Outfit Air Cruisers Redux

[Baneblade]

Outfit Air Cruisers Redux

This has been in the works in one form or another since 2004, and even now I still believe that Airships are the way to bring outfit bases into the game. They give outfits a centerpiece to either relax in safely from a distance or bring into actual combat. They also give outfits something to invest in to increase their relative power and prestige. And the most critical part, they add a naval combat aspect that will add to and not take from the existing PlanetSide theatres of war.

Air Cruisers would not be BFRs nor GGs, they would have little to no direct interaction with the ground game outside of being a transport and mobile spawn point. Air Cruisers cannot land and they are locked into a fixed altitude (roughly 60% of whatever flight ceiling will be). Their weapons are designed to engage other Air Cruisers with. They have limited built in AA (essentially only gatling guns, no flak). Outfits can only have one Air Cruiser at a time and losing it starts a 7 day timer before a replacement can be purchased. The idea is that these are significant assets to protect. On the other hand, Air Cruisers also constantly consume resources, whether they are being used or not. They are persistant assets and can't all fit in the 'sanc'.

Each Faction would have three base hulls to choose from designed to facilitate that faction's strengths and evidence their weaknesses. Air Cruisers would have several modular subsystems to upgrade to alter the operation or even just enhance the Air Cruiser. The modules include: Engineering Module (Engines and Generator), Defensive Module (Shield Generator and Armor Plating), Offensive Module (Weapon hardpoints), Spawn Module (spawn capacity and utilities such as terminals), Hangar Module (Size and Capacity of Hangar Deck), and Cargo Module (Ability to transport Vehicles Supreme Commander style such as MBTs).

The three hull classifications would be Light Cruiser, Heavy Cruiser, and Battle Cruiser. The Light Cruiser is roughly 100 meters in length, with the Heavy coming in at 160 and the Battle Cruiser rocking 220 meters. The Light Cruiser is allowed ten module upgrade points, the Heavy twenty, and the Battle thirty. Each module requires a certain point cost to be upgraded. Light Cruisers cannot upgrade any module beyond Mark III regardless of available points. Heavy Cruisers cannot upgrade beyond Mark IV leaving Battle Cruisers as the only hull able to upgrade to Mark V.

Air Cruisers will have several vulnerabilities, such as balconeys with access doors, enemy accessible flight deck/hangars, limited maneuverability to avoid heavy ordinance, destructible weapons (Heavy Weapons can be disabled via concentrated fire or internal sabotage), crew compliment requirements to maintain the vessel, and finally NTU fuel. Deprive an Air Cruiser of NTU and it will enter an offline mod, which will make destroying it relatively easy. Shields and Engines are the primary NTU burners, with weapons and spawns taking a smaller constant amount. Normal non combat operations with a Basic Engineering Module would need refueling every eight hours (twenty four with Mark V Engineering). Combat Operations could drop that down to as little as two hours (six with Mark V Engineering). Generators (Power and Shield), Engines, and Spawns can be disabled through damage and/or sabotage.

An unmanned Air Cruiser would be destroyed in short order. Yet a fully crewed AC could shrug off the same attack.

Each Module System comes in Six Levels:

Basic
Mark I
Mark II
Mark III
Mark IV
Mark V

All hulls are equipped with Basic Modules when purchased.

Module Key words:

Standard = 100%
Enhanced = 125%
Advanced = 150%
HAWT = High Altitude Warrior Transfer

Basic Module Overview: No Upgrade Point

Engineering - One Standard Power Generator, One Standard NTU Storage Tank, One Standard Engine
Defensive - One Standard Shield Generator (100,000 HP), Standard Armor Plating
Offensive - One Forward Heavy Weapon Hardpoint, Two Lateral Point Defense Hardpoints
Spawn - One 60 Second Spawn Tube, One Non MAX Access Equipment Terminal, One HAWT Drop tube
Hangar - One Small Aircraft Hangar Bay (hangar door not large enough for Liberators or Galaxies)
Cargo - One Ventral Heavy Lift Platform (One MBT or Two Lightnings per Platform)

Mark I Module OVerview: One Upgrade Point

Engineering - One Enhanced Power Generator, One Large Capacity NTU Storage Tank, One Enhanced Engine
Defensive - One Enhanced Shield Generator (125,000 HP), Enhanced Armor Plating (increases damage mitigation of hull, adds mass)
Offensive - Two Forward Heavy Weapon Hardpoints, Four Lateral Point Defense Hardpoints
Spawn - Two 60 Second Spawn Tubes, Two non MAX Access Equipment Terminals, Two HAWT Drop Tubes
Hangar - One Large Aircraft Hangar Bay (large enough for one Galaxy)
Cargo - Two Ventral Heavy Lift Platforms

Mark II Module Overview: Two Upgrade Points

Engineering - One Advanced Power Generator, One Advanced NTU Storage Tank, One Advanced Engine
Defensive - One Advanced Shield Generator (150,000 HP), Advanced Armor Plating
Offensive - Two Forward Heavy Weapon Hardpoints, One Aft Heavy Weapon Hardpoint, Four Lateral Point Defense Hardpoints
Spawn - Three 60 Second Spawn Tubes, Three Non MAX Access Terminals, Three HAWT Drop Tubes
Hangar - One Large Aircraft Hangar Bay, One Small Aircraft Hangar Bay
Cargo - Four Ventral Heavy Lift Platforms

Mark III Module Overview: Four Upgrade Points (Max for Light Cruiser)

Engineering - Two Standard Power Generators, Two Standard NTU Storage Tanks, Two Standard Engines
Defensive - Two Standard Shield Generators (200,000 HP), Advanced Armor Plating, Standard Armor Plating for Weapon Hardpoints
Offensive - Two Forward Heavy Weapon Hardpoints, Two Aft Heavy Weapon Hardpoints, Four Lateral Point Defense Hardpoints
Spawn - Three 45 Second Spawn Tubes, Three MAXable Terminals, Three HAWT Tubes
Hangar - Two Large Aircraft Hangar Bays
Cargo - Six Ventral Heavy Lift Platforms

Mark IV Module Overview: Eight Upgrade Points (Max for Heavy Cruiser)

Engineering - Two Enhanced Power Generators, Two Enhanceded NTU Storage Tanks, Two Enhanced Engines
Defensive - Two Enhanced Shield Generators (250,000 HP), Advanced Armor Plating, Enhanced Armor Plating for Hardpoints
Offensive - Three Forward Heavy Weapon Hardpoints, Two Aft Heavy Weapon Hardpoints, Six Lateral Point Defense Hardpoints
Spawn - Three 30 Second Spawn Tubes, Three MAXable Terminals w/ 25% discount, Three HAWT Tubes
Hangar - Small Flight Deck (large enough to comfortably handle three Galaxies; Flight Decks are all through deck designs)
Cargo - Eight Ventral Heavy Lift Platforms

Mark V Module OVerview: Sixteen Upgrade Points

Engineering - Two Advanced Power Generators, Two Advanced NTU Storage Tanks, Two Advanced Engines
Defensive - Two Advanced Shield Generators (300,000 HP), Advanced Armor Plating, Advanced Armor Plating for Hardpoints
Offensive - Three Forward Heavy Weapon Hardpoints, Three Aft Heavy Weapon Hardpoints, Six Lateral Point Defense Hardpoints
Spawn - Three 15 Second Spawn Tubes, Three MAXable Terminals w/ 50% discount, Three HAWT Tubes
Hangar - Large Flight Deck (five Galaxies comfortably)
Cargo - Twelve Ventral Heavy Lift Platforms

As you can see, even with a Battle Cruiser, you can't max out every module, you have to consider a balance or even a specialization for your Air Cruiser, no one setup to rule them all.

Weapons Hardpoints can be turrets or launchers. They are empire specific. TR might have a Kinetic Autocannon or a Rapid Fire Missile Launcher. NC might have a good ole 500mm Cannon or Torpedo Launcher. And those pesky VS might be looking at choosing between a Laser Beam or a Plasma Burst. Point Defense Hardpoints are typically common gatling guns or something more empire specific: TR 1000 rounds per minute chaingun, NC Rotary Flechette Cannon, VS Rapid Fire Railgun.

All Heavy Turrets are locked into a 270 degree horizontal arc with absolutely no verticle arc. Meaning it can't aim up or down, only left and right. Broadsides are possible and even encouraged. Launchers can only fire on something within a 90 degree horizontal arc, can't lock on to a non Air Cruiser. Lateral Point Defense are side oriented ball turrets designed to engage in close air support against attempted boardings and outright hostile air power. These weapons are not air farming as any enemy pilot coming close enough to be fired upon is likely engaging in a hostile maneuver. Laterals have 270 degree arcs both horizontal and vertically.

Air Cruisers have Command Abilities, which range from Shield Boosting to Engine Overload:

Shield Boost: Directly drains NTU resources to replenish an amount of Shield HP
Shield Hardening: For a limited time the Air Cruiser will burn NTU instead of Shield HP when taking damage.
Engine Overload: Provides a massive engine power boost for a short time with a 20% risk of disabling one entirely (if two engines, each gets the 20% roll separately). 100% chance of damaging engines and reducing performance after the Overload is over.
Engine Cruise: Sustained High Output setting for engines to allow fast transit from one point to another. All functions (except Spawning) disabled for duration. Air Cruiser travels roughly 50% faster while engaged. Cruise disabled if Engines are damaged or disabled.

Air Cruisers are not fast. Even with upgraded engines, they are still slow ungainly behemoths. A Light Cruiser with One Standard Engine will top out at about 30 kph. A Battle Cruiser at 20. The Light Cruiser will take almost 60 seconds to go from 0 to 30 kph, the Battle Cruiser 300 seconds to get from 0 to 20 kph. Heavy Cruiser roughly halfway between at 25 kph max and 180 seconds acceleration time. This mean that engine upgrades are meaningful as a Mark V Engineering Module can cut that 300 second burn for a Battle Cruiser down to 100 seconds. The Light Cruiser similarly would drop to 20 seconds. It takes a Light Cruiser roughly 30 seconds to make a 180 degree turn. 180 seconds for the Battle Cruiser. Engine upgrades to improve this, but only 50% as much as they do for thrust thrust. Mark V Engines would have the Light Cruiser making a 180 degree turn in 15 seconds with 90 for the Battle Cruiser.

As with anything, the numbers used are examples, nothing is locked in stone. The Outfit Air Cruiser idea is an old one that has morphed many times over the years. But I believe this formula is going to be the final. It espouses the new values in PS 2, such as versatility and modularity. All while not dominating the ground game in a direct fashion.

I would need to know more about how resourcing might work in PS 2 to really get into cost:benefit.

The absolute rules any Airship in PlanetSide must follow:

1. Can't ruin the ground battle (see BFR).

2. Can't provide a overpowering advantage to the empire it belongs to (outfit oriented).

3. Can't be impervious to non Air Cruiser threats. (sabotage, concentrated fire from combined arms)

I suppose 2 is debatable, but those are my rules since breaking them leads to OPness.

Shipyards:

Originally I planned to have these spawned in safety, but after further consideration I think it is better to have a contestable base to fight over. Enter the Shipyard, a wholly unremarkable structure save for its sheer size. A large underground HART style building spawns the air cruisers. There is also a Service Docking Tower.

When an air cruiser is freshly spawned it is extremely vulnerable to attack as all of its systems are offlined while it ascends to operating altitude over the span of several minutes.

The Service Docking Tower is required for refits, refueling, and repairing super critical damage. SCD is damage that cannot be repaired through traditional field methods. Systems that are damaged into an offline state often enough develop an unreliability RNG roll. This roll determines whether the system will be offline or online minute to minute. It will likely be 10% chance of offline.

Alternative Design Compendium

This isn't intended to replace the OP, but rather to supplement it with further Outfit Air Cruiser possibilities.

This is a simpler and less progressive design philosophy, more intended to give side grade options and to emphasize crew capability more than outfit buying power. The original idea created a rift in capability that was not insurmountable, but at the same time far beyond significant.

Empire Specific Classes:

Tempest - NC
Babylon - TR
Scythe.. (damnit, my VS AC name was stolen for PS2!)
Hyperion - VS

Each can choose one specialization of the following:

Carrier
Destroyer
Battlecruiser
Stealth Frigate

The Carrier Specialization Option is designed to be logistics focused with an expansive flight deck (should be large enough to handle five Galaxies or the future Lodestar comfortably and their cargos) and vehicle spawn capabilities (ground vehicles after Lodestars are introduced). The Carrier has only one forward heavy weapon mount and two medium weapon mounts, but has eight point defense mounts.

The Destroyer is far and above the ultimate in Air Cruiser aggression. It features three forward heavy weapon mounts, two rear heavy weapon mounts, four medium mounts, but only four point defense mounts.

The Battlecruiser is the middle weight in direct fire capability, but easily the heaviest defenses of the lot. It features two forward heavies, one rear heavy, six medium mounts, and six point defense mounts. It has a much stronger shield and heavier armor.

The Stealth Frigate is the antithesis of an overt airship. It has a full time cloaking bubble that is maintained as long as it is not taking damage or firing weapons (think PS1 AMS). The Frigate has no heavy weapons, but has four medium and four point defense mounts it can use in a pinch.

All Air Cruisers have outfit spawns, engine rooms, hangar decks (Carrier has the flight deck instead), observation lounges, bridges, and weapon decks (gunners access weapons on this deck).

Heavy Weapons are empire specific and generally represent the pinnacle of that empire's design philosophy.

Medium Weapons are basically MBT weapons repurposed for use in a naval capacity.

Point Defense Weapons can be empire specific, but Lightning weapons would also work.

Like the original idea, these are altitude locked and cannot attack ground targets directly. They also deploy infantry to the surface safely.

They are still outfit purchased, maintained, and crewed.

[Purple]

It would totally ruin any air battles going on. i dont like this idea it just seems like gals could fill the rolls already. Gals are transport can most likely fit AA guns and are mobile spawn points. it just seems like the devs shouldn't spend time on. i would rather have buggys or that space race idea brought in.

i would however like to say its the most thought out airship idea i have seen so far.

[Toppopia]

It would be pretty cool to be defending a base and next minute look up and see a battleship fly over top, but i agree with thingy who posted above(About the space race idea, but there could be some balancing issues that would need to be addressed), i would rather see the space race idea, but this has been well thought out and presented in great detail, good idea but maybe a few years after launch.

[IMMentat]

In a word, YES!
Commonpool is fine, I'm not that fussy and ES stuff can be done with modules.

I want one. Actually I want 90 (10 per side per cont). They need numerical restrictions else the planet would be covered in flying fortresses. Also need a reliable method of letting outfits bid/bargin/vote/apply/lottery towards getting one of the available slots.

I suggest 1 hour slots normally, 30 mins during primetime, fixed resource fee for use (lowered during off-peak hours) plus whatever the upkeep and cost of purchase are. No more than 2 timeslots in a row for times where more than 10 outfits want one.

Reusable?
Upgradable?
Linked to outfit level?
Best method of attaining a timeslot?
(IMO a mix of 4 bid 4 lottery 2 Vote/random/opt-out feels ideal, all managed through the same screen by a specifically flagged outfit officer)

TBH 5 options seems overkill, 1-3 sizes plus modular upgrades would be plenty.

If i can remember where i put my other Mobile Fortress post, i'll re-link it here.

[Baneblade]

It would totally ruin any air battles going on.

No it wouldn't, if anything it would greatly enhance them.

i dont like this idea it just seems like gals could fill the rolls already.

The Galaxy does not fill the intended role at all.

i would however like to say its the most thought out airship idea i have seen so far.

Thanks, the old incarnations are floating around somewhere.

They need numerical restrictions else the planet would be covered in flying fortresses. Also need a reliable method of letting outfits bid/bargin/vote/apply/lottery towards getting one of the available slots.

I agree with numerical restrictions, but not in the way you propose. I'd rather see an escalating cost of ownership, to the point that friendly AC owners might be tempted to destroy another friendly AC to keep costs down. Like maybe it is a soft cap of Air Cruiser Command Points:

Light = 1
Heavy = 2
Battle = 3

Your faction gets 10 free ACCP, but the upkeep cost increases drastically after 10 ACCP. Doubling every 5 ACCP.

10 ACCP = X
15 ACCP = 2x
20 ACCP = 4x

etc

So it might even be better to invest in Light Cruisers since more outfits will be able to use them without raising ACCP as much.

TBH 5 options seems overkill, 1-3 sizes plus modular upgrades would be plenty.

Six actually, I went with that many because it helps customization and forces specialization more, not to mention each upgrade level has added costs, helping to maintain a healthy price barrier. Many of the upgrades are purely stats and have no visual component, so development time won't be overboard.

[Baneblade]

This idea must be so awesome there is nothing left to post about.

[Toppopia]

This idea must be so awesome there is nothing left to post about.

Yeah... sure... lets go with that. :D

You could mention this idea on the thread about Hamma going to SOE so he could ask Higby what he thinks of the idea.

[Artimus]

Yeah... sure... lets go with that. :D

You could mention this idea on the thread about Hamma going to SOE so he could ask Higby what he thinks of the idea.

Or just outfit controlled bases in general.

[Garem]

I think you're spot on about this being the best way to introduce Outfit Bases.

[Baneblade]

Yeah... sure... lets go with that. :D

You could mention this idea on the thread about Hamma going to SOE so he could ask Higby what he thinks of the idea.

I did actually, but not sure he took it seriously :doh:

[Raka Maru]

Wonder if average joe could ever get one. If there are limits for per continent, even large outfits would not always be able to launch theirs.

[Toppopia]

I did actually, but not sure he took it seriously :doh:

Edit the post so it says "I am 101 percent serious".

[VelRa]

I quite like this idea, much more than the idea of outfit bases.

In addition to access balconies, I think it's important for them to have something like a air vehicle pad, maybe two on battlecruisers. The outfit could transport one or two air vehicles, while any attackers would be able to land a Galaxy on them to anchor an assault.

I think the way to make them low in number is to make them obtrusively expensive and very destructible if caught out of position and subjected to a coordinated attack. For most outfits, they would be liabilities rather than assets.

Also I think they should have one very large cannon which can only shoot horizontal and so will not effect the ground conflict, but will light up the sky with a huge blast in cruiser vs. cruiser battles. Imagine the sky lighting up over the amp station in TB's Night Ops footage as two cruisers battle it out in the sky! Gives me the nerdchills.

Last but not least, to pilot one should require an intense amount of certification. Obviously not like the amount of time it takes to pilot a Titan in EVE, but nonetheless not something easily achievable.

[Baneblade]

The way I see it, if anything piloting one should be part of outfit advancement and specialization. And a player being able to control it, should be a matter of outfit hierarchy, not a per player grind.

Perhaps even have each Mark level of modules something you have to unlock as an outfit, it would also involve a lot of cost:benefit decisions on the part of the leadership.

[VelRa]

The way I see it, if anything piloting one should be part of outfit advancement and specialization. And a player being able to control it, should be a matter of outfit hierarchy, not a per player grind.

Perhaps even have each Mark level of modules something you have to unlock as an outfit, it would also involve a lot of cost:benefit decisions on the part of the leadership.

Yeah your option sounds better, upon reconsideration. Except for the fact that presumably a pure heavy assault player could pilot a behemoth of an aircraft equally as well as a pure galaxy pilot. But I'd be willing to sacrifice the immersion for the ease of gameplay.

And yeah maybe each Mark level requires an outfit cert, and purchasing the module each time you build or upgrade a ship requires resources.

[Sentrosi]

I could see implementing something like this IF the distances between bases is long. Like 15-20 minute transits via Galaxy transportation. You could put this up at some sort of midway point to provide a quick way to re-distribute your troops to the ground.

But as Galaxies are pretty much flying spawn points now (as I understand it) I can't see Air Cruisers being integrated into PS2

[VelRa]

I could see implementing something like this IF the distances between bases is long. Like 15-20 minute transits via Galaxy transportation. You could put this up at some sort of midway point to provide a quick way to re-distribute your troops to the ground.

But as Galaxies are pretty much flying spawn points now (as I understand it) I can't see Air Cruisers being integrated into PS2

Presumably there would be some benefit to airships over galaxies as a spawn point, longer range and ability to spawn while moving the most obvious, (did I read somewhere that people can spawn in galaxies in flight, or did I make that up?).

EDIT: Oh, and the ability to carry vehicles.

Essentially my understand of the OP is that air cruisers are a customizable logistics aircraft vulnerable to a coordinated assault but defensible by a fully-manned crew. They are useful as staging platforms for major assaults involving outfits. Galaxies will not be adequate anchors because they are vulnerable to all types of fire. Just one galaxy will probably not be enough to anchor an assault. I can see them dying alot especially since there is no cloaking bubbles like there were for AMSs.

[Baneblade]

Yeah your option sounds better, upon reconsideration. Except for the fact that presumably a pure heavy assault player could pilot a behemoth of an aircraft equally as well as a pure galaxy pilot. But I'd be willing to sacrifice the immersion for the ease of gameplay.

Well these wouldn't necessarily be controlled the same way as other vehicles since they resemble naval vessels more than aircraft. I figure the classic heading and speed settings are all we need. Navigate the old fashioned way.

And yeah maybe each Mark level requires an outfit cert, and purchasing the module each time you build or upgrade a ship requires resources.

Definitely, one of the defining characteristics of this plan is that some outfits will want to master these, and they should be able to. But most outfits won't, so they shouldn't be able to get the best toys without dedicating themselves to it. Much like players and their professions. Another reason to keep outfit specialization is so larger outfits don't subdivide to form a fleet of them.

I could see implementing something like this IF the distances between bases is long. Like 15-20 minute transits via Galaxy transportation. You could put this up at some sort of midway point to provide a quick way to re-distribute your troops to the ground.

But as Galaxies are pretty much flying spawn points now (as I understand it) I can't see Air Cruisers being integrated into PS2

Well, I'll be happy to conceded the point when the Galaxy can spawn while flying, transport MBTs, and anchor an outfit's beachhead.

Presumably there would be some benefit to airships over galaxies as a spawn point, longer range and ability to spawn while moving the most obvious, (did I read somewhere that people can spawn in galaxies in flight, or did I make that up?).

EDIT: Oh, and the ability to carry vehicles.

Essentially my understand of the OP is that air cruisers are a customizable logistics aircraft vulnerable to a coordinated assault but defensible by a fully-manned crew. They are useful as staging platforms for major assaults involving outfits. Galaxies will not be adequate anchors because they are vulnerable to all types of fire. Just one galaxy will probably not be enough to anchor an assault. I can see them dying alot especially since there is no cloaking bubbles like there were for AMSs.

Exactly, OACs can be destroyed without using another OAC, but since they are not floating BFRs, it should require significant effort and coordination. Even still, an OAC is essentially offensive in nature while being defensive in stance. The only time an OAC gets directly dangerous is when another OAC is in range. Then it is naval warfare.

[IMMentat]

BF2142 Titan (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0x9m58Vol1c)
I want this.
Also the ejection system in the ground transport.

[Baneblade]

Indeed.

I saw Battleship and now I want a Battle Cruiser even more lol.

[berzerkerking]

/sign
this needs to be implemented in beta

[Baneblade]

I'm surprised there isn't more opposition to the idea.

[Raka Maru]

I'm surprised there isn't more opposition to the idea.

Cuz it's guuuuuud!

Would like to see huge outfit logo and custom paint jobs too..

[Baneblade]

Yeah, definitely.

[VelRa]

Just no zebra-print colossus blocking out the sun, please.

[Baneblade]

What if it is commanded by an ape wearing a bikini?

[Raka Maru]

Ape wearing a zebra patterned bikini?

[nomotog]

I was actually thinking of this same idea too. My main comment is you seem to have limited their role too much. You are forcing them high up in the air basically making them big fancy spawn points. I think you can let them get closer to the ground and even have them land.

[Raka Maru]

I was actually thinking of this same idea too. My main comment is you seem to have limited their role too much. You are forcing them high up in the air basically making them big fancy spawn points. I think you can let them get closer to the ground and even have them land.

I guess they can land and have an empire specific impenetrable shield.

[Baneblade]

I was actually thinking of this same idea too. My main comment is you seem to have limited their role too much. You are forcing them high up in the air basically making them big fancy spawn points. I think you can let them get closer to the ground and even have them land.

Well, I wanted to avoid allowing them the ability to directly engage ground units, because if they could, then OACs would become the new BFR/GG/orbital_strike_large.

I am not opposed however, to a deployment mode that allows them to detach a module to act as a ground Forward Operating Base directly below.

[nomotog]

You can't really avoid them becoming the new BFR. Even your altitude restriction dosen't stop that. You just have the advantage of BFRs being able to be balanced with the new resource system. Bringing out a OAC cost resources that could have been spent on tanks, planes or sniper rifles. You even have a maintenance cost. These things could get quite expensive real fast.

[Baneblade]

You can't really avoid them becoming the new BFR. Even your altitude restriction dosen't stop that. You just have the advantage of BFRs being able to be balanced with the new resource system.

How do you figure?

Bringing out a OAC cost resources that could have been spent on tanks, planes or sniper rifles. You even have a maintenance cost. These things could get quite expensive real fast.

They are supposed to be expensive, they aren't GGs.

[Sirisian]

Not really a fan of these kind of ideas. The concept of highly priced/delayed vehicle that is only really pulled by outfits and difficult to destroy seems outside of casual combat. Really any vehicles in the game should focus on something that can be pulled quickly without resources or long time delays to justify extreme rarity or power. Outfit bases where engineers can call in small pieces of a base like walls and be deconstructed quickly are more along the lines of something an outfit should have.

Really what you're suggesting of high in the air "bases" is more why I suggested to arclegger and other developers to implement large static floating island bases connected with bridges over Indar to give the game a 3 dimensional feeling separate from the terrain without limiting the use of land vehicles. Really a flying ship that might be assaulted or attacked by air vehicles is leaving people that specialized in land vehicles completely out of that gameplay. (Unless they are low enough and then I think it would just promote boring gameplay of AA wasting their time filling it with AA rounds).

[nomotog]

How do you figure?



They are supposed to be expensive, they aren't GGs.

I guess there are two points I made. The first is how restricting OAC to air dosen't stop them from being BFRs. They are still overpowered white elephants with the ability to smash through the opposition. Restricting them to air combat dosen't change that anymore then restricting them to only walking on grass. Where they show up, they are the BFRs.

That would be bad, except my second point is that BFRs have the ability to be balanced. One of the problems with BFRs (or what I can get from reading peoples problems with them) is that they didn't cost anything. OACs do cost you. If you spend your money on a OAC, you can't spend it on that shiny fleet of battle tanks. That keeps them balanced. (I think)

[Baneblade]

Really a flying ship that might be assaulted or attacked by air vehicles is leaving people that specialized in land vehicles completely out of that gameplay.

Any kind of naval aspect to the game would end up that way. But those who specialize in naval warfare won't be much use eating dirt either... so the balance is there.

I guess there are two points I made. The first is how restricting OAC to air dosen't stop them from being BFRs. They are still overpowered white elephants with the ability to smash through the opposition. Restricting them to air combat dosen't change that anymore then restricting them to only walking on grass. Where they show up, they are the BFRs.

Except they aren't, they won't singlehandedly dominate air combat either, having some point defense guns doesn't change that.

[VelRa]

What I would like to know is how they are manned/defended and how are they destroyed.

My vision of attacking one would be as follows: four stealthers enter the ship from four different access points, remaining undetected and scouting the current defenses as well as the loadout. They plant a virus which reduces the effectiveness of the ship's hardpoints and make their way to a shield core where the shields are powered. While the enemy is distracted defending the shield core, two galaxies land on the two airpads on each side of the ship, and the full-scale attack begins. Both teams bring in air vehicles to defend, while in the battle below AA focuses on several weak spots in the air cruiser's defense. The cruiser is destroyed if either its hull suffers too much damage or its internal drive core is destroyed.

And to defend, it would look something like this: A vigilant crew mans the hardpoints and participates in the air battle nearby. It spots incoming stealthers and moves quickly to shut them down. A warning is sent out, and people know to spawn in the cruiser to defend. When the Galaxies arrive, they are overwhelmed.

It might look something like this or somewhere in between the two.

[Baneblade]

That is the general concept.

[Sirisian]

Any kind of naval aspect to the game would end up that way. But those who specialize in naval warfare won't be much use eating dirt either... so the balance is there.
That doesn't really balance things or make much of any sense. Not sure why you brought up naval combat, an idea that would just hurt the game. Basically ideas that separate combat from the ground, air, infantry system won't work well. You need balance where all the vehicle types and infantry are intertwined in the combat. Maybe it could work, but I'm not a fan of such a concept so I'll leave it at that.

[berzerkerking]

/Bump http://http://youtu.be/JigO8JKv2Mg

[Jinxsey]

BF2142 did this with it's Titan matches.

These vehicles are game changers, they become the focus, instead of a facet of gameplay. The ability to drop troops on the battlefield en-mass from a protected and defendable position is incredable, the titan matches had cappable bases but they were largely ignored during the beta because capping them didn't help you kill the titan.

In late beta the bases had guided missile silo's added to them, now capping bases directly did damage to the enemy air-ship. Suddenly capping the bases was worthwhile, but no one realy bothered still. Then airships got shield that preventing troops from landing untill they had been destroyed, and only the ground launches missile could kill the shields, and now we "needed" to cap bases.

The point, is that these titans went from "a cool new vehicle with spawn capabilities" to something so utterly all encompassing that the game ceased to be about the ground war at all. The game designers had to put in half-dozzen new eliments to make the ground war relevant at all because killing the air-ships was so key, and ground vehicles couldn't do that.

Planetside 2 needs more depth than a BF2142 titan match, they were fun but they were only one of many game modes, and they got repetative fast. Boarding actions always more or less ended the same way and all of those awesome tanks and mechs on the ground just got forgotten about.

[Garem]

BF2142 did this with it's Titan matches.

[see above]

All quite true, and a good summation of the good and bad things from 2142. However, the similarities between the games (2142 and PS2-with-Airships) are largely the superficial ones: futuristic quasi-dystopia FPS with vehicles including a large floating ship.

Scope changes everything.

In 2142, there was never a time you were in the middle of a Titan game mode and thought, "Man, there are just TOO many players attacking the Titan, I'd be spending my time better patrolling bases 1, 3, and 4 in my hovertank." It just didn't happen- there weren't enough players.

If you wanted to drive tanks, that's all well and good, but there's no real purpose after a certain stage in the Titan game. So you're out of luck or have to wait out until the next round begins.

Planetside 2 won't have that problem; there are no rounds. Your tank will just have a new objective in the distance or protecting the base you just took from the enemy Airship coming in from the north.

So if an Airship comes in and totally changes the battlefield environment- that's okay! In fact, that's a great thing. It wouldn't be any different if it were two squadrons of tanks, or a flock of reavers. Coordinated players, in whatever form they may come, should change the battlefield in some way. That player-caused change in the tide of war is a dynamic sorely needed to keep PS2 fresh and fun for everyone.

Of course, if Airships were a constant and/or significant presence, that would be different. I trust the devs to figure out a cool way to balance these bad boys, either by making them largely aesthetic but common, effective but expensive, or some fine balance in-between these two.

[Baneblade]

That doesn't really balance things or make much of any sense. Not sure why you brought up naval combat, an idea that would just hurt the game. Basically ideas that separate combat from the ground, air, infantry system won't work well. You need balance where all the vehicle types and infantry are intertwined in the combat. Maybe it could work, but I'm not a fan of such a concept so I'll leave it at that.

Fair enough, but I don't really agree. By that logic the vehicles both ground and air take away from the infantry fight, maybe they do, maybe they don't. PlanetSide has variety, which is infinitely better than the alternative.

BF2142 did this with it's Titan matches.

Well, they gave it a try anyway.

Scope changes everything.

Exactly.

[berzerkerking]

I can only Imagine what would happen if one was captured and hacked by an enemy outfit. Sounds great

[berzerkerking]

/bump

[Saifoda]

/bump



lol, aaaaalmost flirting with the necro line there ;)

[berzerkerking]

lol, aaaaalmost flirting with the necro line there ;)

I try:cool2:

[Baneblade]

My iterations of this idea are 8 years old. I think necro is long passed :p

[berzerkerking]

I bump it because it is the best thought out Idea on this forum at the current time. Your full description lacked nothing:cool2:

[Baneblade]

Well I'm glad someone thinks so, I really believe that airships are the only way to add a naval aspect to the game without hurting the rest of it.

[berzerkerking]

Just no zebra-print colossus blocking out the sun, please.

What about a giant pony :rofl:

[rekefant]

Is this the time to admitt my nerd love for this idea?
OP really has it nailed down as my vision of the PS2 Blimp. I just hope actualy engaging enemy OACs are worth it so they dont turn into a instant win thing you drop on a hostile base, but stay clear of hostile OACs of equal or larger size.
As I see it a smal OAC cant kill a medium OAC in a straigth up fight no matter how skilled or not the crew really are(reasonable differences) and I like that. If done properly these would add strategicly to the game and PS2 reeks of strategic potential, lets use some of it.

[Baneblade]

All things being equal, a smaller OAC could score a kill on a larger better equipped OAC, but it would have to be in coordination with a boarding team. But no, the kill wouldn't be handed over easily.

[Ohanka]

Great Idea, better than the one i came up with, in my opinion :)

[Saifoda]

BF2142 did this with it's Titan matches.


^That.






Also I think this could be made to work maybe during certain event weeks or something, but to bring it in as part of the persistent game (even with resource and timelocks and all that -- unless you can only pull it once a week or less) it still draws focus away from the ground combat, and with air vehicles what they are the combat looks to be spread around pretty evenly so far. I would have actually liked this idea more for PS1 simply from the stupid corridor fighting and tower stalemates that happened (I know a lot of people enjoyed that stuff -- I didn't, just personal taste; to each his own) but PS2 (so far from the alpha highlights and the E3 demo) looks like they've got the combat more balanced and there won't be as much of the human wave thing going on in the hallways.



I've mentioned this in other threads (er, I guess, just one other thread at this point) but the massive-outfit-ship idea could DEFINITELY be implemented in space battles. I'll get off my soapbox on that for now, but just think of the possibilities that could bring -- it's not just people randomly grabbing reavers and mossies and flying against randomly spawned enemy empire ships; you could actually design and construct your OWN OUTFIT BATTLESHIP/CRUISER/FRIGATE/CARRIER/RAINBOW PONY1!!!!! Super excited </soapbox>

[Talek Krell]

I've mentioned this in other threads (er, I guess, just one other thread at this point) but the massive-outfit-ship idea could DEFINITELY be implemented in space battles.I think this is basically the issue with these ideas, they're trying to implement an entirely different style of game on top of the existing one, and the fit is awkward at best.

If we ever do get around to that space expansion though...

[Saifoda]

I think this is basically the issue with these ideas, they're trying to implement an entirely different style of game on top of the existing one, and the fit is awkward at best.

If we ever do get around to that space expansion though...





Ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooomygawrsh want want want.



But yeah I agree it would be really messy to try to introduce such a huge game changer like this, even though the idea is pretty cool.

[Baneblade]

My opinion of space battles is much the same as water based naval suggestions... takes too much from the ground game of planetside... which is the bread and butter of the game. Now don't get me wrong, I'd kill to steer a battleship on the ocean or a battlestar in space, but to me... just doesn't seem like it would be more than JTL was to SWG... a completely different game within the game that has little to no interaction.

Airships are the answer, they both add to and change the dynamics of the main game, and even if every active outfit had an OAC at the same time, those outfits would still have to earn resources to keep them, which means they have to either use it... or participate in the primary game to earn the resources.

Basically, OACs as suggested in this thread would force more conflict, even when there are a few of them already. OAC kills could even provide a discount for operating an OAC for a day or so, to encourage OAC fights to the death.

Not everyone will have them, and even if you don't have them, you can still destroy them.

Even the there-are-too-many-OACs scenario is not all that bad:

Let's say that you have 30 outfits, each has 100 members. 10 per empire. All 30 have OACs and their outfit members spend 100% of their playtime on their OAC. Now you might think this is the ultimate result of OACs, but it isn't sustainable. Your outfit needs resources, so your empire brings the OACs to hunt down enemy OACs, OACs die and they don't just come back. So now you have say... 1500 players with no OACs to play with, so they play the ground game.

This is a constantly rotating circle, they cost a lot to buy, they cost a lot to keep, and they are only truly cost effective when being used as intended: to kill other OACs. If that doesn't keep them in balance, nothing will. Hell the scaling of cost might even promote TKing of OACs.

And when an OAC is not engaging another OAC, there is nothing else for that outfit to do except fight as they did before the OAC. If the OAC gets attacked, everyone spawns back to defend it.

I really don't see any significant downside to OACs, because even if one empire dominates the OAC numbers, they still have to spend resources on keeping them, and lose resources by losing hexes if they underperform on the ground battlefield.

OACs add ownership, a naval aspect, strategic variables, win conditions, a leaderboard over and above the individual player, and a hard earned status symbol. Make no mistake, these are not GGs, not BFRs, and not I Win Buttons.

[Raka Maru]

Sobekeus, I like the OAC idea, but do you think they are eventually going for a space expansion?

I mean, other than alien planets... Like asteroid fields, space stations, modified space mosquitoes and other vehicles such as BSG style faction controlled ships?

[Baneblade]

No, I don't think so. More likely is that they add more planets to fight over. They might even be moons and such.

[berzerkerking]

This thread has some great Idea that should be added to the topic.
See here:http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=42403:cool2:

[Talek Krell]

My opinion of space battles is much the same as water based naval suggestions... takes too much from the ground game of planetside...While this is arguably true, I think there's scope to expand the Planetside Universe beyond just the ground game. EvE is trying something like this with Dust514, and I see no particular reason that both the traditional Planetside and the Spaceside game attached to it couldn't both be populated and successful.

The problem with introducing these ships, especially on existing continents, is that they become the focus of the game. It's a game change so fundamental that the original gameplay is forever compromised. They are like BFRs in that way. The original intention of the BFR was to become the new center of the battle. Nothing matched a BFR, the best way to kill a BFR was to use another BFR. And the result was that life started to be a lot less fun for people who weren't driving a BFR.

If airships are the solution then I'm not yet convinced that there was a problem.

[Baneblade]

Maybe I'm wrong about how space could work, time will tell.

A significant number of people consider the lack of naval warfare in PS to be a problem. I am one of them. Is PS a great game without a naval aspect? Yeah. Do I believe a naval aspect with an outfit focus will greatly improve the game? Absolutely.

[berzerkerking]

/bump........ again sigh. People keep coming up with BFR Ideas:eek:

[Saifoda]

/bump........ again sigh. People keep coming up with BFR Ideas:eek:

Well, I haven't kept up with this thread much, so looks like I got some homework to do :)

[Baneblade]

I'm just happy PSU members have more reading comprehension than the PS Official Forums. Last time this idea was there the vast bulk of the posts were about how it will be the new BFR and farm everything in the game... because altitude locked airships with no weapons designed to engage ground targets are so good at farming lol.

[Zekeen]

I'm just happy PSU members have more reading comprehension than the PS Official Forums. Last time this idea was there the vast bulk of the posts were about how it will be the new BFR and farm everything in the game... because altitude locked airships with no weapons designed to engage ground targets are so good at farming lol.

I can't think of much that is more fun than 40 fighters trying to take down a massive anti air command ship while being ripping to shreds by all the AA guns.... and I'm talking from the perspective of the fighters being shot down hehe.

[Baneblade]

I can't think of much that is more fun than 40 fighters trying to take down a massive anti air command ship while being ripping to shreds by all the AA guns.... and I'm talking from the perspective of the fighters being shot down hehe.

Imagine how many Star Wars fans it would bring lol.

'Red Sixty Nine, why did you turn your targeting computer off?'

'Some dead clegger told me to trust the Force!'

*Vaporized* Choose respawn location.

[Zekeen]

Imagine how many Star Wars fans it would bring lol.

'Red Sixty Nine, why did you turn your targeting computer off?'

'Some dead clegger told me to trust the Force!'

*Vaporized* Choose respawn location.

Hah! They should put in a weakspot for 2x damage, make it no bigger than a womp rat

[berzerkerking]

Imagine how many Star Wars fans it would bring lol.

'Red Sixty Nine, why did you turn your targeting computer off?'

'Some dead clegger told me to trust the Force!'

*Vaporized* Choose respawn location.
:rofl: This must happen

[Baneblade]

Hah! They should put in a weakspot for 2x damage, make it no bigger than a womp rat

Make it an exhaust port directly between the main engines and when people make an attempt on it, they will probably be yelling 'Up Yours Mother Clegger!' on VOIP.

[berzerkerking]

they should really make the giant lazer cannon exhaust port be a weak spot for fair play.
Can yo imagine the scythe on mosquito dogfights that would happen as the vanu defended theirs, only to have the NC cruiser show up for all out war.* Sees the shadow of NC cruiser.
Yeah were screwed

[Saifoda]

Hah! They should put in a weakspot for 2x damage, make it no bigger than a womp rat

That's impossible, even for a computer! (Most poorly researched line of script ever, ever. lol)

But yeah on the overzealous anti-BFR crowd thing; people put waaaaay too much stock in things being like a BFR. I mean really, for example if the vanguards (or even prowler/mags) weren't in PS1 and were suggested in there forums "Oh hey, how about a tank that has a big cannon that the driver can operate that will do a lot of damage, but it costs resources to get" you'd probably have the same people above-mentioned going "NO BFR'S DIE!!!!!!!"

[Zekeen]

That's impossible, even for a computer! (Most poorly researched line of script ever, ever. lol)

But yeah on the overzealous anti-BFR crowd thing; people put waaaaay too much stock in things being like a BFR. I mean really, for example if the vanguards (or even prowler/mags) weren't in PS1 and were suggested in there forums "Oh hey, how about a tank that has a big cannon that the driver can operate that will do a lot of damage, but it costs resources to get" you'd probably have the same people above-mentioned going "NO BFR'S DIE!!!!!!!"

In their defense, BFRs were/are so ungodly overpowered on a man per man ratio for opperating that they are hated for good reason. They did destroy the general fun of Planetside, and while somewhat fun on their own, detracted from more. I think these cruisers are much more enjoyable and more based on what the devs were thinking with BFRs. They figured that anything that was harder to kill was more fun. This is in fact true, but only when it's limited in several factors. BFRs = 1 man, do anything weapon with shields and flight capacity or second gunner of doom. Cruiser = outfit base with only defensive armaments to allow for occassional giant mid air conflicts. I realy don't think it'd hurt the game, only add to it.

[Saifoda]

In their defense, BFRs were/are so ungodly overpowered on a man per man ratio for opperating that they are hated for good reason. They did destroy the general fun of Planetside, and while somewhat fun on their own, detracted from more. I think these cruisers are much more enjoyable and more based on what the devs were thinking with BFRs. They figured that anything that was harder to kill was more fun. This is in fact true, but only when it's limited in several factors. BFRs = 1 man, do anything weapon with shields and flight capacity or second gunner of doom. Cruiser = outfit base with only defensive armaments to allow for occassional giant mid air conflicts. I realy don't think it'd hurt the game, only add to it.




Definitely. And although I probably did not articulate my agreeable point of view on this issue, I do, well, agree with you! The main problems with BFR's was OP'd ****PLUS***** 1-man killtankbot. Split the power between multiple players and effectively you're eliminated potentially 2, 3, 5, 7 etc..(based on power) MAXes from the battlefield. If you've got two guys in a BFR and that's what it takes to man the damn thing (or whatever equipment/vehicles we're talking about in any given situation) then you're potentially eliminating two powerful on-ground characters otherwise. Or 3, or 5, or 7. I think it can definitely be done, and definitely agree with your assessment.

[berzerkerking]

I have only one question. Can they do a barrel roll.:rofl:
*sees shadow of giant ship overhead block out the sun. *said ship does barrel roll while blasting rap music from speakers. Mind blown:D

[Baneblade]

Haha...

Sadly no, these are supposed to be water based ship concepts adapted for permanent flight. If it capsized... that would be bad. Not to mention a barrel roll would allow the Primary Weapons to fire at ground targets.

[Zekeen]

Haha...

Sadly no, these are supposed to be water based ship concepts adapted for permanent flight. If it capsized... that would be bad. Not to mention a barrel roll would allow the Primary Weapons to fire at ground targets.

I disagree, they should DEFINITELY be able to barrel roll.... but generally that only occurs after the engines have been blown out and it is spiraling down to the ground.. thus.. barrel roll.

If you see one do a barrel roll, run... run will all your might with those tiny little legs of yours.

[berzerkerking]

Usain Bolt eat your heart out.:rofl:
BTW is running speed a cert skill?

[Baneblade]

I disagree, they should DEFINITELY be able to barrel roll.... but generally that only occurs after the engines have been blown out and it is spiraling down to the ground.. thus.. barrel roll.

If you see one do a barrel roll, run... run will all your might with those tiny little legs of yours.

You got me there... but not just any roll... the SSD Executor's death roll. :lol:

[berzerkerking]

my drill is the drill that will pierce the heavens. Tengen toppa gurren lagann:D

[Vyynn]

I could do this if it was it's own zone, the aforementioned 'space race' thing. Maybe winning space battles could give you some advantages on the ground, maybe allow you to bring a single cruiser in atmosphere. it would only give you an advantage in air battles, and the other two factions would probably gang up pretty quick and take your ship down.

[Runlikethewind]

Although you've designed the OAC in such a way that they cannot engage with the battle on the ground with their weapons, what stops squads from standing on the balcony shooting down or dropping C4 or grenades or things of that nature? I could see a bunch of engineers setting up turrets all along the balcony to fire on ground targets or something. So how would stop that kind of thing from happening?

Great idea over all, kudos.

[ThrallsBalls]

I'm not sure if anyone's mentioned this as of yet, there are a lot of posts and couldn't get through them all. But what if there were capture-able fortifications on the grounds that could target enemy cruisers. This whole thing reminds me of Battlefield 2142 and Titan mode, so that's what i mean by ground-based fortifications, missile silos.
The biggest flaw that is obvious is that there might not just be one other cruiser to worry about around a base, and they might not all be from a different faction, so some sort of targeting system would have to be created and a system to devise who would actually get control of which cruisers (I REALLY keep wanting to Titans instead of cruisers) are targeted
And I think a degree of automated, upgrade-able (faster tracking, maybe allow for shooting down incoming missiles, but not from the silos), anti-air would be a good thing, because if your over a base you presumably would want to drop down and help take it over, leaving your cruiser undefended.
Last thing, another throwback to 2142, let sunderers or a new vehicle launch pods to get up to cruisers so you don't have to get there by air, and to keep them from just using it against bases, make them go reeeaaaalll high and if they fall all the way back to the ground they die...so don't miss

[ThrallsBalls]

Damn, forgot one more thing: Instead of using resources that everyone has contributed to, what about spending Certs, they're supposed to be earned fairly frequently and I believe there's already a feature that will allow members of an outfit to spend certs on it, so why not use that for the cruisers as well. This adds another trade off to having a cruiser, you won't be able to "sidegrade" your own stuff as fast if you're constantly contributing to the cruiser's upgrades and maintenance.

[thegreekboy]

I like the idea of an outfit base, however I don't believe it should be an airship, especially one with that amount of power.

[Tikuto]

I like the idea of an outfit base, however I don't believe it should be an airship, especially one with that amount of power.This is the future. PlanetSide's fictional history has floaty ships so lets bring them into the war!

:rock::rock::rock::rock::rock::rock:

[Baneblade]

Although you've designed the OAC in such a way that they cannot engage with the battle on the ground with their weapons, what stops squads from standing on the balcony shooting down or dropping C4 or grenades or things of that nature? I could see a bunch of engineers setting up turrets all along the balcony to fire on ground targets or something. So how would stop that kind of thing from happening?

Great idea over all, kudos.

Well, for one the altitude. Grenades would explode before hitting the ground and most other weapons wouldn't have enough range.

[Hmr85]

I love the idea and wouldn't mind seeing it make it into game. It would open up a whole new element of gameplay which would just be awesome.

[berzerkerking]

Glad to see I've managed to keep the thread alive with the constant bumps. Hopefully Higby sees this:cool2:

[Baneblade]

Glad to see I've managed to keep the thread alive with the constant bumps. Hopefully Higby sees this:cool2:

I'm just glad I didn't have to do it lol, nothing makes an idea look worse than the OPoster bumping it incessantly. :lol:

[berzerkerking]

I'm just glad I didn't have to do it lol, nothing makes an idea look worse than the OPoster bumping it incessantly. :lol:

I'm guilty to the worst degree. Check out my looting thread here:http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=41403

[berzerkerking]

REBORN:D

[berzerkerking]

this thread is a zombie

[Baneblade]

There isn't really anything new to add to the idea, everything I've come up with to modify it only makes it worse... lol.

[Greenthy]

Kinda like the idea but:

They would have to be very slow.
Taking them over an enemy base should be near suicide.
Stacking multiple friendly ones in a single hex should not be allowed (one per hex orso).
Tanks should be able to spawn there and be hotdropped down (like when u carry them in a loady)

[Knotz]

The thing is... anyone can make an outfit... so you might have 50 of these 1 player outfits making these huge ships :/

[Baneblade]

Yay, more feedback!

Kinda like the idea but:

They would have to be very slow.

They are, I imagine them going a max of 40 kph with the fastest possible configuration. Which is considerably slower than real world ocean based ships.


Taking them over an enemy base should be near suicide.

With all the one way damage (ground to air), it will definitely be a serious error to overcalculate the survivability od these OACs.

Stacking multiple friendly ones in a single hex should not be allowed (one per hex orso).

No invisible walls, but perhaps some kind of stacking penalties: such as increased respawn timers, greater resource consumption... etc

Tanks should be able to spawn there and be hotdropped down (like when u carry them in a loady)

I agree, but even so we can't literally make these flying bases, they need to be dependent on the ground for important things like vehicle spawning.

The thing is... anyone can make an outfit... so you might have 50 of these 1 player outfits making these huge ships :/

Not likely since they are extremely cost prohibitive and frankly, a lone ranger or even an ultra small outfit will lose their OAC in short order. These aren't BFRs.

[Lumberchuk]

I'm not sure how this can be at all compared to a bfr because from what I understand this is not an assault vehicle but serves more of a logistical role. Your not going be flying it over a base and hot dropping like a galaxy, rather its going be parked nearby and used to spawn/transport large numbers of tanks. If they are weak to sustained fire and have limited offensive capabilities then how the hell can they be OP? The purpose of the point defence from what I understand is so that it will take a few squads to take it down instead of just 1 guy. And if they fly too close to the zerg...you know they won't last long as every single person will see a giant flying ship will want to shoot it down.

[Baneblade]

I'm not sure how this can be at all compared to a bfr because from what I understand this is not an assault vehicle but serves more of a logistical role. Your not going be flying it over a base and hot dropping like a galaxy, rather its going be parked nearby and used to spawn/transport large numbers of tanks. If they are weak to sustained fire and have limited offensive capabilities then how the hell can they be OP? The purpose of the point defence from what I understand is so that it will take a few squads to take it down instead of just 1 guy. And if they fly too close to the zerg...you know they won't last long as every single person will see a giant flying ship will want to shoot it down.

Pretty much, they have a lot of hit points, but considering they will be taking much more damage than they are dishing out, they need large hitpoint pools. It will take a lot of strategic thinking to keep an Air Cruiser alive and viable at the same time.

I have been rethinking the vehicle spawn thing that people keep bringing up. Something like this maybe:

No Basic Vehicle Spawn
Mark I: ATVs Only
Mark II: Lightning
Mark III: MBT and Mosquito/Reaver/Scythe
Mark IV: Liberator and Sunderer
Mark V: Galaxy

[Lumberchuk]

Ya i think vehicle spawn would be a good idea, otherwise its kinda just a slow galaxy, why not just drive all the tanks across the map? If you can't spawn them again from the base, you'll have to re spawn at an actual base anyway. maybe they could cost more though if you get them from the ship

[Baneblade]

50% more cost to purchase vehicles from the OAC is probably reasonable. Perhaps have a discount built into higher tiers of vehicle spawn.

[berzerkerking]

The thing is... anyone can make an outfit... so you might have 50 of these 1 player outfits making these huge ships :/
I doubt that because their destructibility is high, and they can be captured.:) We've already seen the giant target the galaxies are:sniper: so these will be like sitting ducks until they're upgraded, and even then they will need an escort of fighters at all times to guard them. They are also unable to bomb or attack ground vehicles in anyway. :cool2:

[Talek Krell]

50% more cost to purchase vehicles from the OAC is probably reasonable. Perhaps have a discount built into higher tiers of vehicle spawn.Bear in mind that we're likely going to be able to spawn vehicles at various towers this time around, rather than just bases.

What occurs to me is that having these for a support role may be kind of redundant if battlefield logistics are already well in hand.

[Baneblade]

True enough, we won't know till we get our hands on the game. Then the idea could be refined more.

[berzerkerking]

True enough, we won't know till we get our hands on the game. Then the idea could be refined more.

My goal is just to keep this thread alive ling enough to find out :thumbsup:

[Baneblade]

Alternative Design Compendium

This isn't intended to replace the OP, but rather to supplement it with further Outfit Air Cruiser possibilities.

This is a simpler and less progressive design philosophy, more intended to give side grade options and to emphasize crew capability more than outfit buying power. The original idea created a rift in capability that was not insurmountable, but at the same time far beyond significant.

Empire Specific Classes:

Tempest - NC
Babylon - TR
Scythe.. (damnit, my VS AC name was stolen for PS2!)
Hyperion - VS

Each can choose one specialization of the following:

Carrier
Destroyer
Battlecruiser
Stealth Frigate

The Carrier Specialization Option is designed to be logistics focused with an expansive flight deck (should be large enough to handle five Galaxies or the future Lodestar comfortably and their cargos) and vehicle spawn capabilities (ground vehicles after Lodestars are introduced). The Carrier has only one forward heavy weapon mount and two medium weapon mounts, but has eight point defense mounts.

The Destroyer is far and above the ultimate in Air Cruiser aggression. It features three forward heavy weapon mounts, two rear heavy weapon mounts, four medium mounts, but only four point defense mounts.

The Battlecruiser is the middle weight in direct fire capability, but easily the heaviest defenses of the lot. It features two forward heavies, one rear heavy, six medium mounts, and six point defense mounts. It has a much stronger shield and heavier armor.

The Stealth Frigate is the antithesis of an overt airship. It has a full time cloaking bubble that is maintained as long as it is not taking damage or firing weapons (think PS1 AMS). The Frigate has no heavy weapons, but has four medium and four point defense mounts it can use in a pinch.

All Air Cruisers have outfit spawns, engine rooms, hangar decks (Carrier has the flight deck instead), observation lounges, bridges, and weapon decks (gunners access weapons on this deck).

Heavy Weapons are empire specific and generally represent the pinnacle of that empire's design philosophy.

Medium Weapons are basically MBT weapons repurposed for use in a naval capacity.

Point Defense Weapons can be empire specific, but Lightning weapons would also work.

Like the original idea, these are altitude locked and cannot attack ground targets directly. They also deploy infantry to the surface safely.

They are still outfit purchased, maintained, and crewed.

Note: This will be edited into the OP.

[berzerkerking]

Alternative Design Compendium

This isn't intended to replace the OP, but rather to supplement it with further Outfit Air Cruiser possibilities.

This is a simpler and less progressive design philosophy, more intended to give side grade options and to emphasize crew capability more than outfit buying power. The original idea created a rift in capability that was not insurmountable, but at the same time far beyond significant.

Empire Specific Classes:

Tempest - NC
Babylon - TR
Scythe.. (damnit, my VS AC name was stolen for PS2!)
Hyperion - VS

Each can choose one specialization of the following:

Carrier
Destroyer
Battlecruiser
Stealth Frigate

The Carrier Specialization Option is designed to be logistics focused with an expansive flight deck (should be large enough to handle five Galaxies or the future Lodestar comfortably and their cargos) and vehicle spawn capabilities (ground vehicles after Lodestars are introduced). The Carrier has only one forward heavy weapon mount and two medium weapon mounts, but has eight point defense mounts.

The Destroyer is far and above the ultimate in Air Cruiser aggression. It features three forward heavy weapon mounts, two rear heavy weapon mounts, four medium mounts, but only four point defense mounts.

The Battlecruiser is the middle weight in direct fire capability, but easily the heaviest defenses of the lot. It features two forward heavies, one rear heavy, six medium mounts, and six point defense mounts. It has a much stronger shield and heavier armor.

The Stealth Frigate is the antithesis of an overt airship. It has a full time cloaking bubble that is maintained as long as it is not taking damage or firing weapons (think PS1 AMS). The Frigate has no heavy weapons, but has four medium and four point defense mounts it can use in a pinch.

All Air Cruisers have outfit spawns, engine rooms, hangar decks (Carrier has the flight deck instead), observation lounges, bridges, and weapon decks (gunners access weapons on this deck).

Heavy Weapons are empire specific and generally represent the pinnacle of that empire's design philosophy.

Medium Weapons are basically MBT weapons repurposed for use in a naval capacity.

Point Defense Weapons can be empire specific, but Lightning weapons would also work.

Like the original idea, these are altitude locked and cannot attack ground targets directly. They also deploy infantry to the surface safely.

They are still outfit purchased, maintained, and crewed.

Note: This will be edited into the OP.
name the Vanu cruiser the specter :evil:

[Baneblade]

Spectre, because they are such contrary types. :lol:

[William]

Not a good idea. Everyone would just camp in cruisers whenever they get the chance, so battles on the ground would have to be fought with less people.

I like the creativity though. Someday gamers will have the opportunity to turn their multiplayer experience into a Halo book... Just not today unfortunately. :(

[Karrade]

Here is an idea for more 'water' based gameplay, and to add the dynamic that some people are considering.

I'd aid rails/energy channels for the airships or fuel.

Rails/energy channels to give them lanes to use, so you can limit as you like. I.e from certain areas of the map, just like regular naval vessels - This would almost make 'rivers' in the game ;) Proper naval combat taking terrain into account, and mean that only specific bases could having a 'heavy' spawn point close to them, while others might only be reached via aircraft launched from these units, and others not influenced in the slightest.

Rails could mean they need to be activated to move the airship, at certain points

If an energy channel doesn't appeal - Fuel to mean you need to land at specific bases on the map, where you become very vulnerable, to refuel. These would be a distance from certain bases, meaning that the ship couldn't reach them for long, while for others it'd be closer and be able to influence the battle more.

Personally I'd like them to make water on a specific aquatic continent and introduce water based vehicles for that continent, that'd be fun. - Could add actual rivers for limited use on other continents as well.

[Baneblade]

Not a good idea. Everyone would just camp in cruisers whenever they get the chance, so battles on the ground would have to be fought with less people.

Camp what?

Here is an idea for more 'water' based gameplay, and to add the dynamic that some people are considering.

I'd aid rails/energy channels for the airships or fuel.

Rails/energy channels to give them lanes to use, so you can limit as you like. I.e from certain areas of the map, just like regular naval vessels - This would almost make 'rivers' in the game ;) Proper naval combat taking terrain into account, and mean that only specific bases could having a 'heavy' spawn point close to them, while others might only be reached via aircraft launched from these units, and others not influenced in the slightest.

Rails could mean they need to be activated to move the airship, at certain points

If an energy channel doesn't appeal - Fuel to mean you need to land at specific bases on the map, where you become very vulnerable, to refuel. These would be a distance from certain bases, meaning that the ship couldn't reach them for long, while for others it'd be closer and be able to influence the battle more.

Personally I'd like them to make water on a specific aquatic continent and introduce water based vehicles for that continent, that'd be fun. - Could add actual rivers for limited use on other continents as well.

Sounds like a hybrid of Tron and ley lines.

[berzerkerking]

Here is an idea for more 'water' based gameplay, and to add the dynamic that some people are considering.

I'd aid rails/energy channels for the airships or fuel.

Rails/energy channels to give them lanes to use, so you can limit as you like. I.e from certain areas of the map, just like regular naval vessels - This would almost make 'rivers' in the game ;) Proper naval combat taking terrain into account, and mean that only specific bases could having a 'heavy' spawn point close to them, while others might only be reached via aircraft launched from these units, and others not influenced in the slightest.

Rails could mean they need to be activated to move the airship, at certain points

If an energy channel doesn't appeal - Fuel to mean you need to land at specific bases on the map, where you become very vulnerable, to refuel. These would be a distance from certain bases, meaning that the ship couldn't reach them for long, while for others it'd be closer and be able to influence the battle more.

Personally I'd like them to make water on a specific aquatic continent and introduce water based vehicles for that continent, that'd be fun. - Could add actual rivers for limited use on other continents as well.
There's a thread for naval warfare here:http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=41539
I let it die to push this thread ahead instead of competing

[rreinke]

Sound's awesome you are an inivator, this should be added to the game now dought.
An idea, on the bottom of the air cruisers what about low profile 20mm or 30mm Gatling guns.
Also what about docking bays on the side of the ship that would let enemy and friendly aircraft dock.
Also when dropping vehicles it could have futureistic parachutes that would deploy and safely guide the vehicle down to the ground.

[Baneblade]

Sound's awesome you are an inivator, this should be added to the game now dought.

:)

An idea, on the bottom of the air cruisers what about low profile 20mm or 30mm
Gatling guns.

They are intended to have defensive dead zones directly above and directly below, to avoid camping and to promote infantry defense as well as help achieve insertions. They have 360 coverage of the air with the point defense (never flak) guns horizonatally and up to 80 degrees up and down vertically (roughly similar to the Lib tailgun).

Also what about docking bays on the side of the ship that would let enemy and friendly aircraft dock.

Non outfit access is a security risk. But having service bays for friendly air to use is not beyond the realm of possibility.

Also when dropping vehicles it could have futureistic parachutes that would deploy and safely guide the vehicle down to the ground.

Dev discretion naturally, but I like the idea of a US Army style tank drop.

[berzerkerking]

All quite true, and a good summation of the good and bad things from 2142. However, the similarities between the games (2142 and PS2-with-Airships) are largely the superficial ones: futuristic quasi-dystopia FPS with vehicles including a large floating ship.

Scope changes everything.

In 2142, there was never a time you were in the middle of a Titan game mode and thought, "Man, there are just TOO many players attacking the Titan, I'd be spending my time better patrolling bases 1, 3, and 4 in my hovertank." It just didn't happen- there weren't enough players.

If you wanted to drive tanks, that's all well and good, but there's no real purpose after a certain stage in the Titan game. So you're out of luck or have to wait out until the next round begins.

Planetside 2 won't have that problem; there are no rounds. Your tank will just have a new objective in the distance or protecting the base you just took from the enemy Airship coming in from the north.

So if an Airship comes in and totally changes the battlefield environment- that's okay! In fact, that's a great thing. It wouldn't be any different if it were two squadrons of tanks, or a flock of reavers. Coordinated players, in whatever form they may come, should change the battlefield in some way. That player-caused change in the tide of war is a dynamic sorely needed to keep PS2 fresh and fun for everyone.

Of course, if Airships were a constant and/or significant presence, that would be different. I trust the devs to figure out a cool way to balance these bad boys, either by making them largely aesthetic but common, effective but expensive, or some fine balance in-between these two.
This guy gets it:cool2:

[Methonius]

I think this is a really awesome idea and agree with it 100%. It reminds me of the air ships in BF2142 which was a really unique idea I've never seen done in any other game and I think they would fit in perfect with planetside 2 as outfit air ships. Only thing else that they should add is a ground based vehicle that could launch troops up onto the ships from capsules like in BF2142. It was really awesome watching that. It would be a vehicle with maybe only a couple machine guns for defense but would be a troop transport like the sundy but fill the role of assaulting those air ships from the ground.

[berzerkerking]

I think this is a really awesome idea and agree with it 100%. It reminds me of the air ships in BF2142 which was a really unique idea I've never seen done in any other game and I think they would fit in perfect with planetside 2 as outfit air ships. Only thing else that they should add is a ground based vehicle that could launch troops up onto the ships from capsules like in BF2142. It was really awesome watching that. It would be a vehicle with maybe only a couple machine guns for defense but would be a troop transport like the sundy but fill the role of assaulting those air ships from the ground.
Good Idea, but make a concept that we can use to reference later on:)

[Deflagrate]

All bases would need to have a short range "Cruiser Buster" cannon of sorts, that can be manned from a station within the lobby. It needs to be able to inflict severe damage on a large, slow moving air target such as the cruisers, to the point that a cruiser circling a base while there is still active combat going on for the courtyard would be a very dangerous move.

This would prevent cruisers from simply camping a base that their faction is attacking, because it is very difficult for defenders to be able to push out of the base and be able to mobilize a counter offense if cruisers are in the area and air superiority is likely with the attackers since defenders are fighting within the base.

[Baneblade]

You guys must mean indirect camping, because these are altitude locked roughly at where PS1's flight ceiling is. But a base weapon that can hit an AC is not out of consideration. The problem is that they could easily be OP for what they do vs what they cost. I'd rather have ACs counter each other than introduce reasons for ACs to have air to ground weapons.

[Talek Krell]

Only thing else that they should add is a ground based vehicle that could launch troops up onto the ships from capsules like in BF2142. It was really awesome watching that.Potential issue with that: trivialization of base defenses. Letting a vehicle do this creates a very low risk high volume method of getting heavy troops and MAXes onto base walls and towers. The Gal already allows this to occur to an extent, but it's much more obvious and can only drop one group at a time. The only significant fortification in 2142 was the titans themselves so it didn't really matter there. Here though, you have to work around the existing framework of the game.

Still dubious, but here's an idea for Baneblade and berzerking to toss around for a while. It came up in Warborn's outfit bases thread (the one that just got bumped) and I liked it so much that I've adapted it for my space expansion ideas. It could work here too though: Tie ship customization to the outfit cert tree.

1. Each outfit starts with access to a generic all purpose vessel. It can do most things, but won't be very good at them.
2. As the outfit selects certifications they also get appropriate modules for their ship. This could either be an automatic change to the vessel or unlock new options to switch between, depending on how much leeway the devs think is appropriate.
3. The end result should be that each outfit ship is uniquely suited to the outfit that owns it. An air cav outfit would have a robust carrier with light weapons but plenty of docking space and some publicly available repair pads. An armor group might end up with a battleship or a support vessel capable of air dropping vehicles. An outfit that chooses to go down a variety of cert trees would have a less specialized but more adaptable cruiser.

[Baneblade]

That is one possible method of unlocking different levels of systems. But it would likely be separate from the normal outfit certs, not because it should be, but because it probably will be.

[berzerkerking]

makes sense

[Baneblade]

Shipyards:

Originally I planned to have these spawned in safety, but after further consideration I think it is better to have a contestable base to fight over. Enter the Shipyard, a wholly unremarkable structure save for its sheer size. A large underground HART style building spawns the air cruisers. There is also a Service Docking Tower.

When an air cruiser is freshly spawned it is extremely vulnerable to attack as all of its systems are offlined while it ascends to operating altitude over the span of several minutes.

The Service Docking Tower is required for refits, refueling, and repairing super critical damage. SCD is damage that cannot be repaired through traditional field methods. Systems that are damaged into an offline state often enough develop an unreliability RNG roll. This roll determines whether the system will be offline or online minute to minute. It will likely be 10% chance of offline.

[berzerkerking]

Shipyards:

Originally I planned to have these spawned in safety, but after further consideration I think it is better to have a contestable base to fight over. Enter the Shipyard, a wholly unremarkable structure save for its sheer size. A large underground HART style building spawns the air cruisers. There is also a Service Docking Tower.

When an air cruiser is freshly spawned it is extremely vulnerable to attack as all of its systems are offlined while it ascends to operating altitude over the span of several minutes.

The Service Docking Tower is required for refits, refueling, and repairing super critical damage. SCD is damage that cannot be repaired through traditional field methods. Systems that are damaged into an offline state often enough develop an unreliability RNG roll. This roll determines whether the system will be offline or online minute to minute. It will likely be 10% chance of offline.
well thought out:)

[berzerkerking]

If you build it they will come

[vVRedOctoberVv]

Wow. That's.... VERY thought out and detailed.

As long as they weren't TERRIBLY powerful, there's no problem with there being a fair number of them around (all the outfits would end up with one, so you could potentially have several of them in one area). They could even participate in the ground war (shelling the area beneath them), wouldn't really be reasonable to think this big platform wouldn't have some sort of weaponry on it.

Ideally, they'd be really tough, requiring a long sustained attack to destroy, but not so heavily armed to wipe out all opposition around them. They would be an asset, but not a war winner on there own, although a conflict locked in stalemate would be won by their arrival.

For weaponry, you could scatter sentry guns over the hull, identical to the tower guns, to protect against fighters (maybe 8 on the small one and 12-16 on the biggest one) and put several tank class guns on the belly (maybe 4 on the small one and up to 8 on the bigger one). I mean, it's not a tremendous amount of firepower, but it would help, especially since it's above the battlefield and won't be deterred by you hiding behind a wall or something. It's biggest strength would still be as a mobile base of operations.

I see no reason why this couldn't be done or why it would be "terribly upsetting" to the balance of power.

I'd like to see some concepts of what you are imagining, to be honest. Are you envisioning an actual SHIP, or more like a platform?

[Baneblade]

A ship, think along the lines of the S.H.I.E.L.D. carrier from The Avengers movie, the British Carrier in Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, or even the pirate mothership in Chip 'N' Dale: Rescue Rangers... I have a good long memory of shit I haven't watched in twenty years.

[vVRedOctoberVv]

(looks at Sky Captain carrier) So... More like a James Bond villain hideout? I won't say no to it, but I personally would prefer something sleeker than that :)

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-WmsKWn-Ozdw/T6krXQTyNeI/AAAAAAAAPHQ/A-X7wyM2yqM/s1600/Schroeder_Avengers_Carrier_008_Lg.jpg

This should be the Avenger one you mentioned? That I like a lot better.

I couldn't find a picture of the chip n dale one.

Regardless, I like the concept very much.

edit-
Addendum to my first statement in this post. I would like something sleeker for the TR. Give the VS and NC something really dorky and embarrassing to fly around in. I can see the NC rolling out their Battle Balloons :P We got's us a mobile spawn point naw!

[Baneblade]

No, not Chip N Dale... I'll see if I can remember what it was lol

It was the sky pirates in TaleSpin... bleh :lol:

But yeah, The Avengers were closest imo.

[vVRedOctoberVv]

Damn, dude. I haven't see that in ten or fifteen years. NOW I know what you're talking about. Don frickin' Karnage... Heh....

Anyway, yes. I have nothing else to add.

[berzerkerking]

Staying alive :cool2:
http://youtu.be/ImnVCHreABc

[berzerkerking]

This thread is not going anywhere:p

http://youtu.be/CCsiPSGjauc

[Baneblade]

I wonder how many people are convinced we are the same person... :lol:

[berzerkerking]

http://youtu.be/3W2Jh31qGP4I wonder how many people are convinced we are the same person... :lol:

lol sad but true were the only dedicated posters on this thread.
Keep the dream alive:D

[Akadios]

So basically you want outfits to be able to pull Titans from Battlefield 2142? I am not trying to cheapen what you said you added a lot of good detail but to simplify the mechanics of the thing this is basically what you are saying, yes?

[Akadios]

I'd like to see some concepts of what you are imagining, to be honest. Are you envisioning an actual SHIP, or more like a platform?

It seems he is imagining this, from 2142. It worked there but of course the game ended when you killed the other teams and there were only two. If they found a way to make them so expensive as to be really limited or something it could work. I don't think it would unbalance anything as they can be infiltrated and captured/destroyed by infantry. It would be no different than just having a slow moving Tech Plant flying above the battlefield.

[Baneblade]

So basically you want outfits to be able to pull Titans from Battlefield 2142? I am not trying to cheapen what you said you added a lot of good detail but to simplify the mechanics of the thing this is basically what you are saying, yes?

Actually, this idea is almost as old as BF 1942. The original iteration was conceived in the first quarter of 2004, before SOE... sidegraded their forums.

[berzerkerking]

More like this right?http://www.deviantart.com/download/64696437/Imperial_Star_Destroyer_by_Witch_King_42.jpg

[Baneblade]

In a manner of speaking, yes.

[Akadios]

Actually, this idea is almost as old as BF 1942. The original iteration was conceived in the first quarter of 2004, before SOE... sidegraded their forums.

I wasn't trying to minimize the idea bro. I understood that it was an old idea. No where did I say it was being copied from 2142. However when someone else (EA) makes the idea a reality and puts it in a game it would make sense to use that as an example of what is being talked about. You may have had the idea first but EA made it a reality and everything you are talking about that is different than the 2142 titans could be viewed as a refinement and posting it as such would probably make it more likely to happen as 2142 was wildly successful. It doesn't mean you can't take credit for having the idea in 2004 but in the end they put it in a game not SOE.

A lot of people who are looking to play ps-2 probably played 2142 including devs. So they will know what you are talking about and it will show that hey ya it was balanced there so it can be balanced here. On top of that anyone who didn't play can watch videos.

There is only about a 20% difference by my estimate from what the original post said and these and most of that has to do with game differences (Outfit, resources, maps, multiples, etc). I was trying to help you not fight you.


For people that didn't play 2142 the titans had flight decks, destructible turrets that could be hit from ground or air, control centers, spawn rooms that could be taken, a generator that could be destroyed to blow the thing up, a command deck that could be disabled to stop movement, engines that could be hit from outside to stop movement, both anti ground which were locked in about 200 degree arcs and fired to ground only, anti-air which were 360 and fired to air and were chain gun style, no flak. They moved really slow but could be moved by the commander and had multiple entrance points, hatches, landing pads, etc that had to be defended from infantry. As well as a multiphase pattern of attack, you had to blow consoles to bring down defensive systems to be able to get to the gen.

[Baneblade]

Truth be told, I've never played 2142... or any Battlefield beyond the 1942 mp demo.

[Dacrim]

It seems he is imagining this, from 2142. It worked there but of course the game ended when you killed the other teams and there were only two. If they found a way to make them so expensive as to be really limited or something it could work. I don't think it would unbalance anything as they can be infiltrated and captured/destroyed by infantry. It would be no different than just having a slow moving Tech Plant flying above the battlefield.

personally i think something like this would be absolutely awesome in Planetside 2!!

[Akadios]

Truth be told, I've never played 2142... or any Battlefield beyond the 1942 mp demo.

I fully believe you, you may want to educate yourself on their titans because it is a better footing for your idea as it shows that the same thing worked in another game.

*Better footing as in more likely to be picked up by a dev*

[Marinealver]

I would like to see Water and Amphibious ships before we worry about the airships,

even though that is a hope of mine, but why reach for the clouds in the sky when you can shoot for the moon and the stars in space?

[Baneblade]

I covered all that. Thanks for the bump :)

[berzerkerking]

/Bump :cool2:
http://static.fjcdn.com/gifs/like+a+sir.+oc_19d437_3847352.gif
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFufiremAfk&list=PL3AC24DD9ED362162&index=1&feature=plpp_video

[Dacrim]

/Bump :cool2:
http://static.fjcdn.com/gifs/like+a+sir.+oc_19d437_3847352.gif
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFufiremAfk&list=PL3AC24DD9ED362162&index=1&feature=plpp_video

i love their music.../bump

[berzerkerking]

i love their music.../bump

MF Doom ftw

[berzerkerking]

This plays in my penthouse:cool2:
http://youtu.be/w1lTfNb0nZE
http://i3.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/006/216/7nTnr.png

[berzerkerking]

Yetserday's AGN is up:)
http://youtu.be/m5YaqUdUJLM
Oh and BTW /bump :cool2:

[Sledgecrushr]

Bumping a great idea.

[berzerkerking]

[quote=Sledgecrushr;797710]Bumping a great idea.[/quote
You mentioned great ideas so I am obligated to post this here:
http://youtu.be/fCtD3OJ-_Es

[berzerkerking]

/bump
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/343/462/79a.gif
http://youtu.be/jVgrJjAMFOA
http://www.planetside-universe.com/media/album/mp52rz6sp6/20120722_500c5665f41d9.jpg

[Looopy]

I'm trying to picture it in my head, is this an acurate size/design

http://images.wikia.com/halo/images/d/d0/PoA.jpg

[Baneblade]

Think more along the lines of a 50% scale Corellian Corvette.

[BraavikStal]

I've seen some really good concept pictures of Air carriers and air ships etc. Just trying to remember where they were.

[berzerkerking]

I'm trying to picture it in my head, is this an acurate size/design

http://images.wikia.com/halo/images/d/d0/PoA.jpg

Looks like something the NC would fly

[Gugabalog]

I like this idea. Maybe they could have drop pods for the outfit to use? Idk. Might not be necessary. But this is a little useless without some effect on the ground battle.

[Baneblade]

It has plenty of effects on the ground battle. Just no farming ability.

[berzerkerking]

It has plenty of effects on the ground battle. Just no farming ability.

Good because otherwise they would all be superbomber win buttons

[Gugabalog]

I suppose. Maybe it could drop troops as well as vehicles+ deploy air wings directly.

Could they be boarded and 100% accessible or would there be safe areas with in them? and depending on their cost they should be difficult to deter/disable/destroy.

[berzerkerking]

I suppose. Maybe it could drop troops as well as vehicles+ deploy air wings directly.

Could they be boarded and 100% accessible or would there be safe areas with in them? and depending on their cost they should be difficult to deter/disable/destroy.

I would love to see one boarded and have to fight for control, while it hovered dangerously in place a sitting target for enemy fire, no access to spawn tubes or maxes only turrets and firefights on the deck:evil:

[Gugabalog]

Not having spawn tubes is an interesting idea. Would mean manually manning it. But unlikely.

[Tzitzimitl]

I believe the way this should be implemented should be on their own continent(or something similar). And they should have an effect on ground-battles and be target able by ground vehicles.

On this new continent there should also be missile silo that can damage and take down one of these OAC. This being a persistent game would make missile silos valuable in such a way that they could potentially become key facilities. Also bases should be equipped with launch pods that allow defenders to board these OAC. This would potentially add a tactical layer as you choose between having them be a logistic ship or a combat ship by deciding to bring them close to bases.

Also land vehicles should not be spawn-able on these because it would take away from the importance of tech plants/towers.

Bane has talked about them having a maintenance cost and i propose one of the costs to these could be having it use resource when it fires it weapons. Another that was already brought up could be resource cost to spawning vehicles on top of normal vehicle spawn resource cost.

Anyways, sorry if its too long but this is my 2cents in implementing OAC
Edit: This was brought up in another thread http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=42403&page=2 .
What if it had little to no AA guns so that it would have to rely on escort Fighters for defence? This could potentially make it something that outfits could specialize in/ cause co-operation of outfits.

[Gugabalog]

If it sacrifices AA give it a super-liberator cannon. If it has AA give it little ATG fire power.

But yea, eliminate the vehicle spawning, except for air. And the Galaxy eliminates the need for launch pods. So no launch pods please.

[Baneblade]

I suppose. Maybe it could drop troops as well as vehicles+ deploy air wings directly.

Could they be boarded and 100% accessible or would there be safe areas with in them? and depending on their cost they should be difficult to deter/disable/destroy.

The current design incarnation has infantry deployment systems (drop pods).

No safe areas, 100% permeable defense.

Not having spawn tubes is an interesting idea. Would mean manually manning it. But unlikely.

It would make them much much more difficult to defend against an enemy boarding, which would mean they would be easier to lose, which means their cost would need to be lower overall.

I believe the way this should be implemented should be on their own continent(or something similar). And they should have an effect on ground-battles and be target able by ground vehicles.

The idea was to put in a naval game and outfit ownership features without disrupting the base game by taking away from it like a space or water based navy would.

Also, define 'effect on ground battles'. They already are vulnerable to ground vehicles.

On this new continent there should also be missile silo that can damage and take down one of these OAC. This being a persistent game would make missile silos valuable in such a way that they could potentially become key facilities. Also bases should be equipped with launch pods that allow defenders to board these OAC. This would potentially add a tactical layer as you choose between having them be a logistic ship or a combat ship by deciding to bring them close to bases.

The silo would be fine as long as whoever fires it is paying out the nose.

Also land vehicles should not be spawn-able on these because it would take away from the importance of tech plants/towers.

That is like saying having a spawn room on board will take away from the importance of base spawns.

Bane has talked about them having a maintenance cost and i propose one of the costs to these could be having it use resource when it fires it weapons.

Replenish weapons maybe, but a rich get richer scenario is not the way to do things in PS2.

What if it had little to no AA guns so that it would have to rely on escort Fighters for defence? This could potentially make it something that outfits could specialize in/ cause co-operation of outfits.

A fighter screen is more effective than point defense guns already, no need to do that as well.

But yea, eliminate the vehicle spawning, except for air. And the Galaxy eliminates the need for launch pods. So no launch pods please.

It would be interesting if vehicles were the only way to leave an OAC. Maybe the Lodestar will debut in time to make it possible to deploy MBTs and Sunderers.

[berzerkerking]

One of the most orderly threads i've seen.
Every 8 or so questions there is a mass answering session. Keep up the good work.

[Tzitzimitl]

The idea was to put in a naval game and outfit ownership features without disrupting the base game by taking away from it like a space or water based navy would.

Also, define 'effect on ground battles'. They already are vulnerable to ground vehicles.
Yea i forgot to elaborate this part, but their effect on ground battles. This effect could be having AV and AI weapons that would effect the ground. It can have AA weapons to effect air battles. If they had such an effect it would make them really strong and it would require it be separated. I guess the question would be do we want OAC with minimal effect on battles or OAC with such a strong effect that it changes the battlefield?


The silo would be fine as long as whoever fires it is paying out the nose.

I was actually think more along the lines of the silos having a 1 hex range(?) but your idea could potentially work

That is like saying having a spawn room on board will take away from the importance of base spawns.

The point i was trying to make would be that ground vehicles would be spawned from it allowing for a faster deployment. This faster deployment has the potential to take away from tech/towers. Perhaps, your right but this would have to be play tested to truly find out.

Replenish weapons maybe
I meant this

[berzerkerking]

replenishing weapons seems almost guaranteed by its size, kind of like the galaxy.

[Baneblade]

Yea i forgot to elaborate this part, but their effect on ground battles. This effect could be having AV and AI weapons that would effect the ground. It can have AA weapons to effect air battles. If they had such an effect it would make them really strong and it would require it be separated. I guess the question would be do we want OAC with minimal effect on battles or OAC with such a strong effect that it changes the battlefield?

I took great care to keep Air Cruisers from directly influencing the order of battle on the surface of Auraxis. BFRs went a long way toward ruining the original PlanetSide and I don't want a rehash of that on an even more insurmountable scale. The AA abilities they have are not overpowering due to limited arcs and the lack of flak and missile point defense weapons.

The main weapons and secondary weapons are intended to engage other Air Cruisers first and foremost, though I suspect they might get a lucky hit on a Galaxy once in awhile too.

I was actually think more along the lines of the silos having a 1 hex range(?) but your idea could potentially work

Well, if the intention is to create a method of area denial against an Air Cruiser, it might work. As long as they aren't literally everywhere. But, keep in mind that it is a weapon the Cruiser can't retaliate against without first making the weapons into air to ground.

The point i was trying to make would be that ground vehicles would be spawned from it allowing for a faster deployment. This faster deployment has the potential to take away from tech/towers. Perhaps, your right but this would have to be play tested to truly find out.

Well one of the perks of an OAC is exactly that, faster deployment of outfit forces to the theater. I think outfits with the wherewithal and gumption to focus on obtaining and keeping an OAC have justified some secondary perks for it. As long as they are not directly overpowering.

ACs are balanced due to their inability to fight back against most none AC units. The counters to non AC units are the same as they always were: Other non AC units.

[Program]

Though this discussion has moved on quite far, I'll just say it anyway: this does seem like too much for the ground areas, but if they implement space battles, this would be great.

P.S. Great job on elaborating on your idea.

[Baneblade]

Though this discussion has moved on quite far, I'll just say it anyway: this does seem like too much for the ground areas, but if they implement space battles, this would be great.

P.S. Great job on elaborating on your idea.

I was hoping PS2 maps would be larger than they are slated to be honestly. The idea is a port of the original series of ideas for PS1, where the maps were vastly larger than the actual land masses.

[Buggsy]

If there were large immobile artillery (that players place themselves) pieces that could hit slow moving targets, like giant floating battleships, than giant floating battleships would be no big deal (i'm thinking of BF2142's Titan and the BF2142 missile silos that hit the Titans).

It seems he is imagining this, from 2142. It worked there but of course the game ended when you killed the other teams and there were only two. If they found a way to make them so expensive as to be really limited or something it could work. I don't think it would unbalance anything as they can be infiltrated and captured/destroyed by infantry. It would be no different than just having a slow moving Tech Plant flying above the battlefield.

Titan vs. Titan shooting at each other in the air would have looked cool from the ground. Too bad that never happened.

[Gugabalog]

Ok, I see this working amazingly for space battles.

Maybe the empty continent they do for outfit bases could be SPACE?
Give zerg a reason to join outfits... and besides... SPACE!

Easy to do...just make an empty zone with a spawn platform and a mechanic for the outfit ships...

But if they're feeling ambitious maybe they could have different tiers of ships for outfits to have...

[berzerkerking]

where things go /bump in the night

[Buggsy]

Give zerg a reason to join outfits...


Unless outfit members wear bells around their necks, I find it difficult to tell the difference between outfits and zerg. They all do the same thing.

[Gugabalog]

^ Depends on the outfit.

[Baneblade]

Unless outfit members wear bells around their necks, I find it difficult to tell the difference between outfits and zerg. They all do the same thing.

Well the obvious difference is that outfits are usually coordinated, while the zerg tends to not be coordinated. Of course some outfits are the zerg with a name, while others are the zerg enablers.

A heavy armor outfit on the front lines might be confused with the zerg, till you realize those forty two Vanguards are moving in formations and are alpha striking Sunderers without having to fire twice.

The Vanguard is going to be the worst zergling tank in the game, yet the best outfit tank at the same time.

[Gugabalog]

I would contest that claim and say the prowler would be the best outfit tank as its speed empowers blitzkrieg style tactics. Have infantry in sunderers follow up and unload into capture points and voila. Maybe have a squad of tank camp the spawn tubes if not destroy them too, and have the rest take up different positions to keep the base secure against reinforcements while the infantry clear it out.

[berzerkerking]

I would contest that claim and say the prowler would be the best outfit tank as its speed empowers blitzkrieg style tactics. Have infantry in sunderers follow up and unload into capture points and voila. Maybe have a squad of tank camp the spawn tubes if not destroy them too, and have the rest take up different positions to keep the base secure against reinforcements while the infantry clear it out.

I dissagree. I believe that the speed would lead to uncoordinated lone-wolfing

[Gugabalog]

Not if properly coordinated i.e. by an outfit.

[Baneblade]

I would contest that claim and say the prowler would be the best outfit tank as its speed empowers blitzkrieg style tactics. Have infantry in sunderers follow up and unload into capture points and voila. Maybe have a squad of tank camp the spawn tubes if not destroy them too, and have the rest take up different positions to keep the base secure against reinforcements while the infantry clear it out.

The Prowler may indeed be the best universal tank in PS2, but I still believe in an organized armor battle, the Vanguard will come out on top.

[Gugabalog]

^ That is true.

NC are best for battles of attrition.

TR are best for blitzkrieg tactics.

VS are best for precision strikes.

Not that any empire is incapable of the other roles, they just excel in these in their default state.

[Lumberchuk]

So back to the topic :P

I always pictured this idea as the SC2 mothership


I feel like a more symmetrical design is required if you intend to altitude lock the aircraft. That way changing directions looks a lot smoother.

[Buggsy]

Well the obvious difference is that outfits are usually coordinated, while the zerg tends to not be coordinated.

No they're not.

Of course some outfits are the zerg with a name, while others are the zerg enablers.

A heavy armor outfit on the front lines might be confused with the zerg, till you realize those forty two Vanguards are moving in formations and are alpha striking Sunderers without having to fire twice.

That's zerging

^ Depends on the outfit.

I've been in 2 Planetside outfits, and 4 WWIIONLINE outfits, all they are capable of doing is zerging or exploiting game mechanics. Any plan involving more than 1-step is too much for their brains to handle.

[Gugabalog]

Buggsy, based on this argument and other posts of yours on this forum, I would say you have been rejected by coordinated outfits and so have no buisness further derailing this.

[Baneblade]

So back to the topic :P

I always pictured this idea as the SC2 mothership


I feel like a more symmetrical design is required if you intend to altitude lock the aircraft. That way changing directions looks a lot smoother.

Well, symmetry is nice, but not strictly necessary:

http://www.strikefighterconsultinginc.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Schroeder_Carrier_022A_Lg.jpg

[Psyche]

{Before I start, let me say I'm not opposed to the idea. I thought of it myself and was thinking about it a few before I realised some of the problems with it. This post isn't to kill the idea but change it into something more viable for the game}

A few problem I found with the idea:

Favors certain playstyles over others (aerial units mainly) which would be a problem for non-aerial centric outfits (infantry, armor, Infiltration, etc.)
Adds load to general gameplay area[if present there] and disrupts the map layout [bugs will happen and this being mobile will generate more if present in the game area]. My understanding is these won't actually be in the gameplay area but rather in another area above it so most of this point is moot.
Believability - its hard to believe something like this being available [regardless of technology] - its large, it wasn't brought here since its planetbound, it has to be built somewhere, it will require a great deal of resources just to maintain it, what happens if this thing fails and falls to ground? it doesn't provide enough benefits/advantages for the cost without entering gameplay area which would disrupt/imbalance the gameplay area.
It only enriches the game for some [Outfits] by providing a private lobby/staging area/sanctuary and possible outfit versus outfit battles [air cruiser vs air cruiser] leaving everyone else empty handed [doesn't justify development costs/work - not enough bang for the buck because of this - niche application]
It could potentially work as RMT item or Premium benefit (which would justify the increased load on the network datacenter and asset creation) as its basically equal to a leased & private server in online games. Ie. Virtual housing.


These are some of things I thought of to correct the issues I noticed:


Use Orbital Platforms {specifically Low Orbital *see below} instead of Air platforms.

Easier to maintain and more limited mobility
More believable and eliminates reasonable access of base to gameplay area but is close enough to Interact with gameplay area [Drop Pods, Mass Elevators, Rocketed supply loads,etc.]
Can accomadate All playstyles via EVA modification (even tanks can move and maneuver in a soft vacuum with maneuver thrusters) while Air Vehicles would still have there inherent mobility advantage.
Seperate play area like a seperate continent but a more drastic climate/environment difference. Which could potentially function like an expansion {like Core Combat though hopefully a lot better and not game-breaking to basic game}.
Still allow mobility of Outfit Base via Orbital Drift and repositioning so it could hover over a continent and essentially function as a Private Sanctuary [non-gameplay area] if it shifts into Upper Orbit [not instant].
Exotic environment but familiar enough to be accessable [Low Orbit is inside Gravity Well just above Ionosphere{re-entry}. Newtonian movement with gravity providing decay/slowdown [EVA systems would concentrate on maintaining altitude/countering gravity but not slowing down movements which would happen regardless of EVA's activity]. World is also basically upside-down (Ionosphere is a 'soft' boundry - it either kills you for going straight in too fast or 'bounces' you back out into vacuum or drops you into base gameplay area because you actually Re-Entered at the right angle & speed & survived but your EVA stuff is WORTHLESS and your free-falling) with Satelites/Orbiting Ships[derelict or partially active]/Orbital Graveyard & Debris Field {Dust fields & micro meteorites & small scrap held in orbit - kind of like Saturns rings but not natural - litter from us} being the Ceiling and where most of the public and more or less permanent ground is [artificial islands]
Items/Mods don't translate to Planetside well or at all (they are largely useless planetside).
Situation in orbit can indirectly affect Basic Gameplay (provide buffs) via: modifying Orbital strike availability, reduced Drop Pod respawn times, increased sensor range due to Satelite availability, etc.
Provides Lore excuse for its existance & production/construction space. These aren't going to built on the planet and launched (modules and/or pieces might be), they are going to be built in orbit (resources might come from planet or Orbital graveyard). Lore: We came here on Ships - well those ships weren't going to land on the planet with anyone onboard surviving so they'd still be there and they would be neutral ground (what ones were still intact and largely functional) as they are our link to earth [no ship = no earth anymore for us]. The contestable area's and source of materials/components/manufacturing capabilities could be derelicts that need to be restored to produce repair parts[self maintenance capability necessary for long range travel] that are used to build the platforms since most planetside facilities will be geared and designed for build planet bound items not space capable items.
Always active but not always accessible to everyone - ie. launch windows to get up there but the sky isn't going to dissappear [except for bugs & server crashes, etc.]. Might have to jump continents to get to a portal (shuttle) to get to it [Outfits with bases will have a respawn at there base and easier access].
Provides protection against SWG's Ghosttown epidemic & Gamespace maintenance without an unattractive cost to players. Ie. Bases could be parked in Orbit out of play area to avoid cluttering gamespace without actually destroying them and giving players less reason to want to invest in them.
Orbital Platforms scale better than an Air Cruiser would. Meaning: You can have dinky small Orbital Platform that say a very small outfit could afford access and an obscenely large orbital platform without it appearing wrong. With an Air Cruiser, by virtue of its environment and it being an artificial element in it, would have a much larger minimum size that might not be as accessable to small outfits while its max reasonable size would too small for an extremely large outfit [ex. a very large Armored oriented Outfit]. Orbital Platforms are also less known to players [most people haven't been in space but have likely seen astronauts/cosmonauts on TV] so the Developers would have more room for error/inaccuracies in the environment than Air Cruisers which is in Atmosphere [despite differences in upper atmosphere that are very different and unknown to most people but they probably won't realise just how different and assume its wrong].



I decided on Low Orbit instead of full space because Space while popular is a niche in gaming. Most people don't like space games unless they non-spacey enough to be easily accessable. Making a dumbed-down space would come across as cheap to a lot PS vets I think, it wouldn't give a sense of progression or accomplishment by getting better at it/learning about it. Which would mean SOE would have to provide some other reward that would likely mess up the base game. Low Orbit is about as non-spacey a space game can get and still be an actual space game.
Why?:

Gravity is still present and its almost a low gravity moon environment except for the lack of land surface. Which has been experimented with in various games in isolated areas within them, it was largely well recieved where it was used like this.
Land Surface can reasonably be added to the environment to make it more accessable to players without it seeming out of place or wrong to players or space enthusiasts.
Its close enough to the base game area to expect interaction between the two environments while still allowing radical differences.
Its a small contained area instead of an extremely large open area and can be presented as a 2d area with altitude instead of being a full 3D area. Which makes technical/asset requirements for it a lot less than having a whole other set of code/assets/functions that would be optimised for 3D to support core game feature [massive player battles].


Here is my fabricated 'excuse' for how it would work:
The Orbital platform essentially floats on the surface of the Ionosphere just like a ship uses bouyancy to float on water. It does this using magnetics as the Ionosphere is charged matter/ozone layer of the atmosphere. The magnetics doesn't hold the Platform up, it actually clamps it down to it. It still have station keeping drives to maintain a stable orbit and allowing to maneuver using mainly drift caused by movement/wind/flow of the Ionosphere particles which is constant and normal. It also taps or scrapes the Ionosphere to generate power via Energy dump of the Ionosphere particles using Thermal power generation as well as providing a source of matter [the particles themselves, ie. Resources for various uses].

The core Platforms are built from the remains of the Fleet that brought humans here and most refurbishing & manufacturing must be done in space by the few remaining Fleet vessels as they are the only manufacturing facilities designed to produce components/parts that are space-capable for maintenance purposes. New technology advances need to modified to be operable in space. Consequently, maintaining Orbital Platforms allows for more frequent and efficient transfers between plantbound facilities and Orbital facilities as the platforms eliminate most of the problems of re-entry & achieving orbit effectively acting as gates between the planet and space.

Allowing New technology and planetary resources to be used for space advancement and unfortunately have caused a 'space race' and perpetual conflict in orbit frequently centered around the Orbital Platforms and the remaining manufacturing facilities regardless of the operational state of the facilities as the faction struggle for an advantage either by taking each others facilities, refurbishing derelict facilities or manufacturing new ones.

Surviving Fleet personell(SOE/Dev's) have been declared 'Neutral' in the conflicts though some have declared alliegance to certain factions {*cough*cough* lousy NC lovers} and have retreated to geostationary orbit between Auraxis [I]and one of its moons {edit: not sure if there are any} to monitor the situation for any potential catastrophic events occuring due to Orbital decay and successful re-entry of orbital bodies.

{A Dev/GM Staging area aka Outfit base to help with like Live events and is outside the accessable play area unless your using the Development Client Build. Live events play havoc on Network resources [easy to test & prep for Live events because your in the Live but in a redundant area] and most Players like to 'kill' Dev's they see in game [giving GM's a private game/social area when needed - ie. porting a player with them to a chamber here so they can 'talk' etc.]. In Live Game test environment are a lot more effective for reproducing and/or testing bugs/glitches since your in the same environment to get a 'look' at the Live version of them - doing that in a simulated environment requires duplicating all factors that cause it and often some will be left out. Not to mention a place to 'park' there toons without getting killed when they are just playing. The SOE Outfit base which will be a lot better than anything any of us will ever get.}

{EDIT: THAT IS A VERY LONG POST...and I spent 6 hours typing it in due to being pulled away by Daily RL stuff. Hope its useful.}

[Gugabalog]

{Before I start, let me say I'm not opposed to the idea. I thought of it myself and was thinking about it a few before I realised some of the problems with it. This post isn't to kill the idea but change it into something more viable for the game}

A few problem I found with the idea:

Favors certain playstyles over others (aerial units mainly) which would be a problem for non-aerial centric outfits (infantry, armor, Infiltration, etc.)
Adds load to general gameplay area[if present there] and disrupts the map layout [bugs will happen and this being mobile will generate more if present in the game area]. My understanding is these won't actually be in the gameplay area but rather in another area above it so most of this point is moot.
Believability - its hard to believe something like this being available [regardless of technology] - its large, it wasn't brought here since its planetbound, it has to be built somewhere, it will require a great deal of resources just to maintain it, what happens if this thing fails and falls to ground? it doesn't provide enough benefits/advantages for the cost without entering gameplay area which would disrupt/imbalance the gameplay area.
It only enriches the game for some [Outfits] by providing a private lobby/staging area/sanctuary and possible outfit versus outfit battles [air cruiser vs air cruiser] leaving everyone else empty handed [doesn't justify development costs/work - not enough bang for the buck because of this - niche application]
It could potentially work as RMT item or Premium benefit (which would justify the increased load on the network datacenter and asset creation) as its basically equal to a leased & private server in online games. Ie. Virtual housing.


These are some of things I thought of to correct the issues I noticed:


Use Orbital Platforms {specifically Low Orbital *see below} instead of Air platforms.

Easier to maintain and more limited mobility
More believable and eliminates reasonable access of base to gameplay area but is close enough to Interact with gameplay area [Drop Pods, Mass Elevators, Rocketed supply loads,etc.]
Can accomadate All playstyles via EVA modification (even tanks can move and maneuver in a soft vacuum with maneuver thrusters) while Air Vehicles would still have there inherent mobility advantage.
Seperate play area like a seperate continent but a more drastic climate/environment difference. Which could potentially function like an expansion {like Core Combat though hopefully a lot better and not game-breaking to basic game}.
Still allow mobility of Outfit Base via Orbital Drift and repositioning so it could hover over a continent and essentially function as a Private Sanctuary [non-gameplay area] if it shifts into Upper Orbit [not instant].
Exotic environment but familiar enough to be accessable [Low Orbit is inside Gravity Well just above Ionosphere{re-entry}. Newtonian movement with gravity providing decay/slowdown [EVA systems would concentrate on maintaining altitude/countering gravity but not slowing down movements which would happen regardless of EVA's activity]. World is also basically upside-down (Ionosphere is a 'soft' boundry - it either kills you for going straight in too fast or 'bounces' you back out into vacuum or drops you into base gameplay area because you actually Re-Entered at the right angle & speed & survived but your EVA stuff is WORTHLESS and your free-falling) with Satelites/Orbiting Ships[derelict or partially active]/Orbital Graveyard & Debris Field {Dust fields & micro meteorites & small scrap held in orbit - kind of like Saturns rings but not natural - litter from us} being the Ceiling and where most of the public and more or less permanent ground is [artificial islands]
Items/Mods don't translate to Planetside well or at all (they are largely useless planetside).
Situation in orbit can indirectly affect Basic Gameplay (provide buffs) via: modifying Orbital strike availability, reduced Drop Pod respawn times, increased sensor range due to Satelite availability, etc.
Provides Lore excuse for its existance & production/construction space. These aren't going to built on the planet and launched (modules and/or pieces might be), they are going to be built in orbit (resources might come from planet or Orbital graveyard). Lore: We came here on Ships - well those ships weren't going to land on the planet with anyone onboard surviving so they'd still be there and they would be neutral ground (what ones were still intact and largely functional) as they are our link to earth [no ship = no earth anymore for us]. The contestable area's and source of materials/components/manufacturing capabilities could be derelicts that need to be restored to produce repair parts[self maintenance capability necessary for long range travel] that are used to build the platforms since most planetside facilities will be geared and designed for build planet bound items not space capable items.
Always active but not always accessible to everyone - ie. launch windows to get up there but the sky isn't going to dissappear [except for bugs & server crashes, etc.]. Might have to jump continents to get to a portal (shuttle) to get to it [Outfits with bases will have a respawn at there base and easier access].
Provides protection against SWG's Ghosttown epidemic & Gamespace maintenance without an unattractive cost to players. Ie. Bases could be parked in Orbit out of play area to avoid cluttering gamespace without actually destroying them and giving players less reason to want to invest in them.
Orbital Platforms scale better than an Air Cruiser would. Meaning: You can have dinky small Orbital Platform that say a very small outfit could afford access and an obscenely large orbital platform without it appearing wrong. With an Air Cruiser, by virtue of its environment and it being an artificial element in it, would have a much larger minimum size that might not be as accessable to small outfits while its max reasonable size would too small for an extremely large outfit [ex. a very large Armored oriented Outfit]. Orbital Platforms are also less known to players [most people haven't been in space but have likely seen astronauts/cosmonauts on TV] so the Developers would have more room for error/inaccuracies in the environment than Air Cruisers which is in Atmosphere [despite differences in upper atmosphere that are very different and unknown to most people but they probably won't realise just how different and assume its wrong].



I decided on Low Orbit instead of full space because Space while popular is a niche in gaming. Most people don't like space games unless they non-spacey enough to be easily accessable. Making a dumbed-down space would come across as cheap to a lot PS vets I think, it wouldn't give a sense of progression or accomplishment by getting better at it/learning about it. Which would mean SOE would have to provide some other reward that would likely mess up the base game. Low Orbit is about as non-spacey a space game can get and still be an actual space game.
Why?:

Gravity is still present and its almost a low gravity moon environment except for the lack of land surface. Which has been experimented with in various games in isolated areas within them, it was largely well recieved where it was used like this.
Land Surface can reasonably be added to the environment to make it more accessable to players without it seeming out of place or wrong to players or space enthusiasts.
Its close enough to the base game area to expect interaction between the two environments while still allowing radical differences.
Its a small contained area instead of an extremely large open area and can be presented as a 2d area with altitude instead of being a full 3D area. Which makes technical/asset requirements for it a lot less than having a whole other set of code/assets/functions that would be optimised for 3D to support core game feature [massive player battles].


Here is my fabricated 'excuse' for how it would work:
The Orbital platform essentially floats on the surface of the Ionosphere just like a ship uses bouyancy to float on water. It does this using magnetics as the Ionosphere is charged matter/ozone layer of the atmosphere. The magnetics doesn't hold the Platform up, it actually clamps it down to it. It still have station keeping drives to maintain a stable orbit and allowing to maneuver using mainly drift caused by movement/wind/flow of the Ionosphere particles which is constant and normal. It also taps or scrapes the Ionosphere to generate power via Energy dump of the Ionosphere particles using Thermal power generation as well as providing a source of matter [the particles themselves, ie. Resources for various uses].

The core Platforms are built from the remains of the Fleet that brought humans here and most refurbishing & manufacturing must be done in space by the few remaining Fleet vessels as they are the only manufacturing facilities designed to produce components/parts that are space-capable for maintenance purposes. New technology advances need to modified to be operable in space. Consequently, maintaining Orbital Platforms allows for more frequent and efficient transfers between plantbound facilities and Orbital facilities as the platforms eliminate most of the problems of re-entry & achieving orbit effectively acting as gates between the planet and space.

Allowing New technology and planetary resources to be used for space advancement and unfortunately have caused a 'space race' and perpetual conflict in orbit frequently centered around the Orbital Platforms and the remaining manufacturing facilities regardless of the operational state of the facilities as the faction struggle for an advantage either by taking each others facilities, refurbishing derelict facilities or manufacturing new ones.

Surviving Fleet personell(SOE/Dev's) have been declared 'Neutral' in the conflicts though some have declared alliegance to certain factions {*cough*cough* lousy NC lovers} and have retreated to geostationary orbit between Auraxis [I]and one of its moons {edit: not sure if there are any} to monitor the situation for any potential catastrophic events occuring due to Orbital decay and successful re-entry of orbital bodies.

{A Dev/GM Staging area aka Outfit base to help with like Live events and is outside the accessable play area unless your using the Development Client Build. Live events play havoc on Network resources [easy to test & prep for Live events because your in the Live but in a redundant area] and most Players like to 'kill' Dev's they see in game [giving GM's a private game/social area when needed - ie. porting a player with them to a chamber here so they can 'talk' etc.]. In Live Game test environment are a lot more effective for reproducing and/or testing bugs/glitches since your in the same environment to get a 'look' at the Live version of them - doing that in a simulated environment requires duplicating all factors that cause it and often some will be left out. Not to mention a place to 'park' there toons without getting killed when they are just playing. The SOE Outfit base which will be a lot better than anything any of us will ever get.}

{EDIT: THAT IS A VERY LONG POST...and I spent 6 hours typing it in due to being pulled away by Daily RL stuff. Hope its useful.}

/SUPPORT!

Maybe /thread too?

[Psyche]

/SUPPORT!

Maybe /thread too?

Thank you, after checking my post I actually [yes really] meant to put a few more details/theories/information in, but didn't due to distruptions and lack of proofing.

I'll to add them in later when I have time and [hopefully] get all of them in using colored text to highlight the updated sections.

[Buggsy]

Buggsy, based on this argument and other posts of yours on this forum, I would say you have been rejected by coordinated outfits and so have no buisness further derailing this.

How could I join 6 outfits if I were "rejected by coordinated outfits"? You're just being antagonistic, welcome to the ignore list.

[Gugabalog]

How could I join 6 outfits if I were "rejected by coordinated outfits"? You're just being antagonistic, welcome to the ignore list.

Because those 6 outfits were likely casual outfits.

When I say judging by your other posts I say so because often they are defensive. I'm just stating for the record that I rarely see you being constructive.

ON TOPIC:

I totally support the Low Orbit Platform idea.

[berzerkerking]

Well, symmetry is nice, but not strictly necessary:

http://www.strikefighterconsultinginc.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Schroeder_Carrier_022A_Lg.jpg
always struck me as more of and avengers type flying aircraft carrier too

[Baneblade]

I've been resisting this for as long as I could... but I guess I have to address it sometime.

{Before I start, let me say I'm not opposed to the idea. I thought of it myself and was thinking about it a few before I realised some of the problems with it. This post isn't to kill the idea but change it into something more viable for the game}

As with anything, your thoughts deserve fair consideration.

A few problem I found with the idea:

Favors certain playstyles over others (aerial units mainly) which would be a problem for non-aerial centric outfits (infantry, armor, Infiltration, etc.)

Well considering War Machine is an armorcentric outfit, I believe we blow that theory out of the water. The idea was designed to not be air centric any more than a water navy would be ground centric.

Adds load to general gameplay area[if present there] and disrupts the map layout [bugs will happen and this being mobile will generate more if present in the game area]. My understanding is these won't actually be in the gameplay area but rather in another area above it so most of this point is moot.

Bugs are not a valid reason to use against a game feature. Bugs are meant to be fixed, not used as excuses. As for the load on hardware, not any more than a base or those same players in smaller vehicles would be. If anything, I'd reckon the load would be a wash.

Believability - its hard to believe something like this being available [regardless of technology] - its large, it wasn't brought here since its planetbound, it has to be built somewhere, it will require a great deal of resources just to maintain it, what happens if this thing fails and falls to ground? it doesn't provide enough benefits/advantages for the cost without entering gameplay area which would disrupt/imbalance the gameplay area.

I don't believe that a suspension of belief is required for air cruisers to exist. Aircraft already have futuristic VTOL propulsion that seems to break the traditional rules of flight. I see no reason that the Avengers carrier, for example, couldn't be using `Iron Man` esque propulsion in PlanetSide 2. As for resources, they should be expensive and they will likely require dedicated launch and maintenance facilities.

It only enriches the game for some [Outfits] by providing a private lobby/staging area/sanctuary and possible outfit versus outfit battles [air cruiser vs air cruiser] leaving everyone else empty handed [doesn't justify development costs/work - not enough bang for the buck because of this - niche application]

I beg to differ. Any special 'base' for outfits could be canceled due to that logic. I see no reason that an outfit with the organization and drive to bring an air cruiser to support their empire should not be able to do so.

It could potentially work as RMT item or Premium benefit (which would justify the increased load on the network datacenter and asset creation) as its basically equal to a leased & private server in online games. Ie. Virtual housing.

Your RMT thing is the real problem you were trying to address above. OACs should never be bought with SC.

These are some of things I thought of to correct the issues I noticed:

Use Orbital Platforms {specifically Low Orbital *see below} instead of Air platforms.

Which completely eviscerates one of the entire reasons this idea exists in the first place: A real naval aspect to the game that does not require special maps or a vast rework of the way the game functions fundamentally. These are supposed to enhance the conflict, not take away from it.

More believable and eliminates reasonable access of base to gameplay area but is close enough to Interact with gameplay area [Drop Pods, Mass Elevators, Rocketed supply loads,etc.]

Which again completely sodomizes the entire point of outfit air cruisers, to keep outfit assets 'in the game' and important to the conflict. Invulnerable orbiting stations remove players from the actual war for no reason.

Can accomadate All playstyles via EVA modification (even tanks can move and maneuver in a soft vacuum with maneuver thrusters) while Air Vehicles would still have there inherent mobility advantage.

And you claimed air cruisers were unbelievable.

Seperate play area like a seperate continent but a more drastic climate/environment difference. Which could potentially function like an expansion {like Core Combat though hopefully a lot better and not game-breaking to basic game}.

The evil word there is 'separate'. Adding more play fields is one thing, but denying them to the majority of the players in their chosen roles is another.

Still allow mobility of Outfit Base via Orbital Drift and repositioning so it could hover over a continent and essentially function as a Private Sanctuary [non-gameplay area] if it shifts into Upper Orbit [not instant].

I don't see the point.

Exotic environment but familiar enough to be accessable [Low Orbit is inside Gravity Well just above Ionosphere{re-entry}. Newtonian movement with gravity providing decay/slowdown [EVA systems would concentrate on maintaining altitude/countering gravity but not slowing down movements which would happen regardless of EVA's activity]. World is also basically upside-down (Ionosphere is a 'soft' boundry - it either kills you for going straight in too fast or 'bounces' you back out into vacuum or drops you into base gameplay area because you actually Re-Entered at the right angle & speed & survived but your EVA stuff is WORTHLESS and your free-falling) with Satelites/Orbiting Ships[derelict or partially active]/Orbital Graveyard & Debris Field {Dust fields & micro meteorites & small scrap held in orbit - kind of like Saturns rings but not natural - litter from us} being the Ceiling and where most of the public and more or less permanent ground is [artificial islands]

It sounds like you want Core Combat in reverse, and it will suffer the same problem: Next to zero interest beyond the initial new content phase. Players don't like to be separated from 'the battle'.

Provides protection against SWG's Ghosttown epidemic & Gamespace maintenance without an unattractive cost to players. Ie. Bases could be parked in Orbit out of play area to avoid cluttering gamespace without actually destroying them and giving players less reason to want to invest in them.

SWG's planets had four times the land area (in square km) and 10% or less of the population than PlanetSide 2. Somehow I don't think we have to worry about empty outfit stuff.

Orbital Platforms scale better than an Air Cruiser would. Meaning: You can have dinky small Orbital Platform that say a very small outfit could afford access and an obscenely large orbital platform without it appearing wrong. With an Air Cruiser, by virtue of its environment and it being an artificial element in it, would have a much larger minimum size that might not be as accessable to small outfits while its max reasonable size would too small for an extremely large outfit [ex. a very large Armored oriented Outfit]. Orbital Platforms are also less known to players [most people haven't been in space but have likely seen astronauts/cosmonauts on TV] so the Developers would have more room for error/inaccuracies in the environment than Air Cruisers which is in Atmosphere [despite differences in upper atmosphere that are very different and unknown to most people but they probably won't realise just how different and assume its wrong].

Arbitrarily complicated supposition with no logical basis. Every argument you try to ascribe to air cruisers goes ten fold for anything in orbit.

{EDIT: THAT IS A VERY LONG POST...and I spent 6 hours typing it in due to being pulled away by Daily RL stuff. Hope its useful.}

You are on to something and I'd like to see where it goes from here. I recommend you clean it up some more, verify some of your assumptions, and post it in its own topic. Fronting it as a counter proposal to my idea indicates a lack of confidence and won't really help you keep it in discussion circles.

There is no reason both can't be used at some point and I don't believe it will help your idea to be hiding in the skirt of this thread.

[Gugabalog]

I'm in support of L.O.P. simply because they affect the land war but not directly, that combined with the spacey nature of it without having to rework the physics makes it seem fun *and* doable.

[Baneblade]

What 'reworking of physics' do you think would be necessary?

[Gugabalog]

I'm in support of L.O.P. simply because they affect the land war but not directly, that combined with the spacey nature of it without having to rework the physics makes it seem fun *and* doable.

See?

[Baneblade]

Well it doesn't matter in any case, LOP is off topic since this is a naval idea first and foremost.

[Gugabalog]

An airborne cruiser is a naval idea? How is it naval anymore naval than a L.O.P.?

Every time space is assosciated with a an armed force it's usually referred to as navy, and it isn't off topic it is an alternative which was presented for the same niche and is more palatable for some players.

[Baneblade]

He isn't asking for a space navy, in fact he deliberately said he wasn't.

He is asking for footholds in space.

[Gugabalog]

He isn't asking for a space navy, in fact he deliberately said he wasn't.

He is asking for footholds in space.

Immovable stations or not, it would appear to be in space and thus under naval jurisdiction.

Regardless it would make an interesting dynamic and seems feasable. I could see outfits benefiting greatly from this. Imagine boarding actions of orbital stations by cohesive squads! The max rushes! The dogfights outside the bays!

Or alternatively it could supplant the air cruiser and be a outfit-specific stronghold that may or may not be fought over.

Either way controlling them should give a buff of some sort to the corresponding continent or chosen continent. I.E. Reduced squad spawn cooldown, reduced OS cooldown, etc. Maybe only one buff that could be chosen or a few buffs that must each be certed towards.

The L.O.P. has a lot of potential and could supplant the air cruiser. I don't understand you attacks on it's validity as a concept.

[Baneblade]

Do I really have to explain it twice?

[Gugabalog]

You don't need to explain anything, you need to listen/understand/reread.

[Baneblade]

I don't need to do shit. I responded to his ideas and to your attempts to convert the thread into a discussion about his idea. I've been more than fair about it.

[Gugabalog]

The L.O.P. idea could potentially supplant the A.C. because it fills the same gameplay niche and thus is within the scope of this thread. It has certain attributes which the air cruiser lacks and has merit to be discussed because of it. I do not view the L.O.P. as a derailment of the thread so much as an evolution of your original concept.

[Baneblade]

And the most critical part, they add a naval combat aspect that will add to and not take from the existing PlanetSide theatres of war.

In the first paragraph no less. LOP takes away from them. OAC doesn't, it augments them and even increases them. LOP sounds like the old sanctuary system to me, which is fine, but off topic.

[Gugabalog]

But isn't the essence of the L.O.P. and the OAC the same? Aerial/Infantry combat absent of land vehicles? And possibly including some biome specific vehicles? (I.E. Larger aircraft style things in place of ships?)

[Baneblade]

Low Orbit would be hundreds of kilometers above the flight ceiling in PS2. Basically space.

[Gugabalog]

Yea, and it would function the same as a continent dedicated to naval warfare.

[Baneblade]

Yea, and it would function the same as a continent dedicated to naval warfare.

Right, which is why I'm opposed to it. I don't want 'content arenas' or 'content zones'. I want everything on one battlefield... so to speak.

[Gugabalog]

As is they already have biomes that negatively affect certain war machines. I.E. canyons negatively affect armor while forests negatively affect air. Why should a small (biome sized) "space" continent be any different?

[Baneblade]

By definition it couldn't be small. Even OACs are going to make the current maps seem small, until SOE quadruples their effective sizes by opening up coastal areas and adding island geography.

[Gugabalog]

A 64^2 is more an island than a continent. Maybe a space biome for orbital platforms would have one platform for each continent?

I also think OAC works better with a taller flight ceiling.

[Baneblade]

OACs are supposed to be vulnerable to ground units, it helps keep them from just going where ever they please.

[Gugabalog]

I don't see a player owned anything that would otherwise be persistent being destructible, only capturable. It just seems like too big a flaw to be worth the time.

[Baneblade]

They have to be destructible, otherwise you have too many of them. I admit the flaw in that is how to handle the outfit being offline, but there could be a park mode that halves resource cost, but it still costs resources when parked.

[Gugabalog]

I think that maybe they could be like facilities only air borne and indestructable and instead of purchasable they are capturable, which was one of the big advantages of the LOP

[Baneblade]

There are already ideas like that. OAC isn't one of them.

[Gugabalog]

I'm suggesting making it like that as I don't see outfits buying something that has a sign painted "SHOOT ME NOW WITH EVERTHING!" and because of that they should be indestructible and instead capturable while somehow remaining mobile.

[Graf]

If they are attacked, they would most likely defend with everything, though I see both points. It would have to be tried in beta to see how outfits would react to it. Would they not buy it for fear of it being attacked, or would they buy it and defend it with everything? Why not make a poll or something to see which way the idea would go?:D

[Gugabalog]

I could see someone getting it if it could only be destroyed via boarding action and destruction of certain internal elements.

EDIT: Sorta like BF2142 but since silos aren't feasible...

[Graf]

What if you have to blow up access doors and stuff to get in in the first place. That would make the ship easier to defend and, consequently, more outfits would invest in them.

[Baneblade]

I'm suggesting making it like that as I don't see outfits buying something that has a sign painted "SHOOT ME NOW WITH EVERTHING!" and because of that they should be indestructible and instead capturable while somehow remaining mobile.

That is part of the point of design. To keep them relatively rare, so making them destructible means only certain outfits will bother in the first place.

[berzerkerking]

beta soon

[Duskguy]

i would advise that the airships would only be able to be in allied areas or the areas directly next to an allied area. otherwise i can see a bunch of outfits sitting these up all behind enemy lines and killing enemies as they spawn.

would also want a limit to the number of these available. wouldnt want every idiot who makes an outfit have one.

to go with the limit there whould be an outfit ranking system of some sort, such as outfit with the most resources, the outfit with the most kills, the outfit with the most overall points, etc. should be something like 5 categories, and only the top outfit would be able to launch their ship (assuming they have and are supporting one, mentioned constant resource drain).
while that outfit holds that position they can choose to launch their ship or not. if they dont launch, the next ranked outfit in that category would get the option.
the ship would stay active until a shift in the rankings, (if the secondary outfit is using it, then it would shift when they lose that position, ie. second place dropping to third) or until it has been destroyed.
-- if you lose the ranking position the aircraft is retired, not destroyed, and is simply put into storage until the next chance of use.

^^ would promote outfits working and competing aginst each other while working together, and encourage guilds to try and keep their rank or to raise their rank. larger guilds would be more likely to dominate and keep their aircrafts up, but the trade off would be that if they lose that position or pass on launching their aircraft, they are still losing resources.

mentioned constant guild resource drain. would say active use should drain resources at 100% rate while if the unit is not airborn and being used, it would only drain 50% rate, whatever that rate would end up being, such as 2 resources per hour while in flight, 1 when not in use.

basically you would have big anti aircraft flying fortress spawn points for the front lines for the highest ranked outfits (they are the ones likely most supporting the battle). rank sysytem coul update once daily and if destroyed you would as said have a 7 day respawn timer, allowing the second or third ranked outfits in a category to launch their aircraft.

if one outfit is at the top of multiple rankings, they still only get one, and they have to choose which ranking they are using to launch, granting other outfit in the following ranks of the unselected rankings to launch their aircraft and clearly defining which category the lead outfit has to be surpassed in to force dock their aircraft, which would avoid one outfit monopolizing a launch so long as they are number 1 in anything.

[gaz]

i kinda like this idea, but i think there should be more restrictions:

1. The Cruiser should only be commandable, but not pilotable.
2. The Cooldown should be per Outfit, at least 24h (If you're not able to defend a Cruiser, you should not have one).
3. The Amount of Cruisers per Faction should be limited to 3 per faction per contintent.
4. The Cruiser should stay at a fixed height, really high in the sky not being able to affect ground fights directly (above clouds?).
5. The Cruiser should be extremely slow.

[Baneblade]

i kinda like this idea, but i think there should be more restrictions:

1. The Cruiser should only be commandable, but not pilotable.

That is the way I imagine them, navigated, not steered. Like a ship rather than airplane.

2. The Cooldown should be per Outfit, at least 24h (If you're not able to defend a Cruiser, you should not have one).

This is already in.

3. The Amount of Cruisers per Faction should be limited to 3 per faction per contintent.

No hard limits, but rather an escalating cost soft cap.

4. The Cruiser should stay at a fixed height, really high in the sky not being able to affect ground fights directly (above clouds?).

Already in. But they shouldn't be too high in altitude either.

5. The Cruiser should be extremely slow.

Goes without saying. I figure the fastest of them shouldn't really be any faster than 35 kph and that should take almost a minute to reach.

[berzerkerking]

For everyone complaining about beta keys
http://youtu.be/6_y-CsvVfGY

[Chok]

Make them capturable? Would add an incentive to defend it as well as to attack it, also lets outfits have a real sense of ownership.

Lol dunno just a random idea :lol:

[Baneblade]

They are destroyable, but capturable is still an option.

[berzerkerking]

Make them capturable? Would add an incentive to defend it as well as to attack it, also lets outfits have a real sense of ownership.

Lol dunno just a random idea :lol:

i can imagine the epic humiliation that would allow.

[Psyche]

But isn't the essence of the L.O.P. and the OAC the same? Aerial/Infantry combat absent of land vehicles? And possibly including some biome specific vehicles? (I.E. Larger aircraft style things in place of ships?)

Outside of some minor Behavior differences and Graphics, Air Cruisers / Low Orbit Platforms and Underwater Naval [I'm pretty sure there is a Thread about Naval expansion ideas floating around] - ALL are IDENTICAL, the only new element is the player defined/created bases.

I presented it as a 'evolution' of his idea and some might consider it that. However, I intended it as Scaled Back version of it to preferrable function as a 'stepping stone' to get to his idea and others [Naval].

Simply put, it would require a lot testing and tweaking to get working right, more than can be expected for in-house testing to do [one thing players are GREAT at is breaking things and finding flaws in designs].

Smedley, is actually tweeting/discussing Player Bases. Someone might want to consolidate Air Cruisers, Low Orbit Platforms and Naval ideas and present it to him - there's a lot of design review that precedes development where they would look at the viability of ideas [including building a roadmap to get to them {which hopefully my Low Orbital Platforms idea will make easier}.

Honestly, I've played Indie games similar to my LOP idea. They are not new to me and I would prefer the Air Cruiser idea [Naval I've dabbled with and while similar goes into a different direction than I like - ie. Speeds are slower and Armor is more important]. I would SOOOO love Air Infantry [Iron Man like stuff] or Air MAX's [Finally something to satisfy my Armored Core cravings without needing a Console system and in an Open World environment - even if its a Mini-version of it that isn't as powerful as anything else - in combined arms MAX's are more Jack of Trades than Masters of anything other than carrying a lot of firepower for there size [ie. Glass Cannons]]. Personally, that would be new to me. The only new thing about LOP to me would be that its high quality and that makes a difference but not a new game.

Ex. For a super rough, crude Tech Demo version of LOP's.

Take Planetside 1:

Turn off or Hide Ground.
Leave Buildings On and maybe raise the altitude.
Leave Water [maybe lower its altitude - thats basically the Ionosphere]
Replace Cloud graphics with Debris graphics and Skydome with Stardome.
Have all entities that exit out of buildings behave as Air Vehicles [invisible/logical vehicles]
Adjust Environmental properties (acceleration,deceleration, drag/air resistance, gravity - increased weapon ranges and what-not)

and there you have a super cheap version of LOP. Or Air Cruisers (multiple water levels to serve as different Altitudes where Flight Behavior changes drastically ~16k and ~34 where Engines become more efficient and powerful but maneuvability suffers[thinner atmosphere] Or Underwater Naval (you would have multiple water levels to serve as 'Thermal' Boundaries that exist underwater and Surface).

[Pvt Badger]

I say limit their range to Allied territory. If your TR then only TR areas. Give them proximity guns to ward off aerial campers and a special Galaxy spawn terminal for assaults. To access one, your Outfit must invest Resources to its construction. Each of the three non-SC resources affects the construction differently (The rarer: the faster it's out.). One speeds up the construction, one allows the carrier to be purchased, and the last one improves both.

Visually, I love the idea of fighters dropping out of a floating base and into Air-to-air combat to provide a distraction so the Gal can lift off. From the ground it would be amazing to see it fly over a cliff as a murder of Mossies fly over head and into an Outfit Carrier.

[Gugabalog]

One refers to a group of mossies as a murder of them?

I like that. "MURDER APPRAOCHING! 8 O'CLOCK!"

Heheheh.

Anyways, yeah it seems like a good idea. Maybe eventually have LOP's in addition? Or you could upgrade into an LOP? Or into a sea base? Or maybe you must have one of the two other bases to launch a cruiser? and only like once a week per outfit?

[Baneblade]

I say limit their range to Allied territory. If your TR then only TR areas. Give them proximity guns to ward off aerial campers and a special Galaxy spawn terminal for assaults. To access one, your Outfit must invest Resources to its construction. Each of the three non-SC resources affects the construction differently (The rarer: the faster it's out.). One speeds up the construction, one allows the carrier to be purchased, and the last one improves both.

Visually, I love the idea of fighters dropping out of a floating base and into Air-to-air combat to provide a distraction so the Gal can lift off. From the ground it would be amazing to see it fly over a cliff as a murder of Mossies fly over head and into an Outfit Carrier.

Nice imagery :)

That said if we have to limit them to certain hexes, they must be able to enter enemy hexes adjacent to friendly hexes. Simply so they can fight each other directly.

[Pvt Badger]

One refers to a group of mossies as a murder of them?

I like that. "MURDER APPRAOCHING! 8 O'CLOCK!"

Heheheh.

Anyways, yeah it seems like a good idea. Maybe eventually have LOP's in addition? Or you could upgrade into an LOP? Or into a sea base? Or maybe you must have one of the two other bases to launch a cruiser? and only like once a week per outfit?

Here's a fragment from the wiki: Murder: used to describe a large flight of combat aircraft. Presumably named after a “Murder of Crows”

http://wiki.planetside-universe.com/ps/Acronyms_and_Slang

Just thought of something. I hope that the Carrier would have a major problem turning. I don't want to see a clegged Carrier wedged into Hvar.

[sgtbjack]

I say limit their range to Allied territory. If your TR then only TR areas. Give them proximity guns to ward off aerial campers and a special Galaxy spawn terminal for assaults. To access one, your Outfit must invest Resources to its construction. Each of the three non-SC resources affects the construction differently (The rarer: the faster it's out.). One speeds up the construction, one allows the carrier to be purchased, and the last one improves both.

Visually, I love the idea of fighters dropping out of a floating base and into Air-to-air combat to provide a distraction so the Gal can lift off. From the ground it would be amazing to see it fly over a cliff as a murder of Mossies fly over head and into an Outfit Carrier.

This would have to be a must(for me) as I don't want these things ruining the tactical layout of the ground by offering a mobile spawn base anywhere, ruining the ebb and flow of the battles. If it was stuck over hexxes controlled by the faction, than I think it would effect very little, other than being a symbol of might.

[Gugabalog]

Awww, no responses to the idea of needing an outfit base as a prerequisite? Maybe have a specific module for the base that you need to sacrifice something else fore?

[Baneblade]

Awww, no responses to the idea of needing an outfit base as a prerequisite? Maybe have a specific module for the base that you need to sacrifice something else fore?

The reason these were made outfit assets was because outfit bases on the ground aren't feasible and never will be in a game like PlanetSide.

[berzerkerking]

The reason these were made outfit assets was because outfit bases on the ground aren't feasible and never will be in a game like PlanetSide.

The will when we get sandbox conts that smedly suggested.

[Baneblade]

I remain cautiously optimistic about that. PlanetSide is too fluid for such a static oriented idea. Outfit generally won't want to invest in a base that they sill lose as soon as they log out.

[berzerkerking]

/bump

[Gugabalog]

I could see outfit bases being their own individual zones, not being an open world phenomenon, maybe similar to the hall of heroes or whatever it was in Everquest.

[Archonzero]

I really like the idea, much more than ground bases. Orbital outfit based aerial ships, obviously they will/should require an enormous amount of resources just to build. As well a resource based system to maintain their active commission. The option of a variety of ship sizes/purpose is a nice addon to the concept. So as smaller outfits wouldn't really need/afford the use of the heavier ships and opt for a smaller role vessel as their signature outfit ship.

***DISCLAIMER, not my own concept art***

Designs by http://karanak.deviantart.com/

Outfit Air Carrier
http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2011/098/6/c/peacemaker_carrier_by_karanak-d3di0xi.jpg
http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs49/f/2009/208/d/d/Support_Carrier_Aurelia_by_KaranaK.jpghttp://fc01.deviantart.net/fs46/f/2009/210/2/9/Support_Carrier_Trump_by_KaranaK.jpg

Other Features
compartmentalized interior layout? or simple.
Could be as simple as command deck, logistics room, spawn/equipment room, Maybe a belly mounted drop pod room connecting to the Engine room. As well the exterior flight deck spawn/repair pads.
Or something of a similar layout to the Titans from BF2142, although not that intricate given the scale of everything else. Something simple, but feasible for boarding actions for tactical take downs, of course gaining access to the interior would require a skilled hacker or foolish defenders opening the way during repelling actions.

[Archonzero]

Given the OP's original idea, an subsequent discussed follow ups are very well thought/discussed, the idea to limit their mark on the actual battlefield outside of logistical support is great.

These OACs system hardpoints should be target able, an have no more HP than say a light armored vehicle like a Lib, lightning or deliverer (perhaps less even). While OACs can have a definite logistical mobile support role, outright destroying one should take an immense amount of combined arms to take down, instead have target able sub systems/hardpoints, you can disable it's ability to defend itself as well fulfill it's support role. Forcing an OAC to withdraw from the frontline, limping back to a repair dock/station/area, perhaps with mobilized enemy air power preying on it for a kill opportunity...

OR this could bring in another Outfit vessel specific role designation.

A Combat Engineer Support Vessel or CESV.
http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs46/f/2009/224/8/3/Repair_Corvette_Hephaestus_by_KaranaK.jpg

A CESV would be Frigate/Corvette size/classification. Comparitively to the larger OAC ships it would be a much smaller ship, requiring a smaller manned crew. Keeping perhaps a few AA mounts, the majority of it's weapon hardpoints would be swapped out for NTU repair systems as well other support systems, such as counter measures to protect itself and other aircraft. These ship types would be focused more on heavy ablative armor plating rather than shields, as the shield power consumption requirements would be generating the NTU repair systems.

CESV's would act as a smaller mobile air repair vessel, or tethered to the larger carriers much akin to Pilot fish to a shark or whale.

Again the addition of another OAC faction vessel in close support proximity may very well have to weigh additional cost of resource consumption to facilitate the necessity of stacking vessels to help wedge success to a ground based frontline theatre. If something like that were ever required to balance out such an option.



Another role potential designation for the Outfit Frigate/Corvette class airship for smaller outfits or outfits specializing in support roles could be an AWACs style AA vessel.
http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs48/f/2009/230/e/8/Owl_Light_Cruiser_by_KaranaK.jpg
Substituting weapon hardpoints for radar systems and positional intel for ground + air forces within it's radar systems range of visibility. Again minimal 3-4 mannable AA positions (Flak or 15-20mm faction specific armaments), upgradeable radar system hardpoints.
Radar system hardpoints
Type1 Doppler style sweeping radar
Type2 Doppler pulse radar
Type3 Phased array/Tachyon based (or other subsequent sci-fi theoried tech)

There could be any number of varying types, each type would have pro's and con's, with wider/shorter ranges, time delay updates, specific signature readings (air, ground, vehicle or personnel). Each radar hardpoint could be manned operated, allowing the operator to designate an prioritize targets in the field?

[Gugabalog]

I just had a really neat idea.

So by default OAC could be in it's own zone sort of like a guild hall for outfits, or it could goto a spaceish area where outfit ships could battle between themselves and over various orbital facilities that give faction wide or outfit wide benefits i.e. increased ammo capacity or accuracy.

[Baneblade]

Nice posts Archon

I just had a really neat idea.

So by default OAC could be in it's own zone sort of like a guild hall for outfits, or it could goto a spaceish area where outfit ships could battle between themselves and over various orbital facilities that give faction wide or outfit wide benefits i.e. increased ammo capacity or accuracy.

Not sure what you mean by its own zone.


Anyway, I'll be posting a third (ninth) rework of the OAC concept to include some of what has been suggested in this thread.

[Gugabalog]

I mean like it's own instanced area sort of like an isolated super minature continent that can only be accessed via Sanc or Safezone or something.

Idk, just something similar to guildhalls in EQ. And that these "Guild Halls" could be used as you intended in a "continent" designed to be used by them. I jsut don't see OAC working well within the existing framework of the continents, but still working well with the currentish game mechanics.

[Baneblade]

Naturally I disagree. And considering I bent over backward to make them backwards compatible with PS as we know it, I think we should at least examine the specifics about why they wouldn't work as opposed to defaulting to the alternative design automatically.

Everyone has plenty of ideas about what to do if it doesn't work the way I envision, but nobody seems to be able to pin point any specifics as to why it wouldn't. The original incarnation of the idea had a lot of people saying the engine wouldn't support such a vehicle. They were wrong of course. This idea was originally designed for PS1, so I would hope it would be just as viable in PS2.

[Gugabalog]

I don't currently have any concrete points regarding it but base my opinion on my experience with Titans from BF2142. It was fun but had to be centered entirely around the airships themselves. Somehow this doesn't seem right in a persistent world.