Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register | PSU Social |
PSU: Idle hands tend to lead to the genitals
Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register | PSU Social |
2013-06-02, 01:51 PM | [Ignore Me] #16 | |||
Sergeant Major
|
Last edited by snafus; 2013-06-02 at 02:19 PM. |
|||
|
2013-06-02, 08:50 PM | [Ignore Me] #17 | ||||||
Major
|
Also explains why he can't avoid his own kill debris...
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.
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. |
||||||
|
2013-06-02, 09:12 PM | [Ignore Me] #18 | |||
Colonel
|
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.... Last edited by Stardouser; 2013-06-02 at 09:14 PM. |
|||
|
2013-06-03, 07:10 PM | [Ignore Me] #19 | ||
Captain
|
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.
|
||
|
2013-06-04, 01:11 AM | [Ignore Me] #22 | |||
Sergeant Major
|
Last edited by MrMak; 2013-06-04 at 01:13 AM. |
|||
|
2013-06-04, 03:14 AM | [Ignore Me] #23 | |||
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. |
||||
|
2013-06-04, 07:32 AM | [Ignore Me] #24 | ||
Colonel
|
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.
|
||
|
2013-06-04, 07:45 AM | [Ignore Me] #25 | ||
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.
__________________
Where Eagles Dare cossiephil http://www.twitch.tv/cossiephil http://www.youtube.com/user/cossiephil1 https://www.facebook.com/Guyvergamingtv |
|||
|
2013-06-04, 08:45 AM | [Ignore Me] #26 | ||
Corporal
|
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? |
||
|
2013-06-04, 08:46 PM | [Ignore Me] #27 | ||
Corporal
|
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. |
||
|
2013-06-05, 04:48 AM | [Ignore Me] #28 | |||
Sergeant Major
|
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.... |
|||
|
2013-06-05, 08:39 AM | [Ignore Me] #29 | |||
|
||||
|
2013-06-05, 09:49 AM | [Ignore Me] #30 | ||
Colonel
|
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 |
||
|
|
Bookmarks |
|
|