Taramafor

I think it's ok as it is. If you ever played planetside 2, there's people healing left right and center and the beam arcs by a lot once contact is made (which is just way too too much hand holding). Maybe if it arcs a little. If hurt, take cover/fall back and request aid. Means you actually need to plan where to take cover/fall back too and you can lay down covering fire at a corner while being healed. On that note, covering fire works pretty well sometimes, can give people behind you a chance to catch up and support.

I'd bump the damage up a notch due to the slow wind up time. Or as someone already said, alt fire to spin the barrel (ahh, the good old UT days). Also, keep in mind that officer has higher HP then standard infantry, somewhat balancing out the damage to health ratio.

Oh, I'm not expecting anything like this 'till all the other stuff is sorted out. But what you have to remember is that not everyone knows people off the game. With squads, people would be working together in game without having to know each other and better yet get to know each other.

Maybe for you, but not everyone is that good at aiming, and when a target's moving (which is 95% of the time) it's more difficult to aim at the head (more so at more distant targets). With automatic weapons, you can at least spray over the general area or hose down the torso. Case in point, AR/carbine works better for me. No rocket. No rifle. If everyone in a team played as a rocket trooper (those on foot at least) they would be just as effective against infantry and vehicles. BH are ok against infantry, but not so great against vehicles. Gunner is vice versa, plus rockets have slower travel time, meaning faster moving infantry, or infantry on higher places or at longer range are much less likely to be hit. AR/carbine can hit longer range targets (and those on higher ground where a rocket would do no splash damage). Also, I just don't like how the laser rifle handles for some reason. More down to personal preference though.

I can't replicate this. Going back to the PT I only see my silenced pistol and machine pistol. But w/e, I don't want those weapons anyway. And yes, $125 vs $0 is a huge amount of money. If the glitch to keep the weapon is working for you then fine, exploit it to your hearts desire until it gets fixed (I can't complain, I'm exploiting the PIC/Railgun glitch). But if you have to buy a $125 weapon that hardly improves over the base weapon and has far less ammo/clip size, then you are pretty much shooting yourself in the foot. That's throwing away about 40-60 seconds of your income, each time you buy it. Actually, it's quite useful if you play as a rocket trooper. Then you have a nice anti infantry weapon while still being able to be a threat against armor. So if you don't buy a vehicle, you saved money and are prepared for any situation.

Or maybe you just happen to be gravitated to the map other people are gravitating too? I mean, I vote for mesa2 half the time and look how often that gets played. Like ONCE in my 20+ hours of playing.

Thinking about it, is there a reason not to take it over a pistol (I mean, it has a silencer as well after all) or a sub machine gun?

Keep in mind the game is still beta and there are going to be bugs to work out. As for a reloading bug that I've noticed, sprinting right after reloading seems to automatically cancels out the reloading animation and gives the gun a fresh clip. I agree that it needs fixing, but certainty not getting rid of it, which would be even more unrealistic (hey, I'm not expecting ARMA, but a line has to be drawn somewhere).

God no! They'd just mess it up and add meaningless DLC. The horror, the horror! So glad it's an indie game. Shows the game is loved and cared for. Btw, if you're that happy with the game where you're offering money for it, I would suggest offering a donation (something I'd like to do but lack for the funds for). As for a counter to airstrike... Hmm... Maybe if a player had to purchase the defense and set it somewhere where it would cover a small location if the aircraft happen to fly over that spot. That might be demanding on the server though.

That would also help with knowing how many people are still alive at the objective I suppose. And nothing would stop you from joining the squad again. However, I think there should always be a team leader that can "anchor" the squad. It would be a bit annoying to always be making a squad every time it's wiped out if you have a strategy that's working.

You're talking about an entire side acting as one. That's not the result I'm expecting (let's face it, not EVERYONE will work as a team). What I'm talking about is smaller squads acting as a single unit. Basically, getting people to move up in teams for more effective attacks instead of going one by one and getting popped. Edit: Misread. Ah well, case in point, I'd rather have smaller squads acting independently then whole teams funneling one by one and getting popped. Also, can you honestly say that the teams are communicating and working together efficiently (or at least as efficiently as we would be doing with squads?). I'd be more inclined to communicate in a squad where I think my voice has some merit then just a whole team expecting to be brushed off (which is usually the case in large teams. A large force is too much to micromanage) But regardless, it would be up to squad leaders to communicate to either squads or teams and if I think something I say will benefit the team, I'll say it to the team and not a squad. Such as mining the tunnels. With smaller squads you can have people on foot moving in a large group and another squad could move up and cover each other in vehicles (you can't watch EVERYONE'S back, but you can watch your squads and a squad can then in turn know where to focus their attention to help cover people outside the squad). And of course there would be APCs and transports choppers. Edit 2: oops. Accidental double post.

You're talking about an entire side acting as one. That's not the result I'm expecting (let's face it, not EVERYONE will work as a team). What I'm talking about is smaller squads acting as a single unit. Basically, getting people to move up in teams for more effective attacks instead of going one by one and getting popped.

The problem with team chat is that you would all be talking over each other and you also get a lot of negativity from idiots that troll around. And squad chat would encourage team play. If you don't want to be in a squad, don't be in one. I'm not saying make it mandatory. But if it was good in battlefield (at least 1 and 2), why wouldn't it be good here? Not everyone knows people off the game and can set up teamspeak and the like. This is the only way I can think off to encourage people to work together IN GAME and making it obvious. Basically, team players and people that want to tag along would be in squads and those that want to lone wolf can.

It's simple really. Stick together. Form plans. Move as a team. Hopefully coordinating with other squads in the game. Would certainty add more of the strategy gameplay. And for the love of god, make the chat show longer. Can barley read half of what people type.

The problem is that it's not known that it CAN'T be disarmed 'till after you learn the hard way or through word of mouth (as is the case with me). As for your small explosion idea, that could be interesting. Could do part damage to a building (say 20-30%) as punishment for getting the beacon in place to begin with (But since black hand can set them easier, perhaps not).

agreed. Some maps are over used. Also, an option for how big a base is would be helpful (either by voting or better yet random to keep things mixed up and interesting), along with air being on or off. Was hoping I'd be able to do that in at least skirmish against bots.

Me and another have been having this same problem (where you try to join a server but end up in a different one). It seriously needs fixing. And yes, I made sure the player count was under 39 (even tried a 24 out of 30 server).

I wouldn't say I "hate" the kill sound, but it can be distracting. Having the OPTION to disable it would certainty be nice. And for those that want it, it's there. So win win. Fortunately, I'm confident that will be the case in future. But as stated, other things to focus on for now.

I mean, it's DIRT cheap (perhaps too much so) and does 3 damages whereas an AR does only 1. Doesn't that make the AR a bit obsolete? Though from personal experience, I find the AR a bit more reliable and easier to manage despite the 1 bar of damage. But that's probably because of the larger clip size. Should the carbine cost a bit more? Give the AR a bit more damage? Also, doesn't a carbine make ANY class BETTER then a normal soldier (or at least on par)? Don't get me wrong, I love the game and I'm having a blast playing it. But I can't help but wonder what use a soldier is with the carbine compared to the AR. I imagine the soldier is for more prolonged fights whereas the carbine is designed for single targets with the lower clip size.

I have a nice idea that doesn't take too much effort to implement yet makes it clear the beacon can't be disarmed after a certain point. Make a nuke beacon glow BRIGHT red (perhaps constant glowing on and off) and an ion cannon beacon BRIGHT blue. This makes it clear to players that the nuke/ion cannon can't be disarmed and lore wise you can brush it off as reaching an unhackable state where it can no longer be hacked (which is what I assume the repair guns are doing when disarming beacons and mines). Either that or set it so that the beacon can be disarmed after the countdown with a voice over of "beacon disarmed" once it is or something. My former idea is more of a quick fix yet I think it gets the job done well enough.