So every HA can be an aircraft counter?

[ThermalReaper]

Ok, go to this video if you haven't already.(Gameplay at about 2:24)

Thanks TotalBiscuit! You rock!

What did you notice when TB switched to a HA and pulled out his anti vehicle fart launcher(I don't really care what you call it)?

Lock on.

My problems with lock on?
1)
TL;DR Insta win lock on missiles suck. Dodgeable missiles are fine.

2) If there are two variants for AA/AT and not bundled into one, I'm fine.

Thank you for reading.

[maradine]

Funny, I hear aircraft can include a perfect missile countermeasure.

[ThermalReaper]

Funny, I hear aircraft can include a perfect missile countermeasure.

You just reminded me, Should moving around a lot and speeding away break the missile lock in your opinion?

[Klockan]

I didn't understand what you were ranting about, is it too easy to get away from lock ons making aircraft too powerful or is it too hard making HA too powerful?

[EisenKreutzer]

I have no problem with auto-lock on, as long as it is possible to break the lock by either evasive manouvering or deplying flares/chaffs/whatever.

[haticK]

We can't really answer that considering most of us haven't played the game yet

[ThermalReaper]

I didn't understand what you were ranting about, is it too easy to get away from lock ons making aircraft too powerful or is it too hard making HA too powerful?

My problem is that the possiblity of taking down a vehicle being reduced to "Lock, fire, kill, repeat" most of the time(you still have the option of dumbfire) which is just plain stupid and not fun.

We can't really answer that considering most of us haven't played the game yet

I said discuss, not answer a question. Hehe.

Also, to the flair argument:


Also since vehicles will have limited ammo for their weapons and Higby was talking about limiting the number of Flares an aircraft can carry instead of just putting them on a cooldown

I doubt you would have enough flairs to avoid every missile. Unless missiles aren't an instant kill to aircrafts.(It took 3-4 AT shots to take out a vanguard according to the video)

[WolfAlmighty]

Haven't had a chance to watch the video yet, but I'm pretty much against lock-on weapons in general in video games. I will definitely reserve judgment on PS2's system until I've played it, but I'm hoping there aren't egregious amounts of lock-on gadgets.

[maradine]

You just reminded me, Should moving around a lot and speeding away break the missile lock in your opinion?

I believe getting inside the missile's ability to exert delta-v and exiting its seeker gimbal range should break a missile lock. As missiles are generally 2-5 times faster than the aircraft they are designed to engage, speeding away from a missile should produce a perfect tail hit every time.

But that's just me.

[DukeTerror]

Between this and the one about dying/respawning we're getting posts on the "philosophy of gameplay" without even truely knowing if the issue of discussion is even relevant to PS2. :) Heck, I even think both those concerns are relieved by the design/gameplay we've seen. Bored people I guess...

[infinite loop]

My problem is that the possiblity of taking down a vehicle being reduced to "Lock, fire, kill, repeat" most of the time(you still have the option of dumbfire) which is just plain stupid and not fun.



I said discuss, not answer a question. Hehe.

Also, to the flair argument:



I doubt you would have enough flairs to avoid every missile. Unless missiles aren't an instant kill to aircrafts.(It took 3-4 AT shots to take out a vanguard according to the video)

You obviously have either never played PS1, or have a short memory. The bane of every pilot is the fucking lockon AA. I am not a fan, but the precedent is set, so I expected it. TBH I'm not sure what a better counter to aircraft would be, w/o the lockon weaponry nothing would stand a chance against them.

[sylphaen]

You just reminded me, Should moving around a lot and speeding away break the missile lock in your opinion?

I'm pretty sure it does. Check the E3 videos, I remember seeing a Scythe break the lock by afterburning in the skies.


I believe getting inside the missile's ability to exert delta-v and exiting its seeker gimbal range should break a missile lock. As missiles are generally 2-5 times faster than the aircraft they are designed to engage, speeding away from a missile should produce a perfect tail hit every time.

But that's just me.

That sounds cool.

[Klockan]

My problem is that the possiblity of taking down a vehicle being reduced to "Lock, fire, kill, repeat" most of the time(you still have the option of dumbfire) which is just plain stupid and not fun.
But there are other weapons as well. Also to fire lock on missiles you need to be skilled. Not by aiming correctly but by locking and firing at the correct times so the missile don't hit a building or a rock, otherwise you will just be wasting missiles kinda like those shooting at TB did. Also I think that those missiles were anti tank missiles so their lock shouldn't be that good vs air.

TBH I'm not sure what a better counter to aircraft would be, w/o the lockon weaponry nothing would stand a chance against them.
What? Just have AA machineguns that rip them to shreds, we already got them on all basic tanks. Infantry with flak works as well.

[haticK]

I doubt you would have enough flairs to avoid every missile. Unless missiles aren't an instant kill to aircrafts.(It took 3-4 AT shots to take out a vanguard according to the video)

Higby said in one of the interviews that you actually have a bunch of flares and one flare only provides a chance that the missle/rocket will miss so the idea is to spam a few of them.

[AgtPanda]

I'm all for lock on items if the missiles can be countered not only by flares but also by evasive maneuvers.

Before BF3 was released (Beta= The only good fun I had with that game) someone released codes to the caspian border servers. The lock on missiles had physics... I could pull a sharp 170 degree turn and watch the missile fly by me. That was fine. Stuff like that separates the good pilots from the bad zerglings. But now the missiles can apparently stop and turn on a dime in order to hit your jet, and that is anti fun.

Another problem is the fact that in BF3, there are only 2 jets on your team in a potentially 64 man server. Which means everyone on the ground wants you dead. In PS2 I hope this is remedied by the fact that air cav seems to be on par with footzerg a lot of the time, and at other times said footzerg is occupied with the enemyfootzerg.

TL;DR Insta win lock on missiles suck. Dodgeable missiles are fine.

[ThermalReaper]

I'm asking to discuss whether or not this will be a possibility and if you have this same concern and no, I haven't played the original planetside.
I never asked about how it really was ingame.

[Turdicus]

The handheld AT weapons don't seem to do much damage against aircraft, especially the lib. The only times his plane took massive damage were when it was hit by tank shells (mags still trying to be snipers i guess) and when enemy reavers kamikazied into it. When he was hit by rockets the damage was puny.

Also keep in mind that there are several options available for HA other than the standard lock on missile. In neuro's cert page there are dumbfires, tv guided, and even a direct fire laser weapon nicknamed the lancer. Lock ons will be common, but if the damage is low and other options available then it shouldnt be a problem

[Marinealver]

HA is almost like a mini MAX that can capture points or a Heavy Weapon/ Anti Vehicle hybird. What we know about HA is

It can carry 2 primary weapons, one being a LMG as a squad automatic weapon, the other being an Anti-Vehicle weapon which could be swaped for a MANPAD (Man portible Air Defese).

A MAX is more of an Armored Infantry firepower support in which it can tank indoor firepower, act as an Anti Vehicle Ambusher along with a dismounted squad, or act as a LAAD (Low altitude Air Defence) augment for a unit.

[ThermalReaper]

The handheld AT weapons don't seem to do much damage against aircraft, especially the lib. The only times his plane took massive damage were when it was hit by tank shells (mags still trying to be snipers i guess) and when enemy reavers kamikazied into it. When he was hit by rockets the damage was puny.

Also keep in mind that there are several options available for HA other than the standard lock on missile. In neuro's cert page there are dumbfires, tv guided, and even a direct fire laser weapon nicknamed the lancer. Lock ons will be common, but if the damage is low and other options available then it shouldnt be a problem

Now that's more I like it. Thanks for that post.

I'm breaking the discuss rule here, was there any information that there will be AA/AT specific handheld rocket launchers?

Also, I'm revamping the original post, one minute please.

[TheCaptainC]

maybe the av weapons of the ha should be changed so you can either lock on air targets or ground targets but not both with the same loadout

[Stardouser]

One thing you have to understand is that in PS2's class system, this actually limits the AV classes to MAX and HA, other classes will only be AV to the extent they can C4 vehicles or use engineer tricks like mines. PS1 didn't have any classes so basically as long as you were using an armor suit that would let you carry multiple primary sized weapons, you could carry an assault rifle and an AV weapon, or a repair gun and an AV weapon, etc.

Another thing to be taken into consideration is that, at least for TR(I haven't played NC or VS) the Striker is a semi-auto 5shot magazine instant lock on AV weapon, works against MAXes(highly OP there due to instant lock), ground vehicles and air. Will HA get rapid fire instant lock AV again - that's the question.

[ThermalReaper]

maybe the av weapons of the ha should be changed so you can either lock on air targets or ground targets but not both with the same loadout

Wouldn't really see why anyone would prefer the AT lock on over the AA lock on.

[Turdicus]

I'm breaking the discuss rule here, was there any information that there will be AA/AT specific handheld rocket launchers?

Well this was what I was basing my info off of. This is from the E3 demo though so things can always change. http://www.hamma.ws/ntemp/Infantry/Heavy%20Assault/HeavyAV.jpg

[stordito]

in current jet fighter you can lock anywhere, almost 360* thanks to the HUD in your helmet.
However Air to Air works best is the speed bethween the 2 planes is minimium AND the target is moving away, because missiles are locked with a conjuction of radar,image and heat(exaust) detection.

So to balance the game you could be either allowed to lock anywhere but the missile loose effectiveness and precision if shoot from the front (this would reduce spamming in a face to face air combat too).
Or you can make so the lock engages ONLY if you keep your crosshair locked on his ass for 3 seconds with the locking signal beeping faster and faster in both planes...imagine the stress of being followed by a skilled pilot with the beeper in your head...

TL;DR
Air to Air lock should be reduced to a bare minimum and award who can fly better for longer, not just a cheap aim assist.
Air will be targeted from ground with a lot of stuff, no need to ruin the cool doghfights we could have higher in the sky.

[DukeTerror]

Wouldn't really see why anyone would prefer the AT lock on over the AA lock on.

Magriders, and Lightning tanks if they got good pilots who know to keep moving. All other Tanks and Sundy's if you (and hopefully 20 of your best friends) are ambushing a caravan.

[DviddLeff]

I don't think it will be an issue - as others have said you will be able to break missile lock even once it is fired as you can in other games. Some of the HA launchers will be AA and other AV, so I imagine the AV ones will fly slower but hit harder.

[jabber]

now watch the rest of the video and see how to evades missiles in his liberator

[maradine]

in current jet fighter you can lock anywhere, almost 360* thanks to the HUD in your helmet.

Assuming we're talking about the JHMCS, about 180 degrees. The seekers in the AIM-9X will only do about 90 degrees off boresight. If they're behind you, you're not firing missiles at them. If you're thinking of the Hornet sequence from BF3, let's just say that Dice was a teensy bit generous. :)

[TR Oakley]

HA AA missiles aren't a problem. We've seen many examples of pilots maneuvering away from them, and there is also flares.
They have made sure a single HA need to get lucky shots to bring down a aircraft quickly, but many HA shotting missiles at the same time will be a much more persistant threat.

[infinite loop]

What? Just have AA machineguns that rip them to shreds, we already got them on all basic tanks. Infantry with flak works as well.

Sorry, yeah was talking about infantry based AA specifically. I don't know that flak would be all that useful because you'd have to maintain LOS to the aircraft, exposing yourself. Unless the flak is insanely powerful I don't see it being effective vs half-decent pilots. Not saying I wouldn't mind seeing something like that instead of lockon AA, but in general aircraft rape infantry as it is.

[Klockan]

Sorry, yeah was talking about infantry based AA specifically. I don't know that flak would be all that useful because you'd have to maintain LOS to the aircraft, exposing yourself. Unless the flak is insanely powerful I don't see it being effective vs half-decent pilots. Not saying I wouldn't mind seeing something like that instead of lockon AA, but in general aircraft rape infantry as it is.
Dealing a bit of damage with flak is way better than dealing no damage with breaking locks.

[Rbstr]

I don't mind fire and forget AA. They've got countermeasures.

I don't really like lock-on AV, though. I like those to be dumbfire and be fairly quick moving.

[Nasher]

Most likely it will be like PS1, you won't be able to just fly around a base as you like where a battle is going on and dominate stuff on the ground. If there are any AA MAXes (esp. burster ones, which are far more deadly than lock-on weapons) around then you will get shredded in seconds.

[ThermalReaper]

Well, I'm glad I made this thread.
Thank you all for the posts and we could get lucky and have a dev end this lock on discussion.
As for mardine, nice aircraft knowledge.

[Flaropri]

I have no problem with auto-lock on, as long as it is possible to break the lock by either evasive manouvering or deplying flares/chaffs/whatever.

Which you can according to what we've seen so far.

[EisenKreutzer]

My point exactly. :)

[RoninOni]

TB convinced me don't cert up Lib. Too much of a big fat clunky target to rape.

A 3 man crew who know what they're doing will wreck some shit.

Also... you should have a fighter escort... if not you're doing it wrong and deserve to get worked

[kunzadar]

I don't think you can use the HA weapons and have rocket luanchers, so when the HA weapons come out not all heavy infantry will have rockets.

[Top Sgt]

^ correct my understanding is when the MCG jacknoober and lasher are finally implemented if you choose one of them you lose the launcher. if you choose the launcher you can't have the HA underslung weapon.

So people will have to choose 1 or the other not both in PS2

Different than PS1.

[TheCaptainC]

^ correct my understanding is when the MCG jacknoober and lasher are finally implemented if you choose one of them you lose the launcher. if you choose the launcher you can't have the HA underslung weapon.

So people will have to choose 1 or the other not both in PS2

Different than PS1.

waiting for ps1 "vets" to go apeshit over this idea

[Deadeye]

In PS1 the problem with lock-on weapons is that when, in my sparrow Max, I get a lock-on, it takes nothing more than for a tree limb to break the lock and then I have to wait like 3 seconds again to lock-on which, when engaging fighters that can go 100KPH+, is a long time to wait.

Then the missiles, if you locked-on, would travel straight at a target which meant all they had to do was fly behind a hill and the missiles would impact the hill.

All this combined meant that only the high-flying and slow moving aircraft, or those dumb enough to just sit in the open, were the only ones to really get shot down.

Now add in flares/chaff and the only truly effective way to clear the skies might be flak cannons and other aircraft.

[Shadowrath]

The videos seem to show that the missiles aren't able to be dodged.

[Baneblade]

I prefer laser guided personally. Why should those flying monkeys get any warning?

[Rivenshield]

In PS1 the old Striker had lock-on, but only as long as you stood there like a lox and kept the crosshairs on target. Which was a tough and exciting contest.

That seems fair to me. The only people that should have fire and forget missiles are heavily certed pilots IMHO.

[Zar]

waiting for ps1 "vets" to go apeshit over this idea
<--- vet and I am ok with this lol mean's we have the tank / air craft killer's we cover or the mini gun jacknoob or lasher bullet wall's we stack behind work's for me

[Fenrys]

It'll be fine.
If you ever flew against the TR in PS1, you'd know lock-on's from infantry-carried launchers are only a minor annoyance.

Just keep moving, approach from the flanks and rear, and don't slow down during your strafing & bombing runs - by the time you are spotted, your ordinance is released, and you are afterburning away.

[The Kush]

The awful threads created since about march never cease to amaze me. /sigh

[Phizuol]

I can't remember which I hated more in PS1, damn lock on Strikers or the counters-everything Reaver. The two of you deserve each other!

But seriously I think using flares seems perfectly reasonable. When you run out go back and get more. It seems like it would discourage air camping but yet not forcing you to bug out the second you see a lock on. Of course "we will have to see what happens in beta."

[Reizod]

<--- Vet here also

I'm okay with it since Flares work just fine.

Even though I am a dedicated pilot and should be against a "one size fits all" rocket launcher, I'm not. However, I do think they should increase the time for lock-on a wee bit.

[Sifer2]

Meh unless you give Infantry an AA sniper rifle type weapon with near instant fire then lock on is required or the weapon is useless. It's almost impossible to hit moving air targets reliably without some homing capability if the projectile doesn't move really fast.

One of the most frustrating things in FPS games with air vehicles is when you just can't kill the damn things too. It's fun for the one guy in the Jet bombing everyone but pisses off way more people on the ground who keep taking shots at him but he always just boosts away. So having more AA out there to prevent that will only make the game play better for the majority IMO.

[Sephirex]

The awful threads created since about march never cease to amaze me. /sigh

But they keep us so amused.

[Raymac]

I'm somebody who plans on spending most of my time in a Reaver and I have no problem with HA having fire and forget lock on weapons because frankly, with all the terrain features on Auraxis now, I'm going to rather enjoy dodging the missiles. Oh you want to give me counter-measures too? Well thank you kindly.

[GreatMazinkaise]

The existing general purpose launcher (what all the HA are using in the videos) looks more like the T:A Slayer than anything in Planetside. It's lock-on, Fire and Forget, and has a slow moving projectile (which also happens to be single shot). Who knows what the other weapons are going to act like at this point? Are TR getting a real Striker that can fire multiple shots in succession? Are the NC getting camera bombs back? We'll see...

[maradine]

My personal preference for anti-aircraft aircraft lethality, in descending lethality order, would be:

Other aircraft
Dedicated flak (burster, lightning/skyguard)
General purpose guided missiles

I think this is how it is already shaking out? Hard to tell without being able to play.

[GreatMazinkaise]

My personal preference for anti-aircraft aircraft lethality, in descending lethality order, would be:

Other aircraft
Dedicated flak (burster, lightning/skyguard)
General purpose guided missiles

I think this is how it is already shaking out? Hard to tell without being able to play.

I'm not sure about the accuracy of the first two, but otherwise that's what I'm seeing.

[LegioX]

Alot of people on here are saying without "lockon" ability for ground units, air will be able to own everything and be OP. How about this, call in air support? Isnt thats what air-to-air pilots are for? Shooting down other airplanes? Good lord...........

[Sephirex]

Alot of people on here are saying without "lockon" ability for ground units, air will be able to own everything and be OP. How about this, call in air support? Isnt thats what air-to-air pilots are for? Shooting down other airplanes? Good lord...........

I really hope that's a mission option. Extra points for every aircraft you dogfight down in the area.

Also, I think flak is honestly more powerful then lock-on rockets. You can make a pilot's day miserable before he even knows you're there.

[EisenKreutzer]

Alot of people on here are saying without "lockon" ability for ground units, air will be able to own everything and be OP. How about this, call in air support? Isnt thats what air-to-air pilots are for? Shooting down other airplanes? Good lord...........

Thats not an argument against lock on though.

[Sephirex]

Thats not an argument against lock on though.

He's arguing that the original argument is pointless, as it denotes a self-contained system, thus instead of contributing to the argument against lock-ons, he's proposing an alternative view.

Still though, aircraft should not just be countered by other aircraft. That would dull the joys of the combined arms system, and turn the game into "who's got more aircraft"

[ParisTeta]

Infantry AA should be powerful enough, to force the attacker from the attack, or risk getting damaged/killed, it should not be a hard counter vs. Air. Infantry AA should be defense first.

If you make infantry AA strong enough as a hard counter, Air Units would become pretty meaningless because the mass will be infantry due vehicle timer, and only infantery can capture.

EDIT: MAX are excluded and should be hard counter, especially with dual aa cannons.

[Sephirex]

Infantry AA should be powerful enough, to force the attacker from the attack, or risk getting damaged/killed, it should not be a hard counter vs. Air. Infantry AA should be defense first.

If you make infantry AA strong enough as a hard counter, Air Units would become pretty meaningless because the mass will be infantry due vehicle timer, and only infantery can capture.

I think an AA Max should be a fairly hard counter, as it's AA cannons will be next to worthless against any other target (also no capture), while HA should be a soft counter, since they're fairly flexible.

[LegioX]

Thats not an argument against lock on though.

I just don't want lockon (for ground units) to be so frecking annoying. Ever played a 64 conquest map on BF 3 with jets? Just with 32 people on 1 side can have your plane being locked on constantly. Like every sec you enter warzone you have to leave b/c you are being locked on by 3-5 guys. Imagine that with 2000 players on a map? Makes me cringe.

I know it will never happen, but take out lockon completely for HA. Let the pilots (who enjoy flying) be able to fight it out over the skies and give them the sense of helping out the overall war.

[EisenKreutzer]

I just don't want lockon (for ground units) to be so frecking annoying. Ever played a 64 conquest map on BF 3 with jets? Just with 32 people on 1 side can have your plane being locked on constantly. Like every sec you enter warzone you have to leave b/c you are being locked on by 3-5 guys. Imagine that with 2000 players on a map? Makes me cringe.

I know it will never happen, but take out lockon completely for HA. Let the pilots (who enjoy flying) be able to fight it out over the skies and give them the sense of helping out the overall war.

Yeah, I've played. Me and a bunch of friends always find us a hill somewhere along the edge of the map and camp out with spawn beacons and Javelins to pick off helicopters and jets. It's hilarious.

But back on topic though, those pilots who enjoy flying aren't just cruising gently along in the sky, they are raining fiery balls of death and destruction down on all the people who enjoy playing infantry. So to me, theyre fair game, as they should be in Planetside 2 as well.

[LegioX]

Yeah, I've played. Me and a bunch of friends always find us a hill somewhere along the edge of the map and camp out with spawn beacons and Javelins to pick off helicopters and jets. It's hilarious.

But back on topic though, those pilots who enjoy flying aren't just cruising gently along in the sky, they are raining fiery balls of death and destruction down on all the people who enjoy playing infantry. So to me, theyre fair game, as they should be in Planetside 2 as well.

Isnt that what certs are for then? Pilots who cert their planes to be air-to-ground aircraft will get owned by pilots who cert their planes to be air-to-air aircraft. I don't see the problem.

Just like in real war, ground guys will be getting pounded by air-to-ground aircraft over a certain point of attack or defense. They call for help, then a group of cert out air-to-air planes show up and clear the skies. That right there is teamwork. Ground units should only have Max's to fight off enemy air. If you don't have that, call in airsupport. Simple.

[Accuser]

I doubt you would have enough flairs to avoid every missile. Unless missiles aren't an instant kill to aircrafts.(It took 3-4 AT shots to take out a vanguard according to the video)

I think you'll have enough Flairs (http://www.listenonrepeat.com/watch/?v=2lzZ5xzVWS0). You'll probably have plenty of flares too.

I shat myself. Hopefully one can cert up to carry HA+AV.

Of course not. Heavy Assault chooses to take either MCG/Lasher/Noobhammer or a weaker anti-infantry weapon with a rocket launcher. It's a similar choice to Infiltrators who take either the best cloaking device or a sniper rifle.

[ZaBa]

Yeah, I've played. Me and a bunch of friends always find us a hill somewhere along the edge of the map and camp out with spawn beacons and Javelins to pick off helicopters and jets. It's hilarious.

But back on topic though, those pilots who enjoy flying aren't just cruising gently along in the sky, they are raining fiery balls of death and destruction down on all the people who enjoy playing infantry. So to me, theyre fair game, as they should be in Planetside 2 as well.

As a pilot, I have to agree. If an area has a lot of hard AA, that means there are fewer ground focused troops in there (or a lot of HA with their eyes on the sky), which means you pretty much have to call your ground-based friends for support.

That, or get so close to the ground they can't hit you and pick them off yourself. Whichever. Or both! Teamwork AND a challenge, that sounds fun.

e/ But really the important thing here is that HA who are watching the skies are less likely to be watching their backs, making them more susceptible to opposition ground forces (unless they're only taking potshots, in which case they aren't a huge threat).

[EisenKreutzer]

Isnt that what certs are for then? Pilots who cert their planes to be air-to-ground aircraft will get owned by pilots who cert their planes to be air-to-air aircraft. I don't see the problem.

Just like in real war, ground guys will be getting pounded by air-to-ground aircraft over a certain point of attack or defense. They call for help, then a group of cert out air-to-air planes show up and clear the skies. That right there is teamwork. Ground units should only have Max's to fight off enemy air. If you don't have that, call in airsupport. Simple.

No, I think the HA AV capabilities should stay. Anything that keeps pilots on their toes is good, and ground troops should be able to defend themselves from airborne threats as well as ground threats. Air-support will not always be available, and air superiority should not be a hard counter to ground forces.

You can't hardwire teamplay into the game. It has to emerge organically through the choices people make within the game.

[LegioX]

No, I think the HA AV capabilities should stay. Anything that keeps pilots on their toes is good, and ground troops should be able to defend themselves from airborne threats as well as ground threats. Air-support will not always be available, and air superiority should not be a hard counter to ground forces.

You can't hardwire teamplay into the game. It has to emerge organically through the choices people make within the game.

Well for example, WW2OL has combined inf/air game. Only thing ground troops had to defend were aa guns. Inf did not have anything else. They had to rely 90% of the time on air power over target. That forces cooperation between ground/air to have an successful attack or defense. In my experience, if you force players to "team up" everything else will fall into place.

[Broadside]

And on the sixth day, God sayeth "let there be flares".

[LegioX]

And on the sixth day, God sayeth "let there be flares".

I just don't want to have to keep spamming the flare button, b/c im being locked on every 3 sec.

[maradine]

Personally, I think that's a better place to be than taking a steady stream of explosive shells in your immediate vicinity.

Look at it this way. If there's a concentration of units with anti-air capability in your operating area, you're in trouble and will be dealing with it. Lock-on, flak, direct-fire, doesn't matter. Some zones are going to be too hot operate in, because the people on the ground made those trade-offs.

[Dsent]

My problem is that in PS1 the ceiling cap was so low that there was no safe area in which to dogfight. I understand that I should be susceptible to ground fire and lock-ons if I'm flying low or trying to kills ground targets, but not if I'm high in the sky looking for other aircraft to dogfight. If their is a ceiling cap that is high enough to do this, then by all means leave the AV/AA lockon.

[DrifterBG]

Am I the only one that remembers that anyone can use anything?

For those hundreds of missile toting HAs, there will be hundreds of aircraft to shoot at. Use your head, use your maneuverablity, and use the terrain to your advantage.

[WorldOfForms]

Lock-on weaponry is the weakest solution to a problem game design-wise, but yet what most astounds me here is:

In PS1 infantry were absolute fodder for aircraft. They finally have a chance at fending off air, and pilots complain?

Guess what: even WITH lockon AA, infantry are still going to be your easy prey. All you have to do is fly behind a mountain and come back from another angle. Most infantry will be distracted by another target by then and you can pick them off.

AA MAXes in PS1 were not much of a threat if you used your brain. Hell, I was a fairly terrible pilot and yet AA never gave me any trouble. Hear a lock beep? Turn and burn. Problem disappears.

Still, I do agree that lockon weapons are lame. Give the infantry a powerful flak weapon instead (and no, the flacklet didn't cut it).

[Timithos]

So what I noticed in the video was AA rockets hitting buildings and rocks. I noticed TB giving up on shots on aircraft because of them flying out of view (because buildings/objects would explode the rocket). I noticed there is a delay for both AA & AV lock.

I also noticed on this map that things are much more "taller and clustered." In PS1 you had buildings that were 3-4 stories tops. Here you have buildings that seem to be 10 stories tall and clustered tighter together with rock columns, providing more cover for aircraft from ground attacks. It looks like AA infantry has to find positions of height and good, open sky view to be more effective.

I noticed TB launching AV shots from the roof of a building both in direct fire and lock-on. His lock-on the Mag was a much slower shot.

As I read and watch video discussion of certs, you'll be able to cert everything on one character given enough time. However, what you can carry is limited. So it looks like just like in PS1, you can only carry two big items with Heavy Armor (HA) (Rifle + Launcher) . As I see in the video, you get a AA/AV launcher. I would hope you also could have a more powerful AA-only launcher, and a more powerful AV-only launcher. And if you want the AA/AV launcher you have to cert both, which doesn't sound like a big deal in doing that.

The certs sound so more complex that I wouldn't be surprised if you had to also cert lock-on (multiple cert levels), AND additionally fire-and-forget (more multiple cert levels). Certing for some of that "delta-v" and "gimbel" talk sounds really cool too. And certs to avoid objects better: lock, aim away into open sky, fire, forget. It sounds like they have plans for complex certing like this, but it's not all making it into beta or launch.

The highest Battle Rank (BR) I saw was 4, so there's no telling what the players could unlock. But it looked like from the weapon and vehicle term selections that the devs already unlocked certs for the players to fool around with similar to at E3. I don't think you could do all the things that TB was able to do right out of the gate.

Also, it looked like the devs made their character load-outs preset, and more powerful then normal spawn load-outs. They avoided them spending in-game time setting up their load-outs.

As in PS1 I'm not for air being the only hard-counter for air. It looks like 1 HA AV infantry doesn't much of a chance with air other then to scare them away with lock warnings. 2-3 HA AV infantry though aught to take aircraft out. All air is vtols by the way, so you can chase down infantry much better then jets.

[mirwalk]

One of the most frustrating things in FPS games with air vehicles is when you just can't kill the damn things too. It's fun for the one guy in the Jet bombing everyone but pisses off way more people on the ground who keep taking shots at him but he always just boosts away. So having more AA out there to prevent that will only make the game play better for the majority IMO.
This is how I feel about air in most games. So far the air seems tough enough that 2 or 3 guys rocketing will have only a chase off effect. You would need a good number to be dropping planes left and right. Of course in those battles usually the amount of air targets increase.
I remember a few maps in BF3 (not the same game I know) where one or two good pilots would die like twice, but otherwise were cleaning up the whole match. Besides flak or gatling guns they could not be dropped. Flares, a little AB, some terrain jumps and no missile could track them, except the high class ones.

[Buggsy]

Thanks TotalBiscuit! You rock! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjdloVQZ56M)


Like the Liberator 3 player setup, though I'd nerf the nose gun about 20% and buff the tailgun and big cannon about 20%.

[Eyeklops]

Lock-on AA/AV 4TW!! I hope there are a few certs for reducing the lock-on time and an AA cert that substantially increases the chances the missile will not be distracted by flares or ECM. I also hope somewhere in the AA cert tree is access to upgraded missiles that give no lock-on warning. The last thing I wouldn't mind seeing is missiles you fire and they self acquire a lock on the nearest enemy target within 1000m. Then I can just puke these bad boys out like a champ and watch all the birds fall out of the sky while the hate tells roll in. Pure Pwnage.

[Vydofnir]

Based on what I've seen from just about every hands-on since before E3, it has been near impossible for a single HA to bring down an aircraft, and TB did not fair any better in the Raw & Uncut video. If what we've seen from videos is any indication of what we can expect, I believe it is safe to assume the following:

1) It takes quite a while to lock on.
2) Obstructions break the lock.
3) Pilots are notified of a lock and can quickly get out of range.
4) Aircraft can deploy countermeasures.
5) Afterburners can successfully outrun missiles.
6) Skilled pilots are able to outmaneuver missiles.
7) Even the lightest aircraft can sustain multiple missile hits.

That being said I think it would be much more frustrating to be a lone wolf HA trying to take down an aircraft than it would be to be the pilot of said aircraft, and that's fine by me. However, if you have more than one HA teaming up to bring down a single aircraft things might go the other way, and that seems fair to me as well. Of course, this will all get sorted out in beta.

In regards to AA and AT variants, I believe what we have seen so far is the basic, middle-of-the-road missile launcher, but I believe there with be specialized variants. If you skip to 18:24 of the video below, you can see descriptions for two variants of the TR launcher: The M9 SKEP Launcher for AT, and the ASP-30 Grounder for AA.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dcfjVnLrgQ&feature=colike

Although the weapon stats don't visibly change between the two, it is entirely possible that they will have varying effectiveness versus different armor types, or that the lock on mechanics will be different. At this point in the development the weapon stats that we see mean next to nothing, but it does go to show that they are working on specialized variants.

[Tehroth]

This game looks so damn fun. Argh I can't wait.

[Ivam Akorahil]

up your flying skills then, no zooming and cruising about above the battlefield, strike and hide tactics, quick flythroughs etc

Dont expect to hover over the enemy and pick off enemies without consquences, doesnt work in rl either

[maradine]

1) It takes quite a while to lock on.
2) Obstructions break the lock.
3) Pilots are notified of a lock and can quickly get out of range.
4) Aircraft can deploy countermeasures.
5) Afterburners can successfully outrun missiles.
6) Skilled pilots are able to outmaneuver missiles.
7) Even the lightest aircraft can sustain multiple missile hits.


My thoughts, for what that's worth:

1) Indifferent, trending towards Do Not Like
2) Like
3) Like, but see 5)
4) Like
5) Do Not Like
6) Like
7) Do Not Like, and would prefer a BF3-style aircraft disable at 50%

[Coreldan]

What exactly did BF3 vehicle disabled do? I rarely used them myself, but not once that I actually got "vehicle disabled" points did the vehicle stop or anything else.

Actually, when I played with my friends when we would manage to disable the vehicle we said "Vehicle fully functionalised" cos we were so pissed off that nothing ever happened despite the "disable".

[Revanmug]

"Disable" is a mechanic that should diaf... (pun intented)

After a certain amount of damage (50% health and under), your vehicule is disable, catch on fire and start to lose health until you repair it to full. It also make your ground vehicule very slow moving and air unit harder to control.

All it did was making people usually bail sooner rather than later and giving this impression that vehicule are weaker than they should.

[maradine]

On armor, movement speed was cut to a crawl and the vehicle caught fire, bleeding its remaining health at about a two percent per second. If you had a dedicated engineer along, and managed to finish the immediate firefight (or reverse into cover), this wasn't typically fatal.

On aircraft, it reduced throttle input by about half and introduced a random-seeming vector of roll, pitch, and/or yaw into the controls, which you had to fight with. For the attack helos, you could frequently nurse them back to friendly ground if the initial control shock didn't kill you and the shooting had stopped. For jets, it was usually better to get back inside the infantry map boundaries and bail.

BF3 aircraft also had extinguishgers that would be good for a one-time bump back above 50% (which would then let you regen if you stayed alive long enough), but fitting one meant you weren't carrying flares or ECM.

I like the disabled mechanic. It was a good counterpoint to regenerating vehicle health. I don't see how one could live without the other, personally, but that's beta talk.

edit: to the preceding comment, I never found BF3 vehicles fragile in the least. If you limited your exposure to rocket fire, you were effectively immortal.

[Baneblade]

AA MAXes in PS1 were not much of a threat if you used your brain. Hell, I was a fairly terrible pilot and yet AA never gave me any trouble. Hear a lock beep? Turn and burn. Problem disappears.

If they weren't a significant threat, you wouldn't run when they engaged you.

[Eyeklops]

1) It takes quite a while to lock on.
2) Obstructions break the lock.
3) Pilots are notified of a lock and can quickly get out of range.
4) Aircraft can deploy countermeasures.
5) Afterburners can successfully outrun missiles.
6) Skilled pilots are able to outmaneuver missiles.
7) Even the lightest aircraft can sustain multiple missile hits.


1) Make certs shorten the lock-on time
2) Agree, like.
3) Meh..no opinion.
4) Like
5) No way...shouldn't happen..ever. The only way an afterburner should save you is if you were on the fringe edge of the missiles max travel range when it was fired. If they make the max lock on range much smaller than the max missile travel range this should never be an issue.
6) This should be based on what angle the missile is coming in at once it reaches close proximity. If the missile is up your ass, outmaneuvering should not be possible. If the missile is coming head on, there should be some high % (but not %100) chance that you can easily avoid it.
7) 2 hits for a scythe & mossy, 3 for a reaver, 5 for a liberator, and 8 for a Galaxy, because I say so. Maybe add +1 to the for players highly certed into that aircraft.

[Xyntech]

If they weren't a significant threat, you wouldn't run when they engaged you.

This. Good AA units got kills off of idiots (which there will be plenty of in a F2P game where every player can pull an aircraft), but AA's true strategic value in PS1 was area denial.

If you were certain that it was only a single guy with a Striker targeting you in PS1, you were generally safe to engage them 1 on 1, but the problem was if you weren't sure what was locking onto you, or if there were multiple lockons. I kind of hope they keep that mechanic for PS2, where you don't know what's locking onto you or how many things are locked on to you at once. You probably won't get a huge number of air kills with a lockon HA AV weapon in PS2, but as long as lockons are a scary enough thing, you'll definitely be able to scare any aircraft away.

[Revanmug]

edit: to the preceding comment, I never found BF3 vehicles fragile in the least. If you limited your exposure to rocket fire, you were effectively immortal.

Which is the exact damn problem. Balance came to : get hit and you are fuck or don't and rape everything.

Air balance became a war of who got more countermeasure to the other's weapon since one AA missile was able to disable you (or is it 2 missile now with the nerf?). Hell, if the missile was hitting the cockpit, it would kill the pilot (bug that never got fix). Let's not talk about the Javelin that could one shot any air unit since it was not affected by flare or jammers. Wasn't that nerf too?

In the end, removing disable which would have given them more health but nerfing countermeasure would have make thing way better balance wise rather than a "Can't touch this! Can't touch this! ... Oh shit, we are hit, landing to repair/bail out" gameplay.

[LegioX]

Which is the exact damn problem. Balance came to : get hit and you are fuck or don't and rape everything.

Air balance became a war of who got more countermeasure to the other's weapon since one AA missile was able to disable you (or is it 2 missile now with the nerf?). Hell, if the missile was hitting the cockpit, it would kill the pilot (bug that never got fix). Let's not talk about the Javelin that could one shot any air unit since it was not affected by flare or jammers. Wasn't that nerf too?

In the end, removing disable which would have given them more health but nerfing countermeasure would have make thing way better balance wise rather than a "Can't touch this! Can't touch this! ... Oh shit, we are hit, landing to repair/bail out" gameplay.

To bad in PS2 ill be there in my air-to-air cert plane to own any planes trying to get ground kills.

[Landtank]

To bad in PS2 ill be there in my air-to-air cert plane to own any planes trying to get ground kills.

Can't touch the Reaver, too awesome.

[Kaelius]

The javilin could only target AA when the jet / helo was locked on by a SOFLAM or tank 3rd seat (there is a cert for it) when its locked on with this method it ignores flares since its not using the heat signature its using the laser target instead

Better than targeting helos with a solfam was taking a tank with a friend who has the guided shell unlock and you have the 3rd seat unlock.. park on hill laze the target and guided shell will 1shot the helos quickly

[maradine]

The javilin could only target AA when the jet / helo was locked on by a SOFLAM or tank 3rd seat (there is a cert for it) when its locked on with this method it ignores flares since its not using the heat signature its using the laser target instead

Better than targeting helos with a solfam was taking a tank with a friend who has the guided shell unlock and you have the 3rd seat unlock.. park on hill laze the target and guided shell will 1shot the helos quickly

Yup. That was the last 2 months of my Caspian experience. An Abrams, two mates, and a constant stream of hate messages from chopper pilots. :D

As Ravenmug mentioned though, they nerfed laser lock in the last big patch. Javs and the fantasy Abrams ATGM now break lock if the aircraft drops flares. To counter this, flares no longer break launcher locks of any kind - just missiles in flight.

Sorry, we're getting a bit off topic here. Was there anything left on the table we haven't covered?

[TheSaltySeagull]

This. Good AA units got kills off of idiots (which there will be plenty of in a F2P game where every player can pull an aircraft), but AA's true strategic value in PS1 was area denial.

If you were certain that it was only a single guy with a Striker targeting you in PS1, you were generally safe to engage them 1 on 1, but the problem was if you weren't sure what was locking onto you, or if there were multiple lockons. I kind of hope they keep that mechanic for PS2, where you don't know what's locking onto you or how many things are locked on to you at once. You probably won't get a huge number of air kills with a lockon HA AV weapon in PS2, but as long as lockons are a scary enough thing, you'll definitely be able to scare any aircraft away.

You don't get kills or BEP for "area denial".

My issue(hatred) with air cav in PS1 was that they could always escape from ground threats while people on the ground could not escape from air. For example if you are on foot or in a tank etc and a reaver attacks you are pretty much dead. You cant outrun the reaver or kill it unless the pilot is a complete failure. On the reverse side if a reaver gets targeted by an AA max or BFR he just hits space bar and zooms away to safety only to return 30 secs later to again rain down destruction. Or if he is feeling bold he can even bail on top of them with AV and kill them. I never got behind the idea of it was pretty easy for air to kill you but even if you cert heavily into AA the best you could hope for was to "scare away" aircraft unless they just sat there and hover spammed. And even if you did score hits he could just bail and deny you the kill.

In PS2 some of these issues have been addressed such as the bailing issues and infantry and vehicles have access to more effective AA weaponry and the terrain and structures provide better cover against air. And there is the fact that aircraft are harder to fly in general in ps2 rather than the ps1 floating camera. Pilots will have to actually deploy countermeasures and evasive maneuvers to stay alive against ground AA not just laugh at it.

[ZaBa]

You don't get kills or BEP for "area denial".

Depends how the mission system works. Imagine something like "if no more than 25% of our forces in this area are killed by aircraft, mission is successful, points for all friendly players running AA builds". It can't really be that hard to make these kinds of soft scoring systems considering you can find them in 10 year old games (e.g.: Il-2 Sturmovik).

Kills really aren't everything.

e/ If anyone wants to complain that this kind of scoring is open to abuse because of the off chance that people might get points for not killing anything at all on the rare occasion that enemy aircraft completely fail to even show up, kindly refer to my above point regarding kills, and what they are not.

[WorldOfForms]

Area denial? Whoop-de-friken-doo.

I don't play an FPS to scare my opponents.

And no, AA wasn't a threat, because after hearing a lock and doing the old turn and burn, all you have to do is creep around, find the AA, ambush it because you have the luxury of using the entire horizon as your cover, and spam it to death.

[Baneblade]

Lol, so I suppose nothing is a threat... you just ran away so they won't scratch the paint.

[WorldOfForms]

So finding cover, creeping around and coming back to kill your opponent counts as running away?

An aircraft easily hunting down the units designed to kill it counts as running away?

In PS1 you could play the role of an aircraft and make it your exclusive mission to hunt down and kill AA. And it wasn't even difficult. So how was AA a serious threat?

[TheSaltySeagull]

Depends how the mission system works. Imagine something like "if no more than 25% of our forces in this area are killed by aircraft, mission is successful, points for all friendly players running AA builds". It can't really be that hard to make these kinds of soft scoring systems considering you can find them in 10 year old games (e.g.: Il-2 Sturmovik).

Kills really aren't everything.

e/ If anyone wants to complain that this kind of scoring is open to abuse because of the off chance that people might get points for not killing anything at all on the rare occasion that enemy aircraft completely fail to even show up, kindly refer to my above point regarding kills, and what they are not.

This is pure speculation on your part. But if we are to assume its true even with the mission system the AA users in question would have gotten more xp if they could actually kill the air craft in question. Its an FPS game people want to actually shoot and kill people, not hang around and act like a scarecrow for air cav.

In PS1 AA was the only group of certs that when even heavily invested in killing a specific type of enemy you had a fairly low chance of actually killing that enemy type. I dont think this will be an issue in PS2 based on what we have seen so far but we will know for sure in beta.

[EisenKreutzer]

Its an FPS game people want to actually shoot and kill people, not hang around and act like a scarecrow for air cav.

This is an assumption on your part, and from what I've seen there are players who would delight in just such a task.

[TheSaltySeagull]

This is an assumption on your part, and from what I've seen there are players who would delight in just such a task.

Oh please, AA users have been bitching about this issue in PS1 since 2003 so spare me.

[ZaBa]

This is pure speculation on your part. But if we are to assume its true even with the mission system the AA users in question would have gotten more xp if they could actually kill the air craft in question. Its an FPS game people want to actually shoot and kill people, not hang around and act like a scarecrow for air cav.

So what you're saying is, you'd rather get kills than play a support role that helps ensure your team can capture and hold an area?

Have you considered that ground-based AA may not be the career for you?


e/ To clarify, yes my earlier post was completely hypothetical. My point was to highlight that there are simple ways to incentivise people to play as AA even if they can't get kills, since I assumed you were one of the "MY POINTS :cry:" crowd rather than one of the "MY KILLS :cry:" crowd.

[TheSaltySeagull]

So what you're saying is, you'd rather get kills than play a support role that helps ensure your team can capture and hold an area?

Have you considered that ground-based AA may not be the career for you?

Have you considered that if ground AA could kill the aircraft as opposed to scare them off they accomplish the same support role AND get kills in the process? And with the new resources system in PS2 actually killing aircraft takes them out of the fight and they must spend more resources to get another as opposed to just repairing the same craft or as in PS1 just spawn a new one for free so I am actually having an even bigger impact on the battle.

Edit to your edit: Yes I understand that but the fact remains there is no reason as to why you must choose between providing support and getting kills/xp in the process. If I had to choose between kills or the empire I would choose empire but i see no reason why I must be forced to choose because of poor game design.

[ZaBa]

Poor game design would be AA infantry powerful enough to be able to destroy aircraft before they can run away* without having a significant numerical advantage, when you recall that infantry have zero cost and a relatively short respawn timer.

Turret or vehicle based AA should absolutely be able to wreck aircav, and there's some evidence they can. That's fine since both can be disabled in such a way that they won't be back for a while, same as aircav; they have resource cost and/or cooldown. HA don't, and if you make HA competitive with aircraft in equal numbers, it becomes impossible for aircraft to ever function, as you can't disable HA's ability to be present on the battlefront in any way.

Your actual job as HA wrt vehicles is surprise attacks, opportunistic potshots, and standoff. When it comes to getting air kills you should be looking at MAX (although they probs need a numerical advantage too, if not so large a one), skyguard, or air superiority fighters.


*btw I do think it's stupid that fighters can literally outrun missiles right now; running away should be a matter of duck and weave and drop flares and argh I'm at 20% health why did I fly over that flak nest

[TheSaltySeagull]

Poor game design would be AA infantry powerful enough to be able to destroy aircraft before they can run away* without having a significant numerical advantage, when you recall that infantry have zero cost and a relatively short respawn timer.

Turret or vehicle based AA should absolutely be able to wreck aircav, and there's some evidence they can. That's fine since both can be disabled in such a way that they won't be back for a while, same as aircav; they have resource cost and/or cooldown. HA don't, and if you make HA competitive with aircraft in equal numbers, it becomes impossible for aircraft to ever function, as you can't disable HA's ability to be present on the battlefront in any way.

Your actual job as HA wrt vehicles is surprise attacks, opportunistic potshots, and standoff. When it comes to getting air kills you should be looking at MAX (although they probs need a numerical advantage too, if not so large a one), skyguard, or air superiority fighters.


*btw I do think it's stupid that fighters can literally outrun missiles right now; running away should be a matter of duck and weave and drop flares and argh I'm at 20% health why did I fly over that flak nest

Agreed, like I said my rant was more so about how AA worked in PS1 and I am happy with how it appears to function in PS2 minus the possibility of air craft being able to outrun missiles. The issue in PS1 was it didn't matter what AA you used air cav could either easily avoid it or just kill it via bailing on top with jammers and AV. It was to the point that there was more than one forum crusade attempt to limit pilots to standard armor and remove the ability for them to carry ha/av when flying. But as I said most of my issues with air craft have been addressed in one way or another in PS2.

[The Loverator]

I didn't understand what you were ranting about, is it too easy to get away from lock ons making aircraft too powerful or is it too hard making HA too powerful?

It is whining. Easy as that.

I may sound arrogant, but Nope - everything is fine as it is.
Aircrafts are very powerful. I think, everyone can understand that very easily if he or she
watches Footage about Aircrafts long enough.

But: Not always are "other" Aircrafts around in the Hands of the other Faction's, to counter them.
Not always are Flak-Towers in Reach to pilot and to use against Aircrafts.

AND: It is not always that one or several M.A.X.-Units are around with Anti-Aircraft Weaponry and
a nice Position to shoot on Enemy Aircrafts. And Aircrafts are fast. VERY fast.


And even if the Liberator and Galaxy are not as fast as the smaller Aircrafts, they have heavy Armor.
S~o,
what is Infantry supposed to do if Enemy Aircrafts are around?

Shiver in Fear and Despair about being powerless? Infantry-Weapon's are very weak against Vehicles.

The heavy Assault-Class is allowed to be a bit powerful against Vehicles. At LEAST a little bit.
Aircrafts are very powerful already. It's just that they are not completely overpowered,
by having Heavy Assault's in the Game which can "lock" Rocket's onto their Tail.

Everything otherwise is bi***ing and whining.




greetings, LV. :wave:

[Buggsy]

Which is the exact damn problem. Balance came to : get hit and you are fuck or don't and rape everything.

Air balance became a war of who got more countermeasure to the other's weapon since one AA missile was able to disable you (or is it 2 missile now with the nerf?). Hell, if the missile was hitting the cockpit, it would kill the pilot (bug that never got fix). Let's not talk about the Javelin that could one shot any air unit since it was not affected by flare or jammers. Wasn't that nerf too?

In the end, removing disable which would have given them more health but nerfing countermeasure would have make thing way better balance wise rather than a "Can't touch this! Can't touch this! ... Oh shit, we are hit, landing to repair/bail out" gameplay.

Plane vs. Ground balance also came from TIME TO BATTLE. In PS1 the bases were much farther away from each other than what I see in these PS2 videos.

[ParisTeta]

Something to consider, of course we don`t play beta yet, it is speculative:

1. HA will be the main Combat Class when reading around, watching videos etc. it is the favorite choice, good weapon, good clip size, a second weapon AV/AA, probaly old school HA also, good Armor/Shield and special abilitie shield AND they can drive ANY vehicle. The Support class follows. (I don`t count MAX, can`t drive vehicle, timer for now, can`t hack, can`t passange on all vehicles).

2. Vehicle timer, for now, is pretty long and things seems to be more squishy.

So we have a swarm of HA Infantry say about 1-2 squad size total, vs.about 4-6 aircraft. Infantry which are resource free and now some people want, that a single one of them can blow up an EA with ease most of the time? That is plain wrong if gameplay balance is a concern for those.

The anti air weaponary needs to be strong enough, to chase EA away, destroying only in mass use or when the Pilot took a risk and it didn`t worked. When someone chases EA away, it is a SUCCESS, mate are safe, and can continue the mission. There is the defense for Infantry right here. You want to kill it? Bring a 2xAA MAX or SkyLight(or Lighsky?) or get your own flyboys.

[mirwalk]

Yup. That was the last 2 months of my Caspian experience. An Abrams, two mates, and a constant stream of hate messages from chopper pilots. :D

As Ravenmug mentioned though, they nerfed laser lock in the last big patch. Javs and the fantasy Abrams ATGM now break lock if the aircraft drops flares. To counter this, flares no longer break launcher locks of any kind - just missiles in flight.

Sorry, we're getting a bit off topic here. Was there anything left on the table we haven't covered?

the flares only breaking in flight missiles, I think is a decent trade off. You could at least stagger shot with someone else and take out an aircraft. Back when I could stand BF3 the flare cooldown was low enough that if you worked it carefully you were near immune to missiles.

Edit: I remember a few times on the open maps I was trying to ground hunt aircraft with a stinger. Get a lock, fire, flare, no hit, Get another lock, fire as soon as possible, another flare. Sometimes I wouldn't fire and get disrupted by the guys flare. There was no strategy for it. Give me a freakin' chance out there!

[JHendy]

I believe getting inside the missile's ability to exert delta-v and exiting its seeker gimbal range...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-HRR_EPVew#t=0m38s

??

[exLupo]

Area denial? Whoop-de-friken-doo.

I don't play an FPS to scare my opponents.

Area denial in TDM: Pointless. Kill counts are all that matter.
Area denial in Obj: Key. If your team is free to complete the objective, that's all that matters.

PS/2 may not be the games for you.

edit: Air control, via the simple -threat- of AA, won many a base in PS1.

[GreatMazinkaise]

I don't really see what the big deal is, unless you're gonna argue that the HA's ground to air capabilities are garbage. The anti-everything weapon that stock Rexos start with doesn't seem to be particularly good at killing anything but tanks, lock-on or no. The projectile has a long Fire and Forget lock-on like the T:A Slayer with a warning and similarly slow rocket with a slow rate of fire. If you want good AA switch to the AA spec; if you're getting shot at in the air by the default weapon you're not gonna get hit unless you're hovering in place.

No big deal...

[sumo]

i agree with OP. there should be a dedicated AT weapon and a dedicated AA weapon. i dont care about lock on tbh, but dont make the same weapon be able to lock onto both aircrafts and tanks all the same.
having one weapon do both is just some kind of retarded.

[Klockan]

i agree with OP. there should be a dedicated AT weapon and a dedicated AA weapon. i dont care about lock on tbh, but dont make the same weapon be able to lock onto both aircrafts and tanks all the same.
having one weapon do both is just some kind of retarded.
It is not an AA weapon, but just because it isn't an AA weapon doesn't mean that it can't be used to kill air vehicles. Its tracking is way too bad to kill air most of the time so it wont happen much anyway. I mean, have anyone even seen one of those missiles hitting anything in the air?

[Landtank]

It is not an AA weapon, but just because it isn't an AA weapon doesn't mean that it can't be used to kill air vehicles. Its tracking is way too bad to kill air most of the time so it wont happen much anyway. I mean, have anyone even seen one of those missiles hitting anything in the air?

NO! NO LOGIC OR RATIONAL THINKING.

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/578840_321310001295026_37544483_n.jpg

[LegioX]

I'm sorry. The game should force players to rely on air power to take objectives. You have never seen a modern army take territory without having air control over the objective. Don't be handing out AA guns to everybody but the kitchen sink. You need air cap over a target your attacking? Form a flight. Simple

[Revanmug]

I'm sorry. The game should force players to rely on air power to take objectives. You have never seen a modern army take territory without having air control over the objective. Don't be handing out AA guns to everybody but the kitchen sink. You need air cap over a target your attacking? Form a flight. Simple

And what kind of modern army doesn't have battery of SAM site around their border that can one shot anything that it hits?

Don't start with the "realism" argument here...

[LegioX]

When was the last time a modern army fought another modern army?
I would say WW2. Plenty of stories of the low survivability of planes.

Sure its easy for a modern military USA to control the skies over Libya.
Not so easy when those skies are China who downed a USA spy plane.

Are you really that ignorant? Or you just don't know your history?


How about read up on WW2 before you start spouting off mindless jibber. Go read up on the Battle of the Kursk. You might learn something about air power.

Or how about Operation Sealion (invasion of Great Britain by Germany). Battle of Britain was nothing more than to control the skies over the country for the German army to start an invasion.

And what kind of modern army doesn't have battery of SAM site around their border that can one shot anything that it hits?

Don't start with the "realism" argument here...

You want Mobile AA that is fine. I'm arguing about having every HA with a lock on ability missile. You people really need to read before typing. Been arguing the exact point for a couple of pages

Many people here believe you will get raped by air if you do not have anything to counter them via ground troops. and im only talking about lock on rocket spam. I say you argument is false. CALL IN AIRSUPPORT.

[Klockan]

I'm arguing about having every HA with a lock on ability missile.
Í don't see that point, the AV lock on ability is obviously not good enough to track air vehicles. The lock is made to track tanks going 50 kph, not air going 200 kph. There is no reason it shouldn't be able to lock on air targets even though it isn't very effective against them. In most cases the basic rifles are probably better AA than the AV missiles, the biggest effect of the AV missiles on air as we have seen is to scare the pilot into thinking that it is an AA missile.

We have seen some of the weapons and among them there are separate AV and AA launchers. Just because something can lock on air doesn't mean that it is anti air.

[Landtank]

Are you really that ignorant? Or you just don't know your history?


How about read up on WW2 before you start spouting off mindless jibber. Go read up on the Battle of the Kursk. You might learn something about air power.

Or how about Operation Sealion (invasion of Great Britain by Germany). Battle of Britain was nothing more than to control the skies over the country for the German army to start an invasion.

The Battle of Britain was different due to the need for air superiority to minimize German infantry losses as they shipped their armies across the English Channel. The Germans could have done what the Allies did in 1944, but decided not to for various reasons.

Look at Operation Overlord, we had no air superiority, but still managed to land paratroopers behind enemy lines to disrupt.

Kursk is a good example, but you could look at Stalingrad and say the same thing, the Luftwaffe had complete control of the skies but Germany still failed to take the city.

The point DJ was making was that the last time there was an actual battle on a continental scale that involved several large Air Forces was WW2, and the vast majority of aircraft were shot down, period, whether from AA or other planes I don't know the numbers.

Vietnam 1969: the U.S. has control of the skies, and we still fail to capture our objective.

In my view, Aircraft play an important role in open conflict. They should be important in GETTING to the base, not taking it. Taking the actual base should obviously rely upon ground forces, with aircraft providing CAS when they can, but only if the ground forces have neutralized a sufficient amount of ground based AA.

If there is a large, open tank battle in a field and one side has Air Superiority, that side should win, I agree, that's just combined arms kicking ass, but if the side without air power decides to cert for AA due to the large amount of Aircraft, then they can kill the aircraft, but sacrifice their tank killing abilities.

Trade offs!

The HA lock on weapon isn't going to be a problem methinks, it's a slow ass rocket that probably has a short timer. It also didn't look very maneuverable when TB was firing it at Aircraft. I share some of your concerns Legio, but I'm not gonna worry about it until I try it in Beta, and the devs can actually focus on balancing the game instead of just trying to make it work :X

[LegioX]

The Battle of Britain was different due to the need for air superiority to minimize German infantry losses as they shipped their armies across the English Channel. The Germans could have done what the Allies did in 1944, but decided not to for various reasons.

Look at Operation Overlord, we had no air superiority, but still managed to land paratroopers behind enemy lines to disrupt.


dude really? Do i need to bring up the combined American/Britain bombing campaign which virtually made the LW non existence at the time of Operation Overlord. Allies had overwhelming air cover during the landings.........

[Landtank]

dude really? Do i need to bring up the combined American/Britain bombing campaign which virtually made the LW non existence at the time of Operation Overlord. Allies had overwhelming air cover during the landings.........

You've missed the point, good work.

They did NOT have overwhelming air cover, they achieved it once they had landed by destroying the majority of German aircraft while they were grounded. What made the landing successful on ALL fronts was the deception.

That's the point >.> even without air power you can do stuff, try reading the rest of my post dude!

[LegioX]

Look im not going to get into a history debate with you, but im not missing the point.

Do you really think the 101st and 82nd airborne divisions would have landed in Normandy without total control over the skies? LOL come on man think about it. There was no LW anywhere on June 5th. I have read 2 books on the subject, i know what im talking about.

Read Stephen Ambrose D-DAY. You will talk a different tun afterwards.

And i did read your post. You're obviously not hearing my argument.

1. Every HA should not have AA launchers
2. Air support should be the primary goal or attack/defense....NOT the ability for ground troops via rocket launchers given to HA to fight off air.
3. Are you getting raped by air? Then give the players (this is a team oriented game right?) The ability to form or request BARCAP/CAP over targets to help relieve the pressure.
4. Devs have been harping on how you can "Cert" out your aircraft to be either air-to-air or air-to-ground. This in return will give players (who cert their plane for air-to-air) a distinct advantage over other players who go the air-to-ground route.

So why should we be concerned about air "possibly" raping ground troops over bases? Force the players to play together ie: form groups/communicate, to send up air to shoot down anything causing a problem.

If anything limit those AA rocket launchers alot.

[Landtank]

Look im not going to get into a history debate with you, but im not missing the point.

Do you really think the 101st and 82nd airborne divisions would have landed in Normandy without total control over the skies? LOL come on man think about it. There was no LW anywhere on June 5th. I have read 2 books on the subject, i know what im talking about.

Read Stephen Ambrose D-DAY. You will talk a different tun afterwards.

Fair enough,

But my post, the rest of it >.>

[LegioX]

Fair enough,

But my post, the rest of it >.>

We shall see. Good open debate without name calling is always good. Wait until Beta to make judgement :groovy:

[Revanmug]

You want Mobile AA that is fine. I'm arguing about having every HA with a lock on ability missile. You people really need to read before typing. Been arguing the exact point for a couple of pages


Irony? I said that using "but real life" argument to make a point in a game is stupid and nothing else. Take your own advice?

[Baneblade]

So finding cover, creeping around and coming back to kill your opponent counts as running away?

An aircraft easily hunting down the units designed to kill it counts as running away?

In PS1 you could play the role of an aircraft and make it your exclusive mission to hunt down and kill AA. And it wasn't even difficult. So how was AA a serious threat?

Your definition of threat needs work. Anything that can directly force you into a specific course of action is a threat.

Is a Reaver a threat to my Vanguard? Hell yes. Does that mean the Reaver will win? No. Is the Vanguard a threat to the Reaver? No, not really. At least I've never felt threatening to Reavers.

AA MAXes are a threat to your aircraft, just like you are a threat to the AA MAX.

[TheSaltySeagull]

Look im not going to get into a history debate with you, but im not missing the point.

Do you really think the 101st and 82nd airborne divisions would have landed in Normandy without total control over the skies? LOL come on man think about it. There was no LW anywhere on June 5th. I have read 2 books on the subject, i know what im talking about.

Read Stephen Ambrose D-DAY. You will talk a different tun afterwards.

And i did read your post. You're obviously not hearing my argument.

1. Every HA should not have AA launchers
2. Air support should be the primary goal or attack/defense....NOT the ability for ground troops via rocket launchers given to HA to fight off air.
3. Are you getting raped by air? Then give the players (this is a team oriented game right?) The ability to form or request BARCAP/CAP over targets to help relieve the pressure.
4. Devs have been harping on how you can "Cert" out your aircraft to be either air-to-air or air-to-ground. This in return will give players (who cert their plane for air-to-air) a distinct advantage over other players who go the air-to-ground route.

So why should we be concerned about air "possibly" raping ground troops over bases? Force the players to play together ie: form groups/communicate, to send up air to shoot down anything causing a problem.

If anything limit those AA rocket launchers alot.

The problem I have with this is you see a return of air dominating outdoor battles like in PS1. Ground forces are largely at the mercy of pilots and having to call in your own air just to deal with the enemy air devolves the game into a battle of which side as more/better pilots.

Ground based AA should be effective enough to eliminate air threats and provide protection for other ground forces without the need for assistance from friendly air. And when I say ground AA I am talking more so about maxes with dual AA weapons or lighting tanks with the skyguard turret etc, units that are dedicated to killing air. HA should be able to lock on to air but it should require multiple HA to bring down air. They function more as a deterrent for air farming infantry rather than an actual "threat" for eliminating air. I feel that is best left to dedicated AA units or as you said air craft speced for air to air combat.

But I dont like you idea of having ground forces rely on single person air to do anything. Because then everybody and their brother will be a pilot like in PS1 and it makes for dull gameplay. This game is supposed to stress combined arms play NOT just relying on who has more air.

[Landtank]

Your definition of threat needs work. Anything that can directly force you into a specific course of action is a threat.

Is a Reaver a threat to my Vanguard? Hell yes. Does that mean the Reaver will win? No. Is the Vanguard a threat to the Reaver? No, not really. At least I've never felt threatening to Reavers.

AA MAXes are a threat to your aircraft, just like you are a threat to the AA MAX.

AA MAXes are scary D:

[TheSaltySeagull]

Your definition of threat needs work. Anything that can directly force you into a specific course of action is a threat.

Is a Reaver a threat to my Vanguard? Hell yes. Does that mean the Reaver will win? No. Is the Vanguard a threat to the Reaver? No, not really. At least I've never felt threatening to Reavers.

AA MAXes are a threat to your aircraft, just like you are a threat to the AA MAX.

I think you and form are arguing semantics at this point.

I view it like this. If you are driving around in a vanguard and a lone VS with a lancer shows up and starts shooting at you he is a "threat" in that he could kill you if you just sit there and let him. But he is not a "serious threat" because you can one shot him with the main gun and go on your way.

The AA max vs reaver is a similar case. If the pilot just hovers there yes the AA max would certainly kill him. But it is also fairly easy for the reaver to evade or kill the AA max. So the question remains is the AA max a "serious threat" to the reaver? In PS1 I would say no. In ps2 I think possibly yes based on what we have seen so far but we will know for sure in beta.

[Blackwolf]

Ok, go to this video if you haven't already.(Gameplay at about 2:24)

Thanks TotalBiscuit! You rock! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjdloVQZ56M)

What did you notice when TB switched to a HA and pulled out his anti vehicle fart launcher(I don't really care what you call it)?

Lock on.

My problems with lock on?
1)


2) If there are two variants for AA/AT and not bundled into one, I'm fine.

Thank you for reading.

I gotta call crybaby worrywort on this one. If you watch that video carefully you will see how hard it is to get a lock on an aircraft. TB couldn't shoot one down to save his life through the whole hour long play session, and his best success with that weapon was against a couple of tanks in a CY.

I believe the weapon functions like the old Striker did, without the lock on to ground vehicles. And personally I see no problem with this.

TB also flew the lib a lot during that run through and you'll see numerous lock on warnings and yet he takes very little damage from surface to air missile locks. Mostly he got shot down by turrets, tanks, and aircraft. And the two times he manages a lock with his own AV weapon, he landed 1 missile (I think) and I noticed how long the lock persists after it is attained despite loss of target.

I haven't seen anything in the vid worth being concerned about anyway, and I plan on flying.

[Fenrys]

When was the last time a modern army fought another modern army?

2008, Georgia

The last time a modern army fought another modern army, it was MANPADs that prevented the stronger army from having air superiority.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_South_Ossetia_war


Georgia gambled that Russia would not respond to an invasion of Southern Ossetia - they were wrong, and masses of Russian armor crushed the mostly light infantry counter-insurgency force NATO had given them.

Both sides had an air force, and the Georgian AA was tougher than Russia had anticipated (they lost at least 3 fighters and 1 strategic bomber over the 5 day war). Within the first 3 days, Russian armor had killed or captured all static and mechanized AA, and the Georgian air forces were intentionally avoiding engagements with Russian air. It was Georgian infantry carried launchers that prevented Russia from ever having air superiority.

[maradine]

http://www.amazon.com/The-Lessons-Modern-War-Vol/dp/0813309557

An excellent treatment of integrated (and no-so-integrated) air defense systems in a recent, lengthy symmetrical force engagement. The rest of the series fantastic as well, BTW.

[Ranik Ortega]

In the spirit of planetside 2 a possible solution to AV spam is different ammo types. Compare a real life RPG-7 round to a stinger missile to get where i got the idea from. Missiles come in all shapes and sizes for what they are intended to do and the changes in what they do should be reflected in their carrying capacity and performance

AV - Dumb-fire =Average = 5-7 round capacity. Average performance
High damage = 5 round carry capacity. slow
High velocity = 5 round capacity. Lower damage

AV- Guided = Average = 2-5 round capacity . Average performance
High Damage = 2-4 round capacity . slower
High velocity = 2-4 round capacity . Low damage
Improved Guided = 2-3 round capacity. Average missile damage and speed with better maneuverability

AA Guided = Average = 1-2 round capacity. average performance
High velocity = 1-2 round capacity. High speed lower damage


Each missile could work in areas it's not supposed to but would not do as well as a missile intended to work against a specific target. EX: You have 1-2 High velocity AA missiles and a Lightning rolls towards you. You CAN use the AA missiles against it but it's not going to do the same damage as a Dumbfire or guided missile. dumbfire would have high velocity overall. Guided would be average all around and AA would be lowest damage with fastest speed

VS could have a central energy cell that is less efficient if fired in modes other than Default. AKA they would have versatility but if they tried switching from the default missile type of the AV variant they were using it would come at 150% of normal ammo consumption. OR they could have 3-4 launchers each having two built in fire modes.

EX: VS-AV dumbfire variant. Normal fire = 10 units of power. Overcharge shot = 20 units of power
VS-AV Guided variant Normal fire = 10 units of power. High velocity = 15 units of power

Each of the more advanced ammo types or weapon systems more catered towards AA would cost resources.

[ParisTeta]

I`m still waiting for a good argument, why a resource free spawn class, which is easy aviable, will probaly be avialbe in big numbers alos because of other advantages and flexibility, should be a hard counter to a limited aviable due resource cost, time cost, and more limited because it is a choice of many, should kill the later regulary.

Good Arguments why that should happen in a balanced game. Yup i dared you!

[Ranik Ortega]

I`m still waiting for a good argument, why a resource free spawn class, which is easy aviable, will probaly be avialbe in big numbers alos because of other advantages and flexibility, should be a hard counter to a limited aviable due resource cost, time cost, and more limited because it is a choice of many, should kill the later regulary.

Good Arguments why that should happen in a balanced game. Yup i dared you!

See my post above. It shouldn't be a hard counter.

[maradine]

The simple argument is "your premise is inaccurate". From the footage we've seen, the default HA launcher is annoying to aircraft at best. I don't consider that a hard counter. Maybe we have different definitions of "hard counter".

[ParisTeta]

Great that you responded, but i challanged the guys (and girls) who say, Infantry (non MAX) should be hard counter to them.

Most Argument i want to kill it so, so i can protect my squad/ so infantry isn`t helpless. I can understand this, but this is also archivable with chasing away an aircraft. Those people i want to get out and put an real argument forth, hey maybe I can learn something from them? Or they learn something from me? Who knows?

[ParisTeta]

No, i don`t want to get kill often and easy by an "unlimited" class, when i fly an aircraft, because of this, i don`t excpet to kill an aircraft unless it acts stupid.

The constant "lock on warning" are a pain in the neck, but if every single player as a real chance to kill you without action stupid, that is bad balance, and i don`t want easy infantry kill, in my opinion infantry AA weapon (except dual aa maxes) should only scare away EA (because of the resource cost), so HA provides protection, but is not the hard counter.

So the argument i just want easy kill, dosn`t really hold, what make you think that? And please consider, that most of the "vehicluars" will also spend alot of time infantry with the spawntimer as it is now.

[TheSaltySeagull]

Great that you responded, but i challanged the guys (and girls) who say, Infantry (non MAX) should be hard counter to them.

Most Argument i want to kill it so, so i can protect my squad/ so infantry isn`t helpless. I can understand this, but this is also archivable with chasing away an aircraft. Those people i want to get out and put an real argument forth, hey maybe I can learn something from them? Or they learn something from me? Who knows?

I did not read the ENITRE thread but I dont think anybody made to comment that a single infantry man should "hard counter" air. I think most of us are happy with infantry AA acting as a deterrence against air farming infantry in the absence of dedicated AA like maxes of AA speced vehicles. But to actually kill aircraft you need multiple HAs or dedicated AA units.

It appears you are attempting to call out a group of people who do not exist.

[Flaropri]

Great that you responded, but i challanged the guys (and girls) who say, Infantry (non MAX) should be hard counter to them.

People have said they should be a soft counter*, but I haven't read anyone that said they should be a hard counter**. Perhaps I missed that post.


*(I define soft counter as something that can, with effort and skill, have a chance at dealing with the threat, but it won't always succeed.)

**(Hard Counters have a large advantage and will almost always win.)


Non-Resource soft counters to resource-based mechanics simply so that resource-based mechanics obviate the ability for the losing side (map-wise) to have a chance at a comeback without having something that makes resource control meaningless.

An Engy in a Fighter (for example) should be able to take on an HA with a rocket launcher, or at the very least, survive, repair, and otherwise be good to go. However, a skilled HA against an unskilled pilot, or several HA in tandem should have a good chance at taking out a single Fighter. It shouldn't only be that AA Lightnings or Fighters are able to take on other Fighters or Air support, because that makes it at best rock paper scissors, and at worst a continuous stomp based on who has the most resources, rather than who has the best strategy/skill (while still giving the advantage to the player with resources).

[Vydofnir]

I`m still waiting for a good argument, why a resource free spawn class, which is easy aviable, will probaly be avialbe in big numbers alos because of other advantages and flexibility, should be a hard counter to a limited aviable due resource cost, time cost, and more limited because it is a choice of many, should kill the later regulary.

Good Arguments why that should happen in a balanced game. Yup i dared you!

I don't think anyone in this thread has taken the position that a single HA with a standard missile launcher should be a "hard counter" to aircraft. The OP expressed concern over the presence of a lock on mechanic and hybrid HV/HA launchers, and we have seen posts from many members that disagree with the idea that the presence of either of these things is inherently overpowered or unbalanced to the point of being game breaking, but that doesn't imply the above. Perhaps if you quoted one of the posts which you believe is in support of the "hard counter" idea, we would better be able to understand whom exactly you are challenging, and what premises led to that conclusion.

[LegioX]

You want to use your aircraft for easymode softy kills. If you looking for easy lulz go infil, me thinks that sniper is going to be annoying as fuck.

How are enemy air going to get easy mode ground kills with other enemy air in the area? Think about it.

[ThermalReaper]

This thread still lives? I already reliased the lock on won't be horrible like battlefield.

Also, I don't really care if it's like that in real life. This is a game, and battlefield's version of it is not fun at all.

[ThermalReaper]

I know this is thread nerco but I just noticed something. The logical way for an HA loadout is to say, in the VS HA case, Not have the lasher and the AA/AT weapon both at the same time. So it'll probably have a choice to switch out the rocket launcher for the faction heavy weapons. Problem? The HA would probably have the LMG and the Heavy weapon. Wouldn't that give HA too much flexablity?

[MorioMortis]

I know this is thread nerco but I just noticed something. The logical way for an HA loadout is to say, in the VS HA case, Not have the lasher and the AA/AT weapon both at the same time. So it'll probably have a choice to switch out the rocket launcher for the faction heavy weapons. Problem? The HA would probably have the LMG and the Heavy weapon. Wouldn't that give HA too much flexablity?

I am not sure I understand your point here, but I think that currently, the HA get a AV and/or AA weapon and an AI weapon, which is either an LMG or the faction specific weapon. I don't see how this is a problem, as the HA needs a primary weapon to combat infantry, and it's "special" role is destroying vehicles, so it needs tools for that too.

Unless what you are commenting on is the possibility of HA having both an LMG and a faction specific HA weapon, in which I don't see the problem in reduced versatility for the sake of limited additional AI capabilities.