[Vehicle] How about turbo for valkyrie?

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by Mockabacka, Mar 12, 2017.

  1. adamts01

    Well, it's not, this isn't that game, the best thing to kill air is air. A key problem G2A has that you pointed out is it's limited window of time to deal damage, air doesn't have that problem. Ground can't chase air to secure a kill, air doesn't have that problem. I'd love for there to be AA powerful enough that I'd have to rely on ground forces to take it out before I flew in, but that requires more realism than most people want in this game. I want shoulder fired, nanite-based, missiles that can 1-shot ESF, but that requires realistic missile behavior and logistics that PS2 kids don't want. It would require basically a new game for air not to be the best air-killer and still have balance, maybe in PS3, but it won't happen here.
  2. LordKrelas

    Well if you keep thinking Aircraft should Kill aircraft, it won't ever be straight.
    Do you drop out of your aircraft to kill a tank? Or an infantry man?
    Do you need to as a Pilot, have to pray and trust a Tank, or Infantry man to kill a Tank or Infantry man?
    No , you just straight up kill it.

    Shouldn't need to pray to the gods, that a friendly Sky God wants to kill the occasional Hostile Sky God rather than farm a thousand kills: Which do you think happens more?

    Do you see friendly air stalking allied air space or attacking?
    How do you think the ground people die to aircraft? The aircraft are attacking...
    Which is what the other side's aircraft is doing rather than defending those bloody sods on the ground.

    When in hell, do you have Aircraft protecting the ground? That isn't cert heaven, being the Slaughtering Sky God is...
    You know, what You expect them to defend us from rather than get the certs for slaughtering...

    One grand Reason that Air doesn't have this problem is... Turbo on aircraft, the most maneuverable bloody things.
    So rather than give another aircraft, one that without Turbo is nigh invulnerable, How about No.

    Turbo is murderous on aircraft.

    You want aircraft to be able to drain nanites out of an entire groups of people.
    How did I get that idea?
    By the time an aircraft dies, let alone the larger ones, it has the nanites to spawn a second.
    And the fact is, unless only one single nanite-missile is fired, and isn't intercepted, You can drain these people dry.
    ... Followed by spawning a second aircraft, while they have at best 50 nanites...

    As if the missile is unable to be dodged, that's Horrid gameplay for pilots; And pointlessly bad at that.

    -- Now lets' assume all aircraft mentioned have Turbo.

    If it however, it literally becomes easy for a singular aircraft, such as an ESF to dodge or waste more missiles than it cost to spawn it.
    As well, the number of shooters amplify the nanites wasted on this one aircraft.
    These shooters then lack grenades, med-kits, maxes, and these rockets which I assume replace any rocket that could hit aircraft.
    So they become screwed.

    Let alone that on a Larger Aircraft, which could possibly repair, this needs more missiles.
    And the number of nanites it costs to kill, then rises for every miss.
    With the number of missiles not increasing the effort of neutralizing them all that much... it's bloody painful to consider.

    Now, if any of these aircraft got fired at with such missiles, which I pray are capable of locking onto the target, as Dumbfire requires a Dumb ******* pilot or one over extending severely, all they need to do is activate Turbo...
    And they just literally wasted nanites, that not a single person on the ground could avoid spending.
    To just fly back, and do it again... and again... and again, not even including the evasion of missiles without it.
    If you add that in: You can deplete a massive number of nanites while still killing these people.
    For a one time investment of nanites, you can deplete a near endlessly higher supply of nanites from a limitless number of people.

    Whom all become incapable of using said missiles, or even trying to, against a larger aircraft such as a Bloody Liberator.

    Which can fly in from the warp gate, nuke everything in a battle zone, and be gone.
    With nanite costs to attempting to attack the things, You could also drain every sod's nanites at the same time.
    Making any attack easier than sin against these people since aircraft just blocked every single medkit, grenade, tank, and anti-air missile possible from being used.

    If your aircraft cost nanites to fire their weapons, then perhaps we can talk about nanite killing missiles.
    Unless of course there is a less effective anti-air weapon that has the same odds, but doesn't have the ability to deplete all nanites due to Pilot skill, and nothing to do with the operator.
  3. adamts01

    You're turning in to Demigan, type less, say more.
  4. LordKrelas

    The less I type, the more there is to assume, the more to guess, the more implications, and conclusions that must be reached by chance.
    Rather than need to rephrase a long sentence into a shorter one, and then need to explain it twice, I type it once.

    If I wanted to reduce my arguments to needing Luck that they'd be understood, I would've just said "I disagree" with a riddle next to it.

    This game isn't prevented from changing the nature of G2A.

    Your basic ESF loadout can kill any target, the only difference is one kills more effectively a range of targets.
    Infantry and Tanks with specific load outs, and defaults can be unable to scratch entire types of targets:
    Aircraft are never affected by this.


    An ESF can attack anything, unlike vehicles & infantry who could be unable to damage it.
    What is more clear?
    This is why I use more words.

    Organized Air.
    Unorganized Air is more common, and is what you expect the ground to rely on.
    How? As Organized air doesn't give two ***** about random ground units, they have a plan, and they do it regardless.

    Turbo allows Aircraft to outrun any missile.
    Their default speed can outrun any ground unit, but not missiles.
    This means, at any moment, they can decrease the travel time between points.
    IE they can instantly affect the position anyone on the ground must fire ahead of, towards, or near said air unit to hit it.
    Aka this makes it impossible to lay in a proper shot, as the speed instantly changes drastically.
    This is why it is an actual problem.

    The Irony is, with more words, I could've saved myself this set of words.

    I don't play ARMA.
    I don't care to either.
    But leaving it entirely to skill on the Pilot side, is literally akin to the present ability to hit an ESF with a one-shot dumbfire rocket.
    Or the Dalton shot that kills the ESF, just on the other side of the barrel; Which apparently ESF Pilots hate. Go figure.

    If the range is shorted, then the range that an aircraft can kill the target without being even targeted is higher.
    Example: The Anti-Aircraft Turret has a range that is less than ESF rockets that can damage, and destroy it.
    And no gun has an elevation limit good enough for the sky-limit devils.

    The nanite cost of the platform, is small compared to the would-be-nanite cost of what it takes to attempt an attack.
    One is a guaranteed aircraft, with the ability to kill any target at will; With the entire value, and outcome on the Pilot.
    The second, is a missile that must be fired at a cost of nanites, before being able to act; With only the target deciding the outcome.

    - You spent a single amount of nanites to fly it.

    - The guy shooting you spends nanites every attempt to shoot you down, with their failures costing them nanites, and determined By you the Pilot, who spent only a single amount of nanites, to their near infinite amount of spending to shoot at you.

    Those sundies cost nanites.
    They are restricted by terrain.
    They are limited in weaponry.
    They need multiple operators to defend themselves at all.
    Limited (less than 50%) emergency repair on cooldown.

    An ESF has enough munitions to destroy any sundy at will, what around 10-30 times over with missiles alone.
    Has ammunition to kill any infantry and tank by nose-gun, with a ton to spare.
    Is not affected in mobility by anything.
    Has the ability to enter & exit any combat zone at will
    Near 100% instant emergency repair.

    For a 150 more nanites, is it(?), you get a one-man attack platform in the sky with more weapons than any ground vehicle has under the control of a single person.

    Then you get to Liberators, and then it just gets stupid to bat-**** insane.
  5. adamts01

    You argue just because you like arguing. I agree with most of your points, like the AA turret range nerf. I still say that almost all of the problems with the ground/air relationship are due to **** anti-air. Give ground a way to fight back, and air isn't so scary. But Daybreak's policy of nerfing air to the pathetic level of ground is a step backwards. Welcome to Infantryside.
  6. LordKrelas

    It'd be a grand bit easier if you actually put your full post in your actual post bit.
    You actually never specify the player-base.
    And as if the player-base could block the devs from an action! History says Nope!

    That's two people; ESF has both with one guy.
    As well, that literally cuts down on firepower for standardized targets.
    An ESF can pick their nose-gun only, and hit any target without a damn.

    You know since a Mossie nose-gun can damage a tank, I could kill a few.
    Depends entirely on if I hold above it, around it, and it has no Gunner.
    Can't do that with a Tank.
    If the target has AP, and you have Heat: You're gonna die.
    If you lack the AOA, you have to thread the needle to hit an infantryman.
    Kobolt top gun? Can't scratch a tank or a sundy.

    You think only Infantry have the issue of "Lacking a gun for it"? Nope, only Aircraft is immune to that.
    But yeah, there's a grand number of classes who can't damage a tank; And I got no problem with that.
    An aircraft can at least damage anything it sets its eyes on; It needs no damn about what gun it has.

    I did cover organized air.
    I did say random ground units, IE not part of the plan.
    Yup, I totally said Random ground units.
    But you forgot the full bit.
    You see that line about "having a plan"?
    You literally talk about your planned capture.
    Unless those random ground units, which are more likely to be found not at your planned target zone, you wouldn't give a ****.
    And those Skyknights are the ESF's you want ground units to rely on.
    You are likely equipped with A2G, Skyknights are A2A, what is better at killing Air? A2A ffs.

    Turbo, where you can reach any bit of terrain that was previously out of reach, and ensure you can't be locked onto by follow up missiles...
    And a ESF with Fuel tanks... yeah that can still kill whatever it wants, it just won't be damn near instant.
    Or have you never fought an ESF using one while on the ground?

    I know some idiots on ARMA.
    Rather not deal with stupidity, that from all it sounds, would take hours to recover from.
    I play this for fun, not to grind just for a fight.

    Yeah the glorious Dalton is infamous.
    And technically it should be ineffective; They are Air superiority fighters attacking an Gun-ship \ Air Bombardment-craft, which for some reason is armored to the nine hells, and has Turbo.

    You likely saw what is coming if you got this far in this post;

    Speed of aircraft, visual range, time in range of G2A weaponry, Extra speed = Less time in range of G2A weaponry.
    Unless in Arma, you can't mystically block every missile by sheer timing, which I bet you can do, it favors the pilot over everything.

    And I get into the range bit from the whole "shortened range"
    Which is assuming that in the relatively range of the 80's missiles, depending on country, were any of the missiles I was thinking of, which vary from ship-bound , to aircraft to infantry-scaled.
    Some of those ranges are **** considering the sheer speed and axis of movement of aircraft.
    IE they can change directions instantly without any sign, delay or similar.

    (But the flight controls are utter garbage)
    Also the AA Turret change, is the literal perfect example of what I say at the start of this.

    If the G2A missile always hits.
    That basically nullifies any pilot's ability to play, the moment they are spotted, or engaged in an area.
    Like severely.

    Yeah, and damage to specific parts of the hell-of-a-lot-more-predictable-aircraft also can cause the craft to bloody explode.
    And that **** is fragile.

    Lock-ons in PS2, are very poor.
    But considering that even those are easily screwed in favor of the Pilot, Can you really blame people?
    In order to gain the too-easy lock-on you must keep the fastest devil in your cross hair, fire, then pray the weaker missile manages to hit it.
    With the Pilot able to do the following;
    - Instantly destroy all missiles, and block all lock-ons for a period. Much longer than it takes to run, or slaughter every infantry.
    - Find the Lock-on Source who must have a clear line of sight to aircraft, less people make this easier; As does firing the rocket..
    - Survive multiple lock-on hits.
    - Repair nearly all damage instantly.
    - Drive rocket into ground, Drive rocket into nearby object, outrun rocket
    - Kill shooter after the first shot, or during the lock-on which is warned about quite ahead.
    - Leave before the lock-on even happens.
    - Block Lock-on mid-lock via other aircraft, tree, terrain, height, range in general, other vehicles, infantry, obstructions etc etc

    Like. By the Abyss, this is all controlled nearly by the Pilot.
    This many factors, and that is for the lock-on.
    Dumbfire, and tanks require the ESF to do most of the work in lining up the shot nearly and staying in that spot.

    A liberator can tank more rockets.
    A liberator can fire from sky limit.
    A liberator can just ram you to death.
    A liberator can unload a tank-buster into your tank at point-blank range.
    A liberators has the bloody dalton.
    ESF < Liberator unless Flying ESF, or are infantry.

    What was the first hint that I love to argue?

    Yeah, we need better AA. That I can agree on hard.
    I can't see where they nerfed air into the ground however.

    Built-in-Radar, for example.
    Sure, the air weapons are no longer instantly fatal in a second anymore to any vehicle.
    And those hornets can't kill a tank from full health: But, dear lord, ever been that tank? Like, you are screwed.
  7. Mockabacka

    It appears you have lots of trouble with air, and I bet valks isnt what kills you. It is daltons and rocketpods. With turbo the valk would have an easier time catching up with those said vehicles. It's not like the turbo would be used the same as with liberator where you dive -> tankbust -> turbo up in the sky out of reach. I dont see why ground troops would see turbo as a bad thing when it would cause them more good than harm since liberators and esfs will have a more difficult time.
  8. Klabauter8

    Valks are not just good for dropping c4 faeries. They are also very good for killing low armored ground targets. They can kill Harassers and Flashs the best, and are also excellent at killing infantry, even with just a gunner.

    An ESF can be one-hit killed, but a Valkyrie not. This means you always can quickly escape when getting hit, repair and come back again. For tanks this is not so helpful, since they take so much damage, but against infantry it's very good to get one or two kills, repair, and do it again.

    And Galaxies or Libs are so big and intimidating, that infantry just seek cover when seeing one anyway. And with a Valk you also can kill infantry in cover very good, but with these big ships not really.
  9. Mockabacka

    Valks are good at killing harassers, and we should be glad about that (as long as you stay out of vulcan aim). You should however take into consideration that esfs are much harder to hit than a valkyrie. Especially since the driver must go for a more predictable movement so that the gunner can shoot.

    Pretty much all vehicles are excellent at killing infantries if they have AI gun. It is not a valkyrie thing. If the other side doesnt spawn any tanks or aa than a valk will have free space. Usually when I fly they have tanks and bursters so flying over there isnt just a dream like some people might think it is. Also, flying low with a valk is a death sentence since tanks will shoot you down immidietaly.

    Will turbo solve all these flaws? No, but some will, like instantly taking 80% damage and turbo out. It would still be possible without turbo and the chance of dying are still pretty high. I think most people would just bail out.

    Why not bring it to the test server and see for ourself? It shouldnt be too hard to implement since so many other vehicles have turbos.
  10. Klabauter8

    Valks are not easier to hit, if you know how to use them. Valkyries can attack out of cover much better than other aircrafts. They can sneak up very close, hide behind a wall or something, then go over the wall, and immediately start firing from close distance. It's very easy and quick to get kills like this, before the enemy even notices you. An ESFs on the other hand has to attack from a distance because of the fixed nosegun, which means it will also take longer usually to kill something with it, giving the enemy more time to shoot at you, and also open more room for other people to hit you.

    Flying low is only a death sentence if you have no situational awareness. You just have to use the terrain as cover, and flank, then you also can attack low. And if the terrain doesn't allow to fly low, then you just use the VLG and shoot from above. That's the problem with most Valk pilots. They always fly way too high, and then wonder why they don't get any kills, and the whole battlefield shoots at them.
  11. Mockabacka

    Valks are definitely easier to hit. I don't understand what you mean with that esfs have to attack form a distance. They dont. The only problem for esfs is that they have to aim their nose down and thus will lose altitude, but that is really reduntant since they get the job done pretty much instantly.

    My situational awareness is good, but if I want my gunners to actually ensure a kill I have to fly low and hover for a second or two, which is enough for tanks to fire at me. I obviously dont hover right in front of their noses, but they can still easily predict the movement and kill me.
  12. LordKrelas

    Rockets are easier to land at close range, and the dumbfire ones one-shot an ESF but not a Valk.

    A valk can be literally immortal, and not leave the battle for ages, while under constant fire.
    An ESF eventually has to leave, let alone if under fire.
    • Up x 1
  13. adamts01

    I can count on one hand the number of decimators that took me out in my ESF, and I was stupid and deserved every one of those missiles. They aren't a real threat.

    That's with a full crew of engineers, it's just not efficient use of manpower. Half the reason Valks are "immortal" over a battlefield is that they're they're just not that much of a threat, just an annoyance, and letting them live is essentially keeping 6 infantry out of the fight.
  14. Mockabacka

    True, and a 6 man valk only happen when those six are communication, which would make it far inferior to six people in the ground.

    The six man valk sounds so good in theory, but it never happen. People generally dont like to sit afk repairing at 1/4 speed.
  15. Klabauter8

    It is way harder to hit something with an ESF from close distance, than with a Valkyrie. That's why people usually engage from a distance with ESFs, because if you'd engage close, you first have a harder time to aim, and also only very short time to kill, since you quickly lose altitude. Plus rockets can one-shot you in ESFs, in a Valk not, that's why Valks are much better for close low attacks, or for doing peek-a-boos from behind cover.

    With an ESF you basically always have to fly so high that the whole battlefield can see you. A Valkyrie can attack much lower and stealthier.
  16. Klabauter8

    This exactly. That's why Valks are so good against infantry, even with just a gunner. They just have no chance to kill you in it, if you know when to escape.
  17. Mockabacka

    It is extremely easy to attack low with an esf. Their time to kill is so fast that you dont have to worry about the altitude. There is a reason why esfs have been farming ground since the very beginning of the game. It is easy and profitable unless you face an AA plane, which I want to create with the valkyrie with the help of turbo to aid its lacking speed. As I have said the turbo wont change the flow of battle for ground troops. Farming aircraft will however feel it if people actually start spawning it.

    Turbo would, in some ways, actually disrupt the valks ability to farm without dying on some continent. You say valks are so good at flying low, but if a valk pilot uses turbo in fear of dying they might actually crash more than save themself on continents like hossin. As I stated before, the turbo will be much better at hunting other aircrafts. When you die to air, what kills you? It is certainly not valkyries, it is esfs and to some degree liberators. Sure valkyries shows up now and then, but compared to other aircraft they are nothng. A valk that is good at hunting down farmers are exactly what this game needs, and turbo will actually reward the AA-valk players more.
  18. LordKrelas

    You want to take the Tanky Valk, with the squad-spawning capabilities, rumble seats, and make it capable of killing Air superiority fighters: That is an ESF is, Empire-Specific-Fighter, aka Air Superiority fighter.
    It is called an Air transport, not an Anti-air Killing machine: it can spawn infantry, and survive multiple dumbfire rockets.
    It has Rumble seats, and a Gunner capable of using anti-infantry weaponry that is capable of full 360 coverage.
    It can be self-repaired from the inside by engineers, not counting any automated repairs outside of the rumble seats.

    Turbo adds to evasive and hunting capabilities of the Valk, towards both ground & air targets.
    It does not make it more effective at protecting the ground from ESFs, it makes the Valk harder to catch or destroy.

    No way in **** would Turbo disrupt farm capability, or Libs & ESFs wouldn't be the Killing machines you can't avoid that they are.
    You are literally claiming a Valk pilot may crash their valk into the ground as if this isn't entirely reliant on the Pilot ******* up.
    IE If that is a Plus Side for giving Valk's turbo, Can we add Turbo to tanks, since they might fall of a Cliff in panic?

    When I die to Aircraft, it has been Valks. VS Valks on Conney. They love Valks there, damn deadly pilots & gunners.
    I've also died to VS ESFs countless times, Mossies from TR, and when I played Vanu, some Reavers.
    In and out of vehicles; ESF's are menace.
    Liberators have smoked me from sky limit, and destroyed any vehicle they saw.
    Galaxies have landed on buildings or hovered, and nuked entire squads; When they aren't at sky limit dropping endless people.

    Valks aren't unarmed.
    Those Gat guns are actually capable of lethal weapons fire.
    And 2 or more guys in a valk can out-repair anything you fire at them - And those 2 or more, includes the Pilot & Gunner.

    A Valk isn't going to be hunting down ESFs with Turbo.
    It's going to be dropping off troops, killing infantry, and out running ESFs.

    Fight VS on Connery, you'll find the Valks Hunt bloody infantry down not ESFs.
    With Turbo, they'd be in dropping off troopers faster, and back into hunting infantry on the battle field.

    So Idk where in hell you fight where Valks can't kill infantry.
    They bloody do that a lot on Connery, and do it quite well.
  19. Klabauter8

    No it is not. You have a fixed nose gun and quickly lose altitude, plus you can get one-shotted in them. A Valkyrie can literally stick to the ground when attacking. ESFs never attack low. They always start attacking from a certain distance, and then do dive attacks. A Valkyrie doesn't have to do this. They can start attacking as low as possible.

    Valkyries are not for hunting other aircrafts. They are mainly anti-ground vehicles. Just look at their weapons. The only weapon which is remotely usable for AA is the Wyvern, since it's an alround weapon, but even with this a skilled ESF pilot easily can outdamage you from a distance. Every other Valk weapon is clearly anti-ground focused.

    I barely die to air, no matter if ESF or Valkyrie. ESF barely notice me when being on the ground, and when they do notice me, then I just seek cover quickly. And yes, Valkyries are not as popular as ESFs or Libs, but that doesn't say anything about their effectiveness. The reason why they are not popular is just simply because they are not easy to handle. You can not attack from a distance with them, like with ESFs, that's why many people think they are crap. But in reality they just lack the situational awareness to use them correctly.

    There are no AA Valk players. If you use them for AA then you are doing it wrong. The only way to be effective with them at AA would be having a Striker Valkyrie. Otherwise they are much better against ground targets, and for this you do not need an afterburner.
    • Up x 1
  20. Mockabacka

    What is wrong with wanting them to kill esfs? Is the flash supposed to kill mbts? Pick four of them and they will kick ***. Is the galaxy supposed to rule the skies, especially when going duo? Then we have the anti everything, esf, yet you don't want the valk to counter it when going for a specific build that would cost hell alot of certs.

    Why would you need turbo to hunt ground targets? It's not like they are faster than a normal valk. For air though, it will be useful.

    You certainly didnt get my point. The other guy says that flying low to the ground is so easy, but then they would likely crash into trees on for example hossin if the panicked on the turbo.

    How can it be such a significant difference between Miller and Connery? I rarely see valkyries flying around. Even more rare is it with an anti infantry valk. Players simply doesnt use valks for AI, there are better options. I just scouted to see if there actually was any valkyries in the game and I didnt find a single one. I did however encouter 6 esf, 2 libs and 1 gal.

    Then again you have to dedicate four people to that vehicle. Btw, they cant outrepair everything. They can prolong its life, but will eventually die to sustained fire.

    Outrun esfs? No vehicle can do that. I will hunt esfs with turbo. That will be its primary use.

    Exactly. What's the point of fighting esfs if they simply escape as soon as they feel uncomfortable? Farming infantry is much easier.

    I fight on miller and the airspam of esfs and liberators are vero noticable here. Also write shorter posts because there is so much to refer to when replying.