On the new ESRLs

CToxin · 2013-03-23, 12:40 PM

So I decided after much thought to make this thread about my opinion on the three new rocket launchers. What I like, what I don't like and what I think needs to be changed.

Lancer:
Overall I think that the lancer is pretty well balanced. The only thing I think it needs is a slight (very slight) damage increase. Although arguably the best of the three at killing armor, it doesn't feel all that great.

Phoenix:
Pretty good. Annoyingly better at killing infantry than armor. Not saying it needs a nerf, but of the three it is the most annoying to deal with in a siege (both defending and attacking). Could use a slight damage nerf against infantry with a buff to its range. 300m feels way to short.

Striker:
The most bland of the three because it does exactly what an annihilator does with little to no advantage. A dumb-fire mode with massive drop off (more so than the other lock-ons) with a narrower lock-on angle would be nice. At the same time a buff to annihilator range or something like that would keep them distinct.

Bags · 2013-03-23, 01:22 PM

They're called ESAV.

Empire Specific Anti-Vehicular.

ChipMHazard · 2013-03-23, 01:35 PM

They're called both... Even though "rocket launcher" doesn't make much sense.

Bags · 2013-03-23, 01:46 PM

In the 6 years I played PS1 I never saw them (phoenix, striker, lancer) once referred to anything but ESAV.

Blinklys · 2013-03-23, 01:55 PM

Originally Posted by CToxin

Striker:
The most bland of the three because it does exactly what an annihilator does with little to no advantage. A dumb-fire mode with massive drop off (more so than the other lock-ons) with a narrower lock-on angle would be nice. At the same time a buff to annihilator range or something like that would keep them distinct.

It's an annihilator on steroids is what it is.

ChipMHazard · 2013-03-23, 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by Bags

In the 6 years I played PS1 I never saw them (phoenix, striker, lancer) once referred to anything but ESAV.

Things have apparently changed in that department

Bags · 2013-03-23, 02:33 PM

New people don't get to change old terminology.

Neurotoxin · 2013-03-23, 02:39 PM

ESAV is a better term. Rockets are categorically dumbfire only, meaning only the Lancer qualifies as any sort of Rocket Launcher among the three. Anything with any guidance system is a missile.

Lancer needs to hit like the S1 at close range, it can do its current damage out at the max range (550m or so). It is something I could see a player using exclusively for AV, but right now it is still a bit situational because the charge-up increases vulnerability and reduces timing opportunities.

Phoenix is kinda situational. It hits hard enough, but the range of 300m means players really have to be close to make contact. The fact that the minimap doesn't follow the missile makes it very disorienting (at least for me) to track targets after the missile has flown for a second in a direction that isn't straight at the target. Being able to hide behind cover, and launch missiles constantly without fear of being hit, is definitely the biggest advantage of this weapon.

The striker is awesome, though again not someone would necessarily carry everywhere. I expect within months for EVERY TR to have ejection systems and a striker, to do the PS1 style bail-and-lock technique against enemy aircraft who shoot them down. I can see it not being carried everywhere, due to the inability to fire as a dumbfire weapon.

ChipMHazard · 2013-03-23, 02:44 PM

Originally Posted by Neurotoxin

ESAV is a better term. Rockets are categorically dumbfire only, meaning only the Lancer qualifies as any sort of Rocket Launcher among the three. Anything with any guidance system is a missile.

Indeed. Blame the devs for the silly name

Hamma · 2013-03-23, 02:50 PM

SOE has called them Empire Specific Rocket Launchers, so pretty much that's what they are. :P

CToxin · 2013-03-23, 03:18 PM

I can agree that the Striker is a juiced up annihilator. The main problem is how lock on works in this game.

What about make lock on range based? the closer something is the less time it takes to get a lock on. At long ranges it would be longer than the annihilator, while at close range it would be less than the annihilator.

I also never played PS1, no matter how much PS2 thinks I did. Can someone enlighten me as to how the Striker worked in PS1?

Rothnang · 2013-03-23, 03:39 PM

After testing out the Lancer I have to say it's pretty horrid. The chargeup time is way too long to make effective use of it, because the couple seconds it takes are plenty enough for your target to be gone, dead or otherwise no longer viable.

Especially the fact that it takes 3 fully charged shots to take down an ESF is a joke. It's impossible to hit an ESF twice with this weapon, because an ESF can fly well out of your effective range in the time it takes to charge a second shot, let alone a third. With the charge time the way it currently is it should take 1 shot to kill an ESF, because that's how difficult it is to hit one, since you basically have to be able to essentially predict where the enemy will be 6 seconds down the road to have a fully charged shot going off at that exact time.

You can't hold the charge in the weapon until you're ready to fire, so every single successful shot with the Lancer ultimately boils down to you trying to guess at whether or not there will be a viable shot for you to take in 6 seconds. That's damn near impossible when you're in a real battle and not just shooting at stationary targets and it's damage just doesn't justify the difficulty of using it currently, especially against infantry or aircraft.

Bags · 2013-03-23, 03:48 PM

Originally Posted by Hamma

SOE has called them Empire Specific Rocket Launchers, so pretty much that's what they are. :P

And RIOT tried to name AOS (dota style games) "MOBAs".

Just because a company says it doesn't mean it's true. Unless the lancer is a rocket launcher.

NUKABAZOOKA · 2013-03-23, 03:52 PM

Originally Posted by CToxin

Lancer:
Overall I think that the lancer is pretty well balanced. The only thing I think it needs is a slight (very slight) damage increase. Although arguably the best of the three at killing armor, it doesn't feel all that great.

You might think it works well inside the sandbox that is VR, but real world application leaves it extremely lacking. I'd trade it in for the Striker in a heartbeat due to ease of use and power.

Baneblade · 2013-03-23, 03:53 PM

I found all three to be relatively underwhelming considering all the hype.