[Suggestion] AA/Flak should be stronger and shorter ranged

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by fusion322, Mar 23, 2016.

  1. Badname707

    Explain what you mean. Having a nosegun does not automatically make you effective in air. The prime advantage of the ESF is in its mobility, not in its weaponry. If you're using rockets, you're hurting your mobility badly.
  2. Reclaimer77

    And your "suggestions" are basically "don't take my crutch"


  3. fusion322

    So take rocket pods, hornets, tomcats, and Ai guns off of ESF's problem solved, this is only what Ive mention 700 times in the past /thread

    These people are the problem:

    Not these people:
  4. Cyropaedia

    Either ire will move to Libs or once we move ESF A2G to Valks you will have everyone crying over "farming" Valks complemented by a crew of C4 Fairies and Repair Engineers.
    • Up x 1
  5. Badname707

    If you get rid of ESF A2G, then the only thing that really does anything A2G is the lib. If the lib is the only source of A2G, it needs buffs or QoL improvements to make it more accessible. I don't think that most people who dislike the current implementation disagree with the idea of there being a 'strike fighter', I just think they want it to be another vehicle.

    Explain to them that it won't really change anything and will just cost dev time, and you'll explode their heads, tho.
    • Up x 1
  6. Foxirus

    Uh.. You are up there possibly trying to kill my allies. That is plenty of reason for me to interrupt your "Air Combat". If you cannot accept that this is combined arms game, Just get out. Go play Top Gun or something.
    • Up x 3
  7. fusion322

    You're down there killing my allies, but you want me to have nothing to do with it. If I win i'm able to take out your galaxies/ libs.
  8. Reclaimer77

    If you cared about your allies struggles, you would be down there with them. Come on.
  9. fusion322

    I wouldn't like another vehicle, I just want ESF's to have only nose guns and mobility upgrades. Then we can raise the flight ceiling and rework the liberator situation to give people some harder to use, harder hitting AA to use against them. When ESF's try to take out libs or galaxies, then AA can get involved and try to drive them off.
  10. FateJH

    So, in other words, both of you go about your business as normal.
  11. Demigan

    But you can bother people on the ground, and it's easy for ESF and most other aircraft to do so. Sure ESF for instance with an afterburner loadout will "only" be able to attack infantry effectively, but so what?
    Look at vehicles, unless they have a specific AA loadout they wouldn't be able to bother you if they tried, unless you are actively doing incredibly low or are so close that a Basilisk is somehow effective against you.
    And that's the thing, 95% of the vehicles won't be able to do much against aircraft and really want to be left alone by them. Yet most aircraft don't, and that's a good thing (well, the fact that they are bothered, not that 95% won't be able to defend itself without seriously hampering their own effectiveness).
    So even if you have oh-so great intentions and barely ever attack ground... You still have more options to attack ground and you are a definite minority of the air force. Aside from your intention to only do A2A there's no actual good reason to allow you to avoid all ground-based AA just so you can do a purist battle up in the sky. There's also the whole point of "no one can see if you are a dedicated A2A pilot", while it's definitely visible that a player is a dedicated G2A player since the G2A weapons are so laughable against ground targets you might as well not bother in most cases. So... G2A players have much more cause to be left alone by anyone who isn't their intended target than aircraft, yet they are some of the most favorite targets due to their relative weakness against everything that's not aircraft.
    It is an unfair system that aircraft already have the option to avoid 95% of the undedicated damage sources, and even that 5% of dedicated weaponry has an immense trouble hitting anything at the sky ceiling allowing aircraft to easily avoid every single thing ground forces can throw at them. So the only way aircraft would be allowed to have some way to avoid G2A fire even more would be to make ground units, especially the dedicated self-hampering G2A units, completely immune to most what air has to offer as well. But that is a bad way to set up a game.

    Well first off because these shouldn't be defensive weapons at all. They should be offensive as hell (in every sense of that sentence) against aircraft.
    Second off with the giant COF they have they have just as much chance of hitting the other guys, and apparently your flying methods or pure luck on the Vanu side meant they engaged you, because most aircraft at range (350m flat distance is already enough to put you over the next base) aren't exactly very visible and it might not matter at all for the AA defense what aircraft it hits, as long as it hits something. I actually think that if there was a conscious thought behind attacking you, it was that the AA had the most chance of killing you and the least chance of killing the Vanu, since you are already getting damaged he had a chance of getting the killing blow while it wasn't a high chance that you won or survived (with the odds, the player cannot know your skill vs theirs) so he had all the reason to shoot at you and not at the Vanu who would have the numbers to let one or two of them flee the scene safely after being hit.

    The problem with aircraft is that they move so fast. You never know when or how an aircraft is going to attack. Keep in mind that an aircraft cruising at 200KM/H can cross 1000m in 18 seconds, most vehicles take 18 seconds to spawn and move out of their own base's limits!

    Also there's the fact that any vehicle or infantry caught out in the open will get minced by aircraft, and there's absolutely no reason for aircraft to abstain from attacking a vehicle or infantry out in the open "because he's not moving in the direction of one of my owned bases". The only problem in that scenario is that there are no AA options that aren't completely dedicated and hamper you in combat with other ground forces.
    So... Aircraft should suffer the same, they absolutely should. The difference is that vehicles and infantry that use terrain aren't in the open, and aircraft would have to rely on dodging maneuvers to gain a similar advantage that terrain gives to infantry and vehicles. And there we face the problem of flak again: It's mechanics discourage doing dodging maneuvers since it's less player skill and more the RNG that determine if you hit or not. AA types that encourage aircraft to dodge, but can totally rip a long-range aircraft apart that isn't using it's speed and maneuverability to avoid shots is a must in PS2 to improve the inter- and counter-play of aircraft and ground-based AA.
  12. Demigan

    I think the problem is more that ESF have weapons that are balanced around needing quick and short attacks. The problem is that with current AA players either get minced or don't have much opposition. Most aircraft will gladly just seek out a battle without AA present and farm there, hovering around and crushing anything with weapons that were designed for high-speed attacks.

    Now VTOL attacks in PS2 are a relative unique feature in the way they executed it, so completely obliterating the idea for VTOL combat against ground is bad. But we can reduce the effectiveness of hovering around by making it more dangerous (new types of AA) and by changing the value's of some weapons. Introducing longer reloads on most ESF secondaries would encourage them to fly about rather than hover. Adding some ESF secondaries that encourage fighter-bomber style attacks such as simple bombs or semi-guided bombs would make a world of difference in both the playstyles and the effectiveness of ESF. It would also do wonders for immersion, I would love to see some ESF flying over dropping bombs on vehicles and infantry. It could even add new tactics in aircraft combat where one ESF tries to get his opponent to follow him upwards and fly into the bombs he dropped.

    Anyway, improving Lib QoL is a must. In fact improving QoL of all vehicles, infantry and aircraft is a must. It should be easy to learn and hard to master, but offer less power gain for skill gain the higher up you go. You should also be able to counter maneuvers with a different maneuver. Having a counter based on itself is horrid as it only rewards the guy who is better at a trick, rather than the guy who can switch up tactics and use different techniques.
  13. Demigan

    This is part of the problem, Foxirius never said he didn't want aircraft involved at all. He just pointed out what I've also been pointing out: Aircraft pose a constant threat, and the players on the ground have no way of seeing who has some kind of honor system and who doesn't.
    So the problem is: You counter our arguments by putting words in our mouths. You assume everyone who is against you instantly wants all aircraft to have no involvement in ground combat. Thing is Foxirius explicitly said this was a combined arms game, that already means he wants aircraft to be involved just as much in ground combat as ground would be involved in air combat.
  14. WTSherman

    There is a very practical reason why AA range can't be anything less than render distance: in the majority of situations the aircraft has 100% control over what range AA is engaging them at. If there is any range at which an aircraft can see an AA unit but the AA unit is unable to threaten them, the aircraft can simply hover at that range and kill the AA with hornets, the Valkyrie's guided missile, or lobbed Dalton shots.

    That would render AA completely trivial as a counter to air, and basically turn all AA platforms into death traps (more so than they already are). It doesn't matter how much more powerful you make them if there is a range where you can pick them off with no fear of retaliation.

    And that's pretty much why vehicle/turret based AA has such long range. It's necessary to function. Most infantry AA is capped at 300m, infantry render distance, because not rendering past that point protects them from that problem (though in my opinion it could use a little extra to buffer for lock-time and general utility). Bursters have longer range because MAXes render further away.
  15. Badname707

    Wait, AA players get minced by what? I honestly struggle to believe that they are losing out to aircraft on a regular basis.

    I'm mostly in favor of your second paragraph, but I do not think the existing AA needs a significant buff. If anything, AA needs to be more versatile, so that it can engage the enemy when air isn't present. When AA is present, hover farming isn't a problem.

    I think the best QoL improvement they could possibly add into the game is increased coordination with ground forces. Ground forces should be able to designate targets for them to hit as well as AA they need to avoid. This means that, even if aircraft has only a handful of seconds to engage, they can do so in a way that helps out the fight on the ground, rather than just purely being a distraction.
    • Up x 1
  16. Demigan

    Infantry and tanks. Also Liberators. Infantry-worn AA (Lock-ons and Bursters) often get stomped upon by ESF as well.

    I don't think that AA needs buffing so much as a complete rebalance. Most AA isn't exactly weak even solo, it's just that aircraft have enough health, speed and agility to outrun it even in scenario's that you would expect to end badly for the aircraft (see: Hovering ESF gets shot from point-blank by AA and has time to get away safely). Add insult to injury that no matter what an aircraft does it will get hit and you have a sure-fire way to escalate the damage potentials by simply using multiple AA sources.
    Now how exactly it gets done I don't even care that much, as long as the situation goes from "AA can't get kills unless in groups at which point it's a guaranteed kill" to "AA can get kill solo or in groups, but aircraft have chances to counter AA power through their strengths (movement+agility) without making AA useless".
    Oh yeah, and yes AA needs to have more versatility. In fact vehicle-based AI also needs more versatility to be useful in scenario's where infantry/aircraft aren't present.

    Yes! I've proposed an idea for players to be able to designate targets and allow for easier and more intricate interplay between infantry, tanks and aircraft. From requesting backup to asking for airstrikes to less selfish things like showing that an area has AA in it so that friendly aircraft can avoid it or that allies can try to hunt them down. The key would be that it is available to everyone, from the most lone wolf random to coordinated outfits, everyone should be able to request each others help. It would need some limits in how many and how fast you can place them and how many you can see at a time to prevent clutter, but it would definitely be a useful tool that would help create a massive improvement for the combined-arms game.
  17. Badname707

    Yeah, true. Again, I'd chalk this up to poor positioning or lack of coordination, not to weakness of the platform.

    See, I suppose that's a major point we disagree on. If an ESF was able to get to where he was hovering without being bothered, he deserves to live, if only one source of AA is targeting him. It's really not the pilots fault that the ground was totally unprepared to deal with air. The only thing it takes to instagib that pilot is 3 people with AA lock ons, and they don't even have to keep that loadout. If 2-3 sources of flak target a hovering ESF simultaneously, that pilot is almost definitely going to die. 'But why should 3 have to kill one?' Imagine a scenario with 3 aircraft and 3 AA. It is rare that the air will be able to find the AA first, unless they pre-scouted the AO. This means that the AA will usually get the drop on their opponent. If those 3 AA pieces are coordinating, they should be able to take out at least 2 of them, unless they all bugger off at first contact. If the ESF's decide to engage the AA, unless they are significantly more skilled, all 3 ESF's will be lost and the AA will lose nothing. Again, the major problem from my perspective, regarding the entirety of the game, is that you have to go out of your way to coordinate in any fashion with your team. The game does not make teamplay convenient.

    I think AI is fine - infantry is present in MOST fights, and they are strong enough to warrant a specialized load out. The AI weapons seem to be in a good place.

    Agreed. I think ultimately balance is in a good place, except for when things get coordinated. Since there is such a big gap between coordinated and uncoordinated forces, the only way to fix it is to make coordination easier. There ought to be a way for solo players to receive info from team players, so their efforts are spent in more useful ways. If there were waypoints people could set saying 'defend this position' or 'kill this/these vehicles', then zerging would become much less of an issue. Until the factions are playing as a team, balance issues are practically irrelevant; whether or not balance is changed, our perception of it will change as people learn new tactics and strategies. Make tactics and strategy commonplace, and then we can start looking at the REAL balance of things.

    Thank you for being a good arguer! You make excellent points. Your way of debate should be emulated more often on these forums.
  18. fusion322

    This why I think ESF should only have nose gun, and wing slots should be all utility or MAYBE tomcats that lock after level 15 or something.

    Also going to mention really fast, trying to farm infantry with a nose gun is not worth anyone's time.

    I don't agree with this, it should definitely be extremely effective, but offensive is not how I would describe any turret in any game.

    But why is he bothering us in the first place???

    Why should an infantry player at a base with no fight be worried about ESF's flying toward him? What will they do? Fly in circles until its captured?

    This is the key to the issue. ESF's need to have little or no power against vehicles, and very little against infantry (no AI specific weapons)

    This would be another great fix, it would allow people who aren't interested in hover farming infantry to stay relatively safe while those who slow down or hover to kill ground targets will get punished.
  19. Badname707

    Taking away A2G options for ESF's won't make AA stop targeting them. An enemy is an enemy, no matter what, no matter where.

    Besides, conceptually speaking, what's wrong with a 'strike fighter' type vehicle? Why should crewed aircraft be the only thing that can affect the battle on the ground?
    • Up x 1
  20. fusion322

    "Business as usual" includes an unhealthy A2G relationship, that's why we're here.

    The solution to this would be raising the flight ceiling rather than lowering range, but it seems like people aren't too fond of that idea either.

    I agree with most of this, except I disagree that AI is fine, I think ESF's should have little to no ground effectiveness, perhaps they could have an AI wing slot, but it would have to be a little weaker than the existing rocket pods, AI nose guns should be completely out of the question, and if Anti Vehicle weapons were to exist, they have to be weaker and the vehicles need better defensive or at least evasive capabilities. (Maybe ESF's should not be able to effect slow moving vehicles like sunderers or MBT's but quicker vehicles should be?)

    I also still think the current AA is too oppressive.
    If people aren't willing to give us a higher ceiling then Flak has to be changed to something more "dodge-able" and interactive.