Important: Way too accurate aim for every soldier!
- Thread starter ptx
- Start date
The problem is, almost every shot (or burst, depending on the weapon) that isn't purposely wasted in RO2 is a hit! This has nothing at all to do with how wars were fought!
How come though, if RO2 depicts weapons just as hobbyists know them from the range?
RO2 isn't a shooting-range simulator so we can't just outright ignore how actual battles were fought in favor of having a perfect simulation of how weapons behave at the range.
What contributes to the enormous waste of ammo per kill? Loads of factors. Wasteful MGs, suppression, firing at suspected enemy position where no one actually sat, ... Believe it or not, soldiers also actually aimed to miss, subconsciously! Which is why soldiers were later trained to shoot at man-shaped targets, because it reduces the inhibition to fire at people! And although it just reduces the inhibition this had a noticable, quantifiable effect!
Plus the often mentioned factors of being away from home and loved ones, sick, hungry, sleep deprived, under tremendous stress, cold,...
Doesn't really matter what the exact issues are as they affect everyone differently anyway (so don't nitpick this apart in quotes. It's besides the point) but in RO2 we have none of this. Which, regardless of what you think of individual factors, isn't enough.
What we have in RO2 is a state-of-the-art (but arguably still not pitch-perfect) simulation of weapons, but it's not at all a simulation of war!
The thing is, we can't accurately model the conditions the soldiers were in because they're at best way too complex to implement and usually impossible to implement.
What we can do, however paradoxical it may sound, is tilt the gameplay towards realism a bit by implementing certain "gamey" features, like, say, increased sway (not just extent, but speed as well) and strong, artificial suppression effects. Just for starters.
Some in this topic call this more realistic sway, accuracy and suppression, others call it exaggerated and "gamey", I call it both.
How come though, if RO2 depicts weapons just as hobbyists know them from the range?
RO2 isn't a shooting-range simulator so we can't just outright ignore how actual battles were fought in favor of having a perfect simulation of how weapons behave at the range.
What contributes to the enormous waste of ammo per kill? Loads of factors. Wasteful MGs, suppression, firing at suspected enemy position where no one actually sat, ... Believe it or not, soldiers also actually aimed to miss, subconsciously! Which is why soldiers were later trained to shoot at man-shaped targets, because it reduces the inhibition to fire at people! And although it just reduces the inhibition this had a noticable, quantifiable effect!
Plus the often mentioned factors of being away from home and loved ones, sick, hungry, sleep deprived, under tremendous stress, cold,...
Doesn't really matter what the exact issues are as they affect everyone differently anyway (so don't nitpick this apart in quotes. It's besides the point) but in RO2 we have none of this. Which, regardless of what you think of individual factors, isn't enough.
What we have in RO2 is a state-of-the-art (but arguably still not pitch-perfect) simulation of weapons, but it's not at all a simulation of war!
The thing is, we can't accurately model the conditions the soldiers were in because they're at best way too complex to implement and usually impossible to implement.
What we can do, however paradoxical it may sound, is tilt the gameplay towards realism a bit by implementing certain "gamey" features, like, say, increased sway (not just extent, but speed as well) and strong, artificial suppression effects. Just for starters.
Some in this topic call this more realistic sway, accuracy and suppression, others call it exaggerated and "gamey", I call it both.
Upvote
0
The reason most shots are hits, hoss, is because we're fighting at less than 50m, more often than not. The reason so many shots are wasted in real wars is because you can't see your enemy to shoot him. You have to keep his head down with suppressing fire.
Soldiers never ever ever EVER shoot to miss. Suppressing fire isn't shoot to miss. You're shooting at where the gunfire is. You can't see what you're shooting at, but if anything makes itself obvious you draw a bead on it and shoot it.
If I was in combat, and I was being shot at, I would understand that I wanted to go home more than I wanted to be merciful. It's them or you.
Soldiers never ever ever EVER shoot to miss. Suppressing fire isn't shoot to miss. You're shooting at where the gunfire is. You can't see what you're shooting at, but if anything makes itself obvious you draw a bead on it and shoot it.
If I was in combat, and I was being shot at, I would understand that I wanted to go home more than I wanted to be merciful. It's them or you.
Upvote
0
You're very demeaning in your response towards people you don't agree with. And your statements are either furtively or blatantly incorrect. Go do some reading before misinformation completely subdues your head.
Upvote
0
Demeaning? That wasn't my intention at all. If you would care to point out the parts you took offense to, I'll be glad to apologize.
And where is there misinformation in my post? I can understand the rawest of recruits subconsciously not wanting to shoot, but having our character jerk our aim off-target to simulate this would be a very bad game mechanic. We can assume, then, that our characters are all relatively veteran soldiers who understand what's at stake.
Please, by all means, provide information that runs counter to what I'm telling you. At the moment, I'm just pulling off of my experiences and the experiences of people that I've known. I would never intentionally speak an untruth, and welcome corrections as I hate spreading misinformation. By all means, good sir, correct any misinformation I have provided.
Upvote
0
Has little to do with being the "rawest of recruits" and absolutely nothing with what you can or can not understand. It's just a fact the army noticed and tried to work against since then. By the end of the Vietnam war the adapted training payed off in this regard. Still a factor, but not as much as before. E.g. in ww2.
Also, I already said individual factors aren't important so even if you do refuse to accept facts about one or more of them: We have none in RO2!
And no, suppression is not just a handy but purely accidental side effect of trying to kill people but failing to hit them, it is also a viable tactic in and of itself. E.g. you can sporadically fire at a street corner to let enemy troops there know they can't possible pass here or you will mow them down.
Exactly. Now you get it. As I said, we can't simulate these factors accurately. Whence the need for a more abstract compensation, as suggested.
Upvote
0
Quite a few weird inaccuracies. For one, SpecOps aren't all some snipers. Also, I *highly* doubt the maps are a kilometer long, or that scenario even happened. You know that today, and I'm pretty sure in WW2 that alot of battles (specifically urban ones) were around fifty meters and certainly no more than 3-500 yards?
I never played much of RO1, but I've played ArmA 2 and PR. It was stupidly silly how you'd have to stop and then aim for a guy that was maybe 5 feet away from you.
My problem is right now, it feels too much like Hardcore on BC2 or CoD instead of a proper milsim.
Red Orchestra 2 was basically designed to be a refined Hardcore mode FPS game ala CoD or BC2.. You cannot get around that fact. The design decisions you'd make for a game like RO2 as is and a milsim are very different. Just keep that in mind, guys. Hopefully the mod tools will give us some proper gameplay.
If you have historically accurate squad loadouts (which means you have less automatics overall) and different maps that don't force everyone into charging into funnels, then I don't think it'd ever be an issue.
Although maybe suppression could give a small leveling bonus, and be more severe like in Project Reality.
" Sniped repeatedly from just outside German spawn by a couple of guys with MGson single fire mode."
And why wouldn't they be accurate? One of the snipers in Vietnam specifically used a M2HB machine gun for sniping. Just because it has a fun switch doesn't magically make it inaccurate on semi-auto.
" What contributes to the enormous waste of ammo per kill? Loads of factors. Wasteful MGs, suppression, firing at suspected enemy position where no one actually sat, ... Believe it or not, soldiers also actually aimed to miss, subconsciously! Which is why soldiers were later trained to shoot at man-shaped targets, because it reduces the inhibition to fire at people! And although it just reduces the inhibition this had a noticable, quantifiable effect!"
Those ratios mostly come from the fact that aircraft guns, artillery etc. are included.
"You're very demeaning in your response towards people you don't agree with. And your statements are either furtively or blatantly incorrect. Go do some reading before misinformation completely subdues your head."
Attacking the attitude of the post instead of the content does not make any of his points invalid.
Upvote
0
I also feel that they should make weapons less accurate (as long as there is no artificial cone of fire or anything like that). However, if they make it harder to just aim+fire quickly, they also need to make aiming your rifle for a long time tire your arms and increase sway, otherwise the game will just be a camp fest.
Upvote
0
But again, don't soldiers get over this after their first few combat situations? I figure it would have a lot to do with the individual psyche of the soldier, but again, that's not practical to model in the game.
But we do! There is weapon sway, and a very (very) tight bullet spread on the rifles. The problem we're running into is that the maps are very small, with short sight lines. Most of my kills are between 50m and 75m, and even at those ranges I seem to miss plenty of shots as my enemies bob, weave, and take cover. Everyone is scrambling for safety, trying not to die, and doing their level best to throw off my aim without having to add a random number generator to throw my aim off. Now that the soldiers don't plod around like they did in RO1, it becomes a lot harder to hit them at any range.
I know. I may not have made it clear in my post, but you're firing at where you think the enemy is without having clear visual contact. Modern combat is essentially muzzle flashes shooting at each other, as that's usually the most visible indicator of the enemy position. You shoot at them, despite the fact you can't expect to hit them effectively because of a multitude of factors at the given distance, in order to prevent them from changing positions, flanking you, or retreating. Then, you work your soldiers (under the covering fire from the suppressors) close enough to the enemy to make visual contact and kill them.
Suppression isn't just random spraying. You know where the enemy is likely to be, and you're putting rounds down range to discourage them from maneuvering against you. However, if you're just discharging because you -suspect- there might be hostiles, all you achieve is revealing your position, not to mention the potential for friendly fire or collateral damage. You don't want to let the enemy troops know anything. You want to stay hidden and silent until they attempt to cross the aforementioned street corner. You wait for them to expose themselves, then you gun them down in an ambush. Firing as soon as he pops his head out to check the corner only reveals your location and lets them formulate a plan to deal with you.
Again, we do have abstract compensation. Totally ignoring the drastically increased lethality of combat, the value of cover and positioning, and the value of stealth and surprise, there is already a degree of sway designed to hinder your ability to make impossible shots, and it works perfectly, at least in my opinion. It makes for far more intense gameplay and puts a much heavier value on tactics than RO1 ever did.
I managed to score top kills on a server as a machine gunner simply by altering my tactics to match the newfound lethality of combat. Rather than, say, perching in a window and spraying the street like I would in RO1, I would hide in a low corner, on the same street, prone in the shadows of a side alley, and ambush people as they tried to move through my area. After each handful of kills I would reposition to a new location and continue suppressing that sector until the enemies seemed to get the message and the trickle of troops through the area dwindled to nil. Using effective tactics, I managed to accomplish area of denial without having to rely on gamey artificial difficulty mechanics like exaggerated sway or unrealistic bullet spread to protect me from my bad tactics.
>Go in server
>Bring up ironsights unsupported
>Wait a second or two
Wish granted, hoss.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This has a very elitist feel to it, it comes off pompous like, "oh well hoity toity, listen here junior." I'm not offended by it, just making an observation in hopes that we can discuss in a gentlemanly manner.
This has already been addressed by others, no need to expand upon it further.
Judging by your other posts, you have never been in a combat situation. Therefore you cannot possibly understand what those soldiers go through.
Again, you're assuming here that you can understand battle situations. If you have a specific source of a man that said something to the likes of, "I hadn't eaten for several days, my arms were freezing, and I was developing a fever, but I still dropped that commie at around 120m." Then I will retract my statement.
I highlight these areas because they are the most readily available. I have nothing against you, nor do I wish to become involved in a "flame war." I just want you to be aware of how you're coming across to myself, and other forum-goers. Because right now it feels disrespectful towards veterans that you assume you can do what they have done. If that were true, you should be in the military and not on here.
Upvote
0
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hoss
Hoss is a colloquial term of friendship, akin to mate, buddy, champ, sport, boss, etc. etc. etc. It's just something of a verbal tick for me. It has nothing to do with demeaning you.
Have you? I may not have been in a combat situation, but most of my family and family friends are or at one point were active duty military, and I've always loved listening to them share their stories. My great grandfather stormed the beaches of Normandy, my grandfather served in the Korean war, my father served in Operation Desert Storm, and I've met a great many good family friends that were more than happy to share war stories with me.
While it's not really comparable, I am also an avid airsoft and paintball enthusaist, and we play in all weather year round. I know what it's like to lie in the snow waiting in ambush and having your limbs freeze up. Sure, it affects your aim, but not at close ranges (< 25 yards for airsoft/paintball). I can't imagine it being much different with a rifle.
Again, do you have direct combat experience or training? Where are your documents stating that "I was so frozen, ill, and starving that I couldn't hit the Germans inside of 50m"? You're more than happy to call me out for my combat inexperience, yet you fail to provide any support for your counterpoints. Forgive me for being less than enthused by the concept of throwing out my first-hand psudo-combat experience and my secondhand knowledge of combat just because some anon over the internet said I was wrong.
You say I'm disrespectful, yet you make the same claims. So far, you're the only one making a big deal about my tone. Finally, if you can't have a simple debate without it dissolving into a flame war, you need to consider the fact that you might be wrong. If your only defense is ad hom attacks, you might need to rethink your stance as you obviously don't have anything solid to stand on.
Upvote
0
I have not claimed to understand what they have gone through, so your point is moot. I've regurgitated information received from interviews and readings, but that's hardly applicable.
Again, I've not claimed the things you have, so I need not provide a substance to something I've not done.
This is not about who is right or wrong, it's about respect towards veterans. Nor have I made any of the claims you have, but I feel I am being trolled, and as such I will not respond to your attempts further.
Upvote
0
WW2 rifles were extremely accurate. If anything they were more accurate than rifles used today. Generally they have longer barrels and larger ammunition which both provide greater velocity, and in turn contribute to greater accuracy.
The problem is that none of the maps are fought at the distance the weapons are designed for. 200m shot with a K98 is trivial to a trained German soldier. 100m is even less of a challenge. 300m was probably the average range these weapons would be firing at each other, and you don't even get to see that sort of range except for very rare occasions in game. My further kill with a bolt rifle is 292m and there are very few maps on which you can even do that.
Meanwhile a K98 is still LETHAL at 800m.
Upvote
0
Debate 101, mate. You're defending a stance that runs counter to what I'm suggesting ("You can't understand what they went through") while ignoring the supporting arguments I'm making ("I have several relatives who fought in active duty who are more than happy to share stories from the front, and I have participated in milsim exercises in extreme conditions.") while providing none of your own. I'm not trolling you, you're merely completely avoiding what I'm trying to say and asserting your point as equally valid without having any sort of argument to back it up other than "you're wrong and you're a dick".
Upvote
0
Exactly. I agree on all of your points, and I expand on your concepts if you keep reading this entire post (please do). The snipey-ness of the game and mishmash of individual elements that don't come together effectively really damages gameplay. In RO2, unlike RO1, there ARE NO FIREFIGHTS. It's either you miss or you hit, and chances are, if you're getting the first shot, you always hit.The problem is, almost every shot (or burst, depending on the weapon) that isn't purposely wasted in RO2 is a hit! This has nothing at all to do with how wars were fought!
How come though, if RO2 depicts weapons just as hobbyists know them from the range?
RO2 isn't a shooting-range simulator so we can't just outright ignore how actual battles were fought in favor of having a perfect simulation of how weapons behave at the range.
What contributes to the enormous waste of ammo per kill? Loads of factors. Wasteful MGs, suppression, firing at suspected enemy position where no one actually sat, ... Believe it or not, soldiers also actually aimed to miss, subconsciously! Which is why soldiers were later trained to shoot at man-shaped targets, because it reduces the inhibition to fire at people! And although it just reduces the inhibition this had a noticable, quantifiable effect!
Plus the often mentioned factors of being away from home and loved ones, sick, hungry, sleep deprived, under tremendous stress, cold,...
Doesn't really matter what the exact issues are as they affect everyone differently anyway (so don't nitpick this apart in quotes. It's besides the point) but in RO2 we have none of this. Which, regardless of what you think of individual factors, isn't enough.
What we have in RO2 is a state-of-the-art (but arguably still not pitch-perfect) simulation of weapons, but it's not at all a simulation of war!
The thing is, we can't accurately model the conditions the soldiers were in because they're at best way too complex to implement and usually impossible to implement.
What we can do, however paradoxical it may sound, is tilt the gameplay towards realism a bit by implementing certain "gamey" features, like, say, increased sway (not just extent, but speed as well) and strong, artificial suppression effects. Just for starters.
Some in this topic call this more realistic sway, accuracy and suppression, others call it exaggerated and "gamey", I call it both.
It's just a game full of incredibly trained machines running around aiming for 3 inches of a helmet there, or 2 inches of someone's face here. There's no tension, thrill, or excitement from getting shot at without result (name the person I'm quoting). You pretty much are either killing or being killed, and most of the time it tends to be the latter.
OK, now I'm going to get conceptual, but I think it's really important to understanding this problem, so please bare with me and read what I have to say, because I'm putting genuine thought into this. Part of delivering a "realistic" gaming experience is looking at the overall effect of the systems as a WHOLE rather than judging its individual working parts separately.
For instance, separately, we can easily say that the range of X gun is accurate to Y distance, or that X amount of sway is exactly the same as Y amount of sway in real life. You can do this with movement speeds, weapon spreads, scientific experiments comparing eye focus with in-game zoom (looking at you, TWI
), and the list can go on infinitely. You can do all of this, justify everything, and ... STILL have a game that doesn't play realistically.
I'm not saying RO2 is a failure in every category. If that were the case I wouldn't even bother writing these long winded arguments for its improvement. What I'm saying is that you have to ask the question: "OK, with all of these features PUT TOGETHER, does the overall effect of how we want combat to work really come across? Does it PLAY the way we think is realistic? Is the end result, with all of these little details included, what is truly how it was in real life?
This is the essence of the problem. Individually, RO2 is full of features that may very well be justifiable on their own -- when analyzed in a vacuum. But, when they all come together in the game, they actually achieve a less realistic result than I think its intended to be. Features like excessive zoom, the ability to so easily control the sway of your rifle, and the result that suppression or firefights is clearly non existent are examples to prove this point.
So basically to conclude, all I'm saying is that sometimes a little bit of exaggeration here and there in order to help achieve the positive result that is desired is necessary. A great game is more than just the sum of its individual parts.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Churchhill. You quoted Churchhill. I can has cookie?
Regardless, there -are- firefights in this game. I have managed to hold off several enemies at once not because I am an uber 1337 player who gets all the kills, but because I play smart. I never pop out of the same spot of cover twice. As soon as the enemy starts pinging bullets off my location I relocate as opposed to trying to pop up, acquire a target, and shoot before they spot me. I shoot and scoot, stay mobile, and operate unpredictably for those on the receiving end of my fire. I'll pop up and kill one guy, then run to another window and pop up to kill his buddy while he's busy aiming at where I was.
Change your tactics guys, not the game. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Unrealistic tactics won't work in an engine using realistic variables. Weapons in RO2 are comparable to their real life counterparts. Ergo, you have to use real life tactics while using them or going against them. If you don't, yes, it is reduced to whack-a-mole twitch shooting. If you play smart and change your tactics according to the new engine, as opposed to what worked in RO1 or whatever shooter you came from, you'll notice your performance significantly increase.
It's not that the game is broken. It's the way you're playing it that's broken. You can't get mad at tennis because the rules are different from ping pong.
Upvote
0
I think this is a major part of all the whining in the community. Almost everyone complaining seems to have this preconceived notion of what the game should be, instead of stepping back and appreciating it for what it is.
I mean really, how many times are we going to beat the dead horse that is the "zoom" function? It has been talked about probably hundreds of times on this forum since the beta. It is NOT a zoom function. It is merely allowing you to focus on level that your actual eye would be able to do. It is not unrealistic, EVERY VIDEO GAME IN THE PAST WAS UNREALISTIC in regards to your field of view and ability to focus. Including RO1. Yet no matter how many times this is eloquently explained, you still see threads like this.
People aren't used to guns being so realistically deadly, and the constant crying is evidence of this. You're lucky this is a video game and you're allowed to respawn and try again. Maybe next time you respawn you can try something different besides turkey necking out a window that everyone on the enemy team can see.
Last edited:
Upvote
0