[Suggestion] I've had it with these Higby RL launcher against these Higby planes

And by Higby, I mean something else.

1) Fix the Phoenix dropping like a glowy paper ball.

2) the grounder, hawk and nemesis are the G2A lock-on launchers. Additionaly, there is the Annihilator. These are utterly uneffective against competent pilots:

a) At the moment, these are all "lead target" rockets. Against a distant target on a mild descent, this results in a locked on missile slamming into the ground. Then there are trees, building etc. That is before counting in flares.
a competent pilot can make a nosedive against shorter ranged missiles, or turn the nose towards a wall, hill, cliff, whatever.

b) At short range, locking on is extremely difficult: enemies can exploit the gimball lock/pass over you whilst flying, breaking the lock. Also, at short range against a galaxy or liberator, you have to sort-off aim at the center in order to get an actual lock. Otherwise, aiming at the wing, the engine, the tail: it doesn't count.

c) an alternative to flying low is actually to fly high, and bombard from "gimball" lock position. In case of retaliation, ascend higher, out of ground-fire range.

Suggested changes:
1)make the RL "chase" enemy aircraft.
This means the rocket will fly off towards the enemy aircraft and you don't need a huge opening of "possible rocket directions, depending on aircraft manoevring".

2) Change the G2A rocket launchers:
at the moment, a ESF takes 1275 dmg from one. (so 2 deal 2500; a ESF with max fire suppresion repairs 750, leaving him with 500+750= 1250 health after two rocket hits. Dead on the third, without in between repairs, and no other damage sources.
I'd suggest reducing this damage, down to 950-960 dmg vs ESF's. In practice, we reduce the damage of the G2A launcher to 750, down from 1000, and it keeps the current damage multipliers..

In return, as mentioned, "chase" behavior, not "lead". Muzzle velocity is current 100m/s. Buff to 140m/s, with acceleration mechanism.
And: these launchers: you can fire during locking on. As long as you maintain the lock, or until the lockon is completed, the missile is guided. Guidance complete: automatically starts a reload.
Reduce the reload time, from 5.2 to 4.2 seconds. Against ground vehicles this is still a DPS-loss, as you lose 25% of damage, for below 20% increase in RoF. Actual DPS loss is higher, as you have to "peek" more, aim the missile, etc; damage done to Maxes and the like is also reduced and I think you won't one-shot infantry anymore.
But you should get higher effective dps vs air vehicles by virtue of hitting more.

The default amount of missiles is 5; 5*4*3=6.67. A heavy with G2A missiles gets 7 missiles default.


3) a new AA weapon for the heavy: the mini-walker.
meet the walker: 600 rpm, damage from 130@50m to 85@400m.
But, it deals 65% of damage vs ESF's. Small arms only deal 25%. (a ESF can take more bullets than a max..)

Dealing 3000 dmg at short range takes: 3000/(130*0.65)=36 bullets. (or 35 plus a tick of fire).
@ 600 rpm with 100% accuracy, this should be 3.6 seconds.
Long range:
3000*(85*0.65)=54 bullets. 5.4 seconds. (GL hitting though..)

The EM6 of the NC also fires @600 rpm.
3000/(167*0.25)=72 bullets. At 10m. or, 7.2 seconds.
There are a few catches however: the muzzle velocity of the EM6 is only 570 m/s.
The bloom and recoil require trigger discipline, reducing RoF, or leading to considerably inaccurate fire.
3000/(143*0.25)=84 shots-ish. 8.4 seconds.

--> Can we design a heavy "RL-replacement", like the walker, that won't be overpowered vs infantry, but is "competitive" vs air?

We take a minigun style weapon, like the TR MCG. Sights are an option from 1x to 3.4?
in theoretical terms, we want to be between the walker and the EM6. If our infantry mini-walker is as good as a walker, what is the point of walkers, skyguards, burster etc..
We use the damage profile of AA machine guns. (same damage multipliers as the walker)

The muzzle velocity of the walker is 1000m/s. This is no small factor in its' effective range.
Miniwalker shall have a muzzle velocity of 750-800m/s.
RoF is 600 rpm, as per big walker.

Damage drop-off is considerable for the walker, but spun out over a very big range.
If we want to kill an enemy ESF in 5.4 sec in theory (average of EM6 short range and walker short range TTK), we need 85 dmg bullets.
This is the max damage of the mini-walker, out to 50m.
Long range: we make again the average in TTK between EM6 at long range and walker; I come to about 7s.
For that, we need bullets that deal about 66 damage.
This minimum damage range extends out to 250m.

Is this balanced? Is it OP compared to G2A lockons? Compared to one-shotting with a decimator? It can be tweaked for sure.
It certainly requires "skill" to be able to aim at an enemy ESF; you need to fire for 5.4 seconds with 100% accuracy if it is just you, at 50m. I doubt people are that accurate; against a valkyrie the number about doubles (ridiculous..).
At 25% accuracy, you're firing 22 seconds at an ESF. Hopefully you're not alone shooting, as the ESF will get you before that.

an enemy ESF isn't instagibbed by a dumb fire rocket in the mini-walker case; there is also room for ES mini-walkers: the above for TR; something with more damage-per-shot for NC, or more damage drop off maybe, something with the 1000m/s velocity for VS or... (please, no charge-up mechanic on a gatling gun . No thank you SoE, we have all the charge-ups we need..)
Because of the difference in damage, different aim vectors (walkers have no gimball lock but can't aim low), difference in durability weapons like bursters, skyguards and walkers keep a role, additionally, this weapons lacks the "flak" effect.

A "benefit" from such minigun: if people see other guys aiming at the sky and "unleashing" the bullets, more people might start plinking at ESF's.
It is a sort-off newbie friendly weapon, you have plenty of bullets, you can see where they go and adjust your aim accordingly. A skilled player will of course, be far more succesfull.

so you want the heavy to carry an LMG, and an anti-air mini-chaingun? Or in TRs case, maybe two chain guns? lol

I understand your frustration with the lock-ons but they work pretty much as well as they should... If it were any easier it would be too easy. However all the RLs can also be used against vehicles, and against infantry and MAXes too (except annihilator) so I think RLs are fine the way they are.

If you're really determined to hurt air then jump in a turret, pull a burster max or a skyguard. or find a walker. You have lots of options, I dont think that being able to pull out an anti-air weapon as your tool, for free, is fair at all, resources wise and overall game balance wise.


If I could take anything from your post though I would say that maybe the annihilator and the air lock-on shouldn't work exactly the same way and they should give the "chase" variant to one or the other just to make it interesting.

Are you mad ? buffing G2A lock-ons ?

They're already strong enough , if not VERY strong. G2A lock-ons used to have omnipotent chasing ability and it was removed(I believe the Annihilator still has it.)

Mini-walker ? 700-800m/s ? I rather use it to snipe harass infantry than kill aircrafts.
If you're that desperate to deal with aircrafts , buy 2 bursters and get extended magazines , that's all you need.

Thanks for the reply,
IMO:
there's been plenty of talk about adding an AA turret for the engineer,
there's been plenty of discussion on this forum and others about how little skill it takes to do AA,
but also repeated posts about how useless AA RL are, against, again, decent pilots. (my above post being an example)

Changing the G2A launchers into "chasers" would make an enormous difference I think yes.

But part of me also proposes a minigun AA weapon because I want one ; no "balancing" or "buff" of AA, just some more variety.
Tweak the effectiveness to be similar to RL; fine. Remember: as posted, at 50m, with 25% accuracy, you need 20+ seconds to down a ESF. The smallest, least tough aircraft in game. Valk: twice as tough.. problem: your magazine will run dry, forcing you to reload.
Similar to the annihilator, you lose effectiveness vs Maxes (I think; competent maxes won't let you minigun into them anyway; dps vs infantry is a complete loss which is a good thing)

Also: I'm aware a "fire while locking" G2A launcher could be OP; that's why I dropped the damage/missile by 25%. That is a considerable difference..

G2A Missiles are fine except for their tendency to immediately crash into the next best building/tree upon launch. Just change the missile to fly in a straight line for the first 10-20m and then resume tracking the plane.

It doesn't.

the G2A lockons are fine right now, i tend to kill more esfs with them as with Flak of any kind
the thing is that every decent farming ESF has max composite armor and gets an incredible amount oftime before having to disengage against flak, while a hit with a rocket means **** or the next will probably be your death

as to the leading part:
they should at least make the rocket fly out in a normal arc for about 50 meters and then begin leading their target, but a full "follow" approach would be to powerfull, you simply had to do god like maneuvers to outplay a lockon user, while the lockon user simply has to push a button
skill should be rewarded, not the choice of a loadout

i can remember a time where 4 of my outfit members just sat on a mountain with three lockons and an engi + AA sunderer besides an air tower, and boy had we fun :3

I give you a like for: "No thank you
SoE, we have all the charge-ups we
need.."

They really do need to change how the rockets exit the tube, theres no reason my rocket should come out of the tube taking like a 45 degree angle immediately into a tree or building.

I would be interested in trading damage for a rocket that did not instantly hit the nearest solid object. It would move the lock-ons to a more deterring role rather than killing. Right now, they are rather limited in the areas where they can be used because the silly tracking mechanic. If designed correctly, a good pilot could still shake it by diving, making it hit the ground.

You acuse me of being a madman. What right do you have to judge what is sane and what is not?

VERY strong: a decimator onehit kills. A lockon, even if dumbfired at short range, needs 3 hits.
Strong is not only damage, but also likelihood of hitting and ease of avoiding.

How many pilots run flares?
How many tank drivers?
There is a direct counter to lock-ons, fully upgraded it means you can 100% avoid damage from a lock-on volley every 20s.
Aaand few people use it.

Skill has an impact on the game, certainly, and yes, it is easier to lockon an ESF than it is to aim at an infantry player. Then again, ESF have health & mobility advantage, and most AI weapons do splash damage anyway.

Snipe-harass infantry:
just like the walker, you'd get a minimum cone of fire, of about 0.65.
Standing still, your basic LMH with 167 dmg bullets, has 0.03 to start.
The damage output of the miniwalker is half that of an LMG. Sure, you can full auto more easy.
To put things into perspective: the Desperado has an ADS accuracy of 0.6, fires two-shot burst at 500 rpm.
500 rpm, at max range, the damage is 100 dmg per round.
The desperado is mure accurate and does similar dps at 100 meters... admittedly the muzzle velocity and bullet drop is far worse.

I think the Striker should be an explosive coyote LMG: It'd be really cool. (Low daamge, <Gauss SAW fire rate).

To be honest, the G2A lock-ons could use a minor lock timer buff. Doing this would encourage more people to use Flares instead of Fire Suppression and ultimately create a more balanced air game.

Giving G2A lockons a 'chase' mechanic rather than the lead mechanic means I could literally fly a pretzel through a Biolab's armature and it'll still hit me. I think if I'm fast enough and aware enough to not only recognize your lock on but where it's coming from, I should have a chance to spoof it with skill rather than relying on flares. (i haven't been hit by a G2A on in about 2-3 weeks while flying below 200m, but I've sure as hell been hit with small arms and flak, as well as A2A lockons. I don't usually fly higher out of knowing a G2A lock on will wreck me since i'm flying fire suppression This means planes that fly 'high' have little chance of dodging a rocket without flares, while low flyers like me are much more exposed to flak and small arms damage. (as well as the occasional dumb fire)

It's not hard to 'chase a plane away' but it is hard to destroy them without 2-3 people firing at the same time. There's this whole thing about balancing the game for 1v1s, but then you've got the problem that everything is suddenly stupidly overpowered in groups. Infantry weapons can be balanced 1v1, but vehicles are another story (except for C4, because it's high risk high reward to actually stick a vehicle with C4.)

I wouldn't be opposed to some kind of deployable Walker style AA Mana turret. Not as powerful as the Walker, but enough to chase off opportunistic hoverpodders. Give it about half of the stats of the Walker (Except for bullet velocity, that should stay really fast) so it has to be at least 2-3 to get the same damage output as an actual walker.

Moin

I'm not against more G2A options, but infantry has too much range on it's AA as it is. I could imagine an AA turret for the engineer, but only if they can fix render issues with that.

Repeat after me:
I shouldn't always be infantry.
I shouldn't always be infantry.
I shouldn't always be infantry.
I shouldn't always be infantry.
I shouldn't always be infantry.

Infantry lose to vehicles outdoors. That's fine because lots of playstyles (vehicles) outdoors are viable.
Infantry lose to MAXes indoors. That's not fine, because that's the one place infantry should do well (and because nothing really kills MAXes.)

Perhaps "chase" is poorly worded, although IMO it is the proper term.

Current missiles "lead" the target, much like you would in an actual dogfight try to turn into your opponents turn to fire in front of him.
Sure, the missiles do this to plan the intercept, but still.
"Chase" does not mean "follow the opponents flightpath exactly".
Chase would be the missile flying towards the enemy planes current location, not the future location.
The 'nose' of the missile would be looking at your aircraft all the time.
In other words: put a tree, a hill, a bridge,.. between yourself and the missile: fine, missile crashes. (although many missiles can actually avoid ground, but oh well)

Another view on "lead" vs "chase": at infinite velocity, the two flightpaths are identical.
Buffing the missiles velocity (even for a loss in damage/missile) would also reduce the tendency of missiles to bugger of in a direction that is _not_ where the enemy aircraft is and where the AA launcher was being pointed.
In other words: a 200 m/s launcher would have the "tree" issue to a far lesser extent.
Wether that extent is significant would need some playtesting I think...
Buffing the G2A launcher to 200m/s buffs them enormously vs ground targets however. An option could be to launch the missile at 200m/s only when locked on. The other option is buffing the annihilator, but that means tanks will have no chance of "ducking behind cover" againt the missile, and it makes the annihilator clearly the superior choice for G2A over the .. G2A launcher.
Also, doubling missile velocity can make it harder to flare for pilots that want their opponent to waste a missile.

Another option, and what some "smart" missiles do: pick a point between "lead" and "chase" as aim point.

For travelling: be aware that above a certain range you are 100% immune to G2A lockons, they won't be able to "wreck" you, they won't even be able to lockon..


"Half the stats of the walker": my dear man.. have a look at the miniwalker I proposed..
The walker does 130 dmg @ 150m.
The "miniwalker" does about 75. A bit more, but I reduced muzzle velocity to 750-800m/s. It really isn't far off, a bit more than half a walker at short range, in theory a bit more also at range, but then the difference in velocity would come into play.


Finally, you're against buffing lockons, ok, fine, but you're still running firesuppresion, not flares.. even over enemy territory with G2A launchers?

A heavy assault with a miniwalker or a proposed G2A launcher won't win the 1v1 against a ESF.
He is too fragile. Also, I reduced the actual damage of the missile. So now fire suppresion does make you tank an extra missile, in a 1v1.
But, the heavy might be able to damage the ESF, without his missile flying into the tree because the ESF descends 5m.
Even a ESF on a 100% straight flight path passing in front of you: the missile can still find something to fly into.

I claimed you're mad because your suggestion speaks as if you never flew an ESF before , or even tried it out efficiently.


Barely any pilots run flares.
No MBT driver runs smoke
Some Lightning drivers do run smoke.
It costs a fortune to unlock full maxed our flares.

What if multiple people are locking into an ESF ? what if that ESF is taking fire from a friendly ESF or a burster max or even a skyguard ? why do you assume that just because you shot that lockon that said ESF won't blow up?

We're talking about a 700-800m/s velocity GUN , an infantry weapon. that alone should be a reason that such a thing shouldn't exist.(Unless it's a sniper rifle and we already have those)

EDIT : if this is your player page , do not make claims about balance unless you tried both sides of the coin.
https://www.planetside2.com/players/#!/5428226580928930689/stats

I have tried flying, hated the controls;
I do want to fly, I want to dogfight.

Barely any pilots run flares: exactly..
and in several posts now I've included the suggestion already to reduce the cert cost line of flares to that of fire suppresion.
Yes, flares should be cheaper to cert up.

What if multiple people lock on: then you should've brought flares. If not: duck behind a tree or something. Why do you presume the pilot will get shot down? And multiple people should kill a ESF, not just chase it away. Multiple people kill tanks too, numbers solve nearly all problems.
Note: in the opening post, I did propose reducing the damage done by the G2A launcher.
You don't just need 3 heavies; you need 3 heavies with a lockon launcher (so no default, decimator, or g2g, or the empire-specific one); with co-ordination to lock onto the same ESF. Said ESF needs to aim his banshee and go brrrt.
Then, after the ESF has flared, lockon again, 2 out of 3 missiles go hug a tree. Rejoice..

700-800m/s gun: which is why it needs to do crappy dmg vs infantry.

That is my player page thing, yes.
I am a mediocre-bad player, as I've mentioned now in several posts. Doesn't mean I can't estimate what a good player can do.
In my defense (since I presume you're looking at KDR, limited time played etc): this is my first FPS in years. That includes FPS vs AI/whatever.
That is my first char, and when I started my KDR was about 0.2 for a while. Quit a while in fact. It is slowly rising, I estimate I'm at 0.7-1 atm; I have a Vanu alt that I started after my NC char, and he is at 0.76 atm. Again, climbing up, but with less "crappy 0.2 stats" that need compensating.
I could augment it higher by playing more carefully, by playing more vehicles, or by gunning for others. And, major mistake, by abandoning "bad" fights quicker.
But eh..
Another factor is: I play NC to chaarge guns blazing most of the time.
Doesn't mean I don't get decent/good killstreaks even as infantry every once in a while.

Flares should be lowered to match atleast fire supp cert line.
The problem with flares is that the "lockon immunity" duration is too low , and lock-ons are somewhat bugged and won't always appear on your HUD , the reason why most pilots pick fire supp over flares is because of the ability to engage other ESFs , it's more versatile over all.

If it does 50 damage I don't mind it being implemented.

I do not care about a players k/d or anything of such sort , the only thing I care about is how much time they spent , how much experience(not xp) they have regarding mechanics , features and gameplay.

If you ever gave flying a try you will see how frustrating lock-ons are , atleast for a bad pilot like me that just flies for the sake of it.