Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Fvza Rpg > OOC Forum > Weapons Regulations


Posted by: Cyber78 Apr 14 2007, 12:23 AM
Ok I've noticed that nobody seems to really even use anything out of the armory, despite the fact that this mission was supposed to be the one where we finally standardized. Not having standardized weaponry of course creates a few balance issues, and really does take a lot of challenge out of it. Not to mention when everyone is using brand spanking new weapons capable of annihilating the entire Cuban Army it gets just downright uninteresting. However at this point it's a bit late in the current mission, so I'm not going to implement these rules until the next mission. I'm putting this out now so that everyone knows ahead of time what the new armory rules will be.

1. No more bringing whatever gun you want. Not to say you absolutely have to use one gun, but it needs to actually be something in the armory on your team's side. The current armories can be found at http://z14.invisionfree.com/FVZA_RPG/index.php?showtopic=95

2. Concerning custom guns, they'll be allowed on the condition that they are a rough equivilent of a weapon that is in the armory and that they conform to the following concerning the weapon that they are the equivlent of;
A. Must use the same ammunition type.
B. Must be of equal or lesser performance in terms of firepower (slight exceptions for longer or shorter barreled weapons allowed for slightly higher firepower).

Notes: Accesories such as grips, scopes, sights, ammo holders for shotguns, different barrels, cup holders, engravings, paint jobs, etc. are allowed.

An example of an acceptable custom weapon would be an M1911 variant such as a silverballer compared to our government model. Also acceptable would be to engrave your name on it, add a laser pointer, and a new grip.

As a note on shotguns, pretty much any pump-action or lever-action 12 gauge with no more than eight rounds capacity (internal capacity, that doesn't include those nifty ammo holders on the buttstock) is acceptable. Although the Remington 870 is standard for agents, things like the Winchester 1897 pump action shotgun would be perfectly fine.

3. Concerning the non-affiliated players. Although there isn't any standard armory for this group, it'd be best to use weapons of similar performance to what the agents and vampires use. Meaning no miniguns. Ever.

4. Under absolutely no circumstance is the use of a minigun allowed by anyone. It was cool when the Govonator used one, but it's just tacky otherwise.

5. Melee weapons that can be easily carried and used with one hand such as knives and machettes are completely up to the user's discretion. So there's no rules on custom knives and such so long as it's realistic. Meaning if you'd like to bring the Ka-bar by all means bring it with, just don't have it made by dwarves and capable of penetrating six feet of concrete.

6. In order to prevent players from using an entirely custom armory of their own, a limit of one custom handgun and one custom long gun is the rule.


These rules will go into effect after the completion of Operation Vanity Yardsale II.

Posted by: Pvt Serrano Apr 14 2007, 04:57 AM
Can I still use Claire? She's really important to my character as he's put his heart and soul into it. To save you time I'll just list the description here.

-1911-style frame rebored and re-enforced to fire .50 Magnum rounds (creates massive recoil and a relatively slow rate of fire)

-Mounted scope and laser sight. Scope=light, Laser=dark/low light

-Compensator. Mostly for looks as it doesn't lower recoil much.

-15-round magazine. Magazines are larger than normal, limiting the amount that can be carried. Also, ammunition is expensive, further limiting the amount that can be carried.

-There are some cosmetic changes that don't affect performance.

-Secondary weapon only due to slow rate of fire, overpenetration, noise, and recoil.

I hope I made it balanced enough.

A question on the miniguns. What if for some reason we fire one from a chopper? Would that be somewhat acceptable? I have no idea why we'd be in a chopper, just asking hypothetically.

Posted by: Cyber78 Apr 14 2007, 06:34 PM
The only problem I see with that is the fact that it's a .50 cal. Aside from that the rest is fine. I'm going to have to go think about that for a bit.

On to miniguns firing from choppers, that would seem more acceptable but I'd really prefer we didn't have to use military helicopters. I suppose that in the event we really had to use a helicopter armed with a minigun it'd be alright, but there'd need to be a lot of justification for why the person is using that helicopter in the first place.

But in the meantime concerning Claire the only issue I have is with the ammunition type used, so I'm going to have to get back to you on that one.

Posted by: Pvt Serrano Apr 14 2007, 07:29 PM
Yeah but before the bomb incident, we were going to use choppers for insertion. I'm guessing that would be one of a few rare occasions.

And about the .50 rounds. I can make it so that he can buy them himself. Anyone who's tried to buy .50 Magnum rounds can tell you that its really expensive to buy
(30 bucks for 25 rounds?! WTF?!)
Assuming that FVZA agents only make enough to live on, buying alot of ammunition would be an issue.

Posted by: Cyber78 Apr 15 2007, 02:05 AM
It's not so much that I'm worried that the ammo is nessesarily better (all ammo types have a specific purpose), it's more so that it means that it gets rid of compatibility with FVZA ammo. So that means that whatever ammo you go into a mission with is really all you get. Which just wouldn't seem like something a real agency would do.

Posted by: Alaska Apr 15 2007, 03:48 AM
Your regulations don't bother me, except you need to put in a few loopholes, such as in our current Seattle mission, obviously in the quarantine the Military would've brought Machine guns or the M82A1 that Alaska's got currently, maybe we ought to put in a 'Common Sense' clause, as to allow specific weapons in based on the situation at hand. For example, in a Vampire mission we'd have tear gas or something.

Posted by: Cyber78 Apr 15 2007, 05:05 AM
A common sense clause doesn't seem too bad, although I don't think we'd really need one since I think our armory has it covered in terms of firearms. We've already got the Remington 700 so an M82 seems unnessesary, and machine guns still just don't seem nessesary.

Right now I'm going to say no on the M82's after this mission, on to the machine guns I'm leaning away from those but I'll discuss it with our panel of experts (STARS and a couple others on the other forum). The tear gas thing however I completely agree with, that's something we should have. I should probably add those into the armory when I get a chance.

Posted by: Pvt Serrano Apr 15 2007, 06:40 AM
I think I understand what your saying. The thing is, he doesn't really use it as his standard issue weapon. It's more of a keepsake, sort of like carrying a picture of your family.
Holy crap. MAC-10 is a vampire weapon. Whoops.
My two cents about the M82- Its a thirty three pound weapon. Thats pretty heavy to carry around. It would probably be easier to carry a Remington 700 and assuming you're a decent sniper, the 700 would do exactly the same job, albeit in a slightly less messy fashion. Also, .50 BMG ammo is pretty expensive and illegal in a few states. However, the M82 does carry five more rounds than the 700 which could be an advantage in a situation where you don't need to move. On the other hand, we have the M-14 which can carry 10 more rounds than the M82.
On a final note: Don't worry about the M240 and the MG42. Those are one time things. I'll explain why in an In Character post.

Posted by: Cyber78 Apr 15 2007, 06:44 PM
Alright, how's this for a compromise on the handgun issue; Each character can carry one handgun going as high as semiautomatic and can carry say around 30 rounds for it? This being in addition to the M1911.

Posted by: Pvt Serrano Apr 15 2007, 07:25 PM
That sounds good. It'll let people use specialized rounds that aren't really standard issue (Luger, .454 Casull, etc.). I haven't really seen 30 round magazines before, although I also haven't really looked for 'em to be honest.

Posted by: Alaska Apr 16 2007, 09:19 PM
What? The M82 was under the common sense clause, nevertheless, the M82 completely dominates your Remington, hands down.

Posted by: Cyber78 Apr 16 2007, 10:12 PM
If we were hunting zombies that ride elephants maybe.

Posted by: Pvt Serrano Apr 16 2007, 11:01 PM
Cyber, I would pay money to see that.

Oh yeah, as I was searching around the internet, I located a weapon that might be of interest. Its called the EDM Arms Windrunner, a .50 cal sniper rifle that convieniently disassembles and fits into a thirty pound suitcase. I'm thinking that it might be a good rifle to have for covert-type missions, if it wasn't for the gigantic bullet size.

However, I'd still rather go with the M-14. Plenty of rounds without the weight of bigger rifles.

Posted by: Rodwy Jun 25 2007, 07:33 AM
I was just thinking of personally limiting my character to civilian available weapons as the ammunition to them would be abundant unless of course I had a weapon with specialized ammo that I started out with.(or of course we were in an area without any kind of ammunition)

Posted by: Alaska Jul 8 2007, 11:48 PM
I checked out the Windrunner. I would think if we retrofitted a harness to it, as to be able to carry it on your back, it could easily be one of the most effective weapons in the armory.

Posted by: Rhodes Jul 9 2007, 01:10 AM
Annnd i'd say go right ahead, but if you carry that and ammo, you're not carrying anything other than a side arm or a single MP5. Besides weight issues, its bulky as hell.

Posted by: O_O Aug 16 2007, 10:03 PM
Can my guy at least keep his 2 Magnums???
They have:

-Hollow Piont

-Spray-Painted No-Glare Black

-Laser Aim

-Mini-Maglight Duct-Taped to the Barrel

-Six Shots

They're basicly specialized for Zombie killing.

If my guy can't keep both on him, can he atleast keep one on him??


Sorry, I was gonna erase it but forgot to. I was thinking if I had a really bad-ass rifle, but decided it was to strong. Plus, I like pistols.

Posted by: Cyber78 Aug 17 2007, 02:11 AM
*Looks back at past regulations...*

Ok here we go. You can bring one magnum per mission. So you can keep them, but only bring one to the playground. So if you loose one you still have the other for another mission, just no more than one magnum and the M1911 during a single mission. And then don't carry anymore than 30 rounds total for it.

Posted by: Arnold Johnston Aug 17 2007, 07:13 PM
*Looks to Cyber.... sees that his red challenge flag is still tucked neatly into his belt and decides to throw his bullshit flag*

Ok... I'm not claiming to be the end-all-be-all answer for all ammunition types... but explosive ammo? No friggin way. That does not exist in a handgun caliber. No effing way. The only explosive ammo I've ever even heard about was in use by the NATO forces during the Bosnian conflict. It was a .50 cal sniper round that they used to clear mine fields from farther off than would be needed with a normal grenade launcher. Compared to a grenade these things were like 20mm sniper grenades. In conclusion, explosive rounds don't exist for handguns, and are less legal than RPG-7's in the rest of the world.

And wtf is a Hollow-Jacket? If you mean hollow-point then how could the round possibly be explosive? It's supposed to be hollow! Whatever explosive that you've put in there is going to take up some space, unless you've put the explosive part in the back of the round so that it can possibly be set off by the propellant (otherwise known as gun power) in the rear of the casing. Just for visual clarity... we'll insert a diagram.

user posted image

As you can see from our diagram there's not a whole hell of a lot of room for an explosive...

Posted by: Cyber78 Aug 17 2007, 08:11 PM
Um yeah... what he said...

Just scratch the fancy ammunition. If you go with a .357 you'll still have more than enough flesh blending power.

Posted by: mike werewolf Aug 18 2007, 07:09 PM
Can Mike use a Mark XIX Desert Eagle 50.AE with 50 cal. ammo and 10 inch barrel. huh.gif

Posted by: Cyber78 Aug 19 2007, 03:41 AM
You know I cannot understand people's fascinations with Desert Eagles. What with the recoil, the stove piping, and the limited mag capacity, I don't see the point.

But hey, suit yourself. Just keep to the regulations we have up there, and remember that the Desert Eagle does have it's flaws.

Posted by: mike werewolf Aug 19 2007, 07:05 PM
Thats my gun that I bought from a friend of mine. I know its flaws too. Many people like it because its big and bad! biggrin.gif

Posted by: Odst gunny Aug 20 2007, 04:20 AM
Took my fuckin weapon Mike lol laugh.gif

I have that excat weapon I bought mine at a specil handgun store!

Posted by: Abnet Aug 20 2007, 04:30 AM
QUOTE (Cyber78 @ Aug 19 2007, 03:41 AM)
You know I cannot understand people's fascinations with Desert Eagles. What with the recoil, the stove piping, and the limited mag capacity, I don't see the point.

But hey, suit yourself. Just keep to the regulations we have up there, and remember that the Desert Eagle does have it's flaws.

Even so, when's the last time you saw something get back up after it took a Desert Eagle round to the chest?

Posted by: Odst gunny Aug 20 2007, 04:43 AM
QUOTE (Abnet @ Aug 20 2007, 04:30 AM)
QUOTE (Cyber78 @ Aug 19 2007, 03:41 AM)
You know I cannot understand people's fascinations with Desert Eagles.  What with the recoil, the stove piping, and the limited mag capacity, I don't see the point.

But hey, suit yourself.  Just keep to the regulations we have up there, and remember that the Desert Eagle does have it's flaws.

Even so, when's the last time you saw something get back up after it took a Desert Eagle round to the chest?

Good point my desert eagle can put a nice hole in someones chest!

Posted by: Arnold Johnston Aug 20 2007, 07:35 AM
QUOTE (Odst gunny @ Aug 19 2007, 11:20 PM)
"... I have that [sic] excat weapon I bought mine at a specil handgun store!"

Seriously... why would anyone pay $1250 for a handgun that holds 7 rounds and weighs 4.4 lbs completely unloaded? Let's take a look at reasons why anyone would need a handgun that fired .50 caliber bullets. Bear hunting... uh.... hmm... yeah, that's about it, and even then you're going way overboard with your choice of firearm. I own a Sig Sauer P229 .40 cal, and to be honest, I don't think I'd ever bother to replace it. First off, it's a good caliber for home defense, powerful enough to put someone down in one or two shots, and (so long as I'm using hollow points) weak enough to not go straight through the walls of my townhouse and kill my neighbor and their kid, and the family pet in the next unit past that one. And don't give me any shit about "but the .50 will put someone down in one hit and they won't get back up!" It's bullshit.

If someone breaks into my house while I'm there and I pull my gun on them one of three things will happen. A) They run. B) They stay right where they are with their hands in the air until the police arrive. C) They do something stupid, make me feel that my life is being threatened, and get shot.

If "C" is the option that occurs and I have either of those two fore mentioned firearms one shot is going to stop the retard. Whether I hit him in the arm, leg, chest, belly, or head one shot is going to put him down and likely keep him there. I don't know about the rest of you, but unless you're in a "combat" situation you're never really ready to be shot. In an every day situation (which that likely would be for someone breaking into my house) your adrenaline isn't going to start pumping fast enough to allow you to recover from a .40 to the chest or stomach and keep coming at me (unless you're on PCP or some other silly drug). Sure, the assailant might not die immediately, but how many people do you know personally that have been shot in the chest at close range and lived to tell the tale? I can name all of none (that weren't wearing body armor).

Now, for arguments sake, let's say my .40 hit them in the leg. Has anyone here actually been shot before? How about been next to someone when they were shot? I'm going to say that out of the 90 or so members here maybe two, three max can honestly say yes. And if you write back here and say yet, I'm going to want pictures to prove it, because most of you would say yes just to look cool. Anyhow... if said assailant gets shot in the leg, and it doesn't just pass right through muscle, they leg is going to get broken. That's the nature of a round that's larger than a 9mm. Bullets break bone. Period. So, I'm sure at least a dozen of you have actually broken your leg, so, was it easy to stand on? How about running, were you doing a lot of that after breaking said leg? Didn't think so.

As for the arm shot, well, there's about a 89% chance that said asshole turns tail and runs. Will they come back? Who knows. If it were me and you shot me in the arm I'd assume that you weren't that good a shot and hope that the next asshole that broke into your place had a gun on them and returned fire, but I wouldn't be asshole enough to try again and push my luck.

Any way you look at it you can't honestly say the the DE is a better handgun for ANYTHING than any other lighter, more wieldable handgun. All of those neat little benefits you get (having huge fucking bullets... yep, that's about it) are outweighed by the fact that unloaded it weighs 4.4 lbs and after you fire the first shot you're not going to be able to fire again (accurately) for another 2 to 3 seconds. And I'll tell you what, if someone pulled a DE on me and I had my Sig and they fired and missed, they had better pray to little 8lb 6oz baby Jesus that my bullets are duds, because I'm going to put two into their chest before they can get another shot off at me.

Posted by: Arnold Johnston Aug 20 2007, 07:42 AM
And if any of you Desert Eagle owning fools would like to take me up on a shooting challenge I'd be more than willing to have you come down to where I live, come out to the range with me, and we can do a "how many shots can you acurately put into the target at a simulated 50yds in 5 seconds" competition. I'd even pay for all the ammunition just to prove the point.

Posted by: Cyber78 Aug 20 2007, 09:21 PM
Like I said, I don't get the fascination. But hey, if people want to use them then that's their choice. A choice I don't fully grasp the logic behind, but their choice nontheless.

Either way that was actually a very insightful post, and not just on Desert Eagles. Really puts high caliber weapons in general in perspective. If you don't mind I might copy that post and put it in a thread regarding recommendations for handguns.

Posted by: Odst gunny Aug 21 2007, 03:04 AM
QUOTE (Arnold Johnston @ Aug 20 2007, 07:35 AM)
QUOTE (Odst gunny @ Aug 19 2007, 11:20 PM)
"... I have that [sic] excat weapon I bought mine at a specil handgun store!"

Seriously... why would anyone pay $1250 for a handgun that holds 7 rounds and weighs 4.4 lbs completely unloaded? Let's take a look at reasons why anyone would need a handgun that fired .50 caliber bullets. Bear hunting... uh.... hmm... yeah, that's about it, and even then you're going way overboard with your choice of firearm. I own a Sig Sauer P229 .40 cal, and to be honest, I don't think I'd ever bother to replace it. First off, it's a good caliber for home defense, powerful enough to put someone down in one or two shots, and (so long as I'm using hollow points) weak enough to not go straight through the walls of my townhouse and kill my neighbor and their kid, and the family pet in the next unit past that one. And don't give me any shit about "but the .50 will put someone down in one hit and they won't get back up!" It's bullshit.

If someone breaks into my house while I'm there and I pull my gun on them one of three things will happen. A) They run. cool.gif They stay right where they are with their hands in the air until the police arrive. C) They do something stupid, make me feel that my life is being threatened, and get shot.

If "C" is the option that occurs and I have either of those two fore mentioned firearms one shot is going to stop the retard. Whether I hit him in the arm, leg, chest, belly, or head one shot is going to put him down and likely keep him there. I don't know about the rest of you, but unless you're in a "combat" situation you're never really ready to be shot. In an every day situation (which that likely would be for someone breaking into my house) your adrenaline isn't going to start pumping fast enough to allow you to recover from a .40 to the chest or stomach and keep coming at me (unless you're on PCP or some other silly drug). Sure, the assailant might not die immediately, but how many people do you know personally that have been shot in the chest at close range and lived to tell the tale? I can name all of none (that weren't wearing body armor).

Now, for arguments sake, let's say my .40 hit them in the leg. Has anyone here actually been shot before? How about been next to someone when they were shot? I'm going to say that out of the 90 or so members here maybe two, three max can honestly say yes. And if you write back here and say yet, I'm going to want pictures to prove it, because most of you would say yes just to look cool. Anyhow... if said assailant gets shot in the leg, and it doesn't just pass right through muscle, they leg is going to get broken. That's the nature of a round that's larger than a 9mm. Bullets break bone. Period. So, I'm sure at least a dozen of you have actually broken your leg, so, was it easy to stand on? How about running, were you doing a lot of that after breaking said leg? Didn't think so.

As for the arm shot, well, there's about a 89% chance that said asshole turns tail and runs. Will they come back? Who knows. If it were me and you shot me in the arm I'd assume that you weren't that good a shot and hope that the next asshole that broke into your place had a gun on them and returned fire, but I wouldn't be asshole enough to try again and push my luck.

Any way you look at it you can't honestly say the the DE is a better handgun for ANYTHING than any other lighter, more wieldable handgun. All of those neat little benefits you get (having huge fucking bullets... yep, that's about it) are outweighed by the fact that unloaded it weighs 4.4 lbs and after you fire the first shot you're not going to be able to fire again (accurately) for another 2 to 3 seconds. And I'll tell you what, if someone pulled a DE on me and I had my Sig and they fired and missed, they had better pray to little 8lb 6oz baby Jesus that my bullets are duds, because I'm going to put two into their chest before they can get another shot off at me.

Arnold it depends on whos the fastest. What other guns do you own? Mine are:

Desert Eagle
Mac-1O
WW2 B.A.R (working condition baby! laugh.gif)
M16A1
M4A3
Baby Eagle

Posted by: Arnold Johnston Aug 21 2007, 03:25 AM
QUOTE (Odst gunny @ Aug 20 2007, 10:04 PM)
"... [sic] it depends on whos the fastest..."

No... it doesn't. I'm pretty sure that I quantified just who was faster. But that wasn't even the point. The point was, why bother owning something that's more expensive than something else that can do the job better? If you want to waste your money that's fine, but I still don't get why the DE has been put on this pedestal of legendary status as a firearm. It's a piece of crap. It weighs almost as much as a friggin M-16 and it's only 1/16th the size.

As for other firearms that I own, the only other one I've got is a Lee Enfield Mk. V jungle carbine circa 1945 based on what I can tell from the manufacturing stamps. I think it was tooled and assembled in Canada. Nice rifle, kind of has a wandering zero, but Enfield engineered that in so that the British government would finally accept a semi-automatic gas operated rifle. Fires a British .303, a bit expensive as far as ammo goes, but it's tolerable considering how many times a year I break the thing out to fire it.

Posted by: Odst gunny Aug 21 2007, 03:36 AM
SURE IS Just like ammo for my B.A.R! laugh.gif

Posted by: Gideon Aug 21 2007, 03:49 AM
.303 is harder to get than 30-06. Where i live at they let 8 year old kids buy the bullets. Now trying to get the Dragunov rounds i harder, from what various people have told me.

Posted by: Odst gunny Aug 21 2007, 10:01 PM
Today I bought a 45. ACP tommy gun for $120,000! ohmy.gif

Posted by: Gideon Aug 22 2007, 02:37 AM
Allright, considering i could get one assigned to me for free when i become a cop in Raccoon City, Tenessee. Good for you

Posted by: Odst gunny Aug 22 2007, 11:00 AM
QUOTE (Gideon @ Aug 22 2007, 02:37 AM)
Allright, considering i could get one assigned to me for free when i become a cop in Raccoon City, Tenessee. Good for you

tongue.gif Lucky

Posted by: Arnold Johnston Aug 24 2007, 12:56 AM
QUOTE (Odst gunny @ Aug 21 2007, 05:01 PM)
Today I bought a 45. ACP tommy gun for $120,000!

I find your level of income disturbing... I make a good living, but I'd never EVER pay $120,000 for a firearm... a car, absolutely, a motorcycle, maybe, a house, absolutely! But not a firearm... wtf is wrong with you?

Posted by: Arnold Johnston Aug 24 2007, 12:58 AM
That is... assuming that I believe that you actually make enough to pay over 100k for a gun... however, I do find that just the tiniest bit hard to swallow...

Posted by: Odst gunny Aug 24 2007, 02:43 AM
QUOTE (Arnold Johnston @ Aug 24 2007, 12:56 AM)
QUOTE (Odst gunny @ Aug 21 2007, 05:01 PM)
Today I bought a 45. ACP tommy gun for $120,000!

I find your level of income disturbing... I make a good living, but I'd never EVER pay $120,000 for a firearm... a car, absolutely, a motorcycle, maybe, a house, absolutely! But not a firearm... wtf is wrong with you?

I rasie alot by doin job to job I have about 250,000 to 500,000each month

Posted by: Arnold Johnston Aug 24 2007, 05:29 PM
So what I'm hearing is that you make a minimum of 3 million dollars a year... somehow I think that's a load of crap, but if it's not, congrats on living the dream brother.

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)