Actually thats not a bad idea. I'm so sick of fucking gay admins crying about that shit. The game should be able to police itself.Longbow wrote:
Imo Phalanx should be destroyeble only by boms and missiles, jet gun shouldn't do any damage (for balance issues). As said above, carrier should be hard to attack, it should be feared by enemy pilots.Snake wrote:
Just put another one up requesting a buff to the USS Essex CIWS gun - for increased armour & lower overheating time
- Index »
- Games »
- Battlefield Series »
- Battlefield 2 »
- The official list of 1.5 request on the EA forums thread
Personally, I wish they would put the Blackhawk minigun power back to 3. I never played with it at 3, but if it will get more people in the blackhawk & not standing on the carrier having an "E" fest with everyone else, then I welcome it. Plus one TV missile would equal a lot more kills
The problem with that is that it might make the BH to dominate on maps without choppers, jets ,or mobile AA, such as Mashtuur. And as a result DICE is not going to make it as strong as it was.Perv3rt wrote:
Personally, I wish they would put the Blackhawk minigun power back to 3. I never played with it at 3, but if it will get more people in the blackhawk & not standing on the carrier having an "E" fest with everyone else, then I welcome it. Plus one TV missile would equal a lot more kills
thisAjax_the_Great1 wrote:
Actually thats not a bad idea. I'm so sick of fucking gay admins crying about that shit. The game should be able to police itself.Longbow wrote:
Imo Phalanx should be destroyeble only by boms and missiles, jet gun shouldn't do any damage (for balance issues). As said above, carrier should be hard to attack, it should be feared by enemy pilots.Snake wrote:
Just put another one up requesting a buff to the USS Essex CIWS gun - for increased armour & lower overheating time
Regardless of my skill and regardless of my gloating, F35 Vs J10 sometimes becomes boring after the 6th time of returning to the carrier to get missiles. I'd rather take the F35 in a dogfight over the F18 on any map against any jet, it's sluggish and being able to bomb well with it is difficult short of being 5m away from your target, which isn't the best option on any map where you're going up against the J10.Lucien wrote:
if only gloating on forums was easierHakei wrote:
Yeah, F35 Vs. J10 is probably the most balanced dogfight possible
The only thing it'd be good for is allowing people who can barely fly to stay alive for longer and do pretty much nothing with the jet for the round, the F35 has ability and potential in the right hands, and only about 1% of the population actually know how to use it.
Inb4 selfish calls and witty one lined retorts.
I'm down for making all jet hitboxes like the mig's. That way proper flare timing is rewarded and no one gets hit by a head on missle like in the f35.
Yeah, and Songhua might be more fun to play. As it is now, if I play Mashtuur I don't use the side guns. I just c4 spam, whilst the pilot is support. Friendly Fire off servers, lol. Admins don't seem to find it funny though?DoctaStrangelove wrote:
The problem with that is that it might make the BH to dominate on maps without choppers, jets ,or mobile AA, such as Mashtuur. And as a result DICE is not going to make it as strong as it was.Perv3rt wrote:
Personally, I wish they would put the Blackhawk minigun power back to 3. I never played with it at 3, but if it will get more people in the blackhawk & not standing on the carrier having an "E" fest with everyone else, then I welcome it. Plus one TV missile would equal a lot more kills
This is almost true, however the MiG has a really unreliable hitbox, and timing flares with the MiG is probably the hardest part of flying it :p.aimless wrote:
I'm down for making all jet hitboxes like the mig's. That way proper flare timing is rewarded and no one gets hit by a head on missle like in the f35.
Plus yeah, it's very rare they're going to actually edit the hitboxes, I think there's some serious coding needed for that.
I have very bad memories of BH gunners waving their crosshairs around and seeing DPVs etc go *pop* as soon as the bullets get near the car - no real skill on the part of the gunner, just waving the crosshair in the car's general direction. What I find really amusing about the splash damage thing is that many of those in support of increased BH splash damage also support anti-nade measures..."Spam is good, as long as I'm the one doing it".
If the BH splash damage increase will happen, I think the following changes also need to be made:
- Increased damage per shot, and splash damage for chopper-mounted .50cals, to balance maps like Songhua and Mashtuur.
- APC damage vs. choppers needs to be increased. Currently a .50cal is a better AA weapon than an APC's cannon, and this does not make sense.
What do you pro-BH-splash types think of these last two suggestions?
If the BH splash damage increase will happen, I think the following changes also need to be made:
- Increased damage per shot, and splash damage for chopper-mounted .50cals, to balance maps like Songhua and Mashtuur.
- APC damage vs. choppers needs to be increased. Currently a .50cal is a better AA weapon than an APC's cannon, and this does not make sense.
What do you pro-BH-splash types think of these last two suggestions?
And you think that non-armoured partly-aluminium DPV's shouldn't explode after a sec. of sustained 7.62x51 fire at RPM of 4500-6000 shots per munute? And please re-read the whole thread, NO-ONE was talking about 3.0 splash damage, it will be 2x less - 1.5 - enough to kill something, not enough to whore imo.Pubic wrote:
I have very bad memories of BH gunners waving their crosshairs around and seeing DPVs etc go *pop* as soon as the bullets get near the car - no real skill on the part of the gunner, just waving the crosshair in the car's general direction. What I find really amusing about the splash damage thing is that many of those in support of increased BH splash damage also support anti-nade measures..."Spam is good, as long as I'm the one doing it".
I like both your suggestions, they make sence. Actually I've been thinking of the same, but I doubt DICE will buff 25/30mm cannons damage against light vehicles or add splash to helicopter-mounted .50 cals.Pubic wrote:
If the BH splash damage increase will happen, I think the following changes also need to be made:
- Increased damage per shot, and splash damage for chopper-mounted .50cals, to balance maps like Songhua and Mashtuur.
- APC damage vs. choppers needs to be increased. Currently a .50cal is a better AA weapon than an APC's cannon, and this does not make sense.
What do you pro-BH-splash types think of these last two suggestions?
None of that matters one little bit. This is a game and is designed to be fun an balanced, reality means SFA.Longbow wrote:
And you think that non-armoured partly-aluminium DPV's shouldn't explode after a sec. of sustained 7.62x51 fire at RPM of 4500-6000 shots per munute? And please re-read the whole thread, NO-ONE was talking about 3.0 splash damage, it will be 2x less - 1.5 - enough to kill something, not enough to whore imo.Pubic wrote:
I have very bad memories of BH gunners waving their crosshairs around and seeing DPVs etc go *pop* as soon as the bullets get near the car - no real skill on the part of the gunner, just waving the crosshair in the car's general direction. What I find really amusing about the splash damage thing is that many of those in support of increased BH splash damage also support anti-nade measures..."Spam is good, as long as I'm the one doing it".
Both good suggestions, and I heard somewhere (but can not confirm) that they will be improving the .50 cal guns in the choppers (or just replacing them with the BH miniguns).Longbow wrote:
I like both your suggestions, they make sence. Actually I've been thinking of the same, but I doubt DICE will buff 25/30mm cannons damage against light vehicles or add splash to helicopter-mounted .50 cals.Pubic wrote:
If the BH splash damage increase will happen, I think the following changes also need to be made:
- Increased damage per shot, and splash damage for chopper-mounted .50cals, to balance maps like Songhua and Mashtuur.
- APC damage vs. choppers needs to be increased. Currently a .50cal is a better AA weapon than an APC's cannon, and this does not make sense.
What do you pro-BH-splash types think of these last two suggestions?
four to six people working together should not be easy to take down. Such teamwork should be adequately rewarded.DrunkFace wrote:
balanced.
So a 4 man squad working together in a humvee doesn't deserve that same 'reward' or ease to 'take down'?Lucien wrote:
four to six people working together should not be easy to take down. Such teamwork should be adequately rewarded.DrunkFace wrote:
balanced.
And you're also forgetting about the balance of one team getting a supper awesome invincible killing machine and the other one getting a bathtub.
A humvee has a driver, a gunner, and two people in the back doing nothing. A blackhawk with only two active people in it isn't much better. A blackhawk with four to six people actively working together to keep it in the air should require the same amount of people to take it down.DrunkFace wrote:
So a 4 man squad working together in a humvee doesn't deserve that same 'reward' or ease to 'take down'?Lucien wrote:
four to six people working together should not be easy to take down. Such teamwork should be adequately rewarded.DrunkFace wrote:
balanced.
Fuck off.And you're also forgetting about the balance of one team getting a supper awesome invincible killing machine and the other one getting a bathtub.
And stop using quotes for no good reason, it makes you look like an idiot.
Making it so it takes 4-6 people to nail a single Hawk means unnessecary numbers of players are taking a job that can be handled by 1-2 AT guys.Lucien wrote:
A humvee has a driver, a gunner, and two people in the back doing nothing. A blackhawk with only two active people in it isn't much better. A blackhawk with four to six people actively working together to keep it in the air should require the same amount of people to take it down.DrunkFace wrote:
So a 4 man squad working together in a humvee doesn't deserve that same 'reward' or ease to 'take down'?Lucien wrote:
four to six people working together should not be easy to take down. Such teamwork should be adequately rewarded.
Of course, everything should have a counter and Blackhawks too, but just not every vehicle on the map. I don't want to make the BH stronger in any other way than the minigun buff that's already happened, I just want to prevent it from being nerfed.M.O.A.B wrote:
Making it so it takes 4-6 people to nail a single Hawk means unnessecary numbers of players are taking a job that can be handled by 1-2 AT guys.
It seems to be getting a lot of support to be buffedLongbow wrote:
Imo Phalanx should be destroyeble only by boms and missiles, jet gun shouldn't do any damage (for balance issues). As said above, carrier should be hard to attack, it should be feared by enemy pilots.Snake wrote:
Just put another one up requesting a buff to the USS Essex CIWS gun - for increased armour & lower overheating time
I'll quite happily embrace a fearsome Blackhawk again. The days of cowering in fear when you hear it approaching were special, and nothing like that exists in the game at the moment anymore. Obviously I don't want it like it was back in those days, but the current buff sounds like an excellent change.
In theory anyway . Can't wait to test it. He said the patch was going to be released today but some localisation thing with Blue Pearl held it back.
In theory anyway . Can't wait to test it. He said the patch was going to be released today but some localisation thing with Blue Pearl held it back.
gj snakeypoo
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
What, they can't be in the back repairing? Like what they do in a BH.Lucien wrote:
A humvee has a driver, a gunner, and two people in the back doing nothing.DrunkFace wrote:
So a 4 man squad working together in a humvee doesn't deserve that same 'reward' or ease to 'take down'?Lucien wrote:
four to six people working together should not be easy to take down. Such teamwork should be adequately rewarded.
Whenever Im in the back of a humvee I normally drop clays
Yeah, also there is 5 (if not counting pilot) players who dont cap / defend flags and other team may get a ticket drain for opponentsM.O.A.B wrote:
Making it so it takes 4-6 people to nail a single Hawk means unnessecary numbers of players are taking a job that can be handled by 1-2 AT guys.Lucien wrote:
A humvee has a driver, a gunner, and two people in the back doing nothing. A blackhawk with only two active people in it isn't much better. A blackhawk with four to six people actively working together to keep it in the air should require the same amount of people to take it down.DrunkFace wrote:
So a 4 man squad working together in a humvee doesn't deserve that same 'reward' or ease to 'take down'?
I was just playing a Dalian Plant server. With this map being what it is (half the players swap to be PLA, USMC get camped to hell), maybe powering up the BH isn't such a bad idea. Would help stop wake camps also.
I'm glad your finally realized it.Pubic wrote:
I was just playing a Dalian Plant server. With this map being what it is (half the players swap to be PLA, USMC get camped to hell), maybe powering up the BH isn't such a bad idea. Would help stop wake camps also.
Damn you and your sig dominiko I just lost the game!
Last edited by Pubic (2009-05-07 23:48:11)
- Index »
- Games »
- Battlefield Series »
- Battlefield 2 »
- The official list of 1.5 request on the EA forums thread