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

I have nothing else to add, at this point. Only a handful of sensible replies are being made, with the rest being made by people who cannot be swayed by calm, thoughtful observations.

How disappointing. I suppose I'll only post suggestions on Reddit in the future.

^We're considered worse than Reddit. Ouch.

We can do better, folks. And by "folks" I mean the three big egos clogging up the thread with drama. It's a contentious topic for sure, but it's not like our livelihood or whatever is at stake here.

Why not provide some sort of evidence instead of anecdotal accounts? That is typically what you need to sway people. Not how you feel about something. If you want to use anecdotes, then you are gonna have to show us and not expect us to just take your word for it, and even then people may have something to point out. IMO You have failed in making your point because of these reasons. Once addressed the situation can continue, but until proof is laid on the table, the whole thing is just gonna be a he said/she said poo flinging fest. That is why I posted my video. People said small arms fire doesn't hurt esf and I showed that it does (which really has nothing to do with AA being buffed or nerf it is just something seperate that also damages them that I was pointing out). Just because the situation has to be right or it doesn't hurt them as much as some people would like doesn't mean that I am wrong. It can in fact "melt" them when the circumstances present themselves. It is sad that players devolved into attacks instead of expanding the conversation. It is also sad that hardly anyone is ever willing to bring any sort of evidence to these types of discussions. It usually just boils down into a hodgepodge of irrational emotions.

Each individual is going to have a different experience in the game. As the player who is calling for the changes, the burden is on you to provide the proof showing why these changes need to be made. Once that is done then it is up to those who disagree to provide their evidence to counter your evidence and show why they think they are correct over you. If all you have is your personal experience with no proof, then don't expect everyone to just hop on the bandwagon and agree with you. Either way have fun on reddit!

More or less. But some people get butt mad. It's pretty funny.

That's fine. Though it's a waste of time to report it. Point conceded now that I see it. Mayhaps I just missed that in the post during my typing. Coulda sworn I had seen a different post.

Confirmed!
Base Anti-Air turrets are very weak and that wasn't my first impression of a stationary turret when I enter the tower first time. That's why I switch fast as possible to Lightning with his Skyguard- I had so much more fun!

Can we please reduce the "Walls of Text" to 140 signs posts? My attention span isnt high enough to concentrate on "extended" text... can someone give me a summary?

Wait... "whine, whine, cry <drama>, nerf and: you are so mean to me!"

Did I get that in short?

Sorry lads! This here forum's for text!

Base turrets are tricky. Back when they had unlimited range, not only were towers no-fly zones, but also any base adjacent. So now they're limited to Hornet range, and essentially rocket max effective range, but Libs can wreck them.

I think ideally, they'd be much more powerful but take considerably longer to repair, that way when they're taken out they don't pop right back up, same with all base turrets.

And I can get that frustration dealing with AA turrets. Had a few times where aircraft stared me down in one and unleashed on it with the range being a problem. They weren't super accurate or up close, but it can be annoying seeing them juuuust out of reach of being hit by that flak.

Mobile flak, if anything, is in a pretty fine state. It's mobile, can come from anywhere with enough tenacity, and generally can be hard to kill for pilots if they don't pay attention to it or leave.

A lil' buff of stationary AAA wouldn't go unnoticed. I'd not give it a buff in damage, but perhaps a small buff in range. The reason they're not as damaging, I'd assume by DBG mindsets, is that there are usually a number clustered together so usually you'll have multiple going off at once. But that is just an assumption.

"I didn't invent anything, here's that same invention again".

You invent that I do "those" things and that I'm bad because of that, which I call you out on. Then you immediately say "I don't invent it I just base it on what I invented". Seriously get a grip on your sanity man.

Attempting to discredit me personally (again!) does not support your case. I do not have long-winded rants (you must have picked that up from mister mental exorcise), I have points that I need to make but many of you happen to misread or misinterpret the meaning if I am not clear. Case in point just about the first post you replied to where you misinterpret the words "not enough" for "none".

I dismiss any erroneous or incomplete form of data. Say someone trying to push the VR as this holy grail of learning. And I don't have to prove that gravity is there in-game with math and things if it's clear just by loading it up that it's there. Same with using small-arms against aircraft: It's just not a viable option, which brings me to this piece of verbal diarhea:

If you have paid any attention at all you would have noticed that I have already tried this option. I have tried to adapt to the situation using small-arms, dumbfires, situational awareness, dedicated G2A weapons etc. They are all either inadequate or badly balanced (IE if I have 50x the skill of my aircraft opponent it doesn't matter much).

When nothing is adequate, adapting is no longer an option. Adapting using small-arms least of all. It makes no sense to be spending time on something that will rarely even have an effect, let alone be effective in any way and then parading this around as the ultimate form to adapt to when engaged by aircraft. Yes that is essentially what you've been doing. So when adapting isn't an option anymore after trying to adapt in just about every single way imagineable you have to re-balance, which isn't on that shirt of yours.

If you have tried all the options and you are still failing then........

Since you can look up and see that I get above-average results with most weapons (results in the form of kills, vehicle destructions etc) it would mean that every player who scores less than me (more than 50% of all players, which happens to include you) is a bad player.

If more than 50% is a bad player your base of measurement is wrong.

Most of the players for any game are bad-average. Just look at the ranking system in most games. Very few % is reserved for the good players.


Let's look at Overwatch from season 3 as an example because that was around the last time I played. Bronze - Platinum made up 85% of the ranked players. Platinum is average. It most likely where people have started to develop skills, but lack awareness. So in reality only about 15% of the players are actually good and make up diamond - grandmaster. The reality is that most players of most games are just bad casuals. Even you call yourself above-average.

Does that make me some awesome great person at the game? No. Not even close, but I am not letting people ruin my fun either.

That's not reality, not even close. The truth is that skill and intelligence, anywhere that can be measured, is a bell curve. The vast majority of people are in the middle of that curve, with very few at the top and bottom.

You can say that players are "bad", relitive to you, but it doesn't seem you're in a position to make that claim. Saying that most players are "casuals" is fair. But saying most players are "bad" is just silly.

Whatever makes you feel better. https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/overwatch/t/competitive-mode-tier-distribution/972

And why should:
- Overwatch's distribution mean anything for PS2
- The (arbitrarily!) chosen skill divisions of Overwatch mean anything about at what point people are good or bad?
- The higher brackets of Overwatch be the start of where "good" begins?
- The game be balanced based on the higher tiers of gameplay? (balancing based on higher tiers means new players have a harder time getting into the game, becoming "good" and stay in the game because they can enjoy becoming good).

The poster before is correct in that it is all relative. Most players perceive themselves as better than they really are. I am not saying Overwatch has anything to do with PS2, just that the majority of players are not "good" in any game and those same players would perceive themselves as good. Even if we call platinum players good, the reality is that the majority of players are still not good. Maybe they aren't "bad", but I see those average players as being pretty bad. I may not be qualified to make these claims, but I am not the one having trouble countering air either.

So yes....Git Gud!

Now, can I finally stop defending myself? I really wanna see some data showing how ineffective ground based AA is. This whole thing was supposed to be about that. Not attacking me.

Well it's mainly cause the conversation drifted to skill level comparisons which... kay. Not really pertinent to original purpose of the thread and there's not much of a point to be made. On point, they basically refuse to admit any small arms fire doing ANYTHING to air, while at the same time also hinting that air does vacate with enough damage. They'll probably dispute this post, but not the other one where I did a point by point. Only counter to that is apparently to report. ;D