Dunham explains, Faction Specific Weapons

[HTK]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
zpr_DunhamSmash wrote:

To clarify how it works:



In single-player mode, the weapons you start the game with are sparse. Because of story reasons, you don't have the opportunity to return to a base or depot to stock-up on new guns. Instead, you must scavenge weapons from enemies as you progress (picking up a weapon then adds it to your loadout possibilities in subsequent levels).



In multiplayer mode, however, your weapons depend on what side you're on for that match. Or to put it in a way that matters most to you, your clan shouldn't be affected at all in the way you described because changing weapon access is as simple as changing the side you're on for that match (the one caveat, though, is that your access will only be limited to the weapons you've unlocked).



Specific details about how you unlock those additional multiplayer weapons, etc, we still haven't revealed yet (as you know).






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Awesome! As long as its not like Confrontation I'm happy.

[korten12]

well thats good to hear.

[buchanans]

Told you guys were getting worked up about this prematurely. Now I'm just curious if we need to be a SEAL character if we want to use SEAL gear and pick a Spetsnaz guy if we want to use Spetsnaz gear, hope so.

[HTK]

Jul 26, 2010 12:51:38 GMT -5 buchanans said:

Told you guys were getting worked up about this prematurely. Now I'm just curious if we need to be a SEAL character if we want to use SEAL gear and pick a Spetsnaz guy if we want to use Spetsnaz gear, hope so.

hey hey hey buch it was still a good debate, of course I stole your idea but I did CITE your name hahahaha

[So-Krack]

as long as it's not like Confrontation that's it's fine with me. And I'm glad that Jeremy actually commented on that. There would have been a lot of worried people pulling their hair out over this issue.

Now, to me....it sounds like each map will be a specific faction. So for example you play "map #1" and the "commando" side will consist of "SAS" giving you the ability to use the SAS weaponry. Then you go on to play "map #2" and that side will consist of Seals giving you their capabilities.

Either that, or the matches will consist of for example, Seals vs. Sas, which is what he meant by switching sides. (highly doubt this scenario)

I'm jumping the gun here I'm sure, I'm just trying to make sense of what he said.

[HTK]

Welcome to the site sokrack. Also, it kind of hints at NO SIDE SWITCHING.

[So-Krack]

glad to be here man, it's a great site/forum. I was actually posting under socrack, but changed it today to sokrack considering my socom.com name is So-Krack. So if you or luke and rev or see this post, you can delete socrack as I'll be using this name from now on.

[unoj3w420]

good to see its not what we thought it was. just hope its not only certain weapons per map... if it is, its still better than thought (conf)

[Cyanide]

Wait...So no side switching?

[[PAs] PAs_SCORPION]

Sounds like no side-switching to me.. OH YES, there is a SANTA.. I knew it, I knew it.. haha

[So-Krack]

Jul 26, 2010 15:14:38 GMT -5 [PAs] PAs_SCORPION said:

Sounds like no side-switching to me.. OH YES, there is a SANTA.. I knew it, I knew it.. haha

one can only hope. I too kind of read into this as well. the quote,
"your weapons depend on what side you're on for THAT match. That, being the key word there.

[Cyanide]

Jul 26, 2010 15:14:38 GMT -5 [PAs] PAs_SCORPION said:

Sounds like no side-switching to me.. OH YES, there is a SANTA.. I knew it, I knew it.. haha

I never understood the hatred for it.

[[PAs] PAs_SCORPION]

Jul 26, 2010 15:35:51 GMT -5 Cyanide said:

Jul 26, 2010 15:14:38 GMT -5 [PAs] PAs_SCORPION said:

Sounds like no side-switching to me.. OH YES, there is a SANTA.. I knew it, I knew it.. haha

I never understood the hatred for it.

Because side switching = Even numbered rounds = Tie Breaker Issues = Unhappy Me. See what I did there.

[Cyanide]

Yeah, but tiebreakers lead to some boring-ass games. They would go on forever.

See what I did there?

[daviddoel]

So glad they cleared this up.

[HTK]

Jul 26, 2010 16:15:52 GMT -5 Cyanide said:

Yeah, but tiebreakers lead to some boring-ass games. They would go on forever.

See what I did there?

That almost deserves a ban right there. lol

[Philz20]

Yay!

[Cyanide]

Jul 26, 2010 16:44:46 GMT -5 HTK said:

Jul 26, 2010 16:15:52 GMT -5 Cyanide said:

Yeah, but tiebreakers lead to some boring-ass games. They would go on forever.

See what I did there?

That almost deserves a ban right there. lol

I'm a smart-ass.

A smart, smart-ass.

[SOCOM_TOUGH_GUY]

so if you beat the single player and scavenge all the guns then you should be good to go on MP?

[Philz20]

Jul 26, 2010 19:00:43 GMT -5 SOCOM_TOUGH_GUY said:

so if you beat the single player and scavenge all the guns then you should be good to go on MP?

No, how I'm interpreting this is scavenging guns in single player only benefits you in single player. Notice how Dunham said he can't reveal how additional weapons are unlocked in multiplayer.

[spacegerbil1]

Jul 26, 2010 16:15:52 GMT -5 Cyanide said:

Yeah, but tiebreakers lead to some boring-ass games. They would go on forever.

See what I did there?

[LUKENBACHER]

This is a fine lesson learned for why DETAILS are always important when giving the fanbase a MP reveal.

You have to choose your wording very carefully.....


Especially with Slant 6's ghost running around playing Casper with the fanbase.