Dmg values are broken - Needs fixing ASAP

@jensiii leg shots weren't effective at all the last game so I don't see what you're getting at here.

Reason why I want TTK low is I want the high lethality nature is to make every weapon viable like the last game and seeing the damage models fucked especially with bolt actions being worst than the DMRs in damage output per shot is just BS

Not only just the damage models but I have to mention every time how this damage model feels like a gimped BF4 hardcore with more RNG elements such as suppression being heavy regardless of caliber and the weight recoil system that doesn't make sense to reality.

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

....Until then, body shots are the standard.

Yep, bodyshots are Sandstorms "headshots". And they are in the range of 1-2, with few exceptions of 3. Like you said, in CS headshots aren't even OHK and that is the standard.

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

The MP7 is 8 hits to kill if you're shooting ankles. Yes, this was tested, it just wasn't published on the table as it wasn't really related to the core point. The MP7 according to my stats is 4+ hits to kill but 1 in 4 kills is a headshot. Adjust the statistics for deaths which don't include headshots and it becomes a 5+ hit kill weapon in practice. There's nothing wrong with my numbers here.

So we can exclude headshots? Why? But we can include ankles?

If we include and exclude hit areas however we want, we will get a lot of different numbers.

If we exclude all other areas but include only headshots, it's an average of 1.0 hits to kill. Extreme example to show, that it will mess the numbers if we do that.

Your 4.04 stat includes all hit areas. That's how that weapon has killed in practice.

"Human variation" like the fact that you use yours in semi auto compared to somebody who doesn't. 2 hits to kill certainly doesn't mean you're killing any sooner than somebody using it in burst and firing more rounds off. Remember, we established this in the other thread?

I use semi/auto for accuracy and full auto on close range to get bullets faster at a target. Semiauto being slower than fullauto is no news. 2 hits in chest to kill is still 2 hits in chest to kill regardless of the fire mode. Player who gets enough shots on target faster wins.

Where is the "human variation" in this shots to kill and how that has an effect on how many hits a gun takes to kill on a certain hit area? I can't see any.

"Human variation" is just a random parameter of inaccuracy you have thrown into your number and you get an arbitrary number as a result. It doesn't make sense. It can be anything.

The statistics you produced, are these at point blank range? If so, you need to realise the damage falls off with range so it takes additional shots. You need to account for this. If you redo your statistics and see how many shots it takes in each location at 150 metres, then compare as a range, you'll see why the numbers average around 3.2.

Yes they are close range.

I think I see what you mean by this. We would also have to take account what exactly is the most common engagement ranges in Sandstorm and how that effects the actual average number. What is the engagement range that gives 3.2 average?

You are correct that I should also try out the longer ranges. I'll do some testing with them so I'll see the damage fall off in action better.

I haven't actually thought about reducing the damage falloff. Maybe that could be a good setting to tweak if it's too harsh. But I don't currently have an opinion on that.

Nice to see you got all offended about me asking you to categorise your opinion.

This is all in your imagination, because text doesn't have tone of voice.

You've then proceeded to attack my character with emotional falsehoods and not attack the point made.

I called out something you have already done, so it's not false. You said that I have to spesify some game that reflects my opinion and you even named one. I have told my opinion, if you just would read the posts properly:

"Shots to kill seem to be between 1-3 and that's what I consider to be a low TTK, and I'm happy with that."

Now you can categorize that yourself how ever you want.

I attacked your exact point and called it out. You played the victim-card as your defense. If that wasn't the point, then that part of your post was pointless. Unless you care to elaborate on, what exactly the point was?

Because you want SS to do it your way, not CoD's way.

Exactly.

The fact that the TTK is the same (or maybe even a little higher on the M16) is coincidence, not something you "want".

It's not me, who is comparing Sandstorm to another game, br0.

Are you now "categorizing" me as "COD casual"? I think I hit the nail in the head in my last post.

BTW: you completely ignored my questions. Not surprised.

Then you tell me I want CoD TTK of 3-4 hit kills when I've posted a full itemised explanation on the page before of exactly what I want to see, which is 1-2 hit kills for the most part. Oh damn, your wit, your intellect, how can I compete with that.

It seems you can't unfortunately, since you did not get that part. I was talking about hits to kill and weapon damage all the time, then you mix in weapon recoil/controllability as a last resort, when you see your claim about weapon damage is not holding up.

Congratulations, most of the guns on the list you guys provided (16 out of 22) already kill in 2 shots. I personally think 1-3 is good range. But that's COD right?

You can gun down an enemy in CoD without him reacting to it too. It doesn't make it high lethality. Ins2014, DoI, they were high lethality. Bullets were lethal.

Thank you for your opinion about lethality.

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

@jensiii leg shots weren't effective at all the last game so I don't see what you're getting at here.

I wasn't talking about the last game, I'm talking about the current game (Sandstorm). With that question I was just trying to find out more about your opinion.

Reason why I want TTK low is I want the high lethality nature is to make every weapon viable like the last game and seeing the damage models fucked especially with bolt actions being worst than the DMRs in damage output per shot is just BS

I agree on the bolt actions.

Not only just the damage models but I have to mention every time how this damage model feels like a gimped BF4 hardcore with more RNG elements such as suppression being heavy regardless of caliber and the weight recoil system that doesn't make sense to reality.

Agree that these could use tweaking.

@jensiii

We can exclude headshots for the purpose of having a discussion about how many rounds in practice it takes to kill somebody unless one meets somebody's head. This is relevant with the MP7 because the headshot percentage is so high due to the low damage of the round less often ending the engagement through body shots than with another weapon. I never stated that in practice 4.04 shots to kill was anything other than what it is.

Human variation is a thing which exists when a human is interacting with a product designed to bring joy and entertainment. You cannot ignore the human variation and pretend that for Sandstorm's lifespan all shots from everybody will be torso hits for your personal convenience.

The 3.2 average is determined by whatever the average engagement range is. This is due to the delightful statistical phenomenon in that it is an average. This means if it's closer to an average of 2.75 hits to kill up close (which is perfectly reasonable) it'll likely be closer to an average of 4.25 hits to kill at long range. This assumes long range kills are less frequent occurences which I'd argue is fair. Still though, this is not high lethality.

I didn't state text had a tone of voice, I commented on your choice of content. In that, you personally attacked me with outright falsehood. You didn't deal with my core point. As such, you are not going to be able to produce me saying any of the lines of text you have written and at best could maybe argue I inferred something.

My point was I'd like you to admit that you want CoD TTK. You confirmed you do. As far as I'm concerned, that discussion ended when you confirmed it. I am however interested in where you think I played a victim card, this would greatly amuse me.

As for the rest of what you've written, it's just all over the place. Claims I've "mixed in" inconvenient facts for you "as a last resort" shows you no longer wish to have a civil, reasonable, point by point discussion about the merits of A over B. Clearly you are under some serious delusions about the meaning of my language, despite that even in reflection I am confident with the way I have chosen to express my points. I try to be willing to engage in rational discussion, but with you individually, I may make an exception.

Sandstorm is being advertised as high-lethality on the Steam page. Actively. Is CoD a high lethality game or is it casual? Because Sandstorm has less lethality than CoD. Let's stop mincing words.

last edited by Whitby

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

@jensiii

We can exclude headshots for the purpose of having a discussion about how many rounds in practice it takes to kill somebody unless one meets somebody's head. This is relevant with the MP7 because the headshot percentage is so high due to the low damage of the round less often ending the engagement through body shots than with another weapon. I never stated that in practice 4.04 shots to kill was anything other than what it is.

So you are confirming that MP7 is indeed a 4 hits to kill weapon in practice on average.

Agree or deny?

Human variation is a thing which exists when a human is interacting with a product designed to bring joy and entertainment. You cannot ignore the human variation and pretend that for Sandstorm's lifespan all shots from everybody will be torso hits for your personal convenience.

I know it exists in human interaction, not the point. You cannot include it, because it skewes your numbers. And it's literally possible for this variation to be anything. (Example: somebody can hit only foot and shoots on semiauto one round per 3 seconds. There's some human variation for your calculations. How is the TTK now?)

Agree or deny?

The 3.2 average is determined by whatever the average engagement range is. This is due to the delightful statistical phenomenon in that it is an average. This means if it's closer to an average of 2.75 hits to kill up close (which is perfectly reasonable) it'll likely be closer to an average of 4.25 hits to kill at long range. This assumes long range kills are less frequent occurences which I'd argue is fair. Still though, this is not high lethality.

If 80% of the engagements happen in the range where 2.75 is the average hits to kill.

Is the average hits-to-kill then 3.2?

I didn't state text had a tone of voice, I commented on your choice of content. In that, you personally attacked me with outright falsehood. You didn't deal with my core point.

Wrong. See below.

As such, you are not going to be able to produce me saying any of the lines of text you have written and at best could maybe argue I inferred something.

https://forums.focus-home.com/topic/32750/my-question-for-the-nwi-development-team/3?page=1

"From my interactions with strangers ingame the TTK seems to be a problem for 95%+ of people yet the forums disproportionately reflect the casuals."

https://forums.focus-home.com/topic/32703/heavy-armour-too-overpowered/4

"I recognise the casual demographic is vastly overrepresented on the forum compared to the amount of people who're really disappointed with the gunplay whom you happen to meet ingame, but the statistics speak for themselves."

My point was I'd like you to admit that you want CoD TTK.

So I hit the point right on, and got the core of your point right. There we go.

You confirmed you do.

How? I never said such thing.

I am however interested in where you think I played a victim card, this would greatly amuse me.

By saying I attacked your character. I attacked your actions.

As for the rest of what you've written, it's just all over the place. Claims I've "mixed in" inconvenient facts for you "as a last resort" shows you no longer wish to have a civil, reasonable, point by point discussion about the merits of A over B.

You claimed the M16 damage in Sandstorm is same than in COD. I proved that it's not. That was pretty civil.

50-99 damage is more than 30-40

Agree or deny?

Clearly you are under some serious delusions about the meaning of my language, despite that even in reflection I am confident with the way I have chosen to express my points. I try to be willing to engage in rational discussion, but with you individually, I may make an exception.

Well it's hard for me to understand that 2-3 is more than 3-4 and that 30-40 damage is the same as 50-99 and that 4.04 is actually 5+. Call me delusional all you want.

Sandstorm is being advertised as high-lethality on the Steam page. Actively. Is CoD a high lethality game or is it casual? Because Sandstorm has less lethality than CoD. Let's stop mincing words.

Yep and I pointed out that lethality seems to have room for subjective opinion. I don't know about COD, you're the one who's been talking about it.

These damage ‘findings’ are programmed by the devs so it would be illogical to assume they are not aware.

Every player has statistics on their ttk for any gun, so it’s very easy for players to understand what the ttk is, debating what the preferred ttk would be for someone makes sense, but discussing what the ttk is should be obvious for anyone who can read statistics. You take the hit ratio of your gun example 0’2 multiplied with bullets shots , then you divide this number by the amount of kills and you then know bullets for each kills and thereby have unbiased numbers on ttk for your personal play style.

Example
Hit ratio: 0.3
Bullets shot: 450
Kills:50

To find your personal ttk from this made up example the math is: (0.3 * 450) / 50 = 2.7
Meaning your average ttk is 2.7 bullets with this particular gun.

Hope this makes everyone understand what current TTK is for themselves if unaware=)

They've had 5 months to fix the weapon.

@slazenger

Whoever programmed the damage models probably did so well over a year ago. They'd have ran tests to make sure it worked at the time. Those tests clearly weren't enough, but it's likely:

  • They saw lower numbers taking more shots to kill by comparing a Makarov against a G3 or something.
  • Did the same with the smallest calibre vs armour to check armour was having an effect.
  • Took a rifle, pointed it at a location in a test environment from various ranges and checked the bullet drop worked correctly.
  • Concluded the system worked. Went home as it was Friday.

That individual then came back on a Monday and maybe made a script to make ceiling fans spin then started bugfixing a sound trigger issue and never went back.

Not saying it excuses the mistake, but when the SCAR gets added in later (I assume) they just didn't check it as they assumed the values were all working fine.

This is a fairly common thing in software, I've made equal mistakes myself.

I hope this DOES get fixed, because in the new update I feel like the bullets deal even less damage than before.
Also the goddamn SCAR-H needs to act like a 7.62x51 gun, not a 5.56. I swear to god I have the same TTK with the SCAR as with the M4.

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

I use semi/auto for accuracy and full auto on close range to get bullets faster at a target. Semiauto being slower than fullauto is no news. 2 hits in chest to kill is still 2 hits in chest to kill regardless of the fire mode. Player who gets enough shots on target faster wins.

Where is the "human variation" in this shots to kill and how that has an effect on how many hits a gun takes to kill on a certain hit area? I can't see any.

The human variation he's talking about isn't shots to kill, it's fire rate. If one person is running full auto and the other semi-auto, the person running full auto will have a lower TTK for the same number of shots.

Seems like many of the findings we did here have already been fixed with the december 6th, atleast i see the SCAR H is one shotting people for me, and the m24 is now a beast and 1 shotting people who are far, great to see we marked a difference.

I agree. But for realism, heads shouldn't really explode. Not from a small caliber, not even from a .50 calibre. Also, bleeding out (healing with bandages) and stuff should be implemented.

Idk. I like realism in hardcore military sims and tactical shooters but Sandstorm kinda throws me off when I see stuff like that. Blood spray isn't realistic either. If anything, the blood should spill from the exit wound first, then from the entry wound.

Only slightly related to the TTK discussion

last edited by Creed255

@freedn It's still not, just test it in local play, still take 2 shots to kill unarmored target

@creed255

Yeah, personally I don't care too much about realism and could just play the game with no gore or blood whatsoever because it for me mostly function as a tellsign that the enemy is dead or hurt.

The bandaging from RS2V is pretty nice - I have used that game for comparison a lot, guess its a bit difficult to implement all those features without feeling like a copycat.

Game is far from a hardcore military sim in my eyes though, so if thats what you expect it might be disappointing. the arma series may be as close as you get, but the long wait in between fights that any sim would need to have is extremely tedious - Frankly real warfare is boring, tedious, takes a lot of planning and the tactics used don't make for fun gameplay - So I always argue for or against a game mechanism based on what would be added or lost in game features as you can find thousands of elements in milsims that makes no sense at all if you look for it. Example 4f strategy (find fix flank finish) is shit in any videoame as your enemies have no chance=). Mines are realistic, civilians are realistic, sniping from hills from 1200 meters is realistic, killing your enemies in their sleep is realistic, planning a small operation for several days is realistic, not killing enemies because that is bad marketing is realistic, if only enemies in a town it is realistic to bomb the whole thing - No realism sucks, realistic graphics and weapons that function realistically is kinda cool, but the cries your enemies makes when they get burned in a molotov was making my stomach bad - Too realistic=) I preferred the comedy of Mikee giving all character voices - He did a sweet job!

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

@jensiii

MP7 is a 5+ hit kill weapon in practice aiming centre mass due to rounds in the spray hitting extremities. MP7 is an 8 hit kill weapon in the foot or a one hit kill in the head. Without a headshot, it's a little over 5 hits for a kill (on average, in reality, not laboratory conditions).

M16 is on average around 3.2 hits to kill, factoring in ingame mechanics and accounting for human variation. Sometimes bullets hit places other than the torso. In Call of Duty, it's pretty much the exact same due to the differences in modifiers. This is interchangably CoD TTK with the M16, there is no noteworthy statistical difference between the two at all. Unless CoD is "high lethality", this isn't. Just say it, you want CoD TTK. Nail your flag to your mast so we can tidily categorise your viewpoint without being pedantic.

Wait hang on a second, the guns in CoD are infinitely easier to control. In practice, it's easier to put people down in CoD with an M16. In practice, CoD has a lower TTK because of this.

0_1544541427316_58cb0e04-49d2-4559-affe-6320c2d6dd7a-image.png
I think the MP7 is fine. When I fire a 5-round burst I get one kill, but when I fire a 3-round burst I still get the one kill and two bullets more than when I fire the 5 rounds because I am in more control with the shorter burst. Use a compensator dude. The MP7 has I think the highest horizontal recoil of all the guns which makes keeping on target hard in a different way. Just gotta get used to it.

Moreover, me and some friends decided to play some American soldiers fighting in the Vietnam War earlier and so we were using stripped down guns from that time period/as close as we could get. (I.e. M16A2, FAL, SKS, AKM(as a placeholder for the AK-47), G3A3, M870, Browning HP, and M1911) I ended up using the M16A2 as a rifleman a lot and found that I almost never needed to fire more than one burst as I generally would land at least one, but usually all three shots, which, contrary to @Whitby accusation about a lack of damage, did the trick to bring them down. Only when the very tight quarters led to my use of hipfire instead of the very restrictive iron sights did that change.

@ryuu-turner The M16A2 was Gulf War and onward era but still, nice set of weapons you guys chose for that.

@vengefulmosquito I know, but it's not like they have the exact models of any Vietnam era weapons.
XD

@ryuu-turner True dat, some rails on the guns don't help in that account, i'd rather have the M16A1 in the game rather than the A2 tho.

@pacalis Absolutely dude. I too admit that Arma takes it too seriously.

Idk. We need some middle ground. Fast, close quarters action and realistic biological death. I don't expect any dev to simulate the horrors of getting shot (screaming, crying, begging, gurgling etc.) but the spray and the exploding heads is a little stupid tbh.

This game is lit but it needs a little... more. Like, where are our legs? I know we're looking at our enemies and not at the ground but when I do look at the ground, for mines or something, I expect to see my legs.