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

[Whyherro123 2283]

Logistics as well as reliability are whole different scenarios that should be taken into consideration in your choice if you only have one gun. I was talking from a "my favorite weapon to go on a raid when you have a full rack of guns at your base" level. On the other hand while my active time of duty I had a G3 assault rifle that was 50 years old and has served generations of soldiers before that shot with it every week or so. I bet the same applies to an AK or a SCAR. M4 (and M16) on the other hand wouldn't be my choice of an assault rifle for the end of dayz. I think it all comes down to maintenance and a bit of luck that the gun you have aint a lemon and you should be fine with an semi or fully automatic rifle.

True. I am referring to an End-of-the-world scenario, of course, where the necessary infrastructure either wouldn't be there anymore, or be limited to what you have. In my opinion, the benefits a semi-auto rifle give aren't worth the amount of infrastructure it would take to maintain the weapon. OTOH, a "lower technology" firearm is capable of performing effectively even without smokeless powders, brass cartridges, or primers (well, ignition caps, but that is the only thing that I really need, and they can be made) 

You can make paper cartridges for a shotgun, or blackpowder firearm, and can make blackpowder and shot from common household materials. The only really difficult thing is the ignition caps, and again, those can be made relatively easily (though I wouldn't want to, as the compounds are dangerous, and I can stockpile literally thousands of caps for about $100)

It all comes down to what you are preparing for, I guess. You prepare for a level of survival where you have infrastructure (reloading facilities) and supplies (stockpiles of ammunition and spare weapons) handy. I, OTOH, prepare for a far "worse" level of survival, where those things aren't available. Comes from the Scout Motto, " Be Prepared"

Not that I am seriously planning for a SHTF scenario. It is just fun and games  :P

[Sutinen 635]

Yeah, wanted a zombie survival game. Pretty much got it. Realism can suck it.

I think Rocket pretty much disagrees with you on that, I don't care how many people on forums want an unrealistic zombie survival game. It ain't WarZ

[minime1000 78]

I think Rocket pretty much disagrees with you on that, I don't care how many people on forums want an unrealistic zombie survival game. It ain't WarZ

Obviously Rocket lied and told you what people (the original dayz people) wanted to hear. He left 3rd person in letting me use the same tactics successfully that I use in 3rd person arcade games like Gears Of War or GTA Online. Him saying DayZ is a flawed concept pretty much proves it. Either go full blown realism with no magical eye hovering above you or go semi arcade like DayZ is right now.

 

This also why Xbow does more damage ingame than a bullet. Like arcade games it balances its pros and cons.

Edited May 4, 2014 by myshl0ng

[ColdHeat 59]

Obviously Rocket lied and told you what people (the original dayz people) wanted to hear. He left 3rd person in letting me use the same tactics successfully that I use in 3rd person arcade games like Gears Of War or GTA Online. Him saying DayZ is a flawed concept pretty much proves it. Either go full blown realism with no magical eye hovering above you or go semi arcade like DayZ is right now.

 

This also why Xbow does more damage ingame than a bullet. Like arcade games it balances its pros and cons.

 

 

I honestly don't see the problem here as you can always join a Hardcore server. 

 

Regarding the crossbow: I think this weapon has so many drawbacks (long reload, limited ammunition, limited range) that they felt in order to not make it entirely useless, it at least should kill with one shot to the chest. OR they did it so people actually give this weapon a try and test it during the alpha. That this is rather unrealistic when an M4 barely does damage is true but balancing is the least thing I'm worring now as you can change that drastically in the beta, when all the stuff is hopefully out and weapons will not only be way more rare but also serve a different purpose.

[Sutinen 635]

I do agree on the crossbow though, I like the current one we have. It's not completely unrealistic to kill someone with a crossbow in real life, even though then you could argue that you can kill someone with one shot from any gun, which is true, but let's not go there.

[GunnyITA 107]

a simple formula:

 

5.56 > 7,62 when we talk about distance

7,62 > 5,56 when we talk about damage

 

So that, Crossbow bolt > 7,62 when we talk about damage the projectile even if slower, it's also bigger, because of its size will inflict more damage. This is kinetics.

 

No more or less!
I was playing with the Bow when i was younger... When i was using it around 50 metres with medium-hard shafts the arrows pierced and quite came out from the other side, from 10 to 15 cm. so i know what i'm talking about.

 

 

 

So definetively i agree Crossbow must kill with one hit...on some video i've also seen with 2....And the guy that is going to make that kill must be rewarded, Because this weapon has a slow reloading time. So the hunter must be rewarded for his score and cold blood.

 

 

 

Stop continuing this post for 13 pages, there are more important things to balance....like shotguns, sporter and blaze. M4 for noobs.

 

 

Enjoy this video

 

Edited May 4, 2014 by GunnyITA

[damareno 0]

The question is in the title.  I'm seriously wondering why the cross bow is a one hit to the chest with it's 100ish ft/lbs of energy...  In comparison, the m4 takes several body/chest shots yet it has over 1,200 ft/lbs of energy?  Realistically an arrow/bolt wound is childs play compared to high velocity rifle wounds.

 

P.S. This is not a "buff m4" request, the m4 was simply used as an example.

because you cant shot the crossbow as fast or as accurate as a m4, so it makes it balance out.

[pilgrim* 3514]

As everyone knows, in real life a person can take three or four bullets through the chest and still be living a fully active life 50 years later

Or take one bullet through the inside thigh, touching no bone or vital organ, and die of blood loss in 1 minute.

 

DayZ does not attempt to simulate real life wounds

 

Historically, arrows in warfare are not principally intended to kill instantly (though they may do). There is plenty of info on the web about arrows, bolts, and their effect in warfare and famous battles. They incapacitate, seriously wound, or at least just hinder the victim. However, an arrowhead embedded almost anywhere in the body (including non vital areas) would lead to death from infection in days or weeks in nearly all cases. In my understanding - a good hit from a crossbow bolt wil probably not kill you immediately, but it will stop you from fighting, drop you, and leave you with anything from a minute to two weeks to live. And maybe we can say that surgery and medical support in DayZ is back in the middle-ages.

 

But DayZ doesn't go into that kind of wound calculation. It would not even fit the game to seriously simulate wounds. Ballistics is already a main simulation area, not realistic body damage.

So it's a question of game balance, for good gameplay. Of course in real life, statistically, a group armed with crossbows is not going to win against a group armed with M4s, however lucky some are, in whatever kind of fighting.

Edited May 4, 2014 by pilgrim

[minime1000 78]

I honestly don't see the problem here as you can always join a Hardcore server. 

 

I like the arcady 3rd person as pvp is more fun. First person view is too bad in this game/engine. And because half the game is 3rd person arcade stuff, they should balance it like an arcade game.

[taco86 156]

So that, Crossbow bolt > 7,62 when we talk about damage the projectile even if slower, it's also bigger, because of its size will inflict more damage. This is kinetics.

 

You're "understanding" of kinetics is flawed...  A 7.62x39 or 7.62x51 or 7.62x54R all cause SIGNIFICANTLY more traumatic wounds than your typical 150+ lb cross bow with a broad head or field tip...  Here is what 7.62mm can do to 20% ballistic gel...  A bolt does not cause anywhere even close to this level of tissue destruction...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIFkLAgGy6w

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGYF8DTLcj4

 

The impulse of the energy transfer here is very very short, meaning massive G forces experienced by tissue beyond the permanent wound cavity...  We're talking 50-100 gs... 

 

 

Stop continuing this post for 13 pages, there are more important things to balance....like shotguns, sporter and blaze. M4 for noobs.

This part is just a bit hypocritical...  Asking others to stop continuing to post in a thread while continuing to post in a thread... 

Edited May 4, 2014 by taco86

[UltimateGentleman 355]

Ballistics gel hardly accurately shows how much muscle tissue can reduce the impact of bullets.

There are plenty examples of people surviving getting shot with no problems only when bullets hit bones, arteries or organs do they do incapacitating damage.

 

If a bullet doesn't hit anything important the only way people die is from shock or blood loss, a crossbow bolt severs through a way larger area than the bullet and has to be either ripped out which causes more damage(that's why some arrows/bolts have freaky looking tips) or cut in half and taken out safely.

 

If you get shot you can run around just fine for a while, you'll need medical attention but if it hits no organs you're good for a while. Try running with a crossbow bolt in you, or try having the time to take it out, you're gonna die they're basically assured to stick in you where a bullet can pass through.

 

It makes tons of sense for it to do more damage.

It should force people to the ground with a leg shot and with a shot to the side should make them hunch over and move slowly. Then you can whip out a pistol and finish the wounded animal off.

[Fuerii 26]

Ballistics gel hardly accurately shows how much muscle tissue can reduce the impact of bullets.

 

Ballistic gelatin is a testing medium scientifically correlated to swine muscle tissue (which in turn is comparable to human muscle tissue). From wikipedia. It's not just some jello...:-/

[taco86 156]

Ballistics gel hardly accurately shows how much muscle tissue can reduce the impact of bullets.

Other than bone, muscle tissue is the last thing you want to get hit by a bullet (organs aside, as an arrow or bullet will destroy organs it comes in contact with)...  It drastically speeds up the rate of energy transfer compared to hitting less dense tissue like fat...  It also reduced the penetration depth which is NOT what you want to have happen to you...

 

And no, the area of destruction from a broad head or field tip is not larger than a rifle round, not at all.....  A broad head or field tip severs tissue... it does not out right obliterate it...  The overall "volume" of the wound cavity created from an arrow or bolt is FAR FAR FAR smaller than the volume of the permanent wound channel created by HV rifles...

 

There is a reason why shot placement is significantly more important when hunting with bow or xbow than with a .308....  The likely hood of having to track the animal after shooting it with a bow/xbow is also much much higher than having to track that animal after shooting it with a hunting rifle cartridge...  Sorry dude, but a HV rifle round is significantly more deadly than almost any arrow or bolt fired from any hand held bow/xbow...

 

.308 150gr JSP vs 20% ballistic gel...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xJycZ7iP2M

Edited May 4, 2014 by taco86

[Gotrek (DayZ) 1]

Wow guys, u know something about bullets, but nothing about archery. Arrows =/= bolts. Crossbows were the most scary weapon of medieval times because of their devastating power to human body. Usual range was approx 150m and 1 bolt could penetrate a knight in FULL PLATE ARMOR and hit another one behind him. Death was totally instant - for both. The best crossbows could shot at 300m...now show me a 5.56 weapon that instantly kills 2 targets with 1 shot on range between 100-300 meters.  5.56 are weapons for raining bullets at short-medium range with chance to kill only on perfect shot. Crossbow didn't need that, u just hit and enjoy dead man. That's why m4 won't kill in 1 shot in this game...unless u headshot.

[taco86 156]

Wow guys, u know something about bullets, but nothing about archery. Arrows =/= bolts. Crossbows were the most scary weapon of medieval times because of their devastating power to human body. Usual range was approx 150m and 1 bolt could penetrate a knight in FULL PLATE ARMOR and hit another one behind him. Death was totally instant - for both. The best crossbows could shot at 300m...now show me a 5.56 weapon that instantly kills 2 targets with 1 shot on range between 100-300 meters.  5.56 are weapons for raining bullets at short-medium range with chance to kill only on perfect shot. Crossbow didn't need that, u just hit and enjoy dead man. That's why m4 won't kill in 1 shot in this game...unless u headshot.

Yea, you're spouting myths...

 

Enjoy some modern experiments which disprove that...

 

15th century xbow with several types of bolts against armor of the same period...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76mbOMFjlu0

 

And the long bow...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3997HZuWjk

 

and another xbow vs period properly heat treated breastplate...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nO1J7ku70P4

 

 

P.S. Arrows and bolts are quite similar...  Generally bolts are faster, shorter and lighter, arrows of course are the inverse...  Either way, bolts and arrows easily defeating plate armor of the period is a myth which has commonly been disproved during the 20th and 21st century...  Once you start getting into duplex and triplex plate armor, arrows and bolts became pretty much pointless...  These duplex and triplex breast plates were capable of stopping period fire arms...

Edited May 4, 2014 by taco86

[UltimateGentleman 355]

Yeah you can hardly ever kill animals with a crossbow in one hit but that's because everything hunted with them has a thick hide, way thicker than a human obviously.

 

Bullets can quite cleanly go through people but a bolt sticks in and causes more lasting damage so they should do more damage.

 

 

5.56 are weapons for raining bullets at short-medium range with chance to kill only on perfect shot. Crossbow didn't need that, u just hit and enjoy dead man. That's why m4 won't kill in 1 shot in this game...unless u headshot.

 

Exactly. An M4 is for soldiers that need to just fire a whole clip blindly to hit one guy they hardly compare to a sniper rifle or anything like that, or a bow. Bolts and arrows are designed to maim flesh completely bullets are to hopefully hit an organ, which they often don't.

People's flesh absorbs bullets nicely if it's not from a high powered rifle, there are many examples of people surviving getting shot like 12 times, 50 Cent for one got shot loads of times in the back and kept running. An arrow or bolt takes someone down you can't run with a big thing sticking through your side.

 

 

EDIT nice videos of ancient weapons that are weak as shit compared to their modern equivalents.

Edited May 4, 2014 by UltimateGentleman

[hannibaldaplaya 1095]

Yeah you can hardly ever kill animals with a crossbow in one hit but that's because everything hunted with them has a thick hide, way thicker than a human obviously.

 

Bullets can quite cleanly go through people but a bolt sticks in and causes more lasting damage so they should do more damage.

 

 

 

Exactly. An M4 is for soldiers that need to just fire a whole clip blindly to hit one guy they hardly compare to a sniper rifle or anything like that, or a bow. Bolts and arrows are designed to maim flesh completely bullets are to hopefully hit an organ, which they often don't.

People's flesh absorbs bullets nicely if it's not from a high powered rifle, there are many examples of people surviving getting shot like 12 times, 50 Cent for one got shot loads of times in the back and kept running. An arrow or bolt takes someone down you can't run with a big thing sticking through your side.

 

Yes, bullets rely on hitting vital organs, and automatic weapons are made so that the chances of hitting those vital organs are increased. Bows, crossbows, and marksman rifles are made for firing a few lethal, well-placed shots at someone and bringing them down.

 

If you are hit with a bullet in an area other then an organ, your biggest worry should be about the wound getting infected and stopping the bleeding.

[-Gews- 7443]

Misinformation galore

[taco86 156]

Come on Gews..  add a bit more than "you're all wrong"...  :P

[taco86 156]

 

EDIT nice videos of ancient weapons that are weak as shit compared to their modern equivalents.

Dude....  I posted those in direct response to the misinformed crap someone was spitting as fact... Gotrek is the one that brought 15th century xbows into this, claiming that a bolt of that period would pass through a knight in full plate armor and strike one behind him????

 

Do try and keep up please...

 

As for "weak as crap"...  uhhhhh, draw weights of bows and xbows of that period are actually quite comparable to today...  Xbows generally being the exception because 15th century "Variants" had a drastically shorter draw distance compared to modern xbows, requiring much higher draw weights to achieve "similar" levels of KE.  The correlation between draw distance, and projectile velocity is not completely dissimilar when compared to barrel length of fire arms...

Edited May 4, 2014 by taco86

[Gotrek (DayZ) 1]

Yea, you're spouting myths...

 

Enjoy some modern experiments which disprove that...

 

15th century xbow with several types of bolts against armor of the same period...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76mbOMFjlu0

 

And the long bow...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3997HZuWjk

 

and another xbow vs period properly heat treated breastplate...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nO1J7ku70P4

 

 

P.S. Arrows and bolts are quite similar...  Generally bolts are faster, shorter and lighter, arrows of course are the inverse...  Either way, bolts and arrows easily defeating plate armor of the period is a myth which has commonly been disproved during the 20th and 21st century...  Once you start getting into duplex and triplex plate armor, arrows and bolts became pretty much pointless...  These duplex and triplex breast plates were capable of stopping period fire arms...

 

 

 

 

That's funny because on historical reconstructions people are penetrating plates with eastern compound bows which are weaker than xbows.

[Whyherro123 2283]

Wow guys, u know something about bullets, but nothing about archery. Arrows =/= bolts. Crossbows were the most scary weapon of medieval times because of their devastating power to human body. Usual range was approx 150m and 1 bolt could penetrate a knight in FULL PLATE ARMOR and hit another one behind him. Death was totally instant - for both. The best crossbows could shot at 300m...now show me a 5.56 weapon that instantly kills 2 targets with 1 shot on range between 100-300 meters.  5.56 are weapons for raining bullets at short-medium range with chance to kill only on perfect shot. Crossbow didn't need that, u just hit and enjoy dead man. That's why m4 won't kill in 1 shot in this game...unless u headshot.

My God... I didn't think a person could be this dense.

You do realize a 5.56mm round can TEAR A PERSON IN HALF at the right range,  due to bullet tumble and yawing, right? 

One of the places where the argument "5.56 mm is a weak round" comes from is from urban combat in Iraq, where there would be engagements at relativity close range, 100m or so. At that range, the bullet both lacks the necessary velocity (in part caused by the shorter barrel of the M4 compared to the M16), and the shorter range, where the bullet would zip right through a body without fragmenting or yawing. Look it up.

Also, by the time there was full plate on the battlefield, most of the people using it 1) Weren't knights, or fighting or horseback for that matter, and 2) using firearms and cannons anyways.

The main reason why the crossbow was so prevalent on the medieval battlefield? Lower training times compared to a self-bow. Therefore, armies could be raised faster, and, more importantly, CHEAPER, than armies using longbows. The increased power at short range was merely a bonus. 

[GunnyITA 107]

You're "understanding" of kinetics is flawed...  A 7.62x39 or 7.62x51 or 7.62x54R all cause SIGNIFICANTLY more traumatic wounds than your typical 150+ lb cross bow with a broad head or field tip...  Here is what 7.62mm can do to 20% ballistic gel...  A bolt does not cause anywhere even close to this level of tissue destruction...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIFkLAgGy6w

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGYF8DTLcj4

 

The impulse of the energy transfer here is very very short, meaning massive G forces experienced by tissue beyond the permanent wound cavity...  We're talking 50-100 gs... 

 

 

This part is just a bit hypocritical...  Asking others to stop continuing to post in a thread while continuing to post in a thread... 

 

 

As said by  UltimateGentleman the gel test is not accurate test as human tissues and muscles are differents from the gel

 

As Said by Gotrek during medioeval era the Crossbow were used to pierce iron plate armor  which arrows can penetrate side by side.

 

I gave you a video of a top high end crossbow that can grind your flesh with a single bolt....grinds that neither the arrows on FIRST BLOOD PART 2 were able to do.

 

 

So if you want to cry more because you find outragious that a skilled player PWN you with a crossbow with a single bolt....then cry.

But i wish to remind you how difficult is to kill someone with the blaze 95....now imagine that you are going to do the same with a weapon that must be one shoot one kill. If you fail you are dead.  Doesn't it is correct to reward people that hit a guy in the chest with a kill?....As said above, a bolt with ancients crossbow were able to pierce side by side an iron plate armor.

 

 

Nah uh? it should not be 1 shoot 1 kill for you? ....ahhhhw, what such a whims.

 

 

 

[Whyherro123 2283]

That's funny because on historical reconstructions people are penetrating plates with eastern compound bows which are weaker than xbows.

What is left unsaid during those reconstructions is the fact that the steel being used for those armors is vastly inferior to the steel that would be used in actual period-armor. That in and of itself would have a very large effect.

[-Gews- 7443]

Come on Gews.. add a bit more than "you're all wrong"... :P

"Usual range was approx 150m and 1 bolt could penetrate a knight in FULL PLATE ARMOR and hit another one behind him. Death was totally instant - for both. The best crossbows could shot at 300m...now show me a 5.56 weapon that instantly kills 2 targets with 1 shot on range between 100-300 meters. 5.56 are weapons for raining bullets at short-medium range with chance to kill only on perfect shot. Crossbow didn't need that, u just hit and enjoy dead man."

Shooting a bolt through two people is one thing... happens all the time and with bullets as well. Shooting through two people wearing plate armor is another, it's not happening except in the most exceptional cases. And 300 meters? That's like saying an M4 can be shot at 2000 meters. Death totally instant? Please. Did they get Merlin to put a curse on those bolts? Shot placement is not important with arrows? Gah.

"There are plenty examples of people surviving getting shot with no problems only when bullets hit bones, arteries or organs do they do incapacitating damage [...] If a bullet doesn't hit anything important the only way people die is from shock or blood loss"

Likewise for an arrow or bolt? How's it going to kill someone without hitting something vital and without blood loss? Infection? Poison?

"An M4 is for soldiers that need to just fire a whole clip blindly to hit one guy they hardly compare to a sniper rifle or anything like that, or a bow. Bolts and arrows are designed to maim flesh completely bullets are to hopefully hit an organ, which they often don't."

So the M4 Carbine is a bullet hose that doesn't "compare to" to a bow... sure it doesn't compare but not for the reasons implied. And bullets don't "maim flesh"? Seems logical.

"Yeah you can hardly ever kill animals with a crossbow in one hit but that's because everything hunted with them has a thick hide, way thicker than a human obviously."

Hardly ever? Thousands are killed every year in one shot. One shot is usually all anyone is going to get, that deer won't stand there and wait for the hunter to reload his crossbow. Lung-heart-lung, one shot and assured death.

Edited May 4, 2014 by Gews