I kind of wish aircraft actually acted like aircraft.

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by Suicidalspectre, May 19, 2018.

  1. frozen north

    Technically, even A2G platforms are not designed with armour. They have armour for vital components ( cockpit and engines) but otherwise rely on air-frame redundancy ( redundant hydraulics, and having several wing struts that can take the structural strain of flight even when some are compromised), but the simple fact that a gun run means spending a minimum of time in a targets gunsights is the primary safety method for aircraft. Even on the A10, the tank of jets, this is true.

    The problem I find with major reworks is it throws everything people once knew out the window. A person who spent hundreds of hours learning and mastering some part of this game is basically being told that they have to start from scratch again. Obviously, I do see that they can often be needed, and in many cases, are a healthy part of keeping an aging game balanced and alive. But they must be done carefully. Reworking air is not like a rework in say, league of legends. In league, a rework is 1 of 140+ characters. Hit or miss, not much changes. Here, 1 rework, even a small one, can influence the entirety of a part of combat, or the games combat dynamics as a whole.

    Suffice it to say, reworks are a risky venture in a game like this, one that must be carefully thought out. The smaller and fewer the changes at a time, the better results can be predicted, and the better things can be tuned.
  2. DarkStarAnubis

    Aircrafts in PS2 fulfill only the CAS role, by game design.

    No SEAD, ELINT, recon, bombing in any shape or form, no air superiority, no anti-tank, no HARM, no stand-off, no nothing, coupled with the lack of any non-stone age weaponry: only guns and rockets, WW-I stuff (duh - so much for space-age technology :)).

    However, for CAS roles you need unsophisticated, cheap, slow and resilient aircraft (why do you think the Air Force still employs the A-10?): the aircraft is PS2 are exactly like that, SOE/DBG got that right :)

    On top, in PS2 there are no runaway so all aircrafts must hover.

    If you want to change the air game, and that would mean a RADICAL change, you could:

    1. specialize the airframe but keep the loadouts (so the ESF is a fast and weakly armored fighter, the Valkyrie is a sturdy but slow attack helicopter and the Liberator a gunship AC-130 like), but that would mean ESF and Libs need a runaway to take-off/land.
    or
    2. specialize the loadouts but keep the airframes (so an ESF can fight other aircraft but not fight infantry or ground vehicles all at the same time, and the same goes for the other aircrafts)
    or
    3. do both: specialize airframes and loadouts.
  3. SmittyJensen

    Oh I agree with what you say.

    And the A-10 is precisely what I had in mind for A2G, not only is there a titanium tub around the cockpit but the airframe itself is built to fly heavily damaged.. even on a wing and a half (which has actually been done). I'd say that is designed for armor. Unless you mean armor as in tank. I mean armor as in barrier.

    An F-15 flew and landed with only ONE wing (air collision that ripped off a wing completely). It did this by using heavy thrust to keep it stable.. incredible piloting though.

    There is no damage model for missing parts though so I don't think anyone is expecting that.

    These threads aren't literal requests/demands to change the system now.. as if any of us expect it to happen. A total rehaul would be nice but realistically they can't even give us new maps using the same item models already available.
    Just wishing and dreaming the system was designed differently outside of its current feel. Maybe in a PS3... it is a nice hint towards the developers.
  4. adamts01

    So now we're back to square one, which you still can't seem to grasp. This game has ridiculously short render ranges. Forget typical air combat or A2G, it just flat out can't happen with this engine.
    Aircraft HAVE to be close to the ground and relatively slow to engage anything. So pick your poison. Do you want agile glass canons, or tank brawlers?


    Big changes do happen in this game. And just small changes could make things infinitely better. Everything I propose is done so with thought to the cost/benefit of not only the players but the developers as well. I don't propose anything that would require an unrealistic amount of dev time. So dream all you want about PS2, but if you're going to make balance arguments then st least make them within the constraints of what's plausible. And you really should read up on mine and other's AA proposals before continuing to make these blanket statements that anyone who flies just wants to empower their crutch. Every single thing I've proposed concerning AA would greatly increase the lethality of G2A fire against targets who are in the position to carry out A2G. You're completely off base with your accusations.
  5. frozen north

    Yeah. I too have had those thoughts towards a planetside 3. It would be nice, and could solve a lot of problems, since currently, a lot of the barriers are in place because of the limits of the engine.

    To me, armour is there to try and prevent damage. The A10 was not so much designed to not take damage, it was merely designed to fly with it, which is what I was getting at.

    Admittedly, I tend to treat these suggestion threads as being a case of " here's what will change if my idea gets selected". And yeah, chances are exceedingly low that any of these would ever get implemented. That said, I struggle to accept that idea in my head, and take what most suggestions really are here. So when I seem up tight in suggestion threads, that's the main reason why.
    • Up x 1
  6. SmittyJensen

    Except A-10s cannot hover and have no belly cannon. But yes it indeed would call for radical changes. Having actual bombs and a bombadier with a bombsight would be very fun and challenging but the Dalton is a fairly decent alternative. It is almost like a bottom facing 105mm howitzer and it is incredibly easy (and devastating) to use.
  7. SmittyJensen

    We can have both though. A2A and A2G with the current render ranges.. because we have those today. We just need to specialize roles with what we have, given what we have. I think you're assuming what I'm asking for based on lack of information of what I'm asking. That is, you're filling in the missing pieces of my PoV and the arguing against it.

    I'm suggesting a totally different system would be welcome by me, but (realistically) I'd like to see this and that changed in the current system. Two things there.

    If I had my druthers we would indeed have more realistic airframes with black/red out G forces, stall speeds, airspeed limits, near total lack of hovering, etc. But I know that isn't going to change. On that side of things I just lament a broken system and wish for a new day (of air combat).

    On the other I proposed realistic changes that could happen to the system (mainly reduced hover, more defined airframe roles).


    Have you personally proposed anything here beyond poopooing other peoples ideas?
  8. OgreMarkX


    I disagree, Planetside 2 is set in the future, there is no need to revert aircraft to WW2 or Vietnam era mechanics.

    If you want that, simply hop in a ground vehicle and slip slide roll over at a whim all ya want in Planetside ;)
  9. Xebov

    Thing about it is this: Years ago it was planed to change the reverse maneuver, trying to change the movement a bit and make it easier for new pilots to get into the game. It didnt happen because veteran pilots didnt want it because it would make it easier for new pilots to compete with them. So devs decided to not do it. There is a long list of changes that where planed over the year and didnt come in.
  10. TR5L4Y3R

    i rather wish aircraft (esf´s) was easy to control ..
  11. Demigan

    I disagree. Games most often cut away all realism that isn't constructive. We don't have to spend an hour fixing our tracks every time a .50cal knocks one off. We don't have to have a whole squad spend 8 hours servicing an aircraft that came back from a trip. We don't need to have 50% of our army spending all their time hauling supplies and managing which ammo goes where and setting up fuel depots and making sure our tanks get the fuel and maintentance parts they need when they need where they need them. Hell, I heard that Switzerland needs to have treaties with France for instance just to have enough airspace to train it's aircraft crew. It's not really possible to simulate that in combination with ground combat.

    PS2 aircraft could largely have aircraft combat maneuvers added to them, but simulated for the smaller space we fight in. PS2 aircraft could really have these added rather than have the entire system turned upside down, so old experience isn't invalidated.

    Also certain idea's from realism should be left in the dirt. The notion of an A2A superiority aircraft for example. It's OK to have an A2A aircraft, but to have an aircraft that simply beats any other aircraft no questions asked is a terrible design for a game. It would be like making Light tanks unable to damage enemy tanks because their canon doesn't have the kinetic energy. It would make Lightnings pretty much redundant and impossible to field in a meaningful way.

    All aircraft should just get a role. ESF a fighter-bomber role, Valkyries a helicopter role and/or a light spectre gunship role (kind of like in the Vietnam Era helicopters with most guns on the aircraft being side-mounted). Liberators a bit of an A-10/Frogger/medium bomber role and the Galaxy a carpet-bomber/Galaxy Gunship role.

    As for the damage, this shouldn't have to be overwhelming. Imagine a good dive-bombing run deals on average about 30% damage to an MBT, 50% for a perfect hit. Even though you need 2 to 4 passes to kill a vehicle, it's far from impossible for an ESF to do so before the vehicle can outrepair it. Have this magical thing called "teamwork" which is practically absent in the PS2 airgame outside of organized air-balls and you can easily drop a vehicle. Or you can use aircraft for the most lethal hit&run vehicles and target weakened enemies that go back for repairs.
    The fact that the ESF would need multiple passes and that it's accuracy would be determined by it's approach and the target vehicle's movement you give vehicles the ability to defend themselves by attempting to dodge the attack. Another advantage is that the ESF will have a more dangerous approach, and will be attackable by various G2A weapons during this time (and with a good dive-bomb you can still keep out of most vehicle's OHK envelope). This would be the perfect moment to add skillful G2A that can try to capatilize on the need for the aircraft to have a high enough accuracy and needing to get closer for that.
  12. frozen north

    Your right, there isn't much team work in the air game, and there's a damned good reason for it. As a percentage of total in game population, skilled pilots represent the smallest percentage, and by a fairly large margin. And why wouldn't it be the lowest? Flying is crazy tricky to learn, and combat has long periods of nothing in between tense A2A and A2G battles for pilots.

    So if we assume that average pilot population remains unchanged after this change, then to be effective, air would be forced to group at battles around single facilities to do anything relevant. Unless you can force that average of players wanting to fly up, which will likely require an overhaul of flight mechanics and controls which may not be possible with the current game engine and mechanics, then the numbers needed for what your talking about are highly unlikely to occur.

    And I hate to be this guy, but way I see it, forcing a fast attack playstyle for A2G, especially with current flight mechanics and air vs AA situation, air would become much less vulnerable, rather then more.

    This is because A: dive bombing is a thing, and B: distance equals safety for air in game. Sitting at ceiling, approaching a place, then nose diving for targets and riding the afterburner back out would give air incredibly survivability. And to balance against a dive bombing approach, you would need to nerf hammer their survivability, rending low altitude bombing impossible.

    And even if we do all this, and succeed in all of this, it still wont change one of the core reasons some people don't bother flying; its not great for profit. Unless you are an excellent pilot, avoiding all need to retreat, and shredding every target you find instantly, then your going to make far more XP per minute on the ground then you would in the air. Admittedly, one good pilot can change a battle, but for those of us seeking profit for our time, air craft are completely pointless.
  13. Sprant Flere-Imsaho

    No. I like this game and I like the flight mechanics. I'm not sorry that I think you have bad ideas about changing something I like to make it something you would like more especially given that there are things out there you would like as they are. I'll let you get back to your fantasizing now.
  14. ColonelChingles

    It is worth pointing out that the flight mechanics (and tank mechanics) of War Thunder are much more popular than what PS2 offers:

    [IMG]

    Both games are F2P, but War Thunder greatly outpaces PS2. Whereas War Thunder populations are fairly stable (possibly even increasing), PS2 populations are plummeting.

    Is that all because of the poor flight mechanics in PS2? Hard to say for sure. But I do know that I love flying in War Thunder and can't be bothered with it in PS2.
  15. frozen north

    I think it has to do with simplicity. I have played some 300+ hours in war thunder, at least a third of which is in the air, and I find that the big thing is the controls in arcade and realistic allow for easy handling of otherwise complex maneuvers. Planetsides controls often remind me of the one time I tried to play simulator with a mouse and keyboard, although less severe.

    And star conflict, which uses the same control set up as war thunder, has the edge of allowing vtol capability to work.
  16. Demigan

    Flying isn't crazy tricky to learn. Yes it's trickier than most parts of the game, but it's not insane. The insane part only pops up when you have to combat an A2A pilot who uses Hover Maneuvers and Reverse Maneuver with an inverted skillcurve to beat you.
    And this skillcurve has nothing to do with the amount of teamwork. If we look at PS2 tanks, you see practically no teamwork there either because there's no incentive. With tanks you are in competition with the tank next to you for a kill. Aircraft in general don't really need teamwork either because they have the firepower and the features available to do it all alone. The best "teamwork" is having an ally in a Lib and communicating if you have an angle or not. Whoop dee doo!

    1: The average population wouldn't remain unchanged as people wouldn't have to fight a massive inverted skillcurve. Normal skillcurves give you lots of power for the first bits of skill you learn (IE, aiming, how to fire, how the weapon handles) and you gain increasingly less power per extra skill learned the more skill you attain. (Is someone going to think that I'm saying people will have their power reduced the more skill they get? I wouldn't be surprised).
    2: The air wouldn't need a group to be effective, they would need multiple attacks and they wouldn't be able to function as hovering super-turrets that can stay out of most weapon's elevation range. I actually already explained it when I said that something like an ESF could just need multiple attacks to accomplish his task but considering it's maneuverability and speed vs the repair speed of his target it would be far from impossible to destroy the target.

    And that's why we can introduce this thing we call "actually useful G2A weapons". Current G2A is all focused around a limited DPS to give aircraft time to escape, that doesn't mean it has to stay that way.

    Allright! Aircraft does his first dive-bomb from the ceiling. He afterburns away... But his target is still alive. If he wants to succeed, he would need to do another attack run before the target repairs the damage he did. Hmm, so he has to expose himself again and soon, no time to climb all the way back to the ceiling and dive again, no time to leasurely repair up and come back. He needs to go now.

    This puts a lot more strain on pilots, especially in smaller battles where they can currently just hover around and blow stuff up. A2G is one of the easiest things in the game to pull off once you've learned to control your aircraft. The biggest problem is that people barely need to learn how to do it properly as they can just pick a small fight without G2A. This is where the myth of "we can't operate in a crowded area" comes from, because they simply never really tried and never had a reason to try.

    I think you are exaggerating.
  17. frozen north

    Perhaps, but my experience with air is that with the frequent lack of sustained fighting, kills are less frequent, and by extension experience. Then again, I may be having too high an expectation for my flying lives to come even close to my tank lives even with the difference in time spent on each. Its just that when I'm used to a tank heavy day making an average of 100-200 certs an hour without membership or double XP, it's hard for me to grab air, where even when I run with teammates in high end libs over large fights, I can only barely hit 80 certs an hour, just because of the loads of down time.

    Which is kinda my point. With literally zero incentive to work together, such as high XP earnings on assists, there's no reason to bother with working together. Your in as much competition with the enemy as your teammates. And for a lot of players, a huge reason against learning flying is that most other combat flight sims I have played have essentially zero skill transfer potential to this game, simply because of the difference in controls. The control scheme just does not support skill transferring from other titles. So for some people, that's a huge barrier. The feeling of needing to start from scratch after being an ace is a huge deterrent introduced with the controls.

    I just can't see one simple change instantly reversing the problem of an inverse skill curve. Unless you can ratically change air handling, the best you can do is push a much more linear skill arc. You will need to forgive me here for not having the best grasp of all specific changes you see as being needed to fix things ( sorry if that comes off as rude. I don't mean it as such). You want to remove the turret like aspect of hover, and push a speed and maneuverability approach if I am correct. With A2G nose guns, turret tactics will remain, unless you remove hover. And I have said this before, to do that, air either need to be powerful enough to warrant an expendable asset as being high cost ( an option I greatly dislike, since it balances frequency of use against use power) or they need to be made cheap enough for their loss to be of little to no consequence, since repairs become impossible. It's a slippery slope either way here.

    I'm gonna go out on a limb here and assume you basically mean give everyone a striker, and probably rework flak as well. As I have mentioned before, if your going to erode faction uniqueness, then it must be done as a two way street. Otherwise, its basically Christmas for one side, and getting kicked in the teeth for the others, since they feel robbed. This also being up the old issue of the SPAAG weapons ( skyguard, walker, etc). Hitting a long distance target continually without any sort of lead indication, while firing crazy heavy and inaccurate rounds is a challenge. Tighten it up " Oh its too accurate. Damage nerf needed" but then it loses multi target capabilities ( ground/ infantry). I do still hold the belief that most vehicle weapons should be at least semi viable against any target, air being no exception.

    And this is where I think we find a failure of communication between us ( or just us both being stubborn knuckle heads). To me, loitering around trying to make repeat fast passes is impossible in larger flights, thanks to heavy AA presence. The skies become to flak heavy to survive with current air power. That sort of repeate closing in and striking just leaves a pilot far, far to vulnerable. So to me with bombing, its a case of either you get the target on your first run, or you get spanked for staying to long. Unless you wanted to make an ESF into a tank that is. Now to be fair, this may just be my old, "everything dies fast and AA is inaccurate by highly lethal" experience of other games with bombing showing through, but I can't see balanced bombing being possible within the confines of planetside unless mutual insta kill potential exists. Which would bring a whole host of complaints to the table.
  18. Demigan

    So giving incentives to work together and make people want to cooperate is key here.

    Just as a low-effort start to accomplish this, do more with assists. For example an assist counts for a % to a directive (IE you deal 90% of a kill, you get 90% of a directive). Also add assist kills. IE you deal 80% of the damage to a Liberator, but you don't get anything from the 3 Extreme Menace kills inside said Lib? That's bullcrap! Hell, even if everyone bails from the Liberator it should yield more XP because it had to have been a harder fight to down it.

    Then you start adding features to encourage teamplay. For example you can give Threat Detection the ability to create a visible wire-frame around enemies... If they are spotted. You don't get a free pass to just spot enemies like the old tools, but you are massively helped by allies and yourself spotting enemies. You can also create other stuff, like weapons that nerf enemy vehicles and infantry so allies can have an easier time downing them. In effect we already have this in the form of Recon Darts for example (nerfs enemy passive stealth from the map), but it's such a blanket-ability with so little effort to use it's not that good for actual teamplay. Continue this trend and teamplay will become more prevalent and people will be less in competition. Who cares who gets the final shot? If you guys help eachother you can get far more stats and XP in a shorter time!

    One simple change I can see is making ESF afterburners omniversal. Rather than a system where you need to slow down through various methods, make sure the angle of your engine's is correct and don't get too much forwards speed to keep the engine's facing downwards of your plane, you would just go exactly where you button input tells it to go. Space and forwards? You go diagonally upwards! Left and back? You make a hairpinturn left while slowing down (or if you were going slowly already, you'll move in a small circle backwards).
    This wouldn't help other aircraft that much though, so a more solid momentum system so that an ESF that is about to overshoot will not be able to turn on a dime or keep the enemy in it's crosshairs as easily. And changing direction also means you need to stop steering in that direction sooner or you still have angular momentum and overshoot your opponent with your crosshair. On the other side of the coin the larger aircraft would also have a more predictable path for ESF to follow and engage as the ESF can't change it's direction that easily.

    No need to erode faction uniqueness. There's plenty of options for various Flak warheads, guidance systems (or lack thereoff), ammo capacities and accuracy ratings for each weapon to be faction-specific. Think of a Saron designed against aircraft. In CQC you can magdump for high damage, at range you need to fire in bursts. The next faction could get more of a Viper-style gun that fires a few shots at lower ROFs than the Saron but with higher accuracies and perhaps better ranged capabilities etc. Add a generalistic NS variant and you are done!
    High accuracy weapons would still require incredible velocities on their weapons to be effective. Looking at the Walker, it's actually not very good at long-range. It's one of the few weapons that can hit a hovering aircraft relatively consistently at range, but despite it's high velocity ammo it's not going to be hitting consistently against an aircraft that dodges at range because it's so accurate and ammo won't accidentally fly into the aircrafts new path.

    And also your own idea of having more generalistic weapon features so that most weapons aren't useless against other unit types. You could give tank guns the ability to switch to another firing mode which increases your elevation angle of your gun, but lowers damage against aircraft like ESF so there's no cheap feeling of a OHK but it could leech their afterburner fuel upon a hit to give the tank enough time for a repeat hit or give it a concussion effect reducing the aircrafts agility and increasing it's chance to ram something or not find an appropriate escape route.

    To me, large fights are far from impossible to fight in. The big question is "why would you?". If you have the choice between a large fight with more likely resistance and a small fight with little resistance and a high punishment for it's population to pull the inflexible G2A weapons, you wouldn't pick a large fight! But if you put your mind to it it's far from difficult to be effective in a large fight. You can approach from any direction rather than just one which most people do. You can use altitude to confuse G2A weapons, most people think that you are always visible in the air, but it takes a long time and good effort to scan the entirety of the skybox for aircraft if the aircraft can come from any direction or height. Drop from the skyceiling and most G2A will never even notice you untill you are already on your way out. Use the cover that the ground uses to try and stay safe from you to your advantage and use it to appear right on top of them, unload and be gone before you take too much damage. Just come from the "rear" of the base and more often than not the G2A won't even know you are there until you open fire. Then switch it up and come from the side or at an angle from high or low.

    By eliminating the absolutely horrible concept of deterrent weapons, you also eliminate the "can't operate in large fights" problem for the most part. If you can dodge all fire during your attack run you are less likely to just ignore it as you don't have to repair up after each attack. The other side of the coin is that you might get your butt handed to you before you can successfully engage, or you get damaged but manage to survive for a long time while under G2A fire and still engage the enemy.
  19. frozen north

    I'll just snip this for times sake.

    Ok, on the profiteering front, I can agree. There does need to be an overhaul. That would be a quick way to encourage team play. On the flip side, it can't be made such that getting the kill does not feel important. It has to be a fine line between gratifying gameplay, and team encouragement. Not saying your on the wrong path. What I think it should be is that if you do a majority of the damage, your assist is worth more, up to equal with the kill.

    Chances are you can probably guess where my opinion on nerf hammering weapons lies. I have issues with it on a planetside 2 level scale. Mainly because there comes a line where its abuse potential can get way out of line if not carefully done. And with lots using it, permanently getting debuffed by several enemies can get really frustrating, especially when they decide fights. You feel like you can never play on a level playing field.

    Omniversal thrust vectoring vectoring has its uses, on that I won't disagree. Ironically, it also technically stands in the face of realism. My personal thought would be to instead make it such that air craft behave more like lift platforms instead, where speed can be translated to max altitude, and better yet, it removes that whole turn on a dime issue. Granted, just removing that from the equation would demand a whole host of balance changes to weaponry.

    And this is where I want to make a point that I have to be careful with articulating. I do not want more weapons, but I want more weapon differentiation. I know, having one without the other is kinda tricky, but frankly, theres enough unlocks to worry about getting. Better to have a handful of highly differing and relevant things, then a bunch where multiple are all roughly the same. And again, I would prefer multi role weaponry. Since most AA is either fixed to bases, or built into vehicles, having that AA be versatile becomes critical, since if its not, your relevance to a fight is dependent solely on what your opponent decides to do.

    Bombing still though goes onto my problem list. A lot of things such as revamping AA and adjusting flight handling, as long as the engine and map dimensions can support them, I fully agree with.

    And as you said, it takes time to scan the skies, and on top of this, the amount of ground clutter changes heavily with continent.

    What I mean is this. On indar and esamir, long range AA is basically the best thing, since the there's so little ground clutter for either side to deal with. Meanwhile on amerish and especially hossin, its the reverse. Since bombing has to generally come from above, its usefulness is directly related to both ground clutter, and strike time. Its a simple question of can a person get enough damage off in a minimum of runs before their opponent reachs cover. Again, depending on continent and continent region, that means a pilot can get perhaps 5 runs off before cover is reached, or only 1 run off before cover is reached. My point remains. Unless the kill time is sped up for both sides ( air and AA to compensate) then bombing just doesn't work as a mechanic.

    Overall, it would seem we agree on some key areas ( AA, XP changes could stand to come in, faction uniqueness needs to stay, and flight handling could stand an overhaul).

    That said, I still don't see it as being realistically possible to make a sizable alteration and improvement to flight performance/ how aircraft handle with the confines of the current sky box and aircraft velocity limits. I also definitely don't see a viable way to implementing bombing without bringing in controversial " ultra fast killing vehicle versus ultra fast killing vehicle" mechanics to the game.
  20. Jac70

    Don't have an issue with aircraft being able to hover as they all have VTOL capability, thing is if you fly upside down that engine would now be pushing you into the ground so you should not be able to fly inverted without quickly crashing into the ground. The flight model is very simple and it's likely that way to reduce load on your machine and the server.