Two of the things I described are already there, tiredness and health (e.g. if you’re <15% that increases the probabilities). Stressfullness is to be added but should peak if
you’re bombarded,
you just get in melee-range with enemies or explosives (except when throwing), or
may gradually increase if you get in firefight with enemy (almost) hitting you.
More complex than equipping a soldier with equipment from another soldier in a squad that is currently in reserve? I don’t think so, implementation might be. But understanding why do you screw up weapon reload looks more natural this way than with a pure dice toss in a “realistic” shooter.
I thought we’re playing this game for some kind of realism, and RNG in this case does not look real, just part of the picture. Of course there are random malfunctions but without any military expertise I’m still quite confident that more problems occur during battle when the sky is falling on you, than under laboratory conditions. RNG is for the laboratory conditions.
I’d go 30% pure random (mechanical defects etc), 70% human/weapon state factor for reload issues, and much less than 10-20% of reloads. Also depending on weapon. I’m quite sure different weapons have a different chance of getting screwed up, some quite willing to jam, others are very reliable.
So how about this:
Basic chanse of soldier-related malfunction is 10%. If soldier is tired, heavily wounded or supressed (both bullets and explosives), it increases to 20%.
And of course add mentioned gun-related malfunctions to this.
My gut feeling is 0-3% base value depending on historical gun reload reliability, +1-2% if very tired, +1-2% if heavily wounded (could be his hand) and +1…5% in stress, never over 10%. But to determine what works well is up to whoever implements it. Lower values for veteran soldiers.
I’m in.
(Every 10th reload delayed on average is already too much I think. Also you could lose bullets due to these, which you can pick up afterwards… Okay, that’s now not an arcade FPS but more role playing - I don’t know whether I wish that.)
At first, I thought it sounds bad, but when I think about it, this is actually a pretty good suggestion.
It does not really bound you to have malfunction, it only forces you to adapt to a different style of gameplay instead of just run and gun.
Gun reliability doesn’t affect soldier-related malfunction, only gun-related (aka jams).
I would say that 10% as standard chanse is good enough, it will happen but not a lot.
I would like to avoid adding a lot of small modifiers like this. The game optimalisation is great and I don’t want to ruin this by adding a lot of unnecesarry math.
Tbh I don’t know if it shouldn’t be only an animation. We don’t have enough bullets to just throw them away when we like to.
Ok, I did some research so scrap previous post.
PPD was quite reliable so if you don’t want to reload all the time you should pick drum as gun-related malfunction chance will be relativelly low. And it will disapear completelly if you have trigger disipline.
So your overall malfunction chance will be about 5% in comparason to box and I doubt you have enough ammo to reload 20 times.
Keeping it simple is not a bad way to do things, so I can accept that also.
My idea before was that a gun with bad/cheap design may have more problems during reload as well, not only during firing. So I was considering gun related effects to apply to reload as well.
“Reloading an empty drum with cartridges was a difficult and involved process.”
“In contrast, the “XX” twenty-round box magazine was light and compact. … The box magazine was quickly attached and detached, and was removed downward, making clearing jams easier.”
Ok, but if a process takes less than 5 seconds (changing the tires of an F1 car or taking one of your shoes), it does not mean they may fail at the same rate under same stress conditions e.g. while under artillery fire. If it’s more complicated/contains more delicate parts, you’ll have more trouble.
Ok, I get what you mean. You are right but as I have said I would like to keep it simple, the less modifiers the better both for optimalisation and for new players to learn.
I would prefer that each weapon be assigned a new characteristic: reliability.
Reliability, depending on the number of stars, as well as the weapon model itself, indicates how many percent of the time this sample can support stable shooting.
An unstable, intermittent shooting should be understood as: - jamming of the cartridge when sending it into the chamber - misfire: when the trigger is pulled, the striker firing pin does not penetrate the primer. - barrel overheating
Adding another key weapon stat could have a more positive impact on the weapon meta, as some “reliable” guns will become more popular than those historically considered very unreliable. A prime example: PPS-43 (reliable) and PPSH-41 (not very reliable).
