Lols nader. Despite fighting a cold it looks like you'r keeping up your unbelievable average of 40 posts a day.
Upvote
0
Lols nader. Despite fighting a cold it looks like you'r keeping up your unbelievable average of 40 posts a day.
*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?
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.
You point out how zooming makes shooting easier, well remember that there is also No sway when you zoom.......... 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.
Oh one other thing, what are your screen resolutions everyone here?
I am curious if this is something where the sway is apparent on smaller resolutions. I am on 1680x1050 22inch widescreen.
this all comes down to a point i made but no one read a few pages back:
limitation of SITES needs to be more accurately modeled. Iron sites should take longer to be accurate at longer ranges because they are less fine and harder to line up extremely precisely (any one who actually shoots knows this, springfield 1903 A3 sites are much finer and easier to line up than mosin sites etc.. same goes for scopes and iron sites at long ranges)
They do. Go in game, bring up ADS, and watch closely. It takes several seconds for your sights to settle, usually right as the sway starts to set in.
I woke u this morning and I have a solution that settles this argument: period.
Weapon sway should not be added.
However sites settling should be made much more pronounced.
For example, when I shoot my rifle, i have no trouble holding it steady, the trouble comes in with keeping the sites EXACTLY straight without a rest.
This sounds the same as sway but it isn't.
Rather than add a false game mechanic that moves the gun, there should be a visible cue (sites not quite lined up) that you are having trouble lining up the sites. It should get worse when turning, full auto etc.. (RO already has a basic system for this in place.)
When behind a rest, the sites should settle over a longer period of time, maybe a minute or so as follows:
slowly gaining accuracy with said benchmarks on bolts:
less than 1 second: top of site should be accurate to within torso shot at 50m
1 second seconds: sites gain accuracy to be accurate out to 75 meters on a torso shot
3 seconds accurate out to 100 meters torso shot
5 seconds, sites accurate out to 150 meters torso shot (notice the diminishing returns here)
seconds to 25 seconds, sites accurate out to 200 meters
1 minute: sites accurate out to 300 meters.
This is fairly representative of real life: in combat situation a torso shot will typically take a second to line up under 50 m, but out at 250 m, it can easily take a minute. changing where you are aiming would penalize this count and you would have to resettle.
This is a realistic way to achieve the game mechanic people want and gives snipers the advantage they did have over riflemen: scopes with finer sites at longer ranges, making them easier to shoot at range.
A same system can be used for scopes with the visual cue being the blurrry inner ring that you are supposed to line up with the edges of the scope.
I wonder what VBS/ARMA dev team have to say about RO2's gun mechanic.
That might iron out the subject.
Anyway VBS is for military service to purchase simulator so there should be the least BS about it.
No intentional gimmicks to attract public customers.
vbs is made to train for tactics, not shooting technique which can only be trained at the range. Tbh i dont think arma or vbs apply to ro very much
It's like a professional basket ball player saying that it's too easy to make half-court shots, and that they should change the dimensions of the court to make it harder. It may be too easy for him, but that doesn't mean that everyone in professional basketball finds it just as simple.