Should the devs re-balance between Aeros and Vehicles?

[DFDelta]

A modest contribution to this discussion.

This table represents the level of threat for a class from other classes (threat for the vertical class from the horizontal class). Of course it is subjective and open to discussion but I think it shows how some classes have obvious weak spots while others have much less.

Of course each class is to be considered in average, within a class there are differences.

Funny that you built something like this, I was working on one myself some time ago, but then I discarded it because I tought there were to many factors, aside from unit type, that play an important role, too. (terrain, visibility of the map, and others)
I agree with most of the pairings, but there are some changes I'd do:
- AAA is dangerous for ASF
- Lights are relatively safe from ASF (could argue about if it should be yellow or green)
- Usually lights are the most dangerous enemies for BA in my opinion (next to AAA batteries)

[~SJ~KorbinWimmer]

Care to explain the colors? I'm assuming Green to mean good against and red to mean poor... in which case I have some disagreements.

[DFDelta]

I guess it is: <Left unit> is <color> <upper unit>
While the colors are:
Green = safe from
Yellow = on par with
Red = endangered by


So the selected slot would read:
LT is endangered by tanks (which is true, since a tank getting in range will rape the LT)

[~SJ~KorbinWimmer]

ok that makes more sense

[NSallaNuto]

I assigned the colors as:

Green - no threat.
Yellow - moderate threat.
Red - dangerous.

AAA vs ASF is assigned as yellow because an AAA unit is not really dangerous right now (IMO). Anyway, it is necessarily an approximation but it allows to have an overview.

[=KoS= Eldragon]

I really liked the chart, yet I read it at little different like:

Green - Your are probably going to get the kill.
Yellow - Fair fight (outside factors come into play the most here).
Red - You are probably going to get killed.

Now the chart needs to be expanded to every variant! j/k.

[SquareSphere }12thVR{]

I think with just a minor tweak of dropping air asset armor about 10-15% everything would fall into a perfect balance.

[Threesan]

I think the complicating factor in this is figuring out how to lead a target -- it's hard. The primary intuitive feedback -- the black impact puffs -- seems to be an outright lie as to whether the shot actually hits.

So you have to start by guessing how much to lead your target, fighting to keep it lined up as it maneuvers, while watching your cbills with the corner of your eye and trying to keep a queue of how much you were leading the target if and when your cbills increase from a shot you fired several shots ago -- and this must be learned for different projectile velocities, pseudo-multiplied by different distances to target, pseudo-multiplied by different velocities of target (correcting for maneuverings). (All while on a field of combat, with any of a dozen known or unknown hostiles potentially cresting a hill, lining you up, flanking your position, or tearing through your front lines. Tunnel-vision will get you or your allies killed, after all.)

We need more prominent feedback. Crosshair hatches, crosshair color, sound, a fix to the black puffs, something. (The line reasoning being: If things get exponentially more difficult the more we are expected to keep track of, improving just one thing can help substantially.)

[~SJ~KorbinWimmer]

A difference of 10% armor may not seem like much, but in many cases that's the difference between one shotting a passing aero and not with some of the LBX options.  Spending 100grand on an asset such as a Shiva you deserve some amount of survivability even if you have to land for repairs afterwards.   

[MercenaryMuffin]

OH FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THINGS DECENT

ANOTHER topic about this? Really? You people really hate Aeros, don't you? Just let it be. You're making Raptor Jesus cry, you monsters.

[LordHack]

Yeah, these are kind of false choices.  There are things on either end that need tweaking, but "rebalancing" is a pretty strong term.  I respectfully abstain.

[Deathbane]

OH FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THINGS DECENT

ANOTHER topic about this? Really? You people really hate Aeros, don't you? Just let it be. You're making Raptor Jesus cry, you monsters.

[Virt]

ANOTHER topic about this? Really? You people really hate Aeros, don't you?

It would be more accurate to say "you people really love and care about the game, don't you".

This is not "another thread".   This is the first thread which seeks to ascertain the quantitative view of the community on the issue of Aeros vs Vehicles.     At time of writing, 42 people have voted, and only one of those votes is for Aeros to be strengthened.   The other votes divide pretty much evenly between "leave things as they are" and "rebalance in favour of vehicles".

Interesting.

Of course there are only a couple of opinions on this issue that really matter.   I am hoping that the devs will look at the view expressed by the broader community, as expressed by the numbers rather than the vocal few, and consider whether what they think is balanced is actually being experienced as balanced by the majority of the community.

It's worth noting that KingLeer has already told us he  believes the survivability between vehicles and aeros is "about right", and he intends to add another game asset that will make it harder for aero pilots.    I noticed in another thread that he was also talking about slowing the repair/re-arm/return to battle cycle for aeeros.  Both of these initiatives would fit into the category of "rebalancing in favour of vehicles".   

[MercenaryMuffin]

Yes, this IS another topic about Aero balance and (nonexistent) imbalance.

It's obvious people are just fine with how things are right now. I think we need more AA variant vehicles, don't get me wrong. I'd like to see some RAC5 anti-air assets, or multiple light gauss. I'm fine with tweaking the balance, such as with longer repair times or increased C-Bill gains from hitting aeros with AA fire, but I'm not fine with a complete overhaul. We just got a complete overhaul, and it's pretty close to being sweet-spotted.

[Virt]

It's obvious people are just fine with how things are right now.

Math says no.   

It's not reasonable to simply dismiss the opinions of almost half the people who responded to this poll.

They are entitled to their opinion too.