Engineer Emphasis


(amazinglarry) #1

Based on the three maps we’ve played, I feel like sometimes there is too much emphasis placed on the engineer to progress objectives. I can appreciate that there will be some other modes when the game goes live, but the main gameplay nearly requires engineers for everything.

Repairing the vehicle, building barricades, destroyed barricades, building the terminal, building the pumps, destroying the pumps, destroying the cores, building the lift etc.

I was a bit more annoyed with this before I found out I could go Engineer2, and actually use something that wasn’t a shotgun, but I still feel overall there’s too much emphasis placed on them. There are no other classes that are ‘required’ at any point… although it’s obviously up to players to determine a balanced make-up of people who can heal, distribute ammo et al… but outside of the incentive of being a real person, there’s not much else to sway one’s selection.

Maybe this could be solved with more intuitive benefits to the other classes? But in the interim, if you don’t have at least 1 engineer, you will lose every single game. The same can’t be said for the soldier, field ops, medic or covert ops.

P.S. <3 Brink wink wink nudge nudge.


(Ashog) #2

Yeah, agree. Maybe give C4 to soldier back?

I also suggested before a demolitions man class to explode things. He could also carry grenade launcher or pipetrap launcher to trap choke points or objectives.


(SockDog) #3

I get the feeling this has been done intentionally so that people are changing classes more as a matter of supporting the team, reacting to the enemy/frontline and balancing team capability rather than because the next objective needs a soldier and therefore everyone goes soldier.

It’s different but I don’t think it’s all that bad a move.


(amazinglarry) #4

[QUOTE=SockDog;409582]I get the feeling this has been done intentionally so that people are changing classes more as a matter of supporting the team, reacting to the enemy/frontline and balancing team capability rather than because the next objective needs a soldier and therefore everyone goes soldier.

It’s different but I don’t think it’s all that bad a move.[/QUOTE]

Fair point… but I think sometimes you need to pretend the people who are playing your game are idiots… Case in point everyone who whined that they wouldn’t play Brink because there were no female characters.

Sometimes (I think) you need to influence your audience. But… maybe that’s why I’m me lol.

Edit: At the same time… I can see it being too confusing that teams need to swap priorities every few seconds (as they progress) but… I think the requirement of an engineer is too restrictive.

Sounds stupid, but I’ve already had a few games where the attacking team has dominated and we’ve all stood around and somebody has been like, “Oh, we need an engineer…”.


(DarkangelUK) #5

I believe Locki said (and I may be wrong) that the 1st few maps were purposely geared towards engineer. Given that one of the maps is more or less Gold Rush then this should be expected as that is an engi heavy map.


(tokamak) #6

Engineers also happen to be the most recognisable characters in the game. I think I can appreciate the idea of your brain fundamentally going ´herpderp important class, need to protect/eliminate’ whenever you see one.


(DarkangelUK) #7

Yeah I like the distinctiveness of the class models. I think I would have liked unique models for the enemy side as well rather than using the same for both. On occasion when I don’t see the player name above a team mates head, I instinctively shoot at the silhouette. No biggy really, but in ET and QW you could instantly determine friend from foe without hesitation.


(amazinglarry) #8

That’s a fair point… I just think that sometimes it’s not right when you have 4 out of 5 potential classes spawned, and you’re unable to move the objective forward.

Point being, We have a soldier, field ops, covert ops, medic… but no engineer… and the fate of the game is based on somebody needing to go engineer to move it foward.

Obviously, the same argument could be used for ANY class… I’m just suggesting that a team should not benefit from having 8 engineers (8 plants, anybody?) to having 3 meds, 2 field ops, 2 soldiers and 1 covert ops… the latter team losing due to no engineer.

Yes, people should recognize what class is required/needed… but right now the emphasis seems to be “engineers or die”.


(tokamak) #9

That problem is also flowing out of the fact that combat-wise the difference between the classes is still marginal. It’s slightly different flavours of combat and the interaction between the classes isn’t there yet. In that regards a team with 8 engineers only function a bit worse than a balanced team. And that disadvantage is made up with having indeed, 8 chances to plant.

We could start testing more organised scenarios involving unbalanced teams. Agreeing with everyone to try to play in a team of 8 engineers. Just to test this hypothesis.

Then again, this may also be just a phase. Locki already stated that there’s virtually endless possibilities for class-specialisations.

And if the classes won’t be pulled further apart, for the sake of people wanting to keep the focus on gunplay, then, if the engineers retain this important objective role they will have to be nerfed in combat power. They will need to be the fragile class with limited offensive capabilities in order to be something worth protecting.


(Ashog) #10

Aslo don’t forget that the more engineers you have deployed (because the emphasis is on them) the more turrets and mines you will have. And since turrets in contrast to ETQW can be placed everywhere and with two fast clicks and w/o cooldown, it can easily lead to turret spam near objectives and spawns. It will get more intrusive as people learn to play, so expect turrets in totally unexpected places such as your cup of morning muesli and that pretty soon :wink:


(Runeforce) #11

There is a cooldown after placing a turret where you can not place a new turret . (And placing a new turret removes your old one AFAIK.)


(Ashog) #12

Is there? Well then it is too short since I haven’t even noticed it.


(shirosae) #13

Yeah, off the top of my head I think it’s in the 45 second range for cooldown.


(Anti) #14

It’s something we’re very actively keeping an eye on, and I know we’ll be trying a few more ‘generic’ objectives in the near future to test out any class being able to interact with them. It’s something we have to be careful when adjusting though as the speed at which objectives can be cleared and completed is, obviously, critical to map flow.


(tokamak) #15

I assume that the ideal speed at which the maps are cleared is just a given. The concern here is making teams composed of objective classes pay sufficiently for the multiple shots that is inherent to such a set up.


(tangoliber) #16

[QUOTE=Ashog;409540]Yeah, agree. Maybe give C4 to soldier back?

I also suggested before a demolitions man class to explode things. He could also carry grenade launcher or pipetrap launcher to trap choke points or objectives.[/QUOTE]

One problem with that is that the game still needs to somewhat work in a 1v1. So, I don’t think you could have the barricade C4 on any class other than engineer, because in a 1v1, the player wouldn’t be able to switch between engineer and soldier fast enough to get past the barricades. You might destroy the barricade as soldier, but the EV is down and you gotta be engineer again to repair that…but while you are running back, the barricade gets destroyed again. It’s not a game designed for 1v1, but I guess it should still work. You can have optional objectives that require a different class, but I don’t think we can have required objectives for 2 different classes going on at the same time.


(tokamak) #17

One problem with that is that the game still needs to somewhat work in a 1v1.

It definitely does not. That’s just an absurd restriction to impose on the balancing process.


(tangoliber) #18

It doesn’t need to be good as a 1v1…but I think it should at least be functional. If eveyone else drops in the middle of the match, except 2 people, I think they should be able to carry on. It should be at least possible for one person to do the objectives if his team is not capable at all. It’s safer to make any simultaneous objectives which require different classes optional.

To be honest, I don’t care personally. I’m all for doing hardcore things like requiring two different classes to do their job at the same time… I’m just assuming that the developers aren’t going to do that because of the problems it might create in pubs.


(tokamak) #19

I was just about to say, I would love to see objectives that require multiple classes. A bit like the last Fuel Dump objective.


(Humate) #20

I actually dont mind the engie objective hogging.
If they are the only objective class im cool with that.