I'm unsure as how to react to the A2AM changes.

So I'm unsure as to how i feel with the A2AM changes against larger aircraft? personally i generally stay away from flying Esf's when i do i only use an Esf during a small fights where there's no present AA or enemy fighters when AA is pulled i just go some place else.

In Larger fights Fly a lib or a galaxy since they'll soak up more AA than an ESF, but I'm more likely to run into enemy fighters. but that also means i can have 2 or 4 additional gunners, with A2AM's now capable of dealing more damage to larger aircraft and less to other fighters.

I'm really unsure how of what to think of the change i do have a feeling that there's gonna be 24/7 gank squads sitting on the warp gates now -___-

You could also have one or more escort ESF to deal with enemy fighter craft.

Or we could not design a system that requires a player to be escorted just because another player clicked "Spawn ESF"?

Just my two cents.

Are any ESF pilots even equiping the new A2AM in the Standard Game?

In a Server Smash type event where Gal Drops are of huge importance, I can see A2AM being a factor in stopping those Gal Drops. The SS meta is all about rapidly moving Infantry around, and dedicating ESF Wingmounts to A2AM to stop this might be a game changer. In addition, players in SS aren't worried about farming (which A2AM is probably not good at).

In the Standard Game, is it worth it for ESF pilots to dedicate Wingmounts to A2AM?
1) Gals and Libs aren't that common, Gal Drops are pretty uncommon in most engagements
2) you can kill most Gals and Libs without A2AM anyway (just not as quickly, so you won't be able to stop the Gal Drop)
3) using A2AM really limits what the ESF can do vs. non-Air (and really non-Gal/Lib) targets, including vs. dealing with enemy ESFs
4) players just cannot farm as well with A2AM, and a lot of the Standard Game is about farming

Now if they changed it so that any Vehicle could swap out its Loadout (say at an Ammo Supply or *maybe* an appropriate re-Supply Vehicle) without having to do a full respawn, then I think that could change things.

Does that mean as a Skyguard I should no longer require MBT escorts against ground targets? That with sufficient skill I should be able to take on an AP MBT in my Skyguard?

The Liberator is a ground attack craft, akin to things like AC-130s, A-10s, or helicopter gunships. None of which is expected to do reasonably well against actual fighter craft. At a certain point you cannot and should not be able to "skill" your way out of things, and the only skill that should save you is teamwork.

Precisely... Almost. Since an AP MBT is kitted towards AV, it should be disadvantaged, and since it's a 1-man less resource intensive vehicle, it should be more disadvantaged inherently. But I think it would be reasonable for 2 Skyguards to be able to kill an MBT not fully kitted for AV.

So what does the word "counter" mean to you?

This is some pretty decent insight.

People are acting like its doom and gloom for Galaxies. Anyone who has argued with me or debated with me on Gals in the past know that I'm a Galaxy fan. Well.. to an extent. IMO the Gal isn't threatened. Its not going to be used any less. And those who fear the ESF 'rampage' on them can use the Valk which has been buffed against A2A.

But in serious play. There has to be a counter to the Gal drop. There just has to be. In normal play this won't happen, much. But in coordinated organized events, whomever Gal drops the most and the quickest will likely win. So there has to be SOMETHING to counter that.

This could help with that. It might force a different meta in SS's. That's a GOOD thing. We don't need SS's being the same every time. They need to be freshened up.

A weapon or vehicle that is inherently at an advantage to another weapon or vehicle, but does not necessarily dominate on the merit of weapon choice alone.

I believe in counters, but just not in "Hard" counters. The Spy is countered fairly well by the Pyro, but a smart Spy can still dominate a bad Pyro. To me, that seems fair.

Yeah, it just seems like there is such low motivation for ESFs to use A2AM in the Standard Game. Though I guess it does leave the window open for some 2-man ESF teams to roam around and grief Libs and Gals.

I would love for DBG to change the Reward system so that ESFs got experience for protecting Gals. Have it where it's a combination of staying within the Gals large cylinder Air Space over time, multiplied by the proximity (distance and height) to vulnerable enemy bases (on Lattice and vulnerable Cap Points), to enemy pop, etc. You could do the same for ground convoys or Ground/Air protecting ANTs.

Agree 100%

Server Smash meta has been stunted by the player reliance on a handful of dominant tactics. Breaking those handful of tactics up and opening up the usable tactic pool to more depth (and hopefully the use of more units and loadouts) would be amazing.

Unfortunately, my experience talking with various participants of SS (and Hardcore Organized Groups) is that they don't want more depth in their gameplay. They like the power level and small metagame of Pinpoint Rapid Infantry Movement.

I also would love to see DBG add more pan-Faction channels, so that non-Hardcore Organized could actually communicate, coordinate, and "team up".

A galaxy is supposed to be a transport with light self defence and strong AI capabilities, with the intention of giving it's deployed troops cover. Not a flying sky fortress.

Also, as I have previously stated. Back in Planetside 1, I shuttled players back and forth in my Galaxy constantly. I never left the Sanctuary without a mozzie or reaver escort. Sometimes they were a friend that I was communicating with, more often it was a random who wanted to keep me flying, because a single hot drop could change the tide of a battle.

In Planetside 2, I fly ESFs, because Galaxies stopped being so crucial outside of the initial continent unlock. I love my ESF, but I still escort any Galaxies I see. If I see a Galaxy or Liberator under attack, I immediately stop whatever I was doing, and fly over to help them.
From what I've seen, it's what most *decent* ESF pilots do.

I disagree

1/9 matchups should be voided almost entirely

Obvious exceptions are tanks VS flashes and the like but

A fighter should have at least some chance against a gal that isnt running 2+ gunners

If its 3 on one the fighter should lose more often than not

Let's state this clear, it takes eternity to destroy Lib or Gal with tomcats alone. I'd rather concern about new no dropoff noseguns.

But let's not forget that Gals and Libs ain't no harmless flying cows. They do have AA guns as well, Walkers, Hyenas and what sort. And flares. Flares are the thing everyone forgot suddenly.

Flares are the thing no one uses on either libs or gals because they are useless to begin with on those vehicles. I do agree about the nose guns though. Not as shiny, more effective now.

My big worry as a whale pilot is how deadly esfs can now be to me outside of my effective engagement range. It's not like I can catch them.

They already did before this change, they just had to use the range. Granted, it sucked for them as single esfs against my crewed whale, but seeing as I fly with a minimum of two crew, it seems justifiable.
I've also been taken down by two coordinated esfs before with wonderful displays of play. But the big counter to a whale has always been a lib.

Why should you have a longer engagement range as a transport craft as compared to a dedicated A2A fighter craft?

Why should your large, lumbering transport be able to catch up to agile fighters?

Why should you expect to take something like this:



And survive a confrontation with something like this:

Neither of the first two. But it's not a damn transport craft. Yeesh where do y'all get that idea so stuck in your head?

Last because those allegories don't apply here at all.

It kinda does actually. I mean it's like a transport for paratroopers that have back and top guns to help repel aircraft but said aircraft has payloads specifically designed to destroy larger aircraft if not in a couple of rockets.

It's not a gunship. Even if you do cite the in-game description, you'll note that the very first sentence states that the Galaxy is a transport craft. Its primary function is to move a squad of infantry from one place to another.

It looks like a transport. Not a gunship.


It is even named after a transport. The C-5 Galaxy to be exact, which bears an uncanny resemblance to the PS2 Galaxy:


It existed in PS1 as a transport. It was only armed with what would be the equivalent of 3x 20mm Basilisks. These are only meant for light self-defense, to hold the enemy at bay until friendly fighters can take over the defence.


Apart from a single line in the game (that is superseded by a line indicating that the Galaxy is a transport), there is absolutely no reason to think that the Galaxy isn't meant to be a transport.

The problem is of course that players can't figure out that you should keep transports out of the fight, hence leading to ridiculously beefy transports. This is why we have the ridiculous Battle Buses taking down MBTs and Battle Whales knocking air superiority fighters out of the sky.

These units are not meant to fight. They are meant to have escorts to survive. But the "modern" gamer can't be bothered to have to rely on things like combined arms or teamwork, so we have dumbed things down to the point where the A2G Dalton is a more effective AA weapon than the dedicated Skyguard.

http://wiki.planetsidesyndicate.com/index.php?title=Galaxy_Gunship

Tell me more about the ps1 gal.

Every time I come back I end up in the same argument with folk like you. Myopic in the extreme. For heavens sakes go look for the times the devs have talked about the gal and stop equating an armed vtol to a fixed wing transport aircraft.

Yes, and how many passengers can that "gunship" Galaxy hold as compared to the original Galaxy?

Which version do you think we have in PS2?