Project Reality Forums

This post is about the automatic rifleman's LMG, and the ability to deploy it on objects/lean it on something.

Now.. I've looked through the allready suggested thread and found it in red, which I know, is hardcoded and impossible.
But I don't know if the developers have thought of it my way yet, that's why I'm going to post this anyway.

How about making the current stationary LMGs you find here and there (like on the walls of the citadel on "Seven Gates") invisible and unenterable by soldiers, except for the Automatic Rifleman. And after the AR gets in, they become visible and ready to use. Simulating the AR "deploying" his LMG on that location.

There would be predefined spots for these things, of course, but you could put more of them down on obvious places, like on walls and in windows.
Also making these spots only visible to the AR would help.

I don't know to what extend this would be possible, but it doesn't seem completely impossible to me. (Then again, I'm no modder, and I have never actually looked at the intestines of BF2)

Opinions?

Suggested before, in a similiar way.
Would cause networkable issues or something? dont know

it would not work to make the machine guns invisible since we can only have 1024 networkable objects on the map at a time.

motherdear wrote:it would not work to make the machine guns invisible since we can only have 1024 networkable objects on the map at a time.

I don't mean plant the whole map full of those things, just a few spots near flags. (On a wall or a box facing the right direction, placed pretty much like the current visible ones)

1. Problem: Object limit. Though that might not be a big issue on smaller maps if the number of the MGs is limited.

2. Problem: Through invisible, they'd still be there. They would stop bullets. A soldier could stand behind such an invisible machine gun and wouldnt be able to shoot out of the window anymore. And even worse, he could not be shot at.

He could be shot at, but he could not be hit. That could cause havoc in the server - people would accuse that enemy of cheating, and it can only get out of hand from there.

The only way to do this right is to allow the AR to fire accurately while standing and undeployed. I think the DEVs nailed it in the current test build, but it might not turn out that way by release.

You insult the Dev teams intelligence by thinking that you are smarter or have an original idea. They are a group of 20+ dedicated individuals who are very knowledgeable about the BF2 engine and have spent countless hours debating and testing various ideas that they have, and it has happened many times that the community will later suggest the same ideas. If its in RED, then it is hardcoded, meaning it cannot be done and if there is a possible workaround, then it would take way too much time for the result and/or is not important.

Teek wrote:You insult the Dev teams intelligence by thinking that you are smarter or have an original idea. They are a group of 20+ dedicated individuals who are very knowledgeable about the BF2 engine and have spent countless hours debating and testing various ideas that they have, and it has happened many times that the community will later suggest the same ideas. If its in RED, then it is hardcoded, meaning it cannot be done and if there is a possible workaround, then it would take way too much time for the result and/or is not important.

Teek, there have been times in the past where the devs have found workarounds to hardcoded things, he's only trying to help and while yes, most of the things we think about for workarounds have already been thought of, you never know when someone will think up a new approach.

Teek wrote:You insult the Dev teams intelligence by thinking that you are smarter or have an original idea. They are a group of 20+ dedicated individuals who are very knowledgeable about the BF2 engine and have spent countless hours debating and testing various ideas that they have, and it has happened many times that the community will later suggest the same ideas. If its in RED, then it is hardcoded, meaning it cannot be done and if there is a possible workaround, then it would take way too much time for the result and/or is not important.

I thank you for your open mindness, it means a lot.

If everyone thought the same, we would still be back in the stone age.

Interesting, though as said, itd be a bit too gamey [only deploy in THESE spots, I dont like that] and to have a high number of them it would border on reaching the limit of networkables. Basically, in the opinion of this user, its just too far of a workaround.

What COULD maybe be done is a deployable LMG that is simply a LMG set up on top of a concrete barrier or something[Think VCP on Basrah]. That way you get the deployed state at a higher stance and its placed by the SL.

Though, Im not sure if this is terribly in need of implementation, its still an idea along your line of thinking

Teek, sorry thats not true at all. There are things thought hardcoded that are actually not, and the Devs don't discover them all.

In this case I dont think what the OP suggests is workable, but its the kind of thinking that finds solutions.......

[R-CON]Mescaldrav wrote:Teek, sorry thats not true at all. There are things thought hardcoded that are actually not, and the Devs don't discover them all.

In this case I dont think what the OP suggests is workable, but its the kind of thinking that finds solutions.......

I quote myself

and if there is a possible workaround, then it would take way too much time for the result and/or is not important.

If an Automatic rifleman was to run out of ammo, then he could run up to the nearest window and spray all day long. The invisible gun would have to have unlimited ammo because it not possible/not worth the time/nobody would re-supply it and you cant mag-link a soldiers gun and a static/vehicle, or it could Regen ammo very slowly, but, Seems like a LOT of work just to simulate a bipod.
Making things invisible/penetrate-able and visible on demand may also be a trouble spot.

I'm not exactly sure why I choose to be so harsh in this thread, but it probably has to do with re suggesting something that was red in the *** thread, and there being a reason why it is in that thread at all and also red.