VOTE or DIE

2005-11-22 13:33:43

#1

georgysb: Member; +0|7012

My idea is as follows. When some heavy gun like sniper rifle or machine-gun hits someone, the wounded one should fall down due the bullet stroke and stay at prone position at the same orientation as he fell.
And the same concerns of any kind of explosion damage (granades, arty strike, tank shell and etc.).

First: it's more realistic behavior then present (if u do not die with a M24 bullet in ur chest at least u r knocked down).
Second: it would give some new tactical consequences. For ex. it would help u stay alive when u get under heavy fire or u can deside to get up and run. It's up to conditions.
Third: when u fire heavy sniper rifle (M24, M95) in most cases u will know if u hited a target in case the victim is not dead (exept for target at prone position).

I believe it should enrich the game and make it more interesting to play in its own way, but not as the regular clone of CS. And stop bawling "If u wanna get some battle simulator so go and play Operation Flash Point"...
i don't really think that this feature will worsen the "dynamics" which for u prefer BF2.

2005-11-22 13:41:45

#2

Sud: Member; +0|7019

One major thing that would suck about it is artillery. Artillery lands somewhat near you and everyone makes like a bunch of fainting goats and then the next artillery kills you all. Artillery is already a skilless source of too many of my deaths, really don't want it buffed up any more.

2005-11-22 14:04:08

#3

Ty: Mass Media Casualty; +2,398|7046|Noizyland

I don't like the idea of "realism" in when you are hit you fall down etc. You already get concussed, which is a cool effect, but if your hindered every way you fucking turn then the game will get really boring. Snipers would rule the map, and there would no longer be any point of bringing down a target with one bullet.

Realism is good to only a certain extent, but If it was realism I was after in a game I'd go play Paintball, not computer games.

[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon

2005-11-22 15:41:22

#4

georgysb: Member; +0|7012

Sud wrote:
One major thing that would suck about it is artillery. Artillery lands somewhat near you and everyone makes like a bunch of fainting goats and then the next artillery kills you all. Artillery is already a skilless source of too many of my deaths, really don't want it buffed up any more.

I dunno... when arty burst damage u in most cases it cause immediate death but if u survived u r in any case stunned and it's better for u to stay down and wait... but if u prefer u can immediately get up and run... it's always up to u.

btw there's another one of the BF2 Merphy's laws: Whenever u get under arty strike and wherever u run after the first burst, the next burst is always in front of u.)

2005-11-22 15:51:11

#5

Ty: Mass Media Casualty; +2,398|7046|Noizyland

BF2 Artillery Murphy's law. If you see a Sniper, and place the artillery strike DIRECTLY ON HIM, he will not die.

[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon

2005-11-23 08:28:37

#6

=DS=Unit92: Member; +0|7013

Tyferra wrote:
BF2 Artillery Murphy's law. If you see a Sniper, and place the artillery strike DIRECTLY ON HIM, he will not die.

That's why I always place it off to the side. Artillery is inaccurate and will often miss the exact target, therefore moving to a couple inches away from him almost always results in a kill.

2005-11-23 08:38:34

#7

Sud: Member; +0|7019

I dunno... when arty burst damage u in most cases it cause immediate death but if u survived u r in any case stunned and it's better for u to stay down and wait... but if u prefer u can immediately get up and run... it's always up to u.

btw there's another one of the BF2 Merphy's laws: Whenever u get under arty strike and wherever u run after the first burst, the next burst is always in front of u.)

Any time that I survive the first artillery hit (on the rare occasion I do, the frigging things heat seek me), I am immediately dashing in an opposite direction on the hope I can get out of the AOE in time. Hanging around an artillery barrage is suicide unless you have sufficient overhead cover.

2005-11-23 10:54:11

#8

georgysb: Member; +0|7012

Tyferra wrote:
BF2 Artillery Murphy's law. If you see a Sniper, and place the artillery strike DIRECTLY ON HIM, he will not die.

Sure, that's because he doesn't move)

2005-11-23 12:32:06

#9

ImaMedic: Member; +1|7038|Where ever there's wounded

Actually bullets don't knock you down as seen in movies or on TV. Your body may buckle under the pain it causes but it won't knock you back. If you ever watch the show MythBusters they proved that bullets knocking you back was a myth. In the case of heavy sniper bullets, it would go through you and not actually knock you back

2005-11-25 11:09:17

#10

(HUN)Rudebwoy: Member; +45|7026

"Actually bullets don't knock you down as seen in movies or on TV. Your body may buckle under the pain it causes but it won't knock you back. If you ever watch the show MythBusters they proved that bullets knocking you back was a myth. In the case of heavy sniper bullets, it would go through you and not actually knock you back"

Thats exactly what i wanted to say!(Even that the mythbusters proved that it was false)
It is pure physics!
There is a law(i dont know it's exact name, but i'll try to translate it) called "the action-reaction law" also known as the "Third law of Newton".
It says that if X-object interacts with Y-object with a specific amount of force, then Y-object will interact with X with the same amount of force. The two forces are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction, which means that if a bullet knocked soemone down, it would knoc down the guy who shot the bullet.

2005-11-25 11:31:47

#11

=Robin-Hood=: A stranger in the dark; +213|7092|Belgium

(HUN)Rudebwoy wrote:
It says that if X-object interacts with Y-object with a specific amount of force, then Y-object will interact with X with the same amount of force. The two forces are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction, which means that if a bullet knocked soemone down, it would knoc down the guy who shot the bullet.

And that my friend is why every "large" calibre gun is mounted or made so that you can put your body weight into your shot. What the bullet does depend on its construction; sharp hard tip/flat tip/soft tip/... One is made to penetrate armour and will indeed just pierce a human body, while the other is designed to remain in ones body and inflict as much damage as inhumanly possible. The latter will not only screw your internals, but also give smacktard of an impact...

Oh, and please let the details stop here, war and its tools aren't the prettiest, and brings this virtual game to an all to realistic level.

edit: absurd nonsense removed, see below

Cheers,
R

Last edited by =Robin-Hood= (2005-11-28 13:18:20)

2005-11-25 13:21:55

#12

SlickWRX: Member; +6|7015

I wish people would stop asking for "realistic" shit. This is BF2. Want realism? How about they change the game so that once you die its permanent. You CD key is globally dead and you have to go out and buy another copy.

Last edited by SlickWRX (2005-11-25 13:22:26)

2005-11-25 14:43:29

#13

(HUN)Rudebwoy: Member; +45|7026

Of course Robin, the heavy guns are mounted, but it wont knock someone down! They are mounted because of the recoil, and not for preventing to knock the gunner down.
(Sorry if im confused sometimes but my english is not the best. The "recoil" means the"kicking back" after firing the gun, right?)

2005-11-25 16:12:46

#14

NamelessMarine: Member; +0|7007

Yes it does Rudebwoy.

And Robin, what do you mean all large caliber weapons in the game are banned for use against humans by the Genevia convention? The largest non ordinence round in the game (doscounting helo cannon as well) would be the .50 cal, on the M1A1 tank, and it isn't banned for use against anyone by anything to my knowege.

2005-11-28 13:16:43

#15

=Robin-Hood=: A stranger in the dark; +213|7092|Belgium

(HUN)Rudebwoy wrote:
Of course Robin, the heavy guns are mounted, but it wont knock someone down! They are mounted because of the recoil, and not for preventing to knock the gunner down.

Indeed, recoil, that’s the correct term of what we are talking about. We are both right… They are indeed mounted to avoid the recoil. But the recoil of .50 calibre will not only make it pretty hard to aim at something, but will also knock one out off his socks if you were shooting with it when it was not mounted. (Thus, for all of you whom saw the movie Rambo, the first blood… Our Vietnam philosopher is some bad ass moffo that can hold a .50 calibre machinegun in his one hand, mow down some police cars and feed the bullets with his other hand)

NamelessMarine wrote:
And Robin, what do you mean all large caliber weapons in the game are banned for use against humans by the Genevia convention? The largest non ordinence round in the game (doscounting helo cannon as well) would be the .50 cal, on the M1A1 tank, and it isn't banned for use against anyone by anything to my knowege.

Sorry, my mistake. I maid the unthinkable error of quoting a non-verified source. A colleague of mine, whom is some war expert, came up with this statement.
Since your response I’ve been doing some research, and I was in the wrong. It is some sort of urban legend going on, which fooled my friend, and thus me. .50 are by no means banned by some obscure Geneva convention.
Sorry, my apologies.
Dum-dum bullets and such are, but not the inhumane calibres.

Hope it clarifies it a little…

Cheers,
R

2005-11-28 13:38:03

#16

RadeonII: Member; +1|7047

I`m starting to see this all the time but is hited or hitted a real word ??? Me thinks not

2005-11-28 13:53:05

#17

SniperHutch: Member; +0|7016

The game is fine as it is. Realism can ruin some games.They've got a good gameplay. Anything that changes this will just wreck it. For example Star Wars Galaxies, when they changed the fighting system there was an uproar to change it back. Think about that happening to BF2 and how many people would not patch.It would split the community in two. Now just think about your goddamn realism and changing the game. By the way critacally wounded is the same as being shot nastily. Ever been killed instead? Realism can only go so far before being boring.

GO PLAY BF2 and be happy about it. You paid your $29.99 now quit complaining. Think about those who have no computer let alone this piece of crappy realism.

2005-11-28 19:13:25

#18

NamelessMarine: Member; +0|7007

Accually I payed my $50 lol

2005-11-29 00:47:33

#19

SniperHutch: Member; +0|7016

$50? well you got ripped off. GO PLAY CS:Source for your petty realism. Where would Darwinia be with *splutter* realism.

2005-11-29 14:59:11

#20

georgysb: Member; +0|7012

(HUN)Rudebwoy wrote:
It is pure physics!
There is a law(i dont know it's exact name, but i'll try to translate it) called "the action-reaction law" also known as the "Third law of Newton".
It says that if X-object interacts with Y-object with a specific amount of force, then Y-object will interact with X with the same amount of force. The two forces are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction, which means that if a bullet knocked soemone down, it would knoc down the guy who shot the bullet.

Surely, it's correct in case of interaction of simple solid and rigid bodies just like bullet and rifle. But in case bullet hits human body, i really doubt u wil stay on your feet even it is a pistol bullet. There are a couple of factors: first one - u will loose ur balance due to sudden local blow, and second - it's pain like hell (this factor was already mentioned before). But the most of heavy caliber bullets won't even deliver to ur body the whole of its impulse coz it'll just pierce u through.

It's not about physical explanation, but it's about the life fact: no one can stay on his feet when he's wounded by some heavy caliber.
I guess everyone who plays games like BF2 must realize that it's not funny to get a bullet in real life... ask ur parents or someone who got some smell of powder.

2005-11-29 15:08:19

#21

kessel!: Peruvian Cocaine; +261|7036|Toronto Canada

Tyferra wrote:
If it was realism I was after in a game I'd go play Paintball, not computer games.

Yes. of course paintball is EXACTLY like a real war. I mean, you get shot with a ball and you bleed to death if you dont get to a medic in time. Also, the tanks on the field own even harder right?

2005-12-06 17:39:46

#22

Miggle: FUCK UBISOFT; +1,411|7013|FUCK UBISOFT

its as real as it gets for paintball

there are actually paintball video games, how sad is that.

2005-12-06 23:02:19

#23

RadeonII: Member; +1|7047

SlickWRX wrote:
I wish people would stop asking for "realistic" shit. This is BF2. Want realism? How about they change the game so that once you die its permanent. You CD key is globally dead and you have to go out and buy another copy.

HEY MAN !! Don't give EA any ideas

2005-12-06 23:10:13

#24

Kingswat: Member; +0|7026

that would be better then the stupid FPS lowering shit they have in now.

2005-12-06 23:28:43

#25

NamelessMarine: Member; +0|7007

SniperHutch wrote:
$50? well you got ripped off. GO PLAY CS:Source for your petty realism. Where would Darwinia be with *splutter* realism.

How did I get ripped? Thats how much it costs in the US. $50, just like pretty much every game.

Yes, it would improve BF2 gameplay	60%	60% - 25
Nope, maybe in some other game..	39%	39% - 16
Total: 41

BF2S Forums VOTE or DIE

Poll

Sud wrote:

Tyferra wrote:

Tyferra wrote:

(HUN)Rudebwoy wrote:

(HUN)Rudebwoy wrote:

NamelessMarine wrote:

(HUN)Rudebwoy wrote:

Tyferra wrote:

SlickWRX wrote:

SniperHutch wrote:

Board footer