Suggestion: rebalance game with realistic weapon performance/damage.

[bazbake 456]

This is going to get long and it's going to involve a lot of math, but by the end of it I think it may change the nature of how the game works for the better and for everyone involved.

I was thinking about people saying DayZ was getting too easy and there wasn't a challenge any more and I wanted to share some observations I've had. Particularly about the idea of the game being a "realistic" survival sim. And why it sort of isn't and how this makes it harder for new players to get around.

So, basically, most of my observations come down to DayZ's reliance on VIDEOGAME PHYSICS^TM based on VIDEOGAME LOGIC^TM.

Weapon Mechanics

DayZ is a realistic/hardcore post-apocalyptic survival simulator currently in development. However, when it comes to weapon performance, there's not much realism involved other than the iron sights.

In your typical multiplayer FPS, playing for a certain period of time guarantees you better and better equipment. And if you die, it doesn't matter because your Loadout will remain with you. This has given modern gamers a "Level Up/Extra-Life" mindset where they expect to be able to find this idea of "the best gun in the game." But in real life guns don't work that way. Guns are compromises bound by the laws of physics.

For the most part, DayZ is playing by CoD and Battlefield rules. The most advanced military-level weaponry is "the best" while all other weaponry is crap. In a game full of fleshy sacks of organs running around, this doesn't make much sense.

I think it's time for Rocket and crew to recognize this and respond with a bit of an overhaul.

Damage

If you look at weapon damage charts, the damage hierarchy goes roughly as follows.

• Pistols/PDW/Bison/MP5 = Really, really weak.
  
• Makarov Rounds = Pretty weak.
  
• STANAG/AK/Crossbow = Decent.
  
• ACP rounds/AKM/Winchester/Hatchet = Better.
  
• Shotguns = Much Better/Pretty weak (buckshot at range)
  
• FN FAL/Sniper Rifles/M203HE = So much better.
  
• Lee Enfield = WHOA!
  
• M107 = WHAT THE HELL!!!
  
• AS50 = ...WTF!!!!!!!
  
• M136 Launcher = !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  

According to VIDEOGAME LOGIC^TM, sniper rifles always do a ton of damage. Because if they didn't then people would run up to snipers in an usually small map and shoot them to death. So snipers were given finger of death in order to increase their survivability.

But in the real world, bullet damage isn't decided by Word of God, it is caused by cavitation, which is the size of the hole a bullet leaves. Larger calibers traveling slowly leave more brutal cavitation than smaller calibers traveling quickly. Bigger and slower = MEANER. (Different "types" of bullets can alter cavitation and create fragmentation to increase trauma, but the basic physics are simple.)

In short, bullet damage = penetration area * [trauma/velocity]. Since I am arguing that sniper rifles are overpowered and shotguns underpowered, how much base trauma a bullet does versus its velocity would only overemphasize my point, so I'll leave it out and save us some maths. (If you're curious look up Hydrostatic Trauma and Big Hole Theory.)

Here's a chart of the cartridge sizes for the guns in DayZ:

• STANAG rounds (L85A2 AWS, M16 variations, M4 variations, M249), AK-74, ASK-74 = 5.56mm
  
• FN FAL, AKM, DMR, M14, M240, Mk48, Dragunov (+camo) = 7.62mm
  
• CZ550 = 7.8mm (it can chamber for 6.2mm, but I'll assume it's the deadlier version)
  
• Lee Enfield = 7.9mm
  
• Glock 17, Makarov PM, PDW, Bizon, MP5, M9 = 9mm
  
• M1911, Revolver = .45 caliber/11.5 mm
  
• M107, AS50 = .50 caliber/12.7mm
  
• 12 gauge Shotguns (Winchester? All other shotguns) = 12 gauge/18.53mm
  

Notice how small the projectile is for most sniper rifles. When I get deeper into the physics of it, this will make a lot more sense.

• 12 Gauge Shotgun Slug = x(18.53)^2 = 343.3609x
  
• .50 caliber/12.7mm Rifle Damage = x(12.7)^2 = 161.29x
  
• .45/11.5mm damage = x(11.5)^2 = 132.25x
  
• 9mm = (9mm)^2x = 81x
  
• Lee Enfield 7.9mm = x(7.9mm)^2 = 62.41x
  
• CZ550 7.8mm = 60.84x
  
• 7.62mm = 58.0644x
  
• 5.56mm = 30.9136x
  

On a side note, standard 00 buckshot is an average of 8 pellets, each 8.4 mm in tight grouping, or roughly 564.48x.

Compare this damage table with the presumed damage table we started with and we have a contradiction between the current damage tables and expected damage based on physics.

Now, if you like the current damage tables, please refrain from pointing out VIDEOGAME LOGIC^TM as a defense. What you'll find looking into the physics of firearms is that VIDEOGAME LOGIC^TM is actually self-defeating in this case since it ignores balance in the name of FPS traditions that were based on completely different gaming systems.

Some real-world observations.

1. The 5.56mm NATO (STANAG) round was designed for wounding, not killing. In fact, in real-world tests it lacks stopping power and its purported "yawing" ability, which allows it to pass at an angle to create larger wounds, only works if it hits center mass at close range. Otherwise it's a .22 LR round's baby brother.
   
2. The nickname for the .45 ACP is literally the "Manstopper."
   
3. Shotguns are messy.
   
4. The AS50 can be upchambered to hold explosive rounds, but based on the game's ammo this is a standard .50 BMG round. In other words, big but not that big.
   

So what does this all mean?

Common sense says that there is probably some gun out there which is just complete overkill. But what I can reliably say is that "The Manstopper" can be reliably expected to incapacitate or kill a target in about 1-2 shots.

Using that testimony and the 12,000 blood health system from the game, I put together a chart of prospective damage from each of the weapon classes.

• 12 Gauge Buckshot = 8 round simultaneous burst x 3000 damage
  
• 12 Gauge Shotguns = 15,500
  
• AS50/M107 = 7,000
  
• M1911/Revolver = 6,000
  
• Other Pistols/PDW/MP5 = 3,500
  
• Lee Enfield/CZ550 = 3,000
  
• FN FAL/AKM/DMR/M14/M240/Mk48/Dragunov = 2500
  
• AK/STANAG/M249/L85/M16/M4 = 1500
  
• Hatchet=? (Actually, hatchet wounds are a doctor's worst nightmare...)
  

Of course, all of this is dependent on hit location damage multipliers. It may very well be that a Lee Enfield shot to the head does end up killing the target. Who knows?

So let's go into why a rifle would still be useful if the damage was nerfed back to realistic levels. And why people in the real world would use small-caliber projectiles for warfare.

While we're talking bullets, Newton had a very good point (or three).

Newton had three laws of motion.

Law 1: Objects in motion tend to stay in motion unless acted on by an outside force.

Gravity and drag affect bullet flight. A sniper rifle without bullet drop is a sniper rifle in outer space.

Law 2: The acceleration of a body requires the exertion of a force that increases in relation to its mass.

So, let's get into why someone would prefer to design a military rifle with a small caliber bullet.

The force used in order to propel a projectile is F=ma. F is the amount of Force the propellant of the bullet must produce, m is the mass of the bullet, and a is the acceleration as the bullet goes from 0 to muzzle velocity.

The larger the bullet, the greater the amount of force of the propellant you need to send it a certain distance. And propellants produce three things in addition to force: light, heat, and sound.

The larger the bullet, the louder the crack of the gun, the greater the amount of heat, and the brighter the muzzle flash. The smaller the mass of the bullet, the less propellant you need to send the bullet a certain distance. This means smaller caliber rounds can be fired a greater distance while drawing less attention.

Law 3: When two bodies act on each other, they produce equal action and reaction forces in opposite directions.

Kickback is the amount of Force the propellant discharges into the gun and the shooter holding the gun, and it is equal to the amount of force pushing the bullet forward.

Shotguns and large-caliber handguns have a very limited effective range, usually about 50-100m, and for good reason.

A typical .45 caliber cartridge produces a force of ~400J and has a range of 50-75m. A typical .50 caliber BMG cartridge produces a force of ~13,500J and has a range of 1500m. And yet, the size of the hole the .50 caliber round leaves is only 22% larger. To put this in perspective, an equally-long 12 gauge round (18.53mm) with an effective range of 1500m would require a propellant force of ~29,000J. A typical soldier would be unable to even fire the gun safely.

Now, here are the comparative propellant forces of three in-game sniper rifle cartridges.

• M16A4 (5.56x45mm NATO) = ~1700J
  
• Dragunov SVD (7.62x54mm) = ~3600J
  
• AS50 (.50 caliber BMG) = ~13,500J
  

This is why sniper rifles use smaller calibers. In order to achieve their maximum effectiveness, they have to produce an incredible amount of force. But most of that force goes back into the gun.

The same rule holds for burst and full auto weapons. An AK-47 with a 7.62mm round exerts a kickback of ~3600J with every round fired. The more rounds fired, the harder it is to keep the gun aimed at the target. Weapon handling decreases with the force of each subsequent shot.

But if you can instead use a smaller-caliber assault weapon with a 5.56mm round, you can focus on tighter shot groupings instead of greater stopping power.

Heat, Light, Sound, Zombies.

Something else to keep in mind. Despite the muzzle break of an AS50, it's still exploding at 32 times the force of a .45 caliber round. Somehow the light and sound for these weapons should probably be increased so that zombies are attracted to them more quickly and aggressively. Currently only the sound of a gun ticks on my screen even though muzzle flashes from some of these guns are massive...and even then the sound is only about as loud as me running across the street. Shouldn't a gunshot attract zombies at least as quickly?

If more powerful guns attracted more zombies from far away similar to flares, that would go a long way toward making zombies a bigger threat while causing snipers to hesitate before sniping the coast line as newspawns appear. If every shot pulled three or four zombies in a mad charge toward whoever fired it, that could mix things up.

Also, it seems like the report for guns isn't loud enough. A sniper rifle should definitely reach past the outskirts of the city with a pistol reaching at least several blocks -- even when silenced.

So, my point?

This is how real-world physics and gun technology already provide weapon balance outside of the traditions of your typical FPS. Assault weapons and light machine guns should have less stopping power per bullet but a greater rate of fire. Heavier assault weapons should have twice the recoil but twice the stopping power. Shotguns should have the greatest stopping power by far but a short effective range. And handguns, despite having the smallest effective range, should be more powerful per round than assault rifles with very little recoil and with the added bonus of only taking up a secondary slot.

As for sniper rifles, they shouldn't get to break the laws of physics just because typical FPSs let them. Greater damage = greater recoil = harder to handle. An AS50 or M107 should kick like a mule 4-8 times harder than the other sniper rifles while other sniper rifles should only maintain tight shot groupings with steady handling, accommodation for bullet drop, and patience instead of 1-hit body shots.

And all guns should have to deal with the realities of being campfire bright and incredibly loud. Real silencers don't silence anything! They just make them less eardrum-shattering.

(On a side note, while making rifles deafeningly loud in-game would be literally painful for players, maybe you can leave a ringing sound behind while the player recovers from the sound of their own rifle being fired if it's an AS50 or M107?)

[Royce59 19]

You realize Arma II engine already incorporates Bullet Drop and pretty much all of the real world mechanics you've listed in this thread, right?

[Bloodydemize 0]

I have mixed feelings about this, mainly on the damage part, I think it's mainly because I saw some of the damages and thought about how common some of those weapons were and was like "oh hell no" while this game strives for realism it also needs to be balanced, with those damage charts I may as well run around with a shotgun unless im trying to hit long range targets. I did like some of the ideas like the ringing noise after shooting the M107 or AS50 but overall I have to say no.

[Tweakie 199]

Sorry, didn't read the whole post (too long, and I am abit too tired right now) but I noticed a flaw.

The AS50 doesn't "kick like a mule", due to be a good design. The current implementation of it, is correct (except for the mildots)

M107, maybe... i don't know too much about it.

But seems like you still tried to put some actual effort into your post, have some beans.

Edited August 3, 2012 by Tweakie

[Tweakie 199]

Even if you are off base.

[Bobcomss 189]

Yes I love you!, this is by far the best thread I have read on guns, anyone that has handle a gun and fired it will agree with you!

I dont know if any of the maths part can be added to become effective in games but would love it to be so!

The ringing noise is my favourite.. HASVEYOU EVER FIRED A GUN WITHOUT EAR DEFENDERS PEOPLE?!

Ok one gun rifle wont make you deaf, but if you got 4-6 people running around with .50 Cal rifles and pistols you might as well sign yourself into a deaf clinic!

Nice man!

And ignore the CoD kiddies butt-hurting you makes 100% sense and have my beanz ;)

AJ

[harryzhe 28]

You realize Arma II engine already incorporates Bullet Drop and pretty much all of the real world mechanics you've listed in this thread, right?

^

windage would be great though

[hulahuga 29]

As some others say some things you complaina bout are already simulated in the game, but the most other things I tend to agree on (though weapon noise is already god damn loud for the sniper right now).

However, you've missed a couple of things.

Well first and foremost the airdrag of the bullet generated by its shape, velocity and angle actually affect the fatality of it. If you actually fire a round with the big ass sniper rifle over a bunker wall, with a sheep behind it, you are going to break the back of the sheep, not by hitting it, but by the drag itself. So I don't really understand how you thought when you said the as50 shouldn't be a 1 shot one kill weapon... or the dragonouv and other snipers to do such low damage.

You also have to consider the effect hollow and solid (is this the right word for it?) point ammunition has on tissue on impact and the general shape of the bullet to properly calculate the damage. If you would get a hollow point shot in the chest from an assault rifle I think you would be pretty dead unless it hits in say the shoulder, but even then you would probably die from blood loss quite soon. (That considered, hunting rifles generally use hollow point, or actually HAVE to use it, in Sweden at least, so the CZ should have that whilst say an AK or M16 or something shouldn't, perhaps, if you count governing international legislation).

Edited August 3, 2012 by Hulahuga

[liquidcactus 719]

hey without trying to sound like a prick.. there is a tonne more shit thats needs to be worked on than fucking WEAPONS !

but I'm sure you mean in an overall sense, regardless you have some good points ^__^

[magnumx70@gmail.com 2]

YAWN <_< ..................

[Herb (DayZ) 121]

hi

arma 2 engine

bye

[bazbake 456]

I have mixed feelings about this, mainly on the damage part, I think it's mainly because I saw some of the damages and thought about how common some of those weapons were and was like "oh hell no" while this game strives for realism it also needs to be balanced, with those damage charts I may as well run around with a shotgun unless im trying to hit long range targets. I did like some of the ideas like the ringing noise after shooting the M107 or AS50 but overall I have to say no.

You just stated the point...and then ignored it in the same sentence.

In a game where every weapon has the same damage and effective range, your point is valid. But the M1014 is rarer than the AK-74 but the AK-74 does about half as much damage, holds 4 times the ammo, has full auto, and has an effective range about twice as far.

Why? Because assault rifles are overpowered and shotguns are nerfed.

I repeat, the M1014 is rarer. The only compromise in effect seems to be that its effective range has been buffed compared to its real-life effective range (unless it's using sabot rounds or something).

I'm speaking as someone who carries an AKM and whose weapon would actually be less powerful once the game is rebalanced. But this whole thing is ridiculous.

And the idea that all of these games are already balanced is doubtful. The Winchester 1866 was nerfed a couple days back. It's as if people keep complaining that since they can't win in close quarters against a gun designed for close quarters they need to keep making it weaker.

But no one's stopping people from finding their own shotguns. And there's no reason a SCOPED, semi-auto weapon with a range of 800 meters and no recoil should have more stopping power than an iron-sight semi-auto shotgun with a range of 100 meters that is harder to find. It's not just bad real game physics, it's crappy VIDEOGAME LOGIC^TM.

[bazbake 456]

Well first and foremost the airdrag of the bullet generated by its shape, velocity and angle actually affect the fatality of it. If you actually fire a round with the big ass sniper rifle over a bunker wall, with a sheep behind it, you are going to break the back of the sheep, not by hitting it, but by the drag itself. So I don't really understand how you thought when you said the as50 shouldn't be a 1 shot one kill weapon... or the dragonouv and other snipers to do such low damage.

You can't create more force in drag than force propelling the projectile without the bullet flying back into the gun.

You also have to consider the effect hollow and solid (is this the right word for it?) point ammunition has on tissue on impact and the general shape of the bullet to properly calculate the damage. If you would get a hollow point shot in the chest from an assault rifle I think you would be pretty dead unless it hits in say the shoulder, but even then you would probably die from blood loss quite soon. (That considered, hunting rifles generally use hollow point, or actually HAVE to use it, in Sweden at least, so the CZ should have that whilst say an AK or M16 or something shouldn't, perhaps, if you count governing international legislation).

Sweden's an interesting place. But none of the military ammo would have hollow points. It violates the Hague Convention, and all of the ammo for the sniper rifles except for the AS50 and M107 are NATO ammo.

(And as I noted in the post I made, 5.56mm NATO is notoriously low on stopping power. These rifles just should not realistically be doing damage on par with the other weapons, and that's all well and good since these are also the weapons with the most frills, the best accuracy, and the highest fire rate...it's like they kept all of the bonuses for small caliber and then ignored all of the weaknesses)

This also means none of the assault rifles or light machine guns would have hollow point ammo either.

The Lee Enfield and CZ550 might possibly have hollow point ammo, but that's a hypothetical and all it would do is make them more dangerous, not the 90% of the other guns I mentioned that were overpowered.

And, yeah, I already mentioned that there's no point talking about hollow point ammo since going down that road relies on a bunch of empty hypotheticals and I was arguing about stuff that could be proven.

Not to be mean about it or anything.

Also, to the guy who mentioned Arma II. If Arma II was wholly accurate, Rocket would have stopped changing the damage values for weapons already and no one would be rocking ACE. It's still another videogame and there's still work that needs to be done to make DayZ realistic instead of "realistic." And since making the game more realistic just so happens to balance the weaponry and gameplay, why fight it? Unless you spent 10 hours one day server hopping to get a FN FAL or something and want to keep everything the same.

Personally, if they changed weapon values, I'd be nerfing myself (I actually found an M107 on a crashed helicopter last night and then picked up an AKM in NAWF, so I'm actually hurting myself more than anyone).

Edited August 3, 2012 by BazBake

[Lady Kyrah 1109]

I agree about the sound, ANY military rifle has an eardrum shattering noise. I forgot to wear my ear protection when coming near the range where some guy was firing an assault rifle and it got my ears ringing. And that's after a single shot.

[hulahuga 29]

You can't create more force in drag than force propelling the projectile without the bullet flying back into the gun.

Sweden's an interesting place. But none of the military ammo would have hollow points. It violates the Hague Convention, and all of the ammo for the sniper rifles except for the AS50 and M107 are NATO ammo.

(And as I noted in the post I made, 5.56mm NATO is notoriously low on stopping power. These rifles just should not realistically be doing damage on par with the other weapons, and that's all well and good since these are also the weapons with the most frills, the best accuracy, and the highest fire rate...it's like they kept all of the bonuses for small caliber and then ignored all of the weaknesses)

This also means none of the assault rifles or light machine guns would have hollow point ammo either.

The Lee Enfield and CZ550 might possibly have hollow point ammo, but that's a hypothetical and all it would do is make them more dangerous, not the 90% of the other guns I mentioned that were overpowered.

And, yeah, I already mentioned that there's no point talking about hollow point ammo since going down that road relies on a bunch of empty hypotheticals and I was arguing about stuff that could be proven.

Not to be mean about it or anything.

Also, to the guy who mentioned Arma II. If Arma II was wholly accurate, Rocket would have stopped changing the damage values for weapons already and no one would be rocking ACE. It's still another videogame and there's still work that needs to be done to make DayZ realistic instead of "realistic." And since making the game more realistic just so happens to balance the weaponry and gameplay, why fight it? Unless you spent 10 hours one day server hopping to get a FN FAL or something and want to keep everything the same.

Personally, if they changed weapon values, I'd be nerfing myself (I actually found an M107 on a crashed helicopter last night and then picked up an AKM in NAWF, so I'm actually hurting myself more than anyone).

Wait a minute, i don't think you have read my post properly actually...

1. My dad visited a show where they did just that, so I don't understand what you are talking about here, seems completely unrelated to the point I was making.

2. I never said military ammo would have hollow points in Sweden, because as I said it would break governing international laws. However, what I pointed at was AK ammo, which actually very often, and even as the standard ,according to wikipedia at least, uses hollow point.

3. Yes, I agree :).One thing of note here is however stopping power compared to damage output against a human body...

4. Hunting rifles should use hollow point by default because that goes with governing laws on hunting, as said at least in Sweden. Solids are only used as practise bullets.

5. Hollow is hard, but not un-provable.

[Sanpedro 3]

I think a markov should be doing at least 5k damage per critical hit... This is supposed to be a SIMULATOR, how many people have taken 3 9mm rounds to the chest?

[hulahuga 29]

50 cent? XD

[jdz (DayZ) 238]

I like this thread.

The DMR, M24,SVD and CZ550 are really redundant in this game when you have the M107s.

I've never even seen a SVD camo or M24 in the barracks yet I find heaps of 50cal rifles at chopper crashes.

We really need a reason to choose these over the 50cal rifles

[Bobcomss 189]

I like this thread.

The DMR, M24,SVD and CZ550 are really redundant in this game when you have the M107s.

I've never even seen a SVD camo or M24 in the barracks yet I find heaps of 50cal rifles at chopper crashes.

We really need a reason to choose these over the 50cal rifles

Yeah I have to agree, needs looking at

and have you ever tried holding or running with a .50 Cal?! good luck lol!

[Bambo (DayZ) 42]

Most of what you said is accurate...however...the .50 cals only doing 7000 damage is underpowered. A .50 cal (as in a 12.7x99mm round) can hit a target in the upper leg, blow the leg clean off, and stop the target from breathing through the large amount of hydrostatic shock. I literally cannot think of a scenario where a .50, short of losing a finger or a toe or just getting grazed by the round, would not result in death or permanent disability.

Edited August 14, 2012 by scoopolard

[washingmachine 1]

I suggest we shoot the OP in real life to test out his flawed logic.

[bazbake 456]

Most of what you said is accurate...however...the .50 cals only doing 7000 damage is underpowered. A .50 cal (as in a 12.7x99mm round) can hit a target in the upper leg, blow the leg clean off, and stop the target from breathing through the large amount of hydrostatic shock. I literally cannot think of a scenario where a .50, short of losing a finger or a toe or just getting grazed by the round, would not result in death or permanent disability.

None of what you said is true.

:)

When I was a kid, every ten-year-old thought that a .357 magnum left a hole in your chest the size of a baseball. Of course, firing the gun made it obvious that this made no sense. A .50 caliber bullet leaves a hole the size of a 1/2'' icepick unless it hits bone, in which case it starts to tumble and leaves a larger temporary cavity (not an enormously large permanent cavity). The trick is, the rare case in which the .50 caliber bullet tumbles outside of ideal conditions is not an excuse to make the .50 caliber BMG round a magical exploding round.

What we really have are two camps. There is the camp full of people who heard through rumors how sniper rifles work. Then there is the camp full of people who know how sniper rifles actually work. You're in the first camp. I'm in the second camp. If you were in the second camp, we could actually have a reasonable debate about the damage sniper rifles should do compared to JHP handgun rounds or shotgun rounds. But you're not, and until you get in the second camp, you're just a guy on the internet confusing truthiness for the truth.

[Wiley 49]

Heh. Surprisingly decent post compared to what I was expecting to read with that title. I shudder to think what a round that was designed to expand would do to a human being out of a .50.

However with all the rounds for it not being designed to do so, they just aren't going to be that much better than a .308. The advantage comes from the greater effective range.

I think the OP is pretty much on the money. Beans for you.

[bazbake 456]

@Wiley

The irony is that most of the handgun and 9mm rounds would probably be JHP and overperform compared to their caliber. But Arma II further nerfed their damage because Video Games^TM (which I say with irony because even COD had more accurate damage tables for handguns).

[Wiley 49]

Well... the assumption would be ball ammo for everything wouldn't it? This is all supposedly military gear more or less right?

Depending on how the location multipliers affected damage, the values there sound reasonable. Something along the lines of a hit to the meat of a leg/arm being base damage, anything on the trunk being something along the lines of x2, center of mass being x3 and a headshot being an instant kill.

It would be nice if it could model bones/grazes, but I think that's asking a bit much.