no friendly/enemy tags

Tacticsniper815 · Post by **Tacticsniper815** » 2006-01-16 06:30

hey i dont remember if you already did this but do you think you could turn the friendly/enemy tags off to increase realism and that way you have to responde to muzzle flashes or smoke

Post by **Hitperson** » 2006-01-16 08:21

said before remember the search button is you friend good call though but we have looked at this several times.

dawdler · Post by **dawdler** » 2006-01-16 11:53

Hitperson wrote:said before remember the search button is you friend good call though but we have looked at this several times.

Its a forum, one can always discuss over and over and over again

My opinion: When we play the game, we want to know who we are playing with. If there where no friendly tags, you would have absolutely no way of knowing who the soldier in front of you is. And that my friend is INCREDIBLY UNREALISTIC. Doesnt military men have their names on their uniforms?

Enemy tags is a slightly different thing... But for gameplay, I think they still should show when you've had your crosshair over them for a while. Not realistic, but what fun would it be if you played against people without names? That's called SINGLEPLAYER, when all enemies are anonomys "units". And its not very fun when the game is actually a multiplayer game.

Post by **Hitperson** » 2006-01-16 12:53

Very true i conceed

Maj.b00bz · Post by **Maj.b00bz** » 2006-01-16 13:39

In the real world, it's difficult to say the least, to properly identify people at range. PR does a very good job of simulating it. Combat is chaos and with the smoke and concussions, fog of war, anything outside of 100 meters is often not a good idea to shoot at. Unless you are a small team of highly trained pros who know where each other is at all times (Spec Forces). A running infantry battle is very hard to keep track of. You generally know where your squad mates are within 25m or so and recognition is not too difficult at that range. PR has a good system in place to balance that - no enemy tags and and friendly tags at close range.

That being said, with computer pixels and resolutions varying widley across the player base, it might not be a bad idea to consider a 10 second timer to identify troops at longer range, (say 200m) hold the sights on a target for ten seconds, then I can see have the tag show up after that. The human eye can discern subtle diferences in the way a person stands, his personal gear and weapon. In the game the pixeling of units at longer range hurts that IFF ability.

Over 200 meters and I would have say no to any IFF tags. An exception would be a sniper scope or binos. Then it could be extended to 500m. That's probably too hard to code though.

Post by **BrokenArrow** » 2006-01-16 19:19

10 seconds is an eternity in BF2

.

I think it's good the way it is, if you aren't sure what you're looking at, don't shoot.

Friendly tags should stay within a distance, I've read more than a few military books where the soldiers say they can 'tell who someone is at a distance in the dark just by how they move'. Obviously you can't do this in a game, so the tags work just as well.

Tacticsniper815 · Post by **Tacticsniper815** » 2006-01-18 02:33

well you realize in a combat situation you dont know who you're shooting at they're too far to recognize so they have to respond to flashes and smoke oh and another thing where the hell are the muzzle flashes in this mod? anyway you're never sure who you're shooting at. my grand dad told me this he was in vietnam he only saw some enemy troops about once or twice rest were just flashes and smoke.

Figisaacnewton · Post by **Figisaacnewton** » 2006-01-18 05:29

I say no nametags or floating squad leader numbers for anybody in the actual game. i'm fine with them on a map or something though. names should only appear for freindlies when they are literally within like 6 meteres, really close.

F.N.G. · Post by **F.N.G.** » 2006-01-18 06:48

I like it the way it is, but I wish they were a little smaller. Those things sometimes block your view.

And I hate it when there is an enemy standing by a wall and there is a friendly on the other side of that same wall and you think the enemy is the friendly. Man that sucks. You cant tell until they fir at you. Then it's too late.

Post by **BrokenArrow** » 2006-01-18 20:41

I agree the nametags are very large.

Tacticsniper815 · Post by **Tacticsniper815** » 2006-01-19 00:42

extremely large i also agree with him

Post by **Wolfmaster** » 2006-01-19 15:52

Would it be a good idea to replace nametags (which are big and block your vision) with simple dots or the like simply colored differently to distinguish friendly and enemy forces?

F.N.G. · Post by **F.N.G.** » 2006-01-19 21:21

I like having no tags or indicators for the enemy. Too many people use them to spot(otherwise hidden) enemy troops. I think using the current system with smaller names would work just fine in my opinion.

Post by **BrokenArrow** » 2006-01-20 00:07

Agreed.

Heydude235 · Post by **Heydude235** » 2006-01-20 00:07

I could careless about name tags

DEDMON5811 · Post by **DEDMON5811** » 2006-01-20 00:18

Heydude235 wrote:I could careless about name tags

Then don't post if you have nothing constructive to say.

Name tags should be completely removed or placed just on the ground of freindly right next to you.

Post by **BrokenArrow** » 2006-01-20 00:20

How about something like DOD where there is a small icon denoting the team (only seen on friendlies) and then looking directly at them shows their name.

Or just remove nametags for people you aren't looking directly at.

DEDMON5811 · Post by **DEDMON5811** » 2006-01-20 00:21

yeah nametags should only appear on friendly troops within lets say 20 meters. and they should be low or on the ground to avoid the blockage of view

Post by **BrokenArrow** » 2006-01-20 00:23

Heydude please refrain from doing that ever again.

Having the tags on the ground could work, although they may obstruct views of very important things. Like C4 or claymores. However if they only appeared when you looked at the player directly that would be much better to have them on the ground.

DEDMON5811 · Post by **DEDMON5811** » 2006-01-20 00:25

Heydude We can take them out if we want;

damn hard to deal with little kids sometimes.