When are we going to get a counter for libs?

Hush, the Sky-Knights might read this (if they can read) and come chasing you down for spouting heresy!

In PS2, tanks can't "press the objective" either. In fact air has a much better chance at it, because at least in those walled-off bases air has an easier time shooting over those darn walls. Whereas tanks can at most mill around the outside, maybe get a lucky shot on a LA that pops over the wall and risk getting C4'd.

Ideally, a balanced game shouldn't have a hierarchy, where one unit is better than all other units. Instead there should be a rock-paper-scissors type of balance where no unit is at the top of the hierarchy, and instead each unit is effective at countering another unit, while in turn each unit is vulnerable to another unit.

In many other games, it goes something like tanks kill infantry, air kills tanks, infantry kill air. Each unit has a counter to it, and in turn is effective against another class of units. So if the enemy is building tons of tanks, rush them with air. Then they'll build lots of infantry to counter your air, and that's when you switch to tanks.

But in PS2 you have tanks being effective against other tanks, but vulnerable to infantry. Infantry in turn can get farmed by a wide variety of air. And air... well the top 8 causes of death of ESFs are other air, and the top 11 Liberator causes of death are also other air.

This is not a balanced game.

And you know, I always thought that the counter to air might be the thing called anti-air. "Anti" meaning opposite or opposed. Like how an antivenom neutralizes poison and antivirus kills off viruses. Usually when you see the prefix "anti" in front of something, that means that it is opposed to or effective against whatever follows.

No I didn't make a point. I asked a question and you dodge it like a left wing politician. Answer it and I can give you a point or a suggestion.

I answer your question.....you didnt understand,i give up.

As has been noted multiple times in this very thread, air is only resilient by leaving a field of battle. It is neither able to take good advantage of cover, nor possessing of great health/resilience, nor able to be repaired whilst in action. Whilst I can roll 20 tanks up to a Biolab (the most inaccessible base to both tanks and aircraft) and be fairly comfortable that I will be able to contain any (similar sized) infantry force there so as to begin the capture of a base, doing the same with 20 aircraft is substantially less effective, as aircraft have no staying power to provide constant suppression to an infantry force - each aircraft must flee and either land in cover or leave render distance every single time it is attacked. This is what I mean by the ability to press an objective; literally 'press', NOT capture.

I do accept the point though that tanks are semi-redundant on Esamir with its awful CoD arena style battles. It should be noted though that sitting 100m outside the wall of a base and ensuring no enemies get out of said wall to take the attacking Sunderer is far easier in a tank than in an aircraft (which either chooses to hover low enough that it's likely to get AP shelled out of the sky, or high enough that spawn room warriors can force it to flee, or make continual passes, reducing its effectiveness as a point defense) - hence I would still maintain that tanks are more helpful in this regard than aircraft, which are really only potent at affecting combat inside these walls when the enemy are already contained and outnumbered.

I disagree though that rock-paper-scissors would be a good implementation in this game, for one very simple reason. In almost all other games that possess the inf>air>tank>inf approach, infantry, air and tanks are equal in terms of the skill vs risk vs reward balance. This is not the case here, since infantry are not a 'choice', they are the lowest common denominator. Anything that is not infantry should possess more killing power than said infantry, otherwise it makes the cost of a tank/air redundant. If you have a situation as you describe and your enemy are weak logistically (i.e. are running out of resources and only able to field infantry), their potency vs aircraft remains unchanged, whilst their potency vs tanks diminishes - simultaneously, the role of enemy air becomes redundant, the role of enemy infantry becomes redundant, and the role of enemy tanks becomes farmfarmfarm. It's not a rewarding victory for anyone.

PS2 also has more complicated objectives than your example of 'if you build X, we build Y' - this occurs exactly the same with a hierarchy. Why? Because as you've noted, units differ in their ability to strike certain areas. If aircraft are the 'top' of the hierarchy, does a side with only aircraft always win? No, it always loses to a side with only one infantry. If the side with only aircraft now gets two infantry, it's probably going to win. Now the opponent has 4 infantry to guarantee success... The sky battle is too intense for aircraft to focus down the enemy Sunderer, and the outnumbered infantry won't ever get to it... But a tank could. So now the opponents need two tanks to defend their Sunderer. So we send three tanks... Eventually, we've only got 5 guys in the sky and they've got 7... They take us out and can now make us regret committing so many forces to the ground battle...

Just to throw this in on your final point...




anti
ˈanti/
informal
preposition

1. 1.
   opposed to; against

The Anti-fascist movement doesn't destroy fascists on sight. Antislavery doesn't eradicate slavery simply by existing, or even by talking to a slaver. Being anti-choice doesn't allow someone to stop abortions. Antivenom doesn't always work, and neither does an antivirus. Your preception is incorrect... 'Usually when you see the prefix "anti" in front of something, that means that it is opposed to or effective against whatever follows.' Only the former is accurate. Its effectiveness is not derived from its opposition.
I'm pretty sure that all AA in this game is opposed to/fights against aircraft. What they don't do is guarantee a kill. Why don't they? Well that comes back to the point we made about resilience by resistance, resilience by cover, and resilience by retreat. AA can kill an ESF -WAY- faster than AV kills a Lightning. But how fast does AV kill a Lightning that's behind a wall? The Lightning's defense is to position itself well to avoid incoming fire. The ESF's defense is to flee the battle. Hilariously for all the complaining, it takes FAR less time to remove an ESF from combat (normally a couple of shots from a Commissar will do it) than it does a Lightning, or in many cases, infantry. What people want is the ability to KILL these things with no requisite skill, rather than simply make their presence a non-issue, and that simply isn't a viable option without making them impotent at the same time.

In counter = multiple aa or multiple esf which involves teamwork. L2p

Galaxy would be the best if the game was sticking to its Roots and actually living up to stressing strong Outfit play Dynamics.
Whenever we hear "Galaxy Incoming" over TS, the first impulse is NOT palm-sweat, but more of a salivating impulse like we'd just heard there was an EXE moskie zerg whisping our direction .... b/c its about to rain free Certs. Meanwhile whenever we hear "3-4 Libs Incoming!!" ... it's usually followed by "just redeploy / C4 your own tank, deny them the XP'" **

**Especially when it's Redtails, PINK, CIK, Baid, or in special cases, LibN

Kinda false with FS / NAR ..

I see people saying counter Libs with your own Libs .. If that's the case then something is broken .. ESF's are supposed to be the counter to Libs ..

So I would suggest reducing Libs resistance versus ESF weapons ..

By 'in action', I specifically mean whilst being shot at and returning fire. A ground vehicle can have its survivability massively improved simply by having an Engineer stand behind it repairing it - FS nor NAR provides this level of increased resilience.



I think the reason that people resort to 'counter it with a Liberator' is because this forces a level playing field where the only deciding factor is skill, so it stops people from getting into the (go-to skillless defence of) 'only awesome pilots can do that'/'it only works against bads'. I don't think there is any pilot worth his salt that would suggest ESFs are not a more than adequate Lib counter, nor any Lib pilot that feels an ESF piloted with half a brain is anything other than a massive threat. Certainly I've never felt the need to even hesitate before engaging any of the crack Lib teams we have on Miller in an ESF, and I win more than I lose (which really shouldn't be the case given that I'm going 1v2...) - if you actually look at an even fight (2 ESFs vs 1 Liberator), if those ESFs lose they absolutely deserved to.

I'm pretty sure you've been told before that the reason is scale. If AA works as a solo counter, then in any large battle where there is more than one source of AA, all air is immediately made redundant. This happens with the current implementation of AA in almost every situation anyway, but if AA were given 3 times the potency (most AA becomes truly lethal when you have three of them, ergo AA not requiring teamwork would need two-three times the power) it would be a guaranteed instagib for any ESF/Lib to do anything other than farm tiny battles of three opponents.

This is the eternal battle though; finding a way for air to be relevant to large scale combat the game is intended for, without making any small battle a walk-over simply by bringing one aircraft. I do not see there being a resolution that adequately combats this, and hence given that the game is marketed on the basis of massive conflict, I would much rather see all 6v6 combat ruined by aircraft than see aircraft unable to participate in anything beyond 12v12.

I know you don't feel the same, and it's for the devs to decide which of us is right (and by 'right', obviously I mean, 'more profit-bearing' )...

You made a statement but didn't directly answer the question, I'll just assume you don't want to farm. That's fine.

In that case your counter is simply to ignore them. Staying inside buildings negates their ability to do anything. This is difficult when defending, but in any case defending doesn't give you any progress. Meaning if you stay and defend a base, the attackers can simply keep attacking. The only way to truly stop an attack is make it impossible for them to attack the base you are defending by attacking the base they are lattice line connected.

Granted moving out from the base is harder with Libs, so redeploy and grab Galaxies. Drop in on their points and cap their base. What happpens here is the attacking forces falter and fall back. Libs lose support and have to retreat as well. Libs can't defend bases well. As well most bases have indoor capture points. The Lib crew will have to make a choice, either move or ditch the lib, depending on whether they are farming or trying to win. Most are farming so they will just move elsewhere. Those aren't really a threat, but an annoyance.

You shouldn't have to worry about libs if you're not farming certs. The counter you want is already in game. Libs don't do so well against Galaxy drops. In fact there isn't a counter to Galaxies (not one a zerg can employ anyways). Thats another issue entirely.

If you're looking for a counter that isn't a Strategic or Tactical one. Just use 3 heavies with lockons. Lockon together on the same Lib and fire on command. Then have them fire at will. After 3 rocket hits, the next one or two hits will destroy it. Most libs will sit and take a rocket lock thinking its one guy. But when 3 hit and severely damage it, it will begin to move... too late as the next 2-3 rockets will likely hit as well. Works really well with a burster max hitting it as they won't even hear the locks.

I don't think that the data bears this out. Liberators have 5,000 HP. A Lightning, on the other hand, has 3,000 HP. MBTs have 4,000 HP. Both the Lightning and the Liberator take the same damage bonus from AP cannon (an extra 25%). In some other ways the Liberator is even more resistant to damage than the Lightning, and for things like dumbfires the Liberator resists 55% of damage while the Lightning resists nothing.

Only advantage that the Lightning has is its directional armor resist, but even that cannot compare to what the Liberator can take.

And the resource difference is a measly 50.

As others have pointed out, with NAR the Liberator can indeed (and often does) repair while in action.

Rolling armor to a Biolab is rather useless. Containing infantry with armor at a Biolab is tactically unsound, as infantry can literally jump right over the heads of armor to proceed to any of the satellite bases nearby. At least with aircraft you can respond to infantry landing at satellite bases; with armor by the time you roll up the infantry will have already holed up in a building.

So if your argument is that armor has the ability to do something to contain infantry at a Biolab, I would say that you greatly overestimate the role of armor. A Liberator in the sky can at least clear the landing pads and prevent infantry from accessing the jump pads, but all a MBT on the ground can do is try and ward off C4 faries from Sunderers parked underneath the landing pads (which is a bit of a useless mission because friendly infantry can always assault from nearby satellite bases).

Any vehicle is rendered ineffective by trying to camp a spawn room, but the point still stands that at least aircraft can have a more direct role in it. It may not be that effective, but it is still far better than what a tank can do in the same situation.

What exactly do you offer as a balance mechanic instead of a rock-paper-scissors system? I mean before you said that air should be at the top of a hierarchy for reasons that I don't fully understand... but you can't possibly be serious about that? I mean what's then stopping a tanker from arguing that tanks should be at the top of the hierarchy, or an infantry player from arguing that it is they that should be at the top?

This is my point in a nutshell - no offensive flying vehicle should have more health than a slow moving heavily armoured tank.

What you've just described here is the reason that Infantry need to be able to kill everything.

So long as it is possible for a faction to become resource depleted, you risk a pure infantry vs. mixed vehicle battle. You can solve this by either making vehicles plentiful, or giving Infantry the tools necessary to win. Vehicles in Planetside aren't exactly scarce, but if you start losing it's very easy to become resource/timer locked. Which then brings us to the title of the thread; Resource starved infantry don't really have a dependable counter to Liberators.

And I in turn see something wrong with proposing the counter to Libs is a vehicle that has been described by its biggest fans as having a 3 month learning curve to 'git gud'.

Because pilots are the loudest ones

How it's felt on forumside this past month or so

No. The only counter to Air should NOT be other air.

The reason they want Air to be the only counter to air is because they know that the average player isn't a very skilled pilot and thus wouldn't actually be a threat to them.

Pilots seem absolutely terrfied that their precious aircraft might actually die a few times and will come up with any amount of convoluted and bogus ways that they can to make sure they are never killed.

It isn't. You can use AA lock on to shoo away individual crafts. Flak from bursters or skyguards work wonders for clearing your near vicinity of air.

You want it gone permanently?

If they have steady resources coming in then quite frankly that is not possible. Even if flak was made more powerful.

You need your own air to fight their air.

Libs are just too maneuverable. They can eat a massive amount of AA and then do a half roll onto their backs and dive away with the speed of an ESF. Either lots of armor or maneuverability, not both. That's the same problem we had with ZOE.