[Suggestion] Light Assault, What are you really meant to be?

Discussion in 'Light Assault' started by Alexkruchev, Jul 2, 2015.

  1. Imp C Bravo

    I would disagree. I used to play games on the PC for a living back in the mid-late 90s and early early 2000s. I was IN THE ROOM up at Mesquite, Texas when someone first said "Hey, lets make the mouse an option for FPSes." (I still hate you Thresh -- wherever you are.) If anyone has a history with PC games and FPS's in general -- I am up there.

    However, I have found that there are just as many herp-derps on PC as there are on Consoles. There are just as many serious, talented, and dedicated players. It's bad to generalize. Especially when everything I read on the forums about the gameplay and the threads ******** about randoms and zergs and whatnot matches what I see on PS4 exactly. Sometimes I get a smart grape in my turret. Sometimes I get Helen Keller. Sometimes my squad leader is boss and turns a 12 man squad into a powerhouse that takes bases where we are outpopped 2 to 1. Sometimes we outpop them 3 to 1 and still get rolled/are unable to take a base (admittedly this is rare.)

    If that sounds like any experience you have ever had on PC then yes -- we are playing the same game.
  2. Iridar51

    Oh, you're actually FROM that world. You're on your own then.
  3. Imp C Bravo

    :p
  4. FeralBoy

    I appreciate anyone offering their personal opinions/musings on their said game of choice but blanket or wholly untrue statements need to be met. LA with C4 is no longer even close to being as dangerous to a Sundy or MBT than an Engy with mines in hand or an AV mana turret. No contest there anymore.

    And it is the jet-pack that truly makes LA what it is. Regardless of skill, precision, or luck involved with maneuvering, the jet-pack truly is what makes LA extremely dangerous and unique, and it doesn't need to be tweaked/buffed. I think some players will just always expect that the game should come to them and their particular class/style of choice.

    Adaptability is a tool of survival. If your particular style/class of choice is proving wholly ineffective at the moment maybe you should step outside your comfort zone and learn to look at/play things from a different angle.

    Don't even get me started on LA should have battle/assault rifles or even the Archer...... Good God lol.....
  5. InterSpectra

    I remember before LA nerfs. If they un-nerfed certain mechanics that's plenty enough for me.

    Biggest nerfs to me:
    • I miss actually being mobile with the regular jetpack. Moving side to side while using jetpack (so your body angles the jetpack); they nerfed that angular movement (despite the fact we lost some vertical gain while doing it, physics, not to mention the force applied by the jets are the same judging by fuel consumption. It was like the huge Magrider diagonal strafe vector fiasco). Sort of how Drifter Jets are now while moving forward, except you were still limited by the capacity of the regular jets. It gave you a choice, additional mastery and decision making on how to use ~5 seconds of fuel.
    • Being hit with a sudden loss of muscle coordination and we can no longer hold a gun in front of our face while in the air.
    A little taste of how it was back then:

    • Up x 1
  6. Eternaloptimist

    LA is like sand on a day at the beach - they get into all the cracks and are an uncomfortable experience. I frequently don't see them until they are right up close and so I think the carbine or shotgun option they have is perfectly OK.

    I think this makes them geared towards lone wolfing/ambush rather than the HA storm-the-point type of assault. I'd love it if they were a bit more resilieint given that they are relatively vulnerable for an assault class. Alternatively, they are more resilient than infils so If you gave them the option of a stealth cloak or a jetpack and enabled them to hack terminals etc. then the need for the stalker infil would go away and you would have an LA class with a greater range of abilities, like the others.

    Can you imagine it.............jet up to a high place on a building, hack a terminal, change to cloak and then mince around shooting people in the face before fading back into the shadows. High Risk:High Reward. Pretty froghtening really.
    • Up x 1
  7. Alexkruchev

    Great discussions guys, I appreciate the honest considerations.
  8. Alexkruchev


    Here is my TL;DR about Battlerifles.

    I strongly disagree. The battlerifle class underperforms just about everything else in it's intended role: Mid-long range marksman weapon. SA Scouts, SA Snipers, 1.1 second BA snipers, as well as long range LMG/ARs all equal or exceed its capabilities in it's own range category. I should point out: SA scouts and SA snipers BOTH directly out perform the BRs in every way at the ranges that the BR isn't trashed completely by carbine/AR/SMG/Slugshotty/LMGs.

    The fact that "No one uses them" is not a bad argument: Because it means in the current scheme of balance, the law of averages teaches players that use them that they are inferior to other options to those play styles. You are trying to compete with the infiltrator at marskmaning, without the huge advantage of cloaking to escape, and place shots before they can return fire.

    This means that the BR is very poorly performing when in the hands of the HA, CM, and Engi classes. (The HA has the best argument, because overshields give them a fighting chance, but again, LMGs would still do better 90% of the time, or at least keep up in TTK).

    Only one other class has an "X-factor" which allows them to achieve the element of surprise -desperately- needed on the long time to kill, high skill weapons like the BRs (meaning, head shot, or cook a thanksgiving turkey while waiting for the target to die). The Light Assault. It would not prevent the classes CQC aggressive options, but it would allow them to have actual usefulness in open field combat, without giving them the massively powerful AR class of weapons. I also have bounced the idea of giving them full auto scout rifles as an option, because those actually do fairly well in mid ranges, due to higher MV and controllability than many carbines... just... not sure its' worth it, as FASR's are -easily- less used than BRs.

    If the general community, by weight of experience, fig
    ures out a weapon is practically ineffective (i.e., underpowered) compared to it's peers, then it will generally not use that weapon, in favor of others. This is a situation known as "imbalance".

    My question was; "How can BR's be effective in spite of their statistical shortfalls compared to their peers?" My answer was one and one only: "Must flank, must headshot, must have element of surprise." That meant the weapon could only be useful, reliably, in the hands of two classes: the Infiltrator, and the Light Assault. The infiltrator was out, because semi-auto scouts already do exactly what BR's do, but better, in every category. (except magazine size, but, with cloaking, reloads don't mean much since you can cloak to cover your reloads).
  9. Iridar51

    It's an interesting way of looking at Battle Rifles, and I mostly agree with what you said.

    I disagree with full auto scout rifles being better at range than carbines. They may be better than *some* carbines, but dedicated ranged carbines with proper attachments beat the snot out of full auto scout rifles. They just have too much recoil and too low projectile speed, and too low damage per mag, which is a crucial stat in ranged combat.

    Also, I've recently looked at monthly stats on Oracle of Death, and battle rifles have higher usage stats than any scout rifle, including full auto and the Vandal.

    So some facts are wrong, but good ideas.
  10. Alexkruchev

    Mostly my experience is limited to one server, Emerald. I have, in 85 composite battle ranks, never been killed by, or seen the battle rifles more than a half dozen times. I suppose they would come out on top in usage due to being available to 3 classes instead of one (and aren't competing with other weapons in those classes arsenals, the way scout rifles are). However, it would be best to consider it as all Battle Rifles (composite) vs. all SA scout rifles (composite). I did already consider that auto-scouts would be less used than BRs, again, because FASRs are competing and losing to SMGs.

    I'm a big supporter of buffing FASRs to some extent, along with BRs. Really, Eidolon is the only one I run across (Or use all that much) since the no bullet drop does wonders for it compared to it's competition. I genuinely do think the LA needs access to the Battle Rifle weapon category. The class itself is mediocre at best, and usually not a very mainstream weapon in spite of being available to 3 classes. Perhaps not the least used, but I can say with certainty it's nowhere near the frequency of their peers. And having them being one of my -most- used weapon classes, I can say with confidence that they are -not- competitive with dedicated peers and class combinations available to those competitors. I really only can win against CQC weapons at range- anything versatile or range focused can keep pace with me without difficulty at my optimum distances, and they don't suffer as much in CQC.

    I do appreciate the fact checks, and the feedback.
  11. Reclaimer77

    The OP uses the world "balance", but what he's really talking about is a huge nerf to the LA class. Nice try but who do you think you are fooling?

    Jetpack+C4 is the only fun thing left to the class. If you take that away, everyone would just play Heavy Assault. Do you really think this game needs even MORE shieldmongering Crutchside players?
    • Up x 1
  12. Alexkruchev


    Not even remotely what I'm suggesting. I just feel the class could be so much more than Jetpack + C4. I see vertical marksman flanking, and gadgets and asymmetrical action on a scale other classes cannot. This class -should- be more than a C4 delivery device.

    Just yesterday, I had a Prowler I managed to get up into the mountains on Amerish. Enemies could have rocket-killed me easily. But they kept pulling LA and C4 to kill me. I gunned them down with a Kobalt for about 30 kills, not even kidding. C4 is people's kneejerk reaction to tanks- not the HA rockets, or other armor, or air. It's saddening to me, that people feel C4 is more viable than EVERYTHING ELSE. And they -only- run C4, and only run it on the LA class. It's sad, to see such a cool class reduced to a gimmick in the majority of situations.
  13. Reclaimer77

    Because people are tired of hitting a tank with AV for hardly any damage, and then taking a shell to the face for a one-hit-kill.

    Having the chance to catch you off-guard and C4 you is a better option for some people. Why is that a gimmick?

    And don't get me wrong, I LOVE a lot of your ideas. But I just can't get behind removing C4 from the LA class entirely.
  14. Alexkruchev

    I really don't understand why people are so afraid of giving the worst primary weapon class in the game to the LA class. Technically, the AX-11C with HVA and a compensator on single shot -still- out does the Warden, AND has full auto. It would not break balance at all.

    But people are so obsessed with one single playstyle for their class, they love their gimmick, their -one- playstyle, that they don't want to see the class ever be able to be more than that- a gimmick pejoratively called "A C4 Fairy".

    My preference was to fix a gimmick by giving the class a lot more versatility and options, without wholly taking anything away from them.

    AV grenades, with a starting arsenal of 2 of them, isn't that far from what a single brick of C4 allows- and it's a safer weapon to use against both MAX and armored threats, as you can throw it from farther away, and quicker.

    It's just silly to have the class be reduced to a single gadget defining the entire class.

    It's even sillier when the stats board shows the community overwhelmingly thinks C4 should be the go-to anti tank weapon, not rocket launchers, turrets, or even other tanks.

    It's even -more- ridiculous how in 2014, C4 claimed more kills than any other killing tool in Planetside, except the Orion LMG for the VS.

    http://i.imgur.com/5W6KVe3.png

    Just yesterday I pulled a harasser, and parked it with a kobalt under a rock arch near a biolab on AMerish. I killed 20-30 people. They all kept pulling LA with C4 to kill me, and I gunned them down. It took them 15 minutes to even -think- to try a rocket launcher on me.

    Because C4-fu is so freaking worshipped by FPS gamers. It's an epidemic in both PS2 and the Battlefield franchise. It's rediculous how what is supposed to be an ambush gadget has been turned into nothing more than a super grenade of pwnt-all.

    I'm not saying it doesn't take -some- skill, or -some- risk to pull it off, but, frankly, it's just laughable every time it happens in game, and every time I've used it, I've had vastly more success than other AT armaments avaliable to infantry. I have to pull a dual AT MAX to even come close to what I can do with C4.

    And to whomever said mines are a greater threat than C4 to vehicles... how so? I've never been killed by a mine I didn't drive over. Not even once. (Though, admittedly, about 95% of those were times I did not yet have control of my vehicle because some tryhard put mines in front of a vehicle pad 2 hexes back from the fight.)
  15. Reclaimer77

    LA+C4 is also very fun to use. But hey, it's just a game right? Who needs to have fun....
  16. TechPriestess

    As a PS4 user who read over all your guides on the matter to play LA, I feel slightly sad now :(


    Then again, I guess the only reason I do PS4 over PC is I'm not in a position to save up for an adequate rig that can run the game in any pleasant capacity.
  17. Alexkruchev

    PC elitists exist everywhere. Don't mind them, they just have an innate need to justify their larger expenditure of cash on entertainment. It's kind of like how ancient Roman demagogues would spend as much money as possible on everything to flaunt they have the money as a status-symbol, somehow hoping to justify to the rest of the world that they were some kind of elite. Kind of like our friend above, who considers himself an elite or "Half serious gamer".

    We're all gamers, and whether or not we are "serious gamers" is a matter of how seriously we game, not how much money we can throw at our hardware. After all, some of the most hardcore gamers don't even play current gen games. They play older games, and the classics.

    Though, I struggle to take the opinions of people so deluded as to deride their gaming peers because they're a bit poorer than they are financially seriously. I mean, if you think you're better and more worthy as a gamer just because of your pocketbook, then, really, why should I put much stock in your game balance opinions either? You could easily be just as misguided and egocentric about that issue as the other.
  18. TomDRV



    I think Carbines are fine for LA, they are more suited to CQC, elevation (atleast to the level of a tree ,for example) doesn't give that much of an advantage in longer range fire fights. LA's thrive in bio labs, and there's no scope for long range combat in those. Also, they are LIGHT assaults, it makes sense that their armament is lighter/more compact than those of regular troops

    C4? They should be kept, if anything it just adds variety. What LA needs is a TOOL. Something that helps them when assaulting and flanking, but also something that gives them a role in a squad.
  19. Iridar51

    It really doesn't have anything to do with money, not in my case. In Russia very few people game on consoles. It's just not a part of our culture since the time PCs became affordable by everyone. That's why I don't like consoles - they're not a thing over here, so I don't get why are they a thing over there.
  20. TechPriestess


    It's largely for the stated reason above, building and maintaining a rig (if you're interested in playing new releases) can be -very- costly. Whereas, you can drop 400 USD once on a console and have access to an entire generation without having to worry about updating GPU, RAM, Cores, or what have you.

    I mean, honestly, I would love a gaming rig, as I stated, just financially I can't justify it - especially for a F2P like PS2 which is actually crazy intensive on hardware. Culturally, it makes more sense though for you to have that opinion, yeah.

    A lot of countries outside the US have their console libraries massively trimmed down (outside of Japan which is the origin of a lot of them) due to laws and such or negative portrayal of their home country.

    That said, both markets have their 'less serious' crowd that play casually (just look at how well simple indie games do on Steam) but there are definitely 'serious' players on both platforms and really, the only true difference so far between my time on PC and PS4 PS2 (I potato played PS2 about a year ago on my PC) is the lack of text chat and the ability to 180 quickly with your reticle.

    The former of which should be added support for in soon enough. Still, there's no real hard feelings to be had - I'm not easy to offend and meant my original post to be more of a kind of 'tongue-in-cheek' type of deal.

    Still, thanks for the awesome guide, its been a big help on my way to jet soldier menace.
    • Up x 1

Share This Page