Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register |
PSU Social
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
PSU: 99 billion served, or is that McDonalds?
Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register |
PSU Social
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Home | Forum | Chat | Wiki | Social | AGN | PS2 Stats |
|
|
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
![]() |
[Ignore Me] #32 | ||
Staff Sergeant
|
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 ![]() |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
[Ignore Me] #33 | |||
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.
__________________
![]() All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others. |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
[Ignore Me] #35 | |||
Private
|
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. |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
[Ignore Me] #36 | ||
Lieutenant General
|
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... |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
[Ignore Me] #37 | |||
Staff Sergeant
|
|
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
[Ignore Me] #39 | ||
Contributor PlanetSide 2
Game Designer |
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. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
[Ignore Me] #40 | |||
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.
__________________
![]() All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others. |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
[Ignore Me] #41 | |||
Lieutenant General
|
And yeah, I don't think it will be with faster TTK all around. |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
[Ignore Me] #42 | |||
Staff Sergeant
|
|
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
[Ignore Me] #43 | ||
Private
|
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). |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
[Ignore Me] #44 | |||
Staff Sergeant
|
|
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
[Ignore Me] #45 | ||
Private
|
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. Last edited by Treerat; 2011-07-20 at 07:04 PM. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
Bookmarks |
|
|