So it specifically states that they are armor piercing. That would mean it shoots through the armor, so why don’t we deal direct damage to the monsters life total by hitting the mark? It pierces armor correct?
No see, CROWS rifle is armor piercing. Val’s is a modified BB gun.
Val’s gun was touted as having Armor Piercing Rounds, so you have a point TC.
The Anti-Material Rifle punches a hole in the Monster’s armor, creating a weak-point that amplifies all damage dealt to the monster by 2x in that area. It is highlighted as a circle for clarity.
It would actually be a pretty nice mechanic if Val’s AP sniper rifle’s weakpoints drained HP directly… it makes a lot of sense, too. I like that thought, Rodrat.
That would be to much though they already do 2x the damage why do 2x the damage through armor? tranq once then just stay back cover the monster in like 3-4 targets and the monster is screwed.
I think he meant the 2X damage would be dropped due to doing direct damage to the Monster
I didn’t say it would be a good idea. I was just stating that it doesn’t do what the game says it does or how logic thinks it would work.
I think it would actually be pretty over powered if it did what it says.
Armor piercing doesn’t mean it goes through armor. It means it affects armor more then flesh. Normally it would still end up going through but In this case, the armor must be strong enough that it doesn’t go through. Instead it just fucks it up a bit, leaving a weakspot. If we were trying to be absolutely realistic, these bullets would only be useful on the armor then become useless on the flesh part or at least there wouldn’t be a weakspot on flesh.
Lol oh sorry I thought you meant it should be like that. But it would make sense if it is labeled like that then. cool concept if they drop the 2x n maybe have a cap on limit of damge then the target disappears.
Well it would pierce the armor like intended. Having worked with “armor piercing” bullets I find they are still fairly affective on flesh as they are on steel and anything else really that is soft enough to be punctured. So I imagine that shooting an armor piercing round at a monster with or without armor would still have some dramatic results.
That’s so tru
And then there is one person who comes along with an answer, proving everyone wrong.
If you want to look at it in a realistic way (or as realistic as any of this can get) then imagine it like this. You throw a rock at a shingled house roof. The rock doesn’t go through the roof, but does break some of the shingles off. Now anything thrown at that part of the roof would do more damage to the house than it would before, because the shingles are no longer protecting it. Not the most scientific metaphor, admittedly, and I’m sure there are flaws in it, but this is how I like to imagine it.
You missed my point. They’re not designed to do additional damage to flesh. They are designed to do additional damage to armor. They would work just as well as normal bullets against flesh. But for a monster with armor they would make a bigger impact(weakspot) but still might not be enough to make it through.
Confirmed, I just threw a rock at Goliath, his shingles were only damaged more by everybody else’s rocks, they didn’t actually damage his interior. The roofer will be here Monday to repair it.
Could you imagine if it was actually armor piercing and allowed the Hunters to do direct health damage? Val would hit #1 pick in medic for certain.
For the record, I’d hate to see that happen.
1 headshot + damage amp = grilled wraith for dinner.
Theoretically then if you are able to weaken the armor then when you shoot your own weak point you pierce more and more until you did pierce the armor doing damage to the monsters flesh(health bar)
Ya, that does make some sense.
Just offering a counter argument with some logic for you otherwise it wouldn’t be any fun