What I think of when I see a group of coordinated Lancer users:

No difference between actually aiming and fire and forget?

I hope you never have any effect on any game balance, EVER.

lock on weapons are the most viable tools in a open long range environment.....

Well i tried hitting the mosquito with my striker and the damn thing wouldnt lock....(defective)....

The Lancer clearly is easier at accomplishing this task

/troll

Lancer really isn't hard to use , I prefer it over the striker to be honest .

For ground targets it is anyway , I don't bother locking onto aircraft .. I don't usually get bothered by them often

quoted for epicness.

Strikers don't need teamwork.
If striker users reach critical mass enemy ground vehicles become irrelevant and it's game over for air.

You act like you're the only one who plays all three factions. Take a look at my sig.

Anyone who can claim that the striker and lancer take a comparable amount of effort to use has probably never spent any appreciable amount of time with either.

Actually, I play with the weapons quite often... I play VS on the same damn server you do and deal with TR striker spammers as much as you do as a tanker and as an ESFer. I also play TR on that same server and seen fights. So yes... I can berate you accordingly when the fights I have been tend to play out in that nature and as much as you and others love to gripe about the Striker and make it seem like it is godly, the effort in order to use them actually takes knowledge of how to use them in accordance to how they are designed.

The so called "ease of use" with it being a lockon gets defeated by Turrets, mass runs and there are times TR who would LOVE to DF their Strikers on targets, but have to use the ML-7 or the Decimator to be more effective in shooting something the Striker can't be used against. Just as many would love the Lancer to be harder hitting and hating the charge mechanic, ignoring some of the benefits of it in other situations, such as I was sniping turrets with the lancer from Alkali Shipping and snap shotting at faster moving vehicles.

Thing is, griping about one thing and then pretending another weapon purely sucks because it isn't 'like' another weapon is the epitome of the very thing YOU are accusing me of. The Empire weapons, for the most part are designed for specific faction fighting. This has been the thing back in Planetside one, and still the case in this current game with its crazy low TTK. As much as you want to gripe and complain about how OP the Striker is and ease of use, THINK about the other situations that a TR equipped with a Striker will not be in a good position to fight where their direct specific AA or AV Lockon weapon would be better when they can at least dumbfire it, at the sacrifice of not being able to spam the crap out of a target for 500 points of damage per missile? Same with the NS Annihilator where it is only effective against Air or Ground vehicle targets, but any other kind of fight, it is useless.

Then think about the times you USED the Striker as a TR, in a group and where even that arguement of how 'easy' it is and think why you got your stuff pushed in with a baseball bat. Cause I will tell you, the points I made in the last few posts will STARE DIRECTLY IN YOUR FACE and show you that maybe it isn't as you thought it was.

No, you can't. Not because your purely anecdotal experiences make for very poor evidence (although that is certainly true), but because I never even said what you're claiming I said. Let me explain.

Go back and read my posts in this thread. Carefully. Never once did I say that the striker is OP, or that the Lancer is comparatively UP, or even that the Striker is more useful in a wider variety of situations than the Lancer. What I said was that the Striker is easier to use than the Lancer. That's it. Everything else you assumed I meant is just that - pure conjecture on your part. I'm not even going to go into what you just said, the fallacies in your resoning, or how contrived your "evidence" is. So take a deep breath, get that sand out of your nether regions, and go back and read carefully, because basically everything you just said is completely irrelevant.

No, you go back and read the points I made.

The 'ease of use' has always been pinned on it being 'skill-less' and requiring no effort to do things. However, I pointed out the myth of 'mass of monkeys' with the striker is pretty much that. A myth.

People lump that in as being OP, more so for the damage and 'effort' in comparison to the Lancer. People make the lancer to be crap because you have 'aim' in in comparison to a lock on weapon and the fact the damage you get from the Lancer seems like peanuts in comparison to the Striker and people harping on that 'point'.

You will also notice, if you take the time to READ it, I pointed out how it is defeated and how this foolish myth of mass monkey 'ease' falls apart. It isn't anecdotal, it is what happens time and time again. People want to make the use of such weapons seem like its point and shoot and do nothing.

Lockon weapons require you to target a target until a lock is achieved, which means you follow a target, at the same time, giving the target a red flag of "Hey! THREAT INCOMING". Said target has two options to do something about it. Bug out/evasive and hope to take minimal damage or Pop Flare/Smoke/Shield and get clear.

The Lancer and the AV turret don't give warnings until you take a hit unless you are closer ranges for the contrail to show or hear the audible shot. You are taking damage with nothing to tell you threat incoming like a lockon. And while the Striker Locked on missiles will score hits, the simple fact is, the effort to take down something nicely isn't a 'mass of monkeys', it is still on the same level of needing coordination to make sure said target is dead. Failure to understand THAT part is on you, not me.

And again, that is if you do it piece meal. Anything in 'critical mass' and ignoring their support element will end up tearing things apart, especially in piecemeal attacks.

You do realize that each faction not only have the NS Annihilator which is a similar to the striker in the basics (Locks onto Air and Ground vehicles, does not dumbfire), but also an AV and AA Lockon RL which does more damage than the NS Annihilator per missile and can be dumbfired.

Except you can shut down air with half as many Strikers as annihilators (striker does nearly 2x the damage)

You can't kill a mossy with a striker

I want stats on destroyed ESF's from Lancers.

Compare to Strikers.

/discussion


hell even just vehicles destroyed comparison is a joke.


Anyways, I don't care a whole lot either way. They DO have advantages/disadvantages. The main thing is that TR can shutdown enemy vehicles within 500m with far fewer ESRL's than VS/NC can... and VS/NC need another group with AA lock-on (or bursters/skyguards) to defend against air.



But again... w/e... Asymmetry is asymmetry

First image is if you got everyone that ever purchased the lancer... you might get that many people.

Second image is if you got everyone that purchased the striker... that day.

And you will find the stats will reflect a biased result. Because how many people bother trying to use a weapon in a different way than others. The numerous posts of how much of a piece of crap it is, I see other VS stick with MAX comets or the Default RL or the AV turret, fewer Lancer and Vortexes because they consider it crap. Same with the Phoenix/Raven because the range limit of it and also misfires because the round explodes against shields going out because of needing to 'protect' the user from fire and its limitations to make the camera guidance not seem overpowered for the NC.

And for numbers, while the Striker will do, in a full clip, 2500 damage, the thing is, it has to be the full clip. The NC and VS will obviously have to use a very specific tactic to take down a TR group, but from experience of being kicked out by NC and VS doing a Striker Squad camp, it is done by Air, done by Armor and depending on where they TR take their position. The base just south of the northern Indar Warpgate, pilots flying out from the north side, vehicles coming not only from the south side, but taking the west and east directions can affect a Striker squad position because there is only so far you can go out as a striker to cover the approach paths. This also does not stop trying to get Galaxies armed with Flares and comp armor from making it difficult or being used as shields as well as Liberators and ESFs doing the same, forcing the TR to rely on Small arms and Bursters to deal with air.

The point is, it is a specific tactic, just as how do you fight a Vanguard. Obviously, you don't SHOOT it while the shield is up, its a waste of ammo and as a VS, you move away to take away their advantage of free shots on you, or tanks need to use a fast firing AV weapon against Harasser groups, since obviously firing the heavy gun on fast moving targets is not going to be your best option at times or Harassers if you don't have anyone else supporting you.

Shutting down air has nothing to do with how much damage you do, you can get the exact same result from a squad of annihilators as you can a squad of strikers.

For me the argument ended here.
I read the following 6 pages and sadly it was a waste of time. There were a few more good points made but the conclusion the same. I skimmed through the last page.

The weapons are different. This had been stated in many different ways throughtout this thread and still people believe the Striker to be somehow amazingly superior.

That's pretty much what I got from your last two posts. You keep arguing in circles and getting extremely defensive, and you can't even see that my position doesn't even necessarily conflict with yours (hint: I don't think the striker is OP). Not gonna bother explaining to you why again, it was pretty clear the first time. Good day.

No. Striker does 2X+100 damage if all 5 missiles hit.