Weapon Balance vs "Realism"

[Valadain 270]

Sounds like a reasonable idea seeing improvised weapons are also coming.. has no one noted that we are in alpha thus testing everything and strangely everytime there is a new weapon is it by strange coincidence that weapon becomes one of or the most common weapon found i think not....

 

every patch weapons seem to change both in spawn rate and in firing characteristics seems to me they are testing to well um get it right????

 

You are absolutely right on the weapon spawns, they obviously want to test the new guns they are adding, which is the whole point of alpha.

 

As for the "testing firing characteristics", they are testing them alright, but not "to get it right". Arma is a heck of a lot closer. They are going the wrong way entirely, towards getting them "right for their vision" but wrong, wrong, wrong.

 

This isn't intended to be harsh or any sort of condemnation. It may very well be that I unfortunately was drawn to this game by focusing on the wrong parts of the mod (the Arma parts of realistic guns and skill-based play). I'm absolutely enjoying the game and will play it for what it will be, but I won't lie. I will be disappointed if the gun-play is completely thrown aside.

[gibonez 3633]

The fact that there is even an argument here shows how flawed the random bullet mechanic really is. An M4 is not more accurate than a Mosin. A Mosin is not more accurate than an M4. They both fire a piece of lead down a metal tube in a straight line. The difference is the shooter. Yes, a gun may have things that make it naturally more comfortable to shoot for an average person. But some of the best marksmen in the world were using a Mosin in all its wood-laden glory. Accuracy is about knowing your rifle. Range is about the bullet.

 

If you want the world to be sane to you, the other factors need to come into play. A Mosin is heavy, it will have a bit of sway, it should be found in whatever condition it was in (with or without a scope and/or compensator). An M4 is light, easier to aim, you can attach damn near anything you ever find. But at the end of the day, if you know the zero and when to pull the trigger, either gun will shoot exactly where it is supposed to shoot. Period.

 

 

While some of what you said is true it does not change the fact that some weapons are grossly inaccurate.

 

The mosin nagant is pretty darn inaccurate , 4 moa with mil surp ammo is not good by any means.

 

Meanwhile a standard heavy barrel m4 is about 2 moa. Ak74 is about 3 moa.

 

Barrel length does not equal accuracy.

[soulfirez 901]

You are absolutely right on the weapon spawns, they obviously want to test the new guns they are adding, which is the whole point of alpha.

 

As for the "testing firing characteristics", they are testing them alright, but not "to get it right". Arma is a heck of a lot closer. They are going the wrong way entirely, towards getting them "right for their vision" but wrong, wrong, wrong.

 

This isn't intended to be harsh or any sort of condemnation. It may very well be that I unfortunately was drawn to this game by focusing on the wrong parts of the mod (the Arma parts of realistic guns and skill-based play). I'm absolutely enjoying the game and will play it for what it will be, but I won't lie. I will be disappointed if the gun-play is completely thrown aside.

Yeah i can agree that some of there choices seem wack( why bullet dispersion instead of sway for gun balance) Ithink for balance of the guns they should try to balance them directly to realisim and then do the balancing of them for game terms by there spawn rate and ammo available. But hey thats just IMHO...

[Judopunch 523]

The m4's and other american stuff are left by USA forces that invaded Chernorus.

Err, I thought it was UN stuff.

[Valadain 270]

While some of what you said is true it does not change the fact that some weapons are grossly inaccurate.

 

The mosin nagant is pretty darn inaccurate , 4 moa with mil surp ammo is not good by any means.

 

Meanwhile a standard heavy barrel m4 is about 2 moa. Ak74 is about 3 moa.

 

Barrel length does not equal accuracy.

 

I never said barrel length has anything to do with accuracy. I said that accuracy has to do almost entirely with the user, not the rifle, within reasonable ranges. I've shot these rifles. Mosin, M1 Garande, and Mauser to name a few. With scopes and iron sights. At 200 yards, sights or scope zeroed, you can put a shot in a head sized target no problem. Further out, a lost more skill comes into play, but the bullet is still going to go straight, it is just a matter of aiming. That is harder on some rifles than others. But the rifle itself isn't spewing bullets randomly. It is putting the bullet down the barrel period. Just depends on where the barrel is pointed.

[gibonez 3633]

I never said barrel length has anything to do with accuracy. I said that accuracy has to do almost entirely with the user, not the rifle, within reasonable ranges. I've shot these rifles. Mosin, M1 Garande, and Mauser to name a few. With scopes and iron sights. At 200 yards, sights or scope zeroed, you can put a shot in a head sized target no problem. Further out, a lost more skill comes into play, but the bullet is still going to go straight, it is just a matter of aiming. That is harder on some rifles than others. But the rifle itself isn't spewing bullets randomly. It is putting the bullet down the barrel period. Just depends on where the barrel is pointed.

 

200 yard head shot every time yea that really depends.

 

Is the rifle a finninsh m39 using match ammo then yes.

Russian mosin using surplus ammo probably not.

[Valadain 270]

200 yard head shot every time yea that really depends.

 

Is the rifle a finninsh m39 using match ammo then yes.

Russian mosin using surplus ammo probably not.

 

I said a "head-sized" target. Again, whether you are putting the grouping in a head is all about your skill with the gun.

[gibonez 3633]

I said a "head-sized" target. Again, whether you are putting the grouping in a head is all about your skill with the gun.

 

Not when the gun is as old as the mosin and uses old surplus ammo that has inconsistent velocities and groups at 4 inches at 100 yards.

 

@ 800 yards the rounds group at 32 inches.

 

Alot of it comes down to the shooter but the shooter cannot compensate for a guns inherent accuracy.

[moxy (DayZ) 2]

Weapons and realism:

 

Standing stance needs to be nerfed into the ground, Hitting anything reliable above 200m without sling or support is for Hollywood. Id say Average Joe have a hard time hitting anything at 100m standing. Also a scope makes it harder in the standing pos. If you mount a flashlight/bipod/bayonet/hellokitty on it, your gun is useless unless you are prone. Unless CQC ie <50m

 

Side leaning stance needs to be fixed so you dont tilt your rifle, if you shoot with a tilted rifle your shot is going miles wide.

 

M4 issues: If not taken very well care of, they are prone to jamming. In the army this is not such an issue because GI Joes pick their weapon apart every day/ after every use. The dmg output is one of the other drawbacks. The M4 does not adequatly incapacitate targets, according to US military. Also to the people going on about 500m standing bullseyes evryday alllday are idiots. Infact in this thread there is someone claiming he can hit bullseye "reliably" standing from 300m. Srs bsns. He would be stomping the olympics with that accuracy, with a M4 ....

 

Mosin: Its 100y old. I dont know but i think the chances of you finding a accurate/well kept Mosin in Chernorus are like winning the powerball.

Edited February 12, 2014 by moxy

[Valadain 270]

Not when the gun is as old as the mosin and uses old surplus ammo that has inconsistent velocities and groups at 4 inches at 100 yards.

 

@ 800 yards the rounds group at 32 inches.

 

Alot of it comes down to the shooter but the shooter cannot compensate for a guns inherent accuracy.

 

Random ammo, sure, but I guess I've just never gotten surplus ammo that is random. A single batch always seems to fire the exact same way for me. Otherwise, not really sure what physics in involved that would make a bullet fly random, aside from wind and aim.

[-Gews- 7443]

Otherwise, not really sure what physics in involved that would make a bullet fly random, aside from wind and aim.

 

Lots of stuff which I'm too lazy to start listing: if rifles and ammunition were 100% precise and consistent no gun would be any more precise than another, which is an absurd concept.

[ttt2512 10]

no no no no no the point is why the fu*k are there so many m4 ? Chernarus is not American or EU .It's Russian

[gibonez 3633]

no no no no no the point is why the fu*k are there so many m4 ? Chernarus is not American or EU .It's Russian

 

Yet it is not russian.

 

It's a made up country in a video game with a Nato and Russian force occupying it.

 

Closest real life setting to Chenarus is the Czech republic.

[ttt2512 10]

Yet it is not russian.

 

It's a made up country in a video game with a Nato and Russian force occupying it.

 

Closest real life setting to Chenarus is the Czech republic.

well it kinda Russhy to me LOL .Btw this game has a background story?

[Jack Dant 158]

Yet it is not russian.

 

It's a made up country in a video game with a Nato and Russian force occupying it.

 

Closest real life setting to Chenarus is the Czech republic.

Not even close. Yes, I know the topography is based on Czech Republic. But consider:

 

1. It's on the sea. The Czech Republic is landlocked.

 

2. It borders Russia. The Czech Republic is 2 countries away from Russia, and doesn't even border a post-soviet state.

 

3. Writing is Cyrillic, pointing to a Russian or closely related language. The Czech language uses latin script and is only remotely connected to Russian.

 

4. If one accepts the Arma2 campaign as part of the setting, it's also a country caught between NATO and Russian influence. I don't think Russia has much of an influence in Czech affairs anymore.

 

From those four points, I'd say it's either a much smaller Ukraine, or a more russianized Georgia.

Edited February 12, 2014 by Jack Dant

[Lady Kyrah 1110]

I will just post this, maybe that's a solution to keep precise weapons?

[Judopunch 523]

Not even close. Yes, I know the topography is based on Czech Republic. But consider:

 

1. It's on the sea. The Czech Republic is landlocked.

 

2. It borders Russia. The Czech Republic is 2 countries away from Russia, and doesn't even border a post-soviet state.

 

3. Writing is Cyrillic, pointing to a Russian or closely related language. The Czech language uses latin script and is only remotely connected to Russian.

 

4. If one accepts the Arma2 campaign as part of the setting, it's also a country caught between NATO and Russian influence. I don't think Russia has much of an influence in Czech affairs anymore.

 

From those four points, I'd say it's either a much smaller Ukraine, or a more russianized Georgia.

"The geography of the map is actually lifted from a real-world location, around Povrly, in the north of the Czech Republic."

 

http://img.gawkerassets.com/post/9/2012/08/compare.jpg

 

http://kotaku.com/5937172/these-guys-went-to-the-real-dayz-island-dressed-up-and-took-pictures

 

But hey. You can make a list of numbers. And sound smart. So high-five!

Edited February 12, 2014 by Judopunch

[Jack Dant 158]

"The geography of the map is actually lifted from a real-world location, around Povrly, in the north of the Czech Republic."

 

http://img.gawkerassets.com/post/9/2012/08/compare.jpg

 

http://kotaku.com/5937172/these-guys-went-to-the-real-dayz-island-dressed-up-and-took-pictures

 

But hey. You can make a list of numbers. And sound smart. So high-five!

I acknowledged that in my post. But geography does not equal setting. Geography is just the layout of the terrain and towns, not the history, language and culture of the area.

 

If I take a map of British Columbia, change the town names to Russian, and make up a storyline with references to Siberia, you should expect vodka, not maple syrup.

[Judopunch 523]

I acknowledged that in my post. But geography does not equal setting. Geography is just the layout of the terrain and towns, not the history, language and culture of the area.

 

If I take a map of British Columbia, change the town names to Russian, and make up a storyline with references to Siberia, you should expect vodka, not maple syrup.

Tuché

[-Gews- 7443]

Here's a good example I saw on Reddit today:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This guy found an SKS and of course dropped his tricked out suppressed M4 with a bipod and red dot and 4 magazines of ammunition.

 

 

 

Dropping all that for an SKS?

 

When you notice the majority of players tending to make choices like this, it's obvious that many real-life characteristics are wrong or entirely absent.

[Daemonkid 493]

Weapons are situational. 

Your M4 may be a superior weapon platform. But ingame, i'm going to see you before you see me and at a range you won't be able to land shots accurately.

Nugget all the way baby. 

[frosti 2165]

Here's a good example I saw on Reddit today:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This guy found an SKS and of course dropped his tricked out suppressed M4 with a bipod and red dot and 4 magazines of ammunition.

 

 

 

Dropping all that for an SKS?

 

When you notice the majority of players tending to make choices like this, it's obvious that many real-life characteristics are wrong or entirely absent.

 

7.62 bullets just do way more damage then 5.56 in game.

 

SKS is semi automatic gun, 10 shots.

 

So if you bump into a guy with m4 at distance 100 meters, you will win, becouse you will need 2-3 shots from SKS to kill him while he will need 4-6 shots from m4 to kill you.

 

That's why SKS is currently the best gun in game.

[-Gews- 7443]

7.62 bullets just do way more damage then 5.56 in game.

 

SKS is semi automatic gun, 10 shots.

 

So if you bump into a guy with m4 at distance 100 meters, you will win, becouse you will need 2-3 shots from SKS to kill him while he will need 4-6 shots from m4 to kill you.

 

That's why SKS is currently the best gun in game.

 

Yes, which shows things needs to be changed, it wouldn't matter either way in real life- the person who shot the other first would be the likely victor, not based on what rifle they happen to be carrying... and it's also arguable that the 5.56 causes worse wounds within that range.

[sabaka (DayZ) 70]

Weapons and realism:

 

Standing stance needs to be nerfed into the ground, Hitting anything reliable above 200m without sling or support is for Hollywood. Id say Average Joe have a hard time hitting anything at 100m standing. Also a scope makes it harder in the standing pos. If you mount a flashlight/bipod/bayonet/hellokitty on it, your gun is useless unless you are prone. Unless CQC ie <50m

 

Side leaning stance needs to be fixed so you dont tilt your rifle, if you shoot with a tilted rifle your shot is going miles wide.

 

M4 issues: If not taken very well care of, they are prone to jamming. In the army this is not such an issue because GI Joes pick their weapon apart every day/ after every use. The dmg output is one of the other drawbacks. The M4 does not adequatly incapacitate targets, according to US military. Also to the people going on about 500m standing bullseyes evryday alllday are idiots. Infact in this thread there is someone claiming he can hit bullseye "reliably" standing from 300m. Srs bsns. He would be stomping the olympics with that accuracy, with a M4 ....

 

Mosin: Its 100y old. I dont know but i think the chances of you finding a accurate/well kept Mosin in Chernorus are like winning the powerball.

 

http://www.colt.com/ColtLawEnforcement/Products/ColtAdvancedLawEnforcementCarbine.aspx

 

-So a weapon that weighs less than 7 pounds is too heavy to use standing without support? I think not.

 

-Red dot optic makes it harder to shoot while standing? Have you ever seen or used a red dot optic in real life? My r700 with a 4-16x scope is much more difficult to use standing, but that's a little different from a non-magnifying red dot.

 

- M4 needs constant cleaning? Here's a real life stress test thread: 

http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=3&f=7&t=521547

It seems like a lot of these real life users can go through well over 1000 rounds of surplus ammo without a problem. Since the ammo in game is presumably quality ammo since it's found in military bases you should be good for several thousand rounds. Just require use of weapon cleaning kit every 2.5k rounds. I personally doubt that I've shot more than 500 rounds through one specific M4 in game, maybe your experience is different.

 

-M4 does not adequately incapacitate targets? That's complete drivel. If an unarmored human takes a center of mass (or certainly head) hit from a 5.56 round coming out of a rifle they're going down. Period. If you think otherwise it's time to stop watching movies and live in the real world. Did you even watch that ballistics gel video I posted earlier?

 

-Reliable bullseyes at 300m. On an official 100yrd rifle target the black is 6-3/8" diameter. Any practiced shooter, with proper optic and sling (which I realize is not in game but I have one in real life), while standing, should be able to hit a target that size at HALF of a rifle's effective range fairly reliably. If you look back at my gun porn picture, the three of us who own all those shoot most weekends. We'd be happy to have you along and demonstrate if you'd like. When we're shooting rifle we prop up clay pigeons (which are actually only 4.3" diameter) at a variety of ranges and fire away. After a few shots to get the zeroing fixed in our heads they go down pretty reliably. 

 

Now if you want to make the case that Joe Average sucks at shooting, so the M4 shouldn't be accurate past 50m that's fine. But if I can't hit a person sized target with an M4 at 100m in game then I shouldn't be able to hit a cow at 100m with the Mosin. Considering I've seen someone get sniped from 300m+ with the Mosin in game I'd say something is wrong.

 

 

edit: just for fun:

http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~loebinfo/loebinfo/Proportions/human1.gif

Here's a link to standard human dimensions. The torso target box is 1'-6" by 2'-4". Make a target that big and anyone who has ever shot a gun before should be able to hit it with a properly zeroed optic at <300m basically every time. As far as lethality a shoulder shot may not kill you outright but don't tell me you'd take a 5.56 round through the shoulder and then jump back up and fight. With the way the bullet yaws you'd almost certainly lose complete use of an arm and might go into shock.

Edited February 12, 2014 by sabaka

[b0bhasb1tcht1ts 0]

Weapons and realism:

 

Standing stance needs to be nerfed into the ground, Hitting anything reliable above 200m without sling or support is for Hollywood. Id say Average Joe have a hard time hitting anything at 100m standing. Also a scope makes it harder in the standing pos. If you mount a flashlight/bipod/bayonet/hellokitty on it, your gun is useless unless you are prone. Unless CQC ie <50m

 

Side leaning stance needs to be fixed so you dont tilt your rifle, if you shoot with a tilted rifle your shot is going miles wide.

 

M4 issues: If not taken very well care of, they are prone to jamming. In the army this is not such an issue because GI Joes pick their weapon apart every day/ after every use. The dmg output is one of the other drawbacks. The M4 does not adequatly incapacitate targets, according to US military. Also to the people going on about 500m standing bullseyes evryday alllday are idiots. Infact in this thread there is someone claiming he can hit bullseye "reliably" standing from 300m. Srs bsns. He would be stomping the olympics with that accuracy, with a M4 ....

 

Mosin: Its 100y old. I dont know but i think the chances of you finding a accurate/well kept Mosin in Chernorus are like winning the powerball.

 

I couldn't resist commenting on a couple of the things you stated

 

You really believe that adding a flashlight/bipod to your weapon renders it useless unless you're prone? Ah yes... That makes complete since... Now i know why I'm such a terrible shot when I'm standing... Come on... That's complete BS

 

Also, adding a scope to your AR would make it almost impossible to shoot, i'm assuming you mean useless prone? Then why does almost every one that owns an AR have optics on their rifle. In addition to my bipod, I have a 1-4x optic on mine and I have no issue shooting standing. Have you ever shot a firearm?

 

"The M4 does not adequatly incapacitate targets, according to US military." - I would love to see your source for that. If the 5.56/M4 Carbine didn't adequately incapacitate targets, the US Military would not issue it.