Classic: weapon accuracy, hitzones etc.

[Kleist]

So today I have see it how bad some hotzones are. I hit a player in his foot and I kill him.

2 hits with the Mosin Rifle in his foot and he is dead... That have to be changed. Wounded and immobile for some seconds, okay (for gameplay) but not dead.

 

[JosephBaier]

You get 2 7,62 mm bullets through your foot, do you think you could run/walk or fight after that? Since we have no medic and this is a tac shooter not a mil sim, you die. Normaly you would be alive but pretty much out of combat, waiting a few weeks in a hospital/reha center before you could enter the battlefield again. Even ArmA is not realistic in that aspect ala 5sec bandage=100% healed as if nothing happened.

I don't get why some people always want to drive this niche (I never saw a tac FPS shooter franchise before) game into the die-hard mil-sim world of ArmA.

 

[=GG= Mr Moe]

Two things.

In game death can actually be death or combat ineffective.

Also, just because you have shot someone and it appears they die, doesn't mean they weren't already wounded previously.

 

[Kleist]

It

 

[DAT]

Would just like to add for realistic gameplay sakes. If you were hit even just a simple flesh wound you would be combat ineffective. You would be more focused taking care of your fresh new wound. There are exceptions of course but humans being humans one hit and you are out of the game... till the next spawn of course

 

[Kleist]

Or your are wounded at your legs = disadvantages for running, wounded arm = disadvantages for aiming. To fix that you need to bandage yourself.

 

[lazerBAR]

Or your are wounded at your legs = disadvantages for running, wounded arm = disadvantages for aiming. To fix that you need to bandage yourself.

I've had the same idea for quite some time as well! However I think bandaging shouldnt fix the disadvantages you stated, it might seem very gamey to people if they are hit in the arm and can fix it(bandage) and go back to normal like they werent wounded. Bandaging should just stay as it is, for stopping bleeding(much more realistic this way).

 

[Proud_God]

Care must be taken with permanent injuries, as it creates an incentive to suicide.

 

[JosephBaier]

Care must be taken with permanent injuries, as it creates an incentive to suicide.

Indeed.
I would rather die and respawn after 1-25s than crawling around on maps like bridges/.. with a wounded arm that makes it impossible to hit anything..

Keep in mind: tac shooter, not mil sim. We don't have 30min no respawn operations on huge maps with ACRE and all that stuff Its a shooter that has it's focus on tactic/teamwork/as-far-as-shooter-can-go realism. Not a simulation how it would really be.

 

[SQBsam]

Yesterday we played RO1 clanwar and it was obvioius that the weapons were much harder to handle when not deployed.
You didn't see people shooting from the stand in RO1 very often due to this. And so I think the weapon accuracy is in RO2 even in Classic mode still too high.

I think weapon accuracy (one way or another) needs to be drastically decreased. Currently fire and manoeuvre doesn't work because you can just pop out and shoot your opponent in the head at 300m, easy peasy. That's just superhuman, sure someone could shoot a head sized target at 300m but they would aim completely differently, they would let their arms sway (holding a rifle rock solidly causes shaking) a little and fire when it all lines up. This only happens a little in RO2.

Some games decrease accuracy using obviously artificial methods like cone of fire (BF is probably the most famous example of this), it increases the amount of movement you can do but is frustrating because there's no indication of this cone of fire, it just bends a perfectly good shot into a bad one.

RO Ost did it with huge sway and NO zoom, meaning a lot of pixel hunting but it also meant you wouldn't get hit at range. I ran into situations where me and an enemy spotted eachother at only 50 or 100m range but knew that if they tried to bring up their ironsights and got a shot off the other would already have run to cover, so we just ran by eachother. In Ro2 you just snap up the sights and go for the head, blegh.

Sight misalignment is a good way to indicate cone of fire (they're just two sides of the same thing really), and far less frustrating, but the player should be somewhat able to counteract it, so that there's a high skill cap and you can learn to use the gun better (by no means should improving rank make this misalignment go away, you should be getting better as a player not as a character). This, combined with slight jitter in some circumstances (holding breath for more than a few seconds should introduce a little jitter, and releasing your breath should cause quite a large sway, and possibly when completely out of stamina) and quite a bit more sway would allow highly skilled players to retain their accuracy, but force them to take a bit more time to aim a shot or risk being inaccurate.

All in all, I'd love a system that does not rely on luck, but may seem like it to a newcomer, a system that forces aiming to take time, to be hard, and to require a lot of skill to do. I understand that's a huge challenge to create but this is a shooter, and good shooting should be the emphasis.

 

[Proud_God]

...

I wholeheartedly agree with the above.

 

[Westernesse]

I think weapon accuracy (one way or another) needs to be drastically decreased. Currently fire and manoeuvre doesn't work because you can just pop out and shoot your opponent in the head at 300m, easy peasy. That's just superhuman, sure someone could shoot a head sized target at 300m but they would aim completely differently, they would let their arms sway (holding a rifle rock solidly causes shaking) a little and fire when it all lines up. This only happens a little in RO2.

Depends if were talking rifles your partially correct although LMGs are marksmen were regularly engaging and killing at those ranges. 300m is on the lower end for them. Your pretty much right if this was a WW1 game, but WW2 for the germans at least rounds were optimized for 500m or less combat.

Another big thing is whether your target is aware he is a target. Sniping someone who is stationary crouched behind cover with an exposed head at 300m is a lot easier than sniping someone in a dead sprint who is aware that he is being shot at/likely to be shot at because he can duck, weave or swerve and your accurate shot if he didn't move might miss him entirely because he did. Here look at this:

The idea of intermediate rounds (optimized for 500m or less) is usually portrayed as a German wartime concept. In actuality the contract for developement of the 7.92x33mm round was placed in 1934 and it was apparent during the First World War that shots at more than 400yds were very rare. The usual explanation you'll see for a 500m range being selected is that in most of the world visibility and terrain prevents shooting at greater ranges. Since MGs and snipers routinely shoot at greater ranges this accepted and often repeated explanation is obviously wrong!

By 1942 the German army was very familiar with alpine and desert fighting and it is very “un-Germanic” that these experiances would not have been figured into development of the intermediate rounds.

My theory is this.
It is Tactical Accuracy not visibility that is the limiting factor.
A 7.92mm or lesser bullet takes around a second to reach 600m. In that time an AWARE target can sprint 5-9m :- you don't know which direction he will take and he'll often be darting between cover. Your chance of hitting him with a single aimed shot is virtually random.
I think most shooting was less than 500m because most German riflemen knew there was little point shooting beyond this unless the foe didn't know you were there or you could fill an area of about 10m with bullets.

Quote comes from here. There is also 2 interesting charts there, one about LMG engagement range and one about expected rifle engagement range from actual combat data from whats likely WW2, Korea and Vietnam. That does make it seem like one thing RO2 does wrong is that we have a lot more than 30% of our fights inside of 100m and a lot more than 72% of our fights are inside of 200m from my experience as a RO2 rifleman, although RO1 didn't exactly meet that either.

 

[SQBsam]

300m is on the lower end for them. Your pretty much right if this was a WW1 game, but WW2 for the germans at least rounds were optimized for 500m or less combat.

Oh I completely agree with you, 300m isn't that far for somebody who is a reasonably good shot. But in this game shooting at that range is simply point and click, there's no sway (ok, almost no sway, you can get rid of it by pressing a button) so you just point and click, it takes a millisecond, I doubt those riflemen could dive to the ground and get a headshot at 300m within a second, in Ro2 that's incredibly easy. What I'm saying is, make people who are experienced in the game be good at shooting, make those who are new to the game be poor shots (unless they can pick it up instinctively), and make this all a non-artificial thing, make it something you, as a person, learn. If done right there will be marksmen in the community, people who get the way the sway works, the way sights work, these people will be capable of shots at long range surprisingly quickly (although perhaps not as quick as in current RO2). Currently RO2 has poor focus and long term playability because it's famous for small scale tactics and shooting, but shooting is now point and click and because of that you can't move from cover to cover.

 

[Kleist]

I have the same opinion. Shooting (and hitting) is simply to easy. People need to use cover/support (walls, sandbags, etc.) for a better aim and less sway. So the cover system in RO2 would have a sense. Right now the cover system isn

 

[Cwivey]

I'd love to see video proof of SQBsam diving to prone and getting a 300 metre head shot within a second. Otherwise, I'm calling bull**** and hating the over use of exaggeration from him to make a point about his personal preference. :<



Overall, killing shots in Classic are more common and I'm okay with that tbh. Someone should make a comparison video of aiming with and without Stamina, rested and un-rested before changes are made.

Well, getting hit in the legs and feet already make the characters walk slowly, just gotta get some arm hit effects in. For that matter, getting hit anywhere should knock the player out of iron-sights and shunt their aim off target somewhat. (I'd like that for bothh modes. :> )

 

[LugNut]

That does make it seem like one thing RO2 does wrong is that we have a lot more than 30% of our fights inside of 100m and a lot more than 72% of our fights are inside of 200m

It's this. It's pretty hard to get a 300m kill in RO2, not so much because it's hard to hit the target, it's because there just aren't many places where you have both line of sight and visibility because of haze/fog. We're really fighting at short range, it just feels like more because of the FOV limitations.

The only game I've played that allows more realistic ranges is ARMA and even with modern weaponry, with optics, it changes both when to choose to pull the trigger and your expectations. Since it's an open environment (= no known spawn direction) you value your invisibility and only open fire when you are either assured of a kill/overwhelming the enemy, or suppressing them enough to move to a more advantageous position. You can capture a point just by demonstrating overwhelming force, not by wiping them out, because of the long spawn and travel times, they'll retreat first if they're smart. This can't happen in RO2, you have to kill an enemy to take the ground on which they stand because the maps are so small and linear. Make the maps larger and possible engagement distances +500m and you'd see more people firing solely as suppression as their teammates maneuver.

And the current accuracy of the weapons would make sense.

 

[Westernesse]

It's this. It's pretty hard to get a 300m kill in RO2, not so much because it's hard to hit the target, it's because there just aren't many places where you have both line of sight and visibility because of haze/fog. We're really fighting at short range, it just feels like more because of the FOV limitations.

Its also because of monitors and pixel limitations making it hard to identify and hit foes at ranges of 300m or greater without optics. I TK a lot more at 300m+ range shots without optics than I do at the closer ranges, because I assume someone is an enemy and sometimes my teammate will do an epic wide and long flank and I tk them.

Rifleman shouldn't be fighting a lot at 300m+ as shown by this chart, I linked to early, which takes data from multiple wars including WW2. I actually feel this chart is fairly accurately reflected by TE-Bridges of D. where as a marksmen or LMG most of my kills are from 250m+ while as a rifleman I usually kill in the 100m-200m range, but sometimes while getting close enough to a cap to kill inside of 100m. Then the urban fighting is a lot of CQC.

 

[Kleist]

I have remove my IS-zoom from the game now.

thx to Fisher
http://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/showthread.php?t=89695


Maybe I could find some player with honor for some testgames

 

[GnaM]

Care must be taken with permanent injuries, as it creates an incentive to suicide.

I think if we're going to have an injury system, we may as well embrace the possibility of suiciding as a game mechanic rather than fear the inevitable. In real combat, many incapacitations are simply a matter of the victim giving up due to the pain/fear being too great. If the suicide animations did a better job of depicting this, it'd improve the believability of the game, rather than hurting it.

Imagine a player gets shot in the leg while wandering in no-mans land. After spending several minutes attempting to limp to his objective and getting nowhere, he gives up and enters the suicide command. Rather than spontaneously exploding like a UT character, he could slump over into a fetal position clutching his legs, slowly passing out from shock.

These avatars could even assume an AI behavior, laying in the dirt moaning intermittently as if they are still alive, but incapacitated. When a player "suicides" without any injuries, his avatar could become a "shell shocked" AI, huddling or crawling about in their trench crying or yelling unintelligibly.

Of course "incapacitated AI" would have to take damage and potentially die if caught in crossfire, or deliberately targeted by an enemy or teammate. I'm not sure how you'd want to handle scoring - should killing an incapacitated/shellshocked teammate subtract points, or should avatars be removed from the scoring system as soon as their player suicides? I don't think killing an enemy who's already incapacitated should give you extra points as if you are killing a living player, but if killing incapacitated teammates didn't carry some score weight, everyone would just shoot the shellshocked friendly AI for fun - rather than only if they became a hazard.

As long as suiciding players lose a ticket and wait to respawn, I don't see how it harms gameplay, and the animations could provide a nice touch of immersion if done properly.

 

[r5cya]

I'd love to see video proof of SQBsam diving to prone and getting a 300 metre head shot within a second. Otherwise, I'm calling bull**** and hating the over use of exaggeration from him to make a point about his personal preference. :<

i'm with you on that. i'll glady eneter a nice empty server with him and let him try and prove what he says. he doesn't even have to dive to prone. i'll expose my head at 300 meters and lets see how well he can hit it. how much you bet he brings the sniper rifle?
what do ya say, sam? you up for showing us all how easy it really is?