Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. Assuming the suggestion is to make it exclusively a WW2 mod pack and disallow other mods except for events (so the reversal of our I44 events), I don't think it's a particularly good idea. Creating hard limitations to increase the 'fun' is not particularly wise IMO. If you have guys in an apache destroying everything on the ground, perhaps the apache should be reconsidered in favor of other air support assets or counters introduced on the other side. Better mission making parameters should be considered including having ACOG style weapons only in coops for example, or only on certain maps; making air support a blackhawk with a crew chief rather than that apache; creating missions in urban areas or heavily wooded areas for example. I personally am of the opinion that there should be more enemies with far lower accuracy and ability then currently. It's not fun to run for 30 mins with a platoon, only to have 5 aimboting AI wipe out 10 guys because the MM decided to make the mission challenging by increasing the skill, rather than the numbers. All I'm saying is that perhaps if your concern is that combined arms makes missions boring, the missions themselves, how they are created and their parameters should be looked at more closely, rather than simply confining the whole community to WW2 to try and force more fun.
  2. That's part of the problem yes - not having a definition of whether you want 'Milsim-hardcore' or a more laidback style. I personally can't stand for those people who want to get on and tell me what direction to go only in mils "BECAUSE MILSIM RAHHHHHH" and if that's the sort of direction UO wants then perhaps I'd be better off finding somewhere else to play because my play style can't accommodate being that hardcore (not enough time in my spare time these days to learn military grade procedures). I feel like there is a precious middle ground that UO used to walk between these two, and it was fun and you got to shoot things while also being serious and having those milsim guys included and allowed to work their way as well. Why can't there be a middle ground between "CoD style/casual" play and hardcore Milsim-ers? I feel like many people think it has to be an either/or decision and that's driving a wedge between those who 'derp' and those who would ban for missing a step during virtual parade...
  3. The reason I don't play very much on the primary anymore was because I felt disillusioned by some of the favortism and general accepted attitude on the server. I saw regulars do things that non-regs would have been banned for, with GMs laughing with them with it for example (long time ago, don't really remember) while some obvious derp players started gaining traction and being treated as 'normal' on the server. At the same time, there seemed to be an overly extreme (in my opinion) opposition reaction of people who would ban players for the slightest infraction or screwup, to try and counteract the 'derp' behaviour on the server. Both of these are why I no longer enjoyed playing at UO - there seemed to be both extremes fighting it out with a severe lack of people in the middle ground who could show tolerance and lenience when required but also have an iron fist at other times. This may have changed in the past few months that I've been away but I haven't noticed a big move towards the 'center ground' on the forums to indicate that such a change would have happened in the server as well. This is only my opinion and my reasoning - and I'm sure many of you don't share it - but I'm looking forward to the 'old' days of UO so I can come back and play.
  4. Joe! I haven't had much contact with you recently because I haven't played at all in the last few months. I did have some *very slight* concerns about your maturity level last time I played with you, at least 4 or 5 months ago however. Judging by other's comments your attitude seems to have changed since then but I sincerely hope that some of the immaturities and vindictive behaviour I've seen in the past is exactly that - a product of the past. These are just my opinions and I hope you don't take it personally - but I felt in the current vote that everyone's experiences with you on the server should be of importance. And for all I know, you've matured beyond those levels to become an excellent candidate for regularship. I trust Luiz's judgement as I feel he and I share many of the same concerns and opinions about the server, so if I could, I would vote in favour. I know you're active in the server and vocal about your opinions which is a good thing in a regular and I wish you the best of luck with your application.
  5. F35 replacing the A10? Hm... I dunno if that'll work so well. F35 supposedly can carry almost the same amount of ordinance but it removes all stealth capabilities...
  6. I find that this game is just as much about correct positioning as using the correct counter against the enemy. I favor a heavy infantry deck these days, with a lot of mobile AA assets. I can easily deny the skies and move my infantry up under cover of smoke. Nothing like seeing your 30 point ATGMs taking out 130point tanks again and again...
  7. Realistically speaking there's no need for an invasion but in all honesty, you would say that there should be no response, militarily, against people who use chemical weapons? The real issue here is what other governments will see as the world community finding acceptable. Today it's using chemical weapons in a civil war not having any backlash apart from a tongue wagging from a few countries. Tomorrow, it's waging war with chemical weapons against your neighbors, day after tomorrow is North Korea using tactical nuclear weapons against the South outside of a wider engagement to 'teach them a lesson' for sending their patrol boats near contested islands. There needs to be a measured response which I would guess would be mostly symbolic by US forces, strikes against military compounds/communications facilities, etc - important strategic military assets so that other governments and powers that be will see that use of NBC as something that will cause your military capabilities to be neutered on a strategic level. There's no need for a costly invasion into what has become sectarian civil war - Muslims in the area will probably just assume it's America trying to fight Islam, and America would probably be loathe to stop them from killing each other anyway and diverting a large portion of extremists away from places like Iraq and Afghanistan.
  8. I find a 308 primary and loco secondary takes care of just about everything the game can throw at me. Add in tech perk for more rounds per magazine and I can topple a bulldozer by myself quite easily. But I'm hanging out for a MK48 or M249. That'd be so awesome...
  9. I came to the same conclusion with ARMA when I was on the phone to a friend giving him directions and mentally thought "why doesn't pressing K do anything?"
  10. I feel like the game mixes SCCT and Conviction fairly well. There's a big possibility for stealth gameplay as well as run and gun. I'm not entirely happy with the pay-for-upgrades system they have in place - I never get why a government agency like that wouldn't have the funds to buy a red dot sight for a weapon if the operator wanted it for example. But aside from that, I find it much more fun then Conviction was.
  11. While that's a possibility, I'd say more like the previous friendliness, encouragement and supportiveness in the face of mistakes and accidents was the UO I enjoyed - not this draconian 'punish for slightest mistake' era that I personally am seeing. Again - this is only my opinion and the truth might be completely different to other people, but this is what I've seen as of late, explaining my absence from the server; I no longer see it as a friendly place of learning and tolerance. I feel that the BoE might go some ways to helping this situation. Let's be honest - almost every 'infraction' is covered by the SOP or charter in one interpretation or another. Without spelling out every scenario in excruciating detail in the SOP/Charter, you can then interpret whatever you want as a 'gameplay disruption' - you could say a 'bad SL' is a gameplay disruption, but who is to say what is a bad SL? Someone who doesn't answer the Long range instantly? Or a 'bad AR' - an AR who doesn't know he's supposed to be on the end of a line or doesn't provide suppressive fire exactly correctly could considered a 'disruption'. My point is not that they couldn't be banned for such infractions - but more like why should they be banned for these infractions? In the past I would have expected a warning, a talking to or a little bit of a 'well son, do better next time, lets laugh off your stupidity because it's a game and we're all friends here and made that mistake before'. As I said, I wasn't there and I don't know all the details of the mission. I don't question your judgement on the matter and I'm definitely not arguing these bans - that's not the point. Despite what you're saying, I still feel like a year ago an actual ban would not have been levelled at such an infraction. Whether that's true or not, I don't know, but subjectively, from my view point, I believe that some at UO are dishing out harsher punishments for smaller infractions. And whether or not these people are 'popular' or Regulars makes a big difference to what the punishment is. I strongly believe a BoE will even out some of these bumps and create a nicer more tolerant UO as opposed to the do-it-100%-right-in-my-opinion-or-get-banned-unless-you're-my-friend attitude, which I personally believe some people have on the server at this time which is a reaction to the 'lower level of play' on the server. A BoE hopefully will remove this justification of 'lower play level = ban' from the server and these people can be a littler more tolerant to genuine mistakes on the server.
  12. Well I'll take your word on this but rather than some grander conspiracy I'm more of the opinion they might just prefer to ban rather than change the gameplay to reduce the amount of bans necessary. I'm not saying either way - just from the ban thread, it certainly looks like he fired an RPG and was banned as of a misfire. It 'fucked the mission' for everyone but did someone actually die? Or was it just the AI were notified and it ruined the rest of the plan? This to me is accidental and banning for such an incident is, in my opinion, way over the top. Again, I wasn't there but from my impression of the ban, it seems like it happened the way I've described. Rich, I beg to differ. People have been banned, just in the last two weeks there have been multiple instances of people being banned for such terrible infractions as yelling 'frag out' as a joke when not actually having thrown a frag, or accidentally crashing a heli/plane in a mission, etc. This is, plain and simple, banning people for simply not meeting *some people's* standard of play, and would never have happened a year ago at UO. It would have earned a reprimand, a talking to and blacklisting. But these people are and will continued to be banned for such small accidental infractions. Had some regular or 'popular' or 'competent' pilot made the same error I doubt it would have resulted in the same ban at all. EDIT: Basically, the Barrier to Entry should ensure that people receive a level of training and at the same time, not allow the (in my opinion) ridiculous and frivolous types of bans that I have seen lately by allowing a level of training and baseline of competence for all players.
  13. This is an important step for UO but I think in many ways it's already too late. I feel like given the number of 'inexperienced' players who are 'bringing the level of play on the server down' there has been a sharp reaction from other members in the opposite direction - experienced players who tolerate nothing less than tactical genius and suffering no fools or mistakes whatsoever. Recent ban threads have concerned me in this regard - banning for misfiring an RPG (no mention if it actually affected anything), banning for crashing an airplane on takeoff (which in the past would have simply warranted a 'don't pilot again for a while' comment), ban for crashing a helicopter by accident, banning someone for saying 'Frag out' when he didn't actually throw a frag; these are just the last two weeks. Now I believe that this barrier to entry is important for two reasons: 1. New guys can learn to avoid some of these issues 2. Older, more experienced guys might consider backing off and allowing for genuine mistakes rather than having a zero tolerance rule towards even mundane infractions.
  14. I too remember the glory days of Pandora Tomorrow and Chaos Theory. These new games reflect a newer generation of games which seemingly have a distinct lack of skill required to win. I'm waiting to see if Blacklight will actually have some merits like Chaos Theory and Pandora Tomorrow did.
  15. I was lucky enough to find about 16 odd people who are pretty reliable and now I basically just play with them all the time... I hear the pub kicking thing is getting out of hand...
  • Create New...