[Suggestion] Aerial Bombers

Nowhere did I say ''no one'', please don't put words in my mouth so I'll just assume that was a mistake.
Also please show me proof as to who took you up on your offer, I'd like a response from them from their account not from you. Also 1 person is scheduled, out of how many that saw or responded in that thread? Not a very good method to base your observations out of 1 person.

Openly insulting a person isn't very mature, didn't someone say you were banned from your forum account because you insulted someone?.

Since how is my opinion dumb, multiple people ''liked'' it and some I have no connections with or disagree on pretty much everything they say, [ I actually disagree on many things with Demigan, Chingles and Iridar but I respect their opinions and I assume they respect mine too, but by insulting my opinion you lost my respect and I am a very simple person, show respect get respect.]

Please show me where he Dalton was explained, that an A2G weapon kills more Air units per hour and per unit then a dedicated AA unit, something doesn't seem right there, just not sure what?

Also no AA has the effective range of 1000 meter radius, you know 2000 diameter, lockons have 450/500 meters max and Flak/Walker [ground version] can't kill that far. Pilots often say wait till Aircraft get close to get a chance of killing them or else they run away, but against something like Hornets, Tank Busters, AI weapons, Galaxy C4 fairies they say don't let them get close, so AA can't seem to win because if we let air get close we have a very high chance of death, while if we keep them far away we can't kill them.

I strongly believe we're at an impasse, we're not going to convince each other anything and your starting to insult people to try and get your point across which lost all the respect I had for you so let's agree to disagree and continue on with our lives.

Air dominates in any fight. There is never just one aircraft in a medium or large fight. There is usually more than 10. All with zephyrs, rocket pods, banshees/air hammers/ppa, all running stealth which makes it quite difficult to predict where the player is coming from and/or defend yourself if you are in a tank out in the open. With the tank buster being able to rip apart anything in under 2 seconds no matter what it is, stealth makes defending against liberators near impossible. Stealth also makes it near impossible to tell where an ESF is when they swoop down, spam AI weapons and then take all their damage on their way out while surviving, just to repair and come back. Air has ALWAYS dominated. It dominates in battlefield. It dominates in Planetside 2, it dominates in nearly every game that has combined arms. There are no devs who can actually balance aircraft. Especially within planetside 2. At least you needed to have skill to fly in battlefield. In Planetside 2, all you need is stealth, fire suppression, auto repair, and rocketpods with an AI gun then you have effectively become the most hated person in the fight.

In no way is air ever useless unless you have one friendly aircraft being ripped apart by 20 enemy aircraft which is usually what happens. I always say there is NEVER just one aircraft. Give it a few seconds and a dozen will follow. give it another 5 minutes and 24 will follow.

Well I'm still waiting for a recent (I know that video of a dozen Liberators from their "flying fortress" days attacking scarred mesa) videoproof how air dominates the defenseless groundpounders.

I'd also be happy to see a video taken from the ground view instead of the air.
As long as it shows that there is decent G2A fire.... after all anybody can dominate if the victim doesn't shoot back.
Not being able to take down air because a dozen tanks and an infantery platoon won't let you is no airdominance either.

Let's leave this exhausted topic behind and get back to the proposal at hand.

Liberators are the aerial bomber of Planetside 2. Like it or not. I suppose there might be a market for giving ESFs bombs that drop from their wings rather than fly from them like rockets but, by all accounts, this is something the Liberator should be doing. In the end, though, I say the Liberator's curent weapons are better-suited to the task. If you want a weapon that you drop and everyone in n radius dies, you'll not get enough players who will stomach it.

I'll stomach it if you give me flak that can do what happens at 0:54 in this video...

Hand over those bombs, and I'll let you have the FLAK.

So.... do ESFs get bombs too, or does that gun have problems aiming at things so small and agile?
And what does the Skywhale, as the biggest target in the sky, get to compensate for this?

They might as well. Not sure that will make them more efficient than they already are. Seriously how many bombs would they have to carry to make them a better choice than the dozens of rockets they can currently unleash ?

Well I think the Galaxy should the one that gets to do the carpet bombing.

Not all ServerSmash fights are large fights. 20 ESFs just mean 20 x the certs.

Spam as many ESFs as you want. You still can't kill the 2 burster maxes in the spawn room or find the 3 random guys with G2A lock ons.

Please show me a video of you dominating with an ESF in a large fight.

I can show you videos of me being insta-gibbed when I approach one.

I miss my PS1 Liberator dearly too but unfortunately a bomber for PS2 wouldn't work any more without a complete redesign of the game. I hate to say this but the others are right. Adding an additional plane in the skies would flood the skies even more and reduce the effectiveness of ground vehicle. SOE decided to go for the gunship type Liberator and I doubt the Devs are going to change their minds this far into the development of the game. If you're curious how OP a bomber would currently be, imagine a valk with remote spawn or a Galaxy filled with light assault C4 fairies or engies with tank mines dropping on an armoured column. I've done it before and it can change the outcome of a zerg fight in a few seconds. A single plane shouldn't have that much power in PS2.

I don't fly ESFs, Sherlock.

Which proves what, exactly? That you're a bad pilot? Kinda doesn't help your case.

Then why are you trying to argue that air works in big fights when you have no clue? You saw a couple ESFs in a fight and knee jerk thought they're winning? lol get out.

It means, I can offer proof. Whereas you can only offer opinions.

In Ceres vs. Cobalt Mergersmash - that's exactly how things went there. Ceres gave up air superiority from the start, and Cobalt just bombarded all bases into oblivion. The event was casted by INICast, I'm not friends with twitch, but you can try to find the recording here: http://www.twitch.tv/inicast

From the testimonies of other people who frequently watch / participate in similar events, the side to win air superiority wins the battle.

I do have a clue, and proof. Unlike you, who only have personal, subjective experience of being a bad pilot.

your proposal sounds like a bad version of a liberator using duster/zepher so i don't think anyone would use it :S

I recall that last week a guy turned up with a video that had clips of him annihilating MBT's (and by extension, Lightnings) in 4 seconds using Hornets.

It also featured clips of Burster MAXs getting wrecked by Hornets.

Maybe you should watch the stream. Not all of server smash is 96vs96. Just, because air was used strategically, doesn't mean it was used to dominate big fights.

From the testimonies of pretty much everyone who has touched air the overwhelming majority says air does not approach big fights.

You have no clue. Show some proof, not just quotes taken out of context from other people. All you're doing is offering up opinions from someone who is not even a pilot.

Yes, please watch the video. Notice how there's hardly anyone else around.

Not sure what you mean, cobalt vs. ceres was 240 vs 240, and it's exactly like air was used there. Maybe you should watch the stream.

Because they, like you, bring one ESF, that sticks out in the sky like a sore thumb. Everyone hates ESFs, so naturally they concentrate fire.

One player is unable to influence a big battle, nor should he be able to. Bring 20 ESFs = 20 players, and you'll dominate.

So because dozens were at the objective instead of running around outside like headless chickens, you assume there was no one else there on that basis alone.

When you have multiple air targets, you get "distributed fire" where the AA is probably going to pick different targets or just engage the general area with fire. This means that there is a greater chance of survival for the wing, as each one may only take fire from a single source of AA.

I mean yes you're really screwed if the AA happens to all be coordinating ("fire at the bright yellow Liberator"), but you could say the same if the air units were also closely cooperating ("enemy Skyguard near the ammo tower, engage with Hornets").

When you get an air swarm (like AOD is fond of doing) you generally can't kill that many on the first or second pass. By then of course it is reasonable that the air units have cleared out whatever objective they needed to (Sunderers) so they don't need to hang around. The more passes aircraft make or the longer they stay over a certain area, the greater the risk that they'll finally face coordinated AA fire (or just enough of it that it feels coordinated).

So if air travels in groups and doesn't overextend, then air does perfectly fine... just like other vehicles in the game!