Lock on rockets really have no place in this game

[Roy Awesome]

I'm not usually one for bitching threads (Because PS2 is really fun and I quite enjoy it, and because bitching rarely comes off as constructive), but the entire idea behind lock-ons has been a major problem for me ever since A2A rockets and lock-ons became prevalent in beta.

Every other weapon in the game requires effort and skill to use. Dumb-fire rockets require leading targets. Tank shells have travel time (lolprowler). Bullets have travel time.

You're ability to be effective with these guns is completely dependent on the skill of the user. Also, if the recipient of the rocket/bullet is good, he/she can dodge the projectile. The sender has to have skill to fire, and the receiver gets to exercise their skill to dodge.

For example, consider the following video posted to reddit today:

Planetside 2 - Vanguard humiliating air, montage #2 - YouTube

This guy oneshots and twoshots aircraft with his tank. He is fucking good at leading these shots and hitting air targets, and is rewarded with a ton of kills. Skill vs Reward is a nice curve where Reward falls off as skill goes up, but you still get good reward for high skill.

Now lets look at lock-on rockets, in particular the annihilator, although the a2a rockets are the same and pilots have been bitching forever about them. The general process to these weapons is point your screen in the general direction of the target; wait 3 seconds; left click when the box turns green. That's all you have to do. The receiver now has to either fire a flare/IR smoke (press a button), execute a perfect maneuver to dodge it (Very high skill), or be lucky to have terrain that will block it (pre-planning).

Just take a moment to compare these situations and the requirement for success here. It takes no skill to fire one of these guns, and takes a ton of skill, a hard counter, or pre-planning to dodge them. It's too skewed in the direction of the attacker, to where every other gun in the game isn't. To modify a quote from Shoot em up, 'Auraxis is the land of opportunity, where a pussy can become a tough guy with a lock-on rocket in his hand'

'Now, why don't we just nerf them so they are weaker than all the other rockets?' You ask. In any other game I'm right there with you, but for planetside 2 it's not possible to nerf it enough. Consider a standard 24v24 BF3 match, where at most 2-3 people will have these rockets. You have the dude in the tungeska, the A2A jet, and the one or two guys that use the stinger. Unlike PS2, this limited number of rockets per map allows you to balance not just the quality of the rockets, but also the quantity. With PS2, there is nothing to stop you from pulling 40 Annihilators.

So, you get two options. You can make the Annihilator an individual weapon, where one person can actually be effective with it (current state), or you can nerf it into the position where it is only good in groups (Previous state). If it's relegated to a group-only weapon then people will not buy it unless their outfit requires it on ops. If it's good in the hands of one user, then outfits will require it and just mass spam it.

How can we fix it? Frankly, Throw out the lock-on fire and forget idea. It's never going to be balanced. With that out of the way, How do we make these unique and useful? One option is a TV-Guided rocket. This requires some skill to pilot and fire, and there is a level of diminishing returns with numbers (have the rockets collide with eachother in air. Diminishing returns on numbers!). Think more BF2 click to direct, NOT the Phoenix rocket from PS1. BF2's system of high speed, click to give the rocket a bit more direction in where it is going forces the shooter to be actually good at the game. The Phoenix had a huge number of issues and external factors (like mouse sensitivity) factored into it way too much.

Another option is to force the user to remain locked on to the target or the rocket loses it's lock. You have to keep your gun pointed in the direction of the target, and this introduces the same type of skill that most other guns in the game have. EDIT: Sirisian brought up the idea of a HL2-laser guided rocket. Same vein of guided rocket.

A final option is to introduce High-Velocity dumbfire Anti-Air rockets. Put their velocity somewhere between a bullet and a tank shell, and make them do high damage to aircraft. They would require skill to fire and feel rewarding when you do damage.

So, there. Long winded post on why I think lock-on fire and forget rockets are dumb.

[ShadetheDruid]

I know what you mean about it being more rewarding with the other launchers. The other day, I saw a Scythe coming in for a semi-low speed pass at a tank over at a tech plant, I only had my dumbfire launcher at the time. I aimed at it, thinking there's no way I was going to hit it, so I sort of just twitched to the side and fired instantly.. and hit it. Granted it was pure luck, rather than skill at estimating timing for the shot, but it was so awesome. :p I do awesome things occasionally that are never going to get repeated again.

Anyway, I did have a little think yesterday about what they could do in the event they removed lockons from the game. It's in the ideas section of the forum if you want to check it out (don't expect anything too genius there though :p ).

/self promotion

[Mutant]

While i agree lock on requires less skill, they only become over powered if you have great numbers of people using them together, this is the case of a LOT of stuff in PS2.

Instead of getting rid of lock on rocket launchers how about keeping them effective but increase the opportunity cost for using them, namely make them use up both main weapon slots on the heavy.
Then a group of people using say annihilators is going to get their ass kicked by a few infantrymen.



the annihilator already does significantly less damage per rocket but make part of it up in ROF, but is by far the lowest DPS rocket launcher.


https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?key=0AuOojvNLMApVdEtIU1NKenEzNzZOSWNaanFqSUVxLW c&type=view&gid=12&f=true&colid0=5&filterstr0=1000&sortcolid=-1&sortasc=true&rowsperpage=250

Shrike NC ROCKET, DUMBFIRE 1700
ML-7 TR ROCKET, DUMBFIRE 1700
S1 VS ROCKET, DUMBFIRE 1700
Crow NC ROCKET, AV LOCKON 1500
Hawk NC ROCKET, AA LOCKON 1500
M9 SKEP Launcher TR ROCKET, AV LOCKON 1500
ASP-30 Grounder TR ROCKET, AA LOCKON 1500
Hades VS ROCKET, AV LOCKON 1500
Nemesis VS ROCKET, AA LOCKON 1500
Decimator NS ROCKET, DUMBFIRE 2000
Annihilator NS ROCKET, AA AV LOCK 1150

[VR Draco]

If you remove all lock-on rockets, you have to increase the exp for a air-kill about 5-10 times...
Otherwise air will dominate everything, because of 100 ground people, only 1 or 2 would fire at air and even hit something. The dumb-fire-air-to-air launcher has to be a one shot kill for an ESF and I don't think that the ESF-pilots want this.

I think that G2G-lockon is realy unnecessary, BUT G2A-lockon or A2A-lockon are quite necessary, otherwise air would dominate, because the only thing that could kill air realy fast are MANY AA-Maxes or MANY Skyguards. One AA-Max or one Skyguard is useless against heavy air
And dumb-fire against distant Liberators, who could shoot at you....no good idea...

[JesNC]

Lock-on rocket launchers are ok, in theory. Just not at the ranges they currently are effective at.

Fire-and-forget target locks should IMO be reduced to 250-300m range maximum.

[VR Draco]

Fire-and-forget target locks should IMO be reduced to 250-300m range maximum.

I can agree on this, BUT then decrease the range of ESF and Liberators to the same range. Libertors hovering 400m above you, shooting at you and you can't lock them?

[JesNC]

I can agree on this, BUT then decrease the range of ESF and Liberators to the same range. Libertors hovering 400m above you, shooting at you and you can't lock them?

Time to whip out that AA gun. :D

Honestly, I can see the issue with G2A lock-on rockets. For G2G, anything above 300m is just silly, mainly because ground vehicles neither have the agility to dodge the missiles nor the speed to get away from the shooter.

[KoKroach]

Or make the lock on launchers have a smaller ammo capacity, and force them to rely on equipment terminals, not ammo boxes?

[Baneblade]

You are more than welcome to remove lock on missile launchers from infantry if you remove all dumbfire rockets from air.

[Sledgecrushr]

You are more than welcome to remove lock on missile launchers from infantry if you remove all dumbfire rockets from air.

Exactly this.

[ShadetheDruid]

I'd rather got for a "reworking" of both than total removal, but I definitely wouldn't miss them if rocket pods vanished from existence.

[camycamera]

i see your point, but you cant do anything to remove these rockets. removing/changing them would piss prople off

[belch]

You are more than welcome to remove lock on missile launchers from infantry if you remove all dumbfire rockets from air.

Exactly. I have used both A2A and A2G on my ESF, and the argument that one is more "skillful" to use than the other is complete horseshit. In fact, when I am running rocket pods I almost always have a much higher number of enemy kills...on everything from infantry to armor to other aircraft. I highly doubt that my experiences are any different from any other ESF'er in that regard.

I think there is room to tweak both lock ons and rocket pods, but probably what needs to be tweaked more than anything is players feeling like their favorite play toy should reign supreme and move with impunity.

[Rothnang]

I don't think the general concept of lockon rockets is bad, just the implementation.

I would prefer it if they changed it so that you don't lock on, then fire a rocket that can't miss, but instead you fire the rocket, and it will simply fly straight unless you put your crosshairs on a target it can lock on to, which will give you the little box, and turn the rocket toward that enemy. (The crosshairs would be a little less sensitive and take more aiming to stay locked on)

A system like that will allow you more skillful shots, like shooting a rocket straight up, then locking a tank so that it will hit the top armor, or firing a rocket behind an aircraft, then locking on to it so if he turns and burns he'll run right into it. At the same time though, it will make using lock-on weapons harder, because losing your target will actually waste the missile, and the reload time would be higher if it doesn't need the initial lockon time.

Another thing the devs could do to put more skillful missiles in the game is put in a missile that you can remote detonate. If you hit the firing button a second time while the missile is in flight the missile blows up mid air, with a big blast radius, which allows you to kill enemies that are a near impossible target for other missiles. (For example, infantry on a hill crest with nothing to splash an explosion off behind or below them from your point of view - with remote detonate missile this is a kill you can make) These kinds of missiles could also come in an anti-air variety that has a particularly large blast radius. They would operate similarly to airburst flak, except the player triggers the burst - so that way it takes some solid skill to hit.


The only kind of weapon where I would approve of locking on before you fire would be a MIRV launcher that can lock multiple targets in preparation for a shot, like the rocket launcher from Unreal 2. (One of the coolest weapons ever, though stuck in a mediocre game. Actually, any Mass Effect fan should play Unreal 2, it's astounding how much Mass Effect copied from that game, including whole level ideas, like "Ice planet with research lab full of spider monsters")

[VaderShake]

Options, options, options.....dumb fire, lock on, ect....they all come down to personal preference and situational use and I think they all have a place of some kind. The other types of rockets mentioned by the OP make sense as well, but again they will come down to personal preference. I think from a higher view lock on rockets serve the purpose of being a deterant more than kill weapons. Although if you can be patient and pick out targets of opportunity to finish with lock on rockets that works as well.

Also since he referenced the BF series lets talk about the rock-paper-scissors concept and PS2.....If I see 40 people with lock on rockets I know I can farm them with my sniper rifle and I make the change and clean them up and scatter them pretty fast. I have done it several times and it's one of my favorite things to do!

The real problem with allot of these issues is that people want to specialize so much and just do what THEY WANT TO DO and not switch kits, weapons, or tactics to defeat a group or force that is having sucess. Most of the time people would prefer to bitch about always getting killed in their tanks by groups with lock on rockets and say they are OP and take no skill....but the person complaining is always in a tank making themselves the perfect target for the problem they are complaining about. God forbid they get out of the tank and shoot a few people in the head or pull back or get a better tactical position or worse yet WAIT FOR ENGINEERING SUPPORT and employ team work.

I'm not saying things don't need to be balanced ultimately and some things are not simpler or require less skill than other things but I think more than half the time people just want to do what they want and have success all the time.

[Boomzor]

Oh... how I miss the Striker, Lancer and Phoenix.
Soo much flavour and not entirely unbalanced.

In regards to lock on missiles, I have to bring up the TR striker.
To me it never felt OP, nor utterly harmless.

It had a 5 round clip with a decent ROF and you needed to get a good 2-3 clips off to bring down the target depending on what vehicle it was.
One guy you didn't really fear, unless you realized he knew how to dance around an obstacle, to maximize the use of his weapon and your weakness.

Tho coming close to a building where a critical mass of them were hanging out, you had to finish your business quick and then get the hell out or be pelted to death by a rain of missiles.

[ShadetheDruid]

Stuff and things!

Wanting people to have to employ teamwork to overcome their weakness is fine, but that sort of falls apart when it comes to A2A missiles where the counter to those is to go get A2A missiles yourself (or get ground-based AA).

At that point, you have to question what the point of nose guns and afterburner tanks are, and why they don't just start ESFs off with A2A missiles as default.

[Akrasjel Lanate]

The reason you don't want to use lock ons dosn't means to prevent other to use them(or nefing them beacause of that)

[VaderShake]

Wanting people to have to employ teamwork to overcome their weakness is fine, but that sort of falls apart when it comes to A2A missiles where the counter to those is to go get A2A missiles yourself (or get ground-based AA).

At that point, you have to question what the point of nose guns and afterburner tanks are, and why they don't just start ESFs off with A2A missiles as default.

Choice....it's your choice what to add for who you are, at least they are not forcing you on rails.

Also someone has to die sometimes don't they? Not everyone is winner so you can add all the counter measures you want until those without them complain they are too strong, and back and forth it goes. The game is still just a few months into a 5 year plan so I am sure there will be continual changes.

The other thing is we can only play with what we are given....the game is balanced in that sense where we all basically have the same access to strengths and weaknesses but it's our minds, patience, agression, ect. that makes us different in action. Keep the constructive feedback and advice going ot the devs and either they will craft a game you enjoy or one you don't, it's up to SOE to keep a cusotmer base.

I am glad at least they had the guts to make PS2 and try and innovate the FPS market. Everything else is stale, small minded, and boring IMO


Note from the 2-7-2013 hotfix update: Lock-on weapons (A2A Missiles & Lock-on heavy assault weapons)
•Lock-on Angle reduced. Targets must be closer to the center of the crosshair in order to lock-on.

NS Annihilator
•Base lock-on acquire time increased from 2 seconds to 3 seconds.


Looks like they are listening and trying to tweak them, this will take a bit more skill, probably expose the person trying to lock on a bit longer, and require more patience to lock on, subtle change but we have to see how it plays out....

[Gatekeeper]

Wanting people to have to employ teamwork to overcome their weakness is fine, but that sort of falls apart when it comes to A2A missiles where the counter to those is to go get A2A missiles yourself (or get ground-based AA).

At that point, you have to question what the point of nose guns and afterburner tanks are, and why they don't just start ESFs off with A2A missiles as default.

A2A missiles are an essential balance factor for A2G rockets. If taking rockets doesn't make you effectively weaker against other air, then there's no downside to having them.

As for afterburner tanks... well, yes, those are just pointless and they should remove them. They don't fit with the general pattern of the game where default loadouts give an effective all-round weapon, and unlocking new weapons just lets you specialise.

So you're right - they should either make A2A missiles the default, or add a new default weapon that's mediocre against both ground and air. I'd suggest either a weak anti-everything lock-on like the Annihilator, or some kind of fast-moving light rocket that can hit air ok but doesn't do as much damage as the current rocket pods.

[Hamma]

There's too much air overall - I agree lock ons have no place in this game sadly I doubt we will ever see a change to them. :(

[VR Draco]

Another possibiliy would be to make all air units extremly expensive. ESF -> 500 air-resources, Liberator -> 600. Then you could remove the lockon launchers and give some decent AA-dumb-fire launchers.

You would see much less air and their domination would not be that easy.

But I don't think this idea would get much support from the pilots ^^

[Baneblade]

All air should cost more than a Sunderer. I'd say this even if I was a pilot on a regular basis.

Half the reason pilots complain about G2A missiles is they fly in a manner that is meant to farm the ground rather than focus on their vehicle's strengths and mitigating the weaknesses by not just flopping in on an HA in the middle of a zerg.

[MrBloodworth]

WTF, Lock-ons have no place? IN A WAR GAME?

Please pass to the left.

[VR Draco]

All air should cost more than a Sunderer. I'd say this even if I was a pilot on a regular basis.

Half the reason pilots complain about G2A missiles is they fly in a manner that is meant to farm the ground rather than focus on their vehicle's strengths and mitigating the weaknesses by not just flopping in on an HA in the middle of a zerg.

Sure, but much heavier cost would force them to do so....

Atm you can afford 3 ESF with full air resources, so why should I be carefull to my ESF? Kill as much as I can and bring another one. And cry in the forums, that I can't kill everybody headless and don't get shoot.

[ShadetheDruid]

Note from the 2-7-2013 hotfix update: Lock-on weapons (A2A Missiles & Lock-on heavy assault weapons)
•Lock-on Angle reduced. Targets must be closer to the center of the crosshair in order to lock-on.

Hopefully this helps a bit, along with the other changes. It's just a bit frustrating when something that already has a higher skill requirement than most things to even do it (like flying), let alone get decent at it, is made even harder when there's something you can't really escape, you know?

Getting bested by a pilot who's good at using their nose gun after a decent dogfight can be a fun experience, spending 80% of my time flying into trees and rocks (i'm not that good at flying low :p ) trying to avoid A2A missiles after the other pilot pretty much just ignores my flares on the other hand gets a bit tiresome after a while.

[Tatwi]

You are more than welcome to remove lock on missile launchers from infantry if you remove all dumbfire rockets from air.

I agree.

1. It's almost impossible to hit an aircraft with a dumbfire, unless the aircraft is sitting still farming. Aircraft should never be allowed to sit still and farm - no one else can, not even tanks.

2. It takes at least 3 people with lock ons to insta-gib an ESF. Yes that's 3 people to counter the one dude in the ESF. Who has the better deal there, eh?

3. Locks can be used to scare away vehicles. That's a great tactic which can buy time for your side to arrive with reinforcements.

4. 30 ESF with rocket pods are going to completely own 30 dudes standing on a cliff with lockons. Period.

5. Dumbfire rocket launchers have those completely useless sights on the top now, which completely block one's view when attempting to lead a shot. Furthermore, leading a shot is 100% guess work, as there isn't any ability to use math to calculate a lead (all feedback I provided in beta...). They would need to revert this design if they got rid of lockons.

Lockons add a positive experience to the balance of game play and only present issues when the numbers of them are out of balance, much like 40 Magriders showing up to fight 5 people at an outpost, etc.

Given that they are going to add in Orbital Strikes, which are the epitome of a skill-less weapon (point, click, win! *sigh*), I doubt that they will remove lockon rocket launchers.

[Rolfski]

Lock-ons do lesser damage for a reason. This game needs new/average player-friendly weapons. Good players use high risk/skill-high reward weapons. Average players are fine with lock-ons.

[ApolloAbove]

There's too much air overall - I agree lock ons have no place in this game sadly I doubt we will ever see a change to them. :(

"So at what point in #PlanetSide2 do we have to much AA? Almost every vehicle now has some form of air deterrent. Why even have a Skyguard?"

I said before, the Skyguard isn't effective unless with either a number of skyguards, or in a squad of such. It's utility is it can keep up with an armored column, and provides a "bubble" of anti-air for the time being. It's purely utility, and very situational as well as that it costs vehicle timers and resources.

With this recent patch tuning to ground vehicles, I thought the increase in armor on the ground would allow for more Skyguards to be fielded, yet we don't see that reflected in gameplay. It's simply too inaccurate and does too little damage alone to be cost effective. (Although, I'd love to see if I couldn't create a skyguard squad for a day, and see how that pans out.)

with other vehicles getting AA abilities, the need for multiple skyguards to provide adequate cover is lessened. Which is good, but it further diminishes the role for dedicated AA.

As we were saying, and in my opinion, there shouldn't be a gated community into organized play, which you say could abuse the mechanics of dedicated AA, lock on rockets, and various other playstyles. New players are instantly put into a squad. They can communicate over VOIP to their squad. These are example of tools to increase organization. Tools in which the Public player is allowed to create organization within the game. In other ideas, http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=52511 I've mentioned making planning and mission generation a factional, public idea instead of a platoon specific one. Now hang on while I get this off-tangent concept back into our discussion.

Skyguards are a situational tool. They are good against Air, and only Air. This greatly diminishes their value to others if there simply is no Air to combat. So, when would you pull a Skyguard? When it's requested. If player generated missions were to be available to the public, the public would respond with pulling situational counters instead of relying on the overall counter of the Annhilator.

[maradine]

I have Op Night footage from Wednesday of just slaughtering an Anni emplacement (with Sunderer support, no less) from the air. In, payload delivered, and out - all inside the flare cycle. And then I go back around and keep doing it. 2-3 infantry kills per attack run. Finally ends when I get greedy and linger over the burster.

I've been very careful to avoid using the term here, but I'm starting to come around to the position that lock-on complaints should be designated as tears. Honestly guys. Smart players will rule the game, no matter what they're wearing and/or what cockpit they're in.

Skyguards are a situational tool. They are good against Air, and only Air. This greatly diminishes their value to others if there simply is no Air to combat. So, when would you pull a Skyguard? When it's requested. If player generated missions were to be available to the public, the public would respond with pulling situational counters instead of relying on the overall counter of the Annhilator.

I really would like to see some SG love, but I'm not sure how they'd do it now. I think magazine boosts is probably the only reasonable thing they can do in this environment.

[Baneblade]

Lock-ons do lesser damage for a reason. This game needs new/average player-friendly weapons. Good players use high risk/skill-high reward weapons. Average players are fine with lock-ons.

So, how many ESFs have you killed with a Decimator?

Bet I've killed more with my Vanguard's Titan AP turret.

[Tatwi]

I really would like to see some SG love, but I'm not sure how they'd do it now. I think magazine boosts is probably the only reasonable thing they can do in this environment.
They could make hits by a Skygaurd physically kick and rock the aircraft a little, getting more pronounced with each hit. That would be distracting to the pilot without being super powerful for the SG. Something unique for that specialization.

[maradine]

That would also be awesome.

[Badjuju]

I would remove G2G guided entirely and replace G2A with a proximity detonating flack rocket personally. Make it very fast, give it no drop, and allow it to auto detonate upon being in proximity of an air craft for a relatively high amount of damage. If not limit range G2A rockets can lock on and fallow.

[Bloodlet]

WTF, Lock-ons have no place? IN A WAR GAME?

Please pass to the left.

Agreed. Some people apparently want this to be space world war 2.

[Neutral Calypso]

Being someone who has studied real world weapons systems, I could never understand how a flak gun could have a longer range than a freekin missile.

[maradine]

Don't go down that road, mate - we have planes that can't climb beyond 1km and radar that only works over 100m.

[MrBloodworth]

Don't go down that road, mate - we have planes that can't climb beyond 1km and radar that only works over 100m.

200m, and it can pick up ground units of non vehicle size shape and material. :D

[bpostal]

Has everyone forgotten WHY everybody and their mother bought Annies? Because aircraft scale even worse than lockon rockets. Someone try to explain to me how it requires any less skill than hovering over a spawn room with a Zephyer.
The real problem, in my opinion, stems from the poor design choice to make the only hard counter to air, air. If that was true then hellfire rockets wouldn't even be in the game and every starting mosquito/reaver/scythe would be a wasp, to fulfill it's intended role.

I can't wait for people to try and claim that the Phoenixes ability to kill someone from around two corners, over a wall and around another corner is pure skill.

[VR Draco]

Being someone who has studied real world weapons systems, I could never understand how a flak gun could have a longer range than a freekin missile.

Realism and fun, are (not allways) a contradiction.

If you would do everything realistic, ESFs could kill each other from over the whole map.
Everybody would die or be heavy wounded because of 1-2 bullets.
And much much more, what would be realy annoying if it would be made realistic.

Some realism is fun...but you must find the right dose...to much and it would be horrifying...

[Rothnang]

The real problem with allot of these issues is that people want to specialize so much and just do what THEY WANT TO DO and not switch kits, weapons, or tactics to defeat a group or force that is having sucess.

Whenever you identify the problem as "people" while you're trying to make a product you're doing it wrong.

[maradine]

200m, and it can pick up ground units of non vehicle size shape and material. :D

Through indestructable walls. :D

[MrBloodworth]

Through indestructable walls. :D

Nurf Trees!

[Kerrec]

Make Lock-on weaponry really screw up the ability of the target, but not kill them. Sort of like an EMP grenade on a rocket, but the effect is not total shut down.

For example for an ESF:

- Hit an ESF with a lock on and the lift and descend buttons swap for X seconds.

You can swap controls like this, at random across multiple systems:

- Pitch up and down get swapped
- Roll left and right get swapped
- Fire weapon and reload buttons get swapped
- ect.

Anyone that is used to flying with inverted controls can attest how screwed up it becomes when the controls are not inverted. I personally can't fly any vehicle worth a damn if my pitch controls are not inverted.

Make up your own control "difficulties" for every vehicle in the game.

These "difficulties" CAN be overcome with skill, so the "skilled" players can still prove their skills. But the lock on weapons will give the infantry a way to fight back without giving them an easy way to exploit it. I mean, there's no point in running 40 HA's with lock-on weapons if all it does is cause bad players to crash and good people to fly away.

Win win.

[MrBloodworth]

Some people talk as if there are zero counters to being locked on.

[Rothnang]

- Hit an ESF with a lock on and the lift and descend buttons swap for X seconds.

Control inputs are clientside, if you try to turn them into a gameplay element it will be trivial for hackers to make a utility that allows you to simply ignore it.

[VaderShake]

Whenever you identify the problem as "people" while you're trying to make a product you're doing it wrong.

The "people" who are criticizing the lock-on's are just 1 segment of "people" who play PS2.

I did not make PS2, but the segment of "people/customers" have been complaining about lock-on rocket also have access to the tools to counter lock-on weapons but they are choosing not to use them and would rather have the lock-ons removed instead of consider tweaking them or giving he game time to refine them.

I'm just saying the tools are there to counter lock-on's just because a certain population of "players/people/customers" don't want to use them or do something different is not reason enough to take them away from others who do use them or will counter them.

[VaderShake]

Some people talk as if there are zero counters to being locked on.

I know... point blank the tools are in the game to counter lock-ons.

[MaxDamage]

People complaining about lock-on rockets have no place in this game.

[Loban]

I would almost be ok with getting rid of ground lock-on rockets (though I may never hit a magrider again from range), but if you get rid of air lock-on rockets, you may as well get rid of rockets altogether. It is VERY rare to be able to hit an ESF with a dumb fire rocket.

[Kerrec]

Control inputs are clientside, if you try to turn them into a gameplay element it will be trivial for hackers to make a utility that allows you to simply ignore it.

True, but hit detection is client side.

You choose to draw the line between hit detection and controls manipulation?

Cheaters will find ways to do what they want to do regardless. Catching them in the act is a better "tool" than trying to prevent it in the first place.

[Ghoest9]

Shoulder fired AA lock on rockets are cool.

I agree everything else is bad.

[Rothnang]

The "people" who are criticizing the lock-on's are just 1 segment of "people" who play PS2.


It's more than just people complaining about Lockon weapons that you brought up though, it's the fact that there are two general schools of thought when it comes to playing this game.
One school of thought goes: Players should specialize in their favorite unit, and get to use it at all times because that's how they have the most fun with the game.
The other school of thought goes: All the different units are tools you have to accomplish the task of defeating an enemy, you just pull whatever you need at the time.

That division is a pretty substantial issue in this game, because it creates a situation where the devs can't easily chart a clear course for all their players. You can't really call either side "the problem" though, because they are both big enough that losing them would really hurt the game.

This lockon missile thing is just one of the many manifestations of this problem.

[bpostal]

..there are two general schools of thought when it comes to playing this game.
One school of thought goes: Players should specialize in their favorite unit, and get to use it at all times because that's how they have the most fun with the game.
The other school of thought goes: All the different units are tools you have to accomplish the task of defeating an enemy, you just pull whatever you need at the time....

I can get behind that line of thinking. I think the main issues stems from the first school of thought when their preferred playstyle is at the cost of someone else's playstyle.

It's worded weirdly but I think it gets my point across and I can't think of a better way to put it atm.

[Eliphas]

Skill or no skill is not the issue here. This game takes place in a sci-fi setting and the idea that the development of invanced tech for missle guidance is in question is retarted. The reason for the develpment of the Javelin command launch unit for the US military was to give the basic Soldiers or Marines the ability to reposition immediately after firing, or reload to engage another threat. The gun itself replaced the sword becuase it took years to train with the sword but any jack off can point and shoot. Its the same idea with the crossbow over the bow. So stop wanting to nerf every thing and learn the skill and tactics to over come the weapon systems on the battle field. I mean come on are you really saying that the civilization that masterd space travil but did not come up with the idea of fire and forget missles........really?

[psijaka]

Is the presence of lock ons really such a problem? Sure, they are low skill, but they do less damage, are often dodged, and are useless at anything outside of their intended role. And it's not as if they are a one hit kill.

And SoE are hardly likely to remove the lock ons at this stage in the game's lifecycle - a lot of people will have spent SC on them.

[TheSaltySeagull]

I personally dont have a problem with lock-on weapons considering there are several counter measures available to aircraft and vehicles to combat them plus the increasing long time it takes to actually get a lock(the annie is like 3 secs now before factoring in stealth). When in a prowler lock-on weapons are never really an issue for me personally.

Plus if you were to remove lock-on you would need to replace it with something else because current dumb-fire rockets are not effective at shooting down fast moving aircraft and their slow speed makes hitting tanks at range ineffective. You would need to introduce infantry flak weapons(besides the burster) and drastically increase projectile speed of rockets to compensate for the lack of lock-on. Or atleast wait for ES based weapons to be introduced.

[Roy Awesome]

After sleeping and thinking about the topic, I think that forcing the shooter to maintain lock the entire time the rocket is flying towards the target is the easiest and best solution for this. It reduces the effective rate of fire of the rocket and forces the user of the lock-on to actually do something to keep the rocket moving, rather than just reloading.

I think this would also make a2a rockets more fun and skill based.

[MrBloodworth]

That's a different rocket system entirely.

[psijaka]

That's a different rocket system entirely.

Agreed.

I would like to see something like a TOW wire guided rocket turret introduced for engis. But this is in addition to the existing launchers.

[ShadetheDruid]

Skill or no skill is not the issue here. This game takes place in a sci-fi setting and the idea that the development of invanced tech for missle guidance is in question is retarted. The reason for the develpment of the Javelin command launch unit for the US military was to give the basic Soldiers or Marines the ability to reposition immediately after firing, or reload to engage another threat. The gun itself replaced the sword becuase it took years to train with the sword but any jack off can point and shoot. Its the same idea with the crossbow over the bow. So stop wanting to nerf every thing and learn the skill and tactics to over come the weapon systems on the battle field. I mean come on are you really saying that the civilization that masterd space travil but did not come up with the idea of fire and forget missles........really?

Yeah, screw lockons, bring on the unmanned nuke carrying drones we can control from a continent away! Surely they would've developed those, right?

[Eliphas]

After sleeping and thinking about the topic, I think that forcing the shooter to maintain lock the entire time the rocket is flying towards the target is the easiest and best solution for this. It reduces the effective rate of fire of the rocket and forces the user of the lock-on to actually do something to keep the rocket moving, rather than just reloading.

I think this would also make a2a rockets more fun and skill based.

That defeats the purpose of the weapon system, the whole reason that fire and for get missiles were made was so the shooter could get cover and maneuver on the enemy. Thats what makes the lock on system better then the dumb fire rockets you know that the chances are high that you will score a hit while taking cover. And to get this out of the way a rocket is a dumb fire munition where as a missile is guided.

[Eliphas]

Yeah, screw lockons, bring on the unmanned nuke carrying drones we can control from a continent away! Surely they would've developed those, right?

Hmmmm can you say Orbital Strike...

[Maniya]

In my honest opinion, all sort of lock on type of rocket launchers should not be abled to get resupplied from any sort of ammo pack such as engineers. If you want to resupply your lock on rocket launcher, you should use either sunderer nearby or use weapon terminals.

And, the way the lock on something is really easy at the moment. I use annihilator, and this thing is just requires absolute no skills at all. SOE really need to work on this issue as soon as possible.

Fixing render distance issue will be hard for SOE i assume. More you make things render, will result huge lag on performance for most of users who plays PS2 at the moment. And i don't think they can fix this soon enough anyway. This thing is the problem but still you can fix those two issues first to make things bit better than current state. i guess.

[maradine]

I think the ammo resupply pack is an entirely different issue, frankly. Nothing should be coming out of that but primary weapon rounds. But, that's neither here nor there.

[bpostal]

I think the ammo resupply pack is an entirely different issue, frankly. Nothing should be coming out of that but primary weapon rounds. But, that's neither here nor there.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TT81IaZhFYE/Tb_FBE-7ysI/AAAAAAAAAF4/zq1JRV4KAbc/s1600/textmining-worms-copy.jpg

[Killjaeden]

Biggest problem for players is still to react to a new situation.
Just one example - we tried to defend Zervan and there where quite a couple of mossies and at least one lib. One guy manned the AA turret and started shooting, and was quickly killed obviously. Do you think anybody noticed this, and the fact that they fell victim to repeated air attacks, and spawned a burster? Nooo.... they just respawned, ran to wherever the infantry zerg was and be crushed by combined arms.
The lib was about to begin camping the spawn
I spawned my dual burster and blunted a few ESF noses and scared off the lib, but it was already too late and enemy infantry and tanks soon camped the spawn and after the lib returned it was completely over.

People simply act stupid if something is not at ground level right infront of their noses. That applies to aircrafts, LA sitting on roofs/ on top of those towers like on the crown and Infiltratros at high vantage points. If there would have been two other bursters with me, it would have allowed friendly air into the area and make short work of the groundassault. But nooo... Stupid zerg.

Same with Tawrich Tech, when TR was still north... We took it, our Zerg was crashed, thus gave birth to a TR zerg. I spawned at the most western sattelite, used my burster to combat the 8+ ESF and libs that where camping the upper turret levels. If there would have been 2 other bright bulbs doing the same we would have crushed their airassault. But noo... Too complicated to spawn a counter for something that isn't on ground level.

And that's with every faction. There where times where i basically shot clay pigeons and wondered why the hell nobody goes to the damn sunderer and uses an AA max against me? I was able to paralyze the whole zergassault with just another ESF as backup at the Stronghold (TR parked behind the C building) which enabled our ground guys to push and whipe them out completely. It's like a dear in headlight.
"Oh no, it's flying. I can't do anything against it. Better pretend i can't see it, it won't see me as well then. ...Oh shit that didn't work, better create complaint on internetz about air"

That doesn't work for tanks surprisingly, because they realise "hey, they don't fly. I can spawn tanks too! And i have a launcher..."

[Roy Awesome]

That defeats the purpose of the weapon system, the whole reason that fire and for get missiles were made was so the shooter could get cover and maneuver on the enemy. Thats what makes the lock on system better then the dumb fire rockets you know that the chances are high that you will score a hit while taking cover. And to get this out of the way a rocket is a dumb fire munition where as a missile is guided.

Why should a balanced shooter contain a weapon that allows you to fire a round, run away, hide in a place where you can't be shot, and the weapon still hits and does damage? Does this seem balanced?

I feel like the lock-ons are an improper response to other issues this game has, and it's a rabbit hole I am very afraid that SOE is going to continue to go down. Simply because you can fire and forget lock-on rockets, they actually stride very far into the Pay-To-Win territory. You pay smedbux and get a weapon that simply cannot miss unless the other person does something to dodge it (flare, perfect maneuver, hide behind terrain). If you attain critical mass with these weapons, they can lock an entire faction into their warpgate without any effort. The only thing nerfing the damage or reload time of these rockets does is change the number of players to attain critical mass, and that doesn't fix the problem.

You need to introduce some level of skill for the shooter otherwise these guns will live in a perpetual buff/nerf cycle. The only way to break it is to change the mechanic.

EDIT: You can also balance lock-ons by reducing the number of them available on the field. This kind of artificial restriction works VERY well in other games (The rocket in Halo, the lock-ons in bf3, etc) but that strategy is the antithesis of the goals of Planetside 2. If I were designing these in any other shooter, I'd balance them that way. Since you simply can't without changing the identity of the game, I say remove the fire and forget mechanic.

[bpostal]

... say remove the fire and forget mechanic.


If they removed the Annie, they'd only bring it back when they introduce empire specific AV weapons.

[VR Draco]

@ Roy Awesome
Reduceing the number of Annihilators? Sure, if the number of ESF and Liberators is also reduced drasticaly.

And you think it is unbalanced because I can shoot a rocket at you and find cover?
I think its unbalanced, because you can hover hundreds meter away and blow my ass up with rocket pods and I have no chance to even hit you, if I'm not in an AA-Max or Skyguard (if there would be no AA-lock)

Are you people can't think more than 1 meter?

And to this ammunition idea. Sure, then give the ESF and Liberators only ONE magazine, NO reload in air.


I'm not saying air is overpowered, but if you take away the lock-on AA launchers, air will dominate EVERYTHING, because what should they fear? Single Burster-Max, who can't defend on infantry? Skyguards who can't defend anything but air?
The thing is, the heavy is the most played class and because of this there are quite a number of AA-lockon in a base. The best thing of the lockon is, that it SCARES pilots and they keep distance. A single AA-Max is no thread, either a single Skyguard. But a single lock-on can scare the pilots, because they have no idea how many rockets are locking in. A single AA-lock-on is no thread, because it wont kill a ESF, but it is much harder to say where a AA-lock-on is, Skyguard and MAX are giving a nice target if they start shooting.


In short...if you want to remove the lock-on, then the air has to be nerfed dramaticly, or everything will get even worse.

[JumpJetter]

I'm for the Radar guided rockets, where you have to keep lock until impact, or rocket keeps going. Also, increase range so that it can deter air from long range, but the missile won't be as maneuverable, so it would be easy to avoid, but make a pilot think thrice before coming closer. They would just be dumb fire against ground targets.

[Roy Awesome]

I'm not saying air is overpowered, but if you take away the lock-on AA launchers, air will dominate EVERYTHING, because what should they fear?


This is EXACTLY why I think that Lock-ons are an improper response to an actual problem. This response actually adds more issues, where the proper response (Making Bursters good, nerfing A2G farm-rockets, Making the skyguard actually kill things. etc) would fix the problem.

[Ghoest9]

This is a sham argument.

ESF players who liked being awesome over powered are pushing a concept that seems good simply because it will help return them to awesomeness.


If you want to force the shoulder fired launchers to track the the whole time - thats fine just make sure you double their airspeed.
ESF pilots want the change ooly because the they want to be able to run out of lock on range every time they get shot at.

[Velkkonen]

Whats even stranger is a future where lock-on technology doesn't exist. As a frequent flyer of ESF's, I just don't see any real issue with the concept of there being lock on rocket launchers available. Tweaked? Sure. Removed? Absolutely not.

[CrankyTRex]

Yeah, there's way too much AA now. It's pretty difficult to have any fun dogfighting when everywhere you go some guy on the ground is locking on with a missile you can't see, even if you're at max altitude and in territory your empire appears to own.

[BIGGByran]

You have 100 HA with AA Lock ons. They aim and lock on in about 3 secs assuming they don't lose their aim, then fire. You counter measure with Flares. All rockets have missed and cannot lock on to you for ... 4 secs? So thats about (at best) 10 secs for you to do what you need and get out. 3 Sec for Aim and Lock (no lost of aim) + 4 Sec of Flare (assuming you flare immediately) + 3 Sec for Aim and Lock again = 10 Seconds + 1 or 2 seconds for the missle to get to you, if you aren't already getting out of the area.

Fly in the area, let them lock on, wait half a sec, flare, lay down the thunder, and gtfo before they can lock on again.

And all honesty, I do feel bad for the ESF, as all the buffs for ground to counter Libs hurt the ESF a lot. I think the better solution would be to increase the length of time it takes to lock on ESF by 1 second (maybe).

One game, we had a flying squad and they never complained about AA HA, only max and skygaurd I guess because Flares have no effect of Flak.

[CrankyTRex]

You have 100 HA with AA Lock ons. They aim and lock on in about 3 secs assuming they don't lose their aim, then fire. You counter measure with Flares. All rockets have missed and cannot lock on to you for ... 4 secs? So thats about (at best) 10 secs for you to do what you need and get out. 3 Sec for Aim and Lock (no lost of aim) + 4 Sec of Flare (assuming you flare immediately) + 3 Sec for Aim and Lock again = 10 Seconds + 1 or 2 seconds for the missle to get to you, if you aren't already getting out of the area.

Fly in the area, let them lock on, wait half a sec, flare, lay down the thunder, and gtfo before they can lock on again.

And all honesty, I do feel bad for the ESF, as all the buffs for ground to counter Libs hurt the ESF a lot. I think the better solution would be to increase the length of time it takes to lock on ESF by 1 second (maybe).

One game, we had a flying squad and they never complained about AA HA, only max and skygaurd I guess because Flares have no effect of Flak.

Assuming you have unlocked the flares and have them equipped. And you identified the specific area they're firing from to know which way to run. And you are not attempting to engage enemy aircraft such that it would preclude running.

[BIGGByran]

Assuming you have unlocked the flares and have them equipped. And you identified the specific area they're firing from to know which way to run. And you are not attempting to engage enemy aircraft such that it would preclude running.

Isn't this like saying, "I was fighting this Prowler with my Vanguard and we were fighting fierce but then a HA on his side rocketed me in the back."?

Dogfights are great and all, but if there are other enemies in the area, they are going to try to shoot you down. So if I see a friendly and enemy aircraft, I will try to help the friendly out. I'm not gonna just sit there and watch.

[almalino]

Yesterday I fired lock on rockets may be 100 times and know what? Not a single kill! Of course a lot of kill assist.

SO, I would say lock on rockets are not overpowered. Use flairs and run away if you feel being hit.

When I'm in tank I often see a message someone locked on me. Know what? It doesn't hurt my game.

[Baneblade]

Yeah, there's way too much AA now. It's pretty difficult to have any fun dogfighting when everywhere you go some guy on the ground is locking on with a missile you can't see, even if you're at max altitude and in territory your empire appears to own.

If you are at max altitude, the guy locking you isn't on the ground.

[Rothnang]

The really big problem I have with lockon missiles vs. air is simply that just like AA guns there are no diminishing returns to using a lot of them on the same target. Liberators and Galaxies can't turn and burn like a fighter can and quickly get out of a dangerous area, and they can't hug a piece of cover and quickly slip in and out like a tank can, so they are simply subject to a numbers game, where if there are enough launchers on the ground they die without being able to really do anything about it.

Tanks vs. Lockons is sort of a different matter. It's still cheap because a tank has no way of knowing if he's about to get peppered with 10 annihilators or if its just one lone guy, but at least when it's ground warfare the tank can have a standoff with the HAs by using cover and repair, so a tank can occupy a large number of people with anti tank weapons instead of just having to leave the battlefield.

[bpostal]

The really big problem I have with lockon missiles vs. air is simply that just like AA guns there are no diminishing returns to using a lot of them on the same target. ..

That's actually a pretty good point. Perhaps some kind of mechanic that shows the # of people who are currently locked on a given target inside the Annie/SKEP/Grounder HUD and slows lockon time once a certain amount of locks are given, say 150% of the target's life. It's still more than enough to destroy whatever is being locked on, but there may be a chance for a pilot/driver to flee with his/her life.

To be fair though, I still don't see the problem that most people are having with these lockons. You've got flares and you've got smoke.

[Mordelicius]

Aircrafts are fine. If anything, they still need a nerf since they are still arguably overpowered. Pilots should be glad they are letting them fly this easy. I'd say SOE is letting pilots do it because they have a lot of sidegrades/upgrades to sell.

- Aircrafts are very cheap (cost)
- Aircrafts have high dps
- Aircrafts have high ambush rating (can come out of nowhere)
- Aircrafts accelerate at a high rate (even from hover!).
- Aircrafts have high speed
- Aircrafts instantly kill infantry
- Aircrafts kill tanks easily (only mags can really evade them)
- Aircrafts have access to space most units can't go to.
- Aircrafts kill other aircraft, tanks, sunderers, flash and any infantry, and turrets. In short, they destroy everything.
- Only certain units can hit back aircrafts accurately. If you are an Engineer, Medic, LA, Infiltrator or Heavy Assault with dumbfire, you're practically out of the equation. Sure, ESFs take damage from dumbfire and small arms, but they kill infantry instantly, it won't matter.

If pilots really want lock-on rockets removed. Then somethings have to happen first:
- Make Aircrafts only twice as fast as infantry (at maximum speed). That would be perfect right there.
- Or, make them accelerate from hover very slowly, cut their ammo capacity to 1/4th, with 1/5th the damage and armor/health halved.
- Or, make them cost 20,000 resources.

[Rothnang]

That's actually a pretty good point. Perhaps some kind of mechanic that shows the # of people who are currently locked on a given target inside the Annie/SKEP/Grounder HUD and slows lockon time once a certain amount of locks are given, say 150% of the target's life. It's still more than enough to destroy whatever is being locked on, but there may be a chance for a pilot/driver to flee with his/her life.

To be fair though, I still don't see the problem that most people are having with these lockons. You've got flares and you've got smoke.


Flares and Smoke are supposed to be the feature that gives diminishing returns to trying to lock a ton of missiles onto the same target, because one flare defeats unlimited missiles in theory, but the fact that you can only activate them every 25 seconds (And that's with 2000 certs invested) makes them really unfit in that role.

Defensive play, like using cover, needs to work by increasing your survivability while reducing your damage output. That way if a ton of enemies are all firing at the same target he just goes to a full defensive posture and becomes suppressed. That works perfectly with ground units, which is why you rarely ever see situations where tanks just get instagibbed because so many anti-tank weapons are shooting them at the same time, but it doesn't work at all for air units. To some extent it works for fighters, because they can fly evasive maneuvers that really help to mitigate incoming damage, but that doesn't at all work for Liberators and Galaxies, which are 5-10 times bigger than a fighter and not anywhere near as maneuverable.

It's that interplay between defensive and offensive play that really allows teamwork to flourish. Whenever someone says aircraft should just use teamwork to defeat AA they don't seem to understand that you need to have the option for defensive play to really have an effective team. The guy who's taking the fire ducks into cover while the guy who's free to shoot takes some good shots - that's how a good team becomes a force multiplier. In the air however the only way someone can take the AA fire to give other people a chance to shoot is by getting hit with it and dying. That's not teamwork, that's just a Banzai charge.

[Baneblade]

ESFs are not supposed to be hanging around long enough to even be destroyed by lock on AA. Their role is fast attack and air superiority. Fast attack doesn't mean expending all ordinance against ground forces and leaving when you need to rearm. Air superiority means destroying other aircraft.

Until ESF rocket spam is removed, us ground units will continue to carry our concealed missiles.

Also, the added XP for damaging Air isn't helping you guys either. I normally wouldn't even shoot at a Lib or a Gal, but now... free XP is fun XP.

[VR Draco]

ONLY activate it every 25 seconds?
First, lock immunity 5 seconds and second lock time.

If I assume 5 seconds immunity and 3 seconds lock time you have 17 seconds for a shoot.
This is just fine, what do you want, Flares every 15 seconds?

Take cover works for air units as well as for tanks, but not that easy.
There are enough hills to "dive" behind. If you are attacking a defended position on a plain field, its your fault.

Sure Liberators are quite heavy, but also is their firepower and Galaxies are not killed that easy. I don't see any problem from this view.

And teamplay against AA is not MORE air...get some ground-guys and kill the AA.
If it is an Annhilator-team, snipers are the best counter, most gunners stand still while locking-on.

[maradine]

Flares and Smoke are supposed to be the feature that gives diminishing returns to trying to lock a ton of missiles onto the same target, because one flare defeats unlimited missiles in theory, but the fact that you can only activate them every 25 seconds (And that's with 2000 certs invested) makes them really unfit in that role.


You're kidding, right? That's a flare for every attack run you make. That is the functional equivalent of missile immunity.

[Rothnang]

Since when does an attack run take 5 seconds? In most of the regions of the game it takes more than 5 seconds just to get from the point where you render to the enemy defenders to a point where you can reasonably take a shot at them, and just as long to get out of their area of influence again.


Also this whole moronic "Get ground to kill the AA for you" argument. By the time ground has enough influence in the region to root out all AA guns and HAs with launchers the battle is over completely without air. Especially AA launchers you pretty much can't get rid of without just flat out depriving the opponent of a spawn location - AKA winning the fight before air can ever move in.

[VR Draco]

Then you should not be able to farm kills in those regions and search for another place.

There HAS to be a method to keep air away.

And it is not 5 seconds, its at least 8, if you got stealth even longer. And you should not move in, hover like 2 min and farm your ass up. FAST in, shooting out a missle pod and get the hell out. If you do it this way, you would get far less kills, which is good, but you would not be shoot down.

And you should not fire your damn Flares at the start of the attack. Use it wisely quite a few seconds AFTER the missiles are in the air. Then you have 5 seconds immunity and 3-5 seconds lock-on time AND the time the missile need to fly to you. Enough time to get away.

But not for a damn farming hovering ESF and this is good.

Just counter the arguments Mordelicious brought.
ESF ARE cheap, they ARE powerfull, they kill EVERYTHING, so why not have a good counter? I don't see the point...

[maradine]

Since when does an attack run take 5 seconds? In most of the regions of the game it takes more than 5 seconds just to get from the point where you render to the enemy defenders to a point where you can reasonably take a shot at them, and just as long to get out of their area of influence again.


8 seconds, which is your initial lockup timer, missile launch buffer, flare impulse and buffer, and second lockup timer. And that's minus stealth. And I'm about to show you exactly how that works, and exactly what you can do in those 8 seconds.

[CrankyTRex]

Isn't this like saying, "I was fighting this Prowler with my Vanguard and we were fighting fierce but then a HA on his side rocketed me in the back."?

Dogfights are great and all, but if there are other enemies in the area, they are going to try to shoot you down. So if I see a friendly and enemy aircraft, I will try to help the friendly out. I'm not gonna just sit there and watch.

Perhaps, but the tank can engage infantry just as easily as another tank. An aircraft loaded for AtA combat is pretty useless against ground targets, outside of spotting. Plus as Rothnang mentioned, tanks can take a defensive posture whereas an aircraft pretty much has to run.

If every engagement has to last as long as your average strafing run and absolutely requires flares to avoid getting blown out of the sky, then you might as well just get some rocket pods and go back to farming the ground people.

Therein lies the problem, of course. Every rambo on the ground wants to be able to single-handedly drive off/kill the ground attack aircraft because it's frustrating being killed by something that can just fly off/hover there with virtual impunity, when the idea should be calling in your AtA fighters to give you air superiority so you don't have to put up with that. Perhaps if the mission system were in play where any squad leader could pop up "hey, we need some close air support over here", we wouldn't need lock on AA.

If you are at max altitude, the guy locking you isn't on the ground.

Well then the game isn't rendering the supposed other fighter sometimes and the damage from their AtA missile was reduced from range or some such.

[Eliphas]

Why should a balanced shooter contain a weapon that allows you to fire a round, run away, hide in a place where you can't be shot, and the weapon still hits and does damage? Does this seem balanced?

I feel like the lock-ons are an improper response to other issues this game has, and it's a rabbit hole I am very afraid that SOE is going to continue to go down. Simply because you can fire and forget lock-on rockets, they actually stride very far into the Pay-To-Win territory. You pay smedbux and get a weapon that simply cannot miss unless the other person does something to dodge it (flare, perfect maneuver, hide behind terrain). If you attain critical mass with these weapons, they can lock an entire faction into their warpgate without any effort. The only thing nerfing the damage or reload time of these rockets does is change the number of players to attain critical mass, and that doesn't fix the problem.

You need to introduce some level of skill for the shooter otherwise these guns will live in a perpetual buff/nerf cycle. The only way to break it is to change the mechanic.

EDIT: You can also balance lock-ons by reducing the number of them available on the field. This kind of artificial restriction works VERY well in other games (The rocket in Halo, the lock-ons in bf3, etc) but that strategy is the antithesis of the goals of Planetside 2. If I were designing these in any other shooter, I'd balance them that way. Since you simply can't without changing the identity of the game, I say remove the fire and forget mechanic.

This I feel is the issue with the way games are going. The whole "balance" bs that everyone is complaining about. I say let them eat cake. There have to be counters to everything and this idea of being equal in everything is crap. The cloakers get the SMG and pepole come out of the wood work and complain. AA gets buff pepole complain, mag gets a much needed nerf and more complaints. I understand that this is a game but I like some reality in it since its basic principal is on real life and real life is not fair. If everyone had their way there would not be any classes just pick the crap you want and go at it. But I am sure that some one would find something to complain about. Its the same issue with how the empires were supposed to have different play mechanics but that is slowly being waterd down. I do not think SOE or the dev team are the issue it is the "I want to have everything, god mode, twitch playing, balance" thats wrong with games. A boot should get rolled by a vet but learning and building on something just is to hard for players in the age of call of duty. I am sure that the orbital strike will be met with an uproar of complaints. The fact is there should always be a trump to something that is balance. If you have a ESF I should be able to get a fire and forget missile to trump you. So the consensus is that I should have to while being shot at by small arms fire, tanks and ESF hold a target with my reticle the whole time is retarted. Thats some balance there.

EDIT: By the way BF3 really didnt have this so called holy balance. A pilot could equip chaff anti missiles and the gunner could rotate flares, almost makes it imposiable to counter on foot with lock on. The amount of SMAW and RPG fire in every hall way screamed balance. Balance the range or lock on timer but to skip to removing the fire and forget from the game will usher in an age of air rolling over everything and Planetside 2 will become a flight simulator instead of a war simulator. BF3 also does not restrict the amount of engineers with Javelins. The whole team could have them if they wanted to. The player had to earn the weapon system by play time not cash. Want balance go stand on a rope.

[BIGGByran]

Perhaps, but the tank can engage infantry just as easily as another tank. An aircraft loaded for AtA combat is pretty useless against ground targets, outside of spotting. Plus as Rothnang mentioned, tanks can take a defensive posture whereas an aircraft pretty much has to run.

If every engagement has to last as long as your average strafing run and absolutely requires flares to avoid getting blown out of the sky, then you might as well just get some rocket pods and go back to farming the ground people.

Therein lies the problem, of course. Every rambo on the ground wants to be able to single-handedly drive off/kill the ground attack aircraft because it's frustrating being killed by something that can just fly off/hover there with virtual impunity, when the idea should be calling in your AtA fighters to give you air superiority so you don't have to put up with that. Perhaps if the mission system were in play where any squad leader could pop up "hey, we need some close air support over here", we wouldn't need lock on AA.


I do feel for ESF. But Lock on are the only way we can defend ourselves. I think the only people b!tching about this issue are the Solo Flyers, ones who farm easy kill with rocket pods, their once 600 kills per run has now dropped to maybe 100. If they run with a platoon/squad and coordinated with the ground troops, they would be much better off.

It takes no skill to fire a lock on rocket, but rocket pods are the same thing. But 1 ESF Rocket pod can kill many enemies without reloading while 1 HA with lock on cannot kill 1 ESF. It takes what? 3 shots to kill an ESF. So the ratio is 3 HA Locks On to 1 ESF(without flares). With flares, who knows, ESF can kill countless number of infantry and 100000000000000 HA with Lock On can't even kill 1 ESF (if the ESF pilot is smart).

I don't mind if HA Lock ons are removed, but they would also have to remove rocket pods. When I get killed by a pilot using their nose gun, I say, "Man that pilot is skilled!" cause it takes real skill to kill infrantry with the nose gun and I don't feel like "omg, f*cking rocket pods."

[Thunderhawk]

I don't mind if HA Lock ons are removed, but they would also have to remove rocket pods. When I get killed by a pilot using their nose gun, I say, "Man that pilot is skilled!" cause it takes real skill to kill infrantry with the nose gun and I don't feel like "omg, f*cking rocket pods."

I think EVERY dedicated ESF pilot would sell his first born and give his left arm if we limited ESFs shooting infantry with Nose gun (Rockets are purley AV weapons) and in return we had 0 (ZERO) G2A rockets.......

ROCKET PODS can only damage Vehicles, MAXs, and other ESF/Liberators/Galaxies/Turrets

Lock On G2A Weapons removed from game......


Sadly thats never going to happen.

[maradine]

I wouldn't sign up for that.

[Rothnang]

Killing infantry with a rotary gun isn't that hard if they aren't shooting back. It's just next to impossible if you aren't hovering.

[CrankyTRex]

I do feel for ESF. But Lock on are the only way we can defend ourselves.

That's not true at all. Infantry has both the static AA turrets located all over the place and flak arms for Maxes. At least on Indar I think the turrets are spread out well enough that if you have people manning them, you can keep a lot of the sky clear. The problem from before was that it didn't result in any kind of points so people didn't do it. Now you get XP if you do enough damage, which I think is great.

That's why I'm ok with flak. Flak is annoying, and does hurt if you're caught hovering, but it also comes from targets I can definitely see who have to be out in the open so they can be targeted in response, and it becomes an exchange of skill wherein my ability to manipulate my fighter is up against your ability to aim.

And really, you shouldn't have to be defending yourselves against air power; you should be calling A2A pilots like me to come and handle that for you. That's our job in the game, and we are happy to assist. :)


I think the only people b!tching about this issue are the Solo Flyers, ones who farm easy kill with rocket pods, their once 600 kills per run has now dropped to maybe 100. If they run with a platoon/squad and coordinated with the ground troops, they would be much better off.


I am generally a solo pilot, but that's because it's something I can have fun doing when my outfit members are not around. I don't have rocket pods unlocked, and if I did, I don't know how often I'd use them since I enjoy air combat more.


It takes no skill to fire a lock on rocket, but rocket pods are the same thing. But 1 ESF Rocket pod can kill many enemies without reloading while 1 HA with lock on cannot kill 1 ESF. It takes what? 3 shots to kill an ESF. So the ratio is 3 HA Locks On to 1 ESF(without flares). With flares, who knows, ESF can kill countless number of infantry and 100000000000000 HA with Lock On can't even kill 1 ESF (if the ESF pilot is smart).

I don't mind if HA Lock ons are removed, but they would also have to remove rocket pods. When I get killed by a pilot using their nose gun, I say, "Man that pilot is skilled!" cause it takes real skill to kill infrantry with the nose gun and I don't feel like "omg, f*cking rocket pods."

There are several different things in play here. Firstly, I suspect the ratio of infantry to air power is far far greater than 3 to 1. I would guess somewhere upwards of 10 to 1.

Secondly, as I've said you have to actually have flares. Not only are they unlocks, but you have to chose them over other options. If you don't have them (or their timer is up), and 3 nevermind 100000000000000 HA lock on to you, you can only run and pray. If flares were a standard power of all aircraft, then it would mean something to me that people have them.

Thirdly, there's no way to tell where that's coming from as a pilot. The lock on warning is not different than the A2A one (unless I'm missing something), and infantry is the last thing to render. No tracer fire either.

Fourthly, I'd be ok with switching rocket pods to dumb bombs. I think that would definitely make it a more difficult skill to master.

Lastly, you *should* be like "omg, f*cking rocket pods." Followed by "Where are our pilots!?!?" Followed by "gotta find some cover" and/or "where's the nearest turret?" (It's really not hard to kill people with the nose gun if you can hover and zoom, by the way.)

I've said before, I think this is really just a function of infantry not usually having a place to run. Tunnels are a good start, but we need forests and canopies and all kinds of things that allow infantry to move around less molested.

[SixShooter]

If armies of the future somehow un-learn lock-on technology, might as well be fighting with a board with nails in it.

http://i1246.photobucket.com/albums/gg608/666SHOOTER/board-with-nails_zps4a4c8821.jpg

On a side note, I LOVE THE DECIMATOR!!! This is in my normal HA loadout and I love it when I can hit air with it (D-Bags that like to get in too tight :)).
Lock on rockets definitly have their place though. Wasn't it like a couple weeks ago that everyone was bitching about air and tanks being way too OP??? I dig being able to fight back better and I still roll an ESF and own shit from time to time.
:cheers:

[Roy Awesome]

Like I said on the last page, the lock-ons were a solution to A2G spam. Nerf A2G spam, don't create a lock-on rocket that can kill both tanks and aircraft better than any other HA gun can.

[maradine]

Posted for sake of completeness: lock-on rockets are avoidable annoyances to an attentive pilots.

FKPK Thoughts on Air and Balance - YouTube

[Rothnang]

If armies of the future somehow un-learn lock-on technology

Who says they unlearned how to make lock on weapons, maybe they learned how to make zero signature vehicles, or invented jammers that prevent target locks.


There is an idea that it's possible that active defense systems that can shoot down any incoming bullet may become so powerful and impenetrable in the future that we'll have to go back to using swords.

[almalino]

Secondly, as I've said you have to actually have flares. Not only are they unlocks, but you have to chose them over other options.

Same with HA. Right? Lock On rockets is an expensive unlock and you have to occupy gun slot with it.

[almalino]

Posted for sake of completeness: lock-on rockets are avoidable annoyances to an attentive pilots.

FKPK Thoughts on Air and Balance - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0I0ZdXQgAV8)

Indeed :) Pilots like you are very difficult to kill not only with lock ons but with Skyguard etc

[Roy Awesome]

If armies of the future somehow un-learn lock-on technology, might as well be fighting with a board with nails in it.


Please never use this argument in a balance discussion about a video game ever again. It's so dumb I don't even know where to start on it.

[bpostal]

Same with HA. Right? Lock On rockets is an expensive unlock and you have to occupy gun slot with it.

Exactly, except it's about 900 certs more than flares and you can't use it indoors.

[maradine]

To be fair, you can't use flares indoors either. :D

[bpostal]

To be fair, you can't use flares indoors either. :D
:D
IDK though, I've seen at least a scythe in a biolab before. That counts right?

[CrankyTRex]

Same with HA. Right? Lock On rockets is an expensive unlock and you have to occupy gun slot with it.

Difference being there are other AA options available for free. Not to mention the regular rocket launcher is perfectly capable of punishing somebody trying to hover spam. As more and more people get the lock on rockets, flares become increasingly necessary just to be in the sky even if you are not a ground attack aircraft.

In addition to that, to be the kind of threat to ground targets that the lock-on launcher is a response to, you already have to spend 1000 certs.