[Suggestion] Upgraded Lightning AA Systems

I really don't want to be critical when you've made such cool designs, but oddly enough there are high-velocity high damage AA weapons already in the game in the form of primary (AP) MBT cannons. Intended use or not, they are already super reliable VS larger targets like the Liberator and Galaxy Unless they are sitting on top of you. What would make these so much more worthwhile when you can remain AV reliable with a MBT and play with terrain to get AA angles?

Sure, that's a great question.

I'm imagining each of these to work like a Lancer/Vortex in terms of ease of hitting. Very high muzzle velocity, high accuracy, and no drop. So they would have the advantage over tank cannon in terms of increased velocity and not having to compensate for projectile drop.

At the same time they would do fairly piddly damage to ground targets, leaving them very vulnerable to all sorts of ground vehicles. That's where the AP MBT cannons would shine over them.

As it is currently, MBT AP cannons only have an aircraft kill per hour stat of 1.27 to 1.98. These advanced, skill-based AA weapons would do significantly better than that.

Ta-da!!



btw @ColonelChingles nice pictures, and they look fun to use

This is the deadliest weapon ever.
According to some graphs it is already responsible for 37% of ESF deaths, and it hasn't even left the testing stage of its development!

Ya why we don`t make a vihecle for Rambo style?

a vihecle wo can go for MBT, should make 6000 DMG for instand kill a Main Tank
+ 2000 DMG for inf with locks and 750 rdm, that u don`t Need aim and no inf can touch u (c4 is OP)
+ 4000 DMG vs aircraft for instand kill ( locks 1000 rdm)
+ unlimited ammo
+ only 1 man vihecle we Need rambno style ( why we should Play a Team based game)
a vihecle with more than 7000 HP, that no ****t can instand kill u. ( Team based game? for what? :/)
oh vorgett, locks should fly 1000m for inf, 2000m for mbt and 4000m for aircraft.
+ stealth mode + fast move ( hoover like Mag ) but with 100 mph.
thermal for range @ 5000m

year why we don`t let People Play rambo style, that People stop crying why a skyguard (1man 350 nanites) can`t kill a libt instand (3man 450 nanites)

The devs have stated that G2A can only be a deterrent to air. There would be no point to pulling air if you can get instagibed from ground.

Higby cant help you anymore. The time of G2A shall come to Auraxis.

Deterrents are never fun to play as and should be avoided at all costs.

What if we made aircraft a deterrent to ground forces? No A2G aircraft would be able to kill any vehicle or infantryman unless that vehicle or infantryman stood there and took it. It would take multiple passes for each A2G aircraft to kill a single rifleman.

Sounds fun, right?

Air is meant to be extremely situational. You only deploy air units to the battlefield if the enemy AA presence has been neutralized or was missing in the first place. In those cases aircraft can deliver extreme lethality to ground targets with precision strikes. But throwing aircraft against prepared AA positions can and should result in the total loss of the aircraft.

I don't find Skyguard underperforming. This is a team game. You get XP for dealing a certain amount of g2a damage. An ESF that you badly damage could be picked off by a pistol even. Job done. Teamwork.
Although currently my Skyguard is absolutely underperforming because it's no fun using it with the ****** input latency.

Im sure the devs would be able to do the same for ground vehicles...

ESFs can do 3-5 passes on a single MBT and then go back to reload and get a awesome "Hey someone else killed that MBT you shot at, take this consolation prise!" message.

Then people can come to the forums and post things like:

"I don't find Aircrafts underperforming. This is a team game. You get XP for dealing a certain amount of a2g damage. A Lightning that you badly damage could be picked off by a HA even. Job done. Teamwork. Although currently my Aircraft is absolutely underperforming because it's no fun using it with the ****** input latency."


But suprise suprise, I doubt many pilots would welcome this change.. its truly a mystery

Deterrents aren't fun. The solution is simple. Let skyguards re-equip at a vehicle terminal like Maxes. No reason to break game balance by adding OP vehicles.

Your opinion on air is wrong. Air is meant to be another facet of the game just like vehicles and infantry. Your narrow opinion on the usage of aircraft should not ruin it for everyone else.

But to me AA is also a facet of the game, just like other vehicles, infantry, and air. The point is that when relegated to a "deterrent" role AA really is ruined for dedicated AA operators.

So should air ruin AA?
Or should AA ruin air?

Perhaps, as with most things, the answer lies somewhere in the middle. Neither air nor AA should ruin each other, and one unit of AA ought to be about as effective as one unit of A2G aircraft. The problem is that AA is not balanced against air as it is, and to achieve that perfect balance AA needs significant improvement.

You're largely alone on that opinion. Dedicated AA operators? You must like the boringness of AA as a deterrent anyways to forgo all the other aspects of PS2. Also AA vs ESF is not just a deterrent, it's a killer. You're really talking about the specific situation of skyguard vs liberators.

Higby isn't alone in determining game balance. So let's not pretend with him out of the way, we can have all sorts of OP G2A. If G2A can destroy any air in range, what's the point of pulling air at all? Ground/Air balance is just fine if you use both ground and air. If you forgo one complete facet of the game, you have no right to complain about being stuck in a disadvantageous situation.

So who died and made you king to say that dedicated AA operators aren't a "legitimate" role in PS2?

Being a dedicated AA operator is every bit as legitimate of a role as a dedicated pilot. Both roles should have equal importance and validity. Neither role should be strengthened to the point where it excludes the other.

If I want to just sit in a Skyguard all day, the game should make the Skyguard powerful enough so the experience is rewarding. Just as if I want to sit in an ESF all day the ESF should be powerful enough so the experience is rewarding. Both roles should be equal in terms of the attention they receive.

The problem is that while being in an ESF is highly rewarding (the highest scoring players on each faction are all ESF farmers), being in a Skyguard is not very rewarding at all. You can see this in really any metric, hours played, SPM, KPH/VKPH/AKPH, etc. Skyguards and AA in general need a definite buff so that they are as rewarding to play as the air game.

If G2A can't destroy any air in range, what's the point of pulling G2A at all?

AA/air balance would be just fine... if pilots would have to rely on other ground units to take out lethal AA. If pilots neglect the ground vehicle game, they have no right to complain about lethal AA. They could have just pulled an AP MBT and destroyed the AA and avoided being stuck in a disadvantageous situation.

But instead they want to sit in their aircraft and go anywhere and do anything. I understand that pilots would love that freedom, but is it fair to allow pilots to do that when an equally adventurous Skyguard would be met with ruin?

PS2 should be a fair game for everyone. Everyone.

Who died and made you king to demote an otherwise major component of game play to: "Air is meant to be extremely situational."?

Since you asked, it was Higby and most likely the rest of the dev team, who relegated Skyguards to it's current role. Your proposal to change Skyguards role goes directly against his latest comment that G2A should only be a deterrent.

To deter liberators/galaxies and kill ESFS. No other weapon can create a 400m no entry zone.

Since you're so keen on balance. Give skyguard a lethal AA option, but air needs a deterrence weapon to "balance". It would need to cover a 400m range that would destroy light armor units in 4s and heavy armor units in 30s.

... wrong post

Give the skyguard a side mounted kobalt like in the first Planetside, *whabam* something else to shoot at while you're in between aircraft.

But don't go saying that air power is anything but a deterrent themselves.

• We can't capture points
• Can't kill a sundie these days other than ammo/repair
• Tanks require multiple passes and if there is any AA working at all then you probably won't have time to kill him
• The only thing that insta-gibs infantry these days is the shotgun for the reaver, everything else can be made completely laughable with any kind of flack armor

While I'm sorry a pilot killed your father in front of you when you were 8 or something, maybe he ran over your dog. But air in this game is nothing but an annoyance and not the first horseman of the apocalypse as you describe.

we could go the other direction and mount a skyguard on a liberator instead. i mean, since the skyguard is so bad and weak and unrewarding, it shouldn't be a big deal, should it?

or could it be that AA is actually very effective but simply lacks the mobility to chase fleeing air targets? if your problem is just mobility, it goes back to matching the opponent's mobility, which means flying. but then you'd have a flying skyguard, and if you could fly in the first place you wouldn't be making these ridiculous threads.

It's like SG should be strong to make up for its lack of mobility or something.

Giving Lightings the ES MBT abilities?