Laser weapons are back?

[Farks]

I have noticed almost every time I've been playing PR lately that myself and others get shot and killed by one single bullet. This wasn't the case a few months back. For example, me and another player were supressing an enemy at least 100 meters away, and he just pops up and shoots both of us with our bullets landing all around him. And that's just one example. Have players gotten used to the weapon handling and learned to "exploit" it?

[Rudd]

More people are realising the guns are actually accurate if u stand still for a few seconds.

And thats good imo.

There is an exploit that changing stances does not bring deviation

that is hardcoded, until 1.50 which does at least have a prone <-> standing deviation penality afaik

[Solid Knight]

The weapons are not anything close to being "laser" accurate. There are many times where the rounds just never seem to make it anywhere near where you're aiming even though you have waited.

When you shoot at people and they drop behind cover you should reposition.

[TheLean]

Very accurate shots can be achieved by aiming at an opponent, go prone and take cover as he shoots at you and then go to crouching or standing stance and shoot at him. The shot is equally accurate as if you had aimed the whole time. As Dr2b Rudd said this is an exploit which might be fixed in the next bf2 patch, especially if the new changing stance deviation is a variable that can be changed by DEVs. The new changing stance penalty for BF2 is only 0.3 seconds and is therefore not suited to PRs slow pace. However, if it resets the move deviation, as ASDW movement does, it will work wonders. But the exact mechanics of the changing stance penalty is currently unknown as far as I know.

[Mongolian_dude]

I cant help but feel small arms are a bit too accurate in PR, and this is one of the most obvious side effects. Effortless headshots, ignoring suppression, no sense of futility in the tactical disadvantage.

I think a good remedy would come from Mildly decreasing accuracy of small arms in PR, yet a reasonable decrease in the general level of deviation.

Perhaps 'on the range', soldiers would find that they can achieve very tight groupings, yet in the combat environment, aspects such as the fear of dying cause effects such as high adrenaline-blood ratio that would cause ones aim to be impaired and inferior to what the rifles are fully capable of.

However, individuals in PR have very little fear of getting shot, as there is a good chance they will hit their target despite their situation, due to high levels of accuracy. This means they are not worried about being at a disadvantage, such as having inferior fire power.
I would speculate that the majority of assault-rifle kills IRL are not simply individuals being truly uber shots, but from the large number of barrels aiming at a single target increases the chance of the group hitting their target.
So, in theory, decreasing overall accuracy would give the incentive for players to operate and engage targets in groups, AKA Teamwork.


...mongol...

[LithiumFox]

amen mongol..

[Scot]

Mongolian_dude;1051372']I cant help but feel small arms are a bit too accurate in PR, and this is one of the most obvious side effects. Effortless headshots, ignoring suppression, no sense of futility in the tactical disadvantage.

I think a good remedy would come from Mildly decreasing accuracy of small arms in PR, yet a reasonable decrease in the general level of deviation.

Perhaps 'on the range', soldiers would find that they can achieve very tight groupings, yet in the combat environment, aspects such as the fear of dying cause effects such as high adrenaline-blood ratio that would cause ones aim to be impaired and inferior to what the rifles are fully capable of.

However, individuals in PR have very little fear of getting shot, as there is a good chance they will hit their target despite their situation, due to high levels of accuracy. This means they are not worried about being at a disadvantage, such as having inferior fire power.
I would speculate that the majority of assault-rifle kills IRL are not simply individuals being truly uber shots, but from the large number of barrels aiming at a single target increases the chance of the group hitting their target.
So, in theory, decreasing overall accuracy would give the incentive for players to operate and engage targets in groups, AKA Teamwork.


...mongol...

Que?

Yeah, that was the 0.8 train of thought, and that was friggin horrible. Shooting is fine as it is. It is a video game, I will never be scared for my life, no matter how much suppression, how bad you make my deviation, I will never be scared, if anything, decreasing the accuracy will make me less scared, and I can get more up close an personal to the enemy.

On Ross Kemp Returns to Afghan, there was a soldier from the Scottish blokes, he said, he saw two guys, brought up his rifle, fired two shots, gave the good news to one of them, the other got away.

Seriously, people take it too far on how difficult it is to shoot under fire. Yes, I admit, it is hard, however soldiers are trained to do that everyday, under fire and tired and probably hungry If deviation is decreased more, it will make things worse.

[Rudd]

Weapons shouldn't be made less accurate than they are now imo, suppressive fire isn't just about causing the suppression effect, its also about "if he gets up, his head is gonna get holed" rather than "I'm shooting near him so he better stay down"

I wouldn't say no to having the settle time INCREASED

But at the same time, teh Minimum Deviation should remain THE SAME

and the max deviation should be DECREASED

That would feel more realistic imo.

The question is, are you going to force players to worth together because their gunz suck or are you going to force them to work together BECAUSE guns are dangerous?

[Alex6714]

Mongolian_dude;1051372']

However, individuals in PR have very little fear of getting shot,


...mongol...

I agree, however making weapons complete fail won´t do it. How about satart by making it so that when you do get shot, you actually get shot and its a bad thing rather than "oh no worries, medic will revive and we are off again".

In game I can´t feel my weapon, so thats number one why deviation like this fails. Number two, I will decide my stress thanks seeing whats happening in game. Right now nothing is deadly enough so there is none.

In CA with much more accuracy but ballistics infantry was much more fun and it was harder at range to hit someone, very hard in fact without thinking about and lining up your shot. Close range it was how it should be, easy enough to hit your target but not spammy.


The more accurate you are, the more you need your squadmates because the chance of you getting shot putting your head up to fire yourself is much higher. Also, if reviving is removed once you get shot once, you are going to put that head down and get attention, rather than shoot back until your dead.

[Gaven]

Mongolian_dude;1051372']I cant help but feel small arms are a bit too accurate in PR, and this is one of the most obvious side effects. Effortless headshots, ignoring suppression, no sense of futility in the tactical disadvantage.

I think a good remedy would come from Mildly decreasing accuracy of small arms in PR, yet a reasonable decrease in the general level of deviation.

Perhaps 'on the range', soldiers would find that they can achieve very tight groupings, yet in the combat environment, aspects such as the fear of dying cause effects such as high adrenaline-blood ratio that would cause ones aim to be impaired and inferior to what the rifles are fully capable of.

However, individuals in PR have very little fear of getting shot, as there is a good chance they will hit their target despite their situation, due to high levels of accuracy. This means they are not worried about being at a disadvantage, such as having inferior fire power.
I would speculate that the majority of assault-rifle kills IRL are not simply individuals being truly uber shots, but from the large number of barrels aiming at a single target increases the chance of the group hitting their target.
So, in theory, decreasing overall accuracy would give the incentive for players to operate and engage targets in groups, AKA Teamwork.


...mongol...

What?

Yes, groupings greatly reduce in a combat situation but never to the point where they can't hit a target. A trained soldier should be able to hit a target standing out in the open without taking 4 seconds to aim at him. Guns in real life are not like paintball guns.

I also generally don't bother trying to find cover because it's usually non-existent, or my screen is so dark I can't see anything.

[Rudd]

How about satart by making it so that when you do get shot, you actually get shot and its a bad thing rather than "oh no worries, medic will revive and we are off again".

.86 medic changes are awesome

In CA with much more accuracy but ballistics infantry was much more fun and it was harder at range to hit someone, very hard in fact without thinking about and lining up your shot. Close range it was how it should be, easy enough to hit your target but not spammy.

tbh CA ballistics with a dumbed down form of PR deviation would = win

[DankE_SPB]

proper ballistics is a way to go imo, it solves most of "why i have to wait 10 seconds before i can shoot accuratly?", we tried in combined arms and it worked good, wasnt hard to kill somebody 100m away and was very hard to kill enemy beyond 300m, when i 1st tried it i had to spent 6 mags of my G3(we were fighting at kashan bunkers, ~300-400m) to kill 3 guys(+2 or 3 who were revived) and enemy team called me as 1337 sniper

[motherdear]

as the other guys have stated, mainly alex i do believe that we (if possible) should try and make a small test build with a dumbed down version of the CA ballistics and accuracy groupings so that we could see what effect it would have in the conventional PR. this would combined with a poll make it possible for the players to evaluate the current and possible future PR weapon handling.

pros:
1)poll makes it possible for the devs to evaluate what way to do the deviation instead of only relying on tester, and all respect to them, but this is almost the most crucial part of PR and deserves evaluation by the community

2) could possibly make close quarters much more deadly and fast, but still maintain an advantage for defensive positions since they have time to line up sights etc.

cons:
1)might speed up the fights making PR revert more back towards vanilla (at least when i comes to a round of insurgency where close quarters is much more common)

2)are grenades still going to be usefull for close quarters or are people going to rush you and take the chance instead hoping to get a one shot kill


this is basicly what i see as advantages and disadvantages by this and i really feel it should be tried out by PR, of course i'm only a lonely grunt but would it hurt to have a test even though it would probably delay .86 (.9 is in a while i guess)

[SocketMan]

I have noticed almost every time I've been playing PR lately that myself and others get shot and killed by one single bullet. This wasn't the case a few months back. For example, me and another player were supressing an enemy at least 100 meters away, and he just pops up and shoots both of us with our bullets landing all around him. And that's just one example. Have players gotten used to the weapon handling and learned to "exploit" it?

Perhaps he had a medic-nurse behind him shoving painkillers up his wounds.

[TheLean]

What?

Yes, groupings greatly reduce in a combat situation but never to the point where they can't hit a target. A trained soldier should be able to hit a target standing out in the open without taking 4 seconds to aim at him. Guns in real life are not like paintball guns.

I also generally don't bother trying to find cover because it's usually non-existent, or my screen is so dark I can't see anything.

Well, irl there is physics. Soldiers dont run at full speed to instantly stop and kneel while mantaining the weapon in an attack position. Ideally, the game engine would recognize the difference between taking a small step and jumping of a roof but it doesnt, so a general deviation of a few seconds before getting perfect aim is necessary. Hopefully, when PR is changing engine, improvements can be made in the physics department. I am absolutely blown away by physics improvements such as momentum and weight in games such as Mirrors Edge.

[Jay]

Que?

Yeah, that was the 0.8 train of thought, and that was friggin horrible. Shooting is fine as it is. It is a video game, I will never be scared for my life, no matter how much suppression, how bad you make my deviation, I will never be scared, if anything, decreasing the accuracy will make me less scared, and I can get more up close an personal to the enemy.

On Ross Kemp Returns to Afghan, there was a soldier from the Scottish blokes, he said, he saw two guys, brought up his rifle, fired two shots, gave the good news to one of them, the other got away.

Seriously, people take it too far on how difficult it is to shoot under fire. Yes, I admit, it is hard, however soldiers are trained to do that everyday, under fire and tired and probably hungry If deviation is decreased more, it will make things worse.

+1000

IMO suppression is flawed because of the way the deviation works. If you spend 6 seconds shooting at a guy 300 meters away, trying to suppress him, then you've just wasted 6 seconds that could have been used to lower your deviation, to a point where you're guaranteed a hit. I'm sure in real life I wouldn't dare stay in an area that's being suppressed, but in PR I'd rather wait it out, and just headshot the guy.

[503]

CA ballistics and deviation is perfect. More than half the time, in long range firefights, I find myself looking for cover instead of going out into an open field and shooting from there.

Here's a video of infantry firefights in CA. It's in the second half of the video starting somewhere around 1:40. Mostly long range firefights.

[Arnoldio]

Headshot=kill, is a part-solution for this fear/suppresion problem.

[Leeu]

In 0.86, just use the AK or RPG, you'll be guaranteed that they wont shoot like lazers.

[R.J.Travis]

as the other guys have stated, mainly alex i do believe that we (if possible) should try and make a small test build with a dumbed down version of the CA ballistics and accuracy groupings so that we could see what effect it would have in the conventional PR. this would combined with a poll make it possible for the players to evaluate the current and possible future PR weapon handling.

pros:
1)poll makes it possible for the devs to evaluate what way to do the deviation instead of only relying on tester, and all respect to them, but this is almost the most crucial part of PR and deserves evaluation by the community

2) could possibly make close quarters much more deadly and fast, but still maintain an advantage for defensive positions since they have time to line up sights etc.

cons:
1)might speed up the fights making PR revert more back towards vanilla (at least when i comes to a round of insurgency where close quarters is much more common)

2)are grenades still going to be usefull for close quarters or are people going to rush you and take the chance instead hoping to get a one shot kill


this is basicly what i see as advantages and disadvantages by this and i really feel it should be tried out by PR, of course i'm only a lonely grunt but would it hurt to have a test even though it would probably delay .86 (.9 is in a while i guess)

We do not test the deviation in the since that we tell them how it needs to be.

they set it and we give feed back like.

Wow it way to high needs lowered

or

its just right I like it.

both answers would not determined if they change it or not they well set it to what THEY think is right and only taken what we say in as concern testers are not the people setting your deviation (: