UFO:Alien Invasion
Development => Design => Topic started by: Bandobras on July 14, 2006, 07:08:57 pm
-
Melee has currently 100% accuracy (AFAIK). So no skill has any effect whatsoever on melee (no close skill, nor accuracy skill, nor power skill). I wondered how to change this and here is my idea:
Whenever the angles[PITCH] and angles[YAW] happen to be both < .01 assume a critical hit occured and increase damage by (1-acc)*100, where acc is an accuracy factor from the skills. This way melee will always hit critically and sometimes also lucky snipers will, etc.
BTW. We are thinking with BTAxis about the power skill having an effect on close and heavy weapons (just as accuracy has on all weapons). What do you think? Should this be just an average of accuracy and power taken two times, for close and heavy weapons? (See the wiki Skills page.)
P.S. Of course there should be a funny message or a nice eye candy for a critical hit...
-
I was also thinking about critical hits. This must work with sniper rifles too. Anyway, there is an other issue - some weapons should do much more damage at close range or point blank, and this is very important.
I think it's awful to shoot an alien at point blank range with a sniper rifle and don't kill it with that shot. Likewise with almost any weapon. Don't you hate it when you shot an alien in the eye with the sniper rifle and it stills grins at you? I think introducing critical hits would change the gameplay a bit, but because of that you shoudn't apply this to all weapons.
:idea: You could decrease the critical hit chance and make it very high for close range, 2-3 squares.
:idea: Being able to shoot body parts like the head or limbs. A succesful hit to the head should always be lethal. I don't see any alien living with a sniper rifle bullet in its head for long :)
The pistols in the game are pretty much useless, but with the chance of a critical hit, they could be useful.
-
Hmm, what if an alien has a 2-inch osmium plate around it's skull? Can a bullet actually penetrate that?
-
Hmm, what if an alien has a 2-inch osmium plate around it's skull?
Yeah, right... which also featured a plasma turret on it's head...
As I understand from the UFOpedia, the sniper rifle shots 20mm antimaterial rounds at super velocites.. very nasty weapon... Look... even with a 2-inch osmium-xenotronium-plus(tm) :P armor, the alien would be knocked down by the impact like a turtle hit by a speeding train. Besides the fall and headache, it might get unconscious. :)
And from point blank range, I'm aiming for the eye man! ;) Do all aliens wear "2 inch osmium" thick glases? ;)
-
For once I agree with sirg. You realise that two inches is more armour than some tanks had in World War 2, right?
Regards,
Winter
-
Do you folks have any idea how hard it is to hit a moving target at close range with a sniper rifle? You are basically either shooting blind or from the hip... A .50 caliber rifle firing antimaterial rounds can be used sitting with support or lying down, but if you are even a little bit out of position or unprepared it hurts like hell. It is difficult enough to hold it and almost impossible to follow or lead a moving target at close range, you would be lucky to hit an elephant that way. Imagine what it would be like with a 20mm gun instead. If you did manage to hit though, it would be messy.
For close combat you want a light and relatively short gun that is easy to follow the target with. It is probably easier to hit someone in the eye with a pistol or a SMG than with a sniper rifle. At long range, the opposite applies.
-
Do you folks have any idea how hard it is to hit a moving target at close range with a sniper rifle? You are basically either shooting blind or from the hip... A .50 caliber rifle firing antimaterial rounds can be used sitting with support or lying down, but if you are even a little bit out of position or unprepared it hurts like hell. It is difficult enough to hold it and almost impossible to follow or lead a moving target at close range, you would be lucky to hit an elephant that way. Imagine what it would be like with a 20mm gun instead. If you did manage to hit though, it would be messy.
For close combat you want a light and relatively short gun that is easy to follow the target with. It is probably easier to hit someone in the eye with a pistol or a SMG than with a sniper rifle. At long range, the opposite applies.
I know this, and my sniper rifle article most certainly reflects it. In the Recommended Doctrine segment, it's highly recommended to switch to a backup weapon rather than try to engage with the sniper rifle at close range. If the game doesn't already reflect this properly, I hope we can balance the stats so that it will. We're up for a major bugfixing of the aiming code anyway.
Regards,
Winter
-
There are sniper rifles, like the Barrett XM500 (.50 cal) which are lighter (11 kgs) and feature minimal recoil compared to the high caliber. I'm not saying that it's realistic to fire a sniper rifle from point blank, but it's not impossible.
I was refering more to the nature of the impact - an Browning .50 cal bullet has 46 grams :!: and travels with an average of 800 meters per second. There are also special bullet types, like depleted Uranium (DU) rounds, and Tungsten. DU is 70% denser than lead, thus less aerodynamic drag and better penetration. Currently DU rounds are used on large caliber guns, 30, 25 and 20 mm on gunships, planes (A10) and helicopters.
Anyway, the designers should take in consideration the close range shots. It's much more easier to hit a target at close range and for some weapons, the shots are devastating. I would like to see the critical hit concept implemented into the game.
for grumpy; if you want check these:
About DU and other improved ammo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium
Barret sniper rifle http://world.guns.ru/sniper/sn73-e.htm
-
There are sniper rifles, like the Barrett XM500 (.50 cal) which are lighter (11 kgs) and feature minimal recoil compared to the high caliber. I'm not saying that it's realistic to fire a sniper rifle from point blank, but it's not impossible.
Do you have any idea how heavy 11kg is, especially for a rifle? The old battle rifles like the FN-FAL were considered quite heavy and at 6kg loaded. The M16A2 is under 4.5kg. And when you factor in the extreme weapon length of anti-materiel rifles, their free-hand accuracy is uniformly terrible. Even technology can't make up for the fact that you'd be using the weapon in a way that is completely contrary to its design.
Regards,
Winter
-
Look, I could barely lift and hold an 11 kgs rifle and don't know about aiming to shot it... :oops: ;) ... but wanted to say that 11 kgs for the Barrett is a great improvement from the 18 kgs Armalite AR-50 rifle... and probably by the year 2084, sniper rifles will get lighter and better. It's up to you what weapon stats will set in the end...
If it's unrealistic, then... you have to modify something in the game, like the sniper rifle can't be shot while standing, or while standing you can't take aimed shots, only snap shots with lesser accuracy. At the moment, the sniper shots very well from standing position, even from close range. That's why I replied, because shot an alien from very close - I put the barrel to it's nose and fired... but it didn't die :) That should have been a critical! ;)
-
I think that critical hits should reflect both the type of weapon and the accuracy.
A critical hit is like hitting a vital organ, for example the head.
For a rocket launcher, the damage rating represents the actual damage fairly well and there is now reason to have a critical hit. The accuracy is low and it doesn't really matter where on the alien you hit unless you are firing anti-tank rounds.
A sniper rifle at long range or a pistol at close range is quite different, the general damage capability is low unless you hit something vital and relatively unprotected. The critical hit is the reason for these weapons to exist.
I put the barrel to it's nose and fired... but it didn't die :) That should have been a critical! :wink:
If you didn't just blow a chunk out of his backpack and give him one hell of a ringing ear :wink:
-
I know this, and my sniper rifle article most certainly reflects it.
Yes, guru, I once again humble myself at your feet awed by your inspiration and forethought :wink:
-
The idea of critical hits mainly implies luck. We can also call it "lucky shot" if you like. I don't think we have to came with a real physics model to sort this out. It would complicate things and will be hard to implement. A simpler concept would do.
I think critical hits are very important and fun for such a game. The critical hit should be just a percent - the chance of doing deadly damage. This chance should mainly depend on range, soldier's stats (mind, accuracy, weapon skill) and weapon. It doesn't matter if it's a pistol or a blaster, but some weapons should have a better chance of scoring a critical than others - you should have a better chance with the sniper rifle than with a pistol, but again it's a question of range and other factors, mentioned above. As for the rocket launcher, I say any direct hit should be critical...
In some games the whole idea was something like this - if you hit the target then some "dice" were rolled for the critical hit, taking some factors into consideration, like I said. If you were lucky than your hit was a critical one :)
-
The idea of critical hits mainly implies luck. We can also call it "lucky shot" if you like. I don't think we have to came with a real physics model to sort this out.
I agree and disagree :wink: . What I mean is that it should be plausible and that the game should be more flexible to different tactics. A critical hit is about causing more damage than typical for that weapon and it has an inherent random (lucky shot) factor, but can also be modified by circumstances. I'd say a maximum five to ten percent of the hits and maybe one quarter of that totally random and rest dictated by circumstances, such as properties of weapon, shooter and target. Higher probabilities would be difficult to balance, I think...
It would complicate things and will be hard to implement. A simpler concept would do. I think critical hits are very important and fun for such a game. The critical hit should be just a percent - the chance of doing deadly damage.
Not that much, but a simple version could of course be implemented first.
-
Not that much, but a simple version could of course be implemented first.
So you are with the "realists". For me the mechanics of the game matter less, what principle from reality you modeled through pure science. I'm more concerned about the fun factor - I don't want a sniping simulator which gets boring and predictable after you get the hang of it. The idea of "luck" versus a long sum of circumstances (for some of which I plea to be considered) is to have some unexpected outcomes - I think that a lucky shot is always something cool that in some cases you tell about to your friends/x-com buddies.
Mainly I don't disagree with you, but want to stress that this concern about realism is making people spend to much time debating and perfecting a model which will always be incomplete and flawed, while it could be made fun and simple. Games are for fun and should be fun. Don't forget that it's a game and not a pure educational simulation.
-
Mainly I don't disagree with you, but want to stress that this concern about realism is making people spend to much time debating and perfecting a model which will always be incomplete and flawed, while it could be made fun and simple. Games are for fun and should be fun. Don't forget that it's a game and not a pure educational simulation.
Excuse me? Debate only arises when people complain about not being able to have their own personal battle moons and star destroyers in a game which has consciously chosen realism and consistency for its design focus. Work was speeding along until the "It's just a game!" crowd started whinging. In fact, you are tying up and slowing down development by being a thorn in the side of the entire core concept, forcing us to respond to your constant complaining lest people might start listening to you.
It's quite hard to keep a positive attitude about working for a bunch who don't even remotely appreciate the effort you're putting into a project for no reward at all.
Regards,
Winter
-
I'm so dissapointed by your attitude...
Work was speeding along until the "It's just a game!" crowd started whinging.
I don't think that me or the rest of "the crowd" are slowing you down. You can always ignore our comments like you did until now. There are just some ideas! I'm not even a member of your development team! How can I slow you down? Do we all have to share the same principles and concepts to make you happy?
In fact, you are tying up and slowing down development by being a thorn in the side of the entire core concept
Again, I'm not slowing down anything. So I'm being a thorn now? That's progress! As I see it, I'm not welcomed on this forum, so I won't bother you anylonger. You are quite impolite to people who are trying to help or just discussing some issues, or to people who want to help by spending time doing models and other stuff (for free), just because their work doesn't fit with the concept.
I'm not a game designer like you, just an artist, so I was proposing some concepts and ideas that made other games all time classics, and besides that - addictive and fun to play. I wasn't reinventing the wheel or the idea of critical strike. Other game designers implemented this idea successfully years ago in games that now are among the best of their kind.
Why don't you say - the design of this game is no longer open to discussion, like you did with the story, so none will bother you anymore? I noticed that you are quite competent in warfare, avionics, spaceships, FTL travel, and astrophysics. So, this means you are either very smart or just have browsed the wikipedia a lot. Anyway, it's clear you don't need help, just people to agree with you. That's why some "bunch" nicknamed you "guru".
I was very enthusiasthic in the begining, and appreciative towards what you were doing (honestly). But now I'm going to remove the game from my computer. I want you to feel relaxed that you are not working for a bunch - me included (by you)- "who don't even remotely appreciate the effort" you are putting into this project.
Good luck with your project.
-
I'm so dissapointed by your attitude...
I'm sorry for lashing out, but let me try to explain my reasons for doing so.
I don't think that me or the rest of "the crowd" are slowing you down. You can always ignore our comments like you did until now. There are just some ideas! I'm not even a member of your development team! How can I slow you down? Do we all have to share the same principles and concepts to make you happy?
Certainly not. The problem is when other developers start listening to concept-incompatible ideas and perhaps even seriously considering things that would destroy all the work I've done. That does not have a positive effect on my productivity. I can't work on a project where I might be considered surplus to requirements at any moment.
You are quite impolite to people who are trying to help or just discussing some issues, or to people who want to help by spending time doing models and other stuff (for free), just because their work doesn't fit with the concept.
Apologies, it's not my aim to be rude, but your numerous complaints and arguments against the current course of the game (going so far as to call all my work unimportant, talk about impolite) have been seriously grinding away at my patience. It's harder for me to do my work if people are actively trying to get all of it undone. You have to understand that I, too, am contributing all of this time for free, but you don't seem to have any compunction about trying to get the story thrown out. At least that's what it looks like to me, since you keep rudely deriding the effort to keep things as plausible as possible.
Also, "just because their work doesn't fit with the concept"? If a work doesn't fit with the concept, you do not use it. This seems pretty logical to me. The concept is the fundamental basis of everything you create. If you're making a realistic racing game, you don't put wheels on a spoon and include it. "But it's a game, it's not realistic in the first place, so why bother making actual cars! Let's just use large cubes with wheels!"
And yet, people buy and enjoy realistic racing games in large numbers. People also buy and enjoy 'hard' science fiction in large numbers. Arthur C. Clarke and Isaac Asimov are still two of the most respected writers in science fiction, partly because they didn't abandon plausibility when it was inconvenient. 2001: A Space Odyssey has alien monoliths, which are certainly highly unrealistic, but otherwise it sticks to real-world concepts. In fact, its entire meaning is to transplant one unrealistic element into the real world and see what happens, and by doing so has more power and impact for those of us who live in the real world. This has been a basic and highly effective premise for science-fiction for generations.
I'm not a game designer like you, just an artist, so I was proposing some concepts and ideas that made other games all time classics, and besides that - addictive and fun to play. I wasn't reinventing the wheel or the idea of critical strike. Other game designers implemented this idea successfully years ago in games that now are among the best of their kind.
I've never had a problem with the idea of critical hits. While not entirely realistic, they add a bit of variety to the gameplay, and I wouldn't oppose incorporating them. I'll always agree with you when I think you're right.
Why don't you say - the design of this game is no longer open to discussion, like you did with the story, so none will bother you anymore? I noticed that you are quite competent in warfare, avionics, spaceships, FTL travel, and astrophysics. So, this means you are either very smart or just have browsed the wikipedia a lot.
I do a lot of research for everything I write.
Anyway, it's clear you don't need help, just people to agree with you. That's why some "bunch" nicknamed you "guru".
Disagreement is fine. I really don't mind hearing opinions I might not necessarily share. The point is that I perceive you to be trying to convince the other developers to change the entire core concept of the game to something different (despite the large body of work that's already been created), especially something of lesser quality than it currently is. This after all the effort I spent, without you even having read the actual storyline -- I know you haven't read it because I've only given it out on request. If I'm wrong about your intentions, please correct me.
I was very enthusiasthic in the begining, and appreciative towards what you were doing (honestly). But now I'm going to remove the game from my computer. I want you to feel relaxed that you are not working for a bunch - me included (by you)- "who don't even remotely appreciate the effort" you are putting into this project.
I don't want you to leave, but it would be nice if you stopped bringing up our attitude to realism and plausibility as a negative thing in almost every post you make. You don't seem to realise how hard it is to get a free open source project together and going in a consistent direction, especially one that isn't a direct copy of the source material.
I also don't want to discourage you from 'rocking the boat', but it would be nice if we didn't have to fight for everything we want to do with the game. Even more, we have to keep our momentum or risk losing the project altogether like the original team did.
Regards,
Winter
-
OK, so you've changed my mind a bit...
I want to make clear some things, before stealing this topic completely.
- I don't have anything against your story, setting nor do I minimise the importance of the effort you have made until now. I got used with the setting, and maybe after I'll find out more about the story, will even like it. I'm not saying that dislike your story or setting - it's OK with me, at the moment I'm neutral about it because I haven't read it. I don't know if I could have came up with something better.
- I don't think that somebody wants to shift the direction of this project into something else - an X-Com with orcs, or something cartoonish. I'm not trying to convince other developers of changing anything, except adding some more features. It's up to you and them if those features fit with your setting or concept. Things like destructable terrain are not even possible due to the engine...
- Now, concerning realism - I certainly don't want a foolish game, anime soldiers, x-men, or huge guns.
How about a compromise - I want something plausible, even though it might be slightly unrealistic. Plausible instead of just plain realistic. That is my "philosophy", and don't wish to argue with you about realism in video games.
I wasn't refering to the realism of the story, but to the combat system which will be the core of this game. I also made some comments in a talk on the wiki about reseach pointing out some things that are quite plausible in my opinion, like some alien techs being to advanced for our scientists to understand in a couple of months, or some alien weapons to be unsuitable for human use.
- I don't want anything unreasonable so, I'll tell everybody in short what is my general wishlist:
* a wider choice of (human) weapons and equipment in the game (some I proposed on the wiki)
* several human weapon types adapted from alien technology, instead of relying completely on alien's weapons
* an enhanced combat system (include the crawl mode for realistic sniping if it isn't to late)
* a more intuitive skill system (e.g. split the close combat system in pistols and martial arts, optionaly removing the sniper skill)
* sounds for actors dying and footsteps
* a wider selection base for soldiers, better soldiers available as player advances to each stage
* the option of saving the game while in missions :)
It's just what I would like. Maybe some people don't want all these, and some others are with me. It doesn't matter. You and your team should judge if any of these requests are OK with your design, and if they are, try and implement them. If not.. there is no big deal. If you don't want developers to listen to ideas from the public, then close these topics. Anyway, if an idea is good, while fiting to the story, and might be quite fun, I think it's worthwile to have a little setback and implement it.
- I didn't want to be rude when called your story unimportant. I was pointing out the fact that in a strategy game like this one, the story is always secondary, while in adventure or RPG games, is almost everything. Maybe you got me wrong, or I was wrong, but anyway, I appologise.
Concerning the critical strike, I'm glad that we agree, and hope the developers will make close quarters combat more effective. Maybe there could be an option to aim for the head, legs or torso like in Fallout or Jagged Alliance 2.
-
- I don't have anything against your story, setting nor do I minimise the importance of the effort you have made until now. I got used with the setting, and maybe after I'll find out more about the story, will even like it. I'm not saying that dislike your story or setting - it's OK with me, at the moment I'm neutral about it because I haven't read it. I don't know if I could have came up with something better.
That's fair. As a working writer who does a lot of RPG fiction, a subgenre that's known for its bad quality, I often have trouble being properly appreciated. When I get hired and turn out a really good story for a game, it usually gets ignored just because people expect it to be bad.
- I don't think that somebody wants to shift the direction of this project into something else - an X-Com with orcs,
This actually sort-of exists in a way, a game called Spellcross, which is really freaking awesome. I even believe it's freeware now. Highly recommended.
- Now, concerning realism - I certainly don't want a foolish game, anime soldiers, x-men, or huge guns.
How about a compromise - I want something plausible, even though it might be slightly unrealistic. Plausible instead of just plain realistic. That is my "philosophy", and don't wish to argue with you about realism in video games.
Obviously we can't make everything completely realistic, as the game we're creating is based on an alien invasion, and we aren't rocket scientists/plasma physicists/etc. But there really isn't any harm in making it as close as possible. Like I've said before, it's never been done before, X-COM games have never had a realistic or militaristic flavour. This is one of the things that we hope will make our project unique.
I wasn't refering to the realism of the story, but to the combat system which will be the core of this game. I also made some comments in a talk on the wiki about reseach pointing out some things that are quite plausible in my opinion, like some alien techs being to advanced for our scientists to understand in a couple of months, or some alien weapons to be unsuitable for human use.
We won't ignore any of these options, trust me.
- I don't want anything unreasonable so, I'll tell everybody in short what is my general wishlist:
* a wider choice of (human) weapons and equipment in the game (some I proposed on the wiki)
This would be nice, but some people (including devs) are actually arguing that we already have too many weapons. :P
* several human weapon types adapted from alien technology, instead of relying completely on alien's weapons
Of course. This will be in.
* an enhanced combat system (include the crawl mode for realistic sniping if it isn't to late)
Don't know about this one, it's up to the coders.
* a more intuitive skill system (e.g. split the close combat system in pistols and martial arts, optionaly removing the sniper skill)
This may be coming, though I don't know what we'd do with sniper rifles in that situation.
* sounds for actors dying and footsteps
I'm all for it.
* a wider selection base for soldiers, better soldiers available as player advances to each stage
I don't know what you mean by 'wider selection base for soldiers', but I don't think we should ratchet up soldier skills later on if we're explaining it as measured by comparison with the aliens. We're planning a rename for the skill levels, though, so your soldiers will certainly -appear- more competent in future versions.
* the option of saving the game while in missions :)[/list]
That would be nice!
It's just what I would like. Maybe some people don't want all these, and some others are with me. It doesn't matter. You and your team should judge if any of these requests are OK with your design, and if they are, try and implement them. If not.. there is no big deal. If you don't want developers to listen to ideas from the public, then close these topics. Anyway, if an idea is good, while fiting to the story, and might be quite fun, I think it's worthwile to have a little setback and implement it.
We certainly shouldn't be afraid to throw out old, subpar code, but we also shouldn't feel compelled to include things that don't rightly fit just because they exist. We are of course open to feature requests and rational suggestions from the public, but obviously we can't do anything with requests that entail completely changing the game concept. We've got a good thing going with a highly competent team. It'd be madness to try and reverse course now.
- I didn't want to be rude when called your story unimportant. I was pointing out the fact that in a strategy game like this one, the story is always secondary, while in adventure or RPG games, is almost everything. Maybe you got me wrong, or I was wrong, but anyway, I appologise.
It's only been secondary because stories in computer games usually suck. :P
Ours certainly won't!
[EDIT] As an example, you named Jagged Alliance 2, which itself is a highly story-driven game. The gameworld is very well-realised and has a clear plot and objectives. The Deidranna cutscenes, for example, were greatly entertaining and put a face on the enemy, making them much more entertaining to fight. They were also great for showing the player that his actions are having an actual effect on the gameworld. And even though JA2 has a well-defined story with a beginning and an end, it keeps people (like myself) coming back to play it again and again. [/EDIT]
Concerning the critical strike, I'm glad that we agree, and hope the developers will make close quarters combat more effective. Maybe there could be an option to aim for the head, legs or torso like in Fallout or Jagged Alliance 2.
The Fallout system was a bit too complicated and cumbersome for my liking, but the JA2 system is highly intuitive. Of course, all of this is up to the coders -- if someone is able and willing, I'd certainly support it.
Regards,
Winter
-
I don't know what you mean by 'wider selection base for soldiers'
I meant that it would be nice to have more soldiers to choose from, instead of a couple of rookies like it is now (the hire list has only 19 entries including your squad). Besides, how about refreshing the list with other candidates each month?
I don't want more weapons just for fun, but weapons that allow different tactics - sniping weapons, close quarters SMGs (like the modern P90c, featured in Stargate.. sorry :oops: ), some plasma minigun if it isn't to unrealistic, a combat shotgun with autofire like the one proposed on the wiki, etc. In general, versatile weapons that could be improved by research or new ammo types. Each weapon should be useful in some situation. The current pistol is useless so it should be made more effective at least from close range.
I also am for the Jagged Alliance 2 combat system. The aiming method was quite intuitive and simple - a snap shot took the minimum TUs, and by right clicking over the target the player "aimed" at a certain body part with a finder cursor that got smaller and more "accurate" with every right click, requiring extra TUs for each "step" of aim. Left click pulled the trigger :) A snap shot took about 8 TUs and a perfect aimed one took even 16 or more, depending on range and weapon type.
What I liked in Fallout, regarding aimed shots, was the window that displayed the creature, like a blueprint (greenprint actually). Even though it looked nice, I'm for the JA2 model.
JA2 and Fallout featured "bloody death sequences", like the lead dance or the loss of body parts (e.g. the head) :x I don't know if this is in the plan, but it would be a nice feature!
-
I hope you two have forgiven each other now.
Everything has to come together somehow and all the parts matter.
No matter how enthusiastically we argue for our views, it doesn't mean that everything else is crap. I think my main reason for discussing here is to help developers with possible models and solutions and the parameters involved. If they decide on another way to do it or to simply ignore it I respect that. If I think something is too important, then the solution is simple, start coding(or whatever) myself.
That said, I think Sirg raises some quite valid points.
Gameplay can't be just logical decisions and "press the button at the right time", then most people would probably play Caterpillar or Minesweeper instead. Or watch a movie if they are more interested in the story. The random or luck factor is a part of what makes you relate to your soldiers or to your organisation and it can be implemented in several ways and in many parts of the game. If it happens to often it becomes a part of the logical, something you calculate with when you make tactical decisions and at the same time unrealistic. The luck factor can't be too obvious either, it works best when it changes enough to be noticed, but not so much that the totally impossible becomes true. Instant kills through critical hits is simple but often just too much. Like when the first shot from the BB gun makes the tank explode.
Sci-fi players are more picky than fantasy players when it comes to realism in the game, at least from a technical perspective, so it is more difficult to balance properly especially in near-future games like this one.
-
This could be implemented as "lucky" shot, maybe doubling the damage and/or bypassing armor?
Just one every 100 shots :) .. :D