A2A lock ons are still overpowered.

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by Jawarisin, Feb 22, 2015.

  1. zaspacer

    I like how A2AM work currently. They are a good "equalizer" for bad pilots to affect good pilots, and for multiple bad pilots to kill a good pilot. I also like that they are worthless vs. any target but Air, and that players must sacrifice Fuel Tank or A2G Wing Mount options to use them.

    I also like the existence of Coyotes, and that players can choose between A2AM and Coyotes as different A2A Wing-Mount options.

    I fly solo ESF almost 100% of my playtime. I almost never use A2AM or Coyotes. I die to A2AM occasionally, but it's not a major cause of death for me. I also use Stealth which may affect my experience vs. A2AM.

    I'm not sure how much Higby flew Air in the game and I don't know how much his vision or input will continue to affect the PS2 Dev Team. I am a HUGE fan of the product he and his team built at launch. I am a fan of the open book Dev approach after launch (while it lasted). I am a huge fan of the team's tremendous creativity. I am not a huge fan of the team's competence over the past 2 years in balancing with speed or effectiveness. I am not a fan of the team's moving the game away from supporting casual play in the standard game, and moving toward adjusting the game to feedback from the minority playerbase of hardcore organized outfits (because it broke regular gameplay, killed the new player experience, gave organized players big crutches, and because while these hardcore players wanted this it actually didn't make for good gameplay or good design as you can see in the terrible shallow metagame of Server Smash).

    EDIT: Looking at recent Server Smash data here http://ps2alerts.com/allalerts it seems that more Ground Vehicles are being used than before. So I take back my knock on Server Smash being shallow meta until I understand it more. Anyone care to explain why there are more Ground Vehicle varieties being used now in greater numbers?
  2. Cyrek

    I sometimes sit down and think jumping into some sort of twilight zone and then suddenly warp into an alternate world where every "honorable" pilot is running Tomcats and Flares and everyone respect each other for it and if you're running anything else you are a really terrible pilot, such as rocket pods and anti infantry guns, those would get killed and shamed on sight. Pilots would win and ground forces would also win too because little intervention from air to ground.
  3. MahouFairy

    Whatever game you are talking about, it sure isn't PS 2.
  4. entrailsgalore

    Sure, go for it.
  5. Demigan

    Yeah, the standard reason that everybody has: "I got killed by it and it felt cheesy".
    Just look around, everywhere people complain about stuff that isn't OP. Heavy Shield anyone? Oh it's soooooo OP, despite that it's just it's class advantage and while useful it simply isn't the be-all that people make it out to be. I prefer to play other classes mostly before i pick the Heavy simply because I'm not the blunt hammer type.
    Vanguard shield? People think it's an Iwin button, while it only helps the Vanguard compete with the other MBT's, and even then it's still the weakest of the bunch in a ton of area's.
    And Lock-Ons. They don't complain about it because it's OP, they complain about it because it's not fun. It feels cheesy, and that's their problem with it. That's mister supa-dupa top-gun's problem with it, not OP'ness.

    Wrong anology. Also, what's wrong with using Lock-Ons to determine the outcome of a fight? As I said, you can use lock-ons to get an alpha strike, but if you ever used them/fought against them, you know they become useless in a short-ranged dogfight. So get close, stick close, wait for them to break off and try to get the range they need for a steady lock, and chase them until they give up, die or try to fight you with a nosecannon. It's pretty sad that I have to tell a flyboy how to fly. Or you knew this already and are lying your guts out, either way it's not good.
    Oh wait, now you've learned something about flying, lock-ons prevent your enemy from an easy escape, and forces them into a dogfight. Now you are in a dogfight and your lock-ons are useless, what do you have to do? learn how to dogfight.
    Saying you can't learn from using lock-ons is the weakest argument you've got, adding insult to injury by saying "everyone who wants to improve won't use them". You know how many people think like that? almost none. They join the game to have fun. If they need A2A lock ons to beat the flyboys, they will use it. But A2A lock ons aren't that good, which gets them killed, which is why they stop using them and why in the end there's such a low usage. This is how it works in every branch of weapons in PS2. But you and other flyboys all think that because it's aircraft you suddenly are excempt?

    I mean, you completely ignore my points where other OP weapons, including aircraft weapons (especially aircraft weapons) were used extensively and to the point of game-breaking. It wasn't as if using a Dalton against other ESF had a big learning curve once you learned when in the ESF trajectory you had to shoot your massive shell that almost had a larger area where it could hit an aircraft than Flak.
    It's complete ******** that aircraft users would not use any OP weapon. Simple as that.

    And you talked to a bunch of pilots, well great! Why do you think they claim that lock-ons don't improve your game? Maybe, just maybe, because they don't think it's fun? Because they tried it out (I bet most of them tried it out) but it just wasn't as good as reverse maneuvering, hover fighting and enemies could easily break the lock by sticking close? That's way, waaaaaaay more plausible than "we got honerable people and we got people who want to get better at the airgame", besides that, I've already had to explain to you twice how to improve using A2A lock-ons. Ultimately this doesn't work that well, as that alpha-strike isn't good enough compared to other options.

    First off, I've talked about the amount of users, not usage time. I never made ambiguous remarks that could have been seen that way.

    Second, you are using blue in a blue quote...?

    Further I've only posted it like 6 times in this thread already: http://ps2oraclestats.com/monthlystats/
    If you check it out, you can find the data that is talking about "uniques" there. If you check the FAQ on the same site, you can read the following: "Uniques - Daily sum of unique killers of the particular weapon - i.e to be a unique, at least one kill has been made with that weapon."
    Yes, you also have a usage time counter and that's low, but that's not the statistic I'm using because I know it's one of the more useless stats out there.

    I find it pretty unfair from others to call the experience from other players into question because of less time playing in the same vehicle. Especially when I back my claims up with statistics and reasoning with plausible scenario's that I've personally seen and used as well.

    Yes, you can meet lock-ons more often than the Oracle of Death site tells us. Do you know why? It takes into account only effective use of a weapon. But as you can see it doesn't matter if it's taken 380 times of 10.000 times, only 380 of them actually scored a kill.
    Now there will be people instantly jumping on this and telling me "see? It's because they finish off with a nosecannon". Well, if you finish off with a nosecannon, haven't you had to learn how to use that? Don't you learn something from that use? And this ignores the fact that it happens in reverse as well: they did some damage in between salvo's, and finish off with an A2A lock-on. Not to mention that most people who claim they are good with A2A lock-ons have the following strategy: stick with an allied ESF, ally engages while you shoot missiles from a distance. That is what we call "kill stealing" and boosts the weapons stats... but even so it still is a meager weapon at best.

    That wasn't my point. My point was that I've had similar ESF discussions before, and when I'm being killed as infantry they claim "you can't know how difficult it is as ESF user to kill infantry". But that's not true, I have experience on both sides, spread more evenly. I know better what it is to be both on the receiving and on the giving end.
    This is why I brought my none-ESF experience, because I keep running in these completely bogus arguments that are both unfounded and fall completely on their *** when you inspect them closer. But somehow they persist.

    That's easy. "only newbies use this weapon". Why do only newbies use this weapon? Plausible reason: more advanced players learn the weapon isn't good and switch to better selections.
    Not so plausible reason and used by the flyboys: "It stops you from learning how to fly", and "ESF pilots are honorable". Both are untrue, and it would mean that there are almost no bad players up in the air that use lock-ons to compensate for their bad aim (you know, as everyone does constantly? Use the right weapon for the job?)

    And how many cheaters are out there who use third-party software to stomp other people in the ground? It's not the biggest group, but there's also a large group who doesn't cheat but would like to if they could (see all the bug abusers and OP weapon abusers). These groups would be bigger than the amount of lock-ons I see used, this is because lock ons aren't good.

    My apologies, I see so many people complain about it that I often don't even check who's saying what, only what they are saying. If it's ********, I call them on it. If you weren't complaining, then sorry.

    I'm still against lock-ons though. They are unfun to play with. They have to have their power limited to make sure they don't perform too well, but this limitation in power makes them unpowerful.
    I would increase the power of these missiles and make aircraft more agile when flying high-speeds and trying to dodge other ESF (as in "normal" dogfighting in other games, not hoverfighting and reverse maneuver in PS2). If you are more easily able to dodge the lock it becomes harder to use and needs the increase in power to work properly, it also requires a better skill of the user to keep track of the enemy if he can instantly twist out of the reticule.
    At the same time I would remove all G2A lock-ons and reduce the radius at which flak explodes. Increase their power and make them skillful. A single AA unit should be able to kill an ESF before it can escape if he's got the skill. At the same time an ESF should be able to fly over 10 AA units without being hit a single time on the virtue of it's flying capabilities being much better then the aiming capabilities of the AA. That would make the airgame and AA game much more fun for both parties.
    • Up x 2
  6. Iridar51

    Edit: nevermind, I posted this in a wrong thread.
  7. ColonelChingles

    I can assure you that's not true at all. Again, with our cheap and essentially unlimited military drones, we don't go about arming them with swords or cannon for funsies. Nope. Instead we strap on the biggest missile that they can carry, including A2A missiles. :eek:

    Because war is about winning. And handicapping yourself, no matter how cheap it is to send people/things to war, is never the answer.

    This is a war game. The point is to defeat your enemies and take territory. That is essentially war.

    The point of these games is not solely so we can float around, give each other hugs, and live in a glorious utopian paradise. That would be a different game entirely. Maybe the Sims or something. If that's more your cup of tea to just mess around and have fun, perhaps that's the game for you.

    But PS2 revolves around killing your opponents as quickly and as efficiently as possible, so that you may take their lands and win tasty certs. This is not a game of musical chairs or whatever children play nowadays. This is essentially war.
    • Up x 2
  8. Jawarisin

    I'm with cr4zy mike right now, 3rd wow....
    I can't believe someone is actually seriously trying to compare real life warfare with the game. And justify in-game weaponry usage with IRL weapon-usage.
  9. MahouFairy

    Why do you find A2As overpowered? have you seen how F4s lost to Migs in dogfights over Vietnam because the Americans thought that missiles were superior than noseguns? Well, these tactics proved disastrous for the Americans.

    Anyway, I rarely ever see people using A2A missiles nowadays. Shows something right? If you are going to tell me that some pilots have honour and won't use "OP" weapons, then save it. I am a player who will use any kind of weapon, whether they are what you call OP or not, but when I tried out the Tomcats, they proved to be useless. I don't think I'll ever try them out any more.

    (ColonelChingles correct me if I'm wrong with the history)
    • Up x 1
  10. Foxirus

    Its not OP in the slightest. You just can't fly away to avoid them like you can with G2A launchers because the enemy can move just as fast as you. Want to break the A2A lock? Pull a ******* flare. Oh wait.. That would mean losing that freebie 25% godheal which gives you a free rocket anyways.
    • Up x 1
  11. ColonelChingles

    Well... where do you think the very idea for A2A missiles come from? Or aircraft armed with weapons?

    We didn't find those on the back of a cereal box, if that's what you're thinking.

    Why does the pointy part go forward? Why does it damage you instead of heal you? Why do glowy flarey things stop the big bad missile from hitting you? Why does it go beeeEEEEPPP BEEP BEEP BEEP BEEP BOOM?

    If you can't figure out that missiles work that way because that's how they work in real life... well then you're probably purposefully deluding yourself. The game is immensely founded on realism, and it's perfectly reasonable for people to expect missiles to work similarly to missiles in real life.
    • Up x 2
  12. Jawarisin

    Nope. I don't know if you're purposefully saying dumb comments like that or if it's not intentional, but wow.
    Why don't you give us real velocities too, 3000m/s bullets at least.
  13. Shadowofsteel

    I agree with both of your first two posts in your thread (I haven't read them all yet), but I think the flare system doens't need to be completely integral to vehicles. I think if we just made it ammo dependent instead of infinite supply based on the recharge timer, and left it as a choice, that it would already make a huge difference as it is. I like your dependence on a percentage for determining how effective the flares are, and since Coyotes and things like the Striker lock on to targets at such short distances to aircraft, they would be unaffected by most flares, unless they flew directly through the cloud of flares.

    All in all, I am curious to see where Daybreak will take this, if they even read this thread.
  14. Obstruction

    thanks. : ) i suggest that they be moved out of exclusive relationships with other systems because lock-on weapons can be assumed to be present almost all the time in a large enough population. and so i think that vehicles need counterplay against them without the additional penalty of trading off other systems.

    the infantry launchers are SC purchasable, cert obtainable, and can be fired out of spawn shields. the A2A missiles are SC purchasable, cert obtainable, and do well enough in their field to generate complaints in threads such as this one and many more like it. while some of the complaint is no doubt simply L2P, some of it is complaint of legitimate game-mechanical advantage, or in some cases strict strategic advantage. what i mean to say is just that there are some things that Tomcats and G2A bring to the game that you just can't do anything about.

    and so we need to lessen the bad effects of those strategies on the game, but what we simply cannot do is just "nerf lock-ons." if they are just reduced in power or radically altered in use, people will just stop using them. what we want is to keep them at their relative usefulness and power, but create a counter-play system that provides a satisfying challenge to both parties. the suggested % effectiveness of flares along with an ammunition limitation should provide a complex mix of luck and skill of use on both sides.
    • Up x 1
  15. entrailsgalore

    You sir, deserve a cookie. Make that an entire jar of cookies with milk.
  16. ColonelChingles

    Huh... funny that you bring up the possibility of having beef with projectile velocities...

    Yea, that's on my list too. At the very least I understand that PS2 has this concept of "range compression" where things are a lot closer than they ought to be, so I can understand some projectile velocity decrease. But you really just need to reduce projectile velocity proportionally to the range compression factor.

    In other words if you have 50% range compression (your world is 50% smaller than the real world) then you should have a 50% reduction in projectile velocity. But such velocity reductions should be proportional; a tank shell should not magically travel slower than a rifle bullet, rifle bullets should not magically travel slower than pistol bullets, etc. Doing any of those things is just silly.

    Likewise having a 50% range compression but a 75% velocity decrease is also silly. Good games don't do that.
    • Up x 2
  17. Demigan

    Chocolate chip one's for me please!

    Well, I think that there's true-realism games that try to compromise as little as possible and be as true to life as possible, while still keeping the "one-man army" mechanism's you see everywhere (being able to run and gun with a weapon with relatively little accuracy loss).
    Planetside 2, like any game, has "real world" influences. People have arms, legs, weapons deal damage, it's just that these things are recognizable. But for balance rather than realism they changed the actual game-mechanics to something that fit the game better.
    Slower tank shells means the tanks are less effective against infantry. While mind-boggling and as far from reality as possible, it's not as if the way one man can control a tank and aim effectively at a single infantry unit is that much based on realism either.

    I would say that an increase in tank performance wouln't be amiss. Having something more akin to Crysis's weapons, tanks with co-axial canons and a nice amount of power.
    To counter the extra lethality, all classes should have some AA and AV options (yes, AA as well). This doesn't mean they all should be able to deal damage.
    Smokescreens, utilities to reduce the turn/reload/max speed/acceleration etc from tanks, the ability to shoot off gun-sights or hit weakspots in tanks for an effect. From disabling any scopes and HUD to being able to reduce the turret aimspeed (hit something at the chassis/turret border), reduce movement speed (hit specific spots at the tires) etc. Ofcourse it's a bit ludicrous that some of this would be possible, but I think it would be beneficial for the game.
    Ofcourse it wouldn't be as if one bullet destroys/disables these things, they will have health and need to be hit repeatedly to get the effect. It would make snipers a valuable anti-tank aid for instance, and infantry without AV weapons can still do something against them.
  18. Prudentia

    but but... i do that in arma3 all the time, so it must be true :rolleyes:
    and i always like these little thought experiments: what could a single Slammer do in Planetside? a rather small 105mm main cannon 40round AP, 40round HE, 4000round 6.5mm LMG and 1000round 12.7mm LMG, 2300m zero range, much further thermal vision and a trunk with place for 9 static Titan AA Launchers... well and 3 man crew plus a 8man passanger compartment, which would basicly translate into gunner and commander killing everything on the ground and the driver and the squad sitting in their AA batteries :D

    tough i guess a single Gorgon would be even more fun... 140km/h topspeed, 30mm cannon main cannon, 80 shots AP, 80 shots HEAT, 1000shot 6.5mm and 2 Titan AT Tow missiles... well and enough place in the trunk for another static AA which you would need as it doesn't have a gun for the commander...

    that might be a slight power fantasy...
    but you know...
    one can dream :oops:
    • Up x 1
  19. z1967

    This is a relatively simple concept in my mind, sacrificing mobility for additional DPS is a fairly ordinary as far as loadout selection goes. When you take an Nosegun + AB loadout you purposefully reduce your DPS potential for more mobility. Interceptor builds have a higher skill floor and a higher skill ceiling. Dogfighter builds have a lower ceiling and a lower floor. In reality, they should start you off in a Dogfighter build instead of an Interceptor build, but that's just a bad game design choice.

    I don't know why its such a foreign concept to PS2 pilots. If they added secondary cannons (autocannons like the Stuka D had) would this help make the distinction between Dogfighter and Interceptor better? You would still get the added DPS potential of a wingmount at the sacrifice of speed through extra AB. And you wouldn't have to use modern technology to accomplish this :p.
  20. Prudentia

    and as i just noticed:
    for clarifaction, the gorgon is an APC and can also transport 8 passengers, but ahs a larger trunk allowing for 10 static AA launchers to be placed inside.
    and as each static titan has 4 rockets loaded thats a mere 40 AA rockets in their... plus any AA/AV the soldiers themself transport...
    yet i always have to solo it, because public arma players are even worse at teamplay than public Planetside players :confused: