lock-ons everywhere

Assumption.
A false one.

As well, Having to deal with aircraft while not using aircraft kinda means You are forced to see, understand and know what an aircraft can do.

What did I say was wrong?
Right, nothing.

In the first opening: Aircraft had the legendary LOL-pods, the Lethal Dalton. Those were Real things.
They still have incredible power against any target; The sole weapons that are universally effective are Aircraft weapons.

Liberator has more mobility, more destructive weapons, 3 guns opposed to the ground's cap of 2, superior Fire-suppression, turbo, ample ammo storage, speed, and the ability to Fly.
Yes, that's mobility as a different entity - A Galaxy flies, but barely has the ability to dodge.

ESFs, have two weapons in the hands of one operator, the best FS, best speed, and have auto-repairs.
In addition, they are as cheap as a Lightning.
This isn't mentioning the built-in systems. Of which, only Sunderers with the AMS have any.
ESFs have built-in-radar.

Add in brutal efficiency for aircraft weapons, the large ammo pools, the incredible range, and the limited capability of AA...
And you actually have a cert-machine that can reach any fight, kill dozens in a literal instant, and leave for the warpgate.

Correct me, on where I am wrong.
If you say "But AA is everywhere", consider that even the most expensive AA needs to be massed, is incapable against ground targets, lacks mobility, and has a longer TTK on aircraft than aircraft have on them.
As well, if a fight has AA, it's since someone already massacred that area & left.

So, do you have any proper argument?
Or just assumptions that I don't fly, and that itself somehow is related to information about aircraft.
Or maybe **** off about flying not being profitable.

What does any of this have to do with the flight ceiling? I didn't even mention A2G farming at all.

The harasser has built in turbo too.

Everything you say is idiotic. No idea why I took you back off ignore. Claiming you can't do anything with an MBT cause AV will pwn you then saying that you can farm entire platoons for days as an ESF. You don't fly. It's obvious by the idiocy you spew. Or you're just exaggerating and lieing to push an agenda, which, if you do fly. Is idiocy as well.

STOP talking about FS if you don`t have an plan.......

FS 25% from 3000 HP = 750 HP = 4 Bullets of Gauß or 5 bullets any 143 dmg Weapon......

thats not much, without headshots you Need mostly 7- 10 Bullets for kill some inf........
and after all Patches, FS isn`t good at it was :/

I didn't say you couldn't - Unless you treat it like you treat AA sources, which is either ignore it as you can (for AA), or fear it.
I said it wouldn't be as profitable as flying an aircraft.

Also, I said Squads - In addition, if the platoon has no AA, you actually can farm them for days as Aircraft.

Oh I don't fly since I don't consider kill streaks per aircraft not profitable.
So no, you don't have a proper argument.

Something I see repeated in this thread is that A2A is hurt because of lock-ons. Strange, as combined arms is the name of the game. You don't get to have a safe zone so you can battle rather inconsequential battles to match your skill. The skill is in most cases larger, as you shouldn't forget the ground warfare and their attavk capabilities. Although I think G2A can seem very overwhelming to starting players, in addition to the low skill required, the fact remains that G2A is nearly wholly dependent on the pilot and not the G2A.

Does that mean it doesn't merrit change? Of course not. I wholeheartedly want G2A changed, but not on these terms or arguments. I would agree that G2A is annoying, both on the giving and receiving end. Changing G2A to a higher skilled arsenal so you can be much more dangerous, but also more prone to misses so aircraft don't feel helpless in some situations would be a better way to go for me.

This is complete 180 of reality. Only base turrets are capped at 450 and fit your example, and that cap was a huge mistake. Lock-ons have a 450m range and bursters have no range limit, neither of those units even render to air over 300m. Skyguards, and any other vehicle that mounts AA can render at 800 and fire at that range, while A2G Hornets have their range capped at 450. Noseguns in a squad can do work at that range, but you need as many of them as you'd need walkers to kill air at render, it's just not practical.

It's 450.

I absolutely agree with G2A having a place in the game, I even want OHK lock-ons, but with a completely reworked mechanic. After spending a year at it, and finally getting decent in the air, I've come to the conclusion that current lock-ons just shouldn't be in the game. I don't imagine we're ever getting nanite-based OHK missiles with realistic flight mechanics, so all I can think to settle on is a mechanic like the Striker. Its slow velocity limits its viability at harassing units that aren't a threat, and it has the close range ability to wreck A2G farmers that current lock-ons don't have. I really think it's the only solution within Daybreak's ability to implement. I play equal amounts of infantry and air, and I don't want to screw over one side or the other. There's a big argument that G2A weapons are only meant to be a deterrent, but I say that's a bad development move as the whole point of us playing is to have fights, not avoid them. The best mechanic would let air and ground trade blows and operate in the same theater. I'm getting **** for wanting to be part of a 96+ fight while targeting aircraft, and that shouldn't be the case. The only place for air in a 96+ shouldn't be flying low and farming helpless infantry. I'm being forced out of big battles and in to 1v1 engagements at warpgates and 1-12 fights where I'm OP. The only way to let air be mixed in with the rest of the game is to get rid of that beeping before the fight even renders. It's either that or continue farming in small fights, which everyone seems to love so much.

I agree that flying is one of the hardest things to learn, but once learned it offers very easy use for the power you get. Sure you can't sit still on the same spot and lob shells, but it requires absolutely zero skill in finding a position to attack from and with weapons like rocketpods it's far easier to perform both AI and AV duties simultaneously and at higher power than most other dedicated vehicles can, and even the "bad" Hornets still outdo weapons like the Vanguard main canon after the Hornet nerf. And escaping? That's a matter of point your nose somewhere that doesn't take you almost over your opponent and fly away.
350 nanites on an ESF is a very good deal... Except when you engage in A2A combat with another ESF that has learned the completely one-sided hover combat techniques.

A bigger problem that should be adressed is the type of aircraft used: If you add all aircraft but the ESF together, then the ESF is still used 5x more than all other aircraft combined. Again, 5x more than all other aircraft combined. Imagine if 80% of the infantry were HA, or if 80% of the vehicles were Sunderers because they perform all roles the best as both support and simultaneous battle Sundy. That's not good gameplay is it? So why are people defending the status-quo on ESF?
It would basically be better to simply redo 100% of everything to do with aircraft. The G2A weapons need an overhaul, the aircraft themselves need overhauls to make better distinctions and make all aircraft used more or less equally in the gameplay, the way and amount of damage they deal needs to be overhauled...

Not defending the status quo...exactly...more something is wrong with ESF's and I just don't like them except if I need a counter for Lib superiority.

I'm a best tool for the job player. I play most aspects of the game in some form or another depending on the situation. I'm not the best at any one playstyle for that reason but I get **** done because I'm not stuck in one playstyle when a situation calls for a different approach.

If I'm killing scrubs at a 1-12 fight the A2G ESF is the best tool. Outside of that it really isn't. Which fine...ok everyone hates getting rocket podded or AI nose gunned by ESF that just run away the second they're in danger (myself included, I play infantry more than anything else most of the time) but they need something. I just don't bother with them much anymore.

Used to be you could soften up a hillside or rooftop covered with infantry that ground units had a really hard time dealing with. Now I'm just as likely to go do something else like snipe or shell from long range. I might get a kill or 2 but the airspace is so easy to dominate with G2A and the target aqusition time being longer without thermals (I'm not advocating thermals return) that I have little to no impact before I die or have to run. Libs are kind of in the same position. So they aren't great for A2G in large battles either. Better...but a best tool? Not really, more just for hardcore pilots. Which if that's what DBGs wants...fine...but very few people play this game exclusively for air combat anymore.

I'm down for redoing aircraft all together. Can't be much worse than how it is right now. Could certainly be a lot better.

just add skill weapons to the existing arsenal .. there is no need to remove easy to use weapons ...

Movoza mentioned "safe zones", which is in no way what I'm advocating. Daybreak is going to great lengths to remove vehicle's ability to dominate infantry fights, which is fine. My problem is that lock-ons dominate any A2A engagements above fights, pushing pilots to camp warpgates, farm small fights, or fly low and just do A2G and farm infantry. The weapon just doesn't promote good gameplay and doesn't fit its intended role of a weapon infantry can pull out to defend against air. And this change wouldn't even remove it or add skill, it would actually lessen skill and make it a viable defence weapon while leaving the same skill just a longer lock time as a pestering weapon.

ESF remain one of the better tools regardless of the fights size. There's only a handful of bases where a critical amount of G2A will completely lock you out, other bases still offer enough attack routes to kill a bunch of infantry or to rocketpod tanks. And that's heavily underestimated for some reason, especially the tank killing capability. It's easy to pick a frontline tank and rocketpod it, preferably in the back which as ESF isn't too difficult, and if the tank survives your buddies can finish it off and if it was damaged already you can have an easy vehicle kill.

The problem is the ease with which you can pull it off. Why go to a large fight if you can expect resistance and require thought and tactics in your approach, if you can just pick a small battle with practically no resistance where you can come from any direction and just get a few free kills? That's not even a "right tool for the right job", that's just easy-mode farming. If you used it for the right tool, you would be taking out vehicles where it counted or picking off infantry in an important push.

Libs are still one of the most powerful units in the game and can stand up to ridiculous amounts of G2A. The big problem is it's counter: ESF are used 5x more than all other aircraft combined, and Libs just can't stand up to so many noseguns that it'll encounter everywhere in the sky. And then there's the A2A game, which offers a singular combat technique that works and any normal combat technique will actually favor the attacker more than it'll you, which means that any would-be A2G farmer will often die without being able to prevent it to someone who invested in this singular technique which isn't enjoyable for the A2G farmer (who is basically doing the same thing to his victims).

Oh my god. Stop looking at this from an A2G perspective. Devs have continually nerfed vehicles in regards to infantry, and as long as vehicles are spammable like they are, that's fair. They're trying to isolate infantry players. Fine. Picture this situation from an A2A perspective. You're not flying low enough to use cover, so you're pretty much pushed to farming small fights and camping flight paths (warpgates). This lock-on proposal would help infantry against air, it would be a massive buff, which infantry definitely needs. It would also let air be free to fight air, which it also desperately needs.

Thing is, A2G and A2A are almost indistinguishable as any A2A player has always had the option, and often used this option, to do some A2G on between shooting aircraft.
Additionally any form of G2G cannot benefit from such advantages that air already has, and you want to wxpand that to almost 100% immunity when doing A2A, but then where are the options for AV or AI oriented units to remain safe from A2G? Dont they deserve some immunity as well then?

Air does not "desparately" need to fight enemy air. In fact, air already does the most kills on enemy air. If I recall correctly, the noseguns alone had over 40% of all aircraft kills to their name. Which shows the ineffectiveness of the ground weapons that are far far more numerous.
But Hey, how about letting ground desparately fight eachother without air interference? Then I would have no problem giving A2A aircraft some immunity.

Also, if you've played any skyguard effectively, you would have noticed that flightpaths around bases are predictable, and its not very hard to find a spot where you can intercept enemy aircraft before/after an attack without having to get close to the base. The biggest problem would be avoiding getting ganged up on by multiple enemy aircraft.

Suicide via trees, crashes, etc was always the highest at 35% odd, although oracle of death has long gone so who knows what it is now.

He said kills; deaths =/= kills. But anyway.

I suck at flying, and I do use a lock on launcher a fair amount - the Annihilator most of the time, always hilarious to see tanks panic when they hear that beeping sound! But overall its underwhelming as a weapon system - much of the time a pilot will escape, even before I complete the lock, and they can always tank that first shot, knowing full well they can escape before I can reload, and lock on a second time. And if they have FS, they can even take a second hit, and still get away before I can reload and lock on for a third. Oh and as an added bonus for the air, they know when you are locking on, they also know how many people are locking on, and from where (air or ground). Wish I as an infantryman had the ability to sense when a pilot has me in his sights.

Just looking at my stats, for the Annihilator, 2805 shots, 2208 hits, and only 172 kills, that's about 12 hits for every kill. Don't forget that the annihilator can only fire with a lock, so about 600 of those shots, were either flared, or dodged somehow (or in one case, that's especially funny, I headshotted a cloaked infiltrator who just happened to get in the missiles path).

Just the other day I was in an anti air group (1 burster max, 3 G2A lockons), on a hill by an amp station, in 20 minutes I got a lot of hits, and only 4 kills, between the 4 of us we probably got 15 kills - and there was a lot of air - mosquitoes, Valkyries and liberators all over the place. Most of the time the pilots got away, even focus firing with the burster still they got away sometimes.

Lock-ons aren't OP, sure they are probably annoying to air - that is in fact their primary purpose. But does air ever consider that everything they have, is annoying to ground forces?

And I suspect you kill us way more than we kill you.

I argue that it does. This is an infantry focused game, the community and devs have made it clear that that's what they want. Current mechanics favor flying low, cover to cover, and farming infantry. I think infantry and air would appreciate it if the air battle was shifted away from the ground and away from the infantry fight. Air and ground could still, and absolutely should mingle, but there would be a little more separation.

You're missing the entire point of this. I'm arguing for lock-ons to have a 1/4 or 1/2 second lock time against close air. How does that sound as an infantry player? The compromise is that it takes 3x as long to lock on to aircraft at render range, which are aircraft you don't have to to worry about because you literally don't render on their screen for them to hit you. A2G farmers still have it too good, and this is a way to buff AA against them without further screwing anyone flying at the ceiling of southern Indar.

dude focus on what you want ... you say you have problems with a2a lockons and then keep on talking about infantry .. what is it now?
infantry SHOULD DEFENITIVELY have lock ons against esf´s because it´s *** all fun to die against something you either can barely hit or hope to even tickle when it goes to ram its iron pipe down your throat ..

how does A2A lock ons not fit that weapons role? IT IS MEANT TO FIGHT AIRCRAFT for gods sake same as infantry lockons and you still need more missiles or salvos than the infantryman does ...
and as far as i am concerned with that crappy way of flying esf´s A2A are a must for any newbe to hope to get some damage against any esf or aircraft .. you are generally better of flying a lib or galaxy because with a crew people can focus on various things .. and with the exception of coyoteturrets you don´t even need to fear lockons of from those .. but a newbe esf pilot has not only to focus on flying but also be capable to aim in a chase or with the stupid hovermode and don´t tell me that that is easy to do with a nosegun ..

tryhards mock players to get into esf´s to counter the airsuperiority then complain against lockons .. how are people supposed to reliably damage enemy esf´s when the controls are frankly soooo fcked up that beginners miss 90% of their shots while eating 50% to 70% of enemy esf nosegunfire ... oh "git gud"? *** that .. seriously just *** that .. i have no problem driving and firing with any groundvehicle even though i am a bad player and the fact that you are fighting more or less on a 2 dimentional plane ... as such even if i still die often it leaves me far less frustrated or not at all because at the very least i know i am capable of some good shots or kills .. but esf flying? 3 dimentional plane so i have to be even more aware of my surroundings, limited ability to aim while having to concentrate not raming into a tree or fly into a AAnest and then you want to go on and to remove the option that helps me to at least be somewhat capable to engage other aircraft or at least scare it off?
the air in cobalt to me is already fairly low populated with esf´s and with such a change you would leave nothing but tryhards in the air .. if that ain´t already the case .. you forced to warpgatefarm or farm small fights? cry me a river with how crap esf flying in general is .. make esf flying and aiming with the nosegun more accessible .. maybe then newbe´s decide to not even cert into lock ons because they may not need them ... but this way? deal with it ...

This isn't an infantry focused game, and the community and the devs haven't made clear that's what they want.

True, many changes were in favor of infantry when it came to infantry vs tanks/aircraft. And despite that, infantry is still woefully inadequate when faced with vehicles or aircraft to combat them. That's because the changes weren't there to make infantry the supreme unit in the game, but to make sure infantry had a chance to fight vehicles and aircraft.
Unfortunately the devs made mistakes in the way they did this. They adressed things that they and the community thought were problems, such as the AOE power of tanks. This didn't solve the actual problem of infantry not being able to defend or fight against aircraft and tanks. This was even more put askew with people who had their own agenda, wanting to have OP weaponry at their side or not understanding the extreme power they ask for. The devs actually showed they knew this to be the problem, as they spend a massive amount of time and effort creating walls and barriers to segregate vehicles and infantry from each other. Many of these like Quartz Ridge took years before they finally "fixed" them enough so that vehicles couldn't dominate the entire camp from a single hill. And it's a miracle that practically no one ever realized what the problem was with bases such as Quartz Ridge as examples. A single hill with a firing angle into the base was all that was necessary to make the entire battle a loss for whoever didn't have vehicles there. But "oh deary me, vehicles were getting shafted time and again". Isn't it strange that with giant neon signs like that screaming "vehicles dominate infantry despite everything you've done to vehicles" people still dare claim that vehicles are getting weaker than the infantry?

I'm not reading the rest, you're worse than Demigan with your novels. And sorry to you other guys, I got this confused with my other post. Apparently lock-ons have a range modifier, and I think that scale should be adjusted. Give them a 1/2 second lock time at 0-50m, 1 second and 50-75m..... and so on, up to 10 seconds at 450m. This lets lock-ons better degend against and kill A2G ESF, bother A2A ESF less, and is a definite boost to flares, which is needed.