My point is that, while a medium/large caliber hit to the head is most likely lethal, a comparabale hit to various other parts of the body has the same effect gameplay wise (death, rapid incapacitation, unconsciousness, complete immobilization.). And considering the current weapons, headshots would be either easy or based on luck, depending on the weapon. That's why I said tossing in one part doesn't work too well. I'm (obviously) not proposing said features, I prefer infantry combat to take longer than 1-3 seconds.
I don't think headshots are wholly supposed to be a measure in realism, just in adding another dynamic to combat. The suggestion to place a hard limit on their possible range should prevent fluky shots, and hitting a target as small as a player's head, even from quite close range, should be far from easy for the majority of players. I see it at its most useful with the pistol at close range, creeping up on a stationary target. At the moment, this option simply isn't available. You shoot them with the pistol, anywhere, and they turn around and BEAR your ass. It shouldn't work like this. Who knows, people might even start using the pistols more often at close range. Also, nobody is proposing one-hit kills, which are something that I would definitely be against in this game. 2x damage is not unreasonable.
i think, just think, that that's so you can see. :p i'm with what broccoli said, that's perfectly how i would describe it. now think about the accuracy of weapons in this game, and the distance of most enguagements. yeah. any anyway, this won't speed the game up to some super counterstrike. it could easily be balanced so it wouldn't accellerate the gunfights. hell, you could even have a balance that means that you can't get a headshot unless your crosshair is pointing at their head.
dynamic, interesting combat, in which you make decisions as for where to aim for the ability to sneak up on people and do damage without being sprayed down. lots of fun from getting that nice shot. a tiny tiny new think for people to learn to enjoy, in the same way that you can see that people enjoy counterstrike. and, as we've already layed out, there wouldn't be any unfair frustrating things of headshots.
God yes. Tried that with R&D settings (weapons fired slightly slower) but got 90% percent of the community on my ass so I defaulted speeds again (with a few minor tweaks).
How do headshots make combat any more "dynamic" or interesting than it is now? All it would mean is that people would aim higher more often. Wouldn't something like increased melee damage from behind do the same without breaking other elements of the game? Lots of fun running into a room and instantly dying before you have a chance to do anything. Yes, because we all know the thing people love the most about Counter-Strike is the headshots. Aren't headshots themselves inherently unfair and frustrating for all players below the top ten percent? It's heavily luck-biased for most people, and there are few things more frustrating than getting all geared up and ready to go, running around a corner, and then being laid out in one or two shots before you can react. Furthermore, slow-paced games such as Empires wouldn't work well with this mechanic. High survivability is a must, as nothing sucks more than running across the map, getting killed in a split second, and then respawning back where you started. The risk penalties can't be high, and headshots crank them up like nothing else.
Id like to dispute your point that headshots are mostly luck. I can tell you that it takes much skill to get that little chunk of lead in someones head. Hell, you should know if youve ever played an FPS with them.
i dont care about head shots but i think you should be able to execute someone real easy and quick if your right behind them.. maybe a neck break move? lol
like have the melee upgrade give you a 1 hit kill if you get them A. in the head and B. from behind. but in general i agree with dumpster's last post, this game needs a relatively low risk factor to be fun and head shots simply get you (or them) killed faster thus lowering the appeal of the subgenre of this game. [i hope that sentence made since, its 4AM and i just got off work]
Well according to that logic, death should be made as slow as possible. Why not make it so that it takes an entire clip to kill someone? Oh wait, it already does! What is more unfair, having the opportunity and skill to pull off a head-shot, for a damage bonus, or unloading a whole clip + some into a rifleman, only to have him casually turn around whilst you're reloading and shoot you twice in the foot, killing you? Headshots make the combat more dynamic because they offer another option: if you aim for the head, you are far more likely to miss, because it's a much smaller target, but when you do hit it the rewards are greater. It's an added risk you have to calculate whilst you're lining up that shot, and requires more thought than just "aim, spray". Empires is all about interesting and varied gameplay, so why are people so against it in the combat system?
I agree here. As for your last question, people are afraid that the gameplay will become like CS, which pisses me off. Why the hell are you worried about what OTHER games are like? Who the fuck cares if you wind up having a few features similar to other games? I don't. I care if its fun, and right now, the combat system is about as fucked up as it gets.
The reason HS are so messed up in CS is because how they handled hit boxes. I've read that movement can cause hitboxes to change...certain types of movement make a HS more probable. I'm pretty sure that it can be programed how the hitboxes work.
The hitboxes in CS: S were seriously messed up when it was released. I'm not sure if it's even fixed.
Hitbox accuracy mostly depends on server tickrate (excluding client bandwidth/connenction). Which is low for Empires and high for CS:S (usually). The "slower" the server the higher the probability of random headshots (lagging and thus interpolated hitboxes). Btw. .. Headshots aren't really messed up in CS:S .. they're just the norm. CS:S is close combat with quite accurate weapons.
precisely. nothing like empires. anyone that thinks this game will become like the crosshair twitchy and ultra fast kills like in counterstrike is assuming that one small aspect of gameplay will make the combat different. there's absolutly no saying at this point HOW headshots will influence combat, but my inclination is that it will not change the SPEED of gameplay at all. balancing. and now everyone that says 'balancing is hard' is only vaguely dismissing the idea becuase they think that is 'might not work.' that's not a reason. boost to melee instead of headshots from behind? this doesn't nearly cover all the situations when you want to line up a shot, without actually having to run up to the enemy. dozens of times i've ran right up behind someone just to be blown away seconds before i touched them. what if you can't reach them, such as if they're down a level and unaware? currently, as soon as you start shooting they will often be able to react and blow you away. this includes with the pistol. how many times have you wanted to just execute someone where you KNOW that they'll be able to turn around and fight. it seems to me that all your arguement is is faster combat: certainly not neccessarily melee could substitute: in very very rare cases it's be like CS: it is actually just borrowing a feature that is in all modern games. Half life 2 deathmatch for instance, and look at how the combat in that is. very similar. it's promote luck: the protections against that as we've already outlined will protect against that. just means people will aim up: if gives people the choice of how to fight- get every bullet in or risk half your bullets going too high. i used to believe headshots were in this game, and i loved it. i actually do remember thinking "i love it where you choose what to shoot at depending on range". and i think it'll be a great addition.
