Buff maximum RPG ammo to 10. Standard starting ammo is still 3? (33% like other weapons, not ~50-60% like current rpg) Pros: Less rearming for Grenadiers Grenadiers not easily outlasted by vehicles Ammo upgrade less of a requirement for Grenadiers Cons: More careless rpg shooting Other: More turret sniping Less mortar usage
just a straight buff of grenadier all round i would like to see doubling the rocket speed and giving 50% extra damage and taking away a rocket or 2 at the start would go a long way
Just swap the mortar and RPG ammo. The RPG is supposed to be their main weapon, after all. Of course, the RPG itself may have to be improved in other ways at the same time...
I played around as gren a bit and they really, REALLY need more ammo for the rpg. As it stands even a standard armor tank can't be killed by using rpg exclusively without getting more ammo, unless you get 3 lucky hits on the same side (almost never). So unless it is as intended that grens are using the mortar as an anti-tank weapon an increase in rpg ammo would go a long way to making grens more effective against tanks.
Was already suggested but I can't find the old thread. I also think that 3 is not enough. You can't kill any tank with 3 rockets. Any other class can do their work with initial ammo.
I don't think ammo is the main concern, because the tanks can just get away before you even get the chance to use half of it. but I do think that ammo is still a concern and an increase would be nice. EDIT: enough ammo to kill a heavy with 6 plates of composite and increased armor, without using upgraded or advanced grenadier would be a good amount. (this would not unbalance the game, it would only give a highly skilled grenadier to even try fighting back, because it would be possible to win, even though it would be incredibly unlikely.)
RPG ammo should be increased to 8, and you spawn with 4 or 5. Another alternative is that Grenadier gets ammo box. While this would make the class far more independent, at least lone Engineer seismic spam is resolved, and Grenadier's firing rate is limited by comparison.
No. Bad. That would be replacing seismic spam with mortar spam, which would be massively worse since it hurts everything. Like unlimited explosive, seismic, and sticky grenades all at once (well, fine, not stickies, but it'll at least hurt tanks.) Unless you want to see the mortar utterly nerfed into the ground (seriously, it would have to be made totally, literally useless for that to not be OP), there's no way the gren could ever get an ammo box. The fact is, seismic spam is not fun, but it's the least of the horrible things that could come from a class getting boxes. Easy mortar-spam would make the game unplayable in many situations. Explosive-spam can be just as bad. The only class without a teeth-grinding weapon when spammed is the scout, and even then -- do you really want to see what concussion or smoke spam would be like? Meanwhile, sure seismic spam is annoying, but ultimately all it does is do something engineers can already do with their calcs just a bit easier and faster. And buildings, ultimately, don't suffer the way infantry do when faced with endless, unlimited spam. Not defending seismic spam as a good thing, of course. But with a longer range and the ability to hurt everything (while still killing buildings pretty fast, for a class that, unlike the engineer, wouldn't otherwise have unlimited building-destruction ability on its own) mortar spam would be almost unfathomably worse.
Mortars are hardly worth it against buildings. They fire at a third the rate of seismics and do the same damage per shot. If there's a reason to prevent grenadiers from dropping ammo boxes, it's because that would encourage them to go lone wolf. The entire point of limited ammo is to force players to keep close to their ammo supply, namely armories and the bases that contain them. Engineers only get to violate this because, well, they're engineers. Giving grenadiers ammo crates would just mean that the grenadiers are the ones running around willy nilly, instead of the engineers.
Well right now, unless you're planning to piss some people off by mining their barracks and such, Grenadier has limited ability to operate out of base. He requires constant ammo supplies to be effective, and these are not always forthcoming. In fact, more so than Engineer, or any other class, Grenadier is inherently defensive: most people don't bother getting Grenadier unless they're in a tank (Defusal, Feedback, or Armour upgrade) or they can be sure of regular ammo supplies (APC). Moving ammo box to Grenadier will make the class far more capable of operating out in the field. I don't feel that it would make the Grenadier "lone wolf" because Grenadiers still have relatively poor capabilities to attack enemy infantry at close and long range (mortars can be dodged quite easily if you know what you're doing). The only problem I can see is a revival of comm ninjaing. But that can be easily circumvented by placing MG turrets around the base, or simply by moving away. It'd be much easier to escape a Grenadier ninja than an Engineer ninja. Anti-building capabilities are still poorer than the Engineer's. With five seismics and the calculator with repair upgrade, the Engineer will dismantle any building much faster than the Grenadier. To compensate, we could lower the time the ammo box hangs around or increase the ammo box cooldown so that there will be periods where the Grenadier can't load up on ammo. Alternately we could lower the maximum amount of mortar shells he can carry, or tie firing the mortar to stamina. I feel that ammo crates for Grenadiers are a lot easier to balance than for Engineers. Again, Grenadiers cannot spam mortars or rockets as much as Engineer can with seismics. Grenadiers are highly ammo dependent, and this severely limits the utility of any player who wants to go out into the field. Even if an Engineer is nearby, ammo supplies are not always forthcoming when required. As I see it, Grenadier should be the one that has ammo crates. Fact is, Engineers have already too much on their plate. Spread the love; ammo boxes should go to Grenadiers, cameras and radars to Scouts. Engineer could lose his calculator heal ability but in return, he can drop a health crate, which would make healing a hell of a lot easier.
I actually like this idea of moving the ammo box to the grenadier. The engineer could get the ability to drop a health crate instead. I hate running around and healing everyone by hand, and would find a health crate very handy.
I don't want to see that. But we could get rid of the ammo crates all together and have a class drop ammo packets instead (say 5 or so), which would regenerate inside any friendly building, or near a flag. I wouldn't want to see the ammo crate moved at all, but yes the Gren needs more default ammo. We can either reverse the mortar and rpg amounts, or make grens spawn with 5 Rockets and a similar amount of mortars. Max rocket amount should be 8 unbuffed. I don't feel giving the gren even more ammo as standard would be a bad thing, but I really don't want to see them spawning crates at all.
Since the rpg is my main anti infantry weapon now I wouldn't be against this. But at the same time It's never really been a big deal to me cause if I wanted more rpgs I would just ask for ammo.
You're getting somewhere with that. How about this. Grenadier as I suggested, or Engineer, can only drop a single mini-ammo box. After that, they have to get to a full-sized ammo box (located in armouries or as placed by mappers).
I cannot believe you are still on this. Seriously, just drop it already; it's a horrible, horrible idea. I can understand the grenadier not having enough RPG ammo; like I said, I think it should be swapped with the mortar. I can understand wanting to nerf seismics. Supply and support, though, is the primary role of the engineer class. Grenadiers have always been intended to have their limited ammo as one of their primary limiting factors. This is designed to encourage inter-reliance between classes; the classes that are designed for killing tanks and killing infantry, respectively, must rely on a support class to stay supplied. It is also what makes the support class useful. The fact that grenadiers need ammo supply the most and can't give it to themselves is an essential part of game design -- it's what makes ammo-supply a viable role. By taking away the anti-tank classes' need for someone else to supply them with infantry ammo, you are trying to eliminate ammo supply as an important role (and, therefore, kill off an important aspect of and benefit of teamwork.) Supplying ammo to infantry is one of the core functions of the engineer as a support class. Trying to take it away -- or to give it to another class -- is like suggesting that the scout should get the grenadier's RPG, and the engineer should get their mines. I would support the idea of taking away the engineer's seismics or, hell, his SMG before taking away his unique ability to supply ammo to infantry. I would support giving the grenadier Hide or a Rifleman rifle before giving them the ability to self-supply. That is how horribly this suggestion violates the underlying assumptions and balances of the game. The grenadier is intended to be an anti-tank class. That has always been their primary definition. They need to be more focused on that, not turned into this BS generalist "little bit of infantry, support, magical fairy pixiedust mary-sue class" that some people want. The game does not need more than one general support class; as a game focused heavily on tank combat, it certainly should not have a class focused around both anti-tank capabilities and support. The whole point of interreliance between classes is that a vital role like tank-killing should have to rely on a separate support class to keep them armed. Buff their RPG, increase its ammo, make it easier to hit with. The Grenadier's job is to kill tanks, and the engineer's job is to supply and support them when they're doing this. That is all. They do not need anything else; and suggesting that the grenadier should get the ability to drop ammo is like suggestion that the engineer should get their RPG. And easy mortar spam is still an absolutely terrible suggestion. Seriously, worst idea all week, at least. If you really want to talk about nerfing or taking away the engineer's ammo box, please start a separate thread for it, anyway. It doesn't belong here. (Giving the grenadier the ability to resupply themselves does not belong anywhere.) But for seriously. Nerf the engineer or buff the grenadier in whatever other way you want... but moving the ability to supply ammo to infantry over to the grenadier is simply a terrible, terrible suggestion. It would eliminate one of the core roles in the game completely. Classes need ammo constraints (and the anti-tank class, in particular, needs ammo constraints); these are part of what makes it important for people to work together as a team and to keep each other supplied. The exact parameters of those constraints could be shifted a bit (again, I'd favor swapping the RPG and mortar ammo quantities), but suggesting that the entire dynamic be removed is a bad idea.
The underlying fact of this game, is that it is mostly played by individual people who come together in some semblance of teamwork. In real life, people work together because it is a matter of life and death. Games is a different matter. People don't like to be forced into relying on others. When players see a tank, they either should have a way to deal with it, or run away. Because of course, you're not only going to find one of everything on a map. And on your RPG and ammo box analogy, I disagree. As I see it, right now a much bigger problem than mortar or RPG is seismic spam. Mortar's only advantage is range: it fires much slower and does less damage even per shot. Plus when you take in the Engineer's other attributes in stride: ability to set up base buildings quickly, missile turrets for long range anti-structure work, and such. To reconfigure class roles to work in the way you suggested would require a complete overhaul of the existing system. Or we can go for alternate approach of strengths and weaknesses.
What strengths and weaknesses? You are asking for the complete removal of the Grenadier's most important weakness! Likewise, you cannot pretend to get into a huff about seismic spam while you're desperately begging the devs to give you an easy way to use mortar spam. Buildings don't care so much about being spammed at. Infantry does. It's bad if they're blown up too fast, but it's not the eye-gougingly awful thing you're requesting here. The kinds of nadespam that people complain about most are explosive grenade spam; constant area explosions make the game completely unplayable to anyone on the other side. They're easy and cheap and not any fun at all; it is absolutely absurd to suggest that any class could have both the mortar and the ability to resupply ammo. The rest isn't even worth a reply. Empires is a team game. I can understand the desire to have it still be fun even with terrible teams (part of the reason why I think the learning curve should lean towards easy, especially for comms), but when you're complaining about the requirements of teamwork to the point where you don't want to have to rely on someone else to supply ammo, I think you might want to consider playing a different game. The whole point of having limited ammunition and a support class who drops ammo-boxes is to force you to rely on your team. Why ask for the ammo box to be given to the grenadier? Why not just ask for every class to be given ammo regeneration or just unlimited ammunition directly? That is where you're leading up to with this, isn't it? Finally, please read the suggestions forum sticky. It says: If you feel the devs should be busy turning Empires into a different game... why not just go play a different game instead?
What I mean by strengths and weaknesses is that every class should be capable of having a response to every single situation. Riflemen should have some means of levelling buildings reasonably effectively for one. Nobody likes to be in a situation where they can't do anything. That's why a lot of people like Engineer: he has the ability to act in any situation. Seismic spam is a problem. Combined with calculator with repair upgrade, Engineers can take down a building much faster alone than by pretty much any other means. And again, a big issue is that Grenadier can't sustain his ammo. Once he is out of ammo, he is completely ineffective in the field. This is a much bigger problem for Grenadier than any other class since he relies on ammo heavily, and hence why most people don't choose Grenadier unless they're in a defensive situation or very close to an armoury. Incidentally, contrary to your belief, I actually believe that handing the ammo box to the Grenadier will encourage teamwork. Engineers don't always lay down ammo by request, if at all. Grenadier on the other hand, will generally choose to lay down ammo for his own benefit, but simply laying it down in the presence of other players will be to the benefit of all. To balance this all out, we can make it so that carrying an ammo box takes up a mine slot, or that Grenadier can only carry one (two with ammo upgrade) and has to return to an armoury to reload. And on teamwork: we can encourage it, we can add rank points for squad cooperation, but in the end, players will generally think, and work alone. All teamwork is inherently voluntary, but not a rule of the game. If it were up to me, I would force all players to start off in a squad rather than having to join it and that they follow the same spawn point as their squad leader, but apparently a lot of people find that "too restricting".
I think it is funny how the people who say this never seem to want to give seismics or a mortar to the rifleman so they can kill turrets and buildings, or to give the RPG or rifleman-stickies to the scout so they can kill tanks. As I said, the grenadier's dependence on ammo is deliberate. It is a weak point specifically built into the class to ensure that squads that work together at keeping their anti-tank force supplied will do better than people who run around ignoring each other, and to discourage grenadiers from running off to play lone wolf. You think that giving the grenadier the box will encourage teamwork because they will be selfish and ignore teamwork, dropping it exclusively for their own use and only in the places where they personally can take advantage of it? Epic fail. I have a better idea: Let's have a support class, available for players who want to play a support role; they will drop ammo boxes because that is their role. And let's have them earn points occasionally when teammates take a lot of ammo from their box. Problem solved. Why, you're right, we can encourage teamwork. For instance, we can design inherently inter-related classes, where one class has a powerful anti-tank and indirect-fire weapons, and another class supplies the ammunition they need to use those weapons to their full potential! The grenadier will be able to work alone in short bursts, but they'll be encouraged to hang near their team for support; and the engineer will be encouraged to keep their team supplied so they can fight off enemy tanks. Seriously, it sounds like you're just bellyaching that engineers never drop boxes at this point.
I have no problem with giving the Rifleman seismics, but I do with the mortar: Grenadier still needs his mortar, or at least some sort of equivalent high explosive ability. Having no viable alternative to counter anything else makes the class even less desirable. Well it doesn't appear to work does it? Few people choose Grenadier for the reason of anti-tank support, partially because of low ammunition capacity, but also due to the fact that the amount of rockets you have to expend on any vehicle are incredibly high: again, refer back to drivers driving away. They drive away to safety, do a few repairs, and plonk down an ammo box, and come roaring back in. And no, I think giving the Grenadier the ammo box will encourage usage of the class overall, and that the Grenadier dropping ammo boxes is a beneficiary side-effect for others. As it is more or less for Engineer now. And that "support" class should be the Engineer. But it doesn't work that way right now does it? Theoretically, that would be brilliant, in the vein of the Scout binoculars functionality and healing upgrade for Engineer. Reality can be so harsh. To be honest, there is potential for team gameplay in game, but not as it can perceivably be done now. Squads need more emphasis, Engineer needs to be relegated primarily to repair and construction, and healing and ammo both need a dedicated separate class for it.
