PDA

View Full Version : You're thoughts on this Dev's comment?



stonej37
09-26-2005, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by Goliath.Ubi.Dev:
We had a one shot one kill sniper before in Rainbow it was the Barret .50 cal. People hated it so much that we had to eventually remove it from the game.

We are not going back there, at least for now.

I think you misunderstood the dislike of that rifle. It wasn't that we didn't like the idea... one just should not be able to shoot it running around and not zoomed in! People ran around the maps like idiots shooting that 26' cannon like it was a pea shooter! THAT was the problem!

If you change the one and only sniper rifle to function the way I stated earlier... (can only fire while zoomed in, pause between shots, small rectical) I don't think you'd find too many people complaining.

s-snake-s
09-26-2005, 11:45 AM
Exactly. I expect a .50 cal to kill in one shot. I even expect most snipers rifles to kill in one shot.

If you do what Stone said you would NOT have RUN AND GUNNERS which again is what most of us hate about this game. Its geared towards that in every aspect.

I think we would love it if all the guns were even more INACCURATE if you are MOVING and more accurate and deadly when you are stationary like it should be.....

Cohibaluvr
09-26-2005, 11:48 AM
That was in the first Rainbow Six before Black Arrow.

When he says "One Shot Kill" that's exactly what he meant. You could shoot someone in the foot and they would die. They kept trying and trying to fix it and ended up just removing the game.

s-snake-s
09-26-2005, 11:50 AM
Originally posted by Cohibaluvr:
That was in the first Rainbow Six before Black Arrow.

When he says "One Shot Kill" that's exactly what he meant. You could shoot someone in the foot and they would die. They kept trying and trying to fix it and ended up just removing the game.

The problem again wasnt the one shot kills. It was the fact that people would run around with sniper rifles like assualt weapons. It was so **** easy to fix and they didnt even realize that.

Same here. One shot kills are fine. But make it so you have to be zoomed in and stationary like a true sniper would to get those 1-shot kills. Then the sniper would be vulnerable and would have to be smarter

stonej37
09-26-2005, 11:58 AM
Originally posted by s-snake-s:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cohibaluvr:
That was in the first Rainbow Six before Black Arrow.

When he says "One Shot Kill" that's exactly what he meant. You could shoot someone in the foot and they would die. They kept trying and trying to fix it and ended up just removing the game.

The problem again wasnt the one shot kills. It was the fact that people would run around with sniper rifles like assualt weapons. It was so **** easy to fix and they didnt even realize that.

Same here. One shot kills are fine. But make it so you have to be zoomed in and stationary like a true sniper would to get those 1-shot kills. Then the sniper would be vulnerable and would have to be smarter </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Right on! If the Sniper can hit me in the foot under all the conditions that I and s-snake-s have listed... he deserves the kill.

So there ya go, Goliath.Ubi.Dev. I doubt you'll read a negitive responce to this idea in this thread. Please give the Spec-ops the ability to be effective snipers. Doing so in the way we've discribed would keep everything balanced.

Mindchamb3r
09-26-2005, 02:03 PM
How can the Developer Be SOOO wrong about his own game?

the 50 cal would give you a one shot kill whether you got knicked on the foot or your hand.. It was not REALISTIC!!!!
his resolution to this?

Being able to unload a clip at someones temple at point range doesnt sound like a good recourse to a your previous F-up.

stonej37
09-26-2005, 02:24 PM
Originally posted by Mindchamb3r:
How can the Developer Be SOOO wrong about his own game?

the 50 cal would give you a one shot kill whether you got knicked on the foot or your hand.. It was not REALISTIC!!!!
his resolution to this?

Being able to unload a clip at someones temple at point range doesnt sound like a good recourse to a your previous F-up.

So did you think it was wrong to compleatly remove the rifle from the game? What do you think of my proposed solutions?

Jakethejake
09-26-2005, 02:49 PM
There is a simple solution to the weapon issues. It's called realism. In real life if I ran at someone spraying bullets, the probability of my hitting them would be low. It could happen, but would be unlikely. These games should be based on these same principles. You can fire from the hip, on the run, but the hit probability should be realistic. The person who stops, sights up and fires should always have an advantage over a run and gunner. It sounds as if this is no longer true, which is sad.

I think that Ubi has changed their thinking when it comes to all of their titles. For some reason they feel that consumers won't buy a R6 title, Halo, and a GR title. So they tried to compete with Halo by making LD. GR has gone futuristic. If you want today based realism, you'll have to get Rise of a Soldier. This is also sad. Back in the day, I would have happily purchased all 3. Red Storm was cranking out good quality games, and I had a great LOYALTY to all of the franchises. Unfortunately, Ubi took over and went in a different direction. Now instead of selling me three games, I won't buy any. The sad thing is that my buddies all say the same thing. I'll play Rise of a Soldier as a rental.

I don't know who is working in their marketing and developement department, but IMO, they, or whoever is responsible for these changes should be fired.

Goliath.Ubi.Dev
09-26-2005, 02:55 PM
The .50 cal went through a couple changes that some of the hardcore rainbow players tested for us and commented on. We removed the reticule but people used a piece of tape, bad idea. Then we forced you to zoom to shoot , that didnt help it was still too strong in close quarters. Then we toned down the damage and people thought it was useless.

The WA2000 has damage so that if you have critical hit and damage to max you can take out anyone with 2 chest hits or 1 for lighter classes. Headshots still deadly of course.

This was playtested and validated as fun by Rainbow fans, not us. This was basically what people were comfortable with.

Keep in mind that the .50 cal sniper in BF2 basically was 1shot kill in beta before they put it down to 2 shots, same problems were coming up.

As to hit location, we do have that but we feel strongly that the headshot should be the quickest take out method in the game. Otherwise we might as well just put the darn magnum from counter strike and this isnt going to happen.

In any case we couldnt change the functionality for the sniper rifle now that the game is out but we are listening to feedback since this was basically a player concensus decision.

death2ufool
09-26-2005, 03:17 PM
The sniper rifle should be deadly with a chest shot, other wise it useless, by the time you shoot someone once, they can easily whip around and shoot you in the head with an smg from 100 yards.

DayGlow
09-26-2005, 04:45 PM
Level IV Armour is rated to stop 6 30.06 Armour piercing rounds. To be realistic it needs to take the Armour of the target into consideration.

As for a .50cal not killing someone with a hand or foot shot in RL, it may not be an outright kill, but it would be a 'mission kill' as that person would be a casualty and unable to continue. You have to make compromises in games, even ones that want to be realistic.

Hashbrowns
09-26-2005, 05:58 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif
lol, but is right

PhillyMike_101
09-26-2005, 06:13 PM
The Sniper that Spec-Ops have now is useless. Ive hit somebody in the head before just to see their upper torso get blown back while still shooting me with great accuracy.

Jakethejake
09-26-2005, 06:33 PM
The .50 cal went through a couple changes that some of the hardcore rainbow players tested for us and commented on. We removed the reticule but people used a piece of tape, bad idea. Then we forced you to zoom to shoot , that didnt help it was still too strong in close quarters. Then we toned down the damage and people thought it was useless.

Why not make the shooting mechanics so that ALL weapons are not accurate unless they are being properly sighted, and the shooter is stationary and aiming at the target? That is the whole root of the run and gun problem. Nobody has a beef with a .50 cal sniper rifle being a 1 shot 1 kill weapon. We do have a problem with some kid running around killing guys with a sniper rifle while on the run. Reticule or not, the weapon should not be even close to accurate while on the run firing from the hip, or running while sighted. How could you not see this, and why was the only solution to eliminate the weapon or tone it down? How could it be too strong in close quarters? It's a .50 cal rifle!

This is the type of decision making that has alienated people like myself, and why I won't buy another Ubi game. Instead of making a decision that inspires thought, skill and better gameplay, you guys opted for the decision to dumb the game down because some twelve year old complained that it was too hard to get kills. Now I can unload a clip into my target's head and not even kill him. That's a hell of a lot of fun! You guys are brilliant.

bangurdead1988
09-26-2005, 06:47 PM
This is the type of decision making that has alienated people like myself, and why I won't buy another Ubi game. Instead of making a decision that inspires thought, skill and better gameplay, you guys opted for the decision to dumb the game down because some twelve year old complained that it was too hard to get kills. Now I can unload a clip into my target's head and not even kill him. That's a hell of a lot of fun! You guys are brilliant.

...just to point out another fact...this is why ubisoft is referred to as Noobiesoft

TheDemyelinator
09-26-2005, 07:21 PM
How's about people stop complaining about what's wrong and give vaild input by giving ideas of how you would like the game to play...


You say that someone shouldn't be able to run and gun you, but why shouldn't someone with quicker response time and better accuracy win the battle? If you made it so people couldn't run and gun at all, then the game would be an all out campfest and people would just not move waiting for you to come around and boom you are dead.


Still in this game camping or running, the better shot will get the kill.


No matter how the game is programmed, people are gonna use whatever's given to their advantage and you will not see a game that plays exactly how you like it unless you only play with people who play how you play.


Take the run and gun away and campers will win and piss off the majority of ubi's customers. Add the run and gun and it takes some realism away but makes it a little more even in the sense that best shot wins whether moving or not.


I'm not saying this game is perfect, no game ever will be. But I would much rather this game than a camper's dream game where it's grenade em or die.



Every business is going to try to attract as many customers as possible, and completely eliminating the run and gun will take away more customers than it would gain.

Jakethejake
09-26-2005, 07:35 PM
Running and gunning is what has killed this perfectly good franchise as a REALISTIC tactical shooter. If this game started this way, then I wouldn't have a beef. You'll never see me over at the Halo forums complaining about running and gunning. That's part of that games' identity.

To say that this game must be run and gun, or that people will camp all day long is inaccurate at best. You can run around the map all you like. You should have to properly aquire your target to get kills.

Look, the earlier versions of this game were fine. Sure there were a few campers on some of the maps, but it wasn't out of control. Why did they need to change the shooting mechanics? They deliberately tried to make this game more like Halo. In doing so, they ruined my favorite gaming franchise. You're ****ed right I'm going to complain!

TheDemyelinator
09-26-2005, 07:50 PM
jake... i agree with you in a sense. I was more referring to other things that i've read like no ret while running or no shooting unless zooming etc...


I loved RS3 until the glitches... the maps, the gameplay everything was awesome for the first couple of months.


On the other hand I dont mind the changes as much as other people because head shots are still the main weapon and will take the sprayers out. I dunno, it's probably just me but i can have a ton of fun with almost any FPS.

longinius
09-26-2005, 08:17 PM
Someone want some cheese with that whine?

First, there are complaints that the devs dont listen. Now there is a dev saying that they tried multiple solutions, based on community feedback, for the sniper problem but STILL people whined and bickered. And now there is more whining.

Guess what guys? When a game sells to hundreds of thousands of people chances are not everyone is going to be happy no matter WHAT you do. And even in this very community people have different opinions on various features, as is evident here.

As for the game being run and gun, heck, thats just one way to play it. Get a solid squad going, with people using their classes to the max, and you can be more tactical than in any other game. You guys like to talk about realism, well, how realistic are these two scenarios

1. Two teams of CTs rush to a choke point in a map, grenade spam for a few minutes and the surviving two finish one another off.

2. Two teams of CTs go head to head, the match getting drawn out because two or three guys on either side decide its "realistic" to sit and wait behind a door for the next enemy to walk past so they can nail them from behind.

Compared to what Lockdown offers:

A team of 6 guys are moving down a hall way. In front is a commando with a ballistic shield and behind him are two guys covering the front. Fourth man has a grenade primed and ready to go. Behind him is a medic, eager to assist his mates when the clash comes and in the rear is the last guy, covering his team as they move in search of enemies...

Yeah, of course the grenade spamming and door camping is MUCH more realistic, right? After all, thats exactly how SWAT teams take out dangerous criminals, thats how SAS cleared the Iranian embassy and thats how GIGN secured that airplane all those years ago. Through door camping and grenade spamming, mhm....

I have one gripe and one gripe alone about the gameplay in Lockdown, and thats the tendency to spray and pray being more reliable than accurate, aimed headshots. But thats really my only gameplay gripe, and I can live with it.

Jakethejake
09-26-2005, 08:18 PM
Yeah, I hear you. I'm just letting them know that their changes ruined this franchise for me.

Up until LD, I was optimistic about console games getting better and smarter. When I first heard about LD, in theory, it seemed like it was going back to the R6 roots. Multiple specialties, more team members, character customization. I have been quietly waiting for console games to begin to take their games to another level. Some of the sporting games are starting to do this, but in general, we are moving in the opposite direction. This game is a glaring example of that.

What I can't understand is this: The Rainbow series had more features and better gameplay five years ago on the PC, than it does now on the consoles. GR has also been dumbed down. Why would a hard core fan like myself buy LD or GRAW? Why would I spend hundreds of dollars for the 360, only to get a game that looks better, but has half the features of one that I played five years ago? I won't.

I've said this before. Unless ALL of the previous PC features are incorporated into the next-gen console games, and a great deal of them are folded into the current gen, I won't spend a penny. I'm not going to shell out $500 for graphics alone. Not with gas prices pushing skyward. Ubi should take note that their core fans are pissed off, and we're just not going to spend any more money to be insulted by them.

PaNtHeRRR...
09-26-2005, 08:54 PM
That's what it is all about now man, is making games look great with all these graphic effects, and not the actual gameplay aspect.

TheDemyelinator
09-26-2005, 09:29 PM
the graphics are worse in LD than in BA...

stonej37
09-27-2005, 07:44 AM
Originally posted by Goliath.Ubi.Dev:
The .50 cal went through a couple changes that some of the hardcore rainbow players tested for us and commented on. We removed the reticule but people used a piece of tape, bad idea. Then we forced you to zoom to shoot , that didnt help it was still too strong in close quarters. Then we toned down the damage and people thought it was useless.

The WA2000 has damage so that if you have critical hit and damage to max you can take out anyone with 2 chest hits or 1 for lighter classes. Headshots still deadly of course.

This was playtested and validated as fun by Rainbow fans, not us. This was basically what people were comfortable with.

Keep in mind that the .50 cal sniper in BF2 basically was 1shot kill in beta before they put it down to 2 shots, same problems were coming up.

As to hit location, we do have that but we feel strongly that the headshot should be the quickest take out method in the game. Otherwise we might as well just put the darn magnum from counter strike and this isnt going to happen.

In any case we couldnt change the functionality for the sniper rifle now that the game is out but we are listening to feedback since this was basically a player concensus decision.

This is a very good responce. I will now conceed that the problem no longer resides in the WA2000's lack of power (if it can infact kill anyone in 2 or less shots) and belongs to everyother gun's accuracy. Should a MP7/P90 be able to pick a sniper off (that has just shot him in the chest) half a map away while running full tilt? The fact that we see this happen many times over kills the balance of the fire arms. Subs should rule close to mid range fire fights due to thier rate of fire. Assault/sniper rifles should win longer range fire fights and any fight they get the first shot off, due to thier larger caliber rounds. Is there any way you, the Developers, can tweak the guns so we see a bit more balance and NEED for all types of arms?

BornWicked
09-28-2005, 06:45 AM
If UBI had REAL gamers testing this **** there would be no problem. When they say some "hard-core" gamers tested it they mean a moron that plays single player for 5 hours a week.

Real gamers do this **** full-time, 40-60 a week on Xbox Live.

UBI, get your heads out of your asses and hire some decent DEVs.

stonej37
09-28-2005, 07:38 AM
Originally posted by BornWicked:
If UBI had REAL gamers testing this **** there would be no problem. When they say some "hard-core" gamers tested it they mean a moron that plays single player for 5 hours a week.

Real gamers do this **** full-time, 40-60 a week on Xbox Live.

UBI, get your heads out of your asses and hire some decent DEVs.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

People get paid to play video games 40-60 hours a week?!??! Damm, I need to stop this whole working a real job for a living and taking care of a family so I too can play video game 60 hours a week. Waistline be dammed!

s-snake-s
09-28-2005, 08:29 AM
Originally posted by Jakethejake:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The .50 cal went through a couple changes that some of the hardcore rainbow players tested for us and commented on. We removed the reticule but people used a piece of tape, bad idea. Then we forced you to zoom to shoot , that didnt help it was still too strong in close quarters. Then we toned down the damage and people thought it was useless.

Why not make the shooting mechanics so that ALL weapons are not accurate unless they are being properly sighted, and the shooter is stationary and aiming at the target? That is the whole root of the run and gun problem. Nobody has a beef with a .50 cal sniper rifle being a 1 shot 1 kill weapon. We do have a problem with some kid running around killing guys with a sniper rifle while on the run. Reticule or not, the weapon should not be even close to accurate while on the run firing from the hip, or running while sighted. How could you not see this, and why was the only solution to eliminate the weapon or tone it down? How could it be too strong in close quarters? It's a .50 cal rifle!

This is the type of decision making that has alienated people like myself, and why I won't buy another Ubi game. Instead of making a decision that inspires thought, skill and better gameplay, you guys opted for the decision to dumb the game down because some twelve year old complained that it was too hard to get kills. Now I can unload a clip into my target's head and not even kill him. That's a hell of a lot of fun! You guys are brilliant. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's amazing how Ubi somehows misses the data that the average gamer in the US is in their late 20's now. I hope they take to heart what we are saying. I run a company and we always take into major consideration what our customers want. Since thats how we exist as a business. Seems like Ubi needs a refresher course when they take a great series built on realism and turn it into some run and gun fantasy game that most of us DON'T like.

Vjornaxx
09-28-2005, 08:30 AM
Wow, Born! 40 - 60 hours a week? Wow! How do you pay rent? I'm a pretty hardcore gamer and between work, school, and my girlfriend, I get in maybe 4 or 5 hours of gaming day. You are one lucky guy to be able to play that much and be able to pay for rent, utilities, groceries, insurance, and gas every month.

Jakethejake
09-28-2005, 08:35 AM
I consider myself a "hard core" gamer, so I really can't put too much stock in what Ubi says.

Hard core gamers are the guys like WhiteKnight and others who have played this game from the beginning, and have been screaming for more features, more control, and better gameplay. We have been screaming for the console versions to be more in line with the PC versions.

From reading their posts, none of the true fans of this game would have taken part in the dumbing down of this series that has taken place. This is just another example of how Ubi has abandoned their core fans. Then they have the balls to lie to us about it! If we as a community were smart, we would be talking about a wide scale boycott of all Ubi products, until they begin to once again produce quality games. As someone once said: Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining!"

stonej37
09-28-2005, 09:29 AM
I've played every version of RS there is. I've been a big fan from the beginning. I started playing the game because I saw it on a store shelf back in the late 90's and was currious as it was one of my favorite books.

That being said, I NEVER want to see the console verson look anything like the original PC version. I loved the first PC game... but it's not what I want out of a console FPS! RS3 and BA where great. They too had thier lag problems which was the main frustration of the game.
Lockdown's PEC mode is a great idea! The incredable Halo like acuracy while running? Not so much. With some simple weapons balancing, I think this can be fixed.

Jakethejake
09-28-2005, 09:48 AM
The current versions should not look like the early versions. I thought that the graphics in R63 and BA were good, and was happy with that.

When I talk about the PC versions, I'm talking about all of the features that those games had which never made it to console versions. I'm talking about having the whole Rainbow team. When you lose a member, then they are gone. Choices in gear weights and appearances. Multiple fire teams. Weapon attachments, and the ability to equip every operative as you see fit. Making your own assault plan, or not. Things that I liked with the console versions were the graphics, shooting mechanics, and game controls. IMO, If you combined the PC features with the R63 gameplay, you would have a nearly perfect game. Why Ubi cannot see this is beyond me. Instead of moving in this direction, they have totally dumbed down this game and the series.

stonej37
09-28-2005, 10:01 AM
Originally posted by Jakethejake:
The current versions should not look like the early versions. I thought that the graphics in R63 and BA were good, and was happy with that.

When I talk about the PC versions, I'm talking about all of the features that those games had which never made it to console versions. I'm talking about having the whole Rainbow team. When you lose a member, then they are gone. Choices in gear weights and appearances. Multiple fire teams. Weapon attachments, and the ability to equip every operative as you see fit. Making your own assault plan, or not. Things that I liked with the console versions were the graphics, shooting mechanics, and game controls. IMO, If you combined the PC features with the R63 gameplay, you would have a nearly perfect game. Why Ubi cannot see this is beyond me. Instead of moving in this direction, they have totally dumbed down this game and the series.

A lot of those things ARE in Lockdown. You can outfit each idividual character on your team now. I think allowing a character to be killed off could hamper a story line. They'd have to go a more faceless GR route if they did that. The planing stage in the original PC version is something I NEVER want to see on the console. I just want to pick up a game and go when it comes to my Xbox. Though... if they ever did bring back the vs mode where one guy and his bots face off against another guy and his bots... the new Greg Hastings Paintball (soon to come out) has an interesting idea for pre game planning and even how to use voice commands to controll your fellow paintballers.

EWolfgang22
09-28-2005, 10:18 AM
Jake has brought up an excellent point, one that has me reconsidering buying the 360 upon release...if a leading game company such as ubi cannot correctly develop a strong (and bug free)continuation of a well known, popular title such as R6, what makes everyone think that the immediate release games for the 360 are going to be any better? In fact, why would we not assume that they would be worse, considering the new technology and coding that will have to be done for a console system that has no track record? Based on what I am seeing, it seems that people are setting themselves up for a major disappointment in the new generation of games for the 360.

I am becoming quite skeptical with this industry and the MS-ubi partnership specifically, which is tough because ubi/Red Storm games make up well over half of my collection. However, I am fairly new (2 yrs) to gaming (not counting asteroids/space invaders from the day) and I would pose this question to some folks like Jake and others more experienced with consoles and xbox specifically. Do I buy the 360 and its overpriced games upon release and risk more frustration and wasted money on games that do not work as marketed?

Jakethejake
09-28-2005, 10:20 AM
The planing stage in the original PC version is something I NEVER want to see on the console. I just want to pick up a game and go when it comes to my Xbox

It was optional on the PC. You didn't have to use the plan.

I'm not so sure that the plan of using fewer characters, but having us get to like them has really worked out. One reason that I really liked my TEAM in the earlier versions, was because each person had specific strengths that I could use to enhance my own gameplay. Now, (especially in GR) I find myself cursing their presence because I cannot control them, and most of the time they are a hinderance.

Give us the option of having players killed. Give us the option of planning or no planning. There are a lot of thinking tactical gamers out there who loved the old features and whom would love to see them married with the R63 gameplay and controls.

Jakethejake
09-28-2005, 10:44 AM
I am becoming quite skeptical with this industry and the MS-ubi partnership specifically, which is tough because ubi/Red Storm games make up well over half of my collection. However, I am fairly new (2 yrs) to gaming (not counting asteroids/space invaders from the day) and I would pose this question to some folks like Jake and others more experienced with consoles and xbox specifically. Do I buy the 360 and its overpriced games upon release and risk more frustration and wasted money on games that do not work as marketed?

Honestly, I would wait and see. We are at a crossroad, and it really could go either way.

I initially thought that the next gen games would be more like their PC brothers, but now I, like you are skeptical, especially with the Ubi/Microsoft partnership.

Let's face it. There is more money to be made on a divided gaming community, than a consolidated one. Sure you have to develope two games, but some gamers will buy both versions. Plus if you are microsoft, you want to keep interest in PC games. This means more PC sales and upgrades, and indirectly more cash in your pocket.

Two years ago, I would have said that there were differences in the games because of the differences in the hardware, but now, I don't believe it. Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter is building a totally different, more tactical version of the game for PC. The 360 version will not have some of the gameplay features that the PC version has. Why? Surely it is not a hardware issue. The 360 can easily run the PC specs. If you put it all in one game, then the other versions may not sell as well.

Somewhere out there, someone is listening. It may be a Ubi competitor, ex-employee or whoever. Someone will build a great tactical simulation for the next gen. I say wait for that, or wait until you see a game that you must have until you buy. If we don't, we'll keep having to eat the **** that Ubi is feeding us.

WhiteKnight77
09-28-2005, 07:41 PM
Actually, losing a team member is a good thing. It creates the "it's my team" train of thought and the fact you want to bring everyone home in one piece. You become emotionally attached to your team members and care about whether they live or die and you start playing better for it.

That was a part of why the PC games were successful. I still prefer Homer Johnston over Ding Chavez any day.

Jake, keep an eye on Blackfoot Studios. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

NotoriouzWun
09-28-2005, 09:13 PM
Wow I just got the snip[er on my other gamer tag and I have one word for it...Awful...Is there a such thing as a headshot? The players move to fast to actually hit them in the head takes a ton fo shots ot the chest or any part. The recoil is god awful for how fast the players move. I'm sad very very sad. Makes me just want to be something else

Jakethejake
09-29-2005, 07:16 AM
Jake, keep an eye on Blackfoot Studios

I'll do that. Thanks for the heads up. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

stonej37
09-29-2005, 08:06 AM
Originally posted by NotoriouzWun:
Wow I just got the snip[er on my other gamer tag and I have one word for it...Awful...Is there a such thing as a headshot? The players move to fast to actually hit them in the head takes a ton fo shots ot the chest or any part. The recoil is god awful for how fast the players move. I'm sad very very sad. Makes me just want to be something else

I was told by a Dev that you should be able to drop anyone within two shots when using the WA2000. You're saying this isn't true? If so, I'd be pissed to. I feel your pain as I've seen commandos walk over TWO of my proxy mines and live to kill me.

DEVS! FIX THIS!

NotoriouzWun
09-29-2005, 11:27 AM
I can have the "T" Turn red on someone on the other team I can try and follow them with the rifle and take a shot then take another and the guy dosent drop. Ive shot a guy close up trying to defend myself twice and not killed him. The Recoil is awful. If I hit with the first shot Its hard to get a seccond shot off before they hide. I think the foot speed of course is too fast to follow them with the rifle. I also have believed since this game came out that he head hit box is way off. TO get headshots (which are rare) you have to almost aim over their head.

stonej37
09-29-2005, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by NotoriouzWun:
I can have the "T" Turn red on someone on the other team I can try and follow them with the rifle and take a shot then take another and the guy dosent drop. Ive shot a guy close up trying to defend myself twice and not killed him. The Recoil is awful. If I hit with the first shot Its hard to get a seccond shot off before they hide. I think the foot speed of course is too fast to follow them with the rifle. I also have believed since this game came out that he head hit box is way off. TO get headshots (which are rare) you have to almost aim over their head.

I'm an engineer so I can't coment on the head shots being off. I will say, I do think the recoil and the time it take to fire a second round should be lengthy as the reward comes from getting OSOKs via head shots... if the person is dumb enough to stand around in the open long enoug for you to get a second shot on them, they should drop... EVERY TIME.

NotoriouzWun
09-29-2005, 03:45 PM
As per another post where someone did research on the real life WA2000 the recoil is forced back intot he shoulder to make it easier to get off an accurate second shot. The recoil seems to jerk to the side and up a bit not back. Also as a engineer use a sub machine gun burst fire from a medium distance even single shot seems to fire lower than your crosshair is at. Watch the tracer and also watch that the player dosent fall witht he headshot.