Save the smoke grenade or there it goes

[eSC]General.Jung[eSC]General.Jung Posts: 144Player
edited May 2015 in General Discussion
Some of you guys might expected that, after I criticized the removal of smoke after the first opt-in. I noticed that there is already a sidestream discussion in the Slums feedback thread, but I think this topic deserves a dedicated thread. The desire for inflationary use of thumbs down can be followed at the end of this post.
-
Smoke grenades provides a longer auditory and visual coverage. FOG grenades are dedicated to situations where you prefer a fast deploy while you can accept the tradeoff of the shorter density or even preferring it. Two examples for this are a rescue-progress as a defender or a fast push, especially if you need to get the vision back on that area as fast as possible. Smoke grenades are better if the progress takes some more time or if you want to take this time to observe a possible reaction of the enemy, especially on larger maps; furthermore they are much more useful to distract enemies for a longer period of time.
-
Just to remember the difference, we have 50 seconds of useful density in AA2, 35 seconds in the PG default build and now after more than a decade of AA we are reduced to only 9 seconds of generateable coverage. Sure some of the chaos problems on spots like Yankee on Cold Front might be reduced with the removal, but preconceive whose possibilities it robs us.
-
Let me ask a few polemical questions, at least I am annoucing that: I'm starting to wonder what is the reason for the removal? Is it a hidden casualty-/fast-paced-driven agenda or is this just one of the changes fuelled by the shouts of some parts of the narcissistic players paired with some shouts of some players of other popular games? Is that the future of this series?
-
So maybe this is already decided, but I really hope that we can stop this here or we are going to playing such maps like ArcticNight, Border or River Village without smokes. Finally I am adovating again for more server-sided options to adjust such things to preserve different play-style in AA:PG.
-
The reductionist view on the term gameplay, which is spreading, decreasing the tactical depth and variation of AA:PG more and more. Let me close this with a video from from May 2014, where the FOG/Smoke grenade changes were announced:
-
What do you think about the smoke grenade leaving this series ?
  1. What is the best way ?51 votes
    1. Save the smoke grenades !
      52.94%
    2. Reduce the availablity by map / server-sided options !
      27.45%
    3. Let the smoke grenades go !
      19.61%
Greetings from Germany. General.Jung.
eSport-Community, http://esportcommunity.com/

HARDEN HC mode, SMOKE Grenades, UMM Support and RELEASE LINUX Binaries !
«13

Comments

  • SOPMODSOPMOD Posts: 230Player
    edited May 2015
    - Keep smokes in the game.
    - Reduce number of smokes by either just reducing how many we carry
    or limit smokes to a certain role
  • [ENG]Uni-Sol[ENG]Uni-Sol Posts: 3,191Player
    edited May 2015
    I shall import my other post :)
    The thing about smoke removal is that the planting of bombs, extacting of flags.. crossing an open street, reviving, securing or even getting cover from long range fire (including the dreaded sniper) is 99% harder without consistent cover and this can be applied to almost all of the bigger wide open AAPG maps like Slums and Coldfront.

    Lets face it, the missions mainly all favour the defence team as it is, so the benefits of smoke volume and the extended duration of that of a normal smoke grenade is sometimes the ONLY way you have any sort of chance of succeeding the mission without having to obliterate the whole enemy team. infact, I'm not so sure removing the smoke grenade is providing any pro's at all.. all I can see from it's removal is cons. Fog's are good for fast cover, to move out from a pinned down location or to literally use as a 'fakie' for the enemies to presume your somewhere you actually not, but they don't serve the same purpose as a proper smoke does. I honestly think there is a solid place in the game for both types of smoke.

    I kinda feel after playing and doing this testing without them I would favor keeping proper smokes, even if only for the assault team, just to help in climbing that already cruelly high mountain. Now, I admittedly don't actually use much smoke when I play but I'll tell you what.. I'm sometimes mighty glad one of my team mates brought some with him because they can save your virtual life and allow that mission to succeed.

    Actually can someone, anyone.. kindly enlighten me on any such pro's to their removal? If anything I whole heartedly agree with @.shhfiftyfive- 's post on smokes..
    Shh55 wrote:
    well, in previous game, smokes were always OP, but were limited in number. not everyone could carry them. just like anything op (sniper, medic, saw, 203, rpg, smokes).
    -
    we've said it since this beta came out that allowing every single person in the server to grab 2-4 smokes (48-96 smokes total) just blankets the entire map with smoke. enough on hand to redeploy every 35 seconds for the entirety of the round... just takes all the strategy out of the game and undermines any attempt to find a proper balance of map design.
    -
    smokes still serve a purpose. we just need to limit them so there's an actual thought process in using them up. a valuable resource that can change a strategy. moderation.
    -
    so still, we suggest you limit loadouts instead of completely remove something like a smoke. you shouldn't give everyone on the team a sniper rifle. smoke is really no different.

    It would be great to keep them, but have them not so widely available, maybe attach their usage and amount to a specific role?, I would rather see that and agree to that than see them aimlessly removed from the game entirely.. because I really think they do serve a good purpose.
    If my trollery drives you crazy, you'd better put on your seatbelt.






  • Keebler750Keebler750 Posts: 3,606Beta Tester
    "TEST: to try an alternative method, check outcomes and make a decision on future implementation."
    ______

    This has been a test of the emergency flame-fest system. Please do not adjust your set.
  • SSKtidididiSSKtidididi Posts: 171Player
    Both, smokes and fogs, should be available because of different game styles and tactical scenarios, specially in competitions.
  • AgentE382 wrote: »
    ...
    • Only FOG: Terrible. I rarely carried FOGs. They don't generate enough noise over time to cover footsteps. The smoke also doesn't build and dissipate, reducing tactical possibilities. Don't get me wrong. FOGs fill an important role, and I was ecstatic from the tactical possibilities when they came to AA3. But, plain smokes also have their uses, which I tend to personally use more often. Ideally, every fireteam should carry both.
    ...
    To be honest, I know smokes in-game don't really work like they do in real life. If we could get super-realistic smoke, that'd be super-awesome. But, we should at least have the best smoke that can be feasibly put in-game.
    ________________________________________________________________________________________
    ss_4_PFC-M.Simpkins%5B3rdID%5D.png
  • -SD-DELTON-ACI--SD-DELTON-ACI- Posts: 1,452Player
    Let the smoke grenades go never did like them overused by most players.
    Just my opinion.
    gKQ6BB2.png
  • .dcG-Colts^.dcG-Colts^ Posts: 1,973Player
    No need for those awful smokes to come back to the game. I'm fine with Fogs for now. If they can figure out how to get smokes right down the line than put them back in the game. But the way the smokes are now, they don't belong in this game and the devs made the right call. I am able to utilize a fog grenade just as good. So their should be no issue here. I bet most of you just want to block line of sights for 30 seconds or more. I rarely seen anyone utilize smoke grenades properly.
    Pie charts + Graphs= Very Bad.



  • -warpain.iog--warpain.iog- Posts: 30Player
    edited May 2015
    I don't necessarily like the way smokes are designed atm (can see through them when looking at certain angles, ect.) but they need to be in the game regardless. Fogs are good for certain situations, but smokes are necessary for setting up assault pushes. You can't throw fogs from a distance reliably without them popping before you want them too and they don't stay around long enough to make any meaningful push most times. They both add variety and are useful for different situations. I think they both need to be in the game.
  • SSKbartSSKbart Posts: 125Player
    I don't necessarily like the way smokes are designed atm (can see through them when looking at certain angles, ect.) but they need to be in the game regardless. Fogs are good for certain situations, but smokes are necessary for setting up assault pushes. You can't throw fogs from a distance reliably without them popping before you want them too and they don't stay around long enough to make any meaningful push most times. They both add variety and are useful for different situations. I think they both need to be in the game.
    In order to make much more variance happening on maps like Innerhospital, we indeed need smokes as well.
    SNLSTB.Bart^
  • .dcG-Colts^.dcG-Colts^ Posts: 1,973Player
    I would go with a server option default smokes off
    Pie charts + Graphs= Very Bad.



  • Hey.I.Have.A.GunHey.I.Have.A.Gun Posts: 641Player
    I liked the suggestion of being able to choose between one smoke or two fogs.
  • SSKtidididiSSKtidididi Posts: 171Player
    No, it is too big restriction. So far as M16 with ACOG is restricted, smoke/fog rule should not work in the same way.
  • =IK=El.Jefe=IK=El.Jefe Posts: 72Player
    I would like to see the smokes stay too, but can we keep the "... or this game will be dead" rhetoric down. It's played out.
  • .dcG-Colts^.dcG-Colts^ Posts: 1,973Player
    I don't necessarily like the way smokes are designed atm (can see through them when looking at certain angles, ect.) but they need to be in the game regardless. Fogs are good for certain situations, but smokes are necessary for setting up assault pushes. You can't throw fogs from a distance reliably without them popping before you want them too and they don't stay around long enough to make any meaningful push most times. They both add variety and are useful for different situations. I think they both need to be in the game.

    You throw a fog without cooking you can actually get it pretty far. Key thing is to throw it without cooking at all though. Sure you know this though, just saying.
    Pie charts + Graphs= Very Bad.



  • -SD-AndyPwned112-SD-AndyPwned112 Posts: 5Player
    [TOS Violation] smoke grenades :p
    People just use them to lag me out :) If they fix the performance issues that smoke creates id say keep it
  • SithHunterSithHunter Posts: 109Player
    edited May 2015
    [TOS Violation] smoke grenades :p
    People just use them to lag me out :) If they fix the performance issues that smoke creates id say keep it

    It's just how smokes are in FPS games, they must do that in order to be displayed properly to all players looking at them, no matter the distance/angle/etc.
  • IO_i_OIIO_i_OI Posts: 1,107Player
    edited May 2015
    Keep smokes and FOG as is, or give us the M203 launcher or the newer M320. It does not make sense to remove a proven mechanism in a game. I think most gamers want more not less. More weapons, more levels, more bosses, etc.

    Some of you guys sound like you want AA to be a Civil War game or degrade us to bows and arrows with ACOG. Boring.
    googley avatar aapg


  • SithHunterSithHunter Posts: 109Player
    IO_i_OI wrote: »
    Keep smokes and FOG as is, or give us the M203 launcher or the newer M320. It does not make sense to remove a proven mechanism in a game. I think most gamers want more not less. More weapons, more levels, more bosses, etc.

    Some of you guys sound like you want AA to be a Civil War game or degrade us to bows and arrows with ACOG. Boring.

    There are no vanilla maps suitable for M320, so I'd say that best option would be to keep smokes but tie the nade loadout to classes.
  • .shhfiftyfive-.shhfiftyfive- Posts: 495Player
    well, in previous game, smokes were always OP, but were limited in number. not everyone could carry them. just like anything op (sniper, medic, saw, 203, rpg, smokes).
    -
    we've said it since this beta came out that allowing every single person in the server to grab 2-4 smokes (48-96 smokes total) just blankets the entire map with smoke. enough on hand to redeploy every 35 seconds for the entirety of the round... just takes all the strategy out of the game and undermines any attempt to find a proper balance of map design.
    -
    smokes still serve a purpose. we just need to limit them so there's an actual thought process in using them up. a valuable resource that can change a strategy. moderation.
    -
    so still, we suggest you limit loadouts instead of completely remove something like a smoke. you shouldn't give everyone on the team a sniper rifle. smoke is really no different.


  • .dcG-Vortex^.dcG-Vortex^ Posts: 188Player
    No need for those awful smokes to come back to the game. I'm fine with Fogs for now. If they can figure out how to get smokes right down the line than put them back in the game. But the way the smokes are now, they don't belong in this game and the devs made the right call. I am able to utilize a fog grenade just as good. So their should be no issue here. I bet most of you just want to block line of sights for 30 seconds or more. I rarely seen anyone utilize smoke grenades properly.

    TheTots wrote:
    I think this thread has run it's course......
Sign In or Register to comment.