Re: AA still not work, or is it just fine
How the hell can you tell him he hasn't found any problems with the damn A.A. when it's up to his personal opinion and perception as to what he deems a problem? Granted, it might not be valid within' the mechanics of the game but he finds it a problem; otherwise why start the thread?
I should stop here because this alone proves to me you're not even worth a fragment of my time. Yet, I'll humor myself with you.
...and what does this have to do with the fact that they are missing on some key maps, that I listed for you mind you. You didn't even have to think too hard to garner my point because I presented three maps which illustrate the point I was making. Yet, you still fudged it all up.
Let me try again;
" You cannot base your entire evalution of the Anti-Air system off of a 'VEHCILE' that sees very little exposure to gameplay vs. other assets [static A.A. anyone, Carrier maybe]. "
I hope that clears things up for you.
I could have sworn I said "Original Maps". Ala. BF2... not special crapness. Jeebus'. I guess you must be one of those people that don't read the text before you and respond to what you figure the person on the other end "MUST" be saying?
You "STILL" don't get the point of this thread do you (which is not to cut down others because you "THINK" they are suggesting a change for Anti-Air, or feel your piloting job could become that much more complicated)? Yes... with teamwork and enough cohesion A.A. can be extremelty effective. Too bad a Jet only takes "ONE" person to pilot it. So, effectively, you have an entire ground legion struggling against a single Jet-Demi'God. Not that I don't mind the challenge and insanely stacked odds on the oddest of situations...
What in the hell does ground A.A. have to do with Jets attacking Helos?
All I said, and this remains "SOLID" fact because I do it constantly to USMC when playing Wake. If a Helo "circle strafes" and A.A. emplacement, that emplacement will not be able to land a missile no matter how talented the operator. Cut, dry, fact, not debateable. Go try it yourself eh?
I quoted you, which means they would have to be your own words. Less I snuck into your account and typed somthing for you.
Hmmm.. me correcting you in your over zealous approach to flaming is spewing crap? Man... that's new. I figured I was simply stopping you from deviating too far from the cental question proposed," Do you have problems with the Anti-Air?".
You go off on some wild tanget about how the A.A. is fine, when the answer everyone was looking for from you is, " No. I don't have a problem with the A.A.". BOOM! The answer! ...I swear, you're like a democratic senator or somthing, you just cannot answer the simple question. You always have some type of speech behind it.
This is all you needed to say form the get go. Answer the friggin' question, move on.
...and this is where I'm right. I told you before, you seem to have some false notion that the people here are calling for change. No. He's basically taking a head count, asking for suggestions, and wondering if "ANYONE" else in the community is bad at A.A. like he is. He isn't starting a petition to send to Dice for another massive Anti-Air overhaul.
I don't know where you pulled this idea from (I'm guessing your behind) but it's false, invalid, wrong, and seems to be the basis for your random jibber jabber thus' far.
If you' have gotten used to it, and it's all honkey-dorey to you. THEN LEAVE HIM BE! Jeebus'. He thinks A.A. is still flawed, you don't. Fair enough, what you don't seem to understand though is he didn't ask for your life story. Matter of fact, he asked for you "NOT" to give your life story. You did it anyways.
Yes, you are. Your entire intial post was a flame. You gave your opinion, then proceeded to flame the thread starter because his opinion didn't line up with yours.
The majority of the BF2 community plays Karkand almost exclusively. Going by those numbers, I'd say they "DO" agree with him.
Here we go again. It's like someone just put you on a Soap box and pressed play. "HE DIDN'T ASK FOR ANY CHANGES". All he wanted to know is do you consider it still broken. It's simple, cut, and dry. Yet, you stand on the soap box again spewing yet another life story about how "skilled pilots" feel your pain as things "change" around you in regards to the Anti-Air dynamic of the game. Get over yourself. Pilots make up a very small percentage of the BF2 community. Yet, everyone else is given the short side of the stick in terms of combat effectiveness against them. If anything you should be happy, not moany.
...and?
But Jets still are... This doubles for the J-10.
A well coordinated helo has access to a "ONE HIT ONE KILL" weapon vs. ANY VEHICLE. I don't think a gimped missile count is going to hurt anything.
They are the majority. They vote with their map selection and playstyles. SO! If enough people rant and scream, it gets changed. Live with it. It's like you're "Anti-Change" you want BF2 to remain static and never progress in balance. Sure, that's just my preception of you. But, you haven't shown me anything to prove otherwise.
Why not? Some things still need to be tweaked and balanced. (Anti-Tank Kit, Anti-Air vs. Jets/Helos).
Oh no. You jumped the gun on this one fella'. He asked a simple question, "Anyone else have a problem with the Anti-Air?". He also asked you "NOT" give your life story on why you think what you think. Lo' and behold. We get you. You glance and think, "OMG! Some people still aren't happy with the current Anti-Air implementation! When people aren't happy tweaks happen! I like having my nearly untouchable Jet, and Helo in "SOME" rare situtions. I better attack this topic now with a combined mixture of flames and pointless rants before it's too late"... of course, that's all just my perceptions.
He feels it still has problems.
Which brings me to an odd perspective. Why shouldn't Anti-Air down a un-flared jet almost instantly? I mean, a Jets bombs kill Anti-Air sites instantly, they kill linebackers instantly, hell, they kill everything instantly. Not to mention the Cannons on a Jet can engage static outside of its range.
Considering all of the variables working in favor of Jets. Why not even the odds a bit. Why not make both machines work equally as hard to destory one another? Why should Jets be the end all of combat in BF2, only to be opposed by another Jet or and extremely persistant Mobile Anti-Air vehicle?
Also. Why are jets the only vehicle aloted a level of situation awareness that's rivaled only by the commander slot?
You know, the release version A.A. worked fine for some people. So, by your logic, it should have never be changed? Cause I mean, it is designed to do the same thing for all people right? ...I mean, that's what you said.
So, let's all go because to release A.A.; we would hate to see any nerfs ya' know.
...you failed horribly at that.
Who cares if pilots are frustrated? You make up about 10% of the community, and that's me being liberal. Pilots still "OWN" this game without competition. The only thing a pilot needs to fear is another pilot, STILL. Mobile A.A, while dangerous, is not on every map a jet is present. Static A.A. is just a joke... has been a joke, and I'm surprised that it hasn't been replaced with shoulder fired stingers.
Pilots shouldn't have any friggin' frustration because you and your kind have dominated BF2 since day one. Still do, and unless Anti-Air is somthing you shudder at the thought of; will continue to do.
How can you even compare the two.
A plane has two factors working against it:
1.Another Jet.
2.Mobile Anti-Air (If you're lucky enough to have one available)
Not even close to true. Hell, a plane wouldn't even know an Anti-Air site existed without ground Units to spot it; and you wouldn't risk a Jet strike on a SAM site when 155mm can do the job much safer. Also, a Jet wouldn't get any type of notification of a lock until a Missile is screaming down his tail pipe.
I don't know what alternate reality you're living in, but Jets of modern warfare respect the presence of SAM sites; unlike in BF2 where they are looked at as more of a hearing distraction.
You have been watching "waaaay" to much T.V. or somthing. Either that, or you're just making some pretty wild assumptions.
Anyways. I'm dont with you. This is a good bit of typing and now that I'm done, I honestly feel it's going to go to waste on the likes of you (Yes, that's a "DIRECT" insult to your character. That's a first for me)
{WP}Paas
Originally posted by [GU]LIZARD
I guess you must be one of these guys who reads the forums and don't play the game.
Anytime a Linebacker is present on the map its filled instantly. I gurante it. I watch them constantly, if a base is taken, and when they disappear I know that someone is in them.
Let me try again;
" You cannot base your entire evalution of the Anti-Air system off of a 'VEHCILE' that sees very little exposure to gameplay vs. other assets [static A.A. anyone, Carrier maybe]. "
I hope that clears things up for you.
On ghost town they are always filled
..., on oilfields another classic example. I've taken down choppers in teams that were only on AA. Literally in squads talking about planes and choppers. I got on my AA gun, when it circled I fired one missile, then the rest would handle it. They even had a guy right near the enemy run way, not in the base but near it. Those AA guns can be used properly if you play as a team, and they do not suck. Those will keep a pilot busy, then entire map.
If your in a helicopter your not only worrying about all that AA, on vanilla. Lets not forget theres planes flying around to. That just love to take a shot or two at the helos.
All I said, and this remains "SOLID" fact because I do it constantly to USMC when playing Wake. If a Helo "circle strafes" and A.A. emplacement, that emplacement will not be able to land a missile no matter how talented the operator. Cut, dry, fact, not debateable. Go try it yourself eh?
What you've done is put words into my mouth
, and are saying abunch of crap.
You go off on some wild tanget about how the A.A. is fine, when the answer everyone was looking for from you is, " No. I don't have a problem with the A.A.". BOOM! The answer! ...I swear, you're like a democratic senator or somthing, you just cannot answer the simple question. You always have some type of speech behind it.
In my opinion the keyword here folks, I DO NOT THINK THE AA IS WEAK.
As far as I am concerned don't change it DICE, because you will probally mess up something else in the balence.
I don't know where you pulled this idea from (I'm guessing your behind) but it's false, invalid, wrong, and seems to be the basis for your random jibber jabber thus' far.
I've gotten use to it and thats not enough someone has to come make a thread about how AA still sucks, because they can't get a kill.
I am not flaming
So far majority don't agree with him
the skilled pilots know where I am coming from. We listen to it day and day out. I will turn on fraps join a karkand server and when it changes to wake island gurante all the guys who were in armor on karkand will bitch and moan
Its apart of BF Series.
Those helicopters are not suppose to be godlike, they aren't.
They weakened our hitpoints and now are even going to weaken the missile count for SF.
Sure hes not asking for it, but thats how the first nerf of helos and AA came about. People posting daily on how they got killed by a chopper, and how they are so over powered.
I don't want to see another nerf is all.
If I sounded like I 'over hauled' this I didn't.
Give me a reason why he started this thread about the AA,
Basically from what I gather he got upset because the need2kill guy killed him or something, and his AA didn't down him instantly.
Considering all of the variables working in favor of Jets. Why not even the odds a bit. Why not make both machines work equally as hard to destory one another? Why should Jets be the end all of combat in BF2, only to be opposed by another Jet or and extremely persistant Mobile Anti-Air vehicle?
Also. Why are jets the only vehicle aloted a level of situation awareness that's rivaled only by the commander slot?
Thats what I see when I read this topic, nothing more. AA cannot work for him, but then work fine for someone else.
The AA was designed to do the same thing for everyone. :P.
Again I am not tryin to sound like an ass
but rather want people to understand both sides and the equal frustration the pilots have from seeing threads like this.
Pilots shouldn't have any friggin' frustration because you and your kind have dominated BF2 since day one. Still do, and unless Anti-Air is somthing you shudder at the thought of; will continue to do.
Helicopters aren't invincible, and neither are planes
A plane has two factors working against it:
1.Another Jet.
2.Mobile Anti-Air (If you're lucky enough to have one available)
If you wanted realism, did you know that those planes can bomb you, and you would never see them? They have radar, they will see that AA way before the AA sees them. They get shot down but not very often.
I don't know what alternate reality you're living in, but Jets of modern warfare respect the presence of SAM sites; unlike in BF2 where they are looked at as more of a hearing distraction.
Helicopters have a thing called radar, they have infared, they got it all. They also get shot down, not alot but it happens. They also come in packs of 10 or 12. I'd like to see you shoot down 12 apache's before they get you. So if you want relism, and not balence thats on you. So a team of helicopters that can pick up AA from miles away rolls in and your screwed. I'd like to see your expression if EA stuck 12 apaches on the carriers of wake island and up the squad count to 12 instead of 6. That would be funny.
Anyways. I'm dont with you. This is a good bit of typing and now that I'm done, I honestly feel it's going to go to waste on the likes of you (Yes, that's a "DIRECT" insult to your character. That's a first for me)
{WP}Paas
Comment