A common G2A complaint which irks me greatly

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by Verenz, May 12, 2014.

  1. Beeman

    You don't get it, though. It's not that I like ArmA and dislike Planetside 2. I don't even want Planetside 2 to be hyper realistic like ArmA...and the opinions I'm stating are opinions I see getting repeated and reiterated on the forums and reddit every day. Opinions that I've formed based on countless hours spent playing games of every genre, interfacing with their communities and watching companies succeed and fail based on various design decisions and the public outcry(both positive and negative) that results from those decisions. Yes, what I say is obviously my opinion...but it's a well-educated opinion.

    I also didn't say WoT was a simulator, I said it is an arcade game with the spirit of a simulator...which it literally is. It's also not pay-to-win, but you saying that did make me laugh so high-five for that.

    I can only say that your simplistic antagonism amuses me. So thanks for that.

    But anyways, all of that junk is wildly off-topic. Back to the original point of discussion: Aircraft and junk.

    Yeah, it's pretty weird how flares work in Planetside 2 right now. They're like explosions of burning chaff more than actual flares. It looks cool, though...so I guess there's that.

    I don't mind the lock-on times, so much but the range kills me. I don't know if it's just the annihilator or what, but being limited to a two hundred-ish meter lock-on range is painful. Rarely do pilots get so low to the ground long enough for me to lock on...and being so low to the ground, they can easily force my rocket into some terrain. How bothersome.

    I don't dislike your suggestion about the lock-on warning. It makes sense in my brainstuffs, but I feel like that's something that'd need a little testing to figure out how it actually affects gameplay before dumping that sort of change onto the live servers.
  2. Goretzu

    I honestly don't really understand how people are dying to AA lock-ons these days, a Lib can just get out because it's tough enough to do so and ESFs just need to head to to the nearest bit of terrain to scrub them off (or just fly low and fast to begin with).
  3. Makora

    A bit of research leads me to believe that the SOE has given all of us Radar tracking rockets. Why I think this is because lock-on targets get a warning and that is the target detecting the radar trying to find and identify a target. So the countermeasures are, in fact, burning chaff (or Flares deployed with Chaff).
    But all this still doesn't explain the immunity. Unless the vehicle actively dispenses it during flight like a dog shedding coat, I don't see the countermeasure working like this.

    So "Flares" should only cause rockets locked on to them to stop chasing and fly straight. Not up as they do now. If you just using a flare should not cause you to be "lol safe". But to counter this a bit, the cooldown of the flare needs to be drastically cut down. Around the 5-10 second mark when maxed.
    If you want to operate in a high lock-on area, it should be your skill in positioning, timing and movement that determines how long you can stay there. "Flares" are there to give you a chance to escape when you messed up. Not make you immune to something.
    This also opens up more rewarding teamplay on the ground where you can be "baited" into releasing flares only to be targeted by others on standby.

    Lock-on times is a bit of a strange subject because the times themselves aren't that long when you think about it objectively. Yes they take forever but only because you are being shot upon and every half a second counts. It's just made worse and even insulting by the way the rockets operate. They fly right into the ground, they chase the targets in the most stupidest ways. If you manage to make the missile fly into a hill, that's awesome. But it's not awesome when the joke of a targeting mechanism decides to "intercept" you 20m below ground.
    As for lock-on ranges I can understand the current limitations despite how angry they make me at times. It's all about being able retaliate. It's the exact same argument about Engineer AV turrets and tanks. You can't counter something you can't see. At 200m the average infantryman in PS2 is so tiny if he's sitting still he's really difficult to spot. But usually they are spotted by the epic awesome semi-psychic "find me a target" Q button and then promptly murdered by lolpods.

    Lock-on warning, again ties into the idea that the missiles in-game are "radar targeting". Easier to explain.
    As I stated with the Striker, any launcher that requires you keep your lock on target is eerily similar to how TOW launchers work. You fire a missile and the missile goes where you point. In a lore-fluff version I'd imagine the Striker needing lock only as a confirmation of target. A safety feature for whatever reason. The computer verifies that you have in your sights an enemy vehicle (by visual identification of color, shape, IR and UV radiation, Radar etc) And then it keeps tracking that target regardless of countermeasures used because it tracks so many things at once it can still confirm your target through chaff, smoke and flares. So basically if you're being fired upon by a Striker, nothing but breaking line of sight will work.

    What really bothers me in the G2A ?

    Get inside a base AV turret (you know the ones that shoot big anti armor shells). Somehow get a direct hit on an ESF who's flying by.

    To me that's the epitome of a skill shot (mobile target and slow projectile).

    ESF gets blown to pieces ? Nope. Gently lands under the nearest cover and repairs.

    THAT irks me.