PDA

View Full Version : Team-Based Loadout Restriction Brainstorming


SoSilencer
6th Jun 2001, 12:59 PM
I've been thinking about this for a while and the more I think about it the more I realise INF would benefit greatly from such a system. This system would be certain restrictions placed on the amount of weapons and ammo an entire team could have. It would be used to limit teams to 2 grenade launchers, or 2 sniper rifles, or 4 shotguns, 16 frag grenades, you name it. It could be a per-map setup as certain maps like EP would require more sniper rifles than maps such as Siberia.

The question is, of course, how do you implement something like this that is fair to all players? How do you determine which two players get the grenade launcher, or the sniper rifle?

I don't think it can be based on scoring because if it was like this you'd end up with a very stale pool. What I mean is you'd get one guy who is decent with the shotgun and he would always score really high. Another player could be better with the shotgun but since he is stuck with an AK he never has a high enough score to show how good he can use the shotgun.

It can't just be first come first serve because that gives the benefit to people with fast machines.

It could involve a player voting system, but something like this would take a lot of time before each round and would cause many arguments between players.

What else is there? It needs to be fast but it also needs to be fair. For the life of me I just can't think of anything but if a lot of people reply with ideas maybe we can all come up with something.

devilmonkey
6th Jun 2001, 01:08 PM
I was thinking about a similar system last night. This would be especially good once the SAW comes into play, otherwise I'm sure we'll see entire teams of guys with SAWs and GLs. This will also add to the realism since most squads will have 1 or 2 sharpshooters, 2 or so GLs a heavy MG and rifle/smg men filling it out. If you get a chance check out the show on the SEALs that has been on the Discovery channel from time to time and you will see that this is far closer to real squad tactics/loadouts IMHO.

Kisen_K
6th Jun 2001, 01:17 PM
Maybe just rotate the weapons. So like if I wanted to use a shottie, and another guy also want to. I could use it the
first round , he can use it second round and I use it third round again, you get the idea...

ILCR is going to implent this into their strategy league... If 2 people on the same team use the same "restricted" weapon, they will be disqualified.

RogueLeader
6th Jun 2001, 01:26 PM
It would add more realism if, when you start each round, you have preset loadouts for each map to choose from. That way if a mapper wants a map to be an American attack on a Yugoslav military installation they could make the Yugoslavian side use AK's, and the Americans can use M16's, and everything makes sense.

Kisen_K
6th Jun 2001, 01:28 PM
How 'bout m4's :D

krate
6th Jun 2001, 01:28 PM
I was thinking about this too. One way I thought of that might work was to have a vote option where you could give one of your teammates a tumbs-up and one of your teammates a thumbs-down, if you wanted. The team budget would then be divided based on the thumbs-ups and downs of each player.

At the start of a round, whoever had the best standing would get first crack at the equipment, with his awarded share of the budget. Any money he didn't spend would be passed to the #2 guy, and so on.

To speed things up, you could also be given a list of your loadouts that you can afford with the money you have available, so you could pre-tailor loadouts to fit different budgets.

Of course, you could chat too, and ask the #1 guy to save enough money for you to buy the loadout you want.

The main problem with this scheme is that it would take some time for everyone to pick out equipment, and it would need to be sequential. I'm not sure how to implement time limits.

This could be a good mod.

Here is a completely different idea:
Have one big pool of equipment for both sides, and have an auction. Both sides compete in the auction for the same equipment. What ever equipment is best suited for the map will go for a high price. People who can fight well with modest equipment will be a big asset for the team.

Baal
6th Jun 2001, 01:48 PM
I think this is a great idea and would make u feel like u have an important role in the team. I think the best idea so far is to have a rotation system but if it was every round, it wouldn't have much continuity so maybe the server can set the number of rounds b4 it changes.

SoSilencer
6th Jun 2001, 02:52 PM
I wrote a long post about an auction idea when it hit me...


Why not give each player a small amount of money each round. TOO small an amount. Rather than 10k each round, why not like 4k or something. Then the price of the more 'desireable' weapons can be increased to something HIGHER than the amount of money you are given. So if there is a large map but only 2 sniper rifles per team the sniper rifles could be made very expensive while the rest of the weapons remain cheap. The only way to purchase the sniper rifle would be to receive a donation from another player or two. Somebody who is taking a more affordable loadout might have a few hundred left over, and the sniper rifle might cost a few hundred more than you are given. If 3 people want the only sniper rifle they will have to be given money by the rest of the team to purcahse it. Essentially the entire team will decide who get's the more rare weapons because they are the ones who control who they give their extra money to. In the event that more than one person has enough money to buy the weapon and people fight over it simply give it to the highest bidders.

This also has the benefit of scaling down with the amount of players on the server since the less players = less money for each team to circulate.

The question with this system is... How do we make it quick and easy for server admins to set something like this up. It would be a lot of work to set values and inventory for every map out there and I wouldn't expect any server admin to do all that. Therefore we need an easy system where we can set like a base cost and amount of each weapon, and then the cost of the weapons is modified automatically when the server admin sets up the inventory. This way there is only half the work to do and they are much more likely to take the time to do it.

SoSilencer
6th Jun 2001, 02:56 PM
Also I think the rotation system could work out nicely too. It would be first come first serve. After maybe 3 rounds the item would be back up for grabs. Anybody else on the team would have a chance to take it, if nobody wanted it you could take it for another 3 rounds. This could also go from map to map. When you hit a map with a high restriction on that weapon and only one or two available it would just go down the line. The people who used it least would have first chance at it, then the people who used it a while ago but not too recently, and finally the people who just used it the last 3 rounds on the other map would have last choice. This would have the nice benefit of being a deterrent to NOT taking a weapon just because it's available. Like if there are enough m203's on dockside for everybody on the team you might NOT want to take one so that the next map, which might only have 2 available, you have higher priority.

-Edit- I thought of 2 minor things while taking a shower after posting that.

First, players entering a server would be placed at the end of the line when it comes to weapon priority (it would be like they had just used all the weapons). This way people wouldn't quit and rejoin to reset the counter.

Also, they could possibly implement an either/or setup where if you take a certain weapon, you aren't allowed to take a certain other weapon. Like if you have an hk69 you can't take a scoped weapon, for example. Though if they implement the xcom system this wouldn't really be needed since loadouts involving weapons such as that would be inherently disadvantaged.

krate
6th Jun 2001, 04:04 PM
The giving money to your teammates is a great idea. Better than my thumbs-up-down system. It does need some way to avoid shill players... people will log on to one server with extra guys, and give all the money to their one real guy. If that could be worked out, it could be really good.
Will people actually do this? We can sort of do this right now. You could buy 40mm grenades and give them to your launcher teammates while you go snipe, but I haven't seen this done.

Ideally, it would be nice to avoid a system that gives more money to the best players. That would make the game really lopsided, and people won't try. I don't mind getting killed ten times in a row by a better player if we are on equal footing, but if he is armmed to the teeth and I have to go against him with one handgrenade and a knife, then I would pick another server.
Instead, a good system would encourage the best players to fight with less equipment. If we have one guy who can kick butt with nothing but a pistol, he could be a team hero by allowing the weaker players to arm up. The right system could encourage this.


The rotation idea is good too. People would need to develop skills with all of the weapons to play well, and it would discourage specialization. You couldn't spend the entire match sniping for example.

SoSilencer
6th Jun 2001, 06:01 PM
To prevent players from creating fake characters we could limit who can give money. The players at the bottom of the scoreboard, like the bottom 25% (worse person in a 4 man per team game, last 2 people in 8 per team), would be unable to give money.

I mean those players are doing poorly so they need the money anyways, plus we'd stop people from making fake chars. Somebody could still make a fake char but they'd have to get them up past 25% so they'd essentially be playing with that guy anyways.

What does everyone think? I can't decide between a money system or the simple 3 round system. I'm leaning towards a 3 round rotation simply because it would be both fair and easy to implement (relatively speaking). Or maybe somebody else has another idea?

yurch
6th Jun 2001, 06:24 PM
what happens if someone demands a extremly large amount of money? If hes really good, then most of the team will sway with him, even if he buys 6 rifles, leaving the team squat. It will be justified by some lame argument like "he's the only one who can use them well, so let him have them"

make sure to avoid this kinda situation, and put a cap on the amount of money a single person can recieve.

Thumbs up on the idea itself, and to the man who took the trouble to post it :)

NotBillMurray
6th Jun 2001, 06:55 PM
Working with the concept that the mapper would generate a list of weapon loadouts, you could depend on that list to assign the first round loadout.

The list should be generated with the intention of scaling to a low player count, so if a server is half full it would have the meat and potatoes weapons like the M16 and MP5, with specialized weapons further down the list. I imagine a list may look like this :
Player...Red..............Blue
1...........M16/203......M16/203
2...........M16.............M16
3...........MP5.............MP5
4...........M16.............M16
5...........M16/ACOG...M16/ACOG
6...........Robar..........PSG
7...........Shotgun......HK69
8...........P90.............SIG

Then, as each player initially joins the server, they are assigned the next weapon loadout for their team on the list. First to connect would receive the M16/203, next a regular M16, etc.

One round is played with this distribution. On completion of that round, the players are provided the chance to choose their loadout. The order of selection is based on whether the players survived the round and then on their score. So it would be based off of the living players by score, then the dead players by score. This provides motivation to survive and to contribute to the team.

This system would work immeasurably better if score was based on teamwork instead of frags, but if the kill based scoring was impartial and didn't favor shotguns over sniper rifles, it would still work.

R-Force
6th Jun 2001, 06:56 PM
I like the idea of this thread ;). I lean toward the "players give money to other players for more/better equipments" idea... When players have to share ressources to get needed equipment, they may begin to talk to each others and make plans about how they gona play, and who will do what. I think it's much better than players who pick up equipment without consulting the rest of the team...

I also think all maps should have varying price for weapons, i think it could even be random, forcing players to play with less than optimal equipment... I think more interractions between players will lead toward more teamplay, the more decision, the better ;).

SoSilencer
6th Jun 2001, 07:59 PM
Just because somebody is good I don't think anyone will be willing to screw themselves over just so that one good guy can get all the weapons. Even if they did I doubt they would do it a second time after seeing that the idiot took the weapons for the entire team and left everybody else with knives and grenades.

R-Force
6th Jun 2001, 08:48 PM
Anyway, what would a single guy do with ALL the weapons? He would be overloaded. And i believe the amount of cash we can donnate and the amount a single guy can have would be capped. In addition to a varying weapon cost (simulating availiability in the current area), it would be unlikely anyone could buy more than a few weapons...

LordKhaine
6th Jun 2001, 10:00 PM
How about a menu that pops up when you connect to the server, asking you to select one of your loadouts. It would tell you what weapons were restricted on the map, and how many slots were left for those weapons. That way you can pick your loadout and enter.

This would also give people a nice quick chance to select loadouts for each map, without having to quickly go thro the voice menu while in spec before the first round starts.

<P^R>Imperial
6th Jun 2001, 11:29 PM
These are all great ideas but I think if something like this was implemented it should be a mutator so public servers can use it but private clan servers can stay to unrestricted loadouts.

Yaweh_
7th Jun 2001, 12:28 AM
I see one problem with buying weapons based on a pool of money, or auction, or anything to do with money. I don't wanna change the price of the guns, I like the realistic pricing. Now, if we CUT the amount of money you're given WITHOUT changing any of the prices, I like that. It doesn't subtract realistic pricing limitations, and it adds realistic budget limitations.

How about this (different idea): no loadouts. Each team starts with a pile of weapons laid out. You pick them up, but you can ONLY pick up a weapon every 5-6 seconds or so (to prevent one guy from grabbing everything). This way, the server can preset limits on certain guns by simply not making them available. In another sense, you lose all monetary restrictions, and that could be explained that, because we're a high-powered special forces team, or infantry sqaud, we don't mess with money, we get what we need/want.

If you wanted to implement something with a money restriction, I like having a pool of money (say, the whole team starts with 25000 or so). Each player chooses what they want, and if/when the team exceeds the limit, someone has to willingly give up an item (clip, grenade, a whole gun, whatever) to stay under budget. If nobody does so, we need a system whereby the server automatically removes something from somebody, so as not to delay the game indefinitely. If you're only a few dollars over, it takes away a clip from the guy that has the most, or if you're a long way over, it takes a weapon and all the ammo for it away from the guy with the most. That would if you try and horde a bunch of stuff, you'd be punished for it by losing a more or less random gun (or clip, or whatever). That makes it in the players favor to willingly give something up to make budget, because then they'd have a say in what they lose. Perhaps a vote system to force a single player to have to give something up (so everyone on the team can vote to see who loses something, instead of random. Problem there is that this would develop intra-team rivalries, which would cause tk's. BAD. A random selector like I described above avoids this by punishing anyone who takes all the guns, without him being able to point a finger at his teammates, it's all his fault :) ).

There ya have it, my idea. My head hurts.

NotBillMurray
7th Jun 2001, 01:04 AM
These are all great ideas but I think if something like this was implemented it should be a mutator so public servers can use it but private clan servers can stay to unrestricted loadouts.

Agreed, uh, *name*.

I would imagine this would be used for professional match play, assault, or maps the designers feel is better played with a restrictive loadout. Imagine being able to play Island if scoped weapons weren't available...

The_Fur
7th Jun 2001, 02:38 AM
this is all very nice but you forget inf is not exactly a team game right now. In order for any of these ideas to make an sence there would first have to be some goals.

Eid
7th Jun 2001, 07:42 AM
Originally posted by Yaweh_

How about this (different idea): no loadouts. Each team starts with a pile of weapons laid out. You pick them up, but you can ONLY pick up a weapon every 5-6 seconds or so (to prevent one guy from grabbing everything). This way, the server can preset limits on certain guns by simply not making them available. In another sense, you lose all monetary restrictions, and that could be explained that, because we're a high-powered special forces team, or infantry sqaud, we don't mess with money, we get what we need/want.

The big problem I have with the voting / money systems is that at the beginning of each map you have to spend time setting up the teams weapons, amma. This I feel could be infuriating to those of us wanting a quick couple of games and newbies, who don't know the weapons to well. Hence I like the apove system.

A slight modification could be before entering each map, the server could load up a generic armory, where each team enters, collects what they want and goes to a departure area (thereby symbolising their "ready" state) I also think that there should be say a 90 second time limit to collect your stuff. This obviously would take time, but imho it would be better than working with tables etc.

Eid

Eid
7th Jun 2001, 07:51 AM
This I am sure would take up a LOT of work, but could tie together a couple of threads nicely:

The idea of skills has been batted around a few times, I like this idea, especially if combined with collecting of skill points. I.E. I can practice with a weapon and not only do I really improve, but also say it stops wavering so much.

Peoples procifiency (sp) with say sniper rifles would automatically designate them the team sniper (snipers) where as those who were new to the game, online would be assigned say a machine gun.

This would encourage people to practice and become specialised with their favourite weapon (there by increasing the chances of them getting it) Another benefit of this as an idea would be that the server would be making the initial decisions so no waiting around.

Feel free to add, expand, throw out :)
Eid

DredDamo
7th Jun 2001, 08:44 AM
Btw, this idea is already implemented in INFWAR, with the 4K assumed to be the average cost per team player. The way it'll be setup is that clan members ask for what they want, war arrangers evaluate the demand and the supply (the resrouce points (RPs) they got from owning maps that round) and decide what to actually give them. The way RPs work is that every clan is hard pressed to fully provide for his clan each turn :) That's based off of the 4K assumption.

In fact, if a clan is VERY hard pressed, they will have to go fight with pistols, LOL.

Oh, Mercenaries can buy whatever they want based on how much they get paid for their contracts (this is INFWAR's way of involving the individual, not just the clan). It's up to the Merc to negotiate the contract in his favor. When a Merc "dies" on the field, they lose some cash, so Mercs will hopefully be handicapped a bit as well.

So if you want to play with this already in place, join the INFWAR :)

Damodred

R-Force
7th Jun 2001, 11:19 AM
One thing about realistic prices : they are not static. Prices do changes over time, and not everyone do buy weapons from the manufacturer. When you deal with arms merchants, the price they offer you may vary a lot, from very expensive to very cheap, depending on how much they have, how easily they can get them (stolen, special deals with manufacturer, access to a large stockpile somewhere) , how much they like you etc... I don't think varying prices are unrealistic, especially if the guys you play could be mercs...

SoSilencer
7th Jun 2001, 06:01 PM
I keep going back and forth between the two. I was leaning towards the 3 round rotation because that would be the most fair and we wouldn't have to mess with any values which would compromise the realism.

Now I'm starting to lean back more towards the team-based donation setup. It really would be a benefit if players have like 60 seconds at the start to determine who got what weapons and who was filling what roles. I was thinking it would be bad to have a delay between each round, but would it really? 30-60 seconds between each round when players determine what weapons they have would be a great opprotunity to discuss tactics and stuff. Perhaps slowing things down by having a 30-60 pause between rounds wouldn't be so bad after all. And of course, this could all be optional. That way there could be servers dedicated to quick action where you can go if you only have a few minutes. For when you have a longer time to play and want to get into it more than you could find a server running the team loadout mode.

It would also have the benefit of rewarding a well organized team who doesn't fight. The teams who fight over their weapons and argue amongst themselves would be wasting time while the team where everybody immediately knew their role and took the proper weapons would have a little time to talk about strategy.

karsh
9th Jun 2001, 08:52 AM
SoSilencer
*A round of Applouse from everyone here*
for starting this posting

I have one problem though, The Idea of having random weapons wont work. The idea of Inf in most cases is to specialise in one or two weapons, so you can get a high familliararity with them (rate or Fire/clip size/bulk/attachments/recoil) and makeing this random with realy make players annoyed alot of the time if they are spec in weapons they never seem to get. There is another problem in TK's of those immature players that would rather TK to get the gun than wait. And lastly I personally have not got a single Loadout that is came with the game, each has been heavilly modifyed to custom fit my game style and each map ( I have currently 17 loadouts) and so i see that generric loadouts wont work with the Inf community.

The giveing lending money suggestion is brilliant, seeing I have seen soldiers with just Desert Eagle's and I wouldnt mind one bit to use my Berreta Loadout in a small map to help out Newbies. just aslong as the cover my mind you.
The greater oppertunity to co-ordinate weaponry and therefore teams, then then even team tactic's is well woth it, even if we would be doing this for 30-90 sec's between rounds.

And we would have this system on nominated Public servers for those people that enjoy teamplay and this system.

and can I ask what is Inf War? DredDamo can you tell me?

The Idea of a first come system is totally out of the question in my opinion. slower comp's cant ever get into a map first and will therefore never get what they want.

SoSilencer
9th Jun 2001, 02:26 PM
It also wouldn't be random. You would still select your own weapons, the difference would be you would only have a certain pool to choose from. A map might have for example two fully loaded m16's, two mp5, four sigs, two ak's, and a small amount of other weapons. You would still choose which of those weapons you wanted. If somebody happened to beat you to it they would get that weapon for like 3 rounds, but after that you would have priority. What this means is that even if they try to take it again, you can 'steal' it back from them because they already had their turn with it. This would promote players to practice with a variety of weapons. Everybody would still have their own personal favorites and would try to take those but the players who spent a little time and got somewhat familiar with a few other weapons would be much better off than those who can ONLY use one weapon.

As far as TK's go that has me a little worried too. I've had somebody turn around and shoot me with a shotgun because "you were following too close to me". This is like 5 seconds into the game mind you, on Sicily, when there really aren't many paths to choose from for the first few seconds. I think though that it will be handled like most TK situations. If somebody does it once or twice everyone get's mad, if they keep doing it everyone get's even. Also once I can get a few more people to help out with the IHL we will all have a place to play where we don't need to worry about morons like that.

I think you misunderstood about the loadouts. They wouldn't be set loadouts, just set weapons and items. When a map starts you wouldn't select from a list of loadouts, you would put together your own loadout from a pool of available weapons and items. Essentially you would build your loadouts on the fly as needed for the situation. The difference with this is the pool of items you have to choose from is the same as the rest of the team. If there are 3 mp5's, 3 people can add an mp5 to their loadout and after that they are all out, nobody else can select one (note that this is where the priority would come in, so that the people who didn't get it these rounds have priority for the next rounds).

The first come first serve system isn't a problem at all. The people on slower computers may not get what they want for the first few rounds of a map, but since they didn't get the item this time they get priority for that weapon the next round. So halfway through the map the people with slower systems get the "first choice" and you don't end up with a system where slower systems are at a disadvantage. All that would happen with this is the faster systems get the weapons they want the first half of the map, the slower systems get what they want the second half.

karsh
10th Jun 2001, 12:22 PM
SoSilencer
sombody actually Team Killed you for following to close, what an Idiot, I've seen you play and i deffenatly wouldnt mind you backing me up. Im also an avid user of the backing up system, and have been lucky enuff to never have been tk'd for that.

anyway to the thread...
what happens if a newbie turns up say 4 rounds in?
someone thats only just started Inf online and has only practiced on one weapon before. is he left with just a Berreta and a couple of clips? Im saying this because I always comeinto maps near the end, and up untill 4weeks ago this was my situreation.

and this also brings up the point of people comeing in after the weapons have already been handed out with nothing left for a new soldier entering. And say that ok there's a shotty left over, but hay No clips... what happens here? also what if the servers only got 6 people playing on it? there would be a mass of weaponry around... or if the servers totally pacted (the only servers i play on) will their be a shortidge of armanents? or even what if the maper or server didnt put in enuff or a good enuff selection of arm's?

this is why I think the money lending Idea works in all siturations, even a player coming in late will still have enuff money to buy a decent loud out... ok it wont be a PSG1 but it should be enuff for a the soldier to survive untill he/she can pick up somthing better of the dead each round...
just a note my most common load outs all come in under 4k. and i find that one weapon wit a couple of clips serves me fine. ok Im aiming for speed but even with two sometimes one clip, I never run out, before I can liberate weaponry off the enemys dead.

ok I see problems with people hoarding and being Tk'd or Tk'ing but the one thing I would like to see is, this set up on servers that cater for this team style of play. Im sure that people would enjoy it alot. but It wouldnt over shadow the normal game style and I would hate to see this on every server. hay why arnt there servers that state they are for team playing? or are they at the bottom of my list at the pings so high I wouldnt even consider using them for ping-pong....
there may be one way of dealing with Tk'ing or hoarding in the 4k version... thats simply never give them any money to help out with their loadouts... they cant hoard what they dont have right?


im sorry for the possable bad tone of the start of this posting, espessially after the appluse...

SoSilencer
10th Jun 2001, 02:23 PM
Unfortunately many people don't like how I announce their cheap bug exploitations, and many times I get tk'ed for this.

I hadn't thought of the newbie situation, since it would suck to join up and be forced with a crappy weapon. However, the next map they would have a higher priority. Basically the only people who would be really effected would be those who don't even give the game a chance, the ones who only play 3 rounds and say "this sucks". Personally, I don't really care if those people leave since it's doubtful they would add anything to the community anyways.

When server admins select the available weapons and items for each map they could be required to select 2 'inexhaustable' weapons. These would never run out, so that even if a team took all the other items leaving nothing for the last person they would still be able to take one or both of these weapons and all the ammo they needed for it.

Yeah I can see how low player servers running the 3 round rotation system could have problems. Perhaps it could be based on percentages? Like 20% shotguns would mean there would be one shotgun for every 5 people. That way if there are less people there are less weapons, but the overall ratio stays the same.

The money system is still good too, but I'm worried that might be too complex to start out. You go from loadouts you've previously defined to having to buy your own weapons each game, and for the more expensive ones you need to barter and trade with your teammates. I don't think many people would like that, though then again if this was a server option people who didn't like that could play like normal.

karsh
12th Jun 2001, 03:18 AM
i was thinking of both sugestions as a a server side option... having them as a madatory system would change the game too much and make to much work for the great people who donate their free time to this already great game

Dangerous10K
12th Jun 2001, 05:01 AM
i think sosilencers idea is best

i also think the default camos should be locked in place for this type of play if there going this far for a balanced game they might as well go the extra 10 percent w/the balanced camos while there at it

also in the browser where you can select ping/servers/etc. where it sorts the servers it should also have a mutators so you can see if it has the balanced teams mutator or inflite,pistols only etc

i dont like the money idea and i agree w/the percentage suggestion that would be fair

how would this handle attachments though?

does everyone pick there weapon,then secondary weapon,then attachments,etc

or does someone say pick there weapon attachment/attachments clips and then the next person picks there weapon attachment/attachements clips??

also would this be a bigger project then the actual infiltration game?

Aequi
12th Jun 2001, 06:09 AM
Originally posted by DredDamo
Oh, Mercenaries can buy whatever they want based on how much they get paid for their contracts (this is INFWAR's way of involving the individual, not just the clan). It's up to the Merc to negotiate the contract in his favor. When a Merc "dies" on the field, they lose some cash, so Mercs will hopefully be handicapped a bit as well.

So if you want to play with this already in place, join the INFWAR :)

Damodred

Aaah Great ;)
...i'll be most wanted Merc. around... "hire Aequi, he only wants a few frags and 4 clips for his DE, who care if he dies!" *LoL* ok, maybe not :)