Half a magazine of breaker rockets kills an AA turret

Discussion in 'Vehicle Discussion' started by SideOfBeef, Nov 26, 2012.

  1. No, it's about a numerically smaller organized group unable to defend a numerically bigger zerg. It's nigh impossible. AFAIK that was possible in the original.
  2. Agreed, as a Reaver pilot who whispers to the people in turrets "sorry".
  3. I think one of the problems here is Ground to Air and Air to Ground fire are being balanced in the wrong way. They keep fiddling with the DPS of either side, which doesn't work. The reason is, all the ground based AA in an area can see any plane nearby and shoot it, so each plane is fighting the sum total of the AA in the area, but the reverse isn't true. So either the AA is strong and sweeps the skies and everyone stops flying (seen that in beta), or the AA is weak and the planes barely care (also seen that). Right now I think we're in a precarious position between the two. Perhaps it's leaning towards the aircraft at the moment, but not by much.

    Anyway, my point is I think they should introduce high damage degradation to G2A and A2G fire. They can do this with cone of fire, straight damage degradation ala infantry weapons, or both. Then the AA fire couldn't sweep a whole area clear of planes, but if the planes come in low to attack they'd be taking a big risk, but also doing it for a decent reward since the plane's DPS would also go up. Liberators would have a higher effective altitude than ESFs (but still not as high as today), but that's ok because it should take multiple AA weapons to down, in a reasonable amount of time, a plane being crewed by multiple people.

    The current Heavy Assault missile launchers already work this way. I have the VS Nemesis, and firing at distant ESFs is almost pointless since they'll dodge or outrun the missile. But once an ESF gets close or I fire at one moving towards me, I can get a decent amount of kills and assists.
  4. yep. if an aircraft is hovering right over AA he should be shredded, but right now he just tanks it and runs off. kinda goofy. also pointless to ever do a strafing run on armor knowing that if you just hover 200m away you can spam and do the very same damage.
  5. Currently AA turrets only scare the stupid ones and kill the suicidal ones, everyone else already bought rockets they can use to snipe from range or charge in with and still get a kill and get out.

    I love how the OP talks about ROCKET DAMAGE and TURRET HEALTH, and all the fly (whine) boys talk about TURRET DAMAGE. I mean your bias is so bad it even affects your reading comprehension.

    AA turrets have the same health as AT, but they're on top, and low enough for tanks to hit, and on walls they're placed on the outside even though they don't need to be as they are meant for air and have can rotate 360 degrees.
    Well both turrets have the same health, and it would seem weird to just buff one of them health wise so the easiest thing to fix would be rocket damage.

    One thing I don't understand is how people can justify having an ESF that's more effective at A2G than a 3 man bomber. If the Lightning was a better tank killer and infantry killer than the MBT people would throw a fit, and rightfully so. So why is it ok to have a 1 man air-superiority fighter with rockets be a better tank killer than a Lib with a Dalton (which is the best AV so there's no confusion)?
  6. ^^^^^ This.

    Base AA should be feared. Air should rely on ground troups to clear out AA when they assault.

    AA needs to be a counter to aircraft. Not just aircraft to counter aircraft. That's like armor expecting only armor to be a viable counter.

    Air should rely on ground troups to help get rid of AA as much as ground troups rely on air to help get rid of armor.
  7. That stationary turret costs you nothing. The ESF costs resources.

    The job of the stationary base turret is deterrence, not to clear the skies. Working in tandem with other AA the turrets can help achieve that goal.
  8. One would think that a turret would have armor that is atleastresistant to the main thing that it is designed to counter... Goes along with that whole team based gameplay if a tank couldnt easily take down AT, air couldnt easily take fown AA, and infantry couldnt easily take down AI.
    • Up x 1
  9. Do you even play this game? o_O
  10. More than you most likely. I played through beta, back when there was a time when a single AA tower could destroy ESFs with ease.

    There is a reason the for the balance being where it is now, and it is fine. Sorry, but you don't get to take down an ESF that gets the drop on you with your no-cost turret. Play smarter.
  11. The ESF costs 200 resources. Is it even possible to not gain that many resources by the time your respawn timer runs out for an ESF? Resources for an ESF are a moot point.

    The AA turrets are being killed by ESFs in a one-on-one straight up, nose-to-nose fight. The one possible use for the stationary, limited range, limited fire time, limited firing angle AA turrets is to shoot that ESF, but the ESF doesn't need to fear it at all. And your response is to say that people should employ a second, stationary, limited range, limited fire time, limited firing angle AA to do the job the first one couldn't do. So, your response is that multiple people should be needed to stop you, but you should be able to take out everything by yourself -- because you spent 200 of an inexhaustible resource. Seems legit.

    Right now, engineers are better off repairing turrets and never using them, because they know the turret will just be blown up in a couple seconds anyway and then they can get more repair exp., assuming they live through the repair. I'll rephrase that: Risking exposure to repair turrets gives more benefit than actually using the turret.

    I'm surprised ESF pilots haven't complained about not having base capture points in the sky so they could flip bases while staying in their plane. It's really the only thing they can't do right now.
  12. Absolutely it is possible. In my experience most people who fly do not only fly ESFs.

    An ground attack ESF absolutely should win if they get the drop on an AA turret. They have certed into destroying ground armor, that is their job.

    No I said any other AA, not just another stationary turret. There is a lot of AA in the game.

    AA turrets can absolutely kill ESFs if you attack them as they enter range. No ESF is going to survive flying head to head with an AA gun at range. The ESFs that you are complaining about got the drop you you.

    AA guns do not need to be more effective. The balance is good finally.
  13. Nearly exclusive mosquito pilot here. AA towers are incredibly easy to kill as a mosquito with rocket pods. Rocket pods atm are over powered.
  14. It's definitely possible - maybe not as possible as you'd like, but the advantages are there.

    The trouble with this line of thinking is that it ignores the fact that you're only defending in lower numbers by chance (or the willingness of your team to defend). If you make defending more effective, you increase the possibility of a large force just holding anything for as long as it wants, as no significantly larger force can even amass, much less fight it in the same place. Since people get rewarded for kills, they will make use of notably easier ways to get them.

    On the other hand, more difficult defences also encourage zerging because it's still going to be easier with more people than less. Stronger turrets don't only shoot at zergs, and zergs have more firepower to shoot back with, more sunderers to spawn at, more people and vehicles to lose before it starts to matter, etc. than a smaller group would.
  15. I'm playing PS2 since it went closed beta. I remember AA being OP > UP > OP > and now UP. I remember when MAXes were given 2 bursters for free right at the character creation, that flying anywhere near The Crown killed you in seconds even if you were in a Galaxy 1 km away, I remember then when 3 MAXes were needed to fend of a SINGLE ESF, that ESF were flying right in front of an active AA turret and killing it with nose cannon while being shot by said AA turret, when all you've seen were Reavers with rocket pods and Liberators, I remember when a single Skyguard was able to clear the skies in 1/2 kilometer radius, when 4 DualBursterMAXes were enough to annihilate any air around in no time, I remember ESFs killing tanks, Sunderers, Liberators, Galaxies in seconds with rocket pods.

    All these were chronologically written down. No, you haven't played more than me, believe me.

    All I'd like to see is an AA turret winning a 1v1 fight against an ESF. Why? BECAUSE AA TURRET IS STATIONARY WHILE ESF MOVES IN ALL 3 DIMENSIONS! If that doesn't beg for balance, I don't know what will.
  16. I know it's possible, that's why I said nigh (nigh means almost, nearly). But 1 out of 1000 fights to be successful is not really good possibility so most of the game is attack and rarely defence.

    Having bigger numbers in defence wouldn't change a thing. There is only a finite number of Phalanx turrets (AT, AI and AA) and that number is usually small at everything but facilities. A tower has 4 AT and 2 AA turrets. and outpost usually doesn't have any while a stronghold has around 4-8 total. So 20 people would be just as effective at defence with turrets as 50 of them.

    You have problems with turrets? Nuke them with rocket launchers or C4 or Liberators, deploy snipers to kill repairing engineers. Turrets rendered unusable through gameplay, not through design or "balancing" choices.
  17. You've missed my point entirely. Turrets are not the only thing you can defend with and treating them as such would be ridiculous. Use the free turrets for what they can do, and call for reinforcements as needed. If nobody shows up to defend the place, too bad. Players choosing not to defend is a valid reason for defence to fail.
  18. And you've missed my point entirely. The bigger the number of defenders, the less important turrets are. They don't mean nearly as much if there is 100 people defending compared to 20 people defending.

    Saying that turrets should be useless because they are free is a moot point. Infantry is free to spawn. Rockets from HA are free. MANA turrets are free. Bullets are free. Shouldn't they be also useless because they are free? Turrets should be a threat when attacking. They are not.
  19. Ironically turrets are more powerful than the things you just listed.

    Just because they're not as good as you want them to be, that doesn't make them useless. I use them whenever I find one in range of enemies and I've killed plenty of infantry as well as MBTs and ESFs that should (in theory) be more powerful than the turret. Had I not had access to those turrets, my free soldier would not have been nearly that effective in a single life. If there are 20 of us and a 60 man zerg shows up then yes, chances are they'll win, unless they're useless and/or we're special. This is what happens in multiplayer games, because handing 20 people an advantage that lets them murder 60 people repeatedly until they give up leaves you with more people pissed off than it does happy.

  20. Are they? You need 2 rockets in the back of MBT to destroy it, you need 3 hits with the AT turret in the a**. You need 2 hits for the lock-on launcher to make an ESF burn (around 8 seconds alone) and you are pretty much invulnerable to air if you're not rendered, you need a whole overheat and then some more in AA turret to even make an ESF smoke because it's so inaccurate and weak, not to mention it can nuke you back because you're always rendered to air. MANA turrets are very accurate and can kill you in under a second at 100 meters AND can be placed nearly everywhere while you need few seconds to kill with AI turret at 50 meteres.

    Yea, you're right, they aren't useless. They are easy +100 xp for anyone that attacks a base. But are irrelevant if you're defending. Not to mention, repairing a turret while the base is under siege is "high risk, low reward"

Share This Page