Is the AR the answer?

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

  1. Reccettear

    pretty much true. the "crappy" armoury of the LA is balanced against the jetpack. they don't need AR's, and while i would take a carabine buff with a smile on my face i don't think that it solves the problems of this class either.

    what the LA needs is a tool that gives him more options in how to accomplish this task.
    actually it already has them: flashbang & smoke. fixing/balancing them would go a long way i think, cuz currently:

    - the smoke grenade feels like a downgrade to the smoke UBL with its multiple (infinite) uses. getting rid of the latter would be a start, engies have enough utility.
    -the flashbang is still bugged as far as i am aware, and the timer is WAY too long. and just to add insult to injury, there's an implant that plainly nulls it's effect. (makes sense, like "unrevivable victims", "unrepairable damage" or "rockets are nerfdarts"....)

    i think it would go a long way to put these 2 into the tool-slot with certs for the quantity, lengh and range of the effect and so on. no big amount of work with model design and sounds, just some bug/balance fixes, some menu stuff and coding. F-key(ability) bound to circle through the available grenades.
    • Up x 1
  2. Genocide

    Every infantry player does have a chance against another, as a LA your odds may be worse that's all and that's the trade off for the jetpack. What do you want, a heavy with a jetpack?
  3. Iridar51

    I want a weapon that gives me options to viably play as something else than noob hunter.
    I want a weapon that we deserve by name, a weapon that medics should never have had.
    I want a weapon that makes us not useless outside of base play.
    If I can't get that, then I at least want our class ability adjusted so it doesn't turn in liability in direct combat.

    And I want HA's IWIN button redesigned into something else.

    And most of all, when two players meet face to face, I want the shooter with higher skill to win, not the one with the right class.

    It's so easy I don't understand why nobody else sees it. If I flank and kill, I win positioning game. If I come face to face and win, I win the shooter game. When this is true for all classes, we have a balanced, fun game, because higher skill wins.

    Instead we're trying to have some sort of equalized playing field, where having an advantage in positioning part should for some come with a disadvantage in shooter part. That's why we're forced to do this "shoot in the back" rat-style gameplay.
  4. Sandpants

    The answer is ADS in flight. To every question.

    It always has been.

    Thing is, LA have carbines to handicap them deliberately. They are weaker than assault rifles on purpose. Whether that purpose is fulfilled or not doesn't seem to bother anyone, but w/e. On the other hand, Carbines offer nothing in return. It really is just a precaution to stop LA "sniping" from places. Except ARs are not sniping weapons. So its a moot point. In RL carbines are shorter to allow for maneuverability in small and crowded spaces.

    In PS2 carbines exist:
    1) So that SOE can litter the game with weapons that add "variety" but are really just marginally different from one another.
    2) To be bad. Carbines are a scapegoat.

    Offer LAs ARs and no carbine will be used ever again.
  5. Iridar51

    I'd also be glad to see the return of more accurate flying hip fire accuracy.
    And if SOE indeed does introduce dual wielding some day, I suggest mid air accuracy should be its perk, not overwhelming DPS at the cost of Jet Pack or overwhelming DPS at the cost of accuracy. We already have shotguns for the latter, and see how that makes everyone *love* shotgun LA.
  6. Genocide

    So you think you should be able to take on a Heavy face to face and win because you have more skill? there is only so much skill involved in aiming at someone's head, apart from that of course they would win because of their class hence the name Heavy assault.
  7. cruczi

    Why should Heavy be the 1v1 dominance class? Genuine question, not a rhetorical one. I just want to know why you think it's a good thing that there's a class that dominates direct 1v1 fights; assuming that is what you think, correct me if I'm wrong.
  8. Iridar51

    What Cruczi said.
  9. Iridar51

    Inbefore "it's heavy assault doh"
  10. Genocide

    I wasn't suggesting the Heavy should be the 1v1 dominant class but then when you think about it isn't that the whole point of them? They can't heal/repair/cloak/fly but they can be equipped with shields in order to take more damage and that's the trade off, they are just useful as grunts and nothing else. However with all that said I die plenty off times as a HA 1on1 anyhow but meh

    Back to what I said before "So you think you should be able to take on a Heavy face to face and win because you have more skill? there is only so much skill involved in aiming at someone's head, apart from that of course they would win because of their class hence the name Heavy assault."

    Assuming two players were of even 'skill' both players had the same health/upgrades and the HA turned his shield on how can you argue the LA should win?
  11. Genocide

    Interestingly enough I came across this thread which is somewhat similar

    but more interesting is that Iridar51 you posted this in it
    "Strictly speaking, as LA, you're not supposed to win 1v1 straight shooting situation.
    If you're shooting an enemy and that enemy is shooting at you, then you're doing something wrong.
    We have jetpacks, we're very mobile. You have to kill enemy before he has a chance of fighting back, if you're in danger of being shot at, flee. Use terrain. Decieve your enemies and shoot them in the back.

    Ofcourse, this is not always possible. At these times, imo, the best way to defeat enemy who is spraying bullets all over with a series of precise bursts in upper body/head area."

    I guess you had a change of heart since then.
    • Up x 1
  12. Iridar51

    What can I say, I was young and stupid.
  13. asdfPanda

    Eh. Don't understate the effectiveness of ARs at range. An LA with a Tross/Reaper/Sabr-13/Corvus(lol) chaining headshots from a height advantage/concealed flank is no joke.

    Carbines offer better hipfire and higher ROF options over ARs. An LA is on even/better footing with other classes except HA in CQC. At range, LAs suffer in comparison to HAs and Medics, but they have more options in choosing engagements, as well as having positional advantages because of jetpacks.

    To remedy the issue, some people have suggested a "bullpup" weapon class to bridge the gap between ARs and carbines. Bullpups, being ARs with the magazine behind the trigger, would still fit with the LA's "paratrooper" theme. However, why would anybody use carbines if a bullpup class of weapons existed? The same could be said for ARs.
  14. Iridar51

    Exactly. That's the reason why carbines deserve a buff across the board.
    The only advantage carbines have over ARs is hip fire CoF, but it's so small no one would ever consider using a carbine over AR just to get that small hip fire advantage.

    What carbines give up to get this small advantage should be equally small. Carbines give up both minimum damage and minimum damage range:
    T1 Cycler: 143 @ 10 - 125 @ 65
    TRAC 5: 143 @ 10 - 112 @ 60

    Keep the minimum damage range penalty, but remove the minimum damage penalty.
    T1 Cycler: 143 @ 10 - 125 @ 65
    TRAC 5: 143 @ 10 - 125 @ 60
    Carbines will still do slightly less damage at all ranges and will have worse recoil, as they should.
  15. Reccettear

    is it wrong? it's a statement about what IS and how to deal with it the best way. not how things should/could/would be
  16. Genocide

    I never said whether it was wrong or right, do you have a point?

    Perhaps you should read the entire thread and you will understand why I quoted that text from Iridar51.
  17. Reccettear

    i did read the thread before i posted, thank you.
    i still dont get what an objective assessment of the situation (what you quoted)
    has to do with one's own opinion about it (what this thread is about)

    maybe i'm being stupid here, but i dont get the connection between the 2
  18. Genocide

    Yes you are being stupid, either that or deliberately argumentative.

    I made it pretty clear when I quoted him that when he made that older post he was arguing why a LA should not win 1on1 where as in this thread he was arguing the opposite, Iridar even acknowledged that with his response.
  19. Lection

    Give the light assault a hip-accuracy buff while in flight, i mean forget making the carbine better, i just want the ability to be as efficient at hip-fire with my LA while dive-bombing my enemies. Since we're trained in flight, shouldn't we have at least a tighter jumping/falling hip-fire than other classes? I think that alone would fix at least the problems with carbine damage (by replacing it with tactics) and why people never/rarely use drifter jets (with the ability to strafe at sprinting speed and be as effective at killing enemies).
  20. Lord_Avatar

    Actually, you were right. ;)

    Besides - winning a 1v1 against a Heavy is perfectly doable due to the TTK in PS2. You will be at a disadvantage, but aiming/strafing trumps the shield more often than not.