Assault Rifles

Discussion in 'Combat Medic' started by Loose Woman, Sep 7, 2014.

  1. UnDeaD_CyBorG

    Medics are indeed medium Assaults.
    Imagine a new player picking a class to put his first certs in.
    "Here, with the Medic you can heal other players and get a lot of points, and you can contribute to the battle even if you still have bad aim!"
    "Are you saying I got bad aim? I wanna shoot stuff! Shooting is more exiting!"
    "Well, but with the edic you also get a healing Aura that will keep you in the fight longer! That means you can shoot more stuff, right?"
    "But other classes can fly, or turn invisible, and that one, he has a rocket launcher! Can't I shoot stuff with them, too?"
    "Well, Medic also has the best guns...."
    If I could get an Assault Rifle on a Heavy, I would pick it. Same for Every single other classes, from Infiltrators to MAXes.
    I can say with reasonable certainty that there's a reason not everyone gets Assault Rifles.
    As for the comparison in CQC:
    Hipfire can be worth it, and in the Vs' and NCs case, the Serpent/GD-7F edge out the dps Victory over their Assault Rifle brethren, so they do indeed have strengths.
    Carbines are undeniably worse than ARs, they were designed as such, but it's a matter of class design.

    Infiltrators can turn Invisible. That's cool, people play that. They also have a unique weapon selection, so out the argument with them.
    Heavies have Overshields, which make them tough, and Rocket Launchers, which I do indeed consider a Support role in Infantry fights, you take out MAXes and Sunderers with it. Vehicle Fights are another matter.
    Light Assaults can Fly. That draws people in, and to my knowledge Light Assaults tend to have decent K/D, so there is a point to them, something that attracts people despite slightly inferior equipment. What they are really lacking is more Squad support tools.
    If their special grenades worked reliably, that'd be a big Improvement already.
    Engineers, sides supporting MAX pushes and dropping Ammo, and the occasional turret, are mostly attractive because vehicles, and a lone Engineer can grind points like nobodies business in a farm.

    Honestly, even Battlerifles would be a bit of a Stretch for LA, maybe with only 2 reserve magazines.
  2. SharkSpider

    As I said, you can't have that. You cannot, in any feasible way, give LAs an advantage in killing medics without buffing LAs overall or nerfing medics overall. Not when these guns that you want to tweak have to be used against every other class. To compound on the ignorance of assuming you can do that you're still failing to realize that as is, it's already true. When LA meets medic LA usually wins because their class feature lets them get the drop or an advantaged position more often then the medic. The drop more than makes up for one damage tier at range, and the improved CQC performance of carbines means you already have an advantage if you're moving around in close proximity.

    As I said, you can't pick out that tiny little thing to edit without affecting anything else. If you believe you can I invite you to propose changes that would do this without affecting any other class balances.

    So... very few top players should main medic when 1v1ing LAs? I'm not sure you understand what having a main class is. Either way it's good that you can have top infantry players who main four of the five infantry classes. Relegating medics to support and gutting their ability to be played at a high level would be bad for the game.

    Still cherry picking. Your argument lives and dies on ARs being overall better than Carbines. This is not true because Carbines are preferrable in CQC. You picked the only example of an AR that has a higher DPS than is available to the same faction's LAs but you also failed to account for the TRV's comparable poor accuracy when hipfired.
    • Up x 2
  3. Spankay

    Basically, those who think LA should have more killing potential:

    Priests (Medic) are the b1tches of Tanks (HA)
    Therefore, since I am a Rogue (LA), Priest must heal me and not do as much damage as I do.

    Either that, or they've seen how TF2 works and they think the Medic should be that, sticking with the attacking classes with a perma-healing ray.

    For those of you who say support classes should not kill as much, go look at BF3 and BF4 videos. Which class the YouTubers use the most and own with the most? The medic.

    And the funny thing about support classes? I play the Engi the most even though I've maxed out all the upgrades on all the classes, except for Infiltrator. The amount of kills I had with the Engi is more than the last 3 classes combined. Engi score (4,607,336), HA (1,773,853), LA (1,158,561), Infil (772,161). Medic? (2,165,489). The even more funny thing? My time with Medic is tied with HA at 18%, (119h 25m) and (119h 33m).

    By the logic of the LA fans here, that means the AR is more powerful than the LMGs!!! But then, My 2nd and 5th best weapons are the T16 Rhino and ML-7. My 1st, 3rd and 4th best? Trac-5 S, Jag and Trac-5. I Aux the Jag solely and T5 partially on the LA, and the T5-S and AMC (10th) mostly on the Engi, but the T5-S has more kills than the T-16 and Jag combined.

    My HA has 2 LMGs and the ML-7 Auxed, while my Medic has only the TAR and T-1 Auxed. I don't drive much and god forbid I get into the pilot's seat. I'm an infantry player thru and thru.

    What does all this tell you? You need to know how to play your class. Because obviously there is nothing wrong with the carbines, and they are not underpowered compared to ARs.

    From what I've read, the underlying reason these LAs are complaining is that they want to sit further out and snipe with ARs, especially after one of them said LAs should have the semi-auto rifles. That one just tells you right there what they are really thinking about.
  4. cruczi

    You may be right. As I said, I'm not interested in those balance questions, thus I hadn't thought about what those changes might be and if they might be feasible. Maybe they're not, or maybe Medic could be buffed in other ways while still giving LA the better weaponry. I don't really care how it would affect class balance beyond LA vs Medic direct engagements at medium-long range.

    Engineers can be played at a high level even though they have Carbines instead of AR's.

    So if AR's are not overall better than carbines, what's your basis for claiming that swapping out the weapons would be a nerf to Medics? Why isn't the better close range performance of carbines a buff to Medics?

    I believe I said the poor hipfire accuracy is offset by the higher DPS. You probably didn't read that though, you seem to read about half of the things I say.
  5. Spankay

    So why do you want to swap them in the 1st place?
    In your argument, Medics are support, thus they should be behind the line of attack and thus shouldn't they use the longer range weapon? But now you want them to go close range combat? So the ones doing the healing and rezzing are in front while you stay behind and then complain that no one heals or rezzes you?

    Frankly, with your attitude and sense of entitlement, I wouldn't rez you at all even though I'm a cert-chasing, XP w.h.o.re.

    A higher DPS which doesn't do anything when nothing hits.

    What you are proposing is that LA stay further back, preferably after jetting up somewhere, and start laying down long range fire.
    And that medics should rush forward to closer ranges, which means they die more, which means no one gets rezzed at all then.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't the jetpack suppose to give you more maneuverability and thus alternative routes to a fight so that you can flank? So now you want those on the ground with no means of extra positioning to get in closer to fights?

    Why not give Engies ARs too since they're suppose to stay at the back. God knows the BRs aren't doing the job.

    And please, stop saying Engies and Medics are support classes so their primary job is not to kill but support you. If I wanted that, I'd just go back and play WoW. This is a FPS for christ sake. NO ONE is obligated to heal you, rez you, drop ammo or repair you, just as a HA is not obligated to tank more damage for everyone, the infiltrator to mark targets, put down sensors and hack terminals.
    • Up x 2
  6. SharkSpider

    You can't give medics a higher TTK at medium range without nerfing them or LAs a lower TTK at medium range without buffing them. You can't keep responding to the glaring holes in your idea by stating that you only want to consider it in an extremely narrow class of engagements. Changes either go in to the game or they don't, they don't partially enter the game only when you're a LA fighting a medic.

    Not really. They have so little going for them that if your squad doesn't have explicit need for ammunition or an AI turret there's really no point in having them around in infantry vs. infantry fighting. You can have the same guns on a class that can fly.

    If you paid attention to any of my posts you'd know my answer to this. ARs are better than carbines if you're a medic because none of your abilities let you force CQC engagements and because your self healing works much better at ranges where you can reliably disengage to extend firefights.

    I read it all, but at least half is completely uninformed.
    • Up x 3
  7. cruczi

    That's irrelevant. You said AR's aren't better than carbines overall. That's the claim I was addressing. If you restrict it to whether you're medic, then you're no longer looking at whether they're better overall.

    Then you seem to have a habit of forgetting and misunderstanding things you judge as uninformed, which rather undermines that judgment
  8. SharkSpider

    There's no such thing as overall. Any weapon has to be held by a class, and some classes do better with some types of weapons. I think ARs are fine where they are, but they'd be too good in the hands of LAs.

    You were wrong the first time you brought it up, still wrong the second time. It doesn't change the more times you repeat it.
    • Up x 2
  9. cruczi

    If AR's are better than carbines for medics, and if LA would become overpowered had they access to AR's instead of carbines ... that means AR's are better than carbines overall. If there is no class that can take better advantage of carbines than AR's, then AR's are simply better weapons. It doesn't matter how much you try to restrict scenarios to close quarters and claim that since Carbines are marginally better in close quarters, AR's aren't better weapons overall.
  10. IamnotAmazing

    You seem to be missing the part in the name, it's "combat" medic, not only sit in a corner medic
    • Up x 3
  11. SharkSpider

    Once again missing the point. There's no such thing as better overall. The only thing that matters is that LA + Carbine is better IVI than Medic + AR, which is true.
    • Up x 1
  12. OldMaster80


    TR side, they work extremely well as long range weapon. You can almost compete with snipers, they work great when you have to deal with targets that are just too far for a carbine.
    The only issue imho is the lack of versatility: if you set your attachments for long range engagements, then you'll perform pretty bad at close quarter.
  13. asdfPanda

    A video game is not real life, and you should not draw examples from it. The Combat Medic in PS2 is based on the same fps design philosophy that the Assault class from current Battlefield titles follow: resilient, and the backbone of any force. Furthermore, if we will follow along with real life as a basis for discussion, "laws of war" are plain idiotic. If winning a war meant taking out enemy medics, I would do so without question. History is written by the victors.

    Additionally, seeing as how fervent the TR, NC, and VS are in their beliefs, they would not be above shooting enemy combat medics if it means winning. As time progresses, war evolves. Seeing as how the med tool is arguably the most effective tool in PS2, it makes sense that Combat Medics would have the best weapons to protect themselves if they are targeted the most.

    Also, in real life, paratroopers were issued carbines because of weight issues. Light Assault in Planetside 2 could be equated to paratroopers in real life. Why should Light assault receive assault rifles?

    True, light assault has no support rules. However, this does not mean that light assault should have an advantage versus medics in direct combat. Why should a class with the best flanking tool in the game, the jetpack, be as strong as the combat medic in direct combat? As I have said before, following the design philosophy of the game, Combat Medic is actually Medium Assault. Why should a class based on flanking be stronger in direct 1v1? Instead, Light Assault should receive tools that accentuate their flanking and maneuverability qualities. Jumping and jetting should not effect hipfire cone-of-fire negatively. Stimpacks would greatly increase sprint speed for a duration of time, and occupy the tool slot.

    I'm not saying that LA should be bad at killing. LA should have the possibility of being better at killing than the Combat Medic, but in a different way. Straight up buffing LA by giving them Assault Rifles is not the way to go.

    You say that a class with support roles should not be more effective in direct combat than a class without support roles. However, this is not true. The light assault supports the team by destroying enemy vehicles with C4, similar to how the heavy assault destroys enemy vehicles with the rocket launcher. The light assault, however, still does not have a tool, but I covered that in a previous paragraph.
    • Up x 3
  14. DatVanuMan

    I see. But meh!:p LMGs for life, I'd never use an AR for my HA. LMGs exist for a reason:p
  15. cruczi

    The point was that combat medic, if you want to look at it as an assault class similar to the Battlefield medic, is not an assault class because it has "combat" in the name. You made the suggestion that it should be a combat class because it has "combat" in the name but the only reason it is called "combat medic" is because combat medics exist in the real world. The name is just copied from the real world military "class" over to PS2. The rest of it was just explaining what the real world term means.

    You're making an argument from real life immediately after having pointed out that you should not draw examples from real life in a video game. :confused:

    Because Light Assaults spend much more of their time fighting enemies than medics do, their weaponry should reflect that emphasis on fighting. It doesn't matter to this argument what the class abilities are. If anything, class abilities should be designed so as not to make assault classes overpowered after making sure they have access to weapons that reflects their role on being purely there to fight.

    As long as Medic retains its support roles, yes it is. If Combat Medic was separated into two classes - Medium Assault with AR's and combat abilities (e.g. self regen) on the one hand, and Medic with carbines and support abilities on the other, then I'd have no issue with Light Assaults losing to Medium Assaults in direct combat, as long as they'd on average outperform Medics in direct combat.

    It is not a matter of truth, it's an opinion. It's how I'd like the game to be. You're free to disagree with that without having to dispute any facts or truths.

    "Supports". You're using the word in a completely different meaning again, blurring the essence of the discussion. Don't do that. I've defined what the word means in the context of the arguments I've made, you can't simply take the word, make it mean something else and go "aha! you're wrong!"
  16. cruczi

    That is not why it is called combat medic, I've already addressed this.
  17. IamnotAmazing

    Maybe your interpretation is that it's a medic while in combat, but pretty clearly that's not what the devs think
    • Up x 1
  18. asdfPanda


    I was trying to make it easier to understand the class for you in terms of PS2, where the Combat Medic is primarily combat oriented, and secondarily support oriented.

    You don't understand the point of a rhetorical statement. I made my assertion that light assault could equate to real-life paratroopers to discredit your assertion of Combat Medics in real life.
    It doesn't matter what the class abilities are? Class abilities are the basic design philosophy of Planetside 2. Carbines do reflect the Light Assault's role of mobility. Assault Rifles would not. Instead, SOE needs to finish the class first.

    I ask again for clarification, why should the Light Assault, a class based on flanking/scouting, win a 1v1 fight against the Combat Medic/Medium assault, based on direct combat? As a light assault, I have the power to choose and start the engagement. You seem to underestimate the power of shooting first in an engagement.

    Sure, you determine your opinion to be the truth. I am asserting my disagreement with you here by disagreeing with what you think to be the truth. I don't think what you think is the truth, therefore, I disagree with you. By arguing our opinions, we are disputing truths.




    You have realized that I disagree with you on the definition of support, congratulations. But for the sake of argument, let's say that destroying vehicles isn't a support role.

    Okay, so is destroying enemy vehicles not a support role? If it isn't a support role, then it must be a combat role. Light Assaults are better at destroying vehicles than the Combat Medic. Then, the Light Assault has one advantage to the Combat Medic in direct combat.

    Light Assault has disadvantages and advantages, and so does the Combat Medic. However, the Light Assault should not beat the Combat Medic in direct combat.
    • Up x 2
  19. Nakar

    Light Assaults and Infiltrators are supposed to be disadvantaged in direct combat against people who are aware of them, that's why they get options that let them dictate engagements against people who are not aware of them. Medics and Heavies are direct combat classes intended for 1v1s, which is why their activated abilities light them up like Christmas trees; they're not trying to hide, and that's why they have some of the best direct-combat weaponry.

    And anyone who thinks of Engineers as "support" is just ignoring that Engineer is the class with the broadest array of direct and indirect combat capabilities, including a gun (with infinite ammo), a pistol or crossbow (with infinite ammo), either a cover-providing turret or a potent anti-vehicle sniper turret (with infinite ammo), the game's easiest-to-place grenade with excellent destructive power against all sorts of things, access to anti-tank and anti-personnel mines as well as C4 and the capacity to carry more of them than other classes, and superior ability to manage and utilize ground vehicles and base turrets thanks to their repair ability. Sure, they can also support MAXes and give other players ammo, but surely one can't think that's all there is to them? An Engineer with a good carbine, Bandolier Sticky Grenades, AP mines, the AV MANA Turret, and a Regen implant is basically a battlefield MacGuyver who can fight anything and anyone, anywhere, and do so theoretically forever (although at some point they'll be down to just the carbine and their sidearm but still, never running your primary dry is a hell of a bonus). Not shabby for a "support" class, is it? In exchange they don't get an activated ability that gives them a direct combat edge (Medic, HA), nor do they get an ability that makes them better at picking engagements (Infiltrator, Light Assault). But they can certainly fight. Oh, how they can fight in the right battle (mostly defenses, but also point hold offensives).
    • Up x 1
  20. cruczi

    All I'm saying medic's role doesn't follow from the word "combat" in the name. You seem to think I made some claims about what the role is or isn't