[Suggestion] Increase Damage Resistance vs. Liberator Cannons (ESF/VALK)

Almost all weapons in an FPS get more powerful as the Skill + Learning for a Payer increases. The nature of the actual "Leaning + Skill Curve" (LSC) is to dictate what that power progression looks like at each point on the curve, relative to power at other positions on the LSC.

In a game like PS2 where all players share the same game space, giving a Player with more Learning or Skill more power is only a problem if that level of power is extreme relative to players at lower or higher points on the LSC curve. For other types of games such as those that segregate players by power level, having extreme power differences based on skill can be great (the players at extreme different levels from each other won't face each other if they don't want, so it never becomes a factor). For other games, it can be that certain specific skills are not supposed to affect the game, so physical skill in a game like Magic were very rare and have now been removed entirely from that game.

But let's focus on PS2 and its needs (shared space, FPS gameplay, PvP focus, mass audience, and combined arms impacting both small [counters and power levels] and large battles [stacking of counters and power levels]), and impacting short term developments and long term developments.

Giving high LSC players more power is a good thing. It provides tie progression depth to the game. It provides a development path for Players. The problem occurs when the magnitude of power for Players at each spot along the LSC curve relative to other levels is too extreme. It creates a game space where interaction between players is too warped, where outcomes are too predetermined, it removes the actual game element. This breaks down both the gameplay at that instance of player interaction, and it also ompromises the ability of players to be effective as key (combined arms counter system based) different roles in the game.

Give noobs a base level of power. Give each Unit (Infatnry, Vehicle, etc.) a base power level that is easy to access. Give players that progress along the LSC a power boost... but a boost that only provides smaller and smaller power boosts as the player climbs up the LSC curve. This creates higher power in the higher points of the LSC, but it also makes it so that the power level differences never hit a point of actually breaking the game, especially when you stack up multiple units where numbers advantage can more readily offset power differences.

As a Designer, choosing which Skills will play a role in your game is important. As is how the vary in power level relative to things like ability, learning, etc. Many games don't have Designers that understand this and they just get by copying some other game and hoping it works out (NOTE: the game industry is *EXTREMEMLY* derivative... on many levels; this can be both very good and very bad). Sometimes just copying another game's system blind works out, other times there are problems, and sometimes the game system they are copying already has it's own problems, etc. It's complicated, but it is a major component of any game. And I'd be happy to delve into the subject as much as you'd like.

Skill can and does insulate ESFs from the Dalton. However, range can and does insulate low skill ESFs from the Dalton. At long ranges it is comically easy to dodge in an esf and even a lightning. Its why my skyguard laughs at Dalton libs...but fears Shredder Libs. Add on some AA lock ons or any of the longer range nose gun and sit back at range (superior mobility and speed so the lib WONT catch you) and plink at them. At this point you arent worried about the dalton, you are far more worried about the nosegun or tail gun. This is not a weapon imbalance, it is a play style choice failing. Also, I am making no assertions about whether the Dalton needs to stay the same vs ESFs. My whole posting here is to point out 2 things: 1. Certain responses are simply not supporting or refuting an argument due to logical fallacy. and 2. My belief as to the REASONS behind the lack of change in the air game over long periods of time despite ample tracker data.

Again, it is the potential or lack thereof within the weapon systems and platforms coupled with the accessibility of that potential. Obviously the devs will not nerf mechanics that rely on skill, nor will they buff mechanics that rely on numbers. Hence the Valk, despite heavily underperforming due to player choice (not getting the number of people possible paired with 1 skilled pilot), has remained mostly as is with the most minor of tweaks simply because 1 highly skilled pilot and 1 average gunner coupled with 4 completely unskilled engineers can take out entire air squads with the Wyvern.

I highly agree with most of your post -- but ultimately disagree with your conclusion. I think your premises on how skill creates progression are on point. However, I think you are way off base when it comes to having diminishing returns for skill. One should never have diminishing returns for skill. Competitive games, professional or otherwise, have NEVER handicapped or reduced reward for effort/ability and maintained any sort of reasonable life cycle. That has never been the point of video games. You play better you win. Your opponent either gets better or continues to lose. It is, and always has been, as simple as that. The only thing that is OP is something that is not reasonably counterable with similar skill. In relation to this discussion, the Dalton is dodgeable and counterable utilizing range and equipment loadouts for only a fraction of the skill necessary by the user to make it consistently a threat.

In a game of hard counters, how a weapon is being used and what it was designed for shouldn't be too far between. I COULD shoot an ESF with an AP round from a lightning but it won't die in one shot, HE vanguard to lib often just pisses off the lib.

Thing is, air hard counters ground, AA deters but not chase down and kill, but by specializing in certain aspects of different antivehicle play, you forgo another type of antivehicle play. Dalton completely ignores this.

Say I grab a double walker sundi with deploy shield max rank, to even experienced lib pilots, that makes a terrifying threat to air, but it gets completely curb stomped by even an HE lightning, he specifically certed for anti air and therefore weak to ground. Liberators can simply bypass with enough skill, but that's just the thing, stat blocks are in place so that one weapon or build does not have absolutely no counters, AP ground can't deal with air well along with infantry, air designed to kill other air can't kill ground vehicles and infantry well, libs can kill air and armor well and even beat their own counters.

Dalton should be limited to the point that even with a high skill cap, it doesn't break the fundamental teamwork aspect of the game, to have a lib up to deak armor, you should have an ESF friend help defend you, that's where the area denial tailgun comes in, to support the ESF.

That lib pilot is crap. He's not even trying for a dalton shot - he's just trying to tankbust at way too far a range.

I can't speak for how good or bad that lib pilot is as it's just one fight, but the fact he doesn't take a dalton shot is not evidence of bad flying. In this case, he can't even begin to try for a dalton shot. ESFs superior mobility allow them to stay in the belly gun blind spot.

It depends on the context within which Skill is used.

If you are hosting an Olympics, then skill is paramount. If you are hosting a Sports Fantasy Camp, then skill becomes arbitrary. If you are hosting a stroke play golfing event, then skill becomes offset by handicaps.

In order to remain healthy long term, PS2 needs to be designed for who is paying the rent. "Skill" by itself does not mean garbage in terms of being a good customer. *Unless* the High Skill Player is (1) paying the rent as the primary customer, or (2) their performance is public entertainment that draws the primary paying customer.

If I open up a bowling alley, I design it toward whoever is paying the rent. If it's average joe customers, then I rent them lanes and let them bowl. If it's pros training, then I kick everyone else out and give them a quiet space. If it is pro tournaments, then I close down all but the tournament lane and I sell tickets to people watching.

If I rent lanes to average joes, I don't stick pro players in their games who will mean they can never win... unless they want a pro who can help them learn. If it's pros practicing, I don't let noisy teenagers play for free in the lanes next to them... unless they like to have teenagers around to hang out with. If it's a tournament, I don't blare air horns... unless the fans/pros want it.

Y'see, it's all relative. There is no "do this" or "do that" with regards to some fixed Platonic Ideal. You build the product relative to what people will buy, how much they will buy, and how much they will pay. Hopefully, the product and customer develop a healthy sympatico, where all parties prosper and grow.

Nike doesn't make Basketball shoes in sizes just for NBA players, they make shoes in all (practical) sizes so all those people can wear them properly so that all those people can buy them. Rich guys paying for safari hunting don't want to fund some pro shooter, they want to take down some big animal themselves.

At EVO one year we made a fun SF2 team tournament called "tournament of losers", where the opposing team gets to pick the character for each player (each character can only be picked once), and only the last player on each team can choose their own character (from among those characters unchosen). This was a competitive event... we had top players playing, and we all wanted to win and played hard. But the format was modified to offset skills and create a more level playing field. It gave us the chance to all play together (across 2 teams) without only the Top Players dominating the machine all night (we only had 1 setup). It was custom designed to what we had and how we wanted to get people involved, it was fun, and everyone was engaged and encouraged to play, and we all enjoyed watching each person play and had a blast (including the Top Players)

PS2 is an FPS experience that can be tuned to provide all types of different experiences. It can be tuned to be a skill dominated game that allows the best single player to win and everyone else to lose... or it can be a game where different counters and power caps and numbers stacking allows complex team play where teams of mixed skilled players can each contribute and battle toward a fun outcome.

T-Ball replaces a pitcher with a T-Stand in order to give batters a better chance at hitting. Likewise, casual Softball co-ed leagues often allow teams to pitch to their own players. Sure, a casual softball league to allow opponent pitching and have some Pro strike out entire teams... but that would defeat the point of teams of casual players having fun. Skill still matters in these events, but they have removed the ability of one skilled player to completely dominate the event.

PS2 is a "mass audience" game and it is not "player segregated". So outside Server Smash, you are gonna need to design in "causal play" that works and provides a way for casual players a way to participate meaningfully... or else (1) they need to start segregating players, or (2) the game will continue to lose more and more players because the game is making the causal experience unfun.

Nerfing the power level at the high end of play does not kill high end play. Creating a low skill floor so any player can contribute at a basic level does not kill high end play. And making a game where high end play is so dominant that it ceases to be a challenge, means it is no longer a contest. *MANY* people just want to win, I just want a *CHALLENGE* or to have *FUN*. You can't make a game where it only allows a small handful of people to win constantly, and there is no real challenge, and there is no other type of payoff for anyone else: people will just quit.

Arcade Street Fighter II was not player segregated and it was a shared access to everyone. When the first version Street Fighter II: World Warrior came out in the arcades, EVERYONE PLAYER IT. It was everywhere, nobody was that great at it, nobody had figured out how to do all the broken stuff or all the matchups, it was the new hotness, etc. By the time the sequel Street Fighter II: Champion Edition came out, a lot of people still played it... but a lot had left. The better players were pulling away in being able to dominate, and as more players left, it meant it you were having to play against top players more and more. Some of us liked that (we wanted to get better or we were already top players) but lots didn't and quit. By the time Street Fighter II:Hyper Fighting came out, the top players had really jumped ahead in the performance vs. the average player. Only top players and those dedicated to getting better still played, but the game was in a lot fewer public places, and most people had quit it because it was unsatisfying for them to spend get thrashed and dominated by better players. It wasn't until SF2 came out on the Home Systems that it recovered, because people were no longer playing in a shared public space and they could segregate the playerbase and compete with people on their level or of their choosing.

Pilot of ESF copy move of liberator so liberator can not turn on him ( if he try roll left <---> right you just start move left right too... ) only way for lib use delton is let esf above him and behinde with big turn ( death liberator anyway ) + imagine if ESF had dual pods, its no problem hit them from this distance... ( free kill on lib ). It dasnt meter what skill liberator pilot have, the moment you get in this distance+position, liberator will never turn on you again... ( if you dont miss shots )...

There is no point coment it... just go in game take esf and try it...

If you think ESF already beats Liberator... and Dalton is already easily rendered useless... then why do you care if they nerf Dalton vs. ESFs?

Did we watch the same video? The lib could've rolled to port on the first hits and taken a dalton shot. He then just has to fall backward, take a shot and then afterburner upright and keep doing it. At that range there is no way for the ESF to get out of his cone of fire. Instead the lib pilot turns to face the ESF - the last thing you want to do at that range. The dalton is far superior at range than the ESF nosegun. The ESF pilot would have 2 choices - hope the guy couldn't aim with a dalton or run.

Nope the lib. can roll fire and then seat hop to keep your position very easy. A lib. can basically hover in the vertical position by seat hopping. And even if the lib pilot isn't good enough to do the seat hop hover, he can circle the ESF at long range and still have time for a lot of dalton shots before the ESF nosegun can kill him. If the ESF stays still long enough to land rockets at that range, then the Dalton can also hit OHK him.

Go try it against a good lib pilot as a solo ESF and unless you're also very good - you'll die or nobody will.

You seriously want to buff ESFs? LOL!!!

Dalton hits are only semi-reliable against terrible ESF pilots that fly straight at you. And no, your little single person plane shouldn't be a match for a 3 person plane. And seriously, Lib tail guns are laughably bad, no self respecting ESF pilot would break a sweat dropping a Lib with only his tail gun blazing. Now you want the belly gun to suck too? Wow.

You guys cry and cry and cry any time there's any threat to an ESF besides another ESF and it's nose gun. A2A missiles are a joke, Skyguards, burster Maxes and walkers just tickle you at ranges where you can accurately hit them with your stock gun. G2A missiles are useless against flares, can be out run with pods, can't get a lock if you know how to fly, and won't even kill you anyway. The air game in PS2 is such an unbalanced joke, and you want ESFs buffed... Wow.

No, i absolutely disagree. Power progression is probably the worst thing ever to come into games. I started gaming in the late 70s and from my experience the most fun FPS game i played was the orginal rainbow 6 and the battlefield vietnam and 1942 series. Every class needs to be vanilla, you get what you got. No addons, or ranks of equipment etc. You wont make alot of money other then subs, but you wont have pay to win either.

Woah, what are you talking about? I am in no way trying to suggest adding P2W equipment boosts. What gave you the idea I was?

I am only talking about players who are using the same Weapons. And the different Skill or Learning they have with that Weapon, and how that impacts each's power level with that weapon. Sorry for any confusion.

Bacause its balanced. ( no one force you fight liberators 1lib v 1esf on first place, if you dont know how fight it, call frends to fight it 1lib v 2-3esf or take it from ground... ).

I fly all time solo esf vs libs

Then you know the video ESF pilot got lucky. A good ESF pilot opens fire at a closer range and from above and behind the lib where the ESF can unload an entire mag and maybe even rockets before the lib pilot can change position much. And from that position, the ESF can re-position as it sees the lib react so that the lib never gets a single Dalton shot off. A tailgunner might hit the ESF, but tailgunners are not scary compared to the Dalton.

Yes I did write exactly same think in coments above, its best way how attack liberator. But for some reason people write: its not possible attack liberator this way.

My dear pro Valk pilot and enthusiast, Valkyrie achieves maximum velocity when flying upside down at an angle where nose obviously up so you don't hit the ground. You travel around 30 kph faster than with what you described.
Whilst I am aware you probably can't fight libs while in that position, flying around the lib will almost always (I don't really see a situation where it wouldn't except in the initiation of a fight) insure that your bottom side is faced to the lib. I don't know how you are flying if that is not the case...

I don't see how I am dismissing an entire airframe since I don't think anyone smart enough is gonna role hover stability airframe. (Not that I mentioned either so I don't see how you concluded I'm dismissing anything)

Nevertheless, valk does need a buff.

This literally doesn't happen lololololol

Solo gunning isn't easy. It's harder to do than actually hitting aircraft with the dalton

You're just another infantryside moron who hasn't actually attempted to do the things he describes. Heaven forbid a practiced player be able to kill a bad pilot with a weapon he's been using for OVER A YEAR AT LEAST!