Interesting ideas. But a few thoughts of my own. (Other than people will always whine when someone is hard to beat).

1) A player can be "good" because his computer is. Too many play this game with too many levels of computers and video cards, etc. Rarely will you find a pent III user with a 56K and a Voodoo card or worse ever being as "good" as someone with the latest and greatest stuff. I have cable but there are times when I am shot by someone who could see me but my resolution would not allow me to see them, just black haze. So even if some people really are "good" or better than others, technology is the main boost or handicap in such a game. But I do admire the guys who can storm so fast and aim at the head so consistantly. I have to rely on my wits more than my reflexes. And that would probably be the case if everyone had the same rig and same lag. Also, someone who has played Quake-like games before will haved a great advantage over us that have not.

2) I totally agree that there is a difference between defending the objective and camping. Some server was kicking people because they were the last ones left on each side and the host was bored. That was lame. So is the 15 seconds of "inactivity" and you're out, even though you are sitting there firing away with a BAR and taking a lot of fire.

An American hiding in the top of the first building near his spawn site until he is finally ferreted out IS camping. The German sniper or MG guarding the 88 is NOT. However, it gets old when it is the same guy doing it every single time. And gets VERY old when there are six of them over, and over and over. I tend to go where needed. The sniper rifle gives one a sense of power. And yes, one sniper can be better than another. But I agree the advantage of that instant scope reduces the amount of work required per kill. Usually I end up being a shock troop when German cause so many people want to hang back. As an American I either follow the road crossers from the first buildings and try to cover them with an M-1 (I mean literally try and protect them) or I am the first guy across the road with a thompson, knowing no one will be covering me lol.

3) The realistic model is so much better that it makes the normal one boring and stupid to me now. I just HATE it when I empty a thompson clip into someone and they shoot me once with their pistol and they win. Not to mention SIX grenades! The name of the game should be Medal of Honor: Grendades.

4) MGs and SMGs ARE underpowered in the normal model, but so are the basic rifles. So snipers and bazookas have far too great an advantage.

5) shotguns are annoying but they did use them. However, you rarely had looneys throwing their life away in mad charges with shotguns like you do in gameland fantasies. But then we all throw caution to the wind sometimes cause it is fun. I never use them, not good at close quater aiming yet.

6) I do not mind the "rockets" either, except I prefer the Wolfenstien idea that you get a loading penalty. Especially since they were a two man weapon in real life and rarely used as antipersonel, but great for taking out the pesky snipers. Now they are like giant shotguns that load as fast as a mauser.

I remain all for Realistic Damage models, limiting the amount of scopes and rockets in a game, but NOT banning them, auto rotating of weapons so everyone gets a chance to be a sniper or BAR man, and FLAMETHROWERS - of course likewise limited and very slow moving.