Like I said, that’s a major difference, you get to chose how many objective classes you get to use for getting the job done. In your system you don’t.
I feel bad for hating on a new idea like that but I feel we really need to wonder whether or not this serves overall gameplay.
You are right, it’s important to debate about an idea.
For me, I don’t see the problem to have a limit in the number of people able to achieve an objective. It’s just important to balance the system.
If I can’t take an objective slot, I will help the players that have these slots = Teamplay 
We are just talking about objectives, players are still free in the choice of their class.
i suppose it could work, especially with the small team sizes in shooter game.
voting/pub… not sure.
IFFs, both for teammates and enemies, would need to be pretty solid.
would it be better/more interesting than the current agnostic version. i think so. but that’s not saying much, though.
and i also think proficiency based objectives would be a major improvement at this point, so…
one drawback would be not being able to create multiclass mercs - “covert engineers” with 50% hacking and 25% disarm, for instance.
not that that necessarily matters - i mean, the most likely incentive to play a character would probably be weapons/non-obj abilities.
one drawback would be not being able to create multiclass mercs - “covert engineers” with 50% hacking and 25% disarm, for instance.
I don’t like the fact to be able to realize two kind of objectives, like a “one man army” which a result of a loss of teamplay
well, wouldn’t such a merc theoretically play a different role in offense (hacking) and defense (disarm)?
and i wasn’t suggesting that this “covert engi” should be able to plant or construct -at all-.
but, hey, classless/agnostic objectives seem to be a fact at this point, so it kind of doesn’t matter.
edit: the 50%/25% (multi-class) proficiencies was something i imagined relative to a system where each character otherwise has a 100% skill at one thing (and not the current proficiency-based version)
The main purpose of classless char seem to be to have always someone that can do the job (planted,armed/disarmed)
If the class was back they could do ‘drop tool on death’ that could be salvaged by any other class in the team …to finish the job
that would bring more interesting gameplay/teamplay situation…imho
[QUOTE=1-800-NOTHING;467275]well, wouldn’t such a merc theoretically play a different role in offense (hacking) and defense (disarm)?
and i wasn’t suggesting that this “covert engi” should be able to plant or construct -at all-.
but, hey, classless/agnostic objectives seem to be a fact at this point, so it kind of doesn’t matter.[/QUOTE]
It’s precisely one of the elements of current system that I don’t like.
[quote=rookie1;467282]The main purpose of classless char seem to be to have always someone that can do the job (planted,armed/disarmed)
[/quote]
As I understood SplashDamage, the main purpose of classless char is to make SD able to do what they wants with mercs and permit to players to play mercs (that they bought) with no restriction imposed by objectives.
I think the change of the system was necessary to be in adequation with their economic model, but the change should be different for me.
I suggested one possible change to avoid class limited changes, I imagine that there is other choices possibles.
Personally I’d stick with the current arrangement. I think the proficiencies make a big difference, keeping the engineer important.
[QUOTE=Erkin31;467367]It’s precisely one of the elements of current system that I don’t like.
[/QUOTE]
precisely what? (you quoted 3 sentences, don’t know what you are specifically referring to)
Oh, sorry, I think I haven’t understood you. You talk of the fact to select only one role like the system that I described, but with a merc with multiples ratios of proficiency ?
I don’t think it’s a good idea, when I select an engineer, I want to be able to do the best work of engineer.
That was a problem with Brink for me, to have a unique and persistent character. So you are a full soldier, and your team need an engineer, but you can’t switch engineer because your skills for this are too low.
If you have a special merc with 50%(defuse)/20%(hack), he’s good for neither of these objectives.
Finally, I’m not sure that the proficiency system could be great here:
Ok you take the role which permits to defuse a bomb but you are medic, so you are very bad to do this objective. This will result with what SplashDamage wants to avoid = Push the players to play with other mercs that they want because, as you have the role to defuse the bombs, you feel compelled to switch to engineer class.
The way that I view classless objectives:
Lets say we have a job that only takes 1 employee to do.
There are 5 employees available, where they all have the same expectations set that this job needs to get done. Only one of them needs to do it though - it is not required that they all do it at the same time however.
Problem: All 5 employees expect that 1 of the others will do the job.
Result: Nothing gets done.
Genovese syndrome 101 
[QUOTE=nailzor;467984]The way that I view classless objectives:
Lets say we have a job that only takes 1 employee to do.
There are 5 employees available, where they all have the same expectations set that this job needs to get done. Only one of them needs to do it though - it is not required that they all do it at the same time however.
Problem: All 5 employees expect that 1 of the others will do the job.
Result: Nothing gets done.
Genovese syndrome 101 ;-)[/QUOTE]
It’s an interesting thought. Strange thing is that usually everyone should be going to the obj, whether they are the obj class or not so sounds like a team that wants to lose. Maybe it would just be easier to deploy a small automated robot to plant or construct the objs when they are clear. As long as I can remember the obj class was the least desired or interesting role to play. Maybe that’s because most of the objs are just plain boring? Maybe it’s because the obj class is essentially the guy who gets to take it in the rear for most of the game? Whatever it is there was something obviously unattractive about it, which is funny since I know a lot of people asking for it would have no desire to play the obj class at all even if it did return. It was essentially a system where the weak guy get’s to feel good about pressing the F button, and everyone else got to run off doing their own thing and then blame the obj guy for sucking. Or you’d have one of those “guess I’ll do the obj now since no one else will”. At least now objs get done based on who is actually trying to win vs just trying to stack up frags. It’s a process that really requires the entire teams attention at this point. Maybe protecting the obj against everyone is a different type of strategy (and a harder task imo), but it sure seems to upset a lot of people who were just going to let someone else take care of it anyway.
unless you get more XP, coins - whatever for being near objective - or at the front, there is no reason to be there.
The front… unless echo and that stuff is realtime… no way to tell where the front is. And as such that all becomes useless.
Being the objective guy means the enemy knows where your going at, and in DB there are not many ways. I mean for example getting obj in london bridge, is a suicide mission if the enemy has a sniper. There is no cover. And if your building stuff, you cant shoot… so kinda free kill.
The idea of dropping some bots to fix tank, sounds great… then enemy has to decide to shoot that or me. We already got turrets, so I don’t see why not.
I think the front moves during an objective.
In a perfect world it could work I guess. The problem, is that we don’t live in a perfect world. Trolls would intentionally abuse this setup, newer players would potentially be lost, and really with proficiencies, the classless system is not that bad at all. All they need to do now is remove classes entirely and just make mercs with abilities. Having classes is actually another prison they are locking their creativity in to.