Let's talk about body armor and its possible negatives to gameplay.

[dirrly 70]

And I counter this by saying that this "damage absorption" of which you speak isn't really all that impressive. It should only really work for a couple of bullets. And only below a certain caliber. 

 

I think you two speak of different things. It's not a question how the armor works it's more the question if it should be implemented and why. Because (how the OP said) the core gameplay of a survival game is to fear for your life. And surviving 2-3 shots from an enemys gun is quiet much in a gunfight. It influences the balance. ;-)

[St. Jimmy 1631]

As long as the weight of that armor makes you more cumbersome I'm not against. I wouldn't IRL carry or wear any stupid armor if zombie apocalypse somehow happens. I think I wouldn't carry that thing in a war either because the other equipment already makes things cumbersome. Agility and lightness should be more couraged in DayZ because you don't want to get caught by the zombies.

Edited September 14, 2014 by St. Jimmy

[gibonez 3633]

As long as the weight of that armor makes you more cumbersome I'm not against. I wouldn't IRL carry or wear any stupid armor if zombie apocalypse somehow happens. I think I wouldn't carry that thing in a war either because the other equipment already makes things cumbersome. Agility and lightness should be more couraged in DayZ because you don't want to get caught by the zombies.

 

Yea this makes a stamina and weight system all the more important.

[Bororm 1156]

Protection from clothes against bullets should go.  Body armor should just absorb an extra round or two depending on type.  For instance the press vest should block 1 of any smaller round, I think mosin rounds should still penetrate though.  Plates should block 2 of almost every round, but only 1 mosin round.  Something like that, where it gives protection but not much, but where no armor is no armor because right now it's ridiculous.

 

Let the plate carrier have replaceable plates, but the "vest" part of it can also become ruined.  The plates should be fairly rare.  If you're lucky you've got a spare, but you don't want people with bags full of them.  And I think the ruined plates should still exist (not disappear), so after a fight you can tell by looking where he was that oh, I did hit him he just swapped out a plate that's why he took so many shots.

Edited September 14, 2014 by Bororm

[Katana67 2907]

What about restricting the in game vest to soft body armor instead in order to avoid the Arma 3 fiasco with people being annoyed at the ridiculous damage values.

 

Limiting the ballistic vests in game to only Type 2 would work.

 

Essentially it would mitigate damage caused by anything smaller than .357 magnum but any rifle will penetrate it with ease.

 

This makes more sense. Akin to why we have the stab vest, which offers (ostensibly, I've never worn it nor have I been in a melee fight with a player whilst wearing it) protection against melee hits. The more specific an item is, the more it's vulnerable to.

 

However, I have been noticing a trend ever since DayZ started. People seem to think that the "vulnerability" factor should substitute for "balance" (i.e. everyone's on the same playing field).

 

But, at least to me, DayZ has... just emphatically... categorically... never been about a level playing field. At all. It's always had advantageous gear that puts people who've geared above that of newspawns.

 

If I expend time/risk/effort to get rare-ass item X, it should give me an advantage. I'm not sure why people (not saying you specifically) are so afraid of earned asymmetry.

Edited September 14, 2014 by Katana67

[gibonez 3633]

This makes more sense. Akin to why we have the stab vest, which offers (ostensibly, I've never worn it nor have I been in a melee fight with a player whilst wearing it) protection against melee hits. The more specific an item is, the more it's vulnerable to.

 

However, I have been noticing a trend ever since DayZ started. People seem to think that the "vulnerability" factor should substitute for "balance" (i.e. everyone's on the same playing field).

 

But, at least to me, DayZ has... just emphatically... categorically... never been about a level playing field. At all. It's always had advantageous gear that puts people who've geared above that of newspawns.

 

If I expend time/risk/effort to get rare-ass item X, it should give me an advantage. I'm not sure why people (not saying you specifically) are so afraid of earned asymmetry.

 

I am not viewing this from a standpoint of balance.

 

I am viewing this from the mods standpoint. I just can't help but feel that with the introduction of any sort of clothing or object that negates damage you will lose one of the core rules of the mod.

[Rags! 1966]

 I would like to see certain types of armor give you certain types of defense boosts and character resistances.

 

For instance, this piece of armor will give you a little more damage protection from bullets of a certain caliber...while one piece of armor will strongly reduce the amount of physical force a bullet might inflict on you...while one piece of armor might just give you a massive resistance to bleeding. Maybe another type of armor could give you resistance to fractures and broken bones?

 

Realism is one thing, but I think Bohemia Interactive really has an opportunity here to make armors not only varied in design but also in functionality. 

[Katana67 2907]

I am not viewing this from a standpoint of balance.

 

I am viewing this from the mods standpoint. I just can't help but feel that with the introduction of any sort of clothing or object that negates damage you will lose one of the core rules of the mod.

 

So, by "core rules of the mod" you're asserting that even a humble newspawn should be able to kill a geared character just as easily as said geared character can kill said newspawn. That is balance, definition of.

 

And even in the mod, what you're saying wasn't the case. There were advantages, massive advantages (see DMRs, LMGs, helicopters, NVGs, etc.) which allowed geared players to exploit the gear they'd acquired over those who had not acquired said gear.

 

The current protection system doesn't even work this way either. Your awesome MICH helmet takes a hit, you're either dead or unconscious. It doesn't save you. And even if it did, it'd be ruined after the first shot, and the second should would come on in and turn your face into paste.

 

This just happened to me not five minutes ago. Cornered a dude at NWAF tents. We both light each other up, and both fall unconscious (which is the fault of atrocious netcode). I wake up with a ruined helmet, bandage myself, and put two in his also-helmeted grape.

 

Protection doesn't make you invincible. I can still die (and subsequently lose all my shit, which was the true downside of death in DayZ mod) easily with protective gear on. And when I do, it'd be all the more devastating because of the effort/time/risk I put in to get that advantageous gear in the first place.

Edited September 14, 2014 by Katana67

[Legio23 82]

As long as the weight of that armor makes you more cumbersome I'm not against. I wouldn't IRL carry or wear any stupid armor if zombie apocalypse somehow happens. I think I wouldn't carry that thing in a war either because the other equipment already makes things cumbersome. Agility and lightness should be more couraged in DayZ because you don't want to get caught by the zombies.

 

In RL given the option I have worn/still wear my plate carrier and would rather have it than not. Modern plate carriers are not hugely cumbersome, especially if conditioned to them, hell I even wear mine when doing sport sometimes (without any kit on of course).

As for the game I see no reason for them not to be added and to have the protective capacity that they should have on a real one. Its an added protection and won't save you from being an idiot, standing there like superman rather than ducking to cover then fire and manoeuvering but it might just take that one bullet.

[q.S Sachiel 470]

What about something like the WW2 relic of the sapper.  Everyone loves looking like a armed-tothe-teeth housewife, right?

Them curves...

Russain sappers with front/rear layered plate 'bibs'.

Close-up of layered plate bib.

Something like this would be useful for 9mm, stab and maybe even up to .308 (probably pushed a few mauser out of the way).

Usage could come with the following setbacks/balances to the player wearing them:

increased sound while moving/accessing items

increased fatigue/decreased stamina

decreased speeds

extra damage taken from calibre outside of effective protection.

short-use ability: damaged/ruined condition causes more damage due to parts snapping off into you?

 

particularly effective in the urban environment, it allowed the sapper to close distance to the nazi, usually with MP44(9mm parabellum) or STG(.308 equiv). The 9mm had little effect on them, and allowed them all the time and protection they needed to get up close, and spray them with their guns.

Interestingly, i didn't know the armour could be detached from the body, and used as a prone shield/gun rest.

 

http://sovietguns.blogspot.com.au/2014/01/soviet-body-armour.html

Edited September 14, 2014 by q.S Sachiel

[chompster 171]

What about something like the WW2 relic of the sapper.  Everyone loves looking like a armed-tothe-teeth housewife, right?

Them curves...

Russain sappers with front/rear layered plate 'bibs'.

OHGODYESPLEASESOSEXY!.

 

*ahem* 

 

But yeah agree that body armor should definitely provide at least some sort of protection. If not then they shouldn't slow you don't either nor would there be any reason to bother going to a military location and get one. Not much else to say that other haven't already.

 

So to answer the OP

Anyone else feel they should make ballistic helmets, Kevlar vests, plate carriers and other personal body armor items purely cosmetic and not have any sort of personal protection and instead only be sought after due to their look and carry capacity ?

 

No.

[Bororm 1156]

The current protection system doesn't even work this way either. Your awesome MICH helmet takes a hit, you're either dead or unconscious. It doesn't save you. And even if it did, it'd be ruined after the first shot, and the second should would come on in and turn your face into paste.

 

This just happened to me not five minutes ago. Cornered a dude at NWAF tents. We both light each other up, and both fall unconscious (which is the fault of atrocious netcode). I wake up with a ruined helmet, bandage myself, and put two in his also-helmeted grape.

 

Your helmet did save you in that scenario =P

 

I sniped a guy not too long ago in the head who had a helmet, all that happened was he fell over and immediately stood back up.  It definitely saved him, until he stupidly hung around and I shot him a couple more times.  Which was ridiculous, since I had to chest shot him twice after a head shot to actually kill him.  

 

I think the main thing is that players don't become more bullet spongy than they are now, because as it stands they can be quite so.  I'd say body armor should basically offer about the protection you see now from a "kitted" character, it should just take more effort to be there rather than grabbing any old 3 layers of clothing.

[Katana67 2907]

Your helmet did save you in that scenario =P

 

I sniped a guy not too long ago in the head who had a helmet, all that happened was he fell over and immediately stood back up.  It definitely saved him, until he stupidly hung around and I shot him a couple more times.  Which was ridiculous, since I had to chest shot him twice after a head shot to actually kill him.  

 

I think the main thing is that players don't become more bullet spongy than they are now, because as it stands they can be quite so.  I'd say body armor should basically offer about the protection you see now from a "kitted" character, it should just take more effort to be there rather than grabbing any old 3 layers of clothing.

 

If the netcode hadn't been so off, which is what allowed me to wake up from being unconscious before the other player did... then that wouldn't have happened at all. Either he, or I, would be dead after the first engagement.

 

What saved me in that instance was the kill (unconscious) trade, not the fact that I had a helmet.

 

I'd agree that things aren't where they should be now, and that protected players shouldn't have unreasonable advantages (like being able to get shot in the head with 7.62x51 and walk away). But that doesn't therefore mean that protection is useless or inherently an imbalance (which isn't a bad thing in the first place).

Edited September 14, 2014 by Katana67

[gibonez 3633]

So, by "core rules of the mod" you're asserting that even a humble newspawn should be able to kill a geared character just as easily as said geared character can kill said newspawn. That is balance, definition of.

 

And even in the mod, what you're saying wasn't the case. There were advantages, massive advantages (see DMRs, LMGs, helicopters, NVGs, etc.) which allowed geared players to exploit the gear they'd acquired over those who had not acquired said gear.

 

The current protection system doesn't even work this way either. Your awesome MICH helmet takes a hit, you're either dead or unconscious. It doesn't save you. And even if it did, it'd be ruined after the first shot, and the second should would come on in and turn your face into paste.

 

This just happened to me not five minutes ago. Cornered a dude at NWAF tents. We both light each other up, and both fall unconscious (which is the fault of atrocious netcode). I wake up with a ruined helmet, bandage myself, and put two in his also-helmeted grape.

 

Protection doesn't make you invincible. I can still die (and subsequently lose all my shit, which was the true downside of death in DayZ mod) easily with protective gear on. And when I do, it'd be all the more devastating because of the effort/time/risk I put in to get that advantageous gear in the first place.

 

Advantages offensively not defensively.

 

A fully kitted out player was just as vulnerable to a makarov as was a fresh spawn.

 

Everyone had the same damage mitigation, everyone had the same health.

 

Body armor will change that and I personally am not so sure that is a good thing.

[Katana67 2907]

Advantages offensively not defensively.

 

A fully kitted out player was just as vulnerable to a makarov as was a fresh spawn.

 

Everyone had the same damage mitigation, everyone had the same health.

 

Body armor will change that and I personally am not so sure that is a good thing.

 

Defensive/offensive is irrelevant. Advantages are earned, and then exploited over players without said advantages. That is the crux of what is being discussed.

 

Player Y with Makarov is at a disadvantage to Player X with DMR. Player Y can still kill Player X, but this is less likely than the inverse.

 

Player Y with no protection is at a disadvantage to player X with a SAPI plate. Player Y can still kill Player X, but this is less likely than the inverse.

 

The point is nobody's invincible. Protection doesn't make you invincible. Everyone can be killed, and much quicker than most games. I think folks might underestimate how quickly people get dropped in ARMA/DayZ by comparison to say... Battlefield or even COD.

[Bororm 1156]

If the netcode hadn't been so off, which is what allowed me to wake up from being unconscious before the other player did... then that wouldn't have happened at all. Either he, or I, would be dead after the first engagement.

 

What saved me in that instance was the kill (unconscious) trade, not the fact that I had a helmet.

 

I'd agree that things aren't where they should be now, and that protected players shouldn't have unreasonable advantages (like being able to get shot in the head with 7.62x51 and walk away). But that doesn't therefore mean that protection is useless or inherently an imbalance (which isn't a bad thing in the first place).

 

It was both really, you wouldn't have been only unconscious if you hadn't had the helmet on.  You would have been dead, since you were shot in the head.  But I'm nitpicking, and I agree with you about armor in general.

 

 

Advantages offensively not defensively.

 

A fully kitted out player was just as vulnerable to a makarov as was a fresh spawn.

 

Everyone had the same damage mitigation, everyone had the same health.

 

Body armor will change that and I personally am not so sure that is a good thing.

 

This is already the case, with wearing more stuff giving more protection.  Right now, any vest and even a holster, is effectively body armor.  Hell I think even piling shit like glasses/masks on your face mitigates some damage.  It isn't that bad, it's just that it currently makes no sense.  If you had a similar system except you actually had to wear armor I think it would feel ok.  I mean I complain about having to shoot people 3x with a mosin right now, but that's because they aren't wearing armor.  If a player were actually wearing a vest, then that would be perfectly reasonable to me.

[-Gews- 7443]

Anyone else feel they should make ballistic helmets, Kevlar vests, plate carriers and other personal body armor items purely cosmetic and not have any sort of personal protection and instead only be sought after due to their look and carry capacity ?

 

 

Not I.

 

In a perfect DayZ helmets and plate carriers should stop exactly what they're rated to stop. For SAPI plates that includes 7.62x54R.

If one wants to add nerfing, balancing, and incorrect properties and stats to body armor why not balance the guns too? I see no difference. :huh: If a guy is wearing a bunch of body armor I expect it to give him some protection - why wasn't this in ARMA 2? Actually it was, try shooting civilian models and soldier models with Makarovs, compare results - it was there, just very primitive and unsatisfactory.

But the engine doesn't model this properly so I don't think we will have correctly-functioning body armor anytime soon if at all. They don't even have it in ARMA 3 which is a shame, like, it's 2035, people.

[gibonez 3633]

 

But the engine doesn't model this properly so I don't think we will have correctly-functioning body armor anytime soon if at all. They don't even have it in ARMA 3 which is a shame, like, it's 2035, people.

 

That is what I envision being part of the problem.

 

I believe in arma 3 body armor is applied to even the extremities.

[harteman 155]

How about keep your distance from guys better geared than you, and if you must engage, aim for the head and knock them out?

[q.S Sachiel 470]

How about keep your distance from guys better geared than you, and if you must engage, aim for the head and knock them out?

Yeah basically this.  If the reasoning against armour is that it's a 'survival game' and that this stops people from surviving, then that's just dismissing a player's ability to adapt.  If you come up against something stronger than you, you run.  If you come up against something faster than you, you fight. 

This is all ignoring the fact that given Katana's rendition of X and Y, it is all situational.  Makarov has disadvantage over DMR in X scenario but not in Y.  Akin to asking 'which weapon is better', it's analogous to asking 'which is better, fork+knife or fork+spoon?  Specific tools are used for specific jobs and their weaknesses become aparent outside of this window.

As long as the armour (if introduced) has a clear situational or generalised flaw/trade-off to alternative equipment then there should be no issue, unless the flaw is inconsequential, in which case the equip becomes OP and should be revised.

 

There's currently a good smattering of weapons out there capable of piercing armor realistically, so it really comes down to 'sideways' mechanics such as hitbox detection (+/- directional/locational), speed/maneuverability flaws, scarcity and/or visibility of items.

Edited September 15, 2014 by q.S Sachiel

[Sirwarriant12 94]

I say get rid of all the damage reduction fro clothes and items. Leave the protection on the Ballistic helmet but make it only save you from 1 maybe 2 head shots depending on the round. Then for the plates make it to where they have a durabilty system where they can take a beating from the smaller rounds, 22  is useless and doesn't harm it in the slightest, then the 9mm and 45 wear it down some what slow then the rifle rounds punch through it in only a few shots. Something like that. But the more times its shot even by smaller rounds the less it will protect you from larger rounds. Also give it shock damage until it actually gets through then bleed like normal.