the certcost for a shotgun is to bloody high

[SKYeXile]

BUT I WANNA GET FREE KILLS NOWWWWWWW!

oh wait i have station cash.

[Chewy]

Originally Posted by Ghost Runner

But for the infil to carry a shotgun they give up range to do it! its a trade off, cloak and cqc is not that effective since they are not completely invisible.

A shotgun is a far better weapon in the hands of a infil that another troop. That cloak my not be 100% but it suits CQC better than ranged any day. I have seen how great a shotgun infil can be today and it needs a looking at. We (NC) where attacking the crown and this one bastard shotgun infil (VS) would get behind our lines and wipe out up to 5 people per try all thanks to the cloak alone. He was even able to take out a MAX (me) in a single mag of his shotgun , again, thanks to that cloak.

There's almost nothing you can do to fight a cloaked shotguner till after the damage is done. In a good fight it's easy for a MAX to get behind enemy lines thanks to the tunnel vision people get. A 3 man team can clear an entire back line of an attack before there's time to react, then just camp a sundy till ammo drys or backup comes.

The shotgun isn't OP, nor is the infil. Add them together and they just multiply with each other. Part of the skill in using a shotgun is getting close, being next to impossible to see removes that skill.

[ringring]

Originally Posted by Hamma

Station cash!

Or Alpha Squad

[McFeeble]

Aye seems a bit steep!

[Whiteagle]

Originally Posted by Cosmical

I kind of like it the way it is. It means that dieing to a shotgun is an event. Rather than a spam fest.

And dont forget the more expensive it is, the more powerful it can be. As soon as everyone starts having one, it could break the flow of the game. And once happens it gets nerfed, and then you spent real world money on nothing basically.

But now it's prohibitively expensive... while all those that bought it before still have it!

Further more, having it be so costly will make the game look Pay-to-win, since you'd need to grind for a few levels straight worth of Certification Points just to get it.

[Chinchy]

Originally Posted by Whiteagle

But now it's prohibitively expensive... while all those that bought it before still have it!

Further more, having it be so costly will make the game look Pay-to-win, since you'd need to grind for a few levels straight worth of Certification Points just to get it.

took me 5 hours to get 412 certs, its not that long.

[Stanis]

Originally Posted by Chinchy

took me 5 hours to get 412 certs, its not that long.

Around 200 kills per hour or a bit less with capture/defence bonuses to achieve 20k/hr
I think that's quite a bit longer than the average player.

Call it 15hours of gameplay for a more average casual gamer. Which might be there whole weeks worth of playtime.

[Tamas]

I just hope it doesn't have a crazy SC cost.....

+4$ for a gun is a bit of overkill.

[Sir fraggington]

Originally Posted by Dagron

That's the main reason why i think they're OP, removing it from the hands of cloakers is a nerf imo (one i welcome of course).

the shotgun allows infiltrators have more of a "spy" playstyle instead of being an annoying, useless trollsniper.

[Sir fraggington]

Originally Posted by ringring

Or Alpha Squad

or lack of credit card (i am 17)

[Chewy]

Originally Posted by Sir fraggington

the shotgun allows infiltrators have more of a "spy" playstyle instead of being an annoying, useless trollsniper.

TF2 is not PS2. One is a fast paced kill everything/one deathmatch. The other is a fight for the very land under our feet. You can't compare them.

Even though they are both first person shooters, both games have their own sub-genre of FPS. It's almost like saying ARMA II is the same as playing Battlefield 3.

[Sifer2]

Originally Posted by Sir fraggington

the shotgun allows infiltrators have more of a "spy" playstyle instead of being an annoying, useless trollsniper.

Spy in TF2 doesn't have a shotgun unless they added one since I played it ages ago. You have to get behind the person an knife them. Can't just uncloak in their face an instagib them from 20 feet away. I know he had that Revolver but it wasn't that strong.

What they really need to do with Infiltrator is go back to the PS1 version which really did play more like the TF2 spy. You only had a Pistol but could be completely invisible when not moving. And were able to hack vehicles to take control of them an do other stuff like disable spawns. PS2 version is just a lame kill whore class.

[Sir fraggington]

Originally Posted by Sifer2

Spy in TF2 doesn't have a shotgun unless they added one since I played it ages ago. You have to get behind the person an knife them. Can't just uncloak in their face an instagib them from 20 feet away. I know he had that Revolver but it wasn't that strong.

What they really need to do with Infiltrator is go back to the PS1 version which really did play more like the TF2 spy. You only had a Pistol but could be completely invisible when not moving. And were able to hack vehicles to take control of them an do other stuff like disable spawns. PS2 version is just a lame kill whore class.

the revolver? not strong? i find spy revolvers (the ambassador in particular) to be ideal close quarter weapons.
i do agree however that the infiltrator should be more of a "covert ops" class,
as opposed to the useless, killwhoring, cater to cod **** class that is now.

[Sir fraggington]

Originally Posted by Chewy

TF2 is not PS2. One is a fast paced kill everything/one deathmatch. The other is a fight for the very land under our feet. You can't compare them.

Even though they are both first person shooters, both games have their own sub-genre of FPS. It's almost like saying ARMA II is the same as playing Battlefield 3.

tf2 however does focus a lot on team play and do have classes that have up and downsides. the scale and artstyle may be different, but there are still similarities.

[Chewy]

Originally Posted by Sir fraggington

tf2 however does focus a lot on team play and do have classes that have up and downsides. the scale and artstyle may be different, but there are still similarities.

(This is going to be a bit off topic. But I need to type it)

Both games have classes that each have their own play styles, but I wouldn't call TF2 a team based game. It's a deathmatch game at heart, with maybe an objective tossed in depending on either map or mode to mix up the flow.

MvM is (in my opinion) the only real team based mode TF2 has because it forces you to play as a team or get overcome by the bots. Every other mode that Iv played (it has been some time) is more or less a team deathmatch with a side objective tossed in.

Yes, yes, I know that TF2 is made out to be a team game with red v blue and the likes. But playing and working as a team just isn't needed when there's instant gibs and no respawn timer to speak of. A team of Rambos are still a bunch of Rambos that happen to like alike.

Once more I say it's like calling ARMA II being like BF3. Both FPSes with vehicles and large maps. But, one is a deathmatch (arcade might be a better word) while the other is a sim. Both apples (a FPS) but different breeds all together with each having its own taste, texture, size, firmness, and feel.

In short-
Many games can be a FPS, but not all FPSes are the same game. If it was like that then Minecraft should be brought into this debate seeing how it is an FPS as well.