So your saying it should take less shots to kill someone? if so then im going to say YES, your absolutly right.
Or did i missunderstand what you ment 
2 Likes
I was trying to say that it should take less shots to kill/down with cartridges like 9×19 Parabellum or .45 ACP (provided it’s at close range, you’re using high quality ammunition and attachments, you’re shot placement is good, you’re not shooting through barriers or armor, your target is an ordinary human etcetera) and that if there’s a niche for a projectile weapon that takes several shots to kill there’s plenty of other weapons it can be based on, but I accidentally published a messy first draft.
1 Like
I’m pretty sure the ballistics are going to be taken into account from what we’ve seen, but pistols in UII would probably end up serving a role as a lighter secondary than an SMG, and could be easier to deploy. I’ve got next to no knowledge on guns but if pistols had good damage in close quarters they could come into play again.
Checking a chart of ballistics, it does appear pistols have a large dropoff which is they were made to be great against unarmoured and close ranged opponents but have a dropoff that makes it next to impossible to aim (the chart said that at 100 yards the bullet dropped about a foot). I believe in Unturned and many other games, the lack of damage falloff makes it so pistols have to be nerfed into the ground. I’d go as far to assume Nelson has this in mind already and pistols will serve a purpose finally.
2 Likes
Yeah, the new medical mechanics I want will affect how many shots down a person. It should only take like one or two (three is your a trooper) to down someone unarmored with a handgun.
1 Like
Seeing that it’s a new post about something new (if we go to the specific part of things), and seeing that it’s made by Harvest gave me hopes that it’ll be a decent post at the very least.
Disappointed.
1 Like
On the other hand, I do have a handful of things to say about this idea. Some may disagree, but I have my theory and my idea.
Shots to down/kill or just outright damage the player should be less. Surprising, maybe. When it comes to shooter games like CSGO or Rainbow Six, it only takes 1 burst to kill someone because they want their games to be fast paced and tactical in addition to the abundant amount of ammo you get each round. But with unturned, it should be different due to it being a survival game.
If guns do less damage on players, then people with limited ammo will have to think twice before engaging an enemy. Firstly, because they want to know if their bullets are enough. Second, because they also might miss which is another waste of ammo. In addition to the fact that if the player is still alive, they will have to reload, use another gun and use more ammo, or get shot at and use meds.
Not only will this decrease mindless KoS, but will also force the player to think if they should engage a target or let them go, or in the case if you’re being attacked, fight back or flee.
This idea will not only decrease KoS, but will also give the victim a chance to fight back. Because let’s be honest, it’s never fun to grind for hours of loot only to be shot with 1 hit from a Hawkhound and dying from bleed (with a helmet on). Either that, or getting hit by 3 bullets and dying instantly. Might not be as realistic, but will put good pressure on the aggressor forcing them to carefully place their shots, disencouraging spray fire as it will reduce the gun’s quality and waste ammo. In addition to nother minor suggestion I would like to recommend. Give guns higher recoil to stop people from spraying. Which allows me to bring up P9nda’s post about 3rd person spraying giving the aggressor even less of an edge in an ambush, forcing the player to think before they act. Yet another Third Person post
In addition to all these upsides, it will also motivate people to use melee weapons as they are highly useless in 3.0
2 Likes
Nein, its a halkhould rifle. If you get shot with it bad luck. I think civilian rifles should get a buff. This is hopefully going to be a more low tier focused survival game.
2 Likes
If it should be a low tier focused game then what’s the point of high tier loot when low tier loot is much easier to find/craft. The game would become too boring too early just like 3.0 because of the high damage that the weapons do. The hawkhound as an example. Im fine with 2 needed headshots for a kill cuz the ammo Im getting is easier to find than food for Christ sake.
We dont want people to have high killing potential with the simplest of items. We want the game to be more survival based than an active shooter, grabbing a gun, finding the nearest player and easily kill them just because you can.
But if we lower the damage, the aggressor will have to use his mind. Unless he doesn’t care about anything and goes for it anyway, which even then, the victim has a chance to fight back so it can not only be a fair fight, but make people focus on their own lives instead of wasting bullets on new spawns.
No, it will make it more survival based, given people will have less bullets and guns should have more recoil/ harder to use. People will only use ambush skill in pvp. It also balances that pvp gap that makes low tier weapons good. Weather you have an assault rifle or a halkhound you stand a chance in a fight.
very good point, in 3.0 there is the broblem that military wepons are almost always better then the lower tier ones that you find in civ locations, and changing that would be awesome if you ask me
Ambush needs little to no skill to execute
If we allow ambush to be this good then mindless PvP will return in the form of ambushes since it’ll be so effective against the victim.
Im fine with finding a middle ground between Civ damage and Military damage, but I still think times to down/kill should be increased
Military should still always be superior, there just needs to be tiers in between, police, militia, national guard etc
2 Likes
yes of course, but i still think the civilian stuff should be better than it is right now, but then again the whole weapon and gun system will be different in 4.0 so its not comparable to 3.0
But yes you are totally right
If freshly spawned players have access to weapons that kill others in only a few shots then you can only expect the exact same KOS meta we have in Unturned 3.0 right now.
For anyone asking for civilian rifles to be buffed I can only assume you’ve never actually played the game, or you’re just that brain dead. Civilian rifles are good enough that there’s barely any reason to use weapons like the Timberwolf. It’s a two tap headshot and the Timberwolf is the same deal majority of the time (helmets really aren’t that uncommon). Guns like the viper are also pretty solid, despite only taking easily found civilian ammo.
I do think pistols overall in II should be more useful, but they (along with other basic civilian weapons) should not allow new players to kill others with ease, and therefore the time to kill should be long enough to at least let more geared (but slightly unarmored) players have a shot at retaliating.
Of course, unarmored players should be wary of pistols, but then again they should be wary of almost every projectile out there.
I’m sure this has already been addressed, but I figured I would just offer my concerns. My main point is that while I agree with pistols being stronger, especially against unarmored targets, they shouldn’t have super fast time to kills. Ideally this stops someone who’s been playing for a good while and simply hasn’t been lucky enough to get fully suited up from getting killed by a freshspawn wielding a 9mm handgun in half a second, with barely any time to react.
2 Likes
Yeah but a rifle should do more damage than an ar. It is a large weapon. Ars will still be better because you can rapid fire. But rifles will be better for skilled people who can snipe with one shot. It would be a crap pvp game like it is now if it took 4 bullets to kill with a rifle. The game would reward people for getting good with there weapons and using low tier weapons that you can find ammo for.
Also I think that realistically getting shot buy a rifle/ar shouldn’t make much of a difference, they should both kill you in like one shot. But cause this is a game they might take 2.
1 Like
I mever disagreed to that. We all know that DMRs should do more damage than ARs.
The point of Unturned II is to be a survival game, not a PvP game. That is kind of the sole reason on why Unturned II came to be. Im not saying there should be no PvP, but Im saying the game should focus more on actual survival and preservation than killing people.
Plus, since it’s Unreal Engine, I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a server option to change damage stats for creative PvP servers.
Im not saying you need at least 4 headshots with a high quality rifle to get a kill. Lower the damage so that 1 headshot wont get you down to 10% with bleed when you’re simply using a Civilian weapon. That is my main point. Because so many of the guns we have will bring you to 5% health out of nowhere including very common weapons such as the popular Hawkhound/Crossbow. I want it that an ambush attack doesn’t become meta. I wanna give the victims a chance to fight back so that ambushing wont be a guarenteed kill.
I have no specific numbers and percentages on the damage stats/reduction, but all I am pointing at is that ambushing should not be meta otherwise it wouldn’t be fun to play and at the same time players on both sides have seemingly similar survival chances so it would become an actual fight to survive rather than promoting cowardness.
2 Likes
I’m joining the debate!
There’s just one little thing I’d want to add to make sure people don’t forget it: getting killed by 4 body shots by an assault rifle is really quick in a game as slow paced as Unturned in its PvE mode.
A classical AK-47 shots up to 600 rounds per minute, which corresponds to 10 shots a second. This means it would only take 0.4 second to kill someone and I think most people haven’t thought about that.
For PvP arena though, time to kill (or TTK) can always be faster with smaller health pools. However, for PvE maps, I think gun fights between players should last longer, even at close range.
2 Likes
I would like to say I like the new game survival focus. Also common weapons should be made harder to find. I believe that in 4 there should be less class divisions. In three there is massive division, someone with an ar always beats someone with a rifle/ dmr. In three there should be less weapon division. People will be inclined to chose other weapons that just a maple strike or heartbreaker, or a sniper.
Instead civilian rifles should be easy to use due to their more common and high damage at range. Ars will be used for more rich or skilled players that can craft enough bullets. In other words no everyone you meat will have or use an ar. So you can at least have a chance to run if they start shooting at you. In 3 you can’t really run.
3 Likes
Exactly
Which is why I also suggested in my 1st comment (iirc) that full auto weapons should have high recoil with a seemingly unpredictable pattern in addition to wasting more bullets will hopefully discourage players enough to use ARs and force them to use less efficient weapons such as semi-auto or bolt-action rifles
1 Like
I totally agree with this, I think it will make gun fights much more interesting and skill based rather than just whoever gets the first shot off wins. Plus I like the fact that because it uses more bullets it forces people to choose wisely with who they kill and how they kill them (i.e. being defensive rather than rushing and spraying). This can create interesting situations where people with low level gear who don’t have much ammo have to take every shot deliberately. Extending the length of gun fights (obviously only to an extent) makes it more interesting for both sides as much more planning and deliberation has to go into them rather than fights just being an ambush of AR spray.
1 Like