[Suggestion] Fast Attack Bomber

Unlike the general "gunship" design of most aircraft in the game, the Fast Attack Bomber would have a more traditional aircraft look. While it would still be capable of hovering, it wouldn't be as agile as other aircraft while doing so. However, while in forward flight, it would be the fastest aircraft in the game, but also the most lightly armored.

Its role would be simple: zip into battle, make an attack run, retreat fast, repeat. It would have a variety of dumb-fire rockets or bombs to choose from. For self-defense against aircraft, the pilot would have default access to a single light cannon, and a second seat would allow a tailgunner to use a twin light cannon turret or other armaments.

Lib already does that. How bout we buff the duster to the point that it doesn't miss the broadside of every barn, and give it 7 meters like the bloody zephyr. Never really understood why the zephyr needs so much AoE

So then what would be the point of the Liberator? This new FAB seems to do the Liberator's primary role (ground-pounding) better than it, and is also harder to kill because of its evasiveness.

A couple criticisms though,
- It should have no other weapons than it's payload bombs. No forward guns, no tail guns. Probably just flares only. If implemented, it would encourage squads to use other aircraft, primarily ESFs, to protect bombers... which is what happens in real life. The function of the FAB is not to fend off other aircraft. It's a ground pounder, and should be specialised as such.
- It should not be capable of hover mode. Do you want spawn room camping from the maximum height skybox? It's intended role should be a tactical bomber that swoops in, drops a payload, and comes around for another pass.

If Bombers that can strafe a base with cluster bombs is what your looking for, most of today's bombers are heavy and has stated above have little to no guns. Only the Drop bay which can hold a pretty hefty payload.


You'd want one like the Tu-160 or any of the other large scale bombers.

I would rather just give ESF some bombs and have these replace the rocketpods/hornets. The rocketpods/hornets then become options for a combat Valkyrie to equip, these weapons then replace the rumble seats if you select them.

I agree, except not the giving ESFs bombs part. They shouldn't have a notable ground AoE attack, if they want to take out infantry their options should be nose gun(Likely AI version), or Coyotes which are the worst for the job but not incapable. These are fighters, their primary role should be dealing with enemy aircraft... not dealing with literally everything in the game.

I've been running my squishy Magrider lately. ESFs aren't a threat when I run G30 Walker or G40 Ranger (blinding flak induces panic) as my MBT top gun. ESFs are squishy and literally always fly off when plinked. Liberators, on the other hand, are ridiculous. Liberators don't flinch. I can unload a clip of G30 or G40 and do like 5% damage. Nerfing ESFs won't help with A2G situation especially considering how effective AA top guns can be. Liberators are the problem and need their resistances against AA top guns (Harasser, ANT, Sunderer, MBT versions) reduced.

I run a Ranger for my Vanguard for the same reason, but even then it rarely kills ESFs, they may run away but chances are they come back gunning for you specifically. When I pull a Skyguard it's the same deal... problem is though all these air to ground rockets ESFs get, the pilots themselves just use them as cheap anti infantry weapons. Rocket pods and Hornets are far too powerful on ESFs because they can take out infantry with very little skill, even the AI noseguns require some effort to use. However, they are still called Empire Specific Fighters... they should be more in line with their role as anti-air, not anti-everything. You can load up an ESF with weapons for every single job. Rotary and Rocket Pods... take out air, infantry, and vehicles... all done by a single player.

Rocket Pods and Hornets should be given to the Valkyrie as a pilot's weapon choice, though perhaps tweaked to fit the craft better... meanwhile I feel ESF's should get their AA intended weapons buffed up to perform their role a bit better. Some changes would happen to the Liberator as well, it should be vulnerable to AA of course, but I think some of it's anti-infantry weapons(Like the Duster) should be buffed to better fill the gap left by the removal of ESF's A2G capabilities. Right now Liberator's are just Super-ESFs with 3 weapons instead of 1-2, it requires a crew and so it's less used because people prefer to be by themselves in this team-oriented game. Both the Liberator and the ESF are capable of performing the same tasks, in fact ESFs do it better, and more often.

What I actually had in mind wasn't a massive AOE attack, why should they get one? There's no reason for that.

Let's start with their respective weapons as a baseline. You have an AV bomb variant and an AI bomb variant. The AV variant drops 2 bombs with all the damage and AOE of Hornets. This requires an ESF to do a fly-by and changes their attack runs on vehicles from "hover about and use extremely precise weapons to guarantee hits" to "fly by and aim well before releasing". This gives vehicles a way to combat aircraft without needing AA guns: They stand a chance to actually dodge the weapons.
The AI variant would have the same ammo, AOE and damage as the current rocketpod of their respective faction.

Now this might not be useful or powerful enough, since now aircraft can't hover about and need more skill for a hit. But the baseline is there. You can increase the damage first and keep the AOE the same. Since rocketpods are (for some reason) not deemed to have too big an AOE, having bombs with lower accuracy and the same AOE shouldn't be a problem.

You could perhaps change a few things. Hornets for instance could have a larger AOE that works the same as AV grenades (it deals damage to vehicles with it's AOE). The AOE doesn't deal a lot of damage, but a direct hit does deal good damage (combined with the AOE damage that follows). This way you can damage vehicles with a miss, but you'll be best rewarded for a hit. The AOE damage wouldn't be enough to kill infantry in one salvo so there wouldn't be a problem there.

I thought you played TR?

Your TR compatriots love to use T2 Striker against ESFs. It's the go-to weapon and just eats an ESF's HP up. This is compounded by AA top guns (which we both admit are effective deterrents at the very least), NS Annihilator, NS Swarm, ES-AA Launchers, Skyguard, Burster Maxes (other Max weapons), Construction AA Turrets, regular AA Turrets, Tank AP rounds, AV weapons, and LMG to small arms.

You are conveniently ignoring how squishy (low hp/vulnerable) ESFs are. I don't see how ESFs elicit a radical nerf (radical theorycrafting) or an omnibus package when the game already provides several counters (plus their cumulative effect).

The only thing that "upsets" people is when they are in the middle of nowhere and they can't OHK counter an ESF. (Trust me, I fail bail from an air duel then get ***** by Hornets many a time). You need to seek the umbrella coverage of a 24-48 or higher battle (as at least 1 Burster Max tends to pop out on a med-large battle on Connery).

At that point you may as well not give them any bombs, people would rather take Coyotes or even just fuel tanks instead... Liberators are the vehicle you should take if you want to pound out the ground forces, not ESF. ESFs should be more intended for anti-air, but of course with some small anti-vehicle and anti-infantry roles as well... though not capable of extreme versatility on a single loadout as they are now. The thing is that they are a single-manned craft, you can have two weapons with versatility above everything else and for only 350 nanites. The Lightning is a single seat vehicle that costs 350 nanites as well, you take a single weapon with a very specific role... why should it be treated any differently on the ground compared to what the ESF is in the sky?

The way air should be balanced: ESFs = A2A, Liberators = A2G... of course unless you are equipped with lock-on weapons you cannot force these parameters, an AI nose gun would still be used against aircraft, just as much as a Dalton would be... neither are intended for this role, but they still use them as such, you simply cannot fix this, but you can at least help it out by giving these crafts more defined weapons and overall roles in the game.

My main is NC, I started the game as TR and as such made my forum name under the same name... it's confusing I know. It's not a matter of countering ESFs, it's a matter of what their role should be. I'm perfectly fine with my vehicles being destroyed by a Liberator because that ship is specifically designed to tear things apart... ESFs however have extreme versatility to perform every single role in the game and with a single crew member as well. They are fighters by nature, their role should be dealing with enemy air, but given the nature of rocket pods and hornets many players use these weapons for anti-infantry and anti-vehicle(Of course)... these are roles that the Liberator should have, not the ESF. This is like pulling an AI Harasser for AV and it being more effective and used than an AP Lightning.

The very fact that ESFs are squishy is a clear indication that they shouldn't be engaging ground targets as aggressively as they currently do, yes remove these weapons and they still will to some degree but they would have to at least specialize their loadout for it. They should be flying higher and faster, maneuvering more tactically rather than flying straight like they do for ground targets... they are fast for a reason, and the reason to fly higher and faster? Performing anti-air roles... Liberators become more used for AV and AI and as such, ESFs become more necessary to counter Liberators. This is how balance works.

Poor analogy. Gatekeeper and Aphelion Harassers blow AP Lightning out of the water.

I haven't played since the game's inception. Has the ESF ever had an Air-only role in any form or permutation? Can you tell me the reasoning behind Hornets and Rocketpods (juxtaposed to Liberator's existence)?

The analogy was sound, as it stated "AI" Harasser performing an AV role. The ESF isn't exactly air-only, but it is air-oriented. What makes them air-oriented? Their name... Empire Specific Fighter. The weapons that allow them to perform this task? The stock nose gun, the rotary nose guns, the high capacity nose guns, (sometimes) the AI nose guns, the Tomcats, and the Coyotes. Where is their main AI role? AI nose guns, rocket pods, and hornets. Their AV role? Rocket Pods, and hornets(With nose gun harassment). The bulk of their weaponry is intended for anti-air, this makes them air-oriented however they are used primarily for A2G roles due to the versatility of their AV weapons. Remove Rocket Pods and Hornets, they lose their primary AV capability and a large portion of their AI capability... to perform AI they must loadout for it specifically, to perform AV they must do it poorly... much the same as a Walker is effective against an MBT, so are the AA nose guns.

Remove the AV weapons from ESFs and suddenly the Liberator is given more weight on it's shoulders for it's intended purpose, but so is the ESF being designated as the fighter so they can better counter the Liberator(Which would be more common with these changes).

Yes ESF's have 2 weapon systems and tons of versatility, does that mean we should throw their entire concept out of the window? I would rather keep them as a precedent for future extra weapons on Lightnings and MBT's.

That aside, why shouldn't you bother? It's a 1-man aircraft with two weapon systems, rather than a team-oriented bomber like the Lib. This has it's advantages and disadvantages.

Also, ESF shouldn't be primarily focused on A2A. That would make for some boring gameplay, at least from my perspective. Having A2G loadouts is good... As long as their targets have options to defend themselves. Currently a vehicle for instance simply can't defend himself. He gets spotted by an ESF, he simply has to hope someone nearby has AA equipped or that the ESF doesn't have strong enough weapons/not enough patience to take down all your health. The same counts for infantry. You run around, and even if you leave cover with a clear sky there could be an aircraft swooping down before you reach the next cover and kill you without any real possibility to avoid it.
But if the ESF has to do actual bombing runs, that instantly changes the situation. Even with special scopes to look down there would be a small window where the infantry/tank isn't visible by the ESF. This gives the vehicle/infantry time to change direction and position and reduce the accuracy of the ESF. Add to that the fact that ESF now have to get much closer for good accuracy (especially with slow bombs) and infantry/tanks aren't instantly screwed "just 'cause an ESF came by". Since the ESF will get lower and closer the infantry/tanks have more chance of retaliating as well.

If this is somehow useless, you can always do things like increase magazine capacity to drop more bombs in one run, change the damage per hit and, if all else fails (but why would it), increase AOE.

I don't think we need that kind of balancing.
Look at Lightnings and MBT's. Both do primarily AV work (at least how I use them), the Lightning has some more AI purposes ofcourse. Anyway, they both have different costs and therefore different advantages and disadvantages. The Lightning has a much lower and harder to hit frame and decent maneuverability&speed. Combined with the lower cost it's a good balance between firepower, crew capacity and capabilities when compared to an MBT.

There's no reason not to do something similar to aircraft.
For instance I would like to see a more divided A2A role. The ESF's primary targets could be other ESF's and Valkyries. Valkyries would gain weaponsystems (or damage multipliers on their new rocketpods/hornets) that are ideal against Liberators and Galaxies. Liberators get weapon systems against Liberators and Galaxies as well, and the Galaxy gets improved weapon systems to function as an anti-ESF fortress.
These would ofcourse be semi-hard counters (and this is just to outline the idea). They would be capable of damaging and destroying the other aircraft as well, but with more effort and skill required.
But imagine it! You gather an air-zerg of primarily ESF, you'll be getting wrecked by Galaxy anti-ESF fortresses. You can bring some Valkyries and Liberators to combat those Galaxies, but if they bring their own ESF and Valkyries they can take down the hostile Valks and Libs. Suddenly the air is filled with more than just ESF sprinkled with the occasional bigger aircraft.

Besides that, each aircraft gets a role in ground warfare. The Liberator is more of a heavy bomber, capable of precision bombing (strafing runs with AV weapons) and carpetbombing (Zepher and Duster attacks combined with Bulldog). ESF could function as fighter-bombers. Valkyries would function as attack-helicopters to attack ground troops (with more health but without the instant-escape afterburner button ESF have, increasing skill to pull out in time) and lastly Galaxies perform their ultimate-transport role.

Harassers CAN perform an AV role (Gatekeeper/Aphelion/Mnoljir/Basilisk) though. So it does not strengthen your argument. It's a wash. Your analogy would more appropriately apply to a more narrow critique of a weapon system. For example, Banshee/LPPA/Air Hammer (AI weapons) becoming a exploitative primary AV weapon (which I would agree if true).

Are you basing your theorycrafting (or deducing "real intent" on the developers' part) on the word "Fighter"? The United States' Fighters (F-15/-F16/F-18/F-22/F-35) also provide Close Air Support and Ground Attack roles. The F-35 is set to replace the A-10 for Close Air Support (Gattling Gun/Bomb Payload). F-16 and F-18 bomb runs were a critical part of the war in Afghanistan and Iraq (even today in Syria). Perhaps, you live in another country where "fighter" is relegated to Air-to-Air combat.

Liberator counter is a very narrow niche for the ESF. I am just curious why Higby and other developers thought it right to include Hornets and Rocketpods if not for the Close Air Support perspective. Do you find any other reasoning?

Edit: Actually, ESFs feel more like the Harrier Jump Jet or the Marines' F-35 VTOL. Both equipped for Close Air Support for Ground Troops (following Combined Arms model). The developers have previewed the upcoming Artillery and Orbital Strike options so I don't see them shrinking from the Combined Arms model.

I'm not saying specifically a counter to the Liberator, I use that as an example because removing these weapons from ESFs affect BOTH aircraft. Making ESFs air-oriented means they will be the primary force to intercept and deal with Liberators, Valkyries, Galaxies, and enemy ESFs. They will of course still have AI capability with the AI nose guns, but a small capacity for dealing with armour. To deal with armour, your best bet is to pull a Liberator in this case, or hell even a Valkyrie since they will obtain the removed weapons of the ESF.

Rocket Pods and Hornets simply give these vehicles too much versatility, that is what must be addressed... because of this versatility they outperform the Liberator not in sheer DPS but in overall battle value. You grab a Liberator and 3 crew members... you equip a Tank Buster, a Zepher, and a Hyena/Walker. You are capable of AV, AI, and AA at a heavy cert/nanite cost, as well as needing two additional players to help. You grab an ESF ready to go immediately, you equip a Rotary Cannon, and Rocket Pods. You are capable of AV, AI, and AA at a small cert/nanite cost. The ESF has the AA advantage, they have equal AI capabilities, and the Liberator has AV advantage. But the ESF can do all of this very quick and precise, the Liberator must fumble around getting a shot for each crew member in order to attack and defend itself, usually resulting in the pilot(The AV position) becoming useless, this isn't a problem for the ESF however.

Don't bother comparing this game to real life in this instance, of course fighters are capable of extremely diverse roles, but that's real war where "balance" isn't really something you must consider when designing a weapon. Making the ESF A2A gives it the role it deserves, in turn this gives the Liberator more priority on it's A2G role... causing it to become more popular and as such, ESFs give Liberators higher priority, this makes the air game relatively unhindered, just a shift in roles to make certain aircraft pulled in certain circumstances... not every situation calling for an ESF.

Because the ESF would be focused on anti-air, they would be flying higher and maneuvering more intelligently than they would for attacking ground targets, this causes them to be harder to hit with AA(Ever been in a Skyguard watching two ESFs dogfight? Try shooting at the enemy, it's a hell of a lot harder to hit them in these cases). Being a "squishy" target matters less when they are performing their fighter role, that quality only matters in their current A2G capabilities. This alone speaks volumes of the poor balance received to the aircraft... like it or not it IS air-oriented, and should be emphasized.

Swapping in a AA gun on a MBT might seem like a good idea, but it just makes it easier for fully crewed opposing Harasser/Tank to out gun you when they catch you flat footed. If the Devs would simply adjust the top turret weapons to elevate higher so gunners can address any menacing ESFs.

This is only the case if it's a single ESF versus a lone vehicle or a few infantry. In most cases the ESFs will be quickly burned down by multiple sources if they venture too close to an armor column or a base being assaulted.

I don't play Planetside 2 to play "Rival Knights." You are positing your "opinion" (fears) of ESFs as balance. Notwithstanding real life comparisons (because you based your argument on the word "Fighter"), I've also made multiple references to the intent of the developers. They wouldn't have added Hornets if it wasn't to counter MBTs and Lightning in the face of AA (Burster, Skyguard, Annihilator, Swarm, ES AA Launchers, Construction AA Turret, Regular AA Turret, etc, etc.) as a continuum of Combined Arms (ESFs filling Close Air Support facet).

If we take your opinion-argument (and precedent) to its conclusion, what prevents someone else from further limiting or dichotomizing the ecosystem by negating MBT AP round damage to Sunderers and ANTs so that only Lightnings should deal with other Ground vehicles but MBTs can only deal with Lightnings and other MBTs. Or, taking away MBT HEAT capability and leaving AI to Harassers? I mean MBTs are too versatile with a main gun and top gun (solo player can switch guns F1-F2). Also, Engineers are too versatile with AV Turret. Additionally, Heavy Assaults are too versatile with Shield and Launchers....All opinion projected as balance....