Enemy soldiers take too much damage

[13islucky 10]

If AI will do what like you said, then how will player do? If player won't do like that, when playing P&E VS P&E you will distinguish who is player who is AI.

You could implement a semi ragdoll/fall animation for players as well as AI. TPW already does this, albeit rather stiffly. I don't see why players shouldn't have the same restrictions as the AI when it comes to these things.

For example, another thing that somewhat irks me is how AI turn speed is limited by things that players aren't, like prone/fatigue/carrying weight. I don't see why players shouldn't suffer the same, but I digress.

[TSAndrey 1]

Yep, takes too many shoots to kill an enemy! The most annoying part is when they just twitch and run off or instantly turn around and headshot you!

[antoineflemming 14]

You could implement a semi ragdoll/fall animation for players as well as AI. TPW already does this, albeit rather stiffly. I don't see why players shouldn't have the same restrictions as the AI when it comes to these things.

For example, another thing that somewhat irks me is how AI turn speed is limited by things that players aren't, like prone/fatigue/carrying weight. I don't see why players shouldn't suffer the same, but I digress.

And it's funny how their turn speed is really limited yet their accuracy is near perfect once they've turned around.

[bonchie 39]

Shot a guy head on today. We were both laying prone.

First three shots he just jerked and kept shooting. I understand body armor can do great things, but this is not realistic. If I'm raining bullets into a guys face, even if I don't hit the head directly, there's noway he's going to absorb 3 bullets from that angle and keep fighting.

[armilio 14]

But it's realistic. I'm not even being sarcastic, I've seen people get hit half a dozen times center mass and survive. Body armour is improving in leaps and bounds, it's no longer the type that only stops 9mm anymore.

Survive? maybe, but continue fighting?

[bonchie 39]

No one is taking 6 shots center mass and not ending up on the ground.

[Beagle 684]

Body armor is pretty effective in real life.

Body armour WAS prettty effective, then it got so common that penetraton rounds got standard... here you see what happens to a STANAG level 4 vest at 75 meters using 7.62 and 5.56 nato FMJ and double penetrator AP. (original footage official YouTube channel of german armed forces)

and here you can see what happens "inside" the vest.

Edited November 11, 2013 by Beagle

[-Coulum- 35]

No one is taking 6 shots center mass and not ending up on the ground.

I don't think I've ever seen that happen in arma even when using pistols. But people can fight after this in reality. Its rare that they have the will to, and they will likely pass out and die soon after, but anything less than a shot to the spine or head will not force anyone to immediately "end up on the ground".

There is tonnes that should be improved about armas wounding and body armour system but the school of thought that one shot to the centre of mass equals guaranteed instant incapacitation is wrong IMO.

Regarding armour, what is the verdict? does it work? My test was a line of civilians, half with plate carriers on and half without at around 100m. The unarmoured ones seem to always go down in on shot to torso unless I graze them. but then, although I found that I had too fire twice more, the armoured guys were pretty much the same. But I haven't done any tests recently. And I know that my helmet has saved me before. Anyone have some test results they can show off?

[Zansie 1]

I find that my problem isn't the enemy taking 3 bullets to center mass and living. But accuracy. I shoot a guy, and think the bullet connects, when in all reality it doesn't. Also, I seem to be really good at shooting their guns. Killing was far easier in arma 2, for a multitude of reasons.

[Maxzy 12]

Regarding armour, what is the verdict? does it work?

As I was saying earlier I tested OPFOR explo guy shooting him with Katiba from point blank range:

40 times with vest on - 10 times to the chest (3 (and couple of times 4) hits to drop him). 10 times to the back (1 or 2 hits). 10 times to the leg (4 or 3 hits). 10 times to the arm (2-3 hits).

40 times without vest - 10 times to the chest (1 or sometimes 2 hits). The rest of results are the same as with vest on.

So regarding your question - yes, at least one of the vests definitely work =).

[-Coulum- 35]

Sweet well thats good to know, thanks. Now we just need proper reactions to getting non lethally hit in the armour.

[Maxzy 12]

But people can fight after this in reality.

I wonder where do you guys get this? I mean have you ever got a gunshot wound or wound that you can compare to the instantly appeared hole in your body? Do you KNOW how it fucking hurts? Yeah, some people still can be pretty effective fighters even with a couple of holes in 'em, but the most just drop down even if hit in the arm, 'cause it hurts really really bad.

So i prefer cwc/arma 2 system where you have to hit a guy 2-3 times max to drop him, and not arma 3 where it literally takes half a 6.5mm magazine sometimes to kill some AT guy.

[Kerc Kasha 102]

It's going to take a lot of effort to effectively make a proper wounding system. I know a lot of people are screaming for 'one shot one kill' kinda crap but it's honestly excessive and is particularly unfun for those who play no-respawn missions.

Short of an overpowered round (like a 50 cal) a shot to the chest (ignoring hitting a vital organ dead on) will not kill instantly, it would incapacitate you, yes but modern body armour would either take most of the brunt or absorb all of it leaving you with just the pain or maybe broken/fractured bones.

There's a lot of variables, a high powered rifle round to the chest should drop them but not kill, wounding being linked to fatigue would be best.

[-Coulum- 35]

I wonder where do you guys get this? I mean have you ever got a gunshot wound or wound that you can compare to the instantly appeared hole in your body? Do you KNOW how it fucking hurts? Yeah, some people still can be pretty effective fighters even with a couple of holes in 'em, but the most just drop down even if hit in the arm, 'cause it hurts really really bad.

So i prefer cwc/arma 2 system where you have to hit a guy 2-3 times max to drop him, and not arma 3 where it literally takes half a 6.5mm magazine sometimes to kill some AT guy.

I am not saying its a common event but there have been reports of fighters, especially those hopped up on drugs to simply ignore the pain and keep on fighting. Even adreniline can do the trick apparently and apparently isn't implausible for people, especially those in close quarters to a combatant to not even know they are hit until after things have calmed down. Of course then others merely hear a gunshot and think that they are dead and drop to the ground. Everyones reaction is different. And thus there is no way that someone can say that X shots to the centre of mass with X caliber, will immediately take down a target (of course regarding small arms only). The only way a shooter can really guarantee instant incapacitation is with shots to the upper central nervous system.

Heres a very interesting report. Its based on handguns but the general theory still holds true for small arms. Read page 8, "The Human Target". They explain thing much better than I.

Relating this all to arma and the current system, my point is that just making guns more lethal or less lethal is not moving toward realism, its simply going to circle it. For realism BIS needs to add a whole bunch more detail to their wounding + armour system. No game I can think of has ever created a wounding system that attempts to model stopping power realistically. And Of course I don't expect BIS to - they have more than enough on their plate already - but I am interested to see what modders come up with.

a shot to the chest (ignoring hitting a vital organ dead on) will not kill instantly, it would incapacitate you

Even a fatal wound to a vital organ is not an istant kill/incapacitation. Basically yeah you are right, there's alot to consider. Having fatigue linked to wounds is an interesting idea. How would that work?

[Maxzy 12]

Of course then others merely hear a gunshot and think that they are dead and drop to the ground.

That reminded me. We got this spetsnaz dude who have his livejournal blog. So he told a funny story:

during some especially intense firefight with some terrorists he suddenly felt that something hit him right in the face. "Shit" - he thought, falling down, "So here it is, fuckers killed me". He felt blood running on his chin, only feeling was a bit weird - like some insect crawling. 30 seconds later, realising that there is no pain still, he understood at last that it was only some big bug went to his face at full speed. And i'm talking about real special forces guy here dropping dead of a bug hit =)).

So I really would prefer the old shitty one-hit-you're-dead system instead of new half-magazine-in-your-face-and-stiil-alive one.

[13islucky 10]

Survive? maybe, but continue fighting?

I honestly don't really know about modern ammo, seeing as most of what people get hit with is old Soviet surplus, but sometimes they don't even realize that they're hit. Maybe that newer ammunition fares better against body armour, I don't know.

[rye1 21]

If often takes actual perception or increased nociception to realize pain. The fight or flight response, and associated hormones, can slow this down.

[progamer 14]

I am not saying its a common event but there have been reports of fighters, especially those hopped up on drugs to simply ignore the pain and keep on fighting. Even adreniline can do the trick apparently and apparently isn't implausible for people, especially those in close quarters to a combatant to not even know they are hit until after things have calmed down. Of course then others merely hear a gunshot and think that they are dead and drop to the ground. Everyones reaction is different. And thus there is no way that someone can say that X shots to the centre of mass with X caliber, will immediately take down a target (of course regarding small arms only). The only way a shooter can really guarantee instant incapacitation is with shots to the upper central nervous system.

Heres a very interesting report. Its based on handguns but the general theory still holds true for small arms. Read page 8, "The Human Target". They explain thing much better than I.

Relating this all to arma and the current system, my point is that just making guns more lethal or less lethal is not moving toward realism, its simply going to circle it. For realism BIS needs to add a whole bunch more detail to their wounding + armour system. No game I can think of has ever created a wounding system that attempts to model stopping power realistically. And Of course I don't expect BIS to - they have more than enough on their plate already - but I am interested to see what modders come up with.

Even a fatal wound to a vital organ is not an istant kill/incapacitation. Basically yeah you are right, there's alot to consider. Having fatigue linked to wounds is an interesting idea. How would that work?

So no other game has done it so BI can't do it? Seriously! It's not that they can't do it, it's that it takes time and they don't tell us that they are doing it because if it doesn't come to the game people get upset.

[-Coulum- 35]

So no other game has done it so BI can't do it? Seriously! It's not that they can't do it, it's that it takes time and they don't tell us that they are doing it because if it doesn't come to the game people get upset.

Oh yeah I am sure BIS could do it but it would take alot of effort and alot of tweaking. I personally think something like bipods is far simpler and far more needed. Essentially, BIS has better things to do I think.

Yes I agree that BIS is probably working on many things in the background but don't show them until they are absolutely sure its going to be implemented.

[-HUNTER-_ 10]

Again today... it took 4!!! shots of 7.62mm >>TO THE HEAD<< from 10 meters to kill a guy... And I didn't

even shoot him in the helmet. Straight into his face, that's not real... After the 2nd shot I couldn't believe

it let alone having to shoot him a third, and fourth time. In the head...

[10t 12]

Again today... it took 4!!! shots of 7.62mm >>TO THE HEAD<< from 10 meters to kill a guy....

Extended Armour on or off?

I'm betting you still have it switched on.

[maturin 12]

You were hitting him in the upper chest, where the armors is. Go read about sight vs barrel height.

[GShock 10]

This is simply not the game I thought I was buying :mad:

[maffa 29]

Again today... it took 4!!! shots of 7.62mm >>TO THE HEAD<< from 10 meters to kill a guy... And I didn't

even shoot him in the helmet. Straight into his face, that's not real... After the 2nd shot I couldn't believe

it let alone having to shoot him a third, and fourth time. In the head...

if they HIT, then we have a problem.

If they MISSED, then it's the way balistics work in RL too. I made the same error. When bullets leave the barrel they dont start level to the ground but begin a upward curve that will meet the zeroing you have set with the sights. So if your target is exactly at the peak of that bell curve, you wont be able to make headshots. With a 5.56 and a 300m zeroing, you have 25cm peak on that curve at 100m give or take, which is more or less the height of an average head. If you aimed in the middle of the eyes, you are going to miss by 10+cm.

---------- Post added at 12:11 ---------- Previous post was at 11:24 ----------

[courtesy of Sniperwolf572 for the image, i had the same doubt and he kindly explained to me with the most clear of the examples]

so as you can see there is how zeroing works. It is iset so that you have two actual zeros, a very close one and a terminal one (which is the one you usually consider). As you can see with the M16, which has been zeroed to 300m, the bullet starts lower, at few inches below the actual zero, that is the value with a minus, then climbs up to a maximum (which as i said it's almost as the height of a head from chin to tip of the cranium) and then descends to the terminal zero at the lenght required.

Edited November 13, 2013 by Maffa

[-Gews- 1]

As you can see with the M16, which has been zeroed to 300m, the bullet starts lower, at few inches below the actual zero, that is the value with a minus, then climbs up to a maximum (which as i said it's almost as the height of a head from chin to tip of the cranium) and then descends to the terminal zero at the lenght required.

One thing I noticed in ArmA 3, a lot of the sights were set to 300m or 400m.

So at 400m with the Mk18, that would mean you would have to "launch" the bullet at an angle of about 0.185 deg.

That would mean a maximum ordinate of approx. 0.40 meters at 200 meters. With 6.5mm, it would be about 0.45m and with 5.56mm, it would be about 0.37m.

Using a zero of 300m, the maximum ordinate is reduced considerably! To about 0.20 meters for the 7.62mm and 0.15 meters for the 5.56.

So for most practical game purposes, a zero of 300m, or even less, is better, otherwise you may be shooting above your intended target. Many of the optical sights do not have settings under 300m, though.