Originally posted by: $t0rM
How about this for a rephrase: GIVE IT UP, IT'S NOT HAPPENING!
Originally posted by: Philth
heres an idea {Zer0}McCreary stfu. The league aint changing for you. The restrictions work well now go back to shrub.
Originally posted by: _Lust_
Or learn how to shoot with an smg instead of noobing it up with mines and rnades.
I really like it when a guy asks a question, without any ill intent and then a few "internet tough guys" come in a just have to bad-mouth him. Real classy. Makes one think about why those replies come in like that... but then again thats beside the point. (So why even write that stuff? Oh yeah I forgot, to make you look cool... riiiiight. Real mature.)
Back on topic:
{Zer0}McCreary's question was very pertinent. We will all agree here that Enemy Territory is a game based on team play, shooting ability and tactics more than most games out there. The team at Splash Damage and Id incorporated different classes with different abilities and weapons for a reason. Balance.
Take out some (most?) weapons and classes and you will affect game balance.
I've been moderating the
http://www.enemy-territory.com forums for about a year and a half now and I've seen countless threads on weapon restrictions, game mods and other ways to make this game different. Most, I find, are just reducing the game to a simple shoot'em up like Quake or Counter Strike. Its a shame. This game is so diverse.
I see the point most will try to make here... 3 players on each side means a single nade or panzer, or even mine can take out an entire team.
But wait, shouldn't a so-called "competition" team be able to survive/counter/dodge this? Or is a good player just one that can shoot an SMG better?
McCreary is right, if you include a class, then BOTH teams are allowed to use it. But remember, using a class means you are not using another. In a 3 vs 3 this choice has even bigger repercussions. If Axis decide to use a panzer, its their choice, but they could have used a medic, or eng, or FO... but they didn't. So they will have benefits but ALSO may suffer from not having another class. Same goes with Allies (use your imagination; I'm not going to write a whole thesis on "tactics and the implication of class choice" here...). Most people who stop and really think about it will see that most teams won't select the soldier class even though its there... they prefer having one more medic or engineer instead. However, the team that does chose to have one better make good with it... think about it.
The fact is, team size doesn't matter much. Its just more frustrating when you get beat.
It really depends on what you want to achieve. Most so called "leet" players are deadly with the SMG. They just hate it when they killed by an MG, panzer, riflenade or mine because they just don't like dying. They think they are so good that they should always be fighting the way THEY can win, with an SMG. They call panzers names and cuss at the player who found a way to be more clever, use tactics, use the terrain to his advantage, and even though he is a worse shot, kill the "leet" dude. "It take no skill to kill with a panzer." Agreed. It takes "less" skill. So if you are really a better player, why complain? You should have been able to kill the panzer before he got his shot off if you are so good... (get it, you're just complaining about your own lack of forethought and planning and tactics). I know... its frustrating... but hey, at least you know the other team
I wrote all this with the soldier in mind but everything is applicable to the rifle grenade (not a very "easy" weapon to use), mines (everybody knows where people put them, and besides, your medic can always revive you), flamer, mortar (if you use a mortar on 3 vs 3 you better be damned sure of what you're doing or else you are creating a 3 vs 2 situation for the rest of your team...) etc.
Now I'm not saying I'm my opinion is better than anybody else's or that I'm right. Heck I'm a soar loser and I admit to it freely. But one of the things that I really like about this game is that having different weapons and tactical opportunities allow me to have different ways of beating better players than me. I'm average at best. Yet there are things I can do to beat even the best SMG shot out there... I can hide with a panzer; I can plant mines in new and different places; I can use stealth; I can... well... you get the idea.
Taking that away, to me at least, is like you are saying that you will restrict weapon usage so as to assure yourself that you can beat people. Its a form of elitism. You are just saying to me: "I don't like these weapons because I'm not good at beating them..." Aren't you supposed to be a "competition" player?
We (McCreary and I) know that TWL won't move for just us. We were asking a question. We appreciate the answer we got from the TWL administration, although I think it was a little short. I think TWL is just trying to please the most players they can (which is very reasonable, from a purely marketing point of view, if you don't understand this, go to business school like I did). Its my perception that the majority of the players here (please God make me wrong on this) fall into the panzer-bashing type of player I mentioned above. Its a shame. But we'll live with it. And more importantly, we'll have fun.
Thanks for your time reading this. Clan {Zer0} will still participate in the 3 vs 3 whatever the settings are. We just wanted to know why they are like that. But now we see its for the "leet" players.
Not the players with brains. (Just kidding Its all in good jest.)
I know some of you will answer this post with a "stfu" type answer. Please, let us all know how little intelligence and maturity you have and how "cool" you are. Go on, you know you want to...
If the administration would like to elaborate further, it would be greatly appreciated.
See you on the battlefield...