DICE. Stop what you are doing right now. Go back and make the AC 130 pilotable by players. Please. It worked in 1942 for the B17, why not use Frostbite 2 technology and the 'largest Battlefield map' ever to implement something AWESOME into the game.
A HUGE selling point for Battlefield over Call of Duke Duke was DRIVABLE vehicles. So why are you creating an AC-130 that will play EXACTLY like the one in Call of Duty? We've already seen an AC130 on rails. No one will be impressed. Make it flyable, please. All of the players want it. For once please listen to your fanbase in BF3.
how about NO
"When I joined the Corps, we didn't have any fancy-schmanzy tanks. We had sticks!
Two sticks, and a rock for the whole platoon—and we had to share the rock!" - Sgt Major Avery Johnson
You know what it was used for in 1942? Flying straight to the enemy base and carpet bombing it.
What if I told you... That there is a stationary base AA that can stop air vehicles from base raping?
THINK OF THE BASE RAPE
emplaced AA guns, AAV's. With this logic all helicopters, fighters, and even ground vehicles should be scripted. Fuck it, I don't even want the freedom to be able to walk, I want to play Railfield 3 now
I have premium and you don't. Deal with it, poor kid.
Yes! I need to jihadi that!!
BF4 pilots be thinking jets require more "skill". I guess if you use your plane as giant TV missile and ramming tanks. So much skill right?
This idea is actually silly.
The pilot cannot shoot, he simply flies in circles around targets for the two gunners to take out.
How long does it take before he gets bored and bails, or kamikazes into a tank?
Even worse it could become the most outrageous personal transport vehicle ever.
I think it should be piloted.
Honestly, I'd just crash it into a tank or a building or something then never pilot it again. Flying that slow with that much enemy focus wouldn't be too exciting if you're doing it right.
At least in 2142 tou could have some control over the titan, it the server allowed it.
because people will fight on who flys and who controls guns.
2012-06-08 04:57 , edited 2012-06-08 05:37 by GauntIet
THINK OF THE BASE RAPE
Base rape using the AC130 with SAA? Potentially a MAA? I doubt this is a huge issue. Plus you'd be vulnerable to all sorts of hell in a slow flying machine over enemy air space. Making it player driven would, in the right hands (like any vehicle in Battlefield) be excellent for base assault. On rails you can't coordinate your efforts, which diminishes the value of the AC130 as a team resource and makes it simply an armored killer with no real direction. Make the pilot get points for every kill performed by the gunners or significant objective completed; such as a squad leader assigning a base to be assaulted, flying the AC130 over that base to provide slow moving air support and receiving contribution points for being in the relative area of the designated flag.
It can be implemented properly... but I don't think DICE has the time to do it because they're rushing the hell out of these DLC to make deadlines. A bad excuse but no doubt it is a primary parameter for "success" in the eyes of EA.
Anyway you won't have to worry, it won't be changed if we follow EA/DICE's new philosophy of accessibility for all at the expense of "complex" mechanics.
edit: Just so you know where I stand on this issue, I don't care if it is player driven or not because I think as a vehicle it would be considered a boring position to take, though there are always others out there who might love the slow flight and tactical positioning such as the commanders in 2142 managing the Titan. Wouldn't that be a novel idea, having a commander position in Battlefield to take care of the AC130's flight path as part of their command role. I wonder why they don't do that instead...
AC-130 can hold entire 32 man team, wouldnt that be a great multikill.
Ī ѠΛS ß♡ŔИ Ƭ♡ ŔΛṖƐ
That would be worth 50 if they had maps that included drivable ships, submarines like they had in 1942, probably will never see that again in a BF game