Rocket Launcher Primary needs to go

What if the Striker could be Dumb fired ? I'm sure all the TR HA's would be fine with that....the rest of us not soo much
and that's why it can't be used that way. It's not about Realism or logic it's about game balance.

If any other class but HA's had access to RL's this would be such a different story

Not just that, but the official in-game descriptions encourage you to use them against infantry.

The TR ML-7's description says: "The ML-7 Launches unguided rockets that are effective against both infantry and armor."

The NC Shrike's description reads: "The Shrike is an unguided missile launcher, equipped with high-explosive warheads and has both anti-personnel and anti-armor capabilities."

The VS S1's description states: "Equipped with high-explosive warheads, the Solar-1 is proficient against both infantry and armor"

So at the very least rocket launchers seem designed to be used against infantry and armor... at least going by what the game itself says.

I have gotten pretty lucky shots just lobbing rockets out a window, but it's nothing really to brag about. I also pull out my rocket launcher when my squad has set up a firing line looking at choke points or doorways. I figure in those cases there are already enough rifles trained at the door, so I might as well throw in an explosive in case it's a group or if there's a MAX amongst them.

The default rocket launchers get around 20-21 kills per hour on average (the Decimator gets 28). On the whole that's better than a few carbines, but still less effective than an assault rifle, LMG, or SMG.

I expect someone just read the damage values and wrote that. Now SOE are rethinking whether it's desirable to have indoors rocket spam.

What's best for weapon balance and gameplay should dictate what the tool tips say, not the other way around.

Really, it would be rather stubborn to never change weapon balance because it would mean altering the tool tips.


I think it's reasonable to say that rocket launchers were put in the game because infantry should be able to fight vehicles somewhat, and it happens to work out well against MAXes too.

Thread is a complete fail. Dumb fire rockets are the most uncommon causes of deaths in this game due simply to the fact a Shotgun is FAR better at infantry killing up close and rockets are cake to dodge at past 15m.. I die more to fall damage or friendly fire then rockets.

Shotguns, Libs guns, Tank shells, Rocket Pods, LMG's, Sniper Rifles and mines kill far more infantry on a daily basis. The crossbow and Commissionaire kill more infantry then rockets.

In fact I can't think of a single weapon type or infantry death that kills me less then rockets.

Maybe the skyguard kills less infantry then rockets? LMAO

I'm not sure if that's correct. I expect that SOE does put some thought into the weapon descriptions, to give players an idea of what they're supposed to do (apart from looking at the stats).

For example, most of the infantry small arms give hints as to what ranges or roles those weapons are best used at. I'd imagine that it's much more than some random intern typing them up... it's all part of the weapon design process.

After all if SOE didn't intend the rocket launchers to be effective against infantry, they could have introduced them in a heavily nerfed state. Infantry have different resists than MAXes or vehicles, so it would be easy to just give high resistance to infantry and not MAXes or vehicles.

Instead they released it as a possible anti-infantry weapon, and labeled it as such. Those resist values don't just magically appear... someone put thought into them and made a conscious choice to make rocket launchers have anti-personnel capabilities.

Now of course SOE is always free to change their minds on it, and as the Higby tweet suggests they probably have. But to say that it was introduced as something that was unintended to be used against infantry is probably incorrect.

Fair enough.

Though my point isn't that SOE never expected a single rocket to be fired in the direction of infantry. I'm saying it's beyond reasonable doubt that the design goal was to deal with tanks and, maybe, MAXs.

Beyond that we're really just guessing. However, I think it's a likely scenario that they didn't expect the rocket spam we have today (as happens when most weapons end up being used in ways they weren't supposed to). When AV damage values are set against infantry it's probably high not to encourage people to shoot infantry, but because it's some sort of powerful explosive and they didn't think it'd mess anything up. They've spent some time backtracking that on a number of weapons - even Coyotes had their CoF reduced IIRC.

I would like to think tool tips are a reflection of design goals. But to me they just look like an interpretation of the weapon stats (including ranges) highlighting a whole bunch of positives, even if they're not major ones, to try to get people to buy them. Some of it is guidance, some is just making it sound appealing.

I said this in another "NERF RL PRIMARY Q_Q" thread, but was told that the descriptions should be changed by someone apparently more well-informed than SOE, the developers of this game. Its obvious SOE intended RLs to be used against infantry, but people will say whatever they want to try and get their way. The sad thing is... they just might.

Good stuff.

• Descriptions should never change, even if it means leaving the weapon in a state that is detrimental to gameplay
• Decisions are made on the best interests of gameplay, and the descriptions sometimes have to be updated

Which sounds unreasonable to you?

You don't change a anti-infantry weapon to not hurt infantry because of forum whines. You balance it so the risks and rewards are equal in it's role of dispatching infantry. Such as limiting ammo, adding LONG reload times, adding LONG equip times, offering no attachments for that weapon and having a velocity so slow that a snail could dodge a rocket past 20m with barely any effort.

In the time it takes to reload a rocket you will die, in the time it takes to switch to a rocket you will die, in the time it takes for a rocket to reach a player 20m+ away he has plenty of time to take 2 steps to the right or left and you will die. If you meet a shotgun user within 10m you will die. If you meet a heavy or infiltrator with a shield up you will die while reloading your second rocket and the list goes on and on.

Fact is players die more to suicides, fall damage and friendly fire then rockets. The only thing in this game that kills less infantry then a rocket is the skyguard lol

Detrimental? Forgive me if I am wrong, but don't you get killed significantly more often by just about everything else in the game? Technically, by this logic, aren't snipers also "detrimental to gameplay"? What about skilled Lib pilots? Are they also "detrimental to gameplay"?

Do you get it? This is your opinion. SOE clearly has there own. Since they develop the game, they make the rules. Yeah changing the description is a route they can take if they end up going through with this nerf. Honestly, this nerf would not make a bit of difference for me, consider I rarely pull out my RL for more than a vehicle or a MAX. The reason I am fighting it now is because of the reason some people want it changed.

Imo, that kind of "reasoning" is poisonous for this game.

Exactly.

This is why it's nice to note what the descriptions say but, ultimately, it is not going to influence the debate either way. And nor should it.


Many reasons have been given in favor of changing rocket launchers but I don't think any of them have been based on kill count. That's not the only thing that matters.

You disagree with me, that's fine. Everyone has their opinion.

There's no risk in reloading behind cover, with friendlies around you to protect you.

I'd love to continue balancing the RL to have more usability drawbacks but people have pointed out that it would hinder their ability to fight MAXes.

You are completely right. Nerf one of the LEAST caused ways to die? Makes no sense. I dont get these whiners.

No one has ever said Change the damage done to MAX's, JUST Infantry.

And this isn't a minor issues, what do we have at least three threads running on this?

It's a crutch, if it wasn't there wouldn't be so many people trying to defend it.

See, thing is, SOE made that description with the function in mind. That is why that description is important to this argument. Also, the risk of EVERYTHING in this game is reduced with numbers. How is that a valid counter-point for this?

This is the same kind of argument that was being used when the people were against the OSK nanoweave change for Snipers several months back. They ignored the fact that snipers did not have a huge influence on the game, as a whole, and tried to convince SOE to not go through with the change. Thankfully, SOE did not listen.

I will use the same counter-argument here: You do not see platoons of HAs rushing a point with RLs. If they are so crutch, as people have been saying, why isn't this a thing? You don't see platoons of HAs with their RLs primed, whipping out entire enemy platoons.

I find it sadly amusing that when people got 1 hit KO'd by an underslung grenade launcher, the cries to nerf it were deafening. In fact, it got nerfed SO hard that not a single person even bothers using it anymore.

Whereas, getting 1 hit KO'd by a free dumbfire rocket launcher is apparently perfectly acceptable.

If you are not camping in a spawn room, running around with a rocket launcher (exept for farming at biolabs and engaging maxes) is just stupid. You maybe get a guaranteed kill but the long switch time and reload will kill you in the next encounter. OFC its op if you run around solo and dumbfire on a spot, but a squad will have no probs to wipe your position after that. For infantry teamplay it has no use, grenades are much more reliable if all squad members throw them.

Big difference. UBGL was self-sustaining. You didn't need any kind of teamwork to setup a UBGL nest on top of a Biolab being attacked via landing pads. Also, with the UBGL, you had a faster reload and a faster weapon switch.

And to be honest, no one is using it now because it was far overnerfed. If they removed the ability for to be restocked by anything but a terminal along with keeping the arming distance, but increasing its killing power, it would be perfectly viable.

Right now, is it completely and totally useless.

Did SOE foresee rocket spam when they wrote those? Do SOE like the current balance of rockets?

No one knows. And we certainly can't find out if everyone just assumes this was all intended.

It is my opinion that it was not and that RLs were put into the game to deal with vehicles.


Many people raise the point that reloading is dangerous and paint the picture of a HA dying immediately after firing their first shot. However, in practice, a lot of Heavies do exactly as I described and are capable of spamming rockets from safety. They only show themselves for a fraction of a second to unleash a OHK, then drop behind cover. If they were to fire their primary weapon the kill would take longer so they'd be vulnerable for longer.


I liked the nanoweave change. I'm more concerned with whether something has a positive or negative influence on the game than the prevalence (though that would matter if it takes a lot of dev time to fix but I don't think adjusting the damage values takes that long).

You've described an extreme, near worst case, scenario. There's plenty of room before that for weapons to be performing in unintended ways.

But there is no "spam" currently in the game. If RLs are being spammed, why are they among the lowest kills universally? Why is that most people are still using their Primary and secondary weapons over them if they are "spammed". What exactly gives you indication that they are being spammed in the first place?

If rockets were put into the game to only deal with vehicles, SOE would have never put that the defaults were meant to be effective against Infantry and vehicles. There is no question or assumption here about that. Do you understand? SOE put them in the game to deal with both types of ground forces, not just one. Your opinion is entirely baseless because SOE already established this as a fact.

The worse case scenario can't happen because RLs do not perform well enough against infantry for the "ROCKET PRIMARY" tactic to be used in any kind of push on any type of point. There are too many downsides, and that is why there is no spam, and why this is not an issue. This is nothing more than a glorified, "nerf what kills me" thread.

I have experienced rocket spam, from my faction and the enemy faction, against me or people nearby me etc. I think many people have similar experiences as they point out the same "peekaboo" rocket firing.

At this point we shall have to agree to disagree.

The developers may or may not change RLs. I would note that the fact they are considering it shows that it is not essential to them that RLs have anti-infantry capabilities.