Small arms damage

[Smitty4212]

As it currently stands, it generally takes two 7.62 rounds to take someone down, and three + with 5.56 ammunition.

This is fine and dandy, and certainly a far cry from the days of having to put five to six rounds into someone to drop them, but I'd like to suggest that perhaps the breadth of the damage done by weapons be increased.

What I mean is that instead of it being so set in stone that weapons that use 5.56mm ammunition do X damage (X being a specific number, perhaps 40 damage), and 7.62 doing exactly Y damage (say 70 damage, for instance-- I don't know either of their damages, or how they change in respect to body armor), and each taking a pretty specific amount of hits to down someone, the damages are a little random.

Not random as in one shot will do 10 damage whereas another will do 80 damage, but random as in sometimes it won't take four shots from an M4 to down a body armor opponent, sometimes it may only take two-three. Or sometimes a G3 will be able to down an opponent in one shot, instead of two.

The reason I suggest this is that I just don't think it's realistic that it will ALWAYS take three - four shots to down someone with an M4. It won't always take two shots from an M14 to someone who has body armor. There WOULD be times where one shot would definitely do the trick, and incapacitate someone.

The damages would not have to be too spread apart (I feel like they already have some spread, but I'm not sure). For instance, against an unarmored enemy, the G3 could do anywhere from 85-100 damage. The 80 would certainly mess you up, and cause you to start bleeding out, but there would be times when one shot would kill you outright. And the M16 (again, against unarmored) would do anywhere from 45-70 damage. These values aren't necessarily what should be used, more like examples.

Having wider damage values could also account for things that can't be calculated in-game, such as hitting vital areas. If you took a point blank hit from a G3 to the heart, for instance, I imagine you'd go down without much of a fight.

Thoughts?

[SGT.Collado]

I think BF2 doesn't have a good location system in terms of when you shoot. Like if you shoot someone in the foot, with a 7.62 round, it would account for 3/4 damage but in reality it's more of a 2/4 damage. If you shoot someone in the heart, they will not die automatically (P.R.). If you shoot someone in the head, of course they will but that's obvious.

I think P.R. has it to the near perfect.

[Superior Mind]

It sounds like a good idea, but I don't think this is possible with the engine. What can be done though is have damage at point blank range be super high for all guns, then at a certain range the damage decreases.

[Bob_Marley]

I think its probubly as good as its going to get. From what I understood about the threads on introducing jamming, the BF2 engine doesnt do randomisation atall, so if the chance of getting an extra damage shot was 1 in 10, every 10th shot would be such. I think. But I may be wrong.

[Smitty4212]

I think BF2 doesn't have a good location system in terms of when you shoot. Like if you shoot someone in the foot, with a 7.62 round, it would account for 3/4 damage but in reality it's more of a 2/4 damage. If you shoot someone in the heart, they will not die automatically (P.R.). If you shoot someone in the head, of course they will but that's obvious.

I think P.R. has it to the near perfect.

You misunderstand me. I'm not talking about ACTUALLY shooting someone in the heart, just simulating it. For example, if you have an G3 and you shoot an unarmored enemy in the chest, it will do anywhere from 80-100 damage. Doing 100 damage would 'simulate' being hit in the heart, or any other vital area in the chest. The whole premise of this is that it's extremely unrealistic for a gun to do exactly the same damage to 64 different people, time and time again. Some people will survive an SVD shot to the chest with body armor. Some people won't. As it stands, everyone does, all the time, because it does an exact damage value.

Bob_Marley: It wouldn't be "1 in 10 is a high damage shot", the damage done would be a random value between set values. For example, like I said with the G3, it would be anywhere from 80 to 100. You might shoot thirty different people and never kill them in one shot, or you might shoot five different people and achieve five one shot kills. Forgive me if I misinterpreted your post.

If it's not possible with the engine, I guess it's a null point, and only goes to show just how unmoddable it can be, because this would be a fairly simple thing. Set damage values to a range, instead of a specific number (i.e. 80-100, instead of just 85). I don't code though, nor do I have any knowledge of BF2, but really... ranged values have been in games forever now. Counter-Strikes comes immediately to mind

[mammikoura]

if this is possible then it would be great. Something like +-10 to the current damage of the weapons. So like if the m16 does 35 damage now, it would be 25-45.