Engineer is the only objective class :(

(Rex) #1

The only class which does objectives is the engineer. Either you have everyone doing the objectives or the engineer does it all.

Let’s check the maps:

London Bridge:

[ul]
[li] 1. Objective: Repair the EV - Engi[/li] - Side objectives: Destroy barricades - Engi
[li] 2. Objective: Steal the 2 ammo things - All[/li][li](3. Objective: Repair the EV when destroyed - Engi)[/li][/ul]

Waterloo:

[ul]
[li] 1. Objective: Destroy the wall - Engi[/li] - Side objective: Repair the pump - Engi
[li] 2. Objective: Hack the console - All[/li] - Side objective: Repair the pump - Engi
[li] 3. Objective: Destroy the 2 containers - Engi[/li][/ul]

White Chapel:

[ul]
[li] 1. Objective: Repair the EV - Engi [/li][li] 2. Objective: Steal all ammo things - All [/li][li] 3. Objective: Repair the lift at the 2 consoles - Engi[/li] - Side objective: Repair protection walls - Engi
[li] 4. Objective: Deploy the 2 ammo things - All[/li][/ul]

Camden: The same.

For comparison an example from QW:

Refinery:

[ul]
[li] 1. Objective: Repair the MCP (and deploy it) - Engi [/li] - Side objectives: Build up guard tower and MG nests - Engi
[li] 2. Objective: Hack the generator - Cvops [/li] - Side objective: Destroy the barricade - Soldier
- Side objective: Build the mini bridge - Engi
[li] 3. Objective: Destroy the 2 Strogg things - Soldier[/li][/ul]

As you can see here, in QW we needed 3 classes to complete the map and in DB we need mainly only 1 class.
I would like to see more classes getting involved in the “objective-doing” process, so they gain in usage.
It’s also not bad that everyone can steal and deploy the ammo things, but maybe the side objetives could be done by other classes. For example hacking a PC for the lift as a cvops.

(Raviolay) #2

Keep saying this, the C4 needs to go to another class, & the lift repaired lifts & possibly the walls as well, you should be able to C4 them after the Engi fixes them.

(Maca) #3

I also hope this will change in the future.
But I’m open about engineer being the only objective class, if other classes got more handy items and weapons in return

(tokamak) #4

Having one objective class makes the class roles more distinctive which really helps balancing them on each other. I really can’t think of a single good reason why the objectives need to be divided over the other classes, it seems to only pollute and compromise their roles.

(warbie) #5

I’m ok with just the one objective class too. Medics for reviving and health packs. Field Ops for ammo and airstrikes. Engineer for building and blowing stuff up. It’s all the other classes that aren’t needed.

(cerebruz) #6

V28: We need a Covert Ops

Other maps might need covys, like QW:ET, or if they bring in pant stealing, to open back doors.

(Rex) #7

Tokamak, I think it’s about time to remove your signature! :wink:

(murka) #8

Some classes have an indirect role for doing objective, like field ops is the one you use to get the EV stopped on LB.

Tho i must admit i’d prefer more hack/construct objectives. They are just awesome when you have but 5sec left and you start double or tripple upping and barely make it or get that nice grenade which takes you all out.

(dommafia) #9

That’s the first thing that went through my mind :stuck_out_tongue:

(rookie1) #10

its ok with me …i’m doing an engi most of the time and i enjoy it :slight_smile:
that balance the game not having multiple class doing the objs.

(Kendle) #11

I’m not sure how you’d reconcile using the Cv/Ops to plant C4, which is a front-line action (the thing to be blown up is usually slap bang in the middle of the area both teams are fighting over), whereas the Cv/Ops primary weapon is a Sniper Rifle, designed to be used from afar.

If the C4 had to go to another class I’d give it to the Soldier (Engi’s build things, Soldiers blow 'em up!).

You could then put the C4 on a weapon-bank, and allow the Soldier to plant it somewhere other than a placeholder on the objective, planting dyno in RTCW / ET somewhere less than obvious was all part of the fun.

If putting the C4 on a weapon-bank meant the Soldier had to lose the flash-bang, give that to the Cv/Ops instead of the heart-beat sensor. Flash-bangs are for blinding the enemy so you can move in un-seen, something more suited to the sneakiness of a Cv/Op than the big blundering Solider.

If we did this the Soldier could become a required class, meaning we’d now be using 3 of the 5 for sure (Medic / Engie / Soldier).

Remove ammo drop and F/Ops becomes a required class (4 out of 5).

The only thing left would be what to do with the Cv/Ops.

As matches are likely to be played 5-v-5 maybe it’s OK to leave 1 class a little bit out in the cold? Or maybe there will be maps where Cv/Ops are needed and Soldier / Engie are not?

(Patriotqube) #12

I like the way we have now, i wouldnt like if other classes should start doing obj.

another reason i didnt like Qw but loved WET :slight_smile:

The other classes are important in each their way ( i think :slight_smile: ) but building and blowing stuff up is engy work imo

(Dthy) #13

I like the diversity of having different classes doing different main objectives. If only one class did objectives it would (imo) make other classes not as useful to play.

(tokamak) #14

Double poost

(tokamak) #15

A shoot. LOL But the point still stands. It’s also because there is synergy between the classes in ETQW (medics up the hp of soldiers, field ops cooldown). I want MORE Of that in DB but in order to pave the way for such cute stuff you need to simplify the base role of each class.

(BomBaKlaK) #16

i prefer this way to, for me “I still think ETQW did it best” :wink: on multiples objectives class (Soldier / engie / cover) :stuck_out_tongue:
Even in brink there is medic escort.

(rookie1) #17

they all usefull I rely a lot on medic and recon …and soldier …to do my job :stuck_out_tongue:

(tokamak) #18

But WHY, why is there added value in different classes? The only thing I can think of is that it allows for more variety in the type of objectives but DB already did away with that by having the engineer both construct and destruct, might as well give the engineer hacking as well if that’s the problem.

(SockDog) #19

Multiple objectives for multiple roles. Everyone can get a bit of the cake and to be honest anything that encourages people to move around the classes is good in my book, last thing DB needs is people going off their nut thinking they’re invested in one specific class and never wanting to move to a different one.

(tokamak) #20

Also no problem with me if people want to do that. It adds to keeping roles distinctive.