Project Reality Forums

Same with a 9mm hitting a blood vessel in your leg, you will bleed out in seconds.

The new damage system still isn't working well. Pistols and Shotguns feel way too weak even at close range and battle rifles are way way OP. I was mec squad leader and ran out of ammo for my G3 so I switched to my pistol and it took almost an entire magazine of 9mm to kill a single guy 15m away.

Yes, 9mm is good now but other pistol cartridges are still lacking imo.

Still dont like the system. It feels inconsistent and flaky at times. Some guns feel like they should be stronger and others are too strong.

How about this; Damage equates to; Velocity in meters/kilometers per second, multiplied by bullet weight in grains, at point of impact. Point of impact being, distance from shooter and what part of the body you hit; Arm, Leg, Torso, Armored areas, etc. I.E. you have to take into account what range the bullet will impact the target and what part of the body.

Real life examples
9mm: 115 grain bullet @ 400 meters per second/ .400 Kilometers per second muzzle velocity = 115 x.400 = 46 damage.

50M Target = 350mps or .35kps = 115 x .35 = 40.25 damage.

100M Target = 300mps or .3kps = 115 x .3 = 34.5 damage.


5.56: 62 grain @ 900mps muzzle velocity = 55.8 damage

.308: 147 grain @ 800mps muzzle velocity = 117.6


12 Gauge
00 Buck: 53.8 grains x 9 pellets = 484.2 grains @ 360mps = 174 damage

1 oz Slug: 437.5 grains @ 500mps = 218.75 damage

How about a DEV steps up and finally answers the well written posts a few pages ago about intentions etc.. Just hiding out hoping we will stop complaining and get over it shouldn't be the way to do things.

My main intention was to get rid of the arbitrary system for damage we had before which had no basis in hard data. Of course this would also have the helpful side effects of giving battle rifles and marksmen more of a place.

[R-DEV]M42 Zwilling wrote:My main intention was to get rid of the arbitrary system for damage we had before which had no basis in hard data. Of course this would also have the helpful side effects of giving battle rifles and marksmen more of a place.

Thanks for your response, and for the changes to the original "hotfix".

The limited damage at range from most standard rifles is still extremely harmful to gameplay. I have explained why in detail.

Your response above is a perfect example of not understanding gameplay realism vs. detail realism. Maybe I can explain it more effectively if we don't talk about infantry at all:

non-"arbitrary" jet speeds from real life:

Max speed of the F/A-18E/F is 527 meters/sec
Max speed of the MiG-29 is 667 meters/sec

See the problem now? If you code this "hard data" into the only measure of how aircraft movement works in game, it would break gameplay, even though it is "realistic".

[R-DEV]M42 Zwilling wrote:My main intention was to get rid of the arbitrary system for damage we had before which had no basis in hard data. Of course this would also have the helpful side effects of giving battle rifles and marksmen more of a place.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who would like to see what your hard data is and where your hard data came from.
For example, which exact designation of round you are basing damage numbers upon. (7.62x39 - is it M43 or M67? 5.56? 5.45?)

A lot of nonsensical numbers are in your new damage chart, such as 5.56(a round that relies primarily on velocity for doing big flesh damage through fragmentation) at 600m vs. 5.45(a round that is more designed to yaw, with much less dependence on velocity). This is especially apparent in the % scaling of damage to leg(the only one I bothered to check) depending on distance; 5.45, for some reason, had damage drop even faster than 5.56.
Last I checked, 5.56(even fired out of M16) should have a massive drop in fragmentation reliability past 200m(that distance is closer for shorter-barreled AR-15 variants), which should translate to much sharper damage drop beyond 200m when shot from M16 in-game.

And the fact that a 5.45 in your new damage chart would do less damage to limbs than 7.62x39mm.
7.62x39 is notorious for passing through thin flesh cleanly while 5.45 got the "poison bullet" nickname in Afghanistan, yet somehow 7.62x39 does more damage to legs...etc.
Based on kinetic energy, sure you can give them higher damage to torso; but higher damage to unprotected areas like legs is dodgy at best.
Worse, 7.62x39 loses enough damage to do LESS than 5.56 at 200m, this is ridiculous(to assume that a much faster/lighter bullet would lose damage potential at a slower rate than a much slower/heavier bullet).
Lowering damage greatly at long range for intermediate caliber rounds is a good change, but the amount lowered between different bullets is very, very wrong.
Keep in mind this is on top of 7.62x39 having more curved trajectory(if I remembered correctly, bullet drop starts at 100m instead of 200m).

I could list a few more, probably a lot more than I would expect if you gave us the full damage chart.

Also, lots of missing calibers on the damage chart, not only that but it also doesn't tell us if barrel length(esp. M16 vs. M4 which would have significant difference IRL) have impact on effectiveness.
I seriously doubt you have any hard data on 5.8x42mm so I would like to see how much damage it actually does.
Where is .303 British? 7.62x25 Tokarev? 9x18mm Makarov??? .45ACP????

This change could have been good but it should have been in a test version and gotten enough community feedback before it was implemented.

The most obvious problem with what you've accomplished vs. what you intended is that this gives Marksman even less of a place. Especially on MEC, where it's all battlerifles firing the same round as Marksman rifle...and Battlerifles have fullauto.

There's a lot of problem with in-game small arms balance in modes featuring paramilitary factions that typically do not have bodyarmour or had bodyarmour removed(if I remembed correctly, Militia used to be considered at least lightly armored, but I have tested Skorpion to be 4 shot kill to chest today).
You've skewed the infantry game balance heavily toward BluFor(unless it's not a western country or ally of one) without the appropriate changes to match(such as much higher availability of SVD rifles and PKP in Russian Army, which should mean more Marksman for Russian Army and more machinegunnner/replace RPK-74M with PKP). More heavily on Insurgency modes than AAS.

At this point, 5.56 seems magically better than every other intermediate cartridge even at long range; so again, I would like to see what hard data you used as basis for this most recent damage change. A complete damage chart would be nice to further investigate into how realistic this new system truly is.

Paine wrote:The limited damage at range from most standard rifles is still extremely harmful to gameplay. I have explained why in detail.

Your response above is a perfect example of not understanding gameplay realism vs. detail realism. Maybe I can explain it more effectively if we don't talk about infantry at all:

non-"arbitrary" jet speeds from real life:

Max speed of the F/A-18E/F is 527 meters/sec
Max speed of the MiG-29 is 667 meters/sec

See the problem now? If you code this "hard data" into the only measure of how aircraft movement works in game, it would break gameplay, even though it is "realistic".

That is a concession due to the limitations of map size etc. forced by the engine, not to mention that those speeds are for an unarmed aircraft flying in straight line at high altitude. Add weapons, drop the altitude to sea level, and assume combat maneuvers are happening and they will never get even close to those speeds.

In any case I cannot see any such need for a gameplay concession here. From the forum feedback so far, the damage loss over range is something most people like. It realistically represents the effectiveness of modern body armor. I'm not sure if I mentioned this before, but in PR we assume conventional forces have type IV body armor (most militaries either have this as standard issue or at least have access to it), which will stop an armor-piercing .30-06 point blank. It's more than enough to stop multiple 5.56 rounds being fired far outside their effective range. The only injury to the wearer has to comes from blunt trauma depending on the power of the bullet, which is often massively diminished after 3-400m.

Combat outside the effective range of 5.56 is only a fraction of the combat in PR too. I can't see the need to deviate from a realistic system for a situation that rarely happens and can be resolved by keeping getting an MMG or DMR in the squad.

Allahu Akbar wrote:---snip---

I am not going to release the internal documents at this time. Hopefully when the next stage comes out, the figures will be included in the file comments so you can go in and see for yourself. The current implementation has about the same gameplay impact, but the base damage settings now are just general for a weapon of a given caliber - differences in barrel length between weapons of the same caliber are not taken into account yet.

I do have figures for the QBZ-95 though. It will fire DPB10 with a projectile weight of 4.6 g and muzzle velocity of 915 m/s. Not sure if I still have the original document. It was all in Chinese but the numbers were still readable obviously.

As I said in the devblog, this was intended to rework base damage, not damage modifiers against soft targets. The wounding effects of different types of rounds are irrelevant to base damage, since that also gets used to calculate damage against heavy armor where tumbling and fragmentation don't matter. The damage to limbs is a valid point though and one that we are discussing as well. There is plenty of room for improvement when it comes to the damage modifiers.

[R-DEV]M42 Zwilling wrote:My main intention was to get rid of the arbitrary system for damage we had before which had no basis in hard data. Of course this would also have the helpful side effects of giving battle rifles and marksmen more of a place.

And the negative effect of making armour vs no-armour maps and layers worse, breaking Vietnam maps, making INS gamemode even less fun and making it harder to punish stupid plays.

inb4banned wrote:And the negative effect of making armour vs no-armour maps and layers worse, breaking Vietnam maps, making INS gamemode even less fun and making it harder to punish stupid plays.

Theres very few maps where a team with 7.62 verses a team with no body armour. Both teams on vietnam have 7.62 rifles. All INS factions have 7.62 rifles....

FFG wrote:Theres very few maps where a team with 7.62 verses a team with no body armour.

Not that it matters much because they get 2-shotted by 5.56 anyways.

I mean, if you play NA PR you might get the idea that playing as INS against Scoped BluFor was sort of balanced with the old damage module, because nobody knows how to play the game over there besides a handful/two handful of people.

Now the odds are even more stacked in favour of BluFor, the other day we finished Ramiel INS with 572 tickets left over. Was it due to teams? Yeah, sure, the lackluster team balance contributed to it. But that can only explain it so far.

Both teams on vietnam have 7.62 rifles.

Bullet diameter isn't the only dimension. The NVA use 7.62x39mmR primarily which is more tame than 7.62x51mm. So the only NVA weapon with oneshot capability is the Mosin, a Pre-WW1 era weapon combatting against Post-WW2 era weapons. Haven't played too much Vietnam yet, but it's probably just a slugfest anyways, same with Falklands.

All INS factions have 7.62 rifles....

The only 7.62x51mm rifles INS have readily available are the FN FAL(limited to SLs) and G3(which has only one grenade), and the strength these weapons have is long range but they come without scopes which means you're limited to about 50m engagements at which you can easily two-shot your opponent, but so can they+they have a much easier time doing so due to lower recoil and faster settle time.

FFG wrote:Theres very few maps where a team with 7.62 verses a team with no body armour. Both teams on vietnam have 7.62 rifles. All INS factions have 7.62 rifles....

Every map with a no body armour faction has 7.62 on the other side. Ins 7.62 rifles suck **** besides the SVD, better damage won't make the viable. Vietnam is Mosin vs M14 - bolt action with 10 shots vs full auto with 20, bot with 1 shot capability. Your arguments are horrible.

I've played Vietnam several times times since the patch, always as NVA, and had no problem winning. Mosins & AKs are still easily viable.

Frontliner wrote:So the only NVA weapon with oneshot capability is the Mosin

...and the SVD and the DP 28 and the PKM.

FFG wrote:Theres very few maps where a team with 7.62 verses a team with no body armour. Both teams on vietnam have 7.62 rifles. All INS factions have 7.62 rifles....

Commonly-available 7.62x51 vs. commonly-available 7.62x39, big difference.

'[R-DEV wrote:M42 Zwilling;2163300']
I am not going to release the internal documents at this time. Hopefully when the next stage comes out, the figures will be included in the file comments so you can go in and see for yourself. The current implementation has about the same gameplay impact, but the base damage settings now are just general for a weapon of a given caliber - differences in barrel length between weapons of the same caliber are not taken into account yet.

I do have figures for the QBZ-95 though. It will fire DPB10 with a projectile weight of 4.6 g and muzzle velocity of 915 m/s. Not sure if I still have the original document. It was all in Chinese but the numbers were still readable obviously.

As I said in the devblog, this was intended to rework base damage, not damage modifiers against soft targets. The wounding effects of different types of rounds are irrelevant to base damage, since that also gets used to calculate damage against heavy armor where tumbling and fragmentation don't matter. The damage to limbs is a valid point though and one that we are discussing as well. There is plenty of room for improvement when it comes to the damage modifiers.

But how does damage dropoff become that severe for 7.62x39? Are you saying that's just added by accident while trying to change base value? Or was the massive damage dropoff percentage over distance already there before these recent changes?

Also, I'm assuming this is the "hard data" you got on 5.8:
https://forum.cartridgecollectors.org/t ... bp10/10737
First of all, this stuff all look like generic news article that doesn't have anything solid on wounding/penetration potential.

Can I assume that you've made 5.8 do roughly 2/3 of damage of 5.56 based on mPa rating?

Or does it actually do more, since the above linked document's translation indicated that even the older round at 1000m had energy of 200J(with DBP-10 supposedly having 20J increase at 1000m for a total of ~220J) while 5.56 would have dropped to 200J at 6-700m?
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-c ... cy8UPP.png

[R-DEV]M42 Zwilling wrote:I've played Vietnam several times times since the patch, always as NVA, and had no problem winning. Mosins & AKs are still easily viable.

If you camp bush hard enough then a pistol could be viable as long as opponents aren't wearing armour.

Overall, I think it's a really bad time to just push these changes onto live servers with such low population already.
I've been seeing server admins swapping maps away from the likes of Vietnam or Falklands ones.

[R-DEV]M42 Zwilling wrote:That is a concession due to the limitations of map size etc. forced by the engine, not to mention that those speeds are for an unarmed aircraft flying in straight line at high altitude. Add weapons, drop the altitude to sea level, and assume combat maneuvers are happening and they will never get even close to those speeds.

In any case I cannot see any such need for a gameplay concession here. From the forum feedback so far, the damage loss over range is something most people like. It realistically represents the effectiveness of modern body armor. I'm not sure if I mentioned this before, but in PR we assume conventional forces have type IV body armor (most militaries either have this as standard issue or at least have access to it), which will stop an armor-piercing .30-06 point blank. It's more than enough to stop multiple 5.56 rounds being fired far outside their effective range. The only injury to the wearer has to comes from blunt trauma depending on the power of the bullet, which is often massively diminished after 3-400m.

Combat outside the effective range of 5.56 is only a fraction of the combat in PR too. I can't see the need to deviate from a realistic system for a situation that rarely happens and can be resolved by keeping getting an MMG or DMR in the squad.

From one bunker to the next on Kashan is 300m, across Qwai river is 300m. Having to hit someone 4 times in the chest at that range to incap them is not OK. 5 shots from the AK74. If you read the original long post we did I point this out exactly, and again in detail, but i will restate it again.

With these changes, players with standard rifles won't, and shouldn't,, shoot at medium and long range. It only exposes their position, without producing effective fire. Having maybe two kits that are effective in an infantry squad at ranges other than close range is bad for gameplay.

It is also FAR from realistic, if my time in service where I planned and trained guys on basic small unit tactics has anything to say about what is realistic, but what you or I think is "realistic" at the detail level doesn't matter in the first place, what matters is how realistic PR gameplay is. That's definable.

You have made all standard rifles excepting the G3/M14/FAL have an effective range of less than 300m. Unless you want to argue that 4-5 shots to an armored chest to incap is effective, which would be silly. Any player can get to cover before being hit a forth time and use a patch. These changes makes fire and move unrealistic, because at range there is no danger from most weapons on the map.

You are going to make decisions about what damage numbers are going to be in the game engine, and they cannot exactly mirror reality, the only reasonable way to decide on the numbers is to ask how they effect gameplay. Please do this.

DogACTUAL wrote:...and the SVD and the DP 28 and the PKM.

SVD
-requestable only. Or only by pick-up kits, I forgot.

DP28
-M14s have way less settle time, the M60 has a far larger mag size.

PKM
-point taken.

Allahu Akbar wrote:But how does damage dropoff become that severe for 7.62x39? Are you saying that's just added by accident while trying to change base value? Or was the massive damage dropoff percentage over distance already there before these recent changes?

7.62x39 is relatively slow and tends to have a pretty terrible ballistic coefficient compared other intermediate calibers.

Allahu Akbar wrote:Also, I'm assuming this is the "hard data" you got on 5.8:
https://forum.cartridgecollectors.org/t ... bp10/10737
First of all, this stuff all look like generic news article that doesn't have anything solid on wounding/penetration potential.

Can I assume that you've made 5.8 do roughly 2/3 of damage of 5.56 based on mPa rating?

Or does it actually do more, since the above linked document's translation indicated that even the older round at 1000m had energy of 200J(with DBP-10 supposedly having 20J increase at 1000m for a total of ~220J) while 5.56 would have dropped to 200J at 6-700m?
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-c ... cy8UPP.png

As I keep saying, wounding data against soft targets is irrelevant to what I am trying to do here. I am only trying to establish a better baseline for overall damage potential right now. The quoted figures are definitely within reason though, and would put the base damage ~15-20% higher than 5.56.

Paine wrote:From one bunker to the next on Kashan is 300m, across Qwai river is 300m. Having to hit someone 4 times in the chest at that range to incap them is not OK. 5 shots from the AK74. If you read the original long post we did I point this out exactly, and again in detail, but i will restate it again.

With these changes, players with standard rifles won't, and shouldn't,, shoot at medium and long range. It only exposes their position, without producing effective fire. Having maybe two kits that are effective in an infantry squad at ranges other than close range is bad for gameplay.

It was 3 shots to the chest before. I don't see how taking 1 more shot makes that big a difference. In both of the contexts you mention above there was already a very good chance of the target escaping into cover. However we do have a couple of ideas that would make that somewhat less likely to happen and don't involve reverting the damage loss changes, but not going to talk about them yet until we look into them more.

Paine wrote:It is also FAR from realistic, if my time in service where I planned and trained guys on basic small unit tactics has anything to say about what is realistic, but what you or I think is "realistic" at the detail level doesn't matter in the first place, what matters is how realistic PR gameplay is. That's definable.

You have made all standard rifles excepting the G3/M14/FAL have an effective range of less than 300m. Unless you want to argue that 4-5 shots to an armored chest to incap is effective, which would be silly. Any player can get to cover before being hit a forth time and use a patch. These changes makes fire and move unrealistic, because at range there is no danger from most weapons on the map.

You are going to make decisions about what damage numbers are going to be in the game engine, and they cannot exactly mirror reality, the only reasonable way to decide on the numbers is to ask how they effect gameplay. Please do this.

How did you learn about the effectiveness of intermediate calibers against heavily armored targets at range by teaching small unit tactics?

I still cannot see why either the detailed or gameplay realism is broken by this, or at least isn't worse than it was. For detailed realism, I still see no indication that these weapons should be able to reliably incapacitate an armored target at range. I'm not sure would even want to seriously prioritize this definition of gameplay realism either. That would mean making all weapons one-shot kills to properly discourage risk taking, but I don't think anyone would want that.

Can you stop releasing half finished content? I got the feeling the playerbase is already dropping really hard, no need to kill this game.. In the past players came back after a good release now you just scare them away with these changes...