[Vehicle] Accuracy of Skyguard AA cannon.

No, not only when you turn and face them. Unless you make ESF almost impossible to steer they could turn around fast enough to get a good bead on you before they got out of good range. Unfortunately since they are now harder to steer the effective range has increased, since you have less maneuverability to dodge bullets or aim even at longer range.

I assume you react to me and my idea for a Viper-based AA canon. But you are talking about something completely else. I'm not inventing a one-clip anti-MAX canon, I'm creating a balanced and skillful G2A solution.

I only react to those who think that skyguard is bad.
But it isn't cos it is AA weapon not AI or AV.
And reducing COF will only make it stronger in AI and little in AV duty. But AA will stay same.
And we already have viper for similar task.

So far you seem to be the only one thinking that the skyguard is not bad.
It's almost useless against any active ground vehicle except a Flash. It's not that effective against infantry either, even if it can deal with it at fairly close range (which is a shameful range for this kind of weapon). And to stay in the G2A vehicles departement, a one-manned sundy with Walker/Basilisk can do a better job while being able to survive many more threats, for a lower cost.
You even say that a Viper is on equal foot in the role you describe. A multi-purpose HEAT gun is as good as a dedicated AA platform for G2A job. I see something wrong here.

Viper is not best for AA but is still much better for AI and AV roles then skyguard.
If you buff skyguard as suggested viper will be useless because SG will be total multirole beast.

But Ok just buff skyguard already.
Wait for 2 or 3 months and then see what overnerf means.
This happened many times.

Also vehicle cost in my opinion are really unbalanced 200 for sundy is bad joke.

I'm quite doubtful about the efficiency you think the SG would have. Decent against Infantry, sure, it should already be able to defend itself quite well. I was never afraid of charging a SG on foot as an engie, to C4 it or just to reach another place. SG driver who killed me would have done it faster by driving right on my face or hoping out and shooting me with their infantry weapon.

Considering the same damage, it won't be more efficient against vehicles. Maybe hit a bit more at long range, but nothing dramatic, and it's always a last resort.

I agree about the nanites cost being quite disproportionate between the different weapons, vehicles, and the time required to refill the pool.

On a side note, I would be all for a Viper-like AA gun, but I don't see how it would be balanced against ground targets considering it would shoot shells (even without AoE), and with a higher velocity (because AA Duty).

what server do you play on?

I'm not complaining, I'm just responding to your claim that all it takes is being aware or being in a Vanguard and you are "very hard to impossible to kill", which is plain generalistic ******** since you didn't mention any conditions. Any ground vehicle that isn't specifically loaded out to deal with Air (and therefore is vastly inferior to practically anything on the ground) has no fighting chance unless the pilot is terrible or they are heavily backed up by AA (which doesn't happen often at the distances I mentioned).

I'm unsure what you mean by this. Are you saying that if there are more than 1 tank, then the tanks has a fighting chance? Yeah, they bloody well should, since it's potentially 4 people against 1! But that still relies on the terrain being "just right" in combination with the pilot not taking it into account. Meaning, if you are outnumbering the enemy 4-to-1, and the terrain is in your favor AND the pilot doesn't pay enough attention, then yes, there is a chance. Sounds fair

What about aircraft practically always having a fair chance against their direct counters, even when they don't outnumber the enemy 4-to-1 and the terrain isn't neccesarily in their favor? And it's not like AA-units are the actual "killers of air", since they are typically only deterrents, as aircraft practically always have the option of bailing on the fight. Imagine the uproar if the direct counters to other things were only deterrents

Because that is totally a viable option for the 2/2 tanks, right. Good luck ever finding a gunner masochistic enough to volunteer for spending time in that turret You know, since actually using those weapons actively when not in the middle of a friendly zerg is incredibly risky, as it gives your position away to any potential enemies on the ground AND air. It basically paints a big fat "I'M OVER HERE" sign on your tank for any enemy aircraft to see. Meaning such a weapon cannot be used effectively to help your allies, but rather ONLY your own tank. So your gunners only option is to hold fire until enemy aircraft engage the tank. Then 1 out of 2 potential things happen.

1. The pilot sees resistance, knows he can find easier prey and that your gunner is likely to bail on you within minutes due to boredom, so he scoots off and comes again later. Your gunner has likely left you, and you are left with a 1/2 tank operating at less than standard (being 1/2 with the Halberd at least lets you fire the Halberd to finish off targets etc).
2. The pilot gets annoyed, starts stalking you, and as soon as you enter a battle with someone else (which you are already gimped in to begin with, due to having an AA weapon on top, which is useless for anything else), engages you, resulting in a fight where you are already at a disadvantage, and you being molested.

It would also be lovely if the aircrafts dedicated weapons were as useless against their non-intended targets as the tank-weapons are in general, but whatever. An ESF sporting Hornets still has a fighting chance against other aircraft, whereas the same isn't the same for a tank, even IF the tank has equipped the appropriate supposed counter-weapon for the situation (AA).

But yes, I'm sure for the random zergling, equipping a "useless" AA weapon is a decent choice. For operating like experienced tanks do, it simply isn't. Note: I'm not complaining, I'm just responding to your claim that Vanguards (or anyone being aware) are near impossible to kill with aircraft, which simply isn't true.

Hey, I'm not complaining, I'm just stating that your claim was silly and simply not true, unless you set specific conditions (which you didn't do).

1 word: Resistances. Alright, I'll elaborate

AI-potential:
Imagine the weapon was intended as an AA-weapon. We could initially give the weapon 0, or nearly 0 indirect damage (like for the tank AP weapons perhaps, something in the order of 500 @ 0,5m to 1 @ 1m if it really must have splash). This would render the weapon only capable of killing targets due to direct-hits. In hindsight, the 500 @ 0,5m should obviously be lower since a multi-round-magazine is suggested. Tweak values at your own preference.

Now, since we aren't intersted in having a weapon with good AI-capabilities, and it IS a multi-round clip, we can give the weapon a direct-damage-value that is low enough to prevent 1-shots, or similar scenarios. Say, a 6-round clip (like the Viper) with each doing (direct + indirect damage) 333 damage, meaning if 3/6 shots are direct hits, then only an infiltrator would die. That doesn't sound that effective to me. I think we can agree the weapon I'm suggesting isn't going to be an effective AI-weapon, or at least the numbers can easily be tweaked to make it be so.

AV-potential:
Now, assuming indirect damage of ~100 (6x 100 = 600 < 1050, meaning a full clip of max-splash won't kill an infantry), that leaves us with direct damage of 233. Multiply by 6 and we get 1398, with an MBTs health at 4000. This number by itself is meaningless, since everything (except infantry) has resistance values, modifying the damage taken depending on source. This allows us to give all ground vehicles a high resistance to these shells, resulting in the weapon potentially ranging from a 1½-clip kill (at -50% resistance) to a 4½-clip kill (at 50% resistance). I think we can agree that it is definitely possible to render this weapon nearly useless against ground-vehicles without breaking anything.

AA-potential:
Now, as for the AV-potential, the initial total-damage / magazine is 1398, meaning it would take far more than a single clip to take out an ESF, let alone a Lib/Gal. Tweaking the resistances will then allow us to enable the weapon to 1-clip ESFs for instance.

Note: All numbers are examples and are of course tweakable, this is ONLY an example.

Skyguard is bad.
It's DPS? In theory it's great!
It's accuracy? In theory it's great!
It's design against the target it's supposed to destroy? bad bad bad. It's designed in a way that it will always hit aircraft because of the early-days of the game where hitboxes were often messed up and the massive flak detonation range was needed to properly hit aircraft. The damage was designed so that aircraft could always survive and escape, this even went to the point of removing skillful shots that landed against the aircraft, completely obliterating even the last remnants of skill that could aid a Skyguard user despite of the COF.

The Skyguard needs multiple roles, just like the ESF nosegun is capable of engaging aircraft and infantry effectively or the AP tanks can still engage infantry, so should the Skyguard be capable of killing infantry. In fact because the aircraft are few and no way to know if an aircraft is going to appear right there and then or after half an hour the Skyguard needs a secondary role to fulfill during it's downtime.

Nah, besides you can nerf the damage of the Skyguard against infantry if need be to make the Skyguard less effective at AI than the Viper.

We know what overnerf means, see "status quo".

Keeping the damage profile against ground targets at a reasonable level isn't that hard is it? Besides the AI+AA role isn't filled yet, there's no reason not to have these weapons fulfill a secondary AI role to protect armor columns against infantry and AA at the same time. At the very least it would stop the complaints about C4 fairies, I hope.

That Vanguard comment was mostly geared towards a Hornet ESF not being able to kill it. At minimum the tank has 3 seconds to react to losing half it's health and put his shield up. In any decent size fight an ESF can't hang around long enough to wait for that shield to go down, and depending on the situation, waiting around could be a death sentence for a Lib as well. Not to mention, that 3 second or so ttk with Hornets is entirely dependent on 4 missiles to the rear. If a tank takes two to the back, then turns on his shield or turns sideways there's a good chance he'll survive. As for Libs, most of them attacking large formations are running stealth, so that's just 2 AP MBT hits to kill it. If there are more than a handful of tanks then 6 seconds of being stopped and low to the ground waiting for a Vanguard shield to run out is an eternity. A lot of times slowing down enough to Tankbust is enough to get you killed. This is all with big fights, air is absolutely OP in small engagements. All of your AA gunner comments make perfect sense, but I still see plenty of guys going solo with Walkers on top in case air gets bad. Those absolutely shred infantry as well, so they're nice to have if C4 fairies show up. If just 4 MBTs had Walkers on their roofs and were on coms, they'd really wreck anything that came flying along.

Can't say for sure with such a gun. To be more clear, I'm concerned about not overlapping other tanks job, especially the Viper gun.

The proposed SG gun would not be terribly accurate at range (even with the tighter CoF), so only of decent use at medium range at most, which is good enough. It would be perfect for the role you described.

But a shell that travels fastly is very well able to hit at long range, which is exactly what the other tanks already do. If we go this way, iIt would probably be better to modify the Viper to make it a better AA gun while reducing just a little its AI capability (smaller/no AoE ?), giving more space for the HE gun in the same time. Maybe it could work with a very high damage dropoff ? At short range I imagine it should do almost as many damages as the Viper on a direct hit.
Or another solution is to limit the angle, like the Walker. The Lightning being very low on the ground, it wouldn't suffer from the same matters as the Walker (aircraftts staying on lower height), while being supplanted by the Viper for standard AI duty.

I don't disagree here, the Vanguard takes far longer to kill than the other MBTs, but it is also slower to get into cover.

That really depends on the terrain, as I've often been engaged by enemy aircraft within 100m of large friendly zergs, but my allies were either incapable of assiting me, or couldn't be bothered. I'd say being within 100m of a large force fighting another large force should go under the "decent sized fight". But sure, if you are sitting right next to 50 of your allies, then yeah that long ESF won't do you much. You know what? That lone Vanguard isn't going to do you much either. Vehicles are generally pretty ineffective in larger fights for anything else than farming noobs, if you are intent on fighting from within the zerg directly into the enemies zerg. However, if you go flanking, that very same Vanguard can deal tremendous damage to your faction if used correctly.

This still doesn't change the fact that you claimed that practically just being in a Vanguard makes your very hard to impossible to kill, which isn't true without the conditions you've now set, that it has to be within large fights etc. THAT was the statement I reacted to.

You can't just claim that without stating conditions. I can show you tons of situations where turning on the Shield, only buys you an extra 6 seconds tops. Once again, that's the issue I have with what you are writing. You aren't stating conditions that must be present for your statements to be true, and therefore you imply that it is true all the time, regardless of the situation.

And if the pilots, like the tank-drivers, are interested in taking out the important targets, then they are likely to not have to engage the large formations in order to be effective in the fights. There are also definitely situations where the aircraft can use terrain effectively to mask their approach and/or escape. The area around Crossroads is a good example, depending on how the fight is going.

If there are more than a handful of tanks, then it isn't neccesarily true that all of them are looking upwards, ESPECIALLY since you already stated such a Lib would be using Stealth. Do you often see a significant percentage of your allies looking up and being immediately ready to engage any and all aircraft coming? Because I sure as heck don't. Most allies are completely brain-dead and trusting them with your life to back you up, is likely to get you killed. Unless you are near SO many allies that a decent number looks up, despite a low percentage. In which case you are within the zerg, and likely isn't being useful to your faction if you are within a tank (at least not more useful than the random average scrub).

Aircraft also have the option of engaging targets that are already participating in active fighting as well, making their job much easier. They have a much better view of the battlelines, and therefore have an easier time picking out targets to engage.

A lot of the time you don't have to slow down that much, as a single ½ clip of the Tank buster + a couple of seconds of exposure to the belly-gun is generally enough, assuming you have decent aim.

Even being near to the larger fights (within 100m) air still has it pretty good in most fights in my experience, at least the ones that are clever enough to not fly around in the open doing nothing and you aren't fighting on a flat riverbed on Esamir. Also consider that in order to be effective, tanks have to leave the protection of the larger zergs behind, meaning they are pretty much forced into their mercy if they aren't content with just farming noobs in the zerg. So tanks have to leave the zerg to be effective, but aren't OP. Air have to leave the zerg to be effective, but are OP in those situations.

If only more pilots would get over their hugely-inflated ego's and realize that they don't have to be able to stick around in the middle of the largest fights in order to be effective (and demand that they can do just that), it would be much easier to balance in my opinion. Or at least that such effectiveness should come at the cost of being OP in smaller fights then (which is nigh impossible with the current implementation of aircraft in this game).

Still doesn't change the fact that if you are doing that, you are putting yourself at a disadvantage against every single target you were intending to fight (both via being forced to run 1/2 and not having a secondary weapon to swap to), and you then have a weapon that you can't even use to effectively get rid of air. Especially considering you are likely to only swap to the weapon after being engaged by an aircraft.

Don't get me wrong, I've also run solo with a Walker in certain cases/situations. That doesn't mean it is neccesarily effective, just that the alternatives are even worse. At least with a Walker I MIGHT be able to scare off a scrub pilot, but a good pilot? No chance in hell. Also, the last part you wrote about them equipping it "in case air gets bad". If "air gets bad" a Walker on top of your hull won't do jack-****, sorry.

Aye if they are stupid enough to charge you within your field-of-view. Any competent C4 faerie would either approach you from an unseen angle, or from high above. But yes, if you do spot them it is decent. One has to consider something in such a situation though: If there is 1, there is likely more. Meaning taking your time to pick him off might not even be the best option, as you could also just run away.

Anything other than C4-faeries and the Walker is pretty useless though, unless the terrain is significantly favorable for it, which means your tank is actually in a bad position (as you are on the low-ground typically).

I'd much prefer a Sundy or two + 2 MBTs, much more effective.

Also, 4 Walker-equipped MBTs wouldn't stand a chance against 4 Libs, also on coms, unless the terrain was heavily in their favor.

The buff skyguard needs

Would also solve pollution problem !

HAHAHA cant believe some1 actually made a vid of that picture, excellent.

Doesnt it strike anyone as odd that trees are deemed the number 1 AA, but the premier tree continent of Hossin is aircraft heaven...

Personally I would like to see the Skyguard buffed a bit. But I don't really feel its damage per shot needs adjusting.

I think that the Skyguard should have its RoF buffed to be higher than what it is now. This would lower the amount of time an ESF can stay exposed to the skyguard. The CoF and bloom can be adjusted to compensate for the higher RoF, making it more dangerous at close range point defense against aircraft and a little less effective at long range.

I would also really like to see the Skyguards magazine either buffed back to 100 like it was in Beta, or given an option to extend the magazines to a total of 100 for certs. A higher magazine naturally lets a skyguard have more staying power, but also makes them more dangerous against larger aircraft like Libs/Gals with the extra 30 rounds.

I like the increased Mag Size idea, though if they did implement that as a Utility option on the gun, I hope they'd also refund certs spent in unlocking reload speed. Realistically, players would want to choose one over the other, as they're VERY unlikely to have multiple Skyguard specs. And if you did Mag size increases in a 5 tier upgrade with a model of 150\250\400\500\1000 (As I think the Reload speed is done, can't remember exactly at the moment), that's a lot of extra certs to spend on a weapon if you already had reload speed and then decided the new option was what you preferred.

So yeah, I like your idea, but if it was adopted I'd like 2 things to happen:

1) Give it an identical upgrade model to Reload speed (Same amount of levels, and cost per level)
2) Refund the Certs we've already spent in reload speed so we have the option of just putting them right back in, or spending them on Mag size instead if that's what we wanted.

Flying trees make all the difference.