[Suggestion] 238 kph is a frigging joke.

yah, on the whole they could use a speed boost...

and the frames need to be more significant. Hover frame at max should allow hovering (not nose down hovering ofc) and give better vthrust strength, while dogfighting should more significantly affect yaw, pitch, and turn allowing them to out turn anyone.

as it is... the differences are pretty bloody minor.

Indeed, which is why the complexity should not be thrust onto the player immediately. Civilization 5 may be more popular than Paradox games for the same reason, but that does not mean it is a better game. Simply having this realism and complexity available would benefit the game. One automatically knows how to "handle" the rifle, as the character has received prior training in its basic functions (also, the tutorial shows how to handle recoil and whatnot). Those who want to get into complex systems would be able to do so. War Thunder would not be half as popular as it is without its realistic and complex flight mechanics.

You seem to think that realism would somehow detract the game. The "majority" is not always right.

You misread me, as I was not specific enough. I meant that any player can become proficient in gaming skill with experience. I never implied it was a substitute for real training.

People choose their games based on different factors. Those who play Arma are generally looking for realism.

If you don't mind your aircraft taking over 500 meters to turn 180 degrees at that top speed, and also losing your ability to hover except when slowed to land or take off, I don't see anything wrong with it. I don't think it's going to be as effective for Planetside style combat as you're hoping, though...

Hehe. Video was made 1 month ago and the Magburner has not been nerfed since then. The jumps/high speed are more a PS2 physics thing when a mag hits a vertical slope just right. It looks impressive but there is no tactical advantage from it as most of the time you explode on landing

Really, all airframes for all factions need to be more diverse from each other in both speed and manoeuvrability.

........2 first pages are pure facepalm then things are starting to happen <.<
Just make the chassis better they need it to make air play more varied

Not saying this isn't part of it, but during beta the devs said aircav speed was limited to reduce warping because of netcode limitations. Although I would love to test a few more KPH on racer to see if the netcode goes wonky.

SOE should just fix the netcode. It seems to be a major limiting factor.

Yes, lets return to the good ole' days of Reaver AB-pulsing for sustained 400+ KPH cruising speeds while happily deploying steel rain down on the ground peasants and never dying ever, to anything.

Things are like they are for a reason, you guys who haven't been playing consistently since Tech Test are missing a great deal of perspective on the evolution of the current game mechanics.

Someone (SOE?) really should make a chronological graph of game changes for the new blood around here to reference.

ESF's aren't jets.

They are future space helicopters.

People play the air game in PS2 for the unique combat style in the game. If they wanted "realism" they could play BF and have 15 minute loopdy loop duels, or any other air combat game for the matter.

I literally disagree with every single suggestion you made.

You basically said remove all weapons except noseguns, make all the ESFs identical Nanite sytems aircraft, removing raming, and make bursters more effective up close and less effective at longer ranges.

Everything you suggested = make ESFs identical and completely segregate them from all other players not flying.

Go play warthunder or something, this is a combined arms game, not a flight sim.

People play the air game for the combined arms that is lacking in other air combat games. Making it more realistic and adding proper jets would increase the satisfaction of most pilots and attract new ones.

On the contrary, they actually need to be more homogenous. There used to be significant distinctions in how ESFs handled, and has been slowly altered over time for 2 simple reasons...... speed is disproportionately strong in the air game, and every "nerf" impacts the mossie the least.

The Mossie's native pitching speed and native acceleration actually made them difficult to control for A2G strikes (newbies constantly jamming ABs in a panic, and then slamming into objects), but made them great for hit and run air battles. Scythes, being able to out-turn everything, made them unshakable in a chase, leaving your only option to outrun them.

Reavers had the highest skill floor with its odd handling characteristics, which could actually be exploited by ace pilots (giving birth to the reverse turn). Reavers also had the highest armor in exchange for its slow speed and fire power.... but the armor was lost in early beta, and the fire power bonus scaled back over time. Whats sad is an old ESF update altered ESF handling across the board, making the reverse turn harder on the Reaver (less inertia and V thrust), slightly easier on the mossie, and nerfing the Scythe's turn rates.

The single biggest mistake they made with the air game was attempting asymmetrical balance, but incorrectly weighting the value of each aspect. The NC Rotary, the Mossie's speed, the Scythe's maneuverability... on paper it sounds like they are balanced. But in practice, very few things were conductive to the skill floor/cap and average effectiveness of each ESF.



As for the OP.....

1. Speed breaks the game play balance on several levels. So long as they fill both the roles of Fighter and Gunship, it can never be properly balanced. Imagine the impact that speed would have on ground based AA, or even the velocity of the ESF nose guns. With a movement speed of 1200kph (4 times the current effective AB speed), Lock on ranges would have to be tripled, flak speed at least doubled, and the DPS of AA in general almost doubled. They only just barely pose a threat to ESFs as is, and would make ESFs untouchable by ground without matching changes.... which would destroy the Liberator and Gal by virtue of DPS.


2. Air space is at a premium. If Battlefield 3 and 4 had made anything obvious, is that the faster a player can cross the map, the worse the air play becomes. BF3 maps were tiny by vehicle standards, making combat with the Jets comical in nature. Higher speeds = wider turns = smaller effective air space as a whole. The air space required for an ESF dogfight is right where it needs to be.

3. The air frame upgrades only exacerbate the problem. At any given time, only one airframe for each ESF is considered desirable by the Ace pilots. There is no real variety as the Ace pilots seek to exploit handling characteristics for an air combat advantage. And up until this point its been the reverse turn. With the changes moving more power to the Coyote missiles, in the following week you'll see an optimal strategy start to emerge and proliferate.

Sigh.

A tank scrub. Combined arms will always exist. You can still kill infantry and armour with the noseguns but it will be high risk. ESF would become ESF ya know empire specific fighters instead of empire specific kill everything machines. It would open up the role for proper liberator crews and allow for proper use of aircraft by all players without the need for 500hours in the air. Galaxy's would require escorts and those escorts would only have to focus on other aircraft rather than a million strikers or bursters.

Go play world of tanks... is this how this game is played.

false. Most players want the air combat to remain unique as it is, thus the huge backlash against the afterburner nerf awhile back.

Maybe you are still playing the beta client? otherwise that is just laughable.

more like you want to cling onto something that shuns most people who like air combat away because YOU like it.

more like that was the response and i was indifferent.

Keep assuming things though. And btw, changing the font size doesn't make your opinions any more or less valid.