|
Post by Relarz on Jan 4, 2009 4:22:28 GMT -5
Do you see them wearing varying BDU's? No. How about them? No, still all wearing the same uniform. Look, those guys are wearing the same combat uniforms too. Them, too? I never would have guessed that a military unit would wear one uniform! And them too? Your smug tone makes me want to facepalm. I said I couldn't make it any clearer earlier, but I guess I could. I just needed a comment like: I'm merely stating that limiting each side to one pattern, in my opinion, does absolutely nothing to enhance the realism of an event in any way, shape, or form. to set me into action. One of the major things that made Irene's immersion factor so great was that of the 250 guys on my team, ALL of them matched BDU-wise. It didn't matter what gear they wore, but the fact that we were all in 3-color desert had a pretty cool wow-factor, and made the aesthetic feel THAT much greater. So now that I have laid that out, I think my argument that apparently has holes in it speaks for itself pretty much.
|
|
|
Post by GrinchBiscuit on Jan 4, 2009 5:04:19 GMT -5
Rel, you just basically restated what I said...
|
|
|
Post by Knief on Jan 4, 2009 10:22:45 GMT -5
Yes, Optimus Composite was flat out wrong when said that one team all having matching BDUs doesn't enhance realism. Obviously, it does. But that's not what's at issue right here. We don't know what level of milsim Skypilot is going to be running this game at. If he's going for the best milsim he can do at Hell Survivor, then I totally agree, he needs to say that Team 1 can only wear camo pattern X and Team 2 can only wear camo pattern Y. But he isn't necessarily running that kind of game. He asked in his first post what we would be interested in. So for you three, Psy, Relish, and G, we know which side of the fence you're standing on; heavy milsim. But you all need to take a step back and realize that you're berating a guy who's voting for lighter milsim, where a couple different camo types would be allowed. My vote is as it was earlier, allow a select few types of camo for each side that are completely unambiguous. Because that's about the level of milsim that I think any game organizer in Michigan will be able to pull off succesfully. If we limit it to one pattern for each side, we'll lose a lot of people who just don't want to buy a new set of camo. Or, we'll lose the guys who wouldn't mind buying a set of DCUs, but don't want to buy a whole new matching rig because their current MARAPT rig would look retarded. Simply put, Michigan airsoft players on the whole aren't ready for Lion Claws events, and we don't have an event host who is experienced enough to pull one off well. That said, I'd like to see this game take a step in that direction. Skypilot has a real knack for scenarios and driving game play. He and I have been working together on rec game stuff for a while, and the man just sees how games can be played out best. So if he starts here with a good milsim story-line (sorry man, no aliens this time ), and goes half way to milsim with stricter rules than we've ever really seen here, he'll be able to tighten up even more next year. And that's when you'll really be able to have a true milsim game take off. First, give people a glimpse, and when they're hooked, they'll follow you the rest of the way.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus Composite on Jan 4, 2009 12:05:09 GMT -5
Hey look, those guys aren't wearing the same uniforms. They must not be on the same side! And these guys obviously aren't all part of the Marine Corp - they don't match! Silly soldiers and their lack of fashion sense. Far be it for me to actually quote myself, but: I'm merely stating that limiting each side to one pattern, in my opinion, does absolutely nothing to enhance the realism of an event in any way, shape, or form. It's my opinion. That's all. Apparently, though, an opinion can, in fact, be incorrect. Thanks for clearing that up for me. For the record, I do understand what you guys are saying and where you're coming from. It's not that I'm too dense or stubborn to get your point. However, I was under the impression that this event was not, in fact, striving for a strong mil-sim feel (as you so kindly quoted for me, GBiscuit). Given that, I find it strange that people would want such a strict requirement for camouflage. If we were going for hardcore mil-sim - as in the case of Irene - then my opinion would change and I'd agree with you 100%, but for a light mil-sim game, I would think that having everyone show up in full sets of two or three different patterns per side would be sufficient. I'll have to ask you to forgive me if I came across as smug - it was late, I was tired and maybe a touch too defensive, and I didn't really mean to come across like that. So, with all that out of the way, how about we just agree to disagree and go back to being friends?
|
|
|
Post by Relarz on Jan 4, 2009 14:24:43 GMT -5
Touche`, I see thine point. I forgot that Marines wear the CWU's because they are fire retardant, and the old MCCUU's that are still being replaced aren't. I guess I have to apologize too, because I very blatantly got: and for that, I am sorry. I guess I just love to carry spirited discussion too much. /handshake and all that.
|
|
|
Post by Gunny87 on Jan 4, 2009 14:40:53 GMT -5
I agree 100% with Knief.
|
|
|
Post by GrinchBiscuit on Jan 4, 2009 19:44:01 GMT -5
Yeah, I also love to argue. And I was feeling assholish at the time of my post. Im also completely aware that my argument is full of exceptions to my seemingly dogmatic rule. *Cough* And now to get back to helping out... In reality though, I am in favor of only around 3 or 4 cammies per team, despite how I may have come off in my previous post. Ex: Team A- DCU Arid MARPAT DTS Khaki Team B- Woodycam Temperate MARPAT TS OD No ACU, Multicam, Black or Civvies. Very simple Khaki based versus OD based. Or, Psy had an excellent idea on page one that I would'nt mind seeing implemented: Example: One team can wear all woodland. The other team can wear whatever the hell they want, EXCEPT for green-based camouflage. The more clear the requirements, the less trouble it will be for one group to identify another. And to answer a few of Skys questions. I would agree, although a game based around objectives, and have them actually matter to winning the game, is the way I would prefer to play. Now I suppose the only way to have dynamic gameplay like this would be to have an excellent commo web. This requires leadership and thus may require more MilSim than we think would be involved... Maybe the money system from Els going away could be implemented? I thought that was a pretty fun, and different, way to play. It may not translate to larger game well though. I cite Gold Rush as an example of how something like that could fail. A large commo network would definately be needed to decrease confusion. Which once again reverts to my above paragraph... And regarding a medic system, I say no to it entirley. It can, and will be abused. Maybe implement capturable spawn point in a manner that mirrors Battlefield 2 or COD4. Maybe make the "attackers" raise a flag as to symbolize a capture. I suppose you could kill two birds here by implementing dynamic gameplay and having a respawn system that is pretty much impossible to abuse.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus Composite on Jan 4, 2009 20:43:26 GMT -5
Amen to the lack of a medic system. I've yet to come across a system that works effectively. Shorten the respawn times a bit, or base it on how many people are there (i.e. Respawns occur on every 5th person), and call it good.
Capturable spawns would also be a nice addition to see, though I think there should be one spawn point that simply can't be captured.
|
|
|
Post by Relarz on Jan 4, 2009 21:02:52 GMT -5
Amen to the lack of a medic system. I've yet to come across a system that works effectively. Shorten the respawn times a bit, or base it on how many people are there (i.e. Respawns occur on every 5th person), and call it good. Capturable spawns would also be a nice addition to see, though I think there should be one spawn point that simply can't be captured. Yeah, a medic system will add a whole lot of confusion and extra supplies necessary. When a player is hit, just give him his last rites and send him to a CCP to wait for a respawn. The capture-spawn thing I think was brought up at least 3 times in this thread. I think its a WONDERFUL idea. You don't have to take prisoners, so you wont need roleplayers. You dont have to carry a little bomb to one point on a field. You just get there, hoist your teams flag, then you can spawn there. That way, the players objective IS to kill enemies, but also to raise a flag. The only thing I'd suggest for it is that if the team attacking a flag is inside a set distance from the enemies flag, that spawn is temporarily un-usable. That way, you dont have 5 guys guarding one flag that can get wiped out as a fivesome, then just jump right back in.
|
|
|
Post by Thor on Jan 4, 2009 21:31:44 GMT -5
If you had capturable spawn points, you could implement a points system similar to that used in Codename: Thunder 3. Every so often (say 10 minutes for example) a field official would check each point, see who has control of it, and award them points as such. That way, you can say there is a clear-cut winning team, and it would be pretty hard to cheat. In addition to raising a flag, a team should also have to maintain that spot until the next check period. That means if you take the point right after the last check, you need to keep a hold of it until the next check. While that may slow down gameplay a tad, it also would mean that a team can't just steamroll through an area and keep going without making sure they keep a hold of their already conquered territory.
|
|
|
Post by MattyB (Immortal) on Jan 4, 2009 21:39:59 GMT -5
Maybe a 5/10/15 min respawn as necessary at a capturable point (and a shorter time at the main un-capturable base if there is one). That way you avoid the situation of figuring out when you can/can't respawn at a certain base, and also avoid the guy with one hand on the flag pole and the other on his m249 trigger. The amount of time would be dependant on whether or not you're giving the attackers enough time to capitalize on their kills and take the point.
|
|
SkyPilot
New Member
Asshat - SkunkWorks Division
Posts: 911
|
Post by SkyPilot on Jan 5, 2009 21:25:10 GMT -5
Hey look, those guys aren't wearing the same uniforms. They must not be on the same side! And these guys obviously aren't all part of the Marine Corp - they don't match! Silly soldiers and their lack of fashion sense. Please make note to the correction: The people in the picture wearing flightsuits NOT Uniforms, aka PPE. So, technically (from what I can see) all the people in the picture wearing uniforms DO Match.Now, Reguarding uniforms. There has been a lot of talk about this. This is good, and I want to thank everyone for their input. This tells me how strongly people feel about what they want for a game. I see some hardcore Mil-sim players, and some weekend warriors. To appeal to both parties, I will come up with a strict uniform requirement for both teams. My decision wasn't because I wanted an aesthetic feel...atleast not for this time around. Rather, to pratice the KISS methodlogy. K-eep I-t S-hort and S-imple. There will be only 2, prehaps 3 uniforms approved for both sides. I'm thinking of the following (and please voice your comments if you agree or disagree and why). *NOTE THIS IS NOT FINALIZED*Team1: Woodland Tigerstripe MarpatTeam2: Desert 3 color Desert 6 color Desert Tiger StripeGear does not count as Uniform. So it will be permissable to have mismatching gear with your uniform. (ie. black gear and woodland uniform). Also, I have given some thought about a Mil-sim rating for this event. 1 - being rec style, no to little restrictions to 10 - being highly strict including matching gear. This event will have a Mil-Sim rating of: 6
|
|
|
Post by Knife on Jan 5, 2009 21:51:16 GMT -5
Sky, since Desert Tiger Stripe is fairly rare, would it not make more sense to put Desert MARPAT in it's place? It's not a terribly common camo, but it seems logical to have it if you've got Woodland MARPAT.
I'm definitely interested in coming, and honestly don't care if there are multiple camos around, or just Woodland + DCUs. Both ways work and make sense, and it's not exactly hard to get Woodland or DCU...
|
|
|
Post by Gunny87 on Jan 5, 2009 22:14:03 GMT -5
SkyPilot, your decision on the camo requirements sounds very fair. I think it'll attract a lot of people to this event. I'm very excited to attend.
|
|
SkyPilot
New Member
Asshat - SkunkWorks Division
Posts: 911
|
Post by SkyPilot on Jan 6, 2009 9:12:06 GMT -5
Knife has a point. And since 3 and 6 color desert is simular. What do you think about this??
Team1: Woodland Tigerstripe Marpat
Team2: Desert 3 & 6 color Desert Tiger Stripe Desert Marpat
|
|