Ranged Weapon Balance

[FunsizeNinja123]

I still think we should have a magazine item in Cata…

[Binky]

Generally speaking, high-quality civilian weapons are pretty much everywhere in the U.S. with the exception of the inner city where cheap revolvers are quite common. While a lot of people may have taken their weapons when they evacuated, a lot of them would have died anyway.

As I say, a bit of bending realism may need to happen. This could be quite subtle, and just lean towards the lower end rather than the higher end, with the higher end objects placed in more interesting locations. For instance, a zombie infested safe house could store some better quality firearms, as could some corpses in the middle of a triffid colony (who had tried to attack it).
Again, it’s just about having better weapons requiring a challenge to get too.

[Aether_Veritatis]

While the manner in which ranged weapons are currently balanced is currently dubious, I personally do not believe it is without justification aside from a few points, which I will elaborate upon further.

Issues with Firearms as they are Currently

Zombies and Firearms
To be honest, most of the time, you’re going to be using firearms on the normal Z zombie. The extreme levels of damage are to be expected for a somewhat decomposed puppet-body. However, even if the central nervous system is still a very valuable target when you’re trying to kill them, the sheer destruction attributed to firing at the head is somewhat confusing. The agent reanimating these zeds, the blob- or whatever it’s called- is present throughout the body as well. Destruction of the central colony coordinating the zed should cripple, but not quite kill, the zombie. Why? Simple. There’s more mass of blob still- blind as it is- operating it. Perhaps you could even give the blob a chance to emerge from the body, having developed a quantum collapsible outer shell to prevent the usual interdimensional issue of quantum nonconformity from killing it the moment it’s seen. (I think the main issue with the blob isn’t radiation, or else anything shorter wavelength than visible light would penetrate skin and kill it immediately, but quantum mechanics at the subatomic level, having evolved with different ‘laws’ so to speak… I’ve digressed enough) The body still remains to be killed, so you could potentially generate a new monster after the Z ‘dies’, with a few disadvantages based on locational damage such as loss of legs or head not completely killing it. This renders firearms less effective because melee weapons would not create the same trauma, and not cause the slime to ‘panic’ and maintain the body as it’s dying (similar to how physically traumatized humans to a specific degree start producing epinephrine, allowing them to survive even 5 shots straight to the chest, but not when they’re expecting the fight or anticipate the damage). After a certain point post creation, though, it should die of natural causes… Though it makes it more of a waiting game, it also prevents the world from being clogged with semi-dead zombies… and the new players need some way to kill these things, right?

 [u]Other Creatures and Firearms[/u]
           Most other creatures aren't quite as 'durable' as the zombies, and they really shouldn't be too hard  by comparison- They operate on similar systems to a human, with some exceptions. There are things which increase the lethality of firearms such as cardiothoracic shock, essential central organ systems, and even some semblance of a mind for most of the more intelligent ones.  However, they also are not affected by the same stimuli as zombies. Zeds are basically unthinking puppets, while intelligent life is inherently more dangerous due to advanced tactical capacity. Hit and run can wear down any character, and anything that learns the vulnerability that comes with the reload cycle will immediately have an advantage. Ultimately, zombies are dangerous due to horde tactics and the extensive damage required to put just one down. Other creatures have separate effects such as poison or mind effecting abilities, plus the capacity to think in terms other than "Attack until dead". This however, is not represented in game, so the only noticable difference from zombies is a great deal more HP and frightening levels of brute strength. 

Most of the issues are not centrally with the weapons- Firearms are the I-Win button IRL combat, so it’s expected. It’s mostly with the laughable vulnerability EVERYTHING has to such weapons, and the tactics normally employed by survivors. You don’t shoot Slenderman he catches you by surprise- Nullify the tactics, not the weapons. The tools’ effectiveness depends on the USER. A proficient swordsman in Cataclysm can mow down hordes just as easily, though with more risk of injury. And also, remember that firearms are the equalizer between the unstoppable force and the average Joe. It only takes one round to stop either one, and that’s why they’re here.

I need to start building a unified suggestion for handling combat… And learn C++

[Binky]

An incredibly well thought out suggestion/brainstorm

Really, that was a fantastic post to read in general.

I really like the idea of Zombies being much tougher, and a sort of ‘reanimation’ could certainly be an interesting challenge - I think your slime ‘panic’ idea might be a bit difficult to put across to the player however. I think it’d be most interesting if this could be combined as something that happened over time to increase the difficulty on a curve.

This could be something as simple as a goo hp stat (or reserve) which adds on to the Z’s health when they reanimate, but could mean they could get killed in one shot with ‘extreme trauma’.

For instance Z’s start with 80 health and 100 goo HP. On their first life they’d have 80hp, after death, they’d reanimate with 80hp from the goo, after the next they’d reanimate with the 20hp left - however if you caused 180 (or variations of this) damage in one go, you’d destroy it completely. The goo HP could increase over in game time (12 weeks for instance) after that point, Z’s could transform into living goo upon death.

Really, this is a very lateral way of dealing with ranged problems, but interesting to think about, especially dealing with the problems of balancing enemies over time.

[Aether_Veritatis]

[quote=“Aether Veritatis, post:43, topic:4938”]An incredibly well thought out suggestion/brainstorm

Really, that was a fantastic post to read in general.

I really like the idea of Zombies being much tougher, and a sort of ‘reanimation’ could certainly be an interesting challenge - I think your slime ‘panic’ idea might be a bit difficult to put across to the player however. I think it’d be most interesting if this could be combined as something that happened over time to increase the difficulty on a curve.

This could be something as simple as a goo hp stat (or reserve) which adds on to the Z’s health when they reanimate, but could mean they could get killed in one shot with ‘extreme trauma’.

For instance Z’s start with 80 health and 100 goo HP. On their first life they’d have 80hp, after death, they’d reanimate with 80hp from the goo, after the next they’d reanimate with the 20hp left - however if you caused 180 (or variations of this) damage in one go, you’d destroy it completely. The goo HP could increase over in game time (12 weeks for instance) after that point, Z’s could transform into living goo upon death.

Really, this is a very lateral way of dealing with ranged problems, but interesting to think about, especially dealing with the problems of balancing enemies over time.[/quote]

Why, thank you very much I appreciate the kind words.

Also, you’re correct on the point that it’s fairly lateral… However, firearms from a tactical viewpoint turned EVERY fight into a ‘who hit first’ match. Modern tactics usually rely on staying out of sight while maintaining a bead on the target. It’s somewhat reasonable that weapons like this would seriously reduce a zombie’s lifespan. However, I’d also like to see some more ‘intelligent’ AI, which eventually learn to stay out of sight most of the time until you’re vulnerable. That and the differential between wildlife and humans from a physical standpoint would render firearms into more of the backup type weapon. DayZ makes guns fairly uncommon, AND the other people (see ‘NPCs’) are just as willing to either put you down (often for loot, sometimes for lolz) or let you inherit the horde they encountered rather unluckily. With more people looking for the same gear, you end up with less gear by the time you show up, unless you’re first on the scene, which is ALWAYS the case in this game. Reducing shop or normal spawns based on the timelines provided (Civvies die first, then the military showed up and made a mess, as far as I can tell) and redistributing the removed spawns to groups of lucky uninfected civilians (Quantum observation occurred with their blob before it learned to collapse from superposition?) and dead servicemen. Scientists probably wouldn’t be affected by the differential here, their stuff is mostly locked up after they run away from the lab.

[AerialK7]

JOIFIEONFEFIODWPDOKJF Im lazy and cant be bothered reading most of whats before me, cause you know. School apparently makes me stupid tired. (ill try tomorrow, day off and all)

ANYWAYS; Im pretty much against the nerfing of weapons, /and/ ammo. Of course if you shoot something in the head they’ll die. Sure, the chance of the headshot crit could be downed a little. And, if you get shot 5 times in the chest from a turret youre going to die. I have no idea why youd play on default screen size. As for the ammo, dirty ammo, it wouldnt be that hard to press your own with quite high quality. My friends stepfather does it with .308s and shotgun shells. Thats all he does. He must have a couple of thousand rounds of ammo cause he just presses ammo whenever he has nothing do do.

[me=AerialK7]backstrokes away with his useless opinion[/me]

[ClockworkZombie]

It seems to me that zombies should just be much, much more resistant to piercing (which is usually equivalent to gun) damage, with an exception for headshots. Blowing a dime-sized chunk out of a zombie simply wouldn’t do much, as effective as it is on “natural” or living enemies. The same would probably go for fungaloids.

[AerialK7]

Blowing a dime-sized chunk out of a zombie simply wouldn’t do much

Exit wounds…Dime size chunk in, cup (circumference) size hole out. Though, that sorta depends on the caliber and if its hollowpoint or not. You can get like huge chunks blown outve your back if its a high-caliber and hollowpoint. (isnt that why hunters dont like using it? Huge mess plus you get a ton of shrapnel in the meat)

[An0n3]

Ranged weapons are fine where they are, in my opinion.

Guns are very lethal things especially in the hands of someone who is even only moderately trained.

In the game there are other elements to make them less attractive than other options. Ammo is limited, the guns are loud, and altogether the bulk and weight of the weapon and ammunition is typically much much more than most any melee weapon. They’re great until they run out of ammo and need to be reloaded. Hopefully you’ve killed everything by then.

Comparatively a competent melee character can haphazardly punch their way through everything with little thought. To say guns are too effective compared to a system that let’s a barehanded fighter clear out entire blocks as long as he has a shopping cart or shrub handy is kinda funny.

[Ferodaktyl]

you all seem to forget (or just simply don’t know because you’re new-ish to the game) that the fire weapons were balanced against the dynamic spawn mods, meaning they were counterbalanced by the danger noise represented back then. With the newer static mode, they are OP as hell and effectively ruin the overall difficulty of the game. If someone starts the game with a pistol, or finds one with the proper ammo, it’s game over. All you have left is the mutations and building a useless base or a doom-day vehicle.

[Inadequate]

As OP as you seem to consider them, nobody is planning to remove guns altogether. That would be plainly unrealistic.

[Ferodaktyl]

As OP as you seem to consider them, nobody is planning to remove guns altogether. That would be plainly unrealistic.

where did you pull the remove guns part from ?

[Rivet]

I’d imagine the first time a knight in armor got shot off their horse by a peasant with a musket they were thinking something along the lines of ‘guns are OP’ but in some kind of more period-specific way. ‘Gunnes art overpowerede, ye knave!’

They’re supposed to be ridiculously powerful killing tools, just like in real life.

The gun is pretty much always mightier than the sword (or zombie in this case) which is why swords are now showpieces and guns are the preferred method of waging war.

Of course none of the gun’s potential matters when you run out of bullets, which is why a machete makes a nice backup weapon.

[Inadequate]

With the newer static mode, they are OP as hell and effectively ruin the overall difficulty of the game. If someone starts the game with a pistol, or finds one with the proper ammo, it’s game over.

The implication is that pistols (and considering the rest of your post, guns in general) are overpowered, and the second part of the second sentence implies that finding one with the proper ammo breaks the difficulty of the game no matter when you find it, given how you lack a restricting timescale on that statement. The only possible implementation that addresses your issues would be to remove guns from the game entirely.

[Binky]

In most zombie lore/games/films (not that it should stick to this religiously) zombies are impervious to anything other than headshots. Aiming that well takes time (which is where the aiming system will come in) and I think that’ll help a lot.

The problem is mainly that a pistol is pretty much as good/better than an assault rifle, as all guns are pretty much one shots.

Granted, this may be realistic, but in terms of game play we might need to forego that a little bit and make it more of a curve. Pistols could be easier to wield by unskilled users (as they are) but a lot weaker, say 5-6 shots to put a zombie down (at low skill). Heavier calibres would require more skill and practice to use at all effectively, but would be more like 1-2 shots by a skilled user.

Again, this isn’t completely realistic, but I believe it’d make it more fun, rather than just getting pretty much any gun and destroying everything with it.

[Ferodaktyl]

[quote=“Ferodaktyl, post:50, topic:4938”]With the newer static mode, they are OP as hell and effectively ruin the overall difficulty of the game. If someone starts the game with a pistol, or finds one with the proper ammo, it’s game over.

The implication is that pistols (and considering the rest of your post, guns in general) are overpowered, and the second part of the second sentence implies that finding one with the proper ammo breaks the difficulty of the game no matter when you find it, given how you lack a restricting timescale on that statement. The only possible implementation that addresses your issues would be to remove guns from the game entirely.[/quote]

Your first phrase is correct, hence this topic, strangely named Ranged Weapon Balance.
The second phrase… how do you know i didn’t mean to remove the static spawn mode from the game? Or maybe not allowing anybody to start the game?
You just over-simplify and over-interpret all statements and jump to sometimes strange conclusions.

[Rivet]

Pistols could be easier to wield by unskilled users (as they are)

In my experience this isn’t the case. Learning to steady your aim while using your entire upper body as bracing (as with long guns) is far easier for most folks to pick up than steadying your aim with nothing more than the muscles of your arms (as with a pistol) to say nothing of the fact that handing a pistol to an untrained user is a good way to get them or yourself accidentally shot, whereas with a rifle it’s a tiny bit harder to accidentally wave it around and point it at people due to its size.

[Binky]

In my experience this isn’t the case. Learning to steady your aim while using your entire upper body as bracing (as with long guns) is far easier for most folks to pick up than steadying your aim with nothing more than the muscles of your arms (as with a pistol) to say nothing of the fact that handing a pistol to an untrained user is a good way to get them or yourself accidentally shot, whereas with a rifle it’s a tiny bit harder to accidentally wave it around and point it at people due to its size.

I get what you’re saying, however with a rifle, it’s just as easy for an untrained user to get scope throat/eye or break their arm on a shotgun. Admittedly, there are some starter rifles that aim better and have sufficiently low recoil/punch, but if we’re talking about big calibre or taking multiple shots in quick succession (like if a zombie is running at you) I’d imagine your aim would go fast with the recoil/set-up.

Some rules of realism might need to be slightly bent to give a better gameplay. As Ferodaktyl says, currently getting pretty much any bullets and any gun allows you to waltz through the game, and I think this is the main problem - I’m not really bothered about if we skew it more to skills or more to nerfing hard values of guns (or upping monsters). I just think it should be something that can be fixed and would give a lot more balance.

[kevin.granade]

I think a good balance between rifles and pistols would be that rifles are inherently more accurate and easier to use, but are slower to aim. This would be implemented by adjusting “aim speed” with either a new gun stat, or one derived from existing stats (such as low volume weapons being faster". So while rifles are super-accurate, at close range you can get off multiple “accurate enough” shots with a pistol in the same time it takes to aim and fire once with a rifle.

[ChristopherWalken]

I assume there would be exceptions to that rule?

Eg. Sawn offs