[Suggestion] More powerful (and nanite-expensive!) missiles

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by DarkStarAnubis, May 12, 2022.

  1. DarkStarAnubis

    As infantry main, I am always frustrated by ESF or heavier aircraft who regularly strafe battle lines at will, get an hit or two, disappear over the horizon either to break lock or to land and repair, rinse and repeat.

    My suggestion:

    (1) Make Anti-Air and Anti-tank lock missiles far more powerful. A single hit on an ESF should set it on fire, or bring in down, or inflict massive damage (randomly chosen)

    (2) Reduce the ammo count to 3 on the launcher and drastically increase the reload time

    (3) Each missile costs nanites, equip them at the terminal in the same way mines are purchased
    • Up x 2
  2. Demigan

    Please dont put these on lock-ons. They arent very engaging for the user and they dont give their targets any fun engagement either. Worse: lock-ons have problems that make paying nanites for them feel worse. An aircraft that dives while you fire will cause the missile to suicide into the ground or any cover you might be using, a twig or ally passing by breaks the lock assuming you dont fire at that moment and lose the missile. Worse: your targets could deliberately wait and deploy countermeasures the moment you fire.

    Put it on different missiles and rockets. Laser-guided, wire-guided, proximity fuse, proximity top-attack fuse etc could all provide a fun and engaging way of using these nanite costing missiles without making use of one of the most dumbed down features of the game.
  3. DarkStarAnubis

    The two things do not add up... Either the aircraft has skillful ways to break lock / avoid being hit by the missiles or it hasn't.
    • Up x 1
  4. Demigan

    "Just dive and hope" is not skillful, also its based on buggy coding where the missile will exit the launcher at an intercept angle, so it could be moving 45 degrees downwards as you fire on a diving aircraft. Also when it works changes, a high flying aircraft wont be able to use this but a low flying one does.

    And you definitely cant rely on twigs and enemy allies to break the lock.
  5. DarkStarAnubis

    Cough ... Hossin ... Cough ... Oshur ... Cough ... Amerish :D

    Good shoot-and-scoot ESF pilots do that all the time. They know missiles can't be fired without a confirmed lock-on.
    • Up x 1
  6. Demigan

    Ok let's rephrase that, you can't do it without the need for skill. Just "fly around trees that face the spawnroom" is not exactly rocket science.

    Let's put it another way: Why shouldn't we use more interesting rocket/missile launchers for the user? Why a point&click weapon that gets its skill curve out of knowing when you can stand in the open or where to stand to reduce allies/environment getting in the way?
  7. DarkStarAnubis

    I am looking for effective weapons to counter cheesy A2G infantry farmers. The keyword is effective. I am way beyond any meta or philosophical debate about good and bad.

    Current Lock-On missiles deliver not enough damage to scare ESFs (and pitiful damage to bigger ground and air vehicles), so replace them with more powerful ones, with more damage, less ammo and longer reload time. Make them expensive (nanites).

    Think about any modern MANPAD.
    • Up x 1
  8. Clone117

    Why not just introduce a soflam and allow even the basic dumbfires to lock onto designated targets.
    • Up x 1
  9. Demigan

    What isn't effective about a laser-guided missile, like a handheld AV MANA turret or Hornet?
    What isn't effective about a wire-guided missile, like a Phoenix variant?
    What isn't effective about a relatively high-speed dumbfire rocket with little drop?
    What isn't effective about a proximity fuse payload which could be wire-guided, laser-guided and even dumbfired? (alternative: Rather than proxy fuse it goes into Coyote/Striker tracking when it gets close enough).

    These would not only offer an effective launching and guidance method for a solid hit chance, they would not need to be nerfed in the same breath by increasing reload time and decreasing ammo count as they are more skillful but not too skillful.

    Also modern MANPADS come in a large variety as well, like those mentioned above. Some are maintain-lock, others ride a laserbeam until they can detect a target through heat/optics/radar/whatever, some use TV guidance like the Sagger missiles that managed to wipe a ton of Israeli tanks, some like the NLAW we hear more about these days require the user to first maintain a soft lock on a moving target and then the missile guides itself with that knowledge to where the target hopefully is, using optics and magnetic sensing to detonate above the target using a top-attack payload. There are dozens of ways you can make sure the rocket/missile has a reasonable chance of hitting without making it a lock-on fire-and-forget missile.

    I would rather make SOFLAM for deployed and unmanned assets. Like a mortar you deploy, buy a SOFLAM from, then you can designate a target and the mortar fires whatever rounds are selected. This also lets you use a wide variety of other tools, like deploy a radar ping to detect people, call down larger deployables, use an ANVIL system when you are outnumbered without the need for outfit resources (which was dumb anyway) etc.

    SOFLAM for manned assets is good for a MILSIM, but not a game like planetside. It forces one player to just sit there and wait for someone else to do the job, then they fire the missiles until the lock is gone. Not exactly very engaging gameplay.
  10. DarkStarAnubis

    Mate, If you claim something is effective you have to prove it. The internet game "I say something, now prove me wrong" does not work with an old dog like me :)
    • Up x 1
  11. Demigan

    Oh come on you dont want to open that can of worms. I mean you havent proven your point yet right? And its easy to make a point about your lock ons being WORSE than current versions. You lose what DPS you have to a longer reload, you still warn your opponent of the impending attack giving them time to respond, you still have to expose yourself a lot to land the shot, you carry less ammo and you get punished with nanite loss for things beyond your control.

    But a simple laser-guided warhead (with say 2m proxy fuse against aircraft)? By the time they know they are under attack they are already hit, a miss doesnt have to tip them off, you can fire instantly, you can switch targets as the missile is in flight if a better target presents itself (or the original hides somewhere), you can potentially add skillshots (for aircraft: proxy fuse will go off the moment the distance increases again, letting you hit closer for more damage or get bonus direct damage, for vehicles: that top-attack method looks fun), you could stop laser-guidance to start reloading early while the missile flies straight on (hopefully to the target)... tons of options with just one setting.
  12. Clone117

    Battlefield 4 has soflam and thats pretty casual game. With how many ppl main heavy assault if the infil class had a soflam that let all those ppl lock onto an individual target with their dumbfire overall team coordinated av would be in a much better spot in terms of effectiveness. Whether some1 finds using such a powerful teamwork required tool engaging is just an irrelevant opinion.
    • Up x 1
  13. DarkStarAnubis

    Oh at least something concrete :)

    DPS is irrelevant when the target can easily break LOS at any time. That is why I wrote "A single hit on an ESF should set it on fire, or bring in down, or inflict massive damage (randomly chosen)". I am talking about Alpha Damage of lock-on launchers.

    Moot point because any launcher with passive guidance (Phoenix for example) requires you to steer the weapon and be a sitting duck while you do it.

    Any launcher with active guidance (Striker for example - the best launcher of PS2) does not.

    Ballistic (no guidance) launchers are utterly useless again air except for the "one in one thousands shots" hitting a moving ESF and ending up immediately after on youtube.

    If you say: "Make the striker more powerful and cost nanites" it is super fine but you have to give it to the other factions as well, nobody has it, but everybody has NS lock-on launchers.

    Moot point. You loose nanites for everything that costs nanites (duh). Following your reasoning I should not buy mines because it is out of my control if somebody will step on them or not...
    • Up x 1
  14. Demigan

    But that is the disadvantage of lock-ons. For fairness it needs limitations. Other rocket/missile types do not.

    To use the laser-guided example again, you could give it a magazine, 60RPM, only one missile to be guided at a time and a 3-shot kill on aircraft (a seperate AV variant with lower velocity would also be introduced).

    You could potentially kill the target before they get away in that way, giving you enough DPS to take down the target but at the cost of nanites and potentially not succeeding. Hovering aircraft would be punished as they should as its like attacking a vehicle in the back.

    You can play with the actual magazine size, reload speed, velocity, how agile the missile is when trying to follow your aim etc to increase or decrease the ease of a hit.

    Not a moot point. A Phoenix can be fired from cover or partially exposed (say standing a bit back from cover for a better angle). A laser-guided missile doesnt have to obscure your view as much as a lock-on does and it doesnt suffer from people walking in front or twigs etc giving you a lot more mobility and even the option of guiding the missile to a target while you dive behind cover (with the added difficulty it gives if you cant see it anymore). It lets you quickly peek and spot your target's position. All launcher types have less problems like that compared to a lock-on.

    The current slow velocity high drop ballistic rockets are utterly useless. Does that mean a high velocity little/no drop rocket with a proximity fuse to further increase hit chance would also be useless? Ofcourse not! Its like saying "the Kobalt sucks at AV so another bullet type vehicle mounted weapon like the Vulcan would suck too".

    A Striker type weapon could be one of the options (which I already pointed out), although without the rather ridiculous arming distance+flak detonation distance of the current Striker.

    Wrong analogy. Mines give you a lot of ways to hide them to increase hit chance (to ridiculous degrees in many cases, you have to rely on serverside problems to dodge some mine locations). But with lock ons you have to fight off bugs and bad coding (like a twig blocking your lock) to ensure a hit for an otherwise no-skill weapon.
  15. Fishbread

    I think more diverse weaponry works better here in general, which might include both a harder-hitting but costlier missile as well as the sort of "different missiles and rockets" outlined here.

    There are different play styles for ESFs, and I think the key is to balance each one with its own set of strengths and weaknesses so as to make each one viable but not uncounterable. If an ESF pilot wants to "shoot and duck", there should be something that is strong against that but weak against, say, "boom and zoom" and "stay and strafe". You might also adjust stats on the ESF side for the same purpose--for example, make an anti-ground strafing build easier for an anti-air dogfighting build to zone out. I realize this is already the case to some extent, but I think leaning into it would allow less experience pilots to still make a difference; as it is, a single ace pilot can usually defeat an average-skilled player in any loadout (vehicle or not). An ace pilot will have a natural skill advantage, but playing to the strengths of your loadout is also a skill, and no one loadout should be without counter.
    • Up x 1
  16. RabidIBM

    As soon as I saw a post about missiles I started laughing, "How many posts from Demigan?". You're up to 6, and half of them are essays. Ok, you don't like missiles, we know.
  17. TR5L4Y3R

    except he spoke himself about nanite based ranged AV options like one use missilelaunchers before
    here we are talking bout not making lock on variants too powerful and personaly i agree with demigan here, but hey everyone can make fun of everyone and make generalised statements

    i don´t see you realy giving your explanations to the thread but just liking Darkstars comments ... very constructive to the convo

    seriusly a number of current launchers just need a slight bump in damage output
    lockons could have more range, generaly a bit more consistency to be able to fire them
    strong nanitecosting missile launchers could be an additional option but still should require some skill like with f.e. higher velocity dumbfiremissiles or wireguided missiles these are things we talked about in the past many times ...

    but "UUUHH yOu HaTe MiSsiLeS" ...
  18. Demigan

    I love missiles! If you read anything you would have known. And if you add other threads I've proposed anything from micro-missile launchers to missile artillery.

    What I dont like is fire-and-forget lock-ons. They are hard to pull off in any game and PS2 has heaped some bugs and bad coding on top of it. And there are so many better alternatives out there! Why go for one of the worst designed weapons in the game if there are better ones?
    Darkstar hasnt really defended his choice for only lock-ons to be upgraded and keeping it away from other weapons. I mean the best he got was "but current dumbfire launchers have a tough time hitting". Well yeah, thats why I proposed alternate versions of dumbfires with flak warheads for example.

    As for the amount of posts, whats your point? There's 2 you might consider "essays", one of which is a response to two different people. Ooooooh that is so bad I guess? I'll dig a hole and be deeply ashamed in it allright? Now could you come up with a reason why we should not look into anything but lock ons for nanite-costing missiles?
    • Up x 1
  19. brutes359

    Another of these threads about shoulder mount AA launchers..."sigh". Ok. lets make this clear. The issue with shoulder mounted AA launchers was never their damage. 3 hits from a single launcher will down an ESF. The issue is their range. We saw this issue years before plantetside when BF4 nerfed stingers to 200M. Most aircraft can and WILL engage beyond 200 meters, and thus AA launchers must have a reliable range to use effectively. This means that the average AA launcher must be able to engage between 500-700 meters minimum to be a legitimate threat. They must also be able to catch up to ESFs (I often see scythes simply outrun the missile to its de-spawn point) Beyond these issues, the only real problem with AA launchers is that that the random players are too stupid to use them often enough to be a viable threat. This was the whole reason their damage was nerfed and their reload speed was increased in the first place.

    We do not need missiles that cost nanites, and we do not need more changes to the system of shoulder mounted launchers. What we need are players who are smart enough to gang up and form AT teams that will hunt tanks and aircraft and missiles with the range capability to engage those targets reliably.

    Nevertheless. If we are going to introduce the new missiles as concepts, which I believe demigan did have some interesting suggestions, I agree that they should be their own launchers. Or simply add them as optional attachments to standard dumb-fire missiles such as the shrike, and whatever the TR and VS equivalents are.

    Alternatively, they could add these missiles as vehicle mounted platforms, such as dedicated SAM missiles for lightnings, or buildable AA mines for engineers. Or even buildable manned SAM turrets for engineers. All would justify the heavier damage missiles by immobilizing them, or placing them on a dedicated vehicular platform with the added bonus of giving the lightnings a more dedicated use beyond budget MBTs.
  20. brutes359

    I agree with this man. It would give infiltrators an interesting extra utility that they desperately need anyway.