Author Topic: realism?  (Read 11119 times)

Offline Kev4000

  • Developer
  • ******
  • Posts: 1.039
  • FH2 "special" coder
    • View Profile
Re: realism?
« Reply #60 on: 03-08-2010, 21:08:13 »
My opinion on minimap:
While the idea of removing it is realistic, the result would be unrealistic. You know where your squad mates are in real life generally. Ingame you don't always. It would result in many team kills.
Also, your coordination would be as if you were born when you spawn. In real life, you'd be briefed over the area you're going, the strategy, and where your team mates are attacking etc.
We strive for historical accuracy, not realism. Keeping the minimap IMO is the best way to present the area awareness which soldiers would have in real life.

Offline Excavus

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 391
  • Member of the FH2 Cynic Club
    • View Profile
Re: realism?
« Reply #61 on: 03-08-2010, 23:08:55 »
My opinion on minimap:
While the idea of removing it is realistic, the result would be unrealistic. You know where your squad mates are in real life generally. Ingame you don't always. It would result in many team kills.
Also, your coordination would be as if you were born when you spawn. In real life, you'd be briefed over the area you're going, the strategy, and where your team mates are attacking etc.
We strive for historical accuracy, not realism. Keeping the minimap IMO is the best way to present the area awareness which soldiers would have in real life.
Did you know that there are more deaths to friendly fire than actual enemy fire in real life? This would force people to learn the uniforms. People still teamkill even with the minimap because they don't know the uniforms. Also, what's the point of knowing where your "squad" mates are when all of them are lonewolfing on the other side of the map? Don't take away our "M" key, give us a more readable compass, and take away the minimap.

Offline Thorondor123

  • God Emperor
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6.573
  • Lugbûrz-ûr!
    • View Profile
Re: realism?
« Reply #62 on: 04-08-2010, 00:08:24 »
My opinion on minimap:
While the idea of removing it is realistic, the result would be unrealistic. You know where your squad mates are in real life generally. Ingame you don't always. It would result in many team kills.
Also, your coordination would be as if you were born when you spawn. In real life, you'd be briefed over the area you're going, the strategy, and where your team mates are attacking etc.
We strive for historical accuracy, not realism. Keeping the minimap IMO is the best way to present the area awareness which soldiers would have in real life.
Did you know that there are more deaths to friendly fire than actual enemy fire in real life?
Bullshit.
Let mortal heroes sing your fame

Offline hankypanky

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 645
    • View Profile
Re: realism?
« Reply #63 on: 04-08-2010, 00:08:54 »
Aspects of the first post that we can dissect, desseminate, character assasinate or consider....

@N24
It was more sarcasm than anger (Or being rude). Yer, I do have a bit of a temper lately. Sorry for that.

you hurt my feelings  :-[ 
jk djinn look at the facts not many FH2 players own a mic. So what would be the point of mumble?
My ingame name is [PUG]mr.hanky1945

Offline hankypanky

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 645
    • View Profile
Re: realism?
« Reply #64 on: 04-08-2010, 00:08:40 »
The capital letter in front of every word.

Leave My Capital Letters Alone :/
Dude do you always type like that? lol it's funny because you can't stop XD
My ingame name is [PUG]mr.hanky1945

Offline [130.Pz]S.Lainer

  • FH-Betatester
  • ***
  • Posts: 1.934
    • View Profile
    • 130th
Re: realism?
« Reply #65 on: 04-08-2010, 00:08:03 »
Aspects of the first post that we can dissect, desseminate, character assasinate or consider....

@N24
It was more sarcasm than anger (Or being rude). Yer, I do have a bit of a temper lately. Sorry for that.

you hurt my feelings  :-[ 
jk djinn look at the facts not many FH2 players own a mic. So what would be the point of mumble?

I only know a couple that don't have a mic.  If you own a computer that can play FH2 there is no reason not to own a shitty $7 mic.
http://www.bfewaw.com/campaigns/waw24/promo/campaign/waw24banner1.png
The purpose of this deployment was to "annoy and defy the United States ... on her with Bofors 40 mm guns from a range of 650

Offline Excavus

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 391
  • Member of the FH2 Cynic Club
    • View Profile
Re: realism?
« Reply #66 on: 04-08-2010, 00:08:14 »
My opinion on minimap:
While the idea of removing it is realistic, the result would be unrealistic. You know where your squad mates are in real life generally. Ingame you don't always. It would result in many team kills.
Also, your coordination would be as if you were born when you spawn. In real life, you'd be briefed over the area you're going, the strategy, and where your team mates are attacking etc.
We strive for historical accuracy, not realism. Keeping the minimap IMO is the best way to present the area awareness which soldiers would have in real life.
Did you know that there are more deaths to friendly fire than actual enemy fire in real life?
Bullshit.
During the First Gulf War, the majority of coalition tank forces that were killed was due to friendly fire. Look it up yourself.

Offline Ts4EVER

  • Banner of THeTA0123
  • Developer
  • ******
  • Posts: 7.812
    • View Profile
Re: realism?
« Reply #67 on: 04-08-2010, 00:08:22 »
My opinion on minimap:
While the idea of removing it is realistic, the result would be unrealistic. You know where your squad mates are in real life generally. Ingame you don't always. It would result in many team kills.
Also, your coordination would be as if you were born when you spawn. In real life, you'd be briefed over the area you're going, the strategy, and where your team mates are attacking etc.
We strive for historical accuracy, not realism. Keeping the minimap IMO is the best way to present the area awareness which soldiers would have in real life.
Did you know that there are more deaths to friendly fire than actual enemy fire in real life?
Bullshit.
During the First Gulf War, the majority of coalition tank forces that were killed was due to friendly fire. Look it up yourself.

Yeah, because the Iraquis had nothing to destroy coalition tanks with *facepalm*

Offline VonMudra

  • FH-Betatester
  • ***
  • Posts: 8.248
  • FH2 Betatester/Verdun Team Researcher
    • View Profile
Re: realism?
« Reply #68 on: 04-08-2010, 00:08:29 »
My opinion on minimap:
While the idea of removing it is realistic, the result would be unrealistic. You know where your squad mates are in real life generally. Ingame you don't always. It would result in many team kills.
Also, your coordination would be as if you were born when you spawn. In real life, you'd be briefed over the area you're going, the strategy, and where your team mates are attacking etc.
We strive for historical accuracy, not realism. Keeping the minimap IMO is the best way to present the area awareness which soldiers would have in real life.
Did you know that there are more deaths to friendly fire than actual enemy fire in real life?

I call bullshit.

Offline Excavus

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 391
  • Member of the FH2 Cynic Club
    • View Profile
Re: realism?
« Reply #69 on: 04-08-2010, 00:08:36 »
My opinion on minimap:
While the idea of removing it is realistic, the result would be unrealistic. You know where your squad mates are in real life generally. Ingame you don't always. It would result in many team kills.
Also, your coordination would be as if you were born when you spawn. In real life, you'd be briefed over the area you're going, the strategy, and where your team mates are attacking etc.
We strive for historical accuracy, not realism. Keeping the minimap IMO is the best way to present the area awareness which soldiers would have in real life.
Did you know that there are more deaths to friendly fire than actual enemy fire in real life?
Bullshit.
During the First Gulf War, the majority of coalition tank forces that were killed was due to friendly fire. Look it up yourself.

Yeah, because the Iraquis had nothing to destroy coalition tanks with *facepalm*
Some were due to enemy fire, but not as much as friendly fire. Iraqi tanks were shit, exported models T-55s and T-72s from the Soviet Union. They were poorly trained.

My opinion on minimap:
While the idea of removing it is realistic, the result would be unrealistic. You know where your squad mates are in real life generally. Ingame you don't always. It would result in many team kills.
Also, your coordination would be as if you were born when you spawn. In real life, you'd be briefed over the area you're going, the strategy, and where your team mates are attacking etc.
We strive for historical accuracy, not realism. Keeping the minimap IMO is the best way to present the area awareness which soldiers would have in real life.
Did you know that there are more deaths to friendly fire than actual enemy fire in real life?

I call bullshit.
Let the Zone take me if I am lying.

Offline Thorondor123

  • God Emperor
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6.573
  • Lugbûrz-ûr!
    • View Profile
Re: realism?
« Reply #70 on: 04-08-2010, 01:08:46 »
My opinion on minimap:
While the idea of removing it is realistic, the result would be unrealistic. You know where your squad mates are in real life generally. Ingame you don't always. It would result in many team kills.
Also, your coordination would be as if you were born when you spawn. In real life, you'd be briefed over the area you're going, the strategy, and where your team mates are attacking etc.
We strive for historical accuracy, not realism. Keeping the minimap IMO is the best way to present the area awareness which soldiers would have in real life.
Did you know that there are more deaths to friendly fire than actual enemy fire in real life?
Bullshit.
During the First Gulf War, the majority of coalition tank forces that were killed was due to friendly fire. Look it up yourself.
During the first world war ~5 % of French casualties were due friendly fire. Your useless statistics from situation where friendly fire was actually the only way to inflict casualties.

Saying that "there are more deaths to friendly fire than actual enemy fire in real life" based on one example about tank losses proves nothing about combat in general. It's bullshit.
Try to prove that out of 25 million deaths in WWII over half was caused by friendly fire. ::)

Look it up yourself.
Let mortal heroes sing your fame

Offline Excavus

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 391
  • Member of the FH2 Cynic Club
    • View Profile
Re: realism?
« Reply #71 on: 04-08-2010, 01:08:41 »
My opinion on minimap:
While the idea of removing it is realistic, the result would be unrealistic. You know where your squad mates are in real life generally. Ingame you don't always. It would result in many team kills.
Also, your coordination would be as if you were born when you spawn. In real life, you'd be briefed over the area you're going, the strategy, and where your team mates are attacking etc.
We strive for historical accuracy, not realism. Keeping the minimap IMO is the best way to present the area awareness which soldiers would have in real life.
Did you know that there are more deaths to friendly fire than actual enemy fire in real life?
Bullshit.
During the First Gulf War, the majority of coalition tank forces that were killed was due to friendly fire. Look it up yourself.
During the first world war ~5 % of French casualties were due friendly fire. Your useless statistics from situation where friendly fire was actually the only way to inflict casualties.

Saying that "there are more deaths to friendly fire than actual enemy fire in real life" based on one example about tank losses proves nothing about combat in general. It's bullshit.
Try to prove that out of 25 million deaths in WWII over half was caused by friendly fire. ::)

Look it up yourself.
Don't care about the 25 million people that died during WW2. The Gulf War was more important. :)

Now get back on topic.

Offline Sgt.Radman

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 415
    • View Profile
    • Why Should I?
Re: realism?
« Reply #72 on: 04-08-2010, 09:08:14 »
7$ mic? You can get it for 3$.

Offline DLFReporter

  • FH-Betatester
  • ***
  • Posts: 4.727
  • Betatesting FH2 makes me edgy...
    • View Profile
Re: realism?
« Reply #73 on: 04-08-2010, 10:08:34 »
You forget that not everyone is as apt at speaking English and most (alone at least 30% of the betatesters) won't speak up because of that, or are too shy to use it in that case.
Gravity is a habit that is hard to shake off

Offline THeTA0123

  • The north remembers
  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 16.842
    • View Profile
Re: realism?
« Reply #74 on: 04-08-2010, 14:08:00 »
or they are french and german and refuse to speak english  ;D
-i am fairly sure that if they took porn off the internet, there would only be one website left and it would be called bring back the porn "Perry cox, Scrubs.