[Suggestion] Medium Assault -- The ultimate MA

The medic is the medium assault.

Use shield capacitor, and with your free self heals, you can have incredible longevity on the battlefield.

I played Engineer and mucked through with the poop assortment of carbines since the game was released.

Now playing as medic, even with just the default assault gun, I am mowing down enemies like no one's business.

TR Medic : Shield Capacitor armor, either the default Gun or the Torq, the enhanced targeting implant for prioritizing far targets thay carbines never had a chance of killing, and a single rez grenade to be nice and rez friendlies as needed= one very viable Medium Assault.

Why have I only seen this thread until now?


YES. DO IT!

depends how you approach 'combat' ... do you mean run straight ahead through a doorway? i've seen two engineers hold off a point by dicing up HA's together quite easily...yeah, with a shield it might take 2 players, but that's always available with squads...this game is pretty even already....just think before you move

Because mediccs carry an AR they feel a self entitlement to kill instead of revive. The light assault also needs some justice because it feels like Infiltrator 2.0.

I think the Classes/Game are already dysfunctional as is. Removing The Anti-Tank from HA would still have it breaking Infantry Combat, so people would stick to the AI version, and Tanks would just have less AV to face and so just get more powerful.

I also HATE the idea of any single Class in a multi-Class game that is supposed to be "the majority of players". Why waste Dev time building out, developing, supporting, balancing Classes that hardly anybody is gonna use.

So, you're on the fence about the proposal?

Not necessarily. Their survival rates might be higher but their lethality should not significantly be impacted as their avenues they have to leverage will not have changed. Pairing up Infantry AV with a cost -- that is what would drive the nails in.

I loved that game.

That game was so good for it's time.

Combat medic. There used to be a description that included something like "after the fight is over, you want your Combat Medic to be the last one standing to revive you and your teammates"
The CM isn't meant to revive during a fight (although he can). During a fight he needs to be cutting down hostiles! After a fight he can pick up his teammates and get them going again. So yes, a CM needs to be able to fight with some powerful weapons.

I don't like the idea of a "majority played Class". A Class that is designed to be the most useful in larger numbers and played the most . Not for this kind of game. And especially not with this current quality/aptitude of Dev team. Though I think most players will agree we already have a "majority played Class" thing anyway: 1 for Infantry, 1 for Vehicles.

I'd be fine/excited breaking out the Classes into even more specialized Classes *IF* DBG had the competence/drive to hammer out the gameplay to make each Class fit. But they don't. They can't/don't even do that now, even with just a handful of Classes. SOE/DBG are an Absentee Landlord.

The idea of more Classes is neat, but not with current DBG at the helm. With DBG at the helm it becomes a nightmare.

That's not how it works. If they survive better, then:
1) they get more aggressive and less risk averse
2) more people start to play them, and their numbers climb
3) natural target Hunted Units by them become hunted in much higher numbers, causing impacts from the lack of that Hunted Unit on the battlefield and that Hunted Unit not doing its role to counter some other Unit (which then also starts to get more aggressive, less risk averse, played more, etc.)
4) the game warps around all of these

It's bad enough that DBG doesn't actually Design in and maintain proper Counters. But when they start messing with the ones that are there, it just spirals out of control.

It's all an Ecosystem.

... imagine what would happen to medium range Tank usage if HA suddenly became 1/5 of the non-Max Infantry population? Or Air usage?

Yes, that would be a bad. Though much less of an "every engagement" impact/problem than it would have been when the game was launched: many players can splurge on things now. You'd end up with the problem AA has: some fights it's absent and Air (can) slaughters, other fights it's everywhere and shuts out air.

I don't quite understand how your ecosystem works outside of a zero-sum game, let alone how being more aggressive leads to being less risk adverse. Counters always exist and its not like we, as players, a stuck playing a single class the whole of a playsession. The better players switch around based on whatever is needed most at the moment.

Current pull rates put Heavy Assault somewhere between 1:4 and 1:3. Despite that, some players still insist that Vehicles are a problem. At this point, I'd be willing to bet that 1:5 would be no worse. In any case, wouldn't the chasm you propose then be filled by something else, if ti does span enough to be noticeable? As I mentioned, counters still exist, and probably wouldn't be less used because of another class; heck, we also would have lots of Vehicles that fight with Vehicles, like we do now, before all that. What exactly is the problem?

Heavy Assault and Light Assault are two dedicated combat classes right there. They both have flexible loadout options that can fulfill your need for a "medium" assault class.

It's an Ecosystem. A community of Units in conjunction with the components of their environment, interacting as a system. Each participant element has a cause and effect relationship with and on everything else. With that effect ranging from nil to major.

Most things fit into systems, and most systems work this way. Specifically in that they are a collection of cause and effect elements. It's just that typically the average person using that thing or its system doesn't need to have a 10,000 foot view to access and get from that thing/system what they want. Like a casual player. But when it comes down to keeping that system running, and running as successfully relative to goals, having that 10,000 foot view is huge. Like a Dev company.

When you order at McDonald's, you only have to know how much money is on your Debit Card and which item you want. As is the case for the average user. But if you are McDonald's Corp and want to make sure that the customer has a successful consumer experience (relative to goals), you have to know much more of the system: leasing space, advertising, negotiating with vendors, distribution, staffing, brand development, appearance design (uniforms, interior, etc.), setting up payment systems, etc., etc. And if you're looking to make sure the shareholder has a successful experience, that's a whole other set (some overlapping, some not) of element to balance: Capital or Operating Lease (or other ways to "cook the books"), Dividend or Reinvestment or Treasure Shares, Change Vendors, ReBrand, Diversify, Spinoff, etc.? Same thing when looking at Employee successful experience, Tax Man successful Experience, Affiliated Charitable Organizations (or other 3rd Party Players), Lobby Groups, and more and more.

This is the kind of stuff that is in play. It's also the kind of stuff that I find interesting and often useful, and it typically comes very easy for me.

When you recognize you are not facing sufficient Counters, you throw caution to the wind, disregard playing careful, and start farming/grinding. You get more aggressive and less risk adverse. You see it all the time in PS2 in how ESF G2A handles a base. One minute they are doing careful approaches and exits, the next minute one ~hover farms successfully, and then the whole flock is doing ~hover farm passes.

"Better Players" is a rather ambiguous term. Who is that referring to? Do you mean min-maxers, people that play in hardcore groups, higher skilled players, or more experienced players? Some specific combination? I can speak toward the impact of wrong-Loadout-at-wrong-time and also how large a % of the playerbase or % of any given battle that group is, and how that impacts the game.

PS2 is not a game where players have instant access to their full arsenal of options. And the access to options for each player is not the same either, due to any number of factors: engagement parameters, game experience, options unlocked, level of min/max, coordination with others, etc. There are consequences for choosing one Loadout over another. Some Loadouts aren't even viable choices for certain players. Some Factions don't even have access to a comparable Loadout available to another. And whole battles can turn when one side accesses and employs a counter/threat effectively... at the time it matters.

There is a very real impact in having a Counter available (or not available) by default in the most popular Loadouts. Both in the high (or low) numbers of that counter, and in the immediate (or time, Cert/SC, experience, skill locked) access to it.

Is that counting Engineers that are used as Vehicles Drivers and Pilots? Light Assault that are used as Pilots?

1) you'd be surprised what notable impact even slight change can have in a system
2) as I said above, are you factoring in Engineer/LA use in Vehicles?
3) I would also say that HA ratio seems to clib or drop more in some engagements vs. others

You can most easily see it in the various "Seasons of OP" we've had, where different Units/Weapons wrecked Havoc on the game. Sometimes it was a new unit, sometimes it was a buffed unit, sometimes it was something that countered it got nerfed, sometimes it was power creep, sometimes it was people (or the masses) just hand't figured it out, etc. But each of them was a change to the system where a chasm popped up because no proper Counters were in place.

If they implemented this class and changes, I would totally play this game as much as I did back in the day. Totally.

An ecosystem is a path that energy travels. We don't have any such rational thing. One moment, you can find dozens of ants; the next moment, those ants have turned into anteaters; the next moment, they have turned into whatever threatens other anteaters. The only honest guiding principle is what the ants want to do. Nothing is lost, nothing is gained. Players die, players respawn, and there is no burden or benefit, the only consideration is where. You kill something but the greater doesn't gain anything from them (nor do you). Someone kills you and you lose nothing to the greater (nor to them). You purchase things with certification points and they vanish into the ether whence they came, becoming nothing, and contributing nothing.

You mean A2G. G2A is "shooting up."
That's called being unopposed.

Only if you want to make the issue confusing for no good reason. In simple terms: people who change classes depending on what they need to accomplish or what is request of them to accomplish. Actual success is something else. All that rigmarole about counters available and strength of counters and loadout "completion" and certifcations available and such things, forget it. It's all pointless conjecture. Every player always has access to something they could employ (and I'm not limiting myself to purely Infantry-centric approaches) that is functionally more suitable to a given situation than something else. Regardless of whether a player can turn lemons into lemonade, I have more confidence towards the person who pulls out a damaged juicer when presented with the situation.

Excluding drivers, though the exact mechanism of exclusion is elusive. It was probably a measure from spawn to driver seat.

And I still criticize that you're approaching this as a all or nothing situation. The person who plays Infiltrator close to 100% of his time, that is to say, the person who has chosen one class or never to pull Vehicles and refuses to change from that strategy regardless of the specifics of what is going on, would have already been excluded from the equation to begin with, if that is the sort you are concerned about.

You prepare AV to deal with Vehicles. It's that simple. Having one more class is not going to change that.

As others have said, medics already pretty much fill this role but in slightly different ways.

Instead of an active that gives them more armor and movespeed, they get area of effect heals or shield recharge bubbles making them more durable than engineers or LA's in the open.

Less recoil is already a selling point for AR's over LMG's and you don't need to toggle it on.

Where as HA's get a movement penalty for using their ability, medics get increased durability without the cost of it.

Medics are incredibly versatile in their combat role. You can go bandoleer (with frags) / shield bubble / med kits to basically be the medium assault you want.

You can go Nanoweave / AoE Heal / C4 for a balanced kit of support, durability and explosive firepower.

You can go Nanoweave / Shield / Medkits / frags for the tough defender or AoE Heal for the aggressive pusher.

You can go bandoleer / healing grenades / aoe heal / med kits to be a squad support healer to breach choke points or your classic squad rezzing bandoleer rez grenades.

quote="FateJH, post: 3326080, member: 120930"]An ecosystem is a path that energy travels. We don't have any such rational thing. One moment, you can find dozens of ants; the next moment, those ants have turned into anteaters; the next moment, they have turned into whatever threatens other anteaters. The only honest guiding principle is what the ants want to do. Nothing is lost, nothing is gained. Players die, players respawn, and there is no burden or benefit, the only consideration is where. You kill something but the greater doesn't gain anything from them (nor do you). Someone kills you and you lose nothing to the greater (nor to them). You purchase things with certification points and they vanish into the ether whence they came, becoming nothing, and contributing nothing.
[/quote]

I don't know where the "path that energy travels" thing is coming from, or why you're trying to stick it into my "ecosystem" jargon.

An ecosystem can just be a system of interconnecting and interacting parts. I know I'm using the term "ecosystem" very loosely. I'm using it because I don't have a better term offhand. I don't mean to step on a strict use of the word. If you'd prefer a different word, I can change it.

And the rapidity of change to the system's elements over time does not negate my ability to map, interact with, study, or affect (as a player or designer) the system. As long as I have enough data and can establish a conception and pattern(s).

Most people DO NOT have the knack to "world build/balance" like I do in this matter. It was really easy for me to major in Accounting (or to have gone into Law like much of my family), because I gravitate toward modeling and interacting with (certain) systems.

One area it seems you are fixated on is a notion of exchange and persistence. Those elements are there, there is a give and take of variables. And it's a case where you pick id those exchanges/variables, and then pick them out relative to their impact (or other type of importance).

Oops. Yes, meant G2A. Thanks for the correction.

Kinda. There is still a potential threat level, there always is. But the risks are (perceived) down and the window to farm is (perceived) open. Player behavior adjust accordingly.

I'm just looking to clarify. For the very good reason that it allows me to better speak to it.

Gotcha. You're speaking about players who are trying to think and make better choices address their engagements.

I think the game has a various speed bumps (and sometimes walls) that work as a series of cascading buffers to work against the various types of Better Players in their bringing Counters effectively to bear. Many of these buffers/walls can be sidestepped or lessened with gameplay shortcuts/setup, and likewise many of these buffers/walls can grow bigger (or new ones be added) with work/setup by opponents. These buffers can all be overcome with numbers or time, and are most often least impactful in engagements where a Faction has both Time and Numbers on their side.

And then you have the many more buffers for the non-Better Players.

I don't know what that mean. I am assuming you are telling me it excludes time for any Class that is inside a Vehicle.

I just don't want Classes in-game that are spending time in Vehicles to be included in the equation for Infantry during the time they are in Vehicles.

[/quote]

We disagree on this. I frequently see lots of players who are running around without ready/easy access to a Terminal. If a Tank shows up and they have a Rocket Launcher or C-4 or mines, they often engage, if not they don't. I *routinely* watch a Lightning, MBT, or even Harasser roll up on my Sunderer that is the #1 spawn for a 24-48 battle, and take out the Sunderer (even surrounded by 4-8 people) before anyone can stop it. I'm often there as an Engineer and I don't have the time to Respawn into an HA and have any meaningful effect. And that very often ends the engagement (cause for some reason, I'm often the only player bringing a Sundy [w/ Cloak]... or dropping a Motion Detector... etc.: it truly boggles what most my Faction teammates are thinking).