Leech info by posting questions here.

(Gringo) #41

This is an excellent feature imo, i take my hat off to the idea man behind it.

(Flesh) #42

But doesnt that mean that the defending team soldiers wont make any use of their spec abilities?
And at the same time the defending engineeres, already busy with repairing, placing turrets and planting mines, will have to worry about disarming explosives as well?

(M8DNanite) #43

Does this also mean that if you plant in wrong place you cant defuse your own explosives?
Propably not when i red the text more carefully.

(Earlydawn) #44

What’s the story on vehicles, as far as the commander position goes? Is that still in? Do you actually designate targets, or is it basically just a roof machine gun control position?

(Ifurita) #45

Wouldn’t they have enough on their hands trying to kill attackers?

And at the same time the defending engineeres, already busy with repairing, placing turrets and planting mines, will have to worry about disarming explosives as well?

I think it’s a good thing that you want your primary defensive ‘things’ person spread out. It makes for good resource constraining and prevents bottlenecking.

(Earlydawn) #46

What is the cook time on the H.E. soldier charges, anyhoo? Is it actually practical to call in an engineer to disarm a charge if one isn’t on hand?

(Flesh) #47

What I tried to say was: it seems like an unnecessary complication and also kinda unfair to take away an assingment from the soldier, who now doesn’t have any noncombat tasks when defending, and give it to engineere who already has (too)much stuff to do (repairing, takeing care of deployables and mines- all this, unlike ET, on large maps where traveling takes up a lot of his time).

(signofzeta) #48

In Wolf ET, I deemed the soldier class the most useless class of all. All he had were heavy weapons that do nothing but kill so many people, and does not help with the objective. A field ops can also kill many people AND give out ammo. How cool is that.

At least the soldiers in quake wars is one step up from being useless.

(Earlydawn) #49

Depended largely on the soldier. If he was actually a team player, they had an irreplaceable function. A good, supported MGer could totally dominate a particular area of gameplay.

I know they’ve taken out the ability for the soldier to deploy his weapon for others to use, but I think it’d be nice if they still had “mount points”… places where they could deploy their weapon for much greater accuracy. It’d give them a defensive job, as well as making them important for area control.

(Ifurita) #50

What! how is killing people not helping with the objective. A good soldier in ET breaks up attacks, gibs people to prevent revives, and locks down key avenues of attack. Far from useless IMO

(signofzeta) #51

What! how is killing people not helping with the objective. A good soldier in ET breaks up attacks, gibs people to prevent revives, and locks down key avenues of attack. Far from useless IMO[/quote]

I never said the soldier class is useless, I said the soldier class is useless in comparison to others. Basically if the whole team has no soldiers, the team has almost the same chance of winning as a team with soldiers. A coordinated team of SMG guys = soldier with mg42.

Now that in ETQW, the soldier gets to do something which is a step up.

(jjpron) #52

TERIFFIC idea about spreading up the dyno responsibilities.
As an engie I never felt good enough to be in the “thick of it” trying to lay dyno while 20 axis are shooting at me. I see myself as more of a support engie. This way I can happily run around the map doing all the objectives without having to worry about being a hero and laying the dyno around.

And now the panzer noobs get some responsibilities too.

(kamikazee) #53

Yep, killing is a part of the objective, but we must face the sad truth that most classes are just more effective when you compare durabilty versus damage done.

(kamikazee) #54

Get it in their thick skulls first how they should use it. Maybe they won’t know what it is and use up their dyno’s like it were mines.

(EnderWiggin.DA.) #55

Does anyone else think the QW engineer’s responsibilities are very similar to the Team Fortress engineer’s responsibilities? When I read the QW’s engie class description, I felt like this would be a defensive class with the exception of being “arty” bait while constructing. For the GDF engie, the ET website specifically says “the engineer is a support/defense class.” The shotgun doesn’t really give me warm fuzzies about anything other than close combat. The Strogg constructor class seems like it could be a little more offensive. I guess I’ll have to be a soldier to drop the dyno now.

(signofzeta) #56

Another thing that is bothering me.

You know those mission objectives with the medic must revive this guy, field ops deploy something etc etc.

I might be afraid that some new players cannot think independently and ALL medics tries to revive the same guy. Or ALL covert ops try to do the same stuff while only a few should be doing the objective and the others provide sniper cover.

(Flesh) #57

Another thing that bothers me about the engineere is that it seems he doesnt have any attack roles. All he is supposed to do is camp the base with his shotgun setting up turrets and planting mines. In ET besides setting up the defenses engys had to plant the dyno so they were a crucial component in the offensive. What is a QW engy supposed to do when his team is attacking?

(signofzeta) #58

then engies are totally my class. Since I have a lame kill to death ratio anyway. AKA I get killed all the time.

(kamikazee) #59

Defuse stuff? Like the way engies were the only class to defuse a satchel charge.

(Flesh) #60

Defuse stuff? Like the way engies were the only class to defuse a satchel charge.[/quote]

Isnt defusing a defense role? I meat to ask what will they do when attacking apart from fixing vehicles?