Soldier plant?

[attack]

give soldier more life would give him more use or do his mg more powerfull,rigt now in close combat i like his mp but the mg could need some work also he have a flash nade so he should be the number one class for kill.
hmm field ops arty could do more dmg to ev but that is a other point
field can be needed in offence to . as example arty on plant …
also the attackers need an advantage or should it result in double fullhold like in brink.
and yes this was what the threat was about.

[Kl3ppy]

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

Yes ofc. I’m a fan of competition, but I also like to play pub games. I just have the fear, that the game will split up in 2 modes, pub vs comp and comp vs pub as we have/had it in ETQW and thats bad. I want a game which is so balanced with all the features that you can play competition from the vanilla game, maybe add some rules restricting certain abilities/guns but there should be no mod just for competition which alters the game too much from the vanilla game.

[QUOTE=attack;449230]
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)[/QUOTE]

Well you cant jump in ETQW and think you know all. It has a high learning curve and in the beginning you may feel lost but thats not due to the abilities. The abilities DB has right now are much more than ETQW had at release. It was the things you can do, huge maps, side objectives asymetrical classes etc

[tokamak]

Using the Fops and his effectiveness against the EV in this discussion is nonsense. The EV is a ‘soft’ objective. Everyone can counter it and there’s bound to be more tools in stopping it in the pipeline.

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?

This obsession with balancing around everything about 1v1 duels makes a lot of cool ideas completely impossible.

[Kendle]

Using the Fops and his effectiveness against the EV in this discussion is nonsense. The EV is a ‘soft’ objective. Everyone can counter it and there’s bound to be more tools in stopping it in the pipeline.

You might as well piss on it as shoot it for all the good bullets do, and until there are more tools for stopping it I’ll stick with what we know, thanks.

This obsession with balancing around everything about 1v1 duels makes a lot of cool ideas completely impossible.

I agree, but that’s where we are, you’ll struggle to get agreement for anything that makes the Soldier a better, well, soldier. So I’ll ask again, if you take away the C4 then what?

[warbie]

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

Not at all! It’s filthy, barely food. Yet every now and then I get a massive urge to eat some. And then feel guilty for enjoying it. And then a bit sick. It’s CoD in food form

[montheponies]

[QUOTE=Kendle;449233]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?[/QUOTE]

I dont think it’s theory-crafting when you’ve got at least one good template to work from [RTCW]. Two equally skilled players, one med the other soldier, should result in the soldier winning - unless said med runs away and packs like a mofo…but you get my drift. Essentially why was the soldier played in RTCW?

Competition:

• Sniper
• PF

Pub - above +

• Venom
• Flamer

In essence he was the fun class to play who could be used by folk less skilled in the art of circle strafing.

Honestly I think far too much ‘thought’ has went into the classes to the point where we’ve lost the plot. C4 on the soldier doesnt make him attractive - just necessary.

[Kendle]

Essentially why was the soldier played in RTCW?

Well that’s the thing, he wasn’t really, was he? Soldier was the specialist, used in specific circumstances, and almost always only 1 per team. Medics and Lt’s were the backbone of the team, with the Soldier kind-of supporting them, when really Soldier should be the, well, soldier, and the other classes providing the support.

I applaud SD’s attempt to get the other classes into play. As much as I loved RTCW I don’t want the class mix, in competition or pub, to be ‘x’ Medics plus whatever other class(es) you can’t do without. The class distinctions and loadout system are the 2 big things that DB currently does differently from previous games, and I’d like to help make that work. But it can only work if classes have “something to do” (whether that be objectives or providing a resource for the team) or are distinguished by their combat role.

[Nail]

I thought soldier was getting minigun and molotov, that would make him area denial specialist

[Dormamu]

Also a Grenade launcher and a Panzerfaust. FdOps will get the molotov.
As long as you allow the C4 to be dropped, then armed , and not to be locked in a arming animation anyone can do it, tho the soldier is more useful to protect rather than be protected by others while planting.

[Nail]

fops shouldn’t get molotov, soldier should for reason stated above, fops already has ammo and air or arty strike, might as well give him health pacs as well and then throw in a pair of pliers

[montheponies]

Well that’s the thing, he wasn’t really, was he? Soldier was the specialist, used in specific circumstances, and almost always only 1 per team. Medics and Lt’s were the backbone of the team, with the Soldier kind-of supporting them, when really Soldier should be the, well, soldier, and the other classes providing the support.

I think he was, on pubs he could easily be overplayed, maddies with venoms, flamer, sniper and pf -when all you needed was an engineer to ‘blow the bloody doors off’. which is why most servers would limit the numbers. In competition I’d agree he would be limited to one, mebbe two but then he was always there - dont recall anyone not playing a pf or sniper.

On the ‘medics shouldnt be the backbone’ statement, I’d ask why not? f you look at BF3, medics are the Assault class and soldiers are Support. As it should be - it’s one thing i’d have liked SD to adopt, as it is it feels like by having the medic tag it needs to be some kind of lightweight soldier or TF2 equivalent who just runs helping others.

Basically give the Soldier fun weapons that can do damage, but have long spin up or recharge times so he cant just dominate and all will be well with the world. You could of course go the Wolf09 and give him the ammo, fairly sure someone else mentioned that…but then poor old LT would be left with one less thing to do with his time.

Anyway, I’ll be interested to see the take up of the soldier when he gets the pf/rocket (provided, as mentioned ad nauseam this is a decent amount of impact)…would bet 50p it’ll attract more folk for longer than the current ‘stick’ approach of making him be used for C4.

[Kendle]

On the ‘medics shouldnt be the backbone’ statement, I’d ask why not? f you look at BF3, medics are the Assault class and soldiers are Support. As it should be - it’s one thing i’d have liked SD to adopt, as it is it feels like by having the medic tag it needs to be some kind of lightweight soldier or TF2 equivalent who just runs helping others.

Yeah, I guess there’s something in that. I guess I’m prejudiced in that I used to be an oldskool RTCW Medic, running around behind people picking them up. ET spoiled the Medic class for me by turning it into a frontline assault class (by allowing you to pick up enemy guns and so not need a F/Ops). I’d like to see DB return the Medic to a support role personally, but more than that I’d like all the classes to be viable choices, rather than have everyone automatically pick Medic unless they have a damn good reason not to.

With the multiple load-outs, the load-out limits they’ve imposed, and the distinctly different weapons each class has (although not distinct enough IMO) DB kinda breaks the mould of earlier games in it’s approach to the class system, and I welcome it, and want to help them make it work. Nothing would bore me more than teams of Medics + Engies with the same generic SMG. There’s a reason I stopped playing ET 8 years ago, I don’t want to go back to that.

Basically give the Soldier fun weapons that can do damage, but have long spin up or recharge times so he cant just dominate and all will be well with the world … Anyway, I’ll be interested to see the take up of the soldier when he gets the pf/rocket (provided, as mentioned ad nauseam this is a decent amount of impact)…would bet 50p it’ll attract more folk for longer than the current ‘stick’ approach of making him be used for C4.

I hope you’re right. Maybe when that day comes SD can give C4 back to the Engie.

[tokamak]

The C4 needs to be given back first because right now it’s being used as a crutch to make up for the lack of real purpose in the class.

[RasteRayzeR]

With the badass big guns coming for the soldier, he won’t need C4 anymore xD

[stealth6]

On the ‘medics shouldnt be the backbone’ statement, I’d ask why not? f you look at BF3, medics are the Assault class and soldiers are Support. As it should be - it’s one thing i’d have liked SD to adopt, as it is it feels like by having the medic tag it needs to be some kind of lightweight soldier or TF2 equivalent who just runs helping others.

There is no Soldier class in BF3 as we know it from previous SD titles. Also I think Support is the assault class, it has way more killing power, the only reason I think you view medic as the assault class is because it’s easy. Medic weapons work at most ranges whereas support weapons are harder to control at medium to long distances.

If I’m playing with friends I let the support guys go first though. Medics can’t revive themselves… I prefer the BF system though and have already suggested to remove the soldier class from DB and distribute his abilities to the other classes here: http://forums.warchest.com/showthread.php/33631-Assault-Soldier
But that idea was met with hostility

[tokamak]

That’s another thing. Classes should be balanced laterally. You can’t keep changing one class, then the other, then correct for the other etc.

That’s my main problem with the alpha right now. SD is taking really tiny mouse steps when it comes to changing the classes. It’s such a fundamental part of the gameplay that there’s a real urgency to start taking some big bold steps, deepening all the five classes and getting their distinctive roles right before the content starts expanding. Right now this really cannot be the foundation you wish to build the rest of the game on. It just won’t do.

And maybe I’m being overly demanding here. After All the gunplay is starting to clear up just now. I only mean to stress the urgency of giving priority to the classes as of now due to the enormous path-dependency that follows.

[scre4m1]

Medics can’t revive themselves…

not yet. prefer for the self-reviving medic coming with loadout slot 3.

[montheponies]

There is no Soldier class in BF3 as we know it from previous SD titles. Also I think Support is the assault class, it has way more killing power, the only reason I think you view medic as the assault class is because it’s easy. Medic weapons work at most ranges whereas support weapons are harder to control at medium to long distances.

Sorry, you’re wrong - the Assault class in BF3 is the medic. The Support class is the heavy weapons guy. On top of those you have Recon and Engineer.

[stealth6]

[QUOTE=montheponies;449453]Sorry, you’re wrong - the Assault class in BF3 is the medic. The Support class is the heavy weapons guy. On top of those you have Recon and Engineer.

http://battlefield.wikia.com/wiki/File:Bf3-classes.jpg[/QUOTE]

I thought you meant you play the medic as an “assault class” in other words leading the battle.

[RasteRayzeR]

I catch up now on this thread, but it looks to me that the real question here is about how to define the soldier’s impact on the game. I like the soldier to be able to become a bottleneck for the enemy team, taking the damage and reducing the offense.

Though I believe the soldier could be more than that. Look in every movie, you always get the stupid soldier escorting a specialist, the specialist get shot and the soldier has to finish the mission. I’d like the soldier to be more than disposable heroes. They should have a clear role including objectives other than covering fire or pushing the front line.

C4 is the kind of things a soldier should not have on him : shoot his bag of C4 and there goes the whole squad … too risky. The engi should have the C4 imo. Nevertheless, the soldier should be required for side objectives “soldier-specific”.

The mechanics of the previous titles could be enhanced by having objectives requiring two classes to do them. This could be interesting and create a new dynamic as well as offer definite purposes for soldiers and recons which currently lack impact on the objective part of the game.