why?
+chars
Soldier plant?
meat
(meat)
#22
I only go soldier if their is a objective that needs c4. It is a pain in the butt being the only attacker engie on LB and you have no soldier to blow the barricades. I find myself having to switch classes to blow the barricade and then have to switch back to engie to support the EV all the time. This happens a lot. I will mention that we have no soldier to plant and sometimes someone steps ups and does it, but not always.
Having the engie planting c4 made it a lot easier to win on LB. But I also see the need for a ability like planting c4 needed for a soldier, it does give players a reason to play that class, but for some reason they still don’t on LB.
One solution would be making side objectives for soldiers to destroy, like doors, and walls that could be destroyed by c4. The side objectives could be used to open up alternate routes for your team. Building obstacle objectives for engies that block routes of the other team would be good also, making it possible for more objectives that can be destroyed by soldiers C4.
One spot that would work well on LB would be a security gate on the side ally that leads to the right hand side of the first barrier. Have a gate blocking the ally, and make the soldier blow it to open up the right hand route. No soldier and your are forced to go up the main street or use the left hand building route.
pulley
(pulley)
#23
if you only play a 3on3 or 4on4 it can really be hard on london bridge or at public when n1 wants to switch.
maybe we could just reduce it to 4 classes. Sniper and Soldier should be the same. As a class for the big support action… Heavy Weapons, more Health but then they should be restricted to 1 or 2 per team.
meat
(meat)
#24
[QUOTE=pulley;448109]if you only play a 3on3 or 4on4 it can really be hard on london bridge or at public when n1 wants to switch.
maybe we could just reduce it to 4 classes. Sniper and Soldier should be the same. As a class for the big support action… Heavy Weapons, more Health but then they should be restricted to 1 or 2 per team.[/QUOTE]
another solution would be making it possible for soldiers and engies to both plant C4
chippy
(chippy)
#26
I’d say, a soldier can plant the C4, but the engineer can only keep on charge it.
Scenario: Soldier goes for the plant, engineer sets a turret up to protect, soldier get the plant to 50% then gets killed, engineer rushes over to finish it.
Although I do get that this could possibly make it really confusing to newer players to begin with.
attack
(attack)
#27
[QUOTE=meat;448106]
One solution would be making side objectives for soldiers to destroy, like doors, and walls that could be destroyed by c4. The side objectives could be used to open up alternate routes for your team. Building obstacle objectives for engies that block routes of the other team would be good also, making it possible for more objectives that can be destroyed by soldiers C4.
One spot that would work well on LB would be a security gate on the side ally that leads to the right hand side of the first barrier. Have a gate blocking the ally, and make the soldier blow it to open up the right hand route. No soldier and your are forced to go up the main street or use the left hand building route.[/QUOTE]
why not bring the sachel back like in et covert had. can destroy constrctions but cant plant .would atleast give the covert /soldier more offense use
attack
(attack)
#28
[QUOTE=Shifty.;448105]why?
+chars[/QUOTE]
because if hes the guy who plants why should he not be the guy who defuse. its more logical and it would be more fair otherwise the attackers have to use soldier the defenders not.
Jamieson
(Jamieson)
#29
Making it so both Engineers and Soldiers can plant is a bad idea IMO because the ratio to classes who can plant to those who can disarm is 2:1 not 1:1, and that’s simply not fair; you’ll end up with attacking teams benefiting from the added firepower soldiers bring, while the defense has to pool all their resources towards its engineers to cope with the attack.
rapid_shot
(rapid_shot)
#30
The classes are called “support” classes because they’re only objective is to “support” the ones doing the written objective. Just because they’re objective isn’t on the list doesn’t mean they’re doing the objective any less.
+1 engi getting c4 back
prophett
(prophett)
#31
I would rather have the engineer plant as well, with the soldier class being more of a specialist class who’s main objective is to support/do damage.
Rex
(Rex)
#32
Because “its more logical” - is not really a convincing argument.
Who called the soldier support?
tokamak
(tokamak)
#33
[QUOTE=rapid_shot;448296]The classes are called “support” classes because they’re only objective is to “support” the ones doing the written objective. Just because they’re objective isn’t on the list doesn’t mean they’re doing the objective any less.
+1 engi getting c4 back[/QUOTE]
Semantics. Of course everything revolves around the objective but whether that’s directly or indirectly makes a world of difference when balancing the class roles.
rapid_shot
(rapid_shot)
#34
Big guy with heavy weapons with a lot of ammo and extra health to tank says its a support class.
Look at 1 v 1 objective (which is very important since getting more people to play requires starting at 1 v 1) with a soldier planting and an engi defusing. That’s not balanced if their skill level is the same. If you say it is balanced, I know you’re lying to either yourself or me. Even for non 1 v 1, if there is a wall to blow, the engi is going to stay near the wall to defuse and the soldier will go to the wall to plant. Then you get a solder vs. engi again and it tilts heavily in the soldiers favor. If you want to balance the class rolls, add more objectives like the forward spawn in waterloo (though preferably not in the middle of the courtyard action), or something else for the sniper to do like hacking the panel to open the doors in waterloo (ie: making hacking sniper only and cut down on the time it takes to open the doors).
If that wasn’t enough, it makes sense that the engi would put down c4 since its, you know, an engineer! 
murka
(murka)
#35
Wow, long since been begging for anything asymmetrical and yet again people just want ye olde red vs blue.
Honestly wish you brought more gameplay related examples rather than theorycrafting. Soldier is a pretty decent killing machine so no way a support class. Comparing 1v1 in objective isn’t right. It’s a team game, defenders must clear the area first, then defuse. Honestly i find soldier weaker in close combat against engi.
Doesn’t make sense in any way to give engi the c4. Lets just rename the class to “objective” while we’re at it.
Nail
(Nail)
#36
in W:ET we didn’t call engi “objective class”, but it’s why I played engi
1 vs 1 is a moot point, this game can’t be played that way, I think soldier or fops plant, engi difuse/hack is good
tokamak
(tokamak)
#37
If asymmetry is reached by smudging the roles of the individual classes then I´ll pass.
I made a case for role distinction on the last page. It´s not about fairness or balance or whatever, it´s about the potential for each class to have unique characters. Once you start dispersing the roles over multiple classes you reduce the freedom you give yourself in the way you can diversify them. Rather than one role you need to account for you would need to account for multiple roles and that´s when you start putting limitations on the abilities of each class.
The only reason why you´d want multiple classes doing objectives is to diversify the amount of objectives. You get to have hacking and construction and destruction and whatever. But I see no reason why an engineer can´t do all the main objectives so that point is moot. Engineers could do the hacking, the destruction and the construction. If you throw all the main objective roles on his class then you free up the other classes for doing more unique and profound tasks without being hampered by balance.
Right now it feels like a core principle in gameplay design is being neglected for the sake of a superficial ad-hoc fix on the assault class. The assault class should be made relevant by enhancing it’s ASSAULT role not by making him a necessary objective class because that role was already covered.
Do you guys understand this? It’s thermodynamics applied to gameplay fidelity. Once it’s out you can’t put it back in the box. Once you start destroying this structure you won’t get it back again. Any new characters conceived will be constrained by their objective role. There’s no going back from that once the soldier is cannibalising a piece of gameplay that already existed rather than bringing an entirely new field of countless new roles to the table. It’s not only a waste, it also detracts from what DB previously was.
murka
(murka)
#38
Although i haven’t got time to play the game enough, i see no issues with soldier plant and engi defuse. Probably short spawntimes make it difficult to defuse, but nothing tied to the class roles.
A key reason why objectives should be spread out on classes is that it adds another layer of tactics. Shall our team get the next obj class earlier and already start going there or shall he defend while we do this objective? It’s always a gamble and usually pays off good as seen in some etqw matches.
You do realize that the game mostly boils down to 4medic+obj class in a 5v5 scenario. Maybe more of obj class depending on tactics, but rarely other classes. So if engi does all the obj, we now have 3 rarely used classes.
I’d more likely hear real game examples. Really see no issues with soldier planting right now. Does he die too much? Does he have the upper hand in defending the plant?
tokamak
(tokamak)
#39
You’re only commenting on the short-therm gain of having a quick fix. You’re not taking into account the bigger picture of all classes needing a distinct role in order to develop specialised characters on them.
The game boils down to medics+objective because SD struggles with carving out distinct roles for the other classes. The medic and the engineer where the only two classes with clearly defined and relevant roles (and even the engineer lost that status). If you make a soldier an objective class then you’re STILL left with medics+objective classes. You aren’t actually making the other roles (assault/logistics/recognition) relevant by giving the soldier an objective. It’s just a damp squib.