Page 25 of 26

Re: Infantry weapon damage changes

Posted: 2017-07-03 19:20
by Frontliner
Wing Walker wrote:They must be just waiting for you to volunteer your personal time to work on it...

What an ungrateful prick.
I'm under no obligation to approve of every decision the dev team has made and is going to make in the future. If you think I'm supposed to cheer them regardless of what they do you're quite mistaken.

The damage system update was rushed and not very well thought out, it was implemented very poorly, it wasn't well received, and worst of all the criticism against it has been met with a wall of silence more or less. You think that's not worthy of criticism? I've criticised people for way less.


Oh, and although I'm not a programmer or developer I've took a few years of basic computer science in my later school years and judging by code lines I've seen I should be able to handle it. But it's obviously easier to simply go back to the previous code lines.

Re: Infantry weapon damage changes

Posted: 2017-07-03 21:10
by Mushrooms
Hey everybody let's keep some perspective, eh? It's a game, the devs work on it for *free*, and we play it for *fun*. Harsh words have no place here.

Re: Infantry weapon damage changes

Posted: 2017-07-03 21:24
by DogACTUAL
Pistols, shotguns, PDWs and SMGs need to be fixed and need to pack a proper punch again. Dynamic DMG at longer ranges needs to be made less prevalent. The effect of dynamic DMG right now is too much.

Battle rifles are quite good right now, but could still use some fine tuning to balance them. What to exactly do with them is very difficult to determine though.

Re: Infantry weapon damage changes

Posted: 2017-07-03 23:02
by Kingy
Battle rifles are quite good right now
Right up until your on a map in which there is a conventional force with body armour against an unconventional force without.


I don't think most people who play this game care whether or not the new model is more or less realistic, what they care about is just how god awful the balancing is as a result.

Re: Infantry weapon damage changes

Posted: 2017-07-03 23:23
by DogACTUAL
Well... i did say they could use some fine tuning but i don't see any huge issue with them. I was playing as rebel against MEC recently and had no issue fighting against the other team, through good use of positioning and playing carefully.

You have to give those rifles a good punch, otherwise they become irrelevant because of their low ROF, low magazine capacity and high recoil. Before the update the difference in power between battle rifles and regular assault rifles was not great enough to make the battle rifles attractive to the regular player.

Re: Infantry weapon damage changes

Posted: 2017-07-04 00:09
by X-Alt
Mushrooms wrote:Here's some Skorpion footage. I encourage everyone to record gameplay that demonstrates the new balance, as it's more convincing.

.32 ACP is not 9mm

Re: Infantry weapon damage changes

Posted: 2017-07-04 04:12
by obpmgmua
X-Alt wrote:.32 ACP is not 9mm
skorpion was always bad. now it's worse.

Re: Infantry weapon damage changes

Posted: 2017-07-04 05:41
by Heavy Death
Kingy wrote:I don't think most people who play this game care whether or not the new model is more or less realistic, what they care about is just how god awful the balancing is as a result.
Yup, because those who would have cared have left the player base and the dev team a few years ago.

If this was put in in 0.8 it would be the shit, now it is just shit. Vox populi.

Re: Infantry weapon damage changes

Posted: 2017-07-04 10:21
by FLAP_BRBGOING2MOON
Frontliner wrote:1.) You revert the change. Doing so gives you ALL THE TIME IN THE WORLD YOU COULD EVER ASK FOR TO GET THE TEAM ON BOARD WITH THE NEXT ITERATION while WE can finally play properly again and stop bitching.

<No, there isn't a 2.). Literally all you have to do to calm us down is revert>
seems like this would be the best option. Sorry zwilling the community doesn't like your product, its time to come to terms with the facts.

Re: Infantry weapon damage changes

Posted: 2017-07-04 10:55
by viirusiiseli
Frontliner wrote:and up to 1000 rounds of 7.62 caliber coax machine guns next to cannons and autocannons
Oh yeah lmao

Everything I hate about this new KE damage change except for this and using MMGs in INS, which kinda makes me want to keep the new model.

Can stay out for twice as long with armor if you have a vehicle with fast firing coax saving your main gun rounds

Despite the previous shitty additions like bullet drop on a coax that has laser range irl and crazy af deviation, coax absolutely rapes insurgents now

Re: Infantry weapon damage changes

Posted: 2017-07-04 12:54
by Jeepo

Re: Infantry weapon damage changes

Posted: 2017-07-04 16:19
by tankninja1
'[R-MOD wrote:Jeepo;2168100']
Yeah pretty much. A lot of the unconventional forces weapons are just horribly useless now, almost worse than when Insurgent kits were revamped to have no real equipment. I mean if Insurgents got their pre-1.0 kit layouts back BLUFOR would never win anymore because the pre-1.0 Insurgent kits were a lot more useful.

Re: Infantry weapon damage changes

Posted: 2017-07-04 16:50
by X-Alt
Heavy Death wrote:Yup, because those who would have cared have left the player base and the dev team a few years ago.

If this was put in in 0.8 it would be the shit, now it is just shit. Vox populi.
If it was put in 0.8 TG would whine it out of the game. Deviation barely survived the .7-8x shitstorm, and now everybody wants it to be strong again.

The old PR playerbase is dead, and they all cried "gamplay over realism, Project Reality was just a codename reee"

Re: Infantry weapon damage changes

Posted: 2017-07-04 17:13
by FFG
'[R-MOD wrote:Jeepo;2168100']
Video from 1.4.8 .....
https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f604-p ... gelog.html

Re: Infantry weapon damage changes

Posted: 2017-07-04 23:04
by Mostacho
Wing Walker wrote:A pistol round at 30m-50m in combat?
it works perfectly.
Dude, look at the video again, he hit the guy about 15-20 times within 30m before wounding him, that is not good for CQB that is just broken as fuck, any rifle is better at that range, i dare to say that even a sniper rifle can kill faster if the enemy is not moving.

Maybe this damage system is good, bud in other game running in other engine

All maps, terrains, layouts, teams equipment, arrangement of constructions, recoil and spread of the guns,basically everything were balanced and corrected several times over 10 years based on the old system

This change came out of nowhere, and was very poorly thought and little tested,of everything in this game that is unrealistic as fuck, it only changed the dmg and even that is not realistic yet

it simply does not adapt to the game as it was done....

People play pr because it has a unique gameplay, not because it is realistic, it never was and never will be because of the engine

Re: Infantry weapon damage changes

Posted: 2017-07-05 00:15
by Mouthpiece
Frontliner wrote:@Mineral

Here's what you should do. 1.) You revert the change. Doing so gives you ALL THE TIME IN THE WORLD YOU COULD EVER ASK FOR TO GET THE TEAM ON BOARD WITH THE NEXT ITERATION while WE can finally play properly again and stop bitching.
I don't see any other option right now as this one. I mean, if the community is so strongly against a dubious change that after playtesting it for quite a time they've deemed it totally unnecessary by just comparing the gunplay in PR versions before the weapon damage update and the way PR plays now.

DEVs, can you please answer - you didn't revert the inf weapon damage back to the old version in the v1.4.12.0 because it's hard? if it's not a hard /time consuming process then I wonder why these changes are still present? They did break a lot of weapons (small arms) in this game, people are raging, the INS gamemode is basically broken (more broken then before, dare I say). Why aren't you just reverting them until they get fixed? Or it's a normal situation for a mod that's far past 1.0 to contain broken elements?

I understand that from the DEV perspective it's not easy to come out with words "we're fucked up a little", but as we're such a small community, we should be more tight knit and the way I see it being possible is for you to change some of your DEVilish ways. You should change with time and adapt to the new circumstances.

Re: Infantry weapon damage changes

Posted: 2017-07-05 06:35
by Dr Rank
We're never afraid to admit we messed up, heck we do it all the time, it's an occupational hazard when attempting to innovate with a fluctuating team of volunteers from around the world who fit development in whenever they can do so within their 'real life' circumstances. That isn't a bandaid style excuse that covers us for all mistakes either by the way, we are always working to try and improve our systems and communications so moving forward we can try to learn from our mistakes.

We're currently examining this very closely, as a team. For those who didn't see Mineral's reply to the poll thread that was subsequently removed:
[R-DEV]Mineral wrote:We aren't doing public poll on the subject atm. Not cause we don't think the results would be important, but we first still have to figure out within the PR team what we feel of the current implementation. Things aren't black & white.

I know there is much debate on the subject, but please give us the time to handle this right.

Re: Infantry weapon damage changes

Posted: 2017-07-05 11:15
by Paine
Thanks Dr. Rank, and all the other guys working on this mod still after this long.

Beyond that, I would just like to bump a few posts:
X-Alt wrote:If it was put in 0.8 TG would whine it out of the game. Deviation barely survived the .7-8x shitstorm, and now everybody wants it to be strong again.

The old PR playerbase is dead, and they all cried "gamplay over realism, Project Reality was just a codename reee"
Here's the "reee" I think you were referring to:
Portable.Cougar wrote:Image

One of the first changes made to BF2 with PR mini-mod v0.1 was to increase weapon damage. The effect made PR brutal, and more deadly. It forced players to really think about crossing an open road. The change made gameplay more realistic. The reason we have been playing PR for more than a decade and still love to play it is because it forces realistic gameplay. PR forces us to think, communicate, and act as a team to win. That is the spirit of PR.
.
This patch makes gameplay unrealistic and unbalanced. Standard rifles are ineffective at medium and long ranges, movement is restricted because of the return of 1 hit incapacitations, and certain factions are seriously unbalanced.

This patch does make ballistics more realistic on paper, but It does so by making terminal ballistics more unrealistic in outcome. We appreciate the work done by the Devs in adding new content to the game. Damage drop off at range might be a good idea, but we believe that there are unintended consequences of the change to infantry weapons damage as implemented.

1.4.8 Forces Unrealistic Gameplay

Before this patch, with an M4, or an AK74, or an AK47 one could effectively incapacitate an enemy player wearing body armor. In 1.4.8 the player cannot do this; because they must make 4 hits to the chest at 300m, on a moving target, in a few seconds.

With this patch, we no longer have to think before crossing a road. The danger is gone at medium ranges.

There is one exception to this for small arms in the machine gun and other 7.62x51mm weapons. So, all a squad need do is make sure there is not a machine gun. If there is no machine gun, the squad can have a leisurely stroll across whatever distant open field or road or river they wish. Each player absorbing three bullets or more as they do. At a minimum, any player in this patch can usually get to cover before being hit by round 4. The game is now less about fire and move, and more about knowing how far the enemy is and counting how many times you have been shot.

In effect, any enemy that shoots at the squad at distance with a standard rifle is ineffective, and only reveals their position. So, no intelligent player with a standard weapon will shoot at distance. There is a mantra we use when we squad lead ”Don’t shoot at it if you can’t kill or suppress it”. We are now in the position of telling everyone not to shoot. The unrealism of a rifle being ineffective at 300m, or even 600m, should be obvious.

At long range, the numbers speak for themselves. Every standard issue rifle takes 5 or more shots to incapacitate an armored player in the chest at 600m. Russia’s standard rifle takes 11 shots. At long range, standard rifles are completely ineffective. Unless you have a G3, which maintains pre-patch damage values with the 7.62x51mm round, except at close range which is 1 hit to incapacitate to the pelvis and unarmored torso.

While most long range engagements are made ineffective using standard rifles, 7.62x51 damage values make most engagements too deadly. One hit kills to the pelvis and unarmored targets makes movement ineffective, because a player will use the advantage of 7.62x51 and stay in one place, waiting for the 1 hit kill opportunity. The player without the advantage of 7.62x51 damage values will not move at all when threatened by it. We witnessed this happen last time 1 hit kills were possible with headshots. It drastically changed gameplay for the worse. This patch has simultaneously made long range fire mostly ineffective, and movement to contact ineffective.

1.4.8 is Unbalanced

The MEC standard rifle vs the NATO standard rifle is the starkest example of this patch making PR unbalanced. Kashan is one of the oldest maps still on rotation, and still very popular. On Kashan, at any range, the G3 does more damage. At 50m, 2 shots to the chest incapacitate vs. 3 shots from the M16. At 300m, 2 shots vs 4. At 600m, 4 shots vs 7 from the M16. Any discussion of rate of fire or recoil seems to us to be a non-argument given these numbers, but some think it is a good argument, so we will address it.

On Kashan engagements occur between the bunkers, and from the bunkers to the mountains, so always more than 300m. A BLUFOR rifleman at north bunkers must hit a MEC rifleman on south bunkers 4x in the chest to incapacitate him, while the MEC rifleman needs 2 hits only. More importantly than unbalancing damage, this allows mec an unfair advantage in their freedom of movement from cover to cover. Movement and fire are the cornerstone of infantry combat in PR.

Unarmored targets are even more unbalanced. Again, the numbers speak for themselves, but for effect: On Sbeneh, a G3 1 shot incap to chest at 50m vs AK47s 2 shots; 2 shots at 300m vs 4 shots (or if the unarmored player has 10% damage from a fall, 1 shot incap from G3 at 300m); and 2 shots to kill at 600m. The rebel rifleman would have to hit the MEC player 10 times to incap at 600m.

RU vs NATO and RU vs IDF are the only maps balanced in this patch, given the relative similarities in damage values between 5.56x45 and 5.45x39. Devs should play closer attention to these maps. Clearly MEC and unarmored faction maps are unbalanced.

Recommendations

Change the damage values back to the old incapacitate values. 1.4.8 infantry damage changes are not just a content update, they are a gameplay and balance change, and should be treated as such. Neither gameplay or balance needed drastic fixing before.

PR is realism in gameplay, not in detail. 1.4.8 has made gameplay unrealistic and unbalanced.

That said, If you will not roll back the changes entirely, we suggest that you make the following adjustments:

Changes that make standard rifles slightly less effective at longer range is a gameplay change that may have positive effects on gameplay realism. It must however be balanced between factions, and if damages at longer ranges are left as drastically low as they are in 1.4.8, gameplay will remain unrealistic as detailed in this post.


Dmg suggested for all standard Rifles, Squad MGs, and Marksman:

Minimum 2 hits to incap at any range.
Maximum 2 hits at 50m.
Maximum 3 hits at 300m.
Maximum 4 hits at 600m.

Summary

This patch misunderstands the spirit and intent of Project Reality. PR is and has always been about Reality in effect and gameplay. This patch is reality in detail and on paper.

1.4.8 has made PR unrealistic and unbalanced.

Please:

Decrease all damage values drastically for 7.62x51 in standard rifles (G3, FAL, M14).
Remove the one shot incapacitate for all weapons (except possibly sniper rifles).
Increase damage for 5.45x39, 5.56x45, and 7.62x39, especially at range.
Increase damage for pistol and SMG rounds at close range.
Increase damage for buckshot at close range.

Thank you,

A bunch of guys still waiting for Fast Ropes.

Re: Infantry weapon damage changes

Posted: 2017-07-05 16:04
by Bonecrusher76
Frontliner wrote:@Mineral

Here's what you should do. 1.) You revert the change. Doing so gives you ALL THE TIME IN THE WORLD YOU COULD EVER ASK FOR TO GET THE TEAM ON BOARD WITH THE NEXT ITERATION while WE can finally play properly again and stop bitching.

<No, there isn't a 2.). Literally all you have to do to calm us down is revert>
Yes.

1. Revert

2. Buff 7.62 MBR (and possibly marksman rifles)

3. Possibly make changes to SMGs? I never used them much, but nobody complained about them before, and they didn't seem unbalanced to me.

4. Did the smoke trail blindness on the TOWs ever get fixed?

5. Whatever happened to fragmentation RPG rounds?

6. A system to make an enemy go "dead dead" would add tremendously to the gameplay dynamics. Headshots should do this from all rifles. I was told that my idea for "arresting" people isn't possible in the engine, but there has to be something similar that could be implemented.

7. Buff the infantry grenade launchers; they never were very useful.