A small randomization in damage + Damage drop

[Paratrooper]

It's still your fault that you either didn't respond fast enough from an attack. There's skill in the speed at which you respond and there's skill in the speed at which you aim for the head.

Nothing is ever 100 percent predictable. On the other hand, we could use Averages and Means to make a rough and reasonable prediction. You'd have to account for the error in the gun, and you'd have to account for the error caused by the changes in the environment.

This suggestion is something that may hopefully simulate said error. We could easily get a mean probability that we could reasonably rely on.

Besides, who said there's no such this as luck and error in real life?

[Fluttershy]

May as well remove the spread in the shotgun, smg and the rifle if we don't want randomization.

But then that would just be silly.

You do realize the reason people are disliking the change to rifle/shotgun is because theyre random to begin with right? Shotgun was actually buffed to the point of being able to take out 2 people with one shot, of course that means nothing with its random spread.

[Paratrooper]

The shotgun (and even the semi) had a random spread in .70, but then it was still a viable weapon.
It was the amount of spread in .75 that made it worthless, not randomness alone.

[Fluttershy]

The shotgun (and even the semi) had a random spread in .70 was random, but then it was still a viable weapon.
It was the amount of spread in .75 that made it worthless, not randomness alone.

in .7 you were guaranteed a kill at close range, it was random in the sense the pretty invisible pellets went a different way, but it was reliable enough noone gave a shit. Now that they introduce less favorable odds making it actually random, well, no one likes it and it shows easily.

(and need I remind you people dont like the cone of the rifle?)

[Paratrooper]

Exactly. The randomness in .70 was reliable. The randomness in .75 was unreliable simply because it was too big.
We're still considering that the spread of the shotgun is random (in any sense) because we could never predict where it would land.

The semi was a tad bit random, too in .70, but then the randomness was still bearable enough to make a reliable weapon. In .75, the randomness was ramped up to 11. That's why people hated it.

The real question here is when a tiny bit of randomness done by damage is really enough to make the weapon extremely unreliable. For me, I don't think it would be much of a problem. All I'm saying is that 2hp shouldn't be that much of a big deal when dealing with semi torso shots. It shouldn't be a fatalistic thought that a difference of 2hp could make you lose in a gun fight. Rather, it would just increase your chances.

[Gorman]

Predictable and stochastic are different things. Predictability relies on the observer, as you said.

As you said, it is "an average soldier can hit the target only 50 percent of the time". So it is USER BASED, not weapon based. Otherwise we would have a gun on a computer controlled turret to derive the effective range.

In other words, a large portion (I would say the greater portion) of the effective range of the gun is derived from the user's handling of the weapon.

Part of the reason why sniper rifles are so accurate is the way they are held, supported, the way that recoil is absorbed, etc. That is why two snipers both have different effective engagement distances.

Luck in real life is an abstraction of a multitude of factors, it is not truly random.
The greater component is user skill, and that is what we should strive to emulate, not luck. A good player should not be penalized for a bad dice roll.

[Paratrooper]

Predictable and stochastic are different things. Predictability relies on the observer, as you said.

As you said, it is "an average soldier can hit the target only 50 percent of the time". So it is USER BASED, not weapon based. Otherwise we would have a gun on a computer controlled turret to derive the effective range.

In other words, a large portion (I would say the greater portion) of the effective range of the gun is derived from the user's handling of the weapon.

Part of the reason why sniper rifles are so accurate is the way they are held, supported, the way that recoil is absorbed, etc. That is why two snipers both have different effective engagement distances.

Luck in real life is an abstraction of a multitude of factors, it is not truly random.
The greater component is user skill, and that is what we should strive to emulate, not luck. A good player should not be penalized for a bad dice roll.

Sorry, I recalled my "50% effective range" statements because I didn't have a much credible resource.
Hrm, Anyway I didn't say that the scales were more tipped towards luck, of course there is always skill in this game. Reflexes and alertness still make up the game, not just 360-noscopes. Since we cannot have a physics engine that could emulate what goes on inside and outside the gun in real-time to simulate such factors, we could simply chose some sort of randomization that is tight, predictable, and reliable.

It is not truly random, but then we could all agree that all test and trials never come out exactly the same.

[Fluttershy]

The real question here is when a tiny bit of randomness done by damage is really enough to make the weapon extremely unreliable. For me, I don't think it would be much of a problem. All I'm saying is that 2hp shouldn't be that much of a big deal when dealing with semi torso shots. It shouldn't be a fatalistic thought that a difference of 2hp could make you lose in a gun fight. Rather, it would just increase your chances.

What youre asking is if a deviation of 5 is bad for any given gun, and yes it is. Rifle will notice it in the form of two hit body kills. Shotgun fires what, 8 pellets or something? thats a possibility of 40 less damage, or 40 more damage. Take your pick on which sounds more unreasonable. SMG, which is low damage(lol) high fire rate would obviously be effected by this. (unless they get two headshots, which will probably be the case. But this whole entire thing seems to be based on body shots for whatever reason)

[Paratrooper]

The real question here is when a tiny bit of randomness done by damage is really enough to make the weapon extremely unreliable. For me, I don't think it would be much of a problem. All I'm saying is that 2hp shouldn't be that much of a big deal when dealing with semi torso shots. It shouldn't be a fatalistic thought that a difference of 2hp could make you lose in a gun fight. Rather, it would just increase your chances.

What youre asking is if a deviation of 5 is bad for any given gun, and yes it is. Rifle will notice it in the form of two hit body kills. Shotgun fires what, 8 pellets or something? thats a possibility of 40 less damage, or 40 more damage. Take your pick on which sounds more unreasonable. SMG, which is low damage(lol) high fire rate would obviously be effected by this. (unless they get two headshots, which will probably be the case. But this whole entire thing seems to be based on body shots for whatever reason)

Of course, the ±change in damage could be anything, not just 5. It may be different values for different guns, too.

Of course. But then, like I said, there are always averages that we could trust. I'm asking for a tiny bit of deviation, not a deviation that could roll something from 3 billion to 1.

[Fluttershy]

Of course. But then, like I said, there are always averages that we could trust. I'm asking for a tiny bit of deviation, not a deviation that could roll something from 3 billion to 1.

And what purpose would this deviation serve, bar giving rifles the op ability to two hit with body shots?

[Gorman]

The simple fact is, random numbers are either impossible to balance or pointless.

For example have a look at the rifles current damage.
Head 100
Body 49
Limb 33

If we even gave it a random value of +-1 we get
Head 99-100
Body 48-50
Limb 32-34

So what does this mean?
It means there is a POSSIBILITY of requiring 2 headshots for a kill, only 2 body shots for a kill, limb kills in 3 hits!

It would be insane to have any kind of random damage on rifle, I think we can both agree.
The difference between needing 1 or 2 headshots, 3 or 2 bodyshots, 4 or 3 limb shots, is just crazy.

On the converse imagine a weapon dealing 40 damage. +-5 damage makes no difference to the rate of kill.

So as I said, either it is gamebreaking or irrelevant.

[Paratrooper]

The simple fact is, random numbers are either impossible to balance or pointless.

For example have a look at the rifles current damage.
Head 100
Body 49
Limb 33

If we even gave it a random value of +-1 we get
Head 99-100
Body 48-50
Limb 32-34

So what does this mean?
It means there is a POSSIBILITY of requiring 2 headshots for a kill, only 2 body shots for a kill, limb kills in 3 hits!

It would be insane to have any kind of random damage on rifle, I think we can both agree.
The difference between needing 1 or 2 headshots, 3 or 2 bodyshots, 4 or 3 limb shots, is just crazy.

On the converse imagine a weapon dealing 40 damage. +-5 damage makes no difference to the rate of kill.

So as I said, either it is gamebreaking or irrelevant.

Of course, rifle headshots should always be a one-hit kill. Probably increase base damage to 105.

By the way, I stated that a difference of 2hp for two or three bodyshots is very crazy. We need randomization.

Of course. But then, like I said, there are always averages that we could trust. I'm asking for a tiny bit of deviation, not a deviation that could roll something from 3 billion to 1.

And what purpose would this deviation serve, bar giving rifles the op ability to two hit with body shots?

In close range, sure. But I wouldn't expect two body shots to kill in the much farther ranges.

[Fluttershy]

By the way, I stated that a difference of 2hp for two or three bodyshots is very crazy. We need randomization.

Why? You keep saying we need this but never say why besides citing giving rifles the ability to two hit with body shots.

[Paratrooper]

By the way, I stated that a difference of 2hp for two or three bodyshots is very crazy. We need randomization.

Why? You keep saying we need this but never say why besides citing giving rifles the ability to two hit with body shots.

I could say that a difference of 3hp could make the difference between three or four limbshots. I could even equate fall damage into this. If you want, I could add in SMG + Shotgun + Rifle damage. The current damage model is simply too fixed and too predictable.

[Fluttershy]

It is simply too fixed and too predictable model for weapon damage.

thats bad why?