TR heavy Assault & Engineer, cancel each other out

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by karlooo, Jul 13, 2021.

  1. karlooo

    The majority of the Heavy Assault weapons/LMGs have very bad hipfire accuracy. What does this mean? It means that the class turns into a machine gunner. And if you have good hipfire accuracy or weapons only meant for close range it would then turn into a shock troop.

    The Engineer is a machine gunner as well, with the same firepower as the TR LMG's just the only difference is that it is immobile, but with the benefit of having super defenses together with Implants...Making it pretty much the better Machine Gunner because the HA does not have the damage nor defense to suppress multiple enemies.

    Because the HA is mobile, the better way to go for the TR HA class would be to only use these units as shock troops with close range weapons, such as the T7 chaingun.
    But back to my point the majority of Heavy Assault weapons are LMGs with bad hipfire, meaning more players are equipping these, which makes the class worse than the Engineer lol.

    The question is why would the Engineer's heavy deployable machine gun and TR's Light Machine gun, have pretty much the same firepower and the same suppression? What's the point of deploying a heavy machine gun lol (FYI the Implants are a must, to have the defensive upside).

    The Engineer class deployable heavy machine gun can be a nice addition in forming the factions and their uniqueness. But currently they are all the same. These weapons can be reworked in many ways, maybe a slow firing auto cannon, with explosive rounds, very interesting. Maybe there can be 2, an autocannon with AP rounds. Heavy Machine guns are usually 50 BMG, 12.7mm. Auto cannon 20+.

    Like I don't understand why I have to talk about this. Why don't the devs do it.
    • Up x 1
  2. JibbaJabba

    The Engineer heavy machine gun and the TR LMGs do NOT have pretty much the same firepower and suppression. The Engie machine gun wrecks every LMG in the game on all 3 factions. The downside to offset this is pretty obvious though.

    I don't think 99% of players who use the engie turret even know how to use it right. All I see is full auto which ruins it's insane initial CoF. /smh

    The TR does have a fantastic hipfire gun in the MSW-R too. One of the best in the game really.

    The Kindred TR carbine available to the engie is IMO the best gun in the entire game at the moment. I drool over that thing when I play red.

    I certainly wouldn't mind a faction specific variant of the engie turret. That would be pretty fun. Not sure I really follow the rest of what you mean though.
    • Up x 1
  3. Demigan

    I calculated for a bunch of weapons that on a per-damagepoint basis most weapons of the same class have the same COF growth. That means the TR is not the special one out when it comes to hipfire COF on LMG's.

    Comparing the stationary Engi Turret to the Heavy LMG's is weird. Can you attack with it? Can you impromptu defend with it when someone comes around the corner? The LMG has many more situations it can be used in on top of the immense amount of variety LMG's offer compared to the singular AI MANA turret.
    • Up x 2
  4. karlooo

    Well you can see where these calculations brought the game. The pop always declines and always comes to the point were it is close to being a dead game, because nobody is having fun obviously.
    I'm deadly allergic to this really, it's a lazy excuse to do nothing. Remember the older topic when I tried to rework the Prowler into the new TR Sunderer to enhance TR's traits and remove the trash tier tank. You kept on calculating and guess what, it brought us nowhere. Stop calculating lol.

    How can you be so blind again?
    How can you not see the problem here? It has many situations where it can be used. So what's their purpose? If it doesn't have a specific purpose then it's a nothing role. Machine gun is for support lol.
    Same with the Prowler, you can do calculations all you want, but the problem is it's a general purpose, nothing tank, it has nothing specific....That's why people do not like the tank.

    The Engineer solely as a machine gunner is more of an aggressive unit than it is defensive. Because they can deploy the machine gun while behind cover, and if they get flanked or breached they can just pull out their shotgun or whatever for close range combat.
    Engineer is a superior machine gunner than compared to the TR HA....Why does TR even support HA as machine gunners if the Engineer is better?
    Same with the Prowler, there is no reason for TR to produce Prowlers.
  5. Demigan

    You are equating the decline of the game with any calculations that prove the premise of your idea is faulty?
    Because the Prowler isn't trash tier, it's arguably the best MBT. Even if it brought us "nowhere", at least that was better than the completely new and superfluous TR Sunderer you proposed the Prowler to become, which would have hurt the game much more than leaving it as it was.

    Just because you have an idea, does not mean it's good for the game. Something about being blind I guess.

    Several things have already been pointed out to you but here goes again:

    1. Being a jack-of-all-trades weapon can be a great advantage. Especially in PS2 where several routes you can take require you to bring a weapon that can handle different ranges.
    2. LMG's do have a specific purpose: High capacity short to mid/longish range weapons (Carbines are CQC to mid-range overall).
    3. Points 1 and 2 combined make for a powerful weapon compared to weapons that are only specialized at their range bracket without the ability to handle other ranges that well.
    4. Machine guns aren't for support. They might be in real-life and milsims, but PS2 is neither real-life or a Milsim. Also the LMG's in PS2 are overall closer to a Squad Automatic Weapons (SAW). Which ironically is the opposite of PS2's SAW since it's more of a single-man hand-held and fired weapon rather than a high-powered machine gun that requires a team of 2 or more to fire.
    5. You need to learn how to use the term "lol".

    I don't see how the Engineer is in any way a superior machine gunner than the HA. The AI MANA turret is basically a small-caliber HMG. Where HMG's are basically tripod mounted LMG's. In the meantime the LMG's of HA's function like SAW's instead of LMG's. I don't think you followed that line of thought but that doesn't matter.
    Also there is all the reason for the TR to produce Prowlers. The Vanguard is closer to the WWII Heavy tanks than an MBT, and there's a good reason we don't produce Heavy tanks anymore and went with MBT's instead. A balanced mobility and firepower are the most important traits of modern MBT's, armor is secondary and often sacrificed to make sure the mobility remains viable. That is the entire reason why tanks even have more armor at the front than the sides and rear, to keep it lightweight enough to be mobile while still being efficient with it's armor protection.
    • Up x 1
  6. karlooo

    Uhu sure keep dreaming.
    My changes would be terrible for the game!?....Planetside 2 lost more than 3000 of its average player count, in a single year, after the big update. Why would everyone who came, just leave? We literarily came back to the point we were at before and my ideas are faulty?

    For a game like Planetside 2 it doesn't sound normal, to lose everybody who arrived. I've once played an FPS game that was a full out asset flip. All the players knew it and they played the game because it was fun. It only lost players to this extent when the developer did it on purpose, for their new game.

    And guess what? From now on we are only going downhill. Is there anything that can save PS2? This NSO update will only boost its decline because of the unwanted NSO firstly and the brutal performance decrease. I cannot run the game anymore at a stable 60 FPS in large battles, even with downgraded graphics. All that for cancer to be integrated.
    The devs clearly showed how mentally behind they are when they touched construction.

    Ok, to keep it simple. Just tell me why did every single person who arrived to PS2 leave? Is this the correct way to go?
  7. karlooo

    About machine guns, yes they are for support in Planetside 2. You can suppress squads with these weapons, you don't break through.
    For Planetside 2, you cannot break through if you don't have good hipfire weapons and you can't suppress if you don't have enough defense. That's basically the HA as a machine gunner. It's basically only good at shooting, which meeeeeeaaansss? It's nothing, everyone shoots and Carbines and Assault weapons are better at it and classes with these weapons have a purpose as well.
  8. Demigan

    Just because the Dev's idea's were faulty does not mean yours are suddenly golden.
    The Developers Escalation update promised increased focus on teamwork and large scale battles with toys like the Bastion, it delivered more incentives to avoid combat altogether in order to farm the resources and capture the bases you needed to "win" instead. That is what was wrong there, not the fact that they didn't use your TR Sunderer idea.

    On top of that PS2 is simply aging. It has outlived most games from it's age and several afterwards as well, all because it's MMOFPS nature is unique. But it remains a flawed game, with flawed gameplay flow, flawed systems like Spawnbunkers working against the defenders, problems with bugs that aren't resolved and mechanics that few players like such as the aircraft vs G2A gameplay. This causes players to leave.
    • Up x 1
  9. karlooo

    But yeah exactly, they didn't, after years of "work"...This is not about me, how I am supposedly right. The thing is that THEY are helpless individuals, that cannot be relied on.
    For example the Bastion that you mentioned. How did they not realize after years, that the Bastion would not promote teamplay and outfits. It was crystal clear by just imagining it in your head for a short while. I thought they where planning something different, such as segregating combat aircrafts into their own space battles for example.
    Oh speaking of that remember the very old steam game MoonBreakers?

    That actually would be pretty cool if there was like a space map in PS2, where you can choose your type of battleship and customize it, work as a squad in the ship. Warship warfare, but in space....So, much that could be done, jeez.

    Planetside 2 is not aging, everything new that is being created nowadays is dogshít compared to what was created in the past. Planetside 2 is a bastardized masterpiece with tremendous potential. It would be soaring with players if it was improved correctly and that's why it ironically survived.

    All my suggestion are just concepts, to improve and solve every single downside of the game because the devs are incompetent. That's all.
  10. LordAnnihilator

    LMGs and the MANA turret are barely alike. The mana turret doesn't take ammo, using heat, its a deployable with a body shield, while the LMG is magazine fed, mobile, and can takes way less time to ready and fire than the AI Turret, which you have to deploy. Both serve different purposes. The only TR LMG with an identical damage model to the turret is the T32 Bull, and even then it can use both types of ammo to change that damage model, and it can't sustain fire as long as the turret. The term "machine gun" is pretty catch all, especially for video games, and like Demigan said, LMGs are just called that, they don't necessarily fill the actual LMG role. While I do like the idea of faction specific Turrets, you have to be careful - otherwise you end up with a Striker case, where the Strike is the best AA RL in the game, but the other two are rather niche and specific in situation.

    Maybe because, as apparently previously discussed, some of your ideas make no sense and sound absolutely crazy? Because said ideas are not as necessary as you claim while there is more important **** that needs dealing with? Maybe the devs don't do it because they're busy with other stuff and don't take advice from someone who talks nonsense and doesn't listen to criticism? IDK, just some ideas.

    Like Demigan said, how do him making some calculations ultimately only known to a few people on these forums affect anything? Why is that the reason the game has a lower pop, why the devs won't implement your clearly superior and oh so perfect ideas? Sure, there are reasons, but we otherwise have remained alive as a game for a long *** time, despite everything, and we ae still getting updates. That has to be worth something, and obviously those still here derive enough enjoyment to engage, spend money, etc.

    If you're so deadly allergic to this reality, WHY ARE YOU STILL HERE? You can leave this "dead game" whenever you want, but you're here, complaining and ranting still about stupid stuff.

    Now, this rework thing. It sounds dumb. The point of an MBT is... well, to be an MBT, and general consensus + statistics indicate the Prowler is doing very very well for itself. Reworking it into a Sunderer makes no sense, because... well, we have the Sunderer already, and as an NS vehicle it wouldn't go anywhere. As a cheaper vehicle, it wouldn't be supplanted by something more expensive at all, look at the Colossus. That has AMS support capability and nobody uses it because the other options are just plain better. AMS support is an NS trait, not a TR one, and the Prowler embodies TR fine, with the Lockdown it shares with MAX and a double barrel cannon for more dakka (even more for barrage).

    Also Demigan is right, your usage of lol clashes with your tone. You're telling Demigan off, LOL Laugh Out Loud Cue Laugh Track Because You Are Hilarious! See, it just doesn't fit.

    General opinion indicates you're the blind one here, but go on, oh wise one. (Huh. I see why Demigan does this, this is fun.)

    Then I guess Carbines, Assault Rifles, the Revolver Sidearms, the Medigun and Repair Gun, and many more guns are thus useless because there are multiple situations where they can be useful despite their stats and base functionality? While we're at it, Engineer and Medic are nothing roles because "They are for support LOL". Having weapons only functional in one specific role makes them garbage or require a super specific playstyle. Shotguns only work in CQC, so your playstyle revolves around getting to and fighting in that CQC, you can't use them to fight at midrange, so your playstyle is limited.

    Blatant lies. There are tracked statistics that indicate people pull the Prowler a lot. Heck, go in game and unless you hole up inside all session it wouldn't be hard to find a Prowler, especially in an armour zerg. People LIKE the Prowler, just because you don't doesn't mean it should be changed.

    Further, the Prowler is capable of specialisation - it's fast and maneuverable, which allows it to flank. Its lockdown and barrage allow it to pump out rapid damage from longer distances more reliably than any other tank. It can also brawl with the best of them. If we speak of "nothing" vehicles, then surely the Vanguard is one too, because it can do a lot of things too and is basic as hell for a tank. Surely the Flash is a nothing vehicle because it can do a lot of things and can serve as a general purpose vehicle? Surely the Lightning, a tank with nothing to set it apart from the MBTs except an AA turret option, is a nothing vehicle?

    Your arguments are invalid, because everything in this game has something specific about it, even so called "nothing" weapons have their uses and fans, and your specific focus on the Prowler is silly because it's arguably one of the more unique vehicles in the game due to it's two-shot cannon and lockdown.

    That requires them to be using a shotgun though, rather than a "nothing" carbine (its called a jack of all trades btw) unless they have ASP. It requires them to be using the AI turret rather than one of the others. The turret shines best when it has eyes on a chokepoint, hiding it behind cover doesn't help anyone if you cant aim at the attacking enemies. It's static nature makes it more defensive than even an Engie using a carbine or other gun, because you can only hold one position, while outside of the turret you can follow allies, drop ammo, and shoot people that your turret position can't see or get to.

    Like I said, "Machine Gunner" is disingenous, and the Turret and LMGs serve an entirely different role. This isn't real life, this is a video game.
    And the Prowler has seen great success, so I see no reason for Prowler production to stop.

    The only Dreamer here is you pal. Demigan is firmly rooted in logic and the now, not making up nonsense to back your crazy ideas.

    Yes, they are faulty. Because they don't have anything to do with the reasons those people left. Said reasons range from the horrible New Player Experience, some Vets leaving for new pastures, etc. I can't claim to know them all, but I also don't know where you got that statistic from. Was it from start to finish of the year, was it the overall people who left after the peak of Escalation? Back up that number with a source please, then I will take it as an argument.

    Your changes would just drive more people off honestly. People who like the Prowler would leave, people who like having robots and 3 factions would leave... We've been over this, no one is agreeing with you, and no it isn't because everyone who would agree with you left.

    It does sound normal to me. Escalation drew in new people true, but it is an old game. Not everyone is going to stick with it and grind all day. Also what game do you speak of? Is it PUBG? Because thats very much an asset flip and it hasn't been doing too hot. Then again that's third person... Seriously what does an asset flip that is probably nothing like this game have to do with anything?

    Ok, so the performance issues are fair enough, and I'm sorry you're having issues now. But the NSO were wanted. They were meant to balance population differences and provide incentive to memberships. Now they're more fully fledged, a true addition to the game, with only some issues existing (NSOutfits, changing factions, bugs, people complaining that they should fix the game first) and the update has been mostly well recieved, hardly cancer. If the NSO were that broken, the Devs could tune them, easy peasy. Construction is another matter, one that I don't know too much about, but they had to have changed it for a reason, right?

    An exaggeration, also barely, not even a response to Demigan, who was addressing your points and arguing over the main topic of the post, while you have diverted to complaining about the same crud and ignoring any arguments against you. Not everyone who arrived to Planetside left or we wouldn't have anyone in the game at all. Not all the new players left either or the Devs wouldn't see any reason to keep pushing out major updates for the same people, they must think their work is worth the effort to draw in new players and satisfy the rookies and veterans alike currently playing, so clearly they think its the right way to go.

    For better or worse, we need to provide constructive criticism and indicate our continued support so they'll keep supporting and fixing the game. Complaining about construction changes without specifying what you dislike about said changes and want to see changed will likely see you ignored as just another random decrying the "dead game" and generally not contributing to the conversation.

    You can suppress people with an LMG. Suppressing an entire squad is harder, because that massed fire can bring you down. Best used in a group. You don't need "good hipfire" to break through, its perfectly possible to push through, bring people down through rapid ADS fire, rescoping to tackle each target. Breaking through can be done with grenades, enough people, sheer bullet vomit, and more. LMGs aren't bad weapons just because they have "bad hipfire" (and even then I doubt it is THAT bad, hipfire is for CQC, and you can't hipfire from across a room and expect accuracy), and again your definition of a machine gunner is vague.

    Heavy Assault is only good at shooting? Then it's clearly very good since it's the most played class in the game, more than the other guns. Can't do anything else? Rocket Launchers say hi, particularly the Striker which specialises in telling hostile air to go away. So does the Overshield, Concussion Grenades, and Heavy Weapons, which specialise in different things.

    Clearly, you need a reality check. People clearly like Heavy Assault, LMGs, Prowlers, and more. So either you are wrong, or all of them are wrong. Which do you think it is?
  11. LordAnnihilator

    Your ideas wouldn't magically fix all the problems and downsides, because they would just introduce more problems and fix maybe one or two downsides only you see. Planetside 2 has had its flaws since launch, and just because you romanticise the past doesn't mean it was necessarily better than what we have and are getting now.

    Making a space map would be a lot of work, work we would rather see used to fix existing issues. Sure it would be cool, but the MMO part would struggle in space, especially on not-god-tier machines. You're already having trouble with this latest update, space would make it worse. Go to other games for that kind of gameplay.

    The devs have their issues, but they aren't completely helpless. They obviously have their issues, but you are seeing issues where there are none.
  12. karlooo

    Oh great the conversation ruiner arrived.

    I replied to all of Demigans points with this... If you don't understand how it's a reply, then there is an issue with you. Or do I have to reply to each sentence like a lunatic? As you are doing right now?

    "About machine guns, yes they are for support in Planetside 2. You can suppress squads with these weapons, you don't break through.
    For Planetside 2, you cannot break through if you don't have good hipfire weapons and you can't suppress if you don't have enough defense. That's basically the HA as a machine gunner. It's basically only good at shooting, which meeeeeeaaansss? It's nothing, everyone shoots and Carbines and Assault weapons are better at it and classes with these weapons have a purpose as well."

    I'm not replying to your opinions, just like last topic because you are the one who is ignorant. I try to make the topic as simple, short and interesting as possible, I just told you in the simplest way last time and you just continue on spouting pointless opinions and views, that I cannot even respond to because the are just unconstructive.
  13. Somentine

    • Up x 4
  14. karlooo

    Yes I know. No. That's what the devs are best at, doing nothing and taking credit.

    Ok basically here is my problem. You guys reinterpret in the most childish way possible. Because what you say, everybody already knows, it's obvious for even those who played the game for 2 weeks. Your replies are so vacant and arguing, would be pointless, because you never think outside the box.
    It's nothing personal BUT for example, Mana turret and an LMG are not the same....
    This is basically how you deconstruct, in a nutshell. That's 80% of your replies.

    Discussing this HA vs Engineer topic is pointless because it's apparently too complex for you.
    So let's divert to a very very simple topic, the Prowler. Something that should not be possible to screw up....ok?? I'll make it very very simple.
    PPL play the Prowler because it has more guns, it's as simple as that. If you don't have a team, you must choose the Prowler but the TR's strength is supposed to be reinforcing unity and not solo gameplay.

    TR's traits, based on lore:
    -Mighty military production
    -Strength in unity
    -And their preferred combat attributes: mobility and speed, maybe firepower.

    Now lets have a look at the game:
    Vanguard max speed = 72 kph
    Prowler max speed = 78 kph (This is apparently the fastest MBT)
    The same basically, and Magrider has the superior mobility due to the hovering and turbo.
    Acceleration is the same.
    Neutral steering. Full 360 degree turn:
    Prowler: 6 seconds
    Vanguard: 6 seconds
    Reverse speed:
    Vanguard: 27 kph
    Prowler 30 kph

    Prowler brakes faster than the Vanguard.
    Basically TR doesn't have any of it's traits and also each faction receives the wheeled light tank anyways, called the Harasser.
    Mobility and speed (Magrider is superior)
    Strength in unity (Not supported)
    Mighty Military Production (The same as all factions)

    Ok, we are off to a great start.
    Prowlers design with the weapons does not allow it to break through. If it engages more than one tank frontally, it's dead. Why? Because it does not have the defense. And not only that, the tank is the biggest target frontally, due to its width.
    So it only has the firepower....Lets try to use it by flanking, well its strength is not mobility so it's a dice roll.
    Prowlers only strength, firepower: It gives a higher chance to direct hit infantry and with it's deploy ability it can destroy aircraft at a certain angle.

    So, is this the tank the majority of players love and would leave the game for?

    Here was my older suggestion to improve TR's armor together with their traits:
    Prowler new Sunderer: Driver + Gunner (30mm auto cannon, limited ATGM)
    Lightening: One seater
    MBT: Wheeled light tank.
    (I've created dozens of other suggestions that would all make sense when added up, such as boosting small arms damage at the expense of increasing recoil, to such an extent where you'll need to control it all manually and single fire will be useful)

    If you think this will hurt the game, then I don't know what to say because you never ever explained why lol. You only state the obvious and never explain why it is good as it is. You never explain why the concept is bad.
    And why are the devs changes good? How can you output a complete failure such as outfit assets and resource gain after 'working' on it for multiple years?
    And ultimately, why does the game lose every single new player that arrives. I always try to add new players to the game through other communities or friends, none of them stay for long or even after the first day and it's obvious why. If you think it's age, you are super ignorant. It has nothing to do with age.
  15. karlooo

    But something that I like are these different views we have, different types of thinking. This is what the factions should support, that's why communities divide but it feels like it is all controlled by the same moron dev (my view, your view is different)...See? You see why the game could have been a masterpiece?
    It has nothing to do with age, problem is that it's just all catering one part of the community (which is small IMO). The NSO fully proves this.
  16. JibbaJabba

    Sorry, I'm still trying to catch up to the original post. The compare-and-contrast on an LMG vs a MANA turret seems a bit ludicrous since the differences are so stark.

    So blame it on me being stupid or ignorant or whatever but I'm simply not following you dude. What are you trying to say?

    And from experience and the posts above it seems like if I try to discuss this you're going to get really toxic and do personal attacks rather than acknowledging the possibility that your point isn't getting across because you aren't expressing it clearly.
  17. karlooo

    Basically the majority of HA guns have bad hipfire, meaning the class is more of a machine gunner. The Engineer is as well a machine gunner. The only difference between them is that once class is immobile with defensive capabilities, the other is mobile. Both have the same firepower and ammo. A machine gunner is for support, to suppress squads of enemies. The Engineer does exactly that in Planetside 2, the HA machine gunner has no chance at doing that.
    The HA machine gunner does not have anything specific to it, it's just some general class with everything and it just shoots.

    If the HA equips a weapon with good hipfire then it becomes a shock troop. Now it has a purpose because no other class can breach like the Heavy Assault can. (I know you can breach with the machine gun, but it's just stupid if you have shotguns, T7 Chaingun or MSW at your disposal)
    The question is why are the majority of HA weapons machine guns if the engineer is much better at being a machine gunner?

    And if the HA is supposed to be a multi purpose machine gunner, whatever the hell that is (this should not be a TR class because it has no specific purpose), at least try to rework the Engineer deployable, into an ES heavy machine gun, a step towards forming the factions.

    That's all the topic was about.
  18. JibbaJabba


    I guess I see some early assertions there I disagree with. It happens. But then those get built on and built on until I can no longer really tell where you're coming from.

    We get off to this start...

    The majority but not all LMGs do, yes. The SMGs have fantastic hipfire but we generally associate a heavy with an LMG. So yeah... I get where you're coming from here. Majority of HA guns have bad hipfire,sure. Lets' roll...

    ...and just like that, I'm not with you any more. You just made 4 statements and I disagree with every one of them. So I can't really follow you into the real meat of the discussion that you want to have. Sorry.
  19. That_One_Kane_Guy

    No, Engineer is a support class. Its primary purpose is to resupply ammunition, then to repair, then to fight, usually from behind mines, turrets, or friendlies. Having access to a deployable machine gun doesn't magically make him a "machine gunner" any more than having access to an automated turret makes him a freaking technomancer.
    Heavy Assault has no utility, its purpose is to go into combat while having something to say about almost any possible threat it can face. These classes do not overlap.
    And the chances of an Engineer pushing a point with his MANA turret are even less.
    Fixed that for you.
    This is a great idea, and should have been the only thing you said. Everything else is kookoo.
    • Up x 1
  20. LordAnnihilator

    As I've said before, people sometimes reply bit by bit to make it more readable and respond to each point or paragraph, like I did. Sticking all the responses in one paragraph after the quote or snip makes it a lot harder to tell what each part of your response is addressing, which makes people less likely to misinterpret your statements. In particular, with a long post like mine or yours replying bit by bit is necessary to accurately debate each part in a clear and readable manner. It also shows you've actually read the post you're replying to. Short, unrelated comments like you do make it seem like you didn't read the post or don't care for my opinions. I know you already don't care, but you could give a bit of a ****. Sure, it's a reply - but it isn't a good one.

    Sure, you can snip it like you've done. But snipping the entire thing, coming off as a jerk by calling me a "conversation ruiner" when I'm actively trying to converse with you by debating your points while you ignore said arguments, and calling me a lunatic for questioning each of your points individually (points, not necessarily sentences, though your response was making single points for each sentence with little elaboration). That doesn't help the opinion I have formed of you as "an a-hole who refuses to hear debate and arguments against his opinions". You ignored all of Demigans counter arguments and comments, you've ignored all of mine, and your conterarguments make no sense when you don't give any evidence or point out what you're responding to.


    Cut some of this quote, because I already responded to it. A response you ignored in favour of posting the exact same comment again. Repeating the argument doesn't make it better. Since it works so well for you, here's the counterargument I gave again!


    You're really convincing me you didn't read my posts, at all. I used more than a few facts to deal with those points, like:
    • The fact a fair number of people like the Prowler based on how it gets pulled a lot and registers a fair amount of kill data for various trackers to pull.
    • The fact that only 1 TR LMG has the same damage model as the AI MANA Turret, a damage model that can be modified by ammo types and other attachments, meaning even on a purely statistical basis they barely share the same niches at all, never mind the fact one is mobile while the other is static, has a limited traverse angle, doesn't take ammo and takes several seconds to deploy.
    • The fact that Demigan doing some calcs that maybe a few people have seen should not be considered a factor in the games decline. People who do maths like that are just looking to understand the game better and make it more comprehensible for everyone. I know I didn't understand all the numbers in the game until I read a guide.
    • The fact weapons without some jack of all trades characteristics tend to be locked into a super specific playstyle, like shotguns (which cant function past 10-15m and thus require flanking to use effectively).
    • The fact that your usage of the term "Machine Gunner" is disingenous, and the Turret and LMGs serve an entirely different role. This isn't real life, this is a video game, and said term is confusing and vague as heck. I don't quite know what the term means in real life, but like Demigan said, the TR LMGs don't really fit under that category if what he says about SAWs is correct.
    • The fact that performance problems are an issue, and I am in fact sorry you are struggling with them. I understand that pain.
    • The fact that Complaining about construction changes without specifying what you dislike about said changes and want to see changed will likely see you ignored as just another random decrying the "dead game" and generally not contributing to the conversation. I would very much like to know what you SPECIFICALLY dislike about the Construction changes, if you would be so kind.
    • The fact that I am sorry if I'm coming off as rude or overly opinionated, but the appropriate response is not to utterly dismiss my arguments and act rude back, because you are blatantly opinionated yourself.
    I'm not ignorant, because I'm doing my level best to try and understand your arguments. But I'm not seeing anything to understand. You come off as believing your opinions are gospel, but I can't find any reason to believe in your faith. All I see are opinionated comments that fall apart under any decent scrutiny. A short, simple topic is not necessarily a good topic if it doesn't make any sense, which is why we're picking it apart to try and find the good topic you claim it to be. It's certainly interesting to analyse and comment on, that's for sure.
    You are the only one who thinks my opinions and views are pointless, which just means you continue to disregard them, which does not lend itself to good debate. This is a FORUM, for GAMEPLAY DISCUSSION. Can't have much DISCUSSION if you ignore our efforts to DISCUSS.
    ...Anyone else think my opinions are constructive? Or is Karloo right here? Putting it to the people. Anyway, moving on...
    Pretty sure that "No" was in response to you and your post pal. Taking it out of context like that... Not cool.Hey, Somentine, what did you mean by
    Just for Karlooos sake.

    You are the one being childish here by outright ignoring our replies and not bothering to debate. Your ORIGINAL POST is arguing the TR LMGs and Engineer AI MANA Turret have basically the same firepower, and that the Heavy Assaults LMGs are generally worse and shouldn't be used over the turret. THAT is why a lot of our replies have focus on that, because it is a point that we DO know, and that you seem not to. Everybody knows the two are different, but you seem convinced the Turret is just better in 100% of situations and that LMGs are worthless by comparison to other guns.

    The reason our replies are arguing, deconstructing, is because we are debating your points, deconstructing them and arguing they are wrong. Thats part of what debate is. They're only vacant because you don't bother to read the walls of text we throw at you.

    And we can definitely think outside the box. We've offered more than our fair share of ideas and such for fixes, gameplay changes, etc. But that isn't what this thread is about.


    You want simple? Here:
    • Engineers Turret is very limited in application, but is strong within those applications.
    • HA LMGs are versatile, with multiple applicable situations, and only one TR LMG matches the Turrets damage profile, but not its RoF.
    • Both have additional tools, grenades, abilities and weapon options that make them seperate gameplay wise, but it is generally agreed upon that the HAs kit makes it more combat oriented.
    • You seem to think just because LMGs have bad hipfire and are called LMGs (despite them not being similar to real life LMGs, you group them under the name "machine gunner" with the Turret) that they are inferior to the turret. This is false.
    • All weapons have their niches, and LMGs are very much a viable, much used weapon, not inferior to others as you suggest.
    Simple enough for you? Because apparently my feeble mind cannot comprehend your superior vision. Apologies for the sass, but your desire to ignore my arguments is irritating.