The Dervish Heavy Fighter

Discussion in 'Official News Feedback' started by Mithril, Jun 14, 2021.

  1. Blue_Lion

    The mini-missiles where stated as lock on so I do not think they will be easily dodge able.

    It will likely have some of the standard options. Self repair, ejection seats, improve HP/armor.

    ISR/Sensor darts would not likely help air to air when it will likely have default air radar. Neither would the transform to ground walking robot.

    This aircraft is stated to fill a specific unfilled roll. Intended to be pure anti-air only aircraft. So I see its weapons being bad against ground targets. The class air superiority indicates this aircraft will be key to dominating the air.
  2. VV4LL3

    1. The mini missiles I mention are the horrid Javelin missiles. Lock on, short range, SLOW, Minimal Damage, with SLOW Reload. I really hope THOSE aren't the model of the missiles cited.

    2. ISR/Sensor Darts, Walking/ Biped mode are EXAMPLES of creative and diverse game dynamic play that would change how Air Support/ Defense works. The actual role that this aircraft takes is Air Defense -- much like the other themes of the NSO, e.g. the Defector (Defensive MAX).

    3. Air superiority is old. trite. cliche. Yawn. NSO was a perfect opportunity to mix into the game something new to literally change how combat is conducted vice platform zerg.
    a. biped mode is unique and diversifies combat and rushes. Currently a rush is loaded with x% mix up of various armor to counter other zerg rushes with Y% of armor. Biped mode would allow those rushes to be more flexible, agile, and give those NSO users a high demand. As there really isn't ANY incentive to play the losing team with baseline stuff. Nothing on NSO is play-type defining. What, a MAX that dies easy, runs slow, bugged, hurts themselves, a grenade that takes 3.5 seconds to hit a target (do you know how far you can move in 3.5 secs?)...

    b. ISR/Dart mode, EMP missiles, R2D2 AI unit makes sense and follows the lore -- and gives casual solo players something unique to bring to the game. Which leads into my primary point of 3. Two seats to fill a role that doesn't need filling isn't really interesting -- it's predictable and boring.

    Overall NSO is lackluster but had the promise of potential -- this Air Craft demo was far from unique without going further into the other features available that OTHER factions do not already have, or are vastly superior with.
  3. LiveFreeNC

    I think this is a cool design and think they should stick with the AvA brawler type of fighter they seem to be going for. That said, it's strange to see a two seater for a faction that is mainly for solo players. Perhaps this means a shift from NSO is a soloist faction to NSO is a team support faction. I typically run with guys who are constantly pulling harasser, so it might be fun to see if this thing plays like it.

    If I'm going to be playing with friends on NSO, will I need to have an active membership or can we group up in sanctuary to make sure we're together? If this will have a gunner seat, I want one of my friends to gun for me.

    I don't know that an AI top gun would be healthy for the game, unless there are some big downsides as compared to having a human gunner. At the end of the day, soloist or not, this is a game based around teams fighting together.
  4. Blue_Lion

    Because the faction is about helping the team that needs it that makes them team players, not solo. People may use them as solo but it is clear they are updating them to high light team play.
  5. Tr34

    I'm glad it doesn't add to A2G mess. Now it's time to nerf other ESF A2G capabilities as well.
    • Up x 1
  6. Batsteg

    How do we enable the cloak on this phantasm?
  7. RudyTheNinja

    This is going to be pretty big for bastion fights
    Durable and dangerous is what noobs/lower pop factions need when it comes to dealing with the air
  8. Erosion139

    Incredible sound design, and the fighter certainly fills a void I never knew existed.
  9. VV4LL3

    I agree, NSO is a support/ team enabler in theory. Thus the only defensive MAX. By following suit with that tenet, it would make sense to demo something more game changing than just another ESF -- but wait... there's two seats! Same thing. No new features.
  10. Demigan

    I have to note a big hole in the design process here.

    Large aircraft like Galaxies are easier to hit than small, fast and nime aircraft. To compensate you have to limit the damage potential against large aircraft unless you design specific weapons for them. An example would be slow projectiles so the large aircraft have a chance to either dodge the shots or retaliate against the smaller aircraft.

    Instead the newly designed weapons against large aircraft are lock-ons. Even easier weapons than noseguns and the like. I know where it comes from, you changed ESF lock-ons to work best against large aircraft, and I know that it gives you a lot of control over the damage potential. But it's not an interesting weapon, it's not a rewarding tool and worse as topgunner you can't even do anything other than point and click to begin with! For an aircraft designed against the least used vehicle group in the game this is just another needless limitation.

    Change these designs. Instead of lock-ons make them fire slow moving rockets. You can then also reward the user for landing a hit on all aircraft types regardless of their size.

    Most weapons are much less useful if they can only deal with a single unit type. The Dervish would be great in a light gunship role against ground targets. It would be fun turning circles around opponents while the gunner fires at them, or popping up over a ridge and firing from the front guns in a strafing attack.
    I am assuming we get some skillful G2A weapons to make this a more entertaining and fun experience for ground troops as well. Give slightly modified ESF A2A noseguns to the Lightning, add new laser-guided missiles with a small flak detonation range, add deployables abilities that make players harder to spot and engage from afar etc.
  11. Blue_Lion

    Sorry I am confused only the DV-LAT Pixie was said to be a lock on.

    The standard is basically a fancy rapid fire gun with damage at range.
    DV-21 Lotus is a chain gun for killing ESF at close range.

    The X weapons do seam to be designed for big targets at long range. (energy weapons so I think they may not have bullet drop) Given how ESF move around I do not see them as being good for taking them out. Carefully aimed is kind of a given that it is not a lock on.
  12. Demigan

    And the DV-LAT was designed against larger aircraft. Do you expect the other weapons to outdamage a weapon designed for it? But the DV-LAT is also a lock-on, which needs it's damage limited just like all low-skill/effort weapons in the game.

    The X weapons have promise, but my problem was specifically with designing a lock-on for the largest aircraft. Worse is that the X-weapons would be absolutely wonderful as skillful G2A weapons available to everyone. Naturally they instead use it on aircraft alone and to sell the newest shiny they focus on.
  13. VV4LL3

    I feel like people are viewing these weapons as something "new" -- but they're not. They're just repolished/ renamed things that already exist in the game. I don't see any reason to be excited until new or more information is released that actually show something unique. Doesn't change gameplay at all. Just means same dynamics with different looking "schtuff."

    What the weapons are called does not mean as much as what's the "value added," which is lacking without more information.
  14. Blue_Lion

    The X weapons do seam to be the ones designed for high damage. So I would expect them to be best against large aircraft. (I also would expect damage to be crap against ground targets, based on the focus.)

    The Pixie, could be their simply because every fighter needs a lock on. While it does say heavy armor aircraft it was paired with the anti esf. So I am hoping it is going to be geared more towards use against them at close range.

    I know my outfit uses platoon lock on runs to take out bastion hard points. Fastest way to get rid off the things. but with heavy esf support the bastion can be defended.
  15. Demigan

    And there is where the design flaw is. What use is the lock-on version if the X versions deal more damage? It's not like these guns are going to be dodgeable very easily for Libs and Gals, so there doesn't seem a lot of reason to pick it.

    Also your expectation will likely not come true. Even the Rocketpods, designed against infantry, deal good damage against vehicles. I suspect that the X weapons will be more useful against the ground than they are telling us. This wouldn't be too big a problem if we had proper G2A weapons to fend them off, unfortunately we don't.

    It says "air superiority fighter" on the tin of the Dervish. That means it tries to destroy everything in the air. The real-life definition would also deal with G2A weapons and radar installations, fortunately the devs seem to not know about this.

    Fire-and-forget Lock-ons are a dead-end idea in this game. We should replace every single one with different weapons. For example change lock-ons to maintain-lock versions, but allow the missiles to be fired without a lock and allow players to acquire the lock afterwards or even switch targets. Then shorten the lock-on time and decrease the lock-on angle. That way you can "dodge" the lock and make the missile miss, but lock-on users don't have to wait for a lock and can lock faster.
    Another alternative is laser-guidance paired with small flak detonation ranges or coyote-style missile tracking once it get's close. It is still a lower skill weapon to use but far from the point&click crap that current lock-ons represent.

    Just because there are uses does not mean the weapon has a place in the game. You would still be able to do that with altered lock-on options if you so wish, but with a somewhat higher DPS and with a bit more skill required.
    • Up x 1
  16. VV4LL3

    Before I start, I want you to imagine a bomb being dropped, whistling its way to an epiphany in your brain that upon detonation supports what some of us are stating about the Dervish.

    Joint Pub 3-1 defines "Air Superiority as "That degree of dominance in the air battle by one force that permits the conduct of its operations at a given time and place without prohibitive interference from air and missile threats." (JP 3-01, 2016)

    When holistically viewing all Empire Specific Fighters (ESF's), one must critically think about this definition if whether any actually meet those terms. Are these platforms able to conduct operations without interference from G2A or A2A threats? Certainly not. Let's delve further though to better understand the science of what measurable traits aid in determining how a Ground/Air threat may be mitigated -- Capabilities and Parameters (C&P).

    Characteristics of an Air Superiority fighter as having (1) the aircraft is designed for the air-to-air role, (2) the aircraft has the first launch opportunity, and (3) the aircraft is flown by singularly trained air-to-air pilots. Easily stated, the Air Superiority aircraft must surpass all other aircraft in all key marks by well gained margins. (DTIC, 1999) For this guide, we will be reviewing only role and intercept/interdiction metrics (1 & 2), as training of the pilot and techniques, tactics, and procedures (TTPs) (3) are not empire specific in Planetside 2 (PS2)

    In the PS2 fictional-digital universe, only speed and maneuverability are classic traits that apply (A.1,4). This is validated through the cert system as the only characteristics upgradeable aside from durability, a characteristic of a Close Air Support (CAS) platform. Range and altitude are not applicable in this environment due to all aircraft having the same service ceiling and range (A.2,3).

    Early Army Air Corp, the predecessor to the United States Air Force, made benchmarks that are still in use today’s air forces. (AAC Scientific Advisory Board, 1938)

    Each platform must be evaluated for (A) aerodynamic performance, (B) size, and (C) visibility, (D) capability

    (A.1) aircraft speed, (A.2) altitude, (A.3) range, and (A.4) maneuverability

    (A.1) Aircraft Speed: Speed is required for pursuit or interdiction to engage.
    a. Range at least as great as that of a bomber (Not applicable to PS2)
    b. Service ceiling as high preferably higher than, those of a bomber (Not applicable to PS2)
    c. Top speed at least 25% greater than that of (the fastest) bomber
    d. Higher rate of climb.

    (A.4) Aircraft Maneuverability: The rate of movement (Velocity) versus the distance required to complete an action.
    a. Turn Radius greater than the nearest competitor
    b. Turn Rate greater than the nearest competitor
    c. Accelerate/Decelerate greater than the nearest competitor

    B: SIZE
    (B.1) aircraft visual signature (B.2) aircraft physical attack surface, (B.3) aircraft radar, thermal, acoustic signature

    (B.1) aircraft visual signature: Visual detection for dogfights saturates the PS2 air domain, second only to Beyond-Visual Range (BVR): radar detection, and audio tertiary. Being able to evade the human-eye as an evasive measure through camouflage and minimal visual silhouette signatures helps prevent premature intercept or attack. The design and shape of recognizable structures assist the attacker in determining the platform vector and gage their next maneuver for attack or evade. Being able to identify whether an aircraft is approaching versus departing, dive versus climb, banking port vs starboard is extremely critical as both a defensive and offensive measure.

    a. Size of aircraft and view aspect has a low range of detection and identification
    b. Contrast to background recognition rates lower than competitor
    c. Environmental factors conceal and allow a high degree of masking (terrain and weather)
    d. Unique markings or camouflage have low rate of identification than peers

    (B.2) aircraft physical attack surface: There are several different weapon systems that may be categorized as either "smart" or "dumb." Smart weapons may perform terminal guidance with onboard processing aided by a multitude of internal and external detection, however; "dumb" weapons such as unguided bombs, unguided rockets, and guns require manual initial targeting from the pilot or weapons' officer. The size of the platform is the mitigation to being struck--smaller airframes mean less target area to be struck by ballistics.

    a. Front/rear view attack surface vs nominal anti-air weapon system and conditions effective rate
    b. Side view attack surface vs nominal anti-air weapon system and conditions effective rate
    c. Top/Bottom view attack surface vs nominal anti-air weapon system and conditions effective rate
    d. Isometric/ 3-quarters view attack surface vs nominal anti-air weapon system and conditions effective rate

    (B.3) Aircraft radar, thermal, acoustic signature: Shape, design, and material are used to minimize the Radar Cross Section (RCS), Thermal, and Acoustic signatures, among others. Detection through other means remains as tertiary tenet of how size affects air superiority.

    a. Is the baseline aircraft location, heading, and speed determined after that of peers
    b. Is the delta detect vs maneuver factor (quantitated) less than an incident of 1
    c. Is the aircraft’s signature distinguishable from peer or like platforms
    d. Is the min detection range time requirement greater than the maximum targeting solution and anti-air weapon effective range

    Contrary to formerly established themes of characteristics, visibility actually addresses how a pilot/operator is able to view/detect from within the aircraft itself. Later in fighter aircraft evolution, this category also included the merging of battlespace awareness technologies and capabilities for the pilot to navigate, discern, and decide.

    a. viewable battlespace from the cockpit as % (see uniform view of a spheroid)
    b. detectable (sensor fusion) battlespace from the cockpit as % (see uniform view of a spheroid)

    Capability beyond metrics is more ambiguous, however force multiplying technologies are categorized and measured here based on efficacy. We will highlight a few capabilities that are paramount to an Air Superiority fighter and one’s ability to implement and leverage within the PS2 environment.

    a. Active Countermeasure efficacy in terms of system countered vs successful evasion.
    b. Passive Countermeasure efficacy in terms of system countered vs successful evasion.

    As the bomb screams to impact, I implore this forum to evaluate the Dervish against all other ESF, light, and heavy aircraft to determine if its role as an air seniority aircraft is being met, or even if the role is required.

    Critically think about the information presented and ask yourself some of the following:
    Does the Dervish have a baseline cruise speed at least 25% faster than the fastest upgraded bomber?
    Does the Dervish have a baseline climb rate higher than an upgraded near-peer competitor ESF?
    Does the Dervish turn radius exceed that of the nearest competitor?
    Does the Dervish turn rate exceed that of the nearest competitor?
    Can the Dervish baseline out accelerate/decelerate the nearest competitor?

    I suspect some, if not all, of the categories listed above the Dervish has little to no advantage over, nor delineates even as an equal. When making statements such as “unfilled role, gap filler, air superiority” etc… ask if the role requires the characteristics above in the order of battle, and if this proposed platform is a viable solution. Without further information, I can say with professional certainty that the answer is “no,” however I ask you make an independent, objective assertion with the information provided.
  17. Moai Jones

    Ohhh dat Hud tho! clean mmmm
    I'm not a very good pilot, especially ESF's, and will probably not be too involved with flying them myself (cos fly = boom with me, may equip one out for me to gun tho) but we get flying saucers haha. :)

    Edit spellings
    • Up x 2
  18. Googly_Laser

    The overall concept doesn't answer my very specific questions at all
  19. Blue_Lion

    It said role and how they saw it being implemented. That was your first question.
  20. MichaelS

    Looks like the child of the new fighter crusader industries had a child with a constellation (SC) or a good old Cylon fighter.

    it’s a TR harasser for NSO
    • Up x 1