Project Reality Forums

Emnyron wrote:"Blimey, Say good medic Sir, I seem to have found a .50 with my forehead.. Whoud you square your Starlight ARSE over here and stab me in my left ham with that magical pen of pixie dust and carebare stares?"

Sorry, this is Project Reality after all

It would be nice if you could make sure an enemy was down by shooting them in the head after they've gone down to remove their revive ability (so they have to respawn).

Though I must say this discussion is getting pretty gruesome.....

Emnyron wrote:Sigh.. You get shot in the noggin, You`re dead, not anymore of this "Blimey, Say good medic Sir, I seem to have found a .50 with my forehead.. Whoud you square your Starlight *** over here and stab me in my left ham with that magical pen of pixie dust and carebare stares?"

Exatly, one shot in the torso and you're lying down wounded then aswell?

Considering that soldiers are wearing body armor, this may be debatable ... let's take care of the headshot problem at first, IMO

Axel, im not following your logic.

Your saying yes to a headshot kill but then contradicting yourself saying we shouldnt stress a head shot kill? I dont get it.

And the way why it is 2-3 shots actually just 2. Is that you are wounded and bleeding after the first shot, depending on where ur shot, and by what caliber rifle you are shot with, then you are critically wounded and laying on the ground revivable, in critical state where you need a medics attention.

I believe engine does not allow you to just lay there and still be active pretending to be wounded.

The best alternative is to be moving still and bleeding out to the gray screen like we have now.

Everything about PR's getting shot is perfect, aside from head shots.

Reviving a person after being fatally wounded from a headshot is as believable as ghost hunters.

I call medics my personal Jesus. At least for this version....

1 shot in the head = death

1 shot anywhere on the body = critically wounded.

Problem solved, all shots are lethal so no bias and realism is involved too, rather that just nerfing everything to suit, its the other way round.

Alex6714 wrote: 1 shot anywhere on the body = critically wounded.
.

disagree , there should be a difference in Caliban capability for rifles. like now with G3vsm16/m4

ralfidude wrote:Axel, im not following your logic.

Your saying yes to a headshot kill but then contradicting yourself saying we shouldnt stress a head shot kill? I dont get it.

And the way why it is 2-3 shots actually just 2. Is that you are wounded and bleeding after the first shot, depending on where ur shot, and by what caliber rifle you are shot with, then you are critically wounded and laying on the ground revivable, in critical state where you need a medics attention.

I believe engine does not allow you to just lay there and still be active pretending to be wounded.

The best alternative is to be moving still and bleeding out to the gray screen like we have now.

Everything about PR's getting shot is perfect, aside from head shots.

Reviving a person after being fatally wounded from a headshot is as believable as ghost hunters.

I call medics my personal Jesus. At least for this version....

Alex6714 wrote:1 shot in the head = death

1 shot anywhere on the body = critically wounded.

Problem solved, all shots are lethal so no bias and realism is involved too, rather that just nerfing everything to suit, its the other way round.

^That's what I'm saying ralfi, 1 shot in the torso critically wounded, 1 shot in the head dead. The other opinion I layed out was that a fellow takes 2-3 shots to the torso but then again is revivable by taking a shot in the head.

By "stressing headshooting" I mean that it takes far too many shots to get a guy down by shooting him in a "nonhead" area, but he'll go down by a headshot, in my opinion that's more CS like.

English is not my first language so I might have screwed up abit in my latter posts.


"disagree , there should be a difference in Caliban capability for rifles. like now with G3vsm16/m4"

Yes, but couldn't it be some other differences than "gamey" damage differences, I know the 7.62 and so forth packs a bigger punch, but one still goes down after getting hit by a 5.56.

gazzthompson wrote:disagree , there should be a difference in Caliban capability for rifles. like now with G3vsm16/m4

True, but I think the main difference will be shown with recoil etc.

Although 5.56 should maybe be 1 shot = brings you down to 10/20% health.

And I am talking about rifles, not pistols or SMGs.

Alex6714 wrote:True, but I think the main difference will be shown with recoil etc.
.

and power, if G3 and M16 both 1 shot 1 kill like you said, but m16 rightfully has less recoil then m16 would dominate all over the field in every situation.

but one still goes down after getting hit by a 5.56.

theres serving personal on this forum that would disagree with that.

gazzthompson wrote:and power, if G3 and M16 both 1 shot 1 kill like you said, but m16 rightfully has less recoil then m16 would dominate all over the field in every situation.

The G3 still looks cool?, seriously speaking that would be the case yes, aren't there any ways to "assymetrically" balance it out?

Taking into consideration your last post gazz, maybe 1 hit by a 5.56mm round "only" severly wounds the one who is shot when 1 hit by a 7.62mm round critically wounds him.

Axel wrote:The G3 still looks cool?, seriously speaking that would be the case yes, aren't there any ways to "asymmetrically" balance it out?

Taking into consideration your last post gazz, maybe 1 hit by a 5.56mm round "only" severly wounds the one who is shot when 1 hit by a 7.62mm round critically wounds him.

its already is asymmetrically balanced.

G3 - powerful, massive recoil and poor CQB
m16 - low recoil and better cqb with higher rate of fire.

gazzthompson wrote:its already is asymmetrically balanced.

G3 - powerful, massive recoil and poor CQB
m16 - low recoil and better cqb with higher rate of fire.

So my last proposal wouldn't be too bad then?

The G3 is not THAT bad in CQB with iron sights.

So is a DEV going to comment on this or what? I'm surprised one of you guys havn't come in to at least ACKNOWLEDGE that you all have made a mistake with the new headshot rules.


Because with this overwhelming distaste for the new headshot rules, how could you DEV's say that this is a change for the better?

Say it out loud..... HEADSHOTS DO NOT KILL YOU PERMANENTLY, AN EPIPEN CAN REBUILD YOUR SKULL IN ONE SECOND....

yea... that sounds just fine.....

random pants wrote:So is a DEV going to comment on this or what? I'm surprised one of you guys havn't come in to at least ACKNOWLEDGE that you all have made a mistake with the new headshot rules.


Because with this overwhelming distaste for the new headshot rules, how could you DEV's say that this is a change for the better?

Say it out loud..... HEADSHOTS DO NOT KILL YOU PERMANENTLY, AN EPIPEN CAN REBUILD YOUR SKULL IN ONE SECOND....

yea... that sounds just fine.....

I would like to say "If you don't like it find another game and stop ranting/whining etc already and debate with some spine" but I won't.

random pants wrote:So is a DEV going to comment on this or what? I'm surprised one of you guys havn't come in to at least ACKNOWLEDGE that you all have made a mistake with the new headshot rules.


Because with this overwhelming distaste for the new headshot rules, how could you DEV's say that this is a change for the better?

Say it out loud..... HEADSHOTS DO NOT KILL YOU PERMANENTLY, AN EPIPEN CAN REBUILD YOUR SKULL IN ONE SECOND....

yea... that sounds just fine.....

why are you so angry all the time ?

HAhahahaah^^

Well alex, the thing about that is that we have armor. People can take a few shots before permenately going down.

Another thing to consider is that the hit box for the BF2 engine sux.

So implementing getting shot in specific areas is not possible with the BF2 engine. So thats another thing to consider.

Well, id love to have an DEV come down here and say a word or two about this. Perhaps why they changed the headshot kill to nonlethal anymore.

Well, for example, from the Ross kemp in Afghanistan series, one person gets a ricochet to the arm. Now thats not a big injury, he said he didn´t even notice it a first, but still he go mediced up and taken back to base, not mediced up in 5 seconds and back running into the fight.

The thing is, people already take a good amount of hits to kill, as you said yourself the netcode isn´t very good, and even after all that they can be revived infinite times (ammo depending) wherever and however much they are hit?

Either it weapons are deadly, forgetting about armour and people can be revived like I suggested earlier, or the same amount of shots to kill remain now, but you can never be revived imo.

ralfidude wrote:HAhahahaah^^

Well alex, the thing about that is that we have armor. People can take a few shots before permenately going down.

Another thing to consider is that the hit box for the BF2 engine sux.

So implementing getting shot in specific areas is not possible with the BF2 engine. So thats another thing to consider.

Well, id love to have an DEV come down here and say a word or two about this. Perhaps why they changed the headshot kill to nonlethal anymore.

Take a few shots before going down? (how should I interpret "permanently") Might be true might not be true, but I would really like some sources, as far as I know/seen when a guy takes a direct hit in the torso area he goes down and it's not pleasant.

I wish it would only take one shot, almost anywhere on the body (finger and toe-shots not relative to my point now) and one would be dead/critically wounded.
That'd be both awesome and realistic, I hate the fact how it's in gameplay now; you hit a guy and he sprints/jumps behind a corner, or even worse, dives down the ground and shoot you.
So, 1 hit; 1 kill. Please!

All the best,
Viki