The anti-everything argument

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by oscarcar2Vanu, May 23, 2014.

  1. Alarox

    Projectiles do not gain momentum from the vehicle they're fired from, if you also mean to imply that.

    It is like comparing the Zephyr to the Shredder in a Liberator vs Liberator battle. If you completely jump the person and the situation favors you then a Zephyr can and will win. Otherwise the Shredder with win every other battle.

    When you use HEAT you're gaining AI potential with the ability to still reliably damage armor. However, in a tank vs tank battle you aren't competitive. 2-3 shots is a massive difference.

    The TTK of Titan-150 AP to the front of an MBT is 14s. The TTK of Titan-150 HEAT to the front of an MBT is 21s. That's an increase of 50%. An AP Prowler has a similar TTK against the Vanguard of 14s, giving that tank a 7s advantage.

    If you manage to jump the other tank from behind then you deal 2x damage on your first shot. This negates one of the two extra shots you need after switching to HEAT. Meaning, if you only get one rear shot in then the other MBT can still turn around and even potentially win (although, they need very fast reaction time).
    • Up x 2
  2. WycliffSlim

    Dalton function strangely for whatever reason. It might have more to do with how the crosshairs work. But, for whatever reason it's not at all consistent with how it fires.

    On the HEAT thing, I will 100% bow to your expertise on this(You have a couple more hours in a tank than me o_O), but I think that's pretty much what I was saying. HEAT isn't optimal for anti-tank but if you're good with positioning and avoid head to head duels with AV tanks the anti-infantry potential can easily make up for that downside.
  3. Alarox

    Probably because of how the gravity works. The more vertical the shot, the less the drop. The more horizontal, the more the drop. When a shot is vertical you don't have to worry about the drop at all, just leading. When the shot is horizontal there is the maximum amount of drop.

    So you've got the two extremes (90 and 0 degrees) and then you have all the different angles between.
    • Up x 1
  4. Shockwave44

    Excuse me, sir? What does another aircraft that has an A2A load out have to do with the other ESF having rocketpods? This discussion isn't about specialization, which for some reason, you decided to bring up. If an ESF has rocket pods, it can handle almost, if not every, situation it lands itself in.
  5. WycliffSlim

    No, because a horizontal shot while upside down functions differently than a horizontal show while right side up. A horizontal shot while the Liberator is going straight up flies differently. I think it could have something to do with the crosshairs maybe not being perfectly lined up with where the round actually originates. You don't notice it in most normal angles of firing but when you start shooting at air or from strange angles it's very noticeable.
  6. Thesweet

    I think vehicles should be more about supporting infantry rather than be there to farm them. I think these changes would make a much more exciting game with more teamwork and options for squad and platoon leaders other than waypoints. It would make intel more valuable as well.

    Air should have much less armour and HP, they should be more like a glass cannon with much much more firepower. So they dont turn into farming machines they should very inaccurate. To make Air usefull to a fight they should have ground targeting support. This can be done in a number of ways, infil laser, squad and platoon leader command console, tank commander command console that uses a drone to designate.

    MBT should have much more, HP and resilience against all arms. They are there to give infantry cover to advance and to counter enemy armour. They should be effective in open ground but their turrets should only have a maximum rotation of 60 degrees on either side of the forward facing reference point. this and a slower rotating turret limits their ability to fight in close spaces. Their weapons should be excellent at medium to longer ranges but useless up close.

    These changes would make the game much more fun with diversity and tactical options. It encourages greater teamwork and give leaders a reason to be a leader. squad and platoon leaders should have access to more powerful weapons. Platoon commanders could be the only ones with access to carpet bombs where as squad leaders could be restricted to a single jdam or something like an A10 tankbuster run whereas infils may only get access to lightning tank with a mortar barrage. These weapons will have to have a limited range due to rending issues but the target assist allows aircraft to duck in and out much faster.

    After a target has been marked, either by device or on a command console map and the ordinance selected, then a mission is given to near by available aircraft with that ordinance. They can then accept or decline the mission.

    lightnings could have more light support weapons, the skygard gets boring after awhile. turning it into a missile system to lock on to aircraft would allow it to deploy hydraulics and allow it to do a rocket mortar barrage. Missile locks could be helped by nearby radar support systems.

    More open maps with more space for tank battles, then make the larger bases even more urban for infantry with 6 outer bases rather than 3. make it into more like a city. vehicles only enter at their own peril.

    Counters for these new weapons could be things like laser detection warning. If a air strike is ordered by a CUD then a smoke marker for where the air/mortar strike will land etc.

    This would make the game more dynamic and interesting
  7. Flag

    Did you ever stop to consider why this is the case?
    No? Didn't think so.

    Try and remember it this time:
    MBTs hang around zergs because if they don't, they get killed. And there's nothing they can do about it that isn't just relying on the sky knight/whale ****ing something up.
    If the same restriction was in place on aircraft that are there on tanks, it would be quite an experience to read these forums.

    Air gets mobility/speed, air gets lots of firepower, and air gets versatility without having to give up anywhere near the same amount of their peak performance as tanks do.
    • Up x 1
  8. WycliffSlim

    The reason, right or wrong, is that air is also much easier to counter and much harder to use effectively than armor(in my opinion). You see armor zergs stomping bases all the time but very rarely is there an air zerg that lasts longer than a base or two because the number of people who can keep their ESF/Liberator up for very long is very small.

    Not going to comment on whether this situation is right or wrong, simply my feelings on why it is how it is.

    There really is a restriction on air. I've wandered into the wrong neighborhood many times as an ESF or Liberator and gotten almost instantly melted. The difference is that people seem to wait for awhile before pulling counters to air and it's true that once you become a good pilot there aren't many things that hard counter you like Liberators do to MBT's. Well, other than getting zerged or running into a flak trap.
  9. Volccis

    MBTs are save near zergs. Aircrafts are save outside of zergs. How is that fun for aircrafts? Aircrafts are usually permanently deterred from any big battles as long as the battle is even (means neither factions are underpopulated). And when ground forces have pushed through and won the battle, then aircrafts can freely hover over the base when the actual battle is already over.

    ESFs are too weak to be an actual threat for ground forces and Liberators get destroyed by enemy ESFs very easily if they havent AA/ESF support near them. A single ESF will destroy a 3/3 Liberator and you can do nothing about it in Liberator but pray for a lucky Dalton hit. And also A2G ESF get even easier destroyed by enemy ESFs because they cant watch their back when engaging ground units.
    • Up x 1
  10. Flag

    True, but thing about it this way:

    Air has to be "easy" to counter, because if it isn't, they'll dominate the battlefield more than anything else in the game.
    If it wasn't so strong, the counter wouldn't have to be what it is today.

    I've seen some people make the argument that because air lacks staying power (which isn't always true) they need greater firepower than ground.
    That's the complete wrong way to go about this problem, as air is forced into lower staying power because of their firepower.

    And the way it is now has people unhappy on both sides (ground lacks versatility - air lacks staying power in bigger fights).
    So Wycliff, can you really blame us for wanting to change the situation?
    And can you come up with a better solution?

    ESFs are the way they are because they carry with them too much firepower.

    Like I mentioned above, the bottom line cause is the firepower air gets to have per vehicle. Everything comes back to this one point.

    As a side note, ESFs are safe within their own zergs, just like MBTs. The sky knights have the luxury of being able to operate outside them with much more ease than ground vehicles can. Or are you implying that an MBT is safe within the enemy zerg?
  11. DevDevBooday

    Thats the funny thing, now im not talking about you exactly JackD but one of the most common arguments when it comes to 'how to kill a Lib'
    by experiemced pilots, they always say 'Just coordinate to get multiple sources of AA and the Lib is toast, its that easy, why do you complain'
    Yet when anyone says 'What Libs should do is coordinate with some ESF escorts and be weaker to enemy ESFs' Lib pilots then say 'WHAT! how can you expect us to work together as a team! That kind of coordination just doesnt happen!'


    For some reason us ground peasants are supposed to be dependent on each other to take down Libs yet Libs should be self sufficient is annoying.
    Before anyone says 'but its a vehicle that costs resources' so do Skyguards, they are the SAME cost actually, yet for some reason we are expected to pull 3 or more of them in order to actually kill the Lib.

    Libs coordinate with 3/3 I know, so why would it be hard then to have an ESF escort?

    ESFs SHOULD be a Libs proper weakness.
    Once again people say 'it already is' yeah, in the same way that a Vanny is weak to HE rounds. Yes it will kill it but its not EFFECTIVE.

    I wouldnt call 4 entire clips of A2A rotary without a single missed round 'effective'.
    • Up x 2
  12. WycliffSlim

    I don't disagree with any of this.

    I've actually been working on a video suggesting some changes and I'll give you a quick overview of the main points right now.

    1: Liberators/ESF's dominate small fights?
    True. Why? because in small fights(1-12) you can't spare the manpower to scare away some aircraft. To be fair, ANY vehicle including MAX units dominates small fights but since aircraft can travel so quickly it's much easier to hop from fight to fight with them so you encounter them more.

    Automated turrets. Relatively low DPS, high resistance, connected to a generator that auto repairs them as long as it isn't destroyed.

    Why does this help?
    The turrets are hard to destroy which means in small fight it isn't worth the time to try and kill them. Even though they have a low DPS they still do constant damage which will make hover spamming impossible. Since they're connected to a generator that reps them even if they're destroyed they slowly repair themselves over time unless the generator is taken down by ground forces(combined arms). These turrets would have extremely limited range, only enough to defend the base around them.

    2: Change how Skyguards/AA turrets function

    Within 100-150m increase the damage of flak from Skyguards/AA turrets. However, have the flak from AA turrets auto-detonate at approximately their render range and give Skyguards increased gravity so that they become extremely hard to use past 500-600m. This will allow flak to be more punishing to the aircraft that are actually attacking their immediate area while not being that annoying constant damage out to 1000m that they are now.
    • Up x 1
  13. Qaz

    So, i've been getting more and more frustrated with libs. When tanking, i'm pretty much dying 8/10 times to libs. Or at least, that's what it feels like. Even operating in friendly areas or having a skyguard around doesn't prevent me from losing my tank. So, I do think that their current state is broken and needs to be changed. How, I don't know.

    Making Skyguards super-deadly at close range could work, but it'd have to be a pretty extreme buff for it to not be pointless.
  14. Kid Gloves

    If I recall correctly, PS1's base turrets would auto-engage targets (albeit quite badly) if unmanned.

    PS2 needs this just like it needs spitfires. Spitfires were beautiful; they did a very similar job to what barbed wire does on the battlefield.

    I also 100% agree with the proposed AA change, except for it to work the aircraft munitions (e.g. Dalton) would also need to be range-limited. I like the concept of artillery, but aircraft should not be the long range artillery platform that requires a sortie to dislodge because of how mobile they are.
  15. Volccis

    ESFs are the way they are because they are fast. However the game engine doesnt support fast vehicles (render time, distance) and you end up hovering or flying at very slowly to see any infantry players which is suicide in most cases. Sure we can destroy unaware tanks but to do so we have to get deep in their zerg and attack from behind.

    The firepower ESF can carry affects only on infantry players because AI noseguns are only weapons which are somehow effective against ground. Ground vehicles have to worry about getting Rocketpods/Hornets in the ***, if they dont get they are totally fine. However if you play with AI nosegun you either get totally facerolled by enemy ESFs or you give up Rocketpods/Hornets and take A2A secondary and be useless against ground vehicles. If you play with default nose + RP/hornets you have only one weapon against ground forces. Sure you can use your default nose gun in small battles but in bigger zergs you havent the luxury to hover over a base.

    Difference is, ESFs are safe within their own zerg but they cannot operate from their own zerg like tanks can. Anti-air wont allow it.

    But I can understand people because when I played few days with infantry/tanks I already started to hate aircrafts for no reason. Just when I saw someone killing dumb infantry people who ran in open area etc made me hate the aircraft and I had to spawn an ESF and destroy it. Its magical :)
  16. Flag

    No, I don't think you grasp the problem.

    Here's one for you: If we "have" to jump into ESFs to deal with air, why don't you have to jump into, say, a lightning to deal with ground?

    Because that's what you're telling me to do.
    • Up x 1
  17. Medium

    So why should it take a good esf pilot to dominate a lib when even a terrible solo lib pilot can dominate a mbt?
  18. Volccis

    Because aircrafts are very useless until there is an air zerg or enemy has literally zero AA and they can hover freely over a base. The game isnt balanced in small battles and its never built around them so big zergs should be the sugar in this game. An aircraft cannot stop any infantry player from capping bases or thats actually true with tanks. My problem isnt air vs ground vehicle, its the goddamn infantry which is overpowered and vehicles are just there to fill the empty space.

    I already suggested to give lots of survivability and firepower for MBT so one 2/2 MBT could easily deter ESF and against Liberator it would be even. The answer from people was no and it looked like most of them were ground players. Im totally up to buff MBT and Lightning so infantry players would actually fear vehicles instead running toward a tank with rocket launcher like its nothing. Or flying with jetpacks and C4 them, its just ridiculous.

    I'd be happy if infantry players would render over 300m and the one problem with aircrafts are that you cannot spot enemies and friendlies from a distance even if the infantry players would render. Okay, Im done, game sucks :E
  19. WycliffSlim

    A terrible solo Lib pilot won't survive long enough to find a MBT much less kill it.

    All that being said, that's isn't a horrible point and it's one that I've spent a lot of time trying to figure out. The relationship between MBT's and Liberators really is a strange one. There aren't many hard counters in Planetside 2 however it's nigh on impossible for a MBT to survive a 1v1 encounter with a semi competent Liberator.
    • Up x 1
  20. Flag

    And that's where you're off the mark.
    There's nothing wrong with the MBT -against the rest of the game-, so this buff would ruin more than it solved.

    No, the problem does lie with air, the rest are there as a result of it.