[Baneblade]

Originally Posted by Figment

I know of the idea since it was proposed on PS1 forums. It was poorly thoughtout then, had no place in the game and it still is now and still has no place in the game.

Well I'll have to disagree with you, which only makes sense.

No, ground forces can't engage it properly. You're imagining things.

Define properly? Or are you referring to the OAC not being able to farm ground targets?

Originally Posted by Figment

You either never played the game or you're in a zergfit.

Totally making your argument here chief.

Libs in PS2 are OP. So you need something else that's OP as well and defend it by saying there's something worse out there?

No, but you already know that. But on the off chance you didn't, you aren't qualified to argue about this in the first place.

An airborne spawnpoint of any kind that cannot be handled without specialised equipment is simply OP.

You mean like the Galaxy? I'd have thought you would like the OAC idea tbh, most of it provides for your kind of playstyle.

All you have done is created this platform to do something with aircraft, while the rest of the units kinda... look up and maybe pot shot at it, but don't really interact with it at all, aside from being targeted by the units that come out of it.

I know you are just trolling now, but I'll bite. The platform is intended to be exactly what it is called: Outfit Air Cruiser, both an Outfit Owned Base and a naval form of warfare all rolled into one. Sure it lends itself best to synergy with aircraft, but that is the nature of aircraft. As for taking pot shots at it... well, that reminds me of pretty much anything else that flies, except the rest of the shit that flies is trying to farm you while you take pot shots at it. Sure you might be on the business end of whatever launches from the OAC, but that is only common sense and there is no way around it.

I don't think you understand your own idea. Indirect engagement is just as much a form of engagement. You haven't at all thought of combinations of units.

I have taken all of that into account. All from the perspective of the unit least likely to benefit from such a thing added to this game: The MBT driver.

You mean spawning shit that will camp you so you can't do shit to it.

As opposed to any other kind of camping? I'm beginning to think you are against any kind of spawning outside of warpgates since your argument applies to all of them.

I've been shooting it down for just as long since PlanetSide cannot work with units that are balanced around large groups of people without being balanced around small groups of people as well.

The OACs work fine with small groups, their main purpose is to engage other OACs after all and you only need so many people to make that happen.

Why do you think a Galaxy Gunship is operated by two people most the time and not a full complement of troops? Why should a GG be allowed to exist to engage small groups that are a natural occurance in game, if it is designed to fight large groups?

The GG is entirely irrelevant to this discussion as the two have nothing in common, save being airborne.

You'll come across plenty of players without proper AA capacity. You simply don't add stupendous Aircraft ideas.

This is not an aircraft idea, it just happens to be airborne. You're just arguing to be argumentative. I pwned your 'arguments' in all the previous threads too, why should this one be different?

This isn't naval warfare. This is pure air warfare.

Weren't you just claiming this to be air to ground Zeus throwing lightning at the mere mortals warfare?

I welcomed naval warfare, but naval warfare is something water surface based that competes with Magriders, Thunderers, Raiders and Deliverers, etc. but is bound to water or land.

Why?

Something that is airborne should be relatively weak, since something water or land based is fastly more vulnerable and limited by terrain.

It is relatively weak...

The strongest you should have in the air is a troop transport that can be taken out by a mere couple of fighters.

That's your opinion.

You don't at all consider a lot of other things. You don't think of how hard it already is to deal with a couple threats of various kinds to break out of a siege, even with the distances between bases involved. You provide a really simply way of bringing in more air power to a situation where air domination (once occured) is already hard to break, especially from the ground up.

I'm divided on the whole air domination aspect. I do agree that an OAC will provide easier air superiority over a theater or war... no... guess I don't since OACs can't even engage at normal air to ground altitudes. All an OAC is going to do is watch from a distance and provide mild tactical support for the owning outfit. Hardly the show stopper you believe it to be.

If you had vision, you would understand that you would need to offer any player competitive playing power in any situation and not confront them with units they could never manage to take out in groups of more than three players (meaning one player working hard could accomplish it too). You set way too high standards for group organisation than you can expect from randoms. And that is your main design problem. You can't change players to be as you want them to be and you can't blame players for not being that way. You have to design around your average FPS gamer and the natural groups they form when entering the game. Otherwise you only leave room for super-organised and zergfit groups and then you kill the game.

I do have vision, and it encompasses the entire big picture, not just the 500 m in front of your character.

Bottom line is, you are wrong. Your arguments are based on incorrect information (which might be my fault for not being clear enough), and your opinions reflect a lack of understanding of what this is supposed to be.

What I can't figure out is why you have to embarrass yourself like this with silly arguments not even related to this OAC idea, ad hominems, and strawmen...

I expected better from you, truly. But if you hate the idea, I'll take that as a sign that I'm doing something right from this point forward. Thank you.