A Wee Balance Scenario: AA vs Aircraft

[Mechzz]

This thread:
http://www.planetside-universe.com/s...t=41178&page=6

raised the question of whether or not Aircraft are "overpowered".

This makes me want to understand what we mean by overpowered.

Aircraft are obviously inherently powerful in that they are the quickest objects in the game and can ignore terrain and can carry various mission-specific armaments. So an aircraft that encounters a tank without its AA support, or a lone infiltrator moving between bases, or an HA equipped only with a heavy rifle, or an AI Max should expect to win. Seems only fair?

However, a soldier with an AA weapon equipped should, in my opinion, have a 50/50 chance of killing a one-man aircraft in a one to one fight where neither has the jump on the other. So the ground soldier saw the aircraft coming and had a chance to achieve lock-on no later than the aircraft could target him.

Where the resource investment is higher, the reward should be a shortening of the odds in your favour. So a fully manned Galaxy Gunship should usually kill a single AA unit, and more (cheap) AA needs to be fielded to match the (expensive) GG.

Now, I know the dynamics of the real battlefield are much more complex than this, but does the basic idea that every unit should have a hard counter not go a long way to ensuring we all have the most fun in the game?

Thoughts?

[Rumblepit]

i dont think this will be a issue at all now that all the armor can be equipped with AA

[Stardouser]

They are if they can see infantry with ease, whether directly, or through auto radar.

[Rumblepit]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

They are if they can see infantry with ease, whether directly, or through auto radar.

goes both ways for air and armor. if a aircraft wants to run with a AI loadout then they will be gimp against other craft and armor.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by Rumblepit

goes both ways for air and armor. if a aircraft wants to run with a AI loadout then they will be gimp against other craft and armor.

What exactly constitutes an AI loadout for an aircraft?

[Rumblepit]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

What exactly constitutes an AI loadout for an aircraft?

not sure,,, but higby said there will be 3 loadouts.... armor , air and infantry .

his reaver is speced for armor, ill be rolling the same.

[Mechzz]

Originally Posted by Rumblepit

i dont think this will be a issue at all now that all the armor can be equipped with AA

I hope this is the case. Still, we need to see the TTK of the various AA weapons before we know for sure.

What I'm interested to know is if the idea that in a given fight "equal numbers, , equal situation and equal resource investment in equipped weapons" should lead to 50/50 chance of winning.

I'm asking this because I feel that PS1 did not apply this idea evenly, leading to situations where you could feel quite helpless against a specific threat and you could only ask/hope that fellow soldiers would go and grab the counter to beef up numbers and balance things up.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by Rumblepit

not sure,,, but higby said there will be 3 loadouts.... armor , air and infantry .

his reaver is speced for armor, ill be rolling the same.

Well, I don't think that rockets designed to kill tanks should magically not work well against infantry, they should be deadly if they hit. Of course, if AA loadout means you get lock-on missiles, those won't lock onto infantry, naturally.

But anyway, if rockets, for example, is how you spec against armor, as I say, they should be deadly to infantry that they hit, the key is not providing Robin Hood spotting that lets the aircraft see the infantry easily.

[LZachariah]

I don't want to dive toooo deeply into this topic, as I don't think that this thread will lead to any major adjustments to the game's pre-established balances, but I will say that I don't think that an infantry soldier with an anti-air weapon should have a 50/50 chance at defeating an aircraft. A 50/50 chance implies that the two combatants are on equal ground, but the game's cost-system indicates that they're not considered equal; aircraft cost resources to construct/summon, arming a infantry with an anti-air weapon does not. Since one setup is free and the other costs finite resources, it makes sense that the aircraft should have an advantage. However, I definitely believe that an infantry soldier wielding an anti-air weapon should narrow the power-disparity between them and give the infantry a much better chance of survival.

~Zachariah

[Immigrant]

Originally Posted by Mechzz

However, a soldier with an AA weapon equipped should, in my opinion, have a 50/50 chance of killing a one-man aircraft in a one to one fight where neither has the jump on the other. So the ground soldier saw the aircraft coming and had a chance to achieve lock-on no later than the aircraft could target him.

I don't know, I think that that would make infantry OP. Aircrafts should always have an upper hand in 1 vs 1 situation vs infantry imo since the investment when buying in aircraft is higher from the start, so there no need for 50-50 chance when mossie or reaver confront single soldier with RPG. Also infantry will always be more numerous in practice and someone will always carry RPG since it's useful for more than just AA. Of course I advocate that single infantry unit don't show up on plane radar so you'll be tough to spot if not on open clear terrain. Anyway when plane get shot down by infantry it will be pretty annoying since it is the cheapest way and if chances were as you suggest 50-50 I must tell aircraft would pretty much suck imo. I probably will myself play ground troops but I think that specialized AA vehicles and emplacements/turrets should be bane to aircraft not measly foot soldiers. Hand carried AA weapons should be cheap and crude AA countering method more as an emergency measure or ambush attack than as something that gives you equal chances in eye-to-eye encounter.

[Rumblepit]

Originally Posted by Mechzz

I hope this is the case. Still, we need to see the TTK of the various AA weapons before we know for sure.

What I'm interested to know is if the idea that in a given fight "equal numbers, , equal situation and equal resource investment in equipped weapons" should lead to 50/50 chance of winning.

I'm asking this because I feel that PS1 did not apply this idea evenly, leading to situations where you could feel quite helpless against a specific threat and you could only ask/hope that fellow soldiers would go and grab the counter to beef up numbers and balance things up.

i see your point.... but they will cost resources, more then av weapons im sure so this has to be taken into account. people wont be as wreckless as they were in planetside with their armor and aircraft so this mite effect it aswell.

[Mechzz]

Originally Posted by LZachariah

I don't want to dive toooo deeply into this topic, as I don't think that this thread will lead to any major adjustments to the game's pre-established balances, but I will say that I don't think that an infantry soldier with an anti-air weapon should have a 50/50 chance at defeating an aircraft. A 50/50 chance implies that the two combatants are on equal ground, but the game's cost-system indicates that they're not considered equal; aircraft cost resources to construct/summon, arming a infantry with an anti-air weapon does not. Since one setup is free and the other costs finite resources, it makes sense that the aircraft should have an advantage. However, I definitely believe that an infantry soldier wielding an anti-air weapon should narrow the power-disparity between them and give the infantry a much better chance of survival.

~Zachariah

I hear ya, and I did say I was assuming the resource investment was roughly equal (I know this may not be right, ofc), but it seems reasonable that a basic plane will be cheap or we won't see many in the air.

[Graywolves]

Infantry AA have the advantage of using terrain to hide between shots if the terrain is cooperative. There is then an advantage if there is more infantry AA than aircraft and they are relatively spread, even in the open an aircraft will have trouble taking down multiple soldiers while being blasted away from different directions.

A ground vehicle with AA should dominate an aircraft. For an aircraft to take out a vehicle AA they should like infantry against aircraft have to use the terrain and poke at the vehicle while trying to avoid damage.

A2A would probably be the most dangerous for aircraft.

[Sabot]

Every unit does have a hard counter. With the customizations, that unit may vary, but it exists in the game, and it's just a matter of using appropriate tactics to efficiently counter whats thrown at your army. That and player skill.

Infantry can wield AI, AA and AT. Ground vehicles can wield AI, AA and AT. Aircraft can wield AI, AA and AT. Only thing that can mess it up is imbalances and cheating.

Edit: seems I was AFK for a little too long and this post came like... an hour in the thread. Meh...
And as a side note.... most aircraft are shot down by infanty units. Hard to see due to not showing up on radar, before it's too late and the missile is on it's way. PS however doesn't reflect real life 100%.

[Mechzz]

Originally Posted by Sabot

Every unit does have a hard counter....

Infantry can wield AI, AA and AT. Ground vehicles can wield AI, AA and AT. Aircraft can wield AI, AA and AT. Only thing that can mess it up is imbalances and cheating.

Agreed, and happy to see the changes that are being made in this area. My question was more about how hard the counter should be. So should 1 infantry with AA have a 50/50 chance of taking out a one-man aircraft in a fair fight ?

And if not 50/50 then how close should the odds be?