[Suggestion] A2G and G2A rebalance

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by Demigan, Nov 16, 2019.

  1. Demigan

    The G2A vs A2G balance is crap, just about everyone knows it. Pilots often feel like G2A can exclude them from entire battles while the G2A themselves feels like they are firing wet paper tissue's that tell aircraft to go away for a few minutes after which they either have nothing to do and need to abandon their G2A duty or stick around hoping the aircraft will come back someday.

    I'm going to propose a lot of changes that all require either a change in statistics or the use of already existing mechanics.

    G2A changes:

    • Give Lightnings access to the A2A noseguns as a primary weapon.
      • This is about the firepower you should expect from most of the G2A weapons I'll propose here. Powerful but skillful.
    • All HEAT guns are changed to fulfill a G2A role against the larger aircraft, mainly Liberators and Galaxies.
      • They get a higher elevation range to actually hit airborne targets without the need of propping their tank against something.
      • ESF get a slightly higher damage resistance against HEAT rounds so there will be no OHK shots.
      • A flak detonation range of 0.5m can be introduced to increase the chance of a hit. Current flak has a detonation range of 8m, so a 0.5m flak detonation range is small in comparison.
    • The Lighting Viper is changes to fullfill the G2A role as well.
      • It receives a 0.5m flak detonation range.
      • It receives a much higher elevation range.
    • Flak is changed from a low-skillceiling spray&pray to a more skillful dedicated weapons platform.
      • The flak detonation range is changed from 8m to 2m or less.
      • The COF is made smaller for more accurate shots.
      • Projectile velocity is kept as-is. Ranged targets can easily avoid the flak but flak can still be used against long-range targets that hover or fly in straight paths. This limits the effective range of the flak.
      • Damage per projectile is increased (or alternatively the ROF) to reward successful hits.
    • Lock-on changes.
      • Locks need to be maintained while the missile is in-flight.
      • Locks take less time to acquire. Variants can be made by making the lock happen fast (0,5 seconds for example) or slow (2 seconds for example).
      • Missiles can be fired without a lock.
      • If a lock is broken you can re-acquire the target (or another target) and have the missile resume chase. This also works if you fired the missile as a dumbfire without a lock.
      • The agility of the missiles are reigned in. If a missile passes an enemy aircraft it is unlikely to be able to turn and hit it unless the aircraft is moving into the missile's turning direction.
      • These changes allow aircraft to try to dodge either the lock or the missile.
    • New guided G2A missiles
      • Missiles with a flak detonation range. Variations can be made between 2m flak detonation range (relatively easy to hit the target) and 0.5m detonation range (hard to hit the target).
      • Missiles are guided by the player's crosshair like AV turrets.
      • Agility of the missile has an effect on it's damage output. Highly agile missiles that easily follow your crosshair deal low damage compared to missiles that have little agility to follow the crosshair and thus need more leading. Variations of the missiles can be bought by the players (or alternatively they could change the firing mode themselves).
      • Speed of the missile has an effect on it's damage output. High-velocity missiles (easier to hit) deal less damage compared to low-velocity missiles (harder to hit).
      • Aircraft get a lock-on warning if they are within a cone of the crosshair. Firing flares while inside this cone prevents the missile from locking on to the crosshair for a while.
      • Vehicles should get access to such weapons as well to fend of air-attacks.
    A2G changes:
    • Afterburners:
      • Afterburners are changed in order to give aircraft a better chance of dodging G2A fire and staying in the fight around G2A sources.
      • ESF and Liberators get an omniversal afterburner, allowing them to afterburn in the direction of your keyboard input rather than engine position.
      • The chosen airframe for ESF could determine the fuel consumption for certain directions. A Hover frame ESF afterburning forwards would consume more fuel than a racer frame going forwards. Vice versa a Hover Frame ESF would consume less fuel afterburning backwards to slow down/go backwards than a Racer frame etc.
      • Valkyries get an omniversal afterburner as well, they should have gotten an afterburner long ago for dodging purposes.
    • Terrain collisions
      • Aircraft colliding with terrain causes almost instand death, sometimes even when you are moving very slowly. To encourage newbies to learn to fly more and to encourage more flying close to the ground in order to avoid G2A fire all terrain collisions give reduced damage. Ideally a collision at normal non-afterburned cruising speed will put you from full health to on fire. Lower speeds allow you to hit terrain and receive much less damage.
    And that's more than enough idea's already.
    • Up x 5
  2. Scroffel5

    I basically only read the first few paragraphs and suggestions, and I like it. Currently, there is no ground vehicle that, in its basic form, is useful against air. We gotta change that.
  3. TRspy007

    I agree with what you said, I'd say lockons shouldn't have to be maintained, since ESF usually fly away to escape, so it would be hard to use them successfully.

    Give the archer some flak capability so engineers don't have to waste their G2G potential to fend off air. Buff the Burster MAX, the MAX in general needs some resistance buffs.

    But this is definitely an important thing in the game that needs reword, air shouldn't single-highhandedly be able to stop fights or destroy MBTs that cost much more to spawn and have less mobility.
  4. Liewec123

    I do feel like G2A needs to be more skill based and actually allow you to kill air rather than scare them away,
    There currently isn't a single AA weapon that can kill a pilot with a brain before the pilot can escape.
    Hilariously the best AA at the moment is a tank with high velocity G2G, Deployed prowler AP is particularly effective.

    So i'd like skyguard to do to air what Shredder does to ground.
    We have high skill AA weapons like Walker, but they do no more than tickle,
    Anyone with a brain will simply fly away, repair and then be back again.
    • Up x 1
  5. Scroffel5

    Oh my gosh yes. Skyguard = Air Shredder. I currently hate the Shredder and there is nothing to do about it.

    Things should play out like you would think combined arms would. If a Skyguard is in the area, the pilots should circle around and be like "We can't get in there to help you. You have to take down that Skyguard." The Infantry and Ground Vehicles would go out and destroy the Skyguard Lightning. Boom! ESFs and Liberators can get in and take the stuff down. That sounds fair.
  6. ican'taim

    The Skyguard in PS1 was a dedicated anti-air buggy.

    (vid starts around 2:05)
    I'd like to see this in PS2.
  7. Demigan

    No absolutely not. A gameplay element that completely prevemts one group of players from joining any fight is a horrible idea.
    What is more horrible is that you would create an on/off switch. If the Skyguard is there no one fears the aircraft. Lose your Skyguard and you are quite literally helpless against them. In either case the situation isnt fun for one group.
    That is what I'm also trying to adress here. Facing G2A should be par of the course for pilots, and having to deal with A2G should be absolutely normal and possible at any point in time.

    Just imagine it as a pilot: you either avoid the area or are farming without resistance.
    As ground you are either 100% safe as allied skyguards are nearby or are farmed relentlessly.
    As Skyguard you are without targets the moment you fend off or defeat your enemies, and then have to sit around doing nothing until ground units destroy you or you get bored enough to leave it.

    The situation I'm striving for: aircraft deal with G2A all the time and risk death at every battle just like infantry and tanks do. And ground units use their tools to always deal with A2G targets.
  8. Skraggz

    This is how it is currently. And this is what I fear when swinging nerf hammers and buffs around. Its gotta be engaging for both parties.

    Like most of your post and as a player that flies often, I have to ask. I assume you intend to change the lock on damage. Because 3 missiles while maintaining would be.... unfun.
  9. TR5L4Y3R

    yes to higher elevation of some turrets be that mbt/lightning mainturrets or topguns, engineer manatuuerts should get a higher elevation too prefferably more turretvariants as well (buuut lets not forget the recent layoffs .. so this may not be likely)
    yes to giving more versatile lock on options with dumbfirecapability ..

    no for changing flak - noviceplayers still should have an AA entryweapon before they are comfortable using something like the walker or a saronesque autocannon for a med-skillweapon or pod/pelterlike dumbfire missiles (pelter could be a vehicleoption) ...
    flak CoF on range should be reduced a bit and burster and ranger need a damagebuff against non airtargets especialy heavy armor cause unlike the skyguard the former does none and the latter not enough thus are unfavorable options ..

    guided missiles are basicaly hornets/VLG just put the VLG turretmodel of the valkyrie on vehicles
    missile speed may need a bit of an increase but not too much that tanks have problems to dodge it ...
    hornets f.e. are incredibly difficult to land against aircraft and do bad damage compared to even A2A lock on missiles
    masamune needs a precisionbuff when ADSing or a damagebuff against aircraft .. mebe both ...

    other than that give vehicles access to the hyenaturret ..
    esf coyotes NEED a damagebuff .. they are just pathetic ..

    yes to less damage when bumbing into terrain with the esf ...
    maybe add a default slotoption (utility?) to aircraft for reduced damage for both enemy and yourself to take less rammingdamage discouraging suicidemoves that way ...

    not entirely sure about omniversal thrusters at least regarding the valkyrie cause it still is capable to get repaired in flight quickly with rumbleseatengineers ...
  10. Scroffel5

    AA would still retain the buffs you talk about here. AA would be viable even without a Skyguard. Aircraft would have to play more conservatively. You cant rush in to the Skyguards area and stick around. As a pilot, you'd stay out of that area and fight outside of that area. You set up a perimeter, but you can't get into the area they need help in. your allies would have to use AV to destroy the Lightning. That means AV > Skyguard > ESF. Combined arms. If the Skyguard and ESF can take each other on easily, they counter each other, and we don't want that. We want teamwork and cooperation.
  11. Demigan

    What you are talking about is rock-paper-scissors, not combined arms.
    Combined arms is if one arm of the army, regardless of it being infantry, tanks or aircraft, supports another. You can even have combined "arms" within the arm itself.

    Example: a scout helicopter can scout out a target and then guide an attack helicopter or bomber to that target.
    If we replace the scout helicopter with an infantry scout suddenly its combined arms, even though its the same task the scout helicopter did.
    We could also replace the scout heli/infantry with a scout vehicle for combined arms.
    Or have a scout helicopter scout out a target for a tank or AV infantry to take down for combined arms.

    I hope you see the common denominator: by combining their skills the other arm (or even within your own arm) is stronger than the sum of the parts. And any arm can play any part of the combined arms. An aircraft can play the supporting arm or the offensive arm. Do it well and they can even switch by allowing the aircraft to deal with infantry to keep the tanks safe while the aircraft spot vehicle or air targets for their ground components.

    What you are talking about is specifically the opposite of combined arms: segregated arms. With AA nearby the air arm cannot function and is segregated from the rest. AA needs to be dealt with with ground forces, and once dealt with the aircraft dont benefit in any way from the ground forces. They are still segregated since they dont cooperate, they just capitalize on something someone else has done indirectly for them. This doesnt present a fun or fair gameplay.

    Thats why I'm proposing something that makes G2A lethal, but also allows the aircraft to specifically be capable of functioning despite G2A being present. Each attack by aircraft is at risk each time they attack, but it is not certain they'll die.
    The tools to truly make it combined arms are still missing in this case, but the groundwork, allowing the different arms to exist and function next to each other, would be there.
  12. Demigan

    Do novice player really need a weapon that is this much spray&pray?
    Cant we have weapons that function around the same skill level as basic infantry or tank combat? Its not like they can buy a flak weapon easily if they cant even perform basic combat skills.
    The A2A noseguns on the lightning would perform the higher skill G2A functions. The updated flak would be easier to use than that due to its flak detonation range, and still be relatively easy for close-range targets and only be difficult for long-range moving targets. Even with a 2m detonation range it would likely fall within the top 3 easiest to use weapons in the game within its intended range. I really dont see why we would want the current skill requirement and functioning of flak to remain, especially since it would undo the exact reason I'm proposing this: allow G2A to be lethal while also allowing aircraft to join any fight no matter how big.
  13. TR5L4Y3R


    if it were me i would try to add a row of weapons for every level of skill ...
    i´m not saying WE CAN`T HAVE a weapon like X ... i am saying there shouldn´t be a change to make a weapon more skillbased at the expence of taking a option for beginners away .. and yes imho there should be a spray and pray option like this ...

    if people start with a lack of combat skills how would your changed flaksuggestion then help them in the first place ?
    they would have just as much trouble if not more to handle a higherpitch viper if they chose to do AA duty with a vehicle ..
    as for lightning "noseguns" ... i mean for any other vehicle you have already walkers which at the very least function similarly ...
    you may aswell just give it that ...



    you don´t need to make EVERY weapon like absolutely lethal ... infantry itself uses weapons that have lower killpottential compared to many automatic variants and are used for support and supression against other infantry..
    as i said in other threads i´m very much for having the option to deter and the option to have a weapon with high killpotential depending on the skillfloor/ceiling risk and reward .. ..

    also here is a thing that sounds contradicting to me you say that flak should be a mid-skillweapon and say it should be easier to use than noseguns, how would it be easier to use when you keep the same projectile velocity but reel in the splashrange THIS much? increasing the rate of fire with this velocity would lead to a higher ammount of missed shots and depleting the magazine quicker even if you go and decrease the CoF .. ... flak would need much higher projectile velocity with this little splash otherwise people would have a harder time leading with this weapon than you probably have in mind ... .. by how much do you want to reel in flak effective range?

    walker has a muzzle velocity of a 1000m/s
    noseguns have 650 to 770 m/s
    the default basilisk for many vehicles has 550 m/s
    the skyguard has 400 m/s
    rangers and bursters have less projectilevelocity than the skyguard as well as less RoF ..
    • Up x 1
  14. Scroffel5

    Both people have to work together to defeat the Skyguard... The ESF distracts the Skyguards, as that is the Skyguards only point, to deal with air. The AV crew sneaks up on it, plants C4, shoots it, I don't care. If that didn't one hit, the ESFs now have the opportunity to attack. By AV and Air working together, then they can beat the Skyguard. Yes, RPS comes into play if you work alone, but that is true of most things in this game anyways. Each of them working together contributes to a combined arms initiative.
  15. Demigan

    This suggests that the Skyguard has some massive AV+AI capability to keep off AV crews that try to attack it, and requires an aircraft to distract it.
    But how would that work in the first place? The Skyguard is capable of shredding aircraft you say, but the aircraft do have time to hang around and distract the Skyguard but not attack ground troops? Aside from the "aircraft need to distract it" and "can't attack troops" my idea would fulfill your needs.

    But even if your form of combined arms were true, how is that a fun way to play the game? The aircraft has no real communication methods to talk to the ground and vice versa to let them know they are trying to take care of a Skyguard and need help from each other. Even if they did the aircraft would be denied playing in any area with a Skyguard, but once the Skyguard is gone the aircraft have practically free reign to blow up and mince anything they please. Is that fun to either be almost useless or dominate everything without opposition without a middle-ground? It doesn't sound like fun.
  16. Scroffel5

    Its fun when you have to work together, and they always have voice chat when close enough or region chat. Thats what I use to get things done. The Skyguard doesn't have a massive AV or AI capability. It should be better at AI, though, but that is besides the point. Its not necessarily hard to destroy a Skyguard with a regular Lightning or a C4. My point is that you'd need someone to do it. If your skyguard is the ONLY thing holding off air, people would have to protect it from AV. I am not saying that the Skyguard is the sole counter to AA either! There are other things that would stop air from coming down to farm up all infantry, such as buffed lock ons with the stuff you talked about. I was giving an example pertaining to the Skyguard. There was a video that Cyrious uploaded recently and in one of the clips, he was talking about them distracting a Lightning so the other guy could C4 it. They were just peaking out and shoot it with a MANA AV turret, and running back into cover, while the LA come from behind and used C4. That is what the ESFs would be doing essentially. Giving a target to shoot at so the Skyguard won't see an LA coming.
  17. Demigan

    But my idea still does perform that role. The flak changes I proposed would still mean they are some of the easiest (if not the easiest) weapons in the entire game to use, just not as laughably easy as we have now until you reach ranged targets. Beginners could still perform wonderfully with these types of flak weapons, even better is that they can actually learn to get better by learning how their accuracy can reward more hits as the target tries to escape or dodge. And any beginner weapon should definitely teach the player the skills he'll need to advance.
    Bonus would be that we could gift newbies flak weapons as basic starter weapons, rather than gating G2A weapons behind a certwall since newbies only start with the one MAX flak arm as a G2A weapon. Another bonus is that deterrents would go away, and aircraft aren't denied fights simply because G2A is present. This also means that the beginners who pick up a flak weapon would actually have the targets to train themselves with, rather than finding a mechanic where the targets just survive each time they fire at it and then go away.

    Because my flak changes are supposed to make it more enjoyable, not solve some beginner learningcurve. Even so the new flak would actually have a skill ceiling to reach, meaning that beginners can get the satisfaction of seeing their skill improve and get that hook they need to be more invested in the game. Compare that to the current situation where no matter how well they aim there is little improvement to how much kills you score and the fact that a deterrent weapon will either scare the opponent away or the player will experience enemies escaping repeatedly while any other weapon in the game kills the opponent and the first experience using flak is not a good one for beginner or more experienced players. I only had reasonable scores with it because I deliberately placed myself in escape routes to pick off damaged aircraft rather than try and protect my allies (which in the long run worked but not for that moment).

    We don't really have suppression weapons, but we do have supportweapons like Battle Rifles that help your allies from behind or can be used as lethal option at range. And I see lots of reasons to keep such supportweapons in the game especially in G2A weapons. But what we don't need is deterrent weapons. Their functioning is an on/off switch. If they work then their target is incapable of functioning in the area. If they don't work then their target is free to operate without repercussions. This isn't a good system in any way, shape or form.
    I would rather see that a "deterrent" would be to use a concussion effect on the aircraft (not the inverting of the mouse controls though) or similar abilities. That's a good way to deter an attack as they will have less accuracy and are more likely to crash or be incapable of escaping soon enough. It doesn't prevent the aircraft from operating in the area but does help protect your allies depending on when you hit the aircraft and the skill of the pilot. That's a perfect way to go about it.

    I don't say that flak should be a mid-skill weapon?

    If you decrease the COF, then flak can hit targets more consistently when you are on-target rather than have random COF move shots off-target (or on-target, whatever the case may be). With the smaller detonation range you do have to shoot closer, but against most aircraft this shouldn't be a problem.
    We don't want aircraft to be hit constantly just because they got close, but we do want flak to be useable against short-ranged targets so the flak detonation range isn't removed. By increasing the DPS you are rewarded more for the hits and offset the misses you'll incur by reducing the detonation range. This means that you can still scare close-range aircraft away even with lower skill, and as it increases have the opportunity to actually kill them. The aircraft can try to get out of the effective range and make it more difficult to score hits by increasing the distance in return.

    The effective range of flak would need to be determined experimentally depending on how both sides experience the changes. That said it would be best if the nosegun-type G2A weapons would be focused more on the ranged combat and the flak on shorter range.

    A Walker is still a deterrent weapon. Best-case scenario it has about the same DPS as the Skyguard. It uses spray&pray and high muzzle velocity to score hits, but isn't exactly superior to the Skyguard.
    Muzzle Velocity when engaging aircraft is immensely important for it's effective range and how easy it is to use. If every G2A weapon has 1000m/s then any CQC engagement with it is basically point&click without leading, making the weapon far superior the closer the aircraft gets (which means you have to deliberately reign in it's DPS to make sure the aircraft has a chance to survive which gets us the Walker as a deterrent weapon). By keeping Flak which has the easiest chance on hits on the slowest muzzle-velocity we make sure it does not overperform compared to other options. Why would you pick something over Flak if it has an easier time hitting and it requires barely any difference is firing capabilities and it's damage potential is good enough for a kill anyway?
    Keep Flak shorter ranged (unless the target is flying predictably or hovering) and give other weapons the higher muzzle velocities. It adds variation and specialization without making flak useless or impossible to use for newbies.
  18. Demigan

    Yes this is pretty much how it already is, but Scoffel seems to want to exacerbate this even more.
    The lock-on damage would depend on the missile. If you need more skill to land a shot, for example because your lock-on is slow-moving and has little maneuverability forcing you to first lead the missile and dumbfire it before you lock onto the target, then the current damage potential might even be too low if we kept it at current levels. But for easier to hit missiles (which I would think that these type of lock-ons should fulfill) yes the damage would need to be toned down. The DPS however... That should go up. A single player should have more of a chance to down an aircraft even with these lock-ons. On the other hand the aircraft in question would need the tools and capabilities to dodge the lock or the missile to prevent getting hit in the first place.
  19. Demigan

    proxy voice chat works on 30m or something? And you want aircraft to coordinate with an AV team that it doesn't know beforehand is there through that?
    Or Region chat, which both requires the player to type first after discovering a G2A threat, then hope an AV team notices and speaks up? Then you are forced to communicate through text where they are, if you are talking about the same target, what is happening, how long it takes for either to get into position, if they can even attack due to enemy population inbetween, hope you aren't attacked and destroyed while doing all this and the Skyguard in the meantime requires no communication or teamwork to deal with the aircraft? It sounds like a reverse situation of what we have now with aircraft needing teamplay to take down by ground and it's horrible.

    Your words from earlier made it seem the Skyguard had something up it's sleeve to counter AV teams so an aircraft was forced to distract it. But if that isn't the case then no teamwork is necessary. Why would an aircraft risk itself distracting a Skyguard that can be killed by an AV team right now? Where's the combined arms? Two units attacking the same target does not equal combined arms, the whole needs to be greater than the sum of it's parts.

    The point I'm trying to achieve with my changes is that aircraft aren't prevented from operating. So there's a Skyguard there? Well the aircraft has a chance to still get a few kills in and repair or even get out unscathed despite the Skyguard!

    Or get horrendously murdered by that same Skyguard. Ofcourse range and skill differences would apply. So far the Skyguard I proposed would still have practically guaranteed hits on a close-range aircraft, but it's amount of hits be dependand on some measure of skill rather than "well you got close and it fired so here's X amount of damage".
  20. Xhaleon

    I don't think there's really much you can do to change the balancing of Air versus Ground interactions because the primary air attackers ESFs are designed as relatively slow moving pseudo-helicopters rather than fighter jets. Any change you make to increase the damage output from ground to sky will cause large swings in how much hurt an air pilot will take within a given timeframe. The former spends a lot of time in sight of enemies, the latter can make fast strafing passes where only someone prepared with an AA weapon can respond in time.

    If you increase the effectiveness of single man G2A then it becomes disproportionately likely they'll be blown out of the sky without a chance to respond and escape, OR they'll be forced to play super conservatively at range and bug out the moment they start taking scratches. That goes for vehicular AA too. Technically it's possible right now if you're in an outfit or a cat-whisperer who can herd a bunch of HAs with AA launchers, but in typical casual play many don't bother because they feel like they're throwing tissue paper balls (which would do a 180 if the above change happens). I mean, if one day ESFs became more like fragile fighters than armored choppers then magic could happen I guess.

    Eh, I'd say for a start make bullet-and-flak-based AA less crappy in their accuracy and velocity. They need to hit even an ESF many, many times to do substantial damage, to say nothing about Libs and Valks. After a certain pathetic range they can't reliably hit things and you certainly can't see where the tracers are going either so leading is guesswork and the spread after that is another dice roll. More damage would make it unfairly dangerous for pilots, but more accuracy and effective range should be fair as the shooter still needs to do his job and stay on target for a while.