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

[Josef Nader]

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...

RTFP. That's not what I said at all. If being shot in the arm was made "lethal" (read: makes you combat ineffective) than that shot would KILL them, as opposed to making them drop their gun like a dope and keep coming at you with their fists or stop and try to pick it up.

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.

No, it wouldn't be. It'd be stupid, unrealistic, and frustrating to have to prime the bolt again, or pump another pistol round into his chest to get him to drop. Even worse is if he kills me after he SHOULD have been rendered combat ineffective, but instead simply lost his gun like a bad western and kept coming at me.

 

[luciferintears]

Even worse is if he kills me after he SHOULD have been rendered combat ineffective, but instead simply lost his gun like a bad western and kept coming at me.

A bullet to the hand does not render you combat ineffective. However, having your hand completely torn off, makes you combat ineffective.

As i said, my brothers fireteam leader who had his finger torn off, was bandaged up in a few minutes and resumed the fight.

 

[Cokedrop]

If being shot in the arm was made "lethal" (read: makes you combat ineffective) than that shot would KILL them, as opposed to making them drop their gun like a dope and keep coming at you with their fists or stop and try to pick it up.

Of course the shot would kill them if it hit something vital such as the brachial artery in your upper arm...

Yet somehow.
For some reason.
No matter which part of the arm you get hit with a bullet in.
...
It should somehow suddenly equate to instant death to you for some odd reason.

​

Even the in-game hitbox knows that your arm is separated into different sections. You have less chance of bleeding out and dying if you were to be shot in the extremities like your hand.

As for weapons being shot out of your hand (Not arm. As I had typed out very clearly in the thread title)and surviving it...

What the person chooses to do afterwards when they become disarmed is up to them. That's just free will at work.

It's the player who's controlling the character. And they control it as they see fit. And it shouldn't be a surprise that there exists some people who make stupid decisions and take a chance in such situations. You can't avoid this fact.

But there also exists some intelligent people who realize that they are at a severe disadvantage and would try to run and take cover like any reasonable person.

You can't decide how someone is supposed to act inside a game where there is some degree of free will involved.

No, it wouldn't be. It'd be stupid, unrealistic, and frustrating to have to prime the bolt again, or pump another pistol round into his chest to get him to drop.

I'm sure that you you are intelligent enough to prime the bolt within the time it takes for a person to even realize what had just happened.

And what's wrong with having to fire another shot to take them down?
One-shot kills cannot always be achieved. But in your little world, such a concept is unheard of, and is considered as some sort of witchcraft.
This isn't an arcade game.

Even worse is if he kills me after he SHOULD have been rendered combat ineffective, but instead simply lost his gun like a bad western and kept coming at me

Your idea of one-hit kill shots to any area of the arm sounds like something out of an bad western.

You have a loaded firearm with a melee option. They're either charging at you without a weapon or struggling to pick it up off the ground, or even running for that matter. Honestly. You don't even have to think twice.

 

[Jippofin]

Bullet hits are instantly disabling only if they hit in the spinal cord(paralysis) or mid-brain(death). Other hits might be lethal in short term, but not instantly disabling. Even a hit on the heart has only small effect on a motivated person high on adrenaline. Even with instant loss of blood pressure, the brain will have enough oxygen to function for many seconds (10 is one estimate). There are quite a few studies of this and a lot of material online too. This is also very nicely done in game where you often get to revenge a "lethal hit" on the enemy as the screen goes slowly dark.
Hits in the hands are never fully disabling, not at least instantly. Even a full amputation of a limb does not stop a motivated person for quite some time. Hits most certainly do lower his ability to function, but then again this is another thing the game should show in a way or other. (like hit in the arm would prevent cycling the bolt etc., hit in the leg should cause falling down in most cases, ...)

Hits on arms and weapons that causes them to be dropped should be fairly common. One should look at it as percentage of the target area. When you do this, it is quite easy to see that it is fairly likely to hit a gun carried in front of the body when aiming in the center of torso. On a side view of the target arms form up the second largest mass one can hit (legs being the largest).

 

[Conscript]

I think what Josef is trying to get across is how a disabling shot is handled in game.

No one is suggesitng that shooting someone in the hand would kill them. But it would render you combat ineffective. You could no longer fight effectivly as a soldier.

Given that this is a game whereby that is your main role, if you are unable to fulfill that role, the game considers you "dead". Death in the game doesnt represent only the actual death of your avatar, but them being unable to fight.

We could have a game which accurately simulates the human physilology in every aspect, but how much fun would it be to play a game where you laid on the floor for 10 minutes after being shot, clutching a stomach wound and bleeding out? Unable to respawn because, technically, your avatar isn't actually dead, but still unable to fight. It wouldn't. So instead, the game tells you you've died and you go to respawn.

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?

I did try killing him, I shot him! Thats the whole point of the argument, I made a conscious decision to sneak around and enage a sniper on my own terms, at close range, where he should lose his long range advantage.


I just want to say that some people here seem to be wanting realism for realism's sake. Im all for realistic games; I want accurate weapon dynamics, and movement and authentic environments. And I don't want over simplified run 'n gun playstyle. But remember, it is still a game, and we play to enjoy it. Please, don't fall in to the trap of backing up what you want in game with "but it's realistic, damnit!!" - that doesn't mean it should be in game. That is the crux of my argument really, that even if this feature is realistic (and like I say, im not convinced it is) I really dont think the way it's implemented adds anything positive to the gameplay.

 

[Knochensack]

Would be nice, but... since you can penetrate almost every wall with almost every gun, you do not need to scope for the enemy's barrel. Just shoot him through the wall. Would be nice in close combat though.

 

[Josef Nader]

Glad someone gets it

Thanks, you hit the nail on the head.

Even in the case of your brother's fireteam leader, lucifer, he had to stop fighting for several minutes to handle his injuries (i.e. combat ineffective) before he could continue. You know, kind of like a respawn time. He could not ignore his injury and keep fighting on, he had to treat it before he continued the fight.

"Death" in game shouldn't only be what's fatal, as not every hit is fatal. BUT, most hits would render you pretty combat ineffective, especially if they tore ligaments, broke bones, or damaged muscle tissue. If you can't keep fighting without needing medical attention, you should be considered "dead".

 

[luciferintears]

I think what Josef is trying to get across is how a disabling shot is handled in game.

No one is suggesitng that shooting someone in the hand would kill them. But it would render you combat ineffective. You could no longer fight effectivly as a soldier.

But it's not a disabling shot; just go pick your weapon back up....

A shot to the hand especially from a smaller pistol caliber round, will not put you out of the fight.

 

[Westernesse]

A better weapon jamming system would be better than dropping your weapon. Right now you jam your gun about one time in 50 hours of play time or so.

 

[Josef Nader]

But it's not a disabling shot; just go pick your weapon back up....

A shot to the hand especially from a smaller pistol caliber round, will not put you out of the fight.

I would strongly disagree. Having a bullet, even a small one, lodged in the myriad of bones and tendons that make up your hand would be quite disabling, especially regarding something as finesse driven as shooting.

It probably won't kill you. It may not even leave a permanent injury. But the fact of the matter is that you cannot ignore it and continue fighting at full strength. You -certainly- could not simply walk over, pick your gun back up, and continue fighting. Even with additional sway when injured, it's just ridiculous.

 

[Jippofin]

People have been shot and wounded in combat without themselves even knowing it. People who are tough and have will to live will continue to fight on even though they know they have been hit. Bullet may just hit gun and caused it to drop.

Any good infantry training will teach participants to continue fighting even when wounded, as the best way to survive in that situation is to first stop the threat that caused the wound in the first place.

There are plenty of real life accounts of people who continuing to fight with several mortal bullet wounds.

It is far from impossible.

 

[Josef Nader]

People have been shot and wounded in combat without themselves even knowing it. People who are tough and have will to live will continue to fight on even though they know they have been hit. Bullet may just hit gun and caused it to drop.

Any good infantry training will teach participants to continue fighting even when wounded, as the best way to survive in that situation is to first stop the threat that caused the wound in the first place.

There are plenty of real life accounts of people who continuing to fight with several mortal bullet wounds.

It is far from impossible.

Aye, and most of the "fight on" injuries are flesh wounds that didn't hit delicate or vital areas of your body. Your hand is a delicate area and easily damaged. You can take a hit in most places and fight on (gut, arm, leg, shoulder) as long as they missed the vital arteries and organs, but a shot to your hand would **** up your ability to manipulate and grasp objects, two skills kind of important for accurate shooting.

I know it's an iffy source, but Mythbusters tested the whole "shooting the gun out of your hand by only hitting the gun" thing, and the user dropped the pistol only sporadically. They could more often than not hold onto it just fine, and this is a weapon they're holding in one hand. A bullet simply couldn't deliver enough kinetic energy to knock a 4kg weapon out of a fit man's hands.

I find it funny that a lot of the folks arguing for "realism" are for this. It's a goofy, unrealistic mechanic in RO and the only precedent is in old western movies. I'm not saying it -never- happens, but when it does happen the user is combat ineffective, because he has been hit in a way that has disabled his ability to hold onto his rifle. Either his hand has been munched, or his arm has been so badly damaged that he had to let go of the rifle with both hands to tend to his injury. If this is the case, the soldier should be considered combat ineffective for our purposes and respawn, representing the time it took for him to retreat to safety, bandage up, and rejoin the fight. You -could- ignore an injury like this and keep fighting on, but I was under the impression that our soldiers represented the averages, and after all the **** the "realism" crowd has been giving everything from the aiming mechanics to the cover system because WE AREN'T SUPER SOLDIERS LOL, I find it hilarious that they want this crap thrown in BECUZ IT'S AWSUM LOL.

 

[Jippofin]

It is not something I desperately need in game. All I am saying it is quite possible. Just like is one handed operation of a rifle if one hand is injured.

But as said, there are probably more pressing issues in the game.

 

[Nezzer]

I know it's an iffy source, but Mythbusters tested the whole "shooting the gun out of your hand by only hitting the gun" thing, and the user dropped the pistol only sporadically. They could more often than not hold onto it just fine, and this is a weapon they're holding in one hand. A bullet simply couldn't deliver enough kinetic energy to knock a 4kg weapon out of a fit man's hands.

I find it funny that a lot of the folks arguing for "realism" are for this. It's a goofy, unrealistic mechanic in RO and the only precedent is in old western movies. I'm not saying it -never- happens, but when it does happen the user is combat ineffective, because he has been hit in a way that has disabled his ability to hold onto his rifle. Either his hand has been munched, or his arm has been so badly damaged that he had to let go of the rifle with both hands to tend to his injury. If this is the case, the soldier should be considered combat ineffective for our purposes and respawn, representing the time it took for him to retreat to safety, bandage up, and rejoin the fight. You -could- ignore an injury like this and keep fighting on, but I was under the impression that our soldiers represented the averages, and after all the **** the "realism" crowd has been giving everything from the aiming mechanics to the cover system because WE AREN'T SUPER SOLDIERS LOL, I find it hilarious that they want this crap thrown in BECUZ IT'S AWSUM LOL.

Again, I say that the "weapon shot out of hand" feature is better than nothing happening. ATM you get hit in the hand and you can act like nothing happened. Since we can't have all weapons killing in the first hit regardless of what part of the body, I'd rather have that feature.

 

[luciferintears]

I would strongly disagree. Having a bullet, even a small one, lodged in the myriad of bones and tendons that make up your hand would be quite disabling, especially regarding something as finesse driven as shooting.

It probably won't kill you. It may not even leave a permanent injury. But the fact of the matter is that you cannot ignore it and continue fighting at full strength. You -certainly- could not simply walk over, pick your gun back up, and continue fighting. Even with additional sway when injured, it's just ridiculous.

I too would strongly disagree.

Guys in my brothers platoon fought for hours before any medical care was given even after receiving bullet wounds to the arm or leg and fracturing bones. My brothers fireteam leader remained in the fight even with a losing his index finger.

I honestly dont see what the big deal is if you receive a slight penalty for being wounded in game. depending on where you were shot, you could; sprint slower, have slightly more sway, drop your gun, etc.

Im not advocating dragging yourself across the map with two bloody stumps for legs, or cradling your intestings as they pour out of your belly.

in my opinion, it adds more dynamics and depth to the game. This way when i blast someone in the arm with my rifle they dont scurry off and heal them selves instantaneously and reemerge unscathed.

 

[Marxman]

What I'm seeing a lot in this thread is people not getting the concept that noone is going to TRY and hit the arm or hand, no, they're aiming for your head or torso. This is just for that random chance that a bullet might hit you in the hand or forearm. Right now there's no real reward for hitting an enemy if he doesn't die. In Ost, ANYWHERE you hit on an enemy soldier rendered him handicapped and very likely to die. Hit them in the legs, presto! They aren't running anymore. Hit them in the gut, they slow down a lot and make it easier for you to land a second shot. Arms, they lose their weapon and can choose between dying or having a ***** of a time trying to find a new one. Its just a matter of something ACTUALLY HAPPENING when you shoot someone.

 

[Wookie87]

I suppose a decent compromise would be to have injuries that matter. Don't have the 'drop the gun' mechanic, rather make it so that using the weapon is harder instead. Hit in the arm? Worse accuracy/slower reload/insert affliction here. Shot in the leg? No sprint, fall over when running. Alot of which was already in ROOst. Id much rather have something that can apply in more situations due to injuries, than something is alot rarer and generally more frustrating.

 

[CuriousOrange]

I do miss this feature. It was poorly implemented however. I don't see why that means they shouldn't implement it in some way again. Something about being shot in your hands and dropping your gun seems unfair to me. It's arguably realistic but also arguably unrealistic.

So, I was thinking of shots coming in through windows and small gaps. The bullet penetration could be seen as making debris flying in - knocking the weapon out of your hands. Not actually a shot to your hands or an injury, but an added bonus to suppression, but with a fairly low likely hood of occurring, and also a fairly high chance of you being able to recover.

Also, when taking a nearby non-lethal explosion to the face you could lose your weapon. Which is the same as above, you wouldn't then be faced with one on one situations where you drop your weapon and die, feeling cheated. This would also add a stun effect on grenades, which could prove to be imbalanced.

 

[Josef Nader]

Applause for the Waco Kid Scene - Blazing Saddles Movie (1974) - HD - YouTube

My Ruskie MG'er (played by Gene Wilder) vs. The German Army.

True story.

 

[Marxman]

Now you're just being ridiculous.

Also, when taking a nearby non-lethal explosion to the face you could lose your weapon. Which is the same as above, you wouldn't then be faced with one on one situations where you drop your weapon and die, feeling cheated. This would also add a stun effect on grenades, which could prove to be imbalanced.

This is an excellent idea.