Soldier plant?

(rand0m) #61

[QUOTE=montheponies;448899]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…[/QUOTE]

+1 times a million.

(murka) #62

Can anyone bring any current gameplay related reason why engineer should have c4. Right now all i’m seeing is theorycrafting.

(Kl3ppy) #63

But but … :frowning:

(warbie) #64

[QUOTE=montheponies;448899]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…[/QUOTE]

Good post.

(tokamak) #65

There aren’t any current gameplay related reasons because there’s hardly any current gameplay at all. That does in no way validate short-sighted quick-fixes that will heavily compromise the way we can balance forthcoming content.

This really gets my goat. Nothing personal but I’m seeing this line of arguing a lot in societal issues and it frustrates me to no end. Every time someone points at long term negative consequences of the way we run things in the current someone comes along and says “I don’t see the issue, we don’t have any problems right now don’t we?”. It’s so incredibly short-sighted take a moment to step back and see the bigger picture. If you then still find errors in our reasoning then point them out. But to argue against our objection that this simplifies the game because it suits the bare bones simple structure it has now is just lazy.

(Kl3ppy) #66

[QUOTE=tokamak;449008]There aren’t any current gameplay related reasons because there’s hardly any current gameplay at all. That does in no way validate short-sighted quick-fixes that will heavily compromise the way we can balance forthcoming content.

This really gets my goat. Nothing personal but I’m seeing this line of arguing a lot in societal issues and it frustrates me to no end. Every time someone points at long term negative consequences of the way we run things in the current someone comes along and says “I don’t see the issue, we don’t have any problems right now don’t we?”. It’s so incredibly short-sighted take a moment to step back and see the bigger picture. If you then still find errors in our reasoning then point them out. But to argue against our objection that this simplifies the game because it suits the bare bones simple structure it has now is just lazy.[/QUOTE]

What are some longterm problems with having the soldier c4?

(tokamak) #67

I spend quite a lot of words on that in the last few pages.

There’s nothing wrong with giving him C4 or satchels or whatever explosives he can use for secondary objectives. It’s about the main objective role.The objection with making the soldier an objective class is that it encroaches on his combat role. It means that every single new character SD conceives will need to take into account that his abilities will also be used to fulfil main objectives which will put considerable constraints on the power of these abilities.

(warbie) #68

Why take an engineer on detonation objectives? Here comes the soldier and medic train!

There’s only so many essential and fun things you can do in a game like this and the more classes and class variants we spread them over the less fun playing each one becomes. It’s diluting the fun. Look at the medic - it’s always stood out and been the most popular and that’s because it’s the most varied and complete. Shouldn’t the goal be to have all classes as essential and fun and as complete as the medic? Giving the soldier C4 does the first part of this - at the expense of making the engineer less fun - but still doesn’t make it that interesting or complete a class. From a game design point of view I agree with montheponies - we should ditch the Covert Ops class. tbh I’d go further and ditch the Assault/Soldier class too and give the Field Ops the option to take a sniper or panzer as a primary.

(Kl3ppy) #69

So, you basically say that the soldier is a support class and the support he gives is damage? I see the medic, covert and the Fops as a support class. These classes actually support the team/other classes. Engi is for sure an objective class and I think that the soldier should be one too. What does he give to the team, what kind of support? He’s there to just kill people when you remove the c4 from him. But the other classes can kill ppl too.
I consider the soldier as a tank, who can plant under fire and is strong enough to perform a succesfull attack but without support he wont complete the objective.

@ warbie: The engi would make less fun to play because he cant plant c4? He still can deploy mines/turrets, build side objectives, repair ev, disarm c4. This isnt a real argument why the soldier shouldnt have c4.

(tokamak) #70

Incapacitation is a niche that’s hardly fulfilled here. It makes the assault already have an individual edge but the effect ramps up when he can use it in group context. And like I already said, I’m completely open for other views on how the soldier should fulfil his combat role. All I’m saying is that doing the objective shouldn’t be part of it.

I don’t want the objective class to be able to do his job while under fire, I want the combat class to TAKE the fire while the objective class is doing his job. Otherwise the objective class becomes self-sufficient which is basically pulling one more thread out of the intricate teamwork tapestry.

(attack) #71

the assault would be more usefull simply if reload gadgets would recuire a ammo pack , otherwise it would be harder to balance

(tokamak) #72

I hope the minigun character has a temporary ‘unlimited ammo’ mode as his special ability (on cooldown). Like just 12 seconds of spewing bullets without it eating into your ammo resources. The 12 second window is fixed, can’t be turned off, whether or not you chose to shoot in that window is your choice.

It just completely nails down the purpose of suppressive fire in a way that only TF2 has achieved so far.

(attack) #73

i dont know a minigun is good for the gameplay,a minigun could be way to powerfull and slow the game down because of the heavy pressure on the attackers.
and please no unlimited ammo,otherwise it would be spam like hell

(tokamak) #74

A minigun is useful on both sides. Unlike the turret.

(attack) #75

well i see it alredy. minigun with 1 medic hold 5 guys without minigun away . also it will be feel wrong, maybe in tf2 its fun.but this is a other kind of shooter and i see complain over nonskill weapons incoming if it is avaible . well the time will show and im sure i will be right.

(tokamak) #76

Okay if there’s definitely no way a weapon can ever be balanced then we definitely shouldn’t even try it. Ever.

(attack) #77

i wouldnt say not trying something…but why than not creating smth new .a weapon which fit more with the gameplay and wasnt there in any game .i remeber armed and dangerous the shark cannon thats only an extreme example .also i have played tribes ascend and the moment where i stoped playing was when the plasmacannon was out and so much op that it have hurt. tribes definitly have destroyed there game with a floot of op weapons and weapons which at the end have let every class feel like the same, you had to play around 3 years i guess to get 2 of this weapons.i rly wanted to pay in the early stages of tribes but failt at payment methodes , lucky i havent done.i only want to say sometimes is less better ,dont create 100 hundret weapons,balance less weapons is the goal.

btw im sry for my englisch definitly work at this

(tokamak) #78

The shark cannon. How could we have missed it?

(attack) #79

it was only an example for creative weapons.

(Rex) #80

ET players lack of arguments… the only reason is their old habit.