I find it pointless discusing these things with you as you misrepresent my words and make connections that don't exist. Never said "all classes should remove danger state" I said that central game mechanics, such as capturing and killing aren't roles, they're central mechanics.

When I say shoehorned, I mean that the roles are so defined that you need to always do the same tasks, in the same way, with the same squad makeup or you won't be able to play, where stradegy is basically decided for you.

And for me this relates to the Sorcerers thread as I worry about what this means for classes, especially for a Sorcerer. *If* you can't kill effectively and you can't complete objectives, then wouldn't your role be negated to only trying to get assists. I don't see that as strategic gameplay, I see it as gameplay mechanics that decide your stradegy for you. To me stradegy means your team is adaptable and fluid, each class doesn't have to do everything, but there are certain central and crucial things that all classes need to be able to do.

It seems you missed the point. You assume that everyone just mass Tacs just for capping point, which is impossible anyway because you have to use tool to cap and cap time doesn't stack. I just gave an example of the same scenario but with ASM, which is even harder to deal with because ASM are faster and more mobile, plus they're devastating at melee. Anywho, you just get rid of 1 problem to get an even bigger problem. Players will always choose the option that is the most optimal, having ASM be able to cap is as the most optimal as it gets. If we go by your logic, then how about devising a plan to deal with mass Tacticals?

Yeah I understand that. It all comes down to the form of strategic application we're talking about. A Support is worth much more than any 1 equivalent class in a squad but their individual options are nerfed as far as accruing kills.

It's pretty much the same with this topic: The tactics that adapt to (or survive past) the strategy are what's important.

(hey and we did find that quote from Brent in the Q&A about a more offensive focused AS being plausible )

We all assume at this time. And just like you assume that a group of JPs will spell doom for every siege/battle because the defenders cant be bothered to respond to a threat other than the hordes in front of them,I can assume that with such a mechanic(the one proposed by the devs) people will mass tacticals just to be sure that one of them will reach the cap leaving the rest of the classes underepresented and that it will have a negative effect on tactics and strategy.
And by the way if people learn how to deal with rushes they stop being the path of least resistance they are just another path.

First, your logic of having to always do the same task or not be able to play is just illogical. Why is the strategy decided for you? You don't fight the battle all by yourself, there will always be at least 10 other guys fighting with you. Beside, You're just forcing yourself into the situation: "Oh, I have to be the one who does the capping because my faction of thousands of players are so incompetent.". Why don't you ask yourself: "What else can I do if I play as ASM or Devastator?". It's not like capping is the only thing those 2 classes can do and losing it make those 2 lose all their purposes. For example:

• How about setting up perimeter outside to cover your Tacs while they're capping?
• How about hunting high priority targets like Sniper and Hero using the mobility of Jump Pack troops?
• How about hunting tanks, destroying gates, void shields, vehicle terminals?
• Or simply just killing as many as you can to deplete the defenders of lives?

Second, saying things like because Sorcerer can't kill effectively so you can't complete objectives and just exist to get assists is just plain stupid. That's like saying Priests can only heal so they're a bad class, or Combat Medics are not necessary because all they do is revive and heal teammates. That also means you're skipping a lot of other elements such as skills, level design, help from teammates, etc... For example, in PS2, a Combat Medic will always lose to a Heavy Assault if they use all their ability and just stand there shooting at each other. But in real gameplay environment, that's not the case, because you can always use flank tactics, snipe him from afar, use grenades, flashbang and many other tools to give yourself advantages.

But your assumption is full of holes.

Firstly, Tacticals or DAs are far less maneuverable than Assaults, you can't jump over the guys shooting at you to rush to the capture point, or use stealth to sneak in like Striking Scorpion. And in a battle where 2 forces are evenly matched, just massing 1 class and rushing in just doesn't work, it only works if that class is far more mobile or tougher or have ability that help it actually survives in the rush, like Assaults, Termies or Striking Scorpion.

Secondly, like I said, capping doesn't stack, having more Tacs around the capture point doesn't make the capping faster. So it's better to have more classes there so they can complement each other.

Thirdly, by your logic, then it will be the same either we allow all classes to cap or just Tacticals to cap. Because there is no telling people won't do the same with just massing Assaults or Devastators. And with Assaults being the most mobile class and having the ability to get to places very quickly and skip defenses, massing Assaults will be the most repeated tactic that people use.

no i have clearly understand: you want that all class is capable of perform certain action that YOU belive are important and fundamental for YOUR idea of gameplay: all other option are wrong.

who decided that these are central mechanics? you?
there is a list from a game designer that explain the "central mechanics" of the game?

why remove danger state is not a central mechanic of the game? the downed state is not a central mechanic?

You can't decide what mecanics it's more important that others.

And certain role use these "centrals mecanics" and are builded around mecanics: like the support role for example.

now we have another role that have a mecanics: the tactical role.

Again you have decided that all class must be capable of perfom that "central mechanics" and you find inacceptable that a class in not capable of killing effectively and another class don't have tools for capture objective.

because you have decided that all class must be capable of capture and kill enemy? Why you have decided that?

You want to reduce strategy: not improve strategy.

A big part of a game is: chose your target, when you have to fight an enemy team, who is the priority target?
the tactical? kill all the tactical so the enemy team cannot capture and must wait for reinforce?
the support? kill all the support so the team cannot heal?
the assault/the devastator? so the team have less damage/firepower?

if all target are the same (all capable of conquering a base) there is a lot less of tactics it's only "shoot all the enemy!!!" "look at my KD/R!!!!!!!!!"

you have to kill ALL the enemy.
instead a skilled team can win a battle killing all the Key role.

Yet the defenders assault/Jps users can move just as fast to intercept them so where is the problem?Oh wait the defenders cant be bothered with such mind-boggling decission .Sounds right?

Then everyone will just spawn as Assaults and the siege become a scene in Tom & Jerry. Oh, and why can't they deal with mass Tacticals when they can deal with mass Assaults using your proposal? Seriously, your logic is just weak.

Nah they will be more like Taz trying to get Bugs bunny. And both can be dealt with if the defenders use logic instead of mechanics handed to them by the devs.But instead of using tactics and strategy you prefer a cheap mechanic by the devs its ok.