For or against longer range for AA?

[Maxor127]

Re: For or against longer range for AA?

For. At least 10% longer range. Or at least lower the range of the machine guns on jets. I think there's a bug where half the time I can't lock on to a jet even if it's flying right in front of me.

[Harpoon84]

Re: For or against longer range for AA?

I'll be open to slightly longer range on the AA if they get rid of the stupid looping missles. :P

Seriously though, with AA as it is right now, if a plane has flares it gets away, if not it's toast, no matter what kind of maneuver it tries to make.

[Blackhearted]

Re: For or against longer range for AA?

completely against.



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.



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.

you misunderstand me.
im not talking about current AA ranges.
i am saying that ideally, AA should slightly outrange aircraft to avoid aircraft ducking into the AA range, firing, and then ducking back out of range. for the most part AA is immobile (and yeah i dont consider the 5mph 'mobile' AA moves as mobility at all) and if it doesnt slightly outrange aircraft then it will be very easy to take out with little risk to the aircraft.

if the range of AA is currently longer than the draw-distance then that is a problem. however, pilots shouldnt be able to TV-missile out AA emplacements and then fly in unharassed. if the ranges allow that then the AA emplacement respawn needs to be shortened to almost immediate.

[Maxor127]

Re: For or against longer range for AA?

I agree... I think especially the carrier turrets should have longer ranges.

[thesalt]

Re: For or against longer range for AA?

Against. I like the AA as it is now. You can usually take aircraft out within the radius, and if they aren't destroyed they'll at least retreat, which I believe is the purpose for AA (To damage/destroy or force them out of the specific combat zone). If you make it any longer it's basically strapping a giant sign to a helo/plane saying "I'M FREE POINTS PLEASE SHOOT ME DOWN AND GET POINTS"

I'm perfectly happy with how most of the things are now. Yeah, there are a few rediculous problems (The AT glitch and the claymore spamming to name some), but I'm fairly certain they'll be resolved with the next patch.

[GlowSticky]

Re: For or against longer range for AA?

Against, but only on maps with AA vehicles. User-driven AA sites should only be used to clear the area above and near the base that the AA site is located at. AA vehicles should have their AA range slightly increased to compensate for the shorter AA site range.