• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

Important: Way too accurate aim for every soldier!

+1 to OP. Wind could definitely play a factor, but at CQC it won't make much of a difference. Factors such as fatigue should definitely be attributed more and affect the swaying motion (and when I mean swaying, from personal experiences, the gun could go left to right and circular motion depending on the situation from the handler. It would take many seconds to finally have a steady aim yet only have a small time frame to keep the steady aim) while aiming (trying to hold and aim an 8-9.5lb rifle is bloody difficult and tiring. My great-grandfather a Vietnam Vet always told me how difficult it is to remain calm (increased heartbeat and breathing affects aim) under fire and constantly aim a 7 lb M16 rifle during hour(s) long firefights. I miss the mechanics from RO1; sure it wasn't as realistic as RO2 but it did have some of those factors used in the mechanic system at least.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
ya man agreed- anyone who says the sway in RO2 is realistic has never fired a gun in real life.

*Sigh*

Ignore every other post in the thread and post the same tired old opinion with absolutely no supporting argument again and again and again and again.

I fire a wide variety of firearms on a regular basis, and I am very impressed with weapon handling in RO2. I don't feel like I'm firing drunk, which was my main complaint in RO1.
 
Upvote 0
FYI Josef- Only time there was sway in RO1 was if you had your iron-sites up for a long period of time. Otherwise, there was little to no sway. If you started to encounter sway in RO1 just click out of Ironsites real quick and click back in.
(there might of been increased sway when tired as well)

Maybe we both agree that in RO1 once the sway started- there was no real way of aiming without resetting your iron-sites, but in RO2 its the polar opposite.

Olympic shooting going on
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: aop
Upvote 0
FYI Josef- Only time there was sway in RO1 was if you had your iron-sites up for a long period of time. Otherwise, there was little to no sway. If you started to encounter sway in RO1 just click out of Ironsites real quick and click back in.
(there might of been increased sway when tired as well)

Maybe we both agree that in RO1 once the sway started- there was no real way of aiming without resetting your iron-sites, but in RO2 its the polar opposite.

Olympic shooting going on

Not sure what game you're playing, but that's exactly what happens in RO2 unless you're braced or prone.

Go into a server, stand unsupported, and keep your ironsights up. It gets impossible to shoot after a few seconds. It's just the increased pace of combat means it rarely gets to that.

Plus, I can lie on my belly and hold a rifle steady for quite a while. That's the optimal shooting position. The same goes if I'm shooting from a bench (or windowsill, or low wall, or sandbags in this case). I can keep the rifle steady for a long time.

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here.
 
Upvote 0
Seems to me it is the players on the server alot of the time not playing their role that they have chosen more than a need to change the game. I see more rifleman pushing on most maps than assaults, it seems like I am playing some other FPS games where alot of people are worried about KDR, I could care less about my KDR as long as I am doing my role and trying to help my team win.

Accuracy will advance the more anyone uses a weapon more, and MG's need to be protected by their team as much as possible because he is the most exposed in the game, and easiest to hit.

I see alot of flanking in this game already on certain maps, and like said some of the maps are kinda to small for certain classes, like a Sniper can only be so effective on apartments, he has to find a spot that he can just about see across the map as much as he can without being rushed and then while he is in his scope he is popped from another side just like the MG, so if your team is pushing, then it should be harder for a sniper to get shot when everyone is focusing on the rest.

But no matter what idea anyone comes up with, their will always be flaws, because this is a team based game. And if your team is not playing as a team, no matter what you are doing you will want a change. That is in all of us.
 
Upvote 0
*Sigh*

Ignore every other post in the thread and post the same tired old opinion with absolutely no supporting argument again and again and again and again.

I fire a wide variety of firearms on a regular basis, and I am very impressed with weapon handling in RO2. I don't feel like I'm firing drunk, which was my main complaint in RO1.

With all due respect, I fired before as well, today I went into the game to check it out, I was standing with the rifle aiming at around 100 meters away, and the sway was, how to say, not really there. the fact the weapon moved around 1mm up and then to the left, I don't know, it's hard to call it sway...
 
Upvote 0
With all due respect, I fired before as well, today I went into the game to check it out, I was standing with the rifle aiming at around 100 meters away, and the sway was, how to say, not really there. the fact the weapon moved around 1mm up and then to the left, I don't know, it's hard to call it sway...

-breath control is kindof OP :p ing that is.
 
Upvote 0
here is a video of the enfield no.4 vs the mas 36

http://www.videoweed.es/file/4e716bbcd7df3

You'll notice that of 20 shots, at 50 yards each soldier is only able to hit about 14 of the shots. By 2 absolutely elite experts at 50 yards with rifles they are only able to get accuracy of 50% vs moving targets and 80% vs stationary targets. I'd be willing to bet it's a far larger hit rate for 50 yard fire fights in red orchestra 2.

Also the firing distance was 50 yards b/c that's the average distance a world war 2 firefight happened at.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Not to pull the rug out from under your feet, but Deadliest Warrior is hardly known for their intensive and well-reasoned examination of any form of weapon.

The problem I'm running into is that everyone films themselves at the rifle range from a bench position and never shows their targets. I don't want to see you working the bolt, chuckles, I want to see what your pattern looks like. These are the better videos I could find of people firing quickly, but the distances can't be outside of 25m. I couldn't find a video of a standing rifleman shooting a target out to 100m that showed the target afterwords.

Bear in mind, they're shooting cans, not human torsos:

Mauser K98 vs. M1 Garand - YouTube

Second shot the next guy makes would have easily been an injury on a human sized target. You can see the ricochet clearly.

Mauser K98k bcd43 - YouTube
 
Upvote 0
here is a video of the enfield no.4 vs the mas 36

http://www.videoweed.es/file/4e716bbcd7df3

You'll notice that of 20 shots, at 50 yards each soldier is only able to hit about 14 of the shots. By 2 absolutely elite experts at 50 yards with rifles they are only able to get accuracy of 50% vs moving targets and 80% vs stationary targets. I'd be willing to bet it's a far larger hit rate for 50 yard fire fights in red orchestra 2.

Also the firing distance was 50 yards b/c that's the average distance a world war 2 firefight happened at.

Please confirm your source for this 50 yard average firefight distance. I have read 100-150 yards/meters, so I would like to corroborate your source. If it was in the show, I don't believe it.
 
Upvote 0
This will address both the realistic aspect of the game and will also fix the game's firefights which right now do not exist.

I don't know if anyone's been to the army here, but even with a modern M4 and a good scope it's very difficult to nail your target perfectly (I'm not talking about Spec Ops, yes?), especially when you're in the middle of a firefight, stuff blowing around you and your friends are dying... It's outrageous that a WW2 simple soldier with a rifle nails me straight through the head when I'm in cover from a kilometer away, when all he did was spot me thanks to the razor sharp graphics today's resolution and graphics offer, and just aiming at me. Nothing else, wind, the skill of the shooter, shaky hands, nothing matters, I'm dead.

Please don't forget that in WW2 soldiers weren't as well trained as they are today, rifles weren't half as accurate as they are today, and weapon jams and different failures were a common sight on the battlefield.

I think that drastically reducing the accuracy of normal soldiers, and only making them really accurate when they press aim + shift (and even then, reduce the accuracy) will improve the game and fix the current inability to enjoy a long lasting realistic fire fight because right now the moment you spot an enemy means whether he's dead, or you are.

If accuracy will be reduced, you'll both dive into covers and shoot at each other, doing your best combined with your skill in the game to kill your opponent, which also opens a whole new door to flanking and givesa new meaning and importance to reinforcements. Obviously officers should have much better aim and accuracy than the other soldiers, and a marksman shouldn't lose accuracy.

I can see in my mind how this game could be awesome, two sides firing at each other, some flanking, others push with suppressing fire trying to win the fire fight, instead of just always camping and picking off your opponents one by one without any feeling of an actual battlefield, just luck, the hope you won't be spotted and a good camping spot. Please listen to my idea, I honestly believe it can change the game and push it into a much better direction!

I do not support this opinion at all. OP is wrong too. Rifles are accurate and effective at the ranges that are in the game. They are even effective at ranges longer than that. Sway could be heightened, especially when wounded, or after running. One sure could make a good argument about that.

Come to think of it asking to lower accuracy is nonsense in this game. It only makes sense in battlefield/cod style games that work with the dreaded 'cone of fire'. If TWI did that, RO2 would die immediatly imo.
 
Upvote 0
Not to pull the rug out from under your feet, but Deadliest Warrior is hardly known for their intensive and well-reasoned examination of any form of weapon.

The problem I'm running into is that everyone films themselves at the rifle range from a bench position and never shows their targets. I don't want to see you working the bolt, chuckles, I want to see what your pattern looks like. These are the better videos I could find of people firing quickly, but the distances can't be outside of 25m. I couldn't find a video of a standing rifleman shooting a target out to 100m that showed the target afterwords.

Bear in mind, they're shooting cans, not human torsos:

Mauser K98 vs. M1 Garand - YouTube

Second shot the next guy makes would have easily been an injury on a human sized target. You can see the ricochet clearly.

Mauser K98k bcd43 - YouTube

So let me get this straight your contention is that deadliest warrior is not a good source of information but videos of random guys on youtube firing their guns totally is? Say what you will about deadliest warrior that doesn't change the fact that that is still video of some bad *** army dudes firing period rifles and showing accuracy consistent with what the people who want more sway in the game would say would be a proper amount of accuracy. It wouldn't matter if that same footage was on the history channel, the military channel, or the discovery channel, it's still footage of dudes demonstrating what needs to be demonstrated. Also I'd like to know some specific instances of why you do think deadliest warrior would not be a reliable source of information?

And yes, I was quoting the show about the 50 yards being the average firefight distance, but I'd like to see where you read your figure and know why you think Deadliest Warrior is a bad source.
 
Upvote 0
So let me get this straight your contention is that deadliest warrior is not a good source of information but videos of random guys on youtube firing their guns totally is? Say what you will about deadliest warrior that doesn't change the fact that that is still video of some bad *** army dudes firing period rifles and showing accuracy consistent with what the people who want more sway in the game would say would be a proper amount of accuracy. It wouldn't matter if that same footage was on the history channel, the military channel, or the discovery channel, it's still footage of dudes demonstrating what needs to be demonstrated. Also I'd like to know some specific instances of why you do think deadliest warrior would not be a reliable source of information?

And yes, I was quoting the show about the 50 yards being the average firefight distance, but I'd like to see where you read your figure and know why you think Deadliest Warrior is a bad source.

The show gets a bunch of big-mouthed "experts" to come posture up against another group of "experts" while a TV Doctor, a computer nerd, and some guy that thinks he knows about weapons set up some poorly constructed, non-scientific "lethality" tests to viscerally demonstrate their weapons before throwing some BS numbers into a computer program. Shoot, Mythbusters is -way- more scientific than that, and that's a show about engineering challenges more than any sort of research.

However, I do see what you're saying, and my feelings about the show aside, it is a valid point.

Unfortunately, the stats aren't tracking properly for most people. If you happen to be one of the lucky ones, check your accuracy and report back in. I'm curious to see if you guys are really as accurate as you say you are. Maybe I'm just plain bad, but I seem to miss a whole lot more than I hit, and I have at least 10 years of FPS experience backing those snap shot reflexes. I just find it mind boggling to believe that you guys are human aimbots capable of achieving these high accuracies.
 
Upvote 0
+1. I also still can't understand how people expect WW2 rifles to be 100% accurate, and ignore the human factor, it's just absurd... (I'm not saying sway the weapon all over the screen, but a little regard for human behavior and body limitations please!

Yes, lets have more armchair soldiers tell us all how hard it is to shoot under duress. Then, we can take whatever arbitrary figure all these "experts" agree upon and apply a small bit of entropy to the system so that personal skill is no longer the only factor in competition. /vomit.
 
Upvote 0
This is the essence of the problem. Individually, RO2 is full of features that may very well be justifiable on their own -- when analyzed in a vacuum. But, when they all come together in the game, they actually achieve a less realistic result than I think its intended to be. Features like excessive zoom, the ability to so easily control the sway of your rifle, and the result that suppression or firefights is clearly non existent are examples to prove this point.

So basically to conclude, all I'm saying is that sometimes a little bit of exaggeration here and there in order to help achieve the positive result that is desired is necessary. A great game is more than just the sum of its individual parts.
Wow. My thoughts exactly.

I mean really, how many times are we going to beat the dead horse that is the "zoom" function? It has been talked about probably hundreds of times on this forum since the beta. It is NOT a zoom function. It is merely allowing you to focus on level that your actual eye would be able to do. It is not unrealistic, EVERY VIDEO GAME IN THE PAST WAS UNREALISTIC in regards to your field of view and ability to focus. Including RO1. Yet no matter how many times this is eloquently explained, you still see threads like this.
Funny you should bring this up. That's another thing that does the game no good, imo. Arguably it's realistic in regards to the math, but again, not in regards to the overall effect it has on the gameplay!

In real-life it's a LOT harder to spot someone than it is in a game where
a) player characters stick out a lot (wasn't as big a problem in Ghost Recon 1 though, with it's muddy brown-in-brown visuals, to name an example of a game that worked well despite having strong zoom!)
b) levels are tiny (ArmA series works well despite realistic zoom because the levels are enormous)
c) you know the levels and you know where opponents can sit,
d) hitting someone is much easier because you're not in battle conditions (as explained earlier).

I don't know if you can still search for the old RO1 suggestion topic where someone suggested zoom because it was more realistic, but this has always been my point against it. Mathematically zoom is realistic and if the rest of the game were a proper simulation the zoom would be essential to complete the package or else it would unnecessarily gimp the players, but since the rest of the game isn't, the lack of zoom actually compensates for a whole host of problems the game has.
 
Upvote 0
I don't know if I'm any good in the game, but I play on a really ****ty laptop with 30fps TOPS and horrible graphics (all on the lowest settings) and resolution (resulting in many times not even seeing an enemy far away because there are so many large ugly pixels around him) and still, after I got used to the game, when I do shoot, I usually hit, even with a Russian assault rifle from a 100 meters~.
 
Upvote 0
OP: Agreed. Having served my country (conscription) for 2 years, I've had experience with the M16. Even on single shot mode, the chances of hitting a target more than 50m away while standing is very slim. When prone, we have to hit targets ~100m away, and even then, not everyone can score a hit every time, let alone achieve a decent group size.
 
Upvote 0