anti air

[ihatetheNC]

problem: reaver spammers..
solution: personal flak cannons.
currently no empire has any weaponry that comes close to giving a trooper on foot, any chance of surviving if a reaver, even one not too far from dead, decides to pick on you and rocket spam you to death. people are using them to rack up easy kills because they cant stay alive when they come up against a target that can fight back.
what does anyone else think to this suggestion?

[Madcow]

My solution is that they completely dump the VTOL system currently in place. In it's place they institute minimum speeds for all aircraft outside the Lodestar and Galaxy (which need to be able to land in more places than the combat aircraft). At all air repair/rearm pads they use some sort of stasis net which will halt the moving aircraft and heal/rearm it before allowing it to continue at speed. They then buff the rocket pods against armor and nerf it against soft targets. Then they buff the Reaver machine guns against softies. This encourages missile runs at vehicles (most likely taking more than one Reaver to be successful, and multiple passes) as well as encouraging gunning runs at soft targets if you're so inclined. This also encourages dogfights, and true bombing runs with the Liberator rather than the hovering in space spamming bombs we see now. It discourages skill-less rocket spamming quite a bit and encourages the use of skill in flight. Assuming they were willing to do all of this, I'd also say remove the AA MAXs and leave only the Skyguard and AV to deal specifically with air. Of course, something would have to be done about the Striker as it's so far superior to the Phoenix/Lancer against air currently but I haven't gotten that part figured out.

[Thunder_Hawk]

There is a very valid reason why AIrcraft operate they way they do now. They can use the same terminals as other vehicles. Fixed wing aircraft need runways. having runways at every base its a bit overboard. if they're at only certain bases, then the option to get them may not be available like Gals. you either need to bring them in, or capture the dropship center. Without the ability to hover, aircraft traveling by warpgates would have a problem. once they warp, in a matter of seconds (not enouhg time to get your bearings), you're outside the warpgate being shot down.

As for the rocketspam, the TTK is way too low. a Personal Flak cannon just adds to weapons already needed: AV, AI. As a TR, i like to play off pilots Fear of missle locks wwith a striker. i don't even need to shoot at them. most of the time the pilot speeds away before the missles can kill him anyways so i save my ammo for tanks. Pheinox users need to learn not to use the camera all the time as even that doesn't gaurenty a hit.

[Madcow]

Originally Posted by Thunder_Hawk

There is a very valid reason why AIrcraft operate they way they do now. They can use the same terminals as other vehicles. Fixed wing aircraft need runways. having runways at every base its a bit overboard. if they're at only certain bases, then the option to get them may not be available like Gals. you either need to bring them in, or capture the dropship center. Without the ability to hover, aircraft traveling by warpgates would have a problem. once they warp, in a matter of seconds (not enouhg time to get your bearings), you're outside the warpgate being shot down.

That's a simple work-around though so I don't buy it. Aircraft could easily use the same terminals as now, be 'tractor beamed' up above the pad and launch forward to 40 km/h like a rocket. For coming down you can let them stop incredibly quickly, eliminating the need for a runway. Come close to the ground at the minimum speed, press a key and the craft will stop like it landed on an aircraft carrier. Likewise, allow them to go from parked to 40 km/h quite easily to get back off the ground.
Warpgates could contain the same kind of stasis nets that repair pads would have. You're kept in stasis until you have your bearings, you press g and off you go.
Honestly, getting rid of VTOL for the combat aircraft almost instantly eliminates the issues that people have with the aircraft and has the added bonus of encouraging dogfighting (which the vast majority of pilots seem very much to want). So we get rid of the AA MAXs to give the aircraft more chance of survival, but we nerf their ability to cheaply kill softies. What's the downside?

[Queensidecastle]

I dont see it as a problem at all. Just like if a tank catches you open, or any other vehicle for that matter, you are a dead man. The reaver really isnt any different and considering it takes a whole clip of rockets to kill anything, it is hardly out of ballance. The solution for this problem is quite simple. Dont run from base to base and expect to survive unless you are in a vehicle, transport or a MAX suit. Even as it is now, I am rarely killed at random by a reaver and in battle areas, there is so much anti-vehicluar and AA MAXs it still isnt a problem

I think it is an issue blown way out of proportion. Yes, when you are caught out in the open by a vehicle and yo dont have one, yes, your a dead man. dont get caught. It is like people think they can setup on a rigeline and snipe with impunity. Thats what reavers do, they are heavy assault in the skies. AA MAX suits are 2 points and basically nullify the reaver. I dont consider it a problem in the least

[Warborn]

You are my nemesis, Madcow. After the slew of reaver related threads I had set about preparing a lengthy document on my opinion regarding the changes I feel are necessary to ammend the situation in general, and you go off and echo a lot of my sentiment here. I think we need to go back to disagreeing with each other.

Originally Posted by Queensidecastle

I dont see it as a problem at all. Just like if a tank catches you open, or any other vehicle for that matter, you are a dead man. The reaver really isnt any different and considering it takes a whole clip of rockets to kill anything, it is hardly out of ballance.

You absolutely can survive encounters with tanks, and I'm sure many people do it very regularily. Unlike with reavers, simple things like terrain elevation, or trees, can make you safe against tanks. If they get too close and you have jammer grenades, you can sometimes save yourself that way too. There's no guarentees you'll survive against a tank, but there is a guarentee you will die against a reaver. The skilless reaver pilots just zoom up, hover, point, and hold down the fire button. And don't gripe about the amount of ammo it takes. How simple is it for you to hit a nearby air pad and just reload? Reavers do it all the damn time. And even then, after 5 minutes of flying and spamming it's ok if you die, because if you're bound to a nearby friendly base, you can just afterburn back to the fight easily.

I think it is an issue blown way out of proportion. Yes, when you are caught out in the open by a vehicle and yo dont have one, yes, your a dead man. dont get caught. It is like people think they can setup on a rigeline and snipe with impunity. Thats what reavers do, they are heavy assault in the skies. AA MAX suits are 2 points and basically nullify the reaver. I dont consider it a problem in the least

AA suits do not nullify the reaver. In battles it is very common for there to be multiple enemy reavers, and you are guarenteed to have one hover up behind you and spam you to death before you can even turn around. From my pilot experience I would agree that AA MAXs are annoying as hell, but they are far from the answer to all your AA needs. As with so many other things, it's almost invariably a question of who has more of which.

[ihatetheNC]

glad to see theres ppl who are as hacked off about it as me, and also madcow, thats a damn good idea!

[Queensidecastle]

I cant support complaints about being killed by a vehicle out in the open. I think thats just ridiculous. There isnt any balance problem with the Reaver, especially considering all the downsides. I file anger over getting killed by a reaver in the same drawer I file anger over getting killed by a cloaker.

[Madcow]

Originally Posted by Queensidecastle

I cant support complaints about being killed by a vehicle out in the open. I think thats just ridiculous. There isnt any balance problem with the Reaver, especially considering all the downsides. I file anger over getting killed by a reaver in the same drawer I file anger over getting killed by a cloaker.

As people have said, being killed by a vehicle out in the open is a completely different matter if it's a ground vehicle. The ability to use obstructions and elevation to your advantage coupled with the ability to use a Jammer actually gives you a fighting chance. You have none of those advantages with air. There's a slight possibility of hitting a moron reaver pilot with a jammer, but that's about it. And I support the OF idea of changing it back to a jammer killing the engine in an aircraft. If you're dumb enough to hover that low to spam your cheap kills, you deserve a flaming death at the hands of a piddly grenade.

[KIAsan]

Originally Posted by Madcow

And I support the OF idea of changing it back to a jammer killing the engine in an aircraft. If you're dumb enough to hover that low to spam your cheap kills, you deserve a flaming death at the hands of a piddly grenade.

Now that's a solution we could all live with. Make it so your engine dies if jammered! What a brilliantly simple way of fixing the ground troops frustration, while not unbalancing the game. You want to kill ground troops, then make sure you don't get to low or slow.

I would personnaly like to see the AV damaged upped against armor (enough that it's a serious threat to air assets without seriously affecting ground armor). That would also ensure aircraft didn't slow down in combat.

[Rbstr]

no, its jsut the reavers raockets don't do enought AV damage, so it's far easier to kill lots of infantry(one salvo each) than one tank(all the rockets on you) less splash, less AI and more AV damage = problems solved

taking away the Vtols system would suck ass, unless we were given good gunship type Vtols to replace the reaver/skeeter, as a fixed wing type craft just wouldn't work well for taking out stuff on the ground.

[JetRaiden]

reaver spam is part of the game. if you get owned by one, its your fault for not being around an AA MAX.

[Warborn]

Originally Posted by JetRaiden

reaver spam is part of the game. if you get owned by one, its your fault for not being around an AA MAX.

Provided you're serious, it's this sort of attitude that will keep Planetside from reaching its potential. This "it's part of the game, don't be a pussy" response is the worst of them all, as you are totally ignoring all else save your personal opinion. When we express concern about the implimentation of reavers, we do so to try and improve the game. What's your motivation, besides simply resisting the "whiners", as some call them? People are unhappy, and unhappy customers is not a good thing.

There are obviously a fairly substantial number of people dissatisfied with the way reavers are currently implimented. It won't stop until something is done, or these people tally up the broken reavers alongside Planetside's other flaws and quit the game. So the best course of action right now is to actually discuss the situation and try to find a good solution.

Originally Posted by Rbstr

taking away the Vtols system would suck ass, unless we were given good gunship type Vtols to replace the reaver/skeeter, as a fixed wing type craft just wouldn't work well for taking out stuff on the ground.

Nah, it would be good. So long as we have VTOL aircraft air combat will be nothing more than some retarded turret wars, where people hover around and strafe and point and shoot. God, compared to BF1942 the air combat is so hideously wretched, it blew me away how little was done on it when I first tried it out. That won't change until they get a real flight system, none of this half-assed hover bullshit.

And weapons can be modified to make taking out ground targets with strafing runs more possible. Clearly this issue isn't a quick-fix one.

Originally Posted by Queensidecastle

I cant support complaints about being killed by a vehicle out in the open. I think thats just ridiculous. There isnt any balance problem with the Reaver, especially considering all the downsides. I file anger over getting killed by a reaver in the same drawer I file anger over getting killed by a cloaker.

Did you ever consider that maybe it might possibly be a good idea if every vehicle in the game wasn't designed to massacre infantry? For once I would like to see a vehicle which is very good at killing vehicles, but not also incredible at killing any and all forms of infantry. The reaver issue (directionless weapon design) is why so few of the vehicles get any real combat use in the game. As far as I'm concerned, only good things can come from a reaver designed to kill armor over infantry, and this is not just me looking ahead to BFRs either.

[Lonehunter]

Speakin gof BF1942, the flight system in there kicks a lot of ass. I wish we coudl have some kind of AA Aircraft in PS though.

[StrangeFellow]

as a temporary solution (or possibly the solution) to the rocket spam on infantry, just decrease the rocket damage against infantry and increase it against vehicles

the idea of fixed wing aircraft would be great but i have my doubts about the abilities of the physics engine (does anyone know it's name by anychance?)