[Qn] Force HAs to decide: Shield or Rocket

LOL no, we aint Roland. Not gonna throw turrets.
And nah, that would make vehicles too powerful in close range (the only reason vehicles fear CQB with infantry is that every other noob out there has access to a rocket launcher that can't miss in close range and fires at a moments notice)

I still think my solution is one of the best possible, if not the actual best.

Glad you somewhat agree with me.
We've been spoilt by the options the HA class has given to us.

As I said, it's not about having one hand tied behind your back.
It's about having one hand to begin with.

I can give a (purposely) extreme example:
Imagine everyone had aimbots at the start of the game. Built in aimbots.
But one day, I said: Let's all remove the aimbots.

It's not a nerf. It's the right thing to do. We just have to change our views as to what's "normal".

We can't expect to have everything go so easily for us.
It's between "fun" and "forcing basic decision making". Didn't we all not want this game to be "dumbed down"?
Well here's a chance - force HAs to deal with opportunity costs they have never needed to deal with before.

To go along the same process as you. You could say the same about Engineers then; deciding between defensive & offensive utility/weapons. Want to be offensive? Grab the AV turret. Want to be defensive? Swap for Mines. Not both. Could you not? But you are mentioning a decision between LMG + Shield or LMG + Rocket. So in that case you could say an Engineer should choose again, between a Support Role and a Combat Role. Therefore it should be between the Ammo Pack + Repair Tool (infinitely repair your vehicle & others) and AV Turret+Mines. On Waterson, I see just as many Engineers as Heavy Assaults, possibly more. Could you not also then say that I'm not proposing a "nerf" to Engineers? But rather I'm just making them choose between the two based on their situation rather than being all that all at the same time. Engineer as a class is the most versatile in-game and quite formidable and very devastating in a coordinated group, especially with Vehicles and/or MAXes in the mix (which abstractly can be seen as part of their "tools" as well), as well as being a large part of pushing & defending. They're quite important actually. So a decision should be made there as well, when equipping ones self, whether it be Defensive/Offensive or Support/Combat.

No?

you have given the most mature reply in this thread so far.
thank god people like you exist on the forums.

they say i'm good with children. well, to be able to survive while making an unpopular opinion thread on these forums is basically the same as managing naptime in a kindergarten. lol. parents will know what I mean.

You have many valid ponts, all of which are neither correct nor incorrect. As I mentioned:
There's a scale of white to black, and nothing exists that is absolutely correct.

When I read your initial post, I already knew what you meant, but I didn't give enough sh1ts to actually talk about it (your last paragraph is exactly what I thought you meant. You can say that I have experience with understanding people's logic and premise. I teach physics, so it's a skill that's really vital to correct conceptual errors, since these lie deep down within the premises.)

So, here goes: I don't want to raise the bar of AV and AI effectiveness. Already, HAs are rather effective at AI and AV. Whether they are so simultaneously doesn't matter - I wouldn't really want to increase the amount of "deadliness" the HA has against either. There's enough near sudden deaths and instagibs in this game as of now. My proposition is exactly like yours, just that I'm scaling the effectiveness of the "ultimate AI" HA back to our current-day HA in an AI environment. Get it? You might misunderstand this, but I don't exactly want to type everything out step by step - i've got more confidence in you than the average forumsider.

Also, the basic assumption behind the reason for the intended nerf is false. The HA isn't the only class you need.

Without an engineer, your push will stall as you run out of ammo. Engineers also provide a lot of long range AV support with it's AV MANA turret.

LAs and Infils are highly tactical assets, able to break behind lines for flanks, setup ambushes and attack enemy lines from angles that the other classes cannot reach. They can take over a point with ways more effective than brute force and numbers and are required for small squad ops.

And then we have the glorious medic. To put it simply, a line with medics will crush a line without medics every time. Healing and Revives are two of the most critical assets on the field and Revive Nades can undo the damage created by even the worst traps.

You are absolutely correct. However, as sweet jackal mentioned, the HA is the worst symptom of this game-wide issue, and hence I mentioned it.
In the Engineer's case, it's not as severe for a few reasons:
Firstly, not everybody gets to grab the AV turret. There's an opportunity cost here: Do you buy the AV turret, or something else? Getting the AV turret would mean sacrificing that other option, permanently so, until you get enough certs again. So, for two engineers at the same BR, with all other equips equal, the Engineer either has the AV turret, or doesnt have it, but has something else, say a better weapon. It's an opportunity cost evaluation that the HA doesn't need to make.

Secondly, mines aren't as effective AI/AV as the LMG or RL. (We're not talking about the mines being used as c4 - that's not intended gameplay and should not be a reason to take into consideration when balancing. it's like saying infils should be given an overshield because their cloaks dont work - you should fix the underlying problem of something not working as intended, not patch it over with another feature)
They don't come by default, they have to be bought. That's another opportunity cost.
They have to be restocked with resources. That's yet another opportunity cost - restock Grenades, Medkits, AP mines, C4, MAXes or AV mines? There's only so much you can get within 5 minutes, so you still have to choose.

The thing about the HA is that it has two extremely effective functionalities that give it a significant advantage over an adversary weak to that specific functionality (AV launcher, AI LMG), combined with a force multiplier that gives it a tiny bit more advantage over anything it faces. Neither of these options require any sacrifice of sorts on the part of the HA. I'm not even asking the HA to sacrifice its LMG, only the Overshield. It's a small price to pay.

There are other tiny little reasons here and there that make the HA stand out from the Engineer issue, but they're not worth either of our time. It would sound like nitpicking.

As for the rest of your post: You have valid points, but again, a single engineer can't pull maxes and vehicles, so I wouldn't consider them "extensions" of the engineer per se. But in a way, they are under the engineer's care, and can only be maintained by an engineer, and so indirectly are the part of the engineer that faces the enemy and deals damage. But for reasons listed above, I'd like to emphasize that the issue with the HA is much more outstanding.

Cheers.

But HA do make those same choices as Engineers would. Engineers do come with an effective default. The AI turret is actually quite effective indoors. With recent tank buffs, HA's also ask themselves, do I stick with the default or do I get the Striker? The Decimator (much more effective individually)? or even the other Lock-Ons? Same as an Engie would decide if they want the AV. It's not an exclusive decision process to the Engie. The AI turret is quite effective when used by skillful Engies and is far faster & effective at killing (and costs nothing as well and is spammable) than the default HA launcher is at taking down a tank on the individual level. You're trying to say there's an opportunity cost, but it is the same for HA, especially now with the tank buffs. In fact I don't take on a tank or Sunderer on a individual level without C4, which costs resources as well, because the default is not some kind of god-like-OP-weapon, unless it's against a Flash...meh. Everything else cost me resources too. At group/zerg levels, it doesn't really matter either way but on an individual level, the Engineers is just as effective & more versatile while spending the same amount. Engines also get access to the AI mines, not just AV mines, which allows for their own kind of passive protection (many use it effectively). With my Combat vs Support decision (which is more similar to lmg+shield or lmg+rocket), you are also getting two extremely effective functionalities. No doubt about that at all. So they should be separated too. Which would be exactly on par with what you are stating as a compromise that HA's have to make. I'm sure Engies would fight tooth & nail against that.

Also, AR & Carbines are much better than LMGs overall, at least TR for short to medium range. In CQB, we all have access to shotguns anyway (which we pretty much everyone uses). The game has asymmetrical aspects and it's for the better than it does. You could say, sure in CQB, we all have shotguns, but the HA would still have a shield. Ok sure, but that doesn't mean the Engie can't out smart folks and not just head on rush. You'd have AI mines to give you an edge plus ammo refill. Isn't that an advantage too? That can make you last longer in battle in a different way if your competent, same as HA.

Or maybe you are thinking of these compromises too linearly?

In the most general sense, Correct.
BUT:
The Engineer has to deal with all the problems that the HA has to deal with, but the HA doesn't have to worry about the problem of which to equip. An engineer is already gimped AI wise. The carbine is good in cqc, but against a HA with the cq LMG, he still won't do nearly as well. This is balanced by the Engineer having the option to carry mines at the expense of C4. The HAs have to wonder which RL they equip, but not whether they should even equip one at all or not. If my changes come into play, the HAs have to decide between AI(shield) and AV(launcher) just like the engineers have to decide between AI and AV for their turrets.
One or the other, not both.

The TYPE of decision is not exclusive to the engineer, but the DEGREE of the importance of that decision is. In simpler terms, both the HA and Engineer, as well as everything else in this world, is affected by opportunity costs and decisions. Life's full of them.
But the HA gets off with a less severe penalty for either choice. Either way, both classes have issues, but the HA is the one i'd like to iron out first, followed by the Engineer.

It's hard to compare Mobile Phones and Velociraptors. But I'll say this: Killing isn't the only thing. The Turret user is extremely vulnerable and asking to die. In a balanced fight, where defenders are not stuck behind a shield, or attackers stuck inside a tele room, the turret cannot survive long in the open. It's hard to compare Mobile Phones and Velociraptors.

As for choosing,
The HAs have to wonder which RL they equip, but not whether they should even equip one at all or not. If my changes come into play, the HAs have to decide between AI(shield) and AV(launcher) just like the engineers have to decide between AI and AV for their turrets.
One or the other, not both.

Lots of claims, personal opinions, but they're mostly sound.
As for HA being less effective on an individual level at AV work, yes, they are. They are however significantly stronger than the Engineer at AI work. So what? Don't see how this makes a difference in our decision process of whether or not to force mutual exclusiveness between RL and NMG.

As I said, the Engineer's AI isn't very effective in most situations. It's usually "just enough" to get by with.
HA has to decide cert expenditure between C4 and other things, as does the Engineer, but the HA doesn't have to worry about not having AV capacity while speccing for AI.
In fact, there's no way to make the HA have zero AV capacity. The default HA already has a loadout that is nearly (don't argue this word usage, just like I left unimportant personal views alone) at it's peak of AI and AV work. That's good from a business model standpoint. However, forcing them to decide between which to use at any one point in time is also good.
What you're doing now is saying, "hey, there are other problems, why aren't you looking at these" rather than saying "your solution is daft, because of reasons listed 1, 2, 3"
But those two overlap significantly, so i'll accept your decision to go down this route.

Thing is:
It's clearly not the same for HAs. The HA has no opportunity cost with regards to certing the fundamental ability of an AV option at the expense of certing a better AI option. The Engineer has to cert in the AV option, while having to choose between equipping it or not. The HA has to cert in the... wait no it doesn't, it only decides which to equip at any one given time... wait no it doesn't... it only needs to decide if it wants a "better LMG" or "better RL". But the defaults are often very, very good to begin with, whilst being equippable at the same time.

Result of my changes:
Engineer: AI or AV turret. Either way, keeps AI primary. Comes with C4 and Mines
H Assault: AI shield or AV rocket. Either way, keeps AI primary. Comes with C4. No mines, trades off for arguably better Primary.

This seems pretty reasonable to me.

I assume you mean give up shield for "RL" not "LMG" lol

Why do you think engineers will fight tooth and nail against that?

Because, deep down, we all hide the fact that we want it to be easy for us.
We hate having to pay opportunity costs.

But is what we want important? Making it this easy is detrimental to the complexity of the game. Dumbing down isn't exactly what we all claim to want in public right?
But why do you think dumbed down games sell?
Are we the "special guys" we claim to be, who "refuse to accept the CoD franchise of dumbed-down gameplay" ?
Or are we just a bunch of hipsters who want to say "i'm better than you because."
Some of us are the latter. Deep down we know it.
Some of us are the latter, while also understanding that that innate urge to make things easier for us isn't the right urge to follow.
Read up on game theory, specifically iterated prisoner's dilema. Simultaneous is fine, but the balancing passes better suit an iterative analysis.

Well then.
Cheers.

Sounds good to me. Another option would be giving HAs the ability to choose between a rocket launcher and a second weapon (BR, Shotgun, SMG) in their tool slot. I know I would take a BR and a shotgun over an LMG and a rocket most times.

No more shotguns please :/
Right now the only reason not to use a shotgun is that you suck at midrange
Biolabs will be full of HAs with LMG/shotguns....
Maybe BRs.

This is similar to Sweet Jackal's idea.

It is because earlier I believe you mentioned that there is a gray zone, not just black or white. When you mention "dumbed down gameplay" I feel like you are falling into your own trap of leaning towards one bias rather than a gray zone. If were going to go down the "dumbed down" route, then there are a TON of things PS2 did wrong then. The obvious being comparisons from PS1 to PS2. So you really can't go with that position against counter-points on your OP because then you should apply it to every single other aspect in this game.

Regarding HA, are you only focusing on K : D ratio? Because as mentioned, Engineers are much more versatile than HA, even in EXP gain. With my Combat vs Support argument, I was trying to point out than if an HA has to trade off Shield, then an Engie has to trade between Ammo + Repair and Turret/Mines/etc. I think that is a really strong argument. Those two are big strengths in one class, same as what you mention with HA. You try to make distinctions such as AI being "just enough" but so is the default launcher now with the tank buffs. You really have to play all these classes skillfully and to their strengths. I think a lot of these pseudo-nerf threads come from people picking a class and trying to play it as if there are no classes. Your OP is focused on HA, but I'm making these counterpoints because if this happens to HA, then all the classes should change at the same time; not slowly with HA being first. That would truly be unfair & biased.

I think HA should get to decide, secondary LMG, Shotgun, or Battle rifle, or AV weapon.

Bleh, wouldn't be a fair trade for TR overall (5 are short-to-medium range oriented anyway) and the BR's still aren't an optimal choice. I would gladly give up the launcher if HA could get Assault Rifles though. But for another LMG? Ugh, no way. Not worth it.

You have chosen to disregard my other points?
Fine by me...

I did not say we need to remain in the gray zone. You don't understand what I refer to as the "gray zone".
I mean that there is no "absolute best". But there is always a "personal ideal".
My personal ideal and your personal ideal are not "correct or wrong".
But I will obviously attempt to convince that my "personal ideal" is closer to the "absolute best" if your "personal ideal" is deemed less worthy to me.

That aside, I don't understand your logic that you have used to brush away my counter-points, namely

Although I do not understand much of what you have just posted, since it does not counter my post point for point but attempts to discount the entire post at once, I can't exactly follow your logic perfectly. Please, if you don't mind, counter my post point-for point, as I will do so to yours now:

So, anyway, regarding HA, i'm focusing on Unit Strength.
How effective a unit is at helping a base capture/defense.

====

The Engineer decides between AI turret or AV turret. AV turret is situationally powerful, and extremely so, but requires an investment of certs (opportunity cost). It's primary weapon is restricted to AI, and is only situationally strong. It has access to Mines for passive defense.

The Heavy doesnt decide between AI and AV abilities. RLs are general case very powerful (individually no, but with 2 HAs, very deadly (more so with more HAs)), yet require no cert investments to posses, default RL is definitely very very viable as an AV solution. The primary weapon is restricted to AI, and is very strong in almost all situations.

====

As I said earlier, the engineer having a similar issue with the HA doesn't discount the fact that the HA has an issue as well. Both need solving. Solve the HA one first. Asking why, is like asking why a dice rolled snake eyes after you threw them.
If you want to fix the engineer, no problem, I don't mind at all. Some engineers will mind, for similar reasons that I have stated in my previous post, that you quoted.
But, where did I ever say that Engineers don't need a change?

I only said that HAs need the change, and first. You have utterly failed reading comprehension. I am disappointed.

No.

Heavy Assault is the main line infantry class, the rest of the classes are either support or niche classes. Medic/engineer and LA/Infiltrator respectively. Apart from the rocket launcher the Heavy Assault class has no utility. The shield is a nice bonus, but if I dont have the rocket launcher i have no reason to play Heavy Assault in the first place. Not only are LMGs not that good, they have no utility! If i go medic I will be much more useful to the team and rake in a lot more certifications.

So as far as this suggestion goes, it is a dead duck. The shield doesn't weigh up against the rocket launcher, not even close, so to suggest that people should choose is the same thing as suggesting that we just remove the shield from the game, because that's what it comes down to, no-one is going to pick the shield.

And that, frankly I am against, survivability is part of the HA's selling point. The class already has a massive disadvantage in CQB due to the high shotgun, carbine and smg dps trumping the LMG, not to mention the extreme mobility the LA affords its users, combined with the high mobility, high dps weapons they can use.. Yeah, no thank you.

Shotgun + Sabr-13. Yum yum.

Please make your point against the topic of this discussion, or leave.
This is a discussion on whether or not you agree with the proposal in the OP.
Keep your allegations to yourself. You are basing your claim on circumstantial evidence. Also, your claim is, again, entirely unrelated to the purpose of this thread.
I am pretty sure you are mature enough to understand what "staying on topic" and "discussion forum" entails.
I thank you for your comment, but would sincerely appreciate it if you keep your posts respectful.
Please demonstrate the required maturity.
I sincerely apologize for any ******** that you might have experienced reading that side comment. As a piece of advice, I suggest that you do not attempt to read between the lines too much. If your self-confidence is at an all time low, please consult a psychiatrist.

Cheers.

How does "most powerful free anti-infantry unit" sound to you?
It's still the mainline. It's the bread and butter of an assault.
Apart from the rocket launcher, the HA has its shield. A unique, powerful ability that gives it the edge over opponents.
Apart from the rocket launcher, the HA has access to LMGs, SMGs, BRs and Shotguns.
It is the only class that has access to LMGs, widely agreed as one of the most versatile and generally powerful AI weapons available to infantry.

Ok, so my "no shield, but with rocket" class would do for you right?
If the entire point of playing HA is the rocket launcher, and since you think the shield isn't a reason to play the HA, I'm pretty sure you won't mind me taking away the shield, since you said "if I dont have the rocket launcher i have no reason to play Heavy Assault" implying that the only thing you play HA for is the RL.
So.. it seems to me that you're fine with the change.

Survivability is the selling point of the HA in AI combat. Removing the RL from the HA when its doing AI work makes no difference to its AI ability. So, if you want to do AI, equip shield. If you want to do AV, equip RL. You only need a weapons terminal. This change doesn't make the HA any less survivable. It only forces you to decide between AI and AV roles.

• This is one of the problems with you overall arguments. You chime away the asymmetrical aspect of the game. We can't quite compare defaults. But the AI turret is actually quite powerful in base defense, it has a different role. Yes it is situational but so is the Repair tool, no? But it's as powerful a tool, yet HA don't get it either. That's a powerful asymmetrical difference on the default level. But, as you know, clearly people will cert up their classes. Engineers can cert into an AV weapon (the turret), and that turret is WAY more powerful than the launchers an HA has access to on an individual level (yes Engies use AV turrets in groups too) and they can also cert into a passive weapon (AV mines, C4, AI mines) and use them both at the same time. With the recent tank buffs, an HA will contemplate getting a Decimator or ESL, same as an Engie will contemplate the AV (they would cost the same). We can't talk about numbers because honestly you could say 100 Vanu with only Beamers would totally own a base with 10 TR/NC HA. Numbers are another asymmetrical aspect. You can't really portray it that way. But on an Individual level, that Engie will have a way more effective Anti-Vehicle weapon while being quite effective at Anti-Infantry as well. It's not insignificant enough to say that HA would need the "compromise" first. Clearly, if one should get a "nerf", they both should at the same time, as I've said, because they both possess significant versatility in two distinct ways grouped into one.

• You mentioned that the RL isn't powerful individually, but the Engine AV is quite so. Again, someone can just buy them right off the bat, not even waiting to cert. The asymmetrical aspect of the game set up the defaults one way, but it's easy to cert or buy and then have access to something to the point where arguing about defaults doesn't mean much. An Engie doesn't have to decide either, even if they don't get the AV turret because mines are quite effective. And if you've been here since Beta, like I have, you would have also noticed how powerful those mines have been before their nerfs or even how powerful Vehicles have been (which the majority are Engie driven because they have a very powerful tool HA doesn't have...). With the current Tank buffs, tanks have actually become the better anti-tank weapon, go figure. That edge goes to Engies even on a default level. A Engie MBT is much more effective than a HA MBT or HA with Launcher + Shield. HA can't repair vehicles, which as mentioned are the biggest AV weapons now, at default too.

• Yes, I know you said HA need the change. But as I mentioned already. there are literally a **** LOAD of these threads already. A **** LOAD. The spout the exact same **** already. I was going in with a different approach as I and others have literally responded to these type of threads already (SEARCHABLE as mentioned). My approach was to show that your same thought process can easily be placed onto another class and also call for "comprises" and if we are going to do it to one class, we should do it to the rest as well, at the same time. Because being biased is clearly...being biased. We're not trying to "solve" HA. You're trying to "solve" it because you don't like it's functionality. If it was about classes having two distinct edges without compromise you should have brought of Engies as well, no? Since you agreed with me. But instead you single out HA because you clearly have a bias and want the function/gameplay to be your way instead. Again, I'm pointing out, if there "should" be a change, it should be for all, at the same time, instead of aimed towards one clearly begrudged class.

And yet more insults. You really seem to have an issue with people disagreeing with you. Please note that up until your comments regarding "children" nobody had posted any insult towards either yourself, or any other post in this thread. I would also like to point out, as you seem to have forgotten, that it was you yourself that brought into this thread subjects other than that of the OP. So if you conduct yourself by your own guidelines we'll have no problems sticking to the subject of the OP.

Now on that subject I'm still waiting for you to tell me why you want to nerf the HA? You don't like the HA having the shield? Unbind the key that toggles it and never use it. There, you get to play the HA the way you want to without forcing everybody else to do the same. To be honest I very rarely use the shield, I either forget to toggle it on or, more commonly, I don't want to illuminate myself like a Christmas tree on the battlefield.

If, on the other hand, you would like to see the HA being able to swap out the RL for another AI weapon, or the LMG for another AV option, then we might be getting nearer an agreement.