Project Reality Forums

ObjectTemplate.create GenericProjectile 762_39
ObjectTemplate.material 3762
ObjectTemplate.damage 50

ObjectTemplate.create GenericProjectile 762_51
ObjectTemplate.material 3762
ObjectTemplate.damage 50

• 7.62 NATO (as well as 7.62x54 Russian) rounds in PR should be more or less equalized, whether it means increasing or decreasing them. This applies to whether the kit is a sniper/DMR/or normal Rifleman kit.
  
  
• 7.62x51 NATO and 7.62x39 USSR rounds need to be changed to do dramatically different damage based on their dramatically different mass.
• I understand concerns about balance. But the weapons are sufficiently balanced in ways beyond the power of the bullet. Accuracy, deployed modes, rate of fire, recoil, and magazine size are already in place, 100% realistic, and better suited for this.

They used to kid Randy Shughart because he shunned the modern rifle and ammunition
and carried a Vietnam-era M-14, which shot a 7.62-mm round without the penetrating
qualities of the new green tip. It occurred to Howe as he saw those Sammies keep
on running that Randy was the smartest soldier in the unit. His rifle may have been
heavier and comparatively awkward and delivered a mean recoil, but it damn sure
knocked a man down with one bullet, and in combat, one shot was often all you got.
You shoot a guy; you want to see him go down. You don't want to be guessing for
the next five hours whether you hit him, or whether he's still waiting for you in
the weeds.

ShockUnitBlack wrote:Basically this would reduce most rifles' shots-to-kill by one, which really isn't necessary. In particular, raising the damage of the G3 and FAL to anything over 85 would make them absurdly overpowered; probably not a good idea.

On the other hand, I agree the 7.62x39's damage should be lowered.

Still, very interesting read.

CAS_117 wrote:Disclaimer 1: This is not a "bullet x is better than bullet y" thread. Please discuss the advantages/disadvantages of different calibers elsewhere.

Disclaimer 2: I understand that bullets lose velocity (damage) at range. In PR however, the bullets will generally not lose any velocity before exiting the maximum view distance. Assume from here on that I am referring to the maximum damage done.

Disclaimer 3: I understand the importance of shot placement for bullet lethality. This is a discussion regarding the average relationship between bullets on the uniform impact surface found in BF2.

Disclaimer 4: I've attempted my suggestion in PR singleplayer against bots. The result is that anything firing the 7.62x51 will kill in one shot on unarmored targets (or unprotected areas).



Currently in PR, the G-3 and M-14 have more in common with the AK-47 than the M-24!

Haven't been on PR in awhile but I decided to play with the DMR kit the other day and noticed most sniper kits are a one hit kill while the G3 and M-14 take two usually.

I understand that there are dedicated sniper rounds used in this caliber. But this seems unrelated to the actual damage done and more to do with accuracy/energy retention. Numbers are as follows:

762_51_g (MEC G3) = 50

762_51_dmr (M-14, G3SG/1) = 58

762_51_sniper (M24, M40A5, SSG 69) = 80

The problem is that the G3SG/1 and M-14 have a muzzle velocity of around 860m/s. The G3 is something like 800 and the M40 and M-24 being the slowest at <800. For comparison:

(MEC G3) = 800m/s > 50

(M-14, G3SG/1) = 860m/s > 58

(M24, M40A3) = 800m/s > 80

My suggestion is to make the afore mentioned rifles do the same damage (more or less). This applies to other rounds as well (7.62x54 for Russia etc). I understand that this was most likely done for balancing purposes but I personally believe the kits are balanced via accuracy/deployed modes well enough already. Although I would certainly find MEC maps much more interesting .

Additionally, I would like bullet damage to be changed based on the following two formulas:

Taylor KO Power

Thornily Stopping Power

I understand that the wounding effects of bullets are a function of energy and diameter. Both of these formulas take this into account in varying degrees. I wouldn't know for sure which is better but an average could maybe be taken between the two.

For example: TK0 762x51 + TSP 762x51 = 113.5/2 = 56.75
TK0 556x45 + TSP 556x45 = 43.1 = 21.5

Explanation = The 7.62mm NATO (150 gr) will be hitting 2.6x harder than the 5.56mm NATO. In PR terms:

556_45_r (36) x 2.6 = 95

*NOTE: Please do not bring up 5.56mm tumbling/fragmentation etc. The 5.56mm NATO is a jacketed bullet and doesn't do this any more than any other round. Regardless, I still used PR's 5.56 round as a baseline for everything.

For the G3, G3SG/1 and M-14 this effectively doubles the damage. Sniper rifles will do slightly more damage.

My concern about the 7.62 rounds extends to the AK-47 as well. This is because the 7.62x39 in PR does the same damage as the 7.62x51... this more or less disregards the mass of the NATO round.

At the risk of violating "Disclaimer 1" I have to explain that the energy of the bullet is a function of mass as well as velocity. Otherwise the .308 pistol round would be much closer in performance of the 7.62x39.

The AK-47 and G3 do not fire the same bullet and shouldn't do the same damage.

Code: Select all

ObjectTemplate.create GenericProjectile 762_39
ObjectTemplate.material 3762
ObjectTemplate.damage 50

Code: Select all

ObjectTemplate.create GenericProjectile 762_51
ObjectTemplate.material 3762
ObjectTemplate.damage 50

Averaging TKO and TSP I get: 39.5 which when compared to PR's 5.56 should do 66 damage.

Summary:

• 7.62 NATO (as well as 7.62x54 Russian) rounds in PR should be more or less equalized, whether it means increasing or decreasing them. This applies to whether the kit is a sniper/DMR/or normal Rifleman kit.
  
  
• 7.62x51 NATO and 7.62x39 USSR rounds need to be changed to do dramatically different damage based on their dramatically different mass.
• I understand concerns about balance. But the weapons are sufficiently balanced in ways beyond the power of the bullet. Accuracy, deployed modes, rate of fire, recoil, and magazine size are already in place, 100% realistic, and better suited for this.

I leave you with this shameless Blackhawk Down reference:

ShockUnitBlack wrote:There's already quite a few people who say the G3 and FAL are the best rifles in the game at the moment, and that's without their damage being doubled. Their disadvantages only really show in full-auto, something a good player can generally go without in most scenarios, so...

Mikemonster wrote: The guns have lots of different stats (the M4 loses less accuracy than the 'big' guns if it's slewed around quickly, for example), and these compensate for the fact that the system of 'damage' is arcadey.

Still, can't argue with your post. It's a case of gameplay > realism again for me.

Although from now on i'll be exclusively using the AK-47! Thanks!

ShockUnitBlack wrote:I just don't see the need to have a drastic overhaul of the existing damage system, especially when it works already.

Code:
ObjectTemplate.create GenericProjectile 762_39
ObjectTemplate.material 3762
ObjectTemplate.damage 50
Code:
ObjectTemplate.create GenericProjectile 762_51
ObjectTemplate.material 3762
ObjectTemplate.damage 50

Dev1200 wrote:I would like to see tested balance.

Turn all the rifles and ammo into pure 100% realistic values, then test them, based on other rifles.

If it is deemed "Overpowered", increase recoil slightly, increase the time it takes to settle the rifle, maybe, if it is a heavier rifle, etc.

Then, as a last resort, reduce bullet damage.

CAS_117 wrote:Thank you for the compliment.

However all the rifles currently have identical deviation values right now. Additional turn deviation on the G3 could be appropriate. I would prefer this be considered (if anyone remembers 0.7 where rifles had different deviation) over arbitrary damage.

I am not arguing that realism is more important than gameplay. I am saying that the gameplay is currently unbalanced because DMRs and battlerifles have their inherent disadvantages (magazine size, recoil etc) while having none of their inherent advantages.

Its not so much gameplay as it is selective realism.