[Video] The "Rocket Primary". Something needs to change.

ZOE, Vulcan, Flinch, Kobalt, etc ad infinitum...

The game is still fun, but JEM nerfs have definitely made the game ridiculous. I long for the days of gaming. PS2 community proves we live in the dark age of gaming. Lobbyists have surpassed players as the ones having development power. I don't blame the devs. Lobbyists spend the most money. Players stop investing as soon as its clear that game changes are arbitrary.

I'll be gone when the next game like this comes out. Hopefully the devs of that game will stay true to the spirit of gaming, and leave in-game results in the hands of the players.

I'm generally unimpressed with people who try to make themselves sound clever without actually saying anything of worth, and tend just to leave them to enjoy their own cyberspace, but in this case I'd like to refer you to a quote from someone who actually understands how and why weapons like rocket launchers are left in games:


Tripwire President John Gibson
Gibson: [extract]... And really, watching some of these guys play… one of the things that Call of Duty does, and it’s smart business, to a degree, is they compress the skill gap. And the way you compress the skill gap as a designer is you add a whole bunch of randomness. A whole bunch of weaponry that doesn’t require any skill to get kills. Random spawns, massive cone fire on your weapons. Lots of devices that can get kills with zero skill at all, and you know, it’s kind of smart to compress your skill gap to a degree. You don’t want the elite players to destroy the new players so bad that new players can never get into the game and enjoy it.

You can read the context and the full(er) version here: https://forums.station.sony.com/ps2...ing-this-game-heres-your-wake-up-call.104342/


I hope Mr Gibson is worthy of your perception of credible critical analysis. It's up to you to decide what weapons you feel fill that role, but if you don't believe rocket launchers fulfill this very definition, as I do, then rather than try and belittle others put forward a counter argument. I read your three previous posts, and you appear to sit on the 'Rockets are Good' side without justifying that position. Or you're just trolling people for the sake of it?

In terms of self-serving scaling; I was clear about why I grudgingly accept, but generally dislike rockets used for AI. Random deaths where my only defence was not to contest doesn't make for fun for me. I've been quite modest in my lobbying.

I am for the RL
While the "less-skill" argument against RL is true when compared to gun-aiming and stuff, RL is just one of the many tool that allow low-BR a fighting chance against more skillful players( shotgun, C4, bouncing betty, etc)

In fact RL is aleady more "noble" than C4 and bouncing betty in a sense that aim and risk-exposure are required.

And to a bad-aimer( such as me), why must I repeatedly feed meself the higher BR in destined-to-lose "fair" gun dual?

A logical respond would instead be resorting to a non-gun option such as RL.

And in situation like biolab and tower, RL spamming is not only a low-BR option, it is an effective and legitimate tactic to hold bottleneck

Only you forgot that high-BRs can and ARE using this weapon as well.

And exactly why high-BR shouldn't be allowed to use it? (i'm low-BR)

If you didn't understand my post, you should have re-read it. It is perfectly clear, and succinct
.
You quoted Tripwire. Authors of RO2, and that zombie game with the numbered hordes, leveled weapons, and the ridiculous boss. Awful, and so profitable. Tripwire (as it exists now) is one of the outfits responsible for the decline of gaming. Tripwire has no credibility in my gamer's book. When a dev attaches skill values to weaponry, one had better *really* watch out.

Keep blaming the game, because that's what the developers want you to do. Last game wasn't good enough, buy mine! Buy my improvement!

We truly live in the dark ages of gaming. Players take no ownership for their experiences, and expect the game to hand them sterile victories.

You say "Random deaths where my only defense was not to contest doesn't make for fun for me." Its not supposed to be fun for you! You're supposed to make your own fun! You took a random death! Big deal! Pick yourself up by your bootstraps and figure out why you took that random death! Were you packed into a rock with ten other guys? Oh yeah, rocket inbound. Were you spamming a corner? EVERYTHING inbound.

Stop blaming the game. It doesn't owe you anything, and your opponent is deadly serious.

Then I might as well never equip the Jackhammer. The ranges you'll encounter even in a biolab vary too much for a jackhammer to always be the best weapon to use, so if I can't fall back on my rocket launcher then I guess I won't ever use the Jackhammer I spent 1000 certs on because it's better to always use an MG.

It's not hand holding, it's giving a shotgun class a bit of versatility. A shotgun class that can only operate at extreme close range is such a situational thing, further limited by the fact that unlike the LA the HA can't fly around to get the jump on people he has to go head-to-head, limiting the opportunities for close quarters battle further.

And you'd be wrong, I have no problem with that.

Lol it is not highly versatile, it just does a lot of damage. Frags don't have the range or direct-fire capability of rockets. You can't knock out an engineer turret from range with a frag very well at all.

The rocket launcher has a lot of weaknesses, namely that it sucks at close range, against moving targets, against infantry that aren't in buildings, has a slow projectile velocity and a long *** reload time.

I fail to see how it makes any sense for a ******* ROCKET LAUNCHER to not OHK infantry.

I honestly see nothing wrong with that video.

What I couldn't fathom is if they decided not to OHK infantry with dumbfire, now that would be impossible to justify.

BWC wipeout with rockets

So maybe even I sometimes think about how cheap it is that I got one-shot (or otherwise quickly killed) when my carbine has no ability to do that (the grenade launcher attachment seems to have no ability to do that). But one thing I will say is that 1v1 the rocket primary is powerful... but this is PS2 and there are usually dozens of enemies around. That rocket launcher takes a pretty long time to reload, so the idea is that if you don't use it wisely sure you'll get your one kill, but then his buddy is gonna end you.

Teamwork is a lost concept to most of the nerfbabies. They deserve the win, no-one else.

Still, your post is well placed.

If you, a low BR with low accuracy (You admitted this yourself), can get kills to compete with high BRs using the RL, what can a high BR (who has much better accuracy) do with this weapon? I believe Mustard's video shows the results.

A lobby?

Everyone brings their own interests or opinions to the forums, that's perfectly reasonable and to be expected. However, it's misleading and pointless to start talking about the people instead of the arguments.

The fact that there are people who spam rocket launchers against infantry and don't want it changed is equally as arbitrary or ridiculous a reason to balance gameplay as the existence of those who do want it changed.


If people genuinely want what is best for the game then, whatever the topic, they will leave their own opinions aside for a moment and ask "Does this sort of behavior fit the type of game PS2 is trying to be?"

When I see people swapping from a machine gun to an anti-vehicle rocket launcher and spamming them at infantry the answer is plain. Or, as Mustarde put it:

"Rockets are easily used, and highly available weapons that instantly kill infantry. I think they perform too well in this role, and should have infantry damage reduced, focusing their use against maxes and vehicles. The LMG's, SMG's and shotguns available to the HA should be the most effective tool against infantry, not the rocket launcher. Being killed by RL's as they currently are designed is frustrating, and reduces large infantry fights into rocket slinging stalemates."

This game is not, as someone mentioned, one of those games where you shoot at your feet to jump around places and rocket launchers are just another weapon to blast away at infantry with. If that's the sort of gameplay you want there are games out there that set out to create it and have done so very well.


Furthermore, it is in the interest of the developers and the players that weapons do not fill roles they are not intended to. This destroys the importance of relying on teamwork and reduces the amount of viable weapon options in the game.

In this case, the Rocket Launcher is much better at taking out entrenched or grouped up infantry than the UBGL is and can be easily spammed from safety - despite being better at AV to boot.


Players are certainly free to use weapons in whatever creative manor they can think up, but if they flat out use them in a role that damages gameplay then it becomes a matter for the developers and should be put on the forums. This is no different than when a weapon doesn't simply perform well, but far beyond it's intended power and also damages gameplay.

Ultimately, people are entitled to raise their concerns on the forums and it's up to the developers what happens.

You bring up what players intuitively expect yet, intuitively, I would not expect infantry to even TRY firing a rocket launcher at other infantry in the first place - and if they did, there would be some serious downsides such as back blast etc. I would not expect it to be so effective that they do it again, let alone for other people to copy them.

Although I am sympathetic to the "suspension of disbelief" issue (see my previous posts in this thread), in the end, I think PS2's gameplay and weapon balance comes first.

Do you have any suggestions for stopping misuse of rockets without removing the OHK? I noticed you suggested a resource cost that "should not be prohibitive to regular use", but in that case I expect they would still be spammed.

OMG that fight between Skydock and Redridge at the end of your vid lol. It was very distracting to my sniping because whenever I noticed an NC stand still I knew he was going to be shot in the head.

Sorry for the slight derailment.

-SideWinder

I do have a suggestion for ending OHK. Don't get hit.

Balance means nothing without weapons obeying a set law of physics. Intelligent balancing left the game a long time ago.

It boils down to two things: Believability, and Philosophy of Sportsmanship.

I am not believing that an armor piercing round will not kill a human being.

When I die, I congratulate my opponent, and figure out how to not die again. I DON'T go to the devs and beg for their mercies to be granted to me. This in my mind is sportsmanship.

This is what its all about to me. Are you a player, or a complainer? Can you take it as good as you get it, or do you feel entitled (JEM) to the game being good only for you and your ilk?

About infantry firing rockets at infantry, it is a staple of modern combat. Bunched up or holed up infantry are going to get it. I have a hard time believing that you choose to change the rules rather than tactical practice, but that is a symptom of JEM. I understand.

You're right about the devs deciding who is on the right side. Money...is on the right side. Who spends more? The people that like gaming, or the people that like to have a sterile experience? Let's see.

I addressed this earlier, so I'll quote my reply:

"This does not take into account alternative weapons, or weapon roles.

Snipers are a bit limited beyond their sniper rifle. While Heavies carrying a shotgun have given up the option to carry an LMG.

Some Heavies using their anti-vehicle secondary weapon for the wrong purposes, pretending it's a sniper rifle or a shotgun, and then swapping to their machine gun really doesn't compare to a sniper using their main weapon, or Heavy using theirs, and occasionally swapping to a pistol."

This is a great example of JEM.

"Some heavies using their anti-vehicle secondary weapons for the wrong purposes"

This person has decided that THEY will dictate how you play.

If only a building is twice as big as they're currently, especially the stair. Couple of RL completely lock those down, have you ever wonder why tower fight always is a farm fest for LA ? Because ppl get locked downstairs by RL. Of course, no one here is saying OHK is bad. But the person who use it at point blank range should get killed at the same time, too. Take out your own RL and shoot it right under your feet should killed you.

You, only trying to patronize people, is getting old

Sterile effort to me is getting a reward without facing a challenge. I want to challenge myself, and a RL handing me the expected result to a plate is not a challenge. It's the game playing instead of me.
I don't seek beliebability, AT ALL. I'd play simulation game for this, I'd play ArmA (that I play a lot since OFP days for believability reasons, but that's not my purpose in PS2)
Would you seek believability, soldiers hopping down stairs with a rocket launcher on their shoulders pressing the button as soon as they pop out would be HORRIBLE for you. PS2 is not a believable experience and is not intended to be.

Again, you only patronize people you think whine about their death. I just dislike being given a kill for zero effort. But you will ignore that kind of argument again and again and come back again and again with that "JEM" motto and such. That's where Jonboy feels you're speaking empty words, if you ask me, because you're missing the target entirely.

If you hit someone with a rocket at point blank you gonna get hurt bad. It is not a good idea, and is an act of desperation, not a planned attack.

The size of rooms doesn't matter. What matters is that people insist on bunching up. Change the tactic, or suffer the consequences.