S21 should be more powerful

Actually the bridge is the amount of ammo per clip and in total.

Well, the chickens are coming home to roost here when it comes to the DMR’s, mostly due to their oops in game design with the 7.62x51 cartridge.

They made the classic blunder of assuming 7.62x51 is generally the same as 7.62x39 and it’s absolutely not true. So when they introduced the DMR’s things got weird.

The base problem with anything chambered in 7.62x51 in this game is it’s under powered. In game it hits as hard as a 30-30 Winchester at best. I know the game developers are thinking that the AK 4 is an “assault rifle” and it should perform on par with the AK 5, but the AK 5 is actually a “battle rifle”. That’s a big deal, and they perform much differently.

Here’s how to fix it:

The Kalashnikov gets its own 7.62x39 ammo and damage is nerfed by a little bit. Maybe they can bring in the RPK in a future weapons pack?
Anything chambered in 7.62x51 gets a damage boost.
The AK4, MAG, and M60 get more severe recoil to compensate for the increased power, maybe ammo is heavier too.

Once that happens the M21 and the SVD will start to feel right.

1 Like

Sorry to necro this, but…

Well, so I bought the 2nd US weapon pack during the Steam wintersale because what could possibly go wrong…

…but what can I say other than…

I’m totally underwhelmed of the S21 !!

I still can not oneshoot a prototype runner with a hit in the fuel tank not even at point blank range.

Maybe futher testing is needed when I finally get my hands on a 5* version but for now I’d never consider carrying a S21 over my Älgstudsare to fill the spot of a “light” and silenced sniper rifle. Btw the same applies to the Kotenok…

So I guess it’s no “old memories” for me, thinking of DayZ Mod and the M14 wit red dot sight… sigh …or even a DMR…

I think that was the last weapon DLC i bought…

My 2 Ct. ymmv though

The S21 5* version can with one shot destroy a runner, but only prototypes, 2 shots for Military and Fnix versions.
But yeh its a very weak rifle, altough still better than the Kotenok.

And no you are right, M14, other variants and same tier weapons are usually good in most videogames (and real life).
Its just here that rifles and snipers are really bad ( not counting 50.cal).

Right at a year later, and still the same deal. At this point, the issue of ammunition type and damage output for the VASTLY DIFFERENT 7.62mm weapons in the game has been beaten to death time and time again, but good grief, it needs to keep getting beaten until something changes some…or until the game is dead. One or the other.

As has been pointed out, over and over, in numerous different threads I’ve seen in just the few days I’ve browsed, we’ve got weapons that share ammo that simply should not…but, logistically, that’s okay—IF the weapons have different damage stats, and other characteristics (recoil) to make them more like their real-life selves…better yet, to balance them against one another and give them each some place in the game.

The AI-76, using the generic 7.62mm ammo in the game, and featuring a base magazine capacity of 30 rounds…clearly represents the (7.62x39mm) AK-47 or an equivalent relative. A true assault rifle, using a true intermediate power cartridge. Top magazine upgrade goes to 45 rounds. Top magazine Augmentation, 90 rounds.

The AG4, again using the same generic 7.62mm ammo in the game, but featuring a base magazine capacity of only 20 rounds…clearly represents the (7.62x51mm NATO) AG4, the Swedish service version of the German HK G3. Not an assault rifle. A battle rifle, using a full-power rifle cartridge…not an intermediate power cartridge. Top magazine goes to 35 rounds, last I checked. Top magazine augmentation, 70 rounds.

A couple of updates back, I did some extensive testing of the AG4 and the AI76. Same range, same target type/class. The two rifles did roughly the same damage, and the AG4 did not appear to be more accurate or more effective at range…barely worth putting a scope on. If anything, the AI76 had a higher chance to one-shot Runners hit in the fuel tank, while the AG4 had a lower chance. Pretty damning test. Like the AG4 has absolutely nothing going for it, no place in the player’s arsenal once they have an AI76. For ultimate fairness, I did not test the AG4’s experimental variant. I looked solely at Purple/4C and Gold/5C versions of each gun. The only thing the AG4 has going for it, is that it CAN mount 1-4x and 4-8x scopes…BUT, without better accuracy and damage, the scopes are almost unwarranted.

I also tested the S21 and the Kotenok, as well as the KVM 59, N60, and the PM-71. I even looked at the Vintovka 1891, but with the (7.62x54mmR) Mosin-Nagant being the only bolt-action it was compared instead to the other bolt-action rifles in the game, and proved itself well—as it should, in my opinion, in terms of power.

The S21 and the Kotenok have base magazine capacities of ten rounds, with top magazines of 18, top magazine augmentations of 36. While the S21 represents the (7.62x51mm NATO) M21, the accurized/sniperized variant of the M14, the Kotenok represents the (7.62x54mmR) SVD. My testing suggested, again, that the damage between the S21 and the Kotenok was roughly the same—and, worse yet, not significantly better than the damage output for each individual shot from the AI76 and the AG4. If anything, the S21 tended towards more damage than the Kotenok by a tiny margin. That is absolutely disgraceful.

The belt-fed MGs were tougher to test using the same means, considering they’re full-auto-only—but I tried that at the time as well. The KVM 59 represents the (7.62x51mm NATO) KSP 58, the Swedish service version of the FN MAG, otherwise known within US service as the M240. The N60 represents, of course, the (7.62x51mm NATO) M60. The PM-71 represents the Soviet (7.62x54mmR) PKM. Base capacity for all of these is 50, top magazine 250, top magazine augmentation 500. The KVM measured out to be the weakest of the three, by a tiny margin from the N60 which ranked in the middle. The PM-71, despite the crazy stat card suggesting it has absolutely incredibly power, actually is not as far ahead of the other two belt-feds as it might seem at a glance. The PM71 does have the advantage, and it is considerable, but not by as huge a margin as the stat card in a player’s inventory will suggest.

Overall, my findings were this; comparatively speaking, either the AI76 is overpowered, or everything else is underpowered. Take your pick. It is as simple as that. The AI76 could be nerfed by a large margin, would be one solution…or everything else could be buffed, instead…or, perhaps best for balance, the AI76 could be nerfed slightly, others could be buffed slightly, and still others could remain where they are.

Logistically speaking, hey, cool, generic 7.62mm. I don’t have a problem with that. I won’t bother arguing that it is necessary to add more different ammo types to the game If it were necessary, it would be “7.62 Light” and “7.62 Heavy” and not anything more complicated than that. But I will most definitely join the crusade when it comes to rebalancing the damage per shot for the whole range of 7.62mm weapons. Not just to improve the S21 and the Kotenok, which need it, but also the AG4 which needs it desperately, and the belt-feds that have been around the longest as well.

So I’ll argue this;
—The AI-76 damage output should drop a small amount. -2.5~5%?
It should remain the close range king, in comparison to the AG4.
This should also put it more in line with the 5.56 weapons, and the 9x39mm as well. People might start using different weapons more often, accordingly. MIGHT.

—The AG4, conversely, should get a slight buff to damage output. +2.5~5%?
Recoil can get worse, slightly, as a trade-off for greater power, but first-shot accuracy should improve.
Make it worth putting a scope on, give it a place to excel; more effective at longer range than the AI-76, but harder to control up close. If it can’t reliably pop dogs at range, it isn’t right. The experimental version can enjoy this same buff.

—The S21, like the AG4, should get a slight buff to damage. +1.5~3%?
It should also be made compatible with the 1-4x and 4-8x scopes, maybe even the 2x RDS.
No other changes suggested, save for maybe bumping the top magazine upgrade to 20 rounds.
First shot accuracy should be better than the AG4, as the S21 is a marksman’s rifle instead of just a heavy infantry rifle.

—The Kotenok, like the S21 and AG4, should get a slight buff to damage. +2~4%?
It should also be made compatible with the 4-8x scope, and maybe even the 2x RDS.
And, good grief, PLEASE re-do the visual model for this thing! It’s the most horrific rendition of an SVD-like-thing I have EVER seen, in ANY game, EVER—and I’ve played Borderlands titles!
First shot accuracy could be improved, slightly.

—The KVM 59 should also get a slight buff to damage, +3~6%?

—The N60 should get a smaller buff to damage. +2.5~5%?
The rear iron sight should also be fixed on the N60!

—The PM-71 can stay just as it is.

—The Vintovka can also remain as it is.

The numbers for them all could be played with some, but I think the relative differences I’ve presented would be about right. The AI76 drops in power, slightly…everything else moves up slightly, or—at the top-end—remains the same. The AI76 remains the close range king, but the AG4 gains something more of a point to exist. The DMRs get improved, with the AG4 being like one of them but with added close-range functionality… The belt-fed 7.62s get balanced out just a touch better.


Those are great points, and would solve a lot of problems. I love using 5.56 in belt feds cause its so low recoil, but its does nothing currently. I personally support the introduction of heavy and light 7.62 ammo, for things like the S21 and Kotenok it would make loads of sense.

Additionally, i feel likethe .50 bmg could be buffed a bit, especially when using armor penetrating ammo. It doesnt need a huge buff, but penetration could definitely be made a bit more realistic.

As you say, the 5.56mm weapons (KVM 89, AG5, and N16) could also be buffed, and the normal .50 BMG could also be buffed.

The testing I mentioned before, I have now repeated several times. After one update, then the next, etc.

—From this point on, TL;DR…read on if you will, or not…your choice…—

My testing was done on SKIRMISH difficulty. I tested ONLY normal versions of each weapon, not experimentals. I tested Purple/4C and Gold/5C versions of a number of weapons. I tested them “naked” (no attachments), then with different combinations of Purple/4C suppressors/silencers, compensators, magazines/belt boxes, and optics/scopes. Most recent rounds of testing were more carefully controlled, distances kept between 15m and 20m for damage tests—this short range was adhered to, to ensure that I could consistently hit the same spot on each machine…a non-vital part of the leg, not a weakpoint or armored component—“just steel.” Each test began with me checking the machine’s health value using the tech view in the binoculars, to verify the machine was in “mint condition, 100%.” I then took up position, waited for the right moment, and shot the target ONCE. Targets were never alerted before the shot. After the shot, I swapped back to the binoculars and checked the machine’s overall condition again, to determine the damage dealt by the one shot—while taking evasive action to avoid getting shot up, myself. Looking only at Military Class Runners, my results were as follows.

First off, I could not conifm that barrel extensions have ANY positive impact on weapon/ammunition performance. I could not detect any increase to velocity, no change to flight time from “shot fired” to “shot landed” and no change to trajectory/flight path—drop at range seemed to be the same. Testing for this was NOT done at 15m, but out to about 600m. These findings are not conclusive, as I did not yet test against armor. I don’t use the barrel extensions anyway, so they haven’t gotten the same testing priority as the other stuff. I DO intend to get extensions out of storage and test them again.

Worse than finding no positive impact, my testing actually suggested that barrel extensions cause damage to vary more wildly, with a larger number of “low damage rolls” coming up—so a downward trend in terms of damage output!

As for compensators, scopes, and magazines, there is NO consequence for using them in terms of damage penalties. There was a rumor mentioned in another thread that the 2x RDS had a damage penalty tied to it, but I did not find this to be the case.

There DO however appear to be two weapons which have issues with the 2x RDS;
—The K-Pistol has an issue where there will be a difference of about a foot between point of aim and point of impact when looking through the 2x RDS, with point of impact being HIGH.
—The KVM 89 has a similar issue, but the difference between point of aim and point of impact is only about 6 inches, with point of impact being LOW.

Point of aim/point of impact tests were done at about 20~25m, at a Control Point, using the Hunter practice target, using the same marked spot for the point of aim—the ‘head.’ Weapons were tested first without the 2x RDS, then with, and I also tested other applicable scopes for each weapon, with no additional issues observed. Shots were fired as carefully as possible, sometimes loading only one round of ammo by dropping the rest of the ammo, to more carefully test the full-auto-only weapons. Others were set to semi-auto. All tests conducted standing fully upright, not prone or crouched. No weapon augmentations.

There IS a small damage penalty for using a suppressor. This varies from weapon to weapon, to some extent. Lower damage weapons see a smaller damage penalty, with higher damage weapons seeing a larger damage penalty. This is a common trade-off for a lot of games, so I’m not going to bother complaining about it…even if it isn’t necessarily realistic, what with how we’re not swapping to subsonic/low power ammo… More details to follow. The quality of the suppressor used does not change the damage penalty; suppressor quality only adjusts the sound signature in regards to enemy reaction…higher quality is quieter, lower quality is worse, as expected.

The AI76 and AG4, when inspected in your inventory, have the same damage values indicated on their stat cards. In testing, this was found to be true. Comparing Purple/4C AI76 to Purple/4C AG4, or Gold/5C AI76 to Gold/5C AG4, damage values mirrored one another from one weapon to the other.

Purple/4C AI76 and AG4: Roughly “21% damage” dealt, no suppressor. “17%” with suppressor.
Gold/5C AI76 and AG4: Roughly “24%” damage dealt. Expect about “20%” with suppressor.

Again, I have to point out—in NO WORLD should an AK-47/AKM and an AK4/G3 do the same exact damage, at the same exact range, on the same exact target. Never. Not ever. The AK-47/AKM, in-game the AI76, uses 7.62x39mm intermediate power ammunition. The AK4/G3, in-game the AG4, uses 7.62x51mm NATO full power ammunition. Damage should be considerably higher for the AG4.

This should be balanced out by the AG4 having worse recoil, being better suited for use in semi-auto, with the AG4 lending itself well to use with a scope, for longer range work like pinpoint attacks against weakpoints, popping Runner fuel tanks, etc—compared to the “close range king” that the AI76 is and should continue to be. Keep in mind, the AG4’s base magazine size of 20 versus the AI76’s base magazine size of 30—and the continued 10-round difference with the best magazines, and greater difference if magazine augmentation is used.

The S21 and the Kotenok, their stat cards suggest they do considerably more damage. While their damage is somewhat higher than that of the AI76 and AG4, the difference is NOT as big as the stat cards suggest. Between the S21 and the Kotenok, there is a difference in damage done.

There is an issue with the S21’s stat card not showing the correct progression for the Gold/5C version, when compared to the Purple/4C version, but in testing the weapons actually do have more or less proper damage values when comparing the different quality versions—the stat cards just aren’t right.

Purple/4C S21: Roughly “25%” with suppressor, roughly “30%” without suppressor.
Purple/4C Kotenok: Roughly “24%” with suppressor.
Gold/5C S21: Roughly “30%” with suppressor, roughly “33%” without suppressor.
Gold/5C Kotenok: Roughly “26%” with suppressor, roughly “30%” without suppressor.

This is not as it should be. The Kotenok should be ever so slightly more powerful than the S21, and both of these weapons should be even more powerful than they are compared to the AI76 and AG4, currently. The AG4 should be closer to where the S21 and Kotenok currently are, at least. Like the AK4/G3, in-game the AG4, the M14-derived M21, in-game the S21, uses the 7.62x51mm NATO full power rifle cartridge. The SVD, in-game the Kotenok, uses the old 7.62x54mmR full power rifle cartridge… These should not struggle to pop Runner’s fuel cells on a regular basis, not like they currently do. These are potent rounds, potent weapons, and ought to be so in-game…

As for MGs, the stat cards for the KVM 59, N60, and PM71 are a bit sketchy again. The PM71 looks like it is just insanely powerful, and it is pretty powerful in use, but NOT as insanely powerful as the stat card suggests. I’ve lost some numbers, here, but I’ll provide what I have.

Purple/4C KVM 59: Roughly “21%” damage per bullet, with compensator.
Gold/5C KVM 59: Roughly “24%” damage per bullet, with compensator.
Gold/5C N60: Roughly “24%” damage per bullet, naked.
Gold/5C PM71: Roughly “31%” damage per bullet, naked.
Again, compensators do not have any impact on damage values. Suppressors do; expect to lose a few a few damage points

The difference between the KVM 59 and the N60 appears to be negligible, in terms of damage per shot, which is probably about right—same ammo, 7.62x51mm NATO. For comparison, the PKM—in game, the PM71—used the old 7.62x54mmR cartridge, slightly longer than the NATO round. Again, the PM71 is stronger, considerably so, but not MASSIVELY so as the stat card suggests. That said, it is perhaps still stronger than it should be, comparatively speaking. Cut the difference in half, I think that would be more correct.

Other damage numbers for other weapons, for sake of discussion:
Purple/4C .270: Roughly “66%” damage per shot, unsuppressed.
Gold/5C .270: Roughly “76%” damage per shot, unsuppressed.
Purple/4C .243: Roughly “65%” damage per shot, unsuppressed.
Gold/5C .243: Roughly “75%” damage per shot, unsuppressed.
Surprisingly little difference between these two rifles. Testing at longer range, or against armor, might show bigger differences. Wish we had a dedicated test range/target, somewhere…

Purple/4C Vintovka (Mosin): Roughly “68%” damage per shot, naked.
Gold/5C Vintovka (Mosin): Roughly “77%” damage per shot, naked.
Purple/4C PVG90: Roughly “68%” per shot.
Simo Hayha approves of the Vintovka/Mosin. And, yes, the .50 BMG is a bit weak on raw damage…even if it is just the Purple/4C I tested.

Purple/4C HP5: Roughly “17%” damage per shot, unsuppressed. Roughly “15%” with suppressor.
I don’t have the numbers for the other 9mm SMGs, but rest assured that they are THE SAME for the same quality level. Gold/5C models should be a few points stronger. Just as their stat cards suggest—these ones are actually reliable…

Gold/5C AT-WAD (9x39mm): Roughly “20%” damage per shot. Integral suppressor.
The AT-WAD doesn’t appear to be as underpowered as the weapon’s stat card suggests when inspected in the inventory. It may still be ever so slightly underpowered, maybe another point or two would be perfect.

Purple/4C AG5: Roughly “13%” damage per shot, naked.
Gold/5C AG5: Roughly “15%” damage per shot, naked.
Gold/5C N16: Roughly “15%” damage per shot, naked.
The 5.56 weapons are indeed underpowered. Even with a tiny projectile, it is a high velocity round, it should hit with some force—more than a 9mm SMG, at least. I mean, come on… Bump this up to 20%, the AT-WAD can stay as-is or go up a percent or so, the AI76 can come down a point or two, the AG4 can go up a few points, then the KVM 59 and N60, then the PM71, then the S21 and Kotenok…geeze, total weapon rebalance.

My character build DOES have the Commando specialization active, which is supposed to be good for a damage boost versus enemies that aren’t alert. So, if someone tries to replicate my tests to check the results, just keep in mind possible differences in selected skills/perks.

Doesn’t this say a lot about your tests and how they measure to real world weapons verses all the ways the in game weapons can change just by the skills and perks you can add to your character in game. Can’t add those same skills/perks to a gunner in real life though, so results may vary.

Then add the augments that each player can add to the Vanilla weapons in the game and to what level. Again, results may be different. Add to that, that a lot of players don’t have real life experience with any of the weapons used in the game. They find a weapon, use it, equip it as they like and enjoy the game till they find another weapon they like more.

While all your testing and the results from those tests make for good lengthy conversation in the forum, has little to do with how the weapons should be changed to meet your desires for the weapons to act more like their real counter parts.

Seems you left out any exp level 6 weapons or the exp ammo that all the weapons can shoot. Was it because you want the weapons to be more like the real weapons and not what they can be in the game? In the end, it is still just a game.

1 Like

You do know how a scientist runs a proper experiment, right? If the testing is going to be any good, it has to be very strictly controlled. The one running the test is attempting to determine what a single variable does, by controlling or removing all other variables within the realm of possibility. Test the same way, in as similar conditions as possible, and you learn what that one variable you’re testing actually does. Like that the barrel extension seems to do absolutely nothing at all.

I didn’t test the Experimental weapons because their effects would interfere with the results. They work so randomly, that testing them would unavoidably add too many extra variables. The test results would be worthless with them. Can’t compare the 6C .270 to the other .270 rifles. Can’t reasonably compare “first/single-shot damage” for the 6C KVM 89 to a normal KVM 89. Can’t make a really good comparison between the 6C AG4 and the normal AG4, because of the extra damage from the experimental bonus damage—and how random it may be. Same goes for experimental ammo types. Too many variables, too little control.

It would be like trying to compare the damage from two molotovs. Have you used the molotovs? have you seen how random their effectiveness is? It hits, the secondary fires disperse differently, and different amounts of damage are done. Those extra variables don’t make for well controlled tests. Speaking of which, I need to make a complaint about the molotov’s area of effect and randomness, eventually. Thanks for reminding me.

That said, the way I figure it, any buff applied to the normal weapons would be a base damage sort of thing. That would be shared/inherited by the experimental version, and also any augmented version of the weapon any other player might have, so everyone would be seeing damage values change. For the most part, in an upward fashion. So, no reason for you to worry about the experimentals being left out of any potential buffs or rebalance They just don’t make for good science, so I left them out of testing.

Let me try to put this a different way. Or just say it again in different words, considering I’ve actually already put it both ways…

I’m NOT talking about purely making certain weapons work in a more realistic fashion. I’ve pointed it out before, if you’d actually read it; I’m also talking about improving game balance, by giving some of these weapons a buff that would make them more competitive with other weapons, and more functional in general.

Again, look at the AI76 compared to the AG4. I’ve pointed it out, time and time again.

The AI76 has a base magazine capacity of 30 rounds. The top magazine upgrade for it goes up to 45. The top magazine augmentation doubles those values, so 60 to 90.

The AG4 has a base magazine capacity of 20 rounds. The top magazine upgrade for it goes up to 35. The top magazine augmentation doubles those values, so 40 to 70.

And yet the base damage values for both the AI76 and the AG4 are the SAME.


In what world is that good game balance?

To balance the performance of the two weapons, given the differences in their magazine size—base, and maximum potential—the AG4 desperately needs a buff.

And then the S21 and the Kotenok, for good measure. All been said before.

But they are not the same, just the damage is the same. The AG4 can mount up to a 4X8 scope, which means optic attachments. The AI76 only a red dot and no optic attachments. You also must mention the fire rates are different too. Which one is better suited for close combat than the other. And that depends on player’s style of playing. Hip firing both, I would take the one with higher fire rate in close combat. And it seems the AI76 has a faster reload cycle making it a good choice for some to carry as their close combat weapon. I use an SMG for that.

The AG4 also comes in a level 6 version that gives it a little buff as the ammo continues to do damage after the target is hit, and with the above-mentioned differences, they each have their own attractions to players.

Perform your tests in a bunker with the lights turned off and looking for the ticks, runners and hunters that are roaming the hallways. A flashlight is the only thing you can use with an AI76 where as the AG4 with a tank’s eye can see them through the bunkers walls, behind the doors, in containers and so on. The mag cap would not matter much when dealing with those single targets. And in full daylight you cannot see runners or lynx behind hedges in the game with just a red dot. But with the correct optics, you can pick them off before they have a chance to fire. A few missions you have to go into gas filled rooms with machines to complete the missions, they are easy to do with IR/OPV optics. Mag cap or fire rates don’t matter so much but seeing does.

Because I like to play stealth solo, I use my AG4 with IR/OPV all the time to spot targets, before they spot me.

1 Like

Have you even read any of my posts where I’ve talked about this, so far? I mean, really read them? And understood what I said? At any point?

I am well aware of the differences that there are in the guns. I am very well aware that the AI76 can mount only the 2x RDS, while the AG4 can mount the 2x RDS, the 1-4x, and the 4-8x, plus the vision modules. I am also very well aware of the differences in rate of fire, and handling. I am therefore also very well aware of the different possibilities those vision modules present to the player, in terms of night, heavy foliage, gas, smoke, etc. I myself pointed these things out a time or two, which is exactly why I ask whether you ever actually read everything I had to say about this. If you didn’t, you missed some things you shouldn’t have skipped.

These tests, however, I expressly said were purely about base damage. Comparing one 4C weapon to another 4C weapon, or 4C and 5C versions of the same weapon. For base damage comparisons only. Not for extra effects, which have some randomness to them. As I said, scientific approach, removal of variables. As such, none of those other details matter one bit.

Me bringing up magazine capacities is not a complaint about the AG4. As I’ve said, upping the damage to improve the AG4’s long range performance—which is where it should shine, versus the AI76—would in fact be balanced out by the weapon’s lower magazine size.

I like to play stealthily, too. I use my binoculars to spot targets, instead. I also prefer to play as part of a team, so it isn’t only me watching out for targets. We split up our roles, too, se we aren’t all running cookie-cutter builds, carrying the same meta-of-the-year weapons. We prefer to mix it up, to keep things fresh. A marksman with an AG4, set to semi-auto for longer range and then full-auto for shorter range emergencies would be a real asset. Except that the thing is too weak, for what it should be.

So you are saying that instead of a player changing to a weapon more suited for a task, in this case a long range shot, the assault rifle should be more powerful than all other weapons that uses the same round.

In tests, details matter and the variables should be considered when choosing a weapon for a task.

A shot taken at a 1000 yards, using a single round from a KVM 59, AG4, AI76 or any of the other weapons that uses the 7.62 rd would have different damage results, it would be hard to hit the same spot with any accuracy.

But I would expect that all the weapons that use the same round, fired at the same fire rate would have the same damage at a very close range. But add in the little different details and varibles of each weapon and I would expect I would get different results from each weapon. With some being more effective at different ranges and different targets.
Sorry if I don’t jump on board the one weapon should be designed to be the only weapon to use in all real game scenarios and do away with all the other weapons.

1 Like

No. I’m not saying the AG4—a weapon based on a BATTLE rifle, not an ASSAULT rifle—should be more powerful than ALL other weapons using the same round. It should ONLY be more powerful than the AI76, which IS based on an ASSAULT rifle, not a battle rifle.

Again, have you actually paid attention to the details I’ve provided previously? They kind of matter. The belt-fed 7.62s, the two semi-auto 7.62s, and the Vintovka—a bolt-action 7.62—all have different damage output for a single shot, and I have said that SEVERAL of them should be buffed. Not just one. I even pitched some very low estimates that I feel would be going in the correct direction, for an even wider variety of weapons. As I’ve gone on, my information has even gotten more detailed, more accurate, despite the flawed nature of my tests—which I was the very first to point out, myself.

—This is important. You should read it, not skip over it just because it is a bit long.—

For those not in the know, let me again point out some real-world information.

A BATTLE rifle uses a full-power cartridge, such as 7.62x51mm NATO. That is, a BATTLE rifle uses rounds similar in power level to full-power infantry rifles of old, with power output similar to what some might call a sniper’s rifle or marksman’s rifle. A short list of weapons which use this cartridge would include the HK G3, the Swedish service version of the G3 which is known as the AK4 (AG4 in-game), the FN FAL, the M14 (and derivatives, including the M21 Marksman’s rifle—the S21 in-game), the FN MAG belt-fed machine gun (and extended family, including the US service M240 and Swedish service KSP-58—the KVM-59 in-game), and the M60 (the N60 in-game), among others.

Another example of a full-power rifle cartridge, of similar power level to the 7.62x51mm NATO load, is the cartridge known as 7.62x54mmR. The “R” there is not for “Russian”—though the round IS Russian—but is instead for “Rimmed.” The 7.62x54mmR cartridge was originally designed for bolt-action rifles, way back in or before 1891. It was for the use in the Mosin-Nagant M1891 (the Vintovka in-game) rifles then entering service, before WWI. That round continued to see use throughout WWI and WWII, being used in belt-fed MGs, pan-magazine-fed MGs like the DP28, and then the belt-fed PKM (the PM-71 in-game) more recently, automatic rifles like the AVT-40, and semi-automatic rifles like the SVT-40, and more recently the SVD marksman’s rifle (the Kotenok in-game), and the SVU and SVU-A rifles. The SVU is a bullpup conversion of the SVD, while the SVU-A is an SVU with the addition of full-auto capability.

An ASSAULT rifle, on the other hand, uses an INTERMEDIATE power round—a cartridge design of reduced power, with a shorter shell casing which holds less propellant, and generally also a lighter weight projectile. Lighter weight projectiles often result in higher velocity, but between lighter projectile and less propellant they also generate less recoil compared to full power rifle cartridges. Less recoil, better handling. The ammunition is also lighter, so more can be carried more conveniently or comfortably.

Examples of intermediate power cartridges include the 7.92x33mm “8mm Kurz” cartridge, the 7.62x39mm cartridge, 5.56x45mm NATO, and 5.45x39mm. 7.92x33mm was the cartridge designed and used at the end of WWII, by the Germans, for use in their new Sturmgewehr—arguably the first true, purpose-built, completely focused design that would fit and even gave rise to the term “assault rifle.” The 7.62x39mm cartridge, in turn, comes from Soviet Russia—the round developed for their first true assault rifle, the AK-47 (the AI76 in-game)…which has continued to serve in the newer AKM, and the even newer AK-103, and also was used by the semi-auto SKS carbine rifle and full-auto conversions of it, the RPK light machine gun, and a wide variety of other carbine rifles, assault rifles, and LMGs, all around the world. The 5.56x45mm is, of course, NATO’s answer to the intermediate power cartridge—used in assault rifles, carbine rifles, LMGs, SAWs, from the US M16 (N16 in game), the Belgian FNC and the Swedish service version known as the AK5 (AG5 in-game), the French FAMAS, the British SA80 family of weapons (L85, L86, etc), the Belgian FN MINIMI family of LMGs, SAWs, and their many descendants (including the US service M249, and the Swedish service KSP 90—the KVM-89 in-game), among others. The 5.45x39mm is Russian, again—an updated answer to NATO’s 5.56…the 7.62x39mm and the 5.45x39mm use the same cartridge case as a base, with the 5.45 necked down for a smaller, lighter projectile than the 7.62x39mm. The 7.62x39mm tends towards lower velocity, while the 5.45x39mm tends towards higher velocity—the 5.56x45mm also tends towards higher velocities.

By the way, the 9x39mm cartridge is also Russian of course, and also uses the same cartridge as a base as the 5.45x39mm and 7.62x39mm, just necked up to 9mm instead of being necked down—the 9x39mm is intended from the start to be an even lower target velocity cartridge than the 7.62x39mm, for quieter action in demanding covert usage, and uses a heavier projectile than the 7.62x39mm. That is, the 9x39mm was intended to be subsonic, not supersonic—to be especially quiet when used with an appropriate suppressor, or an integrally suppressed weapon. While the 9x39mm is similar to intermediate power cartridges used in assault rifles, the 9x39mm and the weapons that use it—like the AS-VAL (the AT-WAD in-game), VSS Vintorez, and others—are generally considered to be more “specialist’s weapons” rather than standard issue/general purpose assault rifles. A comparable cartridge, though newer, would be .300 Blackout—a cartridge design using the 5.56x45mm or .223 Remington case as a base, but necked up to 7.62mm, with a considerably heavier projectile than the original 5.56mm. Like 9x39mm, .300 Blackout was designed to be used in specialist close-range combat weapons, like the Honey Badger, with good terminal effects but low sound signature.

—“But this is about a game…”—

Yes, I know, GZ is a game. A game where the devs intentionally grounded it somewhat in reality, just with the addition of some higher tech level. Suspension of disbelief, turn on—Robots!—suspension of disbelief, turn off. It is a combination of “Red Dawn” and “Terminator.” It is a very fun idea, a great setting, nothing else like it really. The devs picked a place, they picked a time period, they picked some weapons.

They picked Sweden. Swedish group, Swedish people, Sweden. It makes sense. No problem, there. The picked 1989~1990. They picked out some Swedish service weapons, some service weapons from elsewhere with some lore that those folks were coming into Sweden or dropping supplies into Sweden, and they picked some civilian weapons. No problem there, either. A hiccup or two with visual models or timeline correctness, but some things can be let slide.

They picked the AK5, the Swedish service version of Belgium’s FN FNC, a 5.56x45mm NATO assault rifle. They changed up the design a bit, I guess to get around licensing issues, or for some other reason, and named their AK5 representative the AG5. They gave it stats that would be similar to the gun in reality. Magazine capacity, upgrades, etc. Maybe not all spot-on—but it is a game. It doesn’t have to be perfect, they only have to get the gun to “feel” right…they just have to get the “character” of the gun right. Not especially high damage, high rate of fire, good magazine capacity, controllable. Checks all the boxes.

The devs picked the AK-47/AKM (both 7.62x39mm, one just slightly newer than the other), or maybe intended to pick the AK-74 (5.45x39mm) but got the stats a little wrong so it ends up resembling the previously mentioned two, rather than the third… No matter. It’s an AK. Could be they based it on some other rifle similar to the AK, from so many other countries or companies, like a Valmet or a Chinese Type 56, or who-the-hell-cares,-they’re-all-just-AKs. They play with the visual model some, change the name, and we get the AI76. It still looks like an AK. It walks like an AK, it talks like an AK, it’s an AK. It’s your basic, tried-and-true, you-get-exactly-what-you-expected definitive assault rifle. It’s powerful up close, good magazine capacity, works and handles as anyone who has ever played any FPS game ever should reasonably expect. They got the character down pretty well. It actually SHOULD be able to take the 1-4x scope, maybe even the 4-8x and others, but an RDS does suit it better…because it is an AK. Feels about right, maybe a little strong…

The devs also picked the AK4, the Swedish service version of Germany’s HK G3. A battle rifle. Not an assault rifle. Now, they have another 7.62mm weapon planned, so, they’re faced with a choice! Two different ammo types, complicating logistics? Or, gameplay concession—simplify logistics, let them use the same ammo! Well, it IS a game, so they make the gameplay concession. They simplify logistics. That is fine. No problem. They change up the visual model some, maybe, change the name, and we get the AG4.

But then they ruin the character of the gun by mixing up stats, because of their gameplay concession. The AG4 gets stuck with the reduced magazine capacity of 20 rounds, common to many battle rifles…FAL, M14, G3, Japanese Howa Type 64, all have 20 round magazine capacities. The BAR used during WWI and WWII also had a 20 round magazine, but used the older .30-06 (7.62x63mm) cartridge, which the M14 and the 7.62x51mm cartridge were both designed to replace.

But the poor AG4 gets screwed on damage. Instead of getting more power to go with that lower magazine capacity, a fair trade-off, the poor AG4 gets stuck with the exact same damage output of the AI76, a weapon based on a lower power weapon than the AG4’s real-life relative. The AG4 gets it’s legs cut out from under it.

They don’t nail the character of the weapon. They ruin it, instead.

Someone who has played other games that have the G3, they get in GZ and see the AG4, they see the G3, they expect the G3’s power over the AK. They expect worse recoil, a wild bucking beast in full-auto, but they know—they expect—to be able to set it to semi-auto, not have to worry about the full-auto recoil, and to be able to use the AG4 at longer ranges, and save the AI76, the AK with every expectation of good close-range combat effectiveness, for close range… They put a scope on the AG4, like they would on a G3, set to semi-auto, sight in on a Runner’s fuel tank…and are disappointed when the tank doesn’t blow. Just because you can put a scope on the AG4, does not excuse the weakness of it.

—“Set aside those expectations and…”—


When you play a game, and stumble across two guns, you look at them and think for a moment. Say you see a small semi-automatic pistol, like the Moller PP (Walther PPK), and a big revolver, like the .44 Magnus (Ruger Redhawk? Blackhawk? I forget which—I don’t own one!)… Immediately, there should be some expectations. The little one is going to be quick to use, easy to handle, reload speed is going to be nice, but power won’t be especially high. The big revolver, on the other hand…! Power! Accuracy, if you take time to aim and fire slowly! But recoil! And reload might be a pain!

But what if the big revolver turned out to have much lower power than expected? You see a .44 magnum, but it feels more like a .22 short.

FYI, just in case, a .22 Short is a ridiculously low power round. It’s good for squirrels, rabbits, other small animals, not really great for bigger stuff. Not what you’d expect out of a revolver in a video game.

That’s what some folks feel, about the AG4. Do you see what I mean, at least a little better now? Does that make more sense, or any at all?

Again, I’m not saying the AG4 should be the most powerful. Neither should the S21 or the Kotenok, or the N60 or the KVM-59. The Vintovka, being a bolt-action with only a 5 round base capacity, should obviously be the most powerful of the 7.62s—and it is, perhaps excessively so.

The most important part of what I am saying, is that the AI76 should indeed be the weakest out of the 7.62s, that the AG4 should be stronger than the AI76, and then that the S21 should be more powerful than the AG4, then the Kotenok slightly more powerful than the S21, then the Vintovka at the high end.

As for the N60 and KVM-59, they can be adjusted a bit differently—they can be down with the AG4, or even between the AI76 and the AG4, since the N60 and the KVM-59 are indeed belt-fed MGs, which should be balanced a bit differently than magazine-fed weapons. Recoil control and accuracy should be major balance points, variables to play with, when it comes to belt-fed weapons. They can’t, or shouldn’t just be balanced with low power because they have high capacities, but should be adjusted in other ways. Like you’ve said, more to consider—other variables.

The AI76 should remain the close range king, with quickness and easiness of use, and still respectable power. But the AG4 should gain some damage output over it, period. That is my absolute position.

—“Details matter…”—

I am very well aware that details matter. That is why I specified, time and time again, that my experiments were done for the express purpose of trying to determine BASE DAMAGE. Raw damage, for one shot, hitting the same spot, on the same target. To determine raw, BASE DAMAGE you test things in the exact same way, and remove variables. Same target, same range, same number of shots on target—one. No experimental effects that muddy the results. Same attachments, or no attachments at all, or verify that the attachments do not influence raw, base damage output.

An experiment to determine raw, base damage…is not the same as actual combat usage. Sure. Yes. Different things. In combat, you’re not trying to do science. You’re not trying to determine how much damage was done by a single shot. In combat, you’re trying to make use of what you’ve learned from having done the science previously. The science tells you how much damage your gun does, under what conditions, against what target, or which part of what target. You can use that science to estimate how many rounds you need to put where, to disable or destroy a component, or the whole machine—to estimate whether you can defeat a target with one magazine, or if you’ll need two, or more. You can use that science to estimate just how many rounds of ammo you might need to carry, to deal with the number and type of machines you expect to face. You use the science to help you in combat. You can do all of that with experience, too, but the science can help a lot even then.

In regards to both details and science, as I’ve pointed out numerous times…the 7.62s in-game only share ammo for logistical purposes. Period. Several of the weapons do, again, have different damage values. Have you not seen the parts where I’ve covered that? And, again, my absolute position…is that the AG4 and the AI76 should not have that same damage output, for several reasons. Already been said.

On the XB1, you can’t take a shot at 1000 yards and hit a target reliably, because you can’t even see the target. The target isn’t displayed. It isn’t displayed at 1000 meters, either. Or even 500 meters. Or 300 meters. Targets render in, become visible, on the base model XB1…at a shockingly short distance of 250m or less. They render out, or become invisible, beyond that range—or at a slightly shorter range, even. So, I wouldn’t suggest trying that experiment. It would have unusable results. Luckily, if you’re on a different sort of machine, you’ll have a different render range. XB1S, XB1X, Series S, Series X, have gradually better render distances. PS4, PS5, similarly different. PC, render distance will also be different based on specs. So, you’re mileage may vary—but probably not all the way out to 1000 meters, or 1000 yards.

I don’t expect or want you to jump on board “the one weapon should be designed to be the only weapon to use in all real game scenarios and do with all the other weapons”…band wagon. So, no apology needed, there.

That isn’t my band wagon. I never said the AG4 should replace everything else. I’ve been saying quite the opposite the entire time, actually, thanks for not noticing.

Again. The AI76 should be the close range king, just as it is. But the AG4 should be better at longer range, by virtue of having the one-shot power necessary to truly take advantage of the fact that the AG4 can accept a scope. It should border on the power of the S21/Kotenok, as they are currently.

@IlessthanthreeHind, please consider the length of your posts. This is a discussion forum, in order for discussion to flow it can be overwhelming with too much text at once. Give other users a chance to respond and reply to a post.


I’ll try to keep it short, when I can. When I have a lot of information to try to provide, though…

Either way, no need for anyone to feel overwhelmed. It’s just text. It isn’t going anywhere, unless someone else deletes it, and it isn’t going to jump off the screen and attack anybody physically. All anyone has to do is take a breath and read it, do their best to comprehend, to understand what has been posted. Or they can always opt not to. They can take their time, and read a little, or not. No need to panic or feel overwhelmed or anything else like that. Either way, they have all the chance in the world.

Any responses to me, or in regards to what I’ve said, would be vastly higher in quality if the contents of my posts have actually been read, however.

The best “TL;DR” version I could give to why various weapons ought to get a buff/rebalance is something along the lines of “because that’s just how it should be.”

The raw, base damage of a single shot from an AG4 should be more powerful than a single shot from an AI76 of the same quality level, because that is the relationship between the G3/AK4 and the AK47/AKM. The S21 and Kotenok should be a bit stronger than the AG4 of the same quality level, because that is the relationship between the M14 and SVD compared to the AK4. Etc, etc.

As for the “why”—well, if nobody likes a good explanation, then “because that’s just how it should be.”

That’s my feedback. Others are free to disagree, let their positions be known, as they already have. And, of course, the devs are free to completely ignore that feedback—or to act on it, one way or another. Who knows, maybe they decide to buff the AI76 and nerf all the others. Won’t change how I feel about it, or the fact that I know I’m right about this.

Maybe I’ll eventually decide to see about getting in touch with a modder…find out what sort of possibilities there are on that front. That was what we did with STALKER, to make improvements to that PC title back in the day. Got to a point where a certain mod for that game was regarded as an unofficial comprehensive update/fix compilation.

This is wrong. An Assault Rifle like the M16 uses an intermediate power cartridge like 5.56x45 or the AK uses 7.62x39 where the S21 uses a full power rifle 7.62x51 cartridge and should be almost as powerful as the Algstudsare which uses the .270 (6.9x65) cartridge. The HP5 and K Pist use the 9mm “handgun” cartridge.

Although I agree in general with most of your suggested changes for the weapons to make them more different for different use cases by adjusting some values instead equalizing them (like the weight), it’s finally just that:

And as it’s not a real life simulator but just a scifi action game, it doesn’t have to be exactly like it’s in real life. The devs define how it should be, not us and not the real world.

For some things and how they are there surely were reasons to do it that way. Either balancing, technical restrictions of the engine, too few ressources or time or what else. Idk. And for many of those things there obviously are reasons to change it… Due to how the game evolved, to what has been added in the meantime or to make some things just more senseful.

I’m sure the devs are aware of many of those things… And they’ll take a look at it if their projectplan allows it. They’re surely not free to do what they like to do. Besides of fixing bugs and improving the code there will be a large backlog of projects with scheduled sprints for each.

All we can do is to give them good ideas, explained by how they could improve the game and I don’t think that it helps much to explain it by writing novels about why it should be that way because of how it is in real life.

You don’t think the more powerful round should be more powerful to make weapons that are currently pointless to use have a point? Imagine that…

I didn’t say that.
But it shouldn’t be explained just by “but in real life the gun that looks like that is more powerful than the other gun which looks like another real life gun”…
It’s no simulator.

It’s a matter of balancing the weapon for GZ to make it fit perfectly in the “gap” it was designed for.

Obviously the devs didn’t have the time to perfectly balance and test everything yet. Best example are the weapons weights. Well, weight wasn’t a matter in the beginning. The inventory worked different with available slots instead of a weight… But after changing this the weapons weights were not touched again. One value for all.

Weights of ressources instead have been changed with the last crafting revamp.

Yes, some weapons already got some improvements in the past, too. But balancing isn’t just changing values every day or week until no one complains any more. That’s not possible. It’s a long progress.

And as Carni said during one stream, they’ll look at many aspects. It’s just a matter of time.