As it is, the SKEP, Crow, and Hades rocket launchers are virtually worthless in nearly every situation for heavies. Ground targets take a significant amount of time to lock even without vehicle stealth and have a better access to cover or other line of sight interruptions that provide both an easy access to defensive cover and make acquiring a lock a significant challenge. To me, the maximum range for locking on should be increased and the minimum range for the lowest lock-on times should be increased. As it is, the only reason to use any of these weapons is to either pursue directives or wallow in sheer masochism.
No skill point & click launchers should not be good. Also for bonus, the g2a & G2g ones do more damage to sunderers than the default launcher.
Lock-ons should stop being fire-and-forget. Maintain-lock launchers and perhaps laser-guided launchers more similar to the AV turret would be better choices. They require more skill, the opponent has a chance to dodge it (well, lots of vehicles would, MBT's probably wouldn't), the time required to fire a shot is reduced and the reward for hitting is higher. With a slow enough missile for the G2G missile, MBT's would also be capable of dodging or trying to evade the missile somehow, increasing the skill by pre-aiming the missile in the right direction. Perhaps the speed could change the damage type: High-speed missiles deals low damage against MBT's, but allows you to hit Harassers. low-speed missiles deal good damage against MBT's but you won't be able to hit Harassers or fast Lightnings that well. Against aircraft you could also introduce high-speed missiles, flak missiles (but without the ridiculous 8m detonation range, something between 0,5 to 2m detonation range is more than enough), laser-guided flak missiles and maintain-lock missiles that require the player to aim close to the center of the enemy aircraft, rather than the 'if the aircraft is on-screen you are locking it' we have now. That allows aircraft to actually dodge the missiles, while at the same time the missile launchers all have the ability to be fired instantly and then be guided/locked afterwards to their target. It requires skill both to hit but also to dodge, which is a fair system. Add similar options to vehicles, and we can introduce lethal AA options that don't dominate large swaths of land. The range of the aircraft would be a great factor in how easy it is to hit and kill, which works the same for vehicle combat: at long-range you can be set upon by 3 enemy MBT's and get out alive, at short-range you won't stand a chance unless your skill is massively through the roof and you are lucky enough to be in the right position to get away in time. And that's pretty much as it should be.
The lock on launchers do more damage against sunderers -- except for the decimator, which does the same amount of relative damage against them. However, I'm not sure that they're as 'no skill' as you assert. As it is, a Heavy has to expose themselves while aiming a rocket launcher to achieve and fire their rocket, during which time they're eligible for either return fire from the vehicle they're attacking as well as anyone with a decently accurate weapon looking for an easy headshot. Currently, the anti-air launchers are fine --- they're good at scaring away ESFs and, in volleys, spooking Liberators. The risk vs. reward for the ground launchers, however, isn't there -- and that's just at default range. Figure in the way that faster vehicles can out-turn the missiles and can run vehicle stealth to make the lock-on even longer and they're simply not worth using.
If you look at them from a different perspective, though... Think of them as a RL with less damage but also less rocket drop, than the default one. Lock-on is just a nice bonus perk.
We're not doing this unless Wrel freezes over or you give a larger turn radius to the F&F launchers. As it stands, the non-swarm launchers can only be evaded using terrain, and the same goes for tomcats. This magic turn radius is largely designed to work against ESFs. I like the notion of maintaining lock-ons. I wouldn't be opposed to them having slightly higher damage than the F&Fs. However, I still assert that most people that complain about G2A are clueless people who want magic death laser sky brooms who fail due to a lack of tactics, not arsenal.
would make lock ons useless against pilots with any skill what-so-ever, air evade and make it hard to predict their movements due to not being bound by actual air physics and then a lot of infantryside players would wine about tanks like they usually do and get tanks nerfed even more. why does 'skillful' AA always boil down to 'you have 95% chance of not hitting me' for pilots. pilots talk all about skill like it's the end all be all and conveniently forget what they have that makes AA's skill useless, air are the fastest units in the game and can escape and evade any ground AA not deployed en mass, can move in 3D in any manner without stalling and have sprint capability at need. the base speed and maneuverability of aircraft makes wireguided and maintained lock weapons ineffective before you factor in afterburner to throw of a lock on user's aim when a pilot gets the lock warning, what this would do is push lock on users out of cover in the open so there aren't any obstructions for their missles while making the exposed completely to enemy air (just as it was when missles started turning right out of the launcher so the pilot could kill the AA player with their own rocket) try to hit some air at range with an engie turret, again, again and again i highly doubt anyone could reliably hit air with an engineer turret unless the aircraft is sitting within 100m just taking the damage hovering there. air already has a counter to lock ons, it's called cover like trees, buildings, towers, mountains. if you can't make a missile hit terrain in flight then you are doing it wrong as a pilot.
That's why I'm trying to come up with weapnos that aren't magic death laser sky brooms. How would it make them useless? For example the maintain lock one: You fire the missile beforehand, the lock-on time is reduced to say 0,5 seconds. Then when the missile gets close you lock-on to the aircraft, giving them the smallest amount of time to react. However, to maintain a lock you need to aim closer to the aircraft rather than 'anywhere remotely near it is fine'. That way you could easily turn the entire premise around: 'pilot skill would be useless if they go up against G2A users with any skill whatsoever'. That's ofcourse not true, but it does show how G2A weapons don't have to stay with this strict 'it takes an eternity to lock-on'. Because like many people, you are assuming the worst. Imagine if that missile went 1000m/s... That would be too fast wouldn't it? practically no time for the aircraft to dodge. So we slow the missile down. 800m/s? Probably too fast. 600m/s? That's possible I believe. You start with 600m/s, then see the results. Use an iterative process to increase/decrease this and you are done! And because there's been a flurry of people who misinterpret 'iterative process' with the Thermals for instance: 'iterative' means that you change something, look at how it functions, and then see if it needs buffing or nerfing again. So it doesn't mean that thermals must be nerfed even further 'because it's in an iterative process'. In fact, because of that iterative process there's a large change the thermals will get buffed again. Not to the insane power it used to have, but to something in between what we have now and the previous power. Yes, what pilots also forget is that they need less skill than the G2A weapons to escape the G2A weapons. Seriously how hard is 'point your nose anywhere that doesn't take you over the G2A weapon or into the ground and hit afterburner'? Even G2A weapons require more skill than that! At the very least G2A weapons require positional skill and the ability to lead their target with the slow-as-molasses flak! How would speed and shortened lock-on time, as well as pre-fired missiles, change this? For a wire-guided missile for instance, what speed would be too fast? Could adding a small flak-detonation range to the wire-guided missile balance it out if it's too hard to hit targets? If we are redesigning G2A weapons, don't assume that things like lock-on time will remain the same. The whole purpose is to redesign it! Imagine what would be a balanced weapon! We can easily make it OP, we can easily make it UP, there's got to be a middle-ground in between the two where the G2A weapon is just right. It's too situational a counter, and the point is to rebalance the G2A weapon. At least my point is to rebalance it compared to what the OP seems to want. On one hand make it harder for G2A weapons to hit their targets, on the other hand we increase the reward for hitting the target and cut down on things like lock-on time, exposure, lack of skill ceiling etc.
Because you're listening to infantry-only players argue with Skyknights. You should immediately disregard any of their biased arguments. Yet the Walker seems to hit aircraft just well in the right hands.... And I imagine a laser guided lock-on would be a touch easier than the Walker to use. Either way, it's infinitely better than what we have. If you're posting about how to dodge lock-ons without actually know how to do it then you're doing it wrong. It's not about putting an obstruction between you and the missile, that works 1/100 times. With their space magic tracking and silly 180s till they hit you, it's half luck if you can reverse maneuver twice in a row and have it smack the ground on the second pass. It's just an awful mechanic from every prospective. Post a video with 3 successful dodges in a row and I'll eat my words.
Once again, it would so simple to look at the reality and use it to model MANPAD/SAM. You have three kinds of weapons: - SAM, guided. You can radar-lock and launch a missile (but the aircraft will get a warning) or dumb-fire the missile and then lock in flight and send guidance information to the missile. The aircraft fight back by hitting radar emitter with anti-radiation missiles and the radar shut down the emission to avoid to be hit (but the anti-radiation missiles record the position of the emitter and go there anyway). It is a wonderful cat-and-mouse game but we do not have SAM and radar dishes in PS2 (a pity). - MANPAD fire-and-forget. There are no humans carrying a radar so they lock via IR and then track the aircraft. IRL those missiles are way faster than then the pitiful PS2 ones and have an engagement range measured in Km, but there are in-game limitations. Those missiles should be faster but not so agile in turning, so the key to survive is simply to dodge and/or use IR flares at the right time (who uses those in PS2?). It goes without saying that a nimble ESF should be capable to dodge way better than a bulky Liberator (which in turn can have more flares and take two/three hits before going down and fly higher in general since there are no SAM). If an aircraft breaks locks or dodges, the missiles is wasted so there is only one chance. - guided rockets. IRL those are either TV guided or tracking the spot of a laser illuminator (another great thing missing in PS2 which would force people to cooperate together, one spots and illuminate the target, the one fires) and engage ground vehicles or slow-moving/stationary aircraft. In PS2 the only example is the NS-AM7 Archer: pitifully slow even to engage ground vehicles and delivering a weak punch (not enough even to kill an infantryman!!!) it has to many drawback that the only safe way to use it is within the spawn room... So, TLDR: (1) consider introducing SAM at bases (yeah, wishful thinking...) (2) fire-and-forget IR missiles: way faster, more range, less-agile, proximity detonation/damage, one chance to hit then missile is wasted, one/two hit to kill an ESF, two/three kills to kill a Liberator (3) guided TV missiles (the Archer is the only example): same speed but more range and punch (4) consider introducing laser guided missiles (again, wishful thinking) to increase cooperation. The laser illuminator could be something carried by LA and infiltrators as third weapon. Once a target is illuminated it appears on the radar-map with some marker (or blinking) so other guys can decide to engage
pick up a rocket launcher with lock on capability and try to keep it on an air target fully through flight, the lock area of your crosshairs is small compared to the space air can travel at varying speeds, if we had to maintain lock with current launchers no aircraft in skilled hands would ever be hit because they come in fast hit their targets then retreat quickly. i can tell you walker is alot easier to hit aircraft then with a wire guided rocket, for one bullets travel faster and you have a high ROF with walkers misses aren't as punishing if your target suddenly veers to an unexpected heading.
Engi AV turrets and NSX Masamune are laser guided. Sadly one was nerfed recently and second is kinda underwhelming in most situations. Not mentioning that TV guided NC missle which in my opinion is super fun to use. I really like the idea of infiltrators being able to highlight the targets for HAs to fire upon but for practical use it should work more like recon darts or ion cannon markers. Vehicle drivers/pilots should be able to defend themselves somehow not to mention it would be quite difficult to maintain lock on moving vehicles in most areas. Also, it should be quite risky for infils to tag target. Short range darts or visible laser beam (something like UB laser but with much longer range) but in return rockets that hit vehicles should do massive damage, after all, it would not be something spammable easily.
Start a tread about hitting ground tagets wants to hit both air and ground ESFS ar already locket out of most major fights also all lunchers shoud have 25 procent dmg nerf with a slower reload to make them more hit and run
G2A launchers are more effective than people give them credit for in my experience, but they are not OP as currently configured. I use my G2A to dumb fire against the occasional ground vehicle as shooting vehicles other than a Harassaer or a Flash is just another definition of a waste of time in my book - unless it is smoking or is under heavy attack from other sources.
The ability to dodge missiles using terrains is indeed situational. Not many non-pilots even get Envelope questions (I'm not sure as many pilots as I would like do). Different tactics, airframes, types of pilot (Natural, Technical, Experienced) work at different altitudes for their comfort zones. Thus, G2A casuals frequently assume that what pilots do is "Silly and Simple and therefore OP". You try dodging a smurfberry powered cheesebox with coyotes (Reaver) and terrain dodge a SKEP at the same time. That said, I would not peg it at 1/100. If there were a scientific testing situation, and if I could be bothered, I speculate that probability graph mapping P[hit] over Range-at-launch, there would be a sweet spot at the mid-ranges. At ultra long ranges, the pilot has more time to find obstacles. At shorter ranges, the window of acquisition and fire is so short that people take bad shots because immediately proximal obstacles aren't in their FOV (They turn and track and launch, then don't see the rock spire 5m to their left.) In fact, just by hitting the deck you can reduce R3 swarms down to about 25% P with no additional manuevers, just due to the silly sparky guidance behavior the developers intentionally added for flavor. It goes down to 15% or so if you're under 1m, and down to about what I'd say is 2% if you're under 2m in a canyon having done a turn greater than 15 degrees (approx.). This is especially true if the missiles have tracked above you and are chasing you downward I do appreciate that. I'm commenting more on the broad sense of what I pull from G2A threads.
I dunno, mate.... I've spent the better part of 2 hours online this morning, and there were ****tons of Mosquitos out (I think TR had the cheap air cont lock). Since there were so many around, I decided to work on my HA directives a bit and pulled out my G2A lockon launcher - and it made almost no difference. I start locking onto dudes, and they basically ignored me. Just fly on in and complete their run before disappearing over the horizon. Sure, I get hit markers, but with NAR / engy auto-repair, by the time they're starting their next run, most of the damage has already been cleared out. Out of about 60 rockets fired (before I got bored and did something more productive), I probably generated about 50 hits (after some flares and some terrain misses). Out of those 50 hits, I got exactly 2 kills and about 4 more assists (since I wasn't the only one shooting) for a total of 6 downed ESFs. That's not a good result in terms of effectiveness. G2A might be annoying. G2A might force you to stop farming for 30 secs and actually land and repair *shock horror*. But G2A is not at all lethal, and even as a *deterrent* (which is stupid in a game primarily about killing things) it's a relative failure since dudes simply don't need to run away until after they've completed their strafing run.
There can be days like that for me too. Experienced pilots with NAR and flares and stealth are almost untouchable. But the other day there was a big air fight going on overhead and I scored three esf (and pilot) kills in a row - really.......no forum boasting. The trick that works for me is being selective - I look for damaged or less experienced pilots or the ones with other things on their mind, like aerial combat. I certainly wouldn't say that is a normal kill rate but I generally get one kill per 7 rockets, or thereabouts. And the assists and air deterrence points add up to a fair bit of xp over time. MLG Pro skyknights are not usually good contributors to my tally though. It's a bit like sniping a Max -rarely worth the effort. I have to say I don't play that much and I only pull an HA when I see what look like reasonable air targets for my G2A.
nah man it´s more like calling others plebs, peasants or ... ... n****** .... and it comes off as "racist" ... it comes kinda off as elitist though
Nah, it's the cry of the MLG Pro who thinks he shouldn't be beaten by someone with less experience or lower BR. [Synonyms: "f*cctard" and "f**kin' cheat"]
