via Twitter: AA OP

[Biohazard]

I love playing my skyguard, especially at night. I have found my greatest weakness to be lock on rocket launchers. At a distance there is nothing I can reasonably do against them so I have to leave, repair, and find a new spot.

I think to balance AA; the skyguard needs to be 100+ certs, and increase the bullet drop of the max AA to at least match the skyguard's drop.

[Miir]

Originally Posted by Malorn

One way to help resolve this is to apply the idea of some sort of adaptive armor where if you take damage from multiple sources in a short time frame (i.e. multiple people are shooting at you) then you have more damage resistance. It helps counteract the problem of critical mass without impacting small-group situations. That's the real danger here...balancing the game for the small fight at the expense of the big fight, or vice-versa. Scaling the damage based on number of sources might be a way to help compensate so we can get balance on both ends of the spectrum.

The idea of that mechanic would be to not pile up hard counters but to diversify.

Very interesting idea.

[DirtyBird]

Originally Posted by Miir

The problem isn't the damage. It's the amount of AA people can have and how quickly they can get it. That is a common issue with a game that has 1000 players fighting at once.

If they balance it based on those times where there are 50 people with AA maxes or Skyguards. Then those other times when there are only 2 or 3 guys you'll find that your AA is completely worthless.

AA damage is fine. Pilots should not be able to solo.

If they want to do some side grades that increase armour or change the weapons to something heavier with a lower capacity sure do that. But don't nerf AA anymore or it'll just turn back into to Pilotside.

Agreed.

It still amazes me how dumb some pilots are, they will continue to fly in an area dominated by AA.
AA builds up as needed, you keep throwing aircraft into the shit storm you will only encourage more AA like a feeding frenzy.
Easy back on the aircraft and the AA go and look for something else to do.
Then have another crack, you know what say about doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.


And Malorn I assume you would adopt that policy for all vehicles or just pilots get special dispensation?

[SpottyGekko]

Originally Posted by Miir

The problem isn't the damage. It's the amount of AA people can have and how quickly they can get it. That is a common issue with a game that has 1000 players fighting at once.

If they balance it based on those times where there are 50 people with AA maxes or Skyguards. Then those other times when there are only 2 or 3 guys you'll find that your AA is completely worthless.

AA damage is fine. Pilots should not be able to solo.

If they want to do some side grades that increase armor or change the weapons to something heavier with a lower capacity sure do that. But don't nerf AA anymore or it'll just turn back into to Pilotside.

Yup, the simple fact is that sometimes things simply don't work when they are scaled-up. That thought has been lurking in the back of my mind ever since I started playing in this beta.

Let's face it, a month or so after launch the battlefield will look very different to the way it did on launch day. Many many players will be using higher cert levels and unlocked "better" weapons. Where will the balance point be ? How will the new players feel when they are continually destroyed by tanks with AP turrets and 450-cert secondary weapons ?

We have resource costs and timers to limit vehicles, but because there are so many players around, there's a constant supply of virtually everything. I don't think I've ever been in a battle (no matter how long it lasted) where the other side couldn't spawn any vehicles or MAX's because they had been "used up".

As we have seen with tanks lately, having so many players in the game means that there are tank zergs. Simply because 25% of the playerbase likes driving tanks, we have 500 tanks roaming around at any given moment. An exaggeration, but the point is hopefully clear.

Skyguards need some trimming back. I love driving mine, and I'm fairly good at using it, since I started practicing in the days of heavy screen shake. it is a lethal weapon in competent hands. Damage per round and especially range could be decreased.

But if either vehicle can kill the other in one volley, they need to at least cost the same amount of resources and have the same timer. But Skyguards are not unique, it is just a turret variant for Lightning's. Should Lightning's (and all their potential variants) cost the same as an ESF ?

The trick is to keep a good balance in Skyguard vs aircraft. But even then, how do you compensate for 2 or 3 or 7 Skyguards firing at the same aircraft ? The moment you try to do that, you remove the weapon from the casual solo player's list. And PS2 is heavily aimed at exactly that market segment...

Games like BF3 can fine tune their vehicle damage output and overall performance, because the game itself controls how many vehicles are in play at any given moment. In PS2, every player in the game COULD simultaneously spawn a tank. So theoretically, the number of possible tanks in a single PS2 battle ranges from 0 to 2000.

[sylphaen]

Originally Posted by Malorn

Scaling the damage based on number of sources might be a way to help compensate so we can get balance on both ends of the spectrum.

Self-adjusting TTK ?

That's one of the most interesting ideas I have heard in a while. Would you mind detailing your thought ?

[maradine]

The data structures are already in place. Not sure I'd like a world where stupidly wandering into an ambush grants you juggernaut defense, though.

[Helwyr]

Aircraft in Planetside are extremely hard to balance, they have the greatest speed and mobility on the battlefield, and have decent armor and good damage against everything. Most ground units without hard counters like AA are essentially helpless against them. A single AA MAX is not OPed, in fact I'd say it was weaker than PS1 AA MAXes (At least the Starfire and Burster). But factor in the everyone can do everything in PS2 and you can potentially get lots of AA on a whim (just like everything else).

Without radically changing PS2 I'd try the following:

1) Reduce the effective range of AA, give it a sharp fall off where it becomes completely ineffective.

2) Limit all Air to Ground weapons to an effective range of about 25% less of what AA has.

These first two ought to result in limiting how much AA can bear on a single aircraft, where that aircraft is not attacking a fortified position on the ground.

3) Separate the the render ranges of MAX units from other Infantry, giving MAXes the longer render range showing them from further away.

4) Remove Scout Radar's ability to show Infantry on the Mini Map for ESFs (and all vehicles for that matter).

Points 3 and 4 balance the who can see who more fairly. Air should be able to visually see AA MAXes that are able to fire upon them. And ESFs have no business being turned into Infantry farming vehicles, you would think that was at least one thing SOE would not reintroduce from PS1 given all the good stuff they've left out... Get rid of the Infantry radar!

[Bravix]

As someone who mainly flies a Scythe, I think AA is fine as is.

I've got my Level 1 composite armor. I can easily get away from one skyguard. It just gets bad when there are two skyguards and two bursters.

If I can get the jump on them, I can fairly easily rocket pod them to death.

Maybe make Skyguards cost an extra 200-300 resources so they can't be pulled so quickly.

Or here's an idea. Friendly tanks could quit being useless and could start shooting the damn skyguards. Yeah I know, the MBT's are shooting at you and they hurt. Kill the skyguards and you'll have air support to help cleam them up.

[sylphaen]

Originally Posted by maradine

Not sure I'd like a world where stupidly wandering into an ambush grants you juggernaut defense, though.

That's why details would be nice because it would be surely complicated as hell to balance in the right way. "Stupidly wandering" and "being ambushed" together is definitely terrible but only for the "stupidly wandering" part. "Being ambushed" happens and having a chance to react is nice.

What I understood from Malorn's post (which can be read different ways) is an idea of favoring the creation of close-call situations.

I do not feel a lot of adrenaline build-up from situations where I instantly get fragged as I enter an area: no time is given for tension build-up. The TTKs and respawn times are so low in PS2 that when assaulting a base, I've found it easier to jump in the grinder and keep coming.

I used to have more fun with survival times in PS1, though. Many times, I've felt a lot of tension just keeping my skyguard and crew alive in the wild while ambushing air vehicles. It was great to stay alert and on the prowl for preys while we could also be preys. The process of surviving the destruction of a vehicle and managing to come back alive from hostile areas to your base was also one of those great PS1 moments I had. I insist on "process" since I rarely made it alive.
:P

The thought process behind balancing large-scale vs. small-scale encounters and increasing the chance of close-call survival is the idea I found interesting from reading Malorn's post.

I unfortunately lack of constructive ideas to add on this topic but I feel that giving thought about those things is a great sign and I wanted to support this process.