Well. Any armor negate damage shouldn’t be a cast of damage unto itself. Would make more sense as a modifier to what is already on the list.
Bullets should have both bash and slash. Bash because armor while slash without armor. Armor mitigates damage not inherently stops it as some around here seem to think. Shotgun slug bashing through the target. Armor would mitigate the damage, but even assuming it stops the slug. It just broke your ribs and now you cannot breath. In game terms though I’m not convinced armor negates make a lot of sense unless the type of damage is greater than the mitigating factor. Which would still just be a modifier to what already have.
Shotgun shot doesn’t fling the targets around in real life. Newton’s 3rd law and all: if the bullets impacted with enough momentum to significantly shift the target, the recoil would send the shooter firing.
Not sure about that. Not that I have bee shot before. But let us assume you have a vest that can take that kinetic energy. At point blank range. You are not going to stay standing. I don’t care the opinion on the matter is. Knock down is a logical conclusion.
Ok how about this then. Thinking on it…add an “if”.
If armor can absorb blast at point blank = knockdown and/or knockback + bash damage
If no armor = hole in your chest or extreme damage (as in high % remove limb)
There’s a HUGE difference from being hit and staggered and being truly knocked or hurled backwards like happens in the movies. That impact gets spread out through whatever material blocks the incoming round(s) and then through your flesh.
Even a handgun round, something with low velocity, can stagger a person if it hits them in a ballistic vest. There’s force in the impact, which is sudden and unexpected. Any distance you travel though, would be a product of your own body’s energy as you try to move or correct an imbalance.
Being ‘knocked back’ like happens in films or other video games, is not at all realistic. If you take a shotgun blast to the chest, I don’t doubt that you’ll fall backwards, but no more than if I shoved you gently in the chest when you weren’t ready for it.
I’m not sure if I worded all that correctly. Basically, I’m pro-knockdown, but anti-knockback.
again, Newton’s 3rd law: for every action, there’s an equal and opposite reaction. If I shoot you point blank with a gun and you go flying backwards at 3 m/s, that momentum has to be conserved and I need to also go flying backwards at 3 m/s.
Knockdown is a complicated question. But knockback is not going to happen in a realistic game. I have never been shot by a shotgun, but I’ve shot them a lot and I’ve never gone flying backwards, and neither have the pheasants and chukkars that I’ve shot. And those birds weigh a few pounds - if they aren’t getting knocked back by the blast, a human who weighs 50x as much is not going to get knocked back either.
I wasn’t aware those avian critters wore body armor that absorb kinetic energy…I suppose you have a valid point wink wink xD
Be right back if I can find and videos
youtube gun fails show numerous people getting knocked back and or falling over. True though, not flung.
Finding a adult man at 155lbs holding a sawn off and leaning into it with a stock gets a good shove using 00 shot.
Several vids but nothing defining. I did find videos also of vests taking bullet impacts of varying caliber which was interesting. It looks like a crater impact from the kinetic energy being dispersed. I think assuming any vest stopping any high caliber or shell can assume the person being knocked down with a high percentage.
Have we considered the possibility of giving attacks a slowing effect, rather than a knockback? You could simulate the staggering of an opponent by reducing their speed briefly. This sort of negates all this ‘realism’ discussion (it’s real enough, what doesn’t slow down with a chest full of buckshot?) and would still serve to provide the player distance, albeit in a different way.