The "Engineer" and "Recon" overlap... (or lack of)

(PixelTwitch) #1

So, as the game is slowly moving from the idea of classes and more into the idea of roles I have a couple of suggestions regarding what was previously known as the “Engineers” and “Recons”. Originally, Recons hacked quick and Engineers repaired quick. Since then the hack objective has been mostly removed. However, I feel there is a possibility for both overlap and separation at the same time here.

I would like to suggest that recons be able to plant and defuse C4 objectives at the same rate as the engineers. However have engineers repair faster and recons once again hack faster. An example of this would be Underground first objective… I would replace the capture objective with 2 terminals in oppersit corners that need to be hacked. This would make recons more desired than they currently are and add a huge dynamic when drafting and matchmaking become a thing.

Now the thing that is likely not going to be liked is the requirement to really add both hack and repair objectives to all maps to force consistency. Here are some of the things I have thought about…

White Chapel.
Hack - Final Objective Bridge
Repair - First Objective Bridge

Victoria
Repair - First Pump
Hack - Camera Station (offices act as mini map sensor)
Repair - Second Objective Pump
Hack - Camera Station (Station, upstairs towards defender stairway)
Hack - Forward Spawn

Underground
Hack - First Objective (2x Terminals)
Repair - First Objective Doors
Hack - Second Objective Door Controls
Repair - Second Objective Pump

Bridge
Hack - First Objective Shutters In Office
Repair - Mid Way Pump
Hack - Final Objective Back Side Doors

Dome
Repair - First Objective Doors
Hack - Forklift Controls
Repair - Final Objective Doors

Trainyard
Hack - First Objective Side Door
Repair - Second Objective Door

This all excludes stuff like repairing MG nests (Maybe?)

(tokamak) #2

In W:ET there Covert’s satchel charge covered this. Took a second or two to blow up side-objectives. What made it especially great is that you could plant the satchel charge and the trigger remotely while you’ve been out of harms way. This made it much harder to find any saboteur and made the whole cat and mouse game between engineers and coverts a very important part of W:ET’s gameplay.

(PixelTwitch) #3

I actually went though a phase of imagining what the game would be like if you had to manually detonate the c4 charges after the timer hit 0…

In theory it would add so many more strats and depth to the game. I just could not think of a easy way to map it to the keyboard. I imagined that if you killed the engineer, they would have to wait to respawn before they could pull the detonation trigger. Alas, I knew that most people here would hate the idea so never voiced it. I still do and always will think its a great concept but I do understand why people would be very much against it. I even thought about failsafes like it can be delayed for max of 15 seconds. However I started thinking about random noob number 104314 who joins and does not realise he needs to do that so costs his team games. And of troll face 656346 who plants waits for team kills. lol

(Sun_Sheng) #4

Without wishing to be pedantic, for the moment could I just ask for clarification on what is a ‘class’ and what is a ‘role’?

My reason for asking is simply that I see someone whose role is an engineer for example, to be the same as someone whose class is an engineer. Same with recon that used to be the class of covert ops in ET. I’m old … I get confused easily :stuck_out_tongue:

(PixelTwitch) #5

Well right now until set terminology is introduced Classes do equal Roles on a definition sense. This is mainly due to the current Mercs in Dirty Bomb mostly following a “Class Structure” rather then “Roles Playstyle”.

I suppose one way to look at it… A “Class” is a template designed with a certain purpose and a “Role” is more dynamic…

Looking at Sawbones, you would say his class is a Medic…
However, he can play multiple roles, such as Support, Rambo, Offensive and Defensive.

Thats fine…
But it really limits future diversity if every Medic needs to have both a revive tool and a heal tool.

The idea is you remove the Medic class completely and replace it with multiple roles…
Healer and Medic for instance… This gives you many more freedoms!

Imagine in future having the Brink styled revive syringe on a Merc.
Now imagine that same Merc having Ammo to give out also…
Obviously he no longer fits into the medic “Class” right?
But without AoE he is not really a FO “Class” either right?
Does this make him any less of a Merc?
Does it make him any less Viable?
What do you class him as?

Well, this is where Roles come in…
He would be simply a “Rambo Support”
You could still play him as a Medic but also as a FO.

MOBAS do this very well really…
Its the main reason they are able to have so many none overlapping heroes.

Right now one of the main things making it so hard to envision with Medics in particular is the lack of revive options.
Once that has been nailed down I think we will see easier diversions from the class structure.
Sparks should go some way towards that diversification.

(Glottis-3D) #6

what scares me the most is that the merc system started with destroying a very good class obj restriction system. and did not brink anything in that area.
ok, go with mercs. but give a game restrictions in object, so that they can become adrenaline-filled.

(Mustang) #7

I would like to see per objective proficiency, where some mercs are better at one objective type and other mercs are better at other ones, the exact way this is achieved I’m not too worried about, but overall I like the premise.

Related: Objective variety coming from more proficiencies

(tokamak) #8

Construction - Sabotage is a good enough as a role distinction for side objectives. Keep that separate from main objectives, even if only for the sake of clarity.

(Glottis-3D) #9

exactly
now we have one big class called mercs and they all do everything. a significent difference in EV repair, other than that it is all mostly the same - several seconds of repair plant defuse.

with 5 types of proficiencies
-repair
-hack
-delivery
-transport
-medical (requires medical pbjects, spawn cryostasis etc)

mercs system can become something deep.
deepness = good.

(tokamak) #10

This is also the biggest thing DB can have over games like Overwatch. Overwatch has no side-objectives and no classes that can be involved with it. If it can get develop that MacGuyver-dimension that the older games were known for then you really got something special going on.

Ironically it’s exactly on this front that Blizzard tries to reclaim it’s old DotA position…

(Glottis-3D) #11

the only very OWN thing by SD is deep objects. lets use this trump-card!!

(Szakalot) #12

Its hard to forget about classes so quickly, but I’ll do my best to move on :tongue:

More objective types, and different proficiencies sound like the way to go, however; it needs to be somehow communicated to the rest of your team. Tokamak had good ideas on giving feedback to the player’s based on their team’s composition:

  • how many ‘constructors’
  • how many dedicated fraggers
  • how many hackers, etc. etc. etc.

All summed up in a nice bar graph, where team can address their weaknesses before they start the match

This could be adapted to such objective proficiencies, where one player is 80/20 one objective type, the other player is 20/80, to give a rough estimate of how the team will play out.

The problem I have with low proficiency is that it can be seen as no proficiency in the current state of the game. That is, planting that takes 5-6seconds, and defusing that takes ~10seconds does not fit in this game. It is just too fast (the game) to expect players sacrifice gametime for ~10seconds to do… anything really.

How can we differentiate between merc’s proficiencies’ while at the same time, keeping everybody’s contribution relevant?

Some ideas:

  • “objective bar” W:ET/QW style, which is used for all objectives, at a different rate based on the player’s proficiency (a non-engy hacky-merc will use his whole bar to defuse only a part of the C4, and has to wait for it to recharge, whereas the same bar could be used by that merc to efficiently hacky-hack a hacky objective)
  • http://forums.warchest.com/showthread.php/41842-Problem-of-teamplay-and-classes
    excerpt below (shameless plugin):

A middle ground I’m proposing is to give non-obj class a one-time tool that could contribute to the obj. E.g. instead of making a medic defuse c4 for ~10sec, give them a tool that will defuse 20-25% of C4 but quickly, after which the medic cannot contribute to further defuse, until next spawn. Something like multitools in Deus Ex.

The game is fast paced, meaning the only players that will like the game, are those who love little bit of chaos&mayhem. To expect such players sacrifice 10sec of playtime to contribute to the goal that anybody else could/should do… do we really need to discuss this further? Gotta get rid of such downtimes.

Problem can arise of objectives being too easy (insofar as actually doing the objective): done too quickly to require the SD-envisioned teamwork of a group going in together and covering each other’s backs. Potential solutions could include:

  • new objective types (perhaps 2 mercs need to do sth simultaneously), or objectives are done in sequence that requires coordination: hack this - you have 30 seconds to plant a C4 on the exposed datacore/whatever
  • Teammates switching around to all contribute to one objective (would be consistent with objective-bar)
  • More dynamic objectives: something along the lines of W:ET reactor. or that hilarious indiana jones map. One team can flip a switch to start an objective (reactor coolant is draining), the other team has to flip the switch back before the coolant is gone (coolant is slowly being replenished). Or one team has to hack an objective, but they cannot do it if a security control room is being occupied by the opposing team

Bottom line is that objectives should require more from players than simply 'kill everyone in the area and hold pressing “F” for Xseconds.

(rookie1) #13

Nothing very interesting/fun on my radar for me :frowning:
Hoping scale down at 2 on 100 scale

(Sun_Sheng) #14

Thanks for the explanation, appreciated :slight_smile:

Unfortunately i’m being negative again but it’s sounding like a half way house between what players such as myself want, which is a clearly defined class or role i:e meds heal, engineers build, etc, and what splash damage want, which is the jack of all trades.

Rather than go into another lengthy diatribe I think it’s better to just recognise that what with this sort of stuff and everything else, this game isn’t and never will be the game I hoped for.

cheers :slight_smile:
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to PixelTwitch again.

(PixelTwitch) #15

[QUOTE=Sun_Sheng;515481]Thanks for the explanation, appreciated :slight_smile:

Unfortunately i’m being negative again but it’s sounding like a half way house between what players such as myself want, which is a clearly defined class or role i:e meds heal, engineers build, etc, and what splash damage want, which is the jack of all trades.

Rather than go into another lengthy diatribe I think it’s better to just recognise that what with this sort of stuff and everything else, this game isn’t and never will be the game I hoped for.

cheers :slight_smile:
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to PixelTwitch again.[/QUOTE]

I completely understand where you are coming from mate.

I may be seeming to embrace the changes and stuff but Dirty Bomb is very different to what I also expected and hoped for after player a couple of rounds in the early alpha. I was so hyped for a pure/clean 5vs5 one of each role game. I was hoping that the monetisation would be via skins and weapon variations and that each Merc would have their own pool of weapons (like TF2). I envisioned there then coming out 5 more Mercs in future that straddled the line between the original 5 and the game would be clean and simple.

I was against having all these abilities and having everyone being able to do the objectives.

What eventually happened is that I accepted that this was never going to be that game and started actively getting involved in hopes of “Damage Limitation”. Not that I felt that the game was going to be “BAD”, I just simply wanted to try and direct it to an alternative that I would be happy with. Its slowly getting there… The problem is, the middle ground between my initial hopes and my current hopes is a horrible ground! and that just so happens to be where abouts the game currently is. From recent posts and stuff, I have to say I am getting more excited that maybe, just maybe, the game will end up being decent.

I will continue trying to do my best to think of a wide audience and not just myself when I make suggestions or give feedback. I just wish other people would understand that just because I push for certain things, does not mean they where my number one choice and often I shared the same desires of them people as well. The difference is, I seem to be embracing the change and the direction a little differently to them and so it seems to certain people that I am just trying to pull the game further away from what they wanted… In reality, I just know the middle ground sucks and want to get away from there as soon as possible. I just feel pulling in the approximate direction of what the game is already headed is more productive then trying to pull back to what the game was 2 years ago.

(onYn) #16

Honest oppinion? I want soldiers to be the only class to be able to plant, the recons the only class to hack objectives, and the engineers the only class to defuse, while medic are the only class to pick someone up. On top of that you could add a tanky class as well as a tactical nuke class (like airstrike, lasers and stuff).

This will heavily improve the teamwork overall, since as a medic you won´t be able to just rush down the objective and do it all by yourself, but you will have to wait for your team and the respective objective class to do it. At the same time a soldier will maybe reconsider going in without any thoughts, when the only class that can pick him up is a medic and there is no other soldier to plant even if they own the objective area…

Another approach to this would be, to think about how much in game communication actually is required. Besides the phrase to “let´s go together” there is almost nothing of relevance that could be said. But with individual abiltiies (outside of combat) you would actually need to group, rethink what you actually play, maybe ask someone to go for another class etc… Adjustments and communication would be required much more (without stalling the game out for no reason), what for me is a major part if it comes to how much fun I have while playing the game.

Also we have the fact of identification with a role etc. what I think is a major factor if it comes to long therm motivation. I also think that unless you have a detailed way to customize your character, like in a RPG/MMO etc., any role you can fulfill in a game, should be pointed out as clearly as possible and not in a wishy washy like we have it, where you actually have to imagine it yourself.

To keep this post short, I am quiet sure, that we all agree how much all this would benefit any kind of competitive and organized play… So I am not even going to mention it :slight_smile:

This is just my oppinion, and even tho still the same like what I was saying 2 years ago it´s not exactly what I like most, but what I think will be appealing to people who play this game initially and for a longer period of time. All of my suggestions are based upon experience on how I got motivated to keep playing certain games from the very start (not only ET:QW, where without having a objective class to default to I actually would have been absolutely lost the first two weeks of playing and probably would have quit the game pretty fast) as well as how the majority of my friends actually got caught up in games. For me personally we could just all play the same class, with a gun variety of three (rifle, sniper and a pistol as a secondary), and play team death match all day long. Just to make it clear that what I personally like, and what I am suggesting in order to get new players into the game as well as keep them motivated for a longer time are two different things.

(Sun_Sheng) #17

[QUOTE=PixelTwitch;515486]

What eventually happened is that I accepted that this was never going to be that game and started actively getting involved in hopes of “Damage Limitation”. Not that I felt that the game was going to be “BAD”, I just simply wanted to try and direct it to an alternative that I would be happy with. Its slowly getting there… The problem is, the middle ground between my initial hopes and my current hopes is a horrible ground! and that just so happens to be where abouts the game currently is. From recent posts and stuff, I have to say I am getting more excited that maybe, just maybe, the game will end up being decent. [/QUOTE]

Cheers. i’ll make this a last post as I don’t want to take this off topic as well, but just to say, I agree in principle with what you’re saying and the intent to find a happy medium. From my perspective though, I don’t want another ET, I just want a game with teamplay, decent maps, and a class/role base that is half way functional. DB has neither and i’ve lost confidence that it will get them.

On FB last night they posted about wanting a competitive community and are even talking about matches. I truly lol’d so much I nearly lost my beer. The game is so far off a competitive state, even Hubble would have problems seeing when it would be ready

Sorry. II’ll shut up, i’m going off topic again. Hope everything goes well for you/the game.