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

Command Not Supported /cry

Combined arms is in the game because single equation shooters are boring.That is why the PS2 developers decided to make the game a combined arms game with asymmetrical weapon values. There is a myriad of possibilities; only limited by gamers' imagination and ability to overcome challenges.

I state the opposite because you need to know the opposite exists. You see, "it frustrates me! Make it go away!" is not representative of true gamers, and I'm here to say it. I'm sorry you don't like it. You seem to be proud of your crusade to censor something you can't figure out. It is quite childish, and only juvenile mentalities insist on it. It needs to be known that there are mature gamers in this game who like tough challenges.

Your arguments do not amount to anything but serving your own agenda. Therefore, they are not arguments. You are welcome to your position, but know that there are gamers that find softening of the experience to be a very slippery slope (the game can be changed by the tears of the oppressed), and just flat out boring.

Also, all weapons have arbitrary values. therefore, it is senseless to argue about weapon abilities. More important is a culture of overcoming the challenges faced. I represent that culture, and have always opposed people that want to make the game easier...going all the way back to Air Warrior 1.

There are already scripted-win games, and also shoebox shooters where you can memorize every corner and be immune from threats. Don't you think you'd have more fun just going to those games instead of trying to turn this game into those?

Finally, if you're really dieing to ESFs at a rate that makes you think you need to humiliate yourself on the forums, you are doing something VERY wrong in game. Perhaps you should look inward for your success instead of begging for it to be presented to you on a plate.

ok, lets all stop having fun just to cater to your playstyle.

(before anyone says anything about AV, AV IS more fun than AA for more people. i'd be more than willing to go in depth about it again if your unwilling to read my previous posts on the subject.)


And there's nothing to learn about AA. its takes 5 minutes to learn how to AA. Few people make it their main activity it because, again, its the least enjoyable thing to do in this game apart from repairing broken vehicle terminals (which at least lets you accomplish the thing you set out to do).

You don't seem to grasp the concept of a combined arms game.
"combined arms" means that all unit types are valuable in an assault, and each has a role to play. There are multiple ways to do combined arms. One is letting one unit type do one task and let another do a different task, but both tasks need to be performed simultaneously or in sequence to work. That way when one unit type stops being useful, the next one can start it's job. An example would be tanks that punch a hole in a defense, allowing infantry through to capture the points.
Another combined arms idea is synergy through combined arms. An example of that would be that 3 tanks are vulnerable to infantry attacks, so instead you stand more powerful if you use 1 tank and 2 infantry who help the tank in it's combat and protect it on the side, or as an alternative, should the tank+2 infantry be attacked by 3 other tanks, than the tank will have to tank and the infantry will have to sabotage through C4 and other equipment that's not in the game (yet, I hope).

As for asymmetric warfare, there's nothing wrong with that, but it's not necessarily a part of combined arms. Even with asymmetrical warfare here needs to be balance somewhere. Let's say you have a tank unit, and we give it a random value as cost of... 450 platinum to build it in an RTS. The tank can be bought in multiple versions, each with strengths and weaknesses. You can get it to do AV, or AI, or be an intermediary option that's good against both.
Now you add an aicraft for the random cost of... 350 platinum to build in the same RTS game. Only difference is, almost every version you can buy is good as AV, AI and AA in one package, and it's almost the same power as the tank despite it's both lower cost, similar power and more unit types it can engage.
It's asymmetrical, but completely imbalanced. You could solve this by changing cost, unit types they can engage, damage done etc. I hope you realize I'm not talking about random values or an RTS here.

An opposite exists, but you haven't shown anything that this opposite is true for this game. You tell me some stuff about "true gamers" and such, but that doesn't have anything to do with the argument. I am not whining about frustrations, I have given detailed arguments as to why this is unbalanced. Thing is, you have been crisscrossing the discussion with stuff like "that's not true" and trying to discredit people by basically insulting us and telling us what we are thinking, all the while ignoring the arguments we make for our case.

I think you should look at this sentence real, real hard and read it out loud. Anything anyone has said on these forums was because they wanted something, you want it to stay as it is and think that's balanced and fun gameplay (or, as I suspect, you think it's unbalanced but fun for you gameplay). Everyone has an agenda, there is no one here or on any forums who did not have an agenda with their words. They wanted to impart knowledge and teach people, they wanted to troll people, they wanted to change something in a game, forum or whatever, there's people who wanted help with settings, tactics, problems... But that doesn't mean any of it should be discounted just for that.
So in short: what the hell are you thinking when you write these kind of warped sentences?

You haven't payed any attention to my posts at all did you? I don't just flat out say that AA needs a buff, it needs a nerf as well. I'm trying to make AA more fun, and i"m trying to make air-combat more fun. This is subjective, ofcourse, but there's a part where you can reason to make things fun. An imbalanced game usually isn't fun, and I'm detailing where the imbalances are and try to show proof for this.

They do not have arbitrary value's. Seriously, just look at the way they balanced all the weapons we have! Look at the amount of health people have, the damage tiers which were definitely not randomly chosen, and the damage falloff. These things were carefully calibrated (one of the few things where people should be standing up and applauding SOE) to get certain TTK's. Yes, there are imbalances there, but that's to be expected with this many weapons and differentiations. The weapon value's are not arbitrary, not for infantry weapons or tanks.

I'm not trying to turn it into those games. You are basically using the argument "you are trying to get humans into the game! Now it's like WOW, WOW has humans!". Only instead of humans you are using my arguments for a different flak system and more air-combat maneuvers to say I want easy games and want Planetside 2 to be one of those. Stop trying to insult me, stop trying to think about what i'm thinking, you've been wrong at every turn when you tried to think about what I'm thinking or wanting.

Oh, and about me going for the easy games. I don't need to when I look at your stats (https://www.planetside2.com/players/#!/5428123302643726753/vehicles). I have more time more evenly spread out over infantry and tanks and about better stats everywhere. Also, I hope like hell you got another account somewhere that has some vehicle experience because the account I show above does not have a single shred of experience to even dare talk about the balance.

Ok, so now you are telling me I humiliate myself? You really are trying to insult me are you?
I'm more successful than you and I think I have a much better understanding of the game itself. You haven't proven any of your claims, you have been insulting and degrading. Either you get your **** together and come with some facts and actual arguments, or you get out of here.

I only ever get killed by ESFs when they show up en-masse in an air zerg....that's no different than a **** ton of tanks, or infantry showing up.

The problem* is zerging, not ******* airplanes that can be destroyed by LMGs.


*and personally I don't think zerging IS a problem but then I'm weird.

give me a realistic weapon and I'll deal with a realistic whatever you want. Let's say I shot rockets... I want a 20 meter insta-kill radius per rocket that smacks holes in tanks and actually blow them clean off. That would be a nice start. Now, As this is supposed to be in the future, I think it's reasonable to push it to 50 meter insta-kill radius; something we can probably already do right now.

I'd like to be able to have an over 2000km/h speed too, because right now it's quite lousy.

can we agree on that?

Considering armor thickness of tanks nowadays, most ordinary rockets don't do anything against them. Even with future rocket technology it would be more realistic if the tank armor had advanced more rapidly. When building a tank in second on a nano-scale, you can create an armored hull that consists out of one huge molecule rather than millions of molecules that can be separated more easily. This could create armors that could be a hundred times stronger than any armor we have around today, and that's probably a low estimate. And most hand-held rockets that I know off don't have 20-meter radius explosions where everyone dies.

But you do have a point, if we bring in too much realism the game would revolve of shooting missiles from the warpgate to anything that sets foot outside of the other warpgate...

Something occurred to me. We have a ton of experienced, great players that want to make the bad man go away.

Shouldn't we expect great, experienced players with a deep knowledge of combined arms gameplay to be offering in-game solutions instead of petitions to have other players censored?

Game balance aside, the way you discretely reframe peoples arguments and then spice it up with some truisms is masterful. You should consider writing a book.

I tone them down with G2A all the time.

Making resource cost loadout dependant: yes, although balance issues will remain.

The walker issue:
it is an anti-air machine gun. Yet, an ESF has 35% damage resistance, liberator and galaxy 75%.
Lightning Walker: this is supposed to be a longer ranged option, rewarding direct hits. So no on the CoF increase etc.
Instead of the ESF having 35% damage resistance, we put him at -100%.
Now, before you start yelling OP:
normal walker: 130-85 dmg.
130*0.65/2= 42.25 We'll round that up, to 45 damage.
85*0.65/2= 27.625. We'll round that up, to 30, possibly 35 (making this walker relatively more powerfull at long range than the normal walker).
-> We now have quite a buzzsaw, but it will need a massive amount of hits to kill infantry.
This is not "realistic"; oh well.
Just for fun, ttk 100% accuracy:
1000/45= 23 bullets needed.
1/1200*60*23=1.15 seconds. Laaawl.

"Medium buff":
ESF currently takes 0.65 damage. We double it: 35% dmg resistance -> -30% dmg resistance.
We halve the damage of the lightning walkers bullets.
Other aircraft get a similar treatment, but liberator and galaxy are treated even slightly harsher; 75% dmg resistance -> 40% dmg resistance. A 20% damage increase, if we acount for our halving of bullet damage.
130/2= 65 dmg/bullet. 16 bullets needed.
TTK: 1/1200*60*16= 0.8 seconds. But, even with the walkers "normal" cone of fire, you're never gonna be 100% accurate vs infantry. Our lightning walker is as powerfull as a normal walker vs everything (infantry, vehicles), yet twice as powerfull vs aircraft.

Sure, no problem.
Oh, the future tanks have a rocket-intercept module, shooting down your pesky rocket in the air, sundy's provide a bubble of "intercept pesky rockets"
and AA shoots you down at 100 kilometers, without lock-on warning. (make a choice: infrared missile or a big laser, or a near-relativistic railgun)
Enjoy.
And take your ridiculous arguments elsewhere.

I have, but has lots of math in it. How are you with calculus and tensor calculations?

It would be interesting to hear why ESF pilots think they should pack the firepower of a MBT, in a quick and agile air vehicle. Also, a follow-up, why this particular vehicle shouldn't require two players(like the harasser). So far, all we get is "LEL, L2P nub, flaing t8s sklz, m9" or "IRL AIR COUNTERS GROUND!!!!!11oenene"(but curiously, AA is not allowed to counter air????).

Simple answer- They shouldn't.

Slightly more descriptive answer: Compared to IRL, tanks have been nerfed into the ground in this game. The weaponry they have is extremely weak compared to IRL.

The other problem is that air can't be properly integrated into this game without sacrificing fun. Generally IRL a fighter does not carry all that much weaponry, but the weapons that it does carry are devastating. A single A2G missile would OHK a tank, but the plane might only carry one or two of them. Planes would fly at 5 - 10x their current speed.

Another example would be the nose gun of the A-10C (the A-10 relies on its nose gun the same way as an ESF does) - it exhausts its ammo in 18.75s of firing, but a few shells will rip apart another aircraft, and a one or two second burst will destroy an MBT.

Likewise, G2A would be similarly devastating. G2A launchers would OHK any aircraft, and a few shells of a burster or skyguard would destroy an ESF. Tank or sunderer based G2A missiles could engage and OHK aircraft from 5 + km.

These game mechanics wouldn't be fun for either side- the game would be full of OHK to your vehicles, and it would be near impossible to get into the air game.

Because of this, devs have made a different system, where both sides carry far more ammo than IRL but weapons are also far weaker than IRL, and that leads to a good balance. ESFs generally need more firepower than other vehicles because they are the "glass cannons" of the game. A few seconds of burster or skyguard fire will destroy an ESF and A2G ESFs are completely destroyed by any competent A2A pilot. It is also far harder for an ESF to find support than a tank - a tank in a collumn will normally have supporting engineers, as well as repair and ammo sunderers. You can't get that kind of support in the air. As an aircraft, it is also far harder to find cover. You are in the air, it is much harder to get out of a Skyguard's LoS.

Because of these factors ESFs have fairly strong (bursty) weapons. You can't just hover while spamming whatever A2G weapon you have equipped- you'll be quickly destroyed by G2A fire. I know as a ground soldier I get frustrated by A2G fire, but then I pull an ESF and I realize how difficult it really is.

I challenge all of you to do the same, and post a screenshot of your killstreak here.

I personally would have went with transparent and pretentious, unless i failed to detect some sarcasm there.

and you get even less support flanking in an AV tank.

the biggest difference? you can't run.

if you find an organized squad (or players that have AV on them and know how to use it while understanding that focusing fire works better) you now have 20-40+ people aware of your presence and gunning for you. people chasing tanks are MUCH more persistent than those chasing air precisely because they know they can KILL you, not deter you enough to fly away and rep. its very difficult to run from a zerg that has located you in a tank that moves relatively slowly. when you aren't dipping and dodging dumbfires, lockons, maxes, C4 fairies, and spear phalanx turrets, while simultaneously trying to focus on enemy vehicles AND avoiding enemy air, you have what is essentially a recreation of the "start the engines, jock!" scene from indiana jones every time you attempt to be even remotely useful in a tank away from that freindly, comfortable, and extremely boring zerg.


the only major threat to pilots are other pilots. G2A is used nowhere near as much as AV.

and one more point. if your flanking in a tank and you run out of ammo? what now?

its a dangerous 6 minute trek back and forth every time you run out of ammo. if you run dry in an ESF its a comfortable 20 second trip to the nearest landing pad.

Oh sure, just make sure you give me a real railgun (I'd advise you to do research on that if you don't know what it is).

You die. A tank without support is a dead tank.
And ESFs don't have it easy. It's hard to land safely especially when you are burning. In a tank, you can just get out and repair or have an engineer next to you.

but your landing radious is huge. granted your still restricted within a certain space when you have limited time, but you can land far away from ground threats, rep to non burning status, and **** before ground troops have even pinpointed where you landed. it happens all the time. you track an ESF that's going down, and by the time you get there he's in process of taking off.

great, now i can play hot potato between running 2 feet, getting set on fire by the massive swarm of infantry/a huge variety of other ground vehicles, repairing to green and repeating the process until i find friendlies or terrain i can use to cover my ***. tanks limp from what almost killed them and struggle to get to 100% again. ESF's trip, and then regain their stride as if nothing happened, that's why so few people, especially newer players, prioritize ESF's for more than a few seconds. they know trying to kill these things is not worth their time or effort.