the other threads on this topic seem to get bogged down in case-by-case discussion, or sidetracked by personal arguments, so i thought it best to post my recommendations in their own thread. very often i think people are distracted by the arguments for and against low-skill weapons being included in the game, and whether or not a high skill floor is productive or not. this thread is not really aimed at that discussion. it is more aimed at balance changes that would help alleviate that tension between high skill and low skill players, without sacrificing development goals aimed at both types. the goal in development should be to ease the transition between low skill and high skill, while allowing good counterplay from both ends of the spectrum. my suggestions follow, let's try to keep responses on topic the best we can. thanks for considering my input. recommended balance changes: remove ghost reload from A2A (remove ability to fire primary during secondary reload cycle.) require a fresh lock to fire subsequent missiles, require no missiles currently in flight to get a fresh lock. change flares to an ammunition based system, and separate the cert line into its own category ( all air vehicles.) add hit detection to all lock on missiles (adds a skill-based counter: nosegun users or tailgunners can shoot them down.) impose a limit on current locks per target to reduce the effect of population (for example, more than a certain number of locks on your target causes lock to fail and requires a fresh lock. this would limit the effectiveness of lock-zerging and require a wider range of AA such as coordination with flak or use of nose guns.) finally, buff Stealth to make it a more competitive, A2A focused option, and more synergistic with the flare system. in my experienced opinion this should not be a debate about using lock ons or their place in the game. that has been discussed so much that we all know the points for and against, and we know the development standpoint on the matter. what really needs to be discussed is how the system is abused, and what changes can be made to reduce or prevent that abuse without compromising the core principles behind the inclusion of low skill weapons. the bottom line is this: low skill or new players deserve weapons that are effective against high skill players, but to preserve counterplay, high skill players also deserve access to skill based methods of defense.
So you decided to copy-pasta yourself into a new thread. Fair enough since it IS a pretty big one, but I'll do the same with my reply to you. tl;dr Nerf A2AM to oblivion. What you're suggesting is so hilariously heavy-handed that the Liberator buff-nerf cycle earlier this year feels tame. I can see where it's coming though - You are refusing to recognize A2AM as a legitimate side grade to the AB tank as an A2A loadout, seeing it as a mere "low skill noob weapon" and using this stance as the base for your "balance", which is also why this is ridiculous.
also not my words. most of that response attempts to speak for me or create the illusion that my opinion is something other than what i wrote. this sort of thing happens a lot in these threads. also, i think it's pretty well known/obvious that a lock-on mechanic has a lower skill floor than an aimed hit detection mechanic. "low-skill player" is not a directed insult, it is simply a descriptor of a type of player that may not be practiced or effective at aiming mechanics. therefore i can not really be bothered to respond directly. tl;dr: can't be bovered m9
Whether or not you think it is one, a suggestion that's solely based on the belief that a weapon is a "low skill noob weapon" and actively trying to turn it into one without any other use is absurd. Lockon as a concept is not inherently un-fun even if you think the current incarnation of them in PS2 is the case. Instead, this guy decided to suggest something that dooms lockon into being the un-fun noob-only weapon that he thinks they are. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, really.
Pretty sure that the nose gun combined with AB fuel will let you outrun/reverse maneuver them to a flaming pile of wreckage. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you also able to "ghost reload" with all the other secondary esf weaponry?
what other seconary esf weaponry? hornets and rocketpods? i don't really see a problem in removing the ghost reload there either. the discussion is primarily about lock-ons/A2A play though so i'd prefer focusing on tomcats/coyotes or G2A locks. moving on, my suggestion there is twofold. it brings ESF secondary lock-ons in line with ground based equivalents; Heavy Assaults cannot fire LMG while waiting for their launcher to reload. it limits the use of these weapons by high skilled players as additional DPS. a common complaint is that weapons intended to give new or low skill players access to the air game are often used to deny that access, because those weapons are even more effective in the hands of high skilled players. the question is the health of the overall game. if something is a consistent complaint i think it should be reviewed.
we are talking about an aircraft with multiple weapons not an infantry platform. the "ghost" reload is a perfectly acceptable mechanic, the management of which is a skill, if you want to believe it or not. the current state of lock-ons is fine IMO, they have already been nerfed into a silly state due to the outcry of nose gun aficionados
Going to need to know who recommends them and also evidence of their qualifications and experience. These would also need to be checked and verified for authenticity. Otherwise we would have an Internet where anyone can endorse their own self published ideas as fact. OMFG, ROFL, LOL, WTF, would you really want that?
You missed the part about tripling the range and speed of homing missiles to compensate for the enormous nerfs you're dealing here.
no one is "dealing nerfs." the bullet points i listed are areas where the mechanic needs to be discussed because it is either something that is easily abused or something that prohibits counterplay. i'm coming to the topic in the spirit of serious discussion where that is possible, but all i'm seeing is salty non-responses. if this was about the tankbuster, shotguns, C-4 or any other favorite complaint of these forums it would be full of people telling users of those weapons to "give up their crutch" and take their "well deserved nerf." it's funny to me that the same does not go both ways for a weapon mechanic that is by definition a crutch weapon for low skill players. and let's please be intellectually honest, any one of the changes i've suggested would go a long way to help the situation. making several of the changes in partial measure would probably solve it entirely, and making all of them would likely be overdoing it. i have long been in favor of careful, small changes to the metagame in favor of better overall balance and better gameplay for players of all skill levels and preferred play styles. this is no different.
Ok I've read this post with interest. I started ranting at first, but I need something clear. The separate cert line is not in the defence slot right? So it fills a "tool" slot, and no other certs are available but flares. This means you have an extra utility option? If so, I'm against that. Then you have avoidance of damage stacking with another benefit, like fire suppression, making your vehicle truly godly. Another question for the flares is this; is the downtime of flares, where you can't use them after using one, still in effect? I think ammunition based is a nice option to increase the thought you have to put into flares, but only if the downtime remains. Else you get invulnerability against lock-on for a long time, and then you return to the ammo pad for more. Limiting the locks on a target is a bad idea. Tanks, infantry and all those are affected by more people in a region. It should be no different for air. When there are a lot of people with a deterrent against you, you should go down more easily. It's that simple. Lock zerging might also be the only defence against the strong air at that moment, lacking any flak or air capabilities yourself. The anti-air options are already limited (few lock on weapons, only 2 flak options) to warrant a nerf in people who dedicate some of their effectiveness to anti air. I just don't understand the anger at anti air weapons. Air can be specialised into more roles than the other vehicles, while still retaining power against nearly all threats. There is an anti-air option with coyote's and lock on's, and people can actively cert into defences against that. It's a bit rock paper scissors, but rock can still cert into defences and kill the paper in situations. Stealth might be a more A2A option, but the extra seconds you buy should already be enough right? Besides the surprise advantage from not showing up on the radar? Finally your bottom line. I think skilled players already have enough advantages. It might take a while for new players to take the anti-air lock on, high skilled players often have more certs in practically everything (more time played, more certs), high skilled players know how to use the terrain, they know where to go and where not, they are high skilled in an air vehicle, so they probably know how to use it more effectively. Low skilled is by definition in disadvantage. Their current defence is already based on their high skill. Knowing when to run and when to attack, picking out targets and picking your loadout in advance. Just giving them more cert lines will not increase skill, but give them more options that will turn this in a flare feast and only flak to counter you. Flak is a deterrent at best, giving up anti tank and anti infantry roles for only anti-air, and can still be beaten by what it counters.
well, i'm not going to get into any specifics. i feel that threads where people sit around and argue numbers, or try to haggle over what is fair are pretty dumb, and doomed to devolve into arguments. the points i outlined are parts of the mechanic that need examination and places where small adjustments could make a big difference in fun counterplay for both sides. suffice it to say that in every case my goal would be a change that aims at the most fun and fair play possible for both sides. in the case of moving flares out of the defense slot, for example, the point of that is that flares are not even close to competitive with the other options in that slot. this would be somewhat like the change that moved Sunderer-AMS into its own cert line because it simply dominated the other options to the point of exclusion. after moving it, then, the ability to make appropriate balance changes becomes a lot easier as well. perhaps flares don't even have to be as powerful per individual use once they are made standard on aircraft. or perhaps individual uses could be increased in power, but the number of uses could be limited by an ammunition-style reserve rather than cooldown. skill mechanics could then also be included; for example using flares to disrupt missiles in flight rather than grant a blanket immunity for 5 seconds. my point is simply that in each case i've listed, there are many options that development could take if they examine the situation critically with an eye towards fun counterplay across the whole spectrum of skill vs no skill. and the options for a good balance increase with each adjustment made. each of these areas open up new avenues for fun and engaging game play, where currently there are only stifling mechanics that have consistently generated complaints for months, or in some cases years. it seems that most unskilled players feel that having a lot of practice, or some degree of talent or coordination is an unfair advantage and requires gameplay mechanics that totally eliminate the efficacy of skill or practice from play. this just forces players to avoid situations where they can't make an impact and focus on the situations where they can. it creates a stale game where the common refrain is "why even bother?" from both sides - the skilled players will avoid the no-skill deaths by opting out, and the no-skill players will stand around with no-skill weapons they never use, and then get ganked when they are helpless or not paying attention. no one really enjoys it, i assure you. high skill players greatly prefer a skill contest, and especially one with tension/counterplay and high stakes. anything else gets boring really fast. likewise, low skill players deserve field leveling gameplay mechanics like the flak turrets at bases and the shoulder fired lock on launchers. it's good for counterplay, and overall fun. they don't deserve a free pass to insta-gib every aircraft, no matter the skill level of the pilot, within 750m just because there's more than 5 low skill players with a 250 cert lock on launcher. all other AA sources (and generalized G2A damage like basilisk and walker) already scale remarkably fast with population; the lock on system is absolute overkill in most situations and that is why people are asking for adjustments. and so by the same reasoning, high skilled players deserve skill based methods of defense other than opting out of those situations. they deserve ways to test their skill against the no-skill mechanics because that also levels the field in a fun and productive way.
