It’s not about the type of objective’s for me, it’s about enforcing a variety of classes that should/need (class based objective MP) to be played, as opposed to a mono-class game as it is now. Unless you give a compelling reason for the mewing masses to play something other than a Medic or an Engineer, as it is now objective games may as well be TDM. The quickest way to get players to play other classes is to spread out the objectives across the some of the classes, I would leave the Solider & Covert Ops alone they are solely there for KDR, and would buff there lone wolfing prowess somehow. Possibly a health regen for the Solider, & an ammo regen for Covert Ops. Just as a test would like SD to give the C4 planting/defusing job to the Support, the we would see at least 3 of the five classes being played. There is nothing worse than being revived with no ammo, and no one to give you some.
Engineer is the only objective class :(
No, it leads to imbalanced teams, self invested players who don’t give a crap about the team and destroys a fundamental part of what SD games are. I’d say it was fortunate that getting raped constantly might teach these people otherwise but I’d expect they’ll just dump the game and move onto Generic Barbie FPS instead to get their “distinctive” fix of bland choices.
Aha, but giving them all an objective to complete is creating an artificial need for them. Instead of that we should be looking at each combat role the class has and then shape it´s identity around it. “Objective” is one role, 'Healing" is a role, “Kill Quantity” Is a roll and “Kill quality” is a role. These roles are very broad and need to be explored further because I agree that it’s incredibly lame right now.
However if you give every class an objective you still got mono-classes because you’re not actively working on the diversity.
I don’t mind having objectives for other classes, but I like the engy having his explosives back…
I wont mind if a different class had to do an special objective here and there …we can switch class if we needed to np.
A recon could be ask to disabling something or a soldier, that would add variety to the game .
I’m for something special on each map by not doing them all on the same pattern.They dont have to disturb anything in the current classes setup do do it.
Personnaly i like to do engie but i do change to different class when its needed at some points in the game
Where did I put that all classes should have objectives? All I am saying is hardly anyone plays support, so if you give them the C4 duties low and behold people play support. Otherwise you have medics healing you, you have no ammo you die again, making the the medic redundant as you would rather of respawned due to no one playing support.
Yes I do agree something needs to be done about class distinction, the trouble is the game has a semi-realistic art direction with real world guns. So what I can think of the top of my head won’t fit.
Equal spread of objectives, yes please.
- Give C4 to soldier
- Some hack objectives for recon, no idea why Waterloo 2nd obj was changed to anyone
- Even some human escort missions for medic, a little less loved perhaps, but one or two in the whole game wouldn’t hurt
[QUOTE=Raviolay;427206]Where did I put that all classes should have objectives? All I am saying is hardly anyone plays support, so if you give them the C4 duties low and behold people play support. Otherwise you have medics healing you, you have no ammo you die again, making the the medic redundant as you would rather of respawned due to no one playing support.
Yes I do agree something needs to be done about class distinction, the trouble is the game has a semi-realistic art direction with real world guns. So what I can think of the top of my head won’t fit.[/QUOTE]
Good then we at least agree on what the desired outcome should be. I merely think that letting classes take turns in doing objectives A: lowers the necessity for more class distinction (but only on the surface) and B: Makes it more difficult to let classes really ‘sink’ into their supposed roles. It becomes much harder to start tweaking classes when they also have to fulfil something else next to their inherent call.
To be honest I think that movement speed should factor in with some of the classes. Like slower movement for Soilder, Engineers & Support. Conversely Covop & medics retain their current pace, and some classes should have none of the how do I put it? Certain movement penalties like the solider/covops not having any movement penalty for ADS. Something that fit’s there role, but changes there gameplay on a base level rather than a piece of equipment or a certain task. Like giving support the LMG and the the bullet spread tightening from crouch effect has a longer duration for his class only. Or enabling a 25% chance that a downed medic can self defib himself. If it was like that I would be more than happy to keep the Engineers role as it is he would be vanilla, however he gets to do the objectives.
Yes! That’s precisely what I mean. And part of the reason why we can afford to play with different speeds for each class is because they don’t all have objective roles to account for. You can base all your tweaks based on their core role without having to worry whether or not it changes the way they can perform on a couple of phases in a particular map.
Yeah C4 to the soldier, he’s a beast in front line, can plant under fire and such, that’d be a great role for him indeed…
I already see this coming in comp and after some pub play when people will realise : “just kill and gib the engies guy, and we win”
I clearly dont see any point in not giving c4 to soldier anyway, and hack for the covie, but so far not all maps are displayed so we cant know if there wont be a hack for the covie, if waterloo hack is covie only it should be faster tho, because hacking alone is really slow at the moment
[QUOTE=Mustang;427207]Equal spread of objectives, yes please.
- Give C4 to soldier
- Some hack objectives for recon, no idea why Waterloo 2nd obj was changed to anyone
- Even some human escort missions for medic, a little less loved perhaps, but one or two in the whole game wouldn’t hurt[/QUOTE]
Oh yeah I was forgetting Medics…why not them also …doing some Med stuff …in hospital could be defrib someone important ,unlocking hospital doors, retriving files from hospital PC…etc…
I do miss the diversity of objective types when all classes were able to do something. I’d really like side objectives back as well.
Imagine if the data core parts had one or two entrances, others having to be hacked open. That would be much more fun than the current lemming rush.
Personally I really liked the counter response classing for things.
Engie builds command post, covie destroys it… while the other enemy engie acts as the slower secondary option
Engie drops mines… covie spots, engie can desfuse.
The best of multiple options … that’s pretty much what tactical means. And this is a tactical shooter.
Right now I don’t think we’re seeing anything more than absolute core abilities in terms of dominant objective mechanics.
ie, build, destroy, heal, steal. Right now even forward spawn is an engie task. If anything the engie has too much non-combat work to perform… almost seems like it’s the weak kid that wasn’t fit enough to play with the rest of the kids so they put it as goalie (soccer reference).
I like multible objectives for multible classes, I used to jump from class to class in ETQW as the objective changed. It helps build a more rounded player. They know to play all of the other class skills that way. So when you get half your team all sniping because they don’t want to switch(ETQW problem) one of your medics, or soldier can change class and step in and do a engie objective. I think the c4 should be moved to the soldier class, soldiers destroy stuff engies build it. It would make the soldier class more Relevant. I am not a killing machine never have been never will be cant’t hit **** but I used to play every class in ETQW now I only play 3 engie, medic and fops.
[QUOTE=Bloodbite;427296]Personally I really liked the counter response classing for things.
Engie builds command post, covie destroys it… while the other enemy engie acts as the slower secondary option
Engie drops mines… covie spots, engie can desfuse.
The best of multiple options … that’s pretty much what tactical means. And this is a tactical shooter.
Right now I don’t think we’re seeing anything more than absolute core abilities in terms of dominant objective mechanics.
ie, build, destroy, heal, steal. Right now even forward spawn is an engie task. If anything the engie has too much non-combat work to perform… almost seems like it’s the weak kid that wasn’t fit enough to play with the rest of the kids so they put it as goalie (soccer reference).[/QUOTE]
Definitely! These things are very important. But we´re talking main objectives here.
Personally I think the forward spawns are the field ops duty. After all he´s the guy that should be concerned with logistics. Then disabling them can be coverts and reinforcing them can be engineer.
Med & FldOps have always been support classes but I think there is scope for objectives for them -
Med: remove contamination from an area. We have pumps but why not have med produce an antidote to bypass an objective? Progress bar style like waterloo hack objective. They could project an ‘aura’ (anti-rad spray) which protects teammates within a certain radius in contaminated areas (ability like medpacks) for side objectives, as a functional equivalent of a covert hacking an enemy door in W:ET / QW to give a temporary alternate route.
FldOps: Build an ammo supply station which can be destroyed by the enemy (covert satchel charge please ;)). Ammo only usable by team perhaps. Program and target a fixed artillery gun objective which can be used as an area of denial. Again, can be destroyed by enemy or could be a main objective.