Hard Light Productions Forums
General FreeSpace => FreeSpace Discussion => Topic started by: Kosh on January 06, 2005, 11:56:37 pm
-
Do people here REALLY use those things unless they have to? I personally think they are stupid. They do very little shield damage, and they take up a lot of space. I prefer Tempests to the anyday.
So what about everybody else?
EDIT: I intended this for just single player, not multiplayer. I just realised I forgot to mention that.
-
I agree, they're pretty weak and you can only carry so little (unlike in the demo where they're much better). Rockeyes are really effective in multiplayer though. :)
-
i like them because you don't need to lock up. it's like an aspect seeker with 0 lock on time. who would want that?
-
i don't like them because you can't carry many and they really should do a bit more damage
-
The problem with Freespace is that the Harpoon only takes up 2 cargo space. In Freespace 1, more/less also missiles took up 4 spaces, such as the MX, the Interceptor, Hornet, and so forth. But suddenly the Harpoon is 1/2 the size of the other main anti-fighter missiles, and it's very effective, so basically most peopel will just use Harpoon (along with larger missiles like Tornadoes and Trebs).
Basically, if the Harpoon were 4 spaces like the Rockeye, more people might use the Rockeye, but as it is I think the missile is largely ineffective and ammunition tends to run dry pretty quickly. It's one, and only advantage (aside from no aspect lock) is its relatively long range at about 1.5 clicks
-
It's one, and only advantage (aside from no aspect lock) is its relatively long range at about 1.5 clicks
It's long range wont help it since you have to use your primaries (at the beginning of most campaigns anyway) to take down the enemies' shields.
-
Extremely useful in multiplayer. Useless in Single.
-
Rockeyes are probably the second-most useful missile in the entire game.
It's really, really noticeable where the HLP community comes from. The sheer existance of this thread shows you haven't played FS2 multi, or at least played it to an extent beyond newbie-ness, or else a topic like this would have never appeared. :)
It shows, how different the two Freespace communities were, and probably still are, and why they never got along (i.e. stayed almost totally seperated) in the first place.
**Disclaimer: This post is not intended to offend anyone. I merely thought it interesting.
-
The sheer existance of this thread shows you haven't played FS2 multi,
Absolutly correct. :) I never play the multi-player parts of games, just the singleplayer. I meant evaluating their usefulness in single player.
-
Rockeyes are incredibly useful against the...er...****, I can't say what justnow. They're useful against something, shall we say.
:D
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Rockeyes are incredibly useful against the...er...****, I can't say what justnow. They're useful against something, shall we say.
:D
You do a lot of pimping lately....subversive pimping ...but still :D
-
Originally posted by Lightspeed
Rockeyes are probably the second-most useful missile in the entire game.
It's really, really noticeable where the HLP community comes from. The sheer existance of this thread shows you haven't played FS2 multi, or at least played it to an extent beyond newbie-ness, or else a topic like this would have never appeared. :)
It shows, how different the two Freespace communities were, and probably still are, and why they never got along (i.e. stayed almost totally seperated) in the first place.
**Disclaimer: This post is not intended to offend anyone. I merely thought it interesting.
I'd get back to playing multi if i could just find some damn validated tables....the ones I keep using seem to screw things up! Whenever I switch back the old ones too, its still invalid :doubt:
-
Originally posted by Col. Fishguts
You do a lot of pimping lately....subversive pimping ...but still :D
hehe.......I'm hiding in plain sight, shall we say.
It makes a really neat tactical dynamic, though..... you use harpoons, trebuchets for one, um, "kind" of enemy, and the likes of Rockeyes and tornados for another. The difference is distinctly marked compared to FS1/2 IMO.
-
I tend to fire off a bunch of rockeyes when my target is 1.5 klicks out, then hit the afterburners to close the distance and strip off the shield with my primaries, timing it so the rockeyes hit just as the shield drops. Might not be the most effective way to dogfight, but it looks cool.
-
they're good against sentry guns.
-
Chewing gum on a string is useful against SGs, though, so that's not saying much.
-
Originally posted by Singh
I'd get back to playing multi if i could just find some damn validated tables....the ones I keep using seem to screw things up! Whenever I switch back the old ones too, its still invalid :doubt:
English root.vp from the HLP FTP server.
-
The Rockeye is actually pretty effective against subsystems, I found that out by accident one day. It outranges most capital weapons, and unlike the Stiletto it doesn't have the bomb flag and so can't be shot down.
The MX-50 was just as bad about the space taken up in FS1. You can fit half again as many Interceptors into as you can MX-50s in a missile bank.
-
Originally posted by Lightspeed
English root.vp from the HLP FTP server.
I already have the root.vp (CD install here - albiet, from before I lost the CDs, so no re-install is possible now) and even though extracting the files work, it still gives me hacked tables....at least, it was like that last time.
*goes to try again.
Oh, and rockeyes are pretty good in Multi, but nearly useless in SP except at the beggining. But even then I prefer tempests, truth to be told :P
-
Originally posted by ngtm1r
The MX-50 was just as bad about the space taken up in FS1. You can fit half again as many Interceptors into as you can MX-50s in a missile bank.
What are you talking about? :wtf: Interceptors are/were the exact same size as MX-50s (and Rockeyes).
-
Eh? I can fit 10 MX-50s in the Valk's missile bank, but 15 Interceptors...I think...*goes to check the tables*
Edit: Cargo size 4.0 for both. Odd...I could swear I've seen what I mentioned above.
-
well who cares, cause the mx-50 sucked
Rockeyse are awesome though, they are realy good on the second mission of the first loop where all the fighters explode, a single rockey should take em down each in their weakened state.
-
Maybe I was using 'em wrong, but I always found Intewrceptors to be horribly inaccurate.
-
I love rockeyes, in single and multiplayer, because once you get behind an enemy, five or six of them will take them out immediately.
-
Originally posted by Roanoke
Maybe I was using 'em wrong, but I always found Intewrceptors to be horribly inaccurate.
did you wait for them to lock on?
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
I love rockeyes, in single and multiplayer, because once you get behind an enemy, five or six of them will take them out immediately.
Except that's almost all the rockeyes you can carry XD
Against the AI, Interceptors are rather horribly accurate IMO. The AI simply isn't any good at dodge missiles
Damnit, how did I somehow double post like that?
-
Rockeyes are good at long-range against cruiser turrets and sentries.
-
Maybe I was using 'em wrong, but I always found Intewrceptors to be horribly inaccurate.
I think all of the missiles had pretty subpar tracking in FS1. The best weapon was the Hornet by far I believe. The Interceptor often missed, as did the Phoenix-V which Bombers could avoid fairly easily. And then of course there was the Fury, which as far as I can tell, really sucked. (not that the Fury had any tracking ability, it was just a crappy missile)
-
in FFA or TVT matches, rockeyes totaly kick ass.
Just unload both banks on that shekmet and laugh.
Lightspeed was always better though.
-
Originally posted by Akalabeth Angel
Maybe I was using 'em wrong, but I always found Intewrceptors to be horribly inaccurate.
I think all of the missiles had pretty subpar tracking in FS1. The best weapon was the Hornet by far I believe. The Interceptor often missed, as did the Phoenix-V which Bombers could avoid fairly easily. And then of course there was the Fury, which as far as I can tell, really sucked. (not that the Fury had any tracking ability, it was just a crappy missile)
Most community members stated they hated the Hornet. I am among them.
-
The only thing I like the hornet for is attacking light cruisers (Cain, Fenris, Aten, rarely Lilith) if I'm in a heavy fighter.
-
So, it's not just me who's had bad experiences with FS1 tracking.
Y'know, coming to FS2, at first I never used anything but dumbfires - furies may suck, but I can hit something with a fury. Actually, most things I can hit many times. And not much damage * many times beats mucho damage + miss every time.
I was amazed when I tried out harpoons and later trebuchets. A missile that would actually hit something, that I didn't have to aim myself.
-
i actually use tempests alot if its an interecpt mission. of course i'll fly the herc2 since it can carry 400(!) of them and you really only need about 10 to kill a bomber. coupled with a couple Prom Standards and its deadly.
-
The tracking was just right in FS1 IMO. Hornet's are good against larger targets, like freighters and cruisers, coupled with primaries. And you can score hits with missiles in FS1, just don't expect them to do 360* turns like the ones in FS2 ;)
Besides, real men stick to primaries anyways :o
-
Originally posted by Ai No Koriida
...Besides, real men stick to primaries anyways :o
Not unconditionally, what do you think why someone chooses the Hercules Mark II? This tactic is the best if you fly an interceptor, I admit. I follow this book personally, given the fact I cannot simply fly Heavy Fighters and Bombers so fine. I can only kill a Dragon in two seconds without missiles... kidding. :D
-
Originally posted by TopAce
I can only kill a Dragon in two seconds without missiles... kidding. :D
It's not really too hard to kill a Dragon, a couple of good shots with something effective against shields will put it's shields out of comission, after that, death is instantenious. :D
-
I'm partial to primaries. I only use missiles for a distraction, or finishing shot at a distance.
-
Originally posted by Ai No Koriida
It's not really too hard to kill a Dragon, a couple of good shots with something effective against shields will put it's shields out of comission, after that, death is instantenious. :D
The ML-16, you mean?
Sorry, I am in a witty mood today.
-
I can only kill a Dragon in two seconds without missiles... kidding.
Yeah, it takes me two seconds to hit ~k too.
-
Originally posted by TopAce
The ML-16, you mean?
Sorry, I am in a witty mood today.
Nah, I was thinking more like Banshee or S-Breaker. But ML-16? Sure, it's fine with me. :p
-
Its suprising to see how accurate missles can be in FS 1 when you see a really good player play :p
-
Frankly, I never even noticed that missiles were really inaccurate in FS1 (except for the mx).
However, once you've played FS2 and go back to FS1, you realized how much you had to compensate to make those missiles hit (like Pheonix V's).
-
I usually use Hornets/tornados and Rockeyes, with either Subach's or Kaiysers for both online and offline play :D :p
Guess I'm just different :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by High Max
You can't say that because for example, if you never used your secondaries then you wouldn't have been able to destroy the foward turrets of the Sathanas in time, thus causing the GTVA some serious problems. The GTVA's safety, the safety of civilians, and getting the job done is more important than pride and self-confidence:p
If it would have been FS1, I WOULD have been able to destroy the SJ with my primaries ;7
-
Well, I hate the rockeyes. Only good thing is that they don't have to lock up, but other than that, I hate 'em. Even the name is bad... Trebuchet is my fav...