Dopplers Air Hate thread

[Doppler]

Writhe and Bad's problems is their so busy defending their weapons platform's advantages that they fail to acknowledge anyone elses points. I can understand that to a certain extent but lets look at the facts.

Fact:There are as many aircav vehicles on the battlefield as all other vehicles combined.

Fact:Aircraft are the only vehicle class that can autorepair/rearm without the facility link benefit

Fact:Aircalv makes up 2 of 3 single occupant weapons platforms in the game.

Fact: Without specialy designed AA units aircalv is next to unkillable in battle field conditions, save by other aircraft.

Conjecture:Bases are far weaker against air assault then they are against ground assault by comparison.

Solution:Add vehicle repair/rearm to towers, and perhaps install a flak turret on bases. Simple.

[flypengy]

I'm not sure which server you play on, but I'm a hardcore markov player and I would say air power is fairly balanced on that server.

A couple of the "Facts" you're stating aren't very true. Most of all that bases aren't very capable of aa. I gotta tell you this is false. Auto turrets > reavers, and anyone that has spent any time in a reaver will tell you the same. Sure you can take the time to destroy the turrets, but you will be taking damage from other things (aa maxes, av, whatever). While mosquito does negate the turrets it is so weakly armored that attacking it with regular ammo will cause it to take significant damage quickly.

I'm not trying to be rude, but it is very apparent you have little or no experience with flying. You're trying to compare armor to aircraft which is apples and oranges. Tanks don't have several items in the game that completely cripple them. Put a skyguard around a base and that skyguard is invincible to aircraft (unless overwhelemed or worst gunner ever). AA maxes are very hindering, and while not as capable as a skyguard at detering aircraft they're guaranteed to make them run and think twice about coming back.

And like you said, there is tons of air. Well what is true of one empire is true of the other. For every mosquito/reaver/liberator that the enemy has flying against you, it's likely that you have approximately the same out against them; and while a plane can run from the missiles of an aa max or get out of the los of flak, they can only do so much to out run another aircraft.

I can't be sure if you played before air towers, but I can be quite sure you didn't fly then. Reavers and mosquitos are very lightly armored (Unlike tanks which you're trying to compare to). It was an outrageously mundane and tedious task to rearm and repair a reaver/mosquito every 30 seconds because someone had fired one striker or one pheonix at you. While putting repair silo's on towers to help tanks out (something I don't agree with personally) is a semi logical solution it does not fit in with your original complaint against aircraft. (In other words, regardless if there were repair silo's or not you still would have made this thread).

Also, not to be trivial, but reaver and mosq make 2 of 6 single occupant weapons platforms in this game. (Flail, basilisk, switchblade, and lightning). So I really don't find that to be a valid argument.

[Seer]

flypengy, you appear to have read only the last post in this thread. That air units are fragile and have counters has been addressed by others.

In any case, calling the basilisk and switchblade 'weapons platforms' is laughable and you know it. To a certain extent the same could be said of the mosquito, but I've been wasted by far too many unseen mosquitos to believe that. And as an effective weapons platform the flail requires a spotter and air cover. That is, minimum, three people, though one aa max can cover multiple flails.

Really, as a tank and skyguard driver, I want the same ability to repair and re-arm without having to capture a dropship center.

[BadAsh]

Originally Posted by Doppler

Writhe and Bad's problems is their so busy defending their weapons platform's advantages that they fail to acknowledge anyone elses points. I can understand that to a certain extent but lets look at the facts.

Fair enough opinion. Now, here is my opinion. Some players are so busy defending and making excuses for the flawed character builds they fail to recognize the game�s built in measures and countermeasures.

So as it see it the real problem here is with a player�s failure to adapt to the gaming environment. Rather than admit a flaw in their certification build this player would rather see the game altered to suit his desired build. Players who are not certed to defend against air hate air and want Air Cav nerfed. Players who are not certed against infantry want hate HA and want HA nerfed or even out right removed from the game. Players who like MAX Units hate AV and want it nerfed. Players who hate MAX Units want them nerfed. People who want to play �pure infantry� hate getting mowed or owned by vehicles. And this list can go on and on and on.

The problem is not with reavers, tanks, max units, heavy assault, or decimators. The problem is with individual players who fail to take into account the games built in measures and countermeasures. Like the marines say �Adapt, Overcome, and Conquer!�. That�s pretty much the rule of thumb for PlanetSide.

I had to learn this too. My original heavy grunt build had no vehicles and every weapon you could carry certed. But, I spend too much time returning to terminals for med packs, getting owned by vehicles, and freaking walking everywhere in my rexo. So I had to make adjustments (or continue to get owned by the same things over and over and over). If you hate Air Cal so much then invest a measly 2 certification points and get yourself an AA MAX and spend the time to become proficient with it. If you are unwilling to do that then please stop the whining.

If the game were changed to cater to your desires and allow for free powerful AA weapons, the flak turrets you desire, then that would surely compensate for the flaw in your character build (no AA capability).

But, now what about other character build flaws? Should be we adding 150mm turrets to stop those tanks? How about a long range anti-sniper turret? Or perhaps anti-max turrets in a few interior choke points under/inside the base to help with those pesky AI MAX units?

I hope it�s clear why I believe this is a bad idea.

[flypengy]

Yes... I read his last post and replied to that. Your point?

A one man weapons platform is just that, you can't disqualify anything just because it doesn't suit your definition. I'm pretty sure it was on these very same forums that people argued with me about how under-rated the basilisk is. And telling me that the flail doesn't count because "it requires a spotter" and needs constant air cover is not a very well thought out statement. Of all the "single occupant weapons platforms" in the game I would say that one is undoubtably the most powerful. There is no other weapon/vehicle/feature in this game that can singlehandedly camp a tower (even tanks can't do anywhere near as well as it).

[321]

I think that air vehicles are pretty balanced. Like if a reaver comes or mosquito comes to close to the ground you could easily shoot it down or almost shoot it down with a MCG or lahser and a little bit lower and you could even shoot it with a JH.

[SilverLord]

I'm sorry but Doppler you have totally lost your argument here.

I am a full time Reaver pilot and I know how very hard it is to fly. You have to be constantly aware of the AA presence and many times if you make just one tiny mistake your done and then it's terminal time... About the Reaver being compared to a VanGaurd/Mag/Prowler, that is a ridiculas comment. Like someone said, a mag can snipe you right outta the sky. The VanGaurd has so much armor that if you have a full loadout of rockets, you still don't have enough to kill it. I don't know about flying against the Prowler because I'm TR.

I have also never played as a Burster so I do not know what they are or arn't capable of. I do know, however, that the Starfire can jump and dodge my rockets while it still has the leisure of shooting me while locked on. The Starfires missiles don't chase you for that long but the Sparrows missiles chase you for a long enough time that you have to go to the next base to get them away. So until I get a burster and try it out, I don't know about the AA Max argument.

All this I think has been stated but i'm just getting started into this disscussion.

[Doppler]

Originally Posted by flypengy

I'm not sure which server you play on, but I'm a hardcore markov player and I would say air power is fairly balanced on that server.

I myself am a marcov player, and have been for some time.

Originally Posted by flypengy

A couple of the "Facts" you're stating aren't very true. Most of all that bases aren't very capable of aa. I gotta tell you this is false. Auto turrets > reavers, and anyone that has spent any time in a reaver will tell you the same. Sure you can take the time to destroy the turrets, but you will be taking damage from other things (aa maxes, av, whatever). While mosquito does negate the turrets it is so weakly armored that attacking it with regular ammo will cause it to take significant damage quickly.

First off for everyone who doesnt grasp the distinction between conjecture and fact, (hence why i stated it as such), Fact is something that can be proven, conjecture is something theres evidence to support but is mostly a theory. You have yet to sight any of my facts which arnt true, save the Basilisk/Switchblade thing, as if you consider those to be weapons platforms, you need to spend more time on the ground. The flail is an intresting paradox but i primarily do not consider it a weapons platform as its need to deploy before firing and need of a spotter to be truely effectice.

Originally Posted by flypengy

I'm not trying to be rude, but it is very apparent you have little or no experience with flying. You're trying to compare armor to aircraft which is apples and oranges. Tanks don't have several items in the game that completely cripple them. Put a skyguard around a base and that skyguard is invincible to aircraft (unless overwhelemed or worst gunner ever). AA maxes are very hindering, and while not as capable as a skyguard at detering aircraft they're guaranteed to make them run and think twice about coming back.

Only you guys are trying to compare Aircraft to tanks in terms of weaponry firepower. For one thing tanks have lots of things that "completely" (note the quatations as i dont buy that your completely crippled by any form of AA, you just have to either attack it from behind or get out of its sphere of control, something which your speed helps you to do very well) Tanks and other ground based vechiles have lots stacked against them, Mines being the big one, AV weapons being another (a marginal problem to flirs but much less so then ground vehicles) AV Maxes, etc etc. My conjecture was that it is fair easier to field and upkeep airpower in this game, then it is ground vehicles, which is the complete ooposite from mil doctrine everwhere else.

Originally Posted by flypengy

And like you said, there is tons of air. Well what is true of one empire is true of the other. For every mosquito/reaver/liberator that the enemy has flying against you, it's likely that you have approximately the same out against them; and while a plane can run from the missiles of an aa max or get out of the los of flak, they can only do so much to out run another aircraft.

So you point out that as there is lots of air that somehow validates that air is a balanced platform? Doesnt that kind of prove the other way?

Originally Posted by flypengy

I can't be sure if you played before air towers, but I can be quite sure you didn't fly then. Reavers and mosquitos are very lightly armored (Unlike tanks which you're trying to compare to). It was an outrageously mundane and tedious task to rearm and repair a reaver/mosquito every 30 seconds because someone had fired one striker or one pheonix at you. While putting repair silo's on towers to help tanks out (something I don't agree with personally) is a semi logical solution it does not fit in with your original complaint against aircraft. (In other words, regardless if there were repair silo's or not you still would have made this thread).

So much.....to.....critique....in this paragraph, where to begin. Oh my god, the outragiously tedious task that you had to perform, has to be performed now by lightning, harrasser, heavy buggies, the skyguard, even tanks when they take enough damage or cook off enough ammo. But you oppose giving gorund based vehicles the same benefit, pretty weak if you ask me. I also fail to see how it doesnt fit with my origianal complaint against aircraft, as if you scroll back all the way to the begining of this thread, that was my proposed fix for my major complaint.

Originally Posted by flypengy

Also, not to be trivial, but reaver and mosq make 2 of 6 single occupant weapons platforms in this game. (Flail, basilisk, switchblade, and lightning). So I really don't find that to be a valid argument.

Trivial and weak, see above.

Now to handle the other complaints as succintly as possible.

Silverlord:Why do you feel that your vehicle should be able to single handedly take out tanks, if you want a tank killer aircraft, try the liberator, it takes a good crew but that also balances it against the tanks crew.

Badash, the only guy whos logic makes sense but he's still making some really big assumptioons about me and where i'm coming from here.
I have the following certifications.
Rexo
AV
Advanced Medic
Combat Engie
Heavy Buggy
AA Max/Ground Support

Now assuming i'm not using the ground support cert that day, i have 3 out of 3 certifications capable of really damaging/downing aircraft. I must say i get more then is most likely my fair share of aircraft kills. Reffering back to my original posting you will see my main complaint with aircraft is their ease of repair and rearm as opposed to ground vehicles. Not their power over troops in the field. Yes the fact that base defenses seem mostly impotant to them without AA max's backing them up was a secondary complaint, but my primary argument was that we need ground repair rearm terms. In the ensuing discussion i find it laughable that so many pilots think air calv should be the ala carte cert, and then want sympathy because they occasionaly have to get a new air vehicle. Not a huge problem if you have a tech link as then you can immediatly swithc to your other vehicle (unless you get blown up right off the pad, which happens to all of us every once in a while, although i whould say to ground vehicles more). Trying to pretend that air vehicles suffer some special burden because they have a set of defenses designed against them is more like a testament to their effectiveness, plus i whould much prefer AA max's to mine anyday.

[WritheNC]

Well, two important things.

1. I'm not even going to continue arguing about it until Doppler gets Air Cav for at least a week and sees how it is on the other side! Or, if Doppler has used Air Cav for a week straight or more in recent months(since Feb.), then Doppler, please say so.

2. It has been agreed upon that there are A LOT of aircraft out there every day, so if they made anything else to hinder aircraft, there will probably be more upset people than pleased ones.

[Onizuka-GTO]

I also find it unfair that a single pilot can kill a 2/3 man tank, i mean you invested so much time, got a crew, travelled very slowly to your target, fire off a few rounds. Then a reaver comes by, he attacks you, he would get scared off by a skyguard. Fly off to get repaired after seriously damaging the skyguard or tank. Then we have to move off to find a new place to hide, get out and repair only at that moment the reavers back and healthy and then we get rocket spammed. rinse, dry and repeat. Eventually we all get killed by the reaver, and we might kill that reaver once or twice but he's always back with a new one or fixed one becausw they can use air towers and we can't without the right facilities.

I think it would be a good idea to make the reaver with a two crew, one who can fire the gun only and the second crew can fire the rockets and maybe a lock-on missile? that'll be a good idea, helps balance it out.

[Doppler]

I have an air guy that i play to unwind. Its fun and easy. I fail to see all the stress and jitters you guys seem to think is out there.

[BadAsh]

Originally Posted by Onizuka-GTO

I also find it unfair that a single pilot can kill a 2/3 man tank, i mean you invested so much time, got a crew, travelled very slowly to your target, fire off a few rounds. Then a reaver comes by, he attacks you, he would get scared off by a skyguard. Fly off to get repaired after seriously damaging the skyguard or tank. Then we have to move off to find a new place to hide, get out and repair only at that moment the reavers back and healthy and then we get rocket spammed. rinse, dry and repeat. Eventually we all get killed by the reaver, and we might kill that reaver once or twice but he's always back with a new one or fixed one becausw they can use air towers and we can't without the right facilities.

I think it would be a good idea to make the reaver with a two crew, one who can fire the gun only and the second crew can fire the rockets and maybe a lock-on missile? that'll be a good idea, helps balance it out.

Sorry for the mini-flame here, but if your tank crew AND skyguard crew are getting owned by 1 reaver pilot I suggest teaching your gunners to AIM or buy them glasses...

Also I noticed you are VANU and the MagRider alone should own that reaver, but with the SG escort you are talking about...

I mean HOLY CRAP if you guys can't take out a reaver with all that firepower...

[BadAsh]

Originally Posted by Doppler

I have an air guy that i play to unwind. Its fun and easy. I fail to see all the stress and jitters you guys seem to think is out there.

Then you would not mind a friendly duel. You and your Reaver and my BR1 VS AA MAX. I mean the most I can do is just wound you and you'll fly off for repairs right? So there should be no problem here right?

Since you "fail to see all the stress and jitters" I figured that I'd give you a little in-game demonstration.

You will either learn that the "lock on warning" means imediately fly away in full AB or you will die nearly instantly time and time again.

[Seer]

Originally Posted by flypengy

Yes... I read his last post and replied to that. Your point?

Well, my point was that you should read the whole thread before responding. If everyone thought like you did then the thread would be doomed to repeat itself with every new person that joined. You must be new to this whole internet thing.

And I said it was funny and surprising to kill people with the basilisk. Not that it was effective. There is a world of difference between the two. I have scored a few kills with it, but nobody has ever killed me with the lisk. It is perfectly acceptable to not call them weapons platforms. A weapons platform exists primarily to deliver firepower to the target. The lisk and switchblade don't--they're primarily for transportation.

To use the flail in battlefield conditions requires more people than are actually sitting in the vehicle. It requires either a spotter or some form of air cover. It is clear that the flail is overpowered in certain extremely specific situations, such as when the enemy doesn't have access to vehicles OR av weapons, but that doesn't really mean anything.

[KIAsan]

And the argument once again returns to cost vs firepower attained. In every case of single crewed ground vehicles, the cost of that vehicle vs the firepower it delivers is at a good ratio. However, the cost of the single crewed air vehicles vs firepower is way off. Simply put, they are too cheap.

To test my hypothesis, I flew my reaver last night for 6 hours, using repair pads/towers, then without. Without the air towers, I had to land, fix the plane, then manually reload the reaver rockets. OMG, I didn't realize how fast those rockets expended. With manual reloading, I spent at lot more time on the ground, thus making the cost associated with operating my reaver on par with the vehicles. Based on that, I am think simply adding vehicle repair pads to ALL towers should do the trick. It's either that, or remove the airtower repair capability. Either of these changes would rebalance this cost factor and eliminate the complaints on the vehicle side of PS (the ground side is another matter).