Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


Member Since 19 Apr 2013
Offline Last Active Oct 03 2014 08:23 AM

#5183998 Making a shot harder to pull off.

Posted by JustinS on 30 September 2014 - 01:43 AM

You mention stories about amazing feats people accomplish while mortally wounded. There are stories (true or not) of say, mothers lifting cars off of children after accidents... this is the exception, not the normal "Realistic" result.  The same applies to everything else, the stories you mention are so incredible because they are so unusual.

Except they're not. Even being shot in the head, with no adjustment for the number of times, the location, the available medical attention (or lack thereof), 10% of victims survive. And if I have to explain that being shot in the head is considerably deadlier than being shot in the chest, I am going to rip my hair out.

Also, I never said every gun shot was deadly either, I said it makes things much more complicated. Walking/moving on a leg that just got shot is similiar to attempting to walk on a leg that just got broken.

Uh, no it isn't. It does impair you, but not NEARLY as much as a broken bone. When you add on being presently oblivious to pain you might not even notice the injury and indeed many people don't, even after the bullet rips open their femoral artery and mortally wounds them. And you know what? The game already handles that just fine.

Attempting to fire with an arm with a gun shot is definitey going to effect your aim, these disadvantages are what get you killed, I was under the impression that you wanted gun fights to be more survivable, it wasn't particularly clear that you simply wanted to make the player take longer to die. It's possible, but your not going to be doing jumping jacks or sprinting to cover.

Except, once again, it's totally frequent to keep going with a gunshot wound. But, of course, no matter how many examples I give, even if I got a list of a couple dozen and sang them to the tune of Turkey in the Straw, you'd just call them all isolated cases and ignore their very existence as if it doesn't impact your argument.

Getting hit in the chest while wearing a vest will still knock you down,

Physics says you're full of shit. Specifically, Newton's third law of motion. NO firearm can ever have enough force to knock somebody down, or the user would be knocked down when they fired it, even assuming perfect efficiency which is far from being the case.

take your wind and possibly break some ribs.

Nope. Not enough force for that. Unless you're arguing the bullet does MORE while wearing armour, because having taken bullets I can tell you it's not what you think. When I was 12, I was shot in the head once and the back twice. I'm not going into circumstances there, I could have avoided that but the guy is still a complete monster. I made it to school the next day, with those wounds. I didn't even notice the two wounds in my back, just the head wound. And with those injuries, I ran from the scene and arrived at a friend's house, then I don't remember anything until about 8:00 the next day when I woke up to find myself late to school and for some reason that seemed really important to me at the time. On another instance... Well, I don't really know. I came home one day when I was about six thinking I had a nasty leg cramp, then I got home and my grandmother pointed to my leg and I realized I had a bleeding hole in my thigh. A HUGE bleeding hole in my thigh. And to be honest, I don't really know what happened there, but I'm pretty sure it was a gunshot wound. I don't think I was ever shot *at*, I think it was a stray bullet, but it happened.

My best friend was also shot on two occasions... Well, one and an edge case. The edge case he was shot at a whole bunch with a shotgun (while running away) when he was 8, and despite hundreds of tiny birdshot pellets hitting him not one penetrated his coat or jeans. He didn't realize he'd been hit at all until he was at home and realized his clothes were in tatters. The more serious time he was 10, and he was shot twice in the back while sitting in a park flirting with a girl.

Also, if you got hit, you must not have been in good enough cover... who ever is shooting at you now has a much easier target.

Nonsense. Bullets go through objects just fine, you can get hit through a lot of "cover". And potentially from a distance where they have no idea they hit anything, and where you might not have even been the target.

Here, you explicitly state that you think a hit in the heart is the problem EVEN THOUGH it doesn't always kill you instantly... indicating that any other fatal shot that has similiar results (i.e death) would be an issue.  You say in your game it should be "rare for a single gunshot wound to kill you", but without the right kind of attention it is not "rare" for a single round to the chest to kill a person.[/background]
 A statistic from www.trama.org:
"For penetrating thoracic injury the survival rate is fairly uniform at 18-33%, with stab wounds having a far greater chance of survival than gunshot wounds."   http://www.trauma.org/archive/thoracic/EDTrationale.html

1. Quit with the formatting changes, it's really obnoxious when I'm trying to reply to it.
2. "Most people shot" does not mean "most people shot in the chest". Most people shot get hit in the abdomen. I know it's strange, but it's true. Gutshots account for more trauma than chest and head shots combined, and with guns it's more than all other gunshot wounds combined. And gut shots have a low fatality rate since the advent of antibiotics, because the density of blood vessels is fairly low and the organs themselves, while required, can be easily operated upon and their function won't be a pressing issue for quite a while after you're shot.
3. This does not adjust for the number of shots.
4. This also does not adjust for medical attention, patient health, or other factors.

The fact that you would prefer a gun shot wound to take a long time to kill you, would generally lead someone to believe that you would attempt to give the player options they could take to avoid getting killed after being shot...

Which I DO, for most injuries. You have plenty of medical implements and an entire skill devoted to medicine. And if you're any good at it, a single gunshot wound IS unlikely to kill you in most locations. Especially in co-op, as having somebody else use medical implements on you is generally more effective than using them on yourself.

not many game designers look for ways to make more of the time players are playing their game have no "winning moves".

And I'm not. You can usually save your own life with the medicine skill, and having somebody else do it gives you even better chances.

You then say "many enemies in the game also use guns"...enemies that use guns tend to be humanoid... and if guns are common it generally leads one to believe that gun fights will be common.

Not really. Many NPCs in the game are technically "enemies" in the sense that you can kill them for gain and they are dangerous to the player, but fighting them *at all* is generally considered a bad mood and anything you can do to avoid the fight is probably the better option. Three good examples:
1. You might be confronted by a looter yelling at you for getting too close to a ruined house and brandishing a weapon and calling you a "claim jumper". Leave and they won't shoot.
2. A firefight between two of the armies in the area might erupt, posing a massive danger to everyone and everything around them. Get the hell away from that before it kills you.
3. A cult of dumb-all-over religious loonies starts screaming at you over a bullhorn. Run like hell, you've got about ten seconds before they break out the heavy machine guns and "defend the holy land" from a "heathen invader" like you... A little lost refugee picking through the busted car on the exterior for baked beans.

If gun fights are to be common then the player seems to be expected to be able to survive gun fights commonly. In order to answer this game "realistically" as you seem to have wanted we can only fall upon knowledge of other instances where there are many enemies often carrying guns in real life... which oddly enough is a pretty good description of a war.

You are seriously spinning this as hard as you can, aren't you? There's a war in the background the player never fights in. That is not enough to be a war game.

I did actually realize that my first post, while I had hoped to be helpful didn't actually address the issue concerning the difficulties of aiming... which is precisely why I added the second post which dealt exclusively with the many variables that affect accuracy. I do actually have experience with weapons, I was combat ops in Iraq for two separate years. I have been trained on the maintenance and use of an array weapons... granted I was a General Issue Joe and not the super star spec ops... I still feel the super human abilities your ascribing to the spec ops guys sounds more like holly wood fantasy then the "do what works" reality.

You don't know what you're talking about, and military experience doesn't change that. All military experience by itself says is you're a shitty person; the rest of your sentence just confirms it when you brag about being part of the US military screwing the pooch so hard the pooch had to lock itself in the bathroom for an hour with a tube of soothing cream. That says nothing about any knowledge you may have, believe it or not, and if you've never been shot in the line of duty you can't even use that, even assuming that you actually did serve in the military because that's a VERY common lie. And the truth of the matter is that special forces ARE trained to shoot exclusively for the heart. And so were you. When they told you to aim centre mass, what did you think was the intended target? The only difference is between being way better marksmen than you and being much closer to their targets when they fire, special forces actually hit the heart pretty consistently and regular infantry don't.

You should try to control your temper. It's rude to treat people trying to help you the way you do.

And finally, the first thing you've said that is actually true. At least, with people I believe are actually trying to help, regardless of whether they're succeeding or not. I guess I should cut you some slack, you're certainly better than this dumbass:

Give everyone just 1 HP then smile.png

See this asinine statement? See this blissful denial of reality? It's like he's completely insane and proud of it. Either he really thinks getting hit once anywhere with anything is instantly fatal or he's trolling me from behind that smiley face and either way I want to smack him.

Also note that aiming for the heart is an idiocy from the realism point of view as well. If you have a gun you don't try to hit the heart, just the person smile.png Three random bullets in stomach are statisticly equally good as one well aimed bullet in the heart (unless they are a vampire biggrin.png).

And this confirms it. See this? This shows a complete lack of knowledge in the area as people can take gutshots all damned day and only die from it after the fact. Intestinal trauma is one step up from muscle damage, it results in only somewhat more blood loss and doesn't really matter much until it gets infected. (Though when it does, DAMN but it gets nasty.) Most of the time, when somebody lives through multiple gunshot wounds it's because none of the wounds were in the chest or head and it's actually better to get shot multiple times through the stomach or intestines than a single time through a lung. There's a reason why ALL instructors for the military, police AND civilian self-defence courses tell you to aim for the chest and fire until your weapon is empty. But this guy doesn't know and doesn't care. It's like he's proud of his ignorance.

Well Paragon, you're a lot better than he is, at least. But then, I'm not sure that's saying anything.

Also Acharis, please, whatever you do, never breed.

#5183940 Making a shot harder to pull off.

Posted by JustinS on 29 September 2014 - 08:56 PM

Okay, this is try FOUR to respond. This stupid fucking site keeps kicking me back to the previous page and erasing ALL OF MY FUCKING DATA because nobody was smart enough to install an auto-save feature into this fucking thing. I am NOT taking the time to respond to ANYTHING in here at-length, because this PIECE OF SHIT is guaranteed to delete EVERYTHING if I take even half an hour to type this, so I am going to be very, very terse. Especially since Sturgeon's law is proving quite true here with how many times in this people put words in my mouth, or ignore my statements so they can make assumptions I have already refuted.

You can't make your weapons that realistically damaging and expect to have the same exciting, run-and-gun fights you see in a lot of FPS games.

I never said this. This is the exact opposite of my goals for this game, quit putting words into my mouth.

Most gun fights are either extremely one sided (and over in a matter of seconds),

No, Christopher Nolan, they're not. Guns don't make people fall over like ragdolls dead on the spot, they just punch agood old-fashioned hole in them. Gunshot wounds are just regular wounds, they're NOT indowed with the magical killing power people keep injecting them with.

or extremely long and drawn out, with both sides behind cover waiting for the other guys to run out of ammo, or for the artillery to come down, or for reinforcements to flank them... etc.

On a battlefield, sure. In a real civilian gunfight, both parties open fire while taking cover, then have a prolonged standoff periodically exchanging fire between trying to do damage control on their wounds, trying not to get any more, and trying to kill the other guy. All largely incompatible goals, so some are always botched to succeed on the others if any are succeeded on at all. They are equally likely to end either with one party dead and the other wounded, both parties dead or both parties wounded. The only factor that changes that is body armour.

Or at least it did, with how much the police force has been militarized now in my home country, I doubt it'll stay that way.

I'd say that if you want to keep that level of detail in how weapons work, you need to re-evalutate the pace of the game and the quantity of the enemies to a point where getting shot (pretty much at all) is expected to end the game.

Bullshit, no I don't. The game is slow-paced already, because it's a SURVIVAL GAME. And you clearly have NO IDEA HOW GUNS WORK if you think getting shot "pretty much at all" is fatal. MOST PEOPLE WHO GET SHOT SURVIVE.

If you are keeping the DOT that makes you bleed out from getting shot in the heart, are you also making it so that getting shot in the leg makes it so hard to concentrate that you pretty much entirely lose all your accuracy? Getting hit in the body armor your wearing stuns you b/c you've had the wind knocked out of you and without someone to drag you off behind cover makes you easy pickings?

1. You bleed from wounds everywhere, in the heart it just bleeds really fast and never stops.
2. Pain is meaningless in a fight. One of the primary roles of adrenalin is to inhibit nociception. This is supposed to be common knowledge. You DO NOT FEEL PAIN in a fight, and it's incredibly likely to fail to notice serious, even fatal, injuries. Franz Ferdinand, for a good historical example, was shot in the carotid artery and only ever noticed his wife Sophie's heart wound, dying minutes later without ever realising he had been shot. His last words were "It's nothing. It's nothing."
3. A bullet that doesn't penetrate body armour doesn't do much damage at all, and it certainly isn't incapacitating. It would be painful, if you could FEEL pain in combat, but you can't so it isn't. Even a rifle doesn't do much if it can't penetrate armour, and it's only really rifles that are even considerable when they are stopped by armour. You clearly do not understand what a firearm is. It's not the magic death-ray blaster you're imagining. It's a launching device meant to activate tiny deflagrant charges and help them get tiny bits of metal moving really fast to put holes in what you point it at.

Also, it seems that accuracy in your game is not realistic enough if it is that easy to hit the heart every time. A good marksmen might be able to reliably hit a target the size of the heart at a reasonable distance (changes depending on type of gun) from a stable position on a stationary target, but that will only be true for say... the first shot against a sleeping target or something.

I NEVER said it was easy. For a new player, a heart wound might be too hard for them. But with practice a player will be able to hit it, say, maybe 1/3 of the time. That's too good.

And in real life, there are people who are very good at shooting other people through the heart to the point where it's part of what they do for a living. We call them "special forces", and there are so many of them in the world it's impossible to call them "flukes", or "isolated incidences". In particular, the main combat philosophy for the Spetsnaz can be summarized as "If you think you've shot their heart too much, you haven't shot it enough."

So, to it seems to me that this is an issue where one mechanic has a level or realism that is out of place with the rest of the mechanics.

Only if you have some serious misgivings about the meaning of the word "realistic".

This pretty much echos my opinion.  If you're making heart shots death shots, and if they are easy to hit, then you probably have an accuracy issue.  FPS can get away with simplified hitscan weapons that are crazy accurate, I suspect your game would not.

Would be valid, if only I had said it was "easy". All I said was that it was easier than it should be, as in, it should be harder. That in way implies it is actually easy. I also already said the guns don't hold still, aren't perfectly accurate, the bullets take time to travel, slow down and drop. 

But then again, this could be all worrying over nothing, I think this may be a case of premature optimization, at least for enemies being hit by heart shots.

Maybe it is.

For the player, you may end up wanting a completely different damage model, as it's hard to say without knowing your game, but I suspect that being sometimes instantly killed by enemies and sometimes not will probably not end up being very much fun.

It is very much not instant. Even shot through the heart the player has the better part of a minute to watch themselves die. A minute, to stumble on in disbelief, then realize where they're hit as they fire a few furious final shots at the enemy, crashing to their knees as they desperately try to stop the bleeding only to end up slipping into shock and realize there's nothing they can do to stop it and then shake it off, sigh and return to the menu to start a new game when their character finally dies.

Which, on inspection, actually really fits the emotional tone of the game REALLY well. I've seen somebody go through all five stages of grief in minutes playing a game before, I did it myself like four times playing Spec-Ops: The Line, it's a beautiful thing both to see and experience, and I'd love to see it here. So... Maybe it's okay if it happens on occasion when the player screws up. There's a lesson in it, something to learn. Call it a very painful learning experience.

You know, I think I'll just make a few AI changes to make this only happen to the PC on rare occasion as a result of player stupidity. Or even rarer on freak accident, say, a stray bullet from a firefight they're running away from, between two sides they aren't involved in and don't care about, manages to go and catch them right in their little civilian heart, because that too fits the main theme of the game.

(The war in this game looms over the horizon like a great, horrible beast, growling and bearing its teeth at the helpless little civilian it'll one day rip apart, no matter how they run, how they hide or how they fight. It's like the monster in a horror game, except there's no way to escape alive because this game doesn't stop until you're dead, and when you die it's over forever and you lose everything. The game's ending screen even tells them nobody will ever remember they existed, and the savages in uniform had forgotten all about killing them by the next day.)

Likewise, I'm not convinced that it's going to prove as easy to achieve heart-shots as you're evaluating it to be, for most players, at least, and if it does prove that easy, then there may well be a disconnect between the level of realism in your damage simulation and the level of realism in your gunplay simulation.

I never once said it was easy. Not ONCE. I said it was easier than it should be for balance, that's it. That in no way implies it is actually easy. Not addressing this again. 

I have to seriously agree with Paragon123 here. With the level of realism you are attributing to hitting an enemy AT ALL, you can't expect it to be "difficult" to kill a person on the battlefield (because modern guns are quite simply highly effective killing tools).


2. There is an ENORMOUS difference between killing somebody and killing them quickly. A single decent-sized gunshot wound to the chest, or even a small one to the head, should be fatal if given time. Neither of those is quick, however. It can take hours to die from a gunshot wound, if the bleeding isn't enough to kill you directly (as it usually isn't, if you die at all because even THAT is less likely than surviving) you can take hours to die from shock, it's possible to spend days in a hospital on life support dying slowly from shock. The thing about the heart is death from a heartwound is always fairly quick, it's extraordinary for it to take even ten minutes, and there's not a damned thing anybody can do about it, and it's big enough to be possible to precise enough to hit.

One limitation you can put on players spamming shots to the abdomen (which is the origin of your balancing issue) is to drastically limit the ammo available to them in comparison to the quantity of enemy troops.


2. If you get into a firefight in this game, it's probably a totally avoidable fight with a looter trying to scare you away from his claim and thoroughly underestimating the kind of crazy he's dealing with. (Only a PC would look at the pissed-off twenty-something standing in front of a ruined house, firing a shotgun into the air and screaming about how this is "his claim" and how he has "kids to feed" and then decide for themselves "You know, I think I want to pick a fight with that guy. I think he'll be a real push-over.")

3. Where in the Sam hill did you get the idea that spamming shots on the abdomen was the issue, when I have spent the entire time talking about heart shots and the heart is in the CHEST?

If they run out of ammo, they would have to acquire new ammo from a corpse, possibly even an enemy corpse, which means approaching the enemy directly without ammo / an effective defense. This is a risk that players will want to avoid, therefore they will be careful with their aiming in order to conserve ammo.

Does not solve the issue. Especially since this is NOT A WAR GAME.

CoD Tried to make aiming more realistic... and in theory I think the idea is sound... but in their implementation i don't think it really works. When not looking down the scope they have a small circle, and this represents how "off center" your shot ends up.... when you look down the scope the circle gets smaller until it's a pin point. Shooting or moving widens the circle again. The ability to 'no-scope' sniper head shots is pretty decent proof that they must have gotten it very,  very wrong (or the players must be cheating).
 It requires knowing how the circle actually relates to the shot though to determine how well this actually models realistic aiming. In any case, the way i would do it is something like..
 Instead of a circle, it would be more of a cone... of course the cone can be represented by a circle (who knows, perhaps this is what they are doing).
 Choose a distance the circle will represent. When a player fires their weapon, choose a random point on the circle, favoring the out side of the circle the smaller the distance. the vector the round will follow will originate from the end of the weapons barrel and pass through this point. So the random point chosen represents the angle offset of the rounds vector rather than the end point offset of the rounds impact. (I.E if the aiming circle represents a 25' cone and you are firing at something 40' away you likely won't even hit anything within the circle). If they player is not in a stable position (Prone for rifles, firmly planted in place for handguns) the circle will move erratically (even in a stable position the circle will move in predictable patterns due to breathing, muscle control, etc). If the trigger isn't pulled directly back, the circle will move upward slightly before the round can even exit the barrel (this could be represented by a characters familiarity with the weapon... you will only be able to pull the trigger directly back if you know the weapon well enough to know how much pressure it takes to release the hammer) Then, when the hammer hits it will push the circle back down (unless you are familiar enough with the weapon to compensate). Being unfamiliar with the weapon and over compensating either action will cause the circle to move in the opposite direction slightly. Also, right handed shooters tend to pull the barrel to the right and left-handed to the left. 
 In addition, the round will start dropping noticeably even within a weapons "maximum effective range" and you don't need to be firing at a target half a mile away with a sniper rifle for a cross wind to be the difference between a hit and a miss... even an shooter firing an assault rifle at a target 200 meters out may find they need to adjust for wind. For example, if you are trying to pass your marksmen test with an m4 with a wind blowing left to right you want to aim near the left shoulder to make sure you hit somewhere in the torso area. 
If you watch a marksmen competition they will take their own good time to aim... at 15-30 seconds min... and after ever trigger pull you have to start over... if you are just pulling the trigger as fast as you can you might as well be firing from the hip. Plus, the "circle" doesn't gradually decrease in circumfrence... you start aiming, it all snaps together and you pull the trigger... if you miss that window things tend to go blurry and you have to start over, its tough to keep your eye that focused and your muscles that still for much longer than an instant.
All that being said, I've never been a particularly good shot myself... I just know everything people kept telling me every time I missed smile.png
Oh, and I know i can't stop talking... but generally the larger the caliber of round, the less important the accuracy of the sights... rifles being the weapon where the sights are most likely to be accurate, as generally each person zeroes their own sights... and the quality of the weapon/sights determines how much wear a weapon can take before the sights start getting out of whack and need to be zeroed at a range again... and here familiarity with the weapon helps a shooter maintain accuracy as the sights start needing adjusting.

None of this rambling mess applies to my game at all.

Oh.. and also, in line with what facehead1992 said, a hand gun doesn't have "30 rounds" it has two magazines of 15 rounds each.. meaning, shooting three times then reloading leaves you with 15 rounds, not 27.  Stealing ammo only works if they are using a weapon with a compatible magazine.

1. I am totally aware of this AND taking it into account.

2. This has nothing to do with the topic.

That's your core problem smile.png You know, you don't have to implement it if you don't want to (I know, I keep forgeting it myself too). Simply don't simulate heart maybe?

Realism is a priority with me. I want accurate real-world knowledge and player logic to be applicable to the game. So I DO have to include the heart. Especially since it makes players stop idiotically aiming for the head. (Aiming for the head in a real fight is a good way to get yourself killed without hitting your target once.)

I would echo what people have said about expecting realistic results (frequent death) if you do a realistic simulation. Having said that, better body armour would reduce the chances of instant death. Or have the effects of a shot be a bit variable, e.g. the bullet ricocheted off a rib. Or limit the amount of ammo that has that direct punching power, favour ammo that fragments and doesn't penetrate deeply.

Realism!=Instant death bullets.

Realism==Gunshot wounds causing body damage and organ trauma, impairment resulting from such injury, followed by heavy bleeding and possibly death from exsanguination minutes later, death from shock hours later or death from infection days later.

As for the rest of this, there's no ammo you're going to find for a rifle, and very little you're going to find for a pistol, that will fail to penetrate deep enough to reach the heart. At best, I can argue that the sternum might stop a hollow-point pistol round and the spine might stop a regular pistol round and include some kind of DR/DD multiplier for those regions. In fact, I'll totally do that. That and some minor AI changes to make it unlikely to happen unless the player picks a fight with somebody they should be leaving the hell alone or ends up collateral damage in the war.

#5180917 Can you identify the themes of these games?

Posted by JustinS on 17 September 2014 - 12:08 AM

I think I could make a strong argument here that your version of humanity still comes across as having a clear self-destructive instinct. Thanatos would probably be the appropriate Freudian term. But, part of the reason I want to say that is just that it breaks my suspension of disbelief to consider human factions to be as stupid as you are painting them. It would take colossally bad luck to have the decision-making people in all factions be willing to waste resources continuing to attack each other once it's clear that their own survival is a desperate priority (around the quarantine dome stage).

Yes, but that's all war is. War is humanity hurting itself. Every time a war happens, it's bad for humanity. And yet, they still do it. All the time. Why? Because they believe it benefits them, and they care foremost for themselves above all others. The US is particularly guilty, real world and in-universe, and it's just a fact of life. But that doesn't make it a self-destructive impulse. They're not intentionally harming themselves, they likely don't see how their actions harm them (just how others' actions harm them) and they likely believe (accurately) that if they stopped they would be reducing their own odds of survival by letting their enemies survive. They are also likely assuming (also accurately) that their enemies will continue to attack them even if they stop.

Ahh, now I see where a big difference is.  My interpretation was that based on their shown track record humans would inevitably exterminate themselves; I was expecting the fact that a few made it to the new planet would be a pyrrhic victory.  Why?  Because the problem all along has been human nature, and they haven't been transformed into post-humans, they haven't (implausibly) learned some big lesson that changes human culture to be no longer self-destructive.

Except now they've ditched the adults, and with them ditched the warring factions that were the reason for their abhorrent actions. With no warring factions and plenty of distance between eachother they can't fight eachother anymore... Probably. Maybe. Don't quote me on that.

In fact the problem behavior has clearly followed them to their new planet(s) because of the sabotage resulting in the failed ship landing.

Last curse of a dying world, don't give them the satisfaction of being remembered.

And in any situation where there are only children trying to survive in a harsh environment, you're going to have high casualties and basically a Lord of the Flies situation.

Not really. Kids are quite capable, certainly many times more capable than they're given credit for, and these kids are more capable than most. And besides, with how bad of a job the adults were doing, they really can't botch it any worse.

I figured that would be part of the third game, I was imagining it would be something like Warcraft III (or a lower graphics version, as indie projects generally are).

Nope. All these games are controlled from a 1st/3rd person perspective, with standard mouselook controls. (Or gamepad controls, if you really want.) You control individual characters, the rest are AI but you can give them tasks and goals and the AI is going to be quite competent, and you can switch between characters at will. The kids would have been perfectly safe if they had all their resources, but of course the ship lands in the ocean (for safety, normally, that's how spaceships land), the crash breaches a sabotaged door, ship's sinking. Gotta get out, don't have any time. Well, shit, now we don't have any items at all now and have to actually do some wilderness survival in our wilderness survival game. Well, damn.

You do imply that at the ending of the third game there will be basically the absolute minimum situation for human survival.

Let me give you a quick debating tip. See, I see what you're doing here. You want to make the case that the civilization will ultimately fail, and in order for that claim to be valid you've chosen to back it up by saying the minimum would be unlikely to survive, except that only works if it really is the minimum, so you need a way to make that the only possibility. So you put those words in my mouth, pretend I said it. The problem is, I know what I said and I never said that. So here's how that's going to go, the whole counter-argument to "You do imply that at the ending of the third game there will be basically the absolute minimum situation for human survival."

No I don't.

See, simple? And that's why you don't put words in people's mouths, it doesn't work.

Absolute minimum situations like that, IME, are extremely fragile and much more likely to fail in the future than to build back up to a global human civilization.

Yeah, sure, if it wasn't for the win condition not being a bare minimum because I never said anything like that, instead being absolutely overwhelming. It isn't enough to keep the foothold for now, or for a while, it's enough to keep the foothold full stop. That's enough that it is quite unlikely that, barring some massive and unforseen cataclysm like an asteroid impact or the storm of the century, they will be displaced in the forseeable future. If you hit that final goal, you haven't been seriously threatened in the short term for quite a long time. The game makes you get a good enough foothold you can be reasonably sure your little ones will survive.

#5180606 Can you identify the themes of these games?

Posted by JustinS on 15 September 2014 - 08:55 PM



I keep wanting to comment on this thread, cause I'm very interested in themes as related to design.  But... I can't think of a comment on this particular series concept that doesn't start with "wow that's depressing". blink.png

Then make this comment that starts with "wow that's depressing".


Well, I don't want to say anything insulting or impolite, and I don't know exactly where the line would be.  I was speculating to myself about whether depressing concepts are correlated to unhappy team members.  Do grumpy people choose negative concepts to work on or do negative concepts cause people working on them to become depressed or grumpy?  Both, neither?  It's only speculation, because as a person who has always disliked horror and tragedy I've never understood what motivates people to create or admire works of horror or tragedy.  My personal feeling is kind of stuck at "Why on earth would anyone want to write or develop the theme, 'Humanity constantly sabotages itself, which is unforgivable, and in this context even the strong survival and rebirth drive of humanity becomes disgusting, and even children don't deserve any kind of happiness.'?"



Alright, see, this is 10000% your failing. Let me run through why.


1. You can't look deep enough into horror to see what a good horror is really about. Any good horror is there to explore a concept or fear, not just to scare the viewer. When done right, it finds a way to discuss the fear in question indirectly and provoke thought on the topic in the viewer. They allow the artist to express their opinions and talk about the subject indirectly, and THAT is what people value.

2. Nothing here qualifies as a tragedy, but even if it did a tragedy is valued for exploring emotion and exploring the minds of the characters, as these inevitably end up being the primary draw of any good tragedy. They also carry morals, and cautionary tales, just like horror does, and when done right these are abundantly clear.

3. You not only completely misinterpret the story at work here, you do so massively in a way directly contradicting stated facts AFTER I've explained it. Let me elaborate.

A. Not only did I never say humanity's self-sabotaging actions were unforgivable, I said they were quite understandable under the circumstances. And the way the actions of the second game are described strongly supports this, as the positive motivation of the factions are emphasized quite a bit.

B. There is absolutely NO basis, AT ALL, for the entire rest of the sentence. All of this is 100% directly contradictory with the material you are supposedly pulling this garbage from. This interpretation is as insane as if you read a newscast that said it was going to be 120 F outside and reading that as "freezing cold, so much so that even ECW gear won't save you and and the world is an impassible ball of ice".

4. You completely ignored that I went into what the themes and morals of this story were, at length, apparently content to ignore everything right up to the title of the thread you were reading in order to claim horror is without value. But then, with an obvious idealist like yourself, completely ignoring everything about everything that ever was in order to claim your pre-existing conclusions and biases are completely accurate and without flaw isn't that terribly rare.

#5180237 My teams all hate eachother.

Posted by JustinS on 14 September 2014 - 08:12 AM

So... It's my fault then, for being socially inept? Well, I can't say I disagree with you. I'm going to take some time to think about the suggestions given and keep them in mind next time around.


They're semi-unpaid. They're working for a share, which will be nothing if a game isn't made, plus $1000 each guaranteed pay upon completion. But no, they're not getting paid until the game is up on Steam. Of course, they won't let me use their resources now that they've left, not even concept art, so I have to completely restart. And I just figured the pay checks and shares were sufficient motivation, myself. Maybe that's a problem, I don't know.

#5162922 Making a weapon feel powerful.

Posted by JustinS on 25 June 2014 - 10:22 PM


Okay. Now I'm pissed. Why do people assume every game with guns is automatically another fucking CoD clone? I'm really sick of this shit. Just because this game has guns does NOT mean it's another copy+paste ludicrously unrealistic, proudly jingoistic, blatantly racist hallway simulator with NO self-awareness for violent, paranoid, right-wing shut-ins with no capacity for higher reasoning. QUIT making that assumption. This is NOT a "modern shooter". This is a SURVIVAL game. I have SAID THIS already. I will NOT say it again.


I may have misjudged of the technical term for your game's genre, but at no point did I call it a Cod clone. I think its fine to have an opinion of a genre, but honestly you're being rude to other developers (that are here to help you out). I wasn't trying to upset you with this post, I honestly thought with the level of experience you have about weaponry it made sense for you to focus on a game where simulating weaponry is the focus, that's generally a modern shooter, no judgement of the genre either way. 


Given the survival genre of the game, you could explore giving the weapon a less weathered look then the other weapons. Where most the weapons (assuming they're found among the ruin of a post tragic event) would have signs of wear and might not fire as clean or true (bent ironsites, etc), this weapon could be less worn(believably) and fire just the way the player would expect it to. Or to be brief, you could believably gimp other weapons in the interest of this weapons focus. Good luck with the survival game.



Okay, I snapped, and I apologize. I've gotten the "every game with a gun is Call of Duty" thing so many times I'm getting jumpy about it.


As for the focus of the game being on the weapons, that's not entirely true. This thread is about the weapons, but the game's focus is mostly on the characters' bodies, and most of the game rules deal with their status. A living body is a tremendously complicated thing. A lot of things change how it works, usually negatively, a lot of things are required for it to work and a lot of conditions affect how it works. It rarely stops working all at once, tends to go on for quite a while before it stops working, and a lot can be done to keep it working before it stops entirely. It's quite an ordeal to even understand how all of this happens, and to translate most of it into a game with any accuracy takes a lot of effort, so since keeping one working is the main point of the game it has to take most of the attention if it's to be handled with any degree of realism. 


The only issue with gimping other weapons is most people don't really understand it, and the practical effect can be really strong. But making the weapon look to be in better condition in areas that don't really affect its in-game use (like making the wood less rough, and metal less rusty) is a good enough idea. The weapons are already balanced practically, I just need to make them feel balanced.

#5162333 Making a weapon feel powerful.

Posted by JustinS on 23 June 2014 - 08:40 AM

Okay, so it seems like you are making a simulation game (okay, survival game) where you want the guns to be realistic. However you want to distort the actual power of a gun so that it "feels" more powerful than a gun that perhaps is more powerful?

Yet, in real life, each gun is going to feel like it feels. The only option then is to take care to replicate every nuance (or an approximation, as you said) of how each fun differs from any other gun in real life.

Recoil, smoke, etc.

People assumed you wanted to distort the actual abilities of the guns, (since you said "feel") so they suggested non-realistic things you could do.

A sort of exaggeration.

Then again, you could just exaggerate the effects a bit for the guns you want to feel more powerful. It doesn't change the realism. That's what a stage actor has to do when details can't be seen from afar.


More or less. The only thing you're off on is that I'm totally fine with any visual or auditory changes that aren't immersion breaking. It's just gameplay changes that won't fly. Giving the gun an exaggerated muzzle blast, for instance, would be acceptable if it makes the player think it's more powerful. (Though that would actually just make it hard to see where you're shooting.) The whole point is to make players accept a weapon that deals less DPS, but has other advantages that make up for it, without making its other advantages break the game's balance. Like the Lee-Enfield rifle I'm using as an example. 

#5162323 Making a weapon feel powerful.

Posted by JustinS on 23 June 2014 - 08:01 AM

What are some good, general ways to make a weapon feel very powerful without changing its practical effect on the target?

This is the question you posed to the forum.
Several people have tried to answer it, and it's unfortunate you don't feel like any of the standard ways are good enough for your game.
Not quite. See, I already thought of all the standard ways. Because they're, you know, standard. And I'm using most of them. The only non-standard things were knockback, which I didn't accept, and making the weapon bigger, which is a non-option. I'm not rejecting those arbitrarily, they're bad ideas. And every good idea so far I already thought of because they're industry standard.

Or I can, maybe, get a recording of the real thing with echo, ( movie style, but it fits since you would get echo realistically out there) and crank the volume until it becomes alarmingly loud.

The "problem" here is that sound has the same issue that graphics has on a computer.
It never is realistic. It will never be more then an approximation of the real thing.
It's not really practical to play a sound that should sound exactly like a gunshot, unless you make sure the player has an insane sound rig, and even then it would be very hard to get the sharpness of a real gunshot.
It will mostly just sound like a crackling mess.

So just as with graphics, you do it as best as you can, and do various "tricks" to compensate.

It's no longer strictly realistic, but it "feels" better, and can even feel more realistic then the alternative.
Well, if nothing else, I can just surf through a sound library of rifle sounds until I get a good approximation, then tweak to taste and crank the volume. As long as it doesn't sound too off, it shouldn't be a problem.

#5162256 Making a weapon feel powerful.

Posted by JustinS on 22 June 2014 - 11:22 PM

I guess there is no need to argue if it "doesn't fit the game design" or the "realism" your trying to recreate.

Good. Then let's not return to this.

But the reason for my non-sequitor is to push the point that the best way to show off the power of a ranged weapon is to show off the results of it's power.

See, you didn't tie it together, or thst might have made sense the first time.

Seems like all you have left is post effects. Blurring, fuzz the HUD, play with Z depth, etc. Given that you're using a ranged weapon you could look at the particles on the enemy as well, exploring the "pink mist" if you will.

Already mentioned this.

Best of luck with your modern shooter.

Okay. Now I'm pissed. Why do people assume every game with guns is automatically another fucking CoD clone? I'm really sick of this shit. Just because this game has guns does NOT mean it's another copy+paste ludicrously unrealistic, proudly jingoistic, blatantly racist hallway simulator with NO self-awareness for violent, paranoid, right-wing shut-ins with no capacity for higher reasoning. QUIT making that assumption. This is NOT a "modern shooter". This is a SURVIVAL game. I have SAID THIS already. I will NOT say it again.

I am not a gun expert myself, but I have fired a few. I feel that you have 3 options:

  • Go for impressive effect (more gamey, less realistic)
  • Go for realistic (you don't have much wiggle room for making it seem more powerful)
  • Make it feel the same, even if it isn't the same
The third option is a bit of a hybrid. The reason I say this is that even a high end computer can't replicate the experience of firing a gun. They are beyond loud. The sound and kick is very visceral. A direct recording will always seem weak. Soup up the sound and graphics beyond realism to the point where the weapon seems as powerful as the real thing. It's your choice where you want to make the compromises.

Or I can, maybe, get a recording of the real thing with echo, ( movie style, but it fits since you would get echo realistically out there) and crank the volume until it becomes alarmingly loud.

I think that's somewhere between #2 and #3.

#5162164 Making a weapon feel powerful.

Posted by JustinS on 22 June 2014 - 02:08 PM

I'm not coming from weapons firing experience, I'm coming from gaming and game design experience. Weapons that have a metallic sound in the games I've played sound heavier to me, as if the mechanism to move the ammo can be heard over the explosion it makes the gun seem just as powerful as the shot it fires and the added bass allows the player to feel the shot as much as hear it. The other way to go is the way of sounding like close by thunder for more energy based weapons.

The issue is, a lot of people have guns. They've fired guns. They know what a gun sounds like. It irks them to hear a gun making a sound that is very much not the sound of a gun.

And the actual sound made by most guns is awe-inspiring anyway, so if it's a gun why not stick with the sound it really makes?

As far as stun lock, the trick would be to blend movement with the hit animation (based on where the shot lands of course) then follow up with AI for the unit to find cover using a damaged state movement (like a desperate dash or a lifeless dive for cover). Its important that the timing between shots and the movement for a character to evade is well spaced to ensure pacing. If the weapon is meant to feel strong, then characters and environment should react appropriately to the weapons power. The numbers offered above seem useful if those are the animations you want to use. I've always hated the flinch animation most games use when characters get shot. When I unload a light automatic into an enemy and it does two or three flinch animations then a death animation, it drives me bonkers. I like to see characters(who still have an intact brain) think about the damage I just did to them and move appropriately to the pain and suffering I've cause by using such a sloppy weapon. Seems like every enemy in every game out there is morphed up and tweaking on adrenaline, its boring. I want to see the effects of my weapons and the only time I don't want to see it is when I've hit the mark. If I've done my job, the enemy crumples.

There's a lot here that just doesn't fit the kind of game this is. Killing enemies here takes time, the fights are longer and recovery from your injuries is so slow you can't even really consider it. Your enemies are dangerous for a long time, even after being fatally wounded, in much the way a real living thing it. You may, for instance, see a bear a hundred metres off, fatally wound it with your rifle, then get mauled to death by the dying animal before it bleeds out. In a less extreme (and much more likely, since a bear is a big fast clumsy thing that can't slow down or turn easy and is quite avoidable on foot, not to mention you have a full magazine if you have any sense) example, you might shoot a trog in the head with your pistol, then end up wrestling with it until the blood loss gets to it. This fundamentally changes how the game is designed, and how the animations really reflect what your doing should change with it.

With particle work, all that matters is that the player thinks it looks right. This will all depend on the weapons design. A couple games that really sell the "feel" of powerful weapons are Gears of War(obviously) and Warhammer Space Marine IMO. As for heat warble, smoke and the likes, each gun should be just as much a character in the game as the NPCs and enemies the player faces. Think about each gun and its history, give it meaningful interesting and useful quirks, even with the most standard weapons, it'll be worth it.

Every gun is already meant to be meaningfully different, but unlike Gears or Warhammer we can have have powerful and unique weapons that are NOT ridiculous.

As for knockback it depends on what the weapon's ammo(type) is doing against the type of surface its hitting. Obviously penetration is only going to create knockback if the character becomes mindful of the shot, possibly falling back after realizing they are beaten. But a few successive rifle shots against an armored target should push them back (especially if the shots are high). Even grazes and shots that connect with the shoulders should cause characters to reel back to A)create a smaller silhouette to land a second shot on and B)to inform the player of where the shot landed.

No. It. Doesn't. Any weapon with enough momentum to send somebody back at any significant speed would do just as much, realistically by far more, to its user. There is no push when hit with a bullet, even if it transfers every scrap of momentum, because if there was enough momentum for it to push a target the weapon would be unusable. Spreading it out over several shots doesn't make this any less ludicrous from a physics perspective. The ONLY weapons you could realistically knock people around with are melee weapons, and even then it's not likely since you'd need to throw enough momentum into a hit to knock an enemy down, and that means getting yourself moving pretty fast, which is hard to pull off since you telegraph your attack so far in advance no enemy could fail to get out of the way.

This is all just visual feedback. The character could flash red if you want but in the end the player needs to know they've connected their shot with the target and a knockback allows the pacing to change. As the player checks whether the shot has finished the job.

You seem to be neglecting just about everything about the game to make this argument for knockback. This doesn't fit at all. Knockback conflicts with the game's combat style, genre, tone and purpose. Knockback is flat-out wrong for this game in every sense. There's no way it benefits the game.

Key word in video games in my opinion is video. Successive images to depict movement. The more you explore movement and its meaning in your game the more you're exploring the element that separates video games from any other number crunching card, board, dice games, etc.

This is a complete non-sequitor.

#5162118 Making a weapon feel powerful.

Posted by JustinS on 22 June 2014 - 09:49 AM


And as a major fan of the Ak-47, and having shot it more than any other gun, it does not rattle. It's not a crappy little slapped-together piece of scrap metal, the only sounds are its shot and its (unusually loud and strange sounding) mechanism. It does sound a bit weird, but it certainly doesn't rattle.


Hehe, hope I didn't offend. I've just fired it once. The gun I mostly compare it to is the swedish AK5, and it has a lot more "solid" feel to the whole design.

Most of my gun experience is from the (at the time) mandatory military service in the swedish army.



I've spent time firing just about every major AK model. The Ak-47, AKM, Ak-74, Ak-101 and Ak-104 were the ones I remember by name, but there were others. Of them, the AKM was my favourite, but the Ak-104 was my second choice and the Ak-47 was still damned good. The Ak-74 was nice and light, basically no recoil either, but it couldn't stop a man if he was sedated beforehand and the Ak-101 is a bit heavier and not much better in power,

#5162071 Making a weapon feel powerful.

Posted by JustinS on 22 June 2014 - 06:29 AM


Gunshots do not sound metallic, they sound like bombs going off.


Just a tiny counter nitpick if we're going super realistic: Gunshots can sound pretty different for the shooter, then for anyone standing next to it in my limited experience...

I remember trying the m16 once, and all I could hear while shooting it was the spring in the stock... Made it sound like I was using a toy gun.

That combined with the plastic "toy" feel of it made me kind of loose my respect for it biggrin.png


But the same is true for anything I've fired (mostly military stuff), there is a lot of sounds from the mechanism mixed into the explosion sound.

Or just general rattle from every part of it, like for an ak47...


Though, I used ear protection of course...  quite a different thing without it.


But in any case, with this level of realism, I assume you just want to use actual high quality samples of the actual guns firing or some gun close to it in model.


I don't think you should go for trying to give people problems with hearing or neighbours by mixing the sound level too "relistic" in volume. Better then to simulate it in-game with reduced volume on atmospheric sound, ringing, blurry vision etc.



For a good example of, for example, what the Lee-Enfield rifle sounds like, here's what a No.4 Mk. II sounds like:


(Skip to 2:00 for the shooting. His second shot misses the metal target, that's the best example I can find.) Now, see, there's no metallic noise shooting a Lee-Enfield, and if you're not wearing hearing protection AND holding directly on to most rifles, you can't hear the mechanism over the blast. I know what you mean with the AR15, I had the same experience when shooting it, but when I wasn't the one firing it was impossible to hear the mechanism.


As for the volume, it's absolutely going to be extremely loud. Other sounds will be slightly muted in response, and to enhance the effect of the (actually quite limited volume) of the user's speakers, but it's going to be as loud as it can be. The player can use in-game hearing protection to help mitigate this, quieting all sounds somewhat and louder sounds by more, or they can just turn down the game's volume. As long as the first time they fire the gun it's loud enough to take them off-guard, the point has been made.


And as a major fan of the Ak-47, and having shot it more than any other gun, it does not rattle. It's not a crappy little slapped-together piece of scrap metal, the only sounds are its shot and its (unusually loud and strange sounding) mechanism. It does sound a bit weird, but it certainly doesn't rattle.

#5162053 Making a weapon feel powerful.

Posted by JustinS on 22 June 2014 - 05:33 AM

Firing animation, sound fx, particals and enemy reaction animation to that weapons ammo type.

Don't get carried away. Enemy reactions have a big gameplay effect, this could easily lead to stun-locking if handled poorly.

The firing animation should show the gun has kick without giving the player much actual recoil even shaking the camera, the sound should be metallic with decent bass, the particles should clearly indicate the weapon is effected by firing (smoke, heat warble, muzzle flash, etc) and the weapons ammo type (which can apply to other weapons obviously) should trigger either good knock-back, penetration, gore, etc on the enemy units.

A few slight nitpicks:
Gunshots do not sound metallic, they sound like bombs going off.
Modern guns do not produce significant smoke.
No firearm can knock a target back, physics won't allow it. (Newton's third law.)
Gunshot wounds are small and really aren't that gory. I could show video if required.

I would prioritize enemy reaction animation, as its not as broad in scope in most games and was IMO what made old games like Golden Eye for N64 stand out and still does in modern games today. Its one thing to kill the enemy, but its good to have feedback for grazes, minor wounds, armor hits, debilitating hits, and major wounds to let the player know they missed the mark.

Again, you MUST keep this under control or you get stunlocking.

And here, how this works:
Enemies have a chance of flinching directly in proportion to the damage dealt. They also have a (way smaller) chance of staggering, a (way, way smaller) chance of falling down and a (way, way, way smaller) chance of passing out. I just did the math and found a .303 british round of standard in-game quality (modern powder) deals 253 damage against a typical low-level human, which is pretty good for a rifle, and has a 100% flinch chance, 25.3% stagger, 2.53% knockdown and 0.253% knockout against an NPC. The chances decrease more rapidly for a PC or special character, so 2.53% stagger, 0.025% knockdown, and 0% knockout. Location is important. Headshots, for instance, are different. (100%, 100%, 100% and 100% base for an NPC, 100%, 100%, 12.65% and 1.265% for a PC.) These are all base values, of course, there's more to it than that, such as adrenalin and the target's stats, and they'll actually end up much lower most of the time.

Enemies also have their stats reduced by wounds, as well, through limb damage, health loss and a couple minor things. Every 25% of a limb's health lost also triggers a status effect, shows damage and changes animations, as does every 5% of their health score. So an enemy shot in the knee will hobble around, losing speed, stability and control, and as enemy that's bled out half their health is slow, weak and liable to fall down and be unable to get back up.

Make sense?

#5161987 Making a weapon feel powerful.

Posted by JustinS on 21 June 2014 - 06:13 PM

I would say that the impression of the weapon is very important. I forget which game it was, but I read an article about how they had a weapon that was underused because people felt it was underpowered, but the problem was audio only. They just increased the bass and it was good to go.


Yeah, I hear about that kind of thing a lot. That's the main part I already took into account.

#5161972 Making a weapon feel powerful.

Posted by JustinS on 21 June 2014 - 03:35 PM

If a weapon has range you could put a visor on it to make that more clear to a player.

You could also make it bigger so it will feel more powerfull(yes, two l's) if you insist, but it seems less usefull to me.


Putting a visor on the weapon is impractical and ridiculous.


Bigger weapons are impractical, these are realistically sized and practically designed, these are weapons that are specifically designed so they'd work quite well if you had them in the real world and many of them are quite real. The first rifle you can find is a Lee-Enfield Mk.4. Not an early production model, a collector's model from the 1980s, but it's the same gun where it counts. Mostly stock, no scope, not in the best shape after sitting out unmaintained by a night stand for twenty years, and you only get 30 rounds for it when you first find it, but it's still a very good rifle.


Oh, and I was spelling powerful correctly.


Make range actually useful. Players will pick the most potent weapon for the situation, not just the most numerically powerful.

That said, for faking it, graphics and particle effects and sounds. Players that aren't playing the most optimum weapon and going to be playing the coolest weapon. Make the shots sound strong, make the tracers gorgeous, make the impact have impact.


Range is already very useful in this game. The range of these weapons gets pretty ridiculously long, maybe even longer than the real thing since the game lacks a lot of the atmospheric factors that foul a real weapon's flight path. Since this game (a survival game) has huge outdoor sections, you'll usually be able to spot enemies from however far your draw range can afford to be, easily hundreds of metres and possibly over a kilometre. (Have fun hitting anything at that range. Seriously, go ahead and try. The round will go that far, but with travel time, air resistance, drop and wind, you probably won't hit your target.) This game has wounding, so an enemy that you've hit is weaker than one you haven't, and it has bleed, so they'll keep getting weaker. An enemy eight hundred metres away with most weapons (if they have a weapon at all, most enemies here are animals of some sort) is no threat to you, and if you put a hole in their chest from that distance, multiple holes if required, they'll bleed out before they stand any chance of reaching you or even getting in range for most weapons.


I did get the notion that the muzzle blast should be very clearly visible, kick up snow and dust and the like, and leave a bright spot in a viewer's eyes for a short period. The report should be loud enough to send a player scrambling for the volume button the first time they fire it, and come with a reduction in sound volume and ringing after firing to simulate tinnitus. Hitting a target should produce a convincing wound graphic and a more genuine blood splatter (real splatter from a gunshot has pink bits in it, that's flesh coming off) and with a rifle likely come out the back of the target more than the front as the rifle travels clear through a target. The ability of the rifle to punch through objects (yay, more flying bits) is a realistic, practical thing, but it also makes a weapon feel very powerful, especially when you're on the receiving end and you thought you were safe behind a wall or whatever else can't actually stop a rifle round. (In the case of a typical, modern plaster wall, it won't even seriously slow it.)


And we don't use tracers. Nobody should be using tracers in this game. There's no call for tracers.