• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

Accuracy needs to be reduced on ALL the weapons ingame

This thread is pretty stupid. I cant believe im bumping it to add my 2 cents but here it is anyway.

Trained soldiers are deadly with rifles.

For all the John Woo fans that want extended firefights, and reduced accuracy in the hopes that they might get a kill before dying, sorry.

In RO2 we engage the enemy at less than 300m. Any rifleman fresh out of basic can hit paper at 300m.

I live in the U.S. and we have a ****load of guns. I shoot regularly and I promise you that I can hit 20/20 on a bowling ball that is perched on a fence. This is pretty much like your head peeking over a wall.

I can honestly say IMO its easier to hit targets with a real rifle than it is in RO2 because irl there is no latency.

A Main Battle rifle from the WW2 era is accurate a deadly to 600m at least. That is more than twice the range that we engage enemies in RO2.

So.... To sum it up, the rifles are perfect. the smg's need some minor work but NOT reduced accuracy. SMG's need more bullet drop if anything. The LMG's are almost perfect.(my weapon of choice). I just wish they had better tracers.
 
Upvote 0
So are why did you bring up ARMA as an example of realism when that game contradicts everything you said with 200m+ gun fights? Remember your basic training test and the range you had to hit the man sized pop up targets?

In what way ARMA contradict real life ballistics?

It contradicts your "RO2's too easy to hit targets" argument.

It takes good time to actually setup your shot for 200m in RO2 and even then many people miss (refering from actual gameplay and the thread where people were showing off screenshots of their longest kills, in which only like 4 or 5 people managed 300m and rest hovered around 200m). In ARMA I can nail 300m targets in a second or two.

Focus kid.

Not really a great showcase of maturity for yourself when you keep editing in personal insults like these.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This thread is pretty stupid. I cant believe im bumping it to add my 2 cents but here it is anyway.

Trained soldiers are deadly with rifles.

For all the John Woo fans that want extended firefights, and reduced accuracy in the hopes that they might get a kill before dying, sorry.

In RO2 we engage the enemy at less than 300m. Any rifleman fresh out of basic can hit paper at 300m.

I live in the U.S. and we have a ****load of guns. I shoot regularly and I promise you that I can hit 20/20 on a bowling ball that is perched on a fence. This is pretty much like your head peeking over a wall.

I can honestly say IMO its easier to hit targets with a real rifle than it is in RO2 because irl there is no latency.

A Main Battle rifle from the WW2 era is accurate a deadly to 600m at least. That is more than twice the range that we engage enemies in RO2.

So.... To sum it up, the rifles are perfect. the smg's need some minor work but NOT reduced accuracy. SMG's need more bullet drop if anything. The LMG's are almost perfect.(my weapon of choice). I just wish they had better tracers.

Cheers mate. This has gone on way to long. I'm glad I'm not just arguing into a void here.
 
Upvote 0
I live in the U.S. and we have a ****load of guns. I shoot regularly and I promise you that I can hit 20/20 on a bowling ball that is perched on a fence. This is pretty much like your head peeking over a wall.


So, is it easy to hit target size of human head 50 meters away while slowly moving in ADS and it hits right on the target more than 6 out of 10?

As that's pretty much I can get with RO2.

I want to know your answer.

1. target 50meters away
2. human head sized target
3. slowly walking in ADS
4. hit target +6/10.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
I live in the U.S. and we have a ****load of guns. I shoot regularly and I promise you that I can hit 20/20 on a bowling ball that is perched on a fence. This is pretty much like your head peeking over a wall.


So, is it easy to hit target size of human head 50 meters away while slowly moving in ADS and it hits right on the target more than 6 out of 10?

As that's pretty much I can get with RO2.

I want to know your answer
.

That's a damn lie.

You just want us to say you're right. Which you're not. We're done here.
 
Upvote 0
Upvote 0
Which is -exactly- what I bloody said, you condescending prick. Grab a ruler, put one end of it at the center of your chest, and measure. 4" would still put a bullet right through one of your lungs unless you're some kind of small-torso'd midget. Not to mention that is using the 200 yd spread. 2" at 100 yards wouldn't even move the round off your heart.

And as I've hashed and rehashed a hundred times in this thread, there are -plenty- of factors to simulate combat stresses on you, the player, in game not the least of which is the -other players shooting back at you-. There is sway, just not an exaggerated amount. There -is- challenge, difficulty, and a learning curve to shooting, but it's not the drunken wavering that you guys are so keen on.

Seriously, fire some goddamn synapses before you start arguing.

i dont quite agree.

I do believe that the game should replicate some human error for the following reasons.

1. Human error is the result of your muscles being unable to remain unreasonably still; they twitch.

2. In the video game we use the mouse as a conduit for controlling the gun, which as it stands bears no fathomable resemblance to actually holding a gun and firing. Therefor using a mouse you can pull off much more accurate shots, as your breathing/muscle twitches dont effect it much

3. Because this is a game, there is no sense true danger. In combat, the stress coupled with adrenaline and the fear of death may cause a decreased accuracy that you are not used to seeing at the firing range.

In that sense, your in game avatar being a virtual representation of a human, should model some of these human characteristics, such as random muscle twitches and an angular deflection between the front/rear sights when pulling up the iron sights.

Also i believe that pip-boy made reference that the numbers came from people firing at a shooting range in a prone/crouched position. I think it would be a safe bet to tack on an additional 2-3in on to those results for standing shots, and perhaps yet another 1-2in to account for combat stress
 
Upvote 0
i dont quite agree.

I do believe that the game should replicate some human error for the following reasons.

1. Human error is the result of your muscles being unable to remain unreasonably still; they twitch.

Don't know about you, but I don't have a rock-steady mouse hand. I tend to get little twitches when I play for a long time.

2. In the video game we use the mouse as a conduit for controlling the gun, which as it stands bears no fathomable resemblance to actually holding a gun and firing. Therefor using a mouse you can pull off much more accurate shots, as your breathing/muscle twitches dont effect it much

That is true, which is why they add weapon sway to the game to make things more challenging. Weapon sway is already in RO2, and it is very well modeled. It's subtle, it's controllable, and it doesn't screw you out of easy shots.

3. Because this is a game, there is no sense true danger. In combat, the stress coupled with adrenaline and the fear of death may cause a decreased accuracy that you are not used to seeing at the firing range.

There is a sense of danger, in that I don't want to be staring at a respawn screen. I want to perform well while playing. I want to be better than the other players on the server. Sure, it's certainly no life or death situation, but frankly I don't want to be in a life or death situation. They're not much fun. I've been in a few. I play a game to relax and unwind. However, this doesn't mean that I don't appreciate realistic, intense games. It's fun to stress out about silly things from time to time to take my mind off of real stresses.

And as I said, I'm hardly a human aimbot. I get twitchy (I've TK'd several times because I was too jumpy, for instance. I saw guys coming onto the point on the progress bar, and I heard voices and bootsteps. I come around a corner and *BLAM*, friendly. Whoops...), I overcompensate, I over-turn, and I misjudge distances and target leads. I'm human. I make mistakes. Often. I don't need the game to screw up for me, and I can't stand games that do. When I die in ARMA, I often feel that I was screwed out of an easy kill because the clumsy gun mechanics. I never feel like that in RO2. If I get killed, it's -my- fault, or the other guy was just better than me. I wouldn't have it any other way.

In that sense, your in game avatar being a virtual representation of a human, should model some of these human characteristics, such as random muscle twitches and an angular deflection between the front/rear sights when pulling up the iron sights.

And it does. If it didn't model a real human, we could sprint and fire perfectly without breaking stride, a la Counterstrike or CS:S.

As it stands, you need to stop before you can bring your rifle to bear, giving you a sense of inertia and weight to your person. There is weapon sway, just not a silly, gamey amount. You have free-aim while ADS, which makes tracking targets more challenging. Sure, it's not as -hard- as RO1, or some of the other "hardcore realistic" shooters out there, but frankly, shooting guns in real life isn't as hard as these games make it out to be.

Also i believe that pip-boy made reference that the numbers came from people firing at a shooting range in a prone/crouched position. I think it would be a safe bet to tack on an additional 2-3in on to those results for standing shots, and perhaps yet another 1-2in to account for combat stress

And I said, ignoring combat stresses and human error, the -weapon- would have a very small spread. That was a very important qualifier I made. And again, that was on a stationary target.

In game, not only is there your human error, there is also the need to lead targets, account for bullet drop, adjust your sights, and all manner of things that help increase the challenge of pulling off difficult shots. However, if you miss it should be your fault, not the fault of the weapon.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
luciferintears said:
3. Because this is a game, there is no sense true danger. In combat, the stress coupled with adrenaline and the fear of death may cause a decreased accuracy that you are not used to seeing at the firing range.
I disagree with that one. We have to separate physical state from psychical state that is in our heads. There is sense of danger even if it's not life threatening you as human-player. It surely threatens human-soldier's life and I think that no one wants to die in-game and anyone will try to do anything to survive. One of a few tk reasons is that player did see a mobile person and don't want to let that person to be able to shoot him. People make mistakes, there is no reason to add in-game mechanic for that.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
So, is it easy to hit target size of human head 50 meters away while slowly moving in ADS and it hits right on the target more than 6 out of 10?

As that's pretty much I can get with RO2.

I want to know your answer.

1. target 50meters away
2. human head sized target
3. slowly walking in ADS
4. hit target +6/10.

Im not sure that #3 has much to do with the accuracy of the rifle. More the accuracy of the shooter.

But barring #3 I know I can hit 10/10 headshot with a rifle at 50m. I know I can hit 10/10 headshots at 100m. I do this almost every weekend on paper.
 
Upvote 0
3. Because this is a game, there is no sense true danger. In combat, the stress coupled with adrenaline and the fear of death may cause a decreased accuracy that you are not used to seeing at the firing range.

You would be surprised. While everything you said sounds perfectly logical it does not mirror real combat. You would not believe how many young infantrymen are fearless and recklessly aggressive in combat. On that same note, training takes over and muscle memory makes it a bad day for the enemy.
 
Upvote 0
Don't know about you, but I don't have a rock-steady mouse hand. I tend to get little twitches when I play for a long time.

That is true, but because you use fewer muscles to control the mouse and are in a more ergonomic position, rather than say standing and leaning forward in a braced position, they are much more miniscule compared to what you experience when holding a weapon.


That is true, which is why they add weapon sway to the game to make things more challenging. Weapon sway is already in RO2, and it is very well modeled. It's subtle, it's controllable, and it doesn't screw you out of easy shots.

Yes, though i do not feel the sway is very well modeled for one reason reason. That reason being that the sway is very small and smooth, quite the opposite of the sharp random ticks when actually aiming down the sight of a rifle. I dont feel as though there is enough of an accuracy penalty when standing when compared to the crouched or prone position.

I feel as though when engaging a target your first reaction should be to crouch or if possible prone, before firing off a shot. As they say in the Marines; never stand when you can crouch and never crouch when you can prone.

There is a sense of danger, in that I don't want to be staring at a respawn screen. I want to perform well while playing. I want to be better than the other players on the server. Sure, it's certainly no life or death situation, but frankly I don't want to be in a life or death situation. They're not much fun. I've been in a few. I play a game to relax and unwind. However, this doesn't mean that I don't appreciate realistic, intense games. It's fun to stress out about silly things from time to time to take my mind off of real stresses.

And as I said, I'm hardly a human aimbot. I get twitchy (I've TK'd several times because I was too jumpy, for instance. I saw guys coming onto the point on the progress bar, and I heard voices and bootsteps. I come around a corner and *BLAM*, friendly. Whoops...), I overcompensate, I over-turn, and I misjudge distances and target leads. I'm human. I make mistakes. Often. I don't need the game to screw up for me, and I can't stand games that do. When I die in ARMA, I often feel that I was screwed out of an easy kill because the clumsy gun mechanics. I never feel like that in RO2. If I get killed, it's -my- fault, or the other guy was just better than me. I wouldn't have it any other way.

Yes the danger is not doing well, but we can agree that is hardly comparable to actual physical death. But this puts us at a dilemma because how can we actually transpose fear into a video game?

Well, one of the ways to inducing tension is by making it more challenging without reaching the point of frustration.

For example in Ost Front, you would spend some time crawling and maneuvering yourself into position all the wile avoiding enemy fire/snipers. Then suddenly you would see a figure on the horizon, na instantly your heart would start beating. why? because you worked so hard to get to that position, you do not want ot mess it up.

I remember my heart would start pounding as i would try to line up the perfect shot against the sillouhet on the horizon. I would fire, and suddenly he would drop. Did i kill him? Did he go prone? i would ask myself, too afraid to get up and check. I would sit in the ditch for a few minutes before having the courage to slowly move up to his position (and never alone either, i would always wait for some friends to move up with me lol)

Now that was intense ;)

And I said, ignoring combat stresses and human error, the -weapon- would have a very small spread. That was a very important qualifier I made. And again, that was on a stationary target.

In game, not only is there your human error, there is also the need to lead targets, account for bullet drop, adjust your sights, and all manner of things that help increase the challenge of pulling off difficult shots. However, if you miss it should be your fault, not the fault of the weapon.

Yes you did, however as i said before because we are attempting to simulate being in combat and shooting an actual firearm, both of which were are doing while not in actual combat and using a mouse as opposed to a gun, we need to kind of "help the game along"

A slight over exaggeration of the sway, movement would account for the fact that we are not actually firing from an uncomfortable position or actually winded/tired.

For that reason i feel human error should be slightly modeled in game. so that that the in game human error coupled with your ACTUAL error, is remotely equivalent to that of a human in combat.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Ok, I want to retract some of my assertions.

I just tried shooting 50m target in the head with slowly moving, standing ADS in RO2.

It was almost impossible due to heavy climbing up and down of iron sight while walking, standing position.

Though while I was in crouched position, I could hit most 50m headshot right on.

No.3 is really my mistake, I wasn't thinking straight,

but RO2 has very little non significant sway (not to the unrealsitic state) which I strongly believe different from real life situation

and holding the breath basically lasts forever (though there is little sway sometime after holding breath but its too slow and insignificant to affect accuracy at all.)

I guess this kind of weapon sway and holding the breath was best described in america's army 3.

AA3 was the best about describing realistic sway and undesired bullet spread.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
yea, but RO2 has too little sway and holding the breath basically last forever (there is very small insignificant sway after holding the breath for sometime but it was too little and slow that it almost doesn't make any difference in weapon accuracy.)
which makes firing exceptionally accurate, this I can't retract at all.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
at least you had the balls to correct yourself

Seriously, I really respect the fact that you're willing to correct inaccurate statements, palco.

Goodonya.

yea, but RO2 has too little sway and holding the breath basically last forever, which makes firing exceptionally accurate, this I can't retract at all.

First one is subjective, but it should be noted that breath control (shift zoom) is not holding your breath. It's timing your breathing, and it does screw with your aim every time your character takes a breath. You can theoretically use breath control indefinitely.
 
Upvote 0
...please install AA3 and play basic weapon training and how the sway and limited holding breath function affect firing.

I too have firing experience from service, so I really think AA3's model is much more accurate.

America's army 3 is free, you can try it any time on steam.

On AA3's advanced marksmanship? course, they show where your bullets exactly hit on the target board all in accordance with your breath control, weapon sway.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0