I brought up this topic in a few other threads, and nobody seemed to bite, so I decided to put a poll on it in a new thread. I personally think that the damage in Brink is incredibly weak. Also, the hit system seems to be indiscriminate about where the hits occur on a character's body from what I've seen in gameplay vids. It's as if they only calculated how many shots in total from each weapon it would take to incapacitate another player and force you to use that many shots regardless of where the shots fall. I watched a guy unload half an SMG magazine into an enemy, including headshots, and the guy didn't go down. Who thinks this should be fixed? I'm not a fan of OHK, but I think 4-7 SMG rounds should be enough to take someone down, not 15-20. Headshots should take people down immediately, without question.


What do you guys think?

Depends on weapons, bodytypes and buffs.

it think it should be like 4 or 5 but 3 was the closest so i picked that

is this for light rifles only?
also, if so. Wheres the "Two, at most" option?

All of the above!

No but it really depends on body type. But we wont know until the game comes out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm used to a triple ding equaling a kill

what i think... I suppose that a nice refreshing long, drawn out kill is something ill enjoy, and u have to look at it from the person whos being shot's point of view. "Ok, i'm being shot at, i sure hope i dont die immediately, i really want to get to cover and recover."... as compared to: "oo look im being shot! maybe if i could just get behind that barric--... nope, im dead cuz he shot me three times... damnit...". I think being killed with three bullets would turn me into one of those guys who screams "noob!!!" as soon as i die, then one shot killing everybody with my revolver.

What im trying to say is, i want to have to work to kill my opponent, and i want to not die easily. Thats why i gave up in COD 4... I just loved how i get shot in the foot twice and die. Sorta pisses u off, eh?

then again, i could be the only one who doesnt like instant death... then i'm just whistling dixie out of my ass...

if this was for Light/Long/Short rifles then 2 would be good but from what i seen 2 is enough soo you know, everything else i believe 3 or 4 Plush

at least two, maybe 3-4 on a buffed heavy

^this you don't except a heavy with 2 health cps and buffed with body armor to go down in 7 bullets do you?

The damage system is fine. The people at SD offices have played the game extensively, and if something was off I think they would have changed it by now. (3 headshots with an AR or SMG is not hard to do, it would take the skill portion out of killing people.)

On an unrelated note, you might want to fix your poll there - I was able to check a couple options at the same time.

This.

Done.

Depends on the weapon and range, and the target I suppose.

Kid: How man licks headshots does it take to incapacitate my enemy?
Owl: Lets find out.
*loads gun and fires a few rounds into the kid*
One. Two. Three.
*kid falls down and wound*
Kid: I can see the light...
*kid dies*
Owl: [censored]!

Over 9000 headshots!!!!111

Tape it, then post it on youtube; that could be a rather profitable skill you've got there.

cmon now lets be realistic if you got shot in the head one time you'll be dead most likely... vote correctly ppl like forreal.

In ET it was around three to four if I remember correctly and it felt right.

i think it too late to change that

As others have said it depends on the factors involved.

It depends on the gun and situation. I think with a long rifle, one, but with other weapons with faster rates, 2 to 4 direct headshots

I think that, as we've been told, other than unbuffed Lights, minimum 2. With less powerful weapons, obviously more. 3 - 5 would be my hope for most weapons.

I could be mistaken but im guessing Brink uses the seldom seen cone of fire system as opposed to the far more prevalent random recoil system of pretty much all realism shooters.

Cone of fire was used in ET and im pretty sure ET:QW (SD's previous games) and going even more niche Natural Selection (these are the games I played with it). Personally I much prefer the cone system over recoil.

Despite playing it for years im not particularly sure of the mechanics of it but I think a fairly accurate description is as follows:-



Instead of your aim point being thrown around in a randomized pattern your point of fire remains stationary while the bullets themselves are randomized within a fixed cone of fire. A high percentage (I have no idea what) fly true down the centre of the cone where your aim is while a lesser percentage deviate around but within the cone, however both increase in spread the longer the distance.

What this means is that if your aim is good/extremely good a very high percentage of shots are going hit the target while some will still miss unless you are very close. In ET and ETQW if you were good it was still often preferred to aim at the smaller hitbox of the head because the increased damage of the hits that landed outweighed the increase in those that did not. Even so you could still choose to shoot at the body for a larger hit area - it was down to preference, literally, in each encounter as factors like range, health, class type and more could favour one way or the other. Of course you process all that in your mind in a split second.

This method is more compatible with shooters that have larger health pools and longer fire fights as opposed to instant kills 1-2s max firefights that have been the staple for several years. As a theoretical 1on1 against 2 players takes longer at a certain range with say the same weapon, the player who can keep their crosshair closer to dead on the chest or head will almost always defeat the other. The chance of 'getting lucky' with spread/recoil by the lesser accurate player is minimal.
A bonus of higher health and longer encounters is the increased possibility of in combat multi kills. In say CoD (which I play) I can and do get many long kill streaks but these are usually 1 at a time, in the back, the side what have you. In CoD if you run into 2 enemies facing you even when you snap straight onto one and take him out instantly you yourself are often gunned down before you can snap to the next target and take them out simply because the requirements for a kill are so low and no matter how good you are you simply do not have the capacity to overcome the incoming threat in time.
In ET, ETQW and hopefully Brink if you are the bees knees the potential to win these encounters is much higher as with deft movement work and near perfect aim by the time you have killed the first person you are still much alive and have enough time to take out the second. Indeed in ET which I played the most the best of us could often take out 2,3 sometimes 4 people alone at the same time if you played it perfect with aim, movement and terrain exploitation.

Rest assured the system has a very high skill ceiling and its own depth. As the OP has demonstrated however it will be unfamiliar to the majority of gamers and they probably wont like it at first. You will just need to practice.