Dmg values are broken - Needs fixing ASAP

So, me and Whitby did some testing on the dmg values currently in the game (on a PVP match), and our discoveries were rather interesting, for example the FAL manages to 1 hit someone up close with heavy armor, yet the SCAR and G3A3, which have the same caliber as the FAL take 2 shots (another weird thing is that it also takes 2 shots to kill someone with no armor at all with the SCAR), it really doesnt make sense, since the dmg system is based on the caliber now, so these guns should technically do the same damage.

Another weird thing is some calibers arent 1 killing to the chest with no armor, since we are talking so much about lethality, why this discrepancy, you should die no matter what to a rifle caliber to the chest if you have nothing but a shirt to protect you, hows it possible a .45 acp does more dmg to the chest than all the 5.56 and 7.62x39 rifles, and even the goddamn SCAR, you really should die with 1 shot to the chest if you have no armor at all.

Also the M24's range is broken, up close it is a one tap, but at longer distances it no longer is, so we end up with a bolt action rifle that cant one hit somebody at the distance a bolt action should shine at, the mosin currently doesnt suffer from this, but for real all of this needs fixing ASAP if you wanna have a balanced and competitive game in your hands, and so can end up with a great experience after all.

The spreadsheet is here if you wanna take a look at it, theres some more things here and there that really dont make sense:

0_1544035266190_Screenshot_51.png

7.62 NATO from a FAL, at long range while wearing body armour:
Death.

7.62 NATO from a G3, at point blank while wearing body armour:
Hurt ribs.

7.62 NATO from a SCAR, at point blank while wearing only a shirt:
Hurt... feelings?

@NWI The good news is the FAL only needs a small buff. The bad news is your realistic damage model isn't realistic nor is it damaging.

AKM rounds, M16 rounds, etc to unprotected vital organs don't kill people. Why is a M45 more damaging than an AKM? Why does the removal of vital organ functionality with multiple makarov rounds into an unarmoured target have no result? What definition of lethality is this?

I want to see Sandstorm succeed. I've been a fan since the Insurgency mod and I've played every title you've released religiously. Your release date is in less than a week and the guns don't work properly. You are falsely advertising a realistic damage model and high lethality. Both of these claims are utterly false. I will happily give you my time and labour in any way you require to assist in fixing this, but please don't sweep this under the rug and release it anyway, just because casual players gave it their 15 minutes and vocalised "it's fine" on the forums.

Further statistics here:
https://forums.focus-home.com/topic/32703/heavy-armour-too-overpowered/3

last edited by Whitby

@freedn Never ran tests myself yet but there are some interesting things.

First of all, the M24 has been garbage for months at this point, basically.

Second, the SCAR-H has also been pretty trash for a while.

The Glock is a 17, not 18 lol.

Didn't know the FAL one-shots Heavy Armor. That's a little broken IMO since the gun itself was already one of the best in the game. Prior to the patch Heavy Armor required two shots.

This list doesn't include the L106A1, which I believe is a Sig P226. I'm curious on the shots to kill for that pistol since it used to two-shot Heavy Armor in CQB.

FAL is not overpowered. Everything else is just wank.

Just an addition: Prior to the patch, the FAL, G3 and M14 all onetapped heavy armour at long range with the long barrel. Even then, the TTK was way too high.

last edited by Whitby

@marksmanmax Oh, there are some guns missing as their dmg is exactly the same, like all the 9x19 mm pistols do the same and so on, but i was too lazy to add them in.

F-yeah now we got some good research going on!

Good job guys! I will get back to this later when I habe more time

This is really interesting, thanks both of you for doing this experiment.

Biggest takeaways for me are that 7.62mm should one-shot against unarmored, which will differentiate the AKM and SKS from the AK74 and fix the SCAR, the FAL needs to be effected by armor, and all pistols except maybe the Makarov are over powered.

How did the M-4 come out? Same as the M-16 or closer to the Mk.18?

M4 is the same as the M16, or atleast should be, i think having no armor you should die no matter what, thats my only say in the TTK debacle tbh.

I stand by the main takeaway from this is the armour needs to be SAPI plate sized BEFORE any of this gets fixed. What I think this SHOULD look like, reposted from before:

7.62x51 + 7.62x54
One hit kill to torso and upper legs at medium / close range.
One hit kill to torso at long range.
Punches through cover exceptionally.

7.62x39
One hit kill to torso at medium / close range.
One hit kill to upper torso at long range.
Punches through cover fairly well.

5.56 + 5.45
One hit kill to torso at medium / close range.
One hit kill to upper torso at long range.
Punches through cover better than pistol rounds but not brilliantly.

4.6 (Ignores SAPI plates entirely.)
Two hits to upper torso.
Three hits to lower torso.
Negligible penetration.

9mm
Two hits to upper torso.
Three hits to lower torso.
Negligible penetration.

.45
Two hits to torso.
Negligible penetration.

I don't really hold an opinion on shotguns.

Give body armour SAPI sized hitboxes. Each plate absorbs 1 bullet then "breaks". Light armour being a front and back SAPI, heavy including side plates and a femoral plate. AP rounds should be included on the guns which already have it ingame. These weapons should not "break" SAPI plates but should ignore them. This would ensure torso shots from bolt rifles are one hit kills which they really, REALLY, REALLY need to be. Looking at you M40. Would also ensure a stray 4.6mm round wouldn't remove your expensive SAPI plate from a quarter of a mile away making you more vulnerable.

We didn't test the M4 I don't think, but I'm 99.9% certain it performs like an M16 that takes the 3rd hit to kill a little bit closer (from experience ingame).

last edited by Whitby

@Iyagovos Please, take a look at this thread and communicate our findings to the devs.

@whitby Good suggestions. I think 5.56mm and 5.45mm can take two hits in the torso at close range to help differentiate them from the 7.62 weapons. Pistol rounds should move to 3 hits to torso to separate them from the rifles, though pistol caliber SMGs should stay at 2 hits.

How does that make any sense? The 5.56 typically creates a worse albeit comparable would to a 7.62x39. If anything it should be more damaging. I can provide evidence for this if you wish but it'll be graphic. This is largely due to the higher velocity of the 5.56. The 7.62x39 is heavier and as such tends to puncture through cars, shrubbage and general cover more consistently.

Do not click this if you're squeamish:
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/ak-47-wound-over-an-m4-2015-12

last edited by Whitby

I think you guys are spiraling down to the age old discussion of TTK. You might wanna stop it.
Oh, and can you please stop wanting to make every gun a one-tap? It kills all the variety the game has to offer. It's a f'ing game! If you want a f'ed up, no-fun-allowed gun-system go play Tarkov.

@whitby Honestly, gameplay, and exaggeration of relative differences for differentiation between weapons.

It's pretty hard to compare reality to how wounding mechanics in a computer game work, there's just so few similarities. Until someone makes a game that models tissue and vascular damage to calculate blood loss and time to loss of consciousness and the only instant kill is a direct CNS hit. I'd love to see that in Insurgency, but I don't think it's in the cards.

You also have to take into account rate of fire.
You’ve said MP7 takes 3 shots to kill. Yet so many people love to use it because those 3 shots hit faster than 2 shots from some rifles.

last edited by ReeceAUS

@whitby said in Dmg values are broken - Needs fixing ASAP:

Why is a M45 more damaging than an AKM?3

Well actually IRL, a .45 is a larger [fatter not longer to be specific] bullet than a 7.62 from a AKM, and at close range against an unarmoured target would do a lot more damage than a AKM round [7.62], which has a much higher velocity and is a skinnier round, so it would much more likely just zip straight on through you so fast it would take a second or two for you to notice. The fatter and slower .45 on the other hand would hit you like a fist and just tumble around your insides ripping shit up. It would be even worse for a hollow point .45 i imagine.

the whole passing straight through you with so much speed you barely notice at first is also worse with the 5.56 bullets, which are even higher velocity rounds than the 7.62 and maintain that velocity better. This is where the whole "insurgents taking multiple rounds from an m16 to go down" thing comes from. These military grade 5.56/7.62 are designed to be reliably accurate rounds that can penetrate various materials and objects such as body armour. [so good velocity] Although another reason NATO nations use the 5.56 over the 7.62 is also because of the weight of the rounds. You can carry more of the smaller 5.56 than 7.62. SInce most of a firefight is suppressing the enemy, more round will win the day over slightly more punching/killing power.

@reeceaus said in Dmg values are broken - Needs fixing ASAP:

You also have to take into account rate of fire.
You’ve said MP7 takes 3 shots to kill. Yet so many people love to use it because those 3 shots hit faster than 2 shots from some rifles.

What does ROF has anything to do with this?
We're talking about what a single bullet does, not how long you have to wait for the enemy to die.

And someone needs to let NWI know about Whitby's post.
Those are some really good suggestions based on actual evidence.

@whitby Well no, thats not actually true. Both can be as bad as each other or worse than the other under the correct conditions. As the article you linked to says itself - " I have certainly seen some horrendous AK-47 wounds over the years and some relatively minor ones from M4s. It all depends. "

@fearthemoose

Please click the article I linked in my previous post as it professionally challenges every point you've brought to bear regarding ballistic performance. I can provide further evidence if you do not find it to be sufficient.

The only thing this article doesn't cover is the experience of using greentips (AP) vs people high on khat in Mogadishu which you didn't specifically reference but it is what you are talking about. This exception is not the rule, in reality 5.56 is ferocious. In reality, 5.56 AP is not as ferocious vs soft targets which is why it's rarely used.

last edited by Whitby

@reeceaus

The MP7 is the least underpowered of all the weapons as I specifically singled out and discussed in the previous thread. (By being roughly a 5+ hit kill weapon in practice but having the high ROF.) As you can see in my suggestion of how the weapons should be, this weapon receives the smallest improvement from its present capability. I think it would be unreasonable to suggest I didn't take the ROF into account.

last edited by Whitby

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