SMG´s and Shotguns as sidearm aswell?

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by TR5L4Y3R, Feb 27, 2017.

  1. Dusk117

    *quiet NC and TR giggling.*
    • Up x 1
  2. LordKrelas

    Well, as it had the same problem.

    Even without the over-shield, you still have a combatant with literally every possible combat range covered with a weapon designed for it.
    Engaging at range? LMG. Enemy closes the gap, Now you pull a shotgun or SMG, making your opponent regardless if specialized, matched by your own arsenal.
    IE it would further reduce the specialization of heavies.
    They already can handle vehicles and infantry, with this, they wouldn't even have a range disadvantage;
    Enemy gets too close, like say with a shotgun? You have a SMG \ Shotgun.
    Enemy is far away? You have a LMG capable of mowing them down fast.
    Enemy is a max or vehicle? You have a Rocket-Launcher.

    How in blazes do you balance having the ability to be the ultimate jack-of-all-trades?
    Even without the Overshield, you'd still be equal to an specialized opponent in their optimal weapon-range.
    And not be as restricted as that opponent is, given You'd have your weapon's original advantage & their weapon's advantage.
  3. TR5L4Y3R


    i had a thought about having the HA´s toolslot removed and be a primary instead in another thread ..

    https://forums.daybreakgames.com/ps2/index.php?threads/how-i-would-balance-ha.244917/#post-3450075

    i`m all for the heavy to keep his Overshield (that to me is its defining characteristic as a tankesk infantry) at all times but i rather see them have to decide between lmg´s and rockets as their primary

    you could THEN maybe give them shotguns or smg´s as CQC option they however would lose their versatility
    against tanks (having no RL) or infantry respectively (having no LMG for ranged supression) ..


    stalker silenced smg could be a big problem i admit that (my solution would be just to not allow it on the stalker)
    as for archer engineer ... that´s a tough one ... what if archers were part of the turretslot? or toolslot (giving up the ability to repair for more offense ..... (hmmm doesn´t sound good))? ..... otherwise while a bit complicated you could deny the turretslot of the engy having a archer as primary .. because he would lose access to the AIturret which would function as ... well his AI suplement but also his cover ... instead he would have his AIoption in hand as secondary ...

    so if engy chooses archer + shoty/smg = turretslot blocked
    if he chooses archer + pistol = turretslot not blocked ?
  4. LordKrelas

    Another thread.
    Does it look like everyone reading this thread will be thinking of another thread's content? Let alone merging them?
    No, not really.

    As well, You'd still have close-range weapontry, and long-range weapontry on the same class.
    So the only thing that rocket-launcher primary would do, is make it not effective against vehicles & maxes while retaining the ability to mow down infantry at all but sniper ranges with no under-preforming firing range.

    After all, an LMG carrying heavy, with a shotgun or SMG, is still gonna capable of this:
    Enemy gets too close, like say with a shotgun? You have a SMG \ Shotgun.
    Enemy is far away? You have a LMG capable of mowing them down fast.

    Which covers everything but a bloody vehicle. (Or a sniper, but that assumes that sniper its outside the LMG's range as well)
    If you have a close-range primary, sacrificing your long-range capability (SMG \ Shotgun) you shouldn't be carrying a Long-range primary capable of LMG firepower.

    IE even if it didn't have a rocket-launcher (and if it did, you'd still have a SMG, making it still anti-infantry)
    The Heavy would still be a jack-of-all-trades for killing infantry.
  5. LegendarySalmonSnake

    I think I accidental turned this towards the direction of a Nerf HA -thread.

    And I don't like that direction at all! I'm sorry! D:
  6. TR5L4Y3R


    well i linked you that thread for that reason .. i have some individual thoughts/ideas to realise my masterplan ... MUHAAHAAHAA ... ... *cough* ..
  7. LordKrelas

    You could choose between a rocket, and still have a close-range weapon in addition to your side-arm...
    You'd still be a lethal opponent that isn't specialized at all.

    After all, a heavy at that point is either anti-infantry king at all but sniper ranges...
    Or an anti-max anti-tank that can still wipe out infantry at close ranges using a SMG or shotgun.
    Aka what we have presently, when a heavy wields a SMG or shotgun, like today.
    What we don't have, is an LMG user, who can switch to a shotgun or SMG, if you manage to get close: That's just disturbing.

    If you aren't in a vehicle, or helping a max, having a long-range anti-max weapon rather than a repair tool isn't a turn-off.
    Having a carbine \ smg \ shotgun, and the firepower of an Archer, rather than a situational turret..
    You really aren't good at judging combat potential?
    That Engineer now has the firepower of an anti-max weapon which 2-3 shots a max suit at long range, and either loses a turret or repair tool, rather than their anti-infantry weaponry allowing them to aggressively engage any infantry target & maxes.

    Aka a Max's nightmare, an Engineer with an archer that isn't vulnerable to other infantry.
    That's horrifying.

    Like Giving a MAX, a second set of guns, to use their Anti-infantry weapons if using two Anti-Armor weapons.
    Aka No real downside.
    As unless that engineer is trying to be universal, they either will be using repair By being in a vehicle or near a max..
    Or in the battle, which is where that Archer would be murderous since they'd still have a main weapon.

    Turret? Archer or Turret. Barely a question, as turrets are situational.
    Have a few enginees with Turrets, the rest with Archers..
    And you have a normal anti-infantry firing line, with Full Max-Killing-Potential without losing anti-infantry at all.
  8. TR5L4Y3R



    most pistols afaik are CQC weapons already (aside from hunter, blackhand and emmisary) so aside from lower dps i don´t realy see too much a difference there but i admit i don´t know all the stats for that .. so by all means correct me if i am wrong
  9. TR5L4Y3R


    guess why i put this up for a discussion ...

    consider though that other classes would have access to that as well
    the risk might be to render pistols obsolete ... but the thing is as has been said before that in a closerange engagement were you have already say a cyclone as primary and a pistol for suplement when running out of ammo .. that´s were you might lose the advantage running a carbine/smgor shoty loadout or lmg/smg or shoty loadout instead ..
    you might HAVE to find cover for switching weapons .. or do it before you enter a CQC enviroment
  10. LordKrelas

    A primary weapon is a lot stronger, more effective, has more ammunition than most side arms.
    They are generally more accurate as well. (Not counting blackhand obviously)

    Right now an Engineer with an Archer, has only their sidearm to fight off other infantry.
    If they could have a Full-on Primary weapon in addition, they'd not have a downside to picking an archer.
    That's one of the downsides of an Archer:
    You are now effective against Max Units, You however lack a primary weapon effective against infantry,
    Sidearms are great sure, but they don't have the characteristics of a Primary weapon.
    Some can go straight up against primaries, however those are few and in-between.
    There is a reason, the Archer is a Primary not a sidearm or a tool.

    If you could have Your primary weapon, and another primary weapon, you'd remove the downsides of a particular weapon:
    IE, you pick a close-range weapon, Your ability to attack at range is hindered.
    You pick a long-range weapon, your effectiveness at close-range is hindered.
    With two primaries, You can literally counter your ineffective-range, and have an optimal range enclosing both of the specialized weapon ranges.

    For a heavy, that is the ability to engage at range, and the ability to engage at close quarters with equal firepower.
    A sidearm can't compare to having an LMG and a Shotgun, for straight-up ability to kill effectively.
    If you use a SMG \ Shotgun, you give up range.
    If you use a LMG, you give up close-quarters effectiveness for that range.
    Having both counters any downside of the other weapon.

    A sidearm can be potent.
    But it isn't a full-on primary weapon, which has superior stats in most cases.
    Not to mention, usually such sidearms require skill to be used.

    It takes no skill by comparison to kill someone with an LMG at range, and 2-shot someone at close range with a shotgun seconds later, whom unlike that shooter, actually had to specialize in a weapon.

    Imagine if you had a sniper that Could pull out a SMG if you got close, and still keep a long-range sniper.
    Since if you found the bugger, they could still gun you down rapidly up close, or 1-shot you beyond Your weapon range.
    You'd likely be competing with the ocean for salt value.

    Edit:

    If other infantry could have the Archer... why bother ever pulling a Max.

    Render Pistols obsolete? You do know the point of a sidearm right?
    If you could have two primaries... You counter the disadvantages of the first primary with the second.

    Imagine having a CARV, and a Chain-Gun.
    Or a NC with a Gauss Saw, and a EM6.
    The amount of ammunition is one thing.

    Now imagine the above with one weapon switched for a shotgun or SMG.
    If you got close, you'd be nuked by a close-ranged weapon.
    If you were far away, you'd be nuked by a long-ranged weapon.

    A light assault, or Infil wouldn't be able to be effective at all as all those heavies would be packing close-range weapons in addition to Long-range slaughter.

    An Infil with a Sniper rifle, and a SMG.
    A light assault with a carbine and shotgun.
    Engineer with an Archer & Carbine.

    The sidearms exist as different weapons, if nothing else, to prevent the downsides of one primary being countered by the advantages of another primary.
    IE a commissioner is grandly powerful but it's no assault rifle or LMG.
  11. TR5L4Y3R


    that however is not what the thread is about .. it´s not about carrying 2 primaries (carbines, AR, LMG, BR snipers and scoutrifles)
    it´s specificaly about these CQC options, shotguns and smg´s ..



    i don´t think i ever suggested that unless you are refering to someone else...

    again .. just smg´s and shotguns .. no other primaries

    and this is the reason i primarily put this thread up as i explained in the op .. i personaly can´t get warm with almost any of them
    ... now you could end the discussion with "git gud" or "sucks to be you then" but i rather like to get the discussion going for a possibly balanced attempt of this idea ..
    if it isn´t to be .. well that´s simply the case then ..

    now i likely gonna get flamed for that buuuuuut just as a note in a game like modern warfare it is possible to run both with a assault rifle and a smg/shotgun ... yes i know the game revolves around different gameplay and is differently ballanced and i´m surely not saying make infantryplay more like cod´s ... but it is possible at least in that game .. *activates flameovershield*


    also iirc it was possible in PS1 as well
  12. hollowed

    What do you do if one of the classes is pure cancer? You give cancer to all the other classes ofcourse :D
  13. TR5L4Y3R

    BOLT ACTION FOR EVERYONE! .... ..... AS SECONDARY TOO!!!

    yea very helpfull to the threaddiscussion ...
    But hey maybe with all the cancer around the cancer starts eating itself limiting the cancer ....
  14. LordKrelas

    Well you said
    When in reference to what I said about the Archer.
    So I kinda took a guess, given you weren't actually clear.

    For the post, I've presently responding to:

    So you want to have a second primary weapon.
    If it's not a SMG \ Shotgun, it still counters out any disadvantage your first has.
    Just not as severe as a SMG or Shotgun would.

    Say, you pick a TR "Bull" , (I don't play TR, so expect a fail here), now that's a long-range LMG.
    Say if you have the option of two, You pick that, and the TR CARV.
    Well now you have this grand pick of two LMGs built for different roles at the same time.
    Or you grab a battle-rifle & an LMG: Even without a rocket launcher, you are now hold more adaptive firepower than warranted.

    You have 1 sidearm, 1 primary, 1 grenade slot, 1 item slot, 1 tool slot, and 1 class ability.
    If as a Heavy, you need two main weapons, or rather as Any class, need two primaries, I have to ask:
    What in blazes are you doing or rather trying to do?




    Yeah, and in some games, it's possible to call down huge Mechs equipped with massive swords every few minutes.
    And that is the same argument of yours. Ain't that magical.
  15. TR5L4Y3R

    hey i personaly wouldn't mind bfr's to make a comeback if they can get them right ... and regarding loadout .. realy it's ONLY the secondaries i have a problem with in this game (with 2 or 3 exceptions)

    what i'm trying to do is getting a loadout i feel comfortable with playing and i am not comfortable with our current pistols

    just as a sidenote i would not allow being able to run 2 weapontypes like say gausssaw/em1 or em 6
    if ammo is a problem you could reduce the ammopool for smg's and shootguns when running as secondary ... though i imagine you would consider that a very minor solution because of the aformentioned ballancing out of disadvantages
  16. AtckAtck

    The main plus of the standard side arms now is their equip time, switching to any pistol is always faster than reloading your weapon and can make the difference in surviving in cqc.

    Having the ability to carry 2 main weapons should have a severe penalty coming with it. Otherwise the combination of say a sniper and an smg would be pretty bad. Hell even 2 snipers would be bad.
    Obiously there would at least need to be a double penalty for the equip time...
    I'd say with a permanent movement penalty on top of it.
    For obvious reasons some combinations need to be blocked, like said stalker cloak and weapons with heat mechanics (that could otherwise cool down in the background). I don't think that anybody would want players with perma-shooting 2 Betelgeuse running around....
  17. LordKrelas

    Then get better with the sidearms.
    You do not need to have two entire primary weapons, let alone a short-range specialist weapon to pair with your LMG.
    That makes your optimal firing range always either greater than your opponent or equal to them;
    Aka you as a heavy would never be at a disadvantage, only on equal footing or hold an advantage over any infantry opponent.

    How? You hold a powerful LMG, that is out-preformed at CQC by shotguns & SMG's.
    Your LMG is a weapon designed for medium or higher ranges, and preforms incredibly well: But is not as effective in CQC.
    A SMG or shotgun is a close-range specialist weapon that preforms incredibly well in CQC but lacks range.

    If you had both, you'd always have the best weapon for the range you are firing at.
    Regardless of Class, this would ,mean rather than having to choose, every single solider would be packing both close-range supremacy weaponry and long-range supremacy weaponry.

    If only heavy could have this, Every class would be screwed against them even further.
    As if they finally got to their optimal range, the Heavy would either already be in his\her own optimal range...
    Or would switch to the CQC weapon, and now equal or best that poor bugger in their own range.

    If infil had it, they'd gain the ability to use a primary as stalker.
    Or a shotgun as either.
    If they didn't, infil would be screwed, since any heavy or solider would be packing a weapon equal or better than them in addition to a Carbine\Assault Rifle\ LMG; Aka a SMG or shotgun, on every long-range solider.

    A medic even, with the ability to have a SMG \ Shotgun in addition to their Assault Rifle, would be able to engage at any range without a drawback.

    This doesn't even account for the differences in attachments between primaries and secondaries.

    Like your sidearm is a sidearm. They are gloriously effective for being sidearms.
    A primary is a Primary, you aren't meant to have two of the things. Hence why there is a thing called a secondary.
    But that is also used for Sidearms in most games.

    If you require the need to be Master Chief on the battle field, packing a perfect gun for every single possible fight....
    Learn to be comfortable with the lethal sidearms, they are your friend.
    They are literally either Mini fast-drawing primary clones, or entirely new lethal weapons.

    Here's a quick list of several.

    Commissioner, a lethal heavy pistol that can kill in 2 bloody shots.
    Emissary, a smaller less-effective SMG.
    ES D-Pistols, generally effective: TR's is a close range SMG. NC's is a heavy-damage pistol, VS's is an accurate little bugger.
    The Crossbow, who's name I forgot: A silent medium range weapon capable of firing darts or explosives as well.
    Underboss, a Mini Commissioner, that again is lethal in only a few shots.
    Blackhand, a mini sniper-rifle for medium ranges that can kill in two shots, again.


    Those covers SMGs, Assault Rifles, Battle-Rifles, Sniper-Rifles, in that small selection in miniature form.
    If you want a SMG, get an Emissary, its incredibly effective since You still have your big LMG.
    What possible penalty would work? I've literally been having to repeat myself.
    (and have repeatedly failed to read his \ her posts myself, My bad)

    If it's less ammunition, most people wouldn't care.
    You either have an engineer, or visit an ammo pack once in awhile.
    Or for VS, not care, since they have infinite ammo for the directive weapons.

    If it's equip time, most of the time, that's not even affecting the outcome.
    As unless you happen to have no cover, and even then, you usually can pull out a different gun mid-firefight.
    Or that makes you unable to actually change weapons at all.

    If it's movement, Well you are packing Long-range superiority, and close-range superiority.
    As unless you are chasing someone down, or charging a point... You really don't need to care.
    You have your best firepower for long-range, and the best CQC firepower in the game.
    They come to you, You nuke them. They run from you, you nuke them.

    Imagine a ES Heavy Weapon user.
    Now Imagine them having a SMG, or Shotgun in addition. (For NC, a SMG more likely)
    They have now a backup primary, and still have the full firepower of a Heavy weapon on standby.

    Or simply imagine a long-ranged LMG user, packing an automatic shotgun.
    You get close, you die to a shotgun.

    Or imagine in every base, that every solider has a shotgun, without losing their ability to fire at range.
    Aka for a glorious picture:
    Imagine a Betelgeuse user, who also has Demi shotgun.
  18. TR5L4Y3R

    Just to reitterate once more ONLY SMG's and SHOTGUNS .....NO other primaries as secondaries
  19. LordKrelas

    Well, enjoy my large post then.
    As it's entirely about SMG's, and Shotguns only.

    This'll be a summary:
    SMG's and Shotguns are close-range supremacy weapons.
    And you want to use them in addition to long-range supremacy weapons.
    Primaries have a wide range of attachments.

    No penalty would actually affect nor deter the capabilities of having two primaries.

    The Sidearms, cover most weapon types in mini forms.
  20. Eternaloptimist

    I thnik he means that giving extra primary weapons to a Medic is tantamount to giving them to an HA. Calling Medic a support class is to mis-read their most effective role, which is assault with additional abilities and a better primary than an LMG, rather than an overshield.

    And you can get ARs with the same RoF as many SMGs and better range too.