• 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/

Mixed feelings about bullet penetration?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
#41
It's been said already, but what really unbalances penetration in other games is knowing where the enemy is and just running bullets through their cover until you register a hit. (Looking at you BC2.)

With no spotting and no hit indicators, people will have to shoot far more to guarantee they're hitting someone through cover....exposing themselves in the process.

Personally I can't play without bullet penetration and destructible cover anymore. It gives you reasons to move and prevents games devolving into 12 guys humping each other in the back on the same piece of cover.
 
Upvote 0
#42
Bobdog said:
That's part of the point on an MG: to cover an area in such a way that direct counterattack is difficult if not impossible. That way the MG denies an area to the enemy, hopefully providing some cover for friendly forces to operate under. The way to deal with an MG in RO (Ostfront or HoS) is the same as IRL; flank it and neutralize it from outside its arc of fire.
Click to expand...

As long as it don't stalemate the infantry I don't care.
 
Upvote 0
#43
I think that MGs, with all their major setbacks (like ammo, having to set up, and extreme limits) shouldn't be taken one on one when set up. And a team can easily gang up on any lone MG because he can only fire one direction, and he himself is now in the open. And if the MG is on the front lines, with a team and a large enemy force, he will be as he is in Roost; a prime target, powerful but obvious. And with penetration, he ought to be very careful before he reveals himself.
 
Upvote 0
#44
We really have to consider 2 things regarding penetration here: will the penetration behave like a gradient or be binary, and will it affect bullet trajectory.

I don't know about COD and BC2, but I think in it it's a case of "either materials allow bullets to pass through like a knife through butter or they're invincible force-fields". In real life of course it doesn't work like that, while both wood and concrete may allow bullets to pass through those that pass through concrete will end up losing most of their stopping power and be a lot less dangerous than those which pass through wood. Of course, this is rudimentary and I'm sure TWI took it into account, I'm just pointing out that even if the MG can pierce any material hiding behind a brick wall will still make all the difference than standing out in the open.

Another point to consider is whether the bullet gets deflected when it passes through a material and how much, as this basically determines whether or not it's viable to shoot at someone through a wall if they're not propped up to it from the other side to begin with. This may be more difficult to code than power loss due to penetration, but I'd say using an approximated model similar to Snell's Law they'd be able to get a good result.
 
Upvote 0
#45
WinTurkey said:
We really have to consider 2 things regarding penetration here: will the penetration behave like a gradient or be binary, and will it affect bullet trajectory.

I don't know about COD and BC2, but I think in it it's a case of "either materials allow bullets to pass through like a knife through butter or they're invincible force-fields". In real life of course it doesn't work like that, while both wood and concrete may allow bullets to pass through those that pass through concrete will end up losing most of their stopping power and be a lot less dangerous than those which pass through wood. Of course, this is rudimentary and I'm sure TWI took it into account, I'm just pointing out that even if the MG can pierce any material hiding behind a brick wall will still make all the difference than standing out in the open.

Another point to consider is whether the bullet gets deflected when it passes through a material and how much, as this basically determines whether or not it's viable to shoot at someone through a wall if they're not propped up to it from the other side to begin with. This may be more difficult to code than power loss due to penetration, but I'd say using an approximated model similar to Snell's Law they'd be able to get a good result.
Click to expand...

I feel confident that they will include ricochet angles, I mean they have it on the tanks already in ROOST, and if they don't, then there will probably be angles that the bullet simply wont penetrate certain materials.
 
Upvote 0
#46
WinTurkey said:
We really have to consider 2 things regarding penetration here: will the penetration behave like a gradient or be binary, and will it affect bullet trajectory.

I don't know about COD and BC2, but I think in it it's a case of "either materials allow bullets to pass through like a knife through butter or they're invincible force-fields". In real life of course it doesn't work like that, while both wood and concrete may allow bullets to pass through those that pass through concrete will end up losing most of their stopping power and be a lot less dangerous than those which pass through wood. Of course, this is rudimentary and I'm sure TWI took it into account, I'm just pointing out that even if the MG can pierce any material hiding behind a brick wall will still make all the difference than standing out in the open.

Another point to consider is whether the bullet gets deflected when it passes through a material and how much, as this basically determines whether or not it's viable to shoot at someone through a wall if they're not propped up to it from the other side to begin with. This may be more difficult to code than power loss due to penetration, but I'd say using an approximated model similar to Snell's Law they'd be able to get a good result.
Click to expand...
Couple of points...

1. Yes, material thickness matters. Think we said that before...

2. Snell's law is related to the refraction due to the WAVE nature of light - it has precious little to with the deflection of a particulate body. And you'll find that high velocity projectiles tend to pass through in a relatively straight line, although they may shatter or start to tumble on the way through. Any deflection is relatively random due to contact with differing materials as it passes through - which is also what causes tumbling.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hockeywarrior
Upvote 0
#49
Well I hope we have lots of rubble piles and etc. I would bet most buildings from that time only had at the most two layers of brick. A MG will eat through that for sure, but as someone mentioned, no hit indicator should even that out.

I'm starting to pick off a lot of MGs with my bolt in RO1 so I'm sure it's a matter of learning the maps as well. I think I have some sort of disorder now because of TWI. Redorchestraism...thanks guys! lol :D I should have never got involved. lol
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#52
I would suspect that with Suppression and Penetration, your going to see more emphasis on flanking the tough obstacles, like that MG team, and hit them from the side with a squad of men. I also can see if it works out this way, more emphasis on getting a good MG gunner and having rifleman protecting him from flank attacks (not to mention providing ammo).
 
Upvote 0
#56
That's been my point. I hope they balance enough non-penetrating objects to allow people to press forward. I'm sure TWI will do this so I'm not worried. With faster run speed this should help as well.

Major Liability said:
I just hope that's enough. Can you imagine Danzig with bullet penetration? The Russians would never make it out of spawn, whether they were seen or not.
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0
#57
HeyCarnut said:
In the punctilious spirit of these forums, it also deals with reflection (critical angle), and can be derived using a photon stream (particle model) just as easily as waves.
Click to expand...

Smartass :p I am NOT going to try to revive my A-Level Physics enough to discuss the wave-particle duality of light...

wahoo4 said:
Well I hope we have lots of rubble piles and etc. I would bet most buildings from that time only had at the most two layers of brick. A MG will eat through that for sure, but as someone mentioned, no hit indicator should even that out.
Click to expand...
Actually, the buildings of the period in Russia can be divided into a few categories:

1. Wooden peasant crap. Popping up and down behind a window in one of those to shoot at an MG will be a BAD idea.

2. Pre-revolutionary/Tsarist architecture. Built of brick and stone, fairly massive construction. Outer walls constructed of multiple layers of brick, with air-gap for insulation. Thick enough to stop most projectiles, but more prone to "crumbling" from bombing and sustained artillery fire.

3. Soviet-era architecture - apartments. Massive brick construction, multiple layers of heavy-duty brick (NOT cinder block crap). Tended to withstand bombing/shelling better - a good number survived well enough to be rebuilt after the war. We've been in some in the upper and lower settlements of Traktorniy.

4. Soviet-era "big buildings". They made a lot of use of reinforced concrete by this point - thick slab, unsubtle. Often faced with stone or brick. Very solid.

Take "Danzig" - most of the buildings are Soviet-era apartments. Very soldily built. Most walls will withstand most bullets. The penetration that does occur will need the bullet hitting face-on - and even then the round will end up losing most of its energy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mistk�fer, DiedTrying, Major Liability and 4 others
Upvote 0
#58
Thank you for clearing that up Wilsonam, interesting stuff, and that makes me feel a lot better. :D I imagined cheaply made building construction.

[TW]Wilsonam said:
Smartass :p I am NOT going to try to revive my A-Level Physics enough to discuss the wave-particle duality of light...


Actually, the buildings of the period in Russia can be divided into a few categories:

1. Wooden peasant crap. Popping up and down behind a window in one of those to shoot at an MG will be a BAD idea.

2. Pre-revolutionary/Tsarist architecture. Built of brick and stone, fairly massive construction. Outer walls constructed of multiple layers of brick, with air-gap for insulation. Thick enough to stop most projectiles, but more prone to "crumbling" from bombing and sustained artillery fire.

3. Soviet-era architecture - apartments. Massive brick construction, multiple layers of heavy-duty brick (NOT cinder block crap). Tended to withstand bombing/shelling better - a good number survived well enough to be rebuilt after the war. We've been in some in the upper and lower settlements of Traktorniy.

4. Soviet-era "big buildings". They made a lot of use of reinforced concrete by this point - thick slab, unsubtle. Often faced with stone or brick. Very solid.

Take "Danzig" - most of the buildings are Soviet-era apartments. Very soldily built. Most walls will withstand most bullets. The penetration that does occur will need the bullet hitting face-on - and even then the round will end up losing most of its energy.
Click to expand...
 
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