Wait for it... NO classes. Bam.

Consider it for a moment- you spawn with an SMG and then get sniped from afar. You spawn with the rifle, and someone pops up in front of you and SMGs your face off. By forcing a weapon decision before spawn, not only are you limiting the play options that a player can take, but you're rendering them impotent in half the battle situations they're likely to encounter.

I'm all for versatility. Variety. Choice. So when I get sniped by a rifleman my SMG hasn't a hope of hitting, who's fault is it? Am I supposed to concede that I should have seen him coming before I even spawned, and chosen otherwise? Supposing I had a rifle and killed him, and then the next minute found myself in a situation perfect for the SMG? What then?

bad form, Beret, didn't you realise you're supposed to kill yourself in between every task you set yourself?

Well I've seen the extent to which this class system limits player options and I don't think it's helping anyone.

--------------------------------------------------SO-----------------------------------------------------

Let's imagine for a moment that both the SMG and the rifle are in everybody's kit. Level playing field. Equal opportunity fighting, victory through strategy and skill and all that nonsense.

Anyway, it's the same scenario: you come up against the rifleman first. You have your rifle ready. Why? because it's a wide open space, and you know what tool you need for the job. Bang, down he goes. But then your intel is taken, and you're on the surface between where it was and the enemy base, so you know the enemy tunneled in to get your intel. A quick switch to the SMG later and you're drilling a hole downwards into the enemy tunnel. There's the intel runner, sprinting off down the passage. Switch to rifle, blam. Down he goes.

This sort of versatility and ability to adapt to a changing situation is only a pipe-dream for the current game, and will ALWAYS be nothing but that as long as there are classes. Without classes, however, any death you have is not because of luck or some arbirtary roll of the dice, but YOUR fault, and yours alone. Your skill and situational awareness now means everything, and you are effectively the master of your own fate. You see a rifleman, and you can cover his back with an SMG because you know you've got one. Trying to sneak into the enemy base for some close quarters fighting, but spotted by a sniper? You can dive into cover and return rifle fire because you know you've got one. When future weapons are introduced, you can try them out all you want while still having your favourite weapon handy just in case, because-you-know-you've-got-one.

You see what I'm getting at here?

Cool beans

I consider myself a very skilled player. When I go into a situation wherein I know I could do much better with the other gun, I feel disappointed that I'll just have to gamble my way through it and hope the other guy is terrible. Adaptation is really what strategy is about, and the restriction of having only one weapon to work with at a time is debilitating.

My playstyle favors the Rifle's long range very much, and the times I have to go CQB with someone is rare enough that I don't find myself switching weapons a lot.

Sometimes though, you just gotta go with what you've got at the moment. Part of skill is being able to win despite your disadvantages.

(TL;DR : No. We don't need to have BOTH the SMG and Rifle at the same time.)

good idea. Considering the SMG is greatly underpowered in comparison to the rifle, giving everyone both would be somewhat ideal.

or, get this, you spawn with what you know youll need for what youre doing. if youre going to camp the enemy spawn itll probably good to take a rifle, likewise if youre digging a tunnel take a smg. foresight is the most valuable tool we have atm.

Close quarters? Use a grenade, and don't try to give us another tool to toggle through

Awesome idea. I've thought that before and it's perfect. I hate when I have smg and theres a sniper looking for me. Ben Aksoy should add this. Btw more weapons and adding classes as you said.

Thing is, Fluttershy and Joseph, you have your play styles sorted out, and that's perfectly fine, but they allow for zero flexibility. The current system suits people who have a single play style and choose to pursue that until death no matter what events pop up, but nobody else.

With no classes, absolutely nothing changes for players like you. You still pick your gun and off you go. For the rest of us, however, it gives us the freedom of choosing on the fly how to tackle the situation the game presents. Being an objective based game with the intel, being able to adapt and deal with events surrounding the intels is a key part of the game, but class restrictions effectively castrate most efforts to change a play style to deal with a sudden change in the game.

It's more balanced, better suited to an ever-changing battlefield, and minimises luck in determining kills while maximising skill. Best of all- for those that prefer a class system, their play style is still perfectly preserved. EVERYBODY wins.

I like the idea of the rifle as a "main" weapon, with all the other weapons being optional replacements. You've said before, Beret, that in most cases the rifle trumps the SMG, and from what I've seen (and played) that's very much the case. I like the idea of having the rifle as a trusty, versatile weapon. It's good at point-blank, it's good at fog, it's great anywhere in-between. Aim for the head and take that <censored> shooting at you out.

I usually use the rifle, and then grab the SMG when I feel the situation calls for one (like when there's a particularly nasty fort which I want to destroy from afar).

I don't like the idea of a rifle AND an SMG. It's a tad unrealistic, and it'll also esentially overpower everybody's shooting abilities, meaning that your options are A): Tunnel, or B): Die, repeatedly and painfully. Yes, there have been times when I've cursed myself for bringing the SMG into a certain situation, but I can't say there's been a time when I regretted having the rifle.

*Braces for incinerary forum flame bomb*

Get rid of the SMG entirely and replace it with stationary, more accurate (and powerful) mounted machine guns, both teams get 3 per side, which they can pack up and move anywhere within their side of the map, sort of like trebuchets on AoE2, except limited to the team's sides.

They will be especially useful once we get vehicles like helicopters.

Not even trolling.

...I have no words for the stupidity contained in the OP. The whole point of forcing you to choose is that you have to think and plan ahead. Cleaning out a fort? Bring an SMG. Keep dying at long range? Your opponent deserves the kill because he played smarter than you. Same goes for people who ambush you at close range with the SMG, they are more skilled because they're smart enough to know when and how to use each gun.

@kaede: If there's a limited number, griefers can just grab it at the start of the round and go hide in a corner with it, thus preventing anybody else on their team from being able to use it.

That's why votekicking exists.

Also when we have registration, hopefully this won't be a big problem.

i think people really need to realize, that when most people are suggesting classes, they don't mean each one has its own unique gun, from a flamethrower to a minigun, or whatever you think.

i see classes the same way as it is now, just that they're slightly changed to be a little bit different. i guess class is the wrong word for it, maybe kit is a better one

also, your bold and italic text is doing a good job intimidating me

@asdfzxc: There's no need to call Beret stupid...

@Kaede: Yeah, I think I prefer that idea to the SMG.

Of course, now that the kiddies have been given an SMG, taking it away from them will be nigh on impossible. It's like trying to take a new toy away from a three-year-old (the difference being the three-year-old can't whine ONLINE). I don't know how things would work out with an SMG and an MG, but it might be worth a try.

Ideally, a mounted machine-gun would be as damaging as the rifle but with the same fire rate as the SMG. Recoil would also be reduced since it's a mounted weapon. To counter the power involved there, it would be quite ammo-hungry (I'm thinking a feed from a 100-round box) and, of course, could only be fired when mounted (mounting would require a bit of time, as would picking it up again). The big inspiration for a mounted gun should probably be the M2 Browning. Come on, a gun that's called the "Ma Deuce" is perfect for AoS.

This topic has been brought up before, and I'm actually kind of curious as to why Ben implemented an SMG instead. It seemed to me at the time that most of the dedicated AoS fans prefered the idea of a mount. I suppose Ben had a reason to do otherwise, but I've no idea what that reason was.

i think a mounted machine gun would be cool, but i dont see why you'd have to remove the SMG.

I want to have access to both guns without dying, but not be able to switch to the other gun immediately. This is how switching would go:

1. have gun equipped
2. press a key (shift?)
3. wait about 8 seconds (about twice as long as reload time)
4. now you have the other gun

If you need to switch, you still can, but it prevents running up to enemy base, switching to SMG and destroying the base, and immediately switching to the superior rifle when there are enemies.

I think it's a good compromise between what we have now and having both guns at once.

i think just adding the ability to pick up a dead guy's weapon is probably a better idea, i think it is kind of dumb if you can just switch to whatever you want at any time

I agree with Berets opening post. I also agree with kaede chan.
Berets suggestion is the simplest and most likely to have a chance of actually happening. Kaedes is the ideal solution that I dream for but, Im not sure about the limit of 3 per team and more importantly, the practicalities of implementation (but that is for another thread).

Yes, I say give every player every tool. Level playing field. This game is about voxels. There is plenty of strategical variety and teamwork tactics available to us already without classes. Keep the focus on the voxel based tactics and not on class based tactics.
Thats my opinion anyway.

@Prioch: Picking up dead people's guns isn't a bad idea. I know some of you will yell "This isn't CoD!" but picking up other people's guns is also from real life. U.S. Soldiers in Vietnam taking Viet-Cong AK-47s are a prime example of this.

Of course, I have no clue at all how that will affect gameplay. Perhaps it would make sense to cut back the amount of ammo people get (at least for the rifle, ammo with the SMG is pretty short-lived as it is) and allow people to pick up ammo from dead people (make the ammo and guns a bit more persistant than the players' bodies to make this even practical). If the ammo is cut back properly, this would discourage camping and encourage people to take territoy so they can actually get to the dropped equipment before it's snatched up by another enemy or dissapears on its own.

I remember playing a video game that required picking up dog-tags to get credit for kills, but I can't remember which one it is at the moment. As I recall, it solved the issue of camping rather well, so I'm kind of hoping that this will have a similar effect.

Of course, there may be major flaws with this idea that I've stupidly missed... feel free to point them out (non-trollishly) if you see any.

I agree with Prioch. Picking up guns should be like it is in Halo. There's about 20 guns in that game but you can only carry two at a time. In Ace of Spades there are two guns and you should be able to carry one at a time. You walk over a dropped gun and press a button to swap it out.

-Compromise between being stuck with a single gun and having access to all guns always
-If you're out of ammo, you can swap an empty gun for a mostly-full one.
-More fun

The whole point of forcing you to choose is that you have to think and plan ahead.

I see, so your strategy is to decide before you even enter the game to attack a fort or reinforce a sniper spot which you have no way whatsoever of knowing the wherabouts of, or even if such a place exists at all in the first place?

Or is it that your grand plan is to pick a class at random, then wander aimlessly out into the fray to get cut to ribbons, and only then decide how you want to run your war?

...and you think my post was stupid?

Don't you realise that if you want to use just one gun, you still can? Nothing changes! For everybody else they're no longer forced down a blind narrow track of play just because their weapon dictates it. Picking up weapons is good but it's only a partial solution, since you still have to kill the right person before you get that gun.

also, your bold and italic text is doing a good job intimidating me

Haha sorry, I actually wondered if it was getting on anyone's nerves. I mostly use them to make walls of text easier to read by keeping the main points nice and clear -though still not clear enough for some it seems-

I'll try to tone it down in future.

No, I like it, Beret. Gives your opinions a better voice.

Thanks Kaede- I suppose I just really like emphasising, since so many people on the 'net either gloss over points or misinterpret them completely.

...All the time.

2 guns. Its like I'm really playing CAWWADOOTY.

So when I get sniped by a rifleman my SMG hasn't a hope of hitting, who's fault is it?

If you see the sniper first then you can adapt by avoiding or flanking them. You do not need to kill them to win. If he sees you first then you're dead regardless of what you are carrying.

Supposing I had a rifle and killed him, and then the next minute found myself in a situation perfect for the SMG? What then?

Someone just popped up in front of you? You can adapt by getting back or shooting them in the head. GRIEFING TIME? Use your pickaxe.

Both situations can be overcome by adapting. The only thing this would do is give spawn killers more ammo.

Well I never said anything about restricting it to just 2 guns, only about taking away classes. Hey, I hate Halo's two-gun-only system as much as the next guy- but this game is in beta: There's bound to be more weapons later, and this is an effective way to manage them.

With your first answer, what if you need to get (or hell, just WANT to get) across an area that that particular sniper is watching? Your method of 'adapting' is really just giving up. Gameplay possibility shut off. With both weapons available, it is your choice whether to give up -which is still an option open to you- or to proceed with the other weapon out.

With your second example, I was talking about intercepting a tunneller. Shooting them back after you respawn isn't going to bring your intel back, and without the SMG you're not going to tunnel down fast enough. Gameplay possibility shut off, yet again.

I do agree with you about there being a possible ammo problem, though. However if you combined the rifle and SMG ammo into the one pool that both take bullets from, for instance, it would make players a lot more careful about where they place their shots, I'll bet.

Honestly I only use the rifle anyway. I must have some sort of SMG-specific learning disability, since I can't learn to kill anyone with it without losing half my health in the fight :<

Same here, MD.

@Kaede and MD

The key to the SMG is to not use the sights. Crouch down and fire it from the hip.

Thanks Genghis, I'll give that a shot.

@TheGreatKhan: I actually almost always use the sights, and I've found it to be more effective for me that way. To each his own, I suppose.

@Beret: I view the rifle as the "main" weapon, since it's pretty dependable in most situations. I use the SMG as a specialized weapon, to only be used briefly (sometimes even a single life) when I need to. Generally I use the SMG to destroy and clear forts, then set up an ambush for people trying to return. Once I run out of ammo, I chuck a few grenades into the ruins of the fort, and respawn. Generally by then my team has taken the position, leaving me a mostly safe return with the rifle to the front lines.