Is anyone else concerned about the proposed “faster pace” of combat? - Page 9

Sirisian · 2011-10-09, 04:04 AM

Originally Posted by Xyntech

I'd like to see HA dominate at short range, be somewhat effective at medium range and nearly useless at long range. The opposite for snipers.

I'd prefer them to be long range spray and pray weapons that do less damage than other weapons. Like the TR machine gun should just spray tons of bullets with a 200 round clip but do generally less damage overall with a huge gravity effect on the rounds and a little bit of reverse damage degredation. Basically just massive cover fire.

Never been a fan of the whole close range HA combat. I'd prefer if people used a common pool shotgun for CQC or chose a rifle. See I always pictured a heavy assault player as carrying around a huge machine gun. So like all the empire would have their own version and it would slow the player down when it began firing because of the recoil. The lack of sights means it starts with a poor accuracy and stays generally the same.

Kalbuth · 2011-10-10, 03:20 AM

Originally Posted by Sirisian

I'd prefer them to be long range spray and pray weapons that do less damage than other weapons. Like the TR machine gun should just spray tons of bullets with a 200 round clip but do generally less damage overall with a huge gravity effect on the rounds and a little bit of reverse damage degredation. Basically just massive cover fire.

Never been a fan of the whole close range HA combat. I'd prefer if people used a common pool shotgun for CQC or chose a rifle. See I always pictured a heavy assault player as carrying around a huge machine gun. So like all the empire would have their own version and it would slow the player down when it began firing because of the recoil. The lack of sights means it starts with a poor accuracy and stays generally the same.

I'm completely in line with this. Never liked the idea that HA should "dominate" anything. I'd much prefer seeing HA as a support, suppression weapon, making you slower and less agile (you turn slower), for example. And making the cert more accessible. In fact, HA guy should be behind assault guys, providing suppressive fire while the assault people are going to the target unchecked.
Currently, HA is just a (more or less CQB depending on empire) "MA of holy pwnage +3", and I don't really like this RPG-like system in a FPS. It overlaps MA usage, without much drawback (it just costs more cert points, and 1 more inventory space)... well, not what I would have done with "Heavy Assault" in mind, personally

SKYeXile · 2011-10-10, 05:00 AM

oh yea, its going to be heaps more fun sitting back with 30 people spamming lasher and pulsar when compared to a platoon of rexo lobby pushing in a blaze of MCG fire and strafing. *roles eyes*

I SandRock · 2011-10-10, 06:29 AM

I think killing time had to be shortened compared to PS1, but not by a ton. One interview says its equal to BFBC2 one says its in between PS1 and BFBC2, i hope its the latter.
Base fights with 20 people standing next to eachother and quick killing time... just seems like a massacre to me. And PS was always about more than just the ability to aim and shoot somebody. There was more room for tactics.

APB:R went with a faster TTK than APB and it didn't do the game any good. I don't think a BFBC2 kill time has room in PS. BFBC2 is 32vs32 but even then you are always behind cover trying to move unseen. In PS this was hardly always possible. With 320vs320vs320 not being seen by anyone is gonna be tough cookie. A few stray bullets, or one guy putting his fire on you and you'd be dead before you could even react, like in BFBC2.

As for the HA discussion. I think BF3 has one major awesome feature -> suppresive fire mechanic. If you are being shot at, but not hit, your screen still blurs, because you are being suppressed. I think this is a really great mechanic that gives a role to LMG-type weapons. Spray an area for cover fire, even though YOU won't kill anyone it will inhibit the enemies performance and allow your own team to kill more easily.

Kalbuth · 2011-10-10, 07:11 AM

Originally Posted by SKYeXile

oh yea, its going to be heaps more fun sitting back with 30 people spamming lasher and pulsar when compared to a platoon of rexo lobby pushing in a blaze of MCG fire and strafing. *roles eyes*

Where did you read pulsar guys were sitting back? Re-read, plz. Suppressive fire is meant to permit your pulsar guys to push forward, not sit back....
The way I see it, I prefer everyone having a go at CQB fight, instead of CQB being reserved for HA people.

Xyntech · 2011-10-10, 08:25 AM

Originally Posted by Kalbuth

The way I see it, I prefer everyone having a go at CQB fight, instead of CQB being reserved for HA people.

Base design and layouts could be an important factor here. I'd love to get a look inside the new bases.

Bags · 2011-10-10, 09:07 AM

The sweeper can easily compete with HA.

PrISM · 2011-10-10, 09:09 AM

It better be faster. I'm tired of waiting twenty minutes to switch weapons.

Kalbuth · 2011-10-10, 09:21 AM

Originally Posted by Bags

The sweeper can easily compete with HA.

People are so obsessed with PS1 they can't envision something even remotely different

If ttk are going to be lower, and general speed faster, would it be so bad if HA are not just giving raw advantage in TTK over general assault rifles? Why do we need a "better ttk" anyway? I would prefer a more even playing field in terms of general assault rifles, and have HA with a purpose. They may be better in terms of TTK, but with drawback (like movement/agility penalties).
Why would we need so badly a "better TTK, period" weapon in the first hand?

Bags · 2011-10-10, 09:35 AM

Because I like using heavy assault and don't want it turned into a skilless weapon designed to just spray bullets everywhere. There's no need for anything "even remotely different". At all.

I also like the

HA > MA > Sniper range paradigm we have now.

Traak · 2011-10-10, 09:36 AM

For Land. For Power. Forever.

Kalbuth · 2011-10-10, 09:50 AM

Originally Posted by Bags

Because I like using heavy assault and don't want it turned into a skilless weapon designed to just spray bullets everywhere. There's no need for anything "even remotely different". At all.

I also like the

HA > MA > Sniper range paradigm we have now.

What do you like in "using Heavy Assault"? Because I don't see much specific over "using MA in CQB", apart that it kills faster. Even more, if you translate PS1 weapons into PS2 systems, MA looks to me far more skillfull, they are the precise ones rewarding headshots.
You would end up, in CQB, using some empire Medium Assault or common pool thing (like a sweeper), and what will be changed?

Bags · 2011-10-10, 10:16 AM

The fact that the MCG, Jackhammer, and Lasher are cool and rifles are lame?

I play games for fun, not for realistic combat scenarios.

Change for the sake of change is dumb. It worked in PS1, it will work in PS2.

Kalbuth · 2011-10-10, 11:15 AM

I don't play for realism either, that's not why I seek headshots, there's ArmA3 coming next year for realism.
I like headshot for they reward aim. PS1 JH, MCG and Lasher do not strike me as rewarding headshots from their current incarnation, they reward spamming in nme chest, not more
That said, if they keep HA without headshots vs MA with headshots, that'd be fine by me

Bags · 2011-10-10, 11:35 AM

That's what Higby has been hinting at; headshots and headshot bonus damage will be on a per weapon basis. I imagine sniper will be OSOK, MA will probably 2 - 3 shot enemies if you get headshots, and HA probably won't be able to get any HS.