Should we have a way to toggle suppressors?

There are obvious advantages and disadvantages to equipping a suppressor. However, would having the option to toggle this attachment bring more variety to user playstyles and firefights?

I mean, sometimes the additional muzzle velocity and effective range without a suppressor is more useful for long-ranged combat, so maybe toggling between the two would mean tailoring your weapon to the engagement distance?

Can't you remove the suppressor at the same kind of Terminal where you attached it? that's something of a major bug if you can't.

That is true, but was thinking of more open-field pitched battles where infantry terminals are not readily available.

It would be cool, and there's no reason why this shouldn't be implemented. The limiting factor is, as always, develeper working hours. It would mean adding lots of new animations and adding new UI elements. They just don't have the manpower for it.

Being able to add a postive or take away a negative whenever you feel like it generally removes the whole point of balance - so no.

After all exactly the same arguement could be made about SPA/HVA etc. (or indeed AP/Heat/HE ammo)




Essentially what you're suggesting would mean there would be effectively no downside at all to running a suppressor only upsides, where as currently the CHOICE you make for the advantages of a suppressor (low sound and not showing up on the mini-map) is the trade off of the lower velocity.

I think one really important reason to not have this is the same one where you can't have variable zoom optics. I can't quickly switch out my 12x sniper scope with a 4x battle scope. Also the same reason why tanks are limited to a single shell type.

The reason is that choices are important.

The suppressor was meant to come with drawbacks, because it forced players to act intelligently about predicting what sort of combat they were going to be in. If players picked wisely, then the drawbacks would be minor compared to the advantages. But if players picked poorly, then they would suffer.

To me, that was a purposeful design choice. Otherwise they could have just implemented the suppressor without any drawbacks.

Allowing players to quickly switch in the field would reduce the importance of player planning and choice. Just as how a tank who could switch between HE and AP would destroy one of the balancing aspects of the game, so too would allowing a player to quickly switch implants, optics, weapons, or attachments.

There might also be the minor secondary element of teamwork. Just as how AP and HE tanks do better in combination, having a squad consist of suppressed and "loud" infantry should be better than a disorganized group.

Really in my opinion suppressors don't have enough damage reduction. IRL using subsonic ammunition means taking a major hit to muzzle velocity and muzzle energy. For example...

55gr. 5.56
Velocity ~3,300 ft/s
Energy- ~1,300 ft/lb

Subsonic 55gr. 5.56
Velocity- 1,064 ft/s (32%)
Energy- 138 ft/lb (10.6%)

So if suppressors worked as they did IRL, your weapon would only have 1/3 of the velocity and 1/10 of the damage as an unsuppressed weapon. Of course that's why they tend to load subsonic rounds with heavier bullets, but that can only go so far. A 75gr. subsonic 5.56 bullet will still only carry ~170 ft/lb of energy.

For comparison purposes, a typical 9x19 pistol bullet will have about 400 ft/lbs of energy... meaning that suppressing a 5.56 rifle makes it about 75% less effective as a pistol round. You're almost at .22LR levels of energy, which is fairly diminutive.

I'm surprised to see you here saying this. This is not how suppressors work IRL.



Suppressor by himself barely affects anything. It is mostly used for safety for the shooter, as shooting an unsuppressed gun in a dark room can blind and deafen the user. Suppressor merely takes the edge off the sound and turns it from "eardrum exploding" into merely "very, very loud". And removes the muzzle flash. Suppressor you are talking about already inmplemented in PS2 as Flash Suppressors, basically.

For the Suppressor to actualy have a noticeable effect on bullet velocity and sound, it needs to be a large, at least partially ingerated solution along most of the barrel, like in this old DeLisle carbine:

And the large portion of the reduction of the "suppressor" actually comes from using special ammunition with reduced gunpowder charge, that ensures the bullet never reaches super sonic velocities, as crossing the sound barrier is a big reason for super loud sound of normal shots.

To ensure the bullet still has some lethality to it, heavy bullets are used. This is why pistols and SMGs are better suited to be suppressed, and that's why AS VAL uses 9mm x 39mm cartridge.



As far as loudness of both of the mentioned weapons goes, it's been reported that sound of moving parts within the weapon during reloading cycle is louder and more recognizable as "weapon sounds" than shots itselves.

The only weapon with possibly integrated (integrated, not preinstalled) suppressor is MKV. All the rest use aftermarket suppressors. We can assume the strong reduction in velocity is caused by using sub-sonic ammunition, so actually it would take changing ammunition rather than putting suppressor on and off, if we were talking your beloved realism.

Why do you think I mentioned "subsonic" ammunition?

Even a large, integrated suppressor will not actually suppress if the bullet exits the device going beyond the speed of sound (1,126 ft/s). This is because the bullet will produce a supersonic crack.

So it is assumed that the PS2 suppressor comes paired with subsonic ammunition. Otherwise what would be the point of a suppressor that couldn't suppress? It wouldn't take you off the mini-map at all if you were using supersonic ammunition.

As for large heavier rounds like 9x39, those still do not transfer that much energy. 9x39 only has ~485 ft/lbs of energy, which is about the same as an unsuppressed 9x19 pistol round.

FYI, 9x39 is not actually a pistol round, but it is a rifle round (the same in the old AK pattern rifles) that has been fitted with a larger and heavier bullet. However, 9x39 still pales in comparison to the parent round:

122gr. 7.62x39
Velocity- 2,396 ft/s
Energy- 1,555 ft/lbs

259gr. 9x39
Velocity- 920 ft/s (38.3%)
Energy- 485.7 ft/lbs (31.2%)

So you're still seeing about the same in reduction of velocity, and ~70% reduction in "damage" effectiveness. Again, the evidence is quite strong that subsonic rounds carry extreme penalties with them in terms of velocity and damage.

So what's PS2's penalties?

IRL
Velocity- ~65%
Damage- ~80%

PS2
Velocity- ~30%
Damage- ~ 5% (10m and 25m reductions out of 300m range)

So yes, PS2's suppressor penalties ought to be increased significantly.

And just for laughs... what happens to a 9x19 pistol round when it is suppressed?

115gr. 9x19
Velocity- 1,300 ft/s
Energy- 420 ft/lbs

115gr. Subsonic 9x19
Velocity- 1,046 ft/s (80.5%)
Energy- 279 ft/lbs (66.4%)

The drop in efficiency isn't as drastic because pistol rounds are already fairly "weak" *coughNSrevolverscough*, but in the end using subsonics still will be a massive penalty.

Sorry, skimmed through your post, didn't notice. Didn't have enough sleep Dunno how it slipped my attention. Really, my apologies.

I didn't call 9x39 "pistol ammunition", I just wanted to point out that increase in caliber is to allow for heavier bullet for the same cartridge size. I didn't claim heavier bullet will have same lethality either, just to somewhat compensate.

Besides just energy, which is basically speed multiplied by mass, larger bullet probably also has worse ballistics and worse penetration, so even less damage, especially against body armor.

That's true, and the TR seem rather fond of older, rounder cartridges.

For example, the KSR-25 uses a 7x65 cartridge... which is like a WWII cartridge. I mean sure maybe they've developed different powders or whatnot... but the dimensions don't seem promising.

Even today, if a soldier is wearing Level IV plates, most infantry small arms will fail to penetrate. Sure they'll still take some minor damage from blunt force, but it's not often lethal.

Assuming that PS2 armour has kept pace with PS2 weaponry, it does seem that repeated hits do seem to do a bit much damage for what they are.

Who knows, maybe PS1's "bullet sponge" model would have been more accurate to 29th century warfare!

*puts on glasses*

It's only nanites.

*light flashes*

It's all nanites.

*compelled to roll one*

What's so bad about 7x65? We don't really know much about this cartridge beyond dimensions, from all we know it can be a match-grade magnum sniper rounds.

We know the case length, which means that there is an upper limit to a powder charge. This means that velocity is relatively low, compared to cartridges that have a longer case length. Not comparing 29th century and 21st century rounds, but it seems like the TR could have made a "heavier" rifle cartridge using a longer case length.

We also know the bullet diameter, which when combined with case length gives an idea of the dimensions of the actual bullet. Sure the TR might have an ultra-dense material as their bullet, but I doubt it. Otherwise such a bullet would have been put to use on vehicles long before it was handed out to infantry.

For example, the TR also use a 12.7x75 cartridge in the RAMS.50. Which is pretty short (only a 5mm extension) for a much larger calibre bullet. Assuming similar technologies employed in both TR rounds, there does appear to be a problem which would lead to a heavy but extremely underpowered bullet. Those dimensions are the equivalent of the 13x76 which is used more for commercial hunting than for any military application.

While PS2 is set in the future, there are physical and scientific constraints that must apply.

Realistically.. having attached barrel accessories myself.. its not something you can reliably do in the field quickly. Going to a terminal sort of makes sense. I wouldn't mind the option.. but it wouldn't feel right.

Just because something was made in WWII doesn't mean its outdated. The 12.7x99 round (also known as the .50cal) is a nasty round that has been in use in the M2 BMG since 1938. I fired one before and its a mean mutha.

The TR's version for their RAMS .50 is just a slightly shorter round, which explains its ability in anti-personnel vs anti-material.

We still use a Winchester .308, or 7.62x51, and of course the 5.56x45 (.223 Remington.. sorta equivelent).

A 7x65 round isn't really made anymore (it is, but its not fired by common firearms). But I don't see how it'd be obsolete. Its larger than a 5.56.. but longer, even longer than our 7.62x51. By comparison the AK-47 fires a 7.62x39. If anything, it sounds like a supped up 5.56. From what I've been able to gather it has a muzzle velocity of 800-900m/s which isn't much slower than a 5.56 (about 950m/s). And quite a bit more than the AK-47's 730m/s. And its energy transfer is much higher.

Also just because a round is used for hunting doesn't mean its bad for military use. Carlos Hathcock used a hunting rifle. .308 Winchester (7.62x51) is used in the M16, M60, and M240B. .223 Remington is very similar to a 5.56x45 and used in the M16, AR15, M4, and Mini14.

Also while Scifi typically should use physical and scientific constraints. There's more power in theoretical compounds. Smokeless Gunpowder is a relatively old technology. Who's to say there's not other more powerful compounds? In BattleTech there's advanced rounds that for example 28th century Terrain Hegemony 5.56x45 would explode the chamber of a Vintage NATO 21st Century M4. There's rules for it in the RPG. Don't roll a 2 or 3 on a 2d6.

I wouldn't count out the TR just yet.

My main observations was this: TR case lengths are not varied enough to support two very different projectiles.

For example, we use a ~7mm round, say 7.62 NATO. We also use a 12.7mm cartridge. How do these look?



12.7x99 being the leftmost, and 7.62x51 being the middle.

There's a big difference in the amount of propellant needed for such different projectiles. Case lengths differ by 48mm, or that the 12.7mm case is about 194% longer than the 7.62 case (not to mention much fatter).

Now consider PS2 cartridges, 7x65 and the 12.7x75. A 10mm difference in case length, or that the larger cartridge's case is only 115% longer than the shorter cartridge.

So even if some magical new propellant had been discovered, the case length proportions still don't make sense (assuming the same propellant type is used in both). If you only need a 75mm case to throw a 12.7mm projectile, then you probably don't need a 65mm case for a 7mm projectile (a 36mm case would match 21st century proportions). I mean unless primer technology got really goofy or something.

And as for 5.56 still being a thing in the 28th century... surely that must seem even silly to you!

Not really. If it works, it works.

M2 MBG .50cal was developed in 1938 and has seen service since. And will continue probably for another 200 years. If not longer. I don't see any reason for it not to.

5.56x45 is an excellent round in accuracy, and armor penetration. Small and lightweight. Works very well in a variety of roles. Hell I've even got a pistol that fires it. Makes for some interesting looks at the range when people see me slap a 30 round mag (fuq them trying to limit mag sizes lol) into a pistol.

The only issue I have with the 7x65r is the fact that its obscure. But its velocity is 150m/s faster than 7.62x39 AK-47 round. And its energy transfer is 200-900j more as well.

No idea what the muzzle velocity of a .50cal shorter round would be. Judging by the Beowulf round (12.7x42) it'd be as bit quicker than 650m/s (IRL).

Only issue I have is the unrealistic muzzle velocities in game.. but that's attributed to game mechanics and hardware limitations. That RAMS .50 should be lethal on near misses out to 900-1200m. But its only a OHK to the head at 300m.

And from a lore point of view.. why is the TR using obscure German rounds? Instead of NATO standards? I figure they'd stick to using 9x19, .45ACP (my personal favorite), 5.56x45, 7.62x51, and .50cal BMG. But that's just me. And I might be a little biased.. aside from the .50cal round, I have 1-3 firearms for each of those listed calibers.. lol.

I believe that US military testing revealed that the"ideal" small arms cartridge was somewhere between 6.5 and 7mm in caliber. 6.5mm offering the penetration, but 7mm being more wounding/lethal. This is why the 6.8 SPC cartridge was introduced, and is the "best" option supported by military science at the moment.

The only reason we have 5.56 is because it's descended from the commercial .223, which in turn was made from .222 Remmy Mag, which came from an off-the-shelf .222 Remington cartridge. There's no special reason why 5.56 would continue, especially when research suggests a heavier, bigger bullet would be more beneficial. Only reason we still use it is because of cost, inertia, and politics. Sure 6.8 SPC isn't perfect (especially if you can't make it long enough because you're trying to stuff it down an M16 pattern rifle), but it should outperform the 5.56 (even the newer high-pressure stuff if they designed a rifle around 6.8 to allow it more freedom).

Thus, it would most definitely seem odd that 5.56 would last for another few hundred years, because it was more of an accidental caliber than a properly planned and tested one. 6.8 might not be the "end all" calibre either. The point though is that things change, and having 5.56 be a 29th century cartridge after 800 years would be like us running around with Civil War calibers today.

Realistic NC and VS guns won't need suppression to begin with, lol. PS2 isn't about weapon realism.

Could work (with allot of dev effort) on PC but would be horrible on PS4 no idea what they would map it too, simply changing fire modes or bringing up an UBG/SG is a chore.