• 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/

The Machine Gunner Class

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
#41
My argument is that the MGs are fine, but the bolts are too accurate for battlefield situations.

I wouldn't like to see a random cone like DoD, but I really think that the current pixel aiming gives an unrealistic advantage to the rifleman. The reason is that a real life rifle takes hand eye coordination that isn't as precise as a mouse and monitor coordination.

Even if you had a nice hidden cover and something to prop your rifle on without a machine gunner noticing you, you still have to visually guesstimate the distance and how you aim the gun.

Since humans are intrinsically analog, you don't have a precise method to line up your gun on a pixel and pull the trigger know it will go exactly there. Even with a great deal of practice, its not a 100% accurate simply because (unless you went out ahead a time and set up range posts and sighted your gun) you simply don't know the exact distance most of the time.

Even the best modern day sniper with a high power scope must calculate the distance correctly before taking a shot.

In the real world, the machine gunner on the hand simply has to point the gun in the general direction and watch the tracers and move the gun accordingly. By the time the rifle man has fired a few shots trying to figure out his range, the MG has zeroed in on his location.

However, I don't know how in the world you would model this in an FPS game.

The only thing I can think of is a slight first time fire inaccuracy by the rifle... As in the player isn't holding it exactly the same as they expect and the first shot at a given range is a bit inaccurate. The second shot is a bit more accurate... The 3rd is a bit more.

Lets say at 25 yards you get 100% accuracy on the first shot.
50 yards gets 75% accuracy on the first shot and the second is 100%.
100 yards gets 50% and the second is 75% and so on...

So if you iron site and shoot at a MG at 100 yards you have a 50% change of hitting him, but right after you bolt for the next bullet you have 75% regardless if you aim at the same pixel or the guy next to him. And if you spotted a inf running towards you at 50 yards you would now still have your 100% pixel accuracy for him since you already shot once in iron sights (even if you have to turn around to get him).

If you lower your iron sights, change prone position, lean, or have to reload the gun completly then the accuracy resets itself due to loosing your bearings.

I know many people wouldn't like this, but keep in mind that firing a gun in combat situation (even when prone with a good gun support) has a great deal of distractions involved. If someone is shooting at you or explosions are going off nearby, your mind is either consciously or subconsciously paying attention to that fact which takes away from your brain powered guesstimate of how far away the target is.

However, I would suspect that this change (like bullet penetration) would cause more CPU load on the servers.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#42
I'm not sure I follow

You still have to guess range in RO unless you've switched on a very useful but never talked about feature ;)

Your aim is not steady if standing, you need to prone or find something to rest it on.

Bullet drop and recoil are both modelled.

It is still, despite what some might tell you, quite difficult to reliably hit targets at range. I don't think your nested nerfing idea is necessary as its assuming perfect aim from the outset. If someone missed the first time and they get closer with each successive shot thats a much more organic way than progressively increasing the guns accuracy, no?
 
Upvote 0
#44
_MB_ said:
I'm not sure I follow

You still have to guess range in RO unless you've switched on a very useful but never talked about feature ;)

Your aim is not steady if standing, you need to prone or find something to rest it on.

Bullet drop and recoil are both modelled.

It is still, despite what some might tell you, quite difficult to reliably hit targets at range. I don't think your nested nerfing idea is necessary as its assuming perfect aim from the outset. If someone missed the first time and they get closer with each successive shot thats a much more organic way than progressively increasing the guns accuracy, no?
Click to expand...

the bolt rifles are still way to acurate in comparisoin to MGs.

Its still easier to aim and guess ranges ingame, for the weapons, then it is realy. In game is no option to set the range with your sights, thats already something you have not to worry about. Place the sight over the enemy, if it is not to far away, there is no reason to compensate the bullet drop. There is also as well no wind that effects your bullet. Another thning is, that its easier in game to determine between a enemy and the setting. Other things, that make the guns very accurate is their steadiness in the shoters hand. You actualy can rize up your weapon with near perfect accuracy from the first second, while standing up, under heavy fire etc. and hit that way targets even when they are further away. You as well have not to take control about your breath in game as well for a accurate shot, just use your ironsight again.
 
Upvote 0
#45
I actually think the rifles and the SMG's are pretty good they way they are. Especially the rifles. I often find it hard to keep a steady shot on a far away target while standing. I also have to guesstamate how high to put the sights on the enemy based on how far he is. I HATE!! the cone of fire approach where I did everything right, took my time, had the crosshairs on the target and then push the mouse button only to have some random computer calculation say I missed!!!!!!!! That is LAME LAME LAME. (See the current version of DOD:S for examples) The shot has to be true to the USER's skill. Now distance and recoil are welcome simulations, but not cone of fire. The end of my rifle is where I want my shot to go.
 
Upvote 0
#46
Rifles can be that accurate as long as you rest it on something, which the game allows you to do.

It's hard to hit anything with a rifle beyond like 50 yards while taking shots either standing or crouched, but relatively easy while prone and easier if the rifle is restedon something. That should be left alone.

But like so many others have commented before, the MG's are horribly inaccurate (actually probably just the '42) and the aiming is choppy, whereas rested rifles are smooth.

This I think is the main cause of MG's being ineffective, and therefore I still think making MG aiming smoother is the easiest and simplest way to make MG's as effective as they should be.
 
Upvote 0
#50
The MG 42 in particular is pathetic. That thing should throw up a wall of lead that shreds everyone in the general direction of the gun. Instead, it's inaccurate enough to not be able to hit anything but doesn't seem to throw up bullets like it should.
And of course I agree with what has been said regarding machine gunners being so easily picked off. Too bad the latest patch has done nothing to address any of this. A quick mend would be to at least drop the tracers that do nothing but screw us over, but even that hasn't been done.
 
Upvote 0
#51
Tairos said:
The MG 42 in particular is pathetic. That thing should throw up a wall of lead that shreds everyone in the general direction of the gun. Instead, it's inaccurate enough to not be able to hit anything but doesn't seem to throw up bullets like it should.
And of course I agree with what has been said regarding machine gunners being so easily picked off. Too bad the latest patch has done nothing to address any of this. A quick mend would be to at least drop the tracers that do nothing but screw us over, but even that hasn't been done.
Click to expand...

There is nothing wrong with the machine guns.....the 42 is a beast. People don't use it properly.
 
Upvote 0
#52
Yeah, part of the problem is that the ranges people often use MGs at are way too close to be effective. Go to Gorlitz and try using the 42 there. You will find that when it is hard for your enemies to hit you even when they have a clear shot, you can mow down many more people than on a close range map (IE: Danzig).
 
Upvote 0
#56
MrT785479 said:
Yeah, part of the problem is that the ranges people often use MGs at are way too close to be effective. Go to Gorlitz and try using the 42 there. You will find that when it is hard for your enemies to hit you even when they have a clear shot, you can mow down many more people than on a close range map (IE: Danzig).
Click to expand...

That makes no sense. I have used the 42 on gorlitz, and it sucked. I longed for the 34.
 
Upvote 0
#60
MrT785479 said:
Yeah, part of the problem is that the ranges people often use MGs at are way too close to be effective. Go to Gorlitz and try using the 42 there. You will find that when it is hard for your enemies to hit you even when they have a clear shot, you can mow down many more people than on a close range map (IE: Danzig).
Click to expand...


Gorlitz is one of those maps where the MG is usefull. The Tank MGs in Armored Beasts are improved, compare those to the ones in stock version.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Community News
Forums
Merch
Menu