My opinion: Planetside 3 should have no attack hover aircrafts - just air transports

From my experience the attack aircraft in Planetside 2 are nothing else than ruiners of fun and I assume that's why people play games, to have fun. Basically the aircraft in PS2 cannot get involved in the real objective, therefor it scouts for something else.
The something else is somebody who is trying to be more creative than just redeploying into repetitive fights. A player that want's to use the open world, like getting his vehicle into a good position, construct a base, driving to the fight.

Well you get punished for that. This is what air counters and you have no way to counter it back, not even flak which can only attack air can stop the flying Liberator tank.

Aircraft's are really hard to balance in general in all games, especially if it can hover and has anti tank weapons. That's why I'm against attack air being in PS3. (But an airstrike ability could be appropriate)

Air transports are essential in an open world and they can have guns but if they do, like for example the Valkyrie, don't make it so if you don't have an only AA gun you're dead. An aircraft should not receive 100 20mm rounds from the M20 to down the transport. It shouldn't be a flying tank...it's flying because it's light and the guns should be used to defend itself or support.


Planetside 2 with no attack air would be less restrictive, less random, more strategic. There only would be a problem with the Magrider abusing the landscape but it can be countered and this is where faction uniqueness comes into play.

A helicopter jet is so OP. You can spin around in the air and target a single person. You can barrage them with a volley of rockets that they can't dodge without a roof over their head, and you can get out of any situation lickity-split. I think they should have to specialize. Maybe there should be a performance module for each of them. More jet, less helicopter. More helicopter, less jet. A balance of both, but not as good as they are now. That would be more fun to me. They should also take way more damage from light arms, like at least 2.5x the damage they take now. They should be a glass cannon.

If this is too much to ask, I think we should have either one or the other.

" Please Jesus, can you solve my disability problem ? "

What are you on about OP?
ESF are the weakest vehicles in the game save for a flash and there are literally DOZENS of ways to deal with them that you can even do from relative safety. Have any of you ever flown an Anti-Tank ESF? Using hornet missiles takes four full salvos from the REAR and even more from the sides, top, or front. IT also basically means you're hovering around the area for a good 30+ seconds trying to whittle down at enemy armor. While there is a chance rocket pods can be quicker you also have to concern yourself with more direct aim which would need you to be much closer to the enemy vehicle.

During that time everyone and anyone is aiming up and shooting at you. Generally speaking unless everyone is preoccupied you're going to get one (or half) of your payload off before flying away to reload and repair. Unless there's a general coordinated strike you're not going to destroy much of anything.

So we would increase strategy and tactics by removing a gameplay option?
Sorry but that makes 0 sense to me.

Come on m8, the OP was completely and totally over-stating the perceived 'problems', but you dont fix that mistake by doing the same in the other direction.

I don't know, it's complicated. In PS2 attack aircrafts cannot get involved in the objective because they're too weak and instead they scout for people outside of it, which most have no counter to air. This is a really big mess.

Very true, the A2G gameplay needs rework. I wouldn't go as far as removing ESFs, but I would definitely rework them and the mechanics involved around them.

for PS3 aircraft should be as follows.

as easy to learn and master as other games with reasonable control schemes and no gimmicky behavior.
attack jets (A2A ordinance and light MG that can't hurt heavy armor) NO HOVER, NO RM. have the ability for assisted landing at airbases (they can get UI elements showing approach corridors to runways and computer assistance is reducing speed and landing safely for newbies)

attack helicopters (carries ether anti tank ordinance or anti infantry not both at the same time, we don't need another jack of all trades aircraft) slower then attack jets, no sprint capability.
flight physics that roughly match reality
gunships and helicopters have a lower flight ceiling then fighters, meaning they are always at risk from overhead attack by enemy fighters leading to changes in how their fighter progress.

G2A (not pure deterrants):
infantry lock-ons
APC weaponry for AA: autocannon gun for close range AA, lock on secondary that has faster lock time at close-mid range.
reliable AA base defense turrets

as much as air likes to complain about AA when you have fast attack jets flak is useless, for a balance game people would have to accept that in a setting where you have fast attack jets and moderately fast helicopters, autocannons and lockons for short-mid range killing of aircraft are needed.

AA having to strain to keep up with how fast aircraft move across the screen is in no way fair to the ground players, while air is free of actual flight physics making conventional flak/autocannon AA tactics useless.

players should not have to strain to put you in their crosshairs, ether you have fast attack jets with reliable killing with lockons or you have slower fighters that can be reliably hit and can be reasonably tracked by mouse.

by making fighter jets exclusively A2A they can ignore ground AA and lurk at the flight ceiling out of range of ground AA while being able to swoop down and attack transport aircraft, gunships and helicopters and only be at risk from ground AA when said targets are at medium/close range to the ground.

skyknights can then have their jousting competitions at the flight ceiling all they want.

the biggest change this would bring about is people who want to A2G solo would have to pick a helicopter and would not be able to swoop in smoke a few people and then quickly speed away in moderate battles, they would have to plan an approach and execute while taking reasonable fire from ground AA on the way in and out.

gunships and transports would always be vulnerable anywhere near ground AA due to not being able to hide at the same flight ceiling as fighters and by the same token fighters could lurk at flight ceiling to ambush gunships and transports making gunships less dominating to ground forces.

I honestly wouldn't mind a differentiation between attack helicopter and interceptor. The changes, however would have to consider that fighter jets are literally the glassiest of cannons (even in real life). A helicopter can at least use terrain as a form of cover, jets are 100% speed.

It's more of a question of if the game engine can render the game properly for jets. So far it feels kinda sketchy with a render distance of 1000m even. A fighter jet being so quick would nearly need double that. The other question is the issue that ground ops coordination would need to be at peak performance or else you jsut have a fly roaming and buzzing with nothing it can feasibly target.

The other issue is the fact that for A2G capabilities, a fighter jet would either have armor lockon missiles or a form of carpet bombing. There just isn't anything else that matches that efficiency and practicality. This would mean that with good coordination, a jet with A2G combat capabilities would most certainly be able to make coordinated strafing strikes that would leave the enemy in ruins. That's both good and bad. Because balance of that will be an absolute NIGHTMARE. You have someone painting a target, and a fighter rushing by at mach 5 droping a series of explosives in quick succession.

In short:


With how much the tryhard community (that pays DayBreak's bills the most) ******* about AoE weapons and capabilities, this is going to be hard to pass and will probably get nerfed to the ground from repeated QQ.

That's the only problem i see with separating ESF into true interceptors and true helicopters.eeeee

Really there are two huge challenges in the air game.

First: how do you balance air vs ground in such a way that air deterrence weapons actually do their jobs, while not completely shutting down all aircraft in the hex?

Second: how do you balance air vs air in such a way that new players aren't heavily discouraged from learning to fly; as it stands, veteran skyknights rule the air, and effectively shut down any new pilots who are trying to learn the ropes. It doesn't help that it's knowledge of exploits, such as the reverse maneuver, that dominate dogfights.

The second one I would say is easier than the first: make fighters actually behave like fighters. If you want to preserve VTOL capabilities, fine, but they shouldn't be able to maneuver freely while in hover mode. Remove the reverse maneuver exploit and force pilots to rely on other dogfighting skills in actual turn-and-burn air combat.

The problem with aircraft is relatively simple:

• Aircraft are amazingly accurate using point-and-click style weapons
• Aircraft can solo everything but to fight aircraft from the ground you are required to use teamwork
• Aircraft have the speed, resiliance and agility to escape almost any situation
• Aside from a few bridges and tower bases there's virtually no cover for ground vehicles to hide behind effectively
• Infantry is too slow to cross distances in bases before an aircraft can show up and kill them. It's a lottery who gets killed and who doesn't
• Vehicles have the option to dodge aircraft fire if they move at full speed on the ground. This requires that they aren't engaged by anything else and have the space to do so until the aircraft gets bored, runs out of ammo or a friendly finally shows up with anti-air. Only Harassers truly have the capacity to pull this off with any consistency
• (most) vehicles and infantry don't have abilities to make them harder targets for aircraft by default. If you do pick them they are dedicated G2A weapons that nerf your capabilities against everything else

This leaves pretty much all infantry and vehicles vulnerable to aircraft without options to defend themselves unless they nerf themselves willingly. And we can solve this problem.

• Make accurate aircraft weapons deal less damage. Add weapons like dumb bombs/slightly guided bombs that have to be dropped as you pass the target. Height, attack angle etc would suddenly matter.
• Make sure there are targets that aircraft can't solo (Sunderers for example). Add skill-based G2A weapons that can solo aircraft effectively.
• Aircraft that remain accurate and deadly would need to have limited speed and agility to escape a situation that turns bad for them. Think of an attack helicopter that can't just afterburn out of any situation
• Add more area's like vehicle tunnels, overhead cover and player-deployable cover to protect vehicles from air attacks
• Introduction of more skillful dumb bombs means infantry and vehicles can dodge aircraft fire more accurately
• Introduction of (inherent) abilities to vehicles and infantry to avoid aircraft fire could help. Think of generating a distortion field that makes it hard to see the exact location of the target the farther you are, deployable shield cover, more dedicated and accurate smoke, weapons that reduce the agility of aircraft so they have more trouble aiming for them etc.

Thats what I was trying to say with regard to aircraft. They operate on a different plane. What can infantry do against a tank that is shooting at them? Find horizontal cover. Then the tank cant shoot you. For a jet helicopter, you have to find both vertical and horizontal cover, and they can still use rocket pods through windows to kill you.

Lmao hover mode is the best part about the ESF lol. All I see here is a bunch of people who are too lazy to learn how to fly. It's not OP. G2A might need a buff idk cause when ever I get attacked by a2g I just load up a esf and take it out. Pretty much a free kill because a2g weapons dont do well vs a2a equipped esf unless the attack is bad. I just love how you guys are maturing for removing a play style that many of us spent months trying to learn (4-6 months for me). Planetside is a unique game. The problem is mainly the lack of ESF in the air. If more ESF was around a2g would be less of a problem.
Now changes I would like is for them to improve this input lag.
For them to remove this mouse acceleration that makes hard for people to find their "sweet spot" in mouse sensitivity. But removing the hover mode is stupid as ****

But there aren't more ESFs in the air, so a2g is a problem.

Really, one of the biggest problems with ESFs' a2g is their access to AoE weapons when combined with the rest of the vehicles' abilities. The skill difference required to gun down someone with a normal rotary weapon vs. banshee, airhammer, even PPA or rocketpods is obscene.

Either delete the AoE bs or make ESFs literal paper (and then a nanite cost reduction) against small arms so that they can't hover/fly low, at all.

Lmao learn to fly? Take them out. Come on lol you guys are terrible. You nerf flying even more, this game will definitely die out faster. Make flying more accessible. During air events I see a lot of people pull esf. Why? Because they all wanna learn to fly or play the event. Why dont they pull during other times? Because they get killed to fast in normal gameplay by other pilots or even ground attacks. Make flying more accessible meaning cheaper, more people might be willing to try. Some pilots just log off after they run out of $ to pull. Players who are learning to fly or want to fly aren't gonna keep trying if they have to keep waiting a while to pull just to be killed again. We have these discussions a lot on the pilots club discord.

Lmao learn to aim? Just aim without AoE. Come on lol you guys are terrible.

ESFs should have never had ground pounding abilities in the first place. Also, I am heavily for reduced nanite cost on ESF if they were solely A2A. I'd also heavily reduce lock-on dmg or speed and nerf flak detonation range and/or dmg while buffing g2a that actually requires aim.

And idk what you are talking about, most people in pilots club view a2g as trash. The complaints about air combat are there, but they almost always strictly speak about A2A.

Actually I've never seen anyone in the pilots club suggest removing a2g capabilities. And trust me I can aim with normal nosegun. I hardly do a2g and I mainly do a2a. Only reason I occasionally do a2g is because I want to complete my esf aurx.

there's no problem with fast attack jets if their ordinance is entirely A2A and their only means of attacking ground is with a LMG that can only tickle light armor due to their flight speed and weapon balancing.

by making the ability to attack ground specific to units that cannot sprint away and have a more limited flight ceiling infantry and ground vehicles can fight out and be able to amass enough units to require air to use more then a couple of people to harass them.

if jets can't hover, AA has fast lock times and jets are bound by flight physics, they aren't gonna harass ground forces with a medicore light MG nosegun, they are ether gonna take an attack helicopter which can get the **** beaten out of it if there is enough AA because it can't get away quickly or pull a gunship which also cannot escape quickly and can get hammered hard enough that it dies.

the single biggest problem with air in PS2 is their weapons are powerful and they are too damn fast on top of being able to hover in place. if you make people have to choose between being fast, being moderately fast and being able to hover and finally being moderately fast and moderately armored, while having to obey flight physics you'll add a whole new dimension to air in terms of air to air, ground to air and air to ground.

being fast, able to hover, having powerful weapons and being nigh untargetable due to speed all at the same time is very biased against ground, air should have to choose in a PS2 successor so they can't go a jack of all trades build.

in a balanced game #1 is not a concern, because even in PS2 infantry can be locked out of a fight, vehicles can be locked out of a fight, but hell and high water when someone tries to lock aircraft out.

here's the thing this is supposed to simulate war to a degree, in a balanced game ground should be able to amass enough AA in a large enough battle that air can only pick away at the corners, just like how a mass of ground vehicles can lock down an infantry assault and prevent them from fighting effectively. remember for every AA user present that's one less player resisting ground forces.

i realize this is a game, but when you treat 1/3rd of the gameplay specially it causes balance problems in addition AA is specialized meaning when air is gone the weapons are useless, that counteracts situations where there's a mass of AA, if air is too afraid to attack and have a good chance of dying naturally the AA will decline over time.

#2 by segmenting the attack roles to interceptor, gunship, attack helicopter, transport while making sure air has to follow flight physics which makes it easier for ground units to lead and fire on attacking aircraft.

air vehicles that attack ground should not be able to sprint away or be among the fastest units in the game, they should have to plan attacks and be able to take a beating coming in, instead of being flying tanks with the speed of a fighter.

air typically swoops in kills and bunch of people and swoops out, typically with afterburner, AA barely has a chance to shoot at them unless the pilot is incompetent.

If you don't get why I mocked your first few lines, then there is no hope. But! since you rarely do a2g anyway, this hardly affects you, now does it? Also, I never said they wanted to remove a2g, I said they think it's easy; the only skill in it is knowing when to bug out before being insta-gibbed by g2a and knowing when and how to take cover from it. I'm pretty sure most don't even really feel threatened by the majority of a2a as an a2g esf unless they are facing someone incredibly good.

DBG will never remove a2g AoE weapons, but a simple change to the smallarms resistances of ESFs takes like 2 seconds. A2A ESFs will never have to worry about being shot by smallarms, it is only ground pounders (and pretty much only those that are incredibly cocky or bad) that would have to. If that, alone, is enough to 'make the rest of the pilots left quit', then that in itself is a pretty convincing argument that changes are needed.

Do you even realize if we had more air pop, a2g wouldn't be as much as a problem? Most a2g pounders attack small fights. That's the issue here. If you can't even understand that then there is no hope for you. As a a2a main, even I try to stay away from big fights because I get locked on during a2a fights by the ground. It looks like a2g is more of problem than it really is mainly because of lack of air pop. And how they usually attack low pop fights to farm. Most a2g pounders are trash pilots in general. I would suggest decreasing range of flak but making it a more direct hit weapon. So it does good damage but requires some form of skill. Most g2a weapons dont even require any skill. Just mainly point and click.