HA, what do we do with you?

[Vancha]

Has anyone ever enjoyed going up against LMGs?

Be it in CS, DoD, CoD or BF, I can't say I've ever felt that they've been conducive to a fun fight.

[Malorn]

HA - close quarters weapon, like a shotgun - high dps, very short range

MA - assault rifles, balanced at all ranges, moderate dps

Suppression - something different, like a BFBC2 LMG, though it would need less close-quarters effectiveness. I'd put a grenade launcher in this category of "suppression" - not something you want to use at close range, not something good at long range.

[Malorn]

LMGs have their role, depending on how the game works them. You can give them a setup time / deploy mechanic to reduce close-quarters usage.

Think of the Day of Defeat machineguns...they had to be deployed to be used, but once you did deploy them they were complete pwnface, but they could be flanked and were vulnerable when relocating. Very well balanced in that game.

That's also similar to Dawn of War style suppressive weapons. The heavy bolter squad had to deploy and only had a certain fire arc.

That's the correct way to do machineguns/suppressive weapons IMO. Give them a deploy time and require stationary location, but then make them terribly effective once they do that. Terrible close-quarters, devastating when set up. Makes snipers & grenades natural counters, as well as flanking attacks, such as by an infiltrator or light assault.

[Ranik Ortega]

Originally Posted by Malorn

HA - close quarters weapon, like a shotgun - high dps, very short range

MA - assault rifles, balanced at all ranges, moderate dps

Suppression - something different, like a BFBC2 LMG, though it would need less close-quarters effectiveness. I'd put a grenade launcher in this category of "suppression" - not something you want to use at close range, not something good at long range.

I wouldn't agree with a grenade launcher, the range is too short to compete with MA (if you upped the range then that would be worse) and the indirect fire would make it less of a suppression weapon and more of a kill behind cover weapon. My thoughts were basically upscaled MA weapons.

Edit : I also agree on the need to deploy to be effective.

[Bags]

As long as I can have my CQC MCG I'm fine with some version of a "Heavy Cycler", "Heavy Guass", "Heavy Pulsar" suppressing fire as long as it's balanced and fun.

I am against scraping the MCG, JH, and Lasher completely and making them into suppression weapons. Actually, pre-lash nerf the Lasher was practically Special Assault...

[Malorn]

More I think on it the more I think they should just do away with Special assault entirely and replace it with Medium-assault gun attachment grenade launcher/rocket liek the punisher. Basically put pusher style grenade launcher on the empire-specific HA. Advantage is more range on the grenade and quick access. Gives MA some versatility and also prevents grenade spam.

I'd like to see:

Sidearms - pistols, etc obviously

Heavy Assault - close range high dps (combat shotgun, high damage smg, link gun)

Medium Assault - medium range, versatile assault rifles (grenade launcher attachments, etc)

Support Assault - medium-long range deployable suppressive machineguns (classic MCG would go here, would need new VS & NC counterparts). Very high damage, very accurate, but stationary and limited fire angle w/ setup time. Used for covering fire and to support an advance/defend a position.

Scout Assault - sniper rifles, long range high damage low rof accurate weapons.

[Bags]

Grenade attachments would be the death of me. Grenade spam is bad enough right now with them being separate weapons.

[Ranik Ortega]

Originally Posted by Bags

As long as I can have my CQC MCG I'm fine with some version of a "Heavy Cycler", "Heavy Guass", "Heavy Pulsar" suppressing fire as long as it's balanced and fun.

I am against scraping the MCG, JH, and Lasher completely and making them into suppression weapons. Actually, pre-lash nerf the Lasher was practically Special Assault...

The current HA are basically entries into the CQB section of weapons.

Originally Posted by Malorn

More I think on it the more I think they should just do away with Special assault entirely and replace it with Medium-assault gun attachment grenade launcher/rocket liek the punisher. Basically put pusher style grenade launcher on the empire-specific HA. Advantage is more range on the grenade and quick access. Gives MA some versatility and also prevents grenade spam.

I'd like to see:

Sidearms - pistols, etc obviously

Heavy Assault - close range high dps (combat shotgun, high damage smg, link gun)

Medium Assault - medium range, versatile assault rifles (grenade launcher attachments, etc)

Support Assault - medium-long range deployable suppressive machineguns (classic MCG would go here, would need new VS & NC counterparts). Very high damage, very accurate, but stationary and limited fire angle w/ setup time. Used for covering fire and to support an advance/defend a position.

Scout Assault - sniper rifles, long range high damage low rof accurate weapons.

I was thinking the Heavy MA could be more like

MA+ = extra ammo capacity. In a fire fight the only thing that it would do differently is sustained fire. It has more ammo so it can put more rounds out over time.

Maybe it should be HA CQB , HA MA+ , HA SA

[QuakCow]

I'f just be happy to see any form of LMG in the game. Always wanted a lmg in ps1, had to settle for a cycler, if i could find one, to do the job most of the time.

[Ranik Ortega]

Putting the Support assault Deployable LMGish weapons aside for a moment.

Maybe the differentiation between MA and MA+ could occur via the skill tree and attachment system.

For example a medium assault player gets x y and z attachments for his gun that have to be paid for with resources like other upgrades. These can be the scopes grenade launchers etc etc


But a HA player using an MA rifle has different upgrades. The aforementioned fore grip for reduced recoil if crouching. Extra ammo capacity via larger clips etc etc

Basically its *sort* of an LMG as it has higher ammo capacity and the potential for sustained fire. But like many items with attachments or special gear it requires resources and skill development to use.

[Rbstr]

CQB vs Heavy weapons is the distinction I'm trying to get at.

The heavy stuff is typically not the close quarters gun of choice. They're...heavy... and hard to deal with in tight spaced. They also have range/accuracy and hitting power not necessary up close.

A CQB weapon would be more of an SMG, short carbine, combat shotgun.
A heavy weapon would be more of an LMG, grenade launcher, what have you.
(of course one of my upgrade ideas turns the heavy into a close-quarters weapon...so yeah)

Yeah, the LMG concept overlaps with the MA ranges to some extent, but they behave differently and would be available to a different class with less flexibility.
The CQB weapon doesn't need to be about POWER if the rest of the cards are dealt properly.

Simply stacking HA/MA/sniper as close/med/long ranges is overly simplistic. Especially with a class system where it's likely not as simple as swapping MA for HA when you get close because you'll lose out on the other class roles.

Personally, I'm against the deployable idea, and more in favour of large recoil penalties when not crouched...I don't think we're going to see prone in the game to begin with.

[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.

[Vancha]

Originally Posted by Malorn

Think of the Day of Defeat machineguns...they had to be deployed to be used, but once you did deploy them they were complete pwnface, but they could be flanked and were vulnerable when relocating. Very well balanced in that game.

My hatred for the insta-TTK of DoD aside, did you ever enjoy having to deal with DoD machine guns? Did you ever feel gameplay benefited from it's existence (other than when you were using it)?

[Ranik Ortega]

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.

The game is sort of sliding to the realistic though since they are lowering TTK and adding vehicle and aircraft physics.

Anyway what do you guys think of

Originally Posted by Ranik

Maybe the differentiation between MA and MA+ could occur via the skill tree and attachment system.

For example a medium assault player gets x y and z attachments for his gun that have to be paid for with resources like other upgrades. These can be the scopes grenade launchers etc etc


But a HA player using an MA rifle has different upgrades. The aforementioned fore grip for reduced recoil if crouching. Extra ammo capacity via larger clips etc etc

Basically its *sort* of an LMG as it has higher ammo capacity and the potential for sustained fire. But like many items with attachments or special gear it requires resources and skill development to use.

Originally Posted by Vancha

My hatred for the insta-TTK of DoD aside, did you ever enjoy having to deal with DoD machine guns? Did you ever feel gameplay benefited from it's existence (other than when you were using it )?

Yes vancha I DO feel that LMG's made games better. Though DoD I have not played. But as for Arma2 / Battleground Europe ? They definitely played their part.

[Bags]

Originally Posted by Ranik Ortega

The game is sort of sliding to the realistic though since they are lowering TTK and adding vehicle and aircraft physics.

Anyway what do you guys think of

That's fine, but there's no need for realism for the sake of realism. There are floating tanks that shoot laser beams for pete's sake. In regards to your quote, I really don't care as long as I can use my MCG in a similar capacity to Planetside.