[Vehicle] Is now a good time to talk G2A weapons?

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by Botji, Jun 10, 2020.

  1. McToast

    There is still the option to have a couple of people redeploy to the next friendly base and pull armor from there. If you're reduced to sitting in the spawnroom and playing peekaboo with your lock-on launcher, you've already lost the fight. Redeploy and set up a defense/counterpush from the next base.
    Infantry should loose against a combined arms force of infantry, ground vehicles and aircrafts, should they not?

    But Solution 5 could be: Give aircrafts another meaningful way to contribute to the battle apart from killing ground units. For example more utility for Galaxies and Valkyries. Give them the ability to act as a spawnpoint even over hostile territory. Give Galaxies ground supporting abilities, for example something like "Nanite Rain", healing Infantry and vehicles below. Maybe even add aircraft-only objectives. Spawnpoints on top of towers/cliffs/in the sky that only aircrafts can capture. Something to make them worth pulling, even when they can be countered from the ground.

    See, that's what i mean. I can try to explain it to you, but you won't get it, because apparently you don't fly very much. I'll try anyway.
    The difference is that aircrafts can be seen from very far away. That's the reason they had to nerf long range FLAK. The skies are open. And when they're not, for example the Indar canyons, there's a lot of cover for ground units too. Aircrafts have to get in somewhat close to be effective (which is fine), but this means everybody with an AA weapon in the entire area can shoot at you. In a tank you can peek. Only a couple enemies can shoot at you simultaneously. You can back up into cover pretty easily. I know, I also use and enjoy ground vehicles.

    No, it's not the same situation. As a tanker I can get overwhelmed by numbers, yes. But I usually don't die because the enemies in the area reach a certain threshold of AV/A2G. I die because I'm outnumbered or because the potatoes around me only spawn as Infiltrators when we need vehicles. A mixed force of Infantry/Vehicles with some G2A weapons doesn't simply get "dominated" by aircrafts.

    I currently run my Lightning with HESH, and I still shoot at vehicles given the chance. I'm not nearly as effective as with AP or HEAT, but I still can do some damage. I also shoot at Infantry with AP. I'm not suggesting that the Skyguard should become the next Vulcan menace for ground vehicles. But it should be more effective at close range against vehicles (and possibly Infantry by a bit), so Skyguards can contribute more when they've killed/scared away aircrafts. Because that's the part that frustrates me the most: When I get hit by G2A in an ESF, I can fly away and go to a fight with less AA relatively easy. That's the upside of an open sky. When I pull a Skyguard, I'm stuck with it at the current battle. When I drive off, my team looses the protection I offer.

    €: By the way, I may have chosen the Reaver avatar, but I don't consider myself only a pilot. I do play Infantry more than I fly, and I also use ground vehicles frequently.
  2. Botji

    I fly enough that I can kill a Skyguard fairly easily with a solo Liberator and I know how quickly AA adds up even if I were a clueless pilot, im a frequent user of Skyguards after all.

    Not sure where you are going with the cover though, cover is really bad for AA weapons since it gives air convenient spots to hide behind and let them get close to things like Skyguards and slaughter them. Skyguards needs a lot of time to kill anything, hiding and forcing close range fights against anything but a ESF is serving yourself on a platter.

    Perhaps you are talking about normal tanks using the cover? Against air there arent a lot of places like that so it feels like a super specific situation and not really relevant to normal gameplay and even then a bunch of tanks hiding from air is a bunch of useless tanks not doing anything so I will have to still say that it is the same situation of "too much AA keeps air away" and "too much air keeps ground away", or kills them if they find them.

    But thats not what we are talking about though, a mixed force of infantry/ground vehicles with some aircraft dont get "dominated" by G2A either and yes its important to make this clear because otherwise we are comparing entirely different things and I could 100% kill you in any ground vehicle if I were flying a ESF/Liberator and you had no decent G2A weapon since there is nothing you can do about me, I dont need a lot of people to kill you that way.

    We were talking about how too much or too strong AA can keep aircraft away from a hex and them unable to do anything there and how that is exactly the same but often worse for ground vehicles when too much aircraft arrives. Its worse since the tanks cant just boost away one or two hexes away in a few seconds so they often die instead.

    We were also talking about how a single aircraft can dominate ground targets without enough AA which is how things works right now. A tank without a AA weapon is dead if its found by a ESF with A2G weapons not to mention any of the other aircraft.

    And im talking about the double standard where its fine that aircraft with A2G weapons should one sidedly kill tanks without enough AA but for whatever reason a good specialized G2A weapon that could do the same to aircraft is a crime against humanity, nature and think of the children!

    Target is a Lightning/MBT.
    HESH = 276,9 DPS
    L100 AP = 350 DPS
    L100 HEAT = 393,7 DPS
    Skyguard <100m = 208 DPS
    Skyguard >300m = 156 DPS

    And just to throw it in here, Hornet missiles = 333,3 DPS but it has a strong reload upgrade removing a full second at max rank = 500 DPS compared to max rank HEAT = 463,2 DPS.

    As I said before, aside from buffing direct damage of Skyguards not helping at all against air, giving it a better CoF and direct DPS will either not matter at all since it will be too weak(as it is now) or it will be too much where you can effectively use it against tanks since you can see even with a better CoF the Skyguard would likely be better than HESH, at least if you get range and time to grind them down.

    The Skyguard already has a function as air suppression/deterrent and its fairly forgiving to use, low skill requirement but also low skill ceiling at least in terms of damage you can do. Changing it will never allow it to become a good AA weapon because of these things, it would be too reliable and easy to use so it cant be much more lethal than it is and giving it more versatility as in better against ground targets would make it more common but only if it can compete with the other weapons.. and if it can do that it would be OP. I have long since gotten auraxium with the Skyguard, unfortunately most of those kills are actually not pilots. Its a healthy chunk of infantry and more Lightnings/MBTs than is probably expected since it already does 'ok' damage, almost helpless alone but with other tanks its not bad damage, also fully capable of killing Sunderers or even chasing down damaged Harassers.

    We need a new weapon to fill the role of hard/bothersome to use/high skill ceiling with a reward of high DPS when it hits. The problem isnt that G2A weapons are bad against ground targets, its that they are also weak against air targets so its unrewarding to use them. If it was rewarding, aka I had a good chance of killing aircraft then I wouldnt care that im weak against ground targets since im doing my job and getting paid for it.
    • Up x 2
  3. TheEmancipator

    Solution 6: Get rid of free aircraft. If you spend 5-10 minutes at the warpgate loading up an ANT, you can basically pull free aircraft all night through construction. So while AA was a deterant because mass AA is a problem for pilots, that was thought up when aircraft cost nanites. Now you can spend 200 nanites on an ANT, grab a full tank of cortium from the chain spawning deposits at the wargate, and build a small Air Only base as close to the warpgate as possible where no one typically fights. Core - free, spawn tube - 400 cortium, light air terminal - 500 cortium. So with a full tank, you basically get 9,000 cortium for ESFs which I think are 500 cort a pop, so basically 18 ESFs minus the slow cortium burn and respawn costs.
    • Up x 2
  4. LodeTria

    Lightnings can also be spawned from the ground vehicle pads.
  5. Johannes Kaiser

    While pulling from elsewhere does work (and I indeed forgot to list that, thanks for the reminder), sometimes that is too time-consuming. More often than not, when you need AA, you need it NOW. AV is not that imminent often enough, since they don't shell down into bases like there's no tomorrow (because most bases are built so they can't).
  6. TheEmancipator

    Driving across the map is not the same as flying due to how much longer it takes...not worth it
    • Up x 3
  7. Botji

    Well you can still make a small base with walls and stuff closer to the "front" lines while still being quite secure, as in not a lot of enemies getting close and use that to pull Lightnings and ESFs. I often do it, Skyguards are kinda high priority targets for a lot of people on top of being weak so people just naturally hunt them and its nice to be able to pull out several in a short time without nanites.

    You get killed, pull a new one and hit a small bump, Lightning does 870 degrees in the air and lands upside down like the pancake tank it is... pull a new one :oops:
    I also use it to get normal Lightnings when air is just not coming back anymore, respawn and get a Lightning to kill some tanks/infantry for a while and just switch to a new Skyguard if air returns.
    • Up x 1
  8. Demigan

    And this guy is the perfect example of why we can't trust any flyboys.

    According to him when it's about G2A, you have to have experience in aircraft for your opinion to matter. Actual experience using the G2A weapons themselves does not matter.
    When it's about A2G, you have to have experience in aircraft for your opinion to matter. Actual experience in being targeted by A2G does not matter either.

    The non-flyboy experiences are thrown by the wayside and 99% of the flyboys will claim it's all butter and gravy when they handle G2A weapons yet it's always on some other account or "too dirty" and they have less than 100 kills total on all their G2A weapons.

    They will also claim their ineptitude is because G2A is so powerful. Take his claim that you can't hide aircraft and that on the canyons of Indar you can hide it but "every G2A weapon will fire at you". You know what that is? That is dumb flyboys not adapting to use the full potential for aircraft and grossly exaggerating the speed and power of G2A.
    Can you hide in the air? Most definitely. You can skim close to the ground. Due to the ridiculous speed difference between ground and air (not to mention how the lack of drop and generally high accuracy make aircraft much better suited for range), an aircraft can use cover much farther apart and either bridge the distance between cover of keep popping in and out of the same cover. But the air is kinda big. It takes relatively long for G2A to check every bit of the air for aircraft because you can't see all the way up to the top of the hemisphere of your range. This means that besides using the ground and obstacles aircraft can also hide by using height. Fly near the sky-ceiling and you can dive-bomb any area G2A with ease, often they won't even realize where it's coming from until you have drifted to much lower altitudes.
    The problem is that flyboys despite their claim to skill are dumb bricks when it comes to the much easier G2A combat. And why should they improve? They can simply pick a fight based on the presence of G2A! So instead of using the aircraft to their fullest they will simply fly to the target area in straight lines, always at about the same height they are used to when facing G2A. They will almost always leave in the same direction, making the easiest G2A strategy to wait inside the exit-zone and pray the aircraft are damaged enough to be taken down.

    Ok, so why are you focused by "all" the G2A? Well a few reasons: You come flying from the same direction and same height, making it easy for G2A to spot and engage you. But also because the air-game is an unintuitive horrorshow where only one maneuver set matters and the only way to beat someone is to be better at that maneuver set making it impossible for anyone but the veterans to enjoy that s+hitshow. Every other unit in the game melts when multiple dedicated weapons are firing at them, so why shouldn't aircraft suffer the same? And since you depopulate your own aircraft game there's just nothing else to shoot at but the one-at-a-time aircraft.
    If you were smart you would take your time. Fly around a base and attack it from the rear, I even do it in Lightnings and aircraft can ignore terrain and have 2.5 times the speed so you should be able to do it in a trivial amount of time. You'll notice that much of the G2A won't notice you until you are already on your way out if you do strafing runs. Then attack it from another angle each time you engage. Try flying high, try flying low, stop trying to fly at medium altitude where everyone already flies. Learn to pick targets: A Rocketpod barrage against an enemy tank on the frontline already under fire is a sure-fire way to help your team bust tanks. Infantry might render later than you want but they'll usually pool around the same spots so it shouldn't be hard to aim for these spots before they render.

    I could go on, such as pointing out that flak ranged damage was reduced because pilots complained about chip damage rather than it being some ultra-powerful thing. Or pointing out that even at 300m (one hex distance) it can become virtually impossible for G2A to kill aircraft that pay half a lick of attention so the claim that G2A can lock down 3 hexes is ridiculous at best. How the hell are they supposed to do that? You don't even render at 900m distance and 300m off the ground! At 500m an ESF can sit still on the ground and is almost completely impervious to flak guns due to the ridiculous spread those weapons have. Anyway before I continue even more...

    On the topic at hand:
    G2A does need updates, and skillful additions like OP suggests are good idea's. I'm a fan of changing how flak works to begin with: decrease the auto-detonation range (not the AOE which is apparently necessary to guarantee a hit due to the wonky hit detection), just the detonation range. Tighten up the COF then and increase the damage. Result? Flak now requires similar skill requirements as many other weapons. If you have the skill you can repeatedly hit aircraft, which gets exponentially more difficult the faster it moves (think trying to hit a Harasser with a Lancer at the distances of 100m, 400m and 700m). However if it is hovering in the air and you get a good aim at it you can still punish it harshly from long-range as you should be able to.
    If the aircraft flies nearby in G2A fights the aircraft get the option to dodge the shots because the shells don't blow when it comes within almost a full Sunderer's length of them (on either side). But if the flak user gets a full good hit on you, you are screwed!

    We also need a good division between G2A designed for ESF's and G2A designed for other aircraft. A weapon designed to hit ESF's reliably should not be allowed to deal significant damage against Galaxies and Liberators as they just don't have the speed, maneuverability or size to dodge them. However letting these behemoths just tank everything isn't fun or fair for the G2A players so we do need some AAA designed to take them on. A simple solution is to increase the elevation on the HEAT guns and reduce their damage to ESF's alone so they don't OHK them (but set on fire in a single shot is A-OK). These guns don't have the weapon characteristics (such as muzzle velocity and drop) to deal with ESF's at most ranges and even have a tough time hitting the larger aircraft reliably at many ranges, but they would have the option to deal with them.

    Also G2A weapons need multiple roles. You can't have G2A weapons that become useless if they have dealt with aircraft and have to be either abandoned or kept alive for who knows how long until the aircraft return, which could be 10 seconds from now or half an hour. One solution is to both rework and introduce new auto-canons. There already are auto-canons in the game in the form of the Enforcer, Saron and Viper. Having some tank main canons be auto-canons would be helpful. They can fulfill roles against aircraft, deal with the Harasser problem more effectively, hunt down and kill C4 fairies and deal with infantry in high elevation places. Similar to the Saron they could either dump their damage instantly in a target at close range or they could require trigger discipline when dealing with smaller or far-off targets.
    • Up x 5
  9. MonnyMoony

    My suggestions for G2A

    1. Give maxes a third shoulder mounted weapon - so that when you pull an AA max, it's not completely vulnerable to all other units (think War Machine from the MCU). This shoulder mounted weapon can only be used when the main weapons are disabled and vice versa and would give AA maxes something to do when air inevitably pisses off as soon as something starts shooting back.

    2. Make lockons lock faster or at a longer distance if the aircraft has been spotted - making team play more valuable.

    3. Make G2A weapons a lot more devastating at very close range, to stop aircraft going to to toe with dedicated G2A units and farming them with impunity (especially Maxes).

    4. Give maxes a composite armour option. Currently maxes can quip Kinetic armour or ordnance armour but have little defence against weapons that deal both types of damage at the same time (like anti infantry ESF weapons such as the Mustang AH and Banshee). Both the Mustang and Banshee can one clip a max at close range - especially if coupled with a lolpod volley.

    5. Give Maxes a more skill based AA option - something akin to dual walkers.

    6. Make air units a bit more focused in their roles.
    • Up x 1
  10. gfoceRETURNS

    Y'all sound like a bunch of whiny *******. Try flying a lib in a pitch battle and see how "nothing melts libs." Most fights i encounter now are show your face and be on fire in one second.

    Let me translate your arguments-- "I want to solo a lib as a lightning, a vanguard, or ****... even as an infantryman." Check the killboards and stats... harasser and lightning scoring more kills than any air unit in a random hour is far more common than you think. I can say from years of flying experience-- there are tons of tank drivers who can reliably shoot me with an AP cannon if I get too close to the ground. Learn to be like them instead of ******** this game into an even ****ter state than it is.
    • Up x 1
  11. Demigan

    Welcome to this discussion! We prefer an actual discussion with our discussion, rather than a bunch of insults based on stupidity.

    For example: Liberators do not catch fire in one second unless they are focus-fired by a dozen or more G2A weapons simultaneously, and then we have to wonder "why does it take so long despite so many firing?"

    Another example: Because the air-game is a horrific crapshow of terrible controls, supremely bad balance between different aircraft and only one type of maneuvers is really useful there are very very few aircraft at any one point. So the fact that Harassers and Lightnings score more kills than any air unit in a random hour is not a surprise as there's several dozen of them.
    Even if you assume on a 1v1 basis: Lightnings at least have a semblance of being killable, while aircraft can truly only be killed with overwhelming force of numbers (3v1 is an overwhelming force of numbers I would say no matter the scale). The only other option is using much higher skill to OHK aircraft with powerful AP weapons, weapons that aren't even designed to deal with aircraft and mostly the air idiots get killed by them.

    Also you might have missed it, but that "be more like them" you complain about is exactly what the OP asked for. Except he doesn't ask for OHK tank guns but for weapons designed to deal with air that still take a bunch of skill to land multiple shots for a decent kill. Because G2A weapons are designed not to kill aircraft, but give them the time to escape. This is why they are called "deterrents". Ofcourse if that is making the game in a crappier state than it already is that can only mean it becomes a crappier state for you specifically, but not the game at large. You don't want effective but skillful G2A because you like the unearned dominance you have now.
    • Up x 4
  12. Botji

    Demigan said it well, most of us here dont want "I want to solo a lib as a lightning, a vanguard, or ****... even as an infantryman."

    We want a specialized G2A weapon designed to fight those things but unlike the Skyguard which is very forgiving/easy to use(and also because of this, scales extremely well since you can expect most of them to hit some of the shots at least) and thus mostly useless, we want something that ESF and Liberators will see and think "Crap, that thing will probably kill me if I go fight it."

    I know a lot of people think that I hate flying and never do it since im pro-G2A buffs and think aircraft in general are overtuned to put it lightly but I actually do fly and I doubt there are a lot of pilots that can claim similar experience with the G2A weapons so all these "Try doing it" arguments are pointless as its very likely I at least fly far more than the majority of pilots use G2A weapons, like the McToast guy that is convinced I dont understand flying and thats why I want a good G2A weapon but if I go and spy on his character on dasanfall he doesnt even seem to own the Skyguard while the top 5 weapons(kills) are 4 aircraft weapons... the only G2A weapons I see on the entire list are the MAX Bursters sitting on around 120 kills each and the static base AA turret at 62 kills. How is that any experience with G2A weapons to be able to claim that I dont understand the match up?

    For clarity the Skyguard is my 3rd highest kill weapon with 2600 kills, Lancer is my 5th on just under 2000 kills and yep, a lot of these are pilots and then much further down the list comes my first air weapon, V26 Maelstrom Turbo Laser which for those who dont know is the "AA" nose gun on the Scythe so a lot of ESFs went into that to get it to auraxium(1112 kills), a little below it comes the rocket pods which I havent used either in a long time, 940 kills, a little under that comes the Dalton 786 kills, Light PPA 576 kills, Tank buster 543 kills, Saron Laser Cannon(basic Scythe nose gun) 409 kills and I mean there is the Bulldog, A2A missiles, Shredder etc etc.

    Would be interesting to see what your experience is with something like the Skyguard is, gfoceRETURNS, since you are also using the "you dont have any experience"-card to dismiss the discussion.
    • Up x 2
  13. TrueMoonSlumbers

    I lite

    I literally CANNOT think of a worse cancer in this game than A2G. If there's no real threat of G2A weapons, they're not like living people, they will literally just come back after a light repair and do it again.

    I say, make G2A stronger, make the striker take 4 rockets instead of 8 to kill an ESF, I want the A2G pro players to absolutely SUFFER.

    Thinking you're so good at a 69 KD because you can spam PPA into a spawn room from a quarter mile away form lockon distance. Screw that garbage.
  14. Werkitten

    Personally, my opinion is that the liberator needs to significantly reduce his health. He already has mobility and the most powerful weapon in the game, so why does he have more health and armor than MBT? At the same cost in nanites. This is a clear imbalance, purely mathematically. The liberator simply ignores the damage received, no "high piloting skills" are required.
    It is normal when the air has high mobility, paying for it with reduced health, but now the air has all the characteristics higher than land vehicles, including health.
    For the same reason, we see such stupidity as planes ramming tanks without getting fatal damage. In my opinion, this is much worse than anything that ESF does.

    As for AA weapons, first of all you need to significantly strengthen the turrets on the bases, now they are weakened to such an extent that they can not even scratch the enemy. Although it is a stationary weapon that should be the most powerful, paying for this complete lack of mobility.

    And I agree with one of the suggestions about Skyguard, reducing the spread of projectiles would at least make it less defenseless against infantry. Even if the radius of the projectile explosion decreases.
    Although this weapon is still capable of killing someone, while the AA weapon sunderer is absolutely useless.
  15. gfoceRETURNS




    Player stats for you. Not that I claim to be particularly good outside of liberator. My main characters (NC/TR) all have skyguard. Haven't played them in a while but I know what it's like to be ***** by air in a skyguard. Hell, I've been solo'd by one particularly wicked A2G mossy farmer on Connery. I can also tell you those players are few and far between.

    I am quite practiced with the lib on my TR. I have no problem whatsoever adding more AA, so long as it is balanced. I do have a problem with further nerfing air health. The bottom line is that if you are out in the open by yourself-- you're going to get fragged. Easily. It makes no sense to have some vehicle roaming around with the ability to solo a lib. An ESF is one thing, but a 3 man crewed vehicle? Tough luck.

    The big problem with the "buff AA" argument is that all of y'all make this about a 1 vehicle vs 1 air fight. Since when does planetside (a MMOFPS) have simply one active AA element? If I am slacking at all and not choosing my routes wisely, altering my routes of attack, and making use of years of practice to swing that lib around cover-- I get shredded in the blink of an eye. And it doesn't take an armor column. I've been instantly taken to fire by 3-4 infantry + dual drake sunderer. If I'm up close and fighting lightnings/MBT's it takes all of 2 AP shells (which are easy to land on libs with practice at short to medium distance)-- then I'm done.

    I've played the PS franchise since 2004. It was the whiners who detracted from that game and it is no different here. I think a valid case can be made to nerf anti infantry ESF A2G weapons. Outside of that? You're out of your mind and clearly have not flown a lib or gal through a primetime fight with any frequency. Besides... since PS1.... the devs of the PS franchise have literally bent over backwards to make it so ground forces have more options to avoid air. Long spawn times and complicated spawn systems? Gone. Instant action and join combat? The number one tool to avoid air as infantry. Honestly if you're regularly getting farmed on the ground by air-- it's because you're a zergling. Lings get farmed... don't be a ling.
  16. Botji

    Unfortunately the state of the game doesnt agree with you and my characters are in my signature so feel free to look at my stats instead of guessing if I fly or not. I even posted some of them earlier.

    Ultimately what I wish for is a G2A weapon that gives me an opportunity to equalize the risk/lethality for ground vehicles that aircraft poses and return it to aircraft.

    If it is fine and balanced that a Hornet/rocket pod ESF can kill any ground vehicle without proper AA, then it should be fine and balanced that a *Insert new G2A weapon here* Lightning can kill any air vehicle without proper ground support if it gets too close.

    Since aircraft have the privilege of having multiple weapons we cant just say "aircraft without A2G weapons" since most of them can use these(and do use them) without suffering any real drawbacks. A ESF without booster pods doesnt lose nearly as much of its ability to fight other aircraft as a tank loses its ability to fight ground targets if they equip a G2A weapon. A Liberator is extremely deadly for ground vehicles no matter what weapons they have.

    It would be much more of a non-issue if Lightnings could equip two weapons like ESFs can, everyone could bring a pocket Ranger/Walker if they wanted and MBTs being the Liberator of the ground would be able to drive around with a extra Skyguard level of weapon or why not the AP30 Shredder? or just another type of main gun if they wanted.

    See, thats how absurd aircraft are, sacrifice next to nothing and still have extremely potent weapons for all targets. The above G2A weapons would obviously need a bunch of range nerfs(not much of the actual range but damage over range) since aircraft are easier to see from long range and have less cover for long range.

    I should say that I also think the above would be stupid, but a Lightning G2A weapon with similar lethality as a Liberator or A2G ESF above a tank seems just fine. It would already sacrifice more than any aircraft does in being weaker than other tanks, being specifically made to fight aircraft and unlike aircraft it doesnt have the speed to chase them down.

    Its worth saying again, if its fine and balanced for air to kill ground vehicles as quickly as they do and one sidedly if they lack the "special" weapons, then it should be fine for a much more specialized ground vehicle to be able to do the same to them. If not, then we have a bad case of double standards which is currently true for ground vs air with any ground weapon being a wet noodle by design while air weapons are the deadliest weapons in the game for that extra contrast.

    And I can already predict people complaining "but Liberators are designed to kill tanks so you cant have a tank that can one sidedly kill it! it would be unbalanced!" Well, Skyguard is designed to fight air but you dont see that shredding aircraft or one sidedly killing them with no chance of escaping but by the same logic it would be fine if it did... or if the new G2A gun did since it would also turn the Lightning into a vehicle specifically to fight aircraft.

    Its just so hilarious and frustrating at the same time that a Lightning with AP30 Shredder that only pointed into the air would be waaaay too OP by any pilots standard even though there are flying MBTs using it. Basically any Liberator weapon pointed into the air would be considered game breaking by pilots but at the same time the pinnacle of balance when pointing down on the ground, used on far less fast and mobile targets that doesnt even have the option to run away from it without intervention from teammates.
    • Up x 2
  17. Pelojian

    there needs to be close-mid and long range AA, air currently laughs at and wastes AA maxes and heavies.

    AA maxes should be sturdy enough to not die in one pass from an aircraft, maybe give them composite armor when dual wielding AA weapons if they at least have one of the two armor types on.

    heavies should have faster lockons, even faster if the air unit is closer.

    lightnings should have 2 weapon slots, primary is the normal tank guns, skyguard gun (long range), high dps point defense gun (short range but shreds air that get too close) and secondary weapons (fast lock mid-range missles), dumbfire rockets for AI/AV.

    when it comes to interaction between air and AA, the only time air thinks about the threat of AA is when it is massed so much because people are pissed over being heavily farmed.

    AA even in a small fight should give air thoughts on where/how to approach instead of taking the same angles at the same speed from the same direction.

    tanks and infantry can be locked out of fights but air gets the velvet glove due to AA that hits like a wet noodle.
    a specialized tank that specifically armed for AA should have the appropriate weapons to be enough of a threat that an ESF can't just hover near them then leave with minimal damage.

    close range AA especially would be a great benefit to ground forces, it'd stop ESF/Libs/gals just hovering too near the ground in the presence of AA, cuz they could get shredded if they did that near a close range AA lightning.
    • Up x 3
  18. Goodkat

    A great start was be to take my skyguard and straighten those barrels. Why do my shots scatter over a football field sized area at any kind of normal range?
    • Up x 3
  19. Demigan

    Much of the aircraft power lies not necessarily in their weapons, but their ability to put the damage into you without you being able to escape.

    Just think about it: nosegun? They'll hover or slow down, shoot a magazine or more if they can and then leave.
    Rocketpods? Same story.
    Hornets? Again same story.
    Tankbuster with potentially a belly-gun? Practically no Lib will be going its maximum speed during a good one two on an enemy tank.

    So aircraft can get the most damage in because they get the time to easily attack you. Now imagine if we had weapons designed to force them to move? If an ESF needs to fire its Hornets while doing 150+km/h its going to be a lot more fun for both parties, as the target can now try to dodge in the small window the ESF has to hit him, and in the time the ESF turns for the second attack the target can do something like find cover from the new predicted attack angle, drive away in the hopes of not being spotted or drivr straight at the flightpath to shorten the time the ESF can attack.

    To do this G2A weapons need to be hard to use against high-speed targets but punishingly powerful against slow targets. Naturally a division between G2A against ESF and G2A against larger aircraft needs to exist to ensure an AA gun designed for ESF cant easily nail a Lib or Gal. My preference would go out to allowing G2A weapons to switch modes like one of our NS missile launchers already can (but less cheesy). That way a G2A gun can tailor its chances to hit and damage output to match the target.

    It would be nice if the Valkyrie became more of a light aircraft like the ESF in that respect so we have light aircraft (ESF and Valk) and Heavy aircraft (Liberator, Galaxy and Bastion). To do this the Valkyrie could receive for example an omniversal afterburner. 1 second burn per use, recharges every 3 to 5 seconds. That would allow it to dodge and weave despite itd bulk but not have the ESF's instant-escape button (the fact they removed Charge from MAX's but not changed ESF afterburners speaks volumes).

    Naturally non-lethal defenses should become more universally available. Tanks dont use the C, CTRL, ALT, X and B buttons so those could be used for alternative abilities. Imagine a very high and broad shield canopy that doesnt deflect any shots but is simply black from above and semi-transparant from below. Aircraft now have to duck below this shield to see what they engage or try to fire in from a side-angle, bringing them into the elevation of tanks so they can hide and retaliate.

    Edit: it would also help immensely if aircraft became more specialized in their flightmechanics. For example a Hover frame would become more nimble while in hover mode, but lose acceleration and be less maneuverable the faster he goes, eventually being worse at high-speed compared to a vanilla frame. Vice versa the racer and dogfighting frame would be better at their specific speed but be nerfed while hovering (more so than now). That way a Racer ESF would have trouble in hover mode but be awesome at divebombing while a Hover ESF would have an easy time fighting in hover but would have trouble escaping when they get damaged as they'll have less acceleration and maneuverability as they accelerate to get away.
    • Up x 1
  20. Botji

    Its to balance the Skyguard against ground targets, it already has 'ok' DPS on ground vehicles if you can hit them. The reason its very weak is it takes time to deal the damage and you need to be close which gives the other tank weapons the advantage.

    If we compare the Skyguard with L100 AP(AP used for better range, HEAT would be for DPS so comparing it with the Skyguard that would be effective at range seems like the best Skyguard vs normal Lightning gun that would also be used at range) it looks like this.

    Lightning/MBT is the target.
    Skyguard(within 100m): 26 damage per shot
    Skyguard(past 300m): 21 damage per shot
    L100 AP: 1050 per shot

    Skyguard(100m): 208 DPS(8 bullets per second)
    Skyguard(300m): 168 DPS
    L100 AP(no reload upgrades): 350 DPS
    L100 AP(max reload upgrades): 388,88 DPS

    It can also be relevant to know that the Skyguard having 70 shots before reloading means it can do 1820 damage to a tank before reloading and it takes 8,75 seconds to do it and the DPS above is without taking reload time into account. Unless im mistaken the DPS would go down to 154,89 without reload upgrades and 162,77 with max upgrades... but in practice I do think there would be opportunities to reload without losing much time on target during those 8,75 seconds it takes to empty it(cover being in the way etc).

    The AP gun obviously has the advantage but the Skyguard would be much better over range having no drop and ~62% faster bullets.

    It wouldnt be good, but it would work. The above damage is against the front armor of tanks so it would be a little higher in practice though most tanks would probably try to just go straight at the Skyguard, not likely to dodge the shots anyway.

    Point im making is that with 2 reloads the Skyguard has more than enough ammo to kill a Lightning, depending on hits/misses it could take as 'little' as 154 hits which in time is 24,25 seconds. Sounds like a lot but the L100 AP would take as 8,1 seconds at the shortest(not counting rear hits)... but it would be much harder to hit the Skyguard attacking from range.

    The Skyguard would also scale up much better, 2 Skyguards would only need one reload each and half the fireing time bringing the TTK against a Lightning down to 12,1 seconds. Considering they are lacking 14 total shots from not even needing to reload, if most of the shots hits the target Lightning would probably be burning without the Skyguards even having reloaded yet, if something else would do that extra 294 damage(14 shots worth) the TTK is down to 8,75 seconds, the time it takes the Skyguards to empty their 70 shots and that is up to 100m range.

    You see where this is going, 4 Skyguards would shred a Magrider/Prowler through the front armor in 6 seconds up to 100m away IF they had the accuracy to hit the thing. Even if they miss quite a lot of the shots they only need to hit 48 bullets each so as long as their accuracy doesnt go below ~69% they still kill it within 8,75 seconds. It would only take 7,4 seconds to do the same up to render range given they hit 100% that far away ofc but again, as long as the accuracy doesnt drop below 85% they could do it within 8,75 seconds, ie, no reload needed.

    This is the reason im wary of any buffs people wishes to give the Skyguard against stuff other than aircraft, it could easily become the Vulcan 2.0 and every Lightning using it, because a group of them would decimate most if not all targets.

    I would honestly be a little happy with that since it would deal a heavy blow to Harassers and aircraft but would be horrible for the game in general. Also why I think a new G2A weapon is the way to go since even just buffing the G2A ability of the Skyguard still means it stacks so well(for example if flak damage was buffed) since its easy to use/forgiving that even at very long distances aircraft would go splat within a few seconds if more than 1 shot at it, which I would find funny for a while but wouldnt be great for balance.