Throwing Grenades Back?
- Thread starter SingeDebile
- Start date
People who "argue" like this cannot be for real. Eating horses? Destroying MGs with melee attacks? "Should we model THIS too!?!?" - Do you guys actually believe you're making a point? Coming up with absurd, borderline examples does not make wanting throwing grenades back, something which would not require much effort to implement and is realistic to boot, absurd. It's not throwing your bayonet rambo-style and getting kills, it's throwing grenades back before their fuse is up. It's something the average soldier could do, and sometimes did.
What's next? "People got colds in Stalingrad and coughed, which threw their aim off sometimes! Should we model this too!?", uh, of course not? Are you kidding me?
---
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
A grenade is a hand-held object designed to be thrown. There should not be a bias against who can pick one up and throw one and who cannot, regardless of if it is about to detonate or not.
Yes, throwing back grenades should be implemented without question in my opinion. What if your teammate fumbles a grenade right in front of you? Should you not be able to pick it up and fling it away saving you both?
I don't care if 90% of the time it blows up in my hand, I would rather have that ability than to just sit there and stare at it blankly until it blows up in my face.
Yes, throwing back grenades should be implemented without question in my opinion. What if your teammate fumbles a grenade right in front of you? Should you not be able to pick it up and fling it away saving you both?
I don't care if 90% of the time it blows up in my hand, I would rather have that ability than to just sit there and stare at it blankly until it blows up in my face.
Upvote
0
In RO1; Lying prone and nade lands in front of you, I am currently not even bothering standing up, just take that time to have an extra sip of my beer
<- implicit 'return to sender' member
<- implicit 'return to sender' member
Upvote
0
Exhibit no. 1:
Exhibit no. 2:
Conclusions:
Connect the ***-damn dots.
Very very bizzare. Last night I dreamed I was at the Russian front and I lost count of how many grenades I threw back. My arm actually got sore in the dream.
Strange
Exhibit no. 2:
Conclusions:
Connect the ***-damn dots.
Upvote
0
Throwing a grenade as opposed to running away from/diving on said grenade is a huge difference. The brave ones dive onto them, the sane ones run away from them, the stupid ones try to throw them back. (No offense to anyone who lost an arm due to this, but obviously it is a bad idea for obvious reasons)
Upvote
0
Although it may remind us of 'CoD' it should be up to the player what to do when a grenade lands in your foxhole: GTFO or hurl it into your buddies foxhole.
I say add it, maybe not before release but later on?
I say add it, maybe not before release but later on?
Upvote
0
Idunno it seems to be the kinda thing you either keep in from the start or don't put in at all.Although it may remind us of 'CoD' it should be up to the player what to do when a grenade lands in your foxhole: GTFO or hurl it into your buddies foxhole.
I say add it, maybe not before release but later on?
Upvote
0
You lot throw the grenade back, I'll get up and run to cover.
Treacle sponge is awesome for cases of the munchies.
Treacle sponge is awesome for cases of the munchies.
Upvote
0
if anything i think this is in support of having the option, the way people react to that choice within the game will have a realistic base even if we are not actually risking our arm... some people in game will throw it, others will run , (though i believe the smart one will make a different choice depending on the situation)
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Nice rhetorics you've got going on there.
Where do I start? I know, I'd like you to find a quote of me saying "I don't want throwing back grenades in this game". It's just that I personally feel that this particular feature is out of place in "realistic" game like RO, which in my PERSONAL opinion lives off respect for the enemies shells and bullets.
If TWI decide not to implement it, I'm happy.
If they do, I'm happy too.
May the mighty :IS2: guide me on this path I choose
Upvote
0
Very true. It's all about the freedom of choice. Seeing as in most choices by the time you've picked up the primed grenade and prepare yourself to throw it, it'll have already blown up in your face, most people won't be willing to take that risk. But there will be that select few and that's what would add to the game. Variety of stupidity
Upvote
0
Scenario: A full Soviet infantry assault is hitting your position on Mamayev Kurgan. The squad MG-34 gunner and ammo loaders are obliterated by a lucky mortar shell, and the Russians close in, yelling "Uraaaa!!!", firing bursts from their tommy guns. You duck as 7.62 x 25mm Tokarev rounds hit the rim of your narrow slit trench. Suddenly, an F1 grenade soars over the trench, landing behind you on higher ground. You and your comrades next to you all duck just as a second grenade simultaneously bounces off your squad leader's helmet and rolls to your feet. F1 grenades have a 3.2 to 4.2 second fuse.
If there is less than a second left on the fuse, you are dead anyway. But, if there is a second and a half, or even two seconds left, you have time for most of the options. Exiting the trench will kill you, and your squadmates in the trench will die as well. Trying to push past your comrades will kill them and possibly you too. Diving on it will kill you. The only scenario here where everyone MIGHT not die is if you pick up the enemy grenade and toss it away.
I argue that even though the combat soldier cannot consider all this in that split instant, he will do one of three things: panic and die as a result, which is not unlikely, throw himself upon the grenade, which is not unheard of, or scoop the damn thing from the dirt and lob it out of his fighting position! Seeing as the first involves inevitable death for everyone and the second inevitable death for you, which seems sanest to you?
Sure, I might do it without fear of a painful bullet punching through my lungs and leaving me coughing up blood, crawling across the rubble, but in Red Orchestra one still weighs the risks of death, and furthermore one considers those risks more heavily than in any other FPS game. With just a thin tunic instead of infinite amounts of regenerating heath between me, that long respawn time, and the painful, dangerous run back to the combat zone, I do hesitate in Red Orchestra before running across that open field, despite the fact that I am not in bodily danger. And similarly, I would say that 95% of the time, people will look at that grenade landing ten feet away, briefly consider running over to grab it, then promptly sprint in the other action, muttering "Forget it--no way that'll work." Those that can't make the proper decision will learn. But, by no means will Red Orchestra 2 devolve into a mass chase on both sides with every player in the territory/firefight server dashing over to every thrown grenade they see to try and throw it back because dying isn't painful.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Scenario: A full Soviet infantry assault is hitting your position on Mamayev Kurgan. The squad MG-34 gunner and ammo loaders are obliterated by a lucky mortar shell, and the Russians close in, yelling "Uraaaa!!!", firing bursts from their tommy guns. You duck as 7.62 x 25mm Tokarev rounds hit the rim of your narrow slit trench. Suddenly, an F1 grenade soars over the trench, landing behind you on higher ground. You and your comrades next to you all duck just as a second grenade simultaneously bounces off your squad leader's helmet and rolls to your feet. F1 grenades have a 3.2 to 4.2 second fuse.
If there is less than a second left on the fuse, you are dead anyway. But, if there is a second and a half, or even two seconds left, you have time for most of the options. Exiting the trench will kill you, and your squadmates in the trench will die as well. Trying to push past your comrades will kill them and possibly you too. Diving on it will kill you. The only scenario here where everyone MIGHT not die is if you pick up the enemy grenade and toss it away.
I argue that even though the combat soldier cannot consider all this in that split instant, he will do one of three things: panic and die as a result, which is not unlikely, throw himself upon the grenade, which is not unheard of, or scoop the damn thing from the dirt and lob it out of his fighting position! Seeing as the first involves inevitable death for everyone and the second inevitable death for you, which seems sanest to you?
As for Dr. Phibes, sure, firefight and territory mode feature respawning and anyway there's no fear of personal injury so this could be abused, right? Look, consider running across a street in Red Orchestra in the face of machine gun fire! Or emerging from cover to toss a satchel on an enemy tank. Or bayonet-charging that MP-40 wielding Fritz after missing with the hipshot.
Sure, I might do it without fear of a painful bullet punching through my lungs and leaving me coughing up blood, crawling across the rubble, but in Red Orchestra one still weighs the risks of death, and furthermore one considers those risks more heavily than in ANY OTHER FPS game.
With just a thin tunic instead of infinite amounts of regenerating heath between me, that long respawn time, and the painful, dangerous run back to the combat zone, I do hesitate in Red Orchestra before running across that smoke-filled hallway in Zhitomir with a DP28 on the other side of the haze, despite the fact that I am not in bodily danger. And similarly, I would say that 95% of the time, people will look at that grenade landing ten feet away, briefly consider running over to grab it, then promptly sprint in the other action, muttering "Forget it--no way that'll work." Those that can't make the proper decision will learn. But, by no means will Red Orchestra 2 devolve into a mass chase on both sides with every player in the territory/firefight server dashing over to every thrown grenade they see to try and throw it back because dying isn't painful.
The only time you'd see that is if there was an achievement for killing an enemy with his own grenade 10,000 times.
As for countdown, I for one wouldn't touch an enemy grenade with a ten-foot pole unless it fell right in my shellhole or bounced off my chest. Sure, dying is painful, but so is having to watch the rest of your team struggle to cap an objective for two minutes.
That's a very long post which basically says you think the grenade-throwing option should be in the game.
Amusing story though
Upvote
0
Very nice reply manScenario: A full Soviet infantry assault is hitting your position on Mamayev Kurgan. The squad MG-34 gunner and ammo loaders are obliterated by a lucky mortar shell, and the Russians close in, yelling "Uraaaa!!!", firing bursts from their tommy guns. You duck as 7.62 x 25mm Tokarev rounds hit the rim of your narrow slit trench. Suddenly, an F1 grenade soars over the trench, landing behind you on higher ground. You and your comrades next to you all duck just as a second grenade simultaneously bounces off your squad leader's helmet and rolls to your feet. F1 grenades have a 3.2 to 4.2 second fuse.
If there is less than a second left on the fuse, you are dead anyway. But, if there is a second and a half, or even two seconds left, you have time for most of the options. Exiting the trench will kill you, and your squadmates in the trench will die as well. Trying to push past your comrades will kill them and possibly you too. Diving on it will kill you. The only scenario here where everyone MIGHT not die is if you pick up the enemy grenade and toss it away.
I argue that even though the combat soldier cannot consider all this in that split instant, he will do one of three things: panic and die as a result, which is not unlikely, throw himself upon the grenade, which is not unheard of, or scoop the damn thing from the dirt and lob it out of his fighting position! Seeing as the first involves inevitable death for everyone and the second inevitable death for you, which seems sanest to you?
Sure, I might do it without fear of a painful bullet punching through my lungs and leaving me coughing up blood, crawling across the rubble, but in Red Orchestra one still weighs the risks of death, and furthermore one considers those risks more heavily than in any other FPS game. With just a thin tunic instead of infinite amounts of regenerating heath between me, that long respawn time, and the painful, dangerous run back to the combat zone, I do hesitate in Red Orchestra before running across that open field, despite the fact that I am not in bodily danger. And similarly, I would say that 95% of the time, people will look at that grenade landing ten feet away, briefly consider running over to grab it, then promptly sprint in the other action, muttering "Forget it--no way that'll work." Those that can't make the proper decision will learn. But, by no means will Red Orchestra 2 devolve into a mass chase on both sides with every player in the territory/firefight server dashing over to every thrown grenade they see to try and throw it back because dying isn't painful.
I never threw the option out of the metaphorical trench. I'm just saying that most of the time the grenade would blow up in your hand (Especially if your enemy cooked it or it had good hangtime, or if you were just slow to react) and of course kill you and any unlucky bastards nearby. Only in that rare situation would it be thrown a safe distance away. But yes I can agree that the option to throw it would be nice, just extremely extremely risky. It'd be the kinda thing that if pulled off successfully (Killing an enemy with an enemy grenade) should be rewarded greatly (basically, a temporary promotion or just a huge honor points bonus)
Upvote
0
Just alittle off-topic here but did RO2 change the way grenades work? I remember in ROOST hiding behind a coffee mug or a pole when a grenade was 30 cm away from you would save you from any harm, which is totally ridiculous .
.
Upvote
0
Remember that this is a game, where you need to take in account that any feature added will be extensively used. It's because the consequences of stupidity are not real, and thus moderation on the amount it will be used is negated.
From a gameplay perspective, I don't see throwing back grenades being a good thing, it will encourage suicidal behaviour. People can give examples of how this worked out for some very very lucky individuals, but it does not show the times it went wrong and lead to unneeded deaths.
I do however like the idea of sacrificing myself to save my comrades near me. This would atleast promote the idea that if you're going to sacrifice yourself, you only do it for the sake of your teammates.
From a gameplay perspective, I don't see throwing back grenades being a good thing, it will encourage suicidal behaviour. People can give examples of how this worked out for some very very lucky individuals, but it does not show the times it went wrong and lead to unneeded deaths.
I do however like the idea of sacrificing myself to save my comrades near me. This would atleast promote the idea that if you're going to sacrifice yourself, you only do it for the sake of your teammates.
Upvote
0