[Radical Suggestion] Nerf Skyknightside

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by UberNoob1337101, May 7, 2016.

  1. OldMaster80

    I assume when you talk about insane G2A range you mean the Skyguard. But there is an excellent reason why it's like that: otherwise aircraft could just press the magic afterburner button and being out of range again. Which regularly happens even right now. It's already hard enough to destroy aircraft with flak. Limiting range would only make sense if damage was way higher than it is.

    Then most of A2G weapons give ground troops no escape at all. Some have way longer range than most of ground weapons. Esfs and libs can literally make rockets come down from such a distance they are almost untouchable. If I can accept to be lolpodded from beyond range of my ground weapons then aircraft must live with the Skyguard and Burster range. They are just tasting their own medicine besides they don't get 1/2shotted.
  2. Moz

    Oh that old tired argument.....

    Even if you destroy it, he can go pull another.... circle round and attack from another angle! Killing it makes no difference!!

    There is NO A2G imbalance! Only people who don't understand how not to get farmed! There is so much stuff you can use to EASILY (really cant stress how ******* easy it is) deal with that threat that the threat is virtually mute!

    Also, Might be worth pointing out that i NEVER fly because Im terribad at it! But i STILL don't give a **** about some A2G rockets.... i just laugh and take cover and watch the fools with no clue about PS as a whole get farmed!

    To say if an ESF over extends it doesnt die is also 100% incorrect.... they die the fastest if they over extend! Trouble is the term "over extension" means something totally different than it does to a tank or Infantry!

    ESFing is about finding safe places to attack free of AA threat! That's a skill in itself..... If they find that ITS YOUR JOB TO PRoVIDE AA AND MAKE THEM MOVE ON!! Any decent pilot will not stay and deal with AA threat they will simply move on to another fight where the peasants are letting them farm rather than switching AA. I really cant quite tell you how irrelevant actually scoring a kill on an ESF is! The only thing it helps is your KD!

    They are practically incapable of any sort of sneak attack for anyone with ears, hit like pea shooters and are so easy to kill its not even funny!

    Hurrr durrr my infantry cant one shot an ESF durrrrr.... dumbest argument ever!

    I'm not going to respond here anymore because the hyperbole around ESF is just getting to much for me! It all steams from the ****** bag skynights and people wanting to prove their skill is "artifical" or "crutch".... GUESS WHAT? It isn't! Your just bad!

    Just consider my response to these posts as:

    "L2P" from now on!!
  3. Pelojian

    1) yes there is imbalance, due to devs silly idea that air shouldn't be locked out of fights (when infantry and vehicles are) is why AA is in a sorry state, ESF can take a generalist loadout and take on anything, has afterburners stock maknig A2G aircraft more able to escape when they overextend. ESF counters vehicles single handed yet skyguard can't?

    2)only bads die when they overextend because they don't react fast enough or realize they are about to die form incoming fire.

    if you kill an ESF sure they can pull another, but atm since you can't reliably kill them without massed AA by the time they do die they have topped resources, if i outplay a guy when i'm tanking and destroy his lightning he can pull another and i can kill him again, then ti will be some time before he can pull a third.

    'esf is counter to ground vehicles so it should win and skyguard should have poor ability to kill them when they attack head on' is not an argument, you balance mechanized AA by making them good at AA and resistant to air while requiring protection from infantry and ground vehicles against enemy infantry and ground vehicles.

    how can i make air meaningfully absent? oh yeah pull many times air's presence, they go away and farm somewhere else, you haven't ended the ESF's threat or affected the enemy's stats causing them deaths, they just hop over to another fight to pad their K/D, the fact that you even use the term peasants shows your pro air bias.

    IMHO there needs to be two types of AA, long range like the present skyguard and medium range with higher DPS. the presence of medium ranged AA that air will actually have to ether team up to destory with spam will improve ground player's experience and make ground<>air balance more engaging for the pilot to a similar degree to how ground interacts with air.

    Air won't be able to pick and choose to pound a fight to dust, one player will be able to counter one annoying ESF soloist that doesn't know proper play, kill them for getting too close to the AA and die, the pilot then can ether call in help or do something else instead of just fleeing to pad K/D more.

    With long range AA (skyguard), medium range higher DPS AA(MBT?/Lightning version) and nanite free (rockets, flak turrets) there will be meta in picking AA and how pilots will have to use their vehicles with teamwork when the enemy pulls diverse AA options that are an actual threat at medium range and harassment fire at long range.

    Infantry and Ground vehicles have to deal with threats from all unit types and think to try and do their best to kill and survive, air should have to be wary of air, infantry and ground vehicles in the same manner.
    • Up x 2
  4. ColonelChingles

    Huh. I thought PS2 was a TEAM game? So why is it that pilots are allowed to play as lone wolves while AA is required to work as a TEAM?

    Scenario 1
    Planetside is a TEAM game! Therefore AA should not be able to easily kill air units by themselves. If AA wants to kill air, then you need to gather 4-5 sources of AA. If you did not gather enough sources of AA, too bad for you because Planetside is a TEAM game.

    Scenario 2
    Planetside is a TEAM game! Therefore air should not be able to easily kill ground units by themselves. If air wants to kill ground, then you need to gather 4-5 sources of A2G aircraft. If you did not gather enough sources of A2G, too bad for you because Planetside is a TEAM game.

    In other words if there are fewer pilots, that's the fault of pilots for not being organized. I, as AA, shouldn't be penalized because pilots can't bother to organize themselves in proper squadrons with wingmen. In any other situation, as 1 tank against many or 1 infantryman against many, I should expect to die. I should also expect to die when I meet my counter (as in a HE tank versus an AP tank). And if I blindly charge forward into an open plain as a tank or infantryman, I should die. Those three fundamental rules of game balance do not apply to air at all, which is why air needs to be brought in line with the rest of the game.
    • Up x 1
  5. Insignus

    Your commentary is rejected as you are not familiar with the piloting community on Connery, clearly. Also, that seems like a really low argument defeating blow that someone would pull out of their rear-end just for trolling purposes.I mean, its clear that the OP doesn't fly, but don't drag your servers inferiority complex into this.

    So, while we're all here....

    Here are some thoughts. We can improve the skyguard, but maintain its current dynamic against mid-range and long-range targets, so that it becomes more competitive, but doesn't become over powered.

    Skyguard damage by 2-4 points

    Boost skyguard RoF by 35%

    Maintain CoF and all other stats as the same.

    This would boost the skyguard's ability to engage ground vehicles, infantry, and any pilot who comes REALLY close (At which point, if you're at mid-high within 100m of a skyguard, with direct line of sight, you DESERVE to be shot down. Hard. If you wandered into it cause you weren't paying attention, or because that skyguard was really, really sneaky, you deserve a good scare and or shoot down.

    This may cause more hits at range, but not likely that many.
  6. LaughingDead

    Personally, I find that A2G esfs are already getting nerfed as is. AH is getting a "rework" but honestly the new fast firing auto shotgun AH doesn't reflect the NC playstyle at all, and with the spread rating gives less skill to the nosegun and more random chance and/or getting so close they could C4 you. Banshee is the same way with bullet spread and even PPA is getting an aoe nerf so it's far less effective on groups. This leaves rocket pods to be the primary weapon for A2G but leaves them vulnerable to other ESFs since afterburn esfs can chase much harder to get the kill.

    A skyguard is a great deterance, shooting a couple of rounds and taking off half an esf HP before he does anything important is what a slyguard does best. However no amount of specialization should be a replacement for unawareness. An esf that hits you with 2 hornets first has a fair chance of winning with the second barrage, and he should, he specialized into anti armor and caught his counter off guard. The same way can be said about an A2A esf being caught off guard by several G2A heavies, I was with a squad camping out of the heaven warpgate spot on esamir preventing all scythes flying too low to enter, basically capturing the base based on air superiority (and prevention of magriders too).

    The ultimate counter in this game is teamwork, guns aren't designed to deck 50 people in an instant before they deck you, several rockets are used to kill a vehicle and many vehicles have gunner seats and a pilot seat. Buffing a singleton source to counter air is counter intuitive when two people can just pull air lockons for less certs, less nanites and less specific circumstances. If you need something to 1v1 an ESF then it should be another ESF or air vehicle, even sunderers can counter tanks with teamwork, harrassers can even also, so why should skyguards get a buff when there's already plenty of ways you can and should deal with an esf?
  7. ColonelChingles

    Why should the 1v1 for an ESF be another air vehicle? Why not be the dedicated AA vehicle, which really has no other point of existence than to kill air?

    An ESF is more flexible than a Skyguard... it can carry a combination of A2G and A2A weapons.
    A Liberator is more flexible than a Skyguard... the Dalton functions perfectly fine as an A2A weapon.
    The Galaxy... well they're pretty good at smashing into things.

    The reason why a Skyguard should be lethal to air is because it can't do anything else. Air has different options for what it can do, but if a single Skyguard can't massacre a flight of Liberators... what can it do?
    • Up x 2
  8. Imp C Bravo

    I think you guys forget that multiple ground sources can target the same thing in the air -- but rarely can multiple flying sources target the same thing on the ground.

    Every single ground vehicle (minus the flash) can pull AA weapons if pilots are killing them. Multiple infantry units can specialize in AA. However, once multiple ground units do so, they can kick air out of any fight. Air can never kick armor or infantry out of a fight completely. People don't seem to acknowledge this because bias and ego.

    AA scaling is bad. From laughable to OP in little time. It marginalizes pilots and segregates air from ground to the extent that we all have less fun.

    The main issue with AA is that if it were any weaker (so pilots could participate in medium to large battles) it would mean planes were unkillable in smaller fights. If AA is any stronger then planes won't be able to participate in ANY fights.

    But this scaling issue is because so many people can target and fire on planes simultaneously. Seems to me, if many people couldn't target planes simultaneously, then AA could be of appropriate power in all fights.
    • Up x 2
  9. Insignus


    Skyguard damage by 2-4 points

    Boost skyguard RoF by 35%

    Maintain CoF and all other stats as the same.

    We can play with the damage values a bit, or ditch them all together. But that RoF boost would go a long way.
  10. ColonelChingles

    It's usually just that there are more people playing AA than people flying aircraft. Of course if you fly a single aircraft into an AA nest you're going to get a lot of attention. But if you fly as a group (very rare, though Mossie swarms are pretty awesome), then suddenly that AA is dispersed between all the aircraft.

    I've been on the receiving end of air swarms... and very few die. 5-6 ESFs is all you need to have the AA defenders become disoriented, particularly if you time your runs in a very narrow time frame. The probability of a single ESF being engaged by multiple sources is much less, allowing ESFs to survive their runs.

    The problem is that pilots much more rarely use teamwork compared to ground pounders. And that's because their high HP is a crutch. Take that away, and pilots will be forced to fly in groups to stay alive.
    • Up x 1
  11. Moz

    Let me put this how you might understand it....

    If your any good you can kill ESFs easily solo. If you not so good you can kill ESF easier in a group!

    Air bias? Go check how much time i have in air vehicles dude! I simply do not play air. What i do is stop them..... VERY easily..... through good, co-ordinated play. I literally use them for what they are good for.... A taxi! In the time i have been playing (since Alpha Squad 4 years ago) I have a grand total of 46 kills in an ESF!

    You nerf ESF or buff AA your going to end up with the air game totally USELESS!!!!

    Which of course most of you guys want so you can farm in your tanks harder....

    MBT's are far more robust than an ESF, are equally as deadly, have the same amount of counters but no one is complaining about them.... Only complaint i hear from them is "nerf C4" blah blah..... It the same thing here, mindless!

    Look UP once in a while, ESFs are EASY TO DEAL WITH!
  12. Xasapis

    There is a difference of perception between the people who have invested in proper AA (MAXes and skyguards or even HA AA rockets) and those who have not. The later feel under-powered and having no counters, assume the whole situation as being unfair. The former ... well, the problem with the AA isn't that it's ineffective, it's just that it feels unrewarding. Two burster MAXes are usually enough to clear any air threads on the majority of fights, especially defensive ones. Thing is, the novelty lasts for about 5 minuutes, after which the air threads are either dead or moved to easier pickings. Meanwhile you're stuck with a burster MAX (you're lucky if you're close to a terminal for a loadout change), or worse, with a Skyguard.
  13. Insignus

    Indeed, I've noticed this as an effective tactic, and I've also noted that some really organized outfits will actually use "Weasels" to send a tanker such as a gal or Valk over a target to focus the AA into revealing their positions. Single gunner in Valk/Gal Q spots all the AA positions, ESF/Lib party then bounces over the hill and wrecks it.

    These are both legitimate tactics, and the only thing I've seen that works is having an AAA fireteam or support asset squad (With dedicated vehicle bunnies in a squad so spot calls and vehicle specific commands don't drown out platoon that can then say "Air Swarm North. Focus on [insert name] on left." which lets the skyguards and whoever brought a walker sundy wreck it up.

    I will also note, however, that I had a really positive AA experience last night vs. a Libby/ESF air smash on connery. We were driving an armored convoy behind enemy lines to wreck up cores, and our PL (JillDakRu) had a nifty idea about outfitting our prowlers with basilisks only. So we had 2 skyguards and about 8-10 prowlers with gunners that had basilisks.Combined with 3 sundies, one of which had walkers on it, and you've got about 16 m20s + 2 skyguards that are directing fire on air targets on a dedicated basis.... and this was about 1000m from the Warp gate (Benson Construction on Indar)

    This massively increased our DPS to truly WW2 levels, against buildings and aircraft. I would use my engagement radar and skyguard senses to spot and call aircraft, we would all look up in unison and open up on it. ESFs and Libbies were getting seriously mauled and often outright destroyed. There was one poor libby who hadn't been advised by his faction not to go near us, he popped over a hill on a straight line to a distant fight, and we ended him in less than 15 seconds.

    This seriously miffed a number of pro air players on NC Connery, who decided that they would destroy us come hell or high water.

    This is what it looked like: http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=694657280

    What finally got us about 45 minutes to an hour later was one of the NC outfits (iHop, I think) coordinated a Vanguard swarm ball. They of course, proceeded to waste 10 minutes ineffectually lobbing phoenixes at us. Only then was the air able to engage us after they dropped 3 libbies, 2 battle gals, a c4 fairy valkyrie, and an assortment of hornet ESFs on us at the same time, but by this time we'd ditched most of the armor and swapped to building a base.

    The most frustrating part of this experience was that as the skyguard driver, I often saw the bailers and C4 fairies hit the ground, but could do very little to them unless I was 15-25m away. We almost lost a sundy to that a few times, and this, I feel, highlights one of the reasons that people don't seem to specialize into AA: It lacks anti-ground versatility that it should have. You're basically passing up certs in order to engage a threat that may or may not materialize. This does not incentivize players to grab AA capable equipment, or invest in learning AA tactics. This could be changed, I believe, by some improvements to the skyguards anti-ground abilities.

    To be clear: Skyguard should NOT be able to engage MBTs, or even other non-skyguard lightnings. But infantry and harassers should be much more afraid of skyguards than they currently are. Close air targets (low flyers and libbies that fly over hills) should also be more killable. But I'm very conscious of the points others have raised about not feeling comfortable with extreme range AA - which, as a valk pilot, I'm not comfortable with doing either. The solution to this problem, I feel, is a tiny damage boost and a major RoF boost, with no changes to accuracy (Cone of Fire) or range.

    Summary of Proposed Skyguard Changes:
    +2-4 damage points
    +35-50% Rate of fire increase.
    Base Magazine size +10-20
    Magazine size cert for a total of +20 additional rounds.

    Thoughts? I realize many are still wishing to take absolutist positions on "NO NERF SKYNIGHT! NO BUFF AA!", but I'd like y'alls thoughts on these as solid compromise solutions to nibble around the edges of the AA game.
  14. Imp C Bravo

    I don't think your suggestion is a bad one. As skyguard is my primary ground vehicle I want it to be more rewarding and I think having it more effective up close and less effective at range is the best way to do so. (And remove that god awful zoomed shake. It makes zoom mode useless :mad:) I think skyguards should do more damage to infantry -- they are always looking up -- they should be better at popping C4 fairy LAs trying to bomb the (insert ground vehicle here.) Your suggestion would do a lot for that. Harassers are far too tanky as it is as well. Really the only point of contention I have is that you are under stating how much power the values you provide with your suggestion really gives flak. As evidenced in the following...

    This is not a 'compromise' solution. It is a strait up buff. And a huge one at that. The idea is sound, mechanically. However, there is no give and take in this proposal. I also note, that it buffs your skyguard play (and mine to be fair) while not hurting your Valk play. Not saying there is bias there -- but then again -- can't say there ISN'T bias there especially considering the wording.

    ^This guy gets it. Why don't more people be like this guy?

    I can agree with a chunk of this. It is true that there are far more people with AA, and/or far more people who can switch to AA to combat air, than there are people in the air or can switch to air to try to overwhelm said AA.

    However, the whole "AA damage is dispersed" idea isn't accurate. First off, people are capable of threat assessment. The biggest scrub in the world is going to know that the lib left unchecked is going to be way more dangerous than the ESF left unchecked simply by seeing it fire. As far as swarms of ESFs go, some will immediately run, cutting down on the number of targets -- and seeing as it takes 2 lock on AAs (not the swarm version) to put an ESF on fire and 3 to smash it (fire suppression or no) to make it go boom, you can bet that someone is going to catch it. And that's just assuming 5-6 people are running no nanite RLs. If 2-3 people are running RLs and 2 people are going burster or skyguard air bails even faster. Even libs start running within 7-8 seconds of taking flak (because if they don't they usually can't make it cover to escape.)

    AA scales hugely -- (something I've never seen you admit) and as such it takes far fewer infantry or vehicle secondaries to kick air out (usually for good.) Again -- this is all considering 5-6 people. 5-6 HAs running RLs aren't going to stop a larger force of lightnings. 5-6 people running AV harassers won't stop a large number of MBTs. Why should a significantly larger force of air get beat up and forced to retreat (at best) or killed (at worst) from just 5-6 people running AA? (Yes I am aware that is one of the arguments you like to throw about. That's the point.)
    • Up x 3
  15. Insignus

    It is a buff. But its also a compromise solution. Let me explain.

    I've seen a few of the "AA vs. Air" threads now.

    The "demands" or "Suggestions" seem to boil down to unfortunately polarized discussions of:

    "Nerf Air and Increase Flak Accuracy because ESFs are stupid!" and the other extreme of:


    My solution is a compromise because it attempts to carefully tip-toe between the two in a way that makes it (I feel) less likely to trip-wire either of these sentiments and thus start a flame war. Its not so much a question of give-and-take, but as one of achieving balance through other means, means that don't trample on the cherished Meta-games of an entrenched and vocal minority that dominates reddit-side with their silliness.

    But I appreciate your well-made and observant point. for which you are given a cookie:

    This method generally heads off the other form of balancing. We'll use a similar clip just for giggles and short-handing:

    One of them is much more impressive and exciting. But the other is much more pleasant for all involved. My suggestion falls into the latter category.
  16. Imp C Bravo

    Only one flaw with that-- the underlined example of hyperbole has actually been said on multiple occasions. The bolded/italics in all caps has not...

    You underestimate the disparity of the bias between the two biased groups. :p:p

    As such the midpoint between to two groups is not the same as the midpoint between OP air and OP AA...hence your suggested buff being actually extremely strong.

    I see what you mean by your usage thou.
  17. WeRelic

    The saddest part about this thread is that I can count the pilots on one hand, and every single one of them has been brow-beaten into giving up on defending their portion of the game. It's almost treading on witch-hunt at this point.

    It's an interesting discussion, despite the fact that half of the arguments presented aren't even close to being grounded in reality. I am willing to bet most of the people arguing for AA to get a flat buff have not spent enough time in the air to really understand how vulnerable you are as an aircraft.

    Yes, AA is a bit on the weak side in extremely small fights, but even moderate fights can quickly become devoid of any aircraft. I would say that the balance is in the AA's favor, it's just that people don't generally utilize it until aircraft have become a problem. When people are on their toes, and looking up for a change, flying an ESF is a fair definition of hell.

    Imp, I can even forgive being a skyguard driver for this post. ;)
  18. ColonelChingles

    It's to a degree about coordination.

    As disorganized AA, what happens is that AA tends to engage the first target they see. This means that if you have sources of AA that have different lines of sight (either they started looking in different directions or that some have their views blocked by buildings or terrain), there is a good chance that left to their own devices they will engage different targets. And once a Skyguard is chattering away at a target, it's pretty rare that the Skyguard will disengage from that target to focus on a different one.

    Of course organized AA is different, with someone calling out specific targets to engage. But because the engagement window is so small with aircraft, this is still much less effective than an organized anti-armour detachment.

    The same holds true of air swarms. Disorganized air swarms will have them crashing into each other, or seeing the "thinning effect" that you're talking about. But well-coordinated air swarms can make it work with drastically fewer pilots, as they can figure out the best vectors for attack, terrain to mask their attack, and to focus on taking out AA concentrations first. A coordinated air swarm can very easily take out any AA that can't hide, and hidden AA has a significantly lowered effectiveness due to not being able to see the entire sky.
  19. Insignus

    I must confess that a huge portion of my game time is spent in a Valkyrie. I feel this often gives me a unique perspective on AA.

    As a community, Valkers are generally very concerned with AA balance, as we are often not given the option of withdrawing. After all, you've got 5 people waiting on you, and you've got an SL/PL wondering why he didn't insist on you pulling a Gal. You have to solve for X and get them in the base by any means necessary.

    Our fragility means that whereas the Galaxy can just drive over a point regardless of anything other than coordinated AA fire from 3-4 sources, even a single AA turret can cause us problems. This is why we either fly low or fly crazy to avoid it. So on the one hand, like all pilots, we have an interest in AA not being super-effective.

    But as Valks, having effective AA is also very useful for picking off ESFs and Libbies, as our defenses are often not up to par, even with some of the more advanced gunner and turret choice Metas i've seen (I generally run with Bassie or VLG, but mostly because I'm poor and put all my certs into the utility/vehicle stealth options). One of my common tactics, in fact, is to be a "Weasel" that draws ESFs onto my AA assets, particularly skyguards. Even if I die, by that time I've delivered my guys, gotten a few transport assists, and have likely forced a 100 nanite trade with an ESF driver.

    But I do concede that perhaps I over-stated the OP AA position. However, while it may be a strong buff, I think it still accounts for the interests of both sides of the argument.

    My perspective is that the key points of contention in AA arguments are thus:

    1) AAA Drivers feel they cannot get kills reliably unless the CoF (Accuracy) of flak based weapons is increased
    2) MG users feel they can't get kills because their weapons (Walkers, M20s) lack power against aircraft.
    3) Lock On users want shorter lock-on times and bigger missiles of all varieties.
    4) AAA users feel their weapon imposes an opportunity cost on them, given its ineffectualness vs. ground
    5) AAA and MG users both feel as if though they can't get kills against aircraft at low altitudes, even given extended windows (Such as liberator hover passes, ESF hover lolpods at mid-low range, and Galaxy smash drops)

    Pilots often have inverse concerns
    1) No Pilot wants to lose half their health as soon as they hit render distance
    2) No one wants to see their plane murdered by a single basilisk or the walker that someone decided to put on a sundy
    3) Lock-ons are already getting a boost, and that boosting lock-ons too much forces the meta away from Fire suppression and over to Flares, which imposes an opportunity cost on pilots
    4) Pilots generally acknowledge this, as long as it doesn't impose too much of a burden on their flight experience.

    5) Pilots split on this one according to their role/preference and their flight habits. ESF pilots, from my experience, feel that giving someone the ability to nuke their health off before they can react isn't fair for their meta, and are worried that addressing this will mean they get the short end of the stick, while Gals and Libs will be comparatively less penalized. Liberator pilots from what I've seen often stick at mid-range, but enjoy their ability to "rake" on targets and do not appreciate the notion of higher DPS in general. Galaxy pilots seem concerned that this will neutralize their transport advantage and relegate them to the skybox. Valkers are similarly concerned that this will neutralize their close range advantage over gals, forcing them to be skybox droppers, which means they will compete directly with Gals.

    The Pilot perspective means that their experiences of #4 and #5 often heavily interact, which I feel often serves as one of the main tripwires in any AA vs Air argument, as pilots worry that anything that increases ground effectiveness (such as accuracy, damage, or reload speed, and RoF) will immediately translate to anti-air effectiveness. For many of these things, they are often correct. More accuracy would immediately extend the effective range of AA while damage buffing would directly impact the TTK for air targets.

    My suggestion attempts to shoot the gap on addressing #4 and #5, by explicitly ignoring #1 #2 and #3. I do this by focusing on the Skyguard and putting CoF off the table, and by not addressing Walkers, M20s, and other MGs.

    My hope is that by tweaking the RoF values of the skyguard, we can balance the AA in a way that is equitable. Pilots won't be immediately "locked out" unless they get too close. Skyguard drivers will get to engage ground targets more effectively. The flak mechanic itself will remain unchanged. The effectiveness vs. Air Targets will increase, but in a way that I feel is balanced or is at least highly adjustable. Its also something that can be easily tweaked on PTS and tested statistically.
  20. Imp C Bravo

    I am also a lib pilot. I play both sides of the coin -- hence my uncharacteristic reasonableness :p

    The underlined part I can agree with. THe non underlined part is a piece of your opinion that I don't agree with. Ground troops can use cover more effectively than air can -- hence a solid attack vector for a plane can, very quickly as ground targets hugging cover can simply move a few meters, turn into a non viable attack vector.

    Coordination is a huge factor and while I agree with your analysis of it -- that is a player base issue -- not a weapon mechanic issue.