For or against longer range for AA?

[mikezrocks]

Are you for or against longer AA range put your first word as "for" or "against"
Against, i am against longer aa range it is strong enuph already

[Roger Smith]

Re: For or against longer range for AA?

against, aa ranges are perfect, now they just gotta get aa unbugged, unlamed, and untked.

[ThoughtForm]

Re: For or against longer range for AA?

Against.

The ground AA is in place to reduce the threat from enemy air traffic in a certain area only, it is not supposed to nullify any air threat on the entire map!

[Robske007a]

Re: For or against longer range for AA?

Against.

Give the pilots a break :p make a poll.

[rombaft]

Re: For or against longer range for AA?

OMFG OMFG OMFG OMFG , how can someone still not be happy with the new AA ????????????????????????????????????????????????

I play SF mostly , and the maps are smaller, at this point, most AA sites can lock and hit from one side to the other side of the map , it's even this wurse, they drive mobile AA to main base on a nice high place and so shooting every flying object to pieces over the whole map .

Still, how on earth can a person still not be satisfied with the new AA .

PS : against if you didn't get it

[zacman13245]

Re: For or against longer range for AA?

OMFG OMFG OMFG OMFG , how can someone still not be happy with the new AA ????????????????????????????????????????????????

there will always be people, but I agree with you, this boggles my mind how people still are unsatisfied with it.

[pivko11]

Re: For or against longer range for AA?

Although I sometimes get ****ed, because in that particular moment when a plane gets away I wish it has a bit longer lock range, I think it's OK.

[rombaft]

Re: For or against longer range for AA?

Although I sometimes get ****ed, because in that particular moment when a plane gets away I wish it has a bit longer lock range, I think it's OK.

this is just the point, to give jets and choppers a chance , the topicstarter just wants AA wich is, get in and guarantee you get a kill, because somewhere on the map there will be a jet or chopper in tha air .

[stormwolf]

Re: For or against longer range for AA?

Are you for or against longer AA range put your first word as "for" or "against"
Against, i am against longer aa range it is strong enuph already

AA range is already redicoulus. All I do is shoot the full load of missiles into the air, without any enemies showing, and I get quite a few kills every now and then.

IMO, you should get no kill when you don't see the enemy - where's the gameplay in that? That is just spamming.

[imported_RingMasTeR]

Re: For or against longer range for AA?

this is just the point, to give jets and choppers a chance , the topicstarter just wants AA wich is, get in and guarantee you get a kill, because somewhere on the map there will be a jet or chopper in tha air .

You obviously fail at reading comprehension... The OP stated he was against any increase in range for AA. I'm sure the OP was referring to folks in the some of the other threads on these boards stating that AA needs a lock range boost... which it does not. Jets are currently only allowed 800 ft to fly... 250ft is the lock on range. That is 31.25% of the jets total airspace that is "lockable" at all times... plenty. Give the jets some more ceiling before you start crying for more AA range.

[Blackhearted]

Re: For or against longer range for AA?

IMO, you should get no kill when you don't see the enemy - where's the gameplay in that? That is just spamming.

tell that to all the damned grenade spammers.
with all the anti-PKM, anti-AA, anti-claymore threads, not one person yet has mentioned what a problem grenade spammers have become since the grenade ranges have been increased.


i think AA should have a slightly longer range than the aircraft it is there to take out. since AA is immobile, if the ranges are equal aircraft can just go into the edge of range, fire, and move out of range of AA before AA missiles gets to them.
firing them blindly into the air and getting kills is rediculous, i didnt know you could do that with the new AA. i use them properly, the same way i used them before 1.2. get a lock, pilot pops flares, get another lock, launch my missiles and get the hell out of the AA emplacement.
when used how thhey were intended to be used they do not seem overpowered at all, i seem to get roughly 2x as many kills as i did pre-patch, but i still die to planes quite a bit.
i didnt know there were people just spamming the missiles into the air and getting kills - perhaps i shouldnt have been so hard on the people asking for an AA fix.

[Alcorr]

Re: For or against longer range for AA?

completely against.

i think AA should have a slightly longer range than the aircraft it is there to take out. since AA is immobile, if the ranges are equal aircraft can just go into the edge of range, fire, and move out of range of AA before AA missiles gets to them.

Umm, not all AA is stationary.

And also, by the time the jet sees the stinger/IGLA, it probably has a lock so its about equal.

if the ranges are equal aircraft can just go into the edge of range, fire, and move out of range of AA before AA missiles gets to them.

Ummm what kinda aircraft are you talking about?

Jets have to fly basically right over or near something to BOMB it, and if you are within cannon range you are probably within AA range as well.

Helicopters.....now that they lowered TV range, if they are within TV range, then they might be JUST outside AA lock range Im not sure.

[imported_OBCD]

Re: For or against longer range for AA?

against

[afrosheen]

Re: For or against longer range for AA?

Against. The new AA has taken alot of fun out of flying jets. Not only are the jet rockets too screwed up now but the AA will rape you 75% of the time if you get into range for just long enough...forget about flares and dodging.

I'd pay a million dollars to fix the missile TK's, still don't understand WHY this happens after all this patching, and people still punish, even though they KNOW it's impossible to purposely lock on to a friendly.

[rombaft]

Re: For or against longer range for AA?

tell that to all the damned grenade spammers.
with all the anti-PKM, anti-AA, anti-claymore threads, not one person yet has mentioned what a problem grenade spammers have become since the grenade ranges have been increased.


i think AA should have a slightly longer range than the aircraft it is there to take out. since AA is immobile, if the ranges are equal aircraft can just go into the edge of range, fire, and move out of range of AA before AA missiles gets to them.
firing them blindly into the air and getting kills is rediculous, i didnt know you could do that with the new AA. i use them properly, the same way i used them before 1.2. get a lock, pilot pops flares, get another lock, launch my missiles and get the hell out of the AA emplacement.
when used how thhey were intended to be used they do not seem overpowered at all, i seem to get roughly 2x as many kills as i did pre-patch, but i still die to planes quite a bit.
i didnt know there were people just spamming the missiles into the air and getting kills - perhaps i shouldnt have been so hard on the people asking for an AA fix.

AA lock is now 300m wich is far more then the drawdistance, meaning the jet or whatever can't see the AA while the AA does have a lock , so it's already unfair