Realism Vs. Balance

[agouti 105]

Over the past couple of days, I have been reading random threads of cries of OP and expectations of balance. I have to say that when somebody is against folding stocked rifles (being only one example) because of the "balance" issues that result, and how they are "OP" all I can think is: that's why you try to find one! On this note, many many scoped hunting rifles are based on the mauser design and could potentially make decent long range rifles, such as the remington 700, which is the basis of the m24 rifle.

 

Don't get me wrong, and I'm not trying to open up a can of worms here, but barring bodily functions, I wholeheartedly loved how the mod, and hopefully the stand alone cast "balance" (the artificial implementation of limits in an attempt to cater unnecessarily to the nonexistent concept of "fairness") totally aside.

 

Before arma II changed the bullet damages to reflect the NATO forces wearing body armor, which affected dayz, I thought bullet damages were superb. I understand the standalone, now, is an alpha, and the weapons need to be ironed out, but I expect a solid chest hit from either 7.62x54r, a 7.62x51, or even a 7.62x39 round (or even 8mm mauser?), one round to the upper chest, will sufficiently turn your insides to goo and drop you. Barring some massive reworking of human anatomy, and the fact that the zombies are of the living variety, I expect the same of them as well.

 

To sum this up, I just hope, at least regarding firearms, that bullet damages, drop, and other such factors will be implemented in such a way as to give us the visceral experience I believe the majority of the community wants. I believe red orchestra 2 has the best damage system of any game I've seen, on realism mode, with the immediate need to bandage, death from most rifle shots regardless of attempts to bandage, and the inclusion of a heart hitbox in the chest that, when hit, kills you almost instantly.

 

Regarding melee weapons, I have to say I am woefully uneducated, and have no idea as to how easily people are beaten to death with a variety of random objects.

Edited March 5, 2014 by agouti

[Valadain 270]

Balance is the number one killer of inventive play.

[Geckofrog7 1168]

Balance is the number one killer of inventive play.

And usually makes OP things even more frustrating than it already is.

[minime1000 78]

Well it is a 3rd person shooter so it can have realism only to a certain extent.

[Duenan 226]

I agree the bullet damage values need to be reworked. Any .30 cal rifle round will drop you like a rock.

 

That said the pistol rounds need to be reworked also.

 

as for balance and folding stocks and other types of weapons. IRL there's no balance. You can be killed with a shovel just as easily as a tricked out M4 or a 10/22

[srgntpepper 85]

I agree, a shot from any rifle to the chest should at least knock u out immediately, but idk about an 8mm round, i would think a few of those to the chest would be more realistic.  and zombies should only die from head shots, just my opinion.  Zombies should be harder to kill than humans

[Valadain 270]

I agree, a shot from any rifle to the chest should at least knock u out immediately, but idk about an 8mm round, i would think a few of those to the chest would be more realistic.  and zombies should only die from head shots, just my opinion.  Zombies should be harder to kill than humans

 

Zombies aren't superhuman, they are human and an 8mm round is a big dang round. I think you might be confusing it with the 9mm?

[randalmcdaniels 62]

In real life gun makers don't create firearms with the mindset that they are "balanced" against other weapons..

 

bigger rounds simply have a tendency to fuck more shit up.. leave balance to arcade games like cod and battlefield

Edited March 5, 2014 by randalmcdaniels

[agouti 105]

Well it is a 3rd person shooter so it can have realism only to a certain extent.

 

I hope that one day, this feature is removed, as it is gamebreaking. For now, I can play on hardcore servers.

 

 

I agree, a shot from any rifle to the chest should at least knock u out immediately, but idk about an 8mm round, i would think a few of those to the chest would be more realistic.  and zombies should only die from head shots, just my opinion.  Zombies should be harder to kill than humans

 

I said it askingly not because the round is anemic, but because the mauser kar98 is not in the game, but one day, if we're lucky, it might be. The 8mm mauser, or 7.92x57 is a potent round.

 

And usually makes OP things even more frustrating than it already is.

 

And Oblivion and Skyrim have neat little compasses that guide you along the way so you can't possibly mess it up. That's what I like about DayZ, it's unapologetic, and doesn't come with little helpful hints, or a tutorial, or any kind of nanny nonsense. I feel like most games these days just want to hold your hand and make it almost a movie, and not a truly interactive game.

[TIC 1050]

Well, Rocket wanted to focus the game on authenticity over balance and realism combined. With that at hand gives players a better experience on what it'd be like to play in a post-apocalyptic theme in which we call DayZ.

 

Personally, I'd like to see it being more realistic than balanced. When things become balanced there aren't any advantages or disadvantages to the things that we'd do. If something happens to be overpowering, like a weapon for example, just make it more rare so we could all assume it's a very sought out item. ;)

[Capo 323]

realism is balance. 

[Dchil 829]

WAR ISN'T BALANCED.

 

 

Wait, that should read Life isn't balanced.

But it still applies, guns shouldn't be "Balanced" because one is OP because that is how it is in real life.

[Mos1ey 6301]

Balance is important in competitive FPS games like the old Call of Duties, Counter-Strike or Quake, but the concept doesn't really apply to DayZ. If everything was balanced then there wouldn't be rare items and there would be no incentive to keep looting after you picked up the basics.

[rickenbacker 190]

Authenticity is important, realism is boring. But I'm happy as long as we get rid of the bullshit "cone of fire" mechanic. 

[xRann 126]

...But I'm happy as long as we get rid of the bullshit "cone of fire" mechanic. 

Dear god yes...a thousand times yes. Such an utter horseshit mechanic...It's like I'm playing Fallout but I can never increase my weapon skill.

 

One thing about the mod that drew me in was the fact that every firearm was lethal in the hands of someone that could aim. Even a freaking Mak could take someone kitted down. The guy with better aim was usually the victor, not the guy who got lucky because his bullet magically went where he aimed.

[akafugitive 244]

In real life gun makers don't create firearms with the mindset that they are "balanced" against other weapons..

bigger rounds simply have a tendency to fuck more shit up.. leave balance to arcade games like cod and battlefield

Not entirely true. All firearms have their strengths and weaknesses.

A .50 round has the kinetic force to tear a person in half and is intended to destroy a vehicles engine block, while used in extreme range sniping it has limitations of not being a go to firearm in any stance but prone, not being a great choice for close range combat.

A .45 has incredible stopping power at a short distance and can deliver multiple rounds on target in a split second dropping a target that may have otherwise been able to react

5.56 vs 7.62 assault rifles (eg: m4 vs ak)

5.56 being smaller and faster will hit a fleshy target and the tail end of the round will fold over the tip causing a large cavity, however requires more hits on modern body armor to defeat it.

7.62 being a larger and slower round will tumble and pass through the body causing less internal injury, requires less hits on modern body armor to defeat it.

Other DMR or bolt action platforms use the larger rounds because their barrel length adds much more velocity = higher kinetic transfer. The platform is designed for precision shooting and is able to deliver rounds to head, heart, upper spinal column much more accurately

Edited March 7, 2014 by akafugitive

[Parazight 1594]

It's hard to port balance from real life to a video game.

 

Weapons in real life are designed to be as effective as possible.  Weapons in a video game are not created and tested in a vacuum.  RL is hard to port because death is final.  RL tactics are different and the stakes are different.

 

Take the classic example as to why some rounds are hollow point and some are not.  Hollow points hit a fleshy target and expand causing as much damage as possible.  Solid bullets were used in wars to hit a soldier and only wound him.   This resulted in medics being tied up, bogging down resources.  Tactics are different IRL. Additionally, no sane soldier in a war really wants to kill other people. 

 

You can't expect realism in dayz. No one gets PTSD from a video game.  Also, zombies aren't real.

Edited July 6, 2014 by Parazight

[demongornot 23]

Balance in game is worst thing with gameplay limitation and highly limited possibility.

Real World is the most balanced thing that we can image, if it wasn't it will in fact simply not be able to exist.
Their is NO balance in real life, real life is a perfect mix of self balance and existence, which is totally different than any kind of balance from video game which only create issue.
Balance a single thing away from realism/reality cause "unbalanced" things in other part of the game, while fix them by balancing it, it will create more and more unbalanced things, which will result in a bad game such as Battlefield 3/4 which is highly unbalanced and where we have no possibility except fire weapons.
Simple game such as Unreal Tournament is not a game where balance cause issue, cause nothing is realistic, but when the game start having realistic aspect, mainly when it want to be a realistic game, more the game will be real like, more it will be self balanced, put limitations and try to reduce or rise things such as bullets damage, armor/cloth/protection damage absorption and others only cause issue.
Gameplay is essential, but gameplay mechanism is the most user killing thing with balance, we end up with a game like DayZ where the map is really huge, limited size backpack, fragile character and others things like this but a character that need to drink and eat every 30 minutes, which is again another thing that should stay away from realistic game, another stupid gameplay mechanic that just cause more issue than it can solves.

So yes, balance is bad and "real like" is the best thing when we want a realistic game, we should ONLY use pure real world data and never try to compensate them.
I hate in game where bullets in the hand kill you, in real life you can shoot enough bullets to simply destroy an hand, the guy will cry like a baby and bleed but not die from the bullet itself (a lot of people survive after loosing their hand/arm).

Don't matter what is the difference between the game and the real life, if we want something realistic, we should ONLY try to use pure real world data without balance, this is cause we try to balance the few (and sometime useless to balance stuff) difference between game and real life that we end up with a game that is totally mess up even if the base idea is really good.

 

@Rickenbacker

Unlike what we think realism and pure simulation is NOT boring, if it is, its not simulated correctly, like Arma where we have more procedure simulation than real life simulation, not behind able to climb a wall, not behind able to change weapon while moving, not behind able to manipulate objects and a lot of things like this...

The fact is that this game can have the SAME level of action than any other game such as COD or Battlefield, it just depend of the others aspects, like the map itself, if this is a really close combat map with a lot of place to cornering and with fast respawn options, even the most advanced and realistic simulation will become really active to play.
Realism itself is not boring, it just depend on what we do with that realism, and realism CAN in fact and easily be able to fit with such high action level gameplay.
Arma 3 for example if it can have realistic vehicle, DCS like aircraft (not 100%, just like Flaming Cliff) realistic vehicle, realistic wound and medical actions and others stuff like this, we will have more things to do and less time to just wait while walking 1h without shoot a bullet and even if we don't encounter actions it can still not boring, after all some people spend lot of time on forums and this is not a place where we have action, it don't mean that it is boring.
Realism is ONLY boring when it not correctly done, one shoot dead don't mean realism, mainly if we take the bullet in the hand/feet, this is just a bad/poor gameplay balance and decision caused by the fact that dev have not expecting to use manpower to do it.

Some people will say that in game like Arma, taking a bullet in the leg and don't be able to run/walk can be boring and it should result in a simple death...But i can assure you than you will prefer need to crawl behind cover, ask for extraction while trying to secure the area, get heli transport and back to the base where you are able to respawn is WAY BETTER than a system where when you are dead their is nothing left to do...
It will create action, side task, more realism and it won't be boring while getting realistic and better than actual way Arma 3 work in server where their is only perma death until mission end or respawn.

 

Realism > All

[Rigor Mortis (DayZ) 141]

Balance in game is worst thing with gameplay limitation and highly limited possibility.

<deleted for brevity>

 

Realism > All

 

Holy cow that was a hard to read rambling mess... but I have to agree that realism isn't boring and the game will improve as more realistic aspects are added.

 

Here's the things I hope they add to make the game both more realistic and more interesting:

1. Skills - hidden from the players, skills that improve as you do things.  I know other people hate this idea, but it's both realistic and adds value to a character -- win/win from my pov.

2. Animals - not just farm animals, but dangerous woodland creatures such as spiders, snakes, wolves, big cats, etc.  Something to make the wilderness a little less inviting and a little more challenging/interesting.

3. Smells - yeah, I have been told this is a stupid idea and I don't care.  Having a bar of smells at the bottom like pine, blood, rotting meat etc would add a layer of depth to the game unseen in any other game to date and could be very helpful in many situations.

4. Improved injury/medical system. Right now it's not terrible, but there is a lot of room for improvement in the medical system.

5. Increased melee weapon damage - I'm sorry, but if someone hits you with an axe in the chest, you aren't walking away without any serious injuries.

6. I could go on for some time... suffice it to say I think realism will improve the game to no end.

[Evil Minion 943]

In a sandbox game with a wide variety of game mechanics where you have to find and earn your gear its realism before balance. Because its allright if someone has superior gear as long as items are sufficiently rare.

Before arma II changed the bullet damages to reflect the NATO forces wearing body armor, which affected dayz, I thought bullet damages were superb. I understand the standalone, now, is an alpha, and the weapons need to be ironed out, but I expect a solid chest hit from either 7.62x54r, a 7.62x51, or even a 7.62x39 round (or even 8mm mauser?), one round to the upper chest, will sufficiently turn your insides to goo and drop you.

Indeed as those cartridges are pretty powerful. For the "full power" cartridges its potentially 8mm Mauser (can hold the most powder) > 7.62x54R (what we got in DayZ but with the wrong name) > 7.62x51. 7.62x39 is a intermediate power round and should be weaker but also feature less recoil. In fact weapon (barrel) length should also affect damage - thats why the M16 is more powerful than the M4 despite using the same rounds.

Also I think if the game is realitic enough its (a) creating some kind of balance on its own (as you basically model "real life balance"), (<fill in letter b here>) easier to justify still existing imbalances, (<fill in letter c here>) more diverse and interesting by creating asymmetric situations and (d) encouraging experimentation and exploration.

Edited July 7, 2014 by Evil Minion

[a_ruttle 199]

Well it is a 3rd person shooter so it can have realism only to a certain extent.

Do you even hardcore servers

[demongornot 23]

Holy cow that was a hard to read rambling mess... but I have to agree that realism isn't boring and the game will improve as more realistic aspects are added.

 

Here's the things I hope they add to make the game both more realistic and more interesting:

1. Skills - hidden from the players, skills that improve as you do things.  I know other people hate this idea, but it's both realistic and adds value to a character -- win/win from my pov.

2. Animals - not just farm animals, but dangerous woodland creatures such as spiders, snakes, wolves, big cats, etc.  Something to make the wilderness a little less inviting and a little more challenging/interesting.

3. Smells - yeah, I have been told this is a stupid idea and I don't care.  Having a bar of smells at the bottom like pine, blood, rotting meat etc would add a layer of depth to the game unseen in any other game to date and could be very helpful in many situations.

4. Improved injury/medical system. Right now it's not terrible, but there is a lot of room for improvement in the medical system.

5. Increased melee weapon damage - I'm sorry, but if someone hits you with an axe in the chest, you aren't walking away without any serious injuries.

6. I could go on for some time... suffice it to say I think realism will improve the game to no end.

 

@Rigor Mortis

Yes i agree its hard to read with i write, cause i write a lot and for avoid to make a longer wall of text i try to minimize paragraph, which is hard to read...

 

And i totally agree with what you on all the point except Skills.

I don't disagree neither, it is just that "Skills" if correctly implemented can be one of the most realistic things, cause we are not omniscient, the fact to hide them can be nice BUT we are not moron if we manage to survive (after all we start as a survivor) so we still know a thing or two about crafting for example, and a lot of thing in skill should not be based on unlock possibility but more about how well and fast we do it.

For example try to craft arrow/bow or repair engine, well we all know at least a thing or two about how to use a knife on wood and how basically an engine work, but even if we don't know, it don't mean that we will not be able to do it, we will fail to make a correct arrow (not straight and will have a leak of precision) or bow (too fragile or/and not powerful enough) or not be able to find why the engine don't start, but things like find why engine don't start should be lets to PLAYER skill, we have some sentence that say, the engine do that, do that noise, i see strange things here etc, exactly like the sick aspect of the actual game where a simple sentence told us about what we feel to help us to know what is the kind of issue without directly told us, exactly like the new berries system, but things like crafting an arrow or a bow should be something we can do from scratch and learn to do it better every time we do it again.

 

Skill system if it stay away from RPG style can be really nice, but if it become something based on XP point and levels, it will be the most disastrous thing for 

And it should affect things like medical system, we don't all know how to save life from huge injury, but i think everyone is "smart" enough to make a bandage or a tourniquets or a splint or just use a stick as a rod.

And i also agree with increasing melee damage and chance of bleeding, less damage with hand and punch and almost no chance to bleed (even while broking the nose, this is not a mortal bleeding).

Agree for animals, small things such as spider is probably not a good idea, too small (remember that game don't offer a 1:1 size scale and it can be hard to see them, so much people afraid of this and hard to make a decent 3D model of a that small thing, but random (but realistic and based on where we are) chance to get sting or bite can be better.

 

And for smell, i can only agree, those who say that this is a bad idea don't know anything about surviving.

Of course, we, humans can't track prey with smell, but we can still be able to smell things like recent fire/cooking food (mainly in this kind of surviving situation), animal poops and others strong odor like this.

Even firefight lets powder smell, same as empty can that are just consumed or dead things such as body.

But a smell bar i have to disagree, based on text it can be better, such as.

"I smell a woodfire odor" and if we want we can start to smell and we will have more text, such as, the smell become stronger, the smell feel distant etc.

If we don't "activate" the smell tracking, less text will be show.

With wind it will be a nice addition to the game, hunting is a really important part of the surviving, and an important feature should be implemented :

Tracking.

For tracking we need to be able to smell, but also see things such as trace of human/animal activity and have the ability to determinate how many time the trace was left here etc.

It can save our life from possible player that is still on the area or help us to find animals.

By the way wild animals should have higher concentration than actually, farm animals left alone, wild animals, preys or predators, mainly without a huge human presence, they can grow and zombies that should mainly stay around city (anyway in this game) should not kill them...

Tracking can be based on the empty can we can see, odors and if we stop moving next to where an animal have poop/walk or do anything that lets a trace, a game sentence should told us that we see it, but this need to evolve with skill, we don't all be able to detect animal traces in the wild, only the bigger, claws trace on tree or poop or consumed thing for example.

[Mark Darkers 151]

Well it is a 3rd person shooter so it can have realism only to a certain extent.

It is both. Don't forget first person mode and hardcore

[Mark Darkers 151]

Man you got my beans, I totally agree, the devs won't put in a saw,  mk48 or other advanced military weapons, because they are to strong, but in the mod they where super super rare. Indeed they where incredibly strong, but you deserve that after finally finding one. I mean why look for a weapon that has little to none benefits? Also the wider the variety of weapons the more intense the game is, you have a broad selection of weaker weapons and then you have the higher tier of more rare weapons, they are stronger, allot stronger, but the ammo is scarce. I think it is good that they deflect the development away from the mod, but on the weapon and damage system, they should take a look back how it in the mod was.

 

Also each part of the body should take a different amount of damage, chest area= dead. They can already spawn blood on the point of impact, so it would be a small thing to add damage detection of multipliers to the correct areas.

[agouti 105]

People use a lot of funny words when describing how bullets injure you, but realistically, this is what happens:

 

Critical organ failure:

You're trying to obliterate the heart/lungs/brainstem/spinal cord.

 

Bloodloss

Alternatively, you're trying to strike a major artery, vein, the heart, or cause enough bloodless to induce more or less something of a heart attack.

 

Hydrostatic shock is a myth. Also, I'm not sure what people mean by stopping power. It's a word often used, but I sure don't understand it.

 

Pistols work by trying to keep the projectile solid and expanding. Penetration is often an issue -there isn't enough of it. The FBI concluded in a 1980s study that the ability of the pistol to "stop" a man is directly correlated to its ability to penetrate. There we go again with that stopping power. Incapacitate? I think a criminal vs a road warrior are in a different state of mind, and thus this incapacitation nonsense is just that. You'll keep firing until you're dead dead, knowing that if you do survive, they'll just put a bullet in you or torture you for please. Or later on the down the line, maybe eat you, or haul you around, severing limbs to eat you.

 

Thus a pistol works by keeping one big hunk of lead, and trying to expand it while maintaining penetration.

 

A rifle works by speed, and making the bullet unstable in tissue, and causing it to yaw and/or fragment. Tumbling is more effective than a straight through shot. There has been research done to try to make the bullet yaw "earlier (depth wise)" in the target, such as the 5.45x39 round. While it does tumble, and in theory causes more damage than the m43 (AK) round, this tumbling is not as effective as fragmentation. The m193 compared to the m855 causes superior fragmentation, and is more effective on soft targets. I've read some versions of the 7.62 Nato round also have excellent fragmentation. This fragmentation obliterates soft tissue in a way that yawing and tumbling never will. The 5.45x39 is merely soviet propaganda.

 

Note: this graph only includes the m885, which still offer fairly good fragmentation.