Lowering the damage of 7.62 NATO rifles was a BAD idea

Seriously, they feel completely worthless now.

Before they were balanced and fun, now there's no reason to pick one over a regular assault rifle.

Let me be clear though, that it takes assault rifles 2 shots to kill to the torso vs armour is perfect, but battle rifles in 7.62 NATO have to be 1 shot, otherwise they're simply not competitive with the lower recoil and faster firing assault rifles. I honestly thought the balance was perfect before the 4.20 patch.

last edited by Wolfram

Yeah, the 7.62x51 and 7.62x54 should be reliable one shot kills to the chest for balance's sake. Inconsistent one hit kills wouldn't do the trick, because I'd end up double tapping anyway to be sure and that would defeat the purpose of higher damage per shot

we are stuck using the fal until they fix it

I don't think they have to be 1 shot. It would make bolt actions redundant.

They could however have more penetration capabilities, especially on glass. That, and having the advantage of killing one ennemy and heavily wound the one that stood behind him would be cool enough of a reason to pick them over a regular 5.56 rifle.

I think they already do noticeably more damage and have much better wall penetration. 5.56 and 7.62x39 always need 2 torso hits to kill, but 7.62x51 NATO (G3 and FAL) kills at least unarmored with 1 shot. If G3 and FAL would always kill even heavy armor users with 1 shot they'd be overpowered and no-one would use any other weapon. Only M24 sniper with 7.62 NATO AP rounds should always 1 shot to the torso.

In my opinion the 7.62 NATO weapons should be the best choice for long range combat anyway, like in real life.

7.62s don't have better armor penetration than 5.56 so making them 1 shot when 5.56s aren't is unrealistic. 7.62s do however have better material penetration (like wood, bricks, cinder blocks, etc) and better velocity at range. I think they should be a little better at penetrating surfaces, but other than that I don't see why they need to 1-shot heavy armor.

@thehappybub Indeed. But it's a game and we need some kind of balance between weapons. Reality is impossible to reproduce in its total complexity, so...
This topic raises a very good critic : as for now, battle rifles don't offer that much of an advantage compared to classic assault rifles chambered in 5.56... How do you fix that ? 7.62 is better at long ranges, but in reality you can engage an ennemy at far greater distances than what the game has to offer, so... There's a problem. The only solution would be to lower the effective range of 5.56 rifles, which would also be unrealistic.

@grumf I think it can be replicated by slightly, and yes, unrealistically, making the battle rifles easier to control and reducing their kick. I'd rather ballistics be realistic and gun recoil be messed with than the other way around. I don't know if this is a good idea or not, it's just my opinion on it.

IMHO it was perfect before, but I could accept the following:

Talking only vs heavy armor:
7.62x51 NATO & 7.62x54 R weapons should all kill in 1 shot to the upper chest at least, making taking two to the stomach area to die possible with heavy armour.

5.56 NATO, 7.62x39 & 5.45 Russian should all kill in 2 shots to the upper chest (main difference between 7.62 full power vs AR calibers) as well as stomach.

I think damage should be based on the kinetic energy of the round, it's the only fair way to balance things, and a 168 grain 7.62 round does after all pack noticably bigger punch than any AR round, which should be reflected ingame IMO.

As for bolt action rifles, just give them 7.62 AP ammo and make them 1 shot kills to any part of the body except limbs - albeit a shot to the arm from the side should penetrate through into the torso, but that goes for all rounds.

There's a reason militaries around the world have been reissuing the battle rifle én masse for a while now, the stopping power of the 7.62 was sorely missed by the troops.

last edited by Wolfram

The thing is that 5.56 should perform better against armor than 7.62s, so making 5.56 2 shot while 7.62 1 shots just doesn't make sense to me.

Exaggerating the 7.62's penetration power against materials, decreasing the 5.56's penetration power against materials other than armor, increasing battle rifle stability, and maybe even implementing a "punch" effect to the player who takes a hit from a 7.62 to heavy armor seem reasonable in any combination.

IRL with standard 7.62x51 ammo against a level 3 armor plate (ar500) (heavy armor) there is no penetration at all even after 15 rounds fired. i'm not sure how the game is managing it. the one shot kill with this caliber should be only possible without armor or with light armor.

i think the player with heavy armor should manage to wisthstand at least 4-5 standard 7.62x51 bullets to chest/back/sides (corresponding to the armor plates hitzones) before passing out/dying. with armor piercing round 1 or 2 bullets.

Youtube Video

last edited by KALASH NICOLE

@kalash-nicole That would be completely broken. The rounds that kick more and usually come with a lower capacity have to deal substantially higher damage or there will be no reason to ever run 7.62

@cyoce It really wouldn't considering that this would only apply to a relatively small rectangle on the front and back of the torso (the size of the SAPI plate). Plus this is true only at impacts at the direct center and from a perpendicular angle.

I don't think it should be totally like it is irl, though taking two or three rounds sounds reasonable.

I liked @Whitby's idea of making it as if all the plates were ceramic and having them just "break" after taking a single hit. Even though that's not really the way it is, it would make for balanced armor imo.

@cyoce in my opinion these are a good values :

7.62x51 vs heavy armor to kill : : 1-2 AP bullets / 4-5 standard bullets.
7.62x39 : 2-3 Ap bullet / 5-6 standards
5.56x45 / 5.45x39 : 3-4 AP / 6-7 standards

you say "if the 7.62x51 doesn't do enough damage it becomes useless". I would answer "if the heavy armor doesn't give at least these degrees of protection then they become useless too".

let's rememeber this would only concerns plates hitzones areas which are 10x12" sized for front and back plates and 6x9" sized for side plates. all the rest of the body zones would need 50% less bullets to kill and the head/neck/throat would be insta kill whatever the rifle caliber bullet type.

last edited by KALASH NICOLE

@kalash-nicole said in Lowering the damage of 7.62 NATO rifles was a BAD idea:

5.56x45 / 5.45x39 : 3-4 AP / 6-7 standards

Well this doesn't make any sense, 5.56 should perform better at armor penetration.

5.56x45 AP Better than 7.62x51 AP for penetration ? I don't think so.

@kalash-nicole 7.62 rounds penetrate low-density materials very well. By low-density we're talking wood, plaster, cinder-blocks, even bricks.

5.56 perform very poorly against these kind of materials, but penetrate thin, high-density materials very well. By high-density we're talking things like SAPI plates, sheet metal, and kevlar.

Look up ballistic gel videos if you don't believe me. 5.56 rounds are basically AP (to a degree) by nature against infantry-based armor. 7.62s are not, though on the flip side, you can mow trees down with 7.62s, not with 5.56s.

Also note that Type III armor is NOT rated against 5.56 rounds whereas it IS rated against 7.62 for this very reason.

A 5.56 ap round would go through a Type III plate like butter. Your 3-4 round thing is just unrealistically high.

last edited by thehappybub

It really boils down to this: in reality, a 7.62 round is preffered because it rips through most commonly-found cover. So what that SAPI plate won't stop it? ... it really doesn't matter when you're blasting people literally through walls.

5.56 will perform better against armor due to its high velocity, but once it hits a tree branch it loses a lot of its power. That's not really that helpful in reality.

At the ranges SS is played at, it matters more because 5.56 would very clearly outperform 7.62 on direct hits. What I would like to see in the game is implementation of realistic penetration for both rounds. A 7.62 should go through most everything that isn't a very solid wall. If you see an enemy through a window of some plaster building and they duck below it, you blasting that wall with a battle rifle should get you a kill. If that's how it worked, I would consider the rounds balanced as they have specific strengths.

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