I support this, and this is what i have written in the suggestion sticky. I add your link to my post in the suggestion sticky if you don't mind. What was funny? What was so wrong with that? Not according to Mayama.
Isn't "the game would be better if it was as i suggest" the whole point of these Gameplay and Suggestion forums?
He tells other people that their suggestions "suck" "are retarded" or "stupid" because they dont fit into his point of view how the game should be. Do you take someone like that serious? I dont think so. I just posted "how it is" because people keep saying the grenadier is superawesome at everything.
I don't take you seriously. But you are to close minded to talk to really. Yes i have said those words in arguments. But the contexts justifies it. Every class got a clear weakness, the grenadier don't. That is stupid. What was funny? What was so wrong with that? No we have only said that it is to good against infantry for an anti tank class.
And rifleman can be surprisingly good against tanks. I think that every class is good against almost anything, if there are enough players as that class. One grenadier isn't good against infantry from close range, mines and mortar can kill enemies, but so what? You can also blow up an apc and 8 players within it. Enough riflemen can take down tanks easily from close range, and so on.. Grenadier has its weaknesses, one is close range combat - Engineer can take down grenadier from close range, if the player doesn't suck at shooting. Secondary weakness is its anti-building features - mortar is very slow compared to seismic nades and rpg doesn't do much damage. Again, one grenadier can't do much to buildings, except turrets. Only in later game, grenadier squad leader can use squad artillery against buildings effectively - again, involves teamwork. My version: Grenadier: Anti-tank (not only ranged)/Ranged anti-infantry Rifleman: General anti-infantry and infantry support (again, not particularly ranged)/Close anti-tank (only with stickies) Scout: Inquiry/Sabotage Engineer: Building/Support/Anti-structure specialist Explanations to every class: Grenadier - is effective against tanks from any range and are and should be good at taking down infantry from distance. This is how it is right now. Effective when supported by other infantry. Edit: Had to add the fact that rocket sniping is what I call ranged anti-structure, and since it was removed, grenadier hasn't been very effective at taking down buildings from distance. (that is a good thing, because grenadier is not supposed to be ranged anti-stucture class, imo) Rifleman - Definately not a ranged anti-infantry class, only. Useful at rushing and defending other infantry. With teamwork, able to take down tanks even in latter game, very powerful close anti-tank against standard armor. Scout - Is definately not any kind of an anti-infantry class. It has weapons to defend himself, but is most likely to die if found and not supported by other infantry. Can be harmful on its own, but isn't particularly anykind of an anti-structure class if not supported by other infantry (since scout can't destroy buildings on its own, only sabotage and be pain in the enemies' ass). Engineer - Definately more than just a builder and support slave. Engineers are the ones to destroy enemy buildings, build defences, wall passages, make the resources flow, revive infantry on battlefield, repair buildings and vehicles... and so on... Other classes are very dependant on engineer support and teamwork.
My descriptions are what I see as the 'ideal' roles. They're what I believe we should balance things towards, because many of the current classes and abilities were made in a disjointed and unbalanced fashion, without a clear eye towards what they were supposed to be. The scout is the most obvious failure in this respect, but the grenadier has issues too, and even the engineer might have certain issues. Are you saying you believe the mortar should be changed so they can't hurt structures? At the moment, grenadiers are the best anti-turret class in many situations, and the only class capable of hurting structures from outside seismic range. Currently Grenadiers are, in my opinion, at least as good an anti-structure as they are an anti-tank class. Being capable of hurting structures at range and being the best ranged anti-turret class is a major role. Additionally, the mortar is currently capable of killing infantry at fairly close range (in fact, it's probably better at fairly close range, since it's easier to dodge at longer range). Do you feel that this should be taken away? Scouts are scheduled to be completely rearranged and given a shotgun, which will make them the close-range anti-infantry specialists, and make the riflemen (comparatively) long-ranged. A scout's current role is, after all, "bullshit / bullshit". Inquiry/Sabotage are currently nearly worthless as roles and contribute nothing to the team; certainly they contribute less than any other class could, competently played. Ranged classes are, of course, capable of operating at close range for the most part, but they should be fairly inferior to the close-range versions (otherwise the close-range versions will suck), or the close-range versions should have other advantages (as the close-range infantry scout will have hide, and hopefully an improved version of it -- I've posted about Hide's problems elsewhere.) I know that seismic nades might be overpowered, and would like to see them nerfed or, ultimately, removed (possibly with deconstruct buffed to compensate.) They make it possible for an engineer to take down a structure way too quickly on their own, and they encourage engineers to hide behind a wall and nadespam the building, which is not such a fun strategy for anyone involved... deconstruct is more suitable to a 'support' class, since it means they have to get up close to the building after the rest of the team has seized the area. No class should have the ability to take down a rax singlehandedly. "Anti-structure class", to me, primarily means "anti-wall/turret class", because that is what fighting against structures means in combat.
Most my kills come from medium/long rang shots, yes its easier to use up close but its harder to score a direct hit also. Plus once you miss that shot your basically dead without support
This is my point too, but keeping in mind, that the classes should be versatile as they are now. Not making them unable to do something and giving them more disadvantage than they have now against unspecialized tasks. I'm not saying this. You're thinking me saying this. Rifleman are also good at taking down buildings with grenades and engineer support, especially baracks when people get killed by rifleman nadespam. Right now, every class is capable of doing some damage to buildings, and I see it as a good thing. And, every class should be able to kill infantry, from some range. Currently grenadier is the best class at taking down rifleman campers, which I hate. Camping in a Empires-sized map is retarded, it's basicly the same as scout rifle camping back in 2.12. Grenadier should be able to stop this madness, if it occurs. IMO Do you even use the mortar? At close range, it's slow, it's hard-to-get-a-direct-hit, it's unpractical 'cause of the fact you have to duck before you can shoot. Basically, if you get too close, you can fire 1-2 shots, maybe get 2 kills and die, if you don't use any other weapon. Yes. But giving a class shotgun, doesn't directly mean it's going to be close ranged anti-infantry class. It's not there yet, so I can't possibly know, how it will be. I know what shotgun is in real life, but in game, I have no idea what's coming, so why would you? I glad, if the scout gets more of a meaning, though. If baracks is left uncovered, one engineer is enough to unconstruct it with his tool anyway, so I don't see the seismics being the problem here. I don't see any problem with nadespamming either, because engineer role should be promoted. Engineers shouldn't be slaves for the team, making all the dirty work as the other classes enjoy of battle. Basically, I think many people play as rifleman to get kills. If engineers are supposed to unconstruct enemy buildings, riflemen get more kills and I think making every other class weaker than rifleman is what is suggested here by many people. You hate grenadier, because it can kill you as a rifleman, and you want to be the top fraggers and you want to be killing other classes especially engineers and make them even weaker to get even more kills. This is how it seems, do correct me if I'm wrong.
Well its a funny fact that most people that make those "nerf the mortar" threads play rifleman most time ingame or have rifleman as fav class in their profile All those suggestion are only from a perspective of someone that doesnt use the class regulary. I agree with Werihukka that no class should be dominating one "area of the game" completly
[QUOTE='[PRKL]Basically, I think many people play as rifleman to get kills. If engineers are supposed to unconstruct enemy buildings, riflemen get more kills and I think making every other class weaker than rifleman is what is suggested here by many people. You hate grenadier, because it can kill you as a rifleman, and you want to be the top fraggers and you want to be killing other classes especially engineers and make them even weaker to get even more kills. This is how it seems, do correct me if I'm wrong.[/QUOTE]You are wrong. I rarely play as the rifleman, since I tend to like to focus on structures, and whatever you say, riflemen are damn useless against structures at the moment. I generally play engineers or grenadiers, though I like to switch to whatever is good for the situation, using their strengths to fill whatever holes my team has at the moment and to cover the weaknesses of other classes we have on the field. Now, I agree, riflemen can help kill buildings with engineer support... and I think grenadiers should be able to kill infantry, too, with rifleman support, and scouts should be able to kill tanks with grenadier support. But none of those classes should be particularly good at those things on their own. The way you described riflemen interacting with buildings is exactly how I think grenadiers should interact with infantry. A grenadier who has taken ammo upgrade and loaded up on ammo, though, can kill buildings and turrets very easily without engineer support, often at longer range than the engineer. They are an effective anti-structure class, and one of the core ones, offering unique anti-structure abilities that no other class can match in terms of range and arc. Are you seriously trying to argue that grenadiers are no better than riflemen at taking down turrets? Do you feel grenadiers should be no better than riflemen at taking down turrets? Do you feel that grenadiers should be unable to take down turrets or barracks without engineer support, instead? The roles you gave specifically omitted the ability to kill turrets and structures from the grenadier. Now, you are saying that you think that riflemen are also "anti-structure", even if they're not so good at killing structures on their own, because they can provide support that lets other classes kill structures. Why not make the grenadier the same way with regards to infantry? The mortar does not need to be an effective anti-infantry weapon; the grenadier can support against infantry by covering the riflemen and scouts from tank attacks, or by taking down turrets at range so they can advance. Alternatively, if you really feel that killing structures should not be a grenadier's role, why not make the grenadiers that way with regards to turrets and other structures? They don't need to be able to kill MLs or MGs with their mortar; they can just cover the area so an engineer can do it. That would, at least, seem to be the logical extension of how you described the rifleman. Now, if you meant that you feel riflemen explosive grenades are good enough at killing structures to qualify -- remember, they have to choose between them stickies, which means picking between that and the ability to hurt tanks at all. Do you feel that that is a fair decision for them to be confronted with? If so, do you think the grenadier should have to make an analogous decision -- between their ability to hurt infantry and their ability to hurt structures, say, and leave them able to spawn with a weapon capable of effectively hurting only one? I wouldn't have a problem with that (and it fits in with the rifleman). But if not, do you think the rifleman should be able to carry both stickies and explosives at the same time? Why should they have to choose between them, when the grenadier makes no decisions about their weapons at all, and gets to carry weapons capable of hurting anything they want? You are wrong, though. If riflemen were like scout rifle campers, you would be able to argue for simply changing the rifleman weapons. The problem is, they do work -- having a rifleman covering you is effective and fun and add to the game. I don't like actually playing a rifleman, but I love complex battlefields where cover and position and knowing where your teammates are at all time is important to success. People constantly complain about the weakness of infantry; part of the reason for this is because infantry's most significant advantage over tanks (the ability to use cover in an agile fashion) is too easy to negate. This should be corrected. What I care about is not ultimately the power of any individual class; what I care about is gameplay and teamwork. Grenadiers, as they are now, are not good for gameplay or teamwork -- they are effective against everything even on their own if used right. This is an oversight in their design that should be corrected; I do not think that any class should be capable of hurting everything on its own.
I do change class depending on the situation, too. But as I have played with other classes against grenadiers I don't find them over powerful at all, in any situation. When I play as a grenadier though, I am able to help the team, not myself. If I do "rambo", I'm most likely going to die doing nothing for the advantage of team. This is why grenadiers are weak without teamwork. Even if grenadier is able to do all these things: Hurt infantry, hurt buildings, hurt vehicles, doesn't mean it's any better from the other classes on its own. And what could rifleman possibly do to help grenadier to kill? Kill everything by itself? Scouts can't destroy vehicles. With scout help, some other classes are able to destroy them. I think one grenadier isn't able to take down baracks. If there's no enemies, then yes, but otherwise no. Rifleman is not supposed to take down turrets, from distance, because it is a close to medium range class. However, in good hands rifleman is able to take down a whole squad from medium range, which is something that no other class, but grenadier can do with mines. So, make grenadier into rifleman food? And make it a class that is useless unless there are somebody to protect him? Staying behind cover until you see a vehicle or a turret could be boring and then rifleman would basically just come and kill grenadiers that are in the front line, grenadiers would become more of a base defender and ticket eater in frontlines. No, because that would make it again, too weak against anything. There's a point where grenadier's abilitys to take down vehicles get weakened when enemy researches better vehicles, then it is able to take down vehicles only with a lot of help, and then it shouldn't be able to kill infantry? Then it becomes class that waits in the background, when others are fighting and that is what goes on for hours sometimes in Empires. I suggested earlier itt that you'd be able to choose between mortar and rpg. I wouldn't mind that, if mortar was able to take down tanks and infantry as it is now, and RPG would be the same, too. I wouldn't mind that either, stickies are not powerful from range, and they become less of a threat to tanks in later game. But that would brake the gameplay in other than classic maps. So, no. If there was a skill that would ignore stickies like defusal ignores mines, then, but how it's now, no way. And why would I do that, since I didn't whine about scout rifle either. I just spawned again and went to kill those scouts then. Good that it's fixed, though. It didn't fix noobs trying to kill you from half the map with it, but anyway. I don't think infantry is weak and don't know why would somebody possibly say that. They are effective on their own, but only in early game. When the game progresses grenadier becomes a class that can do no harm without other classes' support. Or a squad of grenadiers can break through stalemates with a lot of teamwork in later game. But I understand your point of view better now. But I still disagree at that grenadiers should be even less effective against infantry, because infantry unable to kill infantry is just stupid and it brakes gameplay, imo. Even if it involves more teamwork. Gameplay shouldn't be only looked at from the view of teamwork, because if every class is completely dependant on other classes, it only encourages the team being together and doesn't help braking stalemates, doesn't encourage somekind of rushing that can help the game advance. If every class is needed to brake through some place, then there's no one that can make the first move and the situation stays as it is.
Well I killed more tanks as rifleman in my whole playtime as I killed buildings as grenadier on commander maps. It takes extremly long to kill a barracks with the mortar and you need ammo upgrade to do it. If I choose ammo upgrade as rifleman I can kill a barracks with his nades faster and almost at the same range. In a standart game situation the grenadier needs to work together to kill a building. A rifleman can kill even the strongest tank alone. The grenadier can hurt everything (as every other class exept scout) but he isnt reallly good at anything exept killing turrets.
doesn't it seem a bit strange that grenadiers are actually quite effective against infantry and fairly shit against tanks and buildings? balanced, sure, but that doesn't mean it's the right combination. doesn't it seem a bit strange that only fairly veteran grenadiers stand a chance against vehicles? is tha doesn't it seem a bit strange that the mortar is entirely useless as an indirect fire, support weapon, but as a "grenade launcher" it's rather good? also, what's this BS: um wut? rambo much? yes, on your own a grenadier that was good against tanks and structures and bad against infantry wouldn't be able to just take on anything that comes his way like a the masterchief from halo. perhaps you'd be able to use teamwork instead. perhaps you would work with a team to take down enemy structures and tanks for them, while they took out enemy infantry. because i know i've been in a squad with grenadiers and rifleman, and have a light tank come along and gun us all down. it's not for lack of ability but the fact that the grenadier is currently a solid anti infantry class and mediocre anti tank class.
I usually have 2 or 3 times the kills if I play rifleman so I think the grenadier is not very effective against infantry.
No. Lets change everything in the game so it has flying unicorns that shoot mustard out of their eyes. And call them zebras, because the mustard spewing unicorns are somewhat similar to zebras and should therefore be called zebras.
that's subjective. it's well known that grenadiers can easily hold their own against infantry and are often better than engineers and scouts. it's been said lots before, it's even what was on the mind of the thread creator. so yes, the grenadier IS effective against infantry. and comparing grenadiers against rifleman, the almost exclusively anti infantry class, as a measure of if the grenadier is effective against infantry? come on mayama you're better than that.
But shouldn't they? I'd rather have 2 classes being good against against inf / tanks than only have one class that can do what FPS is based around - shooting..
