[QUOTE=Raviolay;485850]Sounds odd I know but after partaking in a turn off ragefest/snoozefest 16 player game with wonky performance. Something became very simple became apparent, something that has been said over and over again. Lower the player count & bring back the grenades, I really should not have to point why I feel this is the case.
However… grenades are not just for killing, they are very useful in making entrenched players move out of that position they are hogging. The argument that one mercenary grenades as a special is moronic argument, as one, we are limited to a choice of three. You talk of making the game more accessible (remove class objectives), then take away a core tool preventing most players. From actively attacking or contributing with some area denial. Also given how one mercenary with grenades is the only one unable to lift his weapon to shoot with some semblance accuracy. Is yet another odd choice gone down this “new” direction this game is getting Team Fortress like.
Scout could very well be Proxy.
Heavy could very well be Rhino.
Demoman could very well be Nader.
Sniper could very well be Vassili
Enginner could very well be Bushwhacker.
I digress however, lowering the player count makes the maps bearable as the poor design is not so noticeable. The no grenades re jigging only makes the maps worse as the coke points become even more akin to a WW1 trench war. At 16 players it makes me even more unwilling go over the top, no potato mashers to break the deadlock. I still have yet to see some smoke also why is this?[/QUOTE]
To answer the titles question: It’s not possible.
Lowering the player count, like you suggested, only fixes the symptoms but not the source of the problem.
Yes, nades really need to come back.
[QUOTE=krokodealer;485851]
And about maps… They need to be changed. The thing is… SD has this unstopable desire to have 10-15 maps. So they do not change the map, so IT PLAYS well, they chop it, so IT BECOMES SHORT. no matter the actual feel and flaw of the map. They think prbbly that later they will fix the map, when it is short. But you dont do that - that is not how maps are build - the great ones, i mean. THe deleted Church(WChapel) and Hach(Waterloo) objects are the examples. potentially great objectives. just gone.
meh.[/QUOTE]
Some months ago I opened a thread in the inner forum with the title “Drop the support for the first maps” (LB, WC, Waterloo), because no matter how many changes they will make there these 3 maps will never be a blast. They have been altered so many times already and still no one is happy about them, so why should SD waste even more time? I also don’t understand why so many people can’t get over them. The first maps were built without the gameplay, as we know it today, being established so obviously they don’t fit.
SDs focus should be all on the new maps, with forward spawns, side routes and secondary objectives worth fighting for. I rather play one good map than 3 maps which are playable to a certain point, but no fun.
Guys, we are running out of time if you haven’t noticed yet…
This won’t work, as we have different distances for both attackers and defenders to the objective depending on the stage. Like I already said somewhen there needs to be a flexible spawn system (with different spawn times) dependent on each objective.