AJW's(Air Justice Warriors) are truely amusing.

The point about incentivizing and stats is one of the most important questions that animates the ESF, or indeed any game meta. I'm not an ESF pilot, as I fly Valks. But as a consequence, I accept that I'm not going to get a high KDR for it. I'm also going to have a lower SPM, because a lot of my time is spent in transit, ferry, or recon modes, which create score deserts. My points come in bursts from transport assists, and if I'm doing scout radar, from spot assists.

While I enjoy these roles, it helps that I'm being incentivized to teamplay with the airframe. The quantity of my transport assists is based on entirely on how well I pick drop locations so that people can assault a point and get kills themselves. My recon ribbons come in fairly regularly, but it based on my ability to skillfully stay out of sight, yet in range of the point, which maximizes my radar coverage, which rewards me for having a persistent eye on where the enemy is moving, which I can then relay to my SL/PL. This lets them know that they've got a crash coming to be, or that a mass re-deploy just showed up in the spawn room.

When I do that, people who know what I'm doing respect me for it, which takes the place of KDR and SPM. They appreciate that I'm doing team-play, and so I get a huge amount of lee-way from my team to fly around as much as I want when I'm in the Valk. (Note: I don't always fly, its about %40 of my game-time last I checked), because they know that I have to work with them in order to get points.

With ESFs, dedicated ground pounders seem to treat them as incidentals. They don't seem to be incorporated overly much into regular strategies, in part because people seem to treat them as rarefied - the odds of having a good ESF driver in your platoon is relatively low compared to someone with a good liberator, gal, or Valk, because it is difficult to learn. The difference is that unlike other airframes, I have not seen high performing ESF pilots treated in the same way at the platoon level.

A curious real-life parallel is that of the A-10. An aging airframe, the A-10 was designed in the 1970s for anti-armor support. It is the most effective close-air support aircraft ever designed. The U.S Air Force, however, perenially wants to scrap it now, because it has higher performance and availability compared to the programs they prefer, which are high-performance multi-roles, and they feel they can take that money and use it to support other airframes. When the subject of scrapping the A-10 comes up, the U.S. Army becomes quite concerned, and runs to Congress to tell them that the A-10 is still vital and effective, and that, gosh, they just aren't sure they'll be able to fight as effectively if it were gone. Congress tends to agree, and has repeatedly told the Air Force to keep it in service.

One of the reason behind this is that ground commanders know that the A-10 is designed for exactly one thing, and its designed to be available to do that on demand. There is no chance that the A-10 will be unavailable because its being tasked to other roles. In order for the A-10 to operate, it has to be engaging ground forces, and thus directly supporting the objectives of a commander on the ground. While all aircraft do this in their own way, through interception, combat air patrols, and recon duties, the A-10 exists only to take pieces off the board. At its core, the two branches are having a disagreement about what one branch of service is supposed to be doing. The Army feels that the Air Force should be supporting the ground push, while the Air Force feels they are supposed to be controlling the skies.

This is similar to how people treat ESFs. SL/PLs know that a liberator has to shoot at ground targets. Gals and Valks have to move people or engage ground targets. With ESFs, the pilot there is capable of disappearing while it chases down an enemy back to the warpgate. It also may not even be certed properly for A2G, and commanders have no way of knowing this unless they already know the pilot in question. In contrast, the Liberator only has certs for ground. The question is therefore a simple "Dalton?".

To your point, I feel we could address this problem by finding some mechanic that awards XP to ESFs that support ground forces, beyond conventional damage assists, A potential avenue that might be worth investigating is the XP proximity boost that comes from being near SL/PL. I do not know the exact range on it, but I'm concerned that given the operating range of the ESF (And of all air vehicles), they may be going outside of that. Perhaps it could instead be converted to a Hex based bonus for ESFs or for all players even. This would probably provide a slight benefit to ESFs that are doing escort and CAP duties, or that are attacking a point that their team is attacking.

Also if you say ANYTHING POSITIVE they rage at you.

The only amusing thing here is how bitter you are towards a group of players who have invested their time and effort to be better than you are at something. You get out of it what you put into it, nobody said it was easy.

There's a million other things you can do in this game besides fly an ESF if you don't want to put the time in to learning it.

Just get over it and stop advocating for utterly absurd things like removing hover, adding runways into the game and making AA instagib ESFs.

(Slow claps)


Great job proving my point.

Actually I was wrong, the other truly amusing thing here is that you managed to misspell truly amusing.

In the title itself, no less... Impressive.

If you put the same amount of effort into learning to fly as you do naming your threads, it's no wonder you're having problems

It's not just him though, and he's not pissed at all pilots.

He's directly pissed at you and other AJW kind that is full of special snowflakes, drama queens and salty scrubs that act super agressive and spew fallacies if someone talks about things you don't like.

And he's right here, you should grow up and see other viewpoints instead of constantly whining things to constantly be perfect for you and completely unfun and dumb to everyone not in your cool kids club.

So the air game should still be inaccessible to everyone not willing to practice some eldritch maneuvers for weeks just to get decent enough to stand a chance and not get completely farmed by pro pilots? Sounds totally fair!

He never even said such things nor did he even advocate for such things... now you're even making things up.

And now, you're resorting to personal insults because you can't even bother or have the capacity to give a good, intelligent, relevant argument on why you and people relative to you aren't the scum of the PS2 community.

Just proves his and mine point about how dumb and ridiculously immature is the saltard community.

This is not the first discussion he and I have had about these things. I have already beat my head against a wall addressing specific points on several threads with several people, it's a fruitless endeavor. I try to keep things short now because there's just no point in trying to rationalize with most of the people on these boards. Doesn't mean I won't try in the future.

Also to answer your question:

Despite you guys repeating this mantra over and over, the air game is not inaccessible. Every aircraft besides an ESF is easy to fly, taking much less time and effort and giving you a crew with actual gunners to kill stuff. I know several galaxy and lib crews who farm far more experience per hour than an ESF.

You and the OP are just upset that there is an area of the game (the ESF) that isn't "plug and play" so to speak, and good pilots keep embarrassing you. This is a problem with your own ego, not the air-game. But what does it matter? You can simply fly a lib or a gal with a good gunner and go eat those ESF who just killed you. You will literally never die in a good battle galaxy crew, and you will zone out the entire airspace around you for 1000 meters. Happens all the time

Now who's acting like a special snowflake? The pilots you are fighting all took the time to learn these things at some point, yet you feel it's not "fair" that you have to do the same. This is typical millennial entitlement horse**** for you to think you should be able to step in an ESF and be on their level. Absurd.

Actually, Tennis is an unbalanced sport now I think about it: Novak Djokovic has too much skill.

He routinely stomps all the college kids he plays in exhibition matches without them having much of a chance. They use the same rackets and gear that he does, sure, but he's put in far more time into learning those crazy broken moves which give him too big of an advantage! It just isn't fair!

I am going to petition the ITF about this on behalf of all the poor saps who have had a spanking at the hands of Novak, exhibition or not. This means war and I'll be damned if I let something as trivial as dedication and hard work propel him into the annals of sports history! That goes for all the other pros, too!

Scr1nRusher and UberNoob1337101, WILL YOU JOIN ME?!

HUZZAH!

AID ME IN MY CONQUEST, BROTHERS! WE'LL NERF THEM BACK TO THE CRETACEOUS PERIOD!

You are kind of proving their point.

Practice is one thing. I mean, there are maneuvers that you can't do in your first week of flying the Valk. You need a decent 7-12 hours before people nail how to do potato peels or butter knives on your own, which you can accelerate by having an instructor. The difference is that learning those maneuvers is intuitive - because the flight model is intuitive (Mostly because the Valk is an exceptionally well designed airframe, with a poorly executed armament balance). ESF is not so much, and partly because there are things it does that are counter-intuitive and that arguably, it should not do, but that are hand-waved as being part of the flight model principally because there is a body of players that knows how to do them, and insists that they be retained.

The kicker here is that such players routinely suggest that they will quit if such things are removed or even altered in any way.

To be completely up front with you here, given how those particular players interact with the broader community, I cannot say that I would miss them or their contributions, and when I objectively compare the relationship of that player base to what I say in the wider world, the closest I get is an abusive spouse who threatens to leave someone if they aren't consulted on the secondary color used in the cross-hatch of the kitchen curtains, or a ten year old who threatens to run away if they don't get a pony for christmas. Do you have any idea how difficult getting a pony is?!?!?

They make having rational conversations about air combat and the role of air in the game extremely difficult, and make obtaining alterations or improvements to any air vehicle require an extra layer of couching and deference, lest the default response of "AIR OP NO MORE AIR" trigger,, because they create intensive diversions and encourage siloing between ground and air players, because one half of the equation feels they can't do anything about the other half, and comes to hate it, despite assurances that anyone can play with their magical skypony, but only at 9pm on a Wednesday if they bring a particular brand of feed taking and certain highway exit wearing a particular color of hat.

Am I the only person who likes the Skyguard? I have no problems with it when I use it. Kills are definitely hard, but no ESF can do anything with a Skyguard hammering away at them. Its run or die at that point. And because pilots need to repair, you can juggle 3-4 ESFs at once easily. The nanite and manpower costs clearly show that AA is fine.

By no means am I some skylord protecting his precious little air toys, I play infantry almost exclusively.

Don't get me wrong, I love the Skyguard... it's amazing against Harassers and I love getting behind a Magrider where they can never turn to kill me... it's also nice to put 45 flak rounds into an ESF and watch them fly away like nothing happened. The issue isn't the effectiveness of the Skyguard, it's what it's "role" is labeled as... it's air 'deterrence', and as such all people think it has to do is make aircraft bugger off for a little while. You know what the best deterrence to air is? Killing them. This is where the Skyguard lacks all potential... in it's one and supposedly only role.

But hey, it's still good for Harassers at least.

So in other words, the ability for an ESF to run away from something that is shredding it into bits is unjustified? If something is wailing on you the first inclination is to flee from that thing...

Even if you only take half his health, he's an easy target for another aircraft, turret or G2A lock to finish off, or the lock lands first and you get the kill yourself

You seem to have some legitimate concerns unlike the OP who would likely ship every pilot not using coyotes off to one of Stalin's Gulags if given the opportunity. So, let's talk rational as you say.

First off, these maneuvers sound delicious. I am tempted to start flying the Valk more just to learn them. It's close to supper time here and I have a sudden hankering for potatoes.

I have heard this countless times, that the "flight model" for the ESF is bad. But why? None of the belly-achers like the OP ever mention any details, they just say it's broken beyond repair. But how is it broken?

I want to know exactly what is wrong with it from a technical perspective, that is:

• What it is lacking
• What is broken about it
• What is counter-intuitive about it

You said the valk was intuitive to fly, but in my mind it's just a clunky ESF with much slower speed and much more gradual change in momentum. That being said, I have fought Valks that were extremely annoying to fight, probably due to being good with the types of maneuvers that you mentioned.

From what I can tell, if you can master those types of maneuvers in a Valkyrie, you should have no problems whatsoever translating those skills over to an ESF. It will just take a bit of time.

Maybe, maybe not. I know some of them are Toxic, but they have developed knee-jerk reactions due to mounting frustrations and the dichotomy that exists between ground and air, but I won't try to justify the toxic behaviors exhibited by some of them.

What I will say is that I think the average squad/platoon leader would be amazed at how much more heat would be on their *** if all their good pilots left all of a sudden. The galaxy drops would increase, as would the Liberator farming you above your base and demolishing all your tanks and sunderers, as would the enemy ESFs podding infantry into oblivion, to name just a few situations that a platoon would suddenly find itself suffering in due to a mass exodus of good pilots.

Implying that the Skyguard "shreds" anything is an overstatement. When used against an ESF it's one and only chance of taking it out is if the pilot is hovering low to the ground in conjunction with landing hits while it is boosting away. Most terrain in the game block field of view for Skyguards, and if you're in an open field you get taken out by a Liberator in moments. The very fact that this weapon can barely deal with the weakest air vehicle in the game is a clear indication of it's role, a Valkyrie can easily escape, a Liberator can turn and kill you after taking 70 flak rounds and still have the health to deal with other ground vehicles, and a Galaxy is literally not phased by anti-air weapons unless it is in fact an ESF dealing with it.

You want to know how I think the air game should be balanced? It's not buffing AA, it's changing the role of the ESF from omni-weapon to designated fighter... it's purpose should be dealing with enemy aircraft, as well as light damage against armour and (With skill) anti-infantry via noseguns. How do we achieve this? Remove rocket/photon pods and hornets from the ESF, maintain all other weapons, hell maybe even buff them. These weapons could easily be re-purposed to other aircraft such as the Valkyrie or Liberator, giving them access exclusively to the pilot.

If they buff AA (which is foolish considering that the cumulative effect of Skyguard, AA Turrets, Burster Maxes, Annihilators, Swarms, Strikers, Saron, Gatekeepers, Basilisk, G40 Ranger, G30 Walker, small arms in any battle size above 3) then they should reduce ESF cost from 350 Nanites to 175 Nanites.

And I've already argued that the cumulative effect of any weapon will of course wreck havoc on it's target... take a 96+/96+ fight for example... if an ESF entered the airspace and all infantry shot at it with their primary weapons it would be brought down in seconds. If a platoon of Basilisk Flashes charged an MBT they'd annihilate it. If a mass of Liberators appeared they would eliminate all ground forces in seconds.

However AA isn't really the problem, it's the role of the ESF as I've outlined in the post directly before yours.

Potato peeling is a drop-off maneuver that you use to pop-over an obstacle such as a wall, or cliff that lets you approach fairly unobserved, stopping briefly over the point to drop off your passengers, and then continuing either down to the other side over the opposite wall/cliff *Whereas a regular pop-over is just over and then up). I call it that because it resembles the curvature of a potato, and because when done properly, there is extremely minimal distance between you and the ground, minimizing people's ability to spot, react, and shoot, effectively making your Valkyrie look like its peeling the ground. By the time people shoot at you, you are ideally empty and on the way out.

Butter knifing is another drop maneuver in which you approach a target from a low angle and do a hairpin turn that set you at 45 degrees from your original trajectory with 30-45 degree bank, dropping everyone off, and then zipping out. The critical part here is that you're approaching at high speed, low altitude. and your turn occurs as late as possible, using downthrust to neutralize your horizontal velocity.
I call it butter knifing because it reminds me of the motion for cutting butter - quickly down, then whicking up at an angle to cut a piece off.

Also because if you don't get in the Butter zone, you'll have a mess It does require a decent amount of practice before you start using it in live play. At least, you ethically should practice it in VR or in solo flight. You'll know you've done it properly if the wingtip is <2-3m from the ground and you end up with a clean exit path. Its mostly useful if you've got squad mates that you know are paying attention, but its good for minimizing your exposure and reducing your time to target, and if are dropping into a base that has obstructed exits (Such as in winding canyons where you can't do a straight fly out). It's also a decent way to get infils on ledges or pinnacles if you practice, because people think you're just goofing off or crashing, not dropping someone off.

The most hardcore version I've ever seen starts from an opposite roll state - that is at maximum speed side ways flying and rolling hard at the right moment. This version is challenging because it means you aren't going to have direct line of sight of the obstacle you're doing the turn against.

It goes without saying that these maneuvers are only possible using Evasiveness - because Hover is, to be honest, a limitation. Having that extra speed really opens up what the Valk can do, whereas hover is only good for doing simple gunnery (I.E. "Shoot me because I'm pretending to be a balloon" mode). You can make the Valk hover without hover airframe by angling up at 20-30 degrees and manipulating the throttle.

Doing this also allows you to do bizarre things with the Valk that I have seen drive ESFs up the wall, the most hilarious of which was the time I lost a pair of ESFs by banking under a small bridge and disappearing in the pylons, causing them to overshoot and wreck into a cliff-side. Evasiveness also lets you do tail-stands without losing much altitude, which is just plain fun. Also, using hover means you don't get any sense of accomplishment from playing bridge and tunnel, because you can just set the angle and maintain speed.

I will see your argument and raise you another one:

The ground vehicles you mentioned can all hide in and out of line of sight from other vehicles, as in traditional warfare utilizing cover.

Aircraft in this game render from 1000m iirc, much farther away than anything else, and once it is spotted it is like a duck up in the sky; there is no cover to hide behind.

Because of these factors, it is not at all unusual for air to be shot by half a squad's worth of things at the same time. As a pilot I can tell you this happens all the time, and you quickly learn and mark these areas on your map as "no-fly-zones" that you are forced to respect

But for some folks securing the airspace above them is not enough, they want to be able to farm air with impunity, eating up a 350 nanite-cost vehicle as if it was a flash

How many times have you seen 4, 5, or more Liberators? ESF Air Squads are a rarity.

Readily available AA/Multi Role Weapons to pull when EVERYONE hears your jet:
-Skyguard
-AA Turrets (constructibles and non-constructibles)
-Burster
-Annihilator
-Swarm
-ES G2A Lock On
-Walker
-Ranger
-Basilisk
-Gorgon
-Striker
-Lancer
-Saron
-Gatekeeper
-LMGs to Side Arms
-Max Weapons
-Dumbfires in close range.

Depends where you are flying... also speed is a massive factor. While ground vehicles can pop in and out of cover easily, an ESF, even if caught in the open, can easily speed away and behind a mountain. If you are flying with nothing around you for 1000m then you are a very poor pilot.

However, why is it that a single ESF with AV weapons(Be it rocket pods or hornets) can take out a Lightning with ease(Also a 350 nanite vehicle) but a single Lightning with Skyguard cannot take out most ESFs? Both are single-manned vehicles, both cost the same nanites, yet with their respective counter weapons attached, one is by far superior to the other. Can you guess which it is? That's right, the ESF.

As it stands, the ESF is entirely too versatile both being that it's weapons are not restricted to a single target and it can have two different ones on it. A properly fitted ESF is capable of engaging every single target in the game, it has the ammo, the speed, and the resistance plus immense Fire Suppression to deal with any target in the game. Effectively you have 125% HP at all times, if an enemy deals 50% to you, you can make it seem like 25% with the press of a button. That coupled with the massive speeds an ESF can reach and essentially these vehicles have no business ever dying to ground sources. If you do then you overextended and got hit by your very counter... and you have the audacity to complain that AA is powerful? It's "job" right now is to make air go away... yeah they might not come back but they also didn't die, they can easily fly across the map and harass other targets. You speak of impunity, yet you want the air game to remain as powerful as ever... sounds like hypocrisy.

Not very often no, but if they did group together it would cause a standstill on the ground. As well when ESF squads/platoons do appear they lock down everything, a hell of a lot more than any ground vehicle can do. You also list all sources of AA... what weapons does an ESF need to directly impact any target in the game? Rotary/Hailstorm, and Hornets. Both of these weapons can be equipped at once and they allow you to engage literally every target in the game. Rotary for aircraft, Hornets for anything on the ground.