Some perks are not as useful or effective as others. This is due to some, or all the following reasons:
Too expensive
Too small an effect
Too niche
They are perks that are often considered junk perks that are often replaced with more useful ones. I’d recommend reworking them to either be more accessible by lowering perk point requirements, increasing their effect, or replacing them entirely.
I’ll list the perks and the reason why I think they’re not too useful.
+20% weapon aim speed 12 Speed – Too expensive, too little an effect.
+50% building speed 14 Speed – Too expensive, too niche.
+15% sprint speed 16 Speed – Too expensive, only works when sprinting. Completely made irrelevant by the 6-cost 10% run speed perk, which affects the default and sprint speeds
+80% aim stability with firearms after receiving damage 11 Vitality – Too expensive. When taking damage from high RPM weapons, you would be dead before you can benefit from this perk. Not to mention, this perk does not affect stability reduction from explosions.
+12% firing rate while using bolt action rifles 12 Handling – Too expensive, too little an effect. Worsened by the fact that it’s only usable for weapons that will become obsolescent as you progress the campaign
No. It’s too situational, and locks you out of more useful perks under the speed category.
Even with Engineer II, it will lock you out of the following perks, with the exception of +60% movement speed while crawling or crouching
+40% maximum jump height
+10% run speed
+100% climbing speed
+75% medpack usage speed
+20% weapon aim speed
All of which are at least intrinsically related to movement in and out of combat, making them at least usable.
The build perk is primarily a player-relevant buff, and unless you’re building sand castles the majority of time, is largely unnecessary.
Building fortifications, in general, is map-specific, and in most scenarios involving usage with engineers, you’ll only build a rally 5-6 times in a single match, so it’s pretty expensive for something so niche.
It’s powerful, but too expensive for its own good, and in most cases, can be entirely skipped for a more relevant/balanced selection of perks.
It isn’t a 50% reduction in build time, but only a 50% increase in build speed, so you build at 150% the usual pace.
Essentially, you’re only cutting the build time to 2/3s the original. It’s not as powerful as you think, and only cuts you a fraction of the time instead of halving it. You can test this for yourself in the range.
Well that’s how i knew i wanted it on each engineer, was that, when in battle, not range, it was so noticeable, that i had to have it, was like wow, seemed to halve my time though
Ta for that info, picture, handy. would you, have something for how many extra supply’s the engineer gets?
The only perk I don’t really see it used properly is longer grenade throws, you cannot remember which troop has the perk, so overthrow the tank sometimes.
I figured out how to throw back grenades, on PS5, so grenades don’t bother me too much, the issue is you don’t know which soldier has it, maybe the devs could put an icon on UI?
I think OP should remain silent when it comes to the build speed perk, he is wrong.
There is more to playing Engineer than rally points. I build somewhere around 50-100 structures every match and have a nice 4/6 Engineer squad. I have spent the last week since I found Enlisted making Normandy CBT mode for the allies, and Im not referring to the closed beta. Your topic in general is good but I would let this one issue go so as not to distract from the abundance of near worthless perks in the game.
On that note we sure could use some Engineers, though I do think its funny to end a match with 96 structures built, and every single other player in the match combined equal about 60-80. The cheese is incredible, and honestly building needs to be nerfed even though its my favorite thing so far.
