I hope the suppressor actually has a drawback in this one

#61xXYOLOx420XxPosted 11/9/2012 12:01:16 AM
SchaerMann posted...
xXYOLOx420Xx posted...
SchaerMann posted...
Blah, blah, blah. . .


I hear tell from a semi-reliable source that bullets passing through a sound suppressor lose velocity, making them travel slower, impacting at slower speeds over range, making them do less damage once they do impact.

Force = Mass x Velocity. Or something along those lines. . .

Just so you know, that source is Wikipedia.

"A suppressor is usually a metal cylinder with internal mechanisms to reduce the sound of firing by slowing the escaping propellant gas and sometimes by reducing the velocity of the bullet".


That is very nice to hear. Wikipedia is mostly wrong. Yes, it uses specially-vented chambers to lessen the report, but anyone who uses the other sort is either using the only options available or they don't know better. If you're using a suppressed weapon, the odds are greater than average that it's firing low-velocity rounds; if you use a suppressor that slows the projectile in addition, you have a weapon which is generally referred to as "a limp d**k".


Hmmm . . . a "limp d**k", eh?

That is the answer UselessBullet is looking for! Suppressed weapons in BO2 should be "limp d**ks".

I apologize if that doesn't make any sense, not that I normally make sense anyways, I am very tired from a long day of sitting on my arse and playing video games.
#62Scottydont19Posted 11/9/2012 12:06:27 AM
SchaerMann posted...
Hold on. People actually think that using a suppressor in a firefight has a negative quality to it?

That is both hilarious and depressing. The purpose of a suppressor is to give a tactical advantage. There is no range or damage decrease to the weapon with a suppressor attached; on the contrary, the slight increase in barrel length a suppressor gives does the precise opposite, though it's not generally noticeable.

I understand it's a game and things need "balance", but I can't understand why Treyarch (or other FPS devs) decide to balance the game by looking at the laws of physics and saying, "Well, screw this lot, and we're going to modify the hell out of these others until only gravity is genuinely recognizable, and that's only because people would notice their characters floating in midair or walking on walls in sequences meant to be on Earth."

There's balance, and then there's... whatever the hell I've just described is called (my personal vote is insanity).


Maybe I'm just dumb, or maybe I'm tired, but I'm having a hard time trying to figure out what you are saying here. Are you saying you think its dumb that suppressors in this game reduce a guns effective range?
#63TheohazardPosted 11/9/2012 12:31:09 AM
Modern suppressors don't slow the bullet down at all; nothing touches the bullet unless something isn't lined up properly. That said, you're also not going to be able to use subsonic rounds in most auto-loading suppressed rifles: the rounds aren't going to cycle the action and you'll have a short-range, single-shot rifle (yes, I know all about the 300 AAC Blackout; that's why I said "most"). The military uses suppressors on assault and sniper rifles all the time, but they're not using low-velocity ammo; they're using normal ammo.

Suppressed rifles firing normal-velocity ammo still make a ballistic "crack" (they sound kind of like a loud nail gun), but the main advantage is they make it difficult for the enemy to tell where the shot came from. They know they're being shot at, but the ballistic crack without the actual report from the gun itself often makes it sound like the shots are coming from the opposite direction. Also, suppressed weapons make it a lot easier to maintain command and control when firing inside a building.

Sure, if you're using a suppressor on a weapon firing a handgun round it makes sense to use subsonic ammo; just increase the bullet weight a bit and you can lower the velocity a little bit so it doesn't have that ballistic "crack". But with rifles rounds the normal velocity is two-and-a-half to three times faster than the speed of sound, so lowering the velocity and still having the round function properly is usually not possible.
---
0331: "If you run, you'll only die tired."
#64TheohazardPosted 11/9/2012 12:34:17 AM
Scottydont19 posted...
Maybe I'm just dumb, or maybe I'm tired, but I'm having a hard time trying to figure out what you are saying here. Are you saying you think its dumb that suppressors in this game reduce a guns effective range?

He's pulling the realism card. And depending how he responds to my previous post we'll find out if he actually knows what he's taking about.
---
0331: "If you run, you'll only die tired."
#65KarnRX78Posted 11/9/2012 12:51:35 AM
[This message was deleted at the request of a moderator or administrator]
#66SchaerMannPosted 11/9/2012 1:09:32 AM
Theohazard posted...
Modern suppressors don't slow the bullet down at all; nothing touches the bullet unless something isn't lined up properly. That said, you're also not going to be able to use subsonic rounds in most auto-loading suppressed rifles: the rounds aren't going to cycle the action and you'll have a short-range, single-shot rifle (yes, I know all about the 300 AAC Blackout; that's why I said "most"). The military uses suppressors on assault and sniper rifles all the time, but they're not using low-velocity ammo; they're using normal ammo.

Suppressed rifles firing normal-velocity ammo still make a ballistic "crack" (they sound kind of like a loud nail gun), but the main advantage is they make it difficult for the enemy to tell where the shot came from. They know they're being shot at, but the ballistic crack without the actual report from the gun itself often makes it sound like the shots are coming from the opposite direction. Also, suppressed weapons make it a lot easier to maintain command and control when firing inside a building.

Sure, if you're using a suppressor on a weapon firing a handgun round it makes sense to use subsonic ammo; just increase the bullet weight a bit and you can lower the velocity a little bit so it doesn't have that ballistic "crack". But with rifles rounds the normal velocity is two-and-a-half to three times faster than the speed of sound, so lowering the velocity and still having the round function properly is usually not possible.


Perfectly true, if incomplete, Theo. I was using weapons firing handgun rounds as a baseline example for the discussion, however.

As for "pulling the realism card", it wasn't my intention with my original post. I was attempting to heap scorn on design choices that are sketchy, and pointing out that labeling it "balancing decisions" is a bit of a cop-out.

There are ways to balance things in-game that are cleaner, more efficient and easier to implement/maintain than items such as we're discussing here; that was the entire point of it, and the original post was using the topic of this thread as the example.

It devolved into an entirely different discussion rapidly, however.
---
Now Playing: A poverty-level unemployed restaurant worker on the original reality program: Life
Waiting for: A positive response on a job interview
#67r3flexxPosted 11/9/2012 1:25:16 AM
Considering attachments are super important in BO2, I wouldn't even consider it a good attachment in comparison to others.

Theres the laser sight (steady aim = more accurate bullets for close range combat), quick draw (quicker ADS = getting the first shot off and making your opponents screen flinch), extended mags/fast mags (less/faster reloading = saves a lot of lives), tactical/mms sight (being more aware of enemies is a huge advantage), rapid fire (almost guaranteed to win cq battles), foregrip (better accuracy = faster killing), long barrel (more range = faster killing). Those attachments have no drawbacks and imo are equal to or much better than the silencer. Ever had to put 7 bullets into an enemy from a distance only to have him still live? I have. Silencers are more than fair.
---
PSN: xFinland(SP games)/l-r3flex-l(MP games)
oh sheesh y'all, 'twas a dream!
#68cwatz12Posted 11/9/2012 3:28:30 AM
r3flexx brings up an excellent point.

Ignoring everything you have thought about silencers before, in BO2 they have been indirectly nerfed.

Much like cqc things were indirectly buffed in MW3 because of the terrible clusterf*** map design, silencers will be weaker this time around because of what you have to sacrifice.
#69Eternal_WarlordPosted 11/9/2012 3:30:09 AM
Wahh.
---
Got back from Oregon 07/05/2010. Wasn't gonna leave but then I saw this: http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/9075/sam1064.jpg
psn: EternalGST
#70Fourth_BonkuraPosted 11/9/2012 3:44:39 AM
Really? Has it come to this? "Suppressors are overpowered"?
---
Nooooo, I'm fish
*cook myself* -Leo4999