Tonights game Sat22nd

Started by Anonymous, October 22, 2005, 09:21:14 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages1 2
User actions

Anonymous

October 22, 2005, 09:21:14 PM
Sorry I left without saying NN but the game was crap :(  It was a rocket launcher frag fest like an old Quake 3 match so I left.

Hope it improved for you later?

Doris

#1
October 22, 2005, 10:09:24 PM
:huggy:


vG.

Blunt

#2
October 22, 2005, 10:40:15 PM
QuoteOriginally posted by BlueBall@Oct 22 2005, 09:21 PM
Sorry I left without saying NN but the game was crap :( It was a rocket launcher frag fest like an old Quake 3 match so I left.

Hope it improved for you later?
[post=99623]Quoted post[/post]
[/b]

nah :( ...

even I picked up a tube on the last map  :(
Regards
Blunt

People who blow things out of proportion are worse than Hitler.

Ranger

#3
October 23, 2005, 01:41:08 AM
QuoteOriginally posted by BlueBall@Oct 22 2005, 08:21 PM
Sorry I left without saying NN but the game was crap :( It was a rocket launcher frag fest like an old Quake 3 match so I left.

Hope it improved for you later?
[post=99623]Quoted post[/post]
[/b]

Thats a shame - it was good when I left (earlier on, promised I would watch 'Magic Roundabout' with my daughter!)...

Which map did it turn into a 'frag fest'?

Trouble is with having armour, a lot of people will choose to be AT. But the side arm is rubbish - so they use the rocket launcher as a sniper rifle instead of the terrible MP5/smg...

I know - I've done it myself (only stopped when I unlocked the DO12). It's one of those situations where the default weapons actually encourage 'fragging' instead of shooting.

If the AT guy had an M16 (as he would in real life) that would stop people resorting to using the ATW for med/long range 'sniping'.

IMHO

(Thats why infantry only nights are good - because there is no reason to carry an AT!)

Oh...And PS - 'The Magic Roundabout' was rubbish! - :)
[QUOTE]"It was the most I ever threw up, and it changed my life forever." Homer J. Simpson[/QUOTE]

OldBloke

#4
October 23, 2005, 12:11:03 PM
I feel a new guideline coming on ...

IMHO the problem is caused by a combination of low player numbers and the free use of armoured vehicles/aircraft. So what we need is a set of guidelines for the permitted vehicles based on the number of players on the server. We will need to differentiate between using the vehicles for transport, range of weapon use and possibly capping as well (allowing the use of helos for transport could lead to instances of flag-hopping captures).

I think we should be careful not to go overboard on this. We do not want to make it so complicated that it becomes a nightmare to remember as well as enforce.

Over to you.
"War without end. Well, what was history if not that? And how would having the stars change anything?" - James S. A. Corey

Ranger

#5
October 23, 2005, 12:48:14 PM
QuoteOriginally posted by OldBloke@Oct 23 2005, 11:11 AM
I feel a new guideline coming on ...

IMHO the problem is caused by a combination of low player numbers and the free use of armoured vehicles/aircraft. So what we need is a set of guidelines for the permitted vehicles based on the number of players on the server. We will need to differentiate between using the vehicles for transport, range of weapon use and possibly capping as well (allowing the use of helos for transport could lead to instances of flag-hopping captures).

I think we should be careful not to go overboard on this. We do not want to make it so complicated that it becomes a nightmare to remember as well as enforce.

Over to you.
[post=99638]Quoted post[/post]
[/b]

Hmmmm...

I have always believed that heli-capping is bad - PLUS I have always thought that although vehicles are fun, they should be used to support troops...

In other words - no vehicle can cap, only infantry. This will religate vehicles to a supporting role, readdressing the ballance in teh game.

However - in our case (dMw) it very hard to come up with guidelines that are easy to understand and remember. I mean - how will you rule on what vehicles you can and can't use - plus what happens when a guest comes into dMw?

I think we should have infantry only nights, no aircraft nights, and armour support only nights - keep it simple!
[QUOTE]"It was the most I ever threw up, and it changed my life forever." Homer J. Simpson[/QUOTE]

Doorman

#6
October 23, 2005, 01:12:42 PM
Tricky ennit? While it's very satisfying to wipe out whole battalions with a well aimed nuclear weapon, it ain't so much fun being whacked by said nuclear weapon. How to balance it in the good old fashioned dMw way though? Toughie. These thing have to evolve as PCS/TCS did.
Over to someone else.










     

Anonymous

#7
October 23, 2005, 01:31:29 PM
QuoteOriginally posted by Doorman@Oct 23 2005, 12:12 PM
Over to someone else.
[post=99643]Quoted post[/post]
[/b]
I like marzipan :)

OldBloke

#8
October 23, 2005, 02:49:14 PM
A starter for 10 (pun intended - read on) ...

No tanks or AT class with player numbers less than 10.
"War without end. Well, what was history if not that? And how would having the stars change anything?" - James S. A. Corey

Doris

#9
October 23, 2005, 03:34:20 PM
Sir, Yes Sir


vG.

A Twig

#10
October 23, 2005, 04:24:11 PM
Why don't we just run the 16 player maps?  :huh:
[N~@] - Ninja Association
Although we may fade from life, life does not fade from our memories

Ranger

#11
October 23, 2005, 04:40:15 PM
QuoteOriginally posted by OldBloke@Oct 23 2005, 01:49 PM
A starter for 10 (pun intended - read on) ...

No tanks or AT class with player numbers less than 10.
[post=99645]Quoted post[/post]
[/b]

I agree - and also agree with A Twig about 16 player maps.

I don't mind doing without the armour or the AT - these arte best with 48/64 player maps anyway...

And if I want top play these I will go to a ranked server (I guess it will be a long way off before dMw can populate a 48/64 player map fully).

Example: Just been on the Tactical Gamer 64 player server this afternoon. Armour is nicely ballanced with the amount of infantry, and there was a nice even spread of classes - and AT was rarely used against infantry as it was needed against the armour.
[QUOTE]"It was the most I ever threw up, and it changed my life forever." Homer J. Simpson[/QUOTE]

Doorman

#12
October 23, 2005, 05:46:42 PM
QuoteOriginally posted by OldBloke@Oct 23 2005, 02:49 PM
A starter for 10 (pun intended - read on) ...

No tanks or AT class with player numbers less than 10.
[post=99645]Quoted post[/post]
[/b]
Sounds good to me. *Oh and knock off the democracy crap, it don't suit you.














*Joke :D










     

Doorman

#13
October 23, 2005, 05:48:55 PM
QuoteOriginally posted by OldBloke@Oct 23 2005, 02:49 PM
A starter for 10 (pun intended - read on) ...

No tanks or AT class with player numbers less than 10.
[post=99645]Quoted post[/post]
[/b]
Of course, the minute it goes to 11 you'll be looking down the barrels of the whole of the Royal Tank corps!










     

Armitage

#14
October 23, 2005, 09:44:11 PM
The problem with no tanks and AT class before 5 aside. Is what about APC's and AA vehicles. with no AT's to stop them it would be unfair. SO we ban them, Then what stops the choppers. so end up in a permanent infantry only server. sorry I like the infantry nights, but I like to fly and drive tanks also.

It's a shame that loads of AT guys spoilt the night. unless there were a lot of tanks about. may be a better way would be to request them to lose a few AT guys. anyway assault should beat a AT guy more often than not anyway.
Print
Go Up Pages1 2
User actions