I can't take you seriously anymore... You sir have no idea what you're talking about. Thus, you can consider this the closing post of my part of the discussion, I have no more interest in spending my time on this thread. (Before you say or even think it: no, this does not mean "you win". This isn't a contest of endurance.) And competent flankers will ADS to the head of the first opponent and drop him in time to start firing on the second one, if there is a second one, before he knows what the hell is going on. Usually, you attack one opponent at a time, however... such is the nature of indirect combat if you know what you're doing. So learn to not fire too quickly? I can't believe you would bring this into your argument. Maybe the opponents suck too and fire too quickly while ADS'ing, problem solved. NC sorted according to ROF: average carbine RPM = 617 average AR RPM = 616 Out of the three weapons one can consider high ROF weapons relative to the others, two are assault rifles. TR sorted according to ROF: average carbine RPM = 718 average AR RPM = 758 Clearly, TR assault rifles have on average higher ROF by about 5%. Three of the four 800+ RPM weapons are assault rifles. VS sorted according to ROF: average carbine RPM = 716 average AR RPM = 682 For VS, carbines are indeed slightly higher RPM by about 5%. Overall, there is no trend that carbines have higher rate of fire. I didn't include the burst weapons in this, they would just add one middle-of-the-pack value for both groups. I don't think you understood my point. If LA is a class that specializes in flanking, then giving LA weapons that (according to you) are worse for flanking, there is no world in which that results in a LA becoming too OP. I've said all I need to say on this matter. 1) I haven't claimed it was only the name 2) I don't think you understand what cherry picking means Haha, what? Prove you're wrong about what? You're confusing. (Remember though, this is my last post, so all questions I post to you are purely rhetorical). 1) I didn't need to address it because I'm not concerned with overall class balance 2) I don't think you understand what cherry picking means. Of course LA fights more than CM. What a messed up thing to say that it's a "blatant lie". You're disconnected with reality. LOL. Why do I have to support a preference? I don't. It's the way I'd like the game to be, what I've told you as my reasons make sense to me. If you don't agree, then don't agree. I have no quarrel with your preference. Sure, but being an unobsructed outdoor area, a medic can easily reach this spot in roughly the same time as a light assault. The first target was closer than 40 meters, so that's irrelevant. The second opponent was probably aware of enemies on the hill Matti was firing from, so I'm not quite sure it counts as flanking. Range often gives you the advantage of firing at opponents who aren't firing at you simply because they have more pressing concerns with closer enemies, not because you've managed to catch them off guard. He wasn't attacking anyone at 6:10. If you meant later at 6:25 from the rooftop, that was at 40 meter range, and a relatively frontal attack. In this case also, the same point about range applies as above. All in all, well done finding three examples in the whole video that might support your view, thus confirming what I said: almost none of the situations involve flanking that LA specializes in. Yeah, maybe it's better you don't Sometimes that's true, sometimes it isn't. In any case, the point was "indirect combat ability is typically relevant at closer ranges." The videos you posted do not even suggest the opposite. Okay, fair point. I'm more concerned with infantry gameplay here, not vehicle gameplay - obviously. Same applies to Medics alongside other infantry. Medics have Battle Rifles too. I've already pointed out that likening MANA turrets with primary weapons is silly, the turret has a completely different role from primary weapons. See earlier in this post. I've said all I need to say on this matter. Great, we're on the same page about that. More or less. Because it makes sense to me. I've said all I need to say on this matter. I have five other characters of which two have plenty of Medic time. I'm not disclosing their names to you. Surely you're not new to the idea of having multiple characters? The point was that what you're posting makes it seem like you don't. I'm perfectly prepared to accept that you don't know what you're talking about despite playing the class, however. I guess hipfiring suits you when your carbine accuracy as LA is only C+ to B++. As I've said, I'm not concerned about overall class balance. I'm fine with you being concerned about that, keep at it. Okay? Irrelevant, since the discussion is about LA versus Medic. Why bother posting irrelevant videos? By now you should be familiar with the idea of Medics and Engineers being similar to each other by having support abilities. It depends on how you define the word "support". There is a way to define it that makes me say, yes, that counts as support. The way it is defined in my arguments is not it.
I never took you seriously anyways, as you based your claims on incorrect definitions you made to suit your own argument. But that doesn't really matter, as you likely won't reply to this comment. Competent flankers will hipfire at less than 15 meters in order to preserve mobility in case a defender responds, which usually is the case. If you want to tunnel vision when flanking, go ahead. Incorrect, I don't ads when flanking in CQC, so I can fire immediately. Why would the opponents ads in defense? Any competent opponent would never take the time to ads when defending against an LA flank. Do you read? I don't want LA to be worse at flanking, therefore I don't want LA to have ARs. I don't want LA to be better at range, therefore I don't want LA to have ARs. Yes you have, repeating your argument on your definition over and over without clarifying or giving new arguments won't make you correct. Again, do you even know what comes out of your dirty hands? The link is irrelevant, I've proved how. Light Assault is an Assault class. Combat Medic is a Combat class. If they weren't, SOE wouldn't name them as such. Now, if the CM's name was just Medic, then maybe it could be seen as a support class, but it isn't. This isn't an MMORPG. All classes kill, the classes are for catering to certain playstyles. I don't understand cherry picking? You only picking quotes of mine that fit your needs is cherry picking. It's not that I'm confusing, it's just that you have a hard time interpreting English. Try harder, I clarify quite a bit because of you. You should be, because this discussion directly affects it. If you want an unbalanced game, all the more power to you. Also, way to continue to ignore the latency aspect of first shot advantage Prove it, that LA fights more than CM. Oh wait, you won't. That's the thing though, the reasons that you have given to support your so-called preference are completely unjustified. Try harder. Nope, jetpacks offer a speed advantage through a certain maneuver. I'm sure that you are familiar with this maneuver. Probably aware? Sure as hell was dead though; an enemy can be aware of a flank; the enemy doesn't have to be caught off guard for an attack to be a flanking one. Frontal attack? Sure, if your definition of rooftops is the ground All in all, well done cherry picking examples that I provided from the first video. Also well done plugging your ears, I'm sure that your claims supported by unwarranted justifications made a difference. I know, because then your claims would be furthermore unfounded. They weren't intended to suggest the opposite. However, nobody says that a CM sometimes will have the mobility and positional advantage over the LA, it's always the LA over the CM. It doesn't, which is why you'd know if you actually have played CM enough. If ARs have an advantage at range to support the CM's support aspect at range, well, the CM should take advantage of that by sitting back. The CM would have an easier job of doing so with ARs rather than with Carbines. See earlier in this post. True, your point being? A CM would take an AR over a BR. No we aren't. Your claim that "there are few long flanks that LA can pull" is still completely unfounded. Explain. Crap, you won't. Nothing has changed. I am, which is why I only listed two of my six. Could you please share the rest? Sharing is caring Likewise, even if our infantry vs. infantry kdrs are relatively the same. See earlier in this post. They aren't, they give context to LA's power level. By now you should be familiar by how Planetside 2 defines support. All classes have support aspects and combative aspects. That wasn't a question directed to you, but I may as well address your statement. Your definition is wrong, as proven by the game that we are playing, as well as the rest of the users in this thread. Therefore, because your definitions are wrong, it follows that your arguments are incorrect as well.[/quote]
The idea is that just because you have a preference, doesn't make it right or justified. Is it okay that you think **** is okay, just because you like it? Is it okay that women can't attend school in countries/areas that practice extreme Islam, even though it's still a religion, and we should respect their religious freedom?(A bit drastic of an analogy, but it relates to my sentiments) All in all, I haven't even touched upon: -The overall lower fast reload speeds of carbines over ARs, furthermore reinforcing my point that Carbines are flanking weapons. -Carbines being able to afford to attach compensators(where applicable) while still retaining competitive hipfire, whereas an AR's hipfire is would be abysmal with compensators. Also, this thread just got an Auraxium medal for views!
AR's are intentionally more powerful at range because while LA's can literally fly away at a moment's notice, and engies can sit behind a behemoth of a max suit or tank, or just the relative safety of a turret, medics are instead going out and having to sit there with the medic tool out half the time waiting for a rez and having to watch not only his back, but the back of the dead guy as well. -Engie's follow and can hide behind armor/maxes. -Light Assaults can fly away, jump off bridges where others cannot follow, and easily get to areas that would provide too much advantage with a ranged weapon (thus them being the only non-max infantry without access to a scout/battle rifle). -Medics have to gun for both themselves and the dead guy he's trying to rez. They're risking more and have to do the gunning for dead friendlies who cannot, so they get a leg up on everything but HA's in the ranged full auto weapons department.
as sum 1 else said sum where i see the medic as medium assault, thats how i play it. combat first reviving healing second. i will always revive in a safe situation and heal troops gathered around me in cove from a fire fight, but i will always choose to engage the enemy over running out of my way to res sum 1 that could well get me killed.
Okay, so the way I see the argument is like this. (I'm going to use Pathfinder (like D&D) classes to explain this because it's easier to get my head around) You have a rogue (LA) complaining that the Cleric (MC) gets healing spells and swords (ARs), when he should really just have healing spells and daggers (carbines), even though the daggers (carbines) are best suited to the rogue's (LAs) role of flanking and distracting the enemy so the DPStank (HA, MAX) can charge in with a claymore. But as we all know, rogues (LAs) work best with daggers (Carbines) and Clerics (MCs) work best with swords (ARs)
AR are awesome, I love the TORQ, if I'm healing people and i take a bullet to the shoulder I just flip out ninja like and pull out the AR and gun their dumb ***** down. "***** I'm a COMBAT medic!"
This is a great deal of empassioned argument for what can be summarised in two words. Game balance. Also I have a whole heavy setup called Heavy Support. It used the Lancer and Lasher. I kill very little with it. But I put damage down stream from silly ranges that make it easier for close quarters troops to kill. I get lots and lots of assists with this build. I guess it comes down to your interpretation of the word support.
There is a good reason agains removing ARs from medics, money, SOE does not refund weapons (or does it very rarely). So I think medics will still be able to keep their ARs no matter how many people is against it, it would be a logistic nightmare folowed by a ton of complains and unsubscriptions to do remove ARs from medics. Anyway, I think LAs should have acces to all weapons except LMGs and bolt action sniper rifles.
hmmmmm, that doesn't sound fair or balanced to me at all. I mean, if the LA has every weapon why should we play as any other class? You're taking one specific combat role and turning it into a jack-of-all-trades class. If the LA has every weapon, why not unlock every weapon for every other class??? Mate, the classes are fine as they are. This whole thread is just some guy being buttmad that he can't play an LA the way he wants when plenty of other people manage to play pretty damn well as LAs.
Maybe try playing other classes because you like them? I don't play medic or engineer because they melt faces (they don't) but because I like resurrecting people, repairing stuff and saving the day. Making LAs an infantry killing class won't make them a jack of all trades, they can do that, kill, they can't resurrect, repair, they cannot clear a room like HAs, they lack of rockets, giving them tons of weapons won't alter their role at all, it will just make them more versatile and effective at their role. Mdics have assault rifles, shotguns, battle rifles, SMGs and they are still medics, you don't see medics spearheading into enemy territory, that's what LAs and HAs do.
Actually there are medics spearheading into enemy territory, and they're not wrong to do so. Playing medic doesn't pigeonhole you any more than you want to. I like reviving, repairing, but i also like spearheading as a medic and even sometimes as an engineer (doesn't work quite as well with the latter). Of course as a lone wolf i have more possibilities in the matter, i suppose an outfit forces you to have shield regen+revive nades+bandolier, a playstyle i wouldn't like myself.
I rather like this comment right here. I think in some ways that sums things up nicely. Because I carry a gun the likes of the ARs, I am able to be where I am needed most. That's not behind some tank, casting my healing spells and rezzing from safety like a priest in WoW. I am able to be in the thick of things, where the firefight is most severe and I am able to be an active participant in that fight. That way, when the HAs and the Engis and the LAs start going down, I am already right there beside them, ready to rez them. And if the incoming fire makes it too unsafe to do so, I have the firepower to make it safe. I'm not trying to tell anyone how to play a Combat Medic, but for me, sitting around with the healing tool out waiting for someone to heal or rez is the wrong way to play it. I only have that tool out when I need it. If I don't, I have my gun ready and I am shooting the enemy.
Exactly! To quote a friend of mine... "The Combat Medic is just that. A 'Combat Medic' Not a 'Medic Combat'. That first part's up in front there for a reason."
I think there is really a LOT of LA fanboyism going around here. I'll explain Ok, but let's clarify what an ASSAULT is, to the common term: Assault troops (or shock troops) are formations created to lead an attack. "Shock troop" is a loose translationof the German word Stoßtrupp. Military units which contain assault troops are typically organized for mobility with the intention that they will penetrate through enemy defenses and attack into the enemy's vulnerable rear areas. (source: wikipedia) That being said, I'd say that Light Assault, which can FLY and get great positioning is surely able to have the MOBILITY to penetrate enemy defenses. On the other hand, Assault Rifles are assigned to the Medic class, which is a support class. Assault rifles are already NOT assigned to Heavy Assaults which are not a support class. In the light of the weaponry of other classes, it makes no sense for Engineers to have an assault class weapon (the Carabine, which is given to an Assault Class, the Light Assault). They would be better served with a "support" class weapon, as their fellow Medics, so with Assault Rifles. Same logic. That's totally the point. Carabines should be really be called ARs, and this is just an error. Especially in this game, when you find yourself pushing INTO the enemy base, clearing rooms and attacking enemy vulnerable areas, that's the Close Quarter Range, where Carabines fit the most. Assault Rifles, on the other hand, should probably just be called Automatic Rifles, and given to "support classes", so they can SUPPORT your advance while staying ADS and covering midrange, so you ASSAULT CLASSES can close the gap with your tools (be the Jetpack for LA, or the Shields for HA) (For the sake of this kind of reasoning, I'd say that even HA should get Carabines and not LMGs, just because LMG should behave totally different from how they do at the moment. Orion is NOT a Light Machine Gun, it's a weird heavy hitting carabine.) Just my 2 cents PS: people who wants ARs on light assault just dream about flying on a tree and sniping while invisible. That's not assault role, so don't cry for that...
As a current full time Medic I demand that Assault Rifles remain Medic specific now and forever. That is all.
Firstly: omg people just quote and respond all at once. No more of this 25 one line quotes with 25 one line responses. Secondly: do you really want to live in a world with Tross LAs?
