Random damage mutator needed badly...

[[C22]-Acolyte]

Ohh nice...

One thing I'd like to see randomized is the reload time. Sometimes the guy would fumble and the reload time would take a tad bit longer. Maybe it could even increase when the Inf guy is out of stamina. I remember in the army that sometimes getting those mags out of the harness took a long time

 

[{GD}Odie3]

Got a new version ready. Now the damage should be more equally spread out between the min and max values. There's also a verbose mode that reports damage fluctuations and gathers some statistics. As before, 'mutate help' will show you how to use the new stuff.
[/list]

New version on GD with Verbose=True (for testing). Ya'll can test tonight.

I assume when logged in as administrator I can turn on/off the verbose setting.

Thanks!

 

[Demosthanese]

Conefire does the same thing. It makes hitting someone with an aimed bullet a semi-random event instead of an easily predictable one.

If you can find a better way, do it, but conefire is still better than shooting
straight at the center of a crosshair on full auto. Cone fire is the quick fix, and
free-aim is the better sollution.

The only way I can see of doing this properly is to model ever single organ,
including all the blood vessels, and modeling both permanant and temporary
cavaties, the effects of a cavitation, and a 2.4 Thz processor to run the game.

 

[geogob]

The only way I can see of doing this properly is to model ever single organ,
including all the blood vessels, and modeling both permanant and temporary
cavaties, the effects of a cavitation, and a 2.4 Thz processor to run the game.

A simplfied model can adequatly represent a real phenomenon without having to model all it's complexities. Using probabilistic/conditionnal distribution is the best way to model such a complex process as wounding without having to model it.

Also, I'd say that the word "random" is used to much by people who don't really understand the concept of probability. It's not because you model something using random processes that it's unrealistic. On the contrary, if the processe's moments are know and well studied, you can model it to follow the real système better then 99.9% of the time. and that without needing superpercomputers.

Furthermore, in the case of bullet impacts, if you can weight the process using the travelling distance, region of impact and even atmospheric conditions, you could model with a good fidelity the inflicted damage. Similar models could be used to model the eventual disability following the impact.

finally, i totally disagree with the comparison between random damage and confire. Bullet tracjectory could also be model using stochastic processes, but the "conefire approximation" is only a first order approximation and it doesn't model very well the processes. Done that way, it isn't a very good use of a random model because it doesn't use the statistics of the real processes to model it.


ok... now i just hope I havn't lost to many people with all this lol

 

[NTKB]

THERE IS NO CONEFIRE. jesus h christ. The scope bobs and weaves just like the irons do. If you notice the scope tilting to the left you can theoretically aim towards to the left of the target and produce a hit. It is NOT random. It seems random cause you dont possess the skills to land those kind of shots. So take your bogus argument and GO HOME.

 

[DamienW]

THERE IS NO CONEFIRE. jesus h christ. The scope bobs and weaves just like the irons do. If you notice the scope tilting to the left you can theoretically aim towards to the left of the target and produce a hit. It is NOT random. It seems random cause you dont possess the skills to land those kind of shots. So take your bogus argument and GO HOME.

I don't think KW meant that there is conefire, i think he meant that random damage is a bad in his opinion as conefire, since they both introduce a part of randomness.

Wich i don't agree with. For what i've seen so far, random damage prettymuch increases the average damage, not decreases it. Therefore, you still drop your target in a burst, but you also now can drop them in one hit. And anything that tends towards making "being shot" a bad idea is good in my book. I strongly dislike the idea that no matter what, you know you'll survive a single 5.56mm round.

 

[Demosthanese]

Not only will you survive it, but you will go on to run the marathon in record times.

 

[NTKB]

Ok with the settings we have on GD, 100%-300% damage you will now sustain a 70-80 HP shot with a 5.56mm round on the average. 20-30% of the time you will kill with one hit, and 20-30% of the time you will take less damage, around 50-60 HP. The summery of this is that high powered rifle rounds will now do what they are supposed to do, kill or seriously wound whoever you hit with them.

 

[Grim_Reaper ~UFS~]

I've got a better idea. How about instead of making damage random, how about death? Because in real life you never know if that shot to the chest will hit your vitals or just graze. For example, better gun means better chance of death in a certain area. EG:

M9- 30% chance of death to the chest (so youd need around 3-4 shots against an unarmored guy)

M16- 70% chance of death to teh chest

etc. etc.

Armor would decrease the possibility of death.

 

[geogob]

euh... isn't that kinda the same thing with the way health/death is handled in infiltration?

 

[Grim_Reaper ~UFS~]

well wouldnt it be more random? at 3 shots youd have a surefire kill but even 1 shot might kill.

 

[Freon]

no Grim, with 3 shot you might still live. Even with a full magazine. Too much randomness can give very frustrating results

 

[DamienW]

I fully agree with Freon here. Taking an extreme example : Lineage II. Each monster has a certain drop rate for items. I killed enough monsters of acertain type to get this item droppedstatistically, but it didn't happen, because i was unlucky. Later, i killed one weak monster because he was in the way, and got his rare, one-in-a-thousand drop.

Bottom line : total randomness will, soner or later, lead to weird results. I however dislike the fixed hitpoints system aswell, so what i'd like to see is a combination of both : each bullet, no matter the type, has a chance to kill, BUT, at the sametime, the current damage system is kept. This way, you get some bullets that kill in one hit, but you never get a guy that gets hit 4 times and lives.

 

[Crowze]

How about keeping the current damage system, but adding an extra chance of being killed instantly which depends on your current health?

 

[ant75]

I like crowze's idea. Also, if a random damage mutator is used, i'd really like the random values to be thoroughly tested, and then permanently hardcoded into the mutator, so that it's the same on every server. I wouldn't to see an uber mp5 again.
Wait, did i just requested a rav3 ?

 

[Crowze]

Zum. Actually, it isn't as simple as it sounds - depending on both the health of the person hit and a random factor, a 'critical hit' can occur, doing an extra amount of damage, which is configurable. Try it - I think I've got fairly good default settings.

 

[geogob]

Nice stuff guys... can't wait to try it all out!!!

But you should make a new gametype since this will dramatically affect gameplay ... *wink* j/k

 

[jayhova]

Does anyone have any statistics about wounds sustained in combat? What are the chances that a soldier will be incapacitated in battle by a single shot. It is very possible that a soldier could be hit four times and not be brought down. In fact it has happend more that a few times IRL. This most likely to happen when someone is wearing armour and he takes wounds that are non life threatening but that reduces combat performance.

Here is my suggestion for the best hit system that I can come up with (I'll probably post this in the suggestions forum as well)

3 types of injuries. Non-life threatening, Life threatening and incapacitating.

Non-life threatening: These would include injuries that would not produce death from blood loss. the in-game result would be that these would lower combat effectiveness and reduce the maximum carrying capacity of the soldier.

Life threatening: These are wounds that will eventually result in incapacitation and death from blood loss if left untreated. These wounds will continue to affect combat effectiveness until treated. This type of wound would be further divided into 2 categories internal and external. The external could be treated with field dressings while the internal would require the soldier be evacuated to a field hospital. Movement would possibly exacerbate these kind of wounds even when treated.

Incapacitating: You’re down. You can’t fight anymore. You may die soon.

 

[jayhova]

The difference between conefire and the proposed system is that in this system putting the bullet on the target will hurt the target not miss the target and every shot has the potential of killing the target. With cone fire the target is perfectly healthy and has no potential of dying until actually hit and then in all likelyhood won't die because of the hit point system.

 

[sir_edmond]

Medic: based off of jayhova's ideas:
Non-life threatening: after being treated by a medic you CE (combat effectiveness) is raised by a bit.
Life threatening: external: affectes your CE 4 times more than a Non-life threatening injury after being treated by a medic it turns it into a "Teated life threatening injury" it will affect your CE 2 times more than a Non-life threatening injury. Medic will also stop bleeding.
Incapatation: Medic can sustain you life (what ever is left of it ) and/or some one else transport you to a safe location.

PLZ: One bandage for one injury, not person. in otherwordsone dressing covers one injury from being shot three times.