Small questions about UDK.

[DreadStunLock]

There are alot of Absolutes in this topic, i wonder what the margin of error is for the quoted effects of some of this gear is.

If there is so a lot of absolutes, explain why rather than writing without it being backed up.

That's why:

Farley's Jackson clone is a registered member on this forum :P

[Farley4Fan]

But that's me.

[Tidenburg]

Anyway the point is, the more freedom you give the better the maps get, I don't want to put fat ass hell walls because it will make the map plain ugly that way.
Actually, players come to expect a certain level of consistency in levels. e.g "that merc shot me through that airvent -> that merc can shoot me through all air vents", "my chaff went through that wall -> my chaff should go through all walls similar to that one". Putting more pressure on map makers to stick to those standards.

I was thinking about Star Wars: Force Unleashed 2, and it hit me, make a map that has as much destructibility as possible, imagine every grenade you throw something blows up. That would be one awesome map. And if make the particles respawn, that means it happens everytime and make something like a sand area where you throw a grenade and particles go up, and make it so the smoke from grenade combines with the sand, obscures the vision sight in that small area. Would be very tactical in my opinion.
I like the sand idea, but destructible environments are hard to do without engine support for it, if you go the other way and just make objects that can be shot down or exploded, you run back into the consistency problem again ("I can shoot this down onto the spy -> I can always shoot objects of that type down onto the spy"). Brainfart: Wouldn't it be cool if there were sandbags on the stage in lakehouse which could be shot down onto the spy?

Frvge....ok you went there..

If you get shot in a latex suit you would be permantently slowed, if you get 2 shots you would probably die and not a single medkit with a little can of pills will help.

Noone places mines in real world on the walls for them to beep.

You can't dodge a mine by running at it and straight away turn around because the shrapnel will kill you.

If a spy has a sticky shocker it would shock you permanently to the point where you will unconcious on the ground.

Real life spies do not use non-lethal weapons, they will bring a knife and kill you, and not a single security task force will help you, because stealth wins.

Noone will drop a flashbang near their feet because it will damage them more than a mercenary, same goes for the smoke.

When you get shot by a rifle that has a sniper attachment you will probably get a knockback atleast 10 feet.

So realism isn't really what you want to discuss with confettis....

There's a difference. "Gameplay > Realism" however the player is gonna take their outside knowledge and try to learn the game building upon that. For example, the player will be used to being able to survive multiple shots in games, extremely resilient environments/maps and other oddities (why are the terminals placed in such weird locations, why don't they take in machine guns, etc). But the player would probably be surprised to find that walls aren't solid, gravity doesn't apply while crouched or maybe you can throw objects through walls and at other players but you yourself can't pass through. Stuff like physics is taken as standard.

As to the rest, Media has always taken liberties with weaponry.