Having the same weapons on one team if it fits to the scenario (for example in desert, so kinda US, so M16/M4/SAW. Or french, so FAMAS/LMG FAMAS/FN FAL) is something I always wanted 
.
.Different soldiers trained in different things
- Thread starter gal-z
- Start date
-
Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
Nah, every small organization that isn't dependant on governments and standard issue army weapons can get any weapon. Just like some special forces use AKs and other special forces wanted to buy P90s.Psychomorph said:Having the same weapons on one team if it fits to the scenario (for example in desert, so kinda US, so M16/M4/SAW. Or french, so FAMAS/LMG FAMAS/FN FAL) is something I always wanted
dive
Infiltration:: Like crack, but better
Psychomorph said:Having the same weapons on one team if it fits to the scenario (for example in desert, so kinda US, so M16/M4/SAW. Or french, so FAMAS/LMG FAMAS/FN FAL) is something I always wanted
Having this is something I never wanted. Your "french" selection doesn't hold anything I'd enjoy. I doubt a "russian" choice would either. Were this to get implemented into a future version, I would hope there would be a server-side option to turn the restriction off.
Beppo
Infiltration Lead-Programmer
We are talking about a military unit that works together in a specific scenario. This 'normally' leads to these forces having the same 'general catalogue' or arsenal to select their equipment from. This even works out for non military units cause they cannot choose what they get/buy either.
It is pretty uncommon that a unit uses a large mix of different weapons that come from many different countries and manufacturers.
And for the case you folks will really need an option then this would really be no problem to be implemented. Mappers will be able to setup what they think their scenario should use. Then the admins will be able to change or adjust these setups if they want to do so. This will give them the ability to get new additions into the game without the need to change the maps or something alike. And it will give them the ability to block specific equipment if players start to abuse it in a specific scenario.
It is pretty uncommon that a unit uses a large mix of different weapons that come from many different countries and manufacturers.
And for the case you folks will really need an option then this would really be no problem to be implemented. Mappers will be able to setup what they think their scenario should use. Then the admins will be able to change or adjust these setups if they want to do so. This will give them the ability to get new additions into the game without the need to change the maps or something alike. And it will give them the ability to block specific equipment if players start to abuse it in a specific scenario.
dive
Infiltration:: Like crack, but better
Beppo said:
While I agree, this just doesn't seem as much fun to me. In terms of realism, you're definately 100% correct. But in terms of fun, for myself personaly, I wouldn't enjoy it as much.
Beppo said:
Oh wow that would be excellent! That makes me excited to hear
With multi-nation fighting and coalition building, would it be so far fetched to assume at the very least that squads could be intermixed from different nations? With the STANAG magazine (M16, FAMAS, L85) logistics would be less of an issue as well. I think having mixed nation squads might be a bit extreme, but then maybe the specialist role would work well in this case, perhaps a special forces (perhaps snipers) operative from one nation aiding a squad from another.
well the INFsoldiers never really have specific nations, for all we know the INFteam is made up of 8 mercenaries working with their own personal gear.
It could be cool to have defined nations and armories for single-player, but like dive said, I would imagine most admins would disable it for online play and I hope that they will have the option to. however, I do like the idea of being able to ban weapons on a per-map basis, to prevent abuse, that could be handy.
It could be cool to have defined nations and armories for single-player, but like dive said, I would imagine most admins would disable it for online play and I hope that they will have the option to. however, I do like the idea of being able to ban weapons on a per-map basis, to prevent abuse, that could be handy.
Beppo
Infiltration Lead-Programmer
To tell the truth, I like the way it is.
Your skill with the weapon depends on YOU and not your Inf soldier's "gaining experience" and advancing in "levels".
I'm better with the FA-MAS that with the G36 or Sig551 because I practice with it at the shooting range and use it more often in games. I suck with the PSG-1 and Robar because I hardly use them. I see it that it should be your own experience in "feeling" the recoil and knowing how to compensate it instead of being the inf-bot that handles it because he happens to be a level 22 rifleman or a level 9 sniper. The current system divides the players between those that prefer CQB, sniper rifles or standard assault rifles which suits people's play-styles and on how much time people invest in actually "learning" their weapon of choice.
Your skill with the weapon depends on YOU and not your Inf soldier's "gaining experience" and advancing in "levels".
I'm better with the FA-MAS that with the G36 or Sig551 because I practice with it at the shooting range and use it more often in games. I suck with the PSG-1 and Robar because I hardly use them. I see it that it should be your own experience in "feeling" the recoil and knowing how to compensate it instead of being the inf-bot that handles it because he happens to be a level 22 rifleman or a level 9 sniper. The current system divides the players between those that prefer CQB, sniper rifles or standard assault rifles which suits people's play-styles and on how much time people invest in actually "learning" their weapon of choice.
Well, i think i have some idea where Beppo is going, and if i'm right... it sounds very intresting.
The one thing that i always hated in INF was that while although all the weapons were realistic, none of the situations were. I doubt you'd ever really see a SF group be ordered to directly engage another, it's not what they're trained to do. INF was more or less a "merc vs merc" game.
With a loosly defined arsenal of equipment for each team the I think the game will have better ability to recreate various real world scenarios, and above that it'll actually circumvent the redundant weapon problem, so it could actually mean having access to a much wider range of weapons. For example.. at the moment in INF there's no reason for an anti-personal bolt action sniper rifle because there's the Robar on one end, and the PSG on the other. But... If you instead if you break down the weapons by the insitutions that use them you can put all the weapons you want in the game, heck you wouldn't even be limited to a time period.
You could be re-creating a US Assault on a Iraqi bunker on one map, and in the next be Storming the beaches of normandy in WW2, or fighting in the jungles of vietnam, or be a swat team raiding a meth lab... and each time becase the maper, and the server can divide the weapons map by map, and team by team, you'd could be guranteed to be using the correct weapons for each scenario. Or they could just mix things up and re-create vietnam using todays arsenals. Granted as a player you'd be limited to your affiliation's arsenal on a particular map, but for the game as a whole the arsenal would never be limited because "oh we already have a 9mm pistol" or "not another assault rifle". There could be US equipment, british, french, german, russian, everyone, even civilan non military stuff would be completely feasible cause "local forces" or insurgents or freedom fighters, or whatever you call them would just use whatever they could get their hands on.
Anyhow i think what beppo's hinting at could be really really awsome.
The one thing that i always hated in INF was that while although all the weapons were realistic, none of the situations were. I doubt you'd ever really see a SF group be ordered to directly engage another, it's not what they're trained to do. INF was more or less a "merc vs merc" game.
With a loosly defined arsenal of equipment for each team the I think the game will have better ability to recreate various real world scenarios, and above that it'll actually circumvent the redundant weapon problem, so it could actually mean having access to a much wider range of weapons. For example.. at the moment in INF there's no reason for an anti-personal bolt action sniper rifle because there's the Robar on one end, and the PSG on the other. But... If you instead if you break down the weapons by the insitutions that use them you can put all the weapons you want in the game, heck you wouldn't even be limited to a time period.
You could be re-creating a US Assault on a Iraqi bunker on one map, and in the next be Storming the beaches of normandy in WW2, or fighting in the jungles of vietnam, or be a swat team raiding a meth lab... and each time becase the maper, and the server can divide the weapons map by map, and team by team, you'd could be guranteed to be using the correct weapons for each scenario. Or they could just mix things up and re-create vietnam using todays arsenals. Granted as a player you'd be limited to your affiliation's arsenal on a particular map, but for the game as a whole the arsenal would never be limited because "oh we already have a 9mm pistol" or "not another assault rifle". There could be US equipment, british, french, german, russian, everyone, even civilan non military stuff would be completely feasible cause "local forces" or insurgents or freedom fighters, or whatever you call them would just use whatever they could get their hands on.
Anyhow i think what beppo's hinting at could be really really awsome.
Beppo said:
The pilots of the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (Airborne) normally carry MP5A3s or MP5K-PDWs for self-defense if they're shot down, and there are also racks of spare M-16A2s and ammunition in the choppers.
Kuroshio Apocal
Sucka Free
Lord Belial said:chuckus: that system sounds quite a bit like Morrowind's XP system. The Elder Scrolls: Infiltration anyone?
Unfortunately, combat in Morrowind (especially melee) was very much dice-roll. You simply got within range and hacked away. Maybe if you were so inclined you danced in and out of range, but for the most part just stood there trading blows until one of you was dead.
Can't say I like the idea of class-based inventory, but I'm willing to give it a try.
I'm telling u already that if u limit the weapon choices for the specific scenario many will hate it, and many will like it, but those who hate it will REALLY hate it. If it's for realism when simulating a real life battle then it would be of some logic, but overall on user-made-up scenarios I (and I'm guessing many others) would prefer having all the weapons available.
Also IMO you're going too much "people won't use this weapon X because we have Y" instead of thinking "IRL people would use X over Y in Z situation because it has ABC advantages there. Let's give it those advantages in-game!", which makes a lot more sense for both gameplay and realism.
Example:
If snipers would be realistically implemented, I'd probably take M24 over robar or M82 for stealth reasons, but right now there's no point so the only advantage would be weight, where we have the PSG. Then the PSG would have accuracy disadvantage, but since it's impossible to use snipers realistically in-game the ranges won't be enough for the difference in accuracy to make a differnece in gameplay.
I wouldn't want to be forced to take an M24 because I'm a US army soldier if it doesn't have its real life advantages in-game.
Also IMO you're going too much "people won't use this weapon X because we have Y" instead of thinking "IRL people would use X over Y in Z situation because it has ABC advantages there. Let's give it those advantages in-game!", which makes a lot more sense for both gameplay and realism.
Example:
If snipers would be realistically implemented, I'd probably take M24 over robar or M82 for stealth reasons, but right now there's no point so the only advantage would be weight, where we have the PSG. Then the PSG would have accuracy disadvantage, but since it's impossible to use snipers realistically in-game the ranges won't be enough for the difference in accuracy to make a differnece in gameplay.
I wouldn't want to be forced to take an M24 because I'm a US army soldier if it doesn't have its real life advantages in-game.