Ok, Ok, I get it SOE. I will only fight the Vanu.

I said this within an hour of it being released, to me it's obvious that it weren't meant to be a sniper rifle and needed a nerf to infantry damage and buff to vehicle damage. How could the devs not see this, again we need a test server, players will happily do the job for them

Wow...try page three of this thread showing a video of someone ****** from cover...seriously man you want people to hold your hand on how to fire from cover all the while you claim you must stand in the open for it to be effective...now you want people to hold your hand on you youtubing or even watching the videos IN THE THREAD of people owning from cover...If you feel the need to stand out in the open to use the Pheonix then listen to what everyone has told you, "YOU" are the problem, not the Pheonix. I can not figure out if you are trolling or just lack the brain function necessary to listen/research/understand anything people are saying.

That is awesome! I might even come back and play PS2 for a little bit, because that looks fun and ridiculously OP! Finally the NC have got an OP weapon again (it's been too long). I'm hesitant to buy it though, since it will almost certainly be nerfed. Though, I've got no idea how they could nerf it - the thing that's OP is that you can be behind a slight rise, fire over it and hit someone 50m away, while they can't hit you. If you take that away, you're taking away the ability to control it...which is the whole point. Good luck balancing this SOE - it's not like the whole community told you it would OP long before it was released!

I was not referring to rear shots the Striker can hit the front of a Vanguard and leave it with only 100-200 hp in 20 rockets. No other launcher in game can do that, same as not other launcher can kill a sunder in 3 reloads.

If you can finish the first round of Mario Karts on easy mode, you can one-shot kill enemy infantry all day with the Phoenix.
It's also a fine reconnaissance tool to see the composition of forces behind the next cliff side, on top of mountains inside buildings.

Since all factions already had several anti-vehicle options before this ridiculous rocket-launcher release, getting a kill-enemy-infantry-from-complete-safety option makes for a perfect option for back-up of scatter-maxes in more open settings. An armor-hardened instagib weapon with super-sprint for close quarters and an even more overpowered weapons for ranged fighting.

I don't blame NC players for trying to downplay the overpowered nature of this latest addition. You're only human and suffer from completely predictable bias, just as any faction would if they received a similar advantage.

But it does beg the question about what kind of play testing they do in advance of new releases. It takes a 6th grader about 30 min to realize the enormous infantry-killing potential and - not surprisingly - the Phoenix has been adopted heavily as an anti-infantry weapon by the NC.

Either the QA department is consistently overruled by megalomaniac creative directors with too much decision power or their staff are all drooling zombies from The Walking Dead.

Rage is nice, evidence based reasoned arguments is better though, can I change my order to that?

I have a Phoenix and thus, am well aware of what its capable of.

The fact you cannot control the first second or two of its slight and that fact it has a massive turning circle means that you cannot fire it from cover (that is unless the term cover has lost nearly all meaning). You can sometimes fire it over a hill (if your sufficiently far away) or from a building by standing in a doorway. However, I keep seeing people claim as if you can fire it in such a way that puts you in complete defilade.

And so I'm asking them to prove their claims. So far all i've got is 'DURRR YOU IS TEH STUPUID, Y U NO GET IT'. Which is a great argument and all, but if this was really so easy to do and so apparent, and well given the burden of proof is always on a positive argument. Evidence plox. Hell the game even has a recording footage function and uploading to youtube is a doodle, done it a bunch of times in my tech support threads. thus if this claim was true, it would take at most 15 minutes to provide empirical evidence.

So no, not trolling, having a big boy argument, Deal.

As i've pretty sure its little more than incoherent nerd rage from people who are pissy they got killed. Its not the god weapon people are making it out to be.

Your order was changed a while ago, but you just won't pick the damn thing up.

No, you got this video

posted once and quoted several times. In the video you can see someone standing very deep behind excellent cover, with no easy way for the enemy to get to him; he's firing the Phoenix from here and getting kill after kill on people who cannot see him unless they get a jetpack and fly straight up for a few seconds.

This video clearly goes against your claims. The guy is very clearly behind excellent cover and easily killing people with the Phoenix.

I'm NC, so I don't get killed by it. It's not a "godmode" weapon, but it is OP. And I don't think any nerfing (other than making it useless) will change that - it either is guided and can kill people; making it OP, or it is unguided (or minimally guide-able) or can't kill people and is useless.

Ok, fair enough.AS noted though, he's a significant distance away and is firing upon a known position. He's also clearly got the sensitivity to maxium on his aircraft controls, used normally is no where near that manuverable.

He's not behind cover however, he's sitting in an open part of an amp station wall, whats protecting him from fire is not the 'cover' but the distance. That is unless you want to (as I thnik some people do) collapse 'cover' down to not having a complete line of sight, and then equivocate it with all other forms of cover. He's not as people are repeatedly claiming firing from behind cover, as if he was behind a bolder or a wall.

The Obvious solution here to situations like this, is that they need to make the rocket render reliably so flak defence works properly. Likewise, in situations like this, an indication of where the fire is coming from (a la lancer) would also be good.

You have had numerous people from your own faction call you out, you have been given video proof...Your whole argument of "You can not fire it from cover" goes completely against the entire weapons design...No offense man but talking with you about this makes me feel like Im taking a shower in stupid, brushing my teeth with idiocy, shampooing my hair with ignorance, and scrubbing my underparts with senselessness....

Here is the dictionary definition of cover: to hide from sight or knowledge.

The word hasnt changed nor has it ever lost its meaning, you just do not understand plain English apparently...Either way, have fun firing your Pheonix out in the open you will be the only NC who lacks the common sense not to use cover, so thanks for the easy kills.

The videos not behind cover, he's in a open space in a wall in a amp station right at its damn range. Is this an issue, maybe? However, given artillery is coming into the game at some point making it so they have to be equal lines of sight in all cases between shooter and target is moot anyway. But its not the debate we are having. As its not what cover means, you can't collapse all defilade to 'cover' and then equivocate it. Which is what people are doing.

And your definition is a verb..

No.

The obvious solution is that AV weapons have no real AI capability.

I can't imagine the explosion of rage if the Striker could kill Infantry by locking onto them and the Lancer could headshot them for a OHK.

This whole argument is a complete nonsense. We should all be pushing the dev's to nerf the AI capabilities of all AV weapons in this game. The Phoenix should not ever be a viable AI weapon under any circumstances.

So explosive rockets should bounce off people, because.. people don't like dying.

Thats not absurd at all.

Can't say I'm suprised. Been toying with this weapon in VR training and it amazing.

Striker is a beefed up anni. The Glancer is there so you can help BR1s find fights(Holy tracer fire, batman) and as a tutorial for engineers on how to repair.

He is in cover...

Where do you think the military term for cover comes from?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cover_(military) :In military combat, the concept of cover refers to anything which is capable of physically protecting an individual from enemy fire.

So please explain to everyone how being behind obstacles and out of sight was him not being in cover?

If the Lancer hadn't the 3 level charge mechanics and AI damage would be equal to slug shotguns or semi-auto sniper rifles then it would be much better weapon.

It's a simple concept. You would never consider using an AI weapon for AV use, unless you were inexperienced or just not very smart.

The same should apply the other way around.

No, what's protecting him is the giant freaking wall between him and the enemy. At what point does a boulder or wall become cover? How close do you need to be standing to it for it to, according to you, be cover?

It is not simply "not having complete line of sight" it is having ":absolutely no line of sight". The enemy cannot see him and cannot shoot him: he is, by every definition, behind cover from those enemies. He may not be from others, but we're talking about the ones he's shooting at. If you sit behind a boulder, but the enemies are on your side of the boulder, it isn't cover. If they're on the other side of the boulder it's cover. Same for the situation in the video - the giant, thick wall is between him and the enemy, thus it is cover.

Are we watching the same video? There is an enormous wall in front of him. Again, how close does that wall need to be to him for you to count it as "cover"?? And why does distance matter to you?

You summon tanks into existence from magic dinner plates on the floor. Because people don't want to walk
There is a gun that brings a man back from the dead by using green neon lights. Because people don't want to rise from the dead somewhere else.
Ammo packs the size of an iPad carry an infinite number of bullets and missiles. Because people don't want to go back to the magic TV that dispenses equipment.

Thats not absurd at all.

Half the fun of using the weapon is trying to find a location that;

a) limits your exposure as much as possible. Died more to snipers in 2 days than I have in 4 months using this thing.
b) isn't too close that you're unable to control the initial burst to be able to guide it.
c) isn't too far that your missiles decon agonisingly close to their target.
d) is close enough to an ammo source - engineers are unlikely to share your preferred spot to fire this thing.

While it's a somewhat effective infantry killer - quite frankly, I'm better off using my EM6 if I want to kill infantry. It's less effective in an AV role than every other weapon you can purchase for NC. If I really want to kill infantry around a corner, I'll kill many more with a HE Lightning or Vanguard.

PS1 VS weapons:
AI weapons with AV mode.
The Lancer that was useful as AI.


PS2:
AV as AI: C4, default RLs, G2G, G2A, AV MANA turret, AV Phalanx turret, Halberd, Saron, etc.
AI as AV: UB grenade launcher (only as support weapon), Buldog, Fury.