[Suggestion] Balance ESF+ by removing hover (forced foward flt)

New players struggle against most other decent airborn players for an aircraft ability that really should not exist in this game--hover/loiter tactics.

Force all aircraft, other than transports (all ESF+) forward movement or they lose lift. This will reduce the ability to perform absolutely insane hover-gunship style and midair impossible acrobatics, and provide opportunity for G2A to return fire, or A2A to engage in legitimate dogfights, other than climb-orbit-rotate.

The gameplay will shift to shorter time on station for strafing/ or bombing runs.

If you're in the "get gud" "learn to play" or any other elitist position, please save your time--your post will be flagged for a violation of the forum rules.

What are we talking about here?

Because hovring becomes increasingly bad depending on the situation.
If there is a lot of Infantry, that infantry can just small arms that ESF and it will take singificant damage if it's not moving away quick, thus hovering is not really an option anyways.

If we are talking smaller fights, where the ESF comes in and kills one guy and then leaves again, the impact of the ESF is not changed by your suggested change, thus not needed.

If we are going for massive fights with lots of vehicles around, hovering will just make every skyguard or burster MAX drool about that delicious snack.

On the contrary ESFs are already extremely vulnerable to AA weapons. Making it harder for them to even get a kill will make ESF even more frustrating to play.

My conclusion: Your suggestion would not change much where it matters but make playing ESF less enjoyable. And I am not playing ESF. Furthermore it would have a great impact on A2A aswell and make ESFs less useful at fighting Liberators, since they can just hover and the ESF will have to make multiple passes to deal significant damage to the Liberator.

ESF vs ESF will become an awkward dogfight, because TTK between ESFs is too long.

And finally: You would make it so every pilot would have to relearn flying from scratch, frustrating many good pilots in the process. And all that for an insignificant change.

Ok I hear what you are saying but I would argue that the skill gap in flying in this game doesn't actually come from hover mode. Getting into and out of hover is not a particularly hard thing to do even with a little bit of practise.

I think having hover actually makes flying in this game a lot easier since it turns your 3d movement into a 2d plain while you need precision. Tried air to air fighting without hover, its a total mess you just fly in circles around each other for ages.

The reason a lot of pilots struggle to keep the aim on target when they start is because:
1.Aadjusting for distance take time to learn
2.ESF's have unavoidable mouse acceralation in there aim making large movements wild and swing-like
3.A lot of people play with flight sense that is way to high for fine point aiming due to the mouse acceleration

Also this wouldn't solve the ambush tactic that leads to rapid TTK's and frustration to new players who lack the knowledge of how to effective avoid ambushes.

Well the ESF needs to land somehow, it'd need much more than just removing Hover mode.
Also imagine dogfights, not being able to turn and face your enemy, would require a much greater overhaul of flight mechanics which would add this element to engage back the attacker in a different way.
The air to ground weapons would also have to change.

Basically redesign ESF entirely.... I am not against this because the game in general needs a change.
The original design was genius, but a change would allow room for newcomers to arrive, as it will be a new experience for long time players as well, evening out the playing field.

But I would say we can forget about this. This is more of a fiction really, because these devs do not have it, to perform such a project. It takes them multiple years to implement already pre-designed incomplete projects, in an incomplete manner lol.

The aim of the proposed changes is to minimize the duration that aircraft, particularly ESFs, can remain effectively stationary over battlefields ("time on station"), which in turn reduces their capacity to hover or loiter for prolonged attack runs. Previous attempts to address this issue through increased ground-to-air (G2A) damage have largely fallen short, especially in scenarios where G2A defenses are sparse or in air-to-air (A2A) confrontations where the opposing aircraft lack hover capabilities. This has perpetuated an uneven power dynamic that the current model doesn’t adequately address.

Shifting away from simply making aircraft more susceptible to ground attacks, which has a limited range of effectiveness, the focus here is on adjusting the fundamental combat dynamics of aircraft. This would recalibrate the balance, decreasing the disproportionate impact skilled pilots can have by leveraging extended time on station to dominate ground forces without significantly altering their vulnerability to G2A weaponry.

While I recognize and value your concerns about the enjoyment and skill investment of current ESF pilots, the broader goal is to enhance the overall fairness and strategic balance of aerial combat. This approach aims to adjust power dynamics more equitably among all players, reducing instances where the outcome of engagements is heavily skewed by the capabilities of high-skill pilots to exert air superiority. This change could potentially make aerial combat less about exploiting hover and more about tactical maneuvering and engagement, leading to a more balanced gameplay experience for everyone involved.

Thumbs up for great insight.

You make some interesting points about the learning curve associated with flying and hover mode. However, I believe that the skill gap in A2A combat is significantly influenced by the ability to hover, particularly as it allows ESFs to exploit loitering tactics outside of effective G2A range. This is often used to unleash missile barrages and conduct precision A2G strikes. Unfortunately, most, if not all A2A encounters are just climb-dive rotation hovering balls.

While transitioning into and out of hover mode might not be overly challenging with some practice, it fundamentally alters the dynamics of aerial engagement, transforming three-dimensional maneuvering into more static, two-dimensional targeting scenarios. This is a departure from the kind of dynamic aerial dogfighting that should characterize such encounters.

The difficulties you've outlined—adjusting for distance, dealing with inherent mouse acceleration, and the common issue of overly sensitive flight settings—are all valid. Yet, these challenges should encourage the development of true piloting skills rather than being mitigated by an over-reliance on hover tactics.

Moreover, hover mode doesn't address the problem of ambush tactics that lead to rapid time-to-kill (TTK) rates, which can frustrate new players who haven’t yet learned how to effectively evade such assaults. Moving away from viewing the ESF as a "flying turret," as is commonly taught in community tutorials, towards emphasizing mobile, three-dimensional combat skills, could enhance both the challenge and the enjoyment of ESF piloting for all skill levels.

Thumbs up for great isnight.

The ESF is perfectly capable of landing by simply slowing down and reducing speed, much like it currently does. The key adjustment would be that once an aircraft halts its forward movement, it would begin to descend more rapidly and dramatically.

Regarding your concerns about dogfighting dynamics, the inability to easily turn and face an opponent isn't necessarily a drawback. In real life, pilots employ complex tactics that require skill and strategy beyond mere hovering. This change isn't about penalizing players who have mastered the current system but rather about rebalancing the game to be more accessible and enjoyable for new and casual players. Currently, the steep learning curve and imbalance between air and ground forces drive away these players, hurting the game's longevity and community.

This proposed shift would indeed require veteran pilots to adapt, perhaps relearning aspects of dogfighting to engage in more realistic and tactical aerial battles. It would discourage the prevalent "hover-and-stare" tactic, pushing pilots towards using more dynamic maneuvers like coordinated strafing runs. The goal is to foster a game environment where all players can enjoy and compete, not just those who have already mastered the nuances of existing mechanics.

By adjusting the flight mechanics, I would aim to make the game more equitable and engaging across the board, promoting that all aspects of the games may be engaged by players of all skill levels. Isn't the ultimate goal to have a game that's enjoyable for everyone, not just a select few who dominate due to a skewed power dynamic? This kind of thoughtful game development could revitalize the game and bring in a fresh wave of enthusiasm and players.

Thumbs up for great insight.

Thou shalt not nerf air. This is the way.

Not really nerfing as much as changing flight maneuvers and how operations are conducted. I would certainly be inclined to rollback all the G2A buffs for this change of flight mechanics. What are your thoughts?

In my personal experience, if you want to force A2A and A2G confrontations to be more fair in general, it's not hover that you need to remove, but the ability to execute reverse-thrust maneuvers with afterburners. The ability to dogfight effectively in the current meta almost entirely hinges on whether or not you or your opponent know how to execute these maneuvers, and whether or not you have backup in the case that both of you OR neither of you can reliably perform these maneuvers in a dogfight. Additionally, because of things like spawn beacons, routers, and anvils, infantry can in theory spawn upon pretty much any position relative to a battle, and with lock-on G2A missiles, even a single heavy assault on a random mountain top or base can be an immense pain in the *** that more or less prevents you from playing the game near them that, in all likelihood, nobody else will bother killing, assuming they are even effectively able to get a bead on them.

In exchange for ESF losing this capability, all factions should lose G2A lock-on from infantry classes -- but perhaps the deterrant functionality can be replaced with static SAM sites on the perimeter of or in key locations between certain dev bases. These emplacements could have terminals inside them that can be hacked to capture them, and the launcher itself will be hidden within its bunker when no targets are in range. It would automatically raise and attempt to target and fire upon any aircraft which gets within range of its exposed Engagement Radar. It has a static lock-on time of 5 seconds will fire large havoc missiles in salvos of 3 on a 2.5 second reload, each doing up to 500 damage on a proximity fuse and preventing any and all repairs for 6 seconds. Once the turret has a target locked, the lock will be maintained out to the full range of the radar or until line of sight is broken for longer than 1.5 seconds.

The engagement radar would have a default range of 500 meters and can be reduced to just 100 meters if the enemy aircraft has Rank 4 Vehicle Stealth equipped, or 50 meters if the stealth aircraft is a Valkyrie. Last but not least, there should be a laser designator turret on top of the engagement radar that can be used to manually lock targets that should be prioritized or that otherwise have countermeasures against the radar itself. This designator turret will be well above the ground and have a minimum depression of -15 degrees elevation and maximum elevation of 90 degrees, so that it cannot target extremely low-flying aircraft. The engagement radar will likewise be unable to target aircraft flying below its relative horizon -- risky since it makes the aircraft much more vulnerable to the remaining flak assets, like rangers.

There would be three ways to stop the SAM site from targeting aircraft, with differing results:
1. Destroying the Engagement Radar will prevent the SAM site from automatically targeting aircraft until it is repaired by an engineer or by a welding tool; the manual designator, however, is not disabled by this.

2. The launcher can be destroyed like any turret while it is raised -- either by heavy, massed firepower to chew through its 10000hp, or with 4 bricks of C4, which will deal double damage to it (effectively 2500 a piece). The latter tactic would also be possible by entering the bunker and blowing the launcher up while it's undeployed. This will prevent its use altogether until it is repaired.

3. An infiltrator, and ONLY an infiltrator, can initiate a hack at the emplacement's main control terminal, or stop a hack that is currently in progress. After 2 minutes, the SAM will be successfully captured and, assuming the hardware is intact, will be able to target enemy aircraft. While the hack is progressing, manual designation is taken offline, but the engagement radar will still be active if it hasn't been destroyed. If the territory it is linked to changes ownership, its ownership will immediately change to the faction that captured the territory and any in-progress hack will be reset, though it may still require repairs.

I feel hover should never have been on ESFs. Sadly I fear it's 10 years too late to make that change.

I agree with the OP. I don't mind some air being able to hover (like Valks) as I see them as the equivalent of a helicopter gunship - but ESFs should be like fighter jets.

The biggest issue is the reverse thrust manoeuvre. Once a skilled pilot has mastered this - it's almost impossible for a rookie to go up against them. No other units in the game have such a disparity caused by exploiting a single gameplay mechanic.

I think the game would be better of air was placed into more defined categories (ESFs in an AA role, Valks in an AI role, Libs in an AV role and Gals in a support/transport role). At the moment, no matter which unit you choose - they are too effective against multiple target types - ESFs especially.

Yes - ESF being able to take off and land vertically would be fine - but once in flight, they would have to maintain momentum to remain airborne.

Perhaps a way to implement it would be that ESFs can only VTOL if their undercarriage is deployed - but having deployed undercarriage disables weapons. To use weapons - you have to be in flight mode, not VTOL mode.

i mean it isnt a braindead project to just rip the same mechanics off battlefield air physics that actually work and have a playerbase.

battlefield 3 air combat could easily be done with ESFs.

i always laugh at ESF players complaint post about anti air when they literally can hover in place and have the whole skybox to themselves and plenty of terrain to hide behind from air to ground rockets or skyguards. theyre just bad players.

Thank you for the contribution! That's my point as well -- this isn't exactly NEW... but it does change the power dynamic without nerfing or buffing.

EXACTLY!

Great contribution.

The only VTOL/ or Hover Aircraft are those like transports, or designed to fly in that manner (Dervish)...

The key approach I am attempting at addressing is minimize power creep to prevent a spike in gameplay balance. Good ideas. Thanks for the input!

I just want to thank everyone for the extremely constructive and productive comments.

Which I can get behind, I just don't think removing hover or reverse thrust maneuvering altogether is the way to do it. Any infantry can look upward and shoot at aircraft, and as someone who's been doing a LOT of practice with both A2A and A2G lately, I will say that G2A lock-ons are a huge pain in the *** that more often than not forces me to retreat from a fight. If this capability was restricted to SAM emplacements that are an infantry objective and can be mitigated with specific loadouts while they are unmanned, I'd say it is fair and balanced.

Same deal applies to vehicular G2A combat. There are dedicated A2A assets and the trade off to using especially deadly ones such as Rangers is that those same guns are not as powerful against ground vehicles as other options. With the current state of sunderers, which is expected to change somewhat in the short term, fighting A2G near a sunderer train is risky and cannot be performed against nanite armor with ESF. Valkyrie, on the other hand, actually has the DPS with a pelter and maybe heavies with punishers in the door guns to havoc them.

I never liked the way flying works in this game, I mean, if you are actually flying, its actually pretty fun and engaging, but when it just becomes a bunch of floating and strafing turrets trying to hit each other, it takes the fun out of it.

And it looks ridiculous.

Everything in the air should have to move or drop like a rock. And I dont mean like it is now where you can vertical thrust up to counter it. Vertical thrust should only work close to the ground for VTOL, just enough to get you high enough to start flying. And nothing should be able to hover in place like Libs can.