[Suggestion] Ejection Seat Baseline for all Aircraft

I feel like this should be a no brainer, but we don't have to spec into landing gear, why on earth do we need to spec into ejection seats for our aircraft when we have ORBITAL DROP PODS... *pulls hair out*

You'd think in the PS2 universe we've mastered dropping from outer space with no problem, we could handle bailing on an aircraft.

You fly an aircraft that is as expensive as a few grenades. You would be hard pressed to get a weaponized kite for that price, even the hardpoints cost more than that. And then there's fuel, service costs&time, repair costs&time, ammo. A single rocketpod reload is more devastating than a frag grenade and one hornet salvo more devastating than an AV grenade.

Your logic can also be applied elsewhere. A MAX can easily dual-wield regular LMG's, and have some extra stabilization to boot due to the weight of the suit absorbing recoil. All small-arms should be available to all classes since none are too big to be off-limits. Infiltrators should be able to pick shotguns, AR's, LMG's and C4. it would be peanuts to bolt 5 Kraken rocketlaunchers together on top of a Harasser and fire them in series as fast as you can pull the trigger, we did similar things in WWII. The list goes on.

The ejection seat also doesnt use an actual ejection seat in-game. Worse is that in real life there are no ejection seats on any craft with non-cockpit personel as the pilot is expected to try and save them rather than bail.

PS2 also has no permanent death, there is little reason to add all the cost and space for an ejection system (unless you choose to sacrifice it by equipping it).

If you want to use in-game realism, then it should apply to more than just what you want. Instead its better to look not at realism but at what the game needs for it to be fun for as many players as possible. No ejection seat adds tension for players who didnt pick LA and adds variety and choice. You dont need to pick an LA anymore if your ejection seat is there, removing choice.

This is particularly stupid because this was standard in PS1. They literally just made PS1 with new graphics and split up the abilities from the original game and made them harder to obtain instead of making an actual sequel. This game is nothing but a giant money grab and not a continuation of the game. Every ability is reduced instead of increased or made more complex or interesting.

I can't even get through grinding my main because the gameplay is so bad.

A lot of false analogies here.

Thank you for the input Demigan.

Since they are the same analogies as you made to justify adding them...

I would actually go the other way tbh. Only the intended transports should have safe eject. The ESF is meant for fighting, it's not really meant to be a disposable taxi.

You see, my thesis is based on the evolutionary design of necessity. Ejection seats are necessary for the preservation of life for a pilot, even in this universe.

Your analogies are speaking of economy of resources, comparing the nanite costs of grenades not being scalar to other items, or added weaponry to a platform.

That is why your examples are false analogies.

But, I still value your post and opinion for highlighting those points, even though they do not apply to my post. The most valuable is the user gaming experience, as you succinctly explain how the game dynamics may encourage a diverse set of gameplay through class selection.

Does it mean your former posts refute the rationale? No. It does mean we can be adults and still understand what people bring to the discussion.

Interesting perspective.

By your logic and the lore, that could actually make sense since our "souls" are recycled. Nice.

Nope, your idea was "we have this so we should also have the similar thing".

As for your hypothesis of necessity, its wrong.

In real life the pilot's life is of value due to the time and cost required to train him. Its technically possible to build a new aircraft in a few months or a year for that pilot, but its not possible to train an experienced pilot in that time. Even in trainer aircraft the cost per hour of flight is in the thousands of dollars for cheap aircraft. That makes the pilot valuable to recover should the plane be (immenently) destroyed.

In PS2 the pilot is a minute or two away from a new aircraft terminal at maximum. The pilot can technically die a dozen times and it costs barely anything. What is valuable is the aircraft, there is a limited supply of nanites available each minute and even a maximum nanites per person enforced to ensure proper distribution.

By necessity, the pilot would not be given an ejection seat to ensure he will do everything in his power to make the aircraft survive. Congratulations! You just made an argument for ejection seat to be removed entirely!

I speak of multiple things, one of which is "we have X in game and it should be easy to make Y in game". Which is the same as your "we have drop-pods and landing gear, so it should be easy to build ejection seats for all our aircraft". I just added the analogies of "it should realistically cost more or be less capable" and "we should look at what is better for the game". That last one isnt an analogy but a better way of designing things. Otherwise we would have one-size-fits-all loadouts and barely any reason to pull certain classes or loadouts.

Considering your response my guess is you didnt read farther than the first alinea.

So why did you ignore a part of my analogies or rationale? For example my post DOES refute your idea of "we have X so we should easily have Y".

Hell even your argument falls flat. We already have managed various options for landing craft from space, but these are wildly different from launching a pilot out of an aircraft during maneuvers if the pilot thinks his aircraft is as good as dead and then making sure the pilot survives the sudden change in direction, the deceleration from potentially supersonic speeds and then landing safely regardless of the aircraft's angle to the ground, or the relative height to the ground. Ejection while in close proximity to the ground is extremely dangerous as the ejected pilot and whatever he's still attached to needs to balance itself out, deploy the parachutes in time and need to slow down at a reasonable rate, a rate which can be too slow if you are close to the ground and can cause permanent injuries to the pilot.
And then there's the fact that the ejection seat needs to be very robust in the event the aircraft is hit, and needs safeguards to not accidentally deploy. Thats a lot less relevant for aircraft.

An ejection seat's only similarity to a thing dropping from space safely is the "land safely" part, the situation and execution are wildly different. Even the parachutes are designed for different purposes!

There are times for realism and there are times for game balance.

If they were to give this baseline, for whatever reason, then they would need to take away something of equal or greater value, or else it is just pure power-creep.

1. Nope -- my statement was --- it exists as an added option (so the technology exists)... thus we should have it baseline due to superior existing technologies with the same functionality. This is under the assumption of the current world PS2 resides in, not by lore alone, but by pure functionality within this gaming world. That is the context.

4. I concede by utilizing the lore initially, that could make sense -- however, since the feature exists to begin with, that refutes the obsolescence, and now supports necessity.


2.

1."In real life the pilot's life is of value due to the time and cost required to train him." TRUE.
2. " Its (sic) technically possible to build a new aircraft in a few months or a year for that pilot, but its not possible to train an experienced pilot in that time. " TRUE
3. "That makes the pilot valuable to recover should the plane be (immenently) (sic) destroyed." TRUE

3.

1. I will demonstrate how flawed logic can pollute proper analysis and reasoning. Your inference is almost sound, but quickly becomes invalid with point #4, the premise of why the functionality exists in the first place, just not as baseline. Nanite resource economy and respawn times are key components that dives this capability to simply exist in the first place. I gest a little on the drop pods, however the original argument is that they exist already for a reason (that reason being 3.4) and respawn timelines identified in 3.3, 3.5

2. "In PS2 the pilot is a minute or two away from a new aircraft terminal at maximum." TRUE
3. "The pilot can technically die a dozen times and it costs barely anything." FALSE (Reference #3)
4. "What is valuable is the aircraft, there is a limited supply of nanites available each minute and even a maximum nanites per person enforced to ensure proper distribution." TRUE.
5. "By necessity, the pilot would not be given an ejection seat to ensure he will do everything in his power to make the aircraft survive. " FALSE. Reference #4.
6. "Congratulations! You just made an argument for ejection seat to be removed entirely! " FALSE. Reference introduction correction of your interpretation of my statement, and then reference 3.4

4.

1. "I speak of multiple things, one of which is 'we have X in game and it should be easy to make Y in game'. Which is the same as your 'we have drop-pods and landing gear, so it should be easy to build ejection seats for all our aircraft'." FALSE. Reference Introduction. This statement shows a lack of understanding of the original statement.
2. "I just added the analogies of "it should realistically cost more or be less capable" and "we should look at what is better for the game". That last one isnt (sic) an analogy but a better way of designing things. Otherwise we would have one-size-fits-all loadouts and barely any reason to pull certain classes or loadouts. " TRUE. This is your singularly best contribution to the discussion.

3.

4. Given your very first comment on this entire thread, it shows you're lacking a large component of what I'm actually saying and why. Instead you've interjected your own assumptions as highlighted in quotes 3, 4. As a result, I can say, you're arguing for the sake of arguing and it is not productive.


5.

Reference introduction, sections 1, 2. Emphasis on 3.4.

5.

1. "Hell even your argument falls flat." Please reference 4.1.
2. "We already have managed various options for landing craft from space, but these are wildly different from launching a pilot out of an aircraft during maneuvers if the pilot thinks his aircraft is as good as dead and then making sure the pilot survives the sudden change in direction, the deceleration from potentially supersonic speeds and then landing safely regardless of the aircraft's angle to the ground, or the relative height to the ground. Ejection while in close proximity to the ground is extremely dangerous as the ejected pilot and whatever he's still attached to needs to balance itself out, deploy the parachutes in time and need to slow down at a reasonable rate, a rate which can be too slow if you are close to the ground and can cause permanent injuries to the pilot. An ejection seat's only similarity to a thing dropping from space safely is the "land safely" part, the situation and execution are wildly different. Even the parachutes are designed for different purposes!" Reference 3.1

Good luck, and I value what time you spent to construct your response, but feel there are very important key ideas and concepts just lacking here. In the military, we would say you have "all thrust, no vector." Read over my response, go ahead and reply, but understand that I will unlikely reply unless you offer any new insight to my opening statement.

because ejection seats are overpowered if they come as a standard on all aircraft.

You can use them to:
Get up to a high place quickly to drop a spawn beacon (ex. Hossin trees).
Use drifter jump jets to C4 float over vehicles, infantry groupings, and Max units then follow up with Sabot Rockets and Seeker HLX to be even more of an issue.
Eject at the last second to prevent getting killed "high-KD stat padding".
You can also eject as an engineer with plenty of explosives basically destroying certain vehicles such as a Colossus and Sunderer spawns every single time especially with an air-to-air ESF loadout.

I have a loadout specifically for ejecting. I have an afterburner buff selected on the secondary weapons slot where the missiles/rockets are supposed to be.

Well I mean.. you don't really need ejection seat to do all of that as you can use safe fall on Engineer but when I fly in I'm coming in at max speed so I'm less likely to be seen. The problem is the other pilots and surface-to-air people would no longer be scoring kills to aurax their weapons if pilots keep ejecting out before they die. Being able to select between fire suppression and ejection seat is balanced imo.

I don't think any of that is precluded by having baseline ejection seats. You would just, as you stated, deploy a vehicle that ejection seats. In otherwords, having it baseline will not change what you are already doing because it exists already.

My ejection seat setup kind of sucks. The in-ability to use the secondary weapons is bad and no fire suppression. The issue is when other people constantly just use the plane to eject and nothing else.

I understand the game experience risks you've stated, what I'm saying is, there's nothing now preventing their use for the reasons you've stated.

Ejection seat as an option is good, and on the valk and galaxy it's good they come as a standard.

Thumb Upping, Great Input!