Gren + Roflman : the same but different.

Sip, I really think the content of your post is inappropriate. This is basically a forum (place to debate) on whether or not grens and roflmen should play the same roles in Empires but in different ways, rather than a place to discuss specific changes on how to make the gren better at killing tanks.

 

Ok. Then just ignore my last posting.

And for the main topic my point of view is very easy:
Rifleman: Anti-Infantry with a little anti tank
Grenadier: Anti-Tank with a little anti infantry

I support the idea, that every class should be good at something special. And the perfect gameplay for me would be, if you have the biggest chance to win, when all 4 classes are working together.

 

Yep. I think rifleman should be best at killing inf and 2nd best at killing tanks, with grens complete opposite.

Grens should definitely be better at killing inf than scouts/engineers. Obviously they should be able to be better but it really depends on the skill and tactics of the player.

 

Stop buffing riflemen for anti-tank.
Because grenadiers should be anti tank.
Because I feel that way. Because explosives are better used on tanks than on soldiers. Because of game balance.

What I understand is that some of you guys want grens and riflemen to be equally effective vs everything, but with different weapons. And I just can't have that.

How real RPGs work doesn't count in Empires. Especially with the variety of real-life RPGs around, with all of their different uses.

 

If your responding to me, I'm not saying buff rifleman. Leave em as is but that still means they are second best at killing tanks.

Grens will better with the RPG buff that's coming in the next version. I don't think anyones trying to make grens, rifleman equally effective. But I think they should be the grunts. The anti inf and tank classes.

 

/argument

 

Because every argument on the forum I post is based on how I interpret the game, and what direction I want it to develop in. Not some statistics. This is how I want to have fun.
Same goes for you. You post, criticize, request changes that will make your gaming more fun. Does that make your arguments wrong?

 

I didn't really respect your opinions much before because you tend to come out with a lot of shit, but after this it's all gone. I'm not even going to reply further, because I'm going to focus my energies into ignoring what you have said.

 

You're all argueing based on how you feel. At least he recognizes it.

 

I really lack the patience to try to explain the difference between logos and pathos, how to recognize the two, and how to use them in a debate. In addition, I don't think this is the appropriate place to do it. Maybe you can go look it up some time. http://en.wikipedia.org is a good place to start.

 

Rego rages because I don't make sense in my post.
I want classes not to be "same same, but different flavour in some situations".
I would like each class to be very different.
Grens be anti-armor, riflemen be anti-infantry, engies buff allies, scouts cripple enemies. TF2 has similar split between classes, allowing players to be supportive, offensive and defensive in several different ways.
Like chosing between a soldier and a heavy for playing different flavours of attacker that does "boom boom haha i kill u".

Empires is on the other hand different, at least from my experience. Empires doesn't have 9 classes for all flavours of gameplay. It has 4 classes, with 1 of them having a very clear role (rifleman, killing enemies with guns).
Same way I'd like the other classes would be defined.
Example: grenadier, killing enemy tanks with bazooka. Pretty simple IMO.

Does that make more sense to you?

 

Engineer = Support and building. + rape with lvl3s. (Against infantry).

 

scout is intended to be the stealthy assailant, but it fails.
Engineer is supposed to be versatile support, which it succeeds in. Perhaps it has the potential to be too powerful alone. meh.
Riflemen is intended to be versatile anti-infantry with niche anti-tank
Gren is currently intended to be versatile anti-tank (which it fails at, basically because damage is so low), with its anti-infantry nerfed to oblivion. And then people wonder why the spread of classes is mostly engi and rifleman.

I am attempting to point out the trend that people WHO ACTUALLY PLAY THE CLASS do NOT want the grenadieer to be like this. When I've asked JPL members to actually clarify what they want, they agree on most points with me with a few discrepancies. However, no one in JPL wants the gren to be only effective at anti-tank. The only people that do are people that don't approve, well... Aquillon pointed out that its not good to have grens as a good anti-infantry but not anti-tank, which seemed to miss the point a bit, and then says they shouldn't be the same in all situations. In both cases he's right, but I never said he wasn't. Blizzerd seems worried over choice. This is very understandable and I think really stems down to the lack of gren customisation. More skill and weapon choices to keep those different flavors distinct. Firedrill wants to make sure the utilisation is different, but again I think my answer to Blizzerd's point is relevant. Aquillon also seems to be in the train of thought of the devs when they made 2.23, the horror that is, by nerfing things to make it all better. Why just nerfing things until they are equal is a whole other argument though, but just trust me, not a good idea.

So then, Zenarion, we are left with you. You managed to spit out this statement: 'So I disagree with the suggestion that "everyone should be able to do everything", since it does not promote team play.' Right before this you commented about balance issues, including difficulty of using gren weapons to create imbalance. I EVEN INCLUDED IN MY SUGGESTION THAT A NEW GREN WEAPON WAS MADE THAT WAS EASIER. likewise, if something is not as good as another thing then JUST BUFF IT. If something is fundamentally too powerful you NERF IT. and then the bit about team play... well, firstly, you don't know how to structure an argument. Here is something I got on google, see the part about inference:

http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/making_argument/argument_elements.htm

Also, this does promote teamplay, and it does it in a way that is much more utilisable. From afar grens must pew pew the tanks shelling the squads location, because the stickies are short ranged. Meanwhile, the rifles must defend against oncoming infantry, because the mortar is easily dodgable at longer ranges. Yet at short range stickies can be used, and whilst this happens grens must use mines to block retreats and incoming infantry, and defend against fast moving infantry moving around the tank using the mortar.
'Face it, the grenadiers are now some kind of weird mix between a guided-anti-person-sniper and a guy with a "noob tube" á la CoD4. At least that is what I feel. And I am by no means a skilled grenadier, or Empires player overal.'
Here, you point out a fault that I have already addressed, and one you persist to ignore. The gren is too hard to use, making it seem too weak. Although it is possible to forge an entire clan off the benefits of its complexities, it is not readily available to newbs and intermediates alike. Add new weapons, or just increase damage to make it possible to use gren well even if you're not that great.

'This grenadier class lack of effect and specialisation scares ME away from playing that class.'
I read this and I think, 'he's going to go on to say something completely irrelevant to attempt to prove this'. You do not disappoint.
I actually thought I'd be able to attack enemy armor and win, seems that I expected wrong, too bad.'
Grens are underpowered against tanks! Never said they weren't. IMO riflemen are also underpowered against tanks, just not nearly as much. Infantry vs not-an-idiot tank, tank should win anyway. You spent that res. Not relevant to specialisation.
'Sure, it's a "support" class.'
No, it is a combat class. The dispute is over whether it is versatile combat or tank combat. Again, not relevant to introduction and also just wrong.
'But what the hell do i do with it, besides spam mines in bottlenecks? No other weapons the gren has are effective at doing what they are supposed to do.'
And again on balance. You presented no evidence even related to specialisation.


I rage because your arguments have the same quality of structure as an Ikea cabinet put together by Youzy's mum on roller skates. I rage because you have an ungrounded opinion which in turn is based upon your opinion. I rage because you don't listen to anything I'm saying, I rage because I don't want people like you who don't have an idea how changes relate to game play want to change the game based on your personal feelings.


After this there's not much more to say. This posts addresses all the issues that have been raised one way or another.

 

Cant gren just be a versatile anti everything class again? That was the fun of the gren back in 2.12 - A rocket for killing tanks, a mortar for killing infantry, mines for static fire and forget weapons, and 9 mine as basically a nuke that took 30 seconds to deploy. The gren was useful in any situation but not really great at anything (other then OP 9 mining).

Edit: Didn't mean to say bring back 9 mine. I just meant that grens were fun when they were basically the generic all purpose combat class, without being particularly good at anything. Right now they absolutely blow at everything and can't carry enough ammo.

 

I'm sick of having to deal with railheavies on hills they shouldn't ever be on kthx.

 

Good job making the game only for clanners who play 50 hours a week.
People don't play grenadier because it is weak, undefined, hard to use.
Is my argument not valid, when I say that the weapons and style of use are very hard to master, and therefore very ineffective? And that's why propose to make them easier to use, so MORE people than JPL, who seem to be all-pro play Grenadier?

I too have asked people about what they think, and I asked friends who played with me for maybe half an hour. Their responses about Empires was mostly "it is interesting, but I can't kill tanks for shit with the Grenadier".
Neither can new players really kill infantry with the current loadout. Experienced guys are monsters with the grenadier, but how come it can't be made useable by everyone? Is there some kind of prestige bound to it?

And If there is a good secondary use for a grenadier, it's not fighting infantry with that "professionals only" mortar, I'd say shoot buildings with it, it's pretty good at hitting stationary targets. You can even waste one shot for testing out your aim, and then shell away.

Fighting infantry with that is VERY HARD. It has not nearly enough ammo to kill a reasonable ammount of people, real awkward aim with, must be crouched/prone so it makes you a sitting duck without dig-in. Why even bother forcing the Grens into an infantry-fighting position, when every other class is so much better at it?

My opinion is, in fact, based loosely on my opinion (shocking, isn't it?), and opinions of some friends i played Empires with.

 

What if the gen is defined as an area denial class rather than an anti-armour class? My reasoning being I don't seen the anti-armour specialization really working since it's popular belief that free infrantry shouldn't kill something that cost money singlehanded. The rifleman already handles specific target elimination, the eng offer area control with his buildings and healing ability - I'm sure the scout dose something useful too I just don't have a clue what - and area denial could be a valuable addition to the class roles. This role wouldn't make the gen very useful out in the open, there the rifleman would rule, but at choke points or when attacking bases he could be invaluable.

The gen already utilizes explosive weapons, indirect fire, and deployed mines, all useful area denial tools. The problem is Empires has big maps, and the gen cannot current project enough fire to suppress the enemy in an area much bigger than a port-a-potty. For Empires I suspect the gen would have to be able to supress an area as big as a VF, maybe a little bigger. He doesn't need to kill everyone in that area, just give then a enough of a chance to be hit to make them want to be elsewhere.

I see this type of class being useful in choke points by forcing the enemy to either come all the way through the choke point, and hopefully right into your teams turrets, or to fall back. Also when assaulting fortified positions by flushing the enemy out from cover or away from building such as armouries.

 

Thing is though, despite it being a hard class to master, and I feel I've basically 95% mastered it, it's still a terrible class in all circumstances other than paper vehicles. The mortar is no longer hard to master, it's simply a bad weapon nowadays. The RPG has always sucked (% damage) the pistols are terrible except the shot pistol and mines have a counter which involves the player pressing 7 buttons and never thinking about mines again.

All in all I think the scout has become a better class than the gren.