The melee weapon in "realistic" games needs to use the Counter-Strike knife (i.e. it can do minor damage with quick slashes, large amounts of damage with stabs and CAN kill in a single hit from full health, however is infamously hard to do and is usually reliant on luck rather than skill (what, can YOU precisely stab someone in a vital point when they're trying to shoot you?)) otherwise melee weapons should be like in TF2 (quite powerful, but still used only when out of ammo/for humiliation purposes)
Poll: Do instant-kill knives/melee need to go?
- Thread starter gabe12301
- Start date
Recommended Videos
As a few other people have said, when a knife slash is more powerful than a shotgun blast at close range, there is something definitely wrong. This is one of the major problems I have with Call of Duty, particularly with Black Ops at the moment.
Games like BF:BC2 and Halo Reach handle melee a lot better, with melee kills taking a second or two to complete and generally not being effective unless they are performed on unsuspecting targets.
Gears of War actually had a pretty good system, where melee with most weapons required multiple hits to kill, but one weapon, the lancer (which has a front-mounted chainsaw for that minority who are unaware), was able to score execution style kills.
However melee executions are not always necessarily a good thing. While playing the multiplayer trial of Alien vs Predator on both the Xbox 360 and the PS3, I found that there were moments were one player would enter the execution animation on another, only to immediately be executed by the next player, who would in turn be executed by another.
Basically, knives in COD are overpowered compared to weapons like shotguns in my opinion. Many posters on here have put ideas for how the systems could be tweaked and are well worth a read.
Games like BF:BC2 and Halo Reach handle melee a lot better, with melee kills taking a second or two to complete and generally not being effective unless they are performed on unsuspecting targets.
Gears of War actually had a pretty good system, where melee with most weapons required multiple hits to kill, but one weapon, the lancer (which has a front-mounted chainsaw for that minority who are unaware), was able to score execution style kills.
However melee executions are not always necessarily a good thing. While playing the multiplayer trial of Alien vs Predator on both the Xbox 360 and the PS3, I found that there were moments were one player would enter the execution animation on another, only to immediately be executed by the next player, who would in turn be executed by another.
Basically, knives in COD are overpowered compared to weapons like shotguns in my opinion. Many posters on here have put ideas for how the systems could be tweaked and are well worth a read.
No. If you can get that close, you should get the instant kill. I was talking to some guy that plays Halo and he said it shouldn't be fair for someone to insta-kill him if the guy sneaks up on him. If someone sneaks up on him from behind he should be able to turn around and kill to make it "fair". That was the most pathetic thing I had ever heard (game related), and sounds like a camper thing.
Wait... what? That makes no sense. So if you stab someone in the neck or chest there is no possible way they would die of damage to nerves, shock, blood-loss, but if you shoot them "virtually anywhere" (food, leg, hand, arm, ear, etc.) they will? I think there would be more "shock" involved with someone coming right up to you and stabbing a metal, or other object, into your body. Not every game now follows "modern standards" either, or realism for that matter. The only thing that seems to come close is Red Orchestra.SteewpidZombie said:
Easier said than done when playing on the COD servers. I've watched many a killcam where I didn't knife the guy, despite clearly doing it on my screen.Peteron said:
Personally, I prefer one-hit kills with melee weapons in games. No one would ever use them otherwise, and I think we've all seen how crummy Counter-Strike knife fights look. Perhaps if it had a semi-realistic knife-fighting engine (a hit to any vital area should at least incapacitate you, make you stumble, drop your weapon, blur your eyesight, etc). Real-life knife fights aren't the flashy spectacle many movies will have you believe. It's mostly two guys poking at each other without hitting, until one of them gets cocky enough to go closer. This normally ends with the attacker having a useless arm, and the attacked man at least severely wounded.
I think the best melee systems are the ones where it's a one hit kill from behind, and a two hit kill from the front.
This thread keeps popping up. I might not be the first to bring it up but seems like im the first to bring it up in this thread.
Thing is, It doesnt matter if its a kill shot with the first strike or not. If you get any sort of clean shot with a melee weapon the odds of being able to counteract that drop to nearly impossible. Reason is, if you put a 3-6 inch gash into someone regardless of if its a vital location or not, your enemy isnt just going to shrug it off, turn to face you and mow you down in a hail of bullets. Invariably whats going to happen about 8 to 9 times out of 10, your enemys hands are going to immediately be focused on clutching the wound to stop bleeding as an involuntary survival instinct. Meaning a large gap in time that is more than long enough to allow for a second more precision strike.
But In all fairness, I do get it, I mean if you wanted to play in a multiplayer shooter, getting ganked by a 4 inch tac knife seems weak and lame. I mean if you want to play with knifes and swords and other assorted melee weapons why not just go play one of the many assorted First person online multiplayer melee games out th... oh wait, nevermind.
Thing is, It doesnt matter if its a kill shot with the first strike or not. If you get any sort of clean shot with a melee weapon the odds of being able to counteract that drop to nearly impossible. Reason is, if you put a 3-6 inch gash into someone regardless of if its a vital location or not, your enemy isnt just going to shrug it off, turn to face you and mow you down in a hail of bullets. Invariably whats going to happen about 8 to 9 times out of 10, your enemys hands are going to immediately be focused on clutching the wound to stop bleeding as an involuntary survival instinct. Meaning a large gap in time that is more than long enough to allow for a second more precision strike.
But In all fairness, I do get it, I mean if you wanted to play in a multiplayer shooter, getting ganked by a 4 inch tac knife seems weak and lame. I mean if you want to play with knifes and swords and other assorted melee weapons why not just go play one of the many assorted First person online multiplayer melee games out th... oh wait, nevermind.
Ha ha, cool! We on the other hand made a pact to yell out 'NINJAED!' or 'I'M A JEDI!' at the top of our lungs every time we made a knife-kill.The Unworthy Gentleman said:
By the way, what's your view on AC2: Brotherhood's MP element? I haven't played the game, and I know it's not an FPS, but the stealth/knifing combat system sure piqued my interest...
Raiyan 1.0 said:
If you like stealth you need to play the team deathmatch type mode dubbed 'Manhunt'. The free-for-all is literally running on rooftops trying to kill your guy before you get killed. The idea is that you should go for the stealthy kills which earn you more points but when you have to stay hidden and kill and run it gets pretty hard, especially when there are people who can use Templar Vision to pick you out of the crowd and will just run across the rooftops to get you.
Manhunt is more team based and you earn points in your round while being hunted for staying hidden from the assassins. The game is a lot more focused on stealthy kills and you're rewarded lot of points for a good kill, which can boost your teams score above the others and win you the game. Part of the fun is actually being hunted and working with your team to stay hidden. While most of it is based on what you can do at the time with little communication only using instinct to act, you also have to think about your team mates and how they may be affected by you stunning an enemy and how many points you could lose for them dying.
To make it simple, stealth is a key aspect if you want to win. The enemy earns 15 points for being hidden for a few seconds and for you killing the wrong person. That means you need to score as many points as you can in the hunting round so you can stay ahead in the hiding round. The stealth aspect of Manhunt is really good but it is atrocious in Wanted. I have yet to try Alliance to see how good that is for stealth though.
Manhunt is more team based and you earn points in your round while being hunted for staying hidden from the assassins. The game is a lot more focused on stealthy kills and you're rewarded lot of points for a good kill, which can boost your teams score above the others and win you the game. Part of the fun is actually being hunted and working with your team to stay hidden. While most of it is based on what you can do at the time with little communication only using instinct to act, you also have to think about your team mates and how they may be affected by you stunning an enemy and how many points you could lose for them dying.
To make it simple, stealth is a key aspect if you want to win. The enemy earns 15 points for being hidden for a few seconds and for you killing the wrong person. That means you need to score as many points as you can in the hunting round so you can stay ahead in the hiding round. The stealth aspect of Manhunt is really good but it is atrocious in Wanted. I have yet to try Alliance to see how good that is for stealth though.
I reckon knives should take 3 hits to kill. In Call of Duty, if you have second chance, 2 knifes to bring you down, 1 more to kill or 3 without.
Melee attacks? Yeah, the same.
Melee attacks? Yeah, the same.
solution:
knife to head or heart region=insta kill
knife anywhere else = call of dutys Last Stand with the weapon currently in hand.
I think the regeneration system is too op, atleast in Black Ops. It can be way too easy
to get back to full health again. Thats for normal games, hardcore mode is fine if you ask me
knife to head or heart region=insta kill
knife anywhere else = call of dutys Last Stand with the weapon currently in hand.
I think the regeneration system is too op, atleast in Black Ops. It can be way too easy
to get back to full health again. Thats for normal games, hardcore mode is fine if you ask me
I gotta say, if you play a shotgun class certain ways, you can be really effective. I played Blops with the stakeout and grip for a good while and if an enemy saw me i would sprint in their direction but always keeping an object between us so, although he knew i was there, he couldn't shoot me until were both in range of each others guns. And usually i won because of the power of the shotgun. Also, while unrelated, aiming down the sights is actually more accurate with the shotty then hip firing. take it from experience.apsham said:
OT- it depends on application in my opinion. Someone already said it but in vast games like BC2 the maps make close quarters quite rare where a knife is required. In that case it isnt broken. In games like COD or well... COD, small maps and numerous close quarter action, knifing can break the gameplay in my opinion.
This is why Knives in Counter Strike are a lot more fun to use. It takes 2 stabs to kill someone unless you are RIGHT behind them, and there isn't much of a leeway either side so you can't instant sidestab someone. I think it takes about 5 or 6 slashes to kill someone, so it makes it harder to actually get a knife kill, and when you do, it's a much better feeling than CoD insta-stabs.
Knives can be instant kill, but switching to them has to take more than a microsecond. Make the melee button equip a knife rather than swing it, and give it a pistol duration switch time.