[Baneblade]

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

Originally Posted by 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}

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.