Since I'd saw two idea on the forum, they'd grow in my head and I had to put details and number on them. First idea was about adding reocket launcher that cost nanite but are much more effective than standard rocket launcher. Second idea was to improve rocket launcher against aircraft, in other word : have a better anti-air system that the lock-on system. I think the proximity seeking system is much more effective that lock-on (read : less frustrating for both infantry and airplane). IMO one of the good thing it does is the reduction of the effective range (range where you reliably hit your target) and the extend of the hardcap range (the maximal range your rocket can go). Nanite free ROCKET LAUNCHERDefault (ML-7, Shrike, S1) Proximity seeking (2m) : aircraft and ground vehicles Starting velocity is buffed to 85m/s, projectile no longer accelerate ES G2A (Grounder, Hawk, Nemesis) Direct damage reduced to 725 Splash damage reduced to 250@0,35m - 50@3m (normal splash damage type) Against aircraft, it now deal direct damage Lose the ability to lock-on targets Proximity seeking (8m) : aircraft Starting velocity is buffed to 85m/s, projectile no longer accelerate ES G2G (SKEP, Crow, Hades) Direct damage reduced to 725 Lose the ability to lock-on targets Proximity seeking (8m) : aircraft Starting velocity is buffed to 85m/s, projectile no longer accelerate ES long range (Striker, Phoenix, Lancer) Unchanged (For your information, Striker Proximity seeking range against aircraft is 15m) Anihilator Unchanged NSX Masamune Unchanged Nanite-fee ROCKET LAUNCHER (item slot)They are much more effective than other rocket launcher but carry less ammo, can't refill on ammopack and cost nanites per use. They are the longer range alternative to C4, they trade the instant-kill ability for more range. LA, HA, Engineer and medic can equip these rocket launcher on their item slot. Swarm It's the current decimator, but with 3 rocket per magazine. It has the powerful ability to be able to one clip MBT when hitting the rear but the 3 compulsive shot make this rocket launcher very expensive to use. Can dumbfire, lose the ability to lock targets When fired, it fire all 3 rocket (you can't use only one or two) Direct damage buffed to 975 (rocket launcher damage type) Splash damage buffed to 350@0.35m - 50@5m (normal splash damage type) Velocity is change to the same as decimator Ammo pool is reduced to 3/6/9 (depend on ranks) Each rocket cost 75 nanites Decimator Description say it's the hardest hitting rocket launcher. Now it indeed hit really hard, especially on tank rear. With the current ESF resistance value against C4, it's not a one-shot on direct hit, so I recommend to nerf ESF's resistance to C4 to -210% (from -150%). Direct damage's damage type changed to C4* Cost 75 nanites per rocket Ammo pool reduced to 1/2/3 (depend on ranks) * : Note that unlike C4, it does not ignore armor (so a decimator rocket to a 4000 health lightning will deal 1950 / 2242 / 3900 if it hit the front / side / rear armor).
The Striker mechanic is the way to go for AA. There just isn't time to get a lock for defensive shots, and further reducing lock time would just be broken against A2A aircraft in dogfights. In order for TR to keep something unique, the Striker could maintain an anti-vehicle/infantry explosion and AA launchers could use a flak explosion. Lately I'm thinking rocket damage needs to be tied to range. That way infantry could wreck armor in close quarters without dominating out in the open. The Striker still needs a nerf of some sort. Its damage is spot on, but it a smaller detection range and some serious drop past 300m.
For Rocketlaunchers, I would actually just keep the current weaksauce free weapons and add new resource-costing one's, instead of revamping current weapons into utility-slot one's. For the A2A launcher I would stay away from the 8m coyote/flak warheads, I would rather keep the 2m or less you proposed for the standard launchers and increase the muzzle velocity. That way it's less trying to get the missile somewhere close and pray the aircraft doesn't use it's superior speed to avoid it (if only by accident), and more the skill of the player to shoot the missile close enough to get it to lock. I would also add other launcher types besides the one's you mentioned: Laser-guided flak/coyote warhead. Guide it to the aircraft for a hit, to prevent the near-misses you see with AP rounds for example it has a small flak/coyote range. Warhead damage wouldn't OHK. The reload speed, magazine size and fire rate would be high enough for the user to kill the aircraft before it gets away. The missile has an invisible lock-on angle that doesn't help guide the missile, but should an aircraft use flares while in the lock-on angle then the missile's laser-guidance stops working for the duration of the flare/aircraft in the angle. Possible alteration to the warhead: Forwardsbursting Flak Projectile (FFP). Once the flak-mechanic activates, the missile will explode and send pellets in a shotgun pattern forwards. Aiming more to the center of the aircraft means more pellets hit and more damage, further rewarding skill. Quick-lock warhead. Has a lower acquisition time, can be locked on before firing, can be locked on after firing, can be locked on after a lock is broken, needs to maintain the lock throughout the missile's flight, has a smaller lock-on cone meaning you need to aim closer to the aircraft's center for a lock. I wouldn't restrict this to rocketlaunchers either. Add grenade launchers, powerful deployable shields, specialty guns, generators that disrupt view the farther away you are and more to the utility slot for a true variety of choice that could also add some more class-specific abilities and choices.
Lets just make lock-ons insta lock aircraft and do 3 to 4 times the damage they do now. ESF should be a OHK for any rocket.
I like this idea, no more hovering. Now you have to plan your attack and escape beforehand. You can still kill flanking armour with impunity but to strike them in the middle of the zerg, you need to observe and plan now, and act like real strike crafts. Like this starting at t=35 Not to mention that added benefit of having flares as must now. Fire supression is no longer as OP and a must. If I don't want to fight an enemy esf, I can just run into my zerg and the strikers and now super strong lockon can finish them off for me even faster now.
What did they do to FS? It's been needing a nerf as long as I've been here. 25%+ HP is just ridiculous when compared to the other options and other vehicles.
Nothing? I'm just stating what would happen if pilots were actually scared of lock-ons now with silken's suggestion. Just like how everyone gravitated toward stealth when ER became a free default. Now everyone have to be scared of not only strikers but also normal lockons, why wouldn't you run flares. Skyknight can still have their fun skyduels with the benefit of FS up in the air. But to affect battles, you can no longer just hover and spam; so less braindead hovering A2G and less complaining from the ground troops.
I still hate the mechanic. Popping a flare lets you farm away for 7-8 seconds against lock-ons, more than enough time to kill anything. I think something with the Striker mechanic but with a little better than Swarm turning ability is the way to go, and flares could be ammo-based and limit that tracking speed and lock on range for 1 second. The pilot wouldn't get a free pass against missiles and would have to time a maneuver with flares, long range missile shots would be hard, but short range missile shots against ground farmers would be quick. Let 2 missiles burn through full health plus FS. That would be engaging and fun for ground and air.
@Halkesh (post#1): Being a Striker user I can tell you that you'll need more than one missile to be able to hit any aircraft that follows an unpredictable path. As most rocket launchers use just 1 missile your idea won't work in most cases vs ESFs. If I'm not wrong on this your missiles would also be incredibly slow and thus easy to dodge. You also didn't make it clear if and how ballistic those RPGs would then be, especially the Decimator. That's relevant to know to judge how capable that idea is for countering aircraft compared to the Striker or flak turrets. Generally speaking: With the current game design you do need a lock-on capable launcher at long ranges to at least have the chance to hit anything at that distance. That's why lock-on missiles are usually quite fast: they acknowledge this. If that's no longer the case or the damage against vehicles / aircraft would be reduced on longer ranges than it'd be only fair to also reduce the damage they then deal to their targets. That'd only work if infantry was always capable of actually reaching the chosen vehicle but even light assault infantry has trouble with that at times. But maybe infantry rocket launcher ammo should be taxed with something between 2-5 nanites per reload, depending on the damage: -2 per Annihilator shot reloaded -3 for the generic rocket launcher that is unlocked right from the start but can't lock-on onto anything per reload -4 for all the other rocket launchers except the Decimator which is 5 nanites per shot reloaded Imo the Decimator should also reload faster (still the slowest of them all but just not THAT slow) as I feel like the reload time was only assigned by looking at the potential damage it could cause while ignoring how slow and ballistic the projectile is compared to the other rocket launchers. This actually makes sense which is surprising as it was the idea pickup of a rage post. They should just scrap the ESFs instead and add proper jets and helicopters for AA and AG roles that people actually know how to handle from other games as the ESFs are more of a curse to the game than of value to it. Those should cost between 100 - 250 nanites with helicopters being 2 player aircraft for full potential, in return they're slower but also more durable, so that it's not such a big deal if one gets destroyed. Jets could be an AA fighter, a fighter / bomber mix and a bomber, a thing not present in current PS2. Helicopters would get the role of fire support based AA units that can make use of the terrain better than fast jets that can't slow down below a certain speed without beginning to face the ground due to the lack of speed. Due to the lack of landing runways air pads would need to get some holding beam for jets to connect to to land on them and refill that also propel them upon starting.
It look like an interesting idea, but if the muzzle velocity is increase by a lot I fear G2A launcher will be more effective than default and G2G launcher against non-air targets. We should think about a system that separate dumbfire made against air (fast rocket) and dumbfire made against non-air targets (standard speed rocket). For your concept on laser-guided flak / coyote warhead, I think I misinterpreted a part. What's the point to not OHK but still have 100% chance to kill it ? That's sadistic. Unless you mean the heavy have a chance to kill the ESF before it get away (something like the lancer ?) For the FFP, I'd rather have these on a vehicle topgun. A hybrid AI/AA weapon ? Something like the caniester but that use flak splash instead of normal splash. (I know you speak about a rocket than shot pellet, not a canon that shot pellet). I'd wish I could have a mini-skyshield on my medic.
I don't understand your concern about ballistic. If that may help you, you can see the current rocket speed here. Basically, I just proposed to remove the acceleration mechanic so the rocket are easier to hit past 50m (85m/s is the max speed of the default rocket launcher). I agree that 85m/s if way too slow to hit ESF, but then we have to think of a way to not make G2A rocket launcher more effective than G2G rocket launcher because of the high projectile speed. IMO most lock-on (if not all) should be removed and infantry should be given the tools to hit / damage / destroy both altitude stationary target (sleeping galaxy on top of the cap point) and high speed target at low altitude (such as rocketpods ESF). High speed target at high altitude (A2A ESF) should be outside of the effective range. (aka : you can hit them but not reliably). I don't understand why you'd put nanite cost on standard rocket. Neither I understand why the price is so low as it act as placebo. (including refire time of 0,3sec, the default RL have a 3.73 sec reload time. So it cost 48 nanite per min to fire endlessly). Decimator is about alpha damage, if you increase it's DPS, the default RL will be even more useless (it have 25% more DPS than decimator but decimator is still preferred). That 100-250 nanite helicopter you're looking for strangely look like the Valkyrie.
From http://planetside.wikia.com/wiki/Rocket_Launchers: Projectile velocity Striker: 220 m/s G2A launchers: 100 m/s G2G launchers: 115 m/s In case that data is correct your 85 m/s rockets would be slower at max speed than before with 100 to 115 m/s despite the lock-on being removed then. It's weird that you want to add proximity based projectiles but then start with 85 m/s opposed to the 220 m/s that the Striker uses and that for rocket launchers that have only 1 projectile instead of 6 weaker ones, granting not only the chance to miss but to miss entirely. Projectile ballistics are a relevant part of the rocket launcher package at the point dumbfire comes into play. I don't think single ammo rocket launchers can be made to fit a G2A role with proximity projectiles that are either too slow or too ballistic. It's a mess of fiddling with everything just right to make that concept work. The exact issues the Striker ran into. The suggestion with putting the mentioned prices on rocket launcher ammo was directed at the current rocket launcher designs of the game with which I'm somewhat content. Increasing the amount of rocket launcher ammo was necessary and the right thing to do but I also see the rocket spam due to that. So I thought about putting a minor price tag on the rocket launcher ammo to slow down resource regen so that a person can't go C4 / AV mine some vehicles, then use a rocket launcher for free and after all enemy vehicles are defeated go pull an MBT and roll in their base. It's intended to be so low that one who sticks to the tool can keep using it.
Reduced damage, perhaps allow the missile to be shot down, utilities on ground units to disrupt these type of weapons (use space or Ctrl to use them), that could work. What do you understand now then? Ofcourse I mean there's a chance to kill the ESF before it gets away. Since there is now more of a skill level between leading+guiding the missile(s) to the aircraft and the aircraft being able to dodge the missile(s) it means there's a more fair playingfield between the two. The missile launcher (which doesn't need to be a Heavy, it could be a vehicle-mounted weapon just as well) needs to lead the target (due to the missile not having wonderful turn rates) but can adjust it's path in-flight for higher accuracy while the aircraft gets to use it's speed&maneuverability to actually dodge the missile. The biggest problem at that point becomes the difference between ESF and larger aircraft. If a missile can hit an ESF with some reliability then the missile will definitely hit any other aircraft, meaning you need to give them a reduced damage profile against these aircraft to make sure they have the option for guaranteed escape which is the exact problem we have now. But a missile not able to reliably hit an ESF would be useless against ESF. The solution is to add something like the Swarm (I think it was the Swarm), where the player can adjust the missile's muzzle-velocity. In this case it would also adjust the damage profile it has against aircraft. Slow muzzle velocity (and possibly also slow turn-rates) would deal good damage against large aircraft (because of the warhead being able to do something specific in that time or something) while high velocity would deal less damage against large aircraft but the same against ESF as before. A canon then shot pellet is fine. And all these weapons could be placed both on infantry and tanks. In fact I would encourage it to have these options on vehicles. Even better, I would give some vehicles like Lightnings and MBT's a standard light AA gun that uses some of these principles. The goal would be to give a vehicle a chance to fight back, not to guarantee that a vehicle or group of vehicles can ward off enemy aircraft without G2A support. This would be fair, since aircraft already can survive any engagement with ground units even if they are completely not prepared for the engagement with the wrong loadout, while vehicles are required to have a specific AA loadout to even begin damaging them and then all they get is a deterrent... Yes! Medics should have been the shield-guys to begin with. It makes sense for their abilities, it gives them an ability that is both good for the team and good for themselves in combat and during their revive/health jobs. The Engineer already had enough toys at his disposal and since it makes a lot less sense for him to deploy shields during his job you barely see them (besides that deployable shields currently suck, players should simply be able to walk/drive through them and you should have a generator on one end that keeps the shield alive which can be destroyed in a flank).
Those speed are the max speed, initial speed is 50 m/s for G2A (and G2G) and striker is 50-60 m/s. I do agree that 85m/s is way too slow for chasing aircraft, but it's good enough against non-air target. I'd think a medium speed with larget proximity seeking radius will solve the problem, but now I prefer Demigan's idea (smaller proximity seeking radius coupled with higher speed). The advantage of the only one proximity rocket is the huge alpha damage that put a democles sword on the top of aircraft : since a few bullets + one rocket mean death, just shooting at them with primary will be enough to make them run away to avoid being one-shot by a rocket. See that kind of rocket like Lancer : you will miss a lot of your shot but when you hit ESF, you destroy them (if softened by ally) or make them burn. Striker on the other hand is easier to hit since mainly because of its huge 15 meter proximity seeking coupled with high velocity, multiples rocket feature is the cherry on the cake. I quoted the part i didn't understood right after the message and you already answered it. Hush... you'll summon ColonelChingles and his crazy idea about tanks. Reduced damage and rocket-parry don't change the fast that these rocket would be far too easier to hit with such high velocity. I would prefer your idea of alternate fire (standard rocket or high speed rocket) Or a 0 sec lock-on (ignore stealth) that is only used to buff the move speed (the locked rocket won't track it's target, you still have to lead). I like that idea, saddly I can bring nothing to improve it. ^^ Something like the basilisk on the default loadout that everyone trade for something more specialized ? About engineer's shield I can't agree more (I would just add a small health bar on that shield generator)
Don't worry, Chingles has blocked all of my posts because apparently he couldn't handle me writing about how much advantages tanks actually get compared to infantry and how ludicrous it would be to give real-world tank power to the in-game tanks that cost the equivalent of only 300 dollars. How about this: Similar to aircraft every missile has an altitude meter, and if it's too close to the ground it's velocity will be low and it won't be guided. Lore-wise it's because it's an A2A missile and the ground messes up the guidance or something. This way you can still dumbfire it at ground units but without the velocity and guidance. You can then introduce a G2G launcher with similar capabilities but even lower missile-agility for ground work. Something more like a tertiary gun under the control of the driver, with only two or three shots per magazine. All shots hit and you've dealt say 60 to 75% damage to an aircraft, but unless the aircraft is hovering about that's going to be tough to pull off. During the reload the aircraft has time to act. Basilisks don't offer a chance to finish off the aircraft, they are operated from a seperate seat and disadvantage you in most fights that endanger you (tank vs tank battles mostly). That's some of the main problems with keeping the Basilisk, and why most vehicles will be screwed when aircraft arrive. Hell, even if you equip a dedicated G2A weapon on top of your tank then you still have a deterrent that aircraft can escape from! Yes!
If we're still speaking about a dumbfire rocket, I don't like that idea of a projectile that change speed mid-air as it make aiming harder. But that's a good idea if it's used for your rocket launcher where you can lock your target while the rocket is mid-air : slow rocket unless something is locked. I definitely prefer your rocket launcher with alternate fire that allow it to fire slow and fast rocket. What do you think of my idea on the 0sec lock on ? "0 sec lock-on (ignore stealth) that is only used to buff the move speed (the locked rocket won't track it's target, you still have to lead)." 60 to 75% ? Do you mean these tertiary gun will be more effective than the dedicated AA weapons ? The bad thing is your idea will make this tertiary gun more effective as the current dedicated AA gun. I like that idea but I don't think it will see the day as long as the G2A weapons are completely reworked.
So it's basically still a laser-guided missile, but once it locks on it will have increased velocity? Shouldn't the lock-on angle be pretty big then to ensure you can lead the target without the missile going a snails pace? 60 to 75% if they hit. And yes, the goal is to start introducing G2A weapons that aren't deterrents, and moving away from the sickeningly bad deterrents we have now.
No, it's a dumbfire. If nothing is locked it fire a slow rocket, if a airplane is locked it fire a fast rocket (even if you shot the rocket at a MAX). Lock-on angle could be improved to be sure to lock airplane quickly even at close range, but it's the lock-on loose time that is relevant to lead the target and must be buffed. (currently I think it's 0,75 sec)
It's not. I wish people would stop using PS wiki. It's useless and outdated on a good day, and flat out misleading and factually wrong on a bad one. For Striker, you can find average velocity and travel time here: http://iridar.net/rocket-launchers/#T2_Striker I got these numbers by fairly precise in-game testing. I don't have numbers for locked-on missiles of lock-on launchers, but they are as unpredictable as for Striker.
I have always wanted c4 to be replaced with a LAW (single shot rocket) that costs nanites. I think it would be cooler. Though I also thing the Heavy assault should have been split between Assault class and Heavy class. Where the assault has the LMG, and the heavy has carbines and ammo type rockets. In this pipedream only engineers get c4. And maybe it has an actual set up time/animation. Or maybe there is c4, and then a shape charge, one is AOE, one is AV to what it's stuck to. Idk. I'm a dreamer.
