ET- THE NEXT PATCH...worth the load.

(rgoer) #61

Ah, it was just good-natured ribbing, Sauron. I hate acronyms too, ROFL FFS LALL :moo:

And where can I get some of this “liver pastry?” It sounds delicious.

(Mr. Chris) #62

I do think MORE death animations should be needed on relavent locations where shot. Killed via head shot should give a real low chance of reviving.

  1. I do think the Allies should get allied equipment ( mobile .30 BMG and Bazooka)

3)Also, fix the bug if you get one star general and when the next map comes, it doesn’t demote you to Major or Oberst and can’t be promoted anymore. :disgust: :eek2:

(-WidoW-) #63

I downloaded and watched the CoD Multiplayer Video and I gotta say…damn that’s hot.

Im gonna deffinately buy that game twice. One for the play one for the mint.

What ET MP should’ve been CoD is.

WOo im done ranting. Although I would like to see some changes to ET CoD is all me. BTW is it just me or did some people from SD work on CoD? Damn looks like ET.

(damocles) #64

While CoD MP does look like it’s going to be good, as said before it is a completely different type of game to ET. If ET isn’t your bag, then stop whining about it and play games that are. It’s not as if you are spoilt for choice when it comes to WW2 games, there’s tons of them out and coming out.

I think CoD is going to be a more deathmatch oriented game. Although the makers say they are trying for a more team based, they also say the teamwork is more sticking together to survive because of the easy kills/deaths. So half the players won’t care about that and will simply run around shooting each other quake style or be camper snipers. And they intend to have one life to live as a standard game type in a game where one shot can kill you. That’ll suck ass. One mistake like crouching instead of going prone early on and you spend the next 15 minutes watching others. What fun!

ET promotes teamwork like no other game which is why it is so special and it doesn’t need ultra-realistic combat to do this. It does this in much better ways - by creating a clever class system that relies on each other.

(Wraith2k3) #65

I think that the allies should have the browning instead of the mg42 at least.

Also, IMO, the SMG soldier should be replaced with a BAR or that MP44, to actually make choosing it worthwhile.

(Mr. Chris) #66

Agreed, why would an allied soldier have access to a german machine gun or anti-tank (or shall I say anti-personnel) weapons?

(Ragnar_40k) #67

The BAR should replace the mobile MG42 for Allies. And the mobile MG42 for Axis should be replaced with the (weaker) MG34 (whilest the MG42 had a crew of at least 3 or 4, MG34 had usually a crew of 2). The tank mg and the gun emplacements should have a MG42 resp. M2 .50 cal. Machine Gun.

(Sauron|EFG) #68

A spud gun would also be nice, and the Thompson should be replaced with a rug whip. And wouldn’t it be cool with artillery that uses lava lamps as ammo?
But the one thing I never understood is why SD didn’t include LAZORS!
:smiley:

(-WidoW-) #69

The BAR should replace the mobile MG42 for Allies.

Bad Idea the Browning Automatic Rifle doesn’t have as much firepower as the MG42 so it will be rather uneven. It also can’t hold as much ammo as the mg42. Te Browning .30 Cal Would be a nice way to even it out.

(Pog'S) #70

What I would change is that SMGs are far too precise at long range. I’m fed up to be caught by a MP40 burst at more than 150 meters. It makes rifles not interesting enough. For gameplay sake, they evened all weapons but in reality :
MP40 has a rof of 400 rpm and a practical range of 100 meters
Thompson a rof of 700 rpm and caps at 50 meters.
Would be pretty unfair :disgust:

I think they should reduce the range of smgs.

They should indeed replace the MG42 by a MG34 for axis,
and M1914A4 .50 cal MG for allies
I think they also should give LMG to soldiers : BAR A2 and STG44

I agree SMGs sounds are not good too but they are made low to allow players to hear other game sounds.

(Pamper) #71

What are you talking about?? The MG42 was lighter than the MG34, and had a crew of 2. That was the big, innovative advantage it had over the MG34 or US Browning MG. Previous MGs had crews of 3-6. The MG42 needed just one man with the gun and tripod and one more with the ammo- triple the ROF of a US weapon, with 1/3 the people needed to carry it…

(RocketGrrl [SWE]) #72

The BAR should replace the mobile MG42 for Allies. And the mobile MG42 for Axis should be replaced with the (weaker) MG34 (whilest the MG42 had a crew of at least 3 or 4, MG34 had usually a crew of 2). The tank mg and the gun emplacements should have a MG42 resp. M2 .50 cal. Machine Gun.[/quote]

All german vehicles had MG34, it would completely wrong to have the MG42 on a vehicle. The gun emplacements could be either way. The MG34 was hardly weaker, it was heavier and more complicated to build and therefore more expensive. Because of the complexity of the MG34 it was more sensitive to dirt, so they put them in vehicles and all MG42s were given to infantry.

When you are talking about the crew for the guns it varies depending on the mountings etc, a HMG34/42 would need a large crew and would not be a very mobile unit. The mobile MG34/42 would (I think) have a crew of 2 people IRL, but in the game just 1. That might work IRL but it could jam and reload would be slow. However, these things are not realistic in the game for any weapon, why should the MG42 be differently treated?

(Pog'S) #73

he said weaker cause MG34 has a rof of around 700 rpm as the M1914A4. So it would balance the game. while having a MG42 with a rof of 1200 rpm against a 700 rpm would unbalance it.

(kotkis) #74

As long as you’re not starting to change anything that affects the game play I’m fine with it. Everytrhing else is just sugar and I don’t really care if it exists or doesn’t.

(gonzoboi) #75

First of all, Widow, you are hopeless noob troll who just tried to make his posts less ridiculous with a pathetic ‘headache made me be nasty’ story no one believed.

That said, let me add my 2 cents to the ‘ET realism vs. gameplay’ issue. I personally love realistic games, but its not really THAT important for me. But i think realism is important in a particular aspect of the game: subjective experience. I mean, you ‘live’ the game in first person, assuming the role of a soldier in the middle of a battle (let’s just ignore the huge ‘suspension of disbelief’ issue of 30-second respawn by assuming you re-incarnate into another soldier when you die). But, your perception/experience of the world does not change as the physical status of the soldier (you) changes. That is, you can be at 5 HP and run like hell, jump happily and carry a Panzerfaust with no problems. I think having wounds affect you directly would make the game so much more interesting. For example, a headshot, apart from removing your helmet, could make you see everything blurry or see light sparks everywhere for a while. If a panzer rocket explodes very close to you and doesnt kill you, you should be effectively deaf for a few minutes, unable to hear anything but a nasty beep from your blown ears. If you’re firing a MG-42 at full throttle, you shouldnt be able to hear anything but the gun firing. Etc etc…

I don’t think this is really hard to implement, i remember one post some time ago dealing with some fovea cvars which can be tweaked to affect visibility, deaf status would just require some sound muting or whatever, etc. Of course i know this is not going to be done in ET, but anyway i’d love to hear your opinions on the subject.

Cheers! :drink:

(RocketGrrl [SWE]) #76

Well, I just assumed that they would be given the same features as its been done on all the other weapons for balancing reasons.

Further i think somewhere in this topic someone said “give the americans the bazooka they deserve”. Its just that it is not equivalent to the panzerfaust but rather the panzerschreck, so then we would hear “give tha germans the panzerschreck they deserve” etc.

(-WidoW-) #77

gonzoboi you really should read the entire forum posts before posting anythng.
Besides your the one who still has a problem with me.
I had a headache if you dont believe me then don’t. I don’t know how you were brought up but I have no reason to lie.

BTW RocketGrrl I like your panzershreck Idea :p.

After the germans got a hold of the Bazooka m1 the allies had they copied it and made the panzershreck.

(Mike1357) #78

Yes, for those of you who havent played Americas Army, you fire the guns normally with classic view, and when you hit the zoom button the gun goes to iron sights (except for sniper rifles, they just go to scope). You can not run around and shoot people in iron sights however because this just isnt practical.

and where you said HL2 and Doom3 is realistic… WTF hell no. just because it is pretty, that doesnt mean its realistic. just because this banana looks cool :banana: it doesnt mean its realistic

(SCDS_reyalP) #79

True combat http://www.planetquake.com/q3t/ does the same thing.

That has nothing to do with ET though, which was never meant to be a realism game.

(I R O N M A N) #80

Perhaps. But remember that “Zoid” created CTF for Quake II on his own time. id did not pay him. We may be left to the gaming community for total conversions to make the changes to the game. However, from my experience, most total conversions suck by making the game into something totally unrealistic and freaky.

SIGH