Why would it be to powerful? If you think of scenarios you will find that it is only in theory it would be to powerful, not in practice. Lets say we are attacking an enemy forward barrack, a common scenario in empires, now if you want to bombard the enemy defences you still need to be able to see it, this makes you an easy target for enemy riflemen or grenadiers. And because of the set-up time and dismantle time you can't just pop shoot the enemy, so the enemy defenders riflemen and grenadiers will actually see you for a long period of time, especially if the arc is higher, they can see were you fire from, because of the mortar grenades. Thus it is fair game, because they have a good chance to kill you. Now if we were in cover and couldn't see the enemy forward barracks or defending troops we would require the team to spot the enemy barrack or defending troops, sence you will need to have the map up to see artillery feedback, this means a higher chance of missing, especially when trying to hit troops. And this means that you need more grenadiers to bombard the enemy which means less troops assaulting or being tankers. Also as attacking grenadiers we are extremely vulnerable to vehicles because of the dismantle time. Now defending grenadiers would not be overpowered because of the same reason. If the defending grenadiers can see the enemy then they can be shoot down, if they can't they need their team to spot the attacking infantry. And the argument that it gets to powerful don't cut it, two grenadiers with mortars now in game can destroy barracks pretty fast if left unattended. The buff would mostly be area of effect and a small damage buff. Also if you look at the scenarios you will find that attacking would be easier now, which is a good thing.
thing is that rockets by there shape stabilize themselves, mortar shells do not, and if they would they would go up in a "straight" line, and then fall down again like a solid brick when the force runs out enough to disable the stabilizing effect while you would desire to give them a nice arc, like a cannon ball this would be near impossible with a rocket shaped mortar shell and same for a mortar shell used as rocket, it would start arcing and basically fall down 10 meters in front of you because the forward propellant would not compensate for gravity in favor of realism, 2 different types of ammunition should be used in favor of gameplay, i say boost the mortar, and give the need to deploy
My take on it would be: Realism. Remove mortar give grenadier alternative high explosive rounds for rpg. Gameplay. Boost the mortar, and give the need to deploy.
You ever throw a foot ball? Arch is physics not projectile designe. And BTW have a good look at what your loading into your weapons in game. The same projectile model is used for mortar and RPG.
Give me a deployable mortar with bigger splash radius (what makes it stats wise like an "empires small artillery canon shell") and I show you how you can take down a whole enemy team without getting hit. You dont shot at a distance when they can hit you, use a distance where every weapon has the biggest damage falloff. You dont aim where people are, you aim where people are when the shell hits.
Is there anyone who does try the opposite? However i wonder you could do this with a mowta that needs to deploy first and has an arc limitting the range to < rifle_useless_distance. In fact i believe that proning rifle man will manage to kill you long before your mowta is deployed, also because at that high distance you probably won't see him untill he starts firing at you and then it's already too late. If you're concerned people are demanding an unlimitted range pin-point nuke warhead artillery, stop being afraid - no one is asking 4 that. What we ask for is a slightly buffed mortar in means of splash damage and overall damage to compensate for not being able to do ut-rambo style with no teamplay any longer and probably some reduction of it's precision if it turns out to be overpowered.
Proove 4 that? I mean of course we ask the devs to implement it in a way so that's not going to be possible. I already named the numberous options to balance it - you just keep saying it won't work with no proove whatsoever Or to argue in your way if you like that better: Speed upgrade deploy being shot by roflman
I Say It Wont Work Cause I Play Grenadier Alot And Know What You Can Do With The Mortar. I Often Dont Jump Around At Front, I Sit Far Away From The Front And Mortar Them From A Distance. With The Existing Mortar, The One Ingame. I Can Tell You That Its Not A Problem To Pick Out All Infantry On The Field. The Argument That Rilfemans Would Pick You Out Is Futile Cause They Cant Kill You With 2.2 Weapons At That Distance. They Also Cant Reach You Because Your Team Is Bevor You. Because Long Range Mortar Sniping Is Something That Not Everyone Can Do Easily You Will See That The One Guy That Can Handle It Will Rule The Whole Game. Btw How Many Of You Actually Use The Mortar All Time To Know How It Is To Play With It. If You Would Increase Splash Radius I Would Kill All Those I Only Hurt.
haha sorry for the offtopic but i just cant stop laughing at mayama trying to defend his fav overpowered weapon ofc it will be the pain in the ass for the fun side of gameplay but hey, 2.12 rifles were fun , why not make other weps less funny too.
Same goes 4 me as i alerady said... Yeah but the point is that that is going to change... (probably the reason why u are against this idea) I often play rofleman so i can say that it IS possibel to kill people at distance - otherwise i would use smg 4 close distances. I even managed to kill those long range bunny-hopper grenadiers, so if you say a buffed mowta-man will rule all with a skilled player - a skilled player can also rule that person as roflman. So you did a long post to answer our ask for real arguments, but lenght doesnt mean also enlarging the content As far as i can understand your claims, its still just: I'm da pwnag grenadier and i know all kinda trix and i'm gonna rule this out of u if you buff my weapon - which is still just your claim not thinking about our ideas to also reduce the mortars accuracy and more...
I Dont Fucking Fight For My Overpowered Weapon. I Show You The Flaws In You Damn Concept But That Is Something You Wont Accept. Do you know how many threads with like one million posts are in that forum about that topic? Do you really think that this is a new or original approach?
You claim to have found flaws in our concept by not precisely looking at our concept I mean ok - you probly are right and we're probably just arrogant to not believe a single person is able to predict the whole gamplay effect of changing the behavior of that one weapon. But if that was possible there would be no need of game-testers right? However if u realy are right, if i wore you i would just show us its impossible to balance our idea by testing it in the next version of the game...
Your concept claims to be a solution without giving any proof that it will work. You just "believe" it works. I can say from my experience as grenadier that any increasing of the splash radius will make the mortar overpowered. Deployable or not.
The concept "light-bulp" also just claimed to be a solution with no proove that it will work. Thats the point of the thing called "idea" aka "suggestion" And how many people have said that men will never be able to fly into space as they claimed to new how this world works... However i'm happy to see that you're also able to argue properly and answer to posts
Probably - but that i did only post seldom doesnt mean i didnt read this forum... However i think this slowly gets to a battle between the two of us while loosing the real toppic So as i can say abou me - i'll only be satisfied if i once saw this ingame - balanced or not to then say if it worked or not - anything else as we both now pointed out - is just pure speculation.
