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: 96

Date of registration
: Dec 14th 2011

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 5

  • Send private message

21

Monday, April 8th 2013, 6:31am

One problem with air war in bf3 is that there is very little synergy between what happens on the ground and what happens in the air.


(Side note:
They need to get rid of that gunship c130 specter voodoo thing.)


The primary role of aircraft should be reconnaissance. Yes jets should fight one another and be a threat to helicopters but as an added benefit jets flying at a certain range of altitude and speed should provide automatic spotting for ground troops. In this way soldiers on the ground can have an added appreciation to what is done in the sky.


There isn't enough willful reconnaissance in the game by players as it is and enforcing this role on pilots would help ground soldiers appreciate friendly skys. It also gives pilots something to do besides hunt for other pilots.


Also if radar is standard on aircraft, pilots won't have to fly circles all the time to check their six. They will feel more comfortable assuming other roles besides survival.

Cheapnub

Unregistered

22

Monday, April 8th 2013, 6:39am

One problem with air war in bf3 is that there is very little synergy between what happens on the ground and what happens in the air.


(Side note:
They need to get rid of that gunship c130 specter voodoo thing.)


The primary role of aircraft should be reconnaissance. Yes jets should fight one another and be a threat to helicopters but as an added benefit jets flying at a certain range of altitude and speed should provide automatic spotting for ground troops. In this way soldiers on the ground can have an added appreciation to what is done in the sky.


There isn't enough willful reconnaissance in the game by players as it is and enforcing this role on pilots would help ground soldiers appreciate friendly skys. It also gives pilots something to do besides hunt for other pilots.


Also if radar is standard on aircraft, pilots won't have to fly circles all the time to check their six. They will feel more comfortable assuming other roles besides survival.

I understand where you're coming from, but as a pilot i have to disagree...especially about the 'flying circles'. A good dogfight is soooo much more...
Plus, I use air radar all the time, and I still dogfight players.

That put aside, jets in bf3 ARE wrong yes. They are very vulnerable when you mess up, and invincible if you succeed. The thing is, their offensive power really isn't that much.
- The chaingun is pretty hard to aim for starters against infantry, for some even versus the jeeps/helis
- The rocketpods are ridiculously good against bikes/quads/humvees/etc, but you need two runs for a tank/lav. This leaves your jet extremely exposed (if you don't attack from the right angle), and takes a lot of time seeing how after your first batch of rockets you have to fly back, gain altitude, and get back in position

I honestly don't think balancing jets should be done around their offensive capabilities, but rather their survival. As I've been saying a lot more, there are too many lockon weapos and too few skill-based AA options.
Jets are not that powerful, and they are not that resistant. The problem is that they're "slippery", too slippery. The only real counter to a good jetpilot, is another jetpilot. And that's the problem right there.

This flaw has nothing to do with reconnaissance, as it beats the purpose of air warfare and air-to-ground defense (which, honestly, is a big part of the game). There is a LOT of synergy between what happens in the air and the ground, problem is...idiots can't do it. This increases the gap between a good pilot and a shitty one.

Your idea, of longer lockon times etc, would just add another reason why jets can be wrong:
normal lockon time: 5-6 seconds?
lockon time after your suggestion: 10-15 seconds?
Cool, now I can shoot you for 15 seconds straight..that's...a LOT of firepower.

@hunturk
yup

Labby

Moderator

(6,444)

Posts: 1,941

Date of registration
: Sep 26th 2012

Platform: PC

Location: State of Confusion

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 15

  • Send private message

23

Monday, April 8th 2013, 7:12am

The primary role of aircraft should be reconnaissance. Yes jets should fight one another and be a threat to helicopters but as an added benefit jets flying at a certain range of altitude and speed should provide automatic spotting for ground troops. In this way soldiers on the ground can have an added appreciation to what is done in the sky.

I'm going to disagree with this point. If anything, I think it should be the other way around. Jets should have a ton of firepower, but should have a hard time finding their targets. The current jets don't really do that much damage, but with mesh quality on ultra they're able to spot everything from anywhere on the map. They don't actually have to be able to see a target to engage it, they just have to see its 3D spot marker.

Jets would be better with more firepower, and no 3D spotting. Laser designation should still provide a 3D marker. On it's own a jet wouldn't be very accurate, but it would be able to quickly wipe out targets marked by ground troops.
[Aetherblade Medium Boots]

JOIN THE TEAMSPEAK (L)EVOLUTION: teamsym.nitrado.net


Cheapnub

Unregistered

24

Monday, April 8th 2013, 7:16am

The primary role of aircraft should be reconnaissance. Yes jets should fight one another and be a threat to helicopters but as an added benefit jets flying at a certain range of altitude and speed should provide automatic spotting for ground troops. In this way soldiers on the ground can have an added appreciation to what is done in the sky.

I'm going to disagree with this point. If anything, I think it should be the other way around. Jets should have a ton of firepower, but should have a hard time finding their targets. The current jets don't really do that much damage, but with mesh quality on ultra they're able to spot everything from anywhere on the map. They don't actually have to be able to see a target to engage it, they just have to see its 3D spot marker.

Jets would be better with more firepower, and no 3D spotting. Laser designation should still provide a 3D marker. On it's own a jet wouldn't be very accurate, but it would be able to quickly wipe out targets marked by ground troops.

Sounds like an interesting idea, and I like it

I'm kind of afraid though of the effect jets can have when the pilot has a good eye...but still, this is initially a cool idea.

Posts: 486

Date of registration
: Apr 2nd 2013

Platform: Xbox One

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 7

  • Send private message

25

Monday, April 8th 2013, 7:52am

I'm kind of afraid though of the effect jets can have when the pilot has a good eye...but still, this is initially a cool idea.

Well, you know the better pilots of history had 20/10 vision (can see objects 20 ft away that normal vision can only see 10 ft away), like Chuck Yeager.
Yeah I agree with the notion of jets being powerful, yet lacking in visual intel.

Posts: 646

Date of registration
: Feb 20th 2012

Platform: PC

Location: Southampton

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 5

  • Send private message

26

Tuesday, April 9th 2013, 12:30pm

The irony of this entire discussion is that stealth fighters are aerial superiority fighters and are not design for close air support or loitering. Being true stealth means you have less fuel (no external tanks) and significantly less weapon carrying capacity (those internal bays cannot carry near what can be strapped to wings). The planes are in fact designed to do best when they are at missile range (preferably radar missiles against non-stealth aircraft), getting within gun range would be a failure in many ways...though they have vectored thrust and all.


The reality is that lesser stealth has been in the game for a while with the F-35, which is closer to the attack fighter role that BF puts the aircraft into. It seems absurd to me to put clear air superiority fighters in unless solely Air Superiority. Otherwise you have a vehicle in the game whose sole purpose is to go defeat another vehicle and nothing other than that.

If we absolutely must have 5th generation fighter aircraft in this game turning around in tiny maps like they are pretending to be WW2 aircraft, I would say that the best way to balance stealth is to force limited AA missiles on a stealth fighter (I am thinking 4). No unlimited ammo if you go stealth to approximate not being able to carry anything on your wings. Also, no rocket pods. You could possibly limit it to have no ground attack weapons at all, though realistically guided anti-tank rockets and dumb bombs/guided bombs are perfectly carriable in internal bays.


Altogether I would rather see some innovation in the BF department for the air power beyond the WW2 close support approximation. I like the idea of the bomber waves in 1943. If you gave recon the ability to call in a JDAM strike with the soflam (yes I know that conflates laser and gps, humor me) and the jets in the air are capable of shooting down the fighter bomber that would appear to drop bomb to protect their team. That would be cool. You could have maps where instead of a drop ship you get a B-52 that can be shot down (but the B-52 has a finite amount of JDAMs that can be dropped on targets designated by infantry). There are lots of options that give these jets something to shoot down like the AC-130 that prevent air superiority fighters from becoming the ridiculous ground strafing nuisances. There still may be a place in the game for A10 or possible F-18 type aircraft in support roles, but I would prefer a shift in the skies from 1-2 gods that dominate it to a dynamic and multifaceted battle.
Top post, have to agree with most of this. Jets involvement in the game should be airstrikes on command from ground troops, suppersonic planes scooping in and using their guns to shoot an infantryplayer or launch rocket pods is kind of silly for a modern combat game. Unless we are going to have massive massive dayz style maps I can't see the need for player controlled jets in Battlefield.

Adding a stealth fighter would increase their power and survivability even more, it's already next to impossible to shoot down a decent pilot from the ground, if he has stealth abilities so you don't know where he is most of the time and have trouble with lock on weapons it will just make them even more un-balanced.

If we are going to have these planes in BF4 then I hope it;s just for the sake of using new vehicle models and they won't have any stealth capability.

BanzaiB

To much tv is the cause of death

(212)

Posts: 707

Date of registration
: Jan 25th 2012

Platform: PC

Location: UK

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 7

  • Send private message

27

Tuesday, April 9th 2013, 3:47pm


Jets would be better with more firepower, .

dafug I've just read. :wacko: The most overpowered unit in the game would be better with more firepower? At least they are more balanced compared to BF2, but I wish ammo limit would return for jets exclusively.

Labby

Moderator

(6,444)

Posts: 1,941

Date of registration
: Sep 26th 2012

Platform: PC

Location: State of Confusion

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 15

  • Send private message

28

Tuesday, April 9th 2013, 5:00pm


Jets would be better with more firepower, .

dafug I've just read. :wacko: The most overpowered unit in the game would be better with more firepower? At least they are more balanced compared to BF2, but I wish ammo limit would return for jets exclusively.

The current jets' overpoweredness doesn't come from their firepower, it comes from the fact that they're able to find targets anywhere on the map and engage them with almost no threats beyond other jets.

If jets had to rely on laser designation to even find their targets, they'd be a lot less powerful even if their weapons were capable of a bit more damage. Being able to destroy a tank in one pass doesn't mean much when you can't find the tank.
[Aetherblade Medium Boots]

JOIN THE TEAMSPEAK (L)EVOLUTION: teamsym.nitrado.net


Posts: 72

Date of registration
: Oct 15th 2012

Platform: PS4

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 4

  • Send private message

29

Friday, April 12th 2013, 3:21pm

- The rocketpods are ridiculously good against bikes/quads/humvees/etc, but you need two runs for a tank/lav. This leaves your jet extremely exposed (if you don't attack from the right angle), and takes a lot of time seeing how after your first batch of rockets you have to fly back, gain altitude, and get back in position

This only applies to conquest jets, rush jets main cannon rapes through ground armor so fast that you do not even need rocket pods, in fact I venture to guess that rush jet main cannon attack from behind the tank has better time to kill than respective rocket pods; when attacked by rocket pods, I am at least given time to exit the tank before it gets destroyed, no such time is given to me if my tank gets attacked from behind with main cannon by a rush jet.

Cheapnub

Unregistered

30

Friday, April 12th 2013, 3:22pm

- The rocketpods are ridiculously good against bikes/quads/humvees/etc, but you need two runs for a tank/lav. This leaves your jet extremely exposed (if you don't attack from the right angle), and takes a lot of time seeing how after your first batch of rockets you have to fly back, gain altitude, and get back in position

This only applies to conquest jets, rush jets main cannon rapes through ground armor so fast that you do not even need rocket pods, in fact I venture to guess that rush jet main cannon attack from behind the tank has better time to kill than respective rocket pods; when attacked by rocket pods, I am at least given time to exit the tank before it gets destroyed, no such time is given to me if my tank gets attacked from behind with main cannon by a rush jet.

true, i forgot about the rush jets for a second. But ye, their cannon shreds through tanks as if they're measly humvees