Balancing Aircraft/AA with Altitude

[Aractain]

Im very suportive of skill based AA, that usually naturally becomes more difficult as range is increased, size goes down and speed goes up.

Also just think how cool it will be a armoured chassis with a 4 barreled 25mm cannon blazing up at the sky making the reavers jink around.

BLISS!

[Sovereign]

Originally Posted by Aractain

Also just think how cool it will be a armoured chassis with a 4 barreled 25mm cannon blazing up at the sky making the reavers jink around.

BLISS!

Indeed, without proper range differentials however this turns into obvious spray n' pray ignorant bliss...

Yep that's the way to encourage skilled play instead of thoughtful calculations going into every trajectory we should encourage twitches to just trigger away..

[Erendil]

I like the idea of a multi-tiered AA system for PS2, but I think that limiting all AA so that it only affects low or high targets is a BAD idea.

I say this because not only does it feel like an arbitrary limitation to put on the longer range AA, but more importantly the larger-scale battles will always have a mixture of both low and high altitude aircraft, and if every form of AA out there can only hit one or the other you've effectively cut the amount of AA out there in half for any given pilot flying in the area. So you'd have to setup twice as much AA as would otherwise be needed if an "either/or" tiered system weren't in place.

So, rather than forcing AA to choose between one or the other, I envision more of a 3-tiered system, where all AA is effective at low AA, only some of it at mid-altitute and a very select few can hit high altitude. But the high-alt AA would also be effective at low and mid alts as well. So, assuming, say, a 700m flight ceiling, here's what I see:

0-300m - Infantry general AV , vehicle mounted machine guns (which IMO need to be much more effective at AA than they are in PS1), cerb turrets (w/ similar range to the cerbs in PS1).

300-500m - non-upgraded wall turrets, Tank/other vehicle mounted AA, Infantry dedicated AA weapon (think of a 3-shot disposable SAM, like a guided Deci only effective vs air), AA MAX lock-on weapons (all 3 empires would have this available)

500-700m - AA wall turrets, Skyguards, AA MAX flak-based weapons (all 3 empires would have this available)

EDIT: Actually, now that I think of it, as Nitro pointed out I like the idea of cloud cover being a natural way to cap the height at which AA is effective - at least lock-on AA - since maintaining a lock would be more difficult once you'd lose sight of the target in the clouds. However, you could still maintain the lock if you guessed the flight path of the evading aircraft corectly and your reticle still remains red. This would mean that FaF-based AA a la the SparrowMAX should probably not be in PS2 (but I don't like FaF to begin with so I wouldn't want it in PS2 regardless)

So flying into the clouds would help but wouldn't be a guaranteed way of escaping. And flak-based AA could still shot through the clouds just fine of course.

[DashRev]

Originally Posted by Erendil

I say this because not only does it feel like an arbitrary limitation to put on the longer range AA, but more importantly the larger-scale battles will always have a mixture of both low and high altitude aircraft, and if every form of AA out there can only hit one or the other you've effectively cut the amount of AA out there in half for any given pilot flying in the area. So you'd have to setup twice as much AA as would otherwise be needed if an "either/or" tiered system weren't in place.

That isn't really true. In a altitude tier system, you're going to see more low-mid range AA, if only because low-mid range aircraft have more of an effect on the ground. It then becomes really unlikely that you'll see any less low-mid range AA than you did in PlanetSide 1.

So if the concern then becomes that you don't see much mid-high range AA, you can evaluate it one of a few ways:

1) Is that even a problem? Are the mid-high range aircraft having such a meaningful impact on the ground that they need to be hard-countered?

2) Is the mid-high range AA not accessible enough? Are players not using it because it requires too much of an investment to train for or is too time-consuming to acquire and set up at a base?

3) Is mid-high range AA just not effective enough? Is it easily accessible, but just too ineffective to be worth it?

Originally Posted by Erendil

So, rather than forcing AA to choose between one or the other, I envision more of a 3-tiered system, where all AA is effective at low AA, only some of it at mid-altitute and a very select few can hit high altitude. But the high-alt AA would also be effective at low and mid alts as well. So, assuming, say, a 700m flight ceiling, here's what I see:

0-300m - Infantry general AV , vehicle mounted machine guns (which IMO need to be much more effective at AA than they are in PS1), cerb turrets (w/ similar range to the cerbs in PS1).

300-500m - non-upgraded wall turrets, Tank/other vehicle mounted AA, Infantry dedicated AA weapon (think of a 3-shot disposable SAM, like a guided Deci only effective vs air), AA MAX lock-on weapons (all 3 empires would have this available)

500-700m - AA wall turrets, Skyguards, AA MAX flak-based weapons (all 3 empires would have this available)

If high-altitude AA is just as effective at all flight levels, no one would ever seriously consider using anything but skyguards and flak addons.

[Erendil]

Originally Posted by DashRev

That isn't really true. In a altitude tier system, you're going to see more low-mid range AA, if only because low-mid range aircraft have more of an effect on the ground. It then becomes really unlikely that you'll see any less low-mid range AA than you did in PlanetSide 1.

You're making a huge assumption there - and a shaky one at that. With an either/or tiered AA system like the OP suggests, high altitude aircraft will will have a huge effect on the ground and will become a lot more common than you think in the form of high altitude bombing runs and Reavers/Mossies who will make divebombing strafing runs from up high down to the low-mid altitudes to fire, and then AB back into high altitude to escape.

So if the concern then becomes that you don't see much mid-high range AA, you can evaluate it one of a few ways:

1) Is that even a problem? Are the mid-high range aircraft having such a meaningful impact on the ground that they need to be hard-countered?

2) Is the mid-high range AA not accessible enough? Are players not using it because it requires too much of an investment to train for or is too time-consuming to acquire and set up at a base?

3) Is mid-high range AA just not effective enough? Is it easily accessible, but just too ineffective to be worth it?

I can tell you right now that not having a high altitude counter would be a HUGE problem. Were you around before the Burster MAX could hit flight ceiling, but after they nerfed the Striker so it couldn't either? The TR had no weapons that could hit flight ceiling and just 2 libs could shut down a TR courtyard with little opposition because it was logistically impossible to get aircraft from other bases up in the air fast enough and often enough to constantly chase away the libs. And the NC/VS knew this and used it quite often to their advantage. So yes, high altitude aircraft do need a hard counter.

The problem that I see is not whether or not high-altitude AA is effective enough, but instead it's the speed/versatility of aircraft, compared to how hard/time-consuming it might be to switch from low/mid altitude AA to high altitude AA. I think it'd be way too easy for aircraft to exploit the low/high weakness and constantly shift their attacks such that ground forces wouldn't be able to adapt and switch between AA types quickly enough.

Aircraft are already the most maneuverable units on the board and usually they get to choose when and where engagements take place with ground units. I'm concerned that the only way to counter altitude-shifting aircraft would end up being forced to prepare for both altitude contingencies, which would require setting up a lot more AA than what is required in a system where at least some AA can be effective at all altitudes. This would be especially true against organized air Outfits, where they could all coordinate all of their attacks so they come in either high or low. Hence my statement about having to deploy double the amount of AA needed for the same protection, since you won't know at what altitude the enemy will be attacking from until they arrive on the scene, and at that point it'd be too late to adapt should you be using the wrong type of AA.

If high-altitude AA is just as effective at all flight levels, no one would ever seriously consider using anything but skyguards and flak addons.

That is outright false. In PS1 we already have high-altitude AA that is equally effective at all flight levels, in the form of AA MAXes, AA Wall Turrets, and Skyguards. And yet people still use cerb turrets, hand-held AV, and vehicle-mounted machineguns as AA all the time.

In the system I outlined (which incidentally is quite similar to what we have in PS1), the weapon systems that can hit flight ceiling each have severe limitations: Wall turrets are immobile, AA MAXes are slow moving and have weak armour, and Skyguards have weak armour as well. So people that don't want to put up with those limitations will choose other forms of AA.

For example, maybe a Prowler team mainly wants to concentrate on tank warfare, but they want to have decent protection against air while doing so. So for them, mounting a mid-height AA flak cannon on their turret is just fine for them, since they're not out to hunt aircraft. They just want the AA to defend themselves in the event they get attacked by air.

[exLupo]

Originally Posted by Erendil

The TR had no weapons that could hit flight ceiling and just 2 libs could shut down a TR courtyard with little opposition because it was logistically impossible to get aircraft from other bases up in the air fast enough and often enough to constantly chase away the libs.

The center of this problem was that they could park above a base and bomb at will. This will not be possible in PS2's complete change in flight model (actually having one). Without max-range AA they would get one free pass and then only if there weren't already craft defending the sky. If players are assumed to be sitting in an AA MAX, just waiting for a plane to fly by the base, it's not a stretch to have players sitting in a plane, patrolling the airspace above the AA range waiting for a plane to fly by, too.

The biggest reason you don't get aerial patrols in PS1 -is- the ground based AA which makes such a role impossible.

[DashRev]

Originally Posted by Erendil

You're making a huge assumption there - and a shaky one at that. With an either/or tiered AA system like the OP suggests, high altitude aircraft will will have a huge effect on the ground and will become a lot more common than you think in the form of high altitude bombing runs and Reavers/Mossies who will make divebombing strafing runs from up high down to the low-mid altitudes to fire, and then AB back into high altitude to escape.

Reavers and Mossies have zero ground effectiveness at high altitude. If you were able to fly above the flight ceiling in PS1 (on any continent that isn't Searhus) you wouldn't be able to do anything to ground targets in either of those vehicles. You could barely see the ground, let alone hit anything at ground level. In that case, your only option is to do divebombing runs, which puts you well in range of any ground-based AA.

If they aren't in range to hit you, then you aren't in range to hit them. The sole exception to that rule is the bombers, Liberators and Vultures. But they also lose some combat effectiveness as well. If they wish to bomb from above AA range, their projectiles have an immense travel time, can be seen on radar, and can be avoided. But again, the bomber is not invulnerable from that high altitude. You're still vulnerable to any enemy aircraft

Increasing the flight ceiling without increasing AA range just adds an additional third-dimensional battlefield where aircraft can dogfight for control of the skies. The biggest and more important benefit for the empire controlling high-altitude is having a better chance of controlling mid and low altitude, but it doesn't make you any more effective at those levels without actually having to go there and put yourself in range of ground-based AA.

I can tell you right now that not having a high altitude counter would be a HUGE problem. Were you around before the Burster MAX could hit flight ceiling, but after they nerfed the Striker so it couldn't either? The TR had no weapons that could hit flight ceiling and just 2 libs could shut down a TR courtyard with little opposition because it was logistically impossible to get aircraft from other bases up in the air fast enough and often enough to constantly chase away the libs. And the NC/VS knew this and used it quite often to their advantage. So yes, high altitude aircraft do need a hard counter.

You don't seem to be using my definition of high altitude. I mentioned high altitude starting above the current flight ceiling in PS1. Any ground-based AA would be just as effective in PS2 as they were in PS1, up to that range. But above that range, the effectiveness of both ground-to-air and air-to-ground begins to fall off dramatically.

In PS1, the most effective AA for aircraft flying at the current flight ceiling is already other aircraft. At that height and beyond it, which again is the definition I'm using for "high altitude" in PS2, the emphasis is going to shift even stronger toward aircraft-based AA. That opens the door for a layer of the battlefield whose focus is dogfights, adding more depth to the game in an area where I and many players had the most fun.

The problem that I see is not whether or not high-altitude AA is effective enough, but instead it's the speed/versatility of aircraft, compared to how hard/time-consuming it might be to switch from low/mid altitude AA to high altitude AA. I think it'd be way too easy for aircraft to exploit the low/high weakness and constantly shift their attacks such that ground forces wouldn't be able to adapt and switch between AA types quickly enough.

You're concerned with how hard it "might be" to alternate between them when there is no evidence that:

1) It would be hard to switch from low-mid altitude AA to mid-high altitude AA.

2) That high-altitude AA is even necessary.

Aircraft are already the most maneuverable units on the board and usually they get to choose when and where engagements take place with ground units. I'm concerned that the only way to counter altitude-shifting aircraft would end up being forced to prepare for both altitude contingencies, which would require setting up a lot more AA than what is required in a system where at least some AA can be effective at all altitudes. This would be especially true against organized air Outfits, where they could all coordinate all of their attacks so they come in either high or low. Hence my statement about having to deploy double the amount of AA needed for the same protection.

And again, I don't think you're using the same definition for "high altitude" as what I've described it as in my other post. The further away you get from the ground, the less effective aircraft become at attacking the ground.

If it helps to imagine it, shift it horizontally and picture tanks. The further a tank gets from a facility, the less effective its cannons become. A Prowler lobbing shells from its absolute maximum distance is relying more on luck than anything to get kills. The same is true if you imagine a Flail firing at a base without waypoints to help it aim.

In either case, no one complains that the Prowler or Flail needs an absolute hard-counter that someone at that base can use to hit it from that range. The solution is to pull a vehicle and bring the fight to that Prowler or Flail, just like the solution for high-altitude aircraft would be to pull an aircraft of your own and take the fight to him.

[Erendil]

Originally Posted by DashRev

Reavers and Mossies have zero ground effectiveness at high altitude. If you were able to fly above the flight ceiling in PS1 (on any continent that isn't Searhus) you wouldn't be able to do anything to ground targets in either of those vehicles. You could barely see the ground, let alone hit anything at ground level. In that case, your only option is to do divebombing runs, which puts you well in range of any ground-based AA.

If they aren't in range to hit you, then you aren't in range to hit them. The sole exception to that rule is the bombers, Liberators and Vultures. But they also lose some combat effectiveness as well. If they wish to bomb from above AA range, their projectiles have an immense travel time, can be seen on radar, and can be avoided. But again, the bomber is not invulnerable from that high altitude. You're still vulnerable to any enemy aircraft

Increasing the flight ceiling without increasing AA range just adds an additional third-dimensional battlefield where aircraft can dogfight for control of the skies. The biggest and more important benefit for the empire controlling high-altitude is having a better chance of controlling mid and low altitude, but it doesn't make you any more effective at those levels without actually having to go there and put yourself in range of ground-based AA.


You don't seem to be using my definition of high altitude. I mentioned high altitude starting above the current flight ceiling in PS1. Any ground-based AA would be just as effective in PS2 as they were in PS1, up to that range. But above that range, the effectiveness of both ground-to-air and air-to-ground begins to fall off dramatically.

In PS1, the most effective AA for aircraft flying at the current flight ceiling is already other aircraft. At that height and beyond it, which again is the definition I'm using for "high altitude" in PS2, the emphasis is going to shift even stronger toward aircraft-based AA. That opens the door for a layer of the battlefield whose focus is dogfights, adding more depth to the game in an area where I and many players had the most fun.

You're concerned with how hard it "might be" to alternate between them when there is no evidence that:

1) It would be hard to switch from low-mid altitude AA to mid-high altitude AA.

2) That high-altitude AA is even necessary.



And again, I don't think you're using the same definition for "high altitude" as what I've described it as in my other post. The further away you get from the ground, the less effective aircraft become at attacking the ground.

If it helps to imagine it, shift it horizontally and picture tanks. The further a tank gets from a facility, the less effective its cannons become. A Prowler lobbing shells from its absolute maximum distance is relying more on luck than anything to get kills. The same is true if you imagine a Flail firing at a base without waypoints to help it aim.

In either case, no one complains that the Prowler or Flail needs an absolute hard-counter that someone at that base can use to hit it from that range. The solution is to pull a vehicle and bring the fight to that Prowler or Flail, just like the solution for high-altitude aircraft would be to pull an aircraft of your own and take the fight to him.

To all: my apologies for the length of this post, but I have grave reservations about air unit becoming too dominant in PS2, and DashRev these comments are not all directed specifically at you, so please bear with me….

For starters… DashRev, yes I am using your definition “high-altitude.” If you look at my first post you’ll see that I extended the flight ceiling as well to 700m, and that I extended the ranges of some – but not all – forms of AA such that the highest 200m is only still in range of highly-specialized and/or wall-mounted, flak-based AA (Skyguard, AA wall Turret, flak-based AA Max arm), which by their very nature will be less effective at hitting flight ceiling than low altitude targets due to travel time.

As a long-time PS1 pilot I love the idea of aircraft having an altitude range above-which they cannot effectively attack the ground and where they can in turn “fight for the skies” relatively undisturbed by ground forces, and love the added dimension to combat that this introduces. I also love the idea of having variable cloud-cover (preferably at around 60-70% the height of the flight ceiling) that aircraft can use to evade not only other aircraft, but ground-based AA as well.

But since we don’t yet know the flight speed/capabilities of aircraft in PS2, their armour (“staying power”), the max range of their weapons (although w/ today’s hardware I’m hoping most weapon ranges in general will increase), nor the effectiveness of available AA, we can only speak in general terms. So for purposes of these discussions it doesn’t matter whether the flight ceiling is 400m or 40,000m, as I see it there should be NO altitude at which an aircraft can attack ground forces but said ground forces cannot effectively defend themselves. So, in light of this assertion:

1) If bombers can attack the ground from flight ceiling but even the longest-range AA can’t fire back, we have a problem. Vehicles and infantry may be able to avoid incoming bombs, but wall turrets, drivers repping their vehicles, and deployable objects and vehicles (traps, CE, ANT’s, AMSes) cannot. Plus, having the only counter to a particular unit be another unit of a similar type is generally bad game design and can lead to all sorts of problems. We see this in PS1 when it comes to Air Cav, HA, MAXes, and BFR’s to name a few. IMO allowing bombers to be immune to ground-based AA when they’re bombing the ground from flight ceiling cannot be justified by saying they’re still vulnerable to other air.

2) DahRev, nobody complains about long-range Prowlers because the Prowler’s targets can fire back from their current location using wall turrets, AV MAXes, and even ESAV. Hell, even an OS can be used if the Prowler is lobbing shells from behind a hill. Sure you can pull your own tank and go meet him in the field if you’d like, but you’re not forced to do so in order to counter the Prowler. And as for flails, yes, people do complain about them all the time, even if unlazed. Especially when used in large numbers, like at Mekala the other day when 6-7 flails were being used (mostly unlazed) by both TR and NC to pound all around the base, making it difficult for VS to mount a decent counter attack and push out much less even find a safe place to repair. This is the kind of thing I see happening with bombers that are immune to AA at flight ceiling. I see wings of bombers carpet-bombing a base into oblivion, and the defenders unable to do anything about it.

3) If Air Cav and other assault aircraft can setup strafing runs on ground targets above the height off effective AA, divebomb to lower altitudes to make their attack, and then afterburn back up to above the height of effective AA before said AA has a reasonable chance to shoot them down, again we have a problem.

4) If the survivability of any aircraft is significantly increased in an “either/or” height-based AA implementation because it’s either too difficult or time-consuming to switch from low- to high-altitude AA, or if it’s too difficult for AA gunners to tell which form to use at a given target, then once more we have a problem. If these issues don’t exist then I’m not necessarily against such an AA implementation, although I fail to see how it adds much to the game beyond added complexity and a higher learning curve for new players in an already-complicated game (for some).

5) Lastly, AA needs to be designed such that ground forces can defend themselves against all air threats both in the field (skyguards, since PS2 will have field objectives as well as base objectives), during base defense (AA Wall turrets), and when trying to push out and retake a courtyard (AA MAXes). Hence my desire to have they be able to hit flight-ceiling bombers who might otherwise be circling the area just waiting to crush any ground-based resistance.