What do assault players think of GL nerfs ?

[imported_Svartberg]

Re: What do assault players think of GL nerfs ?

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

Oh it's definetly feet, i remember the kill radius is 1 meter. (and i just tested that to make sure )

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

Well apparently you thought the radius was meters
If you used this kit for the rifle, why not use the spec-ops/medic instead ? i found the specop a much more useful kit for rifle killings. (plus you get less deviation per shot too)

[Digital-Boy]

Re: What do assault players think of GL nerfs ?

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

I play a lot of assault also (currently trying to get 40 kills for expert badge); I use the rifle a lot, but I use the grenade launcher a lot too. Like Svartberg said, if I wanted a good rifle, I could just go medic or special ops and get medkits and C4 to boot.

Also, as mentionned previously, the grenade launcher replaces hand grenades for the assault class. Doesn't they kind of imply/entail usage against infantry?

[vbl]

Re: What do assault players think of GL nerfs ?

Well apparently you thought the radius was meters

Not sure why that matters - actually, I know it doesn't matter. I just wasn't sure what form of measurement they used, and I don't have the game handy to test it. It has nothing to do with my opinion on the GL or the rifles.

I am not going to argue at length about why Assault is more or less useful than Specops/Medic in infantry firefights. Suffice to say, the body armor makes a world of difference, and the regular rifles are quite lethal - and that's coming from someone with 160+ hours playing Spec Ops and some pretty decent Carbine stats.

The carbines are technically more accurate, but I've only seen that advantage played out at ranges above at least 200m, if not farther. C4 and the medpacks are useful tools, but sometimes higher durability is more practical. Medpacks aren't terribly useful when you're dead because you ran into an Assault guy - you died after 3 bullets but he's still standing.

[David.Turnbull]

Re: What do assault players think of GL nerfs ?

only played teh assault class for a couple of rounds recently, I don't mind the changes, I always did hate those damn bunnyhopers.

[Chowley]

Re: What do assault players think of GL nerfs ?

I dont often play assault, but the reduced radius is just retarded, im baffled at how they decided to this.

It seems like total overkill.

[HowieMandel]

Re: What do assault players think of GL nerfs ?

Sucks.
I like how it is now.

[imported_bigpappa]

Re: What do assault players think of GL nerfs ?

noob tubers are a disease that needs to be eliminated in the essence of fairplay

fookin' a man

[vbl]

Re: What do assault players think of GL nerfs ?

Sucks.
I like how it is now.

Yea, but your name is Howie Mandel - kinda kills credibility.

[LoganX]

Re: What do assault players think of GL nerfs ?

Yea, but your name is Howie Mandel - kinda kills credibility.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Rambo]

Re: What do assault players think of GL nerfs ?

so if there guna do that they need to turn down the g36 as well and the m95 and everyother accurate deadly weapon

people dont talk about jets because they are playing a different game

[LoganX]

Re: What do assault players think of GL nerfs ?

Those weapons are NOT 1 shot 1 kill weapons EVERY time they hit. Even the M95. The GL is and it needed to be balanced.

[imported_Svartberg]

Re: What do assault players think of GL nerfs ?

Not sure why that matters - actually, I know it doesn't matter. I just wasn't sure what form of measurement they used, and I don't have the game handy to test it. It has nothing to do with my opinion on the GL or the rifles.

That was just a sarcastic remark

I am not going to argue at length about why Assault is more or less useful than Specops/Medic ...

Good, i heard your opinion, obviously we don't agree, but you have been polite about it.
There's no reason to argue as this wasn't the idea of this thread. :)

Those weapons are NOT 1 shot 1 kill weapons EVERY time they hit. Even the M95. The GL is and it needed to be balanced.

And a GL isn't a 1 shot 1 kill weapon every time it hits either, depends where it hits
I am curious what you think about each of of the GL changes, and please remember your assault kit experience rather than just the times you've died from GL's.

[[3SA]D|Sgt.Colinloves]

Re: What do assault players think of GL nerfs ?

How many times does it need to be said or quoted from the BF" manual. The assault class is ment to own on the battlefield. How? Well, it aint because of his gun. Other classes have the same gun or even a better gun. The body armour helps, but its the noobtube that makes the difference. Assault is ment to clear out areas on his own. People just have to accept that.
People have to accept learning to play with another class that aint spec ops :P

People hate the tube for its one hit kill. Single kill that is. Reduced radius will just make single shots even more common as group shots are just gonna be too hard - they are already too rare.

GL not meant for one shot kills or foot troops. Do you really think EA ment that ?? - they are falling over backwards to you moaners.
In SF the GL can be very effective with the new vehicles. But with old BF2, its only the buggies. Just think of the speeding jeep driveing past the first MEC flag on Kirkand. Two shots needed, its very hard to nail the second shot before his out of range. By that, EA meant the GL to be used on foot troops.

Tanks are always using their main gun on foot troops. Which should be seen as worse as the assault and his noob. But no, the tanks dont get the bad press. Why?

sorry back to post.

I got problems with all of them.

1. Could be great, just depends on how min the range really is. I am ashamed when I noob myself out for another. [you will hear me say sorry many times]

2. Again, not a major problem that I can ajust to, but ....the big slope at the start of Kirkand. Troops can really hug the bottom of that slope so you can only see half their head just they can see you standing up like a huge target. So you have to take them out quick cos they got the advantage. With a gun, they will always win. no good. GL is not effective, unless.... I JUMP to get the better angle and the kill. - so yes, I do have a problem with the jump. [Im no hopper BTW]

3. Rubbish. as stated. No long as many group killings, and will just make the moaners more more. Wasnt the GL ment to be really helpful for dealing splash damage to covered enemies??

[Flares]

Re: What do assault players think of GL nerfs ?

Good moves, except for the blast radius, which is tiny already. I'll be disappointed if I can't fire a 'nade 30m into a group of players taking a flag and not take them all out.

[Rambo]

Re: What do assault players think of GL nerfs ?

who else is guna do the head on attacking ,snipers?,i like assault like the way it is

they have to be strong the encounter armour,air they are the fodder the work horses they need to be strong there not stealth.they do not hide in armour or hide behind lines they are the line

Respect my authoritae hehe