Titanfall G2A4 balance

I personally think it is WAY too early to be thinking about weapon balance changes at the moment. The game is barely about to be a week old. Everything I've come across in this game I've figured out a counter to it. In my opinion both the R101C and G2A4 are perfectly balanced. The G2A4 is a marksman's weapon, (like you said, one headshot kills) and it needs no change. Neither does the R101.

 

I haven't had any issues with it.

If you're having an issue with close encounters, keep things at a middle or longer distance. I understand that this can't be the case when someone gets the drop on you, but that's kind of the point. If someone's in your face, they put themselves there, or you overlooked something and they slipped into a range more advantageous to them.

For a semi-auto rifle though, the G2 has been performing tremendously for me. If you want to counter some of the close-range issues, then try the Match Trigger attachment. You'll end up draining your ammo faster, but it'll let you pop off successive shots quickly.

I only have one weapon balance tweak I'd like to make, but it's been mentioned elsewhere before (regarding the Smart pistol). Everything else plays nicely enough

 

Well said Bardiel.

 

Titanfall is one of those games where I feel like the game is extremely balanced out of the box. We haven't had a patch yet, for performance or otherwise, and the guns all do their intended purpose. I do understand what you say, but your analysis is leaning more toward the R101C being too good. And technically, it is. Slightly. But the problem is how to nerf it. See the thing about the rifle is that (as you say) it's a better long-range weapon than the G2A4, which it shouldn't be. It's useful at close range, medium range, long range. It legitimately has no downsides; it reloads faster than the C.A.R. SMG, the Burstfire rifle and the G2A4, can use one of the good sights (which the CAR and Vector cannot) and it has less recoil than the G2A4 while being more lethal. But it's hard to nerf a gun that doesn't exactly shine in any respect. Except maybe in its recoil which seems to be the lowest in the game (to me).

See the downsides to the gun is that an SMG will own it close-range usually, and medium-range a G2A4 should beat it. Then long-range a sniper rifle is likely to win too. Against a weapon in that weapon's element, it doesn't win (assuming equal pilot skill/stable connection/etc). It dominates other weapons outside of their element, sure, but that doesn't mean you can engage people outside of their element all the time. An SMG player (like me) will try to get up close and personal most of the time, and thus you may lose. So all this needs to be taken into play. You know what they say, jack of all trades, master of none. The R101C is like a King of all trades though... while it loses to Aces of a trade, an Ace of a trade isn't even a Jack of any other trade. You probably want the R101C to be a Queen of all trades or somesuch. But as I said, it's really difficult to do such a nerf, or even to prove that it exists.

 

I dislike using it on the grounds that I suck with burst fire weapons.

Auto? Fine. Semi-auto? Even better. Burst? Trollololol

 

I find the Hemlock is quite a good gun... for people who can use it. I act like standing still for more than 2 seconds = character combustion and it's quite bad in close quarters... so I don't like using it personally. But it is quite nice.

 

Let's not beat around the bush here. This game cannot be taken seriously until they balance the weapons and make the friggin SUPER-KICK a two-hit melee or remove it entirely. The G2 is completely broken and inferior. There's literally no point in using it over the carbine, ever. The results of close range pilot-to-pilot engagements are completely random and illegitimate. The skillful weapons in this game suck, and the no-skill weapons in this game kill people IMMEDIATELY...which is the complete opposite of the way it should be. Until that is changed, expect to continue seeing the most ridiculous kill cams you could ever imagine. Patch it or this game is getting taken back to GameStop immediately. If it's broke(which it is...) fix it.

 

Attitude like that isn't what devs ever feel like reading, @Anti-Sprayer

 

It's not what other people like reading in general.

While I could agree to issues with the kick, it belongs in other threads. The G2 is fine. The balance is far more in tune than most other games. If the so-called skillful weapons aren't netting you kills, then hey, maybe your skill is lacking. Not trolling you with that, it's just how it goes. Just be more aware of your surroundings, because these "no-skill" weapons are generally most effective at closer ranges. Don't let them get close.

 

If devs don't like bad reviews then they shouldn't make bad games. Should I lie and say its the best game ever? Should I talk to people like they are babies or kittens? No.

I dont see how anything I said is uncivil or offending. I dont wana spend hours explaining why something is dumb or bad...its just dumb or bad. I just dont like to waste my time sugar coating a flawed game just so that some people might say "Hey, look how kindly this person speaks. His opinion must be valid," or so they don't say "Hey this guy is offending me with his tone or his disapproval of the game, therefore I wont agree with him, no matter what he's saying." If you are not paying attention to the things I'm saying, but instead, the way I'm saying them, then your whole entire capacity for reasoning is flawed. Im not saying this applies to you. Im just saying thats why I'm not beating around the bush. For example, If i were to review Assassin's Creed 3, I wouldn't even waste my time breaking down all of its flaws, I would simply say the game was awful and boring and that's it. It not even a matter of opinion or personal preference or up for debate. It was just straight up a terrible display of game development from start to finish. Its not even worth being "civil" about it, i'm just going to say its bad. But, there are some people who did like it and they will immediately take offense to me saying that, even though its a FACT that AC3 was awful, buggy, boring, and took no skill. Don't be one of those people...

Now, as far as Titanfall goes... no, its not balanced. No, the G2 is not worth using, ever. Not when the carbine exists..

"The balance is far more in tune than most other games. If the so-called skillful weapons aren't netting you kills, then hey, maybe your skill is lacking."

Unfortunately, that is not an option. When I play Titanfall I have top pilot kills essentially every game I play no matter the weapons I use, If i use spray guns than I almost always win and yet its not satisfying cus is not challenging to run around and spray guns that barely require skill to wield. I have been playing shooters all my life from Bond to Perfect Dark to every Cod to Battlefield to every Halo to Unreal Tournament to every Gears and I've always smashed-always top of the leaderboard-always. Ive always used semi autos and snipers because they are harder to use and thus, have a tradeoff of effectiveness. they also require position, precision, timing, spacing, and strategy in general, which are concepts that almost dont even appear in the metagame of running around with an smg or ar and spraying whatever appears in front of you...which is why noobs run around with spray guns when they are first learning games...

So, me being a scrub is just not an option.

Unfortunately, Titafall was overhyped and is overrated. Im not saying its bad. I love the concept designs, the levels, the general idea. But its too clunky and unbalanced to be taken seriously or to match Call of Duty's competitive charm. Now, this is a realization that I wish I never would've made. They been butchering CoD with awful maps for years now and I couldnt wait for Titanfall because it seemed to incorporate elements of the best shooters(cod, halo, unreal), on big awesome maps, on dedicated servers...How can that go wrong right? Well, balance, thats how.... Easy to use weapons are very good, hard to use weapons are very bad. That is a completely backwards concept no matter the type of game. Unfortunately, the weapon balance issues and general flaws in the combat system keep it from being a legitimate game to be taken seriously in a competitive sense. Do you want this game to show up at MLG events and turn out like BlackOps where all the "pros" are running around like noobs and using the same gun(famas)... why didnt they use snipers or the m14?... you know..the skillful weapons? Well, the answer is that the skillful weapons were not as good as the less skillful weapons.. just like this game. Once people start playing this game in competitive events its gona be a run-n-gun spray fest. Just wait and see.

Now, I personally dont want that to happen, which is why I'm giving a harsh review of an unbalanced game- so that maybe things will get fixed and so that maybe this game can be taken seriously on a competitive level.. but I guess thats offending.

I kno... everything i just said is out of place, this is the g2 thread...I get it. But you made an implication that was not accurate and it needed addressed.

 

@Anti-Sprayer
1 - What you actually said was pointless with the tone you took. When you start yelling at people and degenerating your language, they don't read it. They don't even get so far as to agree or disagree, they simply disregard your entire opinion completely and move on because they don't care to see bad language (and I do not mean curse words here, though curse words are also a red flag).
2 - You make a better game before saying they shouldn't make bad ones.
3 - Bad reviews are THE most useful reviews for the devs. Good reviews they skim by. They usually know what's good about the game, because that's what they liked about it in the first place. Bad reviews tell them what needs fixing. Bad reviews and bad criticism done professionally is the key.
4 - Your opinion doesn't make a game good or bad. You can't produce unbiased facts, it's opinion. This is what the whole thing about the smart pistol pretty much everywhere is about. Opinion. Don't yell at devs for something being a terrible item/mechanic/etc because you don't LIKE it. Tell em if it's broken.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For example: MW3 on PC. Marksman perk. The PC allows you to split the "Sprint" and "Hold Breath" buttons. Marksman requires you to kill people while holding your breath to level the perk up. If you use the designated "hold breath" button (like I do) and NOT the Sprint/Hold Breath combo button (which is all the consoles have), the perk would never level up. And they never told you this, and there was no way to find out why my perk wouldn't level for NINE PRESTIGES and I could never get the benefit from the pro perk, until I separately bound the button and tried it because of how the hybrid optic worked in Black Ops 2 (yes, I had to wait till BO2 to find this out). There is NO WAY IN THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE that anybody could argue the fact that that bit of code was lazy by the MW3 devs for the PC port. And it's easily fixable too. EASILY. As in I could do it if I had access to the code myself. Did they ever fix it? No. It was a lazy PC port and they didn't care enough to fix it. The devs cannot deny or combat this FACT. Now if I were to say the ACR was too OP because of its fast reload and lack of recoil and stuff? Can't yell at devs for it. Only offer feedback and hope they agree.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Above is an example of a factually broken part of a game. If you aren't talking about something like this, then forget pushing it as fact.
5 - Titanfall was overhyped. And overrated. It is, however, still quite a polished game mechanics-wise, and regardless of what you think about the weapons, a lot of balance is in the game; far more than is in Call of Duty or Battlefield, which are too concerned with being "realistic" as well as "arcadey" and seem to have a fetish for near instant death, which retards the factor of skill in gunfights and often brings it down to who has the best connection or who sees who first. Titanfall does not have these issues, excepting cloaked or simply sneaky pilots with a smart pistol getting behind you after you've mowed down about three other pilots and instant-killing you. You should remember this bit before claiming that all balance is broken and weapons require no skill and that the skillful weapons suck.
6 - Finally, CoD's competitive play should never be taken any kind of seriously. This is because the pros do not change. They hate change. Resist it. They spend all of ten minutes (usually before the game even comes out) picking one gun, one class layout, one something... and it's always as close as possible to the things they did in the past. They could likely adapt and do better with other weapons or classes or whatever, or they could actually learn what MOVING is without taking 30 seconds to cross 15 feet on the map because the whole idea of comp play is "let's play it like counter-strike even though it's a totally different game". When their pros start trying things out and getting some variety in ANY of their games, then we'll talk about how they'll tackle titanfall. Because let's be honest, we both know it's gonna be 24/7 carbine right now and nobody'll use any other gun ever. I say let Titanfall do comp if people want to pick it up, and let's see how things work out from there. Ghosts and MW3 were FAR worse candidates for the competitive circuit, and they were definitely on the circuit.

 

@Anti-Sprayer: you're arguing yourself out of your own points. Stating something like "I say the game is bad and it's a fact that I don't have to explain" is very much an opinion and not an objective statement of fact - outside of "the fact that you don't like the game".

The FACT there is that you don't like it. Fine. The OPINION there is that you think you don't need to explain why a game is bad and it's automatically helpful. What exactly do the devs or publishers, or other people for that matter, have to take away from that? Nothing. Yeah, not helpful.

I don't care about your gaming credentials either. Good for you if you tear it up in any game you play. If that's the case, stop complaining about how unbalanced the G2 (or any weapon) is against other weapons. You keep stating it's a more challenging weapon to use, so you should be happy about that, going by the rest of your half-asked logic.

Don't talk about this game being unbalanced and then try to compare it with CoD. If everything there was balanced, then obviously more types of weapons would be used. LIKE YOU POINTED OUT about the Famas. Between this, CoD, Battlefield, Halo, GoW - honestly, what has the better weapon balance? Because you can count the most used weapons on one hand in any of those games.

 

Oh my God...

@Bardiel18: I am not arguing myself out of my own facts. You are just straight up not following. When I said "I say the game is bad and it's a fact that I don't have to explain" I was saying that in conjunction to the example about Assassins Creed 3. Now the whole point of me saying that was to explain why I didn't explain why The G2 is unbalanced, which is the whole point of this thread. My point was that there are some things that should be so obvious to anyone with a functioning brain that they need not to be explained. Like... Assassins Creed 3 is bad. There is no point in me providing an elaborate explanation where I break down each of the failed elements of the game. That is all completely unnecessary because anyone who knows anything about games and who has played that game knows that its a fact that the game is bad(AC3, once again, for your clarity..), even if your opinion is that you like it. Its like if i said the sky is blue. Thats obvious so theres no point in explaining why i think the sky is blue, it just is.

The whole point of that analogy was to explain why I feel no need in explaining why the G2 is unbalanced, its so obvious that I cant believe anyone would even embarrass themselves trying to convince people otherwise. What is there to even explain or argue about? The whole point of a the g2 is to bridge the gap between snipers and assault rifles. Does it do that? Absolutely not. And if that's not the point of it, then there is no real point to it. Like i said before, there is literally no reason to ever use the G2 when the carbine exists, that should be pretty obvious to anyone who has ever played titanfall, right? So whats the point in me explaining that the carbine outclasses the g2 in ever aspect, especially long range engagements when that is the most obvious flaw in this game by far? What is the point in me explaining that the G2 is completely useless at long range and mid-long range engagements, thus making is completely useless against countering snipers or even the carbine at that range, when that such an obvious flaw?

Btw... I dont think Titanfall is bad, its just unbalanced. Pay attention.

If you dont care about my gaming credentials that you shouldn't have have questioned them in the first place with this comment- " The G2 is fine. The balance is far more in tune than most other games. If the so-called skillful weapons aren't netting you kills, then hey, maybe your skill is lacking." Yea...

"Don't talk about this game being unbalanced and then try to compare it with CoD. If everything there was balanced, then obviously more types of weapons would be used." .... (sigh)...Oh my God dude, I know. that was the whole point in me comparing it to CoD lol. the whole point in me comparing Titanfall to CoD was because CoD is unbalanced as well, which makes it hard to believe that they could make the same mistakes with Titanfall.

"Between this, CoD, Battlefield, Halo, GoW - honestly, what has the better weapon balance? Because you can count the most used weapons on one hand in any of those games." LOL, not 'this' thats for sure, I can count the most used weapons in this game on one hand as well. Halo 2 or one of the cods beside MW2 or 3 most likely, but none of those games are balanced properly(which is why i compared this game to CoD in the first place!).. You are missing the whole point though. I am saying that.. because all those other shooters are unbalanced and everyone knows it, how can someone make a game now that has the same obvious problems?

And if my logic is "half-asked," than yours is non-existent...

 

@D2ultima: The tone I took? What tone? Do you know what tone is? Can you hear me? Do you have supersonic hearing or magical abilities? And if you did, wouldn't you just hear click click click click click. Its a keyboard!... These are written words... You should pay more attention to what* people say and stop trying to interpret how* you think they are saying it.

When did I start yelling at people? I'm curious.
When did I degenerate my language?
Bad language? What bad language?

2 - "You make a better game before saying they shouldn't make bad ones." Wow... that's just really dumb. I'll move past that. lol
3- obviously...
4- obviously...
5- CoD is nothing close to being properly balanced and I never said it was. It is however more balanced and legitimate than Titanfall. You saying it isn't is just as opinionated, if not more, as when I say it is. Im not here to argue which one is more or less balanced. They both aren't balanced, so it doesn't matter. So, when I say titanfall needs balanced, it doesnt matter if it needs it more or less than CoD...IT NEEDS IT. So that's what I've been saying and that's why I'm right.
6- I know that CoDs game play shouldn't be taken seriously. That's what I said! Unfortunately Titanfall can't be either, because they made the same stupid mistakes. Thats the whole point of me mentioning Cod in the first place.

"Because let's be honest, we both know it's gonna be 24/7 carbine right now and nobody'll use any other gun ever." Ok...Yea, I know that! Thats why I already said that! Thats why they need to balance the weapons! Thats why I brought up BlackOps and the Famas in the first place! Thats why Ive been saying everything I have been saying! Thats why I said the G2 is unusable! You just admitted that its a fact and that everyone knows that the weapons arent balanced..so why are you arguing with me? I am right and I know I'm right and you just admitted I am right.

 

It's quite clear reading this that you're acting as though you are the utmost authority and instead of offering suggestions, you're demanding them and insulting their game. I.E. your tone is bad.

Secondly, @Anti-Sprayer, you said it was dumb when I told you to make a better game before ripping them a new one about balance. You at NO POINT attempted to offer constructive criticism, and simply told them their stuff is broken and it's not even worth keeping unless fixed. Which I quoted above.

Thirdly, you state "obviously" yet fail to attempt to professionally review or offer advice on anything.

Fourth... you state obviously here, yet as I said before, portrayed your opinion as if it was fact.

Fifth: If you believe CoD is more balanced than titanfall, then you go right ahead. I can, without running out of fingers, count the number of things that should not exist due to balance purposes for Titanfall. Things such as infantry-only objectives for hardpoint/ctf then adding arc mines which are lethal if they explode near enough to you without a way to evade them. Things such as the ability to be cloaked and, without alert to an enemy pilot, instantly kill them with a smart pistol, potentially ruining a very good streak through no fault of their own. Things like nuclear ejection + auto-eject basically punishing enemies for beating your titan, where if you don't have two dashes or one dash + some distance already you're going to die and there's no way around it. Those things are very rare. I cannot begin to finish the amount of issues with CoD, and a lot of them even lie with their basic gunplay mechanics, far less getting into the guns and perks and such themselves. There's what... two weapons in all of titanfall that don't work that well? The DMR and the G2A4? The carbine gets murdered at close range by the shotgun and SMGs, it gets beaten outside medium range by the DMR and Kraber too. Hell, people spamming mag launchers could even beat a carbine at medium range unless the carbine has lots of walls to use. It's not like it's OP.

Finally, the thing I pointed out stating if Titanfall was competitive all the cod pros would use the carbine all day everyday was because Cod pros REFUSE TO LEARN ANYTHING NEW. If something is familiar or can be abused in a certain way without it being called a glitch to get an edge? They do it. And it becomes the norm, though it likely wasn't intended that way. Professional gamers who don't ever try new things and evolve their game shouldn't EVER be taken seriously or even referenced. People shouldn't even look up to them, because they don't even care about more than 3% of the actual game. Hell, none of them even know that in Black Ops 2, the gun you started running with determined your sprint distance, so starting to run with an assault rifle a M8A1 (nobody used any other rifle, let's be real) then swapping to a knife or pistol did nothing. They did it anyway. They didn't even stop switching to a knife to pick up a new gun, even though picking up a weapon when your other weapon was your knife automatically dropped the knife, making switching to the knife first to drop it a waste of time. Those are the "pros", the people who fight with great ferocity the need to "learn" or "try" or "change" anything but the bare minimum needed to play a game and pick the "best" weapon.

In the context of what most existing pro fps players do, it doesn't MATTER how balanced titanfall is, or if the SMG could be shown to have a 250% win chance over the Carbine in close quarters. The Pros'd still use a carbine because it's the bloody carbine and is effective at all ranges, because that's who they are. Titanfall, with a couple banned gun and/or perk combinations, could EASILY do competitive, and without an already-established set of teams to be pre-invited because of namesake thereby cutting off other possible teams, could give rise to some of the best competitive multiplayer seen in years, where instead of people sitting still and moving once every 20 seconds, people actually move around and engage in hectic, splendid fights and make things super exciting to watch.

So to recap: Don't speak about opinion as fact. Offer suggestions with reasoning instead of insults or berating. And for the life of it all, remember what the game actually is. It's a refined multiplayer experience which essentially goes back to basics and focuses on streamlining core mechanics with responsive and useful movement and map navigation, keeping the number of weapons available down to a bare minimum of essentially one gun per weapon type; the only exceptions being the SMG and Sniper categories, where the available weapons and their attachments being different enough while keeping in with the category of the gun that the multi-class existence is justified. Like the vector being more recoil-based, but having a higher RPM and magazine size and reload than the C.A.R. SMG, but lacking the "steady aim" attachment the CAR SMG has. It's a sufficient enough sidegrade to the CAR SMG, and thus its existence validated; albeit most users seemingly prefer the CAR.

 

You're exhausting... Its almost like you are not even reading anything I write.

Yes, I said "This game cannot be taken seriously until they balance the weapons and make the friggin SUPER-KICK a two-hit melee or remove it entirely." How is that wrong? In a good shooter the weapons have to be balanced right? Its the most important thing besides the maps. Not rocket science...

"The results of close range pilot-to-pilot engagements are completely random and illegitimate." How is that wrong? Havent you ever seen a kill cam in this game, ever? In a good shooter the combat system needs to be legit. If im putting a stream of bullets(BULLETS!) into the back of a person.. and they hit B and kick(KICK!) me through those bullets (when he wasnt even looking in my direction) and I die immediately than something is just not right. How am I supposed to watch that kill cam and say "Oh that was legit.. He got me good." HOW??? I got like 30-40 ping always.. so its not like Im lagging. Im on a dedicated server so its not like theres lag compensation right? This isnt CoD after all. Sorry, but multiple bullets>a kick always and forever. Its like in CoD when a person runs by you and doesnt realize it right away but still panic melees even though you are past them and they are facing the other other direction, but their melee somehow lands because it spins them around and they lock on to you and knife lunge 15 ft.. Yea... the kick melee is so wonky at times that its embarrassing. I really cant even imagine how someone could argue that its not.

"Patch it or this game is getting taken back to GameStop immediately. If it's broke(which it is...) fix it." Whats wrong with that? I took MW3 back after a week. Whats wrong with me taking back a game based on it being a casual spray fest? Why wouldn't I take it back if they don't balance the pilot guns? Im not gona waste time, energy, and money trying to take a game seriously, when it shouldn't or can't be taken seriously in the first place.

"It's quite clear reading this that you're acting as though you are the utmost authority and instead of offering suggestions you're demanding them and insulting their game. I.E. your tone is bad." There you go making ridiculous tonal extrapolations again based on texts in a chat room. Utmost authority? ..for stating that an unbalanced game is unbalanced? Do I have to be the President to state obvious flaws about video games? I am offering a suggestion. .. Balance the weapons! Pretty straight forward I'd say.

I don't see the purpose of everything else you just said. The paragraph starting with "fifth" is just funny and I disagree with most of what you said. You are still trying to argue with me about what game is more unbalanced, CoD or titanfall, when that is irrelevant because they both need balanced, which was the whole point in me comparing them in the first place. "people spamming mag launchers could even beat a carbine at medium range unless the carbine has lots of walls to use" WHAT?! yea... maybe if the person holding the carbine in that circumstance is afk, or 6 years old, or standing still and reloading, or just a complete noob. But otherwise that's just ridiculous. Are you telling me that if a pro with a carbine vs a pro with the mag launcher had a fair mid range engagement the mag launcher would stand a chance???

Let me just bypass everything else you said cause it kinda seems irrelevant and i dont wana get too off topic by addressing your inaccurate generalizations about pros and whatnot...This is a thread about the g2a1 right? I got one simple question for you...

If you were going to play a match of pilot hunter against pro gamers, what guns would you use? (assuming the obvious, which would be that all the pros on the other team would be rocking the carbine or an smg...)

Would you use the g2a1???

...no..Not unless you were deranged. Not unless you were trying to lose. You would get completely embarrassed, even if you are a pro... Would you use the hemlock? no... the kraber? no... the DMR? probably not. You, if you had any intention of not getting raped, would use the carbine or an smg. Why?