lessions from Paintball "cover and its limitations"

[Hiver]

bleh.. that requires car technical blueprint-material simulations.... - for all different cars and other vehicles in the game.

Why not just say that 20% of bullets gets through and causes damage, and a 20% gets through but damage is reduced - while the rest get stuck somewhere or ricochet or weer off and miss because of deformation of the bullet itself?
(or something similar)

I also really doubt there will be many cars around the Wasteland looking anything other than bent heaps of corroded metal filled with overgrowth and who knows what else.

[Drool]

A whole car is not the same as one specific car part, especially windshields or one door.

A 9mm could punch clean through one door, go across the passenger compartment, and almost punch through the other door.

A single car door would provide the same protection as a wool blanket: the enemy can't see you. Well, unless you're facing off against someone with a Derringer or something. Or unless there's a dude wearing body armor between you and the door.

[Hiver]

What exactly is your problem here Drool? Do you not understand what i mean when i say "the whole car"?
It aint the door of the car.
When someone says "goes through a car" they dont mean a door or a window.

[Drool]

When someone says "goes through a car" they dont mean a door or a window.

"Goes through a car" is a painfully vague phrase. It could mean in the front and out the back or through the sides. One of those isn't going to provide much protection. You can't assume that every shot fired at you is going to impact the engine block. As I stated before, and linked to someone shooting real weapons at a real car, unless you have the engine block between you and the shooter, the car isn't going to provide much protection. A 9mm was almost able to punch right through the car from the side. That's not good protection.

Yes, if you can get behind the engine, you'll be in pretty good shape, especially if you're hiding over by the trunk so the bullet has to go through every inch of the car, but that's a big assumption. You can't assume that your opponent will be placed where that's possible.

And they were shooting at an old Buick. I can only imagine how poorly an '85 Honda Civic would hold up.

[The_Scorpion]

There's one big problem in accurately modelling how much protection an ingame cover objects provides to the player... the player. Recently, i was shown a vid what a .50 Round from a HMG does to a typical concrete wall: it dusts off some paint. And that's it. Some guys thought i'd punch through...
Now you can't expect the player to know how well that grey wall in front of him (how can you tell what kind of material this is in a game? it's a grey wall, it could be anything with paint on top) blocks caliber 7.62x51mm or .50 or 9mm rounds. So simplifications are needed on that front. rules of thumb, like "typcial small arms fire can't punch through typical walls unless these are shit walls (american housing, bamboo huts, aluminium sheets)" and then still, 9mm is a very different story from .50. The player can't always be expected to know what kind of firepower the opponent has, either.

so different protection and penetration values for different objects is probably necessary, but it needs to be somewhat manageable without requiring too much meta-knowledge on housing materials and terminal ballistics.

[Woolfe]

There's one big problem in accurately modelling how much protection an ingame cover objects provides to the player... the player. Recently, i was shown a vid what a .50 Round from a HMG does to a typical concrete wall: it dusts off some paint. And that's it. Some guys thought i'd punch through...
Now you can't expect the player to know how well that grey wall in front of him (how can you tell what kind of material this is in a game? it's a grey wall, it could be anything with paint on top) blocks caliber 7.62x51mm or .50 or 9mm rounds. So simplifications are needed on that front. rules of thumb, like "typcial small arms fire can't punch through typical walls unless these are shit walls (american housing, bamboo huts, aluminium sheets)" and then still, 9mm is a very different story from .50. The player can't always be expected to know what kind of firepower the opponent has, either.

so different protection and penetration values for different objects is probably necessary, but it needs to be somewhat manageable without requiring too much meta-knowledge on housing materials and terminal ballistics.

Actually that could be managed relatively simply through in game skills.

PC 1 has high Gun skill (or whatever) and thus recognises that the Desert Eagle he has is going to go through that Plasterboard wall and into the guy on the other side. So the game allows a certain percentage to hit, or indicates it is possible to shoot through the wall by providing a "colour" or indicator when you mouse over it or whatever.

The hardest part would be the PC recognising that a wall is plasterboard with a render, and not solid concrete. But you could allow for that as well, simply by noting an unknown value, that becomes known after a shot or 3.


Ps does anyone else chuckle everytime they read 'Lessions from Paintball'

[Crazy Wolf]

There's one big problem in accurately modelling how much protection an ingame cover objects provides to the player... the player. Recently, i was shown a vid what a .50 Round from a HMG does to a typical concrete wall: it dusts off some paint. And that's it. Some guys thought i'd punch through...
Now you can't expect the player to know how well that grey wall in front of him (how can you tell what kind of material this is in a game? it's a grey wall, it could be anything with paint on top) blocks caliber 7.62x51mm or .50 or 9mm rounds. So simplifications are needed on that front. rules of thumb, like "typcial small arms fire can't punch through typical walls unless these are shit walls (american housing, bamboo huts, aluminium sheets)" and then still, 9mm is a very different story from .50. The player can't always be expected to know what kind of firepower the opponent has, either.

so different protection and penetration values for different objects is probably necessary, but it needs to be somewhat manageable without requiring too much meta-knowledge on housing materials and terminal ballistics.

Wait, just one round? Because I'm pretty sure I've seen video of a SAW or M240 demolishing a concrete wall, using repeated application of hot lead to the surface.

[Harpo]

Even if many real life weapons would penetrate stuff that normally makes up cover in these kind of games, I would think that the game would be much more interesting if they just continued to provide cover. I say game play over realism on this one.

[J1811]

I want to see a system like this just so I can point at casual RPGS and say "that's not how real guns work! check out a proper tactical shooter like WL2". I can be kind of smug with videogames.

I would still like to see things like cars have some use for cover. Such as slowing down bullets, reducing accuracy, or making use of fog of war.

[The_Scorpion]

There's one big problem in accurately modelling how much protection an ingame cover objects provides to the player... the player. Recently, i was shown a vid what a .50 Round from a HMG does to a typical concrete wall: it dusts off some paint. And that's it. Some guys thought i'd punch through...
Now you can't expect the player to know how well that grey wall in front of him (how can you tell what kind of material this is in a game? it's a grey wall, it could be anything with paint on top) blocks caliber 7.62x51mm or .50 or 9mm rounds. So simplifications are needed on that front. rules of thumb, like "typcial small arms fire can't punch through typical walls unless these are shit walls (american housing, bamboo huts, aluminium sheets)" and then still, 9mm is a very different story from .50. The player can't always be expected to know what kind of firepower the opponent has, either.

so different protection and penetration values for different objects is probably necessary, but it needs to be somewhat manageable without requiring too much meta-knowledge on housing materials and terminal ballistics.

Wait, just one round? Because I'm pretty sure I've seen video of a SAW or M240 demolishing a concrete wall, using repeated application of hot lead to the surface.

peashooters like an M240? maybe if they kept firing for three days or something, the wall would collapse out of boredom.

as for indicating whether a wall can be shot through or not... ehhh i don't like this much. A wall with some pop-up "hey this here is a wall that can be shot through using weapons with ammo from 5.56 upwards, now find out what ammo your enemies use..." this becomes gamey way too fast. Players should be able to plot behind which wall they want to hide a few blocks away without having to go through several pop-up charts of which wall covers them effevtively enough.

[Crazy Wolf]

...peashooters like an M240? maybe if they kept firing for three days or something, the wall would collapse out of boredom. ...

I really can't tell if you're being sarcastic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwZPJgkF6G8
This is an M14, firing the 7.62x51mm NATO round that the M240 does. It has a significantly lower rate of fire than the M240. Observe its effect on this concrete cinderblock wall.

[GodComplex]

He's prolly confusing the .223 M249 with the .308 M240. Though a .223 will punch a hole through the width of cinder block.

[The_Scorpion]

if you compare an M240 to anything that fires .50 BMG, it's a peashooter. 7.62 Nato can't do jack shit to a serious wall, especially if .50 can't. Very clear and very simple ballistics.

also Cinderblock?? i was referring to a proper concrete wall, not cheapo american syndicate-approved (read: dirt instead of concrete) materials housing

[Harpo]

if you compare an M240 to anything that fires .50 BMG, it's a peashooter. 7.62 Nato can't do jack shit to a serious wall, especially if .50 can't. Very clear and very simple ballistics.

also Cinderblock?? i was referring to a proper concrete wall, not cheapo american syndicate-approved (read: dirt instead of concrete) materials housing

I was under the impression that the Americans used cardboard and paper mache when constructing their homes.

[happy04]

I see so many threads about cover, and let me insert my two bits.

I feel that cover should not only reduce chance to hit, but based on where the bullet came from possibly reduce incoming damage rather than eliminate it. This is like many comments saying that with cover you are not absolutely protected, a couple of bricks is not bullet proof, however the bullets are twisted away from their target or slowed or if hollow point most of their payload will be spent into the brick. This is not true for AP ammo.

If cover gives a defensive bonus it should NOT give an offensive bonus. Hiding behind a bunch of bricks obscures your own view, makes you position your weapon awkwardly, and it makes you more cautious when poking yourself out. If anything being under cover should be a give and take, not advisable versus small or hard to hit enemies.

I do not want wasteland 2 to have any type of "high ground = ridiculous range" mechanic like from Fo:T, it should function just like normal cover than keeps you from being hit, affects line of sight, and makes it harder to hit because you are hiding behind some junk.

Explosives and heavy weapons should be able to bleed through or destroy most shoddy walls, brick barricades, doors, and random junk that might be used as cover. This allows a player with a rocket launcher to largely disregard enemy cover at the expense of rockets. This allows a player with a heavy machine gun to largely disregard enemy cover at the expense of several "turns" and "clips" of ammo randomly spraying hoping to hit the enemy.

TLDR

Cover should not be an insta win pure advantage.

Cover should not be invincible to all weapons and should not be permanent.

[davepark]

I love reading posts on this forum as I get more information regarding weapons.

[RoboRevolution]

peashooters like an M240? maybe if they kept firing for three days or something, the wall would collapse out of boredom.

Have you ever fired an M240? Peashooter is the last thing I'd use to describe it.

[RoboRevolution]

if you compare an M240 to anything that fires .50 BMG, it's a peashooter. 7.62 Nato can't do jack shit to a serious wall, especially if .50 can't. Very clear and very simple ballistics.

also Cinderblock?? i was referring to a proper concrete wall, not cheapo american syndicate-approved (read: dirt instead of concrete) materials housing

Oh boy, had to drop in the digs against the US. At least try and use something that makes sense when you do.

.50 BMG Ball rounds can't penetrate 3/4 mild steel either. Use the AP rounds the Military typically uses, and they'll go right through concrete, same with .308.

[The_Scorpion]

I see so many threads about cover, and let me insert my two bits.

I feel that cover should not only reduce chance to hit, but based on where the bullet came from possibly reduce incoming damage rather than eliminate it. This is like many comments saying that with cover you are not absolutely protected, a couple of bricks is not bullet proof, however the bullets are twisted away from their target or slowed or if hollow point most of their payload will be spent into the brick. This is not true for AP ammo.

If cover gives a defensive bonus it should NOT give an offensive bonus. Hiding behind a bunch of bricks obscures your own view, makes you position your weapon awkwardly, and it makes you more cautious when poking yourself out. If anything being under cover should be a give and take, not advisable versus small or hard to hit enemies.

I do not want wasteland 2 to have any type of "high ground = ridiculous range" mechanic like from Fo:T, it should function just like normal cover than keeps you from being hit, affects line of sight, and makes it harder to hit because you are hiding behind some junk.

Explosives and heavy weapons should be able to bleed through or destroy most shoddy walls, brick barricades, doors, and random junk that might be used as cover. This allows a player with a rocket launcher to largely disregard enemy cover at the expense of rockets. This allows a player with a heavy machine gun to largely disregard enemy cover at the expense of several "turns" and "clips" of ammo randomly spraying hoping to hit the enemy.

TLDR

Cover should not be an insta win pure advantage.

Cover should not be invincible to all weapons and should not be permanent.

Good point about the drawbacks of cover. Though i feel it's not easy to implement that into a game, just as with the minute details of construction material's properties or terminal ballistic properties of ammo. There's a certain level of abstraction when your character takes up a position in the map/ level, and now how to tell the player how much his vision is obstrcuted e.g. by a tree in front of him? assuming a grid-based map, should data about the grid pop up that warns the player about this? but then it also needs to take facing into account. Then, if the fov is obstrcuted, do we make the character blind or do we just reduce his chance to hit? I think this gets complicated rather fast, eve if it makes sense.
My point of reference is always Ja2, it has individual data for each material in the game on how much concealment and how much cover it gives, how easy it can be penetrated, what ammo type goes through how easily etc. but for example, you can still set up your HMG/ sniper rifle directly behind a fat tree trunk and still see and fire at anything straight out of the trunk's direction. I figure the game assumes you're placing the gun besides the object and stick out the head for firing or some sort of abstraction, while it handles stances differently, e.g. if you go prone behind an object that obstructs your vision, you both lose line of sigth to the target and (thus) chance to Hit.
So in this example of Ja2, cover obstructing your field of view is modelled in regards to the vertical axis, but not in regards to the horizontal axis if you're right behind the object (but if you aren't right behind the object, then it is also modelled for the horizontal axis)

Personally, it feels a bit weird to be able to set up a large ass gun behind a tree and not having to manouever in any way firing at enemies coming right out of the tree's direction, but then again, the hassle to model how your characters needs to set up the gun besides and object and lean around it to fire... ehhh... might be a tad excessive, too.

High ground is an interesting topic. will depend on how W2's levels will look like, but it is done poorly in many games

wearing down an enemies cover, not only with explosives/ heavy weapons but also with gunfire should be there. This is one of the few things i miss about the cover implementation in Ja2, where typcially normal gunfire doesn't damage objects other than windows and explosive objects. Silent storm may have been a bit excessive with it, but there may be acceptable middle ground to be found.

For your very first paragraph, there's of course several different elements that you take into account: if AI fires at our characters, what influence does cover plausibly have?
- character is harder to see
- Non-visible parts of our character are harder to hit
- Non-visible parts of our character might be protected, so the round is stopped or its damage is reduced by cover (depending on material)
- visible parts of our character are small and surrounded by other objects -> harder to hit but not protected

That's basicly that, now it's the job of the game's mechanic and implementation to model this and define how much abstraction is required. For example, if an enemy is partly protected by an object, should the game allow us to fire at invisible parts of his body that we know/ figure where they are? if he hides behinds weak cover, and our bullets may pass through, is it an option to fire at these hidden body parts rather than at what little of the enemy sticks out of cover (might be harder to hit...) Games typically allow to fire at part of the body (in more or less details) but imagine we see part of the enemies torso stick out of cover and part of it is hidden... if we can only fire at the visible parts, we might miss completely (fire too high or something) but if we're allowed to decide to aim at the larger, hidden, parts, we may score a hit but with reduced damage.

and sorry to everybody who gets butthurt at his favourite gun being compared to a gun with a larger caliber. Of course your favourite boomstick is the single most awesome Uber-gun ever

[reiniat]

if you compare an M240 to anything that fires .50 BMG, it's a peashooter. 7.62 Nato can't do jack shit to a serious wall, especially if .50 can't. Very clear and very simple ballistics.

also Cinderblock?? i was referring to a proper concrete wall, not cheapo american syndicate-approved (read: dirt instead of concrete) materials housing

Oh boy, had to drop in the digs against the US. At least try and use something that makes sense when you do.

.50 BMG Ball rounds can't penetrate 3/4 mild steel either. Use the AP rounds the Military typically uses, and they'll go right through concrete, same with .308.

That info doesn't really matter, we need balance trough ingame mechanics, not real-life stats.
Also its funny, because armor will resist tons of bullets and people will bleed tons of blood and our "guts exploded in a blood sausage" ten times in a round. But buildings will fall like cinderblocks
In real life i shot a heron once with a Mendoza rifle, wich uses diábolos, at 15m and it went right trough the whole bird from the back to his chest and died instantly. But we are not going to put that in-game right?