Guns Are Way Too Accurate

[JoMac]

Being a Ro1 vet and now playing beta I going to throw my 2 cents in.

Check the join date <wink>

There are a number of things at play in the accuracy debate. Number 1 the rifles smg are accurate because where they point you fire, just like in Ro1. There is no bullet spread or cone that I am aware off but could be wrong.

There is two thing in play which which people are complaining about, sway and recoil.

Now I sit in the camp which thinks that Ro1 was too much sway and too much recoil. But why was it done this way.

It was done to affect gameplay, there was more lying on the ground or propped against a wall to get the rifle or smg good enough to fire on an enemy this slowed gameplay down and allowed for some teamwork and coordination.

Ro2 gone the opposite, what I like to call the dogs breakfast, gameplay is faster, there is no need to find a place to shoot from and recoil is not really an issue. Also Rifleman are taking a second place to SMGs, to the dash and fight. This is more similar to other FPS on the market.

I personally would prefer the gameplay and teamwork to Ro1, which in my opinion made it special, over bragging rights and you tube videos. But to have that there needs to be more sway and more recoil.

Tripwire will not change it, they changed the gameplay for more audience or more cash if your cynical that way. But if there was a few modders, changing RO2 to add those two minor aspects of recoil and sway is not hard, I am sure we could have a Mod to make the vets happy, but probably would have the same numbers.

My ultimate is Tripwire would make the realism with more sway and recoil and standard as it is. The sway and recoil is what impact gameplay.

I agree...But, not just more Recoil & Sway, but also no ZOOM.

 

[Josef Nader]

I agree...But, not just more Recoil & Sway, but also no ZOOM.

>mfw

Pinkie Pie Brings the Noise - YouTube

 

[TheRealGunther]

Im pretty happy with the gun ballistics atm. If I could change anything at all I would drop the semi autos acurracy "a tad" making the bolt a viable option instead of just a challenge rifle.And make smgs bullet drop more over 200yds at that range say a 9mm will drop 4-6 foot.But only 7-8" at 100 yds for comparision.http://www.warriortalk.com/archive/index.php/t-87140.html?

As far as the rifles go the bullet drop of a 7.62X54R what the mosin is chambered in has less than 1" bullet drop at 200m when we get bigger maps with greater range we can tell more about them. http://7.62x54r.net/MosinID/MosinAmmo011.htm

 

[JoMac]

let's be smart here, the guns in the game are as accurate as you are with your mouse. There's still that velocity, distance and recoil factor added to some extent, and it's good the way it is... It's why people are enjoying the game. Adding a random factor with your cone and heavy breathing annoying over-the-top sway is not going to make the game fun at all.

It's just a game, think about it.

its just a game you say...surely you jest.

 

[Deek]

I am behind this 110%

I agree that RO2 is realistic. The guns are realistic out the ***. The soldiers can run and jump and aim like superstars. The one thing that isn't realistic in the least is the painful inability of the individual to coordinate with his fellow soldiers, and this goes far beyond a pub player simply refusing to play nice with his teammates.

It's the reality of video games ... no matter how true-to-life a game is, the player will still be lacking a crucial suite of fundamental skills enjoyed by the average human being. True spatial awareness? Nope. Without the aid of a radar, a mini map or on-screen icons, can you tell if someone is standing beside you or immediately behind you without turning to look? Nu-uh. Can you recognize the face of your squad leader? No. Without the aid of colorful player tags, can you distinguish your squad mates at your spawn point, standing alongside eight other near identical player models? Negative. Simple things a human being would do subconsciously, the player simply cannot do.

This is where the game needs to disconnect with the notion of "realism" and introduce a number of unrealistic measures in order to reintroduce the semblance of realism.

On screen icons (hash marks over your squad mates, for instance). These icons are always visible regardless of where your squad mates are in relation to you, be they behind you or off to the side (within a reasonable range). VOIP that not only tells you who is speaking, but indicates the individual in-game with an icon (radio waves appear over their head, whatever). And that's just the beginning.

Are these realistic measures? No. HELL NO. But will they make it easier to coordinate and communicate in a meaningful way with your fellow players, the same way an average human being would do without a conscious thought? Absolutely.

... and that's the whole point, isn't it?

 

[Paas]

Give up Josef. Once the debate is lost they are just going to spam.

...and Deek, I could hug you right now.

-Paas

 

[MikkOwl]

Guns are not too accurate at all. But I think the time to bring up a weapon into the sights is way too fast and accurate.

I've used all kinds of replica weapons (machineguns, rifles, assault rifles, SMG, pistols, shotguns) and while it is fast and easy to shoulder the weapon and point it in the general direction, getting the front sight, rear sight and eyes aligned, is tricky and always takes a couple of seconds to get perfect.

If the game would induce a slight random deviation of aim when going to iron sights (worse the more tired you are and posture), and a brief moment (say 1.5 seconds) of unsuppressable sway, it would simulate the 'align sights' phenomena of reality nicely. It would not interfere with the speed at which someone can shoulder their semi-auto or SMG and start firing at something, but it will stop the intense, nearlly instant pinpoint stable accuracy that is currently possible, and I think benefits semi-automatic rifles more than any other weapon.

 

[shamE]

The weapons are just fine accuracy wise.

 

[KarmakazeNZ]

It is about the realism of the gameplay, that most vet have issues with. You missing the point, and for those that have not play RO1 for a long time don not understand.

No, YOU'RE missing the point. What you are talking about is NOT realistic. You're talking about what RO1 CALLED realistic. They are not the same thing.

The realism you're after will come once people all start to realise that they simply can't do what they used to do and get away with it. That will force people to slow down and work together. At the moment its a mad dash to the first objective, where half the team dies almost immediately.

You simply can't encourage people to act like their life is on the line unless you make the game as realistic as possible. As soon as you make one bit less realistic, you have to make another less realistic to compensate and then another and another and you end up with CoD.

Realistic weapon accuracy means you don't even need fake suppression effects. If you're complaining that the weapons are too accurate... it's because you're starting to feel that REAL fear of dying. You're getting sick of getting picked off at will. Right now you want the weapons changed to suit you, but soon you will realise that you can change your own tactics and have a realistic AND fun battle.

On Apartments, I love to run and gun with the bolt action rifles. There is nothing more insulting to an SMG user than getting killed in CQB by a bolt action rifle - and I'm pretty good at it.

But for the vets, what they are missing is the gameplay trust me its not the gun accuracy, they just not hit the hammer on the head.

In that case, you're ejaculating prematurely. Many if not most players are still trying to get used to things... just like you. I love the team play stuff, but considering most players don't even know how to move through the map safely without getting hit (OP seemingly included) at the moment, I'd rather lone wolf.

Still, I am sure it will get better. The game hasn't even released yet.

I am saying don't change it for standard but atleast make it good for both camps, the ro1 players got tripwire here with their support over the years, don't smack them in the mouth.

So they had an election and voted you their spokesperson? Stop trying to make this seem to be about more than it is. You're getting owned at the moment and you don't like it. Nothing to do with RO1.

That is far from how real combat happens, a strong point is found Officer and team gather and decide how to assault it, this can take 30mins, the assault takes place if the resistance it to high it stopped held under fire and decision made again.

Seriously? Time out everyone, the enemy wants to have a little powwow and decide how to attack us...

Bahahahahaha!

The defenders hold there position as they have already decided this is the best location for defence.

Really? You've never heard of a spoiling attack? Interdiction fire? Patrolling? You really think the "defenders" as if there is such a thing in the real world, just sit and wait for the attackers to plan and carry out their attack?

What are you smoking? Can I have some?

The blind rushing and firefight in RO is not real combat, real combat is about fire suppression and movement. RO1 was more akind to this then RO2.

Every battle always ends in a run and gun CQB fight. Unless the "defenders" run away before you get there, that is. You can keep calling it unrealistic, but you are flat out wrong. Totally and utterly mistaken.

 

[Gyarados]

I just think that SMG's need to have more dispersion, other than that, the guns are pretty much good to go.

 

[KarmakazeNZ]

Yes Tripwire, please increase standing, leaning, low stamina and non-prone/braced sway. I used to die infrequently in RO1 but now I find it very hard to stay alive more than a few minutes. I never use the mg anymore because as mentioned before, being stationary = death in RO2. I used to be great at mg in RO1 too...

Guess what? In real life battles being stationary means death too.

If I see you run into a crater in the real world, I don't go "oh damn he got away!"... I throw a nade in after you, or shoot you when you stick your head up to see what's going on.

If I see you, I can kill you. If I can't see you but know where you are I can kill you. If I can't see you, don't know where you are, but can predict where you are going to be... I can kill you.

Welcome to the fear of death. Who needs suppression effects?

 

[Josef Nader]

I agree that RO2 is realistic. The guns are realistic out the ***. The soldiers can run and jump and aim like superstars. The one thing that isn't realistic in the least is the painful inability of the individual to coordinate with his fellow soldiers, and this goes far beyond a pub player simply refusing to play nice with his teammates.

It's the reality of video games ... no matter how true-to-life a game is, the player will still be lacking a crucial suite of fundamental skills enjoyed by the average human being. True spatial awareness? Nope. Without the aid of a radar, a mini map or on-screen icons, can you tell if someone is standing beside you or immediately behind you without turning to look? Nu-uh. Can you recognize the face of your squad leader? No. Without the aid of colorful player tags, can you distinguish your squad mates at your spawn point, standing alongside eight other near identical player models? Negative. Simple things a human being would do subconsciously, the player simply cannot do.

This is where the game needs to disconnect with the notion of "realism" and introduce a number of unrealistic measures in order to reintroduce the semblance of realism.

On screen icons (hash marks over your squad mates, for instance). These icons are always visible regardless of where your squad mates are in relation to you, be they behind you or off to the side (within a reasonable range). VOIP that not only tells you who is speaking, but indicates the individual in-game with an icon (radio waves appear over their head, whatever). And that's just the beginning.

Are these realistic measures? No. HELL NO. But will they make it easier to coordinate and communicate in a meaningful way with your fellow players, the same way an average human being would do without a conscious thought? Absolutely.

... and that's the whole point, isn't it?

Mad props, boy. I ****ing love this post.

RO2 has captured the feel of real combat beautifully, but we are unable to coordinate like real soldiers. Hence, we get picked off like flies by each other, and it turns into an unorganized bloodbath.

THIS is the one gameplay feature Tripwire really needs to work on. Everything else is nearly spot-on. We need proper teamwork features!

 

[Josef Nader]

Also, KarmakazeNZhttp://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/member.php?u=28138, you are a god amongst men. Mad props to both of you.

I think we're on to something incredible here. Something that will set RO2 apart from shooters for years to come...

 

[KarmakazeNZ]

RO2 is "balanced", but in a different way. Each class has it's own, very important niche. They need to learn to play within that niche and rely entirely on their teammates for support if they want to win.

This is what I mean. Previously "realism" games meant that, but its more than that. A rifle can be a run and gun weapon.. if you know how to run. An SMG can be a sniper weapon... if you know how to gun.

The weapons are biased to one or the other, but that doesn't mean that's all they can do. Realistic weapons means that the tactics you employ are based on the field of battle, as much as the enemy's capabilities.

Tight maps with short range encounters mean fast movement and situational awareness is key. If you have those, you don't even NEED a weapon. If I can flank the gun, sneak up to the gunner, and teabag him, then it wouldn't matter if I had an SMG, MG, or slingshot. I would still get the kill because he didn't even know I was there.

Anyone can shoot a gun and hit the target. Getting to the point where you can take that shot without getting killed, is the hard bit.

 

[JoMac]

^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.

[URL]http://www.wwiidaybyday.com/kstn/kstn131c1feb41.htm[/URL]

Of course things look different in a panzergrenadier unit though...

Below is the standard TO&E for both the Germ and Ruskie Inf Divisions from 41-42'...Later years were similar, but in some cases significally different.

The standard Inf Squad in a Germ Inf Div 41-42 would consist of 6-7 Rifles 1-2 SMGs 1-LMG...The Semi G41/43 were rare weapons with 1 being introduced per Inf Platoon at most.
The standard Inf Squad in a Russian Inf Div 41-42 would consist of 6-7 Rifles 1-2 SMG 1-Semi SVT41 1-LMG ( similar to German, but with added Semi-Auto as standard in each squad )
Russians in mid-42 introduced an SMG Company in each Inf Div which composed of 9-SMGs per squad.
Germans tried to counter this by upgrading 1 Inf Battalion in a Inf Div to a Jaeger Battalion, but that just added 1 more SMG to each Squad.
Ofcourse, all the above varies slightly if Panzergrenadier, Cav, Recon, etc.

 

[ViViD]

KarmakazeNZ

Mate, not once did I have a go at your opinions or thoughts, but you seem to want to degrade people, and hammer home your opinion.

Your general attitude is something we not had to put up with on RO forums, your the type of people to chirp all day long, until you get your way. At best, my 3 year old daughter has your ability.

Seriously, just having you on this forum is just a sad day for RO community, let alone RO2.

And having your friend say here here every three minutes on all your post makes me believe its just a shadow forum account for you self glorification.

 

[KarmakazeNZ]

This sounds perfect to me.

Do you guys watch the sights? Maybe it's just me, but when I'm moving, even at a walk, and then go into iron sights, it takes a second or two for the sights to align properly. Sure its not the comical "sway" that other games have... but it is the kind of thing that really happens.

In that second or two, the sights are aiming off in a random direction by a slight amount. A shot then would not hit what you think you're aiming at.

Maybe I'm dreaming when I see it, but I do see it.

Remember iron sights are not like a scope. There is more than just a crosshair to line up with the target. The front and rear sights have to be aligned properly or you will miss. That's what I have seen happen.

 

[JoMac]

Guns are not too accurate at all. But I think the time to bring up a weapon into the sights is way too fast and accurate.

I've used all kinds of replica weapons (machineguns, rifles, assault rifles, SMG, pistols, shotguns) and while it is fast and easy to shoulder the weapon and point it in the general direction, getting the front sight, rear sight and eyes aligned, is tricky and always takes a couple of seconds to get perfect.

If the game would induce a slight random deviation of aim when going to iron sights (worse the more tired you are and posture), and a brief moment (say 1.5 seconds) of unsuppressable sway, it would simulate the 'align sights' phenomena of reality nicely. It would not interfere with the speed at which someone can shoulder their semi-auto or SMG and start firing at something, but it will stop the intense, nearlly instant pinpoint stable accuracy that is currently possible, and I think benefits semi-automatic rifles more than any other weapon.

And I agree 100%...Thou, I still like my 3 sec rule of thumb.

 

[Oddball_E8]

I agree that weapons should have more sway...

thats the first thing i reacted to when i started the demo.

i was thinking i had gotten near a corner or a ledge to steady my gun, but it was just me being super-awesome at aiming a gun as a raw recruit apparantly...

what happened to the sway from the old game?

 

[ViViD]

So they had an election and voted you their spokesperson? Stop trying to make this seem to be about more than it is. You're getting owned at the moment and you don't like it. Nothing to do with RO1.

Seriously? Time out everyone, the enemy wants to have a little powwow and decide how to attack us...

Bahahahahaha!

I thought of figured you don't really know. Let me give you an insight to a real battle, with real soldiers.

Australian Soldiers during firefight in Afghanistan - YouTube

Before go ape yes this is modern, but I have some german ww2 training videos in my collection. Real combat is rarely captured on film, especially not in ww2.

Really? You've never heard of a spoiling attack? Interdiction fire? Patrolling? You really think the "defenders" as if there is such a thing in the real world, just sit and wait for the attackers to plan and carry out their attack?

What are you smoking? Can I have some?

When you attack you lose men at a greater rate then defending. Spoiling attacks can work but can also lose dramaticly, they normally aimed at a battalion level.
This is why you tend to hold your position and line since you fortified it. Most of RO2 maps feel like meeting engagements.

Every battle always ends in a run and gun CQB fight. Unless the "defenders" run away before you get there, that is. You can keep calling it unrealistic, but you are flat out wrong. Totally and utterly mistaken.

You are correct most time the defenders did run away when the fight got close enough. People value there lives. As for CQB yes they happen and this is stalingard but once we have some more open maps it might get better.

Not everyone like the style you preaching. Also I pretty sure you get your idea about battle by hollywood movies. 99% of soldiering is sitting on your ***.