Balance: heavy assault choices

[SuperNova]

This is going to seem crazy to those that primarily play heavy assault, but imo it seems to be that like 85% of the people playing play heavy assault. Having the missile launcher and hmg and shield and pistol seems a pretty good bit op to me.

I was thinking about it and the best thing to do imo is to make the missile launcher a primary weapon, that way you have a choice to run with a machine gun or a missile launcher and a pistol. It makes it a little easier for tanks/vehicles in general since not everyone would be carrying a missile launcher but doesn't really change a whole lot about the class.

I realize i'm going to get flamed alot for this post from the heavy assault addicts but I really do think its a good idea.

[Palerion]

This is an excellent idea. They either play anti-vehicle or anti-infantry, no in-between.

[cooonips]

i think they just need to give some of the other classes a bit of power when it comes to anti vehicle.
it is a little unfair that heavy assault starts with a rocket launcher and all the other classes have to save up the certs to unlock c4 or something, and even then they can only hold 1 or 2 ish

[SGOniell]

Someone is getting killed by them regularly... I have no issues with it, they're designed to fit a heavy support role, which is both suppressive fire and anti-vehicle. Can be killed easy enough up close as their lmg is slower to come up and much more inaccurate. Anyone who wants to use it as a longer range weapon will attach various things making it even slower to bring up. Just get behind them and unload, surprise them anyway you can, and stay in their face if you walk around a corner into one.