yurch said:
I don't think the injury system really has a damn thing to do with it. Consider everything a one-hit-kill and remove that factor from the equation entirely.
The injury-system wouldn't force limitations on the MG's, but it would give some advantages to the rifles.
Imagine a system where a single-shot could create a shock that makes you impossible to fight firther like nothing happen right after few seconds after the hit.
I don't speak about 'one shot one kill', because when the shock is over you could still fight, with less effeciancy but you still could.
Look at games like like AA:O, the SAW is the best CQB weapon (if you are not a total skilled ass with the M4A1... which means low ping).
Any why is it so? Because you need more shots to kill and a single shot has no real stunning/shocking effect, so you really need to fire more rounds to make the enemy not dangerous to yourself.
And since the SAW fires more rounds and I think faster too, it is superior.
Another thing that I was discussing with gal-z in other threads is, that MG's, even if a lightweight SAW, can't be held for to long at the shoulder and a tired arm won't control recoil good enough. The MG's would be held more at a hipped (sideways) positions and could be fired from hip, having a larger freeaim-area.
So you shoot from hip les accurate, or take in count a short delay when you lift it to the shoulder first.
And taking a sideways held MG to the shoulder takes more time than taking a light rifle, which has the buttstock allready at the shoulder, from low-ready (yes geo
) to high-ready.
They are all the small details that can be called 'natural balance'. An MG will always be superior in firepower, but the real-life physics/characteristics are always present and define things.
They might be even more details to consider I don't think about right now.
Crowze said:
I'd like a decent way of simulating peripheral view.
I always thought about that and thought about making the view 16:9 with the black strips at the top and bottom (like watching a 16:9 movie on a 9:6 TV).
The good thing would be, that you have a panoramic view and you could place the HUD elements outside the view into the balck area (could be problematic with real 16:9 monitors).
The bad thing is, that it makes the objects you see smaller, which is not nice.
A fish-eye view would be horrible, except you are an ALIEN.