[Suggestion] Air units vs ground AA

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by pnkdth, Nov 2, 2015.

  1. pnkdth

    Not another whine thread. Flying is not easy mode, etc etc. Please don't make posts like this here.

    Accepting AA is supposed to be a deterrent, why not make the AA MAX and Skyguard more tanky against the threats they're supposed to deter? As it stands, they drop extremely fast and are under constant threat from rocket launchers, C4, and small arms/slow moving(in the case of MAX units) while having very limited means to even fight back(ground targets).

    Yes, a MAX *can* switch roles but it is very impractical to run back and forth between terminals and air units have some flexibility due to having access to two or more weapons.

    All I'm asking for is not to drop within seconds against targets I'm supposed to deter.

    Thanks
    • Up x 3
  2. Demigan

    Or, or, and here's an idea, finally accept that deterrents are bad for any gameplay and change AA into actual killers, but without the "aim in their general direction for a hit" mechanics.

    Just think about it. Infantry have good options to kill infantry and tanks, but deterrents for aircraft
    Tanks have good options to kill infantry and tanks, but deterrents for aircraft
    Aircraft have some of the strongest weapons in the game and can kill infantry, tanks and aircraft.

    The reason for this is supposed to be to incentivize A2A combat, even though the only reason why I don't enter aircraft a lot is because a completely messed up air-game with "features" that completely dominate any other aircraft maneuver you can pull off, allowing a small group of players to completely dominate all other aircraft players.

    If they made other air-maneuvers viable as well they would open up the air-game for more pilots and create a wider A2A meta game, if they also add actual killer AA alongside it without the skill-reducing mechanics we could create a much better and fun gameplay for ground and air.
    • Up x 12
  3. pnkdth

    Sure, but since that suggestion has been around forever and may swing the balance too far in the other way, ie. making it too easy for a number of maxes to completely shut down aircraft, perhaps making ground AA more durable is a more viable solution?
  4. Silkensmooth

    Just because you cant learn to reverse doesn't mean its bad, just that you dont want to learn.

    Also hover reversing isnt the only way to dogfight. A lot of pilots use the pushing method where you just keep flying forward turning as you pass to do another fly-by. Kind of like jousting.

    There are also many many times when you come up behind someone and they just try to run and then the chase is on, if thats your thing.

    Personally i think its great that just because someone snuck up on you doesnt mean they are gauranteed to win.

    As far as G2A goes its just totally imbalanced and actually impossible imo to balance.

    What should happen is what people have been saying for ages. Make libbys the only A2G and turn all ESF A2G weapons into anti lib weps.

    It is absurd how Air farms the ground and equally absurd how G2A creates complete no fly zones and regularly ganks aircraft.

    A complete paradigm change is in order. Large battles shouldnt be nothing but tanks and infantry. And no one should have to sit in a boring skyguard laming lamers.
  5. Gundem

    Add in a range reduction for AA so air can come near large battles in the first place, make AA weapons somewhat more versatilewhen fighting light armor and infantry, and bam, we almost got balance. Wouldn't be perfect but I'd be better then what we currently have.
  6. DooDooBreff

    air is easy to deal with.... trying to sit right underneath ESFs and libs is not actually a great idea if you can choose. spawn near the farm, not into it. IE next base over, or a nearby sundy. dont open fire until the target is in range to where he cannot escape the majority of your clips.


    you can also neuter an ESF by firing when he is approaching his attack run... by the time he gets into his range, hes taken so much damage that he has to back out.

    he leaves or dies in a fire

    you may not get the kill but you and a few friends grabbing AA makes the base youre defending not worth the trouble any longer.

    also my maxed lockdown burster max does this alone vs a handful of aircraft


    remember.... dont be that square peg, round hole guy..... if theres too much air, equip for it, once youve ran them off, go back to infantryside
  7. Demigan

    They don't need a range reduction. Currently flak (not lock-ons) can hit at long-range because of the skill-reducing mechanics. When flak gets within 4m range of a target it explodes, I would reduce that to 0,5m range so the skill required to hit becomes much higher. Alongside of the 4m flak detonation range we also have the set COF of flak weapons. This means that the skill required to get maximum chance to hit aircraft becomes lower. If your target is 100% in your COF it stops mattering if you aim in front or behind (assuming you lead it right) as the chance to hit remains the same. It also means that because of the large COF you won't hit consistently and have a limited damage output.

    By reducing that 4m range to 0,5m detonation range and tightening up COF you've already reduced the actual range on moving aircraft. Due to the relatively slow muzzle velocity any aircraft that constantly changes course slightly would be able to dodge any flak weapon at range and even in CQC if you've got the skill.
    This instantly opens up every single battle to aircraft. No matter how small, not matter how big a fight. No matter how much AA is around, suddenly aircraft can operate within those battles based on their skill and they have a valid reason to have their incredibly powerful weapons: the high DPS is required to be effective in AA territory as you might get your *** handed to you if you give AA too long to get a good bead on you.

    Just because one single maneuver is effective now doesn't mean it's good for the game. On the contrary, I think that it has completely messed up the air-game.
    Also if you put a unique "mechanic" into the game based on a bug that takes days of pure practice to master where every other tactic in the game is neither based on a bug nor requires such training as they are intuitive and are similar to mechanics found in other games you should start to wonder, is this how it's supposed to be? No it's not. It's been too long into the game to remove it, so the best thing for the game is to make the other air maneuvers just as viable for A2A combat.

    This isn't about removing RM (or hover fighting), this is about creating gameplay that can be enjoyed by anyone, from the most elite pilot to the worst player in the game, just like you can with vehicle and infantry combat.

    You mean fly-by's that mean death the moment your enemy manages to get behind you and you don't instantly change tactics to use either RM or Hover fighting? Because of the non-existant combat methods based on fighter-based combat and the completely existant and predominant VTOL/Heli fights?

    That is my thing, but unless you use RM or Hover fighting you cannot properly escape your enemy. Not when I'm engaged nor when I'm the chaser.

    That is great, except that you need to use one of two fighting methods to properly fight them. Any other method is inferior and will rarely succeed. That last part is what needs to change.

    Why is it impossible to balance? We've got about a hundred games or more out there with G2A weapons that are completely balanced. Why would PS2 be different? If PS2 got similar weapons or mechanics as other games it could easily be balanced just as well in the context of PS2.

    While an option it would be far from an ideal one. You might as well remove RM and Hover fighting first and see how that works. But removing these features after this long will cause a rift in the community, confirming for many that nothing is safe in PS2 (whether true or not) and they will leave.
    Better would be to change the G2A game. It's currently much less taken and everyone hates it. The AA users hate it because it's either not powerful enough and you get killed or it's powerful enough with other people and aircraft stop coming in the area... and your AA is useless as it doesn't have enough use against other units. Aircraft on the other side feel cheated because they feel they can always be shot at and are never safe, and the moment more that one AA is around you stand a good chance of getting killed without chance of escape making you leave the fight and look for another one, which is not good for the game either.

    Which is why we need to change it! And if AA becomes useful and powerful enough without being as low-skill and limited in DPS.

    Yes, and I have absolute belief that my changes would help in creating this.
    • Up x 1
  8. Takara

    I partly agree with you. Honestly I think AA MAX units are just fine. They can change their role on the fly when they are no longer effective or they have no Air targets to shoot at. That said Flak armor is a big help to AA maxs and helps them be more 'TANKY' for the role.

    THAT said....I simply think the lighting is completely the wrong platform for the skyguard. The problem is it's so ineffectual at other targets, but can't actively escape those targets. NOR can it really put a chase to it's intended targets. Couple that with the idea that you must drive/Fire/aim AND look out for ground threats like other tanks/harassers/mines or from the stealth lib that snuck up behind you. So how do you fix all of that? Put it on the Harasser. This splits the duty, letting one guy keep an eye out and concentrate on targets. Another drives and watches for ground threats...PLUS give it the ability to better chase or get away from threats.

    This will also lower it's HP and make it softer. This will give aircraft a little more play in the game too...they may try to risk fighting you. Because they have a slightly easier chance at hurting you. WHICH will give your MORE of a chance to kill those aircraft. It also makes you less vulnerable to liberators because staying moving is what prevents deaths from liberators.

    Basically it would really level the playing field from both sides of the equation in my own opinion.
    • Up x 2
  9. Danath

    Sounds great on the paper, but on reality there is so little fight outside bases that AA actually doesn't benefit much from being mobile. At any rate, although you'll live more time, you'll spend it running away and repairing.

    So basically we transform every AA in a Walker, except with a pathetic muzzle velocity, therefore, a nerf.
  10. LodeTria


    We have the walker on the rasser already. It's pretty decent.
    If you want flak there is the ranger but well, it's a ranger.
  11. Takara

    Yea I've used them. I use the walker all the time...it's quite good. Me and my gunner do magical things with it.

    But the ranger lacks the punch, it's a two man vehicle. It should be more effective AA role then a one man lighting. It would be more effective. *shrugs* The chassie of the lighting is just the wrong vehicle. Being a one man vehicle most people don't know how to use it. It's why my TB was Auraxed years ago. 99% of people can't drive and shoot the skyguard at the same time...and it ruins it's effectiveness.

    I know these are my opinions. But the ranger is....good against dumb ESF's It's worthless against a LIB/GAL.
  12. Demigan

    After which we can improve the ROF or damage and make it a killer AA. I've repeated that in so many threads I forgot to mention it here.
    Because you miss more and ESF can actually dodge your shots damage can go up. This means that killing an ESF is no longer based on ESF player skill or the amount of AA around. It would be based on ESF vs AA user skill
  13. Demigan

    I really, really hate this reasoning.

    "because it's a 2-man vehicle it should be more effective". No it shouldn't. There's absolutely no reason why it should. Galaxies are 12-man vehicles, you can argue that not all 12 have effective weapons but that's still 4 weapons on a Gal, should it now be able to go toe-to-toe with 2 2/2 MBT's? Or 1 3/3 Lib and one ESF? Ofcourse not!
    Effectiveness is a mixture of purpose, cost, availability, capability to multitask etc. A 150 resources 3-man vehicle designed as a quick lightly-armed transport and available everywhere should have no business mauling a 2-man 450 resource heavily armed MBT that is available at less bases and might only be available in the warpgate if you don't have a techplant. For fun, balance and skill the option should be there, naturally, but for the average player a Harasser vs MBT battle should result in the MBT wiping the floor with the Harasser. As it stands, Harassers can often go toe-to-toe. If you upgrade their cost to 250 or 300 it would easily be a more fair game again against many vehicle types.


    And another thing that simply hurts to read: "many people can't drive and shoot the Skyguard at the same time".
    You know why? It has nothing to do with pathing. It's relatively easy to keep track of where you are driving and firing. What is a problem is that the slightest bump messes up your aim, even in the Skyguard with that big a COF. And seeing that the Skyguard requires you to hit every shot if you don't want to have your prey escape out of your range moving while shooting is in general a bad idea. With a gun stabilizer that keeps your gun pointing the way you are looking unless you hit the elevation constraints it would instantly make the Skyguard a highly mobile AA system, but as it stands you should mostly move when you are engaged. Even then, Liberators can easily go about 2,5 to 3x faster than your Skyguard, so "escape" isn't really an option...
    • Up x 1
  14. Taemien

    How to clean out all Air across the continent. You need the following:

    • 1 Squad
    • 4-5 Burster MAXes
    • 4-5 Engineers
    • 2-4 Medics
    • 1 Galaxy
    • (Optional) 1 Scout
    Then you need to do the following:

    1. Find the congregation of enemy air. Scout helps, but you can float around as well, just takes longer
    2. Find a good high spot to unload the squad.
    3. Tick off the air with the Galaxy, make it seem like a tempting target.
    4. Unload the squad when the air takes the bait
    5. Blast them down.
    6. Load back into the Galaxy
    7. Repeat

    Can take anywhere from 15-30 minutes or longer if the enemy gets dumb enough to try to counter it. But you will attain air superiority with this for your faction. And even though it sounds like alot (1 Galaxy and 4-5 MAXes), it really isn't when you factor in that you can tear down the air for an entire continent.

    There's not really a counter to this because of its mobility. If they roll up tanks, you just fly out. If they roll up with aircraft, shoot them down. If they do both.. they lose the continent as they are focusing too much in the middle of nowhere.
    • Up x 1
  15. Danath

    Get ready to "just fly out" 90% of the time :D
  16. Pelojian

    skyguard wouldn't be so bad if it had a secondary weapon to deal with infantry or vehicles, atm you pull a skyguard as a reaction to enemy air, when the air is dead or not present the skyguard isn't nearly as useful as other lightning weapons.

    if they won't buff AA then buff the skyguard so when it's equipped we can equip a secondary for AI or AV work, i was thinking a kobalt with a smaller clip (50 rounds) and less at range potential for AI and a dropless halberd with damage degradation past mid range.
  17. Benton582

    GOD THANK YOU, SOMEONE UNDERSTANDS NOW HARD FLYING IS WITH SO MANY "PRO" (A**hole) PILOTS THERE ARE! You get a clap!
  18. Silkensmooth

    I don't know why you hate hover fighting other than that you dont understand or cant learn how to do it.

    Why should the flight model be just like the flight model in other games?

    It shouldnt. If you prefer that flight model play that game.

    A great deal of people love the way flight works in this game.

    They wanted to get rid of reverse maneuver and it didnt fly with the community.

    They arent going to remove the reverse maneuver just because a couple of people dont like it when it has already been shown that the majority of pilots DO like it. LOVE it even.

    It would be more constructive for you to think about solutions that have some possibility of happening and for which the majority of the playerbase will not be against.

    Anyone can enjoy air combat now. Every empire has dedicated air wings who will let anyone fly with them.

    The fact that air combat is hard to learn and even harder to master is what makes it valuable. If everything is easy then nothing is worthwhile. Where is the joy in a game that presents no challenge.

    Air is the hardest thing to do in the game, which for some makes it the most fun. Driving tanks is boring. Infantry is fun but often futile. Flying is the only arena in which one can truly test ones skill vs other's skill. That is why the best players in the game typically know how to fly well.

    Everything needn't be mindless like lock ons and flak and AI weapons. And since air has no real role in the game except to entertain people who arent interested in playing whackamloe as infantry or a tank all the time.
    • Up x 1
  19. Imp C Bravo

    I'm not sure deterrent is the right word. Skyguards and bursters will kill an aircraft that stays around too long. They will almost always win against the aircraft trying to kill it assuming skill levels are equal. Deterrent implies that you are making aircraft uncomfortable being around. They do more than that -- they kick aircraft out of an airspace OR destroy them. So less a deterrent and more of a explody wall of fire that you can ignore for only a few seconds before you got to go -- IF there is only 1 of them that is...


    Really using the word deterrent to try to marginalize their effectiveness is kinda a ******** move.
    • Up x 1
  20. ColonelChingles

    If we really were going to nitpick about deterrence, I would also agree that Skyguards are not deterrents, but from the opposite point of view.

    Say we're talking about something like nuclear deterrence, which is essentially that the mere presence or threat of a nuclear weapon should be enough to prevent the enemy from even considering a course of action (conventional or nuclear war).

    If a Skyguard was truly a good deterrent, then the mere possibility that a Skyguard might be in the hex would be enough to lock aircraft out of it... because of an extremely low TTK for example.

    Skyguards are obviously not fulfilling that role, because a single Liberator feels completely free to facestomp a single Skyguard.

    I would change it so that Skyguards have about a 2 second TTK against even the heaviest of aircraft within 500m... but at the same time any aircraft that enters into that 500m is instantly alerted that they are in Skyguard range.

    In that way aircraft would be alerted to the threat of a Skyguard, and will be met with instantaneous death in about 2 seconds or so. Skyguards would be a true deterrent then.