Make Skyguard a skill weapon

We already got enough pray and spray proxy AoE lock-on no skill AA **** weapons in the game.
No skill weapons always force it to be shoved into the role of a deterrence.

So, how about instead of yet another garbage flak cannon, we make the Skyguard into something distinct, deadly, and skill based? Maybe a dumbfire rocket pod with heavy, medium, or light missile variants depending on what kind of aircraft and engagement range you plan to be dealing with? Could just be a heavy cannon with a small clip and high damage shots. Or perhaps you have to fire single flak shells that need to be manually detonated?

There's lots of ways to go about it, but we really need a dedicated main-gun AA that isn't a deterrence, but rather a deadly threat to ESFs that hover or fly in straight predictable lines. Something that can go face to face with a liberator and win, yet be nearly helpless against AV ground vehicles.

i want an upward arcing shredder for lightning/mbt
also its about time tanks got a Libbuster, libs have been oneshotting tanks with impunity for far too long.

I want a walkguard. I think the devs just hate the idea of adding new tank cannons.

But generally, whether it is irl or in the game, flak is either lock on or designed to throw up a curtain of projectiles because aircraft are hard to hit. I'm fine with how things are now (although libs and gals are still super hard to kill etc.etc.)

I've never used a Skyguard but I hear a lot of people say it is weak. But then, so are Bursters individually (I've used them). Get more than one targeting a flyboy and it is a different story though. This is another feature of irl flak that the game seems to follow - you usually need more than one ground based AA weapon to be effective against air.

I hear that aircraft will be getting a balance pass after the changes to ground vehicles and RLs in the combined arms initiative. It'll be interesting to see how that pans out.

What if we introduced a new weapon and leave the Skyguard alone? or repurpose one of the lock-on launchers since we have an abdundance of lock-on weapons compared to the number of flak-based weapons?

add a skill weapon allong with the skyguard don´t replace it ..
others use halberds or mbt maincannons .. i already suggested stuff like coyotes, lockons and hornets for vehicles in another thread .. i would not however take easy executionotions (skyguard, burster/ranger, walker) away ..

The skyguard needs reduced "splash" damage with the same radius. This allows it to be used as a deterrent and to give the pilot a fighting chance to know he's entering a no-fly zone. However, they need to drastically increase the direct hit or small-radius splash damage so that it can actually kill in the hands of a skilled marksmen.

I agree it needs to overall do more damage as right now it's nearly impossible to kill someone without them getting away. But.. If not done carefully it would wreck the gameplay particularly for ESFs.

Skyguard should be like the Walker - no splash, very small CoF, all in direct hits, but with 600-800m/s and good AP damage that also can be used against ground vehicles and toons. THEN it would be a skill weapon against fast moving agile targets.

Air deterrence is a joke unfortunately at the expense of the grounders.

I just want the Skyguard to not be bad for once.

I want a OHK high velocity flak burst single shot zero magazine weapon I have to re-arm at the WG that costs certs to fire.

Aircraft are meant to be incredibly fragile due to weight restrictions, and the same follows with their limited weaponry.
In PS2 however this isn't accurate, a Liberator has the armor of a tank, and weaponry far heavier than those on a tank while hovering.

Flak is designed to shred aircraft; The number of flak cannons is to provide a larger screen so aircraft can not dodge or avoid the mass as easily, as it would rapidly shred the aircraft or damage the engines leading to a crash.

Presently, Flak weaponry is only effective in mass number not to cover a larger surface area but to even be noticed.
Flak, something meant to be a counter-weapon to aircraft requires the user to be specialized in practically only damaging aircraft, and requires the most dedicated users of any weapon.

One-man aircraft requires 2-3 Large-scale flak cannons which can be literally nuked by said aircraft (and said AA costs more) in less time.
One-man tank requires 1-2 of any AV weapon if not less - For either a similar or cheaper price.

Lock-ons, while incredibly lacking in requirements; Also have this glorious counter to them in addition to the usual.
One that provides Immunity & nullifies all rockets in flight.

Only Aircraft's dedicated counter requires the counter to be ineffective against all target types, and require to outnumber the opponent in increasing high degrees regardless of the platform.
The Largest AA gun, is the Skyguard tank, which is basically outmatched by a smaller top-gun mounted on a transport.

Vehicles require several infantry with AV, singular tanks, or AV turrets - There is also AV mines.
All such weapons also can effectively handle infantry, and most other targets but suffer from slower firing rates.
Larger AV platforms need less of their number to handle singular vehicle targets - and significantly damage & can destroy vehicles.

Now with the agility of aircraft, and the literal dedication it takes to have AA, mixed with the long TTK on the smallest aircraft but low TTK on the AA source..
You have slower AA, that can not destroy the aircraft before it leaves even if it's in the dead center of the interception zone, and not before the aircraft can destroy it - Cost to cost, Aircraft are more effective.
As well, Aircraft can easily enter & leave any battle on the entire map in mere seconds to minutes allowing them to choose where they can be engaged & for how long.
AA takes a specific amount of time of exposure on said aircraft (that's with everything hitting) that can leave or destroy them faster.

You shouldn't need numerous large-scale AA weapons (Skyguard tanks) just to try to deal with a single-man aircraft.
That's not only ineffective in cost, given that something worth the same takes 2-3 times the nanites, followed by only the AA side must dedicate themselves to a weapon that is incredibly incapable of damaging other targets.
Aircraft will & can easily avoid AA weaponry, that is basically a sitting duck for aircraft let alone anything on the ground.


Liberators just make it stupid.
Here's a flying tank that not only has more weapons, but more armor, damage, and speed than the grounded tanks that don't have a weight limit to fly.

Dedicated Counters, bested by the very thing they are to counter.
And not by multiples - But by singular opponents that are near equal in cost to what they destroyed.
Only Aircraft require many times their cost in nanite-based AA but also more coordination to kill than to use.
Solo aircraft require coordination between an entire squad focused on them, with dedicated weaponry.
Aircraft; Singular pilots can avoid talking while destroying said entire squad, multiple pilots do not even need to talk to destroy dedicated AA tanks.
Liberators need only speak to their Gunner(s) if that, but never need to consider risks unless it's a massive outpop with the majority dedicated to Anti-air..
Multiple MBTs wouldn't be able to operate with half the number of dedicated AV sources that Aircraft can tank.

So you still fine?

I do agree that the Lib is crazy stupid hard to kill and the reason I've never used the Skyguard is that it costs a lot of nanites and is a big target to be carrying an individually weak AA weapon. All of my aircraft kills are against damaged aircraft with a G2A RL or a Bassie/other top gun. The only exceptions were close range kills with a Ranger (that thing is pretty awesome against esf now) and the star of the show.............a Lib and an obviously inexperienced crew kill with three shots from a Phalanx Spear AV turret

It is astounding- there are A LOT of no skill weapons int his game.

There are a few teeny tiny differences between IRL and in-game.

For example, a modern SPAAG unit will cost around 12 to 17 million.
A modern aircraft will cost anywhere between 19 Million (A10 Warthog) to 101 Million (F35), 144 Million (F22), or 810 Million (B2 Stealth Bomber).

The Operational cost of a tank can be anywhere between 50.000 per year (without inflation from the +/-1980's/1990's) to 810.000 per year (with inflation and all upgrades done over the years, I guess).
The operational cost of an aircraft can be anywhere between 11.500 (A10 Warthog) to 32.000 (F35) to 44.000 (F22) to 135.000 (B2 Stealth)... Per hour of active flight time. Taking into account the 810.000 per year of a tank, it takes the cheap Warthog 70,43 hour of just shy of 3 days of flight time to cost more than the yearly budget of a tank (An Abrahams). Now this does have some caveats ofcourse, as this probably doesn't take into account actual combat routines of the tanks and just the cost to keep them operational and have them used in training and such, but still that's one hell of a large price-tag to overcome...
And let's not even talk about ammunition costs.

Then look at in-game. How much does the most expensive aircraft cost? 450 nanites. The most expensive G2A weapon? 350 nanites. That's 77% of the cost of an aircraft. Taking the Warthog into account that's entirely possible, but then we get operational costs. For both: zero. The aircraft obviously has a much larger advantage because of this due to it's higher operational costs.

So in real-life you can blanket the ground with more G2A weapons due to their overall lower (operational)costs. You also need to have these defenses, as a layered defense is the only one that works against aircraft that can attack from almost any direction and take out important targets, industry and infrastructure. Additionally most of these SPAAG units have a primary role in both destruction of aircraft using both it's missiles (long-range) and guns (relatively short-ranged at 3 to 15Km from the one's I looked at), as well as destruction of incoming (cruise)missiles and large bombs. That last thing is absent in PS2.
Aircraft also have limited ammo compared to tanks IRL, but in-game the aircraft often (read: practically always) carry more and more potent weaponry than their ground-counterparts.
IRL these AAA units are deployed in layers over large area's to protect from aircraft strikes and increase the risk for aircraft the longer they remain in the area, and are capable of tracking and engaging multiple targets at the same time. In-game the AAA units need to be clusterfornicated in a single base to have a chance of taking down a single aircraft, and that takes both focus-fire and hoping the terrain doesn't provide the aircraft an escape route and/or the pilot being smart enough to keep their distance so they never enter the assured-death zone.


I see no reason why aircraft should retain their IRL aircraft mentality and even get benefits in-game that they don't have IRL (such as tons and tons of ammo), while G2A weapons are more heavily limited and almost just as costly as the very things they try to destroy.

I agree with everything you say. I was challenging OPs suggestion that more skill was needed in AA (Skyguard at least) when in fact, lock-ons, wall-of-fire and air bursting weapons are the only way to hit fast moving targets effectively.

There is no doubt in my mind that the balance favours aircraft (esp. Lib and Gal) atm meaning that hitting them and actually doing serious damage or damage that requires them to go to a base to repair are two different things.

IRL this might be true up to a point, but not in-game. PS2's way for rendering targets and engagement doesn't allow for large-scale wall-of-fire weapons over large distances, and it especially doesn't allow for current G2A weapons to exist and be fun for anyone involved.
Similar to how the Liberator and ESF uses highly accurate weapons rather than general AOE bombs, the G2A weapons need to be highly accurate and deadly too.

Definitely.

Btw a single A2G missile can cost up to $270000. You might as well drop blocks of gold on your enemy.

It used to be like this. Originally skyguard projectile would detonate its flak and then continue, so a direct shot would grant flak plus a direct hit damage.

It seems that every other time someone mentions a reasonable improvement, someone else reminds that the said improvement used to be part of the game at some point.

I remember it differently.
The Flak projectile would come in the detonation range of their target, but wouldn't go off until the shell started increasing it's distance to the target or actually hit the target.
If you got a direct hit you got basically double damage (more like 1,5 times but anyway), if the shell got closer and then started gaining distance it would detonate and deal more damage because the flak's inner radius was closer to the aircraft.
This was deemed "unfair" for the aircraft if the G2A got enough direct hits and shots close to the aircraft because it could actually kill them before they got away, which was in violation of them being a deterrent... Well that last bit is how I interpret it, I don't know the exact "reasons" they gave for it except for that it gave G2A too much power against aircraft in some situations.