I'm not disputing whether Combat Medic is primarily combat oriented or not. The crux of the matter is that combat medic has support roles, Light Assault does not. It doesn't matter how insignificant those support roles are... in my opinion, a class with no support roles whatsoever should get access to better weaponry. All I did was quote wikipedia, I didn't make assertions. I understand what your rhetoric attempted to achieve, but it missed the target. I haven't made a claim that "because combat medics in real life do X, therefore in PS2 they should do Y". No, for the argument I've made, class abilities do not matter. Regarding your claim that Carbines fit the role of mobility, sure. Do you want me to simply repeat what I've already told you? What would be the point of that, if I may ask, when you can simply go back, read what I've said? I clearly said what the reason is in the very post you quoted, and I'm not going to repeat it. Wrong. That makes no sense whatsoever. A definition is an agreement on what a word means in a context. By taking part in the discussion and responding to my arguments, you've implicitly accepted what I've provided as the definition, therefore you can no longer disagree with it without also making your counter arguments irrelevant. Good, now we're getting somewhere. Yes, and? This is about Light assault versus Combat medic 1v1 infantry balance. Vehicles have nothing to do with this. I'm not interested in infantry vs vehicle balance. Agree to disagree, I guess.
Firstly, the combat/support distinction is really nonsense. This is an FPS. Everyone fights. Not every class has the same strengths, but the notion that one class should be worse than another in combat because it is 'support' is misguided. Even Engineers and Infiltrators, which are a bit off kilter from the other class, are quite powerful in combat if you use them properly. Every class is a combat class. Every class is a support class. Light Assault don't get assault rifles because their strength is mobility, not head-to-head combat power. Combining their mobility with the firepower and range of assault rifles would make them terrifying. Medics don't get a LA's mobility, nor do they get a Heavy's extra durability. They do, however, get a highly versatile primary weapon.
The lethality of assault rifles can be seen with certain weapons heavy assaults do have access to : The Orion, the Cyclone/Blitz and the mswr. Now some assault rifles break 1900 dps and the cycler trv has over 2000 I think. This would be extremely powerful on the heavy assault.
I love all the effort put into this thread, when you all should know that SOE will never take weapons away from a class because it would reduce sales. Adding weapons to a class is an entirely different balance discussion, which seems to be mostly ignored here. Hypothetical: If Medics did get ARs taken away, why is it being assumed that they would be given to LA?
Horrible idea. Jetpacks are the reason you don't have assault rifles. The damage projection on an AR is too much for a class that can get everywhere and use cover others just can't. Get over it and move on.
My point is that because the LA is not a direct combat class, it should not receive direct combat weapons(ARs). Although LA in your opinion has no support roles, it does have a role of destroying vehicles and placing spawn beacons. Whether or not these roles are supportive does not matter. These are roles that the Combat Medic cannot acheive effectively to the degree that LAs can. My rhetoric did not miss the target. You quoted Wiki because you don't think that the "combat" in the phrase Combat Medic is relevant, as Combat Medics in real life do not. However, in the context of PS2, the Combat in Combat Medic is interpreted as the CM being a Medium Assault, foremost Combat, secondly support. Real life etymologies and roots of a phrase are irrelevant in the setting of PS2. Why? Even if LA has no support roles does not mean that they should receive better weapons, because of the mobility advantages the jetpack provides in indirect combat. Why? More importantly, how? Does shooting first not close the combat effectiveness gap between carbines and ARs? More so, direct interdiction by LAs can also be done with shotguns. Even if both parties are using shotguns, the playing field is level. In fact, ARs fit the Medic's support role the best, as the range provided by them allows them to sit back if need be. Well, you're missing out. Disagreement is the basis of discussion. I disagree that the Light Assault has no support roles. However, my counter-arguments based on the LA's capabilities of destroying vehicles, placing spawn beacons are not irrelevant because it allows us to gauge the power levels of LAs and CMs more easily. Actually, I'd like you to counter my point that destroying vehicles and placing spawn beacons aren't support roles, because your argument is based on the fact that a class without support roles should not have better weaponry that a class without. If both LAs and CMs have support roles, then your argument is moot point. Even so, while ARs are more powerful than carbines on their own, a Carbine combined with the LAs jetpack overpowers a Medic with an AR and Regeneration simply because of first shot potential. Even if the Medic does get the first shot off, the LA can easily duck behind cover. In close quarters, where the LA cannot break off the engagement(pun intended) and reset, Carbine's generally better hipfire will allow the LA to succeed.
What makes you say AR is a "direct combat weapon" and Carbine is not? Sure. I'm not interested in what exactly the real life etymology is or isn't, that wasn't the point. The point was that the reason SOE decided to call the class Combat Medic was because it is called Combat Medic in real life. You can dream up and extrapolate whatever meanings from the name of the class, that doesn't change the fact that the name Combat Medic is purely due to that "class" of soldier existing in real life. You can't say it's interpreted as medium assault because it's called COMBAT medic, that makes no sense because it wouldn't be called combat medic if it weren't for the real life parallel. Why what? I don't underestimate the power of Light Assault in an indirect engagement. Thus, you're wrong. Okay, well - I disagree. A pure combat class should be better at pure combat, indirect or direct. In LA's case, the emphasis is on indirect combat, but in my opinion it should still be better in direct combat, or at the very least not at a disadvantage (like with Engies). With Heavy Assault, it's the inverse - they have the emphasis on direct combat, but that doesn't change the fact that in situations where they manage to flank a medic, the medic gets destroyed anyway, and in situations where the medic flanks the HA, the HA has a fighting chance due to the shield. In addition, the difference between Carbines and AR's is mostly on ranged performance at a range where LA's indirect combat ability is no longer even relevant. No, the difference is in ranged ability. Flanking and shooting first is reserved for closer ranges where it doesn't much matter if you have a carbine or an AR. Where it does matter is in the 30-40+ meter range where velocity and damage tiers affect performance. In this range, Medic simply outcompetes Light Assault because Light Assault has no way to use his class ability to do anything but run away. Missing out on things that don't make sense is not really missing out. Disagreement upon definitions is most certainly not a basis of discussion. I have defined what "support role" means and Light Assault does not have support roles, given that definition. That is fact that follows directly from the definition, it is not an opinion that you can disagree with while accepting the definition. If you don't accept the definition, then whatever counterarguments you make are irrelevant because I'm using a different definition from yours. I'm not concerned with overall class balance. Supporting: helping teammates fight the enemy without fighting the enemy yourself. Antonym: attacking. Destroying vehicles is attacking, not supporting. Placing spawn beacons is not helping teammates fight, it's just providing a spawn location, and the fighting part is entirely up to the teammates. Contrast the placing of spawn beacons with repairing a tank (helps the tank keep fighting and attacking), healing a teammate (lowers his downtime and/or increases survivability so he can attack more often and more effectively), placing a motion spotter (teammates have easier time attacking due to improved awareness), reviving (helps teammates keep attacking where the fight is on), and so on. Providing a spawn beacon does not directly benefit any teammate's attacks... and Medics can provide them too. As per my definition of support role, that point is now countered. Yes.
ARs fall off one damage tier less than Carbines, so Carbines are more tailored towards flanking gameplay because to use carbines effectively, one needs to shorten the engagement range through means such as flanking. Thusly, an AR is a direct combat weapon whereas a carbine is less so. SOE drew inspiration from real life, but the in game Combat Medic has nothing to do with the real life version, thusly making your Wiki example irrelevant. Thusly, in only the context of PS2(which is the only relevant context), the Combat Medic is medium assault, combat foremost, support second. No, why class abilities are irrelevant. The keyword here is manage: heavies have the same difficulty flanking, whereas for the light assault, it's made easier due to the jetpack. The CM should be punished for his/her lack of situational awareness. Why is LA's indirect combat ability at range irrelevant? A strong example of how it isn't is rooftop camping. Even so, should light assaults be more effective at range, where now the CM has a better chance of winning the firefight? Why should LA's be more effective in both close quarters and at range? At any rate, you still haven't provided a reason for a strongly indirect combat class to have the advantage at range in direct combat against a supposedly support class. You're downplaying the advantages of shooting first. first-shot effectiveness at range at medium-long range is mitigated, not useless. Because of latency and clientside, if an LA pulls a long flank, the LA still will have the advantage in a firefight simply because more damage is dealt before the CM notices and starts returning fire. Actually, most sane people would duck for cover, but flanking punishes enemies from angles where they don't have cover. "Do anything but run away?" LA is able to easily reset the fight and find a different angle to engage from because of jetpacks. Sorry, I shouldn't have been so hot-headed. Try to understand, what I typed out is not that difficult to interpret. You defined support role, and I disagreed. You're supposed to argue(which you did in the rest of your response) against my counterargument, not simply state that because I disagree on your definition, my other points are irrelevant. Disagreement is the basis of discussion. My counterarguments are relevant until you contend them/say otherwise. You should be, because giving ARs to LAs directly effects class balance. False. Anything that is not contributing to the direct taking of objectives in PS2 is a support role. Infantry takes points in PS2, and taking points in PS2 is winning. That is why people say that vehicles support infantry in pushes, because even though they are killing, they aren't taking objectives. Destroying AMS sundies is denying your enemy a spawn location, a support task that the LA shares with the Engineer. Destroying enemy vehicles helps your allies take points, therefore supporting them. The act of the LA killing the driver/pilot is insignificant. The denial of enemy support is supporting your team. Placing spawn beacons is most certainly helping teammates, because it's providing a spawn location for allies to attack from. You contradict yourself in your assessment of spawn beacons. True, the fighting part is entirely up to teammates. However, that is exactly why placing spawn beacons is support, because you're helping teammates fight the enemy. More importantly, if placing spawn beacons is not a support role, then why are AMS Sunderers regarded as support? They "just provide a spawn location, the fighting part is entirely up to teammates". If that's the crux of your argument as to why, you can surely do better. Medics can place spawn beacons, but cannot come close to placing them as effectively as LAs can. Giving ARs to LA directly effects class balance. LA should be buffed, but not in this way.
Carbines are not tailored towards flanking gameplay. A weapon that's tailored for a particular role should be better at that role than other weapons. Shotguns are tailored for extreme close ranges because they have extremely low TTK and are easy to hit with, not because they suck at medium range. Assault rifles are just as good at flanking gameplay as carbines while retaining their medium-long range advantage. That is to say, assault rifles are just as good at indirect combat as carbines - just because carbines are comparatively worse at long range doesn't make assault rifles "direct combat weapons". A direct combat weapon would be less effective in indirect combat. Stop ignoring my posts and start paying attention. I've already told you - the point of bringing up the wiki quote was not to make any argument about what combat medic's role is in the game. It was to show that there is no chain of causality between having Combat in the name and being a Combat class. I don't know what else to say. The argument does not concern overall class balance, it concerns LA vs Medic class balance in direct engagements. Of course they should be. Swapping out AR's and carbines between the classes would not result in any changes to whether CM is punished for lack of situational awareness. Rooftop camping typically applies to fights at ranges closer than 40 meters (the break point between carbine damage tiers). A strong example? No, an irrelevant example. This is already true when comparing LA to Engineers, it should also be true when comparing LA to Medics. I don't necessarily want LA to be better at all ranges, what I want is Medic to not be better - at least, unless LA is revamped so totally that it gains support roles. Light Assault's class ability does little to impact the frequency at which you can get the first shot out at range. At any rate, a Medic focusing on fighting rather than supporting will find just as many medium-long range situations for engaging Light Assaults first. There are few if any "long flanks" that LA can do and Medic can't. We're talking about medium-long range engagements. There is no "finding different angles of attack". You're simply outcompeted by equal skill medics in fair 1v1 fights. I'm not interested in addressing counterarguments that argue with different definitions. Your counterarguments are not relevant. Done. I'm not interested in what other changes might be made to affect class balance after the weapons are swapped. Then go argue in a different thread where a different argument is made on grounds that agree with your idea of what a support role is. This is not the thread. I said it doesn't directly help a teammate attack. The effectiveness of your teammates attacks who spawn at the spawn beacon is entirely, completely, utterly up to them, you have no tools at your disposal to help them fight. In my definition of support, AMS sunderers are not it. Supporting means directly helping a teammate to improve the effectiveness of his attacks, as opposed to attacking the enemy yourself. If you place a spawn beacon or spawn a sunderer, you'll only give the team a way to spawn, but you're not directly and actively helping anyone fight, and moreover you're free to keep fighting the enemy yourself. Supporting, as I've defined it, means helping a teammate while not attacking the enemy yourself.
Carbines are, because of their better hipfire and overall higher rate of fire. No argument was made when I said CMs should prioritize combat over support, and the fact that combat was in the name; I was giving context to the situation. Even if the link was to show that there was no relationship between having Combat in the name and being a Combat class, it was irrelevant because it revolves around real life, one I have already proven to be irrelevant. As I have said before: You tell me to stop ignoring posts and start reading? You yourself could do the same instead of cherry-picking certain quotes without context. The argument applies to overall class balance, which is why I brought it up. Buffing LA by giving them ARs is not the way to go because they are an indirect combat class; it doesn't matter if they're shooting CMs or Engineers. Furthermore, you still haven't proved why class abilities aren't relevant when it comes to this argument. I'd love to hear your thoughts. It is entirely relevant. Here are some good examples of what LA can do at range and on rooftops: I prove later in this post that the LA does have support roles. Anyway, for the sake of argument, why, if the Medic is a supposedly support class, should the medic be disadvantaged, or on equal footing with the LA at range? If medics should sit back and support other classes, the CM should be more effective at range. Also: Once you answer this question, we can get somewhere with our discussion. Your statements are disproved by the three videos that I have provided. In them, you can see the player getting first shots off because of the superior angle the jump jet provides. Flanking gameplay at medium-long ranges where the jetpack is relevant is also provided. It is true that LAs are outcompeted by equally skilled medics in fair 1v1s. That should be the case. You should be, because the argument I provide(LA does have support roles) completely undermines the basis of your argument, that a solely combat class based on flanking gameplay should outgun a supposedly support class at range. You cannot make a claim without providing a warrant. Addressed in a previous post/comment/etc. This is most certainly the thread. I disagree with your definition of support, and so does the game we're playing. Your definition is wrong. We should be using the game to determine the definition of support. You defining support is akin to a child saying that an imaginary friend is real when the world says otherwise. There's a ribbon called AMS support, that's why providing spawn locations for your allies is considered support. An LA can provide a spawn location better than any other class can. If you'll notice at 1:25 in the second video that I have provided, you can see the ribbon pop up. Also, we haven't even talked about LAs denying enemy spawns through C4 drops, supporting allies. Light Assaults do have support roles. LAs have the advantage in CQC versus medics because of the tighter hipfire and higher general ROF that carbines provide. LAs can be even more superior in CQC due to the first shot advantage that the jetpack provides. Furthermore, shotguns can also be combined with the deadly first shot advantage; LAs excel over Medics in CQC, there is no doubt. At range, LAs are competitive with carbines, as seen in the three videos that I have. True, CMs will outgun the LA, a supposedly solely combat class. However, the supposedly supportive CM should have the advantage at range, because of the CQC dominance LAs have. There's a reason why Heavy Assaults don't have Assault Rifles, even if they are a combat class(the still have rockets for support). The HA would completely dominate all other classes without question. Similarly, there's a reason why LAs don't have ARs, because they would do better at range, their one alleged area of weakness.
My point exactly. SOE might just rename the class and all the whining would vanish in a misty green "bamf".
A further quote from the Wikipedia: "Traditionally, medical personnel did not carry weapons and wore a distinguishing red cross, to denote their protection as non-combatants under the Geneva Convention. This practice continued into World War II. However, the enemies faced by professional armies in more recent conflicts are often insurgents who either do not recognize the Geneva Convention, or do not care, and readily engage all personnel, irrespective of non-combatant status. For this reason, most modern combat medics are armed combatants who do not wear distinguishing markings. Combat Medics in the United States Army and United States Navy Hospital Corpsmen are virtually indistinguishable from regular combat troops, except for the extra medical equipment they carry." Allow me to add that this was also my experience from the military - our CMs were fully trained combat troops totting an assault rifle same as any rifleman. It's the added medical expertise and not the lack of combat fitting that earns them the job.
What's your point? I'm not trying to model PS2 combat medic by drawing parallels from the real world. What matters is it's the only class with the ability to heal and revive others. It would make little sense to not have Medic in the name because that's healing and reviving is the primary way it distinguishes itself from other classes.
Excuse me, what? Indirect combat, i.e. flanking, involves catching your opponent off guard. This means that in 99+ percent of flanking attacks where you're not within knife range, you should aim down sights. Hipfire accuracy has simply nothing to do with whether a weapon is for indirect or direct combat. I don't have any clue why you say rate of fire makes carbines indirect combat weapons. On the whole, there are no differences in ROF between carbines and assault rifles. Get your facts straight. Furthermore, if carbines were better at indirect combat than Assault Rifles, then giving Assault Rifles to LA's would be a nerf, not a buff. If having Assault Rifles meant lower potential with indirect attacks, that obviously would reduce the power of the class. With that in mind, I'm not quite sure why you insist that Carbines are better indirect combat weapons. The point was you don't get to say it's a combat class because it has combat in the name. That simply doesn't follow. If the link shows exactly why that is, then obviously it isn't irrelevant. Now just move on and accept you were wrong to make that assertion. I have no idea what you're referring to here. If you're going to make blind accusations about cherry picking, you should explain what you mean to avoid looking desperate. There's nothing more for me to say, I've already told you. I'm not saying Light Assault can't be effective when firing from rooftops at range. What I said was that indirect combat ability is typically relevant at closer ranges. Almost none of the kills in the videos were flanking attacks, they were just attacks from a height advantaged position. Just because one class has height advantage doesn't make it indirect combat. Doubt it. Engineer isn't. I've already answered it in previous posts. "This is already true when comparing LA to Engineers, it should also be true when comparing LA to Medics." and "combat medic has support roles, Light Assault does not." If you don't agree with that, then don't. As I said earlier, agree to disagree. I don't have any problem with you preferring that Combat Medics should beat Light Assaults in direct combat - I'm simply of the opposite opinion. To an extent, this is a "matter of taste". There's only one "statement" those videos can potentially challenge (not disprove): the claim that the LA class ability primarily affects flanking attacks at sub 40 meters. However all those videos do is provide examples of attacks beyond 40 meters, most of which were not indirect attacks but simply normal infantry gameplay with a slight height advantage, and in most situations that height advantage can be achieved quite easily if you're a Medic instead of LA. But yes, of course there are examples of flanking attacks beyond that 40 meter range. That doesn't mean that the focus isn't on shorter ranges, a point which you seem to agree on with your (rather unfounded) claim that carbines are indirect combat weapons. It isn't the case with Engineers, so it shouldn't be the case with Medics. If you're using different definitions, all you're doing is undermining your own counterarguments. I've already told you this. If you don't accept that then obviously this conversation is not moving forward. You still don't get it. I picked the word support because it fits the way I defined it. Just because there's another way to define "support" in the context of PS2 and in a way that agrees with the word's generally accepted meaning, doesn't mean my definition of it is somehow wrong. I've defined it in a way that suits the context I'm interested in. If you insist on providing counterarguments that don't accept that definition, all you're doing is reducing whatever you say to irrelevance. If you don't see that, there's nothing more I can say to make you understand. I guess when someone puts their hands on their ears, there's nothing to be said anyway. Cool. This has nothing to do with the meaning of support as I've defined it. Sure, hipfire helps in CQC. However, first shot advantage ignores hip firing because ADS'ing and lining up the shot is an inherent advantage of attacking first. Hipfiring is what you do when you don't have the time to ADS, and when you need to dodge - neither of those apply when you're attacking an unaware opponent. I'm beginning to think you don't play much Light Assault. Shotguns are not part of this discussion at all, I don't see why you'd bring them up. The videos are not a comparison between LA and Medic ranged effectiveness. Engineers don't have an advantage at range either. Heavy Assaults already dominate all other classes without question, but that's another discussion (a rather frequent one here on Forumside lately).
Oh dear. Supporting is acting to increase the combat effectiveness of allied troops. Rezzing bodies is support. Providing ammo is support. Laying covering fire into a doorway is support. Suppose your objective is to pop a gen - your core troops are the AI/AV maxes, heavies and medics inside the building. An engineer laying mines and setting up a turret, a cloaker infil perched somewhere in the distance, providing recon by shooting darts, an AA max just outside the doorway or a light assault on a ledge ready to plant beacon, spot and harass the attackers are all supporting the squad in achieving the objective. For example, suppose you have an enemy infil covering a window and anybody who gets near gets shot. Taking out that sniper is support - because having a camper plinking from half a kilometer out doesn't invalidate the objective of holding the gen. The core objective is to hold the building and for that you want maxes, medics and heavies sitting in corners with their guns pointed at the entryways. The LA doesn't have the survivability to hold points or do frontal assaults on enemy positions, which is why it's usual role is to support the troops at the frontline, distract the enemy, attack from weird angles, nibble at the enemy's heels and force him to play defensively. PS2 is a number's game so a single light assault can only do so much - a single LA may occupy about 3-4 people, kill 2 or 3 stragglers, but he won't successfully engage a group of 20 (machinegun fire, LA dies). A squad of LAs however can do some major damage. Dropping from pads onto the two-storey at crossroads while doing a simultaneous ground assault is an example. LAs peek out, shoot through windows, make the enemy expose his back to the stairs at which point tankier troops with meaner guns charge in and repaint the place. LAs usually serve as support because by staying with the squad they lose their only advantages of mobility and surprise. You could run LA-heavy squads though where medics and engies get long-ranged guns, hunker down, setup a firebase and LAs zip around and control the terrain. This would work well on rugged or vertical terrain or where major infantry obstacles can be traversed by jetpack. --- Getting your people from where they are to where you need them to be is logistics - whether it's ferried by galaxy or redeployed from AMS. When I ask for support on command chat, I expect 2 full sundies, a couple of tanks and a skyguard. Support means completely different things on a strategical and tactical level. Logistics, tactics and strategy all mix seamlessly in PS2 - your squad's logistical support may be a strategical flank.
In 99% of CQC flanking attacks you will be fighting more than one enemy, which means that one should not take the time to ads if one has a weapon with good hipfire, such as a carbine. Competent oponents will begin to engage you after you knock out the first enemy. Furthermore, adsing, but then firing too quickly will result in the COF retaining the hipfire COF, so you may as well stay in hipfire mode for the strafing benefit. Hipfire accuracy has everything to do with flanking. It might not matter up to the point that you kill your first enemy, but afterwards it does matter. Really? NC has a High ROF Bandit(632), vs Gauss Rifle(600), not to mention better 0.75x ads multipliers. NC has High ROF GD-7F, vs the GR-22 and Carnage AR. TR has Lynx(909) vs TORQ(857), although the TRV and TAR beat out the TRAC-5 and Jaguar. However, the TRV has abysmal hipfire accuracy, the TAR's decent hipfire is beat out by the Jaguar's. If the TR still had the old Lynx, the difference would be even smaller. The VS has the Serpent(845) and VX6-7(800) vs the H-V45(800) and Terminus(769). Higher rof= lower ttk= less time needed for killing, extra time can be used for further target acquisition. In all situations where ROF matters, carbines have higher ROF options available. Get your facts straight. That's exactly the point, I'm not trying to nerf LA. Carbines fit the Light Assault, ARs would not/be too OP. I do, and it does. I have already said that the link is irrelevant because it revolves around real life. In the context of PS2, the Combat Medic is a combat class with support aspects because of ARs, a resilient self regen, and C4. The name follows. Also, did I say that it's a combat class because of only the name? I think not. Cherry picking yet again. You need to accept that your wrong. Your link is irrelevant; you've made no other attempts to prove why I'm wrong other than through the link. Also, way to ignore my latency assessment when it comes to first shot advantage. Cherry picking again. Simply because a LA fights more than a CM(which is a blantant lie) does not mean that the LA should have access to better ranged weaponry, An LA makes quick hit and run attacks or suicide C4 runs, while a CM either sits back and rezzes or is on the front lines shooting. If anything, an LA is spending more time looking at the deployment screen than fighting. Simply because an LA is a combat class does not mean it should defeat a support class in direct combat because the LA already has an advantage in indirect combat. You have to support your claims. Flanking doesn't have to be from the sides, it can also be from above. PS2 isn't a two dimensional battle space. Attacks from an advantageous position due to height are flanking attacks. Verticality is still an unexpected angle. At 2:10 in the first video, is that not a flanking attack? At 5:06 in the first video, is that not a flanking attack? At 6:10 in the first video, is that not a flanking attack? I could go through the next two, but for the sake of time, I won't. You're also going to say, or have said, that a CM could pull the same long flank as a LA could. However, because of the mobility and speed advantage jetpacks provide, an LA has a much easier time doing so. Even if we completely disregard the long flanking gameplay and rooftop camping in these videos, the videos still show the positional advantage jetpacks offer. There is no doubt that ARs are better ads than Carbines, and because of that advantage, LAs would be able to lay down OP highly accurate automatic fire, with low chance of retaliation because of first shot advantage and positional advantage. My other post and this post prove otherwise. Disprove me. Engineers have a huge advantage in vehicle combat, why the heck should they be effective in normal combat? Balance. Besides, Engineers are most often used alongside MAXes in CQC, that's why carbines fit them. If the Engi is doing any work at range, they have Battle Rifles and MANA turrets in their arsenal. I can say that I like murder. It's just a matter of taste. "This is already true when comparing LA to Engineers, it should also be true when comparing LA to Medics" is a claim, back it up please. "combat medic has support roles, Light Assault does not." Proven wrong because of PS2's definition of support. Addressed in a previous post. Of course the focus of flanking is on short ranges. LA still makes it effective at longer ranges. Why? I'm not, because your definitions are wrong, thusly undermining your main claim. Until such time as that you can prove my definition wrong, or more importantly, prove your definition to be true, this discussion won't be getting anywhere. You can't do that. Like I've said before, you're like a little child saying that his imaginary friend is real when the world says otherwise. The way PS2 defines support is the only way to define support in the context of this discussion. Hands in their ears? Same can be said of you. Because your definition is wrong. Because you say that dropping spawn beacons isn't support, or that bring up sunderers(which the game defines as logistical support) isn't support. Because the game says otherwise. Hipfire applies when you're attacking multiple unaware opponents(which happens all too often during flanking); the mobility matters there. Is this you? https://www.planetside2.com/players/#!/5428021759072214481/stats A mere 3.5 hours logged as CM, 130 hours logged as LA. These two are mine: https://www.planetside2.com/players/#!/5428105192788727073/stats https://www.planetside2.com/players/#!/5428021759080088705/stats A combined 268 hours logged as CM, total 141.5 hours logged as LA. Pfft, what? I don't play enough light assault? I have more hours in both CM and LA than you. That's not the issue, You don't play enough Medic. If anyone is unqualified in our discussion, it's you. I bring up shotguns because it shows how effective Light Assaults can be with it, despite being for all classes. The jetpack would be too OP in conjunction with ARs. This is why class abilities matter. They aren't, they only aim to prove the LA's combat ability at range. This matters how? You accuse me of bringing other aspects of the game into the discussion, you can do a little explaining yourself. True, heavy assault is a class without weakness. In CQC, they have the shield to offset any disadvantage the LMGs would offer. At range, pure volume of fire makes heavy assault effective. The shield displays how jetpacks and class abilities matter in this discussion. Jetpacks in conjunction with ARs would leave LAs with less weaknesses because the jetpack gives mobility in CQC and flanking, whereas the ARs are decent in CQC and good at range. I don't want LAs to have an A-Tross, TAR, Reaper DMR, or anything of the sort. Like I've said, LAs should be buffed, but not in this way. Would you say that improving logistics(i.e. bringing up more sunderers and placing spawn beacons) is support?
