So every HA can be an aircraft counter?

[The Loverator]

Originally Posted by Klockan

I didn't understand what you were ranting about, is it too easy to get away from lock ons making aircraft too powerful or is it too hard making HA too powerful?

It is whining. Easy as that.

I may sound arrogant, but Nope - everything is fine as it is.
Aircrafts are very powerful. I think, everyone can understand that very easily if he or she
watches Footage about Aircrafts long enough.

But: Not always are "other" Aircrafts around in the Hands of the other Faction's, to counter them.
Not always are Flak-Towers in Reach to pilot and to use against Aircrafts.

AND: It is not always that one or several M.A.X.-Units are around with Anti-Aircraft Weaponry and
a nice Position to shoot on Enemy Aircrafts. And Aircrafts are fast. VERY fast.


And even if the Liberator and Galaxy are not as fast as the smaller Aircrafts, they have heavy Armor.
S~o,
what is Infantry supposed to do if Enemy Aircrafts are around?

Shiver in Fear and Despair about being powerless? Infantry-Weapon's are very weak against Vehicles.

The heavy Assault-Class is allowed to be a bit powerful against Vehicles. At LEAST a little bit.
Aircrafts are very powerful already. It's just that they are not completely overpowered,
by having Heavy Assault's in the Game which can "lock" Rocket's onto their Tail.

Everything otherwise is bi***ing and whining.




greetings, LV.

[Buggsy]

Originally Posted by Revanmug

Which is the exact damn problem. Balance came to : get hit and you are fuck or don't and rape everything.

Air balance became a war of who got more countermeasure to the other's weapon since one AA missile was able to disable you (or is it 2 missile now with the nerf?). Hell, if the missile was hitting the cockpit, it would kill the pilot (bug that never got fix). Let's not talk about the Javelin that could one shot any air unit since it was not affected by flare or jammers. Wasn't that nerf too?

In the end, removing disable which would have given them more health but nerfing countermeasure would have make thing way better balance wise rather than a "Can't touch this! Can't touch this! ... Oh shit, we are hit, landing to repair/bail out" gameplay.

Plane vs. Ground balance also came from TIME TO BATTLE. In PS1 the bases were much farther away from each other than what I see in these PS2 videos.

[ParisTeta]

Something to consider, of course we don`t play beta yet, it is speculative:

1. HA will be the main Combat Class when reading around, watching videos etc. it is the favorite choice, good weapon, good clip size, a second weapon AV/AA, probaly old school HA also, good Armor/Shield and special abilitie shield AND they can drive ANY vehicle. The Support class follows. (I don`t count MAX, can`t drive vehicle, timer for now, can`t hack, can`t passange on all vehicles).

2. Vehicle timer, for now, is pretty long and things seems to be more squishy.

So we have a swarm of HA Infantry say about 1-2 squad size total, vs.about 4-6 aircraft. Infantry which are resource free and now some people want, that a single one of them can blow up an EA with ease most of the time? That is plain wrong if gameplay balance is a concern for those.

The anti air weaponary needs to be strong enough, to chase EA away, destroying only in mass use or when the Pilot took a risk and it didn`t worked. When someone chases EA away, it is a SUCCESS, mate are safe, and can continue the mission. There is the defense for Infantry right here. You want to kill it? Bring a 2xAA MAX or SkyLight(or Lighsky?) or get your own flyboys.

[mirwalk]

Originally Posted by maradine

Yup. That was the last 2 months of my Caspian experience. An Abrams, two mates, and a constant stream of hate messages from chopper pilots.

As Ravenmug mentioned though, they nerfed laser lock in the last big patch. Javs and the fantasy Abrams ATGM now break lock if the aircraft drops flares. To counter this, flares no longer break launcher locks of any kind - just missiles in flight.

Sorry, we're getting a bit off topic here. Was there anything left on the table we haven't covered?

the flares only breaking in flight missiles, I think is a decent trade off. You could at least stagger shot with someone else and take out an aircraft. Back when I could stand BF3 the flare cooldown was low enough that if you worked it carefully you were near immune to missiles.

Edit: I remember a few times on the open maps I was trying to ground hunt aircraft with a stinger. Get a lock, fire, flare, no hit, Get another lock, fire as soon as possible, another flare. Sometimes I wouldn't fire and get disrupted by the guys flare. There was no strategy for it. Give me a freakin' chance out there!

[JHendy]

Originally Posted by maradine

I believe getting inside the missile's ability to exert delta-v and exiting its seeker gimbal range...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-HRR_EPVew#t=0m38s

??

[exLupo]

Originally Posted by WorldOfForms

Area denial? Whoop-de-friken-doo.

I don't play an FPS to scare my opponents.

Area denial in TDM: Pointless. Kill counts are all that matter.
Area denial in Obj: Key. If your team is free to complete the objective, that's all that matters.

PS/2 may not be the games for you.

edit: Air control, via the simple -threat- of AA, won many a base in PS1.

[GreatMazinkaise]

I don't really see what the big deal is, unless you're gonna argue that the HA's ground to air capabilities are garbage. The anti-everything weapon that stock Rexos start with doesn't seem to be particularly good at killing anything but tanks, lock-on or no. The projectile has a long Fire and Forget lock-on like the T:A Slayer with a warning and similarly slow rocket with a slow rate of fire. If you want good AA switch to the AA spec; if you're getting shot at in the air by the default weapon you're not gonna get hit unless you're hovering in place.

No big deal...

[sumo]

i agree with OP. there should be a dedicated AT weapon and a dedicated AA weapon. i dont care about lock on tbh, but dont make the same weapon be able to lock onto both aircrafts and tanks all the same.
having one weapon do both is just some kind of retarded.

[Klockan]

Originally Posted by sumo

i agree with OP. there should be a dedicated AT weapon and a dedicated AA weapon. i dont care about lock on tbh, but dont make the same weapon be able to lock onto both aircrafts and tanks all the same.
having one weapon do both is just some kind of retarded.

It is not an AA weapon, but just because it isn't an AA weapon doesn't mean that it can't be used to kill air vehicles. Its tracking is way too bad to kill air most of the time so it wont happen much anyway. I mean, have anyone even seen one of those missiles hitting anything in the air?

[Landtank]

Originally Posted by Klockan

It is not an AA weapon, but just because it isn't an AA weapon doesn't mean that it can't be used to kill air vehicles. Its tracking is way too bad to kill air most of the time so it wont happen much anyway. I mean, have anyone even seen one of those missiles hitting anything in the air?

NO! NO LOGIC OR RATIONAL THINKING.

[LegioX]

I'm sorry. The game should force players to rely on air power to take objectives. You have never seen a modern army take territory without having air control over the objective. Don't be handing out AA guns to everybody but the kitchen sink. You need air cap over a target your attacking? Form a flight. Simple

[Revanmug]

Originally Posted by LegioX

I'm sorry. The game should force players to rely on air power to take objectives. You have never seen a modern army take territory without having air control over the objective. Don't be handing out AA guns to everybody but the kitchen sink. You need air cap over a target your attacking? Form a flight. Simple

And what kind of modern army doesn't have battery of SAM site around their border that can one shot anything that it hits?

Don't start with the "realism" argument here...

[LegioX]

Originally Posted by DjEclipse

When was the last time a modern army fought another modern army?
I would say WW2. Plenty of stories of the low survivability of planes.

Sure its easy for a modern military USA to control the skies over Libya.
Not so easy when those skies are China who downed a USA spy plane.

Are you really that ignorant? Or you just don't know your history?


How about read up on WW2 before you start spouting off mindless jibber. Go read up on the Battle of the Kursk. You might learn something about air power.

Or how about Operation Sealion (invasion of Great Britain by Germany). Battle of Britain was nothing more than to control the skies over the country for the German army to start an invasion.

Originally Posted by Revanmug

And what kind of modern army doesn't have battery of SAM site around their border that can one shot anything that it hits?

Don't start with the "realism" argument here...

You want Mobile AA that is fine. I'm arguing about having every HA with a lock on ability missile. You people really need to read before typing. Been arguing the exact point for a couple of pages

Many people here believe you will get raped by air if you do not have anything to counter them via ground troops. and im only talking about lock on rocket spam. I say you argument is false. CALL IN AIRSUPPORT.

[Klockan]

Originally Posted by LegioX

I'm arguing about having every HA with a lock on ability missile.

Í don't see that point, the AV lock on ability is obviously not good enough to track air vehicles. The lock is made to track tanks going 50 kph, not air going 200 kph. There is no reason it shouldn't be able to lock on air targets even though it isn't very effective against them. In most cases the basic rifles are probably better AA than the AV missiles, the biggest effect of the AV missiles on air as we have seen is to scare the pilot into thinking that it is an AA missile.

We have seen some of the weapons and among them there are separate AV and AA launchers. Just because something can lock on air doesn't mean that it is anti air.

[Landtank]

Originally Posted by LegioX

Are you really that ignorant? Or you just don't know your history?


How about read up on WW2 before you start spouting off mindless jibber. Go read up on the Battle of the Kursk. You might learn something about air power.

Or how about Operation Sealion (invasion of Great Britain by Germany). Battle of Britain was nothing more than to control the skies over the country for the German army to start an invasion.

The Battle of Britain was different due to the need for air superiority to minimize German infantry losses as they shipped their armies across the English Channel. The Germans could have done what the Allies did in 1944, but decided not to for various reasons.

Look at Operation Overlord, we had no air superiority, but still managed to land paratroopers behind enemy lines to disrupt.

Kursk is a good example, but you could look at Stalingrad and say the same thing, the Luftwaffe had complete control of the skies but Germany still failed to take the city.

The point DJ was making was that the last time there was an actual battle on a continental scale that involved several large Air Forces was WW2, and the vast majority of aircraft were shot down, period, whether from AA or other planes I don't know the numbers.

Vietnam 1969: the U.S. has control of the skies, and we still fail to capture our objective.

In my view, Aircraft play an important role in open conflict. They should be important in GETTING to the base, not taking it. Taking the actual base should obviously rely upon ground forces, with aircraft providing CAS when they can, but only if the ground forces have neutralized a sufficient amount of ground based AA.

If there is a large, open tank battle in a field and one side has Air Superiority, that side should win, I agree, that's just combined arms kicking ass, but if the side without air power decides to cert for AA due to the large amount of Aircraft, then they can kill the aircraft, but sacrifice their tank killing abilities.

Trade offs!

The HA lock on weapon isn't going to be a problem methinks, it's a slow ass rocket that probably has a short timer. It also didn't look very maneuverable when TB was firing it at Aircraft. I share some of your concerns Legio, but I'm not gonna worry about it until I try it in Beta, and the devs can actually focus on balancing the game instead of just trying to make it work :X