The Grenadier shouldn't have an RPG AND a Mortar

It's not really weapon balance that's the issue; really, the people who talk about 'weapon balance' are generally the ones who want to keep the mortar, since what they really care about is how strong this weapon is vs. that weapon.

The problem is more one of 'class balance', and class roles specifically; and how those impact the metagame. The RPG is certainly not overpowered; but giving it to the scout or engineer definitely would be. Likewise, there's nothing overpowered about the current mortar... it just (for the reasons I outlined in my previous post) isn't a weapon that the grenadier ought to have. Nothing against the mortar; I wouldn't give the grenadier an assault rifle, a shotgun, or the engineer's calculator, either. They'd have the same problem the current mortar does, to differing degrees.

No amount of testing can settle this question (short of making the suggested changes to the mortar, then comparing the improvements in the resulting game to the broken one we have now); it's a design-philosophy issue.

So I'm curious to hear the answer of the people in this thread who like the current mortar:

Do you think the grenadier, as it is now, has any significant weaknesses? (Keep in mind, the ammo-upgrade mortar actually holds a fairly large amount of ammo, relative to how much damage it can do. "Can't rocket-snipe forever without a box" isn't a weakness.)
Do you feel it should have a significant weakness?
Do you feel that the other classes don't have significant weaknesses?
If not, do you feel that the weaknesses of other classes should be addressed, too (say, by giving the scout a mini-RPG, or giving the rifleman a mini-mortar of its own so he can kill turrets from just outside their range?)

I think the answers are obvious, but I'm curious to hear what you think.

 

If say, in version 1.0 of empires, tanks had the ability to fly. Players would decide that it's stupid and that it should be removed. Although this is fun, it's not realistic. Yet, I do not see any flying tanks in empires but i do see a mortar which isn't really a mortar, but a anti-tank and anti-infantry weapon.

So please to all 'vets' stop squawking about realism. Just remember it's not realism that makes this game boring, it's the RIGHT amount of realism. Tanks could fly right? why the fuck not? but that's not in empires, because it would be stupid and imbalanced. So why have a weapon which is effective against infantry, tanks and buildings?

 

That was an horrible horrible example. Seriously like... your just going to compare a mortar with a flying tank?

 

He also said empires was slightly more realistic then CSS. Empires uses logic but not realism and that has already been stated A LOT.

But the point (to Aquillion) is that you can pick from 2 classes that aren't great against anything or 2 classes that are extremely good at some things and have bigger weaknesses.. Those two classes(rifle/scout) will be the gren/engy's significant weakness with this current weapon balance we are doing. I love it like that and I think that it helps make this game so great.

I did however suggest awhile ago that the mowtar and RPG share the same ammo. The abundant ammo(with ammo upgrade) and 9 mines are the only problems with the gren class.

We can just do this forever.. It's all opinions..

 

Why not? At least I'm contributing something to this discussion. All you're doing is criticizing people's opinions and saying how drunk you are.

Anyway, ranting aside, Maybe it was a shit example. But my point was that people could get accustomed to flying tanks and then when a point comes across that it's ridiculous and that they shouldn't be able to fly, people will either welcome it or be against it. This is fine, but saying "Let this thread die" is basically like saying "let's ignore people who oppose something i think is fine". I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm not saying I'm right either, this is a suggestion.

This isn't a bad idea actually. If this were to be implemented though I think the ammo cap on the mortar (without ammo upgrade) should be the same if not less than the RPG.

True. But opinions are interesting. It's when people come in here and post random unrelated nonsense that ruins it.

 

I was actually sober but uhhh
thanks?

 

Huh flying tanks? i guess aircraft will be pretty much alike.
Mowtar is just fine, and it does pay off if you know how to use it. /thread

PS, i fail to see how a gren is superior to a mass inf, he can die in 1 second
Ps2 if you want to make rpg and mowtar use the same ammo, then it should have definatelly more ammo than the rpg, because no matter the ammo upg, you would find your self ammoless pretty soon.

 

Hell yeah. Hopefully aircraft will be accompanied by anti-aircraft ground vehicles too =]

Are you going to explain why you think it's fine?

That's true, but I wasn't making a point about the Grenadier class specifically, more that I don't think he should have both an RPG and a mortar.

If you go rambo it up yeah, you will. But this should be discouraged and teamwork (sticking together with engi's) should be encouraged. That way even if you are ammoless you can always nag the engi for an ammo box.

 

Is there anyone who has a problem with simply renaming the mortar to something like large bore single shot grenade launcher? It has been established that it does not act like a real life mortar, so changing its name would certainly help to reduce the number of people who use it incorrectly.
Realism is good because it gives players who are new a chance to correctly guess what a particular thing does before they use it. Guns when fired shoot things which hurt people, repair tools fix things, RPGs destroy tanks. These things make a game more intuitive which is what it needs to be to have a lower learning curve. Players should be able to draw semi-accurate comparisons between real life and empires to give them a starting point from which to understand the game. The mortar does not behave very much like its real life counterpart so it should be changed into something it does resemble, like a grenade launcher.

 

The only change that is needed is the grenadier needing 2 or so seconds to set up the mortar before being able to fire and 2 or so seconds to pack it up again before being able to move.

That is all.

There is otherwise absolutely nothing wrong with the grenadier or how the mortar works or how much damage it deals.

 

If you add a setup time to it without changing how it works it will become useless, nobody is going to spend time setting up the current mortar.

I do want a setup time but I also want to make the mortar more powerful as a support weapon to compensate for that.

At the moment the mortar is only really good against infantry and light buildings such as turrets, if you have to set it up it becomes only useful against turrets and even then less so than grenades.

If you turn it into proper artillery you can keep it useful against more things, just not in direct combat which is the issue I have with the grenadier.

 

YES! YES!

 

Seriously if thats true tell me,

-why people go scout if the enemy attacks with tanks
-people run after apcs to sticky them, the vehicle the has 90% a anti infantry weapon on board
-most people spawn as rifleman if you have an apc in their base and u need
people to deconstruct the base
-people use the hmg if they want to attack and rush
-people dont dodge if the see incoming shells from whatever source
-people drive straight into enemy fire and bitch if they lose their tank
-people drive over mines even if they see them
-people dont go grenadier to kill turrets, no they suicide in masses trying to run past
etc...

THATS ALL COMMON SENSE I DONT NEED A MANUAL TO KNOW THAT THIS IS STUPID
BUT AT LEAST 50% ON ANY SERVER BEHAVE LIKE THAT

 

The thing is any more damage no matter the setup time and it will rape everything. Don't raise damage and have a 2 second setup(that's a long time in empires) and it will be a completely useless weapon.

 

Hence why you decrease the damage, add a setup time, and increase the splash radius and max range while adding a minimum range.

 

Another thought; the wider-area, lower-damage mortar could make shelling bases more interesting. Right now you end up with silly contests where one person repairs a building frantically from within while it's rocket-sniped/mortared from outside. Those aren't very fun. If the mortar hit a wide enough area to hit multiple buildings at once, it could suppress that (especially when used as a support weapon in combination with another attack).

I like the idea of the mortar being a suppressive weapon, rather than just a handheld mini-standard-cannon.

I think that this is a good point. The vast gulf between the way the mortar behaves at the moment, and the way you'd expect it to behave, does increase the learning curve for new players. Part of the reason why people sometimes consider using the mortar well to be a 'secret trick' is probably because it's fairly unintuitive to realize that the current mortar is mostly a mid-to-close-range weapon.

 

No.. See I've already said that would make it boring. Sitting behind cover and not even knowing if your hitting anyone with the little damage you give is boring.

This is a high paced game, slowing him down will make it hard to kill anyone moving unless it was on district 402.. Specially with these new weapon scripts were testing.

 

On a good day im able to one shot people with the mortar at the end of its range. (that means under the last gren box of its crosshair)
And im not the best grenadier player in that game.

OK now give it a setup time and increase the splash radius.

I set my mortar, for example, on the hill on duststorm middle.
I predict that im able to kill everyone in the BE or NF starting base.
I predict that im able to kill every building and at the same time
hinder be from leaving their rax.

 

Yeah I don't think you guys realize how lame a bigger splash radius would be for the people on the receiving side. Even if it doesn't kill, your still going to be pushing a lot of people around with it which messes up there aim.

Annoying people with out need the of skillful aiming.

 

I thought I explained this.

The mortar would become like artillery, as the other guns in the game favour using cover and crouching a lot, the mortar becomes the ideal choice for unseating infantry who are sitting in one area.

It would solve district402, because suddenly grenadiers have something to obliterate nadespammers, it also solves crossroads, and any other map that tends to result in people digging in.

I also said that there should be some system in place to help the grenadier aim, if nothing else you could just use arty feedback like every other arty player in the game. But apparently you can't read so you wouldn't know that.

It's not designed to promote trench warfare it's designed to make it impossible.

Did you not read the bit that said decrease the damage.

Unless they stand still for ten seconds no you aren't going to be able to kill them. The mortar would only be effective if the enemy can't or won't get out of the way when the shells start falling, or if the grenadier can predict where the enemy will run to and walk his shells towards it.

It's designed to be used in tandem with other players so that if you make the players run to escape the mortar, then either your team can mow them down (and you get assist points, ideally) or they don't run out of fear of being shot, and you blow them up.

It promotes teamwork and gives the grenadier a different ability.

If you got three other grenadiers to set up with you, an engineer to supply you all with ammo and build you a wall shield, and a rifleman to cover you all, then you might be able to do some damage to the base, but that's a lot of people working together and so you deserve to be able to do that. One grenadier is a minor annoyance, one grenadier you can't run from is a problem, and a lot of grenadiers you can't counterattack against is a pain in the arse.

Then reduce the view kick from mortar explosions if it proves to be a problem, it's not difficult.