Soldier plant?

(attack) #1

i dont know it is a wise idea to let the soldier plant. right know i find it little bit confusing that soldier plants but engi defuse.
there are some problems i see . in maps like LB there is one more person to bring alive to the objective, this can do parts like barrier even harder.
this would be have also negative consequenses in 3o3 or games with less people.
i dont see a way how attackers can keep 2 alive for one obj.
finally i would say the soldier should be only for heavie weapons and dmg ,why should the class who have to plant the weapons which can do the most dmg?

(Rex) #2

[QUOTE=attack;447978]i dont know it is a wise idea to let the soldier plant. right know i find it little bit confusing that soldier plants but engi defuse.
there are some problems i see . in maps like LB there is one more person to bring alive to the objective, this can do parts like barrier even harder.
this would be have also negative consequenses in 3o3 or games with less people.
i dont see a way how attackers can keep 2 alive for one obj.
finally i would say the soldier should be only for heavie weapons and dmg ,why should the class who have to plant the weapons which can do the most dmg?[/QUOTE]

I don’t find it confusing at all. 3on3 or games with less people don’t happen and the game isn’t designed for such a low player count.
The thing is if you don’t spread the tasks to the classes, the soldier won’t be used especially not for comp play. As the medic would be much stronger in this regard.

(attack) #3

well 3o3 was in et always popular and much played even in cups , at the end it was more played than 5o5 in funwars, there are no vehicles in the game and the maps arent that big that makes 3o3 possible.(whitechapel feels more like 3o3 thna 5o5 as example).

The soldier was always played in et not the whole time but he was the guy with the mg who deal heavy dmg or spawnkills with the panza

(Rex) #4

Yeah I know in ET, but not in DB. Especially not on pub. :wink:

MG doesn’t really count, panza was the only reason and that also just for 1 spawn sometimes.

(rand0m) #5

I agree. Engie should continue to be the guy to plant and the soldier should be the guy laying down damage. Only makes sense.

(chippy) #6

But then we’re back at a single class doing 90% of the objectives.

(attack) #7

myabe let only one class transmit . would maybe be nicer than soldier plant

(rand0m) #8

So. Don’t spawn with full ammo, makes field ops useable from the start. Field ops air strikes are utilized to clear out areas (needs fixing). Get rid of the stupid health regen to make medics useful. Fix spawn times to make reviving useful and not just tapping to spawn instantly. There. Now all the classes are needed. Soldier should be used for damage, and damage only thats his objective. Covert ops to snipe and to take out enemies at range, that’s his objective. The fact that 90% of the objectives will be done by the engie is moot. His job is to do the planting and defusing. So whats the engies job on offense then if they cant defuse anything? They are basically useless on offense but to sit ass on the ev and fix it. Make it so all the classes are needed. But alas the game is dumbed down for today’s gamers and console gamers.

(Rex) #9

That’s the thing.

And all who want to see only one class doing all the objectives, also only say this because they were used to it in ET/RTCW. In QW there were 3 objective classes and with the amount of side objectives, it only enhanced the tactical depth. Why don’t you give it a try at least?
Furthermore I haven’t heard a proper argument against it yet, why it would be bad.

(Jamieson) #10

I’m curious to know whether the people asking for engineer to plant come from ET and the ones asking for soldier to plant come from ETQW, because I played both as well as Brink and in my experience it worked best when the soldier had to plant, otherwise there was no other reason to be a soldier except for the heavy weapons which a lot of the time were restricted anyway.

(Mustang) #11

Each class should have an objective.

Soldier is finely suited as demo expert.

(Kendle) #12

I like the idea of having a class who “makes stuff” and a class who “breaks stuff”, and I don’t come from ET:QW.

The problem at the moment is there’s not a lot to make or break. I’d like to see more constructible objects, like ramps / ladders / scaffolding to get over barriers or gain access to other routes, which the Engie builds and the defending team’s Soldier can destroy. At the moment there’s little need for the defending team to have a Soldier, or for the attacking team to have an Engie if there’s no EV or anything to construct.

(Kl3ppy) #13

[QUOTE=Kendle;448040]I like the idea of having a class who “makes stuff” and a class who “breaks stuff”, and I don’t come from ET:QW.

The problem at the moment is there’s not a lot to make or break. I’d like to see more constructible objects, like ramps / ladders / scaffolding to get over barriers or gain access to other routes, which the Engie builds and the defending team’s Soldier can destroy. At the moment there’s little need for the defending team to have a Soldier, or for the attacking team to have an Engie if there’s no EV or anything to construct.[/QUOTE]

+1

Right now it is useless to have the soldier the c4. It feels like we need the class somehow integrated. But as soon as side objectives are introduced to the maps, e.g. blow up a door, or construct an obstacle etc, the soldier breaks things and the engie makes things. Lets hope that some side objectives will get introduced. Maybe Anti can say something about this.

(pulley) #14

[QUOTE=Shifty.;448041]+1

Right now it is useless to have the soldier the c4. It feels like we need the class somehow integrated. But as soon as side objectives are introduced to the maps, e.g. blow up a door, or construct an obstacle etc, the soldier breaks things and the engie makes things. Lets hope that some side objectives will get introduced. Maybe Anti can say something about this.[/QUOTE]

+1

it feels ok how it is now

(scre4m.) #15

[QUOTE=Kendle;448040]I like the idea of having a class who “makes stuff” and a class who “breaks stuff”, and I don’t come from ET:QW.
[/QUOTE]

just this.

Anyway I could imagine to make some side-objectives be done by more classes. Like Whitechapel last objective. That sniper platform can be unlocked by an engi ( or is it hackable by now… dont remember) anyway, why shouldn’t a soldier be able to blow this door up with a C4?

If we have more important (side-) objectives that can be completed by multiple ways, we can generate more tatical depth. So if I decide to hack with PDA I have 1 person standing still not being able to shoot and others need to push towards enemy spawn to protect the hacker, or will I go for a C4-plant. This would take longer, but I can fall back into more easy to hold defensive positions and the objective guy is not exposed to danger that long.

(tokamak) #16

[QUOTE=Rex;448000]That’s the thing.

And all who want to see only one class doing all the objectives, also only say this because they were used to it in ET/RTCW. In QW there were 3 objective classes and with the amount of side objectives, it only enhanced the tactical depth. Why don’t you give it a try at least?
Furthermore I haven’t heard a proper argument against it yet, why it would be bad.[/QUOTE]

The argument for a single objective class is that it deepens the class roles. You can start balancing all the classes on their respective role without having to worry about the objectives themselves. IE, if the engineer is the objective guy then all his skills can (and should) revolve directly about getting the objective done (or preventing the objective from being done).

The reason this is important is because objective mode involves only one team doing the objectives while both teams using the same classes which need to be equally valid for defending or attacking.

If multiple classes have objectives, like the way it is now, then they also need to be balanced around it. Suddenly an assault class in a juggernaught suit becomes unfeasible to balance right because it would mean a free pass to any destruction objective (either that or the suit would need to be nerfed to the point of barely making a difference). You also can’t give it to the engineer either because then it would be a free pass to any construction objective. However, if only the engineer is responsible for both objectives, then you can give other classes all kinds of other fun stuff that don’t interfere with the task of completing objectives.

That’s why I disagree with the soldier having the destruction objective right now. In the end it only lowers the potential for diversity in all the different characters. There’s less possibilities because now you need to take objectives into account with two classes rather than one. It’s limiting. And it will be even more limiting if more classes start having objectives like this. The stealth ability of a covert ops and his ability to hack objectives for example, that’s a whole new can of worms. If he didn’t have objectives then you can suddenly increase the performance of his stealth ability because it wouldn’t break the overall attacker/defender balance as much.

In the end it would be best if every class could have it’s role described with one word. If that happens then all the abilities can be balanced around that and no compromises have to be made between multiple roles.

(RasteRayzeR) #17

I find it nice to have a change … the soldier gets a purpose as demo man, and it forces teams to play with multiple classes. I hate teams with only medics or only engineers like there was in EW:QW

(scre4m.) #18

In case you mean etqw, this never happened. Unless you were on a server with insane ppl…

(Kl3ppy) #19

About the medics he’s right, but a engi only team would be, as you said, just a tactic by insane ppl. Even we at biAtch play the standard medic “only” line up :smiley:

(attack) #20

im still against soldier planting ,but if soldier plants than he should maybe defuse too