Weapon loadout isn't fair !
Page 2 of 3

Author:  ISMOLATOR [ Mon May 09, 2005 7:18 pm ]
Post subject: 

Nothing in the weapon loadout is unrealistic. carrying 20 guns with you is unrealistic. but having sigs, augs etc is NOT unrealistic. Its only unrealistic because you still assume a real world scenario but then EVERYTHING but very tight and simple loadouts becomes unrealistic. No rpg? unrealistic! No tanks? unrealistic! No RPK? unrealistic!
It gets so far that even m16's or simple sidearms get unrealistic and very unlikely to show up on such a field. And this is all (I repeat) bullshit. We dot need this sort of realistic recreatin of very momentary snapshots of reality that could change with every passing second. You call it fantasy? I call it a very possible future. Gangsters, terrorists, drug lords WHATEVER.
Yea maybe the AK is the most spread gun. If you like it that much just use it, its in the game already. If you like the sig or aug use that.
There is nothing that supports any of those this is how it is in reality arguments because it just will make THAT scenario more realistic.
And then? What will realistic loadouts do for us? Ah right now we are going to siege a school with 400 innocents in it and blow it up bit by bit no matter the casualties because that is how it is in reality. Its real., :x

Author:  ISMOLATOR [ Mon May 09, 2005 7:23 pm ]
Post subject: 

and this has nothing to do with giving up realism. we wanna try to make a very enjoyable combat simulator that has much less arcade feeling about it then most other shooters around. we are not sacrificing realism for any gameplay reasons. we are just not trying to recreate real scenarios (for one because it is impossible to do anyway) wich is a big difference.

Author:  Traumahawk [ Mon May 09, 2005 7:37 pm ]
Post subject: 

This is why I wanted per-map loadouts specific to each scenario, making the weapons map dependent leaving the weapon choices for the mapper. ... sc&start=0

Author:  Gator69 [ Mon May 09, 2005 9:02 pm ]
Post subject: 

It's interesting you say it's "impossible".

I know several 3rd party mappers who are intestested in doing REAL maps.
Theres plenty of photos, maps, and information available for many of these.
And if bots COULD be added as hostages/civillians, it would become even easier to recreate many real life situations.

With objective OTHER than dem. I'd say it's entirely POSSIBLE to recreate:

The Waco Siege

Russian Theater and/or School attacks

US embassy attack in Iran (and the failed rescue attempt)

Numerous aircraft hijackings
(most notably: 1976: The Palestinian hijack of Air France Flight 193 airliner is brought to an end at Entebbe Airport, Uganda by Operation Entebbe: Israeli commandos assault the building holding the hijackers and hostages; they kill all the Palestinian hijackers and free 105 mostly Israeli hostages; three passengers and one commando are killed.)

Really the list is nearly endless.

I can CLEARLY understand why the dev team would shy away from such things. Since many shy away from being "politically inncorrect".

BUT the tools are almost all in place for community mappers to do what they choose. Weapon loadout restrictions/limitations won't stop them if they choose to map for such events. But a more robust and realistic set of weapons COULD help them.

Also to say there is "nothing unrealistic" about the current loadouts is crap.
Examples: DE's are NOT used in combat. Akimbo is NOT a valid combat tactic. The PSG1 is a VERY rare and expensive weapon, seldom used in the real world. The Mac-10 has NEVER seen combat...mostly used by drug dealers and the like. The M16 is virtually retired and is virtually NEVER used by spec ops any longer. (replace by the M4).

I'm not saying the above weapons are "bad", on many maps/situations they do make sense. But in general they are unrealistic and limiting.

To say it's "not possible" or "not morally correct" is not accurate.

Author:  <TCF>Buschman [ Mon May 09, 2005 11:25 pm ]
Post subject: 

Gator69 wrote:

Damn, you like this word- don't you?

Serioulsy... Can we please stop the arguing? How old are we, 13?
We're arguing over a game?

@Gator69: I think we've got the idea, you want something this game, not so much can't (Thinking about it...) but won't... So... Go somewhere else?
This isn't ment to be attacking you, so don't take this the wrong way.

@ISMOLATOR: There isn't anything else you guys can do really, like you said; unless Coroner wants to, this isn't gonna be the 'realistic' game Gator69 wants. This isn't your fault or anyone else here- infact there is no-one at all to put the blame on.

Take it how it is or don't. No-one is forcing them to play and after all, this is a free mod of a free game.

So... can we just leave this thread locked please?

Author:  ISMOLATOR [ Mon May 09, 2005 11:52 pm ]
Post subject: 

its not impossible to make realistic terrorist scenarios. It just means that we need to wait for hours while one of the team is making negotiations with army negotiators and write up lists of people he wants to see free from Guantanamo and Abughraib. the russian specops in turn must keep screaming mothers from running around and crying for their children that have just been blasted to pieces by the nearby tanks shooting at the sieged school...
Its not political incorrect thats just insulting.

Author:  Diane [ Tue May 10, 2005 12:00 am ]
Post subject: 

<TCF>Buschman wrote:
this isn't gonna be the 'realistic' game Gator69 wants.

I think Gator's intent was to point this out: TCE claims to be a realistic Objective based FPS and yet a lot of things which are occuring show just the opposite. He isn't some realism fan fanatic (Ring a bell to some tce forum vets? LOL).

<TCF>Buschman wrote:
So... can we just leave this thread locked please?

There really is no need to lock this thread. Gator and ISM are both mature individuals who can debate issues without getting/taking things personally. I see no harm really as sometimes good comes out of "debates" such as this.

Author:  <TCF>Buschman [ Tue May 10, 2005 1:52 am ]
Post subject: 

Diane wrote:
I think Gator's intent was to point this out: TCE claims to be a realistic Objective based FPS and yet a lot of things which are occuring show just the opposite. He isn't some realism fan fanatic (Ring a bell to some tce forum vets? LOL).

Could have fooled me :/ And yeah... Hoak/Caliban, etc, is pissing me right off again... (Check the forums...)

Diane wrote:
There really is no need to lock this thread. Gator and ISM are both mature individuals who can debate issues without getting/taking things personally.

-.- Alright... fine... its just that every single one of their replys has begun having more and more EMPHASISM by CAPITAL LETTERS and more and more sarcasm...

Author:  Gator69 [ Tue May 10, 2005 2:26 am ]
Post subject: 

<TCF>Buschman wrote:
So... Go somewhere else?

Uh thats not going to happen :)

ISM and I have "debates" from time to time, but at least to me, thats all they are.

I think we both respect each others opinions, and can have "heated" discussion from time to time without pissing each other off.
(actually we do it quite often on IRC, and end up in a PM about something totally different.

To be honest, I like the guy, and he is pretty talented too.

You really can't compare either of us to Hoak/Caliban.
We both realize this is just a game. We also both realize that sometimes good ideas come from heated debates.

Author:  ISMOLATOR [ Tue May 10, 2005 1:55 pm ]
Post subject: 

I have no problem with debates, Actually some of the most insightful debates I had were heated debates. Hoak also gave us some good insights here and there. Its not like that everything aggressive is automatically bad.
Often it just shows that the topic is worth fighting for in a way.

The only thing that gets annoying is if the whole debate starts out with polarising and evolves intto igno*rant*ing and ends in useles arguing and semantics or even worse just insults.

In this case I find it hard to argue with gator because the red line is broken is several ways:

1. realism and war-reality are 2 different things
2. even if we included hyper realistic loadouts it would still not be realisic
It would ultimately mean to change the whole game to comfort the one scenario.
3. This engine is technically not able to recreate believable reality like scenarios with everything that would be necessary to make war_reality nazis happy. If I'd play devils advocate and think straight through the end of this concept I'd be able to nitpick the whole concept of games apart for the next 20 years. I'm sure that even 2 reality freaks could never agree on on the same *best* solution either without making tons *fantasy* compromises.
4. weapons no matter how rare or expensive are not *fantasy* or unrealistic as long as they exist and are produced in larger numbers (sigs and augs are produced 100.000 fold, hell every swiss male over 18 years has a sig550 under his bed -lucky bastards :D)
WE choose weapons only by their category wich means "side arm" "smg" "ar" and "sniper" are ok the rest isnt because it would break the game concept. The game woudl completely change but then why not play battlefield2 instead? TC is TC because of the way it is. It rejects some highly realistic weapons (like rpg's or attachable nadelaunchers) in favor for a different gamefeeling and less problems coroner and the mappers would need to keep in mind.

the list does go on and on

Author:  Gator69 [ Tue May 10, 2005 3:05 pm ]
Post subject: 

...I still think and RPG could work nicely as a single shot only, "objective destroying" replacement for C4 on some maps....

Author:  ISMOLATOR [ Tue May 10, 2005 3:21 pm ]
Post subject: 

yea if it would be non abusable then it would be alright :wink:

Author:  c0m1ng3vil [ Wed May 18, 2005 2:32 am ]
Post subject: 

What a temperate staff!

Let's just try our hardest to find a compromise between realism and fun.

Author:  flyhead(cn) [ Tue May 31, 2005 9:00 am ]
Post subject: 

i only want to say a few things that i think might just be reasonable enough.
1 - in real life, if Special Ops really were going to kill terrorists, theyd know the t's have ak's, and they would most definitely use m4 over m16.
2 - maybe if bots were put in, like ETF, it would be so cool.
3 - i know there won't be single player, and there never will, but ima just suggesting it.
4 - while playing TC:E i emptied 8 shotgun shells into a terrorist. he didnt even flinch; he turned around and blasted me with HIS shotgun and i died with one shot. THAT is totally unrealistic.
5 - i think that the mossberg should be swapped for something else.
6 - wouldn't it be nice if we had auto shotguns like xm1014 or daewoo usas12?
7 - have a nice day.

Author:  Gator69 [ Tue May 31, 2005 2:11 pm ]
Post subject: 

flyhead(cn) wrote:
6 - wouldn't it be nice if we had auto shotguns like xm1014 or daewoo usas12?

The XM1014 was an experimental prototype, a joint venture between Heckler and Koch and Benelli. It was offically addopted and placed into production and designated the M4 S90 Combat Shotgun.

Both the M4 S90 and the usas 12 are Semi-Auto shotguns, of which the game already has two, the Spas-12 and the Benelli M3 S90.

Page 2 of 3 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group