All shoulder mounted rockets should consume resources

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by dopy7dvs, Jan 6, 2014.

  1. Devrailis

    This is a nerf thread in disguise.

    Is this is what we've been reduced to?

    Now we're nerfing all rockets?
    • Up x 1
  2. FateJH

    I'm surprised no one wants to jump on the fact that no one in this game has shoulder mounted rocket launchers. We either hold them in our hands, braced against our shoulders, or they're attached to our wrists.
    [IMG]
    • Up x 1
  3. Hatesphere

    all flares and smoke should cost resources then, all A2G rockets should also cost resources as well. thoughts?
    • Up x 1
  4. KnightCole

    Not really lol....I can survive 100000x longer in a base as my HA then I do in a tank fighting across a field. Tanks die pretty damn quick.....spawn tank, drive 500m, ESF or Libby will be on scene...



    Id love if Rockets cost resources. ofc id lower the resource cost of other stuff to make it not so herp derp...but yeah, Lolpods and all that should cost resources.

    1 Rocket in a pod costs like 10x16, 160 for a single pod mag? Sounds about right lol. We could add in a seperate resource pool and call it Munitions. With it we buy mines, nades, rockets and I had even thought about bullets to lol.....but meh.
  5. KnightCole


    Because most of the rest of us realize the context its meant and are not being schmucks...
  6. FateJH

    Exactly. Am I not on the Internet anymore?

    Ammo costing resources is fine. So should respawns and rezzes. In fact, there is very little barrier besides reluctance that could stop this game from being a resources nickle and dime mechanics dystopia. The devil is in the details, as alway, trying to figure out how to make it work.
  7. AdmiralArcher

    i have the perfect solution guys!!!!!


    LETS MAKE AMMO FOR RIFLES COST RESOURCES!!!!!

    ITS BRILLANT!!!!!!!


    on a more serious note, RLs are the only way underdog factions can stave off a warpgate, or a complete steamroll by the factions on all 3 maps, if they did cost, it would be around 20 or 10, not enough that people couldnt get them at all if they got warpgated

    (worst case scenario btw)
  8. EmmettLBrown

    Make it so you pay the engineer that drops the pack, and you got yourself a deal, mister!
    • Up x 2
  9. AdmiralArcher

    [IMG]
    the only thing left is SHARKS WITH FRIGGIN LASERS!!!!
  10. bodmans

    First off, these first 2 pages have been filled with extremely constructive posts(also including the poorly formatted and written OP)

    Can we now start seriously talking about this, instead of acting like a bunch of 4 year olds whose toy just got looked angrily at.

    The OP's frustration probably comes forward from lock-on spam. Do you know of ways to reduce the spam of explosives that need almost no aim to deliver their (free) payload? well?
    • Up x 1
  11. Hasteras

    Why are DA players always whinging about vehicles and the people who use them?
    • Up x 1
  12. Rigs

    Ok then ESF have to abide by real physics when flying. That pretty much removes 90% of ESF spam
    • Up x 1
  13. Axehilt


    Resource costs don't fix anything.

    They added a resource cost to MAXes in beta. Guess what? They're still overpowered. Costs do not address the fundamental balance of things.

    If G2A is too strong, then balance it. Don't leave it overpowered and pretend a resource cost is going to change anything, because it won't.

    Honestly I don't think G2A is really all that strong. Maybe a very small reduction is warranted.

    The real change this patch is players' opinion of it. Basically in every (rare) situation where I die to G2A, I would've died last patch too (if the same 4+ enemies were using it; but that's the big difference: last patch fewer players used it.)

    One thing that definitely shouldn't change is the new lock-on design which is precisely the "dangerous in an ambush; weaker at range" design that infantry rockets should have. I like the new design a lot!
  14. Latrodectus

    There should be a resource cost for dumb-*** forum posts to cut down on all the ****** spam.
    • Up x 4
  15. ZeroErrorz

    i tried posting this idea few weeks ago and yea forget it man no one agree on this
  16. DevDevBooday

    I would say his is a dumb post. But he has a point. Why are rockets free when grenades arent? All explosives should either cost resources or be free. Why are grenade launcher shells free whilst hand thrown are expensive? Shouldnt it be the other way around? I think propelled is better than thrown. Same with rockets. Maybe make them more powerful but make them cost 45 resources each? As a heavy, why throw an anti-vehicle grenade which costs resources when I can just fire a rocket propelled higher damage decimator round?

    Plus why all the hate on this post? The only reason I can think is that everyone values rocket spam too much. If you think post dumb, then dont post. Simple. Insulting OP is just a wast of your time and theirs.
    • Up x 2
  17. Phazaar


    I wish people would think of implications.

    Why am I spending 450 resources to get in a tank when I can be just as effective as infantry for free with a 10 second counter and the ability to spawn everywhere, no tech plant requirement etc?

    You're completely failing at understanding the combined arms requires hierarchy, NOT equality.
    • Up x 4
  18. Phazaar

    I would actually like to see the cost of pulling a tank/ESF etc reduced to 0, or maybe 50-100.

    In return, I'd like to see -all- ammo cost resources, as part of the revamp. If you rearm at a base that produces the right type of resource, it won't cost anything, but will also reduce the amount of resource being transported back to base and provided to your empire.

    This way, vehicle spam is controlled just as much as infantry spam; by shots fired, not by number of vehicles or how often you can pull them etc. It adds the concept of ammo conservation, and makes trolly stuff like warpgate camping an expensive habit, as it ought to be.

    We've already proved that the cost of vehicles/respawn timers don't change the 'spam' infantry players feel is coming, nor allow vehicles to be an effective force multiplier. Imho it's time to try a different tact. The number of tanks on the battlefield is largely irrelevant (more is better, if they're not all infinite-shelling HE at my spawn imho - certainly feels more massive); the impact those tanks have is what needs to be brought into question, without making those tanks less fun or frightening.
    • Up x 1
  19. Badname0192



    All lollerpod loads should cost resources. Every time you go to re-arm, per stack, an amount of air resources is taken out.

    Or how about this!

    No to your suggestion.
    • Up x 1
  20. JonboyX

    Typical forum response. If it goes against "my" style of play, then it must be a stupid idea and needs to be roundly condemned.

    I like the idea that rockets should consume resources. It doesn't have to be a lot, but it should be enough so that players use them with consideration rather than just spam them because they are so easy to achieve success with. 25 each maybe? Even making them free and non-refillable from an engineer ammo pack possibly would be a compromise ... so this would favour defenders and those attackers bringing sunderers in... rather than the hilltop campers.


    On a separate note, I disagree that G2A spam is overly prevalent, given that ESFs can simply tank the damage from one or two infantry (or maxes), get a volley of rockets off, and then afterburn away to repair. G2G might be a different kettle of fish as ground vehicles don't have this get out of jail card. Rockets vs. Infantry is just wrong on every level, but I can understand the need for a crutch to make it fun for more people.
    • Up x 2