Mikemonster wrote:Yes it is, it happens every time I suggest something and always has done, with nil feedback as to why.
Yet I see really stupid suggestions crop up all the time in the name of 'realism'. Like knives for pilot kits. Is that really a priority for discussion, or worthy of discussing? On a related note, the suggestion to allow pilots to be passengers was also allowed. It's really inconsistent.
Currently the .50 is represented 'realistically' but it doesn't work like it is intended to and used for in 'real life'.
If you really want to go down this root, fine just this one time thou as its a waste of my time, which is why we don't approve these threads.
Out of all the suggestion topics you've posted in the last few months, I'll give you quick reasons why it hasn't been approved:
Give HMG's limited splash damage to simulate wall penetration.
Not going to happen because of how penetration in BF2 works. The thing you need to understand is that penetration in BF2, is nothing like penetration in r/l. When you penetrate a wall in BF2, you only have to penetrate the initial "face", in r/l, the bullet has to travel though solid matter than can be xxx thick. BF2 has no idea how thick a face is, other than what material its assigned to the face. If we suddenly made concrete walls penetrable by 50cal rounds, this would mean that 50cal rounds could penetrate entire buildings, going in one side of a non-enterable building, and coming out the other 10m away, with only loosing a bit of damage (energy) like it only passed though a few mm of wall. We could start making loads of different "wall thickness" materials, to each material that had different levels of penetration and then we could start adding them to our col meshes but this is a massive, and I do mean massive, amount of work, as not only do you need to code all these materials up and test them, but the real issue is editing all the col meshes to have this which is a serious amount of time, and something we, the devs, don't have anything like enough free time to do. As such, if this was ever going to be done, it would need to be done by someone outside of the Dev team, who knows how to do this, which is very unlikely since its not a simple skill set, only me and a few other PR Devs would know how to do this and be able to do everything involved with it, and I would have to drop all my projects for a few months to be able to do this...
Disallow either Standing OR Crouch fire for HAT to stop crouch spamming.
In BF2, the only option we have to disable firing from stances is "Only allow weapon to be fired in prone". We do not have options to disable firing in any other stances, such as only standing, only prone, etc, we can either have firing in all stances, or only firing in prone. That is the only two options we have. And only HAT with low tripos are ever fired from a prone position, and only when they are on that tripod.
Make both caches known, no Unknowns.
As per the title really, at least this way players can't do the wrong thing.
Hopefully this should give Blufor a fairer chance on maps as well as completely nullifying ghosting.
Discuss..
Was more of a discussion topic than a suggestion, as such, didn't really belong is the suggestions forum, but no big reason I can see why it wasn't approved, was most likely just missed or thought to be something we don't want.
Squad Objective markers (per Squad)
Code doesn't allow for Squad Leaders to place markers directly, as your suggesting. Markers must be done though the commander and squad leader can already use the waypoint etc markers for this.
Overall, the approval system is to weed out re-suggestions (which I'm sure some of yours are) and to cut out the ones that are not possible to do etc.
Anyways back on topic please people.
and the in air action 
I also really love Burning Sands.. because of the chinooks 
