The differences should be the less manageable guns kill with any round up of the knee. The intermediate rifles kill with torso shots or upper torso at long range. Give sniper rifles foot-shot-kills for the sake of it.
Done. Lethality and reasonable trade-offs.
@Mainfold nah, too used to Ins2014 and DoI. Although since the gunplay in Call of Duty Modern Warfare is demonstrably more lethal than Sandstorm which is hilariously masquerading as "high lethality", naturally, I'm not a fan.
The only relevant stat is shots to kill on various areas at various ranges. Having an elaborate damage calculation which is unrealistic and shit for gameplay is not good just because the calculation is elaborate.
It's unrealistic because rifle rounds at zero yards into the heart and/or lungs from the entire AR/AK/G36 platforms and also the SCAR don't prevent people from continuing to bunnyhop around and run around an open space like a prick.
It's shit for gameplay because the game's lethality is less than Call of Duty, but more than Counter Strike. Ins2014 and DoI are among the most lethal titles you can buy and the gameplay on them is fucking amazing, immersive and delightful.
ArmA's realism, not immersion.
Wildlands? Battlefield? Nah, that's casualised nonsense.
Immersion shooters would be Ins2014, DoI, Red Orchestra, etc. I don't think there's a next-gen graphics immersion shooter on the market. Sandstorm could sort its suppression and gunplay mechanics out and nail that niche low-cost.
Nobody plays Sandstorm competitive, how on earth is that what keeps the game above water? The maps ensure this.