[Suggestion] Dumb fired rocket launchers with no gravity.

Thank you, but balance wise it can't happen:
Suppose you are outnumbered and defending.
If Heavy rockets become consumables, it is possible for a team to completely run out of AV methods:
When outnumbered, turrets will be destroyed; no nanites so no maxes or counter vehicles, and now a trickling supply of AV rockets.
As if being shelled inside a base isn't harsh enough yet.
One class with AV weapons is unaffected: the engineer. Which should not be the last resort for (close-range: inside bases) AV war.
Furthermore, only the HA is affected of the infantry classes. But, their rocket launcher is an integral part of their 'job description'; whether used as AV or anti-max, the heavy brings a solution;
There must be non-nanites AV inside the game
(TBH: the game might be a lot better with faster rockets with faster lock-on time and faster reload, but less damage, and specifically less infantry damage; ta-daa no more rocket primary at point blank range (use a shotgun, dummy/jerk). Say, double velocity (200 m/s instead of 100; halve reload time & lockon, halve damage, double amount of missiles and amount gained from the cert tree.)
Flak armour remains interesting due to protection from all the splash damage; grenades, tank rounds, bulldogs, and still, the occasional missile hit.

Now, additionaly making only half the heavy's job description come with a nanites cost is an issue, in terms of balance with other classes. (the other half is the shield which remains nanites-free)
If you do that, then rezzing someone as a medic should cost nanites. (or the AoE heal/shield)
The engineers ammo supply (or repair and/or turret). Here a nanite-cost might be most appropriate actually: where is all that ammo coming from, what are you using to repair that tank, where you carrying 5 turrets around?
Infiltrator: the cloak I suppose? The LA's jetpack? but LA doesn't have additional job description besides the jet pack.
etc.

The terrible, unusable sights on just about every ordinance in the game is no small problem. Heck, even after its velocity got nerfed, I feel like the Hawk is better for dumbfire, since it has a clear optic rather than rifle sights designed for a weapon with inconsequential drop at 300m...

I'm confused, what makes you think a recoilless rifle is magically immune to gravity, or incapable of firing HE?

You seem to miss the point. Infantry are free and have a mere 7 second down time after death. Tanks have ... varying downtimes that can be up to 9 minutes long. Infantry can spawn for free, tanks require 9 minutes worth of resources. So if you think tanks should have to spend 450 nanites just to spawn and then pay nanites for every round they fire, then obviously it's only fair that infantry have to pay nanites just to spawn on top of paying for ammo, yes?

That's the thin, both sides should have to pay. To grab a tank you pay up front, to use AT missiles you pay as you use them, both sides pay though. As it stands now infantry can spam the ever living **** out of rockets anywhere on the map as long as an engineers there, and even if you kill them they're right back to spamming rockets in 10 seconds. It's common knowledge that in games the more accessible and spammy something is, the weaker it is. That is why I suggested having a launcher that's actually really strong, but costs resources to use. I don't think tankers would have a huge problem with dying to 3 rockets to the front if they knew it cost the enemy 300 resources to do it, y'know? But if rockets are free and can be resupplied anywhere, they can be spammed. If they can be spammed then they are REQUIRED to be weak, otherwise infantry become overpowered.

So basically it boils down to this, would you rather have your free potato gun plinking at that tank, or would you rather have a rocket launcher that will **** him up in two shots, but cost resources? Because that's the dynamic we should have in PS2. If you want something powerful you need to pay for it, free rocket launchers should be garbage simply because they're free. Every sort of force multiplier in the game requires players to pay for it except rockets. Grenades, claymores, c4, anti-tank mines, maxes, tanks, esfs, libs, all these require resources. So why should rockets be the only force multiplier that's free?

Honestly, this game's strategic level would be significantly enhanced if we actually did have a resource cost for every single thing in the game and no sources of infinite ammo (outside of possibly a handful of Vanu weapons).

Since then the game would basically have a full-blown economy.

This is no small task however, since that means we'd likely need some form of RTS layer to manage said economy with and we'd need to define how players interact with the economy at large. For example, would we have commanders who can make sweeping economic decisions, or would we just use a supply/demand system to aggregate the actions of individual players? If we have a chain of command, how do we handle promotions/demotions?

Dumbfired rockets don't have exposure time and they aren't hard countered.

Only if it had awful damage degradation (or similar shortcomings.) Existing pinpoint-accurate long-range AV weapons (lancer, AV turrets, MAX AV) already need to be reduced in power at long range and buffed at short range. Long range things (especially long-range things with pinpoint accuracy and high damage at range) need to be balanced extremely carefully in a massive shooter, and probably just generally shouldn't exist.

Or a low base but a minimal damage falloff.

The entire point of this would be to increase the effective range of a dumbfired rocket launcher.

... do they need that though?
I don't think they do.

Going from Sniper Rifle to rocket was the easiest transition ever for me. OHK still there, and I don't have to worry about holding breath. And what's that? Splash damage you say?

And while they're at it, they could fit gunsights to tanks that don't date back to the late 1800s xD

Well the reason dumbfires work currently is the inherent difficulty in firing a slow-moving projectile with an arc, so they can remain high damage at any range because the difficulty of landing them against distant targets is reasonably high.

If you remove that difficulty then their DPS output has to actually be lower than the Lancer and AV Turret (which deserve to be reduced too, but possibly improved at shorter ranges to keep them viable). Long as you're fight with that, that could work.

F

For one thing it's still going to be difficult to hit vehicles at a range because it would still travel slow enough to see it and then move out of the way before it hits you.

"Their DPS output has to be lower than the lancer and AV turret"

AV turret yeah I agree with that. But the Lancer? The lancer is significantly faster and easier to use than dumbfired rockets are. Regardless of drop off. Since you barely need to lead the target. The rocket would still travel slowly, that won't change at all.

I do not entirely agree that vehicles by definition should overpower infantry; vehicles should be balanced between each other with nanite resources, but for example it is quite hard to "balance" vehicles against a medic.
If your argument goes "well, he picked the wrong class", then the counter is: well, I picked heavy, so I win.

You also mention tanks; what about harassers though? Continually healed, fast moving, pesky harassers..they also take multiple rockets. If your rocket costs 100 nanites, it must one-shot a harrasser, and two-shot a 300-nanites-sundy; otherwise the 'counter' takes more resources than the vehicle. That doesn't take into account any misses. So, tbh, 50 nanites for a 3-shot against a mbt (which can have fire suppresion or smoke, and can be repaired) seems necessary.

Changes that I would like to see/consider for discussion:
-increase sunderer cost to 300 nanites (yes, it is worth at least that much; although the sunderer scales exceptionally well with certain upgrades)
-give co-axial MG to all tanks including lightnings.
-taking dmg stops repair activity for 1s. (time debatable)

-Rockets:
we reduce the damage per rocket. This disables the use of "rocket primary" against enemy infantry. 'advancements in shield technology etc have resulted in remarkable resistance of nanoweave shield technology against traditional AV weapons', or some similar crap.
we increase rockets velocity.
To counter this dps-wise, we increase the number of rockets carried and the reload speed. So, we halve rocket damage, halve reload time and double rocket speed; we also speed up lock-on time. Heavies carry double number of rockets. The rocket pouch upgrade also gives 2 missiles per tier.

we change the lock-on system: you can fire immediately, missile is guided whilst you aim at vehicle, until the lockon is complete, or missile hits something.
We further specialize rockets: anti-air rockets do more damage vs air; less vs ground. Reverse for ground-only missiles.
Rockets vs tanks:
vs front: minimal damage, say it takes 12 rockets. With front armour it takes 16. (remember, we changed rockets, so the number of necessary rockets goes up)
vs side: 1.5-double dmg. 6-8 rockets
vs rear: between triple and quadruple. 3-4 rockets.
What does it mean: the time-to-kill a heavy has against the rear of a tank has halved. Conversely, attacking front armour of an upgraded tank is nearly useless (incoming not-so-humble opinion: as it should be. One possible exeption would be the decimator).
This allows a tank to dominate at range by pointing his front armor.
Regardless, a heavy would stll need to achieve LoS repeatedly; exposing himself. Infantry using 'salvo-fire' remains effective, but should be insufficient from the front. (that said, if you engage a group of heavies and keep missing them.. yeah they're gonna mess up the paint job of your tank)
At the moment, it takes 6-7 rockets from the front to destroy a mbt, 5-6 from the side, and 4 from the rear. This means there actually is not as massive a difference between attacking the front or the rear with an rpg; the difference is less than doubling the damage. By massively increasing the ratio, manoevring becomes extremely important, and tanks can be dominated by infantry at short-medium range, by hitting from the rear, supported by side-shots. This makes driving into a heavily populated base "exiting".
Due to the speed increase, a tank that 'evacuates' by exposing his rear is also very vulnerable. (as it should be)
The 'halving' of rocket damage, countered by faster reload means a 'instant action' hero drop-podding in won't suddenly one-shot 4 tanks with an rpg from behind; doing so would still require C4 or similar risky (and nanites-costing) resources.
Good tank drivers should strive to use terrain to minimize exposure of side and rear armor, and enfore a head-on confrontation.