Dedicated LMG's - Page 5

NewSith · 2011-12-14, 05:44 PM

Originally Posted by LongBow

I know those options are a little silly but a CE tri-pod deployed by an engi that has its own ammo pool (say 2-6 clips worth)
would really help squad synergy - its even balanced in a camping scenario because you don't increase fire power ... just the amount of bullets a support gunner can waste at the cost of being a prime target for a sniper.

Oh, my favourite...

"SITH, LMG, Take 'im out!"
"He's silenced, push up!"

Shogun · 2011-12-14, 05:54 PM

yeah, give the engies as many lovely toys as possible!
being able to lay some ce tripods to assist the ha guys would rule!
i´m still sad about the spitfire being scrapped ;-)
having something that gives teamwork abilitys instead would make up for that.

Coreldan · 2011-12-14, 05:57 PM

I really like the idea of engineer deployed tripods. Could allow for dynamic, tactical mounting of the HA LMGs. Perhaps it could be so future tech that you wouldn't even have to reload it or then just give it more accuracy/less recoil.

Promotes teamwork!

Shogun · 2011-12-14, 06:05 PM

if i look at war movies, there are always 2 guys operating heavy machineguns.

if teamwork could keep the suppressor firing nonstop, it would even feel more like a real war! and promoting the fighting troops is my favorite playstyle. never had many weapon certs on ps1. even in the early times when supporting didn´t even give xp. i enjoy being the guy, who the heavys can count on when it gets dirty.
and whenever i was operating a max, i loved to have engineers around to feed me with repairnanites. or bringing in new ammo for me so i didn´t have to give up my position to restock.

Coreldan · 2011-12-14, 06:06 PM

Few games have tried to implement a "belt feeder" role who gets like assists of the kills, but that has been so tedious and boring that no games really want to even try it again.

LongBow · 2011-12-14, 06:07 PM

yeh, the main reason to keep the damage the same is to avoid hassle at choke points like doors, area denial means keeping people out not dead ...

... but on the flip side if ammo is infinite then so is the length of time you have to wait for the enemy gunners to go dry so you can advance ...

more ammo lets a support gunner do their job better (shoot more bullets), sure its a snipers dream but people who choose bad positions get bad results ...

**
Edit: A belt feeder role would be a pretty dull chore, its the same reason I never expect to see an "ammo carrier" despite the obvious tactical advantages.
**

Captain1nsaneo · 2011-12-14, 06:32 PM

Originally Posted by LongBow

yeh, the main reason to keep the damage the same is to avoid hassle at choke points like doors, area denial means keeping people out not dead ...

... but on the flip side if ammo is infinite then so is the length of time you have to wait for the enemy gunners to go dry so you can advance ...

more ammo lets a support gunner do their job better (shoot more bullets), sure its a snipers dream but people who choose bad positions get bad results ...

**
Edit: A belt feeder role would be a pretty dull chore, its the same reason I never expect to see an "ammo carrier" despite the obvious tactical advantages.
**

I could see this actually being more along the lines of deployable turrets and their ammo has to be replenished by an engineer similar to how the Aegis generator has its ammo refilled. This would give another role to the Engies.

Erendil · 2011-12-14, 06:48 PM

Originally Posted by Higby

No problem!

Right now Heavy Assault don't have any options for long range weapons (except for some of the AV stuff, of course), we want them up in the front lines taking hits and dishing out damage, not playing ghetto-sniper-hulk-hybrid. Although, depending on where we end up with HA weapon variants, theres a chance that we might end up with something like that, still playing around with it tbh.

We have plenty of bullet whiz to indicate close shots and convince people to keep their heads down, and we might even track that stuff for "suppression experience" but i don't think we'll add any negative effects (screen blur, cof bloom, etc) to enemy players who are being shot at.

Now that I know what suppression effects are, I'll say a big THANK YOU for not implementing them in PS2.

LMG's should be designed so that the huge stream of bullets being fired from them is intrinsically sufficient incentive for people to hit the dirt, and it sounds like that's the approach you folx are taking. I like the idea of giving SEP for using LMG's for suppression though.

However, I do not wish to derail this thread, but I'm a little concerned about HA's not getting access to long range AI weapons. Say you're a Heavy using an AV weapon. You'll want to attack enemy vehicles from longer range since their big and heavy and as a softie you'll tend to go squish if you get too close to the nassssty vehicles. But if they're smart, the enemy vehicles will have infantry with them for support. Are you saying that said Heavy won't be able to carry a rifle as a backup weapon so they can return fire on said infantry?

This would make me an extremely sad panda since in PS1 I've usually played the role of the second-line soldier, using AV to ward off vehicles and then switching to ESMA to provide covering fire for my HA comrades on the front line and take potshots at enemy front-line soldiers when I can. Is the MA/AV loadout no longer an option in PS2?

I really really hope that it still is since it's the loadout I've used for 90% of my PS1 career. It gives me the ability to engage a wide variety of targets at range at the expense of sacrificing a bit of AI power up close since I'm not carrying HA. So it's versatile, but not all powerful, and I do make sacrifices in AI power when using it.

EDIT: I just want to add that the rifle (and the musket before it) has been the mainstay infantry weapon for soldiers for almost the last 600 years. If I understand you correctly it sounds like you'll be denying the HA class access to this weapon type. If so, I'm asking that you please reconsider your decision and let the HA class use rifles since it is so central to modern armed forces and it feels counter-intuitive to not let one of the combat classes use such a omnipresent weapon.

Shogun · 2011-12-14, 06:57 PM

i understand that a dedicated belt feeder would be boring.
i wasn´t asking for a requirement for a belt feeder, just for the opportunity to do some beltfeeding-like thing to help the supportgunner to keep effective for longer or to do the reloading for him, so he can keep his fire without the reload pause.
i don´t even think this would be overpowered because you have to take the firepower into equation, the engineer gives up by not choosing ha, too.

there can never be too much support options for battle-engineers.

Erendil · 2011-12-14, 07:19 PM

Originally Posted by Shogun

i understand that a dedicated belt feeder would be boring.
i wasn´t asking for a requirement for a belt feeder, just for the opportunity to do some beltfeeding-like thing to help the supportgunner to keep effective for longer or to do the reloading for him, so he can keep his fire without the reload pause.
i don´t even think this would be overpowered because you have to take the firepower into equation, the engineer gives up by not choosing ha, too.

there can never be too much support options for battle-engineers.

I like it. This way the LMG user could still fire if he were solo or if his support feeder got killed, but it would also further promote both teamwork and support roles.

Shogun · 2011-12-14, 07:27 PM

that´s the point.

and maybe even give the engineer some other options to support the gunner, like powering some sort of shield on the gun, like the metal shield big realworld stationary guns have. sidegrades. you could speed up his firerate, keep him safe from fire or get rid of relaods. and if there are 3 engineers everyone could do his role and create a really fortified position for the gunner.