Give civilian a "no handed" option

Hisham · Post by **Hisham** » 2008-01-22 21:38

in reality civilians dont run around with stones in their hands unless theres a protest or something.

TehDutchDude · Post by **TehDutchDude** » 2008-01-22 21:44

I want them to be able to carry beer. When in melee range, should make your enemies' vision blurry.

j/k, the devs have more important stuff to do

Although it is indeed odd that every islamic civilian always carries a crapload of stones.

Post by **Rudd** » 2008-01-22 22:21

I'm not entirely sure what your suggesting, but in the context of the match it makes sense: British or whoever are comng, grab the rocks

DeePsix · Post by **DeePsix** » 2008-01-22 22:27

Giving a civilian a "Empty Hands" weapon would not effect or change game play in any fashion.

~XHW~Flamestorm · Post by **~XHW~Flamestorm** » 2008-01-22 22:29

in afghanistan or iraq a lot of people, i think i read somewhere over 80% of the people have a weapon.!!! so whats the matter with the stone! i could protest your suggestion with give the civilian a weapon they dont need to shoot with it but in reality they have one! the civilians are not very interested for most players they should have any special i dont know what but maybe someone have a idea.

BloodBane611 · Post by **BloodBane611** » 2008-01-22 22:56

give the civilian a weapon they dont need to shoot with it but in reality they have one

A civilian with a weapon is called a target.

Post by **Spec** » 2008-01-22 23:02

A target, and "insurgent" in game i guess.

An option for the civilian to surrender would be more interesting. Killing him then (also with a vehicle) should give more of a penalty, and it will make his respawntime shorter since he was "cooperative" and is released earlier or anything like that, while this would make him unable to change the weapon for some time (if he uses any kind of gear he dies, i think thats codable)

Thats not needed, but would be much more interesting. Once possible for civilians, this would even be interesting for insurgents.

(I posted this to give the thread a point

)

zangoo · Post by **zangoo** » 2008-01-23 01:59

well they have a weapon called invisible_weapon in objects_server.zip so if that is what you are thinking then it would be easy as changing 1 line of code.

fOgGy · Post by **fOgGy** » 2008-01-23 02:05

Don't they use Molotov cocktails ?

Italia Joe · Post by **Italia Joe** » 2008-01-23 02:40

How about both, what happens when you are out of stones, use your bare hands. I think it makes sense

zangoo · Post by **zangoo** » 2008-01-23 02:56

hmm for the fists thing, just make the knife invisible and lower the damage, it should look kinda like a punch.

fOgGy · Post by **fOgGy** » 2008-01-23 03:49

Will you could just limit the civilian only able to wield a shitty pistol.

frrankosuave · Post by **frrankosuave** » 2008-01-23 03:58

They carry the pouch of stones just in case they encounter a homo or one of their wives alone with another guy, who might not be able to contain his violent sex urges. Its their way, I guess...

MarineSeaknight · Post by **MarineSeaknight** » 2008-01-23 04:07

fOgGy wrote:Don't they use Molotov cocktails ?

No, those are the Insurgent PKM users that have the molotovs. I can understand why you can get them mixed up though, as civilians can look dangerously close to insurgents (needs to be fixed in some way or another).

Anyways, you guys are missing the point of "civilian". The DEVs had the civilians un-armed for a reason. Providing them with a gun makes them, as Blood said, a TARGET which would not be logical because then you would be penalizing your team for killing someone who threatens to shoot you.

The rocks, I guess are just there to simulate the violent civilian who once in a while gangs up with his brothas' in da Al Basrah hood' to go pelt rocks at dem'otha' gangstas' who got L85s... sorry. I had a moment.

Hotrod525 · Post by **Hotrod525** » 2008-01-23 04:29

Hum guyz you're missing an important rules even if the civilian dont have a gun, he can be a treath(a danger..sorry my english suck so much) if he have hostile intent and got killed whitout any LAW violation.

U.S.A. R.o.E.

Level 5: Assaultive (Lethal Force). The subject usually has a weapon and will either kill or injure someone if he/she is not stopped immediately and brought under control. The subject must be controlled by the use of deadly force with or without a firearm or weapon.

s3v3ndust · Post by **s3v3ndust** » 2008-01-23 04:38

But I do believe that there should be a stiffer penalty for killing a civilian, giving the insurgents a ticket bonus and a minute spawn time for the other guy doesn't do its justice.. Maybe kill a civilian and you can't request a kit for five minutes.

ConscriptVirus · Post by **ConscriptVirus** » 2008-01-23 06:30

i think most "civilian killin" is unintentional. doubt that adding a greater penalty will reduce it

Wasteland · Post by **Wasteland** » 2008-01-23 08:52

It could cause people to take greater risks to avoid killing civilians, however.

BloodBane611 wrote:A civilian with a weapon is called a target.

Not true man, not true. A civilian with a weapon is a goat herder more often than not. There probably won't be much flak if you shot one, as long as you didn't make a habit of it. But that wouldn't make the civilian a target.

fOgGy · Post by **fOgGy** » 2008-01-23 15:20

Are there any civilians in PR at the moment to even suggest no handed weapon option ?

Post by **Spec** » 2008-01-23 15:31

fOgGy wrote:Are there any civilians in PR at the moment to even suggest no handed weapon option ?

If you play the same PR, yes. But only in the insurgency gamemode.