What do assault players think of GL nerfs ?

[LoganX]

Re: What do assault players think of GL nerfs ?

Er, you know that isn't the way that works, right?

You've dies holding the GL 9 times, NOT have been killed by it 9 times.
This is true of all the K/D stats. To reiterate, the deaths number is how many times you have died with that kit/weapon, not how many times you died from someone else killing you with them.

That is correct.
Many people get confused by this.
I'm sure he's been killed plenty of times with the GL.

[parish]

Re: What do assault players think of GL nerfs ?

Er, you know that isn't the way that works, right?

You've dies holding the GL 9 times, NOT have been killed by it 9 times.
This is true of all the K/D stats. To reiterate, the deaths number is how many times you have died with that kit/weapon, not how many times you died from someone else killing you with them.

Make sence?

I do with they had a "killed by" stat.

You learn something new every day. I honestly did not know that. Oh well.... thanks for ruining my day...geez. lol

[WarGimp]

Re: What do assault players think of GL nerfs ?

:laugh:
:p

[Bravo Six]

Re: What do assault players think of GL nerfs ?

The first two changes I'm all for, the minimum range thing is realistic and I'm always for more realism. The no jumping and shooting is being implemented for all weapons so that will remove the bunny hop problem somewhat (now if they'd deal with insta prone).

But shrinking the radius is damn right stupid, if the GL was truly meant for taking out vehicles then it would do more damage since as they are they aren't very useful to defend against many vehicles except the FAVs.

All reducing the radius will do is render the GL almost useless and render the assault class more so as a result. Real such grenades have a kill radius of about 5 meters, and an injure radius of about 10. Now I'm not saying they should do that but you have to admit a radius of 5 feet (1 and 1/2 meters) is a little rediculous which is what it's at already, shrinking more so is just adding insult to injury. Knowing DICE it will have a radius of 1 foot, meaning you have to hit the guy dead on to deal any real damage. Good luck doing that at 30 meters.

I don't understand DICE's decisions sometimes...Whatever.

[AmishSlayer]

Re: What do assault players think of GL nerfs ?

The first two changes I'm all for, the minimum range thing is realistic and I'm always for more realism. The no jumping and shooting is being implemented for all weapons so that will remove the bunny hop problem somewhat (now if they'd deal with insta prone).

But shrinking the radius is damn right stupid, if the GL was truly meant for taking out vehicles then it would do more damage since as they are they aren't very useful to defend against many vehicles except the FAVs.

All reducing the radius will do is render the GL almost useless and render the assault class more so as a result. Real such grenades have a kill radius of about 5 meters, and an injure radius of about 10. Now I'm not saying they should do that but you have to admit a radius of 5 feet (1 and 1/2 meters) is a little rediculous which is what it's at already, shrinking more so is just adding insult to injury. Knowing DICE it will have a radius of 1 foot, meaning you have to hit the guy dead on to deal any real damage. Good luck doing that at 30 meters.

I don't understand DICE's decisions sometimes...Whatever.

That's the POINT. It was originally intended for anti-vehicle use, not to kill infantry. It's only supposed to do good damage against jeeps, FAV's, buggies etc. DICE is lowering the radius to force players to use it for that purpose. I'm sure blast radius will be a LOT smaller than it is now and plenty of people are going to whine about it...too bad. Now you'll just have to use the weapon for what it was originally intended.

[iflabs]

Re: What do assault players think of GL nerfs ?

That's the POINT. It was originally intended for anti-vehicle use, not to kill infantry. It's only supposed to do good damage against jeeps, FAV's, buggies etc. DICE is lowering the radius to force players to use it for that purpose. I'm sure blast radius will be a LOT smaller than it is now and plenty of people are going to whine about it...too bad. Now you'll just have to use the weapon for what it was originally intended.

I doubt the intention of the GL being used against infantries was excluded (unless of course someone can provide a direct statement from EA/Dice saying so). It's more than just taking out light armor.

It's an excellent weapon to take out guys hiding. Using the splash damage--this is why the blast radius should not be reduced--to your advantage, a well placed grenade can take them out. It's even more useful to take out a group of compacted enemy.

[LoganX]

Re: What do assault players think of GL nerfs ?

I doubt the intention of the GL being used against infantries was excluded ...

OMFG...you people are amazing. really.
The ablility for the GL to take out infantry was never meant to be the extent that it is today.
DICE testing teams probably played the game the way they wanted it to be played.
DICE's testing teams have never in the history of BF been able to duplicate the kind of weapon exploits that the public finds because they don't test the way the public plays. It's an inherent flaw that they just can't seem to overcome.
They are now fixing what they missed in testing. Period.
They're not punishing teh Noobt0bers...they are fixing it because there shouldn't have been any Noobt0bers in the first place!

My Co-worker has a Name for you people...Depleted Uranium. The Densest substance known to Man!

[parish]

Re: What do assault players think of GL nerfs ?

My Co-worker has a Name for you people...Depleted Uranium. The Densest substance known to Man!

My 3 year old has a word for you and your Co-worker. Dorks. Go be holier-than-thou somewhere else.

[LoganX]

Re: What do assault players think of GL nerfs ?

My 3 year old has a word for you and your Co-worker. Dorks. Go be holier-than-thou somewhere else.

I'm not being holier than thou. I'm being practical, using a little common sense and remembering what DICE themselves have stated.

Secondly I bet my 2 1/2 your old son can kick you 3 yr olds a$$ :laugh: (JK)

And why are you attacking me anyway? My post wasn't directed at you? Mind your business please.
People keep repeating 'Why should the LG not take out infantry". No one including DICE is debating that!! They jsut didn't want it to be as effective (and abused) as it is now.

[imported_Wasp]

Re: What do assault players think of GL nerfs ?

I'm not being holier than thou. I'm being practical, using a little common sense and remembering what DICE themselves have stated.

Secondly I bet my 2 1/2 your old son can kick you 3 yr olds a$$ :laugh: (JK)

And why are you attacking me anyway? My post wasn't directed at you? Mind your business please.
People keep repeating 'Why should the LG not take out infantry". No one including DICE is debating that!! They jsut didn't want it to be as effective (and abused) as it is now.

I'm shure DICE was absolutely flabagasted to find out that the M203 ANTI INFANTRY WEAPON was actually used against...... INFANTRY! If they wanted the assault kit to take out light vehicles then perhaps they should have equipped them with a more appropriate weapon!

[LoganX]

Re: What do assault players think of GL nerfs ?

I'm shure DICE was absolutely flabagasted to find out that the M203 ANTI INFANTRY WEAPON was actually used against...... INFANTRY! If they wanted the assault kit to take out light vehicles then perhaps they should have equipped them with a more appropriate weapon!

See what I mean. Depleted Uranium!!
YES THEY WERE!!!
They stated how many times that they wanted the GL's to assist with defence against Light Armor Light Armor Light Armor Light Armor Light Armor Light Armor Light Armor !!!!

They didn't want it to be an Uber Infantry killer.
It's called game balance.
Gameplay>Realism.
Yes all knowing Captain Obvious. We all know IRL the M203 van take out Infantry. But that's NOT what DICE wants is in their Game for/
SHEESH!!! What does it take to get through to you people.

[AmishSlayer]

Re: What do assault players think of GL nerfs ?

I doubt the intention of the GL being used against infantries was excluded (unless of course someone can provide a direct statement from EA/Dice saying so). It's more than just taking out light armor.

It's an excellent weapon to take out guys hiding. Using the splash damage--this is why the blast radius should not be reduced--to your advantage, a well placed grenade can take them out. It's even more useful to take out a group of compacted enemy.

I'm pretty sure I quoted him earlier this thread...but ok.

Here's the interview

http://www.totalbf2.com/features/interviews/ea-dice2.php

Here's the quote and question.

TotalBF2.com: I know there is heated discussion of the m203 being "abused" can you comment on this?

Armando: Everyone working on the patch was involved in the creation of Special Forces. We saw first hand what can be done with the grenade launchers (although we focused more on the GP-30). As you can imagine, if there is an exploit, the guys in the office will migrate to it. Before long, everyone was using grenade launchers exclusively during combat situations. The game is much less entertaining on the whole when this occurs.

The grenade launcher was designed to give the assault soldier increased ability to fight against vehicles; however it is ever increasingly being used against infantry. We didn’t want to lose this ability, but it is necessary to limit its usefulness against the infantry.

[imported_Svartberg]

Re: What do assault players think of GL nerfs ?

They didn't want it to be an Uber Infantry killer.
It's called game balance.
Gameplay>Realism.
Yes all knowing Captain Obvious. We all know IRL the M203 van take out Infantry. But that's NOT what DICE wants is in their Game for/
SHEESH!!! What does it take to get through to you people.

Everyone knows what Dice wanted, that's the whole reason of this thread, you're just waving this fact like you discovered america.

Every kit has its role, assault doesn't have such a special gun to begin with, having a GL that is just made to defend against FAV's is bullocks, because that's not even a threat.
Not to mention it won't be very good at taking an incoming transport due to minimum arming range

Forget Dice for a moment, what would you want the role of the assault kit to be, and compare this role to how other kits can perform it as well.

[Digital-Boy]

Re: What do assault players think of GL nerfs ?

That's the POINT. It was originally intended for anti-vehicle use, not to kill infantry. It's only supposed to do good damage against jeeps, FAV's, buggies etc. DICE is lowering the radius to force players to use it for that purpose. I'm sure blast radius will be a LOT smaller than it is now and plenty of people are going to whine about it...too bad. Now you'll just have to use the weapon for what it was originally intended.

Yeah, I bet the ability to take out buggies looks damn impressive next to C4'ing tanks. DICE says the GL is an anti-vehicle weapon; the only thing wrong there is that it generally sucks against vehicles! If that's the way dice intended the assault class to be, then they must have envisioned a class that was utterly unspectacular at anything, having a sub-par rifle and an anti-vehicle weapon that was only really good for stationary jeeps 10 meters away. Besides, the assault class trades hand grenades for the grenade launcher; DICE is practically begging assault players to use the GL against infantry.

I'm shure DICE was absolutely flabagasted to find out that the M203 ANTI INFANTRY WEAPON was actually used against...... INFANTRY!

Honestly.

It's called game balance.
Gameplay>Realism.

I'm beginning to think that the assault class is underpowered now that the medic class has the best assault rifle in the game. I find the medic to be at least as combat viable as the assault class. Doesn't that disrupt balance?

Every kit has its role, assault doesn't have such a special gun to begin with, having a GL that is just made to defend against FAV's is bullocks, because that's not even a threat.
Not to mention it won't be very good at taking an incoming transport due to minimum arming range

My sentiments exactly.

[[3SA]D|Sgt.Colinloves]

Re: What do assault players think of GL nerfs ?

Totally with ya 2000sDigitalBoy.

Wots the point of the assault class if it cant assault?