What do pilots/flyboys think of skyguard spawns at every base?

Classic Mattherson.

Goodbye. Please let the door hit you on the way out.

Hey, mattherson failed to beat Miller Air.
So they're not the best at everything.

._.

Kappa

You're the one that said Mattherson was scrubs, I didn't call out any other server.

Considering a Mattherson outfit won the RCCC and Mattherson won the Server Smash...maybe they aren't so scrubby after all...

I'm sure the other Euros reading this just pulled a Picard...you should stop now while you're already behind.

I find that rather humorous =P

I don't know what you mean.

;D

No one cares what types of munitions exist now or could possibly exist in the future as they are not designed for fair and enjoyable game play. We design weapons to give ourselves the largest tactical advantage possible so when open warfare takes place it is entirely one sided and we maximize our killing potential. This does not work in video game land where one sided engagements and unfair scenarios leads to imbalances and unhappy player bases. I can never fathom why people have a hard time grasping the difference between the two.

Don't bother with him, after a rather embarrassing conversation I found he doesn't even know the outfits that exist on Mattherson, how they function, and thinks that any outfit able to wield over a Platoon is a zergfit. Also apparently other than DA he more or less believes Mattherson outfits are a bunch of scrubs. He blocked me when I laid down the facts and he couldn't handle the truth

You missed 90% of the point of my post, so I'll just reply to what you said.


I actually play with an outfit (SMG) that does an exclusively combined arms approach to the game during our ops nights. We have armor, air, and infantry dedicated battle groups during ops and we use channel commander in TS to inter-communicate with each other during base assaults and defense. I don't need a lecture about that, thank you very much.

We'll have 8 birds up (usually 6 reavers and a lib) in an air wing, and a couple of skyguards will be hassling us. Often, we can call in the armor guys to go and mop them up, sure. But even then there are big complications with that. Frankly, you shouldn't need to call in a whole armor wing just to take out a skyguard nest. Not to mention, if the skyguards are placed in a position that's tank-unfriendly terrain, etc etc, it can be VERY difficult for even a group of air AND armor working together to kill them. Infantry generally doesn't get involved because skyguards aren't usually within effective range of infantry (our infantry are usually on the point assaulting or defending directly).

Skyguards see me C4'ing them more often than other tanks BECAUSE they're looking at the skies. LA's (or "C4 faeries" as you referred to them) generally drop C4 from above.

I never said flak/skyguards should be *easy* for air units to take out on their own, but the abilities and damage of skyguards is just not right. They need projectile-drop and somen kind of damage falloff (with higher close damage to balance that out).

TL;DR - You missed most of my point (or ignored it because you didn't have an answer), I play in a dedicated combined-arms outfit and have "coordinated with ground forces", and I still think skyguards need tweaking.

I think it's fine. Dodging Anti-Air and knowing when to Ground Pound is part of being a good pilot. Just like knowing whether you should fly into a swarm of Mossy's solo, or break off and wait for reinforcements.

You can pull a burster max at any base, and those are scarier than skyguards - so no difference. Besides, it's still horribly boring to be on anti-air duty.

Then give Skyguards a rangefinder or something, something that would help with the extra leading that would be required for the bullet drop and slow bullet speed. There's already a heavy amount of predicting that goes into playing a Skyguard and nerfing the one thing it's good at wouldn't make it any better.

Now if one Skyguard was taking out your whole air wing, then yeah, I'd say that a nerf would be required, or that the platform at least be looked at. But a, as you said, "nest" of Skyguards? Yeah, sounds like it's working as intended, 3+ dedicated AA platforms that, thanks to communication and combined firepower, can keep an area clear of the targets they specialize in. You get rockets, C4, AV turrets, armor or even a few tough libs to take them out and you'll be fine.

What people are suggesting, things like "Shooting down aircraft at 1000m" is absurd. You're lucky if they even render enough to get a clear shot, and if the Skyguard user can compensate for the lead to hit and destroy that target at that range? Then good for him, he's a hella 'mazing tanker. But as aircraft require skills to use, so does a Skyguard, and these proposed changes sound like people are trying to punish dedicated AA user's skills at using the platform.

you know i hadnt thought about that yet and im gunna pull 30 skyguards tommorow

we fly libs and scythes often. the only difference i noticed yesterday was that i got more skyguard kills. seems like the people who knew how to use a skyguard properly were always there anyways, now it's just a bit more of the ones who a free certs wrapped in tracers :3

Rangefinder implant says high.

As I see it, to balance AA sources vs. the anti air capabilities of an ESF (mixed groundpound and straight AA) is to make G2A more difficult (to compare with the difficulty of AA esfs) and then give them more versatility. A simple suggestion would be smaller autodetonation range (scaling, so the range is slightly lower for galaxies, to very small for ESFs) with higher damage per shot and tighter cone of fire. It would then become harder to use flak against aircraft, reward aim better, and let flak be used better against infantry.

oboy you must be very good at this game with an amazing k/d of 1.6.

lol

dasdasf ops

Hey, without the entire post the point of it is kinda lost ._.

Just to get you up to speed on the topic, because I feel you missed the point of my post:

Basically, Dreadnaut is pushing for Gravity on the flack bullets, he seems to think this will both help his frame rate, make it difficult to hit things over 1000+ meters, and justify tightening the spread by a large margin... it wouldn't, flack flies fast, it wouldn't be hard to adjust, bullet spread is the current solution, and it's effective, only thing consistently hitting people at 1000+ meters are groups of flackers large enough that the spread doesn't matter, at which point you've got a serious issue with your ground forces being unable to mobolise themselves, or a serious lack of communications, or the damn VS everything melters.

The point of my post, in responce to his "use logic" was to use logic, cynically.

I understand game mechanics, fairness, and fun, SNAFUS, that wasn't the point, the point was that his logic doesn't line up with the sheer brutality of the reality he was attempting to compare the game's logic to.