# Lock On Scrubs & BF1 **URL:** \ **Category:** General Discussion\ **Created:** [May 24, 2016, 1:04pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/lock-on-scrubs-bf1/101502 "2016-05-24T13:04:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![PopoTooStronk](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/popotoostronk/32/103149_2.png) [@PopoTooStronk](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/PopoTooStronk)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2016, 1:11pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/lock-on-scrubs-bf1/101502/41 "2016-05-26T13:11:00Z")
there will most likely be AA guns though that most likely will have to be user controlled. ---
**Author:** ![doobiebromac](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/doobiebromac/32/101764_2.png) [@doobiebromac](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/doobiebromac)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2016, 1:21pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/lock-on-scrubs-bf1/101502/42 "2016-05-26T13:21:00Z")
The less lock on noob tools the better. I liked in BC2 how you had to have two team mates WORKING TOGETHER to designate and take down a vehicle. There were no weapons in BC2 that had an independent lock on. BF4 took the noob weapons to all new levels! The LAW, the stinger/igla, the AA mines,..etc,..etc. All of that garbage takes ZERO skill to use and basically lets one person destroy aircraft. Which is imbalanced! It should take teamwork to bring down an aircraft. ---
**Author:** ![PopoTooStronk](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/popotoostronk/32/103149_2.png) [@PopoTooStronk](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/PopoTooStronk)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2016, 1:50pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/lock-on-scrubs-bf1/101502/43 "2016-05-26T13:50:00Z")
> [@doobiebromac](#): > > The less lock on noob tools the better. I liked in BC2 how you had to have two team mates WORKING TOGETHER to designate and take down a vehicle. There were no weapons in BC2 that had an independent lock on. BF4 took the noob weapons to all new levels! The LAW, the stinger/igla, the AA mines,..etc,..etc. > > All of that garbage takes ZERO skill to use and basically lets one person destroy aircraft. Which is imbalanced! It should take teamwork to bring down an aircraft. SMH. pretty sure BC2 and BF4 are set in different era`s… common sense alone would already explain why the weaponry might be different. also its not like DICE created these weapons out of thin air. i am pretty sure everything you just listed has a real life counter part and are things that have been invented by various military. So are you mad at DICE for trying to be authentic or are you calling military like the US for instance a bunch of noobs for creating these skilless things? You do know the US military are like the front runners right in trying to create things that are easy to use with limited to no risk to the user whatsoever but still guaranteed high effectivity. Are you by any chance an supporter cause this just seems like something they might be be saying everything they get bombed by jets or see those high tech apache choppers assaulting them lel ---
**Author:** ![JuveOG1105](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/eada6e/32.png) [@JuveOG1105](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/JuveOG1105)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2016, 2:01pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/lock-on-scrubs-bf1/101502/44 "2016-05-26T14:01:00Z")
> [@PopoTooStronk](#): > > > [@doobiebromac](#): > > > > The less lock on noob tools the better. I liked in BC2 how you had to have two team mates WORKING TOGETHER to designate and take down a vehicle. There were no weapons in BC2 that had an independent lock on. BF4 took the noob weapons to all new levels! The LAW, the stinger/igla, the AA mines,..etc,..etc. > > > > All of that garbage takes ZERO skill to use and basically lets one person destroy aircraft. Which is imbalanced! It should take teamwork to bring down an aircraft. > > SMH. > > pretty sure BC2 and BF4 are set in different era`s… > > common sense alone would already explain why the weaponry might be different. > > also its not like DICE created these weapons out of thin air. > > i am pretty sure everything you just listed has a real life counter part and are things that have been invented by various military. > > So are you mad at DICE for trying to be authentic or are you calling military like the US for instance a bunch of noobs for creating these skilless things? > > You do know the US military are like the front runners right in trying to create things that are easy to use with limited to no risk to the user whatsoever but still guaranteed high effectivity. > > Are you by any chance an supporter cause this just seems like something they might be be saying everything they get bombed by jets or see those high tech apache choppers assaulting them lel That’s real life bf series isn’t realistic at all. Stop comparing it to real life jeez. And they’re both modern shooters. In real life you don’t respawn and there’s no way you can sprint across the map with all of the gear you have on. They make it easy to use cause lives are at stake. ---
**Author:** ![PopoTooStronk](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/popotoostronk/32/103149_2.png) [@PopoTooStronk](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/PopoTooStronk)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2016, 2:09pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/lock-on-scrubs-bf1/101502/45 "2016-05-26T14:09:00Z")
> [@JuveOG1105](#): > > > [@PopoTooStronk](#): > > > > > [@doobiebromac](#): > > > > > > The less lock on noob tools the better. I liked in BC2 how you had to have two team mates WORKING TOGETHER to designate and take down a vehicle. There were no weapons in BC2 that had an independent lock on. BF4 took the noob weapons to all new levels! The LAW, the stinger/igla, the AA mines,..etc,..etc. > > > > > > All of that garbage takes ZERO skill to use and basically lets one person destroy aircraft. Which is imbalanced! It should take teamwork to bring down an aircraft. > > > > SMH. > > > > pretty sure BC2 and BF4 are set in different era`s… > > > > common sense alone would already explain why the weaponry might be different. > > > > also its not like DICE created these weapons out of thin air. > > > > i am pretty sure everything you just listed has a real life counter part and are things that have been invented by various military. > > > > So are you mad at DICE for trying to be authentic or are you calling military like the US for instance a bunch of noobs for creating these skilless things? > > > > You do know the US military are like the front runners right in trying to create things that are easy to use with limited to no risk to the user whatsoever but still guaranteed high effectivity. > > > > Are you by any chance an supporter cause this just seems like something they might be be saying everything they get bombed by jets or see those high tech apache choppers assaulting them lel > > That’s real life bf series isn’t realistic at all. Stop comparing it to real life jeez. And they’re both modern shooters. In real life you don’t respawn and there’s no way you can sprint across the map with all of the gear you have on. They make it easy to use cause lives are at stake. look up the meaning of authentic. you might get a clue on why i mentioned it and thus the point of my reply. PS: its also wise when you done that to see what the difference is between authentic and realistic. you then will really understand why i used 1 word and not the other. ---
**Author:** ![JuveOG1105](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/eada6e/32.png) [@JuveOG1105](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/JuveOG1105)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2016, 2:26pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/lock-on-scrubs-bf1/101502/46 "2016-05-26T14:26:00Z")
> [@PopoTooStronk](#): > > > [@JuveOG1105](#): > > > > > [@PopoTooStronk](#): > > > > > > > [@doobiebromac](#): > > > > > > > > The less lock on noob tools the better. I liked in BC2 how you had to have two team mates WORKING TOGETHER to designate and take down a vehicle. There were no weapons in BC2 that had an independent lock on. BF4 took the noob weapons to all new levels! The LAW, the stinger/igla, the AA mines,..etc,..etc. > > > > > > > > All of that garbage takes ZERO skill to use and basically lets one person destroy aircraft. Which is imbalanced! It should take teamwork to bring down an aircraft. > > > > > > SMH. > > > > > > pretty sure BC2 and BF4 are set in different era`s… > > > > > > common sense alone would already explain why the weaponry might be different. > > > > > > also its not like DICE created these weapons out of thin air. > > > > > > i am pretty sure everything you just listed has a real life counter part and are things that have been invented by various military. > > > > > > So are you mad at DICE for trying to be authentic or are you calling military like the US for instance a bunch of noobs for creating these skilless things? > > > > > > You do know the US military are like the front runners right in trying to create things that are easy to use with limited to no risk to the user whatsoever but still guaranteed high effectivity. > > > > > > Are you by any chance an supporter cause this just seems like something they might be be saying everything they get bombed by jets or see those high tech apache choppers assaulting them lel > > > > That’s real life bf series isn’t realistic at all. Stop comparing it to real life jeez. And they’re both modern shooters. In real life you don’t respawn and there’s no way you can sprint across the map with all of the gear you have on. They make it easy to use cause lives are at stake. > > look up the meaning of authentic. > > you might get a clue on why i mentioned it and thus the point of my reply. > > PS: its also wise when you done that to see what the difference is between authentic and realistic. > you then will really understand why i used 1 word and not the other. Then why use real life as an example to get your point across? ---
**Author:** ![VBALL\_MVP](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/vball_mvp/32/103977_2.png) [@VBALL\_MVP](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/VBALL_MVP)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2016, 2:51pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/lock-on-scrubs-bf1/101502/47 "2016-05-26T14:51:00Z")
> [@doobiebromac](#): > > The less lock on noob tools the better. I liked in BC2 how you had to have two team mates WORKING TOGETHER to designate and take down a vehicle. There were no weapons in BC2 that had an independent lock on. BF4 took the noob weapons to all new levels! The LAW, the stinger/igla, the AA mines,..etc,..etc. > > All of that garbage takes ZERO skill to use and basically lets one person destroy aircraft. Which is imbalanced! It should take teamwork to bring down an aircraft. BC2 was far from balanced when it came to the air. The chopper doing the circle strafe of death made it virtually indestructible. Only thing that was good against it was the stationery AA but a good chopper pilot would land on it and destroy it before anyone can get in it. ---
**Author:** ![schallsj](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/schallsj/32/103378_2.png) [@schallsj](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/schallsj)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2016, 3:01pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/lock-on-scrubs-bf1/101502/48 "2016-05-26T15:01:00Z")
Lol! so no mines because they take no skill? ok haha. Can’t use a single person lock-on missile for aircraft because its too easy, yet the person in the jet has flares and can play out of range pretty quickly. SMH, I think you’re going to love this game! you cant even create tech out of thin air for this era that would be similar to lock-on weapons. ---
**Author:** ![PopoTooStronk](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/popotoostronk/32/103149_2.png) [@PopoTooStronk](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/PopoTooStronk)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2016, 4:29pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/lock-on-scrubs-bf1/101502/49 "2016-05-26T16:29:00Z")
> [@JuveOG1105](#): > > > [@PopoTooStronk](#): > > > > > [@JuveOG1105](#): > > > > > > > [@PopoTooStronk](#): > > > > > > > > > [@doobiebromac](#): > > > > > > > > > > The less lock on noob tools the better. I liked in BC2 how you had to have two team mates WORKING TOGETHER to designate and take down a vehicle. There were no weapons in BC2 that had an independent lock on. BF4 took the noob weapons to all new levels! The LAW, the stinger/igla, the AA mines,..etc,..etc. > > > > > > > > > > All of that garbage takes ZERO skill to use and basically lets one person destroy aircraft. Which is imbalanced! It should take teamwork to bring down an aircraft. > > > > > > > > SMH. > > > > > > > > pretty sure BC2 and BF4 are set in different era`s… > > > > > > > > common sense alone would already explain why the weaponry might be different. > > > > > > > > also its not like DICE created these weapons out of thin air. > > > > > > > > i am pretty sure everything you just listed has a real life counter part and are things that have been invented by various military. > > > > > > > > So are you mad at DICE for trying to be authentic or are you calling military like the US for instance a bunch of noobs for creating these skilless things? > > > > > > > > You do know the US military are like the front runners right in trying to create things that are easy to use with limited to no risk to the user whatsoever but still guaranteed high effectivity. > > > > > > > > Are you by any chance an supporter cause this just seems like something they might be be saying everything they get bombed by jets or see those high tech apache choppers assaulting them lel > > > > > > That’s real life bf series isn’t realistic at all. Stop comparing it to real life jeez. And they’re both modern shooters. In real life you don’t respawn and there’s no way you can sprint across the map with all of the gear you have on. They make it easy to use cause lives are at stake. > > > > look up the meaning of authentic. > > > > you might get a clue on why i mentioned it and thus the point of my reply. > > > > PS: its also wise when you done that to see what the difference is between authentic and realistic. > > you then will really understand why i used 1 word and not the other. > > Then why use real life as an example to get your point across? If you know what authentic means you will figure it out. here is a clue: are the weapons , vehicles and such made up or are the based on real life versions and do they behave just as in real life or did DICE change certain things for balance purposes? ---
**Author:** ![H-Hour\_Absolute](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/h/85f322/32.png) [@H-Hour\_Absolute](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/H-Hour_Absolute)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2016, 4:37pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/lock-on-scrubs-bf1/101502/50 "2016-05-26T16:37:00Z")
BC2 actually was pretty balanced. The At4 was the one-man solution. The Carl Gustav/RPG was for casual gamers and new players that didn’t want want to learn. the little target designator was a crutch that was easily countered (any smoke device, including smoke secondary, smoke UAV, and smoke grenades, would remove it; and it could also be knifed off by anyone, as long as they could reach it). Sure the casual gamer that didn’t bother to learn how to use the AT4 properly, would struggle against Circle Strafing, but those of us that practiced became very good at countering the circle strafe. The reason why? Predictable flight course. The key was to place the AT4 projectile where the Heli would fly into it. Very effective, and when running Mark 2 Explosives, a OHK every time (even if they run V. Armour). We got VERY good at circle strafe countering, to the point that it was not a threat any more (we, I mean H-Hour). The more difficult heli strategy to counter was the long range side-to-side strafe that showed up near the end of the game’s life. Pilots would sit far far away and do this almost crescent-shaped, side-to-side strafe. They could see all incoming rockets and disengage before the rockets could reach them (think: their distance was so great, that they had enough time to literally watch every rocket coming at them), and though the elite AT4 users might get a lucky hit on them every now and then, they were much harder to counter. Furthermore, since they weren’t moving in a circle, and because the apex of the crescent was pretty minimal, this style of flying created a very accurate flight path for all projectiles they fired…it was pretty ridiculous and so deadly, and not even worth fighting against (i.e., just quit the server, it’s not going to be fun). Luckily, this strategy didn’t become prevalent until the end of 2014, so the majority of BC2 players never saw it or didn’t have to deal with it. ---
**Author:** ![JuveOG1105](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/eada6e/32.png) [@JuveOG1105](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/JuveOG1105)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2016, 4:48pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/lock-on-scrubs-bf1/101502/51 "2016-05-26T16:48:00Z")
> [@PopoTooStronk](#): > > > [@JuveOG1105](#): > > > > > [@PopoTooStronk](#): > > > > > > > [@JuveOG1105](#): > > > > > > > > > [@PopoTooStronk](#): > > > > > > > > > > > [@doobiebromac](#): > > > > > > > > > > > > The less lock on noob tools the better. I liked in BC2 how you had to have two team mates WORKING TOGETHER to designate and take down a vehicle. There were no weapons in BC2 that had an independent lock on. BF4 took the noob weapons to all new levels! The LAW, the stinger/igla, the AA mines,..etc,..etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > All of that garbage takes ZERO skill to use and basically lets one person destroy aircraft. Which is imbalanced! It should take teamwork to bring down an aircraft. > > > > > > > > > > SMH. > > > > > > > > > > pretty sure BC2 and BF4 are set in different era`s… > > > > > > > > > > common sense alone would already explain why the weaponry might be different. > > > > > > > > > > also its not like DICE created these weapons out of thin air. > > > > > > > > > > i am pretty sure everything you just listed has a real life counter part and are things that have been invented by various military. > > > > > > > > > > So are you mad at DICE for trying to be authentic or are you calling military like the US for instance a bunch of noobs for creating these skilless things? > > > > > > > > > > You do know the US military are like the front runners right in trying to create things that are easy to use with limited to no risk to the user whatsoever but still guaranteed high effectivity. > > > > > > > > > > Are you by any chance an supporter cause this just seems like something they might be be saying everything they get bombed by jets or see those high tech apache choppers assaulting them lel > > > > > > > > That’s real life bf series isn’t realistic at all. Stop comparing it to real life jeez. And they’re both modern shooters. In real life you don’t respawn and there’s no way you can sprint across the map with all of the gear you have on. They make it easy to use cause lives are at stake. > > > > > > look up the meaning of authentic. > > > > > > you might get a clue on why i mentioned it and thus the point of my reply. > > > > > > PS: its also wise when you done that to see what the difference is between authentic and realistic. > > > you then will really understand why i used 1 word and not the other. > > > > Then why use real life as an example to get your point across? > > If you know what authentic means you will figure it out. > > here is a clue: > are the weapons , vehicles and such made up or are the based on real life versions and do they behave just as in real life or did DICE change certain things for balance purposes? Ok I think I misunderstood what you where getting at when I first replied. So we’re agreeing that most if not all weapons and gadgets essentially don’t work or are used in real life? ---
**Author:** ![PopoTooStronk](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/popotoostronk/32/103149_2.png) [@PopoTooStronk](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/PopoTooStronk)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2016, 5:03pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/lock-on-scrubs-bf1/101502/52 "2016-05-26T17:03:00Z")
> [@JuveOG1105](#): > > > [@PopoTooStronk](#): > > > > > [@JuveOG1105](#): > > > > > > > [@PopoTooStronk](#): > > > > > > > > > [@JuveOG1105](#): > > > > > > > > > > > [@PopoTooStronk](#): > > > > > > > > > > > > > [@doobiebromac](#): > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The less lock on noob tools the better. I liked in BC2 how you had to have two team mates WORKING TOGETHER to designate and take down a vehicle. There were no weapons in BC2 that had an independent lock on. BF4 took the noob weapons to all new levels! The LAW, the stinger/igla, the AA mines,..etc,..etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All of that garbage takes ZERO skill to use and basically lets one person destroy aircraft. Which is imbalanced! It should take teamwork to bring down an aircraft. > > > > > > > > > > > > SMH. > > > > > > > > > > > > pretty sure BC2 and BF4 are set in different era`s… > > > > > > > > > > > > common sense alone would already explain why the weaponry might be different. > > > > > > > > > > > > also its not like DICE created these weapons out of thin air. > > > > > > > > > > > > i am pretty sure everything you just listed has a real life counter part and are things that have been invented by various military. > > > > > > > > > > > > So are you mad at DICE for trying to be authentic or are you calling military like the US for instance a bunch of noobs for creating these skilless things? > > > > > > > > > > > > You do know the US military are like the front runners right in trying to create things that are easy to use with limited to no risk to the user whatsoever but still guaranteed high effectivity. > > > > > > > > > > > > Are you by any chance an supporter cause this just seems like something they might be be saying everything they get bombed by jets or see those high tech apache choppers assaulting them lel > > > > > > > > > > That’s real life bf series isn’t realistic at all. Stop comparing it to real life jeez. And they’re both modern shooters. In real life you don’t respawn and there’s no way you can sprint across the map with all of the gear you have on. They make it easy to use cause lives are at stake. > > > > > > > > look up the meaning of authentic. > > > > > > > > you might get a clue on why i mentioned it and thus the point of my reply. > > > > > > > > PS: its also wise when you done that to see what the difference is between authentic and realistic. > > > > you then will really understand why i used 1 word and not the other. > > > > > > Then why use real life as an example to get your point across? > > > > If you know what authentic means you will figure it out. > > > > here is a clue: > > are the weapons , vehicles and such made up or are the based on real life versions and do they behave just as in real life or did DICE change certain things for balance purposes? > > Ok I think I misunderstood what you where getting at when I first replied. So we’re agreeing that most if not all weapons and gadgets essentially don’t work or are used in real life? im saying what is in the game is based on real life things and the goes for stinger, igla and such. im not saying they all work the same as in real life ---
**Author:** ![Sir-xer21](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/sir-xer21/32/103487_2.png) [@Sir-xer21](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Sir-xer21)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2016, 6:05pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/lock-on-scrubs-bf1/101502/53 "2016-05-26T18:05:00Z")
> [@H-Hour\_Absolute](#): > > BC2 actually was pretty balanced. The At4 was the one-man solution. The Carl Gustav/RPG was for casual gamers and new players that didn’t want want to learn. the little target designator was a crutch that was easily countered (any smoke device, including smoke secondary, smoke UAV, and smoke grenades, would remove it; and it could also be knifed off by anyone, as long as they could reach it). > > Sure the casual gamer that didn’t bother to learn how to use the AT4 properly, would struggle against Circle Strafing, but those of us that practiced became very good at countering the circle strafe. The reason why? Predictable flight course. The key was to place the AT4 projectile where the Heli would fly into it. Very effective, and when running Mark 2 Explosives, a OHK every time (even if they run V. Armour). We got VERY good at circle strafe countering, to the point that it was not a threat any more (we, I mean H-Hour). > > The more difficult heli strategy to counter was the long range side-to-side strafe that showed up near the end of the game’s life. Pilots would sit far far away and do this almost crescent-shaped, side-to-side strafe. They could see all incoming rockets and disengage before the rockets could reach them (think: their distance was so great, that they had enough time to literally watch every rocket coming at them), and though the elite AT4 users might get a lucky hit on them every now and then, they were much harder to counter. Furthermore, since they weren’t moving in a circle, and because the apex of the crescent was pretty minimal, this style of flying created a very accurate flight path for all projectiles they fired…it was pretty ridiculous and so deadly, and not even worth fighting against (i.e., just quit the server, it’s not going to be fun). > > Luckily, this strategy didn’t become prevalent until the end of 2014, so the majority of BC2 players never saw it or didn’t have to deal with it. honestly, rpg’s were even easier against circle strafers which were a problem only in one map. they didnt give a lock on warning. ---
**Author:** ![H-Hour\_Absolute](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/h/85f322/32.png) [@H-Hour\_Absolute](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/H-Hour_Absolute)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2016, 6:16pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/lock-on-scrubs-bf1/101502/54 "2016-05-26T18:16:00Z")
> [@Sir-xer21](#): > > > [@H-Hour\_Absolute](#): > > > > BC2 actually was pretty balanced. The At4 was the one-man solution. The Carl Gustav/RPG was for casual gamers and new players that didn’t want want to learn. the little target designator was a crutch that was easily countered (any smoke device, including smoke secondary, smoke UAV, and smoke grenades, would remove it; and it could also be knifed off by anyone, as long as they could reach it). > > > > Sure the casual gamer that didn’t bother to learn how to use the AT4 properly, would struggle against Circle Strafing, but those of us that practiced became very good at countering the circle strafe. The reason why? Predictable flight course. The key was to place the AT4 projectile where the Heli would fly into it. Very effective, and when running Mark 2 Explosives, a OHK every time (even if they run V. Armour). We got VERY good at circle strafe countering, to the point that it was not a threat any more (we, I mean H-Hour). > > > > The more difficult heli strategy to counter was the long range side-to-side strafe that showed up near the end of the game’s life. Pilots would sit far far away and do this almost crescent-shaped, side-to-side strafe. They could see all incoming rockets and disengage before the rockets could reach them (think: their distance was so great, that they had enough time to literally watch every rocket coming at them), and though the elite AT4 users might get a lucky hit on them every now and then, they were much harder to counter. Furthermore, since they weren’t moving in a circle, and because the apex of the crescent was pretty minimal, this style of flying created a very accurate flight path for all projectiles they fired…it was pretty ridiculous and so deadly, and not even worth fighting against (i.e., just quit the server, it’s not going to be fun). > > > > Luckily, this strategy didn’t become prevalent until the end of 2014, so the majority of BC2 players never saw it or didn’t have to deal with it. > > honestly, rpg’s were even easier against circle strafers which were a problem only in one map. they didnt give a lock on warning. There’s no “lock on warning” for AT4 either, and the slower velocity on the AT4 meant you could correct and redirect angle of approach (which you couldn’t do with RPG). But yes. Certain cases an RPG would be appropriate ---
**Author:** ![Sir-xer21](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/sir-xer21/32/103487_2.png) [@Sir-xer21](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Sir-xer21)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2016, 6:22pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/lock-on-scrubs-bf1/101502/55 "2016-05-26T18:22:00Z")
> [@PopoTooStronk](#): > > > [@doobiebromac](#): > > > > The less lock on noob tools the better. I liked in BC2 how you had to have two team mates WORKING TOGETHER to designate and take down a vehicle. There were no weapons in BC2 that had an independent lock on. BF4 took the noob weapons to all new levels! The LAW, the stinger/igla, the AA mines,..etc,..etc. > > > > All of that garbage takes ZERO skill to use and basically lets one person destroy aircraft. Which is imbalanced! It should take teamwork to bring down an aircraft. > > SMH. > > pretty sure BC2 and BF4 are set in different era`s… i mean, they’re not really. they’re both close present or near future. the lack of lockons was a gameplay decision like the no jets. it worked, but unfortuantely, most people couldnt hack it with just rpgs and AT4s so here we are. ---
**Author:** ![JuveOG1105](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/eada6e/32.png) [@JuveOG1105](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/JuveOG1105)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2016, 7:08pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/lock-on-scrubs-bf1/101502/56 "2016-05-26T19:08:00Z")
> [@Sir-xer21](#): > > > [@PopoTooStronk](#): > > > > > [@doobiebromac](#): > > > > > > The less lock on noob tools the better. I liked in BC2 how you had to have two team mates WORKING TOGETHER to designate and take down a vehicle. There were no weapons in BC2 that had an independent lock on. BF4 took the noob weapons to all new levels! The LAW, the stinger/igla, the AA mines,..etc,..etc. > > > > > > All of that garbage takes ZERO skill to use and basically lets one person destroy aircraft. Which is imbalanced! It should take teamwork to bring down an aircraft. > > > > SMH. > > > > pretty sure BC2 and BF4 are set in different era`s… > > i mean, they’re not really. they’re both close present or near future. the lack of lockons was a gameplay decision like the no jets. > > it worked, but unfortuantely, most people couldnt hack it with just rpgs and AT4s so here we are. And don’t forget nobody wanted to use teamwork in BF3 the soflam javelin combo was pretty lethal. ---
**Author:** ![Rev0verDrive](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/7993a0/32.png) [@Rev0verDrive](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Rev0verDrive)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2016, 7:09pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/lock-on-scrubs-bf1/101502/57 "2016-05-26T19:09:00Z")
Mainstream BF titles include 42’, Vietnam, BF2, 2142, BF3, BF4. 1942 and Vietnam are the only titles that were based on real wars. BF2, 3 and 4 are based on imaginary wars spanning across 3 time settings 2007, 2014, and 2020. Everyone of the mainstream titles features weapons/vehicles/gadgets that were real or cutting edge for their setting. The exclusion being BF2142 which should be obvious. The mainstream titles have always been about pitting players against each other using authentic weapons and tech of the time setting. Real world locations have always been the basis of their maps. In a modern war setting the use of lock-on based weapons is an actual thing. To not include them would decrease the authenticity of what BF tries to represent in its mainstream titles. ---
**Author:** ![H-Hour\_Absolute](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/h/85f322/32.png) [@H-Hour\_Absolute](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/H-Hour_Absolute)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2016, 7:46pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/lock-on-scrubs-bf1/101502/58 "2016-05-26T19:46:00Z")
> [@Rev0verDrive](#): > > Mainstream BF titles include 42’, Vietnam, BF2, 2142, BF3, BF4. 1942 and Vietnam are the only titles that were based on real wars. BF2, 3 and 4 are based on imaginary wars spanning across 3 time settings 2007, 2014, and 2020. Everyone of the mainstream titles features weapons/vehicles/gadgets that were real or cutting edge for their setting. **The exclusion being BF2142 which should be obvious.** > > The mainstream titles have always been about pitting players against each other using authentic weapons and tech of the time setting. Real world locations have always been the basis of their maps. In a modern war setting the use of lock-on based weapons is an actual thing. To not include them would decrease the authenticity of what BF tries to represent in its mainstream titles. Hey you’ve forgotten “Secret Weapons of WW2,” the final expansion pack for BF1942 that introduced a ton of vehicles/weapons that were experimental or conceptual only. SWOWW2 is to BF1942, as Final Stand is to BF4 ---
**Author:** ![Rev0verDrive](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/7993a0/32.png) [@Rev0verDrive](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Rev0verDrive)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2016, 8:08pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/lock-on-scrubs-bf1/101502/59 "2016-05-26T20:08:00Z")
> [@H-Hour\_Absolute](#): > > > [@Rev0verDrive](#): > > > > Mainstream BF titles include 42’, Vietnam, BF2, 2142, BF3, BF4. 1942 and Vietnam are the only titles that were based on real wars. BF2, 3 and 4 are based on imaginary wars spanning across 3 time settings 2007, 2014, and 2020. Everyone of the mainstream titles features weapons/vehicles/gadgets that were real or cutting edge for their setting. **The exclusion being BF2142 which should be obvious.** > > > > The mainstream titles have always been about pitting players against each other using authentic weapons and tech of the time setting. Real world locations have always been the basis of their maps. In a modern war setting the use of lock-on based weapons is an actual thing. To not include them would decrease the authenticity of what BF tries to represent in its mainstream titles. > > Hey you’ve forgotten “Secret Weapons of WW2,” the final expansion pack for BF1942 that introduced a ton of vehicles/weapons that were experimental or conceptual only. > > SWOWW2 is to BF1942, as Final Stand is to BF4 _“Everyone of the mainstream titles features weapons/vehicles/gadgets that were real or cutting edge for their setting.”_ I didn’t forget them. Just didn’t include it because it was an expansion and not part of the base game. And I’m quite sure everything in the expansions were actually real regardless. Also take a look at what Final Stand introduced. 2 Pickups and 1 floating tank that isn’t in every map. They’re also homage and part of the storyline aspect that DICE has introd’ to the series. Such as the Phantom program. ---
**Author:** ![H-Hour\_Absolute](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/h/85f322/32.png) [@H-Hour\_Absolute](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/H-Hour_Absolute)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2016, 9:13pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/lock-on-scrubs-bf1/101502/60 "2016-05-26T21:13:00Z")
> [@Rev0verDrive](#): > > > [@H-Hour\_Absolute](#): > > > > > [@Rev0verDrive](#): > > > > > > Mainstream BF titles include 42’, Vietnam, BF2, 2142, BF3, BF4. 1942 and Vietnam are the only titles that were based on real wars. BF2, 3 and 4 are based on imaginary wars spanning across 3 time settings 2007, 2014, and 2020. Everyone of the mainstream titles features weapons/vehicles/gadgets that were real or cutting edge for their setting. **The exclusion being BF2142 which should be obvious.** > > > > > > The mainstream titles have always been about pitting players against each other using authentic weapons and tech of the time setting. Real world locations have always been the basis of their maps. In a modern war setting the use of lock-on based weapons is an actual thing. To not include them would decrease the authenticity of what BF tries to represent in its mainstream titles. > > > > Hey you’ve forgotten “Secret Weapons of WW2,” the final expansion pack for BF1942 that introduced a ton of vehicles/weapons that were experimental or conceptual only. > > > > SWOWW2 is to BF1942, as Final Stand is to BF4 > > _“Everyone of the mainstream titles features weapons/vehicles/gadgets that were real or cutting edge for their setting.”_ > > I didn’t forget them. Just didn’t include it because it was an expansion and not part of the base game. And I’m quite sure everything in the expansions were actually real regardless. > > Also take a look at what Final Stand introduced. 2 Pickups and 1 floating tank that isn’t in every map. They’re also homage and part of the storyline aspect that DICE has introd’ to the series. Such as the Phantom program. Ok- so you didn’t “forget” SWOWW2, instead you intentionally ignored it. Not that anyone else is reading this or cares, but: Secret Weapons Of WW2 was a part of BF1942, and it focused mostly on experimental prototypes, concepts, or even just blueprints, of vehicles and weapons that were never really used (some which, have never even made it off of the pages of a blueprint). Off the top of my head, there were several plane types (Aw-52, F-85, HO-229, and the Natter) that never breached production status…Same with some of the other items (Jetpeck, Wasserfall). Anyways- why are we talking about this? I’m confused. I get that you’re excluding expansion packs, but again…that’s your choice. It’s my choice to include them. The reality is that they existed… that dice does do this…if you want to ignore it, that’s fine, but that’s not reality. [Previous page](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/lock-on-scrubs-bf1/101502.md?page=2) [Next page](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/lock-on-scrubs-bf1/101502.md?page=4)