[Suggestion] Changing how 'classes' works

This is going to be a bit far out, and would be a big change, that would probably be too much for most people and the devs, but I am going to throw it out there all the same.

I did not play the original planetside, much to my regret, but I believe this change would make things more like they were in that game.

The Change - Choosing a class costs nanites

A new, default class is introduced: The Medium Assault. This class has no class ability. It is a standard soldier with normal stats and access to all the 'all class' weapons like pistols and grenades, as well as battle rifles, carbines and Assault Rifles. Or, put another way, like a medic with no medic abilities and access to Carbines.

Now, changing from Medium Assault to any other class costs nanites in the same way as pulling a MAX currently does. Some classes would be cheaper than others. Light Assault and Infiltrators might be at the lower end of the cost scale, Medics and Engineers in the middle, with Heavy Assault costing more and MAX still being the most expensive.

Thoughts?

Why? What's wrong with the way the classes are now?

You expect them to do a huge overhaul to the class system?

- I guess you mean "costs nanites to switch from class to class, but if you die as a heavy assault, you respawn as heavy assault for free", right?

- So you've explained the idea very well, but you've not told us why you think this should happen... What effect would this have on the game and how the game is played? Why would the effect of this be a positive impact upon gameplay?

Not sure infantry currently need a nerf.

This would probably be a bigger nerf to vehicles...

"I want to pulkl a lightning!"
*spends 250 nanites switching to engineer*
*spends more nanites on pulling the lightning*

I'd be more inclined to add variable move and turn speed; you're a big heavy with all those big guns and shield generator it makes sense if you move slower and turn slower than a nimbe Infiltrator. Move away from the current "I do a 360 in 0.1s" and flanking will actually matter more as you can't turn as fast to engage and let an infiltrator to get close to a heavy and stand a chance.

You have issues pulling stuff? I literally pulled 3 MBTs back to back to back inside of like 5 minutes and did little more then drive out and get the tank blown up by a liberator......

I also once pulled like 3 MAX back to back to back and did nothing more then redeploy around......

And even if I didnt happen to have the resources, it was probably cuz I was on a cont where the NC owned nothing....which seemed to be always.....

Not personally, no. I am just looking at potential impact upon gameplay from the proposed change.

Nothing. This is not changing the classes, just adding a cost.

Not an overhaul as such, just adding a cost to classes.

Possibly. Possibly not. I guess it would depend on exactly how many nanites a heavy would cost (see below).

There seems to be a general perception that HA and MAXs are too common. With such a system it will be more costly to play these all the time. I'm not sure exactly how many nanites each class would cost (that would require much more in depth thought, and this is more 'back of a cig packet'). I would not make it so playing HA and MAX is a rare thing, just make it so playing them all the time is not possible, which the been less so for Medics/Engineer and maybe Infitrators, and not much of an issue for LA.

i think i never heard something that dumb.

They reduced the respawn timer on infantry, and now, you suggest to nerf it so hard that it'ld be barelly impossible to pick what class is suited at a given time because you'll starve out of ressources.

Your solution 'll just reduce the number of HA / engi / LA , thus making vehicules stronger (as there is less AV for same amount of player)

HAs are too common? They should be common. They're the front line assault troops. What should everyone be playing instead? Medics running around rezzing each other or infiltrators running around trying to snipe each other? I already find that there are often too many medics at a lot of these fights. You want to exacerbate that by making it harder to play HAs?

Show me where I said that.

I have entertained the idea of a default "soldier" class that would be intended to replace the HA as common infantry. This class would have no special abilities except the passive abilities of being able to equip all but a few of the primary weapons. I was also thinking subtle buffs like faster shield regen would also be an interesting concept to entertain.

In short, the class would have the purpose of being the general infantry unit and would allow the most efficient use of SC and certs because you can get a lot of play styles out of one class and a few certs.

Also it would justify moving the Rocket launcher to the primary slot for Heavies, making them choose between point defense and AV which nerfs their unjustifiable versatility in combat.

nanite cost = limitation

I asked you to tell me where I said "nerf it so hard that it'ld be barelly impossible to pick what class is suited at a given time because you'll starve out of ressources"

Becuase what I am suggesting and what you claim I am suggesting are a world appart.

For a nanite cost to be meaningful at all, the costs need to be high enough that they will be felt. So when someone gets into a situation where they die repeatedly, they will quite possibly end up depleted of nanites and forced to play a class that may be ill suited for a given situation. You could very quickly find yourself in a situation where defenders are unable to pull HAs to deal with enemy vehicles, making it impossible to mount any sort of effective defense. And you can't just say to pull lightnings, either, because if they don't have the resources to pull HAs, they certainly can't pull Lightnings.

Thank you for a constructive response.

Yes, the balance of this would be hard, and might very well be why it might not work at all. But, the 'current' resource system is much more forgiving than the previous one. When we hold Hossin, for example I can more or less chain pull MAXs all session.

Capturing a given facility to deny the enemy a certain resource, and thus create a situation similar to what you are suggesting used to be a done tactic. Is it bad thing that certain choices and tactics can be denied to you in certain situations? Or should it be that you can pull anything at anytime in any situation? Personally I preferred having that extra layer of strategy at a continental level. Now that is not what we are talking about here, but, I don't see the possibility of running out of resources as a bad thing, just so long as it is not easily done or happens all the time, which is what I think SarasVic was trying to say in a pig headed manner.

No, having the ability to remove certain resources from your enemy is not necessarily a bad thing. We already have that with tech plants and MBTs. I would agree that it could use a bit more depth and complexity to that sort of thing. Removing the ability to pull MBTs and other vehicles makes it more difficult to respond. Your suggestion, however, runs the risk of doing something far worse. It runs the risk of making it impossible to respond. If you deny people the ability not only pull vehicles, but also the anti-vehicle infantry classes, responding to enemy vehicle columns is simply not possible anymore.

That is what should never happen. There should always be something that people can do. Otherwise it creates frustration and anger.

You also need to consider who these changes will impact the most. The players that tend to die the most. The new players.