[Suggestion] Use weather as an excuse to let people play without aircraft

the only whiny ******* in the thread seem to be the oh poor me I got killed by air folks

honestly, if all you little babies just up and quit, the game would be much better for it..so do us a favor

Theres multiple threads going with the same theme so I throw my last post at ya.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This is the second time that I've had to point out to you that this thread is not about removing air, right?"
By making another map inside of PS2 without the ability to fly would in fact be removing the aircraft on that map.

"We'll never find out, as pilots like you will kick up a stink the moment people try to leave air behind."
Correct. You willingly joined the game knowing there where aircraft in it. Play accordingly. But its easier to whine and hope for a game mechanic change then to grab some AA or god forbid grab an esf.

"But I'm sure in your mind balance can be achieved without trial and error, I'm sure you've calculated what every stat for every weapon should be to achieve balance."
Balance is not completely removing 1 side of the equation.

"Unfortunately, the rest of us mere mortal..."
I believe you are the loud minority

"Adding an air-free continent would keep the pilots able to play their game as they currently do and provide a secondary set of data minus air."
It would spit the population even further, reducing large battles. And balance, as stated above, is not removing 1 side of the equation.

Ultimately, you joined a FPS with multiple dimensions in it. And instead of trying to learn about them and there counters, you ( OP ) wants them removed. (call it another map whatever...) we already have games were infantry can play without air. Here they cant, and god willing they wont.

Thats it in a nut shell.
Dont like aircraft, dont want them here, go play a different game.

So, since you're the one getting all uppity about logical fallacies and bad arguments. First of all you have zero, absolutely zero, knowledge about the motivations of other people, and their opinions. You keep using "You're just afraid of loosing your kd ratio..." as a rebuttal to peoples arguments, instead of actually trying to deal with the... you know... arguments.

You then whine about ad hominem attacks, while you in your following post go on with attacking peoples motivation, integrity and honesty. And yes, saying someone is "just afraid of..." is both accusing them of lying through implicitly accusing them of making up arguments. If you want to use appeals to emotion, dirty debate tactics and so on and so forth, you should really come down from your high horse where you trot around accusing others of doing what you yourself is doing. And start dealing with peoples actual arguments.

Also stop arguing from authority, yes, we have all seen that you claim to be a game developer, congrats. This has absolutely zero bearing of the validity of any given argument or idea, they should be judged on their own merits, not on the merits of their proponent(s).

A nice summation of why people like me (please, go look up my pathetic kd ratio, my amount of headshots etc. Treehuggerish is my character in Miller) feels this is a really bad idea is.

1: It would inevitably lead to people demanding no medic zones, no tank zones, no sniper zones etc. This speaks to the larger point that Planetside 2 is a combined arms game. Splitting it up into an inf. game, an air game etc. removes the combined arms aspect of the game. You are obviously right that in theory people could still just go to the "all in" continent. But do you honestly believe that it wouldn't take away from the total experience on the "all in" continent if all the air lovers went to the air continent, tank lovers went to the tank continent etc?

2: It fundamentally changes the game, and I, like others I assume, really love that we finally have a huge combined arms game.

3: There are better solutions that integrate much better into the game as it, as I see it, was meant to be; a combined arms game. There has been proposed both random freak weather which air-haters could then simply use. Advancing under the cover of storms etc. This would integrate into the game without splitting it. Another simple and much more to-the-point solution would be to balance air better. As I see it now it isn't horribly unbalanced, I rarely die to air tbh and I go around as a light assault on the outside of bases most of the time. This is anecdotal and obviously not data, but as far as I can see you have yet to present any valid argument from data so we're pretty much all going on anecdotes here.

Now, if you would, instead of simply calling me a scared little crying fly-boy, answer those arguments.

Need a volcano continents with large amounts of smoke and ash in the sky, leaving pilots virtualy blind.

Agreed once people start to recognize this is a base design problem and not a vehicle balance problem we will start to get the devs attention. Vehicles should be powerful and dangerous.

Spread the word haha.

lol

just like we need a pure desert map with no hills and no building. Smooth sand, no cover, and lots of planes and tanks. With TK'ers assigned infantry roles for 20 minutes per tk.

I will say sure as long as they create a system in which weather effects other play styles as well. Storms making it impossible to play AIR? Fine then I want floods or snow which make vehicle traction go to pot making it near impossible to drive. They also need to rotate an Hazardous rain or acid cloud which makes infantry to constant damage when not indoors or protected by a vehicle. If you going to introduce an option that shuts down one, then its only fair that similar options exist to shutdown the others.

#1
Amazingly obvious Slippery Slope arguement.
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

#2
It no more changes the game than any building, cliff or base does and similar effects already exist. This is because my suggestion is an area with an effect and there are already tons of those. Example: A building with only small entrances is an area in which neither tanks, nor aircraft can be. A cliff with no roads is a no-tank zone. A large scale and popular example of this would be the biodome. This is just taking an already existing condition and extending it to an epic scale.

If all the fighting predominantly being at the crown or the biodome goes to show anything, it's that people like areas where aircraft and tanks struggle to have any impact, especially aircraft.

#3
See #2, developers already agree such areas need to exist. I am just taking that further by going from a biodome type enviroment to a full scale area, just for the fun of seeing what combat would be like in such an area. I imagine it to be a place where co-ordinated tank lines backed by ground forces can actually take and hold ground and deny access with rolling front lines that can't be flown over at 1000m all while being drenched in dalton shots from out of render.


I didn't address you directly because what I've said is so unbelievably basic I thought that you already understood it. I mean, it doesn't take Steven Hawking to realise that the biodome is an area where this effect is already in place and that buildings represent existant "no tank, no aircraft" zones and that such places -are- necessary. You need to understand the game before you start saying crap like "It fundamentally changes the game".

So first I'll assume you agree with the whole riding around on your horse thing since you didn't address it. Thank you for that. I am also wonderfully impressed that you haven't yet called me a crying flyboy. One should be credited for ones improvements so there ya go, a little credit for you!

to the points

#1 you're right, I worded it as a slippery slope argument and that is my bad. My main point that I failed to get across is that it will splinter the game that is supposed to be a combined arms game. Now this goes to 2 and 3 as well. I think you're misreading or misunderstanding me. [Insert hyperbole about how it doesn't require a Hawking to understand what I've said to complement your wonderful debate style] My point is that I don't think instancing no-air zones is a good idea due to the splintering of the game. The biodome isn't a seperate instanced area, it is a part of the continent it is on and fighting dynamically moves in and out of it. This would be the same with moving random weather that ****** up airplanes etc. I think that quarantining it off to a separate continent would make it more or less like a "no air server" in BF3, which I think is against what this game is about. Obviously I agree that terrain, weather, bases etc. that makes for battles that dynamically change from infantri focused to vehicle focused and so on and so forth are awesome. But I am against instancing every part of the game off to "seperate servers" if you will. None of the solutions I suggest would hamper rolling tank lines and what not, it would just integrate them into the game instead of instancing them off.

Now, on a side-note I think you'd get a better response for people if you stopped constantly implying that they are stupid and crybabies. Not that I mind, it just makes you come off as an arrogant ***** which, I imagine, wouldn't do anything to further your goals of having an air continent or getting hired by SOE.

People like me don't have a problem with combined arms game. We have a problem with "overpowered air" game.

Even BIs allowed Mosquitos, some also removed HA or tanks. Each one was different.

Searhus was very hostile to Air because of the altitude, but it was still popular.

It seems to if you want to oppose air units, you need "combined arms"

If you want to fly an air unit, you are combined arms, because you can kill anything. And run away from anything that might kill you.

Great, did you work on Battlefield 3 Close Quarters, which essentially ruined everything that Battlefield was and is supposed to be?
Because this suggestion sounds alot like it. Oh some ppl don't want combined arms warfare, let's split the game in half and accomodate both.

No. No.
If people don't want air vehicles above them, they shouldn't play Planetside. Period.
If people don't want tanks either (this is another complaint, about tank zergs, we should accomodate them too right? having a no-tank-zone?), they shouldn't play Planetside either. Period.

This is not Call of Duty or BF3 Close Quarters.
This is Planetside. This is Infantry + Armor + Air.
Never split them up, never.

I do agree that DYNAMIC weather should be added to all continents, randomly appearing. Which could via VISIBILITY or turbulence / wind shears make it harder for air in certain regions at certain times (not too often). But the idea of an absolute no-fly zone gamey concept is apalling in a game like this.

Then they need to BALANCE (I can use caps too) Air. But they haven't been able to so far.

Actually, it was balanced for a week or two in Beta. Then they **** on AA again. Halved clips sizes, took damage down by half and replaced a Tight CoF + Bullet Drop with a ****** CoF + less Drop.

This dude just wants to remove air because he just doesn't like it. He's clearly playing the wrong game. There are plenty of games that are better than this one that caters to land only players.

However, if you were calling for a base redesign that focused more on infantry combat or for more tools to demolish air with, you'd sound more credible.

All this sounds like is "I don't want air and never want to have to look up at all" as opposed to "I really enjoy this game, I just feel like there should be more infantry focused areas within maps (base redesign) that still incorporate vehicle usage at some stage during a large scale battle." The dudes asking for instagib ground AA units are more credible than you are.

From what I've seen, you and your fanboys have called every single person that disagrees with you a flyboy. You seem to think that people that don't primarily fly air vehicles somehow couldn't appreciate the fact that there is air in this game. Noone that disagrees with you could possibly do infantry or tanks only.

As I've said in my previous posts, I fly. However, I do infantry and tanks as well (mostly infantry). 75% of my kills are as infantry, split between Heavy, Medic and Engineer. I don't want to see an end to air, even on one continent. What I want to see is a base redesign to allow dismounted troops to fight other dismounted troops and actually control the outcome of the battle. Currently it's pretty much only biodomes and somewhat tech plants that support this, and they are mediocre areas at best. Tanks and air units should be kings of the areas between control points and as such, should demolish infantry running between areas dismounted. Tanks and air units should play a vital role of intercepting reinforcement troops and supplies. What they should not be able to do is sit there hovering a base demolishing every single troop within sight - currently this is how it works in a majority of places in the game.

Removing air from the game is lazy and is only a bandaid for the core issues. I've mentioned this since page 3 of this thread.

Since I'm the one that gave you the idea to check headshots, i'm just wondering how you got to your solution. I see 785 kills in what you pasted in. I'm pretty sure you get the headshot bonus only if the last shot was a headshot. I've hit people's heads then finished them up on the chest and received no headshot credit. Tanks can get headshots, but so can air. I've headshot dudes with the dalton and rotary gun on an ESF before. For tank vs infantry, generally tanks aim for the feet or a wall behind the infantry. Aiming for the head isn't the best idea. Their chance to get a headshot is probably as good as a lib or ESF.

Seeing as how (I believe) you only get headshot credit when it's on the final bullet, the formula I used is (headshots/kills)*100.
That gives this dude an 8.4 k/d. That seems legitimate for his k/d. Higher k/d players will probably have more headshots in an infantry setting. I don't know how you came to 4.7% with the data set you provided. Even if you count the assists, it would be 4.9%.

Not trying to nitpick, but seeing as how you're using something I suggested as "proof", I thought i'd ask how you came to your conclusion/numbers.

Another suggestion to look for: Medals. I have 64, which shows a wide variety of weapons used.

What is your in game character name? I looked up Edmon, but that obviously isn't it.

Thanks

So Kesh, since you have so much of my lack of desire to look upwards, what precisely should I see up there?

http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php?threads/
complete-guide-to-render-who-it-affects-who-are-the-winners-and-losers.69941/

http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/...affects-who-are-the-winners-and-losers.69941/

Edit: Pasting in parts since long links break.

You are clueless about even the basic problems surrounding airpower. Ground units CANNOT attack air units that know about Render Bombing as in, at all. Yet you harp on about looking up like that actually matters against decent players who understand the game.

I understand the game all too well, that is why I think an air-free area will be extremely popular and many agree. And btw, until things change I am 100% aircav myself. My stats are more or less the same as the ones I posted because I fly a liberator with a team of 2 other guys and we rotate as per my guide:

http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php?threads/flying-with-the-best-a-guide-for-novices.66649/

WALL OF TEXT

Regarding your rendering thing:
Infantry doesn't render above a certain altitude. If you can't see them, you can't damage them. At high/max altitude a lib can only damage vehicles - since they render. If what you say is true about the dalton being able to hit past render range, I haven't seen it for myself. In fact, I've stood on top of tanks repairing them while they were hit by high flying air. Tank takes damage, I don't. What you say about it could be true - the server may track it, but my score sheet doesn't show them. However, I'm pretty sure hit detection is done client side of the attacker.

Sitting at max altitude works when there is a large tank column. Sitting at max altitude makes it more difficult to accurately hit tanks. Magriders are especially difficult to land good shots on as they have multiple directions they can travel in. I'm not saying it doesn't work - and I've cleared tanks off the hill facing the crown. I'm just saying that it's a lot less effective than being closer to the ground. A lot of people move a short distance after the first hit, then hop out and try to out repair the incoming damage of the now stationary tank. It won't work. They would have been better off continuing to move and finding a covered location.

I've never been bombed then looked up and NOT see an air unit. As in, I've never noticed that i'm being bombed and then not see what is bombing me. When I hop into an AA MAX or stationary AA, you can see the high flying libs but cannot spot or hit them. They are too high I guess. (specifically speaking of The Crown here - Sitting on the air landing pad in an AA MAX looking up - can see the lib, aim at it, but it's too far to deal any damage - cannot spot it with Q either) I don't like that. If I can see it, I want to shoot it. That should be changed. However, at the same time, those same libs have never killed or damaged me. They continue to kill tanks though.

Again, I could be entirely wrong. I've just never been hit by a bomb (or any vehicle) and then not see what is shooting at me and be able to hit it back.

I like the conversation that you started in this thread. I just can't comprehend why you think it's a better idea to simply remove air entirely as opposed to providing more defensible bases where the outcome is based on infantry combat and not the ability to shell from 500 meters in a tank or spamming a spawn point with a zepher. More large indoor complexes on points that offer more than 2 of a given resource. Air and armor would be more than capable of providing interception on reinforcements that don't drop in. They wouldn't be able to shell 20 infantry at a time (or any) that are inside the base attempting to capture.

More defensible bases would be outstanding even if you removed air. As it is, right now, base capture is a whack a mole operation. Even if there are defenders, you just simply swarm them. There are a lot of good fights, don't get me wrong. But i'd also gather that most bases are lost and captured simply by swarming as opposed to someone actually "winning" a fight.

You kill the defending sunderer and you wreck their ability to defend (since the spawn system is absolute garbage). Biodome is cool. There are 4 entrances that defenders need to defend againt - 2 pads 2 teleporters. It provides the capability for the defenders to defend with less troops. Tech plant is still garbage even though you can teleport straight into the base from the spawn point. Attackers need to camp the spawn room itself, and the little teleport passage in the main base.

Why is it easier to lock down the defenders than it is the attackers? This isn't an air argument or really an issue at all. It boils down to the fact that base and spawn systems are garbage.

I'll agree with you that a No air zone would be beneficial to people that want to really fight over points. As it is right now, an undefended base (from AA) is wiped out in a matter of minutes by even a single lib. That results in very little infantry combat aside from some dude poking his head out from the spawn room launching a rocket and 10 tanks and 15 infantry trying to shoot him the moment he pokes his head out.

I think armor would add just as much frustration (or close to it) to a no air map as air does now. Factor in how the tech plant system works and the battles could be entirely one sided unless one team brings in MBTs from their warp gate.

Anyways, i think you're trying to make the game more fun for people. I really do. I just think you're going about it the wrong way. I feel that it's just a bandaid for a deeper and more core issue - base design and spawn system.

What is your in game character name? I don't see any of your posts that state it.

In addition to the rendering thing:

I've been hit by "invisible" bombs when driving a tank. The tank seems to magically take damage but i hear no sound or see impacts. I can still see the Liberator, however it's outside the spot range as I mentioned above. The fact that I can't do anything about it from the ground is bull ****, but it's still rendering for me. That is an aspect I'd like to see change. If I can see it, I want to hit it (accounting for bullet drop and whatnot). It's during situations like this, among others, that I've just stood on top of the tank repairing it. No damage to me.

Edmon,

Some questions that I'd like you to specifically respond to (no gotcha questions or anything, honesty interested in your opinion):

1) Do you see the benefits overall of changing the spawn system and defensive nature of most bases? Making bases more defensible, providing for infantry combat, making boots on the ground actually mean the MOST in the outcome of a battle.

2) Do you feel that if air wasn't able to do much (or anything) in a base where infantry is fighting that it would be as much of an issue as it is now? What if air was limited to just being the king of areas BETWEEN bases and only on those small bases that only offer 2 resources?

3) Would you rather see air completely removed or balanced in a way that is acceptable and makes sense - where air provides SUPPORT - not the primary fighting force?

4) I feel that the core issue lies in bad base design and a garbage spawn system. I think the issues we are experiencing stems from mostly that. (there are issues with balance and how AA can suck but that is fixable) Can you see it form my perspective where I think your suggestion is only a bandaid as opposed to fixing a core issue? (not being rude calling it a bandaid - it's an accurate description from my perspective)

As of right now, it's much easier to move continents and cap ghost bases than it is to defend against even a slight zerg. It's why you see one faction's zerg on each continent. I'd love to take a platoon and defend against another faction's zerg. None of this would change just by disallowing air. At least, I don't feel it would. It would be the same old zerg just with more tanks and infantry.

5) What is your in game name? What name would I search for to be able to look up stats on you?

Thank-you,
Kesh

That would be actually pretty cool...
Be logging on thinking..... what am i playing tonight...
lol

i read a large portion of the posts here, and OP your insane. a good balance would be weather systems IE: raining on ONE PART OF A MAP, but normal weather on other i mean these are "continents" so they can have varied weather, things like a blizzard rolling in over the crown, lets say it starts at the NC area and moves twoards the crown, it makes it hazardous if not impossible to fly, tanks are fine, and infantry slowly lose health. the whole map isnt ruined, but part of it is challengend. or a thunderstorm with different effects, the posibilitys are endless but oyu get my point, varied weather through out a map, not just making ONE THIRD of the game dissappear for an entire map.