Air is the only thing that doesn't fear its counter.

Reclaimer77 makes a statement about urinating into my mouth and I am at fault?

Edit: If you look at the posts around post #544 we had a reasonable discussion (he did his usual cussing and what have you) until he made disgusting urination remarks.

So your attacking me? Hilarious.

Well its not like you haven't been doing that to other people with your A2G farming buddy.

I may honk my Toilet Horn but I don't send a tell saying "I urinated into your mouth." Reclaimer77 took it to another level.

you know what's even funnier? your aim is on par with mine and I use a controller

Okay I think you need to find a game, and community, a bit more age appropriate for you. Cyber bullying? Really?? That's some SJW nonsense, there is no such thing as "cyber bullying".

And what do you call it when you started this feud by spamming my stats obnoxiously in 50 point bold text 20 times in an hour? Whaaa, I felt bullied by you!!?? Also isn't "Naming and Shaming" SPECIFICALLY against the rules here? OOOPS!!! Good going there Judge Judy! Freaking hypocrite.

You're like the little schoolyard bully who started a fight with the wrong kid, got his jaw rocked, and then goes crying to everyone. Nobody likes a liar and an instigator. You came up against the 'Claimer and got wrecked! Nobody feels sorry for you.

And learn to read, liar. I said I would NOT *#$* in your mouth if you were dying of thirst. Going around claiming I want to #@*& in your mouth is some silly kid crap that nobody at DBG is going to fall for.



And you know what? There you go. That's my main. Have at it kid. I'm damned proud of my accomplishments and how I play here. Take your 0.09 KPD and choke on how superior I am to you in every way that matters.

I've quoted it to RadarX, Dexella, and Devs that visit boards simply as a violation of Forum Guidelines.

It has two meanings: You are low enough that I wouldn't want to "[urinate] in your mouth." It also suggests that it is better that I were "dying."

This is a violation of Forum Guidelines.

OH no!!!! Now the Devs know that my forum account, which is LINKED to our game accounts, who my main is!! OH NO!!! PLEASE DON'T get me banned now that they know my secret...

Just...wow. Okay I'm serious now, you are acting like a 10 year old lol.

The only thing that's going to happen is this thread getting locked. Because YOU turned it into a silly farce with this childish whining.

I am not suggesting any punishment. They will make that decision not me.

No, you're twisting the words in true SJW fashion to create a victim mountain out of a molehill. How do you survive in the real world?

Did you hate Eminem's song where he said 'I wouldn't piss on fire to put you out'? Did that hurt the feelz too?

Reclaimer can be pretty brusque and certainly instigates his fair share of fights, but entertaining the fact that you would report someone and cry to every dev over THAT of all things is ******* ludicrous.

Perhaps the forums just aren't part of your "safe space." I'd cringe to think what would have happened had you been born a hundred years earlier, or even today in a different part of the world than where you live.

How often do you see "piss in your mouth" remarks in moderated online forums?

I support free speech. I don't support destructive speech.

Reclaimer77 will make the point that I'm guilty too. Sure. We are all guilty of that level of discourse. I didn't report the any of his cussing and spam. Dude crossed a line with a nasty remark.

Okay are you an American? I know we use a lot of verbal idioms that don't make sense to other cultures. But at this point that is your ONLY excuse for not getting the meaning of what I said.

Trolling for bans is lame. This isn't going to work. Not over THAT anyway.

A lot, and a lot more often in my decades on forums. And the main problem is that it's convenient to leave out the whole context of the sentence when using it to be a victim. You could have simply used the ignore function or even better, handled it like an adult between two people in private messages if you took offense. I'd be willing to bet that if you wrote a message to Reclaimer in PM and said hey look man that bothered me for this reason, you could have just hugged it out after settling your differences.

Instead, you threaten with running to authority to clean up the problem and make everything all better. This doesn't support good human growth.

The guy has a pattern of destructive rhetoric and discourse. Actually, I backed off for awhile. He has a personal vendetta against me (highlights everything I say as BS). I am going thru third party channels in the form of forum moderation.

trolling of any sort is awesome wtf are you talking about

Look just because I called you out on abusing a broken system doesn't mean you have to get some upset and salty.

First of all, you aren't STILL thinking that I'm pitting the 3 A2G ESFs against 3 pieces of AA right? Because that wasn't what the discussion was about at all. If that is what you meant with your statement, PLEASE stop twisting things/arguments around (this isn't the first time).

Assuming you didn't twist it around and meant that 3 A2A ESFs would only outperform 3 pieces of AA in extremely unlikely situations: I don't even know how to begin with this one. For one thing, the AA pieces are limited in mobility, and the ESFs can easily fly away, whereas the A2A ESFs will easily be able to hunt down the A2G ESFs. Unless you are claiming that 3 pieces of AA in a fight are always going to be targetting the same aircraft (when there are multiple aircraft in the sky), I don't see a chance of that happening. The A2A ESFs will also have a much easier time focus-firing down the enemy A2G ESFs, due to improved possibility for situational awareness and mobility/LoS.

First of all, this entire argument wasn't about pitting ESFs against AA pieces, but rather what was more effective for AA duties. If you REALLY want to go down this road for some weird reason, then please respond to my queries about your initial statement, that 3 pieces of AA will outperform 3 A2A ESFs.

2 ESFs have a much shorter TTK against a SG, than a SG can destroy an ESF. And they can easily just take turns tanking the damage as well. If all 3 SG's are to stick together in order to protect each other, chances are they aren't going to be able to protect the entire airspace. 3 A2A ESFs wouldn't be limited by LoS etc, so they wouldn't share the same issues.

So right there, we have a situation where AA pieces won't outperform A2A ESFs. Already your generalistic statement is debunked, by yourself. Thank you.

Because aircraft have to do 100% of the damage in every single engagement right? That's one of the advantages of aircraft, they have it far easier when it comes to target selection. Oh a vehicle is smoking/burning? Lets finish it off easily. Of, a clump of infantry? Lets kill them within a couple of seconds.

Sure, randomly reversing / speeding will save you if the Lib is up super high. The Libs I'm having issues with aren't Daltoning from the flight ceiling, but pretty close to the ground (within 200m of altitude), yet they aren't being countered despite the fights being massive, and landing shots from that altitude on a vehicle moving forward/reversing isn't terribly difficult. It's not like tanks can stop on a dime or anything. I'm a pretty terrible Dalton gunner, but I have no issues hitting tanks at such altitudes. The only chance of dodging such shots is by using the Magburner pretty perfectly, or hoping the gunner sucks. Oh, and if it is using a Shredder? Good luck dodging that stuff.

Due to your posting style, I'm unsure what this is a response to. I'm assuming it's my comment about tanks not always being able to repair in the immediate cover they are occupying. So you agree that tanks cannot always use the immediate cover like you claimed? Thanks.

FS? Auto-rep? Landing and repairing? I see all those things every single day. It's not like aircraft can break away from their "counters" on the ground super easily and break LoS for an easy repair.

I honestly don't know what your point with this is, especially as I don't know exactly what you are responding to. If you'd care to elaborate I'd love to answer.

I never wrote anything about flanking without having cover, or overextending. Once again, I'm unsure as to what exactly you are answering here.

I assume this is a response to covering the entire hex? If you are only covering the base in the canyons, you aren't protecting any potential flankers or just allies on top of the canyons contributing to the fight. Therefore you aren't covering the entire hex. It also assumes the canyon is a straight road with no obstacles, which is pretty rare.

Sure, I would agree with this if the SG was actually as dangerous to an ESF as a flashlight is to a shadow. The thing is though, it takes quite a bit of time for the SG to destroy the aircraft, and the aircraft generally has every option to bail out before getting shot down by a SG in a canyon. However, since they know they can generally have enough time to bail (unless they are countered by significantly more people than they themselves are, 1). If you don't have air superiority then canyons are a deathtrap for anyone down in them, and a pretty risk-free farm for any aircraft in the skies. Air superiority in canyon-style terrain is typically pretty one-sided, for obvious reasons.

Ah, but a ground vehicle doing the same is just destroyed if it is outnumbered by its counters. Fair trade.

Sure, but you aren't going to kill them alone unless they are terrible or in very specific terrain, which is quite rare.

Tank enough damage to escape? That is an overly generalistic statement, which doesn't apply in many situations. If you have to "tank" your way out of a situation in a tank, you are usually relying on your enemies being incompetent, especially if it is counters you are being attacked by. Tanks generally also get immoblizied by taking too much damage, due to not having good escape mechanisms and taking quite a while to repair.

Because the ground vehicles aren't magically spawning at the bottom of the cliff ? Right, you are going to need to outnumber the HA's pretty heavily OR have a massive skill advantage in order to be even remotely effective. And that completly ignores the fact that you won't even get LoS on them in that situation.

I responded to someone else talking about Scarred Mesa, in order to illustrate the ridiculousness of his argument (20 Burster MAX'es on Scarred Mesa supposedly illustrates AA is fine ). If you followed the discussion, you would also be able to read that the person admitted that his example was even MORE biased than the original claim. I felt justified making that claim.

Regarding the cliff face outside of the SE warpgate on Indar: I've rutinely pulled tanks and driven up the cliffs and rooted out opposition there, especially AA nests. More often than not using a single MBT. I felt like I countered them nicely, and didn't feel like I needed air at all to combat them.

The high cliffs without access for ground vehicles, are a pain for both air AND ground vehicles. It's not like aircraft are special in that regard, as infantry-AV is ridiculous in such instances as well. A decent counter is sneaking infiltrators close to the cliff to plant squad beacons, and then rain hell on them. Simple. It also works for the cliffs outside the SE warpgate of course.

I honestly LOL'ed at this attempt (at least if that is your killboard). Why are you trying to twist things Badname? The killboard clearly shows you first destroying a Mossie (no pilot kill, and the pilot was a BR5X with 6 kills in his Mossie ) followed by you downing the Lib with a BR 10 and BR 17. I can clearly see that those are perfect examples of dangerous pilots being countered by the effectiveness of your platform, and not your superior skill/experience (and their same lack there-of). I'm sure those pilots wouldn't have crashed into a tree on their own eventually! What an absolutely terrible example you gave . And no, you didn't get any more kills after that. You could of course have gotten some assists.

A few requests:

1. Please stop twisting arguments (like the SG / A2A ESF efficiency suddenly turned into 3 A2G ESFs vs 3 SG's).

2. Please stop missusing anecdotal evidence, like you example of your Skyguard "adventures", and act like they are proof of anything. I've gotten kills on ESF's sporting BR10 pilots using my Repeater and RAMS .50, but I'm not claiming they are effective based upon those situations.

3. Please stop making silly claims (like tanks can ALWAYS safely repair from the immediate cover they are occupying)

4. Making statements that are incredibly generalistic, and then try to shrug off counter-comments by saying "oh yeah, it won't work here, and here, and here", I just didn't mention those conditions initially cause F*** Y**.
5. If you are going to butt-in on my responses to other people, at least stick to the topic being discussed.

If pilots don't fly into big battles in 99% of cases, I wonder how the air isn't filled with aircraft. Maybe my tanks rear is generally so tempting that they try anyways, but I'm routinely getting jumped/attacked by enemy air, even within 50-150m distance from huge battles (96% on both sides). Of course, when I'm flanking even further out, that air isn't completely filled with aircraft, so how about we just call both his and your statements biased? Despite trying to edit my post and removing the quote tags, it still won't compile my quote of your post into a single quote. Why I have no idea.

No, I know what you meant. Even if I didn't, I'd still agree. 3 A2G ESF's can kill 3 pieces of AA if they're playing smart enough, actively going for 3v1's and the defenders aren't coordinating. As for the 3 pieces of AA to 3 A2A ESF's, well, that depends. In a general sense, yes, 3 A2A ESF's will outperform 3 pieces of AA against air; they have high mobility and will generally have favorable numbers in any engagement they have. That said, they still cannot perform adequately in areas with high enemy AA. If the A2G ESF's have good cover from the ground, chasing after those ESF's means a likely death. The best case scenario is to catch them as they flee after having taken flak, and then immediately fleeing yourself after the kill.

3 pieces of AA is a far better deterrent than 3 ESF's, at least regionally. Whereas 3 pieces of AA can easily deter aircraft at range without having to move far from favorable positions, 3 ESF's can easily be deterred by AA or split up by enemy air. AA has FAR better staying power than 3 ESF's will and can engage accurately at further distances. And honestly, you're far underestimating the mobility of the lightning. Decent mobility paired with a low precision weapon = higher sustained DPS. And your thinking about 3 ESF's being able to gang up on one SG CAN happen, but it's not particularly likely in most terrains (except Hossin?), especially with any sort of coordination between the SG's.

Canyons play to air's advantage because they have the higher mobility. Unless there is enemy air around, you can shoot from the top of the canyon, drift to the surface and repair, and rinse/repeat, winning through higher DPS over repair rounds. The loss in LoS hurts AA more than air, because air can move around it better. That said, canyons get saturated with AA faster, because there is far less sky to watch. If you're not in a bend and you've got ground support, 3 SG's can easily lock down a canyon, unless swarmed from the air.

Yeah, that's one of the things that comes with mobility. If we see something burning at contact or before contact, we'll probably kill it. The difference between air and armor is that armor has staying power, mostly because it operates in 2D. Armor can sustain it's damage output in regular conditions, air has high burst damage.

200m should be more than enough space. Instead, go forward or reverse only, stuttering with your brakes. If he's going for a TB, go straight towards him and at a slight angle. The shredder is mean, but it takes a pretty damn good crew to use it effectively.

I suppose that depends on the terrain, engagement range, ground coverage, and enemy coordination, but sure. There are situations where ground negates grounds cover advantage. Flanking happens all the time. That was more a generalist statement on good gameplay.

To safely repair in an aircraft, you have to completely disengage. You must be entirely clear from where anyone can hit your landed ESF, including passing aircraft. Getting attacked while repairing in an aircraft is basically a death sentence. You will pretty much always have even or fewer numbers and you can take a lot of damage or lose your aircraft before you have a chance to respond. Unless you want to take some serious risks, the repair cycle takes a lot of time, especially if you're using any kind of secondary weapon.

Tank zergs are not useless, and they are created out of a zerg of tank; individual tanks zerging. The more efficient version is massed tanks, which can put out a TON of damage in an open field, more or less suppressing enemy ground and creating ground cover for each other without having to use terrain. Even if you end up losing or ditching a lot of those tanks, they can create cover for sunderers and infantry in an otherwise open field very quickly. Using massed tanks as an anchor point for a flanking maneuver is the difference between a good flank and overextending.

You make a fair point, but generally speaking there isn't anything up there but other aircraft, and there are only 2 real directions to flank from. If you do manage to get a sundy up there, the only things you'd be using it for would be a drop point, a LR AV nest, or AA. Those aren't low priority targets for air by any means, but if there are guys up there, they probably have their own AA cover. If they have AA up there, you will need substantially less within the canyon.

Most aircraft fly in teams of 1. If there is a second opponent, he is outnumbered. If air is peeking out from behind cover at a piece of AA, dipping in and out of repair cycles, he is VERY vulnerable to air. He's basically asking to be dalton'd or rotaried out of the sky. Aircraft can often afford to hover, but claiming it's not risky because it's semi-effective against AA in the right conditions doesn't really cover it. Even being forced into exclusively low-altitude cover gives a major advantage to the other aircraft.

That said, yes, the situation between AA vs air tend to be very one sided in canyons. Air blobs will always have an advantage over AA in canyons because of heavy aircraft still have better mobility and the air blob can more or less avoid AA when engaged by enemy air. I would still call that a niche situation. A combination of AA and air would still be best (using the far southern road out the WG), but it would be tricky and impractical. The better strategy would just be to engage with greater or equal air.

Not necessarily. It depends on distance and terrain. A 2/2 MBT can pretty easily take on a greater number of AV MAX's, if conditions are right for it. That said, 2 AV MAX's can take on substantially more tanks, if the conditions are right for it. MAX's, though less mobile, can utilize cover and positioning far better than tanks can.

Eh, not true. Even good crews can get overconfident and die in the head2head, or fail to escape after trying to pull a bum rush. Their chances of escape are just as dependent on terrain as are my chances to kill.

If you suddenly get focus fired on as a tank, you can escape by means of your high health and armor, whereas other vehicles would have less time to maneuver out of fire. A tank is best suited to situations where it must stick close to cover, because it is slow speed but has a lots of reaction time in consideration of damage.

I suppose, but you always need greater numbers/skill/coordination against a well positioned enemy. Using snipers to lower their RoF would be more effective than trying to use MBT's to do the same feat. Valk/Galaxy assault would probably be best strategy, but you still have to move your sunderers up while you're doing it.

Whatevs. I don't pay much attention to BR and I included instances in which I got most of the kill as kills. I did not consult my killboard before posting. My apologies, I guess.

I think you're misunderstanding my statements. But yes, I am going off of generalities, because they tend to be more applicable than specifics. I have more AA adventures, if you want to look. They aren't particularly important, but they're anecdotally so.

How long is the air sticking around to attack you when it does? Air will often swarm around the outside of those fights looking for opportunities, but typically get one or two safe passes on ground at best before having to disengage. Furthermore, air is more highly contested in these fights, so libs are the only aircraft that can put a substantial amount of damage to the ground before having to leave. I suppose it's not fair to say that air avoids these fights altogether, but it is to say that they are typically the most risky engagements you can encounter.

In my opinion, the only thing that needs tweaking in the anti-air category are the brain dead Ground to Air lock on rockets Heavy Assault use.

LOCK ON ROCKET! WHY YOU NO GO AROUND OR OVER THE CLIFF!?

In all seriousness, I would appreciate it if the lock on rockets were atleast a little bit more intelligent in its homing, and not immediately swerve to the left or right and hit the ground or a wall when it has not even went 20 feet out of the launcher.