Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by CertifiedPi3142, May 9, 2013.
One mans Nerf is another mans Buff
I like your suggestion
Lock-on launchers need a buff again. Once they nerfed the Annihilator to uselessness ESF's made a severe comeback. Especially since the way G2A missiles work and they fire to where the enemy WILL BE on impact instead of following them.
Reduce G2A lock-on times by another 1s and give the launchers some upgrade paths so the player can tweak what they want the launcher to do more damage against (ie: extra damage against air vehicles, ground vehicles, faster reload. AND MORE AMMO!
Well then where on earth is your claim coming from, because as stated in the next paragraph, there's -nothing- in the game design that supports your point AT ALL??
So because Infiltrators can now use SMGs, they're close range infantry, right? And because shotguns were nerfed they're not intended to be close range weapons, right?
Honestly, do you even think of counter arguments before coming up with this nonsense? You'd save us all a lot of time...
I know this bit wasn't to me, but what's the point in a nerf to 200m (current G2A is 500m tracking out to 800m as far as I'm aware...)? I'd welcome any nerf to AA to force people to get into the air, but that really just seems like it would piss people off whilst not really solving the uselessness of the Liberator...
Or you could just get the dedicated launcher for each application instead of expecting one-loadout-beats-all nonsense...
Never hear the phrase 'Jack of all trades, master of none.' That's your Annihilator.
I would absolutely welcome this; it'd be a lovely change to the air meta.
Just spent 30 minutes in an AA max. Easiest 20 certs I've made in a while... Shooting at the air battle a base away. Just the kill assists where yummy.
I can land hits with an AA max on a plane further then I can effectively shoot some one with a sniper rifle. People who think that is balanced are out of their minds. Combined arms doesn't = Infantry kill everything whoo hooo. It means every wing of combat is vital to win. Currently 2 of the three wings of combat in this game, tanks and air, are not required to win. Tanks can help, and air is near dead weight.
If some one disagrees with this assessment then I can only assume your sever doesn't offer good outfits or large fights. ESFs are nigh useless in fights, unless your enemy is very bad.
If it was the jack of all trades then it should be able to lock onto mana turrets.
Although all lock-ons for air should have a reduced lock-on time OR a 0.5 second grace period is given when a tree branch gets in the way of your reticle so lock isn't immediately LOST.
I entirely disagree with both assertions. Thanks for playing.
What are you talking about?!? You talk about RL things, i then point out that PS2 is not real life, YES/NO?
No, they are infiltrators, aka they infiltrate bases and need a weapon to defend themselves at close ranges. A sniper rifle is not great at that. The Infiltrators class is a not called "Snipers", they are called infiltrators for a reason.
They were nerf because they were too good at being CQC weapon, just like lolpods got nerfed because they were too good a A2G options, since dec the lolpods has gotten nerf 3-4 times, if not more. Look at the amount of times the lolpods have gotten nerfed, now take into account that Higbys just tweeted that they are adding a new A2A weapon for ESF.
The devs are clearly are moving away from the ESF being a ground attack aircraft, and wants the ESF to be a A2A fighter with the ability to attack ground if there is nothing else to do.
The dedicated G2A launcher has a lock-on range at 200 meters(with a "fly-away" cushion of 50 meters, it seems) with a flight/missile-in-air range of around 500 meters.
Maybe I should stop playing again since over the last few days that i've been back playing with regularity I've been pretty much killed A LOT by ESF rocket pods. That just screams that something needs to change.
We'll try this once more... Here's my original post. I'll highlight the important bit for your first point.
So, to spell it out since clearly you're avoiding any type of thinking. The blue statement does indeed refer to reality. This is because of what is contained in the orange statement. The orange statement categorically demonstrates that there is no intention for the ESF to be an air superiority fighter. Given this, my only last assumption can be that you're basing your assertion on observations of reality.
If you're not basing it on observations of reality, that's absolutely fine. But then we come back to my question once again... Where on earth are you basing the claim: "The ESF should not be a mini lib, its a figher not a ground attack aircraft." If it's not based upon reality, and it's not based upon the game, I am once again left to assume it's based upon personal fantasy and your hatred of ESFs, neither of which are the right place to balance game design elements.
Okay, so you're agreeing with me. The infiltrator can be a sniper. It can infiltrate into forward positions with a sniper rifle and take out priority targets. Alternatively, it can infiltrate into a CQC environment using the SMG. So it's essentially both, right? Close range infantry, and long range infantry?
A lot like, you might say, an ESF that can equip air-to-air weapons, and air-to-ground weapons... It's clearly an air-to-ground platform and an air-to-air platform. Sweet. Progress.
They were nerfed because people were whining and SOE assuages whiners with nerfs. There was nothing OP about shotguns before and continues to be nothing OP about them now. With that said though, let's say you're right and they were nerfed because they were too good. Was their purpose changed? No. So a couple of nerfs to Lolpods because they were too good at A2G proves what? They're still A2G weapons.
New A2A weapons - great idea, I've been lobbying for this for months. Does the launch of new AV weapons for the MAXs prove that the developers want the MAX to become an anti-vehicle weapon and that they're moving it away from being anti-infantry or anti-air? No. Seriously, think before you post.
Could you honestly make up any more nonsense? Do you even know how short 200m is?
The lock on range is 500m on all lock-ons that can hit air (unfortunately including Striker and Annihilator). They chase to 800 (8 second flight time, 100m/s projectile velocity). It's pretty clear you have no idea of how anything in this game works. If you can make mistakes of this size, why on earth do you think you're qualified to discuss in game balance at all?
If that's your attitude to getting killed, I really do think you're probably onto something with the whole stopping playing thing. You must get so stressed.
So, you get killed a lot by ESFs. This means you're not with a platoon, or the platoon are doing it wrong. Either way, every death is entirely preventable; you're just not preventing them.
I get killed a lot by tank shells... Does that 'scream that something needs to change'? No. It screams that I GOT KILLED. It was going to be something that kills you.
Assuming your forum name is your in game name, you're BR37. You've got a K/D of 0.69, so it's obvious you'll be getting pretty pissed off dying a lot more than you're succeeding. You don't have an outfit. You've got more claymore kills than you have anything else. You've got barely 8 days played. Of those 8 days, you've played for LESS THAN 20 MINUTES in an ESF. Despite having fired as many shots as me with the Burster, you've got 3% of the kills I have. All of these things scream out that you shouldn't be commenting on in game balance...
BUT, all of that aside, the reason I looked this up was to confirm my suspicion that you, like everyone else whining, is making a mountain out of a molehill.
Voila. In your last 100 deaths, you've been killed 3 times by rocket pods. Cry me a river.
Well personally on my stat page, my sidearm has 775% accuracy, my main infantry weapon has 1% accuracy, yet i have 3 times more kills than rounds fired with it and my k/d page has masses of kills and deaths just missing.
Here lies the lesson k/d is meaningless, accuracy is meaningless, using a bugged beta stat sheet is silly. Trying to to put down, be condescending to people and invalidating their opinions by using a bugged stat sheet (just look at the thread on it) is just plain idiocy.
(Not that I agree with any of Stormlights opinions but your method of personal attack is repugnant and reflects poorly on these forums)
Whilst I agree the statsheet is bugged, it's very easy to see which stats are bugged and which are not. At BR37, his kills stack up, his shots fired vs accuracy vs kills stack up, his time in vehicles vs kills in vehicles stacks up, and if a random amount of kills/deaths are missing from his killboard (never seen this bug reported though), there is still a random sample of 100 deaths on there, of which only 3% are from rocketpods.
Yes, there's a minuscule chance EVERY one of those statistics is bugged to the point that it LOOKS entirely reasonable but is in fact completely unreliable (he's welcome to prove this chance with some in game screenshots of his stats, of course), but I feel pretty content in taking my 99.9% chance here that he's playing Cryaboutwhatkilledyouside 2, with an overarching vein of that thing my dog does when he's chasing ducks and they fly away.
I really can't see any personal attack in my post (aside from perhaps the first line, however that was clearly invitational and a joke). I haven't called him an idiot. I haven't said he's a terrible gamer. I haven't said anything about his mother.
What I've done is brought into question both his assertion that he gets killed loads by rocketpods and this proves that they're unbalanced (he doesn't; he's been killed 3% of the time by them), and the very notion that he has enough experience to sit here and talk to gamers who clearly have a lot more experience and ability in this game about whether there's a trend for X or Y in game, or the necessary steps to 'balance' a perceived imbalance (that again, has been demonstrated to be making a mountain out of a molehill).
I think you missed the point, you should make your assertions through discussion of gameplay, mechanics etc... What you did was by making the post persnal (which is what you did, even if you can't see it ie. "obvious you are getting pissed off", "your attitude" , " your attitude to getting killed", "you shouldn't be commenting on game balance") was take away from any earlier arguments you had been making, and as I commented reflects very poorly on you, not him. Having the opposite effect than what you were trying to achieve I believe. Did Stormlights observations add anything to the discussion, nope, hence they could of been comfortably ignored.
Does A2G, G2A need rebalancing, it certainly does. I would argue the lack of choices in setting up an air superiority ESF due to the lack of credible options for the secondary weapons of the ESF needs to be reworked along with any reduction in AA capabilities on the ground. The balance between AA and A2G seems a difficult for SOE to manage given how AA scales so effectively, a balance which could be bought about more easily with a air superiority ESF, rather than a single jack of all trades option we have now. But I feel my dream of a pure effective dogfighting aircraft is not on the developers horizon.
I agree on the whole, however when it is clear that someones point is completely unfounded within the actual game, one must then discuss why someone could come to an unsupported conclusion; lack of experience. There is no point in discussing gameplay balance with someone who has played the game for 1 minute, spawned an ESF, flown outside a camped warpgate and gotten insta-killed. I would not expect anyone to have a well rounded opinion of gameplay at that point. This, I assert, can be taken as written for any poster. As such, there's clearly a spectrum between 'not enough experience of the game', and 'experienced enough to comment'. Bringing in personal statistics at this point is a necessity to establish which end of this spectrum a player sits in.
Asserting to the attitude of a player is quite far from a personal attack in my mind, in fact it's an incredibly important point in discussing gameplay mechanics. Some infantry players that believe all things must be equal (an infantry player should have the same K/D as an ESF, Tank, MAX etc) are exhibiting a certain attitude in their gaming which imho can be described as entitlement. On the other hand, some tank players that believe no infantry should ever be able to challenge them are also exhibiting an entitled attitude in their gaming. Neither of these are healthy attitudes to have when discussing gameplay balance; as you say, the discussion needs to be based upon mechanics, NOT personal preference.
The reason for questioning Stormkiller's attitude was simple; he was complaining that A: there were a lot of ESFs in the air (without any statement as to why this negatively impacts balance), and B: he was getting killed a lot by rocket pods (without any explanation as to why this is a bad thing). B, not only turns out to be untrue, but also evident to the conclusion we can draw from point A - he does not like aircraft, and feels that he as as a non-pilot should not be threatened by them. An attitude that's immensely detrimental to game balance.
Agreed on all points.
This whole "Nerf AA max/Lolpods" theme actually is somewhat players own fault. It goes like this:
1. Over 9K of infantry and tanks clustering around with NO AA AT ALL
2. A few ESFs pass by, lolpoding everything in sight (what a surprise!)
3.a. Infantry and Tank drivers go and whine "Nerf lolpods NAOW!"
3.b. People pull out AA Maxes
4. AA Maxes swat everything from air (Wonder why is that so?)
5.a. Pilots go and whine "Nerf AA Maxes NAOW"
5.b. Pilots retreat after first run before AA maxes show up and let ground troops to finish the job, providing occasional support on stragglers.
But as a grounded guy who happens to see AA max (my friend plays a lot as Max... I stick around him) doing his job up close and personal, i say - it feels a bit OP even from the ground. Flak should be more like psychological weapon, like you know that at this distance it won't hurt you much, but if you will come any closer you're dead for sure. It should force pilots to retreat and make a different approach, but not really blow crafts up from that far away.
I have no idea how to fix that, but the way i see it - "it's all your fault". If you don't bring AA, you, like, asking for being smashed by the airfore. If you rocketpod every living thing in sight - don't be surprised by AA maxes trying to rip you wing from wing on sight.
What i do agree with though is that Skyguard for Lightning needs some sort of re-work. I only saw the thing used once or twice. And it was mostly used to kill infantry.
1) nope, skyguard isn't considered useless cos of range, it is useless due to the fact in order to get a good view on the lolpodders you also put yourself in view of 5av turrets/fractures/ravens/lockons/c4LA/the 5other lolpodders that comes from behind(yeah some lolpodders has brains) unless ofc you are the one doing the spawn camping.
3)...no we got bombers in this game, they are called Lib not ESF just stop this already.
Rocket pods are too flexible (as they do well against soft and hard targets), they carry too much ammo for their power, it is a small investment to get them..ESFs are far too effective for the investment. The air game is eclipsing the overall game to the point it is no longer worth playing as anything else but air. Remember ESFs can retreat very easily to repair/reload...ADA cannot
I can agree that dual burster max is more effective than skygaurd and should NOT be. Sky guard should at the very least get an extended magazine as a cert purchase.
Ya know what kills me a lot. A gun firing that last bullet after I've avoided 2-3 waves of rocketpods trying to kill me. That or the C4/tank mine blowing my Max up.
Just because it only shows the final thing that took out my last bar of health doesn't mean rocketpods didn't have a major factor involved in my death. If only you could see ALL the factors involved in my deaths.
Separate names with a comma.