Jets make up for artillery?

[Raidyr]

Re: Jets make up for artillery?

First off, jet machineguns shouldn't have splash damage whatsoever. None of the planes in this game (except the A-10, correct me if I am wrong) fire HE rounds.

Secondly, I do think that the bombs should be changed to anti-tank weapons. I have been bombed as infantry FAR more than in a vehicle.

Just my 2 cents.

Remember that I am not a pilot, nor do I think planes are overpowered. I just agree with Chris that they are too versatile at the moment.

[disfigured]

Re: Jets make up for artillery?

Well no surprise here, every idea that could be implemented at this present moment is shot down. Pun intended.

The funny thing is out of 32 man team only 2 people are flying at any given time pilots feel they are the authority to comment on game balance and not relinquish any of your "fun" or ability to dogfight. We should get more flying time to understand? Shouldn't it be the opposite, shouldn't you as pilots get more ground time to gain a better perspective on the BF2 experience? That's where most of the game is played by most of the people.

As you don't care about what happens to ground troops, most people on the ground could care less if your dogfight experience is lessened.

See to most people playing the game they don't give a damn about your dogfights. It's not Dogfight2 , it's not BattleAir2, it's BattleField2.

Jets detract from the game, and really pose no positives what so ever. How can I make such a claim? Because they're not needed.

Dogfight dogfight, dogfight, that's what I hear from pilots and in this thread constantly. The rest of the jets dynamics are ill fitted and cause balance problems once pilots are unopposed. But that can't be changed because of the delicate balance of the dogfight. SO other people suffer or have to resort to tediously sacrificial lamb type strategies like manning the STAs to preserve dogfighting, and for what?

There's not a single ground vehicle that can't be handled by ground troops. Essentially the jets are not needed on any map. There are maps that everyone enjoys that have tanks and not a single person says to themselves "if I only had a pilot to call on for help". The maps play themselves out quite well. That in itself should indicate something is wrong with air integration in BF2.

Your asking the entire community of players to have a worse gaming experience to preserve a tiny aspect of the game that in the long run wouldn't effect any map if it were eliminated entirely.

[Raidyr]

Re: Jets make up for artillery?

Funny thing, in Battlefield 1942 and Vietnam, most of the pilots go after tanks/flags. BF2 is the only game I know where I can spawn, take 2 steps, and have about 3 different aircraft shoot my *** from hundreds of feet up

[cloustron101]

Re: Jets make up for artillery?

The best AA solution I've found only works on maps w/ Carriers...

First off, NEVER use the AA gun on the end of the carrier, it's got absoultely no protection from enemy fire and they can hit from virtually any direction they want.

Now, the one about midway across the carrier is workable, it's got the protection of the control towers if nothing else.

But the trick, is to stay sitting at the edge of the railing next to the missle pod. Just sit there and wait till u spot a jet coming towards the ship.

Don't get in the AA gun right then. By not jumping into it and by staying on the edge of the railing, you avoid giving them an easy lock and prevent yourself from getting killed if they decide to shoot the AA anyway.

Once they are very close and you know they're not going to shoot your AA station, jump in and shoot the crap out of them.

Takes them by surprise and gets you some nice ownage without having a K/D ratio of like 1/10 for the round :).

What do you guys think?

---As for "dogfighting" the only aircraft I've even enjoyed doing that in is the A10 Warthog. Since there are no missles, you have to hit 'em with the machine gun. Makes it much more a battle of aerobatics and makes the fights last longer. Quite fun :)

[Chris_Redfield]

Re: Jets make up for artillery?

Well no surprise here, every idea that could be implemented at this present moment is shot down. Pun intended.

Thats beause most of your ideas are stupid, and reflect the inexperience in air aspect you hae, pun intended.

The funny thing is out of 32 man team only 2 people are flying at any given time pilots feel they are the authority to comment on game balance and not relinquish any of your "fun" or ability to dogfight. We should get more flying time to understand? Shouldn't it be the opposite, shouldn't you as pilots get more ground time to gain a better perspective on the BF2 experience? That's where most of the game is played by most of the people.

Wow wow wow, hold on just one minute. I said that cannon damage should NOT be reduced because it would be a plinking fest in air. You know jack what youre talking about so naturally you beliee aerial cannons should be of power of a Ak47. Let me enlighten you a bit. APC, cars and RIBs excluded, cannon does the most damage with its splash radius, and not direct impact. Its hard to get a stream of solid hits on a moving target anyway, it takes sh!tload of skill.

Reduction of cannon damage itsself would work ONLY if jets armor would be reduced. But since youre not a person with objective point of view, you didnt even consider that balancin option. Its all about "nerf this and nerf that because I dont like to die" to you. Grow some balls.

As you don't care about what happens to ground troops, most people on the ground could care less if your dogfight experience is lessened.

Let me enlighten you, because you obviously cant think more than a step ahead. If dogfight aspect is harmed, there will be continious, constant, regular "treaties" between pilots on an even higher level than it is right now.

You, as a grunt, will get an even shorter end of the stick.

See to most people playing the game they don't give a damn about your dogfights. It's not Dogfight2 , it's not BattleAir2, it's BattleField2.

Im not surprised, those "most" people dont give too sh!ts about me actually doing my job either. I dont remember anyone saying anyone thanks for taking out a target that posed significant threat. So much for "good groundpounders with manners"

Jets detract from the game, and really pose no positives what so ever. How can I make such a claim? Because they're not needed.

Then why dont you bugger off to IO mode? Jets balance out the flag cappin potential of a tank/APC/helo. Without a jet, a tanker can go and get just as great scores as a pilot would. Proof? Ever seen PWs Mashtuur video? 43-0 run, even with all the AT soldiers having a go at him?

Dogfight dogfight, dogfight, that's what I hear from pilots and in this thread constantly. The rest of the jets dynamics are ill fitted and cause balance problems once pilots are unopposed. But that can't be changed because of the delicate balance of the dogfight. SO other people suffer or have to resort to tediously sacrificial lamb type strategies like manning the STAs to preserve dogfighting, and for what?

Youre a moron, I cant stress out thus fact enough. Even after all the arguments Ive presented to create a reasonable case youre still crying

pilots are unopposed

And who even mentioned "delicate balance of dogfighting". Do you WANT to be raped on the ground or not? Do you want pilots to never engage each other or not? ATA is a part of every pilot out there, either he be a target or the hunter.

You just grabbed the last straw, blindly taking my quote of dogfighting taking a hit with less cannon damage. This is stupid, you didnt even go further from there. You didnt even realize WHY I would oppose less cannon damage. You just think I selfishly cry for dogfighting taking a dive. You havent flown and you act as if youre a god damn expert. Ever heard of all the threads about J10 and F18, and other jets that occasionally ditch missiles?

As an infantry, do you really think you die because a pilot is that good (accordin to you of course- skilless), that he can shoot you down with a direct cannon hit? You die because of splash damage, because unlike choppers/tanks, a jet is an indirect weapon.

There's not a single ground vehicle that can't be handled by ground troops. Essentially the jets are not needed on any map. There are maps that everyone enjoys that have tanks and not a single person says to themselves "if I only had a pilot to call on for help". The maps play themselves out quite well. That in itself should indicate something is wrong with air integration in BF2.

Yup, considering that the average BF2 player is a fvcking mindless moron, I am not surprised one bit. And every air vehicle can be handled by anyone, its just a matter of profieciency. If you dont take the time to learn how to use is, quit b!tching, and even better, quit saying it takes no skill just because you aint got no skill to use it.

Your asking the entire community of players to have a worse gaming experience to preserve a tiny aspect of the game that in the long run wouldn't effect any map if it were eliminated entirely.

LOL, youre a moron. Youve based this entire quote on me defending cannon direct damage that wouldnt even affect you in the first place. "To have a worse gaming experience"? That would imply that reducing cannon splash damage would make things worse. Or that leaving cannon as is, would make things worse. Or, that defending people who play this game with CS attitde, is a good thing to do.

I shot your idea down because it would kill dogfighting. You know what dogfighting is? Its "no more bombs up your as5 while you cap flags" in short.

[JTF2_darkloop]

Re: Jets make up for artillery?

to be honest, i think that jets are equally part of the game as every aspect besides them, am i wrong?

[Chris_Redfield]

Re: Jets make up for artillery?

to be honest, i think that jets are equally part of the game as every aspect besides them, am i wrong?

Indeed they are, and in theory they work out there just fine. The problem arises from the fact that jets put a little too much impact on where they shouldnt, which is infantry.

[Raidyr]

Re: Jets make up for artillery?

Indeed they are, and in theory they work out there just fine. The problem arises from the fact that jets put a little too much impact on where they shouldnt, which is infantry.

Agreed.

[thomasy93]

Re: Jets make up for artillery?

ive taken down lots of jets on wake:P in one round:10


use anti air...*stinger*

[imported_Elder]

Re: Jets make up for artillery?

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?!

No they actually worked much better than the BF2 ones, had a smaller radius and the hitboxes were better between different aircraft. Nobody liked them because they took away the most skillful part of dogfighting, the 3rd person kills, head to head kills, etc. The planes in DC turned at an extremely high rate and when two good pilots were dogfighting it was almost never a turning war like in BF2, there were so many things you could do to get a window a very short window of opportunity to fire on them, which was very hard to do and took a look more skill than BF2.

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)

All of these things require that you always be on the tail of your opponent, hence turning wars as the only option to ending a dogfight. There are no split second opportunities to capitizile on and no other options other than to get on the tail of your opponent.

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.

The only thing I've noticed in this game that relies on ping is the TV guided missiles, everything else I have been able to do with pings over 200 including the guns on jets. My team owns a server in Texas and I live in Canada which leads to terrible pings during matches. My ping averages between 100-150, I never ping below 90, and I consistantly spike up to 200-300 pings, however I have not had any trouble at all compared to what a difference in ping would make in 42. In 42 if I had a ping over 120 the game was completely unplayable, here I have pings well over that quite often and can still completely rape.

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.

Improving the quality of playing between continents will come with time as they develope better and faster technology, don't rely on a very small part of a mod for a game to do this. Having the missiles being guided rather than dumbfire won't suddenly cause a massive increase of people playing in servers far from themselves, nor will having dumb fire missiles over guided ones ruin the quality of the gameplay between the very few of those who already do.

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.

Testing is a very long process and why would the community want to stay through constant releases that couldn't "get it right"? DCon devs would be lucky to get even one competent dogfighter as a tester and there would still be a ton of issues after it was released that would need to be changed later. I'm not interested in taking the time to do some major guess and check work, or stand by waiting and playing a broke mod while others do, when there is a perfectly good system already that only needs a few minor tweaks and adjustments.

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?

Not really, any nub can continually break the lock. If there is a target in my crosshairs I should be able to ****ing kill him, instantly, regardless if he has flares, if he's facing me, travelling in the same direction as me, or flying perpendicular to me. I shouldn't have to rely on a guided missile to do the job for me or miss the enemy plane even though I have a clear shot at it.

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

Really? You want to link me to that cause I'm 99.9% sure I've never said anything like that. I have always and will always maintain the opinion that 42 and DC planes required 100x the skill that BF2 ones do.

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,

Stop comparing technology in the real world to a game that is meant to be played for fun. If we wanted realism or the best technology possible in this game then it would look nothing like it does now. This is an ARCADE type game and anything that adds more fun or skill to it is a welcome change. If you want to compare the dumbfire missiles to rocks then go ahead, I'll have fun with my little rocks that are much more fun and take a hell of a lot more skill than any faggotry guided missile system that has ever been used in a vanilla version or mod of any of the battlefield series games.

Head-on shots? Not likely.
Perpendicular shots? Depends on skill (!).

Perpendicular shots would be impossible with the system you're describing. Once again when something is in my crosshairs, I should be able to kill it, regardless of what direction it's facing. You don't see infantry chasing each other around in circles because they're only vulnerable spot is their backs do you? Planes should be able to be shot down from all angles as long as you can get the proper lead and shot on them.

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.

3rd person shots are when you are looking in one of the three 3rd person views while in a dogfight to keep track of your opponent and you make a maneuver that gives you a window of opportunity so small that you don't have enough time to switch to the F9 view to use your crosshairs as a reference. They were the hardest shots to master in DC because they required the most complex maneuvers, the fastest reaction time, and the hardest possible way of aiming.

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.

I'd much rather keep that notch for skill (a rather large one) then to even the battlefield SLIGHTLY for those rare occurances when two pilots face off with a large difference in ping. You are clearly biased to this since you say you always play in US servers while living in Europe, but this really doesn't effect a lot of people. Do you think the other 99% of people who don't ever dogfight people accross the ocean would really care to make a change like this and decrease the amount of skill needed just so a few people can have a more even playing field? No, like I said before there are no leagues that have both NA and Euro teams and people almost always pub where they can get the best ping (the majority of the people who don't do this don't know what in the hell ping is, remember, people are stupid).

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.

Like I said before I regularely play with higher than average pings and I'm lucky to find a sever where I ping under 70 in. With guiding missiles there will always be a random factor that takes place, because afterall it is the missile that is doing the work, not the pilot. I'd rather be 100% in control of the kills I get rather than have to worry if a guided missile is going to work or not, like it currently is in vanilla BF2.

IF AND ONLY IF they could code it so that you could make the missiles straight fire OR guided then I would agree with this. If I could in a sense "disarm" the missiles so I could always shoot them straight regardless of lock then I wouldn't mind taring up anyone who decided to use the guided missile mode instead.

[Maverick2201]

Re: Jets make up for artillery?

By the way, in case you were wondering, Chris... I didn't say half the stuff you blasted me for saying in post #75. I never suggested removing 3rd person/unobstructed view... I never suggested removing machine guns on jets... I never suggested less powerful MG fire from jets... Go back and re-read my posts if you disagree but you're accusing me of saying things I didn't say. Also, there's no reason to act like I'm completely talking out of my arse saying things like, "Get an hour airborne." I have several hours airborne and I've tried flying jets. I'm not completely ignorant on the issue.

[Chris_Redfield]

Re: Jets make up for artillery?

Nobody liked them because they took away the most skillful part of dogfighting, the 3rd person kills, head to head kills, etc. The planes in DC turned at an extremely high rate and when two good pilots were dogfighting it was almost never a turning war like in BF2, there were so many things you could do to get a window a very short window of opportunity to fire on them, which was very hard to do and took a look more skill than BF2.

Which basically means that with dumbfiring missiles you were able to fire at the first chance of opportunity and get a kill. And the chance wasnt limited to any kind of movement. While I do agree that it takes skill to land a dumbfiring missile at a target, I must point out that creating a missile shot opportunity comes secondary, while exploiting the slightest is primary.

On another note, you and me are talking on different pages. And I think I should be a little more specific on the guidance system Im talking about. I guess youve never played Warrock, where this was implemented ( at least back when I played the beta).

The missiles werent fire and forget like BF2 ones. You basically had to create a lock, then fire and KEEP the lock in order for the missile to reach the jet and hit it. The process took seconds and throughout the whole time the target had a chance to break the lock.

And whats wrong with turning wars? I dont mean circlejerking where a pilot with a superior jet keeps flying in circles to never allow the opposition to have a lock. Im sure Dcon crew would have learned from F35B/J10 situation which is an extreme example of jet inbalance.

All of these things require that you always be on the tail of your opponent, hence turning wars as the only option to ending a dogfight.

Maneuver and outmaneuver, whats wrong with that? You eliminate the severe imbalancies between jets and you will have no circlejerking, which is probably the only truly bad thing about a turning dogfight. In which case youll get solid locks or cannon firing opportunities. Add to the theory that with the manually guided (the ones Im talking about) missiles maneuver and track being limited only to the pilot, a circlewar will end up in favour of the tail.

There are no split second opportunities to capitizile on and no other options other than to get on the tail of your opponent.

Not really. This is purely a matter of coding. Specifically the lock range and lock timing. In which case perpendicular shots arent an issue. And if youre talking about taking advantage of splitsecond opportunities, I must point out that with dumbfiring missiles, theres a hell of of a lot more of those.

The only thing I've noticed in this game that relies on ping is the TV guided missiles, everything else I have been able to do with pings over 200 including the guns on jets.

In case were talking about using cannons on jets in dogfight, then I find this VERY hard to believe. The only jets I can think of that you can successfully gun down (although, with added time) are the bombers, and possibly the F35B as it has a very open sweetspot for cannon fire which registers an insane ammount of hits.

My team owns a server in Texas and I live in Canada which leads to terrible pings during matches. My ping averages between 100-150, I never ping below 90, and I consistantly spike up to 200-300 pings, however I have not had any trouble at all compared to what a difference in ping would make in 42. In 42 if I had a ping over 120 the game was completely unplayable, here I have pings well over that quite often and can still completely rape.

Bingo, bot guided missiles overcome the disadvantage, thus leveling the playing field. And while BF2 "fire and forget" is littered with bugs and takes less skill than dumbfiring missiles, Im sure a system where you have to keep the lock all the way through would basically meet these two inbetween, satisfying both parties.

Testing is a very long process and why would the community want to stay through constant releases that couldn't "get it right"? DCon devs would be lucky to get even one competent dogfighter as a tester and there would still be a ton of issues after it was released that would need to be changed later. I'm not interested in taking the time to do some major guess and check work, or stand by waiting and playing a broke mod while others do, when there is a perfectly good system already that only needs a few minor tweaks and adjustments.

Im sure a pilot with initiative, care, some basic knowledge and a little time, aswell as extensive experience in CD/BF2 isnt hard to find.

Seriously though, to get it "right", all devs have to do is to dive into the communities and look up for arguments such as this.

Not really, any nub can continually break the lock. If there is a target in my crosshairs I should be able to ****ing kill him, instantly, regardless if he has flares, if he's facing me, travelling in the same direction as me, or flying perpendicular to me. I shouldn't have to rely on a guided missile to do the job for me or miss the enemy plane even though I have a clear shot at it.

And ask yourself, how EASY it is to get the target into that specific spot on your HUD? Its easier than to track him down for those extra few seconds, isnt it? Which is the difference between a dumbfiring missile and a manually guided one. One capitalizes on the splitsecond window of opportunity after which you dont have to work no more, and another one relies on you picking the right maneuvers to stick with the target until its dead. Code them reliable, and its all fun fun fun.

The Top Gun esque turning wars of breaking and creating locks can begin.

Even this arguably newbish missile system BF2 has, you can tweak it so you can have skill-based dogfights. Simply add 2 seconds to the lock time, so it´ll take 3-4 seconds to have a lock, reduce lock cone so itll take a smaller area on the HUD to lock on, and you have to work for the successful shot.

Really? You want to link me to that cause I'm 99.9% sure I've never said anything like that. I have always and will always maintain the opinion that 42 and DC planes required 100x the skill that BF2 ones do.

You only have so many posts, I could find it right now. The argument you said it in, was between you and PlaneWhore, where PW said the new missiles took the skill out of the dogfight, and you said they simply created a new set of skills. It was probably in the "The truth about CAL" topic, as its the one you guys had the biggest clash. And DC wasnt even under discussion there so Im not arguing your opinion that DC took more skill.

Stop comparing technology in the real world to a game that is meant to be played for fun. ... If you want to compare the dumbfire missiles to rocks then go ahead, I'll have fun with my little rocks that are much more fun and take a hell of a lot more skill than any faggotry guided missile system that has ever been used in a vanilla version or mod of any of the battlefield series games.

Youre missing the point. Im talking about using the more advanced BF2 engines to create a reliable, NEW, lag-resistant missile system that relies on skill, maybe a different skill set than dumbfiring missile system, but major skill anyway.

Perpendicular shots would be impossible with the system you're describing.

Actually no. Think about it. You create the lock on the jet flying 350 metres in front of you crossing your path. You slow down a little to not to close the distance that fast, lock on, keep the jet in your crosshairs from the distance and see the missiles track down and hit the jet. If were talking about close distance, I would suggest that deviation of the missiles to be taken off and youd still shoot them off without a lock and possibly hit the jet. Problem solved?

Once again when something is in my crosshairs, I should be able to kill it, regardless of what direction it's facing.

I would agree with this kind of mentality, but isnt this what the system Im describing is all about? Its not an original concept. Radar guided missiles work kind of similarily in theory, WarRock in its Beta days implemented it just fine. The missiles lock aslong as the jet is in your crosshairs, you get the kill if you stick to the target better than he evades you. Simple process.

You don't see infantry chasing each other around in circles because they're only vulnerable spot is their backs do you?

I have seen infantry bunnyflop around each other to evade the shots. Clearly you see the irony in your statement?

3rd person shots are when you are looking in one of the three 3rd person views while in a dogfight to keep track of your opponent and you make a maneuver that gives you a window of opportunity so small that you don't have enough time to switch to the F9 view to use your crosshairs as a reference. They were the hardest shots to master in DC because they required the most complex maneuvers, the fastest reaction time, and the hardest possible way of aiming.

Youre talking about getting a kill while being in the worst of the disadvantages, exploiting a single moment to the max. Theres nothing glorious about it. It takes skill, sure, but only beacause you were forced to use that method.

Like I said before I regularely play with higher than average pings and I'm lucky to find a sever where I ping under 70 in. With guiding missiles there will always be a random factor that takes place, because afterall it is the missile that is doing the work, not the pilot. I'd rather be 100% in control of the kills I get rather than have to worry if a guided missile is going to work or not, like it currently is in vanilla BF2.

Not questioning that at all.

IF AND ONLY IF they could code it so that you could make the missiles straight fire OR guided then I would agree with this. If I could in a sense "disarm" the missiles so I could always shoot them straight regardless of lock then I wouldn't mind taring up anyone who decided to use the guided missile mode instead.

Again, simple coding. Make it so that missiles that arent locked fire straight and its done.

[disfigured]

Re: Jets make up for artillery?

No reason to wig out and get insulting Chris. I only suggested a few things, I didn't claim they were viable. I was only trying to find some common ground. Of course your reaction was totally predictable, an obnoxious temper tantrum ensues with you claiming utmost authority and knowledge on the subject. I'll ignore your insults and address you as I would a child.

Sometimes in the course of a game you have to sacrifice things for the betterment of the other people playing.

Take for example UCB rules (those created to make safe havens of spawns that can't be captured). I personally think it changes the entire dynamics of the game for the worse. In fact most of my issues when it comes to aircraft imbalance is only further exasperated by these rules. But when on a server (which is a lot of them) that implement these rules, I sacrifice what I feel would be a much better experience for myself, because the majority feels it makes the game more fun for them.

I'm curious Chris do you play on servers that have UCB rules or do you seek out the servers that play with no rules?

When the prone delay (which EA got backwards) got implemented , it really threw off my AT game when ducking for cover and popping back up again against tanks. It sort of sucked, but players in other areas felt it made their game more enjoyable. I adjusted my game accordingly and moved on.

It seems anything that would even remotely effect how you enjoy the game is off limits for tweaking no matter what the case. You ask for incredibly dull and dreary adjustments that you admit would not be "fun" for other players, in order to preserver the status quo. But when the same is asked of you , you turn it down flat, as if it's an insult.

"that would ruin dogfighting". Well lots of people have had what they like ruined by changes that were better for everyone in general. They adjusted or tried something else the game has to offer. One can't gauge a game by what works in the most ideal conditions. Games are supposed to fun, and fun for the majority of people who play them, at many different experience levels. There's a general consensus that the pilots in BF2 are overdrawn from this fun bank.

Yes you are the authority on why jets are too versatile. The changes you suggest will never come because they require a new patch, which is unlikely. But what would you sacrifice for the betterment of the people playing ?

It seems nothing, you are totally unwilling to do anything that might make other people enjoy the game more, if it even takes one iota of how you play the game away from you.

This thread may not have resolved or proven any issues right or wrong, but it has proven one thing.

Your a selfish arrogant know-it-all . There's no doubt about that in my mind.

Redeem yourself in this thread and name one thing you would do (or not do) that admittedly would make the game less enjoyable for you, but would improve the game's fun level for many others.

One thing, that's all I'm asking.

[imported_Elder]

Re: Jets make up for artillery?

This will be my last post in this topic and I'm sick of the quoting wars so I will only address a few of your comments which are absurdly wrong, the others I've already covered and we're just going in circles. Arguing is pretty much useless anyways considering that DCon will never implement guided missiles and BF2 has already lost EAs support for anything close to a decent future patch. Chris, if you want some kind of guided system like the one you describe then please go and try to ruin another mod or game, leave DCon and vanilla BF2 alone. Thanks.

Your system doesn't sound half bad, in theory, but then again that's all it is, theory. All your posts are about some magical system which could be created in theory but would likely never work how you intended and just end up being another one of the countless crappy guided missile systems. I'm simply talking about two different systems, both of which I have used for years, and deciding which is better based on experience, not theory.

You only have so many posts, I could find it right now. The argument you said it in, was between you and PlaneWhore, where PW said the new missiles took the skill out of the dogfight, and you said they simply created a new set of skills. It was probably in the "The truth about CAL" topic, as its the one you guys had the biggest clash. And DC wasnt even under discussion there so Im not arguing your opinion that DC took more skill.

So find it then, until then don't quote me on something I didn't say. I remember that thread and the response I gave to that was that I'd dogfight him in any patch so he could use any missiles he wants.

Youre talking about getting a kill while being in the worst of the disadvantages, exploiting a single moment to the max. Theres nothing glorious about it. It takes skill, sure, but only beacause you were forced to use that method.

Not at all, people used this because it was the hardest maneuver to see coming. People would intentionally put themselves in these positions to get these shots off. I remember practicing 1v1s and 2v2s constantly on how I could get myself to set up in these positions but still leave the opponent with no shot, then how I could move from those positions to get a kill shot. You're simply speculating on how it would have been, please don't try and comment on a mod for a game you never played at a high level of competition, or maybe even at all.

[Chris_Redfield]

Re: Jets make up for artillery?

Youre trying to adress me as a "child" (which by the way is an insult on its own, so hooray for hypocrisy and irony there, Sherlock), because youve got no case.

I'm curious Chris do you play on servers that have UCB rules or do you seek out the servers that play with no rules?

I dont seek out servers that offer the rule. I dont really like to rape the UCB, but I dont look for servers that offer me a safe haven there either. I simply sit my time out and probably hit a AT kit to not to be raped by armor if thats going to happen.

I adjusted my game accordingly and moved on.

Pilots have done the same thing since patch 1.2. Infantry hasnt.

But what would you sacrifice for the betterment of the people playing ?

Nothing, and any sane person wouldnt.

It seems nothing, you are totally unwilling to do anything that might make other people enjoy the game more, if it even takes one iota of how you play the game away from you.

There are two options. To be a selfrighteous knight in shining armor using the jets in order to "please everyone" and thus putting your own fun under fire, plus not having any respect for it anyway, and to be basically a retard. Or play your own game. I play my own game. Luckily for my conscience I mostly dogfought and didnt touch UCBs or jets grounded there (unless I wanted to prove a point), and I used my jet as a flag defense weapon and anti vehicular weapon. But that was MY FUN.

Your a selfish arrogant know-it-all . There's no doubt about that in my mind.

Irony, fat irony. Youve effectively described yourself and you dont even know it.

Redeem yourself in this thread and name one thing you would do (or not do) that admittedly would make the game less enjoyable for you, but would improve the game's fun level for many others.

Play my own game preserving maximum sportsmanship. But I integrate it into my own fun, and dont focus on it so that I could later cry my heart out that the gaming world is cruel.

Your system doesn't sound half bad, in theory, but then again that's all it is, theory. All your posts are about some magical system which could be created in theory but would likely never work how you intended and just end up being another one of the countless crappy guided missile systems.

Bull. It worked just damn fine in Warrock, and can be potentially coded into any mods in BF2. You dont believe it would work because you havent seen it work.

As for that quote, unless our discussion goes further, which it probably wont, Ill look it up sometimes later.