I felt that specific case-examples were worth a different topic. I am going to show an example way that infantry balance can be maintained while using the prior-mentioned same but different method. Resists: Rifleman: .25 infantry bullet resist .1 All other infantry weapons resist (except seismic and the like) .5 Vehicle bullet resist (all kinds). .2 Vehicle other-attack resist (all kinds) Grenadier: 0 infantry bullet resist .3 All other infantry weapons resist (except seismic and the like) .1 vehicle bullet resists .5 Vehicle other-attack resist (all kinds) Main Weapons: Rifleman retains its main weapons as they are. Balancing as appropriate, but they should do very well against other classes in a gunfight. Grenadier RPG: Velocity 2400, turning rate .1 Damage: 100 to armor 30 to chassis. Upgrade1: 115 to armor 35 to chassis Upgrade 2: 130 to armor 40 to chassis. Sidearms: Pistol2: Becomes a viable weapon, approximately equal to SMG2 at point blank with less accuracy and damage capacity per clip. Should average the same total damage over time until the last bullet is fired. Less accuracy and clip size makes it a viable sidearm for these classes to fight against other weapons in CQC. This should be chosen over their other weapons in point blank unless they are a assault-riflemen. Secondary Weapons: Sticky grenade: About the same as it is now. Does 200 damage. Mortar: If possible reduced to 75% Gravity and 1600 Speed (So it is now significantly easier to dodge than RPG, and easier to hit over cover). Damage: Reduced to 90 Damage. Splash radius increased to 900 (more than double). Mines: Two possible solutions. Either they are given a trigger delay of a half second, or infantry just get higher resistances against them. Disarm should take only a second to work, per mine. End Result: Both can take care of infantry. Grenadiers are better at softening them up at a range using their mortars, rifleman are better at direct fights. The pistol 2 establishes a better CQC game for both of them and is an accepted advantage for them. Both can fight vehicles, but grenadier rapidly become better against them as the game advances, both because of their resistance to explosives which are more commonly used, and because part of their damage bypasses armor. Both are equally useful against tanks early game, but in different situations. Both are useful against tanks and infantry end game, because of their respective advantages of damage output and ability to bypass cover (which is huge end-game). Any outcries on how I am wrong? Oh, and on a side note, does anyone know if it is possible to make a guided missile affected by gravity? If so, that is an easy solution to making the fast projectile hard to use against infantry, as it makes it harder to aim against small targets but easier to aim against fast targets.
So just make the mowtar somthing that gives engineer points for easy heal. And make it even easier to dodge than it already is?! mowtar should be deadly on direct impact. And its already easy to dodge.
But of course. Currently: Rifleman: .24 infantry bullet resist .3 All other infantry weapons resist (except seismic and the like) .4 Vehicle bullet resist .5 Vehicle AP bullet resist (all infantry have this) 0 Vehicle missile resist .1-15 Vehicle other-attack resist (all kinds) Grenadier: 0 infantry bullet resist .15 All other infantry weapons resist (except seismic and the like) .25 Vehicle bullet resist .5 Vehicle AP bullet resist (all infantry have this) .2 Vehicle missile resist .3 Vehicle other-attack resist 0 Vehicle special attack resist (only really applies to nukes and bio) Would become Resists: Rifleman: .25 infantry bullet resist (+.01) .1 All other infantry weapons resist (except seismic and the like) (-0.2) .5 Vehicle bullet resist (all kinds).(+.1) .2 Vehicle other-attack resist (all kinds)(+.05-1) Grenadier: 0 infantry bullet resist .3 All other infantry weapons resist (except seismic and the like)(+.15) .1 vehicle bullet resists(-.15) .5 Vehicle other-attack resist (all kinds)(+0.2) Weapons: Currently RPG does 110 damage, at 2100? velocity Does 130 with first upgrade Does 160 with next upgrade Mortar does 120 damage with 350 blast radius Pistol 2 fires every .1 seconds for 15 damage (150 dps) Shotpistol fires every .5 seconds with 14 bullets that do 10 damage each. 280 dps... sorta) SMG2 fires every .1 seconds for 22 damage a shot (220 dps) Mainly this would just mean the Pistol 2 being made a bit better (though I would support 12 damage pellets with a cycle time of 1 second for an entirely different reason.) Also, arguing that a mortar that doesn't instantly kill just helps the enemy is ridiculous. Not only does it completely undermine the tactical option of having multiple players fire at the same location to take out a large group, but it ignores the huge strategic advantage that comes from crippling opponents instead of killing them in a game with relatively quick respawns.
If its easier to dodge and does less damage. They can heal each other before you even finish reloading. That's not gonna make people want to be that class. Also think of the rape it will have on District. It will just be pure chaos and not the fun kind. Push back every time a little splash hits near you. You will get pushed from side to side the entire round. Any weapon fired by multiple players at the same location will be deadly but no one will want to use a weapon that requires multiple people to get kills when you can just use a rifle and do it by your self.
who needs tatic and strategie?thats the commanders job. players just want to kill each other they dont give a fuck about that shit. also it would break infanrty maps even more.
District is a terrible map to begin with, it almost always gets into those ridiculous standoffs that last for half an hour. I am not sure how what you described is any worse than what actually occurs. If anything you described something better than the infinite standoff that usually occurs. A weapon that requires multiple players is likely a bad idea. A weapon that is good in a large number of situations, though not all, and better with numbers is a perfectly good thing when a class has several other options with which to fight. If the grenadier only had the mortar I might agree, it doesn't. Rifleman SHOULD be better at direct combat. It fires goddamn bullets at people. Mortars are indirect weapons and should be better at indirect situations, firing over cover, harassing and weakening an enemy, things like that. It is perfectly acceptable that it be functional at killing infantry, which is why it should have a good anti infantry weapon for indirect-combat (mortar) and a good anti-infantry weapon for close-combat (pistol2). It should never be better in a direct fight than a rifleman. Edit: Also, why are you expecting everyone to be a moron when playing. When you design a game AROUND them being stupid, they will BE stupid.
Well that's your opinion of district but I think it works fine with the right amount of people. But with that much increase in splash you will have a hard time not hitting people. This weapon WILL require multiple players. Cause all your doing is softening people up. You gotta remember the reload time of the mowtar. The pistol 2 change will also buff the rifleman more. No ones saying the rifleman shouldn't be better at direct combat. I am saying that your version of the mowtar will be seen as completley useless and if people want a weapon that kills people they will use the rifleman class not the gren. So you won't get those numbers of people using it in one area like you suggest will happen. You're suggestion makes the mowtar easier to use. I want the mowtar to be a weapon that you can master and have a chance against rifleman if used right. I'm not trying to dumb it down.
Weakening enemies is a valid end itself and your statements are slightly contradictory. You claim both that nobody will use it and that it will be easier to use. Both factors mitigate each-other. I do not contest that improving the pistol2 will also aid the rifleman, however, you would seem to imply it is a greater improvement for the rifleman than the grenadier, this is simply not true. The weapon overlaps with what the rifleman is already good at, and likely will not exceed the quality of the weapons it already carries in anyway. For a grenadier it would be a tremendous increase in power. On the subject of player use. If people are playing strictly for kills, why do we have so many engineers? It is because they aren't just playing for kills, they are playing to win. On the subject of functionality. I contest that grenadier should have any more of a chance in direct combat against a rifleman than an engineer or a scout. I do, however, believe that the class should be the best in indirect and suppressive combat. A man who has lost almost all of his health to a mortar will soon be dead (remember, damage is still 90). You contend that the mortar should be a very hard to use weapon that is good for killing individual targets who you can see or predict the exact location of. This defeats the entire purpose of a mortar as a indirect fire support weapon. You claim that it should kill in one hit, this defeats the purpose of it being a support weapon. You claim it should have small splash, which makes it a terrible indirect-fire weapon. You claim it should take extreme skill, which means that no brainless fool you described earlier would use it. I understand what you 'want' from the mortar. I am trying to argue that it is worse for gameplay, even though you will like the weapon itself more.
Mortar should be like arty for infantry. Can shoot high and does a lot of damage, but is weak to direct assault. I'd rather see some sort of deployment requirement (where the gren has to 'deploy' the mortar that makes him immobile) than for the damage/speed to be nerfed.
Alright, at the very least I can concede that everyone might hate using the mortar I described, regardless of its strategic significance. What about the other 90%?
I just want the gren to have, keep and build on its mowtar fan base. The most fun weapon in the game. Only reason to really play. If I wanted to shoot rifles or drive tanks or do any other part of the game I would play a game that does it better and has more than 2 active servers.
people play the engineer because you actaully get points for supporting others. but the grenadier doesnt get assist points for weakening enemies,they get points for killing and blowing stuff up.
So the Rifleman can now approach tanks even easier to stickystun them, since the machineguns/chainguns will do only half damage? Buffing Rifleman against vehicles, are we?
And what about sticky mines? Throw it on the ground = normal mine. Throw it on the enemy = sticky mine.
LOL! Commander: "Everybody switch to grenadier with ammo upgrade and cover the CV with mines. I want to do some real boomtanking! "
I agree, tanks should be worth two points. A point should be given to who did the most damage, a point should be given to who killed them. Or something of that sort. That said, my argument is that grenadiers should be able to kill or damage vehicles at a range and harass or kill infantry indirectly. Rifleman should be able to kill vehicles at point blank, and kill infantry directly. Tanks have no good reason to be getting close to infantry. They often can't look down directly next to them, they have trouble ramming infantry who are that close to them, and they can easily be flanked. Good sticky grenades are a reminder of this. Rifleman should be worse at fighting tanks where tanks should be, at a distance and shelling you. They should be better at killing tanks where tanks should not be, up close and ramming infantry. Likewise they should kill infantry where they should not be, in the open. Grenadiers should be the opposite, they should kill infantry where they should be, hiding behind cover, and kill or damage tanks in the open. If they were good at these roles, i.e. better than the rifleman at his equivalent, then this places would be the worst to be and the game would encourage mindless rushes. By dictating the best place for people to be, it is possible to engineer gameplay to be slow and methodical in places, rather than mindless rushes.
