[Guide] The Idiots Guide to Dealing with Air!

It doesn't only apply to ground troops. As infantry, however, you are not expected to be able to take on vehicles solo, at least generally speaking. It does not take an excessive amount of AA to kill an ESF. 3

Other games are not balanced around a practically unlimited amount of vehicles, for one. I have never played a game where the aircraft move as slowly as they do in this one, except perhaps battlefield 1942. You'll have to make references to specific games, because if you are referencing BF4, there are a number of reasons the relationship between air and ground is the way it is in that game. Accurate, high-power AA will effectively make most of the map a no-fly zone.

I'm fine with increasing the versatility of AA, but few players seem to understand how AA works. It already has a significant advantage over air, however limited by its CoF. There's just no reason to pull it unless air is active and nothing to do with it after it leaves. If it's versatile AND more effective against air, that doesn't leave air players much of an opportunity to do anything to the ground.

Am fine with more variety/versatility in AA, but there are reasons why they don't allow anything stronger than a walker for accurate AA fire.

So the reasoning is "because we have the ability to field practically unlimited amount of vehicles on the field we'll need a different version of G2A weapons, but only G2A weapons for <insert random reason here>".

Why only G2A weapons? We know that the other weapons work normal, for a given amount of normal of course. Why is G2A so special that it suddenly needs to be a deterrent? We see that it actually increases the problem of being capable of fielding unlimited amount of vehicles, so what do you mean? Why would this be good for PS2 if all other weapons are kept "normal"?

I know perfectly how G2A works, and even though many don't really know how it works it does not mean that their complaints are invalid. We have complaints from both sides: The users who think it's utterly worthless in general (you know, a highly specialized unit that engages the least-used unit and if successful you have to share your kills and then dump your weapon because it's useless?) and the one's getting shot at think it's OP (the one's who get auto-killed the moment they come within X distance from a group of G2A weapons). So... Why keep it this way? There's no reason to keep it if there's a great amount of players that dislike it, and I've already shown how the system is crap either way for one group. Saying "players don't know how to use it" is a crap argument, it means nothing. Even if they did know how to use it the weapons wouldn't be fun for one side, and any weapon system that can completely deny an entire unit type from entering an area without supreme overpop of that weapon system is terrible for the game anyway.

Yes, the reason "Devs wanted G2A weapons to be deterrents" and "Walkers are secondary weapons". Does that make it OK? No! We know that accurate weapons can work, we know that accurate weapons have their range limits specifically because they are accurate, so it would make for a much better game to introduce more accurate weapons and start abandoning the current practically no-skill weapons.

Really?
This guy was flying so low, slowly hovering around that I could have locked him three times in some approaches.
Or simply shot a decimator at him, even if he dodges he still is thrown off aim.

This video clip shows only one thing:
If there is a complete allied zerg on the ground keeping the enemy busy/spawncamping them most enemies will be fighting stuff on the ground and not bother with you.

But people generally don't bother with AA, it sucks after all.
EDIT: look at around 6:02.
Thats the work of someone in the base behind, propably a burster, and two guys with small arms.
Thats how helpless infantery is.

G2A is special because there are fewer pilots. Whereas tanks mass semi regularly, it is quite rare for aircraft. There aren't enough pilots for them to be treated like other vehicles.

The relationship between air and ground is pretty much defined by the role of AA. Air is great when AA is not present. Air is not so great when AA is present. That said, the fact that you are forcing the enemy to pull AA (and typically the more experienced players who realize its importance) is tactically advantageous. You might not be able to get much in the way of kills, but you can keep people in AA while you harry enemy ground forces.

The thing with air and AA is that there really isn't a viable rebalance out there. There are a few things that can be done, but these things largely won't change the relationship between air, AA, and other ground forces. On the flipside, I rather enjoy playing both air and AA. I'm not in the majority here, but the majority is wrong.

Well, what accurate primary do you have in mind that won't absolutely wreck passing aircraft in the hands of a skilled user? The problem isn't that people want accurate weapons, it's that they essentially want weapons that are better than the skyguard. The problem with that is that the more powerful AA gets, the more useless it becomes. Air is playable in its current state because AA is forgiving.