Anti Vehicle launchers

Please can they be buffed?

Please can you also look at some counter systems to repair the damage?

Like can we have landing damage adjusted on flying vehicles so they're not paper thin versus the terrain and can repair tools also get a decent buff so that players can repair said vehicles fairly easily? If the player had to get out of the vehicle to repair it he would be vulnerable to enemy fire so that counterbalances the speed of his repair tool.

I dont want to relight a flame war but as a neutral party I saw some great points made in the last vehicle thread and want to discuss them without any hostility.

Please can we just look at this issue by itself without the big picture for a second because it will invariably send the discussion off track.

All of this talk makes me want to play the game again but I want to play in a fun environment and be a small part of making the game great again.

Agreed that a Balanced Anti Vehicle launcher would be a suitable counter, but the one hit damage on the bomb still needs a little adjustment still as it is able to 1 shot a fully capped character/ 2 shots on Fully buffed ppu.

I agree the AV & AA launchers need a buff.

My testing showed they do much less dps then the main weapons you would use (creed, summer leech, HL, etc).

They apparently do "lock on" but couldn't test that on my own properly.

The AV & AA ammo holds a vhc dmg stat, so I'd suggest buffing the dmg from that significantly. This should mean there's no increase in dmg to runners but much higher dmg on vhcs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoshCooper

I agree the AV & AA launchers need a buff.

My testing showed they do much less dps then the main weapons you would use (creed, summer leech, HL, etc).

They apparently do "lock on" but couldn't test that on my own properly.

The AV & AA ammo holds a vhc dmg stat, so I'd suggest buffing the dmg from that significantly. This should mean there's no increase in dmg to runners but much higher dmg on vhcs.

---

This x100.

For the record - I dont want to see people using moonstrikers to bring down a vehicle but I would like to see someone who specifically wields an AV weapon to be able to destroy a vehicle and perhaps wound a player somewhat but not destroy them totally. Possibly blast damage resistance could be added to some low strength armour to give the spy (driver) a fighting chance if he has to repair under fire.

I dont want to see vehicular pvp/pve driven out of NC because it is something I think this game sorely needs as content but I would love to see MORE of it as more people have the opportunity to fight one another in vehicle combat.

Down the line perhaps we would even be able to see rare vehicles dropping as parts too but maybe that is a step slightly too far for this thread.

Yep - been saying this for a while now. Both the anti-vehicle and anti-air launchers should be boosted to make them a more viable counter.

Ideally, I'd like to see:

Either a long time to 'lock on', or have a long re-fire, doing 20%(as an example) damage in 1 hit.
The slow fire-rate and high punch damage give the driver/pilot an opportunity to pull the vehicle out of the fight to repair. So rather than straight up destroying vehicles (and therefore removing their viability from the game), it acts more as a deterant.

Be heavy
Most tanks that I see tend to carry a CS and a Dev. I've like the launcher to be heavy enough, with its ammo, to make the tank leave one of those behind when taking up an anti-vehicle role, so that ground troops can still counter the AV operative.

Apply their additional damage to vehicles/air vehicles only
Low-moderate damage to runners would further enforce that these are anti-vehicle deterants, rather than all purpose backup weapons.

The rationale is providing a viable anti-vehicle weapon, which doesn't just straight up nullify the use of vehicles - but rather adds a tactical element that both sides need to think carefully before deploying. If defenders deploy a launcher, they're losing DPS from their tank. If the bomber deploys, it will need more ground support to take out the anti-air defences.

No real business commenting on what should/shouldn't be done in this regard, as I can't say I honestly have any experience with the numbers.

But it is nice to see an attempted compromise between different parties.

Carry on.