M95 lethality, and nuts.

[imported_Sephiroth]

Re: M95 lethality, and nuts.

im just going back to the first comment here

I am NOT suggesting one shot kills. Go away now if that was what you wanted to whine about.

I don't care if the damage isnt increased for the M95, I just want to see that it's given the same effects as other grievous injuries like artillery strikes.

The griveous effects of being hit by an M95? So you would like to see a man be able walk around with a chunk of his torso missing and still shoot his AK after being shot by the M95?

Judging from what I saw and what I was TOLD first hand by the shooter.

And im pressuming this guy was lying down not crouched right? Im just saying that from what i have seen the M95 has large recoil. and one other thing, in Americas Army (The game) the M95's recoil is massive, and that was designed by the american army.

[Tenshi]

Re: M95 lethality, and nuts.

I like the idea of having a rifle that isnt necessarily more powerful but does make revives impossible.

Its anonoying that someone you shot can be revived and kill you before you've even reloaded an m24.

Sitting on a hill 300m from the action is almost always ineffective. The battle never presents itself in a way that makes camping like that useful. Line-of-sight in bf2 is usually very well managed by the map creators, great sniping places usually have something to obscure the line of sight to certain areas.

The only reason i would concider someone who sits on hill like that a noob is that you cant get a huge score like that. Not that its easy. Getting sniper kills isnt easy...and however easy it is: its easier with a machine gun. Getting kills with the attack helo is much easier...yet someonehow a sniper kill on a moving target from 100m gives you the same score as a kill with the ubercannon on the attack chopper.

But it is good that when you shoot at someone with an m24 they assume youre really far away or up a crane or something...anything but 20m away right in the middle of their territory.

[Daz]

Re: M95 lethality, and nuts.

I agree, considering the M24 which takes 7.62x51mm, and the M95 taking 12.7x99mm, yet they have the exact same stats, I find that stupid.

Thats like a cigarette compared to a cigar.

The same effect rockets have on people to just kill them instantly would be good. At least only on the killing shot.

Yeah sure you wouldnt survive 4 M16 rounds but 50 cal bullets knock out holes the size of your fist. You cant finish a jigsaw without the missing peice.

Funny that the only thing making the M95 better than the M24 is that it shoots through glass and that is hardly as usefull as it should be.

[-Ryu^-]

Re: M95 lethality, and nuts.

QuakeWars will be supporting this and apparently there will be a whole load of different animations. I am just hoping theres a special animation when getting shot in the arse or even the nuts.

BOOM nuts shot!

[Chickenhawk]

Re: M95 lethality, and nuts.

...the M95, M82, and all .50 caliber rifles aren't as punishing to shoot as some would have you belveie. The rifles have a "Massive" muzzle break, great recoil-dampening attributes (which attribute to the innaccuracy of the weapon; too many moving parts. Anti-Kiss so to speak)

When fired from a supported position, the M95/M82 has recoil comparable to a 30-06.

I think this is a common misconception going around simply because people see the size of the weapon, the damage it inflicts, and assumes it punishes the shooter. The .300Win Mag. and .338 Laupa are far more punishing to shoot.

{WP}Paas

Recoil on the Barret is amazing, when practice firing we would work in two man teams with one lying half on top of the shooter. To weigh the shooter down as without that extra weight you could be pushed back 6" to a foot.

Those things have heavy recoil, much more than a 12 guage shotty.

[Chickenhawk]

Re: M95 lethality, and nuts.

Yeah sure you wouldnt survive 4 M16 rounds but 50 cal bullets knock out holes the size of your fist. You cant finish a jigsaw without the missing peice.

The 50 cal round will take your shoulder and arm completely away from your body (if hit in the upper chest) Or your leg off.

The 7.62 round will enter cleanly and then take a hole the size of 2 fists out the back.

The 5.56 Nato round was designed to enter clean and exit with a fist size hole.

You get shot by any of these rounds, it is very unlikely you will get up and fight.

BF2 is very unrealistic, there is no point in asking for realism as it would make the game so unbalanced it would suck.

Also you can't program extreme terror, elation and sadness and hapiness into a game.

But you can make a great GAME and thats enough for most of us.

[KAZO152]

Re: M95 lethality, and nuts.

I totally agree with this post and glad to see others do to!

KAZO

Top 100 snipers

[imported_Sephiroth]

Re: M95 lethality, and nuts.

Originally Posted By Chickenhawk
Recoil on the Barret is amazing, when practice firing we would work in two man teams with one lying half on top of the shooter. To weigh the shooter down as without that extra weight you could be pushed back 6" to a foot.
{WP}Paas looks like chickenhawk has pretty much proved what i have said :/ since he has had first hand experience with it

{WP}Paas looks like chickenhawk has pretty much proved what i have said :/ since he has had first hand experience with it

Now whos lost their mind?

Anyway to the topic at hand....

Yes the M95 cant really give out griveous effects on the torso without making it a 1 hit kill cos you'd be really shooting at 4 limbs and a head after that bad as5 hit him.

I would love it though if when you do get shot in the leg that you limp a little or your gun isnt very steady if you get hit in the arm....maybe to realistic or just plain cool?
Maybe have the M95 more pwerful but make it take AGES to get back into being able to shoot again? i dont know, maybe they were a bunch of bad ideas :P

[Digital-Boy]

Re: M95 lethality, and nuts.

I agree, considering the M24 which takes 7.62x51mm, and the M95 taking 12.7x99mm, yet they have the exact same stats, I find that stupid.
...
Funny that the only thing making the M95 better than the M24 is that it shoots through glass and that is hardly as usefull as it should be.

You are so right. That's why I advocate reducing the M24's base damage to 60. But for some reason, when I suggested that idea on another forum, the posters were completely against it. I wonder why.:laugh: