Zip it then.
***PAGE!
Me thinks one has ran out of reasoned arguments…
(NOT that you had any to start with mind!)
*Not done that for a while!
That’s not how discussion forums work, bud.
I’m not a pilot. I won’t pretend to be one. I haven’t flown any pixels since my second Microsoft Sidewinder Pro died during BF: 3 when I was loving flying helos. I can’t fly for crap using the keyboard and mouse and won’t pretend to.
However - I don’t have to be a pilot to see when things work well or when they seem broken. Planes have been broken for a long time. The problem as I see it has multiple facets.
-
Scale. A huge Battlefield map for infantry is not so big for planes. What that means, as someone who’s played flight simulators and arcade flight games for many years, is that there’s no room to properly maneuver aircraft and get out of the true range of AA fire. That means that even though the AA range in-game is severely limited to its real-life counterparts, planes can’t really climb high enough to get out of the effective range. That’s why pilots feel like the AA is OP.
-
Because of #1, they’ve nerfed/changed the way AA works to the point that, as a ground troop, it doesn’t feel effective. Flak cannons should be filling the sky with lethality to a certain altitude. That’s what it’s designed to do. However, instead of that, you have to score direct hits on aircraft. In the more modern versions of Battlefield, they severely nerfed the guided missiles and the like trying to compensate for the scaled-down maneuvering space. So infantry gripes that AA is impotent.
Then egos get into it, and people end up screaming at each other in forums or Reddit about it. Because there’s so much toxicity involved, then EA and DICE ignore it and do what they want to do anyway.
At this point, anyway, it’s a moot point. They’ve abandoned BF:V in a state that feels completely unfinished and unpolished. Right now these arguments are basically nothing but a giant pissing contest.
Indeed.
My dad is bigger than your dad!
No he isn’t!
Still, it’s keeping the forum from dying…
Why don’t aircraft have to land to resupply? 
As for the last point - because the “ace pilots” would crash trying to land.
I play a Free To Play game called “War Thunder” where you do have to land to repair, and it’s tricky until you get used to it. Not only do you have to land, but depending on what you’re doing - simply re-arming or full-on repairing, you have to come to a complete stop and then idle while everything is done. High pucker factor there, but it makes complete sense to me.
Gentlemen, keep the personal attacks off of the forum. Further violations will result in the thread being closed and the offending individuals being actioned.
Link to section: "Consider me in awe at the fact that while infantry had zero AA gadgets and AA was a worthless pile of garbage, pilots had NOTHING to say about ground to air balance at all as they freely farmed whate"Consider me in awe at the fact that while infantry had zero AA gadgets and AA was a worthless pile of garbage, pilots had NOTHING to say about ground to air balance at all as they freely farmed whatever the hell they wanted. So much for legitimate concerns about balance for all parties. "
That is sooooo much true +1
Not everyone. I have spoken against planes since the beginning and especially pacific planes, and how OP they were. Same with bombers, which should not be in the game at all
I have also seen other pilots who also believed that planes needen to be balanced.
And I’m still saying that it is to easy to farm even after the buff of AA, since fighters no longer can protect infantry/ground.
@SirBobdk: This cant be you cant have such a opinion as a pilot, because everyone saying how OP planes are, must get inside a plane by themselfes and this would change their opinion… this would make one of the most powerful “get inside plane yourself” arguments invalid as you show that one can be inside a plane and still keep his opinion that planes are OP…
Planes have been OP with carbet bombing and are again with rockets, but only after you have learned to use them. And that takes some time.
Inexperienced pilots are having a hard time right now and thats is what changed with the buff of AA/FF. It has not done much against skilled pilots.
I don’t think you need to be in a plane to have an opinion about balance, but it will of course be from an infantry point of view.
But if you want an opinion on what it’s like to fly, you have to do it. Just like pilots need to use the AA/FF. Imo you can’t say something is OP without trying it, even if it’s true.
If we don’t try planes/AA/FF then it’s hard to fully understand what the other part is talking about. It will only be speculation. But this game has had serious issues with air vs ground balance and still has. And that goes for AA / FF AND planes.
It’s more of a skill balance issue than anything.
I agree, all plains need to go away.
Hm, a Battlefield without planes, is this still Battlefield? But the more different types of planes they add to the game and the more specialisations they add, the more difficult it is to balance planes.
Furthermore this thread and others showed that planes are one major reason for player’s dissatisfaction (pilots as well as grounders).
Maybe it’s really time to remove them from the game.
Then just remove tank also, after that we’ll longer need the class system anymore.
Welcome to the new Battlefield, with maps as big as Operation Underground.
Why exaggerate this much? There are not much complaints about tank <> antitank balance in this forum. And tanks/vehicles are used by many players, planes are not.
Strictly speaking, they are expandable for the sake of the return of overall balance.
Bad Company e. g. did well without planes, it was fun, a success and had no major balance issues.
The more I write, the more I like the idea of getting rid of the planes. They should give this a try in BF6.
In my opinion it worked well in the past because there weren’t 20 different types of planes with so many ways to change the configuration (specialisations).
They brought so many different parameters into the balancing formula with this so that they cannot handle it anymore now.
Restricting planes to only 2 or 3 types per side with only 2 or 3 “gadgets” might also do the trick.
It should be a fortification build only game, the team that build more win, and they should call it battlefield builed.
“It’s more of a skill balance issue than anything.”
What could be balanced by giving at least the MAA more “anti-plane” skills…
SAA seem to overheat less than MAA on xbox… so i guess they work this way on PC and is the blunt way to balance things, but the SAA doesnt has a skill tree…