Jump to content

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, Caliell said:

I don't know why would they need one (hip firing M4 is pretty effective) and giving them offset weapon seems kind of the imabalance.

Because, it's not like they get additional ammo. Almost every other kit has sidearm as backup, in addition to primary weapon. Even the sniper has a sidearm, which makes sense given the primary. Don't see a need to penalize the kit with no side arm and there's no extra mags for primary to off-set. 

 

SL can choose the same weapon w/scope and Sidearm. Why not take his sidearm as well? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, PROTOCOL said:

Because, it's not like they get additional ammo. Almost every other kit has sidearm as backup, in addition to primary weapon. Even the sniper has a sidearm, which makes sense given the primary. Don't see a need to penalize the kit with no side arm and there's no extra mags for primary to off-set. 

 

SL can choose the same weapon w/scope and Sidearm. Why not take his sidearm as well? 

 

The reason that optic riflemen don't have sidearms is so there is some downside to picking the class. They're fine in close quarter combat and extremely effective at range so having yet another tool that increases their effectiveness is unnecessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Stom said:

 

The reason that optic riflemen don't have sidearms is so there is some downside to picking the class. They're fine in close quarter combat and extremely effective at range so having yet another tool that increases their effectiveness is unnecessary.

That logic makes sense when applied unilaterally across classes that have mirrored traits, as you've pointed out. 

 

Again, why not penalize the SL the same when selecting the same weapon. It doesn't happen, which then makes the primary weapon argument moot. Regarding additional balance, Brits get two marksmen and one with a bipod and both have side arms. Why not take the side arm away from the one with the bipod? 

 

I guess instead of picking ACOG rifleman, I'll pick marksman since there's "no downside for picking that class". Higher magnification, more stopping power and a sidearm. 

Edited by PROTOCOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, PROTOCOL said:

That logic makes sense when applied unilaterally across classes that have mirrored traits, as you've pointed out. 

 

Again, why not penalize the SL the same when selecting the same weapon. It doesn't happen, which then makes the primary weapon argument moot. Regarding additional balance, Brits get two marksmen and one with a bipod and both have side arms. Why not take the side arm away from the one with the bipod? 

 

I guess instead of picking ACOG rifleman, I'll pick marksman since there's "no downside for picking that class". Higher magnification, more stopping power and a sidearm. 

 

The SL getting a pistol is more of a thematic decision since it's an officer kit and officers get pistols. A minor gameplay reason is that you want the SL kit to be as combat capable as possible to make it more attractive to experienced players so they SL more, but that's an edge case.

 

I agree that the British LSW kit could do without a pistol but I haven't used the weapon enough to feel out how hard it is to use in close quarters and thus how justified the pistol is.

 

The downside to a marksman weapon is that it's got a lot of recoil, low magazine capacity and it's bloody long so using it up close is fairly difficult. The other reason you don't pick it is because it takes a fire support slot.

 

All that being said I just don't see the value in giving the optic rifleman a pistol. It just makes the rich richer in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Stom said:

 

The SL getting a pistol is more of a thematic decision since it's an officer kit and officers get pistols. A minor gameplay reason is that you want the SL kit to be as combat capable as possible to make it more attractive to experienced players so they SL more, but that's an edge case.

 

I agree that the British LSW kit could do without a pistol but I haven't used the weapon enough to feel out how hard it is to use in close quarters and thus how justified the pistol is.

 

The downside to a marksman weapon is that it's got a lot of recoil, low magazine capacity and it's bloody long so using it up close is fairly difficult. The other reason you don't pick it is because it takes a fire support slot.

 

All that being said I just don't see the value in giving the optic rifleman a pistol. It just makes the rich richer in my opinion.

Pistol is invaluable as a marksman. I always use it when on foot. Can't do much with the sniper rifle while on the move. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/1/2018 at 10:10 AM, MultiSquid said:

It's literally in the post you yourself quoted. I'll make it more obvious so you can't miss it this time:

Please read posts thoroughly next time, I've never ever said we should be able to 1-man tanks. I've been objecting to having 3-man tanks. There's a difference.

 

You should have read mine as well.

I just wrote that one man tanks would not be cool to have in this game that is all.

And 3 man crew is ok to have but read this again slowly you do not need to have 3 crew in a tank for it to operate.You are just more efective if you have 3 guys in it since commanter has his own periscope and could watch your six.

Have you erver been in the BRDM-2 you have 3 seats in it but one guy can operate it beeing a gunner and switching to drive it when he needs too its just easer and good to have both of them in the same time but if you have the 3 guy in it as i wrote you are more efective as it would b hard for the enemy to come on your six.

So having 3 crew in he tank would be just the same.But you do not NEED TO HAVE ALL 3 TO OPERATE IT.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Stom "thematic" and "attractive". Now that's a valid argument and reasoning. No more needs to be said, we'll agree to disagree. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, PROTOCOL said:

@Stom "thematic" and "attractive". Now that's a valid argument and reasoning. No more needs to be said, we'll agree to disagree. 

I'm not the designer my man, that's just my read on the situation.

 

You haven't given a good reason for optic rifleman to get a pistol other than it's 'fair' compared to completely different kits.

Edited by Stom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

realistically speaking, very few soldiers get issued sidearms. Most of those that do are either officers, military police, tankers, or medics, and designated marksmen/snipers.

This also goes kind of the other way as well.

 

For example when I was 19D, as 240B machine gunner, I also carried my M4 packed on the top of my assault pack. I presume other armies do the same thing.

Edited by Caliell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Caliell said:

realistically speaking, very few soldiers get issued sidearms. Most of those that do are either officers, military police, tankers, or medics. 

This also goes kind of the other way as well.

 

For example when I was 19D, as 240B machine gunner, I also carried my M4 packed on the top of my assault pack. I presume other armies do the same thing.

Exactly! That's what made me wonder why every class/kit/role has a sidearm in the game except for the ACOG rifleman. If it was an attempt to stay true to "reality" you would/should see more roles without a side arm.  If for game balance, I doubt anyone would say "damn it" I got killed by the ACOG rifleman with a pistol, his pistol makes that role so OP. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exciting changes. But I'll only ask what has been my favorite question for months now. Will we finally see the revived finally not teleporting upwards?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/28/2018 at 12:37 AM, SpecialAgentJohnson said:

If they got t72 then they need Abrams as well for balance, so long time still to wait... 

Abrams was more or less the development bed for other tanks, so progress there is what let us get to the t-72. =) We try to keep recaps more directly connected to the things going on in the last month and the team has been cracking down on the t-72, so there she is. =)

On 8/28/2018 at 1:37 AM, MultiSquid said:

I'm still wondering about having the tanks with 3 crewmen instead of 2. Will the driver have something to besides staring out of the narrow slits  in front of him and twiddling his thumbs when the tank is stationary? Driving armored vehicles is already kinda boring, I imagine it will only feel worse when you'll have one more person in the vehicle that's actually doing something interesting while you as a driver are just waiting for a command to move.

Smoke would be a thing, most likely. It should still be possible to run with two people, of course, but the intent is to make tanks ALWAYS more efficient with three. I'm a little biased, since I like driving though. =) It may be pretty hectic depending on how balance shakes out, so hopefully nobody's going to be bored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/29/2018 at 2:16 AM, eagon89 said:

Question about the tank, in the trailer the infantry run quite near the tank even when he is firing.

Will you add some kind of effect ?

Not something ultrarealistic like Arma ACE mod where you become deaf but something like the one in CoD Modern Warfare when you escort the tank, if you are too close to the tank when he is firing you have a confused camera and tinnitus in the ear.

 

Z5YHxol.png

It's been discussed, and we're looking at some environmental effects in general, but not sure it's been settled yet. May end up being related to the suppression system, too. Though we don't want to make it painful to support your armor either. =)

On 8/31/2018 at 1:24 AM, Locke said:

I have an idea. Let the driver open his hatch and give him binos it is more realistic than an own periscope but have a similar effect. + he is now killable for inf. 

Turning out is a feature we'd like to have at some point. =)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/1/2018 at 5:21 AM, Axel said:

The thing is, the Abrams tank will even have a 4 men crew (loader). 

What's the point? 

 

The game still needs to be fun, while maintaining a demanding gameplay focusing on team play. 

Driver and loader will be boring as hell to play. 

This also reduce the overall Nummer of vehicles on the field. I imagine it will result in as boring tank gameplay as in post scriptum. 

 

I also believe PR had a much better approach, combining driver and Co.

Driving was fun because you had more things to do. 

Vehicle combat has great, 3 tanks vs 3. Witch was cool the play as crew or watch as infantry man. 

You could use some tactics, because you actually had some nummers.

 

Following post scriptum with their boring tank play will result in disappointment. 

Should generally only have three crewmembers -- driver, gunner, commander -- but it does have the cupola machinegun. You don't necessarily need anyone in it to run the tank though. Keeping an eye on the amount of people in a tank crew is something that does concern the designers, as it means you have less people on the front lines. Testing'll shake it out for sure, but it's on the radar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎9‎/‎8‎/‎2018 at 11:00 AM, TheRed said:

SeeN, I played with you last night and you were LOVING it.

Yeah, nothing beats being revived and then getting shot in the next second as you pop out on top of a building fully exposed :D My favorite feature since release 10.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SeeN said:

Yeah, nothing beats being revived and then getting shot in the next second as you pop out on top of a building fully exposed :D My favorite feature since release 10.

Or spawn in the roof of the HAB for some reason and getting immediately popped as well. 

6 hours ago, Gatzby said:

Abrams was more or less the development bed for other tanks, so progress there is what let us get to the t-72. =) We try to keep recaps more directly connected to the things going on in the last month and the team has been cracking down on the t-72, so there she is. =)

Smoke would be a thing, most likely. It should still be possible to run with two people, of course, but the intent is to make tanks ALWAYS more efficient with three. I'm a little biased, since I like driving though. =) It may be pretty hectic depending on how balance shakes out, so hopefully nobody's going to be bored.

That's great! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Gatzby said:

Should generally only have three crewmembers -- driver, gunner, commander -- but it does have the cupola machinegun. You don't necessarily need anyone in it to run the tank though. Keeping an eye on the amount of people in a tank crew is something that does concern the designers, as it means you have less people on the front lines. Testing'll shake it out for sure, but it's on the radar.

You could combine driver / commander, If you want more ppl at the front line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Phoenixstorm said:

You could combine driver / commander, If you want more ppl at the front line.

The commander is actually the only one position that is not necessary to operate a tank. At least when it comes to running and gunning.

 

I think that 4 slots should be available in Abrams, but 3 people are minimum to operate it. Driver gunner and either commander or loader. Rounds would not have to be loaded or anything but unless you have 3 ppl in the tank you wouldn't be able to reload. Then who is in loader position or commander position  doesn't matter as long as one of them is filled up. 

 

The flipside to having more people at the front and making tanks unrealistically manned, is that tanks become overpowered. Meaning that if you man one tank completely then you got at least three less persons at the front line. If you don't want tanks then you should be able to compensate in infantry if you want that instead. A tank is a valuable asset and should come at the price of less infantry at the front lines when employed. I mean not all maps might even have tanks to begin with if it doesn't suit the gameplay.

 

Also because tanks are such mean killers they shouldn't be too easy/arcadish to operate. Good crew teamwork should be rewarded but come at a price. 

Edited by SpecialAgentJohnson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Frontline" what a topic ... if i know any gun shooting around "flags" are at frontline. 4 guys there or there ... i wouldnt say that they are missing. May be with cap. But if they protect 3 other infs against enemy armor. Or with HE simply clear whole building. Well thats win. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SpecialAgentJohnson said:

The flipside to having more people at the front and making tanks unrealistically manned, is that tanks become overpowered.

No matter how good your vehicle / crew is, if they take it into hostile urban area its already destroyed. Proved by project reality in the past many times.

Edited by Phoenixstorm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Gatzby said:

It's been discussed, and we're looking at some environmental effects in general, but not sure it's been settled yet. May end up being related to the suppression system, too. Though we don't want to make it painful to support your armor either. =)

Turning out is a feature we'd like to have at some point. =)

BRILLIANT_.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Phoenixstorm said:

No matter how good your vehicle / crew is, if they take it into hostile urban area its already destroyed. Proved by project reality in the past many times.

A tank cannot realistically be operated by only 2 people. Hence overpowered. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, SpecialAgentJohnson said:

A tank cannot realistically be operated by only 2 people. Hence overpowered. 

Thats wrong though. Dunno about abrams, but t72 can be literally 1 manned. It was either Chechnya or georgian war, one russian tanker had to do that his crew being gone for some reason, I dont exactly remember. Basically he was jumping from hatch to hatch, driving into position and firing. And I honestly dont think this is a single case in history. So technically its possible :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×