Tactical use of... Smoke

[Draep]

Originally Posted by Metalsheep

I was more trying to stress that in a Videogame, there is nothing detrimental for the enemy player to just fire away into your smoke screen. They dont really waste resources or ammo, they can just get more at a term. In fact, i think it makes you more of a target when you use smoke, as enemy players who see the smoke will fire into it to try to get a kill, or spam grenades, which really renders smoke useless. Though, this is where using Smoke as a distraction could actually work.

I only see a few truely useful tactics for smoke. It would be cool to add ,but perhaps it could be limited to certain classes or upgrade/sidegrades. I could see smoke being useful for cloakers and maybe light/jump pack infantry. But things like MAXs and Rexos probably dont need smoke, but could benefit from it a little from players who CAN carry it. Promoting some teamwork between the different classes.

As I mentioned before, smoke has always worked for me. If it's 200m across open ground. I'll take smoke over nothing at all.

Also, you won't have to worry about spam. Most games have you choose smoke grenades over frag grenades, a very unpopular option unless you worry about concealment like i do.

[Seagoon]

Originally Posted by Metalsheep

Yes, but when you get 20 other players firing into your smoke, it becomes alot more hazardous. Or even just a single player who grenade spams your smoke. (Like the thumper.)

Im not saying im against smoke, i think it could be used very creativly. I particularly like the idea of Cloakers using it to mask their escapes if they are caught. (Ninja Syle.) Or using it ON an enemies position to cause chaos and pick out singular targets in the smoke. (Again, ninja style.) Maybe this could require some special optics for the cloaker to see through the smoke. And maybe the Cloakers smoke could interrupt Darklight vision, to give him a chance to escape a player(s) with Darklight.

Exactly, there are many different counters to using smoke, area effect weapons are one of them, or situations where an entire opponent platoon has its sights set just on you. But thats why smoke is even more suitable to include in the game:
Its not just a very useful thing, but it also is ballanced because there are ways to counter its usage.

[Grognard]

I guess what we are saying (at least me) is that smoke is a thinking mans tool. Smoke placement requires skill and forethought to maximize its usefulness, because it is not cover, it is concealment. The point of smoke is to counter target aquisition in the first place. Cover is used to mitigate damage if you are aquired. Using them together is just cake, ice cream, and sprinkles...

[sylphaen]

Smoke sunderer assault soldiers = SmokeJumpers ?

[NewSith]

Originally Posted by sylphaen

Smoke sunderer assault soldiers = SmokeJumpers ?

More like:

[Rumblepit]

if its implemented....

i think since its a defensive countermeasure that only engineers should be able get them ,thats if they speced into it. they are a defensive class.

[Grognard]

Originally Posted by Rumblepit

if its implemented....

i think since its a defensive countermeasure that only engineers should be able get them ,thats if they speced into it. they are a defensive class.

Elaborate please, smoke is used just as much in an offensive manner as defensive, so Im curious about your line of thought.

[Rumblepit]

Originally Posted by Grognard

Elaborate please, smoke is used just as much in an offensive manner as defensive, so Im curious about your line of thought.

hmmmm provides cover,and or a diversion.smoke is not gonna hurt anyone i hope. unless we get the ubber mustard gas nades.

[StraitDumpinSMF]

this is another bad idea.

Str8

[Grognard]

Originally Posted by StraitDumpinSMF

this is another bad idea.

Care to elaborate?

[Draep]

Originally Posted by Grognard

Care to elaborate?

Mostly everyone who's had a problem so far falls into the category of "I don't play like this so it must not be useful." They said the same thing when I called for the sunderer being more of an APC than a tank. No matter how many good points I made, they continued to form opinions born of ignorance.

[StraitDumpinSMF]

and by ignorance: you mean, someone who has actually played the game for 7 years, then imagined smoke grenades filling up and entire base interior, and rendered it a bad idea.

im assuming you want real smoke, not some skimpy cloud right?
well imagine 100 people tossing 5 second DURATION smoke bombs clouding up an entire base.

[Graywolves]

Originally Posted by StraitDumpinSMF

and by ignorance: you mean, someone who has actually played the game for 7 years, then imagined smoke grenades filling up and entire base interior, and rendered it a bad idea.

im assuming you want real smoke, not some skimpy cloud right?
well imagine 100 people tossing 5 second DURATION smoke bombs clouding up an entire base.

I can't even imagine 5 people tossing smoke unless they planned it before hand.

[Draep]

Originally Posted by StraitDumpinSMF

and by ignorance: you mean, someone who has actually played the game for 7 years, then imagined smoke grenades filling up and entire base interior, and rendered it a bad idea.

im assuming you want real smoke, not some skimpy cloud right?
well imagine 100 people tossing 5 second DURATION smoke bombs clouding up an entire base.

Yeah because if the implemented smoke, they would make it a lagfest, able to fill up a base right? Get fucking real before you post a response to me son.

[Shade Millith]

If... and this is a VERY big if... they can program it so that normal PC's (reasonably priced 2-3 year old) won't die during a 2k player battle that has liberal use of smoke nades, then yes. Put it in.

If they can't get that, then no.

It's not a matter of balance for this item. Just a matter of if the computers can handle it.