Discuss. I personally think light rifles should, or else their usability seems to be very minimal, and through VERY thin stuff like doors, sheet metal etc.
Regardless what the devs said, it's something that can be put in, and im curious on your guys opinions.

If you can't see me you can't shoot me.

It would be hard to add in, because its a completely different form of shot registry. I personally like bullet penetration, it adds another facet to choosing a weapon, and makes spray guns a little less effective, and high power guns a little more effective, something I don't mind. Its also nice when your bullet clips a corner of something, that you can still do damage to the person behind it. I wouldn't like to have penetration through characters though, it would make hiding behind heavys less effective.

Personally I like bullet penetration in games, it adds another layer of strategy and awareness and generally makes the game more immersive (for me anyway). However the effectiveness of the penetrating bullets should be determined by the power of the weapon that fires them (ie: a higher percentage of bullets from a heavy machine gun will get through than from a sub-machine gun) and of course damage taken from penetrating bullets should be reduced. Some argue that bullet penetration shouldn't be in games because of an "If you can't see me you can't shoot me." mentatilty. I offer the following counter-argument; you will never be shot through cover by someone who did not see you go into that cover. no one will be fireing at random bits of sheet metal on the off chance an enemy is behind it. If you are shot through cover 99 times out of 100 it willl be because an enmy was shhoting at you before you ducked behind that sheet metal. Sheet metal that, of course, cannot stop a 5.56 round.

Tl:dr bullet penetration is good. Sheet metal won't stop rifle rounds.

In many games with penetration, there are spots that people spray every round hoping to do some damage to the enemy, that has nothing to do with "seeing the person". Taking this to the extreme, i have seen people get multiple kills standing behind a box and spraying all their ammo, then going and finding another gun.

I have never experienced this, maybe I've just been lucky but i get the feeling that it is very very rare.

I prefer it oldschool, so when I'm behind a wall, I don't want to have to worry about bullets coming through it. What's the point of taking cover, if they can shoot through it?

I think Brink has enough tactical elements, adding bullet penetration would be just another gimmick and would make Brink more mainstream again.

I like the idea of being behind cover and actually be unhittable. If you're looking for realism, having impenetrable cover is key. Why? Because you won't have the accuracy irl that you have ingame, in other words: no bullet penetration compensates for the higher accuracy ratios of a game.

maybe something like in BC2 where you could shoot through very thin materials but not concrete walls and such

fixed it for you :brokencomputer: :wink_smile:

I wouldn't mind something like this if it was only occasionally available. That is, in most levels there would only be a few places with material you could shoot through with maybe two or three maps that has this in greater quantities. It's not something I'd want to be concerning myself with very much and it's certainly not a feature I'm looking for.

Bullet penetration through light walls like corrugated iron or wood is okay. But I dont know, this thing make me sometimes very angry in BFBC2

Woah completly misunderstood the title of this thread my bad...

...anyway Im sure you mean Bullet Penetration yes? On flimsy sheets of metal and wood yes but most of the Ark is large concrete so it may not be worth it.

Wallbanging works best in games with bigger maps, like BF2.
But that's just my opinion.

That says it perfectly

Aw cmon, 1.6 wallbanging has its tactical values...regardless of its, err..oddness. Source walling is very realistic though, things like wood and sheet metal an ak will go through and the round will still travel.
Obviously certain wallable materials will have to be placed smartly by devs, and most pubbers tend to not like it, but it does add a tactical value to the weapons you'll have to choose for watching certain areas of the map.
I still don't see a light rifle being useful unless if they are 2-3 shot kill and semi-auto or if they can wall...or else, they are kinda pointless.
Regardless, i believe certain areas and textures should be wallbangable to a light rifle at the least for obviously reduced damage. The issues i can see with a heavy mg or minigun is that they can just spam a wall and deny an area which can be very tedious.

Its not rare at all you have just never played at a competitive level

Best option imho !

I used to spot the enemy on valparaiso and then wallbang him from the other side of the map. Epic headshots

i would prefer not, but that's due to situations i have had earlier. aimbot standing behind a thin wall shooting everyone in the head for instance

True enough, although i would like to remind you that 98% (roughly) of those purchase this or any given game will also never play at a competitive level and that majority should be who this game is made for.

All other points are valid, however I maintain my original viewpoint and argument.

This is true, yet wallbanging with a light rifle isn't going to ruin gameplay for pubbers. It isn't a game breaking element used right. I'll admit cod4 wallbanging was a bit too much because of how accurate you can be, but i mean the usefulness of a light rifle without wallbanging seems next to none since you can't one shot people and both of the light rifles in demos are bolt action.
What does that mean? It's the slowest, most inefficient gun in the game. All of the maps shown have no firefights where a rifle wouldnt hit people in terms of range. I'm assuming the game will play out like a cod4 IN TERMS OF weapon ranges, where smgs kill quicker up close but have small damage falloff, rifles shoot slower yet have a larger damage falloff range. Imagine a sniper rifle in cod that two-hit people...kinda useless on any snd scrim map.

This is kind of the point...

SD purposely wanted to nerf the snipers, to avoid every flocking to them and to avoid turning the game into a camping snipe-fest. The "sniper rifle" in Brink, is more of a support weapon, rather than a cannon of death. There role is to soften up targets for others to finish or to finish off softened targets. Yes, I'm sure lots of players will tweak their guns and abilities to make it as strong as possible, and behave like a traditional sniper rile, but for the most part, I expect players who use it, (properly) to be getting lots of assists over kills.


That probably would be pretty useless on COD - good thing this isn't COD.

Well, hackers will get you even without bullet penetration. So that's not a really valid point, eh?


I think, there should be bullet penetration, as aforementioned, for certain materials. I absolutely support that trend since it came up the first time (after CS 1.6) and found it's way into mainstream. Not being able to shoot someone who is covering behind a wooden fence is just not right. Especially if you're sporting a minigun which should tear that fence to pieces.
That said, I think only some weapons should cause actual damage through something. Light rifles, light & heavy machineguns; assault rifles to an extend. But it shouldn't be really effective. Just some way to finish off someone who slides behind a wooden fence after taking much damage already.
So a ~50% damage mitigation when shooting through something should be there at least.

+1 :gun: :bolt:

Yea I agree, I rekon that is a good way to have BP without it being really overpowered.