Guns Are Way Too Accurate
- Thread starter Al_Ka_Pwn
- Start date
I would rather the weapons remain realistic and it required teamwork and communication to deal with that MG position. After all, this is what makes this game great and unlike just any other run'n'gun rambo shooter.
Upvote
0
Agreed. It is the accuracy of the soldier that is unrealistic.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
The PPSh in realistic mode is ****ing over the top and unrealistic. Please put it back to normal values.
Upvote
0
The thing you don't show is how little sway there is if you just hold down SHIFT the whole time, which is what 99% of people do when they're going for medium long distance shots. When your player starts to control his breathing, I guess his arms and upper body also gets unlimited stamina, which allows him to always pull off perfect 200m shots with little to no sway?
Also, in RO2 there is no extra sway after sprinting. So you can be totally out of stamina and have perfectly stable sights, unlike in RO1 where there was increased sway after significant movement.
Upvote
0
The human factor (you) determines how accurate the solider is. People still miss in this game all the time. Even not having to deal with things like temperature, emotion, nerves, hunger, pain, etc. There is only so much you can do to instill the human element until you cross that line of making things artificially difficult.
-Paas
Upvote
0
I think you demonstrated the lack of sway tbh. Very little sway and its very predictable movements. Predictable movement is fine, but it needs to move more, especially on the semi's and smgs. Was that with holding your breath?
Needs to be more sway for rested and after sprinting, or some other form of difficulty factor rather than point and click like cod 2 semi's
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Wait, why would the smaller, shorter, and lighter SMG sway more than the battle rifle? That doesn't make any sense.
-Paas
Upvote
0
I mean I am more concerned with the ease of use of the SMGs and Semi's. If they want to add more sway to bolts as well I don't mind. There needs to be something anyway. If they will put in bandaging wounds and other unrealistic stuff they can do something about weapon balance. If they can do the balancing in a way that still feels realistic then thats best to me.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
But that's what the game has to emulate for you, because you are playing while sitting comfortably at the front of your desktop. It's your character the ill-fed, war weary, poor bastard with the boomstick that is moving around, fighting, being suppressed with enemy fire, get shellshocked by nearby explosions, you only control him and react to what's happening to him accordingly.
I don't want exaggerated sway for just springting 10 meters, but I believe that the current sway levels are too low, but I don't want RO1 levels either, or maybe only when you are really tired or wounded.
Upvote
0
But it's already realistic. It's just that realism and difficulty don't go hand in hand in this situation. I know it's kinda' hard to believe coming from RO1, but Sub Machine guns are VERY easy weapons to use and control. Even up to UMP45s. With the right recoil compensation you can put a majority of your rounds on target. The game cannot take away for firing platform and force you to mimic weight distribution while firing through the mouse. Although, that would make for one hell of a mini-game.
They don't need to balance the weapons. They just need the weapons to mirror their real life counterparts and then put the correct numbers into a given force. Slot allocation and reinforcement adjustments should be the only form of balance in RO2.
-Paas
Last edited:
Upvote
0
As I see it sway at the moment is pretty dman close to realism some people just need to realice realism=|= difficulty we can get a debate about sway going but not on realism terms rather on gameplay once and even then I wont see why someone would cripple themselves giving campers/defenders such a huge advantage
Upvote
0
^Ya that's my main concern when it comes to the SMGs. I like their new accuracy, but were there really so many semi-autos and SMGs within a given unit? I was looking at this page, for a Feb '41 rifle company and I'm seeing a whole lot more rifles in a platoon sized unit which is more or less what is represented in RO2 I guess. I don't see semi-autos mentioned but maybe a German speaker could help out with that, I might be overlooking it.
http://www.wwiidaybyday.com/kstn/kstn131c1feb41.htm
Of course things look different in a panzergrenadier unit though...
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
I think I said everything I wanted to on realism in my previous posts. I respectfully disagree and feel the way guns are used is unrealistic, and the way the player interfaces with the gun is unrealistic to the point were it could be tweaked to improve balance. RO2 isn't uber realism anyway. If they reduced the numbers of SMG and Semi across the board that might help, but its still making the game unnecessarily easy for some with no drawbacks
If you want to use a semi you should have to weigh the cost of reduced accuracy/damage, and if you want a SMG then you increase close range potential for long. But now you can easily hit the target at long range without even going prone and have low recoil and suppress the target at the same time. Conversely the bolt user is at a huge disadvantage in short range due to bleeding/suppression/rof
I want deeper gameplay, and tbh Ostfront felt plenty realistic without bandaging and with harder guns etc. In Ost it wasn't just rock paper scissors though, you had strengths but could still use the weapon at which ever range if you played well with it. You could take a well aimed hip shot with bolt, go prone and control recoil with SMG or fire in short bursts for longer range (hip shot burst up close), and Semi's were somewhere in the middle. Using an SMG or Semi now doesn't feel rewarding, it feels cheap
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Have to say I agree with the number of smgs/semis is pretty high in 64 matchs it isnt that bad but with less people those who take smgs/semis are simply dominating without any drawback espaciely on the maps where the cap zones are inside buildings with small rooms
Upvote
0
This is the crux of the issue. We need game mechanics that lead to realistic outcomes. Clearly, we do not have that. All the rest of the jabbering is pretty immaterial.
Upvote
0
Er, yes it does. You're firing it at an upward angle. Read your graph. It's says "Horizontal Rifle Trajectory"
That exhibit proves my case. There is no natural rise in a round and/or bullet when it's ejected from an end of a weapon. It doesn't matter at what elevation I have the weapon, the round and/or bullet still comes out straight and falls X meters/yards/miles. If there were a rise when said round was ejected, then we would need to change all of our laws in physical science.
Upvote
0
*headdesk*
There is a rise, because you are firing upwards in an arc. That's why rifles sighted in for 200m will hit high at 100m, the bullet has not passed it's apex yet.
You're firing the bullet up in the air, and it takes several hundred feet for that upward momentum to be overcome by gravity, hence the rise. That diagram is very clear. The sights give you a straight view of the target while angling the barrel upwards so when you fire it gives the bullet an above-horizontal trajectory and, by extension, longer range.
And again, I find myself providing plenty of sway scanning for targets and trying to line up my sights. I don't need the computer wiggling my barrel back and forth to make things harder, especially when they're counter-sniping me just as much. It's artificially making things more difficult. The challenge should come from player skill, not the computer RNG.
And yes, I played on a realism server and I found out that the PPSh is a pile of *** and recoil now. Please revert.
Upvote
0
K, everyone understands this dude. The original response to your post said that at 200yds, the bullet would still be rising on its ballistic arc. This is correct if rifle is zeroed a certain way.
The fact of the matter is that if you're sighted at 100 yds, your shot at 200yds from the grain elevator is only going to hit 2-3" low. That's the difference between your forehead and your nose. If you were sighted at a 25/300yd zero, you'd be shooting 2-3" high, but dropping. 400yd zero, you'd be 8" high and at the peak of the ballistic arc etc. Relative to your line of sight/point of aim, the bullet rises.
Complaining about zero bullet drop is stupid because against a man sized centre of mass target it doesn't really matter until 300m+.
Upvote
0