Should the Head shots kill ?

[[R-DEV]fuzzhead]

Originally Posted by randompants

Which completely baffles me to no end..... do you DEV's actually intend on keeping this in? 94% disapproval and you can't even comment on it?


Good thing I barely play video games anymore....this new "rule" is a total deal-breaker for me in this game... I don't like playing Project-Revive....

random pants, I wont tell you this again, have some respect when posting, demanding things is not going to mean your getting your way and just shows everyone your maturity level. Judging from your attitude from all the months of your posts, I honestly would actually be glad to see you stop playing PR and posting in these forums - seriously your attitude stinks.

This poll is extremely one-sided and only gives one side of an argument, needless to say I dont agree with most of the posters in this thread, but there are others out there that also agree.

I will comment about the way players are critically wounded in PR, but not in this thread as its not productive.

[Colonelcool125]

Originally Posted by [R-DEV]fuzzhead

This poll is extremely one-sided and only gives one side of an argument, needless to say I dont agree with most of the posters in this thread, but there are others out there that also agree.

What do you mean by this? It seems like the reason one opinion is getting argued a lot is that a lot of people agree with that opinion.

Originally Posted by [R-DEV]fuzzhead

I will comment about the way players are critically wounded in PR, but not in this thread as its not productive.

I'm intrigued....

[JKRMAUI]

The current system doesn't bother me, I enjoy sniping when I get around to it. Most of the time if they can even be revived I can get the medic too, or no medic comes anyway.

Either way I think the current system works. It would be nice if it insta kill head shot I suppose. Either way does not effect my PR experience...I aim for center of mass when possible.

[Qaiex]

The logical thing to do is to aim for center of mass, but a headshot should kill, maybe give it a percentage to avoid killing, like 90% death on headshots.

I'm not really sure how it works, if you run up to a downed person and start blasting away do they die?

[Axel]

Originally Posted by gazzthompson

whats closer to reality ? a 5.56 and 7.62 having near same damage, or having alot different like now?? (hint, this one.) there are many reports of the ineffectiveness of the 5.56 , and these are mainly against un-armoured insurgents. not modern body armor.

Good point once again, and 7.62 should have more power, yes, but not excessively. I still have a hard time understanding how a 5.56mm round couldn't make any mark hitting a kevlar vest, let alone ripping through human flesh.

However my original point stands, if a headshot kills as in the avatar goes dead, a shot to the torso or any other body part than the head should critically wound the avatar, maybe a 5.56 since it supposedly doesn't make a man fall over could only severly wound the avatar, as in really low HP.

How does the Chinese 6.5mm(?) compare to the 7.62 in terms of power?


"When a 5.56mm round hits one of those "slender" targets "that keep coming", what nobody mentions is that the serious wound (the idea that they cause little damage is incorrect) means that the target is probably going to bleed out in not too long (unless he gets treatment from a medic, which takes him out of the fight). This is because the 5.56mm round is a "tumbler" and will "tumble" at very high velocity. This causes enormous flesh and organ damage. Any bullet that hits the skeleton is going to knock the target down, but the 5.56mm causes more damage against soft tissue than the 7.62mm bullets." -Staff Sergeant Sledge

Might be something worth noticing or the again might be horribly one sided, who knows.

"Troops have long been taught to aim at the torso or head. This is the sure way to take someone down with either round." -Staff Sergeant Sledge

That's the thing I paid some special attention to.

[Axel]

Originally Posted by random pants

Dude, nobody wants that stupid idea of every rifle critically wounding in 1 torso shot....

Even the super-realism crazies understand that the game would be broken IMMEDIATELY

5.56 weapons would DOMINATE, lone-wolfing pros like me would be able to absolutely rape again like back in .6....


Just stop with the 1-torso shot proposal... it really is a horrible idea, and you guys who support it obviously don't have any clue as to how much it would break this game.





Really don't care what you think, it's the internetz... "buddy"


And your idea of a 1-shot torso gameplay is the most foolish thing in this thread by far.

It's the internet? that's not an excuse, still living beings behind the screens you know, and you for one wouldn't have the balls to act like that if this was a face-to-face conversation, I'm sure.. buddy.

[gazzthompson]

Originally Posted by Axel

Good point once again, and 7.62 should have more power, yes, but not excessively. I still have a hard time understanding how a 5.56mm round couldn't make any mark hitting a kevlar vest, let alone ripping through human flesh.

However my original point stands, if a headshot kills as in the avatar goes dead, a shot to the torso or any other body part than the head should critically wound the avatar, maybe a 5.56 since it supposedly doesn't make a man fall over could only severly wound the avatar, as in really low HP.

How does the Chinese 6.5mm(?) compare to the 7.62 in terms of power?


"When a 5.56mm round hits one of those "slender" targets "that keep coming", what nobody mentions is that the serious wound (the idea that they cause little damage is incorrect) means that the target is probably going to bleed out in not too long (unless he gets treatment from a medic, which takes him out of the fight). This is because the 5.56mm round is a "tumbler" and will "tumble" at very high velocity. This causes enormous flesh and organ damage. Any bullet that hits the skeleton is going to knock the target down, but the 5.56mm causes more damage against soft tissue than the 7.62mm bullets." -Staff Sergeant Sledge

Might be something worth noticing or the again might be horribly one sided, who knows.

"Troops have long been taught to aim at the torso or head. This is the sure way to take someone down with either round." -Staff Sergeant Sledge

That's the thing I paid some special attention to.

QBZ is 5.8 not 6.5 and the 5.56

and the 5.56 is DESIGNED to wound, not kill.

[[R-MOD]Saobh]

Guys, some of you need to check your attitude. Speak your mind, yes. But make it in a constructive way.
Being solely negative and pissy isn't going to help the discussion in any way.

Take this as a formal waring before this thread gets locked, which would be a shame as this is indeed a subject of interest.
(even tho frankly I don't care I always shoot for the groin ... how about that aye ! even if you get revived the guy shouldn't be running any time soon ! where's the multiple threads about THAT ! )

[[R-MOD]Bob_Marley]

Originally Posted by gazzthompson

and the 5.56 is DESIGNED to wound, not kill.

Lies lies lies.

Its designed to kill Russians wearing body armour.

The whole designed to wound is an utter myth.

[[R-DEV]Jaymz]

Originally Posted by Axel

"When a 5.56mm round hits one of those "slender" targets "that keep coming", what nobody mentions is that the serious wound (the idea that they cause little damage is incorrect) means that the target is probably going to bleed out in not too long (unless he gets treatment from a medic, which takes him out of the fight). This is because the 5.56mm round is a "tumbler" and will "tumble" at very high velocity. This causes enormous flesh and organ damage. Any bullet that hits the skeleton is going to knock the target down, but the 5.56mm causes more damage against soft tissue than the 7.62mm bullets." -Staff Sergeant Sledge

That's all fine and dandy when you're talking about penetrating Jonny OPFOR's body armour and having him require a medic. But in Iraq/Afghanistan where NATO forces are engaging skinny militants that factor is completely redundant.

What's that Staff Sergeant Sledge? "the target is probably going to bleed out in not too long". Tell that to the two soldiers that were killed in Ramadi, 2003 by an insurgent that took seven 5.56 rounds. I guess "not too long" wasn't short enough for them....

On 12 September 2003, in Ar Ramadi, Iraq elements of the 3rd Battalion, 5th Special Forces Group engaged enemy forces in a firefight. An insurgent was struck in the torso by several rounds of 5.56mm ammunition from their M—4 carbines (this is the current shortened version of the M—16 Service Rifle). He continued to fire his AK—47 and mortally wounded MSgt Kevin N. Morehead, age 33, from Little Rock, Arkansas. The engagement continued with the same insurgent surprising SFC William M. Bennett, age 35, from Seymour, Tennessee from a hiding place and killing him instantly with a three—round burst to the head and neck. SSgt Robert E Springer, threw away his M—4 carbine, drew an obsolete WWI/WWII vintage .45 caliber pistol and killed the insurgent with one shot. A close inspection of the enemy's corpse revealed that he had been hit by seven 5.56 mm rounds in his torso. Also, in this engagement, these soldiers were provided with a commercially produced 5.56mm round of 77—grain weight vice the 62—grain bullets in use by general—purpose forces. Obviously, the larger 5.56mm round was of little consequence.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2004/...ietnam_ki.html