The Assault class

Skill has nothing to do with it, I could let my sister play, and she could probably get a 2:1 KDR with the AN-94, M416, and M16 because of how easy they are to use. They all need more recoil, forcing the user to burst fire, or need to be weakened. The AN-94, M416, and M16 are also VERY good at ANYTHING. CQC, Medium range, BA rifle distance. If they are going to be the jack of all trades weapons, they shouldn't be the masters of EVERYTHING, but should be masters of NOTHING.

DrBob276 wrote:If they are going to be the jack of all trades weapons, they shouldn't be the masters of EVERYTHING, but should be masters of NOTHING.

gets it

deleted!

I think it is time for us to just chill in this topic.

It is running in circles.

Yup i agree and delete my previous posts. This felt tooooooo much like a GFQ topic, hence my posts! couldn't help it.

this topic needs more rage


show me your rage

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfCiOzL7cYs

take a lesson from chozo

JDM_Jev wrote:

T-800 wrote:

JDM_Jev wrote:We've already disregarded the 'skill' argument because it's stupid.


Okay, so give one played an Assault weapon and an equally skilled player anything else (other than a shotgun or sniper obviously). The assault wins every god damn time.

not cool bro

I am sorry but this is wrong every class can outplay the assault class with the proper set up of guns and specs.

Providing the Assault class isn't playing the right set up either, right?

I mean obviously the SCAR-L, M60, MG3 or VSS is going to beat the F2000 but against the XM8-P/M16A2/AN94/M416/AUG to a lesser extent with Magnum Ammo the Assault is going to win.

Actually the 9A-91 is on par with the AN-94 in TTK, and the VSS has a faster TTK than the AN-94. So same skill head to head the Assault gets beat out or ties those two.

https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AlTMrHbh89wedFd6REg3cFdlek1JdDJ3eWNzWXRUWWc&hl=en&authkey=CKyMwd0I#gid=0

However, the AN-94 has range and fire rate when compared to the 9A-A1. An while the VSS may have a faster TTK, to engage an AN-94 without a x4 or RDS would most likely prove fatal to the VSS user.

We all agree that the AN-94 is a bit OP as is the M16A2 (not so much anymore after it's nerf). I don't know what the deal is about the M416, but whatever.

these guns are only an issue due to the fact that inaccuracy, and fire select were omitted IMO. Bring back fire select, and inaccuracy the balance should be restored then. also perhaps a slight pause between bursts, or greater penalties to recoil/accuracy when firing in quick succession.

If we had fire select I might always opt for semi-auto or bursts.
Unless I'm expecting some close encounters.

G36E anyone?

LoL

The 9A-91 also doesn't come with infinite ammo and a 30 round clip, neither does the VSS. Also, VSS doesn't get a crosshair when hipfired.

And the VSS has drop/recoil.

VSS doesn't need a cross hair. All you do is tap in the general direction while not sighting.

I platinumed the M-16 after the nerf. It is not overpowered. It doesn't have laser accuracy. It's great at medium range. That's about it.

Assault has a role, that role is to kill infantry and serve as the bulk of the ground forces. I think it does it well without being a juggernaut. Vehicles routinely obliterate Assaults. If the other classes play to their strengths, they can kill Assaults. One thing I would like to see changed however, is the ease of out sniping Recon at long range with ARs, SMGs, and LMGs. The lack of bullet drop on those weapons is ridiculous.

The problem with the assault class is that it's a better support option than the other two and infinitely superior to the others at killing infantry.

Read the topic please.

You can't exactly play to a class' strength to overcome Assault if it's on-par with Engineer weapons up close and superior to Medic guns at both ranges. It shouldn't be the best single class in the game at everything - it should be able to do CQC and long-range, but not better than Engineer/Medic respectively.

Because that's gay.

Dunno, as of late the only times I lose consistantly to an Assault is if they are using the AN-94. The M16 occasionally, and I hardly get into trouble with M416 users. As an engineer I usually try to aim for the head, and as a medic I'm usually jumping from cover to cover and being extra careful in the first place to try and stay alive long enough to bring others back to life.

While I agree with some aspects of your argument, this game is no where near what the AR's were like in say MW2. There was no point to using anything other than an AR in MW2, and I must say, though it's sort of forced here in BC2, I have no real complaints against most weapons. AN-94 being an exception, hell even the M60 isn't as much of a nuisance anymore.

You seem quite adamant about the assault class being terribly powerful, and I believe that you believe that is so. Not trying to be an arse or anything, but personally, I don't see it as a game breaking issue or anything. BC2 is pretty well balanced for the most part IMO, and I don't normally rage against individuals using specific guns like I did in MW2. The only weapon that tends to get under my skin is again, the AN-94. That rifle seriously is ridiculous.

The problem with the assault class is that it's a better support option than the other two and infinitely superior to the others at killing infantry.

Oh come on now...

ok so as engineer you can kill people fine up close but it's absolutely horrible at long range and as medic it takes a shitload of hits to kill people at both ranges but at least you have 100 rounds + beneficial spread but as assault it takes no effort to kill at any range.


at long range I account more for travel than I do recoil. too accurate, too powerful, and as support (considering engineer is useless on most maps for no vehicles and medic is sort of meh for anything other than defib-spamming) ammo > everything

JDM_Jev wrote:ok so as engineer you can kill people fine up close but it's absolutely horrible at long range and as medic it takes a shitload of hits to kill people at both ranges but at least you have 100 rounds + beneficial spread but as assault it takes no effort to kill at any range.


at long range I account more for travel than I do recoil. too accurate, too powerful, and as support (considering engineer is useless on most maps for no vehicles and medic is sort of meh for anything other than defib-spamming) ammo > everything

I would like to point out something here with the engineer.

1) You stated that you can win up close with an SMG, that sounds fair, that's the optimal range of an SMG. SMG's have horrible damage and accuracy apparently at long range, as they should, they are not designed for precision shooting. They are designed for close quarters combat in confined areas

2) Medic LMG, burst fire at medium to moderately long range engagements will usually get to a kill, but they are not precision weapons, and are more for suppressive fire than anything else. They are not designed to be a CQC weapon either, hence why they usually are a little bit slower on the draw fro ADS.

3) Assault Rifles, rifles in general, are designed to be a jack of all trades for the most part. Able to operate in multiple areas at many ranges. While the game exaggerates their accuracy at range a bit, I would not go as far as to saying it takes "no effort" to kill at any range. The only rifles I can say that make it a lot easier to get kills are the M16A2 and the AN-94. Use any other rifle and you simply cannot just point and shoot. Players who know how to use just about any weapon effectively will find tapping the trigger the easiest way to maintain control and keep your shots accurate at most ranges. Spraying will not net you a kill, and this applies to any weapon in the game, not just AR's. An assault rifle is supposed to provide accurate to moderately accurate fire from anywhere to close to moderately long ranges.

I use the AUG and on occasion the the F2000 and certainly can't out snipe people from across the bay on Panama Canal, but I do have the skill to know how to push my weapons capabilities to their limit to make the most of my shots so that I may kill said player hiding behind that slab of concrete at B.

The Assault class is there to provide a solid means to combat infantry, and while the lack of vehicles gives more focus to this class, they are not invincible gods of war. A competent assault player may get loads of kills. But be honest, look at the weapon you get killed by most when fighting an assault. For me 80%% of my deaths by assaults, the enemy player is usually using either the M16 or the AN-94 more so the latter. the remaining 20% is pretty much every other assault rifle out there. The infinite ammo thing, ok fine, yes that may give them a slight edge, but anyone who is in a proper squad can simply request ammo from a squad mate (provided you have an assault in your squad and they're listening).

I simply don't know what it is that is making them so OP to you. I simply can't see it. Do I die a lot to assault players? Yes, I do, but I also die a lot to all the other classes, medics, engineers, recons.

Ultimately, BC2 is a team game. Medics and engineers aren't meant to be running around killing Assault. They're supposed to be supplying health packs/reviving and repairing/destroying vehicles.

blackholedreams wrote:Ultimately, BC2 is a team game. Medics and engineers aren't meant to be running around killing Assault. They're supposed to be supplying health packs/reviving and repairing/destroying vehicles.

you didn't read the topic either


and of course the f2000 and aug are bad at long range they're the only balanced ars

I have read the topic, and don't agree with your assessment.

Can't we all just agree that the whole game is a mess?

blackholedreams wrote:I have read the topic, and don't agree with your assessment.

And looking at your stats I'm not really surprised, you don't use anything else nor do you play any other class so how could you possibly think otherwise.

I have spent significant time with the other classes. I know how to play all of them well, in fact. I don't agree with your assessment. Assault does what it's made to do. It's not invincible or unstoppable.

I beg to differ. From my experience, the AEK is pretty well balanced, even the XM8 Prototype isn't imbalances. If anything, it was overused. I don't see too many M416 users, but me personally, I find it pretty balanced as well. I've been dominated by many classes while using the M416, as well as when I used the M16. However the other rifles unlike the M16 and the AN-94, don't normally improve my over all game performance. I'd like to think I'm a capable player, and most of the time, when I pick up an M16 I notice that I perform better, it's just a gun that is easy to use, since it omits the need for the user to control his or her rate of fire. It does most of the work for them, the AN-94 even more so since it has a higher damage output. No other rifle does that, not the AUG, not the AEK nor the M416 mitigates that, it's up to the user to effectively use them. As I stated before, the assault rifle is the compromise between an smg and an lmg, effectively making them efficient in both close to moderately long range.

I am still having a hard time seeing exactly what is making the entire class so powerful in your eyes. Should medics and engineers play a larger role? Yes they should, but as of right now, no class really dominates either one, each has their own role, assault is simply more efficient at combating infantry, as it should be.

If engineers and medics could kill infantry as efficiently as assaults, why would anyone play assault? I don't believe the assault class is OP, I have no trouble pillaging miles upon miles of assaults with LMGs and the trusty Gustav. You just need to learn how to adapt instead of trying to beat them at what they do best, face to face combat.

Artimise Flare wrote:I don't see too many M416 users

What game have you been playing?

Not sure, maybe im just lucky. I don't see as many M416' in my matches. Most of my deaths from assault players come from the AN-94

ante87 you almost have platinum on the M9. Nice!

On topic: Sorry but I really just don't see an issue with assault besides the M16 and AN. I do equally as well with assault, engineer or assault wookie. I haven't used the medic in months.

I too find most of my deaths by Assaults to be by those using the AN-95. They didn't kill me because of the AN, they just happened to be using it when they killed me. As it is a overused weapon buy Sponges with tiny mental capacity generators behind their sloped brows.

@metal: Wow, I didn't even notice, thanks for pointing that out.

The AN94/M16A2/M416 are all used relatively equally, though the M16A2 probably has a larger percentage of online kills total since it was broken on release and all the H3/CoD fanboys that saw it started wetting themselves.

And it's part of the 'last unlock = best obviously' mentality, same with the UMP45.

The Assault class is overpowered for the same reason that the VADS is.

Say the Assault class is the VADS, while Engineer/Medic are the ZU23. Since Conquest is TDM with the nerfed ticket bleed and 50% of Rush is based around kills (not-counting all the kill-seeking Attackers) I don't think comparing all classes by their anti-infantry capabilities is a stretch considering that's what the game asks for anyway due to underpowered support options.

Since as said time and time again (without being acknowledged unfortunately), there are very few vehicles, and the ones we have are quite weak due to a lack of armaments and an abundance of counters that all classes can use such as stat weapons and the tracer dart the Engineer isn't much of a niche class apart from AA-Infantry capabilities and repairing.

A single Engineer can't guarantee a tank's safety, so the niche is pretty much gone there. Logically it should make up for it in someway with anti-inf capabilities, which it does somewhat with SMGs and the Carl Gustav (only with Ex. Mk2). Unfortunately, the Assault class is on equal footing at close-range and out-powers the hell out of Engineer at mid-long.

As for Medic, the addition of sights for all weapons (shotguns aside) improving accuracy and hugely increased damage for all weapons makes the 'healing' aspects sort of useless, and while the defib provides an ass-ton of free points it doesn't go far in terms of actual practicality as no one enjoys some defib-spamming sped reviving you into gunfire or in front of a vehicle. That and the LMGs are weak as hell but make up for it with improved accuracy on sustained fire, but the Assault class is still extremely accurate and powerful, removing the would-be Medic niche there.

But Medic's a low-skill roof class anyway, so I'm not surprised that every gun that isn't the MG3/M60 is losing to pretty much everything.

So back on the VADS/ZU-23 comparison, why bother selecting the weaker two anti-infantry capabilities over the clearly superior one for any reason apart from novelty or challenge? It simply does everything better, it mows Infantry down all over the place and actually gets class-score since Engineer can't do jack-shit on a map with no tanks (in other words, all of them) and Medic is forced to spam the magic defib to accomplish anything point-wise, which pisses your team off more than anything.

also necro-bump.

Since Conquest is TDM with the nerfed ticket bleed

This was fixed a long time ago in the last balance patch. Winning through sheer kills is near impossible now. The team that holds majority flags/majority time always wins.

Oh... and I still disagree. I feel the classes are pretty well balanced and the real-world proof of that is that you see nearly equal amount of all classes played online and it's not uncommon for assault to be the minority class in a game. If it were noticeably overpowered all you would see is assault.

What map are you playing? I only see an abundance of Engineers on Atacama Desert Conquest.

And Recons everywhere but that's an oddball class that isn't even based around teamwork or playing the game.

JD I could only imagine your rage on the sniper class if you played MoH lol.

Yeah CoD snipers made me rage enough to stop-playing that, snipers in MoH reminded me of Nightfire where you couldn't survive a single hit so I didn't bother renting it after the demo/beta.

No reason to play anything else.

CoD snipers are fine; it's just the glitched M40 in CoD4 and the SoH retarded two year olds quickscoping constantly in MW2. Either way, there's no more SP, so that should help, but it'll still be annoying because of the little children jumping around and disgracing people that actually like to sit back and use a sniper rifle as it was designed.

CoD really doesn't benefit from snipers anyway, the class contributes nothing to the game apart from annoying montages and gamertags.

JDM_Jev wrote:CoD really doesn't benefit from snipers anyway, the class contributes nothing to the game apart from annoying montages and gamertags.

But I like sniper rifles.

And the high number of kills they get...