243 réponses à ce sujet

[78stonewobble]

frostycyke wrote...
It seems your problem isn't when the game itself, but playing in PUG's.The solution is to find some friends.

I want to be challenge when I play with my friends, I hardly ever play in PUG's, my friends work together, cover each other and play our assigned roles, the newer enemies is making things more interesting and I love it.

I'd hate for the game to be catered to friendless PUG players. if you wanna play long range stop playing in PUG's. Be social, make friends.

A bit off topic really.

I would say that the game should naturally encourage players to teamwork closer and better. Atleast imho. You can run away selfheal and self revive. Want to snipe? No problem here's a cloak so you can escape sticky situations and don't need a team mate to cover you.

Now I like those abilities but they do make players rather independent of each other.

[Flambirex]

Just a quick point about the Store, there are way way way too many Rare cards compared to others now, which basically necessitate buying at least Spectre Packs to unlock. Hence farming. I would've thought that at least the Resurgence items would be demoted to Uncommon by now, ideally Rebellion as well.

[Komrade Kaos]

Yoshiyuki Ly wrote...

I'm sick of saying this. Sniper Rifles have a steeper learning curve and are more punishing to misuse. It doesn't matter which map you're on, which character you are using. If you like a particular playstyle, you will find a way to make it work no matter the situation.

Truer words on the MP have never been spoken! The real difficulty I find is getting a balanced team in PUGS and gamers willing to use simple tactics to enhance their characters skill set. i.e; snipers should be targeting bosses, Vanguards should be herding the mobs into a kill zones, etc. Yeah this sounds rather boring I admit, but the point is your playstyle is not as unique as your characters skill set.    

[MichaelFinnegan]

Thalamask wrote...

As per the title.

I do not think it is per se the hate for ranged combat, but a push toward a more aggressive style of gameplay, esp. with the way the enemy AI behaves. I think what you perceive as hate toward ranged combat is merely a byproduct of this. The reminder of my points below will try to focus on why I think the gameplay could have been better, keeping this in mind.

I've had this game pretty much since launch, and I've been watching the evolution of MP since about April when I decided to give it a go. Over that time, it's become increasingly clear that BW is pushing an in-your-face, run 'n gun combat style by actively penalising range and immobility.

I haven't played MP since the start (been playing it 3 months now), so I must confess I don't know how it has evolved since the beginning.

That's a pretty odd choice, given that Mass Effect is, ya know, a third-person, cover-based shooter and not an arcade-based UT-type shooter.

The cover system is one I have a very big gripe toward - by not allowing me to move when I want to move, the game thinking instead that I want to get into cover, it is not very well tuned. I don't know if it is just me, but even now I cannot end a match without having accidentally gotten into cover at least once.

On an unrelated note, I don't like the way the "stamina penalty" system has been removed entirely. In ME3 one can keep running as long as one wishes. Imo, they should have retained the stamina system; even if it did slow down the gameplay somewhat; it would have provided another dimension to it, and it would probably have led to different design decisions...

In support of my position:
It's generally agreed that sniper rifles are substantially less useful than other weapon classes, particularly shotguns.

I'd have to agree with you on this one. Shotguns (esp. with the smart choke) are very much capable of one-shot sniping across great distances, but SRs get a damage penalty when hip fired, for instance; the imbalance is in the fact that there is no such existing mod to alleviate this for SRs, to make them better at close range.

Once you start to climb the difficulty ladder, most AR's are drastically
underpowered. There are exceptions, but those are SO good at lower
difficulties that they're perpetually under the damoclean-sword of the
nerf-bat.

I'm not sure how this advances your point. With the ARs, what I think is, that it forces one to get into cover more often, even for tanky characters (like the Krogans or the Destroyer) since there are so many enemies that can quickly flank, hit across the map, and so on. One can get around that with some high damage ARs and specifically with some builds, though.

As difficulty rises, damage increases and the ability to be "out of
cover" drops. Which is fine. But that universally promotes high
spike-damage weapons (like shotguns and sniper rifles... oh wait... not
sniper rifles, 'cause they're not up to snuff, so just shotguns) and
mobility so that you can keep right-cornering the stuff charging towards
you.

Yes, high damage per shot weapons do tend to win out with me, too. Mostly because I think they are safer. SRs can be used this way by quick scoping and shooting, but it's not as easy as with a shotgun - the margin for error in close quarters is less with SRs.

All enemies have units designed to force you into mobility. Banshees,
Brutes, Pyro's (esp. post-buff!), Hunters, Phantoms, Dragoons, Scions
and Praetorians.

I don't think immobility is the issue. It is basically that one cannot camp with units such as these (on a side note, I'm seeing this moreso since the 1.04 patch, especially the hack objectives where now enemies tend to spawn and camp near the hacking zone (my observation anyway). Which is fine, by itself, I suppose. They are prioritizing for a mission failure at all costs.

Anyway, the issue to me is that these units have no "real" sense of self preservation, as far as I see it. There doesn't seem to be any learn-as-things-go, or adapt to circumstances in the AI. What this means basically is that they become very predictable.

All enemy units that are designed to keep you IN cover (Atlas, Nemesis,
Marauders, Ravagers, Rocket Troopers, Primes etc.) are usually better
solved by mobility (moving out of their line of fire and ignoring them
until you've got nothing better to do) than by actually using cover,
which completely defeats the purpose.

I agree.

The point I'm trying to make is that this game (more like the Dark Souls) suffers (imo) from the way the enemy AI is designed. Things tend to rush you, flank you all the time. I'd have very much liked a concept where the enemy would retreat and regroup once in a while. It'd have been better if they worked a little bit better among themselves; if they were a bit more attentive to the type of opponents they were facing. This would mean less aggressive gameplay, to be sure, but it'd also mean many more dimensions in the gameplay, than just put everything-we-have-at-you and see how you handle it kind of mode that I think we currently have.

[Cyonan]

Thalamask wrote...

I disagree with you completely.

If CQC is playing "properly", the things that are supposed to threaten him (i.e. units that outrange him) CAN'T threaten him. He's always out of LOS. If ranged is playing "properly" they can't eliminate all the CQC units because they have to spend so much time hiding from the ranged ones.

As demonstrated in a previous post, right-hand advantage and corner work are drastically less effective for ranged dudes than CQC and, as a result, ranged spends more time doing nothing regenning shields.

You didn't demonstrate anything though. You simply stated your opinion which is that Pyros and Hunters are a long range fighter's nightmare, and claimed it proved something that it didn't.

I mentioned that I do not have issues with Pryos or Hunters as a sniper. You call pyros your worst nightmare while I call them free points as 1 shot from my rifle turns them into a living bomb.

I love sniper rifles in all games, which is as long range as it gets, and I have no issues playing the sniper in Mass Effect 3. I have issues trying to play the camping sniper, but not the sniper in general.

It sounds less like your issue is that CQC is "more effective" and more like you can't camp one spot all game long and keep enemies at bay.

[hitman1798]

I will say about Sniper Rifles in today's game...if you don't have mods/gear on for your sniper rifle, head shots on most enemies on Silver or higher will not kill the enemy. To me, that is the biggest draw back. After one shot (Widow X), you reload, enemies now see where you are at, after reload, kill the enemy you first aimed at, but now you have 4 others basically on top of you.

[Cyonan]

hitman1798 wrote...

I will say about Sniper Rifles in today's game...if you don't have mods/gear on for your sniper rifle, head shots on most enemies on Silver or higher will not kill the enemy. To me, that is the biggest draw back. After one shot (Widow X), you reload, enemies now see where you are at, after reload, kill the enemy you first aimed at, but now you have 4 others basically on top of you.

To be fair, it they had the power to punch through shield gate without mods, they would be doing way too much damage to boss mobs with mods(or it would mean that shield gate is all but removed).

The one issue I have with my Widow specifically is that on my QFI I cannot 1 shot a Marauder on gold unless I use Disruptor or Phasic Rounds(I do appreciate these rounds being added to help with this, though). Even with a Sniper Rifle Amp III + Sniper Rifle Rail Amp V it leaves them with 1 bar of health left, and lots of shielded trash mobs end up getting that.

Though with those amps on my Javelin X I can 1 shot Phantoms on gold from any range, so I'm pretty happy with that one.

[hitman1798]

Cyonan wrote...

hitman1798 wrote...

I will say about Sniper Rifles in today's game...if you don't have mods/gear on for your sniper rifle, head shots on most enemies on Silver or higher will not kill the enemy. To me, that is the biggest draw back. After one shot (Widow X), you reload, enemies now see where you are at, after reload, kill the enemy you first aimed at, but now you have 4 others basically on top of you.

To be fair, it they had the power to punch through shield gate without mods, they would be doing way too much damage to boss mobs with mods(or it would mean that shield gate is all but removed).

The one issue I have with my Widow specifically is that on my QFI I cannot 1 shot a Marauder on gold unless I use Disruptor or Phasic Rounds(I do appreciate these rounds being added to help with this, though). Even with a Sniper Rifle Amp III + Sniper Rifle Rail Amp V it leaves them with 1 bar of health left, and lots of shielded trash mobs end up getting that.

Though with those amps on my Javelin X I can 1 shot Phantoms on gold from any range, so I'm pretty happy with that one.

I agree with being over powered, but we are talking about the smaller enemies here.  Like you said, you can't one shot a Marauder on gold unless you use Equipment.  For me, that is the case on Silver as well.  In today's game, why would you pick a sniper rifle where you can't kill a smaller enemy with a single shot? 

[Cyonan]

hitman1798 wrote...

I agree with being over powered, but we are talking about the smaller enemies here.  Like you said, you can't one shot a Marauder on gold unless you use Equipment.  For me, that is the case on Silver as well.  In today's game, why would you pick a sniper rifle where you can't kill a smaller enemy with a single shot? 

You've got 5 single shot weapons in the game: Mantis, Widow, Claymore, Javelin, Kishock.

Kishock flat out ignores shield gate, Claymore laughs at it, and the Javelin just punches through it because it has that much damage at the higher ranks.

So really it affects the Mantis and the Widow, which I wouldn't bring unless I were planning on using Disruptor or Phasic Rounds. I always use the Javelin on my sniper Infiltrators because of the power it has.

That however, is more of an issue with the Mantis and Widow than it is with Sniper Rifles in general. Mantis is fine because it's a common, but the Widow could probably use a little bit more power so that it can actually punch through shield gate with equipment on any Infiltrator.

For non Infiltrators yeah, the single shot snipers are pretty bad, except the Kishock which ignores shield gate(but also has major issues off-host). There are other snipers that are pretty solid on them though that aren't single shot.

[King Ptolemy IV]

Thalamask wrote...

King Ptolemy IV wrote...

CQB is pretty much the bread and butter of TPS games, especially with cover based ones, the only way for the AI to beat u is to rush and force u out of cover. I mean think about it, gears is that way, ME is that way, army of 2 is that way, and a lot of other games I could name and far fewer of u would know.

It's just really strange to me to see a game designed around trying to force players NOT to use the single mechanic that actually defines the genre.

It's the same reason I have trouble calling Starcraft 2 a strategy game. It's not. It's a micro-management, memory-based guessing game.

In many ways, Splinter Cell: Conviction is a better cover-based game than ME3. You have to keep moving there too, but using cover is actually helpful, rather than detrimental.

Let's be honest here... glueing yourself into cover (regardless of your playstyle) really is one of the worst things you can do in MP, and that just renders the whole concept of cover-based pointless. They spent a ton of time and effort creating all the get-into-cover, get-out-of-cover, stick-your-head-out-and-shoot etc. animations... and then designed the game to try to make sure that you never use 'em! 

i agree, i dont use cover anymore when i play Multiplayer, it is just too much of an incovenience.  i just hide behind a wall and shoot with a smaller part of my body exposed than if i fired from cover plus i am more mobile and agile.  this is probably why i love the new turians.  TPS are good with and without the cover system, but i dont use it if i dont have to.

[riotlord]

Armor Piercing rounds, Incinerate, Cryo, Tactical Scan, homing grenades, warp, warp ammo, prox mines, all of these deal with armor and/or boosts dmg to them. Its how I survive with a valiant 1 and widow 1 on gold.

Disrupter rounds, overload, energy drain, arc grenades, THE ACOLYTE(SRSLY USE IT), all deal with shields.

IF you are going to snipe or spam biotics, take a class that can pop a shield with an ability or use a acolyte. Pop their shield and then pop their face. It's not that hard. I do it to banshees on gold with my drell adept.

Acolyte1 needs 3 hits on a banshee(i think) I was using it on my drell, and asari.

If you have it at X I think 1 or two shots?(not including usage of consumables/rails)

[78stonewobble]

Also it wasn't "just" about sniper rifles but also assault rifles (my favorite/so shameless selfish bump).

[Tankcommander]

Cyonan wrote...

hitman1798 wrote...

I agree with being over powered, but we are talking about the smaller enemies here.  Like you said, you can't one shot a Marauder on gold unless you use Equipment.  For me, that is the case on Silver as well.  In today's game, why would you pick a sniper rifle where you can't kill a smaller enemy with a single shot? 

You've got 5 single shot weapons in the game: Mantis, Widow, Claymore, Javelin, Kishock.

Kishock flat out ignores shield gate, Claymore laughs at it, and the Javelin just punches through it because it has that much damage at the higher ranks.

So really it affects the Mantis and the Widow, which I wouldn't bring unless I were planning on using Disruptor or Phasic Rounds. I always use the Javelin on my sniper Infiltrators because of the power it has.

That however, is more of an issue with the Mantis and Widow than it is with Sniper Rifles in general. Mantis is fine because it's a common, but the Widow could probably use a little bit more power so that it can actually punch through shield gate with equipment on any Infiltrator.

For non Infiltrators yeah, the single shot snipers are pretty bad, except the Kishock which ignores shield gate(but also has major issues off-host). There are other snipers that are pretty solid on them though that aren't single shot.

Kishock is amazing but if you are off-host it is nigh impossible to use, so really, the Widow is the only single-shot sniper still needing individual attention.

That being said, snipers are way too weak across the board on most classes to justify their use (minus Kishock host).

[Trogdorx]

Jos Hendriks wrote...

Trogdorx wrote...

On level design: So, basically, you looked at how people liked to play, decided that wasn't how you wanted them to play "because it wastes your hard work", and so designed the next game around making that playstyle difficult? What, out of spite? Yeah, how dare those players do something logical. We'd better put in units that have crazy accuracy with grenades, units that can move ridiculously quickly, and other nonsense, just so we can be sure everyone is running around the map like this is Halo or Quake and we feel like our level designers' work is being appreciated. I'd insert an emoticon here but this forum doesn't have one that expresses sufficient frustration.

We always look at how people play, different play styles and approaches. ME2's combat did not incentivize players to move, which meant players stuck to the first place they find. That is fine. For ME3, we wanted players to engage the combat spaces more as a matter of advancing the combat and to make things more active.

Wait a minute. If it (ME2's combat) was fine, as you say, then why did you feel the need to change it in the sequel? "For ME3, we wanted players to engage the combat spaces more as a matter of advancing the combat and to make things more active." It seems like you're contradicting yourself. If it was fine before, why try to make it 'more active'? If it wasn't broken, why fix it? Why go against what the players wanted to do? Were players complaining that there were no game mechanics forcing them to relocate?
It seems like a fundamental change due to the perception that there was something wrong with how it was before, rather than an improvement on what was already there, which is what I think people expect in a sequel to something.

We set goals of what we'd like to accomplish with something, and we find
out how that works out in practice. Level design informs gameplay. The
biggest shift from ME2 to ME3 has been the composition of enemy types
and their roles relative to the player. Level design needs to reflect
this to really work, so we built around a more dynamic situation where
people would advance or fall back rather than stay in one place. You can
still stay in one place, but it comes with risks.

Except that to force the player to make more use of the environment, you added aspects of the game that feel cheap and artificial. Sync-kills. Soldiers that can lob grenades with such accuracy that they just about land down your pants every time. Long-range units like the ravager and nemesis that have incredibly powerful, incredibly accurate long-range attacks, yet have almost no way to deal with you once you get close to them. And now, more recently, the change to pyros and the addition of geth bombers and cerberus dragoons. At this point, staying in one place isn't just discouraged by the gameplay, but rather it's pretty much impossible now. So why bother taking a weapon that's most effective at long range while stationary, when for the most part the enemies are making you stay on the move and fight at short range?

Ultimately, I'm not here to spite or frustrate the player, I'm here to
facilitate gameplay and make enjoyable and balanced layouts for you to
play in. Halo and Quake are cool games, but they don't serve as
inspiration for the way we deal with things. Being from an Unreal
Tournament background myself as far as level design goes, I can tell you
that the ME3 MP levels are very differently designed than any level
I've ever designed for UT. 

Yet, still much closer to that style of map than what I would consider appropriate for a tactical shooter with a cover system. Even on the largest, most open maps, the enemy is only at sniper range for a very short time, and from then on you pretty much just have to run away and shotgun what's pursuing you. Especially now since the recent DLC and shield/health gate changes, which made it much easier for enemies to put you on the floor. I'd still like to hear from BW whether or not this was an intentional change, because it's dramatically shifted the difficulty higher. Bronze is the new Silver, Silver is the new Gold, and so on.

Trogdorx wrote...
As it is, all of the maps, singleplayer and multiplayer, are too small for sniper rifles to really have a fundamental purpose. I mean, you gave them a gameplay purpose, recent DLC notwithstanding, in providing units with abilities like tactical cloak that give slow-firing, big-damage weapons like sniper rifles a means of being effective. But that same class can also use that ability with shotguns which do the same thing at shorter ranges. So if you just take the sniper rifle on its own and say, where does this fit on the battlefield that no other gun does, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a situation that couldn't also be handled by an AR or pistol. The maps are simply too small. When I think sniper map, this is the size that comes to my mind:
http://www.mw2blog.c...-Map-Derail.jpg
That's Derail from COD: Modern Warfare 2. Note that even though it has a lot of open areas for sniping, it also has a lot of cover and buildings you can go into for close-range combat. This is the size of map I prefer, and wish I'd see more of, rather than the small maps we've been seeing lately in the ME3's, Crysis 2's, COD:BLOPS and so on.

I will have to disagree with you on this. Everyone approaches sniper rifles and other long range weapons differently, but the way we deal with them is consistent and I don't think that people with sniper rifles can't snipe in our levels. On top of that, comparing what weapon can be used in what situation is not particularly interesting. Sniper rifles are ranged weapons. The more range requirement you put on a weapon or power or anything, the more restricted that weapon is. It works that way for any game. Pistols and assault rifles are accurate in bursts and thus can also be used for longer ranges than their ideal short to medium range, but sniper rifles will still be more accurate at longer range. At the same time, you can use a sniper rifle against enemies that are 5-10 meters away as well instead of a pistol or assault rifle. 

I would argue that they can't, at this point in time. Given the size of even the largest 'sniper maps', how fast the enemy is capable of moving, and the cheap stunts they pull that I mentioned earlier, the enemy simply doesn't stay at long range long enough for sniper rifles to be worthwhile.

Modifié par Trogdorx, 12 octobre 2012 - 02:17 .

[Grunt_Platform]

Having sniped rather effectively... I have to say, Jos Hendriks's maps (like Goddess and London) are some of the BEST maps for snipers in the game. Learn to limit your time in scope, keep mobile.. and you'll notice that there are actually several great positions to snipe from, even if you can't hold them. A single Salarian or Geth Infiltrator, with a good sniper rifle can significantly reduce the damage the team takes on these maps, making the short range classes much more effective.

The only map I've played on where sniping is a truly ineffective tactic is Glacier, because the maximum engagement range is just too short to make any use of a scoped sniper rifle. I don't think BioWare hates long range play.. they just want us to work for it.

Short range threats like Hunters and Pyros always give me more trouble when I'm using short range guns like shotguns, or SMGs. They're easy to see coming if you don't keep scoped all the time, making them free easy points. The Hunters are more of an issue, but their large hitboxes and tendency to walk in straight lines makes them pretty easy to snipe.

[blacklanner]

Hi to all!

I took my time and read through all pages and I must say, very interesting reading, many interesting and valid arguments!

First of all - I see, what is Thalamask trying to point out and completely agree with him.

Now. I´m playing almost solely as sniper – Geth infiltrator with Black Widow lv. 7 (AP mod with Heavy barrel). Which is (please note ONLY in MY opinion) the only way how to play as a pure sniper and how to actually excel in this role (underlining - my opinion, my play style). B-S-G (PUG) in 95% of time I´m a top player usually outscoring others by a mile. I´m saying that not because I want to brag about it, but because only this built allows me play to the game WITHOUT all negatives mentioned in this topic, or at least offset them (benefits from cloak, hunter mode vision, movement speed, DPS built, rate of fire enhancement, shooting through walls). I can wipe out anything and don´t have to leave the spot. Really! (OK, on gold, sometimes I have to move a little – 2 banshees or 3 phantoms coming at you- hope you understand). Other thing is, that on certain maps I remain stationary (Dagger, Hydra) while on others I´m hunting. I don´t do solo missions, and constant raiding on platinum is masochism for credits, not fun (my opinion).

But this is the only built, which allows me to do this. Of course, as it happens, it is my favorite character and my favorite weapon, so I´m not complaining (lucky me). Playing sniper with other character I felt like something was missing, or is out of order. So I quickly returned to my GI. Having read these comments made me understand why.

Don´t get me wrong. I´m enjoying the game from the beginning, I like new challenges introduced by recent DLC (both Challenges as per-se and challenges as a new opportunities), love Collectors with their BIG heads (read big targets), hate Bombers (sledges? really?). And please, BW, FBW – new corridors are OK, but they look so BORING!

Others (forgive me that I don´t mention them by names - too many comments) argue, that snipers are playable and equal to other classes so what´s this fuss about. Yes they are. But then I went through this topic and I realized, this is not true entirely. Trouble IS with LR and CCQ separation and in my mind set (and I think in many others) sniper comes with a sniper rifle. The game is EVOLVING, and as right now it favors CCQ over LR. You can argue against it, you can disagree, but that´s sadly all you can do about it. Thalamask is right, and having read what Jos Hendriks wrote, its not a bug, it´s a feature. There is a reason you don´t see many SRs on gold.
Many players are waiting for snipers and SR´s to be buffed (SR – OK, some maybe deserve it, but that´s for debate). I didn´t understand it, cause with better gear, higher LV of weapons and increasing skill I went from pure in-cover-please-don´t-kill-me-and-let-this-be-over to actual search and destroy hunting rampage. Game was getting easier. So why buff snipers? IMHO sniper are fine, some are better than others (GI rules!) but overall, it´s OK. I think, what most players who are preferring SRs need, is really something like damage reduction while being in cover. That sort of thing – as proposed by Tahlamask. Very reasonable. So not a buff, but game improvement. All maps provide some sort of sniping opportunity (although some are in my opinion horrible – like London, and no, don´t try to convince me otherwise), so snipers can always find their way to contribute.

As is ME3 MP progressing, new challenges are arising, we snipers will have to adapt. Yes, its getting more and more difficult to actually hold the line (with, or without sniper class/weapon), but I like to hunt rather to wait for the enemy to come to me. I too don´t like the idea to be FORCED to constantly move from on spot to another rather than doing it WILLINGLY, but as it seems, we´ll have to deal with it, maybe present some valid arguments, much like in this topic and hope for the best.

W

[upinya slayin]

Jos Hendriks wrote...

Thalamask, 

So I've given your posts and initial argument more thought because I think it's a very interesting discussion to have, and wanted to respond in a more complete and serious fashion. In essence, I can see where you're coming from as far as a shift from long range to short range is concerned. There do seem to be plenty of classes that favour shorter range engagement with enemies, and with the way the enemy factions are designed they will not hang back but will instead come look for you. However, I disagree with you on this being bad design, or necessarily shifting away from long range. Let me explain why by outlining our goals for ME3 combat and how lessons from ME2 and approach to designing intelligent enemies factor into that.

I've covered levels in an earlier post, and I believe we're at least in agreement that the levels themselves provide options to those playing short range and to those playing long range alike. 

Sitting in a piece of cover for an extended period of time and not moving away from it has never been an intended element of ME3's combat. While long range players in other third person shooters may prefer that approach to cover usage, we never designed towards this, not for singleplayer, and not for multiplayer. To me personally, ME3 multiplayer's nature of allowing people to play together and coordinate together (something that does not necessarily happen in public games with random people) actually solidifies the long range player's role (mostly snipers) as one that comes to full realization when coordinated with other players. 

Based on some of the combat we did in Mass Effect 2 we found that players tended to get into the first piece of cover they could, and then proceeded to fight through an entire combat scenario without moving. This is a valid approach, but we felt that large areas of designed combat space would simply go unused because of this, and we wanted to approach things differently so that players would make more use of the entire combat space. This especially because we spend quite a bit of time on the level design side figuring out cool ways for people to move through combat spaces. Fast-forward to ME3 and you can start seeing the roots for the different enemy factions.

The enemy factions in the game all have been designed to have one or more units that could perform different roles. When combined, these would provide a constant but varied challenge. There are basic combat units, suppression units encouraging you to be in cover, slow pressure units that encourage you to not sit in one location (unless you coordinate to keep them at bay), and tank units. Combined, these units come across as aggressive and require immediate response, which incentivized players to make use of an entire area. 

Now, I can't comment on weapons, like I said, because my usual selection of weapons limits itself to the Widow, Valiant and occasionally the Harrier as a back-up for either of those. I do not know the current balance between weapon types or the precise way our gameplay designers aim to balance it, so I will have to defer to the many people in here who have a better understanding of it than I do.

All of that said, I feel that this approach may not be specifically what you would like it to be, but it is a solid approach, grounded in reason, discussion and lots of experimentation and iteration. It is primarily the way it is because we believe this to be fun, while still offering a variety of gameplay styles to use (and combine with other players' play styles!). If you feel that it is a "desperate attempt to pander to 14-yo, foul-mouthed, twitching, bigotted, CoD-stereotype demographic", that is of course entirely your right.

Hopefully this gives you a bit more clarification of why things are the way they are, even if you don't like all of it. 

aweosme post. I never understod why people think the game was intended to sit in one spot.
In SP you have to advance becuase its not a horde mode. you need to psuh forward to complete objectives. also rigt in the trianing missions at teh begining it shows you how to move form cover to cover and flank enemies. the intent on ME (IMO) is for people to move form cover to cover to gain a better angle on ememies (aka flanking)

[StarcloudSWG]

Jos, the thing is; that's not how it works. Mobility is useful, but forcing mobility is not. Unless there is a reason to 'advance' on a map, the best, smartest, and most effective tactic is in FACT to take and hold a strong point with good firing lanes.

'Adjusting' maps and AI and spawn points to force players to do the stupid thing of running around out of cover is both annoying and artificial altering the battlefield to force an 'intended playstyle.'