Why do HA's need SMG access?

It's already inferior to the orion, the SVA, the MSW, and the Anchor/gd22s. I will however give you that the average MSW and Anchor player cannot use the gun as well as the average BG player. The problem with the BG "issue" is that most players who have it can beat most other players in the game anyway, and the ammo situation means they stay in a fight longer.

I'll give you an example. I have a VS alt on Miller, and my main on Cobalt where I have used the BG for about 6 months. I owned a biolab with the Pulsar LSW on Miller, killing everyone and not dying, but had to go back through the teleport 3 times to reload before i died, and not once was I close to capping (smallish 12-24 fight). With the BG I would have stayed and won it because the defenders would not have had a minute+ window to recap or rep things.

That's the main reason why people use the BG over the Orion or SVA.

Sure, lets nerf it.

Reduce the LMG fire rate.
Reduce the Shield to only block 2m+ splash from explosives, NOT small arms fire from other LMGs, SMGs, ARs, Carbines, ect.
Reduce the speed of the class.
Reduce the magazine capability.
Restrict Heavies to just LMGs and side arms. No SMGs, SGs, or BRs.

I 100% agree with you. What I stated above is actually what I want to see happen if its chosen to be nerfed. Go full out or not at all.

Have you tried shooting them before they reach the point building?

You mean while they are dropping from a valk/gal at flight ceiling directly on top of the point building, or are running through the outlying buildings on the way to the point building? Or, in a more and more common occurrence, while they are spawning in a sunderer that is literally sitting on the point inside the building?

There are few bases that force shotgunners to run through open areas, making them feel the 'drawback' of their weapon choice.

Yeah, the Terminus is clearly a better AR than the Darkstar, but I still use my Darkstar. The ability to relentlessly harass, even at the cost of raw killing power, is very very good.

I'll give you that about the SMG/LMG balancing thing, I guess I was just thinking of the two points juxtaposed in relation to the HA.

Regarding the SMG-centric argument at hand, I would always consider hipfiring within 10 metres more mobile and generally effective than having to ADS, at whatever the movement speed penalty. Giving a class that already has a larger health pool and more versatile tools... "stuff" than most others, access to weapons that excel at hipfire, for me is excessive. I get the range limitation thing, but we all know there are LMGs that perform pretty darn well in CQ. For TR and VS anyway. I get the feeling if SMG access was changed for the heavy class it'd be NC that'd feel it the most.

Because nanites. (sorry, I had to do it)

Why do infiltrators have access to the commissioner?.

[INSERT YOUR REASONABLE EXCUSE HERE]

[INSERT X SITUATION MEANS X SO ITS OP BIAS RUBBISH HERE]

Does that make sense?.

Anyone dropping from a valk/gal is a problem, not just close range combatants.

Yes you should shoot them as they run from cover to cover. What are you doing? watching them?

Well obviously you kill the sunderer first, then pick off the survivors and cap the point.

There is one base type that caters 100% to shotgun users, and that is a tower which has a point inside the actual tower. And thats more of a LA thing than it is HA.

If a shotgun user kills you its because you let him get close.

HA (Assualt Class) is designed purely for breaching and killing multiple targets. This class is a weapons specialist (AV,AI,AA)(CQC, MID, Long Range) meaning all they do is live, breath and sleep weapons. SMG is just part of their arsenal.

Fixed. The ability to fly is a pretty big f*cking deal when it comes to assault. <3 LA.

This ^

Well said. Taking an SMG on a Heavy is actually "harder" mode from an overall perspective.

Sounds like It's time to make SMG's & common pool shotguns Class Specific.

You guys bumped a thread that already ran its course inorder to try to discredit this thread & stop people from thinking about the topic of this thread.

These 2 threads are entirely different in purpose.

The First(you linked & now locked) was a call to action wanting balance changes.

The Second(this one) is a question sprung after looking at the class design, class balance, development of the game & Gameplay.

lol nonsense. I didn't bump that thread from a month ago, but I know why it was.

If you were sincere about this thread just asking a question, then you wouldn't have posted:

"WHY?"

Is that the maximum font size? Listen man, we get that you are upset about it. lol

lol.

Your getting this thread off track.

What track? You've only made one post with more than two or three sentences worth of content. The whole thing even starts with the whimsical statement "Looking at the class design & the game play" and expounds upon neither of those musings. It doesn't even reference another thread as if to state the premises of your arguments. Almost all of your threads to date have played-out in this same frivolous manner and you constantly blame others for derailing that said discussion, meanwhile shooting down well-worded arguments with which you don't agree with frightening allergy to your own topic.

I just want people to think,brain storm, theorize & for those who agree with said topic, to speak up and stop hiding & being afraid to speak up if they are attacked by others who disagree.

The first calls to remove SMGs from heavies and medics and shotguns from all but the Light assault and the engineer.

The second calls to remove SMGs from heavies.

Failing to make an argument to convince the majority that certain weapons should be removed form certain classes, you decided to move to an easier target and only target the SMGs from heavies. "Balance changes..., class design, class balance, development of the game & Gameplay" are all ways of expressing the same thing. You're trying to differentiate the threads by giving them different qualifiers by saying the same thing worded differently.

Both threads are almost identical. Calling for a nerf without providing adequate reasons and calling for the removal of weapons for classes to reduce variety and introduce more restrictive specialisation in the initial post. You're being disingenuous if you're saying they're different threads. The Devs made their call and if you really want change, having a good original post detailing why it should be so will go a long way convincing people why change is needed. Just creating a discussion without elaborating on an initial position is not a good way to start a conversation.

The Devs gave everyone a common weapon for everyone to use and give us the ability to experiment with other classes and increases the chance of us using different classes. The more certs we spend on all of the classes the greater the chance of us to buy a subscription, a boost or a different weapon for a class we had a chance to test out. Don't forget that this game operates on a F2P model and is a business. It would be wrong to assume that they're not in it to make money. They operate under a F2P model and if there's a chance you'll be incited to buy different weapons without feeling pressured to do so, they should and will do it.

Actually this thread is not calling for removal. Its calling to question why they have them.