Forums » General
Lately alot of players have started using the term 'rocket ramming' in a highly dismissive and indeed derogatory fashion. The term continues to broaden until it has reached the point that some in the community are hurling 'rocket rammer' as an insult after anyone using rockets - especially after having been destroyed by that player (of course it's never a lack of skill on thier part that leads to them getting blown up).
So what is rocket ramming, should we do something about it, and is it a valid tactic?
First, the use of rockets has never been a sign of lack of skill in Vendetta. During 3.1 and earlier, 'type 2' rockets were
far and away the most common means of delivering a kill. Indeed, before the damage fix, fights were decided almost entirely by the first fighter to successfully land a clean rocket hit. One might well say that the skill of a pilot in Vendetta has by and large always been judged by his ability to dodge rockets and to make well aimed shots on opponents with rockets. But 3.2 opened us up to the possibility of other 'coup de gras' weapons - rail guns, dual and quad tachyon's, advanced gatlings, swarm missiles, and what have you - and with this diversity of choices naturally came players who felt that one wasn't showing true skill unless one fought with the exact same weapons you were using.
As a tactic, 'rocket ramming' refers to firing a rocket at a target when the range is so low that you are certain to recieve
some damage from the explosion. Most clearly, this is true whenever you fire a rocket at a range lower than the radius of the proximity fuse of the warhead - at which point the explosion is inescapable for the target. As a general tactic, a person who practices rocket ramming will close rapidly with a target on a straight line, and at close range begin firing as many rockets as possible in a cone known as 'rocket spew'. At least some of these rockets are expected to hit, usually resulting in damage for both the attacker and the target. To be successful, 'rocket ramming' requires therefore that the target at the minimum have fewer hull points than you have.
As a tactic, 'rocket ramming' has some obvious advantages and disadvantages. Because it is basically a straight on charge of a foe, it is tactically simple to perform requiring no precise targeting or manuevering. It tends to result in a relatively high ammount of damage in a relatively short period of time compared to the usual results of almost any other tactic. It consumes no more energy than is required for turboing, leaving the attacker capable of running after the attack. On the other hand, there is a good chance that you will actually suffer more damage than the target. If the target in fact dodges, or the rockets are poorly aimed, there is a good chance than when the warhead goes off, you will actually be closer to the warhead than the target is. A Sunflare 'blowing up in your face' can cause more than 1500 damage, while a Sunflare going off at the edge of its prox radius at a fleeing target will often do less than 1500 damage. Also, against an aware and compotent target, there is a good chance that the target will accelerate or strafe out of the path of the rockets resulting in all of the rockets missing. And, because rocket ammunition is limited, you will probably only be able to perform the tactic 3-4 times whether it is successful or not. Finally, there is a hard ceiling on the return on the tactical investment. It is not possible to 'rocket ram' and do much more than 1 damage for every point of damage you recieve. If the opponent is at all able to do some damage in return, in a fair fight the most likely result of 'rocket ramming' will be that everyone will see that you 'have issues'.
So, superficially, the principal advantage of 'rocket ramming' is that is tactic requiring not much skill - which is probably why 'rocket rammers' are derided. 'Rocket Ramming' really is 'cheap', tactically speaking. But, this really shouldn't be anything new to Vendetta players. The term 'rocket rammer' is simply a variation on a much older term 'lemming'.
One thing that should be clear is that if you _don't_ recieve any splash damage from a rocket attack then you aren't 'rocket ramming', and further that firing a rocket from a sufficiently far distance that you are able to get away from the blast and also intersect the position of a moving target requires some ammount of skill. Also it should be clear that everyone that uses rockets (and that would be the vast majority of all players currently, and every player prior to 3.2) is at one time or the other guilty of 'rocket ramming'. To a certain extent, I have to say 'so what?'. Skillful pilots in Vendetta have always made use of rockets with being accused of being poor players, and there are times when 'rocket ramming' is a valid tactic for even the most skillful of players. Some that occur to me are:
1) A player in a low agility ship (such as a Ragnarok) versus a player in a very high agility ship (such as a Centurian). It seems to me both that a Centurian player if he is skilled ought to be aware of the possibility of being overrun and capable of avoiding it, and likewise that there are only a small number of tactics available to the Ragnarok player for destroying a skilled Centurian pilot and the vast majority of them involve the deceptively simple tactic of coming to close range and mauling the Centurian with your superior firepower.
2) A player who has otherwise dominated a dogfight and who knows that his opponent is almost gone and one more hit will do it. This is the tactical equivalent of a gambit or sacrifice in chess, and neither tactic is considered a sign of low skill in that game.
3) A player who is facing overwhelming odds and as such is so busy dodging that precise offensive tactics are not open to them, but which needs to make a kill quickly (as in a flag cap).
4) A player who is using well placed rockets in much the same way another player might use a mine or a swarm, to deter an attacker from getting too close and thereby mauling the player with a close range weapon (such as an advanced gatling). The idea here is, 'Don't come any closer or you will get a rocket to the face.'
In the case of a head on attack vs. a rocket armed foe, the victim of the rocket ram was showing as little skill as the 'rocket rammer' - if not less; because, you ought to know that if you go head on against a rocket armed foe there is a good chance of getting several rockets on the nose. That's the tactical equivalent of walking straight into a boxer's right jab, and at least as silly than going head on into the spray from a adv. gatling.
I personally feel that the main reason the tactic frustrates people is the special ships (most notably the Prometheus but to
a lesser extent the Valk and even the Marauder). All three have a huge edge in hull points over anything else in the game, and especially over anything with similar levels of manueverability. The Prom in particular can rocket ram any other ship to death and still retain at least 50% of its hull points, and its medium agility makes it relatively easy to obtain the point blank range it needs to accomplish the tactic. This opens up the tactic as something not only to be employed by newbies, but to be a principal strategy for some rather skilled and experienced players. Were it not for these special ships excess hull points, the majority of rocket rammers would simply be 'lemmings' at worst, and most experienced players would take greater care in avoiding a 'lemming' type situation. Some people have suggested that we improve the speed of the Sunflares, but I personally feel that this will only make the tactic more popular since using the very same tactic you will on average take less damage. Besides which, it will make the people who are good at using rockets just that much better, and it is not like there is evidence that Sunflares are sub-par weapon. Quite the contrary, lots of pilots (if not _most_) use them extensively. If the speed of the weapon goes up by more than 5m/s (at most) then certainly the proximity radius of the weapon will need to go down. Anything else risks turning the rocket into a 'god weapon' with no energy cost, high accuracy, and high damage. Changing the weapon might have merits, but not improving it.
So what is rocket ramming, should we do something about it, and is it a valid tactic?
First, the use of rockets has never been a sign of lack of skill in Vendetta. During 3.1 and earlier, 'type 2' rockets were
far and away the most common means of delivering a kill. Indeed, before the damage fix, fights were decided almost entirely by the first fighter to successfully land a clean rocket hit. One might well say that the skill of a pilot in Vendetta has by and large always been judged by his ability to dodge rockets and to make well aimed shots on opponents with rockets. But 3.2 opened us up to the possibility of other 'coup de gras' weapons - rail guns, dual and quad tachyon's, advanced gatlings, swarm missiles, and what have you - and with this diversity of choices naturally came players who felt that one wasn't showing true skill unless one fought with the exact same weapons you were using.
As a tactic, 'rocket ramming' refers to firing a rocket at a target when the range is so low that you are certain to recieve
some damage from the explosion. Most clearly, this is true whenever you fire a rocket at a range lower than the radius of the proximity fuse of the warhead - at which point the explosion is inescapable for the target. As a general tactic, a person who practices rocket ramming will close rapidly with a target on a straight line, and at close range begin firing as many rockets as possible in a cone known as 'rocket spew'. At least some of these rockets are expected to hit, usually resulting in damage for both the attacker and the target. To be successful, 'rocket ramming' requires therefore that the target at the minimum have fewer hull points than you have.
As a tactic, 'rocket ramming' has some obvious advantages and disadvantages. Because it is basically a straight on charge of a foe, it is tactically simple to perform requiring no precise targeting or manuevering. It tends to result in a relatively high ammount of damage in a relatively short period of time compared to the usual results of almost any other tactic. It consumes no more energy than is required for turboing, leaving the attacker capable of running after the attack. On the other hand, there is a good chance that you will actually suffer more damage than the target. If the target in fact dodges, or the rockets are poorly aimed, there is a good chance than when the warhead goes off, you will actually be closer to the warhead than the target is. A Sunflare 'blowing up in your face' can cause more than 1500 damage, while a Sunflare going off at the edge of its prox radius at a fleeing target will often do less than 1500 damage. Also, against an aware and compotent target, there is a good chance that the target will accelerate or strafe out of the path of the rockets resulting in all of the rockets missing. And, because rocket ammunition is limited, you will probably only be able to perform the tactic 3-4 times whether it is successful or not. Finally, there is a hard ceiling on the return on the tactical investment. It is not possible to 'rocket ram' and do much more than 1 damage for every point of damage you recieve. If the opponent is at all able to do some damage in return, in a fair fight the most likely result of 'rocket ramming' will be that everyone will see that you 'have issues'.
So, superficially, the principal advantage of 'rocket ramming' is that is tactic requiring not much skill - which is probably why 'rocket rammers' are derided. 'Rocket Ramming' really is 'cheap', tactically speaking. But, this really shouldn't be anything new to Vendetta players. The term 'rocket rammer' is simply a variation on a much older term 'lemming'.
One thing that should be clear is that if you _don't_ recieve any splash damage from a rocket attack then you aren't 'rocket ramming', and further that firing a rocket from a sufficiently far distance that you are able to get away from the blast and also intersect the position of a moving target requires some ammount of skill. Also it should be clear that everyone that uses rockets (and that would be the vast majority of all players currently, and every player prior to 3.2) is at one time or the other guilty of 'rocket ramming'. To a certain extent, I have to say 'so what?'. Skillful pilots in Vendetta have always made use of rockets with being accused of being poor players, and there are times when 'rocket ramming' is a valid tactic for even the most skillful of players. Some that occur to me are:
1) A player in a low agility ship (such as a Ragnarok) versus a player in a very high agility ship (such as a Centurian). It seems to me both that a Centurian player if he is skilled ought to be aware of the possibility of being overrun and capable of avoiding it, and likewise that there are only a small number of tactics available to the Ragnarok player for destroying a skilled Centurian pilot and the vast majority of them involve the deceptively simple tactic of coming to close range and mauling the Centurian with your superior firepower.
2) A player who has otherwise dominated a dogfight and who knows that his opponent is almost gone and one more hit will do it. This is the tactical equivalent of a gambit or sacrifice in chess, and neither tactic is considered a sign of low skill in that game.
3) A player who is facing overwhelming odds and as such is so busy dodging that precise offensive tactics are not open to them, but which needs to make a kill quickly (as in a flag cap).
4) A player who is using well placed rockets in much the same way another player might use a mine or a swarm, to deter an attacker from getting too close and thereby mauling the player with a close range weapon (such as an advanced gatling). The idea here is, 'Don't come any closer or you will get a rocket to the face.'
In the case of a head on attack vs. a rocket armed foe, the victim of the rocket ram was showing as little skill as the 'rocket rammer' - if not less; because, you ought to know that if you go head on against a rocket armed foe there is a good chance of getting several rockets on the nose. That's the tactical equivalent of walking straight into a boxer's right jab, and at least as silly than going head on into the spray from a adv. gatling.
I personally feel that the main reason the tactic frustrates people is the special ships (most notably the Prometheus but to
a lesser extent the Valk and even the Marauder). All three have a huge edge in hull points over anything else in the game, and especially over anything with similar levels of manueverability. The Prom in particular can rocket ram any other ship to death and still retain at least 50% of its hull points, and its medium agility makes it relatively easy to obtain the point blank range it needs to accomplish the tactic. This opens up the tactic as something not only to be employed by newbies, but to be a principal strategy for some rather skilled and experienced players. Were it not for these special ships excess hull points, the majority of rocket rammers would simply be 'lemmings' at worst, and most experienced players would take greater care in avoiding a 'lemming' type situation. Some people have suggested that we improve the speed of the Sunflares, but I personally feel that this will only make the tactic more popular since using the very same tactic you will on average take less damage. Besides which, it will make the people who are good at using rockets just that much better, and it is not like there is evidence that Sunflares are sub-par weapon. Quite the contrary, lots of pilots (if not _most_) use them extensively. If the speed of the weapon goes up by more than 5m/s (at most) then certainly the proximity radius of the weapon will need to go down. Anything else risks turning the rocket into a 'god weapon' with no energy cost, high accuracy, and high damage. Changing the weapon might have merits, but not improving it.
Excellent post, Celebrim! I have to agree with everything you just said.
I was wondering, probably the main reason people use these missiles is because they don't take any energy. Sometimes they use them without realizing how useless they really are.
Take the Gemini Heat seakers. They explode on contact, and only do 950 damage. A tachyon, with two hits, does 1300 damage. A gauss cannon does 1000 damage. Why don't people use gauss cannons? Well, because they take energy. We have too many reduntant weapons in the game. We see people using either the tachyon (or gravitron, for ambushing due to its high repeat-rate) and then rockets or geminis. For a capital ship, substitute the tachyons for a turret.
I propose that we have capacitors introduced into the game, both for weapon and boosting purposes. The greater the charge of the capacitor, and the longer you charge it, the longer you can sustain fire and/or boosting. For instance, the gravitron costs 25 energy/shot. (Thereabouts, I haven't checked in a while). You could offer a standard capacitor that will hold 500 energy and charge in 10 energy/second. That would allow a ship to fire 20 gravitron bolts with no loss to the battery, which would allow it to boost away after an attack. On a similar note, you could have a capacitor installed on your engine, to allow boosting for a short while without draining your battery (or introduce the much-debated fuel system, but that's another topic).
Of course which ships that can take capacitors, what kind, how much, etc can be debated. This would allow someone to "charge up" their weapons before a battle. Capacitors drained might indicate a non-hostile ship. To handle this, battery levels might be dropped.
I was wondering, probably the main reason people use these missiles is because they don't take any energy. Sometimes they use them without realizing how useless they really are.
Take the Gemini Heat seakers. They explode on contact, and only do 950 damage. A tachyon, with two hits, does 1300 damage. A gauss cannon does 1000 damage. Why don't people use gauss cannons? Well, because they take energy. We have too many reduntant weapons in the game. We see people using either the tachyon (or gravitron, for ambushing due to its high repeat-rate) and then rockets or geminis. For a capital ship, substitute the tachyons for a turret.
I propose that we have capacitors introduced into the game, both for weapon and boosting purposes. The greater the charge of the capacitor, and the longer you charge it, the longer you can sustain fire and/or boosting. For instance, the gravitron costs 25 energy/shot. (Thereabouts, I haven't checked in a while). You could offer a standard capacitor that will hold 500 energy and charge in 10 energy/second. That would allow a ship to fire 20 gravitron bolts with no loss to the battery, which would allow it to boost away after an attack. On a similar note, you could have a capacitor installed on your engine, to allow boosting for a short while without draining your battery (or introduce the much-debated fuel system, but that's another topic).
Of course which ships that can take capacitors, what kind, how much, etc can be debated. This would allow someone to "charge up" their weapons before a battle. Capacitors drained might indicate a non-hostile ship. To handle this, battery levels might be dropped.
You are correct in pointing out that the main issue here is the balance of ships. A rocket rammer flying a Valk will almost always kill someone in a Warthog or Hornet. The Valk will have the advantage of acceleration in this case, meaning that if the Warthog or Hornet pilot decides to run away in a close quarters battle, he'll only end up getting rockets shot up his ass. This is not good.
The reason why rocket ramming was accepted in 3.1.x was simply because everyone flew a light/medium/heavy ship with the same exact specs. That's not the case anymore. What determines whether a rocket rammer will win or not is the difference in hull integrity between the him and his opponent. And unfortunately some of the higher hull ships also have the added advantage of agility and acceleration, making this "tactic" a serious problem in gameplay.
What I proposed earlier was to give some new disadvantage towards people who group 2-3 rockets in their loadouts. While I discussed a longer reload time with one of the devs, they seemed a little reluctant about the idea. So maybe self inflicted splash damage should increase by 200% for the rocket rammer. But I think the ultimate fix to the problem would be to simply balance out all the ships, either by offering some of the non-special ships greater maneuverability and acceleration, or by increasing their hull integrity.
The reason why rocket ramming was accepted in 3.1.x was simply because everyone flew a light/medium/heavy ship with the same exact specs. That's not the case anymore. What determines whether a rocket rammer will win or not is the difference in hull integrity between the him and his opponent. And unfortunately some of the higher hull ships also have the added advantage of agility and acceleration, making this "tactic" a serious problem in gameplay.
What I proposed earlier was to give some new disadvantage towards people who group 2-3 rockets in their loadouts. While I discussed a longer reload time with one of the devs, they seemed a little reluctant about the idea. So maybe self inflicted splash damage should increase by 200% for the rocket rammer. But I think the ultimate fix to the problem would be to simply balance out all the ships, either by offering some of the non-special ships greater maneuverability and acceleration, or by increasing their hull integrity.
"I was wondering, probably the main reason people use these missiles is because they don't take any energy."
It may not be the main reason, but its certainly an important one - its also probably the principal reason that rockets should never be taken from the game. Without something like a rocket, when you ran out of energy you could neither run nor defend yourself.
But its not the only reason. The main reason is effective accuracy. Without laying out all the trig and drawing a bunch of triangles, it should be fairly easy to understand that with a tachyon you have to hit say a ~20 sq. meter target. With a rocket, you only have to manage to hit a ~2800 sq. meter target. This is why rockets have to remain relatively slow and easy to dodge, because the prox radius gives them a much higher effective accuracy.
It is also worth noting here that rockets are less effected by lag and by deficiencies in the auto-aiming algorithm. See my post in the 'turrets' thread in the suggestions forum.
"Take the Gemini Heat seakers. They explode on contact, and only do 950 damage. A tachyon, with two hits, does 1300 damage."
Well first, I'm pretty sure that Gemini's don't explode on contact, they have a 10m prox radius. This increases thier effective accuracy compared to a tachyon. Second, unlike Tachyon's, a poorly aimed Gemini will correct itself to some extent by homing in on its target, and this also improves its effective accuracy. Thirdly, unlike a Tachyon, the Gemini often needs to be continiously dodged, because it will continue to home in on its target even after its target has altered course. A tachyon can be dodged at any point after the Tachyon has been fired, but to truly shake a Gemini the dodge must be well timed. Also, Gemini's are fired two at a time, for a total of 1900 damage per half second, which compares well with a Tachyon's 1805 damage per half second. All of these advantages balance a Gemini's much lower speed against a Tachyon's high speed and unlimited ammunition.
"A gauss cannon does 1000 damage. Why don't people use gauss cannons? Well, because they take energy."
More to the point, they take too much energy for the ammount of damage that they do and the relative accuracy that they have. A guass cannon only does 1000 damage per half second, compared to a Tachyon's 1805. The gauss cannon is also much slower than a Tachyon, resulting in less effective accuracy because the target has more time to dodge. The gauss cannon also consumes 60 energy per half second as compared to a tachyon's ~53 per half second. All these disadvantes overwhelm the gauss cannon's small advantage in field of fire, and the gauss cannon cannot make an advantage out of its harder hitting munition because armor has not been implemented in the game. It doesn't even have enough punch to be a reasonable first strike weapon. Suggestions to improve the guass without overlapping the tachyon have been made, but have been largely ignored.
"I propose that we have capacitors introduced into the game, both for weapon and boosting purposes..."
Basically, this is a proposal for extra batteries on a ship, which I find to be too powerful of an option before the introduction of some other balancing factor (mass most likely).
It may not be the main reason, but its certainly an important one - its also probably the principal reason that rockets should never be taken from the game. Without something like a rocket, when you ran out of energy you could neither run nor defend yourself.
But its not the only reason. The main reason is effective accuracy. Without laying out all the trig and drawing a bunch of triangles, it should be fairly easy to understand that with a tachyon you have to hit say a ~20 sq. meter target. With a rocket, you only have to manage to hit a ~2800 sq. meter target. This is why rockets have to remain relatively slow and easy to dodge, because the prox radius gives them a much higher effective accuracy.
It is also worth noting here that rockets are less effected by lag and by deficiencies in the auto-aiming algorithm. See my post in the 'turrets' thread in the suggestions forum.
"Take the Gemini Heat seakers. They explode on contact, and only do 950 damage. A tachyon, with two hits, does 1300 damage."
Well first, I'm pretty sure that Gemini's don't explode on contact, they have a 10m prox radius. This increases thier effective accuracy compared to a tachyon. Second, unlike Tachyon's, a poorly aimed Gemini will correct itself to some extent by homing in on its target, and this also improves its effective accuracy. Thirdly, unlike a Tachyon, the Gemini often needs to be continiously dodged, because it will continue to home in on its target even after its target has altered course. A tachyon can be dodged at any point after the Tachyon has been fired, but to truly shake a Gemini the dodge must be well timed. Also, Gemini's are fired two at a time, for a total of 1900 damage per half second, which compares well with a Tachyon's 1805 damage per half second. All of these advantages balance a Gemini's much lower speed against a Tachyon's high speed and unlimited ammunition.
"A gauss cannon does 1000 damage. Why don't people use gauss cannons? Well, because they take energy."
More to the point, they take too much energy for the ammount of damage that they do and the relative accuracy that they have. A guass cannon only does 1000 damage per half second, compared to a Tachyon's 1805. The gauss cannon is also much slower than a Tachyon, resulting in less effective accuracy because the target has more time to dodge. The gauss cannon also consumes 60 energy per half second as compared to a tachyon's ~53 per half second. All these disadvantes overwhelm the gauss cannon's small advantage in field of fire, and the gauss cannon cannot make an advantage out of its harder hitting munition because armor has not been implemented in the game. It doesn't even have enough punch to be a reasonable first strike weapon. Suggestions to improve the guass without overlapping the tachyon have been made, but have been largely ignored.
"I propose that we have capacitors introduced into the game, both for weapon and boosting purposes..."
Basically, this is a proposal for extra batteries on a ship, which I find to be too powerful of an option before the introduction of some other balancing factor (mass most likely).
but you see.. i dont think that would work out... realisticly speaking. A capacitor is supposed to drain itself as fast as it can. So it's usualy 1 huge jolt of energy.. (heheheh... i found that out when taking apart a single use camera.. burned my finger and knocked my ass to the ground) So maybe it could be used to overcharge a weapon or your engine. (super speed for like 5 seconds or a lot of dmg) However.. too many over charges and it will burn out. (no more turbo or shots from the gun)
However, the charge cannon would be able to charge up as many times as you wanted
However, the charge cannon would be able to charge up as many times as you wanted
"What I proposed earlier was to give some new disadvantage towards people who group 2-3 rockets"...
Perhaps this is too cruel... but one way to do this would be to have missiles trigger off of other missiles. That is, if you have a 10m prox., and you fire two missiles at once, they blow each other up in your face. :-)
BTW... I have been accused of rocket ramming. Which is funny, because I SUCK at fighting, and only attack in self-defense. If I rocket-ram, it's by accident because I can't get clear in time to splash myself. It's not intentional, trust me.
Perhaps this is too cruel... but one way to do this would be to have missiles trigger off of other missiles. That is, if you have a 10m prox., and you fire two missiles at once, they blow each other up in your face. :-)
BTW... I have been accused of rocket ramming. Which is funny, because I SUCK at fighting, and only attack in self-defense. If I rocket-ram, it's by accident because I can't get clear in time to splash myself. It's not intentional, trust me.
Rockets really need to be fixed/removed they simply elimitnate the need for any kind of tactical dogfight, if your in anything but a valk then you are most likely gonna die. The railgun, in theory, would be the best counter to a "rocket ram" but in it's current state it's barely a useful weapon. Mines are a good counter if you have good enough warning but most likely by the time you've realised your about to be "rocket rammed" then turned and turboed it's probably too late.
Maybe the rockets need some kind of reload time between each shot so people can't fire 10 rockets in 3 seconds. Or reduce the proxy/make them contact weapons. Or make them slower and more bomb like so their main purpose is frigate killing.
Maybe the rockets need some kind of reload time between each shot so people can't fire 10 rockets in 3 seconds. Or reduce the proxy/make them contact weapons. Or make them slower and more bomb like so their main purpose is frigate killing.
"Rockets really need to be fixed/removed they simply elimitnate the need for any kind of tactical dogfight..."
I don't see how that follows. Please explain.
"if your in anything but a valk then you are most likely gonna die."
What about the Prom? This assertion simply isn't born out by reality.
"The railgun, in theory, would be the best counter to a "rocket ram""
Actually, the railgun has always been a very difficult weapon to employ versus 'rocket ram' or any other up close and personal tactic (gatlings) as it is hard to aim at close range against a moving target and cycles very slowly. Rails and rockets originally filled the same power niche, with edge in rockets at closer ranges and the edge to rails at longer ones.
"but in it's current state it's barely a useful weapon."
That we can agree on.
"Mines are a good counter if you have good enough warning but most likely by the time you've realised your about to be "rocket rammed" then turned and turboed it's probably too late."
This experience does not parallel my own, nor does it seem to be indicitive of the behavior of my targets except for the few occassions when I've caught someone typing. In combat, most people who I target with rockets appear to react almost immediately to the appearance of yellow dots on thier radar or the presence of a bright red dot moving rapidly on the radar screen. I know I do. A quick reaction should get you away from most of a rocket spew, and a swarm or lightning will definately go along ways to detering a rocket rammer and turning the tables on them.
"Maybe the rockets need some kind of reload time between each shot"
They do - 1/2 second. Six rockets per tube every 3 seconds, but six is usually a waste because you've generally slowed to much for the rockets to be effective after the 3rd or 4th one.
"Or reduce the proxy/make them contact weapons."
Sounds like you just want to nerf the rocket.
"Or make them slower and more bomb like so their main purpose is frigate killing."
Don't we already have Avalons for that?
I don't see how that follows. Please explain.
"if your in anything but a valk then you are most likely gonna die."
What about the Prom? This assertion simply isn't born out by reality.
"The railgun, in theory, would be the best counter to a "rocket ram""
Actually, the railgun has always been a very difficult weapon to employ versus 'rocket ram' or any other up close and personal tactic (gatlings) as it is hard to aim at close range against a moving target and cycles very slowly. Rails and rockets originally filled the same power niche, with edge in rockets at closer ranges and the edge to rails at longer ones.
"but in it's current state it's barely a useful weapon."
That we can agree on.
"Mines are a good counter if you have good enough warning but most likely by the time you've realised your about to be "rocket rammed" then turned and turboed it's probably too late."
This experience does not parallel my own, nor does it seem to be indicitive of the behavior of my targets except for the few occassions when I've caught someone typing. In combat, most people who I target with rockets appear to react almost immediately to the appearance of yellow dots on thier radar or the presence of a bright red dot moving rapidly on the radar screen. I know I do. A quick reaction should get you away from most of a rocket spew, and a swarm or lightning will definately go along ways to detering a rocket rammer and turning the tables on them.
"Maybe the rockets need some kind of reload time between each shot"
They do - 1/2 second. Six rockets per tube every 3 seconds, but six is usually a waste because you've generally slowed to much for the rockets to be effective after the 3rd or 4th one.
"Or reduce the proxy/make them contact weapons."
Sounds like you just want to nerf the rocket.
"Or make them slower and more bomb like so their main purpose is frigate killing."
Don't we already have Avalons for that?
I like the idea of a small reload time, but I think reducing the proxy or slowing them will nerf them to the point of uselessness. Removing them seems like a gross over reaction, and I disagree that an experienced pilot in anything but a Valk is doomed to lose. I know what I'm doing with rockets, but a pilot who knows how to stick and move without getting too close can make me waste a good number of my rockets.
"However.. too many over charges and it will burn out. (no more turbo or shots from the gun)"
Or they could arc and explode randomly! :P
Or they could arc and explode randomly! :P
How 'bout just offering rockets for L-ports only. Trust me, you don't really need rockets on fighters. I mean heaven forbid some people learn to aim and use energy weapons for a change. Homers seem like a more logical choice on fighters, given the fact that no modern air force in this day and age uses unguided rockets for air-to-air combat. Why would it be logical for any military in the year 4432 to use 'em?!!
I was thinking maybe there could be three levels of homing missiles -- level 1 homers would have poor tracking but high damage, level 2 homers would have better tracking and would inflict medium damage, and level 3 homers would have excellent tracking (like 3.1.x seekers) but at the cost of low damage.
I was thinking maybe there could be three levels of homing missiles -- level 1 homers would have poor tracking but high damage, level 2 homers would have better tracking and would inflict medium damage, and level 3 homers would have excellent tracking (like 3.1.x seekers) but at the cost of low damage.
Arolte, I was kinda advocating this elsewhere. (Well, it was abolition of unguided warheads all together, but it's still a similar idea - "why should unguided rockets be used in the Vendetta universe anyway?").
We finally seem to agree on something =P
(BTW, I can't recall what thread it was in though)
We finally seem to agree on something =P
(BTW, I can't recall what thread it was in though)
"I mean heaven forbid some people learn to aim and use energy weapons for a change."
Ahh... I see. The slander begins.
Ahh... I see. The slander begins.
No one complained in pre-3.2. When there were 2 energy weapons (essentially), no one cared that rockets were the most commonly used weapons and were the most powerful by far. But suddenly the devs in their infinite kindness present us with dozens of energy weapons and what do we do? We b**ch about the superiority of rockets, something which is not new. I saw people "rocket ramming" with heavy-vs-light in pre-3.2 using lvl2 rockets. But no one ever complained... Just my little insight into this discussion. Yes I have been rocket rammed (Cohl and Icarus), and yes it hurt when it worked, ie when I didn't orbit a roid, which is sure defense, but I'm not gonna complain.
(This has been a production of Roguelazer Flames Studios)
(This has been a production of Roguelazer Flames Studios)
I really don't know what will please everyone (probably nothing), but Celebrim's is the best advice, and I would point the devs down that road. However, someone had a good idea of treating rockets like ships (det within 30m). This would force people to fire rockets alternatively to avoid massive splash damage. The extra tubes would merely function as extra ammo.
One thing I noticed while fighting lots of prometheus is that if you're even BEHIND a person (about 5m) and that prometheus fires rockets, it still detonates because you're still within the proximity range of the rockets. Now that's just sad :/
Yeah, Blaster, I hate that. A skilled Promy pilot sees someone coming up behind them, but can't turn fast enough, so they unload a couple of rockets aimlessly and you'll be taking some of that splash damage. Really cheap tactic. Maybe if rockets had a conical area of splash damage, instead of a spherical one. But then that would present greater opportunities for rocket rammers to do their thing with minimal self-inflicted damage.
I think the reoccuring theme here is the Prom. Fix that, then we can talk rockets with a little more perspective on the problem.
In 3.1 the ships were perfectly balanced. Therefore if one fighter "rocket rammed" another it would likely die along with its target. That's why it was called the "lemming". It was annoying when it happened to you but at least you had the satisfaction of your opponent dying. A medium or heavy could rocket ram without dying, but since they were slower and their armor advantages weren't obscene it was unlikely that they would get into a position to do so.
In 3.2 a Vulture pilot is unfortunate enough to run into unbalanced ships like the Valkyrie which are superior in aglity, firepower and armor. Even if your opponent doesn't "rocket ram" you still have to be more than twice the pilot he or she is to win. You'll also run into proms. In 3.1 heavies were heavy, and therefore slow. The Ragnarok is still heavy and slow and you have to be surprised, very unfortunate or very unskilled to be rocket rammed by one. The 3.2 prom, however, is the heaviest ship ever but has medium agility.
The solution is to balance the special ships more closely with the regular ones. A very slight edge over their regular alternatives would be okay, but right now they're definitely überships.
Asp
In 3.2 a Vulture pilot is unfortunate enough to run into unbalanced ships like the Valkyrie which are superior in aglity, firepower and armor. Even if your opponent doesn't "rocket ram" you still have to be more than twice the pilot he or she is to win. You'll also run into proms. In 3.1 heavies were heavy, and therefore slow. The Ragnarok is still heavy and slow and you have to be surprised, very unfortunate or very unskilled to be rocket rammed by one. The 3.2 prom, however, is the heaviest ship ever but has medium agility.
The solution is to balance the special ships more closely with the regular ones. A very slight edge over their regular alternatives would be okay, but right now they're definitely überships.
Asp
I propose a really simple solution to this problem, which should be easy to implement: Timed or ranged fuses. Modern weapons already have this, to some extent (at least as far as I know).
Now, a Sunflare rocket has a detonation radius of 60 meters. This means that it shouldn't arm its warhead until the firer is at least 60 meters away. An advanced warhead (and it does have that level of technology since it can detonate by proximity) will track the firer and arm itself only when it is clear. A more primitive warhead will simply wait ((blast radius/velocity)+extra slacktime) seconds, and then arm itself.
As the Sunflare rockets are commonly used, I'll use them for my primitive warhead example. Sunflares travel 55 m/s faster than their launcher. They have a blast radius of 60 meters. They will, therefore, wait (60 m/55 m/s) or 1.1 seconds before arming themselves, as it will take 1.1 seconds for them to clear the firing ship and not harm it if it detonates.
The purpose of the slacktime is to cover errors by panicking or clumsy pilots. For instance, if I were accelerating forward while firing Sunflares, I could stay within the blast radius longer, or even pace the rocket. The slacktime is simply to compensate for this, although rockets should really only be released to pilots who have demonstrated some ability to use them without hurting themselves in the process.
The advanced warhead will protect even the clumsiest of pilots. As long as they can possibly harm him, they won't arm--period. If the pilot flies back into its blast radius (for instance, fly backwards, fire, wait a second, then boost 'til you overrun them), they will disarm themselves.
One might wish to consider penalizing pilots who habitually bring back ships they have self-damaged, but this is strictly a roleplay consideration, and may overcomplicate things. The timed warheads, I think, is the simplest solution.
(Note: An unarmed warhead that collides with any solid object means the rocket is destroyed, with minimal damage, at worst, inflicted on the rammee.)
Now, a Sunflare rocket has a detonation radius of 60 meters. This means that it shouldn't arm its warhead until the firer is at least 60 meters away. An advanced warhead (and it does have that level of technology since it can detonate by proximity) will track the firer and arm itself only when it is clear. A more primitive warhead will simply wait ((blast radius/velocity)+extra slacktime) seconds, and then arm itself.
As the Sunflare rockets are commonly used, I'll use them for my primitive warhead example. Sunflares travel 55 m/s faster than their launcher. They have a blast radius of 60 meters. They will, therefore, wait (60 m/55 m/s) or 1.1 seconds before arming themselves, as it will take 1.1 seconds for them to clear the firing ship and not harm it if it detonates.
The purpose of the slacktime is to cover errors by panicking or clumsy pilots. For instance, if I were accelerating forward while firing Sunflares, I could stay within the blast radius longer, or even pace the rocket. The slacktime is simply to compensate for this, although rockets should really only be released to pilots who have demonstrated some ability to use them without hurting themselves in the process.
The advanced warhead will protect even the clumsiest of pilots. As long as they can possibly harm him, they won't arm--period. If the pilot flies back into its blast radius (for instance, fly backwards, fire, wait a second, then boost 'til you overrun them), they will disarm themselves.
One might wish to consider penalizing pilots who habitually bring back ships they have self-damaged, but this is strictly a roleplay consideration, and may overcomplicate things. The timed warheads, I think, is the simplest solution.
(Note: An unarmed warhead that collides with any solid object means the rocket is destroyed, with minimal damage, at worst, inflicted on the rammee.)