Weekly Debrief

Why is the anti aircraft gun so useless???

Comments

  • fragnstein
    492 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Raspu71nG wrote: »
    are you guys also going to ask why is the MAA so OP against fighter planes?
    it is anti air and anti infantry at the same time.
    you guys want an OP SAA and OP MAA. 

    if SAA damage is gonna be increased then its range needs to be reduced, and MAA needs to be kicked out from home base, and it should only be good against air targets.
    fighter rockets splash damage needs to be increased because many times I have fire rockets against SAA and it did little damage because it hit the soldier's feet...

    I'm sorry, but the maa isn't any better. It's only advantage is it can move. In fact the allies maa with 1 canon configuration has a lower rof and velocity then the tow aa. A friend and I tried one day to tow an aa with the maa hoping both together would be enough fire power, but sadly the out come was no different.
  • DingoKillr
    3549 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    DingoKillr wrote: »
    SirBobdk wrote: »
    (Quote)

    Agree, but since there are only 2 planes and 2 tanks, they should not be easy to destroy either.Planes should be easy to use but difficult to master. That is not the case now, they are easy to use and easy to master, especially bombersThe same should be the case for AA. I dont want planes farming infantry and AA farming planes. Both should be hard to master.
    Unfortunately, Dice has made a game with big balance issues air vs air and air vs ground.

    There is never only 2 Tanks and 2 Planes, there are can be more or less. Fjell has more planes then SAA can overlap fire, yet it takes 2 SAA to down a fighter. While Aerodrome has tanks but no AT cannon why? because action man can solo a tank. I wonder how it would be if it had a few AT cannons.

    Anyway what? It is a game, anything that is difficult to use, don't get used. Sure something's like stationary weapons are easy to use but so is driving a jeep and that is how it should be. For me stationary weapons should be jump on use then jump off. Grinding for skill shouldn't be required.

    Nah people have just specifically been hating air vehicles since the beginning of time. Even though all of their complaints (them being a cheap, low skill means of acquiring lots of skills without much risk of dying) apply much more to tanks. I mean it actually does take about 100 times more effort to aim and time a bomb drop than it does to just point a tank cannon and fire. Planes can't sit on their repair stations and aim while repairing either, nor can they crash or have other tanks ram them for an instant suicide regardless of skill. But tankers get a pass, simply because tanks have a low enough skill floor they include more of the community. Every game. Even BF1 where tanks were unquestionably better for farming kills we had people complaining about planes all the time and adding infantry AA weapons while buffing AA.

    Look at your example map, one where some tankers have been consistently pulling 100 kill games...just like Fjell with some pilots. Is it even on your radar? No, it apparently doesn't even need AT guns, despite the armor issue on Aerodrome being the lack of long range counters to tanks aside other tanks (such as AT guns, but they are not needed here apparently). Like I get it, up is cheap and having things fall on you is somehow worse than an armored box out of bounds next to a resupply station camping. But c'mon, this is not even close to an unbiased view point.
    Neither should planes be giving pass to be OP because people claim it is high skill when you have long range splash weapons. What skill it takes to operate a Planes or Tanks is not the argument, it should be about vehicle effectiveness. 

    Well you must not know what I have posted before. 
    1) I am not a big fan of supply station within the base spawn. I would have placed on flanks of the objectives or my preferred is a BF2 commander supply drop crate.  Air resupply should be team based. 
    2) I have said long range AT rifles should have been in early. Adding effective AA infantry that is weak against ground units could reduce the number of AT launcher and provide additional AA.
    3) I have even suggested a squad call in precision 3 shell mortar strike  to deal with campers.
    4) MAA should be moved to be counted as part of plane spawns, I think this would create better balance between air-ground.
    5) Stationary should be more effective. 

    For the current AA, I would give a massive increase to damage, decrease velocity, increase spread, increase the number of rounds before cool-down and massively increase cooldown, if it has drag I would also increase that. This should reduce effective range when a plane flys pass at distance, however if it flys towards the AA it will be shreddered.


  • jroggs
    427 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Raspu71nG said:
    are you guys also going to ask why is the MAA so OP against fighter planes?
    it is anti air and anti infantry at the same time.
    you guys want an OP SAA and OP MAA. 

    if SAA damage is gonna be increased then its range needs to be reduced, and MAA needs to be kicked out from home base, and it should only be good against air targets.
    fighter rockets splash damage needs to be increased because many times I have fire rockets against SAA and it did little damage because it hit the soldier's feet...
    I haven't used MAA much, mostly because I think it's underwhelming at both anti-air and anti-infantry, and it feels like a waste of a tank slot to get something that can't fight enemy tanks. MAA should really be a separate vehicle, either a map spawn or squad call-in or something.

    FWIW, I'm cool with reducing the SAA range a bit, because it's pretty inconsequential to land those random 3-damage ticks on lucky leads. And I fully agree that MAA camping in the team spawns is lame and should be designed out. But the turnaround there is making SAA genuinely lethal, especially against fighters, and MAA should get an armor buff to be on par with other tanks so it can have some better survivability against Assaults and tanks.
  • Hawxxeye
    5591 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    I am sharing a clip from the most deadly bomber pilot I have met so far in BFV in my own games. This is recent and way after the old ju88 nerfs


  • Foxassassin
    111 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    jroggs said:
    Raspu71nG said:
    are you guys also going to ask why is the MAA so OP against fighter planes?
    it is anti air and anti infantry at the same time.
    you guys want an OP SAA and OP MAA. 

    if SAA damage is gonna be increased then its range needs to be reduced, and MAA needs to be kicked out from home base, and it should only be good against air targets.
    fighter rockets splash damage needs to be increased because many times I have fire rockets against SAA and it did little damage because it hit the soldier's feet...
    I haven't used MAA much, mostly because I think it's underwhelming at both anti-air and anti-infantry, and it feels like a waste of a tank slot to get something that can't fight enemy tanks. MAA should really be a separate vehicle, either a map spawn or squad call-in or something.

    FWIW, I'm cool with reducing the SAA range a bit, because it's pretty inconsequential to land those random 3-damage ticks on lucky leads. And I fully agree that MAA camping in the team spawns is lame and should be designed out. But the turnaround there is making SAA genuinely lethal, especially against fighters, and MAA should get an armor buff to be on par with other tanks so it can have some better survivability against Assaults and tanks.
    Giving back MAA's damage against tanks would be nice too. Even if it was launch damage,where shells did 3-7's. It was -something-
    -
    I mean the MAA's have an option to use 37/40MM cannons. Which is the same size as the ones the B1 Stuka can carry. Sure different ammos and "FuN nOt ReAlIsM" yadda yadda...,but it's still a big gun,and should do something,even if it's just annoyance,or disabling
  • jroggs
    427 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Hawxxeye said:
    I am sharing a clip from the most deadly bomber pilot I have met so far in BFV in my own games. This is recent and way after the old ju88 nerfs
    Yeah, that kind of garbage is why DICE patched plane spawns to be delayed for 30 seconds at the start of a match. Then, like many other fixes such as functional killcams and slope climbing, it came undone and planes could once more carpet bomb those spawn-adjacent objectives for big cheap feeds.

    I suspect it's a Frostbite problem. I know it's DICE's baby and can produce some quality with enough time and vision, but it's probably the worst game engine in terms of development ease of use and especially follow-on support. And DICE is a ghost town in terms of competence, as many of their experienced and capable personnel have left the company. Including the guy who knew how to implement window-vaulting, apparently. Al Sundan and Underground will probably be delayed forever because of that.
  • CT1924
    77 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Use the flakpanzer. It is basically 4 aa guns in one. Of course, I would rather get an actual tank and push the obj, but AA tanks have a place too.
  • MarxistDictator
    4908 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited September 22
    They just need to implement the 1943 rules where kills made in your home base (whether it's by someone hiding in there or an enemy spawn killing) track no points or kills/deaths on the board.

    If you are actually there to defend your team from aerial threats sure, but in exchange for your lack of vulnerability you don't get any points.

    It would also encourage people to let assets leave bases when in aircraft so they actually get something for taking them out.

    But like most innovations that made complete sense from a logical, good game design point of view (like not allowing mortars to be placed in areas OOB for one team) it was thrown in the trashcan to be replaced by the current system of garbage where like 40% of tankers hide in their deployment.

    The base should be an area to bridge one team's spawn and assets to the map, not a safe haven for garbage players like it's been since BF3.
  • Hawxxeye
    5591 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited September 22
    CT1924 said:
    Use the flakpanzer. It is basically 4 aa guns in one. Of course, I would rather get an actual tank and push the obj, but AA tanks have a place too.
    Eh no, the flakpanzer with the 4 guns was powerfull once upon a time but it was nerfed to the ground almost half a year ago. Now only the slow firing single cannon which is the same like those of the stationary AAs is decent.
    Were you frozen in carbonite all these months?
    Post edited by Hawxxeye on
  • Vespervin
    1333 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Hawxxeye said:
    CT1924 said:
    Use the flakpanzer. It is basically 4 aa guns in one. Of course, I would rather get an actual tank and push the obj, but AA tanks have a place too.
    Eh no, the flakpanzer with the 4 guns was powerfull once upon a time but it was nerfed to the ground almost half a year ago. Now only the slow firing single cannon which is the same like those of the stationary AAs is decent.
    Were you frozen in carbonite all these months?
    Which is a shame, because the quad-AA is so much fun to shoot but it's rubbish when compared to the single-cannon upgrade.
  • Foxassassin
    111 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Vespervin said:
    Hawxxeye said:
    CT1924 said:
    Use the flakpanzer. It is basically 4 aa guns in one. Of course, I would rather get an actual tank and push the obj, but AA tanks have a place too.
    Eh no, the flakpanzer with the 4 guns was powerfull once upon a time but it was nerfed to the ground almost half a year ago. Now only the slow firing single cannon which is the same like those of the stationary AAs is decent.
    Were you frozen in carbonite all these months?
    Which is a shame, because the quad-AA is so much fun to shoot but it's rubbish when compared to the single-cannon upgrade.
    Speaking of rubbish. Can we talk about the "Crying onion" rounds for them? Even worse than the normal shells. The only fun I've gotten from them was shooting halftracks with them and burning the top gunners,untill dice patched that out
  • Vespervin
    1333 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited September 22
    Please approve my comments! Jesus Christ I hate this forum. As I was trying to say...

    Vespervin said:
    Hawxxeye said:
    CT1924 said:
    Use the flakpanzer. It is basically 4 aa guns in one. Of course, I would rather get an actual tank and push the obj, but AA tanks have a place too.
    Eh no, the flakpanzer with the 4 guns was powerfull once upon a time but it was nerfed to the ground almost half a year ago. Now only the slow firing single cannon which is the same like those of the stationary AAs is decent.
    Were you frozen in carbonite all these months?
    Which is a shame, because the quad-AA is so much fun to shoot but it's rubbish when compared to the single-cannon upgrade.
    Speaking of rubbish. Can we talk about the "Crying onion" rounds for them? Even worse than the normal shells. The only fun I've gotten from them was shooting halftracks with them and burning the top gunners,untill dice patched that out
    Are you talking about the incendiary rounds? If so, I only used those against infantry. They weren't effective against aircraft.
  • Foxassassin
    111 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Vespervin said:
    Please approve my comments! Jesus Christ I hate this forum. As I was trying to say...

    Vespervin said:
    Hawxxeye said:
    CT1924 said:
    Use the flakpanzer. It is basically 4 aa guns in one. Of course, I would rather get an actual tank and push the obj, but AA tanks have a place too.
    Eh no, the flakpanzer with the 4 guns was powerfull once upon a time but it was nerfed to the ground almost half a year ago. Now only the slow firing single cannon which is the same like those of the stationary AAs is decent.
    Were you frozen in carbonite all these months?
    Which is a shame, because the quad-AA is so much fun to shoot but it's rubbish when compared to the single-cannon upgrade.
    Speaking of rubbish. Can we talk about the "Crying onion" rounds for them? Even worse than the normal shells. The only fun I've gotten from them was shooting halftracks with them and burning the top gunners,untill dice patched that out
    Are you talking about the incendiary rounds? If so, I only used those against infantry. They weren't effective against aircraft.
    Yeah. They were slower than normal Flak rounds,no airburst and did less damage on actually hitting a target. The few seconds of fire DoT is a joke.
    -
    The incendiary rounds for support guns needs to be re-buffed too. So many things have been made useless...
  • Woodlbrad
    649 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited September 23
    Because pilots when reeeeeeeee reeeeeeeeee dice nerf now reeeeeeeeeeeee it’s pathetic AA is abysmal it serves no purpose other than free kills for pilots. 2 franchises ruined by dice back to back titles.
  • warslag
    1456 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    edited September 23
    Woodlbrad said:
    Because pilots when reeeeeeeee reeeeeeeeee dice nerf now reeeeeeeeeeeee it’s pathetic AA is abysmal it serves no purpose other than free kills for pilots. 2 franchises ruined by dice back to back titles.

    But are you passionate about AA because you're a big fan of it or because you simply hate planes? Many of the players who love planes have also used AA, and they understand how to achieve proper balance between AA air-defence and airborne air-defence - so that game play is not ruined for those who enjoy aerial combat. But also to ensure that the simulated battlefield makes sense.

    I think that if you just wanted AA turned into a 'super-weapon', that prevented people from enjoying planes (as unfortunately seen in recent BFs), then that would seem selfish and cynical.

    Somewhat on a side-note: AA merely forms part of air-defences but is not the de facto counter to aircraft in the real world. Aircraft are the direct counter to aircraft. It's actually known as 'counter-air' within an air defence's structure. So bending reality to make AA the top dog air defence in Battlefield only serves to warp the simulated battlefield aspect of the game.
    Post edited by warslag on
  • Hawxxeye
    5591 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    warslag said:
    Woodlbrad said:
    Because pilots when reeeeeeeee reeeeeeeeee dice nerf now reeeeeeeeeeeee it’s pathetic AA is abysmal it serves no purpose other than free kills for pilots. 2 franchises ruined by dice back to back titles.

    But are you passionate about AA because you're a big fan of it or because you simply hate planes? Many of the players who love planes have also used AA, and they understand how to achieve proper balance between AA air-defence and airborne air-defence - so that game play is not ruined for those who enjoy aerial combat. But also to ensure that the simulated battlefield makes sense.

    I think that if you just wanted AA turned into a 'super-weapon', that prevented people from enjoying planes (as unfortunately seen in recent BFs), then that would seem selfish and cynical.

    Somewhat on a side-note: AA merely forms part of air-defences but is not the de facto counter to aircraft in the real world. Aircraft are the direct counter to aircraft. It's actually known as 'counter-air' within an air defence's structure. So bending reality to make AA the top dog air defence in Battlefield only serves to warp the simulated battlefield aspect of the game.
    I am both a pilot and a tanker and an infantry player (though I deviate more towards vehicles) I find the sAA to be a free kill for bombers and fighters with rockets and the MAA to still be an easy kill for anti tank bombers.
    .
    There is no simulated battlefield aspect in a game where infantry can be superior to a tank.
  • MBT_Layzan
    1498 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    warslag wrote: »
    (Quote)
    But are you passionate about AA because you're a big fan of it or because you simply hate planes? Many of the players who love planes have also used AA, and they understand how to achieve proper balance between AA air-defence and airborne air-defence - so that game play is not ruined for those who enjoy aerial combat. But also to ensure that the simulated battlefield makes sense.

    I think that if you just wanted AA turned into a 'super-weapon', that prevented people from enjoying planes (as unfortunately seen in recent BFs), then that would seem selfish and cynical.

    Somewhat on a side-note: AA merely forms part of air-defences but is not the de facto counter to aircraft in the real world. Aircraft are the direct counter to aircraft. It's actually known as 'counter-air' within an air defence's structure. So bending reality to make AA the top dog air defence in Battlefield only serves to warp the battlefield simulation aspect of the game.

    In the defence industry, do they teach pilots to fly straight at AA too? Throughout history planes avoid AA as not to get shot down
    Big time, pilots dreaded ground flack in WWII, and they certainly did not fly right at it.    
  • warslag
    1456 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    warslag wrote: »
    (Quote)
    But are you passionate about AA because you're a big fan of it or because you simply hate planes? Many of the players who love planes have also used AA, and they understand how to achieve proper balance between AA air-defence and airborne air-defence - so that game play is not ruined for those who enjoy aerial combat. But also to ensure that the simulated battlefield makes sense.

    I think that if you just wanted AA turned into a 'super-weapon', that prevented people from enjoying planes (as unfortunately seen in recent BFs), then that would seem selfish and cynical.

    Somewhat on a side-note: AA merely forms part of air-defences but is not the de facto counter to aircraft in the real world. Aircraft are the direct counter to aircraft. It's actually known as 'counter-air' within an air defence's structure. So bending reality to make AA the top dog air defence in Battlefield only serves to warp the battlefield simulation aspect of the game.

    In the defence industry, do they teach pilots to fly straight at AA too? Throughout history planes avoid AA as not to get shot down
    warslag wrote: »
    (Quote)
    But are you passionate about AA because you're a big fan of it or because you simply hate planes? Many of the players who love planes have also used AA, and they understand how to achieve proper balance between AA air-defence and airborne air-defence - so that game play is not ruined for those who enjoy aerial combat. But also to ensure that the simulated battlefield makes sense.

    I think that if you just wanted AA turned into a 'super-weapon', that prevented people from enjoying planes (as unfortunately seen in recent BFs), then that would seem selfish and cynical.

    Somewhat on a side-note: AA merely forms part of air-defences but is not the de facto counter to aircraft in the real world. Aircraft are the direct counter to aircraft. It's actually known as 'counter-air' within an air defence's structure. So bending reality to make AA the top dog air defence in Battlefield only serves to warp the battlefield simulation aspect of the game.

    In the defence industry, do they teach pilots to fly straight at AA too? Throughout history planes avoid AA as not to get shot down
    Big time, pilots dreaded ground flack in WWII, and they certainly did not fly right at it.    
    AA was of no consequence at all during WWII unless you were flying at it or at least relatively near to it.
  • Hawxxeye
    5591 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    warslag said:
    warslag wrote: »
    (Quote)
    But are you passionate about AA because you're a big fan of it or because you simply hate planes? Many of the players who love planes have also used AA, and they understand how to achieve proper balance between AA air-defence and airborne air-defence - so that game play is not ruined for those who enjoy aerial combat. But also to ensure that the simulated battlefield makes sense.

    I think that if you just wanted AA turned into a 'super-weapon', that prevented people from enjoying planes (as unfortunately seen in recent BFs), then that would seem selfish and cynical.

    Somewhat on a side-note: AA merely forms part of air-defences but is not the de facto counter to aircraft in the real world. Aircraft are the direct counter to aircraft. It's actually known as 'counter-air' within an air defence's structure. So bending reality to make AA the top dog air defence in Battlefield only serves to warp the battlefield simulation aspect of the game.

    In the defence industry, do they teach pilots to fly straight at AA too? Throughout history planes avoid AA as not to get shot down
    warslag wrote: »
    (Quote)
    But are you passionate about AA because you're a big fan of it or because you simply hate planes? Many of the players who love planes have also used AA, and they understand how to achieve proper balance between AA air-defence and airborne air-defence - so that game play is not ruined for those who enjoy aerial combat. But also to ensure that the simulated battlefield makes sense.

    I think that if you just wanted AA turned into a 'super-weapon', that prevented people from enjoying planes (as unfortunately seen in recent BFs), then that would seem selfish and cynical.

    Somewhat on a side-note: AA merely forms part of air-defences but is not the de facto counter to aircraft in the real world. Aircraft are the direct counter to aircraft. It's actually known as 'counter-air' within an air defence's structure. So bending reality to make AA the top dog air defence in Battlefield only serves to warp the battlefield simulation aspect of the game.

    In the defence industry, do they teach pilots to fly straight at AA too? Throughout history planes avoid AA as not to get shot down
    Big time, pilots dreaded ground flack in WWII, and they certainly did not fly right at it.    
    AA was of no consequence at all during WWII unless you were flying at it or at least relatively near to it.
    The bombing raids in WWII were done in massive numbers in order to reduce the chance of an individual plane being singled out  by the AA.
    The AAs were also many. It was not a single AA hero vs a bomber hero. What WWII did is not relevant in Infantryfield.
Sign In or Register to comment.