Accuracy needs to be reduced on ALL the weapons ingame

[Hoak]

The thing is, the guys in Tripwire put more time, effort and research into these details in the game, based on real life studies and what real soldiers trained on such weapons, more than you or I ever did.

The thing is; time effort and research into details has obviously not translated into realistic game-play... The weapon metrics are realistic, weapon handling, scale, and game-play are not even remotely so...

 

[gentrinity]

It takes far more rounds to make a kill in real life because people don't risk their heads to stick out like they do in this game. They mostly make quasi blind fire than pop back into cover in a heat of battle. And Vietnam was with automatic weapons of course. Also don't forget the machine guns on tripods that would be spraying bullets from 500+ meters.

People play insanely recklessly in this game because of respawn. Have you seen territory matches when both sides have good 15 ~ 20 people left but reinforcement dried up? People shoot at anything they feel suspicious about, and they barely advance.

If you want realism please don't mention suppression system because real bullets nearly missing you don't make you drunk and impair vision with temporary color blindness. That's not how real suppression works. Although repeated MG fire nearby could borderline deafen you and that would be cool to implement in this game.

Guns actually perform realistically, but the type of battles that RO1 fans wanted requires way bigger maps. That and players actually caring more about living than making a kill. But it's a game so everyone will do everything to get a kill...

I will mention a suppression system because it works. I saw the benefits. This is a game and you cant simulate everything in a realistic fashion, but a suppression system does achieve a real life phenomena in a fake way. I'm not saying Darkest Hour suppression was true to life, I'm saying it achieves exactly what you talked about;

It takes far more rounds to make a kill in real life because people don't risk their heads to stick out like they do in this game. They mostly make quasi blind fire than pop back into cover in a heat of battle.

So how do we simulate that? You can either do it with single life servers or you can do it with suppression effects. I've played with both systems together and that's where the real fun happens. Suppression effects achieve the exact same effectyou mentioned, the only difference is that the "quasi blind fire" is not done because of fear, but done because of the game forcing you to act as if you were doing "quasi blind fire". I personally don't care about how the "quasi blind fire" effect was done, I just want it there, cause it makes for better firefights.

I'm planning a mod that will increase suppression effects, if you don't like it, don't come on servers that will host the mod. But I gotta tell you, you will be missing out on combat that approximates WW2 combat a lot more than what we are currently seeing, even if it's done by unnatural means.

 

[gentrinity]

Way to troll and contribute

I'm so terribly sorry that my abilities to actually fire a rifle accurately due to real training on how to operate a rifle doesn't match your armchair doom training.

If you actually try playing a realism server, rather than a relaxed realism server, you'll notice the sway is far greater in Realism, yet it's still more realistic than what's in RO1.

Oh but I and others in this forum actually make sense with arguments you can't refute, so just keep trivializing those comments and troll with one-liners.... as if that makes you sound more like an expert.

The thing is, the guys in Tripwire put more time, effort and research into these details in the game, based on real life studies and what real soldiers trained on such weapons, more than you or I ever did...... yet you want to act like you somehow know better?

Good luck with that.

It was already stated countless times that the RO1 physics of sway, etc. were based on the Dev's own operation and handling of the weapons, which does not equate to how fully trained soldiers would operate those same weapons, which is exactly what they did for RO2. But if you think things were better using the sway of an average, un-trained joe blow.... by all means, ask for a mutator for your game that nerfs your gameplay and leave the rest of us alone.

Your arguments can be refuted. What most of these arguments fail to take into account is that a lot of this "handling" by experts is done by properly fed men in proper weather conditions under no fire what so ever. It also assumes that the men fighting in WW2 each had the same level of training and experience.

Here's an idea, instead of modeling how the weapon behaves in a shooting range by well-fed, well-trained, experienced, and relaxed soldiers, you make the weapons free of the artificial help. Don't simulate the strength that must be exerted by a professional to keep his rifle steady when firing and actually force the player to learn to use his mouse as a trained soldier has to learn to use his weapon. That is why the PPSH has so much recoil. Of course I've seen how professionals hold it steady in real life, but why can't a player simulate the same thing by tugging his mouse down? Why can't a player learn how to measure and adjust his sway to reduce it himself so that he learns to take aim and fire in that precious moment when the sights are on target?

This would be my ideal game, a game that takes time and practice to actually learn to properly aim. I remember how in Brothers in Arms, the sway was ridiculously overdone to the point where it was impossible to take out a target more than 20 meters away. But you know what? I played against some of the most elite players and they would all get kills at 40+. Why? Because they had mastered the unbearably shaky sway and learned to compensate and shoot straight. We don't need that level of exaggeration, but I like the principle behind it.

This isn't about getting killed too often, which is what your "irrefutable" arguments try to present. Apparently we can't be right, we can only be complaining. If I want first place on a server, all I need to do is get an SMG or a Semi-Auto. If I take a bolt action, I'll get 3rd-5th place on a server, usually being in the top 10 in kills. This game is way too easy as it is and it rewards people for fast reflexes and aggressiveness, not for tactical movement and smart play.

 

[Gaizokubanou]

So how do we simulate that?

We don't. Player behaviors should be free for players to decide. If the given mechanics are realistic enough, the mechanics itself will do the punishing for tactics that won't work in reality. But if players keep want to make mistakes, then they should be free to make mistakes! And they are punished a lot. I don't have the fastest aim, and I often miss my first and second shot on my bolt. But I make that up through careful movement through covers and flanking by identifying direction of the enemy through whatever information I can gather, like where did my teammates dying at, where are they stuck, etc.

And RO1 still failed to create accurate representation of WW2 gunfights. RO1 was still obscenely unrealistic in small firearms tactics because while you may felt that it was realistic with all those "suppression", the range at which it takes place is just utterly broken. You don't do full automatic suppression fire with a MG behind a normal house wall at targets within 100 meter range. Unless you are hiding in a trench or reinforced concrete wall of a bunker, all the rifles and MGs you see in the game will either blast clean through the wall and kill everyone, or create fragments off the wall that will basically shotgun shot you with debris. RO1's suppression system with its drunk-sway didn't even create realistic result because it overlooked the important part of firearms, that it shoots far and hard.

I won't be coming to play that mod and I won't be missing out on anything realistic. If WW2 was fought by drunks who had their gun barrels bent then maybe, but it wasn't and range of actual combat and lethal range of the guns were much further and created different dynamics of firefight from what you think had happened. When they had a firefight at the range that RO1 and RO2 infantry maps are fought in, people died fast if they were spotted.

 

[Josef Nader]

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.

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-.

You guys have it backwards. You think that the attackers are supposed to suppress the defenders so they can advance. This is and isn't true. You want to keep the defenders from shooting your guys, yes, but only long enough for your guys to maneuver closer. If they're hiding, they aren't shooting. If you're aiming where they're hiding, and they pop out to shoot, you shoot them. This is what real life firefights are all about. Assaulting an enemy position is all aobut trying to close with them so you can get a grenade in their hidey hole, or tear them up with an SMG. If you're afraid to close with them, you're suppressed and they're doing their job. If they're afraid to pop out of the windows, -they're- suppressed and you're doing your job. This give-take is -far- more realistic than any blurry screen or filter. Whichever side is too afraid to stick their head out in combat is effectively suppressed, and the other side needs to be using this opening to move in for the kill.

What you and everyone else clamoring for "better suppression" is basically you demanding a way to get out of being suppressed yourself by plinking bullets harmlessly off the enemy cover so their ironsights go all screwy and their screen desaturates. You want to be rewarded for bad, unrealistic tactics. Darkest Hour, and RO1 in general, was -very- unrealistic in many respects, and RO2 is a major step in the right direction for accurate realism. It's no full-on milsim, sure, but it's definitely one of the more realistic shooters on the market today.

Because of the nature of suppression and weapon accuracy, RO2 is now about showdowns; you needed to pop up from a different location and be fast enough to aim at your target before he can readjust his on you. The one to do this the fastest wins. I'm not saying this is a bad way to play or noobish, but it does minimize your chances of staying alive considerably, because you wont always win these engagements.

Then you're playing wrong. Seriously. If you have to rely on twitch reflexes to win fights, you're going to lose 10/10 times to someone with better positioning, tactical movement, and battlefield awareness than you.

I main machine gunner, and when I play I drop prone well behind friendly lines and crawl on my face to my position. You know why I do this? It makes it -very- difficult for the enemy to spot me before I'm ready to engage them. I'm prone from the time I'm leaving the initial spawn to the time I start firing, and it works -brilliantly-. The enemies rarely have any idea where the gunfire is coming from, and I can gun them down at my leisure as they scramble for cover without knowing where the searing hot death is coming from. This has nothing to do with twitch and everything to do with tactics, movement, and positioning. I don't have to be faster than these guys. In fact, I'm not. In a stand-up fight, I lose to riflemen 10/10 times. That's why, as soon as they start plinking bullets off my position I make like a banana and split, usually at a full sprint. I retreat a ways, find a new hiding spot, and shoot them again as they move up. It's not about being faster or having better aim. Not even a little bit. It's knowing how to play the game.

It takes a considerable amount of skill to be able to win the majority of these "showdowns", and I can appreciate how some may regard this as truly rewarding and an admirable skill. I am not one of those people, as I prefer engaging the enemy with tactics and suppression. When you play realism, you would rather have your guys stay alive, so what I teach helps them do so and keep the squad together longer. Showdowns are fun, but put your virtual life into more danger and does not really promote long, tactical, and fun (for me) firefights. A mod is in order to bring back Darkest Hour style suppression and maybe even improve on it so that firefights are fun for people like me and some of those who have posted in this thread.

Using the techniques I described above, I can stay alive for a full 5-6 minutes racking up a dozen kills per life and suppressing the entire enemy advance. They get like you, afraid to move up because they know that as soon as they pop out I'm going to take their block off with a burst of LMG fire. They spend more time trying to spot me (and giving away their positions in the process) than advancing on my comrades or capturing points. I don't need to screw their aim up or blur their screen to accomplish this, as that just promotes poor trigger discipline. I never fire unless I'm sure I have a killshot lined up, because every bullet potentially gives away my position. My game is all about stealth, holding the flanks while the rest of my boys seize the center. It's real, true to life squad teamwork functioning as their real life counterparts do totally unintentionally. I found myself performing these flanking maneuvers instinctively with the machine gun, and they're very successful.

After doing some reasearch on real life LMGs, I find out that I had been doing what I was -supposed- to be doing the whole time; defending my squad by putting out the same amount of firepower as 10 bolt action riflemen from a single concealed location.

I'll put together a tactics guide eventually, but it's 2am now so later.

 

[Cpt-Praxius]

The thing is; time effort and research into details has obviously not translated into realistic game-play... The weapon metrics are realistic, weapon handling, scale, and game-play are not even remotely so...

Sez you. Sorry but I'd rather rely on Trip's research over your's or any other random forum member's so-called "expert opinion."

Realistic Game-play?

Sure seems realistic to me when you get shot in the head for poking it out from a stationary location or when you're wandering around out in the open..... if you couldn't make accurate shots from a rifle, or if your first shots from an SMG or MG weren't accurate, then why would anybody bother to use them? If they're supposed to be as accurate as a musket, why don't we still use muskets?

 

[HerrThomas]

I think what OP and people like him are referring to isn't the mechanical accuracy of the weapon, but how accurate the player is able to fire. I feel sway should be increased if you aren't rested, recoil should be incremental (first few shots are fine, next are bad, if you keep it up you are going everywhere) So firing a shot every 2 seconds with a Semi is fine and recoil stays the same, but panic firing every half second will make recoil nearly uncontrollable. Also, the way someone can be sprinting and be shooting instantly is completely ludicrous, it promotes CoD/arcade style bum rushing instead of playing it safe and keeping your weapon ready. The pace is too fast for how effective the weapons are.

 

[gentrinity]

We don't. Player behaviors should be free for players to decide. If the given mechanics are realistic enough, the mechanics itself will do the punishing for tactics that won't work in reality. But if players keep want to make mistakes, then they should be free to make mistakes! And they are punished a lot. I don't have the fastest aim, and I often miss my first and second shot on my bolt. But I make that up through careful movement through covers and flanking by identifying direction of the enemy through whatever information I can gather, like where did my teammates dying at, where are they stuck, etc.

And RO1 still failed to create accurate representation of WW2 gunfights. RO1 was still obscenely unrealistic in small firearms tactics because while you may felt that it was realistic with all those "suppression", the range at which it takes place is just utterly broken. You don't do full automatic suppression fire with a MG behind a normal house wall at targets within 100 meter range. Unless you are hiding in a trench or reinforced concrete wall of a bunker, all the rifles and MGs you see in the game will either blast clean through the wall and kill everyone, or create fragments off the wall that will basically shotgun shot you with debris. RO1's suppression system with its drunk-sway didn't even create realistic result because it overlooked the important part of firearms, that it shoots far and hard.

I won't be coming to play that mod and I won't be missing out on anything realistic. If WW2 was fought by drunks who had their gun barrels bent then maybe, but it wasn't and range of actual combat and lethal range of the guns were much further and created different dynamics of firefight from what you think had happened. When they had a firefight at the range that RO1 and RO2 infantry maps are fought in, people died fast if they were spotted.

You make valid points about range and bullet impact and you also identify that it's what's plaguing RO2. You're usually engaging at close ranges and you are usually behind some sort of cover that would never stand up to a real rifle caliber barrage. If you did that in real life, like you said, "people died fast if they were spotted".

Now, to achieve the opposite effect, and not have "people die fast", we would have to do one of two things, either we simulate the real life 150-300m engagements and set up more hardcover, or we can alter a few things and achieve similar firefights at closer ranges. The former solution presents more problems than it solves, the distances will make mapping more difficult and would require more Arma2 like patience to get into engagements, which I don't mind, but others might.

Also, if you agree that player behaviors should be free for the players to decide, then you must agree with what I said in my previous post about letting the weapon naturally recoil as if the player was not holding it back, why have an artificial angel (UE3) keep your weapon steady for you? The player needs to learn to wield his mouse the same way a soldier needs to learn to wield his weapon. If you were to hold a rifle in real life and fire it without restraining or bracing for the eventual recoil, it would fly up wildly. Why can't we simulate that and force to player to share in some of that adjustment? I want a game that when I fire, I don't fire as I'm pressing the trigger for a trained marksmen, I want a game where it feels like I'm pressing the trigger for myself and I need to handle the weapon accordingly.

You still don't provide a solution to representing the "quasi blind fire" which is what really happened in WW2. You recognize this as being the true nature of WW2 combat, but then you say "you don't" try and simulate it. Well, I'm sorry, but we should. I want as realistic a representation of WW2 combat and fire & maneuver as a video game can get without breaking the fun factor of why a WW2 combat representation is fun. As it is right now in RO2, it's not there, it's insta-death as you described it. How do I put my enemy's head down to allow my guys to move up to execute maneuvering?

 

[Empty Box]

The thing is; time effort and research into details has obviously not translated into realistic game-play... The weapon metrics are realistic, weapon handling, scale, and game-play are not even remotely so...

Now wait. There is a seemingly large amount of "RO Vets" who would slag off ARMA at the first chance they found. What are we shooting for here? A game between BF and ARMA in terms of gameplay, or simply put, ARMA?

Honestly, that is what I read the comments that go to the effect of "It historically took XXXXXXX shots to kill one lone infantryman."

I would be in favor though of adding in some slight inaccuracy all around. I'm sure someone knows the accuracy of just about every rifle in this game in MOA at XXXX Distance, would be an interesting comparison to what we have. Bullets in game just seem to go right where they are pointed and dont change. Give us some "wind" or something just to add an extra factor.

 

[Cpt-Praxius]

Your arguments can be refuted. What most of these arguments fail to take into account is that a lot of this "handling" by experts is done by properly fed men in proper weather conditions under no fire what so ever. It also assumes that the men fighting in WW2 each had the same level of training and experience.

And to refute that, unless you can actually duplicate the above by keeping a soldier in a cold, muddy & wet trench for a few days and starve them while dropping Arty on their head for those few days..... you won't know exactly what those affects would be anymore than anybody else and would only be guessing on what affect that'd have.

The Supression system seems to produce the best effect for players to simulate this, ie: bullets wizzing by you, having your buddy killed beside you, the winter conditions, etc.

Here's an idea, instead of modeling how the weapon behaves in a shooting range by well-fed, well-trained, experienced, and relaxed soldiers, you make the weapons free of the artificial help. Don't simulate the strength that must be exerted by a professional to keep his rifle steady when firing and actually force the player to learn to use his mouse as a trained soldier has to learn to use his weapon.

Again, how do you propose one tries to simulate this accurately without just assuming or actually taking a handfull of trained soldiers and doing the above I mentioned?

It's easier said than done.

That is why the PPSH has so much recoil. Of course I've seen how professionals hold it steady in real life, but why can't a player simulate the same thing by tugging his mouse down?

Because trying to move your mouse down as it fires isn't anymore realistic, as you generally tense up your muscles in order to maintain control & reduce how much it flings out of control due to recoil.

If someone is pulling down on their weapon while they fire as you do with the mouse, they're going to start shooting the ground.

Why can't a player learn how to measure and adjust his sway to reduce it himself so that he learns to take aim and fire in that precious moment when the sights are on target?

As I see it, it's mostly due to whatever action is taken to "Simulate" what you're seeking, is always fake and unrealistic. Every single person playing uses different mouse sensitivities, they have different response times, they have different visual accuracies due to their own vision quality..... even while I'm trying to hold my mouse steady with my hand, my actual hand is still moving slightly, thus I'm still always compensating for that in real life.... I have no interest in trying to compensate for artifical sway from a computer generated simulation that doesn't even tie into my own breathing in real life.

.... I have to leave for now, but I will try to respond to the rest of your post next chance I get.

 

[Gaizokubanou]

You make valid points about range and bullet impact and you also identify that it's what's plaguing RO2. You're usually engaging at close ranges and you are usually behind some sort of cover that would never stand up to a real rifle caliber barrage. If you did that in real life, like you said, "people died fast if they were spotted".

I never said RO2 was perfect, and the bullet penetration is one of the things I would love to see improve.

Now, to achieve the opposite effect, and not have "people die fast", we would have to do one of two things, either we simulate the real life 150-300m engagements and set up more hardcover, or we can alter a few things and achieve similar firefights at closer ranges. The former solution presents more problems than it solves, the distances will make mapping more difficult and would require more Arma2 like patience to get into engagements, which I don't mind, but others might.

The original Operation Flashpoint pretty much proved that technologically we can have the first scenario since 2001, and that's what should be done if the developers and its players (AKA RO1 fans) are claiming to be having realistic gaming experience.

Also, if you agree that player behaviors should be free for the players to decide, then you must agree with what I said in my previous post about letting the weapon naturally recoil as if the player was not holding it back, why have an artificial angel (UE3) keep your weapon steady for you? The player needs to learn to wield his mouse the same way a soldier needs to learn to wield his weapon. If you were to hold a rifle in real life and fire it without restraining or bracing for the eventual recoil, it would fly up wildly. Why can't we simulate that and force to player to share in some of that adjustment? I want a game that when I fire, I don't fire as I'm pressing the trigger for a trained marksmen, I want a game where it feels like I'm pressing the trigger for myself and I need to handle the weapon accordingly.

Because of the limitation of the mouse and desktop space. And holding a weapon steady is not some insanely technical art. Your example is like suggesting that in order to sprint in this game, you should breath into some detector that's making sure that you are breathing hard; it's a strawmen argument because you are trying to link my argument to an weak analogy when there is no actual correlation.

My suggestion was that players should be allowed to make tactical deviations from reality, and such deviations should include grossly stupid errors. The reason why your example holds no relation to my suggestion is that I'm talking about tactical methods, not purely mechanical aspect like you are.

You still don't provide a solution to representing the "quasi blind fire" which is what really happened in WW2. You recognize this as being the true nature of WW2 combat, but then you say "you don't" try and simulate it. Well, I'm sorry, but we should. I want as realistic a representation of WW2 combat and fire & maneuver as a video game can get without breaking the fun factor of why a WW2 combat representation is fun. As it is right now in RO2, it's not there, it's insta-death as you described it. How do I put my enemy's head down to allow my guys to move up to execute maneuvering?

I never said you don't simulate it. It's already simulated in bigger maps. Have you played Fallen Fighters? You see how people don't just constantly sprint across the middle (or when they do, they die in seconds), and they take potshots at anything that looks like an enemy? You see the scoreboard how it's 1/4 of what same group of people get on other maps?

The mechanics already work. We just need bigger maps. We don't need to make these silly compromises with drunk soldiers that have limp arm muscles.

 

[gentrinity]

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-.

You guys have it backwards. You think that the attackers are supposed to suppress the defenders so they can advance. This is and isn't true. You want to keep the defenders from shooting your guys, yes, but only long enough for your guys to maneuver closer. If they're hiding, they aren't shooting. If you're aiming where they're hiding, and they pop out to shoot, you shoot them. This is what real life firefights are all about. Assaulting an enemy position is all aobut trying to close with them so you can get a grenade in their hidey hole, or tear them up with an SMG. If you're afraid to close with them, you're suppressed and they're doing their job. If they're afraid to pop out of the windows, -they're- suppressed and you're doing your job. This give-take is -far- more realistic than any blurry screen or filter. Whichever side is too afraid to stick their head out in combat is effectively suppressed, and the other side needs to be using this opening to move in for the kill.

What you and everyone else clamoring for "better suppression" is basically you demanding a way to get out of being suppressed yourself by plinking bullets harmlessly off the enemy cover so their ironsights go all screwy and their screen desaturates. You want to be rewarded for bad, unrealistic tactics. Darkest Hour, and RO1 in general, was -very- unrealistic in many respects, and RO2 is a major step in the right direction for accurate realism. It's no full-on milsim, sure, but it's definitely one of the more realistic shooters on the market today.



Then you're playing wrong. Seriously. If you have to rely on twitch reflexes to win fights, you're going to lose 10/10 times to someone with better positioning, tactical movement, and battlefield awareness than you.

I main machine gunner, and when I play I drop prone well behind friendly lines and crawl on my face to my position. You know why I do this? It makes it -very- difficult for the enemy to spot me before I'm ready to engage them. I'm prone from the time I'm leaving the initial spawn to the time I start firing, and it works -brilliantly-. The enemies rarely have any idea where the gunfire is coming from, and I can gun them down at my leisure as they scramble for cover without knowing where the searing hot death is coming from. This has nothing to do with twitch and everything to do with tactics, movement, and positioning. I don't have to be faster than these guys. In fact, I'm not. In a stand-up fight, I lose to riflemen 10/10 times. That's why, as soon as they start plinking bullets off my position I make like a banana and split, usually at a full sprint. I retreat a ways, find a new hiding spot, and shoot them again as they move up. It's not about being faster or having better aim. Not even a little bit. It's knowing how to play the game.



Using the techniques I described above, I can stay alive for a full 5-6 minutes racking up a dozen kills per life and suppressing the entire enemy advance. They get like you, afraid to move up because they know that as soon as they pop out I'm going to take their block off with a burst of LMG fire. They spend more time trying to spot me (and giving away their positions in the process) than advancing on my comrades or capturing points. I don't need to screw their aim up or blur their screen to accomplish this, as that just promotes poor trigger discipline. I never fire unless I'm sure I have a killshot lined up, because every bullet potentially gives away my position. My game is all about stealth, holding the flanks while the rest of my boys seize the center. It's real, true to life squad teamwork functioning as their real life counterparts do totally unintentionally. I found myself performing these flanking maneuvers instinctively with the machine gun, and they're very successful.

After doing some reasearch on real life LMGs, I find out that I had been doing what I was -supposed- to be doing the whole time; defending my squad by putting out the same amount of firepower as 10 bolt action riflemen from a single concealed location.

I'll put together a tactics guide eventually, but it's 2am now so later.

Why would suppression only work for attackers? It works for defenders just as well. I remember sitting back in DH and if anyone tried to take a quick shot at me, I would shoot at them first to contain the threat. It worked great and gave me, the defender, a great advantage because I would be able to keep the enemy's head down. He knew that even if he tried, we was not going to get a clean shot at me, suppression works both ways, that's why I loved it. The player who knew how to use suppression tactics the best would usually win.

Yes, I recognize that your point and it is a valid one. Suppression is somewhat achieved in this game by natural means. And I would be willing to cease any push for more suppression effects if the aiming in this game wasn't so good. As I have mentioned in previous posts, I want players to have to compensate for recoil and sway themselves, not have some angel in the game engine hold your rifle steady for you. Players would then have to learn to wield their mouse like how a soldier would have to learn to wield his weapon. Until some of the weapons are corrected, suppression is a good bet for allowing me to reduce weapon accuracy. As it stands, I believe the PPSH41 recoil is very nice as it forces the player to have to tug on his mouse, but more weapons need more recoil and sway. Let the player compensate himself, as humans do in real life.

Calling my tactics "bad, unrealistic tactics" is simply absurd. Was accuracy in real life so much so that returning fire was impossible? Why is wanting to return fire "bad, unrealistic tactics"? Your logic escapes me. I have totally understood everyone's argument that your screen snapping and desaturating is not really realistic, but I say it again, it achieves a far more realistic resemblance of WW2 combat, albeit by unnatural means. There is no other way of putting that fear into players to get their heads down.

Suppression is about two things; volume and accuracy. Currently, RO2 has the accuracy part covered, albeit at an exaggerated level. But right now, as a tactic, there's no point to volume of fire. How many people have you seen lay down suppression fire? I do it because I still remember my training in Darkest Hour, but I don't need to do it. The game engine steadies my weapon sway and recoil for me so I am accurate enough where I can wait for the enemy to pop up and I can take him out easily. In Darkest Hour, I wouldn't try to aim my weapon at the enemy when he popped up, I would immediately fire so as to suppress him and walk my shots into him. This kept me relatively safe and also helped me hold my territory. WW2 combat was more about taking and holding territory than it was about killing the soldiers.

I agree with you that RO2 stock is still one of the most realistic military shooters out there. RO1 and Darkest Hour were far more realistic in my view, again, because it forced players to do what soldiers did in real life, albeit with unnatural ways. Making the player's aim sway forced the player to have to consider getting into cover and picking the right sort of cover that would make him effective. Real soldiers did that in real life. You look at the method used to achieve the effect, I say the end justifies the means.

I will conclude again with the following; you can't have it both ways. You can't have the game engine automatically assist you with recoil and sway and then expect players to behave in a realistic manner. Then you want help in some areas and in other areas you don't. I believe in either two things; the game engine forcing players to play more realistically or the game engine let things happen more naturally. No holding your rifle steady for you and no fancy suppression effects to tell you if you're doing things wrong.

Now I ask you and everyone participating in this debate to offer their input. I'm going to make a realism mod, and I want Fire & Maneuver to work, meaning if a group of soldiers lay down covering fire, the most likely effect is that the enemy will not valiantly brave bullets and get back under cover. Real soldiers wouldn't brave such a thing. I want something that the community is going to like, some of you may not like suppression, so offer me an alternative to represent suppression.

 

[gentrinity]

And to refute that, unless you can actually duplicate the above by keeping a soldier in a cold, muddy & wet trench for a few days and starve them while dropping Arty on their head for those few days..... you won't know exactly what those affects would be anymore than anybody else and would only be guessing on what affect that'd have.

The Supression system seems to produce the best effect for players to simulate this, ie: bullets wizzing by you, having your buddy killed beside you, the winter conditions, etc.



Again, how do you propose one tries to simulate this accurately without just assuming or actually taking a handfull of trained soldiers and doing the above I mentioned?

It's easier said than done.



Because trying to move your mouse down as it fires isn't anymore realistic, as you generally tense up your muscles in order to maintain control & reduce how much it flings out of control due to recoil.

If someone is pulling down on their weapon while they fire as you do with the mouse, they're going to start shooting the ground.



As I see it, it's mostly due to whatever action is taken to "Simulate" what you're seeking, is always fake and unrealistic. Every single person playing uses different mouse sensitivities, they have different response times, they have different visual accuracies due to their own vision quality..... even while I'm trying to hold my mouse steady with my hand, my actual hand is still moving slightly, thus I'm still always compensating for that in real life.... I have no interest in trying to compensate for artifical sway from a computer generated simulation that doesn't even tie into my own breathing in real life.

.... I have to leave for now, but I will try to respond to the rest of your post next chance I get.

That's where you have it wrong, sway is not artificial, the lack of sway is artificial. This game engine artificially controls the sway for you and artificially controls the recoil as well. All your arguments about how difficult it is to simulate all these things the way I want it can be applied to what is being done right now. It's a simulation as it is, it's not realistic, it's simulating you pulling the trigger for a trained marksman. I want this to simulate me pulling the trigger of my own avatar and the degree of sway and recoil will be controlled by me, the trained computer soldier.

In real life, your muscles adjust for these things, and the game engine simulates those muscles for you. I say don't do that, let the player learn to simulate those muscle contractions himself, and it can be easily done with mouse movements, since it's the closest I can get to doing so. I'm not asking for super recoil and sway, I'm asking for sway that's a little closer to RO1 and for recoil that is a little harder to manage than what it currently is. Make me have to learn to shoot my game rifle like a real soldier has to learn to shoot his. Then you will see people with true skill playing, those who stuck around long enough to learn to adjust for recoil and aim and become truly devastating and masters of their weapons.

Finally, this comment;

If someone is pulling down on their weapon while they fire as you do with the mouse, they're going to start shooting the ground.

Dude, that's totally wrong. You don't think that people already tug on their weapon down to adjust for kick? They do, they're just trained to the point where they make it look like the weapon is steady by itself. Do you really think a PPSH41 is as steady as some of the videos posted here show? Of course not! They are exerting a lot of strength to keep that SMG steady on full-auto, I would like players to have to learn the same thing. A simple tug on the mouse down will allow players to do just that, as it is in the game right now.

I look forward to your future retorts.

 

[gentrinity]

I never said RO2 was perfect, and the bullet penetration is one of the things I would love to see improve.

The original Operation Flashpoint pretty much proved that technologically we can have the first scenario since 2001, and that's what should be done if the developers and its players (AKA RO1 fans) are claiming to be having realistic gaming experience.

Yeah, it needs improvement. I don't get your second paragraph, it's not phrased properly, but I'm sure you've noticed people complaining heartily about the size of maps. I am one of those people. Not directly as I would rather avoid the rather rash tirade that has been going on, but I definitely agree with those people in that I would prefer less quality maps that are larger and let me engage at more realistic distances than what we are currently playing.

Because of the limitation of the mouse and desktop space. And holding a weapon steady is not some insanely technical art. Your example is like suggesting that in order to sprint in this game, you should breath into some detector that's making sure that you are breathing hard; it's a strawmen argument because you are trying to link my argument to an weak analogy when there is no actual correlation.

My suggestion was that players should be allowed to make tactical deviations from reality, and such deviations should include grossly stupid errors. The reason why your example holds no relation to my suggestion is that I'm talking about tactical methods, not purely mechanical aspect like you are.

You counter a strawman argument with an absurd one. "Breath into some detector that's making sure that you are breathing hard"? Please dude, were having a decent debate, don't make arguments like that. You know damn well that having to tug and maneuver your mouse a little more than what you have to do at present is a lot more feasible and no where near as absurd as you make it sound like. The PPSH41 and the AVT already achieve this effect, I believe their recoil forces the player to have to adjust manually with a slight tug down on their mouse. There is no limitation on mouse and desktop space, I'm not asking you to traverse your entire desk to adjust for sway, a few centimeters of finer mouse adjustments don't require you play on a ping pong table, or do you use a business card as a mousepad?

I never said you don't simulate it. It's already simulated in bigger maps. Have you played Fallen Fighters? You see how people don't just constantly sprint across the middle (or when they do, they die in seconds), and they take potshots at anything that looks like an enemy? You see the scoreboard how it's 1/4 of what same group of people get on other maps?

The mechanics already work. We just need bigger maps. We don't need to make these silly compromises with drunk soldiers that have limp arm muscles.

I agree that bigger maps will help substantially and I can concede that we don't need drunk soldiers. What I can't agree with is your "limp arm" argument. As I mentioned previously, the game doesn't artificially simulate recoil and sway, it artificially simulates the lack of recoil and sway. Those things exist in real life and it takes a trained marksmen to make then negligible, why do I have to have the game simulate me being a trained marksmen, why can't I develop those skills through practice and play myself? It's not hard to achieve, I did it in Darkest Hour and I did it in the original Brothers in Arms. Those first two BiA games had sway that was so grossly exaggerated that it was just ridiculous to even fathom that any army would field soldiers with Parkinson's Disease. However, over time, I learned how to adjust and eventually I got more accurate and more accurate. Instead we have a "ranking" system that does that for you. How lame is that? Even you have to admit that that is a totally lame feature.

 

[gentrinity]

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-.

You guys have it backwards. You think that the attackers are supposed to suppress the defenders so they can advance. This is and isn't true. You want to keep the defenders from shooting your guys, yes, but only long enough for your guys to maneuver closer. If they're hiding, they aren't shooting. If you're aiming where they're hiding, and they pop out to shoot, you shoot them. This is what real life firefights are all about. Assaulting an enemy position is all aobut trying to close with them so you can get a grenade in their hidey hole, or tear them up with an SMG. If you're afraid to close with them, you're suppressed and they're doing their job. If they're afraid to pop out of the windows, -they're- suppressed and you're doing your job. This give-take is -far- more realistic than any blurry screen or filter. Whichever side is too afraid to stick their head out in combat is effectively suppressed, and the other side needs to be using this opening to move in for the kill.

What you and everyone else clamoring for "better suppression" is basically you demanding a way to get out of being suppressed yourself by plinking bullets harmlessly off the enemy cover so their ironsights go all screwy and their screen desaturates. You want to be rewarded for bad, unrealistic tactics. Darkest Hour, and RO1 in general, was -very- unrealistic in many respects, and RO2 is a major step in the right direction for accurate realism. It's no full-on milsim, sure, but it's definitely one of the more realistic shooters on the market today.



Then you're playing wrong. Seriously. If you have to rely on twitch reflexes to win fights, you're going to lose 10/10 times to someone with better positioning, tactical movement, and battlefield awareness than you.

I main machine gunner, and when I play I drop prone well behind friendly lines and crawl on my face to my position. You know why I do this? It makes it -very- difficult for the enemy to spot me before I'm ready to engage them. I'm prone from the time I'm leaving the initial spawn to the time I start firing, and it works -brilliantly-. The enemies rarely have any idea where the gunfire is coming from, and I can gun them down at my leisure as they scramble for cover without knowing where the searing hot death is coming from. This has nothing to do with twitch and everything to do with tactics, movement, and positioning. I don't have to be faster than these guys. In fact, I'm not. In a stand-up fight, I lose to riflemen 10/10 times. That's why, as soon as they start plinking bullets off my position I make like a banana and split, usually at a full sprint. I retreat a ways, find a new hiding spot, and shoot them again as they move up. It's not about being faster or having better aim. Not even a little bit. It's knowing how to play the game.



Using the techniques I described above, I can stay alive for a full 5-6 minutes racking up a dozen kills per life and suppressing the entire enemy advance. They get like you, afraid to move up because they know that as soon as they pop out I'm going to take their block off with a burst of LMG fire. They spend more time trying to spot me (and giving away their positions in the process) than advancing on my comrades or capturing points. I don't need to screw their aim up or blur their screen to accomplish this, as that just promotes poor trigger discipline. I never fire unless I'm sure I have a killshot lined up, because every bullet potentially gives away my position. My game is all about stealth, holding the flanks while the rest of my boys seize the center. It's real, true to life squad teamwork functioning as their real life counterparts do totally unintentionally. I found myself performing these flanking maneuvers instinctively with the machine gun, and they're very successful.

After doing some reasearch on real life LMGs, I find out that I had been doing what I was -supposed- to be doing the whole time; defending my squad by putting out the same amount of firepower as 10 bolt action riflemen from a single concealed location.

I'll put together a tactics guide eventually, but it's 2am now so later.

My previous post was getting lengthy so I'll post this here.

I have seen your arguments about the zoom feature in this game. You make a convincing argument because you prove that the end justifies the means. The human eye does not zoom in in real life, but it does focus itself to see more clearly. The zoom fakes it.

Think about your argument because that is exactly what I'm proposing, I'm proposing achieving something that occurred in real life, albeit with unnatural methods. I'm talking about overcoming a technical or gameplay limitation to computer gaming, whether it's the screen's lack of peripheral vision or the lack of fear and unnatural reactions by players in a virtual world.

Volume of fire was just as important as accuracy of fire, because soldiers knew damn well that rifle fire was not that accurate where they could never return fire, they were more scared of lots of bullets flying their way and one possibly having their name on it. That is why Lieutenant Winters yells "I want fire superiority" during the battle outside of Carentan and not "I want accurate, deadly fire". He wanted volume of fire that was superior to his enemies because he knew that that would help win the firefight, not killing the enemies with super accurate controlled aimed shots. The distance of these engagements were much greater, but it still shows that volume of fire is important. As it is right now, it's not represented in this game. Suppression effects can help simulate that.

 

[Gaizokubanou]

I don't get your second paragraph, it's not phrased properly,

First scenario = larger maps, realistic gun accuracy and power.

Operation Flashpoint = ARMA's predecessor that was released in 2001.

Hence me saying that first scenario was proven to be possible since 2001. Keep the gun accuracy and power at current level (with tweaks to penetration of course), make larger maps. Then you will see the types of gunfights you thought about without any silly compromises like the "suppression" drunken-ness.

You counter a strawman argument with an absurd one. "Breath into some detector that's making sure that you are breathing hard"? Please dude, were having a decent debate, don't make arguments like that. You know damn well that having to tug and maneuver your mouse a little more than what you have to do at present is a lot more feasible and no where near as absurd as you make it sound like. The PPSH41 and the AVT already achieve this effect, I believe their recoil forces the player to have to adjust manually with a slight tug down on their mouse. There is no limitation on mouse and desktop space, I'm not asking you to traverse your entire desk to adjust for sway, a few centimeters of finer mouse adjustments don't require you play on a ping pong table, or do you use a business card as a mousepad?

Maybe I went too far, but your words are whole lot stronger than what you are saying now. Let's look at what you said.

If you were to hold a rifle in real life and fire it without restraining or bracing for the eventual recoil, it would fly up wildly. Why can't we simulate that and force to player to share in some of that adjustment?

Do you know how little extra strain is put on an average adult to fire a gun and control the recoil so that it doesn't fly up wildly? Even Grandmother in a wheelchair can keep it from flying up wildly.

Old woman shoots MP40 Machine gun - YouTube

10 years old shooting.

10 year old shooting an AR15 - YouTube

And I remember you mentioning RO1 a lot, and in this video you will see why I found your "fly up wildly" comment to be extreme because in that game PPSH shoots like it's a 50 caliber gun.

RO:OST 41-45 "alc. Teas0r" by MG-M - YouTube

Look at how much the freaking screen shakes from recoil pushing the view up and the player using the mouse to push the view down.

Oh wait, just look at that gameplay. That video explains my whole viewpoint better than anything I said.

 

[gentrinity]

Do you know how little extra strain is put on an average adult to fire a gun and control the recoil so that it doesn't fly up wildly? Even Grandmother in a wheelchair can keep it from flying up wildly.

10 years old shooting.

Ok, now imagine looking down the sights of those weapons as the kid and the lady try to hold them steady. From the 3rd person pespective you're looking at, it looks like the weapon is rather stable, but if you were to look through your iron sights, you would see some wild kick.

And yes, that is totally what we should simulate, what's wrong with a human player trying to adjust his aim and recoil? Why do you want to make the game easier for you to kill people. I want the opposite, I want the challenge, I want the game to make me have to practice and learn how to properly wield my weapon to take virtual lives. I'm not suggesting sway like RO1, it can be toned down, but it must be present when fatigued and when not resting the weapon. As it is right now, there's hardly any penalty for sprinting for 2 minutes and then shooting from a standing position. Same goes for not resting your weapon. Also needs more recoil. I don't want insta-correcting recoil, I want to feel like I need to control my weapon with my mouse, so I can feel more inmersed. The current PPSH41 recoil is fine, other weapons can stand to have a bit more. Darkest Hour overdid it a bit, but you know, I remember having the most fun in Darkest Hour, because I remember how hard it was to kill someone and it felt really rewarding when I did.

And I remember you mentioning RO1 a lot, and in this video you will see why I found your "fly up wildly" comment to be extreme because in that game PPSH shoots like it's a 50 caliber gun.


Look at how much the freaking screen shakes from recoil pushing the view up and the player using the mouse to push the view down.

Oh wait, just look at that gameplay. That video explains my whole viewpoint better than anything I said.

Its a rather long video, can you point to the specific sequence you're referring to? I still believe that RO1 and DH overdid it when it came to sway and recoil, but I prefer to have more than less if I can't have the right balance. Again, I want to earn my kills and progress as a gaming soldier, not have the computer dumb the game down for me and auto-turn me into a veteran marksman.

 

[Gaizokubanou]

Ok, now imagine looking down the sights of those weapons as the kid and the lady try to hold them steady. From the 3rd person pespective you're looking at, it looks like the weapon is rather stable, but if you were to look through your iron sights, you would see some wild kick.

And yes, that is totally what we should simulate, what's wrong with a human player trying to adjust his aim and recoil?

Nothing wrong with that but mouse is a pretty lackluster device to do it completely. And look, it's a 10 years old holding a gun fairly steady. The point wasn't that there was no visible recoil, it's that the gun is not kicking up through the air even in the hands of a 10 years old child. Decent recoil compensation on smallarms is not really a huge deal. In RO1 the submachine gun, especially PPSH41, would literally go through the air.

Its a rather long video, can you point to the specific sequence you're referring to? I still believe that RO1 and DH overdid it when it came to sway and recoil, but I prefer to have more than less if I can't have the right balance. Again, I want to earn my kills and progress as a gaming soldier, not have the computer dumb the game down for me and auto-turn me into a veteran marksman.

Very early in the video where he runs down a hall and guns down 2 germans with PPSH. Also right around 1:50, you will see that he guns down some guy and during full auto he had to compensate for the recoil so much that after he killed the enemy he even shot at the floor like 1 meter away from the body due to overcompensation.

There was a better video where the player just held the fire button down without moving his mouse to compensate, and after like 10th round the guy was basically facing the sky I can't find that video though and that's the video that got me confused about people claiming that RO1's recoil was very well done.

 

[Rrralphster]

Ok, now imagine looking down the sights of those weapons as the kid and the lady try to hold them steady. From the 3rd person pespective you're looking at, it looks like the weapon is rather stable, but if you were to look through your iron sights, you would see some wild kick.

-stuff-

As long as I don't see video's of a camera looking down the sight, I think I will put my money on the 3rd person video's for a while.

I can imagine though, but so can you.


People want historical accuracy (longer ranges, more recoil... all kinds of "unrealistic" stuff for either "Stalingrad operations" or historical accuracy in general) in the wrong places.

I hear people say "too many SMG's/semi-auto's" and "no realistic firefights" and "too many grenades" and "Russians were poorly trained kids" and "supplies were short" and "semi-automatic rifles are too accurate"
All crap, all bull****.

 

[Rrralphster]

Nice and shiney example of some supported shooting and some standing unsupported shooting.

You be the judge.

Blonde Girl Out Shoots Guy (.243 Rifle) - YouTube


This guy hits a human sized target at 200 yards/meters pretty consistantly.

M1 Carbine at 200 Yards (UNPLANNED VIDEO - LOL) - YouTube


P90, one handed (looks like it is easier to control on full-auto than single-shot (1 handed))

P90 One Hand Shooting - YouTube