So what if it was an upper torso shot, like the chest. Would people complain about that being one shot one kill?
- Index »
- Games »
- Battlefield Series »
- Battlefield 2 »
- M95 Sniper Rifle Needs More Power
the scope should definatly be better nothing pisses me off more than when im laying there shooting at a still object and i cant hit him crosshairs on the head.... fire... nothing then i get smoked by his AK 101 how the hell did an AK 101 hit me but my M95 cant hit him
shooting through glass for sum reason unknown to me i was able to hit the same guy in the MEC chopper twice in the same round at sharki he was moving so basicly it was a lot of luck he wasnt hovering either ive also seen people do the same thing so i think the shooting through glass is a good thing to have but ive also seen it used on teammates more than the enemy. the ideal would probly be that the m95 cant shoot through friendly armor but that raises issues as well so i really dont know haha
Last edited by Adam5286 (2006-01-20 04:44:20)
lol erm dude china have a very large navy
plus america wouldnt have the balls to attack any country with decent military strength
plus america wouldnt have the balls to attack any country with decent military strength
lol spetz you're right the USA never fought Britain twice (strongest at the time), never attacked Nazi's or Japan and WWII was lost and we all sprechen zie duetsche or japanese
UM hello Spetz what was WW2 about!Spetz wrote:
lol erm dude china have a very large navy
plus america wouldnt have the balls to attack any country with decent military strength
Your not the brightess bulb in the bunch are you.
Spetz what country has come to aid of all most every country in world?
Sure is hell aint down under.
Sure is hell aint down under.
yeah USA rules if it wasnt for them we brits would be speaking German right?...and if it wasnt for the germans the YAnks wouldnt have a space program or ever got hold of the atomic bomb which means they would never have bombed Japan and won. I mean we Brits struggled for 3 to 4 years fighting the NAZIS along with our allies the Dutch, Australians, Russians, Indians (INDIA), French resistance, Swedish, Norwegians oh hell basically all the free world bar the USA. I rem seeing a documentary of some news reporter asking a YANK (who was washing his car at the time ) about the war in EUROPE the YANK said it aint none of our concern. Hell it wasnt till Japan bombed pearl harbour that the rest of the US helped out.. Hats off to the USA guys who helped regardless by fighting with our RAF.....THEY DESERVE A MEDAL! i dont dislike USA i just dislike idiots who spout that they have the best army in the world.....every country has a good army the germans of WWII thought they were good sept the Russians showed them otherwise!!!!
who suffered atrocities in Japanese war camps? sure as hell wasnt USA!...dude who fucking cares which country has the better army no fucker wins in a war. And this is just a game with semi realism. As far as im concerned the USA is the best at every thing and im am just a loley british person not worthy of looking upon you!...happy now?...your the best ever!!!! the whole world thanks you!!!...personally i thank the guys who came to help regardless of their country of origin because at the end of the day they were like everyone else SOLDIERS fighting for freedom regardless of where they were from....to those guys i say thanks!!!Pizall wrote:
Spetz what country has come to aid of all most every country in world?
Sure is hell aint down under.
Fahrenheit if you would go back a page and read my other thread you would see I am not saying who has the best army, Spetz was saying the US army aint shit. I said that each country has a number of men that can hold their own in battle. I did not say that the British suck ass and US rules now did I. I personally would not want some of our own soilders watching my dogs let alone protecting our country, but I am sure there are a few like that in every army. No matter what country. I respect all for what they do.
No probs dude i read first 3 then skipped 4th so im at fault, i have the utmost respect for any guy/gal who would put their life on the line for the sake of freedom. I just hate hearting about how the war was won by one country when it was a world war and a world fought and suffered to win it.....you get so many silly posts you tend to skip some...again my fault!...back to the real post i dont think the M95 needs changing as said before this is a semi-realistic game...in real life one shot from a pistol would have many running back to base for medical attention......Pizall wrote:
Fahrenheit if you would go back a page and read my other thread you would see I am not saying who has the best army, Spetz was saying the US army aint shit. I said that each country has a number of men that can hold their own in battle. I did not say that the British suck ass and US rules now did I. I personally would not want some of our own soilders watching my dogs let alone protecting our country, but I am sure there are a few like that in every army. No matter what country. I respect all for what they do.
NO problem man.
I do think that it needs a little tweeking as far as it taking more health off, and the scope could zoom in to get a better veiw of the person you are shooting at.
I loved being a sniper on Battlefield 1942. those were the days
I do think that it needs a little tweeking as far as it taking more health off, and the scope could zoom in to get a better veiw of the person you are shooting at.
I loved being a sniper on Battlefield 1942. those were the days
An army is only as good as it's leaders.
You put dick heads in charge and even the most well trained soldiers in the world won't be half as effective. All because General dumbfuck decided to drop them on the wrong fucking island or at best at the wrong side of the right island.
You put dick heads in charge and even the most well trained soldiers in the world won't be half as effective. All because General dumbfuck decided to drop them on the wrong fucking island or at best at the wrong side of the right island.
there is a erason it has a scope that the power can be changed from 5.5x-22.5x if they really wanted to make it fit the game give it the m24 scope.Spetz wrote:
ok that gun from http://world.guns.ru/sniper/sn63-e.htm
the reason they wouldnt put that in bf2 is the scope is unchangable and is too long range you would look thru the scope and be able to see a guy more than 1k away and to shoot him the physics engine in bf2 would have to be soo advanced that the game would lag like shit ever time you fire
any1 closer than 500 meters if they are moving you wouldnt be able to hit them due to the fact its zoomed in soo close.
CHURCHILL KICKED ass the brits did pretty well before the US joined the war effort we took our sweet time as stalin and hitler fucked each other up anyways BAND OF BROTHERS probly the best thing ive ever seen and i strongly recomend everyone sees it the sad thing is it doesnt even come close to doing justice to what the men who served in WW2 went through but its as close are ur gunna get
Maybe by one big boat and they could all do the Chinese fire drill LOL.G/SiLo wrote:
why is he comparing british and australian SAS against american ARMY. no shit. special forces versus grunts. and by the way how the hell will china get its troops to the us while freaking hawaii has a larger navy. lol
Watched it twice and gonna get the tinned collectors set, wish we brits could afford to make a series like that...dunno what it is about WWII films and games, id choose BoB over a viet film anyday....must be an age thing and spending time as a kid listening to old war stories of what it was like living, fighting etc during the war....Adam5286 wrote:
CHURCHILL KICKED ass the brits did pretty well before the US joined the war effort we took our sweet time as stalin and hitler fucked each other up anyways BAND OF BROTHERS probly the best thing ive ever seen and i strongly recomend everyone sees it the sad thing is it doesnt even come close to doing justice to what the men who served in WW2 went through but its as close are ur gunna get
um im not wanting to get into this, but yes, astralia has always been there.Pizall wrote:
Spetz what country has come to aid of all most every country in world?
Sure is hell aint down under.
It even took USA awhile to get into ww2 were as AUS was there from the start.
now go back to fighting about world records...
I Vote that the M95 Gets more power!!!!! Damage = 100%
You hit someone in the foot with, "it should" take them down with one shot!
If you shoot a person through a windscreen, "it should" take them down with one shot!
I think the M24 should have a fast reload and more power as well! 6.0 sec is way to long!
You hit someone in the foot with, "it should" take them down with one shot!
If you shoot a person through a windscreen, "it should" take them down with one shot!
I think the M24 should have a fast reload and more power as well! 6.0 sec is way to long!
lol man
100% damage shouldnt be, but in my opinion hits that are made in a very close range (5metres maybe 10m)
and are made into the chest should kill with one shot.
it really pisses me off when u run in karkand and someone jumps out of a corner and u lay down, aim (what is really hard because the whole person is in your scope view) hit him in the torso and he fires 5 shots into you... dead... or they should be at lease stunned because the m95 is a .50 cal weapon and i think that when you hit someone from 5 metres in the chest he really is fucked...
100% damage shouldnt be, but in my opinion hits that are made in a very close range (5metres maybe 10m)
and are made into the chest should kill with one shot.
it really pisses me off when u run in karkand and someone jumps out of a corner and u lay down, aim (what is really hard because the whole person is in your scope view) hit him in the torso and he fires 5 shots into you... dead... or they should be at lease stunned because the m95 is a .50 cal weapon and i think that when you hit someone from 5 metres in the chest he really is fucked...
I just had an idea. It'd be great if the m95 had a CHANCE at one shot killing someone if they were hit in the torso. How this would work, is, the damage from landing an m95 bullet in someones torso is randomly generated between 80-100%. That means a 1 in 20 chance to kill someone in one shot by shooting their torso (i think?). Those arent really unfair odds on either side are they? At best for them, it'll take 2 bullets for you to kill them (like now pretty much?). At best for you it'll take 1 bullet. Of course, headshots would still be instantaneously lethal. Even now most people who have been in a firefight usually die from one m95 bullet. So what's bad about 95% damage? I'm sure there are massive holes in this idea somewhere haha
Last edited by wiseape (2006-01-22 06:40:51)
I have to agree with everyone here, a better scope would be nice. Either clearer or a farther distance, mostly the farther distance.
- Index »
- Games »
- Battlefield Series »
- Battlefield 2 »
- M95 Sniper Rifle Needs More Power