I've come to realize air can't be balanced.

I think that half the Skyguard's problem is that it's not useful enough once air bugs off, it's just too situational to be fun.

What your proposing sounds alright but with the limited amount of players flying, it would suck. Look at it from this perspective. There aren't many people flying, so let's compare it to a 6v6 infantry fight. Assume equal skill here, with a little luck, so let's say rock beats scissors 90% of the time. In this infantry battle we have three classes, HA>LA>Sniper>HA, just for an example. Imagine how crap that battle would be. Just running around looking for that 1 kind of target you can easily kill without a fight, and hoping you don't run in to the one that'll surely kill you. It's just crap, especially with the CoD mentality Daybreak has catered to, no one has your back, everyone is pretty oblivious to the big picture, and most are just out to pad their kdr and make certs, kill, die, rinse, repeat. This just isn't the game for that. I think ESF noseguns on the other hand are perfectly balanced against each other, minus the AI nosegun. All of them have their sweet spot where they do well, but any of them will work in any engagement. That's mostly the way infantry guns are, and I think vehicle guns need a little more of that in their recipe.

I understand why you want OHK missiles, but I think it would push the air game into the wrong direction. You place an extra manoeuvre that requires extra skill, or is perceived as extra skill. In the meantime infantry get barely any skill extra with waiting for the best moment, so many people will actually perceive a skill reduction with the OHK.

I would suggest a different tactic for the lock-on. All RL have 2 modes. A RL and a "sniper" mode. The "sniper"(right mouse) mode fires a high velocity beacon at a target, doing no or barely any damage. Coming close to aircraft (1-1,5m) and it will home in, latch onto an aircraft and activate. All rockets fired afterwards are automatically homing onto the aircraft, making it possible to quickly chain some rockets. Reloading might have to be reduced, as well as damage to infantry/tanks. In addition, you could give the RL a timing mechanism for the rockets. After a set time the rocket will start homing, to make skilful shots possible. The beacon can be active for some time/indefinitely, but would be deactivated when firing the next beacon.

This would scale better, as with more people the power does increase, but not as drastically as before. Air can approach fights better, but with higher risks as they can be tagged for some time and receive better aimed barrages of missiles that do not first show a "you're being locked on" warning. In the meantime air still has their normal options available to evade fire.

Sounds like a case of Airfluenza.

Not really an extra maneuver, but my idea would require the use of the reverse maneuver, which is basically required anyway. Your idea would be better than what we have, as it requires some aim and gives the pilot a little time to bug out, but I'd rather see everything transition to the Striker mechanic than "get hit with a homing beacon then you're done." I actually think moving everything to the Striker mechanic would be a quick and easy way to do a lot of good. It does require aiming and leading, and can be dodged at long range.

If it's not a lock-on then an AA Decimator with much less damage to ground, OHK on planes, and a higher velocity shuold be introduced, maybe with a slight tracking ability. Just anything but the crap we have now. The solution has to be enjoyable and rewarding for the shooter and not annoying to the target. I think a missile with very limited tracking is the answer. Maybe a slow velocity Striker that can turn but not too much, that way you still have to line up shots, lead the target, should fire when the aircraft isn't flying perpendicular to your missile, and the aircraft can maneuver to dodge it. Kind of like slower Coyotes that don't have infinite turning ability.

I dont think lock ons are a good solution they dont require enough skill if they were OHK it just wouldnt be fair to the pilot who put in so many hours and certs to just be blown out the sky by someone that can point in his general direction for a few seconds.

The only thing i really know is their current AA weapons are trash. They arnt fun to use and they arnt effective if a ground vehicle is assaulting your base if all you could do is detur it your screwed. Honestly ive tried many different AA weapons and to this day ive shot down more ESF libs and galixys with the P2-120AP on my prowler than all my other AA weapons combined and that cannon both cant shoot up very far or 1 shot an ESF but it deturs an esf instantly if i land a shot and many times i find myself able to land both since you can fire them close enough to eachother. Honestly if they replaced AA turrets with AV turrets that could point up i would be happier.

It would also be nice if my tank could shoot up i think itd only be fair that he would have to try and dodge me as well as me having to dodge him he still gets the advantage since hes much faster and more maneuverable than a tank.

I expect that this is about the idea of OHK lock ons in general, because I opposed it actually If I can quote myself:

I think there are alternatives that I think are looking good, and we can only find out if we try. That is why I suggested the "sniper" mechanic with a RL that shoots a beacon that will allow rockets to lock in, instead of the normal lock on mechanic.

I have idea's for tanks too, but I think I'll make a dedicated post for that later.

To be clear, the beacon you fire would only function to replace the current lock on mechanic of simply holding the plane in your sights. If you hit an ESF with the beacon, you'll have the lock on that particular ESF until you shoot another beacon or some time has passed. The beacon is not a death sentence as you put it, as planes can evade the fire like normal via terrain, speed and distance. All this allows is the AA RL to have a higher skill floor and skill ceiling, making DPS changes and the possibility to kill justified.

I don't like the idea of the reverse manoeuvre. A one move fits all is something I greatly detest, and I think this bug made feature is better removed for more real dogfighting tactics.
That being said, I do like the slight tracking abilities. Many factors can be taken in consideration to balance this further if need be, like instead manually activating a 2 second full coyote feature when the missiles are flying, or short laser tracking with a cooldown and highly manouvrable missiles and more. All skill increasing, allowing for more options to engage aircraft.
That being said, I do not like a OHK addition at all. You can replace these with near OHK mechanics for starters to make it more balanced and skilled in the process. A barrage of a few missiles that need to hit the target is already a great step up. Like the shotgun, you'll need to land all or nearly all shots for a kill, making the way you fire incredibly important. Couple something like this with the mechanics you've suggested and you can get a high damage variant for ground AA.

The reason I'm very cautious is that, regardless of balance, it also needs to feel justified. Simply being blown out of the sky is something many people will feel is unfair, regardless if it is balanced or not. Even though I do not agree with unfair, I agree with the feeling that it isn't that much fun. If you feel the opponent was highly skilful when hitting a full barrage or something similar, people feel less unfairness.

In theory aircraft should be worth 5 players. Larger aircraft even more. But from what I have seen, it takes one person on a AA turret to take down several aircraft. Aircraft need to be buffed or AA turrets need to be toned down.

Even if it were be ten players, you're charged by the hitbox.

The only way air can be balanced is if the sky knights are flipped the bird and flying is made woefully easier to get into for everyone. So easy that your craft automatically handles rotation, yaw, and pitch to follow a cross-hair the player uses to direct the craft's direction and aim. So easy that merely hitting the "S" key on your keyboard will cause your aircraft to back the hell up.

To be frank, there are flight simulation games that demand less from a mouse and keyboard user to fly than Planetside 2's aircraft do. Flying in Planetside 2 is like FPS' still using the same control scheme DooM did back in 1994 - pushing the mouse forward moved the player forward. It was clunky and ridiculous and simply unforgivably convoluted and unplayable by today's standards. Why does a 2012 game have crappy flight controls (in an FPS!?) when there have been examples of proper mouse-friendly control schemes for flight prior?


Once the control scheme is improved, AA can be placed back in the hands of aircraft, and the current ground-to-air deterrents can be scaled a little further back. Most of them anyway. Flak should still be fairly effective for what it takes to kill anything.

It's all pretty ballanced to be honest. Air is mobile, yes, but it's also can be spotted from far far away like with 50 people at once. There is almost no battle right now where i can fly by and not get [LOCK] alert. When you are driving a tank you can feel much safer and have a bigger field for planning tactical attack. So air does what it does.
But it can be tweaked a bit of course. From my side i feel like skyguards are useless. I mean 1v1 it's not a threat at all, i can just relax and beat the crap out of it and completely ignore all damage. I know it will die faster. Every time. If i see a skyguard alone, i will move that direction for easy kill. I don't think it should get more dps, it might get some kind of armor creating more fat around it so as a better survivability (also as a benefit of being useless against other tanks)
Second thing is AI weapons on esf. They need to be tweaked as well, it's stupid how they can damage vehicles. Cut that damage, because some AI farmers are really all-arounders with that.

From what perspective? As a pilot, I'll beat a turret with my Hornets any day. When I'm on a turret, I only kill stupid pilots who hang around long enough for me to kill them. Was your observation just in passing as you drove past a battle?

No, it was me taking down and watching others take down aircraft after months of playing.

Was this supposed to be a clever remark?

Now that I think of it though. They should make the aircraft easier to pilot. Why the controls are as difficult as they are to work in this day in age is a wonder.

Part of it is every aircraft is both a helicopter and jet, pick one.
Other is for the most part you need multiple people to switch to anti air to even deter them and even then because they land anywhere easily to repair you're not deterring them for long which circles back to the first point, make them either need a runway or slow them down if they can hover to fight.
And/or add another vehicle AA weapon, lockon launcher, more powerful but longer lockon time perhaps, or shorter lockon weaker shots faster reload or swarm-like functions of multishots and crazy tracking, whatever you feel like to change it up. They already buffed esfs by giving them all passive nanite regen if you're an engineer, basically made that cert line pointless.

AA turrets are a direct counter to air, but a good ESF with hornets will beat an equally skilled AA turret every time. I just have a hard time believing you've spent much time in the air or killing air if you think turrets are OP, especially against several aircraft. It takes 6 hornets to kill a flak turret, so with just 2 ESF that's 3 seconds to kill from up to 450m away, there's just no way a turret can compete against that, no way.

but... you are much stronger than 5 players! You have a much higher engagement distance than 5 players, you have more power in both weapons than 5 players, you have more effective health than 5 players in all but a few weapons, you have more speed than 5 players.......

All jokingly ridicule aside. How do you figure that an ESF should be worth 5 players, and how do you factor that they are not worth 5 players? I'm a bit confused by this justification out of thin air.
Your mention of the AA turrets is also a bit weird. How do you factor a turret in balance? It is a dedicated AA. Should it not kill several aircraft? Besides that the Lib can casually take the abuse and eradicate a single turret.

All I see is an opinion! We can throw opinions all day against each other ("AA turrets are balanced"--> "AA turrets aren't balanced" --> "AA turrets are......." etc.), but opinion themselves are nothing without support. The question I want to ask is this: Why do you think an ESF should be worth 5 players and Why should an AA turret be toned down/not be able to shoot down several aircraft?

A lot of reason why Air gets a lot of hate is because there's no Hard Counter to said Air: Practically all we have are Deterrents, not outright killers. 'But numbers would kill it' a skyknight would soon say, I bet. If it's possible for a single Light Assault to take down a Vanguard on his own, then surely there should be a single unit that ought to be able to take down a Liberator on its own, obviously given enough ammunition. inb4 Tomcats or Coyotes, keep reading.

The Skyguard does its job as a Deterrent quite well, indeed, but that's all it does, and sucks against literally Everything, including what it's supposed to keep away. That same LA From earlier? He still has a carbine so he can at least shoot and/or kill other planetmen. Sure, we got Heavy's AA Launchers for that versatility, but even a planetman is weak against aircraft: You'd end up literally eating a Dalton Shot or half a dozen nosegun rounds before you'd get your second shot off, after they pop their flare for your first.

'Just pull air, yourself!' Thing is, Liberators and ESFs are too versatile still. Not only are there some insane accurate gunners for Daltons, but there's the professional pilots that spend most of their life in a virtual VTOL. Even if you pull Air to counter Air, there's a decent chance that you'd still get killed.

Air either needs a REALLY BIG change, or Anti-Air needs a more effective means.

I think moving the ground attack weapons to the valk would be a good move (suggested by others before). If ESF's are no longer good at ground attack then you can justify giving them more protection against the irritating G2A weapons (namely flak and lock ons). That can be done by giving lock ons a very long time for ESF's and reduce flak damage considerably on them.

Skyguard is a dedicated weapon and should be a lot stronger. I think the best thing to do with this is to decrease it's damage against ESF's as mentioned and heavily buff against other aircraft.

If ESF's are losing their ground attack weapons then they need a boost versus other large aircraft. It can be hard to kill a lib unless they overcommit and basically not possible to kill a gal if it's fully manned. This simply needs to be a resistance change.

The valkyrie would cement itself as the close support option but would be really vulnerable to ESF's. If the skyguard is buffed versus them they are going to rip valks to pieces but on the other hand the valk handles great near terrain (better than ESF imo since it's more forgiving) so it can avoid them.

The liberator is definitely the hardest to balance, there's a few ways you could go with it but if the valk is the most useful A2G and ESF the most useful A2A, the liberator should probably be pushed more towards the utility role. Alternatively I think it could go towards being a heavy bomber (i.e. high altitude and innaccurate) or a defensive A2A option with it getting a tanky area domination role.

Finally the gal should have a large reduction on it's health pool. In order to differentiate it from the valk, valks should either have the safe fall removed or limited in some way. Gals would be for high altitude drops on larger scales. It would also be pretty cool if they could transport light vehicles (flashes, harassers, lightnings, ants). Right now though a gal drop is basically unstoppable by anything except massive air concentrations or the gal pilots stupidly flying in front of a row of tanks. There should be a lot of risk for this type of play since you are effectively bypassing all enemy defensive lines. It shouldn't be an easy go-to option.

As BR 15 i am throwing my grenade at planes hoping to score a kill. Joke aside I can't do anything against them, I barely can fly straight with a plane. I would like to have an escape mechanism on ground like hiding in environment at least.

I think a lot, like a LOT of infantry don't care at all about fighting air unless they happen to be traveling in a Sunder and controlling a gun. Otherwise, they will keep zerg sprinting to the next objective. Then they rage when they get killed by lolpods. Any half decent player or squad/platoon, if they see a lot of enemy air, will call for or pull anti-air support, of which there are actually a bunch of options for: lancer, lock on rpg, 2 or 3 sunders, skyguards, base anti air turrets, harassers, archers, a good decimator shot, burster max, pulling your own air, the list goes on and on.

The real problem is most people can't be bothered to do it, because they want to play heavy assault, sprint to next base and just have gun fights. Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that... People expect one or two people to be able to solo ESFs but if you only had like 3-4 people shooting at it with anti-air it would either die or leave and not come back.

Boosting the dmg of anti-air or lock on missiles would just make ESFs completely dead and pointless. The only slight change that I can see being beneficial is maybe slightly less air to infantry capability for ESFs. Lower the splash or dmg on anti infantry a little bit on lolpods/hornets and I think you'd have as good balance as you're gonna get.