@Beret: With regards to why I reject the idea of no classes, I can honestly say that I find it unnecessary/superfluous, no offense. It's probably due to us having different play-styles and different points of view. As for the mounted machine gun, why not just increase the HP of the standard blocks/ nerf bullet damage vs blocks? (Give or take 5 - 8 rifle shots to destroy a single block)

The assault rifle sounds like a nice idea, hits harder and has slightly better accuracy than the SMG at the expense of rate of fire.

How about a class that has no blocks, but a machine gun with good accuracy and the SMG rate of fire, but can only be deployed by right clicking a redblock (it then locks itself on the redblock until you right click again) you still have a SMG or maybe a new pistol. But this weapon is powerful when used on a defensive position.

I don't see why not: Grenades especially should be able to clear them out.

Much like actual barbed wire, the real problem with dealing with the wire is the sound you make when getting rid of it.

can barbed wire be destroyed? like a few picks and just walk through? :D

There's so much support for concrete blocks it's amazing, but I can't help wondering if it would just destroy a player's ability to sap the enemy structures. A well defended intel cube (where the intel is surrounded by a cube of blocks) is almost impossible enough as it is to get into. Introduce the ability to create whole structures out of concrete and it would more or less break the entire game.

We really need some barbed wire blocks though. With barbed wire come traps, and with it a whole new dimension to the game.

for the mounted machine gun idea i think the best way to counter its distructive capabilities is to introduce concrete blocks, or a type of block that are much harder to destroy than a normal block.

my idea for a concrete block is one that is resistant to: gunfire, and shovels, only a pick or possibly a grenade or mortar (if they're added) can destroy it. however it would somehow take longer for its to "set" or "harden" meaning that it cannot be built "on-the-fly",

why not give everyone a second weapon that can do both what the SMG can and what the semi can do, although not as well?

You know furii, I read that and thought you were about to suggest an assault rifle. Which by the way, I would welcome into the game. It would work just as fine without classes as it would with them.

Fair enough Joseph- I can relate to what you're saying since I'm in the same boat going the other way- I can't comprehend why players would reject it if it doesn't disrupt their style of play- or even affect it. But perhaps we're just coming at it from different backgrounds or something?

@Beret: I can honestly say that I can understand why you'd want to remove the classes, but I cannot relate nor do I truly comprehend it. Sorry mate. :/

@Mega: You're not the only one who can't kill someone with the SMG without losing a substantial amount of life.

@Kaede: If nothing else, the SMG is an ambush weapon. Never meant for field battles.

@Furii: I have to say that I'd agree with you. A sidearm that's the middle road between the Semi and the SMG would be good.

Since you've been speaking of versatility so much in this post, I've an idea from that.

Instead of removing classes and giving everyone the ability to choose in the midst of the game, why not give everyone a second weapon that can do both what the SMG can and what the semi can do, although not as well? I'm saying that this game would do well with a sidearm. Imagine everyone having either a semi or an smg, but also a pistol to the side. With the pistol, semi users get a better chance at close range, and SMG users get a better chance at long range.

Been doing that, with the burst. No matter what, it's still not more effective at any range than the rifle.

@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.

Thanks Genghis, I'll give that a shot.

@Kaede and MD

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

Same here, MD.

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 :<

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

@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 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.

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

@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 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

That's why votekicking exists.

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

...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.