Thanks Bad

YALL DON'T UNDERSTAND EA WANTED IT TO BE AS CLOSE TO THE REAL THING AS POSSIBLE do you think they used sniper rifle and rockets at omaha HELL NO way to heavy u would be dead before you got out of the water. and besides sombody said if u don't wanna play wit rockets and snipas well maybe the germans should learn to play well would that not mean you are not capable of playing without the fuc*ing snipers and rockets? rockets aren't as bad cuz they arch........ try that punk

------------------
hey don't point that at me hey hey what u doin? AIGH TEAM KILLER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Who was that directed at Collin?

Limits would be good. When playing a Team game like this, I'd rather complete the missions rather than seeing how many kills I could get. There are DM servers for that.


http://blackwolfsq.sfrt.net/images/sig.jpg

How foolish! Lets all play with just rifles and smg's, how realistic! In WW2, Soldiers had to deal with tanks, artillery, etc...In fact, most deaths occured cause of Tanks, bombs, artillery... Rockets compensate for lack of tanks, planes and artillery in multiplayer.

Snipers, should be limited to 2 per every 10 players per team. Shotgunners are not a problem if you know how to handle them. I always take out a punk shotgunner in close combat with my thompson or mp40. Learn how to play! That is the best solution.

Krazyklown please for the love of god read the whole thread. I dont mind sniper/shotguns/rcokets. What I do mind is having so freaking many on one server. I know how to play, I really dont need any suggestions from you.

It's not directed at you, but some fools want to get rid of snipers/rockets/shotguns completely. I , for one, hardly use the shotgun or sniper rifle - and rarely use rockets. I'm a thompson, mp40 guy. But, I do like the fact that I may choose to play with one of those other weapons - it adds variety. Yes, I agree, there should defintely be a limit to those weapons, but not BANISHMENT!

------------------
http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpo...ra/SS-Sold.jpg

Collin, spouting off inaccuracies does little to advance your argument, even if you do so IN ALL CAPS.

If EA wanted the game to be as realistic as possible, it would have been a realism-orientated game. It's not. It's an action-orientated shooter.

If EA wanted the game to be as realistic as possible, shooting soldiers to death would not cause magic health packs to appear from their dead bodies. And mounted machine guns would not have limited ammo. And so on. And so on.

You're argument against certain weapons on Omaha is a poor one. If you want to argue against Weapon X on Level B, by all means do so ... but try to stick to the same reality everybody else shares, eh?

I agree Krazy, not banishment. I think there should be different weapons avail for different levels. Take crossroads, would work well with 1 sniper per side and one rocket. But for That blown up city with the church more snipers would be acceptable to me, as it is geared towards more of the distance shooting.

Realistic? Since when was this game about realism??

The game's about Authenticity and Atmosphere.
Shoegaze99 for once I agree with you.
Though I still think Omaha would be alot more fun without snipers. Rockets and Shotguns are fine. http://www.alliedassault.com/ubb/wink.gif

weapon limits are the way to go, but they have to be suited to the levels. ie, stalingrad should have 1 sniper, 1 rocket, and the rest as riflemen. whereas the crossroads should have a larger allowance for snipers.

and the main reason i find people get pissed off with rockets is because you don't really have to aim a rocket. the splash damage is the stuff that gets ya.

but the worst thing is the people that run around with the rocket launcher and when they are kindly asked to change weapons or even teams some times, they go and start team killing.

but having squad layouts would make the game alot sweeter and would allow people to become specialised with their chosen weapon.

I seem to agree with ShoeGaze alot http://www.alliedassault.com/ubb/smile.gif

Klown does have a point too. Many people complain about sniper precisely for the reason that they want to be able to run amok without getting shot. They don't have the skill or brain power to be able to cope with snipers.

Put 12 allied snipers vs 4 competent germans and who will win? It's not that snipers are too powerful. It's the lamebrains who can't figure out how to deal with them.

You cannot assure balanced, even teams. For one thing, I have seen 20 Allies vs 10 Germans in a game or two. You would have to enforce even team numbers. But even that won't work since skill varies. So maybe balancing out the number of kills per minute would be the best way to even the teams. This would make players switch teams automatically as required.

Even with limited snipers, you can end up with a bunch of dummies on your team with SMGs. How often do you see a team mate try to use a Thompson like a Garand? They take aim at a sniper from a long distance, and then squeeze and hold that trigger for dear life. Of course, this just announces their location and results in their death. Then next game, same thing.

To make it fair and fun, you would have to control the types and numbers of weapons, and the types and numbers of players on each team for each map. Obviously this will never happen.

I do think it would make sense to let the admin limit the weapon ratios. But picture this: some dummy gets the 1 sniper rifle your team is allowed and won't give it up. Have fun!

The best thing (for objective games like Omaha) might be a mod that eliminates the kill scores so people can stop focusing on their number of kills and start thinking about completing the objective. Points for reaching certain points, setting the bomb, blowing the bomb, etc. might be the best way to encourage team work.

Jonesy, you're one of a number of people who have brought up the idea of eliminating and/or modifying kill scores on objective based maps. I wholeheartedly agree with the idea and hope some mods makers run with it.

A point-based system seems would likely be the best idea, I think. Kills can still count for something under a point-based system, but completing an objective would count for far more.

Here's a sample of how such a system might work, for argument's sake:

Per kill: 10 points
Per death: -5 points
Per suicide: -5 points
Setting a bomb: 50 points (plus 5 points for each teammates)
Defusing a bomb: 50 points (plus 5 points for each teammate)
Destroying an objective: 150 points (plus 20 points per teammate)
Preventing destruction in time limit: 150 points (plus 20 points per teammate)

After a 10-minute session, each team's points are totalled and the winner is determined. Kills play a part, but completing your objectives a far bigger part.

(teammates get points when somebody else sets a bomb to help reward teamwork; it's the "if the team wins we all win" ideal)

I like it! I like it alot!