Thank you for your feedback!
Thermal smoke should be your lock on counter regardless of whether it comes from the ground or air. I have tested it in portal against air threats and it performed excellent. There is the bug with Sundance nades that needs to be fixed as well as the fact that if the missiles are launched too close they will still hit (but that is WIT) but outside of those scenarios it *should* be working properly. I have heard of issues though so If you have video evidence otherwise please share so I can try to replicate it.
Agreed that it should be the default unlock but at least people can use portal/SP to grind out the unlock.
Traverse speeds (with the exception of the Wildcat AA) I'm okay with as their exaggerated slowness is intentional to help emphasize that they are meant to be vulnerable up close to give other vehicles an opportunity to exploit them from behind. It should also be noted that the addition of the weapon pod seat gives you a significant boost to firepower so you still have some recourse. Players have been whining about tanks sitting back and camping forever. Never mind that many do so even if you've stopped for just a moment to take a shot or that it is suicide to move forward until conditions are more favorable. Or there will be 5 vehicles operating aggressively and 1 less so and they base their assessment on the one rather than the five.
Ultimately, tanks are not meant as the primary choice to cap flags - their ideal engagement range is from ~75m or greater so while that can cap in a pinch they are typically better suited to engage right outside the flag area. All of the supporting weapons have utility and the HMG is extremely effective - only the LMG appears to be lagging and that is addressed in my proposal. My assessment is that tanks already have enough tools to operate effectively at short range.
Tanks already have the best armor in the game so I don't perceive them as lacking in defense. Reactive armor is, in effect, already represented in the game via auto repair. APS could be added as an alternative to System Repair but have a much longer cooldown (something like 60 seconds) seeing as you would be getting two countermeasures. I think this would be a fair sacrifice as System repair is pretty critical in many circumstances. In the same train of thought FLIR could also be added as an alternative to system repair with the same sort of tradeoffs in play.
C5 drone spam will be addressed - Either by removing the ability to place C5 on drones, making a C5 drone perma spotted on minimap or some other method.
The splash on the MPAT cannon feels largely sufficient to me and has good velocity and you have the option of using the HEAT round if you want more splash. The proposal calls for increasing its effectiveness against anything sub MBT/MAV as I feel its damage profile is overly punitive vs other vehicles - it already suffers a lower velocity than MPAT so aside from MBT/MAV it should do the same damage vs other vehicles.
AA Missile dodging without CM is a big no no and one I will absolutely go not just to mat, but to the planetary core for. CM's are in effect your missile dodges. You don't even have to maneuver when using them - you can simply deploy them and go about your business all of which is fine. What is not fine though is being able to negate, largely at will, the damage that should be inflicted from a properly employed locking/homing weapon. There is no mandate for this and it smacks of false elitism whereby players feel entitled to damage negation because of their indisputably incorrect understanding that this is not a tactical game - it very much is as evidenced by the amount of gadgetry and tack involved. If you have failed to manage your CM's correctly then that is a failing on your part - you do not get to dictate the terms at which damage is inflicted upon you. I would very much hope that after watching some of the videos where AH's have fired many IR missiles at Nightbirds only to have them dodged through a simple mechanic which I have detailed that you would agree that this situation is absurd and unjust.
Allowing for lock on weapons that can be circumvented creates traps for new players as they are acting in good faith trying to support their team by choosing and employing the correct weapon in the game towards the appropriate threat with no notice that their weapons are virtually useless against their targets.
This is a game set in 2042 where lock on weaponry is relevant and should work as intended in the context of the game. I never once uttered a request for lock on weapons to be included in BF1 and BFV and my expectation is that people don't ask for their removal or gimping here. If someone doesn't like them they are more than able to create a portal game with their own house rules.
***
I think we are attempting to answer two different questions. My focus is on balance and you seem largely intent on advocating for tank dominance. Not blatant over the top tank dominance granted, but dominance nonetheless. Nonetheless I again thank you for your feedback and contributions to the discussion.
"This is a glaring issue, and should not be the "fix" to a rampant problem of lock-on's"
I have no idea what you are talking about here. My position is that Thermal smoke should be a default unlock and any bugs with it should be fixed. How are we not in agreement here?
"An aircraft literally has more time to reset it's approach even if the thermal smoke happens to disrupt its lock once and still deal guaranteed consistent and non negateable damage."
That's totally fine. If you pop your CM's early then that's a risk you run. This has been the case in BF3/4 - wasn't a problem then and not now. Thermal smoke should allow you to reliably spoof at least one missile from a single target (or many if fired from multiple enemies simultaneously) - it should not make you immune to attack from lock ons.
"The jet would lock, and launch, I would smoke, one missile would misdirect, the other would impact. My gunner would get out and repair, by the time their repair tool had overheated the jet had returned and hit me with both ATGM's with me being unable to do anything, again no risk no challenge, simply circling around to re-lock. This continued for roughly 9 minutes, I would try different methods of cover which the missile seems to actually clip through in the form of the cargo overhangs, and large cranes and the jet was able to strike me each time."
The CM's are meant to mitigate, not invalidate locking weapons. They are there to buy you time while you fight back or retreat. You are not entitled to immunity on account of having chosen IR smoke. Offense will always have the edge against defense in BF games. The risk for the jet pilot is that to even begin a lock they need to be within 500m of you and then have to have nose pointed towards you leaving them vulnerable to counter attack from you or any other vehicle especially other jets and the MAA. And not everything has to be challenging. Pointing a crosshair and clicking LMB is not terribly challenging nor pressing the W key to run someone over but we don't argue for these things to be removed. Jet's are meant to be very effective against vehicles, especially the MBT/MAV class.
Clipping missiles should of course be fixed although it should be noted that there is a little bit of tolerance here - a mere knick shouldn't knock out missiles no more than they do jets and helis.
Some questions I have are where were your teammates during this bombardment? What were your primary, secondary, weapon pod and weapon station loadouts? The HMG and miniguns for example can do excellent damage against jets.
"So if you feel players will be frustrated with jet being able to dodge a missile, you must, on the same token know a fraction of frustration felt when your only "out" is able to be circumvented consistently, and it's lack of reliability."
No I don't - not even a little bit. Jet's, especially with A2G missiles and 30mm are supposed to be hard on MBT's That scene is playing out as it should: Jet's eat tanks. On the other hand you have Nightbird's and to a lesser extent Attack helicopters circumventing the AA missile weapon is designed to be hard on them. Totally different scenarios. In the case of the Nightbird it can totally negate vehicle fired AA missiles.
I am not understanding this viewpoint, is that in itself not simply player experience? Learning the mechanics of a game and figuring out "how can I exploit this system to defeat it" and even then the same thing can be said about new vehicle players! You will constantly see new player in vehicles use smoke thinking that it will help negate a lock on threat, they did what they thought was right but still got punished because of the system in place so how is this any different?
It's absolutely not a "player experience" issue, this is a failed execution issue on the part of the devs. - These are basic weapons that are advertised as being effective against air targets but are in practice, not. Weapons and other facets of the game are meant to represent (not simulate) their real world counterparts and there is nothing that would indicate that vehicle fired AA missiles would be virtually useless against helicopters.
Players using Thermal smoke will see benefits in mitigating homing missile threats (It does spoof missiles and prevent locks for a short period) while the Nightbird can quite literally dodge vehicle fired missiles indefinitely using the techniques I have detailed. Your comparison is not apt.
"Nowhere have I stated I want lock-on's removed"
If you advocate for heli homing missile dodging then effectively you are doing just that. I draw no distinction between the two positions.
"In this case you are advocating for dominance of a low skill system and I raise the point you brought up and flip it, players seem to feel entitled to their uninterrupted, system guided damage at will."
False. I have promoted a working counter measure system for all combat vehicles which by definition disqualifies your claims of dominance. Furthermore lock on weapons are not low skill weapons. People with low intellect often confuse skill in employment to skill in effectiveness. To fire them you need to hold the lock uninterrupted and then press the fire button. Simple enough. But to use them effectively you have to gauge your distance properly, fire, switch to primary weapon quickly and then time the reload so that you switch back to the missile as soon as it can be fired again. Or playing mind games with your target by holding the lock until the panic and drop CM for example.
Virtually everything in the game is low skill in employment. To fire a rifle I press LMB - no great feat. But to be effective you must execute the skill associated with that particular weapon. Sometimes there are easy rifle, rocket, or homing missile shots - sometimes not.
"I myself am advocating the need for a reliable option to simply survive an encounter if I play my role and equipment correctly."
You have it already - In my tests and experience Thermal Smoke works (sans the Sundance nade bug) but if there are bugs then they should be fixed. However, when you come up against an Attack Heli or Jet you will be at a disadvantage and that is entirely natural and intended. Those vehicles are purpose built and balanced towards killing your vehicle just as your vehicle is balanced towards killing other ground vehicles and infantry.
"When there is a proper means to give more reliable escape options vs lock on's maybe the argument and claim of mismanagement of your systems can be said, but until then saying things like that just shows the lack of willingness to listen to several sides of this multi pronged game, and in fact advocating for something you favor over anothers experience."
There is not always meant to be an escape per se. Sometimes you are screwed. How do you think the infantry feel when they're on the sand dunes and you roll up with your tank?
"Best armor in terms of what exactly?"
In terms of damage profile which you can confirm with the spreadsheet on the first page.
"that is not reactive armor"
To reiterate I am making the claim that it is in effect already in the game. That is to say that it is presumed that RA is default on tanks and IFV's and is baked into the damage profiles. In BF4 RA simply reduced the angles at which you could receive systems damage. Since there is no angle damage modifiers in BF 2042 that sort of system is not possible. That leaves BF3 style where you can sponge a free hit. This unnecessarily extends the life of ground vehicles as they can turn their sides to effectively multiply that one free hit into 4. And since you have auto regen, if you defeat your enemies then your health with be restored which effectively serves as sponging hits as RA would do. That infantry and other vehicles also have this mechanic is irrelevant and does not detract from the benefits you receive from it.
"I am not saying unlock the turret where in previous games I could free spin fast enough to threaten to make my tank airborne, but a tweak in speed is needed to be able to track targets more reliably and just general smoothing out of the experience."
There may be room for a modest boost to turret speed.
"And again I am stressing this to the ends of the earth, farming portal and SP IS NOT a solution."
As we've already discussed, Thermal smoke should not be buried under 360 kills. It should be a default. However, as a temporary workaround a player can quickly accumulate that many in portal/SP and easily unlock it and it only needs to be unlocked once. I have no clue why you feel the need to bring this up again nor the need for your expedition to the ends of the Earth.
@rainkloudAgain, you are taking things that I am saying either out of context or filling in thing I haven't said or hinted towards which, maybe I am not coming across clearly enough or you are simply choosing not to see and understand the issues at hand beyond a numbers sheet your provided. In order to keep this short I'm going to simply say a few things.
1. You've taken my quote out of context which seems to be a trend, to make it even clearer, I am referring to single player grinding should not be the solution to be able to play a vehicle due to the amount of lock ons. Yes, as I've said multiple times now thermal smoke should be default or just baked into the regular smoke, we get and understand this there is no need to go around in circles about something I already agreed on.
2. No one said anything about hitting CM's early or saying thermal smoke should make you immune, they are meant to break the locks and confuse incoming missiles, you are taking my testing against that particular pilot out of context and not seeing the point of me saying the only active CM can not only be negated, it leaves no room for repositioning which you failed to also include in that quote, a point which you yourself also touched on later. This is like saying flares on a jet should only be able to confuse 1 rocket fired at them and the others should be able to hit its target. (by your terms jets are also immune to lock-on's for that window after they deploy flares)
3. Lock-on's are not skill heavy weapons no matter how you try to frame them, line of sight, and unobstructed paths are not huge challenges, a general awareness of your area is needed at best, the system literally does the rest of the work of leading, trajectory and interception for you.
4. I've been playing BF since 1942, I am well aware air is supposed to have high pressure on ground targets, you seem to be missing this point by a mile and again have misquoted me again, for the 3rd time now NO ONE is saying remove lock on's so please stop stating your viewpoints from such. What my point is, is simply the provided CM does not allow any viable breathing room to do as you yourself mentioned, reposition or retaliate. That is literally the purpose of the system. Many folks have already stated the state of the MAA vs air assets which was not my talking point, and at risk of being misquoted again I will simply say this, a tank barrel can only aim so high, and you are blinded by your own smoke obviously. Saying a jet has risk when it can easily strike above levels anything can reliably reach is simply being ignorant. There is a difference between simply being "screwed" because of circumstances vs "I have no choice but to be screwed".
(even if I hit a jet with a shell, the gamble will be did it register or not)
Also I know exactly how infantry feels (being in this situation myself) when I or any other vehicle ends up on top of them "time to break out the M5's, EMP's, C5, respawn that guy on the building to parachute or wingsuit down to do A-Z" The difference is, they can negate and have options to escape in forms of barricades, specialist perks, movement etc. On top of that my weapon does not guide onto them.
5. I'm simply going to sum this, you seem to be taking a lot of what I am saying either out of context or injecting things which were not there or intended into it. A quick touch on the reactive armor thing, as I've said before I dislike the auto repair and want it gone to give viability back to folks who carry a repair tool and give all parties a break from vehicle pressure. Since it seems you assumed I wanted that kept along with ERA I will say this again, no, I do not want that. My proposals are not intended to keep current systems combined with what we have now. No one is saying "do it how they did in previous games" (again nowhere did I mention this or hint at it besides the basic concept) implement it with the current environment in mind. Example, ERA either can't be repaired, or can only be repaired with the tool after X amount of time, also gives that AT rifle an actual purpose, chip off the ERA of a vehicle. With now double the threats, yes, the extended life is needed especially being hard targeted by enemies from all around and having your only choice be take the hit, or use your CM and take part of the hit. Also the post above this has a video of a wildcat vs an MBT, and again I will say "best armor in terms of what exactly."
And yes, I will stress again because it is such a horrible design choice and a miserable experience, SP unlocking which not everyone knows about, should not be the solution to such a glaring issue. Till the ends of the earth I will say this, which at this point shouldn't be much longer.
Again please stop misquoting me and taking my words out of context or injecting things I never said. If something is unclear or questionable just ask.
My point still stands, heavy armor needs a better set of defensive options.
