[Qn] Force HAs to decide: Shield or Rocket

??????????????????
Read this again please LOL

i think HA should get the run fast upgrade added and their speed nerfed but a real nerf , after all they are heavy

Quote me please, I don't see ANY insults in that post at all.

Please explain how me stating that managing a thread with an unpopular opinion is like managing a kindergarten at naptime implies an insult. I don't see ANYBODY getting ********. Check out my conversation with Sweet Jackal in page 1. We reached an agreement.

I added it as a footer note after making important contributions to the thread's topic.
Please read the post in question again.
You, however, have dedicated your posts to pointing out how you have taken offense to my side comments. Hilarious.

Ah, a footer note about the topic. Wonderful!
Ok, now to talk about your points:

It's not a nerf. I'll quote my previous post:

Read this post I made earlier:

Yeap. Noted. How does this pertain to the OP?

Read my entire discussion with Sweet Jackal for my views on this opinion, simply because you are saying something similar to his POV.
Basically,
I don't think the HA should have the ability to run BOTH av and ai options at the same time. it needs to choose. Why? Read the text above in this post.

I'm telling you, you are biased. The Engie and HA are on the same level. You told me I have a reading compression issue, but you clearly aren't getting my point, even after reiterating. I should have figured this was going to be one extremely biased thread and nothing more, just like the many many many other threads.

This might as well just be a troll.

no more nerfs, buff everything. Buff cloak, make darklight, buff AA, give stronger Aire guns, buff tanks, allow more mines for cheaper, buff HA, buff sniper rifles, buff medics, buff engies, buff sundies, buff turrets, buff buff buff. Okay sure thats a bit extreme but some buffs are in order, i understand its difficult to balance a game based on user feedback and hard data together but things are just to weak for there to be solid fights all the time.

OK, i'll agree to disagree on whether or not they are on the same level, because we are both correct to a certain extent.
However:
Does this eliminate the fact that we need to force both classes to make compromises?
No.
So what is my solution? What have I been repeatedly quoting?
This.

i've applied every text effect they let me apply, short of strikethrough, in an effort to help you read this...
i don't know if i want to laugh or if i'm frustrated now, but LOL
****

... no.
sorry bro... it will never happen.
Deal with it.

eh, ok, i'll take my time to re-explain.

It's not a nerf. I have never said I was original.
It's not a nerf simply because:

The HA gets to keep its shield
The HA gets to keep its rocket

If the HA is going to do AI work, he equips the shield.
If the HA is going to do AV work, he equips the rocket.

The HA retains its deadliness against vehicles.
The HA retains its deadliness against infantry.

Wut wut.

care to elaborate on your opinions as to why my call for this change is not for the best?
or do you intend to just say "no", 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.

Currently, Heavies can carry a rocket launcher and a shield at the same time. You suggest that Heavies can't anymore, and have to pick one. THAT IS A NERF!!!!

Both classes have problems.
I want to fix both the engineer and the HA.
We're talking about fixing the HA in this thread.
I am not denying that the Engineer needs to decide as well - YES, the engineer needs to decide between combat and support.
Please, read what I have posted here:

There is no point in arguing if the engineer or the HA is worse off. Base line is, both have issues.
I'll agree to disagree about whether or not the HA is worse. But i have to assert this point from my previous posts:

Again I fully read that. I was actually making the Engie argument because I think both would be ridiculous to nerf (a.k.a compromise) and if they do get nerfed, they both should, including every other class than can do two distinct things in one. I do not think it should be "ironed" out in the first place, same for the Engineer points I was bringing out. I was hoping you'd see that you could take your viewpoint and stamp it on every other class as well. I mentioned early on that there are SO many threads on this already but the fact you decided to make yet another thread about it when a quick search would have revealed all these should have been a signal that this was a futile thread.

Also, why have you not posted your player name/stats ? We'd understand your genuine viewpoint if your statistics went along with your OP more.

Nope.

Good, we have an agreement that it's Force Compromise ALL CLASSES, which I support GREATLY as long as the HA has to choose between RL and NMG. I also agree that there are outstanding issues with the Engineer in terms of SUPPORT vs COMBAT, which need to be addressed and dealt with ASAP.
TLDR: Fix Engineer AND Heavy Assault, ASAP.

This is our final agreed stance, am I wrong?
Stats:

Briggs, TR: ImmaNeenja
Almost BR70 (actually forgot my BR), but BR doesnt matter to me, because I play to have fun and fight. I fly A2A esf mostly, and am in a tight-knit spec-ops outfit.
I don't see how this information will help you much.
****
important note: If you think me having 60% time in engineer makes me prefer Engie over HA, you're wrong.
I only have that much time in engineer because I'm an ESF pilot almost all the time. Don't mind my bragging, but I can probably safely say that I'm not someone to ignore if you're in an esf. There's only 1 other ESF pilot that I get worried about when I see. I don't give a crap about getting locked-on by HAs, because they're easy to juke.
My main infantry class that I use to play is LA and HA.
****
I'd like to keep my NC alt private, it's a BR50+

As for you finally taking on a more friendly tone: thank god for that.
And also, I felt that I could do a better job keeping calm and explaining thoroughly my PoVs, something rare amongst forumgoers here. It has been productive, i'm sure you can admit that this thread is producing far, far more understanding than almost any other thread on this topic.

As for it being ridiculous, I agree that from the PoV that the current state of the game, it sounds pretty ridiculous.
But what I suggest would be a change that forces the Engineer and HA to make important decisions with their loadouts.
This makes choosing a loadout much more important. It also makes squad composition much, much more important.
Sure, it may make the game more complicated. But we're not looking for a dumbed down game, are we? We want complexity and tactical play, don't we?

Reading the class description, it seems to me the HA class is fulfilling its intended roll just fine. And I really don't buy your 'reason' for this thread.

There's no change needed, no.

The HA is slow in reload speed, movement with shield and weapon swap.

And that all the balancing the HA needs.



It is absurd enough to chose more often then not between ridiculous choices because of either cheap balancing issues or greed for $$$. Do not **** with the HA on top of all those horrific choices.

No.

You do realize that's what they're supposed to be? They're the fighter class. They fight stuff. They don't lick wounds and they don't glue stuff together. They fight stuff. Also, LMGs aren't statistically better than other guns. Large magazines are off-set by large reload times, the DPS is the same. The CARV does (143 * 750 = ) 10,7250 DPM, the TRAC-5 does (Again 143 * 750) the same. They have about the same recoil as carbines. So how are they the superior fighter against infantry? The shield. 3-4 hits more.

No, it doesn't. The worst nightmare for most vehicles is a Liberator, the only exception is ESFs and they have flares to counter your rockets. They're faster, hit harder and most vehicles can't even decently deal damage to them. Unless you're a transformer, pressing that key will turn you into an individual who needs several other people to be as effective as a single tank. The rockets are the weakest form of dedicated AV, most forms of vehicle can out-perform you in the blink of an eye and everyone can get vehicles. You're thinking 'hey, I got my whole squad firing and we're killing everything.' Well, teamwork is OP, as it should be. Still doesn't change the fact that it could've been half as many MAXes or even less vehicles.

As for being good against both AV and AI at the same time, well, that's not very true. A trio of ML-7s is good, one is just annoyance. As a damage-per-player ratio, HAs aren't great. You could get those players into MAXes or tanks instead. Hell, when I drive, I'm more afraid of flying LAs dropping C4s on me than any HA weapon in the game.

Also, we don't want players to be put in a place where they have to choose between class-defining abilities and other goodies. It's already annoying when you're trying to get ammo from an engie and he's got mines instead. We look to HAs for vehicle destruction - even when it's not great - and it should be expected of them to have that ability.

Finally, making the shield and launcher mutually exclusive nerfs HAs in just about every aspect of the game they participate in. They do use their shields against vehicles, even if it only absorbs a single hit. No shield, faster vehicle death. If they lose their rocket launcher, away goes the MAX-killing. You want them to pick AI or AV, but you've ended up nerfing them in both.

You are nitpicking minor points.

All I say is that:
HA doesn't care if it's going to be an AV job or an AI job.
It just spawns and goes "i'll deal with it later, as it happens. doesn't matter, i have a rocket no matter what, and a shield."
There isn't enough challenge. It's too easy for everyone. It's dumbed down. There's no thinking involved. Only "hmm, which rocket and which LMG"

If you guys want it easy, well, too bad, I have the unpopular opinion. To me, this goes along with all of the other "don't dumb down this game" motions.
There arent enough forced compromises in this game.