Important: Way too accurate aim for every soldier!

Josef Nader · Oct 6, 2011

Yep, here it comes again.

DiedTrying said:
None of what you are ranting about has anything to do with the topic of this thread.

It has everything to do with the topic of the thread. Changing an aspect of game play affects all the other aspects to varying degrees. Lowering weapon accuracy doesn't hurt SMGs, it only makes riflemen even -harder- to use than they already are, and it robs them of their big advantage over SMGs. Suddenly, we'll have a big to do on the forums about the SMGs being overpowered and needing a nerf. It's a never ending cycle.

DiedTrying said:
What has "behaving tactically", "using cover" "punishing players" have anything to do with trying to achieve realistic accuracy levels within the game?

Because the accuracy levels in game -are- realistic. There's a thread floating around here that broke down the accuracy level in-game fairly objectively. While not under fire, standing, and exausted, the player was able to pull off 6/10 killshots from 200m. This is under ideal conditions (i.e. no returning fire, target was fully exposed, etc.). This strikes me as a pretty realistic depiction of firearms. The only thing sway will accomplish is lowering the effective range of rifles even more, which kneecaps the concept of realistic-range combat that the game was marketed with.

DiedTrying said:
I can barely make heads or tails of your drama queen exaggerations. I tried to play nice, but you keep on ranting off topic without addressing relevant info.

Sure, go for the ad hom. My argument is simple. Decreasing the accuracy of rifles (which is -exactly- what sway is supposed to do) lowers the effective range and drops the lethality of combat. As it stands, the current model does a very nice job of accurately representing the usage of firearms at realistic ranges, and tampering with this model is only going to reduce the realism and open the door for other unrealistic behaviors. I repeat, rather than forcing the game to change to suit the player, the player should change his playstyle to suit the game.

DiedTrying said:
I have no idea how you even got onto this psychosis about punishing players for not using cover or being tactical or learning from mistakes. It's like you are making the argument that guns should be super accurate laser blasters, IN ORDER to force people to cower behind every rock.

They aren't super accurate laser blasters, as I addressed above, but that is, in fact, exactly what I'm saying. If your enemies stand a decent chance of actually hitting and killing you, you suddenly begin to take your life much more seriously. If you get picked off every time you try to approach an enemy position, or try to pop-up shoot, you need to realize that those tactics don't work in-game (and in real life) and change them.

So yes, that's -exactly- what I'm saying. Accurate weapons force accurate tactics.

DiedTrying said:
That's not what this thread is about. Removing no sway isn't going to turn RO2 into quake. Discussion on player behavior is completely off topic and encompasses a plethora of variables you aren't calculating. I graduated from a Behavior Analysis psychology program, I know a thing or two about the subject and know that you trying to tie accuracy and player behavior together is incredibly flimsy.

No offense, but if I had a dime for every time I ran into someone claiming to have graduated from such-and-such program in order to hit me with an argument from authority, I'd be a very rich man. Arguments from authority mean little to me, mate. I have quite a bit of experience as a game designer and developer, and I specialize in level design. Analyzing player tactics and behaviors in relation to the level is one of my most important functions on a development team. Weapon handling plays a huge role in how players behave in a level (snipers will seek high ground, CQC will seek buildings or tight areas, for starters). They're very closely related. Players will pick weapons that suit their play-styles, and the behaviors of certain weapons will strongly influence how players of certain play-styles will behave.

And I'm not saying that it'll turn RO2 into Quake. I'm saying it'll turn RO2 into RO1 or ARMA, which is a bad thing. RO1 and ARMA are dull, unrealistic, and overly difficult. Hardcore shooters, not realistic shooters. RO2 is RO2, and it should stay RO2. If people don't like the formula, there are plenty of other shooters that offer a much more artificially challenging experience. RO2 is unique, and I enjoy it for what it is.

DiedTrying said:
Why don't we take it a step further and remove recoil. This would make guns super deadly; people would get punished all the time if they don't properly utilize cover. Players would have to develop "realistic" tactics in order to survive...

Lol hyperbole.

Not even going to justify this with a response. I've explained above that RO2's weapon model is realistic, and that further reducing the accuracy takes it out of realistic territory and puts it into hardcore territory.

DiedTrying said:
btw, what were these "unrealistic tactics" in RO1 that stemmed from poor accuracy of the opponent? I'd like to hear.

Hip shots being more accurate at close range than aiming properly (due to the lack of sway from the hip), not being able to hit a target beyond 50m without a good deal of skill (allowing your enemies to run around in the open without fear), being forced to stop, squat, and brace in order to hit just about anything from a distance farther than 50m, being able to have protracted pop-up rifle duels with no one getting any hits because they were wrestling with the sway/spread, machine gunners framing themselves in windows clear as day and being able to gun down dozens of riflemen because it took them several seconds to line up shots...

The list goes on and on.

DiedTrying said:
It's just odd that you encourage realism in one aspect by reducing realism in another.

See above. It -is- realistic. It's not -hard-. Hard != real, in this case.

Animal_Mother · Oct 6, 2011

Josef Nader said:
And this is why I was acting like a dick above. Chuckleheads like this totally ignore everything I have to say and demand that the game be changed to meet their expectations rather than admit that the problem lies with the playerbase.

It's YOUR fault that you keep getting killed because of your bad tactics. The game should not be change to permit your unrealistic play style.

People like this are afraid that if anything changes from what they're used to they might not be as good as they once were. Why they're so worried about it I have no idea.

I've been in the army, don't presume to tell me what bad tactics are because you play a game. Also, how do you know if I keep getting killed or not, hmm? That part's for you. This next is directed at TW because I know for a fact that you will NEVER listen to anything I have to say & I don't like wasting my time...well maybe they will. Now you have a nice day

.

Anyway, tactics usually consist of a target being fixed & flanked, in other words fire is put on the enemy to keep their heads/weapons down & preferably keep them from moving out of the particular piece of cover they've chosen while a second element moves to a position where they'll have a better shot at them. This "fixing" fire need not be immediately deadly. Why? Because in most cases irl this would be a pretty tall order & ammo usually has to be conserved. Thus the assault element. As for keeping enemy from advancing unchecked this is mostly the job of MGs--which btw it should be able to do without getting plunked through the helmet consistently 1-2 seconds after deploying.

There, I think I'm done...btw I won't be arguing this point further & won't even return to this thread to read your next infantile insult, so don't bother.

Nikita · Oct 6, 2011

Allright, time to inject some much-needed logic into this thread.

In my opinion, SWAY is far better, and by better I mean realistically, modeled in RO2 than it ever was in RO:Ostfront.

Consider the Ostfront screenshot. Firstly, when you aim your sights in Ostfront, there is ZERO sway for the first four seconds if you're standing, unsupported, with full stamina. Then, the rifle barrel begins wiggling randomly with approximately one 1.5 cm movement every three-quarters of a second, until you're pointing somewhere well south of the intended target.

When you're crouched, unsupported, and with full stamina, you get nearly SIX seconds of ZERO sway before the random wiggling occurs. And then, after about five seconds, sway stabilizes again and you can aim without sway for a limited time. Plus, you can spin around like a top in any stance and your sights will always remain PERFECTLY aligned.

Going back, I found the sway quite artificial, actually. The only difference that stamina makes is that it reduces the period of time in which you have zero sway, so you have to make your shot in one second as opposed to four.

I actually applaud the sway for rifles, SMGs, and semi-autos in RO2. The only weapon whose sway is a little off is the Mkb--at eleven pounds loaded it should have more sway than the SMGs, but currently has far, far less.

In all honesty, Ostfront firefights weren't all that long either. You crawled over a small hill on Kurland Kessel, saw an enemy, the two of you stared at one another, and took aim. Your enemy either missed, giving you the chance to pick him off, or he killed you. Very little "expenditure of ammunition", to be perfectly frank. SMGs could hit a whole lot of nothing, shooting somewhat uselessly at one another at medium range, but that was because recoil was completely overexaggerated.

What makes RO2 feel so much more lethal is the shift-zoom. Aiming was difficult in Ostfront because of pixel hunting. While pixel-hunting and squinting at the screen is certainly NOT the way to go, the current SHIFT-zoom system makes going unnoticed far harder.

I'm not bashing iron sights zoom itself. I think it's nice for once to have accurate engagement ranges on maps like Spartanovka and Fallen Fighters. The shift-zoom, however, should be reduced on most weapons in my opinion. Sure, the human eye has high resolution, allowing people to percieve distances much better than in Ostfront. However, when the enemy is a football field away on a cluttered map, the zoom makes it too easy to spot enemies at range that you would probably not have noticed in real life because of all the movement and objects in your natural human FOV. Shift-zoom also vastly increases the target area you're trying to hit on your screen.

So, if anything, sway isn't guilty. I think the sway system is admirably done, and I can even understand the reasoning behind Shift-zoom. However, I personally think it's the zoom, not the aiming, that's responsible for the phenomena everyone in this thread is discussing.

DiedTrying · Oct 6, 2011

Josef Nader said:
Bunch of words

yawn...

Of course you ignore the actual statements I made and reverted back to things "people" said earlier in the thread in order to argue with me.

Just forget about how I said sway and gun mechanics are fine....

and bracing your weapon and hipfiring were "unrealistic" tactics in RO1...?

I just tested the shiftzoom/holdbreath again. I was wrong, it wasn't 1-2 seconds it was 3 seconds of NO SWAY AT ALL when you zoom/hold breath

yea, that's realistic...

I also like the blanket statement of hard =/= real....well easy =/= real either. Not sure where you get that minimal sway is "hard"....maybe there is something to Animal Mothers statement about people being afraid of losing their "edge"...?

I'm telling you as a matter of fact that guns just don't stop moving when you hold your breath. You can cry about it being hard or easy I don't care and it doesn't matter, it is 100% truth.

What I've proposed is to have the same sway in both shift/zoom (plus reduced sway for controlled breaths) and non shift/zoom except we get rid of the magic no sway. Can you honestly make the argument that it would significantly change player behavior?

And I'll repeat it once again, you are completely over exaggerating the effects of accuracy on player behavior to suit your agenda. Truth is, players don't behave any different in RO2 than they did in RO1. and again this has nothing to do with the topic of accuracy.

Btw, my diploma is on the wall, you can believe me or not, but I know that a tweak in overall accuracy will not change run and gunners from being nitwits and it won't change me from being a slow methodical teamplayer. Nobody will even notice if my idea is implemented except when you occasionally miss a shot because you don't have robotic no sway. But this won't stop you from sensationalizing.

btw, I seem to remember you comparing skeet shooting to RO2 instant snap shots with bolt action rifles. Not exactly the best comparison and you sounded like you've never fired a rifle *shrug* but alas this is a whole 'nother rabbit hole.

Marxman · Oct 6, 2011

As much as I'd love to keep my laser accurate rifle and superhuman targeting skills, I have to agree with most of what Diedtrying has been saying.
I own a Mosin IRL, and have fired a K98, its a difficult task to shoot on target rapidly. My lvl 48 K98 in game is superhumanly good. I can bolt like the wind, and line up a perfect shot right after I'm done. I've tried using rapid fire with a bolt action IRL, its almost impossible to keep your front sight on the target unless you're resting on something.

I'd day a good compromise would be getting rid of magic no sway, and having your rifle be slightly off center after you bolt it. SMGs and semis are ok, all they need are the sway fixes DT was talking about.

Josef Nader · Oct 6, 2011

DiedTrying said:
yawn...

Of course you ignore the actual statements I made and reverted back to things "people" said earlier in the thread in order to argue with me. Just forget about how I said sway and gun mechanics are fine....

I quoted you word-for-word. I responded to each and every point you raised individually. Where did you say sway and gun mechanics were fine?

DiedTrying said:
and bracing your weapon and hipfiring were "unrealistic" tactics in RO1...?

Having to brace for to stand a chance at making 50m shot and relying on hip-firing for a bolt action rifle in close quarters because it took too long to ADS and line up a shot IS unrealistic.

DiedTrying said:
I just tested the shiftzoom/holdbreath again. I was wrong, it wasn't 1-2 seconds it was 3 seconds of NO SWAY AT ALL when you zoom/hold breath

yea, that's realistic...

Sure, you may get 3 seconds without sway to make a shot, but if you don't position yourself correctly and the other player is somewhat competent, you'll still lose. This takes a lot of the arbitrary difficulty out of gunplay and shifts the skill focus onto tactical play. A change I approve of.

DiedTrying said:
I also like the blanket statement of hard =/= real....well easy =/= real either. Not sure where you get that minimal sway is "hard"....maybe there is something to Animal Mothers statement about people being afraid of losing their "edge"...?

It has little to do with losing my edge. I'll freely admit I'm a pretty **** shot in game as it is. There are plenty of factors that screw my aiming up that have nothing to do with an RNG. What I am afraid of is feeling like I was robbed out of a kill I should have been able to get if not for the stupid mechanics.

DiedTrying said:
I'm telling you as a matter of fact that guns just don't stop moving when you hold your breath. You can cry about it being hard or easy I don't care and it doesn't matter, it is 100% truth.

And I acknowledge that guns don't stay rock steady. It's tough to remember what I've covered, as again, this is the 7th or 8th individual iteration of this argument I've had in this thread alone, but I understand that you can never completely eliminate sway from a weapon.

However, that's what free-aim does in RO2. The sway-less rifle only helps you if the target is perfectly centered on your screen. If you ADS off-center, you have to free-aim the weapon back onto target, something that I find somewhat disorienting. You also have to compensate for their motion and bullet drop, all in the span of 3 seconds. It may not seem like much for someone who has been religiously playing RO1, but it's a lot for someone who is switching gears from other, less realism focused games to master.

DiedTrying said:
What I've proposed is to have the same sway in both shift/zoom (plus reduced sway for controlled breaths) and non shift/zoom except we get rid of the magic no sway. Can you honestly make the argument that it would significantly change player behavior?

Honestly? No. I can honestly say that I think the only people you'd be hurting would be the bolt-action riflemen, and they're a rare breed nowadays.

And I'll repeat it once again, you are completely over exaggerating the effects of accuracy on player behavior to suit your agenda. Truth is, players don't behave any different in RO2 than they did in RO1. and again this has nothing to do with the topic of accuracy.

No, they don't behave any differently, and that's why they're so upset that the gun mechanics have changed. That's why they die so much.

But of course, they're flawless gaming skills couldn't be to blame. It's obviously because RO2 is unbalanced and broken.

DiedTrying said:
Btw, my diploma is on the wall, you can believe me or not, but I know that a tweak in overall accuracy will not change run and gunners from being nitwits and it won't change me from being a slow methodical teamplayer. Nobody will even notice if my idea is implemented except when you occasionally miss a shot because you don't have robotic no sway. But this won't stop you from sensationalizing.

Now it's my turn to get onto you. I asked you a question above that you completely ignored. If it isn't going to make that much of a difference, why add it in? All it does is let the nitwits get away with things occasionally that they otherwise wouldn't have gotten away with. Why is it so important to have an RNG jiggle your gun around if it's already challenging to pull off a decent shot, and when there are so many other dozens of factors that are interfering with your ability to score a kill?

DiedTrying said:
btw, I seem to remember you comparing skeet shooting to RO2 instant snap shots with bolt action rifles. Not exactly the best comparison and you sounded like you've never fired a rifle *shrug* but alas this is a whole 'nother rabbit hole.

It wasn't this thread:

Josef Nader said:
Come on, mate. Don't do that. I took the time out to think out a decent response and you respond with this?

I trap shoot almost every weekend. I've never competed with it, but I enjoy it immensely. I can snap the shotgun from muzzle down stance to aiming and dust a clay in just about a second. Sway doesn't factor into it one bit.

Besides, there's a pretty significant difference between shooting a clay with a shotgun and shooting a rifle at a target. Shotguns tend to not need much aiming. As long as you're lined up right and your timing is good, you can snap shots left and right with decent success.

I acknowledged the significant difference. The conversation was focused on the time it takes to ADS, and I said, quite simply, that it doesn't take long to jam the butt of a gun into your shoulder and get a rough approximation of where the bullet is going to go. Hence, you should be able to pull off quick shots from 50m or so from ADS with a reasonable degree of accuracy.

Come on, mate. You suckered me into picking this thread back up because you seemed like you were a reasonable fellow. I've talked myself inside out justifying my reasons why we don't need to add any degree of sway. Give me a good reason why it should be added back in. You totally ignored two big posts of mine above and dropped back down to ad homing.

Like I said, I get the feeling you can be reasoned with. Don't be a dick.

As I said, the best solution I can think of is to have the rifle off-center every time you perform an action that isn't actively aiming. Bam, instant player-provided sway that doesn't rely on an RNG to be effective.

EDIT: Just for fun, here is the thread I was referencing when you chewed me out for referencing other posts:

http://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/showthread.php?t=68417

Somebody -actually- gathered in-game data under optimal conditions, and it still took him, a relatively decent player, 2-3 seconds to line up his shot. Exactly the window of time the steady ADS gives you. Take from it what you will. I still don't agree that weapon sway is necessary, as he was getting his average shot times from Youtube videos and I'd like to see how long a trained rifleman takes to get off a shot during a speed drill, and what kind of accuracy they can get.

Another thing worth noting is that he estimates about 40% accuracy for a fully exposed soldier running perpendicular to his position. I don't think that's that unreasonable. Do you?

DiedTrying · Oct 6, 2011

I don't have the time to delve into it deeper as I have to leave to pick g/f up from work.

But in post #269 with the blue font, I mentioned I didn't want sway change and that gun mechanics and ballistics were fine.

Sure, you may get 3 seconds without sway to make a shot, but if you don't position yourself correctly and the other player is somewhat competent, you'll still lose. This takes a lot of the arbitrary difficulty out of gunplay and shifts the skill focus onto tactical play. A change I approve of.

Player positioning has no point in this conversation, this has to do with realistic rifle control. 3 seconds of no sway is impossible IRL. I don't care about "well you'll still lose if you miss", it's irrelevant.

Got to go now or I'll be late.

Floyd · Oct 7, 2011

To noone in particular......

Interestingly, I have had zero problems with the free aim and have never really understood the fuss behind it. Perhaps free aim's effects are negated by these nearly 60 year old reflexes ability to do anything. I use bolts almost exclusively. Its a rare day indeed when I use anything with 'auto' or 'machine' in it title.

My qualifications (or perhaps lack thereof) are scattered across my posts on this forums. Not going to rehash here... As I've said before (and not heeding my own advice obviously), espousing the same thing over and over again does not make it so. Just because your 'vet buddy' or youtube says its so, does not make it so. What makes it so is your individual ability, experience and paradigm of what actually occurs when 'you' shoot the weapon. Suprisingly enough, some people are natural shots and some people can't hit a barn with sawed of shotgun from three feet.

RO1's snap shooting from behind cover was unrealistic. One could drive tacks with its precision. Otherwise, I enjoyed almost everything else about the weapon mechanics. In RO2 its still too easy to shoot quarters at a hundred yards. I'll grant that unwinded, its marginally more difficult than RO1. However, winded/stressed (or when one should be winded) weapons handling is worse than RO1, imo. The 'stamina' sway may have been exagerated in RO1, the lack of such RO2 is to the extreme in the opposite direction, imo.

Though its been a long hard harvest , I'd be happy to invite all the pros and crack shots to come on down to the farm and see who can put the most rounds in an eight inch bullseye at 100 yds free standing with the unscoped rifle of your choice. And you can take all the time you need..... I'd be willing to bet that 1 in 10 won't even hit the paper

(and I'd be the first to miss......)

Then we'll practice on the coyotes to learn a little about what lead really is. The damn things always seem to find that extra gear just before fate smacks them in the hindquarters.

wigdigster · Oct 7, 2011

an actual owner of firearms.

an actual owner of firearms.

weapon sway should only be added when moving your rifle. I.e. changing where your aiming. rotating while in sites makes it difficult to keep them straight.

Otherwise, keep it out of this game.

I can personally, with no formal training, hit a 5x5 inch target at 200 meters with a mn91/30 STANDING. If i have a rest? much smaller.

What people need to realize is that if you are using a rest PROPERLY in REAL LIFE. you do not hold the gun. (i know, sounds weird if you are not familiar with shooting.) The gun is either rested on the rest in front of you, or if you are at say a tree/corner you place your hand on the tree/corner and rest the gun on your wrist (much, much,much more accurate). The next best thing is pressing the rifle against the rest to steady it.

Its not a question of how tired the soldier is. Its a question of using the rest properly. If the rest is properly used the effort is in what your resting against, not on you.

RO is about realism. I read some complaints about standard infantryman's rifles.

a 'sniper rifle' for the germans or russians in ww2 was a standard issue k98/mn91/30 that was the best of about 1000 standard rifles. The reciever was tapped for a scope mount.

OTHER THAN THAT THEY ARE EXACTLY THE SAME.

bolt actions in WW2 had an effective range of about 550m (mosin) and 500m (k98) - fact check on exact numbers please.

However the semi automatics had an effective range of about 500M (m1 garand, also fact check number please).

The accuracy difference of the semi autos and bolts are negledgable at ranges seen in RO.

so I repeat:
RO is about realism. I read some complaints about standard infantryman's rifles.

I have no trouble playing MG class, you have to use cover properly. MG's cannot cover a whole field, and did not in real life. They cover streets, narrow arcs of fire.

wigdigster · Oct 7, 2011

also one more note I forgot in the longer message:

smg effective range was about 150m

MG34? bipod: 600m tripod: 1300m -number check please

wake_up · Oct 7, 2011

rpxy24 said:
Make that RO2 ostfront mode already... so that the "insane-sway rifle-dont-shoot-straight" maniacs just disappear.

The problem are some kiddies like you, that realy dont want to understand
that the problem isn

Al_Ka_Pwn · Oct 7, 2011

Josef Nader said:
I also love how one minute everyone is complaining that SMGs are too overpowered and need to be nerfed because riflemen are helpless, and then the next day everyone is complaining about how riflemen are too accurate and need more sway to decrease how good they are.

It's a sign that they've hit the balance spot on.

Totally untrue. The quick scope is brought about -because- of weapon sway, as a weapon that is always centered on the screen suddenly starts moving all over the place if you take more than a second in sights. When you scope in, it's perfectly centered, and almost instantly starts moving all over the place. You have to be able to scope in and shoot before the movement kicks in, or else you miss your shot. The reason that other weapons don't have sway is because of the godawful aim-assist that automatically locks onto an enemy's head when you aim down sights.

And no, you can't hold the weapon still for more than a second before the sway gets even -worse- for several seconds.

It is in there for -balance- reasons. Everyone else is running around with automatics that have a spread like a smooth-bore and take 5-6 shots to kill someone, and you have a weapon that can kill someone in one hit. Of course they have to "balance" this by making it sway all over the place like you're drunk.

no it means the weapon does not sway as they walk because quick scoping requires the gun to shoot where the cross hairs are as you are walking, hence no weapon sway. And no regular weapons do not have sway and pressing shift will give you perfect accuracy for a few moments assuming it plays like the first modern warfare game did and not the sequels.

Additionally Josef you never responded to my in depth post several pages back, if you make no response to it, then by technicality you concede the points meaning you cannot carry on your point with even the slightest shred of credibility.

Nikita · Oct 7, 2011

Gentlemen, let me make a few points clear:

Under NO circumstances in RO2 is there zero sway for three seconds. Ever. Standing, unsupported at level 50 the rifle sways immediately. Crouched, supported, the rifle sways after a half-second.

Go into RO2 and open up any map. "~" for console, type open TE-Barracks. Run around as a rifleman and try out the sway for yourselves!

At 100 meters a head takes up perhaps a few square millimeters even when zoomed in on a 20' monitor. Instant headshot at 100m while standing? Either an aimbot or a lucky shot--anyone suggesting that it's possible to accomplish regularly is simply exaggerating.

In RO1, you could accomplish a perfect sight picture instantaneously. In Ro2, if you move your FOV while in iron sights, the sights DO displace.

Honestly, there's a cubic ton of attribution bias here. People tend not to forget the shots fired at them from 200 m that miss. Playing last night, I noticed tons of rounds impacting around me, and I missed plenty of times firing at stationary targets partially behind cover at 150 m.

The game isn't broken, it isn't imba, aim isn't OP. Any tweaks that are needed are miniscule tweaks. In all honesty, TWI has done a fantastic job with the weapon mechanics, (MP40 and Mkb mechanics, along with MG recoil the only exeptions), and the only thing that needs any adjustment is the zoom.

So if you want to make a statement, attach screenshots and make educated analysis. Proclaiming loudly that RO2 has no sway just isn't logical or true.

Cyper · Oct 7, 2011

The increased sway is completely justified and the difficulty in the game has to be increased anyway. It isn't just the sway, it's the way you can handle all the weapons, and how the game is built to attract the mainstream.

A battlefield is full of dust, dirt and grime, screaming people, explosions, gunshots, blood and gore. A lot of dead people and animals; dogs, cats, russians, germans, civilians, kids with half or their body blown of, babies with heads that looks like a mashed potatoe, and all the diffrent smells from example of burning rubber and flesh. The soldiers are usally hungry, dirty, and have lack of sleep.

In RO2 you run until you're dead tired (=low stamina), make an instant stop and quick-aim, shot and hit a target 100m away, then you sprint away agian, get shot, use bandage and then you're fully restored agian. Now you can do the same thing agian while arty bangs down close to you. The fact that you can get hit and act like nothing happen and then bandage yourself in one sec and you'll be ONE HUNDRED% restored.

The ridiculous weapon handling is the reason you get shot all the time. The reason most people die and respawn 10+ times in only something ten minutes.

The increased sway is completely justified.

Not only can you do all this, but you can do it in WW2 - in the battle of stalingrad.

It's very obvious that the gameplay in RO2 is developed to attact the mainstream on expense of loosing the orginal fans,

Josef Nader · Oct 7, 2011

Cyper said:
This post is bad and you should feel bad

Josef Nader said:
Actual Similarities Between RO2 and CoD:

1) Gameplay revolves around shooting guns
2) They are based on (or used to be based on, in CoDs case, before it ran off to crazy conspiracy theorist land) real conflicts.

That's really all I can think of...

In Call of Duty, you're a camcorder on a hover platform with a mounted gun, zipping around the environment with no sense of weight or momentum gunning people down with something that looks like a tacticool Hasbro toy that makes piddly little gun noises and lights up when you pull the trigger. It feels like you're shooting paintballs at your enemies, as even with a high caliber weapon it takes 4-5 shots to have any sort of effect, and all they have to do is duck behind a wall and wait for the paint to drop off the camera lens in order to be back to full fighting strength. Your teammates are basically the guys on the screen you don't have to shoot, with no interaction beyond calling them noobs or questioning their sexuality. The goal of the entire game is to kill tons of dudes. There is no other objective beyond killing tons of dudes, and you cannot win unless you kill tons of dudes.

In Red Orchestra, you have a sense of weight and momentum. A feeling of physical presence on the battlefield. You have to vault, crouch, crawl, and sprint to get to where you need to go, and all of your motions feel fluid and organic. Your gun actually looks, sounds, and behaves like it's real life counterpart, with convincing weapon sounds and animations, free aim, and a realistic depiction of recoil and weapon steadying. Your bullets have an incredible level of lethality, and only the weakest pistol rounds take more than one shot to a non-vital area to kill you. Non-lethal wounds must be treated before you can fight on (admittedly, this bit can use some work, but it's a start). It is impossible within the confines of the game to survive without the help of your teammates unless the enemy team is absolutely terrible. Loners will get gunned down almost immediately without a significant level of skill and tactical awareness, and even then they rely heavily on their allies keeping the brunt of the enemy force preoccupied. You literally cannot win without accomplishing objectives (unless you play Firefight), and you can score very well without having to kill tons of dudes by simply performing the tasks you've been ordered to perform.

There are no freaking similarities between the two franchises, and I'm sick of idiots yelling that they're one and the same.

wigdigster said:
weapon sway should only be added when moving your rifle. I.e. changing where your aiming. rotating while in sites makes it difficult to keep them straight.

Otherwise, keep it out of this game.

I can personally, with no formal training, hit a 5x5 inch target at 200 meters with a mn91/30 STANDING. If i have a rest? much smaller.

What people need to realize is that if you are using a rest PROPERLY in REAL LIFE. you do not hold the gun. (i know, sounds weird if you are not familiar with shooting.) The gun is either rested on the rest in front of you, or if you are at say a tree/corner you place your hand on the tree/corner and rest the gun on your wrist (much, much,much more accurate). The next best thing is pressing the rifle against the rest to steady it.

Its not a question of how tired the soldier is. Its a question of using the rest properly. If the rest is properly used the effort is in what your resting against, not on you.

RO is about realism. I read some complaints about standard infantryman's rifles.

a 'sniper rifle' for the germans or russians in ww2 was a standard issue k98/mn91/30 that was the best of about 1000 standard rifles. The reciever was tapped for a scope mount.

OTHER THAN THAT THEY ARE EXACTLY THE SAME.

bolt actions in WW2 had an effective range of about 550m (mosin) and 500m (k98) - fact check on exact numbers please.

However the semi automatics had an effective range of about 500M (m1 garand, also fact check number please).

The accuracy difference of the semi autos and bolts are negledgable at ranges seen in RO.

so I repeat:
RO is about realism. I read some complaints about standard infantryman's rifles.

I have no trouble playing MG class, you have to use cover properly. MG's cannot cover a whole field, and did not in real life. They cover streets, narrow arcs of fire.

****ing thank you. I'm glad I'm not the only one on these forums that understands that weapons are designed to be accurate, controllable, and easy to use, and the proper techniques can basically remove weapon sway as a factor.

Honestly people, we're getting to the point where we can make killshots from two ****ing miles away using a rifle who's only major difference is the caliber and quality of the bullet. You really think that things were that bloody different 60 years ago?

Nikita said:
Gentlemen, let me make a few points clear:

Under NO circumstances in RO2 is there zero sway for three seconds. Ever. Standing, unsupported at level 50 the rifle sways immediately. Crouched, supported, the rifle sways after a half-second.

Go into RO2 and open up any map. "~" for console, type open TE-Barracks. Run around as a rifleman and try out the sway for yourselves!

At 100 meters a head takes up perhaps a few square millimeters even when zoomed in on a 20' monitor. Instant headshot at 100m while standing? Either an aimbot or a lucky shot--anyone suggesting that it's possible to accomplish regularly is simply exaggerating.

In RO1, you could accomplish a perfect sight picture instantaneously. In Ro2, if you move your FOV while in iron sights, the sights DO displace.

Honestly, there's a cubic ton of attribution bias here. People tend not to forget the shots fired at them from 200 m that miss. Playing last night, I noticed tons of rounds impacting around me, and I missed plenty of times firing at stationary targets partially behind cover at 150 m.

The game isn't broken, it isn't imba, aim isn't OP. Any tweaks that are needed are miniscule tweaks. In all honesty, TWI has done a fantastic job with the weapon mechanics, (MP40 and Mkb mechanics, along with MG recoil the only exeptions), and the only thing that needs any adjustment is the zoom.

So if you want to make a statement, attach screenshots and make educated analysis. Proclaiming loudly that RO2 has no sway just isn't logical or true.

Again, thank you. I feel like I'm arguing against a bloody myth. I can't seem to achieve the level of superhuman accuracy that these guys say they have. Sure, I get the odd snap-killshot now and then, but it's a rare occurrence and it's more based on luck and the enemy's bad decisions more than broken game mechanics.

****, these guys were starting to convince me that I was crazy and I just sucked at the game. I'm glad I'm not alone in here.

Josef Nader · Oct 7, 2011

Al_Ka_Pwn said:
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.

Evidence? Like what? Deadliest Warrior? Those ****ing rounds-per-kill statistics that everyone from the sway camp parades around like they're the goddamn holy grail? I've been going through your post history, and I can't find the "large quantity of evidence" you have brought to this discussion.

Al_Ka_Pwn said:
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.

I've yet to see any evidence that people in this game are as accurate as you claim they are. In fact, all I've seen from anyone in this thread is a bunch of hyperbolic exaggerations on how laser accurate the rifles are and a bunch of hammering on the fact that real weapons are not perfectly accurate.

Yes, I KNOW that real weapons are not perfectly accurate. You can make them pretty damn accurate with proper training and techniques. However, I haven't seen anyone capable of pulling off consistent kill shots against exposed enemies at 200+ meters with any sort of regularity in RO2, and I certainly haven't seen anyone do it against covered enemies with any sort of regularity.

Your argument seems to be that it should be nigh impossible to pull off shots like this, which is bull****. Real soldiers in real life can pull off lucky shots, especially when faced with a target rich environment. A tiny, contained map with 32 enemies running around in it is nothing if not a target rich environment. It's a matter of numbers. You are going to get long-range killshots with less than ideal circumstances from time to time. I want someone to ****ing prove to me that they can do it with ~90% accuracy, as in ~90% of the people that appear on your screen are killed by your godly aiming skills. If you pass up more than 90% of your targets, it's because you didn't think you could hit them and you didn't want to waste a bullet. Just because you aren't wasting your rounds doesn't mean that the shots you do take that kill mean your accuracy is too high. If you're a good rifleman, you should be able to know when you have a good chance of hitting a target, and when you're probably going to miss, and you decide whether or not to take the shot based on that prediction.

Accuracy needs to take missed opportunities into account as well. Just because you don't waste a shot like a newer player might doesn't mean that you didn't "miss" an opponent who crossed your killzone. That's a matter of player experience that has nothing to do with the game's mechanics.

Al_Ka_Pwn said:
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.

Right, because I've been arguing against the wrong thing like a ****ing idiot. Yes, people error regularly with their aiming. I'm a dumbass for getting duped into trying to argue that point. I want to see some damn evidence that you guys can pull off consistent, long range killshots with the current weapon model. Again, ~80-90% of the people that cross your killzone at all ranges get dropped. That's well outside the margin of realism, and would warrant an overhaul of the aiming system.

If you can't do that, than you have me arguing against a problem that does not exist, and I'm an idiot for not recognizing that I'm arguing against a hyperbolic exaggeration.

Al_Ka_Pwn said:
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"

I've addressed this above. Aiming shouldn't be the skill that RO2 is trying to test. It should be your level of tacitcal awareness and prowess. Again, aiming is already plenty difficult, and there are lots of factors that don't involve an RNG that screw your shots up.

If your positioning isn't allowing you to kill vast numbers of the idiots relying on twitch shooting, your positioning isn't good. Their twitch skills don't help them against me, because they can't bloody spot me.

Al_Ka_Pwn said:
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

I can take on a squad of 5-6 enemies, not because I have vastly superior aiming skills or twitch reflexes, but because they CAN'T FIND ME TO SHOOT AT ME. All they know is that there is MG fire coming from a general direction, and their friends are getting dropped left and right. They have the option to take cover and survive, or stand there and try to acquire me and get killed. Once they take cover I reposition so they can't get a fix on my location. When they come back out, I gun them down again.

This has absolutely -nothing- to do with twitch shooting, and it will not be helped by making aiming harder.

Al_Ka_Pwn said:
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"

It is a bad metaphor, yet you insist on building on it anyway.

Al_Ka_Pwn said:
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?

I never said that everyone can shoot awesomely all the time. I'm asking you to show me that you can shoot awesomely all the time. I certainly can't do it, and most the people I play with can't do it. I've never actually seen it. Why don't you show me people doing it before you strawman my argument any harder?

Al_Ka_Pwn said:
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.

Way to much hyperbole here to take seriously.

Yes, if the aim was perfect and easy to perform consistently it would invalidate the sniper and MG'er class. Too bad it isn't.

Al_Ka_Pwn said:
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?

And RO2 does too. Again, prove to me that it is possible to kill everyone on your screen with consistent accuracy. I know I can do it with regularity in TF2, because I know how to play my chosen class very well, and there is nothing that affects my aim. I can spin around gun down tons of enemies while still moving full speed in any direction without any sort of difficulty, again, because I have mastered the shooting skills required to play the vast majority of shooters.

Then I come to RO2, and I find myself missing at least half of the shots I take, and passing up far more opportunities than I take simply because I don't want to give my position away with a shot I'm not sure will be lethal.

So no, the shooting in this game has nothing to do with CoD or CS:S or TF2, and there are absolutely no similarities in the mechanics.

Al_Ka_Pwn said:
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?

If it will only minor affect this tiny subsection of the shots made in the game, why do we need to add it in just to satisfy your idea of how things should work?

There, I responded. Happy?

DiedTrying · Oct 7, 2011

Nikita said:
Under NO circumstances in RO2 is there zero sway for three seconds. Ever. Standing, unsupported at level 50 the rifle sways immediately. Crouched, supported, the rifle sways after a half-second.

Absolutely untrue, if I had video cap software, I could show you.

If you "hold breath (shift default I believe)" there will be 3 seconds of no sway. I did it multiple times last night when I was playing. I counted "1 thousand, 2 thousand, 3 thousand" without touching my mouse...the sights did not move at all until after that period.

Nikita · Oct 7, 2011

Cyper said:
The increased sway is completely justified and the difficulty in the game has to be increased anyway. It isn't just the sway, it's the way you can handle all the weapons, and how the game is built to attract the mainstream.

A battlefield is full of dust, dirt and grime, screaming people, explosions, gunshots, blood and gore. A lot of dead people and animals; dogs, cats, russians, germans, civilians, kids with half or their body blown of, babies with heads that looks like a mashed potatoe, and all the diffrent smells from example of burning rubber and flesh. The soldiers are usally hungry, dirty, and have lack of sleep.

In RO2 you run until you're dead tired (=low stamina), make an instant stop and quick-aim, shot and hit a target 100m away, then you sprint away agian, get shot, use bandage and then you're fully restored agian. Now you can do the same thing agian while arty bangs down close to you. The fact that you can get hit and act like nothing happen and then bandage yourself in one sec and you'll be ONE HUNDRED% restored.

The ridiculous weapon handling is the reason you get shot all the time. The reason most people die and respawn 10+ times in only something ten minutes.

The increased sway is completely justified.

Not only can you do all this, but you can do it in WW2 - in the battle of stalingrad.

It's very obvious that the gameplay in RO2 is developed to attact the mainstream on expense of loosing the orginal fans,

Josef Nader · Oct 7, 2011

DiedTrying said:
Absolutely untrue, if I had video cap software, I could show you.

If you "hold breath (shift default I believe)" there will be 3 seconds of no sway. I did it multiple times last night when I was playing. I counted "1 thousand, 2 thousand, 3 thousand" without touching my mouse...the sights did not move at all until after that period.

And when are you going to take a shot in-game without tracking a target with the mouse? I'm pretty sure that weapon sway while ADS comes from overcompensating with the free-aim.

So yeah, maybe the engine isn't jerking your sights around, but it doesn't do you a damn lick of good in actual gameplay.

DiedTrying · Oct 7, 2011

joenader said:
and the proper techniques can basically remove weapon sway as a factor.

and the only thing I've argued is that the robotic no sway be removed.

Having a computer generated handicap is not "proper technique". That's the video game making up for the players lack of skill.

If you want proper techniques and ballistics for guns, I don't see why you wouldn't want cyborg no sway removed.

As I mentioned previously, I think this would take away a few of those frustrating circumstances when you get nailed with one shot from 150+ meters. A player who knows how to compensate for sway by using his mouse could still pull of those shots, but they would be slightly less common.

I'd say 1-3 times per map I get one shot killed that I felt like the shot in real life would have been highly improbable. Perhaps removing this period of 3 second no sway that makes the game essentially "point and click" would alleviate some of those instances.

3 seconds of no sway + no wind + <200 meters (no bullet drop) makes hitting motionless targets extremely easy.

By the way nader, you said something about a guy saying 40% hits on running perpendicular targets....well I can't even pull that off and think 40% is extremely high estimation. I get maybe 10%...40% would be with my mg34! I've got no problem with that, hitting running targets is difficult IRL...plus latency issues in game make it even tougher.

Important: Way too accurate aim for every soldier!

Grizzled Veteran

Active member

Grizzled Veteran

Attachments

Grizzled Veteran

Grizzled Veteran

Grizzled Veteran

Grizzled Veteran

Grizzled Veteran

Active member

Active member

Grizzled Veteran

Active member

Grizzled Veteran

Grizzled Veteran

Grizzled Veteran

Grizzled Veteran

Grizzled Veteran

Grizzled Veteran

Grizzled Veteran

Grizzled Veteran