Thread: The class system

Based upon the first few posts of this topic, are we to believe that the previous system of outfitting has been scrapped (ie. the pick a class, then you have a few customizations within that) in favour of a more all-encompassing take-what-you-like system?

I personally prefer the class-based system, as I think it forces people to choose their role on the battlefield beyond - they can't have a big gun *AND* some "1337" abilities. I think it'd be a shame for you to abandon this - but I'm not sure you have. So I'm asking.

I haven't had a chance to re-read the whole thread again but I am with you 100%. People should choose a kit. If people have a few options inside that kit is another matter.

For Example:
An engineer would have a normal weapon and have the option of having either a deployable mortar or a deployable emplacement heavy machine gun (this wouldn't be the case because the support class would get the MG but its just an example)

I think the main weapon should be compulsory but the "equipment" should have some options. Thats just my thoughts though.

I like the idea of class kits but I think that you should be able to pick up weapons you find on the battlefield, spice up the game a tad...

I can see your point, but that means that you end up with some players having better weapon kits than others. Which is unfair....

I don't think we want a UT style "kill the guy with the really nice gun" thing.

But I like the UT style D: [sniffs]

It works for a fast-paced game like UT, but not a tactical, slower game like this, which is largely about team play and being "fun for everyone" rather than "wewt, I've got a big gun I'ma pwn now"...

Seconded

[sniffs]

OK so the real question is should weapons be limited? By this I mean should we limit sniper rifles to (for example) 10% of players on the server and MGs to (for example) 30% of players on the server.