[Suggestion] Lockon Launcher and AA

Easy fix. If you are holding a lockon, you render in as a priority target, just like a MAX does, as a farther range than other Infantry. Now are there any problems?

That problem has been fixed years ago. People holding AV/AA weapons render at much longer ranges than normal infantry. This was a bit of a slap in the face since they also reduced the ranges of such weapons so many of them now rendered before they could fire.
Add in the dynamic rendering system which allows "normal" infantry to render at much longer ranges even without AV weapons in their hands under certain circumstances (like when going ADS, using vehicle scopes or low enemy count) and you can see the reason why there hasnt been a complaint about this for years.

I wish I could thumbs this up multiple times.

Well, sorry, but this is what I take from your suggestions of buffing rocket launcher systems. Don't get me wrong, I usually don't fly ESFs other than for a fast transportation, but I bring up points ESF mains will bring up anyway. They will defend their playstyle tooth and nail. When the TR Striker came out, they cried and moaned until the devs nerfed the thing back to nothing. And whatever you will propose, if it is too good, and from the receiving end everything but absolute inefficiency will be too good, it will get massive backlash.

My approach is not to let air remain free of G2A threats, only to place a thicker shield onto these threats. If the shield can hold for 4 lock-ons that all hit, things will be hard for the ESF, since even if the shield goes finally down, her HP are down considerably as well, placing it in a massive disadvantage. Oh well... By the end of it, someone will somehow feel offended and the nerf or buff of one thing or another will come.

I specifically mention how the launchers I propose should give aircraft a way to avoid and dodge them and this translates in your head to "he wants OHK lockons".

And you dont have to take the verbal diarhea of airplayers in your mouth, and you especially dont need to present it as if you believe it.

While it would definitely be nice to have some protections other than inside buildings it would not really help with how trash G2A is. Firing 4 lock ons gives the ESF plenty of time to get out of the area, using cover to break LOS you can stay in the area longer and if the shield isnt a complete dome you can easily kill those beneath it.

Compensating for the trash by making it live a little longer isnt a good solution. Its great for non-G2A weapon wielders to survive an attack a bit longer and hope someone else comes along to deter them but it needs the G2A weapons to be altered as well to make it a better fight for both sides. Aircraft should have the option to avoid G2A fire by dodging it, rather than be limited to "fly in a straight line until out of range" or "get behind cover". In the meantime a G2A weapon that completely surprises an aircraft should demolish it. Its ridiculous that right now a Skyguard can sneak up on a hovering ESF (or any aircraft) and open fire at point-blank range in its rear, only to be rewarded with an ESF that has 100% escape chance unless the pilot makes a mistake and crashes into someything or flies away too late. Also G2A users with a high skill should similarly be rewarded for it. And no AP rounds are not a valid skillful G2A weapon, the only reason they are effective is because aircraft have so little to fear that they make themselves potential targets.

They can dodge it now by flying around it, but what if we did one better? What if you could turn off your engine and then the rockets wouldn't be able to track you? The downside is that you now have to fall from the sky and wait for it to pass you or be unable to make the turn before you turn your engines back on, so theres a balance to it. What do you think about that? Or what if the box you had to track was smaller or had different areas of hardness to aim for and different times to lock, therefore resulting in a more skillful approach?

Demingan suggested an idea but he's never actually designed it into a workable weapon despite being called out for it several times because it would expose how op he wants it to be. Then he cries that we'd pick it apart despite that being the enite point of making a suppsoed "fair" weapon. He just wants a magical machine to do it for him. He will never ever actually design the weapon, stats and all.

You can see it in his other post where he cries that somehow a G2A weapon has sneaked up on a ESF, and instead of using the high skill options like AP rounds, AV mana turrets or Decis to 1hko it he wants the low skill weapon to be be as strong as a high skill weapon. It's so obvious what he wants, he wants skilless weapons to be as strong as skilled ones. This is why he never actually designs the weapons, just floats the vauge ideas of them to hide this fact.

Also, if you 4 on the mountain had pulled maxes instead of lock ons, the ESF would never have been able to kill your sunderer. If you were NSO I can actually understand that tho, they should have bursters like everyone else.

*** k you I did and you can look it up. The problem is not my idea's, but the stupid resistance against it.

As a good example how stupid it gets: I proposed and worked out idea's how each individual aircraft could fulfill a unique way of A2A and A2G. The only concession aircraft had to do was make the ESF give some of its toys to the Valkyrie while it received a more dedicated dive-bomber role.

The argument against me by multiple people was that I "must have been killed by aircraft and wanted to nerf them".

Why should I bother creating a perfectly balanced weapon for you if you have already shown yourself unwilling to believe it is possible? Just the simple bare-bones idea of "laser guided flak missile" should have a range of "completely worthless" to "OP as all hell" and everything inbetween. Yet you act as if the idea will automatically turn into a OHK missile.

I have already posted a full idea in the past, it got the same naysayers as you vomiting their diahrea all over it. If you had the intention of actually changing your mind if you saw a proper idea you would have put in the effort to go look for it. Since you dont and you show every sign that you wont listen to the best ideas out there, there is no point in rehashing the complete idea to you is there?

You even go so far as to do a small smear campaign against me because your arguments are worthless without insulting your opposition. Seriously just fu ck you and your worthless desperate cry to keep obviously OP components in the game.

Fu cking stupid fu cker.

Seriously I point out that dedicated G2A weapons are not even able to do something when you do put in skill and effort. All my idea's constantly underline that skill should be required to deal with aircraft. But here you are proclaiming that all I want is a low skill weapon to as strong as a high skill weapon. I just said I wanted higher skill G2A you worthless piece of *****. This is whats wrong with you sh itholes. You dont even pretend to have a decent argument, all you do is invent hyperboles for your opposition and sit back while the devs fawn over your aircraft.

You dont deserve respect.

But he did. A laser-guided G2A launcher. Thats the idea. Thats the workable weapon. We have a laser-guided weapon in-game already, so how much of a jump is this idea? Its not complicated. Its fair. Its the lock-on, but no locking. We don't need to go through weapon model, stats, TTK, usability, ammo, and everything, because we aren't the ones putting it into the game. We don't need to come up with everything because we don't make the final decisions on it. Also, HIGH SKILL OPTIONS LIKE AP ROUNDS, AV TURRETS, AND DECIS? How are those high skill? Its just a guessing game and it happens to work out! Its not high skill at all, especially not against the things they are designed to go against. And those all are OHKs, aren't they?

Lets remove this idea of "skill" out of your heads. There is no such thing as skill in gaming. Its memory and patterns and time and practice and information. Hitting headshots doesn't take skill. It takes time, practice, and commitment, and once you have put in that work, its child's play. Lets instead use the words "easy" and "hard" to describe the type of weapons we want to talk about.

Also burster maxes arent this skilled gameplay you are referring to either. Point and click, man. And 350 nanites for an ESF and some certs for their weapons to 450 for each max? Im not saying to balance things by nanite cost but cmon now. Why do we need so much put into trying to fight a vehicle with a learning curve? That curve isn't enough to justify the farm they get.

That's alot of words and not alot of stats, links to stats or threads.
Post link or shut it. You won't though, we both know that, those links don't actually exist.

He has never ever posted a link to a weapon he has supposedly designed, just vauge ideas. He just make up what sounds cool in his tacitcool milsim brain regardless of how to actually implement it into the game. The reason he never posts stats is because he has never made them.

You have to go through stats, TTK, usability ammo and everything because that's what defines how the weapons function. Without any of that, we're back to your original thought of 1000 meter "so long as you can see it you can lock it" lock-on buffs lol.

If you are all so perfectly right why do you feel the need to lie and say I want things directly opposed to what I am actually saying?

Maybe because you know you dont even have a pathetic excuse to justify yourself and can only create an "argument" by inventing what others supposedly mean?

I don't recall saying 1000 meters, but if I did, ok.

Anyways, he doesn't NEED to get the approval of the community by having the complete workup of an idea of a new weapon or anything for that matter. Listen, Lode, your ideas do not matter to anyone but yourself, not until you are told they are important by someone in charge. My ideas do not matter to anyone but myself, not until I am told they are important by someone in charge. Demigan's ideas to not matter to anyone but himself, not until he is told that told they are important by someone in charge. Theres no reason to through a whole stat dumb, a model design, a cert cost, none of that, because you simply have no reason to appease forumside players until you have a high chance of your idea being implemented, and EVEN SO, you don't have the final say in those stats, that design, that cert cost, or any of that, because its not your job to. You are just the person who suggested it, and while your suggestions can help, its up to the developers to come up with these things. Its not that you can't, but you don't have to and shouldn't be required by others to.

His idea is a laser-guided G2A launcher. Thats it. He doesn't need to come up with stats. If that idea is enough, the devs will do it. And as long as he doesn't specify the specifics, then you aren't allowed to assume what he means, because you simple do not know what he means. You can't decide that he is saying he wants a 1000 meter OHK weapon just because he didn't specify the range and damage it has.

i probably see more people farming A2G with ESFs than i see using lock ons.
because A2G farming gets you a ton of kills, lock on launchers get you nothing.
come to cobalt and you'll see mosquitos swarming spawn rooms, spamming their bans%%t at the exits.

when i fly (which isn't often) it is only skyknights or a lucky tank round that i'll die to,
NONE of these supposed "anti-air" weapons are lethal.
you can simply fly away and repair, lock on launchers are especially hilarious for how ineffective they are,
i know i can simply sit there and eat the first 2 missiles the fly away and repair, oh he's firing another one?
cute, i'll activate fire suppression and eat that one too.

if you can't see an issue with "anti air" weapons being the least effective form of anti air then there is no hope.

Still no links or stats, again.
You could instantly prove me wrong by posting the stats/links, but you won't because you can't post what you don't have.

You explicity said "Literally, just increase the range of lockons to "as long as you can see the aircraft, to a reasonable degree" and just make it take longer to lock the further they go out." Right thre in your OP.

The maximum range to see aircaft is around 1000 meters. So how much is reasonable here? To some of people, that's the full 1000 beacuse they don't want to actually fight aircraft and would prefer if they was deleted from the game. This is how G2A discussions always go. Tell me exactly what you think is a resonable range.

His idea is a laser guided G2A launcher. Ok. How much damage does it do? I assume it gonna be stonger than locks because it takes more effort to use, right? For his pea brain to handle we can even limit it to ESF, so it has to be either a 1, 2 or 3 shot kill. How much range does it have? 300m? 500m? 700m? Can you fire multiple missiles and have them guided? How long is a reload speed (links to last question really). Does it have a minimum arm distance? How much velocity does it have?

That's are just questions relevant to ESFs, there's so much more he'd have to think about like how good is it vs Dervish, Valks, Libs & Galaxys? How strong is it vs ground vehicles and all the different types of those? Is it good or bad vs maxes?

It's far easier to just propose vauge **** and have everyone else, or the devs, do the designs themsleves. Then whenever I ask him how the weapon actually functions he throws a ****fit saying he's already done that, despite, you know, not.

If you don't need vailidation from others then why even bother posting in the first place? I want splash damage back on the shredder, the massive AoE on the launch dalton & the tankbuster to 1 mag mbts again. Can't critize meeeee I just making ideas man why you so mean? That's so rude of you I don't care about the effect it has on the game shut up it's just idea.

That last bit is sarcasm by the way

They are trash because they take 0 effort to use, and still put out good damage despite that. The same goes for flak. It's a low skill floor and ceiling so it gets more than approriate results.

Instead of deciding that his idea is bad and assuming what he means, why not formulate for yourself what would make the weapon work? Instead of asking all of these questions, why not formulate for yourself what would make the weapon unbalance and simply tell him that if it had X, Y, and Z, it would be unbalanced, but if it had A, B, and C, it would be balanced? Why jump through hoops with multiple questions when half of the answers are exactly what you are baiting for to be the unbalanced answer when you can just determine how to make the weapon balanced? Why have this stupid argument with Demigan when you can try to work with him to make his idea work or simply explain what would make it not work? And no, he told you how it works. Laser guided. You don't need to know everything else about the proposed weapon when the base idea is good enough for you to formulate an opinion on. Make a condition opinion for all I care. "Its good as long as..." or "I don't want it if...". Its as simple as that.

Also, I said "to a reasonable degree", and you quoted it. I also said 600 meter render distance for Infantry holding launchers. So using that CS, also known as common sense, you can reason that I likely think about 600 meters is a good distance.

But no one is saying it like you. No one is saying that they don't care about the effect their things have on the game. No one is saying that you can't criticize our ideas just because it is only an idea. The problem is that you are trying to hold our ideas to a very high standard of completion. We only need 12% of a plan like Star Lord. We don't need to come up with everything. And our ideas are at least a little bit more fleshed out than saying "I want splash damage back on the shredder, the massive AoE on the launch dalton and the tank buster to 1 mag MBTs again", and we can criticize that because that is your idea and we can give valid reasons why it is bad. We can understand just what you are getting at and provide arguments as to why we shouldn't have that idea. However you, you are formulating your own idea on our ideas by taking ours to an unbalanced extreme then bashing it and saying that it is bad because it is at an unbalanced extreme, when we didn't provide the details on it to even suggest it'd be taken to an unbalanced extreme. So no, don't mock us. We aren't mocking you.
That last bit is sarcasm by the way

But they don't do good damage. You can't take out anything with it because they can do everything wrong and still get away. They can leave in a bad fight against ground. We can't leave in a bad fight against air, and we can't fight back. If a sunderer with 2 flak cannons on it can't hit the ESF from the range it is bombing us, and it can't hide from it, then what good was it to bring any AA? If the lockons can't reach the ESF in the range that they are getting attacked and you can't run from them when they are shredding you, then what good did it do to bring the AA? Plus, locking on shows your position on the map. And its not like you can't counter lock-ons with flares. However, let me ask you something. Why don't more people use flares? Because lockons arent a THREAT! Fire suppression is better. That needs to change. We need to have a reason to choose any option in the game, not lock things off behind a meta. Like seriously, all AA is bad. Every last one of them. The only way to deal with air is to pull air or use a deci, and a deci isn't even skillful gameplay. Now you are the jack of all trades! How is that better than specialization against the threat you want to specialize again? Your logic just doesn't make sense.

I think I can answer this for you: he does not want the G2A weapons to be any good and he will resist anything, even the most balanced and fun new G2A weapon to ever be suggested.

The proof is simple by looking at his actions so far. His first response is a hyperbole saying you want 1000m range OHK launchers, even though that wasnt what you said. Finishing with how they are trash and should stay trash.
I respond to this by saying that having a weapon designed from the ground up to be trash makes no sense, and tell him we should be deleting trash weapons designing new non-trash weapons.
His response is to somehow assume that current trash weapons would simply be kept and reiterates that a trash weapon with 0 skill should remain trash, which makes no sense since I was talking about replacing it.
When I point out that laser-guided/maintain lock weapons would not be 0 skill trash weapons and solve his entire problem he ofcourse cant have that and moves goalposts: now I have to find my old posts again or recreate the stats I invented the last time, stats that the devs would never put in directly because thats now how they work. On top of that he keeps assuming hyperboles (everything OHK!) and he will tell everyone what others supposedly mean often while quoting the text that proves him wrong.

He cannot be reasoned with. He does not want this to succeed. When last time I posted the stats I dealt with similar people and they would the exact same lies, cherry-picking and hyperbole as he does. Its also hypocritical: he asks others to come up with a complete and perfectly detailed idea for him to cherry-pick on while he doesnt suggest anything. He admits the weapons are trash but refuses to talk about improving them.

When is the last time you saw someone seriously suggest a OHK G2A weapon? Its always the people defending aircraft who say that. And why? Because they know they dont have an argument themselves, so they have to make their opposition look like bad guys.

From my experience those lockons are nigh impossible to avoid. As in the only useful countermeasure is either flares. Which no1 appears to use and. Hoping flying low and praying said missile hits a hill instead. In either case. If you had three guys target the same esf and let loose with at rouphly the same time. It will kill the esf. Id prefer speeding up flak,walker, and dumbfire rocket velocities greatly so you no longer have to pull massive lead at slow moving relatively close range targets.

Everyone always brings up that hypothetical of "what if 3 people use a lock on at the same time?!?". However this never happens. Having 3 people in a safe enough position to switch and aim and have a visual on the target without obstructions is rare as all hell. 99% of the lock-ons are ultra-easy to find: the nearest spawnpoint. Breaking a lock is similarly easy, just cut the line of sight to the nearesr spawn.
Complaining about the potential of something powerful while in almost every situation its incapable of really threatening the target is not really productive.

Anyway, fire-and-forget lock ons are a dead end idea. Designed purely to be trash to let aircraft always get away. We need to outright replace them with skillful alternatives.

I LITERALLY asked him to provide the stats he wants for this weapon, and EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. he doesn't. he not only refuses to do so, he claims he has already done so. Then when asked to provide evidence of these claims he just doesn't. How the **** do you work with someone who blatently refuses to do so? This is why I always ask for links, because it's something he has to provide, but won't because he can't.

Here's a fun experiment, I will put every relevent stat in an easy to see & answer little paragraph which he can quote and put his own stats into. This WILL go unanswered because he doesn't want to do it. Why don't you get this? It's time to for him to take step 2 after going "I want thing".

Resist type:
Damage (Direct):
Damage (Flak dentonation):
Reload Speed:
Velocity (initial):
Velocity (Max):
Cone of Fire:
Ammo Capacity:
Ammo Reserves:

https://planetside.fandom.com/wiki/Vehicle_armor_and_damage_resistance Use this for resist types.

That reaches awfully far up into the sky, making A2A ESFs job even harder now. A2G ESFs who are much closer to the ground will have a far easier time putting something inbetween the locker and the plane. A range increase doesn't really effect A2G, it effects A2A ones. This is why just a random increase needs to be more thoughtful than "I died and I don't like!".

That last bit is sarcasm by the way
Even in a blatent joke about 1 maging tanks with the tank buster, that still, STILL, provides more information than "I want a guided G2A missle". It gives you an idea of how strong the weapon is wanted, whereas "I want thing!" provides jack****.

Ok, you want guided G2A missile. Now what. Tell me something. Is it strong is it weak or what? Provide ******* something.

If a sunderer with 2 flak cannons can't hit an ESF, you got outplayed plain and simple. The gunners skill was so bad that with one of the easiest weapons to hit in the game, on a platform that is rather tanky vs ESFs, they STILL couldn't hit the aircraft enough for it to leave, then they might consider working for daybreak as the tutorial bots. Hornets have a hardcap range of around 450m. The rangers range is 1000 meters.

People don't use flares because it provides none or minimal advantages against your primary threats, other ESFs & Flak. Flares will do nothing for you against a ranger, a skyguard or burstermax. Against ESF they only work if the opponent is using A2A locks, which aren't very effective against ESF anyway.