Headshots...

[Kyonye]

Yes, I want them.

4 similar threads popped up. Which means in the last 9 years, I'm not the first person to have created a thread about it.

[basti]

Nobody wants them. Its a bad idea, plain and simple.

[Aractain]

I used to be against headshots but I realised that I was just using my experinces in COD (PPsh?) where headshots were instant kill and obtained by spamming the highest rate of fire weapon you could find.

It dosn't have to be like that, head shots could simply be a 20% increase in damage which is okay I guess.

Also seperate hitboxes for the rear/top of vehicles. Lets get some tactics into the tank warfare.

[Barbapapa123]

maybe just increase the damage done, otherwise cloakers would just kill most people with ease.

[Robert089]

Maybe only for snipers? For any other weapons it would be too easy to get headshots from spraying down a corridor, imagine the MCG spraying that 100 round clip in a narrow hallway, it's bound to get a couple of headshots. However I still think it would make sniping unbalanced, being instagibbed from someone hiding in a tree isn't fun.

I say this as a sniper, as it is now it is balanced, deadly in the open or against wounded enemies but when assaulting a base it works as a suppression weapon, keeping the enemies behing cover.

If headshots were introduced you would have the same problem I remember having in Battlefield: Bad Company 2, whole squads of snipers sitting on a hill, gaining their exp while the objectives never get touched because it is so easy to farm kills.

Plus there is an element of fun to be had in working in sniper pairs, co-ordinating on teamspeak to get the instant kills.

[ArcticPrism]

No to head shots. The kill speed is already fast without them and adding more doesn't help the game. Cloakers would benefit too much from head shots and this is also one of the few shooters where snipers don't completely dominate other infantry.

[DviddLeff]

I want them.

They add to both the skill and luck of combat. Skill is obvious, but the luck takes a major part; it is odd that it always takes an exact amount of shots to kill anything. It also gives an attacker who approaches from he side or rear more of an advantage.

Weak points on vehicles also adds tactics to the game, making flanking actions much more effective.

You complain about snipers and clockers; he cloakers will kill the snipers for starters, and just call in the reavers if they don't. Cloakers will get a buff from this sure... But honestly how often do you get killed by one wielding a pistol currently? Personally twice in the two months I have been resubscribed.

Oh and a lot of people did not like the game at release because of the lack of headshots, which were already well established in fps games back in 2003.

[Bags]

Originally Posted by DviddLeff

I want them.

They add to both the skill and luck of combat. it is odd that it always takes an exact amount of shots to kill anything. .

Not sure if serious. I'm not sure if I read this right. You want to add luck to a game? Nothing is worse than adding RNG to games.

And no, there is no need for headshots. No infantry should ever be able to instagib another infantry. Everyone would roll sniper and no one would ever push the objective, see TF2.

[etheral]

One of the best parts of planetside (at least for me), was that there were no infantry to infantry instagibs apart from the JH triple back in the day, which I never approved of. Do we want open field battles to become a massive game of quick draw? If sniper weapons become able to instagib players, then that is all people will use because the easiest way to farm BEP will be to camp in one spot and headshot enemies as they come out of the AMS, and if you think otherwise, you are fooling yourself. Also, the 'skill' argument is flawed, because anyone can be a half decent sniper in PS. Once you become used to the sensitive CoF and bullet travel time it essentially becomes a point and click kill generator.

Tanks and the like receiving more damage based on where they get hit is a good idea though. Would be nice to see infantry and armour being able to ambush vehicles

*edit* never thought id see myself agreeing with Bags

[Duffman]

I dont think he is asking for instagib but headshots should just increase damage not necessarily instant kill

[Baneblade]

All I want is to make tracking a moving target less about prediction and more about skill.

I don't even fear snipers as a foot soldier, because avoiding them is so easy, even in wide open ground.

[Bags]

Originally Posted by Sobekeus

All I want is to make tracking a moving target less about prediction and more about skill.

I don't even fear snipers as a foot soldier, because avoiding them is so easy, even in wide open ground.

That's mostly due to warping. I can't snipe because past 100 m everyone warps so badly when they strafe with surge.

[ArcticPrism]

Originally Posted by DviddLeff

I want them.

They add to both the skill and luck of combat. Skill is obvious, but the luck takes a major part; it is odd that it always takes an exact amount of shots to kill anything. It also gives an attacker who approaches from he side or rear more of an advantage.

I'd hardly call head shots skill considering the high ROF of weapons that most of the weapons have. Not to mention the extremely tight indoor environments where most infantry battles are.

Why would you want to add luck to the game? So people can cry all day about "Lucky head shot" "You lucker" etc etc etc. Adding luck adds nothing positive to the game.

Weak points on vehicles also adds tactics to the game, making flanking actions much more effective.

You complain about snipers and clockers; he cloakers will kill the snipers for starters, and just call in the reavers if they don't. Cloakers will get a buff from this sure... But honestly how often do you get killed by one wielding a pistol currently? Personally twice in the two months I have been resubscribed.

Players should not be certing cloaking to be an invisible infantry that can rack up kills. It's a support roll in my opinion. As far as the Reaver argument, there are rarely packs of snipers on hills without AA MAXs, Cerberus Turrets, or an AMS near by.

Oh and a lot of people did not like the game at release because of the lack of headshots, which were already well established in fps games back in 2003.

That's fine. I'm sure there are more of us who don't want the head shots. Besides, the game did fine anyways without them.

Cyan stuff.

[Rbstr]

I want a real hitbox system and "realistic" weapons handling, headshots are part of that.

A "deadlier" set of weapons and the more cover-fire based, faster-paced, live or die, longer ranged gameplay it will encourage does indeed make a headshot not simply a skill proposition until you get quite close. TF2 is certainly not the damage model I'm looking for, which is very near the opposite of a real game (though it has it's merits).

I see a pistol taking 2 headshots on a standard, 3 agile, 4 rexo. MA would shift it down one for each. Sniper would be similar to MA, the difference being scopes, less degradation and more accuracy, not so much damage. I too hate the single shot sniper in most situations...but if you're running around in pajamas that's your price. Though I think if BC2 was single-shot-kill on headshots only (as it is, a single body shot kills) the sniper would be less of a problem.

A shotgun or big ass vehicle machine gun to the face kills you, that's just common sense.
Though, vehicles become and interesting balance issue with infantry deadly weapons when there really isn't a controlled spawn limit, as we'd expect in PS. It may be better to rock-paper scissors those a bit.

I don't like this assumption that PS:N's differences should work in the context of the original's mechanics only. For instance, again, a cone-of-fire recoil system like PS's is obsolete crap that has no place in a modern game, people new to PS are going to think it's dumb. What you want to see in PS:N should take that kind of thing into account.

[Bags]

Originally Posted by Rbstr

I want a real hitbox system and "realistic" weapons handling, headshots are part of that.

A "deadlier" set of weapons and the more cover-fire based, faster-paced, live or die, longer ranged gameplay it will encourage does indeed make a headshot not simply a skill proposition until you get quite close. TF2 is certainly not the damage model I'm looking for, which is very near the opposite of a real game (though it has it's merits).

I see a pistol taking 2 headshots on a standard, 3 agile, 4 rexo. MA would shift it down one for each. Sniper would be similar to MA, the difference being scopes, less degradation and more accuracy, not so much damage. I too hate the single shot sniper in most situations...but if you're running around in pajamas that's your price. Though I think if BC2 was single-shot-kill on headshots only (as it is, a single body shot kills) the sniper would be less of a problem.

A shotgun or big ass vehicle machine gun to the face kills you, that's just common sense.
Though, vehicles become and interesting balance issue with infantry deadly weapons when there really isn't a controlled spawn limit, as we'd expect in PS. It may be better to rock-paper scissors those a bit.

I can't imagine a base fight where people die in two to four bullets.