Class-Switching Mentality

Palerion · 2013-06-14, 06:13 PM

I have noticed that many people seem to have a certain mentality that class balance doesn't really matter in Planetside 2 if classes can be simply switched on a whim; a mentality that you should switch to whatever fits the situation.

This is, in my eyes, a bit of a problem. Not because people switch classes too often; you can switch classes whenever you want, I don't care, but I took a look back at Battlefield 3 and its class system, and how each class seems to be integral to a squad. Global Agenda has a similar system, with each class being fleshed out, sturdy, and important for the success of the team. Planetside 2, on the other hand, has six classes, which is a bit odd. I would understand their way of thinking if all six classes were important, but they really are not.

Excuse the praise of Battlefield's system for a moment, but I find it necessary to point out where each class finds its spot in a squad, and where that is not the case for PS2. In Battlefield, support is valuable because it carries ammo (like PS2's engineer) and carries LMGs (like HA). This seems well thought out, as their LMGs carry lots of ammo. Furthermore, the LMGs are used like LMGs by the class, to hold down areas and take out large groups of enemies, not run and gun. The Assault class has the best anti-infantry and pro-infantry tools, having access to defibrillators, healing packs, and a tertiary shotgun or grenade launcher, so without a medic, you can't be revived and healed, and you lack his powerful anti-infantry capabilities. The engineer has the best anti-vehicle capabilities and pro-vehicle capabilities, but has less effective infantry weapons that focus more on ease-of-use and defense. The recon class can not only snipe, but has its own personal radio beacon to allow squad members to parachute in and a motion sensor, making it effective for infiltrating, exposing enemies, and, of course, sniping. Each class clearly has its own weapon which makes it stand out on the battlefield, and its own utilities which make it integral to a team.

Planetside 2's light assault and infiltrator fight for a role that is all too similar. Separate, they bring little to the team. If they were combined to be one class, they would be valuable infiltrators. The heavy assault really seems like it should be planetside's equivalent of battlefield's "support". The LMGs shouldn't be thrown around like assault rifles, and it shouldn't be the charging 1v1 run-and-gun beast. It should hold down the masses and absorb damage. Engineers, with their AV turrets, are very good at Anti-Vehicle. Their repair tools make them also very valuable as pro-vehicle and, yes, pro-max, and their ammo packs make them important as support in infantry combat, but still fairly balanced. The medic is also fairly balanced, but overshadowed as a run-and-gun style Anti-Infantry currently by the heavy assault.

Every class needs its place on the team. Light Assault and infiltrator currently do not, but combined, they could. Heavy Assault has a role which is perhaps too prominent, and not fitting to what style it's loadout seems to justify for it, which is not 1v1 run and gun. It is more holding down positions with endless clips and rockets, which is understandably important to the team. Engineers are pretty much perfect. Best anti-vehicle, best pro-vehicle. Medics need HA's 1v1 anti-infantry capabilities out of the way so they can be the best 1v1 anti-infantry and best pro-infantry, and moreso the basic grunt.

And no, I'm not asking for battlefield. But, it seems the developers made too much of an effort to diverge from the traditional class system in battlefield that worked so well. In the process, they have created a class system which seems ill composed and scatter-brained at best, undervaluing some classes and overvaluing others.

DarkBalths · 2013-06-14, 06:19 PM

Go back to Battlefield and stop trying to change Planetside 2 into "every other game".

Carbon Copied · 2013-06-14, 06:44 PM

I think once the class overhauls have broadened the space between the 6 we'll see alot more specialization of "we need class x to help achieve objective z more efficiently" (note not a reliance on the class but something that makes them that bit more invaluable - although that does rely as well on game mechanics etc.); the next step after that is what Clegg hinted at in his review with 4 player - i.e class co-operation of binding 2 abilities to make something better.

maradine · 2013-06-14, 07:22 PM

LAs are valuable, unpredictable combatants and, as designated bacon-placers, greatly add to assault resilience and tempo.

Infiltrators are how you turn a guy on a flash into a two dozen guys with a bus and armor support in the middle of someone's backfield. Plus, you know, engaging at standoff distance.

Perhaps OP doesn't find these things valuable, or valuable enough. We do, and so we always have at least one of each in a squad.

Shrug.

Ghoest9 · 2013-06-14, 11:22 PM

Originally Posted by DarkBalths

Go back to Battlefield and stop trying to change Planetside 2 into "every other game".

this

The 2 classes I play are LA and Inf. They really dont play at all the same even if conceptually they have similar roles.

Palerion · 2013-06-14, 11:40 PM

Originally Posted by Ghoest9

this

The 2 classes I play are LA and Inf. They really dont play at all the same even if conceptually they have similar roles.

Are you serious? I just don't get that. LA almost seems better at infiltrating than the infiltrator. And I'm tired of rehashing this, but I don't want battlefield, I'm not trying to make this like every other game. That's a silly assumption. I'm just suggesting that just maybe these two classes either need some direction or need a merge, and maybe some classes (engineer and medic) should have a unique combat role aside from being the nurses and nerds that hide behind the MAXs and Heavy Assaults.

People say they want teamwork and such, but don't seem to understand that a heavy assault who is the best 1v1 class, and can pop medkits and launch rockets at any time, is the perfect lone wolf, and I feel like it's a selfish class. Having one class intended for all the killing, while the others sit back and support him, seems stupid. The HA is hardly being a team player then, and just lets everybody else help him while he does the fun stuff. He does not support the team. Why make a class that doesn't support? It doesn't seem right.

MrMak · 2013-06-14, 06:33 PM

Se your problem is you view he heavy assault's LMGs as somethign that HAS TO be the same as Battlefield LMGs. It dont, its more akin to Battlefield Assault Rifles. They Heavy Assault's role is simply shoot shit up. He is the grunt. Baring the MAX he carries the most firepower but he lacks aviliies that could make him slef suficient.
Thats where the medic and engineer come in. Their primary roles are keeping everyone else going. The AI mana is ment to do what the BF3 support's LMGs do (granted the thing is in need of a buff).

Infltrators and Light Assaults are not competing and merging them would be a balancing nightmare.

Infiltrators are ment for long range combat and/or stealth, recon and hacking terminals and turrets.

Light Assaults arem ent for flanking and combat at close to medium range.

I they were to merge the two you would end up creating either A: an invisible flying nightmare for vehicles (there is a reason infiltrators are the only "squishy" class without access to C4) or B) you take their anti vehicular/ anti MAX abilites away, thus pissing off everyoen who plays light assault. Also, jump packing snipers and infiltrators with grenade lauchers and underbarrel shotguns. Think about that.

Palerion · 2013-06-14, 08:28 PM

Originally Posted by DarkBalths

Go back to Battlefield and stop trying to change Planetside 2 into "every other game".

I'm hoping you read the whole thing. I did spend a good bit of time writing it in hopes that I would get intelligent, constructive, and positive responses, and while I realize you may not want Planetside to change, you could at least put forth a post worth reading, not just "go back to battlefield". I can assure you, I'm not a battlefield fanboy, I'm just using it as a reference point.

Originally Posted by MrMak

Se your problem is you view he heavy assault's LMGs as somethign that HAS TO be the same as Battlefield LMGs. It dont, its more akin to Battlefield Assault Rifles. They Heavy Assault's role is simply shoot shit up. He is the grunt. Baring the MAX he carries the most firepower but he lacks aviliies that could make him slef suficient.
Thats where the medic and engineer come in. Their primary roles are keeping everyone else going. The AI mana is ment to do what the BF3 support's LMGs do (granted the thing is in need of a buff).

Infltrators and Light Assaults are not competing and merging them would be a balancing nightmare.

Infiltrators are ment for long range combat and/or stealth, recon and hacking terminals and turrets.

Light Assaults arem ent for flanking and combat at close to medium range.

I they were to merge the two you would end up creating either A: an invisible flying nightmare for vehicles (there is a reason infiltrators are the only "squishy" class without access to C4) or B) you take their anti vehicular/ anti MAX abilites away, thus pissing off everyoen who plays light assault. Also, jump packing snipers and infiltrators with grenade lauchers and underbarrel shotguns. Think about that.

Valid point about merging the infiltrator and light assault, but if they can't be combined I would like to see the developers make it clear which direction the classes are intended to go into, and how they will support themselves and their team differently. My concern is, as many have said, a guy with a jetpack can infiltrate just as good as, if not better than, a cloaker.

I suppose you're right about my view on LMGs. And it's moreso that I like the run and gun playstyle, but don't want to contribute to the abundance of 100 round mags that overpopulates Auraxis. And i dont feel like a class without a support role is a positive element, especially when it earns engineers and medics labels as classes without a combat role, and only with a support role. I know people who feel the same way as I do. I feel like 100 round mags should justify another class, like medic, having the upper hand in a 1v1 fight. And it is downright frustrating to unload half a mag in a shielded heavy in order to down him.

Whiteagle · 2013-06-15, 12:10 AM

Originally Posted by MrMak

Se your problem is you view he heavy assault's LMGs as somethign that HAS TO be the same as Battlefield LMGs. It dont, its more akin to Battlefield Assault Rifles. They Heavy Assault's role is simply shoot shit up. He is the grunt. Baring the MAX he carries the most firepower but he lacks abilities that could make him self sufficient.
That's where the medic and engineer come in. Their primary roles are keeping everyone else going. The AI mana is meant to do what the BF3 support's LMGs do (granted the thing is in need of a buff).

Infiltrators and Light Assaults are not competing and merging them would be a balancing nightmare.

Infiltrators are meant for long range combat and/or stealth, recon and hacking terminals and turrets.

Light Assaults are meant for flanking and combat at close to medium range.

I agree with MrMak here except on Light Assaults and Infiltrators being needed for specific ranges...

...Really this issue is a result of both these classes being built for different Types of Mobility:

Light Assaults have Tactical Mobility, with their Jet Pack and Sprint Booster they can outmaneuver foes in Infantry Combat.

Infiltrators have Strategic Mobility, with their cloaks, hacking, and weapons all being centered around taking out Targets of Strategic Importance...

...Which is the problem, there are very few Targets of Strategic Importance for Infiltrators to muck about with!

Control Consoles are out in the open, there isn't any where for them to upload Viruses, the few Generator-type objectives take a while to bring down, and killing a Medic isn't that meaningful when everyone just respawns anyways...

...Hopefully the Devs have been paying attention to our chatter and are contemplating Hack and/or Destroyable IFF Shield Doors.

Originally Posted by Figment

Freeform inventory, self-made classes and actual player specialization, outfit forming based on what the outfit needs or your role within the outfit is, THAT is how you make a character that is yours and yours only.

The whole concept of rigid or semi-rigid classes with unlimited access undoes that entire sense of "self" and makes players into "generics with a hint of extra". I'm not keen on it and I never will be.

Now Figment, you have to realise that they did this for the sake of pacing...

I love the Original's inventory system (I spend last night looting Gauss rifles from dead NC troops...) but it would be too clunky to use in a modern First Person Shooter with such low Time-to-kill.

Finally Palerion, the Heavy's primary team role is actually Anti-Vehicular/Cheap Bullet Sponge, it's just that the Engineer was given an Anti Tank Turret to make up for the piss poor Combat Engineering they gave it.

Palerion · 2013-06-15, 04:52 PM

Originally Posted by Whiteagle

Finally Palerion, the Heavy's primary team role is actually Anti-Vehicular/Cheap Bullet Sponge, it's just that the Engineer was given an Anti Tank Turret to make up for the piss poor Combat Engineering they gave it.

And apparently anti-infantry. I've never seen a heavy act as a bullet sponge necessarily for his teammates, and if a heavy ever uses his shield, it's always when he sees an enemy, so that he can have the upper hand. I'm just saying, if the heavy's role is, as you are basically saying: anti-vehicle, anti-infantry, and tank, something seems wrong. I wouldn't call it the "backbone" of infantry fights. I would call it the glory hog of infantry fights.

Yes many planetside players seem fine with this, and I really don't understand why, but I'm sure I'm not the only one with this view. Now, based on what ghoest said on the thread about merging LA and inf, I can only imagine I'll get the same "all who disagree are wrong" treatment. You could argue that Light Assault is the Heavy Assault's more mobile and tactical counterpart, but its weaponry does not support that assessment. Regardless of this rhetoric of how the other classes are supposed to be team players for heavy assaults, it's all hogwash.

A class that excels in taking out vehicles, killing infantry, and "absorbing damage", and can heal itself at any moment, is the very Call Of Duty supersoldier that we are talking about. It has a tool for every situation and can lone wolf it and, quite frankly, doesn't need the other classes. Sure, a medic is always a nice addition, but the class gets along too good without the help of his team. Maybe if his shield was less effective and covered his nearby teammates it would be another story, but that's just not the case. It's currently designed as a self-centered, do-everything supersoldier.

Figment · 2013-06-14, 07:40 PM

Freeform inventory, self-made classes and actual player specialization, outfit forming based on what the outfit needs or your role within the outfit is, THAT is how you make a character that is yours and yours only.

The whole concept of rigid or semi-rigid classes with unlimited access undoes that entire sense of "self" and makes players into "generics with a hint of extra". I'm not keen on it and I never will be. That said, Battlefield is possibly even worse because it completely denies you the ability to define your character and be creative with the tools at your disposal, even more so than PS2 does.

I'd rather see a CoD inventory system than a pre-defined class system, tbh, regardless of the amount of crap that CoD gets here due to the reputation of some of the people that play it. At least it grants you some liberties in how you combine things into a suit.

Dragonskin · 2013-06-14, 09:31 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

I'd rather see a CoD inventory system than a pre-defined class system, tbh, regardless of the amount of crap that CoD gets here due to the reputation of some of the people that play it. At least it grants you some liberties in how you combine things into a suit.

I was actually thinking this yesterday. I kinda do wish that I had a finite point limit like COD Black Ops 2 and then could create a custom build using those points on various abilities/attachments/accessories. I think that combined with being able to save builds to a slot would be cool. It would almost be like PS1, but without an actual inventory to worry about. I want that now

BlaxicanX · 2013-06-14, 09:58 PM

The problem with that type of class system is that it's counter-intuitive to teamwork, which is what this game is supposed to be all about. CoD by its nature, while certainly easier to win matches in with good teamwork, is not designed to be played with team synergy in mind. It's basically just a massive free for all where everyone tries to top the leaderboard- that you have allies is just happenstance to prevent the map from becoming too chaotic. To support that arena fighter playstyle, the game allows you to basically "min-max" by giving you access to every weapon and perk, so that you can become a one-man army. That works for CoD, but not for games like Battlefield and PS2, where you're supposed to have clear limitations for your class that forces you to depend on your allies. Using CoD as an example, with it's 1xPrimary weapon/1xSeconday/1xoffensive accessory/1xdefensive accessory system, there would be no team synergy if everyone in PS2 was running around in some custom class that had an LMG primary weapon, handcannon secondary, striker missile launcher, and revive gun, etc etc.

BlaxicanX · 2013-06-14, 11:33 PM

I always wonder why people in this community hate Battlefield so much. It's about a billion times more balanced than PS2 is. Since SoE is apparently TRYING to make this game "Battlefield on steroids", one would THINK that looking at the parts of Battlefield that work would be a good idea.

Dragonskin · 2013-06-15, 12:11 AM

Originally Posted by BlaxicanX

I always wonder why people in this community hate Battlefield so much. It's about a billion times more balanced than PS2 is. Since SoE is apparently TRYING to make this game "Battlefield on steroids", one would THINK that looking at the parts of Battlefield that work would be a good idea.

I can tell from this post that you never seriously played Battlefield 3. I would do some research before I made bold statements like these.

Here are the top 3 weapons in battlefield across MOST of the games life. 3 guns... that's it. Watch these vids and these guns are all top picks in particular patches. Battlefield 3 also has an extremely slow patch cycle allowing these guns to be OP for MONTHS at a time.

Now notice these are all Assault Rifles. There is exactly 1 class that can use assault rifles in Battlefield.. like Planetside 2.

Oh and what class had the grenade launchers.. oh, that's right... assault class. All they did was sit on ammo packs and spam the M320 across the map. Oh and don't even get me started on flechette grenades....

The assault class has been widely known as the best class to rack up kills. They had access to the best weapons, access to AOE medkits they could stand on while taking fire to survive and could stand in ammo packs to rain endless grenades at the enemy.

Ugh... yea, Battlefield 3 is clearly the PINNACLE of balance.