AA max VS Sky guard! Why they must be changed.

[snafus]

Originally Posted by Sledgecrushr

So if we were to use your system then dalton libs would own the game. Aa max would render to dalton lib at 325 meters and wouldnt be able to touch the lib. Most ground vehicles wouldnt be effective at firing at a lib at 325 meters so they would get eaten up as well. In your vision the long range aa option would be a skyguard but to make them effective would require a hefty buff and I think that would probably break the game as well.

Just no to everything.

All they would have to do is revert the render distance for max's back to infantry range and your scenario wouldn't exist. And that is why the Sky guard with the changes I stated would cover that gap in a near OP manner. I really don't think you realize just how powerful the Sky guard will become with my proposed changes man. At this point AA is broken, if you don't believe me ask your own air wing if they think I am right.

[Whiteagle]

Originally Posted by KesTro

The accuracy of the burster and skyguard should be switched. Skyguards are only really effective within ~250M due to their huge CoF as to where Bursters, if you can see it, it's a viable target.

Agreed, Bursters could stand to be brought down to an effective range of around 300 meters to keep Liberators at bay while Skyguards get whatever supposedly ridiculous reach Bursters have now.

Originally Posted by Stardouser

The biggest problem with air in the game is hovering reliance in their design. The only real air to ground weapon is rockets which require spamming to have any effect, there are no big hit bombs that can be dropped at speed. This causes anti-air to seem overpowered since you basically have to stop and endure it as you spam. And if anti-air is nerfed to accommodate hovering reliance then air will run amok.

Ah, so this explains why me and snafu disagree on Flak; I'm flying routes while he's hovering in front of Bursters!

Also explains why he can't avoid his own kill debris...

Originally Posted by Stardouser

Increase aircraft speed, reduce hovering, add more variety in air to ground weapons. Including laser guided.

Eh, I don't know about those changes to the flight characteristics...
The Maps just aren't big enough for greater speeds then 320kph, while hovering in and of itself isn't bad.

...But I do agree that their needs to be changes to Air to Ground Weapons.
HEAT Rocket Pods just weren't a good idea period, while their proposed HE re-purpose for Anti-Infantry work has me a little leery.
They are really going to need to open up the Cone of Fire on those Rockets and make them a wide area denial weapon instead of a 10 meter Fireball of Infantry Nuking.

Not too keen on more "Laser Guided" weapons though...
It isn't a balance issue, I just don't like the mechanic and I don't think it meshes well with the default Air controls in this game.

If we are going to have airborne player guided munitions, might I suggest a new Bomber concept I call the Redeemer?
It's based on the Liberator, but flies more like an ESF, and only has a Pilot with Nose gun and Bombardier who by default gets a large Bomb to drop.

I like the Liberator as an Airborne Artillery Platform, but that tail Turret needs some serious work so as to put the GUN in GUNSHIP.

Originally Posted by MrMak

How is any of that adressed by increasing the flight celling? It doesnt fix the problem, it avoids it and gives pilots an excuse to be useless to the rest of the faction.

Thank you for addressing this.

Yes, in a real War he who controls the high ground wins the day, but this is a GAME and not REAL Warfare.

I don't like segregating Air and Ground Combat either, but at least the new shields on Test force Air into Grounds domain instead of breaking the game by creating an envelop where Air Superiority is the only thing that matters.
The Shields will at least raise the skill floor in order to be outright exploited.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by Whiteagle

Ah, so this explains why me and snafu disagree on Flak; I'm flying routes while he's hovering in front of Bursters!

Also explains why he can't avoid his own kill debris...


Eh, I don't know about those changes to the flight characteristics...
The Maps just aren't big enough for greater speeds then 320kph, while hovering in and of itself isn't bad.

...But I do agree that their needs to be changes to Air to Ground Weapons.
HEAT Rocket Pods just weren't a good idea period, while their proposed HE re-purpose for Anti-Infantry work has me a little leery.
They are really going to need to open up the Cone of Fire on those Rockets and make them a wide area denial weapon instead of a 10 meter Fireball of Infantry Nuking.

Not too keen on more "Laser Guided" weapons though...
It isn't a balance issue, I just don't like the mechanic and I don't think it meshes well with the default Air controls in this game.

If we are going to have airborne player guided munitions, might I suggest a new Bomber concept I call the Redeemer?
It's based on the Liberator, but flies more like an ESF, and only has a Pilot with Nose gun and Bombardier who by default gets a large Bomb to drop.

I like the Liberator as an Airborne Artillery Platform, but that tail Turret needs some serious work so as to put the GUN in GUNSHIP.

It isn't just hovering, but simply having to fly face-first toward a target til all your rockets are out, gets you bursters in the face even at speed. I am not sure, but I think you thought I meant laser guidance where the aircraft lazes for itself? I WOULD like that, yes, but you're right, it doesn't fit. Actually, I meant laser guidance from infantry. I was thinking there could be bombs that can be both dropped dumbfire or guided, and perhaps have maybe a 5% damage bonus under laser guidance (then again, being laser guided would let them get direct hits which would be a bonus itself)?

BTW, I mean realistic laser guidance, ie you point the laser, bomb follows it wherever it goes. This isn't for a tacticool desire for realism but simply, the BF3 SOFLAM way is too ridiculous and lock-on-ish. Both overpowered in some ways and limited in others, I mean, who would not want to guide a bomb in through a window and kill capture point room campers?

Also, it wouldn't necessarily have to be a whole lot more than 320kph, hell just make regular cruise speed 300kph and afterburners take you to maybe 375. I don't that would be TOO bad....

[Timealude]

my only problem with the cone of fire right now is that you could turn a skyguard into more of an AI tank then it already is..think about how easy it is to kill infantry with a burster and put that onto a skyguard. At the same time, I feel that if you reduced the damage it did to infantry it would be completely defenseless from LA or HA which is why I think the only thing that really needs to be done to the skyguard is the projectile speed needs a buff..right now its way too slow for the COF it has.

[maradine]

The Skyguard is a pretty shitty AI tank. I don't think that's much of a fear.

[snafus]

Will it be any worse then a ZOE burster is at AI? I mean those fuckers mop the floor with any poor sap that gets to close on foot.

[MrMak]

Originally Posted by Timealude

my only problem with the cone of fire right now is that you could turn a skyguard into more of an AI tank then it already is..think about how easy it is to kill infantry with a burster and put that onto a skyguard. At the same time, I feel that if you reduced the damage it did to infantry it would be completely defenseless from LA or HA which is why I think the only thing that really needs to be done to the skyguard is the projectile speed needs a buff..right now its way too slow for the COF it has.

First of the Skyguard is NOT a good AI weapon at anything beyond ridicoulusly close range. Secondly, if the deves were to reduce its anti infantry damage with decresing the cone it could still maintain current effectivness against them since it would be able to hit them more reliably with those weaker rounds.Thirsdly, even if it did become effective against infantry a mid range, is that realy a bad thing? even the original Skyguard from PS1 had an anti infantry weapon.

[psijaka]

Originally Posted by Timealude

my only problem with the cone of fire right now is that you could turn a skyguard into more of an AI tank then it already is..think about how easy it is to kill infantry with a burster and put that onto a skyguard. At the same time, I feel that if you reduced the damage it did to infantry it would be completely defenseless from LA or HA which is why I think the only thing that really needs to be done to the skyguard is the projectile speed needs a buff..right now its way too slow for the COF it has.

Don't see this as a problem at all; it's not as if infantry cannot fight back and give the Skyguard a hard time.

And it is a myth that it is easy to kill infantry with a Burster; the CoF is too great for this to be anything more than luck beyond close range. I've got the odd lucky kill at longer range, but spamming ammo in this way really is a waste of the Burster's capabilities when an ESF might turn up at any time.

[Stardouser]

Skyguard should probably be as good against infantry as a BF3 AA vehicle is. And that's just a convenient example, it's NOT about copying BF3. Making AV/AA that useless against infantry is taking rock/paper/scissors to its stupid extreme.

[RSphil]

the main problem i have with the sky guard is the stupid COf. its even hard to get a good amount of shots on a Gal its that bad. it needs to be tightened up, it is an AA weapon after all. they are supposed to be more accurate then it is atm. a lot more accurate. if that is sorted then it would be great. i just use burster max atm due to more accuracy.

[Roderick]

This same topic pops up every so often and my feelings are still the same. Yes, the roles should be reversed between the Skyguard and the Burster MAX. Secondly, the Burster MAX should have its range of flak halved and damage tapered off at the peak of a new fixed ceiling cap.

That level of flak power and range should be exclusive to the Skyguard user. The Devs made a poor decision giving this much air defense ability to MAX user. Instead of promoting vehicle against air vehicle defense, the Devs made the Skyguard appear to the player like a completely poor choice for a Anti Air defense.

Why cert into a Skyguard when I can hang back with my buddies that can throw down ammo packs and keep me repaired at all times versus the need to an ammo tower/ammo Sunderer and self responsibility of keeping the Skyguard repaired if not surrounded by an Engineer crew or a Repair Sunderer?

[Tiberius]

Air gets out of control fast - I'd rather have pilots on the defensive than a swarm of liberators and mossies close in and ruin every fight.

I can't even believe I played this game at launch. The only reason people put up with it was because the game was new and they were excited about it.

With the massive server consolidation this game can't afford another overpowered air situation. They would just lose members.

[MrMak]

Originally Posted by Tiberius

Air gets out of control fast - I'd rather have pilots on the defensive than a swarm of liberators and mossies close in and ruin every fight.

I can't even believe I played this game at launch. The only reason people put up with it was because the game was new and they were excited about it.

With the massive server consolidation this game can't afford another overpowered air situation. They would just lose members.

Would you PLEASE read the god damn thread before posting stuffl ike this?

Also I love your argument "Air must be UP becouse when it was OP it was bad"

Lets just remove aircraft out of the game entirely... yeah that will bring more players for sure....

[psijaka]

Originally Posted by Tiberius

Air gets out of control fast - I'd rather have pilots on the defensive than a swarm of liberators and mossies close in and ruin every fight.

I can't even believe I played this game at launch. The only reason people put up with it was because the game was new and they were excited about it.

With the massive server consolidation this game can't afford another overpowered air situation. They would just lose members.

So are you for or against the OP's suggestions?

[Sledgecrushr]

I could agree with the skyguard switching roles with burster if the following demands are met
-skyguard timer is lowered to match a burster
-skyguard turret can be changed out at any terminal to another turret
-skyguard can be spawned from any terminal not just vehicle terms