Grenades cost resources, which is a good thing

[jabber]

Originally Posted by Dougnifico

See, I'm more flexible on the rockets. Minimum, rockets can't be replenished except by terminal or death and only 1 or 2 rockets in that case. Lock ons I'm much more ok with. Free fire rockets have horrible abuse potential.

1-2 rockets is no where enough to take out anything in this game.

[Dougnifico]

I can live with that. Grenades, I'm not budging.

[AzK]

Meh, nades in ps1 weakened people or made them move, you had to be pretty damaged or dumb to actually die from one.

It was rare as hell for me to die from a hand nade, the only thing that killed me less were knives and i honestly don't think i got knifed more than like maybe 10-15 times in 8 years. (i hope knives/melee remain dogshit in ps2 btw).

[Dougnifico]

Originally Posted by jabber

1-2 rockets is no where enough to take out anything in this game.

As far as I'm concerned, you can stack 10 rockets if you pay the resource cost (you lose them upon death). I just don't think a bunch of free fire rockets for free is a good idea. If you make them hardly effective against inf then I can handle it. I believe rockets should still do ok against inf, and a resource cost would be a good balance. Then again, I'm not expert. Lay down a counter proposition that makes more sense and I'll hop on board.

[GreatMazinkaise]

Originally Posted by Dougnifico

As far as I'm concerned, you can stack 10 rockets if you pay the resource cost (you lose them upon death). I just don't think a bunch of free fire rockets for free is a good idea. If you make them hardly effective against inf then I can handle it. I believe rockets should still do ok against inf, and a resource cost would be a good balance. Then again, I'm not expert. Lay down a counter proposition that makes more sense and I'll hop on board.

Just from looking at the E3 footage, rockets seem to be difficult to hit with and have low splash. More like the old Decimators...

No Carl Gustavs have yet been shown.

[Bags]

Originally Posted by AzK

Meh, nades in ps1 weakened people or made them move, you had to be pretty damaged or dumb to actually die from one.

It was rare as hell for me to die from a hand nade, the only thing that killed me less were knives and i honestly don't think i got knifed more than like maybe 10-15 times in 8 years. (i hope knives/melee remain dogshit in ps2 btw).

Quick knife is in, so I imagine 1 shot backstabs, but we've yet to see it. Eh, I'd rather this be in, I kill more people trying to knife in BF3 than I've been killed by one.

[Bags]

Originally Posted by Dougnifico

As far as I'm concerned, you can stack 10 rockets if you pay the resource cost (you lose them upon death). I just don't think a bunch of free fire rockets for free is a good idea. If you make them hardly effective against inf then I can handle it. I believe rockets should still do ok against inf, and a resource cost would be a good balance. Then again, I'm not expert. Lay down a counter proposition that makes more sense and I'll hop on board.

Direct hits 1 shot light assault (like, it hit the guys face). Near misses do not appear to do anything to infantry. That's all I noticed during the E3 footage.

[super pretendo]

Originally Posted by GreatMazinkaise

Just from looking at the E3 footage, rockets seem to be difficult to hit with and have low splash. More like the old Decimators...

No Carl Gustavs have yet been shown.

But this takes away the uniqueness of rocket weapons. Why can't they be effective weapons with good AoE that you can make a choice to use, but you can't spam it? Grenades should be dangerous and have tactical value! But they should not be something you see every three seconds raid=ning everywhere.

Why does every weapon need to be spammable? This will make all weapons settle into a grey blob of identicality.

[Littleman]

I'm not expecting people to be hauling around a wagon full of explosives. One of the boons of losing the freeform inventory was that one can't load up on rockets and grenades (some will say this is a tragedy, but moving on.) I think between damage values and the sheer lack of quantity a player may be able to carry at once will do more than enough to hinder the spammage of rockets and grenades. If your enemies are capable of spamming, find the source supplying them with the means and kill it.

Basic equipment shouldn't cost a dime. In the rare scenario a player finds themselves unable to afford anything, like when they first start playing (and I'm not sure even then...) they should always have access to what the tax payers are paying for: standard issue equipment. If I can modify my grenades to roll towards enemy targets or provide a concussive blast on top of the explosive effect upon detonation, THEN they can cost resources.

[Turdicus]

Originally Posted by super pretendo

But this takes away the uniqueness of rocket weapons.

Bleh? Rockets are uniquely able to blow up vehicles....

[Bags]

Originally Posted by Turdicus

Bleh? Rockets are uniquely able to blow up vehicles....

Well, small arms fire can too, it just takes a shit ton of bullets and is going to get you killed.

[Absentis]

The easiest way to combat rockets and other AV weapons from being spammed on infantry would be to reduce their damage. If they add a cert for increased resource income or something similar, people will be able to spam explosives anyway causing their cost only hurt newer low ranked players.

What's preventing people from using a high-damage, non-explosive variant on something like an LMG to take both vehicles and infantry down with no resource cost? I'm strictly against making rockets cost resources, especially when the rockets are direct hit for infantry.

[feuerdog]

Sidegrades could change the way many of us think about these costs,.....do we know all the ordnance possibilities yet?

Are there sidegrades that allow for more penetrating pure anti-tank damage, or more AoE anti-personnel damage?

If there are sidegrades that make spammable weapons an annoyance, then where do you draw the line at resource cost?

[ThGlump]

Originally Posted by super pretendo

But this takes away the uniqueness of rocket weapons. Why can't they be effective weapons with good AoE that you can make a choice to use, but you can't spam it? Grenades should be dangerous and have tactical value! But they should not be something you see every three seconds raid=ning everywhere.

Why does every weapon need to be spammable? This will make all weapons settle into a grey blob of identicality.

You take rockets as something that easily kill infantry. That wont be probable in PS2. There AV weapons are customized to do what they are meant to do - kill vehicles (+MAXes), and are nearly worthless against infantry.

What do you want is rockets with bigger splash that damage both vehicles and infantry. If something like that will be in game, it surely wont be spammable and will cost resources as it's basically straight flying grenade.

Edit: and looks like rockets will be only for one class (HA). So its not going to be as spammable as grenades that can be used by everyone (except MAXes).

[maddoggg]

I like the idea of nades costing resourses as it would prevent the spam.
However i am not a big fan of the fact they look a little OP right now insta killing non max infantry :/