[Suggestion] AA range/view distance absurd.

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by ShiroSan, Nov 12, 2017.

  1. ShiroSan

    Max render/view distance enabled btw.

    So I was at the amp station on the landing pad when the hud showed where I was getting random pock shots from. Nothing was viewable. I hopped out to repair my scythe and looked in direction... Still nothing was viewable including the lack of any bullet trails. This is absurd when AA can take you out from so far away. I'm pretty sure it was a skyguard as it did not sound like a ranger but it was definitely flak fire.
  2. adamts01

    Maybe a Burster max? Vehicles have a pretty high priority when it comes to rendering things, and since you were landed on a pad I'm assuming there weren't too many other units around to lower render ranges like you see in a 96 vs 96.

    The flak mechanic does suck though. I wish they'd replace that deterrent mechanic with a direct fire weapon that could actually reward aim with kills.
  3. DarkStarAnubis

    You are sure it was an AA weapon? ESF and Valkyrie can be [lightly] damaged even by a sniper rifle, or an engineer with the Archer.
    • Up x 1
  4. ShiroSan

    yes I'm sure, cuz as I took off the second time from being on that landing pad all the sudden I was taking 3-5x's more damage. Definitely not infantry fire although an AA max is a possibility. there was almost no one in that hex however there was a fight a hex over that was fighting at the nearby region that I know had AA vehicles in the mix. I have way more than enough hours to tell the difference between AA and ground fire in this game btw.
  5. Demigan

    To think this was a Skyguard is absurd.

    Even before CAI, a skyguard might hit 1 out of 2 shots at 300m. At 500, 1 out of 4. At 800+m range a Skyguard might hit 1 out of 20 shots... And after CAI the Skyguard got a COF increase fpr even less hits at any range.
    For any noticeable damage beyond "Hey I got 1/35th damage"
    At 800+m you would need around 10+ Skyguards, and the thing is that as long as you are on the pad you are an easier target than when you lift up so its more likely that closer range AA started firing at you.

    Its preposterous to say "I couldnt see my enemy and I couldnt even see what he was shooting, so it must have been a single Skyguard beyond render!". You JUST SAID you couldnt see it.
    This is a large part of whats wrong with the air-game: They invent the situation with impossible idea's and state them as fact. Unfortunately these whiners get listened to, with double-strength fire suppression to counter plinking damage. Engineer granting auto-repair levels to... Counter plinking damage. AA turrets getting nerfed into the ground to... Counter plinking damage. Skyguards having their COF increased to reduce plinking damage (which in fact made it worse as its easier yo plink someone with accidental hits but harder to actually do significant damage).
    Anyone else see a pattern?

    Remove the damn extreme-low-skill AA and give us skillful weapons. No more lock-ons but laser-guided flak warheads. Auto-canons without spray&pray but with high burst damage to actually kill an aircraft. HEAT canons getting higher elevation and setting ESF to burning state so it functions as a Galaxy/Liberator AAA gun and has that niche it needs over AP and HE. Things like that. It'll lower plink damage as accuracy required to hit goes up exponentially with range and aircraft speed and rewards both akrcraft and G2A with skill, but not necessarily high skill.
    • Up x 6
  6. adamts01

    I like everything else, but I'm not sold on laser guided flak rockets.

    In my perfect world, G2A launchers could get reliable kills in defensive situations but be limited in their ability to influence A2A fights. That's why I'm such a huge fan of the Striker mechanic, the current Striker just has too far a tracking range. ESF fire suppression should be 12%, and I think that two AA shots should cut through that for a kill. But, they should very rarely land long range hits. I don't see a laser guided missile helping save infantry, but I see it useful for trolling air from a hex away. But flak rockets would be fine, same end result as a Striker mechanic. Maybe let all G2A launchers use flak, but the Striker switches back to explosion damage to keep its faction specific flare and be multi-purpose.
  7. Demigan

    You seem to assume the flak distance would be greater than the Striker lock-on range (which last I heard was 2,5 times the size of flak detonation range). The flak warhead could have a detonation range of anywhere between 0,5 and 2m depending on how easy you want to make the hits and the velocity of the missile.
  8. FLHuk

    [IMG]

    You didn't even need to move to cover before the rep! ;)
  9. adamts01

    My point is that guided mechanics are suited for long range encounters, and as they're free for infantry, I'd like to keep launchers as short range killers.
  10. Demigan

    It depends on the guiding mechanic, velocity and flak detonation range.
    Say we have a laser-guided missile that turns at half the speed of a Phoenix missile and has the same muzzle velocity... Its going to be short-ranged mostly as it doesnt have the agility or speed to hit anything moving at long range.
    And why would the launcher be free? You could in fact have teo options: the standard free launcher with costless but limited launchers, for example limited speed, short maximum reach (loses guidance or self destructs after 300m for example), limited turn ratio's, flak range and damage. And you have a utility version that costs nanites per missile but far stronger properties. This means infantry has a cheap but hardly effectivr method to keep aircraft slightly at bay anf one version that costs nanites but can go toe to toe (resource wise) with ESF. So for every 350 resources spend both the ESF and the infantry guy have 50% chance to have killed their opponent.
  11. zaspacer

    You already have skillful AA, it's called the ESF. And 90% of the players can't use it and hate it... because it requires too much skill to use.

    If you don't make low-skill AA, then most players won't have AA.
  12. Demigan

    And just because the ESF is skillful suddenly we dont need G2A versions?
    And just because ESF, which have a known problem with their one-sided combat maneuvers and skillcurve are terrible for the average player suddenly G2A weapons which dont rely on previously mentioned one-sided combat maneuvers and skillcurve would suddenly also be bad?

    And you also assume that the skillful weapons would be high-skill weapons, since current ones are low-skill weapons. But thats just assuming extremes. What about average-skill G2A? What about recognizing that compared to other things in the game the G2A weapons are actually extremely-low-skill weapons and that a low-skill version would already be miles different from current G2A but be accessible by everyone in the game? That even average-skill weapons would, as its name suggests, be useable by almost everyone?
  13. Liewec123

    were you playing on "Overall" high/ultra?
    i play on "Overall" Low with everything ramped up afterwards and even if i set view distance to max,
    vehicles will still seem to pop into and out of existence around 400m.
    its only when i play on overall ultra that i can see everything in sight.
    the "overall" settings change stuff that isn't in the options hud.
    • Up x 1
  14. zaspacer

    You want a G2A version of the ESF that only ~10%? 20%? 50%? of the players can use effectively? AND you want to *remove* the other G2As (the stuff 100% of the players can use) while you're at it?

    Sounds like a game where even more people aren't able to do well.

    ESF is terrible to learn. Most players already know this firsthand.

    But what most players can't know firsthand (but many have picked up secondhand), is that even AFTER you learn to use ESF, it then has a nightmare, higher-skill-wins based combat system. In which higher skill players dominate and lower skill players get dominated.

    Most players are spot on when they say ESF is terrible to learn. But they just don't have the firsthand hours of how the skill based gameplay extreme imbalance of the ESF (and the ongoing efforts of the Devs to keep it so) creates a multi-headed disaster in its role as AA (and, correspondingly, in almost all area of ESF gameplay).

    I'm just trying to read your words. "Remove the damn extreme-low-skill AA and give us skillful weapons." I did not think you would intend to classify "average player ability" as skillful. If I misread your statements, then let's clarify and talk to the issue that is intended.

    And to be clear, even making AA only effective for 60% of the population I think is a mistake. This game should make 100% of the players able to perform each frequent and usual role, with expertise in some weapons providing slight performance increases (with diminishing marginal utility), with "counter" units/weapons providing performance boosts, and with a role performed by increasing numbers generally getting a performance boost as well.
  15. TR5L4Y3R

    ..... so take away lock ons burster/ranger/skyguard and walker and replace it with masamunes? so basicaly again the pubs are reliant on the veteran minority to be able to defend themselfes?
    hey i have that high alphaweapon but can't hit crap with it ...





    just a question ... why can't we have both options? why has it to be one or the other? can someone explain that to me?
    • Up x 1
  16. adamts01

    I don't care what the mechanic is, as long as it takes appropriate skill for the damage and can't harass past infantry render range. I'd be fine with a OHK nanite launcher as long as the rocket cost about as much as an ESF. Either way, the free version should be default and be able to 2-clip an ESF up close through a 12% fire suppression.




    I've always argued that the default launcher should have AA ability. And we're talking a Striker or Flak mechanic, and Demigan wants to throw in laser guided. So it's not the masamune, it would be similar to a masamune that only had to get within 10m (or whatever is balanced) of the target and which two shots could kill regardless of fire suppression. I've also always maintained that small arms damage should be cranked up against ESF. Focused fire from rifles should be the deterrent that every soldier has, and they shouldn't need a goofy, 1-trick Burster Max to keep air from loitering above without fear.

    The reason the current systems need to go is because the mechanics don't fit the game.

    Lock-ons: Require zero skill, have close to no reward, and can rarely be used against A2G farmers as they're moving cover to cover. Things are better now that a skilled pilot can dodge many no-skill missiles, which also can't reach most A2A fights anymore. But that still doesn't help infantry being farmed. They need a quick and hard hitting weapon that can reliably get kills against A2G planes, and I think the Striker mechanic is the answer, just one with a shorter auto-lock range than TR's broken toy.

    Flak: Area deterrent weapons are bad for gameplay. Aircraft should be encouraged to get close and mingle where infantry could get kills, and not be forced to stay away from the hex, forced to farm small fights and forced to camp warpgates. Which is what we're back to when TR pulls Strikers or if there's a single Ranger in the fight. It's a fps, fighting shouldn't be deterred from happening in the first place.
    • Up x 2
  17. FateJH

    What kind of reasoning is that? Lockons under the assumption of some revision of a pathfinding algorithm have been in the game since Beta. Saying that "it doesn't fit the game" is trying to inflate some one person's specific explanation of the game and discarding all the others.
    The average of previous pilot behavior related to ground engagements points to "stuff that can kill -> go kill things somewhere else" and "can't put up a defense against me -> wreck everything that pokes head out."
    • Up x 1
  18. adamts01

    It's not just my point of view. ground/air balance has been hated and a mess since the beginning. As a no-cert option, I believe launchers should get defensive kills but have little offensive ability. I see either a Striker or Flak mechanic as the way to accomplish that, as lock-ons will always suffer from pilots limiting their exposure.

    That's not necessarily true. It's a fps, the entire point is to go out and kill something that can kill us back. What keeps air away from fights is no-skill damage that can't be dodged, and is therefore zero fun to fight against. Most people don't mind dying if it was a good and engaging fight, but that's something flak and lock-ons don't deliver. I also don't mind no-skill deterrent weapons in the right game. Arma has such weapons, but air can coordinate with ground to take them out and they stay out. But in a game like PS2 where you can spam AA, those area denial weapons just don't fit.
    • Up x 3
  19. Demigan

    No, I just said I didn't.

    You don't think that 100% of the players is incapable of using a Carbine or tank gun do you? Well that's simple average player skill as I see it, and thats the type of skill level I want out of the G2A weapons. You can get results, results aren't necessarily guaranteed every single time but you won't be killing nothing just because you are on the lower end of the skill spectrum, it just gets less likely.

    Yes, and as I just pointed out, ESF are terrible to learn because of the flight mechanics and the lack of viable maneuvers. And do G2A weapons need to be controlled by flight mechanics and viable maneuvers? No! Because they aren't on an aircraft! They are Ground to Air weapons. They don't suffer from the same problem as ESF. It's ludicrous to think that just because ESF have this problem that a G2A weapon would have the same problem.

    Yes, and how exactly would this problem emerge with G2A weapons? In fact, since G2A weapons don't have this problem at all, you can bypass that nightmare higher-skill-wins-automatically (you missed that automatically) with a normal/average skill weapon.

    The reason I point out that it's going to be skill vs skill, is that you don't want aircraft to be dead simply because they came within range of an enemy. That's the old no-skill G2A weapons that already do that if you pull enough of them and that's not a good system. What you want is that the aircraft can use skillful maneuvering to avoid damage. But neither avoiding damage nor dealing damage is guaranteed for either unless the skill difference is massive. Considering that currently you can be 50x more skillful than the aircraft opponent and still not get a kill and it takes the aircraft practically no skill to succeed. A newb still learning the controls can accidentally do the massively skillful maneuver of "point somewhere other than at the G2A weapon, fly away". On the other hand, doing anything other than flying away is a useless gesture that only keeps you in the G2A sights longer, with the exception of straight up killing the G2A source. If you can kill two birds with one stone by making it better for aircraft to be engaged by G2A while simultaneously making it more rewarding for G2A to be engaging air you have a much better system.

    I still don't see how this has any effect at all on the G2A I proposed. How would they magically become unusuable because the aircraft have a terrible A2A system?

    [IMG]

    This is the bell-curve. Overall the "some people" contains 20% on either side, so 60% of the players is in the "average player" category, and another 20% of the playerbase is in the top tier so that's 80% of the playerbase that's capable of using it.
    Since I consider weapons like a Carbine the "average skill", it means that anyone with the basic skills of an FPS can play and use the G2A weapons I propose. The only "some people" at the lower end of the bell-curve who are going to be unable to actually use these weapons are the one's who are still learning to play FPS's in general and will have trouble at everything in the game.

    You talk about the diminishing marginal utility with more skill, and that's good. Because the only reason why ESF are the terrible experience for everyone is because they get an increasingly superior utility out of their vehicle with more skill, making the difference between a pro and average player exponentially bigger. But again, that's because the flight mechanics enforce it. All other shooting mechanics in the game offer exactly that diminishing marginal utility so that a newb still stands a chance against a pro.
    • Up x 1
  20. Demigan

    Where on earth do anyone of you get your information? Am I speaking a totally different language? Is it so hard to understand that there is a middle-area between the no-skill area and high-skill area? That there are in fact 3 middle-area's in between G2A and ESF nosegunnery? You have No-skill (G2A), Low-skill (most vehicle combat), average skill (most normal gunplay), semi-pro (some vehicle combat, some gunplay), high-skill (anyone taking gameplay higher than anyone else).

    Just create weapons in the low-skill and average-skill categories. If you are going to have problems with such weapons you are going to be having problems everywhere in the game.

    Because no-skill weapons are a terrible mechanic. Any game mechanic needs to be designed with both the user and it's target in mind. G2A weapons leave little room for the aircraft to play, other than fly away after short sorties or blow up the G2A weapon directly. And due to the way aircraft have the option to just leave to another area with less G2A no one is encouraged to stick around. This is such a pervasive problem that the aircraft players even turn the problem around: It's not that they wouldn't try, oh no, it's just that they are completely barred from the area! Yes! It's a complete lie as you can stick around while there's G2A around but why would you if you can be at another fight with less G2A and practically no skill requirements other than "avoid the ground and know where the enemy is" within a minute time?

    So you want to have weapons that are fun for both the user and the victim. For example in normal gunplay you can use cover, manage COF, dictate the range of your weapon vs their weapon, try to outplay your opponent through predicting their movements and reactions, try to flank etc. There's options, there's possibilities. And even if you are terrible at something, you can compensate it with something else.
    That's absent in the G2A vs A2G mechanics. You can't really avoid an aircrafts A2G weapons, and the aircraft can't avoid G2A fire. The game needs mechanics that encourage that for both ends: It needs to be possible for aircraft to reduce the damage they receive from G2A fire, it in fact needs to be possible for aircraft to stick around during an engagement with G2A even if they are damaged. This is no different than tanks being able to stick around in the area after being attacked by AV weapons and being able to use skills to combat the enemy. On the other hand it needs to be possible for ground to do the same when faced by A2G weapons.

    But this also means another thing: The G2A weapons need to be useable before and after aircraft come around. This means that aircraft don't have the option to pick fights based on the G2A presence, and that G2A won't be useless once aircraft leave or are destroyed.
    • Up x 2