SMG's are not the problem, base design is.

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by Ned, Jan 5, 2014.

  1. Ned

    So I've noticed a trend of a lot of people claiming that SMG's are OP and would like to give my thoughts on the subject.

    The SMG itself is not OP, and the people claiming it are are missing the big picture here, the SMG problem is more of a universal thing, and the reason they are so good is because of Base design and terrain design.

    The way the maps are designed in Planetside 2 means that around 80% of all fighting is infantry based in close quarters or indoors. The reason this has been done is to try and seperate infantry and vehicle fighting, but it has caused more problems than it has solved.

    Open field infantry battles are rare, what will happen is that vehicles will push into a base, and then infantry will take it from there, meaning that infantry will spend almost their entire playtime fighting in close to medium range, and you know what weapon is perfect for close to medium range? the SMG.

    If you don't think this is true then look at the trend in weapons here
    You may a see a trend in the top weapons for Assault rifles, LMGs and Carbines, the top KPH for each of these categories belong to guns with a .75 ADS movement speed, these guns in general are designed for close quarters combat, most of them boasting high fire rates and, more importantly, versatility, each of the top guns comes with great CQC killing power but also had potential for medium range combat, and these are the weapons that most useful for infantry in Planetside 2.

    If you still need some proof then ask yourself why you don't see weapons such as scout rifles, long range ARs and carbines, and long range LMGs more often compared to automatic Close Quaters guns, the simple answer is there is little reason to use them, these guns are rarely useful as fights within the range that they are supposed to function in rarely take place.

    This is why SMGs are so good, especially with infiltrators, in a game where you want to be as good in Close Quaters as possible with some versatility, the SMG is the perfect choice.

    So how do we Fix the Problem? well the problem is base and terrain design, the current direction of the game is moving away from combined arms and moving more into Infantry vs Infantry, Aircraft vs Aircraft and Tank vs Tank, just look at Eisa tech plant, separating infantry and vehicles.

    Planetside 2 needs to see more Open Terrain infantry combat, it needs to be less indoors and more outdoors, we need to make long range combat viable and if we do that then we make long range combat more viable. We also need more combined arms combat, where infantry vehicles and aircraft work together as a unit, rather than separately, to properly win the fight.

    We need less enclosed indoor capture points and more outdoor capture points, this problem has been slowly getting worse for a long time, especially with the changes made after Lattice, and it seem that it will continue going down this path unless something is done about it.

    Planetside 2 is a game of armies and big epic battles, it should not be an indoor close quaters capture point infantry only fest.

    TL-DR Version: Close Quaters base design means that SMG's are the perfect weapons for general use (which is why many claim they are OP), and we need more open terrain long range combat to fix this.
    • Up x 5
  2. Blarg20011

    Yep. Also the fact that, while some carbines/ARs may actually be better for CQB, the SMG is one of the easiest to use weapons in the game.
    • Up x 1
  3. Ned

    Its an all around powerhouse for CQC engagements
  4. RHINO_Mk.II

    Replaced red text with bold text for readability.
    • Up x 2
  5. sindz

    Who ever said the SMG is OP?

    They get blown out of the water by fast ROF carbines. SMG just allows for every noob who cant aim for **** to get a kill by holding down the mouse button.
  6. Ned

    Most of forumside.
    • Up x 2
  7. that_darn_lurker

    This might be splitting hairs. Its not real life so they can balance this problem several different ways. Either they adjust their base/terrain design to match their weapons(much harder), or they can adjust their weapons to match their base/terrain design(easier). Or they do some combination of both. But this problem may be moot soon anyway once the laser sight nerf takes affect. Until then i'm going to be rocking my Sirius. *pew pew*
  8. Elsewhere

    You state that we need "more Open Terrain Infantry Combat" - agreed.

    Personally, I would absolutely love a small group of 5-6 infantry only connected outdoor territories per continent.

    As soon as any Open Terrain Infantry Combat occurs, you can bet your last penny that someone will come along with a tank, sit on a cliff 200-300 meters away and start spamming the infantry, as soon as the infantry fire at the tank, it rolls back 30 feet, repairs to 100% and then repeats the process.

    To be fair, base design is ok, Its just that infantry are usually forced to stay out of the open field areas to avoid tank spam and being LOL-Podded.

    You state that we need "more Open Terrain Infantry Combat", yet also state "more combined arms combat" is needed. Don't these 2 phrases contradict each other?
    • Up x 1
  9. Elsewhere

    To Add,

    A lot of the capture points that were outside, were moved inside, purely for the reason that infantry wasn't required to cap a base.
    Anyone remember the days when TI Alloys could be capped by tanks without the drivers ever leaving the vehicle? A tank could just roll up next to the point, and start to flip it (and if you were anything but a C4/Rocket carrying class, there wasn't a single thing you could do about it)
  10. Ned

    Yup, Biolabs were supposed to be the fighting place for just infantry and no vehicles, but slowly all bases have become just for infantry, biolabs are pretty redundant now
  11. Flharfh

    Every single capture point in the game is either 1) in a building or 2) surrounded by buildings. And they are the same cookie cutter towers, buildings, and bases over and over again. The game needs unique bases and more variety, and it also needs some outdoor cap points in relatively open areas that encourage vehicle fights.Or some in dense woods / boulders for outdoor mid range infantry battles.

    There is no reason that every area needs a spawn room + cap point + building(s) combo. Why not have a hex controlled by a cap point outside so both defenders and attackers have to use a sunderer?

    It's either lack of creativity, laziness, or not enough resources, or a combination of those three. Cookie cutter bases in PS1 was heavily criticized, but at least in PS1 there was some diversity in the types of fights.
  12. Ned

    Pretty much, the problem with cap points is that it focuses everyone into capturing one spot, when there could be some alternatives out there
  13. sindz

    Just checked the recent pages, not anything particular. The problem with the SMG is the same as the auto shotguns - They are completely no skill, no downside complete noob guns which require 1 braincell to use, this is why people get angry I think.
  14. ironeddie

    I love smg's but I'm not sure why they have such great hip fire accuracy. In my mind not having look down the sights makes them easier to use. Though I also think range has a lot to do with it. I think any CQC weapon will always get complained about because frankly it's easier to someone point blank than it as at any other range. The fact people then rage about smg or shot gun is because those weapons do it better due to there design.
  15. Zinus

    Agree with the OP on base design.

    so ignoring the smg and all that i throw this here :p

    I was thinking, what if they made a open field base, let's say a "radar station or something" type of base. It would be mostly open field with 2 small buildings that hold capture points (1-2 room building, just enough to protect infantry from shelling) and one bigger base (spawning room, some buildings, vehicle terminals, and this one would be protected form vehicles). The small bases should be 300+ meters separated form the big one and there should be at least some valleys/rocks/high ground so infantry can hide/support vehicles. The big base should be protected from vehicles so they can't overrun it.

    I believe that with a setup like this both the attackers and defenders can have fun. Even if the attackers overrun everything with superior vehicle army, the defenders can make a last stand at big base and enjoy infantry combat. The defenders can also bring in vehicles from other bases and get into fight more easy, as the 2 captured points are on the open --> vehicles can attack easily.
    On the flip side, attacking should be fun as there is no vehicle restriction while attacking the 2 points on the open, and once you secure these you will eventually win even without the last one inside the larger base.
  16. Taemien

    There is no problem with SMGs. Its a L2P issue.

    I don't even personally have any issues with the base design other then wishing for some variation.
  17. Ned

    Don't you want more open terrain combat? what about the fact that all bases are indoors with indoor capture points?
  18. Taemien

    That doesn't include infantry fights. Right now you can pull a tank and you have your open terrain combat. This isn't the 1800s. If there were open terrain fights then it would be vehicles trained on the capture point.

    When I say I want variety I mean different base layouts. Like the double tower layout on one of the bases in Esamir is pretty cool with all the walkways. You could also get a sense of open terrain with a massive building.. maybe an underground mine or factory (anyone remember the MechFactory in MW3, the one where the Annihilator beat your butt), complete with catwalks and the like. Imagine if the Crater in Indar had a dome over it.

    I think what you're looking for is Normandy invasion type battle, but with how vehicles work, that won't be a possibility.. maybe for Battle Islands it will though. That'd be kinda cool. But this is beyond the scope of this thread.
  19. joe smo

    I have a feeling that guy is a lost cause.

    Anyways, I think that for more combat between bases the terrain needs to be reduced form the current 60-90 degree inclines and steep canyons to gently rolling hills with lots of small rocks/trees for cover(Like old esmire). That way infantry/tanks have lots of cover and would also spread the fight out too I'd assume. Makeing tanks and airs AoE "less" effective.

    The number of bases their are should probably be reduced too... in order to make infantry zergs running from base to base less effective and "force" transports which the defending side will try to intercept and the attackers will want to defend.
  20. Sixty

    Remember when i play Planetside 2. Think it is about 2:30AM and deploy into fight. It was glorious! TR vs VANU create barier with Sunderers on open battlefield (think it was there about 30 Sunderers and 200+ infantry per side) Then Infantry cover behind this sunderers and in the same time sunderers this ↓↓.It was absolutely awesome and my best experience from Planetside 2. Of course that all happen before CQB hur dur nope vehicle rework and i really wish that back!