anti air

[ihatetheNC]

problem: reaver spammers..
solution: personal flak cannons.
currently no empire has any weaponry that comes close to giving a trooper on foot, any chance of surviving if a reaver, even one not too far from dead, decides to pick on you and rocket spam you to death. people are using them to rack up easy kills because they cant stay alive when they come up against a target that can fight back.
what does anyone else think to this suggestion?

[Madcow]

My solution is that they completely dump the VTOL system currently in place. In it's place they institute minimum speeds for all aircraft outside the Lodestar and Galaxy (which need to be able to land in more places than the combat aircraft). At all air repair/rearm pads they use some sort of stasis net which will halt the moving aircraft and heal/rearm it before allowing it to continue at speed. They then buff the rocket pods against armor and nerf it against soft targets. Then they buff the Reaver machine guns against softies. This encourages missile runs at vehicles (most likely taking more than one Reaver to be successful, and multiple passes) as well as encouraging gunning runs at soft targets if you're so inclined. This also encourages dogfights, and true bombing runs with the Liberator rather than the hovering in space spamming bombs we see now. It discourages skill-less rocket spamming quite a bit and encourages the use of skill in flight. Assuming they were willing to do all of this, I'd also say remove the AA MAXs and leave only the Skyguard and AV to deal specifically with air. Of course, something would have to be done about the Striker as it's so far superior to the Phoenix/Lancer against air currently but I haven't gotten that part figured out.

[Thunder_Hawk]

There is a very valid reason why AIrcraft operate they way they do now. They can use the same terminals as other vehicles. Fixed wing aircraft need runways. having runways at every base its a bit overboard. if they're at only certain bases, then the option to get them may not be available like Gals. you either need to bring them in, or capture the dropship center. Without the ability to hover, aircraft traveling by warpgates would have a problem. once they warp, in a matter of seconds (not enouhg time to get your bearings), you're outside the warpgate being shot down.

As for the rocketspam, the TTK is way too low. a Personal Flak cannon just adds to weapons already needed: AV, AI. As a TR, i like to play off pilots Fear of missle locks wwith a striker. i don't even need to shoot at them. most of the time the pilot speeds away before the missles can kill him anyways so i save my ammo for tanks. Pheinox users need to learn not to use the camera all the time as even that doesn't gaurenty a hit.

[Queensidecastle]

I dont see it as a problem at all. Just like if a tank catches you open, or any other vehicle for that matter, you are a dead man. The reaver really isnt any different and considering it takes a whole clip of rockets to kill anything, it is hardly out of ballance. The solution for this problem is quite simple. Dont run from base to base and expect to survive unless you are in a vehicle, transport or a MAX suit. Even as it is now, I am rarely killed at random by a reaver and in battle areas, there is so much anti-vehicluar and AA MAXs it still isnt a problem

I think it is an issue blown way out of proportion. Yes, when you are caught out in the open by a vehicle and yo dont have one, yes, your a dead man. dont get caught. It is like people think they can setup on a rigeline and snipe with impunity. Thats what reavers do, they are heavy assault in the skies. AA MAX suits are 2 points and basically nullify the reaver. I dont consider it a problem in the least

[Madcow]

There is a very valid reason why AIrcraft operate they way they do now. They can use the same terminals as other vehicles. Fixed wing aircraft need runways. having runways at every base its a bit overboard. if they're at only certain bases, then the option to get them may not be available like Gals. you either need to bring them in, or capture the dropship center. Without the ability to hover, aircraft traveling by warpgates would have a problem. once they warp, in a matter of seconds (not enouhg time to get your bearings), you're outside the warpgate being shot down.

That's a simple work-around though so I don't buy it. Aircraft could easily use the same terminals as now, be 'tractor beamed' up above the pad and launch forward to 40 km/h like a rocket. For coming down you can let them stop incredibly quickly, eliminating the need for a runway. Come close to the ground at the minimum speed, press a key and the craft will stop like it landed on an aircraft carrier. Likewise, allow them to go from parked to 40 km/h quite easily to get back off the ground.
Warpgates could contain the same kind of stasis nets that repair pads would have. You're kept in stasis until you have your bearings, you press g and off you go.
Honestly, getting rid of VTOL for the combat aircraft almost instantly eliminates the issues that people have with the aircraft and has the added bonus of encouraging dogfighting (which the vast majority of pilots seem very much to want). So we get rid of the AA MAXs to give the aircraft more chance of survival, but we nerf their ability to cheaply kill softies. What's the downside?

[Warborn]

You are my nemesis, Madcow. After the slew of reaver related threads I had set about preparing a lengthy document on my opinion regarding the changes I feel are necessary to ammend the situation in general, and you go off and echo a lot of my sentiment here. I think we need to go back to disagreeing with each other.

I dont see it as a problem at all. Just like if a tank catches you open, or any other vehicle for that matter, you are a dead man. The reaver really isnt any different and considering it takes a whole clip of rockets to kill anything, it is hardly out of ballance.

You absolutely can survive encounters with tanks, and I'm sure many people do it very regularily. Unlike with reavers, simple things like terrain elevation, or trees, can make you safe against tanks. If they get too close and you have jammer grenades, you can sometimes save yourself that way too. There's no guarentees you'll survive against a tank, but there is a guarentee you will die against a reaver. The skilless reaver pilots just zoom up, hover, point, and hold down the fire button. And don't gripe about the amount of ammo it takes. How simple is it for you to hit a nearby air pad and just reload? Reavers do it all the damn time. And even then, after 5 minutes of flying and spamming it's ok if you die, because if you're bound to a nearby friendly base, you can just afterburn back to the fight easily.

I think it is an issue blown way out of proportion. Yes, when you are caught out in the open by a vehicle and yo dont have one, yes, your a dead man. dont get caught. It is like people think they can setup on a rigeline and snipe with impunity. Thats what reavers do, they are heavy assault in the skies. AA MAX suits are 2 points and basically nullify the reaver. I dont consider it a problem in the least

AA suits do not nullify the reaver. In battles it is very common for there to be multiple enemy reavers, and you are guarenteed to have one hover up behind you and spam you to death before you can even turn around. From my pilot experience I would agree that AA MAXs are annoying as hell, but they are far from the answer to all your AA needs. As with so many other things, it's almost invariably a question of who has more of which.

[ihatetheNC]

glad to see theres ppl who are as hacked off about it as me, and also madcow, thats a damn good idea!

[Queensidecastle]

I cant support complaints about being killed by a vehicle out in the open. I think thats just ridiculous. There isnt any balance problem with the Reaver, especially considering all the downsides. I file anger over getting killed by a reaver in the same drawer I file anger over getting killed by a cloaker.

[Rbstr]

no, its jsut the reavers raockets don't do enought AV damage, so it's far easier to kill lots of infantry(one salvo each) than one tank(all the rockets on you) less splash, less AI and more AV damage = problems solved

taking away the Vtols system would suck ass, unless we were given good gunship type Vtols to replace the reaver/skeeter, as a fixed wing type craft just wouldn't work well for taking out stuff on the ground.

[JetRaiden]

reaver spam is part of the game. if you get owned by one, its your fault for not being around an AA MAX. :cool:

[Warborn]

reaver spam is part of the game. if you get owned by one, its your fault for not being around an AA MAX. :cool:

Provided you're serious, it's this sort of attitude that will keep Planetside from reaching its potential. This "it's part of the game, don't be a pussy" response is the worst of them all, as you are totally ignoring all else save your personal opinion. When we express concern about the implimentation of reavers, we do so to try and improve the game. What's your motivation, besides simply resisting the "whiners", as some call them? People are unhappy, and unhappy customers is not a good thing.

There are obviously a fairly substantial number of people dissatisfied with the way reavers are currently implimented. It won't stop until something is done, or these people tally up the broken reavers alongside Planetside's other flaws and quit the game. So the best course of action right now is to actually discuss the situation and try to find a good solution.

taking away the Vtols system would suck ass, unless we were given good gunship type Vtols to replace the reaver/skeeter, as a fixed wing type craft just wouldn't work well for taking out stuff on the ground.

Nah, it would be good. So long as we have VTOL aircraft air combat will be nothing more than some retarded turret wars, where people hover around and strafe and point and shoot. God, compared to BF1942 the air combat is so hideously wretched, it blew me away how little was done on it when I first tried it out. That won't change until they get a real flight system, none of this half-assed hover bullshit.

And weapons can be modified to make taking out ground targets with strafing runs more possible. Clearly this issue isn't a quick-fix one.

I cant support complaints about being killed by a vehicle out in the open. I think thats just ridiculous. There isnt any balance problem with the Reaver, especially considering all the downsides. I file anger over getting killed by a reaver in the same drawer I file anger over getting killed by a cloaker.

Did you ever consider that maybe it might possibly be a good idea if every vehicle in the game wasn't designed to massacre infantry? For once I would like to see a vehicle which is very good at killing vehicles, but not also incredible at killing any and all forms of infantry. The reaver issue (directionless weapon design) is why so few of the vehicles get any real combat use in the game. As far as I'm concerned, only good things can come from a reaver designed to kill armor over infantry, and this is not just me looking ahead to BFRs either.

[Lonehunter]

Speakin gof BF1942, the flight system in there kicks a lot of ass. I wish we coudl have some kind of AA Aircraft in PS though.

[StrangeFellow]

as a temporary solution (or possibly the solution) to the rocket spam on infantry, just decrease the rocket damage against infantry and increase it against vehicles

the idea of fixed wing aircraft would be great but i have my doubts about the abilities of the physics engine (does anyone know it's name by anychance?)

[Cauldron Borne]

Lower AI damage, nearly eliminate splash and SERIOUSLY up av damage. Basically do to the reaver what the devs did to the Pounder. You don't here and pounder users complain.

[Thunder_Hawk]

Hows with for an idea: remove the current weapons for Reaver. make the weapons be dual cainguns that fire something like Depleted Urianuim. that way, it would be more accurate agaisn't vehicles, keeps with ability to attack air targets (is would still be as slow compared to the skeeter), and reduce it AI effectiveness. Maybe have some sort of bombs it carries from light ground suppresionagaint Infantry. There wouldn't me many of them in default loadout. then the air model would be:

Mosquito: Air Supiority
Reaver: All Around ground attack can do everything, but not as well as everything else
Liberator: Med bomber

As aposed to the Reaver the only aircraft needed. The Reaver would still be the best choice for Close air support. it would be able make tanks run away, but still be threatend by SGs and AA maxes.

[Madcow]

I cant support complaints about being killed by a vehicle out in the open. I think thats just ridiculous. There isnt any balance problem with the Reaver, especially considering all the downsides. I file anger over getting killed by a reaver in the same drawer I file anger over getting killed by a cloaker.

As people have said, being killed by a vehicle out in the open is a completely different matter if it's a ground vehicle. The ability to use obstructions and elevation to your advantage coupled with the ability to use a Jammer actually gives you a fighting chance. You have none of those advantages with air. There's a slight possibility of hitting a moron reaver pilot with a jammer, but that's about it. And I support the OF idea of changing it back to a jammer killing the engine in an aircraft. If you're dumb enough to hover that low to spam your cheap kills, you deserve a flaming death at the hands of a piddly grenade.

[KIAsan]

And I support the OF idea of changing it back to a jammer killing the engine in an aircraft. If you're dumb enough to hover that low to spam your cheap kills, you deserve a flaming death at the hands of a piddly grenade.

Now that's a solution we could all live with. Make it so your engine dies if jammered! What a brilliantly simple way of fixing the ground troops frustration, while not unbalancing the game. You want to kill ground troops, then make sure you don't get to low or slow.

I would personnaly like to see the AV damaged upped against armor (enough that it's a serious threat to air assets without seriously affecting ground armor). That would also ensure aircraft didn't slow down in combat.

[Cauldron Borne]

The AA damage can be increaced seperatly from the AV damage, that's how they work AA MAXes. SO: just buff the AA on the AV weapons a bit. And if yer gonna make Jammers disable planes, what about EMP? will it disable planes, too? do you get the kill if you disable a plane and the pilot dies?

Maybe we could make jammers fire straight when fired out of punishers, and instead of them being thumper ammo, they can be Rocklet ammo. They won't have the range, or the area effect of rocklet rockets, or the area of a thrown jammer, but would be faster and more accurate. Wadda ya'll think?

[Lartnev]

The idea of jammer grenades disabling reaver engines is strangely appealing :D

[Queensidecastle]

Jammer grenades dont keep you from getting run over and not a lot of people carry them. If your out in the open and jam a tank (provided it didnt already blast you from beyond your grenade range) your going to get run over. 9 times out of 10 your not going to escape unless there is a battle in the area. Also, I have jumped out of a vehicle many times to kill grunts and hopped back in.

The only real defense for a grunt against vehicles is AV. Even this isnt so great because you dont have the damage output to destroy vehicles solo, but lancers and strikers can and do scare away reavers or outright destroy them. No matter what the situation any vehicle has a huge advantage against you especially the tech vehicles. I think the reaver does its job just fine

This issue is way overstated and one I do not sympathize with

Now I can support arguments for Reavers to do more AV damage but as it is, it takes a whole clip to kill a rexo and most of the time 2 clips to take out a MAX. I could perhaps go along with a slight rocket damage nerf to infantry targets as long as it would do more damage to vehicles but they would need to buff the chaingun against infantry at that point.

[Lartnev]

Personally I'd prefer if the reaver became a AV platform but people obviously like its role as an all-rounder far better.

And actually, most of the times when I jam a tank I don't get run over.... in fact I rarely get run over come to think of it.

[Warborn]

Jammer grenades dont keep you from getting run over and not a lot of people carry them. If your out in the open and jam a tank (provided it didnt already blast you from beyond your grenade range) your going to get run over. 9 times out of 10 your not going to escape unless there is a battle in the area. Also, I have jumped out of a vehicle many times to kill grunts and hopped back in.

Getting overrun by a ground vehicle isn't automatically fatal, and even then, a lot of the time you can just duck behind cover and you don't need to worry about it. It is FAR easier to stay alive against a ground vehicle that it is against a reaver. You'd need to spend more time as a grunt to appreciate this fact (and playing a cloaker doesn't count as being a grunt).

The only real defense for a grunt against vehicles is AV. Even this isnt so great because you dont have the damage output to destroy vehicles solo, but lancers and strikers can and do scare away reavers or outright destroy them. No matter what the situation any vehicle has a huge advantage against you especially the tech vehicles. I think the reaver does its job just fine

Lancers and strikers only scare away aircraft if they aren't gunning for you. If they are, 9 times out of 10 they will blow you away (taking maybe one or two hits in the process) and then go off to an air pad to repair if they need it.

As for the reaver doing its job fine, what job is that? Killing everything in the game unless it's overwhelmed with AA? Yeah, it does that job great. Too bad its job encompasses the job of pretty much every other vehicle, too, but then, I don't think the developers seriously wany more than 1/4th of their vehicles to be seriously used in combat, because with how ubiquitous the reaver and tank both are, there's no reason to bring much else.

[Batousai]

Heres a reply to end all the talk about reaver spam and the reaver being overpowered.

Im a reaver pliot and yes i love to pick on lone soldiers who are stupid enough to get cought out in the open all by their self. Now Planetside is a Teamwork type of game were you need what "Teamwork" to do anything in the game even if its just useless ZERGing. I have yet to be killed by a lone soldier while im in my reaver. why because i have common sense on my side. Now i have been killed by a group of soldier using AV weapons because they used common sense to there advantage. Now everyone wants to complain about the Reaver being overpowered because it can kill infantry in one salvo of rockets. Now people think of what i just said. A salvo of rockets on a soft target like a infantryman should kill. I dont care if he does have on rexo armor or boxers hes dead if you get hit with the rocket spam of a reaver. I dont think the Iraqis in operation desert storm were screaming Nerf the Apache all because it was a bringer of death. If you want to kill something like a tank or reaver use what "teamwork". If a striker or phoenix missile could kill a reaver in one shot the game wouldn't be any fun at all. Hell in real life a infantry missle can't kill a tank or plane but if would do a heck of alot of damage. So for all you babie out there whining
:stoppost:

Edit: Just in case any of you are wondering, yes i have been on the business end of a reaver plenty of times and when i get killed i blame my self not the pliot who was doing his job.

[Ivan]

But the point is this is a game and not real life. I'd take balance over realism any day. If you want to be realistic. One shot wither it's from a suppresser for a jack hammer is going to kill you.

[Madcow]

Heres a reply to end all the talk about reaver spam and the reaver being overpowered.

Im a reaver pliot and yes i love to pick on lone soldiers who are stupid enough to get cought out in the open all by their self. Now Planetside is a Teamwork type of game were you need what "Teamwork" to do anything in the game even if its just useless ZERGing. I have yet to be killed by a lone soldier while im in my reaver. why because i have common sense on my side. Now i have been killed by a group of soldier using AV weapons because they used common sense to there advantage. Now everyone wants to complain about the Reaver being overpowered because it can kill infantry in one salvo of rockets. Now people think of what i just said. A salvo of rockets on a soft target like a infantryman should kill. I dont care if he does have on rexo armor or boxers hes dead if you get hit with the rocket spam of a reaver. I dont think the Iraqis in operation desert storm were screaming Nerf the Apache all because it was a bringer of death. If you want to kill something like a tank or reaver use what "teamwork". If a striker or phoenix missile could kill a reaver in one shot the game wouldn't be any fun at all. Hell in real life a infantry missle can't kill a tank or plane but if would do a heck of alot of damage. So for all you babie out there whining
:stoppost:

Edit: Just in case any of you are wondering, yes i have been on the business end of a reaver plenty of times and when i get killed i blame my self not the pliot who was doing his job.

To end all the talk? Not only are you too full of yourself, you're completely wrong. I'm gonna fire a Decimator type missile at your head in real life, okay? Since we're concerned with the realism of Planetside, I'm sure that it can't do more than slight damage to you. No way would it reduce you to a smoking pair of sneakers, right? If you're not up for that, how about I drive a tank slowly over you? Since I'm doing it slowly, it should barely take off some of your armor and then you can go running off okay?
Realism and Planetside are exclusive of each other. The main point of Planetside is 'fun' and there are plenty of fun things to do in a Reaver. Some of them even involve skill, although rocket spamming isn't included in that bunch. Being on the receiving end of yet another skill-less tool with the air cav cert is less fun. That's the point people are making. AV is a pathetic excuse against air (except for the Striker and even that's currently bugged) so that's no answer. Plus, since the Sparrow and Starfire are currently bugged air is more prominent so we're all getting more of a chance to watch spamming tools on a consistent basis. It sucks, and isn't fun. Now if you made it require some modicum of skill to kill ground troops using a Reaver I might feel differently. Unfortunately, that's not a requirement in the least.

As with everything else, they should be encouraging more use of skill in Planetside, not discouraging it.

[Queensidecastle]

It is FAR easier to stay alive against a ground vehicle that it is against a reaver. You'd need to spend more time as a grunt to appreciate this fact (and playing a cloaker doesn't count as being a grunt).
I would agree that it is easier to survive an attack by a land vehicle but I certainly wouldnt agree that it is FAR easier. As far as my time playing as a grunt, you might want to check my sig before you make assumptions like that

[Batousai]

im not asking for realism im asking for common sense. There is a Big differnce between the two.

Common sense will tell you if you got hit with 8 missles in a row your going to die. reguardless of balance.

Balance would tell you if you got hit with 8 missles in a row you would still survive but if you took those same missles and hit a tank 8 times in a row they'ed be toast.

Does anyone esle feel alittle disturbed by this at all. Beside you need to get a AA max or skyguard and have fun in a target rich enviroment which is Reaver airspace.


P.S. My reaver doesn't need to be nerfed you need to get better.

[Lartnev]

The only MAX that has any chance to have fun every time it is in reaver airspace is the Starfire. "Missile Lock" and getting hit by light flak is synonymous with "hit afterburner button". Starfire gets away with the missile lock warning because it doesn't have a 2 second locking delay like the sparrow.

[Queensidecastle]

I have played with all of the AA MAXs extensively. Each one has its merits and each one has downsides. The Burster is so deadly that you can bring down aircraft before they have any clue what is happening. However high altitude targets are just not an option sometimes and it is basically usless when not locked down. Additionally, it is weaker than any other AA MAX when defending itself from infantry. Nothing does more damage and is more impossible to escape from at close quarters than the Starfire Max. At longer ranges it is extremely effective as well but suffers a bit at keeping tracking. It has the supreme advantage of being able to hide in trees and jetpack away from reavers. The Sparrow excells and is perhaps the most difficult max suit to fly against IMO. Its missles cause the pilot to do more than just break the lock. They must actually outrun or cause the missle to hit something. The Sparrow has the lowest TTK but makes up for this since it chases planes FAR away

[Raige]

AA Needs to be nerfed! NO COMMENT!

[Raige]

The only MAX that has any chance to have fun every time it is in reaver airspace is the Quasar. "Missile Lock" and getting hit by light flak is synonymous with "hit afterburner button". Quasar gets away with the missile lock warning because it doesn't have a 2 second locking delay like the sparrow.


Umm, your PSU Staff and you think Quasar is AA. Okay Mr. Noob. Quasar is AI - Anti-Infantry. Starfire is AA. Please learn those names again. You shouldnt be PSU Staff cause you dont know those things.

[Rayder]

Dude, Lart said "Starfire" he just made a typo.

[Ivan]

Oh Noes! A staff member made a typo! Burn him. Cut him into pieces and send his head to his grandmother! :rolleyes:

[Lartnev]

Umm, your PSU Staff and you think Quasar is AA. Okay Mr. Noob. Quasar is AI - Anti-Infantry. Starfire is AA. Please learn those names again. You shouldnt be PSU Staff cause you dont know those things.

:lol: quote hax :p

No you're completely right it's the Starfire and not the Quasar. But hey, shit happens :)

But still, you didn't notice it at first and you needed a second post so I guess it can happen to all of us.

With regards Burster, I completely agree, you catch a reaver dealing some spam close by you will take him down faster than he can say wtf!? But pilots are beginning to learn to avoid that one. I also agree that once a sparrow actually does achieve lock it is difficult to evade but that lock on delay sometimes mean it doesn't even get to that stage, or only a few missiles get airborne.

But I'm not really that bothered about AA atm apart from the fact that both the Sparrow and Starfire (omg I got it right!!111one) are good at attacking infrantry and the Burster can only run away.

[Sputty]

Warborn's posts make me wet
/me hugs Warborn

BTW, a quick solution to reaver problems. make it have a slower RoF, and higher AV damage, lower splash and AI damage and a better gun, and give it a minimum speed of 10 kph.

[Lartnev]

And make it a tank killer? I'm all for that :)

[Madcow]

im not asking for realism im asking for common sense. There is a Big differnce between the two.

Common sense will tell you if you got hit with 8 missles in a row your going to die. reguardless of balance.

Balance would tell you if you got hit with 8 missles in a row you would still survive but if you took those same missles and hit a tank 8 times in a row they'ed be toast.

Does anyone esle feel alittle disturbed by this at all. Beside you need to get a AA max or skyguard and have fun in a target rich enviroment which is Reaver airspace.


P.S. My reaver doesn't need to be nerfed you need to get better.

Again, your point is ridiculous. If I fire a Decimator type missile at you in real life, what does common sense tell you will happen? That's what I thought. Quit confusing this game with reality, they don't mix, and it only makes your complete lack of a point more obvious.

I've played all AA MAXs extensively. Before they were bugged, I could absolutely dominate with the Starfire and be very effective with the Sparrow. Unfortunately, this has nothing to do with the conversation. As a matter of fact, I've already talked about removal of the AA MAXs if they were to make logical changes to aircraft physics. You might have missed that point in your anxiousness to post faulty logic.

P.S. Your P.S. is stupid.

[ihatetheNC]

ok. tanks and shit running me over.. not a problem, i use combat engie, i just throw a jammer, run away and hope it follows, teh silly buggers usually do and are to stupid to see the mines im also planting as i run. doh. but theres nothing you can do like that to save yourself in the case of a reaver deciding to pick specifically on you. unfortunately for me, my name gets me a load of nc all wanting to take me down at once lol, so i am normally on the recieving end of 2 or 3 reavers or mossies at any one given time. a minimum air speed and an av damage increase is all thats needed there.. i mean.. with a minimum speed, you dont have to change the damage to infantry because it would just make it harder to target you, half teh missiles would miss and teh splash doesnt do that much damage. as for teh real life physics etc, if you want it to compare to real life, go on, you go out there and snipe someone in the face to watch them pull out a medical applicator and heal that big hole u made where their nose was 5 mins ago... its not about realism, its about making it fun, fair and keeping the game number 1 in teh mmofps category. people who say, "quit moaning", if everyone was like that, we would still be on the first build of the game. so shut up on that matter. the devs rely on feedback and regularly visit forums official or not for teh info and opinions they need to make the game better and all round, more enjoyable for EVERYONE not just teh people who love the way things are because it suits them. its about keeping everyone happy, not just you.
funny though, i started this thread with teh suggestion of a simple new weapon, or maybe.. if a weapon.. say the rocklet rifle.. could change its ammo pack to AA.... and its developed to this, with some fantastic ideas for modifications to teh VTOL system and stuff. this is what its about, feedback and good ideas from people like madcow and warborn. :)

[ihatetheNC]

p.s sorry, my extensive use of "teh " is my lack of being bothred to go and correct it as i do it so much lol

[Dharkbayne]

Jesus christ, in this game, you're going to die, and it's not always gonna be fair.
The stuff in this game is balanced, not everything is balanced against eachother, but it all works out. Don't want to be reaverspammed? Have an AA MAX travel with you, carry a Striker (If you're TR, just the "LOCK ON" thing scares most reavers away) get a skyguard, or get a reaver yourself. Better yet, get a mosquito, they rip reavers apart! Dont' bitch if you get killed by a reaver while on the ground, that's what they do, kill shit on the ground, sure, it's not "fair", but what is? War is hell. Deal with it.

[ihatetheNC]

like i said.. people like you would be responsible if the game was still at its origional build state

[Cauldron Borne]

no-one replied to my jammer rocket post....stupid flame arguements....

[aiwest420]

problem: reaver spammers..
solution: personal flak cannons.
currently no empire has any weaponry that comes close to giving a trooper on foot, any chance of surviving if a reaver, even one not too far from dead, decides to pick on you and rocket spam you to death. people are using them to rack up easy kills because they cant stay alive when they come up against a target that can fight back.
what does anyone else think to this suggestion?

Right.. keep tower zerging..

How about getting some air cover, or some skyguards?

I would rather not see the game so dumbed down that any zerg of infantry coming out of an AMS can take a base easily.




Personally, I would like to see the reaver more AV oriented, but still keeping some AI ability.

Changes needed:
-Make the 20mm a single gun, not dual with the horrible accuracy
-Increase rocket AV damage by 25-50%
-Significantly reduce rocket AI damage, to the point where using rockets on infantry is useless.





BTW, I do fly a reaver.. but I do alot of AV/AA work.
My target priority is usually the following:
Aircraft
AMS
Armor
MAX units
Infantry.

[Warborn]

I would rather not see the game so dumbed down that any zerg of infantry coming out of an AMS can take a base easily.

When reavers are added to an AMS zerg, it generally ends with the reavers spamming the grunts all the way back to the AMS, then destorying the AMS, then keeping the enemy locked inside whatever tower they go back to. Reducing the reaver's effectiveness against infantry won't result in any zerg of infantry coming out of an AMS taking a base easily. Far from it.

The rest of your post was pretty good though.

[Kikinchikin]

Obviously you weren't playing back last summer before the balance pass... The reaver was nerfed severely then. It's rediculous that people want it nerfed again, considering it takes, if my memory serves me correctly, 8 or 9 rockets to kill a rexo, which is about a 5th of the thing's clip. Take that, plus the fact that skyguards can destroy a reaver before you can even touch your afterburner, as well as the AA MAX's, which were uber last time I checked (correct me if I'm wrong here, haven't played since March). And then of course the automated Phalanx turrets (you may not have been around when they were manual). Aircraft have enough cards stacked against em.

[Lartnev]

I think both the Sparrow and Starfire may have had clip reductions at some point, not sure if that was before or after you left. Phalanx turrets rarely worry reavers, even when they're manned since rockets > phalanx (and that's with the phalanx getting the jump on the reaver)

[Madcow]

Please don't mention the Sparrow, Starfire or Striker at the moment as feasible defenses. At least not until they pull their heads out and get rid of the crippling lock on bugs.

[ihatetheNC]

quit using teh skyguard to back up your argument for keeping teh reaver as it is. you can only get them if you have a tech plant, and that doesnt always happen. when you are trying to get out of a tower, a reaver camping it is enough to make it impossible. as for teh aa max.. yeah, keep that out of it till lock on problems are solved.

[Kikinchikin]

quit using teh skyguard to back up your argument for keeping teh reaver as it is. you can only get them if you have a tech plant, and that doesnt always happen. when you are trying to get out of a tower, a reaver camping it is enough to make it impossible. as for teh aa max.. yeah, keep that out of it till lock on problems are solved.

Hmmm, if I'm correct, a reaver can only be obtained at a tech plant and dropship center... seems like that argument is void. And the skyguard is what it is, a counter to the reaver. Planetside is all about counters, like a huge massive game of rock paper scissors. Do you complain every time a heavy tank kills you when you're in a buggy? Do you cry when you get raped by an AI max while in your Rexo? Again, argument void.

[JetRaiden]

Hmmm, if I'm correct, a reaver can only be obtained at a tech plant and dropship center... seems like that argument is void. And the skyguard is what it is, a counter to the reaver. Planetside is all about counters, like a huge massive game of rock paper scissors. Do you complain every time a heavy tank kills you when you're in a buggy? Do you cry when you get raped by an AI max while in your Rexo? Again, argument void.

you can get reavers anywhere as long as theres a tech plant on the continent, or the facility is linked to a tech plant, I forget.

[Kikinchikin]

you can get reavers anywhere as long as theres a tech plant on the continent, or the facility is linked to a tech plant, I forget.
Yeah, I forgot that too. Regardless, the point I was making was that the skyguard and the reaver have the same requisites for acquirement.

[Warborn]

Yeah, I forgot that too. Regardless, the point I was making was that the skyguard and the reaver have the same requisites for acquirement.

Skyguard requires two people, isn't airborne, doesn't have easy access to rearm/repair terminals, isn't designed to kill every possible target in the game like the reaver (it's made for an actual niche purpose) and there are some concerns over its ammo capacity as well for the flak weapon. If you're suggesting the skyguard is an effective counterweight to the reaver, despite all the negatives associated with the skyguard compared to the reaver, you're playing a different game than the rest of us. Reavers not only combine the ability to excel in all but the most AA-laden battlefields, they also have many luxuries associated with them due to the fact that they're aircraft. Regardless of how a reaver fares against a single skyguard, skyguards have so much negative baggage attached to them that it doesn't make a difference, because they are not an enjoyable or rewarding vehicle to use most of the time, and thus, people don't use them often.

Despite some of the posts in this thread, it's a forgone conclusion that the reaver will be rebalanced in the future. I think people should avoid straying from the topic of how this rebalancing will be done, rather than whether it should be done or not, because if the surge change (and other alterations) are any indication, the reaver's days as the all-purpose, easy-access, silver-spooned fighting vehicle are numbered.

[Kikinchikin]

So threads of this topic are common? Hell, if you think the thing is unbalanced now, you should have played pre-BP. In my personal opinion, which is apparently very different from everyone else in PS, the reaver's AI ability isn't that great. And that seems to be what everyone is complaining about. I understand that one could be frustrated that the reaver kills a single target (the player doing the bitchin') in a short amount of time, (relatively short anyway), but overall it's not an effective AI tool. Its limited ammo and weak armor make it a vehicle that can only be used for a short period before requiring reloading/repairing, if the pilot is lucky/skilled enough to keep it alive to that point.

Now, about the skyguard. Yes, it does require two people, isn't as glamorous to operate, etc, but if adequately equipped and manned, it is unstoppable against aircraft. I don't see how one can argue that something is overpowered when there are plenty of counters to it. Yes the counters may require preparations/manpower that is more difficult to find. Tough. Planetside is a team game, use your teammates.

Again, I emphasize that my opinions/knowledge may be skewed due to the fact I haven't played heavily since March, and only played sparsely in May, so I am going by what I knew in the past and what I have heard via forums and friends.

[Warborn]

Who cares what it was like before? What does that have to do with how it is now? Right now the reaver requires tweaking. If you don't play the game, and you don't play infantry a lot, you have no idea about how often reaver spam occurs, and no idea how much it detracts from the overall experience.

Now, about the skyguard. Yes, it does require two people, isn't as glamorous to operate, etc, but if adequately equipped and manned, it is unstoppable against aircraft. I don't see how one can argue that something is overpowered when there are plenty of counters to it. Yes the counters may require preparations/manpower that is more difficult to find. Tough. Planetside is a team game, use your teammates.

Your comment demonstrates yet another reason why reavers should be nerfed. What good does it do for so much power to be invested into a single-man vehicle which only encourages a lack of team-play?

At least BFRs will have a 45 minute reacquisition timer to make solo, uncoordinated play with them something that'll leave you with half an hour of waiting, at least. If reavers were more properly implimented, Planetside would be a much better team game, because then solo players wouldn't have an all-in-wonder vehicle to use and abuse to their heart's content. Even if only for the sake of better teamplay, the reaver needs to be nerfed.


PS: You really walked right into that one.

[Kikinchikin]

Yes, somewhat. Anyway, I'm done, it's late.

[WritheNC]

I think Air Cav will be balanced fine once the lock on bugs are fixed.

Air Cav is not going to get nerfed any more. People have been complaining for months and months and there is no change to it, nor will there be one.

The same arguments have been repeated over and over and I don't think the Devs have seen anything convincing enough to warrant a nerf.

[Queensidecastle]

I agree. I dont think anything will change. If the devs were to do anything, I could see an ever so slitght nerf to rocket damage to infantry and more damage to vehicles. I dont think any of that is necessary however

[Warborn]

I think Air Cav will be balanced fine once the lock on bugs are fixed.

Air Cav is not going to get nerfed any more. People have been complaining for months and months and there is no change to it, nor will there be one.

The same arguments have been repeated over and over and I don't think the Devs have seen anything convincing enough to warrant a nerf.

1) We have a new lead designer now, and thus a new concept of what is convincing enough. With luck, Samhayan will have a better vision for each of the vehicles than the previous lead designers, as theirs have quite frankly sucked, leaving us with a plethora of shitty, useless vehicles and a handful of ones which actually get some reasonable action on the battlefield.

2) Discounting the idea that the previous lead designers felt the reaver was ok, it's not like glaring oversights have slipped past them before. How long did it take to get suge changed? How long before the standard assault weapons were considered an actual part of the game and something that should be balanced too? I can only imagine what other oversights will be addressed in the coming months, but over a year after release is absolutely not an unreasonable amount of time for something as stupid as the current reaver balance to exist without being even noticed as out of place.

[WritheNC]

1) We have a new lead designer now, and thus a new concept of what is convincing enough. With luck, Samhayan will have a better vision for each of the vehicles than the previous lead designers, as theirs have quite frankly sucked, leaving us with a plethora of shitty, useless vehicles and a handful of ones which actually get some reasonable action on the battlefield.

Just cuz he is lead designer doesn't mean they will change their minds. Sure, he might have a fresh point of view, but he won't be there long if he plans on hammering in his own vision without consent of the rest of the team.

But you're right about the second part, half of the vehicles in the game don't do jack or are too specialized.

There are a lot of ways to combat AA, but it's not the devs' fault if nobody uses them(Although part of the problem is sitting in an AA max on air guard is boring, and flying in Air Cav is fun, which is a big reason for the disproportion).

[Madcow]

There are a lot of ways to combat AA, but it's not the devs' fault if nobody uses them(Although part of the problem is sitting in an AA max on air guard is boring, and flying in Air Cav is fun, which is a big reason for the disproportion).

The Skyguard is fundamentally flawed by it's lack of armor. 2 mines blows up a Skyguard, as a CE infil I can tell you that I've personally blown up a good number of the Skyguards that I've seen out there. I'll go out of my way to go after them since they're so easy to kill. The flak/machine gun combo is nice, the speed is great, the armor is a critical flaw. It should be able to take more of a beating to make it near impossible for Reavers to take it out (it's difficult now, you have to take it by surprise). You should need to roll heavy armor to blast the Skyguard, thus encouraging more of the rock/paper/scissors aspect. Personally, I love gunning the Skyguard probably more than any other vehicle. Unfortunately, even with a good driver your ride is so short it's just ridiculous.

[Warborn]

Just cuz he is lead designer doesn't mean they will change their minds. Sure, he might have a fresh point of view, but he won't be there long if he plans on hammering in his own vision without consent of the rest of the team.

Lead Designer gets the final say in what happens and what doesn't. Everyone else gets input where appropriate, but he's the Lead Designer because people trust him to know what is best for the game.

But you're right about the second part, half of the vehicles in the game don't do jack or are too specialized.

There are a lot of ways to combat AA, but it's not the devs' fault if nobody uses them(Although part of the problem is sitting in an AA max on air guard is boring, and flying in Air Cav is fun, which is a big reason for the disproportion).

Not the devs fault that nobody uses them? Yes, it is, actually. If the various forms of AA aren't appealing enough -- meaning if it's not effective enough, or its negatives overshadow the benefits of using them -- then people won't use them, and the developers have failed to properly impliment adequate counters. It is never our fault in situations like this. This is a game, and if it's not fun for us, we won't do it. It's their job to make sure their plans get carried out, to make sure that using AA is fun enough for the player to get used enough as expected, and that involves them predicting what the players will do. If we aren't using something enough and thus something else becomes too common and therefore unbalanced, it's their job to make use want to use the first something more, so that things are balanced.

Although, to point out (this isn't directed at anyone in particular), I do not believe that the reason reavers and mosquitoes are the most successful vehicles in the game is because people don't use enough AA. The problem is that, unlike other scenarios on the game (seeing a tank, being attacked by a sniper at long range, being close to an AI MAX), if you see a reaver or a mosquito, and it's coming for you, you are almost certinly dead. If it's a reaver, unless there is a ton of AA on it, you cannot win. You will die, and that's that. You won't necessarily die against a tank, nor will you die against a sniper at long range. It takes skill on both parts to overcome the other, and although you are at a disadvantage, you can prevail. Against a reaver or mosquito, you can't. You lose, and it's a virtual guarentee, and that makes it extremely unfun. Nobody likes to go into these games and lose automatically.

And "well you shouldn't have gone outdoors" is a bullshit copout answer in response to the fact that infantry have no chance in hell against reavers or, usually, mosquitoes when outside. A sniper's territory is outdoors, isn't it? So why don't they one-shot kill? Why can't we make a grunt's death against snipers guarenteed too? Or how about AI MAXs killing infantry 10x as fast as they do now, so that you die basically before you have a chance to pull out an AV weapon when you see them (you know, kind of like bumping into a reaver or skeeter outdoors). After all, that's what AI MAXs are for, isn't it? Killing infantry? So why not? Or how about tanks killing vehicles in two shots, and infantry instantly if they're anywhere near the blast? Isn't that fair? I mean, it's a tank, just like how a reaver is a gunship! Tanks are suppose to be unstoppable on their turf, just like you're suppose to die if you run into a gunship, aren't they?

And while we're at making the rest of the game fit the reaver/skeeter paradigm, why not have AA weapons kill aircraft in a couple seconds too? I mean, they're AA weapons. You're firing missiles, or lasers! If infantry shouldn't go outdoors when reavers are around, reavers and mosquitoes shouldn't fly when AA is around. Right? That's fair too, isn't it? It's the same logic people use to justify the reaver's power against infantry, after all, so it must be correct if the reaver's current implimentation is good as well. Wouldn't Planetside be a great game if everything were balanced like a reaver? You wouldn't need any skill at all! You'd just walk out the door, and everything you're "suppose" to kill would die, and when something that's suppose to kill you came along, you'd die. That sure would be a lot of fun, huh?

If anyone else still disagrees, fine, keep thinking air cav vehicles are just peachy. But don't try to argue with what I've written, because there is no way you can honestly tell me that these vehicles that hardly any top 10 players on any empire, of any server, don't have at least one of, are balanced. Maybe they'd be balanced if Planetside were suppose to be an online game of paper-rock-scissors, where you either win outright or lose without a chance, but that's not what Planetside is, and these vehicles need to be brought back to reality and out of whatever acid trip funk created their current implimentation in the first place.

[Lartnev]

I think you're being unfair against skeeters. Skeeter vs AA = dead skeeter so I don't think that's a fair argument.

The reasons that Reavers are popular are that they're great solo weapons. The can attack infantry and tanks, they're fast so you can get around, you can rearm and repair at any air tower, you have enough armour that you can engage targets such as phalanx turrets and actually outgun them.

I'm not going to argue with you, basically because I'm also of the belief that the Reaver is far better than it was intended to be. Unfortunately the devs are currently working on new content, so until we see BFRs this sorta thing is going to be on the back burner.

[Queensidecastle]

I thaink Warborn is way offbase and overstating the problem to an extreme degree. I have AV and almost always shootdown mossies and reavers that attack me(unless they totally come up behind me) Since I can do that and I am not a top player, I just dont buy the argument that these vehicles are overpowered at all. Yes, you are correct that you are dead if you dont have AV but if your not going to cert the counter and carry it, dont complain about death being certain. Madcow is totally correct about the skyguard and I would totally support various upgrades to that vehicle. Its like a wet paper bag and barely stronger than a MAX suit or ATV. I decert the Skyguard when I was killed by a grunt using a jackhammer (I got stuck on a rock for about 5 seconds and was owned in a vehicle by a footsoldier with a shotgun heh)

[DraygoKorvan]

It seems like some of the BFR configs would allow you to carry AA weapons, I wonder how that will affect the balance of reaver vs ground. Personally as it is I think AA is pretty much underpowered compared to enemy air. But that might be because I primarily play NC who have the worst weapons possible to deal with enemy air (minus the lockon bug).

If you need proof all you need to do is get a buddy in a sparrow and get yourself in a reaver, come in at max alt right for the reaver, unleash missile hell and watch the sparrow die, while you only get hit by AT MOST 5 missiles as you AB over his dead corpse. Sparrow is horribly gimp, even without the lockon bugs. I'm sure it will get addressed after the BFRs, because the devs now have the data on how many of x kills x.

[Warborn]

I think you're being unfair against skeeters. Skeeter vs AA = dead skeeter so I don't think that's a fair argument.

Depends how you use it. If you try and use it as a reaver, yeah, you'll die, but it's really good for sniping infantry.

I thaink Warborn is way offbase and overstating the problem to an extreme degree. I have AV and almost always shootdown mossies and reavers that attack me(unless they totally come up behind me)

Give me a break. You actually expect me to believe there's a reaver pilot stupid enough to not be able to kill you with rockets before you're able to kill him with any infantry AV weapon? Mosquitoes, maybe, but they aren't the focus of my little diatribte, though they certainly are too effective for what they are, too. But sorry, unless the reaver was horribly damaged when it came at you, or taking massive AA fire, you're full of shit. How about you get out of the cockpit for a bit and come back down to reality with the rest of us (and I don't mean playing a cloaker).

Yes, you are correct that you are dead if you dont have AV but if your not going to cert the counter and carry it, dont complain about death being certain.

Nice, didn't read anything did you? My entire point was that being dead for certain is not fun, because there's no room for skill to make a difference. As I said, if you run up against a sniper at long range and you have no long range weaponry, you aren't guarenteed death are you? No, you aren't. Depending on your ability and the skill of the sniper the outcome could go either way. If the sniper is good you will die, but that's because you're out of your element, and the sniper is skilled enough to take advantage of that. That's how the reaver should work. None of this guarenteed death bullshit. If I wanted that I'd go play Paper Rock Scissors Online.

And as I also pointed out, using the retarded logic you're using to justify the reaver being unbeatable and unavoidable unless you've very close to a tower or door, why not make AA instant kill too? After all, it's the reaver's fault for flying in an area where there's AA, right? So he deserves to die with no contest? Right?

You don't even read a thing I write, Queensidecastle, so just stop replying to what I write already.

[Queensidecastle]

First of all there is no need to get nasty. This is a usefull debate and I can assure you my reading comprehension skills are quite up to the task ;)

Give me a break. You actually expect me to believe there's a reaver pilot stupid enough to not be able to kill you with rockets before you're able to kill him with any infantry AV weapon? Mosquitoes, maybe, but they aren't the focus of my little diatribte, though they certainly are too effective for what they are, too. But sorry, unless the reaver was horribly damaged when it came at you, or taking massive AA fire, you're full of shit. How about you get out of the cockpit for a bit and come back down to reality with the rest of us (and I don't mean playing a cloaker).

I do this every single day I play Planetside. Now, I will concede that NC players are at a big disadvantage here being that the Phoenix doesnt hit aircraft well and you cant move your trooper while controlling the flight, but that only indicates a problem with the Phoenix, not the Reaver/Mossy. The Lancer and Striker are more than up to the task at taking out aircraft in short order. If it is a Mossy, you can make the pilot bail with 1 clip from a Striker. If it is a Reaver, you can make them bail if they do not have shields or have taken any damage at all and most always, you arent going to be the only person shooting at them.

As far as death being certain. Well, get AV and it is anything but a certainty and in fact, AV is a multitude more effective at taking down aircraft one on one that at taking out anything on land short of a Skyguard. You got any idea how many striker missles it takes to destroy a Vanguard? Now how many for a Reaver? You pop almost any reaver with 3 in a row and they are gone baybee and the Lancer is even more deadly. The Phoenix with any support at all is just as deadly, albiet you need at least one person watching your back, but like I said, thats a Phoenix problem, not a Reaver one

You are right when you say certain death isnt fun. I dont particularly like it when I am obliterated by a flail out of the blue, or sniped by someone I didnt see, or a Reaver over my back, or a cloaker that caught me healing behind a tree. These are just the hazards of playing the game. I would focus on your AV tactics. I see that you are TR so you shouldnt be having any problem with this

[ChewyLSB]

All of my characters have AV, except for my NC because it's not quite up to that level yet, so I'm quite a bit of a Lancer and Striker user, and I think you're overestimating the strength of those two weapons. Good luck hitting an aircraft that's moving at anything about 50% speed. Now, I've gotten quick adept at leading, but it is still insanely difficult to hit a Reaver. Now, a strafing reaver isn't difficult to hit as long as you've practiced with the Lancer, but as soon as the damage on the reaver gets high enough, the reaver can simply Afterburner away and go to the nearest air tower, heal, and rearm.

So, yes, I can get the odd reaver kill every now and then, but saying that AV is a counter to reavers is like saying MA is a counter to Snipers. It'll win every now and then, but you can't rely on it.

The same thing goes with the strikers, ESPECIALLY with all these blasted lock on bugs. An after-burnering reaver can easily outrun a striker, and since a striker has a limited range, it will eventually burn out.

[Queensidecastle]

So, yes, I can get the odd reaver kill every now and then, but saying that AV is a counter to reavers is like saying MA is a counter to Snipers. It'll win every now and then, but you can't rely on it.
Yeah, I mean its not a for sure deal but it makes death by said Reaver/Mossy anything but a certainty. I kill at least one attacker a day this way, fend off several more, and of course sometimes lose.

When I am out in the open I look at the skies and I can also hear if planes are flying around. I take note of where they are, whether or not they are going for me. Invaribally they come for me and I am waiting for them. BLAM. The way reavers have to hit you with rockets usually has them coming in head on from some direction. If you see them coming, you can pop them 3 times before they get any rockets to you. It really is a lot like Pocket awareness that Quarterbacks in football have to have. You need to know what is in the sky around you and make many 360 degree twirls as you move across the landscape

[Madcow]

I do this every single day I play Planetside. Now, I will concede that NC players are at a big disadvantage here being that the Phoenix doesnt hit aircraft well and you cant move your trooper while controlling the flight, but that only indicates a problem with the Phoenix, not the Reaver/Mossy. The Lancer and Striker are more than up to the task at taking out aircraft in short order. If it is a Mossy, you can make the pilot bail with 1 clip from a Striker. If it is a Reaver, you can make them bail if they do not have shields or have taken any damage at all and most always, you arent going to be the only person shooting at them.

This may work when you're in a group, or when you go up against idiotic pilots. I don't even fly any more and was never that great a pilot, but every time I was in TR territory and got the missile lock-on message I'd check my HUD and if missiles were only coming from one direction I'd lick my lips, go obliterate the sap and watch his remaining missiles fly without guidance, go to an air tower and heal up to repeat. The only times I had issues with this was when multiple Striker users jumped on me, in which case I'd try to lose lock and then come back around from behind the most isolated spot on the HUD I'd seen missiles coming from.
Also, the Lancer isn't much use unless the pilot is doing too much hovering in which case they should get blown to crap.

[ChewyLSB]

You just proved my point. AV is not a counter to Reavers. A "counter" doesn't fail 90% of the time, it should be able to destroy what it's made to counter a majority of the time. Also, a "counter" shouldn't require more people.

So that's exactly the reason why a skyguard isn't a viable counter against Reavers either.

This is what I propose:

- Reaver is made a two man vehicle

OR

- Skyguard is given rocket resistant armor, to make it resistant against Reaver attacks, but vulnerable to other types of attacks

Of course, that would piss off a lot of people, but that's what I think should happen.

[Queensidecastle]

I didnt prove your point at all. You arent guarenteed to kill a reaver, anymore than they are guarenteed to kill you. A "counter" doesnt mean a guarenteed anything. I have killed heavy assault rexo's with Darklight more times than I can even count and DL is the "counter" for cloakers

[ChewyLSB]

I never said a counter is guaranteed to work. A counter is supposed to be effective and killing something, and that something isn't good at killing it. Now, obviously, a counter isn't going to be 100%. I'm sure there's situations where someone was using an SMG and got a lucky shot on a sniper. But it should work more than 50% of the time.

[Queensidecastle]

hmm, It works just dandy for me.

Also keep in mind Planetside is about to become a really hostile place for pilots:

Wait till you see a AA equipped BFR in action (at least in current balance). I worry more that they are overpowered (but those mossies will be slipping through the shield with their little gun, so they will be something the BFR will have to keep swatted away). - SamhaynePS

[AcidCat]

This may work when you're in a group.

Isn't that that the key here? If you're going solo commando and a Reaver sees you huffing it across the landscape in your Rexo, well yeah you're toast, and there's nothing wrong with that. If you're playing as part of a group, any sensible group is going to have some kind of AA solution, even if it is just multiple guys with Strikers.

I've been on both sides, I've died my share to Reaver rockets and I've done my share of killing when I had the Air Cav cert. Sure I could take advantage of troops coming individually out of a tower, small groups of unorganized infantry, but any Reaver pilot knows a real hotspot is a killing zone and you'll be getting lockons the moment you make yourself known. Reaver is best as a scavenger picking on the weak.

Anyway, I also think the issue of Reaver hate has been blown out of proportion.

[ChewyLSB]

You people are all missing the point.

Why should you require more people to get a "counter" of a vehicle that requires less people?

A counter shouldn't require more people to operate, then it's not an effective counter!

[Warborn]

hmm, It works just dandy for me.

Please, stop insulting our ability. We are not inept players, you are not some god. It doesn't matter if you see a reaver coming first, whether you're using a striker or a lancer. If it is heading for you, you can not get off enough rounds to kill it before you die. It takes over two clips of striker rounds to kill a reaver if they have full shields, with an unshielded one taking almost two clips. I don't care what you say regarding this, with the amount of time I've been playing Planetside and playing as infantry, I know for a fact that a single striker user has absolutely no hope against a full strength reaver if the reaver has a bead on you. It will simply afterburn right in your face, and spam you to death in no time flat.

I don't play VS much, but from the lancers I've looted, they have even less hope, because at least with a striker I can fire while trying to (vainly, most of the time, thanks to aircraft strafing ability) run for something to hide behind.

This is what I propose:

- Reaver is made a two man vehicle

I would approve of this change. The reaver's power being given to a two-man vehicle would be fine, I think, provided the rockets were tied to the second seat controls, so all the pilot has is the chainguns.

[Queensidecastle]

It doesn't matter if you see a reaver coming first, whether you're using a striker or a lancer. If it is heading for you, you can not get off enough rounds to kill it before you die.
That is just flat incorrect.

[Madcow]

They could up the decimator power, make that TR specific (I can already hear them screaming) and make Striker common pool. The fact that the TR are the only ones with an AV that is semi-effective as AA kind of messes with the argument anyhow. Then again, with the current lock-on bugs I might just prefer the Lancer or Phoenix.

[WritheNC]

I haven't read the whole thread. Only after I posted.

I just wanna make sure we're on the same page: Nobody is expecting lone infantry or a few infantry without AV to be on even footing with Air Cav, right? :)

[Baneblade]

My Reaver solution is to make it basically an Apache. Two person, Pilot and Gunner, Pilot has a vulcan cannon and the Gunner fires guided weaponry...like a gunship based Phoenix.

[JetRaiden]

My Reaver solution is to make it basically an Apache. Two person, Pilot and Gunner, Pilot has a vulcan cannon and the Gunner fires guided weaponry...like a gunship based Phoenix.

[NO]

[EarlyDawn]

My Reaver solution is to make it basically an Apache. Two person, Pilot and Gunner, Pilot has a vulcan cannon and the Gunner fires guided weaponry...like a gunship based Phoenix.I'd agree with that if you make the warheads on the rockets armor piercing (no splash) and laser guided by the gunner, plus give it less rockets. Maybe 18 total. But make the rockets hugely effective against hard targets.

Then, to balance the change out, give the Pilot a 30mm center-mounted gun.

[Cauldron Borne]

I'd say yes to a 20mm, or even a 15mm, but not a 30mm. That's the Libby Gunship's gun. Even on a Libby it shreds...

[Warborn]

I'd agree with that if you make the warheads on the rockets armor piercing (no splash) and laser guided by the gunner, plus give it less rockets. Maybe 18 total. But make the rockets hugely effective against hard targets.

Then, to balance the change out, give the Pilot a 30mm center-mounted gun.

Why laser guided? What's wrong with having to aim?

Also, 30mm slaughters infantry like nothing. Even on a big clumsy vehicle like the liberator that weapon is dangerous. On a more agile vehicle like a reaver... yeah, no, not a 30mm.

[Baneblade]

I'd agree with that if you make the warheads on the rockets armor piercing (no splash) and laser guided by the gunner, plus give it less rockets. Maybe 18 total. But make the rockets hugely effective against hard targets.

Then, to balance the change out, give the Pilot a 30mm center-mounted gun.
Well it would be like three Decimators all at once. Wouldn't do much to infantry. The ammo box would hold two, and you can to reload after each one.

Splash is realistic, but for game purposes it isn't really needed.

Pilot only needs a center mounted 20mm...should get that anyway.

[Warborn]

Splash is realistic, but for game purposes it isn't really needed.

Not so unrealistic, actually. Armor piercing warheads don't explode as much as you'd think. They channel their force into a fairly thin stream forward at whatever the rocket hits, rather than exploding out-ward (damn filter) , with the heat of the blast melting some copper inside the warhead into a molten bolt which bores through the thickest of armors, killing the crew or hitting the ammo or fuel stores and destorying the vehicle that way. Warheads of that sort don't explode very much, and they certainly aren't designed to kill infantry, so you don't get a lot of fragmentation either. If you're going to pass the reaver's rockets off as being meant to defeat armor specifically, there you go, no need for a huge blast radius on a realism level either. You don't make weapons designed to blow up tanks that would simply explode and dent the out armor of the vehicle, or fragment up and scratch the tank's paint coat.

[Baneblade]

That assumes it is an armor piercing warhead, but yeah.

I rather like the idea of doubling AV dmg, but keeping the AI the same on AV weapons.

AV weapons should be devastating...but should also take a bigger cert investment. I would be willing to spend 4 or 5 cert points on a Phoenix that did more AV dmg.:)

[EarlyDawn]

Why laser guided? What's wrong with having to aim?Because it gives the gunner something to do, makes the splashless missles a little more precise, and because it would be extremely clumsy to put a rotating rocket launcher on the reaver.

Also, 30mm slaughters infantry like nothing.Now you're getting it.

Even on a big clumsy vehicle like the liberator that weapon is dangerous. On a more agile vehicle like a reaver... yeah, no, not a 30mm.Yes, a 30mm, unless you can give me a valid reason why not (Most of the reaver redesigns I hear are making the rockets splashless and the guns more infantry-effective, this accomplishes this purpose while not making the pilot feel gimped.)

The pilot needs some viable way to take on infantry, 30mm (interestingly enough, a weapon that isn't in the game, to my knowledge, and yet you're telling me how it functions. :lol: ) Like I said, knock down the vehicle damage, and center it.

The alternative is giving the Gunner control of some kind of rotating 15-20mm turret and give the PILOT control of the dumbfire, Armor-Piercing rockets. I'd prefer that a little less, but it's still acceptable to the status quo.

[Cauldron Borne]

The 30mm IS in the game, Early. It's the nose mount of a Liberator. The only reason it isn't overpowering on a Liberator is because:
a) there aren't very many of them, and
b) they aren't manuverable enough to be used as weapons against nimble ground infantry.

Having a Reaver with a 30mm mount would be just as bad as a reaver w/ AI rockets. It would be worse, actually. It only takes four shots with a 30mm to kill a rexo-tank using PShield. If the gun was toned down to something like the caliber of the rear ball turret of the liberator, or the side mounts of a Galaxy, I could see it happening.

Both of those guns have better than decent AI ability, and exceptional AA capability. Their only draw back, and in my opinon a balanced drawback, is their CoF bloom. Maybe tighten it up a bit for a reaver, but not much. That way we don't have an invulnerable infantry sniper for a plane.

[EarlyDawn]

Liberator = 35mm, chief.

Make the 30mm sick against infantry and decent on light vehicles if you hold it on them long enough. But it's primary function should be anti-infantry.

[Baneblade]

Mosquitos are too effective on vehicles for a 30mm not to be.

[EarlyDawn]

I could give a damn what number you want to call it. The bottom line is it would have to be great against infantry, and decent against light vehicles. 25 is taken, IIRC, so I picked 30.

There number means nothing. I just picked an empty number that seemed reasonable for an aircraft (Apaches carry a 35mm cannon, IIRC, not that it means anything), and suggested it. The key is great vs infantry, decent vs light vehicles over time.

[Baneblade]

I think a fixed 25mm or even the current 20mms cept more centered would be sufficient.

[Cauldron Borne]

Read my post on too effective = bad. It's the one where I mistook the lib nose mount to be a 30mm, instead of a 35mm. If infantry are shreaded faster with a nose cannon than they were with rockets, we have acheived nothing.

[Baneblade]

Rockets take less precision, using guns takes more balls since you spend more time taking each target down even if you use a 35mm.

The Lib is successful mainly because it has endurance. Bet giving it Reaver armor would change its effectiveness greatly.

[EarlyDawn]

Rockets take less precision, using guns takes more balls since you spend more time taking each target down even if you use a 35mm.Precisely, which is why I think the <Insert Nose Gun Size Here> should chew through infantry at approximately the same damage as the rockets, but individually. Then you'd actually have to aim.

[Warborn]

The Lib is successful mainly because it has endurance. Bet giving it Reaver armor would change its effectiveness greatly.

The lib's gun that can kill infantry before they have time to react some of the time. It's really, really strong. But the liberator's endurance is also its enemy, as its bulk and slower turning ability make it more difficult to aim with. Give a 30mm or so gun to a more agile craft like a reaver and we're not making any progress at all, especially if it's also got armor-killing warheads, as the 30mm would be awesome at killing infantry, AND it'd be great at killing armor. What, exactly, would be the point of all this? To make the reaver even more powerful? Who would ever use ground vehicles if this were to be done? I'm not seeing the method to this madness at all.

[Hoza]

I think the main suggestion is that they're changing the Reaver to a 2 man craft with a gunner controlling either the rockets or the gun. I could see how this might stop (or rather slow) the Reaver swarm and encourage more teamwork. AirCav would still have the mossy as rapid 1 man transport and Air to Air.

This could change the Reaver from a Uber Sky Lightning able to do everything pretty well to the Main Battle Tank of the sky - requiring some team work and co-ordination between the players to be able to rule.

I quite like the idea of adding the minimum flight speed as well, if the nose cannon was pretty effective it would be nice to see some strafeing runs.

[Warborn]

I quite like the idea of adding the minimum flight speed as well, if the nose cannon was pretty effective it would be nice to see some strafeing runs.

It would also make for more interesting air combat. To be fair, I think homing weapons should be nerfed somewhat if this change were to come into place, though. The entire game's AA basis has been built up alongside these overpowered vehicles, and if Air Cavalry were to finally be put in its place, there'd be no need for the level of ground-to-air weaponry we have now. If a reaver can't kill you in a couple seconds, every time, there's not as much call for the powerful-en-mass, never-miss weaponry that the TR infantry tend to have, and that the VS and NC MAXs are armed with. If reavers actually need to aim, I'd think homing weapons should be made imperfect, a la Battlefield: Vietnam, where the missiles have a large turning radius, making when you fire, and how good the enemy is at jinking, an important part of using the weapons successfully.

[Madcow]

Again, I would say remove AA MAXs altogether if they made that change. Maybe nerf the Striker's air ability (either can't lock or does very minimal damage) and leave only Skyguards and opposing air as the only things that are truly effective at bringing air down. There would be dogfights all the time, that seems cool, and pilots wouldn't have to worry about AA disrupting their fun.

[Warborn]

Again, I would say remove AA MAXs altogether if they made that change. Maybe nerf the Striker's air ability (either can't lock or does very minimal damage) and leave only Skyguards and opposing air as the only things that are truly effective at bringing air down. There would be dogfights all the time, that seems cool, and pilots wouldn't have to worry about AA disrupting their fun.

I'd actually agree with the removing of AA MAXs (and the toning down of the striker vs aircraft), but, thing is, they've already done the art for the AA MAXs. It would be a waste to remove them, even though I certainly do agree that at their current power they too will only impede the betterment of the game. I dunno, I'm still kind of trying to think of a way that a melee MAX could be compelling and balanced enough to be worthwhile. Maybe the AA MAXs could be switched to that, art-wise, or some other previously non-existant variant?

[Queensidecastle]

not to mention playing as an AA MAX is very fun

[Madcow]

I'd actually agree with the removing of AA MAXs (and the toning down of the striker vs aircraft), but, thing is, they've already done the art for the AA MAXs. It would be a waste to remove them, even though I certainly do agree that at their current power they too will only impede the betterment of the game. I dunno, I'm still kind of trying to think of a way that a melee MAX could be compelling and balanced enough to be worthwhile. Maybe the AA MAXs could be switched to that, art-wise, or some other previously non-existant variant?

For a melee MAX (which is something I've also been giving thought) I think they should just steal the 'tank' concept from RPGs. Give the MAX melee power that wouldn't even exceed a knife on secondary mode, but give them like 4x the armor. Bullet sponges, basically. Put those bad boys on the front line and let Thumper users hide behind them raining hell. It would increase teamwork, increase strategy, keep the Uni-MAX cert worth 5 points and suddenly the 2 point MAX suit would make sense as being worth less than 3 certs as you'd be hard pressed to score a lot of kills with a slow moving, not powerful melee machine. My only concern would be how few people would actually use it specifically because it wouldn't score a lot of kills.

[Warborn]

Yeah. The idea I was envisioning for them would be deadlock-breakers. Taking a tower can be a pain in the ass, but with some MAXs that had increased footspeed, melee power (this requiring they get right up into the enemy), and big armor, a few of them would cause most defenses to buckle as the enemy flees their advance, trying to kill them while also causing damage to their allies.

As for few people using it, I think if they made it cosmetically cool enough (look to Warhammer 40k for some neat melee weapons on big suits of armor) and didn't make it too ineffective (they'd have to move faster than normal MAXs) they'd have enough of a following. They'd of course be a niche suit of armor, but then, so are AA MAXs. Well, the TR one anyway. VS and NC ones are actually pretty good at killing infantry.

[Sanguinius]

mmmmmm. lightning claw max.


now if only they made NC+TR max helms look more like terminator helms, instead of the silly looking glass bubbles.

its too bad flamethrowers would cause too much lag......

[Zaxis]

Wow...

I never really thought of flamethrowers being on PlanetSide. That would be a very cool concept to the MAX. It's damage would be somewhat like the irritation damage the Radiator has (except a smidge more damage... the smallest amount more). I would love to see that. :p

[ChewyLSB]

Flamethrowers = massive lag. Wasn't the NC heavy assault originally a flamethrower, but was removed due to fps issues?

[Cauldron Borne]

yes. there is a pic of the flamer somewhere in this site....