Jump to content



BFS Banner



  • Please log in to reply

Health System [Medics?]

Started by stevenrasnick, Mar 03 2007 12:41 PM

#61 krise madsen

krise madsen

    Master Blaster

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,734 posts
  • Location:Denmark
  • Platform:PC gamer

Posted 21 March 2007 - 05:08 AM

View PostToniezz, on Mar 21 2007, 10:30 AM, said:

Absolutely true, but still I think only having above situations is to minor. I really would like to have the oppertunity to salvage a team member from his/her death.

No Man/Woman Is Left Behind!

In the time from getting shot up to the point of incapacitation/death the aiming and movements willl get worse and worse. If medics are gonna be in the game (I assume so) a medic should not be able to magicaly cure a person. A medic should only stop the bleeding which enhances just a little bit of decreased aiming/movement or stops the decrease of worse aiming/movement. If a teammember doesn't seek a medic after having a serious wound he can get incapacitated or bleed to death. This way it pays off to seek a medic as soon as you are shot. If he stops the bleeding early you will 'feel' less worse then when you are to the point of getting incapacitated.

I really liked the rescue function in Full Spectrum Warrior. Where you could carry an incapacitated member to a safe zone. The difference to me should be that if (s)he is delivered there (s)he goes off to the hospital and is only available after a few -ingame- 'weeks' (1 or 2 missions) with slightly decreased stat pionts (in stamina or some sort). If the drop off point is a safe zone it would be nice if I was reinforced by (a) new team member(s) (with less stat points).

I think it isn't NORG if you proceed into a mission while being "Combat Ineffective" by the loss of (a) team member(s).

[edit]
That just comes to me. I always hated the GR missions that just faded out if your team was combat ineffective or lost an objective (killed a civillian or lost a or to many team member(s) for instance). To me a mission always has to end at the moment I am extracting or allied reinforcements are moving in towards my position (relieving my duty).

Sorry for the off topic
[/edit]

No your point is quite valid because the health system ties directly into mission success/faliure parameters.

I'm generally very sceptical about the usual way of doing things. I mean, in most "realistic" games you can get shot in the legs and arms, torso and head (at least when wearing helmet and body armor) and while your mobility and weapons accuracy is reduced, you can still move around and shoot. I have strong doubts about the ability of even the most elite SOF to keep proceeding with the mission with a bullethole in each limb plus on in the body armor and a dent in the helmet.

But the more realistic alternative would seem to leave you with "dead weight" as soon as one team member is hit and the mission is essentially over. This I fear would lead to rather boring gameplay.

But I'm completely stumped by this. Obviously, realism won't do any good if it makes the game boring and pointless. I do believe BFS will not let this issue mess up the gameplay, but I'm not sure there is a "right" solution.

Respectfully

krise madsen
"crisis" is my middle name...
------------------------------------------------

Hatchetforce said:

First John Wayne dies in 1979 and then 2 years later the Smurfs show up on NBC. It has been mostly downhill after that.
Posted Image

#62 Toniezz

Toniezz

    Ranger School Dropout

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 100 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Netherlands
  • Platform:PC and Console gamer

Posted 21 March 2007 - 06:26 AM

Krise, take a look at the post by SnowFella @ the "One shot one Kill" thread. He gives a good preview on how also think it would be nice to implement.

I know in Full Spectrum Warrior it wasn't that good worked out. FSW was awefull in that aspect because if you got a member killed, the mission was over. Only one wounded member was allowed and you had to carry him into safety. Again, awefull gameplay but the idea about carrying a member into safety was a good one.
This immediately changed your gameplay. Instead of a full squad, being able to take the upper hand in a firefight, you had to move slowly. Remember, you lost one teammember by casualty and another member who has to carry the wounded person. So your squad is minus 2 persons.

In the end teamplay is needed to get those wounded/dead guys into a safe zone. Possibly you could also decide to leave the dead but this could penalty you in credits (MP) or worse player stats for reinforcement soldiers (SP; only rookies are assigned under your command) etc.

Also my thought about using credits is only something extra you can use to reflect your own performance. Like in SP you can complete all mission objectives and have a mission success but the credit score tells you if you could do better a next time. Same in MP COOP.

In MP TvT you could go for the idea that every member you(r team) kill(s) you are rewarded with 3 credits. For every enemy team member you seriously wound (incapacitated) and is no more combat effective, you get 2 credits.
Next to that you can earn credits by saving/rescueing incapacitated and dead teammates. For every dead or incapacitated member that you save from the battlefield you get 1 credit.

Well just a thought explained in a horrible way. Sorry I don't seem to be able writing my thoughts in better words. :sweating:

[edit]
By creating a health system which SnowFella describes I think your concern about people walking on the battlefield with two broken kneecaps, 3 bullts in the chest and 4 in the arms is no longer possible to happen. ;)
[/edit]

Edited by Toniezz, 21 March 2007 - 06:33 AM.


#63 krise madsen

krise madsen

    Master Blaster

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,734 posts
  • Location:Denmark
  • Platform:PC gamer

Posted 21 March 2007 - 06:40 AM

Ah, but I'm mainly concerned with SP and coop, hence the confusion :)

I guess I just have trouble transplanting the basic ideas and concepts (there are some really good ones, including yours and Snowfellas) into the game as I foresee it. Probably I'm just getting old :rolleyes:

Respectfully

krise madsen
"crisis" is my middle name...
------------------------------------------------

Hatchetforce said:

First John Wayne dies in 1979 and then 2 years later the Smurfs show up on NBC. It has been mostly downhill after that.
Posted Image

#64 Toniezz

Toniezz

    Ranger School Dropout

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 100 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Netherlands
  • Platform:PC and Console gamer

Posted 21 March 2007 - 06:55 AM

Crisis, I absolutely agree with your point. I also doubt if I would be able to limp over the battlefield due to a shot in the leg and still are able to shoot tango's. Thats why I really like Snow's idea.

You get shot? Ok, you need a medic (or just one of yourr teammates) to stop the bleeding (first aid). If you do that very fast and the injury isn't that heavy ('just' a flesh wound, no penetration to the bone) you are still able to limp a bit and mix in the fight.

But, if you get shot in the leg and you don't seek help you will loose blood and your situation gets worse by time. Even if you decide to go and have a walk with that bleeding wound the bleeding will only get heavier and your situation gets worse even faster. It can get even that worse that you can't stand on your feet anymore and become incapacitated.

Being incapacited or dead you no longer have control over your body. But your teammates can reduce the damage (rescue credits or extra reinforcements) by bringing back your (incapacitated) body home. No One Is Left Behind!

I think there is some sound in it.

#65 krise madsen

krise madsen

    Master Blaster

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,734 posts
  • Location:Denmark
  • Platform:PC gamer

Posted 21 March 2007 - 07:01 AM

View PostToniezz, on Mar 21 2007, 01:55 PM, said:

Crisis, I absolutely agree with your point. I also doubt if I would be able to limp over the battlefield due to a shot in the leg and still are able to shoot tango's. Thats why I really like Snow's idea.

You get shot? Ok, you need a medic (or just one of yourr teammates) to stop the bleeding (first aid). If you do that very fast and the injury isn't that heavy ('just' a flesh wound, no penetration to the bone) you are still able to limp a bit and mix in the fight.

But, if you get shot in the leg and you don't seek help you will loose blood and your situation gets worse by time. Even if you decide to go and have a walk with that bleeding wound the bleeding will only get heavier and your situation gets worse even faster. It can get even that worse that you can't stand on your feet anymore and become incapacitated.

Being incapacited or dead you no longer have control over your body. But your teammates can reduce the damage (rescue credits or extra reinforcements) by bringing back your (incapacitated) body home. No One Is Left Behind!

I think there is some sound in it.

OK, I'm with you so far, and pretty much in agreement. But I still have no idea how to implement this in relation to mission parameters (SP/coop). *shrugs*

Respectfully

krise madsen
"crisis" is my middle name...
------------------------------------------------

Hatchetforce said:

First John Wayne dies in 1979 and then 2 years later the Smurfs show up on NBC. It has been mostly downhill after that.
Posted Image

#66 Toniezz

Toniezz

    Ranger School Dropout

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 100 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Netherlands
  • Platform:PC and Console gamer

Posted 21 March 2007 - 08:50 AM

Ok, maybe this explains a bit more?  :unsure:

Mission parameters? In the meaning of objectives ?  :unsure:

#67 krise madsen

krise madsen

    Master Blaster

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,734 posts
  • Location:Denmark
  • Platform:PC gamer

Posted 21 March 2007 - 09:02 AM

View PostToniezz, on Mar 21 2007, 03:50 PM, said:

Ok, maybe this explains a bit more?  :unsure:

Mission parameters? In the meaning of objectives ?  :unsure:

Yes mission parameters in the meaning of "when is it game over"? From my perspective there are some serious realism vs. playability issues but I just don't know. To be honest I'm not terribly concerned.

I would like to avoid the worst of the primitive health setups, such as a hitpoint system where you retain full combat capability until your counter reaches zero at which point you die, and the same goes for the AI. Likewise I would like to avoid super-human player health (in SP). But beyond that I'm rather flexible. A very sophisticated and realistic health setup is fine as long as it works properly. I'm not too worried about this game though.

Respectfully

krise madsen
"crisis" is my middle name...
------------------------------------------------

Hatchetforce said:

First John Wayne dies in 1979 and then 2 years later the Smurfs show up on NBC. It has been mostly downhill after that.
Posted Image

#68 Toniezz

Toniezz

    Ranger School Dropout

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 100 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Netherlands
  • Platform:PC and Console gamer

Posted 21 March 2007 - 09:19 AM

Correct, I hate healthmeters and numbers.  :nono:  Nah you will notice by your breathing, vision and other means that you are hurting. As soon as you are dead or incapacitated you are game over (into deadcam mode). Though your mates can try and get your body back to base for some extra points or other rewards.

In conclusion:
- I like the idea of medics, but if not then that is ok
- I like the idea of realtime health simulation as Snowfella discribed
- I like the idea of different damage types by bullets on different body part, from simple to sophisticated, as long as it is sound with the gameplay
- I like the idea of being rewarded in some way or another if you carry a dead of wounded team mate into safety
- I like Italian ice-cream, but that is another topic! :drool:

:thumbsup:

#69 ademca

ademca

    Wannabee

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 9 posts
  • Platform:PC gamer

Posted 24 April 2007 - 09:56 PM

View PostMercenaryKnight, on Mar 3 2007, 07:40 PM, said:

It is a realistic feature, but I think it would kind of be out of place to design their engine to let you pick up allies and move them around. I think that idea kind of goes past the realism that makes games good, and the extra features that aren't really needed but would be nice to have.

I disagree on this one...

Scenario:

Your buddy gets shot in the legs and can't really walk, but he's still conscious and can fire a weapon.  You pick him up and move him to overlook a particular kill zone.  Prop him up, and he can cover the area "almost as well" as anyone with working legs.  This would work in single player, and would be a ground-breaking game ability in multi-player:  a buddy who is downed but still can fire a weapon now has something important to do instead of waiting around for the next round to start!

In tandem with a medic who would patch up the wounded player to prevent him from bleeding profusely (which would otherwise render him dead/unconscious after a period of time), a system like this would be very plausible, and NORG proofed.

I can already imagine the game critics raving at these options alone.

#70 modisch

modisch

    Wannabee

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
  • Platform:PC gamer

Posted 26 April 2007 - 12:01 PM

Let?s work through the question of health and damage logically.

What are the possible conditions?
- Unharmed
- Injured
- Incapacitated
- Dead

That?s pretty easy.  Now what are the ways we could progress from one condition to another?
  • Recovery from a temporary injury.  Example: get the wind knocked out of you, hearing or vision loss from flashbang
  • Injury worsens, leading to incapacitation.  Examples:  Bleeding, walking on a damage leg.
  • Injuries while incapacitated lead to death.  Examples:  Bleeding
  • Additional damage done (fall damage, bullets/explosions).
What are the ways you can prevent a condition progression?

- Stop bleeding.
- That?s about it.

What are the possible effects of different conditions?

     Well, incapacitation means you ain't doing anything.. and dead means dead.  So, let's considering injuries.
  • Temporary
    • Vision or hearing impaired
    • Stunned/wind knocked out
    • Shock (resulting in poor aim, slowed movement, tunnel vision, etc)
  • Permanent
    • Upper body injuries
      • Impaired aim to varying degree. A shot in the right arm, VERY bad for aim.  A shot in the gut or back, you?ll still have trouble.
      • Impaired ability to climb ladders, mantle over objects.
    • Lower body injuries
      • Impaired movment (including climbing).  Severe injury may prevent ANY movement.
      • Impaired transition from prone to upright
    • Systemic
      • Impairments as a result of bloodloss.  Vision, strength necessary for movement, endurance.
Implications

With MP Team Adversarial in mind (my primary focus), what are the possible implications?  Well, if you had a scoring system that is more than just rounds won, you could give points for the health of the winning team.  Winning the round with no injuries is better than 1 out 8 still standing.  This would provide an incentive to manage injuries.

In terms of managing injuries, the big question is will the game be military action based (like GR) or counter terror (like R6).  A military sim would probably have a unit that includes a corpsman or medic capable of specialized emergency medical response.  A CT based game would probably rely on a team of dedicated shooters, but all of which have received basic combat first aid training.  So if it?s a CT game, anyone could whip out a field dressing and bandage someone who is injury (stopping or slowing the progression to worse health condition).  It would even be possible for someone to apply their own field dressing to something like a leg injury, assuming their conscious and not in shock.

Implications for a singleplayer campaign might be time to recover (assuming full recovery is possible).  If you rendered emergency medical help, a team member may survive the mission and return to active duty after some time.  However, if help is delayed or not given, that person may not return to active duty or may die of injuries in the field or afterwards.


Impact of Damage

Oh, fantastic NORG question.  It could be really simple, like Raven Shield? one or two shots and you?re toast.  If you survive a shot, the location definse the injury and the associated impairment(s).  Or if you really wanna have fun?  do a ballistics system that determines how rounds defeat (or fail to defeat) body armor.  A 9mm pistol round to center mass on an armored target probably won?t do much.  A 7.62x51mm (.308 winchester) rifle round to center mass on a target wearing Dragon Skin from Pinnacle Armor will probably not be lethal or cause bleeding, but may knock the wind out of you.  But on the otherhand?  shots to the leg or arms could be brutal.  And a headshot, pretty much no matter what, will be the end of you.  So the big question is? Will damage be modeled on actual ballistics and body armor characteristics?  

Conclusions

I think a system taking into account all of these factors would be very interesting.  But I?m not certain that will make for the best gameplay.  It might change the way we play a bit? Imagine not being able to drop a well-armored opponent after giving them a triple tap in the chest with an assault rifle.  That?s realistic, but I?m not sure that?s how I want things to be.  On the other hand, it will mean I have to aim more for arms, legs or head to put a person down, which I think I can manage.  My preference is for Rogue Spear/Raven Shield-type damage.  I like dropping an opponent with one or two well-placed rifle rounds.  I like having a pistol be a viable secondary weapon.  I think I?d be happy with adding more detail to the determination of injuries and their impairments, but fundamentally I want people out of the game when they get nailed.

Additional Comments

I'm opposed to dragging injured people. The only reason you would ever move someone is to get them out of the line of fire.  Movie heroics aside... you field treat until you can medevac.  Move only to get out to get out of the line of fire.

Depending on the context, you'll probably manage casualties differently.  In a hostage rescue type situation, you'll probably step over your downed buddy on your way to finish the mission.  You've got just a couple of minutes to either have a successful rescue or end up with a full on TARFU or FUBAR.  By the time you've applied a field dressing, the tangos have either been taken down or they've splattered all of the hostages.  If it's a military engagement, you might have the time, depending on how tight your mission plan is.  But in a practical sense, if you're a Navy SEAL and you snapped your leg on the drop into the mission... you might be left until the team finishes the objective and picks you up on the way out.  That's a completely different story from how a casualty would be managed in a large scale field engagement.   It's completely different whether it's special operations behind enemy lines, counter terror in an urban environment, or convential warfare with a complete casualty management system going from medics in the units to Foward Surgical Teams on the front lines and ending up at Walter Reed in Washington DC.  So it has to be appropriate to the context of the game (which we don't have yet).

Last... I don't want to play a medic simulator.  I want to play a tactical shooter.


-m

#71 Nemesis

Nemesis

    Master Blaster

  • Donator
  • 3,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, UK
  • Platform:PC gamer

Posted 26 April 2007 - 12:33 PM

View PostMONOLITH, on Mar 8 2007, 11:55 PM, said:

I would be interestesd in hearing suggestions for alternative penalty/rewards system for keeping or losing men.

Well heres my 2 cents. If your a leader & you get a team member killed then your leadership should go down in influence ie: AI may not always obey your command or may just be a bit reluctant to do so. As an idea only.
Note being funny here but if a Squad leader got one of my team mates killed by issuing a command...Id think twice about the next order I received :)

Back to the start - Health System.
On screen indicator is OK Green Amber Red bar or Injury icon of character with damage to which body part. Why have it on screen? Cos if NORG Id feel PAIN & Id know if that pain was coming from my leg, arm or wherever.

Impact of injuries - This is different to the original thread but something that has naturally developed from it. Impacts should be dependant on wher you are hit. If youve go a graze on the arm then the impact would be insignificant. However if you are fatally wounded youd have blood pi$$ing out everywhere & not be able to lift your weapon. Dont get me wrong Im not talking of the extremes of legs being blown off, although cool Id rather the game was playable & not too CPU intensive :) It all also bring the age restriction down a bit :)

Self Healing/Medic - The practicalities I would guess are dependant on the mission at hand. Would a Medic escort a squad on an assault or Recce? Field dressings are standard but only support light wounds. Self Healing by staying alive is a NO-NO IMHO unless your sat in a hospital for days/weeks/months.
Regards
Nemesis

Quote

The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list.

#72 GaGrin

GaGrin

    Ranger School Dropout

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 50 posts
  • Platform:PC gamer

Posted 01 May 2007 - 04:56 PM

I see two ways of doing it...

The playable abstraction: OGR basically had this down to an art if you ask me.  Just add in medical assistance for soldiers who go down (including checking to see if they are dead or not) and you've got something thats already awesome and ready to add straight from the box :D

The detailed simulation: I'm now going to annoy everyone by refering to a game that very few people here are likely to have heard of or played... Dwarf Fortress.  

Dwarf Fortress is a rogue-like game with dungeon keeper-like elements set in a randomly generated world.  It model all its living creatures as organs with specific functions - injury or loss of organs/limbs have the expected results.  In addition, pain and bloodloss are tracked.  It is quite possible to die from a single high-shock wound due to massive pain, or bleed to death within moments due to a heart wound.  Or be slowly and excrutiatingly ripped apart by a mob of clawing/biting/tearing monsters.  Lose a finger, lose a hand, lose an arm.  Do you pass out? Can you still move? Its all in the system and its very, very neat to see the wide range of results you get when you put a body in physical danger.

The wonderful thing about it is that because its turn based and text based you have all the time you want to realise the full extent of what is happening to your poor character (or victim  :devil: ), like when I rounded a corner only to take an arrow in the chest - puncturing both my lungs and heart.  I knew I was dead - but it didn't drop me instantly and I got a single chance to act! So I threw my hammer at the archer :D Hell - I even hit the git (though unfortuantly didn't seem to do much other than cause a bruise).

Anyway.  OGR had a wide enough selection of effects for general non-incapacitating wounds - I think just expanding that to include a host of incapacitated effects and results that don't mean death and can lead to recovery would be neat.

It all depends how much detail you want in something that effectivally amounts to "can shoot/can't shoot".

#73 Spectre65

Spectre65

    Moving Target

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 232 posts
  • Location:Oklahoma, USA
  • Platform:PC gamer

Posted 06 May 2007 - 03:26 PM

Someone early in this thread suggested not having any kind of health indicator.

While I can see where this idea comes from, and also see the merit in it, I'm not so sure that's such a good idea.

In real life, we can feel how badly we are hurt.  We can feel what our bodies will let us do when we are hurt.  Sometimes, you could get the exact same injury on 5 different people, and they would all react or be able to deal with it and act at 5 different levels because some people can deal with pain better and all of that.

However, having a health indicator, since we can't feel or really see what is happening to us online is a good idea, I think, so we can see what's happening with our character.

In my mind, it also levels the playing field.

#74 Yodasplat

Yodasplat
  • Member
  • 1 posts

Posted 07 May 2007 - 10:47 AM

View PostNemesis, on Apr 26 2007, 01:33 PM, said:

Well heres my 2 cents. If your a leader & you get a team member killed then your leadership should go down in influence ie: AI may not always obey your command or may just be a bit reluctant to do so. As an idea only.
Note being funny here but if a Squad leader got one of my team mates killed by issuing a command...Id think twice about the next order I received :)

....

I actually like that idea as a penalty for handling wounded team members.

If a team member gets wounded and you leave him out to die, the AI "morale" will degrade.

Actually, any death will degrade AI morale. It can probably be worse if you ignore a wounded teammember and don't do anything to help him (dress the wounds or something), as opposed to someone dying immediately as a consequence of a clean head shot or something.

As for morale degradation: AI will have less precision in aiming, slower in obeying orders, will take cover and take less risks and pay less attention to surroundings (they are worried and distracted by the loss of a team member of course), thus they will be less aggressive and more vulnerable to enemies flanking them.

And this can carry over as you roll into new missions.

So, making sure you come home with everyone you started out with, should be a high priority because if you don't, you'll lose your AI team effectiveness.

On the flipside, always finishing a mission with everyone still alive means having a team that is more and more responsive and effective and aggressive since will they have more confidence in you as a leader.

Losing a soldier due to wounds would affect team "morale" less negatively than death (of course) and getting replacements for KIA team members would also degrade AI performance since replacements would not be as well integrated with the rest of the team.

Just my 2c.

PS: hello everyone.  :w00t:

#75 GaGrin

GaGrin

    Ranger School Dropout

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 50 posts
  • Platform:PC gamer

Posted 07 May 2007 - 02:35 PM

View PostSpectre65, on May 6 2007, 10:26 PM, said:

Someone early in this thread suggested not having any kind of health indicator.

While I can see where this idea comes from, and also see the merit in it, I'm not so sure that's such a good idea.

In real life, we can feel how badly we are hurt.  We can feel what our bodies will let us do when we are hurt.  Sometimes, you could get the exact same injury on 5 different people, and they would all react or be able to deal with it and act at 5 different levels because some people can deal with pain better and all of that.

However, having a health indicator, since we can't feel or really see what is happening to us online is a good idea, I think, so we can see what's happening with our character.

In my mind, it also levels the playing field.

What exactly is the point of a health indicator in a game when any shot can be lethal?

I honestly don't understand why we want to know anything other than "oh ######, I'm moving slow" or "my aims all over the place" neither of which need seperate indicators.  Other that these obvious effects we're either able to fight or not. and if we aren't then we don't need the indicator anymore...

Plus I don't see how it "...levels the playing field." if everyone is operating on the same lack of knowledge anyway.  You shouldn't be thinking "I can take one more hit" and that is - to my mind - what any trackable health indicator promotes.

#76 MercenaryKnight

MercenaryKnight

    Moving Target

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 187 posts

Posted 11 May 2007 - 06:14 PM

View Postademca, on Apr 24 2007, 08:56 PM, said:

I disagree on this one...

Scenario:

Your buddy gets shot in the legs and can't really walk, but he's still conscious and can fire a weapon.  You pick him up and move him to overlook a particular kill zone.  Prop him up, and he can cover the area "almost as well" as anyone with working legs.  This would work in single player, and would be a ground-breaking game ability in multi-player:  a buddy who is downed but still can fire a weapon now has something important to do instead of waiting around for the next round to start!

In tandem with a medic who would patch up the wounded player to prevent him from bleeding profusely (which would otherwise render him dead/unconscious after a period of time), a system like this would be very plausible, and NORG proofed.

I can already imagine the game critics raving at these options alone.
Yeah, so now your going to get a bunch of griefers going around grabbing "gimped" people and putting them out in the open or having them at their mercy.

I really think it'd be too complicated... Yes I know in real life you'd do it, but in a tactical game, odds are about I would say 80% you'll get shot and be unable to defend yourself if your ally is immobile and you could "save them" by dragging them away.

#77 bangurdead

bangurdead

    Master Blaster

  • Donator
  • 1,175 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Iowa, USA
  • Platform:PC and Console gamer

Posted 16 May 2007 - 01:44 PM

While I do appreciate the Gimp/limp systems in place in R6 and GR I do feel that overly gimping is a little to far

RVS for example 1 shot and your pretty much worthless (no matter where)

2-3 shots in full body armor aim is decreased (depending on how actual body armor stands bullets can change the number of shots)

once the armor is gone then sure have at it, but I do belive if they take a slower stance they should be able to effectively defend themselfs  


If anything I remeber from R6:UO is that with full body armor I was able to take many shots from a UZI and still maintain my aim though some form of RET NOCK should be inplace

#78 WadeWannabe

WadeWannabe

    Ranger School Dropout

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 81 posts
  • Location:Cannock,UK
  • Platform:Console gamer

Posted 06 August 2007 - 01:27 PM

is there going to be medics if so how will they work its not going to be none of that needle buisness is it, bandages and dressings seem quite appealing for NORG, ur thoughts ?? and oh theres not gonna be any of those repetative animations when theyre hit they roll onto there side and then bak agen and thn onto the side etc etc

Edited by WadeWannabe, 06 August 2007 - 01:33 PM.


#79 WadeWannabe

WadeWannabe

    Ranger School Dropout

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 81 posts
  • Location:Cannock,UK
  • Platform:Console gamer

Posted 06 August 2007 - 03:22 PM

this seems to be vewy unpopuwa, the reason ewudes me

#80 CommandoCrazy

CommandoCrazy

    Ranger School Dropout

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 91 posts
  • Location:Germany
  • Platform:PC gamer

Posted 06 August 2007 - 05:03 PM

We'll be "CIA black ops", so i guess there won't be much support like field hospitals or MEDEVAC, so there should be one team member with medic skills....but no magic healing abilities please, for example you took two shots in the leg and after the medic has healed you for 10 seconds you can stand up and run two miles without problems.
Maybe if a team member gets wounded, the medic will have to give first aid or the man will die after some time (depending on how serverly he has been injured).

Edited by CommandoCrazy, 06 August 2007 - 05:03 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users