Rifle damage -1 reply

Please wait...

Exel

The stubborn Finn

50 XP

26th March 2004

0 Uploads

542 Posts

0 Threads

#1 14 years ago

I was glad to see the effectiveness of No.4 and Garand increased for 0.65, but I was at least as much dissappointed at how k.98 and Arisaka are. Especially the latter is practically useless. There is no reason why the rifles should have any noticeable differences in their damage effect. You can argue with bullet calibers and muzzle velocities all you want, but when the bullets hits the flesh they are trivial. All the rifles should pretty much be one-shot-one-kill (as Garand and No.4 now are). The rifles can and should be different by their accuracy, rate-of-fire, recoil and recovery, but NOT damage. If you take a bullet to your stomach from any of the FH rifles you will effectively be out of fighting condition, regardless if the wound proves lethal or not later on.




Skipster

I live on Gaming Forums

50 XP

29th July 2004

0 Uploads

1,068 Posts

0 Threads

#2 14 years ago

I played last night, and noticed this too, I wonder if it might be due to the new ballistics for small arms (I think they put that in)

I know I was just wounding people farther out, but closer in, I had no trouble.




Dee-Jaý

Always 1 point ahead of you

50 XP

17th February 2004

0 Uploads

1,694 Posts

0 Threads

#3 14 years ago

Although I might not have as much 0.65 exeriance as others here I have noticed that the K98 seems a bit weaker than before.

I generaly agree that all rifles should be 1 hit-kill, or it creates just to much of an imbalance. You can add slight differences in damage over range, muzzle velocity and aiming time, but these differences should be rather minor...




Dime_a_Dozen

FH Dev Team Member

50 XP

1st January 2003

0 Uploads

324 Posts

0 Threads

#4 14 years ago

Although my calculations from the code may differ from the code everyone is currently using, I do not suspect they are significantly different. Please note that code and actual gameplay don't often correlate like we'd hope them to--at least that's the safe explanation I like to use on matters like this. But anyway, these are very close...

The bolt-action rifles (with the exception of the carbine versions: Nagant, Arisaka) and the semi-auto rifles (with the exception of the M1 Carbine) all have the same hit-to-kill stats from point blank to about 200 meters, what I would consider effective range on a medium to low end computer, which is what I have. The soldier collision model is divided like it is in Vanilla to head, torso and limbs. All shots that connect out to at least 200 meters are 1 shot 1 kills, with exception to those hitting limbs, which is 2. 3 shots to the limbs at 200 meters for the No4 and Arisaka. Soldier hitpoints have not been changed and do not vary from army to army.

But whatever the numbers are, if you are hitting the limbs, which probably everyone is, you're reducing your effectiveness. The crosshairs are not entirely closed at rest, which means there is inherent inaccuracy built into the rifle, which is the same for all of them, except carbines. Or, blame what you see in gameplay on netcode, latency, lag, flight ballistics, orientation of your target, size of collision boxes, whatever, it's most likely (as described by the code mind you) that you're hitting limbs.




Exel

The stubborn Finn

50 XP

26th March 2004

0 Uploads

542 Posts

0 Threads

#5 14 years ago
Dime_a_DozenAll shots that connect out to at least 200 meters are 1 shot 1 kills, with exception to those hitting limbs, which is 2.

Incorrect. Arisaka never kills with 1 shot to the torso. It would also seem that k98 doesn't always kill with 1 hit to the torso over a longer range, but I'm not sure about that. In either case, Garand and No.4 are notably more effective than k98 and Arisaka.




Insane1

FH Anti-Revisionist

50 XP

7th July 2004

0 Uploads

200 Posts

0 Threads

#6 14 years ago

i hate the rifles in .65 it takes two shots to kill someone i loved the rifles in .62 where it took 1

ppsh41 needs more damage too it takes around 10 shots to get a kill




Kai Hiwatari

The Internet ends at GF

50 XP

23rd December 2003

0 Uploads

103 Posts

0 Threads

#7 14 years ago

I haven't downed FH 0.65 yet... What about the Mosin? :uhm:




Dime_a_Dozen

FH Dev Team Member

50 XP

1st January 2003

0 Uploads

324 Posts

0 Threads

#8 14 years ago
ExelIncorrect. Arisaka never kills with 1 shot to the torso.

Again, how do you know which bodypart you are hitting? I was incorrect to say "All shots that connect...". What I meant is "all shots that are detected by the engine as being torso shots" will, at least how they are coded, kill in one shot if it is at least 100 meters or less. Your chances of hitting a soldier in the torso (about half his body straight on) at even 100 meters are probably 25% or less because the bullet does not go where your crosshair points exactly. They are spread a little, which means your bullet can go anywhere within the border of the crosshair. Please understand this point. So the discussion should be whether all successful shots should be lethal.




Major Hartmann

Major Disinformation

50 XP

27th April 2003

0 Uploads

2,347 Posts

0 Threads

#9 14 years ago

Let me bitch a little bit :D The K98 is second hardest hitting rifle in FH, best is the US cal30 round. No4 is a tad weaker, less that 5%. The Arisaka fires a very weak round, either 6.5 or 7.5 mm. The 6.5mm is total crap, the 7.5 still below average. The PPSh is still very powerfull, you only just have to aim a little bit better. I could state some exact figures, but I'm not in the mood right now.




Dee-Jaý

Always 1 point ahead of you

50 XP

17th February 2004

0 Uploads

1,694 Posts

0 Threads

#10 14 years ago

Well, so the differences are only very slight.

I know I have taken limbs into account and know that they cause less damage. I overall like the new rifles, as long as they all kill with a torsoshit between 0 and 150 meters. Above that range you can alow slight differences, but gerneraly a rifle should be 1-hit-kill.