The AA "ladder" is messed up.

[AThreatToYou]

My advice is give bursters damage drop-off and a maximum range below render distance.

What [mainly] balanced MAX AA units in PS1 was their limited range and how easy they were to avoid in relation to the Skyguard. In PS2, bursters have a pretty absurd range. They should be fucking awesome against CAS airswarms, but shitty [if not unusable] against distant gunships and incoming ESF.

Don't reduce Burster's damage too much. I would reduce their damage by an average of 7 to 12%. Buff the Skyguard weapon to be an effective long-range, low-drop, high-velocity AA cannon that can be avoided by using terrain masking. High-altitude enemies will fear the skyguard and request CAS or tanks to take it out. Also, give the Skyguard (and burster for that matter) a minimum range (say 15m) where direct hits will be required to deal damage.

Also, make a dedicated Skyguard buggy with driver+gunner. Remove skyguard from Lightning.

The Skyguard buggy would have less hitpoints than the Lightning, but be more maneuverable and smaller. Generally the hitpoint reduction is so that it is easier to take out than a blasted tank, but it will have a degree of skillful countermeasure, called mobility, to use against enemy tanks and infantry. The high degree of ESF accuracy and vulnerability to splash damage weaponry will make it very threatened by near-by aircraft who have its location locked in... just like the original Skyguard, and just like most AA emplacements.

Ideally, the Skyguard buggy would have an anti-infantry capability. Not required.

MAX AA is there to clear towers from hovering gunships and ESF and take chunks out of airswarms.

[Obstruction]

that's actually pretty reasonable. also please no more flak out of the spawn shields.

[OCNSethy]

Originally Posted by Obstruction

that's actually pretty reasonable. also please no more flak out of the spawn shields.

I'd agree but only if you promise there will be no more air-spawn camping

[Whiteagle]

Originally Posted by Technologist

The skyguard was buffed recently and is now very effective now. Personally, I find it safer and easier to take down air with the skyguard then with a burster max. You have high speed mobility and can chase down ESF's allowing a longer period where you have open shots to hit and a 3x zoom. The lightning also has a much larger ammunition pool.

Since when?
The bigger problem with the Skyguard wasn't it's Cone of Fire, that was fixed awhile ago to be adequate...

...It was the slow projectile speed, requiring one to lead tens to hundereds of meters in front of a target just to get a hit.

Originally Posted by AThreatToYou

My advice is give bursters damage drop-off and a maximum range below render distance.

What [mainly] balanced MAX AA units in PS1 was their limited range and how easy they were to avoid in relation to the Skyguard. In PS2, bursters have a pretty absurd range. They should be fucking awesome against CAS airswarms, but shitty [if not unusable] against distant gunships and incoming ESF.

Don't reduce Burster's damage too much. I would reduce their damage by an average of 7 to 12%. Buff the Skyguard weapon to be an effective long-range, low-drop, high-velocity AA cannon that can be avoided by using terrain masking. High-altitude enemies will fear the skyguard and request CAS or tanks to take it out. Also, give the Skyguard (and burster for that matter) a minimum range (say 15m) where direct hits will be required to deal damage.

Indeed, the problem isn't so much the Bursters ability to take down Air, it's that it is a far better option for ground to engage Air AT RANGE.

Last I was in a Skyguard it required ridiculous amounts of lead to even LAND hits at ranges a BursterMAX would have little trouble killing at.
You'd need near precogintance to be able to keep your bead in front of an ESF actively trying to dodge you.

Originally Posted by AThreatToYou

Also, make a dedicated Skyguard buggy with driver+gunner. Remove skyguard from Lightning.

The Skyguard buggy would have less hitpoints than the Lightning, but be more maneuverable and smaller. Generally the hitpoint reduction is so that it is easier to take out than a blasted tank, but it will have a degree of skillful countermeasure, called mobility, to use against enemy tanks and infantry. The high degree of ESF accuracy and vulnerability to splash damage weaponry will make it very threatened by near-by aircraft who have its location locked in... just like the original Skyguard, and just like most AA emplacements.

Ideally, the Skyguard buggy would have an anti-infantry capability. Not required.

MAX AA is there to clear towers from hovering gunships and ESF and take chunks out of airswarms.

...But wouldn't that require Seperate Driver and Gunner Controls?
Threat, that's CRAAAAZY TALK!
I mean, everyone knows that you only drive if you get the BIG GUN...

[Obstruction]

I'd agree but only if you promise there will be no more air-spawn camping

that's a base design stupidity and noob stupidity issue. i stopped getting camped by liberators and tanks sometime around when i stopped listening to bad platoon leaders.

the behavior you're talking about is basically a choice people have to make:

1. babysit the spawn so the base will turn
2. leave and hope you won't have to come back

so i don't really get where the resentment comes from.

it baffles me why it's no complaint to have infantry and tanks camp the spawn, but it is a high crime to be in an aircraft watching them do it. but i guess everyone likes to have their double standard and eat it too.

the truth is that spawn camping is fucking boring and i'd love to be done with it forever.

as i've said a few times in the thread i'd prefer to contribute to large scale battles as an airborne heavy weapons platform.

the last thing i want to do is babysit a bunch of pussies for 6 minutes at a time, dodging their rockets and ruining their k/d.

anyway this is a derail and i shouldn't even have responded.

[OCNSethy]

Originally Posted by Obstruction

that's a base design stupidity and noob stupidity issue... i shouldn't even have responded.

No, you where right to respond. Mainly because it does highlight an issue that really has never been addressed.

It may become more of an issue now with lattice.

Pre-lattice, if you where spawned camped, you had lost the fight and whats the point of being farmed.

With lattice, we may actually see relief forces attempting to rescue the base / outpost... therefore the besieged forces would continue to try an hold out in the spawn room until the cavalry arrived. Which will probably result in burster maxs shooting through the spawn shields.... still.

[Obstruction]

it derails from the OP talking about bringing AA Max (an infantry pull) down below skyguard (mechanized pull). that's the issue we were talking about before the sidetrack.

i think aPony has the best suggestion. it's the best i've heard on the topic yet. all i have ever used Lightning for is skyguard, and i love Harasser as much as Liberator. ok so it's personal bias but i like the solution.

i also use AA Max (outside of spawn shields lol) and i think it's not a bad idea to limit the effective range with damage falloff, or have the projectiles limited by render distance so we can actually see the flak sources instead of having to suppose where they must be while experiencing what is essentially a pain field in the sky. you do get that vague semicircle indicator but if there's 3 or 4 of them nested in your exit vector it's already too late.

---

and as for holding out in the spawn, i still maintain that it is a base design flaw they refuse to correct. nobody is really holding out, they are just hoping to cheese some points before the fat lady sings.

it's a dead horse already badly beaten to discuss solutions to spawn camping. there's good ideas and bad ones.

my opinion? eradicate the spawn building model altogether. make AMS its own vehicle and rely on player ingenuity and tenacity to keep spawns active and defended. hell, make it an actually mobile spawn with no need to deploy and remain stationary. if it needs some sort of limiting factor it can be handled with cooldown, resource cost, cert investment, BR prerequisite, or combination of same.

i'd even go so far as to say that spawn hopping should be eliminated too, and limit choices to

1. nearest AMS
2. warpgate
3. squad leader control
4. instant action

now THAT is a derail.

[psijaka]

Burster already has damage drop off, but in my opinion, the projectiles should become inactive after a few hundred metres. It is just stupid that I can shoot an ESF off the launch pads at the Crown from Crossroads.

Bursters need to stay deadly at close range though, to deter the hover spammers.

As far as shooting aircraft through spawn shields is concerned, I've never tried this but can't imagine it is an issue for a decent pilot as the field of view through the shield will be so limited. Much better to be up on the roof!

Edit - Skyguard I played a bit in Beta when it was stupidly OP, but I've not bothered spending my SC to get it post launch. Needs to be significantly better than dual Bursters at long range.

I doubt very much that SoE would contemplate removing Skyguard from the Lightniong, but why not stick a decent AA gun on the Harrasser?

[Obstruction]

it's not really dangerous. it's just cheap and lame. it isn't that the max could kill you, it's that you take some amount of damage from something you can't fight against, and it contributes to some other loss that wouldn't have occurred otherwise.

the max in the spawn is just taking the surface to air bonus xp, and hoping for a liberator kill assist. he knows he can't kill you, he knows you'll buzz off. he HOPES someone will be in a nearby ESF lurking around looking for a smoking lib and finish earning his free xp.

in that case two low skill players take out a dedicated team for high reward and little effort. from positions of relative invulnerability.

and at any rate it isn't 1 max inside the spawn, ever. it's almost always several.

and the spawn rooms have great angles in many bases with HUGE doorways.

and it's at every base, every spawn.

it comes off as whiny, when i write it out that way. i'm aware. everyone has their little bone to pick, i know. but there is a context. and i've said before it's not exactly that maxes can use the roof cover or pop in and out of doors that shelter medics and engineers.

that is part of the game.

we are also able to suppress them in that situation, do some damage, take damage, and maybe they earn their assist if we don't disengage or fend off the ESFs that come around smelling blood in the water.

that's war. win some, lose some.

but EVERY hex having multiple flak sources behind an energy shield and we can't even land suppressing hits? and i'm talking about "top tier" players from "the best outfit" on the server doing it. and their answer when you say something about it being cheese is "get SOE to change it, it's in the game."

so i risk sounding whiny. anyway enough derail, again. sorry.

[Whiteagle]

Originally Posted by Obstruction

it baffles me why it's no complaint to have infantry and tanks camp the spawn, but it is a high crime to be in an aircraft watching them do it. but i guess everyone likes to have their double standard and eat it too.

People don't like Tanks doing it either, it's the idea that you should be outplayed by the opposing Infantry and not just corralled for a slaughter by Vehicles.

Yes, this and MAX Spawn Squatting are both due to horrid Base Designs and prefab Spawn Shacks, but there is nothing we as players can do to counter act that.

Honestly though I can't stand how much "Airchavs," as the Anon on /vg/ have dubbed them, whine about Flak...
I fly, I get shot down, but more often then not it's due to an AA Missile polishing me off as pull out of a bad run.

[Obstruction]

it's always a combination of factors, and never just flak. it is the omnipresence of flak as an optimal strategy that depresses the air portion of the game. if there were extremely pervasive minefields that depressed ground movement to the point that no one did anything but move by air, it would be equally disruptive.

in fact it was somewhat like that during beta, and the reason they removed the AMS from the Galaxy if i'm not mistaken. they basically had to tie a porkchop around the Sunderer's neck so the dog would play with it.

it's a joke around my circle that they plan to just replace all vehicle primary and secondary weapons with rumble seats for AA maxes and just let them shoot at each other with those.

and besides, people whine about anything that disagrees with them, or interferes with what they perceive to be their entitlement. that doesn't mean that all complaints are therefore invalid.

[Whiteagle]

Originally Posted by Obstruction

it's always a combination of factors, and never just flak. it is the omnipresence of flak as an optimal strategy that depresses the air portion of the game. if there were extremely pervasive minefields that depressed ground movement to the point that no one did anything but move by air, it would be equally disruptive.

But that's the thing, it's NOT that thick, at least on Waterson...
Yeah there are lots of BursterMAXes lurking in the nooks and crannies, but they won't shoot you down if you do attack runs instead of just hovering over the battle.

I think the real issue here is that there were a lot of bad pilots who THOUGHT they were good because Ground AA had no teeth, and when it got buffed back to lethality those pilots couldn't comprehend that their deaths were the fault of their own lack of ability instead of something being overpowered.

That's probably WHY we don't complain about it on Waterson, I noticed flying last night that our TR Air kept constantly swooping in and pulling out in flybys instead of just sitting over the main battle.
Some of the NC "Pilots" didn't get this message though, and kept swooping in low enough to be one-shotted by Tank Cannons.

[snafus]

Originally Posted by Whiteagle

But that's the thing, it's NOT that thick, at least on Waterson...
Yeah there are lots of BursterMAXes lurking in the nooks and crannies, but they won't shoot you down if you do attack runs instead of just hovering over the battle.

I think the real issue here is that there were a lot of bad pilots who THOUGHT they were good because Ground AA had no teeth, and when it got buffed back to lethality those pilots couldn't comprehend that their deaths were the fault of their own lack of ability instead of something being overpowered.

That's probably WHY we don't complain about it on Waterson, I noticed flying last night that our TR Air kept constantly swooping in and pulling out in flybys instead of just sitting over the main battle.
Some of the NC "Pilots" didn't get this message though, and kept swooping in low enough to be one-shotted by Tank Cannons.

If waterson is lacking heavy AA then come to Connery. We shall give you an example of AA that denies all forms of approaches. At platoon size fights there is no fast approach or hovering there is only insta poof by the 10+ bursters waiting on the flying cert pinnattas to get close enough. And even if the bursters don't get a kill that pilot is now forced to flee and try and repair without being ganked by enemy ESF that were watching. Even in small numbers they are denying an entire aspect of the game a chance to participate.

[maradine]

Originally Posted by Whiteagle

I think the real issue here is that there were a lot of bad pilots who THOUGHT they were good because Ground AA had no teeth, and when it got buffed back to lethality those pilots couldn't comprehend that their deaths were the fault of their own lack of ability instead of something being overpowered.

That's generally where I land philosophically (see sig video) - it's just not a popular view point in flight circles.

[Whiteagle]

Originally Posted by maradine

That's generally where I land philosophically (see sig video) - it's just not a popular view point in flight circles.

I knew it would happen when they launched with AA so weak, man...



...Knew it would happen.