BF2S Forums Adjust/Remove air planes!

This threads soooo funny....

I love the way pilots say: 'stop whining!' and 'adapt or go elswhere!' I'm sure I can sense panic in their posts! I mean it's bad etiquette for a lowly assualt guy to even concider shooting down a plane! How dare you ask for better AA?! Stop being selfish and think of what it would do to that pilots stats!!! The shame!

Seriously though Torin says planes have to only reload by flying low over an airfield for 'playability', errrrm 'playabilty for who? You? If there are 64 players in a map and only 4 planes then you want to keep playability for 4 players and the other 60 can go screw themselves or go play CS?!! Really sensible!

Yes planes shouldn't have to land to reload but I do think AA should be 1 shot - 1 kill.

Ever heard of the game 'scissors/paper/stone'? thats playable because scissors owns paper but gets owned by stone. Stone owns scissors but gets owned by paper, and paper owns stone but gets owned by scissors. You get my point?

The same goes for anti-tank against tanks 1-2 shots for a kill, not 3 or sometimes 4.

If you can take out an AA station before the guy can get a lock on then you won't mind ground troops having 1 shot 1 kill AA missiles. It will then be easier to take out pilots who are not paying attention.

1 guy said that it's easy to avoid air by keeping away from armour and well away from capture points! That guy MUST have the IQ of a goldfish! Isn't capturing flags the whole point of the fuckin game?!! So ground can't have weapons to shoot down air, not allowed to drive armour AND must NEVER capture a flag! We'll just all sit in a field away from battle and drink coffee and maybe a little game of chess. Hell every map should have a Starbucks within a bunker for all the infantry who don't wanna be owned! Of course it will be a T-Mobile hotspot so we can bring our Apple G4 Powerbooks.....doh.

To get 'PLAYABILITY' it should be:

Assualt owns Anti-Tank
Anti-Tank owns Armour
Armour owns Assualt

Mobile AA & AA owns Aircraft
Aircraft owns all infantry & armour.

This gives playability for the majority NOT just pilots.
Majority is happy and keeps playing.
EA sell even more copies and gets more profit.
More money goes into BF3.
BF3 owns all other games!!!

I have a 139 IQ, don't argue..........

Touchy, touchy.........

Torin wrote:

Panic? That what, you'll whine enough to get AA made even better and buggier, so I can kill myself with my own AA missiles even easier? Yeah, that's panic you hear alright. People like you have done enough to ruin AA as it is, and turn it into a TK fest for anyone in the air, pilot or not.

I did say 'better' I never mentioned 'buggier' or 'killing yourself'. I don't understand what you're trying to tell me unless you misunderstood my term 'AA'? By AA I mean anti-air not 'air to air'. I've never seen a bug where I kill myself using anti-air so maybe we're both being misunderstood? Also if it was easier to be killed flying a jet wouldn't that make more players think twice about flying which means less TK's to get the jets? Just a theory....

Torin wrote:

Try landing on the runways on the maps in BF2 and turn around to take off again. I risk getting teamkilled enough just trying to take off, I can only imagine the horror of landing and take off again. Then again, you probably wouldn't know anything about that. You want planes to have more downtime? Then make them effective for longer. With a fighter's full loadout, I can kill usually 1 tanks, some infantry, and 1 aircraft, 2 at most if I make good use of my machine guns. A real aircraft, that does have to go back, land, etc. to refuel and rearm, has a much more efficient payload. 1 missile to take out an enemy aircraft. 1 bomb to take out a tank. Make the payload more efficient, and I won't have any complaints with going back and landing to rearm. But then, I'm sure you'd just whine even more.

I did say planes SHOULD NOT have to land to re-load, it's not a sensible option so please re-read my post. I can't see how 1 shot 1 kill anti-air would make planes useless. You have speed & distance on your side, you can take out anti-air before they get a lock, you have flares and you have early warning signals! No ground units have this so why would a more efficient anti-air be so horrific for you?

Torin wrote:

No, 1 shot. Don't forget bullets too, the average human being will die to a single bullet wound if relatively immediate treatment isn't taken.

Since I was referring to it taking 3-4 anti tank rockets to destroy a tank I don't know why you mention bullets killing humans without immediate medical treatment........lol, what drugs are you on?

Torin wrote:

Yeah, give me laser guided missiles so I don't even have to look at the AA station, and can destroy it with a tap of my thumb. And flares that I can deploy constantly for minutes in a row. Let me do all of this from 15,000 ft. up, and see you coming from miles away, and sure, you can have your 1 shot kill AA missiles.

Again, 1 shot 1 kill is a small inconvenience for a pilot that owns everything on the map. I can't see why you want sooooooo many odds stacked in your favour if you're a skilled pilot? I think 1 shot 1 kill anti-air missiles will still be at a disadvantage to planes, just not as much as it is now.

Torin wrote:

Infantry, unless spotted or seen with a UAV, have about a 1000% better chance of taking a flag against a patrolling jet than any vehicle. Jets dont have infantry locks, so that infantry could be anywhere. We basically have to take our best guess and use MGs or bombs, and hope we were right. Many flags have sufficient cover from both, especially consider that jet really don't know where you are. But, if you're sitting at a flag in a tank, you've got a big bullseye on your back, and can kiss your ass goodbye.

Capturing flags is PART of the game, not the whole point. I've had many games won and never captured a single flag. Winning via flags is only ever part of how you win, and is not a necessity. Many maps can be easily won with nothing but the uncappable you started with.

So infantry have 1000% more chance of capturing a flag? I know you're obviously totally exaggerating with the '1000% more likely' term and infantry do have a better chance hiding and not sat in a tank. I never brought the likelyhood of dying while capturing up. I don't dispute that planes shouldn't be able to bomb cappable bases. My whole post is based on 'anti-air missile effectivness'.

I only brought up the subject of capturing flags as someone further up the thread advised ground units to stay away from capping flags and I was pointing out the absurdity as thats the main theme of the game. Though you can win without capping flags , it IS much harder, and like you said; 'If you have an M16 you dont go around killing people with a pistol.' Not capping flags lets the other team cap them so your team has a 98% chance of losing. This idea would only work if both teams agreed not to cap flags which would mean the firefights would move elsewhere. This would take pilots targets to those firefights and we'd be back with the same problem, but without the capping.........Comprende?

Torin wrote:

Tanks own infantry, some infantry can own tanks. Tanks own helicopters, helicopters own tanks. AA CAN own aircraft, and aircraft CAN own AA. Mobile AA can own infantry, armor AND air. This isn't a rock/paper/scissors game, so give up the comparisons.

I think you mean, AA CAN own aircraft  thats:

a - pretty close
b - the pilots not paying attention
c - the aircrafts health is below 25%
d - the pilots 'X' button on the keyboard isn't working
e - the AA guy isn't been shot at or taking arty at the time a, b, c, and d occur

Pretty easy then.......

Torin wrote:

I have a 143 IQ, what's your point? And plus, what kind of punk kid needs self-assurance by spouting out his IQ on a forum? What, am I going to concede the argument because you are above average intelligence? If anything, that's motivation to pursue it even further. Get over yourself, you're not the only one around here with a brain.

There was no point. It was a funny/sarcastic comment not directed at anyone and an 'in-house' joke. My grandfather -when he was alive- used to say it to me when I was a rebellious teenager and it's more of a 'sig' for the post rather than me spouting off my IQ for self-assurance. Being 30 years old hardly qualifies me as a 'punk kid' and I'm only an average player. (check stats!) How's that for getting over myself?

My quotes about 'daring to shoot down jets', having 'starbucks with t-mobile hotspots' and not arguing with me because of my IQ were light hearted attempts at humour. Now I know I'll never be a comedien but I assumed a person with an IQ of 143 would have recognised the little quips, and grasped their meaning as 'un-insulting'.

I'm sorry I asked for deadlier AA and now know that I was stupid and silly. If I believed in God then I would ask for forgiveness but I don't so I'll just have to suffer and live with the shame my words brang to this thread. My only hope is that this thread is removed a.s.a.p so no unsuspecting child may gaze upon this evil script. I will then accept my ban from these forums and EA blocking my account. I understand I will never be up for parole...........

Then again, how's 'fuck you' sound?

Last edited by SamSlater (2006-03-09 14:41:18)

lowing wrote:

Well my very humble opinion is this.......there are no such things as plane whores, heli whores, tank whores, claymore whores, APC whores...etc...or noobs, smacktards, fucktards, spammers or whatever the hell else I have been called in this game at 1 time or another......We all bought and paid for this game for our own personal enjoyment, not everyone else's entertainment. So bottom line is ..............and their is no escaping it...............play the game the way you personally like to play it. If flying is your thing have fun, same with armor, or GL launching. Join a squad or don't. Whatever it takes to make the game fun for you........All of these "whoring" accusations stems from the fact that someone is having more fun at their game than you are at yours and that you aren't adapting to it very well. There are times we all have played, that it seemed we were the best players on the map. Other times it seemed we couldn't get out of the base. That is what makes this game so much fun.....Your game experience is different everytime you play, and the REAL reason for that is because we ALL play it differently. So adjust YOUR playing style to your experience of the day and not so much expect everyone else to adjust theirs to yours. You should still be having fun though but if you are not, it isn't anyone elses fault but yours.

Many times I left a game because I needed to back up and regroup on another server because someone was having a wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy better gaming experience than I was.  That simply doesn't make me a "noob" or him a "whore"..

You = everyone........not the original poster of this thread....

I posted this earlier in the thread, it got no response but it seems to fit nicely behind this DAWIDBUCHWALD post

DawidBuchwald wrote:

Torin wrote:

I'm going to assume you are one of those whiny ground pounders I always like to diss. Have you ever tried using a plane? Spent the time to get good using it? Do you even know what it feels like to pull a 60-0 round?

Partly, yes. I'm the guy on the ground that you like to kill so easily. True. But for planes - sorry, wrong address. I have spent hundreds of hours playing flight sims, including The One - MS Flight Simulator. I got even a chance of piloting real aircraft, Cessna - for just couple of minutes, illegally. Believe me, I know a thing or two about computer based aircraft simulation. I'm not saying that I was ever good at that, but I think that my BF2 stats have nothing to do with ability to fly. If you want to prove your skills, get MS Flight Simulator 5.1 (probably you have never heard of it as it was released before you were born, kid) and try the Nimitz challenge - should be easy for a pilot with your skills. Just have to land with Cessna on Nimitz carrier with NO HOOK. Have fun. I would love to see you trying As for BF2, I tried some flying on my own server (to try maps other than Clean Sweep), and lack of realism pushed me back. I'll get back to this later.
As for the 60-0 rounds - probably feels great, when it's so difficult Get it in Karkand. Will feel much better.

Well, I'll start by correcting your misjudgements. I was born in 1979, so no, MSFS was not before my time. And being that I had a PC in my home since the 8086s, I did actually play the original MSFS. Wasn't that the one you could design your own jets in and fly them? I have vague memories, but memories none the less. I have also played more modern flight sims, such as Lock On: Modern Air Combat, but to be perfectly honest, neither flight sims nor actual flight experience have anything to do with flying in BF2. Flying in BF2 is all about observation, reflexes, coordination with the team and fast thinking. Flight sims (and I assume actual flight experience) has more to do with strategic planning, thinking ahead, communication, radar analysis, and a lot less about quick reflexes and whether or not the enemy is "taking your flag". It's a completely different ball-game, and not even comparabale. I wouldn't dare to think an actual F-15 pilot could hop on BF2 and be good at flying planes in the game, and vice versa. Anyways, attempted insults based on your assumption about my age aside, flying in BF2 has no translation to flight sims at all. In fact, I find them rather boring. The only reason I consider myself a "pilot" in BF2 is because I do it as often as possible and do it well. This isn't to say I don't engage in other activities, including but not limited to: sniping, ground pounding, tanking, backline fighting, commandering and helicopter use (both flying and gunning). I like BF2 because of its many aspects. I find flight sims boring (nowadays) because of how limited in scope they are. I don't fly in BF2 because it feels authentic, I do it in order to maintain dominance. For the same reason I use a sniper rifle on Mashtuur, a tank on Karkand and a helicopter on Sharqi. And to set the record straight, I had a 57-1 round in an APC and tank last night on Karkand. I do the same in a heli on Sharqi too, regularly.

DawidBuchwald wrote:

Torin wrote:

1 single AA emplacement will never, and should never be able to take out a jet in 1 salvo. It takes no skill to lock on, no skill to shoot.

Why not? C4 takes out tank in one salvo, and does not require any special skill. Killing somebody with SRAW takes one salvo and no skill at all. Killing tank with TV missle takes no skill. Killing somebody with APC takes no skill. How comes it does not bother you? My guess: you just PANIC (go, SamSlater, go!) that somebody will have any kind of effective weapon against you. Probably I'm wrong, you just don't panic, you just don't want the general 'playability'of the game ruined by having 20-5 instead of 60-0 rounds. LOL.

C4ing a tank requires sneaking up on them, not sitting and waiting for them and killing them from a distance. C4ing a tank involves significant more risks and effort than shooting AA at a plane after it passes overhead. No, C4 does not require skill per se, but there is a lot more risk and planning involved.

As to these comparisons about skill, I guess that really depends on the situation. Shooting AA missiles is all the same. Sit down, aim, wait, fire. You don't have to sit and wait till they're not looking (as with C4), get a clear line of sight without putting your vehicle at undue risk (as with the TV), putting yourself at undue risk of AT/C4 (as with the APC), etc. AA usage is much simpler, much straight forward, and involves a lot less risk (if executed properly), with practically no skill involvement at all. Killing infantry at point blank range, with no threads and no hindering terrain with an APC takes no skill, true, but in the course of a round, using an APC against infantry will not always consist of these situations. There is usually always significant risk of AT fire and C4. TV missiles, true enough are easiest against slow-moving ground vehicle, and really take little skill, but the use of TV missiles against aircraft and AA emplacements (with a limited window of opportunity) is not quite so easy, and does take a bit more skill and coordination (with the pilot).

DawidBuchwald wrote:

Torin wrote:

Gee, how about we implement the same thing for helis, tanks, apcs, humvees, etc. You know why we don't? Because it would ruin the fun of the game.

Oh well. I had no idea that tanks have to reload in bases after every five shots. My mistake

No, but still after their payload is exhausted. I can't recall the number of times I ran out of ammo in an APC or heli. Having to go all the way across the map to rearm might well be enough reason for me to just abandon the vehicle entirely.

DawidBuchwald wrote:

Torin wrote:

If you want to go making planes more realistic, then let me bomb 15 people at once from 15,000 ft. up, with no warning, and no way to stop me. Let me destroy tanks simply by spotting them on my radar, targetting them and letting an LGM go, from 15,000 ft up, with no warning, no way to stop me. Planes in BF2 are tons more vulnerabe than real life, hence also why there exists situations like flying over a runway to rearm. Add to the fact that most runways are not long enough to land properly, much less turn around, and you'll see why a plane rearms simply by flying over the runway. It's called playability.

Sorry, but the system is already in place. TV missles for instant killing and attitude of 300m to avoid AA. Besides, I joked about landing. Stop being that serious. I agree that landing would ruin the playability. It's just example of non-realistic advantage you have, so stop referring to real life as an excuse for your abusive game style. Yes, abusive. You heard me.

You were the one that started referencing real life, I just followed suit. Your joke about landing was as much a joke as me talking about bombing from 15,000 ft. up. I think we can both agree that little about planes in BF2 is realistic, so make realistic expectations is pointless.

DawidBuchwald wrote:

Torin wrote:

I'm real sorry that you can't cope with how good planes are, but that is reality in the Battlefield series. Don't like it? Try Special Forces (no planes there) or another game entirely. It just sounds like vanilla BF2 is not your cup of tea. Learn to enjoy every map, every weapon, every vehicle (even planes), and you will learn to appreciate the game. Until you do that, you're just another whiny ground pounder.

Special Forces - I got it and yes, I would love to play them more, but it's more complicated than you think. Poland is a country where people usually steal software instead of buying it. Result: there is one official SF server in Poland, and I have never seen a single person playing on it. I just suppose, people that bought Vanilla, can't afford to buy extension. Ping to foreign servers is usually to high for comfortable game. I'm not complaining, it's just the way the life is.

That is unfortunate. Perhaps then, play maps without planes. Or learn to fly planes. I honestly don't understand why some people are against the use of planes, but unwilling to learn (or try) themselves. I also don't understand why people strictly limit themselves to play on the ground. There is a lot more to BF2 than running around with an assault rifle, and you're doing no one but yourself an injustice when you limit your activities in game. Try everything, it will make the game much more rich. Then that injustice is extended to people like me, that like to do everything in game, when people come on the forums stating their stance on a topic with a relatively limited perspective on things. I don't deny you your opinion, I'd just at least ask that you take in more of the game before you come making judgements on balance, and acusing me of things such as abusive or exploitive gameplay. Until you have a point of reference, I don't see why you would attempt judging me anyways.

DawidBuchwald wrote:

I don't fly, because this whole thing with your team loosing round because they stick to the runway waiting for a plane instead of fighting, makes me sick. Not to mention the TKs. This is really disgusting. If it's your definition of 'playablility', I'm just sorry for you. Hopefully, you will understand one day. On the other hand, some people never grow...

It's something you have to learn to deal with in order to make the most of your abilities. I was merely commenting on the fact that it is frustrating, not posturing that it is the only risk I suffer in a round. The same applies to most vehicles, but notably planes. I would never be so naive as to judge the playability of a game based on the behavior of the players, and don't think any matter of growing is going to make me that gullable.

DawidBuchwald wrote:

My point is that the best way to discourage people to fight for a plane it to balance airforce properly. Make them vunerable as every other unit in the game. There would be no point to fight for something that does not guarantee your success. Currently, playing as a pilot is the best way to score points, regardless the skill. This is why all those pathetic things happen. In my opinion, choice of kit/vehicle/strategy should not affect your score, when you are competent at it. Try to score over a hundred points in a fair round as a SpecOps playing his role - infiltrate enemy territory, destroy enemy assets. Be slow, effective, undetected. Have fun. I can assure you that you would love this game much more if it was closer to real battlefield, not some arcade flight-sim, it is now.

Vulnerability is completely relative to the vehicle. Are tanks vulnerable to small arms fire? No. Are planes vulnerable to tanks? Not really. Are tanks vulnerable to AT rockets and C4? Absolutely. Are planes vulnerable to other planes? Absolutely. Like I said, it is relative to the vehicle. Planes are vulnerable, but if your perspective consists of time spent on the ground, you wouldn't really understand that. It's also why a pilot spends a good chunk of any round in the air, looking around for other jets. I know full well another jet has a much higher chance to kill me than anything else on the map, so I make the effort of killing them as often as possible. I also understand that a large part of my purpose is to keep the skies "friendly" so that our helicopters can be effective, as well as our bomber (if applicable to the map) and ground troops. Playing as a pilot is only the best way to score points if you are very skilled with it. You can't, without previous experience and skill, just jump in a jet and expect to get a gold medal. It takes a bit more than that. I think you generalize the ease of scoring points with a jet, a tad much. Please, go recreate some 60-0 rounds where you come in first place, and come back here and tell me about them. Regardless of skill? Well, that's the largest understatement you could possibly make. The only thing that is guaranteed of an unskilled pilot is a timely death.

This game is what it is, and that is an arcade style FPS with some extended aspects of modern warfare. That's all it is. I don't expect flying a plane to be like LO:MAC. I don't expect to have 4 people manning an Abrams. I don't expect to have to deal with my M16A2 jamming on me at unfortunate times. The Battlefield series has always been catered to certain vehicles/weapons on certain maps. That's the way it has always been, and probably will always be. You cannot reasonable expect to do as well on Wake island with a PKM as you can with a jet. There will always be certain vehicles that give you the most advantage on any given map. On most maps with planes, they always have the biggest advantage. On Karkand, armor and medics/support guys have the most advantage as far as points go. Sharqi? Helicopters. Oman? Bomber. Daqing? Bomber. I play to be as effective as possible, and that is knowing what vehicle gives me the most advantage on any given map. Call it what you will, but that's how I play. You shouldn't limit yourself so much, and perhaps you would understand that better. If I refused to do nothing but run around on the ground, regardless of map, I'm sure I'd feel the same way you do.

DawidBuchwald wrote:

Torin wrote:

1 bomb to take out a tank.

You claim that there is nothing like that in a game? Have you ever tried to allow somebody to get into your bomber / chopper? Yes, there is a bomb like that. Called TV missle.

I was talking about jets, obviously.

DawidBuchwald wrote:

I think I'm done with you, Torin. All I have to say - grow up, maybe try to understand why online games can't be similar to Doom, with you as a superhero.

Oh, but they can. If you're good at everything, which I am. I'd be glad if you're done with me... maybe I won't have to give in to my obsession with posting 5 page responses when I know I should be working instead.

DawidBuchwald wrote:

SamSlater wrote:

I love the way pilots say: 'stop whining!' and 'adapt or go elswhere!' I'm sure I can sense panic in their posts! I mean it's bad etiquette for a lowly assualt guy to even concider shooting down a plane! How dare you ask for better AA?! Stop being selfish and think of what it would do to that pilots stats!!! The shame!

Amen. It's all about being selfish. That sad, pathetic child can't just imagine that it would be absolutely possible to avoid being shot down, even if AA turrets would be one shot one kill automatic (unmanned!) weapons with 100% accuracy. He seems to forget that he has his team (SpecOps!) to take out these AA sites. But again, who would help him after being TK'd on runway?

\
It's not about being selfish, it's having a respect for balance. Yes, as much as you both may argue this, if you think anyone should just be able to jump on AA and kill any plane he pleases, you have no respect for balance. Planes are supposed to have this level of dominance over a single ground troop, not vice versa. I'm sorry you don't understand this, I assume because you didn't play the original BF1942. That's how it goes in the Battlefield series. There is more to running around on the ground, and until you diversify your gameplay, you will continue to be biased in this respect. Yes, a lowly assault guy should not even consider shooting down a plane. He should leave that to his team's pilots, the people that are responsible for that type of thing. I love how you pat each other on the back though, that's just classic.

DawidBuchwald wrote:

BTW: my 'strategy' didn't get me 60-0, not even 40 points, but it helped my team to win, as this fucked up retard left the tank. Somebody else took it and used it against our VEHICLES. Made game much more enjoyable and playable for both teams. I guess this is exactly that Torin ment when he called me sad, sad player. Oh, well...

I called you a sad player because of your complete lack of perspective on the game as a whole. You are completely biased towards the few aspects of gameplay you choose to indulge in. You ignore a good chunk of the game, for whatever reason, and as a result, you come on here spouting biased judgements on people that take in more of the game than you care to.

DawidBuchwald wrote:

One more thing about scissors/stone/paper game: you are 100% true. Everybody needs them all, unless some retarded, spoiled kid like Torin brings nuke. Life is full od idiots. The thing about his IQ - that was also funny. I wish he said: my mom told me, that I have 250, so shut up!

What exactly leads you to the assumption that every game should be rock/paper/scissors? BF2 is a lot more complicated than just rock/paper/scissors. Multiple vehicles are good at multiple roles, some better than others. Ground AA is not as good as planes at taking down planes. Planes are not as good as tanks at taking down infantry. They can both do it, one just happens to do it better. Everything has a vulnerability, and sometimes it is against itself. The game is a lot more complicated than you'd like it to be.

I'm glad you think so highly of me (yes, that was sarcasm), it really does nothing but play down the credibility of your post. The fact that you rely on these attempts at insulting me to make your point, just goes to show how weak your point is in the first place.

Plus, Torin, it is possible to land planes. Hard to turn around on some maps so reverse back while you take repairs. I like landing I do!

Yep. True. I'm still perfecting the VTOL landing on the carrier when coming in at speed. Can land normally OK just want to get the hang of a VTOL landing. Your jet stats are very good so, do you think that as long as the AA is now sorted (but obviously more powerful since patch 1.2), are you happy with the balance?
And yep, those strips are hard so hence, reverse back while taking the repair. Plus, I think the hit points on the jets are OK as long as the AA has been de-bugged in patch 1.21.

Last edited by General_CoLin_Tassi (2006-03-10 08:01:29)

VTOL landing is all about judging the distance (based on your current speed) that you should go full reverse, aka full VTOL. Since the repair point on a carrier is near the rear, you want to stop moving forward right around that point, and not have the hover the full length of the carrier or more to get there. The less time you spend hovering, the less likely you are to get shot down. Shooting down a hovering F-35B is the easiest kill in the book for another pilot. I never land normally anymore with the F-35, too many people driving the Blackhawks around like it's their first time in the sky, have had too many people crash into me.

Yes, I am happy with the balance. I would be fine with 1 shot, 1 kill AA rockets if they made the flares work properly and made it so AA missiles couldn't acquire new targets after losing the initial target. I have a real issue with taking damage from a missile that's been in the air for 5 seconds before it locked onto me and hit me with no warning at all. Same goes with flares, they are unreliable in 1.2, sometimes they keep the AA missiles off of me, sometimes just for a second. I still think AA needs a bit of work to remove the bugginess factor, but if they get rid of the bugs and remove the "re-lock ons", I'd be happy with 1 shot AA missiles. As it is now (and I doubt in 1.21 they got rid of ALL of the AA bugs), I think AA damage as it is, is balanced. Too much friendly fire and "third party" missiles to make it any deadlier.

General_CoLin_Tassi wrote:

In fact, looking at your stats Torin, K/D ratio of 9.4 in jets, the AA improvement was needed. LOL.

What's funny about that, is I had an 8.3 K/D with jets before the 1.2 patch, and it jumped up to 9.4 since the patch. The patch brought more people hanging around AA platforms, and made me concentrate on them more to pre-emptively defend myself, resulting in more kills and longer runs. In fact, some of my best streaks in a plane have come after the 1.2 patch, partly because I've had to become a better (read: less lazy) pilot to compensate for the new accuracy of the AA (both friendly and enemy). Now, I've got perfect timing of my flares, and know exactly what situations I can shake AA missiles without them. All in all, I'm happy with the AA being more effective, the only thing that bothers me about the patch is all the "third party" missiles and teamkilling going on because of the deadly re-locks. Plus, I get no satisfaction if my missiles happen to "re-lock" and kill an enemy helicopters that I never saw in the first place, or had any intent to kill. But usually I just get team damage/kills, so that lack of satisfaction doesn't happen too often.

Last edited by Torin (2006-03-10 08:13:49)

I'm honestly glad the newbies can't stay alive since 1.2, gives me another chance at getting in a jet.

But honestly, so long as there are good pilots that can adapt to change, and reasonable counter-measure to AA, I don't think ground pounders are ever going to be happy. Jets have a natural advantage over ground-based AA, especially static emplacements. Unless it's totally unbalanced in favor of AA, good pilots in jets are always going to own ground troops, that's just the nature of the dynamic.

Jets should be killed by jets. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

General_CoLin_Tassi wrote:

lol. My score is better than yours chump. Go practice what you preach and work on your score.

This got childish. Wierd.

Damn, this stuff should go under debates

I love your style of rebutle posting torin, you break down posts then give your input