close quarter combat!!! - Page 7

mistled · 2003-02-06, 11:29 PM

Originally posted by Arshune
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.

They should be a shortcut to a kill. That's the point of being good enough to shoot someone in the face. What do you want a grunt to work on once they can hit someone's arm consistantly?? The leaders can work on strategy all they want, but the grunts need a way to show that they are better than that guy who just sprays the room and hopes to hit you in the foot a time or three.

Arshune · 2003-02-06, 11:32 PM

I was basing my opinion on my experiences with other FPS games, because typically there are at least SOME similarities between any two games of the same genre, no matter how different the details may be. I usually don't like headshots, because they make the game feel too calculated and less natural (or twitch if you like). I've always been a fan of games that are mostly reflex, and with no region specific damage that puts a lot more emphasis on reaction time than precision. You could argue that no region specific damage favors the guy with the heaviest armor and the biggest gun, but come on...most FPS games do that anyway. If you're injured when you find someone in some other random game, you're just as likely to get schooled as you will be in a game without specific hitboxes.

Speaking of the devs, not having headshots makes balancing out the weapons much easier on them I'd imagine, and therefore there's less of a possibility for them to screw something up and make a weapon like CS's awp...or the rocket launcher from the old Quake games.

SandTrout · 2003-02-06, 11:36 PM

I'm not looking for 1-shot kills with an AMP. I just want headshots to do some more damage than a legshot. Most games have a more intracit damage system than just head and body. Why would it make that much of a diference to have a headshot just do 1.5 times the damage of a body shot?

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?

You are thinking tactics mostly. When all you have to do is hit them at all, you only need a very minor level of skill, andthe rest is tactics.

The head is a much smaller target than the rest of the body, and the skill comes in when you're trying to hit that small target. Yes, we will still be able to defeat newbies, but once they become a decent shot in just being able to hit the enemy, doesn't matter where, then all of our practice means diddly squat.

And what about when you sneak up behind a guy in a group? Shouldn't a few well lined-up shots be able to take him out better than just running and gunning at the group? I want rewards for my efforts and ablility, thats the essence of the FPS.

I am willing to give up a potetialy good game that costs $10 a month because I'm just tired of haveing to settle, very tired. Is it so wrong to just want one thing that has the gameplay that I can realy get into?

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.

RPGs have nothing to do with player skill growth, they use character skill growth, there is a very big difference. Planetside features a limited character skill growth via certs, but it is mostly based on the player's twitch aiming skill and tactics.

BTW: Thanks for rephraseing my thoughts for the rest of them Mistled.

Arshune · 2003-02-06, 11:44 PM

I know there's a difference between human skill growth and character skill growth, the point I was making is that putting the emphasis on said growth rather than the twitch gameplay would detract from the game. Why does everyone keep missing that? I need to stop being so ambiguous.

SandTrout · 2003-02-06, 11:48 PM

Games that put too much emphasis on player skill growth end up stagnating and not being fun when that growth is fully achieved.

Less ambiguous and more misspoken it seems like. The diference is that player skill growth doesn't have a cap on it. even if you can ge a headshot in .5 seconds, there's always room for improvement with humans(until you get to the point that nerve conductions cant go that fast, but what are the chances?).

Arshune · 2003-02-06, 11:57 PM

I don't think you're reading what I wrote right. Yes, I used player skill and character skill in the same paragraph, but that doesn't mean I'm saying that they're the same thing. I was saying that getting extremely good at an FPS is the same as reaching a level cap in an RPG, it starts to get boring once you reach your "peak." And while there isn't a specific limit to human potential, there is a plateau most people hit where they don't get a whole heck of a lot better at something.

Navaron · 2003-02-07, 12:01 AM

"And while there isn't a specific limit to human potential, there is a plateau most people hit where they don't get a whole heck of a lot better at something."

And they'll hit that a lot faster the way you're suggesting. It's gonna take a whooole lot longer to master capping someone in the dome regularly that it will blasting them in the chest.

Arshune · 2003-02-07, 12:06 AM

I guess it all just boils down to your personal preference, really. No matter which way they go, someone won't be happy. Also, up to now we've been arguing this like it was a pure FPS game, imagine how much it would suck if someone in a gunship could just hover with their gun at head level and turn their ship in a circle while spraying, getting highly damaging shots on your whole squad. That would only work on a flat piece of land, but it'd still be frustrating. The way I was looking at the situation, if newer players posed more of a threat then there'd probably be a lot more skill development because there'd be a greater element of challenge available and at more regular intervals than a game where you'd have to find a decent clan to get anyone good to play against.

Navaron · 2003-02-07, 12:20 AM

"imagine how much it would suck if someone in a gunship could just hover with their gun at head level and turn their ship in a circle while spraying, getting highly damaging shots on your whole squad."

A) You're a moron who forgot to crouch

B) It's gonna kill you no matter what

C) That pilot is a farkin pimp and deserves the BXP

"if newer players posed more of a threat then........ "

You're forgetting about all the other vets who are gunning for your ass. We've discussed before how no noobs will ever be alone.

mistled · 2003-02-07, 12:29 AM

Originally posted by Arshune
The way I was looking at the situation, if newer players posed more of a threat then there'd probably be a lot more skill development because there'd be a greater element of challenge available and at more regular intervals than a game where you'd have to find a decent clan to get anyone good to play against.

I get where you're coming from, but what I don't see is what skills you want people to work on if aim doesn't matter much (since we should all master aiming fairly quickly). I personally would love to infiltrate bases and sneak around and kill people and generally cause chaos in a base. I think this would be a great skill to work on. But.... what's the point of being able to sneak up behind someone in their base if it still takes me 5 shots to kill them?? I just don't see how it can be justified that a shotgun blast to the back of the head from four inches away should not at the very least take away half your life.

Arshune · 2003-02-07, 12:37 AM

Well, look on the bright side...since none of us know exactly how much damage something will do, there's no way to say for certain that a shotgun blast to the back of the head WON'T kill someone. One of the previews I read said that a guy in an infiltrator suit went in and hacked their base then knifed people to death...I'd imagine that since the secondary knife mode makes noise (that's what I read, if I'm wrong correct me) and would call attention to you when you're trying to hide, it'd be a pretty high damage attack. Also, I guess I shouldn't say "skill" when I mean reaction time. Sort of a "he who shoots first also shoots last" kind of thing.

SandTrout · 2003-02-07, 12:45 AM

Originally posted by Arshune
Well, look on the bright side...since none of us know exactly how much damage something will do, there's no way to say for certain that a shotgun blast to the back of the head WON'T kill someone.

But this also means it can kill them just as easaly if you shot their legs while runing at them(if all pellets hit). Headshots allow a skilled player to use some weapons very effectively while newbies stick with the easier to use weapons. While this takes somewhat more effort to ballance, the result is a more thurough balance.

Arshune · 2003-02-07, 12:53 AM

Come to think of it, it would probably depend on what armor they were wearing. If you stabbed a MAX with a knife I should hope it doesn't die, but if you did it to someone in standard armor or agile armor maybe they should go down. Same would go for everything else. Also, does anyone know if empires have different body-armor values? I know empire specific MAXes do, but what about just regular suits of armor?

SandTrout · 2003-02-07, 12:56 AM

Only MAX armors are different. All others are the same stats with different models.

Lexington_Steele · 2003-02-07, 01:06 AM

Arshune, and all of you who are against region specific damage, just ask yourself this two question:

Should a foot shot do as much damage as a chest shot?

Should there be one hit kills for a bolt driver shot to your toe? (a bolt driver shot is a one hit kill on standard armor)

I know I will be real mad if I die cause someone shot my toe off.