New Lock On Is Great From An ESF Stand Point.

Either A, ESF's should get the first level flares as default without filling a slot, with an option to cert them up and carry a certain amount at once that can be refilled at an ammo sundy/landing pad/etc but NOT GALAXIES. And if they cert into an upgraded flare system, it takes up the slot it currently fills now. And leave most everything as it is, save for a tiny damage buff and a speed buff for AA rockets.

Or B, and much more fun, Lock-on rockets should be able to be "out flown" with skill by an ESF, but a single AA lock-on should either destroy an ESF or bring it to a flaming state in which the pilot has an extremely small amount of time to activate fire suppression (I prefer destroy). Leave damage the same against libs and gals though. This way, rockets are crazy deadly against small craft, but they can use their speed to "outplay" it. While the large airships can't use their speed, their defense is to "tank" the rockets as they do now.

Obviously both need some minor tweaks to the ideas, but the general Idea is there.

There's a difference between fundamental role and combat flow design issues, and the kind of ridiculously OP ground armor you always pine for.

There needs to be more value to outside the walls of a cap point for armor to fight over besides just protecting the sunderer, and pushing to the next base.

Armor does well enough in the areas between bases... to well usually. Sometimes open field battles get locked between bases and you see an epic real war front as 2 forces wax and wane, but it's not often enough, and the side with the better armor quickly pushes to the other teams base and sets up Sunderer spawn areas and locks down the outside.

But out there, in those between fights, Armor feels just fine. It's pretty much the only time I PULL armor. Sitting in a tank around a fight going on inside SUCKS.

I'm not denying you that. That's very VERY true, and unfortunate to be sure.

That does not mean tanks are as woefully UP as you claim (I'd add a coax to all tanks and call it a day. Watch the numbers for a spell), but the problem is less with tank/inf balance, and more in inf being able to always stay in safety of walls, and nothing of important value outside the walls.

Like I said, two ways to fix the problem to give tanks a role.

The first is to greatly redesign the logistics system. Get rid of "redeployside". Make people walk, drive, or fly everywhere. Of course your empty-headed, instant-gratification sorts would hate this system.

The second is to greatly increase tank lethality and survivability. Make it so that the only effective way to take out a tank is to use a tank yourself, and that it would be impossible to take/defend a base with enemy tanks in the area. But infantry-centric players who want to be able to do everything with infantry would not let something like this happen.

Adding coax to tanks will in no way, shape or form solve this problem. I mean a 1/2 MBT with roof Kobalt is essentially that already and it certainly hasn't made the slightest difference in the practicality of tanking in PS2.

It's a reasonable argument. It's not a matter of number of counters -- it's the amount of accessibility when on the field.

I mean -- it fallacious to simply argue from the perspective of 'weapons that damage air.' It opens up several logical holes including the argument that ESFs are more vulnerable than lightnings (0% of tanks are vulnerable to small arms fire. 40% of air vehicle types (and more than 50% of the vehicles that are actually) pulled are vulnerable -- hence more weapons damage ESFs than Tanks. Tanks OP vs air.) That's a ridiculous statement -- but there it is. You could also make an argument that every tank can kill every ESF faster than every ESF can kill every tank. That's also fallacious as most of the time when an ESF hits a tank it isn't in that tank's turret field of fire.

Of course I still now agree with you that there should be more skill reqs more reward for AA -- but that doesn't dissuade the argument that air gets hit from more sources.

The fact of the matter is -- it does. That Sundie that is behind all those tanks is shooting up with basilisks, walkers, and rangers (not the best choice of turret but some people run it.) The infantry that is hiding behind a rock waiting for the tanks to make a hole is shooting up. Any skyguards, burster maxes on the field are on that because they have little else to do. And that's the rub for air -- anything that can shoot up will because they are unimpeded. LOS is huge and is not being taken into account here. We take LOS into account for everything else in the game -- why not incoming on air?

On the ground line of sight is blocked far more. Terrain, plants, buildings, other vehicles, etc block line of sight. Even at the very front of an armor column clashing against another armor column -- the lead most armor getting the most incoming fire has fewer sources that can GET a line of sight on it. The rest of the enemy is blocked by both terrain and eachother. A 15 tank column shooting at another 15 tank column can only engage with the front few tanks because the ones behind can't shoot THROUGH their allies.

However with air -- more than 9 times out of 10, more than 90% of the time, anyone on the ground anywhere can shoot at the ESF. Yes, there are fewer dedicated AA weapons. Yes ESFs are harder to hit due to speed (something the Gal and the Lib have to make up with pure HP). However, the lack of impediment means that more units have the option. That's why lock on AA is deadly despite the fact that it doesn't do that much damage. At any given time, anyone within a 500M radius of an esf (and in large battles of 96+ that is a LOT of people) can pull a lockon and shoot at the relatively few aircraft. If more than a few do it simultaneously and afterburner or no you drop.

That's not including the number of times ESF get within turret range of a tank during a bombing run. Sure -- the tank they are hitting probably can't hit back unless the ESF is flying super low for a quick kill. But the tank 100 meters over there probably can. A small incline increases the number of tanks that can do that. And this is only considering lock on AA and non AA specialized armor. Doesn't even touch flak, or Sunderer fire.

So -- the argument that "air gets shot from more sources" is, in fact, quite accurate. Simply because there is nothing in the way of a larger number of people. You, and many other people, confuse this to mean "There are more things that can kill air." There aren't -- pilots acknowledge that there are fewer AA options than any other weapon type in the game. We pilots would appreciate it if, similarly, ground folks acknowledged that more of y'all are not blocked by geometry/other players and are able to shoot at us simultaneously.

This coming from the guy who decided to use Vietnam war planes as a comparison for the Lib and as your justification for saying libs are too tanky? Didn't I have to get on you once for making comparisons like that -- and you pull that on someone else? Cmon dude....

it's a campaign to nerf air being pushed by 3, maybe 4 posters on these forums. any thread that has anything to do with air at all, and these guys come in here and generate 10-15 pages of echo to make it look like a hot topic. one of them posts walls of misleading statistics and another posts pages of disingenuous line-for-line arguments. the net result or so they hope, is that people will think there is a controversy and that new players and bads will pick up their talking points and repeat them as truth.

the worst part is that you can't really say anything that won't make it seem like a legitimate controversy without breaking forum rules and getting in trouble yourself. they know this, which is why these posts don't show up on Reddit.

The AC-130J that I mentioned comes from 2014.

As for the reference to A2A missiles that Taemien made, he's just a bit of a dinosaur. Like I said before, in pretty much all of the recent A2A combat, it was all missiles. Nose cannon only scored kills against parked aircraft or helicopters in the earlier Iraq conflict, for example.

Even during the Vietnam conflict, nose cannon were not as important as Taemien believes them to be. The later F-4E did have an internal 20mm cannon. But still the A2A missiles were the preferred method of hunting down all MiGs in the sky. While F-4Es scored 5 kills with their nose cannon, they managed 15 with their AIM-7s and 9s. So within the period that Taemien talks about, A2A missiles were already the most effective weapon compared to nose cannon.

I agree with Taemien only so far that it's not a good idea to completely rely on untested equipment in combat. But as the combat data shows, A2A missiles even in the Vietnam conflict were supplanting nose cannon in terms of kills. And as I have demonstrated, in the later 20th and 21st centuries, nose cannon have not really achieved any "real" A2A kills. Our A2A missiles are no longer untried and untested. They work, and as a result are the weapon of choice.

In short, he really doesn't have much of a point, as lovable as I might find him.

And this is why I think both of you shouldn't argue real life. You shouldn't argue real life in a game. Real life mechanics are not fun -- they would not make a game playable (at least in a war game.) Everything is balanced as it is for playability and smoothness.

Also -- I would compare the Lib not to a carrier plane based vehicle. It's entirely arbitrary (there are more recent gunships than the AC130 line) Here is what making an arbitrary comparison looks like...

Here is a Lib in modern day! http://i.livescience.com/images/i/000/026/902/i02/helicarrier-flying-02.jpg?1336169600

Don't scratch the paint or Samuel will be pissed off.

Sure. If you want to discuss real things based on fact and not snarkiness, by all means.

I chose the AC-130 gunship because that's essentially what the Liberator is. Both are fixed-wing aircraft. Both have a 105mm artillery cannon (the Liberator was supposed to have a 105mm, not 150mm, cannon). Both have 30mm cannon. Both are designed to loiter over a battlefield and provide continuous fire support to ground units.

The Liberator is quite close to the AC-130 in terms of function. If you can think of a better gunship to compare it to, by all means go ahead. But if you're not going to be mature about it, then really you're wasting both my time and yours.

it's not a fixed wing, it's a VTOL. there are no fixed wings in Planetside 2. in fact since that is the first thing you learn when you pull an aircraft in Planetside 2, it can now be said that ColonCleanserChingles doesn't know the first thing about aircraft in Planetside 2.

Nothing immature about it. My post simply illustrates the pointlessness of arbitrarily comparing games with real life. And I like how you still ignored the 2 main points of the post -- 1.) the pointlessness of comparing real life to games as a real life game would not be fun and how 2.) you folks on the ground put on the blinders and completely refuse to admit that air can be targeted by a greater number of enemies simultaneously than ground.

But even if we play it your way -- the lib functions fundamentally different. It doesn't require atmosphere for lift -- it can hover with whatever future antigrav system or super thrusters (that somehow don't immediately melt anyone who gets close to the bottom of them) that they use. We are far in the future, with the technology to reconstitute a dead human. But let's compare the tech of an aircraft with hover thrusters to an aircraft that lacks them and isn't even the most up to date gunship....ok....

I see WHY you compare them -- they have the same function on the battlefield. However -- that is where the resemblance ends -- and trying to explain balancing 1 particular aspect a certain way on those aspects that have no analogue is myopic.

EDIT: Honestly speaking -- none of this has anything to do with the new Swarm. Sorry OP -- my bad for going along with and running off topic with these other guys.

You might not know this, but "fixed wing" aircraft can include the category of VTOL.

A fixed-wing aircraft is simply one that uses wings to generate lift. Being VTOL doesn't mean that you can't also at the same time be "fixed wing". You can have an aircraft which has VTOL capabilities but also uses wings to generate lift... making it both "fixed wing" and "VTOL" at the same time.

Do aircraft in PS2 have wings that generate lift? Well...



Yeah, those look like wings to me.

In fact to quote our favourite source of wikipedia...

It's clear that one of us doesn't know anything about aircraft... but it obviously ain't me.

So then what modern-day gunship do you base the Liberator on?

Only if all tanks get a default anti-AV system that blocks +/-3 missiles/shells by default since tanks need to deal with more shells and it needs to deflect the same amount of damage as aircraft. They can cert it up to deflect more missiles. NC's shield ability grants 1 extra missile/shell deflection to this default ability even when it's not on to balance it to the other two factions who can now also deflect incoming damage.
Alternatively, all tanks need to be able to dodge all lock-ons.

Oh, and all tanks need to have a setup to engage tanks, infantry and aircraft effectively.
And a buggy method to evade all enemy tank fire and get a massive advantage in the process, then elevate this to a feature but never actually do anything that players can use this feature unless they learn an unintuitive system and train for many hours to be able to compete a little.
And all tanks need to get a default afterburner as well
And all tanks need to have their fire suppression healing doubled
And all tank pilots need to have access to two weapon systems, the secondary system is an extremely powerful AA/AI hybrid weapon.

Obviously there need to be a few minor tweaks to the idea, but the general idea is there!

I don't because:

I really don't know how to make that clearer. This is your problem Chingles -- as much data and research you spend the time collecting -- you often ignore people's point.

I am saying I don't even try to compare a lib to anything real life because this is a game with it's own mechanics and..I guess...'laws' that govern things. Like slime algae that are somehow able to destroy giant airborn transport carriers....(lolz Hossin)

The point is not how much like a Lib is to any analogous present day aircraft. The point is that this is a game and things have to be balanced upon the rules inherent in the game. Tanks and sundies, for example, can be repaired mid combat from AP shells coming from a magic plastic looking beam gun (or invisible repair field from sundies) that somehow reconfigures matter and/or reattaches protons/neutrons/electrons, while altering atoms on a subatomic level to repair matter that has been destroyed -- and knows how to do it automatically (YAY NANITES!). There is no real life analogue. So, vehicles are designed to withstand damage with that in mind. Were you unable to repair a sundie in that manner -- you can bet they would be a lot tankier. Tanks are affected by it less because they are more mobile -- but they too would be tankier if Rep Sundies and engies didnt exist.

Things are balanced upon mechanics. Not real life analogues.

If I had to guess offhand what a Lib reminded me most of -- I would probably say a Hind or similar slow heavy attack chopper -- only instead of rotors it uses thrusters for lift. Even that is a poor comparison. Hell, what tank would you base the Magrider on? How about the Scythe? Really, what about the Gal? -- remember, it can hover at 0 speed....

What rocket launcher does the Lancer remind you of? What is the real life equivalent of the TR chainblade? The MAX grinder? Or the Scattercannon -- cause hell if there is a real life variant of that I could rig up to a forklift I want to go shoot that sucker!!!!!

Ya see my point? Libs don't work like AC130 gunships for the same reason NC Scatter MAX doesn't work like Abrams Tank Cannister shells.

Mi-24s are only resistant to 12.7mm HMG fire... so there you go.

Yes I know -- I'm saying they remind me of Hinds most in how they fly. Not in any other way really. Similarly to AC130s -- 1 thing in common -- nothing else.

You don't compare Vinegar to Orange juice as equivalent drinks just because they are both sour

Or Alcohol to both of those things due to sourness for that matter. The law would laugh at that.

But if you really only have a small sample of drinks to compare them to and out of those drinks vinegar and orange juice are the most similar... then of course you compare them!

nice try ColonCleanser. so VTOLs can have fixed wings, with components that allow vertical landing and takeoff. but that doesn't make the aircraft in Planetside 2 fixed-wing craft.

all the wings in Planetside 2 rotate for vertical takeoff/landing or hover, and some don't even have wings, just thrusters. i'm really glad for this opportunity to expose your disingenuous arguments.

if you think there's lift or anything like it in Planetside 2 you are even more unaware of the flight model than i ever thought. there is no lift. there is no drag. there is not even an atmosphere. there are only Nanites and Planetmans. now wipe your mouth, your verbal diarrhea is starting to get all over the forums.

All right I'll refine my argument:
Aircraft have the least effective sources firing at them.

Aircraft have very few effective sources firing at them. It's actually a complaint! if you've got 5 Skyguards shooting up at the sky it can hold back a ton of aircraft because of the bad scaling effect. But rarely more AA is pulled simply because it's not effective at anything else and if you do pull more the aircraft are simply moving away.
Then there's the feeling that players get. They feel there's AA everywhere because they get shot so quickly by it. But what they don't realize is that if you've got an aircraft that can fly across 3 bases in less minutes and you do so, you are bound to find some AA. Seeing that they aren't insta-killed there aren't many sources of AA everywhere and the few sources they do meet are quickly avoided or destroyed. And one other complaint is that aircraft find it difficult to determine where they are shot from (a lousy complaint if you ask me). If you already don't know where you are shot from, how can you know how many sources there are and what distance you are being shot from? At best you can tell the distance: You are far away if you only get a few flak pellets in your aircraft per few seconds, you are nearby if you get them as fast as the ROF.

Any other source that can attack you either (nearly) instakills you, such as most tank guns, or isn't effective at all even in large groups, such as small-arms fire (seriously in the past it took one full shotgun magazine of 6*12=72 shots of 130 damage in CQC to kill one ESF, now it takes 2 magazines and an ESF can be in the clear or even at maximum damage dropoff within 2 seconds). But the tank guns have a very limited aiming arc, the dumbfire rockets are too slow and have a large drop meaning aircraft have to hover for extended periods of time or have to steer into the rocket, and the other weapons just aren't effective regardless of their ability to hit, it would be like comparing a pistols ability to deal with a 300m range sniper. It's possible, but it's not exactly something you expect even if there's twenty people shooting you with their pistol.

And again: AA missile launchers kill more ground vehicles. I have to make an amendment to my previous statement that AA lock ons scored 4,9 times more vehicle kills as I misread it. however, every single rocketlauncher, including the AA versions, score more vehicle kills than they do aircraft. This alone shows that the mobility and speed given to aircraft more than makes up for all the sources supposedly firing at them.

If you are familiar with how "definitions" work, then it actually does make PS2 aircraft "fixed wing".

PS2 aircraft meet the definition of "fixed wing" aircraft and therefore are "fixed wing" aircraft.

I'm not sure how much more basic of an understanding you require. For example, "cat" is defined as a so-and-so animal. Thus if an animal meets so-and-so requirements, it is a "cat".

At first I thought you knew nothing of aircraft and flying... now it seems you also lack a basic understanding of language altogether!

I wonder how low you can go.