Jump to content
Angry Mexicans

Bullets and Explosions Knocking Players Down? Ragdoll Effect

Recommended Posts

sounds like a great idea! It would be great it after getting shot, every now and then someone would stumble or even fall down! Especially from a rifle caliber round! The same concept would work well with explosions! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aw hell yeah, realistic knockback for the win. This is the best real-life example of it I could find.

 

JnpsgIU.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes at OP point.

Explosion does more damage by how close it is, that may be linked to deciding effect? Head nod, pushed, knockdown.

Like the idea of knockdown to prone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "impact" of bullets is a lot less than one would assume. Remember, all force has an equal and opposite force, so if a bullet carried enough kinetic energy to "knock down" a target, it would also "knock down" the shooter who fired it. Body armor actually makes this look like it applies, because rather than the normal bullet hits soft tissue and dumps energy slowly as it goes through, it immediately stops and dumps all its energy into the plate. A friend of mine took an AK round directly to the plate from about 25m and said it felt like a punch from a giant hand, but it's not going to knock a person back. As far as incapacitation, that can't be realistic and fun, because while it can all be figured out and charted and lies within the realm of physics, real-life terminal ballistics are bafflingly inconsistent. We picked up an American who had been shot seventeen times and was still awake and able to function, and then a friend did an autopsy of a MILF fighter in the Phillipines who was shot in the wrist by a M16A1 that did a JFK up his arm and killed him within a minute. There are so many variables and factors involved in terminal ballistics that it's really not possible to simulate even a simplified model with current generation computers and network speeds, so compromises need to be made.

 

So, worry less about "realism" and more about the system being tactically sound and consistent for players. From the gameplay perspective, I am always reluctant to add "randomness" to the game, because if there is an uncontrollable action or randomized effect, the player can't work on skills and techniques to get around it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "impact" of bullets is a lot less than one would assume. Remember, all force has an equal and opposite force, so if a bullet carried enough kinetic energy to "knock down" a target, it would also "knock down" the shooter who fired it. Body armor actually makes this look like it applies, because rather than the normal bullet hits soft tissue and dumps energy slowly as it goes through, it immediately stops and dumps all its energy into the plate. A friend of mine took an AK round directly to the plate from about 25m and said it felt like a punch from a giant hand, but it's not going to knock a person back. As far as incapacitation, that can't be realistic and fun, because while it can all be figured out and charted and lies within the realm of physics, real-life terminal ballistics are bafflingly inconsistent. We picked up an American who had been shot seventeen times and was still awake and able to function, and then a friend did an autopsy of a MILF fighter in the Phillipines who was shot in the wrist by a M16A1 that did a JFK up his arm and killed him within a minute. There are so many variables and factors involved in terminal ballistics that it's really not possible to simulate even a simplified model with current generation computers and network speeds, so compromises need to be made.

 

So, worry less about "realism" and more about the system being tactically sound and consistent for players. From the gameplay perspective, I am always reluctant to add "randomness" to the game, because if there is an uncontrollable action or randomized effect, the player can't work on skills and techniques to get around it.

By the way, you're thinking momentum.  Kinetic energy is not conserved in a collision equation.  Momentum is conserved, but energy is not totally transferred to the target.  A lot is lost in the form of heat and sound. 

 

And technically, the momentum carried by the projectile is less than that delivered to the shooter via the firearm.  Recoil is due to the impulse of both the projectile and the propellent gasses in the barrel (which have mass and velocity, remember).  The momentum delivered to a target, on the other hand, is purely from the projectile. 

 

While it's true, from a physics standpoint, that your mass won't be moved all that much by the momentum of a bullet, your reaction, as a person, may cause you to stumble.  Take the video I posted in my OP.  The man was hit in the plate.  He fell over.  Probably, this was because he was taken by surprise and/or stunned, but he still fell over.  It isn't necessarily certain, but it happens.  This is why I suggested a degree of randomness. 

 

Similarly, if you are running, or if your footing is at all unsure, you might fall due to staggering a bit. 

 

As for the randomness aspect, the way to get around the slight randomness of what happens when you are shot is get better at not being shot.  It isn't like the random consequences hit out of the blue while you are standing around doing nothing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, you're thinking momentum.  Kinetic energy is not conserved in a collision equation.  Momentum is conserved, but energy is not totally transferred to the target.  A lot is lost in the form of heat and sound. 

 

And technically, the momentum carried by the projectile is less than that delivered to the shooter via the firearm.  Recoil is due to the impulse of both the projectile and the propellent gasses in the barrel (which have mass and velocity, remember).  The momentum delivered to a target, on the other hand, is purely from the projectile. 

 

While it's true, from a physics standpoint, that your mass won't be moved all that much by the momentum of a bullet, your reaction, as a person, may cause you to stumble.  Take the video I posted in my OP.  The man was hit in the plate.  He fell over.  Probably, this was because he was taken by surprise and/or stunned, but he still fell over.  It isn't necessarily certain, but it happens.  This is why I suggested a degree of randomness. 

 

Similarly, if you are running, or if your footing is at all unsure, you might fall due to staggering a bit. 

 

As for the randomness aspect, the way to get around the slight randomness of what happens when you are shot is get better at not being shot.  It isn't like the random consequences hit out of the blue while you are standing around doing nothing. 

 

if you're going to make people randomly stumble if they are shot that's a fucking terrible mechanic that would basically ruin any competitive prospects the game ever had.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i agree 100%, would really add to the game play, immersion, and overall feel of the game. also, maybe once the ragdoll effect wears off, the player automatically goes to prone position/state

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if you're going to make people randomly stumble if they are shot that's a fucking terrible mechanic that would basically ruin any competitive prospects the game ever had.

Didn't you say it would be interesting if people fell over?  I'm not suggesting anything different than what I have been from the start.  I was only pointing out that bullets do, in fact, knock people over, as we saw in the video.  But, because he is right to suggest that the momentum transfer shouldn't be huge enough to actually bowl a man over, I was simply pointing out that one might still fall over because the bullet staggers him. 

 

As far game mechanics, I am still only suggesting the same as I have all along:  Bullet impacts have a chance, depending on some circumstances, to cause a player to temporarily ragdoll.  No additional stumbling mechanic would be added.  That is, no, I don't want to see people trip and then catch their own balance.  Either fall down or don't stagger. 

 

That said, some degree of flinching when shot will obviously make sense, similar to what Red Orchestra does. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't you say it would be interesting if people fell over?  I'm not suggesting anything different than what I have been from the start.  I was only pointing out that bullets do, in fact, knock people over, as we saw in the video.  But, because he is right to suggest that the momentum transfer shouldn't be huge enough to actually bowl a man over, I was simply pointing out that one might still fall over because the bullet staggers him. 

 

As far game mechanics, I am still only suggesting the same as I have all along:  Bullet impacts have a chance, depending on some circumstances, to cause a player to temporarily ragdoll.  No additional stumbling mechanic would be added.  That is, no, I don't want to see people trip and then catch their own balance.  Either fall down or don't stagger. 

 

That said, some degree of flinching when shot will obviously make sense, similar to what Red Orchestra does. 

 

there should be a distinct set of circustances in which someone getting shot should fall over (eg high caliber to upper chest)

 

it should NOT be random.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there should be a distinct set of circustances in which someone getting shot should fall over (eg high caliber to upper chest)

 

it should NOT be random.

Why not?  It shouldn't be 100% predictable, I don't think. 

 

I mean, I would think it should be fairly frequent given certain circumstances, and in some others a foregone conclusion, but overall, why should it be completely consistent?  God knows it isn't in the real world. 

 

You said you worry about a loss of competitive nature.  What do you mean by that?  Everyone would suffer the same consequences from being hit, including the same parameters governing how likely they are to fall down.  Why, then, does it damage competition?  Overall, the skill to aim for is to be good at not getting shot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not?  It shouldn't be 100% predictable, I don't think. 

 

I mean, I would think it should be fairly frequent given certain circumstances, and in some others a foregone conclusion, but overall, why should it be completely consistent?  God knows it isn't in the real world. 

 

You said you worry about a loss of competitive nature.  What do you mean by that?  Everyone would suffer the same consequences from being hit, including the same parameters governing how likely they are to fall down.  Why, then, does it damage competition?  Overall, the skill to aim for is to be good at not getting shot. 

 

randomness inherently is bad for competitiveness. "don't get shot" is a shitty excuse for introducing a random mechanic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

randomness inherently is bad for competitiveness. "don't get shot" is a shitty excuse for introducing a random mechanic.

OK, in this context, why would it be bad. 

I mean, the way I see it, there is a competitive element inherent to realistic warfare, in the sense that the side which demonstrates superior tactics and maneuvering will come out on top, or at least have a significant advantage.  Even so, there are plenty of unpredictable things that could happen.  You could get knocked down when hit, but you might not, as well. 

 

But in the big picture, the firefight is still just as competitive, in its tactical demands on both sides, as it was without the random knockdown effect, isn't it? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, in this context, why would it be bad. 

I mean, the way I see it, there is a competitive element inherent to realistic warfare, in the sense that the side which demonstrates superior tactics and maneuvering will come out on top, or at least have a significant advantage.  Even so, there are plenty of unpredictable things that could happen.  You could get knocked down when hit, but you might not, as well. 

 

But in the big picture, the firefight is still just as competitive, in its tactical demands on both sides, as it was without the random knockdown effect, isn't it? 

 

no, the knockdown effect essentially just buffs the power of an individual shot b/c it's way easier to make a followup shot. So you're essentially adding an extra +100 damage randomly to some shots. It doesn't reward good tactics, positioning, or skill, it just makes each firefight more of a RNG game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no, the knockdown effect essentially just buffs the power of an individual shot b/c it's way easier to make a followup shot. So you're essentially adding an extra +100 damage randomly to some shots. It doesn't reward good tactics, positioning, or skill, it just makes each firefight more of a RNG game.

You mean, if a guy gets knocked down randomly, the person who shot him has a chance to get that follow on hit more easily? 

OK, yeah, I can see that being a problem. 

 

Perhaps, then, being knocked down could be determined by shot location, bullet type, injured player's health prior to the hit, and how much stamina the player has.  That might make sense but also remove the uncertainty. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps, then, being knocked down could be determined by shot location, bullet type, injured player's health prior to the hit, and how much stamina the player has.  That might make sense but also remove the uncertainty.

 

 

parameter driven is always superior to random. Randomness is a bad shortcut to abstract things you cannot simulate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I think it would be very pretty visually I think anything that takes a player out of a firefight without having any control over it, such as this, would be a very poor choice to implement. Does it happen in real life? Sure, but what I see this doing is taking people out of the fight just long enough to shoot them again once they hit the ground, effectively taking away their ability to respond. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I think it would be very pretty visually I think anything that takes a player out of a firefight without having any control over it, such as this, would be a very poor choice to implement. Does it happen in real life? Sure, but what I see this doing is taking people out of the fight just long enough to shoot them again once they hit the ground, effectively taking away their ability to respond. 

But to some extent, isn't it a logical consequence of being shot?  That is, why should you be able to control your reaction to being injured?  You've just been shot. 

 

Also, keep in mind that a lot of times, except at very close quarters, a shooter just doesn't get a chance to quickly line up a follow-on shot.  I think that the danger of follow up shots breaking the gameplay feel is a bit over-exaggerated.  Very rarely do I shoot a player and see them fall into a position where I have an easy line of sight to them immediately thereafter.  The vast majority of times I see an enemy go down, it is at some range.  On mountainous Afghani maps, for instance, a lot of times you are hit in a long distance firefight where you are unlikely to be hit multiple times in quick succession, and most of the shooting going on is suppressing fire, or voluminous fire hoping to score lucky hits.  In other instances, say, on Fool's Road, where those firefights beyond 200 meters don't really take place, even a man taken down at, say, as close as 50 meters is still usually too far for me to do anything about it.  Most of those times, he goes down behind a bush, or, in a city, he will go down behind the wall he was using for cover, and he will be back up by the time we can check to see if he is KIA or not (or, I suppose in this game, WIA). 

 

The only time I really see this coming into play is at very close quarters, in a sort of room clearing or compound clearing scenario, but in close-quarters combat, the stakes are naturally very high.  I think the tension of the moment would be naturally helped by the notion that you could be taken out very easily, partly due to the possibility that you will be knocked over.  Indeed, that would help increase the sense that any small mistake could be deadly, and this is, as we well know, very true in urban combat situations.  Such engagements are very deadly and very unforgiving. 

 

In that instance, it would encourage players, I think, not to move through a door without buddies behind them, because then clearing the room becomes a group exercise.  When Player A is hit and goes down for a moment, it is up to Players B and C to save him in the next split second.  In general, it would place more dependence on squad mates, which, for both realism and team-play, might be a good thing.  But in this particular example, I am grasping at straws more than making a definitive assessment of concrete benefits.  CQC might still be a big iffy, though I don't think it would really be that bad in the big picture. 

 

Another reason I suggest this to begin with is partly to address a concern that was brought up regarding my other suggestion regarding potential balances to body armor implementation.  Something that I had been considering, and which was brought to my attention by another, was the possibility that, in such close quarters situations, a player in an irregular faction might manage to get the drop on an American or a Russian.  It might create the possibility that, though a player could hit the American (or Russian) first, the armored player might be able to whirl around, protected by armor, and instead of being dropped by those center mass hits, simply respond and more easily kill the unarmored militant. 

 

Having a somewhat more severe consequence added to being hit, I figure, might help alleviate this potential issue, as it would reward any factions equally for getting such a first strike advantage on an enemy.  In the above scenario, the insurgent player would not be put at nearly as much risk by opening fire, as he might be able to knock the target to the ground.  While realism would say that the body armor would have saved the individual who was shot, and my idea of how armor would work would reflect this accordingly, the fact that the armored player was knocked down would remove the possibility that he could use his armor advantage to simply turn around with immunity and return fire, and this would allow the player to finish off his target, body armor or no. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

instead of a ragdoll effect I'd rather they just be temporarily slowed, or even forced into prone when hit.  that way they still retain control of their character

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get that people want realism, but the level of realism some people expect is completely unrealistic when it comes to creating a game that will retain a decent playerbase and continue to bring in new players.

 

Something like this would probably destroy the playerbase, and probably destroy any interest most people have in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

instead of a ragdoll effect I'd rather they just be temporarily slowed, or even forced into prone when hit.  that way they still retain control of their character

I think slowing down and flinching would be sensible effects no matter what.  I think a temporary knock down would add even more so. 

 

And of course, from my point of view, it feels like the negative aspects of losing control for a brief moment are minor compared to the flavor it would add to the firefights, in terms of the emotional, stressful aspect of combat, and would add some additional reward to getting the drop on an enemy decisively, from a practical standpoint. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, you're thinking momentum.  Kinetic energy is not conserved in a collision equation.  Momentum is conserved, but energy is not totally transferred to the target.  A lot is lost in the form of heat and sound. 

 

And technically, the momentum carried by the projectile is less than that delivered to the shooter via the firearm.  Recoil is due to the impulse of both the projectile and the propellent gasses in the barrel (which have mass and velocity, remember).  The momentum delivered to a target, on the other hand, is purely from the projectile. 

 

While it's true, from a physics standpoint, that your mass won't be moved all that much by the momentum of a bullet, your reaction, as a person, may cause you to stumble.  Take the video I posted in my OP.  The man was hit in the plate.  He fell over.  Probably, this was because he was taken by surprise and/or stunned, but he still fell over.  It isn't necessarily certain, but it happens.  This is why I suggested a degree of randomness. 

 

Similarly, if you are running, or if your footing is at all unsure, you might fall due to staggering a bit. 

 

As for the randomness aspect, the way to get around the slight randomness of what happens when you are shot is get better at not being shot.  It isn't like the random consequences hit out of the blue while you are standing around doing nothing. 

 

Yes, thanks for clarifying. I stand by the randomness statement though, I cede the point that a real person getting hit may fall down, but in game it would be a death sentence. I think it'd critical that we realize that the game can never be 100% realistic, so I'd rather be realistic in the sense of a challenging tactical experience over a would and physics simulator. I think there is probably a happy medium here for mods or custom servers that enable this mechanic however, I just don't want it to be the default.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This seems to be the best thread to necro concerning rag dolls.

 

I'm fishing to see if the devs have any plans to update the rag dolls? Don't get me wrong. I think the way the current ones drop like a sack of potatoes is great! I'm more or less thinking about explosions with IEDs coming soon. (Not to mention the current RPG/LAT explosions already in the game.)

 

Something like this would be neat to see in Squad if it isn't performance-heavy.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, DesmoLocke said:

This seems to be the best thread to necro concerning rag dolls.

 

I'm fishing to see if the devs have any plans to update the rag dolls? Don't get me wrong. I think the way the current ones drop like a sack of potatoes is great! I'm more or less thinking about explosions with IEDs coming soon. (Not to mention the current RPG/LAT explosions already in the game.)

 

Something like this would be neat to see in Squad if it isn't performance-heavy.

 

Wow, that is really damn cool. Imagine people being thrown around like that by explosions...or an RPG that didn't hasn't primed yet!

Edited by fatalsushi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, DesmoLocke said:

This seems to be the best thread to necro concerning rag dolls.

 

I'm fishing to see if the devs have any plans to update the rag dolls? Don't get me wrong. I think the way the current ones drop like a sack of potatoes is great! I'm more or less thinking about explosions with IEDs coming soon. (Not to mention the current RPG/LAT explosions already in the game.)

 

Something like this would be neat to see in Squad if it isn't performance-heavy.

 

For some reason, this gave me flashbacks to my 21st birthday. Must of been the face planting part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×