[Suggestion] Increase AA skill floor and ceiling

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by Movoza, Mar 10, 2016.

  1. Demigan

    current AA scales badly because it always deals some damage. Get enough AA together and you reach a threshold where they deal 100% damage against an ESF the moment it gets within X range.
    By changing AA so that it isn't as easy to hit, and hitting isn't based on "you got within X distance and received between Y to Z damage based on RNG*distance" you mitigate the scaling problem. We don't have a scaling problem with AV weapons because you can make it hard for them to hit you, you can use cover and there is no guarantee they'll hit you. Of course it get's harder when there's more of them and you aren't likely to stand up against 5 focus-firing weapons, but distance and position is very important there if you survive or not.
    But here's the catch: The chance to hit ground vehicles is based mostly on distance and position relative to things like cover and friendlies. Aircraft are different and rely on distance and their speed/maneuverability, so their strengths should lie there.

    Skillful AA weapons would function similar to ground weapons in many ways. They would still be able to shoot long-range targets, but their ability to hit them decreases depending on the velocity and other shell properties we give it (such as large shell size, miniature flak range, how many you can fire at a time to determine the leading point etc).
    This means that an aircraft could potentially fly past 5 AA sources and survive because they can use their dodging skill rather than positioning skill that ground vehicles use (hence that skillful AA could solve the scaling problem). On the other hand 1 AA source with the skill to keep track of the aircraft would be able to maul it to death.
    This does mean that 2 different AA types need to be introduced: A Heavy and a light version. Light versions are mostly against small and dodgy ESF's, Heavy would be capable of taking down big aircraft like Liberators, Galaxies and Valkyries (and any ESF that hover around or make a big mistake of being easy to lead). The distinction is necessary otherwise big aircraft would be either too tough for AA to take down, or the big aircraft would be canon fodder for the AA source that can track down and kill an ESF.
  2. Demigan

    The general players can wield tanks, they can wield snipers, they can wield machine guns.
    Increasing a higher skill AA isn't hard. Currently it's point-and-click. Movoza isn't saying "let's make it ultra-tough to hit aircraft!" He's saying "make it harder than it is now, but reward people more for it". And considering AA has the easiest weapons to hit an enemy with we can easily make it tougher without making it tougher than, say, an AP MBT shooting at another MBT at a medium distance.

    Look at Walkers, there's people using it. Are they exclusive high-accuracy players? No! They reduced the amount of skill required enough by adding in high-velocity ammo. The reward however isn't enough. You can see that in general Walkers have a smaller range than flak because distance matters more for Walkers and the damage potential isn't high enough to kill aircraft anyway so in the end you aren't rewarded enough.
  3. Yessme

    sry for my english

    This discusion is very old, much People wride much time, on reddit or here, the same Problem.
    But the DEVS don`t listen to the Fly community, thats why so many Skilled Player left that game ( anyway dead game, the Population who Play is low )
    month ago, the DEVS cry about low polpulation on PC Server, PS2 don`t make enought winn ..
    Now, just ask u why
  4. Demigan

    Actually, the reason why the skies were never really filled to the brim with aircraft is because of the skilled pilots that can trump casual players. The A2A game has been in need of an overhaul so that more than the 2 VTOL techniques are useful in A2A combat and there's more things, including intuitive things, that are useful.
    • Up x 1
  5. zaspacer

    If he just wants to make AA better, then say "buff AA". That improves the AA across the board for all players. That, I support.

    Asking to specifically raise the skill floor and ceiling is not buffing the power level, but instead shifting the current AA power level to be in the hands of those who can aim better. It's a double lose:
    1) average players have even worse AA, the game becomes less about them and less playable by them. And the average fight can't rely on effective AA.
    2) better players have an even greater impact on the game, the game becomes more about them and even more rewarding for them. And small numbers of random fights now have very poweful AA.

    Say what you mean. Mean what you say. If you want to change AA and make it better for the average player: great. If you want to (1) reduce the effectiveness of AA for the average player, and/or (2) boost AA for the minority that aims well or hacks: no thanks.

    There's already a lot of bad game design ideas in PS2. The game doesn't need more. It can't afford more.
  6. zaspacer

    The A2A is won vs. the average player by those who know how to fly (advanced flight moves/tactics). Of those who know how to fly, it's then dominated by either (1) those with great Aim or (2) those who fly in Gank Squads.
  7. FateJH

    Your proposed solution doesn't guarantee anything to the contrary either. Get multiple sources of this new AA firing at individual targets and hitting and the effect is the same - the aircraft dies quickly and feels the burden of being outnumbered against its already-deployed counter.

    Your entire argument is based on there always being AA sources that are "unskilled," or whatever disparaging word you wish to use for it.
    The problem is that the hypothesis will not last. It certainly will deter some random shmuck who pulled AA for the first time in some misguided answer to a call from above by his PL or SL; but, the people who pull AA as it currently exists are in general prepared to deal with the shortcomings of the system, or consider themselves workable with it, despite others' beliefs in its perceived shortcomings. First time people who pull AA will languish the samer until they get a better eyeball to judge leading. At the end of the day, you're going to end up with skilled people who land shots on aircraft and, because it's still going to take a number of shots, a lot of AA will amass to get around the "Air can still escape" problem of needing many shots. Air will experience the exact same pain.
    The frustrations against AA by pilots is not going to go away because you sudently turned being harassed/killed by a lot of "skill-less people" into being harassed/killed by a lot of "skillful people." As for people on the Ground, they're just going to respond the same way to get around the same sort of perceived shortcomings.

    I'm currently trying to Sparrow MAX in the low-population afterlife of PlanetSide Classic and it's a royal pain for this exact reason - the system is flexible enough that the aircraft can fight back. Ignoring the disconnect between "lockons" and "skillful dumbfire," because of the relatively lengthy TTK, Aircraft find it easy to deal with. That's against Mosquitoes and Wasps which will escape just as likely bail. Against a Reaver, it just has to turn in the direction of the hitmarkers and its rocket pods devastate the Sparrow in a fraction of the TTK. You need multiple sources of AA or something engaging that will distract the enemy aircraft (a martyr) or you don't stand a chance - it will have more than enough time to smash your face and there's little you can do about it.
  8. Demigan

    What you are getting at is the power of having multiple players focus fire on a single target. And of course that's dangerous! That won't change! No matter if you are infantry, tank or aircraft, having multiple people fire at you means you are going to have a bad time.
    However what I'm getting at is the complete impossibility to escape or counter flak weapons. Yes there's some leading involved, but due to the COF and flak mechanic it takes practically more skill to choose which path you'll take to a point than firing off an AA weapon.
    Walker weapons are actually already a perfect example of a skillful AA weapon that conforms to all other weapons in the game. It's not a guaranteed hit, range is an important factor, leading is important the faster at target moves and he only real problems is that it doesn't deal enough damage to actually kill anything in time.

    Yes, current AA weapons are unskilled weapons. The skill floor to actually use them to an average effect is the lowest of the lowest. The skill ceiling is so close to the skill floor that there's practically no improvement you can make once an engagement starts. You can do some stuff before an engagement to get an advantage, but unless you are picking off damaged aircraft or the pilot makes some big, big mistakes you won't be killing anything soon.
    As said, achieving knowledge of a base design and learning how to get to a point is already harder that learning how to use current flak weapons. Hell, learning to navigate through the terminal menu's is more difficult!

    I am prepared to deal with the shortcoming of the system because there are no alternatives. Saying "the system is OK because there are no alternatives" isn't exactly a good way to go about it.

    Which takes virtually no effort whatsoever and due to the COF and flak mechanic you quickly reach a point where improving your aim won't land more shots, as RNG dictates if the shot goes wide or goes on the leading point. As long as the vehicle's leading point is 100% in the COF there's no reason to improve your aim, as aiming closer to the leading point will still have the same amount of flak thrown towards the aircraft and the same amount of flak thrown off target.

    I... Don't see any reason why this is any good argument? "because the most lone-wolf vehicle in the game can escape even after you are skilled you can amass more players and overcome this problem"?
    The game should offer chances to kill, not deter. If your aim was 100% perfect and the aircraft didn't do a lot to defend itself, it should be dead. End of story. A hovering ESF that gets surprised by a Skyguard, the strongest dedicated AA in the game, from 10 feet away should be dead, not be capable of hightailing it out of there and surviving. Unfortunately if you changed the DPS with current flak mechanics so that an ESF wouldn't be able to escape in the scenario, it wouldn't be able to escape in many other scenario's as well no matter what he does. And that's bad gameplay for the aircraft, which we should avoid.
    And that's why a system needs to be introduced that the average player will be able to work with to get hits and kills, but there's no guarantee on a kill because the aircraft can also defend itself with maneuvers. Does flak or lock-ons feature in to that? Unless the ease-of-use is severely reduced it won't.


    Actually no. Currently we already see how it works in tank vs tank combat. People aren't frustrated over peek-a-boo tanks that will pop behind cover and repair up after they are heavily damaged. This is because they actually have power, and the option to stop the cycle and actually kill the tank through use of maneuverability, tactics and improved aim. In many situations the tank won't even be able to get behind cover and you can actually kill it with your powerful canons.
    Giving ground AA the power to actually kill solo, rather than always looking at some escaping aircraft, would immensely improve people's vision of the power of AA. It would also immensely change how aircraft see AA. If it's not "I got within AA's range and got hit" but "I got within AA's range and didn't dodge/they were good" they have a much easier time accepting a death to ground AA.

    I don't know why you bring the Sparrow MAX into this. It looks 100% like the current flak and lock ons: It gives you more than enough time to either escape or murder the culprit, and the only time the aircraft is killed it's because the pilot made a mistake or there were multiple firing at the same time. Which is exactly why we need weapons that can actually deal with aircraft, and those same weapons need to have the option to give aircraft some chance of surviving since they are more likely to be set upon by multiple AA sources and need to be able to operate in any size battle without having the option to say "nah there's AA here, I'll look for a fight without AA". Everywhere should have AA available and used at all times. Just like AI and AV are available and used at all times.
  9. Demigan

    And just like the average player can compete and have fun in infantry and tank combat, so should they be able to compete in aircraft combat regardless of it being A2G or A2A.

    It's weird that on one hand we have someone saying "but we shouldn't make it too skillful so that only high-skill players can use it" (even though it definitely wouldn't need high-skill players to use it) and on the other hand we have someone basically admitting that the average player will lose from anyone who has first and foremost better knowledge of the flight system as well as better aim and/or use Gank squads.

    Of course better knowledge and aim should give you advantages, but it should remain fun for the average player! They should have options to either learn to fight by playing it rather than having to spend hours training it or to at least enjoy the fight leading up to getting shot down.
    Guess what, the air is so empty because neither is true.

    Because if you say "buff AA" and don't say anything like "improve damage/velocity" then people are instantly disappointed and shoot your idea down.
    Example: I made a thread for omni-directional afterburners for ESF, which any aircraft player should be applauding. The idea got shot down because... "I thought this was about Magriders, bye". No really, that was it. I remade the thread indicating it was about ESF, and then suddenly I fifteen times the response. Mostly about how I was supposed to git gud by the players who benefit from keeping things as they are or burned by the players that thought it would make ESF even bigger of a problem in the skies than they already are. Partly true, but I had in mind that AA would have gotten an overhaul at the same time.

    But that's not the point is it? It increases the skill required from "learning how to use your keyboard is harder" to "skills we need everywhere else in the game already".
    And although Movoza might not say it outright, power has to increase to pull off his vision. Current AA does not have the power to kill aircraft that try to escape, so there has to be a power buff somewhere otherwise you could make it harder or easier, the result would stay the same: aircraft escape (or blow you up).


    Skillful AA does not necessarily mean "only usable by high-skill players". If you disagree, why don't you just say "hey OP, I think you are saying that only high-skill players would benefit, that's bad. I would want the average player to benefit from this system". Well allright! Easily done! I mean, he did say that flak didn't exactly have to be removed, so there are some skill-reducing mechanics that can still even the odds so that the AA user has enough chance to hit the aircraft.

    Unfortunately you can say what you mean all you want, if players have a different idea about it or misinterpret it, they are almost impossible to change. They will not see the merits, they will not be placated by any reason or argument.
    From what I've read of Movoza, he's trying to placate everyone from the beginning. He wants to change AA to make it more powerful, but he doesn't want every pilot jumping up and down purely because something's changing and they think they are worse off because they read things like "can be killed by a single AA source".

    I myself have proposed this exact idea a few times before, and every time people would say "lol no, flak already prevents you from entering a hex". Even though this would exactly remedy that situation, they keep comparing it to how it is now and then using that old situation to say no to the new situation.

    Yes! So let's remove one by adding a good solid AA game! Seriously!
  10. FateJH

    I'm taking the realistic perspective that people compound AA because they do not see one AA source as adequate for one reason or another. You want to devise a weapon which people won't intrinsically see as adequate because it's even less guaranteed (that's your argument, right?) so multiple people will end up utilizing more of it to make certain someone lands shots against Air all the same. You can't claim to have solved scaling problems on one hand and then look at the other hand to make the point that the scaling problem hasn't been solved at all. At least you certainly can't tout it based on what we know about player behavior.
    I've never actually had problems with the Walker(s). Just like all other sources of AA in the game, it's knowing how to lead and change lead in reaction to aircraft movement. I couldn't understand Drakes for the life of me at one point until someone suggested I treat it more like a Skyguard than an HMG.
    That's purely tank versus tank combat. It's all within the same problem domain. No part of the counter system we're discussing operates from within the same domain as aircraft and the system itself has to be as different as the two platforms. G2A can't be conducted like A2A. (You can make the argument that Tomcats are closest to the G2A lockons, one way or another, I guess, but much more of our discussion has involved flak.)
    If you want to go into cross-domain tank combat, Infantry units most certainly have expressed, in the past, frustration that despite all their fire, the tank can just duck behind a convenient rock that they can't get to easily and repair any damage that it may have taken. Aircraft don't deal with AV work the same as either Infantry or Armor.
    But it's not like flak. The weapon is not at all like flak.

    I choose the comparison because it adequately fits your proposal, with the only exception being that shots have more guarantee of landing due to the required lock, and you can ignore that by assuming a skilled AA-user. I choose the scenario because the goal is to get around bad scaling by creating situations where 1v1 Air against AA is viable but requires skill. The Sparrow fires relatively paced. The Sparrow rockets are relatively high damage compared to its equivalents, enough to threaten, one might argue. It gives the pilot adequate time to deal with its assailant one way or another. And it's relatively useless on its own for that reason unless the pilot is afk or makes a really stupid mistake once aggro'd (with lots of emphasis on the "really" here, the pilot that much leeway). That leads to needing external sources of distraction for the aircraft or damage against it and, by that point, scaling problems start to creep up on the situation again.
    And Infantry and Vehicles die constantly with no chance of fighting back on a regular basis or get pushed behind defensive positions with vague ability to advance and they often don't have the option of running away.

    The only thing your words are doing is building a continued sense of befuddlement in me, like you're trying to construct an unrealistic fantasy that doesn't at all sound like it can exist in the game that I know. Other presentation formats. Images. Animations. Anything. I need something more tactile, more expressive, to reconstruct this vision of how you think Ground to Air and Air to Ground engagements should be conducted in this game.
    • Up x 1
  11. Reclaimer77

    100% agree. I don't understand why aircraft should be immune to scaling. Like any other unit has a good time when tons of counters for it are brought to the party? So why should air be so special.

    Ground 2 Air is a freaking mess right now. Something needs to be done. And I'm not concerned in the least that some idiot might get butt-hurt that his hoverspam is made invalid by massed AA as a consequence.
    • Up x 2
  12. Demigan

    No you see that wrong.
    You focus on the part where they hit. I don't want them to feel adequate by making it less guaranteed they hit, I want them to feel adequate when they do hit. And to make them feel adequate when they hit you need more results that "enemy escapes", you want to see the explosions, death and destruction that the whole game is basically based on.
    Since right now hitting is easier than anything else and improving your aim won't do much to improve.

    Allright not the most perfect example then due to their incredibly high velocity. Even so, skillful weapons would probably be best as small magazine weapons with maybe 10 shells per magazine rather than the 30+ we have now. This gives both air and ground more options: A solid volley can be the death of an enemy, you can re-position during the reload but the aircraft can make use of that reload as well to fight back or escape.

    Very very true, maybe I've got to revisit some of my statements.
    Anyway all unit types and subtypes/classes need to have effective loadout options to deal with a particular threat. The whole reason why we have walls around most bases is because infantry even in large numbers couldn't fight back properly against tanks, which have more range, firepower, speed and dictate most of the fight. If we had more weapons, including non-lethal one's, that help infantry feel they can combat tanks, even if it is a support weapon or a way to prevent getting shot without sacrificing all you have just to prevent getting shot, it would help the game tremendously.
    We actually have that same problem expanded when you go up against aircraft: Most weapons don't have the elevation (which replaces range) and the aircraft are so fast that nothing can really escape or change the situation much the moment the aircraft starts his/her attack.

    It's a lock-on, and all lock-ons favor the same mentality as flak: Extreme ease-of-use balanced with a limited DPS to give the enemy enough time to counter it by either killing it or running away. Lock-ons even remove the necessity to lead the target, which is the sole skillful thing you can do with flak weapons, however dumbed down it is due to the uncontrollable COF and flak detonation range.

    It only fits one part of the proposal, the "let's prevent the extreme scaling" part. However I never said that it would mean that 15 AA sources would be as good as 1 AA source. If you get set upon by 5 focus-firing players with weapons designed against you it doesn't (and shouldn't) matter if you are infantry, tank or aircraft, you are going to have a bad time. You might survive if the situation was right, but you will probably not. The problem here is that aircraft have the easiest time being fired upon by multiple sources compared to infantry and tanks. So it's an inverse logic that AA scales the fastest even though it also has the easiest time to use that scaling effect, while it's relatively easy to have 30 vs 30 tanks where no more than 3 tanks will be able to fire at the same target due to terrain, positioning etc.
    That's why AA sources should have more trouble firing at long-range targets, but get more rewards (read: kills) for the hits they do score. This allows aircraft to better probe a situation for where the AA is and try to strike targets that are within AA coverage but far away to make hitting harder. Spread out AA would also mean that you are better able to provide coverage for larger groups, but it would also mean that the aircraft have to deal with only one AA source up close and the rest at a distance, making those extra AA sources less powerful. And there you already have a solid system! Now you need to make sure AA is universally used regardless of aircraft being present, since with aircraft speed and agility an attack can happen at any time anywhere, and you have a solid game experience!
    If you can think of a better or different system than more skillful AA to achieve this, please tell me because I would love to know. However currently I think that skillful but lethal AA is the solution.

    They get killed because they didn't position them right or the situation was simply like that. It wouldn't be different with this new AA system: Sometimes aircraft would simply head into a bad situation and get killed. That's not a bad thing, as you say every unit type already has to deal with it. The thing is that you don't want aircraft or any other unit type automatically killed in every scenario just because they got within X range.

    I'll try to find some.
  13. Demigan

    ...

    The idea is not making them immune to scaling, it's changing the system so this extreme form of scaling doesn't happen.
  14. Reclaimer77

    And you've still never made a single argument that's convinced anyone it's possible or even necessary.

    I, for one, do NOT accept this silly idea that air is somehow being unfairly "extremely" scaled against by AA. It happens to everyone equally. And NO unit in the game has the ability to evade it's direct counter more readily and easier than aircraft.

    If I had things my way, Flares would be mandatory because every single vehicle and unit in the game would have access to Fire and Forget SAM launchers that would just freaking WRECK aircraft. Let these whiners get a taste of a REAL hard counter like everyone else has to deal with who plays this game.
    • Up x 1
  15. Demigan

    1: People see that the current system doesn't work. It's not fun for either party.
    2: People are only saying "well that's how it is", even though there has to be some form of AA that would be right. I have given arguments as to why AA isn't fun for either party and then given a solution to solve it. Just because people aren't convinced does not mean that it can't be the solution we need, especially since people haven't given a single alternative so far, and most of the comparisons were of things like the Sparrow MAX which is essentially what we have now or comparisons that go to the extremes with "AA won't be effective" or "AA would be too effective".

    And 3: People keep bringing up the exact reasons why this would be a good idea, yet reject it because of the exact reason why it would be a good idea?
    Except of course in this case the argument isn't exactly right. Scaling does not happen equally.
    1 AP tank is already strong against other tanks. 5 AP tanks is also powerful but depending on the situation another tank can escape or even kill one of the hostile tanks.
    1 AA source is almost as effective as a large neon sign with the words "shoo!" on it that Pilots will eventually follow. 3 AA sources can nearly prevent any aircraft from entering the area.
    Even with 50 AP tanks and 50 AV infantry it's impossible to prevent vehicles from entering the area.

    And that's exactly why it's a good idea not to accept your idea's. I'm trying to improve the game by making everything viable and fun, you are trying to completely ruin all aircraft gameplay purely because it's been out of whack for 3 years. Yes, most Pilots deserve to burn in their aircraft, but if we create a fair gameplay between ground and air we can remove that ******** you have and improve the game overall.
  16. Reclaimer77

    Demigan...dying is NEVER fun. The party on the receiving end of AA is NEVER going to have a good time. Being shot at and killed is NEVER "fun" for most people.

    I don't want "fun" AA. I want AA that gets me kills when I use it. I want AA that does it's goddamn job!

    I mean good grief. We have pilots crying NOW about novelty "AA" like the Swarm. What a joke. If you die to this thing, you did something WAY wrong.

    No, that's a lie. That is not true. We all KNOW that's not true. 3 AA sources cannot possibly cover the ENTIRE sky while also defending themselves from all the other things that are trying to kill it.

    Stop accepting the lie that pilots in this game can't function in good sized fights.
    • Up x 1
  17. Savadrin

    They're already addressing hoverspam with the auto AA turrets and dome shields.

    After a bit of time and some practice, I'm actually swaying toward Demigan's other idea of a high alpha AA.

    The Phalanx spear turret, for example. It's not easy to hit a fast moving, dodging aircraft. It's possible at the right ranges or with the right luck. It's easy though, to take down hoverbirds.

    My real concern with this is aimbotters etc., because if you give a spear turret elevation and give it to players, one guy could eradicate a hex solo.
    • Up x 1
  18. LodeTria


    What?
  19. Demigan

    I don't think that's too much of a problem. The moment I see a cheat it's usually not subtle and more of an all-out mashup of cheats. I also have to say that while I have a lot of experience with infantry cheating, I don't usually encounter vehicle players cheating at all. Probably something to do with "if you go cheat, why go through the hassle of buying a vehicle and just use some supa-dupa infantry cheats".
  20. Savadrin

    I have seen it in rare occasions when running vehicles. I think it's moreso that few people feel cheating as necessary to be competitive in vehicles.

    There are times and shots that we just shake our heads and say, "Really, bruh?" but only a few times a week at most, spaced out over many hours of play. Everyone makes clutch shots, but consistent impossibility is too much :D

    If you gave an "aircraft destroy" button to people, if nothing else, you'd see a spike in the rage/vengeance hacks. And trolls, obviously.