Infantry weapon damage changes

[inb4banned]

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.

3 shots was already hard enough, but still worked fine if several people were firing, there was an AR or the guy was crossing lots of ground. In practice 3 shots usually translate to 4-5 since not every shot hits body but arms instead and some shots get eaten by hit detection.

At 4 shots to the chest, it's really 5-7 and many times won't be possible to punish NA plays at all, even with an AR.

I hope you don't talk about the planned changes and release them breaking the gameplay again

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.

But when you made M14 1 shot incap it's fine because you played it once and said so... Nobody gives a fuck about realism, if you're playing PR solely for realism in 2017 you must be a fucking idiot.

It really sucks that you fail to see how these changes are bad for gameplay, how buffing armour makes it less fun to play versus, damage dropoff harder to punish dumb plays and 1 shot auto rifles just being straight up retarded.

[M42 Zwilling]

It really sucks that you fail to see how these changes are bad for gameplay, how buffing armour makes it less fun to play versus, damage dropoff harder to punish dumb plays and 1 shot auto rifles just being straight up retarded.

Low damage is bad, high damage is bad. Which is it?

[inb4banned]

Low damage is bad, high damage is bad. Which is it?

Too low of a damage where you can't punish dumb plays is bad, 1 shot automatic rifles that can get you out of any dumb situation are bad. Is that too hard to understand?

[M42 Zwilling]

Yes, because one-shot automatic rifles are much better at punishing dumb plays than getting you out of them with PR's deviation and recoil.

[fecht_niko]

Zwilling I'll try to explain it to you.

If you have an advantage over an enemy but he kills you because he needs way less bullets or time than its broken: basically G3 and 900rpm weapons

On the other hand you nerfed long range engagements way too much. People dont fear M249 on distance and cross open places.


If you want to fix that
-reduce the energy loss,
-make 7.62 2 shots, (1.5 legs)
-slow rpm guns 3 shots (2 legs)
-900 rpm guns 4 shots (3 legs)

[DogACTUAL]

If you want to fix that
-reduce the energy loss,
-make 7.62 2 shots, (1.5 legs)
-slow rpm guns 3 shots (2 legs)
-900 rpm guns 4 shots (3 legs)

I know that the current system has some flaws, but your approach to game balance is basically the same as COD or other AAA mainstream shooters.

Nevermind the actual stats of the gun or cartridge, just assign convenient made up values to the guns to get a 'perfect balance'.

[LimitJK]

I know that the current system has some flaws, but your approach to game balance is basically the same as COD or other AAA mainstream shooters.

Nevermind the actual stats of the gun or cartridge, just assign convenient made up values to the guns to get a 'perfect balance'.

bullshit. everyone turning into a bullet sponge beyond 100m is COD.

[Vista]

Zwilling just XD'ed the gameplay mechanics

[Frontliner]

I know that the current system has some flaws, but your approach to game balance is basically the same as COD or other AAA mainstream shooters.

Nevermind the actual stats of the gun or cartridge, just assign convenient made up values to the guns to get a 'perfect balance'.

Insurgents going 30:150 is of course much more desireable than having a rather level playing field.

Zwilling's values are equally as arbitrary though the ratio is not. I much rather have a game that reflects reality rather well than having a game modelled after reality when reality causes the gameplay to suffer. Which is absolutely the case currently and was even more strongly in the first iteration.

Zwilling might deem the WW2/Nam/Falks one-shot fests fine, but I do not, and I don't care what empirical data has to say on this matter either. The game was fine before, why go out of your way to completely fuck up what worked? I don't get it.

[Jeepo]

Guys - you have a dev here answering questions and giving/taking feedback on the changes.

Stay on topic and keep this respectful - some of you are wondering close to the line.

Thanks.

[inb4banned]

I just played Vietnam and if you don't see the one shotting M14 as a problem then idk what to tell you. That gun is ridiculously over powered and completely unbalances the whole minimod. On the other hand PPSH is **** now and Mosin isn't even always 1 shot kill. G fucking G.

[Murphy]

I haven't played the latest iteration of the changed dmg values but I recall K_Rivers screwing around with very similar effect. Basically you are ruining the balance that worked for many years because you want to change something. The overall reception has been negative, so obviously things need to be reconsidered. I hope the players feedback is going to adjust the balance and not just be entertainment for forum readers.

[DogACTUAL]

Insurgents going 30:150 is of course much more desireable than having a rather level playing field. .

To be fair stuff like that also happened before the weapon changes, so i consider this anecdotal evidence at best, considering i played INS rounds that played out totally different after the update.

But i also said that i myself think there are still some flaws with the new system(12 shots at body armour with chinese pistol?)

So it would be much more interesting to look at the overall data that was collected since the update was released, like the overall KDR of all the different factions and compare that to the data before the update.

[Heavy Death]

Zwilling I'll try to explain it to you.

If you have an advantage over an enemy but he kills you because he needs way less bullets or time than its broken: basically G3 and 900rpm weapons

No, if you have an advantage and he kills you, you did not play your advantage right.

On the other hand you nerfed long range engagements way too much. People dont fear M249 on distance and cross open places.


If you want to fix that
-reduce the energy loss,
-make 7.62 2 shots, (1.5 legs)
-slow rpm guns 3 shots (2 legs)
-900 rpm guns 4 shots (3 legs)

GG on telling a dude who is trying to base damage on specific bullets characteristics to do exactly the opposite.


Why don't you guys stop whining on and on and on, provide sensible feedback, and wait until they figure new workarounds, implement barrel lenght effect and so on.

[Allahu Akbar]

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

Again, which 7.62x39? M43? M67? Where are you hard data on those?
Because according to this:
7.62x39 Ballistics Chart & Coefficient GunData.org
.223 Ballistics Chart & Coefficient GunData.org
7.62x39 still has a lot more energy than 5.56 at 650yds. (239 vs. 130 of what I assumed to be ft/lbs.), thus it makes sense for it to do MORE torso damage(to armour) than less(which is what your current system has now).
And that's also on top of the much more curved trajectory of 7.62 which makes it a lot harder to actually hit something at that range, even disregarding the lower accuracy.

If the above two links are considered inaccurate; try this:
Ballistic Calculator GunData.org
I got these results:



Also, assuming all else being equal(in this case, close enough), slower but heavier object loses less energy at long range than faster/lighter, that's basic physics.

At this point I have a feeling you're just putting in damage drop based on hearsay instead of actually having done the calculations.

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.

But it's heavily relevant when you are actually trying to put it into the game in a functional format. You can't have "properly"(because it's not, as proven above)-scaled base damage(based on momentum/energy alone) without modifying their flesh damage accordingly.

And when you don't(like right now), you get the current situation where the change is almost universally disliked.

The quoted figures make sense for torso shots, but there should logically be sacrifices to damage of limb shots.

One step at a time: at least fix 7.62x39 damage at long range, okay?
Then we can get onto flesh damage(and why 5.56 should have a sharp limb damage drop beginning at 100 or 200m depending on barrel length), how .338 shouldn't magically one-shot-kill someone at full hp by hitting their limb when 7.62x51/54 sniper rifles can't...etc.

[Vista]

Why don't you guys stop whining on and on and on, provide sensible feedback, and wait until they figure new workarounds, implement barrel lenght effect and so on.

We've been giving plenty of sensible feedback, however they've made some seriously bad changes to infantry mechanics.

INS OpFor was notorious for being shit KD wise during matches, so now let's give blufor the chance to do EVEN MORE DAMAGE, how is that ok?

And Vietnam is now memes. A fully automatic iron sight 1 shot weapon. Nice.

Maps like Sbeneh, do I even need to get started? MEC can fucking rape the syrians now.

Please stop using terms like 'whining', because people that are fine with these recent changes have no fucking idea of what they're talking about.

I'd much rather have these changes reverted tbh. Like the armour changes. Please stop changing things

[Aleon]

Please stop changing things

This is a pretty silly "hurr durr I'm an old PR player who hates everything new" attitude.

But as far as the weapon damage is concerned, it seems to apply quite well. No one is doubting here that Zwilling's intention was to make the game better, and more realistic. However this particular change fell so hard on it's face (like the turret traversal speed some time ago), that simply reverting and looking for an alternative seems more reasonable than damage control.

[Allahu Akbar]

Don't get it wrong.

We love changes to make things more realistic and improve gameplay(bodyarmour should be a factor especially at long range).

But this is both unrealistic(as proven above) AND screws gameplay(balance).

[solidfire93]

what was wrong with the old damage.. ?

[Fracsid]

Zwilling or any other developers, did you see my comment about changing damage from a static value to a pseudorandom damage range for each caliber/weapon? Is it possible?