Should the Head shots kill ?

[AnRK]

Originally Posted by Emnyron

"Blimey, Say good medic Sir, I seem to have found a .50 with my forehead.. Whoud you square your Starlight ARSE over here and stab me in my left ham with that magical pen of pixie dust and carebare stares?"

Sorry, this is Project Reality after all

[Freelance_Commando]

It would be nice if you could make sure an enemy was down by shooting them in the head after they've gone down to remove their revive ability (so they have to respawn).

Though I must say this discussion is getting pretty gruesome.....

[Axel]

Originally Posted by Emnyron

Sigh.. You get shot in the noggin, You`re dead, not anymore of this "Blimey, Say good medic Sir, I seem to have found a .50 with my forehead.. Whoud you square your Starlight ass over here and stab me in my left ham with that magical pen of pixie dust and carebare stares?"

Exatly, one shot in the torso and you're lying down wounded then aswell?

[TheParadoX]

Considering that soldiers are wearing body armor, this may be debatable ... let's take care of the headshot problem at first, IMO

[ralfidude]

Axel, im not following your logic.

Your saying yes to a headshot kill but then contradicting yourself saying we shouldnt stress a head shot kill? I dont get it.

And the way why it is 2-3 shots actually just 2. Is that you are wounded and bleeding after the first shot, depending on where ur shot, and by what caliber rifle you are shot with, then you are critically wounded and laying on the ground revivable, in critical state where you need a medics attention.

I believe engine does not allow you to just lay there and still be active pretending to be wounded.

The best alternative is to be moving still and bleeding out to the gray screen like we have now.

Everything about PR's getting shot is perfect, aside from head shots.

Reviving a person after being fatally wounded from a headshot is as believable as ghost hunters.

I call medics my personal Jesus. At least for this version....

[Alex6714]

1 shot in the head = death

1 shot anywhere on the body = critically wounded.

Problem solved, all shots are lethal so no bias and realism is involved too, rather that just nerfing everything to suit, its the other way round.

[gazzthompson]

Originally Posted by Alex6714

1 shot anywhere on the body = critically wounded.
.

disagree , there should be a difference in Caliban capability for rifles. like now with G3vsm16/m4

[Axel]

Originally Posted by ralfidude

Axel, im not following your logic.

Your saying yes to a headshot kill but then contradicting yourself saying we shouldnt stress a head shot kill? I dont get it.

And the way why it is 2-3 shots actually just 2. Is that you are wounded and bleeding after the first shot, depending on where ur shot, and by what caliber rifle you are shot with, then you are critically wounded and laying on the ground revivable, in critical state where you need a medics attention.

I believe engine does not allow you to just lay there and still be active pretending to be wounded.

The best alternative is to be moving still and bleeding out to the gray screen like we have now.

Everything about PR's getting shot is perfect, aside from head shots.

Reviving a person after being fatally wounded from a headshot is as believable as ghost hunters.

I call medics my personal Jesus. At least for this version....

Originally Posted by Alex6714

1 shot in the head = death

1 shot anywhere on the body = critically wounded.

Problem solved, all shots are lethal so no bias and realism is involved too, rather that just nerfing everything to suit, its the other way round.

^That's what I'm saying ralfi, 1 shot in the torso critically wounded, 1 shot in the head dead. The other opinion I layed out was that a fellow takes 2-3 shots to the torso but then again is revivable by taking a shot in the head.

By "stressing headshooting" I mean that it takes far too many shots to get a guy down by shooting him in a "nonhead" area, but he'll go down by a headshot, in my opinion that's more CS like.

English is not my first language so I might have screwed up abit in my latter posts.


"disagree , there should be a difference in Caliban capability for rifles. like now with G3vsm16/m4"

Yes, but couldn't it be some other differences than "gamey" damage differences, I know the 7.62 and so forth packs a bigger punch, but one still goes down after getting hit by a 5.56.

[Alex6714]

Originally Posted by gazzthompson

disagree , there should be a difference in Caliban capability for rifles. like now with G3vsm16/m4

True, but I think the main difference will be shown with recoil etc.

Although 5.56 should maybe be 1 shot = brings you down to 10/20% health.

And I am talking about rifles, not pistols or SMGs.

[gazzthompson]

Originally Posted by Alex6714

True, but I think the main difference will be shown with recoil etc.
.

and power, if G3 and M16 both 1 shot 1 kill like you said, but m16 rightfully has less recoil then m16 would dominate all over the field in every situation.

but one still goes down after getting hit by a 5.56.

theres serving personal on this forum that would disagree with that.