Jump to content
booner352

Weapons Damage Decreases With Use

Recommended Posts

So we were having this discussion (that is semi-related to this suggestion) about how right now the fighting mechanics seem a little unbalanced (too easy). My suggestion to help balance this would be to have weapon maximum damage and a weapon minimum damage. No, I do not think that you should deal a random damage between these ranges. Instead, I think as your weapon condition decreases the damage it does decreases. You wouldn't have constant damage from an axe as it is used more and more. Instead, the axe blade would begin to become dull and deal a little less damage. The only weapons I could really see this effecting much is bladed weapons. This could also have a slight (very minimal) effect on guns also, as they would build up residue and degrade over use causing the bullets to come out slightly slower. Considering blunt objects, I don't really see how they would degrade to cause less damage (but if someone can rationalize it, I'm all for it).

 

 

Link to discussion mentioned in the first sentence: http://theindiestone.com/forums/index.php/topic/7990-these-not-so-scary-zombies/page-2#entry105393

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we were having this discussion (that is semi-related to this suggestion) about how right now the fighting mechanics seem a little unbalanced (too easy). My suggestion to help balance this would be to have weapon maximum damage and a weapon minimum damage. No, I do not think that you should deal a random damage between these ranges. Instead, I think as your weapon condition decreases the damage it does decreases. You wouldn't have constant damage from an axe as it is used more and more. Instead, the axe blade would begin to become dull and deal a little less damage. The only weapons I could really see this effecting much is bladed weapons. This could also have a slight (very minimal) effect on guns also, as they would build up residue and degrade over use causing the bullets to come out slightly slower. Considering blunt objects, I don't really see how they would degrade to cause less damage (but if someone can rationalize it, I'm all for it).

 

 

Link to discussion mentioned in the first sentence: http://theindiestone.com/forums/index.php/topic/7990-these-not-so-scary-zombies/page-2#entry105393

 

you know that the combat system of the moment is an placeholder ?

read all the Mondiod Blog articles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think this will solve that specific problem, but this is a good idea. I think once PZ gets a few more updates(NPCS!!!) things will feel more unpredictable and exciting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that poorly maintained guns will kill a person any less than if it was in good condition. A hunk of flying metal is still a hunk of flying metal, regardless of how dirty the barrel it's being fired out of is. But I do like the idea of poorly maintained guns being difficult to reload, have jamming issues, or just straight up breaking during combat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that poorly maintained guns will kill a person any less than if it was in good condition. A hunk of flying metal is still a hunk of flying metal, regardless of how dirty the barrel it's being fired out of is. But I do like the idea of poorly maintained guns being difficult to reload, have jamming issues, or just straight up breaking during combat.

 

Aye, less damage makes little sense. And honestly a lot of guns (especially ones without automatic or semiautomatic firing mechanisms) are very durable given normal use. But even some automatics can keep kicking through pretty much anything- see this guy firing his breakfast through one and it still working fine.

 

I'm not sure firearm degradation is even worth including to be entirely honest. Even the most basic care can keep a firearm working nearly indefinitely, and even without care in the vast majority of cases they're going to keep working for years and years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, firearms shouldn't degrade that's true

Also, I think the melee combat should be just some realistically played, real feeling and humanlike kills.

I'm talking ramming a sharp weapon into the head of a zombie instead of poking it, like what you do with the knifes right now where he rams it into the zombies, but I think it should just be a little slower, for example, add a chance that the knife gets stuck in the head, or that you kick it off you, or maybe that theres a small chance the first penetration isnt fatal enough (hue...hueheuheue...) and your char does a second one. My point / opinion is that these will not only add a more realistic life like feeling to sharp weapons combat, but also will it take you a little more to kill one zombie, the more you take to kill one zombie the less the chance youre going to survive trying to fight a bigger group (im talking 5-20 zombies). Right now, it IS easy (but as said, placeholder combat system) as you just ram the knife up and out in no time which encourages you more to take on hordes, but if you just add some more slowdowns like the stuff being stuck inside people are much less likely to get encouraged like that and might already have sweaty palms, racing hearts and buzzing heads when 5 zombies are closing in, which is what the devs want from all I know.

About the blunt system I really cant say much, like in real life you pretty much swing them with all your power and hope for the skull to break.

And lastly, I like your avatar booner. Workaholics is awesome!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that poorly maintained guns will kill a person any less than if it was in good condition. A hunk of flying metal is still a hunk of flying metal, regardless of how dirty the barrel it's being fired out of is. But I do like the idea of poorly maintained guns being difficult to reload, have jamming issues, or just straight up breaking during combat.

 

I should have also included less accurate and an explanation. Most guns, that I'm familar with, have what is called "rifling". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifling

 

Here is an excerpt from the article: "If an insufficient twist rate is used, the bullet will begin to yaw and then tumble; this is usually seen as "keyholing", where bullets leave elongated holes in the target as they strike at an angle. Once the bullet starts to yaw, any hope of accuracy is lost, as the bullet will begin to veer off in random directions as it precesses."

 

So, over time, the gun will build up "gunk" in the barrel, covering up the helical grooves. This will (as stated above) cause the bullet to be less accurate. Now about the damage aspect. The bullet is not coming out of the barrel spinning as fast. This is already a decrease in momentum. Most likely the tip of the bullet won't travel on the relatively same axis. A well maintain gun will have the bullet "zip line" along an axis. Since the tip isn't going to be on the axis most of the time, the bullet won't be travelling at max efficiency like it normally would. Again, another huge loss of momentum. Lastly, the bullet will most likely not hit the target tip first. The closest comparison to this would be a pocket knife hitting witht the side of the knife, rather than the tip.

 

I know nothing about military grade equipment and if it would respond the same; I would assume it would though.

 

Please don't be quick to judge, and question what you don't understand next time before throwing out (mine or) anyones idea. I really don't mind explaining my reasoning behind my ideas. :geek::mrgreen:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The vast majority of shotguns don't have rifling.

 

For pistols, the barrel is very short so the rifling has little effect anyways.

 

 

The bullet is not coming out of the barrel spinning as fast. This is already a decrease in momentum.

 

This is inherently untrue. The momentum is identical.

 

For a pistol, the decrease in accuracy between having a smooth bore or a rifled bore isn't enough that most unskilled shooters could tell the different.

 

For a pistol, the amount of distance it would need to travel before losing accuracy in the first place is farther than most people can accurately aim anyways.

 

The amount of "damage" lost at any given range along the flight of a small caliber bullet fired from a pistol due to lack of rifling or even tumbling of the bullet is utterly and completely irrelevant against non-armored targets. The only exception to this would be .22 caliber or smaller, which presumably are not what we use in game since they usually only barely have the capacity to penetrate a skull anyways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The vast majority of shotguns don't have rifling.

 

For pistols, the barrel is very short so the rifling has little effect anyways.

 

 

The bullet is not coming out of the barrel spinning as fast. This is already a decrease in momentum.

 

This is inherently untrue. The momentum is identical.

 

Yeah, I didn't mean to imply that shotguns had rifling, that was a mistake on my end.

 

I recommend this video on youtube, it's the best one I could find comparing a smooth barrel and a rifled barrel of a pistol.

 

The group accuracy and precision at 21 meters (23 yards) for the smooth barrel was awful and would be almost ineffective at that distance. The rifled barrel at 25 meters (slight increase in distance) scored a lot higher than that of the smooth barrel at 21 meters. The speed and energy of the shot was much less than that of the rifled barrel. He states in the end that the smooth barrel shot had half the energy even though the rifled barrel shot had half the black powder charge. That means that a smooth barrel on a pistol is one-fourth as effective energy-wise than that with a rifled barrel.

 

Last and not least, the momentum is much less because there is just linear momentum instead of linear and angular momentum. You could assume that without the angular momentum it would all be converted into linear momentum, but obviously this isn't the case. If it would convert into linear momentum, then the energies of the smooth barrel and rifled barrel would be consistent. Hence, a great loss in momentum, making it anything but identical. In conclusion, that would mean the damage of a smooth barrel pistol (or a heavily used one making it's rifling ineffective) would be about one-fourth as effective as a rifled barrel pistol. It doesn't matter if you calculate damage using momentum, force (bad idea), energy, impulse, or whatever; they are all very relatable. :geek:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two different guns... comparison is by nature completely incorrect. They have different size barrels, different caliber barrels, different caliber bullets, and different shaped bullets (this alone is enough to skew the results tremendously- round bullets have an innate drift that lowers accuracy). None of this is relevant to the discussion at hand, and citing this as a source just makes your argument that much less plausible. In general, though, different weapons vary tremendously in accuracy and range. Also, YouTube videos are not factual sources. Also, comparing several century old weapons to modern weapons is silly. Also please note that his accuracy tests were done just by resting the gun on a sandbag- in any true firearms test, the gun would have been in a locking stand to ensure human error was not a factor. Finally, we're not talking about smooth bore anyways- we're talking about slightly dirty rifling, which still does its job, just not quite as well.

 

 

The speed and energy of the shot was much less than that of the rifled barrel. He states in the end that the smooth barrel shot had half the energy even though the rifled barrel shot had half the black powder charge. That means that a smooth barrel on a pistol is one-fourth as effective energy-wise than that with a rifled barrel.

 

This is quite literally impossible. If you want to make this kind of outlandish claim you're going to need a better source than one YouTube video with a guy saying this. But again- it's impossible. Rifling itself has no impact on velocity out of the barrel and the fact that you think it does shows a fundamental misunderstanding of physics. Any differences would be down to barrel length, bullet size (which varied wildly in the video), bullet shape, etc. The velocity could be slowed in flight some by the bullet tumbling because of wind resistance, but the side of a bullet doesn't have a whole lot more wind resistance than the front; bullets are made in their shape to be accurate not just for minimal wind resistance (though it does help some).

 

 

Last and not least, the momentum is much less because there is just linear momentum instead of linear and angular momentum.

 

Again, no. Given the same exact gun with rifling versus dirty rifling, the momentum is absolutely identical* as it leaves the barrel. The only factor that would influence it would be wind resistance if the less rifled one tumbled, which is not a given. Even with dirty rifling it would take the bullet a large distance to actually tumble if it ever even did. Further, unless you've been filling your barrel with mud, there's no chance that the bullet would lose enough spin to become inaccurate within the accurate range of a normal person anyways.

 

And finally, your proposal that it would do "1/4 the damage" is just a bit silly. 'Damage' is not a quantifiable figure, so claiming a specific loss in it due to a figure you've taken from a YouTube video where a guy makes an unsupported claim based on ancient and irrelevant weaponry is neither relevant to this argument nor plausible anyways.

 

*Less a small amount of friction, plausibly

 

Edit: More notes after rewatching the video.

 

Note that claiming the rifled pistol got "twice the power with half the black powder charge" just goes to prove the inaccuracies of this comparison. The smooth bore pistol had a much bigger bullet, taking much more force to propel it. This is not a meaningful statement at all, and you're taking it tremendously out of context in your argument.

 

Finally, please note that the rifled gun was fired in a different place, with different barometric pressure, and different weather, and had the barrel resting on a stand, whereas the smooth bore had the butt resting on a sandbag. Again, two very different conditions that don't deserve to be compared.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm done here. I'm not going to teach a year's worth of physics just to prove a point to someone on the internet. I don't really need to prove anything either, because I have first hand experience/knowledge of the difference between smooth and rifled barrels. I was just trying to help you understand the science and logic behind it.

 

Here are some formulas as to why a bullet not rotating vs a rotating bullet rotating would have a considerable amount of chane in momentum and velocity leading to a change in kinetic energy.

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/e/c/0/ec0f3591dc184ad402ea3664d702c7d4.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/8/1/c/81c78828f730dd3ddd388a3699047ca7.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/0/d/2/0d2e8bb4ff2f67032f87f00e0cfbc803.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/6/7/6/676dc21daca293b822638428a5ea3c2e.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/1/1/e/11e6fc84bb2641d36b09c5a6359f7c08.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/6/6/d/66d1038fe5fc5f8706aeceda781fcde0.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Developers also said, that in the later game you can hit ,,special" parts of the body. So in Multiplayer, when someone has shot you, it could be like a headshot or stomach shot.

(And yeah, my english is PERFECT)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm done here.

 

Being 'done' is certainly a good way to win an argument. =D

 

 

Well you see here is your problem. You are arguing with me. I was trying to have an intellectual debate. Instead every time I provided you with science you said "no, you're and idiot for thinking this" then failed to come with any scientific/mathematical reasoning about why or how I was wrong. I can't win a debate if the person I'm debating is an ****** trying to argue instead of debate and then brings me down to his level. I would tear you apart if you weren't an admin, and thus you can win this little "argument". ;)

 

P.S. I even presented this little "argument" to one of my classes today and not a single one of my peers could understand how I was wrong in my reasoning. The only thing we couldn't pinpoint is where the extra energy of the smooth barrel system would be lost, but eventually we came up with some pretty logical reasoning. You'd have to conduct an experiment to pinpoint that.

 

P.P.S. Damage is very quantifiable figure. I had to write an argument for a court case using physics during my undergraduate study (lawyer came to professor, professor came to me). Long story short, we won with my "argument".

 

 

 

Boys, boys.

Let's not fight.

Who wants ice cream?

 

What kind of ice cream? :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It'd just be easier overall to equate poor weapons maintenance with jamming, poor reload times, and outright breaking of the guns in question. Use the weapons condition system already in place to keep track of how poorly maintained a gun is. The lower the maintenance, the more likely your gun is to fail at a critical moment.

 

Taking the gun apart and going over it restores some condition. Using some kind of cleaning implement like a rag restores a bit more. Using gun oil to lube up the working parts restores even more. Using a high quality gun maintenance kit restores it to "close to new" condition and makes it last for a long time, making such kits a valuable loot item. If a gun breaks, take it apart and use the parts to repair other guns of the same type to brand new condition, making them easier to maintain for a long while.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I Don't think it matters that much. 

 

 

 

 

Plus not every average Joe knows how to clean, repair a gun. But we all know how to pull the trigger.

 

Plus a gun needs a lot of shooting before it malfunctions, (unless is defective, which is very rare).

 

I guess if it's more realistic, there could just be no fixing guns.  If it breaks, it breaks. A regular survivor wouldn't really know how to fix it. 

 

---------------------------------------------------------

 

I dont think this is practical. Even with bladed weapons, sure there is that chance that the blade becomes dull after slashing bone countless times, but a heavy semi sharp object to the head is still a lethal blow. And there is also the chance that it doesn't become that dull to really make a difference, (In real life) Human bones are easier to chop than tree's and still they last for years at times. I asume fire axes must be top of the line in quality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taking a gun apart and maintaining it is relatively easy to learn. The only thing you need to do to learn how to do it is to take the gun apart and put it back together a few times to get a feel for the inner mechanics. It's really not that hard. If I can take apart and clean a simple handgun (and you can't get more "average" than me), then anyone with a functioning brain can hazard a guess as to how it's done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It'd just be easier overall to equate poor weapons maintenance with jamming, poor reload times, and outright breaking of the guns in question. Use the weapons condition system already in place to keep track of how poorly maintained a gun is. The lower the maintenance, the more likely your gun is to fail at a critical moment.

 

Taking the gun apart and going over it restores some condition. Using some kind of cleaning implement like a rag restores a bit more. Using gun oil to lube up the working parts restores even more. Using a high quality gun maintenance kit restores it to "close to new" condition and makes it last for a long time, making such kits a valuable loot item. If a gun breaks, take it apart and use the parts to repair other guns of the same type to brand new condition, making them easier to maintain for a long while.

the maintenance of the guns is one of the main things i enjoy about using the Yet Another Weapon mod. it has a cleaning kit that only lasts for X amount of uses, and a tool kit you can use to keep your guns in working order with parts swapping when a gun eventually breaks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taking a gun apart and maintaining it is relatively easy to learn. The only thing you need to do to learn how to do it is to take the gun apart and put it back together a few times to get a feel for the inner mechanics. It's really not that hard. If I can take apart and clean a simple handgun (and you can't get more "average" than me), then anyone with a functioning brain can hazard a guess as to how it's done.

 

Sure, but still where do you get this knowledge from? is it something you can figure out, just with your hands and your brain without any external information?

 

Keep in mind there's no internet, and I'm doubtful gun cleaning manuals are something a common household would have. I don't know any friends who'd have one. where would you even learn how to do this if there's no internet and the library wasn't an option.

 

it is probably the same as lockpicking, First Aid/CPR and perhaps hot wiring. relatively easy to do. (if you have the information) but if the zombieapocalypse comes through your door right now. Do you now posses any of these skills? really think about it. your priorities now are in safety, food and water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most guns come with a manual if you buy them new. And even if you didn't have a manual, yes, you can learn about gun maintenance just by taking a gun apart with your hands and carefully observing where all the parts went. Yes, this is something you can figure out on your own without the internet with just your hands and brain. Like I said before, it isn't that hard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anybody else vouch for this?

 

I don't really have experience with guns. So I wouldn't know. I still don't think people would know, or try to mess with it.

 

If I was on the apocalypse, and I miraculously got a gun. I really wouldn't fuck with it. What if I can't put it back together, or what if i do it wrong? if it's not broken don't fix it, it's my policy. plus i assume you need other tools as well? a screwdriver? maybe something else?

 

 

I just did a bit of reading.

 

Apparently, it depends on the gun, true semi-automatics should be cleaned constantly, while bolt action guns and rifles like revolvers or SKS can take a lot of abuse.

 

It also mentions that if you're using the gun every other day with quality ammo you should NOT clean it. 

https://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070707221427AAQxPPm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are arguing with me. I was trying to have an intellectual debate.

 

I am trying to have an intellectual debate. I've posed multiple, factual responses and you've replied with "done" and lying about things I've said. I don't know how to better present my point. You've only replied to one point, and one that you openly admitted you can't prove.

 

(Okay, to be fair, you also mentioned one other, but your argument was a personal anecdote that doesn't provide any real evidence)

 

If you want an intellectual debate, please be intellectual and debate, stop making accusations about me, and reply to the multiple points I've made, numbered below:

 

(1)Two different guns... comparison is by nature completely incorrect. They have (2)different size barrels, (3)different caliber barrels, (4)different caliber bullets, and (5)different shaped bullets (this alone is enough to skew the results tremendously- round bullets have an innate drift that lowers accuracy). None of this is relevant to the discussion at hand, and citing this as a source just makes your argument that much less plausible. In general, though, different weapons vary tremendously in accuracy and range. (6)Also, YouTube videos are not factual sources. (7)Also, comparing several century old weapons to modern weapons is silly. (8)Also please note that his accuracy tests were done just by resting the gun on a sandbag- in any true firearms test, the gun would have been in a locking stand to ensure human error was not a factor. (9)Finally, we're not talking about smooth bore anyways- we're talking about slightly dirty rifling, which still does its job, just not quite as well.

 

 

The speed and energy of the shot was much less than that of the rifled barrel. He states in the end that the smooth barrel shot had half the energy even though the rifled barrel shot had half the black powder charge. That means that a smooth barrel on a pistol is one-fourth as effective energy-wise than that with a rifled barrel.

 

(10)This is quite literally impossible. If you want to make this kind of outlandish claim you're going to need a better source than one YouTube video with a guy saying this. But again- it's impossible. Rifling itself has no impact on velocity out of the barrel and the fact that you think it does shows a fundamental misunderstanding of physics. Any differences would be down to barrel length, bullet size (which varied wildly in the video), bullet shape, etc. The velocity could be slowed in flight some by the bullet tumbling because of wind resistance, but the side of a bullet doesn't have a whole lot more wind resistance than the front; bullets are made in their shape to be accurate not just for minimal wind resistance (though it does help some).

 

 

Last and not least, the momentum is much less because there is just linear momentum instead of linear and angular momentum.

 

Again, no. Given the same exact gun with rifling versus dirty rifling, the momentum is absolutely identical* as it leaves the barrel. The only factor that would influence it would be wind resistance if the less rifled one tumbled, which is not a given. (11)Even with dirty rifling it would take the bullet a large distance to actually tumble if it ever even did. (12)Further, unless you've been filling your barrel with mud, there's no chance that the bullet would lose enough spin to become inaccurate within the accurate range of a normal person anyways.

 

(13)And finally, your proposal that it would do "1/4 the damage" is just a bit silly. 'Damage' is not a quantifiable figure, so claiming a specific loss in it due to a figure you've taken from a YouTube video where a guy makes an unsupported claim based on ancient and irrelevant weaponry is neither relevant to this argument nor plausible anyways.

 

*Less a small amount of friction, plausibly

 

Edit: More notes after rewatching the video.

 

(14)Note that claiming the rifled pistol got "twice the power with half the black powder charge" just goes to prove the inaccuracies of this comparison. The smooth bore pistol had a much bigger bullet, taking much more force to propel it. This is not a meaningful statement at all, and you're taking it tremendously out of context in your argument.

 

(15)Finally, please note that the rifled gun was fired in a different place, with different barometric pressure, and different weather, and had the barrel resting on a stand, whereas the smooth bore had the butt resting on a sandbag. Again, two very different conditions that don't deserve to be compared.

 

 

Can anybody else vouch for this?

 

I can. Cleaning and disassembling a gun is relatively easy. For more complicated guns, it could take you a week or two to figure out. But, much like carpentry and the like, it's something that you can look at and feel and puzzle out. It doesn't require foreknowledge, just a quick mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"no, you're and idiot for thinking this" then failed to come with any scientific/mathematical reasoning about why or how I was wrong. I can't win a debate if the person I'm debating is an ****** trying to argue instead of debate and then brings me down to his level. I would tear you apart if you weren't an admin, and thus you can win this little "argument". ;)

 

Finally, this is an incorrect and maligning statement. You have directly insulted me (the person I'm debating is an ******) Whereas I have not insulted you throughout the conversation. You might want to reread my posts, but I'll help you out here by bolding the antecedent for my statements.

 

makes your argument -> less plausible

 

Also, comparing -> is silly.

 

proposal -> is just a bit silly.

 

These are statements qualifying my opinion about a specific tenet of your argument, followed in every case by a logical point for why I feel that way. At no point have I, explicitly or implicitly, insulted you. You seem like a perfectly capable fellow who has been led astray by a YouTube video and perhaps some physics he doesn't grasp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...