Dmg values are broken - Needs fixing ASAP

@whitby errr, 1) i did read that article you linked, hence my quoting it back to you .........
Plus, im talking exclusively about close range encounters. The same distance you could reliably hit and kill a target with the .45. In that scenario, i am not wrong. While i admit this is not information i have learnt from my own experiences, im just parroting what i've been told by my dad who served as a combat medic in the British Royal Marines, and my American Grandfather who was an army field surgeon. All of us hunt however, but the calibers are different so cant take that information as a reliable comparison!

You are correct regarding the insurgents high on ghat, that's what i was thinking of.

@fearthemoose

Okay.

Youtube Video

Can't say I'm a fan of the author but the content is on point. Essentially it's a discussion of incapacitation capability (which is what's actually relevant) with regards to calibre. As clearly indicated, real world experience shows a definitive and clear statistical trend where higher velocity rounds (5.56) are entirely superior to lower velocity rounds (.45).

As you can see, you'd expect very similar performance from rifle rounds and very similar performance from pistol rounds. The way the differences should be modelled ingame are in flight path for long range shots, penetration (which has a lot of variation by comparison in the real world) and recoil. Not all guns need to be equal, that's the beauty of supply cost variation and having singular bullets which actually hurt. (As having a comparably less effective weapon system is significantly less relevant if your first shot can be a kill regardless.)

last edited by Whitby

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

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

It doesn't work that way. Bullet diameter has almost no effect whatsoever on terminal ballistics. What does matter is weight and velocity. Weight is where the .45 ACP does have an advantage at 230gr to 165gr depending on load vs the 7.62x39mm which is 122gr as-issued. Velocity is on a totally different scale though. At 255m/s .45 ACP doesn't even break the sound barrier, while 7.62x39mm at 730m/s leaves the muzzle with a lot more energy. The muzzle energy difference between them is astounding: 2,108J vs 483J to 559J depending on load. As we've touched on before, actual terminal ballistics and wounding mechanics are complex and unpredictable, but with quadruple the energy 7.62x39mm has a far higher chance of creating an incapacitating injury than .45 ACP.

This is true for all pistols vs rifles in general. Broadly speaking, pistols suck at wounding compared to rifles.

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

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.

Except "green tips" are M855, which while technically a "semi armor piecing" round, is the standard-issue cartridge for the US military and is the US equivalent of the SS109 NATO loading. The true US Army AP ammo in 5.56mm is the M995, which is marked with black painted tips. Issues with 5.56mm lethality in Somalia were with the standard issued ammo. It's a problem 5.56mm has been struggling with for decades, especially out of short barreled rifles like the Mk.18. The US has been addressing the issue with cartridge updates such as M855A1, Mk.262, and Mk.318, all of which first saw service in SOCOM before being issued out to the broader Army.

That's not to say that 5.56x45mm NATO is a weak or poorly performing caliber. It's not. It does tend to be slightly less likely to incapacitate an unarmored target in one shot than various 7.62mm calibers though. It does, however, outperform 7.62x51mm NATO on penetrating infantry body armor.

@maa_bunny

Appreciate the better information - which is still supporting the core point. The ammunition in Somalia which caused the complaints was intended for the full length M16. The rounds in circulation today are more effective in the shorter barreled rifles which have become dominant on the battlefield. The current ammunition tends to slightly outperform 7.62x39 in soft tissue damage although both are in the same ball-park of lethality (very high).

7.62x51 is a "true" rifle round which is why I advocate it being able to OHK in a wider variety of hitboxes and/or an extended range.

last edited by Whitby

@grabbinpeels1 Who says one shot kills aren't fun? Low TTK enables good players to make huge plays that are rewarding as hell to pull off.

If I wanted a military shooter with three shot kills and RNG mechanics, I'd boot up CoD4. Insurgency is unique in its gun handling and damage model, and it's a shame that Sandstorm is moving into the more generic territory of CoD/BF.

And on the contrary, one shot kills allow for variety. In Insurgency, every gun (except the shotguns) is viable because every gun has a competitive damage model. If some more powerful guns got one hit kills, while SMGs and the like were downsized to three hit kills, battle rilfes are going to be the best guns in the game. And guess what? That's the exact state of the Sandstorm meta right now. The players who are performing the best are running an FAL, SVD, G3, M14, Mosin, or shotgun the vast majority of the time. The MP7 and Uzi are practically useless and the pistols are a joke. In Insurgency, every gun, from the Makarov and Sterling to the FAL and Mk14, were viable and could be used in some situation. In Sandstorm, even some of the assault rifles are struggling to be viable.

@whitby I think 5.56 and 5.45 should require 3 shots to kill a target with Heavy Armor while 7.62x39 needs two shots since 7.62 weapons are slower-firing. That was the damage model before the tweaks. If ARs are too strong, you'll run into the old Ins2014 problem of battle rifles becoming basically useless with how powerful the assault rifles were.

7.62x54r should have better performance at range than 7.62x51, or else the M14 EBR will just be a better SVD with full-auto capability.

An MP7 killing in two hits to the upper torso seems really broken IMO. I think it's currently balanced the way it is now.

Both 9mm and .45 ACP damage makes sense to me, although making the 9mm two-shot Heavy Armor with upper chest shots might be a bit broken if 5.56 takes three shots.

While the old Ins2014 TTK was fun and all, it made armor and battle rifles pretty much moot. I'd like to see both get some actual usage in Sandstorm.

@marksmanmax

"old Ins2014 problem of battle rifles becoming basically useless"

What nonsense is this. FAL/M14 were incredible in Ins2014. You had a little more recoil and could kill an opponent by hitting them anywhere above the knee. In PvP where few people wore armour due to the prevalence of AP, you could skip AP rounds, have a gun which was otherwise the same price as an M16 with AP and have a huge effective target area to fire on, in PvP, with a fully automatic weapon that cut through walls like butter.

Battle rifles were absolutely awesome, just like everything else.

SVD can cost less supply than an M14 to balance the M14's superior effectiveness. If Insurgents want more bullets, they should be able to pick up a FAL for a point extra or a G3 for the same. Additionally, the SVD can have superior penetration. I do love penetration.

3 shots to kill a target with an intermediate rifle round is admittedly less than the current average of about 3.2 (depending on the rifle), but it's still Call of Duty shit. That's not high lethality gunplay. Sandstorm is advertised and marketed as high lethality, having CoD lethality is not this.

http://callofduty.wikia.com/wiki/M16
Little bit of variation between which game specifically, but the M16 in CoD is basically the same damage per shot as this Insurgency title. I'm not just saying it. This is CoD TTK, there is no lethality.

last edited by Whitby

@marksmanmax The battle rifles were fine. They were a bit more situational than assault rifles, but that's the nature of assault rifles. They're the jack of all trades. If I wanted guaranteed one shot kills, I would run an FAL. If I wanted to shoot people through walls, I'd pick up an FAL. If I found myself running out of bullets or things to spend supply points on, I'd pick up an FAL. In Sandstorm, the battle rifles are the new generalist weapons. But they're also the best at long range, and only second to flechette shotguns in close range. In Ins2, assault rifles were the default, but you would swap to a battle rifle, SMG, or even a pistol if the situation demanded it. In Sandstorm, battle rifles are the default, but you swap to another gun if your class doesn't have access to a battle rifle.

Good that you guys did some research and testing on shots to kill.

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. This also matches my experience in-game.

I don't really have an opinion about specific guns right now, other people seem to know more about that subject.

I like the idea of SAPI sized hitboxes for armor!

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

Yep. Dying in a FPS is currently a sort of abstraction from real life: "how many shots does it take to incapasitate a soldier " and then represent that as the player dying in-game. So shots-to-kill-in-videogame vs shots-to-kill-IRL doesn't really compare well. Shots-to-kill-in-game vs. shots-to-incapasitate-IRL compares better imo.

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

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.)

MP7 can only be a 5+ hit kill weapon, if all shots are leg shots. Just tried it out.

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

Who says one shot kills aren't fun? Low TTK enables good players to make huge plays that are rewarding as hell to pull off.

Current TTK does not prevent good players from making huge plays, a lower TTK is not needed for that to happen. Good players can make huge plays in CS, which has double/triple the current TTK in Sandstorm. If they can do it there, there's no reason good players couldn't do it in Sandstorm.

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

3 shots to kill a target with an intermediate rifle round is admittedly less than the current average of about 3.2 (depending on the rifle), but it's still Call of Duty shit. That's not high lethality gunplay. Sandstorm is advertised and marketed as high lethality, having CoD lethality is not this.

It's 2-3 shots per kill, you tested it yourself. So the average is less than 3.

When the shots to kill is 2-3 (also for arms and legs it is 3 shots to kill), the average can not be 3.2 unless:

  1. Stats are broken
    OR
  2. There are a lot of wallbang hits in the stats, which might effect the shots needed to kill.

http://callofduty.wikia.com/wiki/M16
Little bit of variation between which game specifically, but the M16 in CoD is basically the same damage per shot as this Insurgency title. I'm not just saying it. This is CoD TTK, there is no lethality.

Player health is 100. COD M16 damagerange 30-40. Damage multiplier for body/chest seems to be 1.0.

That's 3-4 shots to kill.

Let's assume the same damage multiplier in Sandstorm for sake of comparison. Like you tested, M16 takes 2-3 shots to kill in Sandstorm. That means damage of something between 50-99. Even against heavy armor, M16 damage is 50+ because it kills in 2 shots untill the range is far enough.

So it's definitely not the same damage per shot, like you are claiming. This is not COD TTK. COD TTK starts where Sandstorm TTK ends in this M16 example.

@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.

last edited by Whitby

@whitby You don't seem to understand how TTK works. Time to kill:

-> Does not factor in weapon controllability.
-> Assumes perfect accuracy and rate of fire.
-> Assumes hits to only the region you're referring to (i.e torso).

First of all, the M16 in CoD Modern Warfare (if that's the M16 you're talking about) isn't exactly a good measure of "CoD TTK". In CoD4 the M16 was one of, if not the most overpowered weapons in the game.

The MP7 is a three-shot kill to the torso at close range. Period. You can't include random factors like arm shots or misses into account. That's not how TTK works.

I'm pretty sure that at least in CQB the M16A4 is a two-shot kill, which doesn't match your CoD M16 example at all.

Also, Insurgency: Source is basically hardcore, semi-realistic CoD4. SS is inspired by basically every FPS game out there, including Call of Duty to some extent. I can't think of many FPS games that have sliding as a mechanic.

Considering how fast you can fire three shots from an M16 (literally one burst) that's pretty fucking high lethality IMO.

For the old Ins2014 battle rifles, I loved the FAL yet hated the M14. The FAL was useful at CQB and range since there wasn't really a better gun that could do the job, but an M16A4 /w AP did everything a M14 EBR could do better except for wallbanging, which I never really cared about. The M16A4:

-> Was cheaper by two supply points.
-> Had a 30-round magazine instead of a 20-round mag.
-> Had far less recoil.
-> Better ironsights (personal opinion).
-> Looked cooler (personal opinion lmao).
-> Didn't have full-auto, but that's basically impossible to control on the M14 anyway.
-> One-shotted to the torso with AP. The M14 can't do the same to a Heavy Armor target without AP (required three shots to kill).

Then there's also the L1A1 which made the M14 even more useless with less recoil, cheaper AP rounds, cheaper base cost, and Extended Mags.

SVD can cost less supply than an M14 to balance the M14's superior effectiveness. If Insurgents want more bullets, they should be able to pick up a FAL for a point extra or a G3 for the same. Additionally, the SVD can have superior penetration. I do love penetration.

So the Security, for one extra supply point, gets a gun that's about four times better than the SVD, with twice the ammo count, the same lethality, and full-auto fire? Seems balanced. Maybe the SVD will have "better wallbanging ability" but even that's a lie since you can just full-auto spray a wall with the M14 EBR on full auto.

Speaking of, isn't wallbanging primarily a CoD thing to begin with? Why are you using it as a weapon balancing factor if you don't want SS to have anything to do with CoD?

last edited by MarksmanMax

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

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).

Has this been tested? Without data it is just sounds a big assumption.

Even your own stats you posted in another thread give an average of 4.04. I bet players are getting a below 4 hits average, there was differences between our stats that suggest it's easily possible.

How did your imagination come up with 5+? I'm unable to see it.

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.

"Human variation", like skill? Then we can say that in good hands M16 can an average of 2.0 hits to kill. Because it's possible. Even lower is possible with headshots. Does that logic make any sense?

I must correct my earlier claim of M16 having 3 shots to kill in the legs, there was a mistake, that was M4 which I tested before. I now tested M16A4 more thoroughly and here are the results:

Toes: 5 shots
Below knee: 4 shots
Above knee: 2 shots
Torso: 2 shots
Hands and forearms: 3 shots
Upper arms: 2 shots
Head: 1 shot

So to get an average over 3 shots to kill, you would have to shoot a lot below knee.

So, sometimes, because of all this "variance and shit" most of your bullets hit below knee and you get an average of 3.2 hits per kill and that OFC means the game needs to be fixed 😉

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.

What differences in modifiers are you talking about? can you please explain? I'm experiencing shot-to-kill average of below 3 with all assault rifles (so your average of 3.2 is just an average of a single player who is playing Sandstorm). How is that somehow "interchangably COD TTK" or exact same damage when COD takes 3-4 shots to kill? How can 2.75 be the same as 3-4? How can you claim that there is no difference? You can see the difference with your own eyes just by looking at the numbers.

If your talking about different damage modifiers in Sandstorm: players who shoot below knee, experience higher TTK in Sandstorm. I don't think this has to be corrected at all. Just "git gud br0" for those players. Oh, and how does OHK in the torso help YOU at all, if you are shooting in the foot anyway? 🙂

I think the damage model in Sandstorm is actually pretty damn good, because there are a lot of hit areas. Not just head, torso, legs like in COD. Players who are actually good shots, will perform better over time because of this. This actually helps good players to make good plays.

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.**

No, I don't want COD TTK. I don't give a shit what other games do. I'm interested in how Sandstorm will be doing it. Because I'm going to play Sandstorm, not COD.

Why do you want to "categorize" my viewpoint? I think I know.

Because you're going to use your "killer rhetorics" you have used in other threads to try and negate the opposing opinion:

"oh this guy is in this category, so his opinion doesn't count"
"oh it's the casuals on the forum, they don't represent the players who play the game"
"oh you don't agree with me on TTK, what a COD casual, your not hardcore enough, go play other games"
"nobody else knows what Insurgency is truly about, so they cant understand what is good for the game, their opinion doesn't count"
etc bla bla bla

AND THAT is bullshit. I hope you have read that reply I posted for you in that specific thread where I spotted you doing that. I can give you the link if you're unable to find it on your own.

You are smart and you have some really good input on ballistics and about armor and that post you made about a new coop-gamemode was superb in my opinion. Stick to that. And keep that other bullshit away from your posts.

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.

Wait, hang on a secod, so you're trying to say it's actually YOU who wants the COD TTK by wanting a lower TTK in Sandstorm 😉 Busted br0. Here, take the COD-flag, looks like you're gonna need it more than me.

Yeah, I was focused on the shots to kill only and damage in my previous post. I'm not familiar with how weapons behave in COD, so I can't really comment on that.

And Sandstorm not having high-lethality: seems like that is kinda subjective. You can gun down the enemy before he can even react to it. To me that's high lethality. For some people it seems that only definition of high lethality is when they only have to click the mouse once and be done.

last edited by jensiii

@jensiii this is COD/BF TTK judging by the damage model here.

most games that fall in the category of insurgency and RS2 typically have damage models more lethal than this with taking 1-2 shots to kill someone

no wonder why this game feels so weird compared to the last game. like how does the SCAR do less damage than the M14 EBR and the FAL when it's 7.62?

some of the weapon damage values are just fucking busted man.

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

@jensiii this is COD/BF TTK judging by the damage model here.

most games that fall in the category of insurgency and RS2 typically have damage models more lethal than this with taking 1-2 shots to kill someone

There are guns in Sandstorm that take only 1-2 shots to kill someone. You're talking like there is not. There's a spreadsheet that you can look in the beginning of this thread. 16 guns out of 22 kill in 1-2 shots.

Or are you implying that toe shots should be 1-2 shots to kill as well?

Yeah I pointed out this issue months ago, Mk17's damage model has some problems, very annoying, if it is because of balance for competitive, replace Mk17 with M16 for Security in comp, no reason to scarfice the whole gun for sake of competitive mode.
Mk17 can one shoot kill if the bullet goes through arm to torso though

@ctbear1996 Guys, this isnt a ttk thread after all, we were just exposing some dmg inconsistencies with the current ttk, like a scar or the g3a3 not doing the same dmg as the fal despite them being the same calibre, maybe the barrel lenght, but thats too minimal to matter tbh, and stuff like that which seem out of place, or the m24 not being able to 1 hit kill at long distances to the torso.

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

Good players can make huge plays in CS, which has double/triple the current TTK in Sandstorm. If they can do it there, there's no reason good players couldn't do it in Sandstorm.

In CS, headshots are the standard; you don't see "huge plays" involving mostly body shots (except the AWP) outside of silver. Only the worst guns take more than two headshots to kill. CS has predictable recoil, no idle sway, no accuracy penalty after putting away your knife (the CS equivalent of sprinting), no penalization for people missing you, no need for an ADS mechanic, smaller controlled maps that allow players to feasibly check and pre-aim all possible threat angles, no ballistics, and maps small enough to have no added difficulty to see or hit players from max range. The games aren't comparable.

If Sandstorm were to remove idle and sprint sway, stop giving players RNG aim because others shot in their general direction, fix hitreg, and remove bullet drop, you could make the case for headshots being a reliable way for good players to access a low TTK. Until then, body shots are the standard.

@marksmanmax

What was written:
"In practice... TTK"

What you have misread:
"TTK in its literal definition..."

A gun with zero recoil and 3.2-ish hits to kill a target which fires as a laser beam will in practice be more effective than one which reaches for the stars each shot and has to be realigned. Recoil makes a difference in practice. Therefore in practice, the M16 in CoD is going to cut through multiple targets faster than the one we have in SS.

Don't conflate the TTK argument I'm making with CoD here, as far as I'm aware CoD doesn't have an MP7.

You can fire 3 shots from an M16 fast. Wonderful. On average it takes 3.2, so that's two bursts for a kill more often than it isn't in actual practice. I remember people going down in one burst with the M16 in CoD pretty consistently. Perhaps you're seeing the point at long last. Even if you're not, the fact that this conversation is possible is clear evidence that the TTK is roughly the same (albeit a little higher) than Call of Duty. This is not high lethality gunplay, that is false advertising.

The battle rifle speech I don't understand... you didn't pick any holes in anything really. SVD vs M14 for example should be FAL vs M14 because they are the "correct" comparison here. But either way, if you're running semi auto anyway, why not trade some mag capacity for an extra supply point and some more penetration? If the bullets hurt, that's pretty viable on its own, as a 1tap still brings an enemy down and this way you went from a Makarov to a 1911. It's a tradeoff I'd go both ways on.

You did make a very valid point though, I absolutely don't want SS to have anything to do with CoD. All the guns need to be removed from SS and replaced with unicorns. Anything less would be as ridiculous as the statement you made here.

@jensiii
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.

"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?

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.

Nice to see you got all offended about me asking you to categorise your opinion. You've then proceeded to attack my character with emotional falsehoods and not attack the point made. Why? Because you want SS to do it your way, not CoD's way. The fact that the TTK is the same (or maybe even a little higher on the M16) is coincidence, not something you "want". Convenient. That wraps this up nicely.

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.

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.

last edited by Whitby

I don't understand all the bickering about CoD. Sandstorm has some mechanical similarities to CoD - so what? Currently the AR-15 family of weapons feels pretty balanced and realistic to me, if that makes them similar to the stats in CoD I really don't care. I think these tests reveal some much bigger problems than AR-15 lethality that the devs should be focusing on. Arguing about how this games compares to another franchise seems pedantic and unhelpful.

This franchise advertises itself as being "high lethality". CoD is the metre stick of casual. It's false advertising or it's a bug. Looks like a bug from the table produced, no?

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