Soldier plant?

(murka) #41

That short term added dynamic is better than the lack of it.

Fighting against the medic+obj class thing is pretty difficult but i rather have it like that. In w:et you had panzerfausts rarely taking out whole teams, snipers doing a nice spree and other spectacular events tied to the class speciality and i really liked that. Tho not as frequently used as medic+obj class, the other classes serve as specialists and have their distinct roles. Even in etqw, a nice rocket, a well placed sniper shot on the defuser, a well placed shield on the defuser, the supportive classes had their distinct roles. And those distinct abilities made watching matches awesome.

So giving all objectives to one class makes all other classes always those special rarely used ones, but giving each class an objective adds more dynamic gameplay, making teams actually switch classes mid-game more than the rare panzerfaust or airstrike.

So

The game boils down to medics+objective because SD struggles with carving out distinct roles for the other classes.

is invalid. See w:et and etqw for example. Even in DB right now, the sniper has maintained its specialist role. We will have to see how the soldier class is with the rocket launcher ability and also the grenade launcher merc.
The game is unfinished, that’s the reason why we don’t have as many roles as in previous games.

(tokamak) #42

Not on the long term. It only makes up for an issue that should be fixed in a different manner while obstructing tons of possibilities for coming features.

This type of laziness is something we’re going to regret later on.

(Kendle) #43

You say this a lot, and I don’t necessarily disagree with you, but I’d like to know what these “unique and profound tasks” are that you think the other classes are going to be doing if they’re not doing the objective.

(tokamak) #44

Well what those roles are going to be is subject to discussion. I can supply my view but the bottomline is that these roles need to be defined better otherwise we indeed keep ending up with medics and the objective guy.

Assault should be about dictating the terms of combat. Fire Support should be about managing the logistics behind the team (forward spawns/supplies/area denial). Covert ops about recognition and sabotage, medic is obvious.

(murka) #45

Is it me or the roles are defined enough or are going to be(rocket launcher ability coming in the future). You use a sniper to clear out enemies from usual advantageous spots which are quite open. A well placed airstrike can wreck the enemy team and give the needed push to finish the objective. A flashbang just before storming in can give you that wee bit of an edge to break a bottleneck. Med+obj will still be 90% of the time, but thats what it should be. An airstrike should be a rare and risky occurrence rather than some spam ability.

Just trying to understand what you’re aiming for, i ask this, were the roles defined enough in W:ET and ETQW?

(tokamak) #46

I believe that a class role should extend beyond a highly situational ability. If that’s all a class has going for then we’re indeed stuck at the medic and the engineer being the only two classes with actually distinct roles. All the rest is just a different flavour of rifle.

(montheponies) #47

I’m repeating myself - but if you have to give the soldier c4 to make someone play him then the class is fundamentally broken. He should be the heavy weapon specialist - in the main this should mean damage dealer/absorber using either HMG or more than likely PF (i’d give thim the sniper rifle and ditch the 5th class, but clearly the covops is hear to stay).

Fixing things and breaking things is the engineers role. Without that he’s only half a class in my opinion. That doesn’t mean he’s the sole ‘objective’ guy - he’ll need support to do the objective and at certain points on a map wont be needed at all (ie. doc running).

Either way I dont think it’s a complete game breaker, but forcing people to play a class just because it is otherwise ignored seems a bit like we’re treating the symptom…

(RasteRayzeR) #48

wait until the soldier gets the minigun or the grenade launcher, this will roxx

(murka) #49

It’s not about giving soldier c4 because it’s underplayed. It’s about adding another layer of skill to the game, actually deciding when to change class opposed to just how much of each. Any class being underplayed at any time is in no way related to soldier or engineer having c4.

(tokamak) #50

It very much IS about giving the assault class an objective because it’s underplayed. There’s a whole video explaining that reasoning to us. It’s utter nonsense, it’s wiping the dust under the carpet.

Changing class simply because a new objective dude is required isn’t skill or tactical depth. It’s only necessary. I

That the assault class is/was underplayed was not the problem. It was the symptom of nobody wanting to play that class. SD then said “Ha! now you HAVE to play the soddin class, eat it suckers!” and that’s where we’re at now.

(Kendle) #51

Sounds fine in theory, and you could even argue it’s already like that to an extent, but the problem comes when those roles are so defined, and necessary, that the team doesn’t function unless those classes are present and being used in their narrowly prescribed way. For example if the role of “logistics guy” is so “profound” but your team’s (logistics guy) is rubbish, or missing, does that break the game?

The more defined a role becomes the less flexible it becomes, and the game then only works within a certain pre-determined set of parameters. To me that is lack of depth, and not a direction I’d like to see the game go.

(tokamak) #52

Why should the medic and the engineer be the only classes to be considered ‘necessary’? A team without adequate field ops should be just as gimped as a team without adequate medics. A game that only revolves around keeping the objective guy alive until he completes the process bar is shallow and uninteresting. It’s what makes ever match feel the same.

The other three classes need to be more than just garnish on top of the bread class and the butter class.

And it goes further than that. Right now people want multiple medics simply because one medic is not capable of holding up an entire team. That’s a concious deciscion otherwise the medic would be even more important compared to the other classes.

However, this only means that the other classes simply aren’t IMPORTANT ENOUGH. The medic could be way more powerful if that means the other classes were necessary in their own way.

We keep everything muddled together. It’s easier to balance when every class is nearly identical to the other. But a game with extreme classes can be just as balanced as one with samish allrounder classes. Sure it’s harder to balance but the gameplay that results from it is much more enticing.

If you start converging different classes on the same role you’re removing the potential to draw these classes to their own extremes. If this happens so early in the balancing process you’re really just shooting yourself in the foot.

I’m pleading to keep this whole development process more open by making the classes more extreme in their performance from the start. It’s so much easier to dial them back a bit afterwards than to constantly having to work with self-imposed limitations.

SD started gimping the class abilities way too soon. Medics got nerfed, now the Operative is getting a hefty swing with the nerf-club by drastically reducing his HB sensing. All because the other classes aren’t up to par yet.

I’d much rather see other classes being boosted to be a match to more powerful medic abilities and more powerful recon abilities. After that you can always try to cut them back, at least then you can do it simultaneously rather than all of the classes suffering from the weakest link as happens now.

Also from the F2P perspective I really don’t see the appeal of having just two strong classes. Why doesn’t SD want to sell the characters in all five class trees equally? If you want an example of a business goal and a gameplay goal being completely aligned then this would be it.

(Kendle) #53

The problem with that is that 50% of the current ET player base are Medics who don’t believe anyone with less skill than them should be allowed to kill them. How do you have a class who’s job is to kick the **** out of everyone, when they’re only allowed to kick the **** out of less skilled players, which presumably they could do as any other class anyway?

(Kendle) #54

The more classes that are necessary the less options you have, the less the game works unless those necessary pieces are in play and competent. It’s about striking a balance between a role playing game that assumes a limited set of parameters are met, and a dynamic first person shooter where individual skill and team-work can make a difference despite the “wrong” guy being the one who makes the difference.

(tokamak) #55

I know you’re trying to go for a compromise but if you’re pulling your reasoning into the extreme then this game could easily suffice with two classes, give the enigneer and medic some different weapon options, delete the rest and be done with it. The sad thing is that there would be enough alpha testers who are up for that.

And ‘necessity’ is a misunderstood concept right now. What I mean is that the other three classes should be much, much more than grunts that do the killing. If they’re all equally necessary then you’re going to feel the hurt if one is missing, but you’re also going to enjoy the cheer decadency that comes with having multiples of another class instead.

If the assault class is excellent at swaying the battle then a team that has less assault guys will lack in that department. However, that means that such a team should be compensated with having superb logistics or recon by having more fops and cvops. The power of the logistics (IE far more efficient spawnrates and locations) and recon (a team with five recons should feel like wall-hacking) should make up for the brute might of the assault class.

DB is far, far removed from that situation and it’s already setting itself not even moving into that direction by these ham-handed decisions. Class abilities are rarely used, they’re completely trivial. Well, except for the medic and engineer.

It’s just painful to see.

(Jamieson) #56

I’m finding it hard to understand what people are so up in arms about. Back in ET I often played as a soldier whether that was for the flamethrower and mortar and less so because of the panzer and MG42, even when they didn’t have any objectives to complete. The same applied to ETQW only the hyperblaster and GPMG were far more effective than the MG42 could ever hope to be, and it was an added bonus to be able to do the objective too.

(tokamak) #57

I guess it’s because they’re seeing a bigger picture. I want DB to be huge. An enormous success that creates an ongoing supply of new content. But for that success to happen and for the new content to be interesting the underlying framework needs to be right and right now SD has taken complacent steps that cripple the game and jeopardise its future potential.

He shouldn’t be the class that gets to kill people. He should be the class that makes it easier for the rest of his team to kill people. Stuff like supressive fire, stopping power, flashbangs, tear gas and all the crowd control stuff should take prevalence over lethality.

And if people hate incapacitating effects then they should leg it whenever they see an assault guy coming around the corner.

(Ruben0s) #58

I would love to see the classes differentiate to the extreme as well. Would make the game more interesting to me. Tokamak’s idea sounds like a cool game to me.

Bleehh :frowning: I can’t give him rep.

(Humate) #59

Combat and Objective roles are defined on skill level, not class. :slight_smile:

(tokamak) #60

Oh look at my capacity to anticipate the direction of discussions like these :smiley:

[QUOTE=tokamak;448919]give the enigneer and medic some different weapon options, delete the rest and be done with it. The sad thing is that there would be enough alpha testers who are up for that.
[/QUOTE]