Reavers

[Kikinchikin]

noway man reavers are meant to be an individual aircraft. now go ahead and make some new aircraft a mutli crew thing, but the fact is there are people who go solo andcant always find a gunner.this is why they made the lightning, its one man tank so at least u dont have to have someone with it. dont change the reaver at all. its good as a one person plane. if u want tho. make the skeeter a two person craft, that way u could actually give the skeeter some rockets but make it a two person craft so that the skeeter becomes formidable.

[Airlift]

Oh yeah, that makes a sum total of no sense at all. Let's make the weaker of the two aircraft the two man, and the more powerful a single person... If you notice, that is not how the tanks work. The Lightning is considerably less powerful than any of the multi-person tanks.

Frankly, I don't care if they change reavers or not, because they are all just targets to me.

[TheJingle]

Explain to me those of you who think its fine , why it is ok for the reaver to have MORE ARMOR THAN A TANK . thats my main problem with it , they take absolutely no skill to fly and are easy to rack up kills with unless you're completely retarded . Anyone at this point in a reaver can EASILY not get shot down by an aa max ( hint: the only thing the AA maxes are good at is AA , it shouldnt take take an AA max player of significantly higher skill than the reaver pilot to shoot it down , it should be the other way around) reavers basically have all the strong points of a tank (high armor , dmg) with none of the downsides (slow and awkward , require 2 people) . I think what might be a good idea other than lowering armor to about half , is giving the skeeter some sort of air to air missile (with lock-on) , that would make the skeeter better , and nerf the reaver a bit at the same time .

[Pilgrim]

Reaver's are not as strong as tanks. Well, not a real tank. It is as strong as a lightning, or MAX. That is using the ever important VANGUARD cannon scale.

I have become an expert at hitting Reavers with the Van cannon 150mm. as you cannot hit something in the air with splash it has to be a dead-on shot to do anything. Just like the MAX and the lightning it take 2 shots to down a reaver.

The funny thing is you hit them the first time and they don't move, just sit there blissfully reloading their rockets, then BLAM second shot and they die. I guess no lock on warning and a reaver thinks it's invulnerable.

AND BTW to all you stupid reavers I've killed (15 as of last check, all from a vanguard, all with the cannon) Go up higher... it's called an aircraft, don't fly 20 feet off the ground then be shocked when I hit you in the nose.

[wrecklass]

As the game has matured (more than some of the players unfortunately) I have seen a lot of balance on this issue. Many more people are carrying anti-air weaponry outdoors, and it has gotten to where Reavers (and other fliers for that matter) have little or no chance to hover over a hotspot.

If you are upset because you can't one shot kill a Reaver, too bad. I can't one shot a Max, even when I am in a Max. Once you have chased them off with missile lockon, they are combat ineffective. You've won the round for the moment. Don't think in terms of Quake-like instakills. Think in small victories adding up to an over all win.

Find the weakness, and exploit it. Reavers are up high, and usually exposed. Keep AA folks outside the base to take these guys down, and use the wall turrets effectively. Nothing worse than Reavers hovering overhead, and wall turrets unmanned.

[Airlift]

Do NOT balance the Reaver by improving the skeet.
Do NOT balance the Reaver by improving AA.

The mosquito is kind of like a Lancer. It takes a while to get to the point where you can consistantly be effective with it, but once you do, it is extremely dangerous. The skeet dominates a reaver in air combat and can take down infantry like a flying sniper. If you give them any improvements, they will create a storm of bitching that the Reaver could never hope to achieve.

The AA MAX is a very effective tool against the Galaxy because it is an easy target, and it is very effective against the mosquito because if the pilot doesn't burn away immediately, they are going down. The Reaver is kind of in a gray area where it has a combination of durability and speed to avoid fire with. If that is a problem (and I'm still not sure that it is... note that the Reaver is a 4 point cert), you should address it directly rather than throw off the good balance that already exists.

[Stalker Threads]

There is another solution to this... make the reaver on a 15 minute re-use (rather than 5 mins now). Most of the reaver jocks are gonna find better things to spend points on. 15 mins is also the time for a cap meaning that the same reaver pilot can only go at a base once then he needs to look at using something else

Couple that with the idea of 70kpm+ to hit burner and mebbe even the handling of a galaxy and you have a vehicle that IS still pretty damn good but is fish food in the wrong hands

It has armour and can get to the fight fast, its also still got all it weapons. Its just a little less common and harder to use well which I think is the main issue we have with it.

To be fair the armour IS high but i've caught a reaver hovering before and hosed them out of the sky with the NC medium assult rifle.

[Chryse]

I find this whole argument laughable and wholly skewed by the people who complain about the apparent uber status the Reaver supposedly enjoys. I say "skewed" because the people complaining about them are the victims, and are not people who have actually flown a Reaver outside of VR training. Here are my thoughts:

1. Many complain that all Reavers are piloted by skill-less people. To this, I might agree to an extent, but only because of the sheer numbers of people flying them, there are bound to be people who have no business doing so. But this is true about some people who have no business flying Galaxies or driving tanks or wearing MAX armor. Good Reaver pilots can weave thru forests of trees in full afterburner without a leaf grazing them and skim the ground at full speed. That takes a good deal of skill, whereas the idiots get smacked down by trees and cannot even land on a landing platform at a base.

2. There are complaints that all Reaver pilots do are hover there and spam a seemingly "endless" supply of rockets onto their targets. First off, only the idiot pilots use the "hover and rain rockets" approach as their primary method of attack (see #1, above). Against MAX'es, tanks and AV troops, this is a sure way to get knocked out of the sky. Against common infantry, an AMS or ANT, or a stationary unmanned vehicle or fixed position, this is a legitimate form of attack and if you get caught out in the open by a Reaver, you should expect that kind of death. Against targets that pose a threat to Reavers (which are most vehicles armed with something more than a 12mm chain gun) a smart pilot would employ a high speed attack with a spread of 4-6 rockets and do so in several passes, from different directions.

3. Smart Reaver pilots spend certs on engineering and carry a repair tool with them. If they get torn up in an atttack run, they AB off to a safe spot, fix their ride and come back. If this makes the ignorant think that they have levels of armor above and beyond that of a main battle tank, that's your problem. Reavers have no more armor than Lightnings, but we can get away easier, and that's what aircraft do. If you're shooting at us with your medium assault rifles, Supressors, bolt guns or shotguns, what do you expect?

Reaver pilots fear good opposing Skeeter and Reaver pilots as well as AA MAX'es, AV missles, massed spitfire turrets, wall turrets, skilled vehicle gunners and the lag monster. I'll admit that I have been killed by my fair share of main gun rounds from Magriders and Vanguards, as well as from Sunderers. Like it has been said above: what needs adjusting isn't the Reaver, but people's approaches to them. Develop tactics and bring along methods to counteract them.

My question is where was all this vitrol towards Reavers during beta? If there were a real problem with them, they would have been tweaked down then. Also, I'm surprised that there isn't a similar thread about people complaining about being overrun by full squads of tanks.

[DrummerX]

^^said perfectly.

[�io]

Originally posted by DrummerX
im a very realistic person, and in REALITY, in case you forgot, air power always has the advantage. This is why AA weapons were created. This game is team-based, and you have to have a balanced squad to be succesful against all aspects of it.

-meaning, a squad full of lightnings is gonna be vulnerable because they have nothing to defend them against an air raid. BUT, if that squad has a couple tanks, a couple aircraft, an anti-inf max and an aa max, hacker, engy, etc., it will be capable to handle most any circumstance. This is what balances the game.

Well unless the dev team changed their plans without telling us Planetside was originally a ground combat game, air combat was a side bar, Planetside isn't an air combat game so yes air vehicles should be dangerous but they shouldn't "always have the advantage" nothing in the game should(as the devs have said many times every action as a counter action).

Ok now using your argument of balanced squads let's check something out.


Squad of lightning = will indeed get owned by air crafts or bigger tanks or MAXs or AV weapons

Squad of vanguard = will still get owned by air crafts, MAYBE by AV weapons and MAXs

Squad of MAXs = get owned by many things

Squad of skeeters = get owned by AA fire fast

Squad of reavers = MAYBE get owned by AA fire

Now before you say that AA fire will totally kill the squad let me ask you what chance would let's say 5 guys with AA fire (rarely will u see that number together) against 10 reavers spamming rockets on them? And even IF by some change they manage to fire lots of AA on the squad they can simply jet away, get hit with a few missiles, land, repair and come right back to slaughter the rest of the AA squad.

That seem fair?

[DrummerX]

read the post left by chryse. ive said all im gonna say, you can continue to whine and cry, because most likely no one really cares ive gotta go find a decent thread with at least something resembling a decent point.

[�io]

Originally posted by Chryse
1. Many complain that all Reavers are piloted by skill-less people. To this, I might agree to an extent, but only because of the sheer numbers of people flying them,

Also, I'm surprised that there isn't a similar thread about people complaining about being overrun by full squads of tanks.

Nobody here is saying all reavers pilots have no skill, but as you said yourself(defending reavers) "sheer number of people flying them" now why do you think there are so many reavers? Because they suck? Me thinks not.

Nobody complains about that because 1- All tank squad is EXTREMLY rare, i have never seen one. 2- All tank squads can be easily taken out by (surprise) Reavers.

[�io]

Originally posted by DrummerX
read the post left by chryse. ive said all im gonna say, you can continue to whine and cry, because most likely no one really cares ive gotta go find a decent thread with at least something resembling a decent point.

Gotta love it when people defending their view by acussing the others of whining and crying.

[DrummerX]

what do you call it? whining, crying, bitching, complaining, whatever. thats all it is. "please help, th game is unbalanced!" "reavers kill me, make it stop!"

[DrummerX]

the game is fine the way it is. if you dont think so, who gives a shit, leave.