So what exactly is the job of an ESF?

Not to nitpick, or anything, but aren't cluster munitions basically banned? And considered a war crime or something?

So here's what you do. Stop flying ESFs and play infantry. ESFs used to be fun. Now there is so much anti air that trying to participate in any kind of battle just isnt fun.

Just play infantry, or drive a tank and win. Dont bother with the ESF its currently more likely to make you not want to play than anything, while infantry play is a lot better due to the nerfing of thermals.

It'd be fun to see in game though.

INFINITE REPAIR VALK META, OUR WYVERNS WILL BLOCK OUT THE SUN!!!! (and technically moon)

Now that's not a fair assumption, some people might enjoy killing other new pilots instead.........right.....
People just need to not simply take everything as a farm machine when designing anything with vehicles, we have enough AV weaponry to last a long time, we don't need more reskins and mixems, like AV on ANTs, or sundis, nor do we need it on galaxies when the lib has the same friggin weapons, just make vehicles more interesting instead of making them more of the same thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conve...#/media/File:Cluster_Munitions_Convention.svg
Everything not in purple or blue has banned Cluster Munitions.

Note that every major, successful, active military power capable of independent force projection has not signed on. These are also many of the same nations that have not signed the Ottawa Treaty on Landmines.

The reasons for non-ratification for both treaties are the same, because they are both highly effective, cost effective classes of munitions. There are problems, to be sure, but solvable ones, which new designs are correcting.

People do have legitimate complaints. They mostly relate to the failure rates and the design of the canisters, and their concern over long-lasting risks to civilians from unexploded bomblets and mines. These are not unfounded complaints. The response of "LETS BAN ALL OF THEM" is not something I'm onboard with. Mines are extremely effective as a means of controlling territory, and cluster bombs dramatically increase the coverage area for a free-fall bomb over a comparable weight HE bomb, and can be much more effective at anti-armor work.


Proclamations by the inhabitants of Smurf Village, as useful, humanitarian, and as positive a force as they are in the world, do not make a weapon system more or less humane, or more or less effective. The usage of cluster bombs in and of itself is not a war crime. Indiscriminate usage of any weapon, including mines and cluster munitions, that presents undue and foreseeable risk of civilian losses, would be a warcrime. Responsible usage (Marking locations, sweeping un-exploded ordinance that you yourself have dispensed) does not.

Some people fervently would like for it to be. These are the same people who will immediately turn and tell you to ban DU, FAE/ ThermoBarics, and of course, White Phosphorous.

Huh. That was really interesting. Ta for the infoz!

The current (post-nerf) ESF is a pretty lame bird. It's best current uses are probably:
1) Sky Taxi
2) Q-Spoter of Vehicles
3) Pumpkin/Snowman Hunting

Yeah, Tankalishious is smoking. And full of incorrect information.

Even *pre-Nerf* (before Thermal and Hornet nerf) the ESF was horrible vs. Gals and Sundies. And most ESF pilots struggled vs. Libs. Though MBTs and non-Burster Infantry were both good targets for ESFs.

Now post-Nerf, the ESF is struggling vs. ALL targets. It can't see Infantry, this is the biggest problem. Scout Radar does not help. Even smaller fights with Infantry become a mess for the ESF. If you want to engage Inafntry, you have to fly dangerously close and hover, looking for movement, and I've done more TKing because I can't tell enemies from allies quick enough. And the biggest killer is there is no way to respond to Infantry AA with decent cover or that is spread out.

Again, the point is that a multi-role fighter won't perform as well at either air superiority or ground attack roles.

Consider, for example, the difference in payload for an F-22 versus an A-10. An F-22 can only carry about 2,000lbs of A2G weapons internally, maybe 2x 1,000lb JDAMs (which it can't even aim by itself). An A-10, on the other hand, can carry 16,000lbs of ordnance, about 8 times the natural capacity of the F-22. The F-22 also doesn't have the loiter time of an A-10, nor the ability to go "low and slow".

So yes, a F-22 can be used for G2A support... but it does not excel at that role (principally because it was designed as an air superiority fighter). The F-35 is terrible partly because it tried to take on too many roles at once.

In PS1 there were actually different airframes for fighters... unlike in PS2 where pretty much every ESF is optimised for ground attack and generally performs very poorly at A2A combat (which is why all we have left is the mentally-handicapped "hover fights" instead of boom-and-zoom or turning contests that are usually associated with dogfighting).

Finally, someone who gets it. That's a pretty cogent and concise summation of the state of ESFs after the recent nerfs.

I just did a load of flying (on Emerald) over the double XP weekend to farm certs for my ground vehicles, and half the weekend the air was relatively empty of ESFs... on member xp weekend...

At least now I have the certs to max out most of my other vehicles so I can officially become a ground pleb and shoot down what few remaining aircraft are left with tanks all day

Silver Lining.

The PS2 ESF was shoehorned over time by Designers into Nosegun Hover duels for ESF vs. ESF A2A. Even in cases where other types of A2A developed, the Designers then adjusted the game to remove that development. They even ADDED a new A2A Wingmount, only to (at multiple times) go in and nerf it into non-use.

The biggest problem ESFs had until this recent nerf, is that a small % of players who massively outperform with ESF Aim and Dodge skills have dictated how ESF vs. ESF should be. This doomed the ESF vs. ESF game to be narrow, and unplayable for the majority of players.

I do think that Hover tactics in ESF are neat. But to have gameplay forced into just Hover tactics, is stunted gameplay. Though we see time and again how PS2 Designers push for (and higher performing hardcore and hardcore organized players cry for) stunted gameplay that favors them and what they like to do. All of which ultimately has worked against the quality of play experience for the average player.

I would exist in a state of ongoing shock about how DBG Devs could continue their policy of niche player bias and catering of PS2. But I worked at Sigil and know the SOE culture first hand and intimately, and this has been a tier 1, decades long cultural imperative for them.

I'm just going to steel myself to being an ESF AI ****ter, obviously wrel wanted to "increase the skill in hunting infantry". I took offense but I must be completely justified because it must be skillful now! Or God emperor wrel would be wrong that all vehicles are blatantly OP, without question, can't have that.
So long infantry main days, good bye other directive weapons, your brothers and sisters will not be together in my loadouts. Good bye chat menu, I'll have to block all the hatetells I'm getting. Good bye supposed "good" status, my ****ter days are beginning.

The A-10 is definitely the best at what it does. One of the worst plans I've heard is that to retire the platform, there's just nothing that can replace it, especially not the F-35. Another option for cas though is the C-130, it doesn't have the missile options but it covers about everything else and then some. But you still run in to the same problems as the A-10, that of having it immediately available at the front lines like helos can be.

You're misreading what I wrote. I said the F-22 can be superior to the A-10 in some A2G situations, not in a CAS role. There's no way an A-10 would survive the places we send F-22s.

Light air cavalry.

I mainly play them "wrong", which is to say I mainly attack ground. I am mostly doing a support role. I'm not hunting for a full health MBT to bounce rockets off of. I'm looking for the MBT that's already smoking and is trying to hide behind a rock to heal up. I can finish him off with an ESF. Or if there's a tank duel underway, a rocket barrage can turn a close fight into a win for your guy.

Also handy for generally snooping around. Spotting AMSs coming in. Patrolling the perimeter of a player base. Harassing anyone that's harassing your team's ANTs. That sort of thing.

Of course, since I'm loaded for ground combat my approach to air combat is to run and hide under a skyshield until the AA guns make the bad man go away.

I also look doubtfully upon your claim that liberators are the better A2A platform. I have learned how to fight and not fight liberators as an ESF and I am far from being a good or experienced pilot. Getting nailed by a Liberator belly gun is the main threat but is relatively easy to avoid just picking your time to disengage and reengage. It takes a miracle for them to down you unless you are flying straight (and probably pointed right at them) and the worst a tail gun should do is make you run away a bit.

Plus, Lib vs ESF is a silly comparison since you should be comparing a 2-man lib to 2x ESF or a 3-man lib to 3x ESF. Given the same population, ESF > Lib at the A2A fight, no question.

Kinda wish they'd get rid of afterburner pods, though. I do hate that picking an anti-ground option means I'm basically just a sitting duck for the A2A loadout that shows up. (P.S., super thank you to anyone stupid enough to use A2A missiles, which gives me all the warning I need to run and find cover, especially with flares. It's the ones who start off with the gun and have extra afterburner fuel that create the really pointless fights for me.)

Lets see.
Faster than any ground vehicle.
Unaffected by terrain (aka no being funneled into choke points and has potential to attack from any direction).
Light armor.
AV and AI firepower on par with or exceeds an MBT.
Can be fitted with weapons dedicated to AA work.
Tends to die when loiters over areas full of weapons designed specifically to destroy aerial vehicles.

Sounds to me like an aerial version of the Harasser to me. Something ideally suited for hit-and-run attacks on ground targets when its not contesting the sky or scouting/ screening for a larger force. But that has zero business sticking around once the element of surprise is lost and the opposition starts pulling counters.

Of course air ****** have this problem in grasping the "run" part. So many times when my Vanguard shoves an AP shell down some ESF or Liberator's throat its because the moron refused to back off. To say nothing of how many times I've seen the same handful of sky ****** repeatedly attack from the same direction three or four times ever when they know there are four or more Skyguards watching that approach. Yet they still come here screaming about how its so unfair that they can't loiter around major fights because people pulled lots of AA.

If you don't want to get shot down by a horde of AA weapons, then DO NOT CHARGE IN! Wait until *gasp* the infantry and/or armor has cleared out the AA. In the same way infantry and armor wishes that the sky ****** would stop trying to farming an isolated spawn long enough to drive off the vehicles keeping them penned up inside the base. And if you want to survive in general then don't stick around once you've announced your presence and never keep attacking from the same direction.

Yes

No...

ESF can avoid terrain while flying above it. So in that case, they are not affected by terrain.

But ESFs (in all but totally safe engagements) must use terrain (and line-of-sight breaks) to do A2G. This is one reason why Air is so poor in vast wide open spaces, where there is no way to break line-of-sight and mitigate the impact of AA.

When engaging specific targets with limited ability to aim up (MBT), ESF must maintain a position above that unit while engaging. Again, this is in contrast to the statement being able to "attack from any direction."

Air also must use existing choke points as entry/exit routes to emerge from cover onto the target. They are often not the same specific choke points as Ground Vehicles, but they are still choke points.

And the phrase "unaffected by terrain" is terribly misleading statement in itself, as Air celebrates the highest death rate to terrain of any Unit type. 30%+ off all Air Unit Deaths are due to terrain.

Air is VERY affected by terrain.

ESF ranks 9th worst out of 10 Vehicles on Health/Resistances/etc. It beats the Flash... by a lot. And in turn the ESF is beaten by the 8th worst... by a lot. "Light armor" applied to an ESF might make the assignment of armor density terms to vehicles either rather ugly (very light, light, kinda light, somewhat light, barely light, etc.) or impractically generalized (with units like Flash and Valk assigned the same "light armor" term despite not being remotely the same in Health).

Firepower? An MBT?

ESF has better AoE AI potential than MBT. It also *might* have better AV vs. MBTs (not sure how the recent Hornet nerf changed things). And it typically has the potential to get better line-of-sight on targets. And it's killing power potential is arguably higher on various units in a variety of engagement types.

But ESF does not have more straight up firepower than an MBT (outside the AoE AI thing and *maybe* the MBT thing) on most target types. The resistance tables for Sunderers, ANTs, and Constructed Bases have been heavily increased vs. ESFs. ESFs are hesitant to engage Lightnings without proper safe setups, because they may be Skyguards. Not to mention the ESF's Alpha Burst king the Hornet has a Muzzle Velocity of 125 m/s, which makes hitting moving Air and Harassers difficult/dangerous/unrealistic for most pilots.

In addition, I think the MBT Primary has greater range than the Hornet. (http://planetside.wikia.com info on weapon ranges using general terms is confusing me: "far" vs. "long"?)

If you gave ESFs the ability to equip an MBT primary weapon, Vehicle players would cry.

Technically this is almost true. The ESF can be fitted with "a" weapon "dedicated to AA", and various other weapons that have descriptions as being for AA but usable vs. non-Air. You have AA Nosegun, and you have 2 AA Wingmounts.

In addition, the 2 AA Wingmounts have been handily and heavily nerfed by Devs. They are bad and largely not used. And the AA Nosegun sees use as an anti-ESF gun, but it does not excel vs. other Air.

Yes

I think you're suggesting that ESFs should focus on the following A2G engagement types:
1) spawn room farming after the zerg has locked down the enemy
2) dominating in very small fights with no Infantry cover where the enemy does not pull AA (yet)

Do note that #1 is not unviable because ESFs can no longer reasonably see Infantry.

I also already provided the following viable ESF roles:
1) Sky Taxi
2) Q-Spoter of Vehicles
3) Pumpkin/Snowman Hunting

I would add:
4) Extreme Range Poking/Nudging of enemy Armor with High Mag Noseguns to get them to move

But then that appears to be contested by other players (like Merus) in its value, so I am leaving it off:

Teaming up to take out injured MBTs has 2 problems as a role:
1) it's very infrequent outside of protracted armor standstills
2) if you just run in on opportunistic A2G, you run the very high risk of getting eaten alive by unseen enemy AA or enemy ESFs that will jump you when you expose yourself over the ally AA defenses.

I agree ESF excels as Q-Spoter of Vehicles.

I don't see many people Harass ANTs. And when they do it's with Firepower that will out-TTK my efforts to disrupt.

But if this gameplay works for you, then more power to you.

I have posted on this in detail in other threads. I will cover some of that here, and expand on it if needed.

1) many ESF players say they have trouble with current Libs. You do not, I do not, but I know lots of them do, so I recognize it as a genuine issue. That is why I bring it up.

2) there are 2 types of Libs vs. ESF. (1) is a bad pilot/crew, and easy kill, and a Cert pinata, (2) is a good pilot/crew, and a dangerous opponent and often a pain to take down for most ESF pilots. When I talk about dangerous Libs, I am not talking about #1 for the most part.

3) I don't fly in Gank Squads and PS2 has TERRIBLE Ally Faction communication outside of Squads/Outfits (both of which I generally dislike and don't participate in). Getting 2 Ally Air to jump an enemy Air together is usually cause 2 Ally Air were in the area, and an enemy Air showed up, someone started shooting, and they all heard each other and started shooting (usually getting into the fight at notable time delays from each other). And in those cases, whoever has the most ESF/Libs usually wins. Outside of that, it's Gank Squads rushing, outnumbering, and barbecuing Air targets. In other words, "comparing a 2-man lib to 2x ESF or a 3-man lib to 3x ESF" is silly because you almost never have heads-up engagements of even forces at the same time. You gotta look at the types of encounters that are frequent and usual, balance a game around that.

4) I use the High Mag Nosegun. It is very good at Hover-and-shuffle-around engaging Libs from extreme range and minimizing risk to enemy Dalton shots. If they are smart, they can often just fly away. Or sometimes other enemy Air will show up and I have to evade or run depending. Or sometimes ally Air will show up and we can all chip away at them from extreme range.

I play almost exclusive A2G (High Mag Nosegun, Rocket Pods, Hover), and I don't have a problem dealing with enemy ESF that run Fuel Tank, AA Nosegun, etc. I don't even usually have a problem with them getting the jump on me with those things. The only problem I have is if they are more skilled than me, jump me with more Air/ESFs, I am significantly already damaged, I don't have Fire Suppression charged, and/or if there is enemy AA in the area affecting me.

But otherwise, I will just evade, turn, and kill them. I can get owned by higher skilled pilots running terrible A2A ESFs, and I can own lower skilled pilots running the best dedicated A2A. In the infrequent case that I run into an ESF pilot of equal skill level, then those other things all matter... but it's infrequent. Only if you or them are pushing into the other territory is it really a deadly situation for either player. If the Server is dead, I have a lot better chance of just chip damaging them to death.

One thing I would add to the do not do list. When you come under fire don't bank/dive/climb left. Most pilots go left and it makes it fairly easy to lay a nice wad of flak in your way.

The hilarious thing is that nerfing thermals didn't increase the skill requirement at all, it just made it virtually impossible to see anyone. They may as well have said "Infantry are now virtually invisible from an aircraft. This should increase the skill required to kill them" That's not a skill requirement, it's just an enormous technical roadblock that you can't pass.

And that's assuming you've got a good monitor even, with properly calibrated colors and contrast. Imagine how impossible it is for the people who are playing on substandard monitor setups and/or lower resolutions trying to spot infantry from 150M+ in the air.

Add in the fact that PS2 is a game where players wear camouflage that helps them blend in to begin with.

Nighttime especially is now a particularly futile time to attempt anti-infantry in an ESF, it's just not feasible or realistic. And I'm not referring to 1-12 fights on hossin.

Nightvision is also completely useless, as it doesn't increase contrast and you just have a monochromatic version of the same picture.

Finally factor in the render distance and lag for drawing infantry, and it becomes obvious from all these combined considerations that thermal sights were simply a necessity to perform an anti-infantry role from the air in any reasonable capacity, especially at nighttime. Gee, maybe that's why SoE put them in the game to begin with...

Frankly, the one thing I have noticed with the change is I get even more ESF kills in a tank than ever before, because the few who didn't get the memo yet about ground pound being obsolete are hovering over bases even more than ever, giving ample time to hit them with AP shells.

Wrel got what he wanted mate, which is a world where vehicles are drastically less of a threat to infantry so he and the entitled CoD kiddies can live in a much safer bubble. That's why the nerfs were on the PTS for all of a week before going live, he wasn't looking for any feedback because he knew it would be terrible, they just rushed it through and left us all to deal with the fallout.

Part of the sarcasm

I would say the problem with ESFS is that they seem to be designed to work as a team but no one plays them like that.

I thought with the galaxy ammo and rep lines we would finally have platoons of air fighting air. With ESFS to fight other ESFS and work together to take down liberators and each other.

It just isnt effective. So it just isnt done.

I am not sure how to fix it. Maybe if you gave the galaxy a cert line that let it perform as a sunderer would... Then you would need people to defend them.... and air to take other air..

Not sure.

for the title:

Harass fights, collect some kills till they have to pull AA, allowing vehicles and infantry to move up, then being the most mobile unit so u can find another base susceptible to the same tactic.