[Guide] [VIdeo] "Newborn" - LA Gameplay with Commentary on a new character

Discussion in 'Light Assault' started by Iridar51, Jan 10, 2016.

  1. Iridar51

    • Up x 6
  2. Corezer

    looks good. I logged in today and did very well, I can only imagine it is your leetness rubbing off on me like the pervert in 2b every time I come out, turn right, and walk under the window too close...
  3. Leivve


    It's because you have all the things they said in your mind, thus reminding you to do said things.
  4. Leivve

    Accidental double post wambo combo!
  5. PurpleCrocodile

    Hi Iridar, thanks for the entertaining and very useful information and videos such as this one. They really do help make me a better LA.

    Would you mind sharing your preferred accuracy settings and mouse?

    Regards, PC
  6. Iridar51

    You're welcome :)


    I play on 0.22 sensitivity with 1600 DPI, which is way above average. It's roughly 7cm per 360 degree turn in game, while the recommended sensitivity is 15-25cm.

    Sometimes I'm hurt by this super high sensitivity, especially when I need to aim at a small target with 1x scope, especially before I got a mouse with a decent sensor.

    But I've been playing on this same sensitivity for at least 2 years, and I got muscle memory developed for it, so it's too late to change anything now.
    • Up x 1
  7. Iridar51

    Second episode is up!

    • Up x 3
  8. Liewec123

    do you feel you play better on new characters?
    its seems to be an odd phenomenon :D
  9. Iridar51



    I would attribute it to using actual weapons (aka carbines) instead of the trash like shotguns and SMGs that I use on my main. TRAC 5 is underrated as hell, all default carbines are. And any carbine is better than any SMG or a shotgun 95% of the time, simply due to sheer versatility.
    • Up x 2
  10. Demigan

    The standard Carbines might be the best of them. The rest usually has some specialization but the standard carbines are wonderful all-rounders.

    One thing of note on your video's: you seem to think lots of long-range shots shouldn't be taken. Why exactly? As LA I often do long-range shots with burst fire, but anything that can't be shot at without ADS and almost constant fire seems too far for your taste. Is this because you want to promote the LA? You are heavily on the defense where personally I am doing suicide run after suicide run, but your way of play in the video is a real good way to convince people to play LA, this would to me explain your want to remain within short distances as burst-fire with Carbines has more people escape or skews battles in favor of other weapon types.

    Although come to think of it, you also mentioned in another thread that you really dislike the new burst-carbines, this might explain something about your play-style and perhaps trouble with longer-range Carbine combat on your part? Although I must say that the new burst-carbines are beasts that have high accuracy at long-range and are easily used with hipfire at shorter ranges as well (to the point of repeated headshots with hipfire at more than CQC range). I would call the current burst-carbines OP because of this versatility compared to other Carbines.
  11. Iridar51

    Constant fire is optimal. It is that simple. A guy who can afford to fire at full auto will win against somebody who is forced to burst fire. Constan fire allows to kill the enemy the quickest way possible, preferably without taking any return fire.

    I prefer to shoot to kill. Every time we discharge our weapons, we attract attention. Stealth is key to survival. Wounding, but not killing an enemy is the worst. Carefully bursting through a whole mag just to maybe kill an enemy at long range puts us in danger for an extended period of time for a questionable benefit.

    Long range engagements require being stationary, being stationary makes you a target. Using cover can protect from vehicles and accurate automatics, but a sniper can still nail that headshot.

    I'm not sure what you mean by "promote LA". How does playing smartly promotes LA?

    I despise suicide attacks. If I'm in a situation where I know I'm gonna die and there's no escape, sure I'll try to make the enemy pay a dear price for my life, but I'm not gonna dive into hell expecting to die.

    20 minutes of video do not define my entire playstyle. I am on defense because in the two battles you've seen so far, we were on defense.

    Without C4 I can't really attack sunderers, I can only assist my faction in slowly pushing towards them, which is what I do by killing enemy infantry.


    I don't have trouble with long range carbines, I adore long range carbines, they're my favorites.

    I don't like burst carbines because they handle too different from every other automatic weapon in the game. With low FSRM, but high recoil past first shot, and needing to click at a very specific rate, they feel incredibly clunky to me.

    Already having an auraxium on TRAC 5 Burst, I don't see any reason to try to push through that awkwardness. And when I want an accurate, reliable gun, I'd rather use T5 AMC, and not run the risk of tripping over my own gun.

    I will engage enemies at long range when it's relatively risk free or if I don't have any choice, but if I have the option, I would rather close the distance and reliably kill an enemy in 20 shots, instead of spending 30-40 and run the risk of target running into cover, using a medkit or even spotting me.

    First video, 4:45 - I don't engage far away enemies because I'm out in the open and I can't stay there for long. Firing would also tell about my position to every enemy on the ridge, and what's worse - I would be with my back to them. Even without knowing there were 2 enemy LAs behind my back it would be too dangerous. And at that range and exposure time - I would not have killed even one of those far away guy.

    6:05 - "It was a bit too far" - probably not the best wording here. It's not that it was too far, but it was far enough to make recoil control and bursting a required factor. I only mention the range to make a point that TRAC 5 can be more accurate than people give it credit for, as long as proper handling is observed. But it was still within effective range, as far as I'm concerned.
  12. Demigan

    If you can fire full-auto, most other weapons can fire full-auto as well. Long-range combat is more dangerous and has more downsides, but it's not an unnecessary skill to use, especially when bridging the gap between targets that are much harder to approach even as LA. The risks of better return fire, attention or enemies escaping is something you sometimes have to accept.

    Depends on what you call smart. It's a great playstyle for sure, but I haven't seen any super-important tasks performed yet. As I said, I usually end up doing suicide run after suicide run. I try to be the pivotal player in opening up a stalemate, breaking a solid defense, that requires dedication, high-risk ventures and self-sacrifice in many cases.
    That's why I thought it was a way to promote the LA: Your playstyle seemed more aimed towards racking up a high KD ratio while doing low-important stuff such as guarding a ridge that gives almost no advantages for either team to have. Which is a good thing, but I would want to see more high-risk high-reward gameplay.

    Well the loss is on you. Trying to be the player that kills off the medics and engineers, or causing enough distraction and mayhem for your team to break a defense are to me some of the core activities of an LA. The game isn't about survival and never has been, if you die 5 times to accomplish something and only get 1 kill in return you did good, as opposed to killing 10 people but not accomplishing important tasks at all.

    I know, I was just asking if you really thought that long-range shots are completely useless, and if the playstyle portrayed was solely based on looking good while doing good or that you were going to show doing good but maybe looking bad as well. And I was right with my assumptions wasn't I? You dislike long-range combat even though I think there's times you just need it (although of course you should avoid it if you can), and your playstyle is based on looking good while doing good. You don't want to look bad by doing suicide runs to get the job done, which I actually find a strange thing for you to say as I always thought you had the goal at heart rather than KD.

    Not sure what this is a reaction on. Yes it's completely true and while I wouldn't have minded some spawn-killing to discourage players and open up the Sunderer for friendlies to kill it, pure spawn killing for the kills is something I detest as well. In your case I would have looked if there were friendlies nearby that could attack the Sunderer if you helped them by taking out players. If not then I would have killed/damaged a few people before redeploying to cause them to divide their attention and get a few players to take themselves out of the fight longer by having them look for your already redeployed butt.

    I usually agree that it's a pain to determine the right speed to click on burst-weapons to prevent over- or under-sampling, but I found that I could just ram that fire button for great results on the burst-carbines in CQC and at longer ranges a slightly slower fire rate is absolutely no detriment if you hit more

    Did you try the updated burst carbines? I really found them extremely good compared to ordinary shotguns.

    Well naturally, that's just using your equipment at the right range. I just find my playstyle often takes me to distances and places where approaching isn't possible or more dangerous at that point and then use my long-range skills to score kills.
    I think btw that you assume I'm attacking you, I'm just questioning your tactics to see what I can learn about your playstyle and how you react in the game. We've had our differences before and I know you are good, so if I can find out where you play different than I do I hope I could learn some new tricks or strategy that I never really found effective in the few times I tried it. (and preferably tactics and tricks that I find fun).

    Well my point was more that you already call enemies at long range where I would think that a fraction more burst-fire would be enough for good accuracy and kills at those distances. I completely understand that in those exact circumstances it's not a wise decision, but you seemed to claim that regardless of the situation Carbines should simply not be used for those ranges.

    All right I understand. Thanks for the clarification. I hope that you'll show some situations where recoil- and burst-control are required and closing the distance can be more dangerous. I think it's important for the LA class as a whole to be able to do that.
  13. Iridar51

    Yes, of course, not always getting close is safe. Hence the main reason why SMGs and shotguns suck so much. But just blindly opening fire on every enemy within sight isn't a solution either.

    If it's possible to get a better engagement, why not? When it's not optimal to get close, you will see me firing at long range. Just because you haven't seen it in 20 minutes doesn't mean I never do it.

    A lot of the time PS2 is just a meatgrinder. The game isn't about anything you say, and it's not about anything I say. Just because I don't do the things your way doesn't make it wrong.

    What reward? Territorial conquest is not rewarded in PS2. Contesting objectives naturally leads to enemies, but as far as I'm concerned, that's the only reason to even care about them. I'm not about to sacrifice myself for.. what? Capturing a base for my faction to make it easier to capture other bases? No.

    I specifically say in the video that I would be going to that ridge just to get some kills.

    Need C4 to have a meaningful impact. I guess I could pull a HA or a tank to deal with those sunderers, but then it wouldn't be an LA video, would it?

    I realize different people like different things. For me, it is fun to kill more and die less. A challenge to become a better player, through knowledge and skill outmaneuvering, outthinking and outshooting enemies. Throwing my body through a window to C4 a bunch of people for an arbitrary objective is not there. Any newbie with half a brain can accomplish that, I'd rather dedicate myself to more sophisticated tasks.

    The reason I dislike suicide attacks, is because they are cheap and nearly impossible to defend against, and they have me dying in the end. Cheaper win and a loss in the end. Not satisfying to me.

    In the end, I do want to capture bases and help my faction to prevail as a team. But not at the cost of relying on suicide attacks or farming enemy infantry with vehicles. I want to win my way.

    You make it sound like I'm cowering in fear of every shadow, and try to stay away from combat as far as possible, just so I can occasionally kill a bad enemy that looks away.

    That is simply not true, and my toon's KPM of 1.4 speaks for itself.

    No goal in PS2. No job to do.

    I don't respect sacrifice in vain.

    Besides PS2, I play League of Legends, which does infinitely better job at being objective oriented game, because there's an actual win condition. Mainly I play in a support role, helping my carries to kill enemies, so we can destroy enemy base and win. If I know that I can save my carry by throwing myself for enemies to tear apart - I'll do it without a second thought.

    But PS2 completely fails in setting a goal, so I set my own goals. Capturing territory by any means necessary isn't one of them.

    Once again, I don't dislike ranged combat. I dislike inefficient combat, because being inefficient leads to killing less and dying more. And part of being efficient is being within effective range.


    For a short time.

    Kinda what it feels like, when you accuse of me not playing up to your must-capture-at-all-costs standards. You basically went and called me a K/D wh*re. I guess I do have some traits of that, and I'm not ashamed of that.

    I'm simply playing the game how it is made, and it is not made with an overarching goal of capturing territory. Never once anyone invoked a base captured / base lost ratio, so why should I care? I've been saying that ever since I first started posting on these forums.

    Not necessarily.

    The problem with my commentary is that a vast majority of what I do is not conscious. A lot of the time in the video you see me pausing so I can explain my reasoning behind actions. But all of that stuff doesn't actually go through my head in such detail while playing.

    A lot of it is just lighting blazing realizations, such as "thing was there!", the thought process is buried in circumstances, both current and previous within a given fight.

    So when I narrate the commentary, often I have to explain first to myself what the hell I was doing, before explaining it to others, and not always I do a good job of it.

    I'm not sure if any of the following footage has this, there's a lot of mostly CQC fighting.

    But it's not like this is completely uncovered. You still see me engage enemies at range where it's safe or if I feel I don't have a choice and I have to engage right away, like against that sniper in the end of the second episode.
  14. Demigan

    I was questioning why you said to never engage at long range. You have already explained that if you can you should get in the weapons effective range. That was a good and satisfying answer and I don't see why we are still discussing it :S. If that's my fault I'm sorry.

    As you actually already explain here, it's about what the player makes it out to be. If that's getting a lot of statistics or pulling off a certain tactic is up to them.
    And that's what I'm failing to get across. I'm not saying the playstyle in the video is bad, and I wasn't attempting to call you a KD *****. I was saying that I'm hoping different more aggressive playstyles are also shown, including suicide tactics to complete a goal. Don't react to the whole "suicide tactics" thing just yet I'll explain more below.

    Again, nothing wrong with that. Many casuals and pro players just join for some kills and I do too.

    Not sure where this comes from, but yeah and LA guide is an LA guide and C4 is an important part of the class, not in the least because the class lacks any other functions or synergies.

    Nothing wrong with that, but the suicide part is what I'm about here. When I say "suicide tactics" I don't mean "constantly jumping through windows and C4ring the crap out of everything". I mean "doing stuff that even if you succeed will probably mean I die". Things like jumping in the middle of a large group of enemies and killing the Engineer that kept the MAX's alive so your friends can steam on, or finishing off the Medics, or just causing such mayhem by just tossing a smoke or flashbang that they are focused more on you than on your friends so they can move up and finish them. I usually don't C4 unless I find a clusterfornication, not to blow up 3 guys and have them revived before I even respawned.

    I hope I already explained it better in the previous paragraph, my suicide tactics aren't based on "kill some people". They are based on "kill the right people", which is a lot more sophisticated than jumping through a window throwing C4 on a bunch of people, and a lot easier to defend against as the right people in a room are usually at the most random and annoying locations.

    Ofcourse! No problem! I just asked if you would display different tactics as well! Having a guide for one playstyle is limiting the playerbase's options and the amount of versatility we'll see from players who follow your directions. Currently that's absolutely not a bad thing since most people use an LA almost the same as an HA, but I would like to see as many playstyles that benefit the gameplay exhibited in the guides if possible. If you aren't going to do that, no problem, I'll hope someone else does it.

    That was far from my intention. Also, cowering in fear of shadows only improves your situational awareness :p. Anyway, you didn't avoid combat, you just played far more careful than I expected, and while a good start I would definitely like to see other more aggressive playstyles as well so people can better identify themselves with one.

    I don't think I questioned that, and if it looked like that my apologies. (damn I feel like a suck up now).

    Depends on what you set yourself as a goal. I rarely said my goal was to capture the base, it was to break through battles and attack strong points of the enemy until they buckle or allow my allies to punch through. That's what I like. I also like getting a bunch of kills, so you'll often find me at the fringes of fights outflanking people or stopping snipers and such from halting my allies advance, they are just goals in the game that you can set for yourself to get fun out of it. All I'm asking is if you'll exhibit those playstyles as well.

    Me neither! Unless it's a real big heap of enemies you won't find me suiciding just for the kills. And if it is a real big heap of enemies you can usually give your friends some time to move up and punch through if you do so I feel no shame in possible vain sacrifices.

    Ok, got that. Would you still try and show off those goals? As I am a player that does set those goals for myself and I would love it if you displayed these goals so that other players can learn how to pursue them.

    You shouldn't be ashamed, I had hoped I had put enough "it's a good playstyle" in it to not come across as attacking you. I just play more aggressively most of the time and would want you to show those playstyles as well.



    I would rather update the game's capture mechanics and gameplay to add more depth and variation and different approaches to capturing a base.
    For instance, make sure every base has 3 different capture mechanisms, one is easier to pull off with small fights vs small fights, CTF maybe? One is more easily pulled off with medium fights vs medium fights ("simple" base cap?). And the last one is best pulled off with large-scale combat where Zergs might be necessary (destruction of a very easily defended SCU that requires multiple stages to reach and destroy, after which the first team to repair it gains control of the facility).

    You could make the population factor in, so the CTF version could require more captures the more players are there, causing the point-capture mechanics to become easier to pull off. When going 96+ vs 96+ the CTF capture and base capture could take ages, and going in to destroy that SCU with firearms could be your best option.

    Or just mix up the amount of capture mechanics per base, have different options available at any time anyway. Give defenders the keys to defend more easily and attackers the option to slowly deconstruct the defensive advantages etc etc. That way you can create more meaningful combat, the individual snowflake syndrome can be focused on completing specific objectives rather than being the one with the highest stat (or your highest stat is the most objectives completed during a battle) and you'll have a better idea who did what at the end with special shoutouts for flag captures, most damage done against SCU, most people held off the point etc.

    I understand, you instantly have to explain the positional awareness and situational awareness ramifications. "This time I was in the same position as before but decided different, because now a tank moved up and I noticed a higher amount of resistance at position X". Just like you drew the lines of enemy presence and the ramifications of how they would act because of that in the beginning, which took half a minute to explain while it's a fraction-of-a-second realization after looking at the map, only the exact reasoning for your action following it is then based on your mood and the goal you set yourself, so looking at it afterwards can give you a lot of different insights and it can be hard to see what you were thinking. Such as an infiltrator at the top of your screen that you missed during play but not during editing.

    Yes, thanks. As long as you make it clear what you base your decision on why you hold off attacking the first time to get closer and why you use long-range combat the second time it's OK. I completely forgot to factor in that you explained at the end of the second one why you tried to get a hit and mess up the potential headshot at range. You will do things that I asked, it just wasn't present in the first one and with the explanation you gave it seemed you would actually never use long-range combat at that point.
  15. Iridar51

    Textwall combat! :eek:

    Okay, we're cool. I get you now. You want more risky playstyle and more long range engages. Well, the footage for the next 3-4 episodes is already pre-recorded, so I can't just invent something, but if there will be a fitting moment, I'll make sure to capitalize on it.
  16. DarkStarII

    More please :D
    They're very helpful.
  17. Iridar51

    More will come, I plan at least 3-4 more episodes with the footage I already have.

    The next one should be up in a week or so.
  18. Iridar51

    Third episode is up!
    • Up x 1
  19. Malaka

    Hi Iridar,

    thank you very much for your LA gameplay/tutorials. They're enjoyable and educative, very well worded and simply spot on.
    Your explanations make it simple for a Newbie to follow.

    But still I don't get the shooting/aiming part totally. I can see the cone of fire getting tighter from flying>running>walking>standing>crouching>sight view.

    Do you have a tutorial for aiming/shooting i.e.when to fire from the hip, when with ADS. How to fire in bursts. At one time you mentioned to fire from the hip because ADS would have taken too long. Is the split second you save really more important than a magnified target?
  20. Iridar51

    Thank you, you're welcome! :)

    I don't have a tutorial, but I do have extremely detailed written guide about weapon mechanics: http://planethead.info/weapons/mechanics

    And I have a gunplay guide, teaching how to use the weapon mechanics knowledge to your advantage in everyday play: http://planethead.info/weapons/gunplay-guide

    Specifically, these sections might answer your quiestions:

    When to hip fire, when to ADS: http://planethead.info/weapons/gunplay-guide#h2-1-1-hip-fire-or-aim-down-sights (your question gave me a couple of ideas, so this section of the guide is a work in progress, I'll be adding more to in days to come)

    How to fire automatic weapons (bursting, etc.): http://planethead.info/weapons/gunplay-guide#h3-how-to-shoot-automatic-weapons
    --------------------------------------------------

    As far as the specific example you mentioned - at 2:12 in the video - it's not really black and white, especially as far as carbines and SMGs go, as their hip fire effective range vastly overlaps with overall effective range.

    In that specific situation, there was a sense of urgency. My back is exposed to a direction where I have a strong reason to expect enemies to come from. Frankly, I should not have put myself in that position in the first place.

    I could've ADSed and got away with it. But that would be a definite delay for a not guaranteed benefit.

    ADSing in itself does not guarantee faster time to kill. If I shoot past the target, I don't get any advantage from reduced cone of fire, do I?

    By not ADSing I took a risk. If hip firing would've caused me to miss too many shots, it would turn out as even worse delay.

    It was a possible risk for a possible benefit.

    The enemy was maybe a juuuuust a bit too far for comfortable hip fire without a laser sight. But I had to risk it.

    And consider this for a moment - did I really need reduced cone of fire?

    The enemy was:
    1. not a heavy assault - a soft target, easier to kill
      • recently from engagement, could be wounded
      • means I don't need to do much damage to kill him
    2. reloading
    3. unaware of me
      • 2 and 3 combined - low threat to me. Beyond being exposed to other enemies, I don't have a massive urge to kill him as soon as possible. I can risk missing a few bullets and I don't have to forcibly aim for headshots.
    4. on the move, probably even sprinting
      • makes hitting headshots even harder
      • it's actually easier to cover him with the spray of bullets from hip fire, rather than with a small stream of accurate bullets from ADSing
    So in that exact situation I chose to hip fire. Of course, it's not like all of that passes through my head during playing. But I do have a lot of experience handling different weapons in PS2, a large portion of which trained excellent judgement when to hip fire and when to ADS. Bullet points above are merely an explanation of why it was a good choice to hip fire over ADS in that specific situation.

    With LMGs, it really is a better choice to ADS most of the time. But for carbines, you do have options.

    For contrast, if you remember the first episode, I had to ADS even at close range, because I didn't want to risk running out of ammo before killing an enemy that was engaging me.

    Or as another example. In our showmatch with CuteBeaver, starting at 1:36.

    We are both using Hunter Crossbows and engage each other at 1:48. I fire first, from the hip, and miss. She fires second, and hits. If she hits her next shot, or closes the distance enough to knife me, I am dead.

    I need two body shots to kill her, or an EMP grenade + a body shot. I don't have time to throw an EMP grenade. I cannot shoot + knife combo her, because that would require me to close the distance, and she could knife me herself.

    My only way to survive in this case was to score a headshot, which would instantly kill her. I HAD to hit that headshot. I felt that. Full body activation. Only one way to survive. So I did hit that shot. That's an example of a situation where I needed the accuracy and chose to ADS even though it was close range.

Share This Page