Bitfighter Forums

Engineer is something featured in a ton of games, from TF2 to... TF2... To.... Well I can't think of any others. I'm sure there are plenty though. That's not the point.

The theory behind engineer is that you can use it for point defense, using forcefields and turrets to make someplace easier to defend. This slows down or stops the enemy, and makes capturing any objectives easier. With the addition of engineered teleports, engineer has taken on a slightly more offensive tone. A teleporter linking directly to the enemy base allows a team to take the enemy flag with extreme ease. The levelmaker must use discretion to limit the amount of resourceitems the engineer can build with, forcing the engineer to make tough choices on what and where to build.

In practice, the theory doesn't work. This is often the fault of the level designer, but it really isn't their fault because its impossible to make a good level with engineer.

If the level has too many resource items: The game becomes a fortress building competition. Unlimited access means that the engineers can completely wall off their base with so many forcefields that if every dead ship reanimated as a zombie they would still not be able to get in. Aside from that, if one team successfully breaks through one fortress, the team is guaranteed to win because the other team will not be able to penetrate the enemy fortress fast enough to catch up, nor will they be able to rebuild from the constant waves of enemies. At this point, the enemy engineers a teleporter behind eighteen forcefields directly to your flag, and the game is over.

If the level has too few resource items: Engineer becomes strikingly weak. The massive energy cost of engineer means that only the most strategic engineers are worth it, meaning that forcefields and turrets are both out. Turrets are remarkably easy to kill, and a single forcefield or even two isn't going to be slowing anybody down. Because there are so few resource items in the level, most people forget engineer is even enabled, but those that do try to engineer are sacrificing a module for the ability to create a teleport that at best will last for two respawns. It puts the person's entire team at a disadvantage.

If the level has the right amount of resources: I'm speaking hypothetically here, because to my knowledge this has never been pulled off. We're also going to assume the levelmaker places the resources well and the bases are designed well and all that. The engineer can use the resource items to fortify the base well enough to slow down attackers, while the other team members go on offense. Even then, this isn't usually how it plays out. Often the strongest player on either team will invade the enemy base, then sit in his base with the flag engineering things while his teamates fight to return his flag. Since this is the team's strongest player, engineer is pretty much unecessary, and he'll likely just be making forcefields so that if any enemies show up he can just walk(fly) to the other side of the projectors and all danger is completely nullified. Engineer in this scenario is pretty much just something to do while you're bored, and if engineer is disabled on the map the player would just repair the bases natural defenses anyway, which leads to the same result with no potential for abuse (we're assuming the map is well made) so engineer ends up adding absolutely nothing.

But wait! I'm mostly just thinking about capture the flag, since its the most popular gametype. Lets look at some of the others:

Retrieve: This plays out the same as ctf, with the added complexity of you having to defend multiple spots on certain levels. It just makes it harder on the level designer to use engineer well.
Hold the Flag: Since everyone on every team is trying to invade your base specifically, anything you build ever is useless.
Rabbit: Turrets are so useful.
Hunters: A teleporter directly onto the nexus means that its even more a game of hiding with lots of flags.
Core: This one is interesting and complicated. I think since the core is so big blocking it off with engineer is hard, so you would have to use it REALLY well to get a couple seconds worth of defense out of it. Either that or you use two resourceitems to build a turret and shoot at the core for you, which really shouldn't be a thing.
Soccer: A forcefield over the goal will block a shot, but its also easily disabled. Two forcefields means the game is now a fortress building competition.
Bitmatch: No.
Zone Control: You'd have to concentrate all the resources on a specific zone, which depending on the level is either still useless, or completely game changing because it allows your team to get the flag.
Dungeons: Engineer is EXCELLENT for dungeons. See: http://www.bitfighter.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1758&p=18032#p18032.

Ooh, you just gave me an idea for a new level! Thanks!

Yep, It completley breaks the game.

I should point out that it *may* be possible to actually fix engineer. I'm more in favor of removing it, because I don't like the way engineer plays in other games. I think it would actually needs buffs though. I still say just remove it outright though.

We need to be able to create stronger turrets somehow. Either floating 360 turrets, or be able to choose turret weapons when engineering them. Regular turrets are nearly worthless to engineer.

Engineer needs to cost less, like, half. In small levels it isn't worth the energy cost, and in large levels the energy cost doesn't even matter anyway.

With both these I'm still not sure it would be useful. I'd still never use it. But if you're not going to remove it it should probably get something. Forcefields are still pretty much the best option for engineering.

Don't forget teleporters!

Teleporters are either stupidly powerful (if the level creator makes a place for the teleporter to be placed that the enemy has trouble getting to) or extremely weak if its placed out in the open. There really isn't an in-between.

I like engineer when the recourses are 2-4

You have raised some good ideas, bobdaduck. I personally like engineer, but I agree that it could be improved.

How do you want to improve engeneer?!?

I say we keep engeneer since it can be enabled or disabled by the level creator

how to improve engineer:
1. remove it.
2. remove it again!
3. ????
4. profit!

k

I said it might be possible to fix engineer, but its a lot of work and there's no gaurantee it would be fixed by such things. I am FAR more in favor of just outright removing it completely. I don't like the way engineer works in other games, and I don't like the way it works in ours.

That doesn't really address bobdaduck's points though. If engineer is flawed beyond repair, then it wouldn't make much sense to let level editors decide if it stays or goes, since the negative aspects of engineer impact the player, not the level editor.

-------------------

Furthermore, your argument is a common argument that comes up all of the time (even I say it sometimes). It suggests we can compromise on a feature by putting the power in the level editor to use it properly. The problem is that this argument implies that all level editors make good levels and will utilize the features with discretion. But let's be honest - not all level editors make good levels.

Features cannot be trialed solely through inclusion in levels. If a good feature is included in a bunch of a bad levels, then the general conclusion will likely be that the feature is bad - which isn't necessarily true. And vice versa, if a bad feature is used minimally in good levels it doesn't necessarily mean the feature is a good fit for Bitfighter.

That's not to say I discourage testing via level creation, but it can't just be a "be all end all solution" for evaluating features. I'm not blaming you in particular, but this argument pops up a lot, and it needs to be stomped. Think about it this way: If a feature objectively sucks and everyone in the community thinks so, why keep it in the game and assume level editors will be smart and not implement the feature? That's just naiive.

-------------------

Disclaimer: I am not supporting bobdaduck's points on this matter. In fact, I actually want engineer to stay, but for a different reason - I simply don't see engineer in the same scrutinizing light as bobdaduck. I personally can enjoy Bitfighter all the same even if there are too many resource items or too few.

But that's not to say I think engineer is perfect. I fully support improving engineer if it benefits the game. I just don't have the same detailed eye that bobdaduck has.

That thread compiled by quartz and bobdaduck listing a bunch of suggestions for balance? I don't feel strongly about any of those suggestions, but I do think they're important to analyze and I appreciate quartz and bobdaduck exploring ways to perfect the game balance. I'm a casual player, and I would never be able to look at Bitfighter in the same critical light they do, and that's okay.

Yeah.

You just wrote the first chapter of the upcoming book "Bitfighter's philosophy"

But... Some maps have good engineer stuff: Dungeons, Default CTF map, default Core map...

^

bobdaduck's guide to winning at the internet:
1. Create thread "Why Engineer Sucks."
2. Work hard to create two maps based entirely around Engineer.
3. ???
4. PROFIT!!