Rocket Launcher Primary needs to go

Headshot...

Error 404: BASR on Heavy Assault not found.

How is a ranged, anti-vehicle weapon that doesn't cost resources being used against infantry comparable to a close range, anti-vehicle weapon that does consume resources being used against tanks?

Taking this argument to its conclusion we should never see any overpowered, unfun, or role-ignoring weapon balanced.

When things aren't working as intended it's perfectly reasonable to ask for changes.

Because both receiving parties complain of how OP the item is, ignoring a perfectly viable defense that is available to them.

"they were asking for it" that's your reasoning behind it not being op?

By that reasoning you can exclaim that every weapon that's op is in actual fact just fine!

Bah... the real rocket launcher cowboys like myself switch to the commisioner instantly and still kill you =) Only RL scrubs miss and die! Switching from your RL to your secondary is sooooooo fast; like almost instant. I just hit one button on my mouse and I instantly have my pistol at the ready. It's actually a really good tactic for ENG and MED class; switching from your tool to your pistol is almost instant.

Who needs shotguns and slugs when your HA comes with the best one in the game for free?

Even with a JH there's lag involved for them to be able to do that.

So if regular guns intended for AI could, with no changes, shoot through tanks and kill the people inside it would be perfectly acceptable as long as all tanks could cert into armor that prevents it?

You don't have any issue with balance for stock players, the opportunity cost of a cert choice changing due to weapons functioning in a way they shouldn't, or the plain absurdity of the situation in the first place?


People keep saying it's a rocket it should kill infantry. Well, A2A missiles could certainly insta-gib infantry... but SHOULD they?

The point is you shouldn't be able to use weapons so clearly designed for one role in a completely different one to any meaningful affect (in A2A's case, you need a lock), nor should you even think about trying because it doesn't make any intuitive sense.

People should not pick up rocket launchers and think "I know what this is used for, shooting infantry!". Heck, you have people that practically run right up to others while holding a RL and then blast away without caring about the explosion. As has been said, the way they treat it is like a shotgun, except they didn't lose their main weapon and take an actual shotgun.

In all seriousness though I'd be all for one of a couple of ideas.

Minimum distance for dumbfires.
Make point blank rocket explosions kill the person who fired and leave the target with lik 3 HP.
Restore the Decimator to it's former glory and apply that stupid CoF and drop to default launchers. At least make people pay for a good launcher!

RL Primary are only good at killing 1 person, because the reload time is so long. It's much better for the team to have your LMGs out against infantry. Use RL against MAX, turrets and when you're out of ammo.

It might give the "noobs" a crutch, but they will forever be trading 1 kill for 1 death. Therefore, I don't see a problem with it.
If you're complaining, because you decided to go Rambo by yourself, well this isn't CoD. There's no reason to rebalance the game for solo play, when that's the anti-thesis of the PS2 concept.

I pretty much hate all tanks, so yeah, I'd be more than happy with it.

You insist so strongly that rocket launchers aren't designed to kill infantry, yet even in game description says that they are effective in this role. Get your facts straight. Besides, if RL is such a specialized god-tier AV weapon, then why it takes 5-6 rockets to destroy a tank with one? I'm not saying that current situation is fine. I'd be more than happy if it took 5-6 rockets to kill an infantryman and 1 rocket to instagib a tank.

As far as cheese goes, using a one shot rocket launcher at 3m to instagib one target in CQC, while taking damage to your shields / overshields yourself - there are far worse cases of cheese in PS2, like MAXes, libs, lolpods and tanks.

If you let the guy run up so close to you, then it's your own damn fault, and if heavy had a shotgun on him instead of RL, he could instagib 3-4 guys instead of just one.

You don't say.

It is so sad to see people rationalizing the nerfing of a weapon instead of figuring out how to defeat it.

It is a statement about the modern game-player. They refuse to be gamers and sportsmen, and instead try to find ways to make their in-game life easier. Wild.

Yet there are so many people across the empires in this thread who agree with me, so I think it might be also a real concern for them.

in response, AI weapons should be buffed, HE, of all kinds, should have their explosive radius increased, and HE on tanks should have it nearly tripled. If you want weapon specialization (which im in full favor of, then AI weapons are SEVERELY lacking.

Weapons should dictate what the tool tips say, not tool tips dictate what the weapons do.

Any reasonable person would say the rocket launchers are intended for an anti-vehicle role, perhaps spilling over to MAXes too. If I remember correctly, the developers nerfed MAX anti-vehicle weapons against infantry, plus phoenix missiles, so it's not a new thing.

Also, it's not always as simple as "nerf" or "buff". I think the dumb-fire rocket launchers are horrendously slow and have terrible drop. The OP would improve AV capability too:

I think you might be meaning something different to me when you say "cheese". I'm talking about avoiding limitations or performing unintended roles. MAX, Lib and rocket pod hate can all be more simply explained by being more powerful than they should (although a Dalton shooting air targets could be argued either way I guess). If rocket pods were split into AV and AI, like the devs said they'd do months ago, then they'd be fine; if the AV version continued to function well against infantry, then it'd be cheese.

In any case, I don't really accept "there are worse things in the game" as a reason not to fix something. Indeed, that sounds like an admission to a problem. Being too time consuming for devs would be fair enough but I don't think that applies here.


Furthermore, I gave CQC rocket launchers as an example. It's not difficult for enemies to barrel around corners and end up right in your face. They can do the same thing a couple steps back and avoid the splash entirely, while still being in CQC. Heck, they can continue to play "rocket launcher primary" against infantry out to medium ranges.

Again, a Heavy with a shotgun has suffered the opportunity cost of no longer carrying an LMG. Shotgun or rocket launcher IS NOT a choice offered to players, it is an addition that shouldn't be viable.


I am interested in roles being stuck to, and cheesy gameplay being removed. The question "should this weapon function this way at all?" must have a resounding yes before asking "What ways can I counter this?"

There are people in this thread trying to blur those 2.

It does, Flak5 will leave you with a tiny bit o health left if you take a direct hit.

still doesn't mitigate direct damage, but the added splash damage would go away. Just don't get hit in the face and you should survive. Bob your head or something.

(I like how this guy posts his killboard and is complaining about the ONE time he got killed on a streak. It's like he's purposely putting a line in the water for us to tug on.)

instead of nerfing rocket launchers, lets nerf Pulsar, your screenshot shows how OP this gun, only rocket launcher can beat it

Planetside 2 is full of bad players.
Bad players will do whatever they can to maintain a 1:1 kd ratio.
Rocket primary gives bad players the best chance to maintain a 1:1 ratio.
Planetside 2 is full of bad players...