Why does the cross bow do more damage than the m4?

[gibonez 3633]

What is needed is more incapacitation effects such as being knocked to the ground, not an increase to lethality. There are a lot more soldiers that have been injured in combat, we're treated and survived then killed.

 

Absolutely.

 

I would honestly love a weight system added to firearms.

 

Get shot in the chest or head when you have a helmet the weight knocks you off balance and down.

[akafugitive 244]

You guys need to understand the downfall of what you are asking for. Increasing lethality does not make things more realistic, it makes a single man more capable of causing an unrealistic level of devastation. If my m4 instantly killed every time with 1-2 body shots I would be able to rapidly wipe an entire crew of guys in seconds. They would not have a chance to apply pressure on me and beat me with volume of fire because volume of fire would have no value. You see this in games like battlefield, that is why combat is fast and decisive. Your problem would not be solved, it would make it worse.

Edited April 20, 2014 by akafugitive

[akafugitive 244]

Absolutely.

I would honestly love a weight system added to firearms.

Get shot in the chest or head when you have a helmet the weight knocks you off balance and down.

I've seen it happen actually, my friend and I were attacked by some guy when he got shot and went unconscious, when he woke up he was not bleeding or very badly injured but his ballistic helmet was ruined

Momentum needs to play a part in how you collapse. I know the physics with rag doll will allow for this when done. Get shot when stationary and you will fall backwards based on the range of motion your body has(skeleton flexibility).

Unlike another movie myth; While running forward you do not get thrown backwards, you will continue on in the same direction your momentum carries you, you still are larger and have more mass then the projectile hitting you. Even when hit by a car, most will be throw over, under, or to the side of the vehicle, not rocketed in the air in the opposite direction they were traveling.

Edited May 5, 2014 by akafugitive

[VPPTrue 9]

Ugh, people in here are trying to get scientific and failing. It's actually a very simple equation. F=Ma- Force equals mass multiplied by acceleration. The crossbow bolt is not much heavier than the m4 round, yet the m4 round accelerates much, much faster. There is no way that an m4 round exerts less force than a crossbow, mathematics simply won't allow it. Think about it. Why would armies today use a rifle when a crossbow is more effective? They don't because it's not. 

[-Gews- 7443]

Momentum needs to play a part in how you collapse. I know the physics with rag doll will allow for this when done. Get shot when stationary and you will fall backwards based on the range of motion your body has(skeleton flexibility).

Guess the speed imparted to the man in this simple collision... the answer is 0.082 ft/s. Almost nothing.

The rag doll should barely be affected by bullets, it should depend almost entirely on the movement and position of the player prior to being shot... and I suppose if they give the objects correct mass and such this is what will happen. So stationary and "instant kill" could result in falling in any direction really.

[sobieski12 835]

Imagine if the arrows had curved thorns to prevent the victim from pulling it out, without massive tear damage.

* Players would need serious field surgery for such hits.

Edited April 20, 2014 by Sobieski12

[akafugitive 244]

Guess the speed imparted to the man in this simple collision... the answer is 0.082 ft/s. Almost nothing.The rag doll should barely be affected by bullets, it should depend almost entirely on the movement and position of the player prior to being shot... and I suppose if they give the objects correct mass and such this is what will happen. So stationary and "instant kill" could result in falling in any direction really.

Yeah that's what I mean by skeletal limitations and mass, if their legs gave out first chances are the body will tumble backwards because the knees will fold forwards, if the torso crumples they will fall forward, etc.

I think some of the limitations to allowing collapse currently are the animation ties to it, when it is changed to physics based it should be less buggy and start allowing stuff like this to function as it should

[akafugitive 244]

Ugh, people in here are trying to get scientific and failing. It's actually a very simple equation. F=Ma- Force equals mass multiplied by acceleration. The crossbow bolt is not much heavier than the m4 round, yet the m4 round accelerates much, much faster. There is no way that an m4 round exerts less force than a crossbow, mathematics simply won't allow it. Think about it. Why would armies today use a rifle when a crossbow is more effective? They don't because it's not.

You are using force as your only factor, I use the science of war. Bullets kill because of kinetic energy transfer and round fragmentation, using that in comparison to another weapon that does not use force to kill is why they are less effective in that regard.

The truth is that war was much more dirty and deadly when we used swords and arrows to kill each other. The game of putting your enemy at a disadvantage is in the age of firearms. When I can hit a target 300m away and we call that mid range engagement then the guy with ancient tech has no chance, period.

The real simple fact is bullets cause a lot of damage and so do arrows, bullets pass through, deflect or cause high amounts of damage to the area they hit. Arrows pull themselves towards to core of what they stick in, if this is a human then there are a lot of vital components there. A military grade firearm is far superior because it can fire in rapid succession, engage at longer ranges and are much more accurate.

You cannot kill a target you never hit...

Edited April 20, 2014 by akafugitive

[BeefBacon 1185]

Why do crossbows do more damage? Do you think it might be down to balance? If all weapons were true to life then nobody would want anything other than an M4 unless they're going to attempt a 1000m+ shot. Crossbows have a clear drawback - that being that they can only fire one shot before reloading, as well as (probably) having a pretty short range. Why would anybody ever use the crossbow if it didn't have the capacity to kill in 1 - 2 hits?

 

The M4 is short-medium range with a high fire rate. The Mosin is medium - long range with a low fire rate and is extremely loud. What's the point in adding a short range, low fire rate, low damage quiet weapon? The bow I can understand because as far as I'm aware it'll be a craftable low-tier weapon, but the crossbow should have clear advantages and disadvantages and not just be a liability.

[DropBearChick 1216]

A weak crossbow would be like a sporter with 1 bullet chambered.

[akafugitive 244]

I agree that twitch response needs to be dealt with but increasing lethality across the board will just make the medical system utterly pointless. Weapons should primarily make people dieing, not dead. Organized groups should have the upper hand and will be able to get to and treat their casualties if they are effective.

Again, more incapacitation. I cover it in a lot of detail in my suggestion thread about the player posted in my signature.

Edit* there is a great mod I use with arma 3 called tpw, it makes it so when you or AI are hit you drop into the sideways prone stance. It effectively pauses your momentum without killing you/them making it easier to continue to pepper them without twitch response. If you move to another target and leave them alone they do have a chance to become combat effective again though.

Edited April 20, 2014 by akafugitive

[ref 19]

Ugh, people in here are trying to get scientific and failing. It's actually a very simple equation. F=Ma- Force equals mass multiplied by acceleration. The crossbow bolt is not much heavier than the m4 round, yet the m4 round accelerates much, much faster. There is no way that an m4 round exerts less force than a crossbow, mathematics simply won't allow it. Think about it. Why would armies today use a rifle when a crossbow is more effective? They don't because it's not. 

 

Crossbow bolts are much heavier than m4 rounds. Armies today do not use crossbows because they are less accurate (the crossbow flies slower), much much much harder to reload, much harder to carry around ammunition, have decreased range, more cumbersome, less reliable etc.

[scriptfactory 620]

Crossbow bolts should do the same amount of damage as a .22 but it should also cause a Bleeding status that can't be bandaged until all bolts are removed. Also, the bolt damage should apply twice; once on entry and once when the bolt gets removed. Removing a crossbow bolt from someone's body while their Blood level is low should have a chance of killing them or forcing them unconscious.

Edited April 20, 2014 by scriptfactory

[TheScruffyBandit 382]

A weak crossbow would be like a sporter with 1 bullet chambered.

Unfortunately, a 10/22 is much more lethal in real life than it is in game, just like every other weapon.

[agouti 105]

You are using force as your only factor, I use the science of war. Bullets kill because of kinetic energy transfer and round fragmentation, using that in comparison to another weapon that does not use force to kill is why they are less effective in that regard.

The truth is that war was much more dirty and deadly when we used swords and arrows to kill each other. The game of putting your enemy at a disadvantage is in the age of firearms. When I can hit a target 300m away and we call that mid range engagement then the guy with ancient tech has no chance, period.

The real simple fact is bullets cause a lot of damage and so do arrows, bullets pass through, deflect or cause high amounts of damage to the area they hit. Arrows pull themselves towards to core of what they stick in, if this is a human then there are a lot of vital components there. A military grade firearm is far superior because it can fire in rapid succession, engage at longer ranges and are much more accurate.

You cannot kill a target you never hit...

 

Bullets don't cause damage because of transfer of kinetic energy. They kill because of organ failure and bloodless. It just so happens turning forward kinetic energy into a bullet fragmenting with kinetic energy in multiple directions causes greater tissue damage and a higher likelihood of organ failure and more bloodloss. Regarding military vs civilian accuracy, this is a moot point, both can be quite accurate, and most distances are less than 300 meters. Rapid fire plays a large part though.

 

 

Edit: Hydrostatic Shock is a lie.

Edited April 20, 2014 by agouti

[minime1000 78]

You guys need to understand the downfall of what you are asking for. Increasing lethality does not make things more realistic, it makes a single man more capable of causing an unrealistic level of devastation. If my m4 instantly killed every time with 1-2 body shots I would be able to rapidly wipe an entire crew of guys in seconds. They would not have a chance to apply pressure on me and beat me with volume of fire because volume of fire would have no value. You see this in games like battlefield, that is why combat is fast and decisive. Your problem would not be solved, it would make it worse.

Your post makes no sense.

 

Crossbow being more lethal than an assault rifle is arcade as hell and shouldn't be so. Then again, this game has 3rd person view which is as arcade as a feature can get so maybe the game was never meant to be authentic.

[FranzdieKanallie 3]

About the realism vs arcade discussion:
As someone mentioned before, if a bullet/arrow/knife damages a vital organ like the liver or pretty much anything else in you chest your would be absolutly dead in the world of dayz without professinal medical treatment.
You would just bleed to death or get an deadly infection and there is nothing you can do about it in a postapocalyptic world like dayz.

So, in terms of keeping the game playable, there are some trade-offs we have to make about a realitic damage system.

I can only recommend this video about gunshot wounds:

As the doctor says, especially pistol calibers destroy only small area of the targets body and the only lethal damage done by the bullet is bleeding. You really have to hit a very small vital area like the heart, lungs or the aorta to kill the victim within seconds or even minutes.

What i want to see is that nothing but a clear headshot can instandly kill you. The challenge should be the treatment of the gunshot wound and the possible infection afterwards.

[Railsplitter84 45]

Wait, I read the entire first page here and I've gotta ask... is crossbow in stable yet or are you talking about something in experimental?  sorry if its a dumb question!

[akafugitive 244]

Your post makes no sense.

Crossbow being more lethal than an assault rifle is arcade as hell and shouldn't be so. Then again, this game has 3rd person view which is as arcade as a feature can get so maybe the game was never meant to be authentic.

If you read my posts before, I have said that the AR damage should not be increased. I haven't said they shouldn't make the arrow damage comparable but I do support a roll mechanic that gives the crossbow a higher chance to score a "critical hit". Lethality is scored in more then chance to kill on a single shot or everyone would sport a .50cal as a multipurpose weapon.

It may not make sense to someone who has never been in a war zone and never seen the effects of something first hand, I have and know my position comes from experience and education.

Edited April 20, 2014 by akafugitive

[akafugitive 244]

Bullets don't cause damage because of transfer of kinetic energy. They kill because of organ failure and bloodless. It just so happens turning forward kinetic energy into a bullet fragmenting with kinetic energy in multiple directions causes greater tissue damage and a higher likelihood of organ failure and more bloodloss. Regarding military vs civilian accuracy, this is a moot point, both can be quite accurate, and most distances are less than 300 meters. Rapid fire plays a large part though.

Edit: Hydrostatic Shock is a lie.

Bullets cause trama from kinetic energy causing wounds to tear open when entering the body and suddenly decelerating, transferring that energy to what they hit(stopping power). Fragmentation or mushrooming of the round is caused by the fast moving projectile suddenly crushing/expanding/blowing apart due to the sudden loss of speed(like a car hitting a brick wall at high speed). Organ failure and bloodloss death is what ultimately leads happens as a result of that effect.

I used military firearms as an example because their purpose in design is for the highest efficiency in killing other humans, civilian firearms are designed for target shooting and hunting(does not mean they are ineffective).

Edited April 20, 2014 by akafugitive

[VPPTrue 9]

The trauma created from getting shot, the rapid blood loss.-that's what knocks you out. I was never saying the blunt force of the bullet, or bolt, would knock you out/back. That's only in the movies. 

 

Bullets cause trama from kinetic energy causing wounds to tear open when entering the body(stopping power). Fragmentation or mushrooming of the round is caused by the fast moving projectile suddenly having a major reduction in speed due to hitting an object(like a car hitting a brick wall at high speed). Organ failure and bloodloss death is what ultimately leads to death as a result of that effect.

I used military firearms as an example because their purpose in design is for the highest efficiency in killing other humans, civilian firearms are designed for target shooting and hunting(does not mean they are ineffective).

What I was saying is along these lines. 

[gibonez 3633]

Guess the speed imparted to the man in this simple collision... the answer is 0.082 ft/s. Almost nothing.

The rag doll should barely be affected by bullets, it should depend almost entirely on the movement and position of the player prior to being shot... and I suppose if they give the objects correct mass and such this is what will happen. So stationary and "instant kill" could result in falling in any direction really.

 

What about simulating shock especially when shot and you have no idea it is going to happen like a high powered rifle round from a long distance ?

[akafugitive 244]

About the realism vs arcade discussion:

As someone mentioned before, if a bullet/arrow/knife damages a vital organ like the liver or pretty much anything else in you chest your would be absolutly dead in the world of dayz without professinal medical treatment.

You would just bleed to death or get an deadly infection and there is nothing you can do about it in a postapocalyptic world like dayz.

So, in terms of keeping the game playable, there are some trade-offs we have to make about a realitic damage system.

I can only recommend this video about gunshot wounds:

As the doctor says, especially pistol calibers destroy only small area of the targets body and the only lethal damage done by the bullet is bleeding. You really have to hit a very small vital area like the heart, lungs or the aorta to kill the victim within seconds or even minutes.

What i want to see is that nothing but a clear headshot can instandly kill you. The challenge should be the treatment of the gunshot wound and the possible infection afterwards.

Pistols power comes from the round expansion, that's why a larger and slower .45 is more effective then a faster, smaller 9mm. When it hits flesh the rapid deceleration crushes the round, pushing the lead out the nose(mushrooming with hollow points). As it continues into the body it is tearing a larger amount of surface area internally till it comes to a stop. Pistols like you said have less raw killing power but a ton of incapacitation power because the surface area they effect is quite large just not as deep. Edited April 20, 2014 by akafugitive

[Zjasuu 337]

Because it's realism over gameplay, also, there are thousands of idiots who watch the walking dead and want to be like Daryl. I prefer idiots with crossbows rather than idiots with full-auto weapons though, easier kills.

[sess130 50]

Guns were developed to cause the human body to bleed to death, not result in instantaneous death (but can still happen). When the human body has adrenaline flowing a person can withstand MANY shots before dying, because adrenaline dulls nerve endings and localizes blood flow to vital organs/muscles. The human body is a lot more durable than some of you give it credit. If you got shot in a non-vital organ, controlled the bleeding, and took antibiotics to fight the possibility of infection you would survive. You wouldn't even need to remove the bullet or undergo surgery (however, your recovery time would be greater without). Considering this, the game isn't actually that far off from reality. Back on subject, the crossbow is definitely a little overpowered but nobody would use it if it did less than rifles (except if it took the place of your melee weapon).