When are you going to put AA into the game?

Jingstealer

I'm boiling with anger right now. Prepare for ranting. For months now Aircraft are absolutely DOMINATING the game. Today a reaver came at me in a TR AA MAX, I even had the jump on him, he was close and he STILL LIVES?!

Before that we had been trying to shoot it down with Strikers and other handheld AA weapons. Aircraft have NOTHING TO FEAR in this game and they are totally RUINING the fight wherever they turn up.

Skyguards are a ******* JOKE, AA maxes are way too expensive and ALSO A JOKE and let's not start with infantry based AA.

FIX THE GOD DAMN SITUATION! BRING AIRCRAFT BACK INTO BALANCE!! DAMMIT!!

this is an interesting observation, and im truly surprised noone has brought this up before

Considering that AA is pretty much harmless against everything else, it should absolutely be lethal in equal numbers to air.

If you have 1 HE Lightning being engaged by an AP Lightning, the HE Lightning is probably going to be dead.
But if you have 1 ESF being engaged by a Skyguard, the ESF is unlikely to die.
Even though both are 1 person, 350 nanite vehicles being engaged by their counter.

That's pretty messed up balancing.

They tried strong long ranged AA. Nothing could fly. They then redefined the goal of AA.
Flaks current goal and an admitted problem is that AA exists to drive off air not to kill it. Did that reaver bother you again while flak was up?

It's a difficult balance. Since anyone can pull AA anywhere, your options are to make air unplayable as twelve people in flak make it impossible to fly for miles, or make flak relatively short range. But since air is by nature mobile, that means air can escape flak. Hence the points for doing damage with flak instead of only points for kills.

Generally the only reason an ESF survives is because it runs away. Usually using up all of it's afterburner, and in bad shape, leaving it vulnerable to attack. Is this system perfect? No.

But ESFs function like Harassers in the sky. They run when in trouble. They're fast, agile and incredibly fragile. Running is the only chance to survive.

Hence why we run. No one likes getting shot down, we're not going to sit there and trade shots with a skyguard.

I think the problem is that most AA in the game is a "deterrent", mostly lock-on and flak varieties... the only anti-air with substantial killing power is the Walker. Lock-ons are fine as is though, with a squad they can be quite effective as the pilot generally leaves the second they hear beeping... flak however, needs a buff in general. Velocity on Rangers is so low in fact that I find it's only effectively used against targets directly attacking you... even then when they boost away it becomes extremely difficult to lead them and finish the job.

The balance between the two typical AA weapons is this: Walker is effective against Liberators and Galaxies, Ranger is effective against ESFs and Valkyries... why is the one with a slower projectile suppose to be used against the faster aircraft? It makes them damn near useless in every scenario, and using them against Libs/Gals is nothing but an annoyance even when expending an entire 70 round magazine into them.

Essentially, flak needs to be buffed on all available platforms in either velocity or damage. As well I think ground vehicles should gain access to heat-seeking AA weapons which behave similar to the Hyena or Coyotes, with some damage against armour but due to firing arc of AA that'd be difficult to use in that fashion regardless.

They tried strong, long range AA awhile back.

So here's what happened. No one flew because a single skyguard could deny entire hexes and anyone could pull anything anywhere.

Then people were having this conversation about tanks as hundreds of tanks clogged the map. Infantry were stuck sheltering in the few places no HE couldn't reach. No, they couldn't respond in any meaningful way and this isn't just a pilot talking. It was a mess. Static, soul crushing, and no one had any fun whatsoever.

Eventually planetside settled on the balance we have now as the best compromise.

What would you propose?

The complete removal of AI noseguns and rocketpods from ESFs. If they can hit me with the other noseguns or Hornets etc , then fine good job.

Maybe get rid of rocketpods, but noseguns? No. They aren't almighty god smiting weapons, and it leaves them vulnerable to other ESFs.

And if you say remove Hornets too, because they're a point and click weapon, so help me God.

This guy gets it.
Let me put a spin on it, lightings crawl on the ground, protected by anything they can hide behind
ESFs are in the air, the only thing that protects them is the next thing they can hide behind

If flak was ridiculously potent, then there would be no hope to pulling air, you can't repair in midair as easily as you can in a tank and anyone will tell you charging into battle with half HP is stupid, you have to land, rep go again, or use nanite auto which takes up a valuable defense slot.
So what about the reverse? Ok if a prowler is outside your base, you don't pull a sundi, common sense right? You pull a tank from somewhere else and engage. Well for ESFs it's pull from somewhere else, if there's flak and you have no hope of killing him, you back the **** off and don't come back unless you're making tiny runs.
Again, tanks cover is whatever's around, esfs is whatever he can make in the next second.

Now what about killing potential of a skyguard hm? Well 4-5 shots kills infantry and there have been plenty of times I've used it as a sundi killer in makeshift ops. The name of the game is not versatility, it's specialization. While an ESF specializes against x you specialize against him, ESFs can do almost NOTHING to a skyguard and even the one that can is putting himself at significant risk, much like a double bask sundi fighting a singleton AP prowler. You COULD kill him, but its a bit of a gamble and what setups you have with gunners.

Don't doubt what a skyguard can do, there's a reason everyones happy when a skyguard is near verses getting always owned by air.

And to the OP, a burstermax can sit in spawn and help prevent an entire class of vehicles, I feel no pity and feel it should be nerfed in spawn.

He said AI noseguns(i.e. Banshee, Light PAA, AirHammer). And I'd like to note that Hornets are by far worse than rocket pods... they kill infantry faster, they destroy vehicles faster... and if you have a bad shot you can just readjust it. ESFs should be dogfighters, they should be anti-air in a sense, taking out the other aircraft that plague ground troops, but they've been given too much weapon power to be able to perform ANY role, be it AI, AV, or AA... they have too much responsibility in a sense.

There is AA in the game. The problem isn't the effectiveness of AA weapons, the problem is the strength of air weapons; For the ESFs and Lib the only ground based vehicle that compares in damage output is a lockdown Prowler, and most air weapons have no recoil or bloom.

Due to the power of air, AA weapons also have to be powerful or else we have aircraft that just ignore AA, kill whatever they want, and then fly off to collect their repair exp. So as a result we have pilots that feel like they can't take part in fights where AA is present and people that are upset when they don't have AA because aircraft will show up without warning and just destroy the fight.

The Valkyrie is about what aircraft weapons should be. An ignored Valk doesn't devastate everything and also as a result people often ignore them a bit when they do show up unlike when a Lib or ESF shows up.

So air has to be a craft that can be ignored? An ignored tank destroyed all the vehicles, an ignored harassers does the same, an ignored sundi makes an AV nest that kills all your vehicles or a push that makes a base cap easy. Ignoring ANYTHING should be punished, it's just that ignored valks aren't nearly as much of a threat because people underestimate the guns you can attach, including a mini vulcan that destroys vehicles.

Ok, no way hornets do better AI than AI pods, secondly, vehicles should be versitile, the noseguns consists of AA, AA, ESF AA and AI, the wingmounts include tanks for afterburns, AA, AI, AV, AA and two overpriced tanks that got me hyped for nothing. When you think about it, the only power they could possibly have on a fight is the wingmounts which if they are not AT (afterburn tanks) then they get punished by skyknights that do (you guessed it!) AA nosegunning.

If you buff AA, buff liberator bombs at the same time. Increase Flak air speed and narrow down it's area of effect, probably bump damage 20% or so. Making it a much more skillful weapon rather than spam but deadly in the right hands. The AA MAX is 450 (FOURHUNDRED****INGFIFTY) nanites and no ESF should survive a close encounter with it. Unless they pack up in threes and go in at the same time. In nanites, it's true value is currently probably around 100.

There are too many insta-gibbing weapon on aircraft that leave NO room for fun with handheld AA. Thus either dramatically reduce the AI damage of ESFs or make them more vulnerable to small arms fire and/or buff handheld AI. In real life, a shoulder fired AA missile can bring down an Apache gunship. Lock-on weapons should be equally powerful. If you lock on, there's flares. If you're out of flares and can't shake it, you DIE. Not take the hit in the face and **** all over the people trying to defend from your OP gunship, knowing full well they can do NOTHING to hurt you. That is NOT good balance.

The differences between Air Units and Ground Units in PS2 is as it should be and how it's always been historically. Air Pilots are charismatic, dashing, and handsome. You, the Ground Unit are not. Take for instance this relic of a photo showing Orville Rickenbacker, the 1st North American Ace from PS1 standing beside his beloved Reaver, Kernel Killer. After PS1 he later went on to make a fortune in the gourmet popcorn industry. He is beautiful.



Now take a look at this second photo taken shortly after hostilities broke out in PS1. This is a photo of an Air Unit and a Ground Unit side by side. Can you tell them apart? Give up? You, the Ground Unit are the one on the right. The ruggedly handsome, beautiful person everyone likes is on the left.



If the fuzziness and age of the last photo was making it hard for you to distinguish who was the Ground Unit I have included one more photo. Here you are, the Ground Unit, by yourself, as seen wearing the official PS2 Ground Unit uniform.




And I by no means meant to disparage or make light of Eddie Rickenbacker or Albert Ball, two tremendously gifted fighter pilots from WWI. And yes, they both WERE beautiful.

Fear not, the Rocket Rifle is coming. Soon Light Assaults will populate the sky firing Flak rounds at anything nearby, like annoying little Flak mines.

In that case, I want 5 meter instagibs on my HE tank, 1 meter instagibs on the AP, duster having a 6 meter killzone, dalton 1 shots and rocket countermeasures on my tank and all soldiers to die in 1-2 regular bullets unless it's a heavy because "realism".
If we balanced everything in the game to real life then the game would not be infantryside, it would definitely be vehicleside.
Also maxes are big badass tankmen designed to help push or hold chokepoints with a variety of AI weaponry along with AV weapons for holding down vehicles. I as myself with just an AV max held a canyon by shelling tanks in the back and destroying all the sundis, anything that got through was finished by the tanks on the otherside along with infantry, add that I had nanite auto repair and had the effective hitbox of a flee at the effective range I was at for vehicles. You're also paying for the ability to use your weapons in the easiest of cover, but you still count as infantry, infantry should still be vulnerable to AI as it stands.

Dude... That's disgusting.

I agree. All Ground Units are. They are too insipid to ever realize they will never be the beautiful people like Air units. It's very interesting and mirrors the hopeless disparity between PC (Air Units) and console (Ground Units) gamers.