Forums » General
Acierocolotl: That's a good thought, but not one that I'm entirely sure is necessary in this case. I proposed a similar solution for Avalons, but the minimal prox radius (they are now effectively contact) seems to have done the trick. Perhaps the devs only wanted a short term solution though and plan to implement something like this latter. I don't know. The existing solution has the definite advantage of requiring no new code.
Part of the problem is that a skilled rocket user can obtain separation from the rocket in much less than 1.1 seconds. I think think of at least three ways to do it, and I depend on all of them to achieve the clean hits with rockets that I need to win with them. If I could only hit targets greater than 1.1 seconds away, the rocket would be essentially nerfed, and I'd have to look to the less employable gemini for the effect I want. It's hard enough getting clean hits on a target with all the tricks in the book, if they always have the eternity of a full 1.1 seconds to respond - forget it. So this more or less rules out simple fuses as a solution as far as I'm concerned, unless the fuse has a very short timer - say .2 seconds.
The advanced fuses would solve the problem more directly, but still limit the weapon to an extent that I think is not needed. Part of my post was that every so often, rocket ramming is a valid tactic, and that were the ships balanced rocket ramming would not be so detrimental to gameplay that we need to go out of our ways to ban it. A partial safety fuse is probably even worse. If for example the fuse wouldn't go off if it was within 30m of the target, then you are making rocket ramming 'safe' by elminating one of the big penalties of using rockets. In effect, you would be making rocket ramming a tactic requiring even less skill.
There are also latency questions I have regarding the advanced fuse. Would it always work?
I basically don't think that the rocket is the problem here. I think that the core of most peoples frustration with rockets is the lack of even a near balance between the ships.
Part of the problem is that a skilled rocket user can obtain separation from the rocket in much less than 1.1 seconds. I think think of at least three ways to do it, and I depend on all of them to achieve the clean hits with rockets that I need to win with them. If I could only hit targets greater than 1.1 seconds away, the rocket would be essentially nerfed, and I'd have to look to the less employable gemini for the effect I want. It's hard enough getting clean hits on a target with all the tricks in the book, if they always have the eternity of a full 1.1 seconds to respond - forget it. So this more or less rules out simple fuses as a solution as far as I'm concerned, unless the fuse has a very short timer - say .2 seconds.
The advanced fuses would solve the problem more directly, but still limit the weapon to an extent that I think is not needed. Part of my post was that every so often, rocket ramming is a valid tactic, and that were the ships balanced rocket ramming would not be so detrimental to gameplay that we need to go out of our ways to ban it. A partial safety fuse is probably even worse. If for example the fuse wouldn't go off if it was within 30m of the target, then you are making rocket ramming 'safe' by elminating one of the big penalties of using rockets. In effect, you would be making rocket ramming a tactic requiring even less skill.
There are also latency questions I have regarding the advanced fuse. Would it always work?
I basically don't think that the rocket is the problem here. I think that the core of most peoples frustration with rockets is the lack of even a near balance between the ships.
Celebrim, I'm not convinced that reducing the detection radius of the rockets is the ideal solution. As it stands, the weapons have a very hard time hitting a subject that isn't cooperating (ie: using them while embroiled in a dogfight, barring extreme circumstances, is extremely difficult); they need that blast radius to hit. The Avalons were another matter, but I won't open that topic again. Some people are still "retired" over it.
With some thought on the matter, I think the purpose of the rockets should be bombardment, much as they are presently used in reality--perfect on slower-moving targets, and futile on fighters or most air-to-air engagements. Their use as a dogfighting weapon should be phased out as weapons that can fill that niche are phased in. As it stands, leave them, because it allows at least some additional tactical variety.
So far as "skill" is concerned, well, it's a nice consideration. However, some weapons require very minimal skill at best to use, and the majority segue towards requiring less skill to fire (assuming the targetting info is always correct). Most of the energy guns fall into this category, with some requiring even less skill than others.
With all that written, you are right, again--ship balance is lacking, and as I've posted before, it's sort of futile to seriously consider weapon balance when ship balance isn't there, and the ideal way to balance powerful ships may not be to nerf them, but to simply limit their numbers, or time spent between procurements. For instance, if a player may only purchase one Prometheus a week, that will assuredly balance their power! It will make Prometheus pilots guard their ships jealously, as well. I would suspect some sort of "rank" will be required to get the more powerful ships, but I know nothing about this I'm at liberty to discuss.
So let me summarize--I'm not sure that rockets were ever used in the way they were intended. They're great for bombardments, and I think a decent interim solution is to prevent them from injuring the launcher, by way of a primitive or advanced fuse. An RP solution would be ideal, but this would be extremely difficult to enforce fairly.
One final balancing solution that occured to me--if it becomes harder to disengage from a combat, the use of ammunition-driven weapons will decrease; those using only rocket launchers may find themselves in a great deal more trouble than they originally were. Running away remains too easy a tactic, but one I have mixed feelings about.
With some thought on the matter, I think the purpose of the rockets should be bombardment, much as they are presently used in reality--perfect on slower-moving targets, and futile on fighters or most air-to-air engagements. Their use as a dogfighting weapon should be phased out as weapons that can fill that niche are phased in. As it stands, leave them, because it allows at least some additional tactical variety.
So far as "skill" is concerned, well, it's a nice consideration. However, some weapons require very minimal skill at best to use, and the majority segue towards requiring less skill to fire (assuming the targetting info is always correct). Most of the energy guns fall into this category, with some requiring even less skill than others.
With all that written, you are right, again--ship balance is lacking, and as I've posted before, it's sort of futile to seriously consider weapon balance when ship balance isn't there, and the ideal way to balance powerful ships may not be to nerf them, but to simply limit their numbers, or time spent between procurements. For instance, if a player may only purchase one Prometheus a week, that will assuredly balance their power! It will make Prometheus pilots guard their ships jealously, as well. I would suspect some sort of "rank" will be required to get the more powerful ships, but I know nothing about this I'm at liberty to discuss.
So let me summarize--I'm not sure that rockets were ever used in the way they were intended. They're great for bombardments, and I think a decent interim solution is to prevent them from injuring the launcher, by way of a primitive or advanced fuse. An RP solution would be ideal, but this would be extremely difficult to enforce fairly.
One final balancing solution that occured to me--if it becomes harder to disengage from a combat, the use of ammunition-driven weapons will decrease; those using only rocket launchers may find themselves in a great deal more trouble than they originally were. Running away remains too easy a tactic, but one I have mixed feelings about.
I do want rockets nerfed. I hate them. I think they have no place in a space sim, other than bombardment of stations/capital ships, but thats just my opinion. My main problem is that sun flare rockets just make the smaller ship classes utterly pointless and not worth buying.
Most of my experience with rockets has always been : See hostile person, see them run towards me, I turbo away, turbo runs out, bang, 0.1 seconds later I'm dead the other guy's laughing he's got a cheap and easy kill and I have tried everything to avoid this situation and there's only two things that work strafeing a LOT using the valk (not always sucessful) OR hope that the enemy doesn't see your mines but even then mines are only a deterrant and trying to dogfight someone intent on rocket ramming is simply pointless.
1/2 a second reload time is a joke.
That railgun bit is ALL theory based on that you would be able to kill an enemy before he gets within rocket ram range but for that to work the rail gun needs to be increased in damage.
The two large port rockets are fine because they can only be used in two's AND they are only available to low manuverable ships as it should be.
I know the prom with survive the rocket ram BUT the prom is dead to me and I will NOT use it in it's current state.
Most of my experience with rockets has always been : See hostile person, see them run towards me, I turbo away, turbo runs out, bang, 0.1 seconds later I'm dead the other guy's laughing he's got a cheap and easy kill and I have tried everything to avoid this situation and there's only two things that work strafeing a LOT using the valk (not always sucessful) OR hope that the enemy doesn't see your mines but even then mines are only a deterrant and trying to dogfight someone intent on rocket ramming is simply pointless.
1/2 a second reload time is a joke.
That railgun bit is ALL theory based on that you would be able to kill an enemy before he gets within rocket ram range but for that to work the rail gun needs to be increased in damage.
The two large port rockets are fine because they can only be used in two's AND they are only available to low manuverable ships as it should be.
I know the prom with survive the rocket ram BUT the prom is dead to me and I will NOT use it in it's current state.
hunter,
I'm not going to say much, but in 3.1 rockets were the favorite, and yes even then there were people who used it wrong.
Solution: hunt them :D.
If somebody uses that technique and starts laughing his socks off, just hunt him with a couple fellows, I''m sure he will be death in a maater of seconds, and you will be laughing your socks off :D
PS: use this knowledge wisely paduwan, don't go into the l;ight doooonnnn'''tttttt :D
What I really wanted to say, even in 3.1 we got that problem, and we just called him a lemming or a rocketspammer. The only solution to this is don't get mad, let him get mad and he will make a fault, on that moment blast him. Worked for me , like a charm :D. Besides if he sees that you are outmanouvring everything that he throws at you, he will get scared faster.
And on another account, from which nation are you ?
cheers
I'm not going to say much, but in 3.1 rockets were the favorite, and yes even then there were people who used it wrong.
Solution: hunt them :D.
If somebody uses that technique and starts laughing his socks off, just hunt him with a couple fellows, I''m sure he will be death in a maater of seconds, and you will be laughing your socks off :D
PS: use this knowledge wisely paduwan, don't go into the l;ight doooonnnn'''tttttt :D
What I really wanted to say, even in 3.1 we got that problem, and we just called him a lemming or a rocketspammer. The only solution to this is don't get mad, let him get mad and he will make a fault, on that moment blast him. Worked for me , like a charm :D. Besides if he sees that you are outmanouvring everything that he throws at you, he will get scared faster.
And on another account, from which nation are you ?
cheers
Today I rocket rammed a bunch of rocket rammers, and boy were they pissed. Nothin' like giving them a taste of their own medicine.
You guys are missing a very large point here, perhaps someone wants to play as a Martyr? Ever think of that? Also I was called a "rocket rammer" for just using my Grav/Sunflare setup. I'm sorry that it works so good for me and not for you. Take your piss fit somewhere else.
Ok... So you want no rockets? Well, I can deal with that... sorta... The running away thing I disagree with, though. If you want to, you should be able to run. And if you say it's too easy now, try being in sector 15 deep space looking for the 16 gate when Icarus comes outta the s10 gate looking for you. And as for Celebrim, well, you kinda went off on a tangent. I don't pretend to understand everything you say, but to me you seemed to be implying that rockets employed while boosting at someone is rocket-ramming. If I'm wrong, just tell me and I'll edit this into something different. But it appears that you're saying one of the problems is that 1.1 seconds for someone to clear the rocket blast is not a good time. Err... Could you explain this? But then at the end you say that you don't really mind rocket-ramming, and that is more like being comprehendable to me. Hmmm... Why do I get the feeling that no one here likes rockets? Hey Icarus, if you're reading this thread, let's get your input here. There's about 3 posters here just mirroring each others' ideas, let's get the other side in here. Cohl, Icarus, all of you big rocket-ramming type people, get your butts in here and give your opinion!
The term "rocket rammer" is the cause of most players not having the common sense in thinking "gee that player is heading right at me, perhaps I should change my course" and dying, directly blaming the "rocketter" for the targets lack of IQ to think and dodge. That's my opinion at least.
roguelazer: Either you are awfully confused, or else my writing is really bad.
"...but to me you seemed to be implying that rockets employed while boosting at someone is rocket-ramming."
I don't think I said that anywhere.
"But it appears that you're saying one of the problems is that 1.1 seconds for someone to clear the rocket blast is not a good time."
Yes, I did say that. I thought I had explained myself, but once again the reason that having the warhead not explode for 1.1 seconds is not a good thing, is that to use a rocket and actually get clean hits with regularly, you have to be able to get clear of it in less than 1.1 seconds. If the oppoenent always had 1.1 seconds to react to the missile, then I'd almost never hit. One second is a long time. Human reflex is down in the 1/10th to 1/20th of a second range.
There are three ways I do get clear in less than 1.1 seconds. First, the 'snap shot'. In the snap shot I boost toward the target but not directly at it. When I think I've gotten the target to commit to an attack run, I turn toward the target and fire a rocket in its path, then immediately turn in the opposite direction and boost away at an angle. The result is that I can fire a rocket at a target much less than 1.1 second away and still get clear of the splash. The second is to boost toward the target, and then let off the turbo as a I fire. This cause me to decelerate creating a 60m gap between me in the rocket in as little as .3 of a second. The third is basically the same, but employed when not turboing or when I need extreme separation, and that's to fire then go into reverse as fast as possible. So 1.1 seconds is not a realistic number, and if a timing fuse was introduced it would need to be much lower even if that allowed 'rocket ramming' to some degree.
"But then at the end you say that you don't really mind rocket-ramming..."
Yes, I said that too. I think rocket ramming is its own penalty. I think that rockets are basically balanced. I think that the problem isn't the rockets, its the ships.
Basically, I'm a little bit irritated by the people that I identified at the top of this thread: "...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." Look, I can play that game too. I think that rockets are one of the few quality weapons left in the game that takes real skill to use. I think that the energy weapons are largely skill free if you are employing auto-aiming or a gatling because basically all you have to do is point your ship near the targeting reticule and the game takes care of the rest. It's not possible to achieve better accuracy than the targeting reticule without turning autoaiming off, and I generally think people who rant about how accurate they are with energy weapons are being a little bit silly. I'll be impressed if you are good with energy weapons and never 'target' what you are shooting at. Otherwise, hitting a target with an energy weapon is more a function of how good the target is at dodging, what the target's lag is like, what your lag is like, and not your skill at aiming. Heck, I think dodging energy weapons are as much exploiting the autoaimings bugs as it is skill, but that's just me. I think when the devs figure out how to get autoaim to compensate for a steady barrel roll that alot of people are going to have to relearn how to play. I think removing all the 'skilled' weapons from the game (rockets, rails) whatever, is a bad idea and I'm afraid from what I've seen that the devs are somewhat inclined to do it with just a little encouragement (they've as much as said to me that the purpose of the targeting reticule is to reduce the differences in player skill) so I'm trying to head it off.
"...but to me you seemed to be implying that rockets employed while boosting at someone is rocket-ramming."
I don't think I said that anywhere.
"But it appears that you're saying one of the problems is that 1.1 seconds for someone to clear the rocket blast is not a good time."
Yes, I did say that. I thought I had explained myself, but once again the reason that having the warhead not explode for 1.1 seconds is not a good thing, is that to use a rocket and actually get clean hits with regularly, you have to be able to get clear of it in less than 1.1 seconds. If the oppoenent always had 1.1 seconds to react to the missile, then I'd almost never hit. One second is a long time. Human reflex is down in the 1/10th to 1/20th of a second range.
There are three ways I do get clear in less than 1.1 seconds. First, the 'snap shot'. In the snap shot I boost toward the target but not directly at it. When I think I've gotten the target to commit to an attack run, I turn toward the target and fire a rocket in its path, then immediately turn in the opposite direction and boost away at an angle. The result is that I can fire a rocket at a target much less than 1.1 second away and still get clear of the splash. The second is to boost toward the target, and then let off the turbo as a I fire. This cause me to decelerate creating a 60m gap between me in the rocket in as little as .3 of a second. The third is basically the same, but employed when not turboing or when I need extreme separation, and that's to fire then go into reverse as fast as possible. So 1.1 seconds is not a realistic number, and if a timing fuse was introduced it would need to be much lower even if that allowed 'rocket ramming' to some degree.
"But then at the end you say that you don't really mind rocket-ramming..."
Yes, I said that too. I think rocket ramming is its own penalty. I think that rockets are basically balanced. I think that the problem isn't the rockets, its the ships.
Basically, I'm a little bit irritated by the people that I identified at the top of this thread: "...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." Look, I can play that game too. I think that rockets are one of the few quality weapons left in the game that takes real skill to use. I think that the energy weapons are largely skill free if you are employing auto-aiming or a gatling because basically all you have to do is point your ship near the targeting reticule and the game takes care of the rest. It's not possible to achieve better accuracy than the targeting reticule without turning autoaiming off, and I generally think people who rant about how accurate they are with energy weapons are being a little bit silly. I'll be impressed if you are good with energy weapons and never 'target' what you are shooting at. Otherwise, hitting a target with an energy weapon is more a function of how good the target is at dodging, what the target's lag is like, what your lag is like, and not your skill at aiming. Heck, I think dodging energy weapons are as much exploiting the autoaimings bugs as it is skill, but that's just me. I think when the devs figure out how to get autoaim to compensate for a steady barrel roll that alot of people are going to have to relearn how to play. I think removing all the 'skilled' weapons from the game (rockets, rails) whatever, is a bad idea and I'm afraid from what I've seen that the devs are somewhat inclined to do it with just a little encouragement (they've as much as said to me that the purpose of the targeting reticule is to reduce the differences in player skill) so I'm trying to head it off.
Alright Roguelazer, i'll "get my butt in here."
BUT I do have to say that I am in no way a "huge" rocket rammer, I use rockets because they are simply one of the best, if not the best close range weapon right now. My definition of rocket ramming is basically what has been said here:
a rocket rammer is someone who boosts or flys in close enough to launch a rocket in which both parties the fired upon and the launcher take damage. It really is simply just another term for "lemmings." Now the term "rocker rammer" is generally used more viciously than in 3.1.x versions of vendetta, but I believe that is because now that we do have access to 10+ more weapons and most of them are unique. It gives more options to a game that previously only had 2 choices of energy weapons if you wanted to even stand a chance against another pilot. The previous missile weaps, you really only had another 1 choice, take the lvl 2 rockets, and seekers... or hope you can run very very fast.
Now since I was so "invited" into this conversation I would like to point out another fact about "rocket rammers." The fact that most rocket rammers fly valks is not coincidence. The valk is the best fighter in the game, it has high enough hull points that you can ACTUALLY duel or fight another fighter or heavier ship, without taking 1 shot and being blown up. Yes you could bring in piloting skills and what not but the reality is with some of the weapon combo's being used today, you either join the crowd and get the 2 special ships (valk and prom) or you die. There is plenty of room to argue that last point and i'll be glad to do it in another thread. Back to this thread, since all the rocket rammers are in valk, they can use the very high agility in unison with the higher hull points to actually stand a chance against the prometheus. Essentially its using 2 unbalanced ships to cancel each other out, the sad part is all other ships whether they be balanced against each other or not makes no difference, they are not balanced against the valk or the prom. As of right now, I would have to say the valk /w rockets combo beats the pants off the prom /w anything. Yes the prom has massive hull points and medium agility, but it cant match a very fast moving valk with even dual sunflares.
Rocket ramming does not work too well on proms because of the double hull points they have over valks, but the valk has enough speed and agility to get off 2-3 rockets each time close enough to the prom so each rocket hits, and still only cause minimal damage to the valk. It only takes 18 sunflares to take down a prom, 18 may sound like alot but it really is not, especially with valk pilots going dual and even tripple sunflares on their ships. 9 shots from the dual, and 6 from the tripple, you add in the fact that each sunflare launcher can hold 18? rockets. That leaves a lot of room for error.
Rocket rammers are annoying, yes. Are they entirely unstopable, NO.
oh and ps roguelazer- you'll find that Icarus and I (Cohl) are actually some of the least rocket ramming types you'll find. Infact I'm not so young to vendetta as to remember how hard it was to earn credits and going the way of the lemming was just stupid. If you dont take splash damage from your own rockets, its NOT rocket ramming/lemming.
Cohl / Jorus
BUT I do have to say that I am in no way a "huge" rocket rammer, I use rockets because they are simply one of the best, if not the best close range weapon right now. My definition of rocket ramming is basically what has been said here:
a rocket rammer is someone who boosts or flys in close enough to launch a rocket in which both parties the fired upon and the launcher take damage. It really is simply just another term for "lemmings." Now the term "rocker rammer" is generally used more viciously than in 3.1.x versions of vendetta, but I believe that is because now that we do have access to 10+ more weapons and most of them are unique. It gives more options to a game that previously only had 2 choices of energy weapons if you wanted to even stand a chance against another pilot. The previous missile weaps, you really only had another 1 choice, take the lvl 2 rockets, and seekers... or hope you can run very very fast.
Now since I was so "invited" into this conversation I would like to point out another fact about "rocket rammers." The fact that most rocket rammers fly valks is not coincidence. The valk is the best fighter in the game, it has high enough hull points that you can ACTUALLY duel or fight another fighter or heavier ship, without taking 1 shot and being blown up. Yes you could bring in piloting skills and what not but the reality is with some of the weapon combo's being used today, you either join the crowd and get the 2 special ships (valk and prom) or you die. There is plenty of room to argue that last point and i'll be glad to do it in another thread. Back to this thread, since all the rocket rammers are in valk, they can use the very high agility in unison with the higher hull points to actually stand a chance against the prometheus. Essentially its using 2 unbalanced ships to cancel each other out, the sad part is all other ships whether they be balanced against each other or not makes no difference, they are not balanced against the valk or the prom. As of right now, I would have to say the valk /w rockets combo beats the pants off the prom /w anything. Yes the prom has massive hull points and medium agility, but it cant match a very fast moving valk with even dual sunflares.
Rocket ramming does not work too well on proms because of the double hull points they have over valks, but the valk has enough speed and agility to get off 2-3 rockets each time close enough to the prom so each rocket hits, and still only cause minimal damage to the valk. It only takes 18 sunflares to take down a prom, 18 may sound like alot but it really is not, especially with valk pilots going dual and even tripple sunflares on their ships. 9 shots from the dual, and 6 from the tripple, you add in the fact that each sunflare launcher can hold 18? rockets. That leaves a lot of room for error.
Rocket rammers are annoying, yes. Are they entirely unstopable, NO.
oh and ps roguelazer- you'll find that Icarus and I (Cohl) are actually some of the least rocket ramming types you'll find. Infact I'm not so young to vendetta as to remember how hard it was to earn credits and going the way of the lemming was just stupid. If you dont take splash damage from your own rockets, its NOT rocket ramming/lemming.
Cohl / Jorus
In my opinion:
rocket ramming is just an awful habit. The reason behind this is, that people can take out another player who is so to speak l33t. In my opinion you shouldn't fire rockets from to close distance, if you did that, then your own ship should explode.
Ao if you shot the rocket from to close, then in stead of taking blast damage for only a tiny bit, let's just take it away the half on your own hull. This way there is a margin for making a calculation mistake "darn he was to close when he attacked me".
But in my history in 3.1, I almost never shot rockets at close distance, because I knew that the blast would kill me. I would try to shoot them at 500 - 600m , and that gives you time enough to dodge them, and to not receive blast damage.
So actually, the only people using the rocket rammer technique, are people who think they are good, or because of an occasional mistake or because they got fed up with that technique that they use the technique on the purpotrader itself.
So my recap: Just don't use it, it's a cheap way of getting a kill. But like in every game, there will always be cheap ways. We just have to let the community know, not to use it and let know that whoever uses it withouth stating that it was an accident will get rammed a couple times,. to see if they like it.
I hope this is/was a sound and logical explication
cheers
rocket ramming is just an awful habit. The reason behind this is, that people can take out another player who is so to speak l33t. In my opinion you shouldn't fire rockets from to close distance, if you did that, then your own ship should explode.
Ao if you shot the rocket from to close, then in stead of taking blast damage for only a tiny bit, let's just take it away the half on your own hull. This way there is a margin for making a calculation mistake "darn he was to close when he attacked me".
But in my history in 3.1, I almost never shot rockets at close distance, because I knew that the blast would kill me. I would try to shoot them at 500 - 600m , and that gives you time enough to dodge them, and to not receive blast damage.
So actually, the only people using the rocket rammer technique, are people who think they are good, or because of an occasional mistake or because they got fed up with that technique that they use the technique on the purpotrader itself.
So my recap: Just don't use it, it's a cheap way of getting a kill. But like in every game, there will always be cheap ways. We just have to let the community know, not to use it and let know that whoever uses it withouth stating that it was an accident will get rammed a couple times,. to see if they like it.
I hope this is/was a sound and logical explication
cheers
A simple time delay could solve this problem... an 0.6 second time delay on the rockets becoming 'armed' would mean there would be no way to hit someone behind you with them.
Yea this is a major problem...just a clean example of what should happen.
Must be 75m-125m+ away from the target in order for the rockets to fire...if you get to close to an enemy the rockets unarm. Will rearm after u get ur distance.
Thus would easily fix ships like the prom. running into you and unleashing a payload of rockets.
Must be 75m-125m+ away from the target in order for the rockets to fire...if you get to close to an enemy the rockets unarm. Will rearm after u get ur distance.
Thus would easily fix ships like the prom. running into you and unleashing a payload of rockets.
I don't see the need for any of this... If you let a Prom get that close, your just asking for it...
And only mines should be able to get ppl who are behind (unless we get rear-facing ports)
Possibly more annoying are pilots who have more manueverable ships who get right up on you in your Prom and plink away with their tri or quad weapons, then cry "Rammer!" when you give up with the turret and just rocket them. I don't deliberately rocket ram, but if you're going to be in my face I'm not going to give up an expensive ship just to avoid name-calling. If anything, these pilots are the rammers - I'm just bringing the rockets.
I agree with Kidd's post.
I agree with Kidd's post.
Realize there are legit uses for the "rocket-ram."
<Quote Celebrim>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).</quote>
You would be eliminating these choices from a pilot's arsenal of tactics. Realize that for every "law" that gets put into the game limiting rocket-rams, you are creating more bland and generic dogfights.
Once we see the Prom's maneuverability decreased, we might see rocket-ramming occurences go down. To solve the problem with Valks using tri-rockets, why not make certain small-port slots have ammo restrictions? Say, the Valk's 3 ports are divided this way: 1 s port capable of holding 8 rockets, 12 homers, or 30 rail gun rounds. 2 s ports have no ammo capability.
This would not limit the amount of ammo each "tube" could hold, but rather make the ship the limiting factor. For instance, make the Wart Hog's s port capable of holding 30 rockets. Would that not give it more staying power?
<Quote Celebrim>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).</quote>
You would be eliminating these choices from a pilot's arsenal of tactics. Realize that for every "law" that gets put into the game limiting rocket-rams, you are creating more bland and generic dogfights.
Once we see the Prom's maneuverability decreased, we might see rocket-ramming occurences go down. To solve the problem with Valks using tri-rockets, why not make certain small-port slots have ammo restrictions? Say, the Valk's 3 ports are divided this way: 1 s port capable of holding 8 rockets, 12 homers, or 30 rail gun rounds. 2 s ports have no ammo capability.
This would not limit the amount of ammo each "tube" could hold, but rather make the ship the limiting factor. For instance, make the Wart Hog's s port capable of holding 30 rockets. Would that not give it more staying power?
Keep rockets in their current state and you might as well rename this game to "Rocket arena" and chuck away every other weapon and while your at it just throw away all the non-special ships as well.
Every weapon should be useable and at the moment the "rocket ram" dominates all others weapons because it requires the least effort from the player and is a 80% certain kill but I am looking at this from a all ships useable point of view so maybe the problem is the ships rather than the rockets themselves maybe if a lighter ship had a higher top speed or are more energy efficient then the "rocket ram" wouldn't be so devistating.
Really rockets and rocket ramming are two different weapons. One is an unguided rocket that is a good weapon when the pilot has good aim and good prediction skills and the other is an exploitation of the rockets proxy and a ships superior hull armour. One is a valid tactic and the other is just cheap and tacky.
One solution might be to make the ships explosion more harmful so that the rocket rammer WILL die as well. This would mean that people won't be so quick to resort to a cheap method but it would also allow it to be used in a desperate situtaion and the rocket could regain it's place as a respectable weapon.
Every weapon should be useable and at the moment the "rocket ram" dominates all others weapons because it requires the least effort from the player and is a 80% certain kill but I am looking at this from a all ships useable point of view so maybe the problem is the ships rather than the rockets themselves maybe if a lighter ship had a higher top speed or are more energy efficient then the "rocket ram" wouldn't be so devistating.
Really rockets and rocket ramming are two different weapons. One is an unguided rocket that is a good weapon when the pilot has good aim and good prediction skills and the other is an exploitation of the rockets proxy and a ships superior hull armour. One is a valid tactic and the other is just cheap and tacky.
One solution might be to make the ships explosion more harmful so that the rocket rammer WILL die as well. This would mean that people won't be so quick to resort to a cheap method but it would also allow it to be used in a desperate situtaion and the rocket could regain it's place as a respectable weapon.
"One solution might be to make the ships explosion more harmful so that the rocket rammer WILL die as well. This would mean that people won't be so quick to resort to a cheap method but it would also allow it to be used in a desperate situtaion and the rocket could regain it's place as a respectable weapon"
Could you be more specific? If we are simply increasing the damage that rockets deliver, I think that will just create other problems. There have been some other discussions about rockets not arming until a certain time or distance has elapsed, and the like, that are probably more effective.
I hear what you are saying about still being able to use them for desperate situations, but there are plenty of pilots who think it's far better to lemming than to die by a clean kill.
The "rocket arena" comment I think overstates the problem.
Could you be more specific? If we are simply increasing the damage that rockets deliver, I think that will just create other problems. There have been some other discussions about rockets not arming until a certain time or distance has elapsed, and the like, that are probably more effective.
I hear what you are saying about still being able to use them for desperate situations, but there are plenty of pilots who think it's far better to lemming than to die by a clean kill.
The "rocket arena" comment I think overstates the problem.
I think i got an idea that will work
If the launching ship would also be affected by the splash dmg, the rocket doesn't explode. it WILL NOT explode if it's launching ship is within a distance thatw ill hurt it. instead it just becomes a javilin sorta thing doing around 500 dmg if it hits the otehr ship.
If the launching ship would also be affected by the splash dmg, the rocket doesn't explode. it WILL NOT explode if it's launching ship is within a distance thatw ill hurt it. instead it just becomes a javilin sorta thing doing around 500 dmg if it hits the otehr ship.