Reaver: Looks two man, lack of anything like missles pods, and nose mounted rotating cannon. If air chavs have been reduced to something like rage inducing, and no BFRs, does this look like they've actually listened to biggest complaints?
To be honest, I'm not sure I'll play TR this time around. Last time I played TR because that's what my outfit played (and they were what made the game fun), but I always envied the other empires their equipment. It depends on whether there'll be any Blood Legion around, and whether we go with TR again or switch to something else.
X_StickmanNot good enough for a custom title.Join Date: 2003-04-15Member: 15533Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1829868:date=Feb 5 2011, 05:51 PM:name=Aldaris)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Aldaris @ Feb 5 2011, 05:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1829868"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Reaver: Looks two man, lack of anything like missles pods, and nose mounted rotating cannon. If air chavs have been reduced to something like rage inducing, and no BFRs, does this look like they've actually listened to biggest complaints?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Unlikely. Without rockets there is basically no serious air ability in the game, unless you've got an *extremely* good bomber crew.
X_StickmanNot good enough for a custom title.Join Date: 2003-04-15Member: 15533Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1830029:date=Feb 6 2011, 03:35 PM:name=Aldaris)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Aldaris @ Feb 6 2011, 03:35 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1830029"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->*Alot* of people would argue there's too much air power as it is.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's just because a lot of people play reaver and there's (usually) not so much dedicated air cover.
Take out the reaver (or more specifically, it's rockets) and suddenly there's basically no anti-vehicle air power at all, and a greatly diminished anti-infantry air power (the chainguns work but not particularly well, especially for strafing).
Which does suggest that the Reaver is too good compared to everything else. But I rather liked the whole "escort the army with your Skyguard" kind of mechanic. It feels right, with everything else.
<a href="http://www.planetside-universe.com/forums/showthread.php?t=35817" target="_blank">Oh</a> the CEO is giving awesome hints on updates to PSN on the PSU forums :o
Looks like the flight physics have an overhaul. Thank god, they felt so generic. Hopefully its something that can separate a good pilot from bad like in BF2
Yeah, the Reaver was a problem. Too vital and popular to remove or nerf, but too dominant as it was.
For unknown reasons, air chavs (that's what we used to call them) didn't cancel each other out. You'd think that the best air cover, just like in real life, would be other aircraft. But that wasn't the case. Sometimes it almost seemed like they had a pact going where air chavs largely left each other alone so Reaver pilots could blow vehicles up unhindered while Mossie pilots (the supposed air-to-air fighter) used their powerful chaingun to farm infantry instead of keeping enemy aircraft at bay.
Whatever the reason, the only reliable anti-air was ground-based, and the only really good ground-to-air was the Skyguard (which, to my knowledge, wasn't even in the game at launch) and the Starfire (which was VS-specific). The Burster had its fair share of problems until it got a much-needed buff two and a half (or so) years after launch, after which it became competent-but-not-great at its sole role, ground-to-air. And don't get Stickman started on the Sparrow, which was never very good.
The big problem with the Reaver was its high anti-vehicle firepower. Combine this with the (by vehicular combat standards) flimsy armour of MAXes and Skyguards, and the Reaver could kill anything dedicated to keeping it at bay in seconds. Starfires could survive by hitting their jumpjets (but even they had to hurry - a Starfire that hesitated was a dead Starfire), and the Skyguard was fast and nimble enough to make it a difficult target, but either could be taken out in one quick salvo if they didn't get the hell out of dodge. Meanwhile, the Burster and Sparrow had it far worse. Neither had any viable means of escape - they didn't have the jumpjets of the Starfire, and they didn't have the speed of the Skyguard, which meant there was no way they could escape the blast radius of the Reaver rockets. Think of a spun-up TF2 Heavy trying to dodge rockets from a Soldier firing down at him from higher ground. Their ONLY defense was offense - shoot down the Reaver before it kills you. When you consider the low firepower of the Sparrow and (unanchored) Burster, this meant shooting the Reaver before it got anywhere near you - if it was close to you it was already too late and you were dead. So you better spent all your time turning 360 degrees, because Reaver pilots hated you and they knew very well just how quickly they could kill you. If a single Reaver got close to you unhindered, it was curtains.
So this left the Skyguard and Starfire as the only truly effective ground-to-air in the game. And while I hold that the Skyguard had the greater potential, it had so many limiting factors compared to an AA Max that it went woefully underused:<ul><li>Prerequisite: Certification requirements aside, the Skyguard was a tech unit. This meant that you could only get one at a Sanctuary vehicle pad, a Tech Facility vehicle pad, or a vehicle pad that had a link to either. Compare this to the ease of getting an AA MAX: You could get one from any (non-AMS) equipment terminal, even a hacked one. You could galdrop on a facility, hack the control console, leave part of your squad there to guard it while the rest went up into the main lobby, hacked an equipment terminal and got out MAXes to help defend the facility for the 15 minutes the hack would take. Getting a Skyguard in that situation would require a lengthy hike to the nearest friendly facility, provided it even had Tech benefits.</li><li>Personnel: A Skyguard required two people to operate, compared to only one person for an AA MAX. Oh sure, there were people who'd drive a Skyguard solo. Park it somewhere, then switch seats and start gunning. They were the ones who got killed by the second Reaver that showed up because they couldn't avoid the return fire. No, a Skyguard needed two people because it had to keep moving - a stationary Skyguard was a dead Skyguard. And to be a truly good Skyguard crew you had to talk to each other, which pretty much relegated it to exclusive use by outfits. An effective Skyguard required teamwork the way a Reaver or AA MAX didn't.</li><li>Learning curve: The Sparrow and Starfire AA MAXes were easy to use: Point at target, wait for lockon, hold down mouse button. The Burster was harder to use, because you had to lead your target - no homing missiles for you. But harder still was the Skyguard - in addition to the teamwork required, both gunner and driver had different skills to master before they became a threat to anyone. The gunner had to stay alert at all times - even with the speed and agility of the Skyguard, a Reaver that got too close could do significant damage before it was destroyed or driven away, so the gunner was responsible for never letting aircraft get close. Furthermore, you had to lead your targets by a considerable amount to hit, and while the TR had an advantage there because they could practice with the Burster, I suspect a lot of NC had a steep learning curve ahead of them. Meanwhile, the driver had an even tougher job - survival. In addition to dodging the rockets from every Reaver in the neighbourhood, they also had to keep a constant lookout for ground threats and obstacles. A Skyguard had the speed to evade most other ground vehicles, and it had to make good use of it because the Skyguard didn't have the armour or firepower for any ground combat. But drive too fast, too recklessly, or let your attention wane for just a moment and you ended up smack-dab in one of the endless number of minefields scattered all over the place - a certain death sentence given the Skyguard's flimsy armour. Even an excellent Skyguard driver would clip a mine now and then and have to get out to make repairs, always a harrowing time due to being temporarily stationary.</li></ul>What this wall of text boils down to is that, powerful though it could be, the Skyguard's manpower requirements, learning curve and lower availability meant that it was nowhere near as prevalent as it should have been given the abundance of Reavers. This left anti-air mostly to the AA MAXes, of which only the Starfire truly excelled in its role. The TR and NC were left with a dearth of anti-air that gave Reavers the upper hand in any vehicular combat.
And on another note... <!--quoteo(post=1830148:date=Feb 7 2011, 05:34 AM:name=Drfuzzy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Drfuzzy @ Feb 7 2011, 05:34 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1830148"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><a href="http://www.planetside-universe.com/forums/showthread.php?t=35817" target="_blank">Oh</a> the CEO is giving awesome hints on updates to PSN on the PSU forums :o<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> This is him, in response to a request for some screenshots of stuff in black and red, i.e. TR equipment:<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If by black and red you mean the fluids leaking from a TR soldier's brains when I make them into a smear on the front of my Reaver then yeah.. everything looks better in black and red! ( I like purple too btw... Vanu bleed too!)
NC ftw!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The writing's on the wall again: If you play Terran Republic or Vanu Sovereignty, expect to act as cannon fodder for the glorious New Conglomerate, favourite pets of the developers. If you like being killfarmed and gettings the ass end of the stick, play TR or VS. If you want to have fun and overpowered weapons, play NC.
How did the Reaver pass balancing anyway? It's like a flying tank, capable of filling any role at least decently well. Great at anti-tank and infantry, fair at air-to-air (even better than a mosq against heavy fliers, too), wrecks entrenchments, and usable for personal transport though it's kind of wasteful.
<!--quoteo(post=1828272:date=Jan 28 2011, 07:52 PM:name=DiscoZombie)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DiscoZombie @ Jan 28 2011, 07:52 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1828272"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't get how it can be so close to completion (ETA March??) and they haven't even announced it yet... unless maybe it's not much more than a graphical update and rebalance of the original... which would explain why it is expected to work on older systems...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Could be a marketing tactic, instead of having a long period of advertising where interest could fade they just run a media blitz shortly before release. But it does seem suspect that there is no in game screen shots yet.
X_StickmanNot good enough for a custom title.Join Date: 2003-04-15Member: 15533Members, Constellation
I disagree with lolf's assessment; I think the biggest problem the reaver had was how effective it was against infantry.
It's an air based rocket firing gunship. It's expected to be anti-vehicle, and that's fine. For the heavier vehicles (the heavy tanks especially) you'd need one or two runs (*or* a completely unescorted tank) to take it out, but it was never difficult because the rockets were easy to aim even on moving targets and such.
Reavers also weren't *particularly* hard to take out, unless the reaver knew you were there and was already gunning for you. The picture lolf paints of a reaver being able to take out an AA max (or skyguard) one-on-one is true, but that's only if the reaver gets the drop on you. If you get the drop on the reaver, the reaver has to run or be shot down (unless it's an extremely talented pilot or an extremely crappy shooter). I know from personal experience as both a pilot and as someone who worked with an air-heavy outfit (we did mostly mossie/gal raids on less defended targets) that if you hear a lock-on signal before you've spotted the max, it's best to just get the hell out of there; pick a direction and afterburn quick because you're going down.
But! Back to my original point. The main problem was just how effective those rockets were against infantry. Strafing a bridge, or an AMS, or a tower rooftop, was devastating. Which, y'know, makes sense from a logical standpoint but not from a gameplay standpoint. They seriously needed to tone down the AI damage the reaver's rockets could pump out.
Well with the looks of the new reaver, its going to have two gunners, which probably means one guns while the other flys. That being said, I'll assume the attacks will be more like a gunship (its shaped much like a cobra helicopter) than solo rapid-air-assault vehicle and will have the weapons to match. Noticed that the ship also does not have any weapons armed on the screen shot, so there might also be different hardpoints you can change out.
<!--quoteo(post=1830344:date=Feb 7 2011, 11:59 PM:name=X_Stickman)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (X_Stickman @ Feb 7 2011, 11:59 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1830344"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Reavers also weren't *particularly* hard to take out, unless the reaver knew you were there and was already gunning for you. The picture lolf paints of a reaver being able to take out an AA max (or skyguard) one-on-one is true, but that's only if the reaver gets the drop on you. If you get the drop on the reaver, the reaver has to run or be shot down (unless it's an extremely talented pilot or an extremely crappy shooter). I know from personal experience as both a pilot and as someone who worked with an air-heavy outfit (we did mostly mossie/gal raids on less defended targets) that if you hear a lock-on signal before you've spotted the max, it's best to just get the hell out of there; pick a direction and afterburn quick because you're going down.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't disagree on any point, but I think the picture you paint is incomplete. As you say, if you hear a lock-on signal before you've spotted the MAX, you either got out of there or you got shot down. The fact that you even had the option to get out of there gave you a huge advantage, because if the situation was reversed and you got the drop on the MAX, it was as good as dead (barring the Starfire). In a fight Reaver vs. AA MAX, whoever got the drop on the other had the advantage - but the Reaver had a <i>significantly</i> greater advantage if it was the one that got the drop on the MAX. An almost certain kill is a LOT better than "you'll probably just scare him off." Especially because that Reaver now had a better idea of where you were, and you had pissed him off - he'd be gunning for you now. The Reaver also had few other threats to contend with, while the MAX had many. Hiding was not an option - an AA MAX that didn't expose itself couldn't keep a good lookout for aircraft, and was therefore useless.
But you also have a point about its effectiveness against infantry. A Reaver could realistically attack ANY target on the battlefield, giving it enormous versatility and making it a viable vehicle in virtually any situation. This certainly contributed to its popularity and ubiquitousness. Meanwhile, air-to-air vehicles and MAXes were useless against anything else, making them a lot less popular.
X_StickmanNot good enough for a custom title.Join Date: 2003-04-15Member: 15533Members, Constellation
I *still* think that reavers get an unfair reputation. I honestly don't think they were *as* bad as people make them out to be. It's just that when you're killed by one, it's usually more annoying than when you were killed by anything else.
Again, as a pilot, I was shot down an awful lot. You won't find many aircraft (other than mossies) that stayed in the air for a long time during a fight. And, again, I don't think the issue is that the reaver was hard to kill, I think it's that they could put out more damage than was fair before they died.
You keep painting the issue as a one-on-one fight between an AA unit and the reaver, which isn't exactly fair and is the wrong way to be doing it. An AA max shouldn't be able to take out a reaver if the reaver gets the jump on it (although the starfire could because ###### that thing). Similarly, a single AA max shouldn't be able to black out the entire area for aircraft. The entire idea behind planetside was that there <i>should</i> be the use of combined arms. If you've got an AA max on its own, then it's going to die without doing much good. If it's in a squad with an engineer that can repair it, it's going to do a lot better. If it's part of a *team* of AA maxes ringing a base, then any air units are going to have a very hard time getting near.
So to reiterate, I don't think the problem is with the reaver's killability, or the fact that given the right circumstances it can take out an AA unit by itself, I think the problem is (and always has been) that the reaver can put out far more damage than basically anything else can in the same amount of time. The reaver can fly in and, I dunno, strafe a base or something. They'll get a few kills and do some non-negligible damage to any vehicles in the run before getting shot down. Nothing else could do that except, perhaps, the vindicator. But that required a decent level of coordination between three people, which was hard enough to achieve even with an organised outfit.
As for air-to-air stuff, it happened a lot more often than most people seem to think. It's just that most air-to-air fights tended to involve slow circle strafing (usually while climbing, so they're out of view of the people on the ground) or a dash to somewhere outside the main battle (to get away from AA units) so most ground pounders didn't see it very often. I'd say about.... I dunno, 7/10 of my flights involved at least one air-to-air fight.
I keep painting it as a 1-on-1 fight to illustrate the disparity in flexibility and cooperation between the two. A single Reaver required a single person to operate, and constituted a serious threat. Multiple Reavers, even without any cooperation between them, constituted an even bigger threat. In a game where the only truly limited resource is manpower, you can't afford to put several people in specialist roles to oppose a single master-of-all-trades.
When it takes cooperation and teamwork to put up an effective anti-air screen, but no teamwork or cooperation to fill the sky with Reavers, you end up with a sky full of Reavers and no anti-air.
<!--quoteo(post=1830652:date=Feb 8 2011, 08:50 PM:name=Drfuzzy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Drfuzzy @ Feb 8 2011, 08:50 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1830652"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Moderators are broadcasting game wide ingame for outfit names, guess this will be the people in the beta :o
Tigersmith get me in a outfit fast :o<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sure thing :) give me a tell in game when im on. which is usually after 6pm est :)
Comments
Also, I just signed back up for old ps, who all is still playing? Could use an outfit :o<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hey fuzzy what empire you on? im still playing
TR, screenname 'argggg'
And I say we go for TR like last time. I'm pretty stuck with my faction.
/rebel
(lazers and plasma and hovertanks and ######! how can you say no?)
/rebel
(lazers and plasma and hovertanks and ######! how can you say no?)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Can't lie, I envy their tank. Not fair, they can snipe :o
Oh and unless the art style has changed much, I'd probably be Vanu because I like the colour purple :p
Unlikely. Without rockets there is basically no serious air ability in the game, unless you've got an *extremely* good bomber crew.
That's just because a lot of people play reaver and there's (usually) not so much dedicated air cover.
Take out the reaver (or more specifically, it's rockets) and suddenly there's basically no anti-vehicle air power at all, and a greatly diminished anti-infantry air power (the chainguns work but not particularly well, especially for strafing).
But I rather liked the whole "escort the army with your Skyguard" kind of mechanic. It feels right, with everything else.
Looks like the flight physics have an overhaul. Thank god, they felt so generic. Hopefully its something that can separate a good pilot from bad like in BF2
For unknown reasons, air chavs (that's what we used to call them) didn't cancel each other out. You'd think that the best air cover, just like in real life, would be other aircraft. But that wasn't the case. Sometimes it almost seemed like they had a pact going where air chavs largely left each other alone so Reaver pilots could blow vehicles up unhindered while Mossie pilots (the supposed air-to-air fighter) used their powerful chaingun to farm infantry instead of keeping enemy aircraft at bay.
Whatever the reason, the only reliable anti-air was ground-based, and the only really good ground-to-air was the Skyguard (which, to my knowledge, wasn't even in the game at launch) and the Starfire (which was VS-specific). The Burster had its fair share of problems until it got a much-needed buff two and a half (or so) years after launch, after which it became competent-but-not-great at its sole role, ground-to-air. And don't get Stickman started on the Sparrow, which was never very good.
The big problem with the Reaver was its high anti-vehicle firepower. Combine this with the (by vehicular combat standards) flimsy armour of MAXes and Skyguards, and the Reaver could kill anything dedicated to keeping it at bay in seconds. Starfires could survive by hitting their jumpjets (but even they had to hurry - a Starfire that hesitated was a dead Starfire), and the Skyguard was fast and nimble enough to make it a difficult target, but either could be taken out in one quick salvo if they didn't get the hell out of dodge.
Meanwhile, the Burster and Sparrow had it far worse. Neither had any viable means of escape - they didn't have the jumpjets of the Starfire, and they didn't have the speed of the Skyguard, which meant there was no way they could escape the blast radius of the Reaver rockets. Think of a spun-up TF2 Heavy trying to dodge rockets from a Soldier firing down at him from higher ground. Their ONLY defense was offense - shoot down the Reaver before it kills you. When you consider the low firepower of the Sparrow and (unanchored) Burster, this meant shooting the Reaver before it got anywhere near you - if it was close to you it was already too late and you were dead. So you better spent all your time turning 360 degrees, because Reaver pilots hated you and they knew very well just how quickly they could kill you. If a single Reaver got close to you unhindered, it was curtains.
So this left the Skyguard and Starfire as the only truly effective ground-to-air in the game. And while I hold that the Skyguard had the greater potential, it had so many limiting factors compared to an AA Max that it went woefully underused:<ul><li>Prerequisite: Certification requirements aside, the Skyguard was a tech unit. This meant that you could only get one at a Sanctuary vehicle pad, a Tech Facility vehicle pad, or a vehicle pad that had a link to either. Compare this to the ease of getting an AA MAX: You could get one from any (non-AMS) equipment terminal, even a hacked one. You could galdrop on a facility, hack the control console, leave part of your squad there to guard it while the rest went up into the main lobby, hacked an equipment terminal and got out MAXes to help defend the facility for the 15 minutes the hack would take. Getting a Skyguard in that situation would require a lengthy hike to the nearest friendly facility, provided it even had Tech benefits.</li><li>Personnel: A Skyguard required two people to operate, compared to only one person for an AA MAX. Oh sure, there were people who'd drive a Skyguard solo. Park it somewhere, then switch seats and start gunning. They were the ones who got killed by the second Reaver that showed up because they couldn't avoid the return fire. No, a Skyguard needed two people because it had to keep moving - a stationary Skyguard was a dead Skyguard. And to be a truly good Skyguard crew you had to talk to each other, which pretty much relegated it to exclusive use by outfits. An effective Skyguard required teamwork the way a Reaver or AA MAX didn't.</li><li>Learning curve: The Sparrow and Starfire AA MAXes were easy to use: Point at target, wait for lockon, hold down mouse button. The Burster was harder to use, because you had to lead your target - no homing missiles for you. But harder still was the Skyguard - in addition to the teamwork required, both gunner and driver had different skills to master before they became a threat to anyone.
The gunner had to stay alert at all times - even with the speed and agility of the Skyguard, a Reaver that got too close could do significant damage before it was destroyed or driven away, so the gunner was responsible for never letting aircraft get close. Furthermore, you had to lead your targets by a considerable amount to hit, and while the TR had an advantage there because they could practice with the Burster, I suspect a lot of NC had a steep learning curve ahead of them.
Meanwhile, the driver had an even tougher job - survival. In addition to dodging the rockets from every Reaver in the neighbourhood, they also had to keep a constant lookout for ground threats and obstacles. A Skyguard had the speed to evade most other ground vehicles, and it had to make good use of it because the Skyguard didn't have the armour or firepower for any ground combat. But drive too fast, too recklessly, or let your attention wane for just a moment and you ended up smack-dab in one of the endless number of minefields scattered all over the place - a certain death sentence given the Skyguard's flimsy armour. Even an excellent Skyguard driver would clip a mine now and then and have to get out to make repairs, always a harrowing time due to being temporarily stationary.</li></ul>What this wall of text boils down to is that, powerful though it could be, the Skyguard's manpower requirements, learning curve and lower availability meant that it was nowhere near as prevalent as it should have been given the abundance of Reavers. This left anti-air mostly to the AA MAXes, of which only the Starfire truly excelled in its role. The TR and NC were left with a dearth of anti-air that gave Reavers the upper hand in any vehicular combat.
This is him, in response to a request for some screenshots of stuff in black and red, i.e. TR equipment:<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If by black and red you mean the fluids leaking from a TR soldier's brains when I make them into a smear on the front of my Reaver then yeah.. everything looks better in black and red! ( I like purple too btw... Vanu bleed too!)
NC ftw!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The writing's on the wall again: If you play Terran Republic or Vanu Sovereignty, expect to act as cannon fodder for the glorious New Conglomerate, favourite pets of the developers. If you like being killfarmed and gettings the ass end of the stick, play TR or VS. If you want to have fun and overpowered weapons, play NC.
Could be a marketing tactic, instead of having a long period of advertising where interest could fade they just run a media blitz shortly before release.
But it does seem suspect that there is no in game screen shots yet.
It's an air based rocket firing gunship. It's expected to be anti-vehicle, and that's fine. For the heavier vehicles (the heavy tanks especially) you'd need one or two runs (*or* a completely unescorted tank) to take it out, but it was never difficult because the rockets were easy to aim even on moving targets and such.
Reavers also weren't *particularly* hard to take out, unless the reaver knew you were there and was already gunning for you. The picture lolf paints of a reaver being able to take out an AA max (or skyguard) one-on-one is true, but that's only if the reaver gets the drop on you. If you get the drop on the reaver, the reaver has to run or be shot down (unless it's an extremely talented pilot or an extremely crappy shooter). I know from personal experience as both a pilot and as someone who worked with an air-heavy outfit (we did mostly mossie/gal raids on less defended targets) that if you hear a lock-on signal before you've spotted the max, it's best to just get the hell out of there; pick a direction and afterburn quick because you're going down.
But! Back to my original point. The main problem was just how effective those rockets were against infantry. Strafing a bridge, or an AMS, or a tower rooftop, was devastating. Which, y'know, makes sense from a logical standpoint but not from a gameplay standpoint. They seriously needed to tone down the AI damage the reaver's rockets could pump out.
I don't disagree on any point, but I think the picture you paint is incomplete. As you say, if you hear a lock-on signal before you've spotted the MAX, you either got out of there or you got shot down. The fact that you even had the option to get out of there gave you a huge advantage, because if the situation was reversed and you got the drop on the MAX, it was as good as dead (barring the Starfire). In a fight Reaver vs. AA MAX, whoever got the drop on the other had the advantage - but the Reaver had a <i>significantly</i> greater advantage if it was the one that got the drop on the MAX. An almost certain kill is a LOT better than "you'll probably just scare him off." Especially because that Reaver now had a better idea of where you were, and you had pissed him off - he'd be gunning for you now. The Reaver also had few other threats to contend with, while the MAX had many. Hiding was not an option - an AA MAX that didn't expose itself couldn't keep a good lookout for aircraft, and was therefore useless.
But you also have a point about its effectiveness against infantry. A Reaver could realistically attack ANY target on the battlefield, giving it enormous versatility and making it a viable vehicle in virtually any situation. This certainly contributed to its popularity and ubiquitousness. Meanwhile, air-to-air vehicles and MAXes were useless against anything else, making them a lot less popular.
Again, as a pilot, I was shot down an awful lot. You won't find many aircraft (other than mossies) that stayed in the air for a long time during a fight. And, again, I don't think the issue is that the reaver was hard to kill, I think it's that they could put out more damage than was fair before they died.
You keep painting the issue as a one-on-one fight between an AA unit and the reaver, which isn't exactly fair and is the wrong way to be doing it. An AA max shouldn't be able to take out a reaver if the reaver gets the jump on it (although the starfire could because ###### that thing). Similarly, a single AA max shouldn't be able to black out the entire area for aircraft. The entire idea behind planetside was that there <i>should</i> be the use of combined arms. If you've got an AA max on its own, then it's going to die without doing much good. If it's in a squad with an engineer that can repair it, it's going to do a lot better. If it's part of a *team* of AA maxes ringing a base, then any air units are going to have a very hard time getting near.
So to reiterate, I don't think the problem is with the reaver's killability, or the fact that given the right circumstances it can take out an AA unit by itself, I think the problem is (and always has been) that the reaver can put out far more damage than basically anything else can in the same amount of time. The reaver can fly in and, I dunno, strafe a base or something. They'll get a few kills and do some non-negligible damage to any vehicles in the run before getting shot down. Nothing else could do that except, perhaps, the vindicator. But that required a decent level of coordination between three people, which was hard enough to achieve even with an organised outfit.
As for air-to-air stuff, it happened a lot more often than most people seem to think. It's just that most air-to-air fights tended to involve slow circle strafing (usually while climbing, so they're out of view of the people on the ground) or a dash to somewhere outside the main battle (to get away from AA units) so most ground pounders didn't see it very often. I'd say about.... I dunno, 7/10 of my flights involved at least one air-to-air fight.
When it takes cooperation and teamwork to put up an effective anti-air screen, but no teamwork or cooperation to fill the sky with Reavers, you end up with a sky full of Reavers and no anti-air.
Tigersmith get me in a outfit fast :o
Tigersmith get me in a outfit fast :o<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sure thing :) give me a tell in game when im on. which is usually after 6pm est :)
<a href="http://www.planetside-universe.com/news-planetside-next-mosquito-exclusive-2438.htm" target="_blank">http://www.planetside-universe.com/news-pl...lusive-2438.htm</a>
<img src="http://www.romulation.net/files/screenshots/roms/PSX/21519/s966373f8431bc9eef1fd50e6580308ad.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />