Jets make up for artillery?

[Nicfurious29]

Re: Jets make up for artillery?

[QUOTE=disfigured]

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


QUOTE]


I totally agree with u. But I dont think they downplay the issue on purpose. I think pilots have become so cocky they actually convinced themselves skills is the reason they do so well.

I would like to exclude helo pilots because there is actually some skill that is required to fly those things.

A plane on the other hand is the exact opposite. Sometimes I wonder what goes through some peoples mind. How can you sit in front of your computer and justify 100-0 k/d? You would think, one of these days a light switch would go off in one of their heads with the thought that maybe, just maybe, something wrong. Maybe come to the realization that using any weapon in game that causes that much havoc could be seen as cheap.
That mastering something that takes less skill than riding a bike is no accomplishment at all. Or even the thought that the imbalance issue might be bigger than you were making it out to be.

Please get off that pedestal or even better, get your heads out the clouds (literally), so you can finally understand one thing....you dont make it look easy....IT IS EASY!!

[Chris_Redfield]

Re: Jets make up for artillery?

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?

Am I the only one who can see the potential of current dogfighting? With self guided physics? One would think Dcon team had a lot more up their sleeves and actually used their talent to think outside the box. Replicating something just because it was the limitation in an older game isnt the proper way out. And skill? Scrap that sh!t. This kind of missile system will wipe out any chances for EU and US pilots to have a brawl.

Just to give an example of thinking outside the box- BF2 bombers LGMs are a perfect ground to start creating a skill based ATA missile, where the missile tracks a jet aslong as youve got the jet in your lock cone.

Skill, reliability, all nice and dandy.

And hitbox issues you could consider as bugs, because they are fixable.

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

The list is stupid. Whatever humidity pilots may have towards forum/game co players, is quickly wiped out when all you read from forums and game chat box is

"jets are gay"
"pilots are this and that"
"you are this and that"
"This is this and that"

And much worse. And then you come here and say that pilots have no humidity? How much more retarded can you get?

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

Its that simple. You dont understand. And you should recheck yourself instead of b!tching about it. I didnt play ground much, and I took part in infantry discussions on minimal basis. Get off YOUR high horse and accept that fact that you cant possibly know everything.

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

Actually it has. Im trying to tell you the atmosphere between two pilots in ATA dogfight. If you dont want to know (obviously), then just say so and shut up, mmkay?

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?

Havent I been saying this about STA for a year now?

If the solution will never and has never been viable, is it a solution at all?

There are plenty of solutions. Dice will never implement anything, nor will they change anything. Quit your b!tching and adapt.

Thats 3 facts right here.

If so, can you still point to it as a reason to keep the status quo of the imbalance as it exist now?

Yes I can.

Its never going to change.

Is it a valid argument to claim everything is fine because no will do something that not one ever would?

Quote me on where I said everything is fine as it is? If you cant, quit this thread, please.

And doesn't that argument benefit you the pilot the most?

As a matter of fact, none of the changes possible will benefit the pilots as they havent up to now. But pilots have adapted way better than groundpounders, come out on top and have to post the same BS in BS threads like this against BS people like you.

yugtwutimsayun?

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:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
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?

I guess logic has evaded you. So I have to paint it out. Imagine 5 pilots on the deck brawling for a jet. Then go to land, watch 1 guy TK for a tank. Another one reviving you under enemies tanks threads. Theres a third who likes to teamkill his own guys. Fourth is throwing himself ammo bags but none for you. Fifth just ran you over in a jeep.

Get the point? Or do I need to take out a spoon?

3. Do jet pilots, or do they not, go into servers where there is no opposition, and rack up points?

They do not. Youre an idiot to suggest otherwise. How can you possibly KNOW that theres a top gun on the server so you can avoid it in the first place? Even Calis dogfighter video features a rather lousy score, while his skills and undoubtedly top notch.

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?

I know only a few pilots who do really play for the points firsthand. And I mean points as numbers on the scoreboard. The fact that I cant name anyone off my mind right now speaks for itsself. I do however remember plenty of pilots who-
*fly one specific side
*switch teams to avoid competition
*drop flying once theres a better pilot airbourne

The common factor in all those cases was the LACK OF INITIATIVE TO ACCEPT THE CHALLENGE OF THE TASK. Which is what Im trying to tell you, but since youre so obsessed with points, it doesnt get through.

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?

No. But because the pilots have a worse effect on their average target (who thinks he cant fight back), pilots will essentially be labeled as smacktards. The fun fact is that THOSE guys who fight on ground, and call pilots smacktards have experienced the smacktardism itsself in minimal levels as they dont really fly at all, or that much.

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

Youre the one that has been dancing. Im trying to get the point through and youre still dancing around one thing and one thing only- points. Which just proves my claim I made a long time ago. Any time theres a heated opposition to the pilots on these forums, they are fueled by PTS.

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

Youre trying to argue in an area you have no knowledge about. So how about you drop that pseudo-professional attitude and get the fvck off?

[Raidyr]

Re: Jets make up for artillery?

Jets need less bombs...

Infantry needs more AA...

[imported_Elder]

Re: Jets make up for artillery?

Am I the only one who can see the potential of current dogfighting? With self guided physics? One would think Dcon team had a lot more up their sleeves and actually used their talent to think outside the box. Replicating something just because it was the limitation in an older game isnt the proper way out.

Once again the reason for DC not having guided missiles wasn't because of the limits of the 42 engine. It was possible to do, one mod even used them but nobody liked them and thought they were stupid. DC could have coded it easily and added to one of their releases but they chose not to. The A-10s cluster bombs had twice as much coding involved as the missiles, it wasn't a coding issue that kept guiding missiles out of DC.

And skill? Scrap that sh!t.

I'm guessing you've never played DC at a high level, against any great pilots, or at all. DC/42 planes took much more skill and had a much steeper learning curve than BF2 planes.

This kind of missile system will wipe out any chances for EU and US pilots to have a brawl.

1) Not really, BF2 has a far better netcode than 42 and the ping issues aren't as big of a deal.

2) If it did, so what? Most people only keep to servers that are near them and there are no leagues which have both NA and EU players competing in them. Adding guided missiles so some people accross the atlantic can have a more even dogfight in some pub or a 1v1 is not a good reason to implement them at all.

Just to give an example of thinking outside the box- BF2 bombers LGMs are a perfect ground to start creating a skill based ATA missile, where the missile tracks a jet aslong as youve got the jet in your lock cone.

The missiles travel so fast it's not hard at all to keep the planes in your lock zone for the time it takes the missile to hit the plane. This would also just make long distance dogfights (ie large radius high alt turning) never end and make missile spamming right behind someone much more effective. Like BF2 it would also eliminate the ability for head-on shots, perpendicular shots, and 3rd person shots.

Skill, reliability, all nice and dandy.

And hitbox issues you could consider as bugs, because they are fixable.

Skill? Hell no. Reliability? How much more reliable can you can that a STRAIGHT SHOT missile. You know that no matter what it's going straight, you can count on that and adjust your aim accordingly, there's not a factor of randomness added like there are with guided missiles.

Hitbox issues don't effect straight fire missiles and so far I've yet to see anyone fix them since this game has come out. So much for that idea.

[Chris_Redfield]

Re: Jets make up for artillery?

It was possible to do, one mod even used them but nobody liked them and thought they were stupid.

I remember reading that BF1942 didnt allow guided missiles, this is news to me. And if you think about it, perhaps they were thought of as stupid because they resembled BF2 missiles a tad too much? Meaning- lock on, fire, score 2 points?!

I'm guessing you've never played DC at a high level, against any great pilots, or at all. DC/42 planes took much more skill and had a much steeper learning curve than BF2 planes.

Absolutely no doubt. But saying you need to play with a sword, even though you can have a gun, just because it takes a lot more skill and chivalry, is stupid too. Theres so many options to tackle with to create a skill based, reliable, fun, missile system with a fairly steep learning curve.

Lock cone (the area on the HUD that locks to the enemy jet)
The potential to create missiles that stay on course aslong as you keep the enemy jet in your crosshairs
Lock timing (the time it takes for you to lock on to the enemy)
Fire delay (the time it takes the missile to start tracking the jet after its been launched)

1) Not really, BF2 has a far better netcode than 42 and the ping issues aren't as big of a deal.

You think? Ive had plenty of people who play on US side ask me what the fvck am I doing with a 150, because they found the game, its air aspect especially, completely unplayable. I havent noticed it myself, but from what Ive been told- jets turn more sluggish, missiles have a higher rate of missing, and of course we cant forget the total uselessness of the cannons, compared to the opponent with low ping. Theres a sweet spot on every jet, where it takes maximum hits from cannon fire, imagine trying to find that sweet spot somewhere behind or in front of a jet in a middle of a dogfight, especially when the spot itsself will shift depending on the turn and speed. Thats BF2 reliability, multiplied with higher ping.

2) If it did, so what? Most people only keep to servers that are near them and there are no leagues which have both NA and EU players competing in them. Adding guided missiles so some people accross the atlantic can have a more even dogfight in some pub or a 1v1 is not a good reason to implement them at all.

True that, but it would be a hell of a good reason to bring intercontinental players closer together. Its a one small step, but a step nonetheless. I for one, always look for NA servers first, and Im from Eastern Europe.

The missiles travel so fast it's not hard at all to keep the planes in your lock zone for the time it takes the missile to hit the plane.

This is merely a test and adjustment issue. Couple up veteran dogfighters, explain them how you want the system work in theory, let them brawl and ask them how it worked and what would it take to bring it closer to the way it worked in theory. All testing.

This would also just make long distance dogfights (ie large radius high alt turning) never end and make missile spamming right behind someone much more effective.

And how exactly would that be different from dumbfiring rockets? What youre saying here is only an issue that youll see between a jet vastly superior to other. One can, in that case always outturn the other and never be under cannon/dumbfire missile fire. And whats wrong with missile spam behind someone? Flares, flares, flares, plus the maneuvers to break the lock, which by the way would truly determine a pilots skill, as hes breaking the missile lock by breaking the tails lock. Isnt that skill?

You once said that the new BF2 missiles required a different set of skills, dont contradict yourself now.

My point is that BF2 engine allows for a reliable guided missile that rewards skill. No need to stay in stoneage just because people back then liked o throw rocks at each other, no matter how much more skill it took,

Like BF2 it would also eliminate the ability for head-on shots, perpendicular shots, and 3rd person shots.

Head-on shots? Not likely.
Perpendicular shots? Depends on skill (!).
3rd person shots? If youre flying 3rd person, youre probably relying on the lock tone to fire and forget the missiles in BF2, with closer aiming reticle, or a radar-esque guiding system, itll take a lot more skill to fire a successful shot from 3rd person view, and Id say thats a welcoming change.

Skill? Hell no. Reliability? How much more reliable can you can that a STRAIGHT SHOT missile.

Lag
Latency
BF2 hit detection

At least, a guided missile will compensate for the ammount of work a pilot can do in BF2 terms, in order to calculate the proper spot to aim for (which, with any higher ping, will not be the jet). And while you srcatch a notch off demand for skill, youll make the battleground more even for both pilots. Its a win-win situation.

You know that no matter what it's going straight, you can count on that and adjust your aim accordingly, there's not a factor of randomness added like there are with guided missiles.

Oh you know thats nonsense. Maybe if youve played in sub 30 ping for all/most of your time, but not for most people who jump regularly between servers giving them anywhere from 20 to 100. There is no factor of randomness if missiles are coded right, especially when they are pilot guided. Even then, you code them so they wont deviate if fired without the lock, and youve got a multidimensional weapon that can be used any way you choose to. DC style rock throwing, and Warrock style skill based modern combat. I dislike the fire-and-forget type in PvP games probably more than you do. But I can see the potential to at least soften it up.

Hitbox issues don't effect straight fire missiles and so far I've yet to see anyone fix them since this game has come out. So much for that idea.

Thats probably because theyve circumvented the issue. A) They probably increased the hitbox meshes and made them as equal in size as possible and B) which is a fact- proximity fuse eliminates any and all possibilities for an unsuccessful hit.

It hasnt debunked ANYthing, theyve just proved that they are smart enough to go around the problems and create something that isnt affected by BF2s known issues.

[Maverick2201]

Re: Jets make up for artillery?

What about this:

Jets have to actually LAND to re-arm bombs but can re-arm ATA w/ a flyby... this way they can't just bomb and bomb and bomb.. they'd have to pick strategic targets but they could re-load their defense/ATA mechanism quickly...

what do you guys think of this?

Jets have to actually fully land and come to a complete stop to re-arm bombs but can re-arm ATA missiles w/ a flyby...

This would prevent pilots from bombing anything and everything in sight and force them to pick strategic, important targets. This would also allow M95 snipers to keep airbases under control as the planes taxi on the runway...

[Chris_Redfield]

Re: Jets make up for artillery?

How about this being a bullsh!t idea? The air strip isnt 100 miles off, you can successfully land an ERYX/SRAW shot from halfway across the map and kill the jet. Add to the fact that the air strip lacks ANY cover whatsoever and you can see that its total and stupid nonsense.

The closest thing would be rearming ammo that youve selected. Bombs reload if youre on bombing HUD and missiles in ATA HUD.

[Maverick2201]

Re: Jets make up for artillery?

whoa there, chief... didn't mean to step on your toes... I suppose that would mean that jets might have to slow up the relentless bombing... the point is, jets currently bomb even if there IS no box or any visible targets. Just because they have unlimited bombs and it only takes seconds to re-arm them. Thats certainly not realistic...

anyone else besides flyboy have an opinion on this? Obviously he would object to this because it would limit his raining hell on us groundpounders...

and with regard to the "rearming only whats selected" comment, how would that slow a pilot like you up one bit? You could swoop on one HUD and immelman around for another pass in seconds... that wouldn't really slow you down much nor would it give anyone at the airfield a chance to down you...

[camper.]

Re: Jets make up for artillery?

Landing the jets is a no-no. This is BF2, not LOMAC.

For this to work, you'd need to make the airstrip out of bounds to the enemy like in PR, or you'd have to make it a zillion miles away from the action like in real life.

As for jets bombing even though there is no box:

1.) Stop WAITING FOR THE F*CKING J10

2.) If you let the enemy cap every other flag but one, you deserve all the rapeage you get

3.) See No. 2



I've never had a problem with the jets, if you suspect they're bombing you, just swerve to the side, 99% of the time this willl leave you without a scratch.


Obviously you've never tried jets in this game, because you can't just friggin half-loop back into the airstrip.

[Maverick2201]

Re: Jets make up for artillery?

Uhm... first, I have 18+ hours in a jet so while I'm obviously not very experienced, one could say I've tried them.

second, it's not that hard for an experienced pilot to land a plane and then become airborne in less than a minute... I've done it a hundred times and I suck. If you let your enemy get into your backfield and/or take bases direcly adjacent to your airfield, (insert pilot's name here) deserves to have an SRAW/ERYX shoved up his turbine.

Third, what do you mean you cant just half-loop back to the airfield?? Maybe you've never tried planes in BF2 because it's quite easy to go over the runway, pull up hard until you've done a 180, roll over and dive for the airfield once again... How is that hard? When I do fly, thats how I repair, i just do that over and over until repaired...

[disfigured]

Re: Jets make up for artillery?

See here in lies the problem, the unwillingness to budge.

I'm going to suggest things, tell if they are unreasonable inconveniences for pilots.

Elimination of the the unobstructed view in Jets?

Eliminating 3rd Person view of only jets, or for all vehicles?

No attacking STAs in servers that protect UCBs that have airstrips in them? Not a bad trade off, you get to take off unmolested, but have to wary of airspace in the range of STAs at all times. Could include mobile STA.

Less splash damage on bombs?

No machine guns on jets, only ATA and bombs?

MGs that over heat at a higher rate?

Less powerful MGs.

No attacking ground troops or vehicles in servers that protect air strips?

Put it this way, as pilots what would you tolerate and at the same time consider bettering the game that could be implemented either through a server side setting or administrative rule?

Is there's something pilots want? What sacrifice would pilots want others in the game to make, if you were to comply to those other player's wishes?

There are many rules created by servers administrators that people follow (to varying success) and many players believe these rules better the game.

Let's end a nasty thread on a positive. We can all disagree one what can't be done. Can we agree on something that can?

[Maverick2201]

Re: Jets make up for artillery?

Disfigured, what do you think of forcing planes to land to rearm bombs?

[This_guy_faith]

Re: Jets make up for artillery?

Haha! You think thats bad...


2x J-10s America Stole while we still had Airfield.
2x F-32s or whatever Americas Standard jets are.
2x of the American Jets that spawn once American have claimed the AF.
1x Enemy artillery
1x Friendly artillery.

Unfortunatly, the commander of our team hated being china, so he decided to arty his own team.

So roughly 4+ planes bombing 1 base (we only had that at the time), Double artillery, and tanks and jeeps running us over gunning us down.

We all died apart from a private, who, luckilly managed to heal a squad leader, we all spawned on him, and captured airfield back.

We won the round, and I say? About 30 people won Purple Hearts.


My K/D was 7/52. And I wasn't last..I was about 10th out of 30-32.

Nobody was ordering Mutinys..basically we were a MESS!!

[camper.]

Re: Jets make up for artillery?

The thing is, the jets are perfectly fine as it is - if your team actually WORKS TOGETHER and takes down the enemy jets (i.e. with your own jets).

Yet again:

If you let your enemy get into your backfield and/or take bases direcly adjacent to your airfield, (insert pilot's name here) deserves to have an SRAW/ERYX shoved up his turbine.

As for forcing jets to land, this wont work - with the F-35 you can go from burning up to fully rearmed and repaired in about 30 seconds, and that's still quite a bit too long because that's 30 seconds you're a sitting duck for the enemy jet.

But if you let your enemy cap every flag and force you to one flag then you deserve all the spawn rapage you get. Whereas the jet pilot can't really kill the 1 or 2 infantry on the carrier/airstrip, a 32 man team is quite adept at holding flags.

Again, the only way you could really do that is to make airfields inaccessible to enemy jets.


As for doing the 180 flip, I've never managed to do that well, because it only takes 1 run for full rearming and repairing if you've done a good job flying, i.e. killed the other jets.

Elimination of the 3rd person view or unobstructed view? Hell no. Why don't you force ground pounders to have the top and bottom of the screen obscured because of helmets and the like? Eliminating either takes a ****load away from dogfighting.

No attacking STA? No, the Phalanx guns and the other AAs at airfields ONLY (no mobile AAs) need both a heavy armour upgrade and radar, at the least. The best would be to give them a weak aimbot, which would actually force J10 whores to use tactics to rape the carrier.

Less splash damage on bombs? Whachyoubeensmokingnigga? They're 2000lb bombs, not firecrackers. They should be able to blow the carrier into smithereens, but they don't even scratch the surface. If anything, it should be that bombs have increased, well, everything, actually making them bombs rather than just a bunch of grenades tied together but a) make the plane hard to maneouver and b) take 2x as long to reload.


No MGs on jets = nonono. That would take half the fun out of the jets and it just turns you into an MK82 postman. No way in hell. Jet MGs don't overheat, which is quite stupid. IMO, they should lock up at certain G-forces, like in real life. This would take 95% of rapeage away and force people to actually use the MGs properly. Not that BF2 physics, which treats grenades like paper balls could possibly handle this.

"No attacking ground troops or vehicles in servers that protect air strips?"
No point to this at all...


Well, I guess I've said my .02...


There's actually a VERY easy fix to this whole thing - just create an AA class. That'll effectively force jets to do mostly bombing, high altitude strafing (i.e. you can't get sniped by the f*ckers as they spot you from 20ft) and of course, it won't hinder A2A if the range is low enough. But that presents another problem - it UTTERLY nerfs the helis. Maybe if they were able to lock onto only jets and helis would only take damage from dumbfire, make them wire-guided - a more powerful SRAW/ERYX for the air.

[Chris_Redfield]

Re: Jets make up for artillery?

See here in lies the problem, the unwillingness to budge.

To stupid and subjective ideas, yes.

Elimination of the the unobstructed view in Jets?

Why? This will not benefit ground targets one bit.

Eliminating 3rd Person view of only jets, or for all vehicles?

And thus eliminating the only chance against superior jets? Get an hour airbourne, Maverick.

No attacking STAs in servers that protect UCBs that have airstrips in them? Not a bad trade off, you get to take off unmolested, but have to wary of airspace in the range of STAs at all times. Could include mobile STA.

Too many small rules like these. Very hard to enforce.

Less splash damage on bombs?

No.

No machine guns on jets, only ATA and bombs?

Thus eliminating the only chance a pilot has against jets that dont get hit by missiles? Get an hour airbourne, Maverick. I told you before, youre no pilot, stop making stupid suggestions.

MGs that over heat at a higher rate?

Youll get a 3 second time to target a target anyway, air fights take much longer than that, plus, theres lagshooting that requires extra ammount of cannon time.

Less powerful MGs.

LOL, get an hour airbourne, Maverick. Do some cannon dogfighting. You could reduce cannon damage on everything else except jets, thats about it.

No attacking ground troops or vehicles in servers that protect air strips?

No attacking ground units in air strips period.

Here are little more reasonable changes-

*Reduction of bomb splash damage radius to make them precision anti-vehicular weapons
*Reduction of cannon splash damage to 0
*Reduction of ATS HUD detection range to 275 (from 375)
*No STA/FAV/Humvee indication on HUD
*No STA indication on map (occupied/unoccupied)
*Increase in STA damage, increase in chopper armor (jets 2 hit kill, choppers 3 hit kill)
*Selection specific reloading- jet reloads ammo type its currently selected (2-3 passes to fully reload)
*Mobile STA not indicated on HUD