[Suggestion] Light Assault: Versatility, not Gimmickry

Good day, everyone! I've noticed a lot of chatter about the Light Assault (LA) class lately. It's controversial. The main centerpiece of the class controversy is C4 's utility as an all purpose Weapon of Mass Destruction. Many suggest removing the gadget, or nerfing it into oblivion, while many others feel the LA class would be underpowered without such a force-multiplyer in its toolkit.

My proposal is this: Diversify the class, but don't make it into a gimmick. (the C4 'Fairy'!). Here's how:

1) Remove C4: The gadget works fine as it is for Engineers and Heavy Assaults who already have it- because of their mobility restrictions. There's no need to nerf C4 itself. It doesn't belong on a light assault class.

2) Replace C4: Anti Vehicle Grenades are a current Heavy Assault Exclusive, and one which is rarely used due to it's availability only to the HA class. It is less effective against infantry than standard grenades, BUT it delivers a modest, but noticeable hit to armor, especially when landed from above, or behind. (two places tailor-made for the LA kit). It also maintains versatility, as it is able to be used against infantry to a lesser extent, and is -highly- effective against MAX units. This would replace the lost functionality of the C4 gadget, while serving two other purposes I will state in the Conclusion heading.

3) Potential:Add access to the Empire Specific Battle Rifles (Warden/AMR-66/Eidolon) for the LA class. This may take some explaining, but bear with me. LA's are a mobile, aggressive class which is in theory designed to be a three dimensional fighter able to take down infantry through asymmetrical tactics and flanking. This is the core axiom of the class, yet it is one which the LA is strangely ill suited to in reality. With Carbines and Shotguns as the only primary weapon options, the LA is the least versatile class in the game. Removing C4 without giving it something else to look forward to, would be unfair to the communities' dedicated LA users. The LA does not have healing/regen shields, nor does it have over-shields like HA's do. LMGs and ARs easily compete with, or outperform the LA class at medium and long ranges, and have no difficulty keeping up with or surpassing them at CQC. Basically, the LA at present is a highly mobile Engineer, who has virtually no squad support (utility). How does adding the BR help? Simply put: All other classes have access to a long-range, semi-automatic rifle with precise damage dealing power... except LAs. Adding this, would open up a whole new branch of flanking potential for the class, and give the LA more survivability on open ground, where it often winds up spawning. BR's however are not incapable at medium range or closer, so they would not cripple an LA who is being more aggressive.

4) Apologetics for #3: "But Alex! BR's on an LA would be Oh-pee! They can fly! We'd have a zillion camping, wannabe snipers on rooftops who would be good for nothing!"
My answer: Not At All. BR's are, simply put, useful, but not overpowered enough to encourage that. Besides, LA's often camp on rooftops anyway, so BRs would change nothing... except allow those rooftop campers to support their team with precision marksman fire, (counter snipe) and likely would not be an overly popular weapon with the kit anyway. How do I know? Well. BR's, in spite of being available to HA/Engi/Medics, (And Scout rifles, their big sisters are available to Recon, filling the same role), aren't very popular. When was the last time you were killed by one, as compared to a stock empire specific rifle or carbine? Honestly? Remember: Assault rifles are a -single class weapon- (Medic). Yet they're easily among the most popular weapons in the game.

Conclusion: Adding these changes would solve the complaints of the pro "Nerf LAs" crowd, while actually benefitting the LA class as a whole. The AV grenades, and BR access actually improve the mobility, utility and survivability of the class: AV Grenades can be thrown from father away than C4, and are easier to aim while flying. This way, we can balance a class- not by brutalizing it, but by modernizing, and repurposing it. Light Assaults are LIGHT. They should be able to fill many roles, especially anti-infantry, in a unique, mobile manner. This suggestion, I firmly believe would address all legitimate concerns.

I would only be ok with a removal of C4 from LA if it came with a new AV weapon for the class. I like the idea of a Rocklet rifle. Close range focused, high DPS with low accuracy. Would be the best weapon for anti-MAX and keeps LA as the premier close range AV class but removes C4. Win-Win scenario for both LAs and Tanks.

AV grenades would be nice, and they would see good use on LAs. Good for anti-MAX and anti-vehicle alike. The question is what slots they would go in and whether or not giving LA the same loadout versatility as HA is a good idea (because HA versatility was an oversight in balance and makes the HA a bit too strong).

If we give the LA class a Rocklet Rifle for AV work, aren't we going to have to go back and look at the Striker again?

Anyway, the original Rocklet Rifle was AI, with a meager accommodation for AA. In fact, the wiki page for the Punisher specifically makes a note that the the Rocklet alternate fire is poor against Vehicles. I wouldn't try coax this out of the developers without balancing it around a pure AI Thumper-type weapon.

Grenades go in the grenade slot. Take your qualms with the Heavy Assault to its own thread, and fill it up.

Why does every class but inf have to have some AV?
Engineer, HA should be the primary AV classes focusing on indirect and direct attack respectively.

You have any idea how pathetic battle rifles are? Replace the only self defense weapon LAs have against tanks? I suppose every LA should commit suicide when faced with a tank. Oh btw charging at non idiot tankers with C4 is already a suicidal move. Oh and did you know that you can't reequip c4 until u reach a terminal? Means if that guy misses his C4, he is a free Cert.

Stop trying to make the game suit your individual farming play style. If your tank kept moving every now and then, there is no ****ing way you can get C4ed. Because I tried and failed miserably.

It's rather concerning how quickly you frame the OP as a tank driver.

You are correct, however, that Battle Rifles are pretty abysmal. I'd give Light Assaults access to Scout Rifles before Battle Rifles, even before my suggestion that they dump both categories and actually fill one of them with weapons that suits the name of the weapon class. Seriously, our Scout Rifles aren't scout rifles and our Battle Rifles aren't battle rifles. The weapons in them are fine, but they don't belong there; they're some sort of "we had these ideas" dumping grounds.

Weapon of mass destruction? There's a few places where C4 can get you several kills, but in the meantime tanks or a well-fitted MAX could annihilate a dozen more people in the time it takes you to get some more C4.
C4 is hardly used in the hands of anyone else, the only use I've really seen it for is either anti- infantry (mainly anti-MAX), or anti-Sunderer (Engineers carrying a load). The LA is just about the only class that uses C4 against tanks outside of a target of opportunity.
And have you ever used a C4 fairy yourself? It's not as easy as "pick your target, move there, blow it up". You need to avoid/fight your way through all the infantry players and other tanks that might spot you on the way, not to mention any aircraft that might be passing, then fly to your target. When flying, any infantry that sees you means he can shoot you down easy, if your target spots you and he has even an ounce of wits, he can drive in any direction and avoid your C4, or get only one on top. After which he survives and can shoot you while you run out of fuel.
What people hate is that they get instakilled because they didn't see you coming, which is almost the only way you can achieve it. It takes time, and when the tankers do more than farm and actually pay attention, it takes skill.

It's a possibility to give LA's access to AV grenades, but there's no reason to replace C4 with it.

I would prefer to seek versatility increase in other places. Such as the ability to disrupt the enemy by using scan blockers, different ways to lay down smoke, cause chaos with several mini grenades, enhance his vision with goggles (mainly so they don't need to go into ADS and slow themselves down while using smoke) etc. Idea's can be found here (skip the first post if you just want the idea's):
https://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php?threads/long-past-due-la-update-remake.211154/

The complaints don't hold any ground. In fact, tank mines score better against vehicles and are cheesier, and in anti-infantry roles it's a dangerous affair, high risk high reward is something that should stay in the game.

In as far as Vehicle deaths are concerned, this chart is good from October 2014. As noted, of Vehicle destruction that can attributed, for all factions individually (second through fourth columns), the primary sources are AP cannons from the other two factions. This is followed by C4 from the other two factions and suicides. Then the rocket launcher primaries from the other two factions. Then follows tanks mines, generally. C4 is doing about twice as good as tank mines, which are dedicated anti-Vehicular explosives, and is keeping pace with anti-Vehicle Vehicle primaries.

(Note: this chart comes from this thread and is used in this post. I am aware the comparison is done via Lightnings and that depends on the rate of being pulled by different factions. The main significance of comparison is that Lightnings are available for everyone to pull, regardless of base or Tech Plant possession.)

I'd like to question further, because, though I remain curious each time it is brought up, I tend to just let the point slide. Why should "high risk, high reward" be something that remains in the game? what exactly does it bring to the table?

We could have a low risk high reward anti-tank weapon, like an OP RL Javelin missile system, but that would make the game too brutal. Sneaking up with C4 is considered a suicidal move against decent tankers or drivers, thus it should reward you well, since most people die in the process.

What kind of anti armour weapon would you prefer? High risk high reward or low risk high reward?

The statistics only show how many kills were made. I had missed this, and yes C4 gets a larger contribution to the total amount of kills made. It skips over the part where C4 is also used easily twice as often (despite being available on 4 classes rather than just one), but with a lower total amount of vehicle kills per use than tank mines. This does mean it's a bigger problem than I thought, but it still means that Tank Mines score better and are cheesier in use. check here under explosives for those stats: http://ps2oraclestats.com/monthlystats/

As for high risk high reward...
If you shoot one guy, you are rewarded for that with kill, XP, and the feeling of a job well done all as part of your pleasure experience.
If you die, you are being "punished" and you experience sadness, a time where you cannot do something (respawn period, time it takes to get back to the fight, KD lowering if you go for that), and a feeling that you didn't do well enough (however small). All part of your displeasure experience.

But now comes the high risk high reward part. The higher the risk of displeasure, the more pleasure you gain from achieving it. Having an auto-aim that helps you crush your enemies gives you a lot of pleasure at first as you know how hard it used to be, but as you keep using it the fun goes out, there's nothing to be gained anymore but the pleasure of robbing other people of their pleasure and giving them displeasure. This comes on the territory of griefing, and while small amounts of this type of giving others displeasure isn't bad, going so far as to spoil large parts if not the entire experience of people should be prevented.
Back to high risk high reward. In the above example you saw the lowered risk, lowered reward type of play. An auto-aim decreases the risk and decreases the reward. But engaging 4 people at the same time, or engaging someone with a better weapon than you (say, a sniper rifle at long range or a tank), and winning? That gives you pleasure, much more pleasure than normal would. You defeated the odds, you had a high risk but you got rewarded for it.

Now imagine if you used a pistol, and by a miracle you managed to kill a sniper at 300m, either by skill at range or by traversing the terrain in between you, risking getting killed every time you showed your face. Then just as the killing blow lands, the game says "it was a high risk, but let's not give you a high reward" and you are suddenly unable to kill the sniper.
Not the best anology, so let's take it to tanks. You take your time getting to the tank, avoiding or fighting off enemy infantry and vehicles in the process. Then you use the only ability your class has (jetpack), and get to your target. Even while flying you are vulnerable, and just one guy or your target spotting you can spoil all your efforts. It's a high risk indeed. But then instead of being rewarded by blowing up the vehicle you get... a good ton of damage, the tank turns around and kills you, drives away, repairs up and comes back. Netto gain: one displeasure of being killed, one displeasure of using in-game resources, and no pleasure for your effort.
Oh, you can make the effort even greater by concerting an attack with a friendly LA/Heavy/tank, but they will be vulnerable as well, need to overcome similar challenges to get to the target, and only one of you will walk away with the ultimate reward... if one of you doesn't perish along the way. Causing even higher risk, but split rewards for your efforts.

Hmmm. I presume it would fit the same slot as regular grenades. Also, I've noticed some misconceptions about my post and the reasons for it- not in your post, really, but in others. AV grenades -are- a "new AV weapon", and fills all the descriptions you described. Good thinking, though, and I appreciate the feedback.

C4 as AV doesn't need fixing. It requires both/either skill on the attacker's part and lack of situational awareness on the defender's side.

C4 as AI ? Well I guess it wouldn't be used so much if the grenade mechanisms weren't so bad.
Why can't I gently drop a nade ? Or toss it lightly over a wall ?

Thank you for the Chart, and helping support my statement there a bit, I probably should have done so myself. In my opinion, gear for the LA should be "Medium risk-Medium Reward". AV grenades fit this description well. It's not world-breaking, but it gives them a 'lightweight' tool to do everything. It doesn't run the risk of imbalance because it will be less effective than other classes (HA/Engi) which are more heavily designed and specialized for it. Light-Assaults are like paratroopers. In my opinion, they should be versatile enough to do everything to some extent- but be out performed by dedicated classes- their mobility and versatility should be the classes strength. It should be about synergy, not raw power. That is the HA calling card. Thanks for the feedback, I really appreciate it!

You're thinking as an individual, which is fine. But game balance isn't about individual odds,it's about the reality of large-scale combat. When there are 20 LAs to 5 tanks, the "High risk" (About 50% or 25% success rate of a practiced C4 fairy run- this is drawn from my -own- experience, and I'm not the best at it, admittedly), the 5 tanks -will- die. And LAs can be replaced in 5 seconds. MBTs take minutes to spawn, and minutes to drive in, sometimes up to a quarter hour or half hour (An entire battle) to get back in the fight, circumstances depending. I think that AV grenades would take away the ability for 1 LA to kill an MBT. Which is fine- you're not supposed to solo tanks. Soloing tanks is the HA's job. Your job is to -coordinate- with other LAs, Engis, and HAs to kill tanks- and these changes would make LAs part of the team again, instead of these strange, one-man suicide bombers. Also, When I see C4 Fairy LAs use their C4- they often redeploy, or intentionally go 'full ******' into fights they cannot win on foot. Sometimes, even shooting carbines at tanks, just to -get- them to kill them, and waste a shell. Their entire playstyle and purpose is summed up in one gadget- that is not a fair way to structure a class. Medium risk (AV grenades are Thrown father away, sticks to tanks, and can be thrown -quickly-, before a tank can shoot you (unlike C4 ,which exposes you). So, the risk is lower. Sure, the reward is lower- but it will actually deter tanks just as well. Besides, at team of LA's can coordinate with grenade bandoliers and still be effective. Thanks again for your feedback and discussion!

Wait, people want to nerf LA? That just happened in a big way with the spitfires though.
You wanna flank? Aimbot says no, you have to take that out and alert the enemy force first before killing anyone.

Lot to say here, I owe you an apology at the start- my "WMD" was intended to be stating someone elses' claim, not mine. C4 is quite powerful, but you're right, it's not -that- powerful, not in my own personal opinion. I'm trying to offer a solution in the middle ground between two camps that are diametrically opposed to each other's solutions: One says "Nerfhammer LAs into oblivion" (I don't, I enjoy the class and think it's pointed in the right direction, just going about the details wrong), the other says "LA's are perfect just like they are". I'm in neither camp.

As far as C4 Fairy playing- yes, I actually have. On NC, I've used a C4 fairy tactics set for... at least 5-10 hours of it. I know the ins and outs, and I find that the risk isn't that high, and the reward is higher still. I am successful at taking out a tank, solo, about 25-50% of the time. I understand the ins and outs, and know that a mobile tank driver, especially a prowler with a good gunner, is probably a 1/10 kill chance. So I'm making informed opinions and suggestions here. My qualm is not about instant deaths, really. I don't like them- no one does. My qualm is about -one player- being able to generate that on armored vehicles. It should take two, and teamwork. Most C4 fairy playing is a solo kamikaze zerg, where there is no risk, because the player doesn't mind dying in the slightest after their C4 has been used up. Many redeploy- which is a death in and of itself, effectively. (Which is why people don't use it when they -should-).

Nobody uses battle rifles because they're not very good, a slug shotgun is actually better for ranged work than a BR.

AV grenades are close to useless beyond point blank range. If you can't stick it to a MAX it does practically nothing, obviously the further away you are the harder it is to stick it. Once it hits any surface it no longer sticks to anything.

Lets not kid ourselves about the effectiveness of AV grenades against vehicles. How often have you seen someone use an AV grenade in that way? In fact, I don't think anyone knows how much damage an AV grenade does to a vehicle because nobody's bothered to test it. Maybe I'll hop into VR and test it tonight, I'm actually curious. I do know that like C4 AV grenades don't apply directional damage so it doesn't matter where it lands on the vehicle.

In short, what you're suggesting is a massive downgrade to the class. AV grenades are in all cases less effective than C4 and BRs are no better than a slug shotgun, which LA already has access to.

Let me make a counter suggestion: remove C4 from all classes except LA

Neither.

That's the point I don't get. The actual reward from tank destruction is often unchanged depending on the direction taken to achieve it and the only thing that changes is how long the encounter lasts. Methods of vehicle destruction that have additional modifiers only slightly inflate the value and some methods offer complimentary rewards for contribution to destruction. Based on that conclusion, taking such a high number of chances and risks that you would consider as "displeasures" to achieve the same goals and earn equivalent rewards or nothing makes little sense. The said other methods even have longer windows of opportunity because success can be distributed across the task rather than pushed to the very conclusion of it.

Based on the outcry in regards to the tank HP increase that has been proposed, the only thing I understand is that vehicle destruction being guaranteed upon successful application of C4 is the only reason people undergo the high-tension death run, and thoughts of contribution or team effort aren't even considered. It's some form of foregone conclusion that C4 use has to be an all or nothing endeavor or its not worth anything.

This is also more specific than the topic of C4 in general; but, I don't understand why people want to keep the Light Assault class pigeonholed with this burden. It empowers the class a lot, but it also severely limits the growth of the class at the same time. No matter what novel feature could possibly revolutionize use of the class, it is going to compared against C4, and feel lacking from the comparison. The question is, what could the Light Assault do that is so vital and enriching (for the team?) that it isn't trumped by the sight of a prime Vehicular target for being C4'ed?

Neither? How about high risk low reward (you go against the odds just to scratch a tank) or low risk low reward (sniping at tanks with dumb fires at long range)? It has got to be either of these four. Tell me neither again and I seriously think you should stop playing games that involve killing people.

Try Candy Crush.