[Suggestion] Add a counter to lock ons, buff external fuel tanks

Absolutely not. Those people who did nothing in beta but fly, and since launch you guessed it, fly, already dominate the skies too much. They all use afterburner tanks too because all they need is the OP rotaries. This in fact would buff them and make them even worse.

I fly a bit and I'm fine with the balance now. Sure it was more fun before being able to take an additional strafing run or two before repair, but it was OP.

It's just a clever post to buff the strong already I'm convinced. That's the only thing that stops them from farming without worry is that even a sub-par player can lock onto them stopping their farming session.

FTFY

Those super-cool awesome fighter aces that go on killing sprees? My outfit just has a group of like 10 or so guys that grab G2A missiles and volley fire them when they show up.

Problem solved.

Because hey, what's the point of getting to be a super-skilled fearsome player if every noob with 1000 certs can't just grab a few friends and insta-kill you? [/sarcasm]

The ability for roflpodders to tap their afterburner key every 2.5 secs to be pretty much completely immune to lockons is the outcome of your suggestion.

That's how balance will change, so it's a perfectly valid topic of discussion.

:edit:

Re-read and see you discussed essentially pausing the lockon, not breaking it.

My bad.

The only part I slightly agree with is 3. Number 1 might already be planned with the VR system coming up (maybe), as they can practice their flying; the other more important thing for pilots to learn is what areas to avoid—you wouldn't want to fly over a no-fly zone. Back to 3: the change I can see with this is to slightly decrease lock-on missile speeds (maybe ~5-10%) and buff fuel pods to have an even bigger capacity, which I see as giving ESF pilots slightly more of a chance overall to outrun or at least help to increase distance so it's slightly easier to force missiles to crash into obstacles. With bigger fuel pod capacities, an ESF would then have a third very viable option against lock-ons (esp. if missile speeds are slightly decreased) in exchange for firepower.
For 4, the only way to die from lock-ons with flares is pretty much being solo out in the open right in the middle of an enemy platoon area (not a smart pilot decision, they should be flying low around cover in areas of the map that indicate heavy enemy activity), since you can activate flares while missiles are already chasing you in addition to leaving yourself 5s of being completely lock-on free, giving you enough time to retreat away from the 500m range (HAs take a while to reload rocket launchers).

Sorry, you can't STOP mentioning Rocketpods if you are complaining about a weapon designed to deter and halt an ESF when the weapon on an ESF, at the SAME cost, is used to kill and destroy Infantry and tanks get nothing in return for the same situation for the same reason, you aren't arguing for balance, you are arguing wanting to make the ESF have a free "You can't touch me", even if you have more experienced pilots drop the secondaries for it to make them use the nose gun only. The lightning nor infantry have that option available and doesn't stop Air from pwning baby lightning or infantry from rocketpods doing the same exact thing.

lol. It's like all your pent up emotion caused you to completely bypass the point and just go into a random tangent about nothing.

/facepalm

Ignoring the fact that an uncerted lightning is vastly easier to use already (although apparently not spamming the cannon wildly all over the place and wasting its actually decent DPS comes slowly to a lot of people) you seem to have entirely glossed over the fact that this encourages LESS use of the weapons that pose the highest threat to ground units, by actually providing a worthwhile alternative. The OP's suggestion does nothing whatsoever to make life easier for the people running with the most powerful tank-busting setups. It seems like you've just skimmed over it, seen that it's for the sake of aircraft, and decided to throw a tantrum like a child that wants a lollipop because some other kid got one.

See what I mean? This isn't even an argument against the suggestion itself, just a rant over the idea that someone could dare come up with something that doesn't solve your issues at the same time as the one they're attempting to tackle. How about instead of vomiting poorly-written complaints all over this thread you actually come up with something that does assist our apparently lock-besieged hypothetical lightning user?

For the record, I don't know what on earth you do with lightnings, but I find they're probably the least effected by locks out of all aircraft and both tanks - and I've not even bothered unlocking smoke for lightnings, mine runs with level 1 fire suppression and I never needed another utility enough to bother upgrading. They're both quick and incredibly flat, meaning that even in a place like northern Indar they can drop out of LOS very easily behind something as small as the bank next to a dirt track.

Yes, they've nothing to defend against air except for every weapon short of a knife, plus 1/2 of the game's most effective anti-aircraft unit, for which they must spend half as much as an ESF costs in resources and wait something like 10 minutes from then to get another should they drop dead on the spot. Those poor, poor people.

You know if even half the infantry I see getting killed by ESFs both in-game and in videos other people have posted actually decided to use those 'nibbling' rifles, they'd easily have the combined firepower to make it leave or (if they were remotely co-ordinated, which they never are) kill it. It takes a lot less than you might think. Even the damage from my SAW or CARV is enough to shift fighters strafing nearby allies, and apparently unlike you, I've picked off wounded ones with MG's and carbines as they flew overhead trying to return to somewhere they can repair (something my lightning benefits from being able to do pretty much anywhere it can duck out of sight for a few seconds, by the way).

This was disputed when, exactly? Flares = disruption of all active locks, plus prevention of lock (in theory, sometimes this seems to fail for whatever reason) for 5 seconds. I believe with the maximum certs spent you can get this to what... 25, 30 second reuse time? Which of course nobody does, because if you were still within lock range by then you'd be dead anyway.

The suggested changes would basically mean that if you did carry flares, you could lose missiles + flee with a bit more time before you can be fired at again (provided you keep using the AB). If you didn't use flares (in the case of a totally uncerted ESF, or one who actually wanted to use another utility for once) you couldn't break the lock of an actively homing missile, but could flee with AB while preventing further locks (sort of - he says they wouldn't get the final part of the lock that lets the missile fire, but it seems they would still have progressed most of the way, and therefore could fire the moment your finger came off the AB key or it ran out of fuel).

BTW, my point about the way missiles work was that if they were really heat seeking like the game says, 'stealth' should not effect them, nor would there be a radar lock on the aircraft. So the fact that real life afterburners add an extra heat source doesn't necessarily mean much here - the things work abnormally anyway.

You also apparently missed how it only works if you have AB tanks equipped (either that or you don't realize they take up the same slot as rockets ).

You're funny. I think I'll bomb you last.

Sucks when the truth gets exposed. If you think for one moment that these ESFs deserve to fly around without a care in the world, you are one of those people I talked about then. Air is finally balanced reasonably after all this time. Just i know man, sucks you can't farm certs without a worry in the world anymore in a Lib and ESF. I feel that feel bro.

And this is why you fail... Because I have been in 'massive' battles and have run into not much flak. In fights where I am on the ground we have massive AA, and still had air groups spank us after the AA buff. And you point out exactly why you shouldn't have this buff. You survive being alone until the lockon rockets come into play. Which again, would also be true for the baby infantry people not needing to be near a lot of people, calling attention to itself until OMG... Someone spotted him and picks him off.

And you realize, when you stack them, that makes them also 'EASIER' targets for other people. You know, for those snipers, those tank users, those other ESF and Lib Spammers cause again, for a SINGLE Infantry person to down an ESF, it takes 3+ seconds. Not 3 seconds, 3+ seconds. You have the time you get the warning, then the lockon - 2 seconds... Time of flight, Min 1 second unless you are stupidly barrelling towards the ground to the infantry person, most fliers will AIM UP and thrust, 2.5 seconds for reload, another 2 seconds to get the SECOND Lockon. That is now 7.5 seconds before the firing of the next missile and this is assuming they are using the faction AA only launcher. It takes an additional 3.5-4.5 seconds before the kill shot gets in there with the NS Annihilator. If and only if you spent 11 to 12 seconds lingering in that area to allow this, that's your own damn fault and again, new pilots are going to have to learn this JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE.

4 HA being right back in 15 seconds... While again, same with the 3 ESFs who know better and will take out the 4 HA once again, and in time for the other ESF to come back to help out. You also assume that others would not be there to help suppress said HA from conveniently coming back because you are fixated on the fact you lost your plane, or ignoring the fact that you may have been in your plane long enough that the loss is acceptable. But hey, let's beat the baby infantry and lightning tanks, especially the baby lightning tanks down because an ESF with Rocket Pods, suited for the situation, can pwn them with impunity, I mean, let's ignore all the other things that lopside it for the ESF with rocket pods favor, because obviously the G2A lockons are too hard to deal with all by myself.

Oh wait...

Which is where a Liberator does that job as it has more armor to deal with it, especially a liberator armed with a Dalton or Zephyr, but dammit it all, when we complained about how they spam the crap out of the ground pounders and how we also need to have 3+ Dual Burster MAX armors or use G2A missiles in large masses to deal with that as well, we were told 'deal with it, that's how it should work.'. Shoe is now on the other foot and note, it is just as hellish for infantry to deal with ESFs and Libs who can spam spawn doors even WITH the G2A and Dual Burster MAX setups when we can't even start a lock on or get a decent clip into people without dying and having to do it all over again and again, feeding that easy XP box for you, whereas, air jockeys bail out if given enough time and we get crap for it. And will STILL get crap for it in comparison when it comes down to XP based on damage, cause you will STILL get more XP due to kill and damage output than the groundpounders will for their 'no cost' attempts to deal with you.

Here's a clue for you... It's getting ***** by the vehicles, the enemy infantry, by you during the times the Heavies you think instantly deny YOU from being there with their lockon weapons are trying to deal with other stuff. But all I hear from your posts is how it is ALWAYS complete denial, when here I am, playing both air and ground and not seeing it. The mythical 5 HA lockon spam - I see 1-2 lockons in majority of the fights I am in. 1-2 lockons simultaneously. Not 3+... 1-2. Mostly '1'. Of the times as a ground pounder, I see people use the Lockon weapons on more than just air... If they were going for the 'infinite' missile spam, they were grouped up and easy bait for drop poding spammers, snipers or long range bombardment since their position didn't really make for convenient cover.

And note... You pretty much supported my point about the whole 'being with the group' earlier that you failed as mentioned above...

[/quote]
No, this is COMPLETELY related. You want your nummy but bring nothing else to the table. That is selfish and hardly balanced. Tanks have a valid complaint in the whole Lockon issue, yet you only focused on your piddly part of the world which is not fair for the infantry, not fair for the Tankers. What do you propose as fair compensation to the Tankers who would be new to the environment with how air power would beat them down, from the get go, with an equivalent weapon? What would you propose as fair compensation to the infantry who get spammed and no way to deter or stop the rocketpodding since they are new and have NOTHING to really increase their survivability to begin with or compensate them later as an alternative to something else that someone else considered 'unfair'?

That is the problem with this entire thread... You paint a picture that everyone running on the ground is HA (And carrying G2A rockets) ignoring my example of the 3 HA and an engineer to do it, and the baby pilot needs his afterburner tanks to be the safety blanket for them, but give nothing in return to the baby infantry or baby tankers against the rocket podding masses out there as well. This isn't your sandbox, you can't have it all your way without sharing it with others too.

Well - you talk a good game. Ready to put your money where your mouth is? Show us. Post some videos of you doing like you're saying. Even 1-2 would be decent proof. And look! The game has a built-in record to Youtube function! :O

I guess that would suck if it were true. As always though, AA only protects people who use it.

Or you missed the point all together and ignored what the OP posted and argued at a very poor position that you read a statement with your own foolish notion.

Easier to use huh. Ok, genius. Let me point out some flaws with the Tanks currently that isn't quite right:

1. Traction control - Currently, the tanks act, for the most part, like Wheeled vehicles, which means that if you have any forward or reverse control, the turning acts like you are doing wheeled axis turn. Tanks actually use TREADS, with the exception of the Magrider, which means if I want to turn LEFT while in reverse, I should be backing up and heading RIGHT, not LEFT when I indicate 'LEFT reverse'. Inetia in tanks are pretty much crap at the beginning, which means you need handling control for it to work as nicely as they should be for tanks. So at this point, you will see vehicles on the ground that will get put into positions that suck.
2. The big GLARING WEAKNESS of the back. No one new knows about the big weakness in the back of the tank. One that Light Assaults, Engineers, Medics who spend the certs to put C4, and air abuses on a constant basis where hitting there does double damage or in one run kills it.
3. No protection against Lockons either, multiple or single. OP wants one for newbie fliers over lockons, none of that for the baby lightning which also falls in that category

And it is hardly a tantrum when he paints it out to be that EVERYONE is carrying G2A lockons and there is no way to get away from it. Except, there are many ways to get away with it. The other people who deal with A2G spammers, they don't get anything to get away from the spam initially at all and their only counter to it is 'L2AA, newb' comments from the air jockeys complaining about air. So, sorry if I have to actually return in kind the expectation of an Air jockeys to do what they have insulted ground pounders when they wanted Air Counters and constantly told to 'work as a team' and then get told AA is overpowered in groups and air should be able to **** infantry with impunity.

No, you don't see anything but your assumptions. The argument against it is "No, they should be treated the same way as tanks and infantry, new or not." You get nothing more than the same treatment a newb lightning user, a newb infantry who has NOTHING to counter an ESFer who spent the Certs/SC to have the weapon meant to deal with your situation just cause you are the 'new' ESF pilot. Infantry still has to spend the certs to make it harder for the ESF to F them up, so should the ESF in kind. Same with the Lightning tank or an MBT. Your failure to grasp this is not on me, but on yourself for not seeing it.

And secondly, you realize, the reason the lightning is less affected by lockons depends on the engagement. Which is, surprise surprise, the same situation for air. The whole field is not rife with Lockon Weapons. Not everyone is running as a HA out there, carrying Lockon AV weapons, and if they are, they are targeting several vehicles. If they are in sufficient mass to instagib one vehicle, it isn't cause they all are coordinated, it has a lot more to do with that one lone vehicle being the only viable target right now cause said vehicle decided to be a lonewolf. And that isn't just an aircraft, it goes the same with any vehicle.

And lastly, Lamefox, aptly named for this zinger... You pick Northern Indar, I fought there a lot as a TR, VS and NC. And you say the low profile helps... HA. You know, a good section of Indar has these things called CANYONS and SHARP CLIFFS. Which sort of NEGATES the cover part or the flatness of a vehicle when you are shooting from a higher elevation. I don't use smoke on my lightning, but going by the whole 'There are all these HA people denying air 3 hexes away everywhere' cries with Lockons, this also applies to Ground Vehicles, but since I DO fly and don't have that problem... And I do DRIVE too, and not have that problem... You just gave yet another reason why it isn't NECESSARY TO INCLUDE IT.

And you realize, that 1/2 of the game's most effective Anti-Aircraft asset, which should be the best the infantry has... Is still not better than the best Anti-Aircraft asset... Which is... WAIT FOR IT... THE ESF....

And next, we play the next tried and true air jockey excuse for why it shouldn't be any better than the ESF... The resource cost... I mean, let's also ignore, conveniently the following factors that every air jockey ignores time and time again:

1. Limited range - Hey, Want that AA MAX to actually be on the field - Tied to a SECOND PERSON who will, hopefully PROVIDE AMMO to keep the flak up. Otherwise, Said MAX has to be near a base terminal or Sunderer to be 'everywhere'
2. Can't run away - Sprint mode - Gee, I can only run a wee bit faster than infantry, but can't out run any vehicle anywhere, which means... I'm bait to anything with a gun, INCLUDING ESFs.
3. Can't Self-Repair - Hey... I spend 100 resource points to try and fight an ESF, for 100% more health, but my BEST self-repair is, WAIT FOR IT, ANOTHER PERSON. I can't get out of the suit and REPAIR it if I wanted to unlike a SKYGUARD. And in order for it to 'repair faster' without an engineer, that is a big cert dump cost, where it is better off increasing the capacity for ammo.
4. Ammo - Speaking of ammo, even with the cannister, you buy 1-3 extra magazines, that is only 28 rounds per magazine, which only brings the guns carrying 280 rounds each, 560 for a dual burster setup. This is barely above the first or second level ammo capacity of a skyguard which is more mobile on the field and can get repaired by the user, but is no better than a MAX when it comes to AA.
5. Timer - You joke about the timer... Yet this was also every damn Air jockey's excuse for losing it to AA (Any in general, not just the 'best' AA) Yet, every air jockey makes it sound like everyone pulls an AA MAX and dominates the airspace and would if the AA buff came. It came, the buff didn't make it happen and air still seems to be alive and well despite the Mayan Calendar Harpies.
6. Can be taken down by ground forces, even that damn infiltrator who can't make you blink as they try shooting at you for giggles. Yea, you know, all those stupid snipe shots or just unloading rounds, meanwhile, that AA MAX actually has to use their AA ammo to try and kill that infantry person

And while you claim you picked off an aircraft a rifle, note the conditional... WOUNDED... Anyone can take out a wounded anything that takes damage from weapons fire, but don't forget it also requires concentration of fire... Why do you think people shoot at anything they can? Unless they know it is useless, but you see, this isn't the argument air jockeys come off with... This is "OMG... Invisible infantry with their infinite ability to F up my plane, destroying air, so I need this to play." He's playing that right now and as a person who has been flying air at these engagements. and the so called 'infinite' denial would apply to tanks as well, but it doesn't work out that way as you pointed out and I keep hammering. But if we are to act like that, then the same is true for the two other situations I state and should be taken in to account.

Read the post again. CONSTANT LOCK ONS. That was what was harped. Same with the fact that Lockons instagib aircraft. He makes it out to be I pop a flare, it drops one lock on... OMG another lockon - OMG... DEAD.

As for breaking a lock on an actively homing missile, you can, however it requires making use of the current terrain. What the boy here needs is NOT something that helps break the lock just by activating afterburners... What would work better for everyone on a more level ground is having an actual id of where the missile is coming from on the map, like in Planetside 1, that both air and ground can make use of to properly respond to a lock on warning even without flares available. Without an idea of the kind of lockon threat and making use of what is available, it makes it difficult to properly respond to it after popping flares.

And to point out the last fact, Stealth can also work on a heat signature. Vehicles will all have a particular heat signature, which is where you want the missile to home in on one target versus just 'home in on anything'. However, that can also be confused when it is tracking said signature if another similar or hotter signature is registered in the path of the missile that is near or close to the tracked signature.

The other thing you have to note... said Flare can also be a combo Flare/Chaff pod, burning magnesium-alloy to disperse hot radar pieces to act as a mass/heat signature to mess with a missile designed to be an Heat/Radar combo missile.

Still waiting on that video.

lol, this ought to be amusing...

Aw, it's like you think this would be news to me...

1 - Traction and tank controls going to **** in reverse are two completely separate issues. The former became problematic in game update 1 and is supposedly going to be fixed eventually. This is the slippery nature of the ground and specifically slopes of any kind. It's actually rather amusing you reference it, because the same update screwed up flying physics (personally I strongly suspect they simplified the game physics universally for performance reasons, and the 'fix' being looked into is 'how to make it seem like it's changed back without actually doing so').

The reverse controls I'm told are a 'feature'. On one hand it's easy to believe because hey, how often do controls flip by accident? On the other hand I struggle to imagine how anyone, regardless of their level of sobriety, ever managed to think it could possibly be a good idea and have made several posts and one thread to that effect thus far. For the moment, I find the best way to deal with it is immediately stop moving. As soon as you've stopped completely (both reversing and rotating) you should be able to start again and move correctly. It may feel unnatural in combat, but regaining control of your movement is far more important than just remaining in motion.

On the plus side, I seem to have this way of coincidentally being really annoyed by things that are later fixed. Off the top of my head:

-Skyguard's inability to aim below 0 degrees [thread], and projectile speed (it was even slower).
-Vulcan's terrible ability to actually apply its insane damage.
-ROF of the Walker AA turret.
-The bug with cockpit freelook not working until you'd re-entered the vehicle or changed views.

If this keeps up, tank gun stability (how in the nine hells did you miss what is probably the greatest usability issue in tanks of all time?), reverse controls and traction should be dealt with sooner or later...

2 - Ah yes, the glass engine compartment. Like a glass jaw, but for tanks. While I think it's a bit overdone, I doubt it's as unknown as you make it out to be, as weaker armour in the rear of tanks is common across many games (owing to it being common in actual tanks I'd imagine). And while it probably surprises the hell out of people the first time, the loss of a single tank is all it takes to learn, comparable to an ESF or liberator pilot discovering what happens when they get in the way of cannons, unguided rockets, or the Vulcan for the first time.

I think the worse surprise for new vehicle drivers is likely to be AT mines and their ability to double as improvised C4. A lot of people get the impression that the mines are a one-hit kill, because they're double-stacked and on top of being virtually invisible don't actually render until you're too close in a lot of cases.

Back to armour though, one thing I do think a lot of people are confused by is how the directional damage actually occurs to begin with. That should probably be documented somewhere, or at the very least reflected in the descriptions of vehicle armour upgrades.

3 - I still have my doubts this is as much of an issue for lightnings, but again, instead of whining in other people's suggestion threads that they aren't addressing some other issue at the same time/instead, you could try coming up with your own solution. This kind of attitude where people attempt to veto something out of jealousy is just petty and stupid. If I had a button here that let me slap people every time they based criticism of something solely on their childish hatred for players who use vehicles/air/VS/whatever rather than any coherent flaw in the idea, I'd have worn it smooth by now.

This is a perfect example of what I was just talking about. 'Oh someone who flew a plane was cruel to me once, now I have to be a cockhead to everyone who flies planes!'

It's even funnier because you actually word it as though you have no choice. Bit like an ant or something, eh?

There are no lock on weapons for shooting infantry, last I checked, although there was that buff to flak armour a while back, the recent nerf to aircraft NV/thermal range, the nerfs to explosions of both rocket pods and more recently the zepher and the ROF reduction to HE tank cannons. In fact your perception of their treatment seems highly contrary to the reality of changes made to the game. Even the lock-on launchers themselves have been steadily increasing in number. How many air to ground weapons have been added since release, again?

There's no need whatsoever for it to be 'one lone vehicle'. Anyone not completely stupid is going to choose targets based on threat level and ease, which means if there are a group of planes in an area and you're the closest one to a few people with lock on launchers or flak MAXes, chances are they target you. Same as being the foremost vehicle in an attack on a base, or the guy at the front of a fight to get from the pad into the bio-lab.

Arguing that a 'suggestion' isn't 'necessary' is redundant, so I won't even bother getting into that genius assertion.

What exactly are you trying to prove here? That you can put yourself in a position where cover is negated? Um... okay. Well done on figuring that one out. Do me a favour and spare me the announcement when you discover it's possible to charge at enemy tanks firing your pistol wildly into the air.

Except for how that's not true, sure. The benefit of an ESF is the ability to actively 'hunt' another aircraft, but the same also becomes true of their interaction with you. All this does is put you on an even footing, which means you need greater skill and/or greater numbers to win.

Summoning my dual-burster MAX is a completely different situation. I may not be able to give chase or actively seek them out (at least, not in any hurry...) but my defensive capacity is huge by comparison. I can sit at a base with enemy aircraft flying all around, and as long as I'm careful not to be taken by surprise before I can get back to my chosen piece of cover, I'm as good as invincible to attacks from the air. Hard to spot, hard to aim at, ridiculously long effective range with the game's easiest to use weapons, almost no space needed to manoeuvre myself while I force them to make much more drastic manoeuvres to avoid my fire, and should I see a threat I can't immediately handle like a properly crewed liberator, I can fire until it's close enough to be dangerous, take cover (with the MAX's special ability if necessary), often fire from cover once they're close, and then emerge to fire at them as they leave as well.

An ESF doesn't have nearly the same staying power nor ease of use in hostile areas; it's an offensive counterpart to defensive options like my MAX and SG.

Engineers providing ammo are handy but I never count on them. Bursters are effective to (almost) the maximum distance an aircraft will render, which typically means I can fire at least one base out from where I'm located, sometimes more in denser areas. Most of the time I'll do this by resupplying with terminals, and if an engineer shows up or I have a squadmate handy, so much the better. I also have the amazing power to create sunderers and put terminals wherever I want, and as long as I'm smart about the placement so that I don't need to change to engineer and waste my MAX cooldown, I don't even need additional people. Though having said that, once they catch on to what I'm doing with it, I've known some people to ride around providing the AA themselves while I just worry about keeping my AMS healthy (and this was mostly before the latest round of air nerfs and AA buffs). Clearing entire airspaces one <press B to deploy> at a time!

Um... gee, I'm sorry to hear you're incapable of keeping in mind your sprint's limitations when choosing how far to wander from cover. It must suck to be you.

Saddest 'problem' ever? I'm not sure but it's a strong contender.

I'll take your word for it, since I've never felt the need to upgrade my AA MAX besides flak armour to 3. I'm sure it's very difficult for you getting by with more upgraded equipment. How ever do you cope...

I have one cert point spent on my MAX's cooldown. One... point. I've literally never lost it fast enough for that to matter in an AA role, and if I die with mercies I just re-roll to pretty much any infantry class and perform better anyway.

You've lost a MAX to an infiltrator? Did you record it by any chance? Sounds like it would be funny as hell to watch.

Well I've also got critical assists vs Scythes with a Lynx before if that frankly hilarious possibility makes you feel better about something. And most people really don't shoot anything they can... well, unless it's the one thing their weapon will do zero damage to, then it's almost like they've got to try finishing off that magrider with a sniper rifle.

LOL CHARACTER LIMIT.

The first post? Because I looked through it, then hit ctrl-f and searched for the word 'constant' on the entire first page of this thread, and I guess it must have overlooked that part.

It wasn't implied that AB would break the lock of existing missiles. In fact it was only suggested that it would delay lock completion, and only with AB tanks equipped and active.

I don't know why you say this as though it's news to me but okay. I'm somewhat sceptical of how well they'd implement it though unfortunately, since the client doesn't even know where the missile is a lot of the time, and tends to have serious synchronization issues with them even when they have rendered (there was a thread detailing this regarding AAM in particular in vehicle discussion a week or so ago but I forget the title now).

I also don't really have issues with lock ons in tanks because I don't know where they are. Most of the time I know exactly where they are, and they're even in a range that I should be able to return fire, but they're invisible and invulnerable. A lot of tank vs lock issues may be resolved in upcoming rendering changes.

That's what the flares (more or less, I haven't memorized their description) do, although yes I imagine you could call something like a modified exhaust 'stealth' as well. Not... sure what one could really do to help reavers or mosquitoes in that regard... but in principle.

Not that it describes this, but I suppose it wouldn't be the only upgrade to make more sense if we pretend it's something else. Regardless, I think this almost helps make the case that if we really wanted to, we could explain away an AB that delays lock-ons. We could say the launchers are like 'whoa, this isn't what I'm looking for!' and refuse to lock until the AB has turned off and they can verify it is indeed an appropriate target, or something.

Would be cool to be able to drop fuel bombs...

ooooh...afterburner tanks that double as a one-use FAE? DO WANT.

Stealth rig, flare, IR smoke. If they need to be adjusted upwards in effect then it should be done. The counters to lock on missiles are already in game. (Personally I find that 0.25 of a second, 0.5 of a second, etc. is absurdly low).

Aircraft should get flares by default, but that's besides the point.