Rockets and Grenades

[2coolforu]

One concept I thought was extremely good was that rockets did nothing against infantry. This meant that AT Troops actually used their rockets against tanks rather than just whoring infantry. With grenades they were used for softening targets that were dug in and camping which is exactly what they should be used for, they were also extremely slow to rearm and relatively hard to use which is good, they should remain this way. The last thing we want in the confined corridors of Planetside bases is the frigging unbearable grenade spam we see in call of duty or even Battlefield 2.

I suppose the TL:DR is

i) Make AT weapons ineffective against infantry
ii) Make grenades support weapons as they are in Planetside

[Bags]

I think they should leave them alone.

Let rockets suck versus softies, make frags MODERATELY effective, make plasma only do a dot.

I don't want to kill someone only to have three instagibbing grenades fly out of their corpse, or someone to run in and blow everyone up with a noob toob.

[PsychoXR-20]

I know they are toying with the idea of the non-equippable insta-knife, but please, please please, please do NOT make grenades instant. Keep grenades as they are, requiring you to actually pull them out, pull the pin and throw them, none of this CoD/Halo BS where you can be in the middle of firing a magazine and just suddenly throw out a primed grenade out from no where.

[CutterJohn]

I have no issues with rockets dealing decent respectable damage to infantry, though the supply would have to be much more restricted than in PS. I loved how the AT rockets in the battlefield games had useful applications besides anti vehicle, especially as counter sniper tools.

Granted, they shouldn't be instakill, and a very small splash. AT rocket vs infantry, the at guy should lose 9 times out of ten in a direct fight. But if it took 2 hits to kill, and had a 2s reload(plus whatever time you spent reloading it) it would be balanced as a relatively poor AI weapon. There is also no reason the lancer couldn't have been effective at killing people as well.

I do admit that this opinion depends on the phoenix not existing..

[BorisBlade]

I do admit that this opinion depends on the phoenix not existing..

we can only hope. The only weapon in the game that i think no one should get. Would rather have BFR's...and i hate BFR's.

[2coolforu]

Ok, maybe you can specialize in anti-infantry rockets that are good against troops but suck against armored vehicles. This is exactly how it is in real-life, rockets designed to damage vehicles are ineffective against troops and dug in positions, there are special thermobaric and frag warheads for launchers like the RPG-7 and the SMAW that allow them to be used against infantry, these warheads lack armor penetration and are ineffective against vehicles. If you want to rocket troops then you have to sacrifice your ability to kill armor.

As for 'nades I too hate the CoD 'oh shit SPAM GRENADES' mentality. Grenades in planetside actually worked in a realistic way, they softened up positions in the moment before you attacked them. They weren't instagib pwnage tools that you could use instead of an actual gun a'la Call of Duty Modern Frag grenade.

[MgFalcon]

I better have my fucking Plasma Nades... OR ELSE

#Justsaying

[SKYeXile]

I do admit that this opinion depends on the phoenix not existing..

its in the concept art for PS2, sucka!

[Bags]

its in the concept art for PS2, sucka!

link!

[CutterJohn]

This is exactly how it is in real-life, rockets designed to damage vehicles are ineffective against troops and dug in positions, there are special thermobaric and frag warheads for launchers like the RPG-7 and the SMAW that allow them to be used against infantry, these warheads lack armor penetration and are ineffective against vehicles.

Those warheads are to give them a much larger kill radius. An anti tank rocket hitting 1m away from you, or hitting you, will not feel good in any way, shape, or form.


its in the concept art for PS2, sucka!

Doesn't mean it will be camera guided though.

[2coolforu]

Yeah but you aren't going to be able to land a RPG-7 Tandem HEAT top-o-the-line anti-tank warhead within 1 metre of a moving infantryman. Those things drop like a motherfucker and can barely hit a moving tank at 100-200m never mind a person.

And yes a rocket will kill you instantly if it hit you directly, but then again so would a real 20mm bullet yet they are like peashooters - the reality argument doesn't really hold weight. If the rocket kills you in one hit then it should also have backblast that prevents it being used indoors or near friendly troops, it should drop like hell due to the weight of the rocket.

[Aractain]

Lets hope its [I mean the Phx] more like BF2 than PS1 - gameplay where your enemy can't even be seen is not that fun.

AI rockets make sense but not instant kill ones like in BF2. I also hope they have better bombers that don't have instant kill cluster bombs and are more about putting pressure on positions to help out the troops on the ground.

[CutterJohn]

Yeah but you aren't going to be able to land a RPG-7 Tandem HEAT top-o-the-line anti-tank warhead within 1 metre of a moving infantryman. Those things drop like a motherfucker and can barely hit a moving tank at 100-200m never mind a person.


Undoubtedly. But its still not unknown to use them in an antipersonel role all the same. Especially against an immobile enemy or someone camped out behind a wall.

[2coolforu]

Even against walls they kinda suck, its so much easier to shoot through with even moderate caliber weaponry - this is why they are spending all this money developing airburst munitions for the SMAW at M136. The reason they aren't used against troops is because you are throwing away an asset that is more suited to engaging armor and you are using it in a role more suited to other weaponry. If you have entrenched troops you gain fire superiority or call in a JDAM, if you have a group in the open then you suppress and destroy with machinegun fire. Why would you use a rocket to kill in one shot when a bullet will do exactly the same more effectively.

In a game you can't rely on the real-life balancing aspects to prevent people from doing things. In the military you aren't going to run around like a jerkoff firing RPG rounds at troops and into buildings unless you are some muppet insurgent high on opiates because you are gonna get smacked around by your CO and its just not an effective use of resources. It's like with a FMG-148, I could fire it against infantry but that's $100,000 thrown on a guy that could be killed just as easily with a single rifle bullet at 1/100,000th of the cost.

Inevitably cost doesn't matter in a vidya game where I can get unlimited top-end missiles from an equipment terminal, nor does doing stuff sensibly as there is no cost to acting like a moron. Since we can't have single-shot kill rifles or a realistic wounding system then why should rockets kill in one shot? Since we don't have realism then we should go for balance, a rocket launcher does not have the role of killing infantry, if you give it a one shot kill then it will just be used against infantry rather than tanks - see BF:BC2's endless M3 MAAWS whoring or CoD's danger close whoring.

[Death2All]

One concept I thought was extremely good was that rockets did nothing against infantry. This meant that AT Troops actually used their rockets against tanks rather than just whoring infantry. With grenades they were used for softening targets that were dug in and camping which is exactly what they should be used for, they were also extremely slow to rearm and relatively hard to use which is good, they should remain this way. The last thing we want in the confined corridors of Planetside bases is the frigging unbearable grenade spam we see in call of duty or even Battlefield 2.

I suppose the TL:DR is

i) Make AT weapons ineffective against infantry
ii) Make grenades support weapons as they are in Planetside

Did you just say grenades were slow to rearm and hard to use? Have you played PS lately, bro?

[2coolforu]

Did you just say grenades were slow to rearm and hard to use? Have you played PS lately, bro?

In comparison to say call of duty or battlefield. Have you played BF2 on an infantry only map, there are more grenades than raindrops in a Florida rainy season, each one has the explosion radius of texas and instakills and can be thrown over 5 city blocks and its very similar in Call of duty too.

In comparison to mainstream games Planetsides grenades are harder to use, their physics sucks (they act like bouncy balls) it takes about 2-3 hits to kill if thrown directly at the feet and there is about 1.5 seconds between grenades. Relative to the FPS market I believe I am right in what I said...

[CutterJohn]

Since we can't have single-shot kill rifles or a realistic wounding system then why should rockets kill in one shot?

They shouldn't.

I have no issues with rockets dealing decent respectable damage to infantry, though the supply would have to be much more restricted than in PS. I loved how the AT rockets in the battlefield games had useful applications besides anti vehicle, especially as counter sniper tools.

Granted, they shouldn't be instakill, and a very small splash. AT rocket vs infantry, the at guy should lose 9 times out of ten in a direct fight. But if it took 2 hits to kill, and had a 2s reload(plus whatever time you spent reloading it) it would be balanced as a relatively poor AI weapon. There is also no reason the lancer couldn't have been effective at killing people as well.

I just want them to do more than tickle the enemy. Will a full clip of lancer/striker even kill a rexo?

[Bags]

Deci's already two shot rexo. I think that's good enough damage.

[SKYeXile]

link!

http://pcmedia.ign.com/pc/image/article/118/1181217/planetside-2-20110707055720600.jpg