AA has officially gone to far. [Archive] - Page 2

Chaff

2013-02-12, 05:41 PM

.
Last night on my server, NC ran out a LOT of Smurffy air - mostly Reavers. We pulled a buttload of AA, but they also rolled a decent compomnent of armor to complement their Huge air spam ...... we fought hard, but once the wave crested ..... it was all-NC shootin' ...... fish in a barrel. It was as BRUTAL an ass-whoopin as I've seen in any PS session. Coordinated NC air power was the biggest factor. It was not all they used, but it was the Tip of the spear - and was DEADLY.

After seeing how last night went, I have to say your Love of air perhaps has given you thin skin over what might now be a more of a level playing field than you're used to. Tank Mines, C4, HA, Frag grenades, ..... it's EASY to insta-die on the ground. Air jockeys might want to learn to accept more of this reality than they initially thought would be part of flying.

For my taste, Everything dies TOO QUICKLY in PS2. Please make dying (or losing a vehicle) take at least 10%-20% longer. Either improve all armor, or weaken weapons/ammo. Let me take 2 or 3 breathes before my quickest death. It's too easy to die quicker than a sneeze.
.

Rothnang

2013-02-12, 06:13 PM

. If you do make it to a battle, you're more or less trapped in a rather boring cycle of attack/get chewed up/run away/repair/repeat.

That's pretty much what the issue is, but some people seem to really enjoy spending most of the time running and repairing.

Still, right now I think armor has it toughest, since they obviously aren't as mobile as either infantry or air, and they're vulnerable to heavies to a much greater degree (AND they're vulnerable to air). I think this is partly a byproduct of the Heavy class predominating on the ground.

Tanks take a bigger risk than aircraft when they commit to a region, because they can't get away quickly if they get overrun, and in general moving anywhere is a lengthy proposition for them. Tanks have a lot more options to contribute to a fight and stay in the fight even if they aren't effortlessly dominating the enemies however. They outrange their infantry counters by a good amount, and since they are on the ground they have plenty of cover, not to mention instant repairs. A tank can stick around even in a very large battle for a good long time if he's careful.

Illtempered

2013-02-12, 06:22 PM

Don't worry. The knee-jerk over-correction has already started. Lock-on is harder to achieve now, and I see a further nerf to lock-on AV on the horizon.

Whiteagle

2013-02-12, 07:46 PM

Point is, yes the AA and lock-ons can be a real pain, but it can also offer some great and challenging fights. Heck, I think I'm becoming a better pilot because of this, even if I sometimes die a horrible death.
My god, a pilot who is actually LEARNING!!!

Hallelujah, hallelujah!

FIX THE LOCK ON BUGS!!! I want to know if I have a missile tracking me or if I succesfully broke lock.
Indeed, this and the missile rendering issue are the only real grievances I've seen out of these threads.

ECM (no more lock ons) in the secondary slot is a Brilliant idea! You give up your splash damage, lock ons, and high damage weapons for a chance to do more recon, Air to Air, dogfighting, and provide limited support to ground forces. I've never heard anyone complain that an ESF had an unfair advantage killing armor using only the main gun. It takes 4-6 passes to take out armor and that is assuming they don't get out and repair in-between. Also the ESF would still be vulnerable to skill based AA weapons. Seeing the response to this suggestion really showed who is actively looking at a balance option and who hates Air regardless.
Indeed, and this gives flak based AA a role different from lock-on ground-to-air missiles.

So you could have Scout Aircraft with Flak Armor, Lock-on Jammer pods, Scout Radar, and a Racer Airframe, or replace the Racer with the Dogfighting Airframe to get an Anti Anti-air Dogfighter.

HAs having the ability to lock on to air and ground with unlimited ammo resupply is getting a bit silly. I like the idea of making it either Air or Ground. Also making the weapon do some real damage but at a cost. Similar to what we have currently for the AV mine. This way someone could carry 4-6, be dedicated as anti AV/AA, and do some very real damage. However they wouldn't be able to do it constantly. I think a long lock on and having to maintain sites on target would go a long way. To that end the missile needs to be a 1 shot kill vs ESFs and do about 50% to Libs. It would be expensive, require skill, but also a big reward.
No, the problem here is that solo-pwnmobiles can't handle the idea that team-work can actually out perform them.

The Annihilator is actually the weakest of the Missile Launchers, requiring about three to four hits just to take down a Scythe, while the dedicated G2A and G2G launchers are still weaker then the dumb-fire versions.

Hell, if the stats I just looked up are correct, you need about 4 Annihilator missiles for every 3 dedicated Lock-on missiles just to equal the damage.

Added to the fact that Annihilators CANNOT be dumb-fired, thus cannot be effectively used at close range, and it makes me wonder what these Anni-whiners would do when they can no longer just BULL RUSH a Heavy Blob!

I'd like to see the ceiling extended to 2,000 feet. To give people a reason to stay up that high I propose creating a Repair/Rearm option for Galaxies. This would help give them a purpose and a tool that could be used in coordinated combat. Now a squad could bring a Galaxy in the air to support the rest of the air units. The Galaxy would be an air equivalent of the Ammo Sundy. I could easily see swarms of ESFs around a Galaxy like this, it would be a great target for enemy ESFs as well because not only would it provide a lot of XP (make it 1000 like Sundys) but also a source for a great air battle.
Well I don't agree with increasing the flight ceiling... just because of how it could be exploited by Liberators wings...

...But yeah, I'd love to see Repair Turrets and Rearm Modules on Galaxies, as that would certainly give the old bird some much needed utility.

*Just got my 1,000th kill with a Scythe this week! Each patch has brought new changes but I still love flying and have adapted to each. The most recent has made me play a lot more conservative but I can still get in and cause some damage!
THEY'RE MULTIPLYING!!!
Into the caves, HURRY!
A new breed of ariel ubermensch is coming!!!

The ECM opens up new possibilities with the upcoming Lancer/Striker/Phoenix weapons.

For example, the Lancer could be a lateral remake of its PS1 progenitor. The Striker could be done the 'way the Annihilator should have been from the start' (active tracking lock on weapon, not fire and forget) with a feature that lets it lock on to ECM equipped aircraft (but perhaps at a slower rate). The Phoenix could be the laser guided warhead it was always supposed to be (not the wire guided compromise from PS1).

The existing lock on weapons still have their places and ECM won't change that. Any significant threat to infantry can still be locked. ESFs with the ECM are a relatively small threat to infantry, and are far easier to dispatch than rocket spammers.
Uh, just wondering here, but what would the difference between the Phoenix's "laser guidance" and the Striker's "active tracking" be?

Baneblade

2013-02-12, 07:59 PM

Uh, just wondering here, but what would the difference between the Phoenix's "laser guidance" and the Striker's "active tracking" be?

Active Tracking is a lock on that won't miss in theory. All it requires is you maintain the lock on the target as opposed to fire, forget, and reload.

Laser guided is not a lock on and requires a more accurate aim on the part of the user. It also provides the possibility of multiple warheads being guided by one person.

The Striker would warn the target, the Phoenix would incite hate tells.

Gatekeeper

2013-02-13, 04:27 AM

I do agree that it's hard to be effective from the air right now, but then again I'd also say that AA is overall weaker than in Planetside 1 and A2G much stronger - it's just that there are more people on the ground than we're used to...

As for the ECM concept - it seems to me that it'd be simpler to just move Flares from their current slot to be a secondary weapon option instead. That way we can have ammo for flares and a whole set of certs to upgrade them (affecting a larger area vs firing more frequently, for example).

That would also free up the utility slot to be used for things other than Flares, and means they don't need to introduce a whole new anti-lockon mechanic or find a way of explaining why you can't lock-on to certain aircraft.

Also, it might be worth making this the default option, in place of the pointless fuel tank - that way new pilots live a little longer and can learn to fly, but are limited in firepower as long as they keep hold of that defensive strength.

ShadetheDruid

2013-02-13, 04:37 AM

As for the ECM concept - it seems to me that it'd be simpler to just move Flares from their current slot to be a secondary weapon option instead. That way we can have ammo for flares and a whole set of certs to upgrade them (affecting a larger area vs firing more frequently, for example).

This would be an interesting idea. I've seen the suggestion that flares be set up like weapons (with ammo capacity that you can expand and need to be resupplied like weapon ammo) before, it would be less dull (and annoying) than a single flare that you can only use one every random arbitrary amount of time.

Do the same with the smoke cloud thingy on the ground vehicles and you could even gain some utility from it. Have a bunch of vehicles move in and smoke up the area, not to break locks, but to provide cover.

Thunderhawk

2013-02-13, 05:30 AM

OK this is starting to sound interesting actually, I like the idea of Smoke vehicles providing cover for advancing troops say from Building to building, or running from a deployed S-AMS to a base without being picked apart.

Not sure about the Flares being Secondary ammo (Although it is exactly the same theory as an ECM module, just physical rather than electronic).

I wasn't expecting an ECM to just work non stop and blanket an area, and it wouldnt be just plug into the ESF and forget about it, you're immune to lockns now...

I was more thinking about it being something you have to "deploy" when being locked onto, and keeps you immune for 5-10 seconds. There needs to be user interaction in using it, not just have it run permanently.

ShadetheDruid

2013-02-13, 05:38 AM

Not sure about the Flares being Secondary ammo (Although it is exactly the same theory as an ECM module, just physical rather than electronic).

I wasn't expecting an ECM to just work non stop and blanket an area, and it wouldnt be just plug into the ESF and forget about it, you're immune to lockns now...

I was more thinking about it being something you have to "deploy" when being locked onto, and keeps you immune for 5-10 seconds. There needs to be user interaction in using it, not just have it run permanently.

How about having both, just as separate cert options with their own advantages and disadvantages?

Flare launchers that deploy flares to break current locks only (just like they do now), but use "ammo" that can be expanded/resupplied vs an ECM that has a cooldown and no ammo, but lasts much longer when activated.

Thunderhawk

2013-02-13, 05:54 AM

Yep that could work.

Although the more we talk about, the more I realize the Flares that currently exist in game would be a much easier prospect for the Dev team to "modify" rather than introduce a whole new mechanic in game.

So focusing on how to improve flares may be the way forward

psijaka

2013-02-13, 07:21 AM

Like the idea of flares as a "weapon", with a reasonable ammo supply, and it would certainly be easier to introduce than a whole new system of ECM.

Would mean that ESF pilots would have to choose between their rocket pods or flares; now there's a dilemma for the AoE spammers!

But dogfighters can use their flares freely, just spam a flare whenever they get "locked".

Satanam

2013-02-13, 11:44 AM

I've read some posts from people who said things like "now you need a group of aircraft just like you need a group of AA max" or something like this. This is really wrong. You can hunt any ESF easily without being damage most of the times if you're using AA max (I often do it, and I don't have the other AA weapon, didn't buy it). I use, because it's there to use, but I would like it to change. Not a nerf in the MAXes, but a increase on defense for ESFs. Galaxy and Liberator are fine this way (talking about defense), but even if you're a good pilot for your ESF, you won't get away from the AA MAXes or HA with lock-on rocket launchers.
My primary job is Heavy Assault, but I use the dumb-fire rocket launcher with maximum damage. Those rocket launchers should stay this way, there's some people asking to nerf it, but then I don't see why it would be more useful than a lock-on rocket launcher. Even I love this class, I think there should be a nerf for lock-on rocket launchers only, and to balance it, maybe increase something else for Heavy Assault. There could be a delay for the next shot, like you need to wait 2~4 seconds to lock-on again (after you shoot the enemy, not talking about flares). I mean, right now you can just try to lock-on and if the enemy ESF launchs flares, all he could do it just try to take a cover (which is not so easy) or fly away. Taking cover = get on the ground, which is not the best idea ever for a useless-on-the-ground-vehicle. Flying away = hope it was far enough for those 5 seconds free of lock-ons and that there's no other lock-on rocket launcher user around.
So, after those 5 seconds, you need more 20 seconds (if you maxed the flares) to use it again. Not a big deal, right?
I remember when it was really useful (and not OP) to use my Mosquito. Now I find it way more useful to just get my Heavy Assault on foot or on a Prowler/Sunderer.

Tatwi

2013-02-13, 11:56 AM

AA really isn't too bad these days. In fact, I have been able to fly a lot more lately, now that enemy air can't just loiter around inside our territory without a care in the world. Most times I die it's due to frame rate loss and poor piloting (I have mastered clipping buildings and blowing up). One thing I have noticed is that my rocket pods really don't accomplish much. I made three passes on a sundy last night and I am not even sure I hit it, despite flying right up its nose. Lol I did damage a mag on my way into a tree later on. Not really sure what I was thinking on that run...

Anyhow, AA does not usually destroy me, because I rarely put myself in a position where it can.

Rothnang

2013-02-13, 01:01 PM

I'm also still flying, and AA rarely ever flat out kills me, it's the fact that you spend more time repairing than actually fighting, and that people can easily create zones where aircraft can't exert any influence whatsoever that annoys me.

Your rapid response capabilities are also just garbage now. Someone drives a Sunderer into a remote base somewhere and starts capping it, you used to be able to send some air units and put the kibosh on that, but now they will instantly pull out a bunch of Annihilators or a MAX or two and just laugh at you.
Aircraft used to be pretty good at defending territory, now that it takes only 2-3 people who don't even need to commit to the AA role to make airspace so hostile that you have to run after just a few seconds your chances of stopping even just a small enemy force with an airstrike have become minimal.

I mean, personally I am all for the proliferation of AA capabilities. Don't get me wrong here, I thought the game was way out of whack when only a few units could even hit aircraft, and they rarely ever got any XP for it - but with increased proliferation should have come a redesign of AA to not be a hard counter, but simply give everyone a decent fight.

Ultimately that's what I find wanting. The ability to have a good fight with AA units, and not just "Oh shit, lockon sirens, explosions everywhere, no time to even look for them or shoot back, run away!!"

As far as flares being based on ammo instead of a cooldown, I'm all for it. Currently the flares just suck. 5 seconds may be a big deal on a fighter, but on a Liberator or Galaxy it's a joke.

maradine

2013-02-13, 01:13 PM

I'm also still flying, and AA rarely ever flat out kills me, it's the fact that you spend more time repairing than actually fighting, and that people can easily create zones where aircraft can't exert any influence whatsoever that annoys me.

Your rapid response capabilities are also just garbage now. Someone drives a Sunderer into a remote base somewhere and starts capping it, you used to be able to send some air units and put the kibosh on that, but now they will instantly pull out a bunch of Annihilators or a MAX or two and just laugh at you.
Aircraft used to be pretty good at defending territory, now that it takes only 2-3 people who don't even need to commit to the AA role to make airspace so hostile that you have to run after just a few seconds your chances of stopping even just a small enemy force with an airstrike have become minimal.

One: You don't hold territory with aircraft.

Two: Hyperbole. 2-3 "uncommitted" infantry are going to get mulched by the first PPA Scythe that swings through, Annihilators or not. Bonus points if he brought a friend. And if all three of those gentlemen respawn, stay alive long enough to navigate the menu into bursters, and fend you off, you come back in something else more appropriate. After all, they'e not capping anything anymore, are they.

Rothnang

2013-02-13, 02:07 PM

maradine

2013-02-13, 02:21 PM

How are they not capping anything anymore? We're talking about a few people who just crashed a base and are going to flip it long before any ground response could possibly be mobilized.

You know, the reason why defending stuff in this game blows hard. By the time you get there you're the one who's attacking anyways, so why bother being quick about it.

What exactly are aircraft for in your mind? I don't really see them capable of contributing a whole lot to a fight at this point. Sure, their weapons are still deadly, but farming kills isn't what wins battles in this game. Of course every kill, every destroyed vehicle etc. helps the overall war effort, but there is rarely ever a situation where ground troops really need air support. With AA being so abundant and powerful there are very few targets left on the battlefield that are easier to kill from the air than they are from the ground. Sometimes you can still knock down a badly placed Sunderer or two somewhere...

They're not capping anymore because now they're in MAX suits and not contributing to the cap race. They can continue to watch the skies, or they can go back to squishies to speed things up. They have a choice to make. Maybe they'll split the difference. You also have a choice to make.

Aircraft are for the application of overwhelming force anywhere on the map at a moment's notice. They are a trump card to be deployed to break up strongpoints. They are also a means of interdiction of the former.

Did you miss the video? Stalled armor push? ESF breaks up ridge defense? Advance breaks through and continues to successfully to Rashnu? That, my friend, is what air power is used for. Changing the game on the ground.

Rothnang

2013-02-13, 02:45 PM

You do realize that a base still caps with 0 people on point right?

maradine

2013-02-13, 02:53 PM

Yeah - eventually. And based on your "remote base somewhere" scenario, I'd say that's a long, low influence eventually.

Rothnang

2013-02-13, 03:23 PM

Yeaaa, sorry, to me that's not in any way an argument for why a hand full of people should be able to stand up to air attack pretty much indefinitely.

The fact that you can resurrect MAX units and spawn Heavies ad infinitum just skews the balance WAY too much in their favor. Taking them out just doesn't really do much if you have to run for a minute before you can come back, by that time they are all back up on their feet and have lost absolutely nothing except maybe a bit of their pride.

maradine

2013-02-13, 03:30 PM

What I find incredible is that you want to be able to save a base from a small group with Sundie support entirely from one cockpit. They planned for it. If the territory is that important to you, get some damn boots on the ground.

We are literally living in different worlds. I'm not sure this conversation is in any way productive at this point. Happy hunting, mate.

Rothnang

2013-02-13, 03:43 PM

What I find incredible is that you think people who attack a base should be able to do so with impunity unless someone organizes an equal counterattack within just a few minutes.

You don't seem to understand that the attackers already have an insanely huge advantage because they got to pick the time and place of the attack and take all the time in the world to get ready to carry it out. You want the defender to be forced to organize an equal response in the couple minutes it takes for the base to flip instead of being able to respond with fast units that can get there in time and are already ready for action.

I guess your point of view is the reason why base defense is generally considered absolutely pointless in this game. If you're going to have to respond with an equal force anyways, why stress yourself out by doing it quickly.

zulu

2013-02-13, 06:01 PM

What I find incredible is that you want to be able to save a base from a small group with Sundie support entirely from one cockpit. They planned for it. If the territory is that important to you, get some damn boots on the ground.

I don't think it's really too much to ask that an attack on a base come with a little bit of vehicle support if it wants to reliably win.

But ultimately I don't think that matters too much. As I said above, the problem I think isn't in small-unit actions. That seems to balance pretty well -- ESFs have to make strafing runs if they want to attack, a few vehicles can turn the whole battle, but ultimately you need infantry to win (of course). Feels like it works.

I think the problem is in larger battles, where there are simply too many infantry for air and armor to contribute often. Tanks just sit on that hill across from the crown and bombard the turrets. Occasionally ESFs make strafing runs against them. And for the most part the infantry tries to flood across the bridge and make its way up the hill with only occasional tank support. That feels lame, if you ask me.

The more I think about it, the more I think a lot of the problems for vehicles could really just be solved by making the heavy's rocket launcher a primary weapon. Heavy, right now, seems like the best class for killing infantry, and it's clearly the best class for killing vehicles (Light Assaults and Infiltrators can take stuff down if they've got C4, but it's much tougher; Engineers have the anti-vehicle turret now, and we'll see how that goes). So there's really not much choice in what class you should pick in a conflict unless you're sniping or trying to skirmish. Heavies aren't for fire support (which you might expect, given their weaponry) but rather the main "attacking" class.

Giving players a real choice in what they want to do with the heavy -- attack with rockets or attack with machine gun -- would both cut down on rocket spam (more fun for everyone, I think) and make AA a more conscious choice.

For MAXes and vehicles, going AA is a conscious choice with definite trade-offs -- if you're good at downing aircraft you're probably not effective at killing infantry or armor (at least until you can resupply and change loadouts). For heavy right now, it isn't if you have the annihilator. You just pick the annihilator and you can attack aircraft, infantry, and armor pretty well. You probably can't kill aircraft or armor by yourself, but really that was mostly true of the standard rocket, too.

zulu

2013-02-13, 06:05 PM

I guess your point of view is the reason why base defense is generally considered absolutely pointless in this game. If you're going to have to respond with an equal force anyways, why stress yourself out by doing it quickly.

It doesn't help that there's no reward for defense right now, either. When you attack, you get extra experience if you win -- enough that people just hang around a base long after they've effectively won just so they can get the extra certs (and possibly storm the spawn point and kill anyone who stayed behind and took potshots at the attackers for the last few minutes of the battle).

People defend because it's a little easier to get experience -- you don't have to run as far before you find something to shoot. But if you need to get to the base you're defending, then you might as well try to attack something.

Rothnang

2013-02-13, 06:45 PM

The reason why you get tanks sitting far away while infantry charge in is because tanks aren't disposable to the people who really put some certs into them. If you like playing with a tank, or with an aircraft you have no incentive to take big risks. You get slapped with a vehicle timer and, if you're pushed close to the warp gate, with resource shortages, while infantry gets babied with respawns right at the enemy doorstep.

If aircraft were as easily replaced as infantry I wouldn't give a squirt of piss if I get blown up by AA. When I play infantry I take huge risks if there is a small chance for a big payoff, because death doesn't really matter. That's why I don't like it if mass infantry can dominate vehicles so easily, it's a no risk all reward proposition then.

Wahooo

2013-02-13, 07:40 PM

That's why I don't like it if mass infantry can dominate vehicles so easily, it's a no risk all reward proposition then.

Because the game was perfect up until now, the no risk all reward position was in an aircraft. :cry:

oh did I mention:

:cry:

Rothnang

2013-02-13, 08:10 PM

Yes, I completely forgot that no aircraft ever died before AA was buffed to absurd levels.

:cry: right back at you.

Synical

2013-02-13, 09:04 PM

I don't think it's really too much to ask that an attack on a base come with a little bit of vehicle support if it wants to reliably win.

But ultimately I don't think that matters too much. As I said above, the problem I think isn't in small-unit actions. That seems to balance pretty well -- ESFs have to make strafing runs if they want to attack, a few vehicles can turn the whole battle, but ultimately you need infantry to win (of course). Feels like it works.

I think the problem is in larger battles, where there are simply too many infantry for air and armor to contribute often. Tanks just sit on that hill across from the crown and bombard the turrets. Occasionally ESFs make strafing runs against them. And for the most part the infantry tries to flood across the bridge and make its way up the hill with only occasional tank support. That feels lame, if you ask me.

The more I think about it, the more I think a lot of the problems for vehicles could really just be solved by making the heavy's rocket launcher a primary weapon. Heavy, right now, seems like the best class for killing infantry, and it's clearly the best class for killing vehicles (Light Assaults and Infiltrators can take stuff down if they've got C4, but it's much tougher; Engineers have the anti-vehicle turret now, and we'll see how that goes). So there's really not much choice in what class you should pick in a conflict unless you're sniping or trying to skirmish. Heavies aren't for fire support (which you might expect, given their weaponry) but rather the main "attacking" class.

Giving players a real choice in what they want to do with the heavy -- attack with rockets or attack with machine gun -- would both cut down on rocket spam (more fun for everyone, I think) and make AA a more conscious choice.

For MAXes and vehicles, going AA is a conscious choice with definite trade-offs -- if you're good at downing aircraft you're probably not effective at killing infantry or armor (at least until you can resupply and change loadouts). For heavy right now, it isn't if you have the annihilator. You just pick the annihilator and you can attack aircraft, infantry, and armor pretty well. You probably can't kill aircraft or armor by yourself, but really that was mostly true of the standard rocket, too.

I think you hit the nail on the head with this post. Small scale combat plays very well, but as you add more and more players into the equation things tend to go awry. Tanks and aircraft seem to lose their identity. Their place in the battle becomes muddled because of the prevalence of infantry based lock-on Anti-Tank/Aircraft weaponry. Tanks don't need to focus on hard targets, Heavies can take care of that. Aircraft don't have to focus on other aircraft, Heavies can do that too. Infantry? Heavies are the best counter.

Also, it is a lot easier for a Heavy to re-supply than a vehicle in the middle of combat thanks to Engineer ammo packs. Why jump into a vehicle if you have to worry about re-deploy timers, resources, and ammo if you can just equip both a heavy weapon AND an AT weapon and fill every non-support role. I am with you, I think Heavies should have to make a choice, either use a special heavy weapon like a mini-chaingun or use an Annihilator, but not both.

Right now heavies have can fill more roles than the actual utility classes. Combat Medics fill one role well, healing, and they can fight other infantry well enough I suppose. Engineers can fill three roles well, repairing, re-supply, and anti-vehicle OR anti-tank through our turrets and/or mines, but if we are using our turrets we have to pick and choose. Heavies can fill three roles well, anti-tank, anti-air, and anti-infantry and they do so without equal.

Don't get me wrong, every problem in the game isn't because of the Heavy, but the fact is, they can combat EVERY enemy, and they do it better than any other infantry class or vehicle because of their loadout.

I will delve more into this later.

Rothnang

2013-02-13, 09:55 PM

Even if they spread around all the various roles, when you get enough infantry in one place it doesn't matter if its the heavies or a combination of classes providing the counter to every threat.

zulu

2013-02-13, 10:54 PM

Even if they spread around all the various roles, when you get enough infantry in one place it doesn't matter if its the heavies or a combination of classes providing the counter to every threat.

Perhaps, but the number necessary to hit that level at which vehicles can't realistically operate or provide a significant combat advantage increases dramatically.

What do we think the proportion of heavies in any zerg is right now? I don't know if there are any hard numbers on that (SOE certainly has the raw data, but you'd need to sort out who is playing engineer just because they're in a vehicle, of course), but I'd say it's probably over a third right now -- sometimes closer to over half.

And if even a relatively small proporrtion of any group of heavies in a zerg are carrying Annihilators, they can pretty easily chase away air assets, even if they don't destroy them. And, of course, virtually all (save for the few equipped with the AA-only missile, I suppose) will have the ability to attack armor very effectively, all the while also having the ability to effectively engage infantry.

But if you force the heavy class to make a choice, two things happen:
1) Players are less inclined to pick heavy -- there's a real choice to be made about what class to play if you just plan on attacking the enemy, and so at least some should switch to light assault (or one of the support classes).
2) Those who do pick heavy will be split between those focused on providing "direct" fire support and those focused on taking out armor or groups of infantry.

So the overall result will almost certainly be fewer rockets flying around. That would allow tanks and aircraft to attack infantry more easily unless more people deliberately switch to rocket-heavy.

And if you do that, you're opening yourself up to attack by enemy infantry, who will suddenly be confronted with fewer bullets flying at them. So the best answers to enemy armor and aircraft will be either throwing lots and lots more infantry at them or to get some of your own guys in armor or aircraft.

And, that, as I understand it, is the essence of the combined arms thing, yes?

Rothnang

2013-02-13, 11:33 PM

They just added a pretty solid anti tank weapon to the engineer, I'd say the situation just got worse, not better.

I personally think mass infantry needs to be addressed with proper spawn restrictions. The fact that a single Sunderer can support hundreds of soldiers is IMO the real problem. In large battles things just lose all proportionality. In a squad on squad fight a Sunderer with two gunners is a fourth of your forces, in a mass battle it can do the exact same job while being a tiny little fraction of the force.

zulu

2013-02-14, 12:02 AM

They just added a pretty solid anti tank weapon to the engineer, I'd say the situation just got worse, not better.

Probably, but the engineer turret at least has several clear weaknesses that will make it, I think, more of a specialist choice than a significant factor. It's very powerful, but it's rooted in the ground, has a long reload time, and needs to be guided to its target. It's more like C4 than lock-on rockets in that it opens up its user to attack even if it can be used to destroy hard targets pretty quickly..

I personally think mass infantry needs to be addressed with proper spawn restrictions.

While that's an interesting way of doing things, and I like it, I don't think it fits with the model Planetside 2 seems to be based upon. I doubt the devs would do something like that because they seem to want PS2 to be very fast-paced. While many would probably like something like you describe, which would force players to organize themselves and find ways to get to the battlefield, it would undeniably slow the game down.

And, besides that, I think a big draw to the game is the promise of very large battles, and things that cut down on large battles are perhaps detrimental to the overall playerbase. After all, the first thing the game does is drop you into a battle, and that seems like the tone they try to set (rather than making an accurate simulation of futuristic military logistics).

Still, if it really did encourage everyone to get into squads and platoons in order to ensure that they can get into a battle, I can see the advantages.

RobUK

2013-02-14, 01:49 AM

I'm also still flying, and AA rarely ever flat out kills me, it's the fact that you spend more time repairing than actually fighting

But that is the game. That is how it plays out for all vehicles. I spend the vast majority of my time in a Prowler. A huge chunk of that time is spent retreating to cover to repair, or completely retreating from the main action because it's too risky to stick around anywhere but the periphery of the battle.

I think you're continuing to make the mistake of only seeing Planetside 2 through the cockpit view. You've been on this continuous "air is underpowered" crusade both here and on the official forums for weeks now.

It's pretty much the same for anybody in any vehicle. There is a time in just about any outdoor battle when your chosen vehicle is going to be highly effective.

It's just that that time can't be all of the time.

CrankyTRex

2013-02-14, 02:10 AM

Hmm, looks like this is still going after all. Sorry if this post is playing catch-up a bit.

I'm not sure about the idea for flares being a quantity or having AoE or what have you, but I love the idea of smoke being useful like that because it deals with one of the two fundamental problems at work here, namely ground forces needing more cover from aircraft/vehicles.

Being able to smoke up a battlefield so that aircraft could not pick specific targets would be very helpful. I would say people should still be killable in the smoke, but everyone is essentially firing blind there.

Similarly when they get weather effects in, that will help a lot too since you can have clouds, precipitation, wind effects, and whatnot that will hamper one or both sides.

I still think lock-on launchers from the ground should just go away because of the sheer quantity advantage they have. I'm ok with flak because it requires much more skill, though I think they should weaken it a tad now that there's so much of it and people finally get XP for doing damage instead of getting the kill.

Really the issue is that aircraft in this game have all the advantages of both jets and helicopters, but not the disadvantages, which is then exacerbated by the lack of cover problem that would plague any aircraft balancing.

If they were jets, they would have stall speeds and either dumb bombs or guided bombs, which would either force the pilot to get really good at precision drops or require help from the people on the ground. If they were helicopters, they could blast away with rocket pods, but they'd lack the ability to rocket away or fly high enough to evade punishing ground fire.

In that vein, I think I'd throw in with the people who would like to force aircraft to specialize down one of those types of trees. The different airframes would certainly have lot more meaning in that event.

typhaon

2013-02-14, 02:30 AM

I think it really depends on what you do... where you do it.

Indar is not a great place to dogfight... you've got a lot of high altitude ground and a lot of bases packed closely together. If you're not hugging the ground and making strafing runs on Indar, you are doing it wrong.

Esamir and Amerish have a lot more space suitable for dogfighting... but keep in mind... if you're talking about just fighting ESF's mixed with your rocketpodding... you're probably going to be close to the ground and will be in range of lots of AA. Fly higher and attack from above.

* nevermind both of these continents tend to be pretty empty anyway... you're far more likely to find lone pilots roving the sky than anyone on the ground looking to spend their time trying to shoot you down.

I just don't see the problem with air on Matherson... always seem to be plenty in the sky, plenty of people being annihilated by Libs and ESFs... at one point, I was actually bitching about the utter lack of anyone playing AA - though we had a full platoon defending Zurvan, Scythes and Libs were just hovering feet above and lighting the place up.

And remember, too... while there are plenty of AA options - anyone playing AA still suffers (despite the XP boost) a pretty severe XP nerf (probably why nobody was playing it at Zurvan).

CrystalViolet

2013-02-14, 02:30 AM

It is becoming the way it was in Planetside. Fly anywhere close to where a battle is happening and 25 people will lock onto you and blow you up before you can say the words "acquisition timer". I haven't played in a few weeks because honestly, between the hackers, buffed AA spammers, bad resource system, and nerfed ESF's, as a dedicated flyer I'm just not having fun anymore.

Riekopo

2013-02-14, 02:52 AM

Rothnang

2013-02-14, 04:35 AM

While that's an interesting way of doing things, and I like it, I don't think it fits with the model Planetside 2 seems to be based upon. I doubt the devs would do something like that because they seem to want PS2 to be very fast-paced. While many would probably like something like you describe, which would force players to organize themselves and find ways to get to the battlefield, it would undeniably slow the game down.

And, besides that, I think a big draw to the game is the promise of very large battles, and things that cut down on large battles are perhaps detrimental to the overall playerbase. After all, the first thing the game does is drop you into a battle, and that seems like the tone they try to set (rather than making an accurate simulation of futuristic military logistics).

Still, if it really did encourage everyone to get into squads and platoons in order to ensure that they can get into a battle, I can see the advantages.

I'm not saying they should get rid of the fast pace of battles, but there could be a variety of options to make the infantry game more involved with vehicles. Right now it's just all about the Sunderers, but Sunderers aren't really a vehicle that fosters a relationship between infantry and vehicles, because vehicle players can't exactly get their fun by sitting in a deployed Sunderer that ideally doesn't do anything but stand there.

Maybe the jeeps could have a special kind of AMS that you can only use if the jeep itself is within 30 meters of your corpse. (Like, it has the capabilities to reconstruct people, but it needs your remains for resources) That way it becomes a real infantry fighting vehicle, where people dismount and fight alongside the vehicle, rather than just hiding the vehicle somewhere. Maybe this should be more a resurrection than a respawn, but either way, this would be faster than a Sunderer, but slower than a Medic.

Sunderers should respawn people slowly but reliably, as in, they shouldn't be the first choice for spawning, even when you own the base, but they should be a solid fallback option in any situation.

Galaxies with in flight squad spawning would also be a great addition to the game, because suddenly a lot of infantry actually depends on keeping the sky clear for their spawning.

Infantry spawning at the front just needs to come down more to infantry and vehicles working together in close proximity. Sunderers are a good concept, but they do lead to really stagnant gameplay, because they just funnel people to the same spot on the map over and over and they are inevitably going to take the same routes back to the action over and over.

The primary spawn vehicle should be something that moves with the troops, not something that is deployed well away from the action, because that way the proliferation of such vehicles is directly what allows infantry to operate with rapid spawn times.

The relationship between vehicles and infantry shouldn't primarily be one of how to kill enemy vehicles and how to avoid getting killed by them, but one of what benefits friendly vehicles provide to you, and how to keep them alive.

You won't find an infantry player in the game who doesn't know the Sunderer is his best friend. What we need to do is get that kind of relationship going between infantry players and vehicles that are actually fun to use while providing a service or benefit to the infantry.

RobUK

2013-02-14, 05:56 AM

I feel like Max Bursters are too strong. They seem more effective than Skyguard. I don't even see many Skyguards because everyone uses Max Bursters instead. I don't think what is basically an infantryman with extra armor should be able to kill air so effectively.

The AA MAX is a specialised unit that cannot do anything else and is vulnerable to everything in the game, right down to an Infiltrator with a pistol. It needs the constant support of an Engineer and a hefty cert investment to get to even "meh" standards of usefulness.

It has a timer and a resource cost. It is boring and unrewarding to use. Even a fully developed AA MAX takes at least 7 seconds to kill an ESF if every round can be made to count.

Only careless and inexperienced pilots die to an AA MAX. There are a number of things in this game that might be classed as "too strong". The AA MAX is not one of them. A 7 second TTK is a massive amount of time in a game like this. Goodness knows what some people would consider to be a "balanced" TTK.

If there is more than one MAX then that is teamwork and in my book that plants it firmly in the "working as intended" category.

ShadetheDruid

2013-02-14, 06:29 AM

The AA MAX is a specialised unit that cannot do anything else and is vulnerable to everything in the game, right down to an Infiltrator with a pistol.

Dual bursters actually shred infantry quite nicely. :D

Emperor Newt

2013-02-14, 07:36 AM

The AA MAX is a specialised unit that cannot do anything else and is vulnerable to everything in the game, right down to an Infiltrator with a pistol.
No. Just No.

Maybe the Skyguard is too weak, but it surely has other downsides the Max does not have.

1. You can "hide" them in a sundi and surprise incoming ESFs. It's always a good laught when a Mossi comes swooping in for the easy prey and then three dual burster maxes jump out of the Sundi.

2. You can switch loadouts. There is almost always an Inf terminal around. You can go from AA to AI in a few seconds. With the Skyguard you are bound to be AA. Your AI capabilties are bad at best. You simply do not have enough armor/health to be effective with that weapon in AI and you cannot switch your gun.

3. With maxes it's easier in many positions to reach elevated points. Also you are much smaller, making it harder to be spotted (until you start shooting)

The Skyguard is just broken by design. I even doubt a damage nerf to the bursters or buff to the Skyguard would fix it. It's just not an interesting weapon design to use and also not effective enough to feel as rewarding as the Max does. Too many downsides, or let's say: to many downsides the max does not have. It needs a rework.

CraazyCanuck

2013-02-14, 09:31 AM

No. Just No.

Maybe the Skyguard is too weak, but it surely has other downsides the Max does not have.

1. You can "hide" them in a sundi and surprise incoming ESFs. It's always a good laught when a Mossi comes swooping in for the easy prey and then three dual burster maxes jump out of the Sundi.

2. You can switch loadouts. There is almost always an Inf terminal around. You can go from AA to AI in a few seconds. With the Skyguard you are bound to be AA. Your AI capabilties are bad at best. You simply do not have enough armor/health to be effective with that weapon in AI and you cannot switch your gun.

3. With maxes it's easier in many positions to reach elevated points. Also you are much smaller, making it harder to be spotted (until you start shooting)

The Skyguard is just broken by design. I even doubt a damage nerf to the bursters or buff to the Skyguard would fix it. It's just not an interesting weapon design to use and also not effective enough to feel as rewarding as the Max does. Too many downsides, or let's say: to many downsides the max does not have. It needs a rework.

This. Skyguard is inferior to max in several ways as stated above. Wish I could get a refund on mine. I just keep hoping they revamp it and make it fun to use for its intended role. Against infantry you have better chance of killing the grounder by driving over him then shooting him. Better just to drive away or hop out and kill the inf. Perhaps they should scratch the whole lightning for a new design that is a pure AA and not simply an add on.

Make it similiar to the Sunderer/Prowler in that you have to deploy it for optimized firing but give it slower speed, improved top armor by default, but make it lethal in its intended role and weak to all else. Perhaps make it a multi-person vehicle with a driver and the other as a gunner. The driver could also serve the secondary role of radar specialist/spotter for his gunner and receive improved xp for the role. The vehicle could improve its radar capability as well as the usual offensive/defensive certifications.

Edit: Could also have multiple units working together for improved/shared radar target acquistion with each added unit up to a maxium number. So you could have dedicated and specialized teams of AA moving around but at the same time give air improved countermeasures of ECM that has been stated in other posts and long range weaponry that requires a laser spotter on the ground to keep the guided missile on target else it fails. The spotter would show up on the radar when utilizing the pointer just as he would if firing a weapon but it stays on for the duration of the pointer use. Air could only carry one of these missles, which forces air teams to work together in concert with a team of spotters to find and destroy the turret positions.

Wahooo

2013-02-14, 12:41 PM

The PS1 skyguard was the fastest land vehicle, but was paper thin vs any AV weapon. To be effective and stay alive you needed a good driver/gunner combination. In those hands the thing was near OP, but you still had to be concerned with infantry AV, Mines, Tanks, buggies, reavers, libs (well the nose gun mostly).

With having the driver as the primary gunner, is part of what makes it a death trap. For the MBT and Lightning I don't like driver=main gunner but can live with it. Your targets and you are on the same level so driving and gunning is harder than with a dedicated driver, but not impossible. With an SG? you are looking up in the air try and drive around to not be a target at the same time? No chance.

SG was my first SC purchase day of release. Getting in one has made me rage... some days rage quit on every occasion but one particular fight on Esamir. Every update I try it again, and hate it even more. Improvements aside I have still never died in an SG to anything but air... or got the damn thing high centered driving while looking up and had to abandon it. The platform is broken, but just because it is broken that doesn't mean an nerf to bursters is in order. But sometimes I die to air almost immediately. It still doesn't kill anyone but unaware pilots or over confident ones. And the moment you shoot you just put a big target over your head that says "SHOOT HERE FIRST".

RobUK

2013-02-14, 12:52 PM

No. Just No.

Yes.Just Yes.

The AA MAX is a specialised unit that can do nothing else.

You must be playing a different game to the rest of us :D

Rothnang

2013-02-14, 01:11 PM

The AA MAX is a specialised unit that cannot do anything else and is vulnerable to everything in the game, right down to an Infiltrator with a pistol.

What the hell are you smoking? Bursters kill infantry just fine, and you have so much HP you can just walk right over them.

The only way you should ever lose to infantry one on one in a MAX of any armament is if you're dumb enough to let yourself get C4ed or if it's a heavy and he hits you in the face with a rocket.

The only way you should ever lose a MAX unit for good is if you're dumb enough to hit the respawn button instead of waiting for a medic or if the entire base is overrun to the point where no medics can possibly come.

PredatorFour

2013-02-14, 01:16 PM

The only way you should ever lose to infantry one on one in a MAX of any armament is if you're dumb enough to let yourself get C4ed or if it's a heavy and he hits you in the face with a rocket.

So if you can't see a C4 thrown behind your back, by an enemy you can't see.... you are dumb ???

DaPope

2013-02-14, 01:52 PM

From a Pilot point of view I woud love to go up against SGs any day. Often I don't even repair after they hit me because I can find them on the map, see them from distance, they are a big target, and can't move fast. 95/100 times in a 1v1 against a SG they will lose with out me even having to run back to repair.

MAX's are brutal, until recently you couldn't see them. They can get repaired/revived (I almost never see an engineer next to a SG), can hide in buildings (immunity), shoot out of spawns (immunity), and seem to do more damage, probably because you can't see them until you are close.

I think the SG should have a quad AA weapon that sends up more rounds in a larger spread. Think quad .50 cal. Or they could cert into a flak/rocket set up. This would have a much slower RoF but a large amounts of spash damage. More along the lines of the flak you see in WWII movies.

maple

2013-02-14, 01:59 PM

Rahabib

2013-02-14, 02:06 PM

First a disclaimer, I am primarily a flyer. Even my ground based outfit mates are starting to agree AA is starting to go over the line. Our air division is grounded most operations due to air - and you can't expect ground based infantry to take out ALL AA.

Anti Air has gone to a level in which air power is almost completely pointless. AA should be a dedicated role that requires teamwork and combined arms to master. It should not be something any tom dick or harry can do. Let's take a look at all the different forms of AA (Correct me if I've missed some)

Sunderer (2X AA Guns)
Prowler (and MBTs)
Lightning (Skyguard)
And all the aircraft (which isn't extremely bad)
Annhilators
All the various ground based lock-on systems.
AA MAX Units
Tower AA

The only ground based vehicle without AA so far is the Flash.

Why is this? The only things that should have AA are dedicated AA roles. The Skyguard, The MAX etc. Dumb fire of AA weapons should not insta kill Aircraft - it should be just as damaging as the lock on versions.

Rail on me all you want - but this is taking out of a LARGE segment of the game many people enjoy. Coordination and combined operations should be rewarded, undefended Sunderers and tank columns SHOULD be easily dispatched by aircraft.

Essentially the rash of AA being added ot the game is now making it fun for everyone on the ground and NOT fun for everyone in the air. There needs to be either A) More way to armor your aircaft or B) Remove AA from all the vehicles it doesn't belong on.

Before, AA was a joke. People wanted a buff to the skyguard and tone down the rocket pods. What happened was they went too far.

More lockon missiles (not needed)
Sunderer added AA (what?! no one even asked for this)
AA max buffs (IMO, I wish maxes were not AA and let the skyguard be the main AA)
turret boosts (all they needed was a velocity boost)

So yea, I feel for you guys. I am happy though I am not getting blown up the minute I walk out the spawn however.

And yet... I still see a fair amount of air on Connery, so....

RobUK

2013-02-14, 02:27 PM

What the hell are you smoking? Bursters kill infantry just fine, and you have so much HP you can just walk right over them.

I haven't been killed by an AA MAX since the first week after release.

I have killed a great many AA MAX's with just a T9 Carv or a TRAC 5 since release.

I understand that not everybody can be competent at this kind of game though.

RobUK

2013-02-14, 02:36 PM

I agree with everything Hamma says. There is simply too much AA. I also strongly agree that dumfire rockets should not be instakills. Going after ground close up as almost become suicidal unless its only one target by himself.

- Maples

I'm with you and Hamma on this.

It's not that one particular type of AA is overpowered. An AA MAX is severely limited and cannot feasibly kill even a semi conscious flier from full heath. But in the right circumstances it is the "best" AA in the game, which speaks volumes.

The problem is that everybody can do everything which means there is a ton of AA, which brings about the force multiplier effect.

I'm not sure what can be done now, but keeping on introducing more and more types of AA has been a big mistake.

I just pray that the devs don't do something stupid and take us back to the horrible gameplay conditions we had in the first few weeks after release where air absolutely slaughtered everything all the time. I'm sure that it was fun for fliers, but for the rest of us it sucked and caused a lot of people to cut down on their playing time or to stop playing altogether.

I don't want to go through that again because I know it will stop me playing for good this time.

Sledgecrushr

2013-02-14, 03:09 PM

Well I for one would love to see an influx of new players come into this game. As it was with aur just raping everything that moved I think that in part ran off a bunch of new impressionable players. Lets just go a fee more months of what we have now and see where it takes us. I for one am pretty happy that Im not being bombed or rocketpodded every time I go outside.

Kerrec

2013-02-14, 03:19 PM

I've started flying my ESF lately, practicing. It's blatantly obvious when you're being hit by flak, and very easy to get out of dodge. I mostly die to terrain as I try to get away from another ESF, or by losing track of altitude during a dogfight. Of course, I don't have LOLPods and don't spend my time trying to rape ground forces. So I don't get most of the complaints.

I don't have the Annihilator, and I've rarely pulled an AA max. However, based on observation, effective AA "nests" are usually very teamwork oriented affairs. On the flip side, flyboys tend to be lone wolves, even if they're flying as a zerg of air. I just don't see the level of coordination in the air, as I see on the ground vs air.

At this point, I am theorycrafting. But IMO, 6 ESF's will take out an equal number of AA Infantry if they focus fire (teamwork). They'll lose a few if pilots get greedy, but win overall. A mixture of ESF's and Libs working in coordination would destroy an AA nest.

I just don't see an equal amount of teamwork in the sky to warrant these accusations against AA.

Rothnang

2013-02-14, 03:29 PM

So if you can't see a C4 thrown behind your back, by an enemy you can't see.... you are dumb ???

If you have your sound turned up it should be next to impossible for someone to walk up to you, lay down C4 and leave and blow it up without you at least hearing them, so yea, if someone consistently manages to do that to you it's absolutely your own fault.

I haven't been killed by an AA MAX since the first week after release.

I have killed a great many AA MAX's with just a T9 Carv or a TRAC 5 since release.

I understand that not everybody can be competent at this kind of game though.

Your anecdote of how great you are and how everyone else is bad has convinced me that my experience with the game is not real but just a figment of my imagination. Thank you for opening my eyes. :lol:

Graywolves

2013-02-14, 04:25 PM

I understand that not everybody can be competent at this kind of game though.

Most aren't unfortunately.

RobUK

2013-02-14, 04:28 PM

I just don't see an equal amount of teamwork in the sky to warrant these accusations against AA.

I think this is where a large part of the perceived problems lie.

A lot of fliers simply spawn an ESF and fly off to the nearest hotspot expecting their solo vehicle to "pwn" everything simply because of what it is. Then they cry about AA being overpowered because they meet resistance.

Some people have a twisted understanding of air superiority, they think "I am air, therefore I am superior". The game just doesn't work that way. Everybody has to work together and air has to coordinate with ground to be able to make a genuine contribution to a battle beyond just looking for easy frags.

Anyway, good pilots are still good, and always will be. They're still out there owning and racking up xp and certs.

What really needs some love though is the Galaxy. It needs a great big fat buff against flak and lock-on missiles at the very least. I also think that the Liberator has been overly nerfed too.

The ESF is fine for a solo vehicle though. It is still immensely powerful and versatile for a single seater craft and in capable hands is a formidable killer. It's absolutely the best solo vehicle in the game.

Sunrock

2013-02-14, 04:34 PM

Well I called that this imbalance would happen back in the "Nerf Liberator" thread. SOE do not know how to balance a game. All they know is nerf buff nerf buff nerf and buff over and over and over again.

If a big thread is started where allot players QQ over something is OP SOE is going to nerf it no matter what the reality is, but also buff the anti methods to deal with them making it even more imbalanced then it was before but in the other way. This will continue untill 75% of all players or more have left the game. That is what they have done in all games they have owned.

RobUK

2013-02-14, 04:35 PM

everyone else is bad has convinced me that my experience with the game is not real but just a figment of my imagination.

I'm not great at this game. But I am experienced and competent. I do not ever get killed as Infantry by AA MAX'es and I do frequently very easily kill them with rifles.

I am experienced and competent enough to know that an AA MAX poses zero threat to me as Infantry provided that I am suitably alert.

I am experienced and competent enough to understand that anybody that tries to say that an AA MAX is even remotely useful for killing anything other than dumb and inexperienced Infantry is neither competent nor experienced themselves.

Your lack of experience and competency is the problem here, not the AA MAX.

Sledgecrushr

2013-02-14, 04:39 PM

Sunrock, I played the original eq for almost five years. From my perspective sor has produced and managed one of my favorite all time games and I have confidence in their ability to make ps2 amazing.

Sunrock

2013-02-14, 04:47 PM

Sunrock, I played the original eq for almost five years. From my perspective sor has produced and managed one of my favorite all time games and I have confidence in their ability to make ps2 amazing.

I have played from SOE, EQ, EQ2, SWG, Vanguard and Pirates of the Burning Sea. Sure some games they have manage better then others but when it comes to combat balance they tend to use a sledgehammer instead of a fine small screwdriver you use to restore old watches with when "fine tuning" game mechanics.

Wahooo

2013-02-14, 05:08 PM

Truth; IMHO

ESF's are still the single best solo unit in the game.
Libs are fine.
Lock-ons are annoying, there needs to be a change of tone between locking on and missile in the air, and the missiles need to show up on the mini-map.
Annihilator was a bad idea, as much as people cried big sobby tears when they announced the removal of dumb fire from the Grounder/SKEP or ES equivalents that was actually a good idea. Default RL, AA lock-on, AV lock-on, a Slower MOAR powerful dumbfire. an all in one AA and AV lock-on has too little drawback.
Skyguard is still shit... or at least the worst vehicle in game.
Burster is fine, full health dual burster vs full health softie the softie should win every time if skill between the two is even... but to be effective the burster probably shouldn't be running around alone anyway.
Sundy and MBT's should NEVER have gotten a flack gun, though I don't know how many are actually using it. High angle .50 cal was fine.

Nerf this Buff that is always going to be a continual cycle in a combined arms game, with NERF threads always being the squeakier wheel. If SOE continues the buff/nerf cycle based on these threads we are in for a never ending cycle of no-body is happy.

NERF ROCK! Paper is fine.
-Scissors

zulu

2013-02-15, 01:29 AM

At this point, I am theorycrafting. But IMO, 6 ESF's will take out an equal number of AA Infantry if they focus fire (teamwork). They'll lose a few if pilots get greedy, but win overall. A mixture of ESF's and Libs working in coordination would destroy an AA nest.

I just don't see an equal amount of teamwork in the sky to warrant these accusations against AA.

I don't think the fact that a squadron of six ESFs could almost certainly take out a cluster of six AA-dedicated infantry without losses is much of an endorsement of the current balance. Of course a number of vehicles should be able to destroy an equal number of infantry. If they can't do that, then what is the point of a vehicle besides added speed?

Like, the point of a vehicle is that it's a force multiplier. So on a simulationist level, vehicles need to be more powerful than an equal number of infantry. But, beyond that, because PS2 is a game first and a simulation of sci-fi-themed warfare second, it makes sense on a gamist level, because vehicles:
(1) Cost resources
(2) Take longer to respawn
They're limited. Infantry isn't limited in that sense. Even an infantryman dedicated to a particular task isn't very limited, both because heavy right now is the "kill everything" class and because they can resupply relatively easily.

Ultimately, and I know I'm belaboring this point but I think it's a point that is legitimate and needs to be made -- the issue isn't really AA Maxes or Skyguards (which honestly need to be buffed, because they're mostly just prey to anyone who doesn't attack them in very dumb ways), nor is the problem the ability for a small group of infantry to chase off a fighter or two with dedicated work; the problem is the proliferation of lock-on rockets in zergs, which are more than enough to drive off fighters and libs who get anywhere near a large battle. That takes away an interesting dynamic to the game.

As far as Galaxies go, they seem to me to be a problem because their intended role is so much better done by Sunderers. They can do one thing better, but it's very niche. Solving that is a larger, largely unrelated problem (but one which could certainly intersect with countering AA).

Rothnang

2013-02-15, 01:58 AM

Tatwi

2013-02-15, 02:42 AM

Honestly, AA is fine if you're not stupid. I flew around for a good 40 minutes, despite the following:

1. My ISP is terrible and causes the game to go into fits of flashing and stopping.
2. Core 2 Quad 2.3GHz CPU / GTS450 = 80 FPS alone and perhaps 5 - 25 when fighting.
3. I get massive hitching when people shoot me.
4. I don't have a lot of practice.
5. I don't have flares.

Folks, if I can fly in and out of danger, blowing up a Sunderer, so can you. Less butt hurt, more man up, please.

RobUK

2013-02-15, 05:10 AM

Coordinating a strike with 6 ESFs is incredibly difficult compared to plopping down a bunch of AA units. The ESFs have no good way of even knowing where the AA infantry is before it opens fire, so it becomes pretty difficult to coordinate a strike on something you can't see.

Also there is no requirement for the AA units to stand in one place, not to mention, if they are positioned next to a base shield or a building they can easily step into cover and save themselves.

Also let's not forget, if an ESF goes down it's a timer, if any of the infantry units go down it's 10 seconds or a short wait for a medic.

Did you play Planetside 1 for any length of time? I'm pretty sure that you didn't.

I also wonder if you actually spend any protracted periods of time outside of aircraft in PS2 because you don't seem to grasp the concept of teamwork and combined arms beyond having several of the same vehicle in the same vicinity at one time.

Your posts strike me as coming from someone that plays solo a lot, is probably not in an Outfit and doesn't spend much time in a squad using voice comms.

Everybody is free to play the game as they see fit. But people that play solo and/or want to use the same vehicle all the time in every situation will inevitably run into more problems than those that play together using voice comms and the correct tools for the job.

No offence meant here. But I do think the way that you're trying to play Planetside 2 is contributing in no small way to your continuing frustrations.

PredatorFour

2013-02-15, 05:31 AM

Truth; IMHO

ESF's are still the single best solo unit in the game.
Libs are fine.
Lock-ons are annoying, there needs to be a change of tone between locking on and missile in the air, and the missiles need to show up on the mini-map.
Annihilator was a bad idea, as much as people cried big sobby tears when they announced the removal of dumb fire from the Grounder/SKEP or ES equivalents that was actually a good idea. Default RL, AA lock-on, AV lock-on, a Slower MOAR powerful dumbfire. an all in one AA and AV lock-on has too little drawback.
Skyguard is still shit... or at least the worst vehicle in game.
Burster is fine, full health dual burster vs full health softie the softie should win every time if skill between the two is even... but to be effective the burster probably shouldn't be running around alone anyway.
Sundy and MBT's should NEVER have gotten a flack gun, though I don't know how many are actually using it. High angle .50 cal was fine.

I agree with everything you said there apart from AA sundy's. It sure is fun driving around in 2 AA sundy's and a couple of burster maxes:D

ShadetheDruid

2013-02-15, 05:34 AM

You know what would be a fun experiment? Swap the stats on MAX bursters (combined stats of both, that is) and Skyguard for a day and see what happens.

Rothnang

2013-02-15, 07:33 AM

Everybody is free to play the game as they see fit. But people that play solo and/or want to use the same vehicle all the time in every situation will inevitably run into more problems than those that play together using voice comms and the correct tools for the job.

I just don't like the fact that the correct tool for every job is infantry at this point. People whine, bitch and moan about how vehicles are so overpowered, but at the end of the day when you want to flip a base and you're going to grab whatever it takes to do so, another HA is just never a bad choice.

Air units are a luxury at this point. They may be useful at times, but there is nothing you absolutely need them for. You can defend yourself from enemy air perfectly well with just infantry based AA, you can take down tanks and Sunderers with Infantry as well, and flipping bases ultimately comes down to an infantry fight no matter what.

I do in fact play in squads and with other people, I have just continuously made the experience that when you're dealing with outfits that want to get stuff done you can easily spend all night without once anyone saying you should pull an aircraft.

zulu

2013-02-15, 10:16 AM

You know what would be a fun experiment? Swap the stats on MAX bursters (combined stats of both, that is) and Skyguard for a day and see what happens.

Maybe. I think right now there's a problem because, as far as I've noticed, there's no effective difference between Skyguards and AA Maxes (don't know for sure, though) in terms of range or power. Ideally, I think, Maxes would be able to provide strong AA cover for a small area -- accurate and strong enough to keep low-flying liberators and strafing ESFs from coming near a small base. But AA against high-flying Liberators and ESFs that are just flying around should probably require something stronger, and that's where Skyguards and friendly ESFs would come in.

Skyguards should probably be much more powerful against air (shorter TTK) and have much stronger top armor.

Maybe Lightnings could camouflage or something, too. Like if they're holding still and not firing they can stay camouflaged (indefinitely? Dunno) and only reveal themselves when they start firing. That would be sort of neat.