The Grenadier shouldn't have an RPG AND a Mortar

lets give the mortar some inaccuracy so you cant easily snipe individual people with it. Coupled with something like more splash, less damage and a 2 second setup it will do lots of damage over time to an area, but have a hard time killing specific targets and defending itself, thus requiring team support.

 

Inherent inaccuracy is actually a pretty good idea, but I would disagree with more splash and less damage. Mortars are a very useful means of destroying structures and reducing damage would detract from that role.

 

The inaccuracy and setup time, even an angle limitation so you can't aim too low, I could agree with. Though, compared to nade spam the mortar is rather weak, and would be even more so when impaired. This becomes even more important since the enemy can easily recover from the mortar's slow damage rate. Pelting the enemy base would likely do little more than give them free points for repairing. You'd need to do considerably more damage with the mortar to compensate for its use, and more damage with the rpg to compensate for the grenadier's weakened effectiveness overall.

 

I figure with inaccuracy and more splash but less direct damage the mortar would overall do alot less damage to individual targets (== the guy trying to kill the gren) but alot more damage to bases and groups of people.

hmmm, thats true. Maybe we could add what someone suggested and increase the ROF as well, preventing one hit kills but still providing a similar damage output against a building or something. If mortar and rocket were going to be made exclusive then they would both need an overall improvement to be viable though.

 

Anyone here that agrees with me that, if those suggestions on page 17 are
implemented, no one would like to use the mortar cause its not entertaining
to play that way.

And as said bevor if you get sniped by an mortar its your own fault cause you
didnt dodge.
I played enough times against some of the best mortar users in empires
and none of them can kill you singleshot if you dodge the shell.

From my own experience most mortar kills are from persons that dont know
that im shoting at them or dont expect that a shell can hit them where they are.
But those people would also easily die from any other weapon in empires.
Dont blame the mortar if you are not able to look around you for enemys.

 

Still, there's something unnerving about the fact that if not moved, it hits its target EVERY SINGLE TIME.

 

UHM... firstoff I dont think the empires community has more than 10 players
that can do that trick, hitting an enemy far away with the mortar at first shot.

Its like complaining that bullets hit their target every single time.

Mortar fires in an arc, that arc is defined by the amount of explosive that
is used to fire the shell and the barrel length.

Bullets fly in an arc (yes they do) that arc is defined by the amount of
explosive that is used to fire the bullet and the length of the barrel.
In empires the bullet fires in a straight line and hits atm you hit the mouse
button.

So what is deadlier, a rifle or a mortar???

 

A tank.

 

Yeah and thats why I want my "tank throwing" skill implemented
but nobody seems to take me serious D:

 

that's because nobody likes awesome things

I mean honestly, we already have that, and its being removed ;_;

 

they should have pistols swapped for flamethrowers.

 

Increase rate of fire for mortar at expense of stamina, of course the faster you fire it the more inacurate the shells lands

 

HAHAHAHAHAHA, sorry but do you imagine the result???

 

http://forums.empiresmod.com/showthread.php?t=67&page=9

Redo Mortar.

 

Nah

 

Yes.

It has reached the point where people are openly advising each other to use the mortar as the game's primary anti-infantry weapon, and the people who would used to be hush-hush about it are now openly bragging about how the game is all about mortar-fights and the best way to duel a rifleman with a mortar and the impact mortars have on the prone-ing metagame and so forth.

That is silly. Grenadiers are already the best class at medium to long range against both structures and tanks; they don't need any more anti-infantry capability than the engineer or scout. The mortar's anti-infantry capacity ought to be nerfed down to on par with the SMGs, at the very least...

Although my preference would be to make it lower, and to leave the pistol as the grenadier's only effective infantry weapon when they're not in a purely support role. The pistol isn't even that bad now that everything else has been nerfed; for a class primarily focused on fighting tanks, I don't think they need any more anti-infantry weapons than that.

...I mentioned my ideal roles for the classes elsewhere, anyway:

Rifleman: Primary anti-infantry / secondary anti-vehicle.
Grenadier: Primary anti-vehicle / secondary anti-structure.
Scout: Primary anti-structure / secondary anti-infantry.
Engineer: Primary construction / secondary general-purpose support

This would ensure that every class has an important role to play by making them 'primary' (the best there is) to go to for one specific type of challenge, while leaving them a secondary role to play under other circumstances. The engineer and rifleman fit their roles almost exactly; the grenadier only needs some tweaks... it's mostly the scout who would have to be heavily overhauled (with, perhaps, the engineer and grenadier anti-structure abilities scaled back slightly to make room.)

They could also be divided by range to avoid overlap, if you look closely:

Rifleman: Primary anti-infantry (medium-long) / secondary anti-vehicle (close).
Grenadier: Primary anti-vehicle (medium-long) / secondary anti-structure (medium-long).
Scout: Primary anti-structure (close) / secondary anti-infantry (close).

This means there's little overlap between the classes -- ensuring that there's an advantage to having a varied team.

The only problems with this chart are, at the moment, the grenadier is too good at anti-infantry at both close and medium range; and the scout isn't really good enough at anything, but especially not good enough at anti-structure work.

 

quit moaning about the mortar , get an idea how to buff other classes so mortar wont be the "next rails"

 

But the problem isn't simply other classes. The problem is that grenadiers have no real weakpoints; they are strong at killing buildings, strong at killing tanks, and strong at killing infantry. The mortar with ammo upgrade can hold far too much ammo for ammo-capacity to really be a limiting factor; and the mortar alone is an infantry weapon that works equally well on buildings, tanks, and infantry (the only infantry weapon with that property in the entire game). It can do this at almost any reasonable range if you're good with it. No amount of buffing to other things (short of, say, giving all classes a buff of "takes half damage from the mortar") is going to fix this situation.

Why do grenadiers have a weapon that works on everything at just about any reasonable range? No other infantry has such a weapon. How, exactly, are we supposed to balance the rifleman or scout against a class that is strong against everything, one that excels at each of the core roles in Empires combat?

The purpose of having classes is to divide up the roles. Some classes should be better at killing infantry; some should be better at killing tanks; some should be better at killing structures. Some should be better at close range, or long range; some should be designed for the frontlines, while others should stay back and support. You shouldn't be able to pick one class and do everything with it; you should have to rely on your team.

What do you think the grenadier's weak point should be? Do you think that it should even have a weak point? Or do you feel we need to give the scout a ranged anti-tank weapon, and the rifleman a ranged anti-structure weapon?

I'm all for buffing the other classes, too. But I feel that the grenadier needs, at a minimum, a range and an enemy type against which they are mostly ineffective. This encourages balance among classes on a team, and leaves room for the other classes to shine.

It is not just that I am complaining about the mortar, specifically; in fact, the only people moaning about the mortar are its defenders, who can't stop bellyaching about how much they want to keep their favorite boomstick every time someone points out what the problems it's causing. The mortar is not overpowered; if it only damaged infantry, it would make a perfectly acceptable rifleman weapon.

The problem is the grenadier as a whole. They are too versatile; they don't leave enough room for anyone else to take on anti-tank or anti-structure roles at all, and even give the rifleman a run for his money as anti-infantry.

What do you feel the optimal balance between the classes is? I've stated mine. What do you feel a grenadier should have to rely on riflemen for? On scouts for? What do you feel a scout or a rifleman should be able to do that a grenadier could not do just about as well, if not better?

These are serious questions. The grenadier can very effectively hurt structures, which the rifleman pretty much can't. He can hurt tanks, which the scout pretty much can't. These are both vital, core roles in the game; for each of those classes, the grenadier has a massively-awesome fun role he can full that the other is totally ineffective at. To remain useful under that situation, both the rifleman and the scout need equally vital, core competencies at which the grenadier is mostly ineffective. What do you think these competencies should be, if not killing infantry?

Or, alternatively, do you feel that scouts should be about as good at killing tanks as the grenadier? Do you think riflemen should be about as good at killing structures? Because when you say 'get an idea for buffing other classes', that is what you are saying.

 

Sigh, I've said it before - the only fix that a grenadier needs is a deployment/undeployment time for the mortar. Throw in a minimum range as well - I cannot see how the hell any mortar can be fired at a target 5 meters from it.

In return, increase splash damage radius a bit. Keep damage as is. Direct hit kills an infantry as usual and all that.

BAM - you have a weapon that works as intended but isn't too weak. Grenadiers will now keep their distance, raining mortar-fire at enemy frontlines and softening them up.

Such a simple fix really.

 

That wouldn't be so bad. It would help open up 'close-range anti-infantry fighting' for scouts. It would also give scouts a role as grenadier-fighters... use a buffed hide skill to approach them while they're shelling your base and kill them before they can undeploy. (Them? They should have had their team covering them.)

I think it needs to be something along those lines, though... at a bare minimum, we need to change the mortar to open up a window either in terms of range (making it useless at anything too nearby, or in close combat / when ambushed) or in terms of the targets it's effective on.

Because otherwise, if we really want to buff every class up to the current mortar, we'd either end up with everyone able to kill everything, or scouts / riflemen so stupidly powerful at killing structures / infantry that it wouldn't even be funny.

But seriously. To all the people who want to keep the mortar as it is: I want to hear what your vision of each of the classes' roles are. I want to hear what you think the grenadier's role in the game is, in particular, but I'd like to hear what you think everyone else's roles are as well.