Originally Posted by maradine
But that's not why we're here. Let's talk about the Striker.
I seem to recall that the world was literally going to end when the Annihilator was launched - the combined nerd rage in the forums could de-orbit a small moon. It was too powerful, too ubiquitous, and broke the game in groups. Or so I was told - I actually didn't care too much. You could still flare off the first volley from a Anni nest and get a good Zeph clip into them before having to jet.
The Striker is ostensibly worse, and it's only available to one faction. Now, a few things are working against us here - newly latticed Indar is hell on the SE warpgate where we currently live. The entire southern expanse is exposed to Striker fire from the ridgeline, and getting armor up there is much harder with the roads now cut off. If TR have pushed past the Skydock, VS effectively doesn't fly Tawrich.
Is this a big deal? Yes and no. I'm actually OK with TR being the dominant AA powerhouse, just as I was OK with NC being the undisputed kings of MAX CQC. What's missing is any sort of understanding of the developer vision here - is it supposed to be this way? If so, what do they consider the counterbalance elsewhere? If not, are they paying attention?
|
Yeah, the Striker isn't as Overpowered as people claim it is...
Versatile as hell,
YES, all that powerful,
not really...
Probably the biggest issue is that Lock-ons are occasionally still tracking after popping flares or smoke, and a Launcher that fires five times as many missiles is going to suffer from this five times over.
Originally Posted by maradine
Also, I know you're going to hate this, but I think a four-pack of NS SAMs on the Skyguard as a second weapon would be better than upping the velocity again, if I had my way.
|
...Higby Pls?
Actually, I'd give the Lightning a separate Lock-on Missile Turret, as well as Armor Piercing and High-Explosive Rocket Pod Turrets.
Would people complain about having an Annihilator on the Lightning?
Originally Posted by snafus
You sir are among a very small population of forum siders that are aware of this. Most choose to fear the crappy rocket pods so many of us prefer to use for more variety of targets.
|
Snafus, nose gunning at least takes SKILL, unlike Pods which just have to be spammed in the general direction of the Target.
Originally Posted by Ralek
The core problems with the air balance keep being placed mostly on the effectiveness of ground to air AA. This will always be and up and down situation, creating a flavor of the month feeling as nerfs and buffs are rolled out.
IMO, the major problems with the effectiveness of ESF's is not the counters available, it's the overwhelming force multiplier an ESF presents, especially true in smaller scale engagements.
An ESF is by far the most versatile force multiplier in game and on top of that, it's the fastest as well. In the same single loadout, an ESF can deal with anything that can be fielded in PS2. Air? Check. Infantry? Check. Tanks, Check. Fixed defenses? Check.
Compare that to the supposed counters available. A dedicated anti air unit (Burster or Skyguard) is a force sacrifice. You sacrifice most of your versatility to be able to act as a deterrent (not a counter) to enemy ESF's. Let's not even mention that if the AA is pulled the ESF can just elect to go apply his force somewhere else with almost no downtime while the same is not true for the AA.
When dealing with smaller engagements these conditions get to an extreme. Imagine a 10 vs 10 engagement. If one team fields an ESF and the other fields a Burster MAX, the first team is using up 10% of his force and able to engage the full enemy force very effectively. The burster team is using up 10% of his force to be able to deter 10% of the enemy force. Pulling AA is a lose/lose situation. You are forced to field ESF's.
Post GU11, matters are even worse since one burster can no longer deny airspace - an ESF can make passes with negligeable risk. In fact, given limited cover, the ESF can engage the Burster and win - just cannon him down at 200-250m range.
When numbers start getting higher, ESF's start losing their effectiveness, assuming decent skills levels on both sides. On a 100 vs 100 engagement, you can't apply all your force at the same time, so even a 5% use of your force (skyguards or burster team) can effectively shutdown enemy airspace wihout much sacrifice, since it would be doubtfull you could employ 100% of your force somewhere else anyways.
To address this issue, the inherent versatility of ESFs needs to be removed. ESF loadouts need to be non-versatile and deadly. Make specific anti-infantry, anti-tank and anti-air weapons and make them powerful in their roles.
|
You sir, get it!
The Force Multiplication issue is probably where my disagreement with Air Connery stems; Waterson just doesn't have the same active numbers on all sides and thus the large NC Zerg Outfits, who were founded around exploiting such aspects of the game in the first place, are one of the few who have the organization to exploit Air Superiority.
2013-06-28, 01:23 PM
Linear Mode
