[Suggestion] Increase AA skill floor and ceiling

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

  1. Demigan

    The skill floor of most AA: Sit somewhere, aim at the sky, fire.
    What you are describing are the tactics and improvements you can utilize to achieve the skill ceiling, but the skill floor is incredibly low. All flak and lock-on weapons only required you to aim nearby the aircraft and press a button, lock-ons even don't need leading!

    And that's a problem. If we could keep the skill floor as low as it is and remove the scaling problem I would keep it, because if there's no reason to remove it why not? (for those out there who say "but everything scales with numbers", I mean the scaling problem where multiple AA have far more power than the same equivalent of any other AI or AV weapon in the game).
    However, it's not possible to keep the skill floor as low as it is. If AA remains as easy-to-use at lower skill levels the damage output would need to be lowered to prevent the scaling problem, at which point aircraft wouldn't be afraid and the skill required to be good would need to be higher, essentially raising the skillfloor anyway. If AA stops being as easy-to-use you already changed the skillfloor.

    I think I've answered this. Although you have to admit that dropping ammo at the warpgate isn't effective. My definition for a skill floor is the cutoff point where the player achieves high enough skill/knowledge to use something effectively, and dropping ammo where people will not just use it but will benefit from using it might be harder than using AA.

    I'm obsessed with the skill floor because in it's current state is has far too many downsides for both the user and the one it's used on. It doesn't create a fun mechanic! Again, if you come up with a way to keep it as easy-to-use, does not scale as fast with numbers and allows for a skill-ceiling that a solo player can fight and kill other aircraft without making it impossible for the aircraft to escape, I'm all for it! But that's the problem isn't it? There's so many sides that have to balance out that something is going to perish. I can't find a way to marry the current ease-of-use with all the other things, but I can find a way to make all the other things work when you assume a skill floor about as high as normal tank/infantry combat.

    Well I am, it's just that you don't have a problem with that.
    I would want to raise the skill floor because I see no other way, I don't have to raise it very far, it would only be as difficult as most other combat you already have to pull off. The skill ceiling would instantly increase tremendously. As I mentioned the idea of non-flak weapons has a shorter range where it can do it's work than current flak or lock-ons, the higher your skill with the weapon the larger the area where you can be effective through better leading and timing, the more chance you've got to kill an aircraft that came into your range.

    "if done well enough", hey that's a skill floor right? "It can be very effective" doesn't sound very well, and since we are playing a game where every single dedicated weapon is a perfect killer it's strange to have one set of weapons that have the highest sacrifice of power in the game be the only type of weapon that deters rather than destroys.
    It's like making all AV weapons be deterrents. Imagine that: Hornets, TB's, AP canons, rocketlaunchers, Spear turrets, Vulcans, AV mines and everything else will just deter an enemy, and only be effective when used in groups! Is that a good game mechanic? No! Why would you give that game mechanic to the only unit that already has the speed and agility to escape all other unit types? Even the Galaxy is faster than the fastest ground unit!
  2. Demigan

    But depending on the situation they always have a chance to destroy it. As you say, it's a combination of drive off and destroy. However, AA only has the drive off function, unless you have multiple AA sources at which point aircraft simply avoid it. And here's another problem, they can. A tank is pretty much stuck in a fight. If he wants to relocate to another fight nearby he needs to travel for minutes, while an aircraft can fly to any fight on the map in the same time. This means that if a tank faces an onslaught of AV weapons he can't just get up and leave, any aircraft that finds him out in the open will mince that tank, the travel there is long and you run a good risk of being accidentally flanked and it takes a long time compared to everything else. Aircraft? Not so much.

    It might work as a start, but I think that it would be secondary to shifting focus from just KD to many more stats. Damage dealed against infantry/tanks/aircraft. Maybe add damage dealed as infantry/tanks/aircraft vs infantry/tanks/aircraft per life (that's 9 different stats already, could be in a sub-section somewhere). Tank/aircraft kills, tank/aircraft kills as infantry/tank/aircraft. Hang some other stats alongside it, such as your assist ratio, assisted kills ratio (how many kills you've gotten while you and someone else were firing at the same target), killsteal ratio (amount of kills you've gotten vs amount of health they have. 1 soldier has 1000 health, if you deal an avarage of 500 health per kill you are an obvious killstealer, if you deal an avarage of 2000+ health against infantry per kill you obviously aren't) etc.

    Because AA needs to be the dangerous thing here. I have no problem with aircraft receiving less damage from ramming the ground. I wouldn't mind at all if a 200KM/H ram of the ground would leave aircraft burning. Maybe add a concussion effect every time you ram something in an aircraft that becomes more severe the harder the ram was, but it would allow aircraft overall to survive ramming the environment or even each other.
    Why am I obsessed with AA killing air? Well it should be obvious by now: Every single dedicated weapon in the game is designed to actually kill something and not deter, except for ground-based AA weapons. Air-based AA weapons? No problem these can annihilate other aircraft, but ground-based? No absolutely not. And why? Because the developers wanted to encourage A2A combat when they launched the game unaware that keeping RM and hover fighting in the game would completely annihilate the A2A game except for the few dedicated pro players.
    Their idea failed, even if the A2A game had worked. The A2A game needs reworking just as much as the G2A game needs reworking. AA gameplay is the most unrewarding thing you can do, it sucks up time, you have the least targets per minute to engage and you have the least amount of explosions to content yourself with, mostly seeing an enemy run away and either return or just farm somewhere else. Shifting the problem to another base is not a solution, and that's one of the many reasons why deterrence of air is a terrible terrible idea.
    At least if you deterred vehicles you force them to take a long drive through the countryside. Of course, those weapons aren't really available.

    I think you actually point to a different problem here. Yes ADAD spam is a problem due to it abusing the way the latency system works and people have gotten better at using some playstyles, but what you are adressing here seems to be more the lack of functionality that most classes have compared to the HA. The HA is omniversally usable anywhere and always has something in his toolkit to use. Other classes have far less and far less obvious advantages they can utilize, and in more narrow situations.

    Yes absolutely.

    "The best solutions are given to the players."
    It means that rather than doing things like giving out more or less XP to encourage or discourage something, you give players alternatives to combat something. You don't want players to blow up deployed Sunderers? Give them new mechanics that help protect the Sunderer. You want less vehicles to die to Liberators TB's? The easy solution would be to nerf the TB, but the player-based solution is to give them ways to protect against a TB. For instance: A device that reduces the maneuverability of an enemy aircraft when hit

    The boost of AA can now effectively kill something solo and aircraft would be able to fight in large fights.

    Could help in keeping the skill floor low. If the mechanic is kept a bit vague it also allows for a good skill ceiling where players who are good will use the reticule system less and lead more on their instincts. Good start to get your idea of low skill floor married with high skill-ceiling AA weapons.

    Could help, but I'm not certain how well it would work? Things like arrows pointing to the direction of spotted/radar-revealed aircraft? Or did you have something else in mind.

    On one hand I'm against the idea, it would only encourage KD ****** to use the LA rather than the engineer, and also it makes the ejection seat kinda mute. On the other hand it would force the Engineer to share his pilot seat with another class. Maybe if we allowed Medics a vehicle-only repairtool we have more variation in ground vehicles as well.

    I think it should be an optic option. For AA I don't use a zoom optic anyway as it messes with the lead distance on my screen, and I think other weapons could very well benefit from it.
    I think it's good to keep health of your enemies semi-hidden at all times, unless you are very close or use an enhanced targeting as we do now.

    We have something like that in Skyguards now right? Maybe give all other AA equipped vehicles and infantry similar radar options to pick from. With the ANT system we could introduce air-radars as well.

    I'm against the XP lowering, but everything else is good.

    I don't like lock-ons, they aren't good for the player experience. They feel bad to use and bad to be used against you. Yes, all starting players need to get dedicated AA available to them (aircraft and a single burster are not dedicated AA, especially since you have to learn the airgame first), but I think that if they do get lock-ons and other AA options, it should be fun to use and have more effect than scaring off aircraft (infantry-based weapons excepted).

    Either that, or cause a concussion effect on aircraft hit by such weapons so that even if they survive one shot it's unlikely they will escape and survive the next, especially if you temporarily nerf their max speed while they are concussed similar to infantry.

    Not sure what that would accomplish. If it is even close to a Valkyrie's resistances it won't matter much.
    Since they've shown that Valkyries can handle 13 different hitboxes at a time (Head/torso/legs for 4 infantry and one for the Valkyrie itself) I woulnd't be surprised if they could add special hitboxes on Galaxies and other vehicles. These would be weakspots that can be hit for extra damage. Small-arms could hit the cockpit and maybe the engines (of all aircraft), other weapons could deal extra damage against these points. Would be awesome to see an ESF lose control after having an engine/spike shot off, or ground vehicles slow down or get stuck once their tracks are shot off etc.

    Every class and every type of vehicle should have access to AI, AA and AV. It doesn't all have to be lethal. Imagine what a Flash could do with an anti-vehicle EMP that shuts down all it's abilities, HUD and maybe debuffs it. Vision obscuring weapons (no more vehicle-based smoke that does basically nothing, aircraft that create smoke in the air to try and escape their opponents etc), weapons that cause concussive effects on vehicles, the ability for infantry, tanks and aircraft alike to create shields to block incoming (and outgoing) fire to use as cover or fight around/through etc.
    One of the biggest reasons why people will dislike something is because they felt powerless against it. If you knew you could have selected something that could have protected you (without nefing all your other capabilities) people would enjoy it far more than "I couldn't have done anything to prevent that!"

    Yes, it's a start. I think that all players should be able to direct friendlies (not just squadmates) to targets, or request fire support. For instance players can hold Q above a spotted target and request an airstrike on them, or someone spots an aircraft that simply has to die and marks them.
    With limits on how many at a time you can place and how fast, as well as limits on how many and what kind people will see (an aircraft player does not need to see a request for infantry to attack a tank unless he put it there himself or the tank has AA) and you can prevent spam while making teamwork much more visible.

    I had the idea to allow people near ANT's to change vehicle loadouts for a small Cortium cost and bound by a time limit (once every 3 minutes for instance). It would give ANT's more reason to be near bases (right now they can't place anything nearby) and it would help players choose the right loadout for the job. Right now most players will use AP, because AP is the best suited for most types of engagement you can find yourself in. It's medium at anti-infantry that you can always run away from if necessary but your only saviour in case you come in contact with other vehicles. AI weapons are horrid against vehicles and leave you incredibly exposed as you can usually not outrun other vehicles safely and offer better AI. With this change we'll see more variety in weapon loadout and current AA weapons won't be as useless since you can swap them out after a battle.

    This should be done for all utilities and weapons. If one weapon or utility is used far more than it's counterparts then it's counterparts need straight up buffs or even combining different counterparts into one to compete. Only with a few select cases the weapon or utility could get a nerf, but most of the balancing should still be achieved by making the counterparts more powerful.

    Lock-ons are too niche to be used in this way I think. Maybe if you add alternate abilities? Make it some kind of anti-vehicle EMP? Allows aircraft and vehicles alike to either mess up lock-ons, or you can drive/fly up close to an enemy and instantly lock-up/leech all their abilities/power and remove HUD. Would be a pretty darn good competition for stealth I assume.

    All vehicles should have something to better identify them I think. I would love it if for instance smoke would come out of vehicles when they fire, and the placement of the smoke (at the barrel, back/side of the turret etc) and the shape would determine what kind of weapon it has. That way you mess with people who shut down smoke in the .ini files and punish them as they should be punished.

    I agree, lots of people don't. I've seen several "pro's" explain how and why they are so good, and from my estimate 50% of them encourage players to set all enemies to one color (usually friendly blue enemy red) since they think it doesn't matter. As if recognizing two factions duking it out vs thinking there's just a clusterfornication of enemies going on there isn't important.

    Actually not a bad idea.
    Some people already say things like "but they put so much effort in allowing people to recognize what weapons and abilities some people are using" but that's bull. Yes there are ways to recognize it, but seriously if a tank rolls up on you, you won't be able to see the back of them and recognize what ability they have, or if they are using a speed or maneuverability frame or nothing at all.
    • Up x 1
  3. Reclaimer77

    That doesn't make any sense. You keep repeating this, but have never said HOW it will work.

    If I can solo and aircraft with an AA weapon, then how are 10 people bringing that same weapon to a fight NOT going to make it a no-go for air in large fights?

    Not that I'm complaining. I would LOVE for an AA weapon that actually worked. But why do we even care if air can't fly anywhere? This is a war game and nobody can go anywhere they want all the time. Why are we debating some special exemption for air? *** em.
    • Up x 1
  4. Demigan

    As I've only explained 15 times so far: Range.

    The reason why current AA can deny air with just small numbers is because aircraft are attackable by the most sources at a time and AA will deal damage regardless of what they do.

    With a system where skill determines if you hit, the closer you are the easier it will be to lead and hit the aircraft. This means that being farther away you can make yourself a harder target, hence range helps keep you safe.
    Now if there's 10 AA guns in one base, they need to spread out to get a proper coverage for all friendlies they would want to protect. This still means that there are spots where it's difficult for the AA to hit the aircraft assuming said aircraft does more than fly in straight lines, and allows the aircraft to attack... At a risk.
    With magazine sizes that allow for only short bursts aircraft can also bait AA to fire at them when they are at range, then swoop in for an attack while they reload.

    Also you are again assuming that just because the AA can kill an aircraft solo, they will do it. They won't. If it's well balanced the aircraft have a shot at flying 10 feet over an AA source and never get hit, or they could make a mistake and get a face full of expertly placed shells at 500m distance and die in a ball of fire.

    Also let's look at your last sentence: You don't want air to have unlimited freedom of where and how they attack. Your alternative is to completely deny them to attack at all which is the completely opposite and a much worse idea. You want aircraft to try and attack despite the risk of death. You do not want aircraft to go to a fight where there's less or no AA and farm there.
    That's why every fight, big or small, should have some AA available at any time. That way aircraft have to accept the resistance they encounter and make it work by learning to dodge, weave and do attack runs while they can with the risk of death always lurking.
  5. Reclaimer77

    Demigan that is just not true though. The Skyguard has a horrible time hitting flight-ceiling targets due to the large COF. The Walker is a little better, but it's bullet velocity makes landing consistent hits at long range one moving targets difficult.

    It's almost as if current AA was designed with hovering aircraft in mind. They do great against stationary targets, sure. But then again what doesn't?

    Am I crazy or something? Aside from Lock Ons, obviously, that IS exactly how current AA works. They are all easier to land hits if aircraft are closer.

    Dude I'm a complete ESF noob, and I don't even get shot down by ground based AA. The only thing that gives me trouble is when another ESF shows up, then I'm pretty much dead meat.

    When I'm on Connery, same thing. I can't recall Bakka getting shot down ONCE by ground based AA. Why? Because he always flies at max altitude and he always stays on the move. It's nearly IMPOSSIBLE for AA to kill you that way.
  6. Demigan

    Aircraft at the flight ceiling have nothing to do with this. It's completely true.

    Yes, but as I've explained again and again flak will hit regardless of range (with the exception of extreme range such as 600+m), being closer only makes it easier for more hits. Flak also works with the system of spray and pray.
    With the proposed system it's different. It's not spray and pray, you can't hold the trigger and spray in the general direction while trying to lead. You need lead and be sure your shots hit. The skill required to actually hit, depending on the range, won't even be that high if we add enough skill-reducing mechanics such as high velocity, large shells and/or a small flak detonation range. The added time between shots makes taking your time and not firing as soon as you see the target more important while not being detrimental.

    And again you are saying "but current AA doesn't kill me so the new type of AA won't either!" Well the whole problem is that current AA can't kill you! That's why there's need for a new type of AA!

    Again exactly why a new system needs to be put into the game that allows you to fight them off. It's not as if people at the flight ceiling are doing much dodging right now, so with the proper stats the proposed AA could very well deal with it.
  7. Reclaimer77

    I'm all for a new AA system. But I'm not liking is this whole "IT needs to be skilled" crap. Take skill out of the equation. Design it to absolutely CRUSH it's intended target any way it can. And we're good.
    • Up x 1
  8. zaspacer

    The biggest problems I have with the ESF are:
    1) offensive power level
    2) difficulty to learn
    3) level of advantage given in A2A vs. other ESFs for Aim skill
    4) very high cost to Cert up an ESF to be on level playing field
    5) vulnerability to Air Gank Squads (not packs of enemy Air, but packs of enemy Air that can operate freely inside Ally Air Space)

    ESFs not dying enough is not on that list. Because the average ESF pilot dies a lot. But it may just be to the wrong things for you: Terrain/Collision (43.92%) and other ESFs (18.57%). Decrease ESF deaths from those sources and increase it from other sources (like ground AA) is an option.

    But for me, I don't have a problem with ESFs living. Or Harasers. Or MBTs. As long as I can drive them off and keep them out or disrupted. I fly ESF a lot and I do HA AA with Annihilator a lot. Because I have experience in an ESF, I know how disruptive it is for an ESF to take 1 Lockon Rocket: it forces an exit from engagement, it leads to a ~minute of downtime, and it puts the ESF is a much higher chance to die (cumulative AA, and/or very vulnerable to enemy Air). I also know where to set up in the escape paths of enemy ESFs to actually get some kills on A2G ESFs when they overextend, though it's still not a high number.

    When I see a crowded sky with enemy Air over an Ally base, I start with HA Annihilator from a position adjacent to the zerg (typically adjacent base or I spawn a Sunderer with Cloak). I disrupt them and often drive them off. Then I move to addressing the enemy Armor. After that, the zerg breaks down. This does not work where the enemy has massive Overpop, but nothing short of Hardcore Organized tricks does. This also does not work well if the terrain limits line-of-sight to Air.

    A tank does much better in high numbers. And they get eaten alive by Air (as you say) if they "travel for minutes" (and are not in a group).

    Air can do well with Gank Squads vs. other Air, but Air in groups doing A2G in high numbers runs into problems: too vulnerable to massed AA (unless they are Spawn Camping), and too vulnerable to Friendly Collisions.

    Air, Infantry, and Harassers can all relocate well. MBTs have spawning location limitations and Armor does not relocate well. Armor's lack of relocating ability is a major factor in its non-use in Server Smash or serious Hardcore Organized play. I have suggested before either:
    1) reduce the mobility of Infantry (Air Transport and Spawn Beacons and Spawn In Vehicle), or
    2) give Armor a (clunky/vulnerable) "portal" option where they can travel from one location on the Map to another location that is a non-battlefront.

    For stats, your best bet there is to set up a bevvy of stats in a crude viewer, plop it on test, and see which ones "stick to the wall" for players.

    But XP changes and Directive credit changes will influence behavior of lower level players.

    I think players hate Concussion effects.

    Maybe just a Vehicle/Weapons lockup, but I think players would hate that too. Maybe just a DOT (damage over time), or perma-Radar sginature, or damage taken amplifier, or Lockon time reducer, or % of special damage that cannot be repaired with NaniteAutoRepair or FireSuppression, that mandates the Air bail and head to a base to fix (add that autorepair standard on all Air Pads, have that as a special repair for the special damages).

    Or if ESFs take a certain amount of hits (even after repairing "Health"), these hits are still noted, then the different Certs shut down until repaired at a Landing Pad: Defense Slot, Utility Slot, Wingmount Slot, Weapon Optics, etc. Or it could do things like Reduce Ammo Count, Mag Size, etc. These damage reports could stack up on the right side of the screen (and could be toggled on/off).

    I'd be fine exploring a system where AA killed more and drove off less.

    But a key thing to consider is that most units can't be driven off well, they just stick around and kill you. I often find AV vs. ground targets much harder than AA vs. Air targets, unless it's a "fish in a barrel" type thing vs. the ground targets.

    I enjoy doing AA because I can disrupt their A2G and drive them off. Strategic impact on the battlefield. If most players don't like it because they can't farm KD or XP, then that's a Design problem in pushing the wrong stats. If players don't find it fast paced enough, then they need to make AA options easier/faster/more convenient to toggle on/off and to Reward players more for drining off targets.

    I agree that HA continues to be a major problem. One of many major problems that Designers are being dumb/blind/stubborn about and some players are being greedy/stubborn about and lobbying against changing.

    But Infantry combat in general is a mess. TTK is much slower, TTK difference between Weapons is much great, It takes more bullets so Mag size differences on Weapons is a much bigger factor, etc. The game was balanced around TTK and survivability and player aptitude/knowledge at launch, and that worked. But all that has changed and Design never adjusted the game (and tuned Weapons) to deal with the Power Creep and Learning Curve shift. PS2 was a *MUCH* better game at launch for most players than it is now, and that is a sad and pathetic thing.

    If management isn't looking at the quality level of their game in 6-months, 1 year, 3 years, 5 years, then they are not doing their job. And if they can't (with the help of the people they consult with) see or don't know how to gauge and maintain or improve that quality over time, then they can't do their job. Who is the game for, what group is needed to be able to support the survival/profitability of the game, etc. and are you servicing them? All those CONTINUE to be major fails on the part of DBG.

    SOE/DBG/Sigil have a history of doing some things VERY RIGHT (industry pioneers). But they also have a history of doing some things at a terrible level, they create an obvious visible pattern, and yet they never adjust to fix those failings.

    Agreed :)

    I really think it's both. And there is no reason not to use both.

    Gotcha. Is this written up somewhere on how to do this? Can you point me to the page that sums it up?

    Yes. Agreed.

    DBG could take major steps to make getting into the Air game easier. They don't. They could take major steps to getting into PS2 as a New Player easier. They don't.

    Part of it is they personally just don't care. Part is that they are not in the shoes of those people (I can almost guarantee DBG staff either is high experienced level or doesn't play at all: that's how it was at Sigil/Vanguard). And part of it is DBG/SOE/Sigil have shown an ongoing (with a few notable exceptions) lack of ability to grasp the plight, care about the plight, or understand how to address the plight of the new player or lower level player.

    There are other flight games out there that offer this kind of stuff. Games that are easier for players to get into and that are more popular than PS2.

    World of Planes


    Freelancer

    (3m36s)


    Elite: Dangerous



    Strike Suit Zero
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqwHc33HEqc

    Star Citizen?

    Seriously, SOE/DBG is great at being innovative in exploring game design and in creating visuals, and yet the Air combat is mostly a minimalist WW2 game (+hover tricks and afterburner) look/experience.

    Devs should play with HUDs to:
    1) get stuff that looks cool to non-pilots and spectators
    2) get stuff that is functionally useful to aid pilots, especially new and inexperienced pilots
    3) get stuff that works well to accentuate the gameplay (different color HUD options, stat/info that is useful, etc.)
    4) get stuff that is already being added (and allowed) by 3rd Party Mods

    How does it encourage KD? It makes getting KD harder. It breaks the association of killing Vehicles with getting KD.

    It should be done hand-in-hand with the release of the expanded stats. Show Vehicles destroyed, emphasize it. Show ESF vs. ESF stats, etc.

    Absolutely. You could have Vehicles with Medic-Only Certlines of Area Regen, providing a tiny (non-stackable) Regen rate on the battlefield. HA-Only Certlines that allow toggle Lockon Secondaries for MBTs.

    I would just have the Implant version be free. At least vs. Vehicles, especially if viewed from other Vehicles.

    Having it as an ANT options is good. But I would also make Perma-Air Radar over any non-contested Ally Air Space: enemy Air can't fly deep into your territory without showing up on everyone's map. Make it a generator that can be taken out at bases.

    Why not lower XP for farming Infantry in Vehicles? Why reward easy mode? Why not discourage such farming?

    I love Lockons. As both a target and as a user (though I very rarely use the A2AM lockon). And as a player and a designer.

    As a user, they can reliably engage most targets. Aim Skill does not factor in. You can get reliable results. As a target, it's cat and mouse, you can identify the sources and work to minimize line-of-sight and setup attacks runs or even work to engage the user.

    I do wish more weapons had the ability to toggle between Dumbfire and Lockon. I think many players don't like being stuck with a Lockon when they need a dumbfire.

    I think players hate Concussion effects. Maybe just a Vehicle lockup, but I think players would hate that too.

    ESF speed does get affected by damage. Though maybe you're saying it should just be a death sentence speed change.

    If you nerfed or reduced the use of Fire Suppression, you would see a LOT more ESFs getting killed. Also, if you added a basic Hex Ally Communication channel, people could coordinate their AA and a LOT of Air would just die.

    Every shot helps. Gals flying over zergs could rack up a lot more cumulative damage fast.

    I am not for small sized Weak Points on Vehicles. If it's hitting the side of a barn size, sure, if it makes sense and makes the game more fun. But if it's tiny, you're just pushing the game into Aim Skill Wins territory more, and that is already a mess.

    Agreed.

    Totally Agreed 100%.

    One of the worst failings of PS2 is bottlenecking teamwork through Outfits and Squads. I got better coordinated Large Teamplay out of Battlefront 2 than PS2. PS2 is a joke for strategy and team coordination.

    Agreed.

    AP is also the most popular because Designers still make AP great at AI. Players don't have to make a choice, they get both. Most AP Weapons are what the AP/AI Weapons should be, and they should make the AP Weapon better at AV and worse at AI.

    Totally Agree 100%.

    This might require a look at Cert costs, to make sure people can afford the subsequent need for more Certlines. But that just means DBG will be selling more or players grinding XP for more (previously unused) stuff anyway.

    If you nerfed ESF Stealth into those 2, you'd get a lot of people using both. Decreased Lockon time is very powerful in A2G. You also might get people using the other options again more.

    Totally Agree 100%. PS2 could be such a better game in these ways. The Devs have been asleep for 3 years not doing this kind of stuff.

    Agreed 100%.

    Lots of people like to hate on stuff. Even stuff they don't actually dislike, they just don't personally think they need, or stuff they don't want others having. The hate gets silly.

    This is a change that just makes sense and improves the game. To not have it is to make/have a worse game.

    Agreed.

    NOTE: I had to crop the quotes because I hit a Max Character limit. :p
  9. Reclaimer77

    Following your lead, this is a GREAT space combat sim I found on steam a few years ago. I used to play the crap out of it. Max out Interceptors FTW!