[Vehicle] Accuracy of Skyguard AA cannon.

Im gonna have to stop you there because thats a load of rubbish, ESF can bite back much faster than the skyguard can if they actually pay attention to the flak sources.

Most of the ESF kill i get in my skyguard, are from ESF that not only were not aware i was there (because you have stealth on your skyguard or you need to go back to school son)

But also ignored my presence completely and continued to ground pound.

when ESF actually come for you with informed knowledge of your location, and follow the same rules of engagement you do (patience, wait for target to become busy with or begin firing at something else, then open up and take them down while distracted) you will get murdered. two rockets up the jacksie, how mcu HP did you just lose in about a half second? 90% ?

My guess is it is decent against the enemies bad enough to not be able to reliably hit you even though you need to be exposed constantly to use the Skyguard against them. Normal engagement tactics against MBTs is to duck into cover between reloads, and I foresee an enemy Lightning doing the same to you, greatly reducing the DPS of the Skyguard, while he doesn't lose any DPS. Much the same issue with the GK.

You lose about 50% with two Hornets. With max reload and all you can kill any tank in the game with 4 Hornets to the rear in 3 seconds. It's OP against bad players, but those who are aware or are in Vanguards range between very hard and impossible to kill like this.

Or, you know, someone that isn't backed up by AA. Meaning anyone that isn't within 100m of their own zerg is dead meat.

The point would be that it wouldn't be as easy to use lock-ons, AA MAX's and other G2A weapons (as I've already pointed out, why are you still treating G2A weapons as if they could after this change?). Currently flak has an 8m detonation range. This means that any flak that gets within 8m distance of an aircraft hitbox will detonate and hit. Even if you brought an aircraft hitbox back to a single point then flak would still have a "hitbox" the size of a 16m sphere. That's 1,5 Sunder lengths in any direction.
So my suggestion is to make G2A weapons skillful, which includes removing the ease-of-use of G2A weapons. Flak wouldn't have a detonation range of 8m anymore, but more like 1m or 0,5m. In turn the flak would have higher accuracy instead of the shotgun COF it has now and more DPS for hits. This would allow aircraft to actually dodge out of the way from flak weapons but the flak weapons in turn to destroy aircraft if they have the skill for it. Similar things can be done for all G2A weapons.
Then once you get two skilled G2A players together, there's no reason to let them wreck aircraft. After all, 2 skilled tank players can wreck infantry and other tanks. 2 skilled infantry can wreck other infantry (and still have a tough time with tanks). 2 skilled aircraft can wreck other aircraft and/or tanks/infantry. So why shouldn't skillful G2A weapons operated by skilled players be capable of wrecking some aircraft?

It definitely sucks dying, but you're talking about a tank running in to his direct counter in a 1v1 situation. And if it's not a 1v1, tanks have a fighting chance against their direct counter if there's any terrain available to use to angle up your guns. And if there's not that, then those tanks have the option of each bolting AA on their roofs. At the end of the day, it's a MMO, play as a team and this problem doesn't exist. Go solo Rambo at your own risk.

That's a horrid, horrid idea.

A 1v1 against your direct counter should be a bad situation, however the problem is that death is almost guaranteed in the case of aircraft vs tank. The same for aircraft vs infantry. But in the meantime any combination of infantry vs tank, tank vs infantry or G2A weapons is not a guaranteed win. AI infantry vs an AI tank still gives the infantry ways to at least try to dodge the shots or use cover. An aircraft vs ground units though? The aircraft control just about everything in the engagement and ground vehicles have almost zero chance of finding any cover and almost zero chance of dodging, which is only really possible against a Tankbusting Lib and based on "let's hope he doesn't hit everything".

And the worst part? When an aircraft goes solo vs a G2A weapon there is a higher chance the aircraft escapes than dies. Which is the exact opposite of an AV aircraft vs a tank. But somehow this is all A OK and not "Rambo at your own risk". You know that most G2A weapons actually stand almost as chance to be destroyed by the very aircraft they seek as the chance they actually kill those aircraft?

This is a terrible, completely ridiculous way of "balancing", and extremely hypocrite as well. It's a double insult: Tanks can be destroyed without any chance of defending themselves, they aren't even capable of really dodging or maneuvering out of harms way, but aircraft are allowed to escape just about any engagement without blowing up.

You're talking crazy again.

Yeah, it's called a direct counter. Libs get owned by air, that's the price they pay for being decent against ground. ESFs fitted with Hornets have dramatically reduced survivability against air and AA. "But Adam, they still have an A2A nosegun." That's right, and tanks with an AP canon can still mount a Ranger or Walker. They're gimped against armor the same way A2G ESF are gimped against air. And if you're telling me an AP MBT with a Walker can't put up a fight against a Lib then you're crazy. Should it win? Not really, as it's an anti-armor vehicle doing the best it can against it's direct counter, but it can absolutely put up a good fight.

Think about it. As long as there's a reasonable time to kill, and aircraft choose how long to expose themselves, AA will always be a deterrent. That's it. End of story. Unless you have a one-hit-kill weapon, aircraft will only expose themselves as long as it's safe to. OHK weapons = high skill and you get to kill the evil ESF with AA. TTK weapons, you have to chase the aircraft till that TTK is reached.

Absolutely not even close to a comparison to anything else in the game.
An ESF that uses Hornets (or Rocketpods, which are more than decent against vehicles) is still a strong threat to any other aircraft in the game. Compare that to tanks who equip a Ranger or Walker and the situation becomes even worse for the tanks. The tanks need to switch seats to make use of their secondary weapon and it's still only a deterrent. An aircraft equipping Hornets for instance is still well capable of engaging enemy aircraft, infantry and tanks and doesn't need to seat-switch, isn't hampered by a reload-reset system if you swap weapons too soon, isn't hampered by a seat-switch lock, can still move and steer while using his secondary weapon and worst of all his secondary weapon wields similar power as primary weapons unlike tanks. In fact the tanks and infantry both are completely at the mercy of the aircraft pilot skill unless they have G2A weapons along with them, which at best say "shoo pesky aircraft, shoo" instead of completely obliterating the aircraft, like your own idea of "1v1 balance" would dictate.

No matter how you spin it, aircraft always obliterate the ground while the ground can at best shoo the aircraft away with their weapons. In the meantime ground units locked in combat are by no means helpless, even if you equip an infantry class with zero AV weapons at the very least said infantry can use cover or try to dodge. That's impossible in any scenario against aircraft.

Nope, absolutely not the case. When you think about "reasonable TTK" you assume "a reasonable time in which a deterrent will kill the opponent". I've already pointed out how for instance the Viper could easily be made into a skillful G2A weapon that doesn't need to be hitting as constantly as a deterrent. In fact it could work by missing 5 salvo's and completely obliterating on the 6th salvo when he's got a good bead on the enemy aircraft. It could also hit the aircraft a few times, after which the aircraft remains in the area because it's confident/greedy enough to think he can avoid the next few hits, finish what he came to do and get out of there. This gives a much better risk/reward scenario.
I've been thinking about this and AA does absolutely not have to be a deterrent, that's it, end of story.

No you don't need OHK weapons. Just like a tank will remain in the open for longer even though it's damaged, so can an aircraft remain longer out in the open if it thinks it's worth the risk. Tanks absolutely don't need to take the risk and stick their head out longer even though they are damaged, but the reward for potentially getting a kill or destroying a vehicle outweigh the risks. The same situation can extremely easily be created for aircraft vs G2A weapons.

So you use small magazine weapons, like the Viper. You fire a bunch of shots, and the potential for a one-magazine kill is there. Aircraft with enough awareness can then use distance and maneuverability to avoid more hits and stay in the fight so they can finish what they came to do before returning for repairs. Then despite the G2A being present, they can come back and the cycle of risk/reward starts anew until either the G2A is destroyed by something or the aircraft.

I can agree with that if ESF's didn't fly like VTOL's, their ability to just take a 90-180 degree turn in a split second is insane and would make for a horrible time. I do like the concept though, but maybe give an G2A weapon the same "easy to shoot, hard to kill" system and then give experienced players a high skill cap G2A weapon.

All of this assumes that aircraft will linger around and let "high skill" G2A have the opportunity of a second shot. If we're only talking about skilled pilots, that just won't be the case. You have to kill them before they have time to run or have the ability to chase them and finish them off. That's never going to change.

I'm all for those weapons, I hate the current options we have for G2A, they're not fun/effective for the shooters and also suck for the pilots. I do think adding realistic momentum to the game would solve most problems with A2A and G2A.

Actually its far more balanced than you might realize.
Even if a skilled pilot immediately turns tail and runs when damaged, the skilled G2A weapon has enough time for another volley... However since distance would means a lot more for the skill required to hit the aircraft, it would be a lot tougher to land the next hit(s).
Besides that a skilled player also is a more calculated player. Just like a skilled tank player will stay a bit longer in a fight because he knows the risk/reward and dares take the risk, so will an aircraft player stick around a bit longer to accomplish what he wants to achieve. Especially in the scenario where the aircraft starts his attack run but gets damaged right away. Right now you have no option but to retreat almost immediately (as ESF) to survive, but if you do survival is almost guaranteed while at the same time you are giving up your chance of getting kills that attack run. With skillful weapons you don't have to give up that chance since you aren't time-bound. The next salvo could miss, especially if you attempt to make it harder for them, therefore you have the opportunity to stick around and accomplish what you want. And people will take that risk, especially the experienced players who have more confidence in their ability to dodge the next salvo.

Tl: DR
The change from guaranteed damage to a chance on damage will give players the opportunity to stick to a fight regardless of damage, and skilled players will have more skill to survive and will stick around more often.

What kind of momentum are you talking about exactly? I'm interested.

Even if it is an easy to shoot, hard to kill system then it shouldn't need the incredible skill reduction we see now. A high-velocity shell with a 1m flak detonation range would already be low skill enough and would allow the aircraft to avoid the aim of their opponent.

I agree with most of that. Maybe in PS3.

Slower breaking, slower acceleration, slower turning.... Leave speed the same. It solves your HF/RM argument you always bring up, which I agree with. HF/RM would still be very effective in duels and A2G, but if it took longer to stop, reverse maneuver, then build up speed, another fighter could make a strafing run and keep his momentum, leaving the reverse maneuver pilot far behind without the ability to instantly catch up and be on his tail. Slower twitch movements would also lessen the need for area effect weapons like flak, and make room for weapons that could actually be aimed and land reliable hits. I'd just like a little bit more of realism in the game, like if you don't start your turn soon enough you won't be able to stay on the tail of your target. I feel like DPG has catered to the CoD kids for so long that it's too late to turn this game around though, so whatever, I'm just playing this till something better comes along, hopefully Star Citizen. But who knows.

No. If you have a competent skyguard pilot you arent killing him with an ESf unless you get very lucky, like hes AFK. Bad skyguard pilots are killable for sure, but i dont think that comparing unskilled players to skilled players is fair.

I dont drive a skyguard that much cause its complete lack of a skill component coupled with the fact that the skies stay clear after everyone knows im there, make it extremely boring, but i have never died to a solo ESF. Typically i either ditch the boring skyguard after ive cleared the skies, or i die to another tank or a C4, but solo ESF never.

I don't think that will solve the problem.
HF and RM would still give you supreme agility and maneuverability over normal flight. It would be less agility and maneuverability, but since the momentum change also reduced the ability to track during normal flight they would need less to pull off a successful HF/RM maneuver.
Also there isn't any reason to have area effect weapons like flak in the current meta since normal flight isn't that useful to begin with and aircraft aren't exactly doing a lot of dodging during their attack runs regardless of flak.
At best such a change would mean hovering ESF's are actually killable when engaged from CQC. However it wouldn't mean that normal flight would be any better. It would be better to keep HF and RM as it is and upgrade normal flight so that it offers viable combat maneuvers, both against ground as well as against other aircraft.

If two aircraft fly head on, and one continues his path because he knows he'll loose 1v1, he's pretty much ******, as the other plane can turn around, boost and be right on his tail for the free kill. Momentum is the key to a lot of why it's RM/HF or go home, as the pilots who mastered that playstyle can instantly be on your tail and stay there no matter what other real life flying techniques you use. However, if it took a while to build up speed, and ESFs couldn't turn on a dime, then they wouldn't be able to gank fast movers that passed over as the ambusher was landed behind a rock, and they wouldn't be instantly on someone's tail if they didn't try to play the hover duel game and instead kept flying by. More realistic momentum wouldn't necessarily allow fast moving pilots to kill kings of dueling, but it would force the hover crowd to expand their tactics if they wanted to catch and kill.

They would still be capable of getting on your tail since they would still turn around faster and be chasing you faster than you can turn around and engage them. In fact because they now have even more time to get on your tail than before and because you have even less to gain from trying to dodge your enemies tail, you are more likely to die the moment this happens. Oh the distance upon which this happens is larger, but any turn you make to try and face them will instantly nullify the entire distance advantage and even give you enemy more time and stability to riddle you full of bullets during your turn.

But only if you turn to face them, and decide to play their game.

Skyguard is good.
We don't need another over buffed Viper plague (for those who weren't here one clip an MAX was done).
You can damage heavy vehicles also kill infantry short range, just use thermals cos there is no need for zoom in AA duty.
Skyguard is AA weapon so tightening COF and increase in bullet velocity will only help in anti infantry duty.
And most players play infantry so it will get nerfed soon or more probably overnerfed.
Stay mobile and don't sit in one spot.
Pro tip on long range firing in AA duty try to target area around target not target itself cos bullet velocity on Skyguard is low