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.
Exactly.
And as someone who enjoys flying choppers, I'll flat out state that they are NOT overpowered at this point. There's SO many threats to 'em and they really do require 2 (skilled) players to make 'em work properly. Soloists may claim differently, but I've yet to see any solo attack chopper pilot that can reliably take on a properly manned one.
Yup. Taken out choppers with tanks, APCs, support gun, the elusive M95 kill, transport, other choppers, aa, dune buggy, and thats regardless of whether they're moving at speed or hovering.
ya it takes a good pilot to fly them but when you do run into a good pilot you are screwed untill they run out of ammo, because any way you can counter it like AA turret/tank/transport gun they can easly destroy it most of the time before you can even get into it
ya it takes a good pilot to fly them but when you do run into a good pilot you are screwed untill they run out of ammo, because any way you can counter it like AA turret/tank/transport gun they can easly destroy it most of the time before you can even get into it
Not if you're smart.
I routenly hunt attack choppers with buggies!
If you use your wits to get yourself into a position where they aren't likely to spot you, you can do some serious damage to choppers in very little time. If they see you first... well, you're in trouble. That goes for most other aspects of the game tho.
Not if you're smart.
I routenly hunt attack choppers with buggies!
If you use your wits to get yourself into a position where they aren't likely to spot you, you can do some serious damage to choppers in very little time. If they see you first... well, you're in trouble. That goes for most other aspects of the game tho.
Makes sense to me. Fighter jocks complain this makes the choppers too powerful, but then again the choppers only fly a couple hundred mile an hour at best, so you get a lot more shots off at them. With jets you have a very small time window to do something, then half the time there's a tree in the way or they've popped flares at the first sound of a buzzer.
Ive yet to see any fighter pilot complain about any state of choppers armor/weapons/speed/et cetera. Stop talking BS.
Wargimp, I can tell you- speed DOES matter. From a jetwhores honest perspective. Theres nothing worse than fractual reaction time. Remember those "beep beep BEEP *dead*" kills from random lock-ons?
Beefed up speed gives you this- you can plan the scenario of your shots easier.
I don't have massive kills via AA, but I shoot things down with it more often than getting killed while in it. Most of these have happend post 1.21.
I do think that ground AA tracking range could be improved, tho.
Infact, here's a *proper* suggestion; Extend ground bassed AA tracking range to 1000 meters (it's currently 750, I think).
Reduced the amount of damage that missile do.
Speed up emplacement reloading.
Reduce plane armour by the same factor. Leave Choppers alone.
Sounds like a perty tight suggestion ta me.
Open to debate, of course.
Ehh! WRONG. AA lock range is 300m. And! If you want to take this kind of discussion any further (with regards to AA lock and such) VISIT MY THREAD!!! It's sat there in the DICE EA question forum for about 2-3 weeks now and has already covered this ground!
Wargimp, I can tell you- speed DOES matter. From a jetwhores honest perspective. Theres nothing worse than fractual reaction time. Remember those "beep beep BEEP *dead*" kills from random lock-ons?
Beefed up speed gives you this- you can plan the scenario of your shots easier.
Oh yeah, I believe you 'n didn't state otherwise.
I'm more worried about the engine impact. Already, AA missile tracking it ticking at a perty high rate. If you increase the speed of missiles, you'd have to increase how fast they tick (btw, tick means it's AI is polled by the server).
I have a hunch that it's the faster tick since 1.2 that has caused more instances of general non-registered hits.
So while I'm not saying the idea is bad, I'd worry about it's impact on other things.
Meanwhile... the tweak I suggested wouldn't have any sort of impact on anything other than making it easier (giving you a fair chance) to shoot down planes.
Umm... this is all assuming you mean flight speed, not lock time.
Yup, flight speed.
Heres a question. Do you want an undeniable hit from both AA missiles, when you shoot them consequetively? Ive noticed a little flare effect from a missile hit, which keeps the jest from being a victim of missile spam.
If you want a ~100% hit rate from a missile inder any circumstances, then youre not giving people a fair chance.
If you want a ~100% hit rate from a missile inder any circumstances, then youre not giving people a fair chance.
This goes back to the BF1942 flak though. That stuff was practically impossible to miss with, but it was effective and not overpoweringly so. And the reason is because it didn't always result in either a dead plane or a plane flying back for a bomb refill without a scratch.
Yup, flight speed.
Heres a question. Do you want an undeniable hit from both AA missiles, when you shoot them consequetively? Ive noticed a little flare effect from a missile hit, which keeps the jest from being a victim of missile spam.
If you want a ~100% hit rate from a missile inder any circumstances, then youre not giving people a fair chance.
Nope. Never said that.
It's just very hard to implement something that is both reliable and effective that still gives a chance.
Look at how badly some of their other attempts have turned out.
Originally posted by PHPT
This goes back to the BF1942 flak though. That stuff was practically impossible to miss with, but it was effective and not overpoweringly so. And the reason is because it didn't always result in either a dead plane or a plane flying back for a bomb refill without a scratch.
Nope. Never said that.
It's just very hard to implement something that is both reliable and effective that still gives a chance.
Look at how badly some of their other attempts have turned out.
No, I didnt imply you saying that
I guess a medium of effective missiles with effective lock-on range and low damage would cut it. 2 hits shouldnt grant a kill in this case. Im totally in for that.
However, in case of choppers. TVGM range should be higher than AA missile lock on range.
One thing that would work in jet area is jet cannon grouping nerfing. Main problem for everyone in AA seems to be the cannon. There are possible ways to make the cannon working for ATA and not so good at ATS.
1) Reducing its ROF. I remember Ace Combat 3, you could choose between 3 cannons. 1st had great ROF and low damage, second had great damage and extremely low ROF. In BF2, you have a perfect medium. How about making the cannon shoot at USMC APC ROF, with beefed up damage, so its still balanced, eh?
2) Increase the grouping (decrease accuracy). This would keep it working for jets and decrease its effectiveness against specific targets, such as the ones in those green boxes. Problem is- anti-infantr strafing would be somewhat easier... no?
Virus888 merupakan agen slot deposit qris minimal 10000 rupiah tanpa potongan apapun untuk bermain slot bet kecil 200 perak pada seluruh jenis provider slot gacor pasti gampang menang maxwin tahun ini 2026.
Urgh.
Need ta learn something about how to avoid bias.
I was thinking about doing a poll on the subject, but with other polls going on, I'd rather not clutter things up.
Here's the format I was hashing around:
What is your stance on plane mechanics balance?
- I'm a pilot and I feel planes are overpowered
- I'm a pilot and I feel the planes are fine
- I'm a ground pounder and I feel the planes are overpowered
- I'm a ground pounder and I feel the planes are fine
Generally, I hate polls. It's very hard to make a poll that isn't biased by it's own termanology and you can't fully trust your feedback because people will vote poorly (as in they don't care so they'll just choose anything), might change their opinion, don't understand the issue at hand, or aren't a good sample (ie, since this is a hot topic for a select group of people, only those people are likely to vote at all).
This is the kinda crap you learn about when you take Statistical Anaylisys and Application. Who says Statspac is a waste of a cource? :p
Urgh.
Need ta learn something about how to avoid bias.
I was thinking about doing a poll on the subject, but with other polls going on, I'd rather not clutter things up.
Here's the format I was hashing around:
What is your stance on plane mechanics balance?
- I'm a pilot and I feel planes are overpowered
- I'm a pilot and I feel the planes are fine
- I'm a ground pounder and I feel the planes are overpowered
- I'm a ground pounder and I feel the planes are fine - I´m a pilot and I think AA needs improvement (specify please) - I´m a pilot and I think AA needs to be toned down (specify please) - I´m a ground pounder and I think AA needs improvement (specify please) - I´m a ground pounder and I think AA needs to be toned down (specify please)
Generally, I hate polls. It's very hard to make a poll that isn't biased by it's own termanology and you can't fully trust your feedback because people will vote poorly (as in they don't care so they'll just choose anything), might change their opinion, don't understand the issue at hand, or aren't a good sample (ie, since this is a hot topic for a select group of people, only those people are likely to vote at all).
This is the kinda crap you learn about when you take Statistical Anaylisys and Application. Who says Statspac is a waste of a cource? :p
Added two options :P
Go ahead, Wargimp. People wont mind a good poll.
If you do, which I hope you will, make the poll with the tickable boxes thingies!
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