"Weapon has been shot/knocked out of hand!"

[Nezzer]

What in the name of all that is good and holy gave you people the impression that having your gun shot would force you to drop it, or that being shot in the arm instantly forces you to drop anything you were carrying?

It's not realistic, it's retarded. You can't shoot the gun out of someone's hands unless it's a bad western.

Sure, pain doesn't exist in a war. A bullet in your hand or arm could just cut your tendons and nerves. It's just a scratch, right?

 

[Faneca]

This is anoying as hell but I still want it. :IS2:

 

[The_Cook]

weapons need to be shot out of hands... just the one you are holding, not all your stuff like old RO1.

Also being shot in legs need to make you fall

I miss randomly hitting an enemy in the hand and him dropping his stuff as he runs across a space. Then to utter amazement watch him come running back to his gun to pick it back up and get shot for his trouble.

I miss getting my gun shot out of my hand while running across an open space, saying screw it and find someone to follow around and eventually a.) finding a gun b.) taking the dudes gun after he gets shot c.) dying without a gun

I miss being shot in the leg by an mg, hitting the pavement and getting lucky cause I fell down behind a bump in the terrain.

also shooting guns out of hands... Sniper shoots gun from criminal's hand - YouTube whether on purpose or by accident it is well within the realm of possibility. It's one hell of a shot when you do it on purpose and it's beyond 50yrds. Also naysayers that want to bring up it can't be done with WWII rifles. friend owns a 70year old mosin nagant that's been through one World War that can still shoot 3
" groups @ 300yrds on a bench.

 

[Cokedrop]

Also being shot in legs need to make you fall

Agreed. Not even drugs could let you walk off a shot to the legs.

 

[Conscript]

Get a friend to shoot your hand whilst you're holding something.
... The game went as far as to include nutshots, so why not this?

Firstly, you've quoted me out of context there. I asked how having someones pistol instantly appear in their hands when their primary weapon was shot out of their hands was realistic. Unless you are suggesting that when my friend shoots me in the hand, I will drop my primary rifle and have it instantly replaced by a sidearm which I can return fire with?

Secondly, we aren't talking about shooting people in the hand. We're talking about shooting a weapon out of the hand. Asking me to take a bullet in the hand to prove how this feature should be included is counter productive, because if that's what it represents, then I doubt very much you would be able to pick your weapon up again and wield it effectively with a smashed hand/forearm anyway.

Thirdly, mentioning nutshots is irrelevant. That doesnt have any effect on the gameplay whatsoever so it isn't really a comparison. It's just a humourous indiciation of where your kill shot landed on the player. You may as well say shooting weapon out of hand should be included bcause headshots are recorded.

Very, very shallow observation.

I have already given a very thorough and thought out criticism of the feature. Quoting just the glib comment I used to highlight what I feel is the only reason it is in game and calling it 'shallow' is not really a sound retort.

I would be happy to respond to this in more detail later, but at the moment Im at work, so I cant really go on much longer. Ill catch you later.

 

[Cokedrop]

I have already given a very thorough and thought out criticism of the feature. Quoting just the glib comment I used to highlight what I feel is the only reason it is in game and calling it 'shallow' is not really a sound retort.

You have stated that it was nothing more than for "OMG COOL" effects.

Of course, disabling your enemy during combat, even temporarily, brings no advantages to your situation whatsoever.

So I did feel that calling your view shallow was warranted.

I have also never had a case of weapons being bugged under the terrain in that situation. So I also felt that you were being subjective.

However, you did highlight a point of ammo falling out of the bandolier, which doesn't really make sense. The feature could be modified to take small things such as this out. It doesn't have to be implemented on the whole.

After all, I'm sure RO:HoS was intended to be a successor to RO:Ost... I think.

But when you have a weapon shot out of your hand in a stand-off. You would instinctively/ideally reach for your side-arm to defend yourself, no? It's only your fault for assuming that the enemy doesn't have a back-up plan and you decide to face him straight-on with a bolt rifle. If I recall correctly, pistols don't have as great of a range as a rifle.

I also agree with introducing a well-developed weapons jamming system.

 

[monster]

The gun being shot out represents a lot of things.

If you've never dropped a part of your kit, then you have never had a kit, or never tried to do anything difficult while keeping your kit together.

 

[Josef Nader]

Sure, pain doesn't exist in a war. A bullet in your hand or arm could just cut your tendons and nerves. It's just a scratch, right?

What happened to "death in RO = combat ineffectiveness?"

If you got hit in the arm to the point where you could no longer hold your rifle, congratulations, you are no longer combat effective and no sane person would charge the enemy waving a pistol in their other arm. You'd fall back and try to get medical attention.

No matter how you slice it, it's a stupid, unrealistic feature.

And yeah, I've seen the cop shoot the gun out of the guy's hand. It's a one-in-a-million shot, and it only worked because the guy never expected him to try it. This was done by a professional marksman positioned very close to the target, firing prone, with the gun in clear view, while he was -aiming- for the gun (not trying to kill the target), and the target was unaware of his presence. Sounds just like a battlefield situation to me. /sarcasmmode.

 

[The_Cook]

What happened to "death in RO = combat ineffectiveness?"

If you got hit in the arm to the point where you could no longer hold your rifle, congratulations, you are no longer combat effective and no sane person would charge the enemy waving a pistol in their other arm. You'd fall back and try to get medical attention.

No matter how you slice it, it's a stupid, unrealistic feature.

And yeah, I've seen the cop shoot the gun out of the guy's hand. It's a one-in-a-million shot, and it only worked because the guy never expected him to try it. This was done by a professional marksman positioned very close to the target, firing prone, with the gun in clear view, while he was -aiming- for the gun (not trying to kill the target), and the target was unaware of his presence. Sounds just like a battlefield situation to me. /sarcasmmode.

That is not a one in a million shot, apparently you've never fired a gun before.

 

[Nezzer]

What happened to "death in RO = combat ineffectiveness?"

If you got hit in the arm to the point where you could no longer hold your rifle, congratulations, you are no longer combat effective and no sane person would charge the enemy waving a pistol in their other arm. You'd fall back and try to get medical attention.

No matter how you slice it, it's a stupid, unrealistic feature.

Actually, I'd love if all bullets killed in the first shot in any part of the body, at least rifle bullets. But since that is not likely to happen, I'd rather have the "weapon shot out of hand" feature.

 

[Cokedrop]

If you got hit in the arm to the point where you could no longer hold your rifle...

If your arm has been shot to a bloody stump in the middle of a battlefield, I doubt you'd have a good chance of surviving it either way.

It's a one-in-a-million shot, and it only worked because the guy never expected him to try it. This was done by a professional marksman positioned very close to the target, firing prone, with the gun in clear view, while he was -aiming- for the gun (not trying to kill the target), and the target was unaware of his presence.

It doesn't take a genius to point and shoot at whatever he wants. Especially when given the liberties in which a game provides.

You're talking as if such situations are not supposed to apply in real life, let alone in-game by some non-existant natural law, which it just did.

 

[Avtomat]

This feature needs to return. Of corse not like in RO:Ost where you got hit in the arm and the ammo magically flew out of your pouches.

What happened to "death in RO = combat ineffectiveness?"

If you got hit in the arm to the point where you could no longer hold your rifle, congratulations, you are no longer combat effective and no sane person would charge the enemy waving a pistol in their other arm. You'd fall back and try to get medical attention.

No matter how you slice it, it's a stupid, unrealistic feature.

And yeah, I've seen the cop shoot the gun out of the guy's hand. It's a one-in-a-million shot, and it only worked because the guy never expected him to try it. This was done by a professional marksman positioned very close to the target, firing prone, with the gun in clear view, while he was -aiming- for the gun (not trying to kill the target), and the target was unaware of his presence. Sounds just like a battlefield situation to me. /sarcasmmode.

Unrealistic? I would love to see someone not dropping a 4kg rifle after a 7.62x54 fractures his arm. Maybe if his bones are made of adamantium...

 

[Josef Nader]

It doesn't take a genius to point and shoot at whatever he wants. Especially when given the liberties in which a game provides.

You're talking as if such situations are not supposed to apply in real life, let alone in-game by some non-existant natural law, which it just did.

Why shoot the gun out of his hands when there are much better places to aim at? This is war, not a police action against an unstable individual. You're aiming to kill. Pulling a John Wayne isn't going to make them combat ineffective.

If your arm has been shot to a bloody stump in the middle of a battlefield, I doubt you'd have a good chance of surviving it either way.

Actually, I'd love if all bullets killed in the first shot in any part of the body, at least rifle bullets. But since that is not likely to happen, I'd rather have the "weapon shot out of hand" feature.

That's really what should happen. If you get hit in the arm and you can't handle your weapon anymore, you should be considered combat ineffective and die. The only rounds that would be reasonable in taking more than one to take you out of the fight would be pistol ammunition, which lacks the stopping power of rifle bullets.

Unrealistic? I would love to see someone not dropping a 4kg rifle after a 7.62x54 fractures his arm. Maybe if his bones are made of adamantium...

If his arm has been shattered by a rifle bullet, he's hardly combat effective, is he? I don't know that a soldier who has a 7.62x54 lodged in his arm would draw his pistol and charge the enemy, or simply bend down and pick his rifle up again. It seems to me that he'd be in an incredible amount of pain, and would be reduced to either trying to fall back to safety or lying there screaming for his mama.

Combat ineffective = death. That's what we were promised, that's what we should get.

That is not a one in a million shot, apparently you've never fired a gun before.

I listed a whole bunch of reasons why the gun getting shot out of your hands through impact with the gun would never happen in actual combat, and why that video is a very specific, unique situation that again, would never happen in actual combat save for a one-in-a-million lucky shot.

 

[Conscript]

You have stated that it was nothing more than for "OMG COOL" effects.

Of course, disabling your enemy during combat, even temporarily, brings no advantages to your situation whatsoever.

So I did feel that calling your view shallow was warranted.

I stand by my comment because I really don't feel it added anything to the gameplay, or to the immersion factor.

And this hardly gave you an advantage either. If you are using a bolt action rifle, what advantage does it give you? Having to fire a second round to kill the player? A round which might be better spent firing at a second target who's taking a bead on you? How is that an advantage over the first shot making a clean kill?

And if you have an automatic, it was pointless too. Because usually the rest of the bullets you've put downrange will kill the player anyway. So I don't buy the "tactical advantage" argument.

I have also never had a case of weapons being bugged under the terrain in that situation. So I also felt that you were being subjective.

However, you did highlight a point of ammo falling out of the bandolier, which doesn't really make sense. The feature could be modified to take small things such as this out. It doesn't have to be implemented on the whole.

After all, I'm sure RO:HoS was intended to be a successor to RO:Ost... I think.

Then I can only say you were very lucky! RO:OST had a terrible weapons pickup feature. It was clunky and often didn't work. Which wasn't a problem most of the time, because picking up a weapon was a deliberate act.

But this feature forced it upon you, in a rush, in combat, and it was rage inducing. I regularly had my weapon shot out of my hand, saw it on the floor and was unable to pick it up again for no discernible reason other than terrain conflicts. And when I did, as I said, I then had to scrabble around for the ammunition. This often meant that I would end up dead anyway, as a result of the feature. Scrabbling around to pick up your gun like this was never fun, or involving. It would of been much less frustrating just to be killed by the first bullet and go to the spawn queue. It felt like nothing more than a delay of the inevitable, which is why I think it's a pointless.

But when you have a weapon shot out of your hand in a stand-off. You would instinctively/ideally reach for your side-arm to defend yourself, no? It's only your fault for assuming that the enemy doesn't have a back-up plan and you decide to face him straight-on with a bolt rifle. If I recall correctly, pistols don't have as great of a range as a rifle.

Of course you do...you reach for your sidearm. You don't have it automatically appear in your hands, pointed at the enemy though. Fast switch doesn't exist in real life.

So many times I would enter a building to hunt out a sniper, shoot him in the chest, and his weapon would be blasted from his hands. One would assume, as you say that "disabling the enemy gives you an advantage". But instead, his avatar automatically equips a semi automatic pistol and is able to blast away at me as I rebolt for a second shot.

So what's the point of a feature you claim exists to give you an advantage by disabling the enemy, when in fact, in some cases, all it does is put them suddenly at a huge advantage? And as for "its your fault for not having a backup plan" - what should my backup plan be? Not shoot him? In case I hit his gun, knock it out of his hand, and he gets switched to his pistol instantly? When would that thought ever run through the mind of a real infantry soldier faced with a similar situation?

I also agree with introducing a well-developed weapons jamming system.

This would add so much more to the game in my opinion. It could be used to balance the more powerful weapons.

 

[Cokedrop]

So what's the point of a feature you claim exists to give you an advantage by disabling the enemy, when in fact, in some cases, all it does is put them suddenly at a huge advantage?

Being able to quickly switch weapons has nothing to do with being able to shoot a weapon out of someone's hands...
You're blaming it for something it isn't responsible for.

 

[Conscript]

Being able to quickly switch weapons has nothing to do with being able to shoot a weapon out of someone's hands...
You're blaming it for something it isn't responsible for.

But it does point to a poor implementation.

 

[Wookie87]

Being able to quickly switch weapons has nothing to do with being able to shoot a weapon out of someone's hands...
You're blaming it for something it isn't responsible for.

But what both Conscript and Josef Nader seem to be making far more compelling arguments against it's implementation that those who are for it.

Also it seems Conscript is complaining about the instapistol because it is a consequence of the rifle being shot out of hand.

 

[Cokedrop]

But it does point to a poor implementation.

That doesn't mean that the feature should be entirely removed rather than worked on...

 

[Conscript]

That doesn't mean that the feature should be entirely removed rather than worked on...

It was just one of the examples I gave of why I thought it was a poorly implemented feature. I still think it is, but I guess we can keep up this argument all day, so may as well just leave it as that.

 

[Cokedrop]

I'm just going back and replying to random posts here:

Why shoot the gun out of his hands when there are much better places to aim at?

See this:

Actually, I'd love if all bullets killed in the first shot in any part of the body, at least rifle bullets. But since that is not likely to happen, I'd rather have the "weapon shot out of hand" feature.

Sometimes you don't have time to realign your shot to a more effective place. By the time you do that you'd probably be already dead. I've yet to see a war where every casualty was a headshot. And the idea itself isn't attributed to John Wayne...

I listed a whole bunch of reasons why the gun getting shot out of your hands through impact with the gun would never happen in actual combat, and why that video is a very specific, unique situation that again, would never happen in actual combat save for a one-in-a-million lucky shot.

Even if it is a "one-in-a-million lucky shot", it would be rewarding if you got it, no? Especially when you're suddenly rushed and had to resort to hip-firing.

As for "its your fault for not having a backup plan" - what should my backup plan be? Not shoot him?

I'm implying that you should assess the situation and think about what you're doing. How about killing the enemy before you decide to casually walk up to him and expose yourself?

But this feature forced it upon you, in a rush, in combat, and it was rage inducing. I regularly had my weapon shot out of my hand, saw it on the floor and was unable to pick it up again for no discernible reason other than terrain conflicts.

Once again, I have never had this problem. Maybe someone else can provide some input.
Closest I've ever come to weapons bugging through the map was I decide to pick up a weapon that had been lying about for ages and was about to disappear. Sure, as you described, the way you picked up weapons in RO:Ost was "clunky". But it wasn't difficult to learn and get used to.

And when I did, as I said, I then had to scrabble around for the ammunition. This often meant that I would end up dead anyway, as a result of the feature.

This doesn't apply to RO:HoS because ammunition comes with the firearm, itself.

What some people don't seem to realize or notice is that RO:HoS' mechanics and that of RO:Ost aren't exactly like each other.