Sat Mar 22, 2003 2:13 pm
FL rocket concept rather.. questionable?
A few of you maybe already know me from the spoiler/editing boards, but for the others - I'm on lvl38 and have played about 50h of FL just counting SP mode and - moreover - I have worked my way rather deep into the game files in the last days as well.
And by all means, FL is a really great game - but nonetheless I'm convinced that that still must not mean that all constructive criticism should go hide in a corner. Now, on to the subject...
Judging from my experience, rockets have three characteristics that make them useful in games, and for some reason or another, neither of them seems to really apply in Freelancer.
#1) the "toybox/toolbox" factor
A rather small aspect - namely that rockets sometimes carry functionalities that are not present in any other weapon, such as EMP payloads, stun effects or, like in FL, cruise disruptors. Well, FL has a bit of this aspect, but it only offers that cruise disruptor projectile and a small series of EMP-anti-shield rockets - that unfortunately don't make too much sense, see #2 and #3 for more.
Plus, I found myself fruitlessly looking for things such as a cluster/swarm missile or a flashpack, just to name a few nifty toys from other games.
#2) the "damage blast" factor
Another important raison d'etre for rockets is that they are usually able to deliver a nice amount of damage in a single strike, thus weakening too-strong enemies or killing weakened ones. Let's look at FL again. The rocket damage payloads may look acceptable at first, but it doesn't take too long in the game until your blaster weapon phalanx delivers even more damage in a single volley of shots. Now, in any other game, rockets would still be perfectly worth the while because of factor #3. Unfortunately, #3 is where most of FL's rocket problems boil down to.
3) the "fire and forget" factor
In my opinion, the main task of a rocket should be to 'get you out of a tight spot' - because, unlike normal weaponry, they are costly and so typically you only use them when in deeper trouble.
A standard situtation would be the follwoing: you're currently fighting multiple enemies and you want to turn your attention to the next one before actually having to hunt down the first to the very end. So, after significantly damaging your first opponent, you usually fire a rocket at him, lock on to the next target and wait for his blip to disappear from your scanners while you're barraging your new target. But this won't work in FL.
Admitted, at first it may sound like an interesting idea to "aid" your rockets aim by somewhat 'guiding' their path with your crosshair. Unfortunately, I found this to be utterly inappropriate in combination with the rest of FLs rocket concept.
Why? Well, if you have to somewhat "keep track" of your enemy with your reticle anyway to make the rocket hit, it is more efficient to fire at him with your normal blasters. Let's say an average FL missile needs 2.5 seconds of "reticle guiding" until it slams into the chosen target. (and this is a fairly optimistic guess in a standard situation) Now, if one compares the blasters and rockets that are available at certain points of progress in the game story, it becomes obvious that the damage which a good blaster can dish out in those 2-3 seconds is the same or even substantially higher than the payload of the best missiles that are available then.
To make it worse, missile launchers and blasters take the same hardpoints. That means that if you equip a rocket, you have to give up a blaster for it, meaning that during the 3s of "reticle guiding" you could as well dish out more damage if you had a blaster in that sixth slot instead of the currently non-firing missile launcher.
<...>
So... where exactly is the point of using missiles then? Maybe apart from the very early stages of the game where your blasters are comparably "weaker" than your rockets? (not to mention that you probably don't have the cash to buy many rockets anyway then) Moreover, I don't really like the idea of 'mixed combat' where you fire blasters and missiles at the same target at the same time because you will easily lose track of the enemies exact health rating then - and therefor fire maybe costly missiles for naught.
There'd be many ways to save the system, like for example giving the missiles a significantly higher damage than a blaster can deliver in the couple seconds of "reticle guidance" and make them much more expensive in turn - or indroducing 'missile hardpoints' - or making at least the so-called "homing" missiles really "self-homing" and not only "more maneuvrable than unguided ones". Well, I'm a bit into modding and at least I'd be able to realize the first idea - but I ask myself "is this really my duty and not rather that of the devs?". Of course I could make such a mod, but it's far easier for me and others to just use blasters - this is simply an aspect that should have been properly tweaked in the very beginning instead of being modded afterwards.
Any comments on that? I freely admit that I may have missed an important point speaking in favor of FLs current missile concept, but currently I simply don't see it.
a missile-free
D_R
+++ " Infinity? Nah, been there. " +++ =)
Edited by - Digital_Ronin on 22-03-2003 14:18:55
And by all means, FL is a really great game - but nonetheless I'm convinced that that still must not mean that all constructive criticism should go hide in a corner. Now, on to the subject...
Judging from my experience, rockets have three characteristics that make them useful in games, and for some reason or another, neither of them seems to really apply in Freelancer.
#1) the "toybox/toolbox" factor
A rather small aspect - namely that rockets sometimes carry functionalities that are not present in any other weapon, such as EMP payloads, stun effects or, like in FL, cruise disruptors. Well, FL has a bit of this aspect, but it only offers that cruise disruptor projectile and a small series of EMP-anti-shield rockets - that unfortunately don't make too much sense, see #2 and #3 for more.
Plus, I found myself fruitlessly looking for things such as a cluster/swarm missile or a flashpack, just to name a few nifty toys from other games.
#2) the "damage blast" factor
Another important raison d'etre for rockets is that they are usually able to deliver a nice amount of damage in a single strike, thus weakening too-strong enemies or killing weakened ones. Let's look at FL again. The rocket damage payloads may look acceptable at first, but it doesn't take too long in the game until your blaster weapon phalanx delivers even more damage in a single volley of shots. Now, in any other game, rockets would still be perfectly worth the while because of factor #3. Unfortunately, #3 is where most of FL's rocket problems boil down to.
3) the "fire and forget" factor
In my opinion, the main task of a rocket should be to 'get you out of a tight spot' - because, unlike normal weaponry, they are costly and so typically you only use them when in deeper trouble.
A standard situtation would be the follwoing: you're currently fighting multiple enemies and you want to turn your attention to the next one before actually having to hunt down the first to the very end. So, after significantly damaging your first opponent, you usually fire a rocket at him, lock on to the next target and wait for his blip to disappear from your scanners while you're barraging your new target. But this won't work in FL.
Admitted, at first it may sound like an interesting idea to "aid" your rockets aim by somewhat 'guiding' their path with your crosshair. Unfortunately, I found this to be utterly inappropriate in combination with the rest of FLs rocket concept.
Why? Well, if you have to somewhat "keep track" of your enemy with your reticle anyway to make the rocket hit, it is more efficient to fire at him with your normal blasters. Let's say an average FL missile needs 2.5 seconds of "reticle guiding" until it slams into the chosen target. (and this is a fairly optimistic guess in a standard situation) Now, if one compares the blasters and rockets that are available at certain points of progress in the game story, it becomes obvious that the damage which a good blaster can dish out in those 2-3 seconds is the same or even substantially higher than the payload of the best missiles that are available then.
To make it worse, missile launchers and blasters take the same hardpoints. That means that if you equip a rocket, you have to give up a blaster for it, meaning that during the 3s of "reticle guiding" you could as well dish out more damage if you had a blaster in that sixth slot instead of the currently non-firing missile launcher.
<...>
So... where exactly is the point of using missiles then? Maybe apart from the very early stages of the game where your blasters are comparably "weaker" than your rockets? (not to mention that you probably don't have the cash to buy many rockets anyway then) Moreover, I don't really like the idea of 'mixed combat' where you fire blasters and missiles at the same target at the same time because you will easily lose track of the enemies exact health rating then - and therefor fire maybe costly missiles for naught.
There'd be many ways to save the system, like for example giving the missiles a significantly higher damage than a blaster can deliver in the couple seconds of "reticle guidance" and make them much more expensive in turn - or indroducing 'missile hardpoints' - or making at least the so-called "homing" missiles really "self-homing" and not only "more maneuvrable than unguided ones". Well, I'm a bit into modding and at least I'd be able to realize the first idea - but I ask myself "is this really my duty and not rather that of the devs?". Of course I could make such a mod, but it's far easier for me and others to just use blasters - this is simply an aspect that should have been properly tweaked in the very beginning instead of being modded afterwards.
Any comments on that? I freely admit that I may have missed an important point speaking in favor of FLs current missile concept, but currently I simply don't see it.
a missile-free
D_R
+++ " Infinity? Nah, been there. " +++ =)
Edited by - Digital_Ronin on 22-03-2003 14:18:55
