[Suggestion] ESF Tailgun

Well i see a few issues with this tough. (for one it would be brokenly op as fu**)


First off i always thought you didn't like the whole thing about esfs hovering around a base and raining death from above onto anyone unlucky enough to be out in the open.

This omnidirectional afterburner of yours basically would merge flight and hover mode into one.
(Or is there some step you didn't mentioned inbetween?)

Meaning esfs are no longer "vulnerable" in the time it takes them to switch into hovermode or out of it to escape.
This would make lolpodding even easier and remove the slightest chance of any g2a becoming a threat.

Serisously this lacks any downsides and is a straight up buff to the survivability of any groundpounder.
Given the esfs speed anything that can't instagib you would be completly incapable of becoming a threat.
(I am not saying the the current g2a doesn't have similar issues but this would be so much worse)


Then there is a2a combat and the other big issue your system has ...
Your ab allows for movement in all main directions without ANY mouse input.

It's a bit tough for me to explain why this is troubling to me but i ll give it a go.

One of the biggest hurdles when it comes to aiming with an esf (at least for me amd everybody i knew it was) is the fact that up or down mouse movements don't behave like sideway movements. (one moves your nose in a more direct fashion the other rolls your esf)

Your afterburner would completly negate this ... after all why bother with those pesky and hard to controll rolling movements when i just can burn sideways.
So if your afterburner handles the same way as the current ones do, but just allows for what you call omnidirectional burns you end up with by comparison extremly easy to controll aim adjustments.

Given a few hours of practise and this system would cut down the average time to kill in an a2a fight quite substantially.


One example we have right now for this is the fact why "jousting" usually ends with a fast trip to the warpgate.
If anyone currently rushes you in an esf you simply ab upwards and only have to adjust your aim slightly downward during the burn.

It probably would be the easier if you just try it for yourself (or anyone who is unsure what i mean) in the training room.

Pick a target ... roll to your side for a bit then realing try to get your aim back on point.
This more or less simulates how you currently have to fix your aim.

Then try just ab burning up while keeping your aim on target (which should end up sending you in a circle like movement above it)


You will hopefully instantly see how much more accurate you are this way.


And while i think you mean well and believe this would actually help mitigate he gap between skyknights and enthusiasts ... please keep in mind that afterburners and therefore any entirely afterburner based movement is
quite linear.

That means this is a system that people who have the time and patience to practise will master to the extreme and at least with the current noseguns this would end up wrecking anyone who hasn't hammered this into their muscle memory.

Worse even, this would cause fights against any "skyknight" to end even quicker ... and probably feel more crushing than right now.
(At least i don't mind losing in a long fight as much as just getting shot down in an instant, especially since the tool of choice here costs nanites)


So yeah i feel like this would be quite a deadly tool and probably would require a hell of a lot of tweaks for all esf based weapons ... which in turn means it's never going to happen.

Edit:

Also it would feel like flying a goddamn saucer ... and as i tried to explain to you before that's just no fun.

Oh gee, you really think that speed is the primary factor needed here?

Ok, we know that Hover fighting (HF) is good enough to use in combat, it's basically the only method of A2A combat available in the game. Let's compare HF to normal flight (NF).

HF has lower overall speeds, higher acceleration in different directions and higher overall maneuverability than NF.
So all we have to do to pull NF to similar levels of combat viability, is give it the same higher accelerations in different directions and higher overall maneuverability. Even if you lowered the speed, it would be enough.

But ofcourse, that kind of detail is lost on you isn't it?

Exactly, you say "But it can't currently, so it never can happen!", you have no vision whatsoever.

It will be an improvement as the reaction speed of the attacker will need to be faster and the skill to keep track of your opponent will need to be higher. If you fail, your opponent has a chance to turn the tables and get a bead on you.

I don't think I'm painting a clear enough picture. I've recently changed my thinking slightly due to the limited render ranges we're stuck with. I think afterburners should go away completely unless they can double render ranges. Speed isn't at all what I'm recommending changing. I'm proposing increasing inertia. If aircraft take longer to stop, turn, and go then players will have to start thinking about approaches and maneuvers instead of relying almost entirely on aiming with these ****** up controls we're stuck with. I'm not sure how much you understand about actual dogfighting but maneuvers have to be thought out and planned for, it really is a game of chess. You can't just follow on someone's tail if you want a shot, you have to turn to go where they're headed. And if you're directly behind another aircraft at high speed and turn slightly after they do, you'll end up very far on the outside of their circle. This is the basis of all good flight combat, and it's what PS2 is entirely lacking, not extra maneuverability, which ESF have plenty of already.

Same **** with a different flavor. You detest the prominance of hover fights as much as I do, but everything you're proposing will just add more twitchy movements to the equation, which is the opposite of what needs to happen. And you didn't seem to soak in the effect this would have on anti-air. I love your auto-cannon proposals, but the reason we have flak and lock-ons is the twitchy nature of aircraft, this would make the situation so much worse for ground. At least as it is you know an aircraft will only move up or forward at a quick pace, add other directions to it and we'll rely even more heavily on area effect and lock-on weapons.

Yes, I don't like that. And you know the solution to that? Good G2A weapons. That doesn't mean I want the aircraft or A2A combat to remain lopsided or broken. Additionally, since the status-quo is "Aircraft are supposed to counter aircraft", you can have a much better balance by opening up the air-game so that the average player can participate. That way if one side wins the A2A battle, you can be certain that new air-enemies will show up quickly to re-engage, rather than that the remaining aircraft can do A2G for an hour without any air-opposition ever showing.

No it wouldn't.
Going into hover mode or into normal flight would still be the same based on your speed and current acceleration. But the afterburn direction would simply be disconnected from the turbine direction and be based on the control direction. How is this hard to understand? I can tell you in a single sentence what I mean and still you don't understand the concept?

Yes it would. The solution: Actual working G2A weapons that aren't based on deterrence. Or as an alternative, make sure these lolpodders are re-engaged within 5 minutes. This can be accomplished by making the air-game just as accessible as the ground-game, where even the biggest noob can participate but skill still matters.

Ok, so you are focussing on ground-pounding, but you know my thoughts about G2A and how I want to improve it. Do you really think I want to buff aircraft in a vacuum? Without changes to other things?
I do the exact same with my improve tanks and infantry AV threads. When I propose a tank improvement, I assume that the infantry will also be improved to prevent them getting curbstomped.

I know perfectly what you mean, and it's a flaw in the aircraft control system.
You would only be able to afterburn sideways/do a tight turn with the A and D buttons, but not upwards/downwards as those are connected to the mouse, and if you did allow mouse-input then every tiny movement would be amplified with the afterburner, which isn't what you want.

So first off the game should offer the ability to use normal flight controls as offered by, you know, 90% of the other games with aircraft? Second off the ability to use numpad keys for movement would help. Taking the GTA settings here: numpad 8 pushes the nose down, numpad 5 pushes the nose up, numpad 4 turns left, numpad 6 turns right, A airrolls (or however you spell it) your aircraft left, D airrolls your aircraft right.
Then you have specific mouse buttons to aim and steer and use as input for the afterburner. You even have a separate buttons you could use for a sideways afterburn and a hairpin turn.

However, this works both ways. Not only will the attacker be able to use this, the defender will also be able to use this to get out of the enemy vision or crosshair and turn the tables. You know, as most aircraft games allow already. Again, this type of air-combat is already available in other games and it works without making the skillful crush those with less skill like the current PS2 A2A combat does. So any complaint like "but that skillful would only get better" isn't true.

As for the last part, it wouldn't allow for extremely easy to control aim adjustments. First of all the afterburn would increase the speed but wouldn't decrease your inertia, making you overshoot your opponent faster. Second of all if you press the afterburn button for a teeny tiny second it still takes a massive chunk of fuel. In fact, by quickly pressing the afterburn button 5 times in a row you can deplete your entire fuel supply faster than if you hold it and you would barely have gotten off your position. So using it for aim-adjustments would be a quick way to give your opponent all the advantages as he'll still be able to maneuver.

But this assumes that your opponent still uses current NF without any afterburn to enhance his own ability to stay out of your crosshair, or keep track of you. Using your own example: If the opponent would simply afterburn upwards he would move passed your aim reticule while you are still adjusting your aim. Alternatively the rushing player could simply use his afterburner for a strong brake, point his nose upwards and aim for you, which puts him in the superior hover-duel position as you still have to turn around to face him and you are looking down, forcing you to go out of hover mode. Or the rushing player could do a hairpin turn, which instantly can be used to slow down much better as momentum will make him fly backwards a little, and then still be in a superior hover-duel position.
And while the rusher has used a single afterburn, the attacked player that uses your tactic has just used two: One to go up and one to adjust his aim at an opponent who in all likelyhood will never be there with this system. Ofcourse the attacker now has many more options as well. Sidways, upwards, downwards, backwards, diagonal in different directions... This makes the air-combat far less predictable for both players, and also adds the ability for players to actually escape each other and to seemlessly switch between HF and NF. The intuitiveness makes this system far more easy to learn, and you get masters at different combat techniques, rather than the "one technique fits all" strategy we currently have.

What kind of crap reasoning is this?
Just look at the example I gave above. Lets say the rusher has only 3 options, but they are distinct options that put the rusher in a different position.
The attacked player doesn't know what the rusher is going to do, and has to react differently based on what the rusher does. However at the same time the rusher also has to react differently based on what the attacked player does, because if the attacked player afterburns sideways instead of upwards like in your example, the predetermined 3 options suddenly need a completely different execution to still be able to aim at the opponent. And that's just with 3 options, even though both players have 34 different directions they can afterburn to if he uses a combination of 1 to 2 buttons.

Also let's compare it to current air-combat!
Which directions can that hover-fighter afterburn in... 1 right? Upwards! So it's far more predictable. However, you can still turn your chassis, which creates an entirely different effect. Do it the right way and you can do the reverse maneuver by turning your chassis!
And now add that to the pile of options you have. It's not just the ability to afterburn into 34 "liniar" directions, you can turn your chassis while doing it for a completely different effect.

But that kind of logic is completely lost. Because it's all so "liniar" isn't it?

Yes, Yes and Yes.

This is exactly where everything falls apart. Other air combat games work because they require just as much strategy as skill at aiming with a silly mouse. Nothing against twitch reflex games, but they're not for me, and air combat in PS2 is nothing more than CoD in the sky, but with a much steeper learning curve. Your proposals will only make that worse. You gave some examples, but there's no way a player who's struggling now will be any better off with even more variables. Bottom line is you're keeping the air game all about twitch skills and not about piloting skills or strategy.

You're keeping the engagement in this little duel where the same players will dominate just like they always have. The only way to move air combat forward is to allow different strategies than this close range dance we're force fed. Inertia is the answer, it makes hover fighters commit to a hover and lets fast movers avoid a hover-fighting scenario. It's the only solution.

A player who's struggling now will be better with these changes. Because the learning curve goes down. You don't have to learn all there is to learn to be good. t's the penultimate system of easy to learn, hard to master, but without giving the higher-skilled player the power to mercilessly beat anyone anywhere. Yes a higher skilled player will be better, but he won't win fights by default with it.

It's no different than the current skill-curve in infantry combat. Even the pro players often rely on only two or three skills, such as dodging, trigger discipline and aiming for the head/neck region, while having lower skill or even being completely inept at things like situational awareness and flanking.
And that's what I'm offering: A learning curve where players have so much to learn and do, even most pro players will never be able to use the full extent. At the same time there will be more strategies available, such as the currently unavailable skill of escaping your enemy. All in a neat package that's easy to learn. Just compare it to the current system: The afterburn direction is contextually based on the speed of the aircraft which influences the current direction of your turbines and through that the direction you afterburn in, and in case of the Scythe this isn't even readily visible! Now my system: forwards and afterburn goes forwards, space and afterburn goes up? A player who's seen this will immediately experiment and realize that the button(s) you press give you a direction, and will immediately have much much more control over the aircraft from that point on.

No they won't. This is like saying "Well if the skill levels stay the same, then a Skyknight will be able to dominate just as much in a vehicle battle". But that's not true. Even if the skill of the Skyknight is still just as much higher, he won't be able to dominate by default.

i don´t see how propper physics would change that ..

It's a cornerstone for every good air combat game. There are two options then a slider between them. Let movement be instant and let combat rely almost entirely on twitch aiming (which is close to what PS2 is), or simulator mode where aiming is also important, but it takes a back seat to flying, where getting in to position to take a shot is what takes the most skill, and much more thought than twitch mode. The ability to stop, go, and turn on a dime is what rules out any traditional maneuvers. To be clear, I don't think PS2 should go full simulator, I think a place right in the middle would fix a ton of the problems and appeal to the most players, think arcade mode in War Thunder, but with reverse maneuvers and hover ability. I keep using the same example of a head to head joust because it's wraps up about every problem in a single example. 2 ESF fine themselves in a head to head situation, one wants to duel and the other wants to escape.

Current system: The one who wants to escape will blast by at full speed and try to get away. The one who wants to duel will instantly stop, turn around in a second, and instantly boost to full speed and be right on the tail for an easy kill. This is why Demigan's directional afterburners will compound the problem, for every evasive maneuver the fleeing aircraft gains, the attacker gains just as much agility to pursue his target. And within a certain range, you're still stuck in a duel, one with many more variables that requires even better aim.

Proposed system with proper physics: The attacker will take longer to slow down, longer to turn, and longer to accelerate, by then the other ESF is long gone. So the attacker has to play it smarter, and rely just as much on strategy and piloting ability as aiming ability. He should gain altitude as the target approaches, then roll and dive to quickly build enough speed to get on the tail of the fleeing aircraft. The other HUGE point that no one seems to care about is that with slower aircraft reaction speed, we could finally get rid of lock-on and area effect flak, and average skill AA could rely on direct hit ballistics, which I think should be the primary type of weapon in a competitive shooter.

liberators already act like that being slow in turning, stoping and accelerating .. in short you want esf flight to be even harder and less accessible to use ..

... sorry no .. i don´t want that ..

what you seem to ignore is that esf´s arent just jetfighters .. they are VTOL´s similar to choppers and harriers
even then turning with esf´s isn´t exactly easy ( especialy without propper yaw on mouse) unless you stop midair and even still doing that you give your chaser plenty of time to critacally dmg you ..

you mean HAS TO .. again i disagree ...

Flying has always been the easy part with ESFs, hitting targets who know how to move is what takes hundreds of flight hours to be somewhat mediocre. I 100% agree that we should be able to yaw with the mouse, and maybe that would be enough to open up the air game, but I still think less twitchy aircraft would let beginners land more hits, and let people who'll never be great pilots use another strategy besides dueling or forming a gank squad.

I do get your argument about AA, but more realistic handling wouldn't change lock-on gameplay much. Flak would have to be toned down a tad, as I think it's pretty good where it's at. It would just open the door for more direct hit type weapons that average players could do well with. Right now the only direct hit weapon that can get reliable kills is an AP tank, and that's just not suitable.

As for ESF handling more like Libs, that's actually pretty accurate as to what I'm thinking. Lib combat is probably the best out there for air to air (as long as you're not trolling with a Dalton from render range), G2A can land hits with direct hit weapons on them, and I think the vehicle is more or less balanced. I love watching great Lib pilots, they have to think well ahead of any action, and half the battle is maneuvering to get a good shot. It's infinitely better than ESF vs ESF crap.

i honestly doubt the physicschange will be as helpfull as you think .. libs have armor over esf to tank dmg for their slugishness in flight and lack of turbo .. esf´s at the moment are glasscannons and making manouvering slower may rather cause escapees to be hit more than before aswell rather than gaining a better chance of escaping ..
as for more usefull non lock a2g .. i find the masamune to be managable and i think default launchers while in ads should gain general projectilespeed and lock on´s when not in ads a dmg increase against air ..

It would be game changing for sure, but I think the air game desperately needs to be reworked. If aircraft were a little more sluggish and direct hit AA was an effective option for average players then I think you'd start seeing much better fights between ground and air. Right now it's nothing but spawnroom Maxes and lock-on squads. Nothing but cheesy tactics from the ground because that's all that works, it's a very sad relationship. As for air/air, I just want to see more options besides these ******** little duels we have without resorting to gank squads. Realistic flight maneuvers were developed do deal with realistic limitations of aircraft movement. I don't want to eliminate hover fighting, it's very unique and cool, I just don't think it should be either that or ganking. But as long as aircraft are as twitchy and mobile as they are, it's going to be close range control/space fighting with no realistic option to do any real flying.

The obvious issue, as you said, is balancing the **** things. Let's take a look:

1. Position-Locked Tailgun
This is incredibly situational, and almost always will be useless. You would need to somehow move your craft, without seeing what's in front of you, while praying that the gun chasing you doesn't move.
2. Turret-Based Tailgun
Would the ESF fall to the ground? You're honestly better off 1-manning a lib or valk.
3. Automatic Tailgun
My main issue with this is that it would be completely skill-less. You don't need to aim. You just need to dodge enemy fire until they go down.
4. Gunner Tailgun
This basically just turns the ESF into a more agile lib or valk. You could honestly just create a new 2-person CAS (Close Air Support) heavy fighter.

Also, did it occur to you that the very players that you are trying to compete with will have their own rear guns?

-Xerox1231(nc)