Project Reality Forums

Nah, it's not a matter of a medic being there. Sometimes you were recently wounded and then a civilian shows up and throws a rock at your face.

Not that it'd really be a problem, this, to me, is a rather hypothetical discussion. I don't think I've ever been killed by a civie, but I don't think it should be possible to be killed by something that you're not allowed to fight back against.

Or specialist. They clear civvy's out of the way like a shark with a shoal of fish.

The people who I see getting killed by rocks in the game are almost always running around without a squad. Or they've split off from their squad, and decided to chase a civie with restrainers. I have no sympathy for them at that point. Arresting a civie should be a squad effort.

It's not like we're seeing mobs of civies taking down full squads with rocks. Rather it's like how predatory fish attack a school of fish. They wait for the stragglers to stray from the group and then pounce on them. If you don't want to find yourself getting pelted with rocks, simply stay close to your squad.(or carry a shotgun)

Edit: wow, two fish metaphors in a row, wtf?

I think you took my fish analogy a bit too far there mojo, the way I see it is that civvys with rocks are like those little dinosaurs in Jurassic Park, The Lost World who all kill that 'tazer guy' when he strays away from the group to go to the toilet in the woods.

He hurts a couple of them, but not critically, and then when he runs he panics and runs further away from his mates. Then the civvy's jump on him and bite him, and the river runs red for cinematic effect.

Or something. I got civvies and dinosaurs mixed up.

It's not like we're seeing mobs of civies taking down full squads with rocks.

Please understand that I'm not saying that it's a useful way of fighting to throw rocks at people in PR. I'm not saying it's not easy to deal with by having a medic and specialist around.

I'm merely saying that it is too unrealistic, in my opinion, to have civilians around whom you may not harm, but who may (however unlikely it is) harm (possibly killing) you.

i've already mentioned the one time i killed with a rock.

I've only ever died by rock twice. Once while i was stumbling around looking for a medic while i would assume very near black and white by that point. the other time getting pegged in the face by two of them after my squad got wiped out by their hidden pkm gunner.

rocks are fine the way they are, they do negligible damage anywhere but the head. the only way to get successful kills with them is A) be very VERY accurate B) be very very lucky, or C) run a squad called civi swarm

Every living thing or even inanimate object can be a threat in a combat environment. Person with rocks? threat. structurally weakened platform? threat. War isn't fair. We cant just shoot a civie who's throwing rocks at us. yeah he's trying to kill us perhaps, but he might not be working for the enemy, could be because you just rolled through his crop field with your tank.

Spec_Operator wrote:Please understand that I'm not saying that it's a useful way of fighting to throw rocks at people in PR. I'm not saying it's not easy to deal with by having a medic and specialist around.

I'm merely saying that it is too unrealistic, in my opinion, to have civilians around whom you may not harm, but who may (however unlikely it is) harm (possibly killing) you.

You may harm them all you want. It's frowned upon, but I would suggest killing them without hesitation when you feel your life is in danger, a ticket lost is more important than intelligence points.

badmojo420 wrote:You may harm them all you want. It's frowned upon, but I would suggest killing them without hesitation when you feel your life is in danger, a ticket lost is more important than intelligence points.

Not really 10 Intel points is 10 insurgents killed. 10 Insurgents can easily kill more than one person.

maniac1031 wrote:Not really 10 Intel points is 10 insurgents killed. 10 Insurgents can easily kill more than one person.

All the intel in the world won't help a blufor team if they run out of tickets. I know how the game works and in my opinion... tickets > intel. Disagree if you want.

I threw a rock at someone once. Wasn't bigger than my fist. Ended up going down to the cartilidge in someones knee. So no the rock is not OP when compared to a gun or being arrested with a shotty.

If civis trows rocks, just shoot em up. Its just one civi kill.

I disagree with the idea of making the way I play depend purely on whether it would be to my advantage in the game or not. That surely is a factor, but there's more important factors. One is this:

Either it's allowed to shoot civilians who throw rocks, which means I can do it, or it's forbidden by the game mechanics, in which case I won't do it, even if it would be to my advantage to do so. Exception: Custom rulesets on passworded servers, as I understand those as an own 'mod' of the game.

On a public server, however, I'll play the game the way it was meant to be played by the developers. And since they apparently didn't make rocks count as weapons, and punish me for shooting civilians who are not using vehicles, weapons or actively reviving someone, which includes rock-throwers, I understand that they don't want me to shoot them. So I won't. I do disagree with that though, which is why I discuss it here.

I'd like to be able to justify shooting them in accordance with the game rules when they are throwing rocks at me, and I'm sure there's means of coding that. If not, I'd at least want a clear statement that makes it a global rule that ROE can be ignored by players under special circumstances. Until then, (unarmed, outside of vehicle, non-reviving) civ-killing to me is like team-killing; absolutely forbidden under any circumstances. Even if a teamkiller tries to kill you, you aren't allowed to fight back, because it's against the rules to do so. I don't see how civilians would be any different unless that was clearly stated somewhere in the game documentation.

You misunderstand concept of game rules badly. The rules set by the devs are specific: loss of intel points, longer spawn time, blah blah blah. They could simply adminslay you or IP/Gameid ban you, but they don't. The penalty is what they intend it to be - it's been like that for several versions. It is up to the user to decide if the penalty is worth the benefit of shooting a civilian. If it truly were meant to be as bad as a TK, then the penalty would be the same as a punished TK.

I'm not saying I like this, it's just how it is - the message from the Dev team is clear - shooting collaborators is not ideal, but perfectly permissible. If you look at it any way other than that, you're not playing PR so much as role playing.

Tarranauha200 wrote:If the other team picks civvies, just shoot em up. Its just one civi kill.

Fix'd.

Doublepost because I can never resist this line of argument.

Wrong. The reason people aren't banned for shooting civilians is because accidental colleteral damage is an intended gameplay element. NOT calculated elimination for any benefit.

In fact, the penalties are as low as they are only because higher penalties would needlessly promote suicidal behaviour.

If the other team picks civvies, just shoot em up. Its just one civi kill.

That just results in less people picking civilians in the first place. The devs surely didn't add this kit in order for people to ignore it.

Spec_op if there were no punishments (ie, if the DEVs fully allowed killing collaborators at any time with no punishment) then the class would be unarmed for no reason. The punishments are there to discourage blufor from indiscriminately killing every collaborator they see. The punishments are obviously not to stop people from killing them, and I say obviously, because ultimately the system doesn't stop anyone, unlike the TK'ing system which bans people who constantly commit tk's.

Of course we'd all love a great system that could determine weather the collaborator should have been killed or not, by looking at the situation and circumstances surrounding the killing, but alas, this is just a modification on BF2, and I doubt anything that complex could be pulled off without many exploits & bugs. I'd love to be proved wrong on this, but I have little hope of that happening.

When I think about how the DEVs intended us to play PR in terms of collaborators, I think of situations like the Nasiriya assault in the HBO TV series Generation Kill. The Marines were taking mortar fire from inside the city, but they couldn't see any hostiles, they could only see unarmed men with binoculars who they suspected of spotting for the mortars. They requested a change in the ROE(rules of engagement) from the higher ups, and when that was granted they proceeded to kill the spotters by sniper. They decided that the collaborators were a threat and eliminated that threat.

If other civilians see unarmed Iraqis being sniped by the Marines, it's very likely that any local who would have assisted(intel) the US forces, might decide not to after seeing that. But, I'm sure if you ask a Marine officer how they felt that their reputation suffered in order to keep Marines from taking mortar fire, I doubt any would care. Heats and minds are important, but if you can't stay alive, all the hearts and minds aren't going to fight a war for you.

When I play PR I rarely kill collaborators. If they throw rocks, I'll move out of the way and tell the specialist to pull out his shotgun. If they're being a human shield for an armed insurgent, I kill them instantly. It's all about how much danger you or your forces are in, and will killing the unarmed collaborator help stop that threat.

*sigh*

I didn't demand to be allowed to shoot them at any time. Quite the opposite, I'm someone who'd want to never shoot them.

What I'm asking for, instead, is for the rock to be considered a weapon, simple as that. That can't be impossible to code. Maybe link it to the damage done; if a collaborator has killed a BluFor soldier, he's automatically considered a target for 5 minutes or something.

As for your generation kill example; that should not be one of the situations in which shooting them is allowed in PR. Reason: There's a lot less civilians in PR than in real life. Considering every one a possible target when mortar fire is taken doesn't make sense. Sure, that guy over there staring at you through binocs is likely helping the opposition. But just ignore him, because there's an imaginary "crowd" he's hiding in. Rocks on the other hand pose a direct threat an the only way to deal with them is taking out the one using them. Mortar fire doesn't come from the spotters, so while killing them blinds the mortar users, there's different means of stopping mortar fire (namely locating and counter-attacking the enemy mortar position).

The example wasn't meant to translate into PR directly. Our mortars are amazingly accurate and consistent even for non-conventional forces. The point was that they made the decision to kill unarmed collaborators. The insurgents were trying to use the Marines ROE against them by putting out unarmed spotters. So they had to "violate" the ROE for their safety.

Now take the rock situation in PR, it's not like a collaborator can sit there and hit a blufor soldier with rocks until he dies, in front of any other blufor players. As soon as you come into rock range, they always try to arrest you. The rock is only OP when it comes to 1 vs 1 battles.

I wouldn't mind what you suggested, if a collaborator kills a player they're vulnerable for a period. I'm not sure they could code it to where simply hitting a player makes him vulnerable. But, I'd agree with that also.

What I don't agree with is that holding or throwing rocks at stuff(that doesn't hit a person) should be considered hostile. As we've seen in the video posted earlier, throwing rocks at people who aren't allowed to shoot back is a realistic thing. I want to be able to harass the armor like a Palestinian kid.

As mentioned shooting a civilian is a tactical/strategic choice.. In some situations it's completely ok and the Ins team are in fact using civvy's incorrectly (without realising it they are pointless).

The penalties are there to reflect that it is a choice Blufor have to make.

With regards to allowing civvy's to throw rocks without fear of losing their protected status, as we've see, civvy's throw rocks in real life and it doesn't give the soldier the right to shoot them dead. In extreme circumstances they have been shot dead (justifiably), and PR allows this. But it's a decision that has pro's and cons.

With regards to shooting a civvy because he threw a rock and Wounded your squad mate, the action of Martyring him will outweigh the benefits of having him stop throwing rocks. So it's a soldiers choice, but really the game at the moment promotes 'realistic' behaviour (some people ignore it, but all they are doing [usually] is crippling their team [yes, there are times when it's worth it]).

If other civilians see unarmed Iraqis being sniped by the Marines, it's very likely that any local who would have assisted(intel) the US forces, might decide not to after seeing that.

No, they would not stop giving intel. They would give false intel and lead them into ambush.
Then some ak guys would blow their heads up.

This tread started about how much damage rocks should do. Now its about civi kill system??