Lock on rockets really have no place in this game

[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]

Originally Posted by VaderShake

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]

Originally Posted by ShadetheDruid

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]

Originally Posted by ShadetheDruid

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by VaderShake

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 ) 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]

Originally Posted by Baneblade

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

"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/s...ad.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.

Originally Posted by ApolloAbove

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.