Wrong. Using the default settings, I have had this happen to me countless times. Usually I play NF engineer with SMG2. If I shoot a BE rifleman (and practically every shot registers on my end) a whole clip will not kill them. Conversely, a few bullets from the BEAR will kill me. I know this is partly balancing, partly lag, but I'm telling you that it's no fault of mine. I'll assume this was sarcasm, but my statement still stands: careful consideration in your target selection makes the game more interesting and varied. Since when has this been a valid excuse? Writing a game is not easy, but that's what Krenzo has practically done. If anything, the harder something is the greater reward you will reap from it.
The SMG2's do 10 damage each (at a speed of 1 bullet / 0.085 seconds), so with perfect accuracy you should have killed him in 0.85 seconds (but with body armor on it'll probably be 0.935 seconds). The BE AR shoots bullets at a rate of 1 bullet / 0.055 seconds and does 35 damage per bullet. Thus, he'll have killed you (with perfect accuracy) in 0.165 seconds, so around 0.7 seconds faster :p
yeah i just think that CSS is all close combat so you will get caught by that randomn headshot everyonce in awhile but seeing how giant empires maps are this wont happen as much..
Eh .. use the pistol? Why should a pesky Engineer just insta kill a rifleman in any situation? That's not the point of a rifleman. It will always take the Engineer at least 0.5 seconds. The rifleman most likely will not just turn around and kill you instantly if you don't act completely retarded. If you got your ass whipped countless of times while ambushing a Rifleman as Engineer then you at least screwed up more than said Rifleman. You have a pistol, turrets, ammo box and walls after all. I do rarely get killed by my chosen target, regardless of classes. But probably I'm just biased. And no, I'm not being sarcastic. there's no difference in aiming for the head rather than chest, apart from the head being smaller. I don't see people wiggle around their head wildly to avoid bullets. Now think about it, over medium/large distances noone aimes for any particular body part, because the taget is too small, and your weapon has some spread, so there's quite a chance you hit the target in the head, "by accident", àla spraying in CS:S. And "It's not easily balanced" is a valid excuse because this thread is about implementing headshots, not exactly balancing them properly. I've yet so see a suggestion that I think is balanced. I'll try to come up with a proper suggestion until tomorrow, k? :p And don't interpret anything of what I say ever, I always only mean exactly what I write, trying to be objective.
ditto, broccoli. i also kinda want to say that no matter how "aggressive" or nething i sound while arguing, i love y'all really... that's why we put in the range limit for headshots, as suggested from the start. also possibly the suggestion that the crosshair has to be over their head in order to qualify. and that people only aim for the body at distance is part of the point- this gives you the chance to change tactics.
So basically: if range(=<1024); then(headshot 0); else(headshot 1) 1024 would be the max range where headshots can happen at.
I'm not trying to be mean, either. But I'm not friendly enough to gently reply to one-liners. And my tolerance for people not understanding properly is low, too. If the range limit was on per weapon basis it sure would be fine (pistols < assault rifles, i.e.) And maybe have a damage distribution of something like 66/100/133% for extremities/body/head. Armor should protect the body only. Maybe Grenadiers and Riflemen get a one hit protection for headshots because of their helmets (ala ET)? In any case, the weapons would have to be rebalanced in some way (pistols would be even more powerfull without).
Personally I think that it shouldn't take a full clip to kill any class with any weapon in the game. It's simply just isn't fun.
I like the NF SMG2 ... especially with Accuracy Upgrade. Not uncommon to hit someone 15 times and he's still living. But I agree that it's basicly stupid and the SMG2s are weapons to be avoided. Pistols are more effective (but less fun).
Well everyone seems to have added their two cents on this one but me, so... I believe that headshots would hurt the game. So here is my list of reasons why and a post-counter. 1. "Random headshots" The current accuracy of weapons would lead to this adding as was posted before. "Complete luck" All the weapons spray in random directions. This would allow someone FAR less experienced to win against a very experienced player by making a "lucky shot" Post-counter: But the maps are big enough to prevent this. ----- No they are not. While some are huge, you still have to be pretty close to hit someone with anything other than a Scout(whore) weapon, or with a BEAR. This defeats that view. Now imagine a smaller map like escort or district. Hell an engi might have a better chance of winning than a rifeman. 2. Loss of enjoying a firefight. Yes technically they already suck with the current Scout(whore) weapon almost ALWAYS winning these. Not to mention the BEAR's insane power just below it. (And I love the BEAR. But I also admit it's unbalanced just below the Scout(whore).) Headshots would hurt this even more. Post-Counter: No. It would just add the element of aiming. ---- Wrong. It already requires a ton of aiming with the current accuracy. Plus keep in mind that this "IS NOT" a normal FPS. You will "NEVER" see an RTS game with headshots. (Except as some sort of special ability, used only by a power inf. unit.) Why? Because it would cause tactics to be thrown out the window. Hell you can charge right in and have a "chance" of winning even over a substantially larger more exp. force. So lets keep in mind its a RTS/FPS and not just a FPS game. (If it was I would have LONG since left the commuinty for much better games.) This covers two key points I wanted to make. If I read any more legit. reason to incude it, I'll be happy to point out why they don't bennifit empires. (Non legit. consists of; because they are cool, they add gameplay "without a damn good reason why", and of course, "They give me a chance to actually win a fight".)
those were all fair comments, but only if the headshots added a lot of random chance to the game. i guess the debate devolves down to how much of a gameplay change there will be. anyone who thinks it will be like counterstrike is really mistaken. what is proposed is a slight.. slight adjustment to damage, such as the 33% bonus suggested earlier. think about Half Life 2 Deathmatch on this one, it's a perfect example. even at medium ranges, you still generally aim you machinegun shots to the body. but when you're litterally at point blank, you want to be able to cap 'em, as you expect. go and play hl2 deathmatch, i love it anyway, and see that you still can't beat a greater number of enemies just by getting lucky headshots, and that it really doesn't effect any game mechanics other than just being, frankly, more useful and fun, and involving.
The real problem I see with this is that currently the guns with greater accuracy are balanced by being weaker. Now add range and the gamestyle (large open areas, weapons split over different infantry classes etc) as a factor to the weapon and faction balancing. The last thing we want is a complete rebalancing of weapons because people find out how to fully exploit the headshot by taking a weaker engineer gun, and really all this does is make the weaker guns have more chance of succeeding. It will definitely not help the poor NF riflemen guy with the poor accuracy but superior damage. This will promote ramboing, and I'm against Ramboing. Teamwork above all, and you cant work together to make headshots. Also one of the signs of a bad feature is people defending it by already nerfing it before its even implemented, this only highlights how faulty this feature actually is, I'm not against headshots that much, I just don't think they fit in with the current balance: Snipers do less damage over range. Engineers SMG1 has almost the same accuracy the whole clip through. (add the accuracy upgrade to this, and you don't have to bother with picking different guns for different situations, as accuracy + aim = boom) NF AR works better at close range to melee, BE the opposite. I don't completely agree with the lucky shot as a more experienced player should be aiming for the head and playing better in general, this would probably only make the better player even better, and steer the game more towards skill, which isn't necessarily a good thing. Its definitely a viable feature for any fps game, but don't compare this to a fast paced - deathmatch game, when you are close and you want to cap them, and you fail at doing so, its because you didn't think it all the way through, not because the weaopns are unbalanced, you should've taken into consideration that the newbie that is facing the other way, with the really bad aim, might have a buckshot pistol. Edit: I do like Grapehead's idea of doing more damage at close range, for all the weapons, or the other way around, weapons doing less damage over range. This wouldn't detract from the RTS, in a lot of RTS games (I could name TA as an example) movement and view play a big role in how many shots will hit. The RTS equivalant of a headshot would be the damage upgrade skill for ther riflemen (like kazuhiro explained, kind of). There could be a headshot skill for all classes, that would only give you a 10% bonus on damage, only if you hit in the head. With an SMG, on average it would be 20 DPS. Add up one more second for all the other hits, and you have a nice skill right there. Only problem this could lead to is when riflemen start using this skill in combination with their damage upgrade skill. Again not a big fan of headshots, but this could be a way of adding it in. The other classes aren't trained riflemen, so their experience on the field does not make them better at firing at the enemy, but rather what they are paid to do and have been doing under duty, but they did pick up some smarts from witnessing massacres up close and surviving themselves. Giving them a better chance at hitting vital spots (headshots). Again, not a big fan of it, and everyone in a squad can get this upgrade, the question is whether you would want it and whether it only sounds good in theory but in reality is either overpowered or f*cking pointless and lame.
Funny thing about that, is that in FPS games movement and view also play a big role in how shots will hit. :p The great part about having an FPS part of the game is that you don't need to alter values to simulate players, because you have players simulating players! (shocking, I know) And after all, the general players are pretty much playing an FPS. Balancing FPS on the grounds that it helps out in an RTS game is hardly justifiable.
Headshots would be awesome if their damage faded with the range, and if the shots could ricochet off helmets. In fact, I think it's something we've long needed. Emphasis added More like HeadshotDamage = 50 + (200:RangeInMeters)
That's not a goddamn cookie, that's an omelet with pieces of bacon in it. Oh and I still don't really like headshots UNLESS damage decreases logarithmically with all weapons and ONLY WHEN weaponry in general is slowed down a bit, so it's not HL2DM on a stick.
It is justifiable when you are playing a Hybrid where the game is based on teamwork over skill, I wasnt saying we should start making players just another marine in starcraft, rather making players not go beyond the bounds of their position in the game.
I've been against weak guns right from the beginning. One thing I don't see is why teamwork couldn't exist with weapons that actually kill someone? The main argument for shitty weapons appears to be the fact that you need more than one guy to take down another of same class(not applying to riflemen), which to me seems completely flawed way of thinking. Yes, it makes people to run in groups instead of going out alone, but does that mean they work as a team as well? Then you take into consideration that the number of players is very limited and the maps are very large(and getting even larger). Sometimes it's impossible to have enough people running around for working shittygun tactics, which results in really predictable 2vs1 battles turning the game simply into having more people in individual conflict than the other side, instead of having less, but more skilled people tying in more enemy players while the rest wreak havoc in their base. This I can tell you, is not fun for the players on ground. Also having written in stone that engineer can not kill a rifleman even by surprising the little fucker makes the gameplay for infantry rather dull. You should not think Empires in RTS way as most of the players are playing a FPS while only two are playing RTS. When you take away the skill factor from infantry combat, by toning down the weapons too much you make the game dull for most of the players as there can only be one commander per team... Besides online gaming is skill oriented, being reduced in no more than a bot with slightly better pathfinding is not my idea of fun. Teamwork can exist with weapons that do meaningful damage that's my point.
