WTB Proper freakin Military style FPS for PC

156 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

Hey all,

Thanks for reading my topic, I hope you all will agree with what I have to say. The reason I am starting this topic is because, basically, I haven't enjoyed any FPS' since the days of the [Ghost Recon] (god, that game kicked ass!). There is a plethora of reasons for this and since game-designers do not seem to remember anything other "We gotta give 'em really pretty pictures" (which is great for about 15 minutes) I thought it would be very useful to start writing about what I look for in an FPS and perhaps I will find some people here that also look for these features and don't seem able to find them.

First let me explain where I am coming from. What I truly love about FPS' (in theory) is the competative side of it. Playing in leagues and ladders. Not just for the bragging rights but it just makes it so much more fun to play in a community. But to get that, a game needs to meet certain requirements. What those are, are of course specific to the type of game but it does all boil down to "It needs to meet the needs of the community".

So let's not just list what we need, but also where other games failed.

First and foremost: The servers: Hard- and software:

To make a ladder for FPS' we need absolute full control over the servers. No, this doesn't just mean that we need to be able to log into the server, but rather that we can rent our own dedicated servers (hardware) and install the game-server (software) on it. This to meet our needs concerning lag (and various others, but lag is the most important one). This is very important.

The way BF2 worked was also ridiculous, nobody wants to pay just so their server can be ranked, leave that kind of bullcrap out of it. It is not interesting. Which brings me to my next item.

The server: Game-wise:

Now first off, I have seen this in some games but not in others and I want to set the record straight: Weather options that can be controlled from the server rather than making a new map or new map settings document for it is very desirable! This should not just concern the downpour but also the visuals of the map. When I set it to snow, I want to see a layer of snow on the ground and on objects. This of course also applies to lighting conditions and fog-levels.

Again, this next feature also is available in some games but not in others: Kit restrictions. Like me, a lot of players feel that certain pieces of kit are just ridiculous. Take for example the heartbeat sensor as implemented in COD:MW2. That is just ridiculous for competition play (IMO). We should be able to design our own kit limitation documents so that we can rule those out.

Of course, also want all the usual stuff: Map selection, mod selection, max players, kick and ban options, etc.

Also, we want to be able to control wether or (temporarily?) not a server is listed in a lobby system. To facilitate this, we should be able to join a server through the means of entering an IP-address and port-number along with a password.

Anti-cheat and match results:

Replay:

The server should make a downloadable document that shows each and every player's actions. All of them. Everything from where they went, to the paths their bullets took, where they threw their grenades, etc, etc, etc. In the end-of-match screen this document should be available from the server to everyone in the match for downloading. This is an absolute must-have to prevent cheating.

Active and passive cheat detection:

An anti-cheat like PunkBuster is great, but it is not enough to just have an active detection system. I think it would very good to have a passive system as well that works on the client side where the game takes screenshots of the players screen and uploads them to the server as an extra threat to cheaters. This shouldn't be too much trouble and with the size of modern hard drives it should provide no problems either.

Match results:

At the end of the match, it should show for every player how many kills they got (and some other stats would be nice as well but that is just gravy) and these results should be savable to file to facilitate reporting a match to a ladder.

Unlockables:

There is nothing wrong with having unlockable items in a game. In fact, I personally think it is desirable but for the love of God, why make unlockable guns? That is just silly. This gets in the way of competative play and gives others unfair advantages. For an FPS, I think the unlockables should be suit-designs (skins), badges and insignia.

The world over, there are all kinds of different designs for camouflage so you could have for example the American and Russian designs by default and then as you level up unlock the Dutch, German, British, etc camo designs. For preforming certain feats you could unlock badges and insignia which you could then proceed to put on your unlocked skins.

NEVER EVER make weapons unlockable. It is straight up damaging to competative play.

Athletics:

Peeking is great, but jumping is a fail. No soldier in the world runs around corners guns blazing, at least not without having a peek first. You should also of course be able to fire from a peeking stance. To prevent confusion: by peeking I mean that your soldier leans either left or right to look/fire around corners, showing just a sliver of his/her body rather than having to step around a corner and showing half or more of it. Peeking is great and is a must-have.

Jumping however is a no-go. No soldier, with the amount of kit they wear, bunnyhops over the battlefield. Now, you could argue, well it's a game but I like some level of realism in my games and this bunnyhopping crap just will not do. I suggest, as an alternative, that certain objects be made jumpable/climbable and when you are close enough to them you can hit a button and the action will then be preformed but otherwise nothing should happen. Under no circumstance should there be any kind of bunnyhopping allowed.

No vehicles:

I feel very strongly about this, there should be no vehicles (tanks, heli's, planes, etc). My friends and I call this the "######-factor". Earn weapons but then you can just jump into any of those and wreck havoc? Get the hell out of here. I know this caters to the general public but really, people will buy a straight up mano-a-mano FPS. If this is not feasable, then at least allow us to set in the server wether or not vehicles can be used.

Map editor:

More and more games nowadays come with great map editors. This will also help to build a good community. Take a look at StarCraft 2's map editor and the community around that. Something like the SC2 map editor could work very well for an FPS and I personally feel this is a must-have.

Medics:

Bullcrap, get rid of it. When I shoot your face off, you can not put a freakin bandaid on it and continue as if nothing happened. When you get hit by a rocket or a mine and your arms and legs get blown off, no paddle is going to magically regrow them. Just not gonna happen. In FPS, just leave it at dead = dead.

I wonder how the rest of you feel about this.

Edited by CkZWarlord

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

i agree with almost everything agreable.

i do agree with the medic part, to an extent. in ghost recon 2, the medical abilities were played rather well, if i shot Diaz in the head, she'd die, her icon would go black i couldnt med her back to life. if i shot parker in the chest he would either be dead or on the floor incapacitated, if he was incapacitated you could get him back up but he would still be injured his icon would be yellow and if i shot him in the chest again he would die instantly. so probabilities in there are important, not just phase out the medic bit all together. but the medical bit in CoD black ops the revive button or whatever is stupid.

the one thing i'd love to have is Out Of Action, wich is they are still alive but their career as a soldier has ended because they lost their arm or leg, then a soldier or the player can pick up the OOA soldier and take them to a certain point in the feild where it is safe and have them respawn in multiplayer team deathmatches or out of the camapaign in single player or co-op but if left on the feild with no limb for too long they will die of blood loss (30 second time limit for someone to pick them up.)

if someone picks an OOA soldier up they get extra points for bravery and selflessness in the feild of battle or something nutty like that or they get an unlockable for a certain amount of pick ups . if the OOA soldier still possesses at least one arm once picked up, they can shoot at enemies with a pistol to cover the helper's ass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

@zeealice Although I can agree to that for a co-op feature, it wouldn't want to see it in team vs team deathmatch play.

Something I forgot to mention, but it should've been obvious anyway, is that this of course should be a highly tactical FPS.

Another thing I would like to add: no future weapons or other bullcrap like that. It is not neccesary. Take for example the cloaking and shoulder-mounted rockets from the GR:FS trailer. That alone was enough reason for me to not buy it. Cheesy.

Edited by CkZWarlord

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Athletics:

Peeking is great, but jumping is a fail. No soldier in the world runs around corners guns blazing, at least not without having a peek first. You should also of course be able to fire from a peeking stance. To prevent confusion: by peeking I mean that your soldier leans either left or right to look/fire around corners, showing just a sliver of his/her body rather than having to step around a corner and showing half or more of it. Peeking is great and is a must-have.

Jumping however is a no-go. No soldier, with the amount of kit they wear, bunnyhops over the battlefield. Now, you could argue, well it's a game but I like some level of realism in my games and this bunnyhopping crap just will not do. I suggest, as an alternative, that certain objects be made jumpable/climbable and when you are close enough to them you can hit a button and the action will then be preformed but otherwise nothing should happen. Under no circumstance should there be any kind of bunnyhopping allowed.

I agree with the jumping bit, but basically the only way to make peeking mandatory is a Rainbow Six style ballistics set-up (both ArmA 2 and Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising have a fairly robust system for this that doesn't weigh you down with excessive and unrealistic displays, but the rest of either game is not up to what you want) and a limited battlefield so CQB is necessary. You also run head-long into the issue that real world tactics are based around 1-in-1000 still being too bad of odds, since losing means death. There is no way to get around that with out adding in unrealistic tweaks like screen blurring, computer-forced-reflex responses (that is, the computer flinching after a bullet whizzes by, even if you wouldn't), and so on. This is not such an issue if you consistently play with a group of people that hold realism to be more important than winning, but in a competitive environment, winning is more important than following rules that are not part of the game world. That's why people spray and pray so much: the penalty for failure is a reload or a respawn, rather than actual real death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

It is not about making peeking mandatory, it is about peeking being implemented properly into the game at all. As far as I am concerned ballistics-wise the bullets can go just dead-straight indeffinately for all I care (until they hit something, of course). The weapons do need a 90% of the time 1-shot, 1-kill thing going on. Sure, I liked the setting where weapons after a certain amount of meters became less lethal, but generally speaking, even over pretty long distances it should remain at 1-hit-dead.

This is not such an issue if you consistently play with a group of people that hold realism to be more important than winning, but in a competitive environment, winning is more important than following rules that are not part of the game world. That's why people spray and pray so much: the penalty for failure is a reload or a respawn, rather than actual real death.

And that is exactly why the game needs to be geared in such a way that running all over the place, spray and pray is not rewarding. Rather precision, carefully choosing positions, etc getting you the win. That is where peeking helps: 1-hit-dead + peeking = charge and spray not rewarding 99% of the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I've been meaning to make a similar post for a while now, so here goes. It fits perfectly in this thread, although the things I will mention are also in third person shooters, not just limited to 1st person shooters.

The player tagged as a higher kill priority/higher threat to enemy AI than teammates:

What I mean by this is the enemy AI spending around 80% of the time shooting only at the player. Regardless of the fact whether you are in cover and your AI team mates are in the open, the enemy AI is scripted to shoot primarily at you. I laugh so hard when the enemy can't possibly hit me because I'm in cover and bullets are bouncing off my cover all round. Yet they enemy is still shooting only at me. Also, you could even have certain AI teammates on your team that you, and most people, would view as higher kill priorities, yet the enemy AI is oblivious to this. For example, it could be one of those games where you get a four man team and you get to choose who's on your team. You've got a 'tank' (extremely heavily armoUred with a massive amount of HP), an assassin type team mates (can go invisible, is fast, able to flank enemies and get behind them unnoticed), and a 'heavy hitter' (with a weapon that does massive damage). Now, personally, if I was facing those teammates as enemies and there in with a group of standard enemies, I would see the heavies/tanks/assassins as higher priority targets than the standard enemies, and thus, kill them first. Wouldn't you? Seemingly enemy AI is oblivious to this. Oh wait, no they are not, it's the devs wanting to make their game more challenging. There are other ways to make games more challenging than what I mentioned above. The worrying thing is, this is appearing in more and more games nowadays. I know one thing: this 'player tagged as higher kill priority than AI teammates' crap is JUST. NOT. FUNNY. ANYMORE. Seriously, devs, nerf this crap already, you're destroying *potentially* decent games.

Enemy AI disclosing their tactics to the player amidst combat:

"Go check that sound out, I'll wait here and see what happens" / "OMGzorz, somebody is shooting! Quick, you two go flank that position I'll stay here and cover." Yeah, thanks for telling me that, all I need to do is turn 90 degrees right to see two enemies coming up on my flank and and take them out. The thing I find hilarious with this is, these AI enemies disclosing to the player what they are going to do are often SpecOps, apparently. I'm pretty certain that in real life SpecsOps, let alone regular military would not disclose their plan of action to the enemy amidst combat. Then again, I've never served, so what do I know?

Enemies with invisible power armoUr:

You've just put a full mag of AK47 rounds into a standard enemy whose physical character model has no armoUr on it whatsoever - and they are still standing. And it gets better, this is 'normal' difficulty. Another half a mag of rounds later and the enemy goes down. Finally. So you continue on your journey and move past the position of the now apparently dead enemy - Except that they aren't dead. They are merely incapped, shooting at you with their pistol which the produced out of nowhere and can still accurately hit you at distance. Give me a break.

And let's not forget:

Unnecessary, over the top swearing by the enemy AI:

First off, I do not have a problem with ######ing swearing. There you go. I am also aware that things can get heated in combat and thus, swearing occurs. However, with some games out there, I'm lead to believe the voice acting was conducted by a (non-existant) company by the name of 'Voice Actors with Touretttes.' It's like, I shoot out a light and a nearby enemy shouts "######ING HELL!!" Hardly a combat situation. Or an enemy discovers one of his teammates dead through my doing, "Son of a ######, ######! Some ###### killed this guy. Watch out guys, there's a ######ing intruder, find and kill the ######." However, this can be beneficial, as a certain game has indirectly taught me a new language though this. Due to this 'certain game', I now know how to say some of the most offenCive words in Italian, that is, among other non-offenCive phrases. Yes, I have *slightly* exaggerated the use of swear words in games above, but 'exaggeration for effect' right?

One more thing:

Weapons that utiliSe same ammo but have massively different damage stats.

Like on certain game out there there's the M4 and the M16. And the devs would have us believe that the M16 deals 100% more damage (at the same range etc) than the M4 even though they fire exactly the same rounds. Yeah right.

On a side note, it would appear my Caps Lock is playing up again. :P

Edited by WytchDokta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

is a majority of that rant aimed at CoD wytch? its a shame because cod tastes great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

No. The first one is specifically aimed at Mass Effect 2 (as much as I love that game - I have several different character builds), but is appearing/has appeared in many other first person shooters, and even in some of the more tactical shooters.

The second one is aimed at virtually every first/third person shooter/tactical shooter out there.

The third one is aimed specifically at Far Cry 2 and Metro 2033, but again, is appearing and has appeared in virtually every other first/third person shooter out there, even the tactical shooters.

As for the third one, I don't remember the enemies speaking Italian in CoD (yes, I HAVE played CoD so I do know what I'm talking about when I slate it). In fact, this is odd one out, not appearing so much in FPS's, and it's not specifically aimed at FPS's titles. The examples I gave where from one third person tactical/stealth title and one third person free roaming/free running title.

As for the fourth, yes.

Again, these aren't 'military' FPS's per se. I'm just using them as examples of things that are not needed in military FPS's (but devs seem to think these things are needed and thus include them, ruining my gameplay experience)

Visceral are currently the only developer that I have faith in to deliver the game of all games a product in which there are features that the community actually want and like (through actually listening to and interacting with the community). The said product will arrive on 28th January in the UK. I highly doubt that Visceral will start making military FPS's though. Point of course being that if they can listen, why can't other developers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

fair enough. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

This is great! Thank you for your contibution, WytchDokta! That's the kind of post that helps developers see what we want and, just as important, not want! :D

Anybody else got stuff to add?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Yes. Stop punishing players from start to finish. Also:

Allowing players to put sniper scopes on shotguns and/or SMG's:

Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

agreed :D

wouldn't want to see it in team vs team deathmatch play.

hhmm. maybe a "toggle OOA" menu in the server setup, so if deathmatch players want it they can have it, if they dont they wont.

sorry i can get brain dead and forget to reply to posts :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Allowing players to put sniper scopes on shotguns and/or SMG's:

Why?

Oh, how could I forget: devs could take it one step further and go down the RS:V2 route by having enemies with machinepistols with sniper scopes on them.

Just thought of another too:

Laser Sights....

....make your weapon more accurate. Um, no they don't.

And another:

Enemies with worse weapons handling than the player are a lot more accurate with the same weapons as the player (and thus, can 'snipe' the player with a pistol far beyond the pistol's effective range) - while moving and firing full auto from the hip:

The best bit is, it just some random geezer that has picked up a gun, and apparently the player is some elite SF soldier. So how the devs figure the enemy should have far superior weapon handling than the player is beyond me. Again, unnecessary crap. Get this rubbish out of my game.

Edited by WytchDokta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

i would love to see an element of fear in allies and enemies too. as well as civilians roaming around cities or cowering away. like Wytch said the enemy is just some geezer who picked up a gun, possibly forced to, so they would be scared going up against an elite such as the player. the AI seem somewhat terminator like, emotionless, only in cutscenes to they show their emotions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

hhmm. maybe a "toggle OOA" menu in the server setup, so if deathmatch players want it they can have it, if they dont they wont.

Let's expand that thought and consider this:

First we get different character classes, which all have their appropriate gear and access to certain weapon but no access to others:

- Infantry

- Support

- Snipers

- Demo

- Medic

- etc (cant really think of anything but you guys probably can)

Right? Then how about if we can disable classes in the server, besides kit restrictions that is. That would give the casual players what they want and the die-hards can then set restrictions to make the game suitable to their style!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Another nice touch would be to have different characters react differently to getting shot. Not just the "######, I'm hit!" then carry on as normal business. Make it so some characters react to being shot like Ruiz in Blackhawk Down (much more dramatic, screaming "######! ######!!"). In short, some downright go into shock, others go into (temporal) adrenaline rush, collapsing a short time later.

And something else that badly needs to be addressed in this 'tactical' military FPS's - enemies using missile launchers or gREnades to take out a single hostile infantryman (in the open), especially when the game does not distinguish between HEF and HEAT rounds for missile launcher, instead, all missile launcher rounds are seeming dual purpose. Also, grenade blast radius is way off on most of these 'tactical' military FPS's. In most, you can land a grenade behind an enemy in cover and it won't hit them.

And none of this 'leave guns lying around in specific places (for the player to pick up)' nonsense please.

the enemy is just some geezer who picked up a gun, possibly forced to, so they would be scared going up against an elite such as the player

No they won't. Not according to most devs out there. :)

There's even some 'tactical' military FPS's out there where the enemies are crackshots from long distance with grenades. Like, some enemy sniper throws a grenade towards you from 200-300 metREs away and it lands right next to you. Yet, between you and the enemy is several trees and other other obstacles in the flight path of the grenade. All fear the sniper grenade. <_<

(okay, so I might have exaggerated the distance a little there, but like I said, exaggeration for effect. Just ask any dev)

Edited by WytchDokta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

XD yeah, but in real life i can imagine they would be scared, i noticed that in [GR].

they should have set ranges even for the AI. on soldiers heroes of WW2 wich is a strategy game, incase you dint know, both me and the AI can only throw a grenade a set distance, and all of them have different effects, such as the AT ones will decimate a small tank, and damage a large one, as a MK1 frag would only blow the wheels off a wheeled tank or a half track. and maybe damage the catepillar on a panzer

it was one thing that needed to be adressed in advanced warfigter, tanks dont take damage from granades not even to the top MGun turret, wich is vulnerable.

(cant really think of anything but you guys probably can)

recon?

good idea overall! :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

As for respawns, I would like to see the stationary spawns brought back besides all this TRR or "side-switching" business. Battlefield 2 Bad Company (I think) had it set up in such a way that when you were pushing your enemies back into their spawn and you came too close they would all of a sudden spawn somewhere completely different. Bullcrap. When you get pushed back into your spawn then you *deserve* to get your ass raped, simply because you messed it up. A team deathmatch should have a very delicate line between pushing your opponent back in their spawn while protecting your own. At least, that is my opinion.

What I am trying to illustrate is: people like different respawn settings. Take for example BQL and TAG, back in the day of GR. BQL had TRR settings for respawns, TAG had fixed spawns, two pretty popular ladders and the main difference when it came to GR was (basically) the respawn settings.

So it will be very important that a map editor (because this is something that should be settable in the server without having to script a new document for it) is very flexible when it comes to making spawning points, again just to fit the various needs of the community and their subdivisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

As for vehicles, I think they could be beneficial in some games within reason and if done correctly.

For example, reg infantry are reg infantry. They aren't pilots. You can see where I'm coming from now. Reg infantry aren't going to know how to fly a helicopter/plane etc, but a pilot is. Likewise, reg infantry are not going to know how to drive a tank. But they will know how to drive a jeep, Range Rover, or the like (go on, counter argue this by saying they may not have passed their driving test yet/not had any driving lessons yet, I dare you). Now if you got a massive open game world that's equivalent to whatever KM spec. they're making them to these days, are you really going to want to walk all that distance, and thus, take two hours walking before you can complete the first objective?

**Damnit, stop exaggerating times/distances Wytch, you're not funny.** :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

As for vehicles, I think they could be beneficial in some games within reason and if done correctly.

...Now if you got a massive open game world that's equivalent to whatever KM spec. they're making them to these days, are you really going to want to walk all that distance, and thus, take two hours walking before you can complete the first objective?

I sorta agree, but I don't agree lol. Personally, when it comes to FPS I am a purist. I don't, first of all, see any reason to make maps that big. Personally, when BF2 was released I already felt that was too large. I think it is to cover up that it was a crappy game. I also believe that if you *NEED* a vehicle because otherwise you'd be walking around for hours. not really doing anything else, that that should be considered a flaw in map/mission design. Now usually this is not the case as you are given plenty to do, but still I feel it is rather pointless.

In theory, yes I agree with your opening line, but practically speaking: no, please leave the vehicles out and get a bit more creative with your map and mission designs.

Then again, just simply being able to disable being allowed to use vehicles and making sure there are plenty of maps that will still be playable without them should be just fine.

Edited by CkZWarlord

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Here's something to add that I was just thinking about - customisation options, and how far realistically (being the key word) should they go.

On the weapon customisation front, I'd like to see all manner of attachments and scopes etc, but specific for appropiate mission environments and weapons. So, no sniper scopes on uzis and no masterkey for long range environments. Would being able to choose one of a choice of several camo paint schemes to apply to weapons break the realism? Should the choice of weapons in game only be weapons the military of the country whose military (-ies) feature in the game be only the weapons they use? So in other words, should the player, who plays the role of a US soldier in this example, be allowed to use a FAMAS or G36?

Now for the character customisation front. Again, how far to go here, if at all. Realistically, I don't want to be able to have my character - a regular US soldier (as per the example) - to be able to run around without a helmet in battle. Again, should any items that the player can choose be limited to only what items that country's military uses - so being able to have UK flak vest and Russian army helmet on your character, with urban camo jacket and made up red digital camo trousers, yay or nay?

Don't get me wrong, I like customisation options. And in my case, the more the better, within reason (no sniper scopes on shotguns *ahem* Crysis).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

hhmm, good note wytch, R6 Vegas 2 was good with their customisation part on the characters. being able to change your armour but the more protection you have, the less mobility you get and the less ammo you can take (due to weight)

weapon customisation is a bit stupid in most games. i would have certain guns for certain specialisms and once you have a gun you have it through the mission and you arent allowed to change it, you are in charge of choosing how much ammo you take to see you throught the fights, but like i said the more armour you have, the less ammo you carry. and changing the camo means changing the gun all together because lets face it regular infantry arent going to carry a can of spraypaint on the feild to re-camoflage their guns. i would certainly allow The US to use H&K weapons, because these days they are anyway. but AKs, big no no

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

hhmm, good note wytch, R6 Vegas 2 was good with their customisation part on the characters. being able to change your armour but the more protection you have, the less mobility you get and the less ammo you can take (due to weight)

I've already stated the other side to the R6V2 system:

being able to have UK flak vest and Russian army helmet on your character, with urban camo jacket and made up red digital camo trousers

That's the fantasy mercenary look right there, not the elite SF/CT team look (as they are supposed to be.) Again, the items I named were used in example, and don't exist per se in R6V2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

ah, i see, i have only played a few missions so far but now i see what you mean. :P i would definately stick to whatever country youre from you have the armour from that country or any issued to that country internationally. but i can imagine if your armour is wrecked you might want to nab some from a fallen enemy or something stupid like that. sorry for the idiotic post :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Seriously, play R6V2 online. You'll see people running around with one shoulderpad on one arm and one wristpad no shoulderpad on the other arm, along with some random 'ballistic' face mask. They got pink camo jacket, yellow camo trousers and blue camo armour/webbing. Some people got no dress sense. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now