Why do HA's need SMG access?

Where am I asking for "real life" balance?

I assume that your relying on the fact that real life rocket launchers that lock on don't usually hit targets via dumbfire.

No, Literally look in game At what i told you.


The Difference between Single shot(dumbfire) & Lock on(Lock on) fire rates on the Non ESSR RL's.

Please explain further, the only difference I see is weapon models. I don't spend time measuring fire rates and stuff like that. If it kills fast enough and effectively enough then its good for me.

look at the FIRE MODES.

Dumbfire and Lock on. I don't see the big deal, it just means I have more options with the weapon which is neat.

But it is a big deal. That means someone screwed up.

Explain why. I don't see anyone else complaining about it. Nobody screwed up. They want diversification.

Half of the reason why people complained about "Rocket Primary"(a BS made up term) was because of them.

Those people are a minority, and rocket primary wasn't an issue to begin with. It was just a matter of sucking it up and learning to play.

Im happy when a HA takes a SMG over a LMG. All ES SMGs have nearly the same TTK (around the same TTK the carv/orion need) but they have less dpm and are not as versatile as LMG when it comes to deal with different ranges.
An armistice HA is only good in cqc while a carv/mswr HA is dangerous at short/mid/(and when he knows how to burst correctly) mid long ranges.
Yes they are allowed to move faster while using smgs but it you are a LA/Engy take your lynx/serpent/gd7F with advanced LS and you have a lot stronger, more versataile SMG on steroids and for the medics there are even stronger cqc weapons to use.
And for the worst case scenario feel free to take a shot/pumpgun to get rid of that HA that bothers you.

I dont get the point of this threat. Yes i hate snipers (not infiltrators) but i will not open a discussion: "Why do snipers need access to bolt action sniper rifles....WHY??"

LA is a killer-class like the HA BUT its not a staight on frontline class. LA and smg-infils are the flank masters who are meant to bring some chaos into the enemy lines.

https://ps2model-axiom.rhcloud.com/#sttk/sh25-10-10/la/1/28001S/28000S/29000S/29001S/27000S/27001S

as you can see. all ES SMGs have nearly the same ttk. There are differences especially in the dpm but thats the thing with the faction traits.
And i would still fear a Gauss/Anchor HA more over all ranges than a Cyclone HA and a GD7F/Bandit LA more than a Cyclone LA.
https://ps2model-axiom.rhcloud.com/#sttk/sh25-10-10/la/1/27000S/27001S/7174/7169S

I dont think SMGs are so great because there are allways better options for any class except the infiltrator. He has to deal with those weapons which have a big lack in versatility but he IS able to come close enough to use those weapons effectively.

I guess if I were to truly categorize the classes I would use three categories instead of two.

Support being Medic & Engineer
Power being the HA & Max
Flanker being LA and Infiltrator

Flankers still shouldn't stand up to the power class in a straight fight though.

Because Planetside is a force vs force game, not a 1v1 game.

There is SUPPOSED to be a superior direct assault class. There SHOULD be more Heavies than any other class.

And FFS, it's not like they don't die nearly as easy as every other class anyways. At MOST they get ~25% more HP.

Their LMG's shoot longer, but less accurately generally, and with slower ADS with the exception of the Orion which sacrifices most of the sustained fire benefit to have that.

"Oh but they AV TOO!! "

Damn right they do. In a game with so many damn vehicles you NEED the primary infantry class to be able to fight against vehicles!

its 70% more hp, when it really should be only 50%.

im not going to deny they need to be tought and powerful, but 70% is a bit over the top

Unless you use fractions.

You, sir, win the Internet today.

Um its a machine gun right? heavy assaults use machine guns.

Lmg smg. Its all the same.

Eh. I disagree.

Your primary AI infantry should be weak to vehicles. So if the enemy happens to be heavy in AI infantry, just throw in some vehicles or MAXes and steamroll them.

Your primary AV infantry should be weak to infantry. So if the enemy happens to be fielding legions of AV infantry, send in any other combat infantry class and they should have an easy time winning.

In that way the best approach should be to have a mixed and organized squad of AI and AV infantry. AV infantry should rely on AI infantry to protect them from other infantry, while the AI infantry rely on AV infantry to take out vehicles.

Instead PS2 makes the best AI and AV loadouts available on the same class, which does indeed dumb down the game.

Just consider for example what would happen if tanks could carry HE and AP shells at the same time... many would feel that this would lead to an imbalanced game because tanks would be anti-everything (except aircraft I suppose). You wouldn't have the rock-paper-scissors mechanic where HE tanks (used to) kill infantry but in turn were very vulnerable to AP tanks.

The AI/AV HA is just like a tank that could carry both HE and AP shells simultaneously with just a brief switch... not good for gameplay and rather unbalanced.

How to fix this?

Differentiate shields. Force the HA to choose between a shield that specializes against small arms or a shield that protects against explosions or larger projectiles. This would create a sense of specialization.

Only allow one heavy weapon. HAs should be allowed to carry a LMG or a rocket launcher, but not both at the same time. Their only other weapon would be their sidearm.

Then the HA would be either an AI or an AV class depending on the loadout... but not both at the same time. Balance!