Guns: A seriouse threat?

12 posts / 0 new
Last post
Guns: A seriouse threat?

Hi guys,

I'm about to buy this game but for now I'm only playing the demo and I love this game so far.
Once I even managed to scavenge a rifle with 2 shots.
Awesome, I thought and my first target, a bandit, followed soon too.
I shot him out of range 0 into his upper chest and thought that's it for him.
But to my disbelief he just RAN away like nothing happened. Yeah, he was bleeding and such but he almost managed to outrun me and hit me a few times with his crowbar until I rifle butt him to hell.
So what point do weapons actually have if someone can survive a shot into the upper chest?
Yeah, I mean it would be something different if I hit him in his arm or leg but that wasn't the case.

Now has this been fixed in the full version and if not... will it ever be fixed?
Ok, I got to admit that guns are strong and they're still usefull but I expect a little bit more.

Looking forward for you opinion and the one of the devs.


Survival games are not about staying alive but to die the most glorious death.

A man can be shot in the heart and still run about 15m before dying.
In my firearms training I was told that Police (in Australia anyway) are trained to discharge their firearms until their target has dropped for this very reason. A firearm discharge into the upper torso may not be lethal. The only totally lethal/sudden stopping shot is a spinal/head injury. If I am not mistaken, even a partial piercing of the lung will disable someone in a short period of time - but not immediately.

Also, if you've ever gone hunting before, you sure can shoot something in the torso and for it to be not only dangerous, but still run and go hide somewhere a couple of km away.

That's my two-cents. I think it is fairly realistic; you can also score a one-shot kills.

Speaking of one-shot kills. I have had a case in the game where I gave a dogman cardiac arrest by hitting him in the chest with a Soft Point bullet. Instant kill.

Yeah, big animals are something different and of course if you don't hit them properly they'll run away or even attack you.
But in my eyes I think that someone who gets shot by a hunting rifle into his upper chest while charging at me won't be able to turn, run away and even hit me with his goddamn crowbar for some damage... 2 times.

Maybe he should be stunned and fall down because most people would be propeled away by the force of the bullet but hey... I'm no expert and maybe I'm talking bullshit but in my eyes it seems more realistic.


Survival games are not about staying alive but to die the most glorious death.

I'd like to clarify first that the force transfer with a bullet is minimal, so the idea of getting pushed back by a bullet from a hunting rifle might only apply to a shotgun (pellet). It is something to do with the penetration and lack of surface area.

On the topic of upper chest injuries, I think you are right, but you would be surprised at what a projectile can do inside the human body. Maybe the bullet got lodged in the rib-cage. Maybe the bullet hit a rib, bounced and carved down into the stomach. Maybe the bullet hit a part of the lung before lodging into the back of the shoulder blade.

Hell, maybe the bandit was wearing 4 layers of hoodies and you fired a hollow-point round (multiple layers of heavy clothing are recognized as a partially effective method of stopping hollow-point ammunition).

I actually know of specific examples where someone has been stabbed in the lung, managed to fight on for 2 minutes, before passing out due to blood loss/lack of blood pressure. If each game turn represents 3-5 seconds, that means that someone got a direct hit on another human, punctured out his lung, then had to fight him for 20 turns more after that. I honestly think that a narrow full-metal jacket round would be exactly the same as a knife-blade, maybe more bone trauma.

I think the current system, although sometimes flawed, represents the real-life situations of things just being weirdly bugged.

I'm only basing this on 3 years of armed guard training, so don't quote me on the medical stuff, we just get taught very basic case studies on people getting shot or shooting other people.

Hey Guys,

I think echocharliedelta pretty accurately describes the way I model trauma in the game. A bullet is definitely capable of being lethal, but instant death is actually a fairly rare occurrence. More often, the bullet does something terrible to a part of the body, and death results from loss of oxygenated blood to the brain sometime later.

It's possible to kill a creature in NEO Scavenger by dealing enough damage to the upper chest location. Cardiac arrest is the "named" death for that occurrence. If the bandit ran off after being hit, he probably didn't receive enough trauma to that location to destroy heart tissue. E.g. like ECD says, it deflected off a bone, or passed through a trapezius muscle, etc. The game doesn't model that level of detail, but the randomness is meant to simulate that range of outcomes.

Also, there is a system in NEO Scavenger whereby a large amount of damage dealt all at once in the same location should cause a "stunned" debuff lasting 1 turn. This is meant to simulate severe trauma causing shock (not to be confused with septic or volemic shock). If the bandit up and ran after being hit, chances are the hit was actually fairly minor. Enough to cause him to bleed and get scared, but not enough to stun/kill him.

Overall, though, I think weapon lethality is actually pretty high in NEO Scavenger. Bullets aren't guaranteed killers, but they definitely carry that potential.

Dan Fedor - Founder, Blue Bottle Games

I agree with that, but I want add one word, if I may.
I think that part of the problem with firearms in NEO is that ranged weapons show their superiority at long range... And we don't get much of it in game. Almost all encounters start off in 0-3 (what is this: meters, steps, yards?) range and immediately turn into hand-to-hand combat. It's ok, since most of the time we don't have ammo anyway but if fights were starting in ranges of 12-15 we would often see a raider starting a charge at us, getting shot and dying/falling after 1-2 more turns in the midfield.

Though I think it's completely unnecessary adding longer ranges would make firefights look more realistic (and cool)...

<--Mighty (mini)Mod of Doom-->
DeviantArt Gallery of MoD Sprites

^ this.

I stopped taking the ranged perk when I found out there was only one gun and that without it I could probably land my shots anyway. I never make it far enough to hoard ammo and most of the time a single shot is enough to mess up any enemy - currently without the ranged perk, I still get one-shot kills periodically.

I feel that our 'hiding' or 'sneaking' options should give us the ability to really space out the distance from us and the enemy. The default '3' is basically melee distance; reserved for getting jumped whilst scavenging or sleeping.
'4' might represent a stand-off, giving us a chance to back off or run.
'6-8' might be our ambush.

I'm trying to balance out the ranges because I actually think I have a good idea about Dan's primary concern;
Longer ranges can turn into buggy 'retreat spam' instances. '3' as a value represents the figure in which running away all the time is not an option - charging can initiate and force combat.
At 4, charging may not initiate this.
At 12-15, you will be frustrated by the fact that the first missed shot will equal a long, drawn out, 'advance+end turn' cycle or the bandit running off.
Unless we had a button to sight for a turn to acquire our target, then fire off, 90%-to-hit our shot (with ranged perk). Note: I'm surprised this was never even included; I'd like a turn to acquire and sight my target - I have only 2 rounds - I'm willing to let the bandit advance one square.

The logic is that, if you are a trained shooter, a human sized target walking down the road slowly, may not be all that difficult to shoot after you've had the time to judge the distance and ready yourself.

Given enough time, I've seen shooters plug rocks/bottles at over 30-40m downrange (with a handgun!).
Given little time, I've seen shooters (one was ex-army) miss a target at 5 meters downrange.

The ranged perk is also supposed to represent physical conditioning and muscle memory for shooters. I've seen what people in their first go look like when they snap draw from a holster and fire off a wild round into no where. At 5 meters. That is dogman-to-your-face distance. The Ranged perk should simulate the training and non-ranged characters should have a much harder time firing off weapons. Hiding should give us the chance to actually ambush, either melee or ranged, to better utilize the perks.

Ranged perk, I have major issues with. As you can tell.

I think guns work rather well, If I do end up hitting a bandit fairly well, they run away(and if I'm correct) continue taking damage, I normally let them run, follow then melee them, they die rather easy this way.

The trapper/tracking perks should help out for rifle usage. Perhaps giving extra starting range for positioning in an encounter if the player is rifle-equipped? It would make sense that someone skilled in the wilderness, able to read tracks and lay traps should have some bonus to combat ranges if they required it, both from a gameplay point of view and from a common sense/story side. That skill set is the ideal one for ambush and wilderness encounter positioning. This would also make ambushes against the player all the more important if they lost out on that positioning bonus or opition (if it was a pop up option to jump out closer to the enemy or start the fight farther away (to suit ranged or escape) before an encounter you initiate).

Got headshot last night in my first turn of combat.

Clicked for cover. BAM screen went black.

For a split second I thought it was a crash, but then the "death by brain injury" description appeared.
Brutal? Maybe... Lost a few hours of playtime... But I deserved it.

I was getting too cocky, routinely charging down gun wielders without a care.
The experience has added tension to a lot of encounters since.

Oh yeah, lovely. I really like how the game is hard, but fair. As it should be. And I love how you feel like you're getting the hang of things and then the game brutally murders you for being stupid, and next time you play you'll be a little smarter.

Reminds me of an example from Nethack (I think), which had a monster which would petrify you if you touched it, or more correctly if your skin touched its. So this way there'd be 3 ways to die from it. 1, you could hit it without gloves or a weapon. 2, you could bump into it in the darkness. 3, you could step on a corpse of one, while not wearing boots. And although instant-death is a rather mean thing, each of the examples could easily be circumvented. Simply; cover your hands and/or use a weapon, remember not to run around barefoot, and lastly pay attention, since the monster always hisses loudly which alerts you to its presence.

So, yeah. Hard but Fair. How I prefer my games. :)