So every HA can be an aircraft counter? - Page 10

Ranik Ortega · 2012-07-21, 07:49 PM

Originally Posted by ParisTeta

I`m still waiting for a good argument, why a resource free spawn class, which is easy aviable, will probaly be avialbe in big numbers alos because of other advantages and flexibility, should be a hard counter to a limited aviable due resource cost, time cost, and more limited because it is a choice of many, should kill the later regulary.

Good Arguments why that should happen in a balanced game. Yup i dared you!

See my post above. It shouldn't be a hard counter.

maradine · 2012-07-21, 07:50 PM

The simple argument is "your premise is inaccurate". From the footage we've seen, the default HA launcher is annoying to aircraft at best. I don't consider that a hard counter. Maybe we have different definitions of "hard counter".

ParisTeta · 2012-07-21, 08:39 PM

Great that you responded, but i challanged the guys (and girls) who say, Infantry (non MAX) should be hard counter to them.

Most Argument i want to kill it so, so i can protect my squad/ so infantry isn`t helpless. I can understand this, but this is also archivable with chasing away an aircraft. Those people i want to get out and put an real argument forth, hey maybe I can learn something from them? Or they learn something from me? Who knows?

ParisTeta · 2012-07-21, 09:17 PM

No, i don`t want to get kill often and easy by an "unlimited" class, when i fly an aircraft, because of this, i don`t excpet to kill an aircraft unless it acts stupid.

The constant "lock on warning" are a pain in the neck, but if every single player as a real chance to kill you without action stupid, that is bad balance, and i don`t want easy infantry kill, in my opinion infantry AA weapon (except dual aa maxes) should only scare away EA (because of the resource cost), so HA provides protection, but is not the hard counter.

So the argument i just want easy kill, dosn`t really hold, what make you think that? And please consider, that most of the "vehicluars" will also spend alot of time infantry with the spawntimer as it is now.

TheSaltySeagull · 2012-07-21, 09:27 PM

Originally Posted by ParisTeta

Great that you responded, but i challanged the guys (and girls) who say, Infantry (non MAX) should be hard counter to them.

Most Argument i want to kill it so, so i can protect my squad/ so infantry isn`t helpless. I can understand this, but this is also archivable with chasing away an aircraft. Those people i want to get out and put an real argument forth, hey maybe I can learn something from them? Or they learn something from me? Who knows?

I did not read the ENITRE thread but I dont think anybody made to comment that a single infantry man should "hard counter" air. I think most of us are happy with infantry AA acting as a deterrence against air farming infantry in the absence of dedicated AA like maxes of AA speced vehicles. But to actually kill aircraft you need multiple HAs or dedicated AA units.

It appears you are attempting to call out a group of people who do not exist.

Flaropri · 2012-07-21, 09:27 PM

Originally Posted by ParisTeta

Great that you responded, but i challanged the guys (and girls) who say, Infantry (non MAX) should be hard counter to them.

People have said they should be a soft counter*, but I haven't read anyone that said they should be a hard counter**. Perhaps I missed that post.

*(I define soft counter as something that can, with effort and skill, have a chance at dealing with the threat, but it won't always succeed.)

**(Hard Counters have a large advantage and will almost always win.)

Non-Resource soft counters to resource-based mechanics simply so that resource-based mechanics obviate the ability for the losing side (map-wise) to have a chance at a comeback without having something that makes resource control meaningless.

An Engy in a Fighter (for example) should be able to take on an HA with a rocket launcher, or at the very least, survive, repair, and otherwise be good to go. However, a skilled HA against an unskilled pilot, or several HA in tandem should have a good chance at taking out a single Fighter. It shouldn't only be that AA Lightnings or Fighters are able to take on other Fighters or Air support, because that makes it at best rock paper scissors, and at worst a continuous stomp based on who has the most resources, rather than who has the best strategy/skill (while still giving the advantage to the player with resources).

Vydofnir · 2012-07-22, 12:54 AM

Originally Posted by ParisTeta

I`m still waiting for a good argument, why a resource free spawn class, which is easy aviable, will probaly be avialbe in big numbers alos because of other advantages and flexibility, should be a hard counter to a limited aviable due resource cost, time cost, and more limited because it is a choice of many, should kill the later regulary.

Good Arguments why that should happen in a balanced game. Yup i dared you!

I don't think anyone in this thread has taken the position that a single HA with a standard missile launcher should be a "hard counter" to aircraft. The OP expressed concern over the presence of a lock on mechanic and hybrid HV/HA launchers, and we have seen posts from many members that disagree with the idea that the presence of either of these things is inherently overpowered or unbalanced to the point of being game breaking, but that doesn't imply the above. Perhaps if you quoted one of the posts which you believe is in support of the "hard counter" idea, we would better be able to understand whom exactly you are challenging, and what premises led to that conclusion.

LegioX · 2012-07-22, 01:51 AM

Originally Posted by DjEclipse

You want to use your aircraft for easymode softy kills. If you looking for easy lulz go infil, me thinks that sniper is going to be annoying as fuck.

How are enemy air going to get easy mode ground kills with other enemy air in the area? Think about it.

ThermalReaper · 2012-07-22, 05:08 AM

This thread still lives? I already reliased the lock on won't be horrible like battlefield.

Also, I don't really care if it's like that in real life. This is a game, and battlefield's version of it is not fun at all.

ThermalReaper · 2012-07-25, 08:50 AM

I know this is thread nerco but I just noticed something. The logical way for an HA loadout is to say, in the VS HA case, Not have the lasher and the AA/AT weapon both at the same time. So it'll probably have a choice to switch out the rocket launcher for the faction heavy weapons. Problem? The HA would probably have the LMG and the Heavy weapon. Wouldn't that give HA too much flexablity?

MorioMortis · 2012-07-25, 03:47 PM

Originally Posted by ThermalReaper

I know this is thread nerco but I just noticed something. The logical way for an HA loadout is to say, in the VS HA case, Not have the lasher and the AA/AT weapon both at the same time. So it'll probably have a choice to switch out the rocket launcher for the faction heavy weapons. Problem? The HA would probably have the LMG and the Heavy weapon. Wouldn't that give HA too much flexablity?

I am not sure I understand your point here, but I think that currently, the HA get a AV and/or AA weapon and an AI weapon, which is either an LMG or the faction specific weapon. I don't see how this is a problem, as the HA needs a primary weapon to combat infantry, and it's "special" role is destroying vehicles, so it needs tools for that too.

Unless what you are commenting on is the possibility of HA having both an LMG and a faction specific HA weapon, in which I don't see the problem in reduced versatility for the sake of limited additional AI capabilities.