The Grenadier shouldn't have an RPG AND a Mortar

You can avoid that most times, well I can and im sure most of the rest
can do that too. You can jump out of cover with a smg or an assault rifle
and kill the enemy in the same amount of time it takes to kill someone with
the mortar...

 

Yeah, but the mortar can fire as you loose the first shot. Meaning you might kill the gren, but he'll probly hit you. Though the mortar isn't overpowered, it's just, not logical.

 

It is to my humble opinion that you must try to use the advantage of mobility, the mortar can only hit you where yu were 3 seconds ago, so it is key not to be still slurping martini's at the exact same spot 3 seconds after he fired

any grenadier further away then 10 meters is dead meat if i am riflemen and i see him before he shoots (and not out of ammo, not 99% damaged etc etc etc..)

 

My point exactly. The mortar is not too powerful or a 'super leet anti-infantry weapon' as Mayama put it, but to have an advantage such as this is like you said, fundamentally flawed.

 

this is how hand held anti tank weaponry is used since the issue of the bazooka

soldiers would hide behind a cover, jump out partially, take a second or 3 to point the weapon and aim, fire and retreat before anyone could respond.

the German battle forces in ww2 would even fire, and just drop the weapon for quicker retreat depending on what type of anti tank weapon they where using

hence the success of the hand held anti tank weapon so that it is a weapon still used today

 

What's your point?

 

I think this statement is beyond ridiculous! If a gren can kill you as a rifleman then he could probably kill you with the pistol or melee just as easy. Just because someone who is really skilled kills you with the weapon doesn't mean the weapon is overpowered.. How many times does that need to be said?

Krenzo use to always ask is it fun? Yes the mowtar is fun and the other weapons in 2.2 are balanced around it. All your suggestions make the mowtar boring and about as useful as upgraded grenades on escort. Do you guys ever use it? Try killing a rifleman and see what happens. I honestly don't think you guys actually know the weapon all that well..

The weapons are tested by skilled players.. This game will not be balanced by noobs.

 

i was just trying to shed a new kind of light on the matter, not deliberately influence the debate in any direction or anything! please forgive my intrusion!

 

problem: the mortar isnt a ANTI TANK weapon. its a long range carriable infantry support artillary. that what you discribe is fine and perfect whit the RPG. but not for a mortar.

 

Mortars in real life are not anti tank... They are anti infantry in empires too.

If a gren using cover keeps popping around a corner to shoot you why don't you get smart and think of tactics to kill him while hes out of his cover? Hes using skills to make him faster why don't you use skills to kill him? Maybe you can use a health or damage upgrade? Or god forbid you use team work and have a camera so you can see where he's coming from.. And don't throw any nades in his direction cause that might hurt him.. Really all you need to do is point and click with the rifle and you will have a dead gren in less then a second.

Get creative and stop using district_402 as an example of why its overpowered..

 

The mortar is a medium to long-range suppressive anti-infantry weapon.

I've got no quarrels with it's power or anything like that. What I find ridiculous is that a mortar guy can pop out of a corner, nail a guy that is 5 feet away and then run back to cover before that infantryman even realized what just happened. That should just not be possible. If a grenadier is using a mortar from a long range then that's just perfectly fine, as long as it took a few seconds to set it all up etc before firing. Heck, maybe even the splash damage could be increased a bit - that would still be perfectly fine. But a grenadier is NOT some frigging ninja with ultimate agility and dexterity skills that is en par or maybe even superior to a rifleman at close range.

 

Grenadiers are so agile and fast because most of them use the
speed skill, you can take that too.

Do you know how small the radius is that deals enough damage to
kill people in one hit?

And yes a grenadier is not better as a rifleman in close range.

There are some people in the community that are good enough
as grenadier to rule the scoreboard but those guys would kill
you with any weapon I guess.

I dont care how a mortar works in reality, that game trys not
to simulate the real world. Its more tf2 than css in many aspects
and nobody whines cause the soldier can load 3 rockets into his bazooka in tf2

 

[Doesnt read thread]

Grens are just fine, you have to be somewhat skilled to use the mortar to kill infantry. Polarization of classes is okay. What would suck is a bunch of classes with SMG + Class weapon, and none of them can do anything.

The boundary is along things like 9mining. Also sniper can gtfo.

 

I don't think this affects the popping-out-of-corners tactic though.

I'm pretty sure if you hit someone directly with the mortar it kills them. I've got no problems with this but the Grenadier shouldn't be mobile whilst firing.

Oh please. Don't try to unload the "but it's not supposed to be realistic" argument onto this thread. Empires has a little bit more realism than TF2 AND CSS so that's that down the drain.

 

You absolutely cannot shoot the mowtar while mobile. You must stop and crouch to fire.. Maybe your lagging a little bit so it seems like hes running around and shooting but its not that way. And like I said earlier stop trying to balance this game with the map district 402 in mind!!

This is taken directly from the suggestion guidelines..

Anything to make Empires "More Realistic"
Remember, that empires has never been about realism, “Fun” takes priority

FUN!! THE MOWTAR IS FUN?! No! lets make it boring and realistic.

 

Spamming enemy bases with a mowtar would be kinda fun... But right now it's ineffectual without direct hits, or even with them if you're aiming for the buildings.

 

Its fine
let this thread die in peace

 

The problem is that a class with no major weaknesses might be fun for a little while when you play around with it, but in the long run it makes the whole game less fun by resulting in more shallow, less interesting strategies. It contributes to Comming being dull (because you don't have to worry about organizing and planning attacks when your grenadiers can handle everything decently); it makes games more repetitive (because there are fewer viable tactics, with the role of infantry -- who are now never strong against other infantry -- greatly reduced); and, in general, it's fun only from a short-lived "WHEE, I'M SHOOTING TEH MANS!" standpoint. That's great for running around with a rocket launcher in TF2 or whatever, but most of the fun in Empires should be working with your team and your comm, taking advantage of enemy weaknesses, and having a good plan. All these things are weakened by the way the mortar works now.

There are always at least some infantry on the field, so effectiveness against at least one kind of infantry is import. Turrets are strong against riflemen, and can stop them dead if they don't have support; tanks are strong against all infantry, but particularly scouts (and, to lesser extent, engineers -- their turrets and walls tend to take time to use.) Both turrets and tanks are winning strategies that get a lot of use.

But infantry is never a winning strategy, because nothing is really weak against infantry. The class that's supposed to be weak against infantry simply isn't weak enough in that area. You can throw down turrets when the enemy has weak anti-turret capabilities, or rush tanks when the enemy weak anti-tank defenses... but since every class is effective against infantry, it's much harder to use infantry as an in-depth strategy.

On top of this, the fact that grenadiers can handle infantry decently on their own encourages lone-wolf strategies; you frequently see grenadiers dashing out with full ammo-increase ammo (which lasts a while) to mortar/rocket-snipe enemy buildings, unsupported. These strategies should exist, to an extent -- but they should have serious weaknesses, things they can't deal with. If you send out lone-wolf riflemen, they won't be able to get past turrets and stationary defenses; if you send out lone-wolf scouts or engineers, they'll have trouble with tanks. Lone-wolf grenadiers need a similar weak point; I think they should be in trouble, generally, if the run into other (non-grenadier) infantry.

The fact that grenadiers + ammo upgrade can operate so well on their own encourages them to simply ignore their comm and attack where they want. That is a bad thing.

Is this fun? Sure it is. People freely run around as engineers, who have relatively weak anti-tank capabilities; or as scouts, who have practically none at all; or as riflemen, who have no real way to handle walls and turrets. Lots of people drive APCs that lack anti-tank abilities, especially in the early game. All these things provide other benefits. When I'm an engineer, it feels like an accomplishment to outwit and beat or drive off a larger tank that I happened to run into, because I know my class was at a disadvantage; that is more fun to me than if, say, the engineer had a mini-RPG.

What's the problem with grenadiers having the same sorts of weaknesses as the other classes? Why is it suddenly completely unfun for grenadiers to be any less than perfectly capable of handling everything?

I think asymmetric relationships between the classes, vehicles, and structures in the game doesn't hurt fun at all; in fact, I think it's one of the game's most fun aspects. That's why I'm disappointed that the current grenadier doesn't fit well into the otherwise-decent layout.

My optimal layout for the classes (which would require some other changes, but grenadiers are clearly the most problematic) goes like this:

Riflemen:
Strong vs. Infantry.
Decent vs. Vehicles (esp. APCs)
Weak vs. Structures

Grenadier
Strong vs. Vehicles
Decent vs. Structures
Weak vs. Infantry.

Scout
Strong vs. Structures (esp. turrets + maybe walls, not so much major buildings.)
Decent vs. Infantry
Weak vs. Vehicles

Engineer
Just below what other classes rank as 'decent' vs all.
(If seismic-spam is nerfed, RPGs are buffed, and scouts are given some better anti-turret stuff + a good anti-infantry weapon, this will basically be the case.)
Plus they have other abilities that make them essential.

I think this would give every class a clear role; it would encourage them to work together, and would reward teams who had (and listened to) a good comm, who kept them in the right places to support each other. As it relates to the grenadier, notice that under this model, the use of forward scouts and riflemen to flush out grenadier snipers / mortar-users would be encouraged; the weakening of the grenadier's anti-infantry capability also helps create more of a niche for the scout to take the secondary position in that role.

It would make using your mortar or RPG to hit enemy buildings from a distance more exciting, too -- being weak against infantry would mean you'd need to be careful and sneaky, rather than just mindlessly hitting attack from the same location with an ammo box in front of you. You'd have to worry about forward scouts, who would be working on stripping out enemy defenses + grenadiers just like you; you'd be sneakily launching mortars from the underbrush to soften the enemy up, then dashing for cover once you're discovered, not just the mindlessly charging NEED MORE DAKKA we get now.

 

Can we please leave this thread to die alone, like a man with 13 penises?
Its already excruciatingly bone crushing that there removing 9mine, the fact that the Orange box engine has (almost)no exploits is just going to have half the ninja in me die... but I will make up for it and be an ownage pilot.

 

We are working on the weapon balancing right now.. We tested everything today and will more tomorrow.. Don't worry.

*sings bob marley* every things gonna bee alrrigttt... everythangs gonna beee alrightt.