Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by Masyaka, Mar 25, 2017.

  1. JonnyBlue

    Apart from the LIB which is grossly op atm I would say that G2A isn't as bad as people make out an AA max can down an ESF with Duel AA in 1 clip , AA turrets can also do this and from what ive seen most Tanks seem to be together a lot which concentrates all there AA fire.

    I actually shoot down more planes using my MAX AA than destroy Tanks with my MAX AV

    I have destroyed more planes with my lock on than tanks.....

    FFS I've shot down ESFs with small arms.

    As a pure infantryman I get killed 10x more by tanks than Aircraft.
  2. Demigan

    Yes, while the weapon is there, they still gave it too hard a time to actually deal with the target, instead relegating it to deal with larger aircraft. Which is actually a pretty good idea and wonderful boost to the G2A capabilities as it already adds something I've proposed: A set of anti-large-aircraft G2A weapons and a set of anti-ESF G2A weapons. Now if they added an anti-ESF version as well, it would be a great start.
    But keep that in mind, it would be a start. One weapon type doesn't solve it. Especially not when it's on a single class.

    Weak and so short-ranged that you are almost as well off using a shotgun against aircraft as your Rocklet Rifle. This can't really be classified as a G2A weapon in that respect. It would be like giving the Commissioner a flak detonation range and saying it's G2A now, even though it would still be practically useless.

    The Ranger is closer to an auto-canon than the Walker. Here:

    "An autocannon or automatic cannon is a large, fully automatic, rapid-fire projectile weapon that fires armour-piercing or explosive shells, as opposed to the bullet fired by a machine gun. Autocannons often have a larger calibre than a machine gun (e.g., 20 mm or greater), but are usually smaller than a field gun or other artillery."

    As mentioned in the wiki, the very first autocanons were in fact designed as anti-aircraft weapons. And rather than the spray&pray Walker or Ranger, that's the type of autocanons I'm going for. It's closer to a small caliber tank canon that uses the extra space to use a magazine rather than a single shot. The magazine remains small, the fire-rate isn't blistering, but it gives you a lot of firepower against light to medium armored units like Harassers, MAX's and ESF. Then when you've shot your rounds you have a long reload to give the aircraft a chance to respond. Ideally an aircraft wouldn't have to **** when an autocanon fires at it, but would start with evasive maneuvers to stay alive but still be able to fight in the area, similar to how ground units can remain active in the area even when under fire.
    As a bonus, an autocanon like this would fit well as an alternative to the Viper. The Viper is a short-ranged, "blanket the area and get kills" weapon. The new autocanon would function as both long-range AI that requires direct hits for kills as well as anti-aircraft gun, meaning the weapon would already be active before aircraft arrive and still be useful if the aircraft leave, which is one of the big problems we have now that G2A becomes useless when the aircraft leave.

    For the cost of the NSX weapons line they could have updated the G2A system already. Hell, just changing the Viper to have no drop, higher velocity and lower AOE would already serve as an autocanon. They already have a laser-guided high-velocity rocketlauncher in the Masamune, add a second one with stats to better engage ESF but lowered damage against large aircraft and that's another weapon down. We have flak ammunition and even flak rockets in the Rocklet Rifle, add another Rocklet Rifle but with a single shot and higher velocity and you've got another G2A weapon variant ready.

    Most of these changes would have the biggest cost in the 3D model you use. If you need a 3D model anyway. The second variant of the Masamune would need a few slight changes to the existing 3D model, if you don't just give it a different colorscheme. The Viper canon could easily stay the same for the lightning, and the MBT primary canons only have a different muzzlebreak which wouldn't be hard to introduce as well for the autocanon. And there you have half of the idea's done for barely any work at all.
  3. adamts01

    No it's not. They shine in small fights and against lone targets, but not much better than ESF. On the flip side, they can't do close to the damage as an ESF in larger fights, they just can't get in and out fast enough, their armor doesn't make up for their sluggishness. Up until the Hornet nerf, they definitely didn't hold a candle to ESF.

    The default nosegun is pathetic against any ground targets except infantry, where it's minimally viable. LOLpods have always out-DPSed Hornets. Now that Hornets have had their ttk against tanks doubled thanks to 2 reloads instead of 1, LOLpods have an anti-armor role again. They're still pathetic against armor, but no more so than current Hornets.

    It just clicked how to better explain it to you that Hornets have been completely ruined instead of dialed back. Like I said above, because of the extra reload, their ttk against armor has been essentially doubled. By the time the first salvo hits a MBT, the killing blow used to be 3 seconds behind. Now the killing blow is 6.5 seconds behind. You see the small % of damage decrease, when everyone who flys sees their combat effectiveness absolutely tanked. Whether you agree with the nerf or not, you have to admit that Hornets were decapitated with the last balance pass against them.
  4. Demigan

    If you actually read and understood my post, you would have noticed that I don't just see a 'small % of damage decrease'. But that I see an unfair advantage set right. Even without the ability to murder a tank in +/-3 seconds Hornets remain powerful.
    And that's the difference. All you see is the lost ability. If the Hornets used to deal 4000 damage to a tank from the top (a OHK) and are nerfed to deal 1500 damage per shot on the top armor, you would still complain about the loss of being able to OHK rather than talk about the actual changes it makes for the gameplay. At best you talk about the aircraft gameplay, and only the aircraft gameplay. You completely disregard how it affects the general gameplay between aircraft, tanks and infantry together. And the truth is, nerfing the Hornets was a good thing. You shouldn't be able to murder 100% vehicles that quickly, and even without the ability to murder 100% vehicles that quickly you still have the ability to easily pick off and murder damaged vehicles or debilitate an enemy vehicle so much that your allies can finish him off easily and quickly before he gets behind cover.
  5. Klabauter8

    Your tank stats are nothing special. It's very easy to get good scores with tanks. Even without putting any certs into it, you still can get very good scores with a Lightning, while an uncerted ESF is almost useless except for really skilled pilots.

    And A2A combat is not tainting anything. It's like saying G2G combat would taint Skyguard performance. It's just one of the many other things pilots have to watch out for. If the enemy has flak, then it's also very difficult to get kills on the ground with ESF.
  6. Klabauter8

    An uncerted ESF is anti-nothing. Only the most skilled pilots can use uncerted ESFs effectively. Meanwhile a Lightning can farm infantry like nothing without certs, and MBTs are also anti-everything out of the box. Same goes for Sunderers and Harassers.

    Pilots have already more than enough to pay attention to. Using tanks is way easier than using aircrafts.
  7. adamts01

    I honestly don't read half your posts. I look at the wall of text and move on. This one was pretty straight forward though, so well done. Firstly, you're exaggerating greatly, ESF could never OHK a tank. At a minimum there was 3 seconds for them to react, and 6.5 seconds to react if a single one of those missiles didn't land on rear armor. Just rotating and taking a single missile to the side was enough to save any MBT from a pre-nerf Hornet strike. Deployed Prowlers were always an easy target, but I learned from day 1 to never feel sorry for TR. As an ESF who tried not to make infantry rage quit, I've come across plenty of tankers with enough skill to avoid death, and plenty that managed to turn the tables with incredible use of terrain to get killing shots on myself. Skill is OP, and almost all nerfs called for are from those lacking it, and lacking a desire to acquire it. As for ESF murdering 100% vehicles too quickly, 3 seconds..... that's more time than your proposed ttk for a Skyguard against an ESF.... Quite biased I must admit.
    • Up x 1
  8. stalkish

    Did you read the conversation or are you just talking **** as usual?
    We we talking about 1 size fits all loadouts, nothing to do with uncerted anything, and we wernt pitting tanks against aicraft either.
    Nice strawman tho........yet another victimised PS2 player.

    I was responding to some1 saying 'tanks shouldnt be able to take AA weapons' he was saying that because its a tank it shouldnt be able to equip weapons that can fight air whilst also having access to weapons that kill infantry & vehicles. I simply stated that aircraft have access to that exact selection of weapons, and infact their weapons are more multi role than the ground vehicles.

    But by all means, carry on with your 'but my playstyle is more dangerous' justification of your life, i really dont care.

    And please stop trying to convince everyone that flying in this game is hard, it isnt..... Keeping your craft in the air is childs play, doing manoeuvres is childs play. Competing with other pilots who have 1000s more hours than you in the air however is difficult, but guess what???? Competing as infantry with players who have 1000s of more hours is difficult, fighting tankers with 1000s more hours is difficult, attacking PMBs made by players with 1000s of hours building is difficult.
    Doing anything against a more experienced, more skillful opponent is always going to be more difficult. The fact that pilots think air is the only example of this is more evidence of their victimised, self gratifying mentality.

    Not sure what a lightning killing infantry has to do with anything, but hey, why stop there - A sniper can kill in 1 heashot from 300m away, random, completely unrelated info for you there m8.
  9. adamts01

    Not that it's justification for air to be OP, but it really is a different world. Not that that's a good thing, the air game is broken, and the skill ceiling needs to be lowered to fix it. I do agree with you on tanks though, they're a 2 person vehicle, and should be more versatile than a single person ESF and almost as potent as a 3 person Lib.
  10. Demigan

    I wouldn't call "above average" to "within the top 5% of players" on multiple stats at the same time, rather than a single stat like many people have, "nothing special". Especially since I get it regularily across most weapons, hell I even score better VKPH's on AI weapons than many people on their AP.

    And even while an uncerted ESF might not be the best with only a nosegun, all it takes is buying the Rocketpods to instantly push your vehicle to an all-rounder of immense power. And granted you need to learn the basics of flying, but then you can stay alive against all enemy attacks compared to ground vehicles... Except for A2A.

    And yes, A2A is tainting the A2G ability. A Skyguard can still utilize friendlies as a shield or even outrun enemies, also the skill curve doesn't guarantee a skilled player's victory even against a Skyguard, giving the Skyguard a chance to escape or in rare cases fight back. In the meantime you can't rely on G2A fire to be present and protect you if you are engaged by another aircraft, and friendly A2A is far and few between as well as you have to hope that who comes to your rescue is higher on the lopsided skillcurve of the aircraft.
  11. Demigan

    For a straightforwards post you still didn't understand it.
    I made a comparison. "Imagine if an ESF could OHK tanks", and then told you the type of reaction you would give based on what you are doing right now. But ofcourse, that's lost on you.

    Also "if one of those missiles didn't land on the rear-armor"? You do know PS2 uses directional armor right? It doesn't matter where you hit, only where you are positioned compared to the facing of the target's chassis.

    And as I keep telling you, 3 seconds to react against a vehicle capable of getting behind you regardless of terrain, and due to the speed difference the vehicle can only react to the aircraft attack. The window to react is also extremely short.
    Even without the ability to murder vehicles within 3 seconds, ESF hold an immense amount of power. ESF don't need the ability to kill 100% health vehicles in one attack run, they never did and shouldn't ever have.
  12. adamts01

    Which is why I said "Just rotating and taking a single missile to the side was enough to save any MBT from a pre-nerf Hornet strike"

    The averave human reaction speed is .25 seconds. 3 seconds in a video game is an eternity. And like I said, I came across plenty of tankers that could hold their own against Hornets.

    Even pre-nerf, if you missed a shot that was it. By the time you circle back the target is at 100% health and you've just committed suicide, that's just the way it plays out. This is another example of you understanding basic mechanics of air but having zero clue because you don't fly. Things just don't happen the way you imagine.
  13. Demigan

    Considering reaction times and the time it takes to rotate the Vanguard and Prowler a quarter, not exactly a great argument.

    Average human reaction time is 0,25, and turning is instant! Yeah!
    Oh wait, no it isn't.

    Even pre-nerf, if you missed a shot you shouldn't have been attacking a 100% health target anyway.
    This is another case of you assuming that looking at things from a single perspective without considering the consequances from other directions is a good thing.
    • Up x 2
  14. LordKrelas

    Is saying Liberator, which requires apparently as per pilots, a dedicated squad of anti-air to focus fire to kill.
    Which can be solo'd to kill multiple anti-aircraft tanks (skyguards) with the Tank-buster nose gun.
    The more skilled pilots can also solo the Dalton, granting them access to the largest caliber weapon it seems in the game.
    Which is on a flying aircraft, that is armored and has 3 weapons.
    The closest land vehicle is a sunderer, for 3 operators, and lacks the sheer power of any Liberator weapon.
    As does the MBT's in terms of lacking the firepower of a solo Liberator.
    And the Liberator isn't op? Dear lord.

    A single man aircraft with higher speed and mobility, that can attack from any direction, including beyond any elevation limit possible (above), can kill a 2-man Main-battle-tank who has to notice, and react within 3 seconds.
    And their only reaction? Pray terrain & pilot lets them hit the aircraft with something to maybe deter the 1-man aircraft.
    Or turn their entire chassis, which takes a bit, and assumes that doesn't end badly.
    IE if they were at all not sitting in a barren field, in all likely hood, they don't want to expose their broader side to whatever they were originally facing.

    Which also means said tank has 3 seconds to notice, and react to an aircraft while likely engaged, or trying to drive.
    Add in terrain making that turning process longer or harder, heaven forbid block out sight of the sky where the ESF is...

    In short, the Tank is going to die from full health, unless a miracle happens to stop that ESF.
    2-man vehicle vs 1-man vehicle, with results based entirely on the 1-man vehicle's choices.
    Fighting Liberators, a 3-man vehicle , must favor the 3-man vehicle apparently.

    As well, 3 seconds for a Skyguard to manage to hit & kill an ESF, which incredible mobility, unaffected by terrain but can use terrain, has turbo, and could still kill that 2-man MBT tank - All assuming the Skyguard was even facing the correct direction for that specific ESF.
    So irony.

    Anti-aircraft is told to use numbers, and focus fire to attempt to kill any particular aircraft.
    That singular anti-aircraft weapons shouldn't be able to down singular aircraft, regardless of size.
    But singular aircraft of the 1-man kind, apparently should be able to kill 2-man Main-battle-tanks.

    But hey! Aircraft!
  15. TheZetifate1745

    Improve lock range and dmg make 325 cert and slight dmg and reload speed reduction.
    • Up x 1
  16. TheZetifate1745

    Theres also called your annoying nc teams with skygurds and lock ons which tear my scythes to chreds and less skilled mosquito pilots.
  17. adamts01

    Stop comparing a tricked out schoolbus to a fighting vehicle. Not everything should be a direct counter just because it holds as many people, roles are important.

    AA sucks, I've always argued that. But the solution isn't to make everything suck as bad as AA, the solution is to balance the game. Hornets were OP, they were highly effective against infantry, armor, and large aircraft, and were decent against other ESF if you were in a Scythe. They needed to be balanced, not neutered. I agree with OP in limiting splash damage but keeping pre-nerf armor effectiveness. But on top of that there needs to be another drawback such as increasing radar signature for aircraft with wing mounts. That way Skyknights can still run around with just a nosegun and be a little less concerned about lock-ons, and ground can better defend against anyone with rockets. Variable lock mechanics are already in the game, it scales with stealth level, so it would be easy to implement. But I'd like to see that affect missile turn rate as well as lock speed. Either way, I don't think a Sundy should match MBT ground effectiveness because it holds more people, it's a logistics vehicle. And I have zero problems with a 1-man aircraft, properly fitted for anti-armor, taking out a non-AA 2-man tank in a single pass. And you really need to spend some time in Libs before you cry that they're OP. They do what they're meant to do, destroy ground, but they have a serious weakness, a single ESF can wreck one from range with the long range nosegun. And their effectiveness tanks in large fights, their armor just doesn't make up for their sluggishness. I think they're one of the most balanced units in the game, it's pathetic AA which makes them seem OP.
  18. LordKrelas

    I was literally making a crack about people needed to man a vehicle for its full power, with the sundy.
    The sundy is a spawn-point capable transport, not a Gunship.
    But how in blazes does aircraft hold the most gun-positions & firepower for those positions? That was my point there.

    Yeah, I rather make Better AA.
    Just I had a grand problem when you said the Liberator wasn't OP.
    The damn thing can fly over anything less than a zerg starting into the sky, and kill easily.
    A solo Liberator is far more potent than anything on the ground.
    A single man in an fightercraft (ESF) is able to kill any heavy land vehicle.

    Libs turn like a brick, yes.
    But they damn well are murderous; You'd need several fully manned tanks to be even close.
    Shocking however that the Flying tank's weakness is an ESF, the other sky god.
    While the Lib has a tail gun, and with practice, use the dalton to one-shot that ESF.
    - Hell, ESF pilots are complaining about that.
    - In another thread, Valks want Turbo to evade Liberators, and Turbo to Kill ESF's.

    So balanced, that it takes an Aircraft to kill one, and that aircraft can still easily be killed off by the lib...
    While both can pick any ground target, and lay waste to it without a plan; Unlike any ground vehicle.
    Any ground force must coordinate multiple units just to attack one properly, and still the aircraft can get kills & survive all of that.

    Usually aircraft are needing ground support to remove AA sources, so they may provide air-support.

    Not to mention, that an ESF being able to fly by at the damn fast speed they can, find a tank, and unload into the heaviest ground vehicle, killing it in an instant, is ******* insane, given that those ESF's do not have only that one shot to do it.

    And even then, killing the heaviest ground vehicle just by firing once, without any difficulty in hitting it, nor it escaping or being able to have a chance in evading the shot, let alone destroy your aircraft is bat-**** nuts.

    Prior, those Tanks basically were screwed the moment an ESF found them at any time.
    No ground vehicle beyond maybe a Damn Harasser can evade an aircraft.
    Nor do any vehicle beyond ants & flashes have the ability to hide from aircraft.

    So I can't call a Liberator balanced, since another Sky God can possibly kill it.
    A MBT can be killed by infantry, other tanks, land mines, and is predictable.
    A liberator can be solo'd, and achieve more than an MBT in less time, without any proper defense to it.
    Nor can you predict a liberator; As it has no restrictions in travel, or in evasion or escape.

    Any ground vehicle beyond the Magrider is limited to forward & backwards for quick movement.
    Tanks need to turn ahead of time, exposing a greater surface area.
    None can simply change their height, move sideways, forwards or backwards at once.

    Also; No way in ******* hell did I compare a Sundy to an MBT, beyond number of seats.
    Just people often talk about how a Lib needs 3 people, and about 1-man vehicles & infantry shouldn't be a threat to it due to that.
    Then people say an ESF should own the heaviest Ground vehicle, an MBT, which seats 2 people.
    Aka Pilots like to switch around the argument.

    But Yes.
    PS2 AA sucks, but that Liberator is not ******* balanced either.
    Raining death from sky limit to tanking direct skyguard barrages, while killing the Skyguard in seconds is not balanced.
    No vehicle matches the Liberator.
    And the 1-man ESFs which can basically kill anything on the ground unless focused fired, are the weakness?
    A grenade being beaten by a rocket launcher, isn't a weakness to the rocket launcher.
  19. adamts01

    Sorry I can't keep up with the sarcasm. I normally hop on here when I've had too much coffee or not enough coffee. I've heard the stupidest things from people that I don't put any ideas past anyone.

    Using a Dalton against ESF is like using a Decimator against ESF. There's skill involved, no doubt, but it's more about luck when fighting good pilots. Even as a noob pilot there's only a single Dalton gunner on my server that gives me any trouble, and he's infinitely more scary in an ESF. Libs wreck ground, but they really are cert pinatas for even mediocre ESF. I slightly complain about Daltons because I think they're bad for competitive gameplay, you shouldn't feel like the guy got a 1/1,000 shot when you get hit, both players should feel like the outcome favored the better player. My solution to that is to buff the tailgun against ESF but limit it's firing angle so it can only reliably hit when it's running away, then let the Dalton set ESF on fire with a single hit. The Lib's premiere AA gun shouldn't be an anti-armor canon. Either way, the Lib isn't nearly as potent in air to air as you think. I also think it's fine that an air unit dominates ground but is weak against air, just as I think it's fine that a Skyguard (a better one) wrecks air but gets owned by tanks and Harassers. I also think tanks should be way more powerful, and dominate damn near everything, but they should still need support, same as Libs need ESF to fly escort.

    Everyone agrees than do it all ESF are a problem. Tanks have to give up G2A ability if they want to hunt other tanks. Tanks have to give up anti-armor ability if they want to pound infantry. Tanks have to give up anti-ground ability if they want to hunt air. It's fine having ESF dominate armor, as long as they suffer severely in air to air engagements. Did you even read my proposals for Hornets?

    • Up x 1
  20. LordKrelas

    Don't worry, I myself always need Caffeine, and yeah... there are some damn insane **** out there.

    The parts I didn't quote: I like.

    Idk if I did read it.
    Shall re-read about the hornets, as I mostly just skimming the ever living hell out of it due to lack of sleep.
    Okay, re-read it.

    Lock-ons are generally horrid but: I have questions
    - not about Reducing the splash, in exchange for damage, that I understand well enough.

    Would stealth counteract the debuff from the wing-mounts?

    While it would stop the Lolpodders, wouldn't the incredibly fast-firing AoA Nose guns be unaffected?
    IE things like the Banshee 'o' doom?