Cant dumb fire AA rockets = 100% illogical

[Wolfgang Mozart]

Now we wont be able to dumb fire AA rockets without a lock on. So what happens exactly, does the trigger simply disappear without a lock on? They could've implemented many other changes (decreased dumbfire damage) than this wholly illogical one.

[Dragonskin]

Now we wont be able to dumb fire AA rockets without a lock on. So what happens exactly, does the trigger simply disappear without a lock on? They could've implemented many other changes (decreased dumbfire damage) than this wholly illogical one.

This is really what you are upset about? I'm more upset about the AV rocket requiring a lock-on because as it is the rocket typically fires at the bottom portion of vehicles meaning any variation in terrain will prevent the rocket from connecting... much less all the other things tanks/sunderers can roll behind. The saving grace for the AV rocket launcher was you could dumbfire it to actually get hits.

The AA rocket change was needed in my opinion because you could pick it up and be just as effective as having the default against infantry/vehicles and still lock-on to air.

I keep suggesting that SOE change the AV rocket launcher to more like a Javelin out of Battlefield 3. Tanks already have IR smoke.. make it break the lock and the Javelins still lock-on and hit angle will help better ensure the AV rockets usefulness.

[Bear]

I keep suggesting that SOE change the AV rocket launcher to more like a Javelin out of Battlefield 3. Tanks already have IR smoke.. make it break the lock and the Javelins still lock-on and hit angle will help better ensure the AV rockets usefulness.

This would also make top armor far more valuable!

[Wolfgang Mozart]

A weapon should have the capacity to discharge, even if its not pointed at anything. They could have made it less effective without a lock on and it would've been much more logical.

[ShadetheDruid]

I think the change is great.

For reference, I picked up the AA launcher the other day knowing full well that this change was coming (I got it to shoot aircraft anyway, not to abuse the mechanics against vehicles). After a few days of using the launcher, I can totally see why they decided it needed fixing.

It's just way too effective against ground targets when it shouldn't be, because of the speed of the missile.

[Wolfgang Mozart]

I think the change is great.

For reference, I picked up the AA launcher the other day knowing full well that this change was coming (I got it to shoot aircraft anyway, not to abuse the mechanics against vehicles). After a few days of using the launcher, I can totally see why they decided it needed fixing.

It's just way too effective against ground targets when it shouldn't be, because of the speed of the missile.

As I said, they could've made it FAR less effective than it is against ground vehicles and that would have made much more sense. Having the trigger simply disappear is lazy.

[ShadetheDruid]

How does the same missile magically doing less damage without a lock on make more sense?

It's not even about the "trigger disappearing" at all, this is a lock on launcher after all. It probably has a complex computer system inside that refuses to trigger the firing mechanism if it doesn't detect and lock a target.

[james]

Make dumb fire a cert, problem solved. It is a bit more realistic as in reallife most a2g launchers don't dumb fire.
The major downside is now no one will run crows except when needed, it makes the 14 dollars i spent a crap load less useful

[Wolfgang Mozart]

Make dumb fire a cert, problem solved. It is a bit more realistic as in reallife most a2g launchers don't dumb fire.
The major downside is now no one will run crows except when needed, it makes the 14 dollars i spent a crap load less useful

Its probably a money grab and not a balancing act. Im sure down the line there will be another aa rocket that can dumb fire... for a low low price :/

[Dragonskin]

Its probably a money grab and not a balancing act. Im sure down the line there will be another aa rocket that can dumb fire... for a low low price :/

How can you argue against the change for balance? You have a dumbfire only rocket launcher. Then you could buy a lock-on AV or AA rocket launcher that could also dumbfire. Technically that made the stance of buying power more true because free to play users were at a disadvantage for not spending money to get a rocket launcher that was dual function. Now if you want to dumbfire you have to use the default that is available to everyone or you can buy rocket launchers that have specific advantages that come with a clear disadvantage to balance the advantage.

QQ MOAR!

[Wolfgang Mozart]

How can you argue against the change for balance? You have a dumbfire only rocket launcher. Then you could buy a lock-on AV or AA rocket launcher that could also dumbfire. Technically that made the stance of buying power more true because free to play users were at a disadvantage for not spending money to get a rocket launcher that was dual function. Now if you want to dumbfire you have to use the default that is available to everyone or you can buy rocket launchers that have specific advantages that come with a clear disadvantage to balance the advantage.

QQ MOAR!

lol no ones arguing against balance. as I said many times so far: Make it FAR FAR less effective against ground vehicles, but simply removing the capacity to fire is lazy and retarded. I also wonder what your stance will be when they offer a new rocket that can dumb fire and lock on.

[Dragonskin]

I also wonder what your stance will be when they offer a new rocket that can dumb fire and lock on.

IF games are fun... I wonder what will happen IF the world ends on 12/21/12. I wonder what happens IF FireFall takes all of Planetside 2's population because it has PvE content and a story with it's PvP. What IF you actually are in the matrix and this is all fake?

What IF you are just wrong? :lol:

[Wolfgang Mozart]

IF games are fun... I wonder what will happen IF the world ends on 12/21/12. I wonder what happens IF FireFall takes all of Planetside 2's population because it has PvE content and a story with it's PvP. What IF you actually are in the matrix and this is all fake?

What IF you are just wrong? :lol:

:) one thing im not wrong about is the skies and ground just got a whole lot friendlier. guess ill just have to be a dedicated engi from here on out

[Zaik]

bolt action rifles and personal shield systems, don't even bother trying to bring any sort of real world logic into this.

[Elgareth]

Make it FAR FAR less effective against ground vehicles, but simply removing the capacity to fire is lazy and retarded.

Huh. Just imagine that you are shooting the rocket, it just doesn't do any damage when not locked :rolleyes:
What exactly would you want to do with a rocket that you CAN fire, but only does exactly 1 Damage on Vehicles and Infantry if not locked?...

It isn't even THAT illogical IMHO. As someone said: The intelligent rockets need a target, so that they can bury themself into their target before exploding, to maximize damage. To not waste them and prevent Friendly Fire, you can't dumbfire them accidentally onto friendly Vehicles or when you didn't want to.

I don't really see the problem in accepting that logic, once you realize we have Nanites Rebuilding Bodies and Turrets infinitely with your Medic/Engy Gun, Teleportation, infinite Fueled Aircraft etc. :groovy:
And I don't really see a problem gameplay-wise either... if the damage indeed was cut by 90% if not locked...what would you do with it? Gathering 50 HAs to focus on one tank with AA Missiles, to bring him down after 150 Rockets? Not the best plan :rolleyes:

[Wolfgang Mozart]

well it just wouldve been nice if it said somewhere b4 i paid station cash for a weapon that they would ever consider taking away that weapons ability to discharge. Hope they dont do that with any of the carbines or LMGs.

[Aaron]

Not being able to dumb fire is not the greatest idea IMO. Sometimes when the air is hovering low it's nice to just skip the lock-on and dumb fire it.

Like it's been mentioned, cut the damage to ground vehicles in half, but let people dumb fire air if they want.

[Elgareth]

well it just wouldve been nice if it said somewhere b4 i paid station cash for a weapon that they would ever consider taking away that weapons ability to discharge. Hope they dont do that with any of the carbines or LMGs.

Well they did... if you read the License Agreement or somesuch, there it sais that you basically only rent the ability to use a weapon, and that that weapon can be changed or deleted whenever SOE wants to.
Also, they didn't take the ability away, they just added the requirement of it being locked on to a target. It's not like it suddenly is TOTALLY useless, it still can do what it is supposed to do, killing Air ;-)

[Wolfgang Mozart]

Well they did... if you read the License Agreement or somesuch, there it sais that you basically only rent the ability to use a weapon, and that that weapon can be changed or deleted whenever SOE wants to.
Also, they didn't take the ability away, they just added the requirement of it being locked on to a target. It's not like it suddenly is TOTALLY useless, it still can do what it is supposed to do, killing Air ;-)

Well then that sucks. It's gonna be lame when they decide to balance my carbine by making it incapable of discharging under certain conditions

[Dragonskin]

Well then that sucks. It's gonna be lame when they decide to balance my carbine by making it incapable of discharging under certain conditions

Love how you throw out completely illogical statements. Why would they do that to your carbine? Are there carbines that are lock-on? What condition would possibly prevent you from firing your carbine?

The lock-on rockets were intended to lock-on. The lock-on portion of them is still intact.. meaning they actually didn't change the main purpose of the weapon. They just made a clear disadvantage for having the advatange of being able to lock-on to a target. You can still get the dumbfire rocket launcher and dumbfire to your hearts content. If you are in a situation where you need a lock-on rocket then you can swith to a launcher that has the lock-on function that you desire. It made it a very clear cut decision on what you choose to bring to the fire fight.

[Elgareth]

Well then that sucks. It's gonna be lame when they decide to balance my carbine by making it incapable of discharging under certain conditions

And yet, they could. Maybe whenever you have a friendly in the middle of your reticule, maybe you can only shoot while crouched...
Thing is, they could delete all weapons and give everyone a knife only... but why would they?
They want people to have fun, because only people who have fun will pay money for the game. Apparently, having a 100% Upgrade in Store was not fun for everyone but those who bought it, or it was necessary to warrant diversity or whatnot :)
Maybe they'll disable weapons when inside the warpgate? Who knows ^_^

[RSphil]

AA rockets are a waste of time atm anyway, everyone has flairs. the lock on AV ones are ok but the terrain thing is annoying and the little damage they do is a put off. it is really the only way to hit VS mags from a distance as they just strafe out of the way of any rocket you fire.

[Fear The Amish]

It always reminds me of steam, Most people don't read the agreement that says all those games you purchase are actually a lease. Had a friend one day wake up and his steam folder was empty. Discovered someone had been using his account and pirating games onto it and steam had removed his library. Same with E-readers you are just LEASING the books.

[Dragonskin]

AA rockets are a waste of time atm anyway, everyone has flairs. the lock on AV ones are ok but the terrain thing is annoying and the little damage they do is a put off. it is really the only way to hit VS mags from a distance as they just strafe out of the way of any rocket you fire.

I wish people would stop saying AA rockets are a waste. If you lock on and force the pilot to use his flare then 5 seconds later you can lock and hit unless he has certed to ungrade to the racer chasis level 2 so that he can outrun the rocket. Otherwise even if you force him to use his flares then unless he waits for the cold down then some one else will lock-on and get him. If you forced the pilot to leave because he is scared of dying and wants his flares again.. then you forced him out of combat.

The AV rockets are useless only because of how they fire.. lock-on then fire at the bottom of the vehicle... that doesn't work half the time because terrain eats the shot.. never mind forcing a tank to use their defenses... which almost no one has. Do people even know they can get IR smoke to prevent lock-ons like flares? I doubt they care.. you don't really need it most of the time.

[ShadetheDruid]

AA rockets are a waste of time atm anyway, everyone has flairs.

It's funny, when I got my AA launcher I was expecting like 90% of aircraft to have flares. It turned out to be more like 50%, or even less. Even so, flares don't totally render it useless, considering your launcher will reload faster than their flares will recharge.

That's not even getting into the people who blow their (flare) load too early and don't even cause me to waste a missile. Sometimes just a lock warning is enough to scare a lot of fliers off (I don't blame them, I wouldn't want a missile up my butt either :D ).

Edit: Ninja'd, typical. :p

[ChipMHazard]

The AA rocket change was needed in my opinion because you could pick it up and be just as effective as having the default against infantry/vehicles and still lock-on to air.

I keep suggesting that SOE change the AV rocket launcher to more like a Javelin out of Battlefield 3. Tanks already have IR smoke.. make it break the lock and the Javelins still lock-on and hit angle will help better ensure the AV rockets usefulness.

I would really like to see them changed in this manner. I would also be interested in allowing players to paint a target, so you can hit tanks that are behind cover. Might be too powerful, but I would like to at least test it out (when they finally put up the test servers).

[Oroshi]

To its a great balance, stops heavy being a one man army, you either have a launcher that can lock on to air, lock on to ground vehicles, or one that can hot anything, but takes some degree of skill and luck.

It also reduces the amount of heavy firing rockets at infantry. When you get the jump on a heavy trying to take out aircraft, and they just shoot you in the face with a rocket, instead of using their anti infantry weapons. To me it adds a risk to using lock-on launchers and balances specialization, in a specific role.

[Sledgecrushr]

I dont want to get in the way of the QQ train here but soe has made the primary function of the aa lock on missile more effective. There is a silver lining here.

[Wolfgang Mozart]

"Lock on Rocket Launchers will no longer fire without a lock on" has been removed from the update notes and we can still dumb fire all rocket launchers. Hope it stays that way :D

[EVILPIG]

Actually, it's perfectly logical. A weapon system that is designed to lock on to it's target will not fire without lock as a safety measure.

Not saying I like the change, but it makes sense.

[Babyfark McGeez]

Now i dunno if this should apply to both AA and AV launchers and if it was supposed to be a part of todays update, but i can fire my AV lock-on launcher still fine in dumbfire mode.

[DirtyBird]

Now i dunno if this should apply to both AA and AV launchers and if it was supposed to be a part of todays update, but i can fire my AV lock-on launcher still fine in dumbfire mode.

shhhh

[ShadetheDruid]

I read that while they don't require lockon, the drop on the missile has been increased a lot when dumbfired (to more so than the default launchers). I haven't tested it for myself, though.

[Mechzz]

They are trying to stop spam death guys... I totally see what they are doing with this and I personally agree 100% I hope they CONTINUE to add things that continues to slow the pace of battle by modifying little things like this.

Please explain to me how dumb firing of lock on rockets was contributing more than 0.0001% of the total spam in this game?

Bollocks I say. It's a cynical money grab by SOE. Removing dumb fire and introducing a new dumb fire rocket in the same game update is simply laughing in the face of devoted fans who paid good money to get early access to the lock ons. Lock ons where NO-ONE was complaining about dumb fire spam and which had gone through 3 months of beta testing unchanged. Simple money-grabbing nonsense. My unused SC will sit on SOE's shelf for a long time now, believe me.

[ShadetheDruid]

I doubt that was the reason.

It was likely because people were using AA launchers against ground targets because of the better projectile speed and less drop, making the default launchers pointless.

[psijaka]

Can't dumb fire AA rockets = 100% logical.

They are a specialist weapon, but they should be a bit more deadly by way of compensation (2 hit kill).

[Wolfgang Mozart]

Can't dumb fire AA rockets = 100% logical.

They are a specialist weapon, but they should be a bit more deadly by way of compensation (2 hit kill).

I guess it was 100% illogical, as we still have the ability to dumb fire them, they just do slightly less damage and the fall off rate is greater. This was in the original update notes:

"Lock on Rocket Launchers will no longer fire without a lock on."

And it is now removed from the update notes. I guess SOE saw how silly it was to remove a weapons ability to fire after people paid station cash for it and found a far more logical and less lazy solution. :groovy:

[Juryrig]

It was likely because people were using AA launchers against ground targets because of the better projectile speed and less drop, making the default launchers pointless.

This. I was pretty pissed when I paid for both, only to find that the AA launcher did BOTH jobs pretty much equally well.