[Suggestion] Lower Valkyrie's Flying Altitude.

I agree but do you even know why no one can gun it well? Because no one uses it.
And you know why no one uses it? Because it sucks.

That's because it is too much dependent on crew composition, because the turret is not free to rotate, because it cannot survive long as it needs constant repair, because most of weapons are clearly inferior to other guns of the game. Should we even compare stuff like the CAS-14 to Airhammer? Or the VLG to lolpods?
Let's be honest: among all the vehicles of this game nothing is as frustrating as the Valkyrie.
The only "close-to-decent" weapon was the Wyvern, but last patch made it less effective against ESF. That was the only defense the Valkyrie had against ESFs.
Still the problem remains in game design: a 6 men vehicle that needs 3-4 engineers to resist the other aircraft is completely idiotic. No sane Squad Leader will ever trade his Sunderer or his Galaxy for a couple of Valkyries. If it's so cool and effective like you say why after 18 months since it has been introduced you still see tons of Galaxies but outfits do not use the Valkyrie as dropship? It doesn't do what it's supposed to: it's not fast, it's not able to perform the famous close air support, it's not resistent enough to be reliable. The Galaxy is less agile and it's bigger ok, but it's so resistent you can be sure you'll be on point before it burns.

Despite the OP's allucinations, the Valkyrie definitely remains a failure, it's the worst vehicle in the game. Period.

No surprise finding good gunners is so hard. For instance I've removed the Hellion from all my loadouts: gunners always try to focus on aircraft or infantry at very long range when it's a close quarter weapon.

Then don't bring it up.

Yes. Without an immutable physics system and an infinite number of variable conditions, any suggested change is purely arbitrary with an endless supply of unintended consequences.

This is why people that want the bad man to go away are in a never ending trap. Instead of working out their problems with measures that currently exist, they seek to change the experience: the unintended consequence of such change leading to a new frustration and a new change requirement.

I don't blame you. You have been conditioned by game developers. They convince you of your entitlement to winning, and they take your money. When the guy you're trying to kill disagrees, something must be wrong.

My answer in the affirmative with attached reasoning would then render the following pontification moot.

Knock knock

Whos there?

Youre wrong

Revealing.

It was a joke

Raugh

I have way more success in Valkyries than in Harrassers, which I play both a lot, and I don't even use Valks to their full extend, ie with a whole crew, but just with a single gunner mostly. This playerbase sucks, but Valkyries are fine the way they are.

And the reason why people can't gun in them, is because they are stupid. It's just common sense that you aim at what the pilot aims, or that you try to sneak up instead of just shooting at every in sight, but the vast majority of people do not have common sense.

When you run out of nanites you always can still use your main gun and kill this way. Especially heavy units with a Lasher or Striker, or just any launcher, can be very effective in rumble seats, if the pilot knows what he is doing.

It is of course a transport vehicle, but it is also a close air support vehicle, which means you have to stick to your ground troups with it anyway, and for this you do not need high speed. Also, Valkyries may not be much faster than Galaxies, but they are much more maneuverable and have a much better start, which means you can still more quickly jump from one base to the next.

No, it's not just cheaper, but also much more maneuverable and smaller, plus it has a nose gun which can fire in multiple directions. This makes it much better for hit and run tactics, since you can sneak up better, attack more precisely and escape more easily. Not to mention that you are basically almost invincible with 4 engies in the back. Especially against infantry Valkyries are generally much better than Liberators, since they can chase them much better and reach spots a Liberator can not.

You sir, have officially won the thread. My sentiments exactly.

I spend a lot of time flying the Valk. I enjoy the support role it plays, the incredibly niche (I can get you and 4 of your friends anywhere, up to and including canyons, rooftops, and the tower grav lifts on tech plants).So I have a good amount of experience here.

But I'm gonna have to put a hard cap on this thread. Due to how the maps are designed (As I believe someone mentioned) it would make the max height at certain bases even lower. This would make the Valk even more exposed. A solution to this would be a dynamic skybox limit, but this would be an annoyance that would cause lag (An additional code section that constantly compares altitude against an additional, constantly changing upper-bound collision box).

I believe the OP may also be showing some unfamiliarity with the Valkyrie's operations. Can you get an engineer party in there repairing it? Yes. I've done that before. But its not an efficient usage of manpower, from either a tactical or strategic sense. The only reason for a pilot to actually do it was maybe farming directives or if their SL ordered them to. In fact, you get more certs and tactical power out of a Valk by having people leave the Valk ASAP when over a drop/LZ (Transport Throughput increases transport assist output)



I've also done the whole "Skybox bombing" Routine in exactly the way the OP describes. While the Valk is much more capable of precision drops than the Gal, at that height you're having to constantly adjust position based on minimap updates of targets you can't see. This reduces your situational awareness and makes you incredibly vulnerable to ESFs. As there is no terrain up there, you have to basically do a crash dive if one shows up. Terrain is the Valkyries only innate asset when dealing with ESFs (Especially Hossin Trees. Love flying through them. Also Canyon arches). Going high neutralizes that advantage.

RE: OP's complaint: Does it work as a method? Yes. Is it a successful or viable tactic? No.

Concession: Low altitude drop runs using AT mines and C4 against concentrated armor and sundered IS effective and viable. The risk/reward curve for this tactic, however, is quite balanced.

Finally, if the skybox bombing tactic becomes an issue, the standard response you need to undertake is to get a skyguard, put it 300-500m away from the point you're trying to defend, and aim up. It'll take you a bit, but it'll chew through eventually.

Recommendation: Abandon topic due to un-feasibility/lack of utility of suggested balance changes.

I agree, the Hellion is a great example: most of players have no idea how to use it in a profitable way. It's pity because ironically that thing could literally melt vehicles. But it doesn't work if the gunners start shooting when is 200 mts away.
But still the reason why many do not know how to use the Valkyrie weapons is they prefer to gun / pilot the other vehicles: it's easier and you can achieve the same things.


The main problem of the Valkyrie has nothing to do with the stats or with the weapons: the problem is it's a logistic vehicle in a game where troops transport is not needed because everyone has access to many cheap vehicles everywhere and redeploy is always a free fast and efficient option.

If that would be the case then people also wouldn't use Galaxies.Troup transport isn't really needed, but it still can be helpful when suddenly a Valkyrie appears to pick you up after you chased that Sundy down at the end of the world or whatever. However, even if transport isn't really needed, you still can use the rumble seats in other ways, like doing hotdrops on Sundies, or throwing mines out of it, or just shooting infantry with a Lasher, or killing ESFs with a Striker or whatever. This all can be very effective, but the game makes it really hard to organize stuff like this, which is probably why barely anyone does it.

And like I said, even without using the rumble seats at all, Valkyries still can be very effective. Farming infantry with the CAS for example works really well for me. I think in general Valkyries are very good against low armored ground targets. Liberators may be better against tanks, but Valkyries are very good at killing infantry, Harrasers, or Flashs, since you can attack more precisely and chase them better.

Oh, trust me, it's both annoying AND effective. If you've got a Valk full of members, you can effectively decimate a tank column if they don't have skyguards or air support >

I understand the frustration it causes with serious tankers, because it's a tactic that necessitates your enemy deploying a skyguard with prox radar (or whatever it's called) or A2A ESF's to effectively counter.

JohnGalt basically proved this by modifying his tactics and harassing the valk in an esf to the point where the valk was ineffective or farming the light assaults in a skyguard as they dropped to kill the tanks (he once got me three times in a row and we got frustrated and moved on).

It's not impossible to defend against, but it's an unconventional tactic which throws people for a loop if they don't know how to counter it.

Unconventional tactics usually leads to a nerf thread. I've noticed. People don't like being forced outside their boxes and comfort zones.