Discussing A2G/G2A balance and ways to improve it on both sides

Yet again, we've come full circle to the "Weak in large fights, strong in smaller ones" debate. This isn't Armorside2, this isn't Infantryside2, and this isn't Pilotside2, they're all on the same field, and if you're lacking support somewhere, it's going to bite you, in the case of a solo lib taking you, you were lacking air power or AA.

This isn't directed at you, Demigan, but I wish I could know how many people that complain about libs are just completely unsupported by air forces or AA. Now that is a statistic that would show us something, for better or worse.

I wish you could know how many dedicated AA weapons are utterly destroyed by aircraft, while the aircraft are also farming infantry, destroying other aircraft and killing tanks.

If we had a weapon that dealt 1 damage but could easily target aircraft, then call it AA. Does that solve the problem? No it doesn't.
You say it yourself, aircraft are weak in large fights. It's not as if they can't affect it, but there is a larger chance of enough AA running around to keep them at bay. That's not a good system, not for aircraft and not for the ground forces.

No matter how big a fight, no matter what the composition of forces or how many AA there is, aircraft should be able to join. On the other hand, no matter how small a fight, no matter how few people, if you pick AA you should be able to fight back.
Those are the terms for a balanced, fair and above all fun way to deal with this problem.
Saying "there is AA" and "if you are getting killed by AA you should have had friendly AA nearby" is not a solution. Especially since aircraft can always either fight back or avoid the weapons. That's not even or fair, accusing ground forces of not using AA while aircraft absolutely do not have to bring AV A2G to be able to deal with the problem.
Then there's the very easy question: If people are so terribly annoyed by aircraft, why don't they pick AA? That has been answered a million times before: AA is not powerful enough solo and requires teamwork to counter the perfect lonewolf weapons, AA is unrewarding as only when you have teamwork can you get kills, and you'll have to share it and AA has no multiple-purpose and is about the only type of weapon not capable of anti-infantry.

Let's recap shall we?
Aircraft have too little influence in big fights, too much when appearing in small fights
Ground forces are forced to use AA
Aircraft are not forced to use AV A2G and can manage without
AA is underpowered solo, overpowered in groups
AA is completely unrewarding

Well and there you have it!
But let's take a look at a possible future, what should it be? You can fill it in for yourself, but here's what I know it should be:
Aircraft have just as much influence in any fight, big and small, as ground vehicles
Ground forces have some form of AA. This has entail non-lethal AA for the most part since aircraft use their non-lethal speed and maneuverability to avoid AA
Aircraft are still not forced to use AV A2G, but need skill to avoid AA
AA is powerful solo and in groups (aircraft are powerful both solo and in groups as well)
AA is rewarding, if you've got the skill for it.

Just came back from vacation, sorry for the delayed reply.

Let's be honest, all the liberator's weapon are close range. The dalton has long range potential, but it's extremely hard to use.

A decent skyguard will win any engagement if they dont start shooting the liberator either when he's 1000m away (revealing position) or when he's 50m above them (you're doomed at that point).

Also, a liberator is completely useless against 2 mbts, even if they are both 1/2.

Air has a bigger skill floor it's true, but that's not what makes them strong. It's the very high skill ceiling. As such, some people will dedicate themselves and will improve far above what a casual player can achieve and it makes it seem "unfair" (there's also a very small pilot player pool compared to the overall ground players). But being honest, someone who's really good with an AP cannon on an MBT will be EXTRMELY deadly against air. The problem is most players have a low skill level with tanks, so even with 5-6 shots, they cant hit a liberator.

The other problem is that people aren't playing smart. Plinking at an aircraft 800m away can annoy one and sometime (read extremely rarely) get you a kill, but odds are you'll just be spotted as an annoying priority target to kill.

Most of the strength of the liberator can be fixed by not playing stupid. And a liberator will quickly become obsolete against organised platers (though I will admit it retains huge power against un-organized players).

And to go on your last point "at the highest level of skill this should have evened out again", I personally think it's already the case. The pool of bad mbt players is just extremely diluted in the pool of bad ones. While the opposite is true for liberators.

I honestly feel like it's more like perception. Then again, a harasser can murder a liberator really bad, even 1/2 and even more 2/2. so... it all depends.

I approve of this statement.

rework esf atg so its not so easy to spot and engage ground targets, maybe make a weapon for light assault or infiltrator that functions as a laser designator for esf airstrike weapons, so the only real effective way to use atg as an esf would be to have a partner on the ground for an air squad, or leave the heavy atg work to liberators.

That is actually a really really good idea. It would play more into a team dynamic, and it would ease the zeitgeist that all ESF players are lonewolf farmers. It would also push most pilots into more of an A2A role, which was their core design to begin with.

+1000

Do you even fly?

Libs are pretty awful unless you have 2 really good people farming small fights.

I honestly cant remember the last time i died to a lib.

I have my characters in my sig, i dare anyone to find more than 3 lib deaths in my last 10k deaths on TR.

I die to absolutely everything in the game more than i die to libs.

Even ESF kill me more, although even they usually only get me when im in a harrasser behind enemy lines.

And no a good skyguard pilot should not die to a lib.

A list of things to do an not to do when in a skyguard.

Dont sit on a hill all by yourself tunneled in on aircraft two hexes away. I know you are doing this if you are dying to libs in a skyguard as it is the only time i die to them while in one.

Do find something to back up against so that you can be snuck up on. Failing that, point your but in the same direction as your gun so that again they cannot sneak up on you. Optimally you want some cover nearby like a bridge or a tower or even some trees.

Don't lone wolf it. You are in a vehicle designed to protect the amror column from enemy air, not to be a lone wolf destroyer of air.

Do stay with the friendly armor column. Guess what. A lib that comes low enough to tank bust you in an armor column is going to get shot down almost instantly by tank rounds.

Don't wait for a lib to get close like you would an ESF. You want to start on a lib as soon as you see him. Hes not gonna fly all 1km toward you to shoot you. Unless you are just the worst player ever a lib cannot win if you open up on him at max range.

Do as someone else said, use your mobility. Its very difficult, contrary to popular belief, to spot a camoed well placed skyguard. Its very difficult to hit a moving target with a tankbuster unless it is a uniform motion. Libs yaw even slower than they pitch so just try to drive perpindicular to his buster and he will miss most of his shots.

Of course if you stay with the amror column then you wont need to use positioning or mobility, you can just be perfectly 100% safe from everything except for maybe c4 fairies and shoot all airplanes from at least 2 hexes away all day.

I almost always ditch my skyguard because the air has all left and the absolute only time i ever die in a skyguard is when i leave the armor column.

So to sum up, if you play skyguard correctly its just winning all the time until the enemy stops coming back. How does that ever need any kind of buff? Easiest weapon in the game except for the gatekeeper. No im wrong, you dont even actually have to hit something to hit it with a skyguard.

Oh honesty eh? Here's some honesty for you:
Liberators fly at 220 KM/H, which is 61,11111 m/s
At 1000m distance it takes 16,36 seconds to get on top of the Skyguard
The Skyguard needs +/- 1,85 magazines to kill a Liberator with 100% accuracy against a vanilla Liberator without composite armor or Fire Suppression.
Emptying 1 magazine costs 8,75 seconds, reloading costs 2,5 seconds with max reload for a total of 11,25 seconds per complete cycle.
The minimum time to kill a Liberator with 1 Skyguard is 18,68 seconds, assuming 100% accuracy, no composite armor, no fire suppression, and the Skyguard sees and shoots the moment the Liberator renders at 1000m. Just as a note to you: It's a stretch that the Skyguard will hit enough shots to do it in less than 2 Magazines, not to mention the high chance of either Fire Suppression or Composite armor being present.

A Liberator can't one-clip in this scenario because we assume the Skyguard will be looking at them. But any player that knows how to seat switch can always kill the Skyguard no matter what the Skyguard does.

So let's be honest, you never did the math or looked at how it worked in game did you? I've run up against this problem for some time, and every time I bring it up they say "but in an open scenario the Skyguard can kill the Lib before he gets there", which simply has never been true at all!

Keep in mind that I made the scenario a ton more lenient towards the Skyguard. I gave him 100% accuracy, the ability to know where and when the Liberator will render, I gave the Liberator no composite armor and no Fire Suppression and forced him in a straight path to the Skyguard without use of any bit of cover along the way.
With composite armor it adds 10% reduction against flak. Fire Suppression regenerates 12% health. The Afterburner adds 50% extra speed for a short moment, reducing the approach time.

Also, where do you invent this kind of crap? This is the most blatant lie, I don't even know why you believe you can get away with it. How on Auraxis do you think that a Liberator is useless against 2 MBT's? Even with dedicated AA top-guns the Liberator will be able to kill one of them, and the Liberator can most definitely stay out of the elevation range of the main guns of the MBT's. Even if the Liberator.

The problem, as I've already explained several times, is that the amount of power gain vs skill gain is out of whack for aircraft. A top aircraft player going up against any top ground player, even if that ground player has twice as much skill, will have the aircraft player win. This is because the weapons and mechanics that aircraft have give more power than ground units do.

You will never get a kill at long-range unless the target was pre-damaged, and in CQC you will also always need some backup to kill any type of aircraft.
See, aircraft control the entire engagement. Aircraft decide when to attack, where to attack, how to attack. The ground players have very little way of dealing with this except "get in cover", which infantry can do if they know the aircraft is coming, but there's a limit to how much they can know beforehand, especially because of the aircraft speed and ability to fire in zones that are safe from ground vehicles. Ground vehicles can't even get into cover except in very specific scenario's, such as at a tower or techplant if they happened to be nearby during the air attack, but are usually completely open and at the mercy of aircraft. after an attack you can anticipate to a next attack and prop your tank up against a rock or incline... If there's a good one available. Even then you will have a limited elevation and only in one direction, from the side or back you are still extremely vulnerable.

Really? Just like a Skyguard can kill a Liberator if he starts firing in time? You are really bad at this, stop inventing things man!

As for organized play, AA has a scaling problem and that should also be addressed so it doesn't happen. Rewarding teamplay is OK, but making an entire unit type obsolete by simply having X G2A weapons in the area is not a good game mechanic.

So your counter is "there's just so many bad MBT players"? Good MBT players are still helpless, while a good Liberator player can handle other aircraft, tanks and infantry in one go.

What kind of perception have you been drinking then? Must have been strong stuff.

The same counts for you. I could also say "do you even Skyguard", but I believe we've had that discussion before and aside from maybe a few hours you didn't did you?

Imho we always go back to the same point: perception about air-ground relationship may vary a lot depending on how big is the fight. Either aircraft is perceived as the evil farmer or as pure crap thus requiring insane skill.

In my opinion there is no other solution than reconsidering the old option to partially separate infantry from aircrafts: we need devs to bring back on the table domeshields, possibly as ANT structures. In the meantime a huge help should come from deployable turrets: if they can be properly upgraded then smart players should be able to deploy a powerful anti-air defensive perimeter. Having flak turrets guarding your team sounds better than trying to face the Air Hammer with a Striker.

Not sure I agree with this. The roof top shields that bursters can fire through were added to help combat libs, gals and esfs that would simply hover with impunity above spawn rooms farming infantry.

In reality - the damage you can do to moving aircraft whilst sat inside the spawn room is very limited due to the limited field of view from inside the spawn room. Vary rarely do I see burster maxes firing from inside spawn unless they are countering the above (which they should be able to do).

IMO we need a more effective Max weapon against Libs and Gals. An AA weapon that does no burst damage but is rapid firing and accurate would do the trick. Perhaps make a Max equivalent of the G30 Walker.

Spawn room rooftop is a failure as platform to fight aircraft. It has already been revamped shortly after the game came out but still they remain crap. Instead of being well defended points from where clear the area ans start to push they are more like deadly traps. Those rooftops are perfect place where you can get sniped or lolpodded and you can barely counterattack. Without mentioning there is no other way to take cover than jumping down and passing through the doors.

I think I have never seen anyone managing to achieve anything from that position. That's the first place you have to go if you want to make sure you lose the battle.

I'm not talking about being on the actual roof - i'm talking about the yellow shield strips that the elevators go through (and that can also be shot through).

The view isn't that limiting. You can move around and get alot of coverage based on the angle. But that is besides the point.

You can't really justify dealing damage while being invulnerable to it. That's what they allow, and by proxy spawnrooms allow in general. The difference is, someone can spend 450 nanites and damage my vehicle while being at no risk unto themselves. That's an issue.

As for your Walker idea. I've been suggesting that all along. But I don't think MAXes need it. Bursters are VERY effective at taking on air threats that get within their effective range.

They're also part of the problem: they're too smal to give visual of a target. Take the Striker: one needs time to fire al rockets and target's trajectory must be anticipated. One just can't pretend to fire through those shields.
Imho from the AA perspective they are useless. And jumping on the rooftop doesn't feel better.

I just think pretending to be a serious counter to air from there is not realistic :|

There are mainly two types of spawn huts: the small single level ones like at TI Alloys and the large multilevel ones like at Allatum Botany Labs (or whatever the satellite base between Allatum Biolab and TI Alloys is called).

Of both, there are versions with and without an aditional roof over the hut.
With both, going up on the roof means certain death in most situations, roof or not.

Here we go!

Mobility. If I sit still in a skyguard and a lib has an approach angle on me, I might die depending on the pilot skill. If I am mobile I have a 50/50 chance in my skyguard (assuming no other AA and no other vehicles/terrain getting in my way/attacking me) against a lib with a shredder. For the record -- thats the most dangerous thing you can run across in a skyguard assuming no other tanks. You may not utilize your mobility to the utmost...but that's your problem.

And no -- as a skyguard, I can't hug other tanks as we get in each other's way and I tend to get shot by the tanks shooting the MBTs. So I hang out off to the side and deal with air on my own.

However, I understand your frustration. MANY a time I have started shooting a lib in my skyguard only to have it bounce, repair, and return. Then I kick him out of the air again...and he is back in 30 seconds. We do this for like 15-20 minutes, and neither of us are getting a lot of certs (although if there are ESFs in the air then it's actually quite a fun fight.) I understand your frustration though.

This is a pretty fair statement imo. I don't think, however, that it is feasible with the current interplay of range. In large fights air can be targeted by more sources of damage from a larger variety of locations -- being in the air is a double edged sword. I don't see how you can make aircraft able to survive the incoming damage from a large number of sources (the reason why air can't join big fights reliably) while also being able to die to incoming damage from a small number of sources. I just don't see how that is possible.

However -- just because I can't imagine how to make this work does not mean that I think it shouldn't be pursued. I think we should all spend more time discussing this specifically. Some good ideas might pop up.

(Edit note: Then you get emotional and post this.... Responses in green..

....cmon dude -- be fair about points even if they are evidence against your beliefs -- it's the only way to actually have a real conversation. An example of this would be the yellow highlighted above.

Walkers have huge muzzle velocity, but are much more close-range than any flak weapon. Also from my experience using walkers and getting shot at by walkers, they seem best used against targets that try to attack something near you, rather than something 100m next to you and the aircraft is flying perpendicular to you rather than aiming somewhere near you.

This type of G2A can easily be made more available, especially with lower muzzle velocity this could work. I'm also in favor of burst weapons (with little or no flak range) rather than sustained DPS weapons. This gives aircraft a window to do something in between bursts/reloads, and then forces them in dodging patterns as the G2A will fire again. Getting a full burst would probably mean death or near-death for ESF, or forcing them to flee and hoping they can dodge the next burst or get out of range before that happens. But the point would be that the next burst could take them out if the G2A player has the skill to hit a dodging, fleeing plane.

Ofcourse the Skyguard can do something! He can try to much up the Liberators aim. There's absolutely no guarantee, especially against a trained Lib pilot. But in the ideal scenario for a Skyguard where he can get the most hits from render range he can't destroy the Lib in time, the Lib has both the time and opportunity to kill the Skyguard user. Sure it takes balls and skill after getting 100% flak hits and being about burning and praying something else won't be nearby to shoot you, but it's possible...
But if you are telling me the Skyguard is allowed to dodge, then so is the Liberator right? On almost every map there's large things that impede ground vehicles in their movement and allow for more focused fights. These things can be used by any aircraft to get closer more safely, and is actually constantly used in this way. Almost no aircraft has to suffer being shot at by flak for the full 1000m range, since there's usually something within the first 300 to 450m, even if it is the next base. Now that we've cut our approach distance in half, the Skyguard has less than half the time to fire at the Lib, meaning he has the time to get in sight, fire a volley, potentially not kill the Skyguard, get out and retry. And we still haven't added the options for composite armor, afterburners and Fire Suppression, one of which any Liberator is almost guaranteed to carry.

Now some people will think they are smart and point out that there's a chance that the Lib gets attacked by other things, resulting in death anyway. But this goes for the Skyguard as well, but the Skyguard has much less potential to defend himself against attacks than a Liberator.

Not over the top hyperbole, not even a normal hyperbole. This is simply the truth.

Again not a hyperbole. Unless the pilot makes a mistake (or more likely, if he makes multiple mistakes) there is no single way any solo AA source can kill a healthy, undamaged aircraft. And this is also part of the problem: No matter what you do, no matter how good you are, you cannot guarantee a kill when playing solo against solo aircraft unless the pilot does something. At best you can increase the chances that you'll kill the pilot when he makes a mistake, but there's simply no guarantee. Against ground vehicles or infantry there's a multitude of ways you can guarantee a kill on someone while playing solo. From headshots, OHK's, surprise attacks with explosives to attacks on rear armor. You can guarantee the kill, up to a point ofcourse as the other player's skill, attention and pure dumb luck do factor in. But most of the work you do can and will pay off without it being up to your enemy to make a mistake.

Mirror mirror on the wall, who had the fairest point of them all in the G2A discussion?

"Well Demigan ofcourse, he might be crazy but he was right".

I have already changed my views and admitted mistakes multiple times here, and even gone out of my way to own up to it. I will again if I find out I was wrong... But so far, there's no indication that I am about the G2A balance. I used to be with idea's of plain old buffing the Skyguard to beyond OP, but I'm not anymore.

I'm going to get the dumb stuff out of the way first.

That's because, as you said, the whole 'shoot from render range' argument is stupid. Huge cone of fire, super low muzzle velocity, you aren't going to do even 5% of the skyguard's mag in damage at render range. However, when you start hitting a Lib at a couple hundred meters out, if he isn't already facing you, he HAS to run or die. He can't reorient and kill you. Just start firing when his nose isn't looking RIGHT at you.

And yes, muck up their aim. It's very easy to muck a tank buster's aim. Dalton is not so bad unless they are right on top of you (and even then that just gives you the option of getting out of the fire arc faster as them being closer to the ground reduces the fire arc.) Shredder is pretty much the only thing you have to worry about and even then -- only in 1 skyguard vs 1 2/3 or 1 3/3 lib fights. Because to use the shredder effectively you have to be low and getting shot at by more stuff.

Trained or not -- if you know how to fly a lib well, you know how to screw a lib well too. It is far easier to do than you seem to be willing to admit (or know possibly? You may just be ignorant on Lib piloting at the upper skill echelons.)

And seriously, grossly misrepresenting how flying through topography works kinda sucks....you know damn well that everything advantageous to a lib is advantageous to a skyguard in that respect. Only more so because the skyguard's gun is independent of the vehicle's movement vector whereas the nosegun on a lib is fixed. You know better

Now for the smart stuff.

That sounds like a decent idea for ESFs methinks -- but DBG would literally have to remove all the current AA (and nerf the crap out of lock on rockets to the point that no one uses them -- so therefore change ground lock on AA rockets to something else maybe?) Otherwise, everywhere would be no fly zones (not just large fights.) Still it's the kind of concept I can get behind.

However, I still see a problem with large fights with that kind of weapon seeing as Libs and Gals aren't 'dodging' anything. Even ESFs and Valks would have problems in large fights (although they could do super fast bombing runs so -- feasible.) Scaling problems in huge battles will still exist to the big planes. So with respect to the large non-dodgy aircraft we would need a completely different weapon system. What could we do about them?

You talk about dumb stuff and accuse me of hyperboles, yet you make it seem impossible for Liberators to turn around and engage a Skyguard within the 18+ seconds it takes to kill it. What's more, the Lib can easily get away, repair up and then annihilate the Skyguard.

Depends heavily if you are up against a noob or a pro. Pro's can keep the aim on you because they can turn their Lib faster than you can drive. If they try to engage you at too close a range, almost point blank, then you can try to drive under them and muck up their aim. In any other scenario you are about to get hit by a full blast of TB.

You really haven't done this a lot have you? Shredder is the least dangerous due to it having the lowest DPS and gives the player the most time to damage the Lib and get away. After most TB runs, even a bad one, you'll be dead in just 1 or 2 Dalton shots.

You just proved (again) you didn't know what you were talking about in the last quote.

what?
Are you completely insane? Topography is the worst thing for a Skyguard! Skyguards need some cover, but any cover they use is also their detriment. It gives any aircraft the room to both escape you and approach you with their heavy weapons, like... A Liberator with a TB gun and/or Dalton? ESF with Hornets? Any cover or topography allows aircraft to get into a better position with their fixed weapons.

Either remove them, or nerf/buff them. Current Skyguards could easily work with a tightened COF, removal of flak or heavy reduction of the flak detonation range and an upgrade to it's damage or ROF. I would go for ROF if you want that more burst-fire effect. That would already make it work more like a Walker than current Skyguard.

Apparently you haven't read my idea's about G2A lock-ons. Instead of fire-and-forget missiles you can make them LOS based. So the user needs to keep a LOS to keep his lock. Currently you barely have to aim at the aircraft, but if that distance was reduced so you have to aim more accurately at the aircraft you give the aircraft the option to do a dodge and mess up your aim, breaking the lock.
In trade for these nerfs, locks can now be re-acquired. So if an aircraft breaks your lock after the missile is fired, you can get a lock on again (or on another aircraft) and the missile will go for that target. This also allows the players to pre-fire a missile before getting a lock to give aircraft less off a chance to escape. I think it would be prudent to reduce the missile agility so that a missile won't do a 180 and be able to hit any aircraft just because you locked them.
Reduce the lock-on time to 0,5 to 1 second so that locks are more easily attained, and I think you've got a good system.
Pre-fire a missile and fail to lock because the aircraft was too zippy? Waste of a missile. Pre-fire a missile and get a lock? Now you can deal damage much faster and more reliably than before. Aircraft can dodge the lock but are not guaranteed to dodge it.

I've also addressed this issue in the past. As you say, it's not fair for larger aircraft if they can't dodge. It would again create a problem with weapons either being too strong against them or too weak. So a division in G2A weapons would be good (or AA weapons in general): Light G2A weapons meant for ESF and heavy G2A for bigger aircraft. Heavy G2A weapons have very low muzzle velocity but would deal tremendous amounts of damage against any aircraft type. Due to the low muzzle velocity it would be hard to hit ESF and larger aircraft have a chance to dodge unless they are in CQC. Preferably these weapons would be powerful enough to go toe-to-toe with a TB Lib in CQC.
Aside from MBT primary canon G2A weapons, I think all vehicles could easily have both light and heavy G2A weapons available.

Damage differential is easy. It's easy to make big planes highly damage resistant to Light AA fire as each vehicle gets its own damage resistances. But, I'm not sure muzzle velocity would work as a limiter. The current incarnation of the skyguard already has extremely low muzzle velocity which makes it hard to hit ESFs (excepting for the explosion when just near factor of flak) directly. However, it is very easy to hit Gals and Libs -　they aren't dodging anything. Essentially, if the DPS was at tank buster levels, even if the skyguard had a similar range and damage fall off model -- you would see no libs or gals in the sky. I would also not like poor cone of fire to be a limiting factor as that removes skill. Like I said -- I'm not sure what weapon system you could use that would give Gals and Libs a chance to use 'skill' as they have really poor acceleration/deceleration relative to speed and size.