Guided weapons

[Ranik Ortega]

Originally Posted by Sirisian

So you're mad that an AV weapon is unfair against vehicles... Yeah... Umm that's intentional. I can assure you that you rarely see me when I use a lancer. Maxes just get confused then die.

Lancer = LoS. Phoenix != LoS. Stealth and firing from behind a mountain are not the same thing

[Talek Krell]

I was never a fan of the phoenix spam, but having seen it from both ends I admit it's not especially lethal. With the class system coming into play, I think we might see far fewer phoenix launchers on the field, since it's entirely likely that they'll be incompatable with other heavy weaponry, or utility kits. That may go a long way to addressing the spammability of the thing.

[LordReaver]

Originally Posted by Ranik Ortega

"no phoenix kills? I'm sorry I'm too busy repairing my tank nonstop despite the fact there are no infantry with LoS within 100-200 meters"

I think it basically takes someone who has been on the receiving end of never ending phoenix spam to understand how fucking annoying that thing was. Me thinks it will only be NC defending it.

Exactly. If it was lethal, you would be crying about how overpowered it is, not about how annoying it is.

What people don't seem to understand about the Phoenix, is that it's only strength is hitting behind a target at medium range. It's really not that good at anything else. Short range, you don't get a lot of time to guide it and it's weaker than a deci. It turns really slowly. I like to challenge people to try and hit themselves with one. I have yet to see anybody do it. In order to compensate good players learn to explode it manually. At long range, the target will easily get away, even if it's a MAX. Even in ideal situations, you still have the huge con of being completely vulnerable. TR and VS like to pretend that's not a big deal, yet they don't have to deal with such a short-coming. It's not like you just can't move, you can't defend yourself either, because you don't even know that you are getting attacked. That's right people, there is no damage indicator in missile mode. You will be closing in on a target, then out of nowhere, you will be staring at the tap button.

Simply put, trying to kill infantry with a phoenix wont work. It takes like three people about 15 seconds to do it. Yeah sure, it's annoying as hell, but so what? The Striker can be just as annoying on the receiving end. Against MAX's yeah, the phoenix can kick-ass. Against vehicles? Well, it better be a light ground vehicle, or damaged, if you want any real chance at killing it solo. If you are getting killed by a team, then stop crying, it's a fucking team, what did you really expect? Killing air with it is a joke, unless it is being dumb and just hovering around. Even so, they usually after-burn away.

When it comes to great AV, the Striker has this hands down. It is so versatile, it's not even funny. You think aiming with the Phoenix is easy? The Striker is a fucking lock-on. You just point it in the general direction, and it does the work for you. You can still dodge with it, and one clip does pretty decent damage against infantry. It even has more range than the Phoenix. Just look how almost every single TR carries one. That alone should tell you how good it is. Most NC do not use the Pheonix. If you want to find out how not so great the Phoenix really is, send me a tell in-game and I will give you as many as you want.

I have always thought that the Phoenix should be for VS, and the Lancer for NC. The Phoenix is about mobility, which is the Vanu philosophy. The Lancer seems to be almost a Gauss rifle, which is obviously NC philosophy.

[MrVicchio]

I want Fire and forget weapons. I want laser targetable weapons.

Imagine, a soldier on the ground paints a target, somewhere overhead, a pilot dodging incoming fire fires a few missiles back at them.

PS2 is set in a futuristic setting, dumb fire rockets = "Immersion Breaking"

[Bags]

If you crank up your mouse sensitivity it's really easy to control. 4000 DPI ftw.

[exLupo]

A lot of this discussion is based around using PS1 loadouts and damage values. One thing that may be happening is hard or limited variance "class" style loadouts. AV was all cranked down so you couldn't use it as anti-infantry but that may not be the case in PS2. The problem that I had with the phoenix was the aforementioned annoyance value. If AV kits are treated more like they are in BF for engineers, hiding and spamming won't really be viable. Not that it meant much in PS1 but you get my point.

Honestly, I hope (and believe) that they will be totally scrapping the PS1 logic altogether. AV will probably wreck infantry but also will use precious and limited ammo so if you're kitting for anti-vehicle, you'll be doing it for a reason.

If they are, god forbid, repeating the logic-defying "AV is weak on infantry" and "you can stack a ton of AV shots in your backpack" type decisions then, please, don't let the phoenix return. Non-LOS, controlled accuracy bombardment was just obnoxious. Attacking any NC defended base started with a sign and ended with an eye-roll every time. Purely on the merit of endless phoenix tickling.

[Baneblade]

The Reaver's secondary should be wire guided via gunner.

[Senyu]

I think a cool concept of lock on would be lazer guided.


Having an infantry target a enemy with a tiny lazer highlights the target in which you with whatever weapon or vehicle must target and the weapon will follow where the lazer point IF it is on a target enemy.

Yes the flail had this type of system but I think with tweaking or changing certain bits of it with some weapons, its a cool concept and adds more teamwork from frontlines with the heavy support in the back

[Baneblade]

The Flail has no such thing. It merely hits where you aim it. Lazing just helps aim your shot better.

[SurgeonX]

Originally Posted by DeeTwoEh

The Lancer is really what made PS for me. I really enjoyed engaging vehicles from long range and consistently hitting them with the Lancer. If the Lancer isn't present in PS2 I will be very, very, very displeased.

Yep, me too.
The ability to lead a target properly means, for me, it's one of those weapons that is just so satisfying to use.
It's got just the right amount of difficulty, so that when you successfully take your target down, you know it was down to skill.
Easy to learn, hard to master.

It's one of the reasons I found playing either NC or TR a bit disappointing, because I found their AV weapons were really boring in comparison.

[CutterJohn]

Originally Posted by Sirisian

Nah, I play VS. I find the phoenix fair. You have to play as a cloaker or sniper to see its extreme weakness.

This would be fine except you can usually easily find a place to camp out of line of sight of snipers, and a moments preparation with some spitfires will ward off cloakers. If you're inside a base you barely have to worry about that.


Lock on and remote guidance were mechanics to make aiming at range possible for the sake of 'Empires must be different!', but they make it too easy. If someone suggested an infantry weapon that was guidable around corners, or locked on to infantry, there would be rage. The person suggesting it would be called a skilless noob, and told to go back to cod or whatever.

The lancer was the ideal imo. Strong. Hard hitting. Took some skill to use. Was counterable by returning fire.

Same with the sparrow and starfire. Totally brainless to shoot. Wait for red reticle, then fire. The burster was fun(aside from the poorly thought out lockdown mechanic), effective, took some skill.

Direct fire weapons, to me, are preferable. Sure, its not realistic, but its good gameplay. Guidance is a crutch that should be avoided. Or at least relegated to a less effective version.

Originally Posted by MrVicchio

PS2 is set in a futuristic setting, dumb fire rockets = "Immersion Breaking"

That argument can turn sour on you real quick if you extrapolate reality. I don't really think you want to start dealing with BVR combat. Realistically, a 20mm cannon would gib any infantry with one shot, despite the best armor in the world. Its immersion breaking that it doesn't. And not doing that is a very good thing for gameplay.

[p0intman]

i think there should be both dummy fire and lock-on AA like it is now. maxes should always lock on, skyguards and tanks shouldnt, infantry should.

[Entertain Me]

Lock on, and allow vehicles to have flares. Remember that this game is on a completely new engine. The devs have stated that flying is going to be much more difficult, and I'm going to assume that means the only way you are going to be able to shoot aircraft out of the sky is with some sort of lock on missile.

[BorisBlade]

Originally Posted by Sirisian

So you're mad that an AV weapon is unfair against vehicles... Yeah... Umm that's intentional. I can assure you that you rarely see me when I use a lancer. Maxes just get confused then die.

Thats not what he said at all. Its teh fact you cant really fight back against a phoenix, you cant even take cover, you either leave teh battle or you die. Its terrible gameplay.

The striker and lancer are great, they tear up vehicles but allow for a good back and forth. Shooting at vehicles puts you at risk from snipers and the vehicles that you shoot at and other infantry etc. The vehicle can try to attack you or its target or it can try to maneuver around objects to take cover or go behind a hill or whatever. But at very least they can see whats attackin and attack back or take cover and the av user has to put themselves at risk and use a little skill, its good interactivity.

With the phoenix, if you are doin it right, you wont get sniped, you cant get hit by your target, no other infantry will hit you either. You are immune to most anythng other than maybe a cloaker and honestly thats super rare. There is no back and forth strategy. Its boring and extremely frustrating when you cant do anything about the missiles flyin at ya. Yeah maybe you cant quite get that guy lancin ya from the tower top, but at very least you can shoot back and try. Or atleast put down some supressive fire. You cant do anything versus the phoenix. Might as well be magic missiles from the heavens, its not fun and adds only frustration to the game for anyone who isnt NC. Compared to a lancer which will kill you much much quicker but you can fight back against it, the lancer is good AV design for a game the phoenix is not. Its not about how fast it kills you, its about the gameplay.

And on another note, your poll needs to be more specific on lock-on. People think the striker is lock-on. But there are such things as fire and forget lock-on, and then the striker which is actually a laser guided weapon. If you dont keep the target "painted" with your reticule the rockets stop trackin it. Thats a good kind of AV, but a fire and forget system is terrible.

[CutterJohn]

And on another note, your poll needs to be more specific on lock-on. People think the striker is lock-on. But there are such things as fire and forget lock-on, and then the striker which is actually a laser guided weapon. If you dont keep the target "painted" with your reticule the rockets stop trackin it. Thats a good kind of AV, but a fire and forget system is terrible.

Yeah, i realize now the poll is kind of useless. No edit options, sadly.

I disagree with the keeping the reticle on it is good av. it takes a touch more skill, but is still pretty easy. Theres no cof penalty for motion, no leading the target.. just put it on them and fire away. The burster and the lancer are my ideals. The rest.. not so much, and I wouldn't shed a single tear if they didn't return. Striker/phoenix/starfire/sparrow were all good weapons in their way, don't get me wrong. They just took all the challenge out of things.