Tomcats (a2a locks) op and fun-breaking

I took down an ESF with lolpods in my scythe..
I don't play VS often but DAMN that was the best adrenalin rush from a game ever...

Similar arguments can be made for every vehicle-based AI weapon except for maybe Kobalt, AI MAXes, shotguns, BASR, HA shield, etc.

If the goal of changes is to make the game more fun and fair, you can't be all like "lock ons harmful for fun, need to remove" and then proceed without pause and with a straight face to say "oh no, shotguns on a MAX are not broken in the slightest".

I would be ok with removing lock on weapons if ESFs lost all and i mean ALL A2G capabilities.They are supposed to be the counter to gals and libs not infantry and armor.And there doesnt seem to be that many "elite" pilots out there,just a bunch of pilots farming ground targets then crying cause they finally got shot down because a group(1-2 cant it has to be a group) got tired of them.

I like how its always the poor new player using tomacats vs the 'skyknight".

Apparently anyone who doesnt like the lock mechanic is a skyknight regardless of their flying experience.

So a new player who doesnt enjoy not even being able to run away from a skyknight using locks is then themselves a skyknight for objecting to lock-ons?

So either you are an elitist or you love lock-ons?

No one cares about noobs using lock-ons. If there was a limit to how long you could use them, i doubt many would have a problem with them.

It is when Ace pilots, or in the words of those too bad or lazy to learn to fly, 'skyknights' start using them that they become a problem.

Or when you have entire squads running them.

You might say that someone would die anyway coming up against a squad solo, but thats not true. If you see them from far enough you can outrun them. With the way the game currently renders enemies, it is more than likely you will not see the enemy planes until you are in lock on range. Once they see you, its game over. There is no possibility of retreat as there would be if they only had weapons that required aiming.

Most people dont run them, not because they are not overpowered, but because most people like to have the respect of their peers.

No one respects a lock-on user.

Unfortunately there is a rather large segment of the population that enjoys trolling and "collecting tears" as the kids like to say. It is these people, not the new pilots who likely dont even have lock-ons who are ruining other peoples fun time.

New players should employ the acceptable 'crutch' of using superior numbers, not silly stupid gamebreaking weapons that really are at odds with the core mechanics of the game, which is to aim at things in order to destroy them.

There are lots of airwings who would be more than happy to help new players learn to fly, so that new player argument is invalid.

I remember the days of the First Lolpods and OP Lib's

When Infantry rightly or wrongly complained the Answer was " Pull your own air to counter air "

The Dev's introduced weapons that allowed newb pilots to " Pull their own air to counter air " and not be " Ace Pilot " bait ..

Now that is wrong to ..

Well IMO it's worth a Few Pilot Rustled Jimmies to have that viable option for Air newbs to " Use Air to Counter Air "

Do you have reading comprehension problems or do you live in fantasy land where only new players use tomcats?

Besides they dont add noob weapons for the new infantry players, and im willing to bet 99.99% of new players are playing infantry.

Its ok to run out and get your head blown off by better players over and over and over and over and over, but if a noob pilot dies to a better pilot, for some reason now we need an equalizing weapon, and then we need to pretend only new players are going to use it to make themselves equal to the better players who spent time and energy to become good at flying in the first place.

People act as though anyone who is good at flying is somehow some rude elitist who is somehow worse than a player who is good at infantry play.

So please answer, why is it ok for infantry players to become skillful and to use that skill to dominate other infantry players, but thats not ok in the air.

In fact every aspect of this game rewards practice and skill except for lock-ons. With lock-ons you are as good after an hour as you are after 100000000 hours.

Or we could just stick our heads in the sand and defend locks by saying that they are only used by new players to even up the playing field which has no reason to be leveled in a fps which is a SKILL based game.

People play FPS so that SKILL is the deciding factor. I cant imagine why people dont like a weapon that requires no skill or practice to win with.

Why should someone be able to negate many hours of practice with 1000 certs or 7 dollars? I cant imagine why that might upset people.

That was not my point; my post doesn't reflect what removing lockons would or wouldn't do.
I was referring to people making points that are mere opinion with large amounts of bias and with little to back them up. This goes to some people on both sides. Some people are making good points on both sides, but some are not, and that post was more directed towards them.

I think it's you who needs to brush up on your reading skills .. I never said new players .. I said " newb " pilots .. As in " people who don't often fly " regardless of time spent in the game.

Now they may prefer tanking or playing Infantry it doesn't matter .. A2A lock-ons allows them to " Counter Air with air " as Air tells them to do if they complain about A2G ..

And while you may like to believe that all ESF's are A2A Jousting Knights fighting for pride and Honour .. The reality is totally different.
And having a Valid Counter for " newb pilots " ( < not new players ok ? ) versus Spawn room Lolpodders / Lib spammers is a good thing IMO ..

Now No I'm not saying only " Newb pilots " use them .. I'm saying it's a good option for them to have if they wish to use them, and I don't really care if you like that or not .. ..

You talk as if Infantry play doesn't have equalizer weapons .. They do .. Shotguns to name just one .. And since Shotguns are free at BR1 they are a good " skill " equalizer versus more experienced players ..

Why is a weapon that does most of the work for you a good thing in a fps?

So lets have some heat seeking rifle rounds because i keep getting my *** handed to me by players who have better aim. How about locking tank rounds because i get beat every time i get in my tank by tankers with better aim.

I think in order to help bad players we should just get rid of mouse aiming and just make it tab target.

Where does the need to help players who arent good end?

Why does one aspect of the game suffer from this lock-on business and no other?

Nothing in this game is less brutal than the air game.

Any new player to any aspect of the game will get owned consistently by better more practiced and skilled players.

Try jumping in a tank for the first time and fighting other tanks, shall we call them groundknights? who drive tanks all the time.

Even after hundreds of hours playing infantry there are players who kill me nearly every time, because they are just better. Why dont we have weapons to alleviate those problems?

Shotguns used to do that. Anyone could grab a shotty and win no matter how much skill they had.

The argument that we need some kind of equalizer in the game is preposterous and it makes the game boring and one dimensional.

Air fights without locks are more dynamic. There is the added element of dodging incoming fire. That pretty much goes away with the use of locks, especially in larger fights.

Coyotes are just as bad.

These weapons werent truly designed to help anyone or to address any possible imbalances, they were made to sell for cash to make money and game balance be damned.

Let us all rejoice that higby is gone and hope that daybreak fixes these silly things.

The problem is in Higby's last tweets before he left DBG he wanted to change Tomcats to torpedos so they are more useful against gals and libs with mechanics similar to hornets, as far as I can remember. But apparantly that suggestion got lost in the transition and now we are stuck again with no acknowledgement if this change ever gonna happen.

I am average pilot and I running Tomcat all the time.
for me get Hellfire for kill infantry.
Hornet to kill tank
Tomcat to kill Air
Fuels tank to jack all trade

I see Alot of Ace pilot use Their Hellfire and nosegun just small of them use Fuels tank.
I want to kill some airplane to protect my army and i mean I must have some weapon to carry it except from nosegun, that every ESF have it.
I not use coyote because it has to use in close range and I don't like it . So i go for Tomcat and i think its very fun.


So your Fun and my fun is not the same thing at all.
If Sony(daybreak) remove Tomcat then give me a new type of weapon that can carry ace pilot in long rage.

This thread reminds me why my most used ground vehicles have some form of AA weaponry and why I no longer fly.

Same thread again... Just let it sink to the bottom of the thread ocean.

Lock ons are OP so no one uses it? When we had OP Phoenixs, we saw EVERYONE in blue using it. When the initial Striker was OP we saw EVERYONE in red using it. Clearly this gentleman's mentality doesn't exist. I'm someone who will use the weapon if it was considered OP. At first I thought LOLpods were OP, but when I actually used them, I realised that it takes skill to actually obtain the perfect angle and positioning for a LOLpod run. A2A tomcats? These things don't fire most of the time because you have to keep your nose pointed for a few seconds in order to lock. Why do that when you could be happily firing your noseguns? There is a reason why no one uses it and it's because it's a joke.

We need more A2A or G2A lockons.

You're a bit pretentious thinking you know it all... And as matter of a fact, IT HAPPENED, there WAS a gentelman agreement during the Server Smash because both sides could agree they were OP and ruined the air game.

I meant it doesn't happen during normal gameplay.

It does around higher skill pilots actually. People don't use them because they are OP and it's just dulling the fun.

The point I was bringing though is that if it's come to the point where in a competitive shooter/combined arms, two parties in a competition agree that a certain armament is OP and game-breaking (air game in this case) and that they won't use it, maybe there's a real reason for it.

And I'm saying that if people don't use it when they are free to abuse or use it they way they used the original Striker/ Phoenix, there is a reason too.

You want a Tomcat nerf/removal because you don't like the way they work and the way you have to dodge better or pack flares?

Two things.

First off:

Pray harder. Some day, someone might answer your pleas. Hint - It will not be the devs you are looking for.

Secondly:

The SS between Cobalt and Emerald was hardly entertaining. While I will always enjoy shooting Emerald's finest smack-***** in the face and besting them in spite of their many advantages, enduring two hours of the Standard-Emerald-Demoralization-Initiative - I.E copious volumes of juvenile smack - get's very old after a while. Emerald has made it clear their number one tactic for "winning" is to be so toxic that no-one wants to fight them, so why bother? I'd sooner fight... well, just about anyone else from any other server.

Better sportsmanship and all that.

Anyhow: Tomcats. You can't have them removed. This game does not revolve solely around your personal enjoyment in the air and frankly some people need these to have a chance while they learn the art of ESF flying.

The rest? We use Tomcats on occasion because it pisses you off, and your tears are both delicious and nutritional.

Indeed, the noble sky-knights know their E-honor and don't use these clearly broken and dishonorable peasant weapons, it would make the game to simple and by taking away the challenge you bore yourself on top of making your noble enemy cry.

Meanwhile, back in reality, hacking and aim-botting is a thing...