• 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/
  • Weve updated the Tripwire Privacy Notice under our Policies to be clearer about our use of customer information to come in line with the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) rules that come into force today (25th May 2018). The following are highlights of our changes:


    We've incorporated the relevant concepts from the GDPR including joining the EU and Swiss Privacy Shield framework. We've added explanations for why and how Tripwire processes customer data and the types of data that we process, as well as information about your data protection rights.



    For more information about our privacy practices, please review the new Privacy Policy found here: https://tripwireinteractive.com/#/privacy-notice

Accuracy needs to be reduced on ALL the weapons ingame

skewp

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jun 13, 2011
268
127
0
Croatia
Yeah, wanting this excessive sway for holding your rifle up for 10 seconds is way out of line for me. 30 seconds? That I could see. I do not want to have to literally pop back into cover every 9 seconds just to keep my aim steady. Sometimes the area you're watching can't be ignored for that long.
That's where the cover system pops in. I hardly ever use it cause it simply ****s up my position when I try to strafe or move around window frames.

Introducing the feature of gun sway after holding it up would really make the cover system useful cause it kinda simulates you leaning your rifle on a stabile platform. I'm not saying that the cover system is useless in this game, it has its moments. But there is no real need of using it when you think about it.

Why would I use the cover system and expose myself to enemy fire by showing my rifle barrel when I can just stand 1 meter inside of the room and aim through the window while standing and having perfect accuracy with no sway. It's just not realistic.
 
Last edited:

Icey_Pain

FNG / Fresh Meat
Aug 8, 2011
706
304
0
I do think soldiers were able to line up a shot when they just took a sprint, because I do believe soldiers get trained to be able to do that, especially a veteran soldier.

However I do not believe the guns would hit their targets spot on every time. Due to factors such as weather and the simple inaccuracy of the gun at times.
But say they would implement a random amount of accuracy loss every random number of bullets.
Want to bet if they did that people would start complaining about hit detection, rather than call it a feature?

The "laser-aim" like it is now is just fine except for the fact that you really shouldn't need to aim one meter infront of a person at only 50 meters.
 

skewp

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jun 13, 2011
268
127
0
Croatia
My milled receiver AK-47 copy weights the same unloaded as my Mosins, but with full 30 rounds stamped steel magazine it weights more. WW2 rifles weren't that heavy. Yes, the barrels were long but the receivers were very simple and lightweight compared to modern firearms. Weight of wood depends on type of wood used. It's not like rifle stocks were made of oak or other heavy wood materials...

edit: List of Mosin Nagant types:
[url]http://7.62x54r.net/MosinID/MosinSpec.htm[/URL]

The version ingame, 91/30, weights 4kg.
Yea I probably expressed what I was trying to say in a bad way. In my opinion its impossible to hold a weapon straight for a long time without getting tired no matter how heavy it is. I go to Grain Elevator 4th floor and aim through the windows for like 5 minutes holding the gun in the same position picking Germans who leave the gatehouse off from 100 meters.
Why do soldiers use cover and walls and practically any solid platform useable if not to steady their aim and save their strength.
 

Karnatakapunk

FNG / Fresh Meat
Sep 18, 2011
97
52
0
Of course.. come on guys.. increase sway would be very nice to engage more the cover system.
But dont add random values of inaccuracy of the gun! simply think you have a good and clean rifle instead a broke one, omg!
 

Battle-B

FNG / Fresh Meat
Aug 28, 2011
22
0
0
Estonia
I do think soldiers were able to line up a shot when they just took a sprint, because I do believe soldiers get trained to be able to do that, especially a veteran soldier.
You can train the soldier as much as you want but he won't be able to get after sprint fast and accuarate shots out, they can try. Instead you can train soldier into physical fitnes for soldier to be able to control more of his blood pessure to make it drop to normal quiker, for a steadier aim.

However I do not believe the guns would hit their targets spot on every time. Due to factors such as weather and the simple inaccuracy of the gun at times.
But say they would implement a random amount of accuracy loss every random number of bullets.
Want to bet if they did that people would start complaining about hit detection, rather than call it a feature?
Yes thats correct, there is a factor of barrel viberation in the moment of shot what makes the bullet to be directed little bit in a random direction ( just a little for thous ww2 rifels it should be at 100m 1-3cm change for the smgs or mg's I think about 5-10cm atleast).
It would be hard to simulate the weather contitions in the game because the weather is on one map constant and not changing. But yes weather (rain, wind, temperature) is othere wise a factor.
 

Epoksi

FNG / Fresh Meat
Sep 19, 2011
4
0
0
Yea I probably expressed what I was trying to say in a bad way. In my opinion its impossible to hold a weapon straight for a long time without getting tired no matter how heavy it is. I go to Grain Elevator 4th floor and aim through the windows for like 5 minutes holding the gun in the same position picking Germans who leave the gatehouse off from 100 meters.
Why do soldiers use cover and walls and practically any solid platform useable if not to steady their aim and save their strength.
On those occasions you can hold your rifle against the window frame and keep it level for I guess minutes if not more. On real world scenarios of course ;) But it would certainly be different if there is nothing where you can lean on
 

Epoksi

FNG / Fresh Meat
Sep 19, 2011
4
0
0
Problem as I see it is not actually the accuracy of the weapons as they are very accurate(especially rifles) but the fact that the soldier is able to raise his weapon so that his sight through the Iron Sights is always perfect. If that makes any sense to you. It's like a computer which is taught that 1+1 is 2 and never makes a mistake(bad example but hopefully you catch my drift)
 

aop

FNG / Fresh Meat
May 28, 2006
242
67
0
Of course.. come on guys.. increase sway would be very nice to engage more the cover system.
But dont add random values of inaccuracy of the gun! simply think you have a good and clean rifle instead a broke one, omg!
Forced gameplay mechanics suck. I use the resting weapon system all the time but I never use the cover system because it simply doesn't feel right. It's kinda ridiculous that some people ask unrealistic amount of sway to force people to use system that restrics their movement by gluing them to walls. RO2 has one of the best gun mechanics I have ever seen in any game. ArmA2 comes close too.
 

skewp

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jun 13, 2011
268
127
0
Croatia
Forced gameplay mechanics suck. I use the resting weapon system all the time but I never use the cover system because it simply doesn't feel right. It's kinda ridiculous that some people ask unrealistic amount of sway to force people to use system that restrics their movement by gluing them to walls. RO2 has one of the best gun mechanics I have ever seen in any game. ArmA2 comes close too.
So you confirm that you can hold a 4kg rifle steady for 5 minutes (5 minutes is just the example im using, in RO2 you can do it indefinitely long) aiming at the same spot shooting targets at the distance of 100 meters?
 
Last edited:

aop

FNG / Fresh Meat
May 28, 2006
242
67
0
So you confirm that you can hold a 4kg rifle steady for 5 minutes (5 minutes is just the example im using, in RO2 you can do it indefinitely long) aiming at the same spot shooting targets at the distance of 100 meters?
Not 5 minutes, maybe 30 sec. However in RO1 aiming was like being drunk.
 

skewp

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jun 13, 2011
268
127
0
Croatia
Not 5 minutes, maybe 30 sec. However in RO1 aiming was like being drunk.
Exactly, I'm not saying that rifles should freaking sway as if you're on a sailing ship. But some additional sway for aiming from a standing position or aiming immediatelly after sprinting to the point of draining your ingame fatigue must be implemented...Jesus it's not like we are saying that the game should be made easier. We want it to be a BIT HARDER so that it feels right. I'm no marksman and I have never even fired a real firearm. But I have fired a lot from a Diana 460 magnum 4.5 caliber air gun, which weighs about 3.5 kg...the gun sways just as any real gun would and it's not easy to hit a moving target in reality the way it is in RO2. This applies especially for Soviet soldiers who were mostly just kids with rifles. I'm sure that most of them were as trained in the use of a real gun as I am...
 

Talmonis

FNG / Fresh Meat
Sep 14, 2011
13
0
0
I think part of the issue here, is that if you add more sway to rifles, SMG's are then even MORE of an issue. They already are superior in every way on any map but Fallen Fighters. I really don't think hurting the poor bolt-action rifleman (by far the weakest of the weak class) further will make the game a better place. Not to mention, you're also further buffing the semi-auto rifle, which doesn't need any help. Point and click until you hit becomes silly when a regular rifle doesn't stand a chance of that first shot.
 

PGD03

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 30, 2006
123
10
0
My 5 cents: Target acquisition is very fast. Ranges aren't extreme but your avatar is like some spec ops commando. Think about it, especially when WWII weapons are pretty heavy compared to modern ones.

Even if you are a good shot and done some tactical it's pretty hard to run, raise your weapon and score a hit on something as small as your little finger. Even swinging your 4 kg rifle 90 degrees either way lifting it up to get iron sights up fast and get a good shot isn't easy when the target gets relatively small. Go ahead and grab your old BB gun and try it with targets size of your head from 20 m away. And when you do that nobody's going to shoot back..

If we wanted to have everything realistically supression would be harder almost constantly (not that black and white supression), your weapon would sway more because your pulse would be higher all the time and every time you swang your weapon in different direction you'd have to steady first to set the iron sight straight, and after variable amount of seconds the swaying would increase. I don't know if we would want this. It would make the game slower, more like in RO1. CQB situations wouldn't be much different then now I guess, talking about really short ranges.

This applies especially for Soviet soldiers who were mostly just kids with rifles. I'm sure that most of them were as trained in the use of a real gun as I am...
I agree with the top part. But kids with rifles? I'd say people with rifles. Otherwise yes, some of soviets hauled to frontlines weren't even given a weapon at first, they got one when someone else died. But as war went on there were more and more experienced troops there and more weapons to share.
 
Last edited:

Kranky

FNG / Fresh Meat
Sep 20, 2011
29
8
0
Wind? Your breathing? Bullet drop? Many, many, other things can make guns inaccurate. You are in the battle your adrenalin is pumping, its cold, do you really think you could shoot a bird in left ball from 200m like that cause thats pretty much what can you do right now.
It should also be said that these older weapons are very individualistic in terms of their performance. They were all, afterall, fabricated more or less by hand. For example, I have a 1937 Luger that can ping a steel plate at 217 yards, and I have a 1938 Walther that couldn't hit the broad-side of a barn at 25 yards. Obviously, the game wouldn't be very fun to be issued lemons for guns, but perhaps a little bit of "randomness" to the accuracy to reproduce piss-poor rifling (Russian weapons in particular are guilty of this) would act as a nice counter to the super-insane accuracy everyone is talking about.
 

aop

FNG / Fresh Meat
May 28, 2006
242
67
0
My 5 cents: Target acquisition is very fast. Ranges aren't extreme but your avatar is like some spec ops commando. Think about it, especially when WWII weapons are pretty heavy compared to modern ones.

Even if you are a good shot and done some tactical it's pretty hard to run, raise your weapon and score a hit on something as small as your little finger. Even swinging your 4 kg rifle 90 degrees either way lifting it up to get iron sights up fast and get a good shot isn't easy when the target gets relatively small. Go ahead and grab your old BB gun and try it with targets size of your head from 20 m away. And when you do that nobody's going to shoot back..

If we wanted to have everything realistically supression would be harder almost constantly (not that black and white supression), your weapon would sway more because your pulse would be higher all the time and every time you swang your weapon in different direction you'd have to steady first to set the iron sight straight, and after variable amount of seconds the swaying would increase. I don't know if we would want this. It would make the game slower, more like in RO1. CQB situations wouldn't be much different then now I guess, talking about really short ranges.
That is simply not true. Loaded M16A4 weights 4kg, exactly the same as Mosin Nagant 91/30.
 

WiFiDi

FNG / Fresh Meat
Oct 12, 2010
642
168
0
because right now its very silly, nothing to do with ww2

as soon as your head pops out somewhere, boom you dead, there are barely any firefights, just "sniping"
have you ever shot a gun ever. also bullets are menat to kill were not playing shoot to kill paintball. :rolleyes:
 

FBOTheLiuetenant

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 20, 2006
640
104
0
www.righttorule.com
Simply no...

This should never happen to RO2. Leave it to other games to f with the laws of ballistics in order to be "fair". Besides, so far the most played maps are small. On larger maps, and potential future maps, the ranges you fight at make it challenging to hit a target. The way to keep things interesting should be done though level design, creating a variety of cover, a variety of engagement ranges, and creating various avenues to attack/defend from. To mess with the accuracy of weapons goes directly against what TW was trying to achieve with the guns in RO2.

That is simply not true. Loaded M16A4 weights 4kg, exactly the same as Mosin Nagant 91/30.
Just to be that guy, but I think he has a point even if he doesn't realize it. Even if the overall weight is roughly the same, the balance and distribution of that weight is largely in favor of the M16. While I'd imagine a Mosin to be much more front heavy. I've never fired a Mosin, but I have fired M4s and M16s and I'd bet they are much more balanced.
 
Last edited:

Kranky

FNG / Fresh Meat
Sep 20, 2011
29
8
0
Even if the overall weight is roughly the same, the balance and distribution of that weight is largely in favor of the M16. While I'd imagine a Mosin to be much more front heavy. I've never fired a Mosin, but I have fired M4s and M16s and I'd bet they are much more balanced.
I have fired both, and I can assure you that the Mosin feels significantly heavier for that exact reason - weight distribution. Most of the meat of the AR platform is in the lower assembly area, whereas the Mosin is solid wood and steel from break to butt.