[Radical Suggestion] Nerf Skyknightside

Ah, I see.

You got nothing, don't you?

The difference of course is in the targets.

4.5 seconds seems short... until you realize that an ESF can go up to ~370km/h. In that 4.5 seconds it can cover up to 460m, putting it well outside of effective engagement range.

Even the most conservative speed, of 200km/h (stock, no afterburners, not using the space bar) puts 250m in between the aircraft and the Skyguard. That puts both distance as well as protective cover easily in range of the ESF.

So 4.5 seconds seems like an eternity when your engagement window (say 200m) can be gone in much less than that. This is why the Skyguard needs major buffs, because the engagement window to kill an ESF is simply so short.

In the reverse... well let's just say that a 70km/h Lightning has a very difficult time outrunning a 200km/h ESF.

In a realistic situation, an ESF does not chase down a skyguard.

Now think about what you're asking for, you're asking for the skyguard to kill a plane significantly faster than 4.5 seconds, that's faster than a vanguard killing a harasser, faster than a prowler ganking a lightning from behind in anchored mode, that combined with that it has extreme range of engagement verses a vehicle with no cover in many situations, that if you hit him even once, it deters him enough for him to leave because he knows there's other esf in the air.

As it stands, if the esf is exposed to a good skyguard for 4.5 seconds at optimal range to fight ground troops, then he is often dead, 4.5 or less is not much time to make a difference, while it feels like an eternity for you, the esf has no chance to counter engage, no hope of continuous action and is only option is to run and come back from a better angle. Killing an ESF outright from 2 seconds of exposure is completely unfair

If they are going to nerf all ESFs equally, I'm OK with that. As a pilot I agree that it's very easy to farm ground with an ESF.
I get 40+ kills in about 5-8 mins without dying. Playing as an infantry is really illogical when I have such farming tool.
But if they nerf all factions' fighters equally, I'm ok with that.
I can play infantry good too, but I never get that much farming with an infantry class.
But I also think that prowlers with anchored mode are easymode farming machines too, they need to be nerfed as well.

Keep clicing the tiny arrow above the quote, eventually you'll get there. You'll just have to go through a few pages of your non-sense.

You come off like a pretentious child.

This - does anybody arguing for SG's to kill quicker even drive them? I'll point out here that I haven't played PS2 in around 2 years and I'm coming back to the same dumb arguments. A SG killing in 2 seconds is ridiculous. It kills in less time than it takes to empty its clip already. Over the weekend a mate and I got in some great dual skyguard loving LOL - when you can't quite make the kill, having your mate there seals the deal. 2 SG's can mop up and get kills more effectively. If they're at that range where you can hit them but not all that much, a 2nd SG can make all the difference and we got several kills together that we wouldn't have got if we were alone.

If the SG was made more effective then it would be OP. It doesn't matter what kills per hour you're getting and typically it's going to be a massive load less because there isn't always air targets to shoot at. People need to understand the "role" the SG has and that is to protect the ground forces from air. What does need buffing on the SG isn't its kill rate it's the XP you earn. Each hit should give a lot more XP because kills are rare and air isn't always around and it sucks against infantry and vehicles.

What I'm arguing for is that the Skyguard should be more effective against ground targets. Currently, the Skyguard can be pretty effective against air if you learn to lead properly, and can seriously mess up someones day if you apply tactics to it (I've found that positioning yourself along common liberator approaches to targets/areas often works well, as Gals seem to approach targets with similar aims in mind). I remember a few times where I've positioned myself where rationally, as a pilot, I wouldn't expect a Skiggird, and ended up wrecking even liberators. Once, I nuked off 3/4 off a lib before it turned down a canyon trying to dodge and juked into the canyon wall and pinwheeled.

The key I've found is to not immediately start wailing on people at render distance. If you hold fire, you can convince pilots to come in closer. ESF Pilots are the only ones that can generally zoom in and tell where you're pointing your turret.

But in terms of supporting your team, the skyguard's woeful ineffectiveness vs. infantry and light vehicles (Harassers and Flashes) makes it a chore. This means people don't cert into it (Really exploring options like engagement radar or proxy radar) as much or take time to learn how to use it properly. They just buy the gun and then have a bad experience with it. I'm not expecting the Skyguard to go toe to toe on tanks. At most, it's an effective distraction to let your MBTs engage, or force enemy armor to briefly swap targets. Flanking a lone MBT that's outmatching another lightning is also effective. Although I will say that I've hit upon an anti-magrider tactic that gives me a chance at killing them, where you drive under them and shoot the rear armor and stay close, forcing them to rotate around. Rookie and intermediate Maggers seem to have issues with this, as they don't often realize they can kill you with the turret alone.

I wish there were a way to examine this ineffectualness over a broader sampling of players and servers. If anyone knows of such a way, I'd appreciate it (I'm not as familiar with stat tracking in this game apart from individual player stats, and I haven't seen a meta-breakdown of "Target types killed by X weapon" anywhere.

Against, I feel we should, as a stop gap, examine altering resistance values of infantry and light vehicles to flak, or boost the RoF of the skyguard slightly.

Maybe it ineffective because the devs wanted to make it a dedicated platform against air so keeping it atrocious against ground targets was a deliberate move. If it's that bad on the ground it keeps you looking for targets in the air. If they made it more effective against ground targets i dunno -we already have a ton of stuff for that.

I'd rather see more XP given for hitting AC and doing damage as kills are fairly rare for the SG.

Meh. I made a reddit thread about it anyway. Have fun and stop over if you like. https://www.reddit.com/r/Planetside/comments/4mu348/balance_suggestion_skyguard_antiinfantry/

maybe, but I've seen his idiocies for so long, you have no idea.
And he claims he knows everything how everything is supposed to be used, how everything function and how the communities all work. But his stats which I find a miracle I never bothered to look at until now, show that he clearly has no ideas about anything in this game. Regardless, he'll argue without listening to anybody.

My patience with his idiocy is long gone.

There's an ignore button - maybe you should use it

gotta prevent him from filling other people's head with idiocy

This tactic, while occasionally effective, is a case of using a hammer to cut paper. Sure, it'll do the job, but you're using the wrong tool for the job- that people routinely prefer to use a -hammer- for this task implies that this game lacks any useful scissors.

I wonder also if the liberator shouldn't be slower.

I drove a stock one for giggles earlier.... 220 KPH? While my Valk only pulls 195-97 when fully upgraded?

This is explanatory. It also seems kind of unfair. If my only valid defense is to run away against liberators, shouldn't the fast transport be able to do so handily?

Liberators ESFs are also fine. They do a select few roles based on loadout, and if the driver and/or gunner aren't skilled enough, a single ESF Liborator can dispatch a lib ESF easily.

__________________________________________________________

And then there's the ESF, the only thing in the game that's IMHO broken OP. Can farm absolutely anything in any fight as long as there aren't 8+ 1 people with AA nearby, wrecks anything be it in the sky

__________________________________________________________

To quote: "Or you can use lolpods which are flat-out better in every way"

lolpods aren't better in every way. A banshee and air hammer would be much more effective against targets with maxed out flak. As infantry you should use flak anyway, not just to defend from air but to be more safe from tank shells, rockets, c4, mines and grenade spam.

Also the ammo of the banshee, air hammer and PPA lasts longer then the lolpods.

__________________________________________________________

To quote: "A2A combat is where the game's the weakest. It's a perfect example on how NOT to do combat, because it feels awkward"

This is your issue if A2A combat feels awkward, it comes down to personal preference.

__________________________________________________________

To quote: "1. Make them less specialist and more generalist, more versatility against infantry and light armor.

2. Make them actual killers against air.

3. Add new direct damage weapons that take skill to use but deal a lot of damage and have potential to kill ESFs quickly while it can also kill other air if left unchecked."

1. I find AA can be a real problem from far away when flying becuase it can cripple me when another ESF attacks me, I'd have to move differently as a result my aim would be worse and I'd still take damage.

2. AA does kill air.

3. How much skill should it takes to use? How would daybreak make it more skill based?

AA too strong, please nerf more ...

How exactly is autoaim going to help newbies with their aim in A2A or A2G combat???

Someone didnt understand the ironic part there .... and it wasnt autoaim ^^

No. Even today see transport ships, aircraft and vehicles in real life are slower then combat ships, aircraft and vehicles.

Why? Becuase they're combat vehicles, they need to be fast to be effective and not be blown up.

surely, please tell me, you can't be this stupid...

I'm going to long form what should be a one paragraph response to your somewhat flippant reply, This is so that I can recycle some arguments into a reddit thread for later.

Also, its my Birthday, and therefore I have an extra hour, and am in need of amusement.

Firstly, the "real life" argument does not always apply to games that do not have real-world settings. Take what aircraft we do have tho. The Galaxy is likely based off the V-22 Osprey. The Valkyrie's closest analog is either the UH1Y or the MI-24 Hind (Although mostly only in that has a turret and is capable of transporting troops). The ESF has an analog as possibly a Harrier. The Liberator has few ready analogs, but the closest we get is either certain WWII light bombers, such as the B-25G or in say, a C-130 Gunship. Comparisons amongst all of these different analogs is profoundly difficult and impractical, because there often is no comparison.

But lets humor you for a moment. Putting aside your misunderstanding between military and civilian vehicles. Your first mistake was making a broad based exclusive assertion that "Transport ships the like are slower than combat ships, etc." Consider the following:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_AH-64_Apache#Specifications_.28AH-64A.2FD.29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_UH-60_Black_Hawk#Specifications_.28UH-60L.29

Two iconic military helicopters. One is an attack helicopter, the other a transport. Two different design firms, both first flights occurring within a year of each other. Different air frames and roles, but using the same power plant.

Note the speed specifications: They are really close to each other, aren't they? The blackhawk even has a 5MPH higher cruising speed. Because they're designed to work together, in the same battlespace, often in tandem, for both operational and maintenance reasons. Why? Because doctrine influences designs. If your argument held, logic would dictate that the Apache would be faster, as to leap frog ahead. But it isn't. Your argument is therefore dis proven and dismissed.

Not convinced? Take the Eurocopter Cougar (EC725) and Eurocopter Tiger (EC625). Different power plants, different generations, fairly different airframes and design principles, but the same company: only 4MPH difference in cruising speeds.

Another take-away from this debate is that real-life war comparisons don't always work for Planetside 2. They can inform our discussions, but should not dominate them. Its a game. The values and speeds are not being decided based on physics or hard lore. Instead, they are decided based on things such as role and balance. They're also being evaluated based on how they fit into the totality of the game experience.

The role of transport and combat vehicle is also not mutually exclusive, not even in the world of aircraft. The role of the Valkryie is as a fast insertion aircraft. It is quite fragile and it depends on its speed to survive dramatically more than the Liberator does, as it has less health and armor, and until the A2A changes come in, doesn't generally run with FS or Flares. Nor does it have afterburners.

The weapons on the Valkyrie are generally regarded, even and especially by its hardcore pilots, as wimpy. Some of us don't even bother with gunners, to be honest, as the turret ergonomics are not terribly desirable, either. Very few of our weapons are even suitable for engaging aircraft (None are, actually, save for the default nosegun, which can be a credible threat to ESFs that go nose on or hover attack). This means that our primary response to enemy aircraft is to dodge and run upon detection. Or to call for support.

But how fast should it be, exactly? The Valkyrie, in my opinion, should never be faster than the ESF, whose main roles encompass anti-air interception. ESF's should therefore always be markedly faster than Valks. That said, for Liberators, whose A2A is supposedly a secondary role, having the speed to overtake a Valk or Gal is not a primary concern.

If we accept your contention that the Liberator needs it speed for the ability to survive engaging ground targets, then, by your logic, we clearly cannot decrease the speed of the Liberator. But if we increase the speed of the Valk, this will clearly violate your logic of transports going faster than combat aircraft. But if we adjust the speeds of both towards a medium ground, this will cause Liberator pilots to flip out and demand AA Nerfs. But if we increase the speed of both, it will disrupt the ESF Meta. So clearly we cannot increase their speed simultaneously!

Summarizing our argument for the TLDR Crowd, and to reward our readers:

Your point about Transport/Combat particularly emulates Vizzini's arguments on Australia.

Therefore, clearly our only solution is to disregard your arguments and increase the speed of the Valkyrie. to a default floor that establishes competitiveness against liberators, say, 215 KPH at 10 degrees down (Cruising speed).

If you've enjoyed our logical head-game and are still spinning at the logic holes and misdirected cues, you should revel in the notion in that is what many of us feel when engaging your style, level, and depth (Read: Lack of) argument. Some of us however, are polite enough to not assign labels to it (Such as calling people stupid), but are still mean enough to troll people into making the arguments needed to create foundations for asserting their own agendas, I.E. increasing the speed of the Valkyrie. Thank you for playing.



For spite and giggles, I'm going to complete this text wall by presenting a window into the world of the Valkyrie pilot by showing you an interesting game theory exercise I did once about Libs vs. Valks:

Lets evaluate: A liberator appears heading south at 230 KPH. My Valk is heading NW at 195KPH. Our distance is 1000m. I am at 150m MSL, the liberator is at 350 MSL due to terrain obstructions. I am 1 sector into an enemy lattice, and am approx 1250m from the nearest tower or other significant obstacle. There is a light AA presence.

It will take me 10 seconds to reverse direction and go to max speed. The Liberator dives and achieves an additional 10-15 KPH for 5-10 seconds.

If the liberator has a Spur or Chaingun, it can engage and begin getting random hits at 400-500m, with reliable damage occuring at 150-200m or more depending on pilot skill. There is 1 Mossy in the area armed with an AA nosegun and rocket pods, heading E at 230 KPH and is 750M away. I am armed with the standard turret.

At this point, we have four game able options. The first number is the overall situation, the letter is the first possible choice/consequence, and so on. This uses a game theory format. PASS constitutes a survival, but the situation continues, FAIL constitutes a vehicle death. WIN constitutes Liberator Death, Disengagement.

1: I continue a run for a friendly position, calling for the Mossy to support me, at max speed.
1a: The Mossy does not respond, the liberator over takes me 60% FAIL, 30% go to 2, 3 or 4
1b1: The Mossy responds, but the TTK is so longer that the Liberator over takes me, kills me with the primary. There is a statistical probability of 60% that the Libby Daltons/Walkers the ESF anyway. FAIL
1b2: The Libby decides to give up and not chance it WIN

2: I dodge and weave in a semi-random pattern to avoid damage. This effectively increases the liberators closing speed, but averts some damage
2a: The Liberator closes and rams me FAIL
2b: The liberator closes and goes side long, engaging me with his turret and thus killing me. FAIL
2c: Libby overtakes me and tries to use his tailgunner. 40% FAIL, go to 3
2d: The mossy arrives and engages the Liberator. It has more time to engage due to the dodging pattern reducing the intercept path. The Liberator still kills me and has a 40-60% chance of beating the ESF, This increases to 70% if the Libbie is fully manned. FAIL
2e: Liberator fails to hit me and gives up PASS
2f: Liberator fails to hit me for 1 minute and I escape PASS

3: I go low and attempt to use the terrain to evade the Liberator.
3a: The Liberator is engaged by AA for longer than 10 seconds.
3a1: This convinces it to leave. WIN
3a2: Liberator Activates FS and continues with light evasion. PASS GOTO 3b, 3c, 3d

3b. I go under a bridge. There is a 60-25-15% chance, dependent on the angle of attack of the liberator, that it will go high and wait (1), follow close(2), or follow high (3)
3b1: Liberator goes high and waits. 65-80% chance of main turret shot.
3b1a: Misses first shot.PASS
3b1a1: Liberator noses down and resumes pursuit, engages with pilot guns. FAIL
3b1b: Liberator hits with first shot. Dalton - FAIL. Zephyr/Shredder, 70% FAIL, based on prior damage. If not OHK, GOTO 3b1a1.
3b2: Liberator follows me under bridge. There is a 30% chance of it impacting a bridge pylon (a) 60% over completing the turn (b) or overspeeding and ramming me
3b2a PASS
3b2b: FAIL
3b2c: GOTO 3b1b
3b3: Liberator noses down and resumes pursuit, engages with pilot guns. FAIL
3b4 (CASE EXCEPTION): I dodge into the bridge pylons and dead stop - 65% chance of failure. If successful, liberator returns for a second pass and lines up shot - FAIL

3c: I dodge behind a vertical obstruction (Pylon, Mountain, Base Obstruction. Liberator picks a direction and I go the opposite way
3c1: I dodge too early, liberator rolls sideways and uses main turret - See chances per 3b1b
3c2: I dodge too late, liberator catches me, engages with pilot guns or rams. FAIL
3c I dodge on time. GOTO 1, 2, 3 or 4

4: I turn and engage the Liberator using my nose gun.
4a: Liberator rolls for main turret shot. Estimate 4-6 firing opportunities before reposition based on altitude.
4a1: Valkyrie Dodges, 10% chance of dealing damage to Liberator, PASS, GOTO 4a for 6. If Liberator is damaged, increase 4a3 probability
4a2: Valkyrie Holds. 70% chance of dealing damage to liberator, 65% chance of Hit. If Dalton, OHK is 70%. If Zephyr, 40% If prior damage. If Shredder, go to 4a.
4a3: Liberator receives critical damage PASS
4a4: Liberator activates Fire Suppression, go to 4a for 2 times (One-Time Only for 45 seconds)
4a5: Liberator is destroyed or disengages WIN

4b: Liberator engages Head on
4b1: If Vektor or Chaingun, 40-60% FAIL.
4b2: Liberator Attempts to Ram. 50% FAIL. If Pass, go to 4c1

4c Liberator engages me at 15-20 degrees with no roll
4c1: Turret fire engages with 30% chance of hit. If Dalton, 30% chance of OHK FAIL.
4c1a: I get enough distance to escape
4c1a1: Liberator turns, GOTO 1, 2, 3, or 4
4c1a1: Liberator Disengages WIN
4c2: Liberator has Spur. 20% FAIL, IF PASS, go to 4c1a



So if you took the time to read that, you'll see that most of my options are highly dependent on RUNNING THE HELL AWAY.