• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

Weapon damages.

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
#21
CsSilencer;n2286264 said:
Talk about over analyzing and overreacting. I had no real trouble 1 shotting VC or GI with the M16, M14 and AK or SKS respectively. I'm not entirely sure how the damage is modelled this time but it seems to work out. There are still plenty of occasions where one shot was not enough. I like this mechanic/new hit model. I believe a lot of it is simply hitting limbs and a bit of RNG perhaps? Unless you're in extreme close quarters, in which case you shoot until they're dead anyways, a aimed shot at medium/long range causes extreme bleeding, and if they don't get into cover within two seconds they have to bandage in the open, in which case you just follow up. It simply wouldn't be authentic to take a single aimed shot at someone in a cqc situation, but that doesn't mean you can't go around using semi-auto in cqc, in fact I prefer it.

Pls no 30rd M16, not in the slightest historically accurate -.-
​​​
Click to expand...

Take the sniper class. You can see exactly where you are hitting them lol.
 
Upvote 0
#24
Jagdwyre;n2286303 said:
Uh what? There were enough 30 rounders being issued from around 1970 and on to justify putting them into the game if the developers wanted to(and they did, however a couple beta builds back they removed them).
Click to expand...

Do you have a good source for that? To the best of my knowledge the 30-rounders did not see much, if effectively any use during US involvement in the Vietnam War.
 
Upvote 0
#25
Thom430;n2286319 said:
Do you have a good source for that? To the best of my knowledge the 30-rounders did not see much, if effectively any use during US involvement in the Vietnam War.
Click to expand...

They did in the 70s but that's late in the war with US involvement.

There are photos from as early as 67 of 30 round magazines in Vietnam. But none of them are frontline troops. GG american logistics system lol. Essentially meant that rear troops and security guards got them first. The people who didn't need them. Wasn't until the Americans were almost pulling entirely out where the majority of frontline troops had 30 rounders.


I remember one story I read of a guy who got wounded in 69 and taken back to a hospital. While he was recovering he came across a group of navy construction workers and saw that they had m16s with 30 round magazines. So he looked around a bit and saw a bandolier on the ground full of them. He stole that and redeployed with it lol. But he was pretty much the only guy in his unit who had 30 round magazines for ages. And this was 1969.
 
  • Like
Reactions: exhausted
Upvote 0
#26
Lemonater47;n2286325 said:
They did in the 70s but that's late in the war with US involvement.

There are photos from as early as 67 of 30 round magazines in Vietnam. But none of them are frontline troops. GG american logistics system lol. Essentially meant that rear troops and security guards got them first. The people who didn't need them. Wasn't until the Americans were almost pulling entirely out where the majority of frontline troops had 30 rounders.


I remember one story I read of a guy who got wounded in 69 and taken back to a hospital. While he was recovering he came across a group of navy construction workers and saw that they had m16s with 30 round magazines. So he looked around a bit and saw a bandolier on the ground full of them. He stole that and redeployed with it lol. But he was pretty much the only guy in his unit who had 30 round magazines for ages. And this was 1969.
Click to expand...

Hmm, thanks for that. I don't want to derail the topic with a discussion on that, I was just making a comment to a previous response. That being said, I've always been quite curious on this topic in particular and never really found anything that indicated it saw widespread use at any point, let alone the most active years of US involvement (where it saw close to no use by frontline troops by my research). So hence, if we're trying to represent the mainstream frontline combat, realistically, and tying it into when the events of the maps took place, it really doesn't fit to have 30 round magazines in my opinion.

It makes for better asymmetry anyways :p
 
Upvote 0
#29
not 1 shot kill just because you hit somebody in the chest.... there are such things as non-vital areas and grazing shots. It was quite possible that a bullet wouldn't have the desired wounding effect if the target was malnourished or too thin. Those bullet wounds were not as catastrophic as hoped. The result is more survivors. Americans, however, could have a harder time except the fact that sometimes they had a tiny bit of extra chest protection.
 
Upvote 0
#30
exhausted;n2286609 said:
not 1 shot kill just because you hit somebody in the chest.... there are such things as non-vital areas and grazing shots. It was quite possible that a bullet wouldn't have the desired wounding effect if the target was malnourished or too thin. Those bullet wounds were not as catastrophic as hoped. The result is more survivors. Americans, however, could have a harder time except the fact that sometimes they had a tiny bit of extra chest protection.
Click to expand...

Even if such a shot weren't lethal, it would be greatly incapacitating. And the game doesn't model such occurrences (it's either death or a wound that the victim can take care of on his own), so it's better to qualify a crippling shot as a kill.

By the way, I'd like stomach shots in the game to be as lethal as chest shots. In real life, they are a really serious matter. If one didn't kill you, it would make you unable to fight, so it's better to qualify them as lethal one way or the other (for the reason I mentioned earlier).

And as for grazing shots, I thought they were already taken into account.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#31
exhausted;n2286609 said:
not 1 shot kill just because you hit somebody in the chest.... there are such things as non-vital areas and grazing shots. It was quite possible that a bullet wouldn't have the desired wounding effect if the target was malnourished or too thin. Those bullet wounds were not as catastrophic as hoped. The result is more survivors. Americans, however, could have a harder time except the fact that sometimes they had a tiny bit of extra chest protection.
Click to expand...


You're overthinking it lol.

In this game most of the time chest shots with full sized rifle rounds is the equivalent of tapping somebody on the shoulder. You shoot them, they turn around like nothing ****ing happened and shoot you.

They should be on the ground combat ineffective.


Thats the issue.
 
Upvote 0
#32
Mises;n2286633 said:
Even if such a shot weren't lethal, it would be greatly incapacitating. And the game doesn't model such occurrences (it's either death or a wound that the victim can take care of on his own), so it's better to qualify a crippling shot as a kill.

By the way, I'd like stomach shots in the game to be as lethal as chest shots. In real life, they are a really serious matter. If one didn't kill you, it would make you unable to fight, so it's better to qualify them as lethal one way or the other (for the reason I mentioned earlier).

And as for grazing shots, I thought they were already taken into account.
Click to expand...

I'd prefer a bleeding out death for stomach shows. With all the pain-numbing adrenaline, why wouldn't you be able to shoot back?

In training for failure drills, which means practicing methods to kill an adversary you don't expect to die from the first shot, we knew that it takes multiple shots to kill an enemy hellbent on shooting you back. That's where the phrase two to the chest and one to the head comes from.

In other words, with few exceptions (like heart), a chest shot should absolutely NOT be an instant death. Bleeding out, sure -- but there should be an opportunity to shoot back before you die.
 
Upvote 0
#33
exhausted;n2286734 said:
I'd prefer a bleeding out death for stomach shows. With all the pain-numbing adrenaline, why wouldn't you be able to shoot back?

In training for failure drills, which means practicing methods to kill an adversary you don't expect to die from the first shot, we knew that it takes multiple shots to kill an enemy hellbent on shooting you back. That's where the phrase two to the chest and one to the head comes from.

In other words, with few exceptions (like heart), a chest shot should absolutely NOT be an instant death. Bleeding out, sure -- but there should be an opportunity to shoot back before you die.
Click to expand...

Yeah but what about run away to get behind a rock then bandage lol. After a lung has exploded and part of your ripcage has turned into shrapnel. They'd be on the ground at the very least.

Not to mention I bet that training for failure drill is done for 5.56.
 
Upvote 0
#34
When I went threw advanced rifle marksmanship in AIT they where pushing controlled pairs to the chest. When I was in the train up for Iraq they where still pushing controlled pairs to center mass (chest). No one ever pushed shoot em in the head. Well except that stupid cadence in scout land of shoot em in the head, kill em. Fill the body bags, fill em. Recon... blaa blaa blaa. Which mercifully I never had to hear again after Fort Knox. Rather sing about tiny bubbles in beer or she wore a yellow ribbon thank you vary much. All pretty mute anyways. No one gets up after a .50cal to the chest. Let alone 2. Although maybe with the current RS2 build. :p
 
Upvote 0
#35
Lemonater47;n2286741 said:
Yeah but what about run away to get behind a rock then bandage lol. After a lung has exploded and part of your ripcage has turned into shrapnel. They'd be on the ground at the very least.

Not to mention I bet that training for failure drill is done for 5.56.
Click to expand...

There should be no option to bandage for shots to the heart or lungs (other chest shots, like grazes yes). And don't assume somebody would hit the ground just because they suffered a lethal hit. They can fight back until the point where their brain no longer gets oxygen -- either because lungs are destroyed or because they bled out. Also, I think saying your ribcage would have turned to shrapnel is a great exaggeration. Take the case of a deer: I've shot both lungs out and it falls -- but the ribs are still mostly in tact. Things don't just explode because you hit them with a rifle bullet.

You must factor in the fact that 7.62mm rounds might not be as deadly as 5.56mm in many occasions -- thickness of the body really matters. In malnourished bodies, M193 could be far more deadly than M80.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#36
You have 2 lungs. While its BAD to get one extra opening and with no treatment will kill you. It takes quite a bit of time to get the tension pneumothorax going to get enough pressure to cause a blockage of the wind pipe. You could well be spewing blood everywhere out your mouth but still be in the fight. Just get your battle buddy to stab you between your 3rd and 4th rib ( or was it 2nd and 3rd?) above the mangled lung and you could keep in the fight for an insane amount of time if the other lung is still good. There have been some hard asses that have done this. I think I would be on the ground crying for mommy however.

My point is I do dislike bandage and everything is groovy. But going more legit is ghoulish and beyond what most want in a game. Like you get your shins splintered and now all you can do is crawl around. No magic bandage is going to make that better. Unless there was some mechanic to carry away your mangled butt to a magic aid tent somewhere. While that could be really nifty...dust off.... beyond what most want I guess. Although if you where to go "REAL" everyone shot lethal or not would probably end up in shock totally unable to do anything.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Community News
Forums
Merch
Menu