Engineer Gameplay Suggestion.

[Hamsocks]

After playing a little Dustbowl today, I had an idea. It seems silly that when one switches from Engineer to another class, all of his buildings self-destruct. Now, I know why they do this. Otherwise everyone would just build a sentry, switch class, switch back to Engie, rinse, and repeat.

What I'm wondering is why they can't implement a gameply mechanic in which one Engineer can transfer ownership of a building or several buildings to a fellow Engineer. For example, say I'm defending a control point with a lvl 3 sentry and a dispenser. I'm getting sick of dealing with spies and I want to be on the front lines. Instead of making another teammate build back up everything, why can't I transfer "ownership" of the sentry and dispenser while I change my class? Valve could even make it optional to do so. But when you switch to another class from being an Engineer, a window would pop up asking if you want to transfer ownership to another player or just discard the buildings. If no other teammate is playing Engineer, buidlings would be destroyed by default.

Am I crazy on this? Have I overlooked some glaring exploit this might cause? So far, I can't think of a way this could be abused. If anything, it would promote more strategy. I don't know how many times I've had to sit around bored as an Engineer when I know I could be a more valuable asset to the team as another class. Comments and criticism always welcome.

In before, "TF2 is the mostest balanced game evar! It should nevar be changed again!"

*EDIT* Crap, forgot to add a poll. Could a mod kindly add one for me?

 

[giant384]

1.engies cant have more then 2 of the same building
2. chances are the engie already built the same buildings you have.

 

[Sam]

I think he means that the other engie would lose his *for example* level 1 sentry and gain the switching player's level 3.

 

[Pesmerga]

That's stupid and complicated.

 

[Hamsocks]

That's stupid and complicated.

Thanks for the intelligent and well-composed arguement against my idea.

Care to elaborate? I'm sure the auto-balance system and critical hit system were so simple to code then.

 

[Dekstar]

Hamsocks he means it overcomplicates the gameplay, not the coding. VALVe kept everything simple for a reason, and that was to make it as pick up and play as possible.

 

[Jintor]

He's right... the player process that would be required to transfer buildings looks ridiculously overcomplicated.

 

[BlueDude6]

I think it would completely screw up the 1 building-type per engineer balance.

Picture a team of 12 engineers at 2fort. They could send 11 of the guys on the offensive to keep the enemy busy and plug-up the choke points, while one guy builds a massive wall of turrets by continually switching classes back and forth to engie in order to pass on his building ownership, while refilling his metal quickly.

Sure this might be a stupid strategy and, of course, the engineer could only OWN one type of building at any time, but it would a allow a single engie to set up a wall of turrets while using the rest of the team as turret owners.

I'm sure the opposing team could come up with a strategy to overcome this with the game's great class match-up opportunities, but the point is, do you really want to open the game up to turret-spamming like that just so you don't have to blow up your stuff? It kind of reminds me of the huge turret walls you sometimes see a player do on Starcraft as a time-wasting defense, though of course this would be limited to how many players are on a team if they all decide to go engineer.

When I switch character classes, I do it because I want to have fun trying another playing style at the moment. I'm not worried about passing on my old assets, nor do I want one of my old turrets cheaply assisting me now as a new Heavy, for example. What would be next? Passing on a demoman's stickies because that took time and spent ammo?

 

[V-Man339]

What would be next? Passing on a demoman's stickies because that took time and spent ammo?

Spy's sappers are next!

 

[KennyJC]

What if the engineer could set funny traps. Like if the enemy steps in a loop of rope, they are then hung from the ceiling, helpless, and so is there to get mauled.

 

[Hamsocks]

I think it would completely screw up the 1 building-type per engineer balance.

Picture a team of 12 engineers at 2fort. They could send 11 of the guys on the offensive to keep the enemy busy and plug-up the choke points, while one guy builds a massive wall of turrets by continually switching classes back and forth to engie in order to pass on his building ownership, while refilling his metal quickly.

Sure this might be a stupid strategy and, of course, the engineer could only OWN one type of building at any time, but it would a allow a single engie to set up a wall of turrets while using the rest of the team as turret owners.

I'm sure the opposing team could come up with a strategy to overcome this with the game's great class match-up opportunities, but the point is, do you really want to open the game up to turret-spamming like that just so you don't have to blow up your stuff? It kind of reminds me of the huge turret walls you sometimes see a player do on Starcraft as a time-wasting defense, though of course this would be limited to how many players are on a team if they all decide to go engineer.

When I switch character classes, I do it because I want to have fun trying another playing style at the moment. I'm not worried about passing on my old assets, nor do I want one of my old turrets cheaply assisting me now as a new Heavy, for example. What would be next? Passing on a demoman's stickies because that took time and spent ammo?

No, if you read what I posted again, the process I desribe would make it impossible for there to be more than one of every buidling for each engineer on your team.

 

[BlueDude6]

Actually I did read your post. And if you read mine, I never suggested that there would be more than one of every building for each engineer. I suggested, that a single engineer could build all the turrets for every other engineer on the team allowing for some game-complicating, potentially time-wasting turret spamming.

11 Engineers keep the other team busy. 1 engineer has the potential to still set up a team-sized turret army ALL BY HIMSELF. Other engineers basically become building-vouchers for this single builder. It's still technically one building per-engineer but with a huge loop hole that gets around the point.

 

[Crispy]

Actually I did read your post. And if you read mine, I never suggested that there would be more than one of every building for each engineer. I suggested, that a single engineer could build all the turrets for every other engineer on the team allowing for some game-complicating, potentially time-wasting turret spamming.

11 Engineers keep the other team busy. 1 engineer has the potential to still set up a team-sized turret army ALL BY HIMSELF. Other engineers basically become building-vouchers for this single builder. It's still technically one building per-engineer but with a huge loop hole that gets around the point.

Flawed argument, the Scouts could get there before even a level 1 turret was up. If you had 2 Engies making the turret farm then it's a different case, but even then you've got a lot of Engies rushing the middle, and Engies don't stand a chance against Soldiers or Heavies or Spies (more HP) or Pyros or Scouts (1 on 1) or Demos. Even a Medic is almost on a par with the Engy in terms of 1 on 1 combat ability. Before you argue, just know I've logged over 24 hours playing Engy (more because a lot was lost from crashes during the Beta).

 

[Jintor]

It doesn't matter though because the process is still needlessly complex and achieves... what, exactly?

 

[Kyorisu]

You only think it's complicated because you have a poor ability to imagine the various ways such a system could be implemented. You'd all make terrible designers.

I have a L3 sentry and switch to scout. A fellow engi with no sentry gets a polite message in the text box. "Would you like to accept "blahs" L3 turret?" F1 for yes F2 for no. While this is happening the turret will be disabled. That is how I'd do it. Meanwhile I see no reason for transfering a building whilst you are still an engineer.

 

[BlueDude6]

Before you argue, just know I've logged over 24 hours playing Engy (more because a lot was lost from crashes during the Beta).

Before you argue, I suggest you actually read my posts because you pretty much extended what I said about there being counter-strategies, while missing my statement that the WHOLE POINT was some players might have to deal with this situation. Not all TF2 servers are automatically filled with people who pride themselves in playing hours and hours of gameplay. The game isn't just about you, it's about the gameplay others will encounter as well who don't necessarily play just like you nor have your experience. When Valve encountered a possible game imbalance, I doubt they brushed it aside and said "Guys who've played at least 24+ hours will be able to deal with this anyway, and anyone else who argues with that automatically has a flawed argument because I have a counter-strategy."

Meanwhile I see no reason for transfering a building whilst you are still an engineer.

Yeah, I don't think anyone suggested transferring WHILE you were an engineer actually. My main focus has been about what happens if an engineer keeps flip-flopping classes for the sole purpose of building all the turrets for everyone else.

You only think it's complicated because you have a poor ability to imagine the various ways such a system could be implemented. You'd all make terrible designers.

Just because you can implement an idea all kinds of ways, doesn't mean the idea keeps gameplay balanced nor does it mean the idea was a great one in the first place. You might want to consider that half of the coin before making a judgment about other people's reasoning ability. It's about game play and balance, not how pretty and streamlined they can make the process and any associated menus, etc. BTW, I'm actually schooling in computer science and game design, and I love little exercises like these in any kind of game: "What if you changed this, and how might one abuse that change."

All in all:
One example of potentially exploited gameplay is enough. Some people out there are going to encounter it, it doesn't matter if you personally play well enough to get around it or personally won't abuse it. Yeah, I agree two engineers might be a better strategy, but I think it still emphasizes my point even more too.

 

[BlueDude6]

how do you delete this post, i combined it with the above as an edit. Sorry about that.

 

[noQ]

I think the Engy has too many weapons. I think it would be better if they added the "destroy" weapon into the "build" weapon by having all the destroy buttons on 5 to 8 or from 6 to 9, so you could build and destroy with the same item/weapon.
Ask if it sounds complicated, it is really simple.

 

[Crispy]

Blurb

I think your whole argument does break down when you reread the OP and realise that possession can only be transferred upon changing to another class. What I suspect he meant by this is that possession would be redeemed upon the actual player dying and spawning as another class, not simply selecting another class to spawn on. Selecting another class doesn't change your class, it simply queues up the 'change class' command for when you spawn.

So, your argument that everyone would go Engy and change class to hand off owenership is ridiculous because:
A: An Engy can only have 1 of each building at a time
B: He would only receive these buildings when his teammates were dead

There are only a few cases where any possible gain could be made from this, namely handing over a tele exit to build your own tele-link more quickly or handing over a building so an Engy in a location with no metal other than a teammate's building could recycle the new structure to fix/upgrade a turret.

To sum up: the suggestion in the OP isn't needed, but your argument against is was flawed.

 

[Mahalis]

Selecting another class doesn't change your class, it simply queues up the 'change class' command for when you spawn.

Except when you're in the spawn area, where class changes are instantaneous and without penalty.

 

[BlueDude6]

I think your whole argument does break down when you reread the OP and realise that possession can only be transferred upon changing to another class. What I suspect he meant by this is that possession would be redeemed upon the actual player dying and spawning as another class, not simply selecting another class to spawn on. Selecting another class doesn't change your class, it simply queues up the 'change class' command for when you spawn.

So, your argument that everyone would go Engy and change class to hand off owenership is ridiculous because:
A: An Engy can only have 1 of each building at a time
B: He would only receive these buildings when his teammates were dead

There are only a few cases where any possible gain could be made from this, namely handing over a tele exit to build your own tele-link more quickly or handing over a building so an Engy in a location with no metal other than a teammate's building could recycle the new structure to fix/upgrade a turret.

To sum up: the suggestion in the OP isn't needed, but your argument against is was flawed.

Actually there's a client-side setting that causes you to suicide immediately upon switching class. I could've sworn this was default, because I remember turning it off as my personal preference. At that point class flip-flopping and building-transferring becomes just as fast as a person can hit the buttons once the building is built. Spawn time is variable by the server though, but I doubt the game should be open ended with the relationship: The lower the spawn wait, the greater the ability for engineers to use each other as building vouchers through a flip-flop exploit. Rather, the exploit should be squashed entirely.

 

[CyberPitz]

You only think it's complicated because you have a poor ability to imagine the various ways such a system could be implemented. You'd all make terrible designers.

I have a L3 sentry and switch to scout. A fellow engi with no sentry gets a polite message in the text box. "Would you like to accept "blahs" L3 turret?" F1 for yes F2 for no. While this is happening the turret will be disabled. That is how I'd do it. Meanwhile I see no reason for transfering a building whilst you are still an engineer.

Then you have to think to yourself, "Why are you playing in a game that has an engineer with no Sentry?"

Personally, I don't like the idea, mainly because it would be one of the more under-used ones....I'd rather have them working on something that would be more "used more than twice a game" item.

 

[Dan]

You only think it's complicated because you have a poor ability to imagine the various ways such a system could be implemented. You'd all make terrible designers.

I have a L3 sentry and switch to scout. A fellow engi with no sentry gets a polite message in the text box. "Would you like to accept "blahs" L3 turret?" F1 for yes F2 for no. While this is happening the turret will be disabled. That is how I'd do it. Meanwhile I see no reason for transfering a building whilst you are still an engineer.

It's a bad idea overall. Not very useful, and open to exploitations. How do you know what kind of sentry and where it is. What if you are busy when this shit pops up all over your screen. Does it pop up for every engineer on the team? How long does the prompt hang around for? If you have already changed class then why is your sentry still alive and asking for a new owner? You could be a scout with your sentry in the basement and a dialog prompt sitting on all of your teammates screens.

 

[Crispy]

Actually there's a client-side setting that causes you to suicide immediately upon switching class. I could've sworn this was default, because I remember turning it off as my personal preference. At that point class flip-flopping and building-transferring becomes just as fast as a person can hit the buttons once the building is built.

You're right, and it is on by default (so damn annoying), but you don't change class until you spawn. When you die you can still flip-flop between classes as much as you want, but I don't think your buildings get destroyed when you queue up a new class, only when you spawn as a new class (haven't tested this, but should be easy to verify with turret spec cam).

 

[Absinthe]

I like this attitude. Apparently, it's not that we dislike the idea because it's flawed and unnecessary. No, we dislike the idea because we're unimaginative simpletons who just can't think outside the box. Shame on us.

I don't see the point of this mechanic. Don't let TF2's surface simplicity fool you. Almost everything in it exists for a reason, from the class appearances to the arsenal. Right now, I don't see a gameplay justification for this. The only reasoning I've seen thus far is "I don't like blowing my stuff up". I don't see an actual legitimate problem that this fixes.

I think this adds a needless complexity to the class and the gameplay itself. I also see it having potential for abuse, if only indirectly. Why should another engineer, if you decide give him your sentry, profit from somebody else's work? He didn't build it. Somebody else did. Giving him control over something he personally made no effort to make would be unfair. An engi fresh from the spawn room having a Level 3 turret gifted to him is just wrong. There is also the matter of identifying just where the hell it would be, unless you want Valve to throw in HUD indicators or a minimap showing where all your buildings are.

 

[Jintor]

I like this attitude. Apparently, it's not that we dislike the idea because it's flawed and unnecessary. No, we dislike the idea because we're unimaginative simpletons who just can't think outside the box. Shame on us.

I don't see the point of this mechanic. Don't let TF2's surface simplicity fool you. Almost everything in it exists for a reason, from the class appearances to the arsenal. Right now, I don't see a gameplay justification for this. The only reasoning I've seen thus far is "I don't like blowing my stuff up". I don't see an actual legitimate problem that this fixes.

QFT.

srsly.