[Suggestion] Just make headshots ignore the heavy shield

This just in: Heavy assaults are supposed to kill other infantry better than the other classes, its their purpose, along with a moderate AV roll. Typically a squad should be comprised mainly of heavies, with a few medics and engineers thrown in for support, thats why they are "support" classes. If you want to run around and try to 1v1 heavies as a medic or engineer or whatever you wanna use, you should be losing to a player of equal skill when on equal ground, ie not shooting them in the back, catching them unawares, etc.

Well actually it depends how people want to play. I have met and seen hundreds and hundreds of people who do precisely that, play full support. I'll bet even you have too but naturally people like yourself strive to be right rather than han actually being right don't you.

Your point is completely invalid.

I wonder they feel about maxes

Id like to see what the ha nerf whiners think about....

Infiltrators killing from behind after de cloaking giving the victim 0 chance to react

Maxes

Liberators blowing up their tanks

Coming across an MBT and getting owned

La ambushing givingnthe victim 0 chance

C4 fairies


All that stuff when used right takes a big steaming turd on this balance people talk of. If they have a problem with ha, surely the above needs nerfing too right?. Surely, they must hate maxes with a passion?.

nerf ha? How about NO

idiotic suggestion -1 If you have good aim and using your class like it suppose to be the HA is not real problem of course if you not using your brain and rushing like noob against HA like HA and your class is lets say LA you have jet pack yet you rushing in straight line not using surrounding not using your jet pack yes you will get what you deserve, the class is for a reason you know its different game styles hope you understand it now.

You're asking the right questions. But (to me) you're trapped in the wrong mindset when trying to answer them.

Extract yourself from your bias, shake off preconceptions, drop your baggage of ready-at-hand answers. Enter with a skeleton that will have to think out every question fresh with no known givens to plug in along the way. Then replug yourself in.

At what point does one graduate from this Noob experience? The answer is Never. One is always a Noob... relative to where they will be in the future OR relative to where others will be during the game's high point along its learing curve (be it past, present, or future) OR relative to the potential point that could be reached along the learning curve. To chase "when the Noob experience ends" is to ignore the moving target that is the game's progression and learning curve. The moment you think you have evolved past Noob, is the moment you start your sense of entitlement and stop your sense of how much there is still to learn.

You should design the game so that each player can fall into their groove along the learning curve, wherever it may be. And then they have the designed in support to find engaging play experiences at their groove, and the support to climb up (or down, or sideways) from there to successive wrungs of grooves if that is their journey/preferece/etc.

Doing things like Training or Joining An Outfit is the "support to climb up (or down, or sideways) from there to successive wrungs of grooves".

Though you shouldn't think of training or joining an outfit as a "climb up", because it's all relative to perspective.

I play SF2 competitively. In that game, some players may look to improve their results by looking at the Tier Charts and learning the Top Tier Characters, often "counter picking" opponent's characters with that character's worst matchup. Others will pick whatever character, but study the Pro Players in that character to learn to mirror top play. While others will pick whatever character, but will not study the Pro Players, and research and refine their own method and style instead. And still others only want a much more casual experience, messing around with friends/others at their level, or looking to compete but without having to deal with opponent's who have massive years to study/play dumped into the game.

Are any of those right or wrong? Are they up the ladder or down the ladder or sideways? It's all perspective.

In PS2, I personally don't like being in Squads (as they currently exist) when I'm playing in PS2. Or Gank Squads. For one thing, they seem like "easy mode" to me. Where's the challenge in running with a exclusive massive advantage over many of my opponents? I used to play Warfish.net (online Risk and Risk variations) and at one point became a Member, but I hated the bonus intel Membership gave me because it gave me a clear unfair advantage in the matches: I wasn't interested in just winning, I was interested in the challenge (win or lose) and in an evenly balanced game and working out how to do better at the game. (NOTE: as a Designer, I LIKE Squads in PS2 as long as players enjoy and want them, as I am more interested in making a game for the players than a game for my own personal taste. Just as, as a Designer I LIKE Population Imbalance in PS2 as long as players enjoy and want that, even though I don't enjoy it personally as a boot on the ground, while personally I recognize its potential worth relative to Warroom Strategy)

I also really don't like how playing in Squads kinda separates you from playing in this "massive army", same with playing in Outfits (unless the whole Server is in the same Command Tree like Server Smash has... which is how I think all Squad play should be linked unless players opt out of it at Squad creation).

Yes. Think of it as both a Customized-To-Fit System (providing for an engaging play experience for each player at their level), AND an Optional Progression System (providing a method to "get better", especially as many have progressing as a desired component of their engaging experience).

When the game launched, a LOT of people expressed their love of the Massive Grind Battles. But some hated it (especially it's lack of progress or purpose). The Crown was VERY popular, but some hated it. Then they moded the game to make everyone play together, and people started bailing. BuzzcutPsycho complained it became harder for his Outfit to find good fights, other players got tired of the zerg on rails. With a Customized-To-Fit System, each of these types would be given the viable option to find the kind of play they are looking for, without forcing them into play they don't want.

Of course there were lots of other things pushing players out of the game. Here's a tally from some people who left in the first big exodus. The "x" marks the number of people that stated the listed reason:

xxxxxxx bad system performance
x memory leak
x crashing
xx graphics too much for system (same with their friend's systems)

x needs better gun-play

x alert + lattice together = kill team play: locks some teammates out, some Alerts were bad criteria (capture x BioLabs),

xx hackers
x frequent hackers that are not cracked down on

xxxx game gets boring, no sense of acknowledged achievement
x game gets boring, mundae when playing solo

x lack of endgame
x lack of purpose (Planetside 1, you would log on, push a continent, and find a purpose for what you were doing. there was an actual chance of pushing an enemy off of the continent and claiming it for your empire; there was an actual impetus to do what was necessary to kick your foes out and move on to the next battlefield)
x mindless Team Death Match

xxx lack of metagame

xxxxxxxx missing base elements from PS1. Not PS1

x brainless push from all sides, numbers win continents

x popultion imbalance

x everyone fights at Crown to farm XP, instead of fighting for meaningful objectives

xxx nerf + buff new gun being sold (no trust in purchasing)
x store blatant rip off
x nerfing previous OP items into being useless (instead of just being balanced)
x p2w
x p2w monetization schemes

x implants

x aggravation and dissapointment

x weapon stats/descriptions are off, tricked into buying useless weapons

x fighting same battles over and over

xxx need greater reward for base defense
x one big zerg
x waiting around watching point cap

x hate outfit unneccessary chatter

x lack of public communication inertial by SOE
xx wait over Holidays (no work/word from SOE); Devs on vacation makes game seem dead

x bugs

x lack of reward for leadership
x command channels are joke
x lack of command structure makes game chaotic jumble

x pre-lattice whack-a-mole

x can't kick Faction off Continent

x air too powerful
xx vehicles too powerful
xx most bases too affected by vehicles
xx too many vehicles

x only 3/few Continents

x capturing only about XP

xx OP units left unchecked
x balance
x SOE created flavor of the month
x SOE did not listen to warnings about upcoming changes being OP

x hard to find good fight
x hard to force enemy into engaging in a fight
x if win fight, then good battle is over and struggle to find another fight

x lack of challenge: game
x lack of challenge: community

x AA
X AV
X AI

x ReDeployside
x need to stay on base cap to avoid redeployside rally

x no competition for top outfits
x other outfits stop fighting outfits that always won, would just leave potential battles uncontested

xx no doors

x hacking needs more role

x Gal can't transport Vehicles

x lack of combat roles

xx unblanaced weapons

x focus on kill/death ratios
xx focus on farming
x no tracking of team related stats (resupplies, sunderer deployment, etc.)

"Learning from"? Dying to? Or being farmed by?

The opportunity to learn in PS2 in-game is poor. There are barely any decent in-game stats. The text descriptions on items are incorrect. The Stats on items are limited. You can't see Loadouts of other players. You can't record and share replays in game.

And what is learning? Knowing to hit the head? What gun or attachments to use? Which HA Shield to use? Not to use Instant Action, but how to ReDeployside? How to use Server Smash tactics within a Squad in the Standard Game vs. opponents who don't have the resources or communication tools to compete?

I've learned much more from posts and videos and 3rd party stats than I have from other in-game.

In addition, many people do not want to "learn" some Maximized way to play, they just want to hop on and have fun.

Then join the Mixed Server or Hardcore Only Server... if the segregation is done via Servers. You can have all playing on same Server, but just get them into different areas. (with optional overlap)

I suggested a system with Lattice on the outside and "Hex: The Crown" (The Crown and the ring of bases around it on the Hex system) on the inside. Casual Players can play King of The Hill at the Crown, and Hardcore Organized Players and Ghost Cap Zerg Players can run the Lattice tracks on the outside. And Instant Action drops em in the King Of the Hill Fight, on the edge closer to their Warpgate

Most follow a different drummer when you get down to it. It's best to break them into demographics and design a game to support engaging each of them.

zaspacer,

Thank you for your kind reply. And although I find your suggestions compelling to a certain extent I'm fairly certain those changes will never be made or even entertained. I can sum up the problems new players have in one word: responsibility. It's no one else's problem that new or lower BR players remain poorly equipped to handle the day to day issues in this game except themselves.

There are different methods of accomplishing anything in life. That resposibility lies with the individual player. They are responsible to themselves for preparing to play this game in it's current form regardless of how flawed you may feel it is. I have no one to blame for performing poorly except myself and until such time as players graduate from blaming everybody else to doing some introspection on their own shortcomings then no amount of manipulation of servers or segregation of skill will even matter.

As far as Outfits go there are some good ones and they teach new players core concepts. If they don't teach you then leave and find another that will. At some point you're going to find one that will. Outfits are a key part of the game and I won't bore anyone with that dissertation. However, players can Lone Wolf if they so desire. Another decision based of personal responsibilty.

I could go on and on but we don't play in the world you suggested. We play in the one we have with every player responsible for their own actions or inactions, training or not, working as part of a coordinated Outfit or not, and working to better core skills such as aiming and map usage or not. The list is endless. It all comes down to wanting to get better. I've gotten better. You have to put forth the effort and only THEY can do that.

Thanks again.

The issue isnt if you can or cant reliably headshot HAs or not.

If you cant tag headshots reliably and he can, yeah you should lose

But lets say two people of equal ability in the headshot department face off.

Heavy wins guaranteed. Heavy assault is a crutch because of this, not only will you stomp everyone below you, but everyone equal to you, and even a few tiers higher than you decently reliably because IWINshield.

By doing this, even 5% HSR players fighting other 5% hsr players will have a chance, and 30% HSR players have a better chance against even 40% HSR players.



Before some AC tryhard goes off on me (still have fond memories, <3 you mr tryhard) my session IVI HSR is between 25-30% session to session. My stats just havnt caught up yet.

Career crutchfiltrator doesn't like that crutch assault using his crutch shield occasionally survives a head shot from crutchfiltrator's crutch rifle.

Crutch.

Look, while i agree with you we shouldnt nerf heavy into the ground because of ******** (RIP PPA) there are huge amounts of statistics showing that heavy assault is overpowered.

Usage statistics (i actually lost this link, can someone link it to me?) It shows heavy assault is the most played class in the game. That reason is nots its a challenge for the megal33t

LMG KPU compared to all other weapons (ignoring SMGs and shotties due to HAs contributing) All the DEFAULT LMGs have around a KPU of 10-12, all starter carbines have around 6-8, all ARs 7-9.

Now lets look at the more used close-midrange LMGs ARs and Carbines (Anchor, Orion, MSW-R, TORQ-9, Terminus, Carnage AR, and the high DPS CQC carbines.)

Orion: 12
MSWR-19
Anchor: 26 (ORION OP)

GD7F-12
Serpent/Lynx: 11

Carnage: 12
TORQ-9: 15
Terminus: 16

As we can see, none of the other weapons come close to matching the MSWR or Anchor except the Torq and Terminus, which is fair to think that these CQC LMGs outclass everything but shotguns in close quarters even in these intended fields. Since people ***** about LMGs being ******, we can conclude its the shields doing (even though its both the shield being really strong and the guns being really good) http://ps2oraclestats.com/?stat=kpu&weapon1=7153&weapon2=7103&weapon3=7129

It is possible to survive SNIPER RIFLE HEADSHOTS FROM THE DIRECTIVE GUNS with an overshield with half your green HP bar. These are the highest alpha damage infantry guns in the game aside from shotguns.

Heavy assaults get access to: CQC LMGs. Some of the best CQC weapons in the game (i call CQC 5-20m. If you mention hipfire it is invalid, as you should only hipfire with any gun within *** slapping range, at which point larger COF is not as noticeable especially with 700 more HP)

The best mid-long range weapons in the game. Gauss saw, ursa, bull (or whatever TRs 167 is) and pretty much most other LMGs.

Best CQC weapons in the game. Shotguns.

SMGs. Decent all arounders.

Their LMGs also have higher KPH scores

Their launchers have a higher VKPH than C4, MAXes, and pretty much all other infantry based AV

Its a jack of all trades infantry shredding crutch,

Infiltrator is nowhere near as crutchy as heavy assault even with cloak. Well maybe EMPs, but EMPesus has blessed me with the ability to never be struck down with one for some reason.

Also ive been playing mostly LA the past week or so.

No one complaining about HAs on the forum is headshotting HAs (or anything else) reliably enough for this change to make any difference.

If you can headshot 100% you're already wasting almost every HA you come across, because most players aren't remotely that good (and everyone else than cannot 100% headshot) and if you're not, then this will change absolutely nothing.




People complaining that they are losing to HAs "all the time", and especially those claiming a HA can be ambushed from behind, flick on shield turn around and still kill them, are clearly 1) missing a lot, 2) hitting body shots mostly at best, 3) probably experiencing lag of some sort.

More powerful headshots will not help that, they won't help 90+% of people fighting HAs particularly.



Where as if they main complaint is the shield (and lets remember the forumised HA would have no shield, no RL, no health packs, and a base movement penalty (possibly no access to shotguns or SMGs too) and would likely STILL be complained about! ) then any sensible change would have to change it for the majority of people/situations.

Like I said before this change is like trying to fix traffic congestion by allowing Ferraris (and only them) to go as fast as they like.

I hop on here to argue about things when I'm bored. DBG doesn't read this stuff anyway.

People can choose to play the classes however they want. You can play HA using only the knife if you want to but it has nothing to do with how the game is designed. I mean I think it's pretty obvious that the other classes weren't designed just to be the HA's *****, but apparently some people actually think that.

Whether they do or not is irrelevant but if you'd like to read each classes description, you'll get a more definitive answer.

So the front line class that is supposed to be a little bit more tanky and dish out more DPS is doing a bit more of the killing?.

Congratulations, you get a bronze star.

Its an infantry shredding crutch in 1v1's and 1-12 fights at best and those instances are irrelevant. You have no idea how to look at stats properly either. I went on a 38 kill streak yesterday as infiltrator thanks to the cloak. I couldn't have pulled that off without it or any other class in that situation.

Shall we nerf the infiltrator as well?.......

Rockets are outperforming c4 and maxes and you think that's bad?. You're post and understanding of stats is so skewed that you must be trolling. You can't seriously be that dumb.

Not even talking about cloak, cloak is meh. Snipers rely on doing all their damage with the first round and sniper rifles in PS2 have absolutely no trajectory variation from shot to shot. The bullet will always go where you tell it. Practice a little and you are removing players from play point-click point-click point-click. No wind to consider, no scope adjustments, a magic button that removes gravity from the rifle, and even an implant to buff that button.

Players in the fight doing their best to avoid fire from other players in the fight (or absorb it with crutch shields) also have to do the most ridiculous dances because snipers off somewhere in the Alps sipping cognac and listing to classical music are point-clicking.

I'm not saying crutch assault isn't crutch or that crutch rifles should be changed. Just be honest about what you want

False. I sip cosmopolitans while listening to classical music.

Im not even talking about sniping (well, i do mention it, but only to explain exactly how strong overshield really is) and i dont even main sniper.

What i'm talking about is if two people of equal capability to do things meet the heavy will win everytime. Lets assume two 1100% HSR people meet Heavy wins, as you need between 6-8 headshots to kill him, depending on weapon, and he needs 3-4 to kill you, depending on weapon. or 1-2 bodyshots if hes using a shotty.

While the aim for the head argument is valid, its also not a great one. This would validate this argument and make (i hit myself everytime i say this word) skill a factor instead of if you can hit f fast enough.

Alright. It was 3 am and i was tired as ****. I can make a better argument now.

Yes. Heavy assault is supposed to be a more tanky class, and they should be, but they do their job much too well with minimal effort. Their ability has no noticeable downside even without using a 0.75 ads weapon. You just flick F, shoot the mans, and not realize you were slowed.

When I use heavy assault, my stats almost double. I dont like using stats as an argument since i personally dont much care about mine other than to measure if im doing what i call well, but look.

https://www.planetside2.com/players/#!/5428275156776991937/classes

I havnt used heavy assault all double EXP weekend and he has a spm of 409, and the only class that has higher SPM is my light assault at 503, which is because im an A2G farmer at times (not really a point of pride) and i bail over tanks and bomb them, and also was an LA almost all weekend. The next highest is medic, which i did play this weekend, and the next highest is my infiltrator at 288.

My three highest KPM weapons are the SVA-88, NS15M, and MKV supressed (only talking about infantry sanctioned weapons, so no max guns snipers or shotties.) https://www.planetside2.com/players/#!/5428275156776991937/weapons . I also use the MKV on my heavy assault.

Session to session, my kuh durr is around 1.8-2.5. When I play HA, i break 3.7-5 kuh durr.

Higher stats are to be expected on a higher HP and high DPS class, but almost double in all fields? I didnt get that good overnight.


If some really accurate headshotting heavy met a not accurate headshotting something else, the heavy should win by all means.

What i'm talking about is if two people of equal capability to do things meet the heavy will win everytime. Lets assume two 100% HSR people meet Heavy wins, as you need between 6-8 headshots to kill him, depending on weapon, and he needs 3-4 to kill you, depending on weapon. or 1-2 bodyshots if hes using a shotty.

While the aim for the head argument is valid, its also not a great one. This would validate this argument and make (i hit myself everytime i say this word) skill a factor instead of if you can hit f fast enough.

With the overshield, if you have passable aim, and an average HSR, you can kill almost everything just by hitting F. And you never really have to worry about running out with adrenaline, since it recharges after youre done killing the guy.

There is a reason that it's the most played class, and its not that its a challenge.

Im not saying nerf it to the ground, but it does need something. There is no reason it should be twice as good as all other infantry at their jobs. They can self heal, they have access to battle rifles which are almost as good as semi auto snipers, they can get OHK weapons that are essentially BASRs if you use slugs and can aim well enough (albeit less range), the best all around automatics, some of the best cqc automatics, are statistically better av than all other infantry av, and if you can wall jump, you can get places only a LA should be able to.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, mkay?.

Any idiot can think up and point out problems OR make them up. Any idiot can use bias one sided rubbish to back up their fallacious argument, are you with me?.

Now with that said, I could write a 2 page spread using the above idiotic logic to make out that all classes are op and need nerfing.

So, what exactly do you propose then?. So far you have not actually made any valid argument for anything, you have just used the above logic. You don't strike me as an idiot so I think you may have ulterior motives.