All classes can do all objectives. Yay or nay?

(Erkin31) #21

[QUOTE=iwound;462269]to be fair to you that was early alpha.
they should definitely re-do the quotes they use
with more up to date ones.
“ET has evolved” :wink:[/QUOTE]

“ET has evolved, in Call Of Duty”

(Kendle) #22

I voted like but needs tuning, because we’ve only got half the deal here. They said classless objectives first, greater characterisation would come later. We need to wait for the next patch, or whenever it is we get the greater characterisation, before we can judge.

Having said that, class-specific objectives is a keystone of this genre, going back to RTCW, and is not something any other game provides. To drop that, even after very careful consideration, is not only risky but I can’t imagine the thought processes that led to it (other than how do we make more money out of this game). I’ve played a lot of games that have class-less objectives, so I’m not hung up on it per se, but it’s the genre’s defining feature, dispense with it at your peril SD :slight_smile:

(BomBaKlaK) #23

Absolutely true for the 1rst medic, the new one is ok.

(Humate) #24

I enjoy that theres a lot more action around the objective,so theres 1 positive.
However I would have preferred if the issue of “TDM feel” was tackled via the combat system itself.

(en2ie) #25

Gone for the “strongly dislike” I just don’t see any benefits to this change.

I am not saying it has broken the game and DB will fail… etc… etc… just that it has lost an edge/an importance of completing an objective where only a few members of the team can. For example, if i am arming an explosive I would know how important it was, but with hacking a console… not so much, there are 7 other players on this team that can do that. Hard to explain I guess. :frowning:

(h2o) #26

Ye now there are 7 people who can almost instantly repair stuff, before team had to protect enginners allowing them to safely repair it.

(scre4m.) #27

when fundamental elements of the game wont change much any more. I dont get it.

(DarkangelUK) #28

[QUOTE=montheponies;462277]
On the other hand I still think this is only required because of the inordinate number of stages/objectives per map. If we had less of that I’d doubt we would need this change.[/QUOTE]

I’ve been saying this since day 1 just about… too much!

“add all the objectives! <o/”
“but new players are confused about the constant jump to required objective class and the maps are drawn out”
“add all the players can do objectives! <o/”
“groan”

(Jonny_Hex) #29

WRT to proficiency, hopefully we’ll add the C4 arm/diffuse and repair/construct weighting in a mini-patch soon-ish. No promises, but I’d like that.

(Rex) #30

[QUOTE=Evil-Doer;462256]I didn’t vote because I’m part of a small player base. I’ll start voting on polls in open beta.
[/QUOTE]

Insider joke^^

(Evil-Doer) #31

What Rex said…

(mazesc) #32

I like, but changes have to be made. (Might as well have said don’t like it and changes have to be made, but it will tilt towards that anyhow)

I don’t see that there is a problem of people not doing the objectives and it being TDM so far. There are people planting/people giving fire support and when they have time help to finish the objective. It worked pretty well from what I was able to tell so far. However, since the patch, almost no-one is playing engineer anymore, of course. So there have to be changes to the characters/classes. What Shifty just said sounds good as well. Certain classes primarily for certain objectives, with other classes being less able to do them.

From what we saw in the Draft Cup this weekend, maybe there should be a limit of people able to do an objective at the same time. Planting at the wall on Waterloo was just a crazy lemming-rush again and again. I won’t lie, as a spectator it was even thrilling, but it doesn’t have much to do with organized team play. Although, of course, maybe it would have been more successful to approach that objective differently. How that objective turned out isn’t optimal, that’s for sure, and class-agnostic planting is the main reason for what happened.

I’m not sure what SD still has in mind with character changes, but I think with some tweaking it can become good. Don’t know if class-based objectives would be better in the end, but I am pretty sure that class-agnostic won’t be a deal breaker overall.

(.FROST.) #33

I like it because it’s good for public playing and because you can keep the weapon loadout you prefer, and still can do all the objectives. Though it’s definitely not a very clean solution; it’s really kinda weird to repair stuff as fops, or medic, not to mention as a covert ops. I’d actually prefer it if I’d be able to keep my weapon loadout as medic, engineer and fops B[/B] and change to the momentarily demanded class. That would make much more sense on all levels(gameplay wise and from a logical POV)

I like the smoother gameplay now, but it came with a “high price”. SD has to work backwards now(keeping the pace the game has atm, but replacing all the extreme parts of this solution with some that are more sensical and with the class-system in mind.

As I’ve said before; doing it like the Mythbusters is prolly the best way to get were everybody wants to be.

- at first; trying out your vision(like the Mythbusters did it with the myths)
- if it doesn’t come to the desired reaction, go the other way around and try stuff that’ll work a 100%
- and then work yourself backwards in the direction of the initial idea(myth) and stop at the point from where it’s starting to get worse, or stops working at all.

B[/B]assault and covert ops are a bit to specific and very much defined by their weaponary

(rookie1) #34

The only objectives that i see that can be done by everyone is what need a PDA (hack doors, open barriers,consoles…) fwrd spawns,Carrying,Doc/run stealing doc,
im for more char class can rep/constuct plant/defuse but not a Medic or a sniper .I always said It had to make sense!

(scre4m.) #35

ok. I already thought of some lack of sanity, but know that I am an insider as well, I am becalmed :smiley:

(TS420) #36

It tends to make the games go faster as teams can now just muscle their way through objectives rather than truly work as a team needs to. Etqw did this best. As a medic I know I am tending to run to the objective and wrench or hack or whatever more so than worry about support. It tends to lead to much less team play as far as classes supporting other classes. Right now it has become classless. Objective play and the fast paced gun fights is why I have always opted for and preferred id and splash damage games. Why I still play etqw today when there is a server here still populated. I may take a small break from a game for a bit but I always come back to rtcw and etqw for the pure fun factor of the games. Says something considering how old those are now.

(INF3RN0) #37

Realistically I voted for ‘dislike, but may become better with tweaks’ because DB is already very non-class obj oriented. To claim it was an obj class oriented game before would be silly. I think there might be some benefits of further testing this path with extreme obj proficiencies and very unique obj oriented abilities per class.

I strongly dislike engineer being the handicapped obj class because then you simply expect your weakest link to take on the role and spend most of their time pressing the F button. The obj class needs to be combat effective on both offense and defense, and serve a greater purpose than waiting for the all clear to press the F button. Most times I prefer not to do specific objectives simply because the class that is supposed to do them feels entirely limited to doing them, completely out of its comfort zone when having to do the obj, or simply a lemming with a tool.

Part of the problem is that most of the ‘class specific’ objectives are entirely non-intuitive and plain boring. Doc runs are probably so popular simply because it’s an entirely dynamic obj type, which obviously overshadows the desire for it to be class specific. During a doc run obj every class is contributing to it’s completion through their specific actions. This is very enlightening to me. The real problem here is that objs such as plants, repairs, etc are so damn boring that the only way we can have fun with them is to stamp the role onto one specific class. Furthermore it doesn’t help that you don’t have the same freedoms to interact with the objs in DB that you could in prev games; trick plants, dodgy repairs, etc. So sure we could simply return it to how it was before, but I for one think it can be taken much further. I’d like to see completely new and original obj types prevail in DB that offer highly dynamic obj play, rather than sticking with the old. Plus it does wonders to the pace of the game play also.

(ImageOmega) #38

[QUOTE=DarkangelUK;462298]I’ve been saying this since day 1 just about… too much!

“add all the objectives! <o/”
“but new players are confused about the constant jump to required objective class and the maps are drawn out”
“add all the players can do objectives! <o/”
“groan”[/QUOTE]

This…Dirty Bomb in its current state saddens me for its future. There are so many good ideas here, but convoluted by all of them being mixed in and trying to make them all work together.

I get we’re trying to draw from MOBA’s for a FPS. But, you know what hasn’t changed from MOBA to MOBA? Lanes…minions…towers…bases…The same core gameplay. Then there are different modes which are less popular than the main mode albeit easier to get into. The competitive community stays playing the same mode that is true to the genre. What is Dirty Bomb doing to stay true to the Class-based Objective FPS? It is completely going away from all of that… That is sad to me as a gamer, a supporter, and a tester.

At what point do we say, you know what? Let’s go back to what made games great and keep things simple. I get the need for innovation and appealing to the masses, but, it starts with the core like MOBA’s start with their core.

(rapid_shot) #39

Strongly dislike. As previously mentioned, seems hardly relate-able to ET, SD’s highest rated game and on the top 100 all time PC games list via metacritic (yes I bring this up often).

I mentioned in another post a scenario of planting C4 on a wall near a defense. It’s hard enough for anyone to get close enough to plant, but now every defensive player can disarm. This will cause balance changes like moving spawns, upping time to defuse, raising spawn times, etc. I just don’t see the upside here besides being different, but what you’re trying to be different from was a huge success.

I see players completely neglecting characters for the high health / high damage characters and completely ignoring characters that used to be good because of their class unique abilities. For example Proxy in favor of Dazzler because who wouldn’t want an 80 round MG, shotgun, grenade, and +15 health over a shotgun, smg and a mine? I know there are situations where Proxy would be preferred, but I would say if those were the only 2 classes, it would probably be 90% Dazzler, 10% Proxy in play time. And this is just one example of many I could make.

I would say the problem with objectives before the update that made SD think they needed this change is because all of the objectives that are any sort of important are primary objectives (pumps and cover don’t count as important since they’re useless and unused). Adding things like hackable forward spawns for recon or more repair-able barriers being able to be blown by a remote charge can help distribute the fighting making choke points much more distributed making more classes more desirable.

Part of the reason I bought into this in the first place was to see how well it “captures the magic of ET” as advertised and what I see so far is greatly lacking that magic. This doesn’t inherently mean that its bad, but it’s hardly what I was looking for when I got it. I think maybe SD’s money would be better spent re-texturing and adding features to ET than this. By the way, please do this anyway. :smiley:

(Seiniyta) #40

After that minipatch, after a few days I’ll probably open up a similar thread to gauge the popularity of it.

[QUOTE=DarkangelUK;462298]I’ve been saying this since day 1 just about… too much!

“add all the objectives! <o/”
“but new players are confused about the constant jump to required objective class and the maps are drawn out”
“add all the players can do objectives! <o/”
“groan”[/QUOTE]

The new map Seabattery seems to have fewer objectives. It’s a shorter map overall so they are listening. It is however really hard to retrofit the fewer objectives into the existing maps, and throwing those existing maps away would be madness.