If planes and aircraft were so easy to kill, what incentive would people have to fly them? Aircraft are and have been the dominant tool of war ever since their invention and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future. So why shouldn't that dominance (within reason) transfer to games? The natural counter to planes and choppers are the opposing teams planes and choppers, both teams start with (mostly) equal aircraft, so ones teams dominance is more likely a reflection of the other teams lack of skill, rather then a vehicle being to 'powerful'. Of course the games not perfect and I'd like to see more air defence around airfields (1 stinger is just pathetic) to stop spawn rape of grounded aircraft.JohnG@lt wrote:
Well they had to do something to nerf pilots. Very rarely could you ever see someone go 25-1 in a tank but it happened regularly in choppers and planes. Yes, it took skill for a pilot to go 25-1 but even the most hardcore pilot should surely be able to see that they were massively overpowered with no natural counter.DrunkFace wrote:
lol l2comprehension.Lucien wrote:
yellowtext #1 was talking about BFBC2 choppers
yellowtext #2 was talking about SF choppers
your face doesn't make sense
He's talking about a 'trend' in chopper manoeuvrability being diminished through the various progressions of the BF series specifically barrel rolls and circle strafing, but then claims that the SF choppers (the second of the 4 progressions stated) have better manoeuvrability, specifically circle strafing which contradicts the trend and his whole argument.
Flying is the most fun you can have in the game, no doubt, and I'm not suggesting that a plane should be brought down with an AK-47, but they did the game a disservice when they didn't implement an effective counter. Helicopters especially have been vulnerable since halfway through Vietnam when Hueys were getting shot down on a daily basis. This should've been reflected in the game better.
Fly high = death by J10.-Sh1fty- wrote:
Mounted HMGs on vodniks were synonym to "Suicide. A good pilot would fly high and slowly forward. The gunner just needed to wait until he either spotted something moving, or see an idiot in a vodnik with a trail of tracers leading to him so he could right click and sent a KD ruiner your way.wah1188 wrote:
Mounted mg on a vodnik or noobtube. Hard to pull off but once you do it's like bamn!-Sh1fty- wrote:
I'd like some proper chopper mechanics, something that actually takes skill to master and some little eTard can't just come on his 'ol bro's game and pwn with uber TV missiles.
The TV missiles weren't over powered, the problem was there was nothing to counter it with. Static AA? Don't make me laugh! Those things weren't worth a thing and all the pilot had to do was deploy flares and point the gunner @ the AA.
Also you couldn't kill a chopper with two AA missiles, you had to RELOAD, then you could hopefully (If you're still alive) take down the chopper.
Imagine sniping the tail rotor with an M95 and watching the sucker spin to it's death.
MW2 is so full of retards, people go around in "clans" stomping on pubs acting all hard and shit.
Real, 'good' pilots fly low, using the terrain as cover.
I have noticed there is no consorted effort to man all or some of the stinger missles. Maps like Gulf of Oman give the foot soldiers an advantage over the enemy planes/copters if the players mounted on the AA at each base, especially for the american side. If you can't manage to shoot the plane down at least make them release their flares so your planes have a chance to engage with their missles. Everyone is more concerned about getting the kill or being killed they fail to see what tactical advantages they have or can use for the sake of the team. skilled pilots can't win the map on their own even if he or she has the highest KDR in the plane. There are ways to counter aircrafts, not completely, you may get bombed or strafed in the process, but the whole goal to weaken them to a point that your team mates can finish the job.DrunkFace wrote:
If planes and aircraft were so easy to kill, what incentive would people have to fly them? Aircraft are and have been the dominant tool of war ever since their invention and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future. So why shouldn't that dominance (within reason) transfer to games? The natural counter to planes and choppers are the opposing teams planes and choppers, both teams start with (mostly) equal aircraft, so ones teams dominance is more likely a reflection of the other teams lack of skill, rather then a vehicle being to 'powerful'. Of course the games not perfect and I'd like to see more air defence around airfields (1 stinger is just pathetic) to stop spawn rape of grounded aircraft.JohnG@lt wrote:
Well they had to do something to nerf pilots. Very rarely could you ever see someone go 25-1 in a tank but it happened regularly in choppers and planes. Yes, it took skill for a pilot to go 25-1 but even the most hardcore pilot should surely be able to see that they were massively overpowered with no natural counter.DrunkFace wrote:
lol l2comprehension.
He's talking about a 'trend' in chopper manoeuvrability being diminished through the various progressions of the BF series specifically barrel rolls and circle strafing, but then claims that the SF choppers (the second of the 4 progressions stated) have better manoeuvrability, specifically circle strafing which contradicts the trend and his whole argument.
Flying is the most fun you can have in the game, no doubt, and I'm not suggesting that a plane should be brought down with an AK-47, but they did the game a disservice when they didn't implement an effective counter. Helicopters especially have been vulnerable since halfway through Vietnam when Hueys were getting shot down on a daily basis. This should've been reflected in the game better.
Sums it up pretty well.loubot wrote:
I have noticed there is no consorted effort to man all or some of the stinger missles. Maps like Gulf of Oman give the foot soldiers an advantage over the enemy planes/copters if the players mounted on the AA at each base, especially for the american side. If you can't manage to shoot the plane down at least make them release their flares so your planes have a chance to engage with their missles. Everyone is more concerned about getting the kill or being killed they fail to see what tactical advantages they have or can use for the sake of the team. skilled pilots can't win the map on their own even if he or she has the highest KDR in the plane. There are ways to counter aircrafts, not completely, you may get bombed or strafed in the process, but the whole goal to weaken them to a point that your team mates can finish the job.DrunkFace wrote:
If planes and aircraft were so easy to kill, what incentive would people have to fly them? Aircraft are and have been the dominant tool of war ever since their invention and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future. So why shouldn't that dominance (within reason) transfer to games? The natural counter to planes and choppers are the opposing teams planes and choppers, both teams start with (mostly) equal aircraft, so ones teams dominance is more likely a reflection of the other teams lack of skill, rather then a vehicle being to 'powerful'. Of course the games not perfect and I'd like to see more air defence around airfields (1 stinger is just pathetic) to stop spawn rape of grounded aircraft.JohnG@lt wrote:
Well they had to do something to nerf pilots. Very rarely could you ever see someone go 25-1 in a tank but it happened regularly in choppers and planes. Yes, it took skill for a pilot to go 25-1 but even the most hardcore pilot should surely be able to see that they were massively overpowered with no natural counter.
Flying is the most fun you can have in the game, no doubt, and I'm not suggesting that a plane should be brought down with an AK-47, but they did the game a disservice when they didn't implement an effective counter. Helicopters especially have been vulnerable since halfway through Vietnam when Hueys were getting shot down on a daily basis. This should've been reflected in the game better.
As a competent pilot i agree, i can and have gotten gold stars by flying, only to have my team lose by 100 because they can't cap a flag. Jets may be really intimidating, but when you're flying around it is really tough to see that one infantry cap something. It's also easy to miss that fast little FAV get to the flag and cap it.
Then you'd get raped by AA because you flares wouldn't work that low.Finray wrote:
Fly high = death by J10.-Sh1fty- wrote:
Mounted HMGs on vodniks were synonym to "Suicide. A good pilot would fly high and slowly forward. The gunner just needed to wait until he either spotted something moving, or see an idiot in a vodnik with a trail of tracers leading to him so he could right click and sent a KD ruiner your way.wah1188 wrote:
Mounted mg on a vodnik or noobtube. Hard to pull off but once you do it's like bamn!
MW2 is so full of retards, people go around in "clans" stomping on pubs acting all hard and shit.
Real, 'good' pilots fly low, using the terrain as cover.
In ArmA 2 though I always use terrain as cover, it's amazing I love the radar system in ArmA 2.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
AA can't shoot through the ground.. You use it as cover, remember?-Sh1fty- wrote:
Then you'd get raped by AA because you flares wouldn't work that low.Finray wrote:
Fly high = death by J10.-Sh1fty- wrote:
Mounted HMGs on vodniks were synonym to "Suicide. A good pilot would fly high and slowly forward. The gunner just needed to wait until he either spotted something moving, or see an idiot in a vodnik with a trail of tracers leading to him so he could right click and sent a KD ruiner your way.
Real, 'good' pilots fly low, using the terrain as cover.
In ArmA 2 though I always use terrain as cover, it's amazing I love the radar system in ArmA 2.
Planes and helicopters are easy to kill in real life. That's why they send in the wild weasels, tomahawk missiles, Predators, warthogs, etc. first to take out the radar and SAM sites before they bring in the air superiority, bombers, and helicopters.DrunkFace wrote:
If planes and aircraft were so easy to kill, what incentive would people have to fly them? Aircraft are and have been the dominant tool of war ever since their invention and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future. So why shouldn't that dominance (within reason) transfer to games? The natural counter to planes and choppers are the opposing teams planes and choppers, both teams start with (mostly) equal aircraft, so ones teams dominance is more likely a reflection of the other teams lack of skill, rather then a vehicle being to 'powerful'. Of course the games not perfect and I'd like to see more air defence around airfields (1 stinger is just pathetic) to stop spawn rape of grounded aircraft.
yeah I mentioned that 2, thats how it should be in the game, planes and heli's should be an easy kill not the other way aroundIlocano wrote:
Planes and helicopters are easy to kill in real life. That's why they send in the wild weasels, tomahawk missiles, Predators, warthogs, etc. first to take out the radar and SAM sites before they bring in the air superiority, bombers, and helicopters.DrunkFace wrote:
If planes and aircraft were so easy to kill, what incentive would people have to fly them? Aircraft are and have been the dominant tool of war ever since their invention and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future. So why shouldn't that dominance (within reason) transfer to games? The natural counter to planes and choppers are the opposing teams planes and choppers, both teams start with (mostly) equal aircraft, so ones teams dominance is more likely a reflection of the other teams lack of skill, rather then a vehicle being to 'powerful'. Of course the games not perfect and I'd like to see more air defence around airfields (1 stinger is just pathetic) to stop spawn rape of grounded aircraft.
Yay www.bf3s.com I can't wait. The release will also be the jump this forum needs!
Helicopters have proven very valuable in the last few major conflicts. However, this is only because all recent mayor conflicts were conflicts of assymetrical warfare where the enemy (insurgents) do not have any significant anti air support at all. When the Mujahedin were supplied with American Stingers, it basically lost the Soviets their Afghan war.
If we look at the 2008 South-Ossetia conflict where Russia practically steamrolled Tiblissian forces, we notice that among the few casualties sustained by Russia there is a disproportionate amount of downed aircraft (especially considering that Georgia had exactly two planes). This was because the Tiblissians fairly easily held the airspace from the ground. Because of a few pesky mobile AA units, Russia was not at all able to gain air supremacy, and there was little they could do about it untill ground troops had encroached on the AA positions.
=============================================================================================
On topic: can't the remark about BF3 be read as BC2 BEING BF3? It certainly is doing well on PC sales in any case, even better than on the consoles. Seems the dwindling numbers prediction does not hold when you come with the right sort of game.
If we look at the 2008 South-Ossetia conflict where Russia practically steamrolled Tiblissian forces, we notice that among the few casualties sustained by Russia there is a disproportionate amount of downed aircraft (especially considering that Georgia had exactly two planes). This was because the Tiblissians fairly easily held the airspace from the ground. Because of a few pesky mobile AA units, Russia was not at all able to gain air supremacy, and there was little they could do about it untill ground troops had encroached on the AA positions.
=============================================================================================
On topic: can't the remark about BF3 be read as BC2 BEING BF3? It certainly is doing well on PC sales in any case, even better than on the consoles. Seems the dwindling numbers prediction does not hold when you come with the right sort of game.
idea - why dont they have some system where you have to earn the ability to be able to drive a tank - fly a plane etc, and once you are able to do whatever, make it Really Hard to be able to "learn" how to do something else?
Lai wrote:
On topic: can't the remark about BF3 be read as BC2 BEING BF3? It certainly is doing well on PC sales in any case, even better than on the consoles. Seems the dwindling numbers prediction does not hold when you come with the right sort of game.
http://www.mcvuk.com/news/37880/BFBC2-f … er-of-201053 per cent of the game’s sales went to the Xbox 360 SKU, with PS3 claiming 31 per cent and the PC 16 per cent, topping all three of the individual charts in the process.
I hope BF3 is better than BFBC2. BFBC2 feels and plays a lot like the console version of BF1942.
I'm partly to blame. BC2: 2 copies for the 360, 1 copy for the PC. And everyone else I know who has gotten it has gotten it for the 360...DrunkFace wrote:
Lai wrote:
On topic: can't the remark about BF3 be read as BC2 BEING BF3? It certainly is doing well on PC sales in any case, even better than on the consoles. Seems the dwindling numbers prediction does not hold when you come with the right sort of game.http://www.mcvuk.com/news/37880/BFBC2-f … er-of-201053 per cent of the game’s sales went to the Xbox 360 SKU, with PS3 claiming 31 per cent and the PC 16 per cent, topping all three of the individual charts in the process.
I wish for a 108 player support
THAT'S ALMOST 9 THOUSAND!fermatx wrote:
I wish for a 108 player support
"Raise the flag high! Let the degenerates know who comes to claim their lives this day!"
If there's no prone in BF3, I'm not doing it. No way.
And how do you propose we earn this right to fly a plane and drive a tank?Nappy wrote:
idea - why dont they have some system where you have to earn the ability to be able to drive a tank - fly a plane etc, and once you are able to do whatever, make it Really Hard to be able to "learn" how to do something else?
And this too.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
If there's no prone in BF3, I'm not doing it. No way.
Last edited by RDMC (2010-03-11 10:03:14)
Whatever theatre its in, it needs to be balanced.
42 & BFV were balanced, they were more of a rock-paper-scissors thing. BF2 wasn't, it was more of a pyramid style of play. Jets/helis are too powerful...fun to fly around, but too powerful if game balance is desired, either nerf them, introduce a Stinger/Grail/etc kit, or simply have less of them.
Battlefield 3 also needs better support for custom maps. It really adds another dimension to any game where you can introduce a lot of user-generated content.
Battlecraft 3 or similar to encourage map creation, quake-style automatic map downloading to facilitate the spread of custom maps, and either add support for a selection of custom maps to the stats system or remove stats entirely - to give people an incentive to play custom maps.
42 & BFV were balanced, they were more of a rock-paper-scissors thing. BF2 wasn't, it was more of a pyramid style of play. Jets/helis are too powerful...fun to fly around, but too powerful if game balance is desired, either nerf them, introduce a Stinger/Grail/etc kit, or simply have less of them.
Battlefield 3 also needs better support for custom maps. It really adds another dimension to any game where you can introduce a lot of user-generated content.
Battlecraft 3 or similar to encourage map creation, quake-style automatic map downloading to facilitate the spread of custom maps, and either add support for a selection of custom maps to the stats system or remove stats entirely - to give people an incentive to play custom maps.
But half of the incentive to play the game is the stats. Why remove them for some maps that people may not even play. Just make custom maps only available for unranked matches.Pubic wrote:
Whatever theatre its in, it needs to be balanced.
42 & BFV were balanced, they were more of a rock-paper-scissors thing. BF2 wasn't, it was more of a pyramid style of play. Jets/helis are too powerful...fun to fly around, but too powerful if game balance is desired, either nerf them, introduce a Stinger/Grail/etc kit, or simply have less of them.
Battlefield 3 also needs better support for custom maps. It really adds another dimension to any game where you can introduce a lot of user-generated content.
Battlecraft 3 or similar to encourage map creation, quake-style automatic map downloading to facilitate the spread of custom maps, and either add support for a selection of custom maps to the stats system or remove stats entirely - to give people an incentive to play custom maps.
If the rumours are true, there will be battalions of people, platoon leaders, squad leaders, etc.-Sh1fty- wrote:
QFTTimmmmaaaaH wrote:
I dont see how BF3 could be anything more than BC2 with planes and more vehicles on slightly larger maps honestly.
It wont be anything genre breaking, as its EA.
I heard the amount of people on a map will be about the same as MAG
What Blade said.....
BF3 imo should just be a more perfected version of BF2. Would be cool if it took place in a near distant future... maybe 2025 or 2050?
More customizable equipment like weapon mods and armor, different camos, more balanced gameplay and a refined ranking system...
All they need to do really is improve upon BF2, but also make it its own game with its own unique flavor. If they do that I'll be happy.
BF3 imo should just be a more perfected version of BF2. Would be cool if it took place in a near distant future... maybe 2025 or 2050?
More customizable equipment like weapon mods and armor, different camos, more balanced gameplay and a refined ranking system...
All they need to do really is improve upon BF2, but also make it its own game with its own unique flavor. If they do that I'll be happy.
BF3 = BF2 1.02 please