As for the lock-on time - no, it's not short. I main Rocketeer so please listen for a sec and I'll try not to be extremely bias. DM mentioned that the skill required to start the lock-on is terrible (and I agree with it), however it takes some more time to actually lock on. You say that this lock-on time is too short but I can assure you that even with my measly MMR, it's too long as it is with 90% of people I play against because of the terribly slow travel time. By the time I finish my lock-on people are already moving for cover and by the time the missiles get there, they are well within safety range. Add that on top of the fact that people can literally dodge it without cover - which I'm fine with by the way - it leaves for a seriously underpowered mech.
I also can (kinda) understand the logic you are coming from with the cloak thing, but making it unable to detect a cloaked mech is actually kinda ridiculous. Against a Predator, this is less so because that mech cannot rush you without breaking its cloak. But for the Infiltrator, I'm saying a massive no to that. I've already had issues keeping A-class mechs away from my Rocketeer as it was because of my slow rate-of-fire weapons that by neutralizing my lock-on, on top of my slow-firing primary...that's just stupidly underpowered for a Rocketeer. That Infiltrator that is charging at me deserves to get wrecked for charging at me - a C-Class. Of course this issue would be solved with DM's suggestion.
Alright the lock time discussion is kind of broken right now because of the following:
- I don't use the mech
- It is undeniable that i have been locked onto before i could stop it on countless occasions
Those two conflict and make this kind of impossible for me.
I see your arguments with people already moving to cover etc., so i can empathize, but at the same time i've experienced all the shenanigans of instant-lock...sooo...
I will say though - transcending all nitty-gritty detail-discussion - that the Hellfires have no place being comparable to the TOW, GL, etc. The majority of their function and strength requires no skill to use. If anyone wants this weapon to be able to contend with TOWs and GLs, it better somehow magically require skill (and no, it is not impressive locking and flicking the aim over a wall).
I'm not saying the weapons should be trash, i'm not saying it shouldn't be used by good players; i'm simply saying the obvious: Impressive Hawken game play should be impressive.
Considering the advantage is utterly negated by the problems associated with the weapon itself, I think it's something we can leave alone until HFs really get a thorough rework.
Lol, right? I kind of said this earlier, how the HF are actually pretty balanced- even if they're wonk as hell to me.
cloacking != invisibility. it is only hide you from radar. thats all.
if you not moving you visible less.
on current moment cloak-ability counter by scanners, when you shown on mini-map even if you in ability. it should be vice-versa, cloak should counter scanners, and totally hiding you from radar. It is how it should be!
but cloak shouldn't counter enemy weapons "just because". it not counter TOW or GL, and it shouldn't counter HF rockets and decrease HF main feature.
I said cloaking = invisibility for this conversation because there is no effective difference, they mean the exact same thing here because we all know you're not actually 100% invisible, and both words only refer to visibility- everyone knows what we're referring to, regardless of technicalities. Yes, invisibility is obviously not technically correct. It also doesn't matter, haha.
...huh. To be completely honest, i definitely thought cloaking removed you from scanners...lol. Yeah i agree, that's odd.
You're right, it shouldn't counter weapons 'just because', it should counter a weapon for the same reasons it counters other detection methods. TOW and GL aren't guided, neither are bullets, why would cloaking counter any of those? You point and shoot and try to hit what you see- which is what you should have to do with your HF when the enemy is cloaked- you've lost targeting systems telling you where the enemy is, so you have to point and shoot with your eyes.
The HF's main feature is not to detect cloaked enemies. Of course cloaking should decrease effectiveness of any feature related to a targeting systems.
For the record, i'll explain the only thread of hope for the argument that HF should lock on to cloaked enemies (i don't usually explain someone else's argument for them, because if they can't outline it themselves, then they shouldn't be arguing- but what the hell
):
"The weapon itself holds ordinance in place, ready to be fired. The ordinance itself has a built in targeting system which tracks heat and adjusts trajectory in order to follow it. Before being released, the ordinance holds a temporary connection to the mech to notify the pilot when the ordinance has a potential lock to a heat signature. That is why no targeting systems in-mech can visualize the cloaked target, but the weapon can still lock on."
The previous explanation is valid as to why the HF work the way they do. Here are the easy arguments against it:
- It is actually invalid because if these were the methods of the missiles' locking, then most cases when an enemy goes behind cover once, the missiles would have lost their lock permanently, only gaining it again if you stepped back out right where you went into cover.
- It is valid, but it is not sound because for a missile to adjust trajectory, it must be detecting the heat map of a radius, detecting a heat signature in the radius, then adjusting trajectory based on the heat signature's location in that radius; if this data is being collected by the missile pre-launch, it would be just as easy to send all the data to the cockpit for target visualization, as sending a notification of potential lock (the current "beep beep beep").
I could go on, but it should be clear that there is no logic behind the current lock-to-cloak system.
I'm being serious when i say this - it's a video game, it's allowed - you could throw out all logic and just say it works better this way- just for the sake of game play. But i would disagree (at least then we could stop arguing
).
For those who don't know argument terminology:
Validity is basically if something mathematically follows: if A then B, if B then C, it is valid that, if A then C.
Soundness is basically if something makes sense logically.
The following is valid but not sound:
All U.S. presidents are spotted owls. Obama is a U.S. president. Obama is a spotted owl.
I've read absolutely none of this thread or even the post this is from. I actually had no idea why I clicked on it. But now I know.
INTENTS AND PURPOSES HOW DOES INTENSIVE PURPOSES EVEN MAKE SENSE??????
Lol god damn it. You know, i actually paused a moment before typing that like "Hm, i know there's one way people write this all the time that's incorrect..." but i didn't Google it cause i'm a lazy fuzzy bunny.
That absolutely does make infinitely more sense. I am ashamed. It's not like me to be so lazy! Haha
Edited by CoshCaust, 18 December 2015 - 04:41 PM.