Anti-Air: Easy or Not?

Alright, fair enough on the range.

But seriously you can't handle the DPS like that.
Putting aside Skyguards shooting at targets over 1km away and other stuff like that (and there certainly are things that screw it in the other direction, like destroying unmanned base turrets) you can't simply use average accuracy and multiply it with damage and firerate to get the DPS.
Calculating it like this would propably make my RAMS-50 outdamage my CARV in DPS, and thats not even factoring in headshots.

And you seriously shouldn't use the rear armor. It is hard to hit, you need to fly low, and the Skyguard can turn it away from you in a single second.
AP Lightnings would propably start losing a DPS race against halberd Harassers like this, and I'm not really particularly scared of them.

Really it's just a question of how to handle DPS. Whatever method you pick is going to have its caveats.
100% Accuracy DPS- This is not a good measurement if the average accuracy of the weapon is very low.
Average Accuracy DPS- This is not a good measurement if the average accuracy is not representative of combat accuracy (ie suppression weapons).
BR100/Q4 Accuracy DPS- This is not a good measurement if the weapon has a steep learning curve.

On the whole, however, I think it's pretty clear that it is far easier to hit targets with the Hornets than with the Skyguard. It's more a question of degree, and that's when those other factors you cite come in.

It's one of the reasons why Harassers are generally seen as being in a bad spot right now vis-a-vis Lightnings. They were absolutely terrible when first introduced, and are pretty much just tolerable now. With the exception of the Vulcan-H, that is. And of course now everyone gets a Vulcan-H!

Come to think of it, the Harasser analogy is a great example of why having the ESF target rear armour is actually more accurate than not. Like the Harasser, the ESF is so speedy and agile that hitting the rear of a Lightning is much less a problem.

If you were to limit ESF DPS to only top/side/front angles, then you are making a judgement on how difficult hitting the rear of a Lightning is. And if we're going in that direction, then on the Lightning side I could claim that an evasive ESF or an ESF making use of cover would extend Skyguard TTK as well. Making that judgement opens up a whole new can of worms.

The best thing to do for this metric is to leave player skill out of it. We simply look at the maximum possible damage output of each weapon, because doing otherwise starts to involve biased judgements of skill. This is the most objective and least biased form of measurement.

The sad thing is that this guy mentions nothing but using infantry AA to counter air, not the heavy duty vehicles that should be the TRUE counter, kind of reminds the of the power that infantryside holds these days. Fight ******** with ******** i guess......

Of course there is no perfect method.
This particular one has the drawback that a low risk/low reward item will always dramatically underperform when compared to a high risk/high reward item. And risk can be exchanged/extended with "skill".
If we assume perfect skill on both sides the ESF will never hit the weakspot and always lose - the roles will simply be reversed.
We know that both can happen, but I think the latter is a lot more likely - at least in a 1v1 situation.
And I don't think we should even try a theoretical evaluation under "battlefield conditions".

Funnily enough, I think a Harasser has actually better chances to get in your rear - and more importantly stay there. The ESF can't get a second shot when the Lightning turns, the Harasser can just drive a circle.
Although this too depends heavily on the situation and the terrain....

I declare there is only one way to approach balancing finetuning.

**** the numbers and theories, tell your community that you will screw with some numbers every two days for 10 days and then look which change got the closest to the performance you want to have.
I don't think thats hard to do, but I DO think that DGB doesn't have the balls to even consider doing that.
Also, as I have stated elsewhere, after the Banshee nerf I started to doubt their understanding of basic math and geometry. And their own game, but that doubt has existed for far longer..

Well...
I'll put it this way - Infantry is free and has literally no limit on its availability. Any HARD counter (as most of forumside seems to understand the word) on infantery will simply remove whatever it counters from the game if it doesn't have glaring flaws like the Archer.

Regarding the heavy duty vehicles - as the Colonel and I are discussing it is very hard to really find a common ground for balancing discussions, since we value different strenghts... differently.

And let me tell you this, since it just happened 2 hours ago - Infantry AA is not powerful, but it IS easy. I had the very rare chance to see 5 other HAs (in a 48-48 fight) pull AA, 3 Strikers and 2 Grounders I think. It took us 4 minutes to destroy 2 Liberators, at least 8 Scythes one Galaxy and make the survivors not even dare THINK about returning. Yes they had a small airzerg there. HAD.
I'd say Infantry AA is powerful enough, and it gets a lot more powerful when people are actually USING it instead of flooding the forums with pls Nerf/Buff threads.

1) G2A AA is easy for Hardcore Organized Groups.
2) G2A AA is moderate to easy and mixed effectiveness for Standard Players in (or using) a very large ally Zergs.
3) G2A AA is very hard and mixed effectiveness for Standard Players not in (or using) an ally Zerg.
4) G2A AA is massively difficult and poor effectiveness for New Players.

Aircraft are, from what I understand armored directionally like tanks. For example, the recent patch that increased the bottom armor only of Valks vs ground small arms fire. That shows that they work the same as other vehicles (and it makes sense as they all work on the same engine.) That being said -- I don't know all the mechanics of air vehicle damage or where they are, or to what type of fire. For example -- flak probably does not trigger weak spots -- but it may on direct hits at certain angles. Who knows. I know this -- my lib take damage from other vehicles in differing amounts depending on which angle they hit me when they hit me. I was also pointing out that a DPS range for damage to tanks would be more appropriate as sometimes you can and do hit a tank in the weak spot -- and sometimes you can't and don't.

And yes, I know you did state it is arbitrary and I appreciate that. I am merely mentioning it again along with mine and the first guy's post to point out more clearly that an agreed upon metric would be needed.

All in all, enlightening and useful discussion.

i am still amazed how many heavys i see not having their Empire specific AA Rocket Launcher, or the Annihilator,

in groups of more than 4, AA Rocket launcher can dominate ESFs that are not paying their full attention and dangerous to libs that are flying low, plus AA rockets don't get reduced damage from compound armor like flak does, an ESF will always die from three rockets if they hit before he can repair, though i am not sure if this applies if the ESF gets a full fire supression cycle, there are normally dozens of HAs in a fight getting farmed by enemy air...

natural selection or stubborn behavior? or do people seriously still run around with a decimator to take potshots at ESFs?

I run around with a Decimator as standard because I use it to get rid of MAX units.
If air gets annoying I switch to my Grounder.

And I'd say its a mixture of natural selection and stubborn behavior, also a little bit of self-fulfilling prophecy.
Natural selection because they don't switch their loadout to deal with the threat at hand.
Stubborn behavior because they simply don't WANT to.
And self-fulfilling prophecy because they claim "G2A is useless" so they don't use it. Therefore almost no aircraft dies to G2A weaponry reinforcing the claim that G2A is useless.

As I said - about a dozen aircraft of variable sizes that I met yesterday might beg to differ.

i remember one day me and squad mates went out in a sundy with double fury, blockade and 4 AA heavys+2 mxes switching from AA to AV depending on situaion, you can wreck so much **** that way it's hillarious

we stopped about 20 mosquitos that were farming infantry at a tower, while the maxes killed prowlers and sunderers en masse

imagine doing that with a whole squad, two rep sundys, maxes, heavies, engineers that occasionaly switch to medic to revive maxes... it's almost unbeatable

the only thing stopping us was a bunch of tankmines the front gunner overlooked

I think while it is theoretically possible to give directional armour to aircraft (in the same way that it is theoretically possible to give directional armour to Sunderers and Harassers), so far none have had that aspect added to them. Shooting at a Liberator from any angle will yield the same results.

It would be interesting if they did add in directional armour/weaknesses and hence actual weakpoints, though naturally with SAMs and flak there is less control for the shooter in hitting these points.

Yeah I agree with ya on this. No one WANTS to stop killing what they are killing to deal with aircraft. I myself, despite being a lib pilot and knowing full well how dangerous a lib is if left unmolested, when doing ground work will sometimes ignore a lib until it kills me, then I switch loadouts -- which is more than most people can say. Most people don't and count on other people to take care of it.

But 3 people with AA lockons will kick a lib out or kill them. It takes only 3. Once in a while 3 or 4 infantry (probably all in the same squad) pull AA lockons (or 1 of them is super accurate with the dumbfire stock RL) and farm ALL the aircraft.

Honestly -- I hope it never catches on because I hate it

Well, that is incorrect for Valkries at the very least. We have a direct statement from the devs saying that aircraft do have directional armor.

In this post -- https://forums.daybreakgames.com/ps2/index.php?threads/game-update-7-23.230253/

But in terms of any vehicle-carried weapon, the Valkryie has no difference with its armour.

Like I said, currently the Harasser and Sunderer technically have directional armour... but they simply have the same values in all directions so it would appear as if they do not.

From a technical standpoint it would not be difficult to give Harassers and Sunderers technical armour. And I'm sure that the option is also available for aircraft (after all, it's fairly rare for ground vehicles to expose their belly armour, yet belly armour is an attack vector).

The thing is that it has not yet been implemented for things like flak damage. I'm not sure why it hasn't been implemented yet, as it does make sense that all aircraft with cockpits should take more damage from that direction than from other directions.

Yes I am aware that the charts out currently do not list directional damage differences for aircraft -- and like I said as Valkries plainly do have differing directional armor currently in game aircraft too track directional damage. I made no claims as to whether the values were all uniform or not or whether there was a weakspot or not. Regardless, these being properly listed would be nice and the should possibly be retested now that we have air vehicles getting their resistance values muddled with (the Valk being the only one so far.) I do notice differing angles of being rammed causes differing levels of damage (however that could simply be an effect of surface contact.)

But yeah, I wouldn't think that even in the event of directional armor resistance values being different for ESFs that flak would trigger it. Also, I dont know how the game currently resolves explosive damage and direction vs armor. I am afraid to just assume it is based on the attackers angle from the attackie like projectile damage.

As an NC player on miller I often get annoyed with other NC not having any sort of AA capability.

Certed AA Max the other day and have been picking up easy certs ever since.

It may be on a per-weapon basis. As you note, the Valk has directional armour against small arms, but not anything else.

Likewise, C4 is well known to ignore directional armour.

Though if there is directional armour, it is probably the old "angle of attacker and angle of facing" thing. C4 is an exception because it generates its own entity.

The golden concept for the skyguard is mastering how to lead, I think I am fine at that, but my faction teammates are not, who seem more casual, me myself I am a more experimented player so I can understand more the intended uses of the weapon.

The turret due to its limitations agaisnt armor, should be at least able to defend itself more against infantry; decrease the shaking and cone of fire at very close range to repel C4 fairies.

I've got a Skyguard with a 4x scope and confess that of all the things I've ever invested in, that weapon is the single most important and personally rewarding purchase I've made in Planetside 2. It is the sole difference between being tormented by ace ESF pilots and having any sense of self-preservation. I can and do take out multiple ESFs with the thing by being good at predicting trajectory, and if they try to get a bead on you the key is to NEVER STOP MOVING, AND DRIVE PERPENDICULAR TO THEIR VECTOR.

Once all the ESFs are dead or have given up, I can go pick on sunderers. Flak may not be great for that, but it still does damage and will kill a sunderer given the opportunity.

Liberators are a different story. The Skyguard gets the better end of the deal if they don't come up behind it, but one Skyguard can't clinch a kill on a Liberator unless the pilot allows it. The advantage seems to rest ultimately with the Liberator, since a Liberator can kill a Lightning in one pass from the rear, but it is a fight of three players versus one so I guess that's fine.

The trouble with air in this game is that there aren't any good default weapons to deal with it. The MAX gets a burster, but the burster doesn't have scope attachments so they can't track as well at longer ranges, and you only get the one arm without paying.

I tried learning to be an AA pilot, but the skill gap between new and inexperienced pilots is pretty insurmountable. A lot of people in the skies are BR100 and the bizarre plane physics take a lot of getting used to. Especially when you realize that VTOL maneuvers are way more effective than any amount of speed or altitude, and due to afterburners keeping all fighters equivalent to each other in maximum speed, the only way to escape by relying on something like the the racer airframe is to fly low and weave through dangerous terrain the other guy can't easily shoot through and won't risk chasing through.

Air-to-air battles are so weird to watch from the ground in that it's like seeing a pair of dueling cicadas. "Evasive maneuvers" consist of clumsily listing all over the sky or even flying backwards. Meanwhile, escaping G2A threats involves kicking in the afterburners and getting over a hill at top speed. It's kind of counter-intuitive. You'd think dealing with ground would involve more hovering and dealing with air would involve more fast movement.

LOLOLOLOLOL This guy is clearly a troll.

TROLL TROLL TROLL.

Just look at the part where he claims that it is clearly evident that it is harder to hit things which your bullet has only to come within 40 feet of than to use guided missiles which dont go where you point them.

Clearly a TROLL. All he does is TROLL air threads and its very clear by his posts that he knows nothing about flying an ESF.

Average Accuracy Rates
Hornet- 60.97%
Skyguard- 28.1%

The Skyguard flak shell also needs to come within 6m of the target to detonate and do maximum damage (of 60). 6m is quite short in PS2 terms... far shorter than most interior rooms in PS2.

The main issue that detracts from Skyguard accuracy is the large initial CoF and subsequent bloom. The Skyguard's CoF is the second-worst vehicle mounted weapon in the game at 1.25. The only vehicle-mounted weapon that's worse than the Skyguard is the Duster (2.0 CoF), which is pretty much seen as a terrible weapon largely due to the inaccuracy.

This is why the Skyguard requires a CoF reduction, perhaps along the lines of the Shredder's 0.3 CoF, to be effective.

I don't think he is a troll. His comments on a lot of the ground game seem pretty reasonable. However, I think he hates air too much and is myopic and biased about it. That's why I call him Bill.

Regardless,

It couldn't have any better COF. It would give it unfair range (remember, aircraft render LONG before tanks do) as well as lowering the skill ceiling even further. Kind of unreasonable.

Beyond that -- accuracy isn't everything. Taking your example of the duster, the Duster is actually a great weapon. It is hard to use -- however when you get good with it it is more effective than the Zephyr in most instances involving infantry (and this is including the Duster's slower projectile travel speed.)