[Suggestion] Automated AA turrets - always on stand by

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by Iridar51, May 4, 2014.

  1. Demigan

    Allright, go read anyone else's post where they put something down that quickly, and see the response. If you do, you'll see that almost every single one is replied to with some type of negative remark or opposite opinion without really understanding it. Retention of the idea I think it's called? Not sure in English anyway. So by adding the details and enforcing the idea in people's mind they have less options to respond with as I've already covered those bases. In other words, they are left with insulting me or making my words look bad, such as with words like:

    No, not screw with everyone, where did you get that idea? Did I say "remove RM and Hover fighting, destroy the entire way current pilots can fly"? No I didn't. If you read any of my posts, the one's with the details and examples of how something could be executed, you would have noticed that I want those to stay, just that other maneuvers should become valid and effective as well. I dislike the RM and hover fighting because they are basically build upon the quirks and edges where the game-mechanics show their flaws, but since they've been in so long it would be bad to remove them. What I want is to change the air-game so that more players can use them effectively against anything, while at the same time balancing them out with new utilities, tools and updated weapons for the ground units to fight them with.
    Also, you've never seen a good air-raid if you believe that there are never more aircraft than tanks, and many small battles do have aircraft but tanks are absent due to the fights taking place within walls or something, leaving them with little to do.

    ... It also causes a ton of people to be attracted to air. Also, the basic aircraft flying of PS2 is not that intricate, before the RM and hover fighting became so prevalent I could handle myself incredibly, but didn't want to use the (even more) OP aircraft of the day (Nosecannons that could curbstomp MBT's? Rocketpods that could one-clip MBT's similar to the TB?).
    There will be pretty equally large groups of people that want to fly as there are those who want to drive. Just look at any game where you can pick whatever vehicle you like, and just about half of them will be eager to jump into aircraft.

    Simple, tanks can function in heavy AV fire as well, if they know what they are doing and know how to maneuver/use cover to avoid it. Aircraft lose a lot of the ability to use cover, but they get the ability to avoid fire by means of speed and agility. That might be an alien concept to you I know, but it's completely possible.

    Just think of an upgraded Walker for your Skyguard, or as Chingles put it: a Dual Walker instead of a Skyguard. You lose your flak abilities, but need pin-point accuracy and leading to actually hit the aircraft. You have the potential to kill one outright when it passes over, but if you fail to keep track of their leading point they have the option to do fly-by's an inch over your head and be hit maybe once or twice.

    Yeah, go into extremes again. What's wrong with a balanced solution? We don't need to remove flak completely, we could slightly decrease the range at which flak explodes while tightening up the COF and giving a slight increase in damage. Then we start decreasing the range at which flak explodes while increasing the damage further (not necessarily on a 1:1 ratio, it could be logarithmic or we could halt the damage increase at some point).
    You can even add in multiple flak-types, some for newbies but with limited power (with the risk that the bad scaling of flak doesn't go away), some intermediaries for average players or players who are satisfied with the more dependable damage output, and almost no-flak to absolutely no-flak options for pro-players.



    Because I back my stuff up giving you little room to counter my arguments, aside from attacking me personally? That's what I would go for.

    Generalizing me, making me look bad in front of others and "discrediting" my words by comparing me to people I have absolutely no connection with... keep going, just telling the audience what you are doing.

    There's not many people who do provide something constructive or long-lasting. So far you haven't done a good job either :)

    And we are back to why I explain why it's unfun, completely rediculous etc. You burn me down on one end, but when I do what you say you tell me it's just as subjective as the rest?

    No, a bad way for you maybe. I try to give balanced and fun idea's for the game. I posted idea's for a bigger meta-game as well, are those suddenly BS as well? Or are you going to deny that the game needs a better meta-game?

    It might be in the best state as it was, but there's still an incredible room for improvement.
  2. Ronin Oni

    lmfao what's really hilarious in this games infantry/vehicle balance is how weak vehicles really are if infantry actually bloody focus fire.

    The only reason there's a PROBLEM is that they've removed every purpose for vehicles to actually fight over terrain leaving them with nothing to do but shell into bases, which should likewise be effectively barricaded from the vehicles.

    Open bases and redeployside are the only problems in need of fixing, and then the damn vehicles need a goddamn BUFF

    MAXes are part of the cimbined warfare and HA's shields making the front line soldiers are likewise part of the balance. This game is not nor should it be, balanced with classes on a 1v1 basis.

    Maybe if all the redeployside coontz leave the game we can get a proper goddamn planetside back.
  3. Ronin Oni

    lol'd
    • Up x 1
  4. KnightCole


    Yeah, cuz the thing moved so damn fast and the velocity on the gun was so damn slow.....only had a few seconds to even see him, aim and shoot....and that velocity.....and spread, dear god...
  5. Silkensmooth

    Yes well i agree actually that everyone should be able to kill everyone else., but currently the problem is that with an A2A ESf you cant fight back against flak or heavies with lock-ons.

    Heavies can ohk ESF with dumbfires. Tanks ohk ESf with ap rounds, and i know because i have shot down a crapton with a MAGGY. Small arms fire hurts ESF quite nicely.

    No one is saying you shouldnt be able to DEFEND yourself from air, but to have the ability to outright kill them without fear of reprisal goes against your belief.

    IMO 1 of 2 things should happen. Either A2A ESF without A2G weapons gain immunity to flak explosions only taking damage from direct hits, and make them immune to locks. OR give the ESf far greater resistance to flak allowing it to have a decent CHANCE of killing a skyguard.

    Currently you have a situation where A2A pilots are at the mercy of flak and locks with no way to fight back. If some heavy locks me while im flying high above the ground, and they do, my only alternative is to run. I cant go looking for him because by the time i find him ill already have eaten a couple of locks, and unless its some guy who happens to be out in the middle of nowhere then there are going to be other people shooting at me while i try to move into the 300 meter range i need just to see him.

    Then he can dance all around and make me miss while still locking me if hes good. Or while im hovering trying to nosegun him, his buddy hits me with a dumbfire. Or some lightning hits me with an AP round and ive already taken a lock so i die. Or there is a burster or skyguard down there and already being 42% damage down due to the lock, which does a whopping 42% damage, i die rapidly to the flak.

    Trying to attack a skyguard with a nosegun is like trying to kill a scat max with an infil and a stock pistol.

    If ESF were nearly on equal ground with a skyguard, then both sides would have more fun.
    • Up x 1
  6. Silkensmooth

    So if you only had a few secs and he was moving fast why should you be able to kill the ESF or even hit it? That is the only advantage an ESF has over a skyguard, its mobility.

    You cant kill a skyguard with an A2A ESF and now you think an ESF shouldn't be able to run away from one either?

    Thats what you tankers are on about. Its not that skyguard is underpowered and needs buffed. If ESF couldnt fly away they would die every single time in a 1v1 with a competent skyguard pilot.

    Its not that skyguard is incapable of killing ESF at all.
  7. EarlofSunderer

    Automated AA turrets wouldn't be a physical threat to good pilots themselves, like the spitfire they'd be a warning system for nearby infantry/tanks. Meant to shoot in your direction, hitting you is an unexpected bonus.


    Also, to make the air & AA game more fun make Valkyries cheaper. Love those things when I'm doing AA
    I don't fear cheaper Valkyries, more people would use them and AA would have more targets.
    "shooting at the sunderers of the sky"

    Valkyries are fun for everyone, for infantry to shoot at, AA users, ESFs.
    Maybe have the ability for non squad members to spawn in if they've died close enough (50-100m) to a valkyrie, or would that be OP? they're easy to shoot down, so my opinion is that it'd be ok ish, because they're easier to kill than a sunderer a lot of the time.

    I'm not a balance expert though, might break the game and be a horrible idea.
  8. sustainedfire

    AA is Fun, and brings a lot of certs if you play properly.

    A Burster max with extended mags will get you anti air XP and Air deterant Ribbons, as well as medals towards auraxium- on top of the xp for downing the enemy and their craft. And Kill Steak Ribbons!

    And when the air is gone, you can swap loadout and go on with the battle. How is that not fun and effective ?
  9. Demigan

    I liked your post because it is written in a clear, non aggressive tone, even though I disagree with some points.

    There are lots of weapons that make it near-impossible to fight back, and yes I want every class, tank and ESF to have a defense against other classes or tanks, and as I mentioned before there is no reason that the unit type needs a damaging way to defend itself. An A2A ESF attacks other ESF, which means the time they linger in the danger zone where they are within an MBT's elevation or hit by Heavy dumbfires is very small, which is it's own defense: speed, agility, the ability to stay out of their range. Sure you'll have to get into range occasionally to hunt down other ESF, but those times are short the moment the dogfight starts.

    What goes against my belief is that they would be able to do it without the ESF having the option to do anything about it. If infantry or tanks have almost no option to stay in cover, or get into cover when an aircraft or other tank approaches, and they have no way of either escaping or really fighting back, then it becomes a problem. ESF can "simply" fly higher, but a high maneuverability and agility already go along way in being able to avoid fire. (I'll get to flak and lock-ons later).

    Now I would say they already have a decent chance, but I seem to be the only one who hunts Skyguards in that way.
    I hope you realize that an immunity to flak explosions would be a real bad decision, increasing their flak resistance would be bad as well. You would create scenario's where a dedicated weapon wouldn't be able to hit it's intended target. That would be like giving Sunderers, Lightnings and MBT's immunity to AP shells if they equip an AA or AI loadout. A far better plan would be to change flak itself, but an A2A ESF shouldn't have a chance to kill a Skyguard, it should have options to defend itself and escape (which it has), but to be able to kill AA...?

    Doesn't the same count for an AI or AA Sunderer that meets an AV Lightning or MBT? Doesn't the AI/AA MAX lose all his capabilities to deal with anything bigger than a Flash?
    Lock-Ons are annoying, but you can defend yourself. You can easily outrun their vision before they kill you, and Lock-Ons suffer the same problem as Burster MAX's in that they are mostly found near SpawnBunkers and Sunderers, making finding them an easier task. If you can't find them you can always fly away and come back later, if you don't just relocate to another base within a minute, an option that tanks don't have. Ofcourse, if multiple shoot you they can kill you outright... but isn't that the same for any unit type in the game? Tanks might not be killed in one go by the first salvo, but due to their speed and agility they would need to be right next to cover to survive. Also things like C4 and Tank Mines are a real danger to tanks but rarely to aircraft, meaning that the options to OHK or one-clip them are there, and ESF/Liberators have all the firepower they want in AV loadouts to get very short TTK's on them as well, without the tanks having an option to escape...

    How can he do that? In lock-on mode he's doing ADS, which slows him down incredibly.

    Do you expect a Skyguard to win a battle from an AV MBT? An ESF has the incredible advantage of high speed, maneuverability and agility. But now you describe one of the few moments that this is a problem: there's an enemy infantry that you need to find, which is harder when you are in the air due to your speed and average distance from the ground. Your reaction to this enemy is to hover around to try to nosegun him, even though that unit has a dedicated weapon against you?

    Now try and invision that statement for a Skyguard vs an AV MBT, and a Medic vs an AI Harasser, or an LA vs an AI Liberator...
    • Up x 2
  10. AssaultPig

    I like the premise of this thread, but I think it kinda misunderstands the problem.

    If armor rolls by you might need to pull an anti-armor loadout, but the lethality of armor doesn't necessitate having active anti-armor forces on standby at all times. You have time to realize that armor is coming, take cover, go get the right kit, and come back and fight it.

    Not so with air; in lots of circumstances (especially lower-pop circumstances) you barely even detect aircraft before they're killing you. Which leads to the scenario OP is talking about: air kills you, you pull AA, air runs away.

    Solution is to make A2G and G2A weapons less lethal (if we're being realistic, the real problem is liberators.) If A2G is less lethal infantry are never in the situation where they feel like they're being killed by something they don't really have the opportunity to shoot back at. Making G2A less lethal in turn reduces G2A weapons' problematic scaling in large numbers and allows air to operate in higher-density environments. Basically 'slow down' ground vs. air combat.

    this would also probably help improve the experience of new pilots.
    • Up x 2
  11. EarlofSunderer

    "if we're being realistic, the real problem is liberators"
    I'd like their effective A2G range to be low enough that I can hit them with a Phoenix launcher when they're hovering overhead.

    Or give the Phoenix enough range to hit a liberator at it's effective killing height.
    Wishful thinking.

    I'd be ok with G2A & A2G being less lethal, but think the idea of automated turrets would create some fun, something interesting. Something to hack, or destroy because it matters, because now you can move in with your air without getting hit once every 5-20sec by the automated AA turrets.

    Especially on low pop servers like Briggs.
  12. Septus

    Wouldn't fixing the resource system help most of the problems? I am mainly a vehicle person but I would rather have some downtime as infantry or have to use a different vehicle for a bit than have the system we have now. They could probably fix the current system but the old system with acquisition timers and bases giving resources was much better than this half finished poorly conceived system we have now. Everything is a vehicle zerg now.

    vehicles should be very effective, the problem comes when they are in huge numbers and replenished immediately. Remember games like battlefield 1942? tanks were very powerful but only a few on the map at once. I don't get mad when a tank or gunship kills me as infantry, i mean it is a freaking tank or gunship. The problem comes when there is A) 20 of them farming you, and B) when you do kill them it is no accomplishment because they are back in 30 secs.

    It is nice to always be able to have the vehicle you want, but but as a combined arms game i think it is fine for people to have to play infantry a bit instead of chain pulling tanks and libs and esfs.
  13. KnightCole

    Its mostly a joke....only way to even hit a ESF with a skyguard is if he sits still and gives the shots the 3 seconds it will take to travel to him then hit him.....but if you move even a little, the thing cant hit anything. Skyguard does need a velocity buff and a accuracy buff.

    Its the Primary Anti Air weapon and it cant even do its own job very well. That is what is up with pilots, thinking nothing should be able to effectively drop them, not even designated AA weaponry. A Liberator can sit and solo face tank a AA Turret......Pilots are in the notion of beliving they should be the premiere farming vehicles and nothing should be able to effectively counter them unless they sit still for the 10 seconds it takes to kill them...

    Yes, mobility keeps you alive, to a certain degree, but it shouldnt make you pretty much immune to a good gunner of an AA unit. As it stands, Skyguards velocity and spread is so damn bad even a good gunner wont hit **** if your moving even slightly. And then add a few hundred meters of range? You dont even need to move then, the CoF bloom will ensure like 1 in every 15 rounds even bursts near you....and splash dmg on flak is what? 20 dmg now? lol.....and pilots claim Flak is OP...

    You need an entire battery of flak catching a single ESF in a cross fire to even have a hope of causing enough damage to even matter. I have DUal Burster maxed it up, ive sat in hundreds of Phalanx Flak turrets, ive dumbfired and lock on'd plenty of planes...Flak in general is a joke, and yet it keeps getting nerfed...
    • Up x 1
  14. Silkensmooth

    How about you guys that think skyguard needs a buff just put your character names in your sig.

    I just wanna see how much flight experience you have.
  15. EarlofSunderer

    What do you think about cloud cover? a few clouds in the sky that aircraft can hide behind, go into to lose a pursuer etc
    • Up x 1
  16. Demigan

    How much AA experience do you have? Oh yeah wait, you have practically none. You have a Skyguard on one character and used it for only a few hours, getting an above average vehicle kills of 1 vehicle kill per 7 minutes. 1 vehicle kill per 7 minutes, that's simply sad beyond count, especially that this is considered a "high" average kills per hour for a dedicated weapon. Just as an example, the AI Foton pods you have, an anti-infantry weapon, scores litterally twice as much vehicle kills as the Skyguard with the same "average" rating.

    See here is the thing. If a ground player, any player, says "I'm getting killed by aircraft they aren't fair" the aircraft players reaction is "you don't know how hard it is to use aircraft, learn to fly" (even if they actually do have flight experience)
    But now you are the one saying "I'm getting attacked by flak, they aren't fair" (not exactly but it comes down to it), shouldn't the proper reaction be "you don't know how to use AA, learn to use it"?

    It's hypocritical, whatever we say it's always "learn to fly", and when there are people who fly who tell you otherwise it's "you don't have enough experience". Hey guess what, you have even less experience, and still you talk about how AA is too good.
    • Up x 1
  17. Silkensmooth

    Actually i have 3 toons on one account. All 3 have skyguard since it is an NS weapon. buy it once all your toons get it.

    On my TR toon i have 3 hours 48 mins in my skyguard with 31 kills. In the AA turret i have 2 hours 32 mins and 20 kills.

    On my NC toon which is my first and obviously least skilled i have 1 hour 51 mins in a skyguard and 8 kills. I have 2hours 1 mins in AA turrets with 6 kills.

    On my VS toon I have 14 hours 30 mins in my skyguard and 139 kills. In the AA turret i have 1 hour 45 mins and 12 kills.

    So i have spent plenty of time in a skyguard. I have enough kills to show that i used it and know how to use it since my kph seems to be higher than average.

    I have never said skyguard doesnt need buffs, it just doesnt need them vs air.

    Skyguard is very good against air, in fact in the hands of a pilot like myself who knows how to lead airplanes its pretty overpowered.

    What it lacks is the ability to effectively fight anything else. Its TOO specialized.

    When i drive a skyguard i find i drive away all the enemy air. As i said i may have an advantage against a player who isnt familiar with how to aim at air, yet i would contend that this shouldnt be taken into account when balancing becuase everyone gets better. We all start as bads and hopefully we get better right?

    But once you chase away the airplanes you are left with nothing to shoot at. You have to get so close to infantry that they will C4 you or rocket you before you can kill them half the time.

    Shooting vehicles is lulz.

    So i would rather see skyguard changed to be more fun for the skyguard driver and more fun for pilots.

    What would be cool and fun would be something like a vulcan cannon with better elevation. As a TR vulcan harrasser gunner i can tell you that even with the elevation problems that is a fun gun to shoot planes with and also quite effective. We even take out libs with the thing. Something like that would still die to mbt but be good against infantry and lighter vehicles and actually fun to use.

    Skyguard isnt really fun to use even when you are getting kills. Its nowhere near the thrilling excitement of flying and shooting down another plane, nor is it nearly as fun as shooting something like the vulcan at them.

    But skyguard underpowered vs air? NO.
  18. Demigan

    I used the toons in your signature to look it up, I may have been too agressive to you, but I hope you can understand my frustration with the hypocracy of pilots that claim that only the aircraft experience counts, regardless of them being the victim or the attacker.

    Fair enough.
    I think the Skyguard doesn't need direct damage buffs. The current way flak works doesn't allow it. If you increase the damage it allows Skyguards to kill ESF without them having a chance of escaping, which would be detrimental to air. But if you allow aircraft to escape it means you aren't effective, and all you do is push the problem to another area.
    Flak and Lock-Ons in their current form don't work well, from my point of view. Bring too little AA and aircraft can always escape, if not kill you. Bring a bit more AA and suddenly aircraft have a tough time doing anything near you, it scales too fast. This is all because Flak has such a large range in which it explodes near aircraft, anyway you read the rest what I'm saying a dozen times over already so I'll spare you that.

    From my experience, using the turret of the Skyguard which can hardly chase aircraft is wildly different than using ESF without turrets and the ability to chase their enemy. Leading is also achieved wildly differently. It would be like saying that leading for a sniper is the same as leading for the Skyguard.

    I agree with you there.

    Especially that last part I like.
    I think that in a perfect Planetside 2, both the Skyguard and Pilot enjoy the things they can do to eachother, and an aircraft that's killed shouldn't feel that he's only killed only because Flak explodes 10m from their aircraft, reducing the skill necessary to even aim.
    At best, we get several skill-levels of AA. Those for new or low-skill players, which have a dependable DPS or effect but are limited in their power, preferably with elements that help them get higher skill in the other AA systems. A possible way to do this is to make it short-ranged so that aircraft can get to safety quickly, allowing the AA system to have a high enough DPS to be effective at defending the AA user without preventing aircraft of operating in the area, as any low-skill AA system quickly gets a scaling problem as we see now with current flak.
    Those for medium skill players with a less dependable DPS or effect against aircraft. The skill of both the AA user as well as the Pilot determine if the player hits at all, and how much damage it deals. Some form of skill-reduction in short-range flak or "tracks while reticule is on target" can help the AA user.
    Those for high-skill players with a DPS that totally depends on the pilot as well as the AA user. Preferably no automatic flak or Lock-On mechanisms present.

    Also, most of the AA game seems to rely on the aircraft themselves. The aircraft determine the range of the engagement and how long they are in the AA's attack range. All the AA can do is sit on their spot and hope the aircraft gets in their range in the right way. So maybe it would be fun to give them tactical weapons as well, such as the ability to charge one bullet and suck away (a portion of) the afterburners, or the ability to temporarily reduce the agility or speed/acceleration of aircraft if they hit properly. That gives them a more tactical approach to combating aircraft.

    Yeah, as an example. No flak, just your skill against that of your opponent.

    Exactly, which is why the AA game needs to be changed.
  19. Demigan

    Volumetric clouds are an incredible taxing problem for the game. That's why even smoke grenades don't use it. Although they might be able to do something like smoke-grenades to simulate clouds, but only if it really doesn't destroy people's framerate as well as doesn't cause imbalances between graphics settings. Such as the one's where on low-settings a smoke grenade is currently less visually impairing than your own muzzle flash while on high settings it can hide half a wall-tower from your sight.
  20. Badname707

    Has anyone mentioned that this would make it practically impossible for A2A ESF's to chase down enemy aircraft over enemy territory? It would only serve to increase the survivability of A2G aircraft.