Guns Are Way Too Accurate

  • 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/

Al_Ka_Pwn

FNG / Fresh Meat
Sep 5, 2011
40
53
0
As it stands the guns in this game are all basically like laser rifles fired by robots in their extreme accuracy and quite frankly it's a little ridiculous. This basically negates the entire machine gun class since every gun is so accurate that if you stop moving to set up and provide covering fire or suppression your head will instantly be popped by any weapon from a distance of 200 yards.

Ideally how the game should work is rifles should sway since they're relatively heavy guns. The most sway happening if a person fires standing straight up with a stamina bar that is not full, or firing while suppressed, the second most sway coming from firing while crouched, and no sway from firing when in cover or prone.

and the SMG should have very little penetration and a good deal of bullet spread so that so that it doesn't act like a heavy machine gun in its killing power.

In b4:

"This is a game, it should be fun, I just want to kill stuff lol"

From a fun factor and game design stand point the game would be more fun with the guns being more inaccurate actually. It would put a bigger emphasis on exchanges of fire, suppression and flanking. all of these requiring team work.

A game that combines the arcadey aim of Call of Duty with the instant hit and die realism of arma is combining the worst aspect of both games and making a terrible experience where people will die all the time with little recourse in a game where death is heavily punished. Also due to the accuracy of all the guns it basically invalidates the entire supression mechanic as firefights are over so quickly that it doesn't even come into play and it basically pigeon holes the machine gun class into running around using the machine gun like an SMG to clear buildings as standing still long enough to even set up is a death sentence.

In b4: "Making the guns more inaccurate will just give the defenders an advantage and everyone will camp all day you stupid noob"

If the suppression system actually did something more than just turning your screen gray, suppressing defenders would actually be the answer to the defender's advantage. If suppression caused weapon sway and perhaps even vision blur it would put the combat emphasis on suppression and teamwork. But as it is suppression just makes popping people's heads a little more monochrome instead of doing anything useful.


In b4:

"I'm an arm chair general/gun nut and all of this is realistic. I can shoot the dick off a fly from 200 yards with every weapon"

No the weapons being able to hit things so accurately is not realistic. The guns maybe that accurate when fired by a robot, or under the very best of conditions, but in practice it is actually very difficult to hit and kill a moving human target, as evidenced by the fact that it takes 250,000 bullets to kill an insurgent even with today's modern weapons.

Source [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...se-250000-for-every-rebel-killed-508299.html]

In world war 2 there were firefights, exchanges of fire, battles lasted for hours with only hundreds of men. The fact is people are not that accurate with weapons in battlefield conditions.

So please make the guns more inaccurate so that we can have a bigger focus on tactics and not twitch. Make suppression actually useful, and make it so that playing the machine gun class is viable, and not just another type of SMG class.
 

Maizel

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jan 21, 2011
973
372
0
Whatever the realism factor is.

I do agree. But imo, it also has to do with sway, and overall lack of impact of Stamina.

Some people like it, I respect that. But pretty much every shot I take is a kill, no matter if I just stopped sprinting a second ago or whether I just brought up my ironsights. It doesn't require any sort of skill anymore.
 

Hesgad

FNG / Fresh Meat
Aug 6, 2011
446
130
0
Germany
but making another 300 posts about it wont change nything im pretty sure they are aware of it at that moment and while I agree wih sway/breathing related to your stamina I dont agree with sway while rested at all for realism reasons
 
  • Like
Reactions: EvilAmericanMan

Mangley

FNG / Fresh Meat
Aug 7, 2011
244
105
0
In WWII firearms were nothing new. Mass-produced firearms had over 130 years of refinement before WWII came around. All firearms are designed and engineered to be as accurate as possible whilst also being managable to handle whilst firing.

Saying the guns are too accurate for WWII is like saying that cars of today drive too smoothly. Welcome to realism, do you have a problem with it? Unrealistic shooters employ recoil inaccuracy as balancing mechanics against damage and rate of fire. These are woefully unrealistic representations of weapon accuracy.

As for penetration of SMG's? Walls in buildings are split into two types supporting/structural and non-supporting/dividing. Dividing walls of the era were basically just plasterboard over a wooden frame and some filling/insulation like asbestos or often no filling at all in many cases. It was cheap and fast to construct. Walls like this are easily penetrated by low caliber rounds like 9mm.
 
Last edited:

Demonic Spoon

FNG / Fresh Meat
Sep 29, 2006
167
19
0
and the SMG should have very little penetration and a good deal of bullet spread so that so that it doesn't act like a heavy machine gun in its killing power.

They already do...except bullet spread. What they have is recoil. I mean, SMGs aren't going to be that accurate out to 500m or anything, but close up bullets aren't going to magically curve in the air.

Bullet spread in that sense will never exist in RO2.




The only problem is standing weapon sway. That should be increased, by a lot. Otherwise, it's fine.
 

SolitarioSoldat

FNG / Fresh Meat
Oct 28, 2010
1,177
503
0
USA,Tampa,Florida
Sway is the key word that needs to be pumped up a little,things such as lean position should increase sway,after ruuning,being surpressed etc etc.

then we will see more tactical gameplay and not run and gun,game is still tactical but I think it needs the above mentioned to be implemented for more challenging shooting and tactics of knowing the maps etc etc etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LeopoldStotch

HLudwig

FNG / Fresh Meat
Sep 3, 2011
227
212
0
I have to agree with OP. I was playing on the Grain Elevator map and was sniping Soviets that so happened to peak outside of a window on any floor. I was of course outside right out of spawn doing this. There was zero bullet drop. These shots had to be a good 200 meters
 

Coreldan

FNG / Fresh Meat
Sep 1, 2011
141
8
0
Whatever the realism factor is.

I do agree. But imo, it also has to do with sway, and overall lack of impact of Stamina.

Some people like it, I respect that. But pretty much every shot I take is a kill, no matter if I just stopped sprinting a second ago or whether I just brought up my ironsights. It doesn't require any sort of skill anymore.

Sway hardly added any actual skill to the game, just RNG. There is no skill in trying to predict which way will your crosshair randomly sway to this time around.

I understand arguments wanting more sway, but I think it's quite a bit off to imply lack of sway is why shooting requires no skill.

But yeah, I'd still like sway to scale with amount of stamina and/or certain period of time after sprinting you would have increased sway.
 

Qweets

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jul 13, 2007
443
221
0
Ugh all these noobs who think difficulty=realism, it doesn't these guns were very accurate. Any sway or mis-aiming was due to breathing and nerves, thats why they modeled a breathing system, with the latest patch if you sprint a long time and are low on stamina your gun actually does sway quite a bit more because you're breathing very hard. If you don't like it don't play it. I'm tired of answering this stupid question all the time so many dumb threads about this.
 

Josef Nader

FNG / Fresh Meat
Aug 31, 2011
1,713
1,165
0
Same tired old argument about realistic engagement ranges. I'm certainly no armchair gun nut, as I am most definitely out every weekend and up until the last few months I had access to a huge variety of historical and modern firearms and spent most my weekends at the range.

RO1 played at unrealistic engagement ranges. You should not be missing **** within 50m, and you should be able to easily hit a moving target at 100m.

And honestly, do you really think that an individual soldier shoots 250,000 bullets just to kill one guy? You have to remember that a lot of the engagements we fight don't end with any deaths, as one side retreats before any casualties are taken. Not to mention the volume of suppressive fire. In fact, I guarantee you that if a fight broke out at the ranges we're dealing with in RO2, there would be significant casualties... provided both sides could see each other.

You see, modern warfare has extended to the point where the ranges on the weapons involved are so great that we can't even see individual combatants anymore. Soldiers are trained to aim at muzzle flashes, as more often than not they can't see the people behind those muzzle flashes. It has nothing to do with the guns being inaccurate and everything to do with it being very difficult to hit a target at 500m who is concealed behind a window.

Honestly, you guys. RO2 is FAR more realistic than RO1, and the game prides itself on realism. You want balance, go play CoD or TF2 or one of the myriad of other fun, well-balanced shooters on the internet where SMGs are inaccurate outside of 20m and sniper rifles sway like the shooter is drunk. Yes, it's balanced. No, it's not realistic. RO2 is about realism. RO has ALWAYS been about realism.
 

Maizel

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jan 21, 2011
973
372
0
. I'm tired of answering this stupid question all the time so many dumb threads about this.

Then maybe you should keep your mouth shut.

Alot of the things currently in the game are unrealistic, but to many they make the gameplay better
The current accuracy of weapons does probably make gameplay worse for alot of people. They are allowed to voice their opinions, they're not noobs.
 

negocromn

FNG / Fresh Meat
Aug 23, 2011
66
39
0
For me, whatever is the most fun the better, so I dont know if adding sway is good or not

On the other hand, if I was looking for realism, than definetly yes. Just look at any real firefight video and youll realize all this talk about "guns being precise as possible" and "trained soldiers dont miss" is bull****, things just dont work all that nice when your *** is on the line I guess.
 

LMAOser

FNG / Fresh Meat
Aug 31, 2011
178
103
0
I have to agree with OP. I was playing on the Grain Elevator map and was sniping Soviets that so happened to peak outside of a window on any floor. I was of course outside right out of spawn doing this. There was zero bullet drop. These shots had to be a good 200 meters

How much drop do you think is appropriate? Did it not drop at all? I haven't really had to opportunity to snipe in the beta because the people with the fast connections seem to get the marksman class first without fail. The trajectory of an 8mm round at 2700 f/s would be around -5 inches or so at 200 yards, assuming you had a 100 yard zero.
 

Pig

FNG / Fresh Meat
Oct 2, 2010
461
142
0
The guns are not to accurate, they are fine however the handling isnt realistic and soldiers do aim for the middle of the screen all the time wiht little influence of movement
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: melipone

WallyAussie

FNG / Fresh Meat
May 25, 2011
82
57
0
www.bdgtactical.org
I have to agree with OP. I was playing on the Grain Elevator map and was sniping Soviets that so happened to peak outside of a window on any floor. I was of course outside right out of spawn doing this. There was zero bullet drop. These shots had to be a good 200 meters

You do realise that at 200m a bullet is still rising in it's ballistic arc, especially if your weapon is zeroed correctly? If anything, it's inacurate that you don't have to aim low at 200m.





Wally
 

Hesgad

FNG / Fresh Meat
Aug 6, 2011
446
130
0
Germany
and as it is about realism I dont care about things like smgs seeming op they simply are superior to rifles at mid/short range...I dont care if I get shot as soon as I pop out of cover if there has been someone seeing me taking cover and waited for me to pop up.

Its not like ww2 guns werent able to hit at 100-200 meters where most ro2 firefights seem to take place
 

Qweets

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jul 13, 2007
443
221
0
Then maybe you should keep your mouth shut.

Alot of the things currently in the game are unrealistic, but to many they make the gameplay better
The current accuracy of weapons does probably make gameplay worse for alot of people. They are allowed to voice their opinions, they're not noobs.

No I rather inform the misinformed, but its getting annoying. Even the devs have commented about it. Random *** swaying doesn't = realistic, making something difficult just for the sake of difficulty doesn't = realism, it's stupidity. You also joined in 2011 so I think it's safe to say you're a NEWB.
 

DoubleSidedTape

FNG / Fresh Meat
May 31, 2007
103
2
0
I have to agree with OP. I was playing on the Grain Elevator map and was sniping Soviets that so happened to peak outside of a window on any floor. I was of course outside right out of spawn doing this. There was zero bullet drop. These shots had to be a good 200 meters

Your rifle is zeroed at 100 meters, or more if you change to compensate for bullet drop.