Based on the number of negative NS Swarm comments...

Discussion in 'Test Server: Discussion' started by Jolanar, Aug 21, 2015.

  1. Asageh

    I actually can't wait for the NS Swarm, now i'll have a better option for Air hunting than an easily avoidable NS Annihilator.
  2. Jolanar

    At least your Jackhammer is useful.
    • Up x 1
  3. Jolanar

    Can you be a little more specific? I can't tell who you are trying to jeer.
  4. Jolanar

    I promise you - the VS/NC versions will be much better at fulfilling their roles than the fracturesque 'saron/enforcer' will be. Mark my words, TR will be given a ****** version of the Saron with huge CoF incredibly low damage, and will probably be compensated by having 1 or 2 more rounds in the clip...yep, that will fix it.
  5. Jolanar

    P.T.S. Thank you. Enough said. Not all of us speak out of our *****.
    • Up x 1
  6. MasterTater


    Its the old SOE SCAM scheme of printing money from idiots.

    Here is how it work (as already 20 or more times the last 2 years - SO BEWARE:

    • Release of an oveprowered weapon
    • Pay to win for idiots to buy it for 8 Euro to have short term edge
    • Community Forum cries
    • Nerfed to crap after they milked the morons for their money
    • Everything back to the old bull sheit.
    Just my 5 cents from SOE/DBG experience - enjoy to buy and getting pissed upon your investment by nerf - as soon as the sale drops below a certain level (usually 2-3 weeks by a hotfix).
  7. ColonelChingles

    But that's exactly the point. If you want to add something new to PS2, why add in another AV launcher?

    At best the AV launcher is a perfect sidegrade to existing launchers, and it's "meh".
    At worst the AV launcher is extremely UP or OP, and it creates its own set of problems.

    On the other hand an AI launcher would actually be "new" content.

    I don't see anything wrong about that. It instead encourages dynamic gameplay where camping in rooms can be a bad thing (if the grenades and C4 weren't enough of a hint already).

    As I've mentioned in other threads, there should be significant downsides to carrying any rocket launcher, and if implemented these changes would help. For example, HA's should not be able to carry two heavy weapons, a LMG and an RPG, at the same time. So someone armed with this AI rocket launcher would really only have a pistol to fall back on. This would make them vulnerable, and they would have to rely on allies to provide cover for them.

    Reloading should take awhile as well, and resupplying even longer. This would be a "situational" weapon not meant to be spammed, but used in specific instances. Maybe give each rocket a nanite cost and have it be resupplied from a terminal just as how grenades and C4 are (honestly this wouldn't be a bad idea for all infantry rockets).

    As others have mentioned, AI rockets have existed in PS before... no reason why they shouldn't appear in PS2.
  8. Campagne

    They are an instant kill with a direct hit. With flak armor, max rank is required to survive a rocket if at full health.

    They obliterate infantry. :confused:
  9. eldarfalcongravtank

    as a Vanu main, i dont understand why this new launcher was needed. i dont recall anybody ever wanting an NS Striker.

    rather, they should give us a new high-capacity 167-dmg NS LMG, an NS Bullpup Assault Rifle, an NS Recoilless Rifle (high-velocity low-drop projectile), an NS AP mine, an NS bolt-action Sniper, etc. -- those would have been so much better!
    • Up x 2
  10. Campagne

    Another cheap and easy AI explosive weapon would hardly be "new" content. :(

    When one guy can clear out an entire room by himself, the thing is flat out OP. ZOE MAX levels of OP.

    Even if HAs were restricted to a RL and a sidearm, that would only encourage AI RL use.

    PS1 and PS2 are very different beasts. Next I suppose you'll be saying "cut off the second arm for non-TR MAXes?" :p
  11. koopa

    loked onto a vehicle and fired the missile in such a way that a MAX was standing in the path
  12. Demigan

    I wasn't aware it was already on PTS, I'll check the video's out if I can find them and go on the PTS when I've got time. Thanks.

    Doesn't sound too much like a striker. I think the constant LOS requirement is a good thing, and it could be a balance change towards AA lock ons as well. If they change the range at which your lock acquires by reducing it, players will need to aim closer and ESF can actually dodge the lock by sudden direction changes, allowing them to dodge the lock by skill, and allowing the lock-on user to keep the lock with skill in keeping his/her aim up.

    I think that the trade-off should be worth it. It's not as if any tanker has ample of time shooting your head off while you are aiming, or simply driving away for repairs. The only real problem would come from large groups of lock-on users. So having more damage in return for your longer exposure, if you hit everything, is a fair trade.
    I think all lock-on missiles should have similar phisics as a Phoenix, in that you can hit it and cause it to sway off-course. That would make the Kobalt and ES AI a much better choice in infantry combat as well, as you can just shoot the heavy but deal with lock ons as well. (not that I've ever really had problems with lock-ons while tanking, but lots of people seem to think they are a problem so giving them a chance to fight back would hopefully stem the complaints).
  13. Demigan

    At least Peebudy handled my post with info, you are just insulting.

    I checked the first page of the thread and some developer comments here and on reddit, but there was nothing anywhere about it's stats or actual working but it's main features: It can lock, you can adjust it's speed through a variable fire mode. Therefore I took it for granted that people assumed the worst (as they've been doing with the ANT and other things for over a year now).

    So please, stop talking out of your *** yourself. Check how Peebuddy responded to me and learn from him. His approach works, yours doesn't.
  14. Sagabyte

    Why was the swarm needed anyway? Why did DBG decide that there needed to be ANOTHER rocket launcher?
    • Up x 2
  15. Villanuk

    The Devs wonted a pay rise ;)
    • Up x 5
  16. Jolanar

    Instead of responding in kind, I will go ahead and say that you can see the damage of each rocket on the PTS by equipping the weapon in your loadout. Based on that information, you can see that it will do 350 damage per rocket (at current value). You also have a small window in which you can be ADS while not aimed at your target to maintain lock. This allows you to pull off some of the cool javelin-like rocket maneuvers.
    • Up x 1
  17. Citizen H

    The Swarm is everything that's wrong with PS 2 in a perfect microcosm.
    Daybreak's impending shutdown is well deserved. I hope anyone calling the design and marketing shots never work in games again. Art, sound, code? Hope you land on your feet.
  18. Demigan

    As said, Peebuddy already responded with the right info. Also, all damage in the PTS is the infantry damage, it has no information about the weapon specific damage modifiers. These modifiers are extremely important. For instance, the Phoenix deals 750 damage, yet it can put a 3000 health Mosquito to burning in one missile (and a 1410 damage AP Magrider shot can OHK a Mosquito, while the 1135 damage basic dumbfire rocketlauncher sets an ESF to burning as well).

    This is also why Peebuddy's post is better. It gives important information such as how many missiles it takes to take out a Lightning from the front, and how much damage they estimate it does per shot.
  19. Zombo

    erm yes, thats the archer... even if it does **** damage (which an uncharged lancer shot does as well btw) i imagine 20 archer engis on a hill could kill any armor zerg in existence allready, it just doesn't get used due to... i don't know, TRs and NCs inability to exploit cheesy weapons?^^

    i really don't see any reason the swarm would be any kind of a problem, it's basically a beefed up annihilator, which i never see getting used because you can't use it dumb-firing or against maxes
  20. Demigan

    Allright, my breakdown so far:

    The weapon can't be dumbfired.
    It's variable speed does not change it's damage.
    It's required lock (haven't really tested this as I was in VR room, no players on the test server atm) means you are completely vulnerable while firing and maintaining a lock, whereas the other lock-ons are fire-and-forget missiles
    The missile seems to avoid terrain and tries to keep a minimum distance from it, although it has a late response time in avoiding it.
    It is a semi-auto with a slower rate of fire than the Striker.
    I found that even low walls could completely nullify the ability to lock, as I tried this in the VR from the spawn it might have something to do with that, but I have strong feelings that the weapon has a problem with locking on somewhere if there's even the slightest bit of terrain in the way, even when the target is actually in full view.

    The weapon needs 11 shots from behind an MBT to kill it (last two are when it's in burning state). Just FYI, that's a minimum TTK of 12+ seconds, not even counting the RPM, from behind, as if a tank is going to allow that many shots from behind without ever doing anything about it.
    It needs 7 shots to kill one ESF, the Striker can do it with one less reload and no lock-on time (but at closer distances)
    It needs the same amount of shots as the Striker to kill a Valkyrie, although the Striker puts the Valkyrie to a burning state closer to death meaning less time to survive.

    I haven't really been able to see how the weapon works against live targets that might try to dodge, but seeing that you get the chance to dodge anyway, I doubt this weapon will be any real danger. In fact, the disadvantage of having to keep aiming your gun after the lock on and firing your missiles is a massive disadvantage that might make the weapon useless for anything but G2A locks, breaking the weapon before it even hits live.

    I don't know why anyone is concerned at all. It's more a side-grade of the Striker: it offers a bit more range for less damage and longer firing times as well as more exposure and a lack of dumbfire ability. And is there anyone here who is thinking the current Striker is OP...?
    • Up x 1