off will that your plane will be slow and less maneuverable. This will give people who chose a lighter ESF with A2A rockets a distinct advantage over A2G ESF's.

Maybe then A2G ESF'S will request 'escorts" and the air game might have a purpose atleast until some other changes can be made.

If it was as straight forward as the Magriders strafe there'd be no problem.

Conversely if a Magriders strafe was as intially awkward then that would have a similar problem too.


More accessible, is that easier? In the context of being less awkward it is, but then this is what I mean, something being awkward to learn doesn't make you better at it, it just requires time to learn. Use of it once you've learnt it, that is where skill comes into it.

Currently new players simply hit the awkwardness wall and basically many just bounce off and disapear, they don't get better they just don't bother - which is the problem with any game (or part of a game) where accessibity is negatively front-loaded.

I understand why people don't want it to change (its the old "in my day I used to walk to school and it was uphill in both directions and it always snowed" thing), but that is no reason for it not to change when it is better for the game.





A2A-wise I'm very much in favour of a pure A2A fighter for a myriad of reasons.

Landing pads; yes. For VTOL aircraft. Do you think the F35-B will do a lot of fighting in hovermode?

I've played freelancer a bit years ago;
comparison: added gravity, and reversing, for no locking on whilst firing, no turret-style aiming, steer, aim, and no strafing added into the mix.
TBH: no I don't think PS2 is more "skilled" A2A fights than dogfighting or well-done space sims.

In a helicopter? an actual helicopter? Extremely difficult.
You turn the helicopter & roll, ending aiming upwards. Great. You have just killed your airspeed, and all your rotors are doing is trying to prevent you from dropping out of the sky.
Helicopter guns aren't designed to take out an aircraft; take the apache 30mm as an example; it shoots slow, "fat" rounds,
vs A2A cannons with much higher muzzle velocity, and hence, range.
TBH, for a jetfighter merging with a helicopter for identification etc is extremely dangerous. But a known enemy he'll simply shoot down from outside of range.

Because you had an awkward start, everyone should have it? What exactly, would be lost by allowing control customization?

No,
regardless of implementation of
-"awkward hover"
-"button hover"
-"landing-only-hover"
a skilled and experience pilot will be at a tremendous advantage.
"landing-only-hover IMO would also make A2G cleaned up: strafing runs only, no galaxy-hover etc. Should make "rocketpod" relationship more healthy.
I also think it would be far more fun and dynamic for new pilots; and allow new pilots to occasionally get the drop on a sleepy vet whom couldn't "simply RM"!; basically the newbie would see more what the other pilot is doing, and would be able to learn specific manoevers easier.
but the manoevring will be tactical for sure; implementing the manoevers.

I'm glad that we established that this awkwardness you keep bringing up is nothing more then reverse maneuver. You keep saying throughout this thread that this is the reason why new or any player trying to get in air game is what makes it inaccessible to them which is absolutely false. I have told you this and many other pilots as well, and you too would know otherwise if you actually had experience with it. You would like others like yourself to think that the reason pilots keep defending this maneuver is because it's difficult skill to achieve and that only pro pilots use this tactic which they can use it as i-win button and this is absolutely nonsense.

Reverse maneuver is easy to achieve. It may get you out of the trouble under special circumstances and give you an advantage, or it can prolong you life in a ESF for extra few seconds. It's situational but it's not in any shape or form this giant barrier of awkward wall that makes it inaccessible for others to enjoy flying in this game and be successful!

Your reasoning is illogical because to me and other pilots you sound like a player who would complain about bunny hopping as a giant barrier or "wall of awkwardness" for any player trying to get in to the fps scene. Not that they are the same thing but in a sense of how ridiculous it sounds. Keep in mind that when I started flying I didn't have the luxury of VR. I had timers and I had to cert my ESF in to the unknown (my certs) while getting shot out of the sky. At least you can go and practice your desired air frame, gun and maneuvers in VR without having to wait 15 or so minutes to spawn ESF again after you die, and that is if you had enough resources to do so which would sometimes tick at a rate of 15 every 5 minutes for a ESF that costs 250 resouces. To talk about accessibility is one thing and to point the finger at the maneuver as a barrier and excuse for failure is nonsense.

lol, this thread is still going on?

in short - air metagame is counterintuitive, grindy and toxic. No wonder most players find it inaccessible, which in consequence destroys the combined arms approach of the game on a global scale. Farmers do the obvious thing - defend their farming toys, while SOE is too busy adding new content that they don't have time to fix the old one.

If you believe that flying is a waste of your time than drop it all together. If SOE wants air to be reserved for dedicated pilots than leave it to dedicated pilots.

Choose fights were air has a hard time farming and let the knights do their knightly stuff. The only way of making SOE bother about repairing air is if the numbers will prove that it caters only to a small bunch of air farmers. By participating in the Monty Higby's flying circus you're skewing the numbers into something resembling a healthy gameplay.

Don't like it - don't do it.

Not the F35-B but a combination of F35-B and SU-35

That's not what I meant and of course players should be able to customize the controls to their liking. When I first started flying I couldn't get used to mouse roll. I have tried joysticks, xbox controller and failed really bad to the point of giving up. After some practice I got used to it and and realized that roll is the key to successful control and rest is history.

I know that if it was introduced I would not use it because yaw aim or esf yaw control is extremely slow and having it on x-axis would not help hover mode at all because you need precise roll on x-axis. You could possibly gain advantage with dogfighting frame and yaw x-axis because dogfighting frame gives you a bit faster yaw and I can only see this being utilized as precision aiming from far away engagements, but you can already do this with current controls by rolling to one side and using pitch up or down. However if and when you get in hover using A-D keys for roll would put you in a disadvantage because you would not be able to roll precisely especially if you try to hover 50 feet from the ground unless you had analog keys or reduced sensitivity to really low. I believe that when PS2 comes out on PS4 it is going to benefit a lot of players do to the PS4 controller and it's optimizations for PC.

Ah yes. Those air farmers and their op toys are swimming in certs and it should be repaired by real physics which op bumps for more then a month now and succeeding in getting your irrelevant comment along the way.