Originally Posted by Rothnang
Why not? Think of it like C4 vs. tanks, a lone player can blow up any ground vehicle with two bricks of C4, but that doesn't present a huge issue to the games overall balance, because tanks can take steps to avoid getting hit with it. C4 isn't simply a weapon that easily kills any tank, it's a weapon that punishes tanks for risky behavior or rewards infantry for excellent sneaking. If they drive into the middle of a base and make it easy for you to get close to them they get blown up. Also vehicles have hit locations, so an HA can solo a tank with a rocket launcher as well, by just attacking it from behind - it just requires the HA to be really good, or the tank to be really bad.
What would be so wrong with having an equivalent to that that applies to aircraft? For example, imagine there was an Anti-air weapon that was incredibly strong, but it could only fire straight up. That creates a situation where the danger for the Liberator is very localized over that unit, so he can give it a wide berth, and avoid flying directly over areas where that unit might be hidden, but it also gives you a weapon that is an absolute doom to lazy Liberators that hover over your base. That would create much more interesting gameplay than simply having AA guns that can reach out and touch the Liberator anywhere in the sky for half a mile around. Deploying a lot of those things would make the sky more dangerous, no doubt, but it would be more dangerous because more units means better chances of one being successful, not because more units means they can concentrate all their fire to create an instant-death-dome.
|
Maradine replied to the part where you answered him, so I will reply to the part where you answered me.
The C4 technique you cite is extremely situational. If you are implying that a lone wolf
sneaks up on a
tank to do that effectively...well, you have admitted that it demands the C4 user be
extremely careful in his approach to said vehicle, and the tank driver be
extremely careless in the positioning of his vehicle...and even then, the lone wolf's success is probably tied to fighting in proximity to at least
some allies to divert the tanks attention. Which means that he is being supported by allies, whether he is acting alone (no squad) or not. By fighting within the supporting area of allied units, is he truly a lone wolf? I support allies that I am not squadded up with all the time. In fact, as most of my buddies prefer BF over PS2, I am often NOT in a squad, but in fact do not consider myself a lone wolf at all.
That was just speaking to your analogy with C4 users of course. The suggestion you have made about AA weapons, specifically, when talking about a lone wolf being able to bring effective fires against a 3 man gunship...which by it's airborne nature has an greatly increased ability to position and reposition for a much more effective overwatch of the target area than a ground unit like a tank...that lone wolf would pretty much
have to rely on something diverting the Liberators gunner long enough for him to peek out and take a shot. So he is hardly a lone wolf. In fact, I don't see where what you are suggesting differs from an AA Max as it currently exists. Unless you're implying that the lone wolf should have a default weapon that can critically damage an airborne gunship in 1 or 2 hits. But again,
that is a terrible idea.
I have intentionally refrained from making comparisons with real life examples. But I am compelled to ask, are you implying that future tech crew served weapon systems should be less lethal and more fragile than current modern counterparts? Or would you feel like it's a good idea to take on an AC-130 with a handheld weapon all on your lonesome?