Lock-on launchers more expensive? Make 'em avoid obstacles again!

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by DevsAnswerMe, Sep 28, 2015.

  1. LordAnnihilator

    This is amusing to watch. I haven't used lock-Ons enough to have any issues, but I am intending to get the ASP-30 Grounder. If it helps to blow up the Galaxy, it works. If it gets those blasted Infantry Farmers to go elsewhere, it works. I'm not that fussed about cert price, from where I stand as a new player it seems reasonable for TR launchers and NS weapons.
  2. Lureh

    Actually you can still enable the "super fog".
    If it is at least what I think it is....basically a grey fog that makes it impossible to see a lot of things (like the esf that is ramming you).
    Also a somewhat similar fog can be enabled on Indar making the impact site a huge fog zone (again impossible to see stuff, like the wall you are about to fly into).
    Looks nice all in all but you would be putting yourself at a disadvantage.
  3. Shadowomega

    Actually the fog occurs during the early hours of the on Esamir, and is only really effective at lowering view distance at higher graphic settings. But I never had is so bad as to make it impossible to see a vehicle 10 feet in front for you.
  4. Lureh

    You have to play around with the graphics settings a bit (ingame and the useroptions file).
    It looks amazing, especially when you see a biolab infront of you from nowhere (and fly right into it, usually).
    It is also quite nice to see a harraser drive past you and disapear before it opens fire on you from the fog.
    Strangely enough though, hossin didn't seem to change much :(.
  5. ColonelChingles

    It actually is possible with modern technologies. We already have missiles that can keep track of targets behind them.

    Even by the late 1990's, off-boresight missile seekers could engage targets within a 180 degree radius from the missile axis of travel. So such a missile would be capable of engaging a target directly below it or above it.

    Modern missiles, like the Israeli Python-5, are capable of tracking target for 360 degrees of engagement. It is actually even capable of turning back around and hitting a target directly behind it. If it overshoots (unlikely because it has proximity detonation), it can switch back and reacquire the target quite easily.

    In general missiles are far more maneuverable than the aircraft that they are chasing, due to being able to experience more G's from greater structural strength, lower mass, and not having a pilot on board. The IRIS-T missile can completely change direction in as little as 3 seconds, doing a 180 flip. Or of course the missile can simply slow down and wait for the aircraft to overshoot.
    • Up x 1
  6. Hatesphere

    its the same reason the military is nuts about drones at the moment too. if you can remove the pilot from a jet fighter you can ditch a whole bunch of useless weight (see life support, and safety systems.) as well as design the air frame for high G maneuvers that would black out a pilot or even cause soft tissue damage to a meat bag.
    • Up x 1
  7. ColonelChingles

    There's also the fact that for most weapon systems like tanks and aircraft, the human is by far the most expensive part of it, to train and maintain. Also to replace.

    That's why when people in PS2 complain about tanks being unrealistically cheap to pull... well that's because empty tanks are fairly inexpensive compared to what it would take to train and supply the crew or even a rifleman!
  8. Agarthan

    I think the missile should fly at least halfway the distance to the target before actually trajectory locking, this would eliminate most of the flying into obstacle issues, but not completely over power the weapon.
  9. Pikachu

    Probably the skyfile of Indar grasslands following you.

    Esamir fog gets thick in the evening then disappears during night. The comes back to normal in the morning, which is thinner than that of Indar desert btw.
  10. Silkensmooth

    No it doesnt. YOU think it does, but most people in the community think that AA is currently far too strong against ESF.

    I dont have a problem with infantry DEFENDING themselves from ESF, but the ESF should have to be in range to actually RENDER the infantry before the infantry needs to DEFEND itself.

    What we currently have is un-rendering infantry often inside a spawn room or next to a sundy shooting locks at A2A ESF fighting high above the ground.

    G2A is like that, with the exception of the striker which works how all G2A launchers should work.

    It is a bad game mechanic for people who are out of render range to be damaging vehicles with no fear of retaliation. That was why the mana AV turret got nerfed.

    G2A locks are no different. The lock-on user can easily put himself in a position of complete safety and do over 40% damage per rocket to an ESF. Not a problem imo if the ESF is actively hunting and rendering said ground targets, perhaps.

    Ideally G2A damage would be greatly reduced vs ESF flying A2A loadouts. There is no need for the easiest weapons in the game, that being AA weapons of all types, to also be the most effective.

    Low skill weapons should have to employ the multiplication factor of cooperation to be effective.

    And of course in a combined arms game infantry shouldnt be able to do everything. Currently they can and it makes for a very one-sided feeling game.If you are getting pounded by airplanes you should have to call for help from friendly air, not just go grab a lock that does the aiming for you and kill every pilot in the sky.

    Wtf are you even thinking?
  11. Silkensmooth

    Another nice option for locks would be to increase the lock time to 10 secs.

    Then add a modifier to A2G weapons that reduces that time.

    Flying A2A ESF with no A2G capabilites and it takes 10 secs for someone to lock you. If you are flying an A2G loadout the time would be reduced to 2 or 3 secs.

    Also flak should only detonate in the presence of A2G weapons and otherwise, vs A2A ESF, require direct hits to do damage.
  12. DevsAnswerMe

    Yeah, sure, nerf the damn launcher even more so that u would rather THROW it at the target rather than using it as intended, that's the way to go!

    Do u get shot down by lock ons in their current state alot, are u THAT bad at flying? I'm not that good at it either but even I know that flares and just a LITTLE BIT of caution is enough to avoid getting shot down either by lock ons or by any bullet-based anti-air!

    If u really suck THAT BAD that u can't trick a rocket into a tree or rock in their current state then u should just quit flying altogether!

    Rockets need to be reverted back to avoiding obstacles or the price for the launchers needs to be lowered again! PERIOD! END OF THE ******' ARGUMENT!
  13. LordAnnihilator

    Woah dude, chill out. And for the record, THIS ARGUMENT HAS ONLY JUST BEGUN.
    But that's just your opinion, DevsAnswerMe. The forum is supposed to be for discussion, not for you to jump in, scream your views out into the world, and expect everyone to agree with you. I do think the price is a bit much personally on some weapons, but i wouldn't go as far as to ignore other views. Also, the Devs pay no proper attention to the forums, the answers will not come just via your ranting.
  14. DevsAnswerMe

    Well it's ****** FACT that the lock on launchers are already ineffective enough WITHOUT being too stupid fo fly around obstacles and that makes any raise of their prices without improvement pure ****** BULLSH!T!
  15. Tatwi

    1. Run into building for cover.
    2. Look through window and lock on to plane as it flies away.
    3. Fire rocket.
    4. Throw hands up in the air in disgust, because the rocket magically teleports upward and explodes on the top of the window frame.

    Yeah, fix that.
  16. JojoTheSlayer

    Please stop trying to bring reality arguments in a scifi game...
    First of all, if a rocket weapon has some level of guidance after launch, its not a rocket, its a missile.
    Secondly, the reason most if not all shoulder based infantry launchers have a "two step" launch, as seen in the Javelin video, is because it has two rocket engines. A main and a weaker launch one. The launch engines purpose is to get the missile away from the user before the main engine starts. This because its a good idea to not BURN the face off on the guy that used the weapon system. Would be bad for getting people to voluntary use it you see.

    PS2 wise the lock systems are not all the same.
    The NC Hawk or Empire similar is "follow".
    The Annihilator is "future position". (unless this has changed I and I just havent noticed it yet)
    The Swarm is "multi lock short range maneuverable" or "multi slow maneuverable with longer tracking".
    Striker is "proxy lock on".

    To avoid them you can boost away vs "follow", fly toward the ground or similar against the "future position", again boost away from the "short range manv" or go evasive vs the "slow manv/long track" and finally dont just hover low altitude over TR against the striker.

    I am pretty bad in PS2 air, but even I known this about the AA launchers.
  17. DevsAnswerMe

    And when even a pilot who says he's bad at flying can get away from lock-on missiles (thanks for the correction) then there's neither a need to remove the ability to avoid obstacles nor a need to make the launchers more expensive without any ******' improvement!
  18. Lureh

    How does obstacle avoidance work again?
    I can't understand how the missile would fly, for example if there is a wall between the esf and the missile.
    Would it fly upwards to evade the wall?
    Clip through the wall?
    Fly sidewards?
    What would happen when the missile is fired from a (spawn) room?
    Would it automatically find the correct exit? If yes how?

    Also how would it affect the airgame?
  19. DevsAnswerMe

    When I last used the lock-on-launchers WITH that ability the missile flew towards the target until the target went behind cover, which then made the missile fly straight until it was past the obstacle at the exact point where the target went behind it and then chase the target again!

    And since a lock on ALWAYS requires a free line of sight to the target the (spawn) room question is irrelevant!

    And as wrong as it may seem to u that a missile flies straight towards the point where it lost its target until it finds the heat signature that it lost due to its target taking cover, just as wrong it seems to me that a missile can still see its target's heat signature through solid rock and thus fly straight towards it!
  20. Lureh

    Ahh....this makes sense. (I had never seen this so I had idea how it works)
    It is very unlikely indeed that missiles would follow a heat signature through walls, mountains, cliffs, etc.
    However if the missile lost the heat signature once and the esf gets away far enough (or hides behind another obstacle before the missile sees it), does the missile track again or keep flying straight?
    Would vehicle stealth influence this in any way (such as reducing re-lock range) ?