[Video] The "Rocket Primary". Something needs to change.

You think a person isn't facing a challenge based on a weapon they use. It is classic JEM mentality. Only you are allowed to decide what is allowable.

I'm sorry that the JEM motto hurts. It hurts my 12 year old son too, but deep down inside, he knows I'm right. In his case he bucks up and takes it on. What do you do?

Gonna get hurt bad is not enough, you SHOULD DIE when you hit someone that close. If you are in a duel gunfight then you just going to hurt as bad, except this time you are guaranteed to win.

I'm ok with that. But not for the reason you give. Your reason is arbitrary, deciding that the other guy will score hits in a gun duel. I'm OK with your thought because of the HE load going off in close proximity. I hope you see the Gamer Logic vs. JEM there.

Pure "play the game as it is" would leave us with no forum space for feedback on balance. That may be fine with you but personally I think people take genuine issue with weapon balance in games, given that bad balance restricts viable choices, damages teamwork, or plain ruins fun.

If you do think it's okay for feedback about gameplay then you appear very selective about when it's okay.


The overwhelming majority of my deaths, unsurprisingly, are not from RLs. Despite what you appear convinced of I'm not listing weapons that have killed me too much. Seeing the RL used against infantry at all is the problem, no matter who gets hit.


At this point your posts are beyond any reasonable debate (and they were sketchy to start with). All I see is condescension, some conjecture on people getting annoyed about anything that kills them and a conspiracy theory about who's pulling SOE's purse strings.

The RL does not fill a role outside that intended. If you believed this thread you would think it a top notch infantry killing machine. It is not. It is slow and cumbersome and the weapon user is easily killed. That is how the weapon is balanced. Stop asking for it to be balanced as though you were playing a dual!

ps: I'd love to know how many of my sniper's kills are made up of Heavies with a RL on their shoulder. A sizeable chunk, I am sure.

There is no mystery as to the failure to communicate. It is old school gamer vs modern JEM gamer. The old school gamer works with what they have. The JEM gamer screams until they get what they want. Both concepts are totally foreign to the other, but the JEM gamer has a much better chance of eventually becoming old school than vice versa.

In the end, there's nothing wrong with either view. Game devs choose what they want to offer. Simple economics decides whether or not they made the right choice.

Okay, lets take another example. UBGL, last I used it I could 1HK enemies with it, even when they were behind cover (something a rocket primary can't really do, they can only slash. Additionally an engie or LA can have one of those *AND* a carbine, same as a shotgun LA can switch to C4 and still have a shotgun, same as everybody has frag grenades.

Also, an ifiltrator can use his sniper rifle at point blank range (some are even designed for that with 1.35 iron sights) without having to worry about being damaged by their own splash. Something a heavy always risks. The same goes for every class except infiltrators who are armed with a shotgun.

If they made it so that the faction lock-on launchers couldn't be dumbfired, like the Annihilator and Striker then whilst you would have less rocket spam you'd cripple every heavy out there. Most of my infantry kills with lock on lanucher have been from cornering to shoot at a tank/aircraft only to find enemy infantry right in front of me. My options are fire the rocket and hope for a kill (I could miss) or try to change weapons. With tyhe TTK in this game being so short I'd be dead before my LMG was in my hands, let alone ready to fire.

I'm tired of this high risk vs high reward argument that I/we have broken so many times. If you know how to position yourself correctly via using cover (hard right?) there is very little to no risk involved in using rockets in close quarters. Strafe in a doorway, shoot rocket, strafe out of the doorway and either reload or switch to your LMG. There is risk if you don't know how to use cover effectively, or if you are in the middle of trying to kill a max/tank and an infantry player jumps you. So, yes if you're bad it is high risk, if you have common sense it isn't high risk. Also, as stated where is the risk if you meet a guy in melee range and rocket him, he dies and you don't. Risk? Now if using a rocket launcher and hitting a guy at point blank range would kill both players, then I would give your high risk vs high reward another point, but it doesn't.

This is rich. Give NC the undisputed best shotgun with the best range (not including slugs) and he wants to supplement it with a weapon (rocket launcher) that has a bit more range to it, yet with your post in the other thread you say rocket launchers are bad at range.

There is this important aspect to game design. One that is especially crucial for PvP and competitive games. That term is called balance.

They are bad at range unless you're firing at a fixed target, but they have a longer effective range than the Jackhammer. Plus this is a biolab - there's no ranges in there long enough to where the rocket launcher would stop being effective.

It is balanced. It is not OP. You may consider it a cheese tactic, but since a rocket launcher is NOT better than an MG over all for dealing with infantry, it's not OP.

I don't understand why suddenly out of the blue, people are complaining about something that is the exact same weapon as it was at launch.

this is mustarde yes? the same mustarde who pushed as hard as he could for sniper rifles to ignore nanoweave so his headshots could OHK?

I smell hypocrisy.

That the game all of the nerfers play. Nerf the other guy, strengthen themselves. "Skill"

If I were simply against all OHK weapons (except sniper rifles), then yes, you would be correct. But I am not against OHK weapons. Last night I finished the uppercut auraxium and have come to the conclusion that I like the current balance of shotguns (the rumored damage buffs floating around PTS patch notes are very unnecessary however). However, things that can be spammed and abused with low risk such as the old UBGL and current dumbfire rockets degrade the infantry gameplay experience.

And while my solution is to remove the OHK ability of rockets, the real problem comes from taking a very powerful weapon designed against maxes and vehicles and allowing them to be spammed from safety into infantry targets with instant kill and very little recourse. I think it's poor design, and is causing players to take the easy route in combat, starting each engagement with a rocket salvo in hopes of a quick kill. The number of players using a rocket launcher as their primary weapon is growing on Mattherson at least, and it is ruining an otherwise fun combat experience.

Yes, I know some people still hate snipers. Frankly, we've never been more powerful than we are now (infiltrators in general). Outside of some bug fixes, our non-sniper weapons have been buffed repeatedly to the point where they are all pretty good, and I don't think the devs need to give us any more love for a long time. The nanoweave changes were sorely needed and the game (in my opinion) is much better off for it. But that is not really germaine to the thread, except that someone thinks I'm a hypocrite for having an opinion about something not infiltrator related.

Lately I've been getting auraxium on some LMG's, carbines and AR's, and have developed a much broader understanding of other infantry classes. That's where I am developing some opinions on game balance on classes outside of infilrator. But no, I like your idea that I just want to buff myself

The marble-trading mentality is...odd. I want this, and will give up this. This marble has more blue in it, so let's color this one blue too, this marble is too big, so it goes out of the pile...

Jeez, if you're such a player, then play. They're marbles. That's enough to know.

Or, go the way of the JEM nerfer. I can't see how it is rewarding, but I'm older now, and must admit I don't understand the youth of today.

The problem I have with this is punishing a large portion of the players balance a min/max type of playstyle. From my own experience I will run into a Rocket death once or twice in a 4-5 hour session. Something that irritates you may seem more prevalent then it really is. If we look at kill boards I don't really see it at all.

I do take it into account, however, my view of 'roles' is not so narrow that I demand a thing only be effective at one thing or another. I deny that the rocket ought to be solely AV, and that's a legitimate matter of opinion, but my claim here is that it's nowhere near over-effective for the current role it has at killing infantry, due its massive limits in accuracy, reload time, travel velocity, and Flak negation. I think these downsides are far enough to compensate for its ability to one hit kill infantry already, which there are much better things for at every range available to the average infantryman.

Like I said, what I think we have here is a legitimate difference of opinion, but it has astounded and disgusted me, personally, that so many have taken up the--in my mind silly--banner of changing the rocket launcher to be worse against infantry.
I mean, look at global stats for the rocket launcher, there's nothing exactly damning or outstanding about it, it doesn't get kills anywhere near as often as an LMG or shotgun (when factoring in all time).

The stats aren't very helpful since most players have their rockets out to kill vehicles or maxes. However when I had my ML-7 out killing infantry I was able to maintain nearly 80 KPH. One stat alone doesn't mean much, except to illustrate that there are huge gaps in the stats based on how a player is using their rocket launcher

It is all about gaming philosophy. One side of this "issue", the ones that think nothing is wrong, prefer to face their challenges in game. The other side of this "issue" the ones that think something is wrong, prefer to face their challenges in forum. Neither will ever understand the other.

The only solution? The game developers need to make weapon values based on an immutable law of Auraxis physics (whatever that may be), and then insist both styles of player (in-game and in-forum), suck it up. The problem? The in-game players will suck it up. The in-forum players may or may not, making the risk of losing money on the next shiny thing too great.

What does it mean? The in-game player will always lose to the in-forum player. The fruits of being a more mature player. We truly live in the dark age of gaming.

Auraxis physics? Great! In Planetside 1, rockets did not kill in one hit.

Planetside 1 was set on Auraxis.

Planetside 2 is set on Auraxis.

Planetside 2 rockets should not kill in one hit.

But seriously, think real hard before you post and maybe you'll understand how ridiculous you are.

I can't be the only one who thought this, right?



I'll just let myself out....