Pages: 1 … 75 76 77 78 79 … 683

 

2011-03-10 08:26:42
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5601|London, England

jord wrote:

Of course, that's how it should be. Air vehicles at the top of the food chain.

What's the point in having a jet on your team if some nob on the enemy team can select a class with stinger and take you down with little effort?

Vehicles make the bf series.
The imbalanced jets in BF2 were why so many people played I/O. "lol at I/O" or whatever but the fact remains that most times a map like Wake was fun for exactly one person out of 64.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2011-03-10 08:27:22
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5601|London, England

dayarath wrote:

So will bf2s be renamed to bf3s and focus on the game to haul in some new members?
www.bf3s.net
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2011-03-10 08:36:35
Rod Foxx
Warblgarbl
+78|6227|Perth, Australia

jord wrote:

The only balance should be the balance of the 2 teams. if you're lucky enough to get a jet/heli/tank you shouldn't be on par with 1 infantryman, that's stupid.
This is one of the big problems with choppers in BC2.

So many people (and the one's that balance) think that being in a chopper should be just as vulnerable and deadly as being infantry. That is just fucking retarded.

But if air vehicles are the same as BF2 and there is no reasonable counter then many people will end up requesting and flocking to an IO mode just like in BF2.
2011-03-10 08:37:29
Finray
Hup! Dos, Tres, Cuatro
+2,629|6031|Catherine Black
Choppers needed to suck in BC2, because you could only have one team with them at a time, unless you were on conquest.
https://i.imgur.com/qwWEP9F.png
2011-03-10 08:50:33
jord
Member
+2,382|6921|The North, beyond the wall.

JohnG@lt wrote:

jord wrote:

Of course, that's how it should be. Air vehicles at the top of the food chain.

What's the point in having a jet on your team if some nob on the enemy team can select a class with stinger and take you down with little effort?

Vehicles make the bf series.
The imbalanced jets in BF2 were why so many people played I/O. "lol at I/O" or whatever but the fact remains that most times a map like Wake was fun for exactly one person out of 64.
More like 8 out of 64, depending on the situation. That's wake though.

The jets were overpowered at the start, but the newer patches brought them to a more reasonable level.
2011-03-10 09:06:53
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5601|London, England

jord wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

jord wrote:

Of course, that's how it should be. Air vehicles at the top of the food chain.

What's the point in having a jet on your team if some nob on the enemy team can select a class with stinger and take you down with little effort?

Vehicles make the bf series.
The imbalanced jets in BF2 were why so many people played I/O. "lol at I/O" or whatever but the fact remains that most times a map like Wake was fun for exactly one person out of 64.
More like 8 out of 64, depending on the situation. That's wake though.

The jets were overpowered at the start, but the newer patches brought them to a more reasonable level.
Not really. Stationary AA was easy to avoid and most good pilots would bomb it whenever it respawned or the instant it was manned (or just fly away from the missiles). The only way to balance the game with jets included would be to add stingers so the jets have dynamic defenses to play against instead of static. Static defenses are total fail.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2011-03-10 09:07:20
Laika
Member
+75|6187

JohnG@lt wrote:

jord wrote:

Of course, that's how it should be. Air vehicles at the top of the food chain.

What's the point in having a jet on your team if some nob on the enemy team can select a class with stinger and take you down with little effort?

Vehicles make the bf series.
The imbalanced jets in BF2 were why so many people played I/O. "lol at I/O" or whatever but the fact remains that most times a map like Wake was fun for exactly one person out of 64.
People played IO because the absence of armor made for more fun infantry battles, not in order to escape jets. None of the popular IO maps had jets in their vehicle filled counterparts. As for Wake, I think the popularity it enjoyed speaks for itself.

Yeah I like air vehicles because I was pretty good at them (jets not so much but choppers were definitely my thing), but even as a ground troop I really enjoyed the presence of jets and helicopters. Battlefield isn't battlefield without the prominence and dominance of vehicles.
2011-03-10 09:12:07
-Whiteroom-
Pineapplewhat
+572|6902|BC, Canada

Laika wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

jord wrote:

Of course, that's how it should be. Air vehicles at the top of the food chain.

What's the point in having a jet on your team if some nob on the enemy team can select a class with stinger and take you down with little effort?

Vehicles make the bf series.
The imbalanced jets in BF2 were why so many people played I/O. "lol at I/O" or whatever but the fact remains that most times a map like Wake was fun for exactly one person out of 64.
People played IO because the absence of armor made for more fun infantry battles, not in order to escape jets. None of the popular IO maps had jets in their vehicle filled counterparts. As for Wake, I think the popularity it enjoyed speaks for itself.

Yeah I like air vehicles because I was pretty good at them (jets not so much but choppers were definitely my thing), but even as a ground troop I really enjoyed the presence of jets and helicopters. Battlefield isn't battlefield without the prominence and dominance of vehicles.
Ghosttown IO woooohooo.
2011-03-10 09:17:25
DrunkFace
Germans did 911
+427|6924|Disaster Free Zone

Nic wrote:

Laika wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:


The imbalanced jets in BF2 were why so many people played I/O. "lol at I/O" or whatever but the fact remains that most times a map like Wake was fun for exactly one person out of 64.
People played IO because the absence of armor made for more fun infantry battles, not in order to escape jets. None of the popular IO maps had jets in their vehicle filled counterparts. As for Wake, I think the popularity it enjoyed speaks for itself.

Yeah I like air vehicles because I was pretty good at them (jets not so much but choppers were definitely my thing), but even as a ground troop I really enjoyed the presence of jets and helicopters. Battlefield isn't battlefield without the prominence and dominance of vehicles.
Ghosttown Apache woooohooo.
fixed
2011-03-10 09:27:20
thepilot91
Member
+64|6479|Åland!

JohnG@lt wrote:

jord wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:


The imbalanced jets in BF2 were why so many people played I/O. "lol at I/O" or whatever but the fact remains that most times a map like Wake was fun for exactly one person out of 64.
More like 8 out of 64, depending on the situation. That's wake though.

The jets were overpowered at the start, but the newer patches brought them to a more reasonable level.
Not really. Stationary AA was easy to avoid and most good pilots would bomb it whenever it respawned or the instant it was manned (or just fly away from the missiles). The only way to balance the game with jets included would be to add stingers so the jets have dynamic defenses to play against instead of static. Static defenses are total fail.
Can't see why you're still on about this , what jord says is completely right ,and btw it's not that hard to take down most jets in pub. servers (if you're not a complete retard) for instance:

1: everyone who ever stepped into a jet in bf2 knows about the "enemy ground vehicle markers" in bomb mode , so don't sit in the stationary AA waiting to be bombed , use your eyes and use the E button to shoot his sorry ass (F2 if you're in a mobile AA obviously)

2: jets have basically no armor at all , and everyone of them (exept maybe the J-10) are quite large, so if you're not a moron you pick up a Tank/"Armored car"/car / anything with a 50 cal. able to turn the gun 360 degrees , hit (and reg ) 10 or less bullets he's down

3: but as always teamwork is the key to success ( for example : 5 AAs at wake = dead jet , for sure)

yes I'm a jet whore in bf2 , but therefor I also know it's very easy to take one down from the ground if you have a little bit of IQ and do know how to aim (obviously FPS ?? ) and probably atleast 1 guy in your squad?
2011-03-10 09:28:41
DrunkFace
Germans did 911
+427|6924|Disaster Free Zone

JohnG@lt wrote:

jord wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:


The imbalanced jets in BF2 were why so many people played I/O. "lol at I/O" or whatever but the fact remains that most times a map like Wake was fun for exactly one person out of 64.
More like 8 out of 64, depending on the situation. That's wake though.

The jets were overpowered at the start, but the newer patches brought them to a more reasonable level.
Not really. Stationary AA was easy to avoid and most good pilots would bomb it whenever it respawned or the instant it was manned (or just fly away from the missiles). The only way to balance the game with jets included would be to add stingers so the jets have dynamic defenses to play against instead of static. Static defenses are total fail.
They have other planes to contend with. There were obvious problems with the vulnerability of grounded jets, but given a few essex type defences around airbases, it should deter all but the most determined attacks.

But even so, the balance was not terribly far off anyway. Most maps had sufficient mobile and stationary AA to contend with jet, and it took the best pilots to survive unscathed. It wasn't as if any noob could go dominate a round by just stepping into an aircraft.
2011-03-10 09:37:59
UnkleRukus
That Guy
+236|5279|Massachusetts, USA

DrunkFace wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

jord wrote:


More like 8 out of 64, depending on the situation. That's wake though.

The jets were overpowered at the start, but the newer patches brought them to a more reasonable level.
Not really. Stationary AA was easy to avoid and most good pilots would bomb it whenever it respawned or the instant it was manned (or just fly away from the missiles). The only way to balance the game with jets included would be to add stingers so the jets have dynamic defenses to play against instead of static. Static defenses are total fail.
They have other planes to contend with. There were obvious problems with the vulnerability of grounded jets, but given a few essex type defences around airbases, it should deter all but the most determined attacks.

But even so, the balance was not terribly far off anyway. Most maps had sufficient mobile and stationary AA to contend with jet, and it took the best pilots to survive unscathed. It wasn't as if any noob could go dominate a round by just stepping into an aircraft.
Took me a few weeks of practice to master the jets, and each jet was different.
If the women don't find ya handsome. They should at least find ya handy.
2011-03-10 12:26:39
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|7015|PNW

I have nothing against aircraft, but it's far too easy for moderate-skilled pilots to dominate in a map with jets. AA vs skilled pilots was a suicidal proposal, since they'd just come in from directly above to destroy any vehicle/emplacement. The rockets were often useless, as a plane could almost always fly in and out of your targeting sphere before you can get a flareless lock-on. The best way to suppress planes was with other planes, which was fine but kind of unfair for everyone else.

Multiple things could and should have been implemented:

1) Forced landing to reload and add a risk factor and a reprieve from bombing spam for ground pounders.
2) Increased delay between usage of flares OR (preferably) give flare deployment an ammo count.

To compensate for the inconvenience to pilots, red zone death could have been delayed long enough to realistically recover from a height stall or disorientation and fly back before you're injected with cyanide. Also, when they were nerfing the Blackhawk's minigun splash, they should have given the hind a less-dominating weapon. In the time it takes for a US or Chinese attack chopper in that game to kill a squad with the MG, the Hind's gunner is able to flatten an entire team.

And while I'm on the subject, vehicle MG's and smoke deployment could have used an ammo count, and the APC could have used more useful side and rear guns. Those things shot like BB's or something.
2011-03-10 13:23:27
Ilocano
buuuurrrrrrppppp.......
+341|6910

I generally suck with jets, but give me the J-10 and Wake, and the only time I've died was when I couldn't repair, rearm, or crashed because of some outside distraction.
2011-03-10 13:25:29
coke
Aye up duck!
+440|6952|England. Stoke

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

I have nothing against aircraft, but it's far too easy for moderate-skilled pilots to dominate in a map with jets. AA vs skilled pilots was a suicidal proposal, since they'd just come in from directly above to destroy any vehicle/emplacement. The rockets were often useless, as a plane could almost always fly in and out of your targeting sphere before you can get a flareless lock-on. The best way to suppress planes was with other planes, which was fine but kind of unfair for everyone else.

Multiple things could and should have been implemented:

1) Forced landing to reload and add a risk factor and a reprieve from bombing spam for ground pounders.
2) Increased delay between usage of flares OR (preferably) give flare deployment an ammo count.

To compensate for the inconvenience to pilots, red zone death could have been delayed long enough to realistically recover from a height stall or disorientation and fly back before you're injected with cyanide. Also, when they were nerfing the Blackhawk's minigun splash, they should have given the hind a less-dominating weapon. In the time it takes for a US or Chinese attack chopper in that game to kill a squad with the MG, the Hind's gunner is able to flatten an entire team.

And while I'm on the subject, vehicle MG's and smoke deployment could have used an ammo count, and the APC could have used more useful side and rear guns. Those things shot like BB's or something.
When you say, "Hind" I'm guessing you mean the Havoc right?
2011-03-10 13:31:00
Lucien
Fantasma Parastasie
+1,451|6896
Some of you people are worse than vilham at balancing games
https://i.imgur.com/HTmoH.jpg
2011-03-10 13:53:12
Ilocano
buuuurrrrrrppppp.......
+341|6910

Lucien wrote:

Some of you people are worse than vilham at balancing games
what's your interpretation of "balancing games"?  Why do players team kill for aircraft?

Look at BC2.  Heli's goes unused when there isn't a capable pilot.  But get a great pilot, and he seriously dominates.  I got gunner a few times with these crazy pilots, and damn, it was hell fun.  Yes, we got shot down a couple times (and retreated to repair a few times), but we were top of the score list.  On the same notion, I've taken down lots of these crazy heli pilots from the ground, via tracer, AA, guns on tanks, M60, etc.  Better balance than BF2 I say.  But no where near the K/D that aircrafts got you on BF2.
2011-03-10 14:08:06
Lucien
Fantasma Parastasie
+1,451|6896
You cannot give one guy on the ground a fair 50/50 base chance of winning a fight vs. an aircraft. What do you think will happen when you're on a 32 or 64-man server? Aircraft will be useless.

Like I said last page, the solution is to give ground forces a way of DETERRING aircraft. Give them purely defensive AA which is almost guaranteed to win against air attacking it or anything nearby, but which is also very bad at shooting down those aircraft that are just flying by or running away. So basically you have short-range AA that guarantees you wont get bombed within a certain area while it's alive. That also appeases you teamwork faggots who insist that everything needs to be done together (I.E your team has to kill AA before you can run around bombing shit)

ideally we could just have something that takes actual skill to use but FUCK THAT NOISE
https://i.imgur.com/HTmoH.jpg
2011-03-10 14:13:42
Blade4509
Wrench turnin' fool
+202|5752|America

Lucien wrote:

Aircraft will be useless.
This is good.
"Raise the flag high! Let the degenerates know who comes to claim their lives this day!"
2011-03-10 14:13:44
Ilocano
buuuurrrrrrppppp.......
+341|6910

Lucien wrote:

You cannot give one guy on the ground a fair 50/50 base chance of winning a fight vs. an aircraft. What do you think will happen when you're on a 32 or 64-man server? Aircraft will be useless.

Like I said last page, the solution is to give ground forces a way of DETERRING aircraft. Give them purely defensive AA which is almost guaranteed to win against air attacking it or anything nearby, but which is also very bad at shooting down those aircraft that are just flying by or running away. So basically you have short-range AA that guarantees you wont get bombed within a certain area while it's alive. That also appeases you teamwork faggots who insist that everything needs to be done together (I.E your team has to kill AA before you can run around bombing shit)

ideally we could just have something that takes actual skill to use but FUCK THAT NOISE
Great idea.  Will work for jets and bombers.  Will piss off Heli's though.

BC2 tracers are a good compromise actually.  Lousy pilots will get shot down easy.  Smart pilots who get too close could also get tagged by those who are good at tagging.
2011-03-10 14:17:22
Miggle
FUCK UBISOFT
+1,411|6985|FUCK UBISOFT

How about there's an AA class but he's useless on the ground so you have to have ground guys to defend him and he's defending the ground guys from the air and then when he shoots his rocket is kills the jet before it kills his teammates but also his teammates shoot the enemies who want to kill him to help their jet teammates can you dig it?
https://i.imgur.com/86fodNE.png
2011-03-10 14:19:39
Ilocano
buuuurrrrrrppppp.......
+341|6910

I'll take the class.  My P90 would keep me safe enough on the ground.
2011-03-10 14:19:56
Lucien
Fantasma Parastasie
+1,451|6896
BC2's tracers were a load of shit, either you got smoke or you flew high, any dunce with a tracer gun can hit you easily if you get close

not a fun mechanic
https://i.imgur.com/HTmoH.jpg
2011-03-10 14:22:32
Ilocano
buuuurrrrrrppppp.......
+341|6910

Lucien wrote:

BC2's tracers were a load of shit, either you got smoke or you flew high, any dunce with a tracer gun can hit you easily if you get close

not a fun mechanic
Exactly.  A good compromise.  Keep your distance or smoke(needs to be delayed or finite ammo).  None of that attack helicopter circle-jerking a flag.
2011-03-10 14:27:47
Ilocano
buuuurrrrrrppppp.......
+341|6910

BF3 Wake with just a couple more AA would work out good actually, since you can now destroy those damn palm trees that caused you to lose lock countless times.

 

Pages: 1 … 75 76 77 78 79 … 683

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard