G2A Lockons are a Joke

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by Rydenan, Aug 19, 2017.

  1. NXR1

    Ive also noticed that the striker lock on is like less than 5 meters now, they really want that RL to be completely useless.
  2. RockPlanetSide2

    The Swarm and the Striker are the only worth while investments... they both make air leave the area... or spend a large amount of time not doing anything but flying around.

    Air deterrence is just as good, because eventually "Fat-Toby" will get tired and fly off... same result.

    All anti-air rockets need to follow the Swarm Design... the slow rockets are just dumb and they DO NOT WORK.
  3. Rydenan

    For starters, standing out in the open for long enough to acquire a lock and fire the rocket(s), not to mention positioning yourself in such a way that the aircraft can't just duck behind terrain to break your lock before you can even fire, is not so dead simple. It's time consuming and potentially deadly to run AA lockon duty outside of a spawn room.
    In fact, in many cases, its suicide to use a lockon. For example, firing your tickle-rockets at a Lib might simply convince it to fly over and nuke you. Sometimes ESFs will even tank your lockon and come kill you.
    So I'm not entirely buying your "low-risk/low-effort, low reward" argument here.\

    That being said, if there were a more skill-based AA weapon that had more kill potential, I would be all for it. But there is not.
  4. The Rogue Wolf

    The lock-on launchers are worthless because only one person ever pulls them at a time. Get just three people coordinating with them and you'll clear the skies in short order.
  5. LaughingDead

    We call this tactical superiority. ^
  6. Jamuro


    Well like i said my argument is that lockons do fine for the risk/time put into them.
    I know this sounds bad and biased given the current wider picture of aa in general in this game but if you only take a look at lockons on their own it might make more sense.

    Keep in mind at worst you lose what? 10-15seconds it took to spawn with a lockon launcher and look into the sky and 1 death.
    I ll try to elaborate a bit ...


    The underlying issue i see here mostly is that the nanite resource system is let's just say underwhelming.
    With everything costing the same resources you can't easily balance the cost factor of the whole risk vs reward thing.

    For example:
    In a perfect world your lockon launcher would have an alternative more devastating amo mode that costs a few resources from one of many pools and in return forces you to be visible on the radar during a setup time (after which you can wreck havoc).

    That way both sides would be forced to thing tactically ...
    "Is this esf troublesome enough for me to spend the time and risk resources of my aa pool to deal with it?"
    and on the pilots side
    "How long can i stay until someone starts packing heat?"

    In the end with our current system none of the above would ever happen (even if the choice was present) ...
    After all with one resource pool you end up always comparing your choice to the rest avaliable for the same cost.
    Which is why you generally don't see a squadwide angry skyguard/burster max rush


    It's just a crude example but i hope it showcases the issue with the whole risk vs reward argument in this game.
  7. LordKrelas

    Can the launcher be upgraded with Stealth, and reload-speed improvements?
    As well, Can the Launcher have upgrades purchased to Missile Speed?
    You know, to maybe catch the fastest target in the game, capable of engaging someone across the map & returning to the warpgate in under a half-minute to minute?

    As well, I assume the Nanite-costing Shell isn't terminated by Free Flares, or say can be simply endured till the Shooter runs out of nanites, while on the First light Air superiority fighter of the Pilot.

    As well, I assume this Launcher is capable of use against Ground targets, not rendering the User vulnerable to everything around them in addition to the most dangerous opponent in the Game: Aircraft.

    -- The point: That's a ****** risk vs reward, not crude... bloody horrid.
    Here, stand here lit up for nanites, while the faster & more dangerous opponent that can even render themselves off radar, and minimap, is alerted to your presence on their mini-map before you even fire.
    Ignoring the Flares, FS, or even Stealth: One side is highlighted to the opponent, whom has the durability, weaponry, speed, and height advantages...
    What risk exactly is there? The chance of death by over-extension for too long of a period, that too many Sources exist to be killed by One guy in a Fighter? The same over-extension is fatal for non-aircraft

    So, Perfect world even, Still screwed is the Ground.
    And heavily, given they are lit up on radar before even being able to fire, at the fastest target... that can remove their radar signature, while they, the Shooter is unable to fire during the period where the Aircraft not only can close the gap insanely fast but the Shooter can not even escape the Aircraft without literally hiding deep inside a building where they can do nothing to said aircraft.

    tactically? Mother of ****.
    I do hope that's the present argument, not a new one, on a second check of the end of post.
    If this seems overboard, well I've spent a lot of time dealing with aircraft.
    The best weapon ironically, being a ******* sniper rifle, and them massacring victims while having Tunnel vision.
  8. DIGGSAN0

    Why are there no G2A Lock ons for Lightning and MBT (as Side or Main cannon)?
  9. TR5L4Y3R

    The reason no one wants to do aa duty is because they are too focused on getting kills when however rocketlaunchers rather are ballanced to scare aircraft away by doing deterencedmg ... which they actualy do alright ..
  10. TR5L4Y3R

    because the are armored and can tank easily 4 missiles .. also imagine a collumn full of lockons ... basicaly no a2g esf could aproach those and walkers or basilisks are very effective against esf's ... if at all you might want g2a lockons against libs or gals but then the dmg dealt have ro be ballnced so those don't just shredded the instant they dared getting in range ..
    just saying... i am not opposed to some vehicles getting additional aaoptions but i don't think mbt's should be those that get them
  11. LordKrelas

    AA Duty means you have a weapon incapable of killing the target it is dedicated to engaging, while also the scaring away doesn't cost the aircraft anything but additional kills once engaged.
    In addition, the aircraft can actually farm the AA operators easily, unless hidden in spawn rooms.

    So the AA Operator barely gets certs, the Pilot is barely disrupted from farming, keeps their aircraft, and simply is kept from a few additional kills for a moment.

    While the AA operator is exposed & vulnerable to everything, with an ineffective weapon.
    So less Certs, more time spent firing, entirely exposed..
    Or be a Pilot, get kills, then get deterred for a moment, keep your nanites, and keep getting more kills - And maybe die eventually.

    A weapon balanced to "scare" aircraft away, leaving them alive, fully armed, and aware of where the AA is from, how much there is, and easily able to return to score more kills while simply exposing themselves slightly less to reduce the damage from any AA present.
    Or engage at further range, reducing AA effectiveness further while still retaining A2G power.

    And that's an ESF.
    A liberator requires usually numerous nanite-based tanks, which it destroys during the "scaring away" costing the Lib operators nothing, but the AA operators the entire cost of a tank.
    Let alone any vehicle hit by the Liberator before it was scared away.

    Alright apparently means "Ground units killed, Aircraft intact & retreating for the moment"
    Which basically means "Aircraft strike 1 success, Interception Fail, readying for Strike 2"
    Since it's not dead, it didn't lose nanites, and it had profitable results for the aircraft - it'll be back, for more.
    Or easily go elsewhere, and still get profitable results even with AA wailing at it.
  12. TR5L4Y3R

    at the very least i think it should take no less than 3 missiles to down a esf with lockons.. if there needs to be a buff than it is in lock on time and reloading of lock on launchers basicaly what there was in pts with additional ammo .. libs are generally a problem of their own that is not just in how much they are able to tank but also to dishout against basicaly everything ...
  13. LordKrelas

    Considering only the Swarm even can fire 3 missiles (outside the striker, and the NSX Launcher) before reloading.
    Of which is indeed on PTS, the ease of tanking 3 missiles, repairing, or using the Flares means landing 3 is dependent on the Pilot sitting there for it.

    Liberators, have better firepower than a tank, has 2 Gunners, and a weapon system for the Pilot, in addition to the armor of a Tank, the mobility of an aircraft, and a Boost system.
    A MBT has 2 Guns, neither of which can match the Liberator's weapons in any slot but the rear.
    In addition, the MBT driver has the main primary weapon, but the Liberator has two primaries - Add in range, and it gets insane.
    Add in, the ability to use Flares, FS, and AA's general inability to reliably damage these things... even in trying, the most expensive dedicated AA will be destroyed in groups by a Solo Liberator pilot..
    The Liberator is insanity; It's a VTOL Aircraft, that in no way should have the armor of a tank, and better weapons than one.
    It has to deal with the requirements of Flight, which has specific weight & engine power needs, but the vehicles that do not have that level of weight management required to function have less or equal armor, less weapons, less ammo, less speed, and impotent weapons in comparison.
    For nanite price? A single Max is equal in price to the Liberator.
    The costs of the AA vehicles to "scare away" a liberator, is more than the Liberator's nanite costs
    - Which has 3 operators whom each have nanite pools allowing an insane re-pull capability.

    Aka I agree with you about Libs being a problem.
    A single liberator can handle more tanks that cost Nanites, than it costs to field the Liberator.
    Dedicated AA Vehicle loses to non-specialized Stock Liberator.
    Hell, even a Max unit needs additional certs to have the ability to have a Max's full AA capability;
    And can't kill an ESF without being massacred.

    Who the hell designed the Liberator? They certainly didn't consider the Lack of AA options... as nothing on the ground is equal to it.
    Hell, nothing on the ground even has the number of Weapons;
    An ESF has more guns than any Solo vehicle.
    A Liberator has more guns than the largest land vehicle.
    A Galaxy holds the record for Gunners.
    A dedicated AA vehicle can not compare to a none-specialized aircraft for killing power...of even the target it is designed for.