Lock on rockets really have no place in this game

[ShadetheDruid]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by ShadetheDruid

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

[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]

Originally Posted by Eliphas

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]

Originally Posted by Roy Awesome

... 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]

Originally Posted by VR Draco

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.