News: ESF Update Plans via Kevmo - Page 4

Cosmical · 2013-07-02, 02:29 PM

Originally Posted by maradine

If there was a "let's improve the air model without scaring away the hovertank enthusiasts" session, I'd be on a flight to San Diego tomorrow.

I think the way they could make air combat more interesting is by making your after burners been integral. i.e. turning them on allows you to ridiculous maneuvers, high g turns whatever. But also, slamming on your air brakes costs afterburner fuel, as does pulsing your upwards thrust.

Therefore air combat would not only be about risky fun flying, but it would also be about maintaining or correctly using your afterburner fuel supply (maintaining within normal flying speeds douesnt drain anything). And if you try too much, you will find yourself trying to hover with no supply, and will drop like a brick.

Also this would encourage people who are amazing pilots to take the afterburner fuel increase slot, allowing them to out fly people.

Rbstr · 2013-07-02, 10:49 AM

Get rid of the after-burning and limit maneuverability while in hover mode.
Bam, no more hover-fest because it just won't work.

SolLeks · 2013-07-02, 12:21 PM

Originally Posted by Rbstr

Get rid of the after-burning and limit maneuverability while in hover mode.
Bam, no more hover-fest because it just won't work.

Then we just have a Turn-fest, how boring is that? At least with the 'Hover-fest' we can do some cool things to dodge enemy fire and fight back, instead of just taping the pitch up key to start and end all of your fights.

Originally Posted by Valkar

I understand what you're saying and I appreciate that this is the route the dev team took to basically give us helicopters and jets all rolled into one because making two aircraft just wasn't possible at the time. But i promise you there is not a single VTOL aircraft in the world capable of flying full speed then slowing to a hover mid flight in combat, turning around and shooting at another aircraft chasing.

I think the point of what many of us is saying is that its time dogfighting came down to skill in flying where right now it is about keybinding to pull off a quick brake, reverse thrust and then hovering in a single position as you unload a clip.

Whilst many pilots will say this is skillful and many who do it are certainly excellent pilots and I have a lot of respect for them, I can tell you now that if they removed this, you would see a lot more pilots winning fights and the top gun list would change over night.

Why add joystick support when you just need to press space bar, shift and S right?

There are plenty of games with 'normal' jet type combat, Planetside is the only game that has this unique Vtol style combat.

No there are no real aircraft that can pull off the moves we do in this game, and yes it would probably kill the pilot if attempted in real life, but this is a arcade shooter, not a sim. We don't need to change the flight model, they would have to re work everything since there is no energy management and the maps are tiny with a very low flight ceiling. I honestly don't think the list of aces would change over night even if this change was made, other then the fact more than half of them would quit on the spot. The aircraft are VTOL because thats what they made in PS1, also, VTOL makes more seance 900 years from now anyway. Why would we still be using the same jets then?

as for skill, there is no more skill involved in normal jet fighting than in PS2 Vtol jets. this is just like the short TTK vs long TTK discussion, they both have their ups and downs. your version of a dogfight in this game is very wrong when comparing agenced good pilots, sure doing a barrel roll turn will work on bad pilots, but a good pilot will kill you mid turn if you tried to do the same. Maybe instead of calling this style of flight skill less, you should try learning it and fighting good pilots instead of farming noobs.

Also, who needs joystick support when you just need to hold pitch up and tap S ever so often, right?

maradine · 2013-07-02, 01:07 PM

Originally Posted by SolLeks

Also, who needs joystick support when you just need to hold pitch up and tap S ever so often, right?

Analog proportional control is a wonderful thing.

Redshift · 2013-07-02, 02:48 PM

Hmm a lot of these changes seem to detrimental to air combat, surely fun air combat comes from using guns and dog fighting, instant close range missiles, faf missles and spray and prey machine guns with the same ttk as the rotary surely just lowers the skill to pathetic?

PredatorFour · 2013-07-02, 05:18 PM

Originally Posted by Redshift

Hmm a lot of these changes seem to detrimental to air combat, surely fun air combat comes from using guns and dog fighting, instant close range missiles, faf missles and spray and prey machine guns with the same ttk as the rotary surely just lowers the skill to pathetic?

Yes it does. That was what i was trying to say earlier when i said the skill level would be lowered so 'not so good' pilots can kill 'good' ones easier.

bpostal · 2013-07-02, 05:39 PM

As a mainly infantry player, I wasn't really paying attention to this thread...my mistake. If there's a chance we can see something akin to Lodestar's in the game then I'm going to get excited. I can't fly and I don't really drive so the potential addition of a support role like this is amazing.
Also, imagine the XP that can roll off of that thing!

OctavianAXFive · 2013-07-02, 05:48 PM

The farther this thread goes, the more it seems to be that the folks here at PSU aren't really interested in adding new guns and the like to ESFs.

The focus seems mostly to be on countermeasures and the mechanics of flight.

I quite like the flight mechanics though I have to admit they aren't intuitive. I realize that while realism isn't always a good goal, it has some great benefits.

People coming from other games with aerial combat are going to be at a loss in PS2. I know I was super frustrated in the beta with ESFs. I understand basic dogfighting principals, but those basics don't apply to PS2. I had to relearn the hard way how to fly backwards and shoot, something that is a bit mind bending to new pilots and not at all intuitive when the average person thinks about a dogfight.

This is good and bad. It's good because ESF fights definitely have a unique flavor. It's bad because it's not intuitive.

I think the ESF flight mechanic should be something on the list of things SoE should examine and reevaluate over the long term. Their versatility is a boon for now but as the game ages and the developers want to add new vehicles or freshen-up some of the mechanics, having an aircraft that does it all can really get in the way.

It's for that reason that I really want to see them divide out the ESF's role in the combined arms effort.

maradine · 2013-07-02, 06:46 PM

Originally Posted by OctavianAXFive

The farther this thread goes, the more it seems to be that the folks here at PSU aren't really interested in adding new guns and the like to ESFs.

Quite interested. Everything listed sounds exciting. It just won't scratch what some consider to be an underlying itch.

Lonehunter · 2013-07-02, 08:39 PM

The guns are a huge deal to me, I hope there's a station cash sale before they come out so I can buy them all.

They keep adding infantry weapons and have even added, and expanded choices of ground vehicle weapons. Air vechs haven't got anything yet, it's about time.

Artalion · 2013-07-03, 12:19 AM

The key to reducing the ace pilot problem is giving newbies a means of taking them at significantly longer ranges. It is very telling that most of the ace pilots prefer using close range cannons to longer range AA missiles.

It's not really that difficult to figure out why either. Using AA missiles to lock on will tell your opponent that you are out there, which makes it difficult to sneak up on him. AA missiles take a long time to lock on, more than enough time for a pilot to begin taking evasive maneuvers. Finally, if you do manage to get a lock, he can break the lock easily by deploying flares.

When newbies are trying to take out an enemy pilot, they use AA missiles, but the enemy pilot knows how to get out of this. The enemy then maneuvers his plane into a close quarter dog fight, gets behind the newbie and blasts them with his cannon.

So, it naturally follows that the devs would tweak missiles so that they could be fired from further away and take less time to lock on, right?

Nope. Instead, they give us missiles that require us to keep the target in sight, not just for the lock on, but for the entire duration of the flight. Also, the moment you lock on and fire, you announce your presence, not just to the target, but to every hostile in the vicinity, thanks to the auto-spot mechanic.

At that range, it would be better just to use the cannons. There is no warning to the enemy until you decide to fire, and when you do fire, you won't activate a magic "I'm here! Shoot me!" option. We don't have this kind of thing for infantry or tanks, and it is for the same reason that we shouldn't put it on air targets: it punishes stealth.

At the end of the day, the Ace pilots would still be beasts at the close range game and have the advantage of being able to see their targets more clearly. The addition of close range lock on missiles will not work, because Ace pilots don't use them, nor do they need them to take out their targets. Other pilots do.

*******************

Something that really needs a balance pass is the flare launcher. Pilots love that it can break missile locks, but they hate the recharge time. Missile people hate them because they can break the lock and fly out of range before they can reacquire.

I have a way of making both players happy. Here is how I would change it:

1. Make flare launchers be ammo based. Each ESF has a certain number of flares. They can be fired at any time, but if you run out, then you will have to resupply them at the nearest ammo center.

2. Flares are no longer 100% effective, how much less effective is negotiable. For the sake of argument, let's say it is 50% effective. This means that if two missiles are chasing you, a flare might fool one of them.

Both of these combined would remove a key frustration to both pilots and missile folks. The pilots would be able to use their flares as frequently as they were locked, without having to wait for that ability to recharge. The downside is that they run the risk of running out at an inconvenient time or using one and still getting hit.

The missile folks would be happy because their targets wouldn't be guaranteed escape, and even if they did, the missile folks would know that it would have cost them a couple of flares. Furthermore, there would be the hope that they would run across a fighter which had run out of flares.

There is also a financial advantage to making the second change. Currently, missile players (read: SAM's) are not very good at killing aircraft because flares give fighters de facto missile invulnerability. If you need AA defense, you pull a MAX, which has a free burster.

But limit that effectiveness and SAM's become a lot more viable, particularly since MAX's now cost significantly more infantry resources. If you want a SAM, you're going to need certs or station cash, and people will pony up the latter if they think the weapon will give them an edge over MAX flak.

I wrote this from the perspective of someone who bought a Hawk, only to find that it was effectively useless in an environment where every pilot equips flares. But it also applies to players that use lock on missiles on their ESF.

The updated flare launcher would also be good for pilots. Rather than just hitting a flare and running for cover, you could a couple flares, which is more dramatic (and realistic, if that sort of thing matters to you.) It also isn't vulnerable to cool down times (reloading is another matter, but a clip would still give you some flexibility.)

Until this mechanic is updated, missile weapons, any kind of missile weapons, will be at a disadvantage when compared to their projectile counterparts (flak, cannons, etc).

PredatorFour · 2013-07-03, 06:04 AM

Originally Posted by Artalion

2. Flares are no longer 100% effective, how much less effective is negotiable. For the sake of argument, let's say it is 50% effective. This means that if two missiles are chasing you, a flare might fool one of them.

Some interesting ideas but i would argue that this is already ingame with the striker as it stands. Also adding in this change would make going anywhere near a TR striker nest suicide for sure.

I think the flare mechanic is good as it is, altho with more lock ons coming in they could possibly reduce the flare ready timer.

What i would like to see is more variety with my scythe weapons. I would like my turbo laser to have a choice of anti-tank depleted uranium rounds or standard infantry rounds/aircraft. I'd like my pods to be either anti tank or infantry. All they would have to do is change the colour of the ammo to red or something when it comes out so you can see which ammo an ESF has.

Rbstr · 2013-07-03, 09:19 AM

Originally Posted by Artalion

I wrote this from the perspective of someone who bought a Hawk, only to find that it was effectively useless in an environment where every pilot equips flares. But it also applies to players that use lock on missiles on their ESF.

The thing is you need flares or there are missiles all over you, especially against TR. It's all locks all the time.

And missiles hurt. It's not just a little tap on the wrist.

snafus · 2013-07-03, 11:44 AM

So many people hating on the current flight mechanics on PSU. I personally love how PS2 is different then any other flight based game. There really is so few games that allow the kind of freedom and creativity you can have with PS2. This game is special and in a really good way. As it rewards fast thinking and twitch based skills while flying an ESF. And allows the user to ignore the laws of physics that hold back other flight sims. Simply put, adapt and enjoy the amazing flight aspect PS2 offers.

maradine · 2013-07-03, 12:34 PM

You see interaction with a real physics model as limiting and stifling to creativity. I see a guy who's never actually learned ACM, and doesn't know the astounding breadth of virtuosity available when maneuvering in a fluid with energy and angle-of-attack constraints. Truly, my friend, I feel you're the one who's been held back.

PS2 flight is fun. But don't hate on those asking for a bit more. They know something you haven't had the opportunity to pick up yet.