Many possible changes have been discussed for rockets. I think the best one might be to...

Limit all fighter-class vessels to a single rocket launcher. Anything capable of carrying two or more rocket launchers should be in the slower attack-ship class.

Asp

This ties in well with the idea of subdividing small & large portsinto energy and projectile ports...which I support.

Sounds good to me. After all, it's hard to imagine a launcher _and_ ammo attaching to the same hardpoint as an energy weapon.

Asp

I agree with this...

The small ports for energy weapons and large ports for projectile weapons idea sounds good to me, and the original poster's idea seems reasonable.

yup... those two ideas sounds good ...

they bith go on same way : reduce the rammers chance in a fight... and it's good

Deedo

Or a medium port for rockets and heat seekers only might work also.

I think the idea of limiting rockets is fine, but I'm very much against requiring all ships to carry a rocket, which specific rocket/energy slots would do.

Also the devs have an image of flexibility and moding of ships for the final game (http://www.guildsoftware.com/ven.ships.and.addons.html) so a solution to ramming that doesn't crimp that would be desirable.

Yeah, I don't like the idea of being required to use at least one rocket either. Maybe the M-port can also hold S-port weapons also, but not the other way around.

I agree with Eldrad (which is becoming a habit). I'd also like to enlarge what he says about the devs image of the game.

Splitting up S ports was the first suggestion I made after playing 3.2.0. This suggestion was made literally within hours of the update being released, and like most of my suggestions it had involved a bit of pencil and paper doodling, some brainstorming, and a systematic description of the solution. I thought I had it all figured out. However, in the next few days I got a chance to talk to ray, inc, and a1k0n about the game and the direction they were giving it and realized that splitting up the S port was not a solution they were interested in. So I dropped the suggestion and started looking for other ways of fixing the problems 3.2.0 introduced.

I don't think it is particularly profitable to keep harping on suggestions and so called solutions that the devs have basically said 'no' to (many times in some cases) and which significantly alter the planned feature set (whenever we get a glimpse of it). There is more than one way to do things, and more than one game which can be made. We need to keep in mind that this is John's game and are suggestions should always be trying to improve his game and not to turn his game into our game. And we should be very careful not to wed ourselves to one particular solution lest we get really upset when the devs see the solution to one problem as being quite different than the way we see it, or even don't see what we see as a problem as being a problem.

To pick on myself, I very much think that fuel would help the game and would be a solution to a variaty of problems that the game either has or will have in the near future. But the devs apparantly have thier own plans, and these don't appear to involve fuel. I don't know exactly what they involve, but fuel doesn't appear to be it. I'd like fuel in the game, but if Vendetta never sees its first fuel cell I'm just going to shrug. It's a relatively minor thing. Vendetta's really serious issues have little to do with fuel, engines, rockets, and all the other things that so much invective and verbage gets spilled over. And I suspect that the devs know that and that's why they don't spend most of thier time worrying about the things that most people are so passionate about.

In the end, I guess you can boil all that down to 'Let's be patient out there.'