In some games it seems like you need to empty half a magazine to bring someone down. My preference would be 3-4 hits for torso from most assault rifles, and the head only takes one.

I don't think snipers should be one hit to the body, the open maps would give them too big an advantage. I thought BF2 handled it well. What do you think?

Idc i only play HC matches.

They should fire nukes with every bullet.

We should be allowed to play Battlefield, when we play Battlefield. That means all the stunts, all the crazy action, people courageously charging towards flags and enemy bases, etc...  When you increase bullet damage to 2-tap-death, people will stop playing Battlefield and will start playing Counter-Strike (while playing BF3, if you get what I'm saying). 
 
And so, the bullet damage should neither require an entire clip to kill (BF2) nor allow instant kills (BF3 alpha trial). It should be right in the middle, and if there's anything I praise Bad Company 2 for, it's the bullet damage. 
 
When it comes to sniper rifles, 2-3 shots to the body, one to the head. 

@AhmadMetallic said:

We should be allowed to play Battlefield, when we play Battlefield. That means all the stunts, all the crazy action, people courageously charging towards flags and enemy bases, etc... When you increase bullet damage to 2-tap-death, people will stop playing Battlefield and will start playing Counter-Strike (while playing BF3, if you get what I'm saying). And so, the bullet damage should neither require an entire clip to kill (BF2) nor allow instant kills (BF3 alpha trial). It should be right in the middle, and if there's anything I praise Bad Company 2 for, it's the bullet damage. When it comes to sniper rifles, 2-3 shots to the body, one to the head.

Yeah a good balance is important. However in BF2 a couple of the weapons only took 3 hits to the body like the G3 and most snipers were 2 hits to the body.

@squirrelnacho said:

In some games it seems like you need to empty half a magazine to bring someone down. My preference would be 3-4 hits for torso from most assault rifles, and the head only takes one.

I don't think snipers should be one hit to the body, the open maps would give them too big an advantage. I thought BF2 handled it well. What do you think?

I played the alpha at E3, every class besides the sniper and it was a good 2-3 pops to put someone down 1 hit kill headshots. I cannot fucking WAIT for this game.

@AhmadMetallic said:

And so, the bullet damage should neither require an entire clip to kill (BF2) nor allow instant kills (BF3 alpha trial). It should be right in the middle, and if there's anything I praise Bad Company 2 for, it's the bullet damage.

I agree with this. BC2 has it pretty much perfect in my opinion. You did die a bit quick in the Alpha, but I got used to it after an hour or so and won't be upset if it is the same in the final game.

Every bullet should give herpes.

There's no reason headshots should be one-shot kills if it takes half a mag to the chest to put somebody down. I think that game dynamic is shit. There should be a 2 or 3:1 ratio between headshot and bodyshot damage imo. If you get the drop on somebody / shoot first then you should win every time basically.

There's no reason headshots should be one-shot kills if it takes half a mag to the chest to put somebody down. I think that game dynamic is shit. There should be a 2 or 3:1 ratio between headshot and bodyshot damage imo. If you get the drop on somebody / shoot first then you should win every time basically.

@xaLieNxGrEyx: If you want to make useless noise, yell into a paper bag.

@Jimbo: I'd disagree that you should always win if you shoot first (what if you miss, hurp semantics derp). On a more meaningful level, it takes away emphasis on weapon selection. It's better game design to punish players for walking into combat with a pistol or using a shotgun at medium range, even if those could technically work in real life. It also make the fights more interesting if people can take hits, in that they are actually fights (rather than a binary shoot/no shoot equation).

@xaLieNxGrEyx: If you want to make useless noise, yell into a paper bag.

@Jimbo: I'd disagree that you should always win if you shoot first (what if you miss, hurp semantics derp). On a more meaningful level, it takes away emphasis on weapon selection. It's better game design to punish players for walking into combat with a pistol or using a shotgun at medium range, even if those could technically work in real life. It also make the fights more interesting if people can take hits, in that they are actually fights (rather than a binary shoot/no shoot equation).

Head - 2-3 bullets

Torso - 3-4 bullets

Arms/Legs - 4-5 bullets

And exchanging damage for accuracy and vise-versa is stupid, change the fire rate or range, if I can't hit anybody with my bullets then what good is it?

I think bc2 had great damage modeling everywhere, from tanks v. Tanks, to infantry v. Tanks, and infantry vs. Infantry. Everything hit made it feel like you were accomplishing something, while having the potential for longer, more drawn-out battles.

@Donos said:

It's better game design to punish players for walking into combat with a pistol or using a shotgun at medium range, even if those could technically work in real life.

I will preface my comment by saying that I completely understand where you're coming from. That being said...

....WAHHHH! But I want to be the rootenest tootenest pistoleer this side of the Mississip! Any game that pays pistols their proper due and makes them dangerous (BC2, CS, and Rainbow Six come to mind) gains loads of respect from me. Being able to 2 or 3 shot somebody with my 1911 in BC2 turned me onto that game immensely. It's a sidearm, yes, but that doesn't mean it has to be a pea-shooter.

The best system, in my mind, is to create realistic bullet damage (or at least faux realism, in that all bullets of similar caliber do equal damage), and then simply limit the effective range of the weapons. Don't create a wall that the bullets stop at, just make them slightly less damaging and wildly inaccurate above their effective range. If a bullet from a pistol is aimed well enough for a kill shot at close range, it ought to be a kill at medium and long range given the same aim. Harder to attain the shot at greater ranges, of course, but a bullet to the dome ought to kill nevertheless.

@xaLieNxGrEyx said:

@Donos said:

@xaLieNxGrEyx: If you want to make useless noise, yell into a paper bag.

@Jimbo: I'd disagree that you should always win if you shoot first (what if you miss, hurp semantics derp). On a more meaningful level, it takes away emphasis on weapon selection. It's better game design to punish players for walking into combat with a pistol or using a shotgun at medium range, even if those could technically work in real life. It also make the fights more interesting if people can take hits, in that they are actually fights (rather than a binary shoot/no shoot equation).

Anyone who thinks the one who shoots first should win is a moron, quite simple. I have no need to explain myself if you feel that way you're already too far lost. All I can reccommend to save your souls is to go play a real game like Rainbow Six Raven Shield, Vegas, Socom 2 etc. Real Multiplayer shooters. Heck even Halo if that's the only option. Seriously though, is the game aiming for you not enough? You have to gurantee a kill when shooting from behind? I guess you wouldn't care in the corner squating on your motion sensor but there's us that care about compition in our shooters and the MLG/GBs scene. Now go take your paper bag and hide within it in shame.

a) Fuck off.

b) The game doesn't aim for me, because I don't play shitty console FPS.

c) Well... I don't need a 'c' because the first two were so fucking good.

Yes, I think if you are shooting somebody repeatedly in the back with an assault rifle from 20 yards away then they shouldn't be able to completely ignore it, turn around and one-shot you in the head. That's fucking lame, makes no sense on any level and is what leads to supposedly team-based shooters actually just being a clusterfuck of everybody running around like spastics. Lone-wolfing is not sufficiently discouraged; death is not sufficiently discouraged - you're out for 5 seconds, now back to running around like a spastic, yay! If you care about competition, why wouldn't you want game mechanics which are brutal enough to force teams to act like teams and squads to act like squads? Nobody will be getting the drop on you from behind if your squad is working properly.

If we're talking about Quake or something then fucking whatever, but it'd be nice if some of these games which purport to be based on infantry combat had mechanics which resulted in fights being won by teamwork, maneuvering, suppression etc., instead of by some arbitrary rule which says headshots are always one-shot kills, even though you can shrug off half a dozen bullets to the chest. The 'fight' should be decided by what happens before the trigger is pulled, not by what happens after you have already started taking rifle rounds in the back/chest.

@Jimbo: He's just trolling bud, flag his post and ignore him.

Now back to the topic, I don't think you have too much to worry about in Battlefield 3. Yes it is lame if you can do everything correctly within your control to get a kill, but damage values are too low to kill without a headshot and you get robbed by the random number generator throwing your aim off their head. That said, I don't think those games aren't really around any more. In Call of Duty and Battlefields past, if you hit someone center-mass in the back with a burst (ie, the "correct" attack) you will kill them, and it looks to stay that way going forward. What I argue is that someone shouldn't be able to fling a bullet at your left ankle from 100m away with a pistol and get a kill, because they haven't approached the situation correctly. Planning should be rewarded not only for getting behind someone but also for bringing the right equipment and character to the fight. The hard part is finding the balance between the two, but I think Battlefield has that pretty much down.

Powerful enough to down a chopper or jet. Small arms fire has to be a valid measure of last resort against the threat from the skies. Promotes 'Flying Acehood' and ensures regular downtime for the pilot repairing his aircraft or waiting on a respawn.

At least 1% total dmg per hit, no matter what caliber. Up to 3-5% for bolt action sniper rifles. That's where I'd start-off my search for the perfect 'small arms fire dmg versus aircraft' balancing.

Pilots have to feel completely exposed and underpowered at first, so only ace pilots ever feel viable or can dominate when the circumstances are 'just so'. And even then, regular repairs will ensue - or else... BOOOOM due to chip-damage.

It's more about TTK (Time to Kill) rather than amount of bullets. In the most recent Battlefield game, TTK varies from one-hit kills to about 1,5 seconds from 100% to 0% depending of method/tool of killing. Minus latency and networking and whatnot, that leaves us about one second to play with - 'player skill time' so to speak. That one second gets stretched by movement and cover and distance and other circumstances of semi-realisticly-simulated gunplay under pressure, until we get a reasonable window for player skill to make a difference. I find Battlefield : Bad Company 2 (core balancing) to offer the least possible TTK, where-in playerskill still has sufficient impact on any given skirmish.

Truth be told, I'd love to get a Battlefield game with Halo-like TTK of up to 5 seconds for infantry. Kinda like BF:BC 1, which I'd put at about 2,5 seconds TTK (which is about as far as you can push it in a modern warfare setting). Of course such a thing would have to be supported by a 'far future warfare' setting, or it'd just seem silly.

@mikeeegeee said:

Any game that pays pistols their proper due and makes them dangerous (BC2, CS, and Rainbow Six come to mind) gains loads of respect from me. Being able to 2 or 3 shot somebody with my 1911 in BC2 turned me onto that game immensely. It's a sidearm, yes, but that doesn't mean it has to be a pea-shooter.

This.

The pistols really make BC2. I'm so glad I can rely on them when I need to.

If they are real guns, then they should work realistically.

@MooseyMcMan said:

If they are real guns, then they should work realistically.

Gameplay over realism. Every army-grade weapon will at the very least knock the wind out of you, even with a glancing shot. Who wants to play an insta-gib exclusively FPS game? There would be no balancing to speak of. No soffisticated interplay beween multifolds of aspects. The first guy to put the crosshair over your ass and pull the trigger wins. That, or pacing takes a horrendous hit, making everything campy as all hell. See your average mil-sim.

@Seppli: I dunno, insta-gib sounds pretty cool to me. It'd be madness! MADNESS! AHAAHAHAHAHAHAAH?AHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH!

@AhmadMetallic said:

When it comes to sniper rifles, 2-3 shots to the body, one to the head.

I would respectfully commit suicide if this was the case. URGH. Hardcore awaaaaaaaaayayayayay. If they screw up hardcore like they did for BC2, and make snipers a 2 shot kill, I will NEVER use a sniper rifle.

@Seppli said:

Who wants to play an insta-gib exclusively FPS game?

Unreal Tournament would like a word with you.

I have heard that semi auto sniper rifles take 2 shots to the head to kill which is bullshit imo.

@mikeeegeee said:

Any game that pays pistols their proper due and makes them dangerous (BC2, CS, and Rainbow Six come to mind) gains loads of respect from me. Being able to 2 or 3 shot somebody with my 1911 in BC2 turned me onto that game immensely. It's a sidearm, yes, but that doesn't mean it has to be a pea-shooter.

This.

The pistols really make BC2. I'm so glad I can rely on them when I need to.

If they are real guns, then they should work realistically.

Unless I'm playing a game like Quake or Unreal, maybe even Gears of War, headshots should always be 1 hit kill no matter what. If you take that into account, hits to the torso shouldn't take half a clip. Sniper rifles should be 2 or 3 shots, no more, no less. Other guns shouldn't really take more than 6 or 7 shots, depending on the weapon.

I don't know about hardcore mode.

I like it the way it is in BC2

@AhmadMetallic said:

When it comes to sniper rifles, 2-3 shots to the body, one to the head.

I would respectfully commit suicide if this was the case. URGH. Hardcore awaaaaaaaaayayayayay. If they screw up hardcore like they did for BC2, and make snipers a 2 shot kill, I will NEVER use a sniper rifle.

@AhmadMetallic said:

@Chavtheworld said:

@AhmadMetallic said:

When it comes to sniper rifles, 2-3 shots to the body, one to the head.

I would respectfully commit suicide if this was the case. URGH. Hardcore awaaaaaaaaayayayayay. If they screw up hardcore like they did for BC2, and make snipers a 2 shot kill, I will NEVER use a sniper rifle.

I thought HC = 1 shot kill? I said 2-3..
I mean, just how many times do you want to snipe-shoot a guy in the chest before you kill them? BF2 = 2 shots, which is perfect for big conquest maps because you usually dont get to hit em twice in a row

That was the problem with BC2, they nerfed the snipers on HC so it was still a 2 shot kill. Which was craaazy bad.

In normal mode for me I'm fine with 2 shots in chest, I can only accept 3 shots when it comes to arm/leg shots. If you get 2 chest shots though they should go down no doubts.

@AhmadMetallic said:

@Chavtheworld said:

@AhmadMetallic said:

When it comes to sniper rifles, 2-3 shots to the body, one to the head.

I would respectfully commit suicide if this was the case. URGH. Hardcore awaaaaaaaaayayayayay. If they screw up hardcore like they did for BC2, and make snipers a 2 shot kill, I will NEVER use a sniper rifle.

I thought HC = 1 shot kill? I said 2-3..
I mean, just how many times do you want to snipe-shoot a guy in the chest before you kill them? BF2 = 2 shots, which is perfect for big conquest maps because you usually dont get to hit em twice in a row

That was the problem with BC2, they nerfed the snipers on HC so it was still a 2 shot kill. Which was craaazy bad.

In normal mode for me I'm fine with 2 shots in chest, I can only accept 3 shots when it comes to arm/leg shots. If you get 2 chest shots though they should go down no doubts.

@AhmadMetallic: Hahaha yeah ;)

Hardcore yo! I agree thou, only a couple, perhaps three, direct hits to the body and he should go down.

BF3 isn't like BC2 (Normal) thankfully, people go down a lot quicker.

@squirrelnacho said:

In some games it seems like you need to empty half a magazine to bring someone down. My preference would be 3-4 hits for torso from most assault rifles, and the head only takes one.

I don't think snipers should be one hit to the body, the open maps would give them too big an advantage. I thought BF2 handled it well. What do you think?

In the BF3 alpha, it took 4-5 assault rifle bullets to kill someone, 2 shots with the sniper to anywhere but the head to kill someone. It felt as right as I wanted it to. The only problem is that pistols are still as accurate as sniper rifles. Brings back memories of pistol sniping in BF2.

BF3 isn't like BC2 (Normal) thankfully, people go down a lot quicker.

@squirrelnacho said:

In some games it seems like you need to empty half a magazine to bring someone down. My preference would be 3-4 hits for torso from most assault rifles, and the head only takes one.

I don't think snipers should be one hit to the body, the open maps would give them too big an advantage. I thought BF2 handled it well. What do you think?

In the BF3 alpha, it took 4-5 assault rifle bullets to kill someone, 2 shots with the sniper to anywhere but the head to kill someone. It felt as right as I wanted it to. The only problem is that pistols are still as accurate as sniper rifles. Brings back memories of pistol sniping in BF2.

@AhmadMetallic said:

@Sooty said:

BF3 isn't like BC2 (Normal) thankfully, people go down a lot quicker.

@jmrwacko said:

@squirrelnacho said:

In some games it seems like you need to empty half a magazine to bring someone down. My preference would be 3-4 hits for torso from most assault rifles, and the head only takes one.

I don't think snipers should be one hit to the body, the open maps would give them too big an advantage. I thought BF2 handled it well. What do you think?

In the BF3 alpha, it took 4-5 assault rifle bullets to kill someone, 2 shots with the sniper to anywhere but the head to kill someone. It felt as right as I wanted it to. The only problem is that pistols are still as accurate as sniper rifles. Brings back memories of pistol sniping in BF2.

Do you guys not enjoy the Battlefield action? People performing crazy stunts around you, squads and platoons charging towards flags and enemy bases, all hell breaking loose, with teamwork dynamics pushing the game forward..

and I saw plenty of that happening on the alpha despite the damage being slightly higher.

@AhmadMetallic said:

@Sooty: If you say so.. I played the alpha, I spent my time cowering behind low cover and inside bushes, as well as the 5-10 teammates around me. Whenever I tried to do something crazy, or to tactically make my way to the MCOM, tap tap i dropped dead. I did the same to attackers when they dared get out of cover.

Same happens in BC2 at times. It will vary match to match, multiplayer games are dynamic like that...

On the whole during my time on the alpha I saw plenty of people sprinting for objectives, sure they got gunned down a lot but they also planted a lot too.