[Suggestion] Heavy Assault: Destroyer Mode

Discussion in 'Heavy Assault' started by Metalsheep, Sep 30, 2014.

  1. Metalsheep

    With everything that has been said recently about the Heavy Assault Shield nerf, many believe that it will make the shields rather useless overall. So I thought, what ability could replace the shield and still make the HA distinct in its role?

    Right now the HA is more of a tank class that eats up more damage than others, and spearheads attacks that other classes just cant. Personally i believe this is an unnecessary role for HA, and that the role of Spearhead should be relegated to the MAX unit. (As a PS1 veteran of 11 years, this was how it already worked in PS1, MAX units were the primary Spearheads into congested choke points, while Heavys were a more flexible shock trooper.)

    In PS2, HA take on a more Anti-Vehicle role, being the go-to class for AV work. I feel a static barrier is unnecessary for this role. As even with a shield up, hits from vehicles are lethal to an HA.


    So my first suggestion would be to remove the shield entirely from HA, and give HA a static HP/Shield buff up to 1100. (I'm not the best at math, but i believe this is the equivalent to having Rank 1 Nanoweave, requiring 1 additional shot to kill.) This makes the HA a little bit beefier than the other classes, and possibly even more so with Nanoweave/Flak added ontop of this extra HP. Yet, this wont step on the MAX units toes of being the primary damage sponge of an assault.

    And this is where my idea comes in. We replace the shield with a new Class Ability called Destroyer Mode.


    Destroyer Mode will be an activated ability, similar to ZOE in that it is an "All or Nothing" ability, once you activate Destroyer Mode, you are locked into Destroyer Mode for its duration. The ability will not begin to cool down until Destroyer Mode expires.

    Destroyer Mode will have a base up time of 15 seconds, followed by a 30 second cool down. This allows for roughly 3 rockets to be fired before the timer expires. Certing into Destroyer Mode will shorten the Cooldown, but not increase the up time. 30/28/26/24/22/20 seconds by rank.

    Destroyer Mode will amplify the HA's Explosive Damage (Rocket Launchers/Grenades/C4) by 15/16/17/18/19/20% according to rank. 15% being default, and having 5 additional Ranks on top.

    Destroyer Mode will increase the HA's resistance to Explosive Damage by 20/21/22/23/24/25% Damage accordingly. (Possibly stacking with Flak Armor.)

    And lastly: Destroyer Mode will alter the Damage Type of the HA's LMGs to Heavy Machine Gun. Thus allowing the HA to damage MBTs/Sunderers/Lightnings/Liberators/Galaxies with their LMG. (At a lower value than their damage to Infantry, but proportionate to the damage the LMG does. I.E. the Gauss Saw would deal the most, due to its 200 damage rounds.) This would only apply to LMGs and faction HA weapons. Not to Shotguns (aside from the Jackhammer) SMGs, Battle Rifles or Sidearms.

    The Trade-off is that the HA Glows similarly to the current Heavy Shields, and each rocket or bullet fired leaves a significant, faction colored tracer (Like what ZOE does.) leading back to the HA. Making it quite obvious who is in Destroyer Mode and who is not, and where the shots are coming from.

    The HA would also move at a slower rate, similarly to the current downside of the HA shield. Making it even slower to move while ADS with a LMG/Rocket Launcher.


    I feel that this more emphasizes with the HAs role as an Anti Vehicle class that is slightly more durable than a standard Infantryman. Allowing the HA to absorb more Explosive Splash, and simultaneously dishing out more AV damage. Better allowing the HA to go Toe-to-Toe with Vehicles. But this then puts the HA at a disadvantage in Infantry Combat , due to slower movement speed while in Destroyer Mode, as well as Destroyer Mode not greatly improving their AI capabilities at all. (Aside from making Grenades stronger.)

    What does Forumside think of an idea like this? What would you change to make Destroyer Mode more viable/balanced?
    • Up x 3
  2. TheMish

    Are you crazy?

    Tracers won't matter. Anyone who could oppose you would be long dead before tracers sign your death warrant.

    3 shots in 15 seconds? It's already bad enough as it is.

    Damaging tanks with your LMG? I can only imagine the hell caused by the MCG and Jackhammer from that.

    Infantry should fear tanks, not the other way around.

    Even the movement debuff won't matter.

    Chances are you're behind cover, and explosions probably won't do much to you, and AP rounds aren't likely to hit you, before you annihilate a tank.

    The HA shield shouldn't be debuffed in the first place. There's a reason Heavy Assaults are called Heavy Assaults.

    I really hope the devs aren't serious about nerfing the shield.
    • Up x 1
  3. Liberty

    You should focus your suggestions to improve gameplay based the core of current abilities rather than trying to come up with completely new ones.

    At this point, it would be terrible for the game to rework the gameplay a class that sits firmly in the middle of the damage totem pool, above LA, Engie, Infil, Medic but below MAXes, Light Vehicles, Light Aircraft, Heavy vehicles, Heavy Aircraft.
    • Up x 3
  4. Geneaux

    I've always thought variating each classes innate stats, like running, hp, shields, etc to be attributable to their class.

    Examples: Heavies normally carry more ammo(not greatly), more health, are fairly above average kinectic resistance in general, have slighty above average shield strength, and the overshield. Cons being they move slower than all the classes except MAX, they take considerably longer to revive compared to the other classes except MAX, and lack of a secondary. A Medic would have slightly higher hp, fairly higher shield resistance, normal shield resistance in general, second fastest run speed, the ability to carry revive AND restoration grenades. Cons: can only equip assualt rifles, can only equip pistol hand arms(no crossbow etc).

    This is really just a general idea of what I'm getting at but the purpose is to basically force players to play conscientious of there class. Its not to barr people from certain play styles, but lets face it, medics not paying attention to the dead, engies not reviving, and heavies running every-which-a-where ad not defending/attacking the objective is pretty damn annoying.
    • Up x 1
  5. KenDelta

    Aren't HAs already lethal on armor ?

    Does this explosive damage buff include lock-ons ?

    LMG to HMG ? What would happen to light armored vehicles?(ESFs/Harassers/Valkyries) that already eat a lot of dmg from HMG(namely Basilisk)

    The downsides aren't down enough , being glowy and having major tracers wont cut it if you use Destroyer mode within a group of friendlies.

    #NoVote , Heavies are already wrecking havoc I can't imagine them being even stronger.

    Edit : Lock their primary weapon while in Destroyer mode.<---Legit tweak.

    I see Destroyer mode being fun in subterranean grenade analysis(Pit of despair).
  6. vsae

    There is no way some destroyer heavy will beat me in subterranean grenade analysis while I'm in harasser.
  7. FateJH

    Each attempt to retool the Heavy Assault class has stood to perpetrate more offensive sins against gameplay than the suggestion is trying to alleviate.

    I will correct myself. The only partially sane one is the splitting of the class between AI-heavy, AV-light and AV-heavy, AI-light variants; but, it requires a lot more careful consideration than is normally put into the idea when it is brought up.
  8. KenDelta

    50% flak , + 25% flak resist from destroyer , HUUUUUUUUUURR.
    +Decis gonna hurt and C4s gonna hurt even more.

    Tried to enter my harasser into the pif of despair but got TK'd 4 times in a row , gaveup.

  9. Metalsheep

    I did include Lockons in this, this would up a lockons damage to 1200 at maximum rank and 1150 at base. A fuz more powerful then a unaltered Dumbfire (not including the Deci) Though, i think this would make lockons 1-shot ESFs? (I dont know all the values for ESF HP and rocket resistances.) Perhaps lockons could be effected a bit less by Destroyer than dumbfires.

    And in my description of Destroyer altering LMG damage type, i said it will deal a lower value of damage than their standard AI damage. So, for example, a Gauss Saw deals 200 AI damage, but in Destroyer Mode, it deals 100 (To vehicles, but more damage against MAX units.). This might take a bit of playing with Resist Values, but the idea is to allow HA to temporarily use their LMG to put DPS on a vehicle or other armored target. (I.E. a MAX or Engie Turret)

    The lowered Movement speed would make Destroyer HAs more vulnerable to other Infantry during its duration. Basically trading off AI potency for a AV boost for a short period.
  10. Axehilt

    Feels like the wrong way to try to go.
    • HAs currently aren't that amazing against vehicles. (If the enemy has a strong vehicle presence, they're going to stomp you -- I do it every day I log in.)
    • HAs shouldn't be all that amazing against vehicles. Because (a) vehicles need a purpose and (b) if you could footzerg everywhere (successfully), the game would be really shallow.
    • LMGs damaging vehicles (apart from lighter ones) is silly -- and additionally compounds the already existing problem of HAs being too do-everything, which is their fundamental design problem (note that their design problem isn't their shield, and it's actually a bad idea to try to fix heavies through their shield.)
    But I have crazy ideas on class balance, like "all classes should provide balanced worth" and "when classes are balanced, all individual infantry fights will be skill-intensive and competitive instead of one-sided and dull", which strongly conflicts with the "MAXes are supposed to be overpowered" ideas that the devs and some players have. So what would I know?
    • Up x 1
  11. Zica96

    I like the overall idea, except for the LMG's being able to take on tanks, but Sundy's are fair game i think, cause if infantry can destroy or severerly damage tanks then it could be unbalanced. But a little bit of damage to Sundy's, especially with the new shield, would be fair game.
  12. patrykK1028

    Nice quote :)
  13. DatVanuMan

    You got your idea that MAXes should spearhead everything from PS1. That game was a sci-fi simulator, not a game.
    Also, it is stated IN THE HEAVY DESCRIPTION that Heavy Assaults were designed to attack even the most fortified position using their shields and rocket launchers. Therefore, making the Heavy FAR weaker than a MAX (For higher damage that doesn't really do much) is stupid. ANYWAYS, 100 additional health does NOTHING. NADA. NONE.
  14. Alan Kalane

    The shield is fine
    Stop blaming, it's right where it was meant to be and what it was meant to be.
    If it means SMG and stalker infiltrators who go rambo against a heavy are going to complain so be it.
    • Up x 1
  15. Sixstring

    The shield is in a perfect spot right now I kill HA's using it all the time,it usually depends on what weapon I'm using (usually an smg or close-quarters carbine or shotgun). The problem is the whiners who want it nerfed want their ability to fly and turn invisible as their preferred classes AND be on equal terms in direct combat....but that's not justifiable. The real problem with the HA and light assault is their effectiveness towards vehicles. In most battles infantry with AV loadouts are themselves more effective than vehicles against vehicles that is unbalanced and broken. Most vehicles are destroyed by swarms of infantry,if you start attacking a sunderer swarms of infantry can spawn with their rockets/C-4 out and instantly overwhelm you these are the problems that need to be fixed.
  16. KnightCole

    If we got any kind of "destroyer" mode, it should do one or 2 things.....one: Decreases weapon recoil, both V and H. two: Decreases weapon bloom. We go into a sort of super adrenaline rush mode and we gain alot more weapon control.....maintain the same movement speed modifier hit...
  17. Metalsheep

    If anything, PS1 was more of a game than PS2 is. It at least was released in a finished state, with an obvious goal and idea in mind as to what sort of game and mechanics it wanted to be and have. PS2 doesnt know what it wants to be, when it should have just improved and expanded upon the original, like a sequel is supposed to do. Instead, it is some kind of CoD/Battlefield wannabe wearing a Planetside costume, with an amalgamation of broken or unfinished mechanics sewn together into a Frankenstein game. Its alive, but it has no soul.

    Also: The 1100 HP allows the heavy to take 1 additional bullet. Using a 167 damage weapon:

    1000/167=5.98 so 6 bullets to kill.
    1100/167=6.58 so 7 bullets to kill.

    Now, stack this with (Max) Nanoweave armor:
    (1000*1.25)/167=7.48 so 8 shots to kill. (1250 effective HP.)
    (1100*1.25)/167=8.23 so 9 shots to kill. (1375 effective HP.)

    For reference, the standard NMG gives a boost of 700HP for 1700 effective HP. So, this would be approximately a 50% nerf to the HAs overall HP, but it no longer needs to be activated. Making the class more durable, without stepping on the MAX units toes as the king of damage absorption.

    This gives heavies an edge over other classes in most situations, but doesn't make such a wide gap that it would be impossible to overcome. 1 shot can make a world of difference in PS2.

    (It is very possible i bunged my math up at some point, as i admittedly suck at math.)
  18. DatVanuMan

    Why not simply make the factions' shields more UNIQUE instead of a direct nerf? I main HA, and I do admit that the shield is sort of boring to use. Each faction's shields should be different, not nerfed while being told it was a "change."
    Maybe TR's shield loses no speed, but the shield is slightly weaker.
    NC's shield will be obvious; juggernaut protection but is overwhelmingly slow. OR, the HA is rendered completely immobile, but protection is MAX-class for a period of time.
    VS's shield could have no protection at all. Maybe more accuracy, damage, and/or higher reload speed, but it offers no protection whatsoever.
  19. Metalsheep

    This is an idea i could get behind, more faction uniqueness is definitely something PS2 needs.

    I would say that the TRs shield should have less protection, but increase Rate Of Fire and Accuracy
    The NC could remain similar to what we have now, a raw damage absorbtion barrier Superior to TR or VS for overall absorbtion.
    The VS is the oddball and im not too sure what to give them. As a simple accuracy buff doesnt seem to warrent a class ability.

    I merely suggested Destroyer Mode, as most players seem to believe a HA shield nerf will make it overall useless.
    • Up x 1
  20. DatVanuMan

    Why more accuracy for TR? XD
    I appreciate how you want to IMPROVE upon the shield nerf. Instead of following the masses that want a plain nerf, you differed like a small group of individuals to simply change the function.
    I have to admit, 25% explosive damage sounds pretty freaking awesome:p