[Suggestion] Complete aircraft overhaul.

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

  1. Pikachu

    What is there to occlude in the sky besides a few aircraft?
  2. Nogrim313

    um everything on the ground? and vice versa. being able to not visually render half the battlefield is a pretty big deal.
    • Up x 1
  3. Nogrim313

    certainly a concern, that imho would be easily addressed by making AA radar available on more things, and don't forget spotting would still function as is. not only that, but vision is a two way street. those aircraft would need to aquire targets much more quickly too.
    • Up x 1
  4. Pikachu

    Oh, I thought of the people on the ground. Do aircraft have fps trouble anyway? When flying most people and decorations in the game (ground) won't render anway. Aircraft is often far away from everything.
  5. Nogrim313

    because of the height nothing is obscured by terrain, so you end up loading everything things tend to get a little stuttery on my machine when im up high, im usually zipping around at tree level in my valk though.
    • Up x 1
  6. strikearrow

    Ok well maybe so, but combined with AA weakness, performance gap or skill gap as I'd call it, nanite cost and versatility, they are too powerful. I zone in on versatility in the sense that they can go A2A, A2I and A2V all with one loadout and do it relatively well. In fact, given about a 40 BR skill gap (in their favor) between them and their A2A, A2I, or A2V opponents they will win any engagement against any opponent given a relatively even nanite and numbers fight - all with the same loadout. In some cases such as against infantry they can go 1/12 and still win the fight. In the case of ESFs, they can normally go 2v1 sometimes even 3v1 and win. A lone MBT is toast without a ranger secondary - a walker only if the BR gap isn't too high. A skyguard can even be destroyed by an ESF if the skill gap is high enough say about 50 BR.

    The point is that an ESF can defend itself and effectively fight even with a single loadout that no other weapon platform can do as well. An MBT without AA simply cannot defend itself against even a lower BR ESF without mounting a ranger, unless the MBT is undetected and can snipe an ESF doing A2G hover attacks. A skyguard very rarely kills an ESF solo and given even skills it's just a stalemate. However, the ESF can take its 350 nanites and go fight elsewhere in about 45 seconds whereas the skyguard is worthless without an air to shoot or unless it wants to drive 4-5minutes and have probably again have no air to shoot. A friggin 50 nanite wraith flash can easily kite and kill a skyguard.

    The only platform that comes close is a harasser, but except for its shockingly low 150 nanite cost, even it cannot do well as an AA platform without mounting a ranger. Of course, ranger harassers are the very best AA weapons in the game right now.

    What needs to happen imo, is that vehicle weapons become better at specific specialties and worse at all others AND vehicles need to be able to change loadouts at vehicle terminals without losing nanites. E.g. a A2G nosegun ESF running coyotes should not be able to ambush an A2A nosegun ESF and win. An A2A nosegun ESF running lolpods should not be able to farm infantry and vehicles while at the same time being able to ambush an A2A nosegun ESF running coyotes/tomcats/extra afterburners and win.

    The fact that ESFs can and do the above would be the same as a ranger harasser ambushing a bali harasser and winning.
  7. adamts01

    I actually like that tank canons are less rock-paper-scissors. The HESH is too good, but I prefer that approach. I think the Skyguard should instead be more versatile, so it's not worthless with no air, and doesn't have to waste time driving back and forth to switch loadouts. Though that would be a great feature. I don't want to see a situation where winners of fights are automatically determined thanks to loadout. That's not the way infantry works, and infantry is far and away the most successful part of the game. Instead, I think vehicles should lean towards what works for infantry, such as medium-skill weapons for ESF, and a HESH being at a real disadvantage to AP, but not screwed, same as a close quarters fight between a shotgun and AR.

    I hate air's current state, but I just don't see it playing out like that. If we're talking competent pilots, maybe Banshee excluded, an AI nosegun with Coyotes won't beat a Rotary with Coyotes, and a Rotary with Hornets won't beat a Rotary with Coyotes. Any A2G ESF is at a real disadvantage against a pure A2A aircraft. The skill gap means that many pilots can win with a stock gun no matter what wing mounts they have, especially if we're talking Scythe Hornets, but that's not a weapon problem, that's a problem of no medium-skill nose guns compounded by awful mechanics/controls. Tomcats are cancer, and Coyotes shouldn't reload while the nosegun is selected, but other than that I think ESF weapons are incredibly balanced.
    • Up x 1
  8. Pikachu

    Strange to hear. Anyway I wouldn't like perpetual overcast. :L
  9. adamts01

    That's the way it is. You have to get close for things to render and to be useful, and you end up having a better line of site to more units than anything on the ground would have. The worst was the old Bio-Lab, before the opaque glass. Just flying by a Bio-Lab fight would halve framerates on my old PC. It was insane.

    I also agree, no overcast. It would worsen gameplay.
  10. Konrad Beezo

    Clouds would be great but the only major change that needs to happen is to limit the use of afterburn. Afterburners should not be able to be engaged till the plane is traveling at greater than 70% of it's top speed.
  11. Nogrim313


    im talking about adding clouds (not nessacarily a solid layer) in the same sort of way the level designers drop trees or rocks to block vision or obscure things. if clouds were added, they imho should be done in that way.
  12. adamts01

    That would kill anyone's ability to fight against greater numbers. I've got to say no.
  13. Pikachu

  14. strikearrow

    Well making all vehicles more versatile is a viable alternative to more specialized, but it needs to go one way or the other because as it stands some vehicles are just unbalanced particularly the ESF and harasser. Infantry does have specializations too, medic, infil, engy, LA, Max and HA all do different tasks that only they can do and an organized squad needs most of those classes to be effective.

    As for the ESF A2A v. A2G, I have seen it work that way - key being ambush.
  15. OldMaster80

    I have been suggesting that ESF should have never had the ability to hover. In exchange they could have better weapons imo. Only the Valkyrie should be able to hover.
    • Up x 1
  16. frozen north

    As has been mentioned before, removing hover would create a balance nightmare, as most air craft would now need to be re-balanced around the idea of being fully expendable. Additionally, what ever aircraft are allowed to retain hover would gain a massive advantage in air to air combat, as they could fly at a speed too slow for non VTOL aircraft, causing an attacker to quickly overshoot. Plus, it would wreck air to ground balance.
  17. FateJH

    This thread is discussing a complete overhaul here, not just incremental changes, so that would be par for the course in a way.
    It's not like our goal is something unrealistic like making everyone happy.
    • Up x 1
  18. strikearrow

    I agree. As my former posts indicate, I think that more specialization is better than more versatility. Make the ESF an A2A only platform (without hover), the Lib an A2G (against vehicles) platform (without hover) and the Valk an A2G infantry support platform. The gal can stay in its current state. The coding argument against removing hover for landing purposes is just trash. Implement auto-hover at the warpgate/airpads for landing and frankly ESFs and Libs do not need to land anywhere else.
  19. adamts01

    This is just bad all around. Should the Burster Max lose all direct damage to be more specialized against air? Should the HESH lose all direct damage to specialize it to infantry? Should infantry and light vehicles get a Walker resistance to specialize that weapon? No, those changes are completely opposite of what would let players have more fun. Another thing to consider is the terrible lack of vehicle players in this game. Outside of a zerg, such specialized units just wouldn't have anything to do, same as how the Ranger is worthless when air isn't around. It's completely common to currently ditch your ESF because there's just no one else flying for 30+ minutes. It's common to reach out cross faction to set up a dual just so you two have something to do in the air. What's your suggestion for libs then? be sitting ducks for ESF because that's all ESF can really kill? No way. All these super-specialized roles don't even happen with infantry where they have the diversity and numbers, too much specialization is bad for armor (Skyguard/Ranger), and with the least population of the entire game, it would further ruin air.
  20. strikearrow

    Change nanite costs and disposable vehicles is not a problem.