[Guide] About AA buff suggestions

The current "buff AA" threads all miss some important points, I'd like to get that sorted out a bit.

Anti Air is not supposed to be abled to instantly kill every aircraft you see.
Anti Vehicle weapons don't do that either, right?
Being abled to take out every ESF with a single Skyguard/Phalanx AA would be rediculous OPposed to pilots.
Liberators and Galaxies have more AA resistance because they carry more people.

Simple thinking: An ESF has a certain ammount of health and one pilot, a Liberator and Galaxy has the possibility to transport more people, they get more health for each player they can carry more.

Looking at the numbers:
ESF health: 1750
Liberator health: 4000 (2.28 x ESF health)
Galaxy: 12000 (6.86x ESF health)


But undoubtedly there are some flaws about AA.
Well, it is one major flaw...
Its efficiency over range.
Anti Air is only really effective over a relatively short range, when you look at the flight ceiling height to compare.

Aircrafts can fly in a height of 800-900 meters.
The efficient range of Anti Air is 200-300 meters.

Long range Anti Air is not a real threat for any aircraft with 25% health or more, it can simply fly away from AA.
A fully healed aircraft can even stay in an area quite long before it has to leave.

Since Anti Air is vulnerable to vehicles and infantry, it is best positioned in distance to an attacked base.
That means, it has to work over long range, where it is inefficient.

Honestly, that does not sound too bad, does it?
No safe AA farming on long range and no safe A2G farming close to AA.
You have to find a middle between suicide and being useless, a place where you have to keep an eye open to the ground but can threaten aircrafts.
There is a certain kind of balance.

People suggest a reduction of the Anti Air cone of fire.
You don't want that...
The AA projectile spread allows you to cover a bigger cone shaped area with your bullets, you don't have to be that accurate, which is good, since aircrafts fly fast and can turn quickly.
Imagine your bullets would have pinpoint accuracy, how many of them would you hit?
On a stationary or slow moving target, you can hit most of them if you are good.
When the target flies faster and in a straight line, it allready gets harder to hit it.
As soon as the aircrafts moves at high speed and does turns in all directions, it will be almost impossible to hit it.
The smaller the cone of fire, the less your chance to hit a fast moving aircraft.

Historical argument: High calibre slow firing but very accurate Anti Air canons were used by the Germans in WW2.
These guns were quite efficient.
But you also do realize that it was not used only against single aircrafts but against larger groups.
Their big flaw: when the aircrafts did an unsuspected turn, your shell went for the stars.
Here is an old WW2 training video how AA works and how to evade it:
If you don't believe me, feel free to take a Vanguard or Prowler and try to shoot at single fast moving aircrafts over 300-400 meter range with the main canon.
You will hit nothing.

Obviously, a small cone of fire is not the solution.

If you really want to give AA a higher efficiency over range, increase the projectile velocity.
You don't have to lead targets as much as before and the over range efficiency is increased because the aircrafts have less time to do a turn to evade the AA fire.

I don't think increasing AA velocity by 10% - 15% would be a terrible idea.
It would simply make AA a bigger threat to aircrafts over mid range, the midly safe ground for AA to be placed at is shifted away from the enemy force a bit.
That also makes AA more vulnerable to small groups of enemies, since their teammates can't protect them as good anymore.
AA has to watch out for ground threats more than before, what distracts them from doing their job as Anti Air, what favours aircrafts a bit.
Again, a certain balance is created.

This is probably the best suggestion, other than buffing top armor, that I've read. It's better than buffing the armor because skyguards shouldn't be more killer vs ESFs than they are, and it rewards positioning and awareness.

why would you want to increase AA effectiveness out to ranges where air isn't even a threat to ground targets in the first place? ground targets don't render for air before what 300m? where as air easily renders out to 1000m (i'm not 100% sure about the exact values but its definitely a gigantic difference)

flak and walker fire in actuality is already plenty effective over long distances. it's just that people with no or little flying experience don't see the value of dealing only small amounts of damage from way way beyond render range to delicate, highly visible targets.
they don't see the value in completely surprising and maybe disorienting their enemies to a point where that very moment of sudden unexpected incoming damage makes them panic and crash or lose a fight two hexes away against another plane or AA unit.
they don't see the value in drawing indicatory lines in the skies that everyone in a huge proximity can see and respond with their own AA or air pulled from one of a hundred stationary and mobile (AMS) terminals readily available on a continent.

I'm primarily talking about ESF gameplay, because ESFs are the ones that would be the most affected by this change.

in our current situation every halfway sane pilot will already instantly commence evasive maneuvers once flak or walker fire starts hitting them. no matter how little the damage because you often don't know where it is coming on the initial impact and you don't know how many eyes are pointed at you at this moment. and the last thing you want is being engaged by another plane while you're under highly indicatory AA fire. those noisy and explody hits from flak and (to a lesser degree) walker fire take away a lot of your attention that could be needed elsewhere. this is particularly nerve wrecking with inconsistent hits which is typically the case with long range flak/walker.

now being under fire from multiple sources, constantly lit up by a stream of tracer rounds on top of a dorito over your head, generally puts a lot of stress on you. for one because you have to deal with more than just one enemy and because of knowing that the longer you stick around the more enemies will smell a rat and respond. I would argue that even the most experienced pilots are feeling this way and fear flak at any distance for these reasons.

I for one can't count the times where I've lost an air fight that previously went completely in my favor, just because all of a sudden some random AA turret guy plugged me from two hexes away, completely throwing my aim off or causing me to make some other random mistake like starting to run while the other guy was hiding lock ons under his skirt or even crashing while commencing evasive maneuvers. Or as time passed more and more AA units and air started to engage me, obviously because I was being lit up by AA fire on top of that fancy dorito above my head.

I will just go out on a limb and say that flak has a little bit too much range actually. what flak needs is more close range firepower in exchange for a general range reduction.

AA is fine, borderline OP right now. Let's not touch it.

I dunno the ranger is pretty trash.

Say that again when the Dalton does not perform better then the Skyguard at killing air.

As someone attempting to fly, I totally agree with you, WUNDER8R, AA is in a good state currently.
The post was more intended to lead people suggesting AA buffs into the right direction, that is why I tagged it as [GUIDE] instead of sugegstion.
I do not want AA to get a thightened CoF, because that would only make the situation harder for AA, I want to prevent that.
The velocity improvement idea was more a last option point in case it is decided to buff AA for some reasons (like MeUPeverythingElseOPside2).

Jawarisin, I can not really agree with you, AA is very effective at threatening ESFs over close range (up to around 70 meters) and then the pilot can still quickly evade out of sight behind some crystals, trees or mountains.
A single AA can rarely take out a full health ESF if the pilot reacts quickly enough.

In the hands of very few people the Dalton performs good against air, not in the hands of every player, remember that.
You can not argue based on a minioity of players, the majority is what counts, and the majority does not use Daltons as AA.

One can not ask DBG to remove Infiltrators because "Noone plays them.", just because some persons do not play Infiltrator.
There are still plenty of Infiltrator players who do want to keep their class as it is.
You can not simply remove Infiltrators because one player asks for it, this is not how the game or anything else in life works.

WRONG, it is the hilarious CoF that makes skyguard, ranger and base turrets absolutely useless for hitting anything that isn't right up in your face. (atleast imho)
its the whole reason i've started pulling walker harasser instead of suckguard.
because if i'm reading somethings movement and shooting at the right spot to hit it then i SHOULD hit it,
bullets shouldn't be flying everywhere except where i'm aiming.

too many times i've been aiming skyguard perfectly, spamming round after round at an ESF and doing absolutely nothing, it is disgustingly inaccurate, and you say we want that?

You can kill a parked ESF at 800+m. I've done it (someone landed it on top a tower). It took me two clips. I have a video of it on this forum in the last Skyguard vs Liberator argument. That pretty much indicates COF is not an issue.

Granted, that's not a moving target and not a practical example...but if CoF was awful that would simply be impossible to do to a standing still target.

EDIT: It's about 3 minutes in.

Ranger needs some gdamn buffs. It's stupidly weak.

Other than buffing the Ranger to relevancy, I'd rather see AA get rewarded just for defending combat zones from Air.

Encourage and reward people for being the deterrents they are (because trust us, when pilots experience any real AA... we are highly deterred) and lets see how that affects balance.

We can maybe tweak velocity a little bit if needed, but I doubt much will be needed. 5-6 AA causes havok for even much larger groups to deal with because of how fast they can kill focused targets.

I should see if I can't organize a force again. Back when I used to run a squad or platoon (first 6 months when Air actually was OP as frack) we'd regularly do an AA gal loaded with Bursters and G2A's and hop around the map getting in enemy airs biznisss.

The skies were so rich with targets then though.

Yeah, Daltons get a lot more OPPORTUNITY to kill ESF's than Skyguards do.

It usually takes a Dalton about 3-5 times the TTK of a Skyguard vs ESF to land a hit on avg, and that's if the ESF is 50-100m from the Lib (a BAD range to engage the Lib as an ESF)

The MOMENT you hear a skyguard in an area you hit the ground and start trying to figure out where the frack they are so you can keep them out of LoS.

Skyguards are HELL ON TRACKS to an ESF. Do NOT let one have you in firing solution for >5 seconds.

2 or even better, 3 Skyguards vs a Lib is much the same. A Lib can take on a single Skyguard 1v1.... Fat chance with 2 though, and 3 would just be lulzy.

The issue with Air vs AA is its always looked at inside a vacuum. Vacuums don't work in Planetside 2. For example you can look at the stats of infantry weapons and determine that the 200 dmg NC weapons are not the best at CQC. However I can provide a situation that gives them a TTK of a single mouse click. And to do the same thing as TR/VS would require 50% more players to pull off.

A single ESF or Lib is OP to an unprepared small squad. That's where most of the complaints from ground oriented players come from. They are doing what they think is some pretty ninja stuff and then boom, they get hosed down by rockets, banshees, airhammers, or Light PPAs. But.. but they had a plan! Wrecked.

Alter the plan and bring a Skyguard or MAX. Gets Tankbusted. Ok now they've tried everything and nothing works. Time to go to the forums to make a post!

Meanwhile in a larger fight. A lone ESF or Lib crew tries to cover an area or even take out a Sundy. Can't get within 500m of their target because there's 3 Skyguards, half a dozen burster MAXes, and a crap ton of pissed off heavies. Goes to another base (assuming solo), and same thing. Just isn't an avenue of approach because the map is Indar. Alright.. lets just switch maps... oh.. Amerish and Hossin are locked, which leaves Esamir...

Both sides get screwed at different times. The counter to small squads is air. The counter to air is large zergs. The counter to large zergs is smaller coordinated squads hitting everything at once.

Is it balanced? Sure. But not in a way that makes everyone happy. And the problem is way way deeper than weapon stats and abilities. The problem is map/continent design, resources, and ultimately no diminishing returns.

The unfortunate thing is with Daybreak laying off devs means fixes that we would actually require to change the paradigm are just not going to happen. What we have is what we got. We're not going to see ESF's changed to play different than they do now. We're not going to see a resource revamp. We're not going to see massive AA changes and probably no new AA weapons. We might.. MIGHT see a change to the Ranger, but that's about it. Well and maybe, maybe changes to Lib nose guns. But I wouldn't hold my breath.

Here's what I would change however, if we had the ability to:

First I would label things as issues and complications. Issues are things we can change. Complications are things we just have to deal with or mitigate indirectly. First lets go over the Complications:

Number of Air or AA in the fields. We can't change this. Welcome to a MMO. Everyone can pull AA, and everyone can pull Air. That's just how it is. We're not going to see limitations here. Pandora's box has been opened long ago that we weren't going to see a specific Pilot class. Besides, certs are unlimited and will always be so. Welcome to Planetside 2. Anything that alters this will have to be for Planetside 3 if it ever exists.

That's pretty much the only complication. Pretty much.. as I said its a MMO and the core part of the game is anyone can do anything with enough time invested. At almost the 3 year mark we're not suddenly going to do a character wipe.

Next thing is the issues.

First issue is base/continent design. Hossin and Amerish are pretty good here. You can get close to many bases and avoid AA fire. Of course while avoiding, you're blocking your own sight to the base. This is good. It means you can avoid fire, but not be able to fire. If you can fire on the base, it can fire back. This is fair, this is balanced.

Indar and Esamir are not so great. However, I don't think they need to be improved to the level of Amerish and Hossin... simply because it gives us some variation. But a dozen bases where air can shine wouldn't shift too much in the favor of air.

Base design is a big issue. Air and vehicles in general have only two roles in base assaults/defense. Spawn camp and spawn killing (Gal or Sundy). They need the ability to destroy tunnels/bridges that allow defenders easy access. Walls and ceilings to allow their fellow attackers easier access to objectives (controls points, energy bridge consoles, generators, ect).

Base and Continent design has the benefit of mitigating numbers. Basically the easier it is for AA to attack Air, and Air to attack ground, the easier it is for numbers on either side to escalate. So make it harder to attack for both with obstacles, narrow lanes/valleys, and smaller profile spots (windows, cracks, doorways) in key areas.

A good example is if AA has a good spot like a rooftop that gives them access to the whole sky. Then the whole sky has access to them. If there is windows that give them limited access to the sky, then the air has limited access to nail that window.

This causes bottlenecks for massed AA or Air. Basically air would be running into each other trying to attack. Skyguards would be wedged together unable to move if massed. And MAXes would be vulnerable to massed attack.

The idea is to ensure every base is evaluated to see if either side has a distinct advantage. Its ok if some bases are stronger in some areas or another. But the base line should be equal.

Normalizing the method, "If I can hit you, you can hit me." Basically the ability of MAXes to hit air from spawn rooms has to go. I'd allow MAXes to aim straight up if this was taken out. Do not allow flak based weapons to pass through shields of any type. But at the same time a Galaxy or Lib parked over a spawn isn't immune to return damage due to players not being able to aim all the way up. Fair is fair. Fair is balanced in this case.

Install metrics (if they don't already exist) to track where fights tend to be at. What this does is allows the devs to see where fights happen organically between bases. This means they could treat such high profile as bases that aren't bases. Basically you don't capture these locations (which won't have buildings) but you do control them as you move forward. Then put these top areas through evaluation and adjust them so air and ground don't have distinct advantages from base to base.

For example, if there is a path between two bases and both bases are slightly strong against air, make the path a little more air friendly. If one base is slightly strong vs air and the other ground, make the pathway even.

This doesn't have to be done with EVERY path.. but just the ones where they see the highest amount of activity. Not all fighting is typically done inside bases afterall.

Funny thing is, up to this point I haven't mentioned any weapon changes. I don't believe we need any to be totally honest. As I said, the problem lies in the game itself and cannot be fixed in a vacuum. The only change I would recommend is the Ranger. And the reason for this, is to give AA another option for playstyle. Right now there is only 2 types of AA. Rapid Fire Flak/Direct damage, and slow firing lock on missiles. Well technically there is 3 as we do have fast firing after lock missiles. But I would give a slow firing analog to non-missiles.

I would change the Ranger so it actually fires a cluster of flak. Basically a tight spreading shotgun of flak. Direct damage is very low (so not to be used vs infantry) but flak is moderate and any air caught in the middle of such a blast is in for a bad day. A sort of risk vs reward weapon system that rewards based on user accuracy, where the Walker is used for consistent damage and is more forgiving.

In the end, all changes that are made should have this in mind: Give more control to the player in how they make their destiny. This applies to both Air and Ground. Right now both are pigeon-holed based on what is going on. As I said, Small Squads get Countered by Air. Air gets Countered by Large Zergs. Large Zergs get Countered by Small Squads spreading out. And when all three happen at once.. they get pushed together in a small area and no one can really do anything.

If the majority does not use Dalton as AA then shouldn't the Dalton's AA stats be lower, so the actual AA stats of the Dalton is much higher if we weed out the normal A2G Dalton users and just concentrate on A2A Dalton users.
Thanks for helping my argument.
Sincerely zombieslore.

Now let's look at the numbers.

Skyguard unique. AVG. 450-500.
Skyguard AKPU. AVG 2.
Skyguard AKPH. AVG. 6.
AVG aircraft kills around 900-1000 at a efficiency of 6 AKPH.

Dalton unique. AVG 200-225.
Dalton AKPU. AVG 3.4.
Dalton AKPH. AVG 11.
AVG. aircraft kill of around 680-765 with an efficiency of 11 AKPH.

Now you said the majority of Dalton don't use the Dalton for AA, so the few that do are doing it extremely well considering that it's the average because the API logs you as a unique the moment you kill with any weapon so people that don't get a aircraft kill drag the stats down and since their the majority then what happens when they decide to go kill aircraft then? Dalton AA stats go up.

Then you realize that the Dalton is an A2G weapon not a dedicated A2A weapon, even though the Dalton scores magnitudes better then the Skyguard versus ground targets it performs better then the Skyguard versus Air on a per user basis only losing to it in raw total aircraft kills.

Considering that we're buffing AA then how does that remove air, your infiltrate analogy doesn't make sense because there's so much difference between and the only similarities are that their a unit/class in PS2. Where did I ask to remove libs? We're talking about buffing A not removing an entire unit.

Did you notice the Walker has 1000 m/s velocity and the Skyguard only 400 m/s?

No?

Use your brain before you start to talk rubbish.

A Dalton crew going out with the pure intent to A2G is going to still get 10x or MORE as many chances to kill ESF's than a Skyguard will with twice the playtime.

How's that?

Because ESF's ATTACK Libs, and RUN LIKE FRACK from any hint of a Skyguard.

Source: I'm an ESF pilot.

There is nothing as strong of a deterrent as Skyguards. Burster MAXes come pretty close though. G2A's are an annoyance that keep any attack runs down to a minimum of time exposure, but I can still make them as long as it's only 1 G2A.

A lot more, Skyguard is god awful.

All my wat.

More wat.

Skyguard:
Ammunition per Load: 70
Fire Rate: 480 RPM
Velocity: 400m/s
Bullet Drop: None?

Vanguards AP Titan:
Ammunition per Load: 1
Fire Rate: 15 RPM
Velocity: 275m/s
Bullet Drop: Indeed.

If the Titan AP cannon had 70 shells ready to fire in sequence at 480 RPM, you could obliterate ESF's out to 300-400m pretty good. That's assuming your MBT isn't blown back by kinetic energy... oh wait, never mind, this is Forgelight.

The Walker does not fire a flak-based projectile and is also not resisted the same way as the Skyguard or Ranger (Anti-Air Machine Gun, as opposed to Heavy Machine Gun / Light Flak Projectile and Flak Explosion).

So an A2A ESF loses to G2A counter, why would there be a problem.

It's also not that hard to spot a skyguard, tracers are easy to see unless you decided to lower your User Options, not exactly the game or AA fault because it's an option that you decided to lower.

The whole ESF is a problem, your never truly dedicated A2G because you can still get your nose gun which gives you a second option unlike the Skyguard which gives you 1 option for dedicated AA, you get 2 weapon choices or AI or A2A for nose guns and a variety of A2G, A2A, or AB for secondary options for 1 person so your going to lose to a Skyguard because its dedicated AA while ESF can mount a mix loadout and can never be dedicated A2G AV.

Your statement about smaller maps has nothing to do with PS2 because everything is balanced around what range versus scale it can be used at, if the whole map was smaller then every weapons effective range would also be scaled down probably through velocity so it makes no sense to play the what if game especially if it's something completely out of context that has almost no chance of happening.

Personally ESF versus Skyguard is okay if the ESF over stays his welcome, why use air to kill AA when there's G2G to kill AA.
Against libs and gals it's a whole different story.