• 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/

Accuracy needs to be reduced on ALL the weapons ingame

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
#161
It is not. You're misjudging the distances in the game. RO2 does simulate breath control, if you'd pay attention, as there is a reasonable amount of sway on the weapon that makes shots beyond 150m very challenging. Shots within 100m are -not- that hard.


yeah, it was not my intention to dwell on trivial things....
1.
but in RO2, you can hold your breath basically forever, which is unrealistic.
2.
in RO2, even close range target shot as 38m away always seem to land too accurately on right spot you aimed even without breath control just like quick scoping in COD series.
Maybe little too accurate and it happens every time,

I really suggest you to play america's army 3 cos in that game it's really hard to accurately hit target on the spot you exactly aimed at every time like RO2.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#162
Stubs said:
Nader, what are your ideas on making the suppression effects more potent and having them last longer.
Click to expand...

Going to quote myself here:

Originally Posted by gentrinity
As it is right now in RO2, I'm too afraid to get out of cover to return fire from any position because I know I have to get a killing shot, because simply throwing bullets towards the enemy is not enough to break his hold. So I have to play whack-a-mole, all the while taking pop shots waiting to either get a lucky hit, wait for the enemy to have to reload, or get hit myself.
Click to expand...



Congratulations, you are now suppressed more effectively than any in-game mechanic could hope to represent.

Seriously, think about what you said for one moment. There is more truth in that one statement above about suppression and how it works in real life than most of the posts I've made so far. You are too afraid to stick your head out because you know it'll get taken off if you aren't fast enough (which is never). -THAT'S WHAT SUPPRESSION IS ALL ABOUT-.
Click to expand...

In other words, it's completely unnecessary to add an arcadey effect when the soldiers can actually aim properly. I supress them by killing them if they try to move or return fire. Their mates will see their buddies taking hits, and rethink the "let's attack him directly" line of approach. I play machine gunner regularly, and the only time a bluring their screen would help me is when I screw up and they spot me.

However, rather than sit there and lose a fight with multiple attackers who know where I am and can easily outmaneuver me, I usually just pick up and run at that point. Retreat out of sight, then take up a new position and resume my harassment.

You don't need an arcadey effect when you can hit what your aiming at quickly and with relative ease. They'll keep their heads down, or you'll take them off. It's that simple. I don't need their rifles to sway and their screen to grey to suppress them effectively.
 
Upvote 0
#163
palco said:
yeah, it was not my intention to dwell on trivial things....
1.
but in RO2, you can hold your breath basically forever, which is unrealistic.
2.
in RO2, even close range target shot as 38m away always seem to land too accurately on right spot you aimed even without breath control just like quick scoping in COD series.
Maybe little too accurate and it happens every time,
Click to expand...

1) No, you can't. Your guy isn't holding his breath until you press shift (and you'll notice increased sway from regular ADS). When you hold shift, you'll hear your avatar exhale and take a deep breath every few seconds, and this will screw your aim up. Bam, instant breath control.

2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.62%C3%9739mm
The round for the Mosin Nagat
123 gr (8.0 g) Full Metal Jacket 720 m/s (2,400 ft/s)

720 m/s / 38m = 0.05 seconds from the exit of the barrel to the target.

Not a whole lot of time for gravity to have any sort of effect on the target.

Did a quick and dirty ballistics calculation using an online calculator. From the specs I pulled from the wiki, this is the result I got:

http://www.handloads.com/calc/

Range-Velocity-Impact-Drop-ToF--Energy-Drift
40-----2283---0.52---0.6--0.05---1424---0.65

At 40 yards, the bullet would be traveling at 2283 feet per second and dropped half an inch. Not that noticeable.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#164
Josef Nader said:
1) No, you can't. Your guy isn't holding his breath until you press shift (and you'll notice increased sway from regular ADS). When you hold shift, you'll hear your avatar exhale and take a deep breath every few seconds, and this will screw your aim up. Bam, instant breath control.

2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.62×39mm
The round for the Mosin Nagat
123 gr (8.0 g) Full Metal Jacket 720 m/s (2,400 ft/s)

720 m/s / 38m = 0.05 seconds from the exit of the barrel to the target.

Not a whole lot of time for gravity to have any sort of effect on the target.

Did a quick and dirty ballistics calculation using an online calculator. From the specs I pulled from the wiki, this is the result I got:

RangeVelocityImpactDropToFEnergyDrift4022830.520.60.0514240.65
At 40 yards, the bullet would be traveling at 2283 feet per second and dropped half an inch. Not that noticeable.
Click to expand...

Thats a 7.62x39mm round the round the AK47 uses (M43), NOT what the Mosin Nagant uses or has ever used.
 
Upvote 0
#167
palco said:
yeah, nothing to add about ballistics but, it's not fired from rifle fixed to work bench.

So, to be realistic, there should be accuracy penalty to standing, moving, unsupported firing position, not because weapon itself is inaccurate but human is.
Click to expand...

What part of "landing a standing shot from 50m on a human sized target is relatively trivial for anyone with even the tiniest bit of weapon training" did you miss, hoss?

It's a goddamn 5-6' target almost 2' wide. From 50 meters.

Its. Not. That. Tough.
 
Upvote 0
#168
palco said:
yeah, nothing to add about ballistic but, it's not fired from rifle fixed to work bench.

So, to be realistic, there should be accuracy penalty to standing, moving, unsupported firing position, not because weapon itself is inaccurate but human is.
Click to expand...

Problem with your suggestion is, all those effects are already in the game. Nobody in this game is sprinting across open field, shooting people in the heads from 100m+ away.

People get 100m+ shots in this game from prone/bracing position. There are others who gun and shoot people around a building at 15m or shorter distance. Stop mixing the two like RO2 was full of super soldiers who runs constantly and instantly make head shot across the map. That's just gross exaggeration.

Gaizokubanou
What or who are you angry about or at?
Click to expand...

Funny that you had to edit this in... hey I'm not the one making comments directed at other users' feelings.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#170
palco said:
All I want to say is RO2 is a little too accurate in moving position

I can understand sometimes you hit close target while moving and quick scoping with rifle, but it just seem a little too accurate everytime I pull that off.
Click to expand...

You can't even fire from ADS above a very slow walk. Again, anyone dumb enough to try to pull this off outside of CQC deserves to be a dead man.
 
Upvote 0
#173
I am not talking about that big improbable quick scoping as full speed running and accurately landing bullet on exact spot you were aiming.


I was saying even in slow moving shot for target of 40m away, currently RO2 land very accurate shots almost every time I do that.

Thank you for nice debate technique.
 
Upvote 0
#174
palco said:
wow, just thank you for your kindly expressions, thank you.
Click to expand...

Next time you are debating someone, avoid using hyperbole. Anyone worth their salt in a debate is going to pull it apart.

And as a word of advice, be careful who you call out on the internet. They just might have an idea of what they're talking about. I've had my *** kicked in more than a few arguments because I overstepped my knowledge. That's one of the reasons I've avoided pulling the whole "I'm a gun enthusiast" card during this whole discussion. If anything, my time with a -real- gun enthusiast demonstrated how little I actually know, and I realize that I'm barely even a hobbyist. This extends to my knowledge of tactics. I really don't -know- anything about infantry combat. I've never been to basic training, and all of my information has been gleaned second-hand. I have some pretty good ideas about how things work based on research and play-fighting, but that's nothing next to the real deal, and I know that.

However, I'm not going to let folks sit there and tell me that snapping off a 50m shot requires careful aim, or that it's impossible to hold a gun still while you're tired, hungry, and freezing cold, because I can (and often do) do it. Then those people tell me to stop playing so many video games and I lose my temper a bit.

Honestly, it's preposterous.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#175
This game needs more weapon sway. Period. Debate over. Seriously, like it or not, there isn't a realistic amount of weapon sway. Add a bit more, and there will be. You can sit here and argue that there is enough sway, but could you pull off some of the shots you do in this game, IRL, even at a range? Sure, sit and camp a min or two and shot a guy that walks into your line of fire, but then you see someone off in the distance that is about 75m away. It only takes a second or two to get a headshot no matter how you have to adjust yourself.

Also, I just want to say that your experience with firearms does not equal combat experience, nor does your childhood reading training manuals. Besides, that is irrelevent to the debate anyway.

People use this goddamn argument all the time. I have -never- seen it in-game. Ever. Usually because if someone stops and tries to aim while I'm shooting at them, I bloody KILL THEM. They're easy to spot when they're sprinting, all I have to do is lead right and *BAM*, one more dead enemy. I'm in cover, he's not. He's dead. If he has time to line up a shot and kill me, then I DESERVED TO BLOODY DIE.
Click to expand...

I can see sprinting then trying to aim as something that doesn't happen with great results often, but thats not all the "BS" shots people are seeing. Take for example: I'm slowly walking around a corner with my sights up, see an enemy at about 60m-80m away, then a second later, I kill him. Not even crouching, although if I was crouching, then it would be harder to move with the sights up anyway. Try doing that as quickly as you can in-game, IRL. Good luck with that. Another example, I move to cover, but before I get there, I see a guy, same distance away. I ADS, stand up and kill him within less than a second, and I'm back down again. Even under mg fire. Literally within a second, I can peek around corners, cover or what-have-you and still be stable enough to get a 75m shot within 1-2 seconds. I play airsoft, which has much lower ranges, and I train almost constantly to pull of shots at 120' with that speed. It's down right impossible for the average soldier to accomplsih, much less EVERYONE. Increased weapon sway would add 2-3 seconds to all of those shots, or require you to shoot again since you missed. That would remove the unrealistic, and dare I say without getting flamed to death, CoD feel to this damn realistic shooter.
 
Upvote 0
#176
My argument wasn't from hyperbole as I could pull off quite a few impressively accurate headshots from 40m-50m targets while slow moving ADS.


snapping off a 50m shot requires careful aim,

But I really can't shake the idea of RO2's rifle accuracy being a little too accurate, as everytime I pull off rather quick headshot from 40m away with first bullet fired from slow moving ADS.

It seems very subtle matter but it's my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#177
Okay so back at this thread I suppose. Believe whatever whoever you want - this after all the internut - but lets talk shop here.

To those saying 100m shots are easy - even in off hand, and even for new shooters - that's not true at all. You'd be surprised what people can actually do with a rifle once they get out to a range. I get it, "but its only 100 meters and a person is a big target", thats great. You're talking a whole human body - clear shot through and through. Now even in that scenario you're looking at needing a hit in the head (T-box) or roughly center of mass, both of those sections are at or less than a 8'' circle. "But 8'' is really big! Especially at only 100m!" No its really not, especially when offhand (standing) and especially when not on a calm range. You can not reduce weapon sway to none - and what I've noticed in game is that standard ADS is what the sway should be like when you hold that little "focus" button and zoom in.

To those saying "I was in the military and we qualified out to X-hundred yards/meters". Yah I get it, qualifying and range shooting is a lot easier on the shooter than combat shooting or even joint qualifying where multiple shooters are on the line and shooting at the same time. In fact the US Military (DoD) did a study, the same study saying that most combat happened within 300m, showed that even as close as 100 and 200m soldiers (first they tested expert marksmen and then green straight from basic) had trouble hitting targets consistently and this was amplified when more than one person was shooting at the same time. Qualifying is not combat shooting, its a different type of everything. Nerves aren't shot, you're often not tired for a qual, you usually qual from a prone or prone assistance position, and even your stance changes. Look at the 'rattle battles' that happen around the USA such as Camp Perry events. These guys can make their hits at 200/300/600yds with Garands, M1917s, whatever you name it. But they also 'game' it. They wear special coats, special glasses, special gloves, special everything to make sure they maximize their ability and even doing all of that doesn't create zero "sway". If you've qualified and have also seen combat you know what I'm talking about. If you've qualified with a rifle and then worked a desk or ran a truck you may not.

Why do I think I'm right? Well what is right? Do I think the game needs more 'sway'? - Yes. Do I play the game right now anyways? - Yes. Is it a good game without adding more sway? - Yes. All I (and some others are saying) is that it is as about as realistic as having MKBs all over the place.

I've shot and trained with current Marines, US Army, NYPD vice units, Homeland Security Units, WW2 Veterans, Vietnam Veterans, and many more. I have access to most of the guns in this game and shoot them on a regular basis. I'm not just someone who knows about guns from reading but I run firearms on a regular basis.

You can check some videos of what I do here:
http://www.youtube.com/user/mini4m3

I understand exactly what I'm saying and why I'm saying. Please do not believe everything you read online because as we can see from this thread its a lot of poop.
 
Upvote 0
#178
This may have been suggested already, but it's late and...:eek:

What if instead of sway, it just took longer to bring up your sights, or aim exactly where you wanted? Instead of always having the front and rear sights aligned (as it is now except when you move) maybe misalign them for half a second; maybe also "carry" the momentum of the gun as you bring it up. This should depend on the mass of the weapon. So as you swing your 6 ft Mosin w/ bayonet up to your shoulder it goes a little too far, and you have to adjust. You may wait a split second more for the sights too align, or you could snap a shot off and risk a miss. Smaller weapons designed for quicker, closer engagements (SMGs and pistols) should be less affected.
 
Upvote 0
#179
Josef Nader said:
However, I'm not going to let folks sit there and tell me that snapping off a 50m shot requires careful aim, or that it's impossible to hold a gun still while you're tired, hungry, and freezing cold, because I can (and often do) do it. Then those people tell me to stop playing so many video games and I lose my temper a bit.

Honestly, it's preposterous.
Click to expand...

No offense (I hate when people say that because its so cliche) but you're quite wrong. You didn't even know what round the Mosin Nagant fired and you look like you've never seen a gun before holding that M11/9.
 
Upvote 0
#180
palco said:
snapping off a 50m shot requires careful aim,

But I really can't shake the idea of RO2's rifle accuracy being a little too accurate, as everytime I pull off rather quick headshot from 40m away with first bullet fired from slow moving ADS.

It seems very subtle matter but it's my opinion.
Click to expand...

Erm...no. A 50m shot onto a human torso target is pretty damn easy. You can shoulder, get cheek weld, assume rear sight alignment, and just focus on the front sight very quickly. I've owned a Mosin Nagant 91/30 and have shot several era Mausers.
Zd4XV.jpg


The ammo for the rifle is 147 gr. It fluctuates about five inches at 300 meters away. That's really nothing at all when shooting a person sized target.



You should try actually learning about and shooting some guns before voicing your opinion on how a game realistically recreates them.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Community News
Forums
Merch
Menu