The Pandemic That is Kalt
- Thread starter ronpaul
- Start date
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2008
- Messages
- 1,840
You know these are tricky situations. When it's 2v2, 3v3, even 4v4 and the other team has a sniper and an MG I realize it's going to be irritating but if they're getting their butts whipped using an assault or support class I really can't blame them. I don't find any dishonor in players using whatever tactics, whatever weapons, whatever tools they have available to them to defeat an enemy. I never rage at campers, harp on MGers deployed to defend the first flag or any of that stuff because if I find my way to them and they kill me they have done their job. And if they fail to do their job, well, I'll have won, haven't I?
This not even going into "The utter futility of fixed defenses." -Patton
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2008
- Messages
- 1,937
Hmm you should try out Flash and Ava lol
Actually I love playing the MG42 and I love the challenge of trying to take out one as Allied support or assault (I don't play sniper or zook) on a tight map like Flash. Nor do I ever make any in-game comments or complaints when players choose the class in a 2v2 to 4v4 game.
However doing so is lame. Of course, if you are being outclassed I guess I can see why you would jump on it but - alas - still lame.
Allow me to illustrate: If we accept the logic behind the notion that on a 32 player map only 2 MG's (or snipers) are allowed to either side (although I agree that this is inherently unfair to the Allies since the 42 is far more fearsome in the hands of a rookie than the 30cal) we are basically accepting the notion that too many MGs either unbalance the game or make it far too static and boring.
If this is true for a 32-player game would it not be equally true for a 4-8 player game? The only difference here is that the limits are flat and don't adjust according to how many players a given server has at any given time. So it becomes proportionally easier to pick up an MG or sniper with fewer players.
But if we accept the notion of limits in the first place we are admitting that MGs (and snipers and rockets) negatively influence the quality of play if allowed free rein.
Unless you guys think that all limits are bogus - that is a different story. But if you accept the need for limits on a 32-player map why can you not see the need for them (possibly a more acute need for them) on a 4- or 8-player map? The only difference here is that there is no law prohibiting players from picking up an MG (except the unwritten code) in a game with few players.
However doing so is lame. Of course, if you are being outclassed I guess I can see why you would jump on it but - alas - still lame.
Allow me to illustrate: If we accept the logic behind the notion that on a 32 player map only 2 MG's (or snipers) are allowed to either side (although I agree that this is inherently unfair to the Allies since the 42 is far more fearsome in the hands of a rookie than the 30cal) we are basically accepting the notion that too many MGs either unbalance the game or make it far too static and boring.
If this is true for a 32-player game would it not be equally true for a 4-8 player game? The only difference here is that the limits are flat and don't adjust according to how many players a given server has at any given time. So it becomes proportionally easier to pick up an MG or sniper with fewer players.
But if we accept the notion of limits in the first place we are admitting that MGs (and snipers and rockets) negatively influence the quality of play if allowed free rein.
Unless you guys think that all limits are bogus - that is a different story. But if you accept the need for limits on a 32-player map why can you not see the need for them (possibly a more acute need for them) on a 4- or 8-player map? The only difference here is that there is no law prohibiting players from picking up an MG (except the unwritten code) in a game with few players.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2008
- Messages
- 1,840
Lame? I'll grant you that, but I don't look at it from a standpoint of proportion, I see the limits as absolute to mean that: at any given time with any given number of players, no more than 2-4 machine guns and snipers (accounting for drops at death) should be on the field. As long as those conditions are satisfied, the field of choice becomes fair play, however lame the choice is.
I definitely think limits are a good idea, though. Kalt without MG limits would be madness characterized by even worse stalemates and imbalances than we have now. Sniper limits... well, I'll take my chances against a sniper than against an Assault class running through the wheelhouse, the more the merrier (I tend to agree with Anni, this coming from a pretty decent sniper).
I definitely think limits are a good idea, though. Kalt without MG limits would be madness characterized by even worse stalemates and imbalances than we have now. Sniper limits... well, I'll take my chances against a sniper than against an Assault class running through the wheelhouse, the more the merrier (I tend to agree with Anni, this coming from a pretty decent sniper).
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2008
- Messages
- 269
yeah thats pretty true, its a lot easier to dodge a sniper than an assault rushing head on
Again, I don?t want to derail the conversation, but it seems a fairly straightforward point: if one believes that weapon limits are right in a 32-player game, then why would one stop believing in them in a game with fewer players? If anything, I would imagine that in a game with fewer players, limits are even more important -- if your purpose in imposing them is to make the game either more fluid or more balanced, or both.
Now of course I realize that adjusting limits is not feasible and I am not advocating for it, make no mistake. However, accepting the notion of weapon limits means that you care about flow, balance, and encouraging teamwork (part of what I define as ?honorable? behavior). If you care about these things in a 32-player game, why do you stop caring about them when the server has fewer players on it?
Now of course I realize that adjusting limits is not feasible and I am not advocating for it, make no mistake. However, accepting the notion of weapon limits means that you care about flow, balance, and encouraging teamwork (part of what I define as ?honorable? behavior). If you care about these things in a 32-player game, why do you stop caring about them when the server has fewer players on it?
The only logical limitation would be no mg deployed until 5v5 or 6v6. This would significantly reduce any imbalance when playing with fewer players. However, imposing a limit to the number of mgs on a 32 player map would defeat the soul purpose of the game, which is to have fun. Another possible limitation would be, no mgs deployed in sewers at all time. This would greatly increase the speed and flow of the game. Any thoughts?
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2008
- Messages
- 3,034
My solution I had is do like they did in the old days, sewers would not open up with less than 5v5. If there are less than 5 people on a team now, i refuse to run the sewers, because it becomes nothing more than a flag capping party, and is partially to blame for the high points some of our members have right now.
Use to be a gate over the sewer entrances that would not go away until a certain ammount of players were in server and playing. I would like to see something like this developed again, it would allow for some different strategies on many other maps, not just Kalt. (No Field in donner, no apartments in Ava, no bunkers in Strand)
Use to be a gate over the sewer entrances that would not go away until a certain ammount of players were in server and playing. I would like to see something like this developed again, it would allow for some different strategies on many other maps, not just Kalt. (No Field in donner, no apartments in Ava, no bunkers in Strand)
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2007
- Messages
- 572
Although I don't play Kalt much I was playing on another server Not eGO! :O After every round the whole team switched sides I don't know how hard it would be to set this up but I would make things fair.
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2009
- Messages
- 111
I have to agree with Ron. Kalt does favor the axis as do some of the axis weapons (the BAR vs STG44 is mind-boggling).
Boyle makes a great point in that it is difficult and possibly unreasonable to add further workload to admins to ask them to attempt to identify skill imbalances with respect to teams and remedy them. This is so subjective as to lend itself to further problems, possible even cause more then it solves.
I like Ron's idea of giving the allies an extra MG, Sniper or Bazooka slot.
Boyle makes a great point in that it is difficult and possibly unreasonable to add further workload to admins to ask them to attempt to identify skill imbalances with respect to teams and remedy them. This is so subjective as to lend itself to further problems, possible even cause more then it solves.
I like Ron's idea of giving the allies an extra MG, Sniper or Bazooka slot.
in my personal experience on eGO's kalt server i have seen the domination going both ways...true...there are times when the axis have an advantage over the axis...but...often times this is due to ppls unwillingness to die (on the allied side)...most of the time that the axis are dominating it is because of some well placed mgs on the bridge...ppl seem to be scared of a bad k:d ratio and therefore will not risk rushing the bridge and/or wheel house...this is where the sewers come in handy...i cant tell you how many times i have gone through the sewers to the axis 2nd ladder and sneaked up on the mgs and snipers camping the bridge...sure i die...but even with my run and gun style i manage to usually keep at least a 1.5:1 ratio...and sometimes better than that...and i was only able to play for a few months...i have been inactive on the servers for a while...which i hope to remedy soon...once im back in...ill show you how to combat the axis advantage...
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2009
- Messages
- 4,595
Great Thread, thanks ron
Its always seemed to me that the newer players tend to migrate to the allied team, to get the Allied Assault Weapon(Thompson SMG is the easiest weapon in the game IMO), while Veteran players tend to be more familiar with the weapon load outs and prefer Axis. All the new guys want to play "Saving Private Ryan" or "BoB".
You are always going to have an skill imbalance due to the new guys flocking towards one team.
This type of thing has been rampant in every game with "good guys" vs. "bad guys".
Maybe Im wrong, but thats my observation.
You are always going to have an skill imbalance due to the new guys flocking towards one team.
This type of thing has been rampant in every game with "good guys" vs. "bad guys".
Maybe Im wrong, but thats my observation.
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2009
- Messages
- 133
I like the idea of a mod to rotate the sides. That would be pretty dang fun. Maybe every 5 rounds, swtich. That would dominate coolness.
AAO 2.8.5 does this. Every 7 rounds teams switch, very cool idea. I too play as allies. Actually I honestly let the server decide my team which is almost always allies. I play till I get frustrated. I love Avay, but the german domination is painful
AAO 2.8.5 does this. Every 7 rounds teams switch, very cool idea. I too play as allies. Actually I honestly let the server decide my team which is almost always allies. I play till I get frustrated. I love Avay, but the german domination is painful
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2008
- Messages
- 1,840
I've seen the sourcemod plugin that essentially flips the spawn points on the map, is that what you experienced or was it just swapping every player from axis to allies for example?
It's fun and it makes things interesting but I can see a lot of people getting ticked off because they've been forced to switch sides or teams. Also I've noticed a pretty good improvement in ally gameplay on Kalt lately, we still get beat mostly but it seems like we're scoring more victories, thanks and go team!
It's fun and it makes things interesting but I can see a lot of people getting ticked off because they've been forced to switch sides or teams. Also I've noticed a pretty good improvement in ally gameplay on Kalt lately, we still get beat mostly but it seems like we're scoring more victories, thanks and go team!
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2008
- Messages
- 1,907
I also have played on a server which switches the teams after each win and I thought that was a good idea. But having said that I also note that the axis do tend to advance more than the allies and we all know that the team that pushes hard usually wins and so if allies want to win they must push forward at all cost.
I SURVIVED LONDON BLITZ
I SURVIVED LONDON BLITZ
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2008
- Messages
- 269
Ever since this thread was posted I have been keeping a more watchful eye on the team count/flag status of the teams on kalt,and attempting to remedy first by switching myself and then if that isnt adequate by asking others to switch. As said before, it usually ends up with me on the allied side (like 80% of the time). Upside is I've gotten better with the m1!!....i still miss my k98 though.
On a more serious note, I think it would be a good idea to write into the eGO ideas/guidelines (NOT rules) that eGO members should attempt to balance teams when needed/if possible. Too many times I have seen eGO members( unnamed) join a team that already had 4/5 of the flags and 1 extra person. On one such occassion, I asked the person (an e) who had just done so to please switch over to allied side in pchat. He responded by saying, "so what?" and ignored it, continuing to play on the axis side. I could not kick him, because it technically was not against eGO rules, but I felt it both disrespectful and against the ideas of what we are trying to uphold in our servers. Team stacking against those newbies who want to use a thompson is just the same as calling the newbie on the sniper rifle a (*^#(& for "wasting" a restricted class.
On a more serious note, I think it would be a good idea to write into the eGO ideas/guidelines (NOT rules) that eGO members should attempt to balance teams when needed/if possible. Too many times I have seen eGO members( unnamed) join a team that already had 4/5 of the flags and 1 extra person. On one such occassion, I asked the person (an e) who had just done so to please switch over to allied side in pchat. He responded by saying, "so what?" and ignored it, continuing to play on the axis side. I could not kick him, because it technically was not against eGO rules, but I felt it both disrespectful and against the ideas of what we are trying to uphold in our servers. Team stacking against those newbies who want to use a thompson is just the same as calling the newbie on the sniper rifle a (*^#(& for "wasting" a restricted class.
Similar threads
