Developer Thread: Valkyrie

Ehhh... it depends. In general actually fixed-wing aircraft can afford to be more heavily armored. It's just easier to support more weight when you have wings creating lift.

Compare the C-130 fixed-wing transport plane with the Mi-26 heavy lift helicopter. The Mi-26 actually has more power (2x 8,500kW turboshafts for a total of 17,000kW) than the C-130 (4x 3,430kW turboprops for a total of 13,720kW), but can carry less weight (56,000kg max takeoff weight versus the C-130's 70,300kg max takeoff weight). Again, this is because the C-130 gets massive wingspan to help it create lift, whereas most of the lift for helicopters come from the engine alone.

IRL fixed-wing aircraft can be more heavily armored than helicopter gunships. The A-10 has certain parts of it armored to resist 23mm projectiles, which would tear the most heavily armored attack helicopter apart. The older models of the AC-130 were partly armored against 37mm projectiles. Because fixed-wing aircraft can carry more weight, they sometimes can carry more armor.

If it gains tankiness and/or speed, then its weaponry should be heavily nerfed. The Valk is supposed to be a transport craft primarily, not an attack craft. Making something tanky and hard-hitting is a bad recipe for OPness.

This addresses both of the concerns I had when the Valkyrie was first mentioned (unfortunately the suggestions post appears to have been purged as part of the forum restructure, when it should have been archived; a lot of posts in the suggestions section are still relevant/reference-able) i.e. that 6 players would be needed for practical troop transport and that it could not complete with the galaxy without squad spawn.

The main remaining concern is about future balance. Vehicles go through years of role defining.

• On one hand exposure of 4 passengers to splash damage demands the Valkyrie flight model and abilities be tweaked such that the compensation for the risk is effective hit and run infantry farming.
• At the moment the rumble seats are probably fairly ineffective compared to the risk of dying from splash damage.

• On the other hand the Valkyrie role is said to be troop transport and that SOE are concerned about deaths you can't do anything about and infantry farming.

I predict that over time the exposure of passengers during fights against air, flak and tanks will demand compensation by changing the focus of the Valkyrie.

To ensure that the primary role is troop transport the Vakyrie passenger seats should have force fields passengers can activate. The idea is that the risk of exposure remains applicable only when rumble seats are used to engage infantry and not during fights with vehicles.

• There should be a delay/timer that prevents its use as a get out of jail card.
• If it's not performance intensive there could be a retractable seat and cover which slides over it (mechanical parts always look cool)

Because the mobility and circumstances are different when firing from a rumble seat, class stats and weapon stats should be separate. Directives should also be separated.

Usefulness vs the Galaxy

The Galaxy will still be more prominent than it deserves to be. The Galaxy's main distinguishing feature is massive hitpoints. The Valkyrie uses a combination of maneuverability and rumble seats which entail risk that needs to be managed, while being far cheaper.

This is effectively the use of an ability with the requisite experience/skill/situational awareness versus being a tank as the ability: essentially the same thing that sees HAs as the default go to class over LA/Infiltrator when the the HA is roughly the same without the shield.

It's not necessarily a major issue here, and the Valkyrie will still be used by small squads/fireteams with skilled pilots, but worth mentioning.

IIRC Gal you get small XP for a minute or so after dropping troops off if they get a kill, will this same mechanic apply at least?

I'm not worried though, as Lib and battle gal pilot I'm already used to relying on gunners getting kills for points. It's FAR better than it used to be!!!! Loved that part of the Lib update

I could only 'like' this once, so quoting to say +OVER 9000!!!!!

Just loaded up test and played around with the Valk for a bit.

Although the view in the cockpit is improved with latest patch, it's still pretty bad. If the flight model is going to stay (which is growing on me but it still needs some tweaking) then the pilot's view needs to be angled up about ten or so degrees more as the pilot currently has a lovely view of the ground at the moment even in third person.

Which brings me onto the gunner. I see the Valk as a low altitude vehicle only needing to go high in extreme situations, this means the gun is going to be looking at the ground most of the time. I propose either a nose gun (eliminating the gunner seat I know) OR the current gun model is split down the center for most of the weapons, why not take each half section and mount them on the wings in such a way that they have a limited forward firing arc that overlap each other. This way the gunner can still shoot but relies on the pilot to face the vehicle to bring both guns to bear at the same time without needing the pilot to risk being a shiny cert piñata in the sky.
EDIT: Just another thought, what about making the above mentioned split single gun instead of having an arc that's horizontal, make it a vertical arc with no ability to look left or right. This way the gunner can shoot down and up as well but still relies on pilot for horizontal arc.

So if the base model isn't going to change, can the back landing gear get some quick love at least? The stick legs are ... unappealing. Retractable wheels would be cool (anything really that just makes the back end look more sexy since the pilot is going to be flying around with the butt of the craft pointed up most of the time).

besides, you guys already have repair and resupply assets for the gal in game

Oh good.
At this point, a "We'll do our best for both" is really all that can be expected, so thank you (to the whole team) for putting forth your best efforts.

And I am glad to see someone (let alone a dev) is actually acknowledging that this is an issue (albeit a minor one).
Usually when I point out this issue I'm met with flat denial, or at best something along the lines of "it's really not important enough to warrant fixing".

I think turrets are the most obvious use for the rumble seats,to be honest the current rocket launcher mechanics don't really work. Plus it doesn't make sense that people are somehow glued to the inside while this thing is flying around. I think a multi purpose short range turret on a swivel seat would be better than rockets,the default could be like a explosive basilisk/kobalt and the rumble seat turrets could be upgraded also bring back the rumble seat shields.

Yeah, except we're not talking about transport planes vs cargo helicopters. We're talking about gunships compared to CAP aircraft. Anyway that's completely irrelevant.

Nerfing the weaponry and buffing the survivability is what I was suggesting. Make it only effective at close range so that the Valk can either choose to hang back and be safe but not able to do much more than assist with kills or go in close so that it can do damage but be much more vulnerable.

It's survivability would be balanced out by the fact that it's not fast. If will be much higher risk than an ESF or a Lib as it doesn't have the speed to get out of trouble if it overextends.

Basically what I'd really like to see is the Valk able to attack places like the Skydock on Indar by dropping people off while shooting at the defenders. I want it to be able to land and lift off and hang around long enough to help the passengers get a foothold. The gun shouldn't be able to gib everyone, what it should be able to do is suppress them.

If I'm perfectly honest, what I want is the Venom from Battlefield 4. That is the perfect multiplayer FPS air transport.

Yeah I would love to do this weekly, if I can get the time. Thanks for the great questions.

I love the high VThrust mechanic on it.

Makes it unique.

Might need tweaking of forward & vthrust values, but love the idea and maneuverability it gives.

1 thing, if you add AB... make it always fire forward thrust despite being "hover mode"

I know spotlights were added to base turrets back in Beta but they dodn't work well so got scrapped alongside darker nights.

If this can be fixed, it'd be awesome, and I look forward to better lighting and hopefully eventually darker nights.

They belong on the Gal not the Valk anyways

From what little testing I've done of the thing. I can't say I agree with the upwards thrust being the main mode of transportation. 40-45 Degrees~ seems to be the sweet spot to not elevate or plunge into the dirt. but if at high altitudes you can cockpit dive, literally fly upside down at full blast at about 180 kph. Also is there an option or could an option be made to make free-look a toggle? I think this things role should be mostly for smaller outfits personally, get from A to B quickly and stealthily as possible. I have a tiny outfit and we can't turn the tide in massive zergs so I try to go to low pop bases, this might make us able to get there quicker than a sundy.

Here is an idea for you combat only guys why not sacrifice rumble seats and get a low ammo high explosive cluster drop bomber. Like the chopper from half-life 2

Yet still faster than the Phoenix... (It's ridiculous that a galaxy can outrun a missile).

Calling it right here.
Infinite (because of combination bucket seat mine dropping and redeploy/squad vehicle deploy resupply capabilities) tankmine carpet bombing runs with whole platoons in Valkyries dropping the mines from +900m altitude on top of the advancing enemy zerg.

"Drop all the mines from the 'Only aircraft can do more than tickle us up here' zone!"

All my upvotes!

yeah........but to me......Gals.....can be too powerful these days.....

All my nanites (........will be spent on tankmines)!
Thank goodness for my massive storage of tankmines from before the nanites change.


I've got some reworded Duke Nukem one-liners for this:

"It's time to drop 5 tank mines per redeploy and chew Vanu Spandex, and I'm all outta spandex!"
"I've got mines for steel!"
"Hail to the tankmines, baby!"
"It'll be blown out their azz!"
"I am the king of the pigeons, baby!"
"I outta break a tankmine off in your lightning!"
"Eat mines and die!"
"I mine where I please, and I'm pleased at what I've mined."
"Your tanks are tasty when you're dyin'!"
"Call me now for your free tankmines!"
"So many mines, so little armor!"
"Rest in burning pieces!"
I'll rip your head off and tankmine down your neck!"



And some that don't even need rewording:

"Bingo! The motherload!"
"Looks like we're about to reach our 'Final Destination"!"
"Incoming!"
"Time to fumigate!"
"No goin' back now."
"There's only two ways this can end; And in both of them, YOU DIE!"
"Hm, so there IS life after death!"
"It's gear-stripping time!"
"Let God sort 'em out!"
"Makin' Bacon!"
"I could do this all day!"
"Life is like a box of ammo!"
Now THIS is a force to be reckoned with!"
"Cleanup on isle 4"
"HEHEHE! What a mess!"
"SUCK IT DOWN!"
"Your azz is grass, and I've got the weed whacker!"
"Your face, your azz, what's the difference?"
"I think you need some downtime."


"Sometimes I even amaze myself!" (Didn't even know the Duke used this one til just now! Go figure. Sure makes this line cooler for NC.)

Well the Gal would have to give up NAR for it.

Gals need more logistical roles. That won't improve their combat power but will give them more teamplay and also make them higher priority targets.

Effectively making Gal's the center point of aerial conflicts.