Bodyhit blood effect

[ExeTick]

I would like it to stay.

it might not be realistic but its a "funny" thing to have ingame and made the game little bit more enyojable for me. so I would like the blood effect to stay but I wouldnt be to butthurt if it were removed.

[Alfa]

All of these hit indicators can also be quite frustrating due to bf2's really shitty registry/hit detection. It would probably be better to just not have any hit indicator i.e. blood, dust, etc. since many times they just give the shooter a false positive hit, which can lead to quite a bit of frustration. IMO it'd be better to not know if you hit the enemy or not, rather than seeing that you "hit" him when in actuality he's perfectly fine.

And also, like a lot of people have said already, it's really, really unrealistic. You'd never see these red paintball splatters in reality

[ExeTick]

I have been hit many times and seen blodspatter on me. but I didnt get wounded.

[Nate.]

All of these hit indicators can also be quite frustrating due to bf2's really shitty registry/hit detection. It would probably be better to just not have any hit indicator i.e. blood, dust, etc. since many times they just give the shooter a false positive hit, which can lead to quite a bit of frustration. IMO it'd be better to not know if you hit the enemy or not, rather than seeing that you "hit" him when in actuality he's perfectly fine.

This, how often did I see my enemy end up in fountains of blood only to shoot me when I turn my back on him because - surprise - turns out I did not hit him at all. It happens a lot that you get hit ("bleed") but do not take any damage.
It is really frustrating and makes people rage at the game's mechanics. Removing the hit indicator (dust, blood) would make people uncertain of their hit and therefore cause less rage and more care when killing enemies

[Celestial1]

With the low fidelity of BF2, I'd much, much rather have blood spurts to see that I'm hitting the target than remove them entirely just to prevent the few times in CQB when I see blood spurts but don't get a kill.

They are not perfect, and they can be misgiving at times, but they serve a great purpose in making up for the inability to see where shots are landing at longer ranges in BF2.

[Mats391]

With the low fidelity of BF2, I'd much, much rather have blood spurts to see that I'm hitting the target than remove them entirely just to prevent the few times in CQB when I see blood spurts but don't get a kill.

They are not perfect, and they can be misgiving at times, but they serve a great purpose in making up for the inability to see where shots are landing at longer ranges in BF2.

well thats what tracers are for. Also with the new impact effects on ground, statics etc. it is easy to see where your shots are landing, you would just not know if they hit the soldier you aim on.

[Celestial1]

well thats what tracers are for. Also with the new impact effects on ground, statics etc. it is easy to see where your shots are landing, you would just not know if they hit the soldier you aim on.

1 tracer/4 ball load, I can fire 4 shots without seeing a tracer and occasionally you'll miss seeing the tracer too. In certain lighting situations, not very useful.

Impact effects do not render at long distances, or at extreme distances can be extremely hard to spot on certain maps (esp. desert). Blood still tends to be visible most of the time, and of course is the only effect you will see when shooting at someone who is sky-lining.

Blood's nice.

[DesmoLocke]

Keep the blood.

I'd rather have my character spew out blood than dust.
"Oh look my body is made of dust!"

[richyrich55]

Here's a good idea to the idiots who get shot in the back all the time after encountering an enemy CQB style: IF YOU SEE AN ENEMY THAT YOU CAN SHOOT AND KILL, YOU KEEP YOUR GOD DAMN MOUSE BUTTON PRESSED UNTIL HE ISN'T STANDING.

Why ***** and complain if it's your own fault you f**ked up?

As for the bloodeffect, turn it back to dust. We usually fight in sandy environments, Dev's. You know this. And if you have all these military advisers that you say you do, and are supposedly going for realism, why would you add such an unrealistic effect? I think someone's lying to the masses. If you had all those f**king advisers, you wouldn't have put the blood effect in the game and you would've created a darker dust cloud for woodland environments, and kept the dusty/sandy poof for the desert environments. You even have all these fancy new effects, yet you included the blood.. Not smart, boys. Not smart at all. I've been playing bf2 since 2006, Pr since... .5 or earlier? I know when something added is completely unnecessary. I know when I have a good suggestion, and you need to heed these thoughts FOR THE SAKE OF THE "REALISM" GAME you keep developing year after year.

Turn the bloodeffect back to the dust we used to love. Yea it's cool seeing someone explode with blood.. but this is a realism game, is it not? Or have you Dev's been playing too much CoD and other retarded games that have retarded blood effects and retarded, unrealistic things that don't belong in a game?


Get back to the Realism. Stop this f**king arcade sh*t.

And further more, I highly suggest looking at videos of people getting shot so you can finally understand that a stupid "bloodcloud" would NEVER HAPPEN through an entrance wound. It wouldn't even happen through the exit wound because of the velocity of the bullet. The bullet (and you dev's would know this if you had the advisers you say you do) would carry on through the object, and it would take the blood and shit with it. I've seen and do see people getting killed in videos, and I've seen a hundred people or more get shot in the face, what happens? BONE FRAGMENTS AND FLESH, NOT A CLOUD OF BLOOD AND BRAIN MATTER UNLESS YOU ARE USING A VERY LARGE CALIBER. The weapons PR has for infantry shoots between 5.56mm and 7.62mm. You WILL -NEVER- have a cloud of blood no matter what the hell a person is wearing because our blood isn't helium for f**k's sake. It's not a gas. Blood does NOT explode. So unless you are using a god damn 20mm AMR, you won't get a bloodcloud.

[ghostfool84]

Wait, where was that part how much dust is more realistic than blood? In PR there is no chance there is a realistic hit effect at all. When i shot a guy in the chest who stands in the middle of the street with no body armor with my lovely G3 7.62 round, i will see that i hit him because he will fall to the ground, in PR he wont...so we need something else and yeah something unrealistic. Because that what would happen irl does not happen in PR for Gameplay reasons even its unrealstic.

[richyrich55]

Ghost, you don't know what you're talking about. Dust - sandy environments. Darker dust - woodland environments. THINK. USE YOUR BRAIN BEFORE YOU SPEAK. IN PR there are MANY chances for realistic hits. USE YOUR EYES. Flinching generally means you got a hit, and if you know you VISUALLY hit him, and he doesn't go down.. what do you do? KEEP SHOOTING YOU MORON.


Noddy - user warned for insulting other forum members. If you can't make your argument without resorting to insults - step away from the keyboard.

[Bringerof_D]

lets just go ahead and assume that everyone understands that it's unrealistic. we all know there's no blood cloud when you get hit due to clothing catching most of the blood and when exposed parts that get hit will generally not provide a dense enough spray to create a visible cloud.

now then that said. i like it in game. As others have mentioned there is already a twitch to indicate a player being hit, but personally i would prefer to keep the blood and have the twitch removed. Neither is realistic, but at the very least the blood splat looks decent. the twitch anytime that i've noticed it is so quick and unnatural that it looks like the player model had a seizure.

while i agree that it is unrealistic, the blood splat can easily be improved to stay as a hit indicator while being less out of place. it would be wise to lower the saturation of the red coloration and darken it a bit as well. as it is now it is usually not too noticeable unless you are up close and firing full auto, or looking through a scope.

I say keep it, although unrealistic it adds to the game as a hit indicator without being a hit indicator and is far more aesthetically pleasing than the twitch animation.

[ghostfool84]

Ghost, you don't know what you're talking about. Dust - sandy environments. Darker dust - woodland environments. THINK. USE YOUR BRAIN BEFORE YOU SPEAK. IN PR there are MANY chances for realistic hits. USE YOUR EYES. Flinching generally means you got a hit, and if you know you VISUALLY hit him, and he doesn't go down.. what do you do? KEEP SHOOTING YOU MORON.

yeah you really know how discuss man, use more caps and insult the others, that will really add something to the thread. And dust is as unrealistic as blood is, maybe you start to think. The hit detection is important when people running away, you often dont realise really if you hit them before they got in cover even if you keep shooting...and without the fancy scopes you see shit if someone is twitching when he is more than 100m away cause ingame he simply keep running at full speed as nothing happens.

[Mats391]

I say keep it, although unrealistic it adds to the game as a hit indicator without being a hit indicator and is far more aesthetically pleasing than the twitch animation.

The hit indicator part for me is the main reason to remove it. As said before when i shoot at a prone soldier couple of hundred meters away and see a blood cloud coming out of his head i know that he is dead. In those situations you will see a false positives very rarely as both soldiers are stationary. With out this kind of hit effect (i dont want dust either) it wont be clear if the prone soldier is dead till he loses his kit geometries, so removing it would leave you few seconds longer in the dark.

ingame he simply keep running at full speed as nothing happens.

I already said that this could be changed
But anyway, i understand your point. So how about this:
1. make the blood more "real". Darken it and make the cloud smaller. overall less visible
2. remove the effect from headshots. This way you can still have the hitindication in CQB on running targets and on long range (prone) targets you wont know if you already landed the killing shot

[Walmarx]

Ragdoll physics (even with the newer, wonderfully more subtle systems) are the greatest kill indicators for me at all ranges, (up to around 400-500m, I almost never engage beyond that) but for prone targets especially. The target's head drops to the ground. This happens well before his kit drops.

Darker, less bright-pink blood sprites would look much better, I agree. I would also like to see the first-person effects removed if possible; although I fear they are simply the third-person entity seen in the player's FOV. First person false-positives happen to me constantly, and it is just silly to see a fountain of arterial gushing erupt from your face after crouching back behind cover.

[Celestial1]

Here's a good idea to the idiots who get shot in the back all the time after encountering an enemy CQB style: IF YOU SEE AN ENEMY THAT YOU CAN SHOOT AND KILL, YOU KEEP YOUR GOD DAMN MOUSE BUTTON PRESSED UNTIL HE ISN'T STANDING.

Why ***** and complain if it's your own fault you f**ked up?

As for the bloodeffect, turn it back to dust. We usually fight in sandy environments, Dev's. You know this. And if you have all these military advisers that you say you do, and are supposedly going for realism, why would you add such an unrealistic effect? I think someone's lying to the masses. If you had all those f**king advisers, you wouldn't have put the blood effect in the game and you would've created a darker dust cloud for woodland environments, and kept the dusty/sandy poof for the desert environments. You even have all these fancy new effects, yet you included the blood.. Not smart, boys. Not smart at all. I've been playing bf2 since 2006, Pr since... .5 or earlier? I know when something added is completely unnecessary. I know when I have a good suggestion, and you need to heed these thoughts FOR THE SAKE OF THE "REALISM" GAME you keep developing year after year.

Turn the bloodeffect back to the dust we used to love. Yea it's cool seeing someone explode with blood.. but this is a realism game, is it not? Or have you Dev's been playing too much CoD and other retarded games that have retarded blood effects and retarded, unrealistic things that don't belong in a game?


Get back to the Realism. Stop this f**king arcade sh*t.

And further more, I highly suggest looking at videos of people getting shot so you can finally understand that a stupid "bloodcloud" would NEVER HAPPEN through an entrance wound. It wouldn't even happen through the exit wound because of the velocity of the bullet. The bullet (and you dev's would know this if you had the advisers you say you do) would carry on through the object, and it would take the blood and shit with it. I've seen and do see people getting killed in videos, and I've seen a hundred people or more get shot in the face, what happens? BONE FRAGMENTS AND FLESH, NOT A CLOUD OF BLOOD AND BRAIN MATTER UNLESS YOU ARE USING A VERY LARGE CALIBER. The weapons PR has for infantry shoots between 5.56mm and 7.62mm. You WILL -NEVER- have a cloud of blood no matter what the hell a person is wearing because our blood isn't helium for f**k's sake. It's not a gas. Blood does NOT explode. So unless you are using a god damn 20mm AMR, you won't get a bloodcloud.

Ghost, you don't know what you're talking about. Dust - sandy environments. Darker dust - woodland environments. THINK. USE YOUR BRAIN BEFORE YOU SPEAK. IN PR there are MANY chances for realistic hits. USE YOUR EYES. Flinching generally means you got a hit, and if you know you VISUALLY hit him, and he doesn't go down.. what do you do? KEEP SHOOTING YOU MORON.


Noddy - user warned for insulting other forum members. If you can't make your argument without resorting to insults - step away from the keyboard.

Je-Frickin'-Sus.

This topic is more and more becoming a color-of-the-bikeshed argument.

[ChallengerCC]

Blood so real!

>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... KWdOs#t=66 <<

In the moment the blood effect is way to strong.

[Arc_Shielder]

It's funny, because when there was no blood, people would make suggestions to add it.
Now that we added it, people make suggestions to remove it.

It's a weird world .

That's because those who are against tend to lobby the most. Remove it and you'll have hordes claiming to have it back.

Unrealistic as it might be, I like it now. It just suits the game.

[ChallengerCC]

That's because those who are against tend to lobby the most. Remove it and you'll have hordes claiming to have it back.

Unrealistic as it might be, I like it now. It just suits the game.

What about not thinking in black and white more in greys?

So let reduce blood and dont remove it ? The world could be so simple.
And this change is realy a important one. (danger ironic)

[Heavy Death]

I noticed the blood when ait was first introduced: "Hey, looks cool!"

Never noticed it again, despite playing almost every evening.

Noticed it again on Dyslecxis video on stereotypical snipers: "Hey, looks cool!"