Air vs. Ground Balance. You can't make it fair by making nobody happy. - Page 3

Rothnang · 2013-01-31, 10:30 AM

Originally Posted by Mietz

The other side of the coin is that if you make Air the only counter to Air it all ends always in an air-zerg which nothing can stop ever.

I don't want air to be the only counter to air, quite on the contrary. I want the fight between air and ground to be less of an absolute.

Since beta there has been bad blood in the community over air vs. ground, and I've been in both camps more or less. I started out really hating air because I was a tank player, aircraft kept killing me, and it annoyed me to no end that when I pulled a counter I couldn't stop an aircraft by myself. I eventually learned how to fly, as well as how to organize an AA squad and saw things from another perspective. In an aircraft I could kill a lot of people without them having any real chance to fight back, but any organized resistance would not simply force me to fly more carefully, but pretty much keep me out of the area completely.

Both experiences are frustrating, and there is very little in between where air vs. ground fights are concerned. This isn't a problem you have with ground vs. ground fights. A single infantryman can take down a tank if he does it right, but a single tank can also survive against a large enemy force if he plays it smart.

I want air vs. ground gameplay to be as deep as ground vs. ground fights are, and not lead to one side or the other getting shut down hard. That kind of system may be OK for an RTS, but in this game every single unit that gets destroyed or denied any action is a player, and to most people it simply isn't fun to get steamrolled to satisfy some high minded ideal of what should counter what to an insane degree.

There needs to be a meaningful fight between all units. You should never have a situation where you simply don't have enough people to do anything about getting bombed, and there should never be a situation where you're completely locked out of a fight because you can't get close enough to even shoot without getting shot to ribbons.

Mietz · 2013-01-31, 12:36 PM

Originally Posted by Rothnang

I don't want air to be the only counter to air, quite on the contrary. I want the fight between air and ground to be less of an absolute.

Since beta there has been bad blood in the community over air vs. ground, and I've been in both camps more or less. I started out really hating air because I was a tank player, aircraft kept killing me, and it annoyed me to no end that when I pulled a counter I couldn't stop an aircraft by myself. I eventually learned how to fly, as well as how to organize an AA squad and saw things from another perspective. In an aircraft I could kill a lot of people without them having any real chance to fight back, but any organized resistance would not simply force me to fly more carefully, but pretty much keep me out of the area completely.

Both experiences are frustrating, and there is very little in between where air vs. ground fights are concerned. This isn't a problem you have with ground vs. ground fights. A single infantryman can take down a tank if he does it right, but a single tank can also survive against a large enemy force if he plays it smart.

I want air vs. ground gameplay to be as deep as ground vs. ground fights are, and not lead to one side or the other getting shut down hard. That kind of system may be OK for an RTS, but in this game every single unit that gets destroyed or denied any action is a player, and to most people it simply isn't fun to get steamrolled to satisfy some high minded ideal of what should counter what to an insane degree.

There needs to be a meaningful fight between all units. You should never have a situation where you simply don't have enough people to do anything about getting bombed, and there should never be a situation where you're completely locked out of a fight because you can't get close enough to even shoot without getting shot to ribbons.

Well, there you have it, the Overall Design Problems (in short ODPs) that I've been yammering on since beta.

You have the situation above because everyone is everything and everyone is -expected- to do everything, relatively equally, at a moments notice.

The game is designed that if you encounter heavy organized AA (or air, tanks, infantry, w/e) you are supposed to pull the counter as an individual.
PS2 treats its classes as simplified loadouts and not actual classes with specializations. Every single person is able to pull an AA solution (ineffective as it is solo), every person is able to pull an AV solution, etc.

What you want is ultimately unachievable without a complete redesign of how the game works right now. Its a pitty, yes, but how the game rolls is to give every player enough dakka to counter a concentration of X.
What this ultimately results in I explained above, a balancing dance around the zerg class/vehicle of the week.

As you notice, there is almost never a discussion about balance between infantry, ground or air vehicles themselves (save for that Mag discussion that comes up every now and then) but rather between infantry, ground vehicles and air vehicles as they relate to each other.
The balance can ultimately never be achieved in a system where every person can be everything, it -always- ends in a zerg of something because the game is designed that those vehicle-groups are always "the counter" to something else.

So if you have an Air Zerg, you pull a MAX Zerg (if thats the most powerful counter to air at that moment). If there is a Tank Zerg, you pull a Liberator Zerg, etc. pp. until the end of time.

Imagine the situation from an RTS perspective and how Starcraft (where the term Zerg originated) works.
It was exactly the same problem in SC in the beginning, the factions were RPS balanced and "make marine" didn't counter "make zerg".

/rant

maradine · 2013-01-31, 01:34 PM

Originally Posted by Rothnang

The whole notion that you have to send in other units to clear out the AA is also just absolute bullshit.

This is where we vehemently disagree. If you want air supremacy, you have to work for it. That may involve people on the ground hunting the source of the river of tracers. You know, your teammates.

Look, this argument is ridiculous - let's just lay this out. From where I'm standing, you don't want a game that has cyclical counters. You want a game where everything is effective against everything, and what you pull is a matter of preference, not necessity. There's nothing wrong with that, but this isn't that game. It's also most likely not going to be that game. Come to peace with it.

Rolfski · 2013-01-31, 03:33 PM

Originally Posted by JesNC

I don't agree with either of your arguments. I feel they bring to much of a 1vs1 balance scenario into a team-based game.

1. Rolling a tank solo without paying attention to your surroundings should leave you disadvantaged vs air. Especially with MBTs it's you own fault if you don't have a gunner to watch out for ESF/Liberator threats.

2. The Liberator is a multi-crew vehicle, and only really dangerous with at least 2 players. After the recent AA changes it's flimsy enough tbh. Give solo players more tools to handle AA threats and Liberators will be gone entirely.

I know Liberator balance is a sensitive point with many players, but IMO it's at a good spot atm - it still feels dangerous on the 'recieving' end, but there are enough ways to counter a Liberator now.

The whole concept of lone-wolving revolves around keeping a low profile until you hit your intended target. There should never be a situation where one player is effective vs anything the other team throws at him - see the ESF debate for reference.

I'm talking single player empowerment without throwing off balance, not 1 man uber armies that take down anything that's coming at them.
Right now there's not much you can do as a single player besides moving along with a zerg. Going on your own should be viable high risk/high reward option and players should have tools for that like NV/thermal camo. Not a suicide risk/zero reward option as it is now.

belch · 2013-01-31, 03:37 PM

Originally Posted by Rolfski

I'm talking single player empowerment without throwing off balance, not 1 man uber armies that take down anything that's coming at them.
Right now there's not much you can do as a single player besides moving along with a zerg. Going on your own should be viable high risk/high reward option and players should have tools for that like NV/thermal camo. Not a suicide risk/zero reward option as it is now.

Ah, now that's an idea.. NV/thermal masking camouflage...I can get behind that. Maybe have it be a 1 cert to start speccing into type of deal.

But a default weapon that allows a lone wolf to plausibly "fight back" against a Lib...no thank you.

Rothnang · 2013-01-31, 03:55 PM

Originally Posted by maradine

This is where we vehemently disagree. If you want air supremacy, you have to work for it. That may involve people on the ground hunting the source of the river of tracers. You know, your teammates.

Yea, see, here is the thing. You got a tower full of enemies, it has 10 Bursters on top, and a whole mess of other guys inside.

Your air can't go near it, so what do you do? Send in the ground units right? Use that good ol' teamwork to get the AA units down so that your air can move in... Now all they have to do to clear out those MAXes for good is to put a Sunderer near the bottom of the tower, slowly work their way up killing everyone in their way until they have made it to the top to kill those pesky MAXes and camp the spawnroom so no new MAXes can appear.

Now thanks to brilliant teamwork air is free to move in and... do what exactly? The base is taken.

All this stupid blahbedeebloop people make about teamwork and taking out the AA units from the ground is always completely ignoring the fact that AA units tend to be positioned in such a way that by the time you can wipe them out and open the fight up for your air support you've already steamrolled the enemy anyways. Air shouldn't just be a cleanup crew.

Originally Posted by belch

But a default weapon that allows a lone wolf to plausibly "fight back" against a Lib...no thank you.

Why not? Think of it like C4 vs. tanks, a lone player can blow up any ground vehicle with two bricks of C4, but that doesn't present a huge issue to the games overall balance, because tanks can take steps to avoid getting hit with it. C4 isn't simply a weapon that easily kills any tank, it's a weapon that punishes tanks for risky behavior or rewards infantry for excellent sneaking. If they drive into the middle of a base and make it easy for you to get close to them they get blown up. Also vehicles have hit locations, so an HA can solo a tank with a rocket launcher as well, by just attacking it from behind - it just requires the HA to be really good, or the tank to be really bad.

What would be so wrong with having an equivalent to that that applies to aircraft? For example, imagine there was an Anti-air weapon that was incredibly strong, but it could only fire straight up. That creates a situation where the danger for the Liberator is very localized over that unit, so he can give it a wide berth, and avoid flying directly over areas where that unit might be hidden, but it also gives you a weapon that is an absolute doom to lazy Liberators that hover over your base. That would create much more interesting gameplay than simply having AA guns that can reach out and touch the Liberator anywhere in the sky for half a mile around. Deploying a lot of those things would make the sky more dangerous, no doubt, but it would be more dangerous because more units means better chances of one being successful, not because more units means they can concentrate all their fire to create an instant-death-dome.

maradine · 2013-01-31, 04:13 PM

In a battle where the enemy has literally dedicated 10 dual bursters to keeping the sky over the operational area clear, then yes - Air is on cleanup. Sorry. You're not winning this one from the sky with an equivalent number of bodies.

Rothnang · 2013-01-31, 04:40 PM

Originally Posted by maradine

In a battle where the enemy has literally dedicated 10 dual bursters to keeping the sky over the operational area clear, then yes - Air is on cleanup. Sorry. You're not winning this one from the sky with an equivalent number of bodies.

Given the fact that this game is supposed to be about mass battles and reaching the point where 10 bursters are a small part of the enemy force isn't all that uncommon in PS2 I feel perfectly justified in calling that shit design.

AA need to be more localized, it shouldn't just be this giant dome of death.

maradine · 2013-01-31, 04:56 PM

What is more localized that 10 guys on top of a tower? Dude, this is your example.

belch · 2013-01-31, 05:03 PM

Originally Posted by Rothnang

Why not? Think of it like C4 vs. tanks, a lone player can blow up any ground vehicle with two bricks of C4, but that doesn't present a huge issue to the games overall balance, because tanks can take steps to avoid getting hit with it. C4 isn't simply a weapon that easily kills any tank, it's a weapon that punishes tanks for risky behavior or rewards infantry for excellent sneaking. If they drive into the middle of a base and make it easy for you to get close to them they get blown up. Also vehicles have hit locations, so an HA can solo a tank with a rocket launcher as well, by just attacking it from behind - it just requires the HA to be really good, or the tank to be really bad.

What would be so wrong with having an equivalent to that that applies to aircraft? For example, imagine there was an Anti-air weapon that was incredibly strong, but it could only fire straight up. That creates a situation where the danger for the Liberator is very localized over that unit, so he can give it a wide berth, and avoid flying directly over areas where that unit might be hidden, but it also gives you a weapon that is an absolute doom to lazy Liberators that hover over your base. That would create much more interesting gameplay than simply having AA guns that can reach out and touch the Liberator anywhere in the sky for half a mile around. Deploying a lot of those things would make the sky more dangerous, no doubt, but it would be more dangerous because more units means better chances of one being successful, not because more units means they can concentrate all their fire to create an instant-death-dome.

Maradine replied to the part where you answered him, so I will reply to the part where you answered me.

The C4 technique you cite is extremely situational. If you are implying that a lone wolf sneaks up on a tank to do that effectively...well, you have admitted that it demands the C4 user be extremely careful in his approach to said vehicle, and the tank driver be extremely careless in the positioning of his vehicle...and even then, the lone wolf's success is probably tied to fighting in proximity to at least some allies to divert the tanks attention. Which means that he is being supported by allies, whether he is acting alone (no squad) or not. By fighting within the supporting area of allied units, is he truly a lone wolf? I support allies that I am not squadded up with all the time. In fact, as most of my buddies prefer BF over PS2, I am often NOT in a squad, but in fact do not consider myself a lone wolf at all.

That was just speaking to your analogy with C4 users of course. The suggestion you have made about AA weapons, specifically, when talking about a lone wolf being able to bring effective fires against a 3 man gunship...which by it's airborne nature has an greatly increased ability to position and reposition for a much more effective overwatch of the target area than a ground unit like a tank...that lone wolf would pretty much have to rely on something diverting the Liberators gunner long enough for him to peek out and take a shot. So he is hardly a lone wolf. In fact, I don't see where what you are suggesting differs from an AA Max as it currently exists. Unless you're implying that the lone wolf should have a default weapon that can critically damage an airborne gunship in 1 or 2 hits. But again, that is a terrible idea.

I have intentionally refrained from making comparisons with real life examples. But I am compelled to ask, are you implying that future tech crew served weapon systems should be less lethal and more fragile than current modern counterparts? Or would you feel like it's a good idea to take on an AC-130 with a handheld weapon all on your lonesome?

Rothnang · 2013-01-31, 07:18 PM

Originally Posted by maradine

What is more localized that 10 guys on top of a tower? Dude, this is your example.

They can hit every aircraft in a 3 hex radius, that isn't localized, that covers the entire battle area and then some.

Originally Posted by belch

I have intentionally refrained from making comparisons with real life examples. But I am compelled to ask, are you implying that future tech crew served weapon systems should be less lethal and more fragile than current modern counterparts? Or would you feel like it's a good idea to take on an AC-130 with a handheld weapon all on your lonesome?

What you really ought to be asking yourself if being on an AC130 makes for compelling gameplay, either for the people on it, or the people getting hit by it. Everything else is honestly irrelevant.

Also, if you're going to pose the question like that, let me ask you this: Do you think 1 guy with a rocket launcher poses 0 threat to an AC130, but 10 guys with a rocket launcher will kill it every single time?

maradine · 2013-01-31, 08:33 PM

Originally Posted by Rothnang

They can hit every aircraft in a 3 hex radius, that isn't localized, that covers the entire battle area and then some.

So, you want aircraft weapons and anti-aircraft weapons to both only operate at 100 meters or less?

Sledgecrushr · 2013-01-31, 08:40 PM

That was exactly the distance I imagine the av cannons on the bastion to be. 100 meters.
But as far as these little planes and tanks they need there range since they are all so flimsy.

belch · 2013-01-31, 09:22 PM

Originally Posted by Rothnang

What you really ought to be asking yourself if being on an AC130 makes for compelling gameplay, either for the people on it, or the people getting hit by it. Everything else is honestly irrelevant.

Also, if you're going to pose the question like that, let me ask you this: Do you think 1 guy with a rocket launcher poses 0 threat to an AC130, but 10 guys with a rocket launcher will kill it every single time?

I don't know Roth...you have the occasional "Libbers" saying that they find it boring...and yet there are a lot of them running around. Someone finds running them compelling gameplay. That, or they must enjoy boring gameplay...? But really, that is not the question I am going to ponder, as to me they are a tool within the toolkit, and if they do their job (delivering supportive fires from an aerial platform), I have no issues with anyone running them regardless of what I find compelling.

As for the 1 rocket man (RPG?) vs. 10 rocket men question...RPG's are hardly a decent comparison to the AA Max. Discussing dense AA and it's effect on gunships wasn't even the purpose of me bringing it up (quad .50 positions anyone? and that's old stuff...), but rather how ludicrous a single ill equipped trooper taking on an AC-130 would be.

But for the sake of academics...if an AC-130 could stop in mid-air, positioned within range of 10 guys with RPG's to make accurate hits on it...that AC-130 would be toast. 1 guy...not even close. And he would take a face full of 40mm Bofors, or 105 Howitzer...or 25mm Bushmaster. It would be supremely unwise of a single man to attempt that, save for some symbolic sacrifice of his own life.

GLaDOS · 2013-01-31, 11:11 PM

Originally Posted by Rothnang

Yea, see, here is the thing. You got a tower full of enemies, it has 10 Bursters on top, and a whole mess of other guys inside.

Your air can't go near it, so what do you do? Send in the ground units right? Use that good ol' teamwork to get the AA units down so that your air can move in... Now all they have to do to clear out those MAXes for good is to put a Sunderer near the bottom of the tower, slowly work their way up killing everyone in their way until they have made it to the top to kill those pesky MAXes and camp the spawnroom so no new MAXes can appear.

Now thanks to brilliant teamwork air is free to move in and... do what exactly? The base is taken.

Maybe you can't take those 10 Bursters out with a few ESFs or Libs, but I imagine a full Gal or two dropping from the flight ceiling could do the trick. That's the purpose of their heavy armor, to take a beating from AA. The aircraft with the big guns being unable to wipe out their counter doesn't mean no air can.

If the Gals get taken out somehow, you can always go with an Infil or LA sneaking up to the foot of the tower and dropping a spawn beacon, and have a squad drop down that way.

If a group is organized enough to have 10 Burster MAXes together (presumably with Engi/Medic support), you're going to think smarter than just trying to blow them up with the thing they're meant to counter.