[Qn] Force HAs to decide: Shield or Rocket

Question: Do you think it would be a welcome change?

Sure, us HA (yes, the only infantry class i play if i'm actually aiming to do serious business is HA) won't exactly find it our favourite change, but IMO there are a few things that worry me.

=========================================================================

Skip the next two paragraphs for the extended question and summarized premise. Otherwise, for a fuller opinion, read the entire post.

I'm (HA) the only "combat unit" that an outfit force really needs.
I can, with no worries, deal with any and all threats, from infantry to heavy vehicles to air to MAXes. With a Striker and a T9 Carv (excellent gun if you are disciplined), I consistently outgun even EM6/NC6 users at mid-long range, scare off ESFs, destroy tanks (albeit with coordinated Annihilator/Striker fire from the squad when we call out a tank, i'm proud of our quick reaction and unity as a team), gib liberators, etc etc) With about 2 medics and 2 engineers to the rest of the HAs, the squad easily operates extremely well.

Yes, LAs can be useful sometimes, but are a "niche" class and I believe should be kept that way. They're extremely powerful when the situation calls for them. Extremely powerful, nothing less, but not as general purpose as a HA. (Which is good, the HA is meant to be the bread and butter of the infantry force IMO). Same for infiltrators.

===========================================================================

Unfortunately, there is one thing that worries me.
Pressing the key I bind to the Rocket Launcher turns me into part of a vehicle driver's worst nightmare - coordinated rocket squad that focus fires.
Pressing the key I bind to the Primary slot turns me into the most (generally) powerful possible form of anti-infantry infantry.

Besides, a HA with no shields and with an LMG and Rocket Launcher would still be a seriously formidable opponent due to large mag size and generally acceptable DPS. However, the shield SHOULD stay with the HA should he/she choose not to equip a rocket launcher, in my opinion. What do you guys think? For me, it'd make it a little more fun, as a HA, having to choose between LMG+RL and LMG+NMG.

Comments? Please share your personal views on this matter as to whether or not the HA shield and HA RL should be mutually exclusive.

(i use NMG because I do well with it, I don't like to lose health with the resist. I only use the NMG to buy time to react when I get jumped (resist doesn't work well here, you're already damaged) and also as a "surprise" during firefights where I pop it right before my shield breaks, and the surprise + their already higher recoil makes killing easy. That's why I use NMG. But this is off topic. Resist is for proactiveness, but I dislike the glow and the movement penalty, so i only use it reactively. Hence NMG.)

Nah.

What the hell is up with all these HA nerf threads? No.

Let me think.
No.

Resist shield in concept is much less problematic than NMG.
You can't use it in a "oh ****" moment and block 4 more bullets

If you want to "nerf" HAs, force them to have resist as default.

HAs are fine, they shouldn't be forced to pick and choose which of the current parts of the class they have, they shouldn't have the class broken down.

If you don't want every HA on the planet to carry a high capacity AI weapon and an AV launcher then give HAs more options to specialize themselves. Providing AI Launchers as well as AV Primaries will make the HA less flexible by the choices and tactics chosen by the players.

Nerfing HAs won't solve anything other than hurting other players and making the game less fun overall. Adding more options levels out the field and provides more depth to the game as a whole.

For heavens sake can we stop with the "nerf the HA" threads please? In fact can we stop the whole "nerf x, y, z." altogether please and just try playing the game and accepting that it's not TF2, CoD, BF1 , 2, or 3, Quake or UT and will never play like them.

This is PS2 and it has asymmetrical balance, live with it!

Hm, why? you might have valid points I might be interested in. Care to share?

Hm, why? you might have valid points I might be interested in. Care to share?
This isn't a nerf. I'm not reducing their ability in infantry vs infantry fights or vehicle vs vehicle fights.

Hm, why? you might have valid points I might be interested in. Care to share?

You're a smart one. Read my small print eh
NMG is an easier concept to understand for new players though. I still regularly destroy HAs with NMG without having to touch my own shields and without losing health... It's actually pretty weak/useless against a player who can aim.

Thanks for your answer! I will have replied below.

This isn't about asymmetrical balance, or nerf x,y,z.
This isn't a nerf. I'm not reducing their ability in infantry vs infantry fights or vehicle vs vehicle fights.
They're still as good as their old selves in AI or AV, just that they have to choose now.
I already said Medics and Engies are really important.
I play HA predominantly, my Engie time is just my ESF repair+flying time.

====================================================================

To all of you above:

So far, I have not heard ANY argument besides one, as to why NOT to implement the above suggestion. It seems as if we want to have our cake and eat it too. Who doesn't? But I don't mind giving up my shield for an AV launcher, or giving up my AV launcher for my shield. It makes me specialise - AI or AV.

=====================================================================

So thank you Sweet Jackal.
I reply here:
Giving AI launchers and AV primaries won't force specialisation. HAs will get even more options, yes, they can specialise to new extremes, yes, but they can still play AV and AI at the same time. Is that a good thing? I don't think so. It's like giving the MAX class another 2 arms, with AV and AI choices. They can choose to go quad AV, or quad AI, or remain half-half. It doesn't force specialisation, just gives more room for more extreme levels of specialisation.

Have you ever really looked through the forum? Have you ever used the search function? No seriously. Because you've literally said the same thing people ALREADY have said, over and over; the same sly way to nerf HA's with a "compromise". The responses end up being the same as well. Hmm. Or maybe you have seen all those other threads but you did it anyway because you are begrudged and want to get your way. Bleh.

I think the rocket launcher is a fundamental weapon of the HA & taking out vehicles a fundamental role of the class. If anything they & engineers should be the only infantry classes that have weapons usable against vehicles IMO. So for that reason alone I don't like the idea of an either or choice between rocket launcher & shield.

Come on dude dont nerf the fun.. its called heavy assault for a reason. It's the attacking unit
i agree maybe its abit too much but a heavy assault without a shield isnt really much of an assualt class
Armour units got a buff anyways didnt they?

I'm not taking away functionality.
I'm only increasing something called opportunity cost.
If you want to kill vehicles, go with an AV loadout.
If you want to kill infantry, go with an AI loadout.
Besides, the shield is a small price to pay, IMO. It's only a (approximately, 1 s.f.) 50% boost to vitality. I'm sure you'll still wreak havoc without the shield, you'll just need to be more careful about how you handle cover.

Simple! Because I feel that we are too spoilt for choices. We don't have to decide much between AV and AI. Opportunity cost is the main factor in proper planning. This will decrease the viability of the average HA to simply ignore having to think ahead of what he/she might encounter. The only planning so far is between Annihilator/Striker and Dumbfire.

While this might seem rather... annoying at first, having to go around with "one hand tied around your back", you'll realise that you're only tying the hand that you dont need in that particular situation behind your back.

"Don't nerf the fun"

Sorry, mind telling me what the previous ideas/replies were?
I kind of don't spend all my time (or a large fraction for that matter) on PS2 or FS2. Forumside 2 isn't something i'd consider myself a veteran at. All I usually do is lurk around and correct people's physics. I have a pet peeve for incorrect physics concepts. So far it's turned out well, most people end up agreeing simply because you can't deny physical truth.
This thread, on the other hand, is the balance between "Fun" and "Increase complexity of the game", where "Fun" would be keeping the status quo, and "Increasing the complexity of the game" would be forcing HAs to decide. So, it's not a black and white matter.
All I want is a nice discussion. Sadly, the community here is primarily vile, dismissive individuals who are here to fight for their own rights. Being TR, (LOL **** i'm actually going to make a backstory joke) I value the Greater Good over the Individual Satisfaction of the population. Die, NC/VS scum! Hahah.

I can see why you're doing this
Maybe make it a cert option to get a rocket launcher and every1 is happy?
I know pretty much most of the ppl will cert it but it will decrease the amount of them alittle
MAYBE just MAYBE if they had a promising substitute for the rocket launcher which is anti infantry they will decrease in number

Like a turret.. or something

Can you drop the long-winded responses? As well as your pretentious "greater good over individual satisfaction" undertones just to instigate a nerf. You could have just used the search function, as I've mentioned, to see if someone has put up a similar thread and glanced through the responses. Doing so would not have meant spending hours of your time.

Hm, the greater good **** was a joke, as i mentioned:

In case you don't get this, that's the TR's philosophy.
It's a joke man, get over it.
Chill out.
Don't be so uptight.

So... you haven't told me your views as to why this suggestion shouldn't go through. Instead, you've been telling me to search the forums for at least 3 posts now.
Mind detailing your opinions?
Counter the points that i've made so far that you don't agree with?

==========================================================================

anyway, it's not a nerf, as I said earlier:

This isn't a nerf. I'm not reducing their ability in infantry vs infantry fights or vehicle vs vehicle fights.
They're still as good as their old selves in AI or AV, just that they have to choose now.

I'm only forcing you to decide between AI or AV. It's an opportunity cost.
Not taking away any effectiveness at doing your job as a HA.
You still kill vehicles as well as before.
You still kill infantry as well as before.

The only difference now, is that you have to plan ahead.
You can't just trudge into a battle and go "oh, I don't know what's on the field, so I'll go HA. No difference anyway, since even if you did know, there was little you could do to tweak your HA to be better, other than choosing between Lock-On, ESRL (same for TR), or Dumbfire.

With this change, you'll have to decide and think ahead. But in the case that you do, you will still retain all the strength and ability of the old HA class.

Remember: this isn't simply about going around playing with one hand tied behind your back.
It's about knowing and accepting that you only have one hand to begin with, and to choose wisely which weapon you wish to wield in that hand. With the correct planning, you'll be just as effective.

That's just it. It's not about giving the MAX another two arms, it's about giving attractive options to specialize. It's not about giving the MAX another two arms, it's that right now a MAX can be very effective with one AI weapon and one AV weapon arm. You just have to be able to hit with both on infantry to keep close to the effectiveness of twin AI weapons. For the MAX, it is an easier option to specialize into AI, AV or AA than it is to mix half and half, you pick a role and go deep into that. Yet being an AV or AA MAX doesn't suddenly mean I cannot deal with any infantry, rather it just doesn't perform as well as a half and half MAX or a MAX specialized for the AI role.

If the HA was given attractive options for AI purpose to the Launcher Slot then people would flock to it, same if there was an attractive AV option in the Primary. Just for the purpose of giving examples, if the HA had a 6 shot nade launcher that replaced it's launcher you would see a dynamic shift in how the class would be played. This is something that would plague the biolabs but even then said HA is dropping the Anti-MAX ability of the default launchers for an explosive splash support weapon balanced around firing multiple shots. Said weapon would see extensive use outside of Biolabs as well since infantry waves are a common occurrence in any base capture and choosing to gain this degree of effectiveness, this indirect splash for the HA neuters it's AV ability so if a few tanks roll over the hill said HA is boned.

Right now there is a lot of flexibility with the different classes that is forced into the classes themselves, the HA is just the worst symptom as it is that way by default. The Medic, HA and LA can only really expand into beefing up their AV ability with certs due to having no options other than C4 for the utility slot, the Infil is the same with it's AI ability as it only has AI mines as an option.

The Engineer is a bit more balanced in this option as it gets AI mines, AV mines and C4 to pick from but for the longest time the AI MANA turret hasn't been worth the nanites used to place it.

Removing this options doesn't help tactics or the game as a whole. Adding options to change the dynamic of the class or vehicles is the way to go.

You can see this with ESFs as they are right now. Currently there is no reason to use anything but Rocket Pods on them, it's a go to weapon that gives a supreme amount of flexibility. The nosegun is good against ESFs, the pods are good for anything on the ground or larger than an ESF in the air. This is something that they are looking to change not by neutering Rocketpods further but instead creating attractive options for the ESF that are more specialized to it's role.

It's creating an environment that the ESF that says flexible with Rocket Pods is at a disadvantage when it's faced against an ESF with weapons specialized to taking out other ESF. Right now the HA is flexible because it is restricted to an AI pirmary and an AV launcher, adding attractive options changes the field as the HA that stays flexible is suddenly at a disadvantage against the HA that's specializes to being AI. The HA that specializes in AV is better suited to supporting a tank column while making them more vulnerable to all infantry classes as they only have their pistol to fall back on.

Not saying my ideas are the end all and be all of design but this is the path that design should take.