You used to be able to dodge lockons. Why the heck can't you anymore?

It solves so many of the problems. The victim has a chance of counter play, but the first hit advantage goes to the lockon user. Once the victim realizes where they're coming from, further lockons can be attempted to be dodged and or they can feasibly attempt an escape.

People complained because they never hit anything, which wasn't true, but nowadays, there's so many counters to air...why not simply loosen their tracking again? I'll admit, I'm incredibly tired of dodging through terrain, gaps in the mountain, and diving to the ground only to have the rocket do they exact same thing and nail me anyways.

And yes, I realize the droves of air haters will come in. Yes, terrain sucks and the tracking can be dodgy, but it works both ways. Terrain that masks ESF masks you, too. It's a human flaw to only recognize the negatives that impact you without seeing it go the other way.

They reverted lock-ons mechanics??

Because literally every single game that has allowed you to 'dodge' missiles eventually ends up with all pilots able to dodge all missiles all of the time, and they become pointless to even have in the game anymore.

i know you used to be able to roll perpendicular to the rocket path and it would lose tracking and miss you, is that what you are talking about? if it still does not work (i dont fly much anymore) thats a bit stupid.

You can more easily and reliably force missiles into terrain than ever before, so it's a fair trade IMO.

I get hit by fewer lock-ons without flares than ever before.

If the lockon mechanic is still the same all you need to do is fly down. The rocket will hit the ground.

1) Point nose towards ground

2) Take a sip of tea

3) Laugh at silly lock on user


Lock ons in their current state just punish people who are bad/haven't figured out the tracking mechanics yet.

I wish they really "enhanced" AA to make it more diverse and interesting.

1) Implement new missiles with different lock-on mechanics and different counterplay.
IR SAMs- As most SAMs exist now, just a simple fire-and-forget. These should be fooled with IR Flares or can be dodged because they're not as quick or maneuverable.

Radar SAMs- As the A2A Tomcats exist now, with the shooter needing to maintain lock for the duration of missile flight. These should be dodged only if the pilot can break line-of-sight with the shooter, and IR Flares or maneuvering would be pretty useless. Longer range than IR SAMs and are faster and more maneuverable.

Laser SAMs- Essentially relying on an AV MANA Turret/Raven aiming system to hit aircraft. Very fast moving missile that cannot be fooled by IR Flares, but can be relatively easily dodged because it has no automatic tracking. The shooter must constantly paint the target with a laser aimer, which means that they must maintain line-of-sight.

Anti-Radar SAMs- Can only lock onto targets that have Scout/Proximity Radar, or if the target has Tomcats, Hornets, or Coyotes equipped. Long-range SAMs that can only be dodged through last-second maneuvering, but does not give any warning to the pilot that there is a lock. Teamwork required to spot the incoming missile and dodge it.

Adding more types of SAMs with different tracking and guidance systems would spice up gameplay quite a bit. Pilots would have to start thinking tactically instead of the usual "press F to make scary missiles go away" sort of thing.

2) Create synergistic relationships between AAA and SAMs.
SAMs should be avoidable and AAA should be relatively low-range/inaccurate. But if you put the two together, they should both compliment each other meaning that a good AA team will be using both AAA and SAMs.

SAMs, being longer-ranged, would encourage pilots to fly low to the ground in order to be able to break locks more easily. Naturally though if pilots are flying low, this makes them much more vulnerable to all sorts of AAA.

AAA, while less "lethal" than SAMs (at longer range at least), should make it much more difficult for aircraft to avoid SAMs. So if aircraft are being hit by or shot by AAA, they should be "suppressed", meaning that their maneuverability greatly decreases. The audio and visual noise of nearby flak should also make SAMs more difficult to spot or hear. This in turn makes aircraft more vulnerable to SAMs.

3) Increase lethality of both AA and A2G weapons.
Aircraft should be glass cannons... incredibly fragile and vulnerable to damage but at the same time deliver a significant payload. Currently in PS2 aircraft are neither of these things, and are most commonly used to constantly harass ground targets (or in the case of the Liberator slaughter them all without fear of reprisal).

First, reduce aircraft secondary weapon ammunition capacity and greatly increase the reload time between salvos. This would encourage pilots to fly in, strike, and then fly out of the area while they rearm. The result would be significantly reduced "air spam" which is the main reason why ground pounders hate the air in PS2.

Second, increase aircraft secondary weapon damage significantly. Hornets should hit tanks hard. Rocketpods should slaughter infantry. Again, these changes would be acceptable because although aircraft do increased alpha strike damage, their overall DPS would be decreased. Aircraft should be about as durable as a Harasser, not out-tanking main battle tanks.

Third, decrease aircraft armor and hitpoints. Essentially if there exists enemy AA in the area, aircraft should be very wary of entering combat unless they have strong tactics or numbers. This further emphasizes their glass cannon, high-risk-reward nature. It would also encourage pilots to communicate with armor and infantry elements to have them suppress/destroy enemy air defenses.

unless they implement a system of making damage affect only the part that was hit, i dont see lockon mechanics changing that much.


and lolpods were amazingly powerful for a while.....it was more horrific than it is today.

if you reduce secondary ammo, you should reduce primary ammo as well.....there is no way these aircraft could carry that much

Ace Combat disagrees.

Still, it depends on other parts of the game mechanics to decide whether dodgeable missiles are a good thing.

1) essentially the current missiles?

b) Radar SAM: Yep, would be great to have; IMO this would be lockons with the option to launch immediately; lockin on continues and after lockon is complete, the missile uses its' own radar. Otherwise, you lockon first, and then need to maintain a lock? That actually lowers the DPS of say, a heavy as he can't start reloading; it also means more time standing pointed at the sky,...
"Longer range then IR sams and more manoevreable":
Here I am not too sure:

One problem with current lockons is that at short range the missile can inspect a tree. Another is that at short range, it is harder to achieve a lock.
But, if you can fire and guide the rocket for 1s, the missile is out 100m. TL;DR: those SAMS are more potent at short range IMO.
And longer range, and more manoevreable? And flares don't work? oh dear...

Otherwise, how do your IR missiles work fire-and-forget? Any IR missile launched is assigned a target. IR missiles launched in a "kill something in that area" are very dangerous because they can also hit any friendly target in the area.. I'm afraid the PS2 equivalent is supposed to be coyote missiles.

-> short range missiles, can be fired whilst locking on. Missile speed increased when fired locking on vs dumb fire.

-> Long range missiles: these now "jump" into the air, but do need a full lock to fire. If these are still infantry missiles, I'd "balance" these as being the slower flying, but packing a heftier punch. In essence, the "anti-liberator" launcher.
A skilled ESF pilot (very skilled) should be able to sometimes dodge one without resorting to ground. Flares would still work.



c) Laser SAM: hardest to use, for what benefit? Is this going to one-shot a ESF? Not having a warning: the Phoenix and lancer don't give a warning. The lancer flies pretty fast, so only a bit of leading required in prinicple. It isn't that great at AA, and you don't need to keep painting.
a "laser SAM" makes sense when machines do the laser painting. Manually tracking aircraft went out of style.

d): anti-radar SAM: while fun thematically, no. How do you know at range which aircraft you can start locking on.
"I've brought the HARM launcher, teehee. Oh, none of these aircraft have radar.. look at me being usefull!".


2) buffing A2A: sure.
buffing A2G: no.
Hornets do hit tanks hard.
I think 4 destroy a mbt from behind?
That is two volleys..
Buffing them to take less missiles against top armor can make for very frustrating tanker gameplay, as pilots would continue to be able to go for rear shots.
The cheaper, single seater aircraft destroy/make you burning with just 2 missiles?