I. The battle rifle problem
II. My proposal
III. How it affects the game
IV. Other (previous) suggestions
V. How can it be implemented?
VI. A note about body armour, and how it might fit into this mechanic.
As we all know, BR 5 is plagued by the overpowered presence of battle rifles like the FG 42, AVT 40, T20, and Type Hei. These guns are capable of full auto, as well as one shotting troops with vitality (barring the case with body armour) making them the go-to setup for people seeking to maximize their setup at BR 5. It also does not help that the rifleman squad can have up to 9 bodies: this is undoubtably a strength which allows one to maximize their presence in combat, fight larger amounts of enemies, and capture the objective faster.
Given that battle rifles are the superior choice, especially when it comes to winning 1V1 encounters, and the numerical superiority of rifle squads, then it is difficult to justify the presence of the assaulter squad, and maybe the machine gunner squad at the moment. This is why the people who “abuse” every advantage will use 9 man rifleman squads decked out with battle rifles (I don’t blame them: it is the strongest combat strategy, by a considerable margin).
But something needs to be done in order to remedy this exclusive level of lethality within the semi auto rifles.
While I don’t claim to know exactly how the damage in enlisted is coded, I do have an outline of ‘how’ it works, based on previous videos made by Quadro and Captain Figureen.
Damage which surpasses the targets HP will cause one of two outcomes: a kill, or the target is ‘downed’. If the opponent is downed, they can still revive, but they are vulnerable and they cannot shoot back.
Additionally, the chance of getting the downed/kill outcome depends on how much excess damage your weapon does to the enemy over their HP.
I did some tests myself in custom battles with the following weapons: a stock fg 42, stock armaguerra, fully upgraded STG 44, and stock STG 44. I fired them in single shots, semi auto at the bots (which from my observation, have the default 10 HP, without vitality).
What I found was that within lethal distance (1-10m) the FG 42 had a higher rate of killing the enemy, and occasionally downed them. The armaguerra had a much higher chance of only ‘downing’ the enemy.
The STG on the other hand, requires two shots to either kill or down the enemy. One shot at lethal range does not down the enemy. They merely get a slight recoil knockback, but continue upright.
So, this reinforces our intuition regarding the damage models. It is simply a huge advantage that the battle rifles can put the enemy in a downed/kill state with one shot in lethal range, while the intermediate cartridges cannot.
Assuming the assault rifle user can reliably hit headshot, then the assault rifle is lethal. However, such performance is hardly ever pulled off by humans.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Here’s my proposal: for damage which does not surpass the opponents HP, we give one of the two following outcomes: No kill (the opponent stands), or downed. The chance of downing depends on how close the damage dealt is compared to a health pool which could fully or partially reflect the opponents HP…
At close/lethal range, opponent has no vitality:
For a fully upgraded assault rifle with 9.6 damage (which does 0.4 less then 10), I suggest that it have a ~80% (that’s 4/5 enemies downed per one shot) chance to down an opponent (bodyshot) without vitality; the un-upgraded assault rifle dealing 8.0 damage (2.0 less than 10) takes ~50 % chance to kill.
A fully upgraded SMG round dealing 6.8 damage should have less than 50% chance of downing an opponent, somewhere along the lines of ~20-40%, and the default 5.5 damage dealing smg round would have ~0-20% of downing an opponent before the damage threshold is reached (I would be agree if the chance is very low, like <5 %).
Pistol caliber guns should have the least chance (very small chance, or even zero) to down an opponent in one shot (even at close range).
In consideration for vitality, we have three options: 1) vitality should have no effect the calculation of the downing chance (which only uses the default HP), 2) vitality has the full effect, so the calculation of the downing chance takes into consideration 13.5 HP, or 3) vitality has partial effect, as in only a partial adjustment of the HP is used to calculate new downing chances.
As a placeholder proposal for this mechanic, I suggest the following (rudimentary) linear equation to calculate the chances of downing an opponent.
x is the bullet damage (which is affected by the distance and body armour), h is the HP, and the output is the chance of downing (in decimal form for percentage). If the bullet damage exceeds the HP, the games current mechanic takes over/ this new mechanic does not apply when the damage of the bullet exceeds the HP.
I would prefer if vitality only partially affects the downing chance: let me suggest, with vitality, that h takes on the value 11.5. The way this works is, consider a weapon like a Breda lmg, which deals 13.2 damage. It’s value is right under the HP with vitality perk - so instead- the damage 13.2 goes into the calculation of the above equation, where it can receive either two outcomes: The equation with x=13.2 tells us that this gun has a certainty (100%) of downing the opponent using vitality at close range. We can interpret that to say: this gun will only down an opponent with vitality at close range, and nothing else. It is quite strong. The alternative is, in the code we can cut off damages which exceed the h value. By that, let x be equal to h, then it gives the Breda an 88% chance of downing the such opponents. I am hesitant letting weapons such as machine guns have a 100% chance to down opponents with vitality for now.
Different, and more elaborate representations of a downing chance, which you feel is better, are all welcome. This is where the you, the readers, can suggest values which you feel reflect better gameplay.
A thing to note, is how this suggestion will affect the perk : +% chance of going into downed state upon taking fatal damage. We can keep this perk as is, or I will suggest that the perk be tweaked to in order to include: -% chance of going into downed state upon taking non-fatal damage. Or, we can introduce a new perk that exclusively reduces the chance of being downed by non-lethal damage.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Let’s consider the merits of my proposal (and how it affects gameplay), as well as some other proposals:
In a 1v1 confrontation, assuming the users of an assault rifle and a battle rifle shoot each other at the same time, the advantage is always in favour of the battle rifle user since they always do fatal damage.
Previously, an assault weapon user requires 2 shots to kill or down an opponent at any range. If that opponent connects their high damage semi auto before the assault weapon user has fire their second shot, then the outcome is decided in favour of the battle rifle even if the assault user has fired first. This is obviously something which many of us would not like.
If however, the assault weapon user has a way of preventing the battle rifle user from pulling off a (uno reverse) before death in a duel, then it would increase the value of assault rifles.
This is where giving a downed chance to damage under the HP threshold comes in: If the assault user fires first, they have a good chance of downing the opponent in one shot, and if downed, the opponent cannot shoot back and kill the assault weapon user. Of course, it will still take a second shot to finish off the opponent, but it is better than landing a shot on the opponent, and them shooting back with a high chance of killing you.
This improves the room clearing ability of assault weapons: if you sweep the room with an STG, the chance that the enemy （AI and player） will kill you has decreased. The assaulter just has to now keep in mind that landing one shot on everybody is more critical than finishing off the opponent with two shots.
Additionally, it is intuitive that battle rifles (full power cartridges) can still retain their lethality at very long ranges. My suggested downing mechanic still allows that.
Will this make assault weapons OP? In my opinion, no. They will not be any stronger than battle rifles for direct engagement, who retain the ability to both kill and down when dealing fatal damage (the highest lethality in game). They will however, have increased versatility and speed in terms of facing multiple opponents, as well as having a better chance to overcome the battle rifle user in a 1v1.
It is more ‘realistic’ (and I know many posters have used this argument) that intermediate cartridges of assault rifles should be lethal in one shot. Having an STG 44 with a rather high chance of downing an opponent (but never outright killing them, since DF might never grant that, or else The damage of assault weapons would be raised across the board), is only intuitively fair. In real life, one can hardly react when getting shot by something a strong as a Kurz.
Machine gunners also gain effectiveness from this mechanic. Every machine guns damage, fully upgraded is 13.2. It falls under vitality, so it will never be a kill. We would expect however, that such powerful weapons like machine guns have the same down-the-barrel lethality as battle rifles. So, the downing mechanic makes up for that. consider a slow firing, fully upgraded machine gun like the m1919a6: previously, if both the browning user and the Type Hei auto user fired and lands their shots, the Type Hei user is at a decisive advantage: not only do they have a better handling weapon, they also will completely shrug off the damage dealt by the browning, leaving them with a sliver of health, but not down. They can then proceed to mow down more Americans. Clearly, we don’t like this, so the benefits to machine gunners given by this mechanic are also noteworthy.
Do not forget the smg’s. consider this example: at close range, two PPD 38 rounds (un- upgraded) deals 11 damage. A third round is needed to take down the vitality user, and two rounds will be shrugged off otherwise in the current game. The difference in which two rounds can stop an opponent from firing back is critical; in the current meta, the ppsh 41 user has no chance of winning a fight against a battle rifle user who can react just as fast, assuming they are in a duel: even with 1050 rpm, or firing 19 rounds a second, the ppsh requires 3 rounds, or 0.16 seconds to kill the battle rifle user, whose time to kill essentially only takes into consideration the TTK of the single bullet. If 2 bullets can stop the opponent, then it would mean the SMG user only needs 0.105 seconds. Any advantage counts (and slower firing smg’s would benefit the most from this). Additionally, the downing mechanic would help spray enemies at long range.
We may expect over the whole course of a battle, that such a mechanic would increase the lethality of weapons across the board, and hence we may see a (considerable?) increase in effectiveness on weapons of all variety. However, the weapons which stand to gain the most from this change are the weapons whose bullet damage fall slightly under a HP threshold.
Full power battle rifles don’t stand to gain much from this, because they already can kill/down in one shot, and that’s fine. Our assaulters and machine gunners should be valued more considering they use less harder hitting weapons.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Let’s consider some other suggestions to the issue of the Battle rifle meta, and why they probably won’t be implemented or fall short:
- A new BR (6?) should be created （suggested by a few members incrementally）
- All battle rifles should have their recoil increased to a hard to control level like that of the Fedorov 25 （suggested by Adamnpee and, supported by some others）Increasing recoil to full auto firing mode of SF rifles
- The battle rifles should be given their own class (suggested by US_Matt_LT) Add new class Automatic Rifleman
- Move assault and battle rifles to the assaulter class (suggested by GeneralBrus) Move assault rifles and battle rifles to the assaulter class
- The assault weapons should have their damage revamped for better damage (suggested by Slakrrrrrr) Assault Rifle Balance Revamp: Jack-Of-All-Trades
The developers tend not to accept ‘knee-jerk’ changes, and changes which they consider negligible on gameplay (some moderator has mentioned this). Bearing this in mind:
1 this suggestion faces the issue of diluting the playerbase in the matchmakings. Proponents of this will suggest that certain tier 5 weapons should not be in the same battle ranking, like the ppsh 41 compared to the AVT 420 for example. The stronger weapon should be put into a higher BR. This however, would just result in BR 6 still being plagued by the battle rifle meta. If any BR is separated, then it would increase the burden on matchmaking.
2 The community has adjusted to the current feel of the weapons, so this change is unwelcomed by most players. It is too late.
3 If this is the case, then everyone would use assaulters exclusively on the basis that assaulters now have overwhelming firepower (true semiautos would be relegated to the other troops), and it makes it unrewarding to fight using any other squad type at a high BR.
4 While this suggestion may be okay for fixing the battle rifle meta, introducing a new class is a rather extensive change which people would object to for a host of reasons (perhaps it is unrealistic, not fun, rifleman should carry AVT’s, etc. ).
5 Quite a good suggestion, but we haven’t heard from the devs regarding this yet for a long while. The only trifle with this suggestion is that it might create an assault -battle rifle dual meta. But that is fine, though it leaves the machine guns and sub calibre guns in the dust. The devs probably thought this is a rather knee jerk adjustment, and hence did not accommodate it.
Gameplay wise, I wholeheartedly support this suggestion.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So how should this be implemented? In my opinion, I don’t think this will be particularly difficult coding for the devs.
They already have a system in place which considers damage done to the opponent that exceeds the HP threshold, and applies RNG to determine whether it is a kill or a ‘down’.
They can tweak this system to also consider damage that falls under the HP of the target, and apply RNG to determine whether the opponent lives, or gets ‘downed’.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Lastly, a note about body armour and how it may figure into this.
I agree with his analysis.
I do agree that the effects of body armour are significant gameplay wise. Indeed, there always will be someone who will take full advantage of body armour.
There are two camps to this problem: body armour is irrelevant because very little people use it (true), and body armour is relevant because there always is the practical possibility that someone (or a team) will abuse it.
And that PERSON IS ME, HAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA. RAGE.
Anyways, the mods aren’t forwarding this issue as far as I see, so in the case that body armour is applied, lets see how my suggestion fares, using my placeholder mechanic. The opponent has vitality. Let’s test out the Type Hei auto:
The 6.5 Arisaka deals 13.9 damage. -10% leaves it with 12.5 damage. The equation tells us that the Type Hei has an 1.075 chance of downing the body armour+ vitality opponent at close range. We can interpret that to say: the Type Hei auto will only down an opponent with vitality and body armour at close range, and nothing else. That’s quite strong honestly. The alternative is, in the code we can cut off damages which exceed the h value. By that, let x be equal to h, then it gives the Type Hei an 88% chance of downing the such opponents. Still very strong. Maybe less is better?
Next, the G41 (14.4):
-10% leaves it with 12.96 damage which we can round to 13. This exceeds the h value, so we can apply the same suggestions which we were to apply to the previous case
Next, the fully upgraded machine gun damage (13.2):
-10% leaves 11.9 damage. This exceeds the h value, so we can apply the same suggestions which we were to apply to the previous case.
Next, the STG 44 (9.6):
-10% leaves it with ~8.6 damage. We get a 31% chance of downing the opponent with body armour and vitality.
An un-upgraded STG has a negligible chance to down an opponent with body armour and vitality in one shot.
Body armour will always be a considerable, but maybe this helps somewhat.
Perhaps you feel that the percentage values I have assigned are too extreme. Feel free to suggest alternatives.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
- Yes
- No
If yes:
- greater than 75
- 50<=% <=75
- 25<=%<50
- <=25
- greater than 75
- 50<=% <=75
- 25<=%<50
- <=25
- greater than 75
- 50<=% <=75
- 25<=%<50
- <=25
- greater than 75
- 50<=% <=75
- 25<=%<50
- <=25
- 100%
- Less
In consideration of body armour+ vitality:
- 100%
- Less
- Add to the perk we already have
- Introduce a new perk
- No change
- other
I could add more polls for specificity, but that would be too much into specifics, and gets complicated. If the idea gets forwarded to the devs, they surely can consider a reasonable chance which the STG 44 can down an opponent at point blank with a body shot.
