Balance Post 3: Predictions and Discussion

So balance post 3 is coming up. Lets get some discussion going here, because this is (Likely) being worked on SOE-side, so it would be good for Forumside to express a relevant opinion, to the conversation at hand

As it is right now, the topic is supposed to be (At least this is what it Looks like the topic is supposed to be): Rocket launchers and the AV turret.

Keep in Mind
Now, the complaints about Rocket Launchers and the AV turret that I have read in the past are:

• Rocket launchers are ohk to infantry at close range
• Lock-on fire and forget missiles are a horrible mechanic
• The AV turret has unlimited range which allows for bombardment of vehicles from outside the range at which they can respond
• AV Turret is OHK for infantry
• The available AV options are too powerful

So what is your opinion on this matter? What do you think will happen people of Forumside? Lets try to keep this mostly constructive, we have threads on BASRs, nanoweave, and harasser changes... This is about Balance pass 3.

My input (Optional Reading)
Now, I would say that people need to keep the recent BASR changes in mind, because I am seeing that as an indicator of what we'll see in BP3.

My predictions:

• Rocket Launcher damage will remain the same
• Lock-on range will be capped at 100-150
• AV turret range will be capped at 200-250
• AV turret Damage will be reduced
• Lock-on weapons will require that you maintain the lock on all targets, if you loose lock, the missile becomes useless.

As to the why of all these predictions, I am betting that infantry range will be lowered overall. In this way, you are indirectly buffing land and air vehicles. It creates a flight ceiling, it creates a role for vehicles (Long range bombardment and AV), while allowing for the same AV options and rewarding Teamwork (You'll have a more narrow window to attack aircraft, so taking them down means teamwork). Also, by lowering the range of these weapons the lowered range of Infiltrator sniper rifles, lets infils still fill an anti-AV role.

I would say there is precedent for this, as we saw the changes to Bursters and now the changes to Sniper rifle ranges, so looking at a decrease in the range of these other AV and AA options ranges would make sense. Futher again, it buffs alternate and more powerful/expensive options (Max AV would presumably not have that range limit, Skyguards don't have that range limit) so there again it encourages people to branch out to vehicles and what have you, to deal with other vehicles.

Flash, please.

We know its going to be more nerfs. Why discuss it before the proposals are posted?

Because, you have opinions about these things.

If you express them, when it's about time that these things are being discussed, there is a better chance that you will be able to influence things. Also, as we have seen with other balance posts, people have concerns about them. There are things that people want to see happen with these balance posts... if you state what you want to see happen, there is a lesser possibility that you'll be complaining later.

Look, someone just above your post actually had an opinion. That is now information that the forum and the devs have.

The point of forums is for you to express your opinion about the game, to see if people agree with your opinion, to get support for your opinion... If you want PS2's main forums to be more relevant, you have to make them such.

Except without concrete information on whats coming, the discussion here is little more than speculation.

I would rather there be discussions on what is certain, rather than discussions based on what we suspect.

i dont feel that those things are really a major problem...I personally believe lock-ons are great and i cant imagine a war game without them...maybe some balancing is needed but i dont see what the problem with any of them are honestly...the striker used to be bad, but after its changes i dont find myself getting constantly annihilated by them anymore...maybe cuz i stopped flying all together long ago lol. the AV turret i think is also pretty much fine...ideally i would like to see the ranges for tanks and well everything increased so that you could see the range of where the mana turrets are fired from and new artillary weapons added for a new extreme range warfare. but seeing how this is probably impossible and would cause awful performance issues i guess the only option is to slightly nerf them...i think maybe they could add the ability that when looking through a lock-on sight you could render at double to the normal range and lock onto turrets...this would give atleast a counter for super far away bombardment and possibly not as much negative performance effects....who knows

I mean, they can go on nerfing lockons even more, but really? Nobody uses them anymore unless there is literally nothing else to shoot at within render distance.

Why?

Rocket Launchers and Mana AV turrets. That is going to be the topic. If not BP3, BP4, or BP5. It's Coming.

You have an Opinion on these things. Everyone does.

We can either be reactionary, only responding instead of engaging, at which point we really have to live with the results, or we can express our opinions on this now... before there are decisions Made. Show what our opinion as a Community is. Give the devs something to work from.

The alternative, simply posting about things that A.) Wont ever get implemented, or B.) Wont ever be changed, does nothing.

Why?

Lets look at two topics big in the community:
1.) MLG war Report
2.) Locking servers to factions when too many of one faction logs on.

Now, 1 of these things will likely see change, and the other wont.

MLG war report has a Horrible reputation. I can't think of a single group that Supports them, because it's become such a joke. You can see people lobbying for Jax's job because they smell blood in the water. This is something that will get changed. Why? Because there is a unified response, that only came about due in large part to what happened to your outfit.

Now let's look at Locking of Server's due to factions being too populous on a server.
This will never be implemented, we have confirmation of that now. It never was going to get implemented, because there was no unified response from any one portion of the community.

In order to get something pushed, that has already been put in, you have to get a nearly unified outcry from the community. That is why the community deflected Max grenade arms, implant sales, and Orbital strike... There was no one that was standing up to defend those features. But they were still deflected PRIOR to being implemented.

This is another one of those opportunities.

Again, this is what makes these forums relevant.

As I said, this is my guess.

The one place I am having trouble justifying it is with Air. More specifically with Libs.

Without longer range Lock-ons, you loose the ability to respond to libs parked at flight ceiling.

Mostly why I put that there, to see if anyone had a more sensible idea.

you predict air vehicle buffs? i'm not going to complain, but i don't see that happening

last talk of the esf update still had soe intending to further tone down air

a lockon limited to 150 meter will be a useless lockon, especially if they keep the current lock time. 150m, isn't much at all when the vehicle in question can easily travel in 6 axis. keep in mind the 150m extends as a sphere around the shooter, and would allow ESFs and libs to just sit around them with no recourse.

Not as much a direct buff, but I it wouldn't shock me.

As I said further up, the only thing there that I know is a weak point of my theories, was Liberators. Lock on launchers work pretty well to counter those. Thing is, it's almost like Lock-ons are too strong for esfs, but not strong enough for libs.

locks on are weak for libs, most just tank them unless you get a fire team up and running focus firing them. the only problem with lockons against ESFs right now are the flare bugs and maybe the lock cone. i could see the cone of effect for acquiring a lock easily made thinner and still making the lockons a useable option. dropping the range to 150m would just be a heavy handed measure considering the libs and ESFs can saturate bomb troops from the 300m mark. at most the range should be dropped by 100m to the 400m bracket, this still allows troops to respond to an ESF as it makes/ lines up a run.

Anyone who uses a lock-on launcher against ESF's knows that maintaining a lock would be nigh impossible. If the enemy is flying low it can be a challenge to get a lock in the first place. With all the towers, mountains and antennas around you would never be able to hit anything. Anything that flies at least.

And this would apply even more if the range was reduced. 150 meters is ridiculously short considering how fast ESF's can get away. It would be hard to nerf lock-on launchers in such a way that they are still useable considering how easily pilots can avoid being hit (or at least killed) by them.

The "no skill" argument is kind of silly in my opinion. There is more to skill than having a good aim. I don't think it makes sense to use this as a reason to nerf lock-on launchers into oblivion.

The above is all about G2A launchers of course. I don't use G2G launchers myself so I can't really talk about that in particular. A nerf to those would probably not have such extreme results though since ground vehicles are much slower, easier to close in on and quite doable to hit with dumb-fire as well.

I don't think the OHK vs infantry is really an issue. It's hard to hit a player with a rocket launcher and if you miss you are done for. Sure it's annoying when somebody instagibs you but let's face it, it probably happened because you were either standing still or running straight into his rocket. It's more like a last resort when you are caught off guard while using your launcher, not a viable strategy.

Lock ons are so stupid easy to use. In a game with hundreds of people; lock on get ridiculous. I am a pure ground pounder and I think locks on should only be useful when armor gets too aggressive without infantry support.

They should not be used for every damn fight. Locks ons should require a constant lock. This allows infantry to assist and keep enemy AV back.

The right changes to the AV MANA Turret would be to cap the range, and then increase the damage*. Because obviously it should still remain a balanced, effective weapon at its intended role, and simply slapping a huge nerf to its range is going to be enough on its own.

(* The damage increase might come in the form of reduced base damage (so it's weaker against infantry) but with a high AV multiplier against hard targets so it does more against those than it does now.)

Keep in mind that the AV turret is actually a bit more disadvantaged than a regular rocket launcher, because you have to place the thing (which is a typically frustrating experience by itself) and then lock yourself into the turret in order to shoot (leaving you vulnerable to the vehicle and snipers.)

Fire and Forget can stay, although it would be great to also have lock-required weapons too. But all AV weapons should be balanced according to their ease of use, with easier lock-on weapons having worse DPS than harder to use weapons like dumbfired weapons, with maintain-lock rockets existing on the easier (and lower-damage) end of the spectrum.

I'd love to see rocket one-hit-kills removed. It's bad enough that one infantry class has the best AI and best AV infantry weapons on the same freaking class, but for the AV weapon to also one-shot infantry too? It's not good balance.

They just need less range and less tracking duration for AA missiles.

You wouldn't say the same about A-G?

The disadvantages are there with the AV launcher, but the bonuses far outweigh them. I do agree on your other points though, with the Turret range cap and the lcok-on's being lower DPS comparatively to dumbfires.

That range limit on lock-ons would be absolutely horrible.
I would have better luck with my T16.

Why change lock-ons? They are un-godly easy to avoid right now with flares. If you know how to press the F key do your business and bug out... there is no reason for a change.

I would make the striker either a2a or g2g. Having a 2500 damage multipurpose esrl is a little ridiculous. Change it so it's one or the other... there is too much utility in having both options at such a long range.