So infantry gets a hard counter to air (Striker and spawn room bursters). Armor gets a hard counter to air (Ranger Harassers). And air is left with essentially now answer but overwhelmingly massed numbers and resources, basically zerging, and that's OK? That's not the way a combined arms game should be, especially if it's a simple shooter like PS2 and not a simulator like Arma. So now we're left with the reasonable argument that air should have a hard counter to armor, useless against air and infantry, that would be a match (manpower and resources) to a dedicated AA platform. I just don't see that, or any of this, as a fun direction to take this game. That's the biggest reason I'm against such rock-paper-scissors balance in a fast paced fps. A Walker-type weapon should be the premier AA weapon, and Flak, if it has to exist, should be a low skill and ineffective option for girlfriends trying out a FPS with zero ability to aim with a mouse. But even then I'd oppose such a weapon. They need to shift away from this mentality that a gun should wreck infantry but be worthless against anything else (Kobalt), or a gun that's mediocre against armor but worthless against infantry (Enforcer). It's just bad balancing, and completely unfun when you spend the majority of your time in game with nothing to shoot (Skyguard/Bursters/Ranger). Seriously, consider how few players like to be the Skyguard in an armor column, or the Ranger in a Harasser squad, or the Burster in a spawn room. Those roles don't need to exist, and shouldn't, not in this game anyway.