Sounds like people need to learn to shoot with the m16 ironsights.
Moan moan moan. Don't you relish a challenge? Go US engineer, no scope, no armour.. now go get those MEC riflemen.. u pussies.
EDIT: TBH if someone has there back to you and you fire first.. there is NO reason, except for poor marksmanship for not makng the kill.
Whoa whoa whoa ... I actually can't believe you said that. These people were talking about getting shot having an effect. We all have had a screwed up one shot incident. This isn't an M-16 vs. G3 thing. He was using an example. Im so flabbergasted by your comment I really don'tknow what to say to you.
Dan just was seeing how people felt about having something happen (like it would in real life) when you get shot. In combate lots of the time when a soldier gets hit he has to be takin away to get medical attention, because he HAS BEEN SHOT (minus vest shots). You dont see them spin 180 and shoot the guy because they are on the floor yelling medic or trying to find cover.
I agree with something being added after your shot. It would add reality to getting shot since now that surprisive fire will work better adding getting shot will make things even better.
Get over the G3and M-16 thing and think of all the weapons.
Posted: 2007-12-12 21:47
by danthemanbuddy
I was just having a g3 rant, I can kill very good with the unzoomed ironsight m16 and I love it, with the zoomed one I kill good enough to steal another kit haha.
But Seven is right, we need something to scare people. If you get shot once you wouldn't be able to fire back immediately (like a python delay or visual disturbance). Would make suppression more applicable.
Can I get a dev response on this? You guys might be reading but we don't know that and it seems like good possible suggestions drift into the back pages...
Posted: 2007-12-13 01:01
by Sgt_Canadian_Floss
I like the delay idea, some kind of lag right after you get shot.
Of course, add effects to make it nicer.
Posted: 2007-12-13 01:12
by nedlands1
Wellink wrote:nedlans i think the g3 does more damage than that, 2 shots and you are dead without bleeding. and 1 shot makes you bleed feels like the g3 does around 60 damage or something.
The G3A3's damage used to 62. That is on par with the SVD. I suspect you do actually bleed but instantaneously when the second round hits. This would bring the damage up past 100 which entails death.
I am getting my information from the horses mouth. I have taken the relevant data from each weapon's .tweak file. These files actually direct the behavior of different weapons.
Posted: 2007-12-13 11:37
by Flanker15
How about instead of getting blurred/slowed when you get shot, it happens when bullets just miss you (not just when they hit the ground near you). This way MGs could suppress infantry and when you shoot someone they will be less able to return fire effectively.
Posted: 2007-12-13 17:53
by Gyberg
Flanker15 wrote:How about instead of getting blurred/slowed when you get shot, it happens when bullets just miss you (not just when they hit the ground near you). This way MGs could suppress infantry and when you shoot someone they will be less able to return fire effectively.
The effect should happen in both scenarios....
Posted: 2007-12-13 23:48
by Doom721
nedlands1 wrote:G3 isn't too overpowering now. Stats as follows:
M16/G3
Damage: 36/48
RoF (rpm): 900/600
Damage per second (theoretical): 540/480
Upwards Recoil (min): 0.65/0.85
Upwards Recoil (max): 1.55/1.95
Left Recoil: 0.5/0.6
Right recoil: 0.5/0.6
In a CQC scenario, the G3 can fire 2 shots in the time it takes the M16 to fire a three round burst. The G3 would do 96 damage vs the M16's 108. If all rounds hit, both parties would be dead. The G3 has greater recoil than the M16 but I'm not sure if the range of recoil for 2 rounds of automatic fire from the G3 is less than that of the three rounds of the M16. This is the deciding factor for which weapon is better in CQC.
The M16 has less recoil, along with more rounds to play with, making it ideal for follow-up headshots. This IMO makes it better than the G3 at range. You can survive a single shot from a G3 and use that time to carefully line up a headshot.
The player with the M16 is going to get creamed after that first burst, and the G3 will still keep kicking..
And concerning the G3 in single shot scoped, it is almost as good as a free sniper rifle I swear when I end up as MEC I am in for ONE hell of a trip, in fact im spending time on the forums too much, AND NOW IM GOING TO PLAY SOME G3 WOOT
EDIT: I do believe we need a "different" less hardcore blur for when you get shot, much like the blur when a tank shot goes off next to you, or something to give the "First shot" guy the advantage, even if its just a .5 second delay after you take more than one hit to the ribs
Posted: 2007-12-14 00:24
by Crusader09
Most likely some type of screen shake effect can be done as AIX has something similar and BF2142 has this and is the same engine. Now, if the screen shake can be placed and activated only when you take a shot somewhere on your body, then randomize in terms of how much of a sudden shake it is depending on the hit, then we may have a good system.
Posted: 2007-12-14 04:16
by Anxiety
I rekon the best idea so far has been to do something about the fact that you can shoot super-effectivally after being shot , maybe make it so there is a slight blur depending on stance /zoom/ what your doing .
Like I never have been , but i would imagine if i've been shot , i'm going to find it hard to focus ...
Posted: 2007-12-14 06:53
by nedlands1
Crusader09 wrote:Most likely some type of screen shake effect can be done as AIX has something similar and BF2142 has this and is the same engine. Now, if the screen shake can be placed and activated only when you take a shot somewhere on your body, then randomize in terms of how much of a sudden shake it is depending on the hit, then we may have a good system.
BF2142's engine is not the same as BF2's engine. It is a based upon the BF2 engine. You can't just bring over 2142 specific features like weapon sway on a whim.
Posted: 2007-12-14 11:18
by MadTommy
SevenOfDiamonds wrote:Whoa whoa whoa ... I actually can't believe you said that. These people were talking about getting shot having an effect. ..
well i heard people talking about shooting someone who had their back to them, and then them turning around and killing them with one shot.
In other words moaning about hitboxes. If the shots don't register, no added effect will help.
If i shoot you twice in the back .. you die. Unless i miss or have a BF2 hitbox bollocks.
The effect of being shot twice should be death.. not some fuzzy effect thigy.
Sorry to dissapoint you Seven but thats my view on this subject.
Suppressive fire effects for near misses is a different subject.
EDIT: TBH if the question was possed to me.. Should there be a greater effect when you recieve a bullet wound? I'd agree.. and say yes.
But the above, maybe incorrectly, sounded like a moan about hitboxes. Effects of getting hit should not matter when someone has their back to you.
2nd Edit: I have been shot before.. with a 12 gauge.. so i have some experience. I did not realise i had been shot at the time. I took me a minute to figure out what had hit me. It would not of stopped me firing my gun. With a mixture of adrenaline and endorphins i'd say i was quite capable of defending myself.
Posted: 2007-12-14 15:17
by Gyberg
MadTommy wrote:2nd Edit: I have been shot before.. with a 12 gauge.. so i have some experience. I did not realise i had been shot at the time. I took me a minute to figure out what had hit me. It would not of stopped me firing my gun. With a mixture of adrenaline and endorphins i'd say i was quite capable of defending myself.
Ok, glad you made it! With your experience from this, do you think that you would have been able to return effective and accurate fire after getting hit by a 5.56 or a 7.62?
Posted: 2007-12-14 18:52
by Waaah_Wah
Cant the dark screen thinggy you get when walking out of bounts of a map be used for around 2 sec after getting shot?
Posted: 2007-12-14 21:39
by VipersGhost
I know this issue is about the bullet-hit-impact effect and that should be 100% included in the mod if possible...it really is one of the #1 issues with the infantry play whether we realize it or not.
On a side note.
nedlands1 wrote:G3 isn't too overpowering now. Stats as follows:
M16/G3
Damage: 36/48
RoF (rpm): 900/600
Damage per second (theoretical): 540/480
Upwards Recoil (min): 0.65/0.85
Upwards Recoil (max): 1.55/1.95
Left Recoil: 0.5/0.6
Right recoil: 0.5/0.6
Anyone see the problem here?
Reality:
M16 recoil - 4.1 ft/lbs
G3 recoil - 16 ft/lbs (this is a the lower value of the spectrum)
So in game it should be .65/2.6 if we were to use the existing values. We would probably not do the full 4x greater value but DEFINITELY something far more representative of the argument. Eitherway this kind of stuff effects all the guns and certainly is a factor of this issue. Bullet impact gives SMG's and the smaller round some advantage as it should, but the exaggerated abilities of some guns, especially in CQB, are also due to improper recoil models (that are of course being fixed, I'm sure).
Posted: 2007-12-14 22:02
by Sabre_tooth_tigger
Gyberg wrote:Ok, glad you made it! With your experience from this, do you think that you would have been able to return effective and accurate fire after getting hit by a 5.56 or a 7.62?
I agree, the devs need to show greater commitment to research
Posted: 2007-12-14 22:18
by VipersGhost
Something tells me that taking a hit to the vest is quite different from being pelted with buckshot. How about we consult the film.
VipersGhost;550288 wrote:Something tells me that taking a hit to the vest is quite different from being pelted with buckshot. How about we consult the film.
