When are we going to get a counter for libs?

ESF webbing which slows aircraft by 60%

they are many many counters, the op people like him and his friends are just lazy or stupid.

You guys are right. It should take a squad of at least 6 highly organized players to kill 1-2 in a lib. Yep, balanced.

Yes i m lazy and stupid because the counters of the lib are weaker and can destroy you before you can do anything about it.Even skyguards are innefective against a good pilot/gunner as he can tank burst you and then fly to kill you with the dalton......also dont insult others to prove your point.

I've snipped the rest as I think we're strictly into opinions and different strategic approaches... I'm content with mine and see no reason to change it, and I assume it is the same for you - we have no statistics or evidence here so discussion seems meaningless and likely to bear no fruit.

Very quickly though, to take the point about HP/resistances, you're comparing the Lightning with the Liberator - a far more valid comparison would be the ESF and the Lightning, or the MBT and the Liberator. Even then, the numbers are less relevant than their sources - if you'd like to go and check how many Burster MAXs it takes to kill a Lightning, for example, it's quite clear that air is absent of resilience vs things that are intended to counter aircraft. All of which is secondary really to the point I was making regarding cover vs retreat as a means of remaining alive in battle.

As I said before, my proposed balance mechanic is based around strategic balance, not individual 1v1 balance. I thoroughly do not believe one X should be able to kill one Y simply because there is one of each. One X killing one X, totally fine, but beyond that, in some situations it'd be far more appropriate for three Xs to kill one Y, or in others, one Z might kill five Xs. This is essentially pointing towards a hierarchy. Again, it is derived strategically.

We start from infantry, why? Because that's actually what happens. Everyone is infantry, everyone is free. I have 48 people in my platoon and they're all infantry. The enemy has the same. So, we're essentially evenly balanced. Now we need a reason to use another type of unit - I'm not going to put my boys in tanks or into the sky just so they get a bit of job role diversity... So what we need is a unit that is more effective against infantry than infantry are, either in killing power, or resilience.

Enter the tank. Why not aircraft? Because infantry are already supported and maintained by ground vehicles, so it makes more sense (TO ME) to continue to work inside our current set of boundaries... *SPOILER* In a moment, I'm going to state that infantry+ground vehicles is more than enough for the game to be balanced, strategic and fun. If we used aircraft here instead of tanks, this balance would be more difficult to achieve, since in reality we would STILL have infantry, ground vehicles, and aircraft. In addition, I think it's fairly clear that tanks synergise much better with infantry than aircraft do, owing to their similar movement restrictions, use of cover and such. My final reason is that air-to-air combat occurs in a region inaccessible to to all other types of combatant - there is no situation where a tank can engage another tank and deny infantry the ability to affect the combat, meanwhile the arrival of an enemy aircraft almost always signifies the total removal of all friendly air from the combat on the ground.

So, we have extra ground vehicles that have the potency to challenge infantry, or can specialise in taking out the supporting vehicles of the opponent. In my mind, they also make far better point defense (though your objection is noted). Now I have the option to put some of my guys in tanks - but how many? The bases exclude my vehicles from a majority of combat, forcing them to simply play as 'backstop' to keep the enemy contained... So ideally I use however many tanks it takes to A: dispatch the enemy tanks, and B: push the enemy infantry back to their base - and not even one more, so I have the maximum number of infantry units to engage inside the base.

This is good balance here, and it's truly only the decision to include aircraft in the game at all that requires the next level of complexity - in the same way that including Naval forces can (and will, when it happens) complicate things further, and including spacecraft will do the same again. If you'd like to see this in action, I suggest you play through a game of SPORE and see how the balance changes as the 'lowest common denominator' units become lower in the hierarchy.

So next we add in aircraft because the developers want the extra strategic depth this brings... Perhaps it's better to look at the defenders perspective for 'Why aircraft?' since in our scenario the battle is likely won already and spawncamping will ensue in only moments. So now I've got my 48 guys pinned inside a base, the points are flipped by enough guys to hold us in whilst a few tanks ensure we can't get out and flank. What I want really is to break the enemy's ability to stay in the fight - my spawn room keeps my guys here, but they're relying on a mobile spawn... So I put 12 guys in the sky. They swoop in and wreck the few tanks around the side, and take out the opposing Sunderer... The enemy scrambles for a new Sunderer, whilst putting guys in the sky to counter my airforce too. Now that question of 'how many guys in tanks' becomes 'how many guys in tanks, how many guys in the air, and how many guys on foot'...

From now on, rather than going one by one (infantry->tanks->air->combined arms), we just roll combined arms, and hope that our balance and co-ordination is superior to their balance and co-ordination.

The important points being, if those aircraft weren't a threat to ground units, there'd never have been a reason for me to use them in the first place - why fight for air superiority when superiority in the air doesn't give you any advantage (the other point regarding 'why tanks' vs 'why aircraft'). And simultaneously, if they could counter (rather than deter) our airforce without an airforce of their own, and we could do the same to them, once again, why fight for air superiority when you can hold it from the ground, and why use air units at all when they're going to be hard-countered by the units we require them to challenge.

A final note - as to 'why not infantry at the top' (I assume this is obvious, but I know there's enough footscum that it needs to be explained), because infantry are A: free, B: versatile, C: risk-free, and D: the only requisite unit in the game. If infantry sits on top of the hierarchy, there is simply no reason to EVER use ANYTHING other than infantry (this is the situation we used to have during Anni-domination Q1 2013 - 48 infantry could destroy 200 aircraft, 200 vehicles, or obviously 48 infantry... So vehicles+aircraft were redundant). That's not fun.

Infantry can kill everything. They require co-ordination to do it. This is perfect. It says that a concerted effort of a superior sized force with little to no resources can destroy a better equipped force, meanwhile there is meaning in logistics and resources in that a better equipped force will win versus an equal-sized but lesser equipped force.

Unfortunately a lot of people still have a singleplayer mentality - 'all conflict should be winnable'. No. It shouldn't. If the enemy has beaten you logistically, unless you commit considerably more bodies to the fight than they do, they have won. This is the whole idea of HAVING a resource system. There should not be ANY free dependable counters that don't require a lot of co-ordination to utilise. Infantry have AA turrets (and AV, which are surprisingly effective sometimes), an infinite supply of rockets, re-usable force multipliers, and invulnerable spawn fortresses. All of the former three are capable of thrashing any Liberators, so long as you co-ordinate with a superior force. Where skill levels are similar, if you do not co-ordinate, or your force is smaller, yes, you're going to lose. That's the idea.

Thats just your opinion. Why shouldnt it be? Each faction does have it.

Each faction also has tanks and infantry and Skyguards too...

Why should it be?

By this logic, the Harasser pre-nerf was fine since it required more coordination than a Lightning or even MBT.

I get how you came to that conclusion, but Harassers were clearly overpowered, as they were tanking more dmg than Lightnings and MBTs. It isn't even close to the same as a Lib. The only thing that MIGHT be considered OP for a Lib atm, is the high durability that they have. Their weapons are fine.(other than lolduster)

However, I am totally fine with how they are now.

Because otherwise it would be complete garbage. A G2A counter that would be as strong as you guys want it would be oneshooting air.

G2A got buffed for over a year now the list is extreme long. Buff to AA Phalanx, Lock on Launchers, new vehicle G2A weapons and of course buff for those, Burster buff, Skyguard also recived a buff if i remember right, spawn rooms got buffed.

The weapons are fine, you people just fail to use them. Which is strange because they are very easy to use. Just was flying with a few guys from my Outfit and we couldnt get near a base because there were two Sundys. And in a smaller fights all it would need would bea MAX camping in a spawn.

You know why people are crying that they just cant jump in a ESF and shot down a Lib? Because there is so much stuff shooting at air, that new pilots are dead after 2 minutes. And yes you get steamrolled by good pilots on the ground. Thats because they are good pilots and you fail to use cover or run with AA. You are overchallenged by some of the simplest things.

I dont understand how getting your own lib to kill their lib does not solve the problem. And whats the point of talking about VS/NC/TR libs, im pretty sure they are all exactly the same besides colour.

it was an example...........what i wanted to say is that when there is a battle lets say TR/NC and now NC bring their lib and farm the ground TR.Now TR get a lib destroy the NC lib and now the TR lib gets NC lib place and still farm the ground only then NC brings another lib to kill the TR lib and now the NC lib farm the ground.

My point is wither way the ground is gonna have a hard time unless they redeploy to an area where libs havent gone yet.I saw it happen many times,you can insult me,say i m stupid i dont care.(thats what forumside does anyway when they disagree)

To all the lib farmers - Enjoy the ride right now. It will end.

The stats are being watched. It will reach a breaking point. Then the libs will get a counter or wacked with the nerf bat. Just a matter of time.

*tick tock*

Till then I will always keep my grounder + extra rockets flying in every single fight I am in.

Yeah thats usually how a game with respawning works.

Why are u talking about 'ground' as though the 'ground' cannot just go and spawn a something?

These are some of the things you can use counter libs.

Skyguard, Burster, Prowler, Vanguard, G2A Lock ons, STRIKERS, Basilisks, ESFs, Libs, Galaxies. TEAMWORK.

Ideally, air is focused on air until one team wipes the other teams air out. When this happens, the team with air is now able to affect the battle on the ground. However, the ground still has AA to defend themselves and force the air to retreat. If the team on the ground loses their AA, then your team was outplayed and you deserve to lose. Their are winners and losers ALWAYS.

Yeah the Liberator should get a slight defensive boost and a major offensive nerf for belly gun.

I think I found the secret code here: Options in all caps don't work.

But seriously; when can I get a Basilisk for my HA's anti-air loadout?

i would prefer a single buster for my heavy.

"ESF webbing which slows aircraft by 60%" - Love the EVE Online reference. ROFL.

Anyways, last night, Five players and myself from my outfit got in our reavers with load-outs made purely for air to air combat. We just flew between every NC battle and would destroy enemy rocket podders, photon users, and liberators...and would then fly off to the next ground battle. Everywhere we went, we cleared out enemies from NC air space.

We're not the best pilots. We're probably average. I even admit that because my hover-fighting skills suck, I use tomcat missiles a lot. If we came across numerically superior enemy air to air, we stuck close to friendly ground forces and relied on friendly G2A lock-ons and flak to help us out or we flew away since they weren't a threat to ground forces.

A few lib kills were made much easier since they were weakened by lock-ons and flak. We only chased them down and finished them off.

The point: 6 people went around destroying enemy liberators and ESF's during the alert...on all NC fronts. Combined arms people...combined arms... NC won the Indar alert, with even pop on all factions, with 52% territory.

If you only have infantry and tanks, and the enemy has infantry, tanks, and aircraft...expect to lose.

Food for thought: Liberators are cheaper than and use less in-demand resources than tanks and Sunderers and have roughly the same crew size. Just sayin'.

Does the same logic apply if the enemy only has infantry and aircraft? You can't win a fight without infantry because you need them to cap, but is having tanks but no air equally as valuable as having air but no tanks to supplement your infantry?