Serious Suggestion on how to Fix Plane Issues

[Saureco]

Re: Serious Suggestion on how to Fix Plane Issues

The only aspect of your suggestion that I will comment on is the first part. The one major fix that AA needs is it's locking. And when I say locking, it's no so much the lock on the enemy, but the total break of a lock on ANYTHING if flares are dropped. It would make more sense of the missile went to the nearest flare and exploded. If the jet so happened to drop the flares too late, the missile would detonate close to the jet and damage/destroy it. Now, if the pilot could time the flares to descend on or near an allied helo (allied to the AA gunner), then the missiles might hit the helo.

The tracking speed and impact code is no problem in relation to that single point of locking. If/when the lock code is fixed, the AA threads will up and disappear overnight.

As for increasing the locking range, that's a double-edged sword. Logically, if you increased the scan range of the AA, you would also need a longer drawing distance. Without it, AA sites would be able to track aircraft beyond their visibility. Honestly, that's what radar is for.

[tangent]
In my humble opinion, radar should be used as a coupling to AA turrets. Without radar, aircraft cannot be tracked on the map or locked onto by AA sites. This gives more logic to radar's function instead of a satellite scan (which nerfs stealth tactics beyond belief) and it gives SpecOps more of a prime target. If the radar is still up, planes and helos should be shot down with ease, just like real life. (cue "this isn't real life" flames..... now)

Once radar is disabled, jets and helos can run rampant. That said, this implies that AA missiles are radar- and heat-locking. The heat locking is more obvious due to the distracting oil towers. AA gunners should be able to pick between radar- and infrared(heat)-locking missiles.[/tangent]

[imported_The 13th Raptor]

Re: Serious Suggestion on how to Fix Plane Issues

Is this really too much to ask?

Look at where you are.

....
....

Thats right, a battlefield 2 forum, i bet 30% of the active users think OMG and LOL are actual words.

[imported_bigpappa]

Re: Serious Suggestion on how to Fix Plane Issues

Gimpy -



3) Create a piece of AA equipment that can be packed up and carried by a soldier, thus allowing infantry to create moveable versions of the IGLA and stinger sites (like an AA "mortar"). This would prevent jet pilots from being able to easily patrol the same, static locations for AA threats. Handheld stingers would achieve a similar goal, but (if DC taught us anything) that can also get well out of hand - and we don't want to make piloting totally impossible.

this is the best idea that i have heard of, please someone send this idea to DICE...

[dazzy]

Re: Serious Suggestion on how to Fix Plane Issues

WACK WACK WACK!!

klog hbb fcd mjkj <--- That's me litterally banging my head against the keyboard (BTW, my roommate walked in just as I was apllying my forehead to my keys... not kidding)

Does anyone read more of a thread than it's title?
Even the title was miss-read in this case!
I'ts not A thread for sugestionS it's s thread about A suggestion!

How hard is this to get a handle on?


Is this really too much to ask?

ur grandad has spoken please listen

[Saureco]

Re: Serious Suggestion on how to Fix Plane Issues

Dazzy, you've been reported for continuing your pointless quarrel with WarGimp. Grow up.

[WarGimp]

Re: Serious Suggestion on how to Fix Plane Issues

The only aspect of your suggestion that I will comment on is the first part.

Just to interject, all 3 parts of the suggestion are linked. They work together to provide what I see as the best solution to the issue.

The one major fix that AA needs is it's locking. And when I say locking, it's no so much the lock on the enemy, but the total break of a lock on ANYTHING if flares are dropped. It would make more sense of the missile went to the nearest flare and exploded. If the jet so happened to drop the flares too late, the missile would detonate close to the jet and damage/destroy it. Now, if the pilot could time the flares to descend on or near an allied helo (allied to the AA gunner), then the missiles might hit the helo.

Yeah, this I like. Again, with proximaty detonation, the timing of flare release would become more important.

The tracking speed and impact code is no problem in relation to that single point of locking. If/when the lock code is fixed, the AA threads will up and disappear overnight.

Unfortunatly, "just" fixing the lock code likely isn't as easy as you would suspect. It's also not the only problem. Detecting impacts is an issue too. Thus, proximaty fuses would allow some room for error and help the issue dramaticly without having to resort to anything "new". If you were to take the current AA missiles and fix a claymore on the nose of 'em, you'd see a drastic improvment.

As for increasing the locking range, that's a double-edged sword. Logically, if you increased the scan range of the AA, you would also need a longer drawing distance. Without it, AA sites would be able to track aircraft beyond their visibility. Honestly, that's what radar is for.

Yeah, I think this sounds like a good refinement. If the tracking range was extended without extending the lock on range, it would be hella more handy for AA gunners.

Really, it's too bad they didn't do a more indept radar system. I'd STILL point to Tribes 1 and 2 as the best radar systems ever to be implemented in a game.

That ain't gonna happen tho and it's wandering off topic a little, so let's let it lie.

[imported_RingMasTeR]

Re: Serious Suggestion on how to Fix Plane Issues

- Improve the lock code.

100% agree, tracking is at the core of the issue with all missiles.

- AA missiles should use a proximity fuse.

I can deal with this too, if necessary, but if tracking is improved in your first suggestion then the missiles should be effective enough to do their job. But, we all know that the tracking may never get better... so this idea could very well come to fruition. I think that the detection point will be the central issue there, as in where and when the missile will detonate. I think it should be only about 2-3 meters personally.

- Air Plane Armor needs to be reduced.

I can't agree with you here. It only takes 3 secs of cannon fire, or 2 missiles, or 2 helo rockets, (or one well guided TV missile. ) plane armor is really not that tough... it's just hitting them in the first place that is the major issue. I think implementing either or both of your other suggestions would nullify the need for this one anyway. You said in an earlier post that you don't like the idea of nerfing anything and I agree... there should only be tweaks\improvements, and not sodomy from the nerf bat.

Now I know what you’re saying about no new content, but I think there is a real issue in that pilots need more incentive to fight other pilots and not just bomb the whole round. If a nerf bat must swing, then I'd much rather I lose a bomb or two and not my armor personally. Take a bomb from the fighters and 2 from the bombers. Fair enough. Or remove the bombs from the fighters
altogether and add another fighter to each side so the pilots have something to do in the air.

The suggestion made of having the bombs require a SL to effectively have to "call in" is really good imo. It would cut down on the "at will" bombing and make the ground troop's life much easier. The jet's wouldn't be running back and forth all round to reload because they aren't tossing them out like beads and moon pies at Mardi Gras.
It would also require a level of team play. The trick is how do you implement this effectively?

[WarGimp]

Re: Serious Suggestion on how to Fix Plane Issues

100% agree, tracking is at the core of the issue with all missiles.

Yes indeed.
Unfortunatly, it seems like there may be an engine limitation coming into play here. Thus why I looked to the prox fuse thing to help mitigate that aspect.
Lock issues involving friendly fire and how locks break are what needs tweeking. The actual seeking code would be fine if the missiles blew at proximaty.
(BTW, seeking code is exactly why most real AA Missiles use prox warheads. "Hit to Kill" weapons just aren't reliable when trying to take down fast moving targets)

I can deal with this too, if necessary, but if tracking is improved in your first suggestion then the missiles should be effective enough to do their job. But, we all know that the tracking may never get better... so this idea could very well come to fruition. I think that the detection point will be the central issue there, as in where and when the missile will detonate. I think it should be only about 2-3 meters personally.

6 to 9 feet? Well, that prolly would still improve things. I suspect it's something that would need to be played with by the devs in order to find the magic happy point.

I can't agree with you here. It only takes 3 secs of cannon fire, or 2 missiles, or 2 helo rockets, (or one well guided TV missile. ) plane armor is really not that tough... it's just hitting them in the first place that is the major issue. I think implementing either or both of your other suggestions would nullify the need for this one anyway. You said in an earlier post that you don't like the idea of nerfing anything and I agree... there should only be tweaks\improvements, and not sodomy from the nerf bat.

Last night I managed to get 4 rockets from an attack chopper into a F35. It didn't die.
I did mention that it might require that cannons be toned down just a little to help re-balance dogfighting.
The main thing here is that it would be exciting to have the variable damage from those prox AAs occasionally knocking you down to almost nothing with a close hit. The "OOOOOOH S:censored:T!!" factor, ya know? The idea is to make pilots really scared of those lock tones. Ramp up the tension. Yeah, its kinda a nerf, but it's one that could make things more interesting, not less. Additonally, it would help make mobile AA gunfire more effective without ramping up it's damage (and thus not exasberating AA's ability to own ground targets).

Now I know what you’re saying about no new content, but I think there is a real issue in that pilots need more incentive to fight other pilots and not just bomb the whole round. If a nerf bat must swing, then I'd much rather I lose a bomb or two and not my armor personally. Take a bomb from the fighters and 2 from the bombers. Fair enough. Or remove the bombs from the fighters
altogether and add another fighter to each side so the pilots have something to do in the air.

I suspect that with improved Air to air missiles, you'd see this happen anturally. Fighters aren't going to want to head back to base for more bombs when there's enemy bombers to blow outta the sky.

The suggestion made of having the bombs require a SL to effectively have to "call in" is really good imo. It would cut down on the "at will" bombing and make the ground troop's life much easier. The jet's wouldn't be running back and forth all round to reload because they aren't tossing them out like beads and moon pies at Mardi Gras.
It would also require a level of team play. The trick is how do you implement this effectively?

Maybe it could require a "weapons free" order before bombs could be released? It definatly sounds like something hard to get going... and is starting to wander into the bluesky, so let's back burner it for now.

Interesting thought tho.

[MrBenis]

Re: Serious Suggestion on how to Fix Plane Issues

So, for the moment what can we conclude?

[ReU_Potamus]

Re: Serious Suggestion on how to Fix Plane Issues

this...

STOP!

Before I write anything else, I want to attempt to lay down some ground rules regarding the intent of this post. I want this to be a good hard look at how the issues with aircraft can be resolved without adding or seriously impacting any features. That means NO Stinger kit (new feature, not gonna happen) and NO comments about just removing bombs from fighters (impacts intended game play).

What I want to see is some good logic and grown up attitudes. I don't want so see "Plane whores suck" or pointless slams on EA/Dice. If you can present a logical argument or point out a flaw in the following suggestion, please by all means do so. DO NOT make alternate suggestions unless you have previously made a good logical argument as to why this suggestion is not optimal.

If you AGREE with the content of the post, show your support by saying so and keeping it "live". I would also encourage you to post links and pointers to it in other forums and/or e-mail Dice suggesting that they look at it (POLITELY!). The idea is to get a workable fix in place by pushing for a real and good solution.

this is great

this could be put before any post on any topic...

people need to print this out and put it next to their monitor...

ok maybe only SOME people

[WarGimp]

Re: Serious Suggestion on how to Fix Plane Issues

Thanks, chummer.
It's turning out to be a serious pain trying to keep this thread on track.

I'm glad to see that there's recently been some real discussion, tho.

As for MrBenis's question, I haven't seen a good argument that has shaken my belief that the suggestion on the first page is anything but optimal. I've gone back and made a couple tweeks, but as it stands it's still looking like the best way to handle things.

[Wilkystyle]

Re: Serious Suggestion on how to Fix Plane Issues

It's turning out to be a serious pain trying to keep this thread on track.

Pay no mind to the flaming naysayers. The rest of us appreciate the civilized discussion you're trying to encourage here. At least we can all agree that the missle tracking could use some work.

[imported_bigpappa]

Re: Serious Suggestion on how to Fix Plane Issues

Quote:
Originally Posted by ||ass||variable
Gimpy -



3) Create a piece of AA equipment that can be packed up and carried by a soldier, thus allowing infantry to create moveable versions of the IGLA and stinger sites (like an AA "mortar"). This would prevent jet pilots from being able to easily patrol the same, static locations for AA threats. Handheld stingers would achieve a similar goal, but (if DC taught us anything) that can also get well out of hand - and we don't want to make piloting totally impossible.




this is the best idea that i have heard of, please someone send this idea to DICE...

[WarGimp]

Re: Serious Suggestion on how to Fix Plane Issues

3) Create a piece of AA equipment that can be packed up and carried by a soldier, thus allowing infantry to create moveable versions of the IGLA and stinger sites (like an AA "mortar"). This would prevent jet pilots from being able to easily patrol the same, static locations for AA threats. Handheld stingers would achieve a similar goal, but (if DC taught us anything) that can also get well out of hand - and we don't want to make piloting totally impossible.




this is the best idea that i have heard of, please someone send this idea to DICE...

Dude.
How hard is it to understand that we cannot expect ANY new content?
Anything you suggest that requires new "stuff" is much less likely to happen.
EVER.
Besides, I don't think that is a very good solution. It doesn't solve in inharent problem (AA missiles being broken), and the FACT is that there IS mobile AA in place NOW!

PLEASE, for the effing love of god, will you TRY to keep up here!

I have seen not a single logical argument that pokes any kind of whole in the original suggestion. Until that happens, I'm satisfied that it remains the best overal solution.

[vbl]

Re: Serious Suggestion on how to Fix Plane Issues

Dude.
How hard is it to understand that we cannot expect ANY new content?
Anything you suggest that requires new "stuff" is much less likely to happen.
EVER.
Besides, I don't think that is a very good solution. It doesn't solve in inharent problem (AA missiles being broken), and the FACT is that there IS mobile AA in place NOW!

PLEASE, for the effing love of god, will you TRY to keep up here!

I have seen not a single logical argument that pokes any kind of whole in the original suggestion. Until that happens, I'm satisfied that it remains the best overal solution.

I didn't post that again - someone quoted me.

And if you recall, I made that suggestion as a complement to the ideas to fix tracking on AA missiles. So yea, it would work fine - and it'll add dimension to the game.

But whatever. That's off topic.