Is Rotary/Turbolaser too good against infantry? - Page 2

CrankyTRex · 2013-05-06, 10:31 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.

Hamma · 2013-05-06, 07:45 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.

WarbirdTD · 2013-05-06, 11:34 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.