Welcome to symthic forums! We would love if you'd register!
You don't have to be expert in bit baking, everyone is more than welcome to join our community.

You are not logged in.

Hey! If this is your first visit on symthic.com, also check out our weapon damage charts.
Currently we have charts for Battlefield 3, Call of Duty: Black Ops 2, Medal of Honor: Warfighter and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3

Posts: 1,535

Date of registration
: Sep 7th 2016

Platform: PC

Location: Toronto

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 5

  • Send private message

31

Thursday, October 27th 2016, 4:44am

Okay, I finally understand people's complaints after watching this video. Rear gunners are too effective against Fighter Planes.



The section about air balance starts at the 7:10 mark.

Posts: 3,636

Date of registration
: Mar 19th 2014

Platform: Xbox One

Location: Canada

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 16

  • Send private message

32

Thursday, October 27th 2016, 6:33am

Rear gunners (and front gunners for that matter) need to not be able to shoot through their own plane. It's not like it's just a little, it's the entire pair of wings, the tail, and the rear fuselage; it's half the damn plane. Want to come in directly behind and below, a real, legitimate tactic to avoid tail gunners? Too bad, they'll just shoot you though their own fuselage! It's so dumb.

Their bullets need to have collision with all of the plane. In Normal this would simply stop the bullets, while in Hardcore it would self-damage. It would work perfectly, and massively improve air combat. And look drastically less stupid.
Who Enjoys, Wins

NoctyrneSAGA

PvF 2017 Champion

(9,997)

Posts: 7,177

Date of registration
: Apr 3rd 2012

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 19

  • Send private message

33

Thursday, October 27th 2016, 7:28am

in Hardcore it would self-damage.


I have no problem with this.

In HC, your team is another set of enemies anyways.
Data Browser

Passive Spotting is the future!

With this, I'll rid MGO3 of infestation. Sans bad gameplay MGO3 will be torn asunder. And then it shall be free. People will suffer, of course - a phantom pain.

Reddit and Konami will rewrite the records... And I will be demonized in human memory. But... The thirst for good gameplay that I have planted will infest MGO3. No one can stop it now. The Rebalance Mod will unleash that thirst unto the future.


Are you a scrub?

If it flies, it dies™.

Posts: 486

Date of registration
: Apr 2nd 2013

Platform: Xbox One

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 7

  • Send private message

34

Thursday, October 27th 2016, 9:31am

Rear gunners (and front gunners for that matter) need to not be able to shoot through their own plane. It's not like it's just a little, it's the entire pair of wings, the tail, and the rear fuselage; it's half the damn plane. Want to come in directly behind and below, a real, legitimate tactic to avoid tail gunners? Too bad, they'll just shoot you though their own fuselage! It's so dumb.

Their bullets need to have collision with all of the plane. In Normal this would simply stop the bullets, while in Hardcore it would self-damage. It would work perfectly, and massively improve air combat. And look drastically less stupid.


Tail gunning is a dirty but necessary job for keeping the bomber alive against enemy fighters. Some german luftwaffe of ww2 referred to the B17 as "Fliegendes Stachelswein" or "flying porcupines," and I feel this accurately describes fighting a bomber team in the air.

However there are some major counters namely: Surprise, Surprise, guess which load out destroys slow moving easy to predict bombers? It couldn't be Bomber Killer fighter, now could it?

Bomber killer works because rockets+guns will out DPS the rear gunner netting at least a double kill.

If you don't want to use such an obvious counter to fight bombers, then I can let you know the way to attack them isn't from behind, below, or above, but normal or perpendicular to their flight path, since both gunners have limited view to the side.

I'm all for nerfing things that have limited counterplay, like deep in enemy spawn SAA, but bombers have a myriad of ways to play around them.

Posts: 1,535

Date of registration
: Sep 7th 2016

Platform: PC

Location: Toronto

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 5

  • Send private message

35

Thursday, October 27th 2016, 12:40pm

Their bullets need to have collision with all of the plane. In Normal this would simply stop the bullets, while in Hardcore it would self-damage. It would work perfectly, and massively improve air combat. And look drastically less stupid.

This is definitely a very reasonable change for allowing Fighter Planes to have a better chance of taking down an Attack Plane or a Bomber Plane solo.

Also, it would make all the "Indiana Jones" references more applicable in Hardcore. Haha.

C0llis

Up and down. Bounce all around

(3,334)

  • "C0llis" started this thread

Posts: 3,100

Date of registration
: Apr 15th 2013

Platform: PC

Location: Sweden

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 15

  • Send private message

36

Thursday, October 27th 2016, 1:02pm

Their bullets need to have collision with all of the plane. In Normal this would simply stop the bullets, while in Hardcore it would self-damage. It would work perfectly, and massively improve air combat. And look drastically less stupid.

This is definitely a very reasonable change for allowing Fighter Planes to have a better chance of taking down an Attack Plane or a Bomber Plane solo.
But it wouldn't fix the fighter planes' pitiful damage output (for the main gun) , which is the bigger problem.

Things people said

And reading Youtube comments still gives me Turbo Cancer.

It really is quite frustrating when Helen Keller sets up her LMG in the only doorway in/out of an area.

What kind of question is that? Since when is cheese ever a bad idea?

Hardline is a fun and sometimes silly Cops and Robbers sorta thing and I think that's great. Or it would be if it didn't suck.

Posts: 1,535

Date of registration
: Sep 7th 2016

Platform: PC

Location: Toronto

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 5

  • Send private message

37

Thursday, October 27th 2016, 1:08pm

Are the front machine guns for the Attack Planes and the Fighter Planes equally powerful in terms of damage output?

The main difference between the aerial combat capabilities for these two types of planes should be their maneuverability.

Posts: 5

Date of registration
: Apr 18th 2013

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 4

  • Send private message

38

Thursday, October 27th 2016, 2:11pm

Are there any stats on the Damage output of the different Fighter Loadouts available?

VincentNZ

Holy War? No Thanks.

(2,282)

Posts: 2,689

Date of registration
: Jul 25th 2013

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 15

  • Send private message

39

Thursday, October 27th 2016, 4:23pm

Honestly I see little issue with the air balance in general, other than that you can choose what plane you want to use. The attack plane and the bomber is a teamwork gadget, the fighter is not. Flying the other two requires communication and awareness between pilots and gunners to be fully effective. The fighter is only reliant on itself. Yeah the standard loadout is lackluster, the rest is feasible though.

That said, I do not even agree with adding collision, because this screws over the attack plane, which has very obstructed views anyway. It is a balance thing as well, as different planes have different looks and would therefore have collision issues, the Gotha has one tail, while the italian bomber has two, giving it more free space to shoot down.

Generally BF1 did one thing right and that is to give planes a pilot and a gunner to stop that one player trumps all madness we had since BF3.

Edit: I would go even further and give the rear gunners some sort of splash damage for their MG so that they can damage soldiers more effectively. Damage would need to be toned down then though.

Posts: 3,636

Date of registration
: Mar 19th 2014

Platform: Xbox One

Location: Canada

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 16

  • Send private message

40

Friday, October 28th 2016, 2:13am

It is a balance thing as well, as different planes have different looks and would therefore have collision issues, the Gotha has one tail, while the italian bomber has two, giving it more free space to shoot down.


I am aware of that, and I don't consider it a problem. The only signficant difference is, as you mentioned, the two Bombers, but even they neither is directly superior. The Caproni's two tails let it shoot directly behind, but not towards five or seven o'clock, while the Gotha's single tail block directly behind, but nowhere else.

It just means very slightly different angles have to be taken when attacking them, and "put part of their plane between their gun and you" is a dead simple concept. It's literally the same concept as using cover. I'd argue what we have now is far less intuitive too, for the same reason.
Who Enjoys, Wins