Stop the incredibly easy and unbelievable hipfiring MGs!!!

[Gopblin]

Originally Posted by =GG= Mr Moe

You should consider how the weapon was meant to be used, how it was normally used, and how it was used in rare or emergency situations.

The whole point/reason I created this topic was to get a more realistic usage out of the weapon, both in HOW it was Normally used, and HOW it behaves in those rare/emergency situations.

With that in mind, I would say what is the best way/methods to encourage the deployed/support role of the LMG while also allowing it to be hipfired in those rare and emergency situation Realistically? (a few pics or youtube videos of someone hipfiring doesn't mean this was normal or an easy thing to pull off)

What's going on in RO is not "realistic".

I hate to break it to you, but most of the time soldiers did not fight this disorganized. Run-n-gun with an MG rarely happened simply because it wasn't tactically sensible, even though it's quite doable.

Saying that hipfire is unrealistic is like saying a tank should not be able to drive through a tree; true, it's not "historical" because IRL people normally avoided doing it for multiple reasons, but it's perfectly realistic.

As you have mentioned, there are plenty of videos of people hipfiring MGs. It's realistic. I agree you shouldn't be able to do sustained fullauto fire on the move without the barrel climbing up, but short bursts should be doable.

My answer is increase hipfiring recoil say 40% and leave it at that.

PS. Also, there are few pictures of MGs being fired point-blank because photographers did not want to get shot, duh. It's not like a journalist is gonna climb into Stalingrad sewers to check how exactly people use their MGs down there.

Best wishes,
Daniel.

[=GG= Mr Moe]

Not saying you can't hipfire, or that its unrealistic. You obviously can.

What I am saying is that its not represented in the game (by how the game plays) realistically. Doable is different from doing it well. BIG difference.

[Sarkis.]

Originally Posted by =GG= Mr Moe

Not saying you can't hipfire, or that its unrealistic. You obviously can.

What I am saying is that its not represented in the game (by how the game plays) realistically. Doable is different from doing it well. BIG difference.

Yes !

[Gopblin]

Somehow no one has a problem with hipshooting AVT - which is firing the same rounds, fully automatic, out of a gun that weights half as much and is probably held by a smaller guy (MGers are supposed to be the biggest men in the unit).

And also no one has a problem with point-shooting pistols, which at least as hard to do accurately as hipshooting an MG.

Now I agree that MGs at the moment are a bit unbalanced (in my opinion, they're equal to SMGs in CQB, so there is no reason to pick a SMG), and they may need a bit of tweaking by increasing recoil and possibly taking away grenades/giving one less belt, but the overall hipshooting mechanics in RO2 are quite realistic.

Best wishes,
Daniel

[Sarkis.]

That is what i came up with for my suggestions package, taking into consideration what i could take away from this thread:

• Realistic Hipfiring Machine guns
Machine Gun constantly stays at lowered position unable to fire, the same way AT rifles are by default or when directly facing a wall. When player right clicks (à la ROOST) the Machine Gun quickly raises, drains a small constant amount of stamina and limits player to a slightly slower jog speed. The recoil itself also drains speed and some stamina and pulls the weapon a lot more the right side. Beltfed MG34 unable to hipfire until belt has a least 50 or 60 rounds. DP-28 takes slightly less time to raise

Combining the one above with these other two past suggestions and we should have a conceptual solution to this debacle:

• Going upstairs more realistic
Character going uphill, upstairs, downstairs and ladders slowly drain stamina, and speed be much slower. Character going downhill could also suffer speed penalties if decent is too steep

• Realistic character movement, speed, and specially inertia
Can't zig zag unrealistically, takes more time to accelerate, and decelerate, player rotation also obeying a maximum rotation speed related to inertia, weapon weight influence inertia, e.g. slower to 180º with MGs

Does anyone agree, disagree, suggestions ?

[=GG= Mr Moe]

One thing to keep in mind is that LMGs can be picked up by anyone, so the size of a player in a class is totally irrelevant.

[Nikita]

Originally Posted by Gopblin

This last sentence. I can't understand it.

Relying primarily on the shoulder strap to carry the weapon's weight during hipfiring is highly impractical if one needs to suddenly point the weapon elsewhere. You lack control and speed unless you're holding more of its weight.

Originally Posted by Gopblin

All correct.
I just don't understand why you assume I advocate hipfiring one-handed. In fact, I described proper hipfiring technique couple pages earlier in this very thread.

Just light-hearted hyperbole. Of course I don't recommend that you eat a sandwich while hipfiring. My point is that to effectively control recoil and maneuver the weapon quickly and precisely, you simply need to hold more of the weapon's weight.

Originally Posted by Gopblin

I can agree that the recoil should be increased somewhat when hipfiring and moving, but it's by no means impossible, heck I've done it.

Why do you think hipfiring an SVT on the move is realistic, but firing a much heavier MG which fires the same power round should be impossibly hard? If anything it will be much easier.

Ah, an elementary physics mistake. The round is (close to) identical, which means the force generated is identical. That necessarily means that the force needed to counteract the generated force is also identical. Mass is irrelevant. F=ma, remember. The smaller weapon will accelerate more, but that doesn't change the magnitude of the force needed to stop it. That doesn't, of course, account for several factors such as the firearm's method of operation, etc.

It's firing at 900 rounds per minute. That's 15 rounds a second. You can recover from a single shot, sure. But when the second shot comes before you have registered that the first shot was fired? And then the third shot arrives as you're just reacting to the first shot? It stacks. If your body is still accelerating backwards from the last shot, it's going to accelerate backwards even faster from the parallel force of the next. Elementary physics.

That combined force is hard enough to push that heavy weapon AND the shoulder of an adult man lying prone back a couple inches when the weapon is being used from the bipod. Now look at the videos of people hipfiring the MG34. The recoil is quite visibly pushing them around. Now imagine only having one foot on the ground, or two feet not completely on the ground at the moment the weapon is fired. You are going to be a danger to anyone around you, and not in a good way.

So you've fired an SVT from the hip. Your body easily absorbed the single shot. I should also mention that since it's a semiautomatic weapon, you tell it when to shoot, and your body will subconsciously be ready for the impact no matter how fast you squeeze the trigger.

Originally Posted by Gopblin

Run-n-gun with an MG rarely happened simply because it wasn't tactically sensible, even though it's quite doable.

Saying that hipfire is unrealistic is like saying a tank should not be able to drive through a tree; true, it's not "historical" because IRL people normally avoided doing it for multiple reasons, but it's perfectly realistic.

Funny you use that as an example--tankers actually did drive through trees. There's plenty of WWII footage of the phenomenon. Generally not healthy for the tank to do (especially for lighter or underpowered tanks) if it could be avoided, due to the stress on the engine from having to uproot the thing, but it was done.

Throwing an empty rifle like a javelin at an enemy is tactically insensible, but very doable and not extremely difficult. The circumstances where it might make sense to do it are so far and few in between, and there are so many better options, that there is no justification for adding it to the game. If you did add it to the game, new players would try it left and right under all kinds of conditions, even if it was a useless feature, and the game would look stupid and lose an element of immersion.

Run and gun MG hipfire is so tactically insensible that any soldier in a position desperate enough to consider it would probably just ditch the heavy weapon and make a break for it. Now, in RO2, jogging LMG hipfire did make it into the game, and in a form that actually made it somewhat tactically useful! So now, every experienced LMG user will use jogging hipfire wherever needed--and all of a sudden, a desperation tactic becomes standard procedure. Boost recoil by 40%, and it'll stop being useful--but you'll still see it, and it will still look stupid. Really, might as well scrap it alltogether, rather than keep a feature designed to make sure nobody will ever use it.

[Floyd]

Can't believe this thread is still going on.....

Well, I guess if when you died in the game, you had to uninstall the game and never play again, then perhaps allowing anything and everything you could possibly do in real life would be a valid arguement. .

The problem is not that you could do it in real life. The problem is that it becomes ludicrous when a particular tactic is abused to the point of becoming unreal and bordering on exploitation.

[Clowndoe]

Originally Posted by Gopblin

MGers are supposed to be the biggest men in the unit.

Nope, in the German army it was the man who presented the highest aptitude for the task. Fun fact, in the U.S. army the guy with the B.A.R. was the smallest man in the squad to present a smaller target.

[Mekhazzio]

Got my ears to perk up here.

Originally Posted by Nikita

F=ma, remember. The smaller weapon will accelerate more, but that doesn't change the magnitude of the force needed to stop it.

The force is the same, but acceleration is still very important, because of how it relates to human interaction. To use a momentum analogy, take a refrigerator rolling at very slow speed and a baseball thrown at very high speed. The momentum might come out the same, and so would the total impulse needed to stop them, and a hypothetical high-speed robot arm wouldn't be too concerned about the differences, but to a person trying to stop them, the higher speed of the baseball makes it impossible to synchronize arm movement closely enough to the object's motion to be able to stop the thing with anything except high acceleration.

For a small-arms weapon, the sheer force of the recoil isn't the problem (well, maybe for ATRs ), because the low mass of the bullets keeps it well within controllable bounds even despite their high speed. It's the difference between the acceleration and the shooter's ability to compensate for it that matters. The human response curve to anything will vary wildly with a significant enough difference in rate of change, because the perception of time and the accuracy of kinesthesia are essentially fixed limits.

Funny you use that as an example--tankers actually did drive through trees. There's plenty of WWII footage of the phenomenon. Generally not healthy for the tank to do (especially for lighter or underpowered tanks) if it could be avoided, due to the stress on the engine from having to uproot the thing, but it was done.

...or you could break optics, or throw track on a root or limb, or any number of other things. That was his point. It's realistic for a tank to be able to plow through trees, but it's not too realistic for them to actually do it because of the potential costs involved.

It's the same as the LMG argument. It's realistic to be able to room-clear with a LMG, but it's not too realistic to actually do it because a LMG is one of the more supply-limited infantry weapons and because it's much better used to lock down a long approach lane instead. If you take those costs away by giving machinegunners the same supply rate as every other infantry weapon, and by removing any long approach lanes for them to lock down, then you suddenly have LMGs used in room clearing all the time, in exactly the same way that a tank sim that takes away the ability for tree-crushing to damage the tank will get tanks lumberjacking their way straight through entire forests.

[ross]

Originally Posted by Gopblin

(MGers are supposed to be the biggest men in the unit).

Funny joke. I wish someone had told our NCOs that.

[Nikita]

Originally Posted by Mekhazzio

but acceleration is still very important, because of how it relates to human interaction. To use a momentum analogy, take a refrigerator rolling at very slow speed and a baseball thrown at very high speed. The momentum might come out the same, and so would the total impulse needed to stop them, and a hypothetical high-speed robot arm wouldn't be too concerned about the differences, but to a person trying to stop them, the higher speed of the baseball makes it impossible to synchronize arm movement closely enough to the object's motion to be able to stop the thing with anything except high acceleration.

For a small-arms weapon, the sheer force of the recoil isn't the problem (well, maybe for ATRs ), because the low mass of the bullets keeps it well within controllable bounds even despite their high speed. It's the difference between the acceleration and the shooter's ability to compensate for it that matters. The human response curve to anything will vary wildly with a significant enough difference in rate of change, because the perception of time and the accuracy of kinesthesia are essentially fixed limits.

Ah, you're right of course... another way to think of it is that even though total momentum is identical, the amount of work required to stop the lighter rifle is greatly increased, since kinetic energy varies with the square of velocity, but only varies directly with mass...

...so a lighter firearm, from a certain perspective, is indeed harder to control.

Originally Posted by Mekhazzio

It's the same as the LMG argument. It's realistic to be able to room-clear with a LMG, but it's not too realistic to actually do it because a LMG is one of the more supply-limited infantry weapons and because it's much better used to lock down a long approach lane instead. If you take those costs away by giving machinegunners the same supply rate as every other infantry weapon, and by removing any long approach lanes for them to lock down, then you suddenly have LMGs used in room clearing all the time.

This is true as well, and it is certainly one way to curtail excessively bold MG gameplay in general of the sort shown in that infamous video.

However, as long as the MG's capabilities remain unchanged, there will always be an incentive for a machine gunner to strafe-and-pray under certain circumstances even on a map with good fire lanes and triple respawn timers for MGs. If caught off guard, it makes sense that a machine gunner would rather blow his attacker to bits while jogging around him in circles than suffer a respawn. Given that a sudden close-quarters ambush would be one of the most dangerous situations a machine-gunner would ever be in due to the cumbersome properties of his weapon, I feel that they don't need any help in an area that should be one of their chief gameplay weaknesses.

[The Commissar]

Realistically, MGs could and would have been hip-fired (though not commonly). This is especially true for DP-28s during assaults, as can be seen by some pictures posted.
Would they have been as accurate as in the game? No. But i'm sure this issue will be resolved.

[Gopblin]

Well, I think we can agree then that while hipfiring MGs is quite realistic (it's certainly at least as realistic as hipfiring the AVT), their CQB effectiveness needs to be somewhat nerfed to represent higher recoil IRL and to help with game balance. Probably just by increasing the recoil, as the idea that there is some special "slow-moving hipfire stance" for MGs that's somehow different from said stance for an AVT or STG44 is mostly untrue.

Also, another physics note for Nikita: the idea that a weapon suspended by a sling is somehow harder to turn is false (as long as it's firmly held with two hands in both cases). Case in point: try to turn a 300 pound log. Now try to turn the same log hanging on a rope.

The fact that some of the weapon's weight is on your shoulder certainly doesn't make it slower to pivot. In fact, I don't think it has a noticeable effect on the speed at all (for the first ten minutes, then your arms will get really tired without a sling).

If you really want to get into the mechanics of hipfiring - you'd often be doing most of the turning with your whole torso, as you'd have the gun pressed against your side to control the recoil and give you a better idea of where it's pointing. Also, everyone else trying to hipfire would be doing it roughly the same way if they want to have any sort of meaningful accuracy, so the only difference in maneuverability between guys with DP28 and PPSH would be due to the bigger size and weight of the MG.

PS. Maybe make MGs slower to turn as well, when not deployed. Of course, a lot of people would simply up their mouse sensitivity.

Best wishes,
Daniel

[Colt .45 killer]

Originally Posted by Gopblin

Well, I think we can agree then that while hipfiring MGs is quite realistic (it's certainly at least as realistic as hipfiring the AVT), their CQB effectiveness needs to be somewhat nerfed to represent higher recoil IRL and to help with game balance. Probably just by increasing the recoil, as the idea that there is some special "slow-moving hipfire stance" for MGs that's somehow different from said stance for an AVT or STG44 is mostly untrue.

Also, another physics note for Nikita: the idea that a weapon suspended by a sling is somehow harder to turn is false (as long as it's firmly held with two hands in both cases). Case in point: try to turn a 300 pound log. Now try to turn the same log hanging on a rope.

The fact that some of the weapon's weight is on your shoulder certainly doesn't make it slower to pivot. In fact, I don't think it has a noticeable effect on the speed at all (for the first ten minutes, then your arms will get really tired without a sling).

PS. Maybe make MGs slower to turn as well, when not deployed. Of course, a lot of people would simply up their mouse sensitivity.

Best wishes,
Daniel

yes to everything but messing with mouse sensitivity, that always really annoys me when games start randomly messing with sensitivities.

[MtnMan01]

Originally Posted by Mekhazzio

...snip
because a LMG is one of the more supply-limited infantry weapons.

******
I don't know what u mean by supply limited,,but each squad had 1-2 MG34's in Stalingrad when the battle began...
I agree how its it used in game is not to realistic...n should be toned down
How/if thats done will be interesting to see, the way it depicted/used in game now is ramboish? The speed needs to be slower which has been mentiond before....


http://www.quikmaneuvers.com/german_rifle_squad.html

From site...snips..
The German rifle squad was the best rifle squad in World War II. It was equipped with one or more machine guns and gave an excellent account of itself.
German Rifle Squad: The Gruppe in World War Two describes the
organization and tactics of German rifle squads. The German rifle
squad, in World War II, armed with the fabulous MG34 and MG42 machine guns killed millions of enemy soldiers in close combat...

German Rifle Squad: The Gruppe in World War Two describes actual historical factors in war fighting that other writers lack the knowledge and courage to describe...

Excerpt from German Rifle Squad:

The German light machine gun, regardless of model, used a bipod and was normally fired lying down. The bipod
offered limited stability and in effect sustained fire was impractical, since the barrel would recoil far off target after the
first few rounds. The machine gun was fired in ....

...and the machine gun could be
fired from the hip, using the sling over the shoulder and the left hand to hold the weapon steady. Accuracy when firing
from the hip was marginal,

although it worked perfectly in a close combat mode employed in trench lines, fortified
zones, "urban combat", broken terrain and heavy forest...

Anyways just thought I would add this,,,,

[Nikita]

Originally Posted by Gopblin

Well, I think we can agree then that while hipfiring MGs is quite realistic (it's certainly at least as realistic as hipfiring the AVT)... the idea that there is some special "slow-moving hipfire stance" for MGs that's somehow different from said stance for an AVT or STG44 is mostly untrue.

Also, another physics note for Nikita: the idea that a weapon suspended by a sling is somehow harder to turn is false (as long as it's firmly held with two hands in both cases). Case in point: try to turn a 300 pound log. Now try to turn the same log hanging on a rope.

The fact that some of the weapon's weight is on your shoulder certainly doesn't make it slower to pivot. In fact, I don't think it has a noticeable effect on the speed at all (for the first ten minutes, then your arms will get really tired without a sling).

If you really want to get into the mechanics of hipfiring - you'd often be doing most of the turning with your whole torso, as you'd have the gun pressed against your side to control the recoil and give you a better idea of where it's pointing. Also, everyone else trying to hipfire would be doing it roughly the same way if they want to have any sort of meaningful accuracy, so the only difference in maneuverability between guys with DP28 and PPSH would be due to the bigger size and weight of the MG.

The AVT and most automatic rifles allow you to grasp them with your left hand just in front of the magazine. You can brace the weapon with your left upper arm as you fire and move forwards. You can even adopt several unorthodox left-hand positions to control muzzle climb. This cannot be done with the MG34, as the left arm must be extended. Sure, I concede that the weight of the weapon matters, but the ergonomics of the weapon are just as important.

The, ahem, "Mkb" (longer gas tube, fires from open bolt, mounts a bayonet), fires an intermediate-power cartridge. Plenty of footage of wackos firing AKs from the hip while running around.

I will, however, say that it is unsafe to fire the AVT while jogging backwards. At the very least, the AVT has a respectable amount of recoil in-game, though a little more recoil when hipfiring might not hurt.

Physics lession? Assuming you choose the same axis of rotation through the log's center of mass and place your hands at the same points along the log, rotating the log on a sling versus rotating the log in your hands is no easier from the perspective of the horizontal torques you have to exert on the object to accelerate (angular) it. You suggest that it might be the same. It is the indeed the same. But wait!

Now, consider the difficulties of ensuring that the suspended log doesn't get pushed around or start swinging, or that one end doesn't end up higher than the other. It makes no difference to a pair of articulated robot arms, but a person will find it far easier to get the log pointed in the right direction and aimed at the right angle if they're holding it up and can compensate for all vertical forces exerted on the weapon. Just tactile preference.

Then recall that the MG-34 is not a log suspended from a rope, but a log suspended from two ropes, linked to the underside of the log at two different points along its length. Push the weapon to rotate it in one direction, and components of the tension forces of the sling are always opposing you. That certainly slows you down.

Pick up the weapon, and those tension forces disappear, as they are directly related to the weight of the weapon behind held by the sling.

Ah, now you want to keep your hips pointed at the enemy, turning with your entire body, and keeping the weapon pressed against you to control the recoil? Good luck doing that while jogging in all directions and jumping without jostling the weapon wildly with your left hip and thigh. Now, if you were stationary, you could make small, shuffling steps with both feet without comprimising your stance.

Hipfire? Possible. I've got nothing against firing an LMG from the hip from a proper stance. Automatically-initiated jogging hipfire with a near-instantaneous setup time and no stamina penalty? Not realistic.

[ross]

You'll notice that the available footage of troops firing MGs from the hip tend to show them walking as they do so. The 'normal' move speed in RO and RO2 is a jog, roughly the maximum pace your agerage soldier can sustain over a long period. The 'sprint' speed is an actual sprint, but accounting for fatigue, load bearing, etc. (but sadly not surface resistance, so you can sprint just as fast in deep snow or gravel ingame as you can on concrete).

There should be no question whether walking fire is possible. It certainly is. The issue is jogging hipfire.

Jogging with a WWII MG - especially the MG 34, being heavier and longer - while firing from the hip is not a very bright idea. Walking and firing, on the other hand, is entirely reasonable. Forcing deployment like in Ostfront solves basically 80% of the problems caused by the current system because that assault MG, regardless of how accurate he is or how long he can fire, is now a slow-moving, easy target - and the SMG guys will simply run past him and clear the room themselves, leaving him behind.

[Proud_God]

I know it's not the same thing, but check how much trouble Jeremy Clarkson already has hipfiring an ak47, see 41:45.

Jeremy Clarkson's Inventions That Changed the World - (1 of 5) The Gun - YouTube

[ross]

That is because he is neither an experienced shooter nor a trained soldier, as far as I am aware. His stance is really poor for that kind of thing, I'm not surprised he got pushed back a bit.