The Grenadier shouldn't have an RPG AND a Mortar

SRSLY i love those
"BAN THESE AND THAT FROM THE GAME
CAUSE IT KILLED ME AND ITS NOT CAUSE
I SUCK ITS THE OVERPOWERED WEAPON."
threads

Most people die from mortar shells cause they play
sitting duck or move in a direct line. Most of them
even if one shell didnt hit... thats not a overpowered
weapon thats darwinism why they die.

 

Yeah me too. But maybe we should just stop replying and let them die. We all know its balanced and the dev's arn't gonna nerf somthing they know doesn't need it.

 

The problem isn't that the mortar is the best anti-infantry weapon; the problem is that it's simply too good for an anti-tank focused class. I believe the game is better when every class has a clear area of weakness; no class should be able to handle everything on their own.

* Riflemen are useless verses buildings/turrets
* Scouts are ineffective against tanks
* Engineers, while intended to be a jack-of-all-trades (and somewhat overpowered, as people have noted) are still mostly ineffective against tanks when their ML turret is elsewhere; they also lack any area of offensive specialization, so they tend to not have an advantage.

I've asked you this before, and you've never answered: What is the grenadier bad at? What gives them as much trouble as a turret gives a rifleman, or a tank gives a scout?

If you feel that every class should be able to handle everything, why haven't you suggested that riflemen get seismics or anti-building turrets; or that scouts get an anti-tank weapon? Those are glaring weaknesses; while the scout is broken, I don't think it should ever get a good anti-tank weapon (and most people seem to agree), and I think that giving seismic grenades to the rifleman would be a bad move. Those limitations improve the game; I think that the grenadier (who is strong, in theory, against both tanks and buildings) should have a similar weakness against infantry, the only main weakness left.

There was a move/nerf stickies suggestion in another thread, which I agree with. However, despite their (admittedly overdone) power, stickies have more clear, obvious limitations than the mortar does at the moment; and the rifleman class as a whole has very few options for hurting buildings or getting past turrets, which gives him far more limitations than the grenadier has. This makes stickies less pressing; the rifleman has his weakness.

But the grenadier doesn't; once their anti-tank ability is fixed and seismics are nerfed (both of which I do agree with), they'll be the strongest against buildings, the strongest against tanks... and with no weaknesses to make up for this. That's not good game design.

They don't have to be totally helpless (again, I'd be happy if they just kept their pistol as their best anti-infantry weapon); but they should have a clear weak point, just like scouts do against tanks, and riflemen do against buildings/turrets.

What do you think the grenadier is bad at? If you don't think a class should be bad at anything, why don't you want to give the rifleman seismics and long-range anti-tank/building weapons?

Lots of threads have suggested ways of weakening the engineer; and threads that would give the scout anti-tank capabilities are routinely shot down. Nobody even suggests that the rifleman get any anti-structure capabilities. So... why do the suggestions that the grenadier be weaker against infantry get this kind of vitriolic response? Why are you so angry about the possibility of being weak against infantry, when it is generally agreed that all the other classes need similar weak points?

You two are in no position to get personal. I've posted detailed explanations for how I think the grenadier needs its weaknesses enhanced in order to improve game balance; your positions, as near as I can tell, is "WE LOVE OUR MOWTARZ " You want to keep it because you like using it as it is, not because you have a coherent response to the gameplay issues its current design causes.

The problem isn't that it's overpowered (on its own, no, it isn't); the problem is the grenadier class taken as a whole. The mortar, as it is now, leaves the grenadier without a clear weak point. It means that one class (aside from engineers, who are necessary by design) can adequately handle every situation in the game, with no need for support from the other two.

Again:

The rifleman is weak against turrets and structures.
The scout is weak against vehicles.
The engineer is essential, but lacks a strong point. (Well, they will, once seismics are fixed...)
The grenadier is effective against everything.

...you don't see a problem here? And you don't think that, given the layout and the primary targets in the game (structures, infantry, vehicles), it's a bit obvious what the grenadier's weakness should be, in light of the other two?

Just about everyone agrees infantry are currently underpowered... don't you think that, maybe, this might have something to do with it?

 

I think saying hes effective against everything is an overstatement because he has to choose whether to use his limited ammo against buildings or tanks or infantry.

And even then its not as powerful as the rifle or stickys or siesmics. In a way hes like the engy with mediocre skills against everything instead of extreme skills against certain things like scouts and rifleman.

I don't see how infantry are underpowered.

 

Yeah, but my understanding is:

* Seismics are being nerfed
* The grenadier's anti-tank abilities are being buffed.

I agree with both of these changes, but they're going to leave the grenadier as the best class against both buildings and tanks.

While the grenadier does have limited ammo, the mortar is his highest-ammo weapon (and, again, when the RPG is buffed, he'll have more things to use on tanks, and less forced decisions like that.) Particularly with ammo upgrade, the mortar can hold a huge amount of ammo; given that one or two shots can often be enough against infantry, it can easily carry enough ammo to outlast a SMG if used well. When the RPG is an effective anti-tank weapon, this will be even worse.

And overall I would prefer classes with extreme skills in certain areas, and weaknesses elsewhere; I feel that this encourages teamwork and puts an emphasis on the comm's strategies.

 

I actually played as rifleman the last month not as grenadier.
Yes I like the mortar, not because its such a deadly weapon.
I like it because its a different weapon. Cause all those rifles, guns
etc. in fps get boring over time, its all the same.

A assault rifle/smg has srsly more ammo to kill infantry.

I seriously never really had any proplem with grenadiers in the time I
played as rifleman so I think that the mortar isnt such a fearsome
weapon. Most time I died from assault rifles and smg2`s.

If I face an enemy as grenadier (and they see me) and kill them with the
mortar they die because they cant aim. If you cant kill an enemy in under
a second in empires with any smg or assault rifle you are not good at fps
at all.

If you make the mortar limited to 45 degree but make him more powerfull
as mentioned here many times. I bet that I would be able to rape an entire
base without any real proplem or be able to hold chokepoints like the
valley in slaughtered alone.

 

Yeah, sorry I was referring to when you use it in close range, yes it is easy to dodge at long range.

It's not that at all. The mortar can one hit kill you from a few feet with the grenadier being able to perfect accuracy and high speed.

Nothing thread-wise changes anything. The devs might glance now and again to see any interesting ideas. I'm just trying to bring it to the attention to the devs that the mortar IMO needs changing.

I didn't know there were any new weapon scripts. Care to link?

I'd prefer it to be like that than a close-range insta-kill anti-infantry weapon.

 

Actually I suggested making it less powerful.

Longer ranged yes, more splash yes, but less overall damage.

A few grenadiers working together with a scout and an engineer could make a good mortar firebase, and if you had other classes protecting them they'd be hard to stop, and would probably be able to kill a base, but that's at least three grenadiers, one engineer, one scout, and two riflemen + one grenadier for protection. And if you have that many people working together you deserve to get some firepower out of it.

 

Testers only. Wait for 2.2. A lot of balance and weapon issues have been addressed.

 

Fair enough. Guess I'll have to wait until 2.2 comes out then.

So does anybody think these are some good suggestions for the mortar:
-Decreased maximum damage
-Increased AoE
-While a Grenadier is firing a mortar he is locked in a position
-The mortar has a higher muzzle velocity and therefore a longer range
-The mortar has a minimum angle of 45 degrees
-The mortar is inaccurate

 

Sounds good to me. Although I'd buff it's damage.

 

So what argument beside "I want a mortar like in real life"
and "im not a good player and I want something changed
so I own more" do we have?

Have to see how many of you guys whined 3 month ago
about how hard it is to handle the mortar and that it
needs to be made easier because it is impossible to kill
stuff with it. -.-

 

Still waiting for your opinion on my suggestions, Mayama.

 

The only real problem I have with the mortar is sprint shooting. Some gren always manages to sprint past my wall, tap crouch and blow us all up. Sprinting with guns makes them inaccurate, same thing should be for mortars.

 

Light artillery mortars would promote teamwork, as I outlined in a previous post. They allow new gameplay possibilites, and they make grenadiers more useful in a few new ways while nerfing them in one other way.

Sounds like a net improvement to me, the only counterargument is 'I like the mortar'.

 

It sounds good to me. It would still be useful against infantry, I guess, but it would be more of an anti-infantry 'support' weapon (the same way you can use mines against infantry), while keeping comparative unit balance, weaknesses, etc intact.

 

Wait until 2.2 comes out before you guys continue this conversation.

 

Its more like "I dont see any reason to change it"

If the mortar is such a super leet awesome weapon
why I dont see more people playing as grenadiers?

 

Huh? I didn't know it got changed. Lemme take a look.

 

As long as the silly mortar system is changed I'll be happy. As it is right now, a good grenadier is almost superior to that of a rifleman when it comes to the offensive which is just beyond ridiculous. The popping out from a corner, firing, then retreating, all in less than 2 seconds is something that's fundamentally flawed.