Commando Archive
Thread: ok i am seriously pissed at soe. rangers getting commando -type abilities? what the heck????
CuchulainnDarklight
Tue Sep 20, 2005 6:12 am
#53
tacwraith wrote:
hasnt worked at all? 'scuse me??? tracking works. camo works. rescue works. camps work 50%. Traps work 50%.
In all you have 75% of the proffession in WORKING condition non-stop for 2 years. Sure its not exactly what you wanted but IT WORKED.
Ranger traps DO NOT work, only scout traps do!
Tracking doesnt work properly with the spawn system either.
Camps are for pulling out vehicles in and healing wounds, very useful nowadays.
Camo never worked properly and the level system has screwed it up even more
Rescue doesnt work post CU eiter, before that it was a "suicide" button.
Creature mods dont work anymore either.
On the point of a minefield why wouldnt a ranger get it, the Cu has come and gone and now weapons arent limited to one class. Commandos should have explosives, not stealthy hidden camoed minefields, but big satchel charges that they stick to things and then go BOOM!
CuchulainnDarklight
Tue Sep 20, 2005 6:19 am
#54
uselessn00b wrote:
BioEngine wrote:
We did no such thing. You have no idea what our community thinks Ranger should be.
And because of this, I have to explain it yet again.
We cannot decide within our community if Ranger should be creature focused or Military Ranger types. The Devs specifically linked our changes to the fiction of the Antarian Rangers. Why don't you go look that information up and get back to me in a couple of days.
So, let me get this straight, you guys can't decide what your prof should be... However,a number of youfeel perfectly justified intelling us what OUR prof should be andthat we've always worked etc?
The Commando profession suffers from the same problem as the Ranger profession. It is badly named.
When people see the Ranger name, the stupid ones who know nothing automatically think of D+D style Rangers rather than the canon Ranger unit which is a light mobile spec ops unit. The SWrpg describes it as
"...class skills are Climb, Craft, Demolitions, Disable Device, Gather Information, Hide, Move Silently, Spot..."
Except that RPG isn't DnD.. it's Star Wars... and it's describing the Antarian Ranger prestige class.
Finally the Devs have actually read a star wars book and understand what Ranger is in Star Wars.
Commando is seen by people as something akin to a real world commando, but since launch it has been geared towards heavy weapons. Its not really a "commando" but a heavy weapons specialist. It can be one or another, but not both, not the way the Devs organise the skills in the game.
uselessn00b
Tue Sep 20, 2005 7:45 am
#55
CuchulainnDarklight wrote:
The Commando profession suffers from the same problem as the Ranger profession. It is badly named.
When people see the Ranger name, the stupid ones who know nothing automatically think of D+D style Rangers rather than the canon Ranger unit which is a light mobile spec ops unit. The SWrpg describes it as
"...class skills are Climb, Craft, Demolitions, Disable Device, Gather Information, Hide, Move Silently, Spot..."
Except that RPG isn't DnD.. it's Star Wars... and it's describing the Antarian Ranger prestige class.
Finally the Devs have actually read a star wars book and understand what Ranger is in Star Wars.
Commando is seen by people as something akin to a real world commando, but since launch it has been geared towards heavy weapons. Its not really a "commando" but a heavy weapons specialist. It can be one or another, but not both, not the way the Devs organise the skills in the game.
So...aRanger really should always have been called a Commando and Commando should have been called a Heavy Weapons Specialist?
From what i've seen on the ranger boards, a lot of people still want to do all the outdoorsman stuff along with the new stuff, which reinforces Bioengines point, your own prof doesn't know where it wants to go.
We have never suffered from that problem, we've alwayswanted a commando, to be exactly that, a commando... sneak in, use our unarmed pre-req to silently take out the guards and thenblow stuff up.I seriously doubt any commandos would want any heavy weaps other than our rocket launcher (if it wasn't so weak) and our flame throwers.
So, being a true commandohas been lobbied for, petitioned for, begged for as long as i've been on these boards. Our corrs have done a great job and been ignored. Commandos have played a broken prof almost from launch with the hope that we would finally get to be commandos. And now, as you say, we're going to be heavy weapons specialists with underpowered heavy weapons and pretty uselessexplosives tree... heck,we can't even use bomb droids.
So with that in mind, i have to ask, why can't you andBioengine, etc.understand why some commandos are pissed?
Edit: It's pretty sad that given the support many commandos have had for ranger getting fixed, it comes down to this.
http://forums.station.sony.com/swg/board/message?board.id=ranger&message.id=129310#M129310
Message Edited by uselessn00b on 09-20-2005 04:54 PM
Latenighter
Tue Sep 20, 2005 8:56 am
#56
uselessn00b wrote:
CuchulainnDarklight wrote:
Brilliant, just for extra emphasis the OP should remove the commando references from the first post and add these in, so people dont start saying "you want to be a commando". You know those people who think Rangers carry bows and arrows and Commandos in SWG are not heavy weapons troops but actually spec ops!
Kinda sad that you want people to edit out information to make your argument look better, rather than just admit that perhaps some commandos had a point.
QFE from the Ranger Boards.
Seems that the Ranger profession has not reached concensus to buy into CuchulainnDarklight's vision of a Ranger. But the fact of the matter is that the commando references that you seek to delete won't stop the discussion. And let's make it a discussion rather than an argument please?
CuchulainnDarklight
Tue Sep 20, 2005 11:35 am
#57
Latenighter wrote:
uselessn00b wrote:
CuchulainnDarklight wrote:
Brilliant, just for extra emphasis the OP should remove the commando references from the first post and add these in, so people dont start saying "you want to be a commando". You know those people who think Rangers carry bows and arrows and Commandos in SWG are not heavy weapons troops but actually spec ops!
Kinda sad that you want people to edit out information to make your argument look better, rather than just admit that perhaps some commandos had a point.
QFE from the Ranger Boards.
Seems that the Ranger profession has not reached concensus to buy into CuchulainnDarklight's vision of a Ranger. But the fact of the matter is that the commando references that you seek to delete won't stop the discussion. And let's make it a discussion rather than an argument please?
Actually the majority of Rangers wanted a paramilitary ranger, however some are sad at the loss of current rangers skills to scout, but it makes more sense as scout was also a weak prof, even for a novice. Read the Revamp proposals the rangers came up with, the majority are paramilitary style, the ones that arent are "if we cant have paramilitary stuuf, give us some hunting ability at least".
I said that the commando ones should be made seperate as there are some people who believe a SWG Commando is like a real commando which it isnt, its a heavy weapons specialist.
I have no problem with Commandos sneaking about and blowing stuff up, but they would have to have a stealth tree in Commando replacing one of the current trees as well as the scout prerequisite. Or you could just get camo from a ranger, or take some ranger skills (thats the way things work in the CU now).
I always liked my Commando character but gave him up preCU, but, as far as I can see the only work commando needs is improvement of the weapons and some skills for it post CU.
The point about those units mentioned is that they are ranger units in the star wars sense of ranger. Case in point, Pages Commandos where rangers (light, mobile, stealthy camoed troops running around endor), they didnt carry missile launchers or anything like that. They werent Star Wars Galaxies commandos.
SWG Commandos, for better or worse, are heavy weapons experts (whether the heavy weapons work or not is another matter).
And its not MY version of a ranger, its George Lucas's vision, its his world, he sets the rules, I just play in it and defer that to him.
Rangers dont want to be Commandos they want to be rangers, light, steathly, recon soldiers. If that is the role you think Commandos should fulfill, then you have a big fight ahead of you. Mainly because the Devs seem to want a heavy weapons class in the game, and Commando is it.
uselessn00b
Tue Sep 20, 2005 11:48 am
#58
BioEngine wrote:
You seem to have no trouble whatsoever with determining what we can and can't have in our revamp, and I do not represent the community.
Given that i, personally,have not said a word on what you should have or not, means your comment is entirely null and void. It's you and CuchulainnDarklight that have defined what commando should be, not the other way round.
As far as i'm concerned, you can have the lot, fishing, area-track, foraging, demolitions, spear guns, canoes,a ranger hat, the ability totell the time by sniffing bantha droppings... to be perfectly honest, i actually don't care.It's your boards that suggest you wantALL the old stuff and ALL the new stuff too.
I'll save my respect for Phenix1050 and the few other rangers who took the time to acknowledgesome that some commandoissues have come up rather than those whoeither tell us we're working perfectly or came out withsome of the comments i've seen on the ranger boards. ("F 'em, F all of 'em" for example) and it's that sort of response that got my back up.
I agree with you tho' this thread isn't worth the effort, so i'll let you get back to fiddling with your nunas or whatever you outdoorsmen plan on doing until your revamp... happy camping.
Olsson
Tue Sep 20, 2005 12:25 pm
#59
See anything ironic in the first post of this thread?
http://forums.station.sony.com/swg/board/message?board.id=ranger&message.id=128516
If you want Commandos to stop complaining about Rangers taking our weapons,stop using Commando units as a template for what ranger should be.
cyrom
Tue Sep 20, 2005 1:13 pm
#60
SOE's track record on how they treat commando is the worst there is. No other proffession.. NONE has been more screwed up so constantly and so blatantly than commando. From launch to the famous 15 minute test Thunderheart did to decide commandos needed nerfing to the CU. Heck not even Entertainers got it this bad.
wow, you never played anything else then commando have you? i can name 5 other prof that is more **** up then commando. and here it is.ranger, SL, summgler, DE, CH. and most of these prof didn't get help at all untill just now.
i hate how the commando board became this pitaful crying board. this board is worse then the jedi board.
CuchulainnDarklight
Tue Sep 20, 2005 1:34 pm
#61
uselessn00b wrote:
BioEngine wrote:
You seem to have no trouble whatsoever with determining what we can and can't have in our revamp, and I do not represent the community.
Given that i, personally,have not said a word on what you should have or not, means your comment is entirely null and void. It's you and CuchulainnDarklight that have defined what commando should be, not the other way round.
As far as i'm concerned, you can have the lot, fishing, area-track, foraging, demolitions, spear guns, canoes,a ranger hat, the ability totell the time by sniffing bantha droppings... to be perfectly honest, i actually don't care.It's your boards that suggest you wantALL the old stuff and ALL the new stuff too.
I'll save my respect for Phenix1050 and the few other rangers who took the time to acknowledgesome that some commandoissues have come up rather than those whoeither tell us we're working perfectly or came out withsome of the comments i've seen on the ranger boards. ("F 'em, F all of 'em" for example) and it's that sort of response that got my back up.
I agree with you tho' this thread isn't worth the effort, so i'll let you get back to fiddling with your nunas or whatever you outdoorsmen plan on doing until your revamp... happy camping.
Perhaps you should read what I said, I said that as a former commando, I have no problem with commandos being stealthy and laying traps such as minefields, if they have the prerequisite scout trapping and exploration skills.
im not telling you how your profession should be, im telling you how SOE have said it will be - A heavy weapons guy. You cant be both heavy weapons and light stealth unit, unless you train in both areas with this system.
Most commandos have been very kind but one or too have said the minefield and flashbang , should be theirs, why? The minefield is a trap you lure people into, Commandos should have (and this is just my opinion) BIG satchel charges and Claymore type mines not a "basic explosive minefield". The flashbang has always been a ranger thrown trap, it just never worked, funnily enough no wanted it then.
And dont worry anyone moaning about the ranger revamp pales in comparison to the Jedi pages, the best being "Force cloak nerfed in Ranger revamp, why they get more than us!"
StarNick
Tue Sep 20, 2005 2:43 pm
#62
"im not telling you how your profession should be, im telling you how SOE have said it will be - A heavy weapons guy."
When you say we're nothing but a heavy weapons guy, you really are telling us what we should be whether you realize it or not...and you have been consistent in repeating it to which I've noticed. I do agree with you on a lot of points, but I must honestly say that everytime I keep reading that we're just a "heavy weapons guy"...I get a bit peeved. Just as you guys got peeved when Tacwraith questioned why Rangers were getting explosives.
He had a valid point...our explosives were nerfed pretty hard during the CU Beta (in the beginning, they were really nice...maybe a touch overpowered, but in the last week they had the damages downgraded and timers slapped on), and overall there is a general concern of "Where is the grenade love?" and "Will our grenades be outdamaged when we're a damage-orientated role?".
Mind you, I'm not saying a valid point of giving us stealthy stuff, but a valid point of giving us explosives that really dole out cool/destructive explosions! Essentially...giving explosives attention.
These babies are supplements to our damage, it would be bad form on the Dev's part if stealthy traps were very potent in damage when thrown bombs are pathetically weak. That's where Im coming from, and where most of the community is I'd say - we do not want to be left out, just as you guys got peeved that Ranger didn't get stealth when others did so in the CU. Hopefully we'll be like you folks in a while, where it will be our chance...but given the Dev track record, we're worried.
However, this has turned petty now...there seemed to have been an understanding last night, but it only has degraded. I think that both the rangers that are coming over here, and the commandos that are going over there should honestly stop with the flaming or deciding on what each other's role should be or was intended to be. I don't play as a Ranger normally; Im not telling you guys that you're just "a infiltrator" or just "an outdoorsman", I want YOU guys to know and determine who you are. The same goes for us. Mainly, because this whole thing begun with ranger's getting an explosive...one thing! Now we're argueing over roles?
And as I said, the concern really is about whether or not grenades will remain as they are, and never get improvements...which they sorely need. Im a supporter of having functionality to both professions...we don't lay traps so a stealthed minefield is perfectly fitted for Rangers. What we do do however, is sheer demolitions and firepower - nothing discrete. Both are similar, both have seperate purposes and both can co-exist. I agree with you fully that we could potentially get a demo-charge or claymore mine that can be laid, not as a trap, but to blow a structure up. Technically, in an RP sense, we do that when we overload the reactors of GCW Bases - wouldn't it be cool if we physically could do that? And we'd make a good counter vs turrets as well, which has always been part of the Heavy Weapons role.
Speaking of our role...
We're a specialist with Heavy Weapons, meaning we deal exclusively in potent damage via explosives and large weapons that should, in theory, dish out massive damage.
Our CU Role as Prescribed
Primary Role: Heavy Weapon Specialist
Secondary Role: Medium Range Damage Specialist
Offense: Very Strong (5)
Defense: Moderate (3)
Crowd Control: Minimal (1)
The Commando is the specialist of Heavy Weapons. An entire line of unique heavy weapons are available in the Commando's arsenal. The Commando also receives many bonuses making them more proficient with standard weapons when combined with other profession skills. Whatever the damage dealing requirement is for a situation, the Commando has the answer.
Profession Mixing Tip: Commandos are intended to be the weapon specialists and are the final heavy damage dealing profession along with Rifleman and Swordsman. Commandos focus on their potent damage dealing capability rather than having a varied utility or strong defensive ability. Adding additional ranged profession skills to a Commando creates a very potent damage specialist because instead of having a few special abilities for a specific set of weapons, they can now stack their profession with other professions to gain a wide variety of special abilities. Alternatively Commandos may decide to increase their tactical flexibility by learning skills from other professions.
As you can see, we are defined by our weapons to the max. We are the master of weapons, hence why we're a Heavy Weapon Specialist - we're a guy who has mastered the Art of Ranged weapons. That is reflected in the fact that our HW's have innate abilities, and we have all our power flow directly through them.
Thats what the Devs told us we were going to be, and really things haven't changed that much. Two months after launch, our specials were modified to give a big multiplier and give commando a big boost in damage. We've ALWAYS really been defined by the weapon we're using (the Flamethrower). However, pre-CU lacked massively flexibility and viablility in many templates. The Devs actually listened to us in this, and now we're flexible destruction. However, the implementation just didn't go...right. Once things get fixed and working, we'll be far closer to this role than I think many feel we are right now.
That is huge compared to simply a "heavy weapons guy". And such a description offers very little justice to what the SWG Commando is. We are not infiltrators or paramilitary like the rangers who rely on stealth in relation to the new ranger document, but we are the rambo's and the governators who are powerful and adaptable. Commandos have a tactical flexibility that makes us ideal for situations where we are away from larger units, and can function in smaller squads because of that flexibility.
You may have been a Pre-CU commando, but many things have changed...since the CU, despite our "borkness" we've actually come closer to the ideal of a commando (in theory, right now some barriers are preventing us from reaching it) that the community actually wanted. We wanted to be flexible destructive machines - like the commando clones. And be adaptable to any situation.
Now, just like on the ranger boards where folks still want the outdoorsman ranger and not a paramilitary, we have commandos who wanted and still want Commando to be more of a stealthy character who infiltrates bases and plants explosives - a lot like how Ranger is going to be now. Remember how riflemen were split on whether to be Heavy Gunners or Snipers? We went through the same thought processes, you guys I would be confident to say have too.
So really...no, the community doesn't totally want a full realistic commando be our SWG Commando. Many of us are crazies who love explosions and hence why we love playing the guy with the massive guns. Some of course want what the Rangers are now becoming.
We have defined ourselves, and the Devs have defined us...we're not on the same exact page, but both definitions do mesh. And yes some commandos have acted in a way saying ranger shouldn't get such and such, but Im now noticing some Rangers are doing the same exact thing.
Both of our communities are the best ones out there in my opinion, because many are old-timers who have stuck with the profession and thus feel very close to their respective communities. Plus, both generate a lot of great ideas. So why troll and keep stating that we're "such and such"...it only inflames folks even more to the point where you're going to get the same reply right back.
We have a role, which is the essence of a rambo/clone commando/C&C commando that has extreme firepower and can blow lots of stuff up. That's why we have both grenades and heavy weapons. Now, if you take everything in full...neither of our professions really are a true "republic commando" or a true "governator", as these commandos of other video games are proficient in stealth, demolitions, and heavy weapons plus do not adhere to an RPG system anyways.
Instead, we both have exactly half of what some of these true commandos are. However, there are some commando-esque characters that rangers lean towards to (or like US Army Rangers now...or at least paramilitary), while there are others that we lean to that are heavily armed and armoured and not lightweight special forces/recon (Im thinking Havoc from C&C Renegade or Republic Commando or the Medal of Honor games...one man armies who have the firepower to do it...most commandos favor this destruction, so we really don't want to be totally based on real life anyways). Hence, a Ranger/Commando would really be the ultimate ideal...
And in the end, does it really matter? Not really...as we both still have our roles. We just want to be able to come up with the same damage with our own explosives and not get lost in the dust; a valid concern. You folks don't want to lose a cool ability that fits you; a valid concern.
So guys...please, don't keep inflaming this.
When you say we're nothing but a heavy weapons guy, you really are telling us what we should be whether you realize it or not...and you have been consistent in repeating it to which I've noticed. I do agree with you on a lot of points, but I must honestly say that everytime I keep reading that we're just a "heavy weapons guy"...I get a bit peeved. Just as you guys got peeved when Tacwraith questioned why Rangers were getting explosives.
He had a valid point...our explosives were nerfed pretty hard during the CU Beta (in the beginning, they were really nice...maybe a touch overpowered, but in the last week they had the damages downgraded and timers slapped on), and overall there is a general concern of "Where is the grenade love?" and "Will our grenades be outdamaged when we're a damage-orientated role?".
Mind you, I'm not saying a valid point of giving us stealthy stuff, but a valid point of giving us explosives that really dole out cool/destructive explosions! Essentially...giving explosives attention.
These babies are supplements to our damage, it would be bad form on the Dev's part if stealthy traps were very potent in damage when thrown bombs are pathetically weak. That's where Im coming from, and where most of the community is I'd say - we do not want to be left out, just as you guys got peeved that Ranger didn't get stealth when others did so in the CU. Hopefully we'll be like you folks in a while, where it will be our chance...but given the Dev track record, we're worried.
However, this has turned petty now...there seemed to have been an understanding last night, but it only has degraded. I think that both the rangers that are coming over here, and the commandos that are going over there should honestly stop with the flaming or deciding on what each other's role should be or was intended to be. I don't play as a Ranger normally; Im not telling you guys that you're just "a infiltrator" or just "an outdoorsman", I want YOU guys to know and determine who you are. The same goes for us. Mainly, because this whole thing begun with ranger's getting an explosive...one thing! Now we're argueing over roles?
And as I said, the concern really is about whether or not grenades will remain as they are, and never get improvements...which they sorely need. Im a supporter of having functionality to both professions...we don't lay traps so a stealthed minefield is perfectly fitted for Rangers. What we do do however, is sheer demolitions and firepower - nothing discrete. Both are similar, both have seperate purposes and both can co-exist. I agree with you fully that we could potentially get a demo-charge or claymore mine that can be laid, not as a trap, but to blow a structure up. Technically, in an RP sense, we do that when we overload the reactors of GCW Bases - wouldn't it be cool if we physically could do that? And we'd make a good counter vs turrets as well, which has always been part of the Heavy Weapons role.
Speaking of our role...
We're a specialist with Heavy Weapons, meaning we deal exclusively in potent damage via explosives and large weapons that should, in theory, dish out massive damage.
Our CU Role as Prescribed
Primary Role: Heavy Weapon Specialist
Secondary Role: Medium Range Damage Specialist
Offense: Very Strong (5)
Defense: Moderate (3)
Crowd Control: Minimal (1)
The Commando is the specialist of Heavy Weapons. An entire line of unique heavy weapons are available in the Commando's arsenal. The Commando also receives many bonuses making them more proficient with standard weapons when combined with other profession skills. Whatever the damage dealing requirement is for a situation, the Commando has the answer.
Profession Mixing Tip: Commandos are intended to be the weapon specialists and are the final heavy damage dealing profession along with Rifleman and Swordsman. Commandos focus on their potent damage dealing capability rather than having a varied utility or strong defensive ability. Adding additional ranged profession skills to a Commando creates a very potent damage specialist because instead of having a few special abilities for a specific set of weapons, they can now stack their profession with other professions to gain a wide variety of special abilities. Alternatively Commandos may decide to increase their tactical flexibility by learning skills from other professions.
As you can see, we are defined by our weapons to the max. We are the master of weapons, hence why we're a Heavy Weapon Specialist - we're a guy who has mastered the Art of Ranged weapons. That is reflected in the fact that our HW's have innate abilities, and we have all our power flow directly through them.
Thats what the Devs told us we were going to be, and really things haven't changed that much. Two months after launch, our specials were modified to give a big multiplier and give commando a big boost in damage. We've ALWAYS really been defined by the weapon we're using (the Flamethrower). However, pre-CU lacked massively flexibility and viablility in many templates. The Devs actually listened to us in this, and now we're flexible destruction. However, the implementation just didn't go...right. Once things get fixed and working, we'll be far closer to this role than I think many feel we are right now.
That is huge compared to simply a "heavy weapons guy". And such a description offers very little justice to what the SWG Commando is. We are not infiltrators or paramilitary like the rangers who rely on stealth in relation to the new ranger document, but we are the rambo's and the governators who are powerful and adaptable. Commandos have a tactical flexibility that makes us ideal for situations where we are away from larger units, and can function in smaller squads because of that flexibility.
You may have been a Pre-CU commando, but many things have changed...since the CU, despite our "borkness" we've actually come closer to the ideal of a commando (in theory, right now some barriers are preventing us from reaching it) that the community actually wanted. We wanted to be flexible destructive machines - like the commando clones. And be adaptable to any situation.
Now, just like on the ranger boards where folks still want the outdoorsman ranger and not a paramilitary, we have commandos who wanted and still want Commando to be more of a stealthy character who infiltrates bases and plants explosives - a lot like how Ranger is going to be now. Remember how riflemen were split on whether to be Heavy Gunners or Snipers? We went through the same thought processes, you guys I would be confident to say have too.
So really...no, the community doesn't totally want a full realistic commando be our SWG Commando. Many of us are crazies who love explosions and hence why we love playing the guy with the massive guns. Some of course want what the Rangers are now becoming.
We have defined ourselves, and the Devs have defined us...we're not on the same exact page, but both definitions do mesh. And yes some commandos have acted in a way saying ranger shouldn't get such and such, but Im now noticing some Rangers are doing the same exact thing.
Both of our communities are the best ones out there in my opinion, because many are old-timers who have stuck with the profession and thus feel very close to their respective communities. Plus, both generate a lot of great ideas. So why troll and keep stating that we're "such and such"...it only inflames folks even more to the point where you're going to get the same reply right back.
We have a role, which is the essence of a rambo/clone commando/C&C commando that has extreme firepower and can blow lots of stuff up. That's why we have both grenades and heavy weapons. Now, if you take everything in full...neither of our professions really are a true "republic commando" or a true "governator", as these commandos of other video games are proficient in stealth, demolitions, and heavy weapons plus do not adhere to an RPG system anyways.
Instead, we both have exactly half of what some of these true commandos are. However, there are some commando-esque characters that rangers lean towards to (or like US Army Rangers now...or at least paramilitary), while there are others that we lean to that are heavily armed and armoured and not lightweight special forces/recon (Im thinking Havoc from C&C Renegade or Republic Commando or the Medal of Honor games...one man armies who have the firepower to do it...most commandos favor this destruction, so we really don't want to be totally based on real life anyways). Hence, a Ranger/Commando would really be the ultimate ideal...
And in the end, does it really matter? Not really...as we both still have our roles. We just want to be able to come up with the same damage with our own explosives and not get lost in the dust; a valid concern. You folks don't want to lose a cool ability that fits you; a valid concern.
So guys...please, don't keep inflaming this.
Message Edited by StarNick on 09-20-2005 05:45 PM
Message Edited by StarNick on 09-20-2005 05:49 PM
Message Edited by StarNick on 09-20-2005 07:09 PM
CuchulainnDarklight
Tue Sep 20, 2005 3:01 pm
#63
StarNick wrote:
What i wanted to say, just in a much better way.
tacwraith
Tue Sep 20, 2005 6:29 pm
#64
kindly notice the 'heavy weapons guy' has the lowest dps damage weapons in the whole game AND no special attacks.
do I need to go on?
StarfighterKD
Tue Sep 20, 2005 9:09 pm
#65
The DPS is just whats wrong with us, but Specials are to be gained from other classes. I don't think the CU was intended to let everyone just be what they are all on their own. You're not strong if you just took the commando tree and nothing else, but you are if you got something from Rifleman, or BH, or Carbineer, or any of those classes. We just need to back up our stats with the extra oomph heavy weapons are supposed to provide.