The Way Aircraft Should Be...

I won't go into joystick support because the flight model is unrealistic, or whether or not air or ground is overpowered. I simply believe that a bit of realism would fix the problem.

In the real world with real logic and real physics things would not work as they do in PS2 (as we all know). I think this is what frustrates both pilots and AA defensive players with the current model.

FYI, I play pilot or AA depending on the need during a battle, and am also a PS1 vet. I play flight simulators, and I also like playing the AA max and Skyguard in PS2. I do not have an opinion either way on the imbalance issue as I see the air game as lacking depth by design.

Problems/solutions that would benefit both sides

1. Ground troops believe that air = easy kills so...
   • Flak needs more proximity detonation radius and higher damage. When flak was used during WWII, the rounds were often 4 or 5 inch diameter exploding shells. These shells would rip a fuselage damaging the plane and/or killing the occupants even when the shell exploded several meters from the target. They are not direct damage weapons, but the feeling of the flak in PS2 is that it doesn't explode unless it strikes the target, and I do not believe I've hit more than a single aircraft with a single flak round. It feels more like 50 Cal HE rounds.
   • Lock-on weapons need 2x higher damage or double the reload speed. SAM type weapons are common in arsenals today, and devastating to aircraft. Most aircraft cannot survive a single volley from a SAM launcher, let alone 10 TR firing guided warheads are reasonably 300m.
   • Aircraft have too great an ability to escape while damaged. The speed and maneuverability of the aircraft should be impaired after taking more than half damage. I do not like the "your on fire" concept idea where your vehicle keeps taking damage on its own. It was a stop gap for complainers that did not seem to work.
     Slow the aircraft proportionally to it's current damage below 50% which will make escape harder.
   • Aircraft should always fear any AA weapons. At this point there is little for them to worry about.
   • More trees would provide better cover for infantry, and more hidden threats to aircraft. This doesn't seem to me like a very difficult change to make.
2. Pilots want to kill the ground troops/vehicles
   • Rocket pods should not be nerfed any further, and as a matter of fact the original primary explosion radius could be reinstated. An aircraft should be able to take out ground vehicles and troops given the AA cover is minimal.
   • A target lead reticle would be a good addition to the aircraft, as well as one of my preferred solutions. Provide the ability to lock a target for this effect. This is the future, and radar ranging gun sights have been around for a very long time at this point (F86 Sabre I believe?)
   • Reduce the acquisition timer for aircraft. I would recommend cutting it in half. If the AA does more damage and is more of a deterent, there will be no more aircraft then there are right now, and the pilots who are destroyed by a frieldly aircraft because there's a newb behind the wheel aren't waiting 12 more minutes to get back to what they were doing.
   • HUD needs better information on status regarding direction of a locked guided missile, distance to target under reticle, etc.
   • A2G guided missiles should be available for aircraft. Anti-armor missiles would be fun and effective, but also dangerous to the pilot who has to hold a straight trajectory to obtain lock.
   • The rudder on the ESFs is sluggish and should be powerful enough to cause a stall. In the hands of a decent pilot, the aircraft should respond quicker which would equal better surviveability against guided missiles.
     I'm not sure why the strafe was replaced by a rudder in design. The Scythe doesn't even have a tail, so this makes no real sense to me.
3. SAM and A2A missiles
   • First of all, no offense devs, but the countermeasures for aircraft are a joke. Chaffs for radar and flares for heat seeking are a realistic and understandable method of evading a guided missile, but a flare that immunes you to lock-ons for 5 seconds is a ridiculous countermeasure. No such thing. I sure would like to know the science behind a device that keeps a guided weapon from obtaining lock for 5 seconds every 40 seconds...
   • True Countermeasures Suggestion
     • A plane should be able to carry a load of countermeasures. Make it 10 or 15 or whatever floats your boat, but once depleted they should have to be reloaded just like ammunition
     • These countermeasures should cost air resources just like grenades and med packs do for infantry. If you're out of resources, you're out of countermeasures. Sucks to be you if there's a lot of SAM infantry around.
     • Flying nap of the earth allows a good pilot to evade a missile (which it does most of the time), so there's still skill involved with evasion. You can't expect to just move in slowly and hover to get kills. A single sparrow will send an F15 to the junk yard.
     • Countermeasure should have a potential failure where the missile can reacquire, or if 10 missiles are locked on, then multiple countermeasures will have to be deployed.
   • Why do guided missiles take a trajectory that is always chasing an aircraft? The simple answer: Because it looks cooler having the missile chasing the aircraft. Missiles should work on the principal that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line.
   • Extend A2A missile lock-on range. This should be equal or greater than any SAM. A good mix of A2A and A2G aircraft should be present for offense and defense.
   • Missiles should fly at almost twice the max speed of an aircraft and have the possibility to overshoot causing loss of lock.
     Between 75-100% or max lock-on range, an ESF with a decent pilot should have enough time to potentially evade the impact. At less than 50% lock-on range, the target should be hit unless the pilot is lucky or exceptional, or if countermeasures are used.
   • AA MAX loadouts should be mini mobile SAM launchers, not WWII flak ancient-tech garbage. MAXs should fire salvos of guided missiles, but have low damage per missile. A single volley from a MAX suit should be able to kill a slow moving ESF without countermeasures if the aircraft is at less than 50% lock-on range.

I know many would rather complain about everything they aren't using being overpowered, but for every action, there's an opposite and equal reaction. I for one would not like to see the pendulum continue to swing between the simple aspects of A2G rockets vs AA weapons. I believe it's a bit more complicated than that if you truly want to have all the combat aspects this game is designed for.

lots of neat insight in there.

I cannot agree with all of them, but i agree with some points.

The idea that a plane carry 10 to 15 flares, in addition to costing resources, which it completely should, it should also have a reload cooldown, or else pilots will simply fly to their ground targets, unload their rocketpod salvos while spamming flares, rinse and repeat until out of flares then simply go restock.

Ah another reality thread.

Can we have our aircraft drop nukes while we are at it? I mean, it is real after all.

How do you feel about removing the MAX AA arm from stock MAX, and instead giving a disposable 1-shot SAM missile (same damage as current G2A) as an optional weapon to HA (lets say 100 pistol resources)?

The reason I bring this up is that I feel that a one-arm MAX AA is completely ineffective and a waste of time unless there is a second burster and you focus-fire and communicate (which already disqualifies 90% of all engagements i was in).

The HA launcher would give more AA prevalence at lower levels. i.e. proper entry-level AA.
Higher lvl players that do dedicated AA would want to cert into AA MAX long term since they would want their 100 resources for other things like mines, medpacks and/or C4.
This would need to come with a price drop in the MAX AA arms or be sold as a bundle.

Removing the MAX burster from the stock and replacing it with some type of guided missile would be fine with me.

When you say disposable, what do you mean by that? Having to use resources to buy a new launcher after each shot or what?

I like the bundle idea. They could really work with that. Give the MAX drivers something to load them out that isn't so random.

I also think the HA stock launcher is a complete piece of junk. Bullet drop on a rocket? Seriously? I thought ForgeLight was a "physics" engine. The rocket engine is designed to propel the warhead to oppose gravity. Those things fire like a potato gun. I think the Decimator style dumbfire launcher should be in ALL starter HA arsenals because I want people shooting at me and actually having a chance to hit if I don't move.

HEY! I think you just came up with the replacement for the Orbital Strike! At least this way the nuke would have a chance to miss.

good post

Yes by disposable i mean you would need to expend resources.

MAX AA costs already what, 90 infantry resources and often does nothing or very little until its obliterated.
With every HA in the game being able to fire and forget an AA missile, there would need to be a penalty to reduce missile spam against planes.
It would essentially give an effective AA method to every soldier on the battlefield that doesn't stop the push.
The problem with single MAX AA is that you tie up your forces with spawning AA and then needing them to be supplied by engineers.
Essentially 3 people that are needed to properly deter an ESF (at best) with stock weaponry.

I feel it would be balanced.
ESFs already have flares so missile spam shouldn't hit them too bad.
Besides the AA missiles do little damage and you need several impacts.
Not to mention the psychological effect of the big "LOCK" sign flashing.

If the ESF wants the AA gone (or deterred), they need to deny resources or tie the infantry up in such a way that they can't resupply (cut off AMS and infantry stations).

So in essence we could "fix" two problems with that. Give base defense the extra oomph against air that is sorely needed (because turrets are rotatable coffins) while attacking forces could still utilize nearly risk-free air-support (raids) but only with a proper ground strategy.

At least it sounds good on paper.

ESFs need to be motivated to run two anti-ground weapons.

Rocket pods being strong at killing everything is a bad idea.
They need to suck at killing infantry, but be strong against armor.

To kill infantry easily, ESF pilots need to want to use their empire specific primary weaponry(Light PPA, Banshee, Air hammer).
Of course, with the Air Hammer receiving a huge buff against infantry, with a mild nerf against all vehicles but the flash.

ESFs should be inherently weak against ground because it is not their role. As a result, they should be forced to make extreme sacrifices to gain full ground coverage.

I've always wondered why damaged aircraft don't fly much slower in the first place. If a damaged tank slows down almost to a crawl (when it's on fire, specifically), why the hell can aircraft maintain high speeds even when they're about to explode? It doesn't make much sense to me.

Planes on fire actually start losing altitude.

Ah, I didn't know that. I hold the Spacebar down most of the time I'm flying to get the extra speed so I've never noticed.

Wait... are we still talking about this realism thing or what?
With OP's suggestion you get a TTK of Ground vs Air and the other way around like Infantrie vs Infantrie. It won't work in mass battles! It's a game and not reality. Play Arma if you want realism. And yes i play that too, but this is not Arma nor is it suited to become one. If you give Ground free G2A launchers in form of maxes pilots are spammed with them. Any nonskilled pilot won't stand a chance to live longer then a few seconds. They already have a hard time learning the ropes with their lousy gun they get at the start.

These suggestions are completely bad for gameplay.
Slowing down to proportional to hull... if somebody damages you in A2A you have no chance at all to escape or put up a good fight. It's not more "realistic" either.

I wonder if I should even respond to this crap.

Did you at all read what you quoted?

I would see no problem with aircraft that can drop bombs. I do see a problem with aircraft that drop 300 nukes without reloading. I don't see nukes that are inexpensive. Nukes would have to be super expensive to get though due to their power. At best I could see a vehicle (not a mosquito) having 3 tactical nukes. One for each wing, and one under. Gotta remember anything less than a direct hit would do very little to armor. Heavy's infantry would survive non-direct blast range. Walls would need to stop it in full which currently is a major issue with all explosive weapons.

Points I disagree with: Aircraft being slower based on damage, AA max change, lock on reload speed.

Points I agree with: SAM damage increase, AA cannons actually being AA cannons, AA countermeasures being true counters instead of free unable to be targeted toys, AA countermeasures having a resource cost.

Apparently you do not know the meaning of the word nuke.

I do, I just know that destroying buildings would be anti-productive here. Zephyr is similar to what a nuke is. BuzzCutPsycho actually knows more than either of us:

http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php?threads/problems-with-planetside-2-as-i-see-them.73820/

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Oh man, that killed me.

That John... and his plagiarism, they should hire him to compile problems talked about since beta @ the boards.