We were hacked. Several times over the past two weeks, in fact.
While all passwords are encrypted and salted, it's recommended that you change your password here when you can.
Only the default (TGN Light) theme for now. Dark them is also coming back soon. Then CSN. Then Wrestlin' Nation. A lot of WIP stuff right now. There are a couple of things still not working either. Sorry.
How about DICE make the radious damage of the airbrake bomb smaller? Perhaps, it encourages pilots start to do dogfight more often, and saves the grunt complains!
You have to remember, at the same time you improved the missiles on ground based AAs it is also improved for that 6 missiles normally useless on the jet.
The result? Maybe you can shoot down more noob pilots, but any pilot who know what hes doing will still kill you before you kill it, and since the missiles are more accurate, should save the trouble of actually gunning down the choppers when you can just use the missiles as your win-button.
The big problem with jets are, jets are mobile, AA are stationary.
Jets have the inititatve, they pick where and when it could engage, you on the other hand just have to hope you get luckey and facing the right direction, because you will only 1 second to realize you are being shot at.
AA vehicles are not stationary.
Given the implementation of the proposed suggestion, they would suddenly become much more valuable in their intended role.
It's also worth pointing out (again) that Air to Air missiles would also improve and thus you would have fighters chasing eachother and bombers all over the place.
Fighters are designed to kill bombers, bombers are designed to kill ground targets, ground based AA is deisgned to kill planes.
Rock, paper, sissors.
To All:
REMEMBER that there is NO chance that we will be seeing added aircraft. Please stop making any sort of comment that involves adding content to the game!
NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!
Another plausible solution to this issue that I've been thinking about is as follows. It's a bit drastic, I know, but I think it's all for the better.
Remove Seeking Missiles : Replace with AA guns.
This will remove all instances of the heat seeking missiles from the maps and replace with the AA guns (much like the Shilka used in DC, but stationary).
Why is this good: It will put the amount of damage you do to the aircraft in your hands, not the game's. I'm sure this is something we would all prefer. It would make shooting down a plane more than just waiting for a lock and pressing "shoot". You would need to lead your target.
The AA guns would also have a significant spread at longer distances, so people cannot shoot down aircraft from across the map.
But what about helicopters?
Helicopters would be prone to damage from the AA guns more than aircraft are. This is a significant drawback, but can easily be overcome with teamwork. If it's a public server, everything would rely on the skills of the chopper pilot and him having a gunner to eliminate the threat.
At the moment, if the missiles go live and the chopper didn't drop it's countermeasures... goodbye chopper. Here, it will take some time to shoot down the chopper using the AA guns so the chopper may have time to react of it's quick enough.
The damage can also be reduced a bit to allow the choppers some more time to survive. Even if this happens, the planes will still be vulnerable because they will take damage and freak out, causing them to go back for repairs.
On an added note, I'm not recommending that they completely remove lock-on sites... but atleast minimize them. Perhaps to main bases only? Or atleast have 2 at the main bases and 1 somewhre around the map in a good location.
Thanks for the organized post Wargimp. My idea maybe a bit too radical.. but it's all I can think of :)
As pilot, I would say that AA is fine now. Really. Check what planewhore says. USMC aircraft carrier with 2 AA can down now any plane. Just rarely somebody uses both AA. Yes there are good pilots out there, but admit it, they cannot be killed cause they are good. Learn to play AA and you get lots of kills. Choppers against AA now is a joke. Too easy to down them. Bombers are easy to kill. Go play Operation Cleansweep single player. You will see how bots uses AA.
Reduce plane armour, less flares. Excuse me, choppers got awful fast flare reload time, while plane gets 60 seconds or something.
I actually like idea that you need non-static AA because now in most maps you know where all AA vehicles are. Moving AA around would make that battle more interesting.
As you said its to wordy, without flaming/ea bashing, people dont know what to say anymore
Yeah... and no going off topic either.
I had hoped for a show of support here, but it's looking like people aren't even bothering to read anything beyond the title!
How hard is it to understand...
NO NEW CONTENT!
AA guns = new content = NOT going to happen.
I'd love to see some "Yeah, I dig it" posts here. This isn't a peeing match to see who can come up with the kewlest idea. This is about trying to get dice to implement a real, usable, practical, and balanced FIX!
If you can see any reason why the first post is off base, LET ME KNOW!
If you think it's fine and would work, SAY SO!
Grr.
You peoples!
:p
/rant
Yeah, I'd like to be getting some better dialog going here.
As pilot, I would say that AA is fine now. Really. Check what planewhore says. USMC aircraft carrier with 2 AA can down now any plane. Just rarely somebody uses both AA. Yes there are good pilots out there, but admit it, they cannot be killed cause they are good. Learn to play AA and you get lots of kills. Choppers against AA now is a joke. Too easy to down them. Bombers are easy to kill. Go play Operation Cleansweep single player. You will see how bots uses AA.
Reduce plane armour, less flares. Excuse me, choppers got awful fast flare reload time, while plane gets 60 seconds or something.
I actually like idea that you need non-static AA because now in most maps you know where all AA vehicles are. Moving AA around would make that battle more interesting.
GROAN!
What did I just say? What did I just say??
What exactly did I ever do to you that you would come and pee in my cornflakes like that?
Hu??
Mods... could we please just get this one clipped out?
Edit: Pant, pant, wheez.
:p
Ok... I'm clam now. I would rather you didn't suggest that AA is fine. It's simply Not. I SUCK as a pilot and I rarely get shot down. True, I crash a lot, but if I'm carful, I can say in the air for quite awhile. I don't think I've ever been shot down by enemy AA. Friendly, yes... enemy, no.
Thus, my rant. If you want to presue that topic, please start a new thread. Better yet, find one of the very many on that subject that already exist.
1. In BF1942 almost everything was well balanced except for the planes. Deja Vu! The BF109 was the king of the sky then like the J-10 is now! Flak was stationary and you where a sitting duck in it when you where up against a good pilot. DICE did not learn from this and have repeated the mistakes in BF2.
2. DICE has a history of introducing new vehicles and weapons for free. Liberation of Caen anyone? Which means that Handheld or movable AA is not out of the question.
3. I read an interview with DICE from a mIRC session and they said something along the lines of how hard it was to make the missile code. Since the AA in 1.03 isn't any better than it was in 1.02 I'm seriously questioning if we will see any improvement at all in the future.
4. If the carpet bombing from planes is the biggest problem why not nerf that ability? Make it so the planes must have a painted target and a guided missile/bomb. This is modern combat not a friggin WW2 carpet bombing campain. Give the fighter 1 and the bomber 2 missile/bombs and let the squads call in a target when they need help. A tank or APC is moving at a snail pace compared to the planes so it shouldn't be so hard to make a missile hit it. It would definetly give some breathing space to the poor grunts in Gulf of Oman who already have artillery strikes/helis/tanks and APC's to deal with.
1. In BF1942 almost everything was well balanced except for the planes. Deja Vu! The BF109 was the king of the sky then like the J-10 is now! Flak was stationary and you where a sitting duck in it when you where up against a good pilot. DICE did not learn from this and have repeated the mistakes in BF2.
Er... kinda off topic.
2. DICE has a history of introducing new vehicles and weapons for free. Liberation of Caen anyone? Which means that Handheld or movable AA is not out of the question.
It's not something that can be counted on and thus shouldn't be what we look to for a solution. BTW, There is movable AA in the game already. Those Linebackers would be seriously deadly if your missiles had a decent chance to hit.
3. I read an interview with DICE from a mIRC session and they said something along the lines of how hard it was to make the missile code. Since the AA in 1.03 isn't any better than it was in 1.02 I'm seriously questioning if we will see any improvement at all in the future.
This is why the idea of a prox fuse originally occured to me as the best possible solution. It leaves room for error. Most of the time when my missiles miss it's by less than 5 feet (and often because they've swerved to activly miss the target!). If those missiles had blown at 15 feet, it woulda made a big differance.
4. If the carpet bombing from planes is the biggest problem why not nerf that ability? Make it so the planes must have a painted target and a guided missile/bomb. This is modern combat not a friggin WW2 carpet bombing campain. Give the fighter 1 and the bomber 2 missile/bombs and let the squads call in a target when they need help. A tank or APC is moving at a snail pace compared to the planes so it shouldn't be so hard to make a missile hit it. It would definetly give some breathing space to the poor grunts in Gulf of Oman who already have artillery strikes/helis/tanks and APC's to deal with.
Nerfs are something that should be avoided.
It's never a popular move to make something less powerful.
However, it's my feeling that the solution I propose would allow fighters to hunt bombers effectivly. Thus, you've also solved that issue to a large extent.
4. If the carpet bombing from planes is the biggest problem why not nerf that ability? Make it so the planes must have a painted target and a guided missile/bomb. This is modern combat not a friggin WW2 carpet bombing campain. Give the fighter 1 and the bomber 2 missile/bombs and let the squads call in a target when they need help. A tank or APC is moving at a snail pace compared to the planes so it shouldn't be so hard to make a missile hit it. It would definetly give some breathing space to the poor grunts in Gulf of Oman who already have artillery strikes/helis/tanks and APC's to deal with.
As fighter pilot, I can say bombing with 1 bomb is much easier than with two. How bout make planes faster. Most people go at 100% speed anyway.
How about, a simple adjustment to the lock ranges?
An aircrafts onboard computer cant be all that complex really, it worries about internal mechanics and a little screen infront of a human.
Suppose..
Suppose you reduce all aircraft ground detection by 50%. Planes now need to get twice as close to detect a ground target. Insane? Maybe not as much as you think; realisticly a planes onboard would need to identify a heat signature (hello zatar wetlands w/ flame stacks) and then pop it up as a target. But how high would that temperature need to be?
In RL the M1A2 has thermal damping on the engine - meaning the tanks engine temperature signature is not as profound to external "eyes". You could use an arguement like this to justify the detection reduction.
On the anti, the AA stationary/tank would logically carry a larger computer (it is afterall, not relying on a low weight for maneuverability) and so should have a larger detection radius (but no larger lock radius, as posted previously)
I like the idea of proximity explosions, they too exist in RL and thus are plausable! However, Dice would never do that, its the same as asking for new content. All the missles only go 'bang' when they HIT something.
Between lowered AtG detection, increased GtA detection, and the possible proximity explosions we have a likely fix.
And for all the whiners, you are using a non-precision bombing mechanism, you either drop 2 bombs or 5, even if you dropped 50 it wouldnt matter.. you arent in a stratofortress and dont have laser guided bombs! Your bombs are meant for maximum effect, not pinpoint accuracy (hence you get a minimum of two) so reducing your eyesight in that dept. isnt such an affliction anyway, and would only serve to make you think more about where your target ACTUALLY is instead of just looking at that nice square and following your normal routine..
And why the hell can the jets pick up boats?? The motor on those things are so pansy i bet a motorbike would make more heat.. the jets should ignore them completely.
Must admit gimp your suggestions do seem to be a good solution to it. Spent 2 rounds on gulf of Oman last night and doing a lot of aa firing and to be honest, got one or two choppers (only because they ignored the locks and hovered there!) and think i hit one plane all game and that didn't kill it!
The idea of pure fighters to counter planes is great but can't see that being added, same as rader jammers, mobile AA and all the other good suggestions. I think the only thing we can do is what you have suggested, use proximity fuze to avoid the 'right angle turn' at point of contact and remove or seriously reduce friendly tracking and it's probably the easiest (and most probable) fix your going to get. Shame Dice arn't more open to the wishes of the community. maybe we should come up with a solid idea we all agree on, post it on all the other BF2 boards we can find then get everyone to post it on the EA/Dice forums and have a petition formed. maybe then they will truely get the idea, or at least mod it to a way they can implement it (only they truely know what they can do with the engine after all!)
This is why the idea of a prox fuse originally occured to me as the best possible solution. It leaves room for error. Most of the time when my missiles miss it's by less than 5 feet (and often because they've swerved to activly miss the target!). If those missiles had blown at 15 feet, it woulda made a big differance..
It might work but I still think the missiles track to bad. If you are behind a J-10 and wait for a lock he will be in a turn by the time you are ready to fire. The missiles will then usually stray off quite early. If you are in a turn after a J-10 and fire the missiles will often go off in a different direction all together. In order to damage the J-10 I think the blast radius would have to be significant unless the tracking is improved.
Originally posted by Wargimp
Nerfs are something that should be avoided.
It's never a popular move to make something less powerful.
However, it's my feeling that the solution I propose would allow fighters to hunt bombers effectivly. Thus, you've also solved that issue to a large extent.
They did it to the Blackhawk. It was nescessary and I welcomed it! That contraption could end a round at Mashtuur in a couple of minutes.
Originally posted by zverj
As fighter pilot, I can say bombing with 1 bomb is much easier than with two. How bout make planes faster. Most people go at 100% speed anyway.
That's not the issue. You can't cover the same area with one bomb as with 5. If you use the SU-34 on Oman you can whipe out an entire base in a bomb run. Anything that twitches. You can still provide air support with that single bomb by taking out a tank or vehicle and I'm fine with that. I also think they should be requested by a squad and going for a target pointed out by them.
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Comment