Is Rotary/Turbolaser too good against infantry? - Page 3

Assist · 2013-05-06, 11:59 AM

Originally Posted by Figment

That's bullshit.

Don't come in here proclaiming it is easy to hit air with slow speed, high gravity effect dumbfire AV on any aircraft flying remotely low. Even a Phoenix can't lead that well. Unless you're a crap pilot and hover for a long time in place without even making minor adjustments to height and don't strafe in random directions at all.

Come on. Even I haven't been hit by AV dumbfire yet and I'm considering myself a horrible pilot.

Try shooting at one with a dumbfire before you comment on how hard it is. I'm not saying it's easy either, but killing infantry with a rotary isn't easy. The last thing this game needs is nerfing one of the high skill-ceiling weapons from the game.

Assist · 2013-05-06, 12:07 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

I think I won't. Came across plenty situations where I could have gone for the kill but like I said, went for the bailing. When there's no challenge, I don't do it.

Why do you think the people with the most kills have the most airtime?

Out of the top 10 kills, 2 are ESF's, 1 Liberator, 1 Tank, 6 Infantry. Not quite what you're stating.

People that have the most kills per minute do what is easiest to do solo, because it's easier to jump from active fight to active fight as a solo player than it is in a squad. Other than that those are just people with ridiculous playtimes.

Figment · 2013-05-06, 05:36 PM

James, if you give someone a tool that kills in 0.3s or 0.8s without and the counter to that thing takes well over 10s (handheld AA), you can't tell me that's balanced. Note, that is the counter, a tool those people are likely not even carrying. Regular weapons take fastly longer to kill an aircav, if you can even hit them reliably (which even the actual counter cannot do).

Air to ground however, is a VERY reliable method of firing and hitting.

I'm sorry, but I just don't have much faith in pilots, knowing they feel superior 90% of the time when they ignore their counters are few in number and have massive handicaps and poor efficiency they can exploit.

Originally Posted by Assist

Out of the top 10 kills, 2 are ESF's, 1 Liberator, 1 Tank, 6 Infantry. Not quite what you're stating.

People that have the most kills per minute do what is easiest to do solo, because it's easier to jump from active fight to active fight as a solo player than it is in a squad. Other than that those are just people with ridiculous playtimes.

Should have probably phrased the stat differently. You know what I meant though. It's like the people with a 56 K/D in a Magrider during the even more excessive spawncamping days would contribute this purely to skill. We all know that equally skilled players in PS1 who had different tools would get different K/Ds. If you had HA, you'd get a higher K/D by default than someone who used Sweepers, simply because you're disadvantaged by default. Air advantages the user a lot in every conceivable way and trades that for very few weaknesses. To just look at situations where there's a lot of AA and say "see? It's hard!" is asinine though.

Lonehunter · 2013-05-06, 05:44 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

James, if you give someone a tool that kills in 0.3s or 0.8s without and the counter to that thing takes well over 10s (handheld AA), you can't tell me that's balanced.

You're assuming 2 things that don't work with PS2's design.

Everything has a perfect counter for another thing

1 vs 1 is supposed to always be fair.

Their are random deaths, there's are 50 people around you who should help you take down that ESF, there's are thousands of elements to this equation that have to all balance with each other. Not just 1 Rocket launcher vs 1 ESF.

Figment · 2013-05-06, 06:44 PM

Originally Posted by Lonehunter

You're assuming 2 things that don't work with PS2's design.

Everything has a perfect counter for another thing

1 vs 1 is supposed to always be fair.

Their are random deaths, there's are 50 people around you who should help you take down that ESF, there's are thousands of elements to this equation that have to all balance with each other. Not just 1 Rocket launcher vs 1 ESF.

Okay, how's this:

There are random deaths, there are 50 people around you who should help you take down that infantry unit, there are thousands of elements to this equation that have to all balance with each other. Not just 1 ESF vs 1 infantry unit.

Now why do I get the feeling you will object against this? Why the hypocrisy to make this statement when an infantry unit uses AA, but not say so when an aircraft uses AI? There are MORE units carrying AI than there are units carrying AA (even AV and AA fall in the AI category!). There are no instant saves from AI weapons, but there is a way to instant save you from AA weapons. Sure, the ESF costs a couple resources, but on the other hand, the unit frame didn't cost certs to acquire (some of its weapons did), whereas AA lock on did. Yet the AA weapons are considered less worthy to actually pay off than the aircraft weapons. There's quite a bit of hypocrisy and arbitrary bias in there.

I don't really see why AV weapons should be good at hitting infantry and then hit them really hard. What's the point of having AI weapon trade-offs then? AI weapons like the Kobalt don't even harm armoured units at all!

Hamma · 2013-05-06, 06:45 PM

Short answer: no it isn't to good. It's got a massive skill cap, it would be one thing if you could spray and prey the rotary.

CrankyTRex · 2013-05-06, 09:31 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

Okay, how's this:

There are random deaths, there are 50 people around you who should help you take down that infantry unit, there are thousands of elements to this equation that have to all balance with each other. Not just 1 ESF vs 1 infantry unit.

Combat scaling.

WarbirdTD · 2013-05-06, 10:34 PM

I just had to come in here to offer a different opinion. In an answer to the original question of whether or not the rotaries are too good against infantry, I'd have to say no, though my answer would be due to my experience with the Mosquito and its rotary, not the more stable Reaver and its nearly double damage (meaning less bullets needed on target). I feel that there is more skill needed to hit targets directly with the rotary enough times to kill than with rocket pods, though the constant nerfing to rocket pods (at least Hellfires.. not so sure about photons) has done a pretty good job at reducing their effectiveness against large numbers of infantry. Are rocket pods worthless? Hell no. Would I use the rotary instead of pods for infantry killing? Not a chance. Rotaries require a pretty high skill level to get a consistent result, and unfortunately, I find that I am a somewhat average pilot compared to others on Connery.

The majority of this thread, however, has changed direction into an AA vs. ESF argument. Normally, I would just let this further degrade into a "You're a shitty player"-"No, YOU'RE a shitty player" type of argument that so often happens on the official PS2 forums. However, Figment, I like you and most of your ideas about base design. Therefore, I feel that you may need to take a larger look at the balance aspect of the game we both love.

Regarding your comments about Burster MAXes being ineffective, I highly disagree with you. Being a day-to-day ops leader of an airborne infantry outfit that runs 1.5 to 2 squads consistently (so I have to be careful about our force makeup), current game mechanics and gameplay have taught me that 2 AA MAXes will heavily damage ESFs in about 3 seconds while the ESF is running away, and 3 AA MAXes will kill ESFs before they have much of a chance to escape, while also being able to clear airspace around your immediate vicinity within 20-30 seconds. 4 AA MAXes damn near gives you air dominance of a region.
Regarding lock-on rockets, they were never designed to be a hard counter to fighters from a 1v1 perspective. Seriously, would that make any sense? A heavy assault doesn't have to spend resources to pull a shoulder-mounted rocket launcher, nor do they have a pull timer. Lock-on rockets are designed to dictate the time that a fighter can stay in the combat area. If an aircraft stays in the area too long, he is either dumb and doesn't know any better, or he is sacrificing the plane to kill an objective. If you truly want an instant and direct damage AA tool, use the dual burster.
Regarding your statement that the reason you do not have more kills with your plane is because it is just too easy to get kills with, and thus you are "above" using an ESF to get kills with, I simply don't buy it. Perhaps your server isn't as competitive nor as AA-filled as Connery, but that doesn't fit with what I've been hearing about Miller. The way my outfit operates, if there is an objective with enemies between us and it, we do whatever is necessary to neutralize them before they neutralize us.

So there it is. Like I said Fig, I like you and your ideas, but in this instance, my perspective says that your issue with AA vs ESF balance is incorrect. If you would like to experience the kind of balance that I think is present in the game, TR Connery would like to invite you to try and fly the unfriendly skies with us.

Emperor Newt · 2013-05-07, 04:10 AM

Originally Posted by ThatGoatGuy

They sacrifice armor. Do you understand the difference of the amount of flak that a liberator can receive versus an ESF?

Do you understand that I was talking about loadouts?

ThatGoatGuy · 2013-05-07, 07:34 AM

Originally Posted by Figment

Maybe you need a better definition of bad pilot instead of relying on arbitrary assumptions derived from statements that do not imply that at all. Bad pilot does not mean never flies.

Originally Posted by RLxJame

you only have 4 kills with the reaver in more than 2 hours flying it.

I have around 60 hours of flight time. <-----Fair pilot