[Suggestion] Ground-based AA could use a buff.

Which stops working against ground pounders that are determined and fully committed to focusing on a specific facility, like myself. I simply dodge and keep spotting the offending AA, until ground forces can move in and destroy them.

And since the ground-based AA is so weak, I can just fly a short distance away, repair, then repeat the mayhem until all the ground-based AA gives up, or—in rare cases—an enemy zerg shows up, but that ends everyone's fun, not just that of the ground pounders.

Foreword: I don't necessarily agree on the same level with all of BigG's points nor his way of going about them, but there's some things that should be addressed here.

The first half.

First VR is a good tool. If you choose to use it or not, that's entirely up to you, but you can set up scenarios to test damage. Flat damage. (Which some people will then slap you in face with as a guide to what should be nerfed above other factors often enough to cause rage EXCEPT when it doesn't favor them which will have them retreat to other stats.) This gives you an idea of what to go for. Is it a guide on how to engage enemies? No. There's a big difference there. His point is that it's a tool to easily see how some things work. Is a good guide for how players will play and how to account for that? No, no game has AI that can do that. So I'd ask that ya at the least give VR what it DOES account for and not blow that out of proportion, much like you've done twice now. Not him.

Yes, congrats on realizing there are other factors. We know. It's funny how people ignore various scenarios where you CAN fight ESF with small arms, but it's all about other factors everywhere else. I've seen ESF dropped out of the sky PURELY by concentrated small arms fire. Didn't take but around a few seconds once the firing started. It was uncoordinated too. Neat. Seen'em dumbfired multiple times too for the ease they were having.

Bad bad bad.

On point, he basically refused to try to humor the other guy as he wouldn't even humor him. He proved his point that small arms can, an indeed, do damage ESF. Then the other dude tried to shift the goal post again and refused this point. While I'd probably tackle that point of conversation a bit different, point made if somewhat in your face blunt.

Last half self-stroking.

Ignoring the sweeping... oddness you have bothered to type up there that's pretty unrelated to anything... ESFs tend to sweep in, get their kills, sweep out. The silly ones hover and deliver unimpeded and get a tank round or ambushed for their trouble. So tanks and infantry can't escape? Gee, it's almost like that's the intent of air theory. Ideally hit before they know what's up, then ensure they can't escape alive. I however, again, have never seen this happening when there's any resistance. Now, one up around... five or so infantry and yeah they're gonna have a hard time with a floating weapon platform. Vehicles have more ordinance to hit with because they're vehicles. Would it not be silly to have an infantry take a supposed 100mm tank shell to the face and live...? Oh wait...

Also, for not being able to hide, I've lived from a surprising amount of ESF and Libs chasing down my little harasser. Tanks... well I mean, it's a big ol' tank. They don't hide very well anyway. Hell, even gotten away more times than my harasser in my lightning when engaged without a proper AAA loadout. Knowing your terrain, friendly positions, and not panicking goes a long way towards surviving. That's the difference in skill cap, not a K/D as games tend to incorporate more facets than just "I'm in the top 10% of yadda yadda." that people tend to measure themselves with.

I'd say folks who tunnel vision are "bads" cause they can do one thing and one thing only and "I dun wanna switch cause I wanna sniper." I still am amazed at how many BR120's have died to a flank attack without ever realizing where the shots are coming from. I'm still amazed when those same people overextend again and again and get caught out for it, but it's just that "their equipment sucks." I'm still amazed at how many angry tells I've gotten from infils salty that I either jumped out and shot them from their obvious perch or ran them over which would have been easily avoidable if they'd occasionally keep track of things climbing hills around them.

Also for being useless and no one doing it, I sure do still see a lot of small arms smack ESF out of the sky if they happen over a populated base thinking it's easy farm. Again, never seen ESFs get away with it for long unless no one is bothering, there are only a handful there for it to attack, or the enemy has already swarmed the base giving them a neat little box(or barrel if you will) to shoot into. This overpowered air thing has become a meme with me and my buddies.

I doubt you'd be really complaining about it if you were air. Likely you're more an infantry guy. If you really think AAA is useless, why is it never challenged except during times when air would already naturally be assisted by other forces? Why then when I pull AAA does air clear out and not get right to farming around me?

Hell, couple of lockons send them into a frenzied dance. Can't very well shoot while that's happening can they?

I didn't blow it out of proportion. He quite literally held it as a holy grail that is used by the veteran high level players to get better at the game. He even used it as "proof" for want of a better word that small-arms are great against ESF. Which is equivalent to shooting a non-moving VR dude with a pistol from 300m range and then saying everyone should be able to snipe-kill using pistols.

We don't ignore the "various" scenario's where you can fight an ESF with small-arms, it's just that once-in-a-blue-moon you'll be effective with them. More often using small-arms against ESF will be wasting your time, wasting your ammo, revealing yourself to air targets and exposing yourself to ground targets. That's a lot of downsides for "maybe once every 50 times you can fire at an ESF it'll be slightly useful".

Also I call bullcrap on your "they melted it with small-arms" scenario. Unless the ESF player was a newb who just hung there doing nothing productive or just not knowing when to bail out after receiving a lot of damage, this didn't happen. And it doesn't take a lot of skill to bail with an ESF from small-arms fire after you've taken a lot of damage.

There's a reason why ESF have no problem hanging in front of Biolab entrances despite them getting shot at with small-arms fire.

The point of "the other guy" is that an ESF in a combat scenario is not threatened by small-arms. "the other guy" was basically because of my points, despite that he replies to Adamts. Adamts quotes the "I'll prove it" part and asks him to do it. He does so by... Doing a VR run against a stationary target! Oh wow! Completely useless data! Again he might as well have used a pistol to shoot a 300m away dummy target and "proven" that all pistols are wonderful sniper weapons! Yeah! Because you could do it in the VR! It is the exact same reasoning applied to another weapon and it proves how completely useless it actually is.

More odd than just lying to everyone's face? Suuuure. And hey talking about self-stroking (even though mine was a justification what I wasn't a "bad" like the BigD kept proclaiming): Weren't you part of the group that kept proclaiming everyone else is just bad and that you are oh-so-awesome with secret knowledge that small-arms are this magic ESF-be-gone method if only you just shot at it every single time one comes near? Oh yeah you were! Hypocrisy at it's best.

Gee, it's almost as if you have no idea how game design works. Making one type of unit that no one can defend themselves against unless they equip dedicated AA weapons, which heavily heavily nerf the vehicle and still aren't adequate to actually destroy the opponent (especially a Liberator), is a bad thing.

But hey if you want to get into air-theory, how about we actually pull in the downsides of air-theory along with it? Let's see... TAT, ever heard of it? Turn Around Time for aircraft or the time it takes per flighthour to service them. While some aircraft have 40+ hour servicing time (F14 I believe it was) most will have a "small" servicing time of 12+ hours per flighthour. How about cost? A modern aircraft often costs multitudes more than modern tanks. Ammo? Most ammo will be in the 10,000+ cost (as opposed to the 30 to 50 dollar per handgrenade). But ofcourse you don't want realism, you just want all the advantages of aircraft to apply to you and none of the disadvantages.

Ever noticed how even a vehicle that does know what's up has zero real chance to defend itself? You are at the mercy of the aircraft and pray that someone nearby happens to have nerfed himself with G2A weapons, or that an allied aircraft comes and deals with it. This isn't good game design, it's not fun gamedesign and it's in fact hurting the game as players leave over this kind of unfair unbalanced horsecrap.

Apparently because you can't fly for crap? There's no other reason, aircraft often rip stuff apart. But hey, you've also seen ESF being melted by small-arms fire! And you support mister BigD who has so far lied everything together... I see absolutely no reason not to trust you! /s.

A supposed 100mm tank shell... That cost nothing. You are trying to use realism where it suits you, and ignore it everywhere else.
In-game tank shell: nothing.
in-game Hand-grenade: 50 resources.
Normal tank shell: 1000 to 30.000+ dollars.
Normal hand-grenade: 30 to 50 dollars.

If you want to be paying 20x more for tankshells than you do for a grenade then you are welcome to the power of a real true-blooded tankshell. Ofcourse it's going to cost you 1000 resources at minimum on top of a realistic tank, which is going to be costing resources per minute to maintain and a ton of resources to repair and 1 million+ dollars....

Nah you'll never want that kind of realism, you'll just argue for realism for tanks OHKing players because "they are tanks right"?

I call bullcrap. Just looking at your TR account shows that you are average at best at the Lightning, and downright bad at the Skyguard (D's all around!). You are saying you magically have one super skill despite not being any different than the average player?

Ah yes, because a few people do that, everyone does and your points are suddenly valid! Whoooopee!

You and your buddies should actually try and see it from the other perspective once in a while. Actually try that small-arms stuff, actually try and work that G2A for a while more and learn how they work instead of fantasising how you think they work and presenting it as fact.

A2G is exceedingly simple. I have been in the air, and I know how easy it is. The only problem playing air that I have is the lobsided A2A system. Otherwise I'm all fine and dandy thank you very much. But thanks for going BigD's route of "you must be bad". Also look at the OP, he posted because he also used air and noticed how easy A2G is.

"likely", yeah let's just generalise and not come up with any argument anymore. Discrediting my opponent is the way to go! Yeah! I play vehicles and infantry mostly, but I still dabble in the air.

I've written more than enough on this, I've written more than enough on the fact that both the A2G and the G2A system needs overhauling. You can read a few small idea's right here (giving Lightnings access to A2A noseguns, improving HEAT canon height elevation and reducing their damage against ESF so they can't OHK them). These are just simple starters to rebalance the A2G and G2A game and make it a more balanced, fair experience for both sides.

And they are keeping a couple of lock-ons busy, while all they need to do is fly low to keep cutting the vision of the lock-on user and have the lock re-establish or just dive to the ground and have the missile suicide.

Woo the edits post rage. I'ma let you get out of edit time before I respond then.

I appreciate the defense, but I think these players are only interested in having a discussion about balance when people are agreeing with them. At this point they are only interested in twisting my words into false meanings that I never intended in order to push their own narrative. For example, one player accuses me of making out the VR to be some sort of holy grail when in reality all I do is explain what it is and how it works. I also say anyone who doesn't believe me can go try it out. Which they can. I never said it makes you a combat master. I just noticed that better players tend to be more aware of this kind of information. While the more casual players are a little more oblivious about weapon stats and whatnot. They would like you to believe that I said VR can turn you into the best player in the game. Which is absurd. Another player tries to pick at my vocabulary as if that makes the follow up statement completely bogus. I stated what I meant even if I used the wrong word and what I meant was true. The poster had indeed made statements in direct conflict with each other. I am more of a math and science person than a language arts person anyway. They are just trying to do the this player is dumb because he used the wrong word so don't believe anything they say trick. They want to trick other readers into thinking I believe that small arms is some end all be all form of AA when it's not what I said or meant. I may have been a bit abrasive, but it is still no excuse for these players to vehemently lie about the things I have posted as well as the mechanisms in the game. It is all there for everyone to see. All those players saying I said this or I meant that are all a bunch of liars and I have proved it several times over already. I must have "tickled" them a little too hard. The sad thing is they will probably just keep to these tactics till anyone who disagrees is buried several pages away. After all, the information is only good when it fits into the situation THEY want it to. Thanks again though. It is nice to see some people understand what I am talking about.

I wouldn't bother if I didn't enjoy the mental gymnastics. If you're not having fun doing something, simply stop.

Post incoming, but first a trip to the store. Will be finished upon return.

No, not really. If a player walks out of a spawnroom with any given intent to do anything other than fire at something immediately they would be at a far less risk. If said player walked out of the spawnroom he'd have his gun full of ammo, his eyes and ears wide open, and he'd be largely ready and willing for a fight. All that goes away when a player gets into a fight as any competent opponent demands one's fullest attention to combat.

You'll note I haven't actually commented on the (in)effectiveness of small arms against ESFs, only in the lack of practicality of firing at one. At most I said little to no damage would be dealt but the majority of that is do to range and bloom causing missed shots.

This entire response of yours is drivel. You don't even attempt to discredit my arguments or reasoning but instead merely offer distractions and blatant misrepresentations.

All in all here, you've moved the goalposts so far out of whack they're in a different forum now.

This stood out to me because I don't really understand what you're trying to imply here. Are you implying that the manufacture and logistics behind ammunition production (and aircraft servicing for that matter) automatically invalidate other accepted tactics if they're not also followed to a T? What if tank shells were as easy to produce as paper? What if jet fighters required no servicing whatsoever? Would this, honestly, significantly change the operational parameters? It would just mean they could be utilized more freely.

Likewise, are you implying that because the tank shells in the game don't go through an expensive production that they should somehow be...less effective? By that logic, all weapons in the game should have completely arbitrary values with no relation to real life equivalents. A pistol can be a deadly anti-aircraft weapon! A knife can one-shot a MAX! ...do you see the problem with the argument you're attempting to use here?

Yes, game balance is important and you can take a few liberties here, sure. But I'd argue that an infantry who takes a direct hit from a tank shell should be...well, dead. It isn't the easiest thing to snipe a moving infantry target with an AP shell for example. And it's also a complete waste of the tank's time when he should be focusing on vehicle targets. The infantry are largely something his upper gunner, in the case of a heavy tank, should be dealing with if so equipped to.

I'd say realism to a degree is important, yes. Infantry have recourse against tanks. I've personally been getting quite good at killing them with either dumbfire rockets or strategically placed mines which I lure them into. If that results in my death as an infantry? I have a short respawn timer where he just lost a ton of resources spawning that tank. It's a good trade. The other side of that is also true: If you're spending a good deal of resources to spawn a tank (or any vehicle) it should be dangerous. Not invincible, of course, but dangerous. There are tactics which can be utilized to eliminate them, but there's no need for them to be completely ineffective at killing infantry either just because their primary role is against enemy vehicles.

Now, the same can be said for aircraft. I personally enjoy running the Ranger and have utterly mauled a good number of aircraft with it by this point. In almost every engagement in which I've run it I've forced the aircraft to either retreat or die. Either way, I served my role. So they retreat and come back? They get a very brief window to make a run as my flak shells chew them up. They have to try to evade me while still making a semi-effective attack run. There's no way in hell they can just hover. I've effectively drastically reduced their effectiveness just by being there. It's not always about securing the kill but about making it hell for them to be at all effective. And if more anti-air shows up, they generally vacate the area with extreme haste. (This even leaving aside the fact that after taking a face full of Ranger fire they're easy pickings for any friendly air that happens to swoop in.)

No I didn't. I equated it to a textbook. Reading a music theory book doesn't make you a master musician. Are you really this ignorant?

Since you're a quickie boi. I have, multiple times. Read. Don't wanna read? Stop coming to places where writing happens.

There's that golden mile you tend to take in your convos again. Even snapped up my bait which we'll get into in a minute. First this, his proof was in fact that a certain amount of damage was capable via a common weapon. At no point did he claim anything remotely close to what you're claiming. He did make a few, by my standards, bogus claims to veteran practices... That's not one statement he did make though. By all means, show me where that's explicitly stated rather than implied by yourself. I'd concede if it was written in there. I've looked and I have not found said statement except by you. Enlighten me.

Also funnily enough, we do use pistols to snipe kill people. Particular ones, but yeah.

Oh my, you mean you acknowledge that there are scenarios where small arms fire can be somewhat effective against aircraft rather than the argument I'm debasing of "NEVER!" Oh jeez. I'm undone. My entire point hinged on you believing there were no scenarios at all feasible for them.

Also as to that pilot getting melted. He zoomed in, hovered for around 1 or so seconds, then got melted. Only got my two buddies that would bother vouching and I'm not bringing them here to this as it'd be a waste of their time IMO so it'll just have to remain on my word. I don't know any of the other folks in that base. It was a particularly active one (one of the things required for the ESF to not have an easy time of it) and he was one of a few. Ground forces were even-ish but ours had pushed them away from the base. Gee, all of it conforms to what I mentioned. You yourself just mentioned that there are scenarios where it could work. That's my argument. You've come full circle to agreeing, have you not?

There is! Think on it a moment. How many people can safely without hitting each other in the back of the head, engage said ESF while remaining in cover inside said biolab? Gee, still lines up with what I said. Bonus for the ESF, he can duck lockons and hop back in all day due to the entrance being a very narrow alley of fire. Notice they don't stick around as much when there's no support, however. Go on, do some homework.

There's a group now. **** they're onto us boys. Everyone go back into hiding!

In all seriousness to this immense rage. No, read what I said again. You're taking that golden mile again. I won't even justify that you flip flopped your last point within your own post. Not to mention I've seen and killed a number of libs with flak. There's a reason they don't stick around when AAA comes out and "just effortlessly relocates to continue their farm" isn't there? Maybe you are just bad...? Awful lotta justifications being thrown out. Regardless, gonna ignore the rest of your ez cat calls. My points on most of those rage induced sentences have been made. ;D

Gee, it's almost like you didn't pay attention to the lifespan of this game's balance changes nor anything I've said up to this point. Not all balance changes are good, no, but there's clear patterns. Air was getting dumped on by pretty much everything and had no real threat to it to speak of at the start. I remember those days. The moment air came into view, it was hit by AAA fire. Accurate AAA. Not to mention that it had to deal with tank shells which don't move at a slow pace and there are folks that are darned good leads. Small arms also did substantially more damage back in the day. Result? Air was no where to be found. Not near a battlefield anyway and they were barely serviceable in a duel scenario.

There are reasons the turrets don't rotate straight up anymore. There are reasons flak was created instead of what AAA fire used to be which is more like the AAA of player made bases though those are more subdued versions. Then there are reasons why the range was nerfed. One of those being that things would despawn so you'd be taking AAA fire that you couldn't even see. That and the range was so good for them that aircraft were zoned out of any and all meaningful fights. Swarms melted back then, but we've seen some tanky rising of their health pools. Repair gals were a thing I was less than pleased to see when they dropped. Still don't like'em.

Ah, and there's the nibble on the first bit of bait. Notice I never went into realism territory. You think I did, but I did not. I've never compared a bomb to a hand grenade. But we'll get back into that talk when you take a solid bite into it later in your post. For now I'll simply say, no I don't want realism... Nor do I want advantages of aircraft to apply to me. I don't like playing aircraft. You looked at my profile. You saw. Not enough apparently, but you saw.

As for defending itself... I mean, I've snuck up on tanks in a tank and watched'em die before they had a chance to defend themselves. Hell, saw a vanu flank around a battle line of TR and hit them in the back before they could react. Effect of that was rather lop-sided until TR forces moved back into the area. That's more on identifying sources of damage and reaction time though than on said vehicles.

And your right, there are a number of design choices hurting this game. 100% agree. I just disagree on what you're laying on A2G's lap. Get rid of the crappy hit detection, get rid of lag spikes, and bring back class uniqueness and I believe we'd be playing a very different game to our current one just on those factors alone. All other things are debatable.

Here's the full bite. Jebaited and I am sorry. Now then to get into this we'll start by saying that I've not jumped into the realism debate cause... it doesn't apply. What does apply is awkward balancing, much as you've said. What I did compare was a tank shell sniping infantry... Sniping. There was a time when a tank shell could not do the damage to infantry that a sniper rifle can. Yes, a common, in a soldier's hands... sniper rifle beat out a tank against infantry. Caliber comparisons aside, arcade or realistic focused... That's just dumb. It was more effective to get general purpose guns even than to even bother shooting with a tank due to reload speeds. It was FASTER to use anything but a tank to kill an infantry unit. This didn't stick for obvious reasons.

Getting into your (and it is solely your own) argument... So a vehicle that costs nanites to even hop into isn't factored into said cost at all? The fact that said tank is worth exponentially more XP per one killed than infantry? AND you get that infantry kill on top of it if ya get the pilot with it? It can also be killed by "free" rockets? Rocklets? How about mines that cost just a hair more? C4?

That's why I don't do the realism spiel. Now the theory behind a unit? That's applicable regardless. There is no turn around for vehicles anymore. We have ammo printer. There is no turn around for vehicles anymore. We have self-repairing. (Which has been cranked up to high heaven for air units.) The general idea, however, is that it's a highly mobile platform to deliver ordinance from then get out fast. Able to respond when and where it's needed to deal appreciable threat. Check. I've never looked up the sky in fear myself. Usually I tend to think the ground is what needs stopping more than the air with the exception of a coordinated multi-gal assault with no one around to assist. IE: Worst scenario for ground troops. Only a few of us trying to stop'em.

I feel.... so violated.... As I've said, I main harasser. I actually don't pull lightning that much anymore due to still loving the ol' Harasser. I also tend to charge into the thick of it rather than playing safe keep away K/D pad. I'll gladly lose a tank or harasser if that means a particularly troubling unit goes down like a sundy or a MBT in a good position. The last time I actually ran skyguard was a good while ago and even then I prefer the other AAA. Ranger. That said, which "profile" did you look up? What metrics does it have for measuring effectiveness? Does this include metrics for air disappearing from said airspace?

Cat calls mostly, but a few points to make. We do shoot at air often with our ground based weapons. Often times we do even when we're just plain ol' infantry. When we're moving to a point we shoot at any air that seems like it wants to swoop in. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. We often don't put ourselves in a position to get farmed cause we know better than to spawn where the business end is. We'll truck in from somewhere else and either provide a spawn point (as one buddy likes doing), or else set up to start pestering them till they leave. It's not rocket science. If a base is going to fall regardless of air, however, we don't bother and prepare to intercept at the next base or else meet up with friendly forces. Air has never taken a base with at least a few defenders that I've seen. (Though there are those where air could.)

Short and long of it is, there are multitude of things wrong with ol' Planetside2, but the A2G isn't what's responsible for slowly killing it. Not by a long shot.

Oh really?

Sure you point out something about a textbook there, but I already pointed out that this at best teaches you the most basic of basics, nothing else. But you ofcourse immediately point out that because I disagree with you I must be bad...

Hey! A hypocrite! What a surprise! Weren't you calling me bad constantly based on disagreeing with you? Aren't you the special little snowflake eh? "I'm more of a math and science person anyway" my butt.

So... You are just trying to paint me as some angry guy who rages and needs to edit his posts? You might notice that my post hasn't been edited, nor have the 4 before that. Is this just some kind of weak attempt to discredit me?

Gameplay is everything.

Look at the ESF in-game. They aren't aircraft that need to take off and land on an airstrip, they are all VTOL with some extra's and in ESF's case function as fighters, fighter-bombers, attack helicopters, scoutplanes, CAS support, floating turrets, air-superiority fighters, interceptor, interdictor and strike aircraft. All of which are seperate roles in current day realism.

This means that these aircraft fulfill nothing like modern day aircraft (because they aren't as specialised). They don't fly like them, they don't engage like them. Yet you still expect an aircraft to hit like a real one? You still expect aircraft theory to apply?

Yes and no. Tank shells should only be based on realism when able. If you hit an infantryman in the face with a tankshell a developer has to wonder: Is it good game design to have this insta-kill the player?
Especially in the old days the answer should have been no. There were too little effective infantry AV weapons available, and vehicles had too easy a time to get a bead on infantry and kill them. It wasn't good or fun gameplay.

You are going off the deep end by ripping this out of context by adding "arbitrarily". If you make a pistol a deadly AA weapon you have to wonder, "is this good for the game?". Well in theory it could be, you would just need to balance it out: Give these pistols to a MAX for example, call them "bursters", give them all the stats of a burster and you have a pistol that's an AA weapon! You just call it a pistol even though it's not really one and it'll alienate your audience who doesn't understand this weird shift so you'll just give it the model of something resembling an AA gun instead and stop calling it a pistol.
Same with the "OHK a MAX with a knife". You have to wonder if it's good for the gameplay. If the MAX was somehow almost impossible to reach with a knife, if he's got some gadgets that allow him to keep enemies at a distance... Then yes you could very well allow a knife-wielder to OHK a MAX. You could allow the player to hit a specific point in the MAX suit after finally breaching the MAX's defenses and OHK it with the knife.

No, gameplay (not necessarily game balance) is the crown to shoot for here, and you have to take all the liberties to make the gameplay good. If that includes OHKing infantry by shooting within their vicinity, so be it. If that includes an aircraft bombing run murdering half of the players inside a base including the one's behind cover, then so be it. There's nothing wrong with having such mechanics if they fit the game.
They don't fit planetside. Vehicles are too vulnerable to aircraft and the dedicated G2A weapons are too badly designed as they both aren't capable of actually dealing with aircraft (sending them to another fight is not dealing with them it's just shifting the problem somewhere else) and they heavily nerf you against everything else. Add insult to injury that aircraft aren't always there and you could be waiting 10 seconds or a full hour or more before the next one arrives and it's a complete crapshoot if you'll be actually useful for the rest of the next few battles if you keep your G2A weapon with you. Aircraft can literally pick and choose a fight based on the presence or abcense of G2A, and once it is pulled they can just leave and harass another fight (they don't have to, but why stick around if you can just murder in a place with less G2A?).

So I've been campaigning for new G2A weapons that are skillful, rewarding in their use (IE you actually murder the aircraft if you are more skillful than the aircraft) and multi-purpose so that aircraft will have to deal with G2A as par of the course, just like tanks deal with AV as par of the course, and infantry deals with AI as par of the course. On the other side I've been campaigning to make sure aircraft are easier to get into and to remove the ridiculous inverted skillcurve by making more flying skills functional, such as the actual normal flight maneuvers. This way there will be more aircraft in the air and we can ensure that every single fight will be contested by aircraft, infantry and tanks almost every single time, rather than aircraft being there sometimes to screw things over. PS2 is about combined arms, so that all these arms are present at almost any battle should be a given.

Tanks are a time investment. 50 resources = 1 minute.
Death of an infantry is a time loss, one death = 10 seconds of respawn+time to get back to the fight. Since the tank regains it's resource cost even if it does nothing, it's easy for a tank to be more efficient than it's time resources would cost if it kills while it regains it's cost. Good balance would make sure this is more or less balanced. I've been advocating resource-costing infantry AV, and upgrading tanks with co-ax guns and extra abilities and gunners with extra abilities so that infantry isn't so pathetically weak that it requires walls to segregate them from tanks while tanks also still get that "awesome realism" feel of rolling up and murdering everything... But still being vulnerable if you get caught. And that would mean tanks and infantry would be able to go toe-to-toe inside bases in all-out war without either infantry or tanks feeling bad about it.

Since I haven't explained yet what I meant with the part you quoted:
The guy I was talking to was basically asking for realism to apply to aircraft simply because that realism would offer him an advantage, but what he does not want is the disadvantages that are also attached to it. He selectively picks and chooses what he thinks should apply based on what gives him power, and that's a terrible way to go about designing stuff. You only see the people who like aircraft say stuff like "it's an aircraft so where's my aircraft power?".

Disagreeing with me doesn't make you bad. Getting farmed by something over and over then whining about it on the forums is what makes you bad. Not adapting is what makes you bad. At least in my opinion. You have almost run out of my words to twist. Let's see if you can manipulate this one.

I dont have to twist your words, never have and never did.

Look right at this post of yours. "disagreeing with me doesnt make you bad", ok fine so far but then you start inventing: "getting farmed over and over and whining makes you bad".

Besides that in the case of an OP weapon or unbalanced gameplay the "whining" would be justified, I never proclaimed that I was constantly farmed. You make that up, you invent it for me. You also invent that I dont adapt and that makes me bad. (even though a light introspection in my characters would reveal that I have a lot of time in G2A and my above-average stats are the result of adaptation).

So you arent just twisting words, you are inventing what I "must" be. And this is ofcourse where all the problems arise: anyone who has a point against you "must" be bad and therefore their facts and opinions dont count.

Your "I'm doing this for the mental exorcise" support does the same. He's trying to paint me as if I'm rage-induced, while in fact I'm posting with the tired patience of someone explaining to toddlers how the world is with logic and facts but their reaction is "NUH-UH, I SEE IT DIFFERENTLY AND YOU ARE WRONG BECAUSE I SAID SO AND THEREFORE YOU MUST BE DUMB".

Edit: Also since you two seem to have problems with this: look at the bottom right corner of this post to see that it's been edited, and when. So now no more lies of "people edit their posts after we reply to them" now ok?

I didn't invent anything. Any player who does those things in my opinion is playing bad. You are the one that has taken it as a personal attack. You are making yourself out to be this player and these long winded rants you go on to try and show everyone how good you are at the game only help to prove my point. You dismiss any form data and replace it with your personal experience as if that dictates everything. I am the only one to provide actual data to the conversation. Everything else is "feelings" and "experience". If you want me to agree with you then provide some evidence instead of your anecdotal accounts. If what I am saying is so ridiculous then disproving it with facts and data shouldn't be too difficult.

and for the third time, disagreeing with me isn't what makes you bad. Can't you read?

if you put so much time into the game as you put into the forum, this thread would not exist.

Look at your own post (and my example above). You can see in the bottom right corner that its been edited and when. The post you refer to does not have this tag and hasnt been edited.

Click the tiny arrow in the quote below to be taken to the respective post and verify this for yourself:

Considering that I just explaines this to you, I'm going to report it for trolling. If it wasnt trolling it can only be that you cannot comprehend what an explanatory edit message means and you have no business on these forums anyway.