November 2018
Any round hit inside the elbows and knees should immediately drop the wounded soldier to the ground. If it's not a lethal shot (head, neck, chest), the soldier should still be able to scramble to return fire but, not be up and running at full sprint. To avoid all the programing and development such a change might require, you could just double (200%) the current damage rate of every weapon on the battlefield. Currently, it feels a bit more like a BB Gun or Bottle Rocket fight than WWII. When major league baseball wanted to improve attendance, they perked up the ball so players could get more home runs. That's what's missing here in BFV. Listening while I play with squads the number one complaint I hear over the mc is related to underpowered hits and overpowered returned fire. "What, I shot him three times, then he shoots me back one time from 300 meters with a bb gun and I'm dead!" To satisfy the refrain, a well placed shot should kill, one inside the elbows and knees should drop the opponent to the ground reeling.
What army would equip it's soldiers with weapons and rounds that wouldn't kill with one-shot? Even in 1939? The majority of weapons should be one-leathal-shot-one-kill but, when not, when your're hit, you're down. Making this change would be one of the best ways to counter the new attrition system. If we are going to have fewer rounds, the ones we have should impart more significant results. Let's go harder than core baby!
November 2018
December 2018
I don't think you got it straight. Hardcore is 200% damage. All previous Battlefield titles had hardcore (200%) options. You wouldn't call those titles a sim/realistic/tactical shooters? Even if you did-- what's wrong with that? Given the 4k resolution, the attention to detail on the maps/locations, the extradordinary amount of time developers have placed on making the weapons and customizations look realistic -- well I'm not sure one could failry say that realism isn't a goal in BF. I'm also not sure what you belive BF should be but, of course neither of us speak for anyone but ourselves. We are just soverign soles. I appreciate you taking the time to read my post and comment but, well, respecfully, don't agree with your vision of BF either. Kind regards, see you on BF.
December 2018 - last edited December 2018
I'm just trying to look at this from an average players point of view.
When I mentioned quality of life problems, I was referring to your soldier constantly falling down and not being able to do simple fuctions because of it - so many people just want to go go go and now thr pace will crawl to a standstill if you didn't immediately die.
How would healing work? Suppression was a hated in BF1 so how would people react to not being able to shoot when you want after getting shot in the hand? How much more work would devs need to do to get the animations right? How fast can I hobble around? People hated the sniper damage multipliers in BF1 but this new mechanic would need even more of those. Etc.etc.
Some realism is good but I think this type of damage mechanic will hinder gameplay as a whole.
V is already similar to BF4 HC and 200% damage is a different beast entirely. Extra damage can actually be beneficial in certain situations like doing assignments or when you want to use you normally wouldn't have, amd at worst, you just die quicker - with this mechanic you want we'd be bogged down too much when not killed and wishing they'd just come and finish the job
December 2018