S21 should be more powerful

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.

I use purple color ones anyway :upside_down_face: I like the color purple, I don’t like gold color much, and I like a little bit of a challenge useing them, not that big of a difference anyway

Count me in as another strange one. I also typically use the 4C weapons, instead of the shiny chrome-finished 5Cs—that in reality would get you spotted and killed in .03 seconds, with all that glare and glint. I also find it hard to use the irons with the 5C guns, because of the amount of glare. Sun shining down on you, light reflecting back in your face, yeah, no thanks.

The machines don’t react to it, just like they don’t react to the flashlight, but both of those are immersion breaking for me.

Speaking of which, I need to make a “simple” skin suggestion in another thread, later. “Quality level” skins… 1C appearance, on a 5C gun, etc. Or, rather, 3C or 4C appearance on the 5C gun…

Again, I’m very well aware that it isn’t a real life simulator. You have seen me mention gameplay concessions, simplifications for logistics and gameplay, have you not?

AND FOR BALANCE/FUNCTIONALITY REASONS? To improve gameplay, and encourage a broader variety of weapons the community uses (BEYOND and ASIDE FROM experimentals)?

Again, the AG4 has a 20 round magazine. The AI76 has a 30 round magazine. AND the AG4 has other lower or worse stats than the AI76. Yet the normal AG4 does the SAME damage as the AI76. How is that balanced?

The normal AG4 literally has NOTHING going for it, aside from the fact that it CAN mount other scopes—which, again, the AI76 should have wider access to as well, at least to the 1-4x.

Just because the AG4 can take scopes that the AI76 can’t doesn’t make it balanced, because the AG4 doesn’t have the power necessary to really take advantage of the long-range engagement opportunities provided by mounting a scope. The gun needs more damage output—again, not by much—to be able to capitalize on the fact that it can mount a scope.

My feedback, my opinions, my fact-based findings, are NOT purely about realism.

HOW MANY TIMES HAVE I SAID THAT? How many more times must I say that?

And if the novel doesn’t get the point across as to WHY, what would? What do you suggest, then? I’ve said “the AG4 is underpowered and needs a buff, as does the S21 and Kotenok” in every way that it can be said, with and without “novels” to back it up, to explain it.

Like I said, I even low-balled the projected changes, based on preserving the AI76’s continued relevance. The AI76 SHOULD remain the close range king, with good handling, while the AG4 should work more like the current S21 and Kotenok, and the S21 and Kotenok should move up just a touch further.

As for balancing being a long process, they’ve had YEARS to work on the underwhelming 7.62s. The AG4, the S21, and the Kotenok.

If I had some idea how their code looks, I could probably knock it out in a day. Same goes for a scrapping/crafting overhaul, like changing how many fuel cells or comms array lures are needed for scrapping.

You should read everything before shouting at anyone… :roll_eyes:

Well, for me this topic now is burned out. I don’t see any sense in argumenting any more.

1 Like

I have spent many hours playing solo and in public co-op. During those thousands of hours of game play with others, there is a noticeably big mix of players that use different weapons all the time. Some players like to use hunting rifles and pistols, others will use different rockets and grenade launchers. Some like to use remote turrets and hacking skills. It is one of the reasons I like to host co-op map, because I see firsthand how the different weapons in the game are used and how many different ones are used. I should leave out how they like using a bat or hammer too. Each weapon appeals to the players.

You could just as easily open a thread about the difference between the 7.62 rounds and the 5.56 rounds. Or the pistols’ ammo needs buffing because they do not match gun snobs’ expectations on what the weapons should fire like and tested damage. Which over the years has been debated to death.

And where are the tests on a level 1 weapon versus a level 5 weapon? In a syfi fantasy who would expect an AG4 level 1 rifle to do less damage than a level 5 weapon? There are only cosmetics differences in the weapons, shouldn’t they do the same damage? Really!?

And if a weapon looks close to a REAL weapon it should be expected to fire like the real weapon…in a syfi fantasy game.

And don’t forget, in the game you can add skills to be a better shot and have weapons do more damage. And you can now add mods to those weapons to also shoot better than the basic weapon.

I’m not a weapons guy, but I can imagine that a 1c weapon is old and worn (dilapidated) in such a way that it does less damage than a 5c. I at least always thought that would be the difference. I don’t know if a dilapidated weapon in real live would do less damage or why. Maybe a rusty barrel slows down the bullet or gives it less spin. Or the bore hole is slightly wider because of wear and tear and the propulsion efficiency is lower.


There IS a difference in accuracy/dispersion, among other things, between the different quality levels. So, yeah, that is generally the right way to look at the different quality levels, especially considering that is how practically every other game out there who uses the color-coded quality bit handles such things. Lower quality, worse stats. Higher quality, better stats.

It isn’t necessarily realistic to the fullest extent, but it IS a game. It is therefore to be expected, that there will be gameplay concessions like that made. Something to give us that “starting out at zero, before becoming the hero” feel. Going from rusted, beat up old junk found early on, to seeking out something in mint-condition or even custom re-finished in the end.

We are actually both correct on this one. In for example the US a battle rifle uses fully powered cartridges and assault rifles intermediate ones. But in Sweden where I’m from and where the game takes place the weapons definition is often based on use not cartridge. So the HK G3 (AG4) and FN FNC (AG5) is called an automatic carbine in Sweden. The definition of what is a battle rifle and an assault rifle is different in different countries. In some countries a battle rifle is semi automatic only and when fully automatic it’s an assault rifle. In others the cartridge is the basis of definition.