Here are some things that annoy me in FPS games that I really hope wouldn't show it's ugly head in IM: Here's a bit of nerd raging for you entertained forum members.

Very, very slow, unguided and massive splash damage rockets: I'm taking this one from Halo. I never had the game, but I played it against friends that do. and the one thing that I feel most FPS get wrong is the rocket launchers. First off, modern shoulder launchers fire missiles going just over a thousand feet per second. And that's modern! Those missiles will only go faster as we develop new tech! Yet in Halo, it always feels like you can outrun the rocket themselves, they move so slowly. Secondly, as unguided rockets are being mostly phased out, (their only advantage is their low cost and light weight) I feel that missile launchers in IM should have 2 guided missile launchers and 1 unguided, light weight missile launcher. And it's sort of illogical to have guided missiles to lock onto individual enemies, so these launchers should be geared towards locking up mechs and aircrafts and tanks, etc. Also, a missile carries a shape charge, therefore if an RPG lands at your feet, it won't kill you, or even hurt you, contrary to popular belief. If the rocket actually hit you, there wouldn't be enough of you to fill a sock. Rockets need to penetrate armor, so they focus their explosive energy forward, they can't penetrate if all that explosive charge is dissipated in an unfocused explosion. Now if an RPG did land at your feet, you would be disoriented for several minutes and maybe loose your hearing for a moment, but not injured. Lastly, what annoys me the most is that firing and loading a missile launchers is a two man process and FPS treat rocket launchers like they handle like pistols. No matter how advanced technology gets, No one is able to carry all that equipment and reload and fire the launcher efficiently. I've never been in the military but I've seen how deceivingly difficult it is operating that thing. First of all, that thing has a lot of mass, especially when loaded, so moving it around to aim is like trying to kill a fly with a sledgehammer. But in Halo, you can just spin 180 degrees, and shoot like it's no problem. If any soldier did that, he would end up on his ass and probably accidentally fire the thing. He needs to turn around, kneel, steady his firing position, aim, then fire. That would take a much longer time than it took in Halo. I'm going to continue this in the future, add on if you would please.

I feel that missile launchers in IM should have 2 guided missile launchers and 1 unguided, light weight missile launcher. And it's sort of illogical to have guided missiles to lock onto individual enemies, so these launchers should be geared towards locking up mechs and aircrafts and tanks, etc. Also, a missile carries a shape charge, therefore if an RPG lands at your feet, it won't kill you, or even hurt you, contrary to popular belief.

It would depend on the launcher's purpose, really. Personal armor could get to the point where you may need something stronger than standard sized weaponry to penetrate, or you could always have missiles that have warheads other than a shape charge.

Also, a missile carries a shape charge, therefore if an RPG lands at your feet, it won't kill you, or even hurt you, contrary to popular belief.

I am sorry that is complete and utter bullshit. Tell that to all the Iraq war veterans that lost eyes and such because an rpg hit near them. A lot of rockets and missiles these days are HEDP rounds - High Explosive Dual Purpose. They have a penetrator and act as high explosive rounds. Hell, even in older rounds, the metal cone inside a shape charge still needs explosives to liquefy, and when is it EVER safe to be near explosives? I'll give you an example. A Claymore mine is a directional explosive right? It is focused on firing forward so the back should be fine, right? Not really.

Lastly, what annoys me the most is that firing and loading a missile launchers is a two man process and FPS treat rocket launchers like they handle like pistols. No matter how advanced technology gets, No one is able to carry all that equipment and reload and fire the launcher efficiently. I've never been in the military but I've seen how deceivingly difficult it is operating that thing.

It depends on the launcher, obviously. There are launchers that are easily man portable and single-man reloadable, like the LAW and the AT-4. The LAW is just tiny in general (look at the other guns in the pic for scale). The AT-4 is a single shot, disposable delivery system that is little more than a fiberglass and plastic tube with a single, relatively small projectile inside. Once you fire it, you discard the tube. If you were talking launchers on the scale of a Javelin or even a TOW, then yes, it should be a cooperative effort to haul all that stuff around. It would be really interesting to see a co-op shooter that had crew-serve weapon mechanics, but I doubt IM is that game.

First of all, that thing has a lot of mass, especially when loaded, so moving it around to aim is like trying to kill a fly with a sledgehammer.

Again, it depends on the delivery system. An AT-4 weighs 6.7kg. Not the lightest thing in the world, but not heavy either.

But in Halo, you can just spin 180 degrees, and shoot like it's no problem. If any soldier did that, he would end up on his ass and probably accidentally fire the thing. He needs to turn around, kneel, steady his firing position, aim, then fire. That would take a much longer time than it took in Halo.

Accidental use would be pretty unlikely, IMO. Modern rocket/missile systems have many safeties in place to ensure that no accidental discharges occur. The AT-4 firing procedure has you remove a safety key, cock a lever, and then hold down a safety and the trigger at the same time. I don't know if the picture is a very good one, but the hand position is purposely awkward so that no misfires occur if you were to get startled and grip the thing harder or something.

You know what always gets me about rockets in video games? The absence of back blast area. Launchers make fairly large fireballs when fired that are highly dangerous to people directly behind the firer, but are never ever represented.

The Halo missile launcher was good because it worked very well gameplay-vise and was integrated will into the games mechanics. Face it, somehow you need to balance your stuff. Halo was not realistic and real fun, basta (despite the myriad of shortcomings).

The Modern Warfare series has somewhat realistic missile launchers while still being well balanced, the series actually as very well gunplay overall. Since IM shares the same awesome gunplay (come on, play Bullseye, you have to agree), including the lethal approach to weapons, I am fairly sure any weapon will be well implemented.

ZP has convinced by that they know how to make gunplay awesome. I simply don't worry but just take what I can get.

I am sorry that is complete and utter bullshit. Tell that to all the Iraq war veterans that lost eyes and such because an rpg hit near them. A lot of rockets and missiles these days are HEDP rounds - High Explosive Dual Purpose. They have a penetrator and act as high explosive rounds. Hell, even in older rounds, the metal cone inside a shape charge still needs explosives to liquefy, and when is it EVER safe to be near explosives? I'll give you an example. A Claymore mine is a directional explosive right? It is focused on firing forward so the back should be fine, right? Not really.

alright, alright, I'm sorry... I'm just trying to state that an exploding rocket shouldn't have such a large kill area... like in Halo (unless it's one of those anti-personnel rockets that explodes in midair rather than contact.) and even then, how dependable are those antipersonnel RPGs? And for those older rounds, would it still maim/kill you if it exploded behind you? Most of that explosive force is going forward/down. And yes, shrapnel from the rocket would probably spray into your back from the explosive force, but I don't know if it will outright kill you like in halo.

And I forgot about the back blast in missile launchers. I've heard that firing an AT-4 inside a cramped building, or a wall behind the firer could cause serious injuries/burns to the person firing the rocket. With faster rockets comes bigger, more explosive launches. so I'm sure that should be taken into accounted for when it comes to rockets

The Halo missile launcher was good because it worked very well gameplay-vise and was integrated will into the games mechanics. Face it, somehow you need to balance your stuff. Halo was not realistic and real fun, basta (despite the myriad of shortcomings).

True, but I think that there are better ways to balance the missile launchers. For example, you can't fire an AT-4 while running, walking/jumping... I mean, you can fire an AT-4 while running/walking or jumping, but good luck hitting anything beyond 10-50 feet. And it takes longer to aim and fire an AT-4 than, say an AK-47. And if your rocket doesn't hit successfully, well... you don't have many rockets to begin with, and if it's a 2 man missile launcher, you're going to have to hoof it to a safe place before reloading. While there is a reason why RPGs are used extensively against infantry, there is also a reason why higher tech missile launchers aren't used as extensively against enemy infantry. It's too expensive when a bullet can do a better job.

Perhaps in deathmatches, or team deathmatches or capture the flag or whatever, there is a limited number of rocket launchers available to the team and the supply of rocket launchers replenishes slowly over the time of the match. If you use up all your rockets trying to kill enemy personnel, you won't be able to re-spawn with a rocket launcher for a time while an enemy mech tears through your friendly formations because you don't have anything but Armor piercing bullets.

it surpises me you forget this awesome weapon :c

I'm just trying to state that an exploding rocket shouldn't have such a large kill area... like in Halo (unless it's one of those anti-personnel rockets that explodes in midair rather than contact.) and even then, how dependable are those antipersonnel RPGs? And for those older rounds, would it still maim/kill you if it exploded behind you? Most of that explosive force is going forward/down. And yes, shrapnel from the rocket would probably spray into your back from the explosive force, but I don't know if it will outright kill you like in halo.

Games obviously use a more simplified damage model than anything real life. Whereas games have a simple health meter, humans obviously have to deal with pain, bleeding, loss of limb etc. No, a HEAT (High Explosive Anti Tank) round does not have the same infantry killing radius as say, a pineapple grenade. If you are close you will most likely stay alive, but there is a big possibility you will become a casualty. A stray piece of rocket casing could take an eye, lodge itself into your neck, sever your trigger finger, or maybe punch through your cheek, break some teeth and make you choke on them. That kind of pleasant stuff. The shrapnel cloud would be nowhere near as large as say, a pineapple grenade, so the extent of your injuries will come down to luck.

So, no. There is no 5m kill radius like rocket launchers have in most video games. But avoiding death doesn't mean you can't get fucked up. And shape charges do not employ some kind of casing that focuses all of the explosive energy forward or anything. The shape and force of the charge turns a metal (usually a copper alloy) cone into a superheated jet of plasma, but the explosives used to do that do not somehow only travel forward.

If you look again at my claymore diagram, you will see what I mean. A claymore is basically a block of C-4 behind rows of ball bearings. The ball bearings are the main threat, yes, but it still poses a "secondary missile" danger up to 100 meters behind the mine.

it surpises me you forget this awesome weapon :c

It suprises ME you forget THIS awesome weapon :3

[...] Face it, somehow you need to balance your stuff. [...]

Sorry, I think this is just valid for games which lack weapons -- the devs just try to balance whatever they have to make players use them "~equally". Since IM wants to be realistic, I agree with njeon on this one. ZPS plans to make so many weapons, I think they know very well some of them will rarely be used, and that's perfectly OK.

it surpises me you forget this awesome weapon :c

It suprises ME you forget THIS awesome weapon :3

Haha, you just murdered him.

To go with the original intent of the thread, one thing that annoys me in FPS is what I see of the body of the character I'm playing. I'm in the eyes of the soldier, yet all I can see is a weapon and the arms holding it. I look down, and where the heck are my (character's) feet?!

Medal of Honor: Airborne got pretty close. On the way down during the parachute drop, Travers' feet can be seen, as well as some of the torso. However, once on the ground, it disappears. I think it'd be nice in ANY first-person shooter to look down and see my feet, not just empty space that can somehow affect my health.

To go with the original intent of the thread, one thing that annoys me in FPS is what I see of the body of the character I'm playing. I'm in the eyes of the soldier, yet all I can see is a weapon and the arms holding it. I look down, and where the heck are my (character's) feet?!

If I ever somehow make an FPS, the PC will be a fat man. That way when you look down all you see is beer gut.

To go with the original intent of the thread, one thing that annoys me in FPS is what I see of the body of the character I'm playing. I'm in the eyes of the soldier, yet all I can see is a weapon and the arms holding it. I look down, and where the heck are my (character's) feet?!

Medal of Honor: Airborne got pretty close. On the way down during the parachute drop, Travers' feet can be seen, as well as some of the torso. However, once on the ground, it disappears. I think it'd be nice in ANY first-person shooter to look down and see my feet, not just empty space that can somehow affect my health.

Agree on this one. The best body implementation Ive seen in "first person" was in mirror's edge and it didnt obstuct the vision

I love how the weapon threads develop as soon as Tacticalspoon enters the room.

Hehe.

I love how the weapon threads develop as soon as Tacticalspoon enters the room.

Hehe.

Yeah. He always looked pretty serious to me (when it came to weapons) until I saw this. Can't get it off my mind.

If I ever somehow make an FPS, the PC will be a fat man. That way when you look down all you see is beer gut.

That'd be awesome. Looking down and seeing these pudgy arms trying to hold a gun down past a beer gut...I hope the story has some comedic elements :P

Agree on this one. The best body implementation Ive seen in "first person" was in mirror's edge and it didnt obstuct the vision

Is that game any good?

Yeah. He always looked pretty serious to me (when it came to weapons) until I saw this. Can't get it off my mind.

My god. That is amazing.

To go with the original intent of the thread, one thing that annoys me in FPS is what I see of the body of the character I'm playing. I'm in the eyes of the soldier, yet all I can see is a weapon and the arms holding it. I look down, and where the heck are my (character's) feet?!

INDEED

While we are on it, in those games were you lack a body you lack a shadow or a reflection in water or mirrors too ;-)

Luckily, there are more and more games that show you body and all feel better for it (Riddick, Dark Messiah, Mirrors Edge, FarCry2, even Halo 2 did) Interstellar Marines will be most certainly show your marines body too since it's so much more immersive.

While we are on it, in those games were you lack a body you lack a shadow or a reflection in water or mirrors too ;-)

Good point. I'd love to be able to see a reflection now on surfaces like mirror's, and maybe a faint reflection in glass. If Interstellar Marines is to be immersive, little touches like that would go a long way. And seeing my feet would tell me when I'm standing on the very tip of a ledge ;)

While we are on it, in those games were you lack a body you lack a shadow or a reflection in water or mirrors too ;-)

I'm pretty sure lack of reflections on some surfaces comes down to performance in many games.

no, my point is a different one Tacitcalspoon. Look at for example Half-Life 2. EVERYTHING in the enviroment is reflected on a watersurface BUT YOUR CHARACTER!

If there are reflections, you need to reflect your character as well BASTA!

no, my point is a different one Tacitcalspoon. Look at for example Half-Life 2. EVERYTHING in the enviroment is reflected on a watersurface BUT YOUR CHARACTER!

If there are reflections, you need to reflect your character as well BASTA!

Yes, again, that is for performance. Reflecting static objects is much less intensive than reflecting all that AND reflecting everything that moves. Find a game with a ridiculous amount of video options that lets you turn off unit water reflections. Your FPS goes up, and depending on the game it can be by a substantial amount.