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

I am by most people standards a semi novice pilot. I have 24 hours spent flying yet I am able to both fly backwards and RM. You can learn to do it in about 10 minutes really as awkward as you are trying to imply it is. It is actually rather easy on the Mossy and Reaver. The Scythe is harder only because you don't have engines as a visual indicator. Making it a one button system is dumbing down something that doesn't need to be dumbed down. It is only hard for people who don't take the time to learn.

Sorry if this reads strangely I'm on my phone.

Moin

Fair enough, I didn't watch the whole video either.

As Discostoff usually uses AH/rocketpods or the Vortek Rotary he does often use forward flight to close the gap to his enemy. When his enemy is in reverse and afterburnes away he will keep going forward to keep the distance close.
And "facing them and firing back" is what's so great about this game. Well, maybe not for you, but for me at least.

My point is that there's nothing wrong with this. You don't need tactics for a good game and PS2s airgame works perfectly without deeper tactical gameplay.

It requires anyother type of skill. A flight sim might take more skills, but not necessarily more skill.
And it's not that I generally don't like tactics and prefer a game to be only about twitch reaction and aiming skills (though I tend to stick to these games more). You just have to realise what kind of game Planetside 2 is and what's appropriate for this game in particular. I never said that the flightsystem in PS2 is the best or most advanced of all times. But it's new, it's unique and it fits the game nicely. It doesn't need more realistic flight physics. Could it somehow be implemented? Maybe, though I doubt it. Is it necessary or would make the game better? Hell no.

Because Nanites =).
Now I am not a physicist nor a RL pilot, but on a basic level the current ESF behaviour does make sense to me at least. I accelerate I go forward, I decelerate and I go slower, ending in hovermode. This hovermode helps to defy gravity, holding me in place. From there I can use my thrusters to move upwards. When I roll to the side it will keep moving me upwards but "upwards" is now left or right.
If it's easy enough for me to understand, it will be good enough for 99% of the players I'd say. You just have to completely shut off any expectations you have from other games, especially traditional flight sims.

You might have a point if there was an in-game tutorial on it.

As it stands however it is just plain awkward, removing that removes nothing (at all) from its useage (where any skill is).


Posting on a phone is a good example, needlessly awkward.

By all accounts Air in PS2 flies like it does due to the engine limitations.

Again with the ad homenin though, I think its a silly idea because it puts newbies off and creates an arbitary and artifical awkwardness wall.

It is not whether I, you or Higby can do it with enough practice (that's a completely irrelevent factor and a poor strawman), it is simply whether that awkwardness wall serves any point (it doesn't) and whether more newbies would be encouraged into the Air game without it (they would).

Odds are there wont ever be a tutorial on how to RM simply because it isn't and wasn't actually intended. I don't disagree that a tutorial would be a good thing. That said there is nothing awkward about RM though. It is a maneuver that requires you to learn how to do it. To use Halo 2 as an example there were button glitches you could do. Double shot was one of them. The combo is very simple, it is just RRX. However the tricky thing was learning the timing of it. RM is no different.

Exactly, yet it has existed an an awkwardness wall.

This is why I find totally bizaree, no one can produce a single argument for keeping the awkwardess..... as opposed to removing/reducing the awkwardness and keeping the useage (where the skill is).

Yet many want to keep it anyway (and will never be convinced otherwise, because they simply only want to keep it).

Numbers-wise though it has got to be better for the game to encourage people to play, not to put them off.



It's a bit like saying PS2 should keep terrible joystick support (or revert back to the original joystick suppost, as it was even worse than it is now), because..... well for no reason other than it was like that.

I don't think you understand what awkward even means anymore. There is nothing awkward about the RM. S + D(A) + Angle Down a Bit + Space + Shift. You have to press 3 buttons. How is that in anyway "awkward"?

Well, didn't really put it that way, but I partially agree with that statement. I wouldn't say their toys are OP (maybe besides banshee) - instead of putting pressure on weapons I would shift it on flight mechanics.

So you didn't answer my question, what's awkward about it? You know, using same word again and again doesn't make an argument

It is relevant, if someone comes from an aim-and-shoot game to PS2, he needs to learn leading. It may feel "awkward" to him at first, but with practice he'll get the feel for it. This means that shooting takes skill which you need to acquire. Same goes for flying, except it's a top tier skill since you need to do moving and shooting at the same time.

It is perfectly OK to take time to get good at something, besides there is a lot of tutorial on YouTube. Even if PS2 fly tutorial were implemented, there would be none to little change of players average skill. Of course some people will always cry about anything that takes effort.

I have yet to see a single argument from you why it's awkward .

1 vs 20 .......With an energy advantage

2 killed 7 damaged, entire formation slowed down and lost altitude as it avoided being hit



Tactics is fun.

I see absoutely nothing special there at all. Try this instead.

Oh so you don't see anything special about high altitude bombers flying straight to a target over long distances (which will never happen in Warthunder because it's not a MMO and maps are over quicker than it takes to gain altitude),

and being able to initially take targets by surprise (which will never happen in any game out there either because of the short game time in Warthunder which means everyone expects an engagement all the time, or the radar and Q spotting in Planetside)

and being able to take on 20 targets alone with moderate aiming skills because of having a significant energy advantage which eventually bleeds off due to the long fight (which will never happen in Warthunder because it's not a MMO and maps are over quicker than it takes to bleed off energy),

and then being able to escape unharmed by using some avoidance skills (which will never happen in Warthunder because of the lead indicator)

and landing safely (which will never happen in Warthunder because it's just more convenient to crash a plane and respawn than land it)

Shooting down 2 people who are not shooting back is in no way impressive. Furthermore just because there are 20 people in an area doesn't mean you are taking on 20 targets alone. If you were actually taking on 20 targets alone 20 targets would all be shooting at you. That isn't happening in that video. Only a couple of people even end up shooting back and even just gave up after a short period of time. So no, there is nothing impressive. The TLDR(w) of that video is this; Shot at a bunch of people who didn't fight back.

Not every PVP engagement is a perfectly balanced jousting match. I'm sure that would be "impressive", it wouldn't be fun.

They were in bombers, "fighting back" is not their primary strength. Not every weapon system is designed to give a "fighting" chance in every single encounter you can possibly fathom. That is boring gameplay.

You are trying to post a video as evidence of tactics and that it is in some way special when in reality it simply isn't. The person is shooting fish in a barrel. Free kills are not fun, THEY are boring. However when a person has the ability to turn on you at any second and fight back, THAT is way more intersesting. I suggest you watch the video I linked you if you want to see 1 v 2 and people actually fighting back.

Moin

If this is what you guys wanna turn the airgame in PS2 into, I'm very glad that the devs don't listen to you . I'm sure that this style of fighting fits World War II online, but it wouldn't work AT ALL in PS2.

So you are going to turn this discussion as a personal attack on your character by me, who uses clear and convincing fallacy to forcefully dispute your arguments and therefore you are right. Are you serious? If you are then you are confused and walking on the edge of insult in disguise. Everything I have told you is the truth from my noob time in the air to my very best. I may call your only argument false, irrelevant, illogical and I stand by it 100%, but I would never call you a potent and convincing liar. You should thank me for providing not just you but everyone who read this thread for my in depth information not just because I want to shed some light on truth and what really happens in the Air Game but also that I took my time to do so.

It it wasn't awkward what exactly would there be to learn?

How is it not?

Er... no. You are the one making ad hominem accusations (as you are doing again above with by trying pretend you're actually not trying to directly insult me with your "If I don't call you a XXX" ).

I'm simply addressing your points, you are the one bringing me into it, I only care about the arguments not insults because they are irrelevent to the arguements.

Also you still haven't answered the question about how removing the awkwardness, but retaining the useage is in any way negative?