I safely fight tanks all the time on my engie, then again i use at mines. just remember this is a team game, everyone should not be able to do everything.
Good point on the mines, I always forget about those because I never see them used in coordination by a group of engineers, it's usually just one guy dropping them on a road at night or in front of a vehicle pad. And being a team game is part of what influenced some of those suggestions(the infiltrator one especially. Those guys are just invisible snipers atm, really no infiltrating going on beyond hacking turrets and teminals). The engineer AV turret I mentioned already exists on some level in game, though there are obvious problems with the concept and players can't use it yet. LA's cheap c4 cost as well, it's already a thing.
Please don't talk about 'sample size' when you clearly have no concept of basic mathematics, let alone statistics BY DEFINITION THE 'AVERAGE' K/D RATIO IN PS2 WILL BE 1:1 In fact, without knowing exactly how the game counts suicides and TKs, the true value could be less than 1:1. If I kill you I get ONE kill, you get ONE death. there is no way to manufacture more Kills than Deaths across the playerbase - for every kill there must be a death. It's not hard to figure out, really. Across all players this quite simply means the 'average' will be 1:1 or less. The actual mean is likely to be far worse than 1:1 though, with many expert players and killscore padders having K/D ratios in the double and triple digits. Your typical (median) player is going to have a K/D ratio south of 1:1, probably around 0.75:1 or so. All you guys coming in here talking (truthfully) about K/D ratios of 5:1, or even 2:1, need to understand that you are NOT representative the vast majority of the playerbase, that your experiences are not typical and that, when it comes to balance discussions, may honestly not be the best source of information or feedback. A great player can make any of the weapons work I'm sure - that's really not the point though, not if you really want a balanced game with a large and active, and hopefully growing, playerbase.
Yeah and as an infantry I'd say going 1:1 is really even above average, considering vehicles can easily get 5+ kills per life on average.
This. Often the people trying to say that all the guns are fine are either 1) Protecting their obvious advantage or 2) Above average in FPS's and do not take into account that most players are average (hence...go back to math if you can not figure out what average actually means). The average player is not getting upwards of 1.5 KDR's if all they play is infantry. The only reason have a 1.3ish total KDR is because my vehicle kills (reaver and lighting) counter my lower infantry KDR's. The only class I can go positive on is infiltrator, but that really negates most of the positives other empires have with their guns. When I can go and dominate with a TR gun, that I have had no practice with, as well as my outfit members who also have little experience with TR weapons, then it says something. Balance needs to be around the average players, not the big mouth epeen waivers that tell everyone they suck because they can not get 2.0+ KDR's. And the facts THE AVERAGE (majority of the players) see in the game is that NC sucks, TR has some OP LMG's and the TRAC-5 and the VS have the best carbines in the game. Trying to say NC is comparable because we can do accurate, hard hitting headshots fails mainly in that is NOT TRUE at all. Even in burst fire, anything after the first shot with the Gauss Saw will go where ever the hell the bullet wants to go. The gun fires so slow that if you do not hit the the first few rounds, the enemies superior rate of fire will make quick work, even they ALSO miss with their first few rounds. Anyone who is not some "self proclaimed FPS God" that has tried both the CARV and the Gauss Saw, with stock options, knows that the CARV is FAR easier to kill in nearly every situation, and more importantly, it is far more effective in the situations you encounter most in PS2, short-medium ranges.
The problem with statements like this in FPS games is that Easier and Better are not the same thing. It comes down to personal skill all too often. You can be the best player in existence, but if a weapon is so easy noobs could use it (such as the lock-on homing missile launchers) all the skill in the world isn't going to make the weapon any better. But if you go for a weapon that is purposely disadvantaged (i.e. HARDER) but possesses a sweet spot of usage that requires a fair amount of skill to use (such as the dumb fire missile launchers with higher base damage) having skill vs not having skill is going to mean a world of difference in how effective the weapon is to you. The existence of Sniper Rifles in shooters is a testament to skill trumping ease. It is by no means a simple feat to accurately and consistently land headshots with a sniper rifle unless you are JUST THAT GOOD. Players who are "self proclaimed FPS gods" will see amazing usage out of the weapon. Players who find TR weapons to be the only ones they can get a kill with are going to find sniper rifles underwhelming and tedious. The same goes for Aircraft... you either can fly well enough to not get shot down by the first Scythe who spots you, or you exist purely to feed Ace pilots, AA turrets, and flak dispensers. Never do you want to balance a game around the average player. No MMO developer will think that way, they will always balance according to the performance of the top 1% of players. Sometimes they'll attempt to make things simpler, but not easier, another pair of terms that are not necessarily the same thing. You can go around being a 2000 dps Warrior in some RPG, but you're still going to get your *** kicked by the 4000 dps Warrior who can maximize his class usage. That doesn't mean the 3000 dps Wizard who is so easy to use you can faceroll the keyboard is overpowered... it just means the Warrior is a more challenging class to play with a varying level of effectiveness depending on personal skill, and if your personal skill is in the gutter, you can't even begin to SEE what your class potential truly is. Arbitrary numbers meant solely to make just one point... newbies do not decide what's balanced. Luckily, SOE is well aware of this, and since it's their call, we're safe from the idiots who would seek to destroy the balance of the game. Some players swear by the Gauss SAW, others condemn it as worthless. Let's face it, you can play shooters using an SMG and run into people's faces spraying your entire clip... it's a very easy weapon to use you're guaranteed to get a kill most of the time. But that doesn't make the AK-47 a worse weapon just because it's high recoil and accuracy after the first shot is nonexistent, in fact most skilled players will agree the AK-47 is superior despite being harder. The noobs aren't going to agree and will prefer to stick with their P90s and rapid firing hip cannons. Which is fine... different weapons suit different folk. What's not fine is when people insist that the weapon they want to use sucks when others are using it well. There are more opinions than simply your own, but often players in their zealotry forget that principle. That's why developers have performance metrics and weapon statistics. Let actual game statistics trump forum barbarism.
Actually, game developers do usually develop the game around the majority, in which case is the average player. Why? because they will get more money that way. The 1% high skilled players are usually ignored.
History disagrees with you. World of Warcraft balanced around the raiders (less than 5%) and PVP balances around the top 1% of the Arena champions. EverQuest balances according to the raiders (the top 1% who can actually complete the content). CounterStrike updates were balanced according to professional competitive play. Tribes, Quake, Team Fortress, Unreal Tournament, all balanced according to data from Tournament play. League of Legends -- balanced according to High ELO players, much to the dismay of low ELO fans who think their characters suck. DOTA and its successors... all balanced according to the Top Ranked on the Leaderboards, resulting in constantly shifting metas. EVE Online rebalanced an entire weapon type purely because of Top Kill Count players. Lineage 2 balanced classes according to feedback of the top ranked realm players. RIFT rebalanced its classes according to DPS metrics supplied by the most successful raiding guilds, even commenting that they had GMs following them in ghost mode watching their moves. Guild Wars 1 and 2 both balanced the Alpha and Beta versions of the game according to the most successful PVP players, while taking into account the struggles of the common player regarding mob difficulty, but not caving into them by changing the classes (they simply lowered mob difficulty). They even recently released a series of dungeons that challenge even the best players in the game, not exactly content targeting casuals. Raids in general make up the bulk of new content updates, despite less than 5% of most MMO populations ever seeing them. Less than 1% of players ever complete ALL the raid content, yet new content is created just for them. Developers do not ignore the elite, they cater to them to help make their games even better. Do you know what raids actually are? They're disguised balance tests that developers pull information from for future balance updates. I mean seriously, do you play any other MMOs??? One of the biggest complaints you hear in EVERY major MMO is about how so-and-so's class just got nerfed because of PVP! Some jerk came up with the ultimate build, proceeded to wreck people with it, and voila -- nerfed across the board for everyone just like that. You think he was in the majority?
Pretty insulting there, but I'll let it pass. It depends on what developers you go to. The few that actually care about the game may cater to the elite, but just about every other MMO i've played (mostly crappy ones, i have to admit) caters to the bulk majority, and in the worst cases caters specifically to the "payers". Usually (and rightfully) they crumble, a good case being Battleswarm FOH. You've probably never heard of it, and there's a reason why. Your last point basically supports what I said. If they did nerf the one guy who was doing well, and he was definitly not the majority, while people were whining about it, would they not be catering to the majority? In which case, would he not be the "elite" because he understood the game well? So, will SOE be the good game developers who listen to the few at the top or money grubbers who listen to the masses? Time will tell.
Yeah wow made an entire expansion filled with eastern themed lands, new quests, and pandas because Raiders asked for it. Wait what.
I can save you the weeks of waiting right here and now. Does the game have a leaderboard? Yes? Then it's the Competitive type. It's balanced according to the most competitive players. Heck, just looking at past SOE games is enough to prove they balance according to the best. Believe it or not, your choice. Whatever you decide, it's not going to affect me or the game one bit. Expansions are dumps MMOs take after collecting raid data for months. Notice how the first thing an expansion does is makes all those raid items worthless? Raiders like content progression too, and a new expansion means all new raids to farm.
Also, there is a problem with HA. HA can use tanks, can fly planes, and is still the best infantry class for 1v1s. There isn't much reason to play other classes other than to give HA's health and ammo.
Hey, i was only pointing out that there are ****** developers and good developers. I never inclined towards being a part of either... You're being way to confrontational.
Like I said, they're the frontline, rank and file infantry. Medics and engies can do more to support, and LA and infiltrators can do more to flank. HAs are the best class for taking things head on, which is why they're used the most.
Don't you mean you're being way too defensive? All I said was that I could save you the time in determining which type of developer SOE is, and you can either take my information as reliable or not, but it makes no difference to me. I'm not confronting you, I'm informing you. The direct approach only seems aggressive if you're a timid person.
NoNoNo I mean in the matter of speaking, although this is the internet, so I guess I am being a bit sensitive here considering. Nevermind, lets get past that. Whats the standing on the OP thread again? I forgot.
Heavy Assault = Required Is that a good thing? Yes = Core Soldier, others are specialists or support roles No = I want RPG balance in a shooter. Leaderboard = Medics and Vehicles Rule Them All
I'll just hurl my C4 and mines across the battlefield then mines rely on the vehicle driving over it C4 requires you to hug the vehicle. neither are a reliable way to take out vehicles, second: they cost resources and cannot be resupplied at a ammo pack like a rocket launcher.
