[Suggestion] Complete aircraft overhaul.

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by Demigan, Jan 22, 2018.

  1. xMeserionx

    I've been reading through a lot of these posts and they all say pretty much the same thing: NERF AIR. theres plenty of hate but not a ton of constructive criticism. I actually fly full-rime and from my angle I have other issues than an "air overhaul". My issues is that Skyguards have no bullet drop or damage falloff thus they hit across the map, Ranger harrrassers are everywhere and are just nightmareish in terms of raw damage while being nearly impossible to evade or destroy, so air has a hell of a time doing anything at all.

    What you to have to understand for pilots: vehicle render range is around 500 meters so we can generally see them, though when you account for hills, unless we are at world height, we won't see them. Infantry is locked at about 300 meters meaning infantry tends to see aircraft much sooner than the airtcraft sees them, meaning lock-ons are horrible to deal with.

    Things for my Air wishlist and suggestions:

    -increase cruise speed of all ESFs by 100-200 kph
    -convert lolpods into Empire specfic anti-armor weapons with very low blast radius
    -only AI weapon is the nosegun, that way their is a definitive tradeoff when engaging other air: Banshee, Air Hammer, Light PPA.
    -add clouds that function like airborne cover from spotting and lock-ons
    -Intended roles: ESF (air superiorty fighter with minor armor and infantry capabilities), Liberator (anti-armor gunship, that is vulnerable to other air threats), Valkyrie (Anti-infantry gunship and troop transport, add side guns for passenger use), Galaxy (Heavy Troop Transport and Advanced Logistics ship, advanced logistics would enable them to air ferry and deploy NS vehicles like Sunderers and Lightnings on the battlefield with the cost of less infantry space in the plane).
  2. LodeTria


    Ground vehicles render at 800m and air vehicles render at 1000m.
  3. adamts01

    This is an awful argument. Every military has more all-purpose fighters than specialty aircraft. All ground forces have more general infantry than snipers and medics. Just like PS2 has more HAs than infiltrators. I'm not saying things are fine, but number of ESF pulled vs other vehicles isn't a reliable indicator that things are out of whack, especially since it's the only solo vehicle in the air, and this is largely a single player game.

    Anyway, I think it's all too complicated and won't necessarily help the situation. Infantry already complain about no-skil LOLpods, I'm sure carpet bombs won't go over well....
    • Yes, fix ESF controls so the mouse can take over pitch and yaw. I'd be fine if they took it farther and just copied Warthunder.
    • But we should keep hover, it's unique and fun, and if "analog throttle" locked engines in hover mode then anyone could do it.
    • Nosegun accuracy and range should be halved. This would make all ESF vs Lib battles close range and exciting, and also drastically lessen the performance gap between new pilots and vets, which really needs to happen.
    • Add more inertia to aircraft. The less jerky their movement, the more predictable their flight path is, the less we need annoying area effect flak spam and lock-ons. AA needs to be shifted towards direct fire. Slower movement would also help lessen the performance gap between newer pilots and vets, and really hurt annoying hover duels, which are basically the ADADAD spam of the sky.

    As a general rule, units either have armor to tank damage or are squishy and evasive to lessen damage. If ESFs lose their evasiveness, they'll have to get tanky, and I'm not sure that would go over well. If they can't evade and can't tank, then they might as well delete the unit.

    I'm fine with AA dealing double damage, as long as the skill required to use the weapon matches its lethality. Flak and Strikers being as powerful as they are, while requiring such little skill, from such great range are completely broken.

    The Valk was his best idea, I'm just worried it would step too far in to Liberator territory.
    • Up x 2
  4. adamts01

    That would work for AV ordinance, but the problem with limiting AI ordinance is that your target is immediately ressed or respawns and continues to kill, meanwhile you have to travel all the way back to the warpgate. If we move to the point where aircraft have a single salvo of rockets before the leave to the warpgate to rearm, basically what renders on the wings, those rockets should clear an entire building of infantry. That's how Arma works, and it works great there, but I don't think the PS2 community could handle it.
  5. adamts01

    It wouldn't be that bad. ESF having to return to the warpgate to rearm would wold help balance their power, and they could program ESF to automatically hover once inside that bubble. Or they could match speed with an ammo gal, similar to in-flight refueling between a C-130 and F18.
  6. Sazukata

    Half price nosegun-only ESFs is a good idea.

    An alternative: what if having a wing mounted weapon equipped knocked 30 or 40 off your top speed? Would that do well to balance the versatility that it provides?
    • Up x 1
  7. OgreMarkX

    I like your Valk ideas. I'd love to see more Valks in the fight. As of right now, without a few dedicated repair guys, Valks are easy meat and used for quick insertions and bail outs.

    Hey DBG, maybe stop giving VS hack-r-us weapons and rework Valks instead.
  8. Ziggurat8

    I have long thought that the very best way to balance ESF is to make afterburner only available if you have wing mounted fuel tanks.

    Then buff wing mounted weaponry accordingly.

    They lose their easy escape mechanic but gain significant fire power. AA would no longer be a deterrent but an actual effective weapon. Strafing runs would be necessary- instead of hover spamming then **** at the first sign of trouble. A2A "interceptors" would be better for dogfighting and hover dueling without afterburner just doesn't really seem feasable.

    Would make the ESF a lot more interesting imo.
    • Up x 3
  9. Prudentia

    give my skyguard the same AV capabilities as HE and make it 3shot infantry and we can talk about gimping it's ranged DPS even more.
    as it is now the decrease in accuracy it got severly limits the skyguard engagement range to 200-300 meters at most and killrange is 100m and less. beyond that range even getting a hit is pure RNG as you can't see your own tracers and you might be perfectly leading but not getting any hits because the shells are all forming a 20m circle around an ESF
    • Up x 1
  10. Demigan

    By giving all aircraft more pilot power, they become available to more players without the need for allies to help. This is why ground vehicles have a better spread: You aren't required to have gunners or that many gunners (even in MBT's, although it is powerful), you can grab one and have fun with it. A Lightning isn't immediately underpowered compared to an MBT.

    They have no problem with individuality, they have a problem with a one-size-fits-all aircraft that has a one-trick-pony ability that dominates any other trick you could try to pull off in the air, meaning someone 10 times more skilled at all other maneuvers will die to someone who is only twice as skilled at the reverse and hover combat maneuver.

    And that's the entire problem: They have little to no use outside of their niche role. ESF are faster, more maneuverable, don't require a crew, have almost as much power (and their ease of use more than makes up for what power difference there is compared to a Liberator). They get dozens of advantages thrown their way, from auto-granted afterburners that put any other afterburner to shame even in the most unupgraded I-mounted-something-else-on-the-wings configuration to auto-granted engagement radars to bonuses for having an Engineer in the vehicle to two weapon systems under the pilots control etc.
    This, combined with the one-trick-pony maneuver that completely dominates any A2A battle, means that the ESF is the only real way to go when you pick an aircraft. It's easier, doesn't really sacrifice power, it has an instant-escape button, weird physics that crush anyone else's maneuvering capabilities regardless of the skill required to pull the rest off etc. But that doesn't mean the game should cater to these aircraft even more. The game should be fun regardless of what you pick, and to do that you have to give the other aircraft more roles and unique ways to execute them, rather than have the ESF fulfill almost all roles.

    I wanna know what you are smoking.

    Aaaan why would it be a problem if other aircraft would become more effective with just you as well? Why would you have a problem with the Valkyrie receiving the helicopter role and the pilot being able to engage ground targets (or large air targets)?
    You seem to want no change to the air-game because right here we already see hypocracy: "I want solo aircraft, but I don't want your solo aircraft". In all likelyhood this is because you like having an overpowered single-seat aircraft and don't want other aircraft to become viable. But I'm willing to listen to your explanation for this kind of hypocracy.

    I also have a ton of vehicle weapons auraxed, including some air canons. But hey, why let that kind of thing bother you? In fact, why would you let a well thought out idea to improve the air-game, including adding more solo power which is what you say you value get in the way of trying to discredit me based on stats? Because by discrediting me you suddenly disprove something? It doesn't matter how good or bad I am at the game, if I make a correct and well designed idea, it's a correct and well designed idea.
    • Up x 1
  11. Demigan

    ESF shouldn't be the terrors of the sky.

    You are trying to push a real-world view on a game. But that's a terrible idea. In the real world aircraft basically OHK eachother whenever they hit. Even though larger aircraft can carry more and stronger A2A payload this makes too little difference against an aircraft that can OHK them right back with a more limited payload but is faster, more maneuverable and more capable of avoiding getting hit in the first place.

    In PS2 the ESF already has the intercepter role even if you give him less damage. The other aircraft are larger, less maneuverable and less capable of escaping the ESF due to the speed difference. But this is a huge problem: All aircraft once spotted by an ESF are basically doomed if they don't have weapons capable of destroying the ESF back. The ESF dominates all aspects of the A2A battle, and this means that picking another aircraft gives you the risk of being auto-killed simply because you accidentally ran into an ESF.
    Basically it's like giving the Harasser driver 2 weapon systems that are as powerful as an MBT and then saying "this is OK".

    There's nothing wrong in PS2 to give all aircraft an A2A role to make sure each aircraft has a unique approach to clearing the skies... But there's also nothing wrong with making an AV aircraft with hornets much much weaker against air-targets by reducing the nosegun A2A damage and focussing on wingmounts for A2A.
    And an undeployed Sunderer vs an MBT has a chance, a much much bigger chance than a Galaxy vs an ESF to escape or even win the battle. And a Sunderer is cheaper, has less health and carries only two weapon systems...
  12. Demigan

    You can balance it out, the quicker you understand that the faster anything you say will make any sense.

    The problem with the prime-time/off hours is the lack of a well-designed G2A system. The current G2A is designed around volume of fire, rather than individual capability and skill. You could easily introduce a large amount of skillful G2A weapons that fulfill a secondary role (like AV or AI) so that these weapons are available before and after aircraft arrive and aircraft can't pick and choose a fight based on the amount of G2A they encounter. It would also mean that a skillful G2A user can kill an aircraft before it gets away, if he has the skill to hit the aircraft.
    And there's tons of ways to balance it out so that ESF won't be destroyed at 1000m easily, especially since a skillful weapon would require exponentially more skill to hit a target the farther away it gets. And because people are idiots: I'm not saying that the G2A would OHK aircraft.


    It's not going to be that much of a problem.
    First, bombs would have a COF. If you are low enough to accurately land enough hits for a kill, then you are low enough to be hit by other weapons like rocketlaunchers.
    Second, dropping bombs would be much less of a problem. We already have a 3rd person view that basically looks down, allowing you to spot a target you are approaching. Without a bombsight you would have trouble checking for the target below you, and you would have to rely on a bombing run where you fly towards your target and drop the bombs. The fact that you want to see the target as long as possible encourages the bomber to fly lower. Bombs could also inherit the aircraft's momentum, allowing bombers to judge where their bombs will strike on their approach, if necessary through a target crosshair painted across the ground based on their velocity and height. This would also encourage dive-bombing, where the player tries to get as many bombs to hit the same target by dropping them in a dive, meaning you can balance the bombs around needing multiple hits to finish off a target, including infantry.

    That's what I'm doing here.

    Aircraft need a role just as much as they need an overhaul. If you just have a badly designed aircraft system but create a good role for them in the game, then you suddenly have a long period of hell where the dominant aircraft completely ruin the gameplay experience for any other aircraft player.
    Also having a good interaction between aircraft already improves the game without them needing a role. If the gameplay is enjoyable people will play it. And with the coming changes on the PTS where they are adding more vehicle-cap points that need to be defended with a PMB you already have a larger role for aircraft and vehicles alike, and I hope that trend will continue. So it would be best if they started overhauling the aircraft balance now, if necessary in increments, to get them up to speed before aircraft become so important that a single aircraft can ruin the entire game for everyone else.
  13. adamts01

    That's a terrible idea. Wing mounts have been the worst thing in A2A this game has seen. I'm telling you, cutting acell/decel in all directions, "analog throttle" locking motors in hover, and halving nosegun accuracy and range would do wonders to help new pilots land more hits while lowering the dps of pros. Air combat needs to strive for WW2 style shooting and missiles need to go, as Daybreak clearly can't make missile play engaging, especially with such close render ranges. More sluggish ESF would also let ground transition to direct fire and let average players land hits. It would also let the Skyguard have the damage drop-off its always needed for point blank Lib/Hornet defense.

    Other ideas such as afterburner only for fuel pods and nosegun ESF for 1/2 price would also limit ground farming and push that role towards Libs.

    I do like your Valk ideas.



    We're almost at that point. It takes a full salvo of very close hits to kill an HA with flak armor with LOLpods. The Banshee has a .2 meter splash, and against flak armor you're better off with the Rotary. Hornets need direct hits to kill infantry. The PPA is really the only weapon that can be spammed at groups to get kills. The CAS is back to collecting dust. The Dalton and Shredder aren't worth using against infantry if there's any resistance. A2G honestly doesn't need any more nerfs, it's G2A that needs a re-work at this point.
    • Up x 1
  14. Demigan

    My logic is awesome, because I'm not comparing apples and oranges.

    Just the fact that you start off as infantry, that it's a free unit and that there's a much more equal playingfield between infantry means that more players flock towards it. By rebalancing the air-game you can encourage more people to go fly. If I had my way I would even make all vehicles and aircraft completely free to pull, and put resource costs on special abilities, weapons and ammo that all infantry, vehicles and aircraft get access to.
  15. Oleker2

    All I want on the aircraft part is to ESF noseguns to stop being infantry farm tools.
    Pilot comes in, kill one or two, afterburn away to another hex, kill other one or two, blast away. Repeat to get 50+ kdr.
    This is bring a thing for far too long and the pilot don't even need to be precise with the amount of spash dmg some noseguns do.

    A2G should be the liberator's job, ESF should be A2A only...
    • Up x 1
  16. AssaultPig

    the biggest thing imo is just to introduce more tradeoffs to air vehicles; ESF don't have to give up much at all to get good A2G capability in addition to an A2A nosegun.

    Not sure how to fix that though, unless it's just to nerf noseguns a lot. It's hard to have a major tradeoff when you have two interchangeable weapons that can be specialized for two different things.

    I don't like the idea of spotters/bombers; indirect fire would lead to a lot more static gameplay imo
  17. adamts01

    Remove afterburners unless you run fuel pods. Ziggurat8 reminded me of this one. I've also suggested letting nosegun-ony ESF be half price, which would flood the air with more A2A ESFs, reducing A2G's ability to farm, especially if they wouldn't have afterburners.

    You're right about spotters/bombers. As much as this game hates HE spam, indirect fire would destroy the population.
  18. KaletheQuick

    ESFs are not at all modern jetplane fighters. No aircraft in game has airspeed lift mechanics. They even look like helicopters.

    The reverse maneuver is reasonable, you just gain momentum and velocity then turn to look a different direction. Actual fighter jets can do all kinds of crazy turns and ****, and the old Harrier had a unique "Viffing" maneuver that would also confuse people.

    I think something that would be cool is an "Air Continent" Where it's all about air combat, and ESFs are free. The cost for an ESF vs learning time is too high. So an air battle continent where ESFs are free would let everyone get combat experience fighting, and having fun.
  19. stalkish

    Only 1 engi can rep a valk now, the 4 engi damage tanking valks are long gone :(
  20. Campagne

    True, but we already do have plenty of 1/3 libs as is. Tanks don't have the same inherent advantages that air does, which needs consideration in my opinion. Not to mention libs already have the super Tankbuster to work with. They just don't need control over another set of weapons.

    I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

    For all intents and purposes, they might as well be. But last time I checked, Reavers don't look anything like a helicopter.

    It's not reasonable. Sure there are lots of ridiculous maneuvers pilots can do in real life (which is what planes should be able to do in PS2), but they just don't fly backwards.

    An air-only continent would be pretty cool, but I'm not sure how much population it would have at any given time. Free ESFs would help with that though.