So, I've tried some A2G again to see what the change that splits the forum is about...

First of all - the farming.
I noticed barely any difference the couple of times I did it. Stupid people come always from the same corner to get butchered, nobody tries to kill the big rocketshooting ESF 50m away.

Where it does make a difference though - it is almost impossible to airstrike infantery efficiently if there is ANY source of AA.
Since the average AA source has a TTK of 6 seconds or less on an ESF with maximized FLAK armor it was already difficult before, but now?
You have to get in quick and under the radar, aquire a target, unload your weapons and **** off as quick as possible - depending on the terrain and the skill of the AA user you have those 6 or less seconds to do that.
Without thermals highlighting potential targets it takes far too long to decide where to shoot to do this, unless you have somebody who tells you EXACTLY where to shoot. I'd even say it is almost impossible at night. Your best bet is to not aquire a target at all and just rely on your experience to guess where enemies might presently be. Hooray for friendly fire! And no, the minimap is no help - it doesn't load in time, since you're flying in at full speed.

When i get the time I'll check how useful nightvision is, but if it serves the same purpose as thermals had infantery is propably gonna be invisible on it soon.

Evaluating the performance of the threat detection system is quite easy though.
Its about as useful as the "warden".
The warden I have equipped on my Stalker infiltrator to be exact.

Also it detects VEHICLES not THREATS.
If it detected ******* threats to me it would highlight MAXes and heavy assaults, because those can carry, guess what??? ANTI AIR WEAPONS!!
It doesn't even do what its advertised as goddamnit.


Wrel said the intention is to make hunting infantery require more skill.
I'd heartily disagree with that.
It either makes no difference, or makes a already difficult task even worse.

As a personal note: this particular gem from his reddit (click here) worries me quite a lot:

I realize an overall vision has yet to be shared regarding the future of combined arms (yes, it involves vehicles)

Wrel, if you, counter to all the forum believes, actually read this and feel wronged I am sorry.
But that doesn't sound like you have a vision AT ALL. Thats a promise that there MIGHT be something, but you can't talk about it. I think you're just making changes and hope that you can put us off long enough that, how did you put it? We get so comfortable with the problems that we confuse it with the way it is supposed to be?
I don't think you have ANY vision of combined arms involving vehicles aside from sunderers and galaxies bringing infantery from one base to another.
Because lets be honest - there are only three ways vehicles influence base captures.
1. They bring infantery there.
2. They destroy what brings infantery there
3. They kill infantery. <---- this is what gets nerfed time and again.


Do me a favor Wrel

PROVE ME WRONG.

Skipping over most of the OP (mostly because, yes sure, there are a ton of problems with theat optics, feel and etc is up for discussion, but something I will not focus on in this thread) Wrel is really friggin ambiguous in that one reddit post.

In fact I'm wondering if he really thought it through thinking it would possibly be one of the most controversial topics of the forums, gj wrel. So far the vehicle game is indeed, kill sundi, kill what kills sundi and so on, isolating the anti infantry to only infantry, which is stupid for any game like this. Battlefield uses vehicles to control the area around the base, making cover impossible, destroying some landmarks to stop enemy advances, destroy powerhouses, control the flow of infantry movement, aka what a tank actually does in infantry combat. In this game it's almost the opposite, it's all up to the infantry if the tank stays or not, it doesn't matter how good the tank is, his job depends on the infantry which brings me to one of the most infuriating things about vehicle combat regarding tanks in this game:
It does not matter how skillful you are in a base fight, you can still lose if one side is completely incompetent.

Which is weird, considering I could be a good heavy, kill all the enemies heading to the point and cap a base by myself at no point would I need help, why would I need a medic if I could sustain, have ammo, kill mans, flank, and have the knowledge of where they are by footsteps no matter how sneaky they are.
There have only been a few times where I would rely on allied armor and that's to get infantry into a base, where the pop would be infantry instead of the tanks that WON outside, your team is penalized for keeping tanks on the outside perimeter, another thing that's ****** up about this games balance.

So naturally it would make sense that you make up the tanks in some AI force multipliers to even it out, aircraft or maxes to ensure that the enemies numbers do not overwhelm you BUT WAIT they recently nerfed said force multipliers, garsp. The thing is the max one, sure was a bit reasonable, maxes were aggressive and relying less on the team and more on the maxes ability to deck, so they gave it an ability to rely on the team...less? No wait, this is stupid. Ok so air is obviously OP (for the sake of this example) so they want air to be more skillful, ya know, beyond learning how to fly (which I find stupid, you put in the time JUST LEARNING TO STAY AFLOAT FOR GOD SAKE) so they make it harder to see infantry, don't give a refund and make it harder to see...not...harder to..kill....

But see what I'm getting at here, these changes make no sense. If he wanted to insensitivize teamwork, why not an ability that makes maxes take 20% damage while being repaired or if you could make your aegis wider or if you could take more bullets like a magnet or etc etc. Self repair is just that, self repair.
Alright, what about thermals, ok so you need a way to see vehicles better or not hunt infantry better....so locating them is skillful?
This isn't skill, this is simply being able to ******* SEE. Why not make it so the spotter made it so that infantry spotted were highlighted, so spotters had more meaning in a push, giving infils more of a teamwork role instead of being a one of per squad.

It's obvious right? These changes were obviously rushed, they barely had thought behind them, barely any changes to them, but why were they rushed? These were things featured for years, things so built into the game that removing them was like night and friggin day, why rush something that could've been a MASSIVE mistake? God knows how long the LMG changes and orbital strike has been on PTS, they don't want to rush anything that influences infantry in a bad way, but maxes and air? psh ****em.

This kind of behavior is impatient, crude, lacking in forethought of the big picture, it's ambiguous to any information he might give even though we are asking why. Nothing is confirmed because he can't confirm the ******* impacts, this is literally the last thing you want in a businessman and considering this game is ran like a business.... etc.

Wat.

Makes sense. ESF is a highly mobile and lethal platform, when left unchecked. Losing Thermal (or not using Scout Radar) makes farming require less cruise control, but it's still fish in a barrel.

The only caveat to that is that engagement parameters can change pretty fast in this game, so these Safe Infantry Farms can scale quickly to Lethal Situations. Keep an active awareness of how enemy population is changing in the area, how nearby enemy zergs are changing their position toward you, and if the positioning and type of enemy forces on the ground Changes. You don't want to overexpose yourself in a slow attack run only to find out that enemy presence has doubled, that enemy forces have spread out and now compromise your exit route, or that enemy AA/Air/etc. has moved in and it is now a death trap.

Good to hear someone else echoing the vibe I got when trying (non-trvial engagement) ESF G2A post-nerf.

With the nerf to Hornets (worse AV), the change the Thermal (Infantry blindness), and the pre-existing boosted damage resistance for some Vehicles vs. ESF, the ESF now is struggling to operate safely or to engage effectively any non-Air target outside of a safe region. AND it becomes even more vulnerable to most its counters: A2A, Ground AA, etc. Its ability to operate is compromised, its ability to survive is compromised, and its role as a reliable/effective unit counter is compromised. Much less reason for it in the game or to pull it.

I and others who posted, think adding Thermal to highlight MAXs could be a good adjustment.

I'm not saying it "fixes everything" for every player, but it at least gets the AA Flak game more interactive.

I'd be happy to have ESF AI and Hornet damaged nerfed vs. MAXs as part of this (make ESFs unable to kill full health MAXs in one Mag). Especially as it's something I already advocated anyway.

Agreed.

I think the word "skill" has been a buzz word for too long. And it has now been used so much, so ambiguously, and with such a strong blind faith (in it) by people saying it, that it is widely accepted as some sort of nebulous-fix-to-everything. Now we have DBG Devs talking about "increase the skill required to hunt down infantry"... which is like saying take the glasses away from the old lady, so she is required to use more skill to drive.

Any Designer trying to explain a change that "increases the skill required", should also define what *exact* skill(s) they are talking about. To avoid total failure in terms of communicating what they are saying, and avoiding total failure in others trying to understand and discussing the topic.

Cool idea.

I like the Teamwork aspect of it. I think it's neat and would love to see it explored and tested out.

I do have some concerns it might reward "zerging harder". Which many of the things in the game (including recent changes) seem to be rewarding more. But it's no more guilty of rewarding zergs than are so many other things in the game now, and it has many cool upsides (in pushing constructive coop play) that many of those others don't.

I expect PS2 Designers are basically guys who don't play PS2 and Wrel. The group that doesn't play or know the game at a player level is very bad (and gets stranger and worse the more the game goes on). And Wrel is biased, myopic, and a lead foot on pushing his changes. It's not good.

Didn't know some of this (vehicle resistence) as not a flyer. But sounds like esfs being pushed towards being A2A role? But are those lolpods still as effective as they feel, from being on the receiving end?

Yikes. The AA MAX is already a sitting duck without its charge ability. Watch as they desperately try to get away from ground vehicles, C4, Rockets, air units, or a random Archer. It is actually quite sad and heartbreaking to watch. More often than not though, the lifecycle of an AA MAX is ended by the angels of death descending from the sky bestowing the gift of C4.

Till then, I'll be making friends with a spawn room because venturing outside is a death sentence which kinda sucks because it is predictable and thus fairly easy to avoid.

TL;DR: I really miss the MAX charge on my AA MAX. Mostly due to LAs with C4 but also it added a bit of tactics versus air units.

Well you have to define threat I guess. Some threats are more threatening than others. Like a 3 yr old with a knife vs a trained soldier with a knife. Both could kill you but, one is significantly more dangerous. Maybe daybreak doesnt consider AA heavies and AA maxes a high priority threat. As in what kills vehicles more, vehicles or planetmen?

Im no pilot but what is the lifesspan of a heavy or max under direct uncontested esf fire?

Dead.

Test it in VR. I believe it was somewhere around 3.5 seconds depending on the gun and how many shots landed.

I check the forums daily but still never saw a single reason discussed or even posted as to why Empire Specific Fighters should be replacing Liberators in the primary role for A2G bombing. There have also been many MANY suggestions to fix ESFs being way too effective in A2G w/o impacting their performance as much as the Hornets+Thermals nerf did but they were mostly dissed to the side simply because ESFs didn't want to lose ANYTHING in their precious cert making contraptions.

Note: I don't want you to misunderstand thinking I'm in favor of the nerf, but rather to consider the fact that this topic was never even publicly spoken about despite people actually trying to create discussions for it.

Gotcha. I was just thinking in terms of AA MAX vs. ESF. I totally missed thinking on how it would affect MAX vs. other Vehicles. I can now vividly see how if MAX was the ONLY Infantry to light up, that Vehicles would just focus on them and it would be brutal for MAXs.

I would love to get "AA MAX vs. ESF" back to a point where there is better interaction. And then hopefully improve things from there so there is better gameplay in the interaction too. I don't want ESF to one-clip MAXs, and I don't want MAXs to be invisible traps to ESFs.

I totally agree with you that Charge was great in the MAX vs. Air. I'd even say it was essential.

I am all for reducing the power of farming in the game (including major but smarter nerfs to farming units, or major and smarter buffs to farmed units). And I am all for the game motivating players to do gameplay other than farming. But I feel these recent changes/nerfs were too crude in their impact on interesting gameplay, and have diminished the game (at least from early testing).

Yeah, I miss my "duels" between air with the charge. I had to use it at the right moment to win, which is perfectly fine. The asymmetrical challenge of having one who rely on high alpha damage versus sustained damage was actually quite enjoyable. Against ground you have some defense from getting run over by all them harassers/flashes.

One way would be for thermals, or how they used to be, is to work as a pulse with a fairly low cooldown. Right-click and rather than getting a scope you get like a snap of where infantry is. Just sound cool in my mind... Or maybe I just want to pretend I'm Batman

Pre-nerf, they were pushed toward A2G vs. MBTs, Infantry, and AV Base Turrets. Vanguards were sometimes a little more dangerous, because in groups they can spread out and OHK an ESF (plus their shields made it a longer TTK vs Vannys).

A good while ago, ESFs could do A2G vs. Sunderers pretty well. But that was adjusted with higher damage resistance for the Sunderer.

Pre-nerf ESF can kill non-Skyguard Lightnings very well, but it was tricky to engage Lightnings because you never knew if they were Skyguards or not unless you could first mess with them (from a safe position) and find out.

Harassers are very killable by sustained ESF Noseguns (or Rocket Pods and Hornets if they sit still), but it's a longer hunt and they can often reach cover or ally forces, both of which can both deter the ESF.

And all this is about 1 ESF. If multiple ESFs are working on the same target, they can take down just about anything with proper A2G weapons. Especially if they are not bad pilots. Unless their is sufficient AA in the area, at which point ESFs become much less operationally efficient.

I think some want that, but the actual idea of that in the current game seems silly. Because current ESF A2A is a mess and kinda a big joke:


ESF vs. ESF
==========
The higher skilled ESF pilot will win almost every time. Fights are over pretty fast. There is no real fight, it's just pre-determined by skill level. After that if comes down to numbers: whoever has more will win. Also, ESFs can travel the whole map pretty fast (including respawning and quickly coming back to re-engage someone that just killed them while they are still in the same area), and there is no cover in the air. Combine all that together, and you get ESF vs. ESF A2A will be dominated by top pilots and/or who has the bigger Gank Squad.

Also,
1) ESF vs. ESF relies on A2G ESF in order for there to be enough ESF targets to hunt, if A2G ESF dies the A2A ESF will run out of ESF targets because former A2G ESF players will not bother spawning/playing ESFs.
2) Air in bigger Ganks Squads makes the map (and Air game) even smaller, as they can kill quicker, cover more ground, spot more targets, and more quickly lock enemy factions out of Air on the Continent (or, in the case of Connery, get other Air players to leave the whole Server).
3) the biggest problem for new ESF pilots is surviving ESF vs. ESF fights against (vastly) more experienced pilots. Making the ESF more about A2A will steer new ESF pilots directly (and quickly and constantly) into their biggest problem. And this will greatly *increase* the difficulty in learning to use an ESF... unless the new pilots join bigger Gank Squads, which leads more into problem #2.


ESF vs. Lib
==========
Better ESF pilots can survive (and maybe kill) Libs, but most ESF pilots actually have a hard time surviving against Libs (Dalton OHK). ESFs can fly in A2A Gank Squads, but so can Libs (and players can fly in mixed A2A Ganks Squads of ESFs + Libs). Combine all that together, and you get ESF vs. Lib A2A will be dominated by top pilots and/or who has the bigger Gank Squad.


ESF vs. Valk
==========
There are typically 2 kinds of Valks: (1) Cert Pinatas that die real fast to almost anything, and (2) Repair-Bug-Valks that seem virtually unkillable. Any Air vs. the Cert Pinatas is easy domination. Any Air vs. the Repair-Bug-Valks is ineffective.


ESF vs. Gal
==========
ESFs 99% of the time cannot stop Gals from doing Gal Drops before they happen (so there is no ESF role either attacking Gals or defending Gals on Gal drops). ESFs can kill an empty Gal after they drop all their people... usually. Most ESFs have a very hard time dealing with a crewed A2A Gal, and must flee their area. Most crewed damaged Gals can land and out-repair the damage of an ESF. ESFs can fly in A2A Gank Squads, but so can Gals (and players can fly in mixed A2A Ganks Squads of ESFs + Gals, Lib + Gals, ESF + Libs, ESF + Libs + Gals). Combine all that together, and you get ESF vs. Gal A2A will be dominated by Gal or who has the bigger Gank Squad.


Anyway, this is why I frown when I hear the idea ESFs need to be more A2A. Sure, the skyknights love it because they like to farm bad pilots (they apparently like fish in a barrel). And non-pilots think it sounds like a cool thing. But as a non-skyknight who also doesn't enjoy hunting fish in a barrel, the ESF Air game is pretty bad and moving the ESF only to an Air game sounds terrible for the ESF game.

First, I don't think non-Wrel DBG Devs play or understand PS2 well. Second, I think Wrel is warped in his bias, and it affects his agenda and his outlook.

The problem with Burster and HA vs. ESF post-nerf is just that (outside an easy/safe engagement for the ESF) the ESF has no way to assess their threat value. How many there are, where they are, etc. Let alone address it. The ESF just flies into an area, encounters random levels of them in random locations, and starts taking random damage, with an ambiguous sense of their location and what exit routes might be best or not compromised. ESFs move very fast and, at greater distances from other units, and with often huge line-of-sight exposure to things hitting them, all of which makes ~invisible counter units very hard to prepare for, respond to, or deal with.

VR is a good test for ESF weapons on MAX. VR is a pretty good test for most HA players, but some HA players use some combination of Flak Armor, use Shield, use jump, and use MedKit to greatly extend TTK.

Most ESF A2G will be using AI Nosegun, Rocket Pods, or Hornets. Some ESF users will use the A2A Noseguns, but it's usually only if (1) they have an A2A ESF and don't have other A2G weapons, (2) if is in an engagement so safe they can casually use any weapon they want (or they really want the kill and are willing to risk death in an unsafe engagement), or (3) they have notably high aim skill.

Some weapon types (like LPPA) will shine vs. Infantry targets without cover. Others weapons (like Hornet) shine in a faster burst damage that limits the use of cover by Infantry to mitigate protracted damage.

lolpods are pretty amazing damage at AI vs. non-MAX. They are easy dumbfire spam, with big AoE damage, they are fast, and they do lots of damage. The VS one is slightly (though noticeably) worse at AI because the rockets fire in pairs and at slower intervals (I wasn't using Scythe/VS for this reason, though I am not sure if the recent changes will affect that decision).

lolpods were easily my favorite A2G weapon pre-nerf because (1) great AI, and (2) were more effective vs. more types of units than Hornet. I didn't like to farm, just do robust/situational A2G support, and the wide range of viable targets made the lolpods what I liked to use.

1) I am an ESF pilot
2) I have long agreed on limiting the OP of ESF A2G vs. Infanrty
3) even pre-nerf, a Lib could do many A2G Vehicle things that an ESF could not, both stuff they were better at than ESF and stuff that an ESF just couldn't do. A2G Certed ESFs could definitely outperform Libs in A2G AI.
4) Libs can do A2A very well
5) I believe there should be unit overlap in roles (not always at equal levels of efficiency, but at a "doable" level), to avoid bottlenecks

I intensely dislike Reddit and rarely (almost never) read/post there. But I have consistently posted on these forums with my outlooks. I prefer making a game more accessible and enjoyable for the average player. I don't like OP units in any form (unless it's in the specific role of a narrow hard counter), and I agree the pre-nerf ESF was OP and should have been adjusted in a number of areas (though for some of that adjustment I would have liked giving its targets better teeth to bite back with).