AA max VS Sky guard! Why they must be changed. - Page 3

Calista · 2013-06-05, 10:06 AM

Originally Posted by Tiberius

Air gets out of control fast - I'd rather have pilots on the defensive than a swarm of liberators and mossies close in and ruin every fight.

I can't even believe I played this game at launch. The only reason people put up with it was because the game was new and they were excited about it.

With the massive server consolidation this game can't afford another overpowered air situation. They would just lose members.

I can tell you that in this "out of control air" situation, Higby wants air to clear it. He doesn't want air farming infantry so he gives (in my opinion) too much AA to ground based units, namely the AA MAX, but ideally he wants air against air in those situations. I think they are going too far with the Esamir domes in creating these infantry exclusive domes since it is easy enough for infantry just to spawn or drop pod up to the next base and avoid conflict between bases.

I think what they might want to consider is denying pulling MAXes from AMS. This would put more emphasis on the skyguard and air to air engagements but vehicle (air and ground) toughness and mobility (physics) needs some reworking.

Sledgecrushr · 2013-06-05, 11:15 AM

Originally Posted by Calista

I can tell you that in this "out of control air" situation, Higby wants air to clear it. He doesn't want air farming infantry so he gives (in my opinion) too much AA to ground based units, namely the AA MAX, but ideally he wants air against air in those situations. I think they are going too far with the Esamir domes in creating these infantry exclusive domes since it is easy enough for infantry just to spawn or drop pod up to the next base and avoid conflict between bases.

I think what they might want to consider is denying pulling MAXes from AMS. This would put more emphasis on the skyguard and air to air engagements but vehicle (air and ground) toughness and mobility (physics) needs some reworking.

If they remove the ability to pull aa from ams sunderers then air will once again feast on infantry that will not be able to defend itself. I believe if the devs were to follow the OPs plan then again infantry would be easily farmed.

I understand that some people only want to fly airplanes. If your need is so great to fly then one of two things need to happen. You either become a better pilot or play a game that only features flying.

I watch some very good pilots on twitch tv. These guys can have incredible kill streaks and it is tough to be a pilot. To remove the barriers we have now would mean these great pilots would move about almost unchecked, killing everyone whenever they want to. Nerfing aa would make merely competent pilots into a2g killwhores.

So my vote on this is a resounding FUCK NO!!!

snafus · 2013-06-05, 11:31 AM

Originally Posted by Sledgecrushr

If they remove the ability to pull aa from ams sunderers then air will once again feast on infantry that will not be able to defend itself. I believe if the devs were to follow the OPs plan then again infantry would be easily farmed.

I understand that some people only want to fly airplanes. If your need is so great to fly then one of two things need to happen. You either become a better pilot or play a game that only features flying.

I watch some very good pilots on twitch tv. These guys can have incredible kill streaks and it is tough to be a pilot. To remove the barriers we have now would mean these great pilots would move about almost unchecked, killing everyone whenever they want to. Nerfing aa would make merely competent pilots into a2g killwhores.

So my vote on this is a resounding FUCK NO!!!

Again my changes would still allow Infantry to rape air as we have to get within render distance to even hit you guys. And to use a few aces as your means of balance is completely out of whack man. You can't use the top 5% of pilots as the standard if the other 95% can't even come close the same results. All aspects of the game have people who break the mold for expected performance. There will always be gifted players who will outperform the vast majority in certain areas. But to try and balance a game based around such a small minority is near moronic as you alienate all the other individuals who will never be on that level. I can't tell you how many people I have seen try to fly in this game and simply say it is just to hard. If you add the ridiculous AA situation on top of all the other BS new players have to deal with it is nearly impossible for the poor bastards. I know you fear what air used to be and rightly so. But my changes would still leave AA OP as fuck. It would simply allow air to have a chance at seeing what is destroying us is all.

Calista · 2013-06-05, 12:03 PM

This game is just way too imbalanced and I personally blame it on the maxes. There are too many of them, they are too powerful and too easy to use and you can get them from anywhere. On top of that you have support roles that can pump them full of repairs while they are actively shooting and engys dropping ammo of any type whenever needed. Something needs to limit the use of them. And now you have AMS'es with almost half the interference radius as before. So will we see twice as many maxes in a general area? Put domes on top of bases with high walls and so long combined arms.

MrMak · 2013-06-06, 12:34 PM

Originally Posted by Sledgecrushr

If they remove the ability to pull aa from ams sunderers then air will once again feast on infantry that will not be able to defend itself. I believe if the devs were to follow the OPs plan then again infantry would be easily farmed.

I understand that some people only want to fly airplanes. If your need is so great to fly then one of two things need to happen. You either become a better pilot or play a game that only features flying.

So my vote on this is a resounding FUCK NO!!!

"If they do not diminish the effectivnes of burster MAXes in favour of stronger Skyguards and other vehicle based AA then infantry in easy to aquire Exo suits will continue to feast on Aircraft that will not be able to defend themselves. I believe if the devs were to not follow the OPs plan then aircraft would continue to be easily farmed by things they cant even see.

I understand that some people only want to run on foot in this combined arms game. If your need is so great to stay on the ground then one of two things need to happen. You either make sure you have proper vehicle AA or play a game that only features infantry.

So my vote on this is a resounding FUCK YES!!!"

See? Its that simple.

Now for the 9001st time. WE DO NOT WANT TO NERF AA ACROSS THE BOARD!

WE WANT TO NERF THE BURSTER AND BUFF VEHICLE BASED AA SO THAT THE 2ND CHEAPEST MOST PLENTIFULL AND EASY TO CONCEAL AIRCRAFT COUNTER IS NOT THE MOST POWERFULL.

If you cant be arsed to have a skyguard or 2 around in a significant fight then you are probably playing the wrong game.

Edit: Also the person above me is exagerating in the other direction.

maradine · 2013-06-06, 12:43 PM

Originally Posted by MrMak

Now for the 9001st time. WE DO NOT WANT TO NERF AA ACROSS THE BOARD!

WE WANT TO NERF THE BURSTER AND BUFF VEHICLE BASED AA SO THAT THE 2ND CHEAPEST MOST PLENTIFULL AND EASY TO CONCEAL AIRCRAFT COUNTER IS NOT THE MOST POWERFULL.

Nerfing the "2nd cheapest and most plentiful and easy to conceal aircraft counter" *is* an across the board nerf to AA. I'm not getting how you're missing the logic.

The improvements you'd need to make to the Skyguard to counterbalance for its comparative vulnerability, noticeability, and lack of universal availability would make it stunningly powerful. Beta powerful. Like, "I see you, you're dead" powerful. I, personally, would love that. I would support that. Would you?

MrMak · 2013-06-06, 02:20 PM

No. i want Vehicle and turret based AA to be effective at longer ranges and the infantry based AA to beeffective at shorter ragnes not the other fucking way around like it is now.

Why do people automaticaly assume that reducing the effectivness of the busters automaticaly takes them out of the equation entirely.

They should only be able to defend their emediate area (infantry render range) not heavy damage to aircraft from a position a skyguard or ranger might maybe start hiting them.

If you dont see the problem with a heavy infantry guy being far more effective against aircraft than a dedicated AA vehicle then im sorry but we dont have anything to talk about.

maradine · 2013-06-06, 02:22 PM

I do see the problem. I'm on extensive record, both pre-launch and post, advocating the SG as the primary air defense platform.

What is not getting through, however, is how much of a change would need to be made in the current environment to support the flip of those roles without altering the overall air/ground balance. Spoiler alert: a lot. More than I suspect many would be comfortable with.

SolLeks · 2013-06-06, 05:34 PM

Originally Posted by maradine

I do see the problem. I'm on extensive record, both pre-launch and post, advocating the SG as the primary air defense platform.

What is not getting through, however, is how much of a change would need to be made in the current environment to support the flip of those roles without altering the overall air/ground balance. Spoiler alert: a lot. More than I suspect many would be comfortable with.

no, not really.

Burster = infintry render. still high damage, still able to pull from anywhere, not the 'king of AA'
G2A Launchers = Infintry render. faster lock (to account for less range) same damage. also becomes a point defense. (this change would also let people take somthing other then flaires, as not all A2A ESF have A2AM, it lets the other defense slots become more useful)

'small tank/sundie AA' = more range then burster, but still less than tank render. May need some damage adjustments to make them worth wile.

Skygaurd = Tank render distance, Accuracy buffed within that range, damage same (it rips through aircraft as is). You can't pull it from anywhere so it requires a bit of for thought.

For all vehicles, Able to re equip their loadouts at specified places ala how infantry can.

This will do a few things.
1. Maxes, G2Am and 'small' vehicle AA becomes more of a infantry point defense. Gibs aircraft that try attacking infantry, does not hurt aircraft that are 3 hexes out.
2. Skygaurds also become a point defense out to tank render range. Gibs aircraft that try attacking tanks and other ground vehicles, but does not hurt aircraft out to 3 hexes away.
3. Gives A2A ESF back their job, lets us hunt aircraft that are just out of reach of the skygaurd, however they are still unable to hurt anything at that point (execpt other air units).

Does not sound to hard to do, most of it would just require tweeking the numbers, the only thing that would be a pain is getting the vehicle re equip thing, and that is not 100% necessary for this however it really is needed for this game anyway.

maradine · 2013-06-06, 05:50 PM

Still not getting my point. You can't nerf something ubiquitous and buff something rare by the same amount and get an overall equivalent state. Infantry AA is ubiquitous. Vehicle AA is not. You could make the argument that changing the roles in the manner described would make Infantry AA less ubiquitous and Vehicle AA more so, but that parity is impossible given the locations you can pull each from and their comparative costs. As long as vehicles are harder to deploy and more expensive to acquire, that's an intrinsic and irreconcilable difference.

Therefore, to do A) what you're asking while B) maintaining existing force parity, the SG (and otherwise vehicular) buff needs to be bigger than the comparative Burster (and otherwise infantry) nerf.

I'm not saying that's a bad thing. I'm saying everyone should understand what they're asking for.

Sledgecrushr · 2013-06-06, 09:10 PM

The op in a not so thinly veiled way only wants an overall weakenening of g2a defenses. I have to say that the first couple of months when g2a defenses were weak that this game was pretty miserable for everyone not flying an airplane. And Im sorry for the op and his defenders that flying is difficult but a return of airside would be unacceptable.

Your plan will not work and if put into effect would break the tenuous ballance that the game holds now.

SolLeks · 2013-06-07, 01:37 AM

Originally Posted by maradine

Still not getting my point. You can't nerf something ubiquitous and buff something rare by the same amount and get an overall equivalent state. Infantry AA is ubiquitous. Vehicle AA is not. You could make the argument that changing the roles in the manner described would make Infantry AA less ubiquitous and Vehicle AA more so, but that parity is impossible given the locations you can pull each from and their comparative costs. As long as vehicles are harder to deploy and more expensive to acquire, that's an intrinsic and irreconcilable difference.

Therefore, to do A) what you're asking while B) maintaining existing force parity, the SG (and otherwise vehicular) buff needs to be bigger than the comparative Burster (and otherwise infantry) nerf.

I'm not saying that's a bad thing. I'm saying everyone should understand what they're asking for.

Back in beta, the skygaurd was The AA weapon, and even more powerful than the current bursters by a good bit. There was no end to skygaurds. If they become the better AA weapon, then more people will pull them simple.

AA was never weak. It was preceved weak as not a lot of people had certs into it and there were other problems like the lack of Exp. These things have been fixed.

Originally Posted by Sledgecrushr

break the tenuous ballance that the game holds now.

If by 'Ballance' you mean aircraft slaughter, sure, but that needs to be broken. Hell, even Higgles has stated that the air and ground relationship that is going on right now is not what they want.

MrMak · 2013-06-07, 05:21 AM

Hell id be ok with a singel skyguard being just as effective as 2 current burster MAXes if it means The MAXes alone cant completly lock down the airspace around the area.

A Skyguard can be spoted and eliminated by ground forces to clear the way for air suppoert

With burster MAXes the only times the ground forces is completly overwhelm the enemy and at that point they dont realy need airsupport anymore.

psijaka · 2013-06-07, 07:41 AM

On Waterson I recently came across a party of EIGHT AA MAXes on top of a turret tower.

psijaka · 2013-06-07, 07:55 AM

Originally Posted by snafus

... But my changes would still leave AA OP as fuck. It would simply allow air to have a chance at seeing what is destroying us is all.

I do support your proposed changes in principle, snafus, but to say that they will "still leave AA OP as fuck" is a bit of an exaggeration, surely.