HA NMG - Again!

The line you've massacred above actually reads as follows:-

"One more time; PS2 is not BF and the classes are not supposed to be balanced between each other on a head to head basis."

Next time you quote me please quote the whole line and not just the part that, you think, supports your, lets say, individual outlook on what sort of game PS2 is.

"Well designed" is a subjective opinion; "working as intended" is objective. I can understand where all the anti-heavy assault feelings come from, I really can. These players are used to a diet of multi-player FPS's that have stuck to the tried and tested "team deathmatch" mould for years. They come from games such as TF2, CS and the BF series (a series that, on the surface, resembles PS2 very closely) and are "discomforted" to find that there is/are asymmetrical balance in PS2. They are discomforted to find that on an one v's one situation some classes are not balanced. The assumption then is the game is badly designed, or certain classes are "broken" and start requesting changes to the class that they regard as being "EZmode" or "broken". They do not even consider that they are playing the game wrong; that their, perceived, "broken" class is supposed to be that way. That they're not supposed to be trying to play PS2 the same way they did <insert other TDM game here>; that PS2 is supposed to be played as a team of classes, each of which brings something to the fight.

Ex PS players would not have this discomfiture though; as PS was designed to be played the same way, Ex PS players understand the asymmetric balance system and embrace it. For them the fact that an LA cannot take on a HA, head to head, and expect to win is something to be savoured, to be enjoyed and embraced; indeed the very thing that makes them want to play PS2 rather than <insert other TDM game here>.

Please understand this does not mean that they like playing "EZmode" classes or using a "crutch", or suck at FPS's (I may do but that's another story) this just means that they enjoy a more cerebral FPS than the others offer; one where working as a team to capture and control objectives is more important, and more enjoyable, than having the highest K/D at the end of the session.

This argument was already shut down thoroughly in my large post a page back.

Simply put:

You either have a class system AND balance them around 1v1 / head to head

or

You don't have a class system and balance is easy (Planetside 1)

It's a discomfort based on a logical assumption that class choice should be varied (and possibly driven more by playstyle preference than role limitations.)

To be clear, the objection is based in part because PS2's class balance is less cerebral than other games. In TF2 every class is a soft counter to some and soft-countered by others. In PS2 there is nothing a MAX fears -- when played correctly you are simply objectively superior to the other classes. Whereas in TF2 if you're a heavy you still have that slow, plodding, death-machine playstyle but it's balanced by the fact that snipers and demos have strong advantages against you when played correctly.

This creates a game which is distinctly less cerebral: it doesn't matter enemies what you're facing, HAs and MAXes will work just fine. There are fewer factors to the decision of what class you should choose.

And the real balance problems aren't HA vs. Infil vs. LA vs. Medic, but mostly just MAXes which are objectively stronger. Because the other classes are relatively in balance with one another, achieving reasonably similar K/D by extension of playing to the strengths of each playstyle.

No it wasn't "shut down" as this discussion is still ongoing with the ant-heavy assault faction still forgetting that they're not playing TFC, BF or any other TDM; they're playing PS2 which is a different game.

And in PS a player who had certed into and pulled an infil would would not expect to be able to take on another player, who'd certed into and pulled Heavy Assault , head to head and expect to have a chance of winning. Now if your saying that HA is OP because the world and his son can pull one due the the fact that any player can pull any class at any time, then I would agree with you. PS2 should have had the same class restrictions as PS (the BR25 PS, not the BR40 PS). This would have kept limited the numbers of all classes that each player could pull at any one time.

• Sidearms (including pistols and a powered melee dagger)
• Medium Assault (including medium-range assault rifles, combat shotguns)
• Heavy Assault (including a Chaingun, Powered Shotgun, and the Vanu Lasher)
• Sniping
• Anti-Vehicular (including guided rockets, heat seeking rockets and directed energy rifles)
• Special Assault (Grenade-Launcher, Mini Rocket Launcher, Anti-Sniper, and Flame Thrower)
• Reinforced Exosuit (Heavier infantry armor with extra inventory space and an additional weapon slot)
• MAX Units (Special suits of armor with integrated Anti-Air, Anti-Infantry, and Anti-Vehicle weapons)

Reposting the same points (like you just did again) that were refuted multiple times in the same, long post I made.... is classified as "shut down". At this point and for the past multiple pages, you have brought nothing new and are clearly just either arguing for the sake of arguing or desperately trying to defend something you know yourself is broken and just have basically run out of ammo in a firefight of wits.

To be fair you just postong the statistics you mentioned showing HAs to be overpowered would pretty much settle this, but like I said the only ones I've seen don't actually show that.