Important: Way too accurate aim for every soldier!

[Velico]

Holy crap. This post is ludicrious.

Just some ppl here is making post unnecssarily long and pointless by dragging out the point to defend the faulty system for whatever reason I can't understand.

This is not the subject for Ph.D candidate. Game's rifle being improbably accurate in most times, everyone playing it noticed this except for some ppl who tries to drag the discussion out and water it down somehow.

""I guess a simple poll asking what ppl think about current accuracy of weapon would do simple but great work.""

I strongly believe most ppl here already know the answer except for a few.

Is this secret TWI moderator working to secretly defending game's money maker....(quite easy aiming and very good accuracy regardless of situation) or at least watering down the criticism from fans in general by dragging out the discussion unnecessarily long and leading the topic to details?

This is simply ludicrious.

"A simple poll asking what ppl think abpit accuracy of weapon in game would do much good than pointlessly lengthened post."

This guy has his head out of his ***.

 

[<*>Nora The Martyr]

I summon you Josef Nader! Great defender of arcade shooting!

 

[Colt .45 killer]

Thank the gods, I was beginning to think I was crazy.

He who fights monsters, and all that rot.

As for an unsteady sight picture, do my ironsights constantly glitching every time I reload my LMG count?

But in all seriousness, one of my problems is that I never fire while standing. Like, ever. I main machine gunner, and the only time I get close enough to have to fire while standing is when I'm using my pistol to defend myself in a tight situation where I have to stay mobile. I switch to rifleman for specific maps (like apartments), but for the most part I spend most games flat on my face, squatting in a dark corner, and punishing the stupid nincompoops who try and run across open ground. Aim and sway doesn't really affect an LMG all that much, considering that we always fire from prone or braced and we can get 4-5 rounds down range in a single burst.

However, I can also say that adding more sway to the rifleman wouldn't help me one bit. In fact, they could take out all of the aiming difficulty, and remove the suppression effect, and my performance wouldn't be hampered one bit. It's not because I'm a great twitch shooter. I'm most certainly not that. It's because I've learned how to think tactically within the confines of my weapon. I can't move and shoot at the same time (with any consistent degree of success), I'm vulnerable if I can be seen while shooting, and I'm relatively stationary. Through a little practice and experimentation, I'm learning how to work around the other player's strengths, and it's getting to the point now where situations where I get out-sniped almost never occur, because the enemy simply can't find me to shoot at me. I'm getting better at finding good positions every day, but I had to figure out how to do it myself. The only thing I'm still trying to figure out is how to -reach- my good positions without getting hit while I'm relocating, which could probably be solved with a little teamplay.

My point is, once again, that there's nothing wrong with the shooting mechanics. Sure, you -can- make minor tweaks here and there to make minute changes to player accuracy, but it's not the accuracy that's broken, it's the player's behavior.

I managed to rack up 40+ kills my last game of Fallen Fighters because I could simply camp my spawn and shoot Axis soldiers as they sprinted, standing straight up and silhouetted clear as day, to the first set of walls. This is horribly unrealistic behavior, and I demonstrated why. Yet they refused to learn, and would constantly charge headlong into my crosshairs, only to get cut down by another burst.

Changing the accuracy isn't going to help those players. Not even a little bit. If they want to be good at the game, they need to learn how to play realistically.

As I said a long time ago, RO2 is a realistic game. Unrealistic tactics will not work.

Ahh yes, another user of the MG who has discovered that it is a weapon of depth to be used in a particular way to wreck utter havok upon the enemies.

I should point out at this point you may be mistaking some of your prowess for one of the bugs that existed in ost and also in HOS. your viewpoint exists on the top of your head, and thats also where the bullets come from, so it is possible to find positions where all the enemy can see is the top 3 cm of your helmet. I really wish they had fixed this but it seems the only way to erradicate this properly is an ARMA like solution of making 3rd person models only and not having any 1st person models. Which in short means your weapons are about to start looking a lot uglier, and your animations are also about to look like shyte.


On the subject of the no sway when holding breath, are you arguing out of actual belief that this is realistic, or just for the sake of arguing? I have stayed out of the thread up until now, but as a self prescribed gun owner it would make sense that you would realize that sway is always present.


Perhaps that is actually a good halfway back into rifle sway, ( the MG stuff that is ). The MG is a weapon that is deadly when used in its proper form. The rifles should also be deadliest at range when used from a rested postion, as the game stands now that is not required even up to 150 M. would it not add depth to the game to force riflemen to think tactically about how they use their terrain ( in terms of returning fire) and how they will make long range shots, instead of just allowing them to stop, aim and shoot with extreme precision.

 

[catfish@rock]

This guy has his head out of his ***.

I am more of your side and not negating the whole thread but only criticizing unnecessarily dragged out parts.

Basically I am supporting original OP's idea and reasonable follow up ideas.

argh...

 

[Nikita]

For the last time, test the sway in an empty server. It's really quite well modelled. As I've said before, the problem isn't the sway but the shift-zoom, which doubles or triples the area of the target you're shooting at, effectively increases your mouse sensitivity, and allows you to spot enemies at improbably long ranges.

The sway is quite well modeled--in fact for best results you DO have to wait until your sights settle after each shot. Stamina DOES have a pronounced effect, as does support, suppression etc... Go into an empty server:

~ key
Type "open TE-barracks?minplayers=0" w/o quotes
Choose a bolt-action class, and try aiming at various things when tired, fresh, supported, unsupported... You can suppress yourself using grenades, even.

Fatigue and stress don'y make you drunk. Your avatar is still trying to keep the rifle on target, because that's what their life depends on. So no, the rifle will not wander with a life of its own a la Ostfront. Those factors, however, do affect your aim.

It's the zoom. Not the sway.

 

[DiedTrying]

For the last time, test the sway in an empty server. It's really quite well modelled. As I've said before, the problem isn't the sway but the shift-zoom, which doubles or triples the area of the target you're shooting at, effectively increases your mouse sensitivity, and allows you to spot enemies at improbably long ranges.

The sway is quite well modeled--in fact for best results you DO have to wait until your sights settle after each shot. Stamina DOES have a pronounced effect, as does support, suppression etc... Go into an empty server:

So I take it you did some testing and realized that "3 Seconds No Sway" is in the game?

I haven't seen anyone argue about the sway in a few pages, and when I let the sway go without using my mouse I'd agree it is fine.

Me arguing about no sway is actually arguing FOR sway. I say this to make it clear that these are two separate entities.

You point out how zooming makes shooting easier, well remember that there is also No sway when you zoom (for 3 seconds, saying 3 seconds is getting redundant but I can't leave it out or else I fear someone will forget and start a fight) which exacerbates the accuracy issues. Hell I'd say zoom is fine since it compensates for real human vision, which is why I think the no sway is what is causing the issues.

I'd also like to point that "waiting for your sights to settle" is not equivalent to Sights not moving at all. I don't think you were really hinting at this, but I thought I'd say it just in case.

 

[Josef Nader]

*Everyone continues to ignore the idea that the weapon acceleration modeled into the game provides player-generated sway without the use of an RNG by causing new or inexperienced players to overcompensate when trying to correct their aim*

This thread has dissolved into a battle of attrition. You guys aren't interested in the possibility that there is any other solution to simulating human inaccuracy beyond sticking an RNG into the weapon modeling and forcing your guns to jump around without player intervention. It doesn't matter how carefully I word my arguments, how much depth and thought I try to put into my posts, or how much I try to make myself clear, you guys will never, ever, ever, admit that anything I say has any validity in the slightest, and every response to my post is akin to "LOL JOSEF NADER THINKS GUNS HAVE NO SWAY WHAT AN IDIOT!" or "LOOK AT THAT VERBOSE ASSHOLE. THE ONLY REASON HE'D TYPE THAT MUCH UP IS TO BE TROLL. TL;DR."

So yeah, the only way to fix gun mechanics in the game is to add tons of sway. Can this thread drop off the face of the earth now?

 

[Velico]

*Everyone continues to ignore the idea that the weapon acceleration modeled into the game provides player-generated sway without the use of an RNG by causing new or inexperienced players to overcompensate when trying to correct their aim*

I've actually been preaching this for a while. (Taken from my own thread posted 9-16-2011):

"There has been quite a bit of talk in adjusting the accuracy, which I'm all for. But I thought of another option to remedy the laser beams people are pulling off in this game currently.

What I term as "responsive sway" I've described thus:
Depending on where you're looking, and what stance you are in, there should be a response in the sway of your weapon when you quickly adjust to a person moving in your periphery. So, say for instance you're looking off into the 1-o-clock position and you notice an enemy moving from right to left at your 10-o-clock, as you reposition your gun to take aim on him, there should be a response as if you were moving in real life which would take into consideration slight adjustments in your body movement, and account for that in the sway of the weapon. Depending on how far you're moving the weapon, and how quickly you do it, will adjust the amount of sway and the prolonged effect it will have on your accuracy when you take aim.

I know that when I am firing my K98k in real life, even if it is braced on something, when I shift targets there is a bit of "settling" time that takes place as I reposition myself to take an accurate shot.

What this would do for gameplay is quite simple, increase the survivability of advancing troops while leaving the accuracy of the weapon in tact, just taking into consideration human variables that are presently unaccounted for. It would give a bit more of a chance of an actual firefight.

I understand the need to find a "happy medium" between ROOST and RO2 because ROOST was notorious for having a steep learning curve and warding people off. However, in its current state, gameplay is suffering and it's far too easy to pull of incredibly hard shots.

Post your thoughts in a constructive manner please."

It seems it finally got some recognition. I posted it a few times in different areas and it seems that it's finally getting some attention.

As for you Joe, it's the way you conduct yourself on these forums that turns people off to your message. No matter how well thought out you may have argued or discussed, it's generally filled with latent inflammatory remarks and quips that people see through. Remove all that stuff and maybe people will start listening.

 

[Josef Nader]

I'm glad I'm not the only one that thinks that is a good idea.

As for my conduct, it's hard to not become a snarky, sarcastic jackass when it's boiling down into a 1 vs Everyone all out war. I have the audacity to hold an opinion outside the norm because I put some thought into it and have reached my own conclusions, and people hate that. I put forth a calm, eloquent argument against what the group is saying, and I instantly get sucker punched by a group of people vehemently defending their stance as the one and only real solution.

Unfortunately, I'm one of those obnoxious jerks who loves a good debate, so I continue to try and get my point across. I have good reason to believe I'm right, as I've read and considered the arguments from the side I'm opposing and find them lacking. I try to present (what I consider to be) a more reasonable perspective and I'm met with hyperbole, ad hom, and troll accusations.

And seeing as how I'm still human, my "snarky jerkass" reflex kicks in, and I slip snide insults and sarcastic remarks into my arguments as a method of expressing frustration.

It's hard to not get defensive when it feels like you're the only person trying to be reasonable about the whole thing. Hence my whole "he who fights monsters" comment above. The longer I argue against the unreasonable, the more unreasonable my arguments get. I realized that a few posts above, where I was beating myself up for falling into a classic debate trap (getting suckered into arguing something you literally cannot argue, i.e. IRL guns don't sway).

So yeah, sorry if anyone got offended.

 

[Blainy]

The problem is not the high accuracy but how quickly u can acquire targets.

There should be a lot more weapon sway and holding breath should only be possible for very short periods of time.

I just presumed he meant that, but yeah I agree

 

[DiedTrying]

*Everyone continues to ignore the idea that the weapon acceleration modeled into the game provides player-generated sway

yawn

it's like you keep coming up with new things to say just to refute positions.

Like I said yesterday, you are infallible. It's like playing cops and robbers with a child. "I've got the hand cuffs on you now" Child-"No you don't because I have a handcuff forcefield"



Just ignore where I said MULTIPLE TIMES that it's quite possible to use "No sway" while only having to adjust your sights fractionally. I've yet to see my gun go flying across the screen like you exaggerate when I have 3 seconds to adjust 1/4 of an inch.

and for that matter, I haven't really noticed "inertia" while moving sights. Only inertia I've heard of is in regards to actual player movement (as in running and changing direction)

But I'm not surprised that you keep exaggerating in order to bulk up your own flimsy opinion. Classic sign of someone with a weak argument (lets not mention the childish doucheness on display)

It doesn't matter how carefully I word my arguments, how much depth and thought I try to put into my posts, or how much I try to make myself clear, you guys will never, ever, ever, admit that anything I say has any validity

Oh swell, now you throw out the victim card.

Tell me where I've dismissed your points? Hell I've agreed with some of them. It's you who has refused to make concessions. I'm telling you from experience and from experience of others I've talked to that NO SWAY is a factor and is unrealistic.

You keep on insisting that 1. It'll negatively change gameplay (you seem to have dropped this ) or 2. that No Sway doesn't matter because when you move mouse the sight moves...

Not exactly "deep and thought provoking".

I've provided techniques that significantly improve shooting while taking advantage of robot no sway. Your response was "well if two guys are shooting at each other in the open, it's about tactics and cover" or some irrelevant garbage.

So don't start crying about how nobody understands you when you fail to stay on-topic or relevant. And don't cry about how nobody is taking your side and how everyone is mean to you, when you act like a sarcastic teenager.

 

[Josef Nader]

So yeah, the only way to fix gun mechanics in the game is to add tons of sway. Can this thread drop off the face of the earth now?

You can stop posting, DT. We aren't going to get anywhere. Nothing I say will ever have any validity, as you've already made up your mind that:

1) Accuracy is a problem that has nothing to do with unrealistic player behaviors
2) The only solution to this problem is to remove the brief window of RNG-free aiming immediately after you hold your breath.

You can't have a discussion when one side has already made up their mind and refuses to entertain any other solution beyond what they hold true.

 

[DiedTrying]

You can stop posting, DT. We aren't going to get anywhere. Nothing I say will ever have any validity, as you've already made up your mind that:

1) Accuracy is a problem that has nothing to do with unrealistic player behaviors
2) The only solution to this problem is to remove the brief window of RNG-free aiming immediately after you hold your breath.

You can't have a discussion when one side has already made up their mind and refuses to entertain any other solution beyond what they hold true.

Boohoo

I'm as open minded as anyone, but read the last half of my post I just edited.

Shooting at and hitting a watermelon on a fence HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH what the watermelon did to find it's way onto the fence. Player "tactics" have NOTHING to do with the accuracy at which I can fire my rifle.

If you can't ascertain this simple notion, I realize why you are taking so much flak.

 

[Josef Nader]

Thesis: Weapon accuracy is unrealistically easy, as players are sniped too easily. The solution is to nerf weapon accuracy.

Antithesis: Weapon accuracy is realistically modeled. Players are sniped too easily because of their unrealistic tactics. The solution is for players to learn better tactics.

This is the basis of our discussion, correct?

Now, you're discussing techniques that you have developed that take advantage of your stable aiming. I have already acknowledged them, and said that it has more to do with your experience as a player than a problem with the game engine. I can pull off some pretty incredible stuff in TF2 that most other players can't do because I have over 400 hours of practice with the game. No matter what changes they make, TF2 will not become a more challenging game for me, because I have already mastered it. You have already mastered Red Orchestra. A much more challenging iteration of Red Orchestra, with heavy weapon sway and a lack of any sort of aids for aiming or shooting (like the FoV switching). I postulate that the current system interferes with newer, less experienced players (like myself) while allowing older, more veteran players a chance to pull off more accurate shots. Adding an RNG only makes things worse for the newer players, and more challenging for the veteran players, something that I don't see as beneficial.

The reason that I don't see this as beneficial is because as it stands, most of the players on the battlefield are a threat. Even veteran players can be taken down by newer players in a good position because the newer players don't need to master a challenging aiming system. This encourages more desirable player behaviors, like using cover, staying mobile, and being unpredictable. It enhances the realism of the meta-game, meaning that you spend more time focusing on how to move through the environment without getting picked off by an entrenched player than lobbing shots back and forth because you keep getting screwed by the random number generator. We don't have people sitting in buildings across the street playing whack-a-mole for 2 minutes because nobody can hit their shots. Instead, players who compromise their positions, be they veteran or new player, are quickly killed.

Conclusion: An easy aiming model is preferable to a difficult aiming model, as it increases the lethality of combat and puts the emphasis on player behaviors and tactics as opposed to marksmanship. Veteran players show their skill through a mastery of moving through the terrain and selecting the most advantageous firing positions as opposed to being the more accurate sniper. Team play is encouraged as even the newer players can contribute by hitting targets, rather than being weak assets to have around, and the learning curve comes from learning how to stay alive, not learning how to use your gun.

That's as clear as I can put it, mate. If you can't follow my train of logic here, I'm not sure what to say.

 

[Colt .45 killer]

In a game with depth in all other parts, did you just argue towards less depth in weapon mechanics?

Also you just pulled a strawman in the first paragraph of that argument, Afaik DT is not arguing AT ALL for a change in weapon accuracy, but a change in the weapon sway. There is a difference.

Also a second part of your argument, the idea of not making something difficult because it will challenge players. I honestly don't know where to start with that, the whole idea of Hos is that it is a unique and different shooter, and is supposed to be challenging. Who continues to play games that are easy?

one of the beatiful things about ostfront was the feeling of achievement with every shot, every cap, and every success. That is something that Hos still provides but in smaller measures with things like shooting, and I will not stand by and let someone argue their point to remove difficulty from HOS.


Now back to the subject of sway. The idea of a reactive sway system is good but not complete. In reality your arm and body are always moving slightly, this is NOT modeled in game as you can just leave your mouse perfectly still. Would it not then be fair to start the player off with a little sway to simulate the rest of the bodies movements?

 

[Josef Nader]

In a game with depth in all other parts, did you just argue towards less depth in weapon mechanics?

No, I just argued against unnecessary challenge in weapon mechanics.

Also you just pulled a strawman in the first paragraph of that argument, Afaik DT is not arguing AT ALL for a change in weapon accuracy, but a change in the weapon sway. There is a difference.

No, I was talking about -player- accuracy. This is influenced by sway, weapon accuracy, and a whole mess of things. When a player is presented a target, how likely is he to hit that target and how much skill is involved? My argument is simply that the lower skill threshold required to shoot effectively in RO2 is beneficial, as it takes the focus off of wrestling with your gun and moves it onto focusing on tactics. Even veteran players need to be wary, as new players can actually shoot them in RO2.

Also a second part of your argument, the idea of not making something difficult because it will challenge players. I honestly don't know where to start with that, the whole idea of Hos is that it is a unique and different shooter, and is supposed to be challenging. Who continues to play games that are easy?

You're missing the entire point of my argument. When shooting is accessible to everyone, than the real test of skill becomes their ability to move through the battlefield without getting killed. The skills needed to win shift off of the ability to shoot and shift onto the ability to coordinate with your team, move tactically, and stay alive.

one of the beatiful things about ostfront was the feeling of achievement with every shot, every cap, and every success. That is something that Hos still provides but in smaller measures with things like shooting, and I will not stand by and let someone argue their point to remove difficulty from HOS.

I understand the feeling of achievement Ostfront gave you, but that's because it was so daggum hard. The game didn't encourage realistic tactics, because players under a certain skill threshold didn't pose any threat. You could behave unrealistically, your tactics could be more relaxed, and there was less focus on survivability because shooting was more difficult.

Now back to the subject of sway. The idea of a reactive sway system is good but not complete. In reality your arm and body are always moving slightly, this is NOT modeled in game as you can just leave your mouse perfectly still. Would it not then be fair to start the player off with a little sway to simulate the rest of the bodies movements?

I addressed this. The reactive sway simulates your big muscles overcompensating for the fine movements required to adjust aim, but the unpredictable twitches don't start right away. Fatigue sets in after a few seconds, and that's when your muscles start jumping unpredictably. And, as far as I know, that's exactly what is modeled in game right now.

 

[Colt .45 killer]

no, i just argued against unnecessary challenge in weapon mechanics.

I think we will have to agree to disagree here, I want a realistic game where I am constrained by things that would constrain me in real life, with the exception of things that cannot be modeled.

no, i was talking about -player- accuracy. This is influenced by sway, weapon accuracy, and a whole mess of things. When a player is presented a target, how likely is he to hit that target and how much skill is involved? My argument is simply that the lower skill threshold required to shoot effectively in ro2 is beneficial, as it takes the focus off of wrestling with your gun and moves it onto focusing on tactics. Even veteran players need to be wary, as new players can actually shoot them in ro2.

To quote you " The solution is to nerf weapon accuracy."

You're missing the entire point of my argument. When shooting is accessible to everyone, than the real test of skill becomes their ability to move through the battlefield without getting killed. The skills needed to win shift off of the ability to shoot and shift onto the ability to coordinate with your team, move tactically, and stay alive.

The thing is from all of my historical readings, shots were much more often misses in real life then they were hits. Many rounds being expended to surpress, or just flat out missing. Making it unrealistically easy to shoot targets is only making it harder to maneuver. Also using your current skill level, which is admittedly not as good as some of us rifle prostitutes, is a bad idea. You will gain skill and probably discover quite quickly how easy it is to rattle off 5 aimed rounds for 5 kills at 70 meters. Heck today alone I was shot and in slow death and I had 4 rounds in my k98, before fading out I fired all 4 rounds and got 4 perfect kills at around 70 M.

I understand the feeling of achievement ostfront gave you, but that's because it was so daggum hard. The game didn't encourage realistic tactics, because players under a certain skill threshold didn't pose any threat. You could behave unrealistically, your tactics could be more relaxed, and there was less focus on survivability because shooting was more difficult.

The problem was that players in Ost actually leared how to play in about two days, the others left with their tails between their legs. I moved a LOT MORE tactically in Ost because of the slower movement, everything in the game was more difficult, and you had to think about EVERYTHING. There was no magical bandaging, and one bullet was your ticket 6 feet down.

I get away with a lot more crazy **** in HOS because of the very limited sway and ability to snap IS and fire at a target that I spot while running. In Ost you would rarely get away with charging into a room and even if the enemy in there missed, by the time you'd get your IS up and stop moving they'd probably have a second round off on you already. It forced people to actually THINK about what they were doing, I fail to see what is wrong with a little hint of this in HOS.

I addressed this. The reactive sway simulates your big muscles overcompensating for the fine movements required to adjust aim, but the unpredictable twitches don't start right away. Fatigue sets in after a few seconds, and that's when your muscles start jumping unpredictably. And, as far as i know, that's exactly what is modeled in game right now.

The thing is, and you have stated many times you are a gun enthusiast. We both know that even rested, picking the gun up off the table, and even using the sling if it happens to be a rifle. there will ALWAYS be sway.

Considering that most shots happen within the first second or two of IS coming up, sway is almost irrelevant if it really only kicks in after a few seconds.

 

[DiedTrying]

You win Joey.

I'm going to go back to watching the Auburn and Arkansas game.

You can go back to lurking the internet (seriously, do you sleep? ).

 

[Josef Nader]

You win Joey.

I'm going to go back to watching the Auburn and Arkansas game.

You can go back to lurking the internet (seriously, do you sleep? ).

Why would I do a darn foolish thing like that?

But in all seriousness, I just have a lot of free times in-between classes and my laptop isn't powerful enough to play games...

And I'll get to responding, Colt. I'm fighting a cold right now and I can only do so many overly verbose response posts in a day...

 

[DiedTrying]

That picture usually goes

my g/f: "Are you coming to bed"

Me: "Yea, in a minute"
tip tap tip tap tip tap

5 hours later I slither under the covers trying not to provoke her wrath