A Wee Balance Scenario: AA vs Aircraft - Page 2

Stardouser · 2012-05-13, 04:19 PM

Originally Posted by Mechzz

Agreed, and happy to see the changes that are being made in this area. My question was more about how hard the counter should be. So should 1 infantry with AA have a 50/50 chance of taking out a one-man aircraft in a fair fight ?

And if not 50/50 then how close should the odds be?

Infantry be 1 to 1 with a vehicle just because they have spec'd AV/AA? No, I don't agree with that at all.

Unless you're assuming the infantry is able to take cover and pop out to take shots as part of a "fair fight".

Trolltaxi · 2012-05-13, 04:34 PM

If the infantry takes only his AA weapon, he pretty much sacrificed all his chances against anything else - therefore he deserves a fair chance against the aircraft.

If you take a look at PS1 - TR ESAV, the Striker was pretty useful against enemy air. A full clip was not enough against a mossie (almost, but no) but it often scared them away. A not full health mosquito had to think twice of his attack. If there were 2 strikers in range - well it wasn't a farming ground for him anymore.

Infantry OP? "I certed a veichle and I'm not supposed to farm infantry???!!!44!!"

What was the mossie's cost? 3 cert points. The striker? 2 for MA and 3 for AV, that makes 5 points (or if you didn't need the 2 for MA, it is still 3 cerst vs 3 certs - memories are fading). And still the infantryman with the dedicated AV weapon needed 6 seconds to empty the 5-clip striker, reload (2.5 seconds?) and fire again. The mossie TTK on rexo was about 1.2-1.5 seconds. For less cert points. Not even mentioning the bail at full health (the pilot) after the mossie took the 5 rockets - that leads to another flamewar...

Yes, certing aircraft was quite cheap and you received great power for the small price. That's why I don't have problem with infantry playing on even ground when he decides to focus on one aspect and sacrifices his other abilities.

Stardouser · 2012-05-13, 04:47 PM

It's not about that. It's about vehicles are supposed to be higher on the food chain and infantry shouldn't be carrying around weapons that are as powerful as you would expect an AA vehicle to be.

Now, understand that time to kill factors into this as well. I am not saying that an infantry should not be able to solo kill an aircraft. What I am saying is that giving up your assault rifle is not an excuse to get a weapon that's as devastating to an aircraft as an AA vehicle would be expected to be. However, if you want to give up your assault rifle to carry an AA weapon and extra ammo for it, that's different.

In other words, you could carry an assault rifle, a couple of mags, and an AA weapon, and enough ammo to kill the weakest aircraft(let's say it took two mags of AA ammo to kill whatever the weakest aircraft is). OK, so you give up your assault rifle and now you can carry 10 mags of AA ammo, enough to kill say, a Mossie, five times over. But the key is, you are indeed more powerful against aircraft for that choice, but it's over time, rather than suddenly you have a weapon that will kill that same aircraft with one mag.

Ceska · 2012-05-13, 04:48 PM

Originally Posted by Stardouser

Well, I don't think that rockets designed to kill tanks should magically not work well against infantry, they should be deadly if they hit. Of course, if AA loadout means you get lock-on missiles, those won't lock onto infantry, naturally.

But anyway, if rockets, for example, is how you spec against armor, as I say, they should be deadly to infantry that they hit, the key is not providing Robin Hood spotting that lets the aircraft see the infantry easily.

There a difference between a direct hit, and a "splash-damage" hit. AI rocket should have more splash damage than AT rocket, but much less effective against armored target. And AT rocket should have more or less no splash damage.

And I really don't believe that a direct hit with a rocket from a reaver is an easy one.

Originally Posted by Stardouser

It's not about that. It's about vehicles are supposed to be higher on the food chain and infantry shouldn't be carrying around weapons that are as powerful as you would expect an AA vehicle to be.
mag.

A vehicule should definitely be more powerfull. But as we know, very few flying vehicule existing know can sustain a direct hit from a rocket and still flying. In my mind, a 2 man team with a AV weapon should be able to take down the reaver/mossie/sythe.
I really hope vehicule will be powerfull, but also kind of fragile

sylphaen · 2012-05-13, 05:39 PM

There is no doubt that air vehicles are the most powerful type of weapon available.

Let me brainstorm a few things linked to that weapon:
- fast movement
- movement in 3 dimensions unimpeded by terrain
- no weather conditions preventing its use
- quantity unlimited both in time and numbers (we have yet to see how restrictive resources and spawn timers will be)
- heavy firepower
- hard to hit from the ground
- need for dedicated weaponry to counter air targets (i.e. AA)
- no need for dedicated weaponry to farm ground targets from air
- no heavy logistics required to maintain such a weapon
- even with planetside scale, maps still not large enough
- players want to dogfight
- players don't want to wait for action
- etc...

There are certainly many points I miss and many points you may not agree with. My main idea is the following:
when there is such a powerful weapon available (essentially, flying tanks) and if you want to offer a combined-arms game experience set within the technical limits of PS2, how would you prevent aircav from dominating everything else ?

It's one thing to call for common sense and support the idea that aircav should naturally stay dominant and all others should stick with being moving targets; personally, and regardless of one's favourite gameplay, I think it's not a question of why aircav should be at the top but HOW should it be integrated in the game.

I want PS2 to be fun for everyone and above all, I want everyone to have a diverse choice in how they want to play the game in order to have fun.

So to conclude this post, I'll simply say that balancing aircraft is about defining under which context and to which extent (i.e. roles and limits) this gameplay style should be used; then nerf accordingly.

Flying tank vs. ground tank: if one is too strong, there is no need for the other. (fyi, I want to play with ground tanks, not be forced to another playstyle)

Ale · 2012-05-13, 05:52 PM

As long as the AA takes aim to use I'm all for it being highly effective.

Balancing Infantry to 1v1 aircraft is a complete joke though... unless they do something like make the Decimator equivalent one shot ESF's, which would take extreme skill, luck or an oblivious pilot. That would keep the hover spammers at bay without ruining the piloting experience.

Lock-on missles should be limited to AA maxes, static base defenses that require upgrades to deploy and an operator to fire, and extremely deep vehicle tech tree choices. Any lock-on missles need to be identified as ground based or A2A for pilots as they come in too.

Keep lock-on AA out of the hands of infantry. In such a high density game the constant lock on warnings will be maddening enough. Infantry could have other AA deterents, anti-material rifles like the lancer, dumbfire ESAV's that do more damage to air, the aforementioned one shot deci and flak rounds for underslung launchers and any thumper / rocklet type weapons, the ability to direct fire the pilot out through the cockpit glass, etc.

Believe me, all of the above would prevent me from farming a TR footzerg much more effectively than the slow, creeping migraine that was the only threat from every one of them carrying a striker.

Grognard · 2012-05-13, 05:55 PM

Originally Posted by Mechzz

This thread:
...
raised the question of whether or not Aircraft are "overpowered".
This makes me want to understand what we mean by overpowered.
...

Now, I know the dynamics of the real (gaming) battlefield are much more complex than this, but does the basic idea that every unit should have a hard counter not go a long way to ensuring we all have the most fun in the game?

Thoughts?

I agree on the basic premise, yes. My eyebrows were starting to raise, until I read the highlighted section, which therefore leads me to agreement.

As an example, simple things like infantry being able to go into structures can balance out ignoring terrain, as far as mobility, in my opinion. So, given that the dynamics, and variables, are complex, I agree that a hard counter goes a long way to balance things. At least as a baseline to wrap all the other not-so-obvious variables around.

Pyreal · 2012-05-13, 06:02 PM

There is no question that a single manned flyer with an AI kit can mop the floor with infantry, regardless of their kit (AA/AI/AV) because its a dmg to health equation.

So why is it a question at to whether a single infantryman with an AA kit can take out a single manned craft or not?

If the pilot's AI kit (assuming the AA kit is stock) costs 3 certs, and the infantryman's AA kit costs 3 points, shouldn't they be equal in damage potential to their specific target?

Head to head: AI flyer vs AA infantry would go to whoever is the better shot and whoever got the drop on the other, since their damage output to their specific target should be equal (assuming identical cert costs).

Mechzz · 2012-05-13, 06:09 PM

Originally Posted by sylphaen

I want PS2 to be fun for everyone and above all, I want everyone to have a diverse choice in how they want to play the game in order to have fun.

Flying tank vs. ground tank: if one is too strong, there is no need for the other. (fyi, I want to play with ground tanks, not be forced to another playstyle)

Yes sylphaen, I agree here. It's about the fun factor for me too. And there's no fun if you're up against an aircraft and even if you're carrying the designated AA weapon you just have no chance.

Originally Posted by Ale

Keep lock-on AA out of the hands of infantry. In such a high density game the constant lock on warnings will be maddening enough.

As a grunt my job is to stay alive, not to worry about your mild headache.

As a pilot, your job should be to use skill, choose the correct approach angle so we can't see you out of the sun or pop up from behind those trees so we don't get a chance to use our AA. But if we see you coming and if we have AA, we deserve to be able to kill you in the interests of the fun of the game.

Don't get me wrong, as I said earlier if I don't have AA then as a grunt I'm going to die against a plane. But if I have AA, then the least I want is a fighting chance to kill you.

Stardouser · 2012-05-13, 06:11 PM

What difference does cert cost make? It should be about proper balance on the battlefield.

Originally Posted by Mechzz

Don't get me wrong, as I said earlier if I don't have AA then as a grunt I'm going to die against a plane. But if I have AA, then the least I want is a fighting chance to kill you.

A fighting chance doesn't mean 50/50. And we can't forget that for the most part, vehicles won't be able to capture the capture points. That is an advantage of infantry that cannot be disregarded.

Pyreal · 2012-05-13, 06:17 PM

Originally Posted by Ale

As long as the AA takes aim to use I'm all for it being highly effective.

Balancing Infantry to 1v1 aircraft is a complete joke though... unless they do something like make the Decimator equivalent one shot ESF's, which would take extreme skill, luck or an oblivious pilot. That would keep the hover spammers at bay without ruining the piloting experience.

Lock-on missles should be limited to AA maxes, static base defenses that require upgrades to deploy and an operator to fire, and extremely deep vehicle tech tree choices. Any lock-on missles need to be identified as ground based or A2A for pilots as they come in too.

Keep lock-on AA out of the hands of infantry. In such a high density game the constant lock on warnings will be maddening enough. Infantry could have other AA deterents, anti-material rifles like the lancer, dumbfire ESAV's that do more damage to air, the aforementioned one shot deci and flak rounds for underslung launchers and any thumper / rocklet type weapons, the ability to direct fire the pilot out through the cockpit glass, etc.

Believe me, all of the above would prevent me from farming a TR footzerg much more effectively than the slow, creeping migraine that was the only threat from every one of them carrying a striker.

It's obvious your opinion exists to further a pilot's good day, rather than balance.

With each set of unit (air, land, infantry) there exists the potential to specialize against any unit type.
Pilot's are not destined to dine on infantry, only those pilots who have an AI kits. Same goes for every other unit.

AI Infan > AA/AV Infan.
AA Infan > AA/AV flyer.
AV Infan > AA/AV ground.
Repeat for air and ground units.

There are no dedicated counters, as any unit type can change whom they counter.

Mechzz · 2012-05-13, 06:20 PM

Originally Posted by Stardouser

What difference does cert cost make? It should be about proper balance on the battlefield.

Balance, but also fun. If I've spent as much on my basic AA as the pilot has on his basic plane then we should have an equal chance to kill each other if you leave skill out of it. In other words skill should make the difference (and of course you had the luck to be carrying AA as a grunt), not the simple "Aircraft trumps everything" that certain types of balance would lead towards.

So clearly I'm making assumptions about the cost of equipment, but since I believe it is safe to assume we will all have the chance to have a basic mossie/reaver/scythe in our posession on day 1 then that won't be much more expensive than an AA kit imo.

Stardouser · 2012-05-13, 06:21 PM

Originally Posted by Mechzz

Balance, but also fun. If I've spent as much on my basic AA as the pilot has on his basic plane then we should have an equal chance to kill each other if you leave skill out of it. In other words skill should make the difference (and of course you had the luck to be carrying AA as a grunt), not the simple "Aircraft trumps everything" that certain types of balance would lead towards.

So clearly I'm making assumptions about the cost of equipment, but since I believe it is safe to assume we will all have the chance to have a basic mossie/reaver/scythe in our posession on day 1 then that won't be much more expensive than an AA kit imo.

I disagree. Infantry should not be able to 1 to 1 toe to toe an aircraft period, and cert costs don't change that. Otherwise vehicles mean nothing. I don't even fly in integrated battlefield games but I recognize that aircraft can't just be flying infantry.

Understand, however,that I also think there should be some separation between aircraft and infantry in that infantry should not be easily seen by aircraft, and there should not be any of the autoradar Robin Hood stuff that gives pilots the ability to know where the enemy is beyond their own skill and situational awareness.

Pyreal · 2012-05-13, 06:27 PM

Originally Posted by Stardouser

What difference does cert cost make? It should be about proper balance on the battlefield.

Because its not balanced if it costs me $15 to have you killed while it costs you $30 to do the same to me.

Originally Posted by Stardouser

A fighting chance doesn't mean 50/50. And we can't forget that for the most part, vehicles won't be able to capture the capture points. That is an advantage of infantry that cannot be disregarded.

True, but that is an inherent feature. When I say inherent this is what I mean:

And we can't forget that for the most part, infantry won't be able to attack from the air. That is an advantage of air units that cannot be disregarded.

Infantry capture points when that is their purpose. Do you suppose an AA/AV infantryman is going to storm a capture point? No, because their purpose is to take out air or land units. Air units kill stuff, but not all stuff at all times, and that is their purpose.

sylphaen · 2012-05-13, 06:29 PM

Originally Posted by Stardouser

Infantry should not be able to 1 to 1 toe to toe an aircraft period, and cert costs don't change that.

And that's basically the whole design problem about PS2. How do we want different playstyles to interact ?

What if that infantry player was a Heavy who equipped a weapon and dedicated to AA ? Once that guy is deployed on the field and far from any equipment terminal, he cannot switch classes and is pretty much entirely dedicated to AA. Should he be able to kill an air vehicle ?

Conversely, should the air vehicle equipped with AI be able to waste any trooper around including heavies ? How often should they need to reload ? How fast should they be allowed to switch equipment ? How much resources should switching equipment cost ?

All those decisions are part of balance but as I try to say, it's all about the design intention and less about how it ends up implemented.

Sorry if I reused your example but it's only to further explain upon my previous post and not to judge whether a trooper should or should not be able to shoot a plane down.

EDIT: if I may help to focus the discussion with one question:
what do you guys think would be a fair situation for both the aircraft and AA players and for what reasons ?
(yes, to avoid stating it later, this thread IS a theorycraft exercise because we know oh so little

)