Lock on rockets really have no place in this game

[CrankyTRex]

Originally Posted by BIGGByran

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.

Originally Posted by Baneblade

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]

Originally Posted by Roy Awesome

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]

Originally Posted by CrankyTRex

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]

Originally Posted by BIGGByran

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]

Originally Posted by BIGGByran

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.

Originally Posted by BIGGByran

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.

Originally Posted by BIGGByran

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.



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.

[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.

[Rothnang]

Originally Posted by SixShooter

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]

Originally Posted by CrankyTRex

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]

Originally Posted by maradine

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

FKPK Thoughts on Air and Balance - YouTube

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

[Roy Awesome]

Originally Posted by SixShooter

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]

Originally Posted by almalino

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.