Maybe some tweaks need to be done to the way LMGs work. I have a crazy idea.
LMGs should function completely differently from other weapons.
When not aiming down the sight...
They'll take time to get ready after you sprint (for 2 seconds you won't be able to shoot. Think of this like Red Orchestra Ostfront's MG mechanic but more forgiving)
There will be sway while you're hipfiring (which will make point shooting even harder)
There will be less recoil, but lots of sway, which is almost like recoil it itself because of how extreme it is.
When aiming down the sight while not using a bipod...
Instead of sway, there's sight misalignment, which is like sway with an antishake feature
When using the bipod...
Your mouse wheel is then used to fluidly adjust your stance like in Arma 3 or Escape from Tarkov.
(That way you won't feel like a sitting duck when you deploy that bipod)
The problem with a lot of these ideas is that you're doing arbitrary things to achieve arbitrary ideas of balance, when it's not necessary to do that.
Many problems with the LMG are caused by a lack of realism in the modeling that leads to problems.
The answer is not to tack on even more unrealistic behavior on the LMG with arbitrary restrictions, because then you've only compounded the problem by trying to solve one unrealistic aspect of LMG performance by creating a different aspect of unrealistic performance.
Ultimately the answer to weapons not performing realistically in game is to go back to the source and determine WHY weapons weren't used this way in reality and then think of way to model those reasons in the context of a game design.
It's far more interesting to the player, and more accurate, if you give them the ability to use an LMG in the full range of it's potential uses but with appropriate consequences for doing so. As opposed to just denying them the ability to experiment and use things in more varied ways because there's a preconceived idea about the "right" or "wrong" way to use an LMG.
Modeling how weight and balance impact weapons would already have some of the effects you want by:
- Slowing down their ability to transition between positions and slowing down their acceleration speed, and even slowing down overall movement and sprinting speed if the weapon is being held in the hands at the time.
- Heavier weapons take longer to bring up to sight.
- Heavier weapons take longer to swing around.
- Heavier weapons cause more fatigue when kept in the firing position, and have more aimsway as a result.
- Poorly balanced weapons and heavier weapons can be more difficult get and keep on target from a shoulder fired position, despite the fact that their increased weight reduces recoil. Being unbalanced can also effect the way the weapons recoil.
- Overall fatigue from actions will increase faster.
Maybe instead of using large magazines, you'll just use ammo belts and you'll have to manage heat. (and get additional ammo belts from teammates like in Darkest hour)
That means MG guys have low ammo by themselves but can be a constantly refilling machine if teammates go to them and press ACTION to give them ammo.
When they do that an animation of the soldier giving you an ammo belt plays. He presses F, then you press F to accept ammo. You have to wait 2 minutes before you can give ammo again. If the MG overheats, he gets 1 barrel change, after that it's a broken gun. Supressors can be equipped but they melt and on night maps they glow bright.
That's a viable idea. But you have to remember that it is possible to carry more than one belt into combat, and some soldiers have done it.
So the proper way to model this is not with arbitrary restrictions like saying "no more than one belt for you, SAW gunner".
Instead, the proper way to deal with this is to effectively model the impact that extra weight and bulk have on the performance of a soldier. Give that SAW gunner a reason to not want to have to carry all his own ammo if he doesn't have to. The same kinds of reasons they don't want to have to carry it all in reality. It impedes their performance and endurance.
@gm29 My statement implies I'm done talking to you and refuse to defend my opinions on a video game bud.
Yes, it was quite clear your statement was bowing out in defeat, unable to defend your position.
That's why I said let's not pretend this was an issue of simply two differing opinions that couldn't be resolved.
I disproved what you said, you weren't able to defend your claims, and you gave up. Don't try to bow out claiming what I said is just an opinion as valid as your opinion, when I gave factual reasons why what you said was true and you were unable to defend your claims.
- 1 Sandstorm isn't a simulator.
- 2 This is a game, not a simulator.
Your answer was to this:
Both incorrect statements and bad arguments from a logic standpoint.
You're leaving out the context of that statement. And everything else you've said is based on a misunderstanding of what I said.
Insurgency can have simulator attention to detail in weapons modeling and behavior without attempting to be a simulator in other aspects such as level design, objective design, pacing, etc.
Whether or not you put the label of a weapons simulator on it is irrelevant when, in practice, you've made a game that you said aims to meticulously model the gunplay according to realism in a hardcore and tactical way. That's functionally more a simulator of weapon handling than it isn't.
Furthermore, a simple comparison of the gunplay in Insurgency to other genres will quickly determine where the game actually falls on the spectrum. It's gunplay, movement, and ballistics is functionally quite similar to games like ARMA, Squad, and Red Orchestra, but it's miles away from CoD or Battlefield.
No one can continue to claim, given the dev's own stated goals, and a comparison of where Insurgency actually is relative other games, that it is not attempting to simulate realistic gunplay and weapon behavior. And given those facts, I treat the game accordingly and expect more from it.
Example 2 said to you in this thread:
Adding RNG removes skill and leads to players feeling cheated.
Your position is logically inconsistent and contradictory.
You have random bullet dispersion that no amount of skill will ever be able to overcome.
Yet you don't complain about the fact that the game doesn't make every bullet a laser.
You have some randomness involved in aimsway and don't have direct control over what happens to a degree.
The fact is; firearms are inherently random in some ways and any realistic modeling of them has to include this random factor to be realistic.
You only feel cheated if you have unreasonable expectations about what you should be capable of doing that don't line up with reality.
My answer: RNG in itself contains no skill, that is the concept of random numbers generated. Many players feels cheated by RNG, both the poster here, me, and many other people.
Your summary of our discourse shows very clearly why your response is contradictory nonsense.
-You said you don't like RNG.
-I showed how the game actually does have RNG.
-You only repeat that you don't like RNG, ignoring the fact that the game already has it, and so does every shooter for that matter, because it's the nature of how ballistics and gunhandling work.
Your response makes no sense at all and completely missed the point.
You derail the argument by talking about expectations and again refer to reality. You could add information and talk about expectations, but you don’t. You say it’s logical inconsistent. That is a blindspot as you are either incapable or unaware of seeing this.
Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.
Merely claiming something doesn't make it true. You haven't given a single example of me derailing anything.
I would respond to the rest, but I don't understand what point you're even trying to say. You make references to blindspots and inconsistencies without any context about what you're actually referring to or reasons why what you claim would be true. It just sounds like incoherent gibberish because it lacks clear context. I don't think you're forming your ideas clearly enough for me to be able interact with them.
I didn’t post here to you to argue, I posted because I think you have interesting ideas and that it would be more interstesting to read your cool ideas if you didn’t focus that hard on all the arguing=)
If you want to claim there's no need for what I suggested, or that it would be bad for the game, you had better have real logic or reasons to back up your claim. Because you will get challenged on it. And if you haven't really thought through your objection clearly, or don't know what you're talking about, then that's going to show when you're challenged.
The last part of my post with the challenge part was about being able to think about video games both from a gameplay perspective and a realism perspective, as there is clearly a line somewhere as those two can’t be too close to each other.
Logical error, false presumptions. You make a false presumption that I did not make those suggestions with the idea in mind of how that would impact gameplay.
It is precisely because of how it would impact gameplay for the better that I suggested them. And I gave many examples of how that would change the dynamics of loadouts, movement, and weapons handling for the better by resulting in greater authenticity, more hardcore tactics, more realistic differentiation between the weapons, and more tactical variety and choices to make about what gear/weapons you want and why you want it because the consequences of your choices have more of an impact on your performance. And that impact is based in reality, not based on arbitrary constructs for arbitrary ideas of balance.
If you think the opposite would be the case then the onus is on you to provide some logical argumentation or reasoned analysis, or facts, about why you think it wouldn't be good. Merely screeching about how you think this game isn't labeled a "simulator" therefore we shouldn't ever talk about making anything more realistic ever for any reason (as some here have done), without going into any reasons why these features would result in something bad (especially when these suggestions are in line with the dev's own stated goal), is a nonsensical and pointless way to respond.
We also have different expectations as individuals that can not all be satisfied.
My expectations come out of what the game itself is striving to be, and what the devs themselves have said they want.
If you say you want meticulous attention to realism in the gunplay, along with hardcore tactical gameplay, then i'm helping you realize what that would look like.
The only reason you wouldn't expect those things to be in a game like this, given their goal, is if you don't understand enough about guns and ballistics and combat variables to understand why these issues would add significantly to the game experience.
If you understand these things then you do expect them because you understand how much of a difference they would make on gameplay for the better.
I'll use an example you can probably relate to: If someone never understood how an AK47 recoils more harshly than an M16, then they might not ever feel like anything is missing from a game that fails to model that difference between them.
But to someone who understands how these two weapons differ, to see them both perform as copies of each other becomes a glaringly obvious mistake that detracts from the game's claim of authentic hardcore weapon modeling.
Now, some here seem to have the misconception that in order to play a game with an AK47 having more recoil than an M16 that you need to have a PHD in physics and understand all the reasons why they are different. No, you don't need to understand why things work the way they do in order to play the game and learn by experience how they handle differently. You can learn by experience how they are different, adapt, and succeed in your use of those weapons by figuring out through experience what they are good at and what they aren't. That is, in fact, part of the fun of a game like this. It's fun even for someone who understands guns because they won't necessarily get a chance to fire everything represented here, let alone in the context of combat.
But you do need to understand why things work when you are the game devs building the game. If you don't understand how and why things work then you can't accurately model them. If the devs take a deep understanding of how and why these weapons/gear work, and translate that into a game, then we all benefit from their hard work by having a game that is that much funner due to the tactical and hardcore variety it brings to the table, and more authentic to play around with.
Insurgency can be easy to learn (As it is now) and get a large player base (If optimization will be improved), or go into deep tactical team play with a lot of details to learn and 500 players online on the friday evening will be all time record.
Current gameplay is perfect, a lot of players enjoying it and I think developers are in the right path.
You speak as though you are stating facts but you are only stating your opinion. So let's me clear about the difference here is between a fact and an opinion, because you seem to arrogantly think everything that pops into your head is as good as fact.
I will point out the fact that there are some people who are of the opinion that a game like Insurgency or Red Orchestra is taking things way too far in terms of realism, pointlessly too far, absurdly too far, and losing out on potential players because they don't make their game more like COD. They scoff at the idea of having to change barrels on an MG, or the idea of one shot kills from fully automatic weapons, or the idea of free aim and realistic aimsway with no arbitrary bullet spread patterns to "balance" things out.
Do you know there was once a time when people like you said it was ridiculous to force players to look down the iron sights of a gun to aim in a video game? Now even the most arcade of shooters incorporates this because it turns out it was actually a smart and immersive idea of how to translate the experience of shooting a gun into a video game. What you're doing is no different than what they did back then. You're dismissing things you don't fully understand without attempting to give any reasons why it should be dismissed.
Yet, Insurgency and RO have been very successful and popular. As popular as COD? No. But you don't need to be as popular to COD to be a success. Both of those games have proven there is a viable and significant market out there for gamers who want meticulously modeled gunplay and hardcore tactical action.
That's why you don't use your personal opinion as a basis for determining what will or won't work in a game. You need the analytical intelligence to be able to determine how a given change will impact the game.
And, on that subject - you have given not a single factual or analytical reason why anything I've suggested would negatively impact the gameplay in a way that would make the game suddenly too difficult, too complex, or why it would result in a complete tanking of player numbers.
For your claims to have any validity, you'd need some logical reasons to back up why your claims are true.
While you've called me ignorant plenty of times in this thread I have not seen you offer a shred of evidence or experience to back up even a single claim.
I've given you basic verifiable scientific facts about how various rounds perform. If you doubt any specific piece of information I've given then post specifically what it is and why you think otherwise. The data does exist to back up what I've told you.
However, the need for data goes both ways - you made your own claims, but you don't even attempt to provide any data to back up your claims. You have given no substantive reasoning or arguments why anything I've said couldn't be true. All you've done is express your disbelief without giving any valid reasoning or counter-facts as to why you would have reason to disbelieve it. So your disbelief, by itself, doesn't represent a valid counter-argument. It only, if anything, highlights the fact that you're ignorant of this topic and don't really have much to add to the discussion on it.
If any real counter-data did exist, and you knew where to find it because you actually knew what you're talking about, then you could just post that and prove me wrong - but you can't, because it doesn't exist. So all you can do is demand I waste a lot of my time tracking down links to data to satisfy your own personal unbelief.
However, I am willing to indulge you and search out some links to data as examples of why what I've said is true, if you will be more specific about what you doubt and why you doubt it.
IT IS NOT A MIL-SIM, all your arguments are invalid.
Your premise is wrong. This game doesn't need to be a milsim for my arguments to be valid. Which then makes your argument invalid.
According to NWI's own words in their videos, their goal is to make a "hardcore tactical game with meticulous attention to detail in weapons".
Everything I have suggested is aimed at that goal in mind of making the weapon handling more hardcore, more attention to detail, and more tactical because of the ways it will change how people equip themselves and fight.
Its the same premise behind the original Insurgency and Red Orchestra. Is red orchestra a milsim because it's gun handling is so realistic? Is insurgency a milsim because it's gun handling and ballistics are so realistic compared to what the competition was at the time? Depends on how you define milsim I guess. I personally wouldn't consider them milsims, but would call them games that aim to have the maximum realism possible in weapons handling and behavior, which separates them from the competition who "balance" guns around arbitrary game design goals that don't concern themselves with realistic tactical hardcore attention to detail.
Given the goal of Insurgency, there's a lot of room for improvement towards meeting their goal. Hench the purpose of this post.
they can do whatever the hell they want and this imaginary standard you have in your head after reading a snippet of PR about realistic gunplay
The only imaginary standard here is whatever you are using, because you have no logical basis for what you are claiming.
I gave you their actual words, and gave you an analysis of how the game is actually designed relative to it's competition, which lines up with their words.
All you're doing is flailing around in anger making unsubstantiated claims.
is totally unreasonable and will never ever happen!
Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.
Merely claiming my suggestions are unreasonable doesn't make your statement true.
You need to demonstrate with logical reasoning or facts why any of my suggestions would be "unreasonable".
You have many interesting points, but also have blindspots
Logical fallacy, argument by assertion. Merely claiming I have blindspots doesn't make it true. You need to be able to logically demonstrating why any specific thing I've said is inaccurate due to a particular blindspot.
If you can logically demonstrate why there is error in anything I've said, you're free to do so. I welcome disagreement if it's based in fact and logic, because then maybe we can all learn something. But just accusing me of doing things I haven't actually done, and not offering any counter arguments to anything I've said, doesn't advance the conversation or help anyone learn anything.
You say NWI is trying to make a milsim
This is where the premise of your entire post is wrong. I never said NWI is trying to make a milsim.
Notice how I've never complained about the game modes not being realistic enough?
"Milsim" can also mean a lot of different things to a lot of people, as people get preconceived ideas in their head about what that means the game has to play like.
I am only holding NWI to their stated goal, as per their own comments in their videos, of wanting to make a "hardcore tactical game with meticulous attention to detail in firearms".
Everything I listed deals with what the game should look like if you want to have authentic weapons handling and behavior that makes the game more hardcore and tactical.
I personally don't want Insurgency to try to be like ARMA in terms of it's map and objective design, or pacing. I want a smaller scale faster paced shooter with realistically modeled weapons behavior and hardcore ballistics with a need for realistic tactics in terms of gun handling to succeed - that's why I preferred playing Insurgency and Red Orchestra to any other online shooter because they both strived to do exactly that.
But, there was a lot of room for improvement in terms of Insurgency's hardcore attention to detail. Which brings us to the reason for my post. I would love to see NWI take Insurgency Sandstorm to the next level in terms of hardcore tactical details in the firearms. It would retain the fast paced nature of the game but up the hardcore tactical gunplay to a level no one has attempted to try before.
The game would be funner and better off for it. For the same reason the original Insurgency was far funner and more interesting to play than other fast paced shooters that had arcade level weapons handling and ballistics.
Game designers probably don't know enough about guns to even think of these things, and their former military advisers aren't necessarily thinking like game designers to be able to recommend all the ways you can incorporate realistic gun handling and movement constraints into the game in ways that aren't clunky or take away the player's sense of control. You really need someone who understands both game design, gun related engineering/physics, and tactical military combat realities, to effectively merge these things together to create something new.
and that everyone who disagrees with you is factually wrong
Your statement is factually wrong - I've never told anyone they were wrong simply because they disagreed with me.
I gave logical arguments and factual reasons why their statements were wrong, and they were unable to refute those logical arguments and facts.
Notice how I'm not saying you are wrong just because I disagree with your conclusion, but I gave factual reasons why you're wrong. I can prove you're wrong by challenging you to find any single correction I've made in this thread to someone's claim that isn't based in using logical argument or facts to demonstrate why they are wrong. You won't find it. Which proves your claim to be factually wrong.
My point is that you “prove” several arguments “wrong” by this narrow frame of view.
Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.
Merely stating that you think I don't prove other arguments wrong doesn't make your statement true. You need to be able to logically or factually demonstrate why anything I've said is untrue or inaccurate, or point to a specific example of why you think I failed to prove a particular argument wrong.
The challenge is as follows, you should be capable at finding at least 100 different statements that will make any video game be different from actual warfare no matter how hard a game tries to depict real warfare, and also a bunch of arguments why it would not be a good idea, both from a gameplay perspective in regards to what is fun, the amount of time invested needed to have any realistic planning, the availability to customer segments across different age groups and so on. I do not ask you to write all this down unless you feel like it(it would be boring to read for me at least) but merely try to think about that perspective. If you possess a true analytical mind, you will in more complex topics most often be able to see pros and cons that is not necesarrily in your own favour. Hope to see more threads from you as it is interesting analysis that clearly takes dedication and knowledge. A good day to you sir!
I don't understand what you're asking. My comment is not intended to be insulting, but it reads to me like gibberish that is not relevant to the discussion. If you can clarify what you're asking, I will make an effort to respond to it.
I suspect, though, that whatever you are asking is based on wrong conclusions you are drawing about what I've said and why I've said it. I've already pointed out how you have two fundamentally wrong ideas. You are accusing me of wanting Insurgency to be a milsim, which was never true. You also accused me of not giving reasons why people were wrong, which is proveably untrue as you won't be able to find a single example in this thread where I've done that.
I also thought it would be worth sharing some data I came across about the significant of stoppages.
In a heavy dust filled environment, almost sandstorm like conditions, the military tested various rifles for reliability.
The M4 would have a stoppage every 1.47 rounds out of 100. At that rate you will statistically have a stoppage after only 68 rounds.
In contrast, the HK416 would have 0.388 stoppages per 100 rounds. Which means you statistically won't have a stoppage until round number 258. That's 3.79 times longer between stoppages.
Although some soldiers report going their entire time deployed without having a single failure on their weapon, these extreme condition tests show you the potential differences between the systems that could have an impact on gameplay in the context of Insurgency.
If a map took place in a windy dusty environment, almost sandstorm like, you could expect the HK416 to get through a full combat loadout without a stoppage - whereas the M4 would experience a jam almost every second magazine. That could make or break you. It could mean the difference between jamming in the middle of a firefight or not in-game. Which is precisely why special forces are moving towards the HK416, away from the M4.
I also forgot to point out in my original post, another reason why it would be absurd to have a suppressor on a SAW: heat mirage. Suppressors heat up rapidly because of all the hot gas flowing around in them for extended periods of time instead of exiting the barrel quickly. This creates a heat mirage over the front of your weapon which can make it impossible to aim accurately through your sights.
The type of gun and suppressor you're using can change how quickly that happens, but regardless it would still be absurd to put it on a weapon that is valued for it's sustained fire.
There's a lot of reasons why suppressors aren't standard issue on all weapons. This game should model them so there are real choices to be made with real consequences. Otherwise why not throw it on if you have the points to spare.
it is patently false to say that none of these are glaring issues that would have a significant impact on gameplay.
You and I clearly have very different backgrounds when it comes to firearms, and we also clearly have very different ideas about what "hugely," "glaring," and "significant" mean.
I'm absolutely aware, intellectually, that barrel heating and ammo loads have an effect on accuracy.
You just repeated the same mistake I already corrected you on. I can just repeat what I already said with regards to that because it still applies.
Furthermore, the reason you don't see the issues I raised as having a significant impact on gunplay in the game is precisely because you're acting blind to everything that doesn't deal specifically with MOA. If you look at the whole of all the issues I have raised and put them together you end up with huge, glaring, significant changes in gunplay, loadouts, and tactics.
Here's what I last posted in response to you:
It seems like a recurring theme that you are only focused on how "accuracy" is impacted and aren't considering all the other factors that go into a weapon platform being effective that don't just deal with raw MOA numbers.
If you look at all the factors I talked about, they have a very far reaching impact on weapon handling and ballistic performance that goes well beyond simple MOA dispersion.
- Movement speed.
- Position changing speed and sprint wind up time.
- Endurance loss rates from carrying and using the weapon.
- Weapon swing delays from increased mass or how it's balanced. Weapon swing speed, and ramp up speed, from increased mass and balance. Overswing (how long it takes to stop moving from the increased inertia of mass, or the balance of having too much weight out front). Slower times in shouldering and sighting the weapon based on weight and balance.
- Aimsway due to various factors like length, weight, balance, and player endurance levels.
- Aim recovery speed after firing, and how much of your sight picture is lost, due to various factors like balance, weight, length, endurance levels, etc.
- Sight, hearing, and situational awareness being obscured more by differences in muzzle reports and flashes.
- How the trigger quality impacts semi automatic accuracy and firing speed.
- How effective the suppressor is on various platforms with various ammos.
- How grips really impact your controllability on different platforms, and how that differs from semi auto vs full auto.
- How the need to factor in realistic body armor will influence both where you choose to aim, how many shots you'll choose to fire, and what types of guns and ammo you'll choose to use.
- How night vision really impacts combat when modeled realistically, and how some weapons and optics are better suited to it than others.
- How different ammo loadouts can drastically influence your recoil control, stopping power, penetration, effective range. And the nuances of how some rounds perform better out of shorter barrels, or better when suppressed, or better with heavier rounds. Certain barrel twist rates won't handle all ammo types well. And some platforms just won't have as many options available. These are all real advantages and disadvantages that will greatly impact combat if modeled correctly.
---There's a reason the military often commissions particular rounds to be created to solve particular problems with a weapon system - because ammo can HUGELY change what a particular platform is capable of doing. For example, whether or not you're using M855A1 will make or break your ability to deal with barriers or armor plates in an AR platform. And 300 Blackout is seeing some military use in the AR platform (all you have to do is put a new barrel on) because it performs vastly better than the 5.56 out of a short barrel and also performs better with subsonic rounds plus a suppressor. And even though the 300 Blackout has similar supersonic ballistics performance to a 7.62x39 (The 7.62 having more overall energy though), the 7.62 loses a lot more energy and ballistic performance when shooting supersonic out of a short barrel or using subsonic rounds.
---The differences between what different rounds are capable of is significant enough that they should not be abstracted as merely "generic AP round", "generic hollowpoint round", or "generic suppressed round". For one, these ammo types have disadvantages that aren't even being modeled currently. Second, not all weapon platforms even have ammo options in these categories, or the options they have aren't as good, which is a mark against the versatility of that particular weapon. Those are differences worth representing to balance out why one platform is preferred over another. Some weapons will simply be better at barrier penetration, or better at suppression, better at long range accuracy, or better at stopping power for a given caliber, purely because of the different ammo options available to them. It would add a lot of value and variety to the game for this to be represented accurately as well as increasing the realistic representative differences between the various firearms.
- How you deal with malfunctions, how that impacts the way you use the weapon, and how that influences what weapons or accessories you choose to run will also have a significant impact on the game.
- A flip mount magnifier on a red dot, or even a variable power 1-4 optic with a red dot, both have significant differences between them, and furthermore present a huge potential impact in combat performance compared with a plain red dot or flat 4x magnifier like an ACOG.
- How your point of aim shifts or MOA gets worse as the weapon heats up.
- Heat management. You can't mag dump rifles too much without reliability problems. Barrel changes on SAW.
- How some weapons get too hot to hold after firing a few magazines, or how some weapons handle it better than others. You need things like vertical grips or handguard covers to overcome that which add weight and effects balance. Or wear gloves - but if you choose to wear gloves that impacts how certain weapons are easier/faster to use than others due to oversized trigger guards or oversized weapon switches.
ammo can HUGELY change what a particular platform is capable of doing.
You think so? Please, show me an ER surgeon or combat medic that can look at a wound and tell me if it was made with M-855, M-855A1, or Mk.262.
You're extremely ignorant of terminal ballistics if you think the severity of wounding with different rounds can't be noticed at an ER.
The kind of wound created by a low speed M855 pinholing someone is vastly different than a MK262 hollowpoint fragmenting on contact to create a shotgun effect in their body.
So much more effective is the MK262, that is is a major reason why the 6.8 SPC was not adopted as an alternative to the 5.56. MK262 will give you similar wounding profiles to a 6.8 SPC, and extend the effective killing range of the 5.56 far beyond a normal M193.
The difference between an M193 and MK262 could be whether or not you can get a fragmenting bullet on the enemy at only 100m or stretching that out to 300m, because the MK262 will fragment at a much lower velocity and thus retain it's ability to fragment at longer distances. This is critical as the barrel length gets shorter, because your effective fragmentation range decreases as the barrel length decreases. So out of a short barrel M4 maybe you're talking about the difference between 50m vs 150m. This is a big deal in terms of your ability to quickly bring down an enemy at longer ranges.
Sure, there are differences between projectiles and loads, certainly, but they're not "HUGE."
It is huge. If you understood much about ballistics and bullet design you wouldn't be making the claim you are.
Huge enough that the poor performance of the M855 green tip in Somalia was the main motivator behind the army putting out a request for new rounds to be developed as a replacement for the 5.56. They were tremendously frustrated that it took then 3-5 shots to bring down each enemy, whereas the guys who had 7.62x51 guns were dropping them in a single shot. The difference between an M855 green tip, which is even worse than an M193 against flesh, and an MK262 is so great that it can literally be the difference between dropping an enemy in one shot or dropping them in 3-5.
Furthermore, the difference between an M193 and M855A1 (a genuine armor piercing round, unlike the M855 green tip), can literally be the difference between having your round stopped by body armor and not stopped by body armor - that's a big f'ing deal in combat.
Advances in hollowpoint bullet design were the only reason that 9mm replaced 45ACP as the preferred personal defense caliber in America. They allowed 9mm to perform just about as well as 45ACP, transferring all it's energy into the target instead of just pinholing through, yet still allow the individual to carry twice as many bullets as a 45. Previously the whole reason you wanted to use a 45 for self defense was because it was a large flat nosed bullet moving at subsonic speeds - which means it would rarely penetrate a human torso and come out the other side, thereby transferring all it's bullet energy into the target. A FMJ 9mm will cut strait through and leave a pinhole, failing to transfer most of it's energy into the target. Hollowpoint 9mm solves this problem so that it rarely exits the target, transfering all it's energy. So the difference between a 45 hollowpoint and a 9mm hollowpoint now isn't regarded as big enough to justify having half as much ammo in a magazine.
Bullet design is everything in determining what a weapon is capable of.