Project Reality Forums

OriginalWarrior wrote:PR isn't a simulation, so all that ballistic math is not needed. The way the damage used to be was a near perfect compromise between fun and realism. It was meant to have the PR player ACT realistic.

Apply for tester if you think you can do a better job xD

FFG wrote:"muh realism, I hate realism. PR is about realism, But change it unrealistically like this so all the guns do the same amount damage"



I've still yet to see anyone come up with any evidence that shows x round does y damage outside of what Zwilling has done.

Was fully expecting this as the response.

I stand by what was written in that post. It's fine to not agree, but at no time was I hostel towards those who disagree. I'd appreciate a bit of mutual respect. I'm not some guy off the street that just picked this game up. I was lead tester before Zwilling was even registered on the forums.

The game worked fine

It's patched

There are obvious issues brought up by the majority of people responding.

The response from your TZ group has been to belittle anyone who speaks against the change.

This is not how we should treat each other here. This is a super small community and really can't handle another big devision.

I hope we get some answers to the legitimate requests in this thread.

FFG wrote:I've still yet to see anyone come up with any evidence that shows x round does y damage outside of what Zwilling has done.

Oh, that's simple. You can't, so don't bother trying and think about how the game plays out if you give auto rifles one-hit-kill potential on relatively long distances. I mean, how do you prove any of this? Have a guy get hit by a bullet and be like "oh, that did 35 damage, I was 1/3 of the way to going unconscious". You can show what energy a bullet has, but the effect on the human body, the damage it does, you cannot. You get hit by a 9mm in one of the arteries, you're done for. Nobody goes around thinking "pff, puny 9mm can't do any damage to me on that range". That's retarded. I mean, I sort of play with these expectations ingame, but the weapons are all deadly enough that I put myself at risk, and that's what makes the game so great, the outcome is not predictable.

But let's pretend that we could for a second. Zwilling said that the entire system is KE-based, the higher the kinetic energy the more damage a round does. What he didn't factor in is that different projectiles cause different size bullet holes, and bullet holes from a 9mm are bigger and more concerning since those are likely to be stuck in flesh whereas 7.62 and especially 5.56 are prone to go right through smaller portions of the limbs for example. So the supposedly realistic system only accounts for one factor and leaves the other out. Muh realism.

I personally think a realistic protrayal is doomed to fail because not only do we play a game after all, but also because different people will come up with different ways to portray the same thing, each claiming to be "correct" in their own sense. And it still doesn't mean that the game plays out much better if we employ X's or Y's system which is the whole point of such a change!

Raw kinetic energy is not a holistic or realistic way of determining bullet damage. I get that you want to come up with some ultimate damage formula for consistency, but this is fake 'realism' at the expense of gameplay which is not immersive or fun. These changes need to be reverted and given more thought before committing to something so drastic.

Portable.Cougar wrote:Was fully expecting this as the response.

I stand by what was written in that post. It's fine to not agree, but at no time was I hostel towards those who disagree. I'd appreciate a bit of mutual respect.

The intention was not to be hostile for the sake of being hostile. The intention was to figure out your stance on the balance of realism.

Before this update, There was no reason at all to take any 7.62 rifle over a 5.56 rifle.

Portable.Cougar wrote:I'm not some guy off the street that just picked this game up. I was lead tester before Zwilling was even registered on the forums.

Lol, K. I've been playing PR since .6 Often played on Hardcore and BigD.

Portable.Cougar wrote:The game worked fine

If you settle with fine, Then SQUAD is fine. Settling for fine, makes gameplay stale and boring.

Portable.Cougar wrote:It's patched

The devs have talked about the new branch system they use, It allows them to push patches more regularly. This isn't the days of 1.1 1.2 where it takes entire years for patches to come out.

Portable.Cougar wrote:There are obvious issues brought up by the majority of people responding.

Solutions, Pointing out issues is half of it. You need a solid solution or the same thing will happen again. Look at 1.3.5 turrets.

Portable.Cougar wrote:The response from your TZ group has been to belittle anyone who speaks against the change.

Yup, [TZ] did it. We're a big ol hivemind of cancer.

Portable.Cougar wrote:This is not how we should treat each other here. This is a super small community and really can't handle another big devision.

I could show you a million burnt bridges, it happens. Expecting everyone to be happy and love playing with one another is foolish.

Portable.Cougar wrote:I hope we get some answers to the legitimate requests in this thread.

I can't tell you what Zwillings thinking, As I am not him. He might be a bit of a weird ****, But I'm sure he and the other devs will figure something out.

Game balance is king, and these changes may be a half-measured response to a problem that we can't solve with the bf2 engine.

Yo FFG, a lot of things in this game are a compromise between realism and gameplay, refractor engine is not a simulation of our reality yet, that means you cant make everything realistic. Zwillings system is not really closer to reality then the old one. People just complained cause they dont like the changes regarding gameplay.

YAK-R wrote:If it works and doesn't crash the game, it's tested. Testers don't do game design, just make sure it works (sometimes).

That's a horrible mindset.

Vista wrote:That's a horrible mindset.

its not so much because tester want it to be like that. its because often times DEVs dont listen to gameplay/balance concerns of testers

PortableCougars points were hitting the nail on the head.

PR is a game in which tactical gameplay and communications give an actual advantage in PvP combat, even though the base to it isnt an exact mirror of RL values.
In comparison a game which tries to be as true to life as possible, Arma3, with complex and true to life ballistics fails to deliver actual combined arms gameplay in PvP outside of safespace event environment, and almost only works in Coop (in PvP everyone runs around with MMGs or ARs at least).
=>a round of PR with adjusted (damage-,weapon behavior-, etc) models plays out MORE realistically than the average Arma3 PvP round with its egnines true to life ballistic models etc.

Another point about the current model, which is not only worse for gameplay but it is also less realistic (in its base assumptions).
The solely KE based damage values are flawed as every projectile penetrating a persons body is already a major wound, the damage is done as soon the skin tissue is overcome. The damage dropoff is way too exaggerated. Wether the bullet stuck in your body came from 200m or 400m is secondary concern. One doesnt have to be peppered with bullets to finally become out of action.
It leads to COD tier weapon gameplay with shotguns and pistols being waterguns beyond 5m.

Nonetheless i support the push for unified ballistics and want to thank everyone involved.

It looks to me that the big rift between the opinions here, is due to people prefering different kinds of gameplay (apart from the whole issue with the shotguns, pistols and SMGs).

One the one side we have a group that wants gameplay to be very harcore and weapons to pack a bigger punch, while also being more pronounced in their differences depending on the cartridge or if they are facing body armour. Like the DEV said, they want there to be less room for mistakes and reward the ones that get the drop on the opponent. It also adds more authenticity.

One the other side there are those that like weapons that don't hit as hard, because they like the other gameplay elements this promotes, like having more unrestricted movement and more symmetrical balance. Another reason is that this allows for more elaborate planning since it makes it easier to walk away from a firefight.

I think both opinions are valid, but i lean closer to the first group (i still detest the shitty performance of pistols, shotguns and SMGs against unarmored targets).

Whatever the DEVs do next, if they keep the current values or modify them, they should keep the unified cartridge ballistics system since everyone likes that (i think). It is really nice to finally have all the cartridges perform the same.

Thank you.

FFG wrote:The intention was not to be hostile for the sake of being hostile. The intention was to figure out your stance on the balance of realism.

Our stance on the balance of realism in 1.4.8 is in the post Cougar made, many times, in three pages of text worked on respectfully by a lot of people. I'll try and restate it:

Adding a detail of realism only matters if it creates realistic gameplay. Making players act realistically is what PR excels at. So, a change to the game that makes players act more unrealistically than before is bad for PR.

Many others who did not work on that long post have voiced this same position:

LimitJK wrote: PR is a game in which tactical gameplay and communications give an actual advantage in PvP combat, even though the base to it isnt an exact mirror of RL values.
In comparison a game which tries to be as true to life as possible, Arma3, with complex and true to life ballistics fails to deliver actual combined arms gameplay in PvP outside of safespace event environment, and almost only works in Coop (in PvP everyone runs around with MMGs or ARs at least).
=>a round of PR with adjusted (damage-,weapon behavior-, etc) models plays out MORE realistically than the average Arma3 PvP round with its egnines true to life ballistic models etc.

And he's just the most recent player to say it. It's the reason we tried and rolled back the deviation changes of the past, and the one shot kill headshot, and the sprint changes. Adding some detail of realism only matters if it creates realistic gameplay.

FFG wrote:Before this update, There was no reason at all to take any 7.62 rifle over a 5.56 rifle.

[quote=""Zwilling"]Other than personal preference, there were not many reasons to take them (7.62) before. Generally 5.56 had double the ammo, lower recoil, lower settle time, and a higher fire rate. Somewhat higher damage was the only advantage, but was too small to be worth it[/quote] https://www.realitymod.com/forum/blogs/63228/b452-infantry-weapon-damage-changes.html

Again, that the handling and damage vaulues of these weapons did not reflect reality exactly is not important. What is important is that players move, fire, and communicate realistically when a squad with a bunch of standard 7.62 rifles went up against a squad of standard 5.56 rifles. They did before the patch. Do they after the patch? We think they do not. And we gave very explicit evidence derived from the hard numbers Zwilling provided.

Changing the values of damage or handling of each weapon might need some small change, but the 1.4.8 changes are too drastic, and they are based on false assumptions of which sort of realism is important.

[quote="FFG""]If you settle with fine, Then SQUAD is fine. Settling for fine, makes gameplay stale and boring. [/quote]

If you are worried about PR being stale and boring, add new maps, add new content. Drastically changing the gameplay and balance that has taken years to refine, and that has made this mod one of the most successful mods of all time, is not how you fix some imagined future where gameplay is stale or boring.

FFG wrote:The devs have talked about the new branch system they use, It allows them to push patches more regularly. This isn't the days of 1.1 1.2 where it takes entire years for patches to come out.

How many people had a say in this change to infantry weapons damage? Maybe this is a question best asked to Zwilling.

FFG wrote:Solutions, Pointing out issues is half of it. You need a solid solution or the same thing will happen again. Look at 1.3.5 turrets.

For there to be a solution, there needs to be a problem first. What was the problem before? As far as we are concerned this patch created problems, and we offered very specific solutions to those problems in our long post.

FFG wrote:I could show you a million burnt bridges, it happens. Expecting everyone to be happy and love playing with one another is foolish.

FFG wrote:I can't tell you what Zwillings thinking, As I am not him. He might be a bit of a weird ****, But I'm sure he and the other devs will figure something out.

Are we burning bridges in a community with only a few hundred active players at any given time, or figuring something out?

We hope we all can. This game has been part of all our lives for a very long time.

Paine wrote:For there to be a solution, there needs to be a problem first. What was the problem before? As far as we are concerned this patch created problems, and we offered very specific solutions to those problems in our long post.

It was always a point of internal meme'age in discord as to shame those(clanmates) who use 7.62 rifles when 5.56 rifles were available to use.

Simply said, there was never a reason to take 7.62 over 5.56.

Regardless of the outcome from the Devs. It at least opened the dialog and started the discussion to fix/understand the underlying issues. Like 1.3.5 turrets, and 1.4 jets. Atleast the devs are trying to spice shit up.

FFG wrote:Regardless of the outcome from the Devs. It at least opened the dialog and started the discussion to fix/understand the underlying issues. Like 1.3.5 turrets, and 1.4 jets. Atleast the devs are trying to spice shit up.

They could've told us about the change WAY in advance to get a discussion going, or that they are attempting to figure out a way to make it work. Now we play with a change that a lot of the vocal folks on the forums don't agree with and several people ingame who don't post on the forums said so as well with very few people stating that they are in favour of the change.

Simply said, there was never a reason to take 7.62 over 5.56.

Well, sure they weren't worlds apart, but the more sensible way would've been to keep 7.62 as it was and nerf 5.56 a bit, since, as I said, the game hinges a lot on not being too overly lethal to make the medic system work as intended.

FFG wrote:Regardless of the outcome from the Devs. It at least opened the dialog and started the discussion to fix/understand the underlying issues. Like 1.3.5 turrets, and 1.4 jets. Atleast the devs are trying to spice shit up.

The underlying issues have long been known. 900 RPM rifles OP in CQB, FAL shit, SKS, shit, AR too versatile, no reason to take marksman if you can have AR (except no-scope factions).

Address these instead of making a huge change that "fixes" 1 thing by making it OP and breaks 100 other things. No logic applied at all, no foresight.

FFG wrote:It was always a point of internal meme'age in discord as to shame those(clanmates) who use 7.62 rifles when 5.56 rifles were available to use.

Simply said, there was never a reason to take 7.62 over 5.56.

Regardless of the outcome from the Devs. It at least opened the dialog and started the discussion to fix/understand the underlying issues. Like 1.3.5 turrets, and 1.4 jets. Atleast the devs are trying to spice shit up.

So in order to make 7.62 weapons better, an entirely debatable position in the first place, this patch:

made medium range fire less effective and long range fire ineffective; introduced 1 shot incapacitate and 1 shot black & white from 7.62x51mm weapons at close range; and some factions have 7.62x51mm weapons standard so maps are unbalanced.

That makes no sense at all. There are easier solutions, mentioned in this thread, and other threads (like the thread about the AK74) before this patch even showed up.

There must be another reason for this patch, because the the reason you present doesn't make sense.

If you really want damage drop off over time and damage based on ammo, there are ways to do this less drastically, as we suggested in our long post.

DEVs should only tinker with damage values within reasonable boundaries, boundaries based on how those values effect gameplay. That's all we are asking for.

I will give you an example of what we mean by gameplay realism vs realism on paper. When the HAT settle time was increased, was that done because someone looked at the actual time it takes a soldier to accurately fire a SMAW or an RPG? No, it was changed because the old fast settle time was causing players to play unrealistically: soldiers weren't worried about armor threats very much because they could just pop up and one shot any armor. Tanks weren't engaging in a combined arms fight because they were too afraid of getting one-shot killed by a jack in the box HAT kit, they were largely fighting a different game at the edges of the map against other armor. In that update, gameplay realism > detail realism. There is no reason to take a different view of infantry weapon damage.

Can we hear from the DEVs please? I get the feeling you are just trolling for the lulz, FFG.

Paine wrote: Adding a detail of realism only matters if it creates realistic gameplay. Making players act realistically is what PR excels at. So, a change to the game that makes players act more unrealistically than before is bad for PR.

I agree with this, and this is why I have such a big problem with the sniper rifle changes. Before this patch, it was dangerous for an enemy HAT or AA kit to get on a roof because they would get taken out by sniper fire before they could launch.

Before, when I was setup, enemy HATs were forced to hide and be very sneaky. I would sometimes watch a HAT kit for five minutes through my scope, as he sneakily crawled around, only presenting himself to me for a brief few seconds as he attempted to fire on a friendly APC.

Now, the enemy HATs don't have to be sneaky, because they can take multiple shots from my sniper. They can play in the open with little fear. If there is a crate or good medic near them, they are impossible to shut down.