• 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/

Important: Way too accurate aim for every soldier!

I strongly agree with the OP. More fire fighting would drastically improve the fun factor over the miracle shots across the map ='ing instant death.

I would suggest dumbing down all of the weapons accuracy a bit.
Sub machine guns should have way less accuracy, especially at distance. Then the rifleman becomes a more viable role to be. Low volume of fire but better chance at further ranges.
 
Upvote 0
*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?

you also have tactile feedback of weapon sway ..you feel where the gun is going..it doesnt just randomly happen to the dismay of the shooter who then has no idea how to accurately aim his gun
 
Upvote 0
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.

Ah, I see--your endless declarations of "There is no sway for three entire seconds!" pertained to observed sway WHILE using the mouse.:)

And to answer your thoughts as to what I was "hinting", I can't make it any clearer than this:

--There IS sway even if you DO use the mouse
--After you make a shot, your sights DO move and your front and rear sights DO misalign. The same effect occurs if you make a sudden adjustment to your aim.
--There IS sway when you shift-zoom. That sway is indeed reduced, but if the zoom was not present the reduction in sway would only result in a fractional increase in accuracy rather than a multiplicative one.

Extensive testing produced these results.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I THINK you're trying to say that there IS sway, but that it is too easy to compensate for, resuling in no apparent sway. If that's the case, I still disagree. You use the mouse to compensate for the motion of the sway, and as a result you are trying to do two things at once: anticipate the future direction of sway, and bring the sights on target. If there were no sway, you would only need to perform the second task. However, balancing these two actions forces you to multitask, and it makes the shot more difficult even if you can manage to perfectly compensate for the sway.

At long range, this multitasking makes it more likely that your shot will miss, while at short range the small degree of error is insignificant. This seems perfectly fine, realistic, and balanced to me.

And ultimately, if we're in agreement that sway WITHOUT using the mouse is fine "as is", then I really don't see that it needs to be changed. Just like the involuntary movements your arms make when shooting in real life, some people are just better at compensating for them than others.

I disagree however that zoom represents normal human vision--sure, the human eye sees at an astoundingly detailed level of resolution, but if you were to take a football field and fill it with battlefield clutter, flying debris, etc... it is a lot harder to pick out a figure crawling behind cover all the way from the opposite goal post in real life. You can't magnify the image, so the pheripheral motion and interference from other objects in your field of vision make it more difficult for you to spot the enemy.

A spawning Soviet soldier on one end of Spartanovka doesn't get mowed down by an MG34 on from the German spawn at the other end because of zero sway. He gets killed because the German could shift-zoom in 4x, see him in the first place, then use the zoomed-in field of vision and the accompanying increase in mouse sensitivity to pick him off (the screen is "bigger," so mouse movements are "smaller").

To the thread contributors as a whole, in my experience, none of the "crazy" accurate shots I've fallen victim to are ever from standing, unsupported, exhausted soldiers. They're always bracing their rifle against a windowsill, or prone on a small hill. Making an occasional great shot at 120 meters from those two stances makes perfect sense to me--they're in the best possible setup to shoot effectively.

What happens most of the time though? They miss, and the running soldier far, far away never even notices the bullet going way past them. It's the shots that kill you that you notice, and naturally you think that happens too often for your liking. Consider this, however--do you ever feel while shooting enemies far away that YOU are the one that is too accurate? I seldom do. Taking potshots across Fallen Fighters Square, maybe 90% of my shots fail to find their target. If there is too accurate aim, I have yet to notice it.

(There is one category of player with an unfair accuracy advantage, however, and that's the ultra-competitive player who edits his graphics settings until the game looks worse than MOHAA):mad:

Barring that, however, a slight tweak to shift-zoom and I think combat will be just as lethal as it should be--no more, no less.
 
Upvote 0
Let me try to state it concisely.

When you hold zoom, without mouse, there is no sway for 3 seconds.

If you move mouse, your sights will obviously move. But they still will not "sway".

I can move the "no sway" sights pretty liberally on my screen and still acquire my target and pull off a shot before "No sway" turns off.

and yes, the sway in game is fine. What I have a problem with is the 100% lack of it when you hold shift.

1. It's not realistic
2. It makes hitting an unmoving target too easy (your sights don't move)

I often plink helmets using no sway. If I feel I have the time, I'll just shimmy my sights up to the head and plink the enemy. If you compensate for bullet drop (usually don't have to in stock maps) you can hit any target you want as long as you have even the slightest bit of composure. It's really like going to the carnival and playing those shooting games.
 
Upvote 0
Dude, we're not having any trouble understanding that there is no RNG sway for 3 seconds. What you seem to be having trouble understanding is that there is player-generated weapon acceleration sway. Just because -YOU- don't have trouble with it doesn't mean it isn't noticeable to other players (like myself). Just because you can do it easily doesn't mean that everybody else is at the same level.

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.
 
Upvote 0
How about another angle of attack for this? Many more bullets are fired in wars then the number that hit their target.

Assuming the stats now work, and I am not sure of that; my mosin nagant accuracy is 79.73%. Please understand I am not a stats whore, and I will often fire my last round into a wall so that I can reload, or using my nagant to fire for effect to keep someone down. If I really wanted that could be 85 to 90%.

Comparing that with me on a warm day at the range when I am fed and no one is shooting back, it does seem reasonable.

Comparing that to my understanding of history and how many bullets were fired ( even in ww1 ) for every kill, and that number is much higher then it should be.


Back to our current track of thought. I dont ever even notice the sway, it is SO minimal when holding zoom.

It's minimal to the point where perhaps a TF2 player might notice it after never having to deal with sway before, but ANY player from COD / BF / Arma will probably not even notice the sway. I say again, using yourself as a judge for how good the sway is, is a VERY bad move.

I will quote myself again from an earlier post in case this did not sink in the first time

"
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.
"

Four kills, with the 'bleed out' effect, a darkening screen, all crouching or prone at 70 or greater meters. And I had time to count to three before I died, heck I could have almost squeezed a reload in and killed some more, however there were no more targets.


Just in case this has not hit home yet. You sir are a BAD example of a baseline for a riflemans skill, because in your own words, you suck at it. Give it a little bit of time, or look at any other newbie to the game who has an affinity for the bolt powered cannon and you will see they are pulling off some impressive shots. I do not think that ballancing sway so that it is only difficult for new players is a smart idea. Sure increasing it a bit will make it even harder on those new players, but it also means that the more experienced players will not be able to kill them with such impunity.

*ugh*, I shouldnt have had ice cream for breakfast, yawning now. I hope all of my drivel here makes sense... :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: Floyd
Upvote 0
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.

Same resolution and monitor size.

We've gone over the whole "more bullets fired than killed" before, but that's accounting for every situation, not just squad-level. You have to remember that there are huge MMGs and HMGs behind the front lines spitting out thousands of rounds per minute, most of which aren't going to kill anyone, and SMGs often fire more rounds than they need to kill a target (you may hit someone 7-8 times after the first bullet kills them).

You aren't going to be wasting rounds with a bolt, you don't have the rate of fire or recycle speed for it. You also don't simulate CQC situations with your IRL bolt on the firing range. Most of your targets aren't man-sized and trapped in a narrow hallway or room.

I think a lot of you guys are discounting the amount of CQC in the game. Not every shot is going to be a 100m+ marksmanship test. Most halfway decent players know to conserve their ammo and not take shots they don't think they can hit, which contributes to the high accuracy when they DO shoot. Plus, I run into tons of "freebie" situations where it's hard to NOT hit the target, like in a narrow hallway, or a room with their backs to me, or when they come running into my position and I ambush them.

Very little combat actually takes place at 150m-200m+ in HoS. There are a few maps that offer a few locations with nice sight lines like this, but most of the real fighting takes place at much closer ranges. Closer ranges = higher accuracy.
 
Upvote 0
...

...

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)
 
Upvote 0
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.
 
Upvote 0
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've noticed, however they settle linearly. If you read my post they should settle logarythmically with diminishing returns.

i.e. accurate to 50 yards under 1 sec at tip accurate to 100 yards in 1 second, 150 yards in 10 seconds and on and on.
 
Upvote 0
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.

for those who didn't read. this should show up in its own post at some point, for some reason it said the moderator had to approve it
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
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
 
Upvote 0
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.

I think you are exaggerating sights temporarily misaligning and then rebounding back into proper position when you move your mouse as "user generated sway mechanic"

I've already pointed out many examples of how this has a marginal effect in the 3 seconds it takes to train your sights on a motionless target. The sights reset in plenty of time to get a steady no sway shot without moving your mouse much (unless you have super duper high mouse sensitivity or a really shakey hand and poor nerves)

I'm flattered that you think I'm a Pro RO2 player...but...

I'm not the one asking for a change in the size of the court. I'm asking for the court to stay at it's current size all the time. If anything you are the one asking that the court size change in order to accomodate "amateurs" (as opposed to you saying I'm trying to make the game harder)
I want 1 court size that is already available, you want 2 sizes.

If that's too vague...I want Sway that's already in game be applied to all aiming instead of having Sway in one circumstance, but not another.
 
Upvote 0
Alright, but you still haven't answered the crux of my question.

Why would this be beneficial to add to the game? Even you said you don't want enough in there to cause the player to miss more than the occasional 150-200m shot. What difference does it make? If it's not going to affect player accuracy that much, WHY add it? Realism? There's already a realistic level of sway modeled due to weapon acceleration and sight misalignment. We're talking a tiny, insignificant change here, if I'm understanding you right.

Why is it so gosh darn important than the RNG jiggles your gun constantly, at all times?
 
Upvote 0
I believe I've said a couple times I wanted it for realism sake and to have sway in all aiming (I'm thinking of a word similar to generlized, but it's not working out)

I'm really not positive of the effects it would have on the game. I'd assume it would make aiming slightly harder. Maybe it would distinguish snipers from riflemen? Maybe it would just make people percieve rifles as "accurate" and not "way too accurate"

The only problem I see is that I don't think it would be an "easy fix" as I'm sure adding in the right sway would take some coding and not be as easy as changing a 0 to 1.
 
Upvote 0