BUFF 7.62x39 and 5.56 DON'T nerf anything

@turyl said in BUFF 7.62x39 and 5.56 DON'T nerf anything:

@marksmanmax
THANK YOU so much for actually going into detail about this! I don't have the patience to go point to point correcting people.

The calibers simply need to be modeled better in general.

Hey, that's what I'm here for!

Yeah, the calibers are all fucked, honestly.

@turyl said in BUFF 7.62x39 and 5.56 DON'T nerf anything:

@cool_lad Well, what even is light armor in this game? is it kevlar? if so that won't stop a 7.62x51. Even if it somehow did the impact alone could still kill you. (breakig ribs and puncturing organs)

I think light armor should be kevlar. So it can stop pistol rounds but not rifle rounds.

I would have to test more but i think heavy armor is already ok.

Light Armor in this game barely stops pistol rounds, even. It used to do a better job before it was nerfed six months ago. However, it can stop .308 rounds from some battle rifles (somehow) while being unable to prevent any intermediate calibers like 7.62 and 5.56 from killing with the same amount of shots.

Heavy Armor actually still fails to stop intermediate calibers at all (in CQB, at least) but helps more against battle rifles and pistols.

Honestly, this shit makes zero sense.


@Mainfold Ah shit, here we go again.

@mainfold said in BUFF 7.62x39 and 5.56 DON'T nerf anything:

@sgt-kanyo With the .50 AE example you're moving into kinetic energy calculations, you're trying to twist an argument into having weight but you don't even know the physics for why it deals the damage it does.. smdh
Ek = 1/2 mv^2

Kanyo touched on this, but let me tell you; ballistics is a very complicated topic. Different bullets have different behaviors, even if they're the same caliber. 5.56 tends to yaw if I recall correctly. That might be 5.45 though. Still, there's a lot of shit involved with ballistics that's hard to replicate with standard math.

For instance, .45 ACP in a handgun tends to feel kinda "bouncy", but it's overall pretty comfortable to shoot. However, .40 S&W, a technically-smaller bullet, feels "snappier" to most people.

You can't just whip out...

Kinetic Energy = (1/2) x Mass x Velocity^2

...and expect to be believed by anyone, because it's not that simple at all. At this point, you're making yourself look like an even bigger idiot.

Take the L, and move on.

@mainfold said in BUFF 7.62x39 and 5.56 DON'T nerf anything:

A .50 AE is a heavy projectile (high mass) moving at a relatively high velocity but not rifle-velocity because of the short barrels of the Desert Eagle (that's often the ones used for the measurements of it) but it is such a heavy round that it still has between 1900 to 2200+ joules of energy. That's almost double that of a 5.56x45mm NATO.. so you should be able to understand exactly why that is such a "heavy hitter" for PRETTY OBVIOUS REASONS.

It's got power, for sure, but it'll still underperform against armor due to the low bullet velocity and high surface area of the bullet.

@mainfold said in BUFF 7.62x39 and 5.56 DON'T nerf anything:

The way you try to argue makes it seem like you're not particularly familiar with ballistics nor physics in general. Do you call yourself "Sgt." just because you like the sound of it?

Really? Trying to insult the guy (who I'm pretty sure actually served in the military and is very likely a Sergeant) for lying about his rank? Really?

It might be justified if you actually knew what the fuck you were talking about. Sadly, you do not.

@mainfold said in BUFF 7.62x39 and 5.56 DON'T nerf anything:

Some of us on here have actually served and used a plethora of the weapons in the game, and have countless rounds fired in each of them.... but I don't expect everyone to have in-depth knowledge about firearms or have served (or even have much knowledge about firearms even if they HAVE served), but if you're going to try to be a smart-ass..... at least just google some basics about ballistics.

Let me guess: You googled the Kinetic Energy equation, pasted it and called it a day? Again, there's more to ballistics than a single mathematical equation.

@mainfold said in BUFF 7.62x39 and 5.56 DON'T nerf anything:

I tried to simplify it so people could get the gist of it without having to know a vast amount about the topic, but you just had to come and be snarky..

So is this your full ballistics explanation? If it is, then this just proves you're a dumbass.

@mainfold said in BUFF 7.62x39 and 5.56 DON'T nerf anything:

@marksmanmax A 12gauge slug has equal or greater energy than a 7.62x51mm/.308 (usually close to 50% more), and you wonder why it can more effectively kill than a .308? lol

First of all, you'd have to show me the stats saying a slug has more energy than a .308 round.

Second, I used the .308 damage on an unarmored target versus slug rounds on an armored target; one with Heavy Armor, no less. Slugs cannot penetrate plate armor or soft armor, while a 308 should definitely get through soft armor, at least.

@mainfold said in BUFF 7.62x39 and 5.56 DON'T nerf anything:

Glock 17 doesn't have better velocity than the MP5's...

The in-game stats disagree with you on that one.

@mainfold said in BUFF 7.62x39 and 5.56 DON'T nerf anything:

...some pistols (like the P226) have different twist-rates etc, and get better velocities...

Even with my limited knowledge of twist rates, this is bullshit if I've ever heard it.

Actually, don't twist rates affect the accuracy of the weapon? How fast the bullet is spinning would have no effect on how fast the bullet travels. Welcome to physics!

@mainfold said in BUFF 7.62x39 and 5.56 DON'T nerf anything:

...you have to remember one thing when it comes to pistol-calibers... a LOT of the problems with it is, the ammo is often optimized for pistol use and not carbine use, so it's a high burn-rate powder that is meant to burn up completely before exiting a pistol-barrel, and when you then put it into a longer barrel it might underperform velocity-wise (but it varries).

Just because the powder burns completely doesn't mean the bullet stops accelerating. The bullet accelerates until it leaves the barrel. Longer barrel length = better velocity.

@mainfold said in BUFF 7.62x39 and 5.56 DON'T nerf anything:

Granted, they seemed to have used SIG's numbers for the P226/L106A1 for upper limit to velocity when using +P ammo in it...

So why doesn't Sandstorm's stats state that? They mention guns that have AP and guns that don't have AP. Why leave out +P ammo from the stats?

@mainfold said in BUFF 7.62x39 and 5.56 DON'T nerf anything:

...the MP5 for instance loses some velocity due to it's heavier mechanism it has to move when also being "blockback"-recoil driven, whereas a gas-operated pistol-caliber carbine would have more velocity usually.

So physics is gonna disagree with you on this one.

Newton's Third Law: "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." The bullet firing forward causes the gun to recoil backward.

How the gun handles recoil wouldn't affect the bullet at all, unless maybe some of the gas that would propel the bullet is lost for some reason.

Oh, and by the way, the P226 and Glock 17 also have higher bullet velocities than the Uzi, so have fun justifying that one.

@mainfold said in BUFF 7.62x39 and 5.56 DON'T nerf anything:

The numbers are still technically "correct", just them choosing the P226's ammo will be +P ammo...

But Sandstorm's stats don't say that, so your point is invalid.

Trying to justify something by stating that something's happening, that the game doesn't acknowledge, is pretty retarded.

@mainfold said in BUFF 7.62x39 and 5.56 DON'T nerf anything:

...your point about "as all the powder burns", well it doesn't on the SCAR-H for instance, round leaves the barrel before then, so its short barrel lands the round's velocity at that of the AKM by the time both have had their projectiles leave the barrel, those are the very same numbers as they have in real life.

Good job ignoring my main point, which is that 7.62x39 and 7.62x51 rounds have different weights or "grains". If a 124-grain 7.62x39 round is moving at the same speed as a 180-grain 7.62x51 round, then the 7.62x51mm round has more energy than the 7.62x39mm round.

After all, the KE equation is (1/2) x Mass x Velocity^2, and while the mass is increasing for the .308 round, the velocity remains constant, so the energy is higher. I don't know why I need to explain this to a "ballistics expert", but here we are.

@mainfold said in BUFF 7.62x39 and 5.56 DON'T nerf anything:

You can probably google it and see it being the case. It makes perfect sense they have the same penetration when they have the same projectile moving at the same speed.. that's literally how it works.

You'd be correct if the projectile was the same. However, as stated before, it is not.

@mainfold said in BUFF 7.62x39 and 5.56 DON'T nerf anything:

Things are working as they should...

I think I've proved otherwise at this point.

@mainfold said in BUFF 7.62x39 and 5.56 DON'T nerf anything:

...your OPINION being that [the SCAR-H] should be performing better...

I think most people agree that the SCAR-H is far weaker than it should be for a .308 rifle, so it's not just my opinion.

Also, what you're saying is also either just opinion or blatantly-incorrect facts.

@mainfold said in BUFF 7.62x39 and 5.56 DON'T nerf anything:

[The SCAR-H is] working as it does in real life and that's why it's based on the numbers they use.

Except it currently doesn't work like real life at all. Maybe one day, you'll figure this out. One day.

@sgt-kanyo said in BUFF 7.62x39 and 5.56 DON'T nerf anything:

Once again let me just bring up the SCAR-H:
US Army: Right folks we need a new AR, since our 5.56 based M4s don't always kill with 1 shot.
FN Herstal: Sure man, here's an AR that is just as "bad" in killing term as the M4, but at least it only has a 20 round mag and weighs a lot more.
US Army: That's amazing, we'll take it.

This represents the flaw in @Mainfold 's argument right here. Seriously, this man is a dumbass.

@sgt-kanyo said in BUFF 7.62x39 and 5.56 DON'T nerf anything:

Also I love how you applied high school physics here lol. Human anatomy and ballistics physics is a "bit" more complicated then that
It's so complicated that I won't pretend I know anything about it, and you shouldn't either.
You need to take into consideration how the bullet deforms on impact, how it travels through your body, if it travels through or stays in there, how it's higher weight carries more energy, how much of this energy is spread across the human body, how big in diameter it is and some stuff I can't even think of, since I'm not an expert. But I've seen videos / read in articles where these bullets kill, where they tear off arms if they hit your arm socket. Please do not argue with actual evidence.
Once again textbook is not always the same as real life. This can be said for anything.

Well put, sir! Glad to hear someone who actually served in our military who isn't a complete retard.

Seriously, at this point, I don't think @Mainfold served in the military at all. That dumbass part of him would've been beaten out.

last edited by MarksmanMax

@marksmanmax Lol thanks for the read good stuff right there! 😂. Honestly I know very little on the subject and don’t care to comment but I will say regardless of any of that there is a serious lack of bullet flinch/punch/plain and simple punishment for taking a bullet what ever you want to call it how ever you want to say it. There just plain and simple needs to be more repercussion for taking a bullet anywhere on the body... I wish they would make a hardcore mode... Lol seriously I’m not trying to split the community or player base anymore and I know it would but... Sorry not sorry I would love a mode that had AP rounds for every gun and they were free lol. Something to that effect MO.

@planetcanada said in BUFF 7.62x39 and 5.56 DON'T nerf anything:

@marksmanmax Lol thanks for the read good stuff right there! 😂.

I'm here all week lmao.

@planetcanada said in BUFF 7.62x39 and 5.56 DON'T nerf anything:

Honestly I know very little on the subject and don’t care to comment but I will say regardless of any of that there is a serious lack of bullet flinch/punch/plain and simple punishment for taking a bullet what ever you want to call it how ever you want to say it. There just plain and simple needs to be more repercussion for taking a bullet anywhere on the body... I wish they would make a hardcore mode... Lol seriously I’m not trying to split the community or player base anymore and I know it would but... Sorry not sorry I would love a mode that had AP rounds for every gun and they were free lol. Something to that effect MO.

Well, I don't really like bullet flinch as it adds RNG to the game. It also heavily rewards the player who gets the first shot, which I'm not a big fan of.

However, I'm actually thinking about making a post asking for AP and HP back. I was seriously opposed to this idea for ages, but at this point I've stopped caring lmao.

@marksmanmax Well what is your stance on the effect of being shot because can’t say I know from experience but I’m pretty sure being shot first counts and that people shouldn’t be able to shrug off being shot as if it never happened. Or as though they were just stung by a wasp. I also don’t think it needs to be RNG if it’s always basically the same reaction. You get shot you have a small time penalty before being able to accurately fire your weapon. Not a big pause but something more than taking bullets while very precisely grouping bullets yourself... So I shoot you first the only time you should be able to return fire quickly and accurately enough to hit and or kill me would be if say I missed with my next bullet(s) or my mag ran out of cartridges etc. Other wise the force or impact from that first bullet hitting you (even if it does not penetrate your armour) should be enough that if I am able to land my next shot within that given time frame (penalty for being shot) I am speaking of you are going to die. If that makes any sense once again doesn’t have to be RNG everyone has the same penalty regardless of where shot from or where the bullet landed. As it stands right now the game isn’t super realistic anyways and I can run across a street and take several bullets without breaking stride then cover and return fire quite accurately with no penalty despite the fact I was stung by several wasps... Lol 😝

@planetcanada Were you fully suppressed in Insurgency: Source if you were shot? That could work, maybe.

Also, in Ins2014 getting shot at would interrupt sprinting and your stamina regeneration, among other things.

Oh yeah, and one more thing: In Sandstorm, you cannot use Focus while fully suppressed, which might be the dumbest mechanic in the game.

@planetcanada Also I would love nothing more than to see the return of my African Killer Wasps (AP Rounds Lol) but I have given up on this dream...

@planetcanada I actually just made a post about adding in AP/HP lmao.

@marksmanmax Lmao not sure how I tagged myself but either way ya I’m not sure and it doesn’t really matter I just wish that Insurgency Sandstorm was as “Realistic” and “Highly Lethal” as originally advertised when I sold on a dream that it would “Stay true to its Insurgency roots”... That’s all.

@planetcanada said in BUFF 7.62x39 and 5.56 DON'T nerf anything:

@marksmanmax Lmao not sure how I tagged myself but either way ya I’m not sure and it doesn’t really matter I just wish that Insurgency Sandstorm was as “Realistic” and “Highly Lethal” as originally advertised when I sold on a dream that it would “Stay true to its Insurgency roots”... That’s all.

That's how I feel. It's not like Insurgency at all right now.

Well just to clear things up, I did not serve in any military, I'm not even american. The name I use, came up with when I was 12 playing BF2, since the bots there were named like that as well.
Much like someone named Barrack Obama is probably not your former president playing Insurgency Sandstorm lol

But not serving in any military does not mean you're automatically wrong. I just did my homework, because this stuff is interesting for me. I base my knowledge on other experts' opinions and stuff that I've seen on actual videos.

And I kind of agree, Sandstorm hasn't really stayed true to it's roots. It could be improved if the bots we shoot at wouldn't be terminators and did actually react to being shot, like a normal human being or by making the bullets kill easier.

@sgt-kanyo Yeah lmao.

I mean, I'd just love it if I could kill a bot wearing a t-shirt with a single 5.56 round. Somehow, I can't even do that.

Well, at the end of the day, it's a video game, and it's nowhere near realistic in many cases, so choosing to be pedantic about certain things like terminal ballistics is not really helpful to the overall experience.

All other factors aside, the FAL is head and shoulders above most other guns, and that means that players choose to either take the good gun, or take a less good gun because it looks cool.

This is not a good situation for a tactical shooter, having 20 guns is meaningless if one is dominating the others as far as utility.

I miss the tension and immersion of Ins 2014, where even an M16 direct hit on an unarmored target can kill in one hit, it made everything feel important and made mistakes something that had an immediate penalty for me.

Now, I basically run around quick scoping everyone, on burst or just dumping rounds on semi, to get the effect necessary.

It's watered down what made Insurgency good, without really improving the accessibility or reducing the skill barrier to new players getting used to the game.

Can't wait to mod the damage back up to lethal levels and see how it plays.

@Sgt.Kanyo First up... FN Herstal failed the "SCAR trials", they did not meet the requirements, hence why the contract went to H&K. Secondly, the SCAR "H" Mark.17 in Sandstorm is the short "CQC" version with the 13 inch barrel, with a muzzle velocity nearly identical to the AKM because of its short barrel causing there to be a lot of unburnt powder (which just results in more recoil from the muzzle-blast rather than if it had an appropriate amount of powder that burned up in the length of the barrel), because of that short barrel the projectile doesn't build up more velocity (putting it at that velocity akin to the AKM, with the same projectile but just a longer case with more powder that will not benefit the velocity of the projectile because of the short barrel). You have to take into account WHAT VERSION of the SCAR they're using in the game, the longer barrel versions would have higher muzzle velocities and be more what people want for the CQC version, but the devs put the CQC one in for a reason, and you don't have to use it, nobody is forcing you to use it.

As I stated in my first reply because of these threads keep popping up, I've been trying to keep stuff relatively simple so people not familiar with physics and ballistics etc might be able to get a gist of understanding the concept of it and not have to go into writing an essay just to explain it and in the process alienate users that may just be interested in getting a pith on the matter, please stop your attempt of aggrandizing when you just go into examples that have zero relevance and even when they have some relevance they're not even accurately represented or done in a relevant manner.. and you're wasting time by continually trying derailing and a long list of fallacies. Go sign up for the military, you'll benefit from it.

@marksmanmax said in BUFF 7.62x39 and 5.56 DON'T nerf anything:

@sgt-kanyo Yeah lmao.

I mean, I'd just love it if I could kill a bot wearing a t-shirt with a single 5.56 round. Somehow, I can't even do that.

Networking issues primarily for that, for some reason they haven't made the servers prioritize players over bots, which is extremely frustrating. It's like Battlefield Hardline networking all over again.

Also, I use the basic formula for kinetic energy, because it's clearly what the devs are using for their damage-model in conjunction with pilodyn penetration, and I STRONGLY doubt they could be bothered to go into anecdotal variations for in-flight behavior of rounds as a major balancing factor (so it won't even play into the topic), if they did they'd have to add wind, weather and elevation simulation into the game combined with individual behaviors of different twist-rates etc. (which such a small team won't be able to take time doing, as this is not a simulator, nor do they have budget or manpower for it).
Btw, if you take "middle of the road" slug in the range of 438grains, and the corresponding motr velocity of 548m/s, you'll land north of 4260 J..
There is no Glock 17 in the game.. not anymore.
Twist-rates affect resistance in the bore, more resistance less velocity. Primary function of the rifling is to match velocity and rotation, if you start to change ammo types (different powders or amounts etc) you get into an area of accuracy vs velocity though some loads may be more optimized for a certain twist rate than the standard recommended ammo etc.

@marksmanmax said in BUFF 7.62x39 and 5.56 DON'T nerf anything:

Just because the powder burns completely doesn't mean the bullet stops accelerating. The bullet accelerates until it leaves the barrel. Longer barrel length = better velocity.

The projectile can only accelerate as long as it has an accelerating force in the form of the expanding gas, the second it no longer is expanding, it will not provide the projectile with further increasing velocity, if you put a round that burns completely in a 2" barrel into a 200" barrel it will not be continuously accelerating through those 200" of barrel, but instead start to create suction. The projectile only accelerates as long as there is a continuously expanding propellant source.

So why doesn't Sandstorm's stats state that? They mention guns that have AP and guns that don't have AP. Why leave out +P ammo from the stats?

I don't know and it annoys me as well. I would prefer it if they did. Like for crying out loud, how hard would it be to just write "+P" at the end of the ammo type since they're clearly using the +P numbers

The bullet firing forward causes the gun to recoil backward.

No. The gases as the projectile is leaving the barrel and gases affecting the action and the mass of the moving carrier assembly (for the MP5, that carrier is forced back from the inertia and force of the casing pushed on by the ignition of the powder that also propels the round forward as it expands, interacts with the bolt carrying the inertia through it to the carrier causing the carrier to move rearward and unlocking the rollers allowing the force of the gases on the case to then start pushing on the bolt) is what causes the gun to recoil.

The MP5 uses a delayed blowback system, or a roller delayed blowback operating system, it is delayed with the rollers but the bolt isn't really "locked" into the chamber like a rotating bolt with locking nuts such as an M16 has, though it does use both the force of the spring and weight of the bolt to keep it closed just like you would see on most standard linear blowback operated pistols (meaning the force of gases are delayed by the resistance of that, keeping it closed long enough for the round to leave the barrel preferably).
But the MP5 also uses the rollers to delay the action further (so to have less violent effects on casings etc allowing for better extraction and delayed felt recoil), requiring the initial inertia of the fired round to first cause the carrier behind the bolt itself to start moving rearward, and in the process starts pulling the wedge/firing-pin carrier/locking piece inside the bolt with it that is the piece preventing the rollers from unlocking and keeping the bolt "locked in" for a bit longer, the locking piece with the wedge on it moves with the carried and in the process moving the wedge of the locking piece back allowing the rollers to unlock and be pulled in (unlocking the bolt and pulling it along with the already moving carrier part of the action from the force pushing back on it via the case now that it's no longer "locked" in, after the initial inertia was enough to cause the carrier to start moving, the remaining movement is now from the force of the case pushing the bolt into the carrier). Now in this process, it does still require (just like any other blowback operated action) that equal opposite action of the action of propelling the projectile forward to operate the mechanism. Operating that mechanism then because of it is inherently going to siphon off some energy, but at that point the round will optimally have already left the barrel (or in a case of the MP5SD variants, reaching an integral suppressor/silencer area causing suction on the round slowing it down just enough to bring it to subsonic levels when using normal ammo as well, so there is no need to go for specific subsonic ammo just to get it to subsonic levels, but instead just slowing the normal projectile down).
Same general concept still applies to the UZI, but it's open-bolt action will instantly start ejecting the round the second the round is ignited and the force starts pushing back on it the bolt, combined with a bit longer barrel (which will give more accuracy from more rifling to move through spinning the round more without as much resistance as would come from a short barrel with aggressive enough rifling to cause the same spin in a shorter barrel) there are factors at play putting the round at a lower velocity from both a longer barrel and the same siphoning off of the force of the gases by the mechanism as the pistols have (but has the momentum-shift from the open-bolt slamming forward first, rather than closed-bolt like the pistols, with mostly just singular direction applied force with no shift in it from the momentum etc).

If a 124-grain 7.62x39 round is moving at the same speed as a 180-grain 7.62x51 round

Standard M80A1 7.62x51mm NATO has a 130 grain projectile. Most common 7.62x39mm FMJ for AKM's uses a 123 grain projectile. At best you're looking at around a hundred joules in difference, where the AKM sends them slightly fast, but the SCAR-H sends some slightly heavier. Still making them mostly very comparable in the given circumstances. But nobody seems to want to bring back the long-barrel option (even if it's just for something like the SCAR-H, which is what I'd like.. just some getting access to it.. allow players to spend the points if they want, make it 3 supply point even!).

I think most people agree that the SCAR-H is far weaker than it should be for a .308 rifle, so it's not just my opinion.

If it wasn't the 13 inch barrel, but instead a longer one, it'd be underperforming from what it should be, it's silly that the 13 inch version is in the game at all, but people seem to like it regardless and that's what the devs put in.

@sgt-kanyo said in BUFF 7.62x39 and 5.56 DON'T nerf anything:

Once again let me just bring up the SCAR-H:
US Army: Right folks we need a new AR, since our 5.56 based M4s don't always kill with 1 shot.
FN Herstal: Sure man, here's an AR that is just as "bad" in killing term as the M4, but at least it only has a 20 round mag >> and weighs a lot more.
US Army: That's amazing, we'll take it.

This represents the flaw in @Mainfold 's argument right here. Seriously, this man is a dumbass.

But it's not correct.. again, they didn't go for the fucking SCAR, the SCAR lost the SCAR-trials to H&K, which is why the H&K "M27 IAR"/HK416 and HK417 were adopted as the new service rifles.. as they won the SCAR-trials, and not FN Herstal.

Nice attempt at grandstanding and pandering there.. try better next time.

last edited by Mainfold

@mainfold Oh nice, the dumbass is back at it again.

@mainfold said in BUFF 7.62x39 and 5.56 DON'T nerf anything:

Secondly, the SCAR "H" Mark.17 in Sandstorm is the short "CQC" version with the 13 inch barrel, with a muzzle velocity nearly identical to the AKM because of its short barrel causing there to be a lot of unburnt powder (which just results in more recoil from the muzzle-blast rather than if it had an appropriate amount of powder that burned up in the length of the barrel), because of that short barrel the projectile doesn't build up more velocity (putting it at that velocity akin to the AKM, with the same projectile but just a longer case with more powder that will not benefit the velocity of the projectile because of the short barrel).

Bullet. Grain. How many times do I have to inform your retarded ass that the projectiles have different weights?

@mainfold said in BUFF 7.62x39 and 5.56 DON'T nerf anything:

...the devs put the CQC one in for a reason, and you don't have to use it, nobody is forcing you to use it.

"I'm defending a gun that's underpowered because you aren't forced you use it". Great game balance argument there.

@mainfold said in BUFF 7.62x39 and 5.56 DON'T nerf anything:

I've been trying to keep stuff relatively simple so people not familiar with physics and ballistics etc might be able to get a gist of understanding the concept of it and not have to go into writing an essay just to explain it and in the process alienate users that may just be interested in getting a pith on the matter...

So I'm guessing that this is your way of making you sound like you aren't retarded. Well, sadly, that's not working at all.

Why don't you write an essay on how ballistics works, then? You've already written several essays on how "the SCAR-H is -perfectly balanced". Might as well write that one.

@mainfold said in BUFF 7.62x39 and 5.56 DON'T nerf anything:

...please stop your attempt of aggrandizing when you just go into examples that have zero relevance and even when they have some relevance they're not even accurately represented or done in a relevant manner...

Good job dismissing his entire argument. I guess you can't admit that you're wrong.

@mainfold said in BUFF 7.62x39 and 5.56 DON'T nerf anything:

...and you're wasting time by continually trying derailing and a long list of fallacies.

You're one to talk?

@mainfold said in BUFF 7.62x39 and 5.56 DON'T nerf anything:

Go sign up for the military, you'll benefit from it.

Yeah, you definitely haven't served in the military. They beat that arrogance out of you.

@mainfold said in BUFF 7.62x39 and 5.56 DON'T nerf anything:

Networking issues primarily for that...

Actually, no, it's because the damage model has 5.56 kill in two torso shots on an unarmored target. You can test it yourself on the Range extremely easily.

@mainfold said in BUFF 7.62x39 and 5.56 DON'T nerf anything:

Also, I use the basic formula for kinetic energy, because it's clearly what the devs are using for their damage-model in conjunction with pilodyn penetration...

I'm pretty sure the M45 wouldn't have more penetration power than the 9mm pistols if this was correct.

@mainfold said in BUFF 7.62x39 and 5.56 DON'T nerf anything:

Btw, if you take "middle of the road" slug in the range of 438grains, and the corresponding motr velocity of 548m/s, you'll land north of 4260 J..

That answers the first part of my question. Now explain to me how a slug is better against armor than a .308.

@mainfold said in BUFF 7.62x39 and 5.56 DON'T nerf anything:

There is no Glock 17 in the game.. not anymore.

Who's gonna tell him?

@mainfold said in BUFF 7.62x39 and 5.56 DON'T nerf anything:

Twist-rates affect resistance in the bore, more resistance less velocity.

I'm pretty sure this is just blatantly incorrect. Velocity is again determined primarily by barrel length because the bullet is pressurized for a longer period of time. Twist rates affect the stability of the bullet in flight, not the velocity.

@mainfold said in BUFF 7.62x39 and 5.56 DON'T nerf anything:

The projectile can only accelerate as long as it has an accelerating force in the form of the expanding gas, the second it no longer is expanding, it will not provide the projectile with further increasing velocity...

So, when you take two of the exact same round and put both of them into rifles with two different barrel lengths, why does one rifle get better velocity than the other with the same cartridge?

@mainfold said in BUFF 7.62x39 and 5.56 DON'T nerf anything:

I don't know and it annoys me as well. I would prefer it if they did. Like for crying out loud, how hard would it be to just write "+P" at the end of the ammo type since they're clearly using the +P numbers...

Or... hear me out.. the stats are wrong? I bet you think Sandstorm has no bugs or glitches at allat this point.

@mainfold said in BUFF 7.62x39 and 5.56 DON'T nerf anything:

No. The gases as the projectile is leaving the barrel and gases affecting the action and the mass of the moving carrier assembly (for the MP5, that carrier is forced back from the inertia and force of the casing pushed on by the ignition of the powder that also propels the round forward as it expands, interacts with the bolt carrying the inertia through it to the carrier causing the carrier to move rearward and unlocking the rollers allowing the force of the gases on the case to then start pushing on the bolt) is what causes the gun to recoil.

This one's funny, because you actually proved yourself wrong with your own words. Let me show you what you said here...

The gases as the projectile is leaving the barrel...

Guess what? As soon as the bullet leaves the barrel, it's no longer gaining any more velocity! It's now slowing down due to air resistance! Oh boy!'

Won't even bother with the next two paragraphs as you already proved yourself wrong.

@mainfold said in BUFF 7.62x39 and 5.56 DON'T nerf anything:

Same general concept still applies to the UZI, but it's open-bolt action will instantly start ejecting the round the second the round is ignited and the force starts pushing back on it the bolt...

It's not pushing back on the bolt because it's an open-bolt weapon? I don't know much about these, to be fair, but I'm pretty sure you're wrong here.

@mainfold said in BUFF 7.62x39 and 5.56 DON'T nerf anything:

Standard M80A1 7.62x51mm NATO has a 130 grain projectile.

"The U.S. Army has developed an improved version of the M80 ball 7.62mm round, called the M80A1. The M80A1 incorporates changes found in the M855A1 5.56 mm round. Like the M855A1, the M80A1 is expected to have better hard-target penetration, more consistent performance against soft targets, and significantly increased distances of these effects over the M80. The bullet is redesigned with a copper jacket and exposed hardened steel penetrator, eliminating 114.5 grains (7.4 g) of lead with production of each M80A1 projectile.[15] The M80A1 began fielding in September 2014.[16]"

This bullet is specifically designed to have better performance at long range. As you said, "the devs put the CQC [SCAR-H] in for a reason", so the SCAR-H would not be firing this type of ammunition as it is not designed to be used at close range.

Most .308 rounds I'm seeing are between 147-175 grains, which is a significant increase over the standard 124-grain AKM round.

@mainfold said in BUFF 7.62x39 and 5.56 DON'T nerf anything:

If it wasn't the 13 inch barrel, but instead a longer one, it'd be underperforming from what it should be, it's silly that the 13 inch version is in the game at all, but people seem to like it regardless and that's what the devs put in.

Again, I've definitely proved at this point that the SCAR should be doing considerably more damage.

@mainfold said in BUFF 7.62x39 and 5.56 DON'T nerf anything:

But it's not correct.. again, they didn't go for the fucking SCAR, the SCAR lost the SCAR-trials to H&K, which is why the H&K "M27 IAR"/HK416 and HK417 were adopted as the new service rifles.. as they won the SCAR-trials, and not FN Herstal.
Nice attempt at grandstanding and pandering there.. try better next time.

This might have some impact, except for the fact that you've been insulting and disrespecting everyone on this Forum post the entire time. Again, you're one to talk?

last edited by MarksmanMax

@marksmanmax For someone that wasn't even a teenager yet when I served, those are bold claims you make. And I'm not exactly sure where you're getting all these "insulting and disrespecting everyone on this forum post the entire time" from, as you're the only one really going out of your way to do such. Barely once pointed (accurately mind you) that someone didn't seem like they had served. You're the one going out of your way to use ad hominem and failing to provide actual counter-arguments. You're saying something is wrong and not actually providing a counter-argument.
Don't be surprised if moderators come along and take measures of addressing your behavior, as this is not the first time you have been behaving toxic on the forum, and you are well aware of this.

I think @MarksmanMax did a good job with his counterargument.

Personally I'm looking forward to you googling what grains are and find out bullet weight is a thing. Maybe you'll deliver a counterargument yourself which isn't laughable.

@mainfold said in BUFF 7.62x39 and 5.56 DON'T nerf anything:

For someone that wasn't even a teenager yet when I served, those are bold claims you make.

"A teenager, or teen, is a person who falls within the ages of 13 to 19 years old."

You joined the military when you were 12? I don't think so, buddy.

@mainfold said in BUFF 7.62x39 and 5.56 DON'T nerf anything:

And I'm not exactly sure where you're getting all these "insulting and disrespecting everyone on this forum post the entire time" from...

Let's see here...

The weapon damage in the game is 100% working as intended and based on physics. Don't argue with it.

The velocities of different weapons are based on what they have in real life. Don't argue with it.

The damage is based on projectile type (size/weight/mass/material/etc) combined with velocity. Don't argue with that either.

All the ballistic performances of weapons in the game are working as intended. Do not argue with it.

Telling someone not to argue with you on a platform literally designed for arguments and discussion is absurd. Also, telling someone that they "can't argue with you" as if you're some kind of God is pretty disrespectful.

Also, you're not a developer, so unless you heard NWI say that something's working as intended, you can't accurately say that so-and-so is working properly.

Damage and such is working as intended, you're just not used to it because you're used to other video games that don't do it right.

Here, you're making assumptions without any evidence about the OP and other people to try and strengthen your own point. Not very respectful or logical.

Probably just unaware, possibly too used to CoD or Battlefield games

Yet another assumption here.

you're trying to twist an argument into having weight but you don't even know the physics for why it deals the damage it does.. smdh

proceeds to list one basic physics equation to prove he's right

The way you try to argue makes it seem like you're not particularly familiar with ballistics nor physics in general. Do you call yourself "Sgt." just because you like the sound of it?

Guess you forgot about this one because this is a direct ad hominem right here.

Things are working as they should.. your OPINION being that it should be performing better doesn't detract from it working as it does in real life and that's why it's based on the numbers they use.

Somehow, something being "my opinion" immediately makes me wrong? The fuck were you on about here? Sandstorm isn't a milsim last I checked.

please stop your attempt of aggrandizing when you just go into examples that have zero relevance and even when they have some relevance they're not even accurately represented or done in a relevant manner.. and you're wasting time by continually trying derailing and a long list of fallacies. Go sign up for the military, you'll benefit from it.

Not very respectful here, either lmao.

Nice attempt at grandstanding and pandering there.. try better next time.

Or here.

Anyway, back to whatever bullshit you're spouting now.

@mainfold said in BUFF 7.62x39 and 5.56 DON'T nerf anything:

You're the one going out of your way to use ad hominem and failing to provide actual counter-arguments.

Quite the contrary. I'm attacking your arguments, but they fall short so badly that I'm starting to just attack your character due to how stupid you're making yourself look.

@mainfold said in BUFF 7.62x39 and 5.56 DON'T nerf anything:

Barely once pointed (accurately mind you) that someone didn't seem like they had served.

Barely?

Do you call yourself "Sgt." just because you like the sound of it?

@mainfold said in BUFF 7.62x39 and 5.56 DON'T nerf anything:

You're saying something is wrong and not actually providing a counter-argument.

That's because a couple of Google searches would literally just prove you wrong immediately.

It's hard to actually prove you wrong when the facts you're spouting out are just blatantly incorrect. All I can do is copy the actual facts from other sources. Take it or leave it.

@mainfold said in BUFF 7.62x39 and 5.56 DON'T nerf anything:

Don't be surprised if moderators come along and take measures of addressing your behavior, as this is not the first time you have been behaving toxic on the forum, and you are well aware of this.

Toxic? Really?

First of all, I've been here since before the CTA, and I've never been warned by a moderator that I'm being "toxic".

Second, I'm pretty sure you're the one who needs to be worrying about that.

last edited by MarksmanMax

@whitby said in BUFF 7.62x39 and 5.56 DON'T nerf anything:

I think @MarksmanMax did a good job with his counterargument.

Personally I'm looking forward to you googling what grains are and find out bullet weight is a thing. Maybe you'll deliver a counterargument yourself which isn't laughable.

He did that already, and then proceeded to cherrypick one of the lightest .308 bullets, used at long range, to use in his argument to say the SCAR-H, which he himself stated was designed for CQC, is "working as intended". Guy's a complete dumbass, honestly.

last edited by MarksmanMax

@mainfold One more thing. I do love how you don't even respond to everything I say, while I typically try to respond to the whole text (unless some of it says basically the same thing/is pretty much correct). In fact, you really have to cherrypick my argument to even make yours look somewhat good (spoiler: it's still shit).

So, in your last post, let me just repost everything you didn't comment on, and because you didn't talk about it, I'm going to assume that it's because I'm correct:

(Your posts are in italics and mine are bolded).

...the devs put the CQC one in for a reason, and you don't have to use it, nobody is forcing you to use it.

"I'm defending a gun that's underpowered because you aren't forced you use it". Great game balance argument there.

I've been trying to keep stuff relatively simple so people not familiar with physics and ballistics etc might be able to get a gist of understanding the concept of it and not have to go into writing an essay just to explain it and in the process alienate users that may just be interested in getting a pith on the matter...

So I'm guessing that this is your way of making you sound like you aren't retarded. Well, sadly, that's not working at all.

Why don't you write an essay on how ballistics works, then? You've already written several essays on how "the SCAR-H is perfectly balanced". Might as well write that one.

...please stop your attempt of aggrandizing when you just go into examples that have zero relevance and even when they have some relevance they're not even accurately represented or done in a relevant manner...

Good job dismissing his entire argument. I guess you can't admit that you're wrong.

...and you're wasting time by continually trying derailing and a long list of fallacies.

You're one to talk?

Networking issues primarily for that...

Actually, no, it's because the damage model has 5.56 kill in two torso shots on an unarmored target. You can test it yourself on the Range extremely easily.

Also, I use the basic formula for kinetic energy, because it's clearly what the devs are using for their damage-model in conjunction with pilodyn penetration...

I'm pretty sure the M45 wouldn't have more penetration power than the 9mm pistols if this was correct.

Btw, if you take "middle of the road" slug in the range of 438grains, and the corresponding motr velocity of 548m/s, you'll land north of 4260 J..

That answers the first part of my question. Now explain to me how a slug is better against armor than a .308.

Funny enough, you didn't even respond to this properly in your post before this lmao.

There is no Glock 17 in the game.. not anymore.

Who's gonna tell him?

Twist-rates affect resistance in the bore, more resistance less velocity.

I'm pretty sure this is just blatantly incorrect. Velocity is again determined primarily by barrel length because the bullet is pressurized for a longer period of time. Twist rates affect the stability of the bullet in flight, not the velocity.

The projectile can only accelerate as long as it has an accelerating force in the form of the expanding gas, the second it no longer is expanding, it will not provide the projectile with further increasing velocity...

So, when you take two of the exact same round and put both of them into rifles with two different barrel lengths, why does one rifle get better velocity than the other with the same cartridge?

I don't know and it annoys me as well. I would prefer it if they did. Like for crying out loud, how hard would it be to just write "+P" at the end of the ammo type since they're clearly using the +P numbers...

Or... hear me out.. the stats are wrong? I bet you think Sandstorm has no bugs or glitches at all at this point.

No. The gases as the projectile is leaving the barrel and gases affecting the action and the mass of the moving carrier assembly (for the MP5, that carrier is forced back from the inertia and force of the casing pushed on by the ignition of the powder that also propels the round forward as it expands, interacts with the bolt carrying the inertia through it to the carrier causing the carrier to move rearward and unlocking the rollers allowing the force of the gases on the case to then start pushing on the bolt) is what causes the gun to recoil.

This one's funny, because you actually proved yourself wrong with your own words. Let me show you what you said here...

"The gases as the projectile is leaving the barrel..."

Guess what? As soon as the bullet leaves the barrel, it's no longer gaining any more velocity! It's now slowing down due to air resistance! Oh boy!'

Same general concept still applies to the UZI, but it's open-bolt action will instantly start ejecting the round the second the round is ignited and the force starts pushing back on it the bolt...

It's not pushing back on the bolt because it's an open-bolt weapon? I don't know much about these, to be fair, but I'm pretty sure you're wrong here.

Standard M80A1 7.62x51mm NATO has a 130 grain projectile.

"The U.S. Army has developed an improved version of the M80 ball 7.62mm round, called the M80A1. The M80A1 incorporates changes found in the M855A1 5.56 mm round. Like the M855A1, the M80A1 is expected to have better hard-target penetration, more consistent performance against soft targets, and significantly increased distances of these effects over the M80. The bullet is redesigned with a copper jacket and exposed hardened steel penetrator, eliminating 114.5 grains (7.4 g) of lead with production of each M80A1 projectile.[15] The M80A1 began fielding in September 2014.[16]"

This bullet is specifically designed to have better performance at long range. As you said, "the devs put the CQC [SCAR-H] in for a reason", so the SCAR-H would not be firing this type of ammunition as it is not designed to be used at close range.

Most .308 rounds I'm seeing are between 147-175 grains, which is a significant increase over the standard 124-grain AKM round.

Again, I've definitely proved at this point that the SCAR should be doing considerably more damage.

Here are all those counterarguments that were in my previous post that you apparently couldn't read. I recommend you talk to your eye doctor.

last edited by MarksmanMax

@marksmanmax said in BUFF 7.62x39 and 5.56 DON'T nerf anything:

"A teenager, or teen, is a person who falls within the ages of 13 to 19 years old."
You joined the military when you were 12? I don't think so, buddy.

YOU were not a teenager yet.. smdh