PlanetSide Universe - View Single Post - Balancing Aircraft/AA with Altitude
View Single Post
Click here to go to the next VIP post in this thread.   Old 2011-08-05, 06:41 PM   [Ignore Me] #29
Malorn
Contributor
PlanetSide 2
Game Designer
 
Re: Balancing Aircraft/AA with Altitude


Originally Posted by Duddy View Post
I like the idea overall but dislike the idea of unnatural "forced" limitations.

For example, if you had high altitude AA placements I'd much rather they be ineffective against close range targets due to a heavily slowed ability to track targets. This would make little to no difference at long range, but at close range aircraft would be easily able to out-maneuver said defenses yet if they were dumb enough to attack head on then they're still going to get hurt.

Also, as a fan of asymmetrical design (where appropriate), I think AA Maxes should have some differing innate strengths.

So for example, based on the low/mid/high alt idea and the PS1 Maxes as a base:
  • Sparrow could have some capability at the highest altitude but at the cost of some low altitude difficulties (longer locking time, slower damage degradation?)
  • Burster could be equally effective at all ranges, offset by the difficulty of getting shots to actually land at said ranges (travel time, lower but flat damage value?)
  • Starfire could be most effective at the low to mid range, but with the benefit of the highest damage (higher base damage, more damage degradation?)

Just ideas of course, the point being I'd hate to see too much symmetrical design (that's what common pool weapons are for!).
I have a general comment about AA max and such here. I think AA is such a fundamental part of warfare that I would not want to see all that drastic of a difference between the empires in terms of AA capabiliteis and effectiveness.

Lock-on weaponry in general is hard to balance with AA because its generally easy to do. however, I'd like to see a lot more skill with lock-on weaponry in general. I like the idea of the phoenix becuase the shooter is very vulnerable while guiding the missile, and its only one warhead at a time so the rate of fire and the guidance system seems balanced.

The striker / sparrow / starfire needs some work. For those systems I like the idea of a warhead that will sort of smart-guide itself to the target if you get it close enough but the operator still needs to use it well.

For this I am thinking of BFBC2 with the laser-guided AV weapon where you pointed it to where you wanted the missile to converge and it moved toward that location. If you wanted it to hit a distant moving target you really needed to lead the laser ahead of the target, and the target could be evasive to avoid it. The operator is more mobile than the phoenix, and the wearhead itself should have a little bit of self-guidance so if you got it really close to the target the warhead would find its mark. Its sort of a cross between the phoenix and the lancer.

Lock-on weaponry could also be changed to have a much smaller lock on reticule so holding hte lock against an evasive target is harder. The warhead could also be less maneuverable so if you miss the lock for a bit yo ucould still miss even if you re-acquire. Basically means you' dhave to be good at holding the lock on the target in a small cone as opposed to something the size of a coke-can with a highly nimble projectile. Make the projectile less nimble, the lock reticule smaller, but reward a skille dplayer with a more powerful hit if they still manage to land it.

I would prefer to see a range of AA weaponry available to all factions rather than each faction having different effective AA. Air-Ground dynamics is just too important to not do that.

I alwyas hated how NC had piss-poor effective AA at low altitude while TR was the opposite and had grea tlow-altitude AA but weak high-altitude. The VS raped at all altitudes of course. That isn't good balance IMO.
__________________
Malorn is offline  
Reply With Quote