Can we buff Hornet direct damage to pre-nerf levels?

I will admit, the indirect damage of Hornet missiles was too high to the point that it doubled as an AI weapon, but nerfing direct damage it did made no sense whatsoever. The direct damage nerf literally made this dedicated AV option worse than Rocket pods, which are considered AI by the way (and are MUCH better currently at both AI and AV).

The nerf effectively removed them from the game, since their direct damage not only reduced the DPS, but also their hit-and-run capability and alpha damage, which was crucial to perform fast tank kills. Currently the best way is to hover around and shoot, which Rocket pods simply do better and effectively removed their niche and basically made them "inferior lolpods".

Un-nerf please?

LoL, I haven't seen Wrel's dev team rebuff any vehicle weapon after gutting them. They do occasionally buff things kills to vehicles faster, like the Ranger, the first(?) revision of the coyote and the hyenas; and probably new wingmount coming out.

Also buff hornets thread, never though I see this.
(also: no. (yes/no).no.no.never lol)

Double the damage of a Skyguard and then maybe ESF buffs might be worth it.

Until then, you too can enjoy the fun times™ playing as a deterrent! Yay!

It would be nice if they buffed the CoF a little too..... trying to shoot at anything beyond point-blank is an exercise in frustration, even when I feel like I'm leading perfectly fine.......

I think crappy AA was the problem all along, not Hornets or ESFs. I'd love to see a shift away from lock-ons and area effect flak and see the primary AA sources be direct hit weapons that can actually get kills.

So... the Walker? It's a direct hit AA weapon, but it still doesn't get kills.

which is why i will never support airside's argument for direct hit 'skillful' weapons and removal of flak and lock ons ( their meaning: superhuman aiming and dexterity nobody possesses for AA) given that aircraft can change directions and speed on a dime to throw off aim.

the only way such a change could work is if aircraft speed and ability to maneuver(mainly loosing the ability to ignore flight physics and move in any way without risking stalling by overdoing it) were heavily nerfed so they are no long quick strike hit and run aircraft.

AA needs buffs and airside needs to realize it isn't special and doesn't deserve advantage always in every aspect in their favor. infantry and tanks have advantages and disadvantages.

the only disadvantage i can see for air is that ESF's can only take one lock on rocket and survive and libs and gals have larger hitboxes so more chance of being hit by flak.

i do think hornets need to do something, currently they don't need to exist, they have no purpose.
they were already the underused option with lolpods being better in every way, but DBG utterly destroyed them.
i think they should get their direct damage back and have almost no splash.
by contrast they should nerf lolpods direct damage, currently lolpods do everything, high vehicle damage and high infantry damage.
lets make lolpods the AI option and hornets the AV option.

The walker is also a top gun, and fills an anti-infantry role very well. You have to be very careful about how powerful top guns get, otherwise why pull a Skyguard?

You hit the nail on the head. Look at my last few posts on this other thread that's going on. I'm a huge proponent of moving weapons towards direct hit, I think it would suit this fps much better, but that absolutely requires some physics in the air.


https://forums.daybreakgames.com/ps2/index.php?threads/esf-tailgun.245184/page-2#post-3453857

To be honest I don't find Hornets nerf that bad. It's still possible to kill MBTs with it. Yet it takes eternity in order to blow up a Sunderer. But yeah, rocketpods doing a way better job at this, though I don't like to use them. Un-nerf could be great.

Uh, have you ever tried shooting infantry with the walker's cone limitation? it doesn't fit any other role besides useless decoration that might hit a low level noob long enough to kill him, so long as he's standing on elevated ground and dumb enough to not take cover.

Uh, have you ever tried parking your Sundy on a hill so the Walker's elevation isn't an issue? It shreds infantry. I think it's one of the best balanced weapons in the game. With correct positioning it's incredible against infantry, it's great defense against air, it has the velocity to match it's target's speed, and it carries plenty of ammo to put out sustained fire. Plus, bery importantly, it promotes an engaging fight for the shooter and target, neither side should feel cheated with the outcome of the fight. I don't think there's much else you can ask out of a top gun.

You know there isn't always a conveniently placed hill to do that, right? I think there's a lot more you can ask out of a top gun. The walker is still just an air deterrent. Basically, the walker can do two things but not very well, or does one thing pretty well if the place and circumstances are favorable, and is considerably limited to what other multi-use vehicle guns are capable of. Saying that the walker fills an anti-infantry role very well is an overstatement. Jumping out of the vehicle and shooting the enemy with your gun is way more effective.

Considering how rocketpods out-perform just about any ground-based AI weapon and how Hornets still deal more damage than a Vanguard AP, besides that the ESF still has his nosegun, there's plenty of reason to keep the Hornets as they are but nerf the Rocketpods AV damage instead. And practically no reason but "it used to be like this" to buff the Hornet.

Everything in the game needs to be situational, otherwise there wouldn't be any choices to make. Give anything more to the Walker in anti-air capability and you obsolete the Ranger. Give the Walker any more anti-infantry capability and you obsolete the Kobalt. No weapon, unit or vehicle should have it all, which is a primary argument against what OP wants.

The weapon has been completely changed, not just dialed back. Being able to take out a tank in two salvos with perfect positioning and aim while moving was the only anti-vehicle option ESF had in larger fights, the large fights that you preach the game should revolve around. Now ESF are left to farm infantry. The do it all nature of Hornets was broken, but turning them in to a weapon where you have to enter hover mode was too much.

I thought pilots loved hover mode.

It's funny how expensive, limited, and potentially useless choices are forced upon ground vehicle players.

Not over big fights. They're almost a no go zone depending on the base. Quick runs with Hornets were the only anti-vehicle option. The only thing left for ESF in huge fights is quick runs against infantry with AI noseguns and LOLpods. Sit still enough to get 6 rear armor hits on a tank in a big fight and you're done.

I agree. This game is basically CoD with vehicles. It's either weak and spammable vehicles, like we have now, or adding logistics and making vehicles much more costly and powerful. But good vehicles means players might have to wait to pull one and take care of it, and probably have to waterproof it against infantryside tears. So, it's crap vehicles and nonstop action, or a real combined arms game which requires a little bit of strategy.

It wasn't completely changed. Besides, the ability to take out a tank in 2 salvo's with "perfect" positioning was way to powerful anyway to be in the game considering the complete lack of skillful options to defend against it.
Also considering my experience with ESF, you don't have to be able to ROFLstomp any tank from 100% health, and you don't need to be doing high-speed attacks just because there's lots of people around. While the chance of G2A increases it doesn't mean G2A is guaranteed. And don't come with the bullcrap argument of "but tha small-arms fire", because an entire platoon can open fire on an ESF and it can still kill someone and get away, simply because of the COF increase on infantry weapons, the laughable damage each bullet does, the damage falloff that expedites the laughable damage problem and the ability to be out of danger by simply pressing the afterburner button for 1 second which gets you out of the effective range of any small-arms. You are more likely to die from a team of Archer engineers that kill you in one salvo than by dedicated small-arms fire, and I've only ever seen one Archer group and those weren't aimed at taking down aircraft, so go figure.
Also, aircraft have this ability to deal a ton of damage in a short time, even with their "nerfed" weapons. Just attacking the frontline tanks is a massive boost to your team, as your allies have the opportunity to finish off those tanks and move up. Also just picking your targets is smart. It's not very hard to spot which tanks are damaged even if smoke and fire effects don't render yet simply by how and where they are positioned. A little SA will help you target and kill these with your powerful A2G weapons. PS2 is a team-game. If you are doing a 1v1 with an aircraft vs anything on the ground you are likely to win. In group settings, you shouldn't expect to still have the power to beat anything from 100% health for free. Expect to play as a team. The aircraft weapons are already on steroids, the aircraft themselves are on steroids, they have the firepower, maneuverability and speed to do what they need to do, so go pick some targets near the frontline and help your team. That's what the larger fights are about. Not a series of 1v1 battles, but a group effort where you expect people to support each other and finish off each other's work. Either by having the ESF kill off targets that move behind cover for repairs or by having ESF weaken enemies so their allies can finish them off.