"Confirmation" crosshair/circle - Page 3

wildcat140679 · 2011-07-27, 10:22 AM

Originally Posted by DviddLeff

I selected no.

Why? Simply because it promotes spamming area of effect weapons like grenades and tank shells.

I agree,
It screwed up stealth some what for me. When I used a splash weapon and got a hit notification but could not see any enemies or possible devices I hit, I would very likely fire a few more shots and see if I hit again. Only because of the hit indication have I been able to find hidden devices or enemies hiding behind an object or even an cloaked enemy.

Sinj · 2011-07-27, 01:14 PM

I vote yes for hit indication on all weapons unless the target is cloaked and remains cloaked after being hit.

I also vote yes for IFF through your reticule, especially if the game sports an anti-grief system, which seems likely.

Redshift · 2011-07-27, 01:18 PM

Originally Posted by Sinj

I also vote yes for IFF through your reticule, especially if the game sports an anti-grief system, which seems likely.

IFF is only useful in planes tbh, you can tell all the other vehicles and troops apart in without looking at the colour of the crosshair at any distance

Raymac · 2011-07-27, 01:30 PM

While I most definitely want hit markers, I really really really DON'T want IFF. It adds to the suspense of the game. Identifying a target adds a little risk, and alot of fun. As a pilot, getting a positive ID is very much part of the battle. Granted I've used Advanced Targeting ever since I was able to get implants, but that still has a range to it and thats about as close as I'd want to get to having an IFF system.

Talek Krell · 2011-07-27, 08:49 PM

Yes please, let's have an IFF system. It's not like we don't have enough friendly fire already. >.>

Something occurs to me though, depending on exactly how pronounced the bullet physics are it might actually be kind of misleading to have a reticle in the middle of the screen. Thoughts?

CutterJohn · 2011-07-28, 06:51 AM

Originally Posted by wildcat140679

I agree,
It screwed up stealth some what for me. When I used a splash weapon and got a hit notification but could not see any enemies or possible devices I hit, I would very likely fire a few more shots and see if I hit again. Only because of the hit indication have I been able to find hidden devices or enemies hiding behind an object or even an cloaked enemy.

Such a stoic cloaker, sitting there silent when being pummeled with shrapnel. And probably bleeding.

Also a very impressive stealth suit that doesn't flicker or disrupt at all when surrounded by an explosion.

exLupo · 2011-07-28, 06:56 AM

I'm not a huge fan of indirect weapons providing hit markers. It's just free intel. Not that I don't use grenades as radar enhancers in PS1 but I would like that "feature" to not persist into PS2.

RED · 2011-07-28, 07:29 AM

Yes! Might be a fanboi opinion but I want it because it was like that in PS1 and I liked it... Don't change a winning concept and streamline it to a MW copy with just more players. Make it an enhanced PS1 experience plz =)

Raymac · 2011-07-28, 07:30 PM

Originally Posted by exLupo

I'm not a huge fan of indirect weapons providing hit markers. It's just free intel. Not that I don't use grenades as radar enhancers in PS1 but I would like that "feature" to not persist into PS2.

But it's not "free intel".

1) You give away your position.
2) You waste ammo.
3) You run the risk of friendly fire.

Granted the price is not high, but there is a price. Plus, if you give away your position with a Thumper, you have a pretty good chance of being taken out, especially by players that hate Thumpers.

Sovereign · 2011-07-28, 07:38 PM

I'd say have it in the form of a sound for hit confirmation.

The crosshair should be limited except for the obvious exception being the sniper using the scopes designations.

Baneblade · 2011-07-28, 09:50 PM

Originally Posted by Raymac

As for throwing a grenade around a corner to see if someone is there, I call that good tactics.

friendlies be damned, eh?

PsychoXR-20 · 2011-07-28, 09:55 PM

Originally Posted by Sobekeus

friendlies be damned, eh?

Jammer?

Raymac · 2011-07-29, 01:18 AM

Originally Posted by Sobekeus

friendlies be damned, eh?

You probably should have read what was posted 2 posts above you, then take a look at my sig.

exLupo · 2011-07-29, 03:37 AM

Originally Posted by Raymac

But it's not "free intel".

1) You give away your position.
2) You waste ammo.
3) You run the risk of friendly fire.

And 4) You gain the ability to see around corners. T is being removed for a reason.

Perhaps not free intel. Replace it with "excessive and easily obtained intel". As far as your bullet points, only the first means much. You only waste ammo if you don't hit someone so using grenades as radar pings is something that experience tempers. However, running the risk of friendly fire implies that the user can't read their mini-map and, at that point, using aoe weapons at all is enough of a danger.

However, you've essentially argued in favor of removing the hit flash. You are of the opinion that using it for intel is inefficient and dangerous. Even without the intel argument, if your points actually are of merit then having the flash accomplishes little so removing it would have little benefit. If the intel argument holds water then removing the flash has great benefit. Removing it is a win/win regardless of which argument is best. Or both!