Guns too Over powered at moment !

[weparo 613]

I think the best way to approach it is to consider the caliber first. I don't want my 7.62x51 weapons having the same efficiency as 5.56x45. Making everything a one-shot doesn't leave room for much variation. I'd be cool with a 1-3 shot (depending on where you hit) kill with 5.56x45.

 

No, why?! Trust me it doesn't matter what caliber! what matters is where you hit, what armor the person is wearing (if any) and how far the bullet travells. If the bullet can go all they way to you, go right though the body armour and still has energy to enter your body at a crucial spot YOU WILL DIE. Obviously a .45 should be stopable by armor and some space, a 5.56 by armor plus lot's of distance and a 7.62 by armor plus atleast one kilometer of flight.

 

I think damage should be more or less caliber unspecific. Calibers should start mattering when you shoot at distance and/or armored targets. Not damage wise.

Edited December 18, 2013 by Weparo

[Katana67 2907]

No, why?! Trust me it doesn't matter what caliber! what matters is where you hit, what armor the person is wearing (if any) and how far the bullet travells. If the bullet can go all they way to you, go right though the body armour and still has energy to enter your body at a crucial spot YOU WILL DIE. Obviously a .45 should be stopable by armor and some space, a 5.56 by armor plus lot's of distance and a 7.62 by armor plus atleast one kilometer of flight.

 

Both matter. Which is why the system needs to be tweaked. A 7.62x51 is going to cavitate in the torso far more than a .22 LR regardless of where you hit.

 

Edited December 18, 2013 by Katana67

[weparo 613]

Both matter. Which is why the system needs to be tweaked. A 7.62x51 is going to cavitate in the torso far more than a .22 LR regardless of where you hit.

 

Sure, the 7.62 makes a visible bloody mess (literally) and the .22 doesn't but the results are the same. You die. Wether it's the .22 going through you or the .308 is a difference in gore and time it takes to die. ( 2 min for the 308, 30 for the .22)

 

EDIT : That picture you posted sorta prooves my point. Look at the damage profile. All of these different calibers are the same when it comes to lethality. The only differ in lethality, or "efficiency" at longer ranges or against armor.

 

If you shoot an unarmed guy from 10 meters distance he will die (assuming you hit well), no matter if it's a .50 or a .16 (yes, .16 exists ;) )

Edited December 18, 2013 by Weparo

[thedogfoodyayho 295]

How about this:

 

M4 - 2 Shots at 100m, 3 at 200m, ect. Cuases more bleeding than 7.62 guns.

 

M91/30 - shot at 500m, 2 at 800 but knocks unconscious.

 

FNX 45 - 1-2 shots at close range, but it drops off extremely quickly.

 

Ak-74 (once its added) - Aboit the same as the M4 but causses insain bleeding, broken bones abd unconscious, but drops off quicker.

 

AKM/SKS (Once they're added) 1-2 shots at under 100m, 3 at 250.

 

Shotguns - Pellets - 4-5 pellets need to hit to kill. - Slugs - 1-shotter at close range, but loses damage very quickly. 100m - 3-shot, 200m - 7 shot. 

 

That would be some good balancs but still keeping the game realistic, in my opinion, anyway.

[xX_fr0st-w0lf_Xx (DayZ) 343]

It's not so much the gun damage.

It's the gun damage and the fact most people are dying of exhaustion/hunger/thirst that isn't made too clear which reduces health.

There will be updates soon to fix any issues though.

This here is your answer.

[Bubbajones 238]

So... the lesson here is:

 

"Don't bring a knife to a gunfight"

 

Seriously though, if you are armed with a melee weapon and encounter a survivor with a gun:

 

• run
• sneak up on em and hit them on the head
• fight head on and die.

 

 

seems like it works to me.

[weparo 613]

How about this:

 

M4 - 2 Shots at 100m, 3 at 200m, ect. Cuases more bleeding than 7.62 guns.

 

M91/30 - shot at 500m, 2 at 800 but knocks unconscious.

 

FNX 45 - 1-2 shots at close range, but it drops off extremely quickly.

 

Ak-74 (once its added) - Aboit the same as the M4 but causses insain bleeding, broken bones abd unconscious, but drops off quicker.

 

AKM/SKS (Once they're added) 1-2 shots at under 100m, 3 at 250.

 

Shotguns - Pellets - 4-5 pellets need to hit to kill. - Slugs - 1-shotter at close range, but loses damage very quickly. 100m - 3-shot, 200m - 7 shot. 

 

That would be some good balancs but still keeping the game realistic, in my opinion, anyway.

 

No. All guns are one shot kill if a vital organ is hit. If they only hit your extremities and cause flesh wounds you take basically the same amount of damage anyways. The only difference in calibers is on wether you can acctually hit your target at all / penetrate his armor.

 

A .45 wont hit that guy with a type three body armor at 60 meters. A 7.62 will.

Edited December 18, 2013 by Weparo

[Weedz 1105]

I think the best way to approach it is to consider the caliber first. I don't want my 7.62x51 weapons having the same efficiency as 5.56x45. Making everything a one-shot doesn't leave room for much variation. I'd be cool with a 1-3 shot (depending on where you hit) kill with 5.56x45.

 

5.56 does way more damage than 7.62

 

AK bullets go right through people

5.56 tumbles and fragments inside the person so the bullet can't be removed and the person can't be saved

 

Especially true when talking military FMJ which the guns you'd be finding in a barracks would be.

 

Edited December 18, 2013 by Weedz

[Katana67 2907]

Sure, the 7.62 makes a visible bloody mess (literally) and the .22 doesn't but the results are the same. You die. Wether it's the .22 going through you or the .308 is a difference in gore and time it takes to die. ( 2 min for the 308, 30 for the .22)

 

EDIT : That picture you posted sorta prooves my point. Look at the damage profile. All of these different calibers are the same when it comes to lethality. The only differ in lethality, or "efficiency" at longer ranges or against armor.

 

If you shoot an unarmed guy from 10 meters distance he will die (assuming you hit well), no matter if it's a .50 or a .16 (yes, .16 exists ;) )

 

To your first point, but how quickly one dies is dictated by the damage profile of the round. It's just ballistics.

 

The image doesn't prove your point at all. It shows a clear difference in cavitation qualities in each round. The demonstrated 7.62x39 diagram illustrates this. Maximum damage is inflicted upon impact, with a minimal penetration.

 

My point is, that until one can replicate these intimacies of ballistics, weapons will have a gradient damage profile. You cannot say that all rounds have the same lethality. Some bring people down quicker by having harsher entrance cavitation/kinetic force, it's just the way it is

[dromagewok@hotmail.com 164]

It's not the damage that is the problem it is the widespread availability of the M4. Which will change when they do loot balancing.

[Katana67 2907]

5.56 does way more damage than 7.62

 

AK bullets go right through people

5.56 tumbles and fragments inside the person so the bullet can't be removed and the person can't be saved

 

Especially true when talking military FMJ which the guns you'd be finding in a barracks would be.

 

 

And 7.62x51 has a very different ballistics profile. M855 is known for having poor terminal ballistics. It still kills folks, and the anecdotal evidence coming out of Somalia in the 90's was misleading. But it's still deficient, hence why the DoD has been reworking M855 into the M855A1 ever since.

 

 

This is an overlay of 5.56x45, 7.62x39, and 7.62x51. You can see that all cavitate at different depths and leave different permanent cavities.

 

Likewise, the charts do not take into account the degradation in range.

 

The overall point being, if you're adopting a "realism" angle... is that rounds have different range parameters, velocities, kinetic energy imparted at range, parabolic trajectories, and damage profiles. So why should all weapons therefore be dedicated killers regardless of (or only beholden to) where they hit? Until this type of intricate ballistics is simulated in tandem with accurate simulations of internal organs and bone fragmenting, a simple damage gradient is what we're going to have to deal with. And thus it warrants tweaking/balancing to make up for the faults of this type of approach.

 

It also doesn't take into account the effects that different barrel lengths have on down-range performance.

 

http://sadefensejournal.com/wp/?p=1093

 

It's not the damage that is the problem it is the widespread availability of the M4. Which will change when they do loot balancing.

 

Agreed, that is part of the problem as it was in the mod. And this sort of proves my point that DayZ is profoundly about balance. They balance the loot. They threw out .50 BMG sniper rifles and TWS assault rifles in the mod. This is balance, it doesn't mean that weapons get nerfed or are therefore made unrealistic.

Edited December 18, 2013 by Katana67

[on3c3nt 185]

A M4 is only oneshotting you, if you are low on health. Yesterday i got ~3 Bullets in the body before passing out from a guy at Balota, in my opinion the SA is a lot more realstic than the mod with its bullet damage

Edited December 18, 2013 by generelleasy

[Siberian (DayZ) 527]

yep they are ! :lol:

 

ive been one shotted 4 times on run single bullet and just black screen instantly your dead. thats with pistols and rifles on run :lol:

 

in the mod (yes i know this isnt the mod :D ) you could atleast take a few pistol shots and rifle shots to the body and one head shot but at moment aslong as you hit someone they dead with gun. this makes melee pointless as you hae no chance as your instadead. previously in mod you have a chance and with how rare guns are they do need to be balanced.

 

 

any news on if guns will be balanced soon damage wise? thanks.

LOL karmas a bitch..

 

 

you of all people complaining about being shot..

 

 

hahahah priceless..

[xKaiser 0]

Guns are supposed to be overpowered. They are guns. This isn't COD guns do what they were built for, efficiently killing humans at range. What would you expect to happen if someone shot you in the chest with an m4?

[weparo 613]

@katana, I'll bean you later for the detailled research. We have different aproaches here. I'm working with the following scenario : A guy walks in the wilderness. Said guy gets shot/wounded by a bullet. He will die. Even if he got to a working EMT/Hospital within 3 minutes, most of the cases he will just die.

 

As the guy above me said. If I were to shoot you in the lungs IRL, you would die. A .22 would kill you as much as a .50 That's unarguable imho. (.22 might be painfuller though ;) )

Edited December 18, 2013 by Weparo

[Katana67 2907]

@katana, I'll bean you later for the detailled research. We have different aproaches here. I'm working with the following scenario : A guy walks in the wilderness. Said guy gets shot/wounded by a bullet. He will die. Even if he got to a working EMT/Hospital within 3 minutes, most of the cases he will just die.

 

As the guy above me said. If I were to shoot you in the lungs IRL, you would die. A .22 would kill you as much as a .50 That's unarguable imho. (.22 might be painfuller though ;) )

 

This is where I think there is a piece missing from your argument, which I get and to an extent sympathize with. You cannot/they have not yet simulated any of these things that we're describing.

 

Your argument is hinging on a scenario, whereas mine is hinging upon mere ballistics and the current simplistic damage paradigm.

 

There are no internal organs, there are no detailed ballistics properties, there are no fragmentation models, none of these factors are simulated in DayZ. We have a very simplistic and traditional damage model, whereby round X takes away Y amount of blood if it impacts Z body part. There is no in-depth and "realistic" simulation of how a round actually impacts the body and the damage that it causes to the organs, which would thus result in a fatality. There's not even a "rate of blood loss" simulated, which would be a very simple way of demonstrating the increased lethality of certain rounds.

 

Until that arises, we're going to have to deal with the simple damage model we've got now. Which, inherent in its flaws, requires balancing. I think we're both on the same page that when you shoot a player, they should die. I've never really had trouble killing folks in DayZ, and I really like unforgiving damage models. But it's still not that simple even in a realistic scenario.

 

Take your comparison between .22 LR and .50 BMG. I reject the assertion that they both have the same level of lethality. A .50 BMG round would blow off a limb, or a chunk of flesh causing severe bleeding regardless of where it hits. .22 LR would probably get lodged inside of you somewhere, and would cause a minimal amount of damage in terms of cavitation (which doesn't mean that it's not lethal at all, it merely imparts far less less energy on the target). Hell, the round could be wholly deformed by one of your bones (as the majority of .22 LR rounds have un-jacketed lead bullets). It doesn't carry anywhere the same kinetic energy as a .50 BMG, and thus inflicts less damage on the target. There's a reason why .50 BMG is used to take out cars and .22 LR is not.

 

People used to get arrows lodged in their chests in the Middle Ages and survive with moderate (and often poor) medical treatment. Granted, that's a different example. But by virtue of rounds having different ballistic profiles, they have a gradient level of lethality. Regardless, there is no medical/body/internal organ backbone to support such a mechanic as you're describing.

 

Now, I can appreciate the argument that, in a survival situation, if you get shot you're probably going to die no matter what happens. It makes sense. But that shouldn't be simulated by having the person die outright. It should be simulated by the person attempting to heal his/her wounds in-game, if he/she escapes and/or kills the other player, with a marginal amount of success. There's a logical gap inherent in the approach you're advocating. Likewise, you're short-changing any possible medical mechanic that may have been intended for trauma wounds in DayZ.

 

Ultimately, it's a question of reconciling DayZ's emphasis on "realism" with prudent simulations of realistic scenarios, as well as the current damage paradigm.

Edited December 18, 2013 by Katana67

[dgeesio 1034]

LOL karmas a bitch..

 

 

you of all people complaining about being shot..

 

 

hahahah priceless..

not about karma its about a game mechanic which has gone from one scale to the other end in one jump. you dont do that you move it a bit then try then move again.

 

 

running round a corner then black screen your dead isnt the answer. specially from a pistol on te run with helmut on and from 200 yards away unless you robocop. that has happened 4 times in a row from one bullet.

[ryan__mc__@hotmail.co.uk 131]

Well I can say one shot don't kill you cause I pumped a guy at point blank who was charging me with an axe and hit him and he didnt die and swung his axe and thwack im dead... first gun i find and the first human that attacks me kills me no trouble.

 

And no he didnt die just slower because I spawned a hundred metres from my body and went back to it to see if we were both there and came under fire. I'd just found some a ammo box when i died too so i cant imagine he was short on ammo....

 

Now all I find is jeans.

 

Sounds more like a reg or latency issue ....i get one shooted alot from pistols.

[ryan__mc__@hotmail.co.uk 131]

All i will say is GAMEPLAY>REALISM

[Siberian (DayZ) 527]

 

 

running round a corner then black screen your dead isnt the answer.

 

u mean exactly what happens when KoS'r prey on freshie coastal spawns ???

 

 

sorry no sympathy here.. i like that basicly a single shot takes a player down/out. in a Apoc world most people would be weak and struggling to stay healthy as it is.. add a bullet to the mix, and BOOM ur dead..

[ryan__mc__@hotmail.co.uk 131]

u mean exactly what happens when KoS'r prey on freshie coastal spawns ???

 

 

sorry no sympathy here.. i like that basicly a single shot takes a player down/out. in a Apoc world most people would be weak and struggling to stay healthy as it is.. add a bullet to the mix, and BOOM ur dead..

 

Garbage

[Sputter 12]

If guns are OP... which they should be then melee is UP. I killed a guy with an axe and it took about 8+ hits with an axe to the back/head lol.

 

You ask any firearms instructor and they will tell you the same thing. It doesn't matter if its a 9mm or 45acp, two in the chest and 1 in the head does the same thing with either.

Edited December 18, 2013 by Sputter

[sobieski12 835]

Wait, you mean guns are actually realistic!? How dare they!?!

[SalamanderAnder (DayZ) 1747]

I think a better solution is actually more knockdown states and having bullets cause serious injury, shock, ect. Imagine hitting someone with a bullet to the chest. You can go on saying "one hit kill is realism" but reality would dictate otherwise. People are often shot in the torso and manage to stay conscious enough to live through the ordeal. If we want to maintain authenticity, a shot or two to the torso or leg should be an immediate knockdown. Headshots should be 1 hit kills. Implementing more animations and more knockdown states would mean it's not as simple as *bang* you're unconscious. If players fell down and were able to move and maybe even sometimes shoot while incapacitated, we would see far more balanced combat scenarios. It doesn't subtract from realism, it actually enhances it. I've seen film of police officers and soldiers who are shot and in fact manage to stay conscious and make it to safety. Adding more variables to combat naturally balances the combat, because each variable has it's own implications.

 

Imagine you see a guy in a house, and you shoot him in the chest with your rifle. Dude falls down immediately, so you assume he's dead. As you enter the house however, you find him sitting in the corner with his pistol square in your face. Blam. You're dead. That is balance. It means that people have a chance, just based on the odds of some variable like consciousness changing the scenario. Maybe certain wounds (like damage to vital organs) would result in eventual, slow death. Maybe we could see some even more realistic features like surgery and infection control. There are many possibilities. But as Katana said, it means the damage model has to be revised monumentally.

 

I'm picturing a system that would simulate each organ and it's effect on your blood level and other status modifiers. Each "organ" (basically a hitbox inside your player) would have varying damage states, similar to how items have damage states. This damage state would be based on a simple numeric health value. When those organs or particular hitboxes take impact from a bullet, or a sharp melee weapon, or even blunt force, they will receive an appropriate amount of damage and apply a corresponding effect to your player, i.e. blood loss at a certain rate, a knockdown, broken leg, unconsciousness, insta-kill, ect. If an organ is only mildly damaged, say hit by a melee weapon or a small caliber weapon, then it has the ability to heal if you apply medical treatment. If it is damaged beyond a certain threshold, then it will fail and slowly (or rapidly, depending on the organ effected) kill your character through internal bleeding, which would not be repairable with a bandage.

Edited December 18, 2013 by SalamanderAnder

[ShokeR (DayZ) 29]

I took 2-3 shoots and didn't even bleed, I think he shot you in the head