Headshots...

[Tool]

Originally Posted by Bags

PS only failed because of BFRs and Sony gave up on it.

Originally Posted by Bags

Subs started dropping when Sony destroyed the balance of the game, ignored the problem, fixed it too late, and then stopped supporting the game. Given the available information, you can only guess that the game declined due to other reasons. Sorry if my informed analysis seems ignorant to you.

Nothing seemingly about it, you assume that Planetside had enough success before BFRs to warrant such a claim. As a long time FPS and ex-league player, it was a safe assumption after playing a whole two months after Planetsides release to see it's lack of FPS depth and vision.

Many things led to it's gradual, not steep decline. I'm not denying that BFRs played a role but to assume it was such a large factor is, in and of itself, ignorant.

[TRex]

Originally Posted by KornDemon

Headshots are probably not a good idea for PS. Just imagine a crowded corridor. Now imagine shooting with a lasher or something similar into that corridor at head-hight. Or Thumper grenades into the group from above! It would be ridiculous.

I totally agree with this .Not to mention the extra lag it would induce to all the calculations as to whether you were hit in the head or body or whatever.

I'd rather the game have upper and lower torso hit-boxes , hitting lower torso reduced their movement slightly , hitting upper torso reduced their aim. Not affecting the damage , just their advantage . But, for same reason I discount this also, all for the better of a smooth lag free experience. And the less there is in the game to be hacked or manipulated the better imo.

Vehicles, on the other hand, having a multiple hit box may work : softer at the back , harder at the front could work.

[Sirisian]

Originally Posted by TRex

I totally agree with this .Not to mention the extra lag it would induce to all the calculations as to whether you were hit in the head or body or whatever.

Please don't make these comments. I can assure you the operation of having 2 or even 100 bounding boxes wouldn't affect performance.

Originally Posted by TRex

I'd rather the game have upper and lower torso hit-boxes , hitting lower torso reduced their movement slightly , hitting upper torso reduced their aim. Not affecting the damage , just their advantage . But, for same reason I discount this also, all for the better of a smooth lag free experience. And the less there is in the game to be hacked or manipulated the better imo.

I'd be all for this as long as it did no extra damage. Shooting a soldier in the leg with a sniper to slow them down then taking the final shot as they limp for cover would be neat.

[Aractain]

That would be cool, but you don't want that from every weapon so having different effects for different weapons would be really cool.

I see a lot of people talking about 'insta-big'. No way should there be ANY instagiv stuff. Not even vehicles IMO.
Head shots would be minor modifiers to reward hitting accuraly. With an MCG thats just not going to happen so its more about rifles or snipers (which would still not instagib).

Also about PS level of success; it basically failed on launch day. It never achived what they expected (about 100k? I think) and they had to merge servers in a few months. I belive more people played PS beta than bought the game. Sub + internet connections + gameplay which wasn't great (talking about gunplay not massive battles) compared to 'free' alternatives at the time caused this I think.

[Sifer2]

Headshots really don't fit. An they actually imbalance many FPS games in my opinion. I mean they fit something like Unreal Tournament where its actually difficult to pull off without an aim bot. But not a slower paced tactics focused game like Planetside. Spray an pray weapons would suddenly become way better than they should be by just spamming shots at head level.

I would rather see Iron Sights, Prone position, an Vehicle weak spots than Headshots.

[I SandRock]

When I introduced my friends to PS they didn't play for long because they didn't give it much of a chance. They felt it took to long to get into the action and there was quite a bit of a learning curve to know all the weapons, enemy weapons and how to handle them properly. And performance was poor compared to the machines they had at the time.
Not so much because they complained about balance or no headshots.

I've been secretly plotting to kill them ever since.....


For me I quit PS several times and came back. I tended to quit when I started to realize again how nothing really mattered. You fought for a a base, a continent, etc. and then you woke up the next morning and it had all swapped hands again and you were back to square 1. When this became obvious, I'd usually start to lose interest and quit. Hopefully PS will have more of a win condition, perhaps like GA.

[Tool]

Originally Posted by I SandRock

When I introduced my friends to PS they didn't play for long because they didn't give it much of a chance. They felt it took to long to get into the action and there was quite a bit of a learning curve to know all the weapons, enemy weapons and how to handle them properly. And performance was poor compared to the machines they had at the time.
Not so much because they complained about balance or no headshots.

I've been secretly plotting to kill them ever since.....


For me I quit PS several times and came back. I tended to quit when I started to realize again how nothing really mattered. You fought for a a base, a continent, etc. and then you woke up the next morning and it had all swapped hands again and you were back to square 1. When this became obvious, I'd usually start to lose interest and quit. Hopefully PS will have more of a win condition, perhaps like GA.

True true, I personally think much of that lack of accomplishment stems from the MMO prefixed to FPS. Consider it this way, the idea of playing an MMO instills people with predetermined ideas and concepts:

-Character development
-Loot and inventory systems
-Sprawling, developed world and interactions
-Options (level, PvP, craft, etc.)

Now generally with those notions, weather perceived or not is generally what people consider to be part of most MMOs, among other things.

When you try to apply it to an FPS (with their current, popular model) It's hard to blend the two physical and mentally. If say you wanted to play an FPS, there's a plethora of options. I chose to play Counter-strike Source. I'd go in with certain expectations judging from stated above. I'd have no MMO expectations what-so-ever.

If you go into Planetside with FPS expectations, many FPS players would be quick to judge, just like you said about your friends and perhaps relating to Smedleys post about getting players to the action faster.

Planetside is a pioneer in a lot of ways, unfortunately it has a sordid history with many mistakes made. SOE has their work cut out for them trying to make the term MMOFPS a standard rather than a dream or bad taste in your mouth.

[Sifer2]

Yeah that's the thing original Planetside kind of lacked appeal to both FPS'ers an MMO'ers. It lacked the long term progression for MMO players since bases were just constantly lost again an BR rank was maxed relatively fast. An the FPS'ers kind of lacked the fast balanced little deathmatches they are used to.

It sounds like with Smed's comment on Sanctuaries they are doing something to speed it up an appeal to the FPS crowd. I hope they don't forget it needs to be an MMO though as well.

[Warruz]

Yes add them, please add them! Gives so much more choice and reason to your gun choice.

But as others said perhaps make the dmg to the head based on the type of gun, a sniper doing absurd extra damage while something that is assault rifle esc do less but something more and chain gun do nothing extra or extremely minor.

But i am definitely for tanks and such having more armor in the front and less in the back

[Bags]

Originally Posted by Warruz

Yes add them, please add them! Gives so much more choice and reason to your gun choice.

Could you explain this in more detail?

[LordReaver]

I'm not sure how to explain it, but I don't care for headshots.

[Jonny]

I don't see a problem with headshots doing 30% more damage or so, as your shooting at a smaller target so its a trade off with that increased chance to miss.

[Miir]

I'm for head shots. I'd like to see something like this.

No helmet = instant kill with sniper rifle or heavier precision weapons.
With Helmet = instant kill with sniper rifle only from a minimum distant. There has to be a purpose for a sniper rifle if not remove it from the game.

All other weapons take a couple head shots to kill at closer ranges.

What I'd like to see changed is spawn times or how you respawn back into the battle. I liked being able to spawn on your squad leader like in some other games assuming they are still alive. Anything to keep the action going.

I don't care if I die more as long as I can get back to the battle front. Having to wait to respawn at the nearest tower or AMS and then run back to the front lines was/is annoying.

[Valverde]

Originally Posted by Miir

I'm for head shots. I'd like to see something like this.

No helmet = instant kill with sniper rifle or heavier precision weapons.
With Helmet = instant kill with sniper rifle only from a minimum distant. There has to be a purpose for a sniper rifle if not remove it from the game.

All other weapons take a couple head shots to kill at closer ranges.

What I'd like to see changed is spawn times or how you respawn back into the battle. I liked being able to spawn on your squad leader like in some other games assuming they are still alive. Anything to keep the action going.

I don't care if I die more as long as I can get back to the battle front. Having to wait to respawn at the nearest tower or AMS and then run back to the front lines was/is annoying.

I don't know. To me a head shot is a head shot. With armor ok I can see a second chance depending on the caliber, but any gun shot to the head should be a instant kill. I know that might seem a little bit more realistic then normal but when it comes to shooters rather it be rockets or bullet, its annoying to see a ground troop survive a headshot or a blasting of rockets.

I don't see a problem with headshots doing 30% more damage or so, as your shooting at a smaller target so its a trade off with that increased chance to miss.

I'm not sure how to explain it, but I don't care for headshots.

Answer to both of these is this is a shooter, not a roleplay game. The idea that a head shot should allow for a 30% of health is both annoying and not very shooter like. I know some games have done this but if I wanted to play a RPG I would. I think they should just toss the whole health bar completely and change it to battle wounds. They could keep the armor maybe as a hit reduction.

[Jonny]

Originally Posted by Valverde

Answer to both of these is this is a shooter, not a roleplay game. The idea that a head shot should allow for a 30% of health is both annoying and not very shooter like. I know some games have done this but if I wanted to play a RPG I would. I think they should just toss the whole health bar completely and change it to battle wounds. They could keep the armor maybe as a hit reduction.

Dont get where you're coming from here. I'm just saying a headshot should do more damage than a bodyshot, how much is up to the devs.

Don't know where you're getting the rpg thing about.