Soldier plant?

(Protekt1) #81

I think soldier is fine as is. They have some utility and some straight up power.

I think there may be an argument that they are too good rather than not good enough. 2 long range capable weapons, 2 grenades, and tactical grenades.

(rapid_shot) #82

First of all, giving current game-play examples can all be nullified by the childishly simple “but you suck”, but I’ll give an example anyway. And secondly, though 1v1 is not how the game was intended, you’d be lying if you said the game didn’t come down to 1v1 firefights a majority of the time in the duration of a match. Thus, throwing 1v1, or any size match, out the window saying “It’s not as the game was intended” would be unwise (excluding 1v0 of course).

So I’m an engineer on Waterloo trying to defuse in between the walls (shotgun: 6 rounds). There is a soldier down the hall (MG: 80 rounds). 4 times I jumped over that wall knowing there was someone waiting for me down that hallway and 4 times I died in a perfect example of being outgunned and under armored ( and I say 4 times because there was a defuse from another engineer). Now part of this is the weapon selection and part of it is the abominable auto health regeneration. But even if I had the assault rifle, I doubt it would have made much difference because 80 rounds is a lot and 15% extra health is a lot and very often the difference. And imagine what it will be like when the soldier has the rocket launcher they’ve suggested?

Now this is all assuming one major thing: that the engineer and soldier are present. If there was ever a chance to complete that objective, then the engineer has to defuse what the soldier put down. So they at least both need to be present in the same area roughly within 30 seconds. I know all of this changes with the presence of multiple players. But where both need to be present within a short time-frame, they both should be balanced thus giving engi v engi the best chance at this. This all changes drastically if the soldier does all of the planting and defusing, and I could even consider such a suggestion as a viable solution. However, it seems unanimous that soldier defusing would be unwise.

(tokamak) #83

And there you underlined the exact problem with giving them both objectives. For every other instance it’s preferable that the engineer and soldier aren’t a match for each other. After all, the engineer specialises in indirect damage and the soldier does not. It shouldn’t be a fair fight.

But now they both are responsible for objectives there’s suddenly a need for both of them to be each other’s equals. It’s just the best example of how smearing roles together ruins the way a class can have depth.

(warbie) #84

I strongly disagree with that, as do many others on these forums I suspect. This is just an instance of one class being more powerful than an other and the frustration that comes with it.

(tokamak) #85

A soldier running straight onto a mine or into a turret is also an instance of one class being more powerful than the other.

If you want actual tactical gameplay you’ll have to accept that sometimes you’re king and sometimes you’re not and it’s up to you to seek out the situations where you are and avoid the ones where you’re not.

(warbie) #86

We’ll have to agree to disagree again :slight_smile: To me that isn’t tactical play - it’s just limiting options and fun. Is it ever fun or interesting being outgunned? The things you mention already happen, and in more emergent and interesting ways, in RTCW and ET. This is what I like - not the kind of contrived tactical play TF2 employs.

(Kl3ppy) #87

Getting outgunned is not nice. But there is a simple solution: Make the hitboxes of the soldier bigger -> easier to hit/kill With this tweaks, you can counter him with every class even tho the gun of the soldier is stronger. But im not sure if this is a good solution because I dont have a huge problem killing the soldier. I played as medic, I started the fire fight and after a couple of hits I got into cover, used my medpack and finished him because he wasnt able to regen in this time. Im not sure if this is wanted by SD or I just use this tactic. But on the other hand, the Fops/engie isnt able to heal himself that quickly so these 2 classes have a clear disadvantage vs the soldier.

(tokamak) #88

Being outgunned is incredibly interesting as it means you’ll have to find a way to employ your strength and engage it with their weakest point. That’s what creates a turbulent dynamic of constantly trading blows and trying to find each other’s chinks in the armour. When you’re equals all the time then all that decides the outcome of a match is the tapdancing duels.

Shooting skills should function as a catalyst to your plans. It should decide the extend to which you can work out your plan. However if the plan itself sucks then you deserve to fail, lose and die. Shooting skills shouldn’t be covering up for poor tactics and by keeping all gunfights constantly equal the shooting skills are actually the only thing that matters.

And sure, TF2 is contrived. I’ll completely agree. The strengths and weaknesses of each class are way too obvious and explicit. A shooter needs to be more than simply trying to be a thte right place at the right time. But in turn W:ET and RTCW were much, much more shallow in tactics than ETQW and not just because of the scale. ETQW showed how players could excel in so many other things besides shooting a rifle and still be succesful.

And there’s the catch. If I wanted to play a game where shooting is all that matters I would download QL again and play instagib matches non-stop, because that’s all there is to it.

(attack) #89

well et is still played and was always more played than any of SD games.(any etpro left quakewars after one season)i would say the facts speak for themself which game did it best.

(Kl3ppy) #90

When you come up with this, you have to admit that Battlefield and CoD did best because they generate a huge amount of revenue and money is what counts at the end of the day.

(warbie) #91

And that the best food in the world comes from mcdonald’s.

(attack) #92

well but if a game dies after a year or maybe 2 the game cant be that great and i said from the sd games so dont blame me with cod or bf

(warbie) #93

Actually, I don’t know why I chimed in there because I agree with you, attack :slight_smile:

(attack) #94

thank you :slight_smile:

(Kl3ppy) #95

Depends what do you mean with a game dies after 2 years? Do you mean the comp scene? Pub play? ETQW ist still played, the only real disaster SD had was Brink. But dont forget, ET is f2p, ETQW wasnt.
You need to keep the pub players alive, these guys put money into the game. The comp guys already now scream: we want a mod which reduces the game to what we think is best, this wont generate money for SD

Dont get me wrong, I want a good game too, but I dont want a ET/ETQW clone. And keep in mind, SD needs to make money from ingame features because the game itself doesnt generate any income

(tokamak) #96

ETQW got shafted by Activision from the launch onwards. That’s all.

So the best food in the world does come from Mc Donald’s?

(attack) #97

[QUOTE=Shifty.;449221]Depends what do you mean with a game dies after 2 years? Do you mean the comp scene? Pub play? ETQW ist still played, the only real disaster SD had was Brink. But dont forget, ET is f2p, ETQW wasnt.
You need to keep the pub players alive, these guys put money into the game. The comp guys already now scream: we want a mod which reduces the game to what we think is best, this wont generate money for SD

Dont get me wrong, I want a good game too, but I dont want a ET/ETQW clone. And keep in mind, SD needs to make money from ingame features because the game itself doesnt generate any income[/QUOTE]
i think a game need both, look at quake , cs, lol . i think players want to identify with teams and players. with creating competition you get interest of other players and viewership on streaming sites like twitch.would quake be the same without faces like fatal1ty i dont think so.Or lol without it many Professional streamers and competition.also after playing a game a while the most players look for some sort of competition.so to keep pub alive and keep competion alive too

the think about quakewars is that the players from et after testing etqw all went back to et.i speaked with urtier a little bit about it , but cant remember enough to repeat his arguments.
i also buyed this game some month ago to test it for 10 eur shouldnt take the first qoutation :D.i wouldnt say it is bad but it feels like get a heavy bag on without trained for it.so much different abilities that many players would be disconnected after a half hour.(hope you know hwat i mean)

(ailmanki) #98

my 2 cents
soldier is a dumb guy, he cant handle c4
the game should work in 1vs1, else something went very wrong.

(Kendle) #99

Haven’t read all the replies since I last posted in this thread so I’ll just go with my current thoughts on this.

At the moment we’re discussing Soldier and Engie as if they’re the only 2 “objective” classes, arguing that we should only have 1 (Engie), however you could argue the F/Ops is also an objective class, because he’s the only real counter to the EV.

If we’re going to give C4 back to the Engie then I’d suggest we also need to make the EV invincible on LB, or remove the barriers. At the moment the defending team need both a F/Ops (to damage the EV) and an Engie (to build the barriers and defuse the C4). If the attacking team only needed 1 objective class (Engie) while the defending team need 2, it becomes harder to balance the objective and support classes between the teams.

By comparison on WC each team only needs 1 objective class, Engie to repair the EV, F/Ops to stop it. We could of course add barriers to WC but at the moment the Engie NOT having C4 maintains the balance, and besides do we really want an EV that’s breakable on 1 map but invincible on another?

Also, if we’re going to take C4 away from the Soldier how do we enhance him to the point he’s an attractive class to play (which was the reason for giving him the C4 in the first place). Yes, you can argue giving him C4 was the wrong solution to the problem, but what’s the right solution? I hear a lot of theory-crafting but few if any practical suggestions.

Enhance his combat role? How? This is a FPS, everyone has a combat role, and there are many here who believe no class should be inherently superior to another (in combat). How do you square the Soldier being better (in combat) with the desire to ensure only skill decides the outcome of a fire-fight?

If the Engie can fight, and do objectives, and the Medic can fight, and hand out health, and the F/Ops can fight, and hand out ammo, why play Soldier, who can only fight, and who can only fight “as well as but not better than” anyone else?

(ailmanki) #100

While it was a perma frust for some, everyone plays medic and uses adrenaline in ET, or whatever to his own favour mostly. Yes competition has no adre, but then again, you play medic to get the extra health - and regen.

So why not make a real Rambo class. Give the soldier substantial more health, or even adre (with deteoriating effects when used more then once=), heavy weapons which can do something like supress fire in Battlefield…