Is my salt justified?

3725 over the course of 3 seconds + another 3 seconds of reload while 3 Engineers + 1 repair grenade repair a total of 545 per second. Even if the Lib pilot switches to the Zephyr while the CAS30 reloads, the Lightning will still survive both magazines.

It's a 3/3 vehicle. It's supposed to be hard to kill.

If you showed up with 3 lightnings in total you would have vaporized it.

What's broken about it is the way it can be solo played.

The problem is that its not really fine that a vehicle that require 3 AP shells to kill it also has everything else that a Liberator has.

It takes 4 AP shells to kill another Lightning from the front/side, why should a Liberator be able to fly, etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc as well as being almost as 'tanky' as a tank stuck on the ground?

The moment the Liberator is in a situation where its being hit by a tank it should be in deep ****, not just a "Oh we will just quickly boost away for a second and be miles away and out of range before he reloads!"
To make it very simple, stuff in a game should not be good at Speed, Offence and Defence at the same time but aircraft in PS2 have both Speed and Offence in abundance which should mean that their Defence is wet paper tier.... but its not.

Main point is that a vehicle as fast and manoeuvrable as ESF/Liberators should probably take quite a lot of damage from weapons with a 2-4 seconds reload cycle. As in OPs case he had 2.7 seconds reload time, to kill a Liberator that doesnt repair at all it still takes 5.4 seconds in just pure reload time and a Liberator can fly quite a long distance in that same time. If the Liberator has Comp armor and FS it doesnt even die to 3 AP shells, extending the reload time to 8.1 seconds.

Its not really reasonable to require a vehicle that has no hope of chasing or even aim at the target to put a 8 second timer for it to get the kill considering how far away a Liberator would be in those 8 seconds... or that such a vehicle as the Liberator with all those advantages also enjoys a shorter time to kill the Lightning, even better when the super specialized Skyguard which is the premium of premium G2A weapon takes 11.5 seconds in pure bullet hose time, with 100% accuracy ofc and no reload time included to kill a Comp armor and FS Liberator. With reload time it goes up to 14-14.5 seconds depending on the reload upgrades and still 100% accuracy.

I would love to see how things played out if things were switched up, Liberators required 14 seconds to kill a tank while a Skyguard could shred a Liberator in 4-5 seconds if it hit everything.

Seen purely for game balance, it would make much more sense because unlike Liberators the Skyguard doesnt patrol the entire continent and they are still much more limited than Liberators in what they do and are easily killed by ground vehicles so are much more defensive in their movement(usually).

Combined arms and all that, requiring ground forces to take out the heavy G2A vehicles before the air can go to town... but yeah, cant hold pilots to any sort of requirements so it will never happen and we are just screaming into the sky here just as we do in game!

I did post some stats several times a long time ago to give an idea of the weapons. That takes time and there are always some pedantic nitpicking little btches that wont accept anything so it stopped being worth my time.

The thing is that even without stats their capabilities should be gaugeable. If I talk about an auto-canon you can assume that it wont be dealing more damage per shot than a Vanguard for example, we have several auro-canons already in the game which you can use as templates but rework them to better be able to engage aircraft.

A good idea of the power they could have is my much more simplistic "give Lightnings slightly modified A2A aircraft noseguns", which quite literally has stats in it of the weapons involved but hey why would you care right? They would need a bit more power (say slight increase in ROF) since they cannot chase the aircraft effectively but it would be a fair and balanced weapon system to engage aircraft with, mainly as ESF killer. Ofcourse the same Pedantic Nitpicking Little Btchs (PNLB's) immediately complained that it would not be more powerful than Walkers, which is just plain wrong but shows you how useless it is to keep posting stats.

Also no I'm not asking you to do my job, I'm saying that you should put in some effort as well rather than just nitpicking without making a stance other than "I am against you and I will be loud about it".

And the point goes completely over your head again. Try and re-read everything I said and use some reading comprehension to understand my points rather than repeating stats at me, stats that ignore the reality of for example armor facings and repeat firings.

Anyone already mentioned that the Lightning AP will be nerfed soon vs Liberators?

Nope, mostly people just saying "look at these stats it is like it is right now and you'll just have to accept that".

Can you elaborate? Do they intend to give anything in return or is this just another needless buff to aircraft similar to the "lets nerf AA turrets into the ground" update we had?

Your point is that you have an issue with a Lib which needs 3 AP Python shots to be shut down, to that I answer : why an AP Python would need to be more efficient than that?

Yes yes a Lib can fly blah blah blah. How does that translate into "a 1-man tank equipped with a G2G cannon should be able to beat a 2-man plane"?

I mean I fail to see the logic, on one hand you complain about the Skyguard being crap, on the other you want the AP Python to be an all-purpose gun.

The reasons that AP should not be effective AA is that it has a low maximum elevation angle and a slow rate of fire. If the pilot is careless enough to get hit by such a weapon that pilot should be severely punished, and if a tanker is able to hit despite such disadvantages that should be rewarded. Given that the liberator has total discretion on whether it will be in a fight with the lightning at all, the lightning should be at least as deadly to the liberator if not deadlier than the liberator is to the lightning if the lightning can ever line up what should be an impossible shot.

I have several points to make about that :

Considering the rewarding of hitting a flying vehicle, it is already a thing. Libs take way more damage from AP rounds than tanks. Yes you might argue "but back armor", well that means you managed to maneuver around your target to get behind, so it is kind of the same deal : extra damage for accomplishing something.

Second point, you are talking about a 1-man tank vs the flying equivalent of an MBT. And Libs are painfully less tanky than MBT, to make up for the fact that they are airborne.

Speaking of elevation of the gun, yeah it is true in a 1v1 scenario on flat ground. Problem is, Planetside isn't about 1v1,and is certainly not flat at all, especially on Indar. So it isn't entirely uncommon to see a tank atop a hill trying his luck against a far away flying vehicle. So if you make shooting at Libs even more deadly, the logical following would be Libs flying even higher... Making them harder to hit for everyone.

Finally, most of the game revolves around weapons and equipment being fitted for a specific role. Just like shotguns and SMG reign supreme in CQC but lose to Carbines and AR at longer ranges. So if you need to counter a sudden Lib - grab yourself a Skyguard or an ESF.

Part of the problem is exposure. Planetside is kind of all about big fights. While aircraft can utilize cover, for the most part in order to fight they need to be, to some degree, completely exposed to a hemispheres worth of combatants below them.

Make aircraft too weak and they instantly get shut out of any moderately sized fight. Make them just barely able to survive a strafing run in a large fight and suddenly they can dominate individuals and small fights with no effort.

As a lighting you have the benefit of fighting in a (irregular) 2d space. You have tons of options to limit your geographic exposure, peeking out to whallop an unsuspecting tank somewhere, and there are hills, trees, rocks, and all kinds of other things CONSTANTLY granting cover and concealment from foes on the continent. Same goes for infantry.

But aircraft - suddenly there's only distance. Sure there's still terrain and cover but that involves getting low which is a risk and impacts your efficacy as a fighter. From an engagement perspective you mostly operate on distance to target, distance to cover, etc. From a balance perspective you have to think about how every aircraft is going to be both seen and shot at when doing a2g in a large fight. If you balance that way, the aircraft become kinda OP everywhere else. If you don't balance that way aircraft disappear from most fights and feel balanced in smaller 1-12 fights.

That's my hypothesis.

Edit: I should say, AP Rounds feel good when killing ESFs with one shot. Aircraft really shouldn't be built to take that kind of damage. Libs as well. There should not be a situation where a liberator is intentionally getting within the elevation angle of a tank gun within the effective range of a tank.

Nope thats not it.
You seem to assume that exposure means they are as vulnerable to ground fire as the ground vehicles. Yet the combination of speed and elevation range limit the amount of firepower you can level at them. A great example: there was this Lib sitting still and took 3 Lightningshots before leaving, and when it did only one more shot could effectively be fired before it was out of effective range/elevation. The ability to avoid fire is just as much part of your vehicles survivability as its health and resistances.

The "exposed to a hemisphere" is also a gross simplification. If you look at current A2G aircraft they almost all fly at around the same altitude: not too high so that they can instantly start an accurate attack on a target they spot and not too low to be completely exposed to AP/HESH/HEAT rounds. Add the fact that despite being able to attack from 360 degrees most aircraft will use the same attack and escape routes once they start an attack on a base and they are extremely predictable.
Yet aircraft can easily do better. Flying low means cutting the exposure time and reaction time of enemies to mere seconds before you are gone again. This is essentially the same usage of 2D environments but with all the advantages of being able to ignore terrain and being able to close the distance at 2.5 to 3 times the speed of any ground vehicle except Harasser.
The other option is to use height. Scanning the entire hemisphere properly for aircraft is a lengthy task while aircraft can use heights where you have mere seconds to spot and engage them. That means that spotting high and far targets is done far more intermittently and only by dedicated G2A units, which often dont even bother. This gives you a massive advantage as you can fly high and come in from any direction, then basically start the battle on top of your enemy and get out before you are in danger.

This is compounded by current G2A design: it is all deterrents. All G2A has been designed to make sure aircraft can escape it if they react soon enough. With the disadvantage that it is relatively easy to add more G2A and "lock out" aircraft (only aircraft that fly at the same heights and same attack angles realistically but that is almost all of them).
You might wonder why aircraft are so lazy and always attack from the same heights and same angles. The answer is that they can afford to be that lazy. They can pick fights based on the amount of G2A they face and G2A is an investment which leaves you vulnerable to all ground units. Why bother learning the skills to fight in riskier places? Ofcourse they immediately complain about "not being able to operate in large fights" but that is only if you dont use any more skill than "fly the same paths and heights all the time".


The solutions: make skillful G2A weapons and do away with deterrents. A simple idea for example is somewhat altered ESF A2A noseguns for Lightnings. ESF at least can try to dodge them and even come away from an attack run unscathed, but if a Lightning surprises a hovering ESF of gets a good bead on one passing overhead they can kill them before they escape, which is more than fair since ESF can kill almost any non-G2A vehicle without risk if they equip Hornets. This also lets the Lightnings engage ground units aandbe useful when no aircraft are around. Add different firing modes as well, one designed against small aircraft and one against large aircraft. The ones against small aircraft has high velocity but low damage against large aircraft. The ones against large aircraft would have slower and more unwieldly shells to fire to give them a chance to dodge or avoid getting hit but deal enough damage to be dangerous.
Not only will distance be important, allowing aircraft to be seen but stay out of danger by virtue of being hard to hit, but it will also let aircraft stay in a fight even if it is dominated by G2A, at the risk that a single dedicated G2A can destroy them.

I would add that a Lightning is the one thing a Liberator should not have a problem with. It is built to take advantage of much larger vehicles at a distance due to its low profile and speed. It is wide so an air Vehicle can easily spot them and take them out. Blackjack or Spades style balance. If a Lightning wants to fight a Liberator, it needs the element of surprise a little cover and a Ranger. About the only thing I disagree with is the fact that the Ranger has such a hard time dealing with infantry regardless of it being a 4 barreled toggle gun. Letting loose one of these things on a car or a ballistics dummy is a horrifying sight, so I feel Rangers should have very high damage and better accuracy when it comes to soft targets and light armor.

The fact remains that the entire game is off when it comes to calling something balanced. The reality is there is not an Aircraft built that can take more that 1 tank shell of ANY type and still manage anything more than a crash landing, there is not a ground vehicle made that can take more that one shot of ANYTHING as big as even a Xephyr that would allow the vehicle to continue moving beyond where it was blown or past operational momentum due to critical damage or all of the crew being dead. If you make that the case then you also have to raise the damage of everyone including A.A. in general, because not even bombers can take much more that 10 to 15 hits of direct hits from a A.A. Toggle Flack Cannon, and like 1-2 hits from a large Flack shell. (Which I REALLY want the to introduce) And while reducing Nanite cost to next to next to nothing and Ramping up damage to where vehicles are dying in 1 or 2 hits against other vehicles is realistic and would give me more than a few O moments due to the un-RIVALED destruction, it would turn this game into a futuristic War Thunder. And people here have proven they cannot handle that.

So yes, I agree with Tria when it comes to the Liberator. It is fine where it is, leave it alone before you open a can of worms you reeeeally do not want. Do NOT touch the training wheels....... Unless you want to make me REEEEEEEEEEEEALLY happy.....

How about this? I know how much you guys absolutely hate logic being applied to games, but if something is in the air and it gets shot with a tank or something big, it should go down. There is no reason to have flying tanks in the game. Their advantage should be angle and perspective, not sheer damage and tankiness. Thats what tanks are for. I hate to say it because it will anger people, but you need to change air vehicles heavily. They are flying. Things support that flight. You have your turbines and your wings. If those get shot off, you'd logically go down, right? So what can we do to keep both sides relatively happy?

You guys keep on suggesting simple changes. Simple number spoofing won't work. Changing values won't work. You need to add a new mechanic, and here is what I say. Add more areas on a vehicle that you can hit, each either with their own HPs or own values. The more you damage that section, the more damage it does to the vehicle and the more it destabilizes it. The places you shoot change how the vehicle handles. If you do a ton of damage to the right wing, you will have a much harder time trying to stabilize it because your wing is too heavily damaged. You will try to spin out right constantly. Of course, we don't need to make the damages and handling too garbage based off one stat. Just by making it harder to attack and get away, that will greatly impact how players play.

This is a lesson to all of you constantly trying to change numbers. When you change numbers, you create a temporary challenge. A gun is too easy to control for the damage? Simply lowering the damage doesn't necessarily fix the issue, because you make have to nerf it into the ground depending on the recoil, and after that, you create a useless weapon. Then take it the opposite way. Say you increase the recoil. Thats a temporary trial, because when people learn to control the recoil, it's going to be really annoying to fight against still. But oh, we can chalk that up to him being better than you, right? Well, that doesn't feel good and you guys simply can't accept that, otherwise you would. Instead of advocating for changes to numerical values, aka the simple fix, why not come up with ways to make a way of play more difficult with a constant challenge?

Well its the people defending the Luberator* who keep quoting the direct stats rather than acknowledge our problem that the complete package of speed, firepower, flight and resiliance make the Liberator so powerful.

There have been multiple suggested solutions in other threads. For example:
- a hit with specific weapons nerfs the speed of the aircraft, limiting its ability to escape.
- a hit can nerf the agility of an aircraft, increasing its risk of a crash and reducing its ability to escape by virtue of "aim at horizon and hit the acceleration".
- for tank rounds its not a very enjoyable experience for pilots to be OHK'd. And while it would be sweet justice if their gameplay could be as thoroughly ruined as they have ruined ground player gameplay for almost a decade, it is better to create a fun gameplay environment for both sides. We have had tankshells that push on PTS, letting tankshells push aircraft off-course and tilting them would be a great way to boost tank gun power without introducing more OHK.

I disagree with adding more OHK, but adding and changing things that let others deal with the consequences? That's great! However the idea you proposed of multiple additional parts on the aircraft would quickly get out of hand. You could add up to 4 "pieces" I think, which is similar to a Valkyrie with 4 people on the rumble seats. Cockpit, tail, 2 wings? And that would only apply for direct hits, because flak is wonky and weird.


* too funny a type to fix.

You mention elevation limit which seems to suggest you aren't understanding my point.

I'm talking about exposure to enemies in general. If you have a 32 vs 32 fight going on and that fight has 8 prowlers and 4 skyguards, no, you don't have to worry too much about the prowlers due to their elevation limit. If you were coming in as a lightning you might not have to worry about them either because you could be within 100 meters of four prowlers but only have line of sight to one of them, or zero, depending on where you are.

If you come into that same fight as an ESF, you're basically always going to be contending directly with those four skyguards, all other things being equal, who are actively looking for you at all times because they are dedicated AA platforms. That's my point about exposure. You might only have 1/10 of a force dedicated to AA but when you get into their sphere you are their number one priority and unless you're on hossin you're probably drawing fire from ALL of them at once.

That means that unless you give aircraft some tank they're going to be shut out of any substatial fight just due to the statistical probability of there being dedicated AA in a suitably large pool of players, and the statistical likelihood that they will have a direct bead on you at all times when you're in the area.

Thats my point: you dont have to content with all 4 Skyguards unless they are standing next to eachother, at which point you can strike things elsewhere in the same base with little exposure.

If you actually read my previous reply you may have noticed that I described 2 situations and not one. One situation high outside elevation range (and easy spotting) and one where you fly really really low. Skyguards need cover against enemy ground, and it is fully possible to fly low enough to use that very cover against them. To add to that the speed of aircraft and their flight lets them approach from objects not considered cover by ground units.

To add to that, AA looks in different directions. If one spots you and opens fire the others may not have seen you yet. Flying low or exceedingly high can help withthat asit takes longer tofind you properly.
Because of the lack of knowledge on such basic A2G tactics as "avoid being seen early" and "dont approach from the same direction&height" I find almost every single A2G player to be a newby. The problem ofcourse is because they can: why go to a large fight and learn anything when you can pick a low-AA fight and just hover around with little care?

Also if it is 4v1 then the dedicated AA should definitely destroy you. Just learn how to use cover as aircraft to limit exposure, reactiontime and get the ability to start attacks close and in flanking positions.

That is down right hilarious coming from you. A person who does nothing BUT try to argue with direct stats in spite of the obvious. I see direct stats are only the law unless YOU want something nerfed, right? Pitiful.... The one time you do actually use a bit of common sense, you are wrong. The thing is fine as is. The Liberator is not the full package by any means. It can be fast in a straight line, but the time they need to hang around in order to kill something is more than enough time to bring them down. It just feels horrible to you because aiming the turret on a PC is point and click. You deal with that with distance. Who cares if the get the calculation correct if you can move from that position before the round hits you?

As powerful as they are, keeping your distance and staying in front of one is a surefire way to drop them with an air-vehicle because they do not have any DECENT distance nose weaponry. Ground vehicles BLIND the A.T.G. Cannon with flack, you just have to practice hitting the gun directly. Pull what you need to defeat them and you will not have any problems. Genudine roughness sees they lie down quickly, unless they pull an entire platoon of them and even then we bate-ball them. Dervishes have been dis-MANTLING them.... Without mercy....

P.S. Split up Rangers are the deadliest Rangers, because while in a group yes they can do a lot of damage, they also leave you knowing exactly where to run. Split up they can not only do the same damage to you, but they can often leave you running blind, and more often than not, running in the direction of one without you being able to tell because you are being hit at all these weird angles and half Blind by smoke. So you do indeed have to deal with all of the Rangers whether split up or in a group. When one opens up because they see you, they all do because best believe that first one has hit the spot button and they are all looking upward.

I use performance stats rather than blank slate TTK calculations you dingus. I also argue for gameplay that is satisfying for both parties rather than going for "well I'm ok with it so everyone has to be". I've only told you this a dozen times already.

Also every time you claim its "obvious" you are just dodging again inbetween the rest of your psychedelic ranting.

One question crossed my mind :

If the Liberator is that much of a broken package of over powered vehicle, how come it is the one vehicle I saw the least during all my play sessions?