Limiting grenades

[toxic]

Wondering if the server would be open to limiting the number of grenades given to each player to one, regardless of their rank during the round. Someone who just joined the game would have the same amount as the player with the top score. In my opinion this would greatly improve gameplay and decrease the number of draws that last the entire time allotment. There would be an increased frequency of bases that actually get armed as a defender won't be able to stand near a base at a distance that is safe from artillery and toss in grenade after grenade. Those who have mastered this ability, myself included, would only have one chance to pull this off instead of three. And even if the defender did manage to throw in a grenade, it would not kill the attacker every time.

Limiting everyone to one grenade would also force players to actually use their gun instead of dancing around like a leprechaun and spamming grenades, the game is a first person shooter for fucks sake.

[Deleted]

I can certainly understand your point about the grenades (I don't use them very often myself), but the general idea is to keep the game flowing. There are several players who make the grenade their primary weapon (I call it a "grenade first" mentality); others use it sparingly and yet some hardly ever use them. Grenades are also useful against tanks and jeeps as well. Defending a base with grenades can be futile unless you are in close proximity to some that generate nearby (like in Ponyri - German base #3 - upstairs). The circumstances of being "nearby" to help defend the plant is no different than someone camped nearby to defend it as well. I guess my view is this is a split-difference for offense and defense respectively. Therefore, I don't believe a change is necessary IMO.

[MustaMissed]

Apr 20, 2016 11:33:58 GMT -5 toxic said:

Wondering if the server would be open to limiting the number of grenades given to each player to one, regardless of their rank during the round. Someone who just joined the game would have the same amount as the player with the top score. In my opinion this would greatly improve gameplay and decrease the number of draws that last the entire time allotment. There would be an increased frequency of bases that actually get armed as a defender won't be able to stand near a base at a distance that is safe from artillery and toss in grenade after grenade. Those who have mastered this ability, myself included, would only have once chance to pull this off instead of three. And even if the defender did manage to throw in a grenade, it would not kill the attacker every time.

Limiting everyone to one grenade would also force players to actually use their gun instead of dancing around like a leprechaun and spamming grenades, the game is a first person shooter for fucks sake.

 Stick man goes here

[toxic]

Apr 20, 2016 13:00:34 GMT -5 @moon said:

I can certainly understand your point about the grenades (I don't use them very often myself), but the general idea is to keep the game flowing. There are several players who make the grenade their primary weapon (I call it a "grenade first" mentality); others use it sparingly and yet some hardly ever use them. Grenades are also useful against tanks and jeeps as well. Defending a base with grenades can be futile unless you are in close proximity to some that generate nearby (like in Ponyri - German base #3 - upstairs). The circumstances of being "nearby" to help defend the plant is no different than someone camped nearby to defend it as well. I guess my view is this is a split-difference for offense and defense respectively. Therefore, I don't believe a change is necessary IMO.

Um ok but I'm only suggesting limiting the # of grenades....so I'm not following how your response addresses my suggestion at all. You explained your belief that grenades don't give a clear advantage to either attackers or defenders (which is grossly misguided), but failed to explain why limiting grenades is not a good idea, both from the standpoint of game-flow and 1v1 situations. Not that I was ever hopeful that change would be implemented, but perhaps someone else could give it a go.

[Deleted]

Ain't broke, don't fix it.

(Some good points...bottom line is the mod has been the same for a pretty long time and there are not many servers left...and that's one of the reasons we are still around---that and when Lipton shows us his Ports of Call pix from his Navy days,,,,:You too bookoo!!: )

[toxic]

Apr 20, 2016 15:54:27 GMT -5 @ri5k said:

Ain't broke, don't fix it.

(Some good points...bottom line is the mod has been the same for a pretty long time and there are not many servers left...and that's one of the reasons we are still around---that and when Lipton shows us his Ports of Call pix from his Navy days,,,,:You too bookoo!!: )

Oh so would a download be necessary? That would change things completely.

[Deleted]

...defers to friction.....

[Spud]

Apr 20, 2016 15:57:36 GMT -5 toxic said:

Apr 20, 2016 15:54:27 GMT -5 @ri5k said:

Ain't broke, don't fix it.

(Some good points...bottom line is the mod has been the same for a pretty long time and there are not many servers left...and that's one of the reasons we are still around---that and when Lipton shows us his Ports of Call pix from his Navy days,,,,:You too bookoo!!: )

Oh so would a download be necessary? That would change things completely.

If I may...

Anytime there is a change to a config file, it becomes a new config file and a download to the new file would be required, yes.

[toxic]

K then never mind. Over half of the server population that is left would disappear if a download would be required.

[Deleted]

Apr 20, 2016 15:57:36 GMT -5 toxic said:

Apr 20, 2016 15:54:27 GMT -5 @ri5k said:

Ain't broke, don't fix it.

(Some good points...bottom line is the mod has been the same for a pretty long time and there are not many servers left...and that's one of the reasons we are still around---that and when Lipton shows us his Ports of Call pix from his Navy days,,,,:You too bookoo!!: )

Oh so would a download be necessary? That would change things completely.

Probably...and you are correct, we would lose some people just because they don't understand English or don't know to tick the 'Autodownloads" to yes.

But vets/regs of the server may have issues with it as well...including me (I'm a nade whore)

[Deleted]

Apr 20, 2016 21:00:22 GMT -5 @ri5k said:

But vets/regs of the server may have issues with it as well...including me (I'm a nade whore)

[{[SACK]}Donefore™]

Apr 20, 2016 19:23:08 GMT -5 toxic said:

K then never mind. Over half of the server population that is left would disappear if a download would be required.

This would not require any download for the Client.

[Deleted]

As ri5k said : "Ain't broke, don't fix it" No reason to tinker with something that all our in house Nade Whores would have a problem with.
Plus, I would miss all the nades exploding in my face that the big R throws at me. Nothing like the taste of shrapnel in the mornings.

[WhiteDuck]

I know you say "Ain't broke, don't fix it" but it doesn't need to be broken to improve it even more. I say do the limit to 1 grenade for 1 week and see how it is received, its not a big change and I doubt anyone will hate the change so much that they will quit playing the game. There is only advantages to limiting the grenade, it will create more 1 vs 1 firefights and make people do actual work to defuse. Also it will be fun watching naz without the grenades, I'll pay money to see naz without them lol.

[Deleted]

sorry boys, certain stuff on the server loveless made a special mod that doesnt have to be downloaded , and i dont know how to mess with it. in other words its never guna happen cause even if loveless says yes it will take him a year or more to get around to it lol