CoD sniper quick-scoping in RO2 ;P

[Luckless]

"way to accurate after moving."

What's with this assumption? I see it all over the boards and it doesn't make any sense... are people supposed to be a jittery mess after a 30 yard sprint or something?

It's not that hard to aim after you've run a bit...

Personally I would like to see weapon mass be a larger factor. It is harder to make an accurate shot right after moving, and I don't feel the game accurately portrays the whole issue of bringing a weapon to bare before you're fully settled in place.

Basically, if you've been moving quickly, then a long weapon like a rifle should be 'heavy', and carry some momentum. Basically if you were just moving there should be some weapon sway, ideally based on the direction of travel the weapon had while being raised.

So if I've just sprinted to a corner of a building and raised my weapon the second I got there, then my point of aim should trend upward from where the 'mouse' is aiming, and then take a second or so before it steadies and catches up with the mouse.


Same as when you turn around. Move too quickly, and the point of aim of the weapon should strongly detach from the mouse point of aim, lagging behind as you move turn quickly, over shooting the mouse point when you stop, and then coming back to lock with the pointer after you've settled for a bit and stopped moving around quickly.

This effect doesn't seem to be that strong in the game, or at least not strong enough for me to have really noticed.

Now, it really shouldn't impact shooting the guy standing 10 feet in front of me. Because that is an easy, and fairly instinctive shot. Where it comes into play is trying to make a shot 50m or more away. Being off by just a small bit can be the difference between hitting the target and missing after all.

 

[bazookatooth]

you don't even need to scope in those situations..you just pull the trigger..it was like that in RO1 with the basic rifle..it was never difficult to hip shoot

 

[Rossi]

Personally I would like to see weapon mass be a larger factor. It is harder to make an accurate shot right after moving, and I don't feel the game accurately portrays the whole issue of bringing a weapon to bare before you're fully settled in place.

Basically, if you've been moving quickly, then a long weapon like a rifle should be 'heavy', and carry some momentum. Basically if you were just moving there should be some weapon sway, ideally based on the direction of travel the weapon had while being raised.

So if I've just sprinted to a corner of a building and raised my weapon the second I got there, then my point of aim should trend upward from where the 'mouse' is aiming, and then take a second or so before it steadies and catches up with the mouse.


Same as when you turn around. Move too quickly, and the point of aim of the weapon should strongly detach from the mouse point of aim, lagging behind as you move turn quickly, over shooting the mouse point when you stop, and then coming back to lock with the pointer after you've settled for a bit and stopped moving around quickly.

This effect doesn't seem to be that strong in the game, or at least not strong enough for me to have really noticed.

Now, it really shouldn't impact shooting the guy standing 10 feet in front of me. Because that is an easy, and fairly instinctive shot. Where it comes into play is trying to make a shot 50m or more away. Being off by just a small bit can be the difference between hitting the target and missing after all.

I see what you're saying, but to be fair, it's not fun is it? Lets get a grip, it's nice to have an authentic feel to the game but there is such a thing as going too far. The game is fairly fast paced, being encumbered by attempted simulation of every type of body movement is more leaning toward ARMA, and in a game like this we can't afford that as it will just kill the gameplay.

 

[mestido]

I don't see what the problem is.

This, whats the problem? Looks totally fine to me.

 

[Luckless]

I see what you're saying, but to be fair, it's not fun is it? Lets get a grip, it's nice to have an authentic feel to the game but there is such a thing as going too far. The game is fairly fast paced, being encumbered by attempted simulation of every type of body movement is more leaning toward ARMA, and in a game like this we can't afford that as it will just kill the gameplay.

Really? Why would it 'just kill the gameplay'?

So you have to think before you move, and think about where you are, or where you will go, and how other people can interact with your location.

All it really does it kill off the gameplay of "I'll just run out there,..." Which I think is a very small price to pay for more interesting combat.

My suggestion wasn't to make it so you can't move, or can't hit anything while on the move, but to make it harder to consistently hit while or immediately after moving. And things like SMGs? They wouldn't be effected nearly as much, as they would be in real life. And you would still keep your close in fighting, so CQB doesn't really change.

The only real difference is the longer the range, the harder it is to make the shots right after moving quickly.

 

[NoxNoctum]

this just looks like the normal sniping of someone with reasonable reflexes and mouse control - or am i missing something?

+1

I dont see the issue.

 

[KingLol]

The reason he's using this quickscope method is because bringing up ironsights re-centers your gun in the middle of the freeaim area and that means his shot will hit dead center of the screen every time.

 

[BigG]

I really think that this dude is just good at sniping, so it just looks OP.

 

[Krator]

It didn't look "OP" at all. Actually any semi-decent RO gamer with RO style aiming system would hip-shoot him with a rifle or SMG at that distance. The problem is, it did look just gamey, stupid, counter-strike-like, totally unrealistic. I know this game isn't a sim, but it's not another CoD either. It is supposed to be unique, maybe even not "realism" centered, but it tries to LOOK realistic. I have nothing against being good with weapons. I have nothing against great gamers. But I have everything against gamey methods, which are encouraged by flawed game mechanics. Pistol-switch sniper rifle reload in Counter Strike anyone? Was it stupid? Do you want RO:HOS to be like that, with all those immersion-killing idiotic tactics? I don't. In RO even the best gamers would use hip-shooting technique is such situation. Now it seems that "quickscoping" is more reliable and accurate method. Which is, from real life perspective, complete BS

 

[SockMonkeh]

The reason he's using this quickscope method is because bringing up ironsights re-centers your gun in the middle of the freeaim area and that means his shot will hit dead center of the screen every time.

This is not the case in RO2. Iron sites have the same free-aim system applied.

 

[Rumpullpus]

i dont get it.... wheres the abuse? sure he didnt use his ironsights but still, i dont see it.

 

[CPN]

The only reason anyone would complain about this is because there's a scope attached to that rifle.

 

[teemu92]

This is not a issue, all fine.

 

[Unorthadox]

Like all the other posts, I don't see the issue. Hell, the guy missed his first shots against most of the close enemies anyway.

I would have just rifle-budded them in the back of the head and moved on.

 

[Paas]

Personally I would like to see weapon mass be a larger factor. It is harder to make an accurate shot right after moving, and I don't feel the game accurately portrays the whole issue of bringing a weapon to bare before you're fully settled in place.

Basically, if you've been moving quickly, then a long weapon like a rifle should be 'heavy', and carry some momentum. Basically if you were just moving there should be some weapon sway, ideally based on the direction of travel the weapon had while being raised.

So if I've just sprinted to a corner of a building and raised my weapon the second I got there, then my point of aim should trend upward from where the 'mouse' is aiming, and then take a second or so before it steadies and catches up with the mouse.


Same as when you turn around. Move too quickly, and the point of aim of the weapon should strongly detach from the mouse point of aim, lagging behind as you move turn quickly, over shooting the mouse point when you stop, and then coming back to lock with the pointer after you've settled for a bit and stopped moving around quickly.

This effect doesn't seem to be that strong in the game, or at least not strong enough for me to have really noticed.

Now, it really shouldn't impact shooting the guy standing 10 feet in front of me. Because that is an easy, and fairly instinctive shot. Where it comes into play is trying to make a shot 50m or more away. Being off by just a small bit can be the difference between hitting the target and missing after all.

I like where you're going with this. Fact of the matter is though, the weapons in game simply aren't as heavy as you think they are. The K98 for instance weighs slightly more than an M16a4 which I (a 68'', 175lbs man) can swing around easily. Almost every female in my current Battalion can handle the 8lbs (loaded) rifle with ease.

The weights of the weapons only get lower as you move through the sidearms and the sub machine guns. The scoped versions of the rifles have a few tenths of a kilogram difference in weight compared to their iron sighted brethren.

Now the machine guns tip the scale averaging around 25lbs. That's all rear weight though, which wouldn't really have an affect on the speed you can pivot the barrel on the receiver's axis. Especially holding the bi-pod for stability.

The point I am trying to make here is you pretty much already have a realistic representation of what you're asking for. I could say maybe the exhausted weapon movement being upped slightly to represent the act of sporadic breathing while sighting. Other than that though, any changes made in this direction would be simply to up the difficulty of play for all parties. It does nothing to increase realism, it only detracts from it.

Oh, and FYI. As a trained serviceman I can hit a target at 100m while walking, with iron sights (I don't think I can miss with an RCO). It's not difficult at all. Harder than standing supported? Yes. Hard? No.

-Paas

 

[Hells High]

Guys, do you even know what quick scoping is?

In games where quick scoping is prevalent, weapons use a "cone of fire" to simulate accuracy and bullet spread. This cone of fire is MASSIVE for unscoped snipers in games like Call of Duty. Since most snipers are one hit kill in those games, players found a way to get around the accuracy penalties: quick scoping.

This is NOT AN ISSUE in games like RO where bullets go pretty much wherever you point your weapon and generally kill with one hit. The exact same thing can be done with your unscoped Mosin or Kar...

 

[El_Ejcovero]

Im looking at that video, that is not quick-scoping, that is normal sniping, this is quick-scoping:
Circca | MW2 Quick Scope Montage #3 , Sniper Montage - YouTube

 

[bezzi]

Normal sniping and close up shots were easy because players not firing back, try that against good smg/ppsh user Also pistols are very good in this game and better to use them.

 

[babokitty]

As long as guys like 0hmwrecker can play SMG COD style (not dissing wrecker, it's a compliment), this kind of playstyle for rifles is a *MUST* in order to be competitive.

TWI, please don't remove it by introducing any sort of sway or delay.

 

[Reise]

I would have a problem with it if it was more effective than either simply hipshooting someone or using any other unscoped rifle in close range.

Taking time to aim with the scope isn't really an advantage or disadvantage at that distance if you're comfortable doing it.