Re: Countering the damn ROFLCOPTER

**Zoraster** · 07-06-2009, 03:56 PM

if i'm on the ground, i mostly ignore roflcopters except to keep an idea where they are so I don't get mowed down. There's no way I'd ever have my squad go SAWs just to take it down. A waste of a squad for something that is frankly not worth it.

I actually hate a roflcopter a lot more if it's on my own team. there are very few people who know how to use one in a way that benefits their team more than they would if they were on the ground assisting. And that just increases when yahoos use a full six man squad on a roflcopter.

**Fluxorator** · 07-06-2009, 05:59 PM

To Fubar -

I would like to think that within our roflcopter we nearly reach the levels of teamwork present on your server. I have played with TG on their public server once or twice, but it's hard because I have to do so with high ping... And welll I can't actually hit anything. Ever...

Our main problem is the fact that we also use TeamSpeak but the rest of the team doesn't. And this makes trying to tell them something all the more harder.

Hopefully I'll be able to get the rest of the guys on TG on Friday if the time difference isn't that bad. Otherwise we'll have to wait for the mid-winter holidays here in Aus in case we'd have to play at 3am...

Zora -

We used to go for the smaller 2 or 3 man roflcopters but after making our roflcopter all the more efficient and once I learnt how to throw the rofl's weight across the airspace we realised that it's ability to affect the battlefield increases exponentially, whilst the number of people in it will increase on a linear scale.

It seems stupid just having 6 guys fly around doing nothing but kill random chunks of infantry, but I think the reason we do so well is we actually have a strategy. We can deny acess to infantry to the side-routes around our front line forcing them to go through the lines of fire from our tanks and walkers. We've immobilized entire walker squads and left them to be picked off by our tanks.

We like to think we do what a good mixed infantry squad would do, just in the sky and a whole lot faster. The transport seems slow but if you've been obsessed with making it fly better for 2 years like I have you'll realise it has a lot more potential than the gunship (Both actual flying potential and energy potential). Throw it's weight around a bit, very few air transport pilots do this and you have a beast that can reach gunship speed for a single dive (Which is quite amazing) and you should be able to maintain it into another climb to regain lost potential.

Basically we see ourselves as the fast response squad in the sky. We can do anything and everything, faster and harder (than infantry on an Australian pub server)

**Zoraster** · 07-06-2009, 06:46 PM

Perhaps you'll make a believer of me one of these days, flux, but I am deeply skeptical as every time this argument has been made before, it's been complete bollox. It's a way to justify doing something that's kind of fun in an armor map that otherwise wouldn't be much fun.

That's not to say the roflcopter can't be used effectively if everyone involved is very good, but add more than 3 and I think every time you add someone you're detracting from your team rather than adding.

When Lyra posts that 6 is the most effective, I'll probably stop my objection. But until then... call me a roflskeptic.

**Lyramion** · 07-06-2009, 06:48 PM

Originally Posted by Zack

Personally, I think anyone can be a SAAW user. I can't remember where I heard this, but if you hold down the fire button after your second rocket and keep targetting the ship, the missiles go faster and are more accurate

No - SAWWs are fire and forget. They eather glitch out at the very start or track surprisingly well - nothing in between.

**Greyed** · 07-07-2009, 01:14 AM

Originally Posted by Zoraster

When Lyra posts that 6 is the most effective, I'll probably stop my objection. But until then... call me a roflskeptic.

Fly with Ander50n on Tampa or Shuhia. If that doesn't convince you of the rapid response of the ROFL nothing will. Basically if any of your flags are undefended it's gone in under a minute. If there are no undefended flags then you have a transport flying support of a ground push or support of defense. The main point though is about the flags. Ground infantry cannot cap any undefended flag on the field in under a minute.

**Zoraster** · 07-07-2009, 02:24 AM

Originally Posted by Greyed

Fly with Ander50n on Tampa or Shuhia. If that doesn't convince you of the rapid response of the ROFL nothing will. Basically if any of your flags are undefended it's gone in under a minute. If there are no undefended flags then you have a transport flying support of a ground push or support of defense. The main point though is about the flags. Ground infantry cannot cap any undefended flag on the field in under a minute.

i'm in no way against people using transports for the purpose of moving troops quickly over long distances.

I'm against people using the transport as a permanent location for troops or -- perhaps even worse -- a kind of spawn beacon, podding 2 or 3 troops at a time into a location while keeping the transport hovering around.

Because in the instance of a transport squad that manages to capture a flag, if they were to, say, put up a defense at their newly captured flag, they'd probably be doing far more good for their team than if they get into the gigglecopter and leave the flag to "support" their team elsewhere.

The problem is that armor maps are big and often have quite a few contestable flags. Defending flags is far easier than attacking them in armor maps if you're doing it right. But there can be a lot of them if you've got the bleed. In sidi, for example, that's three flags you need to defend. Generally, a squad at each will be sufficient with a few left over to deal with new threats and a couple to fly the transport and try and get kills that way.

Now remove FOUR people from one of those squads who are defending a flag and what do you have? you have the other team attacking and creating bleed on you. Because unlike infantry maps, armor maps are less linear in nature. I.e. I can get to Power generator even if I only own warehouses and military outpost. Or I could attack reactor. Or I could attack offices. And I can do these three options with relatively the same ease.

So the question you now have to ask yourself is whether you can now kill so many more people with the additional four people (in addition to the two we had said earlier) to make up for the ticket bleed your team is likely to suffer soon.

Of course, this is somewhat simplified. I probably don't keep six people at each flag. If I have reactor, office, power and they're attacking hard at reactor, I probably only want a few at power generator and a few at offices. But the idea remains the same. If I've removed four people (that's 17% of your entire team on a full server!) I'm losing something valuable.

Add to this that the people who are most likely to do this are generally TGers who would be following orders and at the very least try to achieve victory -- thus leaving fewer of these people on the ground -- and I think I've got a pretty compelling reason to forbid roflcopters when I'm CO. Which I do when I'm playing Sidi. And I usually win.

**Greyed** · 07-07-2009, 02:28 AM

Originally Posted by Zoraster

i'm in no way against people using transports for the purpose of moving troops quickly over long distances.

I'm against people using the transport as a permanent location for troops or -- perhaps even worse -- a kind of spawn beacon, podding 2 or 3 troops at a time into a location while keeping the transport hovering around.

These two statements are contradictory.

**Reaperassault** · 07-07-2009, 03:09 AM

Originally Posted by Greyed

These two statements are contradictory.

no those statements are quite clear, Zoraster is saying that moving your squad in the transport across the map (thats 6 people) to go do some thing on the ground is better than a few people podding out (and most likely dying) on the ground while a few stay in the transport high in the air. In no way is "purpose of moving troops quickly " the same as "permanent location for troops."

Speaking from my ROFL experience, unless you are actually moving people around any more than two people in the ROFL is complete waste of man power, plain and simple.

**Greyed** · 07-07-2009, 06:45 AM

Originally Posted by Zoraster

i'm in no way against people using transports for the purpose of moving troops quickly over long distances.

I'm against people using the transport as a permanent location for troops or -- perhaps even worse -- a kind of spawn beacon, podding 2 or 3 troops at a time into a location while keeping the transport hovering around.

Originally Posted by Reaperassault

no those statements are quite clear, Zoraster is saying that moving your squad in the transport across the map (thats 6 people) to go do some thing on the ground is better than a few people podding out (and most likely dying) on the ground while a few stay in the transport high in the air. In no way is "purpose of moving troops quickly " the same as "permanent location for troops."

Moving the squad across the map and then setting up elsewhere is not "moving quickly" as that entails getting back into the transport and getting back in the air. Something he clarified in the very next paragraph but I omitted for brevity.

Because in the instance of a transport squad that manages to capture a flag, if they were to, say, put up a defense at their newly captured flag, they'd probably be doing far more good for their team than if they get into the gigglecopter and leave the flag to "support" their team elsewhere.

If they are setting up a defense then the transport is either a sitting duck on the ground along with them or that squad isn't using the transport to get from A to B quickly as to do so requires them to get out, cap flag, get back in and leave. To me that's pretty much says "permanent location for troops" to me.

So you cannot at the first time say it's ok to move troops quickly across the map and then the very next sentence say it cannot be their permanent role. Dedicated transport people work fine in PR but not in BF2142. So, yes, his statements contradict one another.

**Axis_Sniper** · 07-07-2009, 06:53 AM

I think the ROFLCopter is just detrimental to the "Strive for Realism" of TG. If it were real life, everytime someone fired a SAAW, or guided rocket, the backblast would kill everyone in the belly. But as Reaper said, it's not a good use a manpower.

With that being said, I find the ROFLCopter enjoyable when you are not on the receiving end, but rather on the sending end.

This is a fine example between realism, competitiveness, and enjoyment.

**Zoraster** · 07-07-2009, 10:36 AM

If they are setting up a defense then the transport is either a sitting duck on the ground along with them or that squad isn't using the transport to get from A to B quickly as to do so requires them to get out, cap flag, get back in and leave. To me that's pretty much says "permanent location for troops" to me.

Well, perhaps you misunderstood me then. I think the idea of having a squad take a transport, cap a flag and then take the transport to another flag is a bad idea, all else equal. It's flag hopping, and unless you have more flags than people to defend them, it's a poor tactical decision.

However, in a situation where a squad has captured a flag and then the rest of their team has joined them at that flag and you're under bleed, getting back into the transport and attacking shouldn't take more than, say, 5-10 seconds. Can this time be quite a while in 2142? Yes. But compare this to the rofl squad that can only insert 3-4 people at any time on a flag you're assaulting. that's 5-10 seconds extra that the flag will take the capture. Given that being on an enemy flag is one of the more vulnerable places you can be in 2142, I'd far rather take the 5-10 seconds at my flag than at the attacking flag.

**Greyed** · 07-07-2009, 10:57 AM

Originally Posted by Zoraster

Well, perhaps you misunderstood me then. I think the idea of having a squad take a transport, cap a flag and then take the transport to another flag is a bad idea, all else equal. It's flag hopping, and unless you have more flags than people to defend them, it's a poor tactical decision.

Which on the maps we're discussing is the case. 5 flags to take and hold with at most 2 full strength infantry squads there are going to be flags which are undefended when they are up flags and if you're up flags there's already going to be infantry on the ground.

However, in a situation where a squad has captured a flag and then the rest of their team has joined them at that flag and you're under bleed, getting back into the transport and attacking shouldn't take more than, say, 5-10 seconds. Can this time be quite a while in 2142?

Hmmm...

Yes. But compare this to the rofl squad that can only insert 3-4 people at any time on a flag you're assaulting. that's 5-10 seconds extra that the flag will take the capture.

Can insert 5; Pilot + 5 = 5 people, pilot doesn't get out. On the maps under discussion the flags completely flip in 5 seconds with 5 people on them.

Given that being on an enemy flag is one of the more vulnerable places you can be in 2142, I'd far rather take the 5-10 seconds at my flag than at the attacking flag.

Given that being you're describing a situation I'm had not described I think my initial suggestion stands. Fly with Ander50n on Tampa or that other @#%^@# map I can't remember but wrote in my initial email. It isn't a ROFL hiding in the sky just randomly bombing people. It isn't podding 3 people out. It is low flying, active bombing, cap-in-5-seconds flag domination. I know when he describes it he says he got the style from another TGer so maybe he can chime in with their name if you two don't share a schedule.

**Zoraster** · 07-07-2009, 11:07 AM

Originally Posted by Greyed

Originally Posted by Zoraster

Well, perhaps you misunderstood me then. I think the idea of having a squad take a transport, cap a flag and then take the transport to another flag is a bad idea, all else equal. It's flag hopping, and unless you have more flags than people to defend them, it's a poor tactical decision.

Which on the maps we're discussing is the case. 5 flags to take and hold with at most 2 full strength infantry squads there are going to be flags which are undefended when they are up flags and if you're up flags there's already going to be infantry on the ground.

This is my point. Why do we have only 2 full squads? It's often because a potential squad is gallivanting around in a transport when they could be on the ground defending. All you need to do is hold 3 flags and defend successfully and you'll win.

Given that being you're describing a situation I'm had not described I think my initial suggestion stands. Fly with Ander50n on Tampa or that other @#%^@# map I can't remember but wrote in my initial email. It isn't a ROFL hiding in the sky just randomly bombing people. It isn't podding 3 people out. It is low flying, active bombing, cap-in-5-seconds flag domination. I know when he describes it he says he got the style from another TGer so maybe he can chime in with their name if you two don't share a schedule.

What you're describing though isn't even really a roflcopter. Again, i'm not against using transports. I'm against the silliness that so often occurs when using them. But even in this situation, as a CO, I'd rather he quickly cap that flag, establish defense on it, and hold it unless there's armor or overwhelming force that'll be brought on them quicker than they can establish this defense.

**Crux** · 07-07-2009, 11:20 AM

First of all... Aussie Aussie Aussie!

Secondly, Zoraster has the right of it I think. Yes you can get lots of kills with a ROFLcoptor. But, I don't think it has the effect you wish it had on an organized team game.

**Zoraster** · 07-07-2009, 11:27 AM

Are you getting worked up about cricket or is there something else?

Thread Tools

Display