I consider myself pretty good at video games in general, and especially at shooters.

But... Does everyone feel like they get teamed up with people who have no idea how to work a controller and endlessly feed the other team, like more so than other games? Is it just my experience?

​You already answered a post that dealt with the subject.

https://community.focus-entmt.com/focus-entertainment/space-marine-2/forums/6-general/threads/45041-the-pvp-is-a-disappointment?page=1#post-213748

The ability of players who don't know how to play (or rather, don't know how to take advantage of the game's mechanics, or can't, due to the need to play as a team, because they are only individual players), is something you can't modify.

But by modifying game parameters, you can balance this situation, for example:-

-Reducing the general lethality of weapons, for example bolters, would allow players who are not coordinated to gain time to get to combat and join forces with the rest of their team. And coordinated teams wouldn't be sending solo players back to respawn in less than 1 second of concentrated fire, the latter leading to one team killing everything in sight while the other team spends all their time running around the map to end up running into the enemy death ball and teleporting back to respawn without the possibility of killing or capturing anything. Also less lethal bolters are more in line with 40k lore

-Eliminating other additional damage, for example headshots, in a fast game more than by skill, are achieved by luck, it is not fair to reward someone who has been lucky or has used cheats with additional damage.

-After reducing the lethality of shooting, which opens up the opportunity for melee combat, which currently suffers from the same problem as shooting, the assault marine's combat is reduced to landing among his enemies and killing them instantly.

-Melee combat should enjoy at least some of the mechanics that are in co-op mode.

-Remove other group advantages, for example healing, in this case, instead of using a banner that heals several players, include an apothecary that can only heal one member of his team, this penalizes team players, and it is easier for solo players without coordination to use it.

-To avoid the situation of players who keep running from respawn to death point, teleport to respawn and repeat the cycle, when players die, it should happen like in the campaign, that another member of the team can resurrect them in the place where they have fallen (including dark angels xP).

Balancing a game involves thinking about both ends of the scale, here we have on one side the team players, and on the other the individual players, it is clear what happens, and where to intervene.

Praise the Omnissiah

What you propose is such a deep interference in the game mechanics that actually the devs would have to make a new game - SM3.

Wrong, everything I propose is implemented in one way or another in the Space Marine 2 code, it is just a matter of modifying it.

​You clearly like melee classes and don't feel satisfied enough with your experience, so you just want to nerf all guns in to the ground only to make you enjoy melee more. Are you insane ? 

This is a value judgment without any basis in my written words. A gratuitous statement that does not contribute anything constructive to the content of the post. If it helps, combat is a direct consequence of my proposal, which is not something I sought, but since we are at it, it is something consistent with the lore of 40k.

You already need a lot of bullets to successfully kill in this game, the ttk from ranged weapons is not short + you can roll limitlessly away, your armour and health regenerates - this all doesn't make killing with guns as easy as in CS or other shooters and it was designed so to give you - melee players space and time to do melee.

The TTK is not short? In relation to what? Show the evidence so that your statement does not end in another value judgment without arguments, because that is precisely the problem at the moment. The interaction time between players is too short compared to the time from when they die until they fight again. The consequence of this is that there is no option to play, or dispute the objective, it does not even come close to the lore of 40k.

Your only suggestion is to roll over to dodge the bullets? Really? Dodging problems doesn't solve them.

I can only say that I deal with a fairly serious problem in the game, with possible solutions, in an objective and constructive way, that does not stray from the lore, and gives the game what it is supposed to offer, playability.

I've no desire to dumb down the game. None at all. I just got several matches where I got 20+ kills and still lost. 

​

MrsHeadshott wrote:

endlessly feed the other team

That sounds like a lack of teamwork issue. Nobody backing them up etc.

It's like trying to herd cats, I consistently get teams that won't push at all. Snipers that stand in spawn waiting for visibility in a twenty degree arc that enemies stand on either side of.  Bulwarks that flank through spawn points. 

All the while I'm trying very hard to baby sit the majority of them and spamming way points to get them to group... Which they never acknowledge, not once. I mark every enemy to help them gauge where they are compared to hostiles...

And they just throw themselves into five people with a smile on their face going 1/14. Draining my precious points away. 

Haha. 

​

Bladerunner777 wrote:

​

Exactly. This is not SM1 but SM2 for a reason. You just want to travel back in time. The devs drew coclusions from the first game and it seems they don't want to repeat the same mistake twice - everybody knows that melee was ridiculous in SM1, that is why we have balance instead.

Are they the same developers? I thought SM1 was made by Relic and SM2 by Sabre Interactive. Your opinion doesn't solve anything, the fact that you don't accept others indicates little interest in fixing things... do you benefit from the bad state of things in any way?

It might be consistent with the lore but not with game mechanics in a balanced , competitive pvp shooter. You know what is also consistent with the lore ? - one shotting everything including land raiders with a multi melta in medium range - you sure you would like this kind of "lore consistency" ? Wh40k lore will never be fully translatable to a computer game.

Just proposing a competitive pvp game is a mistake (if SM2 is like that, it's evidence of it), because a competitive scenario (in any sport) is a very strict and controlled environment, and you can't put normal people in that environment.

Just as it's an abuse to pit a professional boxer against a librarian, it's also an abuse to give a game competitive mechanics and open it up to everyone, because that only leads to 4 players taking control of a 20-person game. Does this happen in SM2? Coincidence?

Whoever wants a competitive environment needs a specific environment for it, forcing people to take part in that only leads to abuse and this is what the developers must take care of, a parity environment in a game where all kinds of people participate who are not, have not asked for, nor are looking for the competitive mode.

I see you must be really new to SM2 pvp - rolling is the most important and effective mechanics in keeping you alive much longer. When you learn that, your K\D will start looking much better, I assure you. I sometimes even think it's too much because it is not limited in any way, in other shooters you are not able to roll away endlessly, eg you have 3 rolls in a succession and then a cool down. SM2 is very liberal about this mechanics.

I'm not going to give my opinion, which is as valid as anyone else's, but what would really make the work of a developer shine is the variety and quality of the mechanics in their game, not just rolling.

I'The game is very playable at the moment, lots of people play it, SM2 is breaking records - that means something. Ofc there are some areas, elements that need tweaking but nerfing all ranged guns to make the life easier for melee players is just ridiculous and definitely wouldn't make this game more "playable", on contrary , it would make it totally imbalanced.

Without going into speculation, what is shown on the cover and in the game images is W40k's IP, it is what people have bought, nowhere is there any reference to things like ``shooter only¨ or ``competitive only´´. In fact, the latter is the closest thing to the current scenario of the game, and what is being defended now, and it does not work well.

Exactly. What kind of shooter is this without head shots - that's heresy :D

In a game where the action is a mix of shooting and combat, and with a minimum of respect for balance and fair play, it would be more than justified not to have headshoots, bearing in mind that it is not a mechanic applicable in the combat phase.

In the end, it's all about being fair and impartial.

SM1 was enjoyable dumb fun, the melee wasn't broken. The thing that brought the enjoyment of that game down was the Las Cannon, it was in a league of its own. Other than that I could play all three of the classes and have a great time. Top of the leaderboard and contributing in the classes own way to a victory (Or a glorious defeat) was easy to pick up and do. SM1 could be enjoyed more often than not solo or with a group of friends.

SM2 is different, if you feel like having fun playing Assault one night or Tactical the next it's pretty tricky because unlike SM1 you can't just rely on being good at video games to get by, you have to rely on your team and you also have to watch out for the class or weapon which is your cryptonite, It sort of becomes cat and mouse. Yes, I get this was the design intent of the game but because of this design intent balancing is a very sensitive art which I don't think the devs have quite perfected yet, in saying that the game is still relatively new.

Melee classes should dominate in close combat and ranged classes should dominate at range. Right now if I play Assault and I land on an enemy who has a Bolt Carbine I'm usually dead before I finish a swing. The Bolt Carbine is probably the most egregious example of the imbalance between melee and ranged in close combat though.

I'm not asking that as Assault I should be able to land in a group of ranged enemies and wipe the floor with them every time, focused fire should still destroy any Assault threat, I'm saying that if I find someone straying from the group and I land on them I shouldn't have to curse the fact they've got a Bolt Carbine.

I'm finding it pretty difficult to have the consistent enjoyment out of SM2 which I got from SM1 unfortunatly. It's not very friendly to the solo player, it requires a communicating team and demands that you're switched on and focused to play. Woe to the pvp player that has come to SM2 for a ​game​ dressed up in ceramite! This feels like it's trying to appeal more to the hero/operator shooter players instead of the standard shooter players (Like SM1).

Alas! After all that moaning I'll still be playing lol. I just want to throw my opinion in the ring every now and then. Hopefully the devs keep tuning the balancing!

​

Bladerunner777 wrote:

​

TheShadeX wrote:
if I play Assault and I land on an enemy who has a Bolt Carbine I'm usually dead before I finish a swing. 

Have you heard of power fists ?

Yes.

Have you heard of the Chainsword and the Thunder Hammer?

Alkol wrote:
Whoever wants a competitive environment needs a specific environment for it, forcing people to take part in that only leads to abuse and this is what the developers must take care of, a parity environment in a game where all kinds of people participate who are not, have not asked for, nor are looking for the competitive mode.

You don't need to play this game if you don't like it. A couple of millions ( if not more ) do. SM2 is not for Chivalry snow flakes like SM1 was. If what you want is a fencing simulator, go play fencing simulators out there.

I think generally he's just asking for balance, as am I. I haven't seen anyone asking for the game to be transformed into a game like Chivalry.

Simply put I've played all the classes to varying degrees (Except for Vanguard), I mostly play Assault, but I have a much easier time when using ranged classes. It's pretty clear to me the Assault class requires more effort to play. As a ranged class when an Assault goes for me it's just sad how easy they are to put down.

​

Bladerunner777 wrote:

​

TheShadeX wrote:

​

Bladerunner777 wrote:

​

TheShadeX wrote:
if I play Assault and I land on an enemy who has a Bolt Carbine I'm usually dead before I finish a swing. 

Have you heard of power fists ?

Yes.

Have you heard of the Chainsword and the Thunder Hammer?

Why would you want to use them when you have the power fist for the assaulters ? Besides the Thunder Hammer is the only weapon that can wreck multiple targets at one go, I saw that happen.

The Thunder Hammer is what I use and I use it because it's cool, I'm not that interested in the Power Fist.

Why would I want to use them when something better is available to me in ​the meta? That's a funny and telling question that could probably be answered simply by saying I'm a "Chivalry Snow Flake" or something? lol. You wouldn't understand.

Bladerunner777 wrote:

Doesn't matter if the developers are the same, you can draw conclusions from other compnies' mistakes as well. 

There is nothing to be fixed in the first place, definitely NOT what you propose. You are the only guy spreading this heresy.

If there is nothing to fix, what brought us here?

You don't need to play this game if you don't like it. A couple of millions ( if not more ) do. SM2 is not for Chivalry snow flakes like SM1 was. If what you want is a fencing simulator, go play fencing simulators out there.

I have paid for this product, and for that reason, I have more rights to demand that this product works well than you have the freedom to tell me to get out of here because you don't like the proposals.

What are you talking about ? SM2 is not a "shooter only" ??? You have melee in here and it's equal to shooting, you just want easier life for melee classes because you're a snow flake who thinks he deserves more than others and he knows everything best. Well, so far it's just you, so deal with it. You can always ask for a refund.

Just me? Scroll up and see who started the post and why. And if you check the forum, there are sure to be more similar posts.

​

Removing the team play elements is not what I'm talking about. I was just remarking on game after game of people with no ability to adapt or pay attention. 

I think it's fine that Assault Marines get mowed down just like everyone else. I also think it's fine that they have access to the arguably best charged heavy attacks in the game. 

Assaulters with Powerfists aren't better, in my opinion and I play everything. The Thunder Hammer charge is a two hit combo that kills with a built in stun. The powerfist is best on a Bulwark, imo. 

Unless you're doing the blind land charged heavy. And that is just wasted time, really. 

The game will create players who are better at playing it, or they will switch games. A little bit of game sense development isn't bad. 

Eventually, lobbies will be full of people who understand a composition, watching for flanks, etc. 

But everything seems to me like it should be fairly obvious, and people aren't picking up on it. 

Headshots should always do more damage on most weapons...

I can't think of any mechanics that I particularly dislike. A jet pack and a bolt pistol is a pretty beastly combo, because mobility always matters. 

This isn't a game that promotes melee, because DPS just can't match guns. Face to Face with a vanguard with virtually any weapon if I am undamaged and they take the long hook... I'm probably going to walk away from that. 

The carbine, auto bolter, etc have big spread, so if you risk getting close to them... The guns are meant to delete you, but they can't reliably kill you even at the top of your jump. 

With them existing I could see trying to even out melta ttk with them, because it seems to under perform. (Multi melta seems fine to me, but distinguishing the rate of fire on the melta makes the melta hardly worth using. The multi melta can actually kill faster than Carbine.)

So there are a few tweaks here and there that probably need to happen, but by in large the game itself functions quite well at what it is. 

​

Bladerunner777 wrote:

​

TheShadeX wrote:

The Thunder Hammer is what I use and I use it because it's cool, I'm not that interested in the Power Fist.

Ok but in that case you cannot complain that melee is underpowered or something. Assaulters with power fists rock, if you choose to use a worse weapon , that's just your choice, don't blame the game design, there are also better and worse guns across the board, this is how this kind of games function.

Balance is what I take issue with really, not that the weapon feels weaker than it should be. To fix the balance I guess they could increase all the melee weapon damage to compensate? Or instead they could have effective range for guns i.e. less damage point blank, 100% at range, then taper off on damage again at longer ranges. Or they could have the guns be knocked off target when the wielder is struck by melee.

There are certain guns which probably make more sense to just wipe away melee players though like the Melta. But a Bolt Gun? Nah. Thunder Hammer to the jaw should trump a Bolt Gun.

​

Bladerunner777 wrote:

​

TheShadeX wrote:
Balance is what I take issue with really

Me too. I like balance.

TheShadeX wrote:
they could increase all the melee weapon damage to compensate? 

Compensate for what ? Lack of your skill ? Another melee crutch mechanics ? Read the post above by MrsHeadshot. Melee is fine in SM2.

Re-read this sentence in full and put an emphasis on the word guess, I'm not suggesting this. To add context to further my point re-read the sentence before and after as well. The post above is MrsHeadshots opinion, I disagree that the balance is fine, it needs a tweak.

TheShadeX wrote:
they could have effective range for guns i.e. less damage point blank, ...

That doesn't make any sense, I haven't heard of this kind of shooting mechanics in any game :\

It does make sense, perhapse your lack of imagination is what's limiting you here, confirmed by the fact you need examples from other video games to understand a proposed mechanic idea.

TheShadeX wrote:
Or they could have the guns be knocked off target when the wielder is struck by melee.

...or they could have the melee weapons knocked off target when the wielder is struck by bullets ?

If you want to further imbalance the game between melee and ranged yes, but I made the suggestion to balance the two.

TheShadeX wrote:
Thunder Hammer to the jaw should trump a Bolt Gun.

"Should" , excuse me, are you suggesting "an instant success mechanics by default" ? What if you miss ? What if the shooter rolls aside ? This IS a competitive shooter\slasher. You shouldn't win because something is OP by default. Only your skill should determine the result of a fight\duel. The more I listen to you, the more I think you're a snow flake too :D

"are you suggesting "an instant success mechanics by default" ?"  No.

"What if you miss ?" Then he wouldn't have been struck in the jaw.

"What if the shooter rolls aside ? " Then he wouldn't have been struck in the jaw.

"You shouldn't win because something is OP by default." Totally agree! lets balance the melee and ranged so they're the optimal choice for their given engagement ranges. Make the melee competitive!

"Only your skill should determine the result of a fight\duel. " Like in SM1

"The more I listen to you, the more I think you're a snow flake too :D " I don't even know how you are or are not a snow flake on a video game forum about the intricacies of game mechanics lol. We already established I'm a "Chivalry snow flake" though, whatever that means

I think it's fine. It fits the lore. There is a full Vanguard complement with all 10th companies in codex compliant chapters. They have Camoline to Snipers, which are also technically Vanguard if we're assuming everything we play is a Primaris Marine. 

But the other option was to give them jump packs... 

So technically 3 of the existing classes can canonically be equipped as Vanguard. 

Assault, Vanguard, and Scout. 

Would love an assault with the oculus... But it wouldn't be balanced at all. So... Probably shouldn't do that. Ha.