HomeMembersDownloadsSubmit NewsContact UsForum
Control HQ
 
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds

Forums
REDSQUAD Tactical Gaming :: Forums :: [RSQ] CLAN PUBLIC FORUM AREA :: SOLDIER'S MESS TENT
 
<< Previous thread | Next thread >>
Server Configuration (CoD:W@W)
Go to page       >>  
Moderators: Jester, tailgunner
Author Post
Jester
Fri Oct 31 2008, 04:59PM
General


Registered Member #1
Joined: Fri Oct 03 2008, 01:51AM
Posts: 147
 ===============================================
THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN DECIDED ABOUT OUR COD:W@W SERVER

[ image disabled ]Number of slots:  10 to 14
[ image disabled ]Play Style:  Tactical Realism (Click here for a full explanation of what this means)
===============================================

Well, I anticipated doing Bolts only due to the usual unbalance of weapons.

If they are balanced properly, I can imagine allowing some other weapons but on a limited basis as the eXtreme mod allows.  If we try to stay true to the period, then obviously, allowing for every player on each side to tote a BAR is ludicrous.  The majority of infantrymen were issued rifles...the VAST majority.  I'm sure nobody would disagree with that.

On a 10 to 14-slot server, I can imagine allowing perhaps 1 SMG, 1 MG, and 1 Sniper per side, and the rest of the guys get rifles (I'm reminded of the small crew traipsing around with Tom Hanks in "Saving Private Ryan").  We would also have to make it that riflemen can't just discard their weapons for MG's that they find laying around.  Provided that it's possible, the loadout that every player starts with would be all they get.  Bodies won't be searchable, and weapons won't be dropped upon death to keep people from scavenging SMG's/MG's.  It'll also have the added benefit of forcing players to use ammo intelligently.

The bottom line is that I just don't want a server full of 32 MG sprayers.  We'll be starting with 10 slots, and given the traditional tiny CoD series map sizes, we may just leave it at that.  If we do increase it, it won't be by much.  I'll never have a 32 slot server again.  It just turns way too stupid way to quickly and easily...not just vis-a-vis gameplay, but administration.  I would much prefer two 8 to 12 slot servers to one server with a shitload of people on it.

I really love Rompus' point about team-specific weaponry, and how it can affect gameplay in a positive and realistic manner.  I like it a lot.  Given that the US nearly always has an edge thanks to the Garand, we would likely have to make map times/score limits very high, but with several rounds during which teams switch sides.  That way, every player gets to be a Marine for a little while.

Keep the feedback coming...ALL bolts may NOT be a great idea, but understand the spirit in which I intended on doing it.

[ Edited Sun Nov 02 2008, 08:33AM ]
[ image disabled ]
Back to top
Lock
Fri Oct 31 2008, 08:15PM
Lock
Registered Member #3
Joined: Fri Oct 03 2008, 05:36PM
Posts: 25
 When u said that the rest would be rifles if the weapon balance occurs, do u mean all rifles or just the bolt action ones? I personally would prefer only bolt action and an SMGer+Sniper per team, but not any MG(IF a weapon balance is made)
Lock, eh?
Back to top
tailgunner
Mon Nov 03 2008, 06:39AM

Registered Member #6
Joined: Fri Oct 03 2008, 08:43PM
Posts: 155
 I say screw the smg and mg. There is no need for them in small maps like these.
[ image disabled ]
Back to top
RustyTank
Mon Nov 03 2008, 08:27AM
Registered Member #4
Joined: Fri Oct 03 2008, 06:13PM
Posts: 24
 Balancing the weapons is good... I agree that everyone shouldn't be carrying a fully auto weapon... so mostly rifles... 1 smg, 1 lmg, 1-2 snipers... and the rest rifles...

BUT... to be true to the period... the allies (Americans at least) weren't carrying bolt action springfields... they were carrying M-1s...

So if you want to balance it ... then give the japs/krauts what they need to keep up...

I'f i wanted to carry a 1903a3 bolt action, iron sight rifle...in a game... I'd be looking for a World War ONE first person shooter... but I haven't seen one yet.

[ Edited Mon Nov 03 2008, 08:27AM ]
Back to top
Jester
Mon Nov 03 2008, 08:34AM
General


Registered Member #1
Joined: Fri Oct 03 2008, 01:51AM
Posts: 147
"Jester's Original Post" wrote ...
Given that the US nearly always has an edge thanks to the Garand, we would likely have to make map times/score limits very high, but with several rounds during which teams switch sides. That way, every player gets to be a Marine for a little while.

[ image disabled ]
Back to top
RustyTank
Mon Nov 03 2008, 09:30AM
Registered Member #4
Joined: Fri Oct 03 2008, 06:13PM
Posts: 24
 OR - give the japs/krauts a couple more SMGs or LMGs... than the Americans have access to... Can the MODs do that?

Besides... thats the wonderful thing about war... beating an enemy that has an advantage is so much more satisfying...
Back to top
Rasor
Mon Nov 03 2008, 09:40AM

Registered Member #9
Joined: Mon Oct 06 2008, 08:43AM
Posts: 97
 Bolt action
And thats the bottom line
Just my humble opinion!
And knowing the guy on your team behind you (GOT YOUR Back) Team spirit and Acknoledgement of a goal ! All have good points,
I guess i just like squad play ,

[ Edited Wed Nov 05 2008, 09:28AM ]
Back to top
Jester
Mon Nov 03 2008, 10:41AM
General


Registered Member #1
Joined: Fri Oct 03 2008, 01:51AM
Posts: 147
RustyTank wrote ...
OR - give the japs/krauts a couple more SMGs or LMGs... than the Americans have access to... Can the MODs do that? Besides... thats the wonderful thing about war... beating an enemy that has an advantage is so much more satisfying...


Mods aren't out, so I really couldn't say?
[ image disabled ]
Back to top
Jester
Tue Nov 04 2008, 01:29PM
General


Registered Member #1
Joined: Fri Oct 03 2008, 01:51AM
Posts: 147
 I'm hearing a HELLUVA lot of support for "Bolt-Action Rifles Only" from RSQ members on TeamSpeak. We may just have to curb the "realism" part a little, in favour for the "tactical" side?
[ image disabled ]
Back to top
RustyTank
Tue Nov 04 2008, 02:24PM
Registered Member #4
Joined: Fri Oct 03 2008, 06:13PM
Posts: 24
 If it Bolts we want ... then so be it... but bolts are not one bit more "tactical" than semi-auto or full auto weapons... "tactical" is a BEHAVIOUR thing...
Back to top
Go to page       >>   

Jump:     Back to top
Syndicate this thread: rss 0.92 Syndicate this thread: rss 2.0 Syndicate this thread: RDF
Powered by e107 Forum System