Is the AR the answer?

Discussion in 'Light Assault' started by Eternaloptimist, Sep 17, 2014.

  1. Eternaloptimist

    I've seen a few posts from time to time about LA lacking something in their arsenal to give them better balance vs other classes. Now, I'm not an advocate for LA (not that good at playing LA either, though I try from time to time). Nor am I a nerf/buff spammer. But here is a genuine question:

    Should LA be able to use the assault rifle? In real life it was designed as a lighter version of a standard rifle that combined a bit of SMG rate of fire with a bit of better range/accuracy of the rifle cartridge......seems a perfect choice for light (fast) assault function. And maybe give LA class a bit more punch?

    I realise that there is a trade off between game playability/balance and real life. As a relatively new player I also realise that this might be an old,old topic that I just haven't gone far enough back in the posts to see (and I just realised I could have used the search box first but hey, I've typed it all out now).

    Apologies if this is a naive or out of date question.
  2. Iridar51

    The problem with modern weapons is how blurry the definitions of assault rifle and carbine are. What many people would consider an assault rifle is actually a carbine.

    Take this picture as an example:
    1,2 and 4th weapons are M16 Assault Rifles.
    3rd weapon is M4 Carbine. Notice the much shorter barrel and overall form is more compact.

    M16 vs M4:
    Weight: 4.0 kg vs 3.1 kg (both weapons loaded) (AR 29% worse)
    Length: 1,000mm vs 840mm (stock extended) (AR 19% worse)
    Barrel Length: 508mm vs 370mm
    Muzzle velocity: 948 m/s vs 884 m/sec (AR 7% better)
    Effective range: 550m vs 500m for a point target (AR 10% better)


    As you can see, carbine version is much lighter and more compact, but has similar combat characteristics, whereas in PS2 carbines are much worse than assault rifles.

    IRL, the weapon is 53% easier to handle (combined weight + size), yet sacrifices only 17% in combat stats (effective range + bullet velocity).
    This is just to highlight the approximates, naturally, Assault Rifle will be more accurate due to longer barrel and easier to control recoil due to increased weapon weight.

    Now, let's compare this to what we see in PS2:
    T1 Cycler vs TRAC 5
    Damage: 143 @ 10 - 125 @ 65 vs 143 @ 10 - 112 @ 60 (AR does up to 11% more damage at range)
    Velocity: 580 m/s vs 490 m/s (AR has 18% higher velocity)
    Reload times: T1 has longer short reload, TRAC 5 has longer long reload. Guess it averages itself out.
    Vertical Recoil: 0.27 vs 0.3 and 2% recoil angle variance (AR has 11% less recoil and no recoil angle / recoil angle variance)
    Horizontal Recoil: tied.
    Hip Fire accuracy: AR has 0.5 worse starting CoF across the board, which is 20% worse than carbines.
    ADS Accuracy: tied.

    So, it appears that we can see a similar trend in PS2: AR is 45% better at range (combined recoil + velocity + damage), but only 20% worse in close quarters.

    Giving Light Assaults Assault Rifles would make sense, we're Assault class after all. However, LAs being restricted to carbines also makes sense, since Carbines are lighter version of ARs, and we do have Light in our name too.

    I see two paths here:

    1) The easy and lazy one: give us the assault rifles. We deserve them. It also opens a whole new market for us, meaning more money for SOE.
    2) Buffing Carbines. There is no reason why they should be so much worse than ARs.
    Assault rifle is a bulky weapon, a full length rifle. Something that you take out in the field to take out enemy at medium range with precise burst fire, but if the enemy gets to close you have the option to go fully automatic.

    In PS2, you give medics access to carbines, how many of them would pick it over an AR? Almost no one, and that's a good indication of the fact that carbines are basically worse assault rifles. It shouldn't be that way.

    Carbine is a preferred weapon for close quarters fighting. That's why (as far as I know) US Army switched from M16 to M4 as a general issue weapon for urban combat. Russian army didn't have that problem since AK and AK47 are carbines from the get-go, strictly speaking. Just a bit long and heavy, as all other Russian tech :rolleyes:

    So if carbines were to be buffed:
    1) Reduce projectile speed penalty. I'd say make it 50m/s less than corresponding assault rifle.
    2) Reduce bullet damage penalty, but keep the damage range penalty. In case of T1 vs TRAC 5 it would be a:
    143 @ 10m - 125 @ 65m vs 143 @ 10m - 125 @ 60m. ARs still do slightly more damage at range, as they should.
    3) Keep recoil penalty. Keep better hip fire.

    Then carbines would be almost as good as assault rifles at range, while being noticeably better in close quarters, AS IT SHOULD BE. Then people will actually want to play with carbines, because they will actually better for close combat.

    Have to go now, will have to finish my thought later.
    • Up x 5
  3. KnightCole

    Pretty sure Carbines are much worse then ARs to give the weapons some differences in overall play style and balance. IRL, sure Carbines are not much worse then ARs, but in PS2, if Carbines and ARs were given to all the classes as they are now, why would anyone ever take a Carbine? Would pretty much obsolete most the weapons...and that would just be even more boring then the copy paste weapon models we have now.

    LA is supposed to be a short range, melee type of class, so hes given JJ, short range weapons and the like. Medics, they are to be in the back lines, well..not exactly up in the mix really...offering what fire they can and the rezzing. Thier job isnt to get shot at they are given longer range weapons to help them both kill as best they can and do their medic job. I know other shooters give the medic the LMG....but meh.
  4. Iridar51

    Long story short, it's not that LAs desperately need ARs. We desperately need a weapon that doesn't suck, and carbines are not that.
    Carbines are worse than ARs at ranged combat, but they're so much worse that whatever advantage a carbine might have in CQC just doesn't matter enough.
    TL;DR - give LAs ARs or, preferably, buff carbines to not suck so much.

    Not sure why you quoted me.
  5. UnDeaD_CyBorG

    The difference between performance of ARs and Carbines is how much the Jetpack is worth.
    While I would certainly take an Assault Rifle on every class bar none, were I given the option, I'm rather glad I'm not.
    One might say they could do with a bit better ranged performance, but I still get decent kills with a light Assault.
    The problem is more that the class itself doesn't really fit into the game all that much.
    You can occasionally camp on roofs, you're a bit better at delivering C4, and you can deploy Spawn beacons in relatively safe places. Though the former 2 could be done dropping from a plane as most classes.
    The Jetpack is worth the worse weapons. The rest is lacking.
  6. Iridar51

    No. If you're bringing abilities into this, then bring everything else as well - tools, utility and suit slot options.
  7. UnDeaD_CyBorG

    Given how many light assaults I see and how few medics (seem to be around 10% in the average zerg nowadays, tops), players obviously value a jetpack higher than healing, revives, and better weapons.
    Aside, I did.
    I mentioned that the Light Assault lacks something else.
    I'm tired of people constantly wanting to compare classes, or even weapons, in a vacuum and then come to obvious conclusions.
    Did you think SOE created the Carbine Inferior, and then didn't notice for over two years?
    Assault Rifles are better than Carbines. Yes.
    They are also better than Scout Rifles, most LMGs, AI MAX weapons...
    They just happen to be a very balanced package that in most iterations is just slightly above average, ammo count notwithstanding.
  8. Iridar51

    That's just the point. ARs are straight up better. Not "better at something", as it should be. Shotguns are extremely good within 5m. SMGs are a perfect defensive option for close quarters combat up to 20m. Each weapon here is better in a specific situation.
    But not Carbines vs ARs. ARs are straight up better.
    • Up x 2
  9. UnDeaD_CyBorG

    In my book ARs are just the best weapon class in the game.
    Carbines happen to be the only weapon type similar enough to allow a direct comparison.
    I'd carry ARs on every single class, from Infiltrators to MAX suits, if I could, whereas carbines I would only pick on Infiltrators.
    Infiltrators also have worse weapons, yet no one really seems to have a problem with that. As such, I have to assume that the problem isn't really the weapon.
    The weapons that light Assaults share with f.Ex. Medics, shotguns and SMGs, happen to be close range weapons, similar to carbines.
    So I theorize that SOE wants the Light Assault to be worse at long range. Given that people generally find flying to be more fun than pointing your mouse on a non-moving teammate, they have a certain leeway in doing so, as LA will still be played.
    The same way that Engineers are still played because nearly everyone piloting a vehicle picks that class, it's necessary to supply ammo to other classes, it can lay mines... oh wait.
    The Light Assault can't really, and that's the point. The class is lacking something. The weapon is fine, even in it's inadequacy.
    • Up x 1
  10. Rovertoo

    I think the discussion isn't really about changing the classes focus from shortish to longish range, but instead about making Carbines an actual choice. What they should do is just increase Carbine's CQC abilities, because Carbines should be the CQC version of Assault Rifles, instead of the 'Bad' version of Assault rifles. That way every weapon has value and niche, instead of just 'It's what we have and we have to work with it".

    As for lacking, I agree. We need several tools, with different focuses like the Heavy Assault, since we are it's mobile brother. I'd like to see either (or both) of these ideas (which aren't entirely mine).

    A stim pack, administered like the Medkits, that could increase movement speed, weapon equip speed, reload speed, etc. for a short period of time.

    Assault tools, like grenade launchers. Could have AI, AV, and AA variants, along with ES options. NC could have a grenade on a detonator, TR have a belt fed mini-Fury, and VS could have timed sticky laser explosives!
    • Up x 3
  11. UnDeaD_CyBorG

    Well then, how would you improve it? That's not necessarily as easy as it seems.
    Let's take my factions CQC-Versions of the respective weapons classes for a comparison:

    Orion : 750 rpm
    HV-45: 800 rpm
    Serpent: 845 rpm
    The hipfire also gradually gets better from top to bottom.

    The problem being, the Carbines aren't really compared to weapons you can't actually have on the same class.
    For LA, the direct comparison is only the SMG, and as such, we can't really improve their hipfire by much.
    We can't increase their firerate a lot, either.
    And if we pick and choose based on what the Carbines already have and don't have, we end up making most of them the same.

    What is to note in this specific example is that the VS carbines lack the fast ADS speed in return for otherwise superior CQC performance. Maybe a 0.6x baseline would generally improve them.

    Another point is general class power. I think factoring the entire class has a point, I'm certain Carbines are a bit weaker overall than other weapons on purpose. Barely, but they are. And I also think that ARs are barely superior, not just compared to carbines.
    Having tools or specializations ( I like the stimpack idea. Maybe with a new suitslot that improves drug distribution? :D) will do more for the class than a weapon buff could.
    And as said, I personally don't think LA are bad at killing things; Their mobility generally lets them get into the range where their weapons are superior.
    A Light Assault should lose a direct, even face to face fight against a HA or medic. They should always be the ones to shoot first, so they should never engage in those fights in the first place.
    I'm currently grinding LMG directives, which is grave boring, and whenever I switch to LA for some fun on the side, my K/D generally goes up, as does my score per minute (AV Grenade Spam not factored).
    While bad at a lot of ranges, most base fights, in my opinion of limited credibility, seem to be within their optimal range envelope.
  12. Iridar51

    That's the part I don't get. It's not feasible to flank EVERY one of the enemies you need to engage. Every infantry player should have a chance against another. When we have a class that can only kill people in the backs that's what we get - a weak class that can only exploit bad awareness of bad players, a noob killer. How is that any good?
  13. Vosrash

    If not AR's at least give us scout rifles so we have a prayer to do something efficiently while stuck in-between 2 bases with lots of armor and basically flat terrain yet at least one of them have a tower or two that you can put your JJ's to good use among other scenarios but that one seems to be the one that sticks in my craw the most, largely because of how much that describes the approach towards Indar Northern warpgate and how whoever has that warpgate wins the alert more often than not.
  14. Ripshaft

    Well, you're correct in guessing that this is an old, old topic, but to save some time;


    It's hard to put the main points in order, but the AR is given to the medic and only the medic for good reason, it will not be given to the LA.

    People claim alot of unsubstantiated crap in the forums; you can find many people thinking any kind of silly idea, but abundant are "[this faction/this class] is [OP/Useless!]" - you will always find both polarized views for any topic at any time. The more interesting trend however is that the proportion of whines is directly proportional to the skill floor of the class when it involves classes. Infil and LA stand out as being especially daunting to newer players, and get the brunt of the complaints.

    More people complain just because there's more people sucking at it, wouldn't read any more into what is presented than that.
  15. Corezer

    Short answer: no

    Long answer: it would be a good QoL change, wouldn't exactly be a buff, as the things ARs do are different, not necessarily better, but it would give us more access to more fights, make us feel a little less specialized etc.

    The answer requires more than a buff to the class, but a focused effort with thought about what they want the class to do. Right now the class is a jack of all trades at the expense of revivability and sustainability. Most outfits, when in tryhardMLGwinthemoney mode do not use Light Assaults, because there isn't really anything you need them for, they just do an ok job at a lot of things, and create a lot of "is the risk going out there worth it?" situations for your medics.

    Maybe I will make a post on it some time in the future but for now it's 5am lol.
  16. Eternaloptimist

    Thanks everyone for some really interesting responses. The one(s) about needing a clearer role were thought provoking. Shouldn't LA be able to seize objectives/ground/whatever and then be able to hold off counterattacks for a short time until the big guns catch them up? In a defensive context this would be more of a rapid reaction force thing.I realize this is about co-ordinated game play as well (which is a whole other subject!!). But what would the skill set and equipping for LA look like do you think if their job was seize and hold/rapid reaction rather than hit and run/distraction (which is what it feels like atm)?

    I'm kind of anticipating that someone is going to say that these are HA roles but I am talking about speed into battle, delaying tactics for a while and then speedy retreat or switch to other objective (keep the enemy occupied and distracted). It would almost certainly involve some kind of portable light support weapon (someone suggested grenade launcher?). Maybe more ammo carrying ability if you are operating some way away from resupply....but then how much should a guy be able to carry and still use a jet pack? unless carrying more conveys a penalty on jet pack performance/duration........oh, this is hard. But the way things are at present it definitely looks as though LA is pretty vulnerable unless in close support/supported by the heavier classes. Maybe that's it? are they another support class rather than a different type of assault class?

    So, what do you think the role of LA should be then?
  17. Iridar51

    1. There can't be roles until there is an objective.
    2. Why constrain class to a role? You have a jet pack, it's up to you what you do with it.

    1 -> If we pretend that objective is to capture bases, then LA's tasks are:
    • kill enemy LAs and CQC Infiltrators
      • Killing enemy LAs comes naturally, as they're often trying
    • kill engineers behind turrets and snipers
    • kill AA/AV MAXes and their support
    • destroy Phalanx turrets if they happen to be in a good position to fire on assaulting allied ground troops
      • The last two are LA specialty, because most often they sit behind enemy lines thinking they're safe, because they can't be easily reached by ground.
    • destroy vehicle farmers in flanking positions
    • flank clumps of infantry in choke points and shower them with explosives
    • rooting out enemies from cap point buildings - it's easy for LA to strike through the backdoor, preferably, roughly at the same time as his allies attack from the front. Then LA can either serve as a distraction, or take an advantage of the distraction provided by his allies.
    • generally, whenever you need to be somewhere, LA can be there the quickest. He will be the first on point, be it attack or defense
    • reconnaissance - finding enemy Sunderers, and helping his team to destroy them when his allies get close enough.
    But, that's just a pretend. As we all know, capturing bases is not this game's objective, so this point is moot.
  18. LT_Latency

    NO, LA get short range weapons so they can't snipe from every tower and hiding spot in the game.
  19. nehylen

    Giving LAs access to ARs is not just a LA-related thing: medics as they are have a single directly combat-related advantage, which is the AR. Self-healing tends to affect fighting frequency rather than how a fight unfolds.
    Medics are otherwise quite a bland class as far as actual combat is concerned.

    If you give ARs to any other class (since it seems that on the HA section players ask for them too), you absolutely have to define some sort of combat advantage for medics: ARs aren't there to be the envy of other classes alone.

    Even then, how would you deal with carbines? They'd probably remove them from LA, because keeping them overall makes little sense, plus it would be a mess in the weapon selection screen.
    Yet, while a NS-11A is a direct upgrade from the NS-11C, could you say the same for all carbines/ARs equivalents? To speak only of what i know best, i don't think a VS LA would mind ditching his Serpent for a HV-45 (CQC), his Solstice for a Pulsar VS1 (default), but would he trade his Pulsar C for a Corvus (long range option)?
    I sure wouldn't.
    • Up x 2
  20. Kociboss

    Everyone wants our ARs and this is a distinctive source of envy. As it should be.

    I don't think LAs need nor should gain access to ARs... For the reason stated above.

    PS2 is a multi class game. If you want an AR, swap to medic. If you want to flank - Swap to LA. If you want to cheese with SMG - infil. etc etc.
    • Up x 2