[Suggestion] Instead of nerfing rocket launchers...

You know with all this whine about nerfing rocket launchers why not just make 2 selections for dumbfire rocket launchers? One specifically for armor and one for dealing with infantry? The armor piercing one will only kill on a direct hit and won't typically kill on splash unless someone is severely wounded but it mauls armor. Opposite for the HE dumbfires. This will add some fun to the HE class with making the appropriate decision on what to use very important.

No. Roket launchers that hurt infantry shuld be removed from teh game.

Things "specifically for infantry" tend not to be very popular.

Either with the infantry or for the users.

infantry ned more ways to defend against enemy tanks. Espescally teh magrider it can strafe and I can't hit it wit my launcher.

The core of the problem is that the same characteristics that you need in the rocketlauncher to counter MAXes (shooting on the move, decent hipfire, great aimed accuracy ect.) is the same that can be abused against infantry - and of course that is what ends up happening, constantly. The bigger and messier the fight the better it works, and in the end you can rake in certs just shooting into hotspots - not even aiming for any particular players. If you nerfed the mobility or accuracy and so on, then it would become weaker against MAXes too. HA rockets are by far the most common counter to MAXes in most situations and MAXes certainly don't need any help.

Personally I think the only real way to handle this would be to make rocketlaunchers not deal fatal damage to uninjured infantry, even on direct hits. You can make whatever lore justification that you want for this (perhaps the warheard detonates when it detects metal and thus only rams infantry), but as long as you can keep one-shotting anyone like that people will keep using it as a primary - and call me old fashioned, but I think rocketlaunchers shouldn't be viable anti-infantry weapons.

I'd actually go the other way on this change they making. Instead of keeping one-shots and nerfing the fairly limited splash it already had - I'd keep the splash and remove the one-shot potential. I feel that softening up a target in cover with some splash is a way more valid use of a rocketlauncher than sniping people with it - or more likely, using it as a pseudo-shotgun in CQC.

-Stigma

If nerfing rocket launchers against infantry makes them less effective against MAXes, the solution seems quite simple: nerf MAXes as well. They're so OP it's not even funny, anyway.

I disagree... rocket launchers are and should be effective anti-personnel tools.

The venerable RPG-7 for instance can be outfitted with fragmentation and thermobaric warheads... explosives which have dubious use against vehicles but are excellent for killing infantry. RPGs after all are "rocket propelled grenades", and grenades are plenty fine to kill infantry with.

What needs to be changed though is that rocket launchers need 1) a much longer reloading and preparation time and 2) extreme risk to the user and nearby friendly forces when used at close-range or inside buildings.

This is what preparing and reloading a rocket should be like in time (though these guys are obviously a lot slower since they're in training):


This is what should happen if you try and use a rocket launcher while surrounded by friendlies:

How old are you? OR, more appropriately, where are you from?

I think it would be better to make it an ammunition type instead of just flipping a switch. That way, they are less of an anti-everything weapon all the time, and instead about specializing. Though, maybe the VS could do something with their technology thing.

I would like this to happen. Sort of like XCOM. You can have two types of rockets: HEAT or Shredder. HEAT dealt more damage to mechanical aliens and disabled some of their abilities, while Shredder dealt more damage to organic aliens and made them take more damage after the attack. More variation is a good thing, rockets are supposed to wreck whatever is in their way. And as for the last clip, that is the harsh reality of war, happening near a country I've lived in for most of my life.

I'd like that Sort of like PS1, only without the crappiness.

The problem I see with this particular suggestion is the effect it will have in anti-MAX purposes. Most fights against MAXs take place at close-range inside buildings. With this change, fighting MAXs would be even more dangerous than it already is.

That's a new one. MAXs had a large nerf a while back. But the point of a MAX is that it is meant to be a superior Infantry unit when supported. MAXs are easy to take down if you are with a friend and know what you are doing. Vehicle grenades do a lot of damage to MAXs and is a 2 shot kill with rockets. 1 C4 usually takes down a max too...

Rockets are fine. Again they have also had a big nerf, or should I say, revamp. The Decimator used to deliver 2000 damage and the stock rocket launcher delivered 1500 damage. Plus it depends on the resistance of the target and the damage type of the weapon.

It can be annoying taking a rocket to the face at point blank, we've all done it at some point. What is annoying however is during an even fire fight you manage to make him force behind cover, you suppress him and he pops up with a last ditch rocket shot straight at you.

There should be a small arming delay, or a small penalty such as not being able to use it whilst moving could be an idea.

Just so players know... rocket launchers deal no splash to vehicles. So its not getting nerfed there at all.

Uhhh... slightly right. Splash is getting reduced, not direct damage from the rocket landing on the target. MAX flak has not and will not protect against direct damage. It differs from regular infantry in that it only protects against splash. So yes its a slight nerf to rockets against MAXs but not if you get direct hits which you should do anyway.

While damage reduction is small, it makes a difference enough that instead of 2 rockets it takes 3 rockets to take down a MAX. See this post.

Answer these two question:
1) In a base fight, which is easier to kill, one AI MAX or one infantryman?
2) In a base fight, which is the easier way to get one kill, using the AI MAX or an infantry class?
I can't believe you can answer "MAX" in both cases and then continue defending them with a straight face. MAXes are stupidly OP crutches for bad players, and the only thing they do is breed poor gameplay.

Bringing realism into the discussion is barking up the wrong tree. In terms of gamedesign it always is. Even in a sim game realism usually can't afford to become the highest priority if you want it to work as a game.

Firstly this is a sci-fi world with completely different rules than reality to start off with. There are too many woefully obvious examples to mention.

Secondly this is a game, and not even a sim at that. Even sims have to adjust their rules to deviate from reality in order to make good games, and more arcadey games have to bend them even further. Even games like Batlefield 4 which at least generally try to mimic reality to a degree are not even close to being "realistic" (and nor should they, or they would have to be a totally different game - or hardly a "game" at all).

So yea, of course a rocket to the face should REALISTICALLY kill infantry. REALISTICALLY a thermobaric warhead would also kill everyone in a room the size of half a biolab... similar ordinance from a tank would level an entire small base. I don't need to specify why it would be bad to follow rules of realism in a game like this do I? A rough adherence to reality and laws of physics is something you try to fit in there as a bonus at the end once game mechanics are fun and reasonably balanced (especially for competitive games).

I don't consider "1) a much longer reloading and preparation time and 2) extreme risk to the user" a good fix for the problem because as I said rocketlaunchers are the primary way to counter MAXes, and MAXes aren't tanks that are big and obvious and have limited mobility in the outdoors to set up a high-risk high-reward shot. MAXes will charge you around corners in cramped indoor spaces. In fact - MAXes are indisputably by far the most powerful in such indoor CQC environments - and you want rocketlaunchers to have reaslistic backlash and friendly-fire potential? Significantly longer equip/setup time would leave you dead before could even ready the weapon to counter a MAX, and even if you did get enough time are you supposed to have to choose between killing all the friendlies in the room or just allow the MAX to slaughter you all? It just doesn't work out.

TLDR: "but in reality..." is never a valid argument for anything in a game unless there are no other conflicting factors.

-Stigma

Thats really weird then, since the changes were only meant to change for infantry and not MAX/vehicle damage.

I'm not even sure how this works, to be honest. If the default dumbfire does ~1135 damage on direct hit and 1000 splash damage, which is also applied on direct hit to infantry units, why MAXes, who are supposed to have only 2000 hp, take barely over half health damage from the dumbfire rocket?

And why does Flak Armor, which is supposed to reduce rocket damage by 50%, makes so little difference (not that I'm against it)?
(picture credit RHINO_MKII)

1) This is a stupid question. What point are you trying to make out of this? Are we saying that I would be the only player doing the killing, or am I with a squad of mates? But in answer to your vague question, yes a single infantryman should be far easier to kill. I know it's easier,

2) Again it's a stupid question with a stupid motif. Which is easier to get 1 kill in a max suit? Well if the target was more than 20m away I would suggest it being easier to kill as an Infantry class. You didn't mention the distance of the target. If you had said, "If the target were 10m away, which would be easier to kill non-max infantry with, MAX or Inf?" Then I could understand, but if the target were 100m away, then a sniper would be appropriate.


MAXs are not crutches for bad players. Only a bad player would see that a MAX is used for bad players, *Ahem*.

Being a MAX you are restricted a hell of a lot. You are slower, tougher and far bigger and you attract the most attention and majority of players would recognise you as the threat on the field of battle, especially in a Biolab.

Secondly as a MAX, never can a player survive long enough to rack up a decent kill streak. MAXs need supporting players in order to get kills. They need ammo, they need repairs as they do not repair them selves however they can get a suit upgrade for this which negates the fact they cannot use another defence ability. They are prone to being bombarded with heavy small arms fire because the shear presence draws players to shoot them.

A good MAX player will always make sure he has infantry support with him when engaging in a fire fight. A good MAX player is not just the one to get lots of kills, but opens up opportunities for his team mates to get kills and objectives by soaking up a lot of fire.

Just so you know it is easy to tell when there is a bad player suited up as MAX. They treat it as if they were as vulnerable as a standard infantry player and constantly take pop shots and spend most of their time behind cover, simply waiting to be farmed.

Also MAXs can upgrade their FLAK armour. This does not mitigate the damage taken to direct explosive hits but mitigates the splash damage. I'm not sure on the mechanic of this. So yes, perhaps it can take 3 rockets, maybe 4 rockets to kill a max, but it is dependent on whether or not they hit directly or land next to them. I have played this game long enough that it is a 2 shot kill with the Shrike to a MAX.

Sorry for double post.

No, that is the Maximum damage within a certain range before a damage drop off to 1 at... *Someone correct me?* 5m.

Remember you need to take resistance into account. MAX's have 80% resistance to small arms fire, and I think there is a resistance to splash damage too, though I'm not sure.