The dreaded idea rears its ugly head again. (I looked. The criticisms for the idea weren't that bad, believe it or not.) Possible names: Remote Charge, Remote Explosive, Satchel Charge, Satchel Pack, Det Pack, C4, Explosive Charge, etc. Remote Charge An explosive demolition weapon, useful against buildings, sparingly practical against vehicles/infantry. Ammo: 2 (4 with upgrade) Raw Damage: 150-200 approx., short radius Number of charges you'd need per... Turret: 2 Turret (sabbed): 1 Building: 8 Building (sabbed): 4 Wall: 2-4 Primary: 1-2 second placement time Secondary: Detonate all placed charges Scouts may have up to 4 charges placed. Placing a 5th causes the oldest charge to disappear. A scout dying causes all placed charges to disappear. Uses Demolition - A scout is now a dangerous weapon if he sneaks into a base. Sabotaged buildings, inherently weaker, are vulnerable to a scout who has enough time to place all 4 charges, if he has the upgrade. Otherwise, a scout can sabotage and destroy a cluster of turrets, or blow up some walls to open a base to attack. Area Denial - Not as effective as mines, but they'll do if you're desperate. Players that see a charge may be distracted as they search for the scout that placed them. Could also be used in conjunction with mines for that little extra bit of damage. Traps - Not as effective as mines, but with more control. They probably shouldn't be too good at flipping vehicles, unless you use all 4, and then you're fresh out of explosives. Blowing CVs out of the water - Maybe. Advantages/Disadvantages Damage - They provide more anti-vehicle and anti-building firepower than stickies, while being just as difficult to use effectively. You can use them to clear out lone buildings, such as refineries, or critical vehicles like artillery and apcs. Teams will have to keep a careful watch for good scouts; losing a building suddenly is worse than letting your base get sabotaged. However, the risk is not as great as losing the CV to a ninjadier. Scarcity - With the ammo upgrade, you can blow up a few turrets or one building (maybe two if they're close together). Choose carefully, and remember to sabotage first. Strategy - Unlike stickies, they require reasonably thoughtful placement and/or good infiltrating technique. This works well with sneaky scouts, but not so well with snipey scouts, unless said snipers enjoy laying traps.
wasnt this suggested here already? im for it maybe then the whining about us poor scouts stops then and as trap they could be usefull against random apcs the enemy is not watching for
to be fair, i will say that engineers can also destroy a building in a similar timeframe. so it's not as though we don't already have a player that can stroll into a base and destroy it on his own. except that the engineer can also build a whole new base on his own too. damn engineer nades are screwed up.
Dr Tl But, No 9 Mine + Hide wasnt there a big discussion some weeks ago about how weak the grenadier is against vehicles and that the rifleman is the major late game tank killer, and you want to make another class even more powerfull?
There are a host of reasons this can of worms shouldn't have been opened, it's been discussed to death, the flaws are so obvious, this should just be locked because it just seems like an attempt to troll the forum.
Wait wait wait. Couldn't you place 4 of the C4's on one of your Jihad friends, make them run into the base shouting Allah, and blow them up? But then again it's not suicide bombing if friendly fire isn't on...
then make it something more like hl1's satchels, pro: it cant be stickied onto friends playing bomb<tho i would pay to see/do det> con: it cant be stickied
ugh, it isn't just scout that needs work, all the classes need work engeneers are usefull, too usefull, they can take down the enemy base by themselves grenadiers own kind of everything except bigger tanks (wtf?) scouts kind of suck, they're only usefull in some very limlited situations riflemen ... are kind of good to think about it, they could lose the uber anti-tank weapon tough (stickies)
Note: There's nothing in the suggestion about attaching them to vehicles or infantry. Is it really necessary to explicitly deny this possibility, or is there some subconscious desire of Empires players to see that every explosive be attachable to vehicles, and so they assume this feature's presence where none existed? I found nothing bad. The most I did find, in terms of negative responses that were actually contributing, was a few cons proposed by Sandbag about the 'C4' idea. Yet in the same breath he suggested 'Satchel' bombs. Big difference, apparently. The only notable difference, placement time, I included in this suggestion. I was referring specifically to stun stickies (which are the scout's only weapon, and also incidentally much weaker than normal high explosive stickies). Perhaps I didn't make that clear.
Didn't search too well. Let me give you the reasons: Scouts, are not grenadiers, they do not wield explosives, notice they DO NOT HAVE A DAMAGINE GRENADE. How do satchel charges fit? There is a reason scouts don't have explosives. Next, souts are already rambo city, do you think giving them explosives is going to fix anything? You think mass hide ninjas are bad, this will mean it can be done without squad points, IE within the first two minutes, don't give me shit about 1 scout not having enough satchels, you can bring multiple people into a base with hide. Remote detonation, IE ninemines were removed for a reason, why does everyone automatically assume that they need replacing, it's not because ninemines don't work or anything, it's because they are imbalanced. So this is a PSA. STOP SUGGESTING REMOTE DETONATION WEAPONS
huh ? 8 c4 with ammo upgr? is this a joke? i tho 9 mining is removed mostly because you can obliterate a base in mere seconds, and you wanna make another base-killer?
I actually had a suggestion for a scout remote-detonator device that was fairly well-received. Here. The key to my suggestion, though, was to make it primarily a wall-blasting device -- made for taking out walls and maybe small constructions (turrets, maybe armories -- although that would be an expansion of the scout's role, so it's more optional.) The idea would be that scouts could blast a sudden hole in enemy defenses for the rest of their team to pour through. This is good because it doesn't really overlap any important roles (yeah, engineers are anti-wall currently, but it's not like they need that role on top of all that other things). Significantly, it isn't an anti-infantry or anti-tank weapon -- there are plenty of those already, we don't need a remote detonator for that. And the role it replaces -- taking out emplaced defenses -- is one what the existing methods for dealing with aren't very fun. Additionally, making it an anti-emplacement tool gives some justification for it being remote-detonating. The idea is that a scout can sneak in, set it, then wait and set it off at exactly the best time, right as their team rushes the area -- if the scout had to be there at that exact point, it would be much more difficult. It also works well with the scout's existing role (such as it is) and with the conceptual idea of a scout -- it lets you weaken or blast open defenses so your team can pour in, but doesn't let you slaughter buildings or infantry on your own.
so basically you suggest a "satchel" charge that onyl works versus turrets and walls (maybe armories)? i like
Why would you need that when you can deconstruct the walls.. Here's my take on the "fixing the scout": Take the 3 classes (engineer, riflemen, grenadiers). What are they supposed to do: Riflemen - Anti infantry (which reminds me, why do they have stickies..?) Engineer - Build things, support (probably should get rid of seismic nades imo) Grenadier - Anti armor (mowtar too good against inf, etc etc) So what CANT they do? Well, with those 3 classes you pretty much don't need a scout.. You have the anti-infantry, the anti-armor, and the support class.. and "scouting" really has no use in this game. Plus even if scouting was useful, why not send in a class that can destroy things while they're at it? Since you don't need much to "scout" about. I guess what I'm saying is to fix the scout, get rid of it. We don't need a scout class, there really is very little use in them.. even less with a sniper rifle (thank god that's being removed :D )
That's getting fixed in 2.2 Besides, we want engineers because they are necessary for structures, no matter how balance goes, engineers are needed.
if i would had anything to say i recently observed the binoculars could need an buff and which would fit the role fo an scout as scout alot more basically it could act like the spottedvoicecomm but that it as it now stays for longer active, that way the scout could give his team and comm information about enemy bases and "wallhacks" on vehicles, infantry, structure etc im only unsure if that deserves and own thread which probably gets bashed by all scout hates that dont see how usefull it can be to weaken the enemy, slow down his advance and to overall buy time for the rest of the team (name engineers) to get the map covered, all that with costing the enemy tickets while themself consuming rather low amounts of those (when the scout can snipe or is sneaky and good with smg)
