This is how guns work in real life. .357 magnum really does deal more raw damage than 5.56. .44 magnum is much more powerful than 5.56. 7.62x39 really does deal almost as much damage as 7.62 NATO. NATO rounds suck and are much less powerful than soviet rounds (One could make the case for 5.45 being better than 5.56, but the difference wouldn’t be as big, the difference between 7.62 Russian and 7.62 NATO also shouldn’t be as big). All 5.56 rounds fired out of a short barrel have just as good performance, now, the newer ones kind of do, but the most ubiquitous round is M855 which does not. The -2 or -1 damage penalty perhaps is not perfect, but it is much more realistic.
I won’t even mention .45 +P being just as powerful as 5.56 NATO, and more powerful if fired out of a Thompson, because it has fantasy performance, and it’s fine, but why make ALL NATO rounds have fantasy performance?
It won’t hurt the gameplay. ~-5 damage change is huge early game. Aside from making it harder to kill skeletal zombies, brutes and such, how are people supposed to kill sludge crawler? There is no proficiency that can be learned to penetrate its armor, so each one would have to be blown up with pipe bombs. And they are impossible to avoid when going through subways, there can be like 5 of them in one subway system.
Now, I suspect what is the issue. The issue is just that guns deal too much damage now, and I agree that they deal too much damage in some situations. But that is a result of the weakness system which created the problem, now it takes 10 5.56 rounds to kill a kevlar hulk instead of 30, because you keep penetrating its armor. I think it’s kind of absurd. That is what created the problem, and maybe the solution should be to just tune down that system?
Which damage changes are you referring to? All I remember from the last 6ish months was the changes to damage based on barrel length, so I’m not entirely sure what you’re referring to.
Your points are also extremely unclear - You mention “This is how guns work in real life” and then talk about the 7.62x39 and how it “really does” do as much damage as a 7.62x51 NATO - being a ~1500ft.lbs performance on the former, and ~2500ft.lb on the latter. Are you defending the games current values being too close? Are you saying they should be the same?
Its always nice to have some new faces on the forum, but whatever point you are trying to make would be served well by some time on the editing table, because I do not even know if your saying the game damage is bad, good, or if your completely wrong about what it should be.
I don’t want to be rude, but you really should have checked how much damage does 5.56 and 7.62 NATO deal in the latest experimental versions before responding, maybe then you wouldn’t be making accusations of me being incoherent.
If you checked how much damage does
.357 magnum JHP deal compared to 5.56 855 you would notice that it deals more raw damage, and you would see that all I am doing in the first point is describing the state of ammunition in experimental, and saying that these are the things the dev who has made the changes probably thinks. The point is, of course, that these things are not how ammunition works in real life. And yes, there were barrel length damage changes, and I have touched on them a bit as well, specifically the 5.56 guns.
I’m sorry, but I still would be - Even if I had committed every damage type to memory or decided that this post was worthy of homework, its still incoherent if I can’t even understand the thrust of your argument with or without those numbers.
Then you really should actually lead with that instead of some weird reverse-descriptive approach of how you think it got wrong, without any actual discussion of how it should be in end results. This is why I mentioned editing, because the whole post feels more like jumping in halfway through a discord argument, not a cohesive whole.
Then this would also be a factor in the confusion - Because the calibers in question have not significantly been changed since 0.F outside of barrel lengths change - Your welcome to review the git history, in which the barrel length change adjusted the default display value damage down, but the actual damage out of longer barrels significantly up. Otherwise you have to go back a few years to see the numbers actually change much.
No, because it should be obvious, and if it’s not obvious to you then I even said at the end that that performance is fantasy. You have read the rest of my post, right? It’s bizarre that even after all that you still say you wouldn’t be able to understand what I was saying, even after reading my post and even after actually checking what are the damage values in experimental.
But either way whether you think these values are absurd, or you think otherwise and think these are realistic, then you can say that, you can just give your opinion on whether these are realistic values.
I described what I thought they must have thought, why not? To make absurd changes you need some absurd thinking. And you are talking as if you haven’t played the game, or don’t know anything about the ammunition in it, I said at the end that maybe the weakness system should be changed instead, so that is the suggestion, reverse the change and change something else.
Who cares what was a few years ago, I’m talking about experimental all the time, that’s irrelevant. And you haven’t even bothered to for example go on hitchhiker’s guide and see the changes.
I don’t follow the changes on github, I don’t know which change exactly it was, but it’s not hard to find the first version with the change on Hitchhiker’s guide. I expected somebody knowledgeable about experimental versions to say something about it.
I tried - I’ve got an experimental version thats a few weeks old, and update on character death. I’m very familiar with the changes being pushed through and keep up regularly with the repo to see what’s what. I also referenced and provided direct github link to the last change that modified damage for the calibers in question. The fact you decided to not look any of it up in the actual source (Hint - Hitchhikers hasn’t been updated to know how to read the barrel length damage properties and just falls back to default) is not a failing of ours.
But I’m talking about the ammunition, sure, Hitchhiker may get the values wrong, but the damage value on the ammunition itself must be right. Maybe you are right, I don’t know where to find the values in Github. But then why do you say that the damage value for calibers has not been changed, when that is blatantly not true? Damage of a round is one thing, damage from barrel length is another. And why do you talk to me about F-3 version?
My man, this is getting extremely painful, so I’m going to be incredibly blunt - I linked the literal exact file and exactly when and where it was changed back in my prior posts, the bright link for the barrel length change. For the love of god, please stop ignoring the exact material I provide only to be confused as to what you are missing. If you try to say “I’m not talking about the barrel length change” then please please still look at that file and open the history so you can see the prior years worth of commits to it, which will show you that this is the only damage change in recent history.
If you would just look at the file I linked, you would see that the damage fields have been extended to have unique damage values for the bullet based on the length of the barrel of the weapon, and that the default value is now just a fallback value for weapons without defined barrel lengths
Barrel length IRL is one of the biggest factors in a rounds performance after the design of the round itself - Putting a 7.62 out of an 8 inch compact barrel is going to give you vastly different effect on target compared to putting it down a 20 inch full rifle barrel.
Reading comprehension is not your strong suit, I would recommend going over what I posted again - Because I said that outside of the barrel length change, damage on these calibers has not been significantly changed since that version.
If you would just look at the file I linked, you would see that the damage fields have been extended to have unique damage values for the bullet based on the length of the barrel of the weapon, and that the default value is now just a fallback value for weapons without defined barrel lengths
Barrel length IRL is one of the biggest factors in a rounds performance after the design of the round itself - Putting a 7.62 out of an 8 inch compact barrel is going to give you vastly different effect on target compared to putting it down a 20 inch full rifle barrel.
I don’t know if you are being dense on purpose, I will repeat again, barrel length, which is barrel length damage bonus in game, is a different thing from the damage of ammunition, this is how it has always worked. This is just the truth and how it has always been.
And Hitchhiker’s guide shows the barrel length damage correctly for some guns in the latest experimental, so why doesn’t it for all the guns?
damage fields have been extended to have unique damage values for the bullet based on the length of the barrel of the weapon, and that the default value is now just a fallback value for weapons without defined barrel lengths
This is some nonsense, what does it mean? If it’s some state of the art new feature, then at least say how it works, because so far you seem dense on purpose. When I said that ammunition damage is one thing and barrel damage is another thing, you talk to me about how guns work in real life, this is total nonsense completely unrelated to what I said, I was talking about ammunition IN GAME, not IN REAL LIFE. If it’s some new feature, then does it mean that there will be 10 damage values displayed in the game for a single type of ammunition, for every possible length of barrel?
Because I said that outside of the barrel length change, damage on these calibers has not been significantly changed since that version.
It’s unclear what it means, the obvious interpretation is that the damage value on the ammunition has not been significantly changed in game. Hitchhiker’s guide shows that the damage values on ammunition have changed in recent experimentals, so it has changed, and the values there are correct, so you must be wrong.
Wrong - Andnd if you had just opened my link ONCE you would see that. And I know you didn’t because Discourse provides a helpful little number beside the link for how many people have opened it.
I’ll spoonfeed you since you’re too stubborn to operate a link. Here is the exact JSON for the ammo.
7.62 NATO extends off .308 Winchester, with a base damage of 54 and a modifier of -2, hence the 52 base damage hitch hikers displays. But the AMMO ITSELF also pays attention to the BARREL LENGTH OF THE GUN to get its actual damage number - So out of a 24 inch Hunting Rifle barrel (Remington 700) the ~600mm barrel will give a damage of 63, not 52.
Your false assumption that barrel length changes only refer to the firearm damage modifier was the mistake here, and if you had bothered to actually listen to anyone or look at the actual primary sources, you’d have immediately realized your mistake.
I opened that link, if I wanted to look through all the changelog on Github in experimental, then I wouldn’t write this post and want somebody to explain it to me, I’m not an expert in code used in CDDA. I know what’s a changelog, I could find it if I wanted. And I expected the answer to be simple enough.
Ah, so there are like 10 values for each ammunition piece. Is that even displayed in game, or do you have to load the ammunition into each gun with a different barrel length, and see how much damage it does? Also, is the base damage bonus on guns (ie what I called the barrel length damage bonus) removed? Because it’s still displayed in Hitchiker’s guide, and some guns have non-0 values.
Your false assumption that barrel length changes only refer to the firearm damage modifier was the mistake here, and if you had bothered to actually listen to anyone or look at the actual primary sources, you’d have immediately realized your mistake.
I saw your code and I still don’t know how exactly does it work, the base damage bonus on guns is still there. Why leave that if the barrel length damage is now in the ammo itself?
To be fair, this whole thing didn’t even open with a question, but your confusing reverse engineering of logic that didn’t exist or apply to anything - But we already went over that. It wasn’t until we sorted out what you were even actually talking about that I was able to start posting answers.
It was simple - Ammo types now account for barrel length in their damage numbers. You chose to ignore the answers and links provided though, making arguments on how that answer was wrong rather than listening.
Not that I’m aware of. Gun stats never represented only barrel length in the first place, but the various factors that could affect a weapons performance with a given caliber. The use of them may change, but there’s still situations where a particular gun may have reason for better (or worse) performance regardless of its barrel length. Bolt actions are generally better for velocity and accuracy as they don’t have reciprocating parts or gas taps sapping energy, so having damage and dispersion bonuses is on the table still.
Because its good procedure in development to keep changes small and contained, to make identifying issues easier. Its far preferable for guns to have 2-5% extra damage for ‘free’ for a few weeks while hashing out the system and making sure it works than to try and rip everything down all at once. You’re still making assumptions that X means Y and Z, when they’re not explicitly linked. This may be reasonable in a full-meat lettered release where they would be ‘sensibly’ associated, but in experimentals, half finished and in progress are the name of the game. Something you learn to adjust to if you’re playing them a lot, don’t worry it much. Shoulda seen the months following the great inventory overhaul, that was a confusing time of “Is it supposed to work this way” and half finished UI and lack of information.
To be fair, this whole thing didn’t even open with a question
I mean, what’s in the title?
It was simple - Ammo types now account for barrel length in their damage numbers. You chose to ignore the answers and links provided though, making arguments on how that answer was wrong rather than listening.
No, only when I pressed you you were able to give any sort of straight answer. Throwing links around is barely an answer by the way.
It was simple - Ammo types now account for barrel length in their damage numbers. You chose to ignore the answers and links provided though, making arguments on how that answer was wrong rather than listening.
The base damage bonus on the gun does represent barrel length, what else do you think it represents? Of course, there are cases such as the silencer, but that is a mod, it’s not on the base weapon.
Bolt actions are generally better for velocity and accuracy as they don’t have reciprocating parts or gas taps sapping energy, so having damage and dispersion bonuses is on the table still.
I don’t believe there is a gun where that is modelled, and that is actually a myth, the difference between a bolt action and a semi-auto is within the variation between one round and another, it’s not statistically significant. It wouldn’t be realistic to model it.