The Valkyrie is not viable without 6 seats.

Because we need to be able to fly over an armor column at +900m, having two engies poopin' out 2-5 tank mines each onto the enemy vehicles below.
Then swapping with the other two engies in the enclosed seats, who proceed to do the same...

And optionally (If you're not being actively persued and can take the extra time, as well as being well coordinated via some method of real time communications -even just the in game mic squadchat will do- with all aboard):
Follow that up by swapping out with the gunner and pilot engies as well to follow up for a carpet-bombing total of up to 30 tank mines per Valkyrie.


I see a few issues with this...
(Adding 4-10 tank mines worth of extra bombing capability will be a fun sight I'm sure.)


At least carpet bombing 4-6 engie's worth of prox mines (2-3 each, so 8-18 per valkyrie) will be an impressive sight to see from about 600-700m above a deployed enemy sunderer.

or they could just make it were you can't drop deployables from the rumble seats and completely negate the argument all together.

Thats what im saying. Any more rumble seats would be super ridic, further more adding more internal with a swap option is still the same. Lastly, disabling the ability to use gear and deployables in the rumble seat is taking more, if not all the reason to havethem there in the first place.


Pure and simple.

No increases in the Valk compacity, and not even one more exterior seat.

I dont think people truly understand what they are asking for when they as for more seats and such.

You're really reaching on that one.

They've never disabled use of intrinsic characteristics for a class simply because of what type of vehicle you're in, nor should they.
To do so would be as counter-intuitive as creating invisible barriers or preventing medics from resurrecting friendlies from within saferooms.

The Valkyrie does not need more passengers.
If you want to ferry people around, use the Galaxy.
That's what it's for.

Don't try cramming more seats into a light armor aircraft so you can skimp on resource expense.
As well, the Valkyrie is already going to be a major target for lockons.
Adding 50% more personnel to the second largest carrying capacity class of vehicle, and thus greatly drawing more attention to a craft that takes damage from small arms, is something that should NOT be done.

For an aircraft, one more passenger than the ground equivalent (The harasser) is fine, but doubling it's complement of infantry is not.
If any class of vehicle could carry extra passengers, it would be the liberator.

Heavy armor so people don't try to shoot it down with small arms, capable of taking more than double the punishment, and a vehicle model that could be expected to carry enclosed passengers.
(Not that I ever expect to see this libby change happen, I am just pointing out that it would be a far more logical choice for a smaller scale of aircraft personnel carrier.)

THANK YOU

For putting in to words what I am constantly telling people: The Valkyrie is NOT viable if the pilot doesn't ALSO have a gun.

That plus the 6 seat setting.

Its simply better if you get a galaxy. More guns, and more dedicated gunners that way, and have an ESF providing support.

You'll get the Valkyrie for what? So it can be target for dumbfires flying closer to bases considering it is slower and less mobile than a ESF? It doesn't have the health of a galaxy, and splitting your forces in half so it can get a SINGLE gun working? Valkyries will not last 5 minutes in the air, they will all get picked in seconds by ESFs.

If you get dedicated gunners = more firepower
If you get the pilot only = supplemental firepower

Simple as that. And not:

If you get pilot only = sitting duck for ESFs

No he's not.

The entirety of what you described is a total Gimmick. Like saying Infiltrators are the best Anti-vehicle class in the game solely b/c an Engineer can strap 3 c4's to his Wraith and then stealth ride it right into an enemy sundy. It's situational and even the "supply lines" to support it are a dice roll ....It's also really easily countered. Most people who see stuff like it in game, exclaim "what a n00b".


Even if it WAS effective, eventually there'd be an outcry against is and SONY would listen to that outcry b/c they want this to be a Shooty-game first and foremost. Not a Fantasy Deployable Manager you play on Steam cloud.

Some of you have never fought experienced liberator pilots or galaxy pilots before.

In the 'gunship' role, the Valkyrie as it stands would be laughed off of the planet. I don't think many people realize just how maneuverable or fast the Liberator is or how proficient gunners have become with this platform. The Liberator would not only out-class the Valkyrie, it would turn it into a smouldering crater in the ground. A certed Liberator can fly faster than a Reaver (who's not using afterburners). I've tested that with the engagement radar. With the tankbusters, hyenas, walkers, daltons, shredders, zephyrs, and more, the Liberator will remain dominant as a gunship platform.

In a 'transport' role, the Valkyrie is not worth it in its current state. It is vulnerable to small arms fire, it cannot transport maxes, and the idea of it transporting one or two infiltrators ahead of a battle would be a waste of resources. The galaxy dropship is invulnerable to small arms (so is the liberator), can transport more personnel including maxes, and as a bonus its health makes it an effective gun platform in medium to small battles.

The Valkyrie would become such a specialist weapon that a flash would be more common than this aircraft. There are very few strategies that the Valkyrie in its current state would become more viable than existing ground or air vehicles. Drop beacons, sunderers, and galaxies are all more than capable of filling in roles that many of you tout for the Valkyrie.





I do not see Valkyries becoming a 'harasser of the sky' for a single fact: There are no ground vehicles with the combination of speed and firepower to match a harasser. There are ESFs who can match the speed of a Valkyrie. There are Liberators who outgun the Valkyrie and may also match its speed.

quoting this because I think it's another important point that I did not put in.

Valkyrie is slower than a galaxy.
Has about the same health as a Mossie.
Is pervious to small arms.
Can't hover very well.
No turbo.
Only 1 front mounted gun that is in most cases weaker than the harasser options.
Strafer hovers like an old Reaver brick.

And no one wants to add two extra cert goodies to it?? <.< seriously??

It takes ONE and i mean seriosuly ONE esf and 3-4 Valk remains will come fallin from the sky in seconds.
Besides at the moment tossing out deployables mostly gets them caught inside the Valkyrie XD

id really like it to be 6 seats please

The Valkyrie should be the Huey of the Planetside 2 world.

Drop some men in, circle around with door-guns blazing, and get out.

The extra passengers being able to drop mines out isnt a bad thing. Thats alot of resource and manpower involved in doing so. It'd be more effective for you to pull more air than to do that.

The speed is fine for evasive airframe use. It allows for a great amount of handling close to features and the ground. I would remove the hover airframe, since no one in their right mind would use such a thing, and replace it with a racer airframe.

A massive unstoppable mine drop aside, this is a good idea. However that 1 issue is enough to keep this from happening...

This is more or less the same idea as la/engs dropping out of galaxies with tank mines or C4. If it proves to powerful, they can simply disable explosives to be thrown out. Either way 2 extra seats doesnt really matter for that, they can drop explosives anyway with 4 players.

That's funny as they say they want it to be all copter like...

Actually, I find that idea very interesting.

It'd be a pain in the *** for sure, but it'd add some interesting synergy to the game, which in some cases is kind of lacking.

And making "mine fields" would actually be meaningful if you could rapidly deploy one exactly where the enemy is at. I know that's not how minefields are technically supposed to function, but given the circumstances of the game (completely visible land mines... yeah, that's not exactly how those are supposed to work), this would be how you'd probably do it.

It'd also increase the need for having Infiltrators in your squad, as those EMPs they can cert would be a god-send to removing the placed minefields, so your forces could proceed - and it'd give a good reason to actually cert EMPs and run them on a field Infiltrator.

It'd also emphasize the importance of combined arms, as you'd need ESFs hovering above you to be absolutely sure, that your vehicle/infantry push won't get rekt by a couple of crafty Engineers in a Valkyrie.

I can feel that I'm kind of on the fence about this - either it'd make the game very silly or it'd make the game awesome.