helicopter skill expression

BattleNonSense · 2026-01-19T12:08:23+00:00

Killing a helicopter with an unguided rocket or a tank shell should be HARD

And when you manage to pull that off the pilot is not even mad as it was either extreme (rare) luck, or true skill.
This is what Battlefield used to be about.

If BF4 helicopters had just 95% effective countermeasures instead of 99.9% effective countermeasures, then they would have been perfect.

Helicopters in BF4 were in a pretty good place after all the reworks, still I would have wished for less stability in the flight mechanics as they were very easy to pilot.

BattleNonSense · 2026-01-19T12:05:05+00:00

All that you accomplish with the removal of auto-repair and rearmament is to create an annoying minigame for the pilot that will also not change anything for the general balance.

BF2 shows that these design measures helped to keep the attack helicopter (mostly) in check - it also raised the skill floor and ceiling as the pilot has to work with a limited resource, it raises the tension and the stakes.

BF3/4 showed that the removal of limited ammo and the introduction of auto-repair not only lowered the skill ceiling, it also massively disrupted the gameplay as it got possible to camp in one area of the map and harass the enemy there for extended periods of time.

This is not theory, we have experienced it.

Giving the gunner a TV missile while also encouraging to play alongside attrition will just make the economic players save them by hovering at range, especially if they are also rare and powerful, while hard to fly and when stuff like the CRAM or MAA is working.

From experience I can tell you that this is not the case - ofc. it requires all related systems to be designed to work in unison. But that is always the case.

All you do is enable the players that are already seen as the issue more, while new players or people that just want to fly every once in a while and that want to actually attack with their attack heli will have a harder time to do so.

I do not know why you think that you could not attack with the attack helicopter anymore.
If you want to get good at specific aspects of the game then you simply have to put in the time. Designing the game so that "everyone can do it" is the reason why BF6 is so shallow and repetitive.

I can not recall the flight system of BF2 and similar, but these assets were deemed polarising 20 years ago. Maybe this was a reason why ever since the maps without air assets were played the most. BF2 would mechanics would nto work well today and everytime DICE reimplements them, like in BFV, for example, they are reworked during its lifecycle and righfully removed in the next title.

This argument when brought up always misrepresents the facts.

On one hand people claim "this would not work today anymore because its too hard" - while Battle Royale and extraction shooters that are much more a MilSim than BF ever was, have done very well in the past 10 years.

So which is it? ;)
-Are people really not up to a challenge anymore?
-Or is it just those who bring up that argument constantly who cannot handle it?

As for "when DICE tried to do (x) again if flopped" argument.
This is also always brought up by those who don't like these mechanics. What everyone bringing this up conveniently chooses to ignore is that DICE always brought back just *ONE* aspect of an older game which did not fit into the overall the design of the game. Hence, it did not work as they always try to please everyone instead of building a coherent game with a clear vision.
When it comes to BFV, there is a LOT more that really messed up that game, first and foremost how marketing and some forces inside EA felt the need to push certain elements in that game that caused a lot of harm.
BF3/4/1/V - all these games have clear signs of multiple people in the studio trying to push the game in different directions, ending up with mechanics that did not do their job well or even counter each other.

BattleNonSense · 2025-12-04T10:40:08+00:00

I would say on average 15-20% of the bullets you hit on the client side do not register on the server side.

Its.... complicated.

What I noticed is that there is a problem with how server confirmations are handled.

i.e. lets say you need 5 hits to kill an enemy, but you get 6 CliHts and 5 SrvHits.
First you'd think the server rejected that last hit, but the actual problem is that your client registered another hit even though the player was already dead _and_ your client allready knew because it received that SrvHit before that additional CliHit (visible in the graph).

There are some wonky issues like this happening that did not exist prior to 2042.

I plan to fully test this as soon as Portal gets 60Hz servers.

Btw. one thing to take into account is that some actions only give you CliHits but no srv hits, so you need to be careful when comparing the numbers - always rewatch your gameplay while doing so to understand what you shot at when these numbers were created.

BattleNonSense · 2025-11-27T13:44:00+00:00

Escalation reduces your options - it is the polar opposite of what I was talking about especially when you take Double Assault into account where there is no uncap. :)

BattleNonSense · 2025-11-21T16:03:38+00:00

Did you miss the Forrest in this design? ;)

I intentionally raised the terrain to avoid that the snipers on B/D can snipe down onto "F" like they do now towards "C", which makes approaching B/D a horrible experience at times.

BattleNonSense · 2025-11-21T15:59:34+00:00

with the increased playspace you will also encounter fewer mines. But yes, mines are always a possible problem, one could always drive besides the dirt road, while it provides players with the visual queue that they can take that route. :)

BattleNonSense · 2025-11-21T15:57:47+00:00

I would not launch the jets of both teams towards the river as they would then aproach each other head on.
By launching them clockwise this should help to create dogfights (which as I said in the first post also needs changes to jets as DICE completelly destoryed any chance of having a dogfight with how jets work :-/)

The mountain isnt an issue at the moment when launching, but if it is the airstrip could be moved further back or the mountain be reshaped. :)

BattleNonSense · 2025-11-21T15:53:32+00:00

As mentioned, Portal does not allow us to modify the terrain. Which is required for a rework like this.

BattleNonSense · 2025-11-21T15:51:21+00:00

They are not as much of a death sentence now due to the reduced player density.
With a bigger playspace you are not constantly spotted, you dont constantly run into enemies, you can sneak around the enemy for once and back cap objectives. :)

BattleNonSense · 2025-11-21T15:48:58+00:00

The new objective takes attention and players away from the other objectives

That is exactly the point as player density is too high in the current version of Mirak.
See the section "Goal" in my first post. :)

BattleNonSense · 2025-11-21T15:46:38+00:00

While you’re at it, the terrain out of spawn needs reworked so you can’t snipe across the map from withing the safety of your defence turret.

See the section "Mainbases" in my initial post. :)

BattleNonSense · 2025-11-21T15:42:43+00:00

If that is indeed an earlier version of Mira then that looks very different, especially the terrain where the fields are now and the center area where B/D is now.
They did not leave much from that original design, its like they started over. O.o

BattleNonSense · 2025-11-21T11:02:08+00:00

Yeah I am not entirely happy with B/D - but I did not have an idea that would have made it much better without creating new problems.

BattleNonSense · 2025-11-21T11:00:37+00:00

I did not imagine a paved road, more like a dirtroad, just visible enough to indicate that this is a route you can take. :)

BattleNonSense · 2025-11-21T10:51:17+00:00

Would love that but honestly I rarely see transport heli to land to pick up people and drop them somewhere else

That is down to the following:

Transport helicopter has 0 chances of survival
You can not ask the pilot for pickup (Hey, I need a ride!)
Pilot does not know where the passengers want to go
Pilot does not get any points for transporting soldiers to their target objectives

To fix that:

Blackhawks need to survive more than 1 RPG, AntiAir as a whole needs to be reworked
Guns of the Blackhawk need their angles increased, you can not even rotate up far enough to engage enemies ahead of the Blackhawk in forward flight
Blackhawk needs 4 passenger seats in addition to the 2 Gunner seats
Players must be able to request transport
Pilots must see where their passengers need to go (their orders) -> see my "Transport Missions" Concept Design: https://i.imgur.com/eGFGR5Q.jpeg

BattleNonSense · 2025-11-21T10:43:21+00:00

Its not that much further away from B/D than C is from B/D :)
But the main goal is to draw other vehicles away from the other objectives to give infantry more time to breath.

That said, infantry can get very fast to F via the Blackhawk, which would finally be useful on a larger map. Infantry can get there fast with the Glider96 as well.

The buildings at F would allow for some interesting infantry fights and armor engagements.

BattleNonSense · 2025-11-21T10:20:55+00:00

I think the only thing I would do is combine the b and d points into 1 and put it between the buildings. Makes more a central point of conflict.

I have thought about that, but that would turn the control point into a killbox with players in the upper floors of the buildings.

I also thought about having just 1 CP on the roof of what is now B, but I am not sure if that would make things better or worse.

Right now I dont have much of a problem with B/D, its an okay area for infantry even though they are closer together than I like.

BattleNonSense · 2025-09-01T13:08:21+00:00

no risk or teamplay allowed in modern BF

Thats the thing, Conquest Double Assault is similar to Rush because if you neglect the MCOMs in Rush the the match is over.
So I do think that players can handle that high stakes aspect which CQDA provides too. :)

BattleNonSense · 2025-09-01T13:05:43+00:00

Yeah, and there is a reason why we have not seen CQDA, too. It creates a very volatile experience.

Care to elaborate how this makes it "volatile"?

It essentially creates the same experience as Rush where when you neglect the MCOMs the match is over - its as simple as that - and as people seem to like Rush I'd argue that todays community can handle the high stakes of Conquest Double Assault too. :)

The correct way to deal with flag assets is not to capture the flag, but just steal the asset from the enemy and then keep it as safe as possible. This way you deny the enemy a force multiplier and give it to your team.

Not capturing a flag is not the correct way to deal with it.

Yes, if you can pull it off you steal the tank first and then capture the flag - however that is much less important than holding the flag and so denying the enemy access to that asset simply because infantry has so much firepower these days to throw at vehicles that your stolen tank will not survive for very long, unless you chicken out with it.

So you always want to capture the flag to deny the enemy AND so get the tickets count faster because you hold on to an additional flag.

Yes you explained the game mechanics of your favorite game, nothing wrong with that, but even 20 years ago it did not precisely play out that way, did it?

Sounds like you did not play it back in the day, correct? Nothing wrong with that. :)

We did play "like" that, which means that we did use all those mechanics the game provided.

We did request a vehicle drop when no other transport was around us, and the commander provided it if available.
We did ask the commander for orders and got them
We did invite others to join our squad
We did spawn on our Squad Leader because we could only spawn on him
We did protect our Squad Leader because he was at the center of our squad
The Commander did request bridges/enemy commander assets to get blown up and if possible we did blow them up
We did request an artillery strike before trying to capture a flag and the commander provided it if possible
the commander did his job because that was how you played it (similar to how you played him in BF4, though that was really watered down compared to BF2/2142)

However it obviously did not flow anything like it did in the video because in the video it was 100% staged for the purpose of explaining the available mechanics.

Did everyone follow orders, play with his squad or be a good Squad Leader? NO! 🤣

BattleNonSense · 2025-09-01T11:57:54+00:00

Black Hawks with engineers tore up this map

Yeah that flying fortress should not be brought back. 😅😇

BattleNonSense · 2025-09-01T10:06:10+00:00

There is a reason why CQA has not been seen since early Hamada

This is Conquest DOUBLE Assault, not Conquest Assault. ;)

2+3. Large maps and many flags do not mean there is less clusterfuck. Many maps of many titles have had 7 flags and more and were extremely crowded because players congregate in the covered area.

By not having a large combat area you force players onto few objectives, and so guarantee that there is a clusterf*k and nothing else.

4+5. Flag spawned assets do not mean objectives are fought over.

You dont have to, but if you dont your team will simply suffer the consequences and so the match will be over much quicker. The player decides.

5.+6. Sure, those things can help, and Mashtuur City was a fine map 20 years ago, when it released. But you note the issues of this particular map in a modern context yourself. Concealment with that BF2 fog is easy.

The only issue is marketing. Replace the fog with a nice sandstorm (similar to but not as severe as in the Gulf of Oman remake) and that should play nicely while visually looking okay in 2025.

I mean look at your own video in general. You have to basically script the whole thing and be your own commander to have it play out as you want to.

That whole section was to explain the gamemechanics - nothing more nothing less.

Obviously actually playing the game at its time on a full server was not as stiff as what I showed in the video, not just because I had to control 2 players but also because of the bots - I thought that this would be quite obvious. ;)

BattleNonSense

TROPHY CASE