AA missiles after 1.4.17

[DogACTUAL]

Agree with all of that, but you can better your chance of a missile not hitting you to like 50%.

If you are preflaring and hear a lock, stop flaring and the missile will hit the last flare far away from you with a 50% chance.

If you didn't preflare and you hear a lock, just quickly pop flares once or twice and then stop flaring, same thing.

Of course make sure that the flare is somehere between you and the missile.
Flares also stay active for at least 7 seconds, not 5.

Edit: Sorry, if you tested the new release, disregard everything i said.

[SWAT-]

Flares were spammed on purpose, AA missiles don't need to lock anything, they just instantly go for your jet. Not always, but they do.

[AlonTavor]

You spam flares you increase the chances the missile hit a flare next to the jet.

[Jack_Howitzer]

You spam flares you increase the chances the missile hit a flare next to the jet.

Sounds very realistic.

Who would've known that anti-aircraft missile COUNTERMEASURES in fact increase the probability of hit. Someone's wrong, either aircraft designers or PR DEV's, and I'm not sure which one.

[AlonTavor]

Sounds very realistic.

Who would've known that anti-aircraft missile COUNTERMEASURES in fact increase the probability of hit. Someone's wrong, either aircraft designers or PR DEV's, and I'm not sure which one.

-Why do you think we have any control over this? This shit is DICE code compiled a decade ago. It took a decade to change a couple of bytes of assembly to make it refresh more frequently.
-You pop many flares, missile presumably chooses one at random (God knows how this engine actually decides). More flares next to your jet would increase chance of it selecting a newer one.

[viirusiiseli]

Sounds very realistic.

Who would've known that anti-aircraft missile COUNTERMEASURES in fact increase the probability of hit. Someone's wrong, either aircraft designers or PR DEV's, and I'm not sure which one.

It can't be the devs. AA is fine, CAS is balanced.

End of discussion, let Mats nerf CAS more.

-Why do you think we have any control over this? This shit is DICE code compiled a decade ago. It took a decade to change a couple of bytes of assembly to make it refresh more frequently.
-You pop many flares, missile presumably chooses one at random (God knows how this engine actually decides). More flares next to your jet would increase chance of it selecting a newer one.

Make PR 0.98 again?

Spoiler for ...:

I rather get noscoped by handheld than play CAS in 1.4. Just copypaste AA properties from 0.98 and it'd be better than current.

[Fastjack]

-Why do you think we have any control over this? This shit is DICE code compiled a decade ago. It took a decade to change a couple of bytes of assembly to make it refresh more frequently.

It seems to me you all don't know the trick with aa missiles.
Rhino explained it a while ago.
The AA missiles will go for the closest target comp and that is TTHeat, doesn't matter if u have a "lock on" on the vehicle or not.

Air vehicles have this heat object and the flares too. So if u locked on an airvehicle, the missile will go directly to the heatsource that is the closest one.

That means:

If u locked on to an chopper, jet or whatever is flying, the missile will go for the closest heatsignature.
If an flare is between ur missile and your target, the missile go for the flare.
If the flares are behind the target, the missile will go for the jet, chopper whatever because "seek closest target comp".

If a jet is coming and starfing directly in front of u and pop his flares, 1 seconfd later, the flares are behind the jet, because he is moving forward and the flares are behind them and ur missile will hit. There is no escaping for the jet.

I shot many aircrafts by using this knowledge

I watched SWAT clip. In 95% in all cases i saw this scenarios on low altitude ...........

If a jet is coming and starfing directly in front of u and pop his flares, 1 seconfd later, the flares are behind the jet, because he is moving forward and the flares are behind them and ur missile will hit. There is no escaping for the jet.

SeekClosestTargetComp TTHeat is HARDCODDED.

The Missile SEEKS the closest heatsignature. Best excample in the clip shot down number 2, with the last 2 missiles. You can clearly see How the missiles flying directly to the jet because he was above the AA (Closest heatsignature) and the flares had mire distance to the missiles.

Seriously
Flying so low and frontal into AA ........

5 years ago ....

[Murphy]

Watch the clip he posted from 0:59 - 1:09. The aircraft is clearly putting flares between him and the emplacement yet the missile tracks onto the jet regardless. I'm not so sure that's how it works 100% of the time.

Hipfire AA was basically Quake rocket launcher but ezmode homing lulz.

[Fuller]

Simply reduce missile splash radius and reasses the situation?
That would not help with direct hits but atleast when missiles hit the flares behind you, you won't die because of splash damage.
(IRL Manpads have an impact fuse while bigger missiles (AIM-9 series, AMRAAM,..) have proximity fuses)

[AlonTavor]

There are issues caused by the fact jets in PR travel a very large distance in a tick, in ways BF2 didn't have issues with. The missile goes for the old tick position and will do 0 damage when the splash is too low.

The video isn't bad at all. You're against an AAV there, and yet more than half the missiles miss. AAV is supposed to be super effective.

[Jack_Howitzer]

-Why do you think we have any control over this? This shit is DICE code compiled a decade ago. It took a decade to change a couple of bytes of assembly to make it refresh more frequently.
-You pop many flares, missile presumably chooses one at random (God knows how this engine actually decides). More flares next to your jet would increase chance of it selecting a newer one.

I know the game engine is limited, I was just making fun of this current system which is not realistic, nor playable.

There have been several ''OK'' flare & AA missile setups in previous PR patches. The one I liked most, was maybe .85 and .98 (can't remember) style where the AA missile would lock on to the first flares you popped, and would explode on those flares. You had to be really slow popping flares if you wanted to get directly hit by AA missile. Also the AA missile splash radius was rather high so indirect hits were dangerous. Also back in the day, there was no re-direct ability and mid-flight lock-on capability for AA missiles. I liked the system as it was predictable, gave room for tactics and minimized the randomness of AA hits.

[crazygamelover]

Will the missile trail effects be addressed in a later version? It seems right now they're virtually non-existent

[Rhino]

The one I liked most, was maybe .85 and .98 (can't remember) style where the AA missile would lock on to the first flares you popped, and would explode on those flares.

Before the refresh rate was updated in the most recent change, AA missiles NEVER exploded on just the flares like they do now.

I believe what your referring to is the much larger trigger radius for the missiles, combined with them getting confused with flares, which would cause them to first go for a flare, then fly through the flare, then see the proper target aircraft is in the trigger radius and explode, but be too far away to do any real damage.

[viirusiiseli]

Before the refresh rate was updated in the most recent change, AA missiles NEVER exploded on just the flares like they do now.

I believe what your referring to is the much larger trigger radius for the missiles, combined with them getting confused with flares, which would cause them to first go for a flare, then fly through the flare, then see the proper target aircraft is in the trigger radius and explode, but be too far away to do any real damage.

Regardless, that system with possibly some buff would be 10x better than this shoot-through-flares bs. As shown by the video in this thread earlier, AA operator requires no skill, planning, knowledge or even any real attempt, and still kills the plane effortlessly.

Are there really people who think this is how it should be? To fire without lock with an AA to a cloud of flares 1.5km away and score a kill with the first try?

I watched SWAT clip. In 95% in all cases i saw this scenarios on low altitude ...........

Seriously
Flying so low and frontal into AA ........

You realize he's 1-1.5km away from AAV in all the shots and probably at a similar altitude? That's not low. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Spoiler for ...:

That's more than the viewdistance on many CAS maps so how tf are the planes supposed to attack anything if that's low altitude and warrants an easy kill?

[DogACTUAL]

If you are able to kill any jet just because you see it, regardless of it carefully preflaring and regardless of how high it flies, then i guess the jet should just never expose itself to the ground. It's totally the stupid pilots's fault, am i right? XD

Regardless of potential 10 AAs per map that can saturate the whole 16km2 with their ability to shoot down any jet that dares to pierce the VD barrier. But like they say, if the pilot goes near AA it is his own fault (even if the whole map or at least all objectives are plastered with AA).

Just stay atleast 1.5km away from any objectives and maybe you won't get shot down by AA guys!

Oh, btw gun runs are a thing of the past now, unless you wanna get shot down every 2nd time you do one!

[Rhino]

Regardless, that system with possibly some buff would be 10x better than this shoot-through-flares bs. As shown by the video in this thread earlier, AA operator requires no skill, planning, knowledge or even any real attempt, and still kills the plane effortlessly.

Are there really people who think this is how it should be? To fire without lock with an AA to a cloud of flares 1.5km away and score a kill with the first try?

I and I think most of the team agree with you that right now, the old system was better than the new one for the most part but the old system wasn't perfect either and a compromise between the two is probably best and we are going to be looking into that.

[viirusiiseli]

I and I think most of the team agree with you that right now, the old system was better than the new one for the most part but the old system wasn't perfect either and a compromise between the two is probably best and we are going to be looking into that.

If you admit that you and the whole team think this current setup is bad, why is it implemented?

Isn't there something called testing, for this purpose? Does this obviously test-phase change have to be implemented in the game? Only for it to debilitate the entire CAS gameplay for a year before the actual desired outcome is possible?

Fine tuning worked for so long, why change it to complete overhauls on everything possible and implement straight away?

I mean, it's not complicated. I'm sure those LZ guys took maybe <60min to record the video and discover that the AA system is complete junk.

So many questions, so few answers.

[Rhino]

I'm sorry but there is only so much testing one can do before release. Finding these totally unforeseen side effects, things like AA missiles not tracking flares when too many flares are deployed etc is something that you would be lucky to find after serious amounts of testing and it was only after finding these issues though lots of game time did these issues truly raise their heads.

We are pushing the boundaries of a 12yr old engine far beyond what was intended from it, in an attempt to improve it and you simply can't make an omelette without cracking a few eggs.

[FFG]

If you admit that you and the whole team think this current setup is bad, why is it implemented?

Not the case. We spent many hours of developement and testing to make sure its how it is currently.

Isn't there something called testing, for this purpose? Does this obviously test-phase change have to be implemented in the game? Only for it to debilitate the entire CAS gameplay for a year before the actual desired outcome is possible?

Generally testing from QA is "does this work". When it came to AA I spent alot of time giving feedback on how effective AA should be, How often it should kill in situations. We tested it in all sorts of situations like such

Fine tuning worked for so long, why change it to complete overhauls on everything possible and implement straight away?

I'm a bit fuzzy on the details, But shortly before the Patch that caused AA missile to explode on flares there was a fix that updated AA missiles to make them track better so that they wouldn't redirrect. This caused AA missile to completely ignore flares in every situation and shoot down jets 100% of the time.

So because of that the patch dropped that made AA missiles explode on flares. At that time deadmanfoot was working on new flare effects, so we started tweaking flares, editing stuff such as gravity, distance from helicopters and jets, etc.

On top of editing flares we nerfed all Anti-Air (ground-air & air-air) so they could no longer spam like this :


*note : this was before the AA tracking changes

After all these changes, All heli's got buffed to have 60 flares again that popped 2 at a time, this gave CAS helis more loiter time over target because you didn't have to RTB after 20 seconds of spamming flares.

I mean, it's not complicated. I'm sure those LZ guys took maybe <60min to record the video and discover that the AA system is complete junk.

Problems with the video, They spammed flares. This isn't needed anymore. Once an AA missile is launched, if you pop 2 sets of flares at the same time, then pop 1 set every second its enough to keep AA missiles away from your jet/heli.

You problem, the reason you get swatted out of the sky is because your spamming to many flares. The engine only renders 4 heat sigs. the 4 most recent ones will cause AA missile to be tracked, while older ones will cease to exist. So if you pop too many flares, you attract the AA missile away from the initial flares and towards your CAS.

[Jack_Howitzer]

I and I think most of the team agree with you that right now, the old system was better than the new one for the most part but the old system wasn't perfect either and a compromise between the two is probably best and we are going to be looking into that.

I like the fact that you improving the current system but word compromise sounds dangerous to my ears.

My opinion is that the AA system should be implemented in a way which emphasizes tactics, skill and coordination for both CAS pilots and AA crews. So no 95% kill rate like current system, and no randomness of first missing a couple of shots and then hitting a plane at 1 km though 20 flares like the AA system, before this one, in v. 1.3.

How I would design the flare system to achieve this, is to make it very hard for AA missiles to score a direct hit to the air vehicle, making flares very effective at breaking the lock and misguiding the missile. However, I would give decent splash radius for AA missiles so that an indirect hit would kill/damage a LOW FLYING aircraft (short distance beetween AA and aircraft). Also, aircraft wandering too close to AA would increase the kill rate, as there is very little reacting time for air crew on the AA launch. On top of this, pilot who is slow to react to lock on and drop flares, will be in a much higher danger as by the time he dropped flares, missile is already on the way and missile exploding on a set of flares very close to the aircraft is gonna be deadly.

Aforementioned system would put emphasis on tactics, skill and coordination as air crews would have to fly rather high and away from AAs to avoid hits, and if they pre-flare or pop flares fast, missile will not kill them. However aircraft wandering too close to AAs, would be in the danger of getting shot down. This would also enchance the survivability of faster aircraft (jets) against AAs, which is also realistic and good for game play as CAS jets are the most challenging asset to use successfully.

Reducing AA one-hit-kill ability will also require more coordination from AA crews and buff AAs that have more than 1 missile (FOB AAs, AAVs) which would shift the balance from lonewolf MANPAD guys to a more coordinated effort. This system would also give higher success to squads who saturate a certain area with several AAs, increasimg kill probability as multiple AA missiles could blow up on flares. Thus, creating a no-fly zone would require more coordination than 1 MANPAD guy.

I'd be very careful of making AA overpowered as team even with no AA, still has the choice and ability to hide from enemy CAS, unlike from armor. If enemy has air superiority, on most maps you can still spread up, hide and avoid open areas so you don't get bombed. Also in the situation of no AAs, couple of machine gunners can damage hovering enemy CAS heli so he has to RTB. If you lose your tanks against enemy tanks, your in a lot worse situation.