[Suggestion] Increase AA skill floor and ceiling

The most fun i have doing AA in this game is Shooting at the sky with my AP Prowler (this is my my accuracy is only 34%) and honestly i would like an AA gun in the game that was similar to that but could shoot directly up. High skill cap since you have to directly hit but you get rewarded with it being a hard hit but still wouldn't 1 shot an esf. and the odds of landing a fallow up shot once they are bobbing and weaving are low so it wouldn't be Op.

Because air is more visible and can be targeted by more players simultaneously. Ground has a **** ton of topography and terrain to hide behind. Aircraft not so much. Because ground can't shoot through their own forces to hit enemies, hence numbers also limit fire in a set area (think choke points.) Air -- not at all. Everyone can always shoot at air. Because ground has options in a fire fight. For example, even outpopped a skilled AI max can work a room against huge numbers of it's counter. Even outpopped an infiltrator with some clever planning and care can wreak havoc on a base's defenses and resources while still getting kills. On the flip side, air's only option is to fly away.

The fact that the 'I hate air wahhhhh' group has a bias strong enough to not acknowledge this reality is why few good ideas come out, the devs don't listen to the biased hate mongering (causing the few good ideas that DO come out to be overlooked) and the threads get filled with arguments that usually leave the topic FAR behind.

Your post, as always, is a perfect example of your inability to be objective and try to consider a way for people of all combat preferences to play together fairly. Yes G2A isn't right right now -- but not at all in the way that you hallucinate.

Air also has UNMATCHED escapability as well as vehicle stealth. That more than makes up for being more "visible".

The ability to pick and choose ANY engagement, or escape ANY situation at ease, totally trumps your silly topography argument. Talk about being not objective. You just boiled down the opposing viewpoint into "I hate air WAAAHHH". How is that being objective?

I agree.

I am not just "admitting" the Air game is too closed to the Average Player, I will preach it.

I am for making changes that:
1) improve the performance of the Average Player in Air
2) decrease the A2A advantage of having better Aim/Dodge in Air
3) decrease the A2A advantage of running in a Gank Squad

I even have SPECIFIC changes that I would suggest for each. With these changes specifically tailored to whatever time/budget/department resources are available from DBG to throw at it.

I agree.

Better Aim/Dodge should provide an advantage. But so should other elements as well. Right now I fee Aim/Dodge provide too much of an advantage in A2A. At least for PS2. I think the current gameplay is really neat, but has too much skill gap in performance for a Mass Audience, combined arms MMO.

I also feel that there should be a way to easily get the Average Player onto the learning curve of Air. Right now it's a massive wall (more like multiple massive walls) they have to get past before they can even realistically start on the Air learning curve.

Look, if you have to spin the words to get the reactions you want, fine. But if you spin the words to literally mean something detrimental, I am gonna call it out for being detrimental.

I am fine with changing the AA system. I just don't want the skill floor raised. Raising the skill floor means lesser skilled players will get weaker results, and this game NEEDS for lesser skilled players to be able to contribute meaningfully.

I saw and commented and "liked" at least one such post about adding directional thrusters to ESFs. I like the suggesting, and I have also supported it in my own posts suggesting it.

I disapprove of many of the highly rewarded skills that are already everywhere else in the game. I like the skills themselves in the game, but not at the massive power boost they give.

Far too much of the game is K-Style GunZ or based a narrow skill. But many people support that because either (1) they are good at it and it gives them an edge they like, or (2) they are ~Aspergers or fanatics and base their ideas of what is good/correct based on what the game has currently in it. They sacrifice combined arms, balance, playability, basic appealing gameplay, larger player populations, etc. And for what? Either to keep an advantage or to appease some inner OCD.

Then I'd prefer he just says it outright. If that's what he means.

But I will tell you now, AA does not have to be buffed to decrease the impact of Air. They could do all kinds of things to decrease the impact of Air, and/or re-direct it to other areas:
1) decrease XP Air gets for killing Infanty
2) increase XP Air gets for killing Air or Vehicles
3) increase Directive Credit Air gets for killing Air or Vehicles
4) add Perma Air Radar
5) break Stealth into "Stealth" (showing up on Radar) and "Jamming" (disrupt lockon time for 2A Lockons)
6) lower the Ammo Supply of Hornets
7) increase partial XP for AA

OP literally said "raise the skill floor". Do you know what that means? And yes, I did say I don't want the skill floor raised.

OP also said raise the skill ceiling. I am possibly ok with that (depending on how it's done). But I am not ok with raising the skill floor.

It's PS2 forumside, and there are gonna be a lot of people who are gonna fight (lobby against) any suggestion that threatens them, in either:
1) something they are good at it and that gives them an edge they like
2) they are ~Aspergers or fanatics and base their ideas of what is good/correct/perfect based on what the game has currently in it

Some people play Air and want the best advantages for themselves and will fight boosting AA. Others will not play Air and hate Air and want the best advantages for themselves and will applaud boosting AA. Others will be OCD about not changing things in the game. And still others will just want a balanced and competitive game.

He can spin his words and lobby people however he wants. But if he posts stuff that is lobbying to push the game in what I see as a worse direction, I am gonna disagree with it.

"It should make it possible for AA to kill aircraft, but only if you are skilled enough." is a nightmare to me. It says "only those with a high enough skill can get results". This is not a 1-on-1 fighting game, where players can be segregated by skill level, this is a Massive Combined Arms game where we need each person to be able to contribute meaningfully.

I am possibly ok with changing the AA system, depending on what the changes and new system are. I generally approve of raising skill ceilings (provided the extra advantage given is tiny and it provides depth or net fun gameplay). But I am not in favor of raising skill floors.

I would like to see many skill floors in the game lowered, including the skill floor to use Air and the skill floor for AA.

You are correct. Unmatched escapability. It is set like this because they are so visible. And by visibility, we actually mean targetable with unobstructed LOS. So, no it really doesn't. Imagine in a 48 man fight theoretically 48 people could target an infantry and fire simultaneously. That is impossible for a ground -- but entirely possible for air. Does it happen? No. Player failure in that regard. But yeah, planes are currently balanced with that in mind. Specifically, 4-5 people our of 48 saying to themselves, "#(')(%"(&"$'&)#%"('#"% planes! I'm gonna shoot them!" Cue Bursters, Lockons, or skyguard pulls. just 4-5 people out of 48 getting annoyed at planes WILL kill ESFs, and wreck Libs who MAY get away (but probably not.) That's what we mean by scaling. In a 48 person fight, 5 people going HA just to have a Rocket Launcher to counter MAXs are probably not going to affect much. However, since you don't have to go far (read -- anywhere really) from your spawn to pull and hit with AA -- a person combating air can main relatively unmolested when doing so. Relatively of course. And it only takes a few people to lock ALL of the air out of the hex.

So, the scaling of G2A is completely like the scaling of anything else in this game. A person who refuses to acknowledge this simple fact makes anything that person writes on the topic literally a waste of space. Acknowledge the reality of the situation -- then we can all find ways to make AA more deadly to Air while keeping it from scaling stupidly as it does. Air does not like the current situation. We want to participate in large fights too but can't reasonably because of the above facts. We have no problem sacrificing farm OPness in small fights to do so.

In other words -- we are all on the same side as far as this issue goes. We can only meet when we acknowledge the other side's fair points.

Topography is not a silly argument. It is a fact of the battlefield. Harassers can pick and choose any fight. Flashes can pick and choose any fight. Air can pick and choose any fight -- but are limited in their choices.

Yes, air is super fast. Yes air can run away. And yes, losing that may be a GOOD thing for air. I will not disregard ground's fair points on this. I am saying that air only works the way it does currently due to G2A being either useless or OP with no in-between and virtually no mechanics to allow for skill to enter in to the equation.

And no -- calling the group of biased players, yourself included, the "I hate air wahhhh" group is not a lack of objectivity. That is called derision. I am specifically shaming those players for their willful ignorance of the big picture. You guys aren't stupid. You can and DO comprehend what we are saying here. You guys are just too pissed at air to be objective. Notice I, and many other ground AND air players, still credit the fair points both sides make. Just some player's refusal to accept and discuss the other side's points is the target of my ridicule. Make no mistake -- you are not alone... there are PLENTY of Air guys that are equally biased and myopic. They are the "Get gud ground peon scrubs" group. They also get the same ridicule for their failure to acknowledge ground player's fair points and views on the topic.

If you can't see how non-partisan the above post was then I can't help you and you sure as heck can't help this game. If you can see what I am saying and trying working with people from the other side of the Air/Ground coin fairly -- ridiculing the myopic ******** while having civil and fair discussion of the unbiased guys -- then you can totally help this game. Where you, and guys like you, go from here is up to y'all.

We? So you fly?

Who's biased now? I want a fun and balanced game. You just want to point your nose down and farm people who have NO chance to survive.

AA doesn't have a "scaling problem" anymore than anything else does. You need to learn to adapt like EVERYONE else has in this game.

You've been nothing but coddled by the Devs since goddamn day one. And I will not rest until you feel hunted and fear for your life every single time you get in your aircraft and even THINK about attacking ground targets!

http://stats.dasanfall.com/ps2/items/vehicles

Here, get a clue. Notice how every A2G weapon (except Valkrie based ones) has a crazy average KPD? And that's just AVERAGE! You can imaging the KPD good pilots get. And why is that the case? Because AA SUCKS! IT SUCKS!!!!!!!!

And what is the average KPD of the Skyguard? The bane of your existence? The scaling NIGHTMARE weapon? The AA weapon that is worthless against everything else?

2.

******* TWO!

Talk your way out of that. Go ahead. I'm bringing facts here, deal with them.

I think you would be more than fine with an improved AA system. Do you agree that the current skill floor is the lowest in the game? Can you agree that it could be increased to the skill floor required for infantry/tank combat? It's still not high, the average player can handle it and be effective, but they won't have success every single time.
The current AA system you have just as much 'successes' every time, you just need more people to actually get the satisfaction of a kill, which is just as likely to go to another AA source than you.

Yes I am too black and white sometimes, even though I usually view myself as the more grey area person.

I think you need some more explaining for this one? I agree that the game needs more focus on combined arms and separate units/classes supporting the rest, but I would like some examples for the skills that give the pro's far more power than the average player, aside from air combat.

Most players don't play it for the XP, but for another statistic: KD. Reducing the XP count needs to be heavy, as in only 10 or even 1 XP per infantry guy, and you would still see a large part of the aircraft players farm infantry.
Also I do not think that using XP is such a solid way to fixing this. The best solutions are the one's given to the players, rather than encouraging or discouraging something with the rewards.

But your idea to lower ammo count would be a nice addition, as it has an important effect on the game. Supply lines and using your ammo wisely become important, rather than "oh I have enough ammo left to arm an aircraft carrier what am I going to shoot next". Although I would rather throw this on everything: Infantry, tanks and vehicles. Make them dependent on ammo supplies, make sure that players have ways to take these ammo towers/Sunderers out so that you can ward off an infantry/tank/aircraft attack by leeching their ammo until they have to return to a nearby base. It would add another mechanic of dependency that needs creating and defending.

Raise the skill floor means that the skill required to start using it effectively is higher. The current skill floor required is "easier than using a menu" so you could easily increase it to "infantry skill floor". That's still not very high, but it's slightly more than "run and hold the trigger".

But this would be a boost to both AA as well as aircraft! That's the beauty of this system!

But how high is that skill? He didn't specify. This is one of those moments where players instantly assume the worst for themselves. The aircraft players focus on the AA being able to kill aircraft, the AA players focus on "it requires skill! Only the high-skill players can use it!".
It looks like an addition to help keep the pilots from having a heart attack.

I would like to see the skill floor for air lowered as well, but AA? How can you make it lower? Super-velocity flak so that it's a point-and-click game similar to lock-ons? Remove aiming altogether and just launch flak randomly in the air in a 180 degree sphere with a 50m flak detonation range?

Holy sh*t this thing suddenly dragged on. Let me clear up some things. Lets grab some analogies while we're at it.

Currently I would compare a Skyguard to a Spitfire on some key things. This doesn't mean all things, just the things I'm going to name.
If the Spitfire recognises and targets someone in range, it will do damage. A target needs extended exposure to a Spitfire, as the turret doesn't do all that much damage. This makes fleeing a good possibility against the Spitfire. Also, the mobility of the Spitfire is much lower than its target (standstill vs 2 dimensional travel), so although the placement is chosen, the infantry can determine all other engagement rules, like the direction from the fight and when it is time to flee. If you put 3 or 4 together, they can quickly kill you.
The Skyguard is the same. If it targets someone in range, it will nearly always do damage. The target needs extended exposure. Fleeing is a good option against the spitfire. The mobility is much less than its target (relatively slow and 2 dimensions vs relatively fast and 3 dimensions). Although the Skyguard determines its placement, the air can determine all other engagement rules like the direction from the fight and when it is time to flee. If you put 3 or 4 together, they can quickly kill you.

What I would like to do is increase the skill floor and ceiling of the Skyguard. In the above example, you can feel that the skill floor is nearly as low as it can be. Anyone can detect air and then fire upon it. In this case the CoF and flak rules will result in some damage. The problem is that the skill of a Skyguard doesn't matter that much. A highly skilled Skyguard operator will generally be better in leading, resulting in some more damage, but in comparison with all other weapons this is a marginal difference. What I want to do is change this up. I want to grab some of the "Spitfire" mechanics and change them to "normal infantry" mechanics. This means that it is a bit harder to use, but still very well available to average fighters and still easy to learn the basics. The skill ceiling will increase dramatically relative to the first scenario, making high skilled players a lot more dangerous instead of only a little. Simultaneously, air doesn't get guaranteed damage when in range of Skyguards, giving them the ability to participate better in a lot of large scale battles, but limiting their options as A2G hover fighting for example would be a death sentence.

To do this, we must do several things. The abysmal damage must be increased, so the Skyguard has a good TTK on aircraft. Secondly, you can't just leave in the current system, as it would still be similar to a DoT system. So either or both flak and the RoF have to be toned down. Why these? As the RoF makes leading easy, decreasing the skill floor and ceiling. The flak makes the area where you can aim much more trivial, so it has to be reigned in. Still, with high damage, less RoF and a smaller flak area that requires closer shots, we still have a large CoF. This has to be decreased so you can accurately shoot far.
This would to my knowledge make a weapon that has good accurate range with good high damage that can kill aircraft. On the other hand the lower RoF makes every shot count more, making misses worse, and leading is more difficult as it is harder to judge the next shot on the previous one. Also the weapon would require closer shots, but not necessarily hits.

In my mind, an adaptation of the lightnings Viper would do the trick. A few high damage shots where recoil control might come into play a slight bit, after which you will have to reload. It is relatively accurate and with a small flak range would do well against aircraft. The thing can have a low TTK with consistent hits. Average players would be well in their power to kill ESF sometimes all alone, but generally either miss or do some good damage. High skilled Skyguards would be much more lethal at range, making this vehicle much more accessible to a high end community. Air trying to take a Skyguard on would become much more dangerous, but still not impossible. Ground would be a much better approach to kill the new Skyguard.
Air on the other hand has more options to evade the fire of this new Skyguard. High speed runs and evasive manoeuvres would increase the survivability against even several Skyguards, although hovering would be a death sentence. So the G2A wouldn't scale so much as with the current Skyguard, but even average players might wreck you sometimes.

For me, the balance would much more creep towards an MBT vs lightning. The MBT (Skyguard) would generally be much better than a lightning(ESF), although the lightning can make things so that it would win the fight if the MBT screws up.

Now the lock ons don't warrant the same story I think. They are too easy to use and the difference between the high skill players and the low skill players do not matter much. Increase skill floor so average people can still use it and as a trade-off it will become more effective (read the first post how), and increase skill ceiling so high skill players will be able to do more.

TD,DR: Increase G2A skill floor to levels so an average guy can manage it and sometimes even wrecking aircraft. Increase skill ceiling so that high skill players would become much more effective relative to low skill players. Changing the mechanics has several advantages for aircraft too, although limiting certain styles of A2G combat.

I have my concerns based on two reasons - one dealing with my post, the other personal opinion on how weaponry should be balanced in PS2:

1: Raising the skill floor and skill ceiling to using "flak" but making it more effective only hurts the average ground locked player. It's because flak is easy to use that it's effective. And while I get the idea is to make it multi-faceted, it conflicts with my reason #2, but we'll get to that in a moment. The real reason I dislike the suggestion regarding flak is because it doesn't really address the problem of getting more players into the air game, it just shifts how ground AA works. It doesn't feel like a fix so much as a cleverly disguised personal improvement to Oneself's air game, as rude as that implication might be.

2: It rails against how I think weapons balance should work. SOME weaponry can afford cross-performance. Basilisks are an excellent example of this - they're not the greatest AV or AI weapon, but they can literally engage anything. The kobalt on the other hand is incredible against infantry and tickles light vehicles, but the bulk of enemy mechanical targets are immune to it. The balance starts to fall apart when things like rocket pods or rocket launchers are used to take out infantry because it's easier to drown infantry in splash than to pinpoint fire bullets at them - this degrades the worth of weapons such as basilisks and kobalts, or for aircraft the AI noseguns. Why take an effective specialized option when a there's an effective catch-all option? Grenade launchers are arguably an exception because of their very limited range and very high skill floor.

The way "armor" works in this game is that it's tiered. There's no way to make a liberator or galaxy vulnerable to incoming fire without also making the MBT and sunderer vulnerable to the exact same incoming fire. Unfortunately, the system doesn't work in reverse - infantry are tier 1 - they're 100% vulnerable to every point of damage. Unless DGC builds flak resistance into infantry as a default, it's otherwise impossible to render them resilient to rocket pod splash without overhauling how damage is IDed.


So at best, I could only recommend upgrading the flak turrets to having also an MG attached. Two flak cannons on one side, a rotary MG on the other. We USED to have MG turrets, but I haven't seen one in a long while. This would keep them from being catch all turrets that either suck at everything or rock at everything, but give them additional usage beyond engaging aircraft when they do show their bellies. Since these turrets are usually high up, they won't be complete monsters at deterring infantry either. It's important to keep in mind the turrets have always been supplemental in design, not go to defense platforms. Even PS1's turrets were no replacement for a good old fashioned tank.


As for the ideas about lock ons - laser guidance should be the striker's thing.

Check out the Damage Type "Light Flak Projectile" on the second table on this page. The 100% under the columns for MBT and Sunderer means they are immune to damage from direct flak projectile damage, but the 90% under the Liberator column means that it takes 10% of the projectile's base damage.
(Admittedly, that's only a situation that would arise when friendly Vehicles are accidentally hit with friendly flak.)

Since MAXes have 80% base resistance to conventional weaponry, and Flak Armor is just a multiplier stored somewhere during damage calculation time, it should not be impossible at all.

AV upgraded Phalanx turrets in PlanetSide Classic could be quite dangerous.

For a brief update, maintaining lock via reticle to guide the rocket was a thing. The problem with the system was that it came after the normal lock-on timer.

Hence the "builds flak resistance into infantry by default." Otherwise, spot on everywhere else. Good to be given a link to prove me wrong, rather than just "you're wrong." Thank you.

I'm still waiting. Anyone want to dispute the stats? Please try.

In the case of the Valkyrie, it has such high KDR because so few people use the weapons. The pelter's for example have a whopping 4 users, making it really easily to inflate the stats the on it just by being good with the weapon.

Other than that fringe case, I agree the sky guard is a load of rubbish and I certainly don't fear them when I fly. They are more an annoyance than anything.

I'd probably be fine with an "improved" anything system.

I might be fine with a "different" AA system, depending on what that system was and how well it fit with the playerbase and the rest of the game.

The skill floor for AA is not the lowest in the game by any means. AA is a very broad category, and covers everything from hopping in a AA Base turret, to infiltrating an enemy base and Hacking an AA Base turret, to using Skyguard in the field, to setting up an AA Squad on a high elevation, to driving around with a Walker in a Harasser, to going soloing with a Lockon and setting up at an enemy exit airspace location to pick off wounded Air or simply disrupt Air with lockons.

The lowest skill floor in the game is probably things like Engineer dropping Ammo Supply at Warpgate. But having a low skill *floor* is good, it means everyone can do it, and you want that kind of accessibility to provide a path/role for everyone in the game (whether that's the start of their learning curve or whether that is the peak of it).

Why are you so obsessed with raising the Skill Floor. The "Skill Floor" is for inexperienced or low skill or low computer spec players to access the game. Why do you want to shut off PS2's accessibility for those people? Low Skill Floor means someone can hop in today and pick up the game (or some basic elements of it) right away.

The "Skill Ceiling" is for the experiences or high skill or high system spec players. It is the areas where players can push their limits and he limits of the game. And then there is the range between the Floor and Ceiling, where players can progress along the learning and skill and system spec curves relative to their own level and pace.

Why aren't you more obsessed with pushing the Skill Ceiling, and with expanding the range for players in the wider ranges that come with having a Low Skill Floor + High Skill Ceiling?

The current AA system has varying success depending on what AA you are doing and how skilled and experienced you are with it.

The current AA game is not setup to "get kills" on Air. Instead it is to drive Air off and/or to keep them clear of an area. This can be very effective at dealing with Air's impact if done well enough.

The current Ground AV game is a combination of "drive off" and "destroy". Sometimes players drive off the Harasser, sometimes they destroy it. Things like MBTs don't get driven off easy, but the same can be true of Libs.

I think they should add partial XP for Infantry for damaging all Vehicles. Not just Air. Often the Infantry players are taking great risk and at a great disadvantage, and should be compelled toward and rewarded for their attempts and contributions.

Why are you obsessed with AA killing Air? If AA killed Air more, you'd have to redo a lot of the Air game, like lowering the Resource cost for Air, or reducing the deaths to Air from things like Trees. I have long said that players should get more kills on air, and environment should get less, but that would take Design changes in the game.

HA Shield, ADAD and other dodging, Med Kit, Headshot Bons, TTK, etc. all give the higher experienced/skilled Dodge/Aim/K-Style GunZ players far more power.

Most non-PS2 people I talk to find the combat in PS2 to be silly. PS2 combat didn't start this way, but power creep and learning curve exposed the advantages to this warped type of gameplay. PS2 got WORSE and became less playable to the masses when it started to be more K-Style GunZ. The Gameplay Designers should have seen and dealt with this, but the Gameplay Designers have been incompetent for some time.

Redo KD such that it shows the KD for each Class/Vehicle and even Weapon used. So players with a 10 KD farming Infantry with an ESF are "exposed". So players with a 10 KD using Medic get more props than one using HA.

I've said before the game needs public stat tracking of Vehicles Killed. Getting titles like Ace, etc. for taking out Vehicles. Vehicle play should be more about Vehicles Destroyed than Players Killed, and the stats should reflect that.

What does that mean?

I totally agree on all this.

Correct, that is what it means.

Again, why are you so obsessed with raising the Skill Floor. The "Skill Floor" is for inexperienced or low skill or low computer spec players to access the game. Why do you want to shut off PS2's accessibility for those people? Low Skill Floor means someone can hop in today and pick up the game (or some basic elements of it) right away.

Why aren't you more obsessed with pushing the Skill Ceiling, and with expanding the range for players in the wider ranges that come with having a Low Skill Floor + High Skill Ceiling?

Then he should outline the details of how his modified AA boosts AA and Air. There is no need to raise the Skill Floor on AA.

And what kind of "boost" are you talking about?

So it's just more spin?

The change he proposes literally are not good for the game. I will continue to read posts literally and leave the spin to others.

Aim Reticule that changes color on the side to indicate where you should adjust your aim (this is standard in many games). Or at least in a VR training version so players can learn Leading better.

Better HUD. Better hit indication, etc. 3rd Person View Crosshair. Option to buy different HUD graphics.

Light Assault access to Terminal and Air Vehicle-only Repair Tool (cannot use C4 with it).

Enhanced Targeting Implant effect standard for all players.

Perma-Air Radar.

Lower reward (XP) for Air killing Infantry. Higher reward (XP and Directive) for Air killing Vehicles. Stat tracking of Vehicle killing. KD shown by what unit type killed and by which unit type.

Infantry Lockon available to all starting players by Default.

All Infantry Dumbfires OHK ESF. AV Turret OHKs ESFs. Engineer AV Turret OHK ESF.

Gals take damage from small arms.

More Classes have access to AA and Range AV.

Dedicated communication channels for Ally Air on Continent, Ally Armro in Region, Allies in each Hex.

Players can change Loadout for Vehicles like Skyguard at any Ammo Supply.

Lower Ammo Supply for Hornet.

Nerf Fire Suppression or buff other Utility slot so they are picked more.

Nerf Stealth, break it into "Jamming" (affects Lockon times) and "Stealth" (affects showing up on Maps).

Change Hip Accuracy on High Mag Noseguns to 0.3. Buff A2A Nosegun for Mosquito and Scythe.

Change Skyguard to have visibly different Turret from long distance. So Air can see it's a Skyguard.

Have Q-Spot not say "enemy Lib" but always "<specific Faction enemy> Lib". It's important to know what Faction things are.

Q-Spot lists Target Weaponry in HUD.

Well, if you really want to keep going down this route....

Being a pilot does not necessitate a pro air bias. Just as being a ground pounder doesn't necessitate a pro ground bias. Plenty of unbiased ground guys. Plenty of unbiased air guys. We are able to determine bias based on how people think which is shown in their posts and discussion. So your logical fallacy (Loaded question) of "who's biased now" is pretty ridiculous. But hey, I either fly a lib, or drive a skyguard. Those are the two vehicles I pull. Feel free to review my posts and try to make a case for anything I've said being biased one way or the other.

Also, when I fly I fly a lib. Of the other Lib pilots on my server I am one of the top 5. I also have the fewest nose gun kills. I do, however, have the highest pilot assists. This is because I almost never point my nose at the ground. So nice job on your assumption of how I play. (I am guessing you had images of rocket pods dancing in your head like Christmas sugar plums?)

Actually, I made a few cases to argue that point. You have yet to actually respond to any of the points I have made. You might want to re-read what I wrote. Or...did you read them in the first place?

Aaaaand...there is the bias. If you wanted another example of it look no further than the mirror. Might I direct you to my previous post pointing out how this crap (yes, bias is crap) is preventing the game from becoming fun and balanced (which you say you want.) Why do you continue to shoot yourself (and everyone else, including the people who want the same thing as you) in the foot? Do you play NC?

D JK NC)

Ok. Let's talk about the point you are attempting to make. Does AA suck? Yes. It sucks as it can't kill reliably. It scales badly such that once AA hits 'no fly' mass one or two people get a kill and the rest get nothing -- and the air doesn't come back! And, because it is so defenseless to ground it is easy to die unless you just spawned on the backlines with a lock on RL.

No one disputed this. In fact, the pilots and dedicated AA users (both of which I am, neither of which you are) brought this up first.

I hate the fact that the skyguard on it's own just forces ESFs out. I am ALSO unhappy about the fact that 3-4 skyguards or bursters can and will wreck all the air with air having NO chance to fight back. At LEAST if you are getting LOLpodded you and 2 buddies can pull lock on RLs and maybe kill one -- and that is still a bad situation for the ground! I am ALSO unhappy that, in my skyguard, my effectiveness against ground (because usually if I pull one, all the air goes away and if 1 or 2 friends pull one too all the air goes away for good) is crap. I've spent 60 seconds kicking air out, and now I've got nothing to do. And virtually no cert gain to show for it.

It sucks for everyone involved.

This shows that AA doesn't get a lot of kills. It does NOT, in any way, show that air can fight against that AA effectively. It just shows air runs away to a small fight and farms. Pilots are TIRED of that crap. AA users are TIRED of getting nothing for fighting air. When us dedicated AA users get into a fight with air, we WANT THEM TO COME BACK. But they don't because air cannot combat 3 or so dedicated AA platforms.

So, all the unbiased players are trying to come up with ways we can make the A2G and G2A game skill based. Then both sides can fight it out like the ground guys get to with eachother. If the good ideas stop getting drowned out by ridiculousness (ie...your, and people like you) bias and we all think of a way to have an actual good balanced interplay -- we can all have more fun. The problem is -- due to air being able to be targeted by more AA platforms at once -- AA scales super hard. More so than other mechanics. This makes it harder to design a good A2G G2A combat system. This is why DBG gave Gals and Libs far more health than anything else. ESFs more mobility than anything else. Players coming up with good A2G and G2A systems will allow the devs to change the big planes so that they don't NEED the health to tank AA, and the ESFs don't NEEDS the top speeds that they have, and have to survive on piloting skill. Then everyone can fight on equal terms.

I'll ask you again..why do you shoot yourself in the foot? I suspect it is because you just want air to not interact with ground at all. In which case you are playing the wrong game. This is a combined arms game. Think about that.

You fly a lib?

Okay so that tells us right there what a piece of crap you are. 100% groundspamming all the time, wow, yeah you really deserve respect right? Come back and talk to me when you can be a man and compete in this game without needed more armor than an MBT.

The only reason AA "scales" is because it's SUCH crap people HAVE to pull it in massive numbers just to get a break from you ****ters. If you were ANY other unit, you would die horribly by your direct counter. Instead you are complaining that you get to fly away and rob everyone.

You A2G guys are so biased, talking to you is pointless. What is with you Lib guys? You sound just like Gundem, and I didn't think ANYONE could be as thick and obtuse and just plain wrong as that guy when it comes to A2G.

Skill based? That's just a buzzword for "Make AA harder to use and even less effective".

What the AA suggestions by the OP really mean is that AA is made to be more like a Commissioner. Let's look at that again:

AA COMMISSIONER.

It's cute seeing all of the infantryside players direct their projectile mouth foam at their own interests for a change.

And yes, AA should totally be useful against more targets. Pilots will absolutely love it when most of the AA in the area is either shooting at something on the ground or in the middle of reloading after spending a mag on ground targets when they make their pass.

Player made problems aren't design issues. A failing of player education perhaps...

Seriously? THIS is your answer? I don't even know where to go with this.

Also -- skill based means more effective for above average players and downright devastating in the hands of a skilled player and less effective in the hands of a crap player. Also -- not just the AA systems -- but also the aircraft themselves. Worse players should die faster to AA, even current AA. Better players should be able to dodge. As it is, planes don't really dodge much. Just tank and run away which is super unfair.

And don't forget, I spend as much time in my Skyguard as my Lib. I am a huge fan of G2A. Did you seriously not pick that up? In which case, I think we have proof that you don't actually read what people say. In which case, goodbye.

Yes, there are huge player failings in terms of letting Air do as much as it does now. More people should pull AA when a Lib or Lolpod ESF flies by. However, you have to admit, the AA in the game is in serious need of an overhaul.

Well doesn't any part of you feel like a piece of garbage when your gunners are racking up tons of ground kills in your stupid flying-tank Liberator? When you purposefully ruin good fights for others? You KNOW there's really no direct ground-based counter. I mean, some small part of you should feel like a dick, or else you aren't much of a person. I mean where is your morals?

anything in this game scales well, the difference is air players love to use it in their arguments against AA buffs, they want to participate in large battles, well so do i in my tank or as infantry BUT in those large battles you can't exactly go where you please, to get kills and survive you have to be careful and not get greedy for kills.

even if skyguards were buffed, air would still leave any fight with AA to fight against people in another hex with no AA, for skyguards to be lethal in larger battles they have to be semi-coordinated by direct communication or simply sticking together without any communication.

if skyguards were buffed so you only needed 2 in a large battle and not 3 air would still complain that they don't have free reign to go where they please and kill anyone they please.

this is a war game 'go wherever you please' isn't part of it, any ground or airspace is contestable air needs to accept for balance AA should be able to kill air if air doesn't have ground units to assist. air and tanks don't take base, infantry do, tanks and air are support for base assaults. air just wants to go wherever there are infantry and kill them even if it's way across the map in territory that can't be captured by their empire.

air has the greatest mobility in the game, that gives them the most reason to be picky about which battle to participate, it takes a good amount of time for tanks to go cross country.

AA wants to be able to kill air more and have air players pull air again when they get shot down. air wants to be able to go into a large battle and kill who they please when they please.

anything in this game scales well it doesn't matter how powerful whatever it is, that is not an excuse or reasoning why AA shouldn't be buffed.