Has any one notisted that every gun in this game has unrealistic velocities

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by kaneozen, Sep 16, 2015.

  1. FateJH

    The first thing that should be considered is that almost everything would be hitscan within its engagement range.
  2. Ghosty11

    The reason for this is the scale at which the game is played. Everything in PS2 is brought in closer than it would be in the real world. The render range in PS2 is probably around 700m to 1000m max for vehicles. In the real world tanks will engage each other at 2Km or more. If we used realistic velocities on weapons at the ranges they are used in this game, it would be virtually impossible to tell the difference between one weapon and the next, and the only stat that would matter would be the rate of fire.

    PS - Damage is a relative term in the scope of a game (ie. what would the damage per round of a 5.56mm FMJ be in the PS2 world? Consider that in the real world most pistol rounds have less stopping power per round than that of a rifle round, but the opposite is true in the PS2 world.)
  3. Hatesphere

    first you would have to define your loose term "lethal" in a video game. The weapons in question do seem to have the side effect of putting your target down, so they are "lethal"

    it would likely lack a lot of depth for the most part in the gun play department. say good by to most leading or drop compensation and a much lower skill ceiling on most weapons. everything would become even more "samey" as all the range bands blur into one, mashed together by the render range limits and base design of the game.
  4. Ronin Oni

    It's intentional.

    Even Battlefield intentionally slows down velocities significantly to bring in engagement ranges closer.

    300m is a long range engagement in BF, yet it's completely standard engagement range for a standard rifleman IRL.... WITHOUT a scope.
    • Up x 3
  5. Hatesphere

    pretty much exactly this. in real life most weapons are designed with a standard engagement range of roughly 300m in mind. its part of the reason people carry around the type of bullets they use as well.

    planet side has only 300m of infantry range to play with at any given time due to the render engine (other then a few tweaks they made recently), so all combat from sniper rifles to pistols has to take place in a bubble that in real life would be the expected range for an average engagement with say, an M16 and at the same time it also needs to be interesting.
  6. CorporationUSA

  7. Taemien

    Stop complaining about velocities. We're stuck at 300m infantry vs infantry, and 600m vehicle vs vehilce fights. Expand it to 6000m across the board and we can have realistic velocities. Push for the engagement range to go up first. Don't put the carriage in front of the horse.
  8. ColonelChingles

    The problem is that the range compression factor should be the same for tanks and infantry... yet tanks are hit much harder by velocity nerfs than infantry are. That's unfair.

    At least by muzzle energy... this is what everything would look like if it was all balanced around the .357 snub-nosed Underboss:


    So if a .357 shot does 375 damage, a Kobalt would do 6,870 damage and a Prowler's AP cannon would do over 2 million damage. :p

    Again, most tank cannon and most vehicle-mounted weapons have been disproportionately nerfed compared to infantry weapons. This image shows (in purple) what the current in-game damage levels are:


    So you can see how divorced from reality the game is when compared to the orange bars previously seen. It's pretty bad.

    On the other hand there would be greater emphasis on other skills, including tactical movement and stealthiness.

    If it's easier to hit people you shoot at, then the challenge is instead to see them before they see you. Or to move without being seen/shot.

    Overall, I don't think the total skill would decrease... just a shift from run-and-gun twitchy skill to tactical movement and positioning skill.
  9. Ronin Oni

    Not to mention 300m engagements just really isn't fun as a standard honestly.

    Games are balanced around FUN, not what's "realistic"

    I mean, there are games like ARMA that go for more sim approach, and it certainly has it's merits

    but it's not what most people would find acceptable or even fun (not to mention, it's hard to do ARMA better than ARMA.)

    A balance between arcarde and realism is the goal. BF does a really good job of making people think it's grounded somewhat in realism (when it's not at all really) but it gives the *impression* that it is. And it standardizes on a 50-100m engagement range for rifleman. (they can engage farther to be sure ofc)
    • Up x 2
  10. Hatesphere

    in the AV department they all ready kind of are by your logic.

    tier one dumb fire 85m/s

    rpg-7 295 m/s (there are likely man portable launchers with more velocity then the RPG 7)

    percent reduction 71%, which is eerily close to your 84% tank velocity reduction.

    edit: (math typo. its 71% but still close)
    • Up x 1
  11. Ronin Oni

    Yeah... but that's really REALLY slow paced and kinda boring for most people.

    Not to mention if ranges were properly scaled out, then bases would be several clicks apart, and moving anywhere on foot would be completely, utterly, well... BAD.

    Yes, vehicles "got the short end of the stick" when it comes to range compression and weapon balancing, but that's because if the game was made realistically, it would not ever be fun to fight against tanks as infantry.

    Like, at all.

    It would just be "oh, I died again. Oh boy let me jump in another paper transport or run 5 minutes to die instantly again"

    Being infantry IRL.... SUCKS... but as a game they need to make it the most popular facet and fun to do.
    • Up x 2
  12. GhostAvatar

    So you question this, but have no issues with the fact that people can come back to life in a few seconds and are transported over a great distance at the same time :rolleyes:

    Only answer I got for you is nanites.
  13. Alan Kalane

    Yeah, but the soldier's exoskeletons are made of... Idk what but anyways they weight EVEN MORE like tons and tons and tons and tons, that's why they aren't launched to orbit each time they fire!

    ...You think that's far fetched? Nonsense! Just go and watch Interstellar...
    • Up x 1
  14. TomGranger

    It is also an engine limitation. Even in Unreal 4 or Unity if you get objects moving to fast they have extremely inconstant collision triggers. Because with the refresh rate of the game the projectile needs to be in that collision box while it is refreshing. Otherwise the object would "skip over" the collision area an never register a hit.
  15. ColonelChingles

    Most people are probably statistically average... and we don't want to make a mediocre game, right? :)

    It's almost as if doing so... would necessitate... the need for vehicles and control of that open area.

    But we can't have that now, can we? :p

    Which is largely why, as the Server Smash and alerts show, vehicles in PS2 are largely meaningless.

    There's going to need to be a compromise made. Yes, vehicles shouldn't be as powerful as real life, but infantry have it far too good at this point. Being infantry does need to suck at least a little bit, because otherwise it means making vehicles suck a lot, as they are now.

    If we could meet at the halfway point where infantry are slightly buffed versus their reasonable position and vehicles are slightly nerfed, that would be a good deal for everyone. Maybe a single tank shell couldn't take out half a platoon with a single shot, but instead would only wipe out a single squad. In that way infantry win because vehicles aren't at 100%, and vehicles win because they can actually have an impact on a battle.
    • Up x 1
  16. Crayv

    Then we would have to buff grenades, medkits, and other infantry consumables to make them worthwhile in nanite cost in comparison.

    Spend 450 nanites in grenades and get maybe 3 kills... and infantry only.

    Spend 450 nanites for an MBT and wipe out an entire squad.... and maybe even kill another tank.

    I wonder which one I'll spend my resources on?
  17. The Rogue Wolf

    Y'ever notice that people only plead for realism when it benefits them? Like, tankers will say "my shells should be as fast as real-world tank shells" but they'll never say "I should be able to run out of fuel" or "my tank should be able to suffer a mobility or turret kill".
    • Up x 1
  18. ColonelChingles

    450 nanites would get you... 9 frag grenades? That's quite a few. If you only get 3 kills I'd assume it was because you were missing or using them as area denial tools.

    It's also interesting to note that a Frag Grenade is actually more lethal than a 120mm HE shell.

    Explosive Damage and Radius
    Frag Grenade- 1,275, 1m
    120mm HE- 450, 1m

    Which is ridiculous, but that's Infantryside for you. Somehow a tiny little explosive that you can fit in the palm of your hand does more damage than an extremely heavy HE shell. A 0.4kg hand grenade doing almost three times the damage of a 16kg HE tank shell. Always being unfair to vehicles.

    Maybe you just need to get to know them better? :p

    So no, I don't notice what you notice. Maybe you don't even notice what you think you are noticing. ;)
  19. Nogrim313

    it gets really fubar when you realize infantry run at something like 30 miles per hour.
  20. Demigan

    It's called "game mechanics". There's even very few mil-sims out there that manage to pull off realistic combat, bar maybe the Arma series. Every other game is more about movement, firing and controlling recoil, rather than sitting still, aim, recoil control, suppressive fire and support fire before finishing off the enemy.