• 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/
  • Weve updated the Tripwire Privacy Notice under our Policies to be clearer about our use of customer information to come in line with the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) rules that come into force today (25th May 2018). The following are highlights of our changes:


    We've incorporated the relevant concepts from the GDPR including joining the EU and Swiss Privacy Shield framework. We've added explanations for why and how Tripwire processes customer data and the types of data that we process, as well as information about your data protection rights.



    For more information about our privacy practices, please review the new Privacy Policy found here: https://tripwireinteractive.com/#/privacy-notice

Important: Way too accurate aim for every soldier!

windexglow

FNG / Fresh Meat
Sep 15, 2011
21
9
0
Bump. This is a great topic for the devs to look at, minus the few pages of pissing contests some users have a fetish for.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ptx

ptx

FNG / Fresh Meat
Sep 13, 2011
48
36
0
It's a game, there is no realism. None what so ever. Arma2, RO2 ect aren't realistic.
I don't have much to say about the rest of your comment, but about this I do. Games can be realistic. Just like racing games can be - it's not that you actually feel like driving a car with the sound and the wind and the G-Force crushing you to the side when you take a tight corner, but it still can be as realistic as they can get. Same here, the game's mechanics are realistic, ballistics, graphic, sounds, everything historically and physically accurate; The only problem is ignoring the human factor, it feels like the player is a robot and all that affects you is artillery falling around you or trying to shoot while sprinting...
 

Inimical_rize

FNG / Fresh Meat
Sep 17, 2011
10
1
0
I don't have much to say about the rest of your comment, but about this I do. Games can be realistic. Just like racing games can be - it's not that you actually feel like driving a car with the sound and the wind and the G-Force crushing you to the side when you take a tight corner, but it still can be as realistic as they can get. Same here, the game's mechanics are realistic, ballistics, graphic, sounds, everything historically and physically accurate; The only problem is ignoring the human factor, it feels like the player is a robot and all that affects you is artillery falling around you or trying to shoot while sprinting...
I see what you mean, How ever Ballistics cant necessarily be achieved to a realistic standard just by making a bullet pass through a wall, the subject it's passing through would have to be accounted, the angle of penetration and the subjects matter. Yes they pass through bit in what seems a Lazer like fashion, no diversion of any kind to the round.

Graphics are bang on, light shafts are stunning!

Sounds are o.k they've tried to implement a sound system where noise is effected by the surroundings it's made in, dare i say it it's no BF2 sound system, but it's still entertaining (When it works)

The uniforms are accurate for the early stages of the war, but no accurate for the entirety, if you take into account the various stages of operations along the eastern front the uniform would vastly change, the ability to do this would add a little realism, I'm not talking CODBOPS customisation, I'm taking about a simple change of uniform.

Destructible environments not being implemented was a real let down, a HH round from a Tiger or what not would pass through most building walls easy.

This game is 'Realistic' in a sense, But there has been better.
 

Al_Ka_Pwn

FNG / Fresh Meat
Sep 5, 2011
40
53
0
Alright, you're right on that account. Unfortunately, despite several days of searching nobody seems to want to demonstrate shooting from a standing position at 50m, as you can't calculate ballistics data from such an unstable platform and it really boils down to individual skill more than any sort of weapon performance. I do a fair bit of target shooting inside of 50m, but I'm not narcissistic enough to upload it to the internet, and now that I'd like to reference it I'm not in a position to gather the data in question. So no, I don't have any statistics demonstrating rifle accuracy inside of 50m because most gun enthusiasts aren't interested in something that is entirely skill based. It's up to the individual shooter, not the weapon. You have managed to produce a video (which admittedly, I haven't watched simply because that website screams of adware and spyware, and I don't want to disable noscript and risk it) that seems to back up your statement, but the source has had some very poor credibility for the reasons I described above.

Long story short, we're arguing something with no concrete data. It took me a while to realize why I wasn't finding anything to support my argument when it's something that I do all the time, but the fact of the matter is that that's entirely based on my skill with the weapon and not the performance qualities of the weapon itself. Someone with no skill in rifles would do far worse than I, and someone with more experience will do far better. It's too abstract to argue properly.

However, I've also realized that this reliance on skill is exactly what's present in the game. Bad players will have trouble hitting targets, and good players will have less trouble based on their individual skill. Just because it's a different set of muscle memories doesn't mean there isn't a significant skill curve required to hit targets in RO. The problem is that you and I are already well up there on the skill curve, and we can hit targets with relative ease as we already subconsciously compensate for the small amount of sway, the motion and elevation of the target, and the distance. A new player wouldn't know -what- to do with the sight elevation in game, and they wouldn't know how to lead targets at the different ranges, and they would have a lot of trouble figuring out how to get the best firing position, something that vets like ourselves do instinctively. They've taken out a lot of the artificial difficulty things that we had to learn like sway and spread and because of that it feels too easy for people who are used to struggling with unrealistic and clunky gun controls.

tl;dr, we're like two professional basketball players arguing that increasing the diameter of the hoop by a few centimeters has made the game too easy. It might be too easy for the vets and pros, but the new players are still trying to figure out all the mechanics, and it's very difficult for them.

The game can't account for player skill.



I did not watch it. I haven't watched any of the new seasons simply because the first one was so laughably bad, so yes, I admit I was biased against the source right off the bat.
There certainly was a subjective element of variation between riflemen in world war two, but saying that the large quantity of evidence I have brought in throughout several threads just somehow goes away b/c there's slight variation due to subjectivity is ludicrous.

We have a good bit of evidence suggesting that not even the top tier riflemen are as consistiently accurate as the people are in this game, and if the top tier isn't as accurate as the people in the game, the average sure as heck isn't going to be that accurate. And it's a more likely scenario that you can't find concrete data to back up what you say because you are wrong. Yes all rifles are perfectly accurate, were you to put them in a vice and aim with with a laser pointer they would hit every time, but I've gathered a large body of evidence saying that people are not capable of firing like this. I could retrieve them from the previous thread i made if you like.

Onto your next point about skill, yes you're correct this does put a big reliance on skill, that is certainly true, but it puts reliance on the wrong kind of skill. It's the skill that counterstrike players, and call of duty players have. The skill to overcome any situation by being fast enough. There are hundreds if not thousands of game that already cater to people with that kind of skill. And what emphasizing that kind of skill does is essentially say "no matter how smart or clever your positioning was, or how good your tactics were, or how good your team work was, you will lose b/c you weren't as fast as the other guy"

If an MG player sets up in a great spot that is just totally and awesomely tactically sound, I mean ideal placement, if he faces against 2 soldiers of the same aiming skill, the two soldiers will win the majority of the time. Assuming he isn't able to kill both at the same time b/c they were lined up so one bullet would kill 2 ppl, it will always go either shoot soldier A but be shot dead by soldier B or shoot soldier A and take cover and be forced to leave b/c soldier B has a bead on your head. This means 2 > 1 no matter how smart the one was. This is bad b/c it makes for a very linear game of binary outcomes. Putting focus on that sort of skill is essentially the difference between a game of chess, and a game of Bopit!. We have enough Bopits on the market and we need more tactics in our shooters

Also the basketball metaphor is a terrible metaphor. For metaphorical equivalences saying the hoop size would be more akin to the objective areas on the different maps. Considering that the hoop, and objective areas are the goal, the crescendo to that battle or play. A better metaphor would be like 2 basketball pros arguing about the weight of the basketball, since the ball is the primary focus of the game, and since shooting is the primary focus of a shooting game. You saying that the basketball should be far heavier, and me saying that it should not. To prove that the basketball should not be heavier I bring in professional basketball players who say that this should not be so, sports casters who say that this should not be so, and psychologists who analyze what makes the game of basketball appealing to be watched who say that this should not be so. And then you retort with "when I play basketball with a heavier ball it is more fun, but it's all totally subjective so I guess we'll never know lol"

Additionally let's go ahead and assume that it is indeed a wash and that it's totally subjective or that you are right and that everyone can just shoot that awesomely all the time. Well let's go ahead and look at the game as a study of what makes a good and fun videogame. What is good game design?

Good game design ensures a level playing field, ups and down, rewards for skill, different ways to play the game and a certain ability to make comebacks and enough variation to avoid staleness. The way the shooting mechanics work hinder this. The playing field between the germans and the russians is not even. This is in large part due to the maps and equipment, but the fact that defenders have little to no advantage and that tactics mean nothing in the face of the fastest gun just inflame that same problem. I covered the skill thing previously, and sadly the perfect aim makes the game far too binary. If someone sees you first, you usually die. Also I'd go so far as to say that the perfect aim even gos so far as to almost completely invalidate two the classes from the game. The MG gunner, and the sniper. I know that if someone plays the MG gunner they can get kills, and sometimes they can even top the scoreboard, but my contention is if they put the same effort into using a semi automatic rifle they would get far more kills as the rifle excels in every single area over the MG. The only thing the MG would be superior at is holding a hallway, which can even be overcome easily by good grenade use, also most of the time the MG class is empty in favor of playing riflemen so it's quite obvious that the ppl have spoken. You may raise your eyebrow when I say sniper, but fact is that every riflemen or semiriflemen can countersnipe a sniper. This is like 20 people of 35 able to countersnipe you, this means that on the whole snipers are relatively useless to their team only ever able to usually get a paltry number of kills, and would probably get more kills playing as a rifle men class or playing the sniper class like a riflemen would.

Also looking at other games as empirical evidence, all realism games have had rifle sway, insurgency, darkest hour, RO1, Arma, flashpoint, and project reality. Every single developer or mod team who has gone about to create as realistic a shooter as possible has opted to make their guns have sway and be rather inaccurate unless they are poised to shoot. Why would it possibly be that so many developers who focus on realism have opted to make their game the way that Red Orchestra 1 was but not red orchestra 2? Why is it that Call of Duty and counter strike are more akin to the aiming in this game than the red orchestra game before this one? Could is possibly be because sway and inaccurate guns on the fly are realistic?

Also your entire contention against the argument seems to come strictly from the "the guns wont' feel right" the guns will play exactly like they do now and will be totally unaffected as long as your are prone, in cover and to some extent crouched. The guns will not change as long as you are in a tactically superior position, why is that so bad?
 

Holy.Death

FNG / Fresh Meat
Sep 17, 2011
1,427
91
0
I have to disagree on MG part in game. It's in fact very useful and very accurate weapon with large mag when used correctly. You need to position yourself so you can cover area, it can't be too wide because you won't be able to cover every angle with your gun (any gun in fact) alone. MG must control environment - be invisible to the enemy until it's too late. Rifleman needs to locate me, then aim and shoot. If he stands then he is even bigger target and it's far easier for me to hit large body rather than just his head, but I can place headshoots up to 200-250 range too. I think that MG class is empty mostly because many people don't know how to use it the way it should be used to achieve maximum effect.

Semi automatic rifle is different weapon. Easier in use to someone who knows how to aim (and you need to learn how to aim if you don't know that) because it doesn't need to be supported (you can lean or shoot from cover and quickly hide) and let you be more mobile.

I've to agree, however, that being tired and holding weapon without support (which will make your hands tired) too long should affect your aim. If you shoot from cover (and brace weapon on it) or from prone position then you shouldn't tire as fast as from standing and crouching position. That would make stamina meter even more important.

Edit: From this topic:
All of those quotes are still true. You have increased sway when low on stamina, Heroes have a selection of the best/rarest weapons in the game and stand out visually.
 
Last edited:

catbarf

FNG / Fresh Meat
May 15, 2009
48
0
0
You may raise your eyebrow when I say sniper, but fact is that every riflemen or semiriflemen can countersnipe a sniper. This is like 20 people of 35 able to countersnipe you, this means that on the whole snipers are relatively useless to their team only ever able to usually get a paltry number of kills, and would probably get more kills playing as a rifle men class or playing the sniper class like a riflemen would.
I've noticed this. In RO1 the sniper was a sought-after class and had a huge effect on the battlefield, in RO2 it's another flavor of rifleman. It's similar with the MGs, they could do a lot of damage, even though they could and often were picked off at longer range. In this game, though, there's little reason to use an MG when a rifle is more accurate and more mobile.
 

Josef Nader

FNG / Fresh Meat
Aug 31, 2011
1,713
1,165
0
I've noticed this. In RO1 the sniper was a sought-after class and had a huge effect on the battlefield, in RO2 it's another flavor of rifleman. It's similar with the MGs, they could do a lot of damage, even though they could and often were picked off at longer range. In this game, though, there's little reason to use an MG when a rifle is more accurate and more mobile.
Because a rifle can't put a dozen bullets down range in less than a second?
Because a rifle can't kill more than one person per trigger pull (unless they're extraordinarily unfortunate)?
Because a rifle doesn't give you the firepower of 10 men?

Lots of reasons, actually.
 

palco

FNG / Fresh Meat
Sep 17, 2011
123
72
0
I can easily land pinpoint accurate headshot on target of 50meters away at least 6 out of 10 times, while slowly moving, standing ADS in RO2.

All I gotta do is place iron sight on target's head, then the rifle rarely miss the headshot.

and in most other games, this kind of shenanigan is almost impossible or very hard to pull off.

and someone tell me this kind of pinpoint accurate firing systme isn't easy, and well representing real life fire.
 
Last edited:

Gaizokubanou

FNG / Fresh Meat
Sep 5, 2011
525
76
0
I can easily land pinpoint accurate headshot on target of 50meters away at least 6 out of 10 times, while slowly moving, standing ADS in RO2.

All I gotta do is place iron sight on target's head, then the rifle rarely miss the headshot.

and in most other games, this kind of shenanigan is almost impossible or very hard to pull off.

and someone tell me this kind of pinpoint accurate firing systme isn't easy, and well representing real life fire.
Durrrr most other games are super unrealistic?

Go to a firing range and shoot an actual gun kid. Then try to tell us that you couldn't hit 50m target on a head with 60% accuracy while walking slowly.
 

catbarf

FNG / Fresh Meat
May 15, 2009
48
0
0
Because a rifle can't put a dozen bullets down range in less than a second?
Because a rifle can't kill more than one person per trigger pull (unless they're extraordinarily unfortunate)?
Because a rifle doesn't give you the firepower of 10 men?

Lots of reasons, actually.
And then when you spray fire, hit nothing, and visibly announce your position, all it takes is one guy in cover 100-200yds away to pop you in the head without ever seeing him. I never said the MG is useless, but it's hardly the kind of threat the MG34/42 was in real life.

And in RO2, it sure doesn't give you the firepower of ten men, that's just laughable. Heck, two riflemen can beat a MG for accurate, useful damage output, except perhaps if there are a hundred guys standing in the open 50yds away immobile. That's about the only way I can see the MGer being more useful than one-shot-one-kill pinpoint accurate riflemen.
 
Last edited:

palco

FNG / Fresh Meat
Sep 17, 2011
123
72
0
Durrrr most other games are super unrealistic?

Go to a firing range and shoot an actual gun kid. Then try to tell us that you couldn't hit 50m target on a head with 60% accuracy while walking slowly.

Sniper ghost warrior has pretty hard and realistic ballistics and firing system.

Ghost recon advanced warfighter has realistic bullet spread and physics engine.

If you shoot M16 in AA3 basic weapon training, you will see what it's like to shoot real weapon and how hard it is to land accurate pinpoint shot on small target as human head in 50 meters away.

ARMA 2 seeems to have realistic weapon bullet spread and sway, you can check that in ARMA2 basic fire range training.
 

catbarf

FNG / Fresh Meat
May 15, 2009
48
0
0
Go to a firing range and shoot an actual gun kid. Then try to tell us that you couldn't hit 50m target on a head with 60% accuracy while walking slowly.
Because a shooting range, where you stay still, line up on the target, and have all the time in the world to fire is an excellent representation of WW2 battlefield conditions, right?

If you can hit a head while moving at 50m 60% of the time, then you should have no trouble hitting the body 80+% of the time. Fact is, most soldiers in WW2 didn't hit 80% of the time, even at close range. Funny that.
 

Gaizokubanou

FNG / Fresh Meat
Sep 5, 2011
525
76
0
Sniper ghost warrior has pretty hard and realistic ballistics and firing system.

Ghost recon advanced warfighter has realistic bullet spread and physics engine.

If you shoot M16 in AA3 basic weapon training, you will see what it's like to shoot real weapon and how hard it is to land accurate pinpoint shot on small target as human head in 50 meters away.

ARMA 2 seeems to have realistic weapon bullet spread and sway, you can check that in ARMA2 basic fire range training.
ARMA 2 have engagement range of 200 ~ 400m where exposed people die pretty easily under burst fire.

And stop talking about games unless your idea of reality is other video games. Besides this game also have sway.

Because a shooting range, where you stay still, line up on the target, and have all the time in the world to fire is an excellent representation of WW2 battlefield conditions, right?
Did you even bother to read up on what we were talking about? He was talking about a headshot while slowly walking, with iron sight already raised. Hardly an insane condition.
 
Last edited:

Josef Nader

FNG / Fresh Meat
Aug 31, 2011
1,713
1,165
0
Please ppl don't try to make this Gaizoku kid understand the logic, he does seem to never fire a single bullet in real life, and he doesn't seem to have intellectual competnece to understand the logic.
Too young or too stupid either way.
Says the kid who posted this three posts above:

Sniper ghost warrior has pretty hard and realistic ballistics and firing system.

Ghost recon advanced warfighter has realistic bullet spread and physics engine.

If you shoot M16 in AA3 basic weapon training, you will see what it's like to shoot real weapon and how hard it is to land accurate pinpoint shot on small target as human head in 50 meters away.

ARMA 2 seeems to have realistic weapon bullet spread and sway, you can check that in ARMA2 basic fire range training.
I'm getting ready to revoke your license to procreate. Honestly, this is just getting silly.

Because a shooting range, where you stay still, line up on the target, and have all the time in the world to fire is an excellent representation of WW2 battlefield conditions, right?

If you can hit a head while moving at 50m 60% of the time, then you should have no trouble hitting the body 80+% of the time. Fact is, most soldiers in WW2 didn't hit 80% of the time, even at close range. Funny that.
Out of curiosity, where are you getting these facts? I'd really love to see the data (no irony or sarcasm, 100% serious). I've been looking for numbers on this stuff for days and I'm not coming up with anything. It'd be nice to be able to set the record straight.

And let's not forget that soldiers are trained to calm themselves as much as possible while shooting. You don't stay alive by panicking as soon as the bullets start flying. The guy that can keep calm is the guy that usually wins.
 

bier

FNG / Fresh Meat
Aug 31, 2011
107
24
0
Durrrr most other games are super unrealistic?

Go to a firing range and shoot an actual gun kid. Then try to tell us that you couldn't hit 50m target on a head with 60% accuracy while walking slowly.
Take a diet until you hit 65-70 kilos, while you sleep only 3-4 hours per day for weeks. Then go to the range and try to hit a target 50 meters away in the head while walking slowly. And all that while someone places fire on you with a rifle/mg. I bet you won't hit 30% of your shots. :)

And that is the reason WW2 wasn't a rifle camping party. :)
 

Josef Nader

FNG / Fresh Meat
Aug 31, 2011
1,713
1,165
0
Take a diet until you hit 65-70 kilos, while you sleep only 3-4 hours per day for weeks. Then go to the range and try to hit a target 50 meters away in the head while walking slowly. And all that while someone places fire on you with a rifle/mg. I bet you won't hit 30% of your shots. :)

And that is the reason WW2 wasn't a rifle camping party. :)
No, it wasn't, because these were trained soldiers (or at least highly motivated soldiers) who were fighting for a goal. Sure, you were hungry and low on sleep, but if you missed you'd get bloody killed. I'd say that's a pretty good motivation to not bloody miss.

Plus, there seems to be this myth that the Soviets had it as bad as the Germans did. The Soviets still had working supply lines, decent amounts of food and ammunition, not to mention the fact they were fighting on their home turf. They were -used- to the brutal conditions.

And most of the worst conditions were focused on the Siege of Stalingrad. Before that the German army had perfectly functional supply lines, as did the Soviets, and for the rest of the eastern front their supply lines still functioned pretty well. The "frozen, starving, dying of sickness" soldiers were, for the most part, the Axis units encircled in Stalingrad who were cut off from their supply trains.

Seriously, guys. It's a ridiculous bloody argument.
 

Gaizokubanou

FNG / Fresh Meat
Sep 5, 2011
525
76
0
Take a diet until you hit 65-70 kilos, while you sleep only 3-4 hours per day for weeks. Then go to the range and try to hit a target 50 meters away in the head while walking slowly. And all that while someone places fire on you with a rifle/mg. I bet you won't hit 30% of your shots. :)

And that is the reason WW2 wasn't a rifle camping party. :)
Already there weight wise :p

It also wasn't "let me sprint so my hipfire will be dead centered for more accurate shot than using my sight across the street" deal that RO1 suffered from ;)

But to be fair to your point, it's true that soldiers on both side of Stalingrad weren't exactly most well rested, well fed human beings on the planet.

Plus, there seems to be this myth that the Soviets had it as bad as the Germans did. The Soviets still had working supply lines, decent amounts of food and ammunition, not to mention the fact they were fighting on their home turf. They were -used- to the brutal conditions.
To be fair to Bier's and your point, it's true that Soviets had a working supply line... but their logistics was put on strain since they had a whole armies to rebuild after the disasters of 1941, and in the heat of the siege of Stalingrad, the main focus of reinforcement and supplies for the Soviet was focused on the Operation Uranus.
 
Last edited:

rpxy24

FNG / Fresh Meat
Sep 16, 2011
141
88
0
Make that RO2 ostfront mode already... so that the "insane-sway rifle-dont-shoot-straight" maniacs just disappear.