The whole lock-on mechanic is bad..

No you pretty much just answered it. To be honest you should lose. But no one wants to lose right? So instead you get punished by being organized and resourceful. Rewarded for being a lone wolf with no organization.

You said it yourself. So people who want organized game play lose to lesser players. That is what happens.

People who cert tanks and air and learn to wield them, get blown away from people who spam big guns with no seat time.

So in turn people get pissed off.

Its just the way it is. At least we are agreeing.

It takes three I believe I said?

The Striker got that and no one likes it.

try like 6 from the front armour, 5 from the sides 4 from the top 3 from the back last i checked, (on a non certed lightning).

no, we dont agree, if you think something as simple as giving infantry an option to attack the air (again i'm not specifically saying lock ons) is breaking combined arms, then we do not agree.

skill ceiling of a piece of equipment should never dictate is power, that always leads to elitist shallow communities.

This is what I am saying, the option is air and armor and turrets. Thats all there needs to be and should be. If launchers were not completely spamable, I would not have a problem with them. But in NO WAY should one heavy have the ability to take out multiple air and armor with absolutely no resource cost. NO WAY!!

Also I know for a fact his launcher took 3 hits. dumb fire launcher.

I agree with you there. the ESF A2G idea has REALLY messed up the ground/air balance, and has made true balance VERY difficult. the hovering aspect just amplifies that. Ive advocated in other threads, for the removal of rocket pods, or a sever maneuverability penalty when they are equipt, to really try to push the A2A role on ESF's. As long as an ESF can effectivley spam A2G weapons, the common infantryman needs a way to shoot back.

That being said, I dont believe that the lock-on launcher is the right fix. IMO it is both a horrible mechanic, as well as just beig boring to use for both parties involved. In a theoretical world, would you be willing to forgo your lock-on launcher in exchange for a lancer like weapon for AA duties (single, fast projectile that damages only aircraft), and/or an engineer turret that deploys a walker/ranger?

so your solution is non mobile turrets were ever person knows their position and can just cheese them out of existence before they are a threat? turrets that people just drive by and destroy on bases that aren't even part of the fight yet, bases not even contested. leaving infantry high and dry when they fall back?

are you really saying that HA shouldn't even have a dumb fire, because that's what it sounds like from your argument.


also you said he was using a lock-on not a dumb fire.(edit) ignore that, i could have sworn i red lock on.

I think its also the same amount of hits with a dumb fire, but the second last hit makes you burn instead of just hit the edge of burning.

The fact is we are thinking like seasoned players, we could be more or less skilled but we know the game, we have the weapons and we can think about the counters.

Let's take a novice player:
he takes a flash to move from a base to another and he's lolpodded to death;
he try to defend a base 1vs1 against a pilot and he's farmed because the spawn room is ill-placed and the ESFs can unload an entire magazine on this poor player , hovering near vertically, nose down;
he gets a MAX and he cannot capture the point back, but if he changes to another class the timer will forbid him to revert to MAX suit;
I think you got my points.

Easy weapons are skill equalizers and if we need a solution we cannot forget it must be easily available to low BR players.

wow, really? you're in an AP lighting and cant get away from 2 or 3 heavies with launchers? Where was radar stealth? where was IR smoke?

Sounds to me like you got caught out by what you were weak against. I have no problem evading lockons in my skyguard on indar, so I dont know what your problem is.

I'm betting you overextended yourself and weren't aware of your nearby cover options, in addition to having no lockon defense...thats just poor planning.

IR smoke works with dumbfires? Because I have IR smoke. I also have stealth radar. Didn't need that, I saw them LOL>

NO lock ons were present. Dumbfires.

Now I just learned this in VR making certain it takes three dumbfires in the side of a lightening to kill it. In which it does. Guess what. It takes 4 AP rounds in the back of a lighting to kill it.

So that huge cannon on my lightening does not do the damage of a HA with a dumb fire.

That is balance right there folks at its finest!!!!

This is what crap SOE has made, how horrible the balance is. Its not combined arms any longer. Its three different ways to fight. Air, infantry, or armor.

This is wrong. Everyone is infantry. Armor and air is a resource. NOT a completely different person?

By making dumb fires stronger than a tank round. Where is the motivation to get a tank as a counter? there isn't!

By making lock ons and max's better than air, where is the motivation to get air to counter air? There isn't.

I am finally waking up to what planetside is becoming. And I am not liking it at all.

you did something wrong or are being obscure with your method of testing. it still takes 5 to the side. 4 if you think being set on fire is death.

Solutions.
Flares should be ammo countable. And only break lock ons for two seconds.
Rocket pods are mostly blocked on the back when you hover. **** it and make it so it can only be used when engines are horizontal reduce rockets per salvo and make them stronger and faster again.

or idea two
Make hover a bigger option.
You want to hover spam you get weaker and slower weapons. But more ammo
But if you go more for strafe runs you get faster and stronger weapons but less ammo.

Improve racer a bit so that speeds are a bit faster when used to make it more viable in battle. Right now i don't think i see many use it. Since hover can get you very near that speed to....


Right now this game is lacking in options when playing and has to much abundance in availability.
They should allow people to specialize more into what they want to do.

It feels a bit much like a glorified WW2 sci fi shooter at the moment. everything works cause nanites and the rest is WW2 almost anyone can do the basics for most stuff.

No, it takes 3 to the side of a lightening. 4 in the back of a sundy. I did this several times to make 100% certain what I was saying.

That is messed up though that a HA launcher has more power than a certed tank ap round. For certain.

There is no balance is Planetside 2. In fact I feel like a complete dumba$$ for purchasing the AP cannon for the lightening. What an idiot.

really, because i just did the same in VR with a standard dumb fire and it came out to 5 on the side. (4 brought it to burning)

decimator is what I used. I didn't say standard dumbfire. Its what a HA can spam. Yes it cost initially, but it is spamable with no timer and infinite ammo.

so you picked the strongest and hardest to hit with launcher in the game to prove that RL are over powered, when most people dont even run the thing for ranged tank killing. is that what you got smoked with in your lightning? because they are much harder to aim then a tank round with the new gravity,and last i checked my HA cant take 3 AP rounds to the face let alone the side, even with full flack he cant take one (only a halberd doesnt kill me anymore)

(edit) also when i check the deci in VR it takes 4 to the side. 3rd is on fire.

WRONG!
Lock-on mechanic is perfect.
Here's my argument;
L2P

I remember back in the day Tribes 2 had rocket launchers that would lock on to infantry and they had to use flares. Nobody complained about it. I wonder when it was that gamers became so whiny.

I picked what a HA can spam. Why in the world would I choose the weakest??

And you are wrong, its very easy to hit a tank with a decimator compared to hitting infantry on the run with an AP round.

Winner is infantry without even trying.

Thanks SOE