Lock on Launchers are overpowered because they have too much range.

[Rothnang]

I really dislike lockon launchers in this game, because they are one of the really big things that keeps the fight between vehicles and infantry from ever being carried out at reasonable combat ranges for both units.

Lockon launchers reach out to 500 meters, which is a huge distance in PS2 terms, since all weapon ranges are effectively scaled down to some degree. The reason why they don't provide for a real enrichment of the gameplay in their current incarnation are:

1. Infantry based weapons that can reach out and destroy vehicles at ranges that are way greater than the range that a vehicle can engage infantry at are simply stupid. This isn't a game where tanks, artillery, aircraft etc. are allowed to kill infantry at well beyond visual range, because that would really suck for the infantry players, so why the hell should it work the other way around?

2. Lockon weapons don't really care how far away the target is, they are always equally easy to hit with. In fact, hitting things that are far away is generally easier because their angular velocity will be smaller. Every other weapons effectiveness drops off as it pushes toward its range limit, this weapon stays perfectly reliable all the way to its cutoff point.

3. The whole flare/smoke mechanic is just poorly implemented. Having them based on a timer essentially means that after you fire your countermeasure you are left with two choices: 1. Vacate the area until your countermeasure is off cooldown. 2. Face guided weapons without any real means of defense. Either way it sucks. There is no skill to either using guided weapons or using countermeasures.



There are a couple things that I would change about the whole idea of lock-on launchers.

For one, they should have much less range, but lock on more quickly. To me it simply doesn't make any sense to give infantry weapons with such huge range in PS2 terms. Sure, 500 meters is nothing when you think on a realistic scale, but on a realistic scale 3000 meters is nothing for a tank gun, yet in PS2 they can't reach out further than about 700-800. Things are scaled down, and this shouldn't be an exception.
The speed to lock on should be quicker to compensate for the lower range, so that fast moving enemies can't simply get out of range before you can ever get a shot off.

Countermeasures should be rethought in my opinion and work a little differently. For one, it's just stupid that you need to slot them, they should just be standard on any vehicle. Maybe you could slot an upgrade to them, but making you slot the only valid defense against a very common variety of weapon really isn't being given a meaningful choice on vehicles that can't eat a few missiles. Even tough vehicles can easily die to multiple missiles, since you never know how many missiles are coming at you.

Using countermeasures should not simply consist of pushing a button to buy yourself 5 seconds of being lock-on free. It should instead be a test of skill to use an active defense measure against an incoming attack.


I think tanks should have a hardkill system that destroys incoming missiles with ease, but also does damage to any infantry and light skinned vehicles near the tank when it goes off, then goes on a short cooldown (Maybe 5 seconds). That way firing guided missiles at a tank with a hardkill system can shut down their ability to repair the tank since no engineers will be able to go near it, and you can still get some kills, even if the missiles aren't hitting the tank itself (The person that caused the hardkill to trigger gets credit for any deaths it causes).

Aircraft should have flares that can be activated every second or so, but are only effective if the missile is within a certain distance from the aircraft. Basically you'd see a little graphic showing the distance of all missiles aiming at you from your aircraft, with a "kill zone". If you hit your flares all missiles in the kill zone are taken out. The thing that makes this difficult is that missiles don't always approach you at a constant speed, if you're heading toward the missile you might have very little time to punch the flares as it passes through the killzone, while if you're heading away from the missile it will approach you very slowly, making it easy to flare it. If you pull eratic maneuvers the missiles approach toward you will be unpredictable, which can throw you off. If multiple missiles come at you at the same time and they aren't all fired from the same position it might become very difficult to flare all of them.

Basically make it a system that is actually somewhat of a meaningful part of the game and that you can be good with instead of just an obnoxious one shot thing.


Really long range lock-on weapons should be carried on vehicles. Realistically speaking a longer range missile has to be bigger, which is why man portable missile systems tend to be pretty short range. Missile doesn't simply mean man portable tank cannon, there is a wide variety with a wide variety of capabilities, and missiles that go really far tend to be bigger than what you can lug around on your back.

[DarkBalths]

You have obviously never used the Striker. That thing can't lock on worth shit.

[Whiteagle]

Originally Posted by Rothnang

Sure, 500 meters is nothing when you think on a realistic scale, but on a realistic scale 3000 meters is nothing for a tank gun, yet in PS2 they can't reach out further than about 700-800.

Your argument failed right HERE.

You have just outright stated that Tank Guns have 200 to 300 meters of range that they can attack from outright unmolested.

Even if their weapons are not able to touch Infantry due to rendering non-sense, this is still an anti-vehicle advantage they have over their Shoulder-fired Missile counterparts.

Originally Posted by Rothnang

Really long range lock-on weapons should be carried on vehicles. Realistically speaking a longer range missile has to be bigger, which is why man portable missile systems tend to be pretty short range. Missile doesn't simply mean man portable tank cannon, there is a wide variety with a wide variety of capabilities, and missiles that go really far tend to be bigger than what you can lug around on your back.

Don't see any problem with this other then inter-vehicle balance issues, so it's okay in my book.

[maradine]

Originally Posted by Rothnang

To me it simply doesn't make any sense to give infantry weapons with such huge range in PS2 terms. Sure, 500 meters is nothing when you think on a realistic scale, but on a realistic scale 3000 meters is nothing for a tank gun, yet in PS2 they can't reach out further than about 700-800. Things are scaled down, and this shouldn't be an exception.

Well, actually, no. The furthest you're going to hope to achieve penetration on a hard target with an M829 APFSDS round is about 3,000m. That's a KI-derived maximum. You're not going to squeeze much more out of an HE round, even if you could target effectively. To contrast ATGMs - a TOW-II is effective out to almost 4 km, and the Javelin to almost 5. I'd call things pretty evenly scaled, frankly.

[Corvo]

I know the figures might state otherwise but just from my experience of using the Striker it feels like I need to be a lot closer to the tank to lock on to it than for a tank to take a shot at me.

Not to mention that reducing lock on range will completely remove any anti-air capability of all multipurpose lock-on launchers. ESFs are incredibly hard to lock on to even now, since they can just punch that afterburner and fly out of range; what you are suggesting will make Flak the only counter to them.

Don't get me wrong, I like the direction where you are going with this idea. Harder to kill vehicles, more sophisticated weapons systems and ECMs that require more than just "press F to get rid of all missiles" - these are all good. Reducing range on infantry weapons is not.

[PredatorFour]

The striker is ridiculous with its lock on range. Tonight we couldn't even see where they were shooting from cos of the render issue that's still in game when large battles take place. I think the addition of the striker made the TR the most OP faction.

[ChipMHazard]

The Striker does have one flaw that will often become an issue at longer ranges, especially when trying to hit aircraft. Its tracking.
The tracking has a tendency to make the missiles either nose dive into the ground or otherwise hit an obstacle/piece of terrain. From what I've noticed it seems to depend on the angle the target is going, as in it's trying to predict the target's movement instead of trying to follow it.

[KarrdeBRBU]

I think the real issue is vehicle drivers over extending. I don't get killed by lockons much. They mostly drive me back for a bit and are something of a deterrent. I mostly die when I over extend without support. If you're running a vehicle in the open without support you're doing it wrong. Vehicles are meant to move carefully and methodically, not aggressively. Also, lots of players need to learn to fall back to rep point at 50% health. I have nice, long tank runs and get a lot of kills. Also IR smoke and mineguard. When getting locked on, wait for the shot to fire before blowing smoke and keep moving. 6 seconds of no lock with only a 15 second cool down at max rank. Also, unless you're trying to snipe something, move at all times.

[Whiteagle]

Originally Posted by KarrdeBRBU

I think the real issue is vehicle drivers over extending. I don't get killed by lockons much. They mostly drive me back for a bit and are something of a deterrent. I mostly die when I over extend without support. If you're running a vehicle in the open without support you're doing it wrong. Vehicles are meant to move carefully and methodically, not aggressively. Also, lots of players need to learn to fall back to rep point at 50% health. I have nice, long tank runs and get a lot of kills. Also IR smoke and mineguard. When getting locked on, wait for the shot to fire before blowing smoke and keep moving. 6 seconds of no lock with only a 15 second cool down at max rank. Also, unless you're trying to snipe something, move at all times.

Quoted for truth man...

...I'm getting sick and tired of people going "WAH, my vehicle keeps blowing up, AV OP!!!" when I find myself quite capable of running an ESF or Tank long enough to make back my Resource investment.
You know who you are, and let me tell you just because it's your favorite thing to do in the game doesn't mean your actually any good at it.

[Rothnang]

Originally Posted by Whiteagle

You have just outright stated that Tank Guns have 200 to 300 meters of range that they can attack from outright unmolested.

Even if their weapons are not able to touch Infantry due to rendering non-sense, this is still an anti-vehicle advantage they have over their Shoulder-fired Missile counterparts.

Uhh, you can't shoot infantry from that far away, the only thing you can shoot from that far away is other vehicles, so why exactly is that a problem?

Tanks on tank battles being fought at longer range than infantry on tank battles doesn't seem like any kind of issue to me.

It's when infantry gets to butt in with weapons that have tank-fight ranges while being rendered at infantry fight ranges, and minuscule targets on top of that that there is a one sided advantage.

Originally Posted by maradine

Well, actually, no. The furthest you're going to hope to achieve penetration on a hard target with an M829 APFSDS round is about 3,000m. That's a KI-derived maximum. You're not going to squeeze much more out of an HE round, even if you could target effectively. To contrast ATGMs - a TOW-II is effective out to almost 4 km, and the Javelin to almost 5. I'd call things pretty evenly scaled, frankly.

Both of the weapons you pick for comparison are WAY bigger than anything people have in PS2.

TOW is not a man portable system at all, you need a vehicle to transport it to the front, and it's so big that there are whole vehicles built just to carry TOW launchers. The German Army used the Jaguar Raketenjadpanzer until recently, which was a full sized tank purely dedicated to using a TOW/MILAN launcher. A TOW launcher is about the size of the Halberd launchers in PS2.

The Javelin is also much bigger than what any of the infantry rocket launchers in this game are. In fact, a two man team typically only carries a single missile. If you want any more than that you need a vehicle that carries additional ammo nearby. At 80000 bucks a shot the rocket also costs more than what the Javelin team earns in 2 years. The Javelins size and prohibitive cost are considered its major downsides.


Both of the weapons you pick for comparison aren't really a good analog to the kinds of weapons infantry uses in the game. All the anti-armor infantry weapons have plenty of ammo, are easily resupplied, and can handily be carried by a soldier.

What soldiers carry in PS2 is more like an RPG7, Panzerfaust 3, or Carl Gustav, which are effective to about 200 meters against armor only.

Also... Game balance. It still doesn't make any sense to have a game where infantry can engage vehicles several hundred meters before it even renders.

[Ghoest9]

You complain too much.

Lock on launchers are well balanced and make for a fun game as is.

[Rothnang]

That was a great argument that convinced nobody.

[leifnielsen]

Originally Posted by Rothnang

That was a great argument that convinced nobody.

"A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."

-Benjamin Franklin

[Whiteagle]

Originally Posted by Rothnang

That was a great argument that convinced nobody.

Well he is right, you do complain a lot about how everything destroys your Liberators...

[Ghoest9]

Originally Posted by Rothnang

That was a great argument that convinced nobody.

But objectively it was just as strong as your position.


And the most important fact is on my side - most players and particularly casual ones like the game much more now that Air is much weaker than it was relative to infantry.

The most important design choice is what drives away the least players. the second most important is what attracts the most players.
You lose.