Assault/Soldier

(SockDog) #61

The engineer is relevant to engineering objectives, they don’t need to be any more relevant at attack or defense than any other class. The Soldier on the other hand should be able to lay out some serious damage, the current opinion seems to be that this must be through direct weapons and higher resilience. What I’m saying is also make them relevant using 3rd party items such as turrets and mines.

Turrets are as valuable as you make them, even attackers need to impede the enemy or create a bridge head. This sounds more like you making a situation fit your argument again. But let’s not stray off topic here, the role of the Engineer is another subject. The point is to make the soldier more relevant it should be give more offensives and defensive capabilities, a soldier with a turret is going to give people hassle but at least the soldier isn’t dropping a turret and then completing an objective (effectively doing two roles).

(tokamak) #62

The reasoning that other classes need to have turrets and mines, defensive capabilities, so the engineer can do objectives (mostly offensive tasks) just doesn’t make sense. Whenever mines and turrets become relevant is when the team is defending which is when the engineer doesn’t have anything useful to do anyway!

I don’t mind certain specialisations being offensive or defensively oriented. Firstly that gives enormous freedom in making new classes and secondly it’s the players own responsibility to make the right choice. But an entire class can’t be offensively or defensively fixed.

And that’s what you’re going to do if you’re taking the engineer’s defensive toys away. They become completely redundant on the attack, which is half of their battles. Mines and turrets fit the engineer so well because it’s indirect damage that allows us to make the engineer the most fragile class in the game which is more interesting when handling objectives.

(SockDog) #63

Why are you talking about the Engineer? Go start an engineer thread and discuss things to make them relevant during the quiet periods you think they have. We’re talking about making the Soldier/Assault class relevant and nothing you are saying contributes to that discussion. Jesus!

(tokamak) #64

It’s bad to merely consider each class as an isolated case. Talking about the class’s role relative to the other classes is incredibly important.

We’re talking about the soldier’s role and you’re suggesting that he needs to take over very important tasks from the engineer. That’s why we’re now talking about the engineer.

(DarkangelUK) #65

“We” you mean you.

(SockDog) #66

[QUOTE=tokamak;414161]It’s bad to merely consider each class as an isolated case. Talking about the class’s role relative to the other classes is incredibly important.

We’re talking about the soldier’s role and you’re suggesting that he needs to take over very important tasks from the engineer. That’s why we’re now talking about the engineer.[/QUOTE]

So we’re now neither talking about Soldiers or Engineers but your insistence that they are one and the same? LOL, just stick to the topic and worry about the engineer later.

(tokamak) #67

Frankly I don’t see the problem in discussing the relation between those classes. Again, treating classes as isolated discussions is bad bad bad.

(SockDog) #68

Honestly, why do you even bother posting? You don’t want to talk about the topics or discuss what people bring up. You just post some unsubstantiated and loosely related conjecture in a thread then look to argue why doing so is valid and appropriate while contributing pretty much nothing.

For one minute why not just simply look at a suggestion to give the soldier heavy addons such as a turret and mines so that they can function as a formidable offensive/defensive class.

(tokamak) #69

You take half of the engineer’s abilities and then claim you’re discussing the soldier. At least have the balls to discuss both classes then.

(SockDog) #70

Balls? You high??? I simply don’t see any value in derailing a subject by discussing the engineer. Your earlier posts had zero focus on the soldier, only defending the role of the engineer. So where are you discussing both?

Sorry to the OP and other thread participants. I’ll stop feeding the troll.

(DarkangelUK) #71

Yes, tokajacks are getting quite tiresome… continually derailing threads serves no purpose what so ever.

I’d be happy for the soldier to have the C4 at least, but I still think he also needs some high powered, now low capacity weapons as well.

(stealth6) #72

I’ve been playing some more assault and I still think it needs some kind of objective related weapon or aura so he sticks with his team a bit. Atm it’s the rambo class and they tend to wander off. When I play it I just forget about the objective and try and get some frags.

(Maca) #73

I apologize as I’m going to get quite majorly sidetracked here. I personally can’t say if I wanted to give the soldier an objective, I would perhaps prefer him getting unique weapons like panzer etc. But I feel like in the current maps, giving an objective would in theory be the better way to go. The maps are too convoluted, creviced, tight and small. There is no frontline and there is just this perimeter around the objective which is a kill zone, not one force coming from one direction and the other from another (but I believe this is also an issue which requires changing the gun mechanics, because people die so fas the chaos happens). This greatly causes the ramboness of the current assault, where he can just go around picking people, and if he got something like panzer without a proper tradeoff it would just make the battles even messier.
Again, I apologize for off-topic.

(stealth6) #74

[QUOTE=Maca;417047]I apologize as I’m going to get quite majorly sidetracked here. I personally can’t say if I wanted to give the soldier an objective, I would perhaps prefer him getting unique weapons like panzer etc. But I feel like in the current maps, giving an objective would in theory be the better way to go. The maps are too convoluted, creviced, tight and small. There is no frontline and there is just this perimeter around the objective which is a kill zone, not one force coming from one direction and the other from another (but I believe this is also an issue which requires changing the gun mechanics, because people die so fas the chaos happens). This greatly causes the ramboness of the current assault, where he can just go around picking people, and if he got something like panzer without a proper tradeoff it would just make the battles even messier.
Again, I apologize for off-topic.[/QUOTE]

I don’t see that as offtopic. Anyway I’m making suggestions with the thought that this is a team game so you should stick with your team, but maybe the idea of the assault is to lone wolf it.

Also I’m not assuming anything, I just give feedback on the current build. <- Not directed at you, but some people are speculating that the soldier will get better weapons later, or different weapons.

(warbie) #75

Having no clear team role certainly makes lone wolfing more of an option. The panzer used to do that in RTCW/ET and was deadly. I think the difference here is lone wolfing is even more viable due to the nature of the maps and the quickness of deaths.

(Maca) #76

I don’t know if it would work, and what I’m going to say would require heavily reworked maps, but maybe have a command post/forward spawn system given to assault. I don’t really know what would be the reasoning to giving it to assault but I’m sure it could be made so it isn’t completely out of place. Command posts might not be meaningful enough at least in the current game, but an easier change would be to reduce the amount of regular spawn points (they change very often to follow the objective), so that sometimes getting to the objective takes a bit longer, and it would be the objective of the assault to do something to create that forward spawn. But unfortunately I feel like this would open questions about why not give this to covert

(INF3RN0) #77

The soldier acts as the main aggressor in scrims. He essentially outputs and absorbs the most damage in pushes, and is then followed by the rest of the support classes. It works very nicely in that setup, but of course becomes more clear with teamwork and strategy.

(Reacto) #78

I haven’t read the whole thread, but I don’t see why you’d want to remove the class completely. If you did, there would be a high overload of medics, combined with a few of the other classes. Look at BF3, where the medic class also works as the class with most damage output, resulting in competitive play having almost only medics.

Personally I think the Soldier class increases the complexity of the game, especially in competitive play where it’ll create a lot of different setups/tactics.

(Humate) #79

[QUOTE=Reacto;417061]I haven’t read the whole thread, but I don’t see why you’d want to remove the class completely. If you did, there would be a high overload of medics, combined with a few of the other classes. Look at BF3, where the medic class also works as the class with most damage output, resulting in competitive play having almost only medics.

Personally I think the Soldier class increases the complexity of the game, especially in competitive play where it’ll create a lot of different setups/tactics.[/QUOTE]

Removing it definitely isnt an option…
Limiting the amount of soldiers per team, sure.

(stealth6) #80

[QUOTE=Reacto;417061]I haven’t read the whole thread, but I don’t see why you’d want to remove the class completely. If you did, there would be a high overload of medics, combined with a few of the other classes. Look at BF3, where the medic class also works as the class with most damage output, resulting in competitive play having almost only medics.

Personally I think the Soldier class increases the complexity of the game, especially in competitive play where it’ll create a lot of different setups/tactics.[/QUOTE]

It depends on how you handle the classes. Even if a whole team was playing medic, then they could have different loadouts. So by restricting the amount of classes you wouldn’t necessarily be limiting the amount of tactics. Also if you make each class excel at different tasks you’d need a balance of them all.

I was suggesting removing the class since at this point in time the class has minor differences compared to other classes imo, except the weapons. So what stops you from just removing the class and spreading the weapons over the other classes? (maybe with certain restrictions so if you take a heavier weapon, you can’t carry a turret)

Other people have said, well the soldier is going to get better weapons later… Well that’s kind of speculating a bit, what if he doesn’t?