Jets make up for artillery?

[Raidyr]

Re: Jets make up for artillery?

The only issue I have with jets (besides the machine gun sniping, but that is more player skill than anything) is the fact that it's kinda hard to take them down. Like Chris said, the AA is far from useless, but it isn't enough to stop those damn planes from sniping/bombing it :\

I am sure people would be happy with unguided MANPADS*, such as the ones found in Desert Combat/Conflict (comes out Friday )

MANPADS = Man Portable Air Defense System

Oh yeah, why do you people make so huge posts :P

[=TOL=elitemafia]

Re: Jets make up for artillery?

Choppers > jets

[Chris_Redfield]

Re: Jets make up for artillery?

The only issue I have with jets (besides the machine gun sniping, but that is more player skill than anything) is the fact that it's kinda hard to take them down. Like Chris said, the AA is far from useless, but it isn't enough to stop those damn planes from sniping/bombing it :\

Yeah, I mean, there was so much DICE could have done to keep everyone happy, but with their lack of vision they just kept screwing everything up even worse. And people are still where they were 2 years ago. Just that dogfighters dont appreciate new missiles, and ground pounders dont appreciate the massive adaptability level of the pilots.

I am sure people would be happy with unguided MANPADS*, such as the ones found in Desert Combat/Conflict (comes out Friday )

Actually I heard that even ATA missiles were like this, and I think its a god damn shame, and a waste of potential. Its the easy way out for them. The problem with 1942 was that guided missiles couldnt be coded in. And Dcon team takes the coward way out to not to risk it, and make the last century approach to the problem. All they EVER had to do was to process the countless of missile/jet/air/land balance threads in the forums and come up with the best solution out there, which would really use the games potential.

[Raidyr]

Re: Jets make up for artillery?

Yeah, I mean, there was so much DICE could have done to keep everyone happy, but with their lack of vision they just kept screwing everything up even worse. And people are still where they were 2 years ago. Just that dogfighters dont appreciate new missiles, and ground pounders dont appreciate the massive adaptability level of the pilots.



Actually I heard that even ATA missiles were like this, and I think its a god damn shame, and a waste of potential. Its the easy way out for them. The problem with 1942 was that guided missiles couldnt be coded in. And Dcon team takes the coward way out to not to risk it, and make the last century approach to the problem. All they EVER had to do was to process the countless of missile/jet/air/land balance threads in the forums and come up with the best solution out there, which would really use the games potential.

Yeah, missiles in DC were unguided. Since I never flew (and don't fly now) I never really got the hang of them, but some people can do crazy stuff with them.

Still, I can't wait for DCon

[Maverick2201]

Re: Jets make up for artillery?

anyone see my ideas posted above? What do people think of those changes to AA?

[Raidyr]

Re: Jets make up for artillery?

I'm going to put in my $0.02 on this issue... personally, I believe there are a few things that could really balance the STA sites/vehicles and the Phalanx guns on the Essex.

1.) For god sakes, give the Phalanx more armor. It should have at LEAST as much armor as a tank... no way that a pilot should be able to wipe out a Phalanx from across the map w/ machine guns only as easily as they can. I'm a horrible pilot but finding that static target and coming in guns a'blazin and taking out the Phalanx is pretty easy... too easy...

2.) Give SAM sites (or at least the Phalanx) some sort of radar or advanced warning system so they can at least figure out which way to look. I find it odd that getting into a SAM site, you stand no better chance of seeing from which direction the jet is coming. The Phalanx has that giant dome on it and of course the Essex would have some sort of radar.

3.) Position the Phalanx on the end of the Essex so that when firing across the Essex, the missiles do not slam into the bulkhead of the boat. I always find that rediculous that they sunk the Phalanx lower than the rest of the boat so from certain angles, you shoot missiles right into the carrier.

4.) Make the missile lock happen a bit sooner... there's nothing more agonizing than sitting in a sam, seeing the jet first, waiting for a lock as you're being pummeled with MG fire and dying before even getting a rocket off...


5.) Give mobile AA a good deal more ammo. I get in a mobile AA and start ripping up jets and helis and am out of missiles way too soon. I think the balance of mobile AA is very good and they have just the right amount of firepower and armor but they need more ammo. These are certainly (in my mind) the most powerful deterrant to enemy aircraft. I have, on countless occasions, gotten sick of the air power, jumped into a Mobile AA and just ripped enemy air power to shreds -- for about 5 mins until I run out of missiles.

On a side note, I believe there is a GIANT flaw that EA built into the physics model w/ the jets... there's no way a jet ought to be able to slow down to ungodly slow speeds, bomb & shoot at will and then recover w/out stalling & crashing... WAY TOO MANY pilots exploit this flaw to their advantage slowing to 100-200 (mph?) to perfectly bomb or MG their way to points nirvana just to back up to 800-900 (mph?) within seconds... its absolutly disgraceful that EA/DICE would allow this in thier physics model as anyone knows thats simply not possible.

I agree with everything besides #5. AA vehicles are fine (Hell, they shred infantry, planes, choppers, AND light vehicles...).

[DesertFalcon]

Re: Jets make up for artillery?

AA should be better agianst J-10s but not F-35s that would make it more even.

[disfigured]

Re: Jets make up for artillery?

As for points, trust me, its the challenge.

It is for you, but you can't speak for everyone who steps into a jet. Because some one is in a certain vehicle doesn't make them immune from having a concern about their points, if that's what motivates them.

In fact I think it's just the opposite. Since the alternative to deterring jets isn't implemented by most teams , jets are overpowered. This is the way the game is played, right or wrong, tragic or not, people have learned this, and with that said, I'll say this:

The weapon that yields the most power (for what ever reason) with the same amount of effort will attract the shallowest player.

With out the points system I doubt you'd see pilots trying to dominate ground troops when unopposed by another jet. It simply wouldn't have any reward at some point.

Pilots would be more apt to switch sides and engage their counterpart. I've only seen it happen a few times in all my days of playing. Almost every time the other team has the superior pilots, I've hardly ever seen one come over and "accept" the challenge. Most of the time I see servers empty before pilots change sides.

Your assumption that because you yourself play for the individual dogfighting aspects of the game, that it carries through out the other people flying is simply wrong and misinformed. Pilots are not any more honorable then any other player in the game in regards to getting points. In fact I'd say they are worse because of the lack of a decent or viable way of fending them off. Again for what ever reason, the attraction is still there for the power of jets.

It's just the "hook" BF2 put into the game and it adversely effects the game in all areas, it just more prevalent and has more intense when it's done in jets.

Jet pilots are in no way exempt from this frenzy for points and to suggest otherwise is simply ludicrous. Do I have to do search for the multitude of posts in this very forum boasting about points in a round by pilots (most likely unopposed by some one of the same skill)?

100-0 at Wake is popular type title thread here. Yes yes we know it wouldn't be possible if the apposing team manned every AA and worked them like a well oiled machine, I'll concede that point for the sake of argument. But since that didn't happen what was the motivation to shoot fish in a barrel the entire game? It was obviously unopposed since the K/D ratio is so high , or sometimes the D is zilch.

Mettalica posted one exactly like that, yet his team lost, which I always found amusing and consternating at the same time. If it's not the point system then what is it, if it wasn't to simply rack up points towards some rank, unlock, or medal/ribbon? Yet it simply ruins the entire game for everyone else playing, you could say "tough luck", but that really doesn't apply here. I mean would you play an offline game that was that easy to kill things, and you never died? You'd put it down in 5 minutes and go surf porn. Instead because there's an E-penis to be achieved it's motivation to continue doing something that any one other then some one with a lobotomy, would stop doing.

I've seen that scenario play itself out countless times rather then someone becoming bored with an easy win for their side because they are invulnerable (again for what ever reason). Or lots of points and not do something different when a loss was inevitable.

On a side note, I believe there is a GIANT flaw that EA built into the physics model w/ the jets... there's no way a jet ought to be able to slow down to ungodly slow speeds, bomb & shoot at will and then recover w/out stalling & crashing... WAY TOO MANY pilots exploit this flaw to their advantage slowing to 100-200 (mph?) to perfectly bomb or MG their way to points nirvana just to back up to 800-900 (mph?) within seconds... its absolutly disgraceful that EA/DICE would allow this in thier physics model as anyone knows thats simply not possible.

I think your point is valid, it's not necessary the power of jets sometimes, it's the frequency at which they can attack that is also an imbalance. The physics allow this to happen.

My only flying experience beside the BF series (which it's limited in any edition) was MircoSoft Combat Flight Simulator. Which is world away from BF flight physics, that goes for any edition in the series. It takes hours of play in MSCFS to figure out how much height you have to achieve to sustain any type of attack, all the aids that help you fly the game are actually deterents to becomming a better pilot. Mixing fuel is how WWII pilots could maintain high altitudes and proper lean mixture. When you first fly you put it on auto (which wasn't available in WWII) but that doesn't do as good a job as you doing it yourself. Point is, it was incredibly hard to even land and take off, and remained that way no matter how experienced you got. In flight you were constantly fighting off stall and flat spin by keeping your speed up and not putting yourself in a vulnerable spot you couldn't get out of.

But in BF42 and BF2 I mapped my keys, hopped into a jet, hit forward, rolled back on my track ball, and I was up and flying. If I went too slow I simply hit forward again and unless I was extremely careless I could do nearly nothing that couldn't be gotten out of with a simply push of a button. I was skimming the the tops of the trees and basically taking a joy ride almost immediately. Yes a long way from what experienced pilots can do in BF2, but when unopposed the very physics that make it easy to fly for "anyone" wreak havoc on the ground.

II was in a RogueSpear clan that had both a pilot and a former army Tanker in it. When BF42 came out the tanker said the tanks felt real, and tanks are easy to drive. You or I could get in a modern, or WWII era tank and in a few hours be a capable driver. The problem is the physics that apply to aircraft in the BF series have the same parameters. They didn't want to make it "not" fun to fly. But the pilot who played BF42 with me said it's not flying it's just another arcade vehicle. In fact the BF2 jet physics are barely any more advanced then After Burner.

The problem with BF2 and BF'42 is scale. The scale needed for modeled aircraft with parallel capabilities of the other vehicles and all their real life counter parts would be enormous. The OTB of the maps would have to be 40 times the present size, it would have to be some bizarre twilight zone they went into and then reappeared. Which would be fine with me.

That's probably not a possibility so they crammed them into the space that the rest of the vehicles play in , and gave them the ability to maneuver within that space. Game developers have no idea the extents people will do to master the game, and all it's elements. They had no idea how good pilots would become when given this mismatch of physics to airspace, when it came to the relationship to ground targets. Physics don't matter when it's a dogfight because the cancel each other out. But apply physics that make a jet as easy to fly (for a beginner) as a tank, combine that with physics that allow them to exist in a much smaller space in relation to all the other vehicles, and you create a machine that can maneuver the environment with far too much ease when it comes to other vehicles (namely ground vehicles).

I would accept the strength of jets now if they had the same limitation as other vehicles in the game. If it meant an OTB that was so big then so be it. I wouldn't miss a march 1 capable jet make a turn and re-attack while sill in view. Or slow to sub stall speed to lay an egg on a jeep then sprint off to his next target. It's simply too much maneuverability when unopposed then unleashed. But would pilots accept long drawn out maneuvers to engage any target air or ground? Would kids buy a game that was total pain in the *** to fly in? Probably not on both accounts.

[Raidyr]

Re: Jets make up for artillery?

Yeah, a huge part of the problem is that we have super-sonic fighters in maps the size of a small city...

[Chris_Redfield]

Re: Jets make up for artillery?

You dont get what Im saying, butIm not going to hold that against you and will simply blame it on your inabilityto see and understand the experience I have. Far most of my game time has been spent on jets, and throughout this time Ive been a dogfighter mostly. Which means that Ive dealt with every pilot type there is. Im a guy who sees what Im doing wrong so I dont have a problem remembering my baby steps in air either. You think people who fly do it for the points only? Thats more of an accusation than even a suggestion.

It is for you, but you can't speak for everyone who steps into a jet. Because some one is in a certain vehicle doesn't make them immune from having a concern about their points, if that's what motivates them.

You dont get it. Just because Im talking about one specific, certain aspect of flight combat, you immediately assume that Im generalizing that behaviour onto everything else flight related. No. Open your eyes and be a little more objective. Accept that I have a little more time in this specific area than you do. Im talking about the initiative a pilot takes to engage the other pilot. Unless youre a dogfighter, you cant possibly even begin to appreciate what that move brings with it. Have a read of my dogfighters mind paper.

ATA combat in BF2 (helicopters included) is the most competitional aspect in public play. And you can not equalize the fact that some people are better than others. Which means that engaging a target is a direct slap with a glove, if you know what I mean. If you call a pilot out, its immediately a 1 vs 1 fight. Theres no ifs not buts. With new ATA missiles, scoring 2 points is easier than ever, so were not even talking about the "hard work" and losing points. The pilot, if he knows hes not a good ATA fighter, or has a bad jet, will probably lose his jet and has to fight for it on the strip.

Have you had a dogfight with a person you know? With a dogfighter? Have you engaged a good pilot in a public play? Do you even know how to fly the jet?

During a minute of dogfighting PW loses 6-7 points average, and his SPM is very good. So we have ruled out the loss of points you can have during a dogfight. 7 points is only a 5 point difference from the gain in ATA.

In fact I think it's just the opposite. Since the alternative to deterring jets isn't implemented by most teams , jets are overpowered. This is the way the game is played, right or wrong, tragic or not, people have learned this, and with that said, I'll say this:

The weapon that yields the most power (for what ever reason) with the same amount of effort will attract the shallowest player.

Actually, no. Theres an equal ammount of smacktards on land. The concentration of them on the deck/strip creates an illusion that all of the smacktards are after the jets/choppers. No. Thats not true. On the same note- if youre willing to teamkill for the jet/chopper, means youre just selfish, and after your own fun. Thats it. No homosexuality involved, Im afraid. I dont teamkill for vehicles, but I do understand the unwillingness to wait 5, 10, 15 minutes to play YOUR game, the game YOU LIKE, in the server YOU LIKE after a day where you already had wasted too much of that patience.

And jets arent overpowered, they are simply too universal.

With out the points system I doubt you'd see pilots trying to dominate ground troops when unopposed by another jet. It simply wouldn't have any reward at some point.

Bullsh!t. Dude, go play in unranked servers. If you think its paradise out there, youre mistaken. Theres better atmosphere indeed, no doubt, but every exploit, every little bad side of humanity that you see on ranked servers, you WILL see in unranked servers. Even without the point system that is recording your efforts, people dont like to stay on the respawn screen. Nobody likes to lose.

Pilots would be more apt to switch sides and engage their counterpart. I've only seen it happen a few times in all my days of playing. Almost every time the other team has the superior pilots, I've hardly ever seen one come over and "accept" the challenge. Most of the time I see servers empty before pilots change sides.

You dont get it why they do it. I can only hope the first paragraph of my post has educated you on the matter. If not, check my dogfighters guide, its written by a guy who likes a challenge, who likes to win, about people he has seen airbourne.

Your assumption that because you yourself play for the individual dogfighting aspects of the game, that it carries through out the other people flying is simply wrong and misinformed. Pilots are not any more honorable then any other player in the game in regards to getting points. In fact I'd say they are worse because of the lack of a decent or viable way of fending them off. Again for what ever reason, the attraction is still there for the power of jets.

The power of jets is the reason why people do not engage each other or call each other out? Thats silly.

Pilots dont engage each other because its transfers them into a competitional game.

Jet pilots are in no way exempt from this frenzy for points and to suggest otherwise is simply ludicrous. Do I have to do search for the multitude of posts in this very forum boasting about points in a round by pilots (most likely unopposed by some one of the same skill)?

LOL, its a forum. Showing your points is simply natural. What the hell do you expect? Stating that pilots are pointwhores, all of them, just because a few of them show off their scoreboard on the forums is shallow.

There are people who fly for the points, those people dont engage other pilots unless they fly a J10 against F35B TODAY. But they dont engage not because its not profitable pointwise, but because they know they have to work for the kill in an environment they possibly cant win.

Get it?

[imported_Elder]

Re: Jets make up for artillery?

Yeah, I mean, there was so much DICE could have done to keep everyone happy, but with their lack of vision they just kept screwing everything up even worse. And people are still where they were 2 years ago. Just that dogfighters dont appreciate new missiles, and ground pounders dont appreciate the massive adaptability level of the pilots.



Actually I heard that even ATA missiles were like this, and I think its a god damn shame, and a waste of potential. Its the easy way out for them. The problem with 1942 was that guided missiles couldnt be coded in. And Dcon team takes the coward way out to not to risk it, and make the last century approach to the problem. All they EVER had to do was to process the countless of missile/jet/air/land balance threads in the forums and come up with the best solution out there, which would really use the games potential.

It was no shame, the missiles in DC were amazing. Dogfighting took way more skill and an inexperienced pilot would literally last seconds against an experienced dogfighter. The crappy guiding missiles and ****ty hitboxes along with terrible cannon hitboxes take so much skill out of dogfighting in BF2 compared to 42/DC. DC dogfighting was so much more fast paced and demanded way more skill. Btw coding guided missiles in the 42 engine was possible, DCX did it, nobody like it.

All DCon is doing is replicating a mod everybody loved with a brand new engine. They didn't want to make anything too different and wanted to stay as close to the original DC as possible. This is the whole point of the mod in fact, why else would someone play another mod thats based in the SAME ERA as the original game?

[disfigured]

Re: Jets make up for artillery?

Enough of your Astral plane arguements about other people "not being pilots so they don't understand".

Address these question directly , and no I'm not reading your tutorial, it's not relevant, and has no bearing on the debate/disccussion.

1. If the solution to the imbalance is a total lack of fun by anyone's standards, even the most team orientated and self sacrificing, and BF2 is a game, doesn't the solution become more the cause? If the solution will never and has never been viable, is it a solution at all? If so, can you still point to it as a reason to keep the status quo of the imbalance as it exist now? Is it a valid argument to claim everything is fine because no will do something that not one ever would? And doesn't that argument benefit you the pilot the most?


2. Would you like to rephrase or give another argument in favor of your premise that jet pilots are no worse or better then most other players in their behavior? Unless this is the statement statement you'd like to leave on the records as your answer:

Actually, no. Theres an equal ammount of smacktards on land. The concentration of them on the deck/strip creates an illusion that all of the smacktards are after the jets/choppers.

If there's a concentration of them on the deck/airstrips, how can there be an equal amount of them on land? That statement is a complete contradiction. Or are you suggesting we are all hallucinating?

3. Do jet pilots, or do they not, go into servers where there is no opposition, and rack up points? Essentially ruining everyone else's game for the reasons we already may have clarified (lack of fun in STA), for the sole reason that points in BF2 are cumulative? Do you believe that the cumulative point system is not motivation for jet pilots to essentially do things that they wouldn't normally do, if that cumulative system did not exist? Lastly Do you not think that even though all players do these things in many different vehicles, it is not much worse with jets because of the imbalances we've been discussing?

Short and sweet, these are the questions and you've been dancing around them a lot of very vague metaphysical arguments.

"You don't get it" will not cut it with me in a debate. "Your not a pilot" is not a valid argument either.

Do these conditions exist are are they all some illusion?

[Maverick2201]

Re: Jets make up for artillery?

How common do you think it is for two pilots who know each other to agree not to attack one another so they can rip each other's team to shreds on the ground? I hate to count how often I see two seemingly talented pilots bombing the crap out of the ground... you'd think they wouldn't have time to bomb so much because they'd be too occupied with the other pilot...

I'd be willing to be this happens a lot more than people think... Guys get together on Skype or something and just laugh their asses off as they bomb the crap out of the ground units and each get a very high score...

Call me a conspiracy theorist if you like but I think I'm on to something...

[Raidyr]

Re: Jets make up for artillery?

I would much rather have a teammate watching the sky in one F35, another watching the ground, and the helicopter watching the flags. I hate it when our team is loosing tickets while all of our air assets are being whored.

Another reason I dont play vBF2, I suppose.

[disfigured]

Re: Jets make up for artillery?

I actually have few problems with the game itself. Here's what gets my collar a bit twisted.

New players complain about air (I discuss it then the subject comes up but never start the threads).

Experienced players accept it as part of the game (the category I put myself in).

but lastly and most importantly......

Many pilots downplay the issue and have no humility about the present state of the game, not matter what the cause.

How common do you think it is for two pilots who know each other to agree not to attack one another so they can rip each other's team to shreds on the ground? I hate to count how often I see two seemingly talented pilots bombing the crap out of the ground... you'd think they wouldn't have time to bomb so much because they'd be too occupied with the other pilot...

I don't think it even has to be cooperative. It can simply just happen if neither engages the other.

But our expereinces are an illusion maverick, that's not what really happens in a lot of servers, go read Chris's tutorial , it will enlighten you on the karma that is, flying arcade physic jets.