ESF's - Your opinion?

[MrBloodworth]

Originally Posted by Rothnang

I fully agree, but that in no way excuses systems that no longer require the members of the group to have any skill

And no, flares don't count, they only give you 5 seconds before you're right back to being completely helpless

When you have weapons that always hit and have no real counter

Why should systems that utterly shit on the other core element of the game, being a skill based game where you don't just win by levels, stats and numbers, be excused?

This shit right here. Yeah. Stop talking.

[Rothnang]

Originally Posted by maradine

No, they give you a 5 second grace period to get your shit out of the area. If you decide to stay, you have affirmatively chosen "completely helpless".

We do not, nor should we, have complete dominion of the battlefield when we're in the air. There are pockets that others have taken pains to deny to us. Armor doesn't have complete dominion on the ground. There are places that others have taken pains to deny. Infantry is pressed to have dominion anywhere. Not always having it your way is a fact of multi-unit gameplay. I'm sorry this frustrates you, and I'm disappointed you think that this "no-skill" counter has no place here, but it is a fact.

That would be a valid argument if the launchers would have to be stationed on the ground before you get there, and you could see and actively avoid them, and their range would be limited enough so that not the entire battlefield can be covered by them.

Given the fact that people can spawn the launchers right underneath you, they can hit you at three times the range that they render at, you can't tell where the missiles are coming from, how many are targeting you, and what unit is firing them until after they hit you, and there is no way to distinguish the units that are dangerous from the ones that aren't, the situation really isn't as straight forward as you describe.


You didn't commit to staying in the range of lockon launchers if there was no way to leave the range in the 5 seconds you had to do so, since there was no way for you to make sure you stay far enough away from the launcher to be able to leave in 5 seconds.

You didn't foolishly stay near the enemy firing the missiles if you don't even know where he's firing from, or how many missiles are firing at you. Maybe flying 50 meters to the left might have taken you out of his range, maybe flying 100 meters to the right might have done the trick, but you just have to take a wild guess, because the game sure as hell won't tell you until you take a hit, at which point its too late when it's not just one missile.

You didn't recklessly blunder into the sights of a dozen enemies or fall victim to a clever ambush if no amount of perception and caution could have ever told you they were there. It's not your lack of caution that caused you to be taken by surprise when your attackers were invisible, indistinguishable from units that can't hurt you, clown shoes easy to conceal or not even existent until after you showed up.

And most importantly, you didn't stupidly put yourself in a killzone when the whole battlefield is a killzone for your type of unit. It's one thing to say "Infantry shouldn't stand near windows while fighting HE tanks" or "Tanks shouldn't drive between buildings where someone can C4 them easily", since those dangerous areas to avoid are all just a small part of the base you're fighting in, and you can position your unit somewhere better to avoid those obvious killzones. It's another thing to say "Don't be in the sky over the base" if that's 100% of where you can possibly be while participating in the fight.


Your whole argument is based on the idea that air units have valid counterplay to missiles and AA in general by carefully planning their flying routes to avoid enemies with those kinds of weapons.
If that was the case I would be with you completely, and I'd be the first to admit that in that circumstance there wouldn't be any problem with not being able to dodge those weapons. However, it's impossible to avoid AA fire. You can't see where the AA units are, especially since the strongest ones are infantry, and they have so much range that the area denial effect they produce is pretty much absolute for the whole battle in a region.


There is no way to pull so many anti tank units, or so many anti infantry units that tanks or infantry can not at all come close to the battle anymore without getting killed. That only applies to air units, and it has to stop.

[maradine]

Originally Posted by Rothnang

Your whole argument is based on the idea that air units have valid counterplay to missiles and AA in general by carefully planning their flying routes to avoid enemies with those kinds of weapons.

No, my whole argument is based off the premise that AA is the counterplay to air. Air doesn't get a valid counterplay to it's predatory entity beyond "get out". To that point, if you're flying with safe territory waypointed and a good ground game, you most certainly can.

[Rothnang]

Well, as far as I'm concerned a system like that is an absolute design failure, especially when it's leveled at just one type of unit.

Everyone would flip their shit if there was a unit in the game that just created an "Infantry death zone" that covers 300 meters in all directions, and if you put 10 of them next to each other all infantry instantly dies to it. Oh, and you can also position them somewhere where no other unit can get to them, like inside a building. Why do people think it's OK when units can do just that for aircraft?

[maradine]

Originally Posted by Rothnang

Well, as far as I'm concerned a system like that is an absolute design failure, especially when it's leveled at just one type of unit.

Everyone would flip their shit if there was a unit in the game that just created an "Infantry death zone" that covers 300 meters in all directions, and if you put 10 of them next to each other all infantry instantly dies to it. Oh, and you can also position them somewhere where no other unit can get to them, like inside a building. Why do people think it's OK when units can do just that for aircraft?

I'm pretty sure the ground pounders call those "tanks", and it would take willful ignorance not to see that particular argument raging all over the forums for the last 3 months.

If you assemble a dozen of anything, the thing they're designed to kill is going to die.

[ShadetheDruid]

I don't have a problem with G2A, since you can actually get away from them. Bearing in mind, most of my experience is from the giving end, not the receiving, so trust me when I say it's not easy to actually manage a blow that causes serious danger to most pilots. One hit (flared or not), or even one lock, and usually they're gone.

A2A on the other hand is a pain in the arse, you just can't get away or avoid it unless the other pilot gets bored.

[maradine]

You have a number of options:

1. Turn around and make it a gun fight again
2. Get under the tree cover and burn (if you're over southwest Indar, anyway). Tree branches break LOS and reset locking timers.
3. Scrape them off in a canyon (eastern Indar)
4. Have your wingman deal with them.

Not all of these work all the time, but when your lock lights up, the last thing you want to do is invite a tail chase.

[Rothnang]

Originally Posted by maradine

I'm pretty sure the ground pounders call those "tanks", and it would take willful ignorance not to see that particular argument raging all over the forums for the last 3 months.

If you assemble a dozen of anything, the thing they're designed to kill is going to die.

You don't seem to understand the difference between an infantryman being able to approach behind cover and sneak around when faced with a dozen tanks that he could see before they could ever see him and an aircraft having to move around in the open sky unable to see the units that can easily kill it before the can see it.

Originally Posted by ShadetheDruid

I don't have a problem with G2A, since you can actually get away from them. Bearing in mind, most of my experience is from the giving end, not the receiving, so trust me when I say it's not easy to actually manage a blow that causes serious danger to most pilots. One hit (flared or not), or even one lock, and usually they're gone.

See, that's exactly the problem though. One guy buys an Annihilator and pops a rocket at an ESF, sees the flare go and the guy hit the afterburner and be gone before he can put a second rocket on him, or maybe he does get a second rocket on him and he finds the damage wanting. Maybe he's shooting at a Liberator and then goes on another "Liberators have too much armor" rant. In 95% of all fights you're just fine as a pilot, because that's what you're up against.

However, not multiply that dinky Annihilator hit by 10, or 20. Suddenly you're not dealing with a weapon that does nothing, you're dealing with a squad that can instagib any air unit that isn't over the hills and far away in 5 seconds. Just because that kind of organization is rare doesn't mean it isn't utterly overpowered. Especially if you're in a Liberator which doesn't come with built in "Fuck You, Newton" device and afterburners there is no way in hell you'll be able to even turn your aircraft around fast enough, let alone head out of range fast enough to avoid getting demolished. And keep in mind, you can't actually tell that that is what you're up against. There is no indication if you're being locked onto by one ESF from above or 50 Annihilators from below until you're hit.

At least with bursters you can see the tracers some of the time, and get a decent sense of where not to go. You're still completely excluded from the battle at that point and you might as well just deconstruct your unit and join the infantry rush.

Originally Posted by maradine

Not all of these work all the time, but when your lock lights up, the last thing you want to do is invite a tail chase.

Which is another wonderful reason why lock on missiles are so cheesy, if you start burning because you think you're outrunning ground based missiles and you're actually being targeted by A2A you most likely just killed yourself.

[Fear The Amish]

Couple things...

1.) Love Hailstorm and Saron (both have their uses)
2.) Love A2A missiles because it gives you as an ESF a stand off ability (fire missile at range then close for dogfight, best thing is the surprise on the "l33t" pilots face when i use a2a and rape them in a dogfight)
3.) i think lolpod's are right were they should be.
4.) if your bitching about lock-on's L2P! flare for the first one then do your firing run then when next one locks up go down to ground level hug terrain and then get a rock between you and the missile....

[Assist]

So after reading through this, it seems that most agree that the only way to kill a liberator successfully is with the rocket pods. So my original statement stands still, the A2A primary guns are not strong enough for taking out Liberators, which is what they should be used for the most.

[MrBloodworth]

Eh, a few rockets and some nose gun action does the trick.

[maradine]

Originally Posted by Rothnang

You don't seem to understand the difference between an infantryman being able to approach behind cover and sneak around when faced with a dozen tanks that he could see before they could ever see him and an aircraft having to move around in the open sky unable to see the units that can easily kill it before the can see it.

Air can approach behind cover, use terrain masking, and has full command of vector of ingress (not to mention a 200kph walking speed). You are splitting hairs. If that's where we're at, I'm content to let this rot.

[ShadetheDruid]

Originally Posted by Assist

So after reading through this, it seems that most agree that the only way to kill a liberator successfully is with the rocket pods. So my original statement stands still, the A2A primary guns are not strong enough for taking out Liberators, which is what they should be used for the most.

Well, I wouldn't say they're the only way, considering I have plenty of success just using the default nose gun on Libs. But yes, rocket pods are probably way better at the task, which is a bit weird considering they're A2G.

Of course, the other problem with making the nose guns better so you can take on Libs easier is the knock on effect it would have with using them against anything that's not a Lib.

[Tatwi]

My computer is not new enough for me to be allowed to have an opinion on the matter. The amount of times I've slammed into invisible objects or face planted into ground in a fit of frame hitching vastly out numbers the amount of times I have shot at anything with the nose gun. However, the few times I have been able to shoot stuff, the stuff took damage, so I'd say it probably works fine for i5/i7 computer owners.

If anything I'd leave the guns the same, remove lock on a2a missiles, and for a min forward speed of 60kph to fire weapons (which forces people to "dog fight" in the more traditional WWII manner rather than PS2's silly turrets in the sky style). But it all depends on what they are going for.

[Rothnang]

Originally Posted by Assist

So after reading through this, it seems that most agree that the only way to kill a liberator successfully is with the rocket pods. So my original statement stands still, the A2A primary guns are not strong enough for taking out Liberators, which is what they should be used for the most.

That's absolutely false. You can kill a Liberator EASILY with any of the fighter primary weapons. It takes sustained fire, but what can the Liberator really do about it? Use the tailgun? Fat chance of killing you with that if you're not stupid enough to get within 50 meters of it. Kill you with the bellygun? Also easily avoided by just staying far enough away from it. His front gun? If he can somehow outturn you he deserves the kill.

He can't get away from you, because you're faster. He can't outmaneuver you because you can outturn him. His defensive weapons are only really a threat if you get too close. The only defense he really has against fighter attack is if his own fighter cover or AA units intervene to save his skin, which is perfectly consistent with the idea of teamwork being rewarded, so there is really no good justification for fighters being able to kill a Liberator more quickly. That would remove the ability for fighters to protect their Liberators, since people would be able to just make a run on them and blow them up before anyone can intervene. If the Liberator has no support then he dies either way, since he can't run.

Originally Posted by Tatwi

If anything I'd leave the guns the same, remove lock on a2a missiles, and for a min forward speed of 60kph to fire weapons (which forces people to "dog fight" in the more traditional WWII manner rather than PS2's silly turrets in the sky style). But it all depends on what they are going for.

I agree there that the dogfighting element in this game is largely lost because there is no good reason to keep moving forward if someone is on your tail. In most of the oldschool space sims your turning speed got slower the slower you moved, so that's how they got around people just slamming on the breaks in the middle of a dogfight. Also they had a lockon feature where the game would always show you which direction your target was from you, so it wasn't so much of a game of hide and seek in the sky.

In PS2 you notice that pretty much only noobs will try to actually shake you off in a dogfight, most of the more advanced players just stop and move with vertical thrusters, which does two things: It gets rid of their condensation trails, so it becomes much harder to track them if they move off your screen, and it allows them to face their attacker and completely negate the advantage from having been behind them.

The most typical maneuver I see is: Head straight up, point nose down, throttle to zero, use verticals + roll to move sideways. It's much harder to keep track of an aircraft moving that way without leaving trails you can follow, and especially if the guy has stealth and doesn't show on radar you can lose him pretty quickly like that. One quick dip outside your view without a condensation trail you can use to find him again and you have no idea if he's now gunning for you or punched it and is already a kilometer away.