What do assault players think of GL nerfs ?

[Ruhanga]

Re: What do assault players think of GL nerfs ?

The GL was intended to be used against light vehicles - DICE has said this multiple times. Blast radius hardly matters if you can hit the target directly.

If you want to use it against infantry, think of it like a shotgun that shoots big slugs.

The currently large blast radius is nothing more than a set of training wheels for people who can't accurately place a grenade shot, or aren't very efficient with the rifle.

Only light vehicle in the game is cars. I would accept if they would had raised the damage againts these light vehicles, but no. Its takes about 2-4 shots to take down a healty vodnik, in that time the driver has disembarked about 123-456 times?

It feels like Assault is now a medic, which has its medic pack changed for a little armor. Thats no good. Assault should be this heavy class, made for dealing heavy damage, but being still slow and cumbersome. Sigh, my dreams have always so mych better games.

[vbl]

Re: What do assault players think of GL nerfs ?

Only light vehicle in the game is cars. I would accept if they would had raised the damage againts these light vehicles, but no. Its takes about 2-4 shots to take down a healty vodnik, in that time the driver has disembarked about 123-456 times?

It feels like Assault is now a medic, which has its medic pack changed for a little armor. Thats no good. Assault should be this heavy class, made for dealing heavy damage, but being still slow and cumbersome. Sigh, my dreams have always so mych better games.

Two shots for a Vodnik - less most of the time, since vehicles take occasional damage from bumping into things, small arms fire, etc.

[Scotty]

Re: What do assault players think of GL nerfs ?

If this bothers noobtubers so much that they go play as a medic and become so-called rambo medics, so be it. I'll still be more than happy to play as assault, or spec ops, or any kit for that matter and go toe to toe with them with guns in our hands.

Everyone thinks the medic is more advantageous because they can heal themselves and have a decent gun. That means they can't shoot me while they have a bag in their hand. If they have a gun in their hands, they don't have the body armor to survive as long as assault in a fire fight. The advantage is not as big as some may think. Once I get done killing them, I'll go pick up their kit, drop a med pack, heal myself, pick up my old kit and go look for the next medic.

Everyone cries and complains about everything in this game and moans about every change that DICE makes. The changes are not that big of a deal and people will still figure out what works best for them. If they don't want to play assault anymore, so be it.

[fdxd]

Re: What do assault players think of GL nerfs ?

The reason they are changing assault so much is because of vocal moaners. First it was bunny hopping but really its just assault class that you guys hate. I agree with the fix largely but they ought to get rid of either the long reload or the lesser splash damage. We'll see anyway i could be wrong. I never needed to jump with the grenade launcher and i could kill at a great distance with the weapon.

What i dont get is when the greande launcher is fired from far away you can easily dodge it. It takes alot of skill to kill with the grenade launcher like that. Something bunny hoppers cant do.

[Floplag]

Re: What do assault players think of GL nerfs ?

i think it depends on the extremes they go to. i dont have issues with the first 2, but i agree that nerfing the radius is not appropriate and should be left alone. besides, i dont think nerfing the assault class is needed as much as nerfing the damn aricraft ... i hope they patch that right.

[puglous]

Re: What do assault players think of GL nerfs ?

With over 2800 GL kills, #1 and #2 really don't bother me, nor will they effect my play very much. Sure, I've fragged guys up close, but its not my usual method for assault.

I usually don't jump around firing, so that doesn't bother me, hell, it'll be nice in a way to see guys who jumped around with DAO-12's or any other CQB weapon be just as limited.

#3 though - as a previous poster mentioned - will hurt the class. The rifles aren't that much stronger than some other classes, the GL really helps, especially when dealing with squds / etc... I'd be better off using my G3 and spamming hand grenades everywhere. We'll just have to see how much different this is.


Quote:
the GL is only for the assualt kit to defend them selves against vehicles, not infantry

Uh yeah, u sir, are a moron. By using your "logic" (and I use that term loosely), I should then assume that the AT kit should never use their SRAW/Eryx on Infantry (commonly done), or that a medic shouldn't be allowed to use shock paddles on enemies - after all, they're intended to revive members of their own team, right?

Its war, I'll use every item in my kit to kill you, period. And when this nerfing comes out, you'll still see plenty of GL kills.... :laugh:

Wow...usually stupidity like this is funny, but I'm really starting to worry about our species. The developers have specifically SAID they did not intend it to be used against infantry. On the other hand, the AT rocket is depicted as being used against infantry IN THE INTRO MOVIE TO THE GAME. And no one said they didn't want to see GL kills, just not close range GL kills. And you're still going to be able to use every weapon in your kit, genius. The weapons will just be different.

[imported_Svartberg]

Re: What do assault players think of GL nerfs ?

puglous:
Everyone is entitled to their opinions, some people think the GL should be an equivelent to a normal grenade, some think it should be only used against light vehicles, etc.

Forget Dice, i want to hear what you think about the 3 changes. (read the first post if you didn't already)

And just for the record, one of Dice employees said he thinks constant jumping for defense is legitimate, doesn't say me or many other people agree with it.
"Many have asked why a stamina system (for jumping) was not implemented. The simple answer is that a stamina system would severely limit your ability to defend yourself or get out of harms way when you needed most to do so."

[puglous]

Re: What do assault players think of GL nerfs ?

Everyone is entitled to their opinions, some people think the GL should be an equivelent to a normal grenade, some think it should be only used against light vehicles, etc.

I completely agree, now tell that to the guy I was quoting, he called the person he disagreed with a moron.

I like all the changes except the one with the decreased radius. The point of an explosion is to cause damage to a radius bigger than the projectile itself, and if they shrink the radius, it won't be much bigger than that considering how small it already is. A fun part of strategy in BF2 is figuring out how to use explosives to kill someone with indirect fire.

I play assualt now and then since the addition of the flashbangs, but I rarley use the GL upclose. I'm not bad with long distance shots.

[Roger Smith]

Re: What do assault players think of GL nerfs ?

i love assault, although i love every class, and i am not in dismay over these changes, infact they are warented. just like im a pilot but im happy they are fixing aa (i hope!) this is because i play the game in every way possible, i use vehicles, i fight on the ground, i do specific missions like antiblackhawk on Mashtuur City or spec ops commander assets. so i know when something is bull, and frankly the gl can be bull.

[Digital-Boy]

Re: What do assault players think of GL nerfs ?

No mid-air grenade launching and an arming time is fine by me, but reducing the blast radius is stupid. I don't care what the developers intended the grenade launcher to be used for, the grenade launcher is half of what gives assault its edge against infantry. The notion of the assault class as a class that performs poorly against infantry (mediocre rifle compared to what special ops/medics get) and vehicles (crappy anti-vehicle weapon compared to C4 and SRAW/Eryx) is bogus.

[vbl]

Re: What do assault players think of GL nerfs ?

I'm not sure why everyone is complaining about the Assault Rifles, as if they're bad and the kit may as well not have one. They're quite deadly - just a little less accurate than the carbines.

[sp187mf9]

Re: What do assault players think of GL nerfs ?

How big was the blast radius before and what is it being shrunk to?

[vbl]

Re: What do assault players think of GL nerfs ?

How big was the blast radius before and what is it being shrunk to?

This image is from secretsofbattlefield.com. I'm not sure if they actually mean "feet" in their measurements, or if they meant meters.



We don't know how drastic the reduction will be.

[Digital-Boy]

Re: What do assault players think of GL nerfs ?

The currently large blast radius is nothing more than a set of training wheels for people who can't accurately place a grenade shot, or aren't very efficient with the rifle.

Large blast radius? The blast radius for the launched grenade is tiny. You need to land the grenade pretty d**n close to your target to kill them, and the exaggerated trajectory makes that a lot harder than you make it to be (at range, at least).

This image is from secretsofbattlefield.com. I'm not sure if they actually mean "feet" in their measurements, or if they meant meters.



We don't know how drastic the reduction will be.

The three-foot kill zone is accurate, but you'll receive little to no damage from a launched grenade that explodes more than five feet away. This goes back to my "tiny blast radius" comment above.

What peeves me is that the assault class, a class that's supposed to be powerful against infantry, keeps getting the sh***y end of the stick. The stopping power of the assault rifles doesn't matter if you can't hit what you're aiming at. On single shot, I tear s*** up with the G36C and G36E because I hit what I aim at. Even aiming directly at my target, a hit from the AK or F2000 or G3 is half luck due to random deviation, and you need to exercise more control with these weapons than with a carbine because they have more recoil, compounding to the problem of already sloppy accuracy. If DICE wants people to stop whoring the GL, why not make the primaries worth using? (I'm amazed that the best assault rifle, maybe even better than the carbines, is given to the f****** medic, which by all logic should be relatively weak in infantry combat.)

[vbl]

Re: What do assault players think of GL nerfs ?

Large blast radius? The blast radius for the launched grenade is tiny. You need to land the grenade pretty d**n close to your target to kill them, and the exaggerated trajectory makes that a lot harder than you make it to be (at range, at least).

The three-foot kill zone is accurate, but you'll receive little to no damage from a launched grenade that explodes more than five feet away. This goes back to my "tiny blast radius" comment above.

What peeves me is that the assault class, a class that's supposed to be powerful against infantry, keeps getting the sh***y end of the stick. The stopping power of the assault rifles doesn't matter if you can't hit what you're aiming at. On single shot, I tear s*** up with the G36C and G36E because I hit what I aim at. Even aiming directly at my target, a hit from the AK or F2000 or G3 is half luck due to random deviation, and you need to exercise more control with these weapons than with a carbine because they have more recoil, compounding to the problem of already sloppy accuracy. If DICE wants people to stop whoring the GL, why not make the primaries worth using?

I play a lot of Assault, and I don't have problems killing people with the rifle.