Nerfing the Heavy = making it USELESS!!! beeing HEAVY is his f*** role!!!!! His weapon doesnt have the dmg of the medics weapon, he cant fly, have no AV weapon with infinite ammo like the engie, cant go stealth and is not as tanky as a max, but thx to the shield still tanky. So if you call for "nerf the shield" dont forgett to finish the sentence with "... and buff his weapons!" the heavy is ok, everybody can play him anytime and it is his JOB to be the strongest infantry unit in 1 v 1! Without that you leave him to the "consistand fire guy" who nobody likes to play, and then the LA will be the next unit that "needs a nerf" STOP THAT! NOW!
Yes it does. And neither can most of the other classes in the game, yet I still see engies and medics all over the place. Unless you're next to an engie, at which point you can have a better infinite ammo AV weapon and you aren't a massive sitting duck. And you don't have to give up 100 points of shield and primary weapons worth a crap past 30 meters to do it. And you don't have to pay a single nanite. I don't recall any dev ever stating that.
Actually that depends on which weapons you compare at which range. For CQC, the CQC assault rifles > the CQC LMG's. eg: TR: Cycler TRV: 845 rpm, 143dmg. Best TR LMG goes 750 rpm. NC: GR22: 800 rpm @ 143 dmg. Again, out-dps'es the NC's LMG's. even for NS, the common pool, the assault rifle out-dps'es the LMG. There is also effective dps: LMG's have more bullets, sure. But the long reload is quite a disadvantage. Assault rifles allow for kill-reload-kill gameplay much easier. You can see this very well with the NC reload times. Then, there are the long equip times of several lmg's, which can be quite a hindrance, because heavy also cycles through equipment frequently. Way to go... engy and medic bring their own advantages, duh. better: again debatable: at range, not wire-guided, so requires a lock-on. This alerts the enemy however, plus locking on takes time, reducing dps. Heavy also doesn't get AV mines, last I checked. Err... 100 pts of shield: not as big an advantage as you may think.. Presuming you don't pick nanoweave armor, the amount of 143 dmg bullets needed to kill an infiltrator or say, an unshielded heavy, or any class is the same. 167 dmg: same story. Now, there are ranges where that 100 pt difference does mean a 1 bullet difference due to bullet damage drop off. But you get stealth. Also: you just stated the infiltrators' weapons aren't worth a crap past 30 meters. Infiltrators are, last I checked, the only class with access to sniper rifles... uhm.. huzzah? Infiltrator doesn't pay for recon device, medic doesn't pay for reviving, engi doesn't pay for turret etc.. most classes are multirole; but, suppose heavy shield goes away. Assault wise, LA> heavy then. medic plops up self-heal without delay. Soo.. does medic become better than heavy 1v1 now?
Of course the Heavy Assault shield gives the player an advantage,don't the other classes have their own advantages like cloaking/radar and jetpacks and infinite ammo and turrets and self healing with the ability to revive? The heavy assault actually has a minor advantage compared to the other classes,the only time it should be a problem for players is if they are constantly running around alone and in a game with 100's of players how often is that going to happen?
Why would a dev have to confirm that it's a HA's role as the straightforward combat class? THEY gave him the shield I think they know lol. Besides if the heavy didn't have a shield what would be the point in the class it's already slow and with all of it's abilities being forward combat oriented everyone would just play light assault and obstacles would be meaningless but that's okay because that's YOUR class right? Oh and C-4 pretty much gibbing most vehicles is legit while 600 extra hp which maybe adds an extra .5 second ttk is broken? Yeah I think we all see where this is going.
This nerfing circle is just so annoying, there is for every class and vehicle and a threat where somebody calls for a nerf... Probably not for the basilisk on the flash or the snowball gun, but seriously. Do you really think they hurt the gameplay? Or are you just playing mostly other classes so you like to see him nerfed? Btw. i play Max the most and heavys are next to LA´s my biggest threat, so just to answer the question -> Heavy is not my mainclass.
Blimey, is this debate still going on? Anyway, one thing we have to keep in mind here is, that when some peeps refer to players being "bad," they don't mean they are bad at FPS skills, they mean that they are naughty people for using such overpowered classes/weapons/vehicles/aircraft. What beats me is, how on earth do I know what I am up against, in terms of the skill levels of other players? I never think, "oh, he appears to be the same skill level as me so I'll go 1v1 using the same class as him and we'll have a fair fight." I always assume that EVERYONE is better than me and so I come dressed accordingly.
As everything does, but in general, assault rifles have an extremely slight CQC advantage in return for not having as accurate sustained fire. The person I quoted was basically saying heavies can't kill medics without the overshield, which is bs. Also I'd like to point out the base cycler assault rifle for TR has identical DPS to the CARV and only marginally better hipfire, which seems to be what people care about in "cqc" even though it's terrible on most ARs. Even with the high DPS assault rifles, the TTK difference is usually less than .05 seconds. Trying to claim medics have a massive combat advantage because of a TTK difference that small is just absurd. LMGs, even with the longer reload, have significantly higher damage per minute than ARs do due to the increased clip size, and superior sustained fire accuracy (usually). They are pretty much flat out superior for everything past 20 meters. My point was that those classes have nothing but their own guns and combat prowess (same as the HA) to get them places, and have no trouble doing so. Better AV is debatable. But I'd rather have a full 360 deci / lock on with infinite ammo that isn't a massive target. A) Almost everyone picks nanoweave, because the other options are largely useless outside of specific situations. 100 less health means you get 1-shotted by more things, like commissioners and crossbows. B) Snipers are only a pain to engies trying to kill people with their turrets. They're largely ineffective for anything beyond that. The vast, vast majority of my infil deaths come from SMGs or scout rifles. C) Infils are their own worst enemy thanks to radar. Your stealth is completely negated by radar, dark light, and anyone capable of seeing blurry lines. I'm not saying it's useless, but it's far from an ideal survival tool and certainly not something comparable to an instant 700 health. The quote I was replying to was specifically comparing MAX units and HA surviability. MAXs cost nanites. Even if the shield is nerfed, not taken away, which is what I see being argued here, it just changes the LA to being slightly better in 1 vs 1 and flanking against infantry only, which is what it's designed to do. HA is still better against large groups and vehicles, which is what it's designed to do. As for medics, I'd rather fight someone with a self-heal that takes several seconds to reach even half the effect of the HA's instant toggle. Because while the shield works for your argument, the HA's weapons do not. LMGs are clearly designed for fighting multiple people and are designed to work with the HA's other tools for fighting multiple people, i.e. the conc grenade and shield. It was never meant to be a 1 vs 1 i-win button.
The problem is that HA is the only one to receive an advantage in direct combat. 1 v 1 fights happen all the time.
1v1 battles happen all the time, and sometimes it's MAX vs Infil. That's just the way the cookie crumbles. No use crying about it.
Lol you must be delusional if you think that medics hipfiring ARs doesn't count for many deaths of not just heavies but any other class. Medics are the second tankiest infantry class, and get access by default to some of the best automatics in the game for close ranges, maintaining DPS similar or higher than that of SMGs but having more versatility in better control/damage over range. Not only that, but they get hipfire that is almost like that of the SMG. And I love your l2p comment about "situational awareness" or "motion spotters". So to counter LAs or Infiltrators I need good reflexes, situational awareness, AND competant teammates such as outfitmates that'll drop spotters. To counter the Heavy Assault all you need is mechanical skill : strafing, aiming and if you get the drop on him he'll go down just as easy (which you'll usually get with the LA or the inf).
Actually, no. Pretty sure it was for balance reasons, there's a reason why people complain about Heavy Assaults with Cyclones, or other SMGs, or heavy assaults with Orions/SVA88s. The CQC Assault Rifles crush any of them (even the Cyclone, in fact the Armistice is the closest) in DPS. Assault Rifles get almost the hipfire of the SMGs, a lot of them get the .75x movement multiplier, weapons like the GR22 have access to the advanced laser sight which it makes extremely great usage of along with that 143/800 DPS, and they are more accurate than the LMGs.
Assault rifles again. So many assault rifle complaints. I swear you idiots are so caught up on ARs you don't realize how close they are to SMGs or LMGs, or how little of a difference you are complaining about. But I'll cover those lower in the post. Actually it's a "situational awareness" or motion spotters. If you have an infil around, LAs and enemy infils should not be a problem because any time they move they're going to show up. If you have enough sense to look around you, they won't be an issue even without friendly infils. Ok, let's put this assault rifle = ultimate CQC weapon bs to bed, because BS is exactly what it is. SMG DPS - Armistice - 1866 dps. TTK on HA: 1.07 seconds. TTK on others: .67 serconds Blitz- 1862 dps TTK on HA: 1.07 seconds, TTK on others: .67 seconds Skorpios / Eridani - 1760 dps TTK on HA: 1.13 seconds, TTK on others: ,71 seconds Cycler TRV DPS, highest dps AR in the game - 2013.9 dps, TTK on HA: .99 seconds, TTK on others: .62 seconds You are complaining about .05 seconds difference against the highest dps infantry weapon in the game. There are five assault rifles with TTKs equivalent to or better than the SMGs - the TRV, H-V45, Terminus, GR-22, and TAR. None of them have as good hipfire accuracy, and of those only the TAR, GR-22, and H-V45 share the .75 ADS modifier with laser sights. READ THAT CAREFULLY. THE TAR, GR-22 AND H-V45 ARE THE ONLY ARs THAT HAVE COMBINATIONS OF .75 ADS, ALS, AND BETTER TTK. YOU ARE BASING YOUR ENTIRE COMPLAINT ABOUT POOR HA CQC OPTIONS ON THREE OUT OF TWENTY-FIVE ASSAULT RIFLES WHICH HAVE A .03 SECOND TTK ADVANTAGE OVER SMGs. .03 seconds. 2%. Not enough difference to fire another bullet with any gun in the game. While not being as good at hipfiring and having smaller clips. Because of that, you need a 70% instant effective health bonus? While still being the best at AV and the best at fighting multiple people? Is any of this sinking through? Do you realize how absolutely ridiculous that health advantage is now? LMGs are, bar none, the best guns for middle-long range fighting without getting into sniping, while still being decent in CQC. ARs are either good at medium and decent at CQC, or decent at medium and good at CQC. SMGs do just as well in CQC as any of the ARs do but don't have medium range options. So you have to choose. Medium range with decent CQC, or good CQC with poor medium? It's the exact same choice the medics make.
Lol here we go again can never expect it to sink into you idiots with **** for brains and skills. You're over-exaggerating the health bonus so much, its as if all that can kill me is two rockets or a stick of C4 on my head. Best at AV, oh you mean how we have shotgun-esque rocket launchers that need vehicles to be at kissing distance to hit without a ridiculous amount of luck and leading. Now I'm not saying rocket launchers are bad, but saying that engineer turrets or light assaults with C4 isn't as effective is stupid. Light Assaults can spook tanks back to their warpgate, engineers become death to vehicles at longer ranges. Heavies are the best option for close range (besides the Lancer which needs to be in groups to kill), doesn't make us the best. Multiple people? That goes to the MAX. Again, you're assuming that all players have your aim deficiency. If you goes down in a group, the next guy will finish off the Heavy assuming he doesn't suck as much. Now you're just seriously overplaying the LMG. I love bringing my Orion to 50-100 metre fights, who needs a NS15m or the Ursa? My Anchor does so much work at those ranges, the Gauss Saw's minimum 167 damage is laughable and a stupid gimmick. Yes, it is the exact same choice the medics make. Which is why (usually) you don't see them bringing Albatrosses or Corvuses to close range fights. My god, we have to change our arsenal to match the flow of battle. Nerf heavy assault!
It'd only be a first for this particular game. I've successfully proven things were ridiculous in others. See the Drake's shield regeneration in EVE, or in a game you probably haven't heard of, boarding / melee combat mechanics in pirates of the burning seas. If your teammates aren't organized, then find ones who are. There are a lot of people playing this game and if all you want to do is solo then you had better be good enough to look for LAs and Infils. The only time I have a serious issue killing anyone is when the hit detection goes to crap, which is unfortunately relatively often these days. But that doesn't change the fact an instant 70% health bonus is a completely ridiculous advantage. In other games that kind of advantage comes with serious penalties, such as the heavy in TF2 constantly moving less than half the speed of a scout, barely being able to jump over tiny boxes, and having no good long range options. Glowing doesn't matter when the enemy already knows you're there, and the movement penalty is only significant if you're trying to run or chase with it up. [/quote] Let's compare that hipfire, shall we? I aimed at the head in all scenarios. TAR Assault Rifle, hipfire on left, aiming on the right. Results: Hipfire: 13 shots, 1-2 headshots, 6-7 body shots, 1 leg shot, 4 misses. Not enough damage to kill an HA with overshield. While aimed: 6-7 headshots, 8 misses. Would most likely kill anything unless that 7th headshot isn't actually there, at which point an overshield HA would survive. Armistice SMG: Results: Aimed: 4 headshots, 7 body shots. Would kill anything. Hipfire:3 headshots, 4 bodyshots, 6 misses. Not enough to kill an overshield HA, but enough to kill anything else. SMGs are not any worse at close range than ARs are, and usually have bigger clips. So why don't people use SMGs more? Because they're only mediocre at medium range due to low velocity, and the only time you should use a dedicated CQC weapon is when you in an area that allows it. I rarely die to the CQC assault rifles outside of towers or other places where it's a dedicated indoor area with a lot of corners/cover to maximize close range fighting. Most of the time, in order to get to the CQC places, you have to pass through the middle-long range places, which is where LMGs shine. It's not a complaint. It's pointing out that you think access to a single weapon on a single class in each empire which has a TTK advantage over your own CQC weapons of less than 2% justifies a having a 70% health bonus. That's absurd. Also, the ALS ARs are not the highest DPS ones. The TAR has a TTK of .975 seconds against an overshield HA with no headshots. The armistice has a TTK of 1.00 seconds with no headshots. If you get headshots, the TTK difference between the two is only about .01 seconds. A hundredth of a second. It's not worth any advantage, much less a 70% shield bonus. This doesn't even make sense in response to my comment. You were complaining that LMGs suck in CQC. So I said bring a CQC weapon to the fight. If a medic brings a mid-range AR to a CQC fight and you bring an SMG, you're probably going to win. If they bring a CQC weapon and you bring an LMG, they're probably going to win and they should, because they came prepared for the situation. If you both bring CQC weapons, it's going to be a damn close fight and whoever is better is likely going to win. Your shield shouldn't be a crutch for bad strategy. A) That health bonus translates to a significantly higher TTK and discourages interesting gameplay. In a game where the TTK is measured in tenths of a second and clientside hit detection means you can be dead before you even know you are under attack, that shield is often the difference between a flanking class doing their job correctly and being rewarded for it vs. dieing because the player they attacked can instantly get 700 health for no good reason. B) If you can't aim dumbfires that is your problem, not the weapon. There are plenty of people in this game who use them to excellent effect, and they by far the best weapon against MAX units in most situations. Engi turrets take time to set up, are massive targets, and cannot rotate 360 degrees without being set up again. They can be effective, yes, but only in areas where the enemy is either retreating or forced to remain in front of them and, for some reason, can't do anything about them. C) You have access to C4 and AV grenades. LAs may have a slight advantage because most people don't bother looking up, but I see engies running up to tanks and dropping mines / c4 all the time, and I regularly do it on my medic. Nothing stopping you from doing it except you lose access to health kits. D) MAX units cost nanites and shouldn't be compared to classes that don't in the same type of arguments. So what's the point of all this? Even without the shield, you are just as capable at most things as everyone else. No, you can't revive, cloak, fly, or repair things. But no one else can take out groups as easily as the HA and no one else can take out vehicles at range or aircraft as easily, at least not without paying resources. I actually think the shield is a good idea vs. explosives, as it lets the HA fight vehicles more easily, but I don't think allowing it to apply to small arms fire is a good idea.
Let's compare that hipfire, shall we? I aimed at the head in all scenarios. TAR Assault Rifle, hipfire on left, aiming on the right. Results: Hipfire: 13 shots, 1-2 headshots, 6-7 body shots, 1 leg shot, 4 misses. Not enough damage to kill an HA with overshield. While aimed: 6-7 headshots, 8 misses. Would most likely kill anything unless that 7th headshot isn't actually there, at which point an overshield HA would survive. Armistice SMG: Results: Aimed: 4 headshots, 7 body shots. Would kill anything. Hipfire:3 headshots, 4 bodyshots, 6 misses. Not enough to kill an overshield HA, but enough to kill anything else. SMGs are not any worse at close range than ARs are, and usually have bigger clips. So why don't people use SMGs more? Because they're only mediocre at medium range due to low velocity, and the only time you should use a dedicated CQC weapon is when you in an area that allows it. I rarely die to the CQC assault rifles outside of towers or other places where it's a dedicated indoor area with a lot of corners/cover to maximize close range fighting. Most of the time, in order to get to the CQC places, you have to pass through the middle-long range places, which is where LMGs shine. Hipfiring is usually done aimed at upper center mass, so the upper chest. That crazy COF you see then gets hits on the head, while maintaining solid accuracy since the bloom isn't enough to start completely missing the chest. ADSing is better done when you aim for the head, as scoping in is more accurate and makes your bullets more precise and together. It's not a complaint. It's pointing out that you think access to a single weapon on a single class in each empire which has a TTK advantage over your own CQC weapons of less than 2% justifies a having a 70% health bonus. That's absurd. Also, the ALS ARs are not the highest DPS ones. The TAR has a TTK of .975 seconds against an overshield HA with no headshots. The armistice has a TTK of 1.00 seconds with no headshots. If you get headshots, the TTK difference between the two is only about .01 seconds. A hundredth of a second. It's not worth any advantage, much less a 70% shield bonus. Hipfire, aim for center mass, and strafe. You already have better footwork than the Heavy does due to better mobility. That 70% shield bonus doesn't stop me from getting wrecked by someone who knows what they are doing. Add to that, an infiltrator or LA with half decent aim who does get the drop on me, i'm usually fvcked unless I manage to get behind a wall and throw a conc or just run back around the corner as he's chasing me. jump out of his LOS and start firing shots into him, and finish him off with a quickknife. This doesn't even make sense in response to my comment. You were complaining that LMGs suck in CQC. So I said bring a CQC weapon to the fight. If a medic brings a mid-range AR to a CQC fight and you bring an SMG, you're probably going to win. If they bring a CQC weapon and you bring an LMG, they're probably going to win and they should, because they came prepared for the situation. If you both bring CQC weapons, it's going to be a damn close fight and whoever is better is likely going to win. Your shield shouldn't be a crutch for bad strategy. I'm not saying it should be? I bring my Anchor or Cyclone into close range fights, my Orion for my VS. If I do bring my SAW into CQC situations (I actually do decent with it if I can get a headshot or two) and neglect aiming for the head or strafing (moving cof with it sucks dick) I will get my *** whooped by a medic A) That health bonus translates to a significantly higher TTK and discourages interesting gameplay. In a game where the TTK is measured in tenths of a second and clientside hit detection means you can be dead before you even know you are under attack, that shield is often the difference between a flanking class doing their job correctly and being rewarded for it vs. dieing because the player they attacked can instantly get 700 health for no good reason. This just gets back to the "class built for combat and combat only" argument. The Heavy Assault gets access to his shield for frontal combat just like Light Assaults get access to jetpacks for the most effective flanking. Let's face it, looking out ONLY for Light Assaults will most likely take your attention off of the ground in crucial sitatuons where you think a light assault could be waiting to fly over with some C4. Then boom, you hear the coughs of a silenced SMG and then a knife to the back, and the cloaker rushes off never to be seen again. B) If you can't aim dumbfires that is your problem, not the weapon. There are plenty of people in this game who use them to excellent effect, and they by far the best weapon against MAX units in most situations. Engi turrets take time to set up, are massive targets, and cannot rotate 360 degrees without being set up again. They can be effective, yes, but only in areas where the enemy is either retreating or forced to remain in front of them and, for some reason, can't do anything about them. If you're dying to heavy assaults that's your problem, not the class. There are plenty of lighter classes who use their weapons to excellent effect, and kill Heavy Assaults with ease. Engineer turrets are like sniper rifles in terms of effectiveness, rocket launchers are like shotguns. You can't say one is better than the other. Anyways, turrets also have nice utility in closer range fights, where people will set them for cover in doorways (yes, even the AV turrets do this well.) C) You have access to C4 and AV grenades. LAs may have a slight advantage because most people don't bother looking up, but I see engies running up to tanks and dropping mines / c4 all the time, and I regularly do it on my medic. Nothing stopping you from doing it except you lose access to health kits. That's why TBH. I don't see much of a point unless there are lots of maxes and its a bio lab. I don't complain, I still use my rocket launcher as a decent close range harassing tool, and will pull out my AA lockon even if it won't get me any kills, I'll still get air deterrence points and the very lockon message will discourage that banshee farmer from coming any closer.I leave the max killing to friendly maxes and light assaults, but I'll definitely fire my rockets at one if I see him. I fire my rockets at vehicles, I'll use my phoenix if a sundy is in a hard to access place, but for the killing blow I think an engineer delivers the best damage in a single payload, tank mines are usually tough to out-repair. AP Tanks also help, along with air craft. Speaking of which, I will actively hunt aircraft as I believe the Heavy is the best infantry for that. I posted a quote from Klypto before about heavies, light assaults and engineers for AV/anti max roles. D) MAX units cost nanites and shouldn't be compared to classes that don't in the same type of arguments. Nanites are an easy to access commodity, and MAXes are still spammed to great effect (and annoyance). So what's the point of all this? Even without the shield, you are just as capable at most things as everyone else. No, you can't revive, cloak, fly, or repair things. But no one else can take out groups as easily as the HA and no one else can take out vehicles at range or aircraft as easily, at least not without paying resources. I actually think the shield is a good idea vs. explosives, as it lets the HA fight vehicles more easily, but I don't think allowing it to apply to small arms fire is a good idea.[/quote]
Change all guns to walkie-talkies, and change the shields so they launch you into the air and receive double fall-damage. Balance.
Doesn't change the fact that the two weapons are virtually equal up to about 30 meters. Like I said, if you get headshots, the TTK on TAR vs. Armistice is .01 seconds. If you're honestly complaining about that you have bigger issues. Hipfiring while strafing would favor the SMG even more. The problem is the shield is overperforming against flanking attacks. That's what people are complaining about. No one is saying they should be able to attack an HA head on and win without being significantly better. But when they sneak up behind an HA, even a relatively poor HA can toggle a shield the second they come under attack and still come out ahead, and any sort of range, even just 20m instead of 10, dramatically increases their likelihood of surviving far more than any other class in the game. And any infil that runs off after killing someone is likely to die thanks to being super visible while running. Your best bet is to round a corner and then crouch. LAs, you just need to look for likely perks because they'll be watching likely doors. You were complaining that HA AV weapons are inaccurate and only good at short range. I have probably died to HA AV 20-30x more often than I have to engi turrets. Whether that's due to higher amounts of HAs or HA AV dealing more damage in a single hit I don't know, but I fear decimators far more than I do engies the few times you will find me in a vehicle. They are still not free and die to 1-2 C4, which costs a fraction of what they do. The infil is the only class I feel gets to complain about MAX units, everyone else has an answer to them. Even if rounding a corner and dieing to one is no fun. Hey now, this is about infantry, not SOE's grand plan for vehicles.
Sure sure. Let's also nerf C4 so it can't blow anything up in one go. And Jet packs. How about it last 2 seconds. Long enough to go over a small rock as opposed to round it. Can't have people shooting from where they can't easily be seen. Then we will be well on the way to having no classes at all. Or... use your tools (which I happen to know you are more than capable of using, I have watched your videos) to your advantage. If you get cause short and lose to a HA 1 on 1 it's because you are in a 1 on 1 with a HA. IE you are fighting on their terms. So define bad player? Because if you are losing as a LA to a HA perhaps you are a bad player? I get taken out all the time by LA that I never knew were there. I do a lot of flanking and running and gunning, because I know how to use HA tools. I want to be facing a LA 1 on 1 because I know 'if' I can stay on target (I am a pretty low accuracy player), I will kill a them. Put another way. Take away the shield and you may as well take away the HA class. More drumming down and nefing of everything. Max can do room busting. Engineer and LA can blow up tanks. So what would the HA be for?
