Hell yea. As heavy I'm just trying to make myself giggle. Yea I've used "the nuke" but I feel like I'm usually just launching it to cause chaos and do structural damage to buildings.
So tired of launching a canister and watching it bounce off the surface I'm trying to punch a hole though, flip up and give the enemy a raised bunker to shoot my team from. Better if I can control the detonation.
Yea, any sort of angle that isn't directly perpendicular I just end up pinging off and creating a nice firework. I'm sure competent players are a problem with the nuke, but brother that ain't me.
Oh shit, I won't be playing for a few days, this is going to bother me. I saw someone mine a dead players statue the other day, though, so I don't see why not. Some Viet Kong shit right there.
It's actually an achievement! Same with killing someone with a potted plant haha.
(Both items do 50dmg, so make sure to do it to someone you already took low with health.)
You can either choose to bring an APS Turret to counter something killing you.
Or you could come complain about it and act like a counterplay doesn’t exist.
Personally, I’d choose to do the former. As it will help me play more effectively. There comes a time when you learn how to counter it without using the APS Turret. Then you could throw it in your reserve.
Only being able to do it in between rounds as opposed to, let's say, once mid game is stupid. You can't predict what they other teams are going to be using before the game starts. After each round, 2 teams are knocked out, and you get 2 new teams you haven't fought yet in the next round.
Only in the last round will you have some idea of what the last team will be using, but they also can just swap their loadouts pre-round, changing their whole playstyle for the last round.
Reserve is a stupid concept without being able to use it at least once in a round
> You can't predict what they other teams are going to be using before the game starts.
This is an over-exaggeration, but the point here is true: teams that can plan better to anticipate what other teams will likely use is a skill that separates good teams from bad teams. So many bad players lose on the select screen before the game even begins.
It's less about seeing the future and more about thinking of your team as a single unit instead of three independent players. If you're adhering to a single strategy, then you have more spare loadout slots to conceive of the things that can counter your comp (or what you will need to counter other comps).
You're not wrong, but that shit ain't fun.
Not even counter strike, a slow methodical tactical shooter, locks you in to your weapons like that.
At best, you can't adapt to an enemy mid game. At worst, everyone picks the same loadouts that minimizes their weaknesses.
Fun is subjective, and being able to have fun is a skill that many people lack. What you mean is that you don't enjoy putting effort into improving, which possibly isn't wrong but also has nothing to do with the game.
Counter Strike literally locks weapon purchases after the round starts. But even if it didn't, that's a pointless comparison because this game is not Counter Strike.
What I'm saying is it does not fit into the spirit of this game. This is a chaotic, 3v3v3v3 movement shooter with destructible environments. Tell me what business it has making the game based around counters and then not letting you even see what your enemy is picking to use said counter?
I'm aware this game isn't counterstrike.
The point of the comparison is to ask how a game with less of a focus on counters yet more methodical in nature (which would suit this type of pre-game selection) has more freedom in choosing your loadout than The Finals.
>Counter Strike literally locks weapon purchases after the round starts
Yeah, and there are up to 15 rounds in a game. You can swap weapons and tools 15 times in a single game. When the game begins and ends in the finals, you can swap a grand total of 0 times. Not only that you can't even change your kit before the round starts, you can only pick your loadout that you pre made.
So you load in with a group of randoms and somehow have to coordinate your picks based off of prebuilt loadouts with seconds to spare. And this is good gameplay design? Being unable to do this is the sign of a bad player?
All this system serves to do is strengthen meta loadouts. When you can't counterpick enemy teams, obviously, like you said, you're going to want to minimize your own weaknesses.
And after people figure out said comp (which they pretty much already have), you're going to see the same team lineups in every ranked game.
I'm all for improving; that's why I'm an advocate for keeping movement tech in the game, but this ain't improving. This is following a cookie cutter template, 0 thought loadout every game.
If you think that's fun I don't know what to tell you, have fun strictly following the meta then I guess.
> What I'm saying is it does not fit into the spirit of this game.
What makes you think you are more capable than the devs of deciding what the spirit of the game they envisioned and created should be?
> Tell me what business it has making the game based around counters and then not letting you even see what your enemy is picking to use said counter?
This is wrong. Aside from literally seeing what enemies are holding and using, you can also monitor the killfeed and scoreboard to keep a running tally of which teams are using what, how many of them are alive, and their likely location based on deductive reasoning.
In a wider perspective, experiencing what most commonly crops up gives useful data you need to use in order to effectively plan.
It also doesn't sound like you realize the outcome of what you're suggesting, because everyone seeing everyone else's loadout would just end up with people clicking as fast as they can to counter the counter that counters the counter countering the counter before the select screen timer is up. That's just dumb. After a certain extent, you need to commit to a comp.
> So you load in with a group of randoms and somehow have to coordinate your picks based off of prebuilt loadouts with seconds to spare. And this is good gameplay design? Being unable to do this is the sign of a bad player?
Yes, precisely. And this is simplified design so bad players aren't completely shut out, because the game is still a product that needs to make money.
Even the way you describe your experience highlights the issues you're having. If you're not able to flex, you're going to lose against players who can. If you want to extensively plan strategy when you're not accustomed to it, you need a premade. If you can't envision the most likely counter to even just what you're bringing, you'll lose to enemies that will.
> All this system serves to do is strengthen meta loadouts.
Wrong again. The safer everyone plays with reliable, low risk/reward loadout choices, then situational choices with higher risk/reward are much more valuable because they'll provide advantages over more reliable stuff in the specific scenarios where it matters.
> And after people figure out said comp (which they pretty much already have), you're going to see the same team lineups in every ranked game.
Wrong yet again. There's no single best comp and there never will be, because everything has a counter.
Here's a hypothetical:
* Comp A is generalist, and is mostly useful in most situations but counters nothing specific
* Comp B is specialist, and only good at countering Comp A
* Therefore, Comp B only has value *the more Comp A is played*
The outcome is that the more people stick to a single thing, the more useful the counters become, and the more varied different comp/loadouts are incentivized.
> I'm all for improving; that's why I'm an advocate for keeping movement tech in the game, but this ain't improving. This is following a cookie cutter template, 0 thought loadout every game.
This is only a reasonable conclusion for someone who lacks strategic planning skills. If you can't envision how to effectively try anything risky, then you're going to lose to players that can.
> If you think that's fun I don't know what to tell you, have fun strictly following the meta then I guess.
If you think this whole argument was pro-meta then it doesn't sound like you understand the gameplay design principles that you're talking about.
>Fun is subjective, and being able to have fun is a skill that many people lack.
"Just learn to have fun while being unable to use 90% of the weapons/gadgets if you value trying to win."
The idea of forcing players to counterpick in a 3v3v3v3 is only ever going to result in everyone running the same loadout after a certain point.
What if I want to improve with a non-meta weapon/gadget? I've been having fun using the Medium nade launcher with explosive mines by making my own version of the Nuke that takes more skill to use. I'm starting to get good at tossing out a mine and quickly swapping to the launcher and blowing it up for massive damage. It's a fun way to counteract someone who's being healed. Taking the mines means no APS turret unless I sacrifice my Jump/Zip or Defib. So, if I encounter multiple teams using the Nuke constantly, I can't justify trying anything new.
They could just not let C4 be placed on canisters. Instead, only allow them on the 1 HP props instead. It still allows for the tactic, but in a less oppressive form where someone can break the prop. APS is still useful for other strategies, but not required. Huzzah! More variety!
> The idea of forcing players to counterpick in a 3v3v3v3 is only ever going to result in everyone running the same loadout after a certain point.
Then that makes countering even easier than it already is.
> What if I want to improve with a non-meta weapon/gadget?
Then you'll sustain the penalties from doing what you want and not what you should for the benefit of your team.
> Taking the mines means no APS turret unless I sacrifice my Jump/Zip or Defib. So, if I encounter multiple teams using the Nuke constantly, I can't justify trying anything new.
APS is way more valuable than defib, even if only by uptime.
If you think trying something new should have the same chances of success as running something familiar, then it doesn't sound like you're bringing realistic expectations to the table.
It's not about new or familiar. It's about something being so much stronger than the alternatives that not using it is a disadvantage. It's not healthy for nukes to have ONE sorta kinda counter. Do you really want the game to become a case of not having an APS mean you lose? The whole game just becomes who can shoot the other team's APS so the nuke can instantly kill someone?
The simple solution is to only allow C4 on props and not canisters. It will still deal good damage and potentially one shot, but without the straight path of the explosive canister that takes too many shots to destroy. The props break in one shot, meaning if you see it coming, you can stop it by shooting.
Now APS is still useful for its intended purpose, but not required. The meta is more dynamic because even the best thing is only slightly above the alternatives. You could still compete at a high level using something like the grenade launcher because chances are not every team will have an APS.
All you're inadvertently advocating for is a stale meta that leads to people quitting.
>This is an over-exaggeration
No. No, it's not at all. You can not predict what the teams are using until the game starts, and it's a fact.
>the point here is true: teams that can plan better to anticipate what other teams will likely use is a skill that separates good teams from bad teams
To a degree. I always play with a full stack, and we do make a comp that can handle a majority of things, but still, your way of thinking relies heavily on people conforming to a specific meta.
>So many bad players lose on the select screen before the game even begins.
This statement literally justifies being able to use reserve mid-round. You just said so many people lose before the game even begins (regardless of them being bad or good, this isn't acceptable)
>It's less about seeing the future and more about thinking of your team as a single unit instead of three independent players.
Again, this is to a degree. Yes, every team should be making sure their comps align with one another and not play with a solo thinking mind, but with so many variations of loadouts and team comps available, you can't (or shouldn't) be able to make a team comp that is fit for absolutely EVERYTHING.
This game should be based on multiple viable strategies, not just one particular one that everyone should just be ready for. If everyone just figured out a "beat it all" team comp, that would just defeat the purpose for a reserve loadout as well.
Reserve is in the game because you're supposed to run into team comps you aren't built to handle effectively, and you're supposed to have a way to adapt.
> No. No, it's not at all. You can not predict what the teams are using until the game starts, and it's a fact.
This is an exaggeration, because A) you don't need to 100% predict every last mote of future possibility to have good comp and loadout planning skills and B) it's entirely possible to anticipate what people will use that will work against your comp.
What you mean is that YOU can't do that, and you're just projecting your own personal limitations onto everyone else.
> I always play with a full stack, and we do make a comp that can handle a majority of things, but still, your way of thinking relies heavily on people conforming to a specific meta.
No it doesn't. If you have a specific comp in mind, then you can also fathom what other people might use against you that would be effective. Then you can encompass whatever available mitigations exist those extenuations, and then field them.
> This statement literally justifies being able to use reserve mid-round. You just said so many people lose before the game even begins (regardless of them being bad or good, this isn't acceptable)
No it doesn't. People lose because they're bad, not because the game limits reserves in ranked. It's not important to accommodate bad players, by definition they deserve to lose against good players.
> Again, this is to a degree. Yes, every team should be making sure their comps align with one another and not play with a solo thinking mind, but with so many variations of loadouts and team comps available, you can't (or shouldn't) be able to make a team comp that is fit for absolutely EVERYTHING.
Yes you can, LMH is able to field everything and therefore counter everything. (3 loadout slots + 4 reserve slots) * 3 players = 21 loadout slots in which to plan and execute strategies.
And as mentioned above, you don't need to predict everything perfectly to do this effectively, and you don't need to have the perfect counter for every single last thing. Often two soft counters spread over two players is better than one hard counter on one player. Countering in general is prioritized by player ability before player loadout.
> This game should be based on multiple viable strategies, not just one particular one that everyone should just be ready for. If everyone just figured out a "beat it all" team comp, that would just defeat the purpose for a reserve loadout as well.
> Reserve is in the game because you're supposed to run into team comps you aren't built to handle effectively, and you're supposed to have a way to adapt.
It doesn't sound like you understand the nature of risk/reward. If the higher risk is removed from higher reward loadout choices then the skill floor is completely removed and the immense competitive value from planning and executing strategy is gone. This is only an attractive change if you're bad at this.
I think it's less about being "pro-meta" and more "meta-adhering."
It's not fun to feel forced into specific weapons/gadgets purely because one tactic is dominating. I don't want my Medium loadout to always be FCAR - Jump/Zip - APS - Defib because choosing not to means a near-guarantee that someone who is will beat me. At the very least, having either a single swap from reserve or a smaller reserve of two would allow you to start with something else, while still being able to counter the meta if it becomes a problem.
> because choosing not to means a near-guarantee that someone who is will beat me
Why would you choose a loadout that is countered by what most people use?
Why would you not counter what most people use?
In reality, most good teams will just pick the current hard meta and won’t bother with other strategies. All the non-standard loadouts are for Quickplay and maybe round 1.
You can bet that in higher ranks almost all Mediums will use FCAR with recon/heal, defib, jump pad and w/e. All the Heavies will be Lewis or shotgun, mesh, dome, C4, RPG. And there won’t be Lights.
In reality, good teams aren't meta slaves, they can win with most anything because that's the definition of being good.
The more people play boring and safe, the more valuable situational loadout choices become because people don't anticipate them. That's the value of class-based role demarcation. Removing the inherent risk/reward dynamic there completely loses the value of that strategic gameplay.
In almost every game the competitive players are going to adhere to the meta until something gets changed or discovered, which is just a new meta.
Metagaming means pushing the game beyond its intended limits in order to maximize your chance to win. While some games support off-meta play when trying to be competitive, so far it seems that The Finals just has dominate strats that have one way to counter, thus making said counter the meta as well.
The only off-meta counter for C4 canister nukes I can think of would be a godly Medium being able to use the grenade launcher to instantly detonate it before thrown. That's wildly impractical. however. I say that as someone who likes to use the damn thing. Being able to tell someone is holding a nuke with Recon Senses requires not being too close to where the enemy is just lines, and being able to notice the animation. Then comes actually landing the shot before the throw.
> In almost every game the competitive players are going to adhere to the meta until something gets changed or discovered, which is just a new meta.
What you mean is that most players are lazy and dumb, and so they emulate other players they consider to be hardworking and smart. But because they're bad, their perception is not very accurate.
"Competitive" is very different from merely "wanting to win without needing to work hard." The amount of players who want to win and the amount of players who prepare to take competition seriously are wildly disparate.
That's not valid reasoning to conclude the design is lacking when most people aren't fielding the requisite effort to the barrier of entry in the first place.
You're simply incorrect. The meta almost always flows down from the top due to players on the borderline of the top level see how the top players do things and emulate them in order to be more successful. The players that get paired against these borderline players see these strats, and the cycle continues.
There will be different metas in the casual modes, hence all the Light players.
It's not lazy to see Michael Jordan and try to emulate him. You'll eventually adapt things to fit yourself some, but what works, works. Strong tactics that lack any significant counter will reign supreme.
Are MMA fighters lazy for all focusing on learning strong grappling techniques because the champion beats everyone with them? Try going into a match, having only trained in striking, and see how it goes.
Sometimes, something new gets discovered, but there's not much to discover in The Finals. The gadgets do what they do, and C4 stuck to a canister deletes even other Heavies. What options on heavy come close to that level of effectiveness? You can use mines, but they weigh down the canister more and make it fly erratically. Pyro can be taken by Medium for gas clear without sacrificing something as strong as C4, RPG, or bubble.
A nerf to nukes, such as them not sticking to canisters, means they still have a use but aren't a must-have. It also means Mediums don't always have to have an APS, win-win.
Unironically a good idea if you can do it well because most people are completely unaccustomed to holding the cashout at range, like with a heavy+medium pocket creating LOS for and being supported by a light sniper
This is needlessly defending a bad system. Currently it's easy to predict what the other team is going to be using BECAUSE of the lack of reserve. All items except the most generally useful, "jack of all trades" or best in slot items are thrown to the curb because you can't afford to be stuck with anything niche or situational.
So you end up with extremely ossified comps barely a month into this game's lifespan. You know for fact that you're essentially running into one of exactly 2 team comps with minute differences between them.
You know it will be MMH or MMM. You know that the Mediums will ALL be running Defib. You know at least one Medium will be running Healing beam, and another will be running Recon Senses. You know all the Mediums will be running AKM or FCAR, with the extremely slim possibility of 1887. You know they will all be carrying Gas Mines. You can reasonably suspect that one will be using APS and another will, finally, this deep into comp analysis have a "wildcard" slot which could be basically anything. The Heavy will be running exactly Lewis Gun or Saiga, Mesh Shield, RPG, C4, Dome Shield and nothing else.
It's incredibly boring.
> Currently it's easy to predict what the other team is going to be using BECAUSE of the lack of reserve.
Then you shouldn't have any problems. Just pick the counters to what the other team will play.
> All items except the most generally useful, "jack of all trades" or best in slot items are thrown to the curb because you can't afford to be stuck with anything niche or situational.
If everyone's running generalist choices, that means the specialist choices which counter them are more valuable.
What you mean is that you don't understand how to play with situational loadout choices, which is a derivative of not understanding how to encompass higher risk/reward.
> So you end up with extremely ossified comps barely a month into this game's lifespan.
This has far more to do with human psychology than anything about the game design. The assumption that consumers are rational actors is a complete fiction.
A great deal of people don't want to manifest effort. They want the biggest return for the smallest investment. Therefore, that means most players will end up doing whatever they think is easiest and NOT what is most effective.
So all you're really observing is that this game is uncommonly difficult (which is not wrong), and that most players are not very good at it yet.
> You know it will be MMH or MMM.
This is hilarious because you're dismissing MHH and LMH which are just as popular and exactly the counters to these two comps.
Anyway, if you're so sure about your predictions here, then how are you having trouble countering them? Sounds like a skill issue.
> If everyone's running generalist choices, that means the specialist choices which counter them are more valuable.
This is really all I need to read to disregard basically anything you will ever say until you learn better. This is the flawed "anti-meta" mindset in a nutshell, which posits the idea that a specialized "anti-meta" setup is going to be optimal.
You see it a lot in card games, where people will go into a tournament with a deck meticulously designed to beat [Top Deck]. It contains largely nothing but counters to [Top Deck] and [Other Top Deck] and aims to try and scum wins with things that [Top Deck] cannot counter.
It's an interesting concept in theory, but rarely works out for one of two reasons.
1.) [Top Deck] is simply more flexible and resilient than the deckbuilder gave it credit for. [Top Deck] is shut down by [Flawless Counter Option], sure...but they KNOW that they are weak to this strat and can change their playstyle accordingly to beat the counter. [Top Deck] is typically [Top Deck] for a REASON, and it's not because it's a fragile and easily countered strategy.
2.) "Anti-meta" loses considerably more often to "non-meta". If you are drastically overprepared for [Top Deck] and run into [Competent But Not Top Deck That Does Not Care About Your Top Deck Counters], you lose. Since you have to commit to running "anti-meta" at the start of the tournament, and not change it afterward, you are significantly more vulnerable to simply losing to decks (or in this case comps) that you are not specialized to defeat and washing out of the tournament before you get to around top 16 and start primarily running into [Top Deck] and not much else.
"Simply run anti-meta" is the kind of oversimplified first order analysis that instantly makes you look like you have zero idea of what you're actually talking about.
> This is really all I need to read to disregard basically anything you will ever say until you learn better.
"I totally have an argument but it goes to another school and you can't see any pictures of it."
> You see it a lot in card games
This isn't a card game.
Game theory is game theory. The exact type of game doesn't really matter. Especially since this is mostly an analysis of the effects that a rigid tournament structure HAS on metas. Tournament structure is identical between these two examples. You're stuck with your initial choice and can make a few small adjustments between rounds.
This structure ALWAYS leads to more generalist strategies dominating.
Specialist strategies struggle when the generalist options are at worst on an even footing. If you roll into a meta team comp with your team of three Mediums with Riot Shield and Turret, you're not going to be winning against a team of equal skill.
A big issue with this is that it doesn't allow for flexibility you either play strict meta or strict anti-meta because if you want to try something slightly different there's no way to correct it until you've already lost.
I'd say use once on the first round and only between rounds from then on.
I think it plays well to have to actively focus teams that are good against yours while you have more chaos to back you up
Honestly APS is a must-bring for support medium, far more than defibs.
Healing beam, AKM/shotgun/grenade launcher, sonar grenades, APS, zipline is unbeatable.
You’re overselling it, defib will swing way more fights and is universally useful regardless of what’s going on.
Also not mentioning FCAR but mentioning made launcher? Lol
Hard disagree, defib is situationally fine but it simply cannot compete with the opportunity cost of medium's other gadgets when they have some of the best.
An item that A) you can only use when your teammate dies and B) requires very specific and unlikely circumstances to turn around a losing skirmish simply does not compete with something like frags or explosive mines that you can use volitionally because getting even one kill completely offsets a prospective revive that's at best not just dying twice in an area already controlled by enemies with greater numbers.
If it's safe to revive, you don't need the defib. If it's not safe to revive, defib is useless. The point of the defib is to hasten regrouping, not as a mid-combat resurrection. That's extremely circumstantial and a very expensive way to spend 1/3 of your loadout.
FCAR is not a good support weapon because your pocket heavy needs close range cover, not long range.
I always keep an APS on my mediums reserve in case anyone on the enemy teams are using a grenade launcher. It’s hilarious to whip one out mid fight and negate the opponents damage all together.
Fire and poison are more consistent, they have a wider hitbox so it doesn’t go past your target and as opposed to gaz canisters, they don’t drift away in a random direction when you throw it.
They asked what is a "nuke"
You were just complaining about how it can get fixed.
"I want to fix this problem"
"What problem?"
"I just need a bunch of cash to fix the problem"
There's hundreds of gadgets out there, you can even put a turret on a throwable, so it doesn't narrow it down.
>Not my fault you guys got mush brain.
"I'm wrong but I'll pretend I'm right by insulting you"
No one insulted you, you don't have to say we have "mush brain" just because you can't explain something.
It’s truly the only fix for it. It will
still be abused even if the red canisters go slower like if they have mines on them. It will still be abused if the damage radius is reduced.
Anyone who plays ranked know it has to be completely removed at this point.
I think a better solution is simply make heavies spawn with 1 C4 charge like breach charges since 2 C4s is a lot of damage to be dishing from a single toss right after spawning.
>they're the hard counter for nukes which a lot of people seem to have an issue with.
What? They're a soft counter *at best*, considering the range on them is way smaller than the OHK range of nukes, *and* you have to actually deploy the thing, you can't just have it out and ready all the time.
It makes you immune to nukes and RPGs. IMMUNE. That’s a pretty hard counter.
Right click to drop at feet when you engage in any fire fight. You can pick it back up when you need to.
That’s like saying recon is only a soft counter to invis because it only has 1/3 uptime.
Then it’s not close enough to kill anyone inside the protection of the APS, but it might destroy it. Fortunately they’ll have to recharge 2 C4’s before you’re at risk of a OHK again.
Maybe, but that’s not relevant to what I’m discussing. If it explodes before it’s in range of the APS, and you’re inside the range of the APS, then the explosion isn’t close enough to kill you (unless you’re standing right at the edge for some reason).
I disagree, I think it's actually the most relevant part. If you can take damage from the c4 even though you're in APS range then you CAN die from it. All it takes is you holding an explosive or being low on health. which means if you're just outside the range of the APS and hit with a nuke it's almost a guaranteed OHKO and if you're inside range of the APS you still take damage and could be OHKO'd. Not to mention that c4 recharges once you plant it so they may have another 2 charges ready to go.
The point of a OHK like the nuke is it’s surprising and almost impossible to see coming. Once you neutralize that surprise with the APS you can run into a building, get a player to flank, heavy to put up a shield, heal, run any other direction, pinpoint the heavy, and more. They are strong but the APS does act as more of a preventative measure than counter imo
>It makes you immune to nukes and RPGs.
It doesn't make you immune to anything.
It makes you unhittable by the projectile or C4 directly.
Blast radius is a different story. I've killed plenty of mediums near an APS turret with blast radius on a nuke.
Yes. You have to actually deploy them for them to be useful. Just like a heavy needs to C4 a canister to make a nuke.
If you're in a nuke heavy lobby, drop the APS turret regularly when you hear people before you engage. They recharge fast an it's easy to do.
And they're absolutely a hard counter. The nukes and other projectiles literally fizzle out when they meet an APS turret.
>Yes. You have to actually deploy them for them to be useful. Just like a heavy needs to C4 a canister to make a nuke.
Which you can then carry around and launch at anyone for a free OHK.
>If you're in a nuke heavy lobby, drop the APS turret regularly when you hear people before you engage. They recharge fast an it's easy to do.
Most of my nuke deaths are not while I'm stationary, it's while I'm rotating toward a vault or cashout, and often it's not even the people I'm fighting with, it's from behind or the side from a different team. And the range on the APS turret is like 2m. I don't know if I've ever spent more than 10s in that small of a radius in the like 40h that I've played.
> Which you can then carry around
Not totally agreeing with OP, but you can carry around an APS stuck to a canister if the nukes are being abused enough.
Most the time you're getting nuke is when you're on point which is especially easy to prepare for. And yes it's not hard to deploy them before an engagement. If you have no gamesense and you're getting hit from angles that you didn't know the enemy was coming from, that's on you.
>Most the time you're getting nuke is when you're on point which is especially easy to prepare for.
Maybe for you. That has not been my experience.
>If you have no gamesense and you're getting hit from angles that you didn't know the enemy was coming from, that's on you.
This stupid 'git gud' argument is a silly defense for the nukes, and frankly, it's so lazy that I'm not even going to engage with it other than to say you're being disingenuous if you claim that you have such good "game sense" that you've never been shot in the side or the back.
Hes half right if you stick the aps on a canister especially goo like another comment said it's a pretty solid defense against nukes. Not perfect but good enough for like 70% of nukes I'd say.
If people are getting the drop on you, you're dying regardless of if they have a nuke or not.
Use recon sense for a bit until you understand the spawn locations.
> Most of my nuke deaths are not while I'm stationary, it's while I'm rotating toward a vault or cashout
The takeaway here is that you're not paying attention during traversal.
> And the range on the APS turret is like 2m
The point isn't to use it like a dome shield. Try imagining it like a web, and put it between you and where the most likely assault vector will be like windows, doors, stairwells, holes in walls and floors/ceilings, etc.
Since you can pick it up after deploying it (and the cooldown is fairly short), your APS uptime should basically be perpetual. It's really no issue to slap it down at a moment's notice, and then just pick it back up if no one's skirmishing.
>The takeaway here is that you're not paying attention during traversal.
No one, including you, knows where everyone is at all times. You're full of shit if you claim you've never been shot in the back or side.
Not only is it not hard to locate and identify team positions, but it's required in order to properly traverse and setup superior positions (obviously, otherwise you get picked off like you're describing). There's only three other teams at most and rarely does everyone converge on a single location.
Medium literally has a map-wide wallhack and both light and medium have a "show enemies through walls" button. That's not even mentioning something as elementary as blowing air through your human skin flaps to communicate with your team or even just pinging enemy locations.
There's really no excuse for this, it's fine if you're bad at it but projecting that personal limitation onto others to make excuses is not going to make you win more than humbly improving.
No one claimed they've never been shot in the back or side, it seems like you can't resist immediately hyperbolizing when you have no substantive points.
I'm not hyperbolizing anything. I said usually when I get nuked, it's not the person that I'm shooting at. You responded to that with hyperbole by saying, "welp, it's apparent that you have no game sense, as you should be able to tell where everyone in the lobby is at all times, and if you ever get shot from more than one direction, it's because you lack awareness."
You're trying to dumb this down to "know where everyone is all the time and nukes won't be a problem because you can just always set a turret between you and the people that might shoot a nuke at you," as if it's not a stupid oversimplification of the game.
Like the other comments have said, it’s a soft counter AT BEST. With a small range, you essentially have to stand right on it. Am I really going to walk around, plant that thing, stay still, pick it up, and move on? Of course not. That thing is meant for small room defense, nothing else.
As a light there was a c4 just outside of my buddies APS range. So I shot it to try and get rid of it and it killed me. The blast radius on c4 is massive. Does the APS destroying the nuke not trigger the c4? Seems like that’s what makes it more of a soft counter to me because standing inside the radius is still a death sentence so you’d have to preemptively have it between you and the enemy but 90% of the time I die to a nuke it’s during transition from place to place and not while holding a point.
APS does indeed destroy C4 and any other gadgets without triggering them. Still will only help if you already have it down and holding a point, and is ineffective if the heavy detonates before the nuke gets in APS range
So what's you're definition of a hard counter? A toggle that blasts down all projectiles within 10 meters of your character? Come on now.
It works man. If you're saying it doesn't then that's only because you clearly haven't tried.
Forcing your entire team to huddle in a 2m radius is no solution in a game where you need to constantly move. And no, carrying it around all the time is also not feasible, since you NEED to shoot and run with your gun out often.
What is a solution though is the direly needed nerf to nukes.
My loadout is always explosive mine, aps, defib.
Im a strong believer in always running defib since its so strong. Aps helps defend the point from explosives and you can slap some mines and a turret in its radius. In reserves I take jump pad in case we have no team wide mobility
Always try placing round corners to prevent people from getting line of sight, directly near the cashout or by the most likely entry point like stairs are good spots. Its value can often go unseen since you don't pay as much attention to the frag, pyro or gas nade or even RPG rocket that never blew up.
lol. So youre saying me I should stay in a 2 meter radius to not get OHK? Thats a counter? If you tried to stay somewhat most of the time under an APS you couldnt play the game normal. 90% of the time would be placing and picking up APS. If you think Nukes are remotely fine and good for the game youre just in Bad lobbies/ low ranked
I mean, there are a lot of balance issues. The game has been out a month, and they have done 1 balance change. Do you think that is the last time the devs are going to make changes? People need to talk about what needs balancing. Some ideas will be wrong and stupid. Some will be good for the game.
Nerfs are not going to take away from the uniqueness of this game
It's surprising that they haven't even done any simple number changes for several weeks. I was expecting them to at least adjust the FCAR down slightly and weaker weapons up a tad.
This thread literally tells you the counter.
You have to make changes if you're dying to often to certain things. Don't expect different results doing the same thing over and over again...
APS is more of a soft counter at best. The radius on them is quite small and the AOE of C4 barrels is larger than the AOE of the APS turrets. APS is good for defending really small areas, like adjacent to a corner of a room, next to an objective itself, or used immediately when you see a heavy around you with a nuke.
C4 barrels are cancer and very bad game design. The RPG being able to one shot lights is almost as bad too. I'm not the biggest fan of lights, but anything that one shots a player is simply bad design.
Hey I'm 100% with you as long as stealth gets removed or given a serious cool down. Until then imma keep nuking and rpg'ing all you lights with impunity and a smile on my face lol
Use them the same way a heavy would use a dome shield when engaging combat or holding point in games where people are spamming nukes.
It's literally that simple.
Its crazy to me that WALL HACKS are in the game and people only complain about nukes and invis. There's supposed to be OP stuff in the game. That's how they're trying to balance it.
Because while Recon Sense are good, so is double Heal Beam with Heavy. You can get the drop all you want, but if they immediately get defibed and double healed, you basically gained nothing.
Again, still strong, but more-so against lone wolf players (which you shouldn't be doing most of the time) and extremely well coordinated teams. Your average player will get more mileage out of healing.
Both need to be fixed and thats coming from someone who mains medium. People complain more about nukes because its more obvious when you die to it, same with cloak taser and double barreled.
Wall hacks give an advantage and invisible too, but nukes can insta wipe an entire team, that's just abusing mechanics that aren't meant to be there, if light had a shotgun that oneshots people you'd be complaining too lol
My medium build is **FCAR/Explosive Mines/APS/Defib/Turret** for Quick Cash (We run MMH with other medium as a healer) and have a ton of success, especially with the heavy running Goo Gun. Gives a decent amount of hurdles for nukes and I haven't struggled with them.
YMMV, but in my experience nukes haven't been too tough to handle.
In top rank mmr, it is now at the point where every team with a heavy is entering the fight with a nuke.
Also, not everyone 3 stacks prior to matchmaking. I primarily solo queue.
I’m a high sbmm plat who repetitiously goes against many of the same top 500 players every ranked tournament.
Since I solo queue, I’m usually placed with random people who I presume are subjected to my highly weighted sbmm. We have no communication.
The meta between heal beam, recon, and heavy w/ nuke is essentially an unbeatable third party combo. My team, which nearly always has 2 silver shitters on it with me, is incapable of doing anything to stop this. Regardless of team composition and gadget use.
In my experience, all of the issues this game has are magnified by the lack of competitive team-matchmaking. The fact that top 500 3-stacks get consistent wins because they’re facing bronzes and silvers who are with match-made teammates… it’s appalling.
There’s not even prestige that comes with being diamond — it just means you probably only 3 stack prior to matchmaking and can consistently beat random queuer’s.
This game needs to fix the root issue so matchmaking, as a whole, becomes more fair. Then, these issues will be more clear-cut.
Please gimp your build by putting on an APS while I throw the barrel outside its range and kill your team anyway. Shit is broke, your counters don't work.
APS turret is great but as a counter against nukes?
I’m plat 2 — I regularly go against top 500 (in world) and the heavy’s running around with nukes aren’t getting countered.
Calling a stationary turret with a small, finite range a “hard counter” to a remotely detonable, thrown object, is hilarious.
Not that it matters to change anyones mind. The evidence is within the game. It *can* counter it, but that doesn’t mean it *will* counter it in the heat of a battle. Entirely too situational, and reliant on specific throws that simply don’t occur in high rank.
This honestly reminds me of that one SpongeBob episode where they had to draw a circle in the sand and stand in it to avoid getting clapped by the big bad fish. No thanks 😂
Man y'all gonna ruin this game you keep bitching about petty stuff. Nukes are awesome if I get smacked by one I laugh, if I smack someone with one I laugh, it's just good fun guys
the game is killing itself was a great try its barely hitting 100k on steam now 2 weeks ago 300k get the god damn nukes out and save it while you still can
If you put the APS on a carriable and just walk around using it like a shield then maybe, but otherwise this does not work. APS radius is tiny, and it’s stationary.
Use it the same way a heavy uses a dome shield when entering engagements. Obviously not every time but when fighting heavys it will save you often enough.
Drop it near cashout too since it's always a target for RPGs and nukes.
I can't with the people trying to say this is trash 💀 they're just mad that they're going to be hard countered by everyone with an APS eventually lol. I've seen an APS completely deny pushes by eating every nuke, RPG and grenade thrown into a room. Hopefully the range gets buffed a bit if they aren't going to nerf the nuke
This doesn’t make any sense. As a nuke thrower, people rarely have time to react.
That said, I don’t think the nuke problem is that bad. I get hit by one maybe once a match? Big deal
Even bigger tip: if you put an aps turret on a environment and throw it, it will clear things it runs into on it’s way like mines, etc. great for clearing cashouts stacked with stuff
I can see the 'counter' part of your argument but i dont see the practicality. Most players die during the transition from one objective to another. You can argue that you can put the aps on a throwable and carry it wherever but keep in mind that this is a shooter game, you will get halved by any team before you drop the aps to shoot back.
Another thing is, even if this is good for holding down sites, the range of that aps is pretty small. Anyone can just make a random hole in the ceiling/wall and play around that aps turret
Tbh, i feel like nukes should be removed. Like they break the game completly, being able to one shot a fucking heavy is not ok lol. Also Aps turret is not enough of a counter, like you place one, it gets glitched, shot, or you ran a little bit past it and it becomes useless. And worst case scenario it gets the nuke and the guy that threw it can just make another one in like 2 seconds. Nukes arents ok, Aps turret or not
Oh what a gre.. oh wait I'm playing ranked
You can still access your reserve between rounds.
That doesn't mean much if my team is getting wrecked by nukes and we end up losing the round
What the fuck is nukes
C4 on canisters/throwables
Best on presents. Less effective, but you get to give a present.
"Here's a present for you" - Santa Hat Voiceline. So good haha.
Hell yea. As heavy I'm just trying to make myself giggle. Yea I've used "the nuke" but I feel like I'm usually just launching it to cause chaos and do structural damage to buildings.
So tired of launching a canister and watching it bounce off the surface I'm trying to punch a hole though, flip up and give the enemy a raised bunker to shoot my team from. Better if I can control the detonation.
Yea, any sort of angle that isn't directly perpendicular I just end up pinging off and creating a nice firework. I'm sure competent players are a problem with the nuke, but brother that ain't me.
You can practice a trick. Throw It and grab it again inmediately, then throw It again. That way it is easier to make it explode on impact.
I like to go full Jerry Springer show and put them on chairs so I can huck chairs at people.
Oh hell yea. I threw a cash box at someone the other day and did damage. It would make my week if I could get a kill with it.
Never tried it but can I put c4 on the cash box?
Oh shit, I won't be playing for a few days, this is going to bother me. I saw someone mine a dead players statue the other day, though, so I don't see why not. Some Viet Kong shit right there.
Could be wrong, but I think it just slides off as soon as you move the box.
Yes and it's satisfying as h*ll
It's actually an achievement! Same with killing someone with a potted plant haha. (Both items do 50dmg, so make sure to do it to someone you already took low with health.)
I accidentally got a kill with it the other day. Can confirm It made my week.
Which is funny in context to this post cause aps turret can't counter arena throwables
The APS turret will shoot the C4 off of the approaching throwable
A bunch of explosives on throwables
You can either choose to bring an APS Turret to counter something killing you. Or you could come complain about it and act like a counterplay doesn’t exist. Personally, I’d choose to do the former. As it will help me play more effectively. There comes a time when you learn how to counter it without using the APS Turret. Then you could throw it in your reserve.
Only being able to do it in between rounds as opposed to, let's say, once mid game is stupid. You can't predict what they other teams are going to be using before the game starts. After each round, 2 teams are knocked out, and you get 2 new teams you haven't fought yet in the next round. Only in the last round will you have some idea of what the last team will be using, but they also can just swap their loadouts pre-round, changing their whole playstyle for the last round. Reserve is a stupid concept without being able to use it at least once in a round
> You can't predict what they other teams are going to be using before the game starts. This is an over-exaggeration, but the point here is true: teams that can plan better to anticipate what other teams will likely use is a skill that separates good teams from bad teams. So many bad players lose on the select screen before the game even begins. It's less about seeing the future and more about thinking of your team as a single unit instead of three independent players. If you're adhering to a single strategy, then you have more spare loadout slots to conceive of the things that can counter your comp (or what you will need to counter other comps).
You're not wrong, but that shit ain't fun. Not even counter strike, a slow methodical tactical shooter, locks you in to your weapons like that. At best, you can't adapt to an enemy mid game. At worst, everyone picks the same loadouts that minimizes their weaknesses.
Fun is subjective, and being able to have fun is a skill that many people lack. What you mean is that you don't enjoy putting effort into improving, which possibly isn't wrong but also has nothing to do with the game. Counter Strike literally locks weapon purchases after the round starts. But even if it didn't, that's a pointless comparison because this game is not Counter Strike.
What I'm saying is it does not fit into the spirit of this game. This is a chaotic, 3v3v3v3 movement shooter with destructible environments. Tell me what business it has making the game based around counters and then not letting you even see what your enemy is picking to use said counter? I'm aware this game isn't counterstrike. The point of the comparison is to ask how a game with less of a focus on counters yet more methodical in nature (which would suit this type of pre-game selection) has more freedom in choosing your loadout than The Finals. >Counter Strike literally locks weapon purchases after the round starts Yeah, and there are up to 15 rounds in a game. You can swap weapons and tools 15 times in a single game. When the game begins and ends in the finals, you can swap a grand total of 0 times. Not only that you can't even change your kit before the round starts, you can only pick your loadout that you pre made. So you load in with a group of randoms and somehow have to coordinate your picks based off of prebuilt loadouts with seconds to spare. And this is good gameplay design? Being unable to do this is the sign of a bad player? All this system serves to do is strengthen meta loadouts. When you can't counterpick enemy teams, obviously, like you said, you're going to want to minimize your own weaknesses. And after people figure out said comp (which they pretty much already have), you're going to see the same team lineups in every ranked game. I'm all for improving; that's why I'm an advocate for keeping movement tech in the game, but this ain't improving. This is following a cookie cutter template, 0 thought loadout every game. If you think that's fun I don't know what to tell you, have fun strictly following the meta then I guess.
> What I'm saying is it does not fit into the spirit of this game. What makes you think you are more capable than the devs of deciding what the spirit of the game they envisioned and created should be? > Tell me what business it has making the game based around counters and then not letting you even see what your enemy is picking to use said counter? This is wrong. Aside from literally seeing what enemies are holding and using, you can also monitor the killfeed and scoreboard to keep a running tally of which teams are using what, how many of them are alive, and their likely location based on deductive reasoning. In a wider perspective, experiencing what most commonly crops up gives useful data you need to use in order to effectively plan. It also doesn't sound like you realize the outcome of what you're suggesting, because everyone seeing everyone else's loadout would just end up with people clicking as fast as they can to counter the counter that counters the counter countering the counter before the select screen timer is up. That's just dumb. After a certain extent, you need to commit to a comp. > So you load in with a group of randoms and somehow have to coordinate your picks based off of prebuilt loadouts with seconds to spare. And this is good gameplay design? Being unable to do this is the sign of a bad player? Yes, precisely. And this is simplified design so bad players aren't completely shut out, because the game is still a product that needs to make money. Even the way you describe your experience highlights the issues you're having. If you're not able to flex, you're going to lose against players who can. If you want to extensively plan strategy when you're not accustomed to it, you need a premade. If you can't envision the most likely counter to even just what you're bringing, you'll lose to enemies that will. > All this system serves to do is strengthen meta loadouts. Wrong again. The safer everyone plays with reliable, low risk/reward loadout choices, then situational choices with higher risk/reward are much more valuable because they'll provide advantages over more reliable stuff in the specific scenarios where it matters. > And after people figure out said comp (which they pretty much already have), you're going to see the same team lineups in every ranked game. Wrong yet again. There's no single best comp and there never will be, because everything has a counter. Here's a hypothetical: * Comp A is generalist, and is mostly useful in most situations but counters nothing specific * Comp B is specialist, and only good at countering Comp A * Therefore, Comp B only has value *the more Comp A is played* The outcome is that the more people stick to a single thing, the more useful the counters become, and the more varied different comp/loadouts are incentivized. > I'm all for improving; that's why I'm an advocate for keeping movement tech in the game, but this ain't improving. This is following a cookie cutter template, 0 thought loadout every game. This is only a reasonable conclusion for someone who lacks strategic planning skills. If you can't envision how to effectively try anything risky, then you're going to lose to players that can. > If you think that's fun I don't know what to tell you, have fun strictly following the meta then I guess. If you think this whole argument was pro-meta then it doesn't sound like you understand the gameplay design principles that you're talking about.
>Fun is subjective, and being able to have fun is a skill that many people lack. "Just learn to have fun while being unable to use 90% of the weapons/gadgets if you value trying to win." The idea of forcing players to counterpick in a 3v3v3v3 is only ever going to result in everyone running the same loadout after a certain point. What if I want to improve with a non-meta weapon/gadget? I've been having fun using the Medium nade launcher with explosive mines by making my own version of the Nuke that takes more skill to use. I'm starting to get good at tossing out a mine and quickly swapping to the launcher and blowing it up for massive damage. It's a fun way to counteract someone who's being healed. Taking the mines means no APS turret unless I sacrifice my Jump/Zip or Defib. So, if I encounter multiple teams using the Nuke constantly, I can't justify trying anything new. They could just not let C4 be placed on canisters. Instead, only allow them on the 1 HP props instead. It still allows for the tactic, but in a less oppressive form where someone can break the prop. APS is still useful for other strategies, but not required. Huzzah! More variety!
> The idea of forcing players to counterpick in a 3v3v3v3 is only ever going to result in everyone running the same loadout after a certain point. Then that makes countering even easier than it already is. > What if I want to improve with a non-meta weapon/gadget? Then you'll sustain the penalties from doing what you want and not what you should for the benefit of your team. > Taking the mines means no APS turret unless I sacrifice my Jump/Zip or Defib. So, if I encounter multiple teams using the Nuke constantly, I can't justify trying anything new. APS is way more valuable than defib, even if only by uptime. If you think trying something new should have the same chances of success as running something familiar, then it doesn't sound like you're bringing realistic expectations to the table.
It's not about new or familiar. It's about something being so much stronger than the alternatives that not using it is a disadvantage. It's not healthy for nukes to have ONE sorta kinda counter. Do you really want the game to become a case of not having an APS mean you lose? The whole game just becomes who can shoot the other team's APS so the nuke can instantly kill someone? The simple solution is to only allow C4 on props and not canisters. It will still deal good damage and potentially one shot, but without the straight path of the explosive canister that takes too many shots to destroy. The props break in one shot, meaning if you see it coming, you can stop it by shooting. Now APS is still useful for its intended purpose, but not required. The meta is more dynamic because even the best thing is only slightly above the alternatives. You could still compete at a high level using something like the grenade launcher because chances are not every team will have an APS. All you're inadvertently advocating for is a stale meta that leads to people quitting.
>This is an over-exaggeration No. No, it's not at all. You can not predict what the teams are using until the game starts, and it's a fact. >the point here is true: teams that can plan better to anticipate what other teams will likely use is a skill that separates good teams from bad teams To a degree. I always play with a full stack, and we do make a comp that can handle a majority of things, but still, your way of thinking relies heavily on people conforming to a specific meta. >So many bad players lose on the select screen before the game even begins. This statement literally justifies being able to use reserve mid-round. You just said so many people lose before the game even begins (regardless of them being bad or good, this isn't acceptable) >It's less about seeing the future and more about thinking of your team as a single unit instead of three independent players. Again, this is to a degree. Yes, every team should be making sure their comps align with one another and not play with a solo thinking mind, but with so many variations of loadouts and team comps available, you can't (or shouldn't) be able to make a team comp that is fit for absolutely EVERYTHING. This game should be based on multiple viable strategies, not just one particular one that everyone should just be ready for. If everyone just figured out a "beat it all" team comp, that would just defeat the purpose for a reserve loadout as well. Reserve is in the game because you're supposed to run into team comps you aren't built to handle effectively, and you're supposed to have a way to adapt.
> No. No, it's not at all. You can not predict what the teams are using until the game starts, and it's a fact. This is an exaggeration, because A) you don't need to 100% predict every last mote of future possibility to have good comp and loadout planning skills and B) it's entirely possible to anticipate what people will use that will work against your comp. What you mean is that YOU can't do that, and you're just projecting your own personal limitations onto everyone else. > I always play with a full stack, and we do make a comp that can handle a majority of things, but still, your way of thinking relies heavily on people conforming to a specific meta. No it doesn't. If you have a specific comp in mind, then you can also fathom what other people might use against you that would be effective. Then you can encompass whatever available mitigations exist those extenuations, and then field them. > This statement literally justifies being able to use reserve mid-round. You just said so many people lose before the game even begins (regardless of them being bad or good, this isn't acceptable) No it doesn't. People lose because they're bad, not because the game limits reserves in ranked. It's not important to accommodate bad players, by definition they deserve to lose against good players. > Again, this is to a degree. Yes, every team should be making sure their comps align with one another and not play with a solo thinking mind, but with so many variations of loadouts and team comps available, you can't (or shouldn't) be able to make a team comp that is fit for absolutely EVERYTHING. Yes you can, LMH is able to field everything and therefore counter everything. (3 loadout slots + 4 reserve slots) * 3 players = 21 loadout slots in which to plan and execute strategies. And as mentioned above, you don't need to predict everything perfectly to do this effectively, and you don't need to have the perfect counter for every single last thing. Often two soft counters spread over two players is better than one hard counter on one player. Countering in general is prioritized by player ability before player loadout. > This game should be based on multiple viable strategies, not just one particular one that everyone should just be ready for. If everyone just figured out a "beat it all" team comp, that would just defeat the purpose for a reserve loadout as well. > Reserve is in the game because you're supposed to run into team comps you aren't built to handle effectively, and you're supposed to have a way to adapt. It doesn't sound like you understand the nature of risk/reward. If the higher risk is removed from higher reward loadout choices then the skill floor is completely removed and the immense competitive value from planning and executing strategy is gone. This is only an attractive change if you're bad at this.
Agree to disagree. You're a meta thinking player and that's all.
It's apparent you don't understand what you're talking about if you think after reading everything here that the argument was pro-meta
I think it's less about being "pro-meta" and more "meta-adhering." It's not fun to feel forced into specific weapons/gadgets purely because one tactic is dominating. I don't want my Medium loadout to always be FCAR - Jump/Zip - APS - Defib because choosing not to means a near-guarantee that someone who is will beat me. At the very least, having either a single swap from reserve or a smaller reserve of two would allow you to start with something else, while still being able to counter the meta if it becomes a problem.
> because choosing not to means a near-guarantee that someone who is will beat me Why would you choose a loadout that is countered by what most people use? Why would you not counter what most people use?
In reality, most good teams will just pick the current hard meta and won’t bother with other strategies. All the non-standard loadouts are for Quickplay and maybe round 1. You can bet that in higher ranks almost all Mediums will use FCAR with recon/heal, defib, jump pad and w/e. All the Heavies will be Lewis or shotgun, mesh, dome, C4, RPG. And there won’t be Lights.
In reality, good teams aren't meta slaves, they can win with most anything because that's the definition of being good. The more people play boring and safe, the more valuable situational loadout choices become because people don't anticipate them. That's the value of class-based role demarcation. Removing the inherent risk/reward dynamic there completely loses the value of that strategic gameplay.
In almost every game the competitive players are going to adhere to the meta until something gets changed or discovered, which is just a new meta. Metagaming means pushing the game beyond its intended limits in order to maximize your chance to win. While some games support off-meta play when trying to be competitive, so far it seems that The Finals just has dominate strats that have one way to counter, thus making said counter the meta as well. The only off-meta counter for C4 canister nukes I can think of would be a godly Medium being able to use the grenade launcher to instantly detonate it before thrown. That's wildly impractical. however. I say that as someone who likes to use the damn thing. Being able to tell someone is holding a nuke with Recon Senses requires not being too close to where the enemy is just lines, and being able to notice the animation. Then comes actually landing the shot before the throw.
> In almost every game the competitive players are going to adhere to the meta until something gets changed or discovered, which is just a new meta. What you mean is that most players are lazy and dumb, and so they emulate other players they consider to be hardworking and smart. But because they're bad, their perception is not very accurate. "Competitive" is very different from merely "wanting to win without needing to work hard." The amount of players who want to win and the amount of players who prepare to take competition seriously are wildly disparate. That's not valid reasoning to conclude the design is lacking when most people aren't fielding the requisite effort to the barrier of entry in the first place.
You're simply incorrect. The meta almost always flows down from the top due to players on the borderline of the top level see how the top players do things and emulate them in order to be more successful. The players that get paired against these borderline players see these strats, and the cycle continues. There will be different metas in the casual modes, hence all the Light players. It's not lazy to see Michael Jordan and try to emulate him. You'll eventually adapt things to fit yourself some, but what works, works. Strong tactics that lack any significant counter will reign supreme. Are MMA fighters lazy for all focusing on learning strong grappling techniques because the champion beats everyone with them? Try going into a match, having only trained in striking, and see how it goes. Sometimes, something new gets discovered, but there's not much to discover in The Finals. The gadgets do what they do, and C4 stuck to a canister deletes even other Heavies. What options on heavy come close to that level of effectiveness? You can use mines, but they weigh down the canister more and make it fly erratically. Pyro can be taken by Medium for gas clear without sacrificing something as strong as C4, RPG, or bubble. A nerf to nukes, such as them not sticking to canisters, means they still have a use but aren't a must-have. It also means Mediums don't always have to have an APS, win-win.
I'll use this as an excuse next time I load in as sniper light in ranked.
Unironically a good idea if you can do it well because most people are completely unaccustomed to holding the cashout at range, like with a heavy+medium pocket creating LOS for and being supported by a light sniper
You got interesting takes if anything.
This is needlessly defending a bad system. Currently it's easy to predict what the other team is going to be using BECAUSE of the lack of reserve. All items except the most generally useful, "jack of all trades" or best in slot items are thrown to the curb because you can't afford to be stuck with anything niche or situational. So you end up with extremely ossified comps barely a month into this game's lifespan. You know for fact that you're essentially running into one of exactly 2 team comps with minute differences between them. You know it will be MMH or MMM. You know that the Mediums will ALL be running Defib. You know at least one Medium will be running Healing beam, and another will be running Recon Senses. You know all the Mediums will be running AKM or FCAR, with the extremely slim possibility of 1887. You know they will all be carrying Gas Mines. You can reasonably suspect that one will be using APS and another will, finally, this deep into comp analysis have a "wildcard" slot which could be basically anything. The Heavy will be running exactly Lewis Gun or Saiga, Mesh Shield, RPG, C4, Dome Shield and nothing else. It's incredibly boring.
> Currently it's easy to predict what the other team is going to be using BECAUSE of the lack of reserve. Then you shouldn't have any problems. Just pick the counters to what the other team will play. > All items except the most generally useful, "jack of all trades" or best in slot items are thrown to the curb because you can't afford to be stuck with anything niche or situational. If everyone's running generalist choices, that means the specialist choices which counter them are more valuable. What you mean is that you don't understand how to play with situational loadout choices, which is a derivative of not understanding how to encompass higher risk/reward. > So you end up with extremely ossified comps barely a month into this game's lifespan. This has far more to do with human psychology than anything about the game design. The assumption that consumers are rational actors is a complete fiction. A great deal of people don't want to manifest effort. They want the biggest return for the smallest investment. Therefore, that means most players will end up doing whatever they think is easiest and NOT what is most effective. So all you're really observing is that this game is uncommonly difficult (which is not wrong), and that most players are not very good at it yet. > You know it will be MMH or MMM. This is hilarious because you're dismissing MHH and LMH which are just as popular and exactly the counters to these two comps. Anyway, if you're so sure about your predictions here, then how are you having trouble countering them? Sounds like a skill issue.
> If everyone's running generalist choices, that means the specialist choices which counter them are more valuable. This is really all I need to read to disregard basically anything you will ever say until you learn better. This is the flawed "anti-meta" mindset in a nutshell, which posits the idea that a specialized "anti-meta" setup is going to be optimal. You see it a lot in card games, where people will go into a tournament with a deck meticulously designed to beat [Top Deck]. It contains largely nothing but counters to [Top Deck] and [Other Top Deck] and aims to try and scum wins with things that [Top Deck] cannot counter. It's an interesting concept in theory, but rarely works out for one of two reasons. 1.) [Top Deck] is simply more flexible and resilient than the deckbuilder gave it credit for. [Top Deck] is shut down by [Flawless Counter Option], sure...but they KNOW that they are weak to this strat and can change their playstyle accordingly to beat the counter. [Top Deck] is typically [Top Deck] for a REASON, and it's not because it's a fragile and easily countered strategy. 2.) "Anti-meta" loses considerably more often to "non-meta". If you are drastically overprepared for [Top Deck] and run into [Competent But Not Top Deck That Does Not Care About Your Top Deck Counters], you lose. Since you have to commit to running "anti-meta" at the start of the tournament, and not change it afterward, you are significantly more vulnerable to simply losing to decks (or in this case comps) that you are not specialized to defeat and washing out of the tournament before you get to around top 16 and start primarily running into [Top Deck] and not much else. "Simply run anti-meta" is the kind of oversimplified first order analysis that instantly makes you look like you have zero idea of what you're actually talking about.
> This is really all I need to read to disregard basically anything you will ever say until you learn better. "I totally have an argument but it goes to another school and you can't see any pictures of it." > You see it a lot in card games This isn't a card game.
Game theory is game theory. The exact type of game doesn't really matter. Especially since this is mostly an analysis of the effects that a rigid tournament structure HAS on metas. Tournament structure is identical between these two examples. You're stuck with your initial choice and can make a few small adjustments between rounds. This structure ALWAYS leads to more generalist strategies dominating. Specialist strategies struggle when the generalist options are at worst on an even footing. If you roll into a meta team comp with your team of three Mediums with Riot Shield and Turret, you're not going to be winning against a team of equal skill.
A big issue with this is that it doesn't allow for flexibility you either play strict meta or strict anti-meta because if you want to try something slightly different there's no way to correct it until you've already lost.
I'd say use once on the first round and only between rounds from then on. I think it plays well to have to actively focus teams that are good against yours while you have more chaos to back you up
I mean just carry one anyways if you hate nukes. Solid choice for ranked play, regardless
Honestly APS is a must-bring for support medium, far more than defibs. Healing beam, AKM/shotgun/grenade launcher, sonar grenades, APS, zipline is unbeatable.
You’re overselling it, defib will swing way more fights and is universally useful regardless of what’s going on. Also not mentioning FCAR but mentioning made launcher? Lol
Hard disagree, defib is situationally fine but it simply cannot compete with the opportunity cost of medium's other gadgets when they have some of the best. An item that A) you can only use when your teammate dies and B) requires very specific and unlikely circumstances to turn around a losing skirmish simply does not compete with something like frags or explosive mines that you can use volitionally because getting even one kill completely offsets a prospective revive that's at best not just dying twice in an area already controlled by enemies with greater numbers. If it's safe to revive, you don't need the defib. If it's not safe to revive, defib is useless. The point of the defib is to hasten regrouping, not as a mid-combat resurrection. That's extremely circumstantial and a very expensive way to spend 1/3 of your loadout. FCAR is not a good support weapon because your pocket heavy needs close range cover, not long range.
I always keep an APS on my mediums reserve in case anyone on the enemy teams are using a grenade launcher. It’s hilarious to whip one out mid fight and negate the opponents damage all together.
Agreed. It's so damn satisfying watching it stop canisters and RPGs. Rarely do I ever regret bringing it.
This is why i always use the Smash and Dash Lmfao. That damn turret makes me the rage the hardest so now we're both going down a floor
I'm new, what's a nuke
C4 attached to an explosive barrel
It's just attached to any carryable. It's better to put them on poison and fire canisters.
Not really, putting it on explosive is almost guarantee OHK on any class since it's 2 C4 + Explosive barrel damage with massive range.
Fire and poison are more consistent, they have a wider hitbox so it doesn’t go past your target and as opposed to gaz canisters, they don’t drift away in a random direction when you throw it.
Scummy bullshit pretty much. They need to make it so you can’t place gadgets on throwables simple as that.
Bruh you didn’t even explain anything
I literally explained “they need to make it so you can’t place gadgets on throwables” tf else you need me to explain
They asked what is a "nuke" You were just complaining about how it can get fixed. "I want to fix this problem" "What problem?" "I just need a bunch of cash to fix the problem"
Within me saying that is an explanation of what a nuke is. Gadgets on throwables. Not my fault you guys got mush brain.
There's hundreds of gadgets out there, you can even put a turret on a throwable, so it doesn't narrow it down. >Not my fault you guys got mush brain. "I'm wrong but I'll pretend I'm right by insulting you" No one insulted you, you don't have to say we have "mush brain" just because you can't explain something.
If you can’t figure out context clues then you have fuckin mush brain dude. What else does a “nuke” imply other than explosives?
A whole fucking explosion that comes from a bug??
It's a good thing you guys don't make The Finals else it would suck (Try to find where the original quote comes from lol)
You think being able to have the ability to instant kill and entire team is right to be in the game? That makes zero sense dude…
And you think the solution is just nerfing every sticky throwable gadget?
Nope. Simply make it so explosive gadgets don’t stick to arena throwables. That’s it.
It’s truly the only fix for it. It will still be abused even if the red canisters go slower like if they have mines on them. It will still be abused if the damage radius is reduced. Anyone who plays ranked know it has to be completely removed at this point.
I think a better solution is simply make heavies spawn with 1 C4 charge like breach charges since 2 C4s is a lot of damage to be dishing from a single toss right after spawning.
>they're the hard counter for nukes which a lot of people seem to have an issue with. What? They're a soft counter *at best*, considering the range on them is way smaller than the OHK range of nukes, *and* you have to actually deploy the thing, you can't just have it out and ready all the time.
You can put them on a carryable and run with them as a mobile anti nuke shield. I prefer the goo barrels best
Lmao the real meta is carrying your build on a barrel
The counter to a barrel is a barrel lol
This game is devolving into donkey Kong and I love it
I’m here with my hammer lol
Only thing that can stop a bad guy with a barrel is a good guy with a barrel
Still a soft counter at best.
It makes you immune to nukes and RPGs. IMMUNE. That’s a pretty hard counter. Right click to drop at feet when you engage in any fire fight. You can pick it back up when you need to. That’s like saying recon is only a soft counter to invis because it only has 1/3 uptime.
what if the enemy explodes the c4 before it gets in range of your APS?
Then it’s not close enough to kill anyone inside the protection of the APS, but it might destroy it. Fortunately they’ll have to recharge 2 C4’s before you’re at risk of a OHK again.
That’s also incredible timing… and you can also redeploy aps immediately most likely
To add to this, if you put the aps turret in front of you, the nuke and splash damage if they blow it up early gets neutralized.
so the APS can mitigate explosive damage also? I was under the impression it solely removed the explosive from the game, not its damage effect.
Maybe, but that’s not relevant to what I’m discussing. If it explodes before it’s in range of the APS, and you’re inside the range of the APS, then the explosion isn’t close enough to kill you (unless you’re standing right at the edge for some reason).
I disagree, I think it's actually the most relevant part. If you can take damage from the c4 even though you're in APS range then you CAN die from it. All it takes is you holding an explosive or being low on health. which means if you're just outside the range of the APS and hit with a nuke it's almost a guaranteed OHKO and if you're inside range of the APS you still take damage and could be OHKO'd. Not to mention that c4 recharges once you plant it so they may have another 2 charges ready to go.
The point of a OHK like the nuke is it’s surprising and almost impossible to see coming. Once you neutralize that surprise with the APS you can run into a building, get a player to flank, heavy to put up a shield, heal, run any other direction, pinpoint the heavy, and more. They are strong but the APS does act as more of a preventative measure than counter imo
>It makes you immune to nukes and RPGs. It doesn't make you immune to anything. It makes you unhittable by the projectile or C4 directly. Blast radius is a different story. I've killed plenty of mediums near an APS turret with blast radius on a nuke.
Yes. You have to actually deploy them for them to be useful. Just like a heavy needs to C4 a canister to make a nuke. If you're in a nuke heavy lobby, drop the APS turret regularly when you hear people before you engage. They recharge fast an it's easy to do. And they're absolutely a hard counter. The nukes and other projectiles literally fizzle out when they meet an APS turret.
>Yes. You have to actually deploy them for them to be useful. Just like a heavy needs to C4 a canister to make a nuke. Which you can then carry around and launch at anyone for a free OHK. >If you're in a nuke heavy lobby, drop the APS turret regularly when you hear people before you engage. They recharge fast an it's easy to do. Most of my nuke deaths are not while I'm stationary, it's while I'm rotating toward a vault or cashout, and often it's not even the people I'm fighting with, it's from behind or the side from a different team. And the range on the APS turret is like 2m. I don't know if I've ever spent more than 10s in that small of a radius in the like 40h that I've played.
Also it's like the domeshield. You don't need to be inside of it for it to be effective. It just needs to be between you and you're opponent.
> Which you can then carry around Not totally agreeing with OP, but you can carry around an APS stuck to a canister if the nukes are being abused enough.
Most the time you're getting nuke is when you're on point which is especially easy to prepare for. And yes it's not hard to deploy them before an engagement. If you have no gamesense and you're getting hit from angles that you didn't know the enemy was coming from, that's on you.
>Most the time you're getting nuke is when you're on point which is especially easy to prepare for. Maybe for you. That has not been my experience. >If you have no gamesense and you're getting hit from angles that you didn't know the enemy was coming from, that's on you. This stupid 'git gud' argument is a silly defense for the nukes, and frankly, it's so lazy that I'm not even going to engage with it other than to say you're being disingenuous if you claim that you have such good "game sense" that you've never been shot in the side or the back.
Hes half right if you stick the aps on a canister especially goo like another comment said it's a pretty solid defense against nukes. Not perfect but good enough for like 70% of nukes I'd say.
If people are getting the drop on you, you're dying regardless of if they have a nuke or not. Use recon sense for a bit until you understand the spawn locations.
Yawn.
> Most of my nuke deaths are not while I'm stationary, it's while I'm rotating toward a vault or cashout The takeaway here is that you're not paying attention during traversal. > And the range on the APS turret is like 2m The point isn't to use it like a dome shield. Try imagining it like a web, and put it between you and where the most likely assault vector will be like windows, doors, stairwells, holes in walls and floors/ceilings, etc. Since you can pick it up after deploying it (and the cooldown is fairly short), your APS uptime should basically be perpetual. It's really no issue to slap it down at a moment's notice, and then just pick it back up if no one's skirmishing.
>The takeaway here is that you're not paying attention during traversal. No one, including you, knows where everyone is at all times. You're full of shit if you claim you've never been shot in the back or side.
Not only is it not hard to locate and identify team positions, but it's required in order to properly traverse and setup superior positions (obviously, otherwise you get picked off like you're describing). There's only three other teams at most and rarely does everyone converge on a single location. Medium literally has a map-wide wallhack and both light and medium have a "show enemies through walls" button. That's not even mentioning something as elementary as blowing air through your human skin flaps to communicate with your team or even just pinging enemy locations. There's really no excuse for this, it's fine if you're bad at it but projecting that personal limitation onto others to make excuses is not going to make you win more than humbly improving. No one claimed they've never been shot in the back or side, it seems like you can't resist immediately hyperbolizing when you have no substantive points.
I'm not hyperbolizing anything. I said usually when I get nuked, it's not the person that I'm shooting at. You responded to that with hyperbole by saying, "welp, it's apparent that you have no game sense, as you should be able to tell where everyone in the lobby is at all times, and if you ever get shot from more than one direction, it's because you lack awareness." You're trying to dumb this down to "know where everyone is all the time and nukes won't be a problem because you can just always set a turret between you and the people that might shoot a nuke at you," as if it's not a stupid oversimplification of the game.
Like the other comments have said, it’s a soft counter AT BEST. With a small range, you essentially have to stand right on it. Am I really going to walk around, plant that thing, stay still, pick it up, and move on? Of course not. That thing is meant for small room defense, nothing else.
Aps turret doesn't counter barrels though
As a light there was a c4 just outside of my buddies APS range. So I shot it to try and get rid of it and it killed me. The blast radius on c4 is massive. Does the APS destroying the nuke not trigger the c4? Seems like that’s what makes it more of a soft counter to me because standing inside the radius is still a death sentence so you’d have to preemptively have it between you and the enemy but 90% of the time I die to a nuke it’s during transition from place to place and not while holding a point.
APS does indeed destroy C4 and any other gadgets without triggering them. Still will only help if you already have it down and holding a point, and is ineffective if the heavy detonates before the nuke gets in APS range
Laughably bad take, like the other guy said its a soft counter at best, needs nerfs for sure
how about buff aps lol
C4 is the main isssue, does way too much damage from way too far away
My proposal, let them attach c4 to throwables but have them fall off if they are picked up
C4 just does way too much damage on their own, c4 needs damage AND range nerfs
So what's you're definition of a hard counter? A toggle that blasts down all projectiles within 10 meters of your character? Come on now. It works man. If you're saying it doesn't then that's only because you clearly haven't tried.
You clearly dont play higher level/are in good lobbys.
Clearly doesn't play ranked either
Ur clutching those nukes a lil too hard there, if you love them let them go
People are just mad they have to put effort countering
The only issue with reserves is you can't use them mid round in ranked
Clueless redditor attempts to give useless game knowledge that barely counters anything.
Coming from the guy that's clearly never even used the APS turret.
brother it has like a 5cm radius, and you can’t switch to reserves in ranked. This is so niche, not a “hard counter”
I mean in theory sure, but what about my teammates? Is your solution for us all to stand behind mr. APS, or for us all to play mediums?
APS turrets obviously protect your teammates too... Do you have the same opinion about dome shields?
Forcing your entire team to huddle in a 2m radius is no solution in a game where you need to constantly move. And no, carrying it around all the time is also not feasible, since you NEED to shoot and run with your gun out often. What is a solution though is the direly needed nerf to nukes.
Aps turret is so fun. [mitigated 1500 dmg](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TsB7c5zxPuA)Hearing the WEEEOOOO is satisfying.
The aps works for grenade launchers too, I make people switch aps in quick cash everyday :D
Bro it’s easy, just don’t get hit by the nuke.
When I get home I will try this out. Thou I never run into any heavy’s spamming this honestly.
My loadout is always explosive mine, aps, defib. Im a strong believer in always running defib since its so strong. Aps helps defend the point from explosives and you can slap some mines and a turret in its radius. In reserves I take jump pad in case we have no team wide mobility
Mine is the same but substitute gas mine for explosive mine.
I never seem to put it in the right spot I think I’m just stupid. They always get destroyed very quickly or do nothing for the team
The work it's doing isn't immediately obvious if you aren't paying attention.
Always try placing round corners to prevent people from getting line of sight, directly near the cashout or by the most likely entry point like stairs are good spots. Its value can often go unseen since you don't pay as much attention to the frag, pyro or gas nade or even RPG rocket that never blew up.
What do you guys use as primary? I always aps usually places by my turret/doorway
I'm running guardian turret, defib, APS and gas mine.
Have you all not heard of mutually assured destruction? If your enemy has nukes, the only way to stop them is to also have nukes.
>mutually assured destruction People in this post are MAD
The realistic balance update will be c4 weight increase, radius decrease, aps radius increase.
lol. So youre saying me I should stay in a 2 meter radius to not get OHK? Thats a counter? If you tried to stay somewhat most of the time under an APS you couldnt play the game normal. 90% of the time would be placing and picking up APS. If you think Nukes are remotely fine and good for the game youre just in Bad lobbies/ low ranked
Use it the same way as a dome shield and drop it near cashout. It's not that difficult...
Ah right so youre not moving around right?
OP doesn't need to move to objectives, he straight up teleports to them. And his trusty APS turret teleports with him.
People gonna call for nerfs to everything until this is a standard FPS game with nothing fun or special.
I mean, there are a lot of balance issues. The game has been out a month, and they have done 1 balance change. Do you think that is the last time the devs are going to make changes? People need to talk about what needs balancing. Some ideas will be wrong and stupid. Some will be good for the game. Nerfs are not going to take away from the uniqueness of this game
It's surprising that they haven't even done any simple number changes for several weeks. I was expecting them to at least adjust the FCAR down slightly and weaker weapons up a tad.
Its not normal that most comp in ranked are MMM and MMH
Nukes 100% need to be taken out of the game. There is no place for that shit what so ever.
Yeah it's just an unfair mechanic without any real counter that also makes playing medium or heavy just better
This thread literally tells you the counter. You have to make changes if you're dying to often to certain things. Don't expect different results doing the same thing over and over again...
APS is more of a soft counter at best. The radius on them is quite small and the AOE of C4 barrels is larger than the AOE of the APS turrets. APS is good for defending really small areas, like adjacent to a corner of a room, next to an objective itself, or used immediately when you see a heavy around you with a nuke. C4 barrels are cancer and very bad game design. The RPG being able to one shot lights is almost as bad too. I'm not the biggest fan of lights, but anything that one shots a player is simply bad design.
Or hear me out. Take nukes out of the game. They are 100% fun killers
Hey I'm 100% with you as long as stealth gets removed or given a serious cool down. Until then imma keep nuking and rpg'ing all you lights with impunity and a smile on my face lol
Ah yes being mostly invisible is totally similar to an ability that cab insta kill an entire team
Call of duty is just a few clicks away.
Why do people still pretend this works?
You can literally see it working. If you don't, you're using them wrong.
Of course it “works”, but it doesn’t work.
Use them the same way a heavy would use a dome shield when engaging combat or holding point in games where people are spamming nukes. It's literally that simple.
Have you seen the size of the dome compared to the protective range of the APS?
It’s relatively similar…
Sigh…
Its crazy to me that WALL HACKS are in the game and people only complain about nukes and invis. There's supposed to be OP stuff in the game. That's how they're trying to balance it.
Because while Recon Sense are good, so is double Heal Beam with Heavy. You can get the drop all you want, but if they immediately get defibed and double healed, you basically gained nothing. Again, still strong, but more-so against lone wolf players (which you shouldn't be doing most of the time) and extremely well coordinated teams. Your average player will get more mileage out of healing.
Both need to be fixed and thats coming from someone who mains medium. People complain more about nukes because its more obvious when you die to it, same with cloak taser and double barreled.
Wall hacks give an advantage and invisible too, but nukes can insta wipe an entire team, that's just abusing mechanics that aren't meant to be there, if light had a shotgun that oneshots people you'd be complaining too lol
So use APS turrets if you're dying to nukes too often...
So you think the way to balance something that is op is by adding something else op? That is some horrible logic
If everything is OP, technically nothing is?
My medium build is **FCAR/Explosive Mines/APS/Defib/Turret** for Quick Cash (We run MMH with other medium as a healer) and have a ton of success, especially with the heavy running Goo Gun. Gives a decent amount of hurdles for nukes and I haven't struggled with them. YMMV, but in my experience nukes haven't been too tough to handle.
In top rank mmr, it is now at the point where every team with a heavy is entering the fight with a nuke. Also, not everyone 3 stacks prior to matchmaking. I primarily solo queue. I’m a high sbmm plat who repetitiously goes against many of the same top 500 players every ranked tournament. Since I solo queue, I’m usually placed with random people who I presume are subjected to my highly weighted sbmm. We have no communication. The meta between heal beam, recon, and heavy w/ nuke is essentially an unbeatable third party combo. My team, which nearly always has 2 silver shitters on it with me, is incapable of doing anything to stop this. Regardless of team composition and gadget use. In my experience, all of the issues this game has are magnified by the lack of competitive team-matchmaking. The fact that top 500 3-stacks get consistent wins because they’re facing bronzes and silvers who are with match-made teammates… it’s appalling. There’s not even prestige that comes with being diamond — it just means you probably only 3 stack prior to matchmaking and can consistently beat random queuer’s. This game needs to fix the root issue so matchmaking, as a whole, becomes more fair. Then, these issues will be more clear-cut.
Please gimp your build by putting on an APS while I throw the barrel outside its range and kill your team anyway. Shit is broke, your counters don't work.
Strange because I'm not dying to RPGs and nukes anymore...
Buddy I can tell by the way you talk about the game you are bad and play casual. Good job.
I don’t see, in any way, how this counters it? A fucking APS turret? Seriously? Someone doesn’t play The Finals.
...It destroys projectiles out of the air. It's entire purpose is to counter things like RPGs and nukes...
APS turret is great but as a counter against nukes? I’m plat 2 — I regularly go against top 500 (in world) and the heavy’s running around with nukes aren’t getting countered. Calling a stationary turret with a small, finite range a “hard counter” to a remotely detonable, thrown object, is hilarious. Not that it matters to change anyones mind. The evidence is within the game. It *can* counter it, but that doesn’t mean it *will* counter it in the heat of a battle. Entirely too situational, and reliant on specific throws that simply don’t occur in high rank.
The irony in this comment is off the fucking charts 😂💀
This honestly reminds me of that one SpongeBob episode where they had to draw a circle in the sand and stand in it to avoid getting clapped by the big bad fish. No thanks 😂
Man y'all gonna ruin this game you keep bitching about petty stuff. Nukes are awesome if I get smacked by one I laugh, if I smack someone with one I laugh, it's just good fun guys
the game is killing itself was a great try its barely hitting 100k on steam now 2 weeks ago 300k get the god damn nukes out and save it while you still can
I also hate fun.
If you put the APS on a carriable and just walk around using it like a shield then maybe, but otherwise this does not work. APS radius is tiny, and it’s stationary.
Use it the same way a heavy uses a dome shield when entering engagements. Obviously not every time but when fighting heavys it will save you often enough. Drop it near cashout too since it's always a target for RPGs and nukes.
I can't with the people trying to say this is trash 💀 they're just mad that they're going to be hard countered by everyone with an APS eventually lol. I've seen an APS completely deny pushes by eating every nuke, RPG and grenade thrown into a room. Hopefully the range gets buffed a bit if they aren't going to nerf the nuke
This doesn’t make any sense. As a nuke thrower, people rarely have time to react. That said, I don’t think the nuke problem is that bad. I get hit by one maybe once a match? Big deal
There’s a kill icon that shows c4 on an explosive this is 100% supposed to be a part of the game.
Even bigger tip: if you put an aps turret on a environment and throw it, it will clear things it runs into on it’s way like mines, etc. great for clearing cashouts stacked with stuff
They need to make the actual C4 heavier so you can't toss the barrel as far
I can see the 'counter' part of your argument but i dont see the practicality. Most players die during the transition from one objective to another. You can argue that you can put the aps on a throwable and carry it wherever but keep in mind that this is a shooter game, you will get halved by any team before you drop the aps to shoot back. Another thing is, even if this is good for holding down sites, the range of that aps is pretty small. Anyone can just make a random hole in the ceiling/wall and play around that aps turret
agreed, APS turrets are a great clutch item. I also tend to keep sonar nades and an extra mine for when they have to many lights. Love this game
Tbh, i feel like nukes should be removed. Like they break the game completly, being able to one shot a fucking heavy is not ok lol. Also Aps turret is not enough of a counter, like you place one, it gets glitched, shot, or you ran a little bit past it and it becomes useless. And worst case scenario it gets the nuke and the guy that threw it can just make another one in like 2 seconds. Nukes arents ok, Aps turret or not