Guns Are Way Too Accurate

[Eug_C]

In WWII firearms were nothing new. Mass-produced firearms had over 130 years of refinement before WWII came around. All firearms are designed and engineered to be as accurate as possible whilst also being managable to handle whilst firing.

Saying the guns are too accurate for WWII is like saying that cars of today drive too smoothly. Welcome to realism, do you have a problem with it? Unrealistic shooters employ recoil inaccuracy as balancing mechanics against damage and rate of fire. These are woefully unrealistic representations of weapon accuracy.

As for penetration of SMG's? Walls in buildings are split into two types supporting/structural and non-supporting/dividing. Dividing walls of the era were basically just plasterboard over a wooden frame and some filling/insulation like asbestos or often no filling at all in many cases. It was cheap and fast to construct. Walls like this are easily penetrated by low caliber rounds like 9mm.

generically speaking, an ACCURATE rifle of that time groups at about 4inches at 100 yards. nuf' said.

sway is generally not enough. and sway after depleting stamina, looks quite ridiculous IMO. i'm not the fittest ex soldier. nor the most hardcore trained. but i can shoot .25" 4 round groups with my hunting rifle.
with a nagant, standing, i shoot a 3" group at 50yds. IN AN INDOOR RANGE. AIR CONDITIONED, taking my time. (i'm not physically impaired in any ways i assure you)

penetration, your generic declaration of how walls are built is irrelevant.
if i'm not wrong, most of the maps revolves around brick buildings.

 

[ross]

edit ^^^ 4MOA is scraping the barrel for standards, and the nations involved did not share accuracy standards for rifles. Even assuming a 4MOA, roughly-machined, "OH GOD FASCISTS" Mosin that's been abused for months on end, that's more than accurate enough to kill a man at 200-300m, especially if the shooter knows what's up and goes for centre mass instead of a headshot. I don't really see what you're trying to prove here as there are only a few 300m shots possible in any of the maps we've played so far and none of them were particularly tricky (shooting through breaks in cover, etc.). Most shots in the game are 100-150m which is absolutely nothing, even at 4MOA. ^^^

I really wonder exactly how many of the people in here who act like experts have ever shot a rifle, much less an automatic weapon. I shoot both WWII-era and modern bolt-action rifles as a civilian and modern infantry rifles and light support weapons as an infantryman. I also volunteer at the Lithgow Small Arms Factory's museum which is one of the largest in the Commonwealth. My point? there is absolutely nothing wrong with the accuracy of any of the weapons. WWII machine guns could be used to engage point targets at ranges of 800m+ on their bipod and even further on their tripod, much the same as modern weapons of the same class.

I think there could be a little more sway, but mostly after sprinting. I can't hold a weapon steady from a standing unsupported position to save my life (though I still consistently hit a figure 11 target, roughly the size and shape of a charging soldier, at 20m which is further than one side of Fallen Fighters to the other) but that's just personal experience. Watching my dad shoot, the rifle hardly moves at all. My only other complaint is the PPSh recoil which is just ridiculously unrealistic.

Accuracy on every single weapon in the game I have used so far is exactly what I would expect.

Please don't talk about accuracy or ballistics unless you actually know what you're talking about. Here's a clue: shooting guns in video games or watching actors spray blank rounds in B-movies doesn't count.

edit:

Also you seem to talk like you've been in a combat situation and know what it's like to actually shoot people. I would question these credentials and ask for proof that you are more than an arm chair general posing as a serviceman if your word is to hold any weight.

Mate how about you show us some credentials first? You obviously consider yourself an expert on the subject; what firearms have you shot/owned and which branch of the military did you serve in?

 

[Eug_C]

ross, that's amazing.

you volunteer at lithgow. > you reside in NSW. hitting a figure 11 target, you can only do that in the miltary. (no range allows human shaped/printed targets?)
standing unsupported and hitting fig11, that means you're firing the aussteyr. therefore, 5.56mm.
5.56mm at 300m fig 11 standing unsupported, hitting it consistently, that's godly.

 

[ross]

e/ Sorry. I'm tired and dumb and didn't re-read my post; I meant to type 200. My bad. I think one side of FF to the other is like 180 straight line, ~190 diagonal from tech to Univermag.


OP to follow -

It's not that impressive, since most of those shots are scattered over the target or on the witness board, but honestly I am not the best shot and plenty of other people hit it pretty frequently too. If I managed to actually group them worth a damn it'd be nice. Obviously with wind or just a bad day that's likely to drop to only hitting it about half the time, but the point is that even someone who's fairly mediocre can hit a 1.2x1.2 target pretty well at the engagement distances we're seeing in the game so far, and pretty much everyone I know can pretty easily hit a Fig 11 at 100m which is much closer to RO2 ranges.

(I shoot either really well or really awfully, I can never just do 'okay' all the time)

 

[Verluste]

If people would just READ the openingspost, 50% of all the posts in this topic are superfluous and repetitious.

 

[ross]

You mean the opening post that's based purely off logical fallacies and opinions? Yes, I did read it.

 

[Maizel]

e/

and pretty much everyone I know can pretty easily hit a Fig 11 at 100m which is much closer to RO2 ranges.
(

Can they do it while their lives depend on it, having slept a few hours in the last few days, possibly being undernourished, in the freezing cold?

I doubt anyone could hit things as fast and perfect as RO2 would make you believe. Let alone the avarage undertrained soldiers of the day.


On another note: I also wonder where they will take the 'level system' thing.

I read that as you move closer to becoming a 'hero' your accuracy will improve a little.

That's funny, I've been a perfect 100% accurate ever since I started playing the beta.

For it to have some value, there must be something to increase (or decrease). It's just another one of RO's features that has become usless because of current gameplay.

Suppression is another example of that.

 

[ross]

Hitting a man-sized target at 100m really is not that hard at all. Again I can't say if it's easy while being shot at but really, it's 100m. Even if you miss, you probably won't with your next shot.

200m is getting a bit harder, 300m is quite hard unless you've got a stable position and/or ideal weather, and past that is crack shot territory. I did see a Fig 11 successfully engaged with an F88 at 800m, though, after a couple sighters. Some people are good shots, some people aren't, and I don't feel like having the game decide for me which of those I am going to be by adding excessive sway or ballistics that people who plainly do not shoot consider 'realistic'.

And I mean the part you quoted from standing unsupported, by the way. In a well-constructed position, it becomes a case of 'how well they can group' instead of 'can they hit'.

 

[strayshot]

While on the subject of accuracy, everything seems to have a more arcady feel to it.

The instant-bandaging, getting shot does nothing to you unless it kills you, no sway, lackluster suppression mechanic, just the whole run and gun mentality that seems to have taken over the slower, tactical feel of the previous game.

But then, maybe it's just me. I just hope we could have more than one other franchise that favors tactics over brute force and reflexes.

 

[melipone]

Hitting a man-sized target at 100m really is not that hard at all. Again I can't say if it's easy while being shot at but really, it's 100m. Even if you miss, you probably won't with your next shot.

The game should simulate the fact you're under stress, full of adrenaline and about to be shot and killed. In order to promote realism style gameplay like harder guns than non-realism, tactical movement, use of different stances etc. Its like COD2 with semi's, you can hold your breath and have no movement at all, even without that its still far too easy and kills in 1 hit usually. SMG's are similarly too easy. It will only get worse too as people level up the weapon ranks

I'm all for realism when it improves gameplay, but the RO2 guns are too forgiving and lack something from Ostfront. People who talk about realism in terms of keeping them like now suffer from a severe case of confirmation bias imo. They want easier gameplay and use realism as a reason, but at the same time they don't want realism when it comes to things that don't promote their sense of what makes for good gameplay. Thats my theory anyway. If you suggest making it totally realistic they would object based on gameplay reasons (I can hold my breath after sprinting?, bandaging?, Sprint all day with heavy equipment then shoot without sway?, hardly any bolt users in WW2?), which is what we're talking about with the guns to some extent too. Although I still think its realistic for the player to have to work hard to aim the gun considering the setting/situation the soldiers found themselves in.

 

[Coreldan]

How do you make a weapon hard to aim, though? You don't. All you can do is make it have random variables that just screw up your aiming, but that does not make for more skilled aiming.

 

[melipone]

How do you make a weapon hard to aim, though? You don't. All you can do is make it have random variables that just screw up your aiming, but that does not make for more skilled aiming.

Sway that pulls against your movement makes you learn the sway patterns or predict the way you have to adjust your aim to stay on target. Its too light and simple in RO2 for all guns, and you even have a way to totally negate it anywhere. In Ost you could rest the gun but you had to do that from cover and if you moved the mouse quick you would stop resting. In RO2 its like you rest your gun at any time, have faster ROF, and the guns settle faster with lower recoil

You can have predictable recoil patterns that people learn, or encourage people to take short bursts so you can't just hold down left mouse button and correct mistakes as you make them with small movements

Some bullet deviation based on the gun type - not a lot, just enough to make a difference between the weapon types. Bolts 100% accurate, semi's less, and SMG less again. Recoil should account for most inaccuracy though, and sway should add some more.

Its all down to the player though as you can learn to control it

 

[Oddball_E8]

While on the subject of accuracy, everything seems to have a more arcady feel to it.

The instant-bandaging, getting shot does nothing to you unless it kills you, no sway, lackluster suppression mechanic, just the whole run and gun mentality that seems to have taken over the slower, tactical feel of the previous game.

But then, maybe it's just me. I just hope we could have more than one other franchise that favors tactics over brute force and reflexes.

I totally agree with you there...

 

[Paas]

Sway that pulls against your movement makes you learn the sway patterns or predict the way you have to adjust your aim to stay on target. Its too light and simple in RO2 for all guns, and you even have a way to totally negate it anywhere. In Ost you could rest the gun but you had to do that from cover and if you moved the mouse quick you would stop resting. In RO2 its like you rest your gun at any time, have faster ROF, and the guns settle faster with lower recoil

You can have predictable recoil patterns that people learn, or encourage people to take short bursts so you can't just hold down left mouse button and correct mistakes as you make them with small movements

Some bullet deviation based on the gun type - not a lot, just enough to make a difference between the weapon types. Bolts 100% accurate, semi's less, and SMG less again. Recoil should account for most inaccuracy though, and sway should add some more.

Its all down to the player though as you can learn to control it

I feel like this is just adding something that doesn't model anything. Currently, it's already hard to hit someone at 200m with a bolt action rifle. Heck, it's not really easy with the sniper rifle if they are moving or slightly exposed. Assuming you're firing from a supported position and have the drop on your enemy, your first shot still may not always hit.

When you're standing in game now, your weapons slightly drifts with your breathing pattern. This drift is almost a none-issue out to 100m, as it should be, and anything outside of that range it takes a couple of seconds before you can get an accurate round on target.

The system is realistic right now. Sure, it doesn't artificially promote a certain type of game play. That issue is more the product of not caring about life. If you use actual combat tactics though, with a bit of discipline, it will force the other team to do the same or die. I witnessed the dying part last night as the Axis completely locked down the NCO Barracks. Every sector was covered, it was like walking into a claymore den. We had no chance as Allies unless we adjusted our tactics (we didn't), and lost match after match after match. Trying to run into the Axis death trap hip shooting and spraying? Death. Trying to sit at a distance and pick off individual Germans? Death. It was beauty to behold, a nightmare to play against. I'm pretty sure they just had one person on their team using VOIP and controlling the focus of his entire team.

It got to a point were the Allies just hid in cover trying to figure out someway to break the defenses. You couldn't flank the team because their machine guns controlled the flanks. You couldn't examine the battlefield too long because the sniper would put you down. You couldn't even do a direct assault because once they gained the upper hand, their assault-men just watched the lower level entrances.

My point is, the system works. It's realistic if you decide to play in a realistic manner. The game isn't going to punish you for going balls to the wall and getting killed with artificial means (That's up to the opposing team to do). You will get killed, but you're playing the odds with your characters life; you just happen to know he re-spawns so it's no biggie.

-Paas

 

[melipone]

I don't see why you wouldn't get that gameplay with harder weapons. It sounds like you're describing Ostfront. When I shoot someone now I don't feel like I did anything, just kind of "meh". I don't see why I should take a bolt as its role is superceded by Semi's, and SMG's are good all round. And only like 1/4 of the players have to have a bolt, and you can carry 2 weapons at a time now

Anyway, I don't want to rant about anything in RO2. I will play it, if its not for me I'll do something else. I think its worth registering something though so the devs can see different opinions on it. If I pretend its not RO I may like it more, I mean I'd rather play this than any other current FPS. Its just comparing it to Ostfront thats making it look worse..if the game can attract a big following and retain some authenticity then great

 

[Paas]

I don't see why you wouldn't get that gameplay with harder weapons. It sounds like you're describing Ostfront. When I shoot someone now I don't feel like I did anything, just kind of "meh". I don't see why I should take a bolt as its role is superceded by Semi's, and SMG's are good all round. And only like 1/4 of the players have to have a bolt, and you can carry 2 weapons at a time now.

Well when you shoot someone you really don't do anything. It's not complicated to kill another human being. Especially if you have a high caliber rifle that's effective out to 600m. It's not like you're knife fighting in the trenches, there is a certain disconnect inherent to firearms.

On point though, I just don't want difficulty without reason. The reasons started at "it's not realistic" and shifted to "it's not promoting the type of game play we want". Well it turns out it is realistic, and no one is really trying to take the tactical approach during the BETA because there is simply not enough coordination. I don't think breaking a already solid, yet slightly flawed, weapons handling is the key. Have location effects, that makes sense. There is already enough sight picture deviation, for uninjured soldiers, that engagements past 200m are difficult unless you're supported on something. Let's not have it get to a point where 50m and 75m become difficult as well. All in the pursuit of slowing down game play to achieve something that's already achievable with the right mindset.

-Paas

 

[melipone]

On point though, I just don't want difficulty without reason. The reasons started at "it's not realistic" and shifted to "it's not promoting the type of game play we want". Well it turns out it is realistic, and no one is really trying to take the tactical approach during the BETA because there is simply not enough coordination. I don't think breaking a already solid, yet slightly flawed, weapons handling is the key. Have location effects, that makes sense. There is already enough sight picture deviation, for uninjured soldiers, that engagements past 200m are difficult unless you're supported on something. Let's not have it get to a point where 50m and 75m become difficult as well. All in the pursuit of slowing down game play to achieve something that's already achievable with the right mindset.

-Paas

I've always said its a case of realism and gameplay. I have stated plenty of times why I think the lack of sway or easy aim is unrealistic. Each time its ignored, along with the plenty of other unrealistic things that people DO want, while wanting to keep the guns as they are. Just to go over it again...actually I'll just quote myself:

Under perfect conditions the guns may be accurate, but you ignore real world practical considerations that impact real world accuracy (aka realism). Holding the gun steady, weather (freezing hands reducing accuracy and reaction time), terrain, movement, adrenaline, extremely limited amount of time you want to spend in the firing line, keeping the gun aligned while controlling recoil etc.

Now add to that the fact people don't play games for pure realism. If you did you wouldn't have half the gameplay elements. Realism is there because it can create good gameplay, immersion, depth etc. Part of the reason I always like WW2 games is the guns aren't all full/semi auto like modern shooters

Now i'm sure you want bandaging removed, lop sided teams with no map balance, radar removed (do you have sat nav or google earth?), Suppression removed (artificial gun movement?), weapon jamming just before you kill someone, get shot in the leg and you move slower for not at all until respawn, shot in the hand you can't shoot properly (drop your gun too?), remove recon plane, remove holding breath after sprinting, lack of ammo, Countdown and FF removed, make it harder to move and shoot (uneven ground), control front and back parts of the gun, no choice of weapon, G41 removed few or no pistols, higher ratio of bolt to smg/semi

Or do you want selective realism, and actually want a fun game to play based on your own perception of what makes for fun gameplay.

Simply interfacing with a mouse makes it unrealistic as well. Do you think getting muscle memory and fine motor controls from repeating the same actions from a comfy position compares to holding a heavy weapon in the cold while scared and full of adrenaline (that makes you act without hardly thinking, reduces dexterity for speed)? To compensate you adjust stats if necessary to mimic realism, or make it harder to control the weapon

I wish people would talk about the gameplay, because thats the bottom line in why they're talking about realism in the first place. The realism side of it is virtually a non-issue, as people don't seem to mind realism unless it influences their sense of fun gameplay

I don't think this will go anywhere though, I said pretty much everything in pervious posts

 

[Josef Nader]

The game should simulate the fact you're under stress, full of adrenaline and about to be shot and killed. In order to promote realism style gameplay like harder guns than non-realism, tactical movement, use of different stances etc. Its like COD2 with semi's, you can hold your breath and have no movement at all, even without that its still far too easy and kills in 1 hit usually. SMG's are similarly too easy. It will only get worse too as people level up the weapon ranks

I'm all for realism when it improves gameplay, but the RO2 guns are too forgiving and lack something from Ostfront. People who talk about realism in terms of keeping them like now suffer from a severe case of confirmation bias imo. They want easier gameplay and use realism as a reason, but at the same time they don't want realism when it comes to things that don't promote their sense of what makes for good gameplay. Thats my theory anyway. If you suggest making it totally realistic they would object based on gameplay reasons (I can hold my breath after sprinting?, bandaging?, Sprint all day with heavy equipment then shoot without sway?, hardly any bolt users in WW2?), which is what we're talking about with the guns to some extent too. Although I still think its realistic for the player to have to work hard to aim the gun considering the setting/situation the soldiers found themselves in.

I don't know about you, but I'm under stress when I'm playing RO2. Maybe not REAL COMBAT STRESS, but gamer stress. I'm searching for targets, hoping I don't get shot, searching for enemies. Weapon inaccuracies come from me, the player, who is trying to find and fix the enemy. Not the Random Number God who decides whether or not my shot should hit.

If I am in a good position, behind cover, and feeling relatively safe, I can pull off some pretty crack shots in the game. When I'm panicking (OH **** WHERE DID THAT ASSAULT TROOP COME FROM?) I tend to miss shots I could make with my eyes shut in other scenarios.

Real people controlling the game add that element of skill and randomness. You don't need the computer wiggling your gun back and forth to simulate those stresses.

 

[melipone]

I don't really get "gamer stress", not enough to compare to a real war anyway. Really I got over that a long time ago. Thanks for the drive by dislikes btw

 

[Josef Nader]

I don't really get "gamer stress", not enough to compare to a real war anyway. Really I got over that a long time ago. Thanks for the drive by dislikes btw

Don't touch the like/dislike keys, so that's not me boss.

If I have a problem with what you're saying, I'll discuss it in the open.

Regardless, there are plenty of other variables in play. It's not like people are living aimbots. There may be some folks, like you, who are cool under fire and who don't have a problem pulling off that CQC shot against the assault trooper. Then you have folks like me, who panic when they get caught in a situation like that and end up dead.

Sounds like real warfare to me. Some people stay cool, some people panic. The human element adds that sense of randomness. No, we can't simulate what it would be like trying to fight a war tired, hungry, and fatigued. Adding an artificial sway wouldn't simulate that, it would just add artificial difficulty in the form of an RNG. That doesn't simulate anything. It's not like we can starve and sleep-deprive the people that play RO2, so we're just going to have to deal with the fact that video games don't cause stress like a real combat situation would.

You don't want to counter this by adding an unrealistic random number generator to try and make things even.