soldier class is medic in bf3, he got best weapons, so highest manstop effect, no excuse. Support class is just a joke in bf3, inaccurate/ weak weapons, some mg’s are just there to surpress the **** out of you and thats why you get the kills with them. If he cant use C4 he is completely obsolete in this game unfortunately lol.
Classes were better solved even in Bad company 2 or BF2
Well, that’s a bit harsh ^^ I’m just saying that the soldier can be more than just a covering fire class. But now I remember that in ET:QW the soldier had the charges … humpf, this complicates the things since I really enjoyed being a soldier in ET:QW (my main class, with rocket launcher xD)
i was just saying that bf3 classes are the least source to get inspirations^^ well I think it is fine atm. depends on how many objectives will be introduced. But im not a fan that always the soldier is doing the main part, because I like the other classes more than soldier. Soldier main gun can be powerful but it plays not great and his secondary is not really that great either.
As many other stated long time ago that it is just an artificial change to cure a symptom. The soldier has still atm nothing that appeals to me. The real soldier is still Fops in my view. on my watch it should be the other way around. The MG still bothers me big times. You cant be accurate with such a big thing, not gonna happen. I dont want to play always a mg with every soldier char.
atm most of the time I switch to the soldier just for the purpose to plant and then never touch it again. The Soldier is just like Santa coming now and then to bring you some presents.
[QUOTE=Tast1c;449541]soldier class is medic in bf3, he got best weapons, so highest manstop effect, no excuse. Support class is just a joke in bf3, inaccurate/ weak weapons, some mg’s are just there to surpress the **** out of you and thats why you get the kills with them. If he cant use C4 he is completely obsolete in this game unfortunately lol.
Classes were better solved even in Bad company 2 or BF2[/QUOTE]
Sorry that makes no sense. The Support class in bf3 has access to weapons with far more stopping power than the Assualt class. But I don’t want to derail this thread, my point is that in DB you don’t need to make the medic some lightweight nerfed class to balance against the soldier. You simply give the soldier all the fun ‘noob’ weapons.
So we give the assault class more stopping power, even trade it for damage, that way he’ll be equally lethal but he’ll take a much larger role in supporting his team by protecting and increasing their lethality by incapacitating the prey.
The soldier becomes a catalyst in grouped combat while remaining equal to any other class in duels. Ideal.
C4 could possibly only explode when shot with tracer rounds, otherwise its like play-doh.
And imo a “soldier-specific” side objective would be ,for example, breaching side doors. ^^
And bridges and constructions and alarms and whatever, should all be done with a satchel charge which should also be usable for killing.
IE, give the engineer his C4 back, give the soldier satchel charges which should be usable for secondary objectives and killing (like rigging the engineer’s C4 explosives while they tick away).
[QUOTE=tokamak;449663]And bridges and constructions and alarms and whatever, should all be done with a satchel charge which should also be usable for killing.
IE, give the engineer his C4 back, give the soldier satchel charges which should be usable for secondary objectives and killing (like rigging the engineer’s C4 explosives while they tick away).[/QUOTE]
Wasn’t satchel something that was given to the covert ops?
What they really should do for side objectives is make them more open to who completes them. But 1 or 2 classes complete them differently or more effectively. Lets say you have the satchel charge for one class but the other classes can disable them a different way that takes longer (like holding a button, damaging it with gunfire/explosives). This way side objs will be worth going to since you don’t have to spend as much to get there.
Well, you could either blow something up with an announcement “side door has been blown up”, or hack it with covert without an announcement that the side objective has been done.
nice idea, blowup time about 5-15s with a big game-announcement, hacking 15-20s with a quiet opening.
So when you have blown it up with a soldier, the defending team has to go with an engineer and rebuild it, while PDA-hacking could be undone by a CovOps, too.
Class distincion and stuff…
didn´t we already have stuff like that in BRINK?
If i remember correctly, it worked out pretty nice back then.
Oh definitely. Side objectives can be less explicit with different grades of efficiency amongst the classes.
A field ops can turn a neutral forward spawn or ammo crate faster into a friendly forward spawn, an operative can dial back a hostile forward spawn or ammo crate faster to neutral.
A door can be blown up or hacked or opened through disguise. Three different ways of interacting and all three giving a really interesting mind***** mechanic int he game.
Yes, but that’s a WOII setting. There was no hacking going on. In the near-future setting an operative can do a whole lot more and thus the satchel should go to the assault.
Actually, the satchel charge should be a part of the basic inventory of all assault characters. Then the satchel can come in different flavours. Incendiary, smoke, flash, cluster, high explosive.
They all do damage, and they all are applicable to side objectives but the type of satchel charge can then further define the style of the character.
A minigun wielding assault wants a smoke satchel so he can lay down suppresive fire through the smoke. A grenade launcher assault wants a concussion satchel that dazes players and further adds to the lethality and space controlling effect of the grenade launcher. Assault guys with lethal heavy guns want either flash or high explosive weapons to breach and ambush players with etc.
This is the type of stuff you free up by commiting to keeping the class roles clean.
[QUOTE=tokamak;449672]Oh definitely. Side objectives can be less explicit with different grades of efficiency amongst the classes.
A field ops can turn a neutral forward spawn or ammo crate faster into a friendly forward spawn, an operative can dial back a hostile forward spawn or ammo crate faster to neutral.
A door can be blown up or hacked or opened through disguise. Three different ways of interacting and all three giving a really interesting mind***** mechanic int he game.
Yes, but that’s a WOII setting. There was no hacking going on. In the near-future setting an operative can do a whole lot more and thus the satchel should go to the assault.
Actually, the satchel charge should be a part of the basic inventory of all assault characters. Then the satchel can come in different flavours. Incendiary, smoke, flash, cluster, high explosive.
They all do damage, and they all are applicable to side objectives but the type of satchel charge can then further define the style of the character.
A minigun wielding assault wants a smoke satchel so he can lay down suppresive fire through the smoke. A grenade launcher assault wants a concussion satchel that dazes players and further adds to the lethality and space controlling effect of the grenade launcher. Assault guys with lethal heavy guns want either flash or high explosive weapons to breach and ambush players with etc.
This is the type of stuff you free up by commiting to keeping the class roles clean.[/QUOTE]
But assault already has tactical grenades. Having a satchel on top of that seems redundant. I’d also rather keep the soldier with the c4 so engineer is not the only objective focused class. I think splitting it up was a very good idea. Aren’t soldiers also getting a smoke grenade or someone? They already have flash, concussion, and 2 grenades. They really don’t need another consumable explosive/tactical device.
Covert could benefit from some more utility beyond just killing or spotting cause that is pretty much all they can accomplish right now.
Well clearly they do need more **** because people don’t like playing this guy unless the game forces them to. I don’t care how the overkill of combat-toys will balance out but it’s easier to nerf overpowered abilites than to try to make inherently empty abilities roles interesting.
[QUOTE=Protekt1;449679]But assault already has tactical grenades. Having a satchel on top of that seems redundant. I’d also rather keep the soldier with the c4 so engineer is not the only objective focused class. I think splitting it up was a very good idea. Aren’t soldiers also getting a smoke grenade or someone? They already have flash, concussion, and 2 grenades. They really don’t need another consumable explosive/tactical device.
Covert could benefit from some more utility beyond just killing or spotting cause that is pretty much all they can accomplish right now.[/QUOTE]
TBH I love another class having C4. But its just my mind telling me nono - the soldier not.
Maybe give the Covert ops the C4. While as mentioned, give the engineer more stuff to build.
And let engineer even deconstruct the barrier… after all he is a engineer - not that I have any clue how todo this or balance it.
Thinking of this, the current barriers are not really - exploding - and getting destroyed. They are just being disabled.
And a little off topic:
Current plot is, A plants c4, B can defuse it - and sometimes rebuild the target.
A does something which causes B to have 30 sec to prevent it. And it takes A 5? seconds to prepare that.
I only see one option there, have the engineer be very special. A covert ops can make an objective up to 50 percent. Another covert ops can destroy those 50% with his c4. An engi can improve it, and make its quality to 100%. Whereas it needs an enemy engineer to destroy the rest.
And oh wow that idea is really bad. Well I only wrote it down, in the hopes that somebody comes up with something new - mind blowing 