+- (wL) Forums (https://war-lords.net/forum)
+-- Forum: Community (https://war-lords.net/forum/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: Suggestions or Issues (https://war-lords.net/forum/forum-16.html)
+--- Thread: Leave the AWPs the way it was (/thread-8070.html)
RE: Leave the AWPs the way it was - Moriarty - Aug 07 2012
DK, post: 71554, member: 3039 Wrote:Well done. Thanks!Dust 2 is the most balanced map in this game. What about logical thinking?
What about D2?
RE: Leave the AWPs the way it was - walrus - Aug 10 2012
Stacked maps in public servers imo:
For CT = Aztec / Nuke / Train / Cbble/ Inferno
For T = Italy / Assault / Compound / Piranesi
I think there should always be allowed 1 awp per side no matter how many players. Maybe give the team at a disadvantage 1 additional.
ps. Maybe we could swap cs_assault and cs_compound (2 rarely voted maps) for de_cpl_fire and de_cache (2 good public maps)
RE: Leave the AWPs the way it was - M. Bison - Aug 10 2012
walrus, post: 72235, member: 14868 Wrote:Stacked maps in public servers imo:I was way ahead of you with the maps. The only difference was train, cbble, and inferno not being added. I would agree with you the maps are pretty imbalanced with a low population count. I have, however, noticed a different picture with a higher population count. The victor is typically whatever team is most stacked. I've typically seen the losing team continue on with their losing streak regardless of what side they were on. The maps are iffy until I see what GameMe team balance does to them. I'll probably add them into the 2x awp limit anyway, since it shouldn't change too much.
walrus, post: 72235, member: 14868 Wrote:ps. Maybe we could swap cs_assault and cs_compound (2 rarely voted maps) for de_cpl_fire and de_cache (2 good public maps)One day, one day....
walrus, post: 72235, member: 14868 Wrote:I think there should always be allowed 1 awp per side no matter how many players. Maybe give the team at a disadvantage 1 additional.There's a very specific reason for why it was limited to >=14 ppl. The minimum limit is likely not going to be retracted or decreased anytime soon. :p
On a side note, I'm thinking of changing the "2x limit" for specific sides to this:
Normal Limit:
<=13 - 0
>=14 - 1
>=28 - 2
Current 2x Limit (specific side):
<=13 - 0
>=14 - 2
>=28 - 4
Proposed 2x Limit (specific side):
<=13 - 0
>=14 - 1
>=21 - 2
>=28 - 3
>=35 - 4
RE: Leave the AWPs the way it was - i cri everytiem - Aug 14 2012
Working pretty well. Thanks Bison.
RE: Leave the AWPs the way it was - BOTWALKIE - Aug 14 2012
I like it how it is. to many AWP's is annoying and stupid on some maps. Just unfair to those who cant buy one.
RE: Leave the AWPs the way it was - ALING KURING SARI SARI STORE - Aug 16 2012
one problem would be the removal of awps in the following round. 2 awp limit then down to 1 awp limit. The player should be reimbursed or give a free weapon as a replacement.
RE: Leave the AWPs the way it was - >RiG-Th!S< - Aug 16 2012
Quote:[INDENT=1]one problem would be the removal of awps in the following round. 2 awp limit then down to 1 awp limit. The player should be reimbursed or give a free weapon as a replacement.[/INDENT]the player is reimbursed...I can attest that.
even when the team switch happens I have always been reimbursed even when I didn't buy an awp. (just picked it up)
RE: Leave the AWPs the way it was - ALING KURING SARI SARI STORE - Aug 16 2012
really? hm i didnt notice that. but if that's the case.then yeah, the system works.
RE: Leave the AWPs the way it was - M. Bison - Aug 16 2012
>RiG-Th!S<, post: 72926, member: 14892' Wrote:the player is reimbursed...I can attest that.I try to think ahead.
RE: Leave the AWPs the way it was - i cri everytiem - Aug 17 2012
M. Bison, post: 72983, member: 359 Wrote:I try to think ahead.smart ass. jk
