Let's Discuss the Very Flawed Integrity System in COTW - Dev Input Incouraged

[southofpegasus]

First, what IS integrity? Simply put, integrity is following moral or ethical convictions. So, integrity is doing that which is moral or right. Therefore, in regards to hunting, integrity would refer to the harvesting of an animal in a prompt and humane manner that minimizes the animals suffering as much as possible. You know, use a weapon and shot placement that will dispatch the animal as quickly as possible. A spine shot is NOT a moral or ethical shot. In the real world this will, more often than not, leave the animal alive, writing in pain and require a follow up shot or other method of dispatch. Also, a brain shot is NOT a moral or ethical shot because it is a low percentage shot and, in animals such as hogs, not effective due to the skull thickness. Sure head shots, spine shots, and neck shots can be lethal but they have the highest probability of failure therefore making them unethical shots. A hunter's target with any weapon should always be the vital organs.

Integrity also refers to a state of being whole, entire, or undiminished OR a sound, unimpaired, or perfect condition. In regards to hunting this means you want to place your shot in such a manner that the hide and carcass of the animal is kept in the best possible shape. What does that mean? Well, for an animal such as a whitetail deer, you want to shoot the vital organs (lungs and heart) without penetrating any of the usable meat on the animal. This means from the side you go for the lungs and from the front you go for the heart. If the deer is faced away from you or quartering to or away at too great an angle you simply cannot make an ethical shot and should wait for a better opportunity to make an ethical shot. A spine shot is NOT ethical as it damages usable cuts of meat and damages the hide/pelt in manner that diminishes its worth. A head shot is NOT ethical as it damages the hide/pelt in such a manner that makes it virtually worthless. Intestinal shots are NOT ethical as they can and will taint a portion of the meat making it unusable.

Why do I bring this up? Well, we all know the integrity system not only rewards but promotes two of the most unethical shots in all of hunting, the spine and brain shot. This is in direct contrast to the supposed ethical reasoning for not including endangered or threatened species in the game. I mean, we don't want to promote the hunting of these species due to ethical concerns but we certainly don't mind promoting unethical shot placements (or unethical night hunting but that's a story for another day). Also, and this is what finally prompted me to write about this, we don't mind rewarding and thereby promoting the use of calibers that are too small while penalizing and thereby discouraging the use of larger rounds that are most effective at making the ethical shot. For example, a 7mm or .338 round, according to the integrity system, is deemed unethical for use on the likes of a whitetail or blacktail yet a .223 is deemed ethical for use on a bison and a .22LR, yes a .22LR, is deemed ethical for use on a Cape Buffalo. Because everyone knows turning an animal into Swiss cheese is the ethical thing to do. <-- sarcasm

Case in point, this one took nearly 100 .22LR rounds to dispatch over a nearly 3 mile hunt and yielded 100% integrity:

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1503018193

No that's what I call ethical hunting. <-- sarcasm

In conclusion, the integrity system in COTW needs a huge rework to promote ethical hunting (or else it needs to be done away with altogether). Whether the rifle or bow* the integrity system should be constructed in such a manner to promote weapon and ammunition choices that are matched to the quarry in both effective range and performance and capable of dispatching the prey quickly and cleaning. Also, I personally believe, the animals position to the hunter and range should be taken into consideration as well. Taking a shot on a poorly positioned animal should be penalized. Taking a shot outside of the effective range of a given weapon should be penalized. Utilizing too small (or large in some cases; small game) of a caliber should be penalized. Shot placements outside of the vitals area should be penalized. I would love to hear a developers take on why their system doesn't reflect ethical shot placement and weapons choices and I welcome debate by the players. Please let's all do so in a civil manner so as not to cause a locked thread.

*I left out pistol because I personally believe those are for self protection and not hunting. But that's a discussion for another day

[cybvep]

In-game integrity means how well your weapon calibre matches the animal. So if you use .338 against a roe deer, you will get 0 integrity, for example. However, the death itself was quick, so you get 100 quick kill bonus. "Ethics" in-game is covered not just by integrity, but by quick kill bonus as well. If you use the right weapon and kill the animal quickly, you get the highest score. That works well, I think. The thing that could be changed is the damage model in order to decrease the commoness of spine shots in-game. ATM most animals drop instantly, but maybe in some cases they should be paralyzed instead with low or medium bleedrate, which would decrease the quick kill bonus if you only hit the spine (and not the lungs, heart etc.)?

BTW double long shots with proper weapons work very well in Africa in most cases, giving you either 100 quick kill or a very high 90-99 value. I haven't checked other reserves yet since the release of the new DLC, but if they improved the efficiency of double lung shots there as well, then that would be great.

[Ormy]

They did mention in stream couple of weeks back that they will try to promote lung shots more than spine by keeping the quick kill bonus very high even if the animal runs for a bit. That seems to be the case at least in savanna so far. Haven't hunt other maps to try it out.

[Hidden Gunman]

The ingame integrity is not good...it's a 'less is best' measure, and makes no sense. The old big game saying of 'use enough gun' is pretty appropriate. Anyone can kill a large animal by shooting it with enough .22 soft projectiles to give it lead poisoning, but that's not hunting. It's best, and safer on dangerous game, to err on the side of too much gun, than less, and a hunter should go for the largest gun for the game which they can handle the recoil of (within sensible limits).

Case in point: The game advising that the .338 is appropriate for the cape buffalo, but it's safer with the .470. A .338 single shot, break open rifle is definitely not appropriate for cape buffalo, from the humane kill perspective, let alone from a safety viewpoint. The minimum legal cartridge in many places for buffalo is .375 H&H, and I doubt that any pro outfit would allow a single shot .338 to be used in the others.

I'll also say that the damage is purely a kill or bleed out model...take out a shoulder or the pelvis and you can still end up tracking for hundreds of metres. Granted, wounded animals are unpleasant and difficult to model, but it's a hunting sim/game, shoot straight, aim well, don't rush.

This doesn't even adress the firearm cost/unlock issues for new players.

[southofpegasus]

Originally posted by cybvep:

In-game integrity means how well your weapon calibre matches the animal. So if you use .338 against a roe deer, you will get 0 integrity, for example. However, the death itself was quick, so you get 100 quick kill bonus. "Ethics" in-game is covered not just by integrity, but by quick kill bonus as well. If you use the right weapon and kill the animal quickly, you get the highest score. That works well, I think. The thing that could be changed is the damage model in order to decrease the commoness of spine shots in-game. ATM most animals drop instantly, but maybe in some cases they should be paralyzed instead with low or medium bleedrate, which would decrease the quick kill bonus if you only hit the spine (and not the lungs, heart etc.)?

BTW double long shots with proper weapons work very well in Africa in most cases, giving you either 100 quick kill or a very high 90-99 value. I haven't checked other reserves yet since the release of the new DLC, but if they improved the efficiency of double lung shots there as well, then that would be great.

The integrity system does not reflect how well your weapon caliber matches the animal. A .223 is not a weapon matched for an elk, bear, or moose yet the system still rewards 100% integrity for a shot with said weapon. A .22LR is in no way even remotely matched for a Cape Buffalo yet it rewards 100% for the usage of said weapon. The integrity system is all about promoting and rewarding challenging shots but does little to nothing to reward or reflect moral, ethical shots. Those spine shots and brain shots should always result in 0% integrity as they are, in real life, immoral, low percentage shots in regards to a quick, humane kill. Double lung shots and heart shots should always, assuming one uses a properly sized weapon, be reward with 100% integrity as those reflect moral, ethical shot placement.

Originally posted by Ormy:

They did mention in stream couple of weeks back that they will try to promote lung shots more than spine by keeping the quick kill bonus very high even if the animal runs for a bit. That seems to be the case at least in savanna so far. Haven't hunt other maps to try it out.

They need to reward all double lung shots with 100% integrity as that's the most ethical shot in big game hunting and penalize all spine and brain shots as those are two of the most unethical shots in hunting.

Originally posted by Hidden Gunman:

The ingame integrity is not good...it's a 'less is best' measure, and makes no sense. The old big game saying of 'use enough gun' is pretty appropriate. Anyone can kill a large animal buy shooting it with enough .22 soft projectiles to give it lead poisoning, but that's not hunting. It's best, and safer on dangerous game, to err on the side of too much gun, than less, and a hunter should go for the largest gun for the game which they can handle the recoil of (within sensible limits).

Case in point: The game advising that the .338 is appropriate for the cape buffalo, but it's safer with the .470. A .338 single shot, break open rifle is definitely not appropriate for cape buffalo, from the humane kill perspective, let alone from a safety viewpoint. The minimum legal cartridge in many places for buffalo is .375 H&H, and I doubt that any pro outfit would allow a single shot .338 to be used in the others.

I'll also say that the damage is purely a kill or bleed out model...take out a shoulder or the pelvis and you can still end up tracking for hundreds of metres. Granted, wounded animals are unpleasant and difficult to model, but it's a hunting sim/game, shoot straight, aim well, don't rush.

This doesn't even adress the firearm cost/unlock issues for new players.

Yes the integrity in game is meant to reward challenge but completely ignores true integrity. No way should the use of a 7mm on a whitetail result in 0% integrity. That is a perfectly sound choice deer hunting as, provided you're properly skilled, it all but guarantees a quick, humane kill. And there's no way in the world using a .22LR on a Cape Buffalo should result in a 100% integrity bonus. That's just ludicrous. As you said, not even the .338 is an ethical choice for that animal.

Yes it's very unrealistic that one can take out the leg of a big game animal yet it still can bolt and run for hundreds of yards. Certainly the model could use some work there.

Ah, the firearm/ammunition costs are outrageous. I understand they're intended to increase challenge but all they really do is promote the killing of as many animals as possible. Certainly no moral compass in play there. But that's a whole other discussion.

[Ormy]

They should do spineshots same as in classic. Animals won't die right away but paralyze and you can walk up to them and they stare at you until they die or you kill them. It's a heart breaking moment and makes you think twice when thinking about taking a spineshot. I think it also lowered the score.

[jungle.james]

On YouTube you can find a blowgun hunter dispatching a black bear in 2-3 minutes with a heart shot. In Cabela's Pro Hunts you can place a .22LR into a brain through an animals eye. It should be shot placement over round type.

[southofpegasus]

Originally posted by Ormy:

They should do spineshots same as in classic. Animals won't die right away but paralyze and you can walk up to them and they stare at you until they die or you kill them. It's a heart breaking moment and makes you think twice when thinking about taking a spineshot. I think it also lowered the score.

I've never played classic but that sounds like an interesting approach. They should definitely be penalized though rather than rewarded.

Originally posted by jungle.james:

On YouTube you can find a blowgun hunter dispatching a black bear in 2-3 minutes with a heart shot. In Cabela's Pro Hunts you can place a .22LR into a brain through an animals eye. It should be shot placement over round type.

Those types of shots are extremely low probability shots and thus are highly immoral and unethical. They have a far greater chance of injuring an animal than resulting in a quick, clean kill. But if they want to reward for such things they need to stop calling it integrity and call it something else that doesn't suggest morality. Skill perhaps. Kill a Cape Buffalo through the eye with a .22LR? Sure that's a skillful shot. Here, you get a skill bonus. But an integrity bonus? Not in a million years because there's nothing moral or ethical about attempting a shot like that.

[Tommy]

I assumed:
Integrity was the condition of the meat / trophy.
and
Quick kill: was the ethical part..

Smallest effective calibre is rewarded.

[Mondyrocks]

A very interesting discussion.

I can understand the devs making the "too big a gun ruins integrity" decision for gamplay purposes, if I'm honest, but what I can't understand is the way the game encourages you to make unethical choices when shooting an animal.
How many of us have lost a possible diamond animal cos we have tried the ethical shot and got a single lung shot?
Single lung should be enough for a maximum ethical kill but with the current risk versus reward strategy that's in place, most players would forego this and try for a spine shot instead.

It's a problem that I can't see an easy solution for if I'm honest :)

[No_Face]

I make my own codex for integrity and I agree with the author. Having 100% integrity but >100% fastkill (cleanshot : in the heart for example), I do not call this ethical hunting. So it forces me to try all weapons to see if I can have 100% integrity AND fast kill, to create a real codex that I can rely on. (Even if you only have to take the most powerful weapon among the ones that give 100% integrity)

Originally posted by Mondyrocks:

How many of us have lost a possible diamond animal cos we have tried the ethical shot and got a single lung shot?

Yesterday I missed a diamond: /
I put a bullet in one lung. But I think it's my fault, I'll have to get closer. I am the kind of player who always looks for the clean shot (heart) and I think to reach it in about 70% of cases.

[Frank Drebin]

Honestly, i think without the Tru.Rack system from classic we will never get a good system. Classic was/is way better then this half baked system. It promotes unethical sot placement and punish you for going the right way. The biggest flaw is that the final score is determind by all three scores and thus for it automatical becomes a mutal problem. Score should only be related to the Rack in case of deers or Head Size for Bears and so on. This should be the only way to get diamonds and other trophys. Money should be based on Integrity and Expirence should be measeurd by all three factors.
This would make more sense overall and promotes the correct way of hunting without deleting the possibilitie to shoot rabbits with a .338, yes you can do it without a DOC sitting in the tree next to you and spamming your mail account that he has seen what you've done. You will just recieive a minimum amount of money maybe zero near zero EXP and no Score at all but you get at the same time teached you should better use a different gun.

[CMDR.FREEZER]

I agree with you OP.

There are 1-2 bonuses that needs to be removed from the game or heavily reworked.
Concecutive Harvest and Integrity bonus.

Now while i agree with you that the integrity bonus is rather stupid and promotes the wrong idea of shot placement compared with real life. I think the developers uses the current integrity system as a tool to not make one weapon meta. Wrong yes, but i can see where they are comming from too.

If they were to rework the integrity bonus the way you describe "Etical shooting"
Say 338 where to be etical on whitetail, blacktail, perhaps even roe deer....what do you think is gonna happen?.....
.......i think you know.......yes, people will bring the 338. and nothing else simply because the 338. will give a much more reliable shot while also have the power to down pretty much all animals without issue. While the other weapons the developer have spent hours on end designing in outstanding detail will be left back in the storage container.

The current system favors a variety of weapon selection for the various animal on all three....now four reserves. Which in turn brings up another rather unusual thing, do you ever see a real life hunter bring 3-4 different guns on each hunt?....Nah, you dont. Because in real life you dont go on a hunt to hunt 5-6-7 different animals, in COTW you actually do.

But i do agree, the integrity bonus and concecutive harvest are stupid bonuses.
Question is, how should they be removed/reworked while at the same time eliminate the possibility of a meta weapon?

[Rookie-31st]

You cannot productively discuss integrity without quick kill. They go in pair and complement each other in enforcing ethical hunting

[southofpegasus]

Originally posted by Tommy:

I assumed:
Integrity was the condition of the meat / trophy.
and
Quick kill: was the ethical part..

Smallest effective calibre is rewarded.

Perhaps. But if integrity refers to the condition of the animal I find it highly suspect that nearly (100) .22LR rounds in a Cape Buffalo hide/carcass would result in 100% integrity. In all practicality, the integrity and quick kill should equally represent the morals and ethics of the kill. After all, the moral shot is the shot utilizing the most effective weapon for the circumstances to obtain the quickest, cleanest kill possible. Using small game weapons on large game simply does not represent ethical hunting but is rewarded by this system while some larger caliber rounds which are perfectly suitable for large game are penalized for some large game. While it may be a system that rewards challenging shots it certainly doesn't reflect ethical hunting.

Originally posted by Mondyrocks:

A very interesting discussion.

I can understand the devs making the "too big a gun ruins integrity" decision for gamplay purposes, if I'm honest, but what I can't understand is the way the game encourages you to make unethical choices when shooting an animal.
How many of us have lost a possible diamond animal cos we have tried the ethical shot and got a single lung shot?
Single lung should be enough for a maximum ethical kill but with the current risk versus reward strategy that's in place, most players would forego this and try for a spine shot instead.

It's a problem that I can't see an easy solution for if I'm honest :)

That's a big part of why I bring up the topic, how the system encourages unethical shot placement while most often penalizing what is widely considered the most ethical shot placement, that to vitals. Certainly a start in working towards a solution would be to reward the ethical shot to the vitals with integrity and quick kill while penalizing the spine and head shots which are, in the real world, low percentage shots that frequently result in injury rather than death.

Originally posted by No_Face:

I make my own codex for integrity and I agree with the author. Having 100% integrity but >100% fastkill (cleanshot : in the heart for example), I do not call this ethical hunting. So it forces me to try all weapons to see if I can have 100% integrity AND fast kill, to create a real codex that I can rely on. (Even if you only have to take the most powerful weapon among the ones that give 100% integrity)

I pretty much do the same except in case where I'm forced to do otherwise in order to complete a mission or achievement. If this were real and not a game I certainly wouldn't even be attempting many of these missions or achievements.

Originally posted by Wylander:

Honestly, i think without the Tru.Rack system from classic we will never get a good system. Classic was/is way better then this half baked system. It promotes unethical sot placement and punish you for going the right way. The biggest flaw is that the final score is determind by all three scores and thus for it automatical becomes a mutal problem. Score should only be related to the Rack in case of deers or Head Size for Bears and so on. This should be the only way to get diamonds and other trophys. Money should be based on Integrity and Expirence should be measeurd by all three factors.
This would make more sense overall and promotes the correct way of hunting without deleting the possibilitie to shoot rabbits with a .338, yes you can do it without a DOC sitting in the tree next to you and spamming your mail account that he has seen what you've done. You will just recieive a minimum amount of money maybe zero near zero EXP and no Score at all but you get at the same time teached you should better use a different gun.

I'm not familiar at all with classic as I've never played. I do agree that the final trophy status should not be determined utilizing integrity, quick kill, or consecutive harvest. It should simply be a score based on the trophy value of the animal. Yes perhaps the monetary and experience rewards should be determined by the others but, even then, the system would still need reworked to better promote true, ethical weapon choice and shot placement. No more spine shots or head shots. No more small caliber weapons on big game. No more penalties for appropriately sized weapons on big game just because that particular round may make the kill too easy. No more rewards or any kind for shooting a scrub hare with a .470 while making Swiss cheese out of a Cape Buffalo with the .22LR (I would never do such things in real life but I kind of have to in game to test just how flawed the system is).

Originally posted by FREEZER:

I agree with you OP.

There are 1-2 bonuses that needs to be removed from the game or heavily reworked.
Concecutive Harvest and Integrity bonus.

Now while i agree with you that the integrity bonus is rather stupid and promotes the wrong idea of shot placement compared with real life. I think the developers uses the current integrity system as a tool to not make one weapon meta. Wrong yes, but i can see where they are comming from too.

If they were to rework the integrity bonus the way you describe "Etical shooting"
Say 338 where to be etical on whitetail, blacktail, perhaps even roe deer....what do you think is gonna happen?.....
.......i think you know.......yes, people will bring the 338. and nothing else simply because the 338. will give a much more reliable shot while also have the power to down pretty much all animals without issue. While the other weapons the developer have spent hours on end designing in outstanding detail will be left back in the storage container.

The current system favors a variety of weapon selection for the various animal on all three....now four reserves. Which in turn brings up another rather unusual thing, do you ever see a real life hunter bring 3-4 different guns on each hunt?....Nah, you dont. Because in real life you dont go on a hunt to hunt 5-6-7 different animals, in COTW you actually do.

But i do agree, the integrity bonus and concecutive harvest are stupid bonuses.
Question is, how should they be removed/reworked while at the same time eliminate the possibility of a meta weapon?

That certainly could be a part of the reasoning behind their system. But I'm not sure there would ever be a meta weapon. Large caliber weapons would still be unethical for use on small game simply because it destroys the integrity of the hide/carcass. The same large caliber weapons would still not be ethical for use on the medium sized animals for the same reasoning. Small caliber weapons would not be ethical for use on medium to large size game as they're simply not powerful enough for a reliable quick, clean kill. It would take some work but the system can certainly be reworked to better reflect and promote ethical, moral hunting. If that's something they truly desire to do and not just some lip service to explain the exclusion of certain animals in the game.

Originally posted by Rookie-31st:

You cannot productively discuss integrity without quick kill. They go in pair and complement each other in enforcing ethical hunting

Certainly, discuss that as well. I may not have mentioned it directly but I think I did touch on the topic to an extent. A shot to the vitals is widely considered to be the only ethical way of producing a quick, clean kill. Head shots and spine shots are low percentage shots that have a greater chance of injuring and maiming than killing. Therefore vitals shots with the proper weapon at proper angels (broadside, quartering away, frontal) should always result in full quick kill while the spine shots and head shots should reflect the low percentage shots the truly are and thus be heavily penalized, resulting in low quick kill scores.

[southofpegasus]

On a side not, I find it frustrating that a perfectly valid and thus far civil discussion on game mechanics is moved from the frequented discussions category to the less traveled thoughts and suggestions category. It's almost as if someone wants to discourage conversations that might be critical of the game in one way or the other. I mean certainly troll hunting is a more valid topis worthy of general discussion than core game mechanics. Go figure. At least it hasn't been locked yet like many post with critical commentary are.