|
PR:BF2 Feedback Post your feedback on the current Project Reality release (including SinglePlayer). |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
2014-06-03, 18:59 | #21 |
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 8
Finland
|
Re: Breacher Class Problems
Adding 4x scopes on breacher's primary loadout was unnecessary in my opinion.
Like Liam said. |
2014-06-03, 22:26 | #22 |
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 121
Poland
|
Re: Breacher Class Problems
facepalm.jpg
removing grenades from the breacher is like removing the scope from the sniper. Breacher by definition is a CQB kit designed to clear buildings. Why the scope was added is beyond me. Running around by yourself w/ a breacher being all 1337 and stuff killing fobs may be fun (I can attest to it as I do it myself) but it has nothing to do with the kit's designated role. If the DEV's want to add a scope to a 1337 kit it should be the Combat Engi. There is makes sense since that kit's designed role is to avoid contact up front as he is moving about the map alone (especially since it's a heavily limited kit). If adding a scope to the CE is not the route they want to go then I would honestly replace the big C4 w/ binoculars for two reasons: - The CE needs a way of locating enemy movements so he could traverse the landscape in a manner which does not endanger him. - There is no need for a big C4 in the game tbh. One small C4 stick is essentially all it takes to kill fobs and caches. I love running up to APC's w/ the CE and killing them w/ glitched C4's but I must admit that not only is it unrealistic but also detrimental to the gameplay. On CQB/woodland maps the CE is just as effective as the HAT kit, which isn't right. [im saying to remove the big C4 because the CE has no more slots left to put the binoc's] Adding a scope to a kit whose primary role are CQB fights and clearing buildings makes completely no sense. DEV's y u do dis?? I'm sorry DEV's if it seems that I'm hating but I honestly do not see ANY reasoning behind these changes... Sorry about the OT about the CE, but at this point in PR the CE and breacher are hand in hand tbh (which they shouldn't be). In other news: please bring back the iron sight C7 for Canada. It was WAAAAAYYYY better than that eotech crap. |
Last edited by Brooklyn-Tech; 2014-06-03 at 22:35..
|
2014-06-03, 22:41 | #23 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,268
China
|
Re: Breacher Class Problems
|
2014-06-03, 22:57 | #24 |
PR Tournament Admin
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 895
Ireland
|
Re: Breacher Class Problems
I'm entirely with Brooklyn on this. Breacher needs nades, not optics.
|
|
|
2014-06-03, 23:19 | #25 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,268
China
|
Re: Breacher Class Problems
|
2014-06-04, 02:34 | #26 |
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 235
United States of America
|
Re: Breacher Class Problems
I may be mistaken, but aren't most real world soldier trained to use their rifle in combat rather than a shotgun?
Also, rifle is way better than a shotgun in a small room. |
2014-06-04, 03:18 | #27 | |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,268
China
|
Re: Breacher Class Problems
Quote:
Rifle way better than shotgun in small room? I guess people complained about "stopping power" of 5.56mm rounds because they have no idea what they are talking about. | |
2014-06-04, 11:33 | #28 |
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 84
Germany
|
Re: Breacher Class Problems
It depends. If you have impeccable aim and good reflexes, the shotgun is better in a small room. If you lack either or even both, spray'n'pray is a lot more likely to get you out alive with a full auto rifle...
|
2014-06-04, 11:55 | #29 |
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 160
Germany
|
Re: Breacher Class Problems
I also think the breacher kit should have the red dot / iron sights versions of the factions assault rifle again. It worked pretty well and I don't see why everybody in a squad should have magnified optics.
|
|
|
2014-06-04, 13:13 | #30 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,268
China
|
Re: Breacher Class Problems
|
Tags |
breacher, class, problems, shotgun |
|
|