Dopplers Air Hate thread - Page 3

Doppler · 2004-04-07, 01:39 AM

A reaver on full throttle, (no burn) still outruns every AA projectile in the game, a pinch of afterburners gets you ahead of the sparrow and the quasar rockets. My complaint is not getting blown up when running alone in the wilderness (actualy your less likely to get toasted then because their probly not looking for you) its when their hovering ovr the field of battle with the enar impunity that afterburners and quick repair grants them, AV doesnt cut it against them a skyguard usualy cant stick around because of ammo and enemy vehicle issues, AA max's are nice but their usualy dead in the open field. Yes during sieges you can scare away air for as long as you cna hold the perimiter but the innefectualness of automated defenses against AA means the whole defending force lives and dies by its AA maxs. Face it dude, the pilots life is easy.

KIAsan · 2004-04-07, 01:45 AM

I for one have been a reaver pilot, I liked it and it was a lot of fun. In fact, being a grunt again is starting to lag, so I may just recert myself one more time.

The point I'm making is not that reaver's don't die (heck, they are the #1 most killed by type in game). The point is they are so cheap (in cost) compared to other comparable weapon systems (things like tanks). Because they are so cheap and don't require an investment other than 4 certs, they are completely disposable assets that pack a very big punch. Given the availability of air towers, now you have a very cheap weapon system that also can repair/rearm very quickly too. This creates a force multiplier (same guy can keep weapons on target far longer for a cheaper price) that other vehicles just can't match.

The fact that you get shot down quickly doesn't balance the issue. Look at the balance sheet a bit. To field one tank (lets use TR for the example). I need a driver with the cert (3 certs). I also need two gunners. I also need either engy cert (3 more certs) or I need a lodestar (3 certs and another person). Without a dropship, everytime I reload, it has to be done manually. So, to field the firepower of one tank, I need at least 6 certs and 3-4 people. Plus, I have to take the time to drive that tank and personnel into battle. Ensure that the logistics support is in place. Fight, then withdraw for repairs/rearm (which takes even more time to drive to a tower and manually repair/rearm). For the reaver, I need one pilot and 4 certs. And thats it. I can quickly fly into battle, hit the target, then just as quickly withdraw to rapidly repair/rearm. If I get killed, I spawn where I need and jump right back into battle. If the tank gets blown, you have to regroup 3 people, get your tank, then drive that long distance once again back to the battle (with the same logistics train).

Solution? It's a tough one. For a start, we should either remove the air tower repair or add vehicle repairs. Just throwing more flak/aa into the game isn't going to solve the problem (other than frustrate the pilot community). But face it folks, anytime you have so many reavers in a battle, that they have time to pick off solitary troops running around, you just have too many reavers. I can tell you as a tanker, I may take a shot at a distant troop in passing, but there is no way I'm going to waste the time of such an expensive weapons system, chasing down one lone grunt in the bush.

WritheNC · 2004-04-07, 02:06 AM

A reaver on full throttle, (no burn) still outruns every AA projectile in the game

There is no way you have ever tried Air Cavalry if you think this statement is true.

Doppler, please try Air Cav before you bash it.

BadAsh · 2004-04-07, 02:18 AM

Originally Posted by WritheNC

There is no way you have ever tried Air Cavalry if you think this statement is true.

I'll second that.

And add that air dominates because people don't bother with the AA weapons as much as they should...

Let's take the Pepsi challenge...

I'll spend 2 certs on any AA max and you spend 4 on a Reaver... let's battle and see who wins...

Doppler · 2004-04-07, 02:29 AM

THat was a typo, it outruns every AV projectile, try it and see, (well cept lancer but thats difrent)

Doppler · 2004-04-07, 02:33 AM

I love how you try and bring up logical points and it degrades into either an empire hate thread or pilots suddenly bitching about their lack of armor. I think KIA makes a lot of good points.

Incompetent · 2004-04-07, 02:45 AM

Second only to the art of cloaking, flying through an enemy infested base covered in AA and getting a few kills may be the hardest thing to do in this game.

My point is that things like that shouldn't be hard, they should be fucking impossible. Here's an idea, rush into a heavily mined, 'nix infested base with a Lightning and see how long you live, or go pick a fight with a Vanguard. You can't pull that kind of crap with any other unit in a game, why should air be any different. Reavers should be like any other unit, often useful, but there are times when you need to get out and do something else.

How about this, you play a Light Scout character exclusively for a month, and if your still hung up on your Reaver sob story I might listen.

Edit: You want to kick ass out in the field, outside of base SOI's that's fine with me, thats Reaver country. Thats where Reavers should be owning. Fortified installations are not, if a couple Reavers show up at a well defended base, they should get owned. That isn't Reaver country, that's where the Tanks and Infantry play. Now, if you want to argue that there isn't really any reason to be out there, that i can sympathize with. Light units in general suffer because of that. However, that is a different issue.

Seer · 2004-04-07, 02:55 AM

KIAsan is right about force multipliers. The firepower of the reaver and the rapidity with which it is deployed, re-armed, and repaired make it a force multiplier. Tanks are powerful, but they are slow, harder to replace, harder to repair and ultimately harder to re-arm, if you live that long.

Baneblade · 2004-04-07, 03:11 AM

The Reaver should have been a multiperson aircraft...

BadAsh · 2004-04-07, 04:22 AM

Originally Posted by Seer

KIAsan is right about force multipliers. The firepower of the reaver and the rapidity with which it is deployed, re-armed, and repaired make it a force multiplier. Tanks are powerful, but they are slow, harder to replace, harder to repair and ultimately harder to re-arm, if you live that long.

Everything in this game has it's counter measure...

The reaver is primarily an air to ground attack unit designed to play hell with infantry and vehicles that don't have AA cover. If they have AA cover the reaver is then useless... just take a look at RedX's Prowler Platoons and you will see one way this can be done.... tanks and skyguards own everything... with some of the skyguards getting 40+ reaver kills in one outing...

Assuming skill is even a Mosquito should beat a Reaver in a dog fight with it's superior maneuverability and accurate firepower... once that Mossy gets on your 6 he has to make a mistake to not kill you.

Believe me reavers were my bane in the game for a while until I changed my tactics so as not to be reaver bait... then things changed in a big way... now they don't bother me and usually when I see a reaver I'm thinking "Ohh, free kill!"

And the argument about aircraft being able to easily repair is somewhat valid... just consider that most aircraft get nearly insta-gibed my AA weapons... whereas tanks don't... If you have a good tank driver you can last all night without getting killed... you can't do that in a reaver... one mistake and it's over... The tank is much more forgiving of mistakes so unless you make several in a row OR are completely zerged you will last a LONG time.

I do like to idea of a repair silo on the Gun Towers... that would be cool and fair and FUN... repairing your tank and being cloaker bait sucks...

But for nerfing air power I have to disagree... anything in this game can be a problem if you don't have the appropriate counter measure... Don't believe me? Try fighting an AI max with MA... then try it with AV... Try fighting a tank as infantry or in an assault buggy... then try fighting it with a Liberator... Likewise you can�t expect to walk around in your rexo with HA and not get owned by any reaver or mosquito that may come by and catch you in the open� now if you were walking around in an AA MAX then things would indeed be different�

Rock, Paper, scissors... Keep getting your paper shredded by scissors? Then grab a rock. Complaining that paper should be tuff enough to not be cut up is a moot argument as it would change the tactics of the game. Tactics that are built in for a purpose� there is no one wonder vehicle or unit that can win in every situation. As it should be.

PhoenixTypeX · 2004-04-07, 07:36 AM

Don't get me wrong I don't hate aircraft I love you guys as you give me something to shoot at! I say that skygaurd should be made a 1 man vehicle where you can drive and gun at the same time. I know thats just me being lazy and I also dont mind doing it the old fashioned way of parking up jumping out and into the gunners seat. You may ask why I don't have another guy gunning as I drive well thats because I don't like people stealing my XP and if I am gunning I know I am looking where I should be and doing what I think is best. The 1 manned skygaurd would make my life a whole lot easier.

WritheNC · 2004-04-07, 11:47 AM

My point is that things like that shouldn't be hard, they should be fucking impossible.

Actually, it is impossible for most pilots.

Here's an idea, rush into a heavily mined, 'nix infested base with a Lightning and see how long you live, or go pick a fight with a Vanguard.

For one, you should deserve to die for rushing into a minefield with AV all around. As for picking a fight with a vanguard or any tank, you should lose in a lightning. Sure, you both spent 3 points, but the other guy looked for a gunner and is dependant on someone else in a team effort to make your demise. In a lightning you give up the burden of being coordinated with another player to be successful, but you also give up a lot of firepower and armor.

The best counter to Air Cavalry is and will always be Air Cavalry. If you think a pilot's life is so easy, then join us and shoot us down if you can.

Desperado · 2004-04-07, 04:12 PM

Do you have any idea how hard it is to fly now? wit hthe skillguard, AA maxes, and the AV buff. I'm guessing this "1337 reaver pil0t" that scored 3 kills deserved it, he found you people all huddled together, and genious struck.

Aircraft are fragile, and are one of the few vehicles that reward skilled and smart players.

Incompetent · 2004-04-07, 04:51 PM

For one, you should deserve to die for rushing into a minefield with AV all around. As for picking a fight with a vanguard or any tank, you should lose in a lightning.

Exactly, the same way a Reaver deserves to die for rushing into an AA infested base.

In a lightning you give up the burden of being coordinated with another player to be successful, but you also give up a lot of firepower and armor.

And in a Reaver you give up the burden of being coordinated to gain speed, maneuverability, the ability to ignore terrain (when it comes to movement), the ability to quickly rearm and repair without DSC benifits and the ability to withdraw at will while maintaining superior firepower and equivilent armor to similar ground units.

I do think any new AA should maintain about the same level of lethality as the current AA, I just hate the fact that there are so few choices and it ends up being unavailable or left out because of that.

KIAsan · 2004-04-07, 07:45 PM

Originally Posted by BadAsh

Everything in this game has it's counter measure...

Yup, agree 100%. I fully realize just how fragile a reaver is. The thing that has caught my attention is not firepower balance (which is what the devs focus on). It's cost balance. Most time in game I see lots of vehicles, but tanks. Sure, there are some dedicated tank drivers (I used to be one), but looking at the time and cost of fielding a tank vs most other vehicles, and I can now see why tanks are less seen on the battlefield. I agree that nerfing airtowers is not a solution (other than pissing off pilots). Adding vehicle repair pads to some towers is a start. But somehow, there needs to be a better cost vs performance tradeoff on things like tanks.

I think a lot of the complaints about air are because they are by far the cheapest cost per performance of any vehicle out there (as well as being very versatile). True they are more fragile than a tank, however, due to the cheap cost and speed, they are able to sustain more deaths in combat and still be very effective. Combine this with the way some folks use acft (tower hot drops from a mossy come to mind), and you end up with folks getting sick of air.

I really believe, that the devs really do need to add cost as a factor in their balance equations. You see this in other cert catagories as well (the infamous surgile vs rexo is a good example where you need an implant and a 3 point cert to counter an implant). Somehow, they need to factor in the cost associated with a weapon/weapon system in with the firepower/defensive capabilities of that weapon. Untill then, we are going to continue to see threads like this one, surge or a variety of other complaints, not because the item is unbalanced in firepower, but because it is unbalanced in Cost.