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.

## Air Balance Theory

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

Aye sir!

Posts: 43

Date of registration
: Aug 26th 2014

Platform: Xbox One

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 1

Tuesday, August 26th 2014, 6:34am

### Air Balance Theory

I'm not going to bother seeking intelligent conversation from Battlelog anymore. This site and its community reminds me of Denkirson's so I'll begin this topic here. Most of my threads are deemed TL;DR on Battlelog anyways.

The premise of this thread is about how to properly balance aircraft in these games. On Battlelog and in the general public, people have their own pre-conceived notion of what it means for something to be balanced or "doing well." Before we begin, I would like to point out fallacious examples of how NOT to understand balance. The first example is someone saying: "I have gotten a 40 killstreak on Golmud Railway in the chopper, so it must be fine." This is fallacious because it is anecdotal. Anything can happen once. I can show you a video of someone getting a 15 killstreak with a smoke grenade launcher, but that does not have anything to do with whether the smoke's actual performance is balanced. The second example of balance fallacies comes through in equalizing all units. Sometimes, I catch people confusing balance from a tank's perspective with balance from an infantry unit's perspective. Ideally, a vehicle should be overpowered by design, and thus it is balanced through its overpowering nature. This is because it is a limited resource. Technically, all units in Battlefield, including infantry, are unlimited. So we have to think of limited resources in terms of how long it takes to regenerate them. Realistically, it makes more sense to comprehend how a multi-million dollar vehicle *should* be more powerful than a rifle and medical supplies. This is largely due to the fact that if either are destroyed, they are not coming back. The game deludes us into thinking there is an infinite supply of tanks, choppers, and jets because, as long as the game continues, they will keep spawning back. I'm not quite sure how to tackle this issue in order to make the inherent value of a vehicle be more apparent, but the time limit factor is still enough if you think about it to suggest how these units are more valuable than others. The main issue is you have to assume a static amount of time that the game is being played in, say, 30 minutes, when a typical game of Conquest will last a variable amount of time. But if we assume 30 minutes exactly, then that suggest our team has access to 20 copies of a vehicle that has a minute and a half respawn time, and that is assuming that this vehicle is being spawnkilled immediately every time. But getting back to the fallacious logic example, it should be clear that some units should be able to perform better by design. And most of us have an idea of how that food chain should work. Ideally the framework should be infantry<transport vehicles<Light armored vehicles<Tanks<Helicopters<Jets.

The last example I want to focus on, which leads into the meat and potatoes of this thread, is similar to the first. I am a pretty good pilot, and I can put down some really good scores with even stealth jets and attack choppers. People sometimes use these performances, which might even appear consistent rather than anecdotal, and use it as an argument that these air vehicles are fine and balanced. Why is this not a valid assumption? I think it has to do with the *quality* of the kills I am getting with these units. Much like a sniper picking people off from a carrier, the people I tend to kill in order to bolster my scores for stealth jets and attack choppers are mostly irrelevant to the outcome of the match. It's not hard to find someone on youtube who is amazing with a jet or helicopter, but ends up on the losing team as they go 140-0 or something ridiculous. My overall premise in this thread is that air balance needs to be completely and utterly retooled somehow. I believe that the air balance in BF4 is just about as bad as it could possibly get. I don't think there is a simple fix for the issues; I think a new battlefield game will need to completely scrap BF4's ideas and begin with sweeping buffs and nerfs to every vehicle in just about every way.

But getting back to the original question of Air balance. How do you determine if aircraft are balanced personally? Do you care about the K/D scores? Personally, I do not think K/D has anything to do with whether an aircraft is balanced. This is all coming from a Conquest and Rush Standpoint. Let me paint a picture of some actual games I have played before in attack helicopters with a friendly gunner:

Caspian Border: We take off and both start spotting the usual areas to find the enemy AA tank. Once found, we TV missile it twice and pepper it with dumbfired material from across the map for a kill. This is where a fork in the road appears. Either the enemy jet pilots are better than ours, at which point we are forced to spend the rest of the game hovering at our stationary AA attempting to fight them off, or we get free reign as our own jets keep them busy the whole time. Once we actually are in position for all of the main threats to be gone (remembering to watch for the respawned AA every 30 seconds), we then turn our attention to MBTs. Tanks are just as much a threat to attack helos as the chopper is to them. If two of them are spread out, one can shell you as you strafe the first one (clever girl). They can also just shell you if you don't notice them or choose to ignore them. They can take their time to get an angle on a hill and kill you easily if no one ever spotted them. Alternatively, you can hover camp and use smart rockets plus TV's. After we have had our fill of tanks, we typically try to farm infantry using the gunner from a distance. What ends up happening is that a handful of infantry become irritated and start creeping closer and closer with stingers. Keep in mind that with every stinger shot fired, the chopper is forced to lose 30 seconds of game time between the retreat, flare recharge, and re-entry to an appropriate range and height. The typical game may end with a 20-40 killstreak with both of us combined, but the actual people we are killing are enemy units that are perceived as threats to myself, thus I attack them before they can kill me (the AA and MBT's), and other than that, we simply pick off infantry from quite far away in fear of being hit by dumbfired rockets. It's exceptionally easy to be hit by dumbfired rockets if you stray too close. On Caspian US spawn, for instance. We are typically hovering over friendly controlled Alpha, or near the field between A and B. Even these areas are too spicy at times.

Another tidbit: I once played a game on one of those rank reset glitch servers where everyone loses all unlocks. My gunner and I grinded our chopper on this server for an hour. You want to know how it went? Not as good as you might think...
The enemy AA was forced to use the default heatseekers and lacked APS. No enemy ground unit had unlocked stingers. It should have been a feeding frenzy, but instead we were simply forced to absurd distances by the sheer volume of dumbfired rockets being pelted our way. Between the dodging of these rockets and the excessive distance and the limited gunner ammo, the gunner could not average more than a single kill per minute. So the ending K/D ratios weren't any better than normal. "Well, surely with all those engineers focused on you, your team should have taken the objectives with ease." Nope. We lost the game quite handily. The engies had infinite rockets because they liked to die a lot and/or get refilled, and there was such a huge volume around hilltop and forest that our team couldn't cope with how many of them there were. Despite making their team go excessively negative, they still won due to ticket bleed.

All of this brings me back to my main question: How is it possible to balance air vehicles to where, *at the highest level of skill,* these vehicles are *more* desirable than Main battle tanks? Why should they be more desirable? Because they cannot play the objective on their own. An experienced tank user can get a large kill streak while capturing points. An aircraft currently has to ignore the objective entirely just to get lots of kills on other jets foolish enough to dogfight them, jeeps and transport vehicles that would, in the highest level of play not be used in such a way where you could farm them with a stealth jet, and other random infantry that are either off on the outskirts of the map doing nothing (most of my chopper kills) or merely picking off 1 or 2 guys in a monumental herd of people on a major flag (who probably got revived anyways).

I think that because an aircraft gives up its ability to capture flags, it just isn't a desirable unit from a game winning standpoint. Their only purpose appears to be pubstomping casual players slightly harder than you would in a tank or attack boat. My post has gone on long enough, so now I want to know what you guys think. I am going to give some possible solutions to the issue later, but first I want to hear what everyone else thinks.

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Natsu" (Aug 26th 2014, 6:41am)

Posts: 2,015

Date of registration
: Jan 12th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 14

Tuesday, August 26th 2014, 7:03am

I actually rather like air balance in BF4, at least for the fast movers. The best rounds are those where the jets are evenly matched such that all you see of them is the odd LGM/LGB/cannon strafe of opportunity.

However, if air superiority is won, the fast movers can do a terrific job of shutting down enemy armor with the LGMs. On the large scale maps you've generally got 3 MBTs/team and 3 fast movers with LGMs (or some other deadly AV combo on the attack jet). But they aren't really overwhelmingly destructive largely because they need to time their passes with ground assets engaging the armor at the same time more or less.

And really that's how it should be: fast movers only become very effective if they win air-superiority, and if they do they aren't potent enough to single handedly win the round by shutting down anything that isn't on foot.

As for the attack helo, I think it's a fallacy to assume that it should be automatically superior to tanks because it's rarer and can't cap flags. Strictly speaking tanks are shit for capping flags unless they have infantry support anyway. Attack helos should merely have attractive advantages, which they do: namely long range, persistent AV capability from TVs+ rockets.

Destroying enemy ground vehicles is a game winning capability. It lets your vehicles and infantry focus on crushing enemy infantry. It just shouldn't be able to win games on it's own.

Posts: 3,292

Date of registration
: Apr 26th 2013

Platform: PS4

Location: Arizona, USA

Reputation modifier: 15

Tuesday, August 26th 2014, 7:09am

TL;D...

Nah, I'm just playing. You made the right choice visiting Symthic. I, also, was subject to the relentless idiocy on Battlelog before discovering Symthic. It was not fun, let's just say that.

Welcome.

Onto the topic, I would have to agree with your sentiments. I do not enjoy the current balance of aircraft, especially that damn Scout Helicopter. If anything, respawn duration needs a downgrade. The firepower and corresponding respawn timers are what make vehicles potent or mediocre. Take, for example, transport vehicles. Their respawn timer is so damn low due to their overall purpose and lack of firepower. Which makes sense. The higher the firepower, the longer the respawn time or, inversely, the lower the firepower, the shorter the respawn time.

Conquest Large is vehicle overload, which normally wouldn't be a bad thing (since it is Battlefield of course) but they just got, to me, easier to use and more powerful since BF3. Then again, I played on PS3 so player counts, map sizes, and vehicle saturation were considerably lower.

Regardless, I'd like to see an increase to respawn time to account for their overall effectiveness. Take a look at the Gunship. A significantly powerful vehicle (as it should), but a miniscule respawn time. It allows a downpour of death as long as the Commander remembers to deploy it (but they don't often forget), resulting in countless complaints from the playerbase including those here on Symthic.
To Aim Assist or not to Aim Assist, that is the question.

### Source code

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

AccelerationInputThreshold 0.98
AccelerationMultiplier 5.0
AccelerationDamping 4.0
AccelerationTimeThreshold 0.15
SquaredAcceleration 0.0
MaxAcceleration::Vec2
x 2.0
y 2.0
YawSpeedStrength 1.0
PitchSpeedStrength 1.0
AttractDistanceFallOffs::Vec2
x 1.0
y 1.2
AttractSoftZone 0.75
AttractUserInputMultiplier 0.45
AttractUserInputMultiplier_NoZoom 0.5
AttractOwnSpeedInfluence 0.0
AttractTargetSpeedInfluence 0.85
AttractOwnRequiredMovementForMaximumAttract 0.0
AttractStartInputThreshold 0.1
AttractMoveInputCap 0.0
AttractYawStrength 1.0
AttractPitchStrength 0.34
MaxToTargetAngle 45.0
MaxToTargetXZAngle 45.0
ViewObstructedKeepTime 0.0
SnapZoomLateralSpeedLimit 1000.0
SnapZoomTime 0.2
SnapZoomPostTimeNoInput 0.2
SnapZoomPostTime 0.2
SnapZoomReticlePointPriority 999
SnapZoomAutoEngageTime 0.0
SnapZoomBreakTimeAtMaxInput 0.2
SnapZoomBreakMaxInput 0.2
SnapZoomBreakMinAngle 90.0
SnapZoomSpamGuardTime 1.2
SoldierBackupSkeletonCollisionData *nullGuid*
CheckBoneCenterOnlyDistance 40.0

### Source code

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39

AccelerationInputThreshold 0.98
AccelerationMultiplier 5.0
AccelerationDamping 4.0
AccelerationTimeThreshold 0.15
SquaredAcceleration 0.0
MaxAcceleration::Vec2
x 2.0
y 2.0
YawSpeedStrength 1.0
PitchSpeedStrength 1.0
AttractDistanceFallOffs::Vec2
x 1.0
y 1.2
AttractSoftZone 0.0
AttractUserInputMultiplier 1.0
AttractUserInputMultiplier_NoZoom -1.0
AttractOwnSpeedInfluence 0.0
AttractTargetSpeedInfluence 0.0
AttractOwnRequiredMovementForMaximumAttract 0.0
AttractStartInputThreshold 0.0
AttractMoveInputCap 0.0
AttractYawStrength 0.0
AttractPitchStrength 0.0
MaxToTargetAngle 45.0
MaxToTargetXZAngle 45.0
ViewObstructedKeepTime 0.0
SnapZoomLateralSpeedLimit 1000.0
SnapZoomTime 0.2
SnapZoomPostTimeNoInput 0.0
SnapZoomPostTime 0.0
SnapZoomReticlePointPriority 999
SnapZoomAutoEngageTime 0.0
SnapZoomBreakTimeAtMaxInput -1.0
SnapZoomBreakMaxInput 0.2
SnapZoomBreakMinAngle 90.0
SnapZoomSpamGuardTime 0.5
SoldierBackupSkeletonCollisionData *nullGuid*
CheckBoneCenterOnlyDistance 40.0
DisableForcedTargetRecalcDistance 7.0

### Source code

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39

 AccelerationInputThreshold 0.98
AccelerationMultiplier 5.0
AccelerationDamping 4.0
AccelerationTimeThreshold 0.15
SquaredAcceleration 0.0
MaxAcceleration::Vec2
x 2.0
y 2.0
YawSpeedStrength 1.0
PitchSpeedStrength 1.0
AttractDistanceFallOffs::Vec2
x 1.0
y 1.2
AttractSoftZone 0.75
AttractUserInputMultiplier 0.45
AttractUserInputMultiplier_NoZoom 0.5
AttractOwnSpeedInfluence 0.0
AttractTargetSpeedInfluence 0.85
AttractOwnRequiredMovementForMaximumAttract 0.0
AttractStartInputThreshold 0.1
AttractMoveInputCap 0.0
AttractYawStrength 1.0
AttractPitchStrength 0.34
MaxToTargetAngle 45.0
MaxToTargetXZAngle 45.0
ViewObstructedKeepTime 0.0
SnapZoomLateralSpeedLimit 1000.0
SnapZoomTime 0.2
SnapZoomPostTimeNoInput 0.0
SnapZoomPostTime 0.0
SnapZoomReticlePointPriority 999
SnapZoomAutoEngageTime 0.0
SnapZoomBreakTimeAtMaxInput -1.0
SnapZoomBreakMaxInput 0.2
SnapZoomBreakMinAngle 90.0
SnapZoomSpamGuardTime 0.5
SoldierBackupSkeletonCollisionData *nullGuid*
CheckBoneCenterOnlyDistance 40.0
DisableForcedTargetRecalcDistance 7.0

### My "Contributions"

Aye sir!

Posts: 43

Date of registration
: Aug 26th 2014

Platform: Xbox One

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 1

Tuesday, August 26th 2014, 10:04am

I don't really consider destroying lone tanks every now and then to be playing a role in winning the game. Responding mainly to i-fantasy here, I do think killing individual players is pointless. Unless you can coordinate the kill with an entire squad of friendlies moving in, you cannot really say that you helped. Tanks respawn in what, 30 seconds? Chances are someone will be back in it and back at an objective before your boots on the ground can take advantage of it. Beyond that, engineers are so extremely overused that I never really notice them feeling like they need air support to beat armor. It's either the tanks getting chewed up like hard candy by a dozen engineers with 6 rockets a piece, or the tank playing like a camping recon and being pretty useless anyways. I feel like infantry don't really fear tanks in this game, which confounds the uselessness of aircraft.

Ultimately, one or two less players that your team has to contend with is pointless to me when the average conquest flag is either A: A cesspool of infantry continuously respawning on it (Hilltop on Caspian), or B: a mostly vacant objective aside from one or two people who just happened to respawn there for whatever reason. As for the latter, usually your one or two infies can handle a fair fight as they move in with the element of surprise. And in the former, killing a couple people in the herd does nothing to hurt the enemy team *unless* you have a large force of your own moving in under the cover of the chopper fire.

I think one of the biggest issues is that the chopper has terrible harassment capability. If you look at my opening post one dimensionally, you might think that the only way to improve aircraft viability is to just make them get better K/D scores, since you can't make them better at capping objectives. But I think what really needs to change is their harassment capability. A chopper is forced to run away, tail between its legs from a single infantry unit for half a minute. And if the stinger is dedicated, as they usually are, he can keep firing until he runs out or the chopper sets up to kill it at the apex of its range by flaring and then following the smoke trail, and proceeding to gunner snipe him. This takes a full 2-3 minutes of time usually.

I think what needs to change is that the amount of people necessary to make a chopper flee needs to increase, and the chopper's speed needs to dramatically increase. In return, the chopper gunner needs to have severe range reduction. Personally, I hate the role given to the attack chopper. I don't believe these vehicles should realistically be used as a long range, hover over your own base and snipe, kind of vehicle. I believe they are the cavalry of the vehicle world. They should be the first ones in, speed towards and past the front lines, and begin circle strafing their objective of choice at violently fast speeds. They can get kills, but it should mainly be their pepper that harasses and distracts the enemies caught in the vortex. And I think the infantry should need an entire squad to cause the chopper to retreat. I also believe that there should be much more damage for vehicle armaments in general, but they should be limited. So for instance, a tank gets 5 shells total, and 200 MG rounds total. After that, you are out for good and have to go all the way back to main base to refill. In return, the vehicles get more deadly munitions. I would like that kind of dynamic so that vehicles would sort of be like "on again, off again" units. Almost like kill streaks in CoD games where you can hide and weather the storm, then they go away for a long time.

The way it works now, the attack helo still has that long off time due to a single soldier carrying 5 stingers and chain firing them, but they just don't have the "in your face," "hide or die" periods of harassment time that I feel they need in order to prepare an objective for the taking.

I'm not going to talk about the Little Bird right now, but I am strongly against the existence of in-flight repairs. I just don't think that should be a team-based vehicle (unless stuff like outside combined arms or soflam use).

But moving on to jets. I think one of the things that I think would give a subtle buff to aircraft viability, at least based on how I see it, has a ton to do with respawn times. Multiple people here mention killing tanks as the only reason why they think air is fine and balanced. If every vehicle had at least double the respawn time it does now, if not triple, then I could very easily see aircraft being much more useful. It would actually matter to kill a tank, which would be a very valuable asset just due to its newfound rarity on the battlefield. On top of that, I will still insist that tanks need to be improved. I don't think this is a tank problem though, I just believe the infantry are far too well-equipped to deal with them. I think infantry should only have 2 RPG's per soldier. If they want to destroy a tank, it should require 2-3 engineers or 2 with a support class for ammo. It's just ridiculous that they can flood tanks as they do now. If tanks were much stronger, had limited ammo, had a slower respawn rate, and had less to worry about from just two enemies at its 10 and 2 o clock, I can totally see the effectiveness of aircraft from a game winning standpoint. This also means giving choppers and jets super deadly munitions that you would hate to waste on just a couple stray guys. This would encourage people to save their ammo for the main objectives, which is where the aircraft is needed most. In order to keep a stronger harassment potential, I would say to give choppers 3 countermeasures at a time. Again, they would need to go back to base and wait a full minute to restock. There would also be a balance between how much time you have to wait to restock, which would be inversely proportional to how long it takes your vehicle to get back to base. I.E. Long pit stop wait time for jets, rapid restock for tanks.

I think these changes allow vehicles in general, but especially the air, to PTFO and be more contributing to wins without going overboard and making them get 200 kills per game in an attempt to make them act as a 6th or 8th Conquest flag since they cannot play the objective otherwise.

A couple last minute replies that didn't fit anywhere else: As for the jets winning the air superiority game, I hate the way it is now. I'm actually one of the better jet dogfighters on the xbox one. I almost never die when in the stealth jet and only die in the attack when the wingman is garbage (which is often). A few days ago I met a dogfighting equal in a random server. What happened was that we hit the skies and could not kill each other. Each dogfight lasted about 6-15 minutes in length. We kind of went back and forth, but it was apparent that we were not contributing a thing for our teams other than playful banter. To win a 10 minute dogfight, only to be rewarded with about a minute of A2G support is pathetic to me. This further influences why I think vehicles should be much longer in wait time.

Another thing, in my balancing ideas, I tend to hate thinking of infantry as individuals. I like to balance with infantry squads of 5 being considered a single unit. As such, I tend to think of 1 entire squad as the equal to a tank. I think it should take a squad and a half to deal with choppers, and I think jets should be untouchable by infantry.

As for bleeding uranium's RPS thing. I definitely see how they went about it, and I really hate it. I absolutely hate that kind of balance. I don't think the scout helo should be for infantry and the attack for armor. I think the Scout should just be a watered down Attack, filling exactly the same role, but being a single seater. I think Stealth jets should be able to slaughter infantry much like the attack jet can as well. I don't like hard counters and extremely rigid, defined roles at all. My preferred gameplay is soft counters, where there are more subtle differences. Maybe I'm just a massive Bad Company 2 fanboy. I really like the idea of a straight foodchain, and I abhor the idea of rock paper scissors.

Posts: 3,292

Date of registration
: Apr 26th 2013

Platform: PS4

Location: Arizona, USA

Reputation modifier: 15

Tuesday, August 26th 2014, 4:59pm

### Quoted from "Natsu"

But moving on to jets. I think one of the things that I think would give a subtle buff to aircraft viability, at least based on how I see it, has a ton to do with respawn times.

Yes, increase the crap out of it. Like I said before, the food chain works for the firepower-respawn factor. If the team manages to neutralize the enemy airpower, jets for instance, they deserve more time to wait for those annoyances to return. Nothing like claiming victory over an enemy jet only to have had m respawn a minute and a half later. That is just the BEST feeling in the world. It would actually mean that destroying that jet did something to impact the match and it wasn't just wasted time.

### Quoted from "Natsu"

If every vehicle had at least double the respawn time it does now, if not triple, then I could very easily see aircraft being much more useful. It would actually matter to kill a tank, which would be a very valuable asset just due to its newfound rarity on the battlefield. On top of that, I will still insist that tanks need to be improved. I don't think this is a tank problem though, I just believe the infantry are far too well-equipped to deal with them. I think infantry should only have 2 RPG's per soldier. If they want to destroy a tank, it should require 2-3 engineers or 2 with a support class for ammo.

Again, good with extending the respawn rate. And then you lost me with the whole RPG thing. I see who you are now, you're a combined arms kind of guy; gathering power in numbers and revoking potency from a single soldier.

Ain't. Gonna. Happen.

You lower the rocket reserve count and you can be damn sure the damage output has to go through the roof. Combined arms is a nice theory and all, but that's all it is. A theory. You can't force a player to participate in teamwork. The atmosphere of public servers is solo play. In your parallel universe, eveyone on the team is speaking on coms, am I right? Yeah, a large group of random people, talking, laughing, all working as a unit. *Buzzer* wrong. It doesn't work like that in the real world, guy. On a good day, you'll see maybe 30% of your team talking together. And that's a BIG maybe. See how big that maybe is?

Even if it's just communication between your squadmates, it's just a few kids raging at the game, blaming DICE for their inadequacies, and OCDing about their K/Ds. I'm not interested in talking with that. So, in return I have disabled VOIP completely and just use the Party functionality on the PS4 where I'll talk with my friends if they happen to be online.

### Quoted from "Natsu"

I like to balance with infantry squads of 5 being considered a single unit. As such, I tend to think of 1 entire squad as the equal to a tank. I think it should take a squad and a half to deal with choppers, and I think jets should be untouchable by infantry.

So, by that logic, if one 5-man squad is equivalent to that of a tank, then it would require a 5-man squad to destroy a tank. How about no. Again with the combined arms theory, it rarely, if ever, works in practice. It would make vehicles a way too dominant force to reckon with.

Infantry have no power against jets in the first place. What they are in desperate need of is a sure-fire method to deal with jets. And I have to disagree that it sucks for balancing. The only legitimate way another jet can be vulnerable is by another jet. Mobile AAs can't reach out and touch jets as they once did before their velocity reduction and MANPADS, pshhhh fo'get about it! If jets are going to continue to be in the game, then MANPADS need to be able to actually threaten jets.

Problem is if you extend the range of the MANPADS to say 500 meters, it makes helicopters obsolete in the sense that a heli will always be locked by a surface to air missile. How can we fix that?

Well, an idea is to make one of the launchers jet specific. It will not obtain a lock unless a jet is targeted. Not the best idea, but we don't have much of a choice.

Second, is to increase the range of the missiles AND increase the lock time against helis; make it so that the duration is like twice or three times as long as locking a jet. Something that improves effectiveness against jets, but also has no change to effectiveness against helicopters.

One that I actually just came up with is practically infinite range (around 1000 meters), but the farther away the target is the longer it takes to reach a full lock. This would be reflected in the lock tone on the aircraft's end. Say a heli is 700 meters away from an Engineer with a MANPAD. Currently, that is twice the max. range of the IGLA but rather than reaching a full lock in normal time, it takes twice as long to do so. While the heli is being locked, the tone is slow and deliberate indicating the threat is not nearby, but rather far away. The closer the heli gets, the quicker the Engineer will achieve a lock and the faster the tone will sound. Make sense?

### Quoted from "Natsu"

. I think Stealth jets should be able to slaughter infantry much like the attack jet can as well. I don't like hard counters and extremely rigid, defined roles at all. My preferred gameplay is soft counters, where there are more subtle differences. Maybe I'm just a massive Bad Company 2 fanboy. I really like the idea of a straight foodchain, and I abhor the idea of rock paper scissors.

Rock, paper, scissors balance is DICE's balance system; there is no bypassing that fact. Each piece of equipment needs a role in this system. From gadgets to weapons to vehicles, everything cannot be multi-purpose. Versatility is nice, don't get me wrong, I love me some versatility, but using that for direct balance purposes is a horribible, terribible idea. I think I'm not the only one to say that you are still living in the Bad Company 2 days where helicopters rue the day. Things have changed. Adapt to the changes and, seriously for your sake, stop living in the past.
To Aim Assist or not to Aim Assist, that is the question.

### Source code

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

AccelerationInputThreshold 0.98
AccelerationMultiplier 5.0
AccelerationDamping 4.0
AccelerationTimeThreshold 0.15
SquaredAcceleration 0.0
MaxAcceleration::Vec2
x 2.0
y 2.0
YawSpeedStrength 1.0
PitchSpeedStrength 1.0
AttractDistanceFallOffs::Vec2
x 1.0
y 1.2
AttractSoftZone 0.75
AttractUserInputMultiplier 0.45
AttractUserInputMultiplier_NoZoom 0.5
AttractOwnSpeedInfluence 0.0
AttractTargetSpeedInfluence 0.85
AttractOwnRequiredMovementForMaximumAttract 0.0
AttractStartInputThreshold 0.1
AttractMoveInputCap 0.0
AttractYawStrength 1.0
AttractPitchStrength 0.34
MaxToTargetAngle 45.0
MaxToTargetXZAngle 45.0
ViewObstructedKeepTime 0.0
SnapZoomLateralSpeedLimit 1000.0
SnapZoomTime 0.2
SnapZoomPostTimeNoInput 0.2
SnapZoomPostTime 0.2
SnapZoomReticlePointPriority 999
SnapZoomAutoEngageTime 0.0
SnapZoomBreakTimeAtMaxInput 0.2
SnapZoomBreakMaxInput 0.2
SnapZoomBreakMinAngle 90.0
SnapZoomSpamGuardTime 1.2
SoldierBackupSkeletonCollisionData *nullGuid*
CheckBoneCenterOnlyDistance 40.0

### Source code

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39

AccelerationInputThreshold 0.98
AccelerationMultiplier 5.0
AccelerationDamping 4.0
AccelerationTimeThreshold 0.15
SquaredAcceleration 0.0
MaxAcceleration::Vec2
x 2.0
y 2.0
YawSpeedStrength 1.0
PitchSpeedStrength 1.0
AttractDistanceFallOffs::Vec2
x 1.0
y 1.2
AttractSoftZone 0.0
AttractUserInputMultiplier 1.0
AttractUserInputMultiplier_NoZoom -1.0
AttractOwnSpeedInfluence 0.0
AttractTargetSpeedInfluence 0.0
AttractOwnRequiredMovementForMaximumAttract 0.0
AttractStartInputThreshold 0.0
AttractMoveInputCap 0.0
AttractYawStrength 0.0
AttractPitchStrength 0.0
MaxToTargetAngle 45.0
MaxToTargetXZAngle 45.0
ViewObstructedKeepTime 0.0
SnapZoomLateralSpeedLimit 1000.0
SnapZoomTime 0.2
SnapZoomPostTimeNoInput 0.0
SnapZoomPostTime 0.0
SnapZoomReticlePointPriority 999
SnapZoomAutoEngageTime 0.0
SnapZoomBreakTimeAtMaxInput -1.0
SnapZoomBreakMaxInput 0.2
SnapZoomBreakMinAngle 90.0
SnapZoomSpamGuardTime 0.5
SoldierBackupSkeletonCollisionData *nullGuid*
CheckBoneCenterOnlyDistance 40.0
DisableForcedTargetRecalcDistance 7.0

### Source code

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39

 AccelerationInputThreshold 0.98
AccelerationMultiplier 5.0
AccelerationDamping 4.0
AccelerationTimeThreshold 0.15
SquaredAcceleration 0.0
MaxAcceleration::Vec2
x 2.0
y 2.0
YawSpeedStrength 1.0
PitchSpeedStrength 1.0
AttractDistanceFallOffs::Vec2
x 1.0
y 1.2
AttractSoftZone 0.75
AttractUserInputMultiplier 0.45
AttractUserInputMultiplier_NoZoom 0.5
AttractOwnSpeedInfluence 0.0
AttractTargetSpeedInfluence 0.85
AttractOwnRequiredMovementForMaximumAttract 0.0
AttractStartInputThreshold 0.1
AttractMoveInputCap 0.0
AttractYawStrength 1.0
AttractPitchStrength 0.34
MaxToTargetAngle 45.0
MaxToTargetXZAngle 45.0
ViewObstructedKeepTime 0.0
SnapZoomLateralSpeedLimit 1000.0
SnapZoomTime 0.2
SnapZoomPostTimeNoInput 0.0
SnapZoomPostTime 0.0
SnapZoomReticlePointPriority 999
SnapZoomAutoEngageTime 0.0
SnapZoomBreakTimeAtMaxInput -1.0
SnapZoomBreakMaxInput 0.2
SnapZoomBreakMinAngle 90.0
SnapZoomSpamGuardTime 0.5
SoldierBackupSkeletonCollisionData *nullGuid*
CheckBoneCenterOnlyDistance 40.0
DisableForcedTargetRecalcDistance 7.0

### Quoted from "Zer0Cod3x"

the Sebstalder is quiet good since it can 3hit kill at any distanc ,but In my opinion i actually thikn the sweeper is better, its got a really really fast firerate that can beat alll those Noobmaticos, Helregall adn shitguns in close quarters , and its also really accurate out to like l;ong range,. overall great allround gun, jsut my 2\$ tho

### My "Contributions"

Staying frosty.

Posts: 567

Date of registration
: Jul 19th 2013

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 6

Tuesday, August 26th 2014, 5:20pm

### Quoted from "JSLICE20"

Problem is if you extend the range of the MANPADS to say 500 meters, it makes helicopters obsolete in the sense that a heli will always be locked by a surface to air missile. How can we fix that?
Could be done by making the lock-on range a dynamic factor:

- Altitude: The lower you fly, the shorter the lock-on range is
- Spotting: Longer range if you're spotted
- Lazed: MUCH longer range if you're laser-marked
- Weapons firing: Longer range when any chopper weapon is being fired

Also, mobility crits should be removed from lock-on missiles.