Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register | PSU Social |
PSU: Creating a disturbance since 2002
Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register | PSU Social |
2012-07-07, 09:36 AM | [Ignore Me] #46 | ||
Private
|
Wholeheartedly disagree.
As it stands now assault rifles as clearly visible in footage suffer from far less recoil then most shooter games and this is with mostly NC footage having the most recoil. So with that in mind doing the 3 shot bursts routine for head shots looks highly effective already and I see no problems with LA vs LA battles. So then what if they get a battle rifle? Mid range single shot battles they now have an advantage why? because they can reposition easier you say? They are still wearing hospital gowns for armor, and that is the trade off for their mobility. Yes they will be able to find high points etc. and such, so what. In a map that LONG range is preferable you already admit you should be using an infiltrator. In a long range map you have little obstacles by default or it would not be a long range map and you would be better of with an assault rifle, to top that off you will more then likely be dealing with vehicular combat on long stretches. So what is the real scenario?? Having a battle-rifle will keep LA competitive in spaced out maps. They wont have anti vehicle weapons, closest thing will be charges for ground vehicles. What do you end up with is a more well rounded LA with a higher skill trade off with the only real advantage being more accuracy at the higher end of medium ranges and a definite trade off at close quarters. Also note that battle-rifles will have no synergy with shooting mid air, that said the repositioning thing is being blown way out of proportion. Jump jets are slow as molasses in winter, it has nothing to do with the speed of it JUST where they can be and as mentioned before assault rifles are quite snipey already at mid ranges. Is having someone sneaking around on a rooftop intimidating to me? Hell no, not when I have a damage absorption shield, much more health in general, higher caliber weapons at my disposal and hey back up from my medic and my engineer. Getting on a rooftop might be OMGZZ to some but it also excludes people from all the support mechanisms the game has to offer and being there alone is already a high risk vs reward decision. And with so many roles in the game all made to adapt to the battlefield, anyone really have to think about a bunch of LA being annoying with mid range weapons on some peak no one can reach?? There really isn't enough versatility to deal with that especially since they are one of the classes that can be one shotted by an infiltrator? No, if anything giving LA battle-rifles it will be more motivation to play infiltrators or hey even a HA with some cover and a battle-rifle as well. What I do believe to be misbalanced is the HA not having a resupply case I find LA (only) an odd choice over the pillars of squad battles Their high mobility and constant movement make them less then ideal to be the steady resupply point, it sounds like hell for the slower classes to have to run after the hyperactive child for ammo not because they cant but because their role is to be on the move forward. That said the forward assault will benefit from them. Maybe a topic for a thread somewhere.. |
||
|
2012-07-07, 10:12 AM | [Ignore Me] #47 | |||
First Sergeant
|
He does it right, doesn't fly higher than necessary (makes you a target), doesn't fly to try to avoid bullets, doesn't camp on the roof etc. Instead he utilizes the jetpack to get behind people, since lethality is high catching people form behind is really powerful, even if they are stronger than you if you fight on an open field if he shot you a few times in the back you still die. He flies against the first guy he encounters, yes, but then he had already thrown a grenade so the flight was cowered by the smoke making the opponent unable to track him. Other than that he just moved around shooting people in the back while avoiding direct confrontations. |
|||
|
2012-07-07, 10:35 AM | [Ignore Me] #48 | |||
Colonel
|
|
|||
|
2012-07-07, 11:59 AM | [Ignore Me] #49 | |||||
First Lieutenant
|
"Agile and deadly, they serve their empire as an excellent flanker and skirmisher. While other classes find themselves confined by walls, buildings, and sniper alleys, the Light Assault makes shortcuts and controls the flow of combat from on high...Each one of the Light Assault’s various Jumpjet configurations grants them the ability to take on different obstacles, shifting their role in combat...They can also equip more specialized configurations, such as the high boost Icarus Jumpjets, to reach walled objectives and perched Infiltrators.."Sounds to me like they're designed to attack from above, too. They may be good and getting up close, hitting fast, and the jetting away, but they are certainly not limited to it. Nothing in the class description says they are limited to close range. And trying to belittle me or my statements by calling them "fantasies" doesn't change that.
And pure mobility would be given by something like surge, where you can't get to more places than regular troops, but you can get to where you want faster. The fact that jumpjets let you attack from directions and locations not otherwise possible (like on top of the wall you mentioned) is "positioning" by its very definition. There is no time element involved. Hence my stress on mobility and positioning being LA strengths. You do have a good point tho about what kind of accuracy is required to shoot from various rooftops. For example, here's a clip from the E3 footage showing an Engineer firing at troops below with a scoped carbine (which are traditionally less accurate than even assault rifles much less battle rifles): http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...gelJGY#t=1656s Here's another one with a Medic holding an AR (I Think) looking to do the same thing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...gelJGY#t=3318s Both troops seem like they'd be capable of hitting targets within most of the ground area they can view. If they had battle rifles instead I'm not sure how much more effective they'd be in those spots.
And I think you're blowing the power that a LA troop with a battle rifle would have WAY out of proportion. They will not be invincible, not by a long shot. HA troops could still return fire with battle rifles of their own. Infils could still out-snipe them. Commanders could OS them if need be. Tanks could still shell them from 500m away with impunity. And aircraft can still pound the shit out of their perches without any fear of retaliation since the LA guy has no AV weapons. I think part of the problem we have here is that we're debating the capabilities of a weapon system (battle rifles) that may not even be in the game and that we have no stats on at all other than presuming its accuracy and damage are somewhere between an AR and a sniper rifle. I suspect some of us have very different ideas about how close to a sniper rifle they actually would be in-game. Last edited by Erendil; 2012-07-07 at 12:04 PM. |
|||||
|
2012-07-07, 12:16 PM | [Ignore Me] #50 | |||
Private
|
Sadly this is the only footage because this is just anybody at a booth at E3 and as you see most of the people he shoots are clueless and one is even seen just standing there unresponsive. Now I think dude definitely knows how to use the jet pack in (close quarters) but then when we establish that. How often does he go for a headshot or aims down his sight? In his situation an assault rifle is the clear better choice, a shotgun in that situation would be even better. Single shot weapons always are more penalized for unsighted firing and even if they were not, if you miss a shot in close combat since you stayed unsighted to stay mobile its effective suicide, a miss means something when you don't have a constant stream of fire. Even if you get a couple clean hits in someone with full automatic can just run circles around you all day unsighted. A constant stream of fire can help you guide your aim a single shot means you succeed or fail. It is only preferable in less mobile fights with a low to medium mobility foe AND you having cover to aim down sight and retreat, or a camp spot where you are not "seen". That said a battle-rifle has a COMPLETELY different dynamic in PS2 opposed to most shooters since even a infiltrator is unlikely to kill a MAX unit with a headshot for example. At a longer range using the jet pack is yelling "shoot me first"!!! In fact if someone spots you jetting up a building you are as good as dead cause your path is predictable. Somewhere in the E3 footage you see someone catch someone jetting like twice. IN any case I think certain things are obviously not done. But something like a single shot rifle type weapon should be tested not excluded. we aren't talking grenade launchers Hope it was a decent read. |
|||
|
2012-07-07, 01:48 PM | [Ignore Me] #51 | ||||
You forgot to quote other parts of the LA section
__________________
Last edited by OutlawDr; 2012-07-07 at 01:56 PM. |
|||||
|
2012-07-07, 10:03 PM | [Ignore Me] #52 | |||
First Lieutenant
|
Staying in one place for an extended period of time, or "camping" as you put it, is a normal, everyday, expected and accepted occurrence in PS1 where battles over a single base can last for days at a time. What is called "camping" in other FPSes is called "defending your position" in PS1. The tactic has completely different connotations in the context of a long-term, persistent battle. And I'm 100% positive the same will be said of PS2. And whether or not LA troops get a battle rifle, their capacity for "camping" will not change for good or ill. Stop acting like a battle rifle will somehow transform LA troops into these uber-powerful, invincible snipe-whores. It's just not going to happen since all other classes will be able to return fire against said LA just fine and infantry are at the bottom of the food chain underneath vehicles when it comes to outdoor combat. Giving LA troops battle rifles would instead be a small change in their method of attack, much like weapon customization. IT IS A SIDEGRADE, NOT A POWER INCREASE. A battle rifle by itself would not significantly extend the range at which they could engage targets since that is more dependent on what optics are available. It would, however, increase the accuracy of their shots within their already-established range. And for that increased accuracy they would lose some up-close ability. I see nothing wrong with this. As for the LA description on SOE's site, I didn't forget to quote anything. We had already all agreed that mobility was a key component of LA tactics, so quoting it would be pointless and redundant. However, I DID quote the passages that point to positioning as being an important component as well, a fact which you apparently don't seem to accept despite what SOE's description, centuries of military history and tactics, and common sense would otherwise dictate. THE TWO ASPECTS ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. It is not one or the other. They are BOTH important aspects of LA tactics. Last edited by Erendil; 2012-07-07 at 10:08 PM. |
|||
|
2012-07-07, 11:28 PM | [Ignore Me] #53 | ||
Actually the part I quoted that was most important was the "short to medium range combat", which you neglected to acknowledge again. It doesn't say long range. So again paint this picture: fast flanker that engages in short to medium range.
Also battle rifles do extend the range one can engage at. A more powerful rifle will have its damage degrade less over distance. We already know thats the advantage assault rifles have over carbines in PS2. Im sure something similar will be for this weapon, since its based off the LMG model which is a larger rifle. The descriptions says "pick off long-range targets", which by SOE own description would exclude LA usage. Yea, a scope lets you get more accurate shots at range. But a scope on a carbine, is going to be a lot different than that same scope on a BR. A carbine is going to do less damage over the same distance. Unless they are in close range, where LA is suppose to excel at.
__________________
Last edited by OutlawDr; 2012-07-07 at 11:32 PM. |
|||
|
2012-07-07, 11:58 PM | [Ignore Me] #55 | ||
Corporal
|
I can't understand how people can't see the massive unbalancing if the HA had a long ranged weapon.
You take the class with the most hit points with anti-vehicle weapons... and you WANT TO GIVE HIM A SNIPER RIFLE? Battle rifle is like a DMR. It's a long range rifle that out ranges assault rifles. Hence it works with the Infiltrator. Case in point: Recon in BF3. |
||
|
2012-07-08, 12:11 AM | [Ignore Me] #56 | ||
Sergeant Major
|
LMG actuallly have a longer effective range than assault (aka battle) rifles. Those low accuracy short range LMGs are tweaked for gameplay ballances. Sure if you hold down the trigger you wont get any accuracy. That is why militaries train them in short controlled bursts.
At first I thought it is better to have Heavy Assault as the sniper class instead of infiltraitors because most planestide snipers had rexo armor, but after I saw that the infiltraitors cloak isn't like the planetside 1 cloak, I now agree with the sniper infiltraitors. |
||
|
2012-07-08, 12:33 AM | [Ignore Me] #57 | |||
Sergeant Major
|
HA have the least utility compared to the other classes. Really, they're basically under-armored MAXes... until you give them the battle rifle. Medics get to heal and shield, engis can drop turrets and ammo, MAXes are beasts, and snipers have OSK capability with cloaking. HA could use the per-spawn versatility. |
|||
|
2012-07-08, 12:53 AM | [Ignore Me] #58 | |||||
First Lieutenant
|
In addition to their utility on the field, they also excel at short to medium range combat. The Light Assault is able to choose from a diverse arsenal of various weapon types, including rifles, shotguns, and SMGs. These options allow them to adapt to whatever their environment demands.That first sentence has a whole new meaning when you read the whole thing instead of just the latter phrase you highlighted. So they excel and short and medium ranges in addition to "out in the field," which presumably means "long" range since that's the only range that's left (though I hesitate to say purely "long range" since I like to reserve that designation for sniper rifles). In addition, they are being given rifles, which I assume already means assault rifles but could easily also include battle rifles.
In addition, I still contend that there is nothing that I've read that says LA troops can't/won't also be effective at medium-long ranges. Quite the contrary.
|
|||||
|
2012-07-08, 01:16 AM | [Ignore Me] #59 | ||
Private
|
Outlawdr you keep emphasizing on how great a point your making but its not a point at all its quite rhetorical.
It reads LA excel at short to medium range NOT can only fight at short to medium range. That my friend is selective reading at its best and quoting your own personally preferred interpretation as holy gospel. That said opponents of the concept of LA having BR have become very rhetorical in general. If you are going to post in a thread dismissing/ignoring others posts, stating meaningless one lined political statements like "if the devs aren't smart enough to do as I say I will show people in Beta how OP it is". Then don't post. In short try to actually reply to others not inner monologue. As it stands no one is really refuting any points Erendil or I have made. Try to keep it a discussion not a political campaign. As it stands LA will still have their mobility with or without BR and will still have to be looked for in the EXACT same spots. As much arguments for a BR being OP for other classes can be made just as easily. Like Antivide and I have also said HR have much more hit-points would probably be far stronger BR platforms with higher hp. Whoever picks up a BR will be competing with infiltrators, this should not be a HA, LA however will be squashed by infiltrators one-shotting them. Lets not compare to other shooters too much this game does have different hitpoint pools and some classes wont even die from a shot to the face from sniper rifles. Lets not act like BR are somehow omglolz sniper rifles with a higher rate of fire. I have no clue where this presumption of OP lolz comes from there is not one single game in the FPS universe where single shot rifles are the ultimate choice over using burst on assault rifles. And that is what this is everyone afraid of battle rifles seems to not be able to use them well in CoD or Battlefield, even while those games don't deal with different hit-point scenarios. Having played a lot of battlefield the battle rifle was not the most overpowered rifle at all and competing with dedicated snipers was quite less effective while that game doesn't have even half the haze effects PS2 has. Overlighting from the sun, faded sight from darkness to the point you need night goggles or heat vision etc. etc. All that I am hearing is unfounded presumptions over what a battle rifle will be able to do and its clearly made out to be a sniper rifle which is redundant. Because sniper rifles are not battle rifles with 8x or whatever scopes. P.S. should infiltrators still be able to one shot HA I see no problem with them using BR. Last edited by Sharkdog; 2012-07-08 at 01:23 AM. |
||
|
2012-07-08, 10:29 AM | [Ignore Me] #60 | ||||
First Sergeant
|
I'm not sold on LA at all after hearing range is unlikely, not when you can just pilot something in to that unexpected angle, and get out in heavier armor. Without any range, for me, it depends on respawn time, if respawn is fast I can't see them being very useful, if its slow yes I can see it being useful. Of course its situational, might be the odd time it'll be preferable as a distraction etc or to get somewhere the enemy are not defending, but most of the time with no range to them I can't see it being preferable. But you can get up high!! Yes but that is of no use to you, or the team. (no range) But you can go in fast!! With lesser weapons and armor, so that is a trade off not an advantage of the class. But you can get out of range!! Useful in a slow respawn time game to heal, otherwise I'll be sticking with a more heavily armed rusher for the times a rusher is needed. PS1 was a game of respawning when a push was needed, if we assaulted bases enough we learned this quite early.
I look forward to meeting any LA, once I am used to the packs they'll be good kill food . At present here is my current opinion of the most useful to least useful class for teamplay, from what i've seen in the videos, and from the discussions here, from the developers etc: Engineer - So much utility! Ammo, Revive, Max Repair, Vehicle Repair - Uber Teamwork Class! Max - The customisation had my eyes popping , 1/2 AV, 1/2 AI! Or double flamers! Yum, Yum. Medic (Always great, AOE heals for the team, very nice, but if engineers do have revive you can drop this below a cloaker) Cloaker - Always useful in its uniqe role --- HA - Jack of all trades, good solo class, outdone in nearly all other ways. BR has given me hope , might launch it above the useful line for teamplay. LA - Rusher with less armor, less range, less versatility (than the class above), more mobility. - Many negatives, one fun positive. Last edited by Karrade; 2012-07-08 at 10:38 AM. |
||||
|
|
Bookmarks |
|
|