Armor

This is a real gripe of mine, and I already mentioned it in my laundry list of game issues, but it really bugs me that when I'm hit with a bullet that the second bullet and third bullet, hitting the same area of my body, add accumulative damage, and eventually take me down as if I wasn't wearing armor at all.

It really want armor to absorb the full damage of any number of bullets. I don't care if several bullets hit me all over the place and I die, but spectating other players who have partial damage I see so many players get smacked square in the chest armor and killed when that armor should have protected them.

Because otherwise Insurgency armor is as real or fake as Counter Strike armor in all versions of CS, or any shooter that has body armor. It really bugs me that my armor or anybody else's armor doesn't work like it's supposed to. I get that body armor is not a "force field", but it's like if I'm wearing the stuff, and a bullet hits my armor and I get killed because of a previous bullet strike, then there's no point in wearing armor at all. In fact it ought to be removed from the game altogether unless it's reworked.

In counter strike I'll last a few split seconds longer. In some of the battlefield games it actually does help you survive. In lesser known military shooters it's kind of hit or miss, but on average their armor works like CS armor.

If you do nothing else for this game, then please make real body armor with real effects and that can actually save your life, as opposed to just taking away some damage.

In real life armor doesn't fully protect you from damage. Soft body armor bends from hits causing internal injuries like broken ribs. Hits from rifles to heavy armor plates still feel like someone would hit you with a sledgehammer. You might get incapacitated, but you survive.

Well, there was a topic about about armor, but it was reversed - armor is too strong. So, i think it is just personal opinion. I think it is nice that armor is not something that boosts you way over the top. Now you don't die instantly (at least from low caliber guns). That is all it should do. If you want your way, would you be happy to lay down for some time on ground after being hit with AK (in real life from pain or being unconscious)?

@action83 said in Armor:

In real life armor doesn't fully protect you from damage. Soft body armor bends from hits causing internal injuries like broken ribs. Hits from rifles to heavy armor plates still feel like someone would hit you with a sledgehammer. You might get incapacitated, but you survive.

Yeah, that's kind of what I'm talking about. I've seen guys get hit and writhe in pain on the ground. Other times guys get knocked over, are a little sore or winded, but otherwise none the worse for wear.

I'm just a little tired of body armor acting as a "shunt", absorbing a portion of the damage but applying the difference to your health. If you get a trigger burst and it all hits your armor you ought to survive, perhaps a little sore or something … however that might be represented in game.

I guess I just gave away an idea, but it's like armor truly is useless. You can last a few fraction of a seconds longer, but otherwise, as you said, that's not how real armor works. And so not only do you die from damage that should not have been applied to you, but you can't recover--you have to wait to respawn.

And I don't want "force field" kind of armor that surrounds your entire character, just something that reflects how armor works.

If they did what you're suggesting then the game would become very cod like whereby you need to shoot a guy 9 times to kill him, this isn't what insurgency is about. It's not a simulator like armed assault, and it's not a complete arcade shooter like cod.

I can't tell if body armour needs a rework or what because i play a lot of pve checkpoint and every loadout of mine uses heavy armour so i can't tell if bots are just headshot gods or what, but I always get instantly killed or I take a round or two and die, but either way so long as body armour works the same for both insurgents and security be they players or ai and things die in a couple of rounds to the torso then It's all good in my opinion.

last edited by Depleted

Well, I guess I'm also asking for more accurate hit boxes as well, because I don't want a hit to my armor to kill me, but a hit to my face, neck, or some other exposed area, should severely damage my character.

I'm not a Call of Duty fan. In that game you're essentially invulnerable most of the time, like the original DOOM or something. Sexy graphics though.

The point of armor is to help you survive a bullet or two, not make you invulnerable to chest shots from low-medium calibers. That's unbelievably overpowered.

However, I would be fine with armor (or more specifically, the option to choose between different levels of armor/lack thereof) being removed. It's either useless or it increases the TTK by even more.

Armor in basically every computer game is an abstraction. The interactions between bullets, armor, and human bodies in real life is fairly complex, and I'm not aware of any game that has even attempted to model it in a realistic fashion. To make game modeling simpler, characters have hit points, and armor works to reduce hit point damage. Reducing complex interactions to simpler abstractions is a fundamental aspect of game design.

It would be neat to see a game realistically model weapon damage some day. My guess is it would take a fair amount of computing power to do well, I'm not sure it's possible yet. It would also change the way characters react to being shot in a pretty unique way.

@maa_bunny The whole thing with me is fine I get for the most part how armour works in real life but in the game if I shoot you square in that “plate” on your chest with a three round burst M16 and you survive you sure as hell shouldn’t be able to just brush it off as if nothing happened and go about your merry little way of running, jumping, shooting, killing, etc.. Or at the very least maybe you can still shoot your gun because your finger still works even though you would be in a tremendous amount of pain but your aim would be next to non existent. People in real life react much worse to being stung by a wasp then they do to being shot in this game.. To quote the great Forest.. Forest Gump. “That’s all m gonna say bout thaat...”

@planetcanada If you shoot someone three times in the chest, they should die. Period. This is Insurgency, not Call of Duty.

This happens when you get shot in reality ( just one single shot into the body armour ) :
Youtube Video

You can imagine what it feels like getting hit by several projectiles

last edited by GSG_9_LIGHTNING

@maa_bunny said in Armor:

Armor in basically every computer game is an abstraction. The interactions between bullets, armor, and human bodies in real life is fairly complex, and I'm not aware of any game that has even attempted to model it in a realistic fashion. To make game modeling simpler, characters have hit points, and armor works to reduce hit point damage. Reducing complex interactions to simpler abstractions is a fundamental aspect of game design.

It would be neat to see a game realistically model weapon damage some day. My guess is it would take a fair amount of computing power to do well, I'm not sure it's possible yet. It would also change the way characters react to being shot in a pretty unique way.

And that's my real beef with all armor in all games since the first DOOM way back in 92 or 93. Yeah, it is complex, and I'm wondering just how complex it would be to model real armor. Stuff that doesn't make you invulnerable from a bullet hitting your neck, armpit or side, but that doesn't just slow you down for a split second and then let all the other damage go to your health and kill you.

So many times I see dead characters with like two or three blood splatters and hole skins on their armor, and sure maybe they took a hit somewhere else before or during that attack, but why did they die when say most or all but one round hit their armor?

Whatever. Like I say, I guess it's not going to get solved here with Sandstorm, and I don't want a "force field" surrounding me and making me invulnerable, but it's one of those things.

I should have stuck with coding back in school so I could take a crack at this......but I didn't. Oh well.

I don't understand why so many games can't get armor & hit damage right. I'm not a programmer but damn.. Counterstrike has been doing it since the 90's... You just need good hitboxes. Surely that can't be that difficult? Especially with all the modern improvements in game engines since those days.. Has anyone played that WW3 game? That game is made by an Indy developer also on the Unreal engine, and they have the armor spot on in that game. If you get hit in the chest area it will do like 10 damage "unless you are using armor piercing ammo", but if you get shot in the stomach just below the armor plate it does 80 damage. They have excellent hit boxes. You can get shot in your hands, neck, legs, or wherever and it all does different damage amounts based on the location and ammo used. Plus after you die the death screen pops up with a picture of your character that shows where every bullet hit you, and how much damage each shot did.. PERFECT! That should be the standard for all shooters. Whoever said that having an armor plate that actually works would make the game like COD... Nope.. Wrong. Go play WW3... Nothing like COD. People still die quick, but the armor actually works.

last edited by Hossfxr

Looks like your connection to Focus Home Interactive - Official Forums was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.