Bring back authentic gun ballstics

[Mjones (DayZ) 47]

Recent changes to gun damages and ballistics are so unrealistic.
How is a LAR firing the same cartridge as the DMR and about the same barrel length, do so little damage and travel slower. The .45 doing less damage than the 9mm.

"The chambering of a firearm should determine its ballistics, not arbitrary game balance concerns. Any difference between the M14 and similar firearms in 7.62/.308 should be minute differences in velocity due to differing barrel lengths."

 

[Pyongo Bongo 185]

Yes very much.

The ballistics are often unrealistic.

Realistic ballistics are really cool, DayZ is the type of game that (had?) should have those.

I really want guns to be realistic as the top priority.

[Sean_87__ 24]

I agree, guns need to behave realistically. No need for “balance”. Just make the guns right. 

[lakevu 77]

On 11/19/2023 at 7:49 PM, Mjones (DayZ) said:

Recent changes to gun damages and ballistics are so unrealistic.
How is a LAR firing the same cartridge as the DMR and about the same barrel length, do so little damage and travel slower. The .45 doing less damage than the 9mm.

"The chambering of a firearm should determine its ballistics, not arbitrary game balance concerns. Any difference between the M14 and similar firearms in 7.62/.308 should be minute differences in velocity due to differing barrel lengths."

 

you concern is warranted but its source is misidentified.

dayz no longer desires to be a "realistic" game. you can see this to be proven in its mechanics of movement annddd its gunplay.


if a games mechanics cease to be realistic why would the ballistics follow suite?

you frustration lies not in ballistics but the very foundations of the game that dont make those ballistics congruent to the rest of the game.

why have realistic ballistics when the whole of the rest of the game is itself not realistic?


@Kyiara

Edited November 21, 2023 by lakevu

[Mjones (DayZ) 47]

1 hour ago, lakevu said:

you concern is warranted but its source is misidentified.

dayz no longer desires to be a "realistic" game. you can see this to be proven in its mechanics of movement annddd its gunplay.


if a games mechanics cease to be realistic why would the ballistics follow suite?

you frustration lies not in ballistics but the very foundations of the game that dont make those ballistics congruent to the rest of the game.

why have realistic ballistics when the whole of the rest of the game is itself not realistic?


@Kyiara

 Lot of older members and myself include, were drawn to this game because of it's Arma 2 roots, with semi authentic ballistics.

This game used to strive to differentiate itself from the other bullet sponge shooters.

Its very silly to have to pick up a semi auto, or bolt action in the same chambering, because it does more damage and have a faster bullet speed. When realistically, the automatic is superior in every way, except accuracy in full bursts.
 

Even as a game sake, weapon progression should not be slow and long range = more damage. Fast and long range = low damage. This is a very arcade game style of gun balance.

The game as is, is losing it's appeal to the original fans. you know, the ones who bought into a 5 year early access game.

 

[Mjones (DayZ) 47]

10 hours ago, Pyongo Bongo said:

Yes very much.

The ballistics are often unrealistic.

Realistic ballistics are really cool, DayZ is the type of game that (had?) should have those.

I really want guns to be realistic as the top priority.

the Legacy game tried to be as realistic as possible, i think before the 6.2 or was it 6.0. When the old lead, and devs were around.

[Mjones (DayZ) 47]

here's @-Gews- post, if anyone cares to look at some numbers

 

"It's bizarre, because in many ways the game is very hardcore. The permadeath was always "hardcore" but it's also the mechanics. For one example, loading ammunition round by round into your magazines, having to take the magazine into your hand to do it? Even Tarkov doesn't have this.

Then you look at the weapon ballistics and it's just complete nonsense, hardly based on real life at all. Same or worse as in games like PUBG and Battlefield 1. Both those titles have correct muzzle velocities, by the way. Why do they make some stuff so "hardcore" and other stuff you would expect to be "authentic", like ballistics, it has no relation to real life? And by the way, it used to be realistic values. The development direction is extremely inconsistent!

From data on WOBO's tools, left some out...

Pioneer 977.5m/s this weapon has a shorter barrel than "AUR A1", but it's shooting 255 m/s faster. Over 800 feet per second. In real life this would result in 83% more kinetic energy. LOL!
CR 550 Savanna should be about 860-865 m/s.
M 70 885.5m/s should be about 870-875 m/s.
SSG 82 880m/s should be about 980 m/s. It's right there on Wikipedia.
AUR AX 850m/s too slow, should be about 940 m/s.
LE MAS 850m/s should be about 940 m/s.
M16 850m/s why are they all so slow? Should be about 940 m/s.
Mosin 9130 824.25m/s should be about 860 m/s.
Blaze 808.5m/s slow, should be about 860-865 m/s.
VSD 785m/s too slow, should be about 835 m/s.
CR 527 768m/s too fast,18.5" barrel, should be about 730 m/s.
KA 101 765m/s again so slow. should be about 900 m/s. Extra couple inches barrel vs the M4.
M4A1 765m/s sloooow. Should be about 880 m/s.
AUR A1 722.5m/s this 5.56 weapon has a 20-inch barrel, why did the devs give it AKM speed? Should be ~940 m/s.
KA 74 704m/s should be 900 m/s. 
SK 5966 704m/s should be more like 750 m/s.
LAR 693m/s extremely slow! should be more like 840 m/s.
BK 18 672m/s extremely slow! should be more like 760 m/s.
Longhorn 616m/s extremely slow! should be more like 780 m/s.
KAM 576m/s crazy slow. Some air rifles are faster. Should be 715 m/s.
Repeater 550m/s this one is actually correct for 158 gr ammo.
KAS 74U 501.6m/s should be 735 m/s.
Deagle 440m/s this is not bad.
Sporter 22 425.5m/s not outlandish, but pretty spicy, I would put about 375.
Magnum 396m/s again not bad.
Derringer 352m/s and again! it's not bad!
Sawed Off Magnum 352m/s should be NONE. The existence of this weapon is moronic.
CR 75 350m/s not too bad.
Mlock 91 350m/s not too bad.
CR 61 Skorpion 345m/s too fast compared to IJ 70, barrel is not that much longer. Maybe +15-20 m/s.
VSS AP 320m/s not a big deal, should be more like 290.
P1 Pistol 315m/s it's way too slow, longer barrel than "Mlock 91" or "CR 75" but it's 45 m/s slower...
MK II 314.5m/s way too fast, this pistol actually has a very short ported barrel under that silencer... it should be around 260-270 m/s, IIRC.
IJ 70 300m/s not bad.
VSS 280m/s not bad, would put 290 again.
USG 45 273m/s not bad.
Kolt 1911 260m/s not bad.

But then if you sort that out you can examine "authenticity" problems with the health damage, SHOCK damage, armor damage,  air friction (ballistic coefficient)... oof."

 

[lakevu 77]

52 minutes ago, Mjones (DayZ) said:

 Lot of older members and myself include, were drawn to this game because of it's Arma 2 roots, with semi authentic ballistics.

This game used to strive to differentiate itself from the other bullet sponge shooters.

Its very silly to have to pick up a semi auto, or bolt action in the same chambering, because it does more damage and have a faster bullet speed. When realistically, the automatic is superior in every way, except accuracy in full bursts.
 

Even as a game sake, weapon progression should not be slow and long range = more damage. Fast and long range = low damage. This is a very arcade game style of gun balance.

The game as is, is losing it's appeal to the original fans. you know, the ones who bought into a 5 year early access game.

 

and now you see. because the intent is not to be real anymore. the intent is meant to be arcade and accessible. to suck in as many players as they can and they know that is easier to do by making the game easier than it is to focus on the true identity of the game and make a really convincing, authentic, zombie survival experience. @Kyiara

i mean really just think about it. which is easier to do? slowly build a statue of david that takes strenuous amounts of mental effort and time? or just make something that is "safe", easy and not groundbreaking that the "vast majority" will accept because it is "something", anything! because they have no standards or desire for great things. Which is easier?


@Mjones (DayZ)if you want to save the game. if you want to save dayz and return it back to its roots where i hope you think it belongs you have to focus on the source. and that source is the games movement and gunplay mechanics aswell as a true understanding of the games TRUE identity. because if you can not only understand but PROVE what something IS you can assert how it SHOULD BE.

ive written another post titled "dayz's flawed foundations" it is on the first page of suggestions, i recommend you go check that out to better understand what the source reason is why we cant have realistic anything in this game anymore and where the change needs to begin in order to bring it back.

Edited November 21, 2023 by lakevu

[Kuzyn. 15]

On 11/20/2023 at 1:49 AM, Mjones (DayZ) said:

Recent changes to gun damages and ballistics are so unrealistic.
How is a LAR firing the same cartridge as the DMR and about the same barrel length, do so little damage and travel slower. The .45 doing less damage than the 9mm.

"The chambering of a firearm should determine its ballistics, not arbitrary game balance concerns. Any difference between the M14 and similar firearms in 7.62/.308 should be minute differences in velocity due to differing barrel lengths."

 

Barrel length does not matter in DayZ, its specified by velocity stat (ofc I dont say that velocity stat isnt calculated based on barrel length, but in general as a gameplay mechanic barrel length is not a thing).

Anyway, there is no universal pattern that adding or cutting X cm of barrel will always have the same impact on velocity. Of course, in most cases the longer barrel should produce more velocity that affects range and damage after all but have in mind that different firearms got different barrels, different way of production, material, polishing etc and everything can change the velocity, even the fact how many bullets you have shot, if the gun is clean or not. You can even go wrong with extending the barrel and in the end you will lose the velocity because friction is high enough to start decreasing it.

But, let's go back to DayZ LAR and DMR.
LAR is a FN FAL and DMR is a M14.
You can even check on wiki that FN FAL barrel is 533mm and M14 is 559mm (one inch). Muzzle velocity of FN FAL is 840 m/s and 853 m/s for M14.
So whats wrong with LAR having less damage according to your logic? Whats unrealistic?

But apart from all the details, its a survival game, not military simulator. 

[RenDark2000 28]

On 11/21/2023 at 5:29 AM, lakevu said:

and now you see. because the intent is not to be real anymore. the intent is meant to be arcade and accessible. to suck in as many players as they can and they know that is easier to do by making the game easier than it is to focus on the true identity of the game and make a really convincing, authentic, zombie survival experience.

fun fact is:

a big chunk of the new playerbase is here(in dayz) for exactly that reason: to have a slowlier, more immersive, less arcady and very realistic/simulative game-exerience.(instead of rust or CoD etc.) and many of them are not here for PvP only.

It`s exactly the oposide!

And that`s the really sad irony in hinsight of their actual development direction, isn`t it?

(but hey, rising player counts prove them right, right? but for how long will that last? that`s the question...) 

Edited November 23, 2023 by RenDark2000

[lakevu 77]

7 hours ago, Kuzyn. said:

Barrel length does not matter in DayZ, its specified by velocity stat (ofc I dont say that velocity stat isnt calculated based on barrel length, but in general as a gameplay mechanic barrel length is not a thing).

Anyway, there is no universal pattern that adding or cutting X cm of barrel will always have the same impact on velocity. Of course, in most cases the longer barrel should produce more velocity that affects range and damage after all but have in mind that different firearms got different barrels, different way of production, material, polishing etc and everything can change the velocity, even the fact how many bullets you have shot, if the gun is clean or not. You can even go wrong with extending the barrel and in the end you will lose the velocity because friction is high enough to start decreasing it.

But, let's go back to DayZ LAR and DMR.
LAR is a FN FAL and DMR is a M14.
You can even check on wiki that FN FAL barrel is 533mm and M14 is 559mm (one inch). Muzzle velocity of FN FAL is 840 m/s and 853 m/s for M14.
So whats wrong with LAR having less damage according to your logic? Whats unrealistic?

But apart from all the details, its a survival game, not military simulator. 

just in comment to your last statement of "its a survival game not a military simulator"

this is false

disregarding the conversation of what "military simulator" really means in the relation to this game and whether it even matters as both would have the same things except one has zombies and eating food and the other does not

but this does not delete a fact. 
1.) dayz's identity was genesised on the back of a military simulator. without it then we would have no dayz. that is how it began and it is important to the identity of the game and what it is. those mechanics that made it what it was and SHOULD be.

[Mjones (DayZ) 47]

7 hours ago, Kuzyn. said:

Barrel length does not matter in DayZ, its specified by velocity stat (ofc I dont say that velocity stat isnt calculated based on barrel length, but in general as a gameplay mechanic barrel length is not a thing).

Anyway, there is no universal pattern that adding or cutting X cm of barrel will always have the same impact on velocity. Of course, in most cases the longer barrel should produce more velocity that affects range and damage after all but have in mind that different firearms got different barrels, different way of production, material, polishing etc and everything can change the velocity, even the fact how many bullets you have shot, if the gun is clean or not. You can even go wrong with extending the barrel and in the end you will lose the velocity because friction is high enough to start decreasing it.

But, let's go back to DayZ LAR and DMR.
LAR is a FN FAL and DMR is a M14.
You can even check on wiki that FN FAL barrel is 533mm and M14 is 559mm (one inch). Muzzle velocity of FN FAL is 840 m/s and 853 m/s for M14.
So whats wrong with LAR having less damage according to your logic? Whats unrealistic?

But apart from all the details, its a survival game, not military simulator. 

Right, those are real ballistic numbers. correct. good job

Did you check out the in game stats as of right now? The FAL muzzle velocity is at 693 m/s. doing 122 in game damage. While M14 is 941 m/s. and does 150 points of damage.

Try some reading comprehension, guy. Are you understanding this logic? get what's unrealistic now?

 

Edited November 23, 2023 by Mjones (DayZ)
error

[lakevu 77]

3 hours ago, RenDark2000 said:

fun fact is:

a big chunk of the new playerbase is here(in dayz) for exactly that reason: to have a slowlier, more immersive, less arcady and very realistic/simulative game-exerience.(instead of rust or CoD etc.) and many of them are not here for PvP only.

It`s exactly the oposide!

And that`s the really sad irony in hinsight of their actual development direction, isn`t it?

(but hey, rising player counts prove them right, right? but for how long will that last? that`s the question...) 

i would argue this is not true. atleast not anymore.

from my experience since .63 launched (the new engine change). the vast majority of people i have met could care less about any of that and only want to shoot as many people as possible and only see the game as cod with a slight hint of flavor of surviving. ive met arma 2 veterans here and there but it is MASSIVELY out numbered by the amount of people ive met new to the game or have just come from console.

but why is this? where did these cod casuals come from? and why are they here?

because of the mechanical changes to the game that make it by nature more casual. and by making the game more casual it has had a self selection bias to that type of person to want that type of experience. BECAUSE MECHANICS MAKE A GAME WHAT IT IS. mechanics determine whether a game is call of duty of arma 2.

but yeah this is the part that pisses me off the most is this constant, incessant quoting of "BUT PLAYER COUNTS ARE RISING", "ITS THE MOST PLAYERS ITS EVER HAD!". without ever even asking the question. who are the players? who are we attracting? and MOST IMPORTANTLY. is how we achieved this attraction by having INTEGRITY to the games identity? or have we sold the game out and debased the game to make it something that it is in fact not? @Kyiara (and kyiara, the reason i am tagging you at the end of these comments ive made is because these are the ones i want you to pay attention to because they are the most important. you have to ask question like these when judging the performance of a game and not just by player numbers. like, how did we get them? who are they? and what did we have to do to get them? did we have to compromise on the integrity of the game to do it? all questions you have to ask to discover if what is being done is RIGHT or WRONG)

this seems to be the case most evidently. with the pursuit of higher and higher player counts AT ALL COSTS. just so long as the game stays within the lines of some very vague, superficial, simple understanding of what dayz IS and what it IS NOT. and i am certain at this point that that understanding does not go deeper than "zombies, disaster and chernarus" and thats it! thats as deep as the understanding goes to what this game is. no understanding about how dayz identity IS a realistic zombie apocalypse survival simulator. where REALISM is the core ETHOS of the game. it is meant to FEEL real. all of it. every single part. the movement. the gunplay. the vehicles. the zombies! everything. and thats not even going into the art or "aesthetics" part of the game that have been heavily deserted since arma 2 and pretty much completely erased at this point of the game in standalone. where shadows. SHADOWS! are basically a non existent to the game. SHADOWS! come on. if that isnt an epic fail of art direction and aesthetics understanding of what it means to be in an apocalypse i dont know what is.

[lakevu 77]

12 minutes ago, Mjones (DayZ) said:

Right, those are real ballistic numbers. correct. good job

Did you check out the in game stats as of right now? The FAL muzzle velocity is at 693 m/s. doing 122 in game damage. While M14 is 941 m/s. and does 150 points of damage.

Try some reading comprehension, guy. Are you understanding this logic? get what's unrealistic now?

 

once again. this. is. not. important.

why are you instead not focusing on the fact that the gunplay is stupidly easy and moronic whether or not the gun damage is correct or not?
who cares if the current gunplay is that of point and clicking with very little effort or intelligence at all? where you can run down the whole airfield and instantly pull your gun up and have perfect accuracy as if you didnt just run a marathon.

i would think this is of much more important value that whether a gun should be a one or two shot kill.

along with other things like being able to spin 720's with just the flick of your wrist with no character turn speed. again.

i would think this is MUCH MORE IMPORTANT than where a guns ballistics are correct or not.

[Mjones (DayZ) 47]

1 hour ago, lakevu said:

once again. this. is. not. important.

why are you instead not focusing on the fact that the gunplay is stupidly easy and moronic whether or not the gun damage is correct or not?
who cares if the current gunplay is that of point and clicking with very little effort or intelligence at all? where you can run down the whole airfield and instantly pull your gun up and have perfect accuracy as if you didnt just run a marathon.

i would think this is of much more important value that whether a gun should be a one or two shot kill.

along with other things like being able to spin 720's with just the flick of your wrist with no character turn speed. again.

i would think this is MUCH MORE IMPORTANT than where a guns ballistics are correct or not.

Pump the brakes, and slow your roll, guy. I was answering the other dude. 

Also, you have your thread talking about that issue. 

There is more than one aspect of this game that needs changing or i dont agree with. However, you blanket stating that your issue is core, and should be top priority is not helping.  Stop trying to silence or suffocate other opinions because you think your take is more important. 

How about asking to devs to take a look at all of these, instead of just trying to argue with me.

[Jevez 28]

7 hours ago, lakevu said:

but yeah this is the part that pisses me off the most is this constant, incessant quoting of "BUT PLAYER COUNTS ARE RISING", "ITS THE MOST PLAYERS ITS EVER HAD!".

This annoys me as well simply because people ignore any context when saying things like this, they essentially boil it down to "In 2018 the player count was nearly dead, and that version of the game had the old gunplay, therefor the gunplay was bad"

Ah yes.. everything was the gunplays fault! Lets conveniently ignore that the game killed itself over the years from having game breaking bugs such as zombies going through walls, your gun disappearing when dropped on the floor, the fucking hotbar not working so your character does nothing and you die, making false promises that angered the community and much much more.

Lets also ignore the fact that in 2018 there wasn't a single game update because the devs were focusing on 0.63!

There's so many reasons why the player base was bad in those years, and many reasons why it has gone up since, that tying it to the discussion of gunplay is just so silly.
For the most part the core mechanics are actually functional now, when I press the hotbar it works, animations are smoother and you no longer die from not being able to cancel them, they added modding and new maps like Namalsk were huge for the game.
Not to mention the addition of base building, new weapons/vehicles/clothing, gas zones/trains/convoys, consistent bug fixes and more. 
Even though some of the stuff is re-added old content I'm still happy to see it, and it's brand new for anyone who started after 2018.
Engine work was done, core issues were fixed, content was added, the game expanded, trying to correlate a change in the player count to the gunplay specifically is impossible due to the timeline, anyone trying to do so is trolling.

I believe that if the game retained the old gunplay but still received all of those other benefits, the player base would still be in a similar state as it is today, perhaps even higher.
The new gunplay wasn't the reason for the games uptick in players, and the devs shouldn't be scared of changing it back to its authentic self. The old style suits the game better.

And just to clarify, my comments aren't directed at you Lakevu, I'm just using your quote as an opportunity to shout into the void. 🙂

[lakevu 77]

11 hours ago, Mjones (DayZ) said:

Pump the brakes, and slow your roll, guy. I was answering the other dude. 

Also, you have your thread talking about that issue. 

There is more than one aspect of this game that needs changing or i dont agree with. However, you blanket stating that your issue is core, and should be top priority is not helping.  Stop trying to silence or suffocate other opinions because you think your take is more important. 

How about asking to devs to take a look at all of these, instead of just trying to argue with me.

i am not trying to "suffocate" your opinion. i am trying to redirect it. to show you that this is not the core issue. the core is is the core mechanics of the game. which gun values are a reflection of those cores.

gun values are so far down the logical stream of what is effecting eachother that your focus is misplaced.

and yes. my issue and should be yours. IS CORE.

there is nothing more important than the movement of a game. as the movement determines WHAT TYPE of game it will be. there is no deeper level than this.

just imagine DOOM. an arena shooter switched its movement to slow paced military sim level movement. would it still be DOOM? or would it be a tactical military shooter based in hell?

[lakevu 77]

26 minutes ago, Jevez said:

This annoys me as well simply because people ignore any context when saying things like this, they essentially boil it down to "In 2018 the player count was nearly dead, and that version of the game had the old gunplay, therefor the gunplay was bad"

Ah yes.. everything was the gunplays fault! Lets conveniently ignore that the game killed itself over the years from having game breaking bugs such as zombies going through walls, your gun disappearing when dropped on the floor, the fucking hotbar not working so your character does nothing and you die, making false promises that angered the community and much much more.

Lets also ignore the fact that in 2018 there wasn't a single game update because the devs were focusing on 0.63!

There's so many reasons why the player base was bad in those years, and many reasons why it has gone up since, that tying it to the discussion of gunplay is just so silly.
For the most part the core mechanics are actually functional now, when I press the hotbar it works, animations are smoother and you no longer die from not being able to cancel them, they added modding and new maps like Namalsk were huge for the game.
Not to mention the addition of base building, new weapons/vehicles/clothing, gas zones/trains/convoys, consistent bug fixes and more. 
Even though some of the stuff is re-added old content I'm still happy to see it, and it's brand new for anyone who started after 2018.
Engine work was done, core issues were fixed, content was added, the game expanded, trying to correlate a change in the player count to the gunplay specifically is impossible due to the timeline, anyone trying to do so is trolling.

I believe that if the game retained the old gunplay but still received all of those other benefits, the player base would still be in a similar state as it is today, perhaps even higher.
The new gunplay wasn't the reason for the games uptick in players, and the devs shouldn't be scared of changing it back to its authentic self. The old style suits the game better.

And just to clarify, my comments aren't directed at you Lakevu, I'm just using your quote as an opportunity to shout into the void. 🙂

yes i agree. its just so amazing that this can happen. without any thought or question put into if it is even right.

but i think there is one piece you are missing because i see you said you LIKE the current systems of the game. like animations and such. which i disagree with because the systems of movement and gunplay have been so striped down and simplified that they are basically identical to call of duty. 

this is a problem. because this IS NOT how the game SHOULD BE. why? because it is against the games identity and what it is.

so yes they are getting all these players but HOW are they achieving it? by debasing the game. dumbing down the mechanics to appeal to a casual crowd that doesnt want anything TOO hard and just want to jump in and shoot people with a couple zombies in the mix

THIS. IS. WRONG.

this is a desecration of the games identity for the sake of mass appeal. and to appease those would otherwise not be playing the game.

this is wrong because this IS NOT what dayz IS. 

dayz IS a zombie apocalypse survival simulator. NOT a run around game with guns to kill people with zombies sprinkled in. at best this is a sloppy identification of the game and its identity and at worst its a complete disregard to integrity for the sake of capitalizing on "easy" players that arent too demanding and dont care about anything

[Jevez 28]

1 hour ago, lakevu said:

but i think there is one piece you are missing because i see you said you LIKE the current systems of the game. like animations and such. which i disagree with because the systems of movement and gunplay have been so striped down and simplified that they are basically identical to call of duty. 

Well I suppose this is pretty hard to discuss as it's pretty vague and people interpret these things differently.

When referring to "smoother animations" I was thinking of things such as the following.

1. In the past, when vaulting a fence your character would jump in the air and "glide" through the object, now you character actually puts their hand on the object and swoops their legs over.

2. Previously you were forced to stand still while eating, now you can walk while eating and it's a smooth experience, doesn't feel clunky.

3. You can cancel out of any animation and immediately regain control of your character by holding RMB.

4. When swapping items in your hands in 0.62, you either had to be stood completely still OR be forced to keep walking forwards until the animation completed. This was actually terrible, now you can jog and change directions during the animation.

I'm probably forgetting a few but I'm sure you get the idea, these kinds of changes are objective improvements that definitely increased the overall "perceived smoothness" of the game.

However things like melee animations are worse now, being forced to walk forwards when attacking feels terrible, and the 2 handed animations are especially bad. Being forced to walk backwards in order to block is also stupid.

As for the movement/gunplay, I wouldn't say that the animations themselves are an issue, but rather that certain features were changed/removed completely which degraded gameplay such as the camera being separate from the gun/sway/recoil/hipfire/ stamina/hold breath/weapon inertia/movement speed etc.

[Pyongo Bongo 185]

15 hours ago, Mjones (DayZ) said:

FAL is 840 m/s and 853 m/s for M14.
So whats wrong with LAR having less damage according to your logic? Whats unrealistic?

 

"Did you check out the in game stats as of right now? The FAL muzzle velocity is at 693 m/s. doing 122 in game damage. While M14 is 941 m/s. and does 150 points of damage. " - Another guy in this thread

 

IRL the FAL shoots it's bullets 1.5% slower than the DMR, a small difference.

In-game its 35%. That is a huge difference made up by the devs.

The FAL for completely unrealistic and made-up reasons:

-NEVER 1-tap KOs plate wearers at any range while the DMR can do this up to 300m

-Has it way harder to hit targets at range because of the 35%+ time delay and bullet drop

 

The reasons may be:

The devs want to catapult the DMR back to it's legendary 2012 DayZ mod status

Or because they want to "balance" the FALs full-auto capability compared to other guns

Or because the FAL spawns in gas zones and the DMR spawns at heli crashes

 

Personally the crippleing of fun guns by nerfing their stats down far from realistic ones,

really bothers me and makes me respect DayZ a whole lot less.

 

(I assume: M16 wobbles around in your hands like it's too hot to hold because it is accesible in lower tiers,

FAL is as mentioned above,

AKM ballistics are crippled unrealistically because it can attach a drum mag)

[lakevu 77]

1 hour ago, Jevez said:

Well I suppose this is pretty hard to discuss as it's pretty vague and people interpret these things differently.

When referring to "smoother animations" I was thinking of things such as the following.

1. In the past, when vaulting a fence your character would jump in the air and "glide" through the object, now you character actually puts their hand on the object and swoops their legs over.

2. Previously you were forced to stand still while eating, now you can walk while eating and it's a smooth experience, doesn't feel clunky.

3. You can cancel out of any animation and immediately regain control of your character by holding RMB.

4. When swapping items in your hands in 0.62, you either had to be stood completely still OR be forced to keep walking forwards until the animation completed. This was actually terrible, now you can jog and change directions during the animation.

I'm probably forgetting a few but I'm sure you get the idea, these kinds of changes are objective improvements that definitely increased the overall "perceived smoothness" of the game.

However things like melee animations are worse now, being forced to walk forwards when attacking feels terrible, and the 2 handed animations are especially bad. Being forced to walk backwards in order to block is also stupid.

As for the movement/gunplay, I wouldn't say that the animations themselves are an issue, but rather that certain features were changed/removed completely which degraded gameplay such as the camera being separate from the gun/sway/recoil/hipfire/ stamina/hold breath/weapon inertia/movement speed etc.

i very much agree however i will add this that i think you should think about

should "smoothness" be the highest goal to want to be obtained? smoothness. at all costs.

when we look at life many things are not "smooth' like changing directions when walking. changing stances. walking up stairs.

there are some parts of reality that are not smooth.

but it seems to me from what ive seen that "smoothness" is like a god to some people. the only standard they have to evaluate whether something is "better" or "worse". and this does not seem right to me and will. as we see right now have the inverse effect if taken to the excessive degree of "smoothness" that is desired. IE everything, every action must be seamless. no feeling of stopping or starting.

i dont think this is good. i think there are several things in game that i fondly remember for their lack of smoothness. like in arma 2 very much liked the "pace" or the "gate" of the infantry walking speed. in some regards it was robotic. but what did this do? it gave you a sense of "groundedness". you could quite literally feel and anticipate every step you took because of how it was. NOW, steps feel lifeless. like i can go any direction i want without any consequence. i dont feel as grounded as i use to be. there is no "rocksolidness" that some of that "clunk" incited inside me because of how it was. now it feels SLIPPERY more than anything.

[lakevu 77]

54 minutes ago, Pyongo Bongo said:

 

"Did you check out the in game stats as of right now? The FAL muzzle velocity is at 693 m/s. doing 122 in game damage. While M14 is 941 m/s. and does 150 points of damage. " - Another guy in this thread

 

IRL the FAL shoots it's bullets 1.5% slower than the DMR, a small difference.

In-game its 35%. That is a huge difference made up by the devs.

The FAL for completely unrealistic and made-up reasons:

-NEVER 1-tap KOs plate wearers at any range while the DMR can do this up to 300m

-Has it way harder to hit targets at range because of the 35%+ time delay and bullet drop

 

The reasons may be:

The devs want to catapult the DMR back to it's legendary 2012 DayZ mod status

Or because they want to "balance" the FALs full-auto capability compared to other guns

Or because the FAL spawns in gas zones and the DMR spawns at heli crashes

 

Personally the crippleing of fun guns by nerfing their stats down far from realistic ones,

really bothers me and makes me respect DayZ a whole lot less.

 

(I assume: M16 wobbles around in your hands like it's too hot to hold because it is accesible in lower tiers,

FAL is as mentioned above,

AKM ballistics are crippled unrealistically because it can attach a drum mag)

but what is the source? why is this happening? 

the reason this is happening because it is a reaction to how easy the gunplay is. the game is literally a point and click simulator. and because you dont have to deal with the requirements of reality like the gun swaying more because its heavy. or much larger recoil and target acquisition after the shot then things like this must happen. to placate to the system and make it congruent to it.

if the gunplay is unrealistic and EXETREMELY EASY then why would the guns themselves be realistic?

[Jevez 28]

42 minutes ago, lakevu said:

i very much agree however i will add this that i think you should think about

should "smoothness" be the highest goal to want to be obtained? smoothness. at all costs.

when we look at life many things are not "smooth' like changing directions when walking. changing stances. walking up stairs.

there are some parts of reality that are not smooth.

but it seems to me from what ive seen that "smoothness" is like a god to some people. the only standard they have to evaluate whether something is "better" or "worse". and this does not seem right to me and will. as we see right now have the inverse effect if taken to the excessive degree of "smoothness" that is desired. IE everything, every action must be seamless. no feeling of stopping or starting.

i dont think this is good. i think there are several things in game that i fondly remember for their lack of smoothness. like in arma 2 very much liked the "pace" or the "gate" of the infantry walking speed. in some regards it was robotic. but what did this do? it gave you a sense of "groundedness". you could quite literally feel and anticipate every step you took because of how it was. NOW, steps feel lifeless. like i can go any direction i want without any consequence. i dont feel as grounded as i use to be. there is no "rocksolidness" that some of that "clunk" incited inside me because of how it was. now it feels SLIPPERY more than anything.

Definitely agree with your sentiment. Not everything should be as fluid as possible, I feel like it really depends on a case by case basis.

The first thing that comes to my mind is how you change stances in Arma 2, from what I remember the animations are very slow and deliberate and you can't do anything else during that time, in current DayZ however not only do the transitions feel fast but you can also keep your weapon raised and even fire your gun during this time..

I agree in this case the "clunkiness" of Arma 2 wins out over the freedom granted by DayZ animations.

True regarding the stairs, how we currently glide up any vertical angles such as stairs or hills is ridiculous. In 0.62 it did feel terrible being forced to walk on even a tiny incline, however now we've gone in the completely opposite direction..

I understand what you mean with the Arma 2 movement, it definitely felt robotic but in a good way.

It's also great how ever since they added inertia the character gets glued to walls.. or how you can just "walk" down the ladders of hunting stands.

They really gotta do some work on the movement 😕

[lakevu 77]

11 minutes ago, Jevez said:

Definitely agree with your sentiment. Not everything should be as fluid as possible, I feel like it really depends on a case by case basis.

The first thing that comes to my mind is how you change stances in Arma 2, from what I remember the animations are very slow and deliberate and you can't do anything else during that time, in current DayZ however not only do the transitions feel fast but you can also keep your weapon raised and even fire your gun during this time..

I agree in this case the "clunkiness" of Arma 2 wins out over the freedom granted by DayZ animations.

True regarding the stairs, how we currently glide up any vertical angles such as stairs or hills is ridiculous. In 0.62 it did feel terrible being forced to walk on even a tiny incline, however now we've gone in the completely opposite direction..

I understand what you mean with the Arma 2 movement, it definitely felt robotic but in a good way.

It's also great how ever since they added inertia the character gets glued to walls.. or how you can just "walk" down the ladders of hunting stands.

They really gotta do some work on the movement 😕

im glad you see this. it seems the only thing i hear is "smoothness" at all costs. "the game needs to be smooth". etc etc etc. its just so dumb and is a sign of lack of thought and a not a bit of a deep understanding to the game or its functions. and most importantly how those functions effect your MIND and your PERCEPTIONS/EXPERIENCE while playing the game. and the type of emotional reaction you will have because of it.

but yes movement needs to be looked at. it is the most important part of the game and is the difference between a gaming being either ARMA or DOOM. movement is the standard of a game and effects everything downstream of it. next to gunplay. then to vehicles. then to sounds. then to gun values.

this is the logic of the game in what factors have a priority over eachother in determining how the game will eventually become. either a zombie survival simulator. or just a large map shooter with zombies.


 

[Mjones (DayZ) 47]

8 hours ago, lakevu said:

i am not trying to "suffocate" your opinion. i am trying to redirect it. to show you that this is not the core issue. the core is is the core mechanics of the game. which gun values are a reflection of those cores.

gun values are so far down the logical stream of what is effecting eachother that your focus is misplaced.

and yes. my issue and should be yours. IS CORE.

there is nothing more important than the movement of a game. as the movement determines WHAT TYPE of game it will be. there is no deeper level than this.

just imagine DOOM. an arena shooter switched its movement to slow paced military sim level movement. would it still be DOOM? or would it be a tactical military shooter based in hell?

I understand you want movement to change, but you coming in here going off topic, shouting down and dereailing every time someone mentions anything other than what you want is not helping any - actually quite insufferable. You want an overhaul of the whole game. Eseentially a new game, at this point. 

I do however, think changing the values of the guns, is something the devs can and more willing to do.

I dont agree that the old movement is better. Were you around for the unlimited stamina, unlimited sprint going 35m/h?and overall clunky movement?

Go bump your old thread

Edited November 24, 2023 by Mjones (DayZ)