So every HA can be an aircraft counter?

ThermalReaper · 2012-07-18, 09:43 AM

Ok, go to this video if you haven't already.(Gameplay at about 2:24)

What did you notice when TB switched to a HA and pulled out his anti vehicle fart launcher(I don't really care what you call it)?

Lock on.

My problems with lock on?
1)

Originally Posted by AgtPanda

TL;DR Insta win lock on missiles suck. Dodgeable missiles are fine.

2) If there are two variants for AA/AT and not bundled into one, I'm fine.

Thank you for reading.

maradine · 2012-07-18, 09:48 AM

Funny, I hear aircraft can include a perfect missile countermeasure.

ThermalReaper · 2012-07-18, 09:50 AM

Originally Posted by maradine

Funny, I hear aircraft can include a perfect missile countermeasure.

You just reminded me, Should moving around a lot and speeding away break the missile lock in your opinion?

Klockan · 2012-07-18, 09:51 AM

I didn't understand what you were ranting about, is it too easy to get away from lock ons making aircraft too powerful or is it too hard making HA too powerful?

EisenKreutzer · 2012-07-18, 09:52 AM

I have no problem with auto-lock on, as long as it is possible to break the lock by either evasive manouvering or deplying flares/chaffs/whatever.

haticK · 2012-07-18, 09:52 AM

We can't really answer that considering most of us haven't played the game yet

ThermalReaper · 2012-07-18, 09:54 AM

Originally Posted by Klockan

I didn't understand what you were ranting about, is it too easy to get away from lock ons making aircraft too powerful or is it too hard making HA too powerful?

My problem is that the possiblity of taking down a vehicle being reduced to "Lock, fire, kill, repeat" most of the time(you still have the option of dumbfire) which is just plain stupid and not fun.

Originally Posted by haticK

We can't really answer that considering most of us haven't played the game yet

I said discuss, not answer a question. Hehe.

Also, to the flair argument:

Originally Posted by Kran De Loy

Also since vehicles will have limited ammo for their weapons and Higby was talking about limiting the number of Flares an aircraft can carry instead of just putting them on a cooldown

I doubt you would have enough flairs to avoid every missile. Unless missiles aren't an instant kill to aircrafts.(It took 3-4 AT shots to take out a vanguard according to the video)

WolfAlmighty · 2012-07-18, 09:55 AM

Haven't had a chance to watch the video yet, but I'm pretty much against lock-on weapons in general in video games. I will definitely reserve judgment on PS2's system until I've played it, but I'm hoping there aren't egregious amounts of lock-on gadgets.

maradine · 2012-07-18, 09:58 AM

Originally Posted by ThermalReaper

You just reminded me, Should moving around a lot and speeding away break the missile lock in your opinion?

I believe getting inside the missile's ability to exert delta-v and exiting its seeker gimbal range should break a missile lock. As missiles are generally 2-5 times faster than the aircraft they are designed to engage, speeding away from a missile should produce a perfect tail hit every time.

But that's just me.

DukeTerror · 2012-07-18, 09:58 AM

Between this and the one about dying/respawning we're getting posts on the "philosophy of gameplay" without even truely knowing if the issue of discussion is even relevant to PS2.

Heck, I even think both those concerns are relieved by the design/gameplay we've seen. Bored people I guess...

infinite loop · 2012-07-18, 09:59 AM

Originally Posted by ThermalReaper

My problem is that the possiblity of taking down a vehicle being reduced to "Lock, fire, kill, repeat" most of the time(you still have the option of dumbfire) which is just plain stupid and not fun.

I said discuss, not answer a question. Hehe.

Also, to the flair argument:

I doubt you would have enough flairs to avoid every missile. Unless missiles aren't an instant kill to aircrafts.(It took 3-4 AT shots to take out a vanguard according to the video)

You obviously have either never played PS1, or have a short memory. The bane of every pilot is the fucking lockon AA. I am not a fan, but the precedent is set, so I expected it. TBH I'm not sure what a better counter to aircraft would be, w/o the lockon weaponry nothing would stand a chance against them.

sylphaen · 2012-07-18, 10:00 AM

Originally Posted by ThermalReaper

You just reminded me, Should moving around a lot and speeding away break the missile lock in your opinion?

I'm pretty sure it does. Check the E3 videos, I remember seeing a Scythe break the lock by afterburning in the skies.

Originally Posted by maradine

I believe getting inside the missile's ability to exert delta-v and exiting its seeker gimbal range should break a missile lock. As missiles are generally 2-5 times faster than the aircraft they are designed to engage, speeding away from a missile should produce a perfect tail hit every time.

But that's just me.

That sounds cool.

Klockan · 2012-07-18, 10:00 AM

Originally Posted by ThermalReaper

My problem is that the possiblity of taking down a vehicle being reduced to "Lock, fire, kill, repeat" most of the time(you still have the option of dumbfire) which is just plain stupid and not fun.

But there are other weapons as well. Also to fire lock on missiles you need to be skilled. Not by aiming correctly but by locking and firing at the correct times so the missile don't hit a building or a rock, otherwise you will just be wasting missiles kinda like those shooting at TB did. Also I think that those missiles were anti tank missiles so their lock shouldn't be that good vs air.

Originally Posted by infinite loop

TBH I'm not sure what a better counter to aircraft would be, w/o the lockon weaponry nothing would stand a chance against them.

What? Just have AA machineguns that rip them to shreds, we already got them on all basic tanks. Infantry with flak works as well.

haticK · 2012-07-18, 10:01 AM

Originally Posted by ThermalReaper

I doubt you would have enough flairs to avoid every missile. Unless missiles aren't an instant kill to aircrafts.(It took 3-4 AT shots to take out a vanguard according to the video)

Higby said in one of the interviews that you actually have a bunch of flares and one flare only provides a chance that the missle/rocket will miss so the idea is to spam a few of them.

AgtPanda · 2012-07-18, 10:02 AM

I'm all for lock on items if the missiles can be countered not only by flares but also by evasive maneuvers.

Before BF3 was released (Beta= The only good fun I had with that game) someone released codes to the caspian border servers. The lock on missiles had physics... I could pull a sharp 170 degree turn and watch the missile fly by me. That was fine. Stuff like that separates the good pilots from the bad zerglings. But now the missiles can apparently stop and turn on a dime in order to hit your jet, and that is anti fun.

Another problem is the fact that in BF3, there are only 2 jets on your team in a potentially 64 man server. Which means everyone on the ground wants you dead. In PS2 I hope this is remedied by the fact that air cav seems to be on par with footzerg a lot of the time, and at other times said footzerg is occupied with the enemyfootzerg.

TL;DR Insta win lock on missiles suck. Dodgeable missiles are fine.