HA, what do we do with you?

[Vancha]

Originally Posted by Ranik Ortega

Yes vancha I DO feel that LMG's made games better.

How?

[Ranik Ortega]

Originally Posted by Vancha

How?

Am I also going to have to explain why the sky is blue?

Area denial & Suppression. The same thing can be achieved with multiple riflemen but the point of an LMG is as a force multiplier with very specific tasks in mind. Nothing quite like having some enemy machine gunner nearly take your head off and having to maneuver around the bastard to take him out. Or just mortar/grenade the bejesus out of him

[Rbstr]

Originally Posted by Bags

Planetside isn't a game that tries to be realstic though. I don't care if it's not realistic, it's fun. Fun > realism and unnecessary complexity.

Yeah, I'm not making a planetside-should-be-realistic argument there. Heavy guns don't work best in closed spaces applies to lots of weapons in many games: Heavy stuff is heavy. There are examples on both ends of the realism scale (and there are counter examples, for sure).

RTCW:Enemy Territory had MG's that were nearly useless outside of being bipodded. The better close range guns were the SMGs.
DoD is similar, but a far more realistic game.
BC2 as the ever present example: the LMG isn't typically all that great close up compared to many of the regular rifles.
CS:S: without some range between you the SAW, snipers and scoped assault rifles become much less usable, though they hit the hardest.
Infantry Online: the heavy weapons weren't very good up close compared with the SMG/assault rifles.
Halo's charging laser wasn't good close up. Rockets had a good chance of killing yourself as well as the enemy up close.
Many more involve some kind of deployable restriction on the big guns.

Thinking of this as a sort of MA+ for the people in heavy armor might be right.

[Bags]

That's fine by me. As long as I can use my MCG is a similar capacity to PS1 I support this if it's implemented correctly.

[Treerat]

Originally Posted by Malorn

Go back to the roots of the role that HA plays in the game. Heavy Assault. Its for the guys that breach a room or tower or whatever and need to get all Sam Jackson on them.

For that purpose the Jackhammer actually makes the most sense of the 3 because that's precisely what they use combat shotguns for. They're effective close-quarters and quickly degrade outside that. But for that purpose, they are great.

Other than a shotgun, the best thing that comes to mind for heavy assault is a bullpup submachinegun with a large capacity magazine, sort of like the p90. You dont' want something with a long barrel in close quarters fighting it'll just get in the way. I can see an MCG-like thing if it has a short barrel (like forearm length or shorter) since it would essentially function the same way.

But the point is you calibrate these weapons based on the amount of damage you want to do to a target at a specific range, and all of them need to taper off quickly. The Jackhammer tapers off because it has a wide spread and the further you go the fewer pellets hit the target. Can also have pellet damage degradation or a max range. The MCG also has a COF but it would need more bullet damage degradation. You could call it a side-effect of having a shorter barrel and thus less acceleration time and accuracy.

The VS has the most unusual HA. Something that fires somewhat rapidly and uses energy tech. They could go with something like the Maelstrom where you hold the beam on the target and the further the target the less damage the beam does. That would be easy to balance and definitely has a VS-ish feel to it...a plasma death ray beam. It would need a cooler effect of course. Something similar to Unreal Tournament's link gun. It could even have the dual-fire mode of the link gun in UT, thought that might lead to more lasher-like spam, but as long as there's no lashes people could dodge the orbs, but again that might extend the range of the weapon beyond what HA should be.

They dont' fit as medium or long range weapons, and it would be quite easy to calibrate the damage of them all.

Also, the main problem with the Jackhammer in PS1 was not the weapon concept itself - it was the fact that 3rd person existed. 3rd person allowed a jackhammer to completely negate the major drawback of the weapon, which was closing-distance. Clientside hit detection also exacerbated the problem since it was an instant-hit weapon. The triple-shot was also a poor design decision. Cool concept but not good for gameplay.

HA should be the close-range breaching weapons. They're a tradeoff between range and dps...high dps, short range. Its a reasonable tradeoff and won't be good in all situations. MCGs need to not have the range they had in PS1 since that deviated from the concept. Lasher spam down a hallway was also not good. These weapons should only be effective out to 35-40m or so (and that's little damage), with their optimal engagement range between 10-15m.

I definitely agree with at least part of that change. Heavy Assault as it was implemented in PS was simply too effective at normal combat ranges. Plus the situation was made even worse by Planetsides relegation of infantry combat to being conducted in doors where with the exception of a few long hallways HA had a massive advantage over anything else simply because one or two lucky hits (or fix or six for the MCG) would deal far more damage than a few well-placed bursts from medium assault.

Maybe instead of evening having a "Heavy Assault" category, it should be broken up into two distinctly different classes. A Close Quarters Battle (CQB) set with with weapons designed for such ranges, and another set of weapons intended for what is known as direct fire support (LMGs, SAWs, etc).

I'm hoping a greater emphasis on capturing territory that includes areas not friendly to vehicles, tighter restrictions on who can get access to which vehicles and at real cost to non-vehicular combat (instead of the Reaver/ Mossie + HA & AV and you can take on anything that predominated when I left), and better balancing will make HA an option for some situations and not the "bring this or bend over" must-have it was. Mostly because it stunk seeing a new decent new player (took a support certification instead of all weapons, followed a SLs instructions, etc) get fed up and quit after their 10th death in under an hour to someone whose whole "tactic" was to ignore incoming fire to blindly charge into a mass of players and get a few lucky kills because they just happened to have the "I played longer so I WIN" gun.

[Bags]

Originally Posted by Treerat

snip

What, heavy assault was effective where heavy assault was supposed to be effective? Alert the presses. And if you were losing with MA to heavy assault at MA range it's a personal problem. MCG could almost hold its own at medium ranges but not really.

And it's your own damn fault if an enemy can take out multiple teammates before he dies.

I think the whole "HA was the best weapon in the only place that fighting mattered" issue goes away now that there are outdoor objectives too. Though I can kill heavy assault users with a sweeper too so...

[Ranik Ortega]

Originally Posted by Treerat

Maybe instead of evening having a "Heavy Assault" category, it should be broken up into two distinctly different classes. A Close Quarters Battle (CQB) set with with weapons designed for such ranges, and another set of weapons intended for what is known as direct fire support (LMGs, SAWs, etc).

What do you think of my MA+ idea?

[Bruttal]

Disco Disco, Disco Disco, Disco Disco I want my Disco balls!

[Malorn]

MA+ sounds like something that could be handled with weapon upgrades.

Want a larger magazine? Pay soem resources and get that upgrade. Etc. Etc.

When you can get the same thing through some minor modifications of existing weapons then I'm not sure they should be their own weapon category.

Even the fact that you call them "MA+" as in MA + some attachments/options.

[Rbstr]

Originally Posted by Bags

What, heavy assault was effective where heavy assault was supposed to be effective?

Effective isn't what the problem is. Completely dominant is HA's problem.
That's less of an issue in the class system, which will tamp down on HA's over-abundance. It may end up a non-issue with lower TTK bringing all weapons a bit closer.

[Bags]

Originally Posted by Rbstr

Effective isn't what the problem is. Completely dominant is HA's problem.
That's less of an issue in the class system, which will tamp down on HA's over-abundance. It may end up a non-issue with lower TTK bringing all weapons a bit closer.

I could go toe to toe with the average HA user with a sweeper. Min maxing it was dominant indoors though.

And yeah, I don't think it will be with faster TTK all around.

[Ranik Ortega]

Originally Posted by Malorn

MA+ sounds like something that could be handled with weapon upgrades.

Want a larger magazine? Pay soem resources and get that upgrade. Etc. Etc.

When you can get the same thing through some minor modifications of existing weapons then I'm not sure they should be their own weapon category.

Even the fact that you call them "MA+" as in MA + some attachments/options.

Malorn the idea was that HA would have access to some upgrades that a medium assault player wouldn't have that's a small distinction but a big one depending on the upgrades.

[Treerat]

Originally Posted by Ranik Ortega

What do you think of my MA+ idea?

The problem I have with weapons like that is the "do everything" ability they have. Flexibility is great, but too much flexibility can create a situation where one soldier can have the dominate weapons for outdoor/mid-range combat plus indoor/ close-range combat in just one or two weapons. When that happens it can start to snowball into what happened during Planetsides days of noobhammer-carrying surgiles who still had enough certs left to cover all the other needs (mossie for transport and vehicle combat, advanced hacker plus medical and engineer, etc). Basically it kills any serious reason for specialists or other playstyles beyond the one that can "do it all". Why bother being able to drive a tank or pilot galaxy when you can go to any v-pad and pull out a personal jet that can dominate almost any ground or air unit. Why bother with a MAX suit when one implant, a single weapon, and a little "creative hopping" gives you the ability to kill as fast or faster without needing someone else to repair or open doors for you. Who needs a medic when by the time they reach your body and revive, you can already have spawned, gotten your equipment from a terminal, and be almost ready to drop on top of the base again?

That's why I prefer a degree of separation. If someone really wants to focus on close-quarter combat until they have a serious edge, let them. But there should be a heavy price in the form of being seriously disadvantaged outside of that area (which should only comprise a portion and not the majority of personal combat) with no way to get around it short of changing classes at a base well removed from the battle with all it's attendant trials. It actually encourages squad leaders to take some care in the composition of their squad instead of trying to collect the "best killers" and creates a reason for someone to spend points of "boring" vehicles like transports or certifications like advanced hacking outside of a full-time infiltrator. Even more, it encourages a wider variety of tactics; instead of winning or losing coming down to whoever has the best flavor-of-the-month "gank teams", it becomes more a matter which side comes up with plan that best fits the situation then implements that plan.

Frankly I think any weapon modifications/ enhancements should be limited to minor improvements in accuracy or ammunition capacity (and that only for weapons that aren't partially balanced by limited ammuntion ex. rocket launchers), and nothing affecting either their rate of fire, damage, or intended primary use. That way if people want to have a serious edge in an area they have to give up their ability in multiple other areas to compensate for it. Basically what is called a zero-sum game; if they want to be stronger in one area they have to give up an equal or greater amount of value in other areas.


PS
For the LMG debate.
I've found they can improve gameplay through the ways pointed out before such as being a force-multiplier, suppressive fire, improving an outnumbered but dug-in forces ability to repel assaults, etc. I have also seen them be a negative impact on a game through being not so much a "noob gun" as weapons that combine the range and relative accuracy of rifles with effectively unlimited ammunition (ie more likely to die before running out of ammo) and the ability to simply keep moving and shooting.

If I had to design the "perfect" (to me at least) LMG system I would be sure to incorporate a few limits based on the characteristics of actual LMGs. First is heat buildup as limit on how long the weapon can shoot before needing to cool off; with this the ability to keep firing and taking out people with rifles until the ammunition runs out is limited. Some stiff penalties to accuracy and especially to accuracy past the first or second shot unless crouched or stationary (ie effectively braced on a firing step) would also be needed. This serves to keep the weapon from simply being a "MA+" that causes combat rifles to be junked as soon as one can select the LMG. Third would be penalties to how quickly an avatar carrying an LMG can turn; making the LMG a weapon best fired from a static position instead of being used to spray fire while moving. Combined those should keep a LMG from becoming the new "battle rifle" while still allowing it to remain effective at it's primary roles (suppressive or defensive fire in support of or supported by the riflemen of a squad).

[Ranik Ortega]

Originally Posted by Treerat

The problem I have with weapons like that is the "do everything" ability they have. Flexibility is great, but too much flexibility can create a situation where one soldier can have the dominate weapons for outdoor/mid-range combat plus indoor/ close-range combat in just one or two weapons. When that happens it can start to snowball into what happened during Planetsides days of noobhammer-carrying surgiles who still had enough certs left to cover all the other needs (mossie for transport and vehicle combat, advanced hacker plus medical and engineer, etc). Basically it kills any serious reason for specialists or other playstyles beyond the one that can "do it all". Why bother being able to drive a tank or pilot galaxy when you can go to any v-pad and pull out a personal jet that can dominate almost any ground or air unit. Why bother with a MAX suit when one implant, a single weapon, and a little "creative hopping" gives you the ability to kill as fast or faster without needing someone else to repair or open doors for you. Who needs a medic when by the time they reach your body and revive, you can already have spawned, gotten your equipment from a terminal, and be almost ready to drop on top of the base again?

That's why I prefer a degree of separation. If someone really wants to focus on close-quarter combat until they have a serious edge, let them. But there should be a heavy price in the form of being seriously disadvantaged outside of that area (which should only comprise a portion and not the majority of personal combat) with no way to get around it short of changing classes at a base well removed from the battle with all it's attendant trials. It actually encourages squad leaders to take some care in the composition of their squad instead of trying to collect the "best killers" and creates a reason for someone to spend points of "boring" vehicles like transports or certifications like advanced hacking outside of a full-time infiltrator. Even more, it encourages a wider variety of tactics; instead of winning or losing coming down to whoever has the best flavor-of-the-month "gank teams", it becomes more a matter which side comes up with plan that best fits the situation then implements that plan.

Frankly I think any weapon modifications/ enhancements should be limited to minor improvements in accuracy or ammunition capacity (and that only for weapons that aren't partially balanced by limited ammuntion ex. rocket launchers), and nothing affecting either their rate of fire, damage, or intended primary use. That way if people want to have a serious edge in an area they have to give up their ability in multiple other areas to compensate for it. Basically what is called a zero-sum game; if they want to be stronger in one area they have to give up an equal or greater amount of value in other areas.


PS
For the LMG debate.
I've found they can improve gameplay through the ways pointed out before such as being a force-multiplier, suppressive fire, improving an outnumbered but dug-in forces ability to repel assaults, etc. I have also seen them be a negative impact on a game through being not so much a "noob gun" as weapons that combine the range and relative accuracy of rifles with effectively unlimited ammunition (ie more likely to die before running out of ammo) and the ability to simply keep moving and shooting.

If I had to design the "perfect" (to me at least) LMG system I would be sure to incorporate a few limits based on the characteristics of actual LMGs. First is heat buildup as limit on how long the weapon can shoot before needing to cool off; with this the ability to keep firing and taking out people with rifles until the ammunition runs out is limited. Some stiff penalties to accuracy and especially to accuracy past the first or second shot unless crouched or stationary (ie effectively braced on a firing step) would also be needed. This serves to keep the weapon from simply being a "MA+" that causes combat rifles to be junked as soon as one can select the LMG. Third would be penalties to how quickly an avatar carrying an LMG can turn; making the LMG a weapon best fired from a static position instead of being used to spray fire while moving. Combined those should keep a LMG from becoming the new "battle rifle" while still allowing it to remain effective at it's primary roles (suppressive or defensive fire in support of or supported by the riflemen of a squad).

It's going to take me a while to digest all this but how would a Heavy assault player having exclusive Medium assault rifle ammo capacity upgrades and a foregrip spawn that much text?

[Treerat]

What was the effective difference between the Cycler and the MCG? Ammo capacity. Sweeper and Jackhammer? Rate of fire increase and ammo capacity. Decimator and Phoenix? Guidance and ammo capacity. One version of the Lasher and it's improved version (which spawned MUCH moaning and hand-wringing by TR and NC)? Removing minimum range for lashes, small upgrade in lash damage and ammo capacity. Heck the difference between a Punisher's grenade launcher and the Rocklet Rifle & Thumper? Could it be.... ammo capacity? I think I made the trend pretty clear.

Adding extra ammo capacity can have a BIG impact on how a certain weapon stacks up against other weapons. It increases the amount of kills possible and likely before having to reload, it decreases the impact of misses on the outcome of a fight, and it can turn a weapon that would usually be reserved for special targets (ex. HALO's rocket launcher) such as armored vehicles into a "use it against everything" weapon. All simply by affecting how often the weapon can be used.

That is partially why I reacted so strongly there. Tinkering with ammo capacity, even though it would make a solid concept for a weapon modification, can have some serious impact game balance. Someone having access to to different weapons can be a far less troublesome problem because the weapon can then be added, removed, buffed, or nerfed without seriously impacting a weapon that is already balanced.