[Suggestion] this game would be objectively more fun for a majority players if A2G ESF's were toned down.

This is the point though, you say you take LOADS of AA - ok.

You say that even with LOADS of AA it doesn't kill you - ok.

You that that even with LOADS of AA it doesn't even stop you doing your attack run, although it clearly limited hover farming - ok.




So basically even area denial doesn't really work for mass AA if the pilot has a clue (as least not for ESF A2G). Which I'd agree with myself.

Certainly most pilots will tend to look for easy farming than high AA areas, but it is quite possible even in high AA areas to operate successfully without dying. However little else in the game really works like that, pre-nerf Harrassers and Libs being the only things really (which are at least multi-crew).

On the flip side of this though is that push AA too far and it becomes impossible to fly.

So personally I'd say AA was about right currently, certainly they could maybe sort out AA Lock-ons (so it wasn't so easy to simply scrub them off on the ground/buildings/terrain) and I'd like to see Engi AA turrets too.

Demigan,

You make a lot of valid points. Although the first one is off my own personal experience. I have experienced that on occasion. Rarely, but it happens. As for the lock ons, they're lock ons.

Personally, I would quite like having specific loadouts for A2G, A2A and all that. I obviously fall into the category of 'infantry farming', as I only attack armor if it's alone or damaged. There's also some crackshot Vanguard drivers out there. Makes me a little nervous at times.
I mean, if you want an NC specific fix, just make it so they can raise their tank sights further. Best anti-air in the game, right there.

Don't get me wrong, while I'm usually forced to turn around and make repairs a bit more often with AA around, it's not a huge threat. One possible fix would be to tighten the cone of the AA weapons. Because, as someone who plays AA if I'm on the ground with an entire air force filling the sky, I know how hard it can be to hit and kill enemy aircraft. Particularly the Libs and Galaxies.
On the other side, if you get an ESF, they can't take many hits. If the spread of the AA was reduced, a high flying or distant ESF could be damaged, and a close one would be shredded.
The only way they'd be able to escape is by using terrain to shield them. Which, with flak doesn't always work. As it sometimes finds it's way over the hill and destroys you anyway.

Another, even less popular way of deterring air-farming would be to raise the cost of ESFs. No more spamming, that way.

Oh, there was that time the Germans lodged a diplomatic complaint about Americans using Trench Guns in the trenches.

And that time that Japan complained about the Americans having OP bombers. That is, after that stopped screaming 'HAXOR' at the bomber flying into the distance.

And then the world Nerfed the hell out of bombers. Now look at them. Hasn't the air force suffered enough?

Pulling AA is one of the least rewarding, and most frustrating aspects of the game. So hardly anyone uses it.

Locks Ons? Takes about 5 seconds to get a solid lock, at which point the pilot has already spammed 20 people and zoomed into the distance. That's IF he didn't kill you first.

Skyguard? Just...LMAO!!! Good one. A vehicle that sacrifices his DPS against EVERYTHING, so it can do terrilble DPS just to air.

Liberators? Basically a flying Borg cube. No matter what you have, or how much ammo, it's never enough to bring this thing down.

Burster Max. Outrageous cert cost makes it a non-starter for many players, especially new ones. And it's basically a Skyguard with less DPS and less survivability. So it's only effective using it in or ontop of your own spawn room.

What you are trying to do now is to force a change in whatever target the vehicle in particular is supposed to attack. Tanks are supposed to be decimated by air (their only real weakness, actually) so deterrence is the best they shoud manage. I don't mind buffing other forms of AA, such as skyguards, lock ons and rangers though.

The Valkerie was introduced as a lighter version of a galaxy (1 self defense gun with troop transport and limited gunship capability). Why are you trying to modify the roles of the vehicles that the DEVs intended? When the Valk first came out, I was excited at the prospect of going into a hot zone, Black Hawk Down style (precision dropping on roofs like commandos) and you want to change it into another gunship that completely changes the whole function and point of even spawning a Valk?

No.
Tanks are very vulnerable to multiple infantry weapons (C4, tank mines, rocketlaunchers), even after the coming hitpoints increase of only the MBT and Lightning. They are also vulnerable to eachother, and vulnerable to aircraft weapons.

Aircraft on the other hand are only respectively vulnerable. While there's literally more than a hundred different anti-infantry options, about 2-dozen anti-tank options, there's maybe one dozen of ground-based AA options available, all either deterrents or I was charitable enough to add them as AA even though they don't work well (Basilisk and Kobalt for instance).
So aircraft their main weakness is actually only other aircraft. The statistics back this up: the nose-cannons of a faction alone have more aircraft kills than every ground-based AA weapon together. Is this fair? Tanks have a weakness against other tanks which is very visible, and tanks are also vulnerable for aircraft. But at the same time aircraft are only really vulnerable to eachother? How is that balance?

So if I'm reading this right, the Skyguard, Lock-ons and rangers should become more than just deterrents, but MBT's should never get killing capabilities when it gets AA weapons? I guess I have to accept this one.

The Harasser was introduced as a quick troop transport with light offensive capabilities for Harassing. But almost the only real function people used it for is a high-speed attack vehicle that didn't just Harass, but could go toe-to-toe with multiple 2/2 MBT's. It's high speed and agility is better than a Vanguard shield to avoid damage, while it's top-canon cashes out a slow but steady supply of damage.
Roles aren't set in stone and the Dev's have shown that they willingly accept a new role for a vehicle by making updates to accomodate and balance the role players gave it rather than the role they intended it to have (the Harasser that didn't transport and wasn't Harassing but going toe-to-toe) and the introduction of the Valkyrie showed that the game has room for new game elements and restructuring of the roles. By creating a new, modified Valkyrie or something similar you can create a new aircraft vehicle to throw A2G damage at their feet. But since ESF already do that with incredible effect without many repurcussions for their choice it would be smart to rebalance it. ESF can go either A2g AV, or A2G AI, or A2A, but not all at the same time for one pilot seat. Their high speed still means they are excellent candidates for high-speed bombers, and the modified Valkyrie (or Vulture as many of the modifications are called) would perform the more dedicated close-ground support. Being both in danger to go too high where it's food for ESF, or when attacking being too low where it's in danger of primary canons, while still tanky enough to deal with normal AA means.

Allright, I think I owe you an apology. I've become pretty hostile in this thread with all the rather ill informed and subjective arguments floating around, most of which I have to repeat myself for a good answer.
Yes, on occasion AA has too much. AA is the best force-multiplier in the game. The point is that Skyguards or other AA don't boast a bad DPS with their capabilities, but ESF simply are too fast and can escape behind something before they are blown up in almost any scenario. But when there's more of them you quickly get a critical point where every spotted ESF is pretty much toast. Ofcourse, in many of even these scenario's where there's an incredible mass of AA you can still come from an unexpected area, attack something and get out, but for anything close to normal attack runs it becomes very tough indeed.

If specific loadouts were introduced, I hope they also introduce flying methods that make other flying styles equally powerful as reverse maneuver and hover fighting. The fact that the air-game is dominated by some buggy maneuvers is a problem, but similar to Tribes it's skiing it could become a feature. The difference between Tribes and Planetside 2 is that the developers decided to make it a simple feature rather than a weird, buggy maneuver that takes hours to master and makes certain frames absolete. By making it a true feature and showing it to everybody, and adding other features as well as alternatives, you can create a more exciting air-game for everybody, not just the flyboys who took hours of practice to learn the maneuvers and curbstomp any hostile.

My idea has become this:
Tighten up the COF, reduce the range at which flak explodes by a lot so you need to aim closer to the aircraft, and increase the damage. You need more skill to hit, especially with the current muzzle velocity at range, and aircraft won't have to deal with "there's AA around thus I get damaged". A good tanker can find places to receive less damage, a Harasser can use his speed and agility to dodge tank shells... and I think the air-game would be a blast if people could exact maneuvers to avoid AA fire, but with the risk that they get crushed if they fail to dodge it.
AA should not be equal to hitting an aircraft. The skill of the pilot and the skill of the AA user should both determine the actual amount of damage and if someone can escape or not.

Yes, just because AA needs a buff against aircraft doesn't mean it doesn't need a nerf as well. Flak and lock-ons are a big problem, they kill the fun for both the user and the one being shot at. The only skillful AA we got is the Walker, and it's not exactly that good for it's lack of skill-lowering methods.

I think that raising the cost of ESF's would be detrimental. A good air-game should be part of the Planetside 2 experience. Being able to fly around and shoot something should be possible for anyone, be it noob, average Joe or Pro. Just like tanking is possible for all 3.

Perhaps look at it this way: the ground-pounders don't have access to a 1-man vehicle as powerfull and versatile as the ESF.
Sure, the lightning is versatile (AP, viper or skyguard..), it does not, however, possess the two weapons, nor are the weapons as powerfull or versatile by themselves as the ESF ones.

Massed anything > nonmassed other, generally speaking.
A massive liberator rush I suspect, would still pound that AA into the dust.

-> Agreed; maybe reverse manoever doesn't need removing, but things like racer airframe vs hover airframe..
"turning dogfight" or "hi speed slash attack" vs "lol I hover" -> atm hover wins.
Oh, on the weirdness can be removed by adding (drumrolls) mouseyaw.

Not sure; I consider the current skyguard as the "short range" option. Where tracking an ESF is difficult.
I'm in favor of adding an AA turret for the skyguard: a double walker.
Likewise, we could consider alternatives for the max;
and a mini-walker for the heavy.
That would mean adding more options to the game.

Double walker lightning vs liberator: 1200 rpm combined, (130+85)/2=107.5
Liberator has 75% dmg resistance vs the AA MG
Default mag size is 75-> 150: double walker.
150*107.5*0.25=4031.25.
Now that is one scary piece of AA, right? Except.. it takes 7.5s to empty the mag. Oh, and 100% accuracy. To remove 80% of health from the lib. So, double walker is not OP IMO.
It will of course devour it's ammo reserves like nothing.
As a lightning, it remains vulnerable to dalton cannons etc, or a tankbuster run.
It is more powerfull by far than current skyguard vs enemy tanks and enemy infantry.. but that's not entirely unreasonable.. no infantry unit survives being targetted by an AA MG.

Valid point I suppose..

IMO, an A2A fighter should be the cheapest aircraft available.

Power of the Zerg . Everything is more powerful the more you got of it, which is both a good and bad thing. But in terms of damage, AA seems to be the best group to annihilate it's target if it's taken en-mass. Having a ton of AV works against tanks but usually has more varied results.

I don't like the reverse maneuver, it's counter-intuitive and doesn't work anything like the rest of the air-game. I learned it at some point, but it just didn't feel right to use it anyway.
Adding it as a feature... I propose it myself because it's been in the game a long time and is part of the air-game staple. And I actually wouldn't mind having it around if there were other options available as well that can improve your air capabilities. If players can pull of various maneuvers at any point and you don't know which, it becomes both a game of guessing, skill and taking those possible maneuvers into account when engaging. But if the reverse maneuver stays into the game, it should just be a button that you can use rather than some twisted way of handing your aircraft, that way all players can use it, and the skill comes down to your flying abilities rather than being able to pull off a bug.

Although it's incredibly in the right direction, I would like to ask how you can keep this relatively balanced in the AI branche. I could probably decimate infantry with it by the score, kill off half a squad at a Sunderer and be gone before they even realised I parked there. It might be unreasonable for infantry to survive an AA MG, but it's part of the game balance (which aircraft for some reason don't adhere to).
Maybe this is a good solution: Give it 2400 RPM, double normal Walkers, but also give it a COF increase. To properly keep attacking long-range aicraft you need burst fire, and for infantry you quickly become less accurate and you'll need burst-fire to keep killing them. For close-range you could rip through them... but it would also make the Flak Skyguard a lot less useful if the Walker variant can punish aircraft both far and close.

My brother had this idea: Make resource cost depend on the loadout. A fully kitted loadout with the best and most used items will be the most expensive, utilities, frames and other things that aren't used at all right now become cheap or won't cost a thing to add to your vehicle.

This is a way to incentivice using and certing things that aren't that useful over using only the best of the best. If you are in a pinch for resources you can equip your cheaper loadout and still get fighting, or you can go into a resource-war with your opponents. By using cheaper vehicles and the right skills you can best your enemy as they run out of resources. It can also help in balancing. The Stealth Flash for instance should cost more than a completely empty, nothing-tacked-on Flash. That way you can also make a better distinction between Battle Flashes and Flashes you take to quickly get from A to B.

If you want a new role, I would seriously hope it's an OPTION. Those who prefer to perform as a light gunship can sacrifice a few seats for a machine gun or two but those who prefer to be a blackhawk can still retain their seats.

I'm not sure if this was posted before (i do not have the time to read all 29 pages). So here is my little suggestion:

Every extra you add to your vehicle (yes i m talking about all vehicles) should give you a bonus or penalty on certain things.

For example:
Add compensite armor to your vehicle and you get a penalty on acceleration and agility for the extra weight of the armor.

or

The more ammo a vehicle carries the bigger should be the penalty on acceleration and agility for the extra weight.

The chasis you can add lower the penalty but should not negotiate it.

I think this might give new players a "better" chance to fight veteran vehicle commanders who have the "better" (more certed machine). The veterans know how their vehicle behave and know tactics how to change their playstyle to make the best out of the penalty.

Air is a real joke - its too bad you'd all rather complain about it than learn to deal with air. Which you can do so easily.

This just happened, and I wasn't even trying, just derping around and decided to jump into the turret I just repaired, and then this happened. That's an SPM of 2,038! And I had already exhausted my daily ribbons, granted its member double XP weekend but I have no heroic boosts and only average around 300 SPM with my membership overall.

Its crazy how you can farm air and get a ton of easy peasy certs - and I didn't even need to spend any resources. Just took a few seconds to repair the almost dead turret, and I was in business.

Bads will be bads. Good players will eat air up easily from the ground!

As I stated in the post before that, the original Valkyrie would remain and an alternative light gunship would be created. So yes it would be an option and not a replacement.

Sometimes people are lucky. The AA turret is slightly weaker than the Skyguard (that I can remember) and stuck in place. If an air-zerg happens by that's focused on something else you can get good killstreaks, but that's the whole point: only under special circumstances with pilots who don't pay attention can you get any kills at all, unless there's a ton more AA around/friendly ESF, at which point you are sharing your kills.

But please, try this type of killstreak again. I have my doubts that you can reproduce this within a week.

Soooo... having just taken part in a large battle over Jaeger's Fist on Briggs. I can definitely see the problem with anti air. In this case, there was a large amount of ESFs and a few libs, and if we fired from the ceiling, we were virtually untouchable. I mean sure, the occasional person would zero in on me and I'd have to retreat, but mainly, the only thing stopping me from an unending rain of fire and reign of terror was the fact I kept running out of ammunition.
In that case, normally I'd say just pull and air zerg on us, Higby knows, NC had enough pop for it, and they did try it. Multiple times. Problem was, between our own AA and us flyboys, we curbstomped every attempt.

It was awesome though. We were Gods, and the unrendered people on the ground were ants.

Thing is demigan I think he can do that, what annoys me is just how stupid people are. you do know you can damage air with small arms, you team up with 3-4 people your doing pretty much as much damage as a burster max, but people don't do that.

if hes flying past you shoot him hes not going to see you. and if there AA around they will kill him and then you get a really good amount of points.

and another thing that really stupid is you get so many sheared points or rewards for using the AA, why the hell are you whinging about it, you even scratch the paint of a mozzie you get payed well.

other thing is the new people instead of learning yes the sky is dangerous, just want the threat to be removed,

Stopped there. You don't understand the first thing about combined arms, which is, every weapon system plays a part.

As long as you expect everything to conform to your idea of gaming satisfaction (which no doubt ends with you owning all), then you'll be miserable.

It is much more interesting (to me) to have asymmetric abilities, achieve balance, and then imbalance in my favor.

Prescribed balance is BORING and repetitive.

Not a chance. You're playing alone, spawning into camps, or have an awful team.

Ahh, arbitrary requirements! Gee, with those, the guy that argues the longest and hardest wins! No, thanks.

Aircraft, looking at the game as a whole including large battles, aren't even necessarily overpowered. They might even be underpowered in many circumstances where they're supposed to actually play a larger role.

The worst thing about aircraft in planetside 2 is they aren't fun to fight on the ground with anything, even dedicated platforms.

This is because said platforms constantly hamstring you with terrible accuracy, garbage overheats, and insufficient damage to engage a foe who has all the control over engagement range, engagement time, and engagement angle.

Its as much a psychological thing as anything else, where it feels fruitless and pointless to even bother.

I'd rather see every single pilot player in planetside 2 just spawn instantly back in a new aircraft the moment they exploded and be given good anti-aircraft weapons that relied on my ability to aim, track, and gauge range without tacking on horrendous cones of fire, insufficient damage, and short overheat cycles.

AA guns aren't fun to use. They're onerous and feel pointless, even when they're not.

A game can be many things. The worst thing it can be is unfun.

So you don't even give any example or reasoning as to why combined arms is in the game, while I have given a detailed account as to why there is little actual combined arms in the game.

You are detrimental to the whole discussion, you simply ignore my arguments by stating the opposite. You aren't the first by the way, and you won't be the last. But can I ask you, why do you think that's a good strategy? All you are doing is saying "noooooooo that's not true!" but without any real argument to substantiate your claim.

get out of here, seriously, I'm fed up with that kind of crap.