How do you make the engineer offensively viable?

(tokamak) #21

Yes I like being the support guy.

(Dormamu) #22

Give him a deployable ladder (provides shortcuts, open the higher ground for the CvOps/FdOps)
Give him C4 to blow up walls, doors, to open new routes to the obj or to use the debris from the explosion to block some doors/routes.
Give him the ability to convert fallen enemy to spawn host :smiley:
Flamethrower :smiley:

(Rex) #23

The question is if the engi needs to be offensively viable at all?

(Evil-Doer) #24

Very valid point.

(1-800-NOTHING) #25

it’s boring playing as a class/character that doesn’t have a decent chance in most combat situations.

etqw didn’t have this problem for engineers, since they could use the same AR/Lacerator +grenades as everyone else (except covie/infiltrator).

proxy primary weapon = fragger secondary weapon.
hardy primary weapon = conker secondary weapon.
that strikes me as being kinda unbalanced, especially when also considering the range of the MGs.

(Volcano) #26

he was the poor soul who does all the work, whether it be repairing the the tank and escorting it, building/rebuilding the cp, blowing the **** out of walls and barricades. so as long as his rifle and pistol have been balanced and the player is skilled enough to use them we don’t need to go any further than that

(RasteRayzeR) #27

+1 for this

(k1ruaa) #29

If you think the engie isn’t offensive enough, maybe all he need is a slight buff on his smg, to allow him to make as much damage as a field would do. An other alternative could be a regeneration buff as he often needs to be in critical positions.

I think that would do it.

(pulley) #30

[QUOTE=k1ruaa;463953]If you think the engie isn’t offensive enough, maybe all he need is a slight buff on his smg, to allow him to make as much damage as a field would do. An other alternative could be a regeneration buff as he often needs to be in critical positions.

I think that would do it.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, making him a FieldOp without Ammo could work out fine!

(Violator) #31

I have no problem with t-rat’s primary currently, conker’s on the other hand has been nerfed to a nerfgun :(.

(Jonny_Hex) #32

We’re changing out Fragger’s and Conker’s secondaries for something less IMBA.

(montheponies) #33

yep, which is why I reckon the medic, field op and engineer should all be relatively level in terms of primary weapon stopping power. The recon is the recon…the soldier is at the moment a fairly decent stopper, so leave him as is.

I’d give the engineer four grenades - that’s half what he had in RTCW.

(Anti) #34

[QUOTE=RasteRayzeR;463822]I’m playing offensive engi with Proxi. Basically I just move to the front line, drop a well placed mine and go as a bait to force enemies to follow me and step on my mine, finish them with the shotgun if needed.I guess we could call that “forwarded defense”. For close quarters, the shotgun is great. You can also plant mines at the exit of enemies’spawns or critical routes. As an engi I harass if I’m on offense so that others can get the objectives done.

And the turret is great for offense since it can replace one or two of your mates to cover you on an objective. In the end every defensive mechanism can be used as en offensive mechanism to cover your team and help them progress.

Right now I love playing the engineer class a lot, except for the “everyone can disarm thing”, which removes the strategic purpose of this honorable class.[/QUOTE]

I play Proxy a lot and take the same approach as you do with ‘defensive’ characters on offensive. I pick a good location to go and hold for the attacking team and make it my own, denying it to the attackers or slowing them down long enough that the team can push the objective.

For example on Camden first objective I will push the MG room and once we have it will use my mine and the MG to deny that side of the map to the enemy. I find this is really effective but the character’s still retain their ‘defensive’ role and play style.

(RasteRayzeR) #35

[QUOTE=Anti;463995]I play Proxy a lot and take the same approach as you do with ‘defensive’ characters on offensive. I pick a good location to go and hold for the attacking team and make it my own, denying it to the attackers or slowing them down long enough that the team can push the objective.

For example on Camden first objective I will push the MG room and once we have it will use my mine and the MG to deny that side of the map to the enemy. I find this is really effective but the character’s still retain their ‘defensive’ role and play style.[/QUOTE]

There’s a reason why I’m called a landmine addict xD

(acutepuppy) #36

I brushed on engineer ability in the special abilities thread.

(1-800-NOTHING) #37

cool. maybe they can get the same secondary weapons as hardy and nader? that’d be awesome. :D:eek::cool:

(Raviolay) #38

Class :smiley: have some rep!

Yes you are it is far more important to cater for different playstyles, than making teamwork essential via the mechanics of the game. Thus by proxy making a better game for those who will bother to play it longer than 5 mins, and not spend anything in the store.

(1-800-NOTHING) #39

yeah, you’re right. giving engineers decent weapons makes them invulnerable while disarming.

(Volcano) #40

thats what his team is there for

(tokamak) #41

Sure but at least that ability is directly tied to completing the objective. That’s what engineer offensive abilities should be about.

You’re making some leaps here:

  • Greater diversity among a particular class does not mean a gain in diversity in playstyles.
  • If the classes have distinct roles then each class needs to have it’s characters with abilities that follow the roles.
  • If this doesn’t happen, then you end up having classes overlap in roles which makes the playstyles diffuse which will be a net loss in diverse playstyles.

Therefore I say, make the engineer the star of objectives. Give him everything that would help complete OR statically defend the objectives. However, leave the offensive abilities out of it because that is clearly a role meant for other classes. If the engineer starts transgressing that then you’re watering down the class distinction.

So by that, you still got all the explaining to do. Simply saying ‘by proxy it makes it a better game’ is bypassing the actual argument which you no doubt have.

I think distinct roles is what is going to save DB’s gameplay. DB has an unique opportunity here in that it can even push the classes even further than SD’s past games. So let’s not squander that by saying that there needs to be more diversity of playstyles within the class. The class IS the playstyle. If you know any playstyle that the current five classes don’t cover then that’s deserving of a new class and an award for innovative game development.