close quarter combat!!!

[Snake13]

good, someone who would behave so immature and childish would probably not bring anything to the game anyway

they way headshots are implemented is completely retarded in games like counterstrike, IRL you fire at the chest becuase its a larger target and its takes you down just as fast.

[Arshune]

To all you people talking about chest vs. head: if you want to get technical, firing at the chest will take someone down FASTER than shooting them in the head (with a rifle, anyway). With a rifle, a headshot will pass right through and not do enough damage to the brain for an instant kill unless it pierces part of the autonomic nervous system (the part that controls all your involuntary functions), which is a VERY small area. If you don't believe me on that, go look up the case of Phineas Gage, a railroad worker who had a pole blown through his head while blasting a hole in the ground. He was alive and more or less fine afterwards (at least as much as someone with a 2 inch hole in their head can be). A pistol is a different story though, a headshot from a pistol will again instantly kill if it hits the autonomic nervous system (like all things will) but it will usually cause a lot more damage if it misses. Even so, without hitting very specific, very tiny parts of the brain, the victim will still have some amount of life left in them. Though most bullet wounds to the head are eventually fatal, the operative word is EVENTUALLY.

Chest shots, however, are usually instantly or very quickly fatal as the heart and lungs take up a considerable amount of space in the chest cavity.

Biology lessons aside, I fully support the devs' decision on this. Headshots make FPS games boring, too often you'll get capped by someone who either got lucky, depended on that ONE SINGLE SHOT to get you (which is a KIND of luck), or cheated. When's the last time any of you can say you played a game that tried to be more of a game than RL? Remember back in the day when reality had no place in our little fantasy worlds? Look at Tetris...it makes no sense whatsoever, but it's still one of the best games ever. Realism is all well and good for Mr. Tom Clancy, but I'll take my twitch gameplay in my sci-fi universe over real-life ballistics and a connection to the real world ANY DAY.

Whew, that was a long post.

[Duritz]

What I'm saying is that there ARE problems with having headshots in a massive game, even if you discount the noobs, there are problems with large scale, region-specific damage games. Accuracy isn't what decides if someone is better than another at this game. Maybe you are looking at the idea that simply cursor moving skill is what makes a better game player. Maybe you are generalizing genres too much. All FPSes aren't alike.

Take Tribes 2 vs. Ghost Recon vs. UT2k3. They are all FPSes, but there are many sub-genres that we see. Also, genre mixing is a very important aspect of the whole picture. Tribes 2 has its own sub-genre, its unique styles of play totally change how it works as a game. Ghost Recon is an extremely realistic tactical op shooter, its realism is what draws many peopke to play it. UT2k3 is a super-twitch game. It simply involves who has the fastest trigger, best twitch skills, and the best aim. None of these advantages and disadvantages necessarily means that the game is better or worse but each's quirks give it its place.

For the type of game that Planetside is, a tactical/ twitch/ MMO/ vehicular/ all-terrain combat FPS, it doesn't need headshots, in fact I believe that it may be better off without them. If it were included then the veteran outfits would simply own everything and thats not cool. Even if I'm one of those guys its not cool.

And also, "giving in" to letting noobs have a better chance is not worse for the game, its better. The more people the better the game is, and the fact is, is that most of the people will be twitch noob. Leveling the playing field is best for gameplay, not only marketing.

I don't want to offend anyone here with this, but this is directly related to way people use the -isms. This "classism" is a group trying to use their already aquired advantage in every way possible to keep it. The people who are skilled at headshots, of course, want headshots, because that will let them have more fun, but the people who have to learn to get accurate don't do as well.

Who says that only the people with the uber skills should have fun killing others. Who says that people with too much time to practice should have all of the fun. It's skill based, but not skill driven.

People use their influence on the "society" to make headshots more "advanced." In reality, people are simply trying to rationalize their maintainable advantage. I'm not a bad twitch player, I do very well in UT2k3 and in tactical shooters, but I'm a jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none. And I don't think this game is designed to be all about the skill in accuracy. It's about overall team-play. And you know what, you might need a noob in your team one day.

[ABRAXAAS]

well done old boy

[Zoolooman]

SandTrout is placing a lot of energy into this headshot problem.

My question is for him:

Are you willing to give up what *may* otherwise be a very enjoyable game because it doesn't include a SINGLE feature of somewhat debatable merit?

A feature that without testing you can't even claim is necessary for a good time?

If so, I hope you enjoy playing whatever else comes out in the future.

If not, I at least suggest you give it a try at a friend's house sometime after release date. You never know.

Edit addition:

Duritz, if the game doesn't have ANY FPS skill growth involved, then it's replay value will be low. A level playing field makes it a big RTS and not an FPS. Veteran players should be better aimers, better pilots and better drivers. This is what makes a FPS fun. You can pick it up and play, and get kills, but the long term skill growth plays a large portion of the replay value in a FPS.

I want to look forward to the time where I can be a BETTER Planetside player. I want to take down 4 people of equal equipment before they take me out. How? With skill. Tactics is the counter to skill, and well built tactics win in any large scale factor (people command and help take bases, organization wins the war), but the enjoyment of the "grunt" is in the nitty gritty, and that means it needs FUN skill based fighting.

[Arshune]

If you sit down and put a lot of thought into it, not having headshots requires you to have even more skill than you would otherwise have. Once you got the motion down to crouch and burst someone in the head down perfectly, CS wasn't challenging OR fun anymore, was it?

No headshots means that people who are truly good at the game will be better at both aiming AND dodging, because there won't be one-hit kills for them to fall back on. Regardless of what a person tries to do in an online game, a good portion of it is due to pure luck because of the way that human perception and netcode work together in tandem to screw you up. Games that put too much emphasis on player skill growth end up stagnating and not being fun when that growth is fully achieved. Heck, even RPGs stagnate and get boring when the top level of growth is achieved, because there's just nothing left to "achieve." The pick-up-and-play appeal will end up drawing people back to it even years later, I can guarantee that.

[Navaron]

"If you sit down and put a lot of thought into it, not having headshots requires you to have even more skill than you would otherwise have. Once you got the motion down to crouch and burst someone in the head down perfectly, CS wasn't challenging OR fun anymore, was it? "

Ummm no. I'm sorry. I can't agree with that.

"SandTrout is placing a lot of energy into this headshot problem.''

Hang on, I can understand this. Lemme 'splain my pov. I can't justify not buying a game for 50 bucks that has this many features that are amazing and on this scale. I can however understand not paying a fee every month for a game that doesn't have alot of the features I like, and even deem neccesary. If there are enough other features to offset that then you can swap out the bad for the good, but if you don't find them......

[Duritz]

If it is all about the skills, then why do you need the headshots? Can you not be better than noobs without them? If you can't, are you really any better? If you can, then what's the problem?

[mistled]

Originally posted by Arshune
No headshots means that people who are truly good at the game will be better at both aiming AND dodging, because there won't be one-hit kills for them to fall back on.

I don't see how the vet will be better at aiming if all anyone has to do is hit anywhere on the body and it all counts the same. Don't even bring one hit kills into this because there aren't any. I think that someone who has been playing for a long time should be rewarded for being able to hit someone else in the head by headshots doing more damage. They don't need to be one shot kills, but they should hurt more. Especially when the rest of the body is more heavily armored.

Originally posted by Arshune
Games that put too much emphasis on player skill growth end up stagnating and not being fun when that growth is fully achieved. Heck, even RPGs stagnate and get boring when the top level of growth is achieved, because there's just nothing left to "achieve." The pick-up-and-play appeal will end up drawing people back to it even years later, I can guarantee that.

So you want to compensate for this by removing everything that you can "achieve"?? How does that help anyone?? In a battle, shouldn't the great tactical commander with great shooters beat the great tactical commander with only decent shooters?? Yes he should.
You can talk about how tactics win the war all you want, but when the special forces are recruiting, they don't want the guy who can only hit his enemy in the leg.

[Zoolooman]

Oh, my comment isn't about the headshots Duritz.

I just think that a game should be designed to be ACCESSIBLE to a newbie (aka the weapon works and the vehicle works and the design allows a person to give it a good day and get into the game).

But a game should never be designed to LEVEL the playing field (take a newbie, and make him able to beat a 2+ year vet right off the bat). Then what's the fun in being a grunt?

See? :]

[mistled]

Originally posted by Duritz
If it is all about the skills, then why do you need the headshots? Can you not be better than noobs without them? If you can't, are you really any better? If you can, then what's the problem?

Doesn't it take more skill to hit someone in the head three times than it does to hit them anywhere one their body three times?? The point is that without headshots, there is no reason to have skills. I can become a decent shooter who can manage to hit anywhere and be just as effective as someone who can put two bullets in your chest and one through your head with a pistol by reflex.

[Zoolooman]

Oh, and on a note for headshots. I'd definately like them, but I won't DIE without them. But for 10 bucks a month, I do hope that in the future after game release they will give it some thought.

[Arshune]

If someone requires more shots to be taken down, then it requires more skill to kill them. Making one good shot with careful aim isn't especially difficult for most gamers considering that we all have dexterity like a spider-monkey anymore, but making 15-20 aimed shots in a row would be pretty hard even for a seasoned player. That's my reasoning, anyway.

Please don't try to twist my words, I never said I wanted to remove achievement, I just said depending PURELY upon achievement for all the entertainment value of a game would be bad. Part of the reason I find PS intriguing is because it's an FPS with character advancement.

You can say that headshots don't have to be an instant kill, but if they're included at all they'd end up being a "shortcut" to a kill.

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by Duritz
If it is all about the skills, then why do you need the headshots? Can you not be better than noobs without them? If you can't, are you really any better? If you can, then what's the problem?

It is not a matter of separating vets from noobs. It is a matter of separating the good from the great.

If you have two marksman that can consitantly hit a target at 100 yards, and it is clear that a noob couldn't consitantly hit the original target. So you can separated a vet from the noob, but how do you differentiate who is the better of the two marksmen?

You give them a smaller target. Whoever can hit that smaller target more often is the better marksman. Think of headshots as a smaller target to seperate the good from the great. It is not too tough to hit an enemy. It is a bit tougher to hit the targets head.

[Zoolooman]

The problem I see with arguing about a game that hasn't even been released yet is the "developer is always right" mentality some people have.

Any decision a developer makes CANT be disputed in some people's minds. Their game has to be wholly right from the start, and the developers have to be perfect, for them to be wholly confident in the gameplay. Some of the arguements of this thread REMIND me of that sort of attitude.

"Headshots shouldn't be in the game because of *insert half-hearted reason*."

What if the developers are wrong? What if it DOES increase skill? Shouldn't it be tried?

Maybe it isn't implemented not because of GAMEPLAY reasons, but because of TECHNICAL or maybe even time constraint reasons.

Maybe the developers would love to add the DEPTH of hitboxes (feet damage is less than torso damage which is less than head damage), but they can't because of time or netcode or engine restraints.

To argue that it would be a bad thing before the CURRENT gameplay can even be assessed is a mistake. When the game is released, and people can confidently say, "This gameplay is good as is," then I'll argue to keep out headshots, unless the feature would OBVIOUSLY increase gameplay in a majority of aspects.

Now my personal opinion? They should have headshots. But the jury is still out on if it's a very valid opinion, since NOONE has played the game.